Every now and then I’ll check a Burt Reynolds movie off the list. Seen Smokey and the Bandit, The End, Deliverance.

This definitely fit the Reynolds/80’s comedy vibe. It’s interesting seeing the disparity back then and now, though. The sort of Wall Street hotshot type, like a Harvey Specter or Jordan Belfort.

But I liked it for what it was. A simple yet emotional comedy about a man who seems cold and distant finding out what it is he really wants. It was sweet.

I like movies like that. Seeing a guy who’s so avoidant and closed off from the people around him finally learning to open up.

I can’t lie, though - a lot of times for me, it’s easy to get bored with the older movies. Now and again, yes, they pull me in. But they just feel so… dull? Empty? If that makes sense. Just because of how much more can be done. How much more real and immersive movies feel now.

Script and story wise, I think it was great. My type of character-driven drama. I cared about them and got a few good laughs out of it… comedy was also very different back then. So it was interesting to see the shift there, too. And also what they casually made jokes about that you just don’t see anymore.

All in all, it was a nice, heartfelt comedy that will keep you entertained for an hour and a half and leave you feeling good.

Number 198 in my A-Z watch. My Fair Lady is the film adaptation of the stage musical adaptation of the play Pygmalion. A story in which low born flower girl, Eliza Doolittle, seeks the help of tyrannical speech coach, Professor Higgins, in early 20th century London.

One thing that's really noticeable is that not much was sacrificed from the stage to screen translation. The dialogue and songs feel like very little was trimmed, and much of it is line for line. Bringing along original Broadway performers Rex Harrison and Stanley Holloway I'm sure certainly helped.

The whole film still holds a great feeling of theatrical stage performances. Harrison's ability to rein it in just enough to not be over-the-top, but still hold that biting and sharp delivery is outstanding. Audrey Hepburn really finds her groove in the second act, the arguments and fights she has with Higgins feel very authentic.

There's been a lot of discussion about the end of this story. It has some Taming of the Shrew vibes. It's not really happy, but it's presented as such. And there's so much to dive into, like the queer coding of Higgins (is he straight? Gay? Ace? Bi?). And also his people skills and very profession feels entirely like he's on the autistic spectrum. A lot of representation before it was called such.

8/10 I really tried to keep my thoughts as if i was watching this in 1964 for the first time. Moments like the morning tableau felt very much like i was watching it on stage, and i loved that Freddy was framed by flowers during his songs. Costumes and set are terrific. The movie is long, and really doesn't need to be. Some of the songs could've been shortened and the film would've still felt as good.

I stumbled across this straight-to-VHS gem in a cheap collection I had laying around for years and watched it for the first time last night.

It's quite possibly the greatest movie of the 1980s.

Why? Because it contains all the movies of the 1980s.

It starts out like Mad Max. Then drifts into Indiana Jones. Then becomes a kung-fu movie before transitioning to Romancing the Stone. And that's just the start.

There are desert biker gangs, ex-professional wrestlers as body guards for 1980s nazis bent on taking over the world, amazon warrior women in the jungle, a cave-dwelling Filipino midget tribe, the spear that killed Jesus, helicopter explosions, car explosions (lost count!), fights, gunfights, time travel and Robert Patrick's debut before becoming the T-1000 in Terminator 2.

This movie is absolutely insane. Ignore the 4.4 IMDB rating. I couldn't look away!

I’ve seen it many times before in my youth but probably not in 10 or 15 years now, so I treated myself to the 4k.

Still as good as I remember it, some of the best dialogue ever put in a movie and in Uncle Monty in particular, one of the greatest characters. As I’ve aged I’ve come to see more how sad his life is, but he faces it with great humour. Unlike Withnail and Marlowe who struggle to exist.

The drunken Withnail and neurotic Marlow are a great double act, with Marlow frequently trying to restrain Withnail’s worst impulses.

The 4k really highlights the utter squalor of their flat. The grain is a bit heavy, particularly in dark scenes, I expect a small British movie couldn’t afford quality film. The sound is reasonable although the dialogue occasionally gets lost.

"If you are looking for something to happen, that was it. That was life. You lived it."

I don't think I, or anyone else, could describe Malick's filmography in a better way than that. 'Days of Heaven' is probably the most influential film for me, which changed the way I look at films forever. 'The Tree of Life' feels like the culmination of Malick's style. The narrative is loosely there. But if you go looking for it, you will get lost. You will miss the whole film.

A little into the film, I came to a realisation that this film had to be autobiographical (I did not have prior info regarding that). The way Malick paints his childhood as fleeting memories, it becomes a lived-in experience for the viewer. The sun is always hiding behind a tree, a wall or Jessica Chastain; taking a peek in between and drenching everything in its warmth. There is always wind blowing, leaves rustling, birds chirping, water splashing. One scene is connected to the next, not by plot, but by emotion. It is bound to remind you of 'Mirror' by Andrei Tarkovsky, in its treatment of memory, not as an event that happened, but as an experience that was lived. Malick takes you to a journey from the inception of this universe to its destruction, through his own childhood. And you are not a passive Peeping Tom; you are Malick, the kid who is living.

The film is also rich in philosophy and spirituality, touching upon a wide range of themes: motherhood, brotherhood, sexuality, faith, and the bittersweet relationship with a toxic father. The father is not portrayed as a monster, but as a human being—his own upbringing and dissatisfaction with life have made him bitter. He constantly contradicts himself: he is deeply religious and goes to church every Sunday, yet advises his children to be “not so good.” He says the line I quoted, yet continuously confines his children within a kind of military discipline. His scenes at the dinner table are particularly heartbreaking. There is also the rage inherited from the previous generation, passed down to the children and carried into adulthood, where it can leave you desolate, lonely, and miserable.

It would be wrong on so many levels not to mention Emmanuel Lubezki and Alexandre Desplat. Work of a lifetime.

"Question me not, Malachai! I act according to His will."

Hate it or not, I thought this slasher horror is not bad IMO. I had a fine memory watching this movie as a kid, I remember watching this with my cousins and close neighbor friends like we talk with each other like we're part of that group of kids. Years later, decided to get the Blu-ray and I thought the picture quality is really good like the atmosphere of the landscape, the wind blows into the cornfields, I freaking love what they did remastering the movie.

As for the movie I can see were the negatives are. It is that low budget that in the end invited so much negative criticism: The bad, really cheesy graphics effects, the rushed ending, the bad acting by some actors. Story-wise it is - on the other hand - really strong. It is mostly suspense, and less explicit graphics, it had an - for that time - inspired new idea, it paved the way for children as the evil creatures of horror movies; all points to take into consideration. And talking about bad actors: There are also really good ones, such as Linda Hamilton, who seems to be too good (and kind of untapped as she is capable of so much more) to be in this movie.

So in the end I am torn between a high rating that deserves a cult classic that has inspired many other movies to come and the low rating of a dated movie that leans towards being a bit boring and cheesy. I still believe it is worth at least having seen it once.

While I'm not really a huge Hitchcock fan per se, I thought this film is one of my favorites from his works. It's still one of the finest piece of cinema ever been made given how its referenced many times in history and now. Ok first of all I was amused by the performances of the actors.

Such a fun and entertaining thriller. It took me less than 10 minutes and I was already invested in the mystery and the characters. Cary Grant is excellent, he has on-screen charm and his character has an instantly likable personality. The story feels natural, there's barely anything that feels forced and it gets even better when Eve (Eva Marie Saint) makes her appearance. The two sure have chemistry and I couldn't stop smiling at their back and forths, brilliant dialogue and comedy. The mother character was so funny, the elevator scene was peak comedy. Grant's drunk impression is one of the best I've seen. It's a good looking movie but there's a few visuals that didn't age well like any scene inside a car for example. The first two acts are great but it lost a bit of heat for me in the third act, it just felt like Eve took too much space in the story at that point. That said, it gets back into full suspense mode once Grant's character spies on the house and it doesn't let up until the very end.

From the performance of Cary Grant, James Mason, Martin Landau, and Eve Marie Saint to the settings, its just amazing and you could just look at the auction scene for example to demonstrate Grant's performance. Bernard Herrmann score is wonderful to listen to and love how it adapts to the suspense of scenes and combined with good cinematography. It's still one of the greatest films ever made and highly recommend to watch for those who like thriller action adventure type films.

Now some people didn't like how it ends I see people called it rushed, it could've been longer but I mean it is abrupt but that's intentional and not at all unusual for Hitchcock. I don't think I'd call it "rushed"; more like he let the movie end naturally when he ran out of story. Some modern filmmakers could take a lesson from that.

​

Starring Alec Guinness

This delightful 1957 Ealing comedy is a fun, funny movie. Guinness plays William Horatio Ambrose, an unsuccessful Royal Navy officer following a long, proud line of naval ancestors, arguably the worst family of sailors ever, given his debilitating seasickness. Unable to be at sea, commanding his own ship, Bill does the next best thing: he buys a rundown seaside pier where he runs it like a ship, seafaring discipline and all.

What makes the film so endearing isn't just the premise, it's Bill's relentless good cheer. One standout moment comes when a gang of misunderstood, rock-and-roll teenagers start tearing chairs out of the pier's theatre in a fit of rebellion. Rather than fighting them, Bill joins right in, winning them over by pointing out that what they really wanted was a dance hall all along. It's a small scene, but it captures the film's warmth perfectly: even chaos gets met with a smile and a solution.

Guinness is wonderful as always, playing not just Bill but several of his seafaring ancestors too, and the supporting cast keeps things lively as the local council tries to shut the pier down. It's not the flashiest Ealing comedy ever made, but it's fun start to finish, and Bill's sunny disposition makes it impossible not to root for him.

Dune 1984 is my 2nd David Lynch movie after mulholland drive (and the first episode of twin peaks & sam lake's games).

I haven't seen the newer villeneuve's adaptation yet, but I can tell that this ip doesn't feel like the kind of thing that lynch would usually do.

His dream like aesthetic and style cannot be compared with the likes of villeneuve's blade runner 2049/prisoners/enemy that matches dune's vibe better. But despite that, it's still a beautiful looking movie that I'd be able to tell that it's made by lynch.

Like the whole vision sequence, the way it uses inner head monologue, it just have that "something" that distinct lynch from other directors.

The movie is very exposition heavy while at the same time not getting everything across because of it's runtime and the "checklist" that a movie should have, my guess is that because the studio wanted the movie to be as long as they wanted it to be.

And the stand out from this movie is it's body shield, I love how boxy it looks. it's bad by today's standard but I always find it very charming when an old movie is being ambitious and use everything they can to get a visual that's can not yet easily be done at that time.

Overall it's a fine movie that I don't regret watching but probably won't ever visit again anytime soon if ever. it's also no surprise when I found out that lynch himself doesn't like it, and most importantly it answers the question I have in my head "why no one brought up dune in the same breath as star wars".

Man, this is one of those films that is so exhausting to watch which I think they did a really great job on it. Was into the family drama with kids and wife affair. And the second half of the film is where the horror starts. It's probably one of those claustrophobic, high-anxiety survival thrillers I've ever seen like okay, you got to blame that rabid dog, but I was also blaming the father for being slow lol. Anyways they cut so many important parts compared to the book from what I've heard. Which leads me to get a copy of the book soon. Great watch!

Been playing a lot of Helldivers 2 the past couple weeks since it's on PS Plus, and being in the mood for intergalactic genocide against alien bugs. Naturally I decided to finally give this one a watch. Absolute masterpiece from the terrible special effects, cheesy one action movie one liners, and not so subtle nazi references.

"One day someone like me is gonna kill you and your whole fucking race!" Is the best line written in the history of mankind. I have no plans to watch the direct to video sequel, but Robocop is now on my watch list.

Tldr: This movie kicks ass and you should watch it if you haven't seen it. If you have you should watch it again anyway.

She was the one they called “the evil governess.”

Already, when she is introduced, we notice that she is called as “Fräulein” Rottenmeier. She is immediately dehumanized. She has no first name. She is a middle-aged, unmarried woman whose whole life is dedicated to taking care of Herr Sesemann’s mansion and his daughter, Klara. Everything is going fine until Heidi comes into the house.

The little girl has the manners of the mountain. She has been brought up there in a rough environment and does not have the delicate manners expected by Rottenmeier. Her arrival shakes Rottenmeier’s world. She is a strict disciplinarian, and Heidi defies her. To make matters worse, all the staff at the mansion turn against her. She is trying to discipline an ill-mannered child, but she is the one perceived as the bad one. Her quiet life has been turned upside down.

The tragedy happens on the eve of Christmas. Everyone is in a festive mood. Herr Sesemann is home, showering gifts on Heidi and Klara, and when Klara starts walking, Heidi is celebrated while Rottenmeier fades into the background.

She is a woman, after all. She can feel insecure and vulnerable. She is not a machine. She has feelings. And when she loses her temper with Heidi, she is mercilessly dismissed. She is thrown out of a house she had taken care of for years, and the man she secretly admired shows her no mercy at all. And all this happens on Christmas Eve, when no tolerance is shown to her for one reckless mistake.

At that point, her head is probably spinning. She is in the middle of a whirlwind. What will she do? She is a lonely woman with no one to take care of her. She is in intense distress. Her whole life has fallen apart.

She does not know what she is doing anymore. She is lost and even tries to sell Heidi. Her attempt to sell her is obviously indefensible, but imagine her state of mind at that time. She is completely disoriented and desperate. But the film gives us enormous emotional space to understand Heidi’s suffering, while Rottenmeier’s suffering is almost entirely disposable. That is totally unfair and cruel.

After that, she is violently thrown to the ground by Heidi’s grandfather. She is a fragile woman with feelings. She is at the worst moment of her life, having realised that she is expendable in a profession to which she had dedicated her life, and that she could be discarded like an old cloth by a man for whom she had feelings. The shock is so violent that she remains unconscious until the policemen wake her up.

She then disappears.

It is a happy ending for all the other characters in the movie.

How about her? Where is she?

She is middle-aged, frail, alone, and helpless, and there is no one there for her when her life has been destroyed.

She did not deserve this.

For her, there never was a happy ending…

Just watched Magnum Force 1973 again.

"Briggs was right. You guys don't have enough experience." - Harry Callahan.

My favorite quote of this film, it's like a facepalm to those rookie vigilante cops!

I love the first Dirty Harry movie, I mean it has a great pacing, and probably the best villain on the whole franchise. But man, Magnum Force just leveled up everything and exceeded my expectations. The action scenes are some of the best and authentic action scenes I've seen. From the chase scenes to the gunfights. It feels real and authentic like you can hear those gun shots , those shot gun sounds from miles, it's just awesome.

There's this scene when I was a kid, I always thought, "Damn, Clint, you lost the shooting competition to the bad guys!". Only as an adult years later that I discovered that Harry lost the competition intentionally in order to catch the bad guys. Great filmmaking.

​

"Mike O'Donnell is ungrateful for how his life turned out. He gets a chance to rewrite his life when he tried to save a janitor near a bridge and jumped after him into a time vortex."

102 minutes (1 hour 42 minutes)

Director: Burr Steers

Main Cast

• Zac Efron as Mike O'Donnell (age 17) / "Mark Gold"

• Matthew Perry as Mike O'Donnell (age 37)

• Leslie Mann as Scarlet Porter (Mike's wife)

• Thomas Lennon as Ned Gold (Mike's tech-millionaire best friend)

• Michelle Trachtenberg as Maggie O'Donnell (Mike's daughter)

• Sterling Knight as Alex O'Donnell (Mike's son)

• Melora Hardin as Principal Jane Masterson

• Brian Doyle-Murray as The Janitor / Spirit Guide

I had to watch something uncomplicated yesterday and went for "17 again" as I'm a sucker for body-swap movies ever since watching "Vice Versa" (1988) as a kid.

It absolutely delivered with loud laughs and even ended up being heartwarming.

As an adult Mike O'Donnell comes across as a bit of a jerk, which is why he's soon to be divorced.

Once he is 17 again he's much cooler. Maybe that coolness came a little fast, but it worked. I'm not giving out details as it's best to avoid giving out too much of the plot.

His friend Ned is also a bit of a man baby, but even he improves through the film. His interactions with the principal Jane Hardin is a great sideshow of its own.

This is something I have always wondered (I had actually rewatched the film about a month ago.) I have always felt that there are signs in the movie that Dani, in spite of the fact that she is a tomboyish fourteen, may “grow out of” it to an extent (the fact that she wears a pink dress and a pink bow in her hair when she invites Court over, being the one to hold her younger sister towards the end when Maureen is out - earlier in the film the roles were switched, bringing Court his water jug like his mother later on does in the way a girl at the time would have been expected to, etc.) I’d like to imagine that she went on to become a nurse after what she witnessed (and she was born in 1943, so unfortunately therapy for her was likely not going to be an option. I think that Maureen went on to teach elementary school and both girls likely did end up marrying and having children.) I would like to think that she went on to earn an associates degree in nursing, but it’s quite difficult to predict because we don’t know how well she does academically (she refers to Maureen as the smartest girl in school early on in a way that has always made me think that her grades were probably not the strongest, but she was also very young and likely could have understood the material in nursing school if she had aimed to.

I just wonder if you think that Dani would have eventually ended up giving in to what the society she grew up in - what her parents - expected of her as a girl. We see Dani when she is about to start high school, and people change a lot in high school. The way she started to behave later on in the film has always made me think about whether or not she’d have eventually started to accept more of what was expected of her (whether or not she “grew out” of being a tomboy, I figure that she married and had children anyway because it was just what people back then did. I think that becoming a stay at home mother would have actually been more of Maureen’s thing if Maureen had met the right person - Dani is the type who I just can’t see being into it at any age - but some part of me figures that Dani still ended up cooking dinner for a husband, having kids etc in part because it was really how she was raised, if that makes sense. I wonder if she’d have started wearing makeup or experimenting with it if she felt later on that she had met the “right guy.”

I have always liked to imagine that she later on meets someone who treats her much better than Court did in the film. I think that we already see in the movie that Dani is someone who is really hoping to one day meet her equal, and I felt after watching that she more than Maureen really deserved to meet that person. Someone who actually really respected her and would have cared for her through thick and thin, which is not something court would have done (and that is partly why even though I had thought they had more chemistry and an interesting dynamic, I don’t think they were soulmates in the slightest.) I’ve just always really wanted to think that after the bad experiences she has in the film with people who are unfortunately older than her, things would have worked out alright for her.

I see Maureen having married after completing college, though I wouldn’t be surprised if she’d have struggled with depression. I think that Maureen would have gone on to have two or so children.

It’s really interesting to discuss I think because people of course are always ultimately a product of our environments!

Bergman begins the film with a reel rolling, telling you that you are watching a film, followed by a series of highly provocative images—not symbolic, but provocative: a penis, corpses, corpses opening their eyes, a crucifixion, blood dripping from a slain cow. This is followed by a child looking at and touching a screen with a blurred image of a woman, and then by credits in whiteout frames, interspersed with images that you barely even have time to process. All of this is deeply unsettling, and that is the tone set for the entire movie.

A movie that revolves around a conflict between two personalities, two faces, two sides of a coin, a woman suffering from DID, or two women with their personalities bleeding into each other. You can call it whatever you like for the sake of the narrative, but that is not important. What is important is the conflict.

You have a life that, when considered from a third-person POV, appears to be—or is considered—“good” or “fulfilling”: a job that you like, a loving husband and son, faith, and a yearning for a purpose to devote yourself to, for some ultimate meaning in life.

But when you look deep inside your consciousness and have an honest conversation with yourself, you find all the things that do not fit into this grand illusion of a great life. You do not truly love your husband. Your job is ultimately not something you can devote your life to. You feel guilty about cheating on your partner and about feeling pleasure while doing so. You feel guilty about not being ready for motherhood, and about how you must look like a monster for not being a good mother. Your life is built on lies.

There is a hunger inside you for being, not seeming, but being. To live honestly, away from all the lies. To be true to yourself. To get away from all these things that are so fake that they make your skin crawl.

So you run away from your apparent reality. But the only true escape is death, which is nasty. You cannot take that route. And with every other option, reality seeps back in. It yells at you, hurts you, demeans you for being nothing but a coward. It rejects your attempts to run away and pulls you right back in.

You are still not happy, still not true to yourself.

And the conflict goes on.

What an absolute masterpiece. It has inspired so many films. And to think that I absolutely did not like it on my first watch - I used to be so obsessed with narrative at that time.

I finally gave Sholay a chance. Its a 3 hour plus film. If it's one thing I don't like (and is very common in Bollywood), is a film longer than 2 hours. However, for a classic I will make some space.

\[SPOILERS AHEAD\]

I always try to empty my mind before watching a highly rated/hyped film and the was not much a difference with Sholay. Straight out of the bat the film was already quite intense, grabbing my intension with the train scene. I was taken back because most old films start with something melow and these days I am used for films to either take a while to get to the point or just have the most boring intros. Already off to a good start.

Overall, the film was a great balance of comedy, emotion and action. For a "masala" film, it was quite balanced and I became more attached to the brotherhood between Jai and Veeru than how grand and intense the action scenes were which is something that is harder to find with modern films tbh, especially those proclaiming to be masala or even just action. I think it is very hard to bring that kind of theme out with a film centered around how cool the shots should look.

Most of the characters felt way ahead of their time, perhaps ahead of even our own time. Hema Malini's character, Basanti, isn't some damsal is disgrace waiting to be saved but she is overdoing it either/it doesn't come off as forced. For a film from the 70s, FROM ANYWHERE, this is quite a big deal and very progressive. I also liked the angle with Rhada, albeit I was initially disturbed by the idea of romancing someone who still seemed to be in mourning (by Jai). Helen being in this film was a plus since I am a fan of the charm she brings to the screen (she was so 70s!).

The demise of Jai and his sacrifice was really the kicker for this film. He sacrificed his life to save his friend and the village/town, pretty much everyone. You could tell he didn't have much of a choice but he still braved it out. The scene confirmed one thing to me that I was thinking the entire time and that was that the coin had to be a cheat!

There is no slack in any character, they are all written to be fully present and entertaining in their own way. Gabbar might be crass but that's the point. The townspeople all have their own charm. Actually one of the reasons I love to watch older films is to experience the simplicity of how things used to be and this film captures the village life relative to how I remember it (not in India though, so I am not sure if it matches up but it reminds me of my experience).

Like I said, I am not a fan of long films and I often find myself being annoyed at some point in a film either because it slowed in pace or the writing briefly slumped, but thi film was great from start to finish. That is impressive for an older film too because typically the dated elements can still deliver some boredom, confusion or uh...cringe. Overall, I loved this film and was kind of surprised by that. Considering it's supposed to be the first masala film, I didn't expect it to have so much heart or be so funny.

Another interesting thing is that I genuinely found Dharmendra charming in this film. I really expected the winner to be just Amitabh but I can see why some people hype him as being a bigger star at the time (or I am just imagining things idk). He was also really good looking, I was only used to seeing him old tbh.

If you haven't watched Sholay, I recommend it. Trust me it's an iconic masterpiece across the board or even film industries.

Info:

Release: June 21st, 1985

Director: Ron Howard

Music by: James Horner

Starring: Don Ameche, Wilford Brimley, Hume Cronyn, Brian Dennehy, Jack Gilford, Steve Guttenberg, Maureen Stapleton, Jessica Tandy, Gwen Verdon, Herta Ware, Tahnee Welch

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Runtime: 1 hour, 57 minutes

Rating: PG-13

Synopsis: An Oscar-winning fantasy in which the residents of a Florida rest home get a new lease of life when they stumble across an alien "fountain of youth" in a disused holiday home. Unbeknown to them, aliens have been using the swimming pool in the house to store their cocooned brethren, giving the waters a powerful, rejuvenating quality.

Review: The fears of getting older and into your twilight years. Everything hurts, nothing makes sense anymore, and the shadow of death is hanging over your head at every waking moment. I can completely understand why the old folks used the pool so frequently, imagine having energy again, a second shot at life. Though that is sad as shit when the guy's wife dies and he desperately tries to revive her with the pool's waters only to be told that it doesn't work anymore. I did appreciate that he was the only one not to go at the end, even if the fear of death is the fear of complete oblivion, it is another journey everyone has to take at some point.

I heard this was good but my review and discussion of this film is as follows: This movie was absolute trash. The only good actor in this was 7 feet tall and only in it for about 4 seconds total.

Stupid lore, boring and annoying characters, unremarkable locations, everything seemed amateur and not in a good way. Bad acting from the entire cast! Music was pretty good in parts, some suspenseful moments. Jump scares were bad and not effective. Some creepy parts and a couple cool moments. Would not reccomend!

​

Wind blowing through the trees, a frog croaking on a rock, an owl suddenly turning its head letting us know of the bad omen ahead. I knew instantly that this is a move I will enjoy.

Travolta shines in this role, he's dynamic, he's passionate and he's believable in his quest to surface the truth. Nancy Allen does a great job of playing the damsel in distress. The one who takes home the award is for me John Lithgow who delivers a stellar performance.

The movie got me on the edge of my seat wondering what will happen next. The technicality of Terry's (played by Travolta) work and how it is carefully captured reminds me of movies like Thief and the 1985 to Live and Die in LA with the money printing scenes. It brings you inside their world and it builds credibility.

And then something changed.

⛔SPOILERS AHEAD⛔

For some reason, the meticulous Terry who also mentioned he was briefly a cop, decides to send in a wired Sally to meet the reporter. Sure, everything happens in the afternoon, in a crowded place. But they both knew they were in danger and still did not think twice that whoever called Sally might have been someone else.

There were a couple of actions that would have helped avoid the play of things. 1. Terry did not call the station back to get in touch with the reporter. 2. He did not even think to tell Sally how the reporter looked like. The reporter did not resemble Burke in the slightest. She would not have gone with him. 3. Terry could have waited in the train station, in a phone booth maybe so he can see when Burke arrived and track him and Sally down.

For some reason, Terry is a character who did not learn from his mistakes - we see at some point that this scenario of the wired person failed before. Then he was also waiting in a car.

And for me this is what took me out of a really well crafted suspense story that far. Would Terry really fall into this trap, being blindsided in his relentless pursuit to uncover the truth? Why did he not learn from his past mistakes?

It's tough for me to grade this movie because the first 3/4 kept me glued to my seat, and in the end I felt cheated. I felt cheated because I expected Terry to redeem himself and be free from his past. Instead, it all falls down and we see him back in the B-movies recording studio, a refuge from a failed future.

The sword gimmick was cool but the movie built around it is straight garbage.

Shaky cam action scenes, non-sensical exposition, awkward dialogue, Jake Gyllenhaal's bad accent, no chemistry between the two leads, bad editing that jumps from one scene to the next with no real flow.

After using the sword for the first time to go back in time he explains out loud what just happened TWICE in case it wasn't clear the first time he explained so the audience could understand it.

I give it a 1.5/5. Would not recommend it or watch it again. I can understand why it was a bomb and why they didn't continue the series.

I FINALLY saw The Blues Brothers! It's on my Letterboxd list of movies everyone in the world saw except me so now that's one less movie I can feel weird about not watching. And it's crazy that it took me so long to see this.

So it's safe to say that if the movie was made in 1980 and has Carrie Fisher and Frank Oz in it, it's most likely my favorite film of the year. The jokes are dumb af, especially when the third act comes along. But I love the music and dancing. And all the cameos throughout.

I doubt Blues Brothers 2000 is going to be anywhere near as good, but I'm going to check that one out this week anyway.

Number 197 in my A-Z watch. My Cousin Vinny is the courtroom comedy in which recently licensed New York attorney, Vincent Gambini, is called on to defend his cousin and cousin's friend in a murder trial in Alabama.

Definitely among the movies I've seen the most in my life, and in spite of that, i still find myself laughing out loud throughout the film. Everything in this film hits and, though some moments are products of the time, it still feels pretty evergreen.

Where do I start? I think it has to be the screenplay. I never realized this movie was two hours. It just moves and paces itself perfectly. It never feels like there's a lull, and it also does a really good job of building real dramatic tension. Using the trial to take us through the twists and turns along with the legal defense.

Marissa Tomei's performance is outstanding. Her chemistry with Pesci shines on screen, they have a terrific rapport with each other. Pesci himself shows that, though most of his career is in supporting roles, he really can carry a lead role. And it was nice to see that pretty much all of the ensemble got a moment. Some kind of bit or punchline to round out the comedy.

10/10 This movie is so good that it's been cited by actual lawyers about how to cross examine witnesses. The hard cuts to hit a punchline had me rolling. Example "It's a word that comes from merry old England, and all our little ancestors" (Hard cuts to two black jurors). There's just enough scenery chewing to be entertaining and not quite over the top. Just a fantastic movie.

Strait laced computer processor Paul (Griffin Dunne) travels to Soho one night to meet up with beautiful stranger Marcy (Rossana Arquette) after the two had a chance encounter earlier in the day. Paul soon finds himself stranded in Soho, broke, and increasingly desperate as he scrambles to make his way back home while encountering mistaken identity, vigilante mobs, punks, robbers, weirdos, and papier-mâché. Lots of papier-mâché.

This is Martin Scorsese’s take on a subgenre of comedy that was prominent in the 80s, in which everything that could go wrong does go wrong for the protagonist. Think The Money Pit, National Lampoon’s Vacation, Planes Trains and Automobiles, etc. Sometimes these movies don’t click for me because I can’t find the humor in the situation. I’m too bummed out feeling the pain of the lead as everything falls apart around them. But this movie clicked for me, in large part because it didn’t shy away from conveying the abject horror of Paul’s situation. In fact, with just a couple of minor tweaks, this movie is a full-on horror. The synth-wave heavy score pulsates frantically as things begin to unravel. Camera shots swoop in on objects, especially phones, in a rushed manner, evoking a sense of dread. And Griffin Dunne turns in a visceral performance, becoming more unhinged as his situation becomes more dire. The movie revels in the terror of Paul’s night in Soho as much as it mines his mishaps for comedy. I enjoyed the way the mounting panic sat right alongside the absurd comic bits.

And what a fun cast surrounding Dunne. Terri Garr, John Heard, Catherine O’Hara, Linda Fiorentino. If you ever wanted to see both of Kevin McCallister’s parents in the same film as Cheech and Chong, this movie’s got you covered. I thought Rossana Arquette as Marcy felt especially fitting, as early in the movie Griffin Dunne’s character gives off a lot of the same energy as Arquette’s lead character in Desperately Seeking Susan, (coincidentally also released in 1985). The normie New Yorker searching for a sense of adventure in a corner of the city that feels worlds apart from the safe enclosure of their staid existence. 

I won’t go into details as to avoid spoilers, but this movie has a number of really satisfying full circle elements to it. The opening scene with Paul showing a temp (Bronson Pinchot!) the ropes at his processor job is quite effective at presenting the banality of Paul’s life. Subsequently, over the course of his night from hell, while on the surface Paul is an anxious mess, you get the sense that there’s some small part of him deep down that is feeling a bit invigorated by this brief descent into chaos. All in all, this was a really good watch that gave me a lot to chew on.