Films I've Watched

Things that are great about this movie: super imaginative and semi-psychedelic animation, a clever and poignant scifi conceit, weirdness galore! And a few weaknesses: meandering, perilously French. Definitely worth a watch.

There’s a lot to admire about this movie — James Mangold does a great job with blocking and composition, there’s great texture and lighting, and, above all, the actors all do a phenomenal job of embodying the figures they portray, musical ability and all. Still, it falls prey to the shapeless narrative and sense of messianic destiny that is so common in biopic films.

We mostly follow Bob Dylan as he is shitty to women and generally a dick to everyone, all while rising meteorically as a voice of a generation (not saying this isn’t an accurate portrayal). And much of the movie consists of him playing his biggest songs while everyone else looks on with the expression of mortals in the presence of the divine. It’s all a bit tired and annoying if I’m honest.

Mickey 17 is a lot of fun—creative, exuberant, and a great class satire (like most of Bong Joon Ho’s films). But it’s overstuffed with plot threads, which don’t all quite come together. Still a very solid watch, but one can’t help but be a little disappointed with it as the followup to the brilliance of Parasite. I’ll certainly think of it as a minor entry in Bong’s canon.

This is not really a movie for me. I just can’t get into a romance of upper-class manners; it’s too foreign to my way of thinking; the invisible shackles of polite society seem too easily broken for me to relate. But it’s a Scorsese movie, so I had to check it out.

And of course Marty does great behind the camera. In fact, a lot of the direction of this film has an experimental edge to it, with strange focus on insert shots, whirling camera moves, and an Altman-esque business to dialog scenes. And also of course, Pfeifer and Day-Lewis are commanding presences on screen who really make you believe in their characters.

I think for the right audience this film could really hit, but that audience just isn’t me.

This is one of those movies I watch every five years or so. For all the political elements of the film, what attracts me is the procedural aspects, just watching two very competent guys meticulously and relentlessly work toward a goal. Add to that the superlative cinematography (which is at least half of the reason I’m here), great performances, and a great sense of naturalism and down-to-earth sensibility. Yes.

The jokes are a bit more hit or miss than some of Brooks’ best films, but there are enough laugh out loud moments to make this thoroughly enjoyable.

Quite unlike anything I’ve ever seen. Paranoid, intense, and yet very controlled. All of which can also be said of Gene Hackman’s brilliant performance.

A bit of an extended Black Mirror story that’s ultimately pretty fun in spite of a generous helping of cheese. Anyway, I always root for a robot.

I’d never seen a Wallace & Gromit movie before, and I found this to be very cute and very English. A nice change of pace from standard American animated fare.

This movie is just so energetic, bursting with life. Not a description you’d usually associate with a character study. But somehow Anora’s exploration of the interpersonal dynamics of power and wealth manages to be an unrestrained joy to watch from beginning to end.

As a cinematic adaptation of a play, this movie does pretty well. The direction, shots, acting, at cetera are all quite competent. But my main issue is with the material itself — Once you figure out the structure the story is going to follow, it becomes incredibly predictable (a cardinal sin in the mystery genre). And worse still it is preachy and hamfisted in its messaging, perhaps among the most on-the-nose social messaging I’ve ever seen in a film. And the dun-dun-duuuunnn twist at the ending is so obvious and so stupid as to be cringe-worthy in the extreme.

Wow, what a movie. I feel like I’ve just been slapped in the face with a neon colored jellyfish. This movie is over the top in all the best ways. It’s disgusting, hilarious, monstrous, and tragic. Great performances. Perfectly hyperbolic direction, and damning satire. Yes, yes, yes.

I’d seen all the films in the Mad Max franchise except for this first entry, so the completionist in me is very happy that I’ve finally taken it in. It’s not a great film, and it certainly doesn’t hold a candle to the other films in the series. But though in many ways it’s a fairly standard late 70s exploitation movie, it shows a level of deftness and visual imagination that hint at the director Miller would go on to become.

Like all Chaplin’s films featuring the character of The Tramp, Modern Times is a masterpiece of physical humor and clever gags. And, even more than his other films, this one has incredible pathos that really makes you feel for the characters, even amid all the silliness. Add to that some really imaginative production design and a social message still relevant a hundred years later, and you have a something really special.

Witty, charming, full of character and class, this is a classic for its perfect watchability.

The script for Conclave is a passable, a fairly rote political drama that doesn’t really yield any interesting questions or insights. But the cinematography and overall directing is good enough that I almost don’t mind. I just hope Edward Berger’s next film will be built atop a screenplay to match his prowess behind the camera.

Compared to Kenneth Brannagh’s extra hammy rendition of Hamlet, this is a masterpiece, with strong visuals, clear reasons for character actions, and a great sense of mood. That said, Olivier had to chop out some of the best parts of the play to get it down to this length, and I miss them. Add to that some very rough edits and the distractingly obvious fact that the actress who plays Gertrude is younger than Olivier as Hamlet her son, and I would say this adaptation is still not quite the perfect cinematic take on Hamlet that I have in my mind.

I didn’t really love the first Todd Philips Joker movie — it seemed to derivative of better Scorsese films and I’d never buy that this character could ever be the Joker. He’s not intelligent or charismatic or funny enough. So I went into this sequel with extremely low expectations, especially given the poor critical performance.

But I was pleasantly surprised. (I’m sure the low expectations helped a lot. I often find that I have an “it’s not that bad” reaction when I expect a terrible film.) It’s a lot more interesting to me than the first film, and less encumbered by the baggage of the first film, less derivative and it’s clear that this is not the same Joker who is Batman’s nemesis. (The ending makes that extremely obvious.) And I think that may be the reason for some of the disappointment of fans and critics: They expected to see some awesome Joker villainy, to see him rising to the status of The Clown Prince of Crime, and instead they got a sad, disturbing relationship study of two disturbed individuals.

Accepting that character focus, the plot beats and the use of music become something worth watching. A great movie? No. But at least an interesting one.

I watched this movie when it first came out, and I remember enjoying it but not much else. But I’ve avoided it for a couple of decades as my Shakespeare fandom has waxed and my tolerance for butchery of his works have waned. But I need not have worried — this movie is certainly silly and light, but it’s clearly for and by Shakespeare lovers. There are a lot of easter eggs and the story is an homage as much as a depiction. And it all started to make sense when the credits rolled and I saw that Tom Stoppard was one of the writers.

What a unique and wonderful film, completely unlike anything I’ve ever seen before and yet entirely realized. I always admire the filmcraft it takes to tell a story without dialog, and that’s compounded here by how well observed and well portrayed the animals are. You just believe them.

The film respects the audience enough to know that not everything (or much of anything in this case) needs to be explained. Even without explanation, it’s emotionally powerful, uplifting, and memorable.

I’d long avoided watching this ur-example of the golden age of westerns because I thought the depiction of Native Americans wouldn’t sit well. But now that I’ve seen it, I realize that they are barely depicted at all. They’re a threat that looms off screen for most of the movie, informing every choice the characters make and building a palpable sense of dread. There’s no discussion of their motivations or whether they might be justified. And when the Apache do attack, it’s a fairly brief and frenetic affair, all galloping horses and gunshots.

It really is a film about the characters in the stagecoach. Each has a flaw. Each has an arc. And they play off of one another beautifully with humor and drama and humanity.

Wild Robot has a lot of heart, and I love a found family story (especially if it has robots). There’s a lot to enjoy about this movie and a lot that works really well.

That said, there’s also a lot that feels unearned and too many plot conveniences. Any not every movie has to have such grand action set pieces. This one would work a little better if they kept the focus on the characters and made sure every action was truly motivated.

A lot of comic strips have been adapted for the big screen, but this is the only one I’ve ever seen that feels exactly like a comic strip. It’s episodic in the extreme, but it’s also charming, unique, and warm hearted.

Duck Soup barely has a plot, the characters are a bit confusing, and a lot of the jokes don’t land. But the jokes that do land are so rib-jostlingly hilarious that it still deserves every accolade it’s ever had.