Films I've Watched

There’s some real haminess and preachiness in this screenplay, some incredibly wooden acting, and an overall tone of extreme melodrama. But there is also some really fantastic filmmaking. Amazing set pieces, some sharp dialog, and assorted sparks of cinematic genius. I’d almost think that I was watching two movies squished together. (Maybe that’s what happened; I haven’t yet read the Wikipedia article.)

Though it’s not the first, The Road Warrior is the ur-example of a Mad Max film. The car chases/battles, the bonkers characters, the wonderfully out-there production and costume design, and Max, the mythical wanderer in the wasteland. Not as spectacular as Fury Road, but there would be no Fury Road without The Road Warrior before it. And all the genius of George Miller is on display here, just with a more modest budget.

The tale that Rocketman tells is a very by-the-numbers music biopic, but it’s elevated beyond the mundane by the creative twists, particularly the musical sequences. And while not all of them are super well executed, there are many that are just fantastic, and the ways they serve the story are spot on. Also, those costumes, those fabulous costumes.

I was old enough when this was released that I can’t count it as core to my experience of the Disney Renaissance, but I’m certainly able to see that it stands up to all my favorites. It really took the animated film to places it had never been (at least in the west, at least in mainstream cinema), with a surprising amount of depth to the characters and an even more surprising darkness (cue burned out village with a child’s doll lying among the ashes, whoo-boy). The songs are great, the arc is incredibly satisfying (is this the most growth we’d seen so far in a Disney ‘princess’?), and the animation of course top notch.

As a lover of the novel, I really appreciate how close the film stays to all the things that make the book great. And I’m going to go so far as to say that Scott — and Damon’s performance — add an emotional core that’s perhaps a little less present in the original. The filmmaking is excellent; great job creating Mars and space, perfect pacing, really clear exposition of quite a lot of realistic science. And the story is just so uplifting without being cloying at all. It’s one of those that feels like home to watch.

I’d heard a lot of fawning buzz about this film, including some already calling it the best picture of the year, and maybe all that hype set me up for disappointment. But I have to say, I found it to mostly be just fine. There’s a long setup of all these characters, but none of them feel particularly real. And then there’s this John Carpenter-esque vampire siege, but without successfully building the tension until you’re sure a single breath could snap it. The vampires are so simple as to be comical.

And, speaking of comical, the spirits-of-the-future-and-past music scene struck me as incredibly misjudged. Cool idea, just visually rediculous in execution. Maybe they shouldn’t have started with the space-funk guy in the gold sunglasses.

The promise of this movie seemed to be that it would use horror to comment on race relations in America, in the vein of Get Out. But I’m not sure I can detect any coherent commentary at all. If there’s any idea there, it seems to be that it’s a mistake for black and white folks to hang out together? Not sure I can get behind that.

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.

I rewatched the full series as a quadrilogy, so I’m going to treat them as a single unit here.

I love The Hunger Games. It’s a YA series (of novels and movies) that is somehow also an absolutely brutal, scathing, and cynical satire of power and entertainment. And while, sure, there are YA tropes like teen love triangles and some goofy world-building elements, the themes and emotional stakes are incredibly adult. I suppose they are to YA what Animal Farm is to children’s talking animal stories.

From a filmmaking perspective, you have to consider the two directors at the helm at different points. And while Francis Lawrence does an admirable job of adding bombast and sheen, I must say I prefer the raw and more visually literate take of Gary Ross on the first film — but, yes, the shaky cam is a bit much. I must also mention that on this watch, what really stood out was the added life brought to the story by the supporting cast. Elizabeth Banks, Philip Seymore Hoffman, Donald Sutherland, and especially, especially Woody Harrelson turn their book counterparts into full human beings with depth and life.

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.