What Movie Have You Seen Today?

The Super Mario Galaxy Movie and The Mandalorian and Grogu. Both the defination of MEH. Chris Pratt and Brie Larson were so boring in their vocal performances, so flat. It also felt like there should have been a sequel between the stories. The villain’s plot was just repeating the first movie’s villain plot. That’s the main problem with Illumination (the production company): throw as many big name actors, and the adults will overlook the plot. Oh, and throw in Minions as much as you can! Merchandising! Lack of imagination at its finest.

As for TMAG, it was a bit better, but there really wasn’t anything new. I like the Hutts as the villains, actually. Grogu was fun, but predictable. Jon Favreau can’t really direct action, I’ve noticed. As great as the first Iron Man is, the final battle isn’t really anything special. The same problem is presented here. I’m still looking forward to SW: Starfighter, namely because of Ryan Gosling and Amy Adams. Also, HOPEFULLY, to finally see Lucasfilm take some chances with trying new things. Just keep JJ Abrams (among others) away!

Hopefully, Disclosure Day and Supergirl will be better for this summer.

3 Likes

Pretty much every Mario game/movie repeats the same plot. Princess gets kidnapped, Mario traverses a number of themed words in order to reach the boss’ castle/lair to get her back. Rinse and repeat.

If anything, the last Mario movie was somewhat original in that it was Luigi that got taken instead of the Princess. :laughing:

3 Likes

I know that the Mario games are rinse and repeat. But with Illumination in charge I honestly shouldn’t have been surprised that they would do the same thing. See my above comment for my reasoning.

1 Like

Hudson Hawk

What? The 90´s Bruce Willis disaster? I am subjecting myself to that when I could watch cinema´s great art?

To be honest, I became a big Bruce Willis fan when I got introduced to “Moonlighting”. Then I saw him in “Blind Date” and “Die Hard”. And I just loved his smirking every man-persona, willing to be silly and vulnerable and still strong enough to persevere.

When I watched “Hudson Hawk” in the cinema, back then in the early 90´s (and in a German dubbed version, yikes) I was severely disappointed. As the critics back then said: a total misfire, unfunny, only a headaches inducing frenetic compilation of action and comedy bits strung together without a clear vision, with the chaotic production visible in every frame.

Why did I want to rewatch this? Because I read online that the film gets reappraised more and more, calling it fun, unfairly treated, just a consequence of the inevitable backlash any performer gets when they are given carte blanche for their passion project.

And you know what? I agree. This time I enjoyed the heck out of this wild concoction. It is like a cartoon, a smug parody of action movie clichés, going where nobody dared to go back then, and it works like crazy, at least for me.

A film before its time? Definitely. The early 90´s were filled with self-serious action bonanzas which never announced how silly they are, and people ate those up. “Hudson Hawk” laughs into your face, and audiences were confused: are these blockbusters supposed to do that? They rather watched the next Michael Bay movie instead of realizing they were duped to love that crap.

In a way, the excess and producer meddling and star dictating the director how to shoot - all that production horror that got reported on before the film was released - actually was only a fitting meta-commentary on this kind of blockbuster movie making.

The fact that all this resulted in a hugely entertaining film you just are not supposed to take seriously speaks volumes.

4 Likes

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA will be screened at the Museum of the Moving Image in Queens!

Twice!!!

Lawrence of Arabia (70mm)
Saturday, Aug 15 at 1:00 p.m.
Sunday, Aug 23 at 3:00 p.m.
Location: Redstone Theater

My offer stands.

7 Likes

Would be a crazy once-in-a-lifetime trip and spectacular waste of money (no, not really a waste), my most expensive cinema ticket ever. It does sound tempting, but minimum 1600 for the flights alone… :laughing:

Which doesn’t mean that I’m not open for stunts like this. Just few days ago, I decided to book my most expensive “concert tickets” ever for an event next March…

4 Likes

It is probably the best and largest screen in the United States to see it on, since the Cinerama Dome closed in Los Angeles (we await its re-opening).

5 Likes

Freud’s Last Session (2023 film starring Anthony Hopkins): I’ve just about run out of superlatives to describe Anthony Hopkins. Barring the dismal followups to The Silence of the Lambs, I can’t think of a single film in which his performance is anything less than stellar. (Others may be able to come up with some.) Freud’s Last Session continues his streak.

In lesser hands, this film could have been a murky mishmash. It’s based on a play by Mark St. Germain (who also co-wrote the screenplay), which was based on a book, The Question of God. It sets up a fictional meeting between Sigmund Freud and C. S. Lewis, during which they debate Christian theology. The outbreak of the Second World War, and Lewis’s traumatic memories of the First World War, serve as their backdrop. Their skirmishing over the existence of God could have been nothing more than dogmatic babble, but the actors and their intimate settings (which made me think, correctly, that this was based on a play) make it work.

Matthew Goode’s portrayal of Lewis holds up well against Hopkins, and Liv Lisa Fries is remarkable as Freud’s daughter, Anna. My only complaint about Hopkins is that, as great an actor as he is, I can’t forget that it’s him in the role. Same with Robert Di Niro (though I’m less forgiving of De Niro than I am of Hopkins; not sure why that is).

One more quibble: There’s a point when Freud asks Lewis to remove the prosthesis from his mouth, which was there to hold space where part of his jaw was removed during surgery to treat oral cancer. After the prosthesis was removed, Freud’s speech should have changed, and some sagging in his cheek and mouth should have been visible. But Hopkins was speaking as articulately as he was before the prosthesis was removed, with no marked change in his appearance.

4 Likes

Talk About a Stranger (1952 film noir starring George Murphy, Nancy Davis and Billy Gray, with gorgeous cinematography by John Alton): Yet another solid entry in TCM’s Noir Alley series, hosted by Eddie Muller, this is a story about a boy and his dog that, predictably enough, turns bleak. What makes it interesting is that a child is the film’s protagonist. Eddie noted that this is commonplace in horror films, but rare in film noir. He called it “kid noir” (and has co-written a children’s picture book, Kid Noir: Kitty Feral and the Case of the Marshmallow Monkey, that introduces kids to the genre).

The story was based on Charlotte Armstrong’s short story “The Enemy” (clearly meant as an allegory to McCarthyism). After an incident involving his beloved dog, Bud seeks evidence to support his belief that a mysterious neighbor was the guilty party. Bud’s questions ignite a mob mentality, and it feels like we are careening toward tragedy. The ending surprised me, but I found it more believable than some of the pat “happy endings” necessitated by the Hays Code.

Billy Gray had an amazing career. He’d been acting since he was 5 years old. If you look him up on Wikipedia, not much shows up because most of his early roles were uncredited. IMDb tells more of the tale. As Eddie noted, Gray had appeared in over 50 films (and a few TV shows) by the time Talk About a Stranger was made. That’s because his mother was actress Beatrice Gray. Eddie explained that Beatrice brought Billy along with her to movie sets and was able to snag small roles for him.

Nancy Davis (before she became Nancy Reagan) had a small role as Bud’s mother. She looked so different with dark hair that I barely recognized her.

Kurt Kazner, who I remember from the old Land of the Giants TV series, had a supporting role. Until Eddie talked about Kazner, I had no idea he’d led such an amazing life.

3 Likes

Materialists

After her directorial film debut with the magnificent „Past Lives“ Celine Song‘s sophomore effort was marketed as a romantic comedy about a matchmaker (Dakota Johnson), meeting a dreamy rich guy (Pedro Pascal) while her ex-boyfriend (Chris Evans) is a struggling actor barely earning a living as a party service valet.

In other hands this would have become a run of the mill „funny“ romantic triangle comedy.

Thankfully, Celine Song turns this into a romantic drama with satiric or maybe just realistic views on how materialistic relationships have become. And still every character is treated with disarming honesty, these are real people who truly want to find someone for life but modern society has burdened them with expectations which demand looks, standing and income in order to become happy.

In the end Song beautifully guides the story into a happy ending which is earned and realistic, and every actor delivers the absolutely wonderfully written dialogue perfectly.

One of the best films of the last year.

2 Likes

Return to Silent Hill (2026)
Jeremy Irvine
Dir. Christophe Gans

Not sure why I did this to myself, but I saw it sitting there on Disney+ and decided to give it a go, mainly because it’s an adaptation (supposedly) of Silent Hill 2, one of the greatest videogame stories ever told. To say that Return to Silent Hill misses the mark set by its videogame counterpart is as big of an understatement as has ever existed.

The film, in theory, hits a lot of the overly broad beats of the game, but it does so only in a very, very superficial way. And then, in other circumstances, the story beats are either missing or changed in such substantial ways that it greatly impacts the overall story, and always for the worse.

The game and film revolve around the character of James Sunderland, who is summoned to the town of Silent Hill by a letter from his dead wife asking him to come find her in the town. The game is a thoughtful tale that shows James’ slow descent into madness and grief as he makes his way through the town. The film, on the other hand, is what you would get if you asked someone to remake the game as a late 90s alternate rock music video. A lot of the plot is still there, although it’s remixed in odd ways and completely unnecessary backstory (that doesn’t even build upon the game’s story but rather changes it significantly) is added for reasons that I don’t in any way understand, but it’s changed in such a way that the nuance of the game’s story is completely stripped from it. And the nuance is what was really the entire point of the story of the game, equally as important, if not moreso, than the actual plot beats that are so memorable.

3 Likes

Very informative. Did you like the first film?

Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970)

This was a favorite of my grandfather’s, who was fascinated by technology in general but computers in particular. It’s taken on something of a cult status over the years for its prescient take on the dangers of AI and man’s tendency to rush blindly along in the name of progress, only stopping to consider the consequences once it’s too late. That following grew recently thanks to an online conspiracy theory when the film became hard to find on home video, the implication being that the powers-that-be in the AI world were trying to bury it lest we awaken to our plight.

So it was with great curiosity that I finally sat down to watch the Blu-Ray. Overall I found it well-done, if a bit bleak thematically. The effects work that went into the massive Colossus mainframe itself was very impressive for the time (or to be fair, even by modern standards), the performances were solid and the score was okay. Most of the action occurs in the same few sets: a control room, Forbin’s quarters and a White House War Room that looks more like the NASA flight center. But they do get the most out of a rented helicopter and a brief side trip to Italy.

Looking back on this film more than a half century later, it’s kind of funny to see Colossus depicted literally, taking up the better part of an entire mountain, where today it’d be more of a “hive mind” with nodes spread out across the globe. In one scene, Colossus and its Russian counterpart Guardian attempt to reestablish a connection when their creators break the first, and one can’t help thinking it would take all of a microsecond today, when they could also reach a few million other computers, toasters, refrigerators and fish tanks along the way. Much is made of the invasion of privacy that comes with constant video surveillance, while today of course we’ve all willingly signed that right away with a million hastily scrolled-through Terms and Conditions. At one point, Colossus throws a fit when it can’t find its maker Dr Forbin, whereas today there’s nowhere on Earth he could go that the computer’s eyes couldn’t follow, least of all the public park in Rome where he’s gone. But if filmmakers in 1970 could only imagine a bigger computer, instead of one spread out across the globe like a spider web, they do get brownie points for imagining the scenario at all. Anyway a city-sized computer makes for better visuals, and judging by the size of the data centers scarring today’s landscape, maybe they weren’t so far off on the “colossal” part after all.

Was this the first film portrayal of the coming “Singularity”? It feels like a prequel to The Terminator, only more cerebral and chilling.

Eric Braeden (nee Hans-Jörg Gudegast) does a tremendous job, here. It’s anyone’s guess why he didn’t end up having a bigger career in films, though I guess he’s done well enough for himself with television work, and still looks amazing.

Joe Sargent does a good job with direction. I only knew him from a Star Trek episode, but it looks like he also did “Sybil” and the “The Manions of America” mini-series that brought Pierce Brosnan to the US, pre- Remington Steele.

Anyway, a good if unsettling film from the days when SF was more about ideas than spectacle.

4 Likes

All hail Joseph Sargent and COLOSSUS!

Additionally, Sargent gave us TRIBES (also 1970); THE NELSON-MARCUS MURDERS (Kojak TV movie that launched the series); and THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE.

He merits our love.

5 Likes

Colossus is a warning people still don’t recognize.

And AI billionaires will make sure it stays that way.

In that regard…

An unflattering portrait of Elon Musk and his peers? No, let‘s stay away from that. They are too rich, they could hurt us.

4 Likes

Toy Story 5.

It’s still a good movie but probably my least favourite in the series. Felt like a small scale add on rather than a full blown Toy Story adventure. The Lillypad plot line was relevant but more could have been done with it. I would’ve liked more from the other toys too. I don’t have a problem with how they handled Woody. Him

Summary

visiting but returning to his new life at the end

doesn’t undermine 4 IMO. No doubt a sixth will be made in the coming years.

4 Likes

It’ll be interesting to see how they go about doing it and how quickly that ends up happening. Both Hanks and Tim Allen will be in their 70s for any new films in the franchise. There are articles out there about Allen bringing in a voice coach to help him get back into Buzz’s voice after being told his first few lines of reading for the new film made Buzz sound old.

https://ew.com/tim-allen-told-buzz-sounds-old-toy-story-5-11999031

6 Likes

Yeah, I saw that. Interesting that the new movie is very Jessie centric with minimal Buzz and Woody. I think the series runs the risk of being good but not as special. I did like the angle of screen time threatening traditional toy use, but another film would need a stronger emotional hook to justify itself IMO. Toy Story 5 doesn’t have a possible ending like the others, so for that alone I’m up for another. But with the age and mortality of the voice actors it probably should be the end for real this time.

6 Likes

They will spin it off with the other side characters.

And then the inevitable live action remakes…

2 Likes

I don’t think they’ll have all that much success in doing that. Toy Story is Woody and Buzz. There are a lot of great side characters, sure, but I don’t think that any of them are strong enough characters on their own to be able to carry a franchise that has last as long as it has (31 years) and that has been as successful as it has been, into the future. That would be almost like the Bond franchise killing off Bond at the end of Licence to Kill and then starting up with Felix Leiter leading the franchise in GoldenEye.

5 Likes