 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
6.25/10
A series of short stories, some very slight, set in the old west. Some great actors in this that really carry you through. It felt a little lengthy.
There's a lot of distractingly poor cgi sprinkled through it znd the general look of the cinematography takes the majesty of nature out of the outdoor scenes. The first shot of Tim Blake Nelson in particular is awful-looking.
It's just okay, not great. Worth a watch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Extinction
2/10
A very bland and dull Netflix sci-fi film that wastes a couple of decent actors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEVER LOOK AWAY (2018) - 8/10
THANKS FOR THE HEADS UP, bOB. wILL BE LOOKING FOR THIS ON DVD!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE OKLAHOMAN
1957
Western starring Joel mcCrae as a town doctor defending an indian's ranch against a local villain keen to push them out so he can get access to the oil on their land. McCrea delivers with his usual confidence, and turns out he knew how to shoot before he became a doc!
6.8 out of ten.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 23, 2018 - 7:52 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Bob DiMucci
(Member)
|
THE EYES OF ORSON WELLES (2018) - 9/10
From his youth, Orson Welles was always a visual artist--sketching, drawing and painting whenever he had the opportunity. Irish documentary filmmaker Mark Cousins was provided a box of Welles's unseen sketches, drawings and paintings by his daughter Beatrice Welles-Smith. Using these as a starting point, Cousins has created a documentary that does not look at Orson Welles, but rather looks at how he viewed the world through his art and his films.
Cousins tells his story through a series of missives--‘Dear Orson’ fan letters that set up a series of observations and rhetorical questions that range from the witty to the whimsical, as Cousins travels from Welles’ childhood home in Kenosha through the scenes of his early success first in Dublin, then on Broadway and in Hollywood, to his later wandering in Europe. In one segment, Cousins even has Orson replying and happily confirming Mark to be mostly right. Cousins has written, directed, and narrated one of the most unique and entertaining documentaries on Welles that you will ever see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn, I love Orson Welles docos but find Mark Cousins absolutely nauseating. I'm sure it's good, I just hate Cousins' voice znd personality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn, I love Orson Welles docos but find Mark Cousins absolutely nauseating. I'm sure it's good, I just hate Cousins' voice and personality.
This is not the film for you, then, as it is imbued with Cousins' personality. I, on the other hand, found him quite engaging, in this, my first exposure to him.
Bob, you might like some past interviews he did with Martin Scorsese and others. I can't remember the series name but he interviewed a few famous actors and directors if i recall. Probably on his wiki page or youtube. They're probably 15 to 20 years old at this point now.
oh, i had a check, here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B21xaf1zIU&list=PLfSCX-qKxOmd5YoHk8NVo_oAM11Fc0pcS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 24, 2018 - 8:45 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Bob DiMucci
(Member)
|
SAUVAGE (2018) - 6/10
"Léo" (Félix Maritaud) is a scruffy 22-year-old gay sex worker with a slight, muscular build. He plies his trade in Strasbourg in a park with little traffic, alongside a diverse group of young streetwalkers, waiting by the roadside. Early on, Léo is paid to participate in a three-way involving a john in a wheelchair and "Ahd" (Éric Bernard), who, though he has sex with men and is willing to be taken care of by a sugar daddy, violently insists that he is not gay.
This is writer-director Camille Vidal-Naquet's first feature, and he struggles to create characters that have any depth beyond their outward actions. For example, for someone who has been living on the streets for some time, Léo lacks street smarts and finds himself in situations where he has no control. His only apparent motivation is to get high on hash or crack cocaine, and he never expresses a concern about money or what he has to do to earn it.
SAUVAGE takes you into a world that is as depressing as its subject matter suggests. It's not for all tastes, and I could have happily done without it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 25, 2018 - 1:44 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tall Guy
(Member)
|
The Incredibles II - 7.5/10
The original is a real favourite, yet when the sequel hit the cinema, we didn’t have the enthusiasm about seeing it; partly because our kids are grown up now where they were target audience in 2004, but also because the first one was soooooo good that it was perfectly self-contained.
For me as well, the obvious things that a sequel would pick up on - The Underminer, Jack-Jack, Vi’s relationship with Tony - were aspects that I wasn’t particularly bothered about in the original.
That said, the things I really liked about the first film - Edna, the score, the loving but complicated relationship between Bob and Helen put under strain by the internal family politics caused by both being super - were there in spades too.
Michael Giacchino’s score seemed pretty much constant, which is fine by me. The return of some existing themes and the emergence of new ones was very pleasing. Another giant of an end credit sequence allows a bit of muscle-flexing. Good enough for an Oscar nod? Does reusing themes count against you now? Let’s see.
There’s some really good animation work, especially in the portrayal of water, and I’m looking forward to seeing the extras to find if they’ve included much technical stuff.
Overall, pretty much as I expected, with a slight feeling of deja vu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fateful Findings
0.5/10 or 8/10
A Neil Breen film. Breen is incompetent at all levels of filmmaking but he's also unaware of it, which makes for a good bad movie.
Fun with a few mates but probably unwatchably bad on your own (not really, i did watch it on my own and was staggered by how wrong everything was wrong in it to the point that i had to share it).
When Breen is hit by a car and goes to hospital it's obvious that his fully carpeted hospital room is the same room as his home office, which you will spend a lot of time seeing.
The best bit of writing is probably when Breen cradles his friend's dead body - inexplicably covering himself almost entirely in blood - and says "Jim, this isn't like you".
It also has the funniest credits since a Naked Gun film.
Trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRI2Izu8Od0
Best bits:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-fYWAwc8Q0
Ryan's Babe
1.5/10 or 9/10
Another awful film that's great in a group. Especially if yer watching it was people from Saskatchewan. Especially when they've never heard of it but see people they know in the film.
I had to see this as it was made in Saskatoon in 2000. The plot makes absolutely no sense. You aren't even made aware of how much time has elapsed in it. Could be a week, could be a year. It was filmed without sound, and they obviously couldn't afford or be bothered to do every sound effect. They also dub a man talking who says his line and the line of somebody offscreen replying to him, none of which is in synch. In parts it is astonishingly inept but certainly more professional than the Breen film on every level (maybe even sound recording, even though it was filmed without sound).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Silent Running
2.5/10
Bruce Dern is very watchable. The idea isn't bad. I liked some of the interiors and the score was pleasing.
But it's just a whole lot of nothing. it takes forever to get going. It sort of meanders through then ends with a whimper. None of the characters, not even Dern, are fleshed out or likeable. The death scenes are botched and have zero impact.
There are many out of focus shots. Model spaceships have never looked more like models (apparently the ship was 25 feet long in real life but it doesn't carry that grandeur on screen) and the paintings or rear projection look really, really terrible. I don't know whether it was that they were badly made models or more that they were just badly shot. (The big names involved in the effects are the finest, so i assume it was budget and time that hampered the results).
What was interesting was the commentary. And though it didn't change my mind about the film, it did make me appreciate it a little more. About how low budget the film was and how they used the interior of a real aircraft carrier and had to dub lines because of planes going overhead. And it was shot pretty quickly with a director that had no idea about directing, to the point of not knowing what eye-lines were and other basics.
I like the basic idea and wouldn't mind a decent remake of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
