6u532b

All the pieces are there for a compelling story, and I bet it looked perfect on paper. But it all rests on being interested in Harry Caul, and I felt the film struggled to draw us into him until too late in the story.

We’re told over and over how Hackman’s Harry Caul is a surveillance ace, but it’s not until the final act that we really see him in action. I suppose the opening scene is supposed to accomplish this, but at that point we haven’t met Harry, don’t know he’s the focus of the film, and don’t know that he planned the operation; besides, others are doing the work. His friend Stan later goes so far as to call it his best work yet! But if that’s true, the impressiveness was lost on this layman—perhaps much like how the insiders got a raucous kick out of pranking “162 pounds, 5 foot 10-1/2 foot shithead” Willie Sanchez, who himself probably had no real sense of what had even happened.

In any case, when at last I saw Harry Caul really working his tools in the field, I was really drawn in and knew what I had been missing until that point.

It’s also not until the latter half of the film that the layers of Caul’s privacy really start getting peeled back—another lean-in moment for me. Leading up to that, we’re met with, in my opinion, a pretty thin, cliché character: a man who skillfully unearths others’ secrets while obsessively protecting his own. It’s a bit dull, and we’re hit over the head with it through the scene with Caul’s lover, from whom he cannot stand answering a single question about himself.

So. My take? Cut almost that entire scene (but keep the callback conversation with Meredith later) and show more of his skill early on rather than simply telling us about it. That would have done it for me: I would have been more curious about who this man was, and his subsequent unraveling would have had the payoff it deserves.

Remarkably comionate and humanizing toward all of the characters. A uniquely told story.

Overall an enjoyable ride, and I think it’s most interesting when it’s playing through the tension of not knowing who can be trusted—which took about an hour to get to. I’d almost bump it up another half star for how incredible the creature effects are.

In retrospect the reasoning behind the “solution” to the zombie problem is a little weak, but the film gets points from me for the exciting, desperate way the plot rushes forward and for portraying genuine fatherly care.

Strictly speaking, hardly a “blend” of genres and more of a western bookended with horror.

The relatively poor script is redeemed by some strong acting from Russell and the boys, particularly when the film finds its stride in the journey to save the captives.

I felt that the director knew something of what he wanted, but didn’t always know how to get there, with the film unskillfully fizzling to an end.

Still, some good imagination and I respect the experimentation.

Skillfully managed tension, and great acting and cinematography. It’s hard to say much without spoiling the plot, but I appreciate how the conclave’s approach to making their election is critiqued within the film itself—turning it into an effective and thoughtfully made argument.

I enjoy WWI films, and this is a WWI film.

Is it a technical achievement that DP Roger Deakins was able to shoot the film in what looks like only a couple of takes? Definitely. But was it the superior artistic choice? I go back and forth.

I think there’s something to be said for staying with the characters “in real time” and not jumping to other people or places. But I was more frequently distracted by identifying the tricks of maintaining a single shot (or the appearance thereof) that its magic was diminished for me.

Technically a charity run

If I ever murder someone, I hope I get these guys.

I felt the first third or so was a little jarring, perhaps because the pacing is so different from the first film, so it took a while for me to get into.

Ultimately, though, I think it pays off the promise of the first film quite well.

A really sharply written rom-com backed with surprisingly good life wisdom.

Watched on Saturday February 3, 2024.

Watched on Sunday January 21, 2024.

Watched on Thursday January 25, 2024.

It’s a film that seems to be largely about juxtaposition—the first half especially. But for me it felt like it was trying too hard to elicit that shocking discomfort it seemed to want us to feel. I kept picturing a group of older women fanning themselves and saying to one another, “and to think…” and “can you just imagine?”

Where it succeeded for me was in the few times that I managed to unwittingly slip into empathy for the family struggles. I think that may have been what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish.

Other than that, I can’t really say what the film was for.

Kenneth Branagh was quite good. The mystery was okay. The cinematography was pretty bad.

Really excellent low-budget sci-fi. I love how the dialogue is written and performed; for a film centering on a group of friends having a dinner party, it really feels like a group of friends having a dinner party: people talking over one another, relational tension, recounting stories. And all of that relational material gets used, spinning around Schrödinger’s roulette wheel as the film progresses.

It reminds me of how Interstellar took the coldly scientific reality of time dilation and viewed it through a human lens, letting us feel the absolute devastation of how mis-spending 30 minutes can wipe away 20 years of relationship.

A fun one!

Certainly an unconventional and curious approach to a Godzilla film, and I had my doubts as I was watching it, but I think it really comes together in the end!

It’s incredible how reliably enjoyable these films are, even 7 entries deep. It’s undoubtedly formulaic, but it still manages to find fresh ways to play everything out. This one also manages to be surprisingly tender at times? I dug it.

Did Miyazaki read a bunch of George MacDonald?

This one’s going to take some time and conversation to digest.

As ever, a stunning piece of animation dripping with style and vision. So many visual details to savour—the famous ghosting from the bike lights, sure, but I mean, imagine being the guy who animated that one paper ribbon that blew onto Kaneda’s bike.

I always wonder why I don’t really the film super well, and I see now that it’s because the emotional and philosophical elements like Tetsuo and Kaneda’s relationship and man’s relationship to power are kinda nonsense and immature. And unfortunately the latter half of the film rely on these.

But that’s not really the point now is it? We came here to see the giant flesh baby and to be mesmerized by the way Kaneda’s bike cover ripples as he yanks it off.

Visually stunning, particularly the scenes in Gwen’s universe (got some “Life is Strange” vibes). Just a delight.

Overall, the script felt a little too full and muddled. Great humour, though. Also very glad to see Ben Reilly make an appearance. 😎

Horror draws much of its power from the viewer’s uncertainty—jump scares being the readiest example. Though even when we know who will live and die, or how this is all going to end, watching it all unfold can still be tense.

The Fall of the House of Usher, ostensibly a horror series, somehow manages to thread the needle between these better outcomes.

The series tells its story non-chronologically, a device typically used to increase tension, but curiously here it achieves the opposite. Many of its middlings and endings are spoiled—either by direct reveal or by being familiar with the oeuvre of Edgar Allen Poe—while it savours the predictable beginning for its finale.

And yet, I generally enjoyed watching it all. (And this said from someone who couldn’t manage to finish Flanagan’s The Midnight Club nor really even begin The Haunting of Bly Manor.) The series does not show its whole hand and does save some truly terrifying moments for you to discover in the moment. And there are many compelling, well written, and well acted characters, most notably (for me) Willa Fitzgerald and Mary McDonnell as Madeline Usher, Bruce Greenwood as Roderick, Carl Lumbly as C. Auguste Dupin, and Carla Gugino as a notably-not-cliché, well, you know, raven. Frankly, I could list the majority of the ensemble cast here.

In the end, what do we have? Not a terribly strong horror story nor a terribly original story about a crooked, crumbling family dynasty. Something else, I suppose, though I’m not sure what exactly. I wouldn’t fault anyone for bouncing off this one, but I believe a dedicated viewer won’t regret sticking through to the end. I know I didn’t.

Tremendous, understated performance from Lily Gladstone. Really tough story to sit through, and thought it was well told overall. DiCaprio’s character was an interesting choice as the focal point, and it’s heart-wrenching following his development—a positive as far as the storytelling goes—though I felt that some of his turns were a bit sudden or under developed. But then, it’s difficult to tell a well paced, fluid story for three-and-a-half hours.

(As an aside, it was quite relieving to hear Robert De Niro doing a different accent in this one.)

A genuinely weak script with no momentum and some real nonsense choices. This is among the worst movies I’ve ever seen, for how sincerely it tries and how consistently it fails to stick any landing. Like, I’ve seen most of the Tremors sequels, and I’m pretty sure they at least knew they were making terrible movies. I gave it an extra half-star for the ending and what it does for the rest of the film.

It was a really poor follow up to last night’s viewing of the sharp, intense Green Room.

Was not prepared.

The good moments are good, and certainly memorable. But I felt the film was a bit sluggish, or perhaps diluted, with too many gaps and quiet moments to maintain much tension. And there were some other editing, staging, and camera choices that I didn’t agree with. There were a number of longer takes, and I wonder if that made it difficult to edit it down if the timing didn’t feel right later on.

I understand why this film left a mark on so many people, but although I consider myself a Kubrick fan, this one did not impress me as much as I hoped it would.

It is an incredible concert film, and really just an incredible production of any kind. Such excellent staging, lighting, direction, cinematography, and performance from…well, everyone: filmmaker Jonathan Demme, David Byrne, the rest of the band, all the performers accompanying them, and all the crew (who are even recognized on stage in the curtain call!). I really could never have imagined being this enthralled with a concert film—though I wonder now what Demme could have done with a performance of The Wall.

With every new song, David Byrne finds new ways to literally embody the music, interpreting each of them through his wild expressions and gesticulations. Meanwhile his bandmates and their accompaniment play and sing in harmony with him, yes, but they dance and perform in harmony with him as well. It is a complete vision.

For me, the whole experience, contrary to the title’s demands, made such sense of the Talking Heads œuvre in a way I could have never imagined from listening to the albums. It felt as though their music through the years had all been written with this particular concert in mind.

Phenomenal.

I bet it was great in theatres, but I had plenty fun at home! The mission prep—and really all the action sequences—was pleasantly intense, and they sell the stakes really well.

Like with Villeneuve for Blade Runner 2049, I am impressed that Kosinski was able to honour the tone and vision of the original film. Notable humility and restraint.

What a magnificent film! Such rich and fascinating characters, loving portrayed and explored. The North Carolina setting becomes something of a character of its own. (Much of what I love about this film is also what I love about Gerwig’s Lady Bird, come to think of it.)

The real deal-sealers for me are the silent shots of empty rooms that are cut into some transitional moments. 😍

This was my first Welles picture, and I see now how much I’ve been missing!

Welles wears Falstaff like it’s his own self, and you can’t help but love the man. Great characters all around, and lively acting. Although I had trouble discerning much about the Prince’s character (the language wasn’t helping), the turn with the Prince and Falstaff at the end really grabbed my attention.

The cinematography, too, is excellent. Great contrast, lots of up-close shots with the actors, and engaging composition. It’s just too bad the sound quality is so poor that I spent so much of the time looking down at the subtitles instead!

The first half was slow to develop and I wondered if this film, though great in its time, had simply been eclipsed by the development of serial killer dramas since. But it pays off well in the end, and Anthony Hopkins was captivating throughout.

I had a good time, though a day later I’ve already forgotten most of it. It’s not really fair to the MCU, but Eidos-Montréal’s 2021 Guardians of the Galaxy video game had such great casting and visuals that, for me, they’ve eclipsed Chris Pratt et al. as the definitive Guardians. I’d rather watch them instead.

It was fun! Baldur’s Gate 3 makes more sense now.

It’s got some good ideas and themes, and no doubt the making of this film must have been an impressive ordeal. But by today’s standards the acting is quite poor, the costumes feel cheap, and I felt that many shots awkwardly linger too long. As I watched, I just kept imagining how else the film’s vision could have been achieved in a much more convincing or compelling way.

A challenging journey of ambiguous romance, the blessings and trappings of tradition, and a convincing case for the need for heart-honest conversation. It concerns matters and emotions too complex for any of us to find the words, but thankfully we have Edith Wharton.

Watched on Saturday July 22, 2023.