What Movie Have You Seen Today?

John Wick 4

Okay. Maybe I shouldn’t have watched them all so quickly after another. But despite the impressive Paris action I thought this fourth and last (not in the age of IP, of course) film in the series was the least effective of them all, with a more than three hours running time stretched to give side characters more action scenes as well. Bill Skarsgard as the new villain is suitably hate-able, but it all feels now been there done that. Sorry. It has a good ending, and it should be left at that. Which it won’t be.

Again, these films have choreographed action perfectly filmed - and no other action film right now can come close. But how many times can one watch Wick shoot and stab and kill armies of disposable villains, survive crashes and falls (not to mention all these bullets despite his bullet proof suit)? It really is the equivalent of a computer game. And I’m ready to turn it off.

The best film? Chapter Two because it really upped the stakes and the stunts. Followed by the first film because it was still fresh and concise and, well, short. Then the third film which already showed its age. And the fourth in the last place - but really, how many fourth films (third remakes) can still feel fresh?

Um. Do I hear Tom Jones singing (and fainting)?

5 Likes

Insignificance (1985 British film based on a stage play of the same name): My husband had watched this film before he and I met. We had the opportunity to watch it together for the first time.

Even though the characters are not named, we know who they represent: Albert Einstein, Marilyn Monroe, Joe DiMaggio and Joseph McCarthy. The lives of all four intersect in Einstein’s hotel room, where The Actress talks with the Professor about his work and, in a remarkable scene, demonstrates the theory of relativity to him. The Senator threatens the Professor about testifying, and The Ballplayer struggles to win back The Actress. The climax is a surrealistic depiction of the devastation at Hiroshima … brought home.

It’s a thought-provoking film with several poignant scenes. And it make me wonder, why wasn’t Theresa Russell a bigger star?

3 Likes

While I haven’t seen it personally, I’ve noticed a lot of older people at my movie theater getting sad during Reagan. I’m interested in it (as someone who isn’t a fan of Reagan’s policies or acting). It’s just something I’ve noticed, and hearing the old folks talk about the old days. I just nod and let them go on, as long as I’m not busy. If I see it, I’ll let you know. PS Robert Davi is in it.

1 Like

All those biopics, ROCKETMAN, BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY; all the Stephen King and tv show remakes, Magnum, Hawaii Five-0 so on, so forth - you have us boomers to thank for these. For the first time a generation is able to put its own rose tinted self deception into a cultural movement of force fed nostalgia. And while we mostly know it wasn’t all fun and games we usually remember that era a lot fonder than it probably deserves.

Such is life, in 30 years you’re going to watch films about the good old days of the climate collapse and the pandemic. :man_shrugging:t3:

5 Likes

I agree, well stated.

Back to my viewpoints on the Reagan movie. It is VERY biased towards looking at him as a positive person. In fact, that’s a lot of the negative reviews are saying: it’s too favoritism with him. Yes, it does seem that RR is often very high or very low in presidential rankings. There’s one thing that most people agree on with him: he had charm. From what I’ve seen though, Dennis Quaid TOTALLY nailed RR’s mannerisms. That’s worth seeing alone. I honestly think also that they should have focused on a particular part of RR’s life. Because he can truly say that he lived it, outside of his presidency. I’ve also come to the conclusion that if you become president (at any time in history) someone’s bound to try to make a movie of their life. Not just their presidency.

1 Like

Albert Brooks festival: REAL LIFE and MODERN ROMANCE

I loved Albert Brooks since I saw him in one of my absolutely favorite films ever, „Broadcast News“, and while his comedy is for an acquired taste, I also enjoyed the films he directed himself a lot.

So, rewatching them now after many years, I have become an even bigger fan, getting more nuances (still not all, that’s why you can always watch them again and find something new in them), and maybe it’s time and ageing which make me much more open for his extremely dry wit.

REAL LIFE about a comedian attempting to film a documentary about one year in the life of an ordinary American family is so hilariously sharp that it still, after decades of „reality tv“, delivers a biting punch. And the scene with the horse in the veterinarian clinic is so uncompromising no studio would distribute this movie.

MODERN ROMANCE, a movie about jealousy and insecurity, also is still wonderful - and the fact that Stanley Kubrick admired it and wished he had done it says a lot.

Any other Albert Brooks fans out there?

5 Likes

Love “Defending Your Life” :+1:

3 Likes

Finding Nemo, of course! And his various classic characters on The Simpsons! Hank Scorpio is one of the best Bond spoofs ever.

3 Likes

It’s strange, but the only two Albert Brooks films I can recall are Broadcast News and Drive. He impressed me in both.

2 Likes

He began to act more at the end of the 90‘s because trying to finance his own movies became too difficult.

But he is a great director, too. Not the flashy Scorsese style, of course. Very basic visually, but perfect timing and carefully selected shots to let actors shine with his very nuanced dialogue.

2 Likes

FRENZY (1972)–4K restoration screened at Film Forum

I have been living with FRENZY for more than 50 years. The first film I saw in a movie theater by my own choice was John Guillermin’s SKYJACKED (1972) at the Washington Township Cinema in New Jersey. The trailer for FRENZY played before the movie.

I was finally able to see the movie itself on television a year or so later. It was a Saturday night, mom and dad were having a “date night,” and grandma and grandpa were babysitting. Grandpa sat in the kitchen–he did not want to see the movie–but grandma was game, and we watched.

By this time, I was both a nascent cinephile and an emergent Hitchcockian, and loved the movie–as far as I understood it. I watched it over the years, and purchased its (flawed) DVD edition, but refrained from the Blu-ray due to the consistent bad reviews it received.

I can say that the restoration is superb–no more color problems, filmic appearance, and not restored to the point that Hitchcock’s beloved rear projections are over-restored (a problem I had with the TOPAZ 4K restoration–I felt that the improvements erased some of the original’s softness, thereby rendering Hitchcock’s artifice too artificial, and throwing me out of the movie).

As for the film itself–it remains the grand masterpiece I have always believed it to be. FRENZY is the perfect melding of two of Hitchcock’s favorite narrative streams: the wrong man and the serial killer. He braids these streams together by having the wrong man be close friends with killer, to the point that he is mistaken for the murderer. Also, this is the nastiest wrong man in the Hitchcock canon–not Robert Donat or Henry Fonda (Abe Lincoln!) or Cary Grant–but Jon Finch. I saw the film with some young colleagues, and one noted that when Blaney hears about the killing of his wife, and then about the death of Babs, the first thing he does is think about how their murders will affect him! There is not a scintilla of concern over the deaths of these women, who were so important in his life. Intellectually, I had always known that Blaney was AH’s least pleasant wrong man, but my colleague’s observation made me realize just how unpleasant he is (and AH’s radicalness in making him so).

As for the rape/murder scene–is it horrid? Yes–but in a new way for Hitchcock. He makes his audience confront the situation/fate of women in a patriarchal society. While one can enjoy the aesthetic mastery of Marion Crane’s death in PSYCHO–the editing!! the music!! the pullback shot from Marion’s eye!!–in FRENZY there is just the horror of violence against a woman/women put nakedly on display as both spectacle and chastisement.

Then we are on the verge of a second killing, but Hitchcock says enough–the camera retreats down the staircase, refusing to enter Rusk’s apartment to witness the murder of Babs. He will not feed our voyeuristic desires (I have always maintained that slasher/serial killer movies that flowed from PSYCHO completely ignored FRENZY’s repudiation of the template. The subsequent films/filmmakers erase FRENZY, and its advances, from the cinematic memory).

Inspector Oxford is the spiritual descendent of Inspector Hubbard from DIAL “M” FOR MURDER. Just has Hubbard has to find out the source of the money Tony Wendice is spending, so Oxford cannot get Blaney’s cry that “It’s Rusk!” out of his conscience. In Hitchcock’s world, justice is possible, but the path there hangs by the slightest of threads.

The audience I saw the film with had the constricted laughs that FRENZY elicits, and jumped when Rusk suddenly appears behind Babs, testament to Hitchcock’s ability to pull an audience’s strings. It was a delight to see his talent still in full flower all these years later, and with a new audience.

From the beginning of British cinema, through the peak of Classical Hollywood, Hitchcock was the master–ever adapting, learning, and growing. With FRENZY, he absorbed the lessons/challenges of Italian neorealism and the French New Wave. He took what he learned from these filmmaker and their films, mixed it with his five decades of filmmaking experience, and created his most profound and greatest film.

If at all possible, see it on screen, but at the least, watch it on the restored 4k Blu-ray.

8 Likes

Ten years ago I bought all of my favorite AH movies on blu ray, only my favorite, Vertigo, I already had on dvd, and they all looked very beautifull, untill I bought Vertigo again now on 4K, it’s realy fantastic looking. Do you have that one also on 4K? That is still my favorite Hitchcock of all time.

Frenzy I always liked a lot. It seems a little more gritty and less slick than most Hitchcock films and also a lot more unsavory as far as the murders are concerned.
After the first time, I can never watch or look forward to that first murder anymore, it really gives me shivers and makes me feel nauseous, even though I normally watch action films, where one villain after another dies.
The difference is that here you really almost feel the pain and gasping for air of the victim and it is not exactly presented in a glamorous way, it is almost humiliating. Very unpleasant to watch.

On the other hand, there is the wonderful black humor that also appears again and again in the film. The only weak thing about the film, in my opinion, is the wife of the police inspector, who actually solves the case, so to speak.

4 Likes

Wasn’t she the one who was experimenting nightly (much to her husband’s chagrin) with a French cookbook, à la Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking? I thought she was hilarious.

3 Likes

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024).

One of the best legacy sequels of the last 10 years of them. It honors the original’s legacy, and pays tribute to the cartoon as well. It does feel like an old school 50s B-movie and Tim Burton movie as well. Winona Ryder should have a bit of a career comeback bump (along with Stranger Things) and she was enjoyable. Maybe a James Bond villain in her future, maybe? Now could be the time to bring back a female villain. As for Michael Keaton, what can I say? He’s a class act, and always makes everything better. Willem Dafoe should become one of Tim Burton’s new regulars. I’m honestly surprised that they haven’t worked together before this! While not appearing physically, Jeffery Jones does have an unseen presence in the movie. I wonder if they have to pay him royalties for his likeness. Also, no jokes about his real-life troubles are hinted at or made fun of. Catherine O’Hara was fun, and not annoying, she still has the time of her life playing up crazy again. Monica Bellucci’s character is what she have been doing in Bond. Not her fault of course! She’s definitely one of the more unique horror characters in a while. It is SO NICE not to see Johnny Depp or Helena Bonham Carter in a recent Tim Burton movie for once. If one of them appeared, it could have ruined the whole movie for me. The set designs and costumes will probably be Oscar-nominated, and deservedly so. They feel like imagination purely at work! Same with the old style special effects. Nice to see effects done practically again. Not much computer work. The writing also feels right. The callbacks do fit the story. It feels like everything got together right for this sequel.

So all in all, this is not only of the best legacy sequels in the last 10 years or so, (along with Blade Runner 2 and Top Gun 2) but one of the better both horror and comedy sequels in a long time. Would have Beetlejuice Goes Hawaiian been better? I don’t know, but I’m sure glad we got this sequel. Highly recommended! For the laughs and thrills!

5 Likes

I’ve been thinking for years about what it is that makes FRENZY such an unusual Hitchcock movie (to me, that is). There it is – maybe Hitchcocks most “European” movie… :bulb:

I have a similar memory, but it was with my older brother, not the grandparents. He had seen it before and made remarks in the right places – a 15 year old movie geek showing off to his younger brother, but it helped me (12 years old) a lot back in the day.
I remember that I felt totally uncomfortable with almost everything that was going on. But at the same time, I was totally fascinated by it. One of my most formative movie experiences.

5 Likes

Yes. It is marvelous to behold. I have been a bit of a pendulum on VERTIGO, having over the years gone from unimpressed to reverence to qualified admiration.

Which I would argue is AH’s intention. He does not aestheticize or mute the violence. He makes you feel the cost of violence. It is the visual equivalent of Uncle Charlie’s speech at the dinner table in SHADOW OF A DOUBT, where the violence is confined to the realm of words. In 1972, Hitchcock was free to visualize what he could only verbalize before.

Which sets up the contrast between intuition and reason. And Oxford himself relies on his intuition or gut feeling to pursue Blaney’s claim that “Rusk did it.”

That’s is it exactly. Thank you for this.

Having now written about FRENZY, I realize it was the same for me. The film always stayed with me, even as other Hitchcock films surged and ebbed (save NOTORIOUS, which has always shone brightly, and is the first movie I remember seeing. I tried to warn Cary Grant about the falling wine bottle).

3 Likes

Thank you for making me want to revisit FRENZY!

In fact, I would love to rewatch many Hitchcocks now.

NOTORIOUS always has been one of my favorites, too.

But I am also predictably a fan of NORTH BY NORTHWEST, PSYCHO, VERTIGO, REAR WINDOW and TO CATCH A THIEF.

Maybe I should take another look at my lesser watched films of his.

4 Likes

Those are great films to be a fan of. What gets lost sometimes, I think, is the stages of Hitchcock’s career, since the 1950s Paramount masterpieces coincided with the emergence of the politique des auteurs.

But AH was doing amazing stuff in Great Britain in the 1930s, and his later work shows him still experimenting and growing as an artist. It is just that these later films do no resemble those of the 1950s peak period, so they are (incorrectly) seen as a sloughing off.

3 Likes

I finally got around to seeing Reagan. Firstly, @Dustin you are right in more ways than one. It is a bit off putting how much it seems to portray Reagan as a positive person in politics. He had some dirty people who did some bad things, and he always did the right thing, when he didn’t. So, the biopic is VERY flawed in that part. Robert Davi is truly unique, and was perfect in his casting. You might not recognize him at first! Olek Krupa is seriously one of the most underrated character actors out there, and he could have easily been used in Bond. Dennis Quaid should win an award or two, his mannerisms as Reagan were borderline perfect. At least, Nancy Reagan was not portrayed mostly positive. As she was known for being quite rude to staff members. But, I’m not writing this as a political lesson. The acting overall saves this movie on so many levels. Overall, much like many people’s opinions of Ronald Reagan, I could go either way recommending this biopic.

4 Likes

Having rewatched FRENZY now I am, sadly, underwhelmed (it never was one of my favorite Hitchcocks but I was full of hope to discover things I had missed).

The second murder and the sequence on the potato truck are great. The rest is astonishingly pedestrian, for my taste, and lacking in tension, mostly just going through the motions.

Blaney is a bland, not very interesting wrong guy, Rusk is the slightly more interesting villain - but even he has no mystery and almost feels like a caricature of typical Hitchcock tropes (“Hey, have you met my mother?”) to hint at his problem with women. The film only kicks into gear in the second hour, but at that time I was not invested in Blakey’s fate at all.

One might argue that Hitchcocks point was making the audience realize how little they cared about Blaney despite being completely innocent, just a sad sack caught in the circumstances.

But reading about Hitchcock´s dislike for Finch (even deciding to give him no closeups) it makes me wonder whether the actual idea had been different before filming: giving the audience someone to identify with and then wringing suspense from seeing this character getting deeper and deeper into trouble while the killer seems to get by easily.

The dinner scenes with the inspector and his wife are amusing at first but the actress so overplays it that she seemed to think she is on stage during a silly farce.

And the plot construction with the old friend giving Blaney a place to stay after accidentally seeing him in the park is so wobbly - if the point was to have even friends turn on him because they don’t want to be implicated and punished, too, there would have been lots of better ways to achieve that.

Also: was it really the intention to criticize the old guy in the pub talking about the rape before the murder being the “silver lining”? Or was it the kind of ugly snickering at that time, diminishing women who were raped with the disgusting idea that “oh, they got something out of it”? The first rape is depicted as fear turning into submission and hoping it will end before the murder happens. And maybe the slim Mrs. Blaney indeed was no match for the bigger and more powerful Rusk - but wouldn’t it have been more effective, especially for Hitchcock, to show how she screamed and struggled - and outside nobody really cared? The way it is shown Mrs. Blaney is rather quick to decide she has to endure the rape. Maybe that’s what many women in that time were taught to think, the “close your eyes and think of England”-idea. But on the other hand Mrs. Blaney is characterized as a strong independent and successful business woman. Something just does not feel worked out well here.

3 Likes