What was the last film you watched?

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

CHILD'S PLAY (1988)

A rewatch, therefore no surprises for me. Although...

It's a potpourri of horror genres that fails to deliver moments of suspense - except for one: the discovery of the batteries. A better written story could have ended on that moment.
The lightning/explosion scene at the beginning of the story is impressive but there's no way to understand or believe why Charles Lee Ray knows about possession voodoo spells. Perhaps that character introduction ended up on the cutting room floor.
Child character Andy is awful to watch because his naivity is exaggerated by having him speak as slowly and monotone as possible, like he's not 100% or something. A very adorable eighties TV kid, like little Danny in The Shining.
How they write for child actors is usually indicative of the quality of the story (be it film or TV) and Child's Play plays it very safe and doesn't waste any time.

There is the supernatural horror of the rampant killer doll (complete with facial expressions that makes it look very cartoony) and also the drama of a woman who realises that there may be something very wrong with her child.
Shades of The Exorcist when Andy quotes Chucky that (babysitter Maggie) "was a bitch who deserved to die".
It toys (no pun intended) with a lot of ideas but nothing gets really fleshed out. Chucky isn't only possessed by the spirit of the criminal but it's also given physical strength as it can only happen in cartoons.
Furthermore, I find it difficult to remember that it really is Charles Lee Ray doing all the bad things, which makes it all look rather pointless.

So I guess it was surprisingly bad.

 

[Marley Drama]

Characters looking for trouble, and then getting it, often looks like a cheap and unnecessary stress factor to me.
"A dangerous mission into space", "someone gets involved with the mafia" - and then everything "spirals out of control". I find it impossible to overlook the risks being taken in order to create a risky tone. It's kinda like putting the cart before the horse.

Along these lines, as I watched this particular film one thought kept popping into my head that actually went a little way towards explaining at least some of the decisions, which was that - on film at least - people who live in coastal areas where there are potentially dangerous marine species appear to have a very different relationship with the ocean and those animals than, say, I would.

Simply put, if I were to visit Australia I doubt I could be persuaded to go into the water up to my ankles (and I wouldn't feel much safer on land given some of the reptiles and arachnids in some areas).

Of course, if you live somewhere, I'm sure you make a kind of peace with those risks up to a point. And it's probably a healthier perspective than my overkill approach. Especially since statistically I'd have more chance of being struck by lightning twice than being attacked by a shark. And I'm far more likely to be killed or injured in a motoring or household accident... both of which are risks I entertain daily.

But yes... there comes a point when it's less than wise, and a four foot kayak is nobody's idea of protection from even an average-sized shark giving you a good bump. Or even a friendly-but-short-sighted whale:

CHILD'S PLAY (1988)

So I guess it was surprisingly bad.

Oh - how interesting that yours was quite a different experience from my first watch a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps this is a sign that I should hold off on repeated viewings (not that I was planning any).

 

[Treeviewer]

Encanto (2021)
Disney animated musical.
I had assumed that this was based on a folk tale but according to Wikipedia, it's an original story, so I'm doubly impressed. If I was younger I'm sure I'd be memorizing the songs (by Lin-Manuel Miranda) in the same way I did with Mary Poppins as kid, but sadly I'm too old to dwell on such things now. Too many others waiting for attention.

 

[Marley Drama]

The Commuter (2018)

One of my last minute, "click in without any foreknowledge" picks. I hadn't heard of this film until two minutes before I started watching, and as I began watching I didn't even know what genre this film was, much less the premise. It's a treat to be in the same position as the characters, not having a clue which way this story was going to go.

Just in case someone else wants the same experience, I won't say much about the story itself, other than to say it's nicely done. The performances are strong and with each stroke the writing convincingly paints the protagonist into a corner from which it's increasingly impossible to escape. It's fantastically tense, helped by the initial build-up which realistically captured the feeling of doing this everyday thing before it turns into a nightmare.

If the film has one failing, I felt a number of the action scenes could have been stronger, and some of the effects looked a little too obviously computer generated (I put this down to budget, but at $30m it cost more to make than I'd supposed), but the performances more than make up for any shortcomings here.

Reading up on it afterwards, I saw this was Liam Neeson's third collaboration with this director, and I immediately added one of their earlier films to my watchlist.​

 

[Marley Drama]

[T]his was Liam Neeson's third collaboration with this director, and I immediately added one of their earlier films to my watchlist.

Striking whilst the iron is hot, last night I watched that very film...

Non-Stop (2014)

It's funny watching this back-to-back with The Commuter because, apart from just a few little details, it's exactly the same story: Liam Neeson is the ex-cop with personal and family problems who, while trapped on public transport, is targeted by unseen sinister forces who begin knocking off fellow passengers, all the while setting Neeson's character to look increasingly unstable and responsible for the deaths, getting him into an impossible situation. There are even a number of the same crucial plot points involving things like seat changes and relationships with former colleagues.

While I realise the above paragraph could read as running the film down, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Yes, stepping back afterwards, there's a clear formula to these films, but when watching none of this matters and I found myself invested in the story. It's also worth noting that this film was made some years before The Commuter, which makes it feel more original.

The cast is pretty solid. There are some familiar faces. Julianne Moore has a big role, which is always welcome. Having seen a few Corey Stoll films now, he seems to be an American Jason Statham, always playing this tightly wound alpha male (I even wondered if this was Jason Statham trying an American accent). Anyway, the arrogance levels are mercifully much lower here than in the Ant-Man films. I didn't place Anson Mount as I watched, but spent much of the film trying to work out why he was familiar (shameful as this is, my first association with his name is always Urban Legends: Final Cut, so it's always a bit of a shock to see him all middle-aged). I also initially wondered if Nancy the stewardess was played by Emily from Friends, as they had identical voices, but I quickly realised the actress here was much too young for this to be the case. My key distraction from actors came towards film's end when I realised the actor playing the geeky guy with glasses has an unpleasantly tremulous voice (I think it was played up to fit the character here, but curiosity got the better of me and I've watched a couple of interviews with the actor to confirm it wasn't completely put on).

The action scene felt more robust and intense here than in (the later) The Commuter. Once again, one of two of the biggest moments had flashes of computer game imagery - which there's just no getting away from with non-practical effects - but once again the key focus is on character and so is driven by actors.

I'd certainly rewatch both films. They're a reminder that I need more Liam Neeson in my life, and I'm particularly keen to watch his other Jaume Collet-Serra pairings - Unknown and Run All Night whenever they become free to watch. In the meantime, I've added Jaume's Orphan to my watch list. His upcoming Carry-On also looks good, even if the name has comical associations to Brits of a certain age ("Oh, Mmmatronnn").​

 

[Jolly Jimmy Tinsel Todd]

The Bishop's Wife
I love this movie, especially as we are getting closer to the holidays.

 

[Treeviewer]

Suffragette (2015)
Based on the "Votes For Women" movement of the early 20th century in the UK, but featuring a fictional protagonist.

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE (1996)

There are films that I've never watched and there are films I had decided not to watch.
Assuming it would be one of those buddy cop stories in the style of Lethal Weapon with super-funny dialogue like "maaaan, I'm too old for this sh*t!" I figured Mission: Impossible wasn't meant for me. And Tom Cruise was so extremely popular that people would have loved him in anything therefore I wasn't impressed by the popularity of this particular film.
I didn't know it was a remake of a classic TV series but I don't think it would have made any difference.

I don't remember how or when I found out but it appealed to me that Vanessa Redgrave played the villainess in this first M:I chapter.
It's only a supporting role and she doesn't act very villainous (as a character known for being bad she's kinda honest by default) but that doesn't make Mission: Impossible a less enjoyable experience.
It's basically a very good Bond film without James Bond, and even though Tom Cruise is the main star of the film it doesn't look like a Tom Cruise vehicle.
Very nice locations, great colours and lots of trickery and impostory. Glad I've watched it!

Followed by slick remakes of The Saint and The Thomas Crown Affair I wonder if Mission: Impossible had started a trend.

 

[Treeviewer]

It's basically a very good Bond film without James Bond,

But nothing like Mission:Impossible. And

Spoiler

making Phelps a villain was unforgivable.

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

TRAINSPOTTING (1996)

Another mid-nineties cult hit I had not watched before, and now that I have I think there's something about it I'm not "getting".
The protagonist narrator chooses heroin instead of "life, job, starter home, dental insurance etc etc", and I thought, well if that's your choice who am I to disagree?
After all, if you're going to use drugs then at least do it because you want it, including the consequences.

The story of these characters is very isolated, there's no connection with time, culture, scene, politics or environment (except for the comment that Scotland sucks) therefore I'm taking that choice to devote their lives to heroin at face value and that also means that this becomes a story without an issue.
Of course it's easy to see that chosing drugs is not a great choice but I think we already knew that in 1996.
What's left of the story is a string of sketches that (imo) can be watched in any order. The reaction to these characters and their actions is basically non-existent.

Ewan McGregor is very pleasant to look at even when his character looks sick but Ewen Bremner as Spud is funnier and more likeable.
Robert Carlyle plays a hyper-psycho who behaves rudely and violently and gets away with it. Can't say it looks vey entertaining.
There is a kind of smartness and soft-spokeness in this film that reminds me of A Clockwork Orange especially the James Bond geek played by Jonny Lee Miller.

The soundtrack is good but how could it not in 1996. Ice MC's "Think About The Way" is from 1994 (usually it annoys me when the cultural "sound" is not 100% perfect) however, a quick internet search showed a 1996 re-release with exclusive UK mixes. But they used the original 1994 version anyway.

Trainspotting stays very much on the surface and it's never outrageous or dark or funny or tragic enough. But again, it's very possible that something went completely over my head. The scenes are different enough to keep it interesting and overall I was mildly entertained.
There's some physical action that looks kinda painful even if I consider that we used to be bouncier 30 years ago.

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

Nevertheless....

T2 TRAINSPOTTING (2017)

I probably wouldn't have bothered with a '97 or '98 sequel, but a story that literally happens 20 years later proved to be a temptation I couldn't resist.
They might as well have called it Trainspotting XL because everything I felt was missing in the original (reason, for example) is delivered in spades by the older gang.
It is possible to watch T2 first because apart from a certain plot point it doesn't rely too heavily on nostalgia - although I didn't have to wait 20 years for it, so maybe there's a difference - and the story gives enough information about the situation and why it has become like that.

The nostalgia is actually addressed in conversation - "you're a tourist in your own youth" - and it made me think that youth doesn't exist until you no longer have it.
Bit of a paradox, come to think of it.
Spud's memoirs kinda make it look as if it was always meant to be these two films, the whole story, therefore I think it's more effective to watch the original first (as obvious as that may sound).
A few bits from the original are re-used but not to make it look better than it was.
Besides, the cinematography is fresh and exciting therefore these moments always come unexpectedly. There's a lot of clever mixing and editing that makes the film very pleasant to watch and worth revisiting (and that includes the '96 version that has unintentionally become "Part I").

 

[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.

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

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.

 

[Marley 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.​

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

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.

 

[Marley 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.

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

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?

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

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.

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

Oops....something went WRONG.

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