6u532b

Finished up my undergrad thesis on some Obayashi movies a few weeks back, so wasn't quite able to break out of that mentality while viewing. Two things of primary interest to me there were photography and direct address. Both are featured at least somewhat here, the former in a scene where a photograph in a frame is edited into a montage of photographs, and the latter throughout as characters often talk to the viewer. Neither is used in a way that is all that compelling to me past visual appeal and/or storytelling/humorous virtues, but they're there and they've been on my mind, so I figured I'd make note of it. Anyhow, since it seems I've used reviews for this movie as a jumping-off point for personal reflections, I'll note that my life has once more aligned with The Rocking Horsemen: as they spent high school playing music, I spent college writing about movies, and like them, that's going to have to transition to a much more minor role in my life in a couple months once I head off to (more) college. For what it's worth, what I wrote about Obayashi was by far the most fulfilling thing I accomplished in college, and, as is rarely the case for me, I think I actually had some interesting things to say (even if I think a lot of it demands reworking). I went back and forth on appending it, and ultimately I've decided that since 1) this site is a personal record for my film writing, 2) it shows up right away if you Google me regardless, and 3) there's not much (english) writing on Obayashi and many people on here seem to care about his stuff, I'll go ahead and include it here.

Anderson's first minor work of the decade, but that's more a reflection of how monumental his recent output has been than anything else. Still, this is near-total bliss on a moment-to-moment basis. That point needs no explanation, so I'll move on to my only interesting thought: this is a rough remake of The Royal Tenenbaums. To bear out the point, both films follow a patriarch bringing his family back together in his (presumed) final days, then learning from them how not to be an asshole. I'm simplifying on the final bit there, but you get the gist. With that in mind, it's worth observing the origin of the family breakups, with everyone pushed out in Tenenbaums because they can't stand Royal, and everyone pushed out here quite literally—Zsa-zsa forces all his children away, almost from birth. The scale is notably bigger, with Zsa-zsa's poisonous behavior affecting everyone, not just his family , so his trajectory by the end is rather ridiculous when put next to Royal's. This isn't a qualitative statement per se (though Tenenbaums makes me weep where this provokes nothing of the sort) so much as it indicates Anderson's sights expanding (cf. Chalamet's segment in The French Dispatch). As such, the (for lack of a better phrase) ideological elements rise to the top (dating back to The Grand Budapest Hotel), and the gut-punch one-liners are political rather than personal (even though the latter persists), so I'll conclude with the most important on that front: "Who can lick whom?"

Another to the list of movies I'm desperate for a decent copy of because there's so much cool shit going on, but most of the time it looks like plain old shit. Post-nuke shuffle forever.

Still looks pretty damn good, but doesn't have a quarter the visual majesty of 4. Not that I expect anything to measure up to far and away the best-looking blockbuster of the decade, but I had hoped it would be a little closer. The same is true of the fighting: well-done and lots of cool shit, but doesn't really come close to 4. I know I shouldn't be viewing everything in comparison to previous entries, but this is the first time there's been a true (and in this case, considerable) step back from a previous entry. Most problematic on this front is the physical trajectory of Eve, a lot of the pleasure of the John Wick franchise comes from his fragility, you know he's a god, but gods bleed, and boy oh boy does he bleed—by each film's end, he can barely move and it seems like his organs are on the edge of spilling out, whereas Eve only bears a little cut on her forehead and she seems to recover from everything without the slightest difficulty. To put it another way, it lacks the physicality that has previously made the films so enticing. On that front, it lacks texture too; there's a 10-minute flamethrower fight, and Eve doesn't even break a sweat. In other words: a lot of fun, but nothing more, which is a first for the franchise.

Moves at a snail's pace; like water seeping out of a, er, water-contraption-holdy thing, you don't notice the leak until there's a puddle in the ceiling bleeding onto the floor. Bit of a weird one in that you Know immediately—people like Her, places like This—so it goes, but that doesn't change anything; a leak is a leak wherever you are—you can't fix it on your own, and you can't convince anyone else to fix it.

Always fun to see things that absolutely could not be made in America at the time of their release

I'm quickly running out of ways to say "this is so sick" this month, but this is so sick!!! Kung fu where everyone is shooting lasers and wearing latex and shit is kind of the ideal for me.

There are a number of shots here where the right half of the frame is just grayed out. It may be because I watched a terrible copy, but one shot that really stuck out to me in this respect is where the wall on the right side of the screen is sort of covered by smoke or fog, not literally, but made to look that way—maybe I'm talking out of my ass here, but that shot made me believe the effect was intentional, and it creates a remarkable degree of uncanniness. Naturally, all giallo dubbing makes everyone sound like an alien, but I was convinced that not a single actor here was born on this planet. Awesome ending.

Found this to be equal parts insufferable and amusing. Every single aspect of the satire made me see red, the film begins with a question of God's silence in the midst of endless human suffering, then concludes that God is a silly lady who likes handstands and flowers. I get there's some overrarching bullshit about all beliefs being equal, but you just can't have it both ways. Can't get a quarter of the way through an idea without contradicting itself. Anyway! Think this is pretty funny otherwise; unfortunately, I'm into the Jay and Silent Bob gimmick. The true highlight is an extended bit where Matt Damon and Ben Affleck are believed to be gay lovers.

The past and the future...Do you think you're the only one who deals in illusion?

I'm rewatching Twin Peaks right now and a lot of the shit Montag says here would fit in seamlessly with a Log Lady intro. I'd be hard-pressed to point out specific exploitation films that Lynch draws on (versus, say, Last Year in Marienbad is an obvious inspiration), but it's clear the manner of speech he employs in his major works originates in stuff like The Wizard of Gore rather than sui generis. What you make of that is, I assume, the subject of some number of books, but it's interesting to mull over without turning into a thesis.

Fitting to watch this the same day as The Bridges of Madison County as it's another "build a world in 4 days narrative," except it has real performances and actually engages with the subjects' physical intimacy (and the tragedy is real since we're talking about sexual deviance in the 18th century as opposed to feeling bad about inconveniencing your adult children). The final minutes of this my first time through provided one of the most visceral physical responses I've had to a film, so I was eager to see if I had a similar response in a theater, 5 years after the fact—full body goosebumps, exactly the same as the first time.

Clint Eastwad one of the worst actors to ever live, every time he tries to deliver a line it sounds like he just learned what a word is. Every bit as bad as the piece of shit "novel" it was based on, but it develops new and better ways to be a piece of shit: the framing device is extended to a nauseating length, with Victor Slezak as Michael giving a performance that rivals even Eastwad's, pissing all over himself each time he opens his mouth. In contention for the worst movie of the 90s; it probably isn't (it's far too boring for that to be the case), but it's certainly the most insipid.

What is there to say? A Movie among movies.

Movie about an old lady who is really hungry. Maybe I'm stupid or something, but I was bored out of my mind.

Startled to discover this is a romcom, but I'm into it! After watching through it, I realized I had some subconcious concerns going in because Mad Max has a similarly sick premise but is boring as fuck; fortunately, those concerns disappeared almost immediately when I realized this was appropriately trashy in all the ways Mad Max was overly manicured. Sick movie, obviously.

Schwarzenegger summer. Completely forgot how batshit Arnold one-liners were. One or two wink back to something, and some of them are almost puns, but most of the time he's just saying random shit, and it's not even reserved for big moments, there are 3-6 per fight. "Killian, here is Subzero! Now, plain zero!" What the hell is he talking about?

The Great Dictator if it was good (Which Way to the Front? if it wasn't quite so good)

Relax! Way too many things happening and way too loud. These are almost never complaints I have, but it's not really doing anything aside from Doing Things. Not sure if that makes sense, but it does to me, which is the point. I will note that I still liked it as a necessary byproduct of gory kung fu.

Perhaps a silly thing to claim, but I feel pretty good saying this is the best Bava. "Note-perfect" is thrown around a lot, but it's the best way to describe this. Haven't seen any of the original Bond movies, but I figure there's no point now since none of them can hold a candle to this.

I almost agree with the "interesting experiment" consensus, but I can't quite buy the "interesting" piece when it discards the invention of visual language which has no equal (neither on this planet nor any other) in favor of, well, not that. So, I will simply dub this "experiment." That said, the quality of my copy was so bad that the film was borderline inscrutable, so take everything I say with a grain of salt, and note that you absolutely should not watch this until a better copy is available.

A couple of obvious things: 1) begins and ends with (Jarman's) Blue, so all readings must be refracted through the lens of queerness, and 2) either shot in extreme close-up or extreme wide, with all wides being shot like paintings. On the latter point, I wish I had some grasp of art history, since it seems like many of the landscapes have specific painters as reference points since they're so distinctively styled. At the very least, I would submit that one of the last shots (the white on white pictured in the poster) seems to draw on Rothko. Once more, I wish I had some grasp of art history so I could take that further, but I do not. With the above in mind, I find it quite easy to understand what the film is About in of queerness (the long and arduous journey of cementing one's identity ("cementing" is a poor word choice since identities aren't (and oughtn't be) so rigid, but I'm simplifying)) as opposed to My Own Private Idaho which has bonked around in my head nonstop since I first watched it, but that doesn't make the film any less overwhelming, to such a degree that it's difficult to adaquately describe what it wrings out of you (me), and perhaps that's the profound piece: it's easy to understand regardless of experience, but to Understand requires blood and sweat and wandering and wandering and wandering and...

I own a lot of books because I like to read physical copies, feel the weight of words in my hands, and track my progress literally as the pages by. Of course, I can do this with library books, so there's a desire in play to see all I've read and haven't read pile up around me as a sort of record of my interests. I suppose the main reason to own books is to write in them; if they're yours, you can do what you want with them, so shouldn't you mold them in your image?—I've never written in a book, or even underlined ages; the only trace of my time with a book is the crease of its spine. Perhaps I should change that, if only to prove that I once existed.

Invents, like, 15 colors

Kind of like Saw III

Piano gag is wonderful; when they’re good they’re good!—not sure what else I’d say.

Bugs’s winks at the camera are great, didn’t realize they started so early. One of the best endings, ever. Also love the reveal that “Jellostone” is actually the name of the park and not Bugs mispronouncing it.

Bugs was in the wrong here! You destroy the man’s bagpipe, and you cheat him in golf even after he’s proven to be better than you? Too far, Bugs!

Pretty lame, sadly. McKimson might just be Not Good.

I figure the Doofenshmirtz/“Perry—Perry the Platypus!” gag must originate in Bugs having his identity totally concealed until he takes off his fake mustache or whatever

In my uninformed opinion, this should be considered among the best Bugs cartoons. Non-stop brilliance: hair monster gets tricked with a hair cut, Bugs sleeping as he’s moved from his home to a castle (and asleep as he’s transported back), a variety of potions that all pay off in the best of ways, “Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist,” and a gorgeous image of Bugs floating off in the moonlight. The best!!!

What even is this? Pete Puma is not a Puma, I don’t think he’s an anything. And why does he sound like that? Humans shouldn’t be able to produce those sounds. Bugs doesn’t even trick him in this, he just hits him in the head with a hammer over and over and over.

Bugs is a movie star in the Looney Tunes universe?? Definitely a weaker one despite the amusing implications.

Interesting that Bugs is gotten the best of on multiple occasions here. Love the roses and the crowd that will praise any act of extreme violence.

Lots of fun the whole way through (obviously), but “I never studied law” is a brilliancy

I know Itchy and Scratchy is all Looney Tunes, but Bugs dres to hand a guy a pen where the pen is actually a stick of dynamite is something I would not be surprised in the slightest to see from Itchy

Watched with commentary; probably won't do that regularly, but figured I'd give it a go. Didn't know that they avoided having multiple characters in a frame due to budgetary concerns, so cool to see how much of this has Daffy and Bugs, Daffy and Elmer, or Bugs and Elmer in the same frame for extended periods.

You're despicable

Forever fascinated by the idea that a rabbit with fake tits and lipstick will cause anyone and everyone to lose all their inhibitions. Probably true. Daffy wears some of the most incredible faces in this.

Not very perverted; just has a strong interest in boobs. Not very funny; just pretty silly. Maybe Verhoeven was always like this, and I just believed otherwise because the movies were fun. Not sure; probably doesn't matter. (Good movie)

Hits different after losing 9-0 to Trevor fucking Williams

Not at all surprised I dug this; very surprised by the stunning photography

Every time I watch this, I fall asleep for a different part. It's never a big part, but it always happens. Maybe because I'm always watching it at some ungodly hour, but I don't think so, that's rare for me regardless of viewing conditions, so it has more to do with the Rhythms. Maybe I'll write something about this someday, but I probably won't.

The only thing ever on my mind

I dunno, I really am ionate about Tom Cruise running around and jumping off of stuff, but shouldn't there be something (anything) to hold these together? Gabriel is so obviously nothing and Morales has no screen presence, and it's self-evident that none of the writers have any idea how to make The Entity work as a villain because it straight-up disappears 20 minutes in and never returns! Like, you need to be fighting against something a little more than a magical robot and a boring guy for me to be invested in the fate of the world! Blow it all up, I don't give a shit! Fun movie.

Congratulations Dr. Gordon...you survived.

The Big Reveal scene here makes the remarkable formal decision to have every single source of light result in a lens flare, such that at any given moment, about 20% of the screen is taken up by streaks of light. Hideous! Not a single good image in this thing, but that sequence in particular is unconscionable. I don't know man, this is kind of just a bad movie. The setpieces are so much worse than Ghost Protocol, Rogue Nation, and Dead Reckoning, and Everything Else is so much worse than I and II, making it a series low point in all respects once you exclude the one directed by the dingbat behind the Carrie Fisher AI slop fest.

First one of these I watched in theaters, so it's interesting it had zero impact on me, whereas Ghost Protocol I would rewatch over and over. Which is the McQuarrie guarantee: goes down real easy and is expelled with equal ease.

Find myself very moved by Todd’s final scene. The set up for the finale is the best of the series by a considerable margin.

Now that I think about it, Léa Seydoux pulling the guy close to shoot him several more times really did something to me as a kid

Daffy and Porky are an old married couple, and Daffy is a hermaphrodite? We are so back, as the kids like to say.

There's always something irable about One Guy acting like his life depends on it in the biggest piece of shit you've ever seen