Random Movie Thoughts Thread

[Totenkindly]

Saw Avatar: The Way of Water today.

Very reminiscent of the first film -- a weird kind of experience that is visually stunning, with average and occasionally clunky dialogue, and nothing that blows you away plot-wise, but still managing to feel emotionally satisfying on a lot of levels and rewatchable. Worthington is a little better than his prior appearance, I don't feel like Neytiri gets as much to do until the final act (where she just goes completely feral and wreaks a lot of damage), and there are a lot of characters introduced for this film which -- since they are writing the story beats for all of them together -- should have payoffs later in the series. The villains are still on the nose -- not only do they raze large sections of forests and kill mother nature, they also are associated with whaling crews harvesting the great pacifists for brain fluid that stops human aging apparently -- but at least there's nothing as clunky sounding as the unexplained "unobtainium," they at least had the sense to use sensible language. We also get more of a sense that Planet Earth really is dying (Jake says in the first film to Eywa that "the sky people killed their Mother") and humans are looking to establish footholds on Pandora to transplant the species and colonize.

At least it felt like there was some unique stuff in this film. For example, Payakan the rogue "whale" ... there are lot of interesting questions raised, like the nature of pacifism and whether it's better to fight for what you love or die for what you believe. Personally, as far as practical outcome matters, pacifism only works if it's a minority of resistors; can you really afford to be a pacifist if EVERYONE is a pacifist, because it will lead to your extermination otherwise? (Unless of course your beliefs matter more than survival.)

Weaver's character is also interesting and I think will play a bigger role as the series unfolds, including the actuality of her existence. I am also feeling like they have an actual arc in the works for Quaritch.

I was indifferent to most of the first half hour, but it was a film that I felt got more and more engaging as it went. And of course, the 3D visuals and sound were positively amazing. It makes a cold grey drab December day look really bland in comparison.

I was moved enough to shed some tears at time, so... good thing?

---

The other thing that shed tears... the trailer for the next Spiderverse film. I don't know, but it just felt so powerful to me. I really got choked up watching it.

 

[Totenkindly]

And... well, I guess there is this:

With Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach writing it, well....

 

[Totenkindly]

Films in 2022 were kind of a wash for me, I really didn't see a lot of new things and only will probably start glutting on the decided frontrunners at this point. (It didn't really help with films like CODA getting top awards, it feels like quality hasn't as much mattered in recent years, so I haven't cast my net as exhaustively as before.) But really, not a lot was coming out earlier in the year.

I think the best film I have currently seen all year is still Everything, Everywhere, All at Once, and I am thrilled it's still considered to be in the top handful of films overall despite a March release. But of course some other films have now become accessible. The Whale finally got released, Banshees is on HBO Max (I believe) so I can see that, and there's some others as well. Even films not talked about much like The Northman I think are getting their second wind.

One of the few crowd pleasers I want to see is Top Gun: Maverick, and of course I recently viewed Avatar 2.

Long story short, though, I have been mostly just watching older films that make me feel happy. For my birthday, I rewatched Pan's Labyrinth, which never gets old for me and was one of the first subtitled films I really ever saw. I cry every time I see that film, and it is one of the best depictions of cinematic human evil I have witnessed -- as well as human valor in standing against it. But ultimately it's the story of a lost girl who desperately misses her real father and just wants to go home, whatever that might mean. The rest is just del Toro's beautiful way (visually and audibly) of telling that story.

I just also got Dave (1993) on Bluray, which is world's better than my lousy old DVD, and I have always loved that film even if rationally there's a few annoying things about it. (For example, a President cannot "adjust the budget" in the manner shown in the film. It just doesn't work that way.) I think it's mainly because of the writing, the stellar performances, and the film's heart again partly dependent on the writing and partly on the performances. Kevin Kline and Sigourney Weaver are at the top of their form. The film's moments that might be deemed sappy at times are actually really earned, and I don't believe they really fall into that category.

Despite it being very clear who is "good" and who is "bad," the people still feel like real people I know, even Frank Langella who puts just the right amount of intensity into his villain to make him feel real and caricature all at once and totally hilarious. (That moment in the staircase where he's ranting about Dave, then pauses for a quick interjection of hello to a passerby before going back to his rant -- showcasing how two-faced people are in politics -- is pitch-perfect.) So many cameos that anchor the film in a particular time as well. And Laura Linney (very early in her career? 2nd performance?) breathes comedic life into a throwaway role, you can see the start of her greatness here.

I am not much for one of feel-good movies. I don't even really like It's a Wonderful Life (well, the last half hour, at least). But this film is just so well-done. Even the setup for how long it takes for the First Lady to recognize her estranged husband is a fake makes sense in context of the film, but it's really Kline and Weaver who sell this. Their minute facial expressions, interactions, just levels of nuance to their line deliveries, really sell it. you want them to succeed and believe in what they're doing. Even the heart to heart with Ben Kingsley (again, they really overbooked this film with quality thespians) feels real and authentic.

I think the only missed opportunity here was the very last shot, where they should have put Duane in a sweater vest. I'm not sure how they missed that.

 

[Totenkindly]

Aside from no Pandoran cat people thespians being available for the shoot, the guy in the pic is played by Cliff Curtis, who is of Maori aka pacific tribal descent.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Aside from no Pandoran cat people thespians being available for the shoot, the guy in the pic is played by Cliff Curtis, who is of Maori aka pacific tribal descent.View attachment 28105

Gotta love Twitter!

 

[Tomb1]

Watched Color of Money with Paul Newman and Tom Cruise.. The script was tight. The story wasn't bloated out all over the place. Newman really nailed how the character of Fast Eddie would have grasped the once in a lifetime opportunity to come across a top level player who nobody knew about but also the frustration at not being able to break Vincent's desire to show-off that he's the best. Mastrantonio also does a good job as the cynical and jaded criminally-minded girlfriend. Literally, the story is so economical it can be told with three main characters, a few supporting characters and a bunch of extras, plus three or four pool rooms and a couple of bars/hotel rooms.

The movie gets right the psychology when it comes to how easily players lose action when they show their best game. There are high-level players like Vincent (Tom Cruise's character) who just want to beat the best guy in the house and kill their action to win tournaments and then high-level players like Fast Eddie (Paul Newman) who just want to make money and intentionally dump games and keep under the radar. Also, the existence of the stake horse who takes a really skilled but unknown player "on the road" all over the country was also real....(more so pre-internet when word did not travel so fast)....but usually its an adult stake horse and a young player like somebody between 15-20 who go on the road together sometimes with the player's parent. Newman's character took 60 percent. Real stake horses typically have a 50-50 arrangement.

The movie got some things wrong. One, players at the caliber don't break with their shooting cues. Two, there was also no safety play whatsoever. Its 9-ball. Brilliant safeties are played often by pros when confronted with low percentage shots....here, they went for everything under the sun, even preferring trick shots. Three, games are much harder to make in real life than they are in the movie especially for a guy nobody knows. Everybody wants weight in real life. Four, people are a lot more intense in terms of wanting complete silence while they are at the table. You would never see a big action game where guys are trash talking the other player during the shot, especially in a major tournament. That would get ugly quick... One thing they could have put into the movie is guys blaming small things on why they lost games...."you gave me a bad rack"...."my stick is warped"...."the air outside is humid, the balls don't roll as fast"...."the waitress distracted me"...."you moved your legs during my shot"...."that guy walked in front of my shot"....also getting into arguments and disputes over the other player giving them bad racks.... in real life in those major tournaments or big money games players would be checking the racks religiously before they broke up the balls.... for reaslism sake they coudl have also shown a pro punching the table after missing a shot in the finals....another smashing one's cue. the kind of intensity that builds up

 

[Red Herring]

They are showing The Shining on tv right now.

I hadn't watched it in over a decade. I can't help but see it through very different eyes now. What was once to me a story about a haunted place, mystical visions and a guy's decent into madness is now (to me, married mother of two little children in her early 40s) a story about domestic abuse. The movie suddenly appeals to deepseated maternal instincts (protect your child, even from its own father) and has a totally new grip. The whole supernatural thing barely registers this time around.

I get the impression that you are meant to feel for Wendy and the kid and want them to get out of there alive but the narrative focus and the gaze are mostly with Jack and the male perspective. It would be interesting to see a version that centers more around her and her growing sense of unease - there could be just as much suspense in that as there is in his madness.

 

[The Cat]

They are showing The Shining on tv right now.

I hadn't watched it in over a decade. I can't help but see it through very different eyes now. What was once to me a story about a haunted place, mystical visions and a guy's decent into madness is now (to me, married mother of two little children in her early 40s) a story about domestic abuse. The movie suddenly appeals to deepseated maternal instincts (protect your child, even from its own father) and has a totally new grip. The whole supernatural thing barely registers this time around.

I get the impression that you are meant to feel for Wendy and the kid and want them to get out of there alive but the narrative focus and the gaze are mostly with Jack and the male perspective. It would be interesting to see a version that centers more around her and her growing sense of unease - there could be just as much suspense in that as there is in his madness.

When you realize that the second half of the Kubrik movie is the story Jack was writing using the hotel and people he met as characters, and no one actually dies...that takes it to another whole different level.

 

[Totenkindly]

When you realize that the second half of the Kubrik movie is the story Jack was writing using the hotel and people he met as characters, and no one actually dies...that takes it to another whole different level.

What story? "All Work and No Play Makes Jack a Dull Boy"?

 

[Totenkindly]

So on Christmas I watched a film I have not seen for at least 2 decades, maybe longer -- "Batman Returns."

The lighting and color palette and some of the Burton Gotham design is the high point of this film -- along with the performance of Michelle Pfeiffer. Considering the first four Batman films (especially the latter two of those) had their own set of problems, it's not like this makes it worse than the others, it is arguably the best of the first four films depending on your preference. However, it's very flat from a story and character arc perspective and I found it generally boring. Bruce Wayne / Batman feels like a secondary character in his own film. Danny DeVito is solid, Christopher Walken is mostly wasted, there's a pleasant bit of cameo from Doug Jones as one of the Circus Gang, and yet the penguins are endearing.

But it's really Pfeiffer who sticks out and is worth watching. She's interesting, dangerous, deliciously unpredictable, and the film skirts along a dark S&M/sex vibe, which was surprising. More Pfeiffer, less of everything else. Like, I barely remember Batman's scenes. He's just fighting a bunch of clowns much of the film. It's like Joker Lite.

--

This morning my son and I watched the 1940 Disney Pinocchio, which I had not seen for at least 30 years. We had fun joking throughout it, at some of the lines and setups. As a day in the life film, it's kind of a shit-show because everyone sucks at their role: Geppetto doesn't know how to be a father, Pinocchio doesn't know how to be a boy, and Jiminy doesn't know how to be a conscience. In the space of about 36 hours, Pinocchio doesn't get to school but becomes a traveling actor, gets locked in a cage and threatened with a lifetime of traveling slavery until he is scrapped for firewood, then manages to sign up for Pleasure Island, almost gets turned into a donkey, then has to drown himself to find his dad in the belly of a whale, then drowns sacrificing himself for his dad, then gets turned into a real boy. That's a hell of a day and a half.

The scene with the boys on Pleasure Island turning into donkey's is as deliciously terrifying as I had hoped my memory served. That's as crazy as any modern body horror film (Carpenter or otherwise) I have seen -- and this was from 1940's Disney. Hats off. I'm still cringing over how horrific it was.

The other thing is The Blue Fairy, who just shows up out of the blue when Geppetto wishes Pinocchio could be a real boy. My kid was like, "Why did she just show up like that and offer to make Pinocchio a real boy, randomly?" I said, "She's a fae, looking to make a bargain or sealing a bet with someone. I'll tell you now, don't ever fuck with the fae." Either that or she just wanted to watch the social and emotional carnage after. It was hilarious watching Geppetto just handing his wooden boy an apple, then sending him off to school without directions. Like, you expect him to actually get there?

But all of the heckling aside (of which there was much more), I actually think this is one of Disney's best animated films, especially for 1940 and the state of animation at the time. Very impressive.

 

[The Cat]

So on Christmas I watched a film I have not seen for at least 2 decades, maybe longer -- "Batman Returns."

The lighting and color palette and some of the Burton Gotham design is the high point of this film -- along with the performance of Michelle Pfeiffer. Considering the first four Batman films (especially the latter two of those) had their own set of problems, it's not like this makes it worse than the others, it is arguably the best of the first four films depending on your preference. However, it's very flat from a story and character arc perspective and I found it generally boring. Bruce Wayne / Batman feels like a secondary character in his own film. Danny DeVito is solid, Christopher Walken is mostly wasted, there's a pleasant bit of cameo from Doug Jones as one of the Circus Gang, and yet the penguins are endearing.

But it's really Pfeiffer who sticks out and is worth watching. She's interesting, dangerous, deliciously unpredictable, and the film skirts along a dark S&M/sex vibe, which was surprising. More Pfeiffer, less of everything else. Like, I barely remember Batman's scenes. He's just fighting a bunch of clowns much of the film. It's like Joker Lite.

--

This morning my son and I watched the 1940 Disney Pinocchio, which I had not seen for at least 30 years. We had fun joking throughout it, at some of the lines and setups. As a day in the life film, it's kind of a shit-show because everyone sucks at their role: Geppetto doesn't know how to be a father, Pinocchio doesn't know how to be a boy, and Jiminy doesn't know how to be a conscience. In the space of about 36 hours, Pinocchio doesn't get to school but becomes a traveling actor, gets locked in a cage and threatened with a lifetime of traveling slavery until he is scrapped for firewood, then manages to sign up for Pleasure Island, almost gets turned into a donkey, then has to drown himself to find his dad in the belly of a whale, then drowns sacrificing himself for his dad, then gets turned into a real boy. That's a hell of a day and a half.

The scene with the boys on Pleasure Island turning into donkey's is as deliciously terrifying as I had hoped my memory served. That's as crazy as any modern body horror film (Carpenter or otherwise) I have seen -- and this was from 1940's Disney. Hats off. I'm still cringing over how horrific it was.

The other thing is The Blue Fairy, who just shows up out of the blue when Geppetto wishes Pinocchio could be a real boy. My kid was like, "Why did she just show up like that and offer to make Pinocchio a real boy, randomly?" I said, "She's a fae, looking to make a bargain or sealing a bet with someone. I'll tell you now, don't ever fuck with the fae." Either that or she just wanted to watch the social and emotional carnage after. It was hilarious watching Geppetto just handing his wooden boy an apple, then sending him off to school without directions. Like, you expect him to actually get there?

But all of the heckling aside (of which there was much more), I actually think this is one of Disney's best animated films, especially for 1940 and the state of animation at the time. Very impressive.

I still dont think the Blue Fairy deserved what the bloody handed adversary did to her.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I have to disagree about Batman Returns. It's my favorite superhero movie, and they'll never make another one like it. I guess I can get behind criticisms that Batman is kind of a secondary character, but that doesn't bother me.

 

[Totenkindly]

I have to disagree about Batman Returns. It's my favorite superhero movie, and they'll never make another one like it. I guess I can get behind criticisms that Batman is kind of a secondary character, but that doesn't bother me.

Well, I did acknowledge it's arguably the best of the original four. Just for me personally, I was counting the seconds off when Pfeiffer wasn't on screen. YMMV.

 

[Totenkindly]

Today we watched Zemecki's Pinocchio (2022). I need to say that this film is one of the worst five films I saw this year and perhaps in the worst five films I have seen in the last five years.

The film almost runs two hours but could have been squeezed of 10-15 min by simply removing filler text. A lot of the dialogue feels like "placeholder" text that got inserted on Draft #1 when the writer(s) weren't sure what they wanted to say, then they forgot to go and replace it.

The CGI is pretty terrible, it's like there was very little coherent art design. The realistic backgrounds don't mesh with the CGI, which is notably fake and especially the cat. The clock wall is obnoxious and Disney self-referential, supposedly cute, but not really. (Kinda like the Chris Pine gag.)

Honest John needs to be put on ritalin. He is way OVER-animated to the point of creating motion sickness if you try to focus on him. Like, the guy must have a calorie intake necessity of 10K a day at that rate. There's actually a few additions to the film in terms of subcharacters that never quite pay off and just seem weird, rather than emotionally coherent. (Like, the female puppeteer -- is her puppet attracted to Pinocchio or is she, and what does THAT mean exactly? It's like this wooden quasi-romance. And she's also 16-18, and Pinocchio looks like he's 5.) The Blue Fairy (a wasted Cynthia Erivo) is shortchanged on screen and obviously did her acting in a green screen room alone. Here, Pinocchio gets to school but is thrown out because he's a puppet and not real, so then Honest John snags him.

The film even makes it hard for an award-winning composer like Silvestri to write decent musical cues, there's no emotional arcs for him to really back up musically and he's left with trigger cues at best, which are then too intense for the moment. We all know he can write decent music even for large blockbusters (like Endgame and Infinity War), but Zemeckis drags him down here.

The big issue is really just the horrible script/dialogue and the CGI mess. You'd think Zemeckis might have learned this after The Polar Express.

Now, for the good? It feels like they really had creative ideas for Pleasure Island, which is the only place where really the visual CGI/sets pop and are kind of cool... but it's all dumbed down to fake social violence, drinking root beer, and eating lots of candy as gluttony. It's kind of hilarious that all the smoking and drunkenness has been removed -- but now you've basically got social reprobate behavior essentially being just being a kid, pigging out and having fun -- aside from the fake property destruction locations. The donkey CGI is pretty awfully done but it still manages to be horrific (tho not quite as terrifying as the original); but it's marred by these bizarre smoke monster creatures that never appear elsewhere in the film (there are NO demon monsters in the film otherwise! or witches!) that are entirely unnecessary to the story, so it all feels jarring.

Monstro is still a whale -- but he's deemed a "sea monster" ... so he's a whale with tentacles. Oh boy.

The film is really messy, but it occasionally sets up a moment. Like, a bit late in the story where Pinocchio starts a fire makes sense based on how we saw him start a fire earlier. But there are other moments (like the water-skiing bit) that wooden-headed Pinocchio (he's really pretty dumb) manages to come up with a good idea that he would have had no way to come up with on his own... where physics wouldn't have worked anyway, but the film makes it work.

Also, a Big Idea that the film wimps out on at the last moment:

The film repeatedly sets up that Pinocchio doesn't actually need to be a "real boy" to be loved by his father, and in fact accepting him and loving him means he never needs to become flesh and blood because he is precious as a puppet regardless! until the last 30 seconds of the film when it looks like it's being suggested Pinocchio is turning real anyway.At best, it's muddy; at worst, it's cowardly and feels like a studio note.

Really, one of the best parts of the film is that it's only 1 hr 52 min long, compared to most other Disney live-action rehashes, that end up being 2 hours and 20 min.

Please, Disney. Just stop.

I am excited to watch the Del Toro version next, to see how it does.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm afraid to watch the Del Toro version because of my memories of the donkey scene, lol.

 

[Tomb1]

the Catholic Church invented Cancel Culture:

Thomas Doherty, Professor of American studies at Brandeis University, has defined the code as "no mere list of Thou-Shalt-Nots, but a homily that sought to yoke Catholic doctrine to Hollywood formula. The guilty are punished, the virtuous rewarded, the authority of church and state is legitimate, and the bonds of matrimony are sacred."[51]

***

"The code sought not only to determine what could be portrayed on screen, but also to promote traditional values.[35] Sexual relations outside marriage, which were forbidden to be portrayed as attractive or beautiful, were to be presented in a way that would not arouse passion or make them seem permissible.[36] Any sexual act considered perverted, including any suggestion of same-sex relationships, sex or romance, was ruled out.[31]

All criminal action had to be punished, and neither the crime nor the criminal could elicit sympathy from the audience,[5] or the audience must at least be aware that such behavior is wrong, usually through "compensating moral value".[30][37] Authority figures had to be treated with respect, and the clergy could not be portrayed as comic characters or villains. Under some circumstances, politicians, police officers, and judges could be villains, as long as it was clear that those individuals portrayed as villains were the exceptions to the rule.[38]

The entire document was written with Catholic undertones, and stated that art must be handled carefully because it could be "morally evil in its effects", and its "deep moral significance" was unquestionable.[33] It was initially decided to keep the Catholic influence on the Code secret.[39] A recurring theme was "that throughout, the audience feels sure that evil is wrong, and good is right".[5] The Code also contained an addendum commonly referred to as the Advertising Code, which regulated advertising copy and imagery.[40]"

Hays Code - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some excellent pre-code films: Scarface, Little Caesar, The Public Enemy and Red Dust

 

[Totenkindly]

Watched Knives Out: Glass Onion today, I think I liked it even better than the first one (which I thought was decent).

it's really clear that Johnson should really stick with his own films/franchises rather than trying to write/direct as part of other franchises. Visually, editing wise, and story creation-wise, this film is precisely put together to the degree of the film's opening puzzle box and is perfectly coherent within itself. the Glass Onion is not only literally a location in the film but also perfectly describes the plotting and resolution of the film's parts as well.

 

[Totenkindly]

Watched Top Gun: Maverick today, after revisiting Top Gun the original last week (after many years of not watching it).

The conventional wisdom is true: It's a really great film that surpasses the original in almost every respect, while still managing to call back to the few really core emotional moments of the first film. It's still a little lacking on the romance front, but at least here it doesn't go for cheap steam and also feels like an on/off again romance, with Jennifer Connelly being allowed to be beautiful while still looking her age.

it helps that they got McQuarrie in to polish the script, this feels pretty much like the last two Mission Impossible films in terms of melding action with some solid emotional beats and non-silly dialogue. Also, it improves on the original film by having the action beats actually seem pretty tense and coherently edited -- real action sequences in the sky, versus just a lot of flat cuts back and forth between flying planes as in the first film, which didn't pack a lot of excitement until near the end of the film.

Something I'm okay with although makes me laugh -- the first 75% of the film feels like a really great thriller/flying film, with tense action sequences... and then the last 15-20 minutes feels like a D&D adventure that went off the rails. It was still pretty enjoyable, just like... wow. This is like some shit (sans the flying) that I could see my gamer friends and me doing.

Anyway, the film picks up the worthwhile emotional beats from the first film, then expands on them. I felt like Val Kilmer was treated respectfully in this film, and they were also true to Maverick's character. Jon Haam is kind of amusing in a Jon Haam way.

Glad Kosinski got to make a film that did so well, finally. He's got definite gifts, it's just most of his past films were hindered by a few of their elements. That is not the case here, aside from not really forcing him to deal with a more nuanced romantic relationship on screen.

 

[ceecee]

Films in 2022 were kind of a wash for me, I really didn't see a lot of new things and only will probably start glutting on the decided frontrunners at this point. (It didn't really help with films like CODA getting top awards, it feels like quality hasn't as much mattered in recent years, so I haven't cast my net as exhaustively as before.) But really, not a lot was coming out earlier in the year.

I think the best film I have currently seen all year is still Everything, Everywhere, All at Once, and I am thrilled it's still considered to be in the top handful of films overall despite a March release. But of course some other films have now become accessible. The Whale finally got released, Banshees is on HBO Max (I believe) so I can see that, and there's some others as well. Even films not talked about much like The Northman I think are getting their second wind.

One of the few crowd pleasers I want to see is Top Gun: Maverick, and of course I recently viewed Avatar 2.

Long story short, though, I have been mostly just watching older films that make me feel happy. For my birthday, I rewatched Pan's Labyrinth, which never gets old for me and was one of the first subtitled films I really ever saw. I cry every time I see that film, and it is one of the best depictions of cinematic human evil I have witnessed -- as well as human valor in standing against it. But ultimately it's the story of a lost girl who desperately misses her real father and just wants to go home, whatever that might mean. The rest is just del Toro's beautiful way (visually and audibly) of telling that story.

I just also got Dave (1993) on Bluray, which is world's better than my lousy old DVD, and I have always loved that film even if rationally there's a few annoying things about it. (For example, a President cannot "adjust the budget" in the manner shown in the film. It just doesn't work that way.) I think it's mainly because of the writing, the stellar performances, and the film's heart again partly dependent on the writing and partly on the performances. Kevin Kline and Sigourney Weaver are at the top of their form. The film's moments that might be deemed sappy at times are actually really earned, and I don't believe they really fall into that category.

Despite it being very clear who is "good" and who is "bad," the people still feel like real people I know, even Frank Langella who puts just the right amount of intensity into his villain to make him feel real and caricature all at once and totally hilarious. (That moment in the staircase where he's ranting about Dave, then pauses for a quick interjection of hello to a passerby before going back to his rant -- showcasing how two-faced people are in politics -- is pitch-perfect.) So many cameos that anchor the film in a particular time as well. And Laura Linney (very early in her career? 2nd performance?) breathes comedic life into a throwaway role, you can see the start of her greatness here.

I am not much for one of feel-good movies. I don't even really like It's a Wonderful Life (well, the last half hour, at least). But this film is just so well-done. Even the setup for how long it takes for the First Lady to recognize her estranged husband is a fake makes sense in context of the film, but it's really Kline and Weaver who sell this. Their minute facial expressions, interactions, just levels of nuance to their line deliveries, really sell it. you want them to succeed and believe in what they're doing. Even the heart to heart with Ben Kingsley (again, they really overbooked this film with quality thespians) feels real and authentic.

I think the only missed opportunity here was the very last shot, where they should have put Duane in a sweater vest. I'm not sure how they missed that.

I have seen...

Everything, Everywhere, All at Once (I loved it so much)

The Northman

Top Gun: Maverick

I will look on HBO MAX for Banshees, which is one I have wanted to see since I heard about it. I think Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell have a unique onscreen chemistry, very suited for these types of dark comedy. I'd also like to see Tár but it's playing nowhere near me. I may end up renting/buying it on Amazon Prime.

 

[Totenkindly]

I will look on HBO MAX for Banshees, which is one I have wanted to see since I heard about it. I think Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell have a unique onscreen chemistry, very suited for these types of dark comedy.

Yup, i remember being very fond of In Bruges.

I'd also like to see Tár but it's playing nowhere near me. I may end up renting/buying it on Amazon Prime.

I was hoping it would show up on a streamer but I might just need to bite the bullet as well. I also will try to catch Decision to Leave and RRR.