What was the last film you watched?

[DallasFanForever]

WICKED (2024)

I’m not exactly the biggest fan of musicals but being a big fan of The Wizard of Oz I was kind of excited about seeing this. This movie did not disappoint. It was so well written and filled with so many winks and nods to the original film that I found it impossible not to love it.

 

[Willie Oleson]

This movie did not disappoint. It was so well written and filled with so many winks and nods to the original film that I found it impossible not to love it.

What a lovely surprise because the trailer looked awful.



RAIN (1932)



Since I only know Joan from her more exploitative films (and sadly, not very good ones) I've often wondered what it was that made her such a Hollywood icon in the first place.
Naturally, since film and Hollywood were still regarded as very special entities, the idealisastion of the actors in those films seems more like a natural process.
I'm sure that many of these actors were indeed very talented, but at the same time I suspect that some of them got screen legend status simply because they were in the film.

I've never seen the 1922 stage play this film was based on but the interactions between the various characters still have that same theatre quality.
But there are also moments that are better captured on film than by a live audience, and Joan Crawford brings sufficient vulnerability to her role of the brazen hussy with a dark past. She's also a lot of fun when she has to do the kicking and screaming parts.
The story builds towards the transformations of the two feuding characters, but the fact that each transformation happens in a single scene it feels more "plot" than "character".
On the other hand I think that makes it look creepier, and Walter Huston's last scene has a whiff of The Night Of The Hunter.

One of things that always fascinates me about these very old movies is the language and the delivery thereof.
I'm sort of used to how it happened in British films but this kind of old-fashioned American language is really something else. Many words and expressions I had never heard of before, I guess they're no longer in usage or the meaning/mood of these words have changed.

It's a beautifully restored version released by the Mary Pickford Company and distributed by VCI. Criterion may be the most well-known distribution company that specializes in high quality DVD releases but it's certainly not the only one. The demand for physical media hasn't stopped, it has changed.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Searching (2018)

Another practically-blind watch. I glanced over the image on the streaming site (a view of a man on a video call from the POV of the person at the other end) and caught a few words of the story outline (missing person. Secrets found on laptop) and that was the entire extent of my knowledge of this film's existence. From the little I saw, I thought I was in for a low-budget "found footage" horror.

Firstly, I was wrong about the genre. Rather than a horror, it's a thriller, and quite a taut one at that. Into this mix, it adds a great deal of emotional intelligence. Considering the limitations set by the method of storytelling, I wasn't expecting to be moved quite as much as I was.

Secondly, it's not a found footage film, but an evolution of that: the story is told exclusively through things that appear on-screen: FaceTime calls; saved photos and videos; texts and iMessages; notification badges; social media posts and comments; news reports; CCTV footage and even spycams. This sounds jarring, and it is at first. A minute or two into the film, as I watched a cursor move round a screen after a tiring day of doing that very same thing at work and home, I felt this might not be for me.

Thankfully, there is a genuinely interesting story, I was able to quickly get past the busy-ness of it all and become invested. Indeed, I quickly realised that the first five minutes or so were along the same lines as the opening five minutes of Up in the way it sets the scene and tells us these characters' histories so effectively.

What's more, I found myself marvelling at just how well this is done. Apparently it took days to shoot and eighteen months to edit, and I can believe it because it's genius. The poster invokes Hitchcock's name, which is usually an unwarranted cliché that lazy or unknowledgeable journalists apply to any half-decent thriller, without really thinking about what that means. Here, though, I can understand it. Even at his peak, Hitch wasn't averse to making a low-budget film (Psycho), and I think the restrictions of the narrative method are a challenge he might well have used himself were he making films today. It feels like a 21st Century successor to the "single camera" method from Rope.

Whatever the case, the filmmakers here deserve credit for keeping it creative without it becoming distracting. There are very effective moments of tension and suspense which I wouldn't have thought possible before last night. It also cleverly invests the audience by making it subjective. We all use screens day in/day out. We're used to the layouts of various websites, with login screens and flashing cursors. We're geared towards responding to the various pings and beeps our devices send in our direction, and that all becomes important here. Most of us text and post regularly and know what it looks like from both sides. More importantly, we are familiar with the psychology of composing such messages. This is used incredibly effectively to show us the protagonist's innermost thoughts, because we see him start to type a reply, then change his mind and delete it before sending something reworded and "softer". What's not said at times becomes more important than what is said. There's one brilliant payoff to one of these "unsent and unsaid" moments that gave me chills. I knew it was coming when I saw those three dots, but it still got me.

The performances are great. It's all very naturalistic. I found myself distracted by one of the main actresses who I initially thought was Debra Messing, then decided it wasn't, but was someone who looked quite like her but had a different voice. Then I thought she was another actress I knew who had played a similar role as a police officer, but whom I couldn't place. Then as the titles rolled, it turned out it was Debra Messing.

There are many twists and turns, with the finger of suspicion pointing at many different people. It's also chilling to scroll over article titles and comments which push the theory that the protagonist is the guilty one. Sadly, this happens every day on news sites, with people quick to judge and decide someone is guilty without any evidence.

This isn't a film to watch passively. There's a lot of detail to take in, and the more attention one pays, the bigger the reward. I won't lie: I found it very tiring to watch when I wanted to relax. But it was certainly worth the investment.

After watching I found out there are a couple of loosely connecting films - 2020's Run and 2023's Missing - which I would certainly be interested in checking out.​

 

[Willie Oleson]

An online mystery! Now I have to know what it's all about.

Wasn't there a horror film that plays out in "zoom meeting" (?) sequences, I don't remember the name but I remember wanting to see it.

 

[DallasFanForever]

An online mystery! Now I have to know what it's all about.

Wasn't there a horror film that plays out in "zoom meeting" (?) sequences, I don't remember the name but I remember wanting to see it.

Yes, I think you mean HOST. I haven’t seen it myself but I do remember seeing the previews for it. It was about four years ago.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

An online mystery! Now I have to know what it's all about.

Well, I'll be interested to get your take if you ever watch (even if you hate it, I know you'll give a compelling reason for that).

As far as the mystery itself goes: it's fairly standard. In any other film it might even be dull, but it's the way it's told here that makes it so compelling. And also that most of the onscreen investigation involves the kinds of tools that are accessible to anyone, like browsing social media accounts or looking through photos on a computer rather than kicking doors down. Plus the audience feels kind of complicit anyway by virtue of being the voyeur watching it all play out.

Wasn't there a horror film that plays out in "zoom meeting" (?) sequences, I don't remember the name but I remember wanting to see it.

Yes, I think you mean HOST. I haven’t seen it myself but I do remember seeing the previews for it. It was about four years ago.

Ooh - that looks quite interesting.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Well, I'll be interested to get your take if you ever watch

Closed the prime window just five minutes ago.
When a film makes me sigh a lot it can only mean two things:
a) I'm massively annoyed
b) I'm feeling incredibly tense.
Thankfully, in this case it was answer b. I know it's not a quiz but you know what I mean.

First surprise: Debra Messing! Last time I saw her was in BROS (as her funny self).
The moment a character realises there might be something wrong is always the most gutpunching part. The situation gets slightly more relaxed once the story acknowledges itself as being a mystery or crime story.
But as you said, the brilliance here is turning our daily online routines into something sinister and I love the way the plot thickens and thickens.
The only thing I could predict was that the confession wasn't true.

Anyway, thanks for the recommendation! Everything always happens here on tellytalk, doesn't it?

 

[Willie Oleson]

Ooh - that looks quite interesting.

Don't bother, it's a pandemic Paranormal Activity knockoff about a séance via Zoom.
Yes, when did a séance in a film ever become a good thing, but the worst part is when the characters dismiss the #1 instinct: survival.
Regardless of what happens, they keep filming it, and this proves that POV doesn't work in every story or situation.

When the story is over, without any additional element of surprise or reveal, the film adds a lengthy prologue about the preparation for the actual séance. Probably in a desperate attempt to give it a spooky "found footage" vibe.
This film made me sigh because of answer a).

Should I watch Unfriended? Oh what the heck, let's get it over with.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Oops....something went WRONG.



Does this really have to happen in the middle of the night?

 

[Mel O'Drama]

When a film makes me sigh a lot it can only mean two things:
a) I'm massively annoyed
b) I'm feeling incredibly tense.
Thankfully, in this case it was answer b.

You had me worried for a minute there.

First surprise: Debra Messing! Last time I saw her was in BROS (as her funny self).

Yes. I knew she'd done some dramatic roles, but don't think I'd ever actually watched one before.

And I didn't even know I was watching her until after the fact anyway, which gave me an objective viewpoint.

The moment a character realises there might be something wrong is always the most gutpunching part.

Yes, and there were a number of these in this film that built throughout. I also loved the way we were allowed to share some of these little realisation as an audience because all of the clues were captured on-screen in some way (like the laptop in the background).

I also liked that it offered the opportunity to put the pieces together ahead of time. For instance, there was one piece of information that the mother had on her list of the daughter's friends that wasn't acknowledged on-screen. The camera just whizzed past it, but I took it in and wondered if it was important. And it turned out it was very, VERY important. You didn't need to see it for the story to pay off, but it added another layer and made me feel a little bit clever.

Yes, when did a séance in a film ever become a good thing

It was perfected in 1945 with Blithe Spirit, so anything since then is simply unnecessary.

Funny this topic should come up today when just last night I watched an episode of British soap Brookside which featured a sèance (the series' second in as many years. Technically last night's was probably classed as a spiritualist reading, but since they sat round a table in a darkened room with dimmed lights and the medium asked "Is anybody there" it was certainly séance-adjacent).

but the worst part is when the characters dismiss the #1 instinct: survival.

Perhaps the most frustrating horror trope of all.

This film made me sigh because of answer a).

Ha!

Does this really have to happen in the middle of the night?

How ironic that your internet/system should treat you this way as you try to watch a film with this particular title.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Memory (2022)

Hmmmmm - as I did a quick search for this poster, I came across images like this:

Spoiler

This is why I try to watch these things with no knowledge at all. And with an open mind. My worst nightmare would be forming an opinion ahead of watching because it's the popular one. Nobody's going to peer pressure me into liking or hating a film.

Of course, I have no idea if this is the case with these videos. It's possible they may have good reasons beyond "Rotten Tomatoes and four influencers tell me I'm not supposed to like this". But I do think enjoyment of a film is so often relative to expectations.

Take me, last night. I was drawn in by seeing Liam Neeson's attractively rugged profile on the poster and thinking that was reason enough to watch. Especially given my enjoyment of The Commuter and Non-Stop. Again, I knew nothing of the film beyond the name and a few lines of text mentioning an assassin-for-hire and thought it would be interesting to see Liam in this kind of role. It was made in 2022, and a film this recent showing for no cost is often a bit of a red flag as to its quality. As I started watching, it could have sworn I saw something saying it was a Prime Original (even if I can now find nothing to substantiate this) which further checked my expectations. But then Guy Pearce's name came up on screen and the thought of these two sharing the screen did, admittedly, raise them again.

I won't get hung up on whether or not this is great, good, painful or the worst, but I will say that if this is indeed Liam Neeson's "worst movie" I'd be more than delighted to watch all of them. Twice. It didn't grip me as much as The Commuter (and perhaps that film has raised my expectations of any Liam Neeson film), but I found it engaging and absorbing enough. And it's a different kind of story, after all.

I was a bit taken aback with some of the violence. Not that I'm overly squeamish or prudish, but it's more that it feels a little more real than the usual Hollywood stuff. Yes, there are guns and bombs and whatnot, but it also has the more hands on variety during its fight scenes, with faces getting smashed onto bars or someone getting thrown at a toilet basin which shatters from the force (and even more impressive, it is the actual actor in question taking these falls. Either some trickery is used or they must have employed some stunt people in the cast). This morning I now see on the poster that it's from the director of Casino Royale (I assume it's the Daniel Craig version rather than the David Niven) and on reflection some of the scenes have Bondian echoes. In fact there's one scene where Neeson walks directly towards two firing gunmen out in the open whilst firing his own gun where I remember thinking he looked very much like Daniel Craig's Bond.

Storywise there's quite a lot going on, but nothing that's not easily absorbed. While I may not feel inclined to sell it as the best thing ever committed to screen, neither do I feel compelled to make an outraged video in which I look very cross about having chosen to watch. For this viewer, it was an entertaining enough way to pass a couple of hours.​

 

[Willie Oleson]

And I didn't even know I was watching her until after the fact anyway, which gave me an objective viewpoint.

When I move the mouse (just a tiny bit) the Prime window shows the actors names and faces. Sometimes I forget it doesn't work that way with DVDs.

but it added another layer and made me feel a little bit clever.

Not me, I'm prone to false conclusions and sometimes I take the information the wrong way to such extent that I need to watch the scene again.
Case in point: the stock model. A delicious shocker, and very much in style of the film's concept it is all about the online discovery. But in a split second I had already "figured out" what it meant and who she was.

The way the story is presented in the real world (news coverage) does make it look as if the time frame exceeds the crucial five days.

How ironic that your internet/system should treat you this way as you try to watch a film with this particular title.

Ha, I hadn't even made that connection.

Memory (2022)

Have you ever seen Guy Pearce in Christopher Nolan's MEMENTO (2000)?

 

[Willie Oleson]

DEADPOOL (2016)



Apart from the big three - Superman, Batman, Spider-Man - I have no idea if the superhero characters in modern cinema are created for cinema or based on classic superhero comics.
The Green Lantern (2011) was a nice surprise and I probably would have watched more of it, especially given its suggestive cliffhanger, but again, before the film I had never heard of this superhero.
Prime is very eager to sell me Deadpool vs. Wolverine but I'm not interested in all that cross-over tomfoolery. Batman vs. The Green Hornet was not one of my favourite episodes, and come to think of it I wasn't particularly impressed by the combination of guest villains (except for the THE MOVIE version).

Despite all this I had somehow registered that there was something different about Deadpool, a fact not to be remembered again until I did when the thumbnail appeared on my screen.
In a moment of outrageous spontaneity I clicked on it and when I saw the funny opening credits I felt my expectations increasing.
Could this be the other KICK-ASS?

Sadly, it's not. The humour in Kick-Ass is deadpan and the story is show-don't-tell which means that every jaw-dropping or hilarious moment lands.
Deadpool's self-awareness and crass presentation actually works in the very beginning but it becomes predictable and mind-numbing pretty fast.
It also omits the superhero theme of transformation. Ryan Gosling Reynolds is badass in his pre-Deadpool incarnation and becomes just a little bit badasser as Deadpool.
To be fair, the story is about a personal vendetta rather than a "saving the world" kind of thing but at the same time it uses the spectacle from the more traditional superhero films and I think it failed in having their cake and eat it.

As for the action, it's all superfast and flashy CGI stuff that I find impossible to follow, it's a far cry from the 20st century nail-biting action in Mad Max and Speed (just to name a few).
As for the nudity, enough to take the viewer out of the family adventure comfort zone (especially in that R1 part of the world) but definitely not enough of it as a selling point. The focus on Ryan's bum in his Deadpool outfit is actually the most sexy moment.

I feel baited and I only have myself to blame.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

When I move the mouse (just a tiny bit) the Prime window shows the actors names and faces. Sometimes I forget it doesn't work that way with DVDs.

And the thing is I was watching on Prime (albeit on the TV, but there's still the option to see who is in a scene). Still, the added mystery brought yet another layer to the film.

Case in point: the stock model. A delicious shocker, and very much in style of the film's concept it is all about the online discovery. But in a split second I had already "figured out" what it meant and who she was.

I smiled that they'd done a search for "cute girls" or something like that, but still found one that looked a bit evil.

There were a lot of red herrings, weren't there? And I was taken in by some as well.

Have you ever seen Guy Pearce in Christopher Nolan's MEMENTO (2000)?

I haven't, but I've heard good things about it. One for the list, I think.

Come to that, I don't think I've watched all that many GP films. Priscilla, a couple of recent Aliens and one of the Iron Man films (the worst one, sadly) spring to mind and not much beyond that.

...Except years' worth of Neighbours, of course.

I have no idea if the superhero characters in modern cinema are created for cinema or based on classic superhero comics.

Mostly it's the latter.

Deadpool's self-awareness and crass presentation actually works in the very beginning but it becomes predictable and mind-numbing pretty fast.

I think we had the same experience with this one:

I knew little about this film other than the tone being offbeat and the film being R-rated. On these bases it could have gone either way.

It fell down on the side of simply not being my thing. It raised a couple of weak smiles and small titters, but the humour was typically unsubtle American gross-out stuff that clubs one around the head and feels tedious rather than shocking. The fruity language was so overdone in the first ten or fifteen minutes it felt as though it was there simply to ensure the film got its adult rating and appeal to those who may be insecure about seeing a lower-rated film because it's not adult enough. There's also the fact that the irreverent tone makes it feel rather like a poor man's Guardians Of The Galaxy.

On the plus side, I found the second two-thirds of the film a little more watchable (I considered aborting my viewing early on as it was boring me). It was good to finally see a cinematic Colossus with a Russian accent. And Negasonic's costume feels as close as we've come to seeing the classic X-uniform brought to life.

I'll probably watch the sequel in due course for completion, but I wouldn't feel particularly deprived if I didn't.

 

[Willie Oleson]

THE THING (2011)



I know it's a controversial thing to say but I don't like the 1982 version. It was perfectly fine when I watched as a child but a recent rewatch turned out to be major disappointment. I think it was especially the cheesy dialogue that annoyed me the most.
Therefore this remake only had to do one thing to make it work: not doing that.

Apparently it's a prequel but it's the same thing with a spaceship tacked on to it, and instead of watching God knows how many ALIEN sequels you can kill two birds with one stone by watching The Thing 2011.
21st century remakes means longer and BIGGER and this one's certainly no exception, well actually it is since it's a few minutes shorter than John Carpenter's film.
The story looks very familiar even if you haven't watched the first two films (I guess The Faculty could also be considered a "The Thing" remake) and it's very effective in all its simplicity.
The cast is slightly problematic because "those damn Scandinavians all look alike" and that includes one of the American characters. One black actor is sidelined rather quickly only to come back for his obligatory death scene. That can't be a spoiler.

It looks good for a modern creature feature and there's no holding back in the carnage department. It was one of those rare occasions when I thought it would look much better on a big cinema screen.
I wish the very last part of the story had been based on a mistake, it could have given the film that extra bit of oomph in the style of THE MIST.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

THE THING (2011)

Crikey. I didn't even know there was a prequel/remake (premake?).

It certainly sounds enticing from your description.

 

[Willie Oleson]

ELMER GANTRY (1960)



Every time I watch Burt Lancaster I wonder, is he a good actor or a good bluffer? I guess it doesn't make much difference but the idea supports my conclusion that the role of Elmer Gantry was tailor-made for the Burt.
As a charismatic but unsuccessful salesman who always smiles too hard and isn't too concerned about moral and other people's feelings, he worms his way into the entourage of evangelist Sister Sharon Falconer thinking it could be the sale of the century.
What follows is an interesting journey for several characters, and even though the critique of the religious show business is obvious the story doesn't condemn its characters. Quite a spectacular ending, too.
Some discussions and home truths keep it all in balance rather than a one-sided attack, and I must say it's been on mind the entire day.

It's a very colourful and energetic film that doesn't waste any scenes in its two and a half hours running time.
Despite its many awards (won and nominated) Elmer Gantry doesn't often show up in online Top "this" or Top "thats".

Source: DVD, German/English language with optional German/English subtitles. And they've used a part of the original artwork, I always love that.

 

[Willie Oleson]

ACCIDENT (1967)



Written by Harold Pinter and directed by Joseph Losey, they have also worked together on The Servant (1963) - which I love - and The Go-Between (1971) which I didn't like at all. So it was going to be 50/50 for The Accident.
Unfortunately I have to report that it's even worse than The Go-Between.
For a film that is supposed to be "intellectually exciting and absorbing" (according to the DVD sleeve) it doesn't have an awful lot to say.
And when they do speak it feels as if I have to pull the words out of their mouths.

Middle-aged Oxford professors and a sexy foreign student. There, that is actually the spoiler for this story.
To be fair I already knew that but I had hoped for something like Bouquet Of Barbed Wire - The Movie, something for Dirk Bogarde to sink his teeth into.

The only interesting titbit is that Bogarde's on-screen son is played by Maxwell Cauldfield.

And I can see a little bit of LB Colby in him.
But apart from that I am not amused.

 

[Willie Oleson]

THE POPE'S EXORCIST (2023)



This film poster describes the tone and genre very well: it's The Exorcist meets Indiana Jones, and it's fun and completely over the top.
In that regard it's better than any of the The Exorcist knockoffs that have tried (and obviously failed) to recreate the sickening atmosphere of the seventies classic.
Apart from the very last act, Russell Crowe's own histrionics are practically non-existent as he guides us through the story with witty and soft-spoken humbleness.
While all the spectacle is entertaining enough, Crowe's performance of Father Gabriele Amorth is the film's strongest selling point.
His Italian speech and later the Italofied English is most convincing whether it's accurate or not (a native English tongue speaking French is usually far more noticeable).
The cheeky suggestion that this story could spin off 199 sequels made me laugh out loud. For what it's worth, I think they should do it.
Italian Russell Crowe might be the only man who can destroy Marvel.

If you're going to watch it I'd suggest a double bill with Russell's pulpy Unhinged (2020). Which reminds me that I still need to watch Romper Stomper.

 

[Willie Oleson]

GLADIATOR (2000)



Basically it's a spaghetti western in the arena, and there's no reason why that shouldn't happen. But Gladiator takes itself a little bit too seriously and it also lacks an iconic score.
There's a lot of exposition in both script and scenery which makes the film drag and it also undermines the cartoonish tone of the story.

The Ancient Rome theme is great for talkie scheming dramas like I, Claudius - or hunxploitation stories like the Spartacus series (or Caligula) when the viewer is sort of complicit in the villainy of evil murders and white muscle slavery.
Maximus' larger than life wholesomeness and the story's pseudo-philosophical tone didn't do Gladiator any favours. It's revenge porn done wrong, and the two and a half hours running-time is very much felt.
First rewatch since the early 2000s, I don't remember if I liked it the first time.