mmm. I really wanna play hooky and go see this tomorrow. Its my bosses own fault for buying me a cinema gift card.
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
mmm. I really wanna play hooky and go see this tomorrow. Its my bosses own fault for buying me a cinema gift card.
The Creator (5/10)
Well this was a letdown.
This movie, to say the least, isn't good. In fact, it almost ended up in "bad" (4/10) territory if not for the ending sequence just putting it over the line. It's an action movie where the action isn't that good, that's interspaced with attempts at intelligence, but really isn't saying anything about anything.
The film takes place in/around 2070, but this is the result of divergence that occurred at some point in the 20th century, where AI/robotics technology took off and didn't stop, to the point that by 2065, robots were integrated into human life seemlessly. The AI in this film is basically divided between "bots" (bi-pedal robots that are obviously robots) and simulants (androids that look and sound human but clearly aren't). Things went awry when in 2065, AI took control of NOMAD (North American Mobile Air Defence - basically a giant warship in low Earth orbit that can rain death anywhere on the planet) and nuked Los Angeles (we later learn what really happened). Thus, the US went techno-phobic and is now waging a war on "New Asia" where humans and AIs live in peace.
If that sounds interesting, good for you. Problem is, none of what I just said really results in payoff. I could give a plot summary but don't have the time or inclination, and really, the plot itself is little to write home about. People have made comments about The Creator being derivative of other works, and while that's undoubtedly true, I feel this criticism is missing the forest for the trees. A derivative work isn't inherently an inferior one, and sci-fi is trope heavy regardless. No, the problem I have is that The Creator doesn't really have anything to say about anything despite its wealth of subject matter.
Is it a film about AI? If so, its message is "AI is like us, deal with it." A bit glib, but it produces nothing new on the subject of AI that hasn't been explored before, and it doesn't even do that compelling a job of exploring it in of itself. Blurred lines between humans and machines, questions about souls, afterlife, etc., yes, it's here, but it's not doing anything new with it. Considering how much of an issue AI is right now, I was a bit surprised to see the film unambiguously have "good" AI with "good" human allies, against "evil" humans (as a side note, there's no moral grey areas in this film - the US is unambiguously the bad guys, New Asia unambiguously the good guys, to the extent that I'm surprised there hasn't been outcry about the film being "woke").
Maybe it isn't about AI then? Daren Mooney has suggested that the film is a Vietnam war analogy, and while I disagree with him on most things, I think he has the right of it...sort of. The film undoubtedly lifts imagery from the Vietnam War (low tech guerilla fighters against high tech American forces) and whatnot, but nothing is here beyond window dressing. There's no comparative scenario to the Vietnam War in ideology, the film has nothing beyond "bad guys are bad guys, good guys fight back." I've seen it suggested that in the film, the US's anti-AI crusade is just a front to invade "New Asia," but if so, there's nothing to suggest that. If the film is meant to be a Vietnam War analogy, again, I don't know what it's trying to say beyond window dressing.
This also extends to the worldbuilding, which makes little sense. It's a weird choice to have the POD in the mid-20th century, but also by the 2070s have a world that could be our own in the future, with little to bridge the divide. And "New Asia" is, as far as I can tell, a conglomeration of states in SE Asia that includes Vietnam, Cambodia, etc., but there's no real info given on it. It has high-tech megacities that clearly answer to a functioning government, with low-tech country regions that look like something from the mid 20th century. How "New Asia" feels about US forces operating unilaterally within its borders is never really explained, nor is there sign of any proper response to it beyond police forces. I'm assuming "New Asia" was chosen in order to be apolitical, to not involve real Asian countries, but if so, it's apolitical to the point of rediculousness because the worldbuilding is so vague.
Is NOMAD an allagory for drone warfare? A US warship firing down from the clouds with impunity? If so, again, it doesn't have anything to say about anything. NOMAD looks cool (heck, most of the military tech looks cool, such as a 'mega tank' that's seen), but again, it's window dressing. Point is, every possible theme I've cited has a better film somewhere else that explores these themes and does so better.
So, fine. Themes are sparse, worldbuilding is silly, what about plot, character, and storytelling. Well, not to spoil anything, but it's nothing special. Special agent Joshua Mitchell falls in love with enemy woman, desparate to get back to her, learns that humans were the monsters all along (or rather America was, whatever), meets kid robot, cue road trip, cue lots (and lots) of shooting (and even more shooting), and yeah, it didn't do much. None of the characters are that compelling, and it's well worn tropes. Basically, every idea in sci-fi was thrown together in a blender, this is what we got.
Not a bad film, but an utter letdown. I'd frankly be astonished if we're even talking about it after one year. Original IPs are great, but they have to be, y'know, GOOD, in order to leave an impression.
Well this was a letdown.
This movie, to say the least, isn't good. In fact, it almost ended up in "bad" (4/10) territory if not for the ending sequence just putting it over the line. It's an action movie where the action isn't that good, that's interspaced with attempts at intelligence, but really isn't saying anything about anything.
The film takes place in/around 2070, but this is the result of divergence that occurred at some point in the 20th century, where AI/robotics technology took off and didn't stop, to the point that by 2065, robots were integrated into human life seemlessly. The AI in this film is basically divided between "bots" (bi-pedal robots that are obviously robots) and simulants (androids that look and sound human but clearly aren't). Things went awry when in 2065, AI took control of NOMAD (North American Mobile Air Defence - basically a giant warship in low Earth orbit that can rain death anywhere on the planet) and nuked Los Angeles (we later learn what really happened). Thus, the US went techno-phobic and is now waging a war on "New Asia" where humans and AIs live in peace.
If that sounds interesting, good for you. Problem is, none of what I just said really results in payoff. I could give a plot summary but don't have the time or inclination, and really, the plot itself is little to write home about. People have made comments about The Creator being derivative of other works, and while that's undoubtedly true, I feel this criticism is missing the forest for the trees. A derivative work isn't inherently an inferior one, and sci-fi is trope heavy regardless. No, the problem I have is that The Creator doesn't really have anything to say about anything despite its wealth of subject matter.
Is it a film about AI? If so, its message is "AI is like us, deal with it." A bit glib, but it produces nothing new on the subject of AI that hasn't been explored before, and it doesn't even do that compelling a job of exploring it in of itself. Blurred lines between humans and machines, questions about souls, afterlife, etc., yes, it's here, but it's not doing anything new with it. Considering how much of an issue AI is right now, I was a bit surprised to see the film unambiguously have "good" AI with "good" human allies, against "evil" humans (as a side note, there's no moral grey areas in this film - the US is unambiguously the bad guys, New Asia unambiguously the good guys, to the extent that I'm surprised there hasn't been outcry about the film being "woke").
Maybe it isn't about AI then? Daren Mooney has suggested that the film is a Vietnam war analogy, and while I disagree with him on most things, I think he has the right of it...sort of. The film undoubtedly lifts imagery from the Vietnam War (low tech guerilla fighters against high tech American forces) and whatnot, but nothing is here beyond window dressing. There's no comparative scenario to the Vietnam War in ideology, the film has nothing beyond "bad guys are bad guys, good guys fight back." I've seen it suggested that in the film, the US's anti-AI crusade is just a front to invade "New Asia," but if so, there's nothing to suggest that. If the film is meant to be a Vietnam War analogy, again, I don't know what it's trying to say beyond window dressing.
This also extends to the worldbuilding, which makes little sense. It's a weird choice to have the POD in the mid-20th century, but also by the 2070s have a world that could be our own in the future, with little to bridge the divide. And "New Asia" is, as far as I can tell, a conglomeration of states in SE Asia that includes Vietnam, Cambodia, etc., but there's no real info given on it. It has high-tech megacities that clearly answer to a functioning government, with low-tech country regions that look like something from the mid 20th century. How "New Asia" feels about US forces operating unilaterally within its borders is never really explained, nor is there sign of any proper response to it beyond police forces. I'm assuming "New Asia" was chosen in order to be apolitical, to not involve real Asian countries, but if so, it's apolitical to the point of rediculousness because the worldbuilding is so vague.
Is NOMAD an allagory for drone warfare? A US warship firing down from the clouds with impunity? If so, again, it doesn't have anything to say about anything. NOMAD looks cool (heck, most of the military tech looks cool, such as a 'mega tank' that's seen), but again, it's window dressing. Point is, every possible theme I've cited has a better film somewhere else that explores these themes and does so better.
So, fine. Themes are sparse, worldbuilding is silly, what about plot, character, and storytelling. Well, not to spoil anything, but it's nothing special. Special agent Joshua Mitchell falls in love with enemy woman, desparate to get back to her, learns that humans were the monsters all along (or rather America was, whatever), meets kid robot, cue road trip, cue lots (and lots) of shooting (and even more shooting), and yeah, it didn't do much. None of the characters are that compelling, and it's well worn tropes. Basically, every idea in sci-fi was thrown together in a blender, this is what we got.
Not a bad film, but an utter letdown. I'd frankly be astonished if we're even talking about it after one year. Original IPs are great, but they have to be, y'know, GOOD, in order to leave an impression.
A ★★★½ review of Scream 3 (2000)
This review may contain spoilers. Visit the page to bypass this warning and read the review.
letterboxd.com
More of a ** for me. After that, I never touched another Scream movie ever again.A ★★★½ review of Scream 3 (2000)
This review may contain spoilers. Visit the page to bypass this warning and read the review.
Bottoms - 6/10
The main problem with the movie is the humor is just rather lazy throughout, and this is squarely a comedy. A lot of the "jokes" are mainly just shock/raunchy humor of girls punching/kicking girls or dudes. I saw it alone, but this would definitely be a solid movie to watch with a group of friends at a hangout. There's a few solid jokes here and there, but they are few and far between. The saving grace of the film is that the characters do mainly work and you do care about them for the most part. Bottoms is basically in the same vibe as 21 Jump Street but just doesn't land the jokes nearly as well, you even have Marshawn Lynch playing basically a poor man's version of Ice Cube in the movie.
The main problem with the movie is the humor is just rather lazy throughout, and this is squarely a comedy. A lot of the "jokes" are mainly just shock/raunchy humor of girls punching/kicking girls or dudes. I saw it alone, but this would definitely be a solid movie to watch with a group of friends at a hangout. There's a few solid jokes here and there, but they are few and far between. The saving grace of the film is that the characters do mainly work and you do care about them for the most part. Bottoms is basically in the same vibe as 21 Jump Street but just doesn't land the jokes nearly as well, you even have Marshawn Lynch playing basically a poor man's version of Ice Cube in the movie.
I didn't either, I watch every movie with the hope it'll be something new that I end up loving. I also go in as blind as I can; I saw one TV spot at BW3s as I never heard of it and then made sure the TV spot just didn't do the thing where it pulls from like 1 or 2 good reviews when everyone else thought it was garbage. I just could never get sucked into the movie I think because it never really focused on a singular theme and just kept pulling in different sci-fi tropes. I was hoping for something somewhat unique like, I don't know, maybe delve deep into the laws of robotics and show the robots were right (about the nuking LA) and the only way in the long run to cause less human harm is causing harm now so it would be commentary/philosophy on human nature and ethics (but the whole nuke thing just ends up being resolved in a single line of dialogue) or maybe have the kid be equally organic/synthetic and be basically a real long con where she can procreate and thus generations and generations later everyone is now part synthetic (ala BSG) thus you can't even have a organic vs synthetic war anymore (that's perfect robot logic). Some of the lines just came off so poorly like the kid saying she wants robots to be free, and I'm like uhh... the robots seem like they are free in new Asia or whatever it is, just because you're being hunted by someone else doesn't mean you ain't free and the line just feels in there for the standard slave robot/AI allegory and nothing else.
The ending did the opposite for me, it basically turned a nice-looking sci-fi movie I just couldn't get invested in into a movie I came to rather hate, I found the last scene with Joshua and "you know who" to be like the most contrived thing ever. I loved the look of everything in the movie and it made the world feel real on the surface but I feel like the movie failed at everything else with regards to world building because when you ask yourself "why?" for anything, it doesn't really make any sense as you mentioned. Why is the US/West just allowed to have military operations in New Asia, wouldn't the fact that New Asia embraced AI/robots mean they would have a stronger force as they should have higher troop numbers then (and easily replaceable) and more advanced tech as well. They couldn't just make a bunch of flying robots attached with bombs to take out Nomad (they seem to like doing that for like everything else already...)? Is New Asia like Japan and not allowed to have a military and that's why the robots are all police? Why is "you know who" and tons others even on Nomad at the end if US/West did away with robots/AI? It would be like Battlestar Gallactic have a room full of cylons on it for some reason.The Creator (5/10)
Well this was a letdown.
This movie, to say the least, isn't good. In fact, it almost ended up in "bad" (4/10) territory if not for the ending sequence just putting it over the line. It's an action movie where the action isn't that good, that's interspaced with attempts at intelligence, but really isn't saying anything about anything.
The film takes place in/around 2070, but this is the result of divergence that occurred at some point in the 20th century, where AI/robotics technology took off and didn't stop, to the point that by 2065, robots were integrated into human life seemlessly. The AI in this film is basically divided between "bots" (bi-pedal robots that are obviously robots) and simulants (androids that look and sound human but clearly aren't). Things went awry when in 2065, AI took control of NOMAD (North American Mobile Air Defence - basically a giant warship in low Earth orbit that can rain death anywhere on the planet) and nuked Los Angeles (we later learn what really happened). Thus, the US went techno-phobic and is now waging a war on "New Asia" where humans and AIs live in peace.
If that sounds interesting, good for you. Problem is, none of what I just said really results in payoff. I could give a plot summary but don't have the time or inclination, and really, the plot itself is little to write home about. People have made comments about The Creator being derivative of other works, and while that's undoubtedly true, I feel this criticism is missing the forest for the trees. A derivative work isn't inherently an inferior one, and sci-fi is trope heavy regardless. No, the problem I have is that The Creator doesn't really have anything to say about anything despite its wealth of subject matter.
Is it a film about AI? If so, its message is "AI is like us, deal with it." A bit glib, but it produces nothing new on the subject of AI that hasn't been explored before, and it doesn't even do that compelling a job of exploring it in of itself. Blurred lines between humans and machines, questions about souls, afterlife, etc., yes, it's here, but it's not doing anything new with it. Considering how much of an issue AI is right now, I was a bit surprised to see the film unambiguously have "good" AI with "good" human allies, against "evil" humans (as a side note, there's no moral grey areas in this film - the US is unambiguously the bad guys, New Asia unambiguously the good guys, to the extent that I'm surprised there hasn't been outcry about the film being "woke").
Maybe it isn't about AI then? Daren Mooney has suggested that the film is a Vietnam war analogy, and while I disagree with him on most things, I think he has the right of it...sort of. The film undoubtedly lifts imagery from the Vietnam War (low tech guerilla fighters against high tech American forces) and whatnot, but nothing is here beyond window dressing. There's no comparative scenario to the Vietnam War in ideology, the film has nothing beyond "bad guys are bad guys, good guys fight back." I've seen it suggested that in the film, the US's anti-AI crusade is just a front to invade "New Asia," but if so, there's nothing to suggest that. If the film is meant to be a Vietnam War analogy, again, I don't know what it's trying to say beyond window dressing.
This also extends to the worldbuilding, which makes little sense. It's a weird choice to have the POD in the mid-20th century, but also by the 2070s have a world that could be our own in the future, with little to bridge the divide. And "New Asia" is, as far as I can tell, a conglomeration of states in SE Asia that includes Vietnam, Cambodia, etc., but there's no real info given on it. It has high-tech megacities that clearly answer to a functioning government, with low-tech country regions that look like something from the mid 20th century. How "New Asia" feels about US forces operating unilaterally within its borders is never really explained, nor is there sign of any proper response to it beyond police forces. I'm assuming "New Asia" was chosen in order to be apolitical, to not involve real Asian countries, but if so, it's apolitical to the point of rediculousness because the worldbuilding is so vague.
Is NOMAD an allagory for drone warfare? A US warship firing down from the clouds with impunity? If so, again, it doesn't have anything to say about anything. NOMAD looks cool (heck, most of the military tech looks cool, such as a 'mega tank' that's seen), but again, it's window dressing. Point is, every possible theme I've cited has a better film somewhere else that explores these themes and does so better.
So, fine. Themes are sparse, worldbuilding is silly, what about plot, character, and storytelling. Well, not to spoil anything, but it's nothing special. Special agent Joshua Mitchell falls in love with enemy woman, desparate to get back to her, learns that humans were the monsters all along (or rather America was, whatever), meets kid robot, cue road trip, cue lots (and lots) of shooting (and even more shooting), and yeah, it didn't do much. None of the characters are that compelling, and it's well worn tropes. Basically, every idea in sci-fi was thrown together in a blender, this is what we got.
Not a bad film, but an utter letdown. I'd frankly be astonished if we're even talking about it after one year. Original IPs are great, but they have to be, y'know, GOOD, in order to leave an impression.
Last edited:
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,557
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
Moolaade. It's an Ousmane Sembene movie, so you can expect the same sort of progressive militantism and anger at the shortcomings of 1980s african societies. He was basically to Africa what Costa-Gavras or Verneuil were to Europe. He deliberately uses cinema as a transformative tool, a social mirror, a magnifying lens on the mechanisms of corruption and traditionalism. With Moolaade, he crusades against excision, as he tells the story of a village increasingly divided (roughly around gender lines) between the tradition of "girls purification" and the tradition of protection, when a bunch of kids, refusing to have their clitoris cut out by the priestesses, seek refuge in the house of woman who shelters them ritually (by the authority of moolaade), hanging a colorful rope as a protective symbolic barrier at her door. Soon the elders will blame the outside influence of radios, and increase their pressure on the woman's husband for him to discipline his wife, while a rich kid coming back from France sees his planned marriage cancelled by his father, due to his fiancee staying scandalously "impure".
It touches on many subjects (age hierarchies, conflicting traditions, gender domination, commercial opportunism, cultural shifts) even if its core point is the horrors of excision, its cultural entrenchment and the ways of resistance to it. The characters are mostly ambiguous, passive and torn between loyalties. The perspective is simultaneously stern (Sembene's position and intent is clear) and understanding (few characters are shown as real baddies, and even fewer ones are unambiguous heroes). And the tone is a mix of light-hearted and gruesome. There's always some touch of humour in Sembene's movies, and while the subject is beyond gritty (and the story itself doesn't shy from it), the violence is mostly off-screen or graphically softened. He managed to make, on an unbearable subject matter, a movie which isn't too shocking or depressing. There's certainly a deliberate balance, as this movie is meant for a broad african public (the actors came from many different african countries, and Sembene did ensure they'd be dubbed in a quantity of african languages). As I said, this film, like all of Sembene's work, is intended as a militant tool - as per what he considers to be the function of art.
Also watched Fritz Lang's Moonfleet. I expected a swashbuckling adventure, I got a gothic horror movie. For most of it at least (there's a part, in the second half, where it temporarily goes all Crimson Pirate). You can guess from the start where Moffat got his Weeping Angels idea from. And the rest mostly feels lke a Poe adaptation (as with Palance In The Attic, my first reflex was "hey, did Stewart Granger ever play Dracula ?"). The story is some sort of darker Treasure Island. The most badass little kid of the history of cinema is sent to an old flame of his deceased mother in hope that he'll become a surrogate father, but he turns out some ruthless criminal dandy, head of a gang of brutal thugs. Also the kid dreams of finding the lost treasure of his ancestor, who is incidentally said to still haunt the local cemetery and murder the occasional passerby.
It's one nicely crafted movie, as you can expect from Lang, with an uplifting little epilogue that was added against his will. I hadn't watched it until now, because I like my swashbuckling to take place on the high seas, and this one unforgivably doesn't. Also I think I don't like Stewart Granger very much, for some undefined reason. Still, it's worth the watch for its surprisingly macabre atmosphere, and fight scenes that weren't (all) half as cheesy as I expected. For some reason, even if a bit aged, conventional and theatrical, this halberd scene got a few "woah easy there" recoils from me :
It touches on many subjects (age hierarchies, conflicting traditions, gender domination, commercial opportunism, cultural shifts) even if its core point is the horrors of excision, its cultural entrenchment and the ways of resistance to it. The characters are mostly ambiguous, passive and torn between loyalties. The perspective is simultaneously stern (Sembene's position and intent is clear) and understanding (few characters are shown as real baddies, and even fewer ones are unambiguous heroes). And the tone is a mix of light-hearted and gruesome. There's always some touch of humour in Sembene's movies, and while the subject is beyond gritty (and the story itself doesn't shy from it), the violence is mostly off-screen or graphically softened. He managed to make, on an unbearable subject matter, a movie which isn't too shocking or depressing. There's certainly a deliberate balance, as this movie is meant for a broad african public (the actors came from many different african countries, and Sembene did ensure they'd be dubbed in a quantity of african languages). As I said, this film, like all of Sembene's work, is intended as a militant tool - as per what he considers to be the function of art.
Also watched Fritz Lang's Moonfleet. I expected a swashbuckling adventure, I got a gothic horror movie. For most of it at least (there's a part, in the second half, where it temporarily goes all Crimson Pirate). You can guess from the start where Moffat got his Weeping Angels idea from. And the rest mostly feels lke a Poe adaptation (as with Palance In The Attic, my first reflex was "hey, did Stewart Granger ever play Dracula ?"). The story is some sort of darker Treasure Island. The most badass little kid of the history of cinema is sent to an old flame of his deceased mother in hope that he'll become a surrogate father, but he turns out some ruthless criminal dandy, head of a gang of brutal thugs. Also the kid dreams of finding the lost treasure of his ancestor, who is incidentally said to still haunt the local cemetery and murder the occasional passerby.
It's one nicely crafted movie, as you can expect from Lang, with an uplifting little epilogue that was added against his will. I hadn't watched it until now, because I like my swashbuckling to take place on the high seas, and this one unforgivably doesn't. Also I think I don't like Stewart Granger very much, for some undefined reason. Still, it's worth the watch for its surprisingly macabre atmosphere, and fight scenes that weren't (all) half as cheesy as I expected. For some reason, even if a bit aged, conventional and theatrical, this halberd scene got a few "woah easy there" recoils from me :
Last edited:
The reunion between Joshua and (spoiler) is certainly contrived, but it didn't harm things too much for me. The ending sort of elevates things in that as an action setpiece, in what's already an action-heavy film, so on that note, it works. It's a nice parting shot - in the fields, Elysium, afterlife, Heaven, etc.
Concerning the AI thing, that's another good point and one that occurred to me. If the US bans AI and New Asia uses it, surely that would give New Asia some kind of advantage, even if not necessarily a deciscive one. There's any number of medias that have organics vs. AIs with the advantages/disadvantages you expect, but again, the film doesn't really address this. FFS, we see that New Asia can mass produce simulants (so can therefore mass produce bots as well, presumably), but this never really comes into play. The guerillas have to be on the backfoot even though they shouldn't be. And if New Asia is fine with NOMAD operating within its airspace without issue, again, why? I actually wondered why NOMAD isn't able to be taken out by some kind of guided missile or whatever, and while you could have any number of reasons as to why (a PDS perhaps?), again, it's never explained.
As for why (spoiler) is on NOMAD, while her model is one hell of a coincidence, I don't think it's that much of an issue in of itself. Even if the US military isn't using AI, it would stand to reason to have AI hardware to study or whatnot, or even use (there's no shortage of hypocrisy in wars). But it's funny you mention the cylons, since it's yet another example of the AI thing done better. Maybe I'm being harsh, but The Creator doesn't offer anything to say on the subject of AI that hasn't been said already. Even as a space opera, BSG was always aware of the nature of AI in its context.
A ★★★★★ review of Scream 4 (2011)
"My friends? What world are you living in? I don't need friends, I need fans!" It took a long time to make another Scream movie. It was only ever supposed to be a trilogy, but when reboots and remakes started to take over, maybe it was time to give them the same treatment as the original did to...
letterboxd.com
Circle of Iron (aka The Silent Flute) 1978
Not watched this film for years. First time I saw it I think I woke up at 3am, put the TV on when half-asleep and watched this, having missed the beginning. Which is the best way to appreciate this film. And also Booh-Bah, as it happens. Sort of film that looks like it'd be best enjoyed on something not terribly legal, it's got a trippy feel to it.
But anyhow, this is a weird, low budget martial arts philosophy thingy. Which doesn't make make sense if you think too much about it, but it's got a weird self-consistent style.
Not watched this film for years. First time I saw it I think I woke up at 3am, put the TV on when half-asleep and watched this, having missed the beginning. Which is the best way to appreciate this film. And also Booh-Bah, as it happens. Sort of film that looks like it'd be best enjoyed on something not terribly legal, it's got a trippy feel to it.
But anyhow, this is a weird, low budget martial arts philosophy thingy. Which doesn't make make sense if you think too much about it, but it's got a weird self-consistent style.
A ★★★★★ review of Scream (2022)
This review may contain spoilers. Visit the page to bypass this warning and read the review.
letterboxd.com
Guys...I think I might love this franchise.
The Equalizer 3
It's more Equalizer! Better than Taken 3, not as good as John Wick 3, The Equalizer 3 stars the ever compelling Denzel Washington, of whom I'm legally required to mention is a credible action fogey at 68. But I also think there's nothing THAT special about the movie. It's partly marketed as a reunion with Dakota Fanning, kinda like how Magnificent Seven boasted a Denzel-Ethan reunion, but the script doesn't really acknowledge that.
It's good enough. I don't know what else to tell you.
It's more Equalizer! Better than Taken 3, not as good as John Wick 3, The Equalizer 3 stars the ever compelling Denzel Washington, of whom I'm legally required to mention is a credible action fogey at 68. But I also think there's nothing THAT special about the movie. It's partly marketed as a reunion with Dakota Fanning, kinda like how Magnificent Seven boasted a Denzel-Ethan reunion, but the script doesn't really acknowledge that.
It's good enough. I don't know what else to tell you.
Honestly, I enjoyed Equalizer 3 more than John Wick 3. I do like John Wick 3. Taken 3 I pretend doesn't even exist.
This movie is a slasher film, except the Mafia are the "victims" this time.
A ★★★★ review of Scream VI (2023)
"Who gives a fuck about movies?" This time around, the plot follows Sam (Melissa Barrera) and Tara Carpenter (Jenna Ortega) after the events of the last film. Having since relocated to New York City in a vain attempt to get away from the rumors surrounding Sam's involvement in the killings, Sam...
letterboxd.com
I haven’t seen more than a few seconds of it on YouTube. A Serbian Film gives off the same disgusting vibe. The human race and our “advanced” intelligence can be pretty fucked up.
Anyways on topic, Knock at the Cabin.
The latest M. Night Shyamalan vehicle, billed as a horror/mystery/thriller on IMDb with almost none of any of that, as it moves very slowly and awkwardly towards ultimately revealing its theme of personal sacrifice for the greater good. It’s too bad for Dave because he really tried stepping through the thing without getting dogshit on his boots. In the end he literally couldn’t even cope with it onscreen anymore.
Ok, I will say the ending helped lift it up a bit, but still this is one of these movies where the marketing was very misleading. With M. Night movies, it’s almost like the more intriguing the trailer, the less engaging or entertaining the movie will actually end up being.
A ★★★★★ review of One Last Dive (2013)
In one minute, this short scared me more than any horror movie I've watched for this month.
letterboxd.com
A ★★★★ review of Sleepaway Camp (1983)
"She's a real carpenter's dream...flat as a board and needs a screw!" This is definitely one of the more unique slashers to come out of the 1980's. While on the surface it bears some similarities to Friday the 13th in that both feature counselors getting slain at a summer camp, this one stands...
letterboxd.com
A ★★★★★ review of Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
"I love dead. Hate living." Is this a sequel better than the original? Yes, yes it is. The plot of the film follows both The Monster (Boris Karloff) and Frankenstein (Colin Clive) in separate plotlines, at first. The Monster, having escaped his fiery death at the end of the original movie due to...
letterboxd.com
Operation Mincemeat - 8/10
This movie was really interesting, it was well acted and it was taut as a good thriller should be. But I have two complaints with it that are thus: it is too short and it seems to jump between tones quite wildly. To whit the conceit - which I took far too damn long to catch onto - appears to be that the whole thing is being seen by us the novel being written by, I shit you not, Ian Fleming. So the first half is full of witty back and forth as they get all the ducks in a row, and then suddenly the second half swerves into much grittier espionage drama as the operation begins to hit snags and roadblocks.
This movie was really interesting, it was well acted and it was taut as a good thriller should be. But I have two complaints with it that are thus: it is too short and it seems to jump between tones quite wildly. To whit the conceit - which I took far too damn long to catch onto - appears to be that the whole thing is being seen by us the novel being written by, I shit you not, Ian Fleming. So the first half is full of witty back and forth as they get all the ducks in a row, and then suddenly the second half swerves into much grittier espionage drama as the operation begins to hit snags and roadblocks.
Last edited: