We would later get Smash TV out of it, so it is something. I enjoy the movie for what is and is more of a 7 for me.
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
A ★★★★½ review of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
“It’s not the years, honey, it’s the mileage.” This film had a fairly long time between conception and production, as George Lucas first had the idea of making a B-movie based on the 40's adventure serials he grew up with shortly after finishing with American Graffiti in 1973. Envisioning a...
letterboxd.com
Avengement - This came out back in 2019, and I wish I had seen this sooner! This is Scott Adkins at his most unhinged and it is awesome! This movie has him give the most range he's ever done. Even more than The Accident Man. Long story short; set up as a fall guy, he comes back for revenge and learns to do the right thing in his own way.
Hounds of War - An Issac Florentine film that came out eariler this year. Frank Grillo stars as an ex-special forced dude is betrayed by his boss. You know how these action films go. The story is simple and effective, but you're here for the awesome action choreography in a Florentine film. Not his best film, but is still pretty good, better than Acts of Vengeance, and you can always expect him to deliver on the fights. T1000 is the obvious bad guy again. What a shocker...
Hounds of War - An Issac Florentine film that came out eariler this year. Frank Grillo stars as an ex-special forced dude is betrayed by his boss. You know how these action films go. The story is simple and effective, but you're here for the awesome action choreography in a Florentine film. Not his best film, but is still pretty good, better than Acts of Vengeance, and you can always expect him to deliver on the fights. T1000 is the obvious bad guy again. What a shocker...
The Name of the Rose (1986)
Murder mystery set in a 14th century Italian monastery. Sean Connery and Christian Slater play a Franciscan monk and his apprentice Adso visiting the Benedictine monastery to attend a debate with representatives of the Vatican when a series of mysterious murders disturbs the peace there. Luckily, it turns out, Connery 's monk William of Baskerville is a very talented detective and he begins unraveling a sinister conspiracy haunting the old monastery.
Based on a novel by Italian national treasure Umberto Eco, Name of the Rose is a rather fun, if rather silly, little whodunnit that vaguely gestures towards greater theological and philosophical themes but mostly pushes them to the background to focus on a lurid story of murder and intrigue that features quite a few colourful characters with equally colourful performances.
William and Adso here serve as very obvious analogues for Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson as they investigate the mysterious murders of the monastery's friars that some of the more dramatically inclined brothers view as signs of the impending apocalypse. As they do so, they uncover a sinister scheme that... frankly, doesn't make a whole lot of sense the way it's presented here but sure makes for a fun two hours.
I haven't read the novel this is based on and I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt but I don't think the movie ever establishes enough context to make the plot which, minor spoiler, revolves around an ancient, potentially heretical, book very plausible, much less relatable. It is strongly suggested, if never more than that, that there is a whole lot of historical context to this story that the novel might have explored but the movie only ever touches on on a surface level. It has just enough exposition on the theological dilemmas and differing philosophies within the church and heretical sects to elucidate what the characters motivations are but not really to flesh them out.
All of which leaves the performances to do the heavy lifting and most of those are a lot of fun. Connery brings a lot of charm to his Franciscan sleuth as he shows up the superstitious monks of the monastery while dispensing smug one liners. The supporting cast has a lot of equally memorable performances. Ron Perlman plays a crazed hunchback who speaks in a weird mishmash of languages, F. Murray Abraham is a sneering inquisitor and Helmut Qualtinger a monk who gets some absolutely show stealing scenes late in the movie. Name of the Rose features an ensemble of classically trained, mostly British and German, actors competing with each other on who can give the hammiest performance and it's quite a joy to watch.
The other big star of the movie are the visuals and the setting. I was wondering whether it was filmed at a real historical site, but no, it was a giant set build outside Rome and it's honestly gorgeous to look at. The old monastery lends a lot of atmosphere to the movie and the colours and framing really tie it all together. It all brings a dramatic weight and a moody gothic atmosphere to a screenplay that again, doesn't really convey the impact of the story and the underlying drama very well.
Name of the Rose is a wonderful looking and wonderfully acted movie whose story doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the way it's presented here but it does sure make for a pretty entertaining watch. On one hand it's very easy to tell that a lot of the more philosophical material that I assume was present in the novel was cut down, if not cut entirely, for a simpler, faster paced movie. There is another adaptation from 2019, a television series of 8 episodes that, I assume, uses this time to adapt the material more comprehensively and maybe I'll watch it some day but nevertheless I did enjoy this for what it was.
Murder mystery set in a 14th century Italian monastery. Sean Connery and Christian Slater play a Franciscan monk and his apprentice Adso visiting the Benedictine monastery to attend a debate with representatives of the Vatican when a series of mysterious murders disturbs the peace there. Luckily, it turns out, Connery 's monk William of Baskerville is a very talented detective and he begins unraveling a sinister conspiracy haunting the old monastery.
Based on a novel by Italian national treasure Umberto Eco, Name of the Rose is a rather fun, if rather silly, little whodunnit that vaguely gestures towards greater theological and philosophical themes but mostly pushes them to the background to focus on a lurid story of murder and intrigue that features quite a few colourful characters with equally colourful performances.
William and Adso here serve as very obvious analogues for Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson as they investigate the mysterious murders of the monastery's friars that some of the more dramatically inclined brothers view as signs of the impending apocalypse. As they do so, they uncover a sinister scheme that... frankly, doesn't make a whole lot of sense the way it's presented here but sure makes for a fun two hours.
I haven't read the novel this is based on and I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt but I don't think the movie ever establishes enough context to make the plot which, minor spoiler, revolves around an ancient, potentially heretical, book very plausible, much less relatable. It is strongly suggested, if never more than that, that there is a whole lot of historical context to this story that the novel might have explored but the movie only ever touches on on a surface level. It has just enough exposition on the theological dilemmas and differing philosophies within the church and heretical sects to elucidate what the characters motivations are but not really to flesh them out.
All of which leaves the performances to do the heavy lifting and most of those are a lot of fun. Connery brings a lot of charm to his Franciscan sleuth as he shows up the superstitious monks of the monastery while dispensing smug one liners. The supporting cast has a lot of equally memorable performances. Ron Perlman plays a crazed hunchback who speaks in a weird mishmash of languages, F. Murray Abraham is a sneering inquisitor and Helmut Qualtinger a monk who gets some absolutely show stealing scenes late in the movie. Name of the Rose features an ensemble of classically trained, mostly British and German, actors competing with each other on who can give the hammiest performance and it's quite a joy to watch.
The other big star of the movie are the visuals and the setting. I was wondering whether it was filmed at a real historical site, but no, it was a giant set build outside Rome and it's honestly gorgeous to look at. The old monastery lends a lot of atmosphere to the movie and the colours and framing really tie it all together. It all brings a dramatic weight and a moody gothic atmosphere to a screenplay that again, doesn't really convey the impact of the story and the underlying drama very well.
Name of the Rose is a wonderful looking and wonderfully acted movie whose story doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the way it's presented here but it does sure make for a pretty entertaining watch. On one hand it's very easy to tell that a lot of the more philosophical material that I assume was present in the novel was cut down, if not cut entirely, for a simpler, faster paced movie. There is another adaptation from 2019, a television series of 8 episodes that, I assume, uses this time to adapt the material more comprehensively and maybe I'll watch it some day but nevertheless I did enjoy this for what it was.
Mick Fleetwood, from Fleetwood Mac, plays Mic, a musician and rebel in that film. Ok, otherwise, it's a bit forgettable.
As an aside, the faked footage of Arnie shooting people from his helicopter was taken from a King Kong film...but since it was fake footage, it might have been taken from that film in-universe as well.
See, my biggest problem is I don't really like modern musicals, so ALL of the songs were filler to me. If I watch a movie, I want to see the plot develop; I don't want to stop at every beat so they can hammer the same point home for 5 minutes while the actors parade around the screen. If anything, I wanted to see how Elphaba turned evil, and in 3 hours, all I got was that of all the denizens of Oz, Elphaba was the only person WASN'T evil. How are they going to spin THAT? Oh well, guess I'll have to wait for another 3-hour outing to resolve the only interesting point of the whole thing.
They should make abridged versions of musicals for people like me: strip out ALL of the singing, and make stuff like this easily digestible in a tight hour and a half, or use the 3-hours to tell the whole story.
These guys gave it a go. Kinda a horror story when you think about it.
Modern Musicals can be great. The songs are not good story telling vehicles as you write, you'll take 3-5 minutes making a statement that could be said in seconds.
But I get smacked by my wife if I even hum songs from shows like "The Greatest Showman" or "Hamilton" as she knows she won't be able to get them out of her head for hours. Days even. So much for sleeping.
Exactly! And if nothing else, Wicked is further cementing the idea that Oz is a lot darker than all the sing-songy crap would lead you to believe with themes of classism, racism, bullying, deceit, etc., and at the center of it all is the one person who is better than all of that, yet we start the movie SINGING that she has been killed? Yeah, cut the crap; we've pulled back the curtain, and no songs about friendship and popularity can put the genie back in that bottle.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of modern musicals. Mostly because I'm not a fan of the popular/stage music they're typically based around, but also because they're generally just, I dunno, silly to me? I did like Hamilton though, because the story was told with the music and lyrics, and not interrupted by it. Also, oddly, I do like a lot of older musicals (think Rodgers and Hammerstein,) and I think that's because they have that vintage, warm and cozy charm indicative of their era. Modern stuff is all just flashy, obnoxious, loud, and serve as little more than vehicles for earworms to be sung and rehashed at every awards show for the next calendar year.
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Quentin Tarantino's big hit, what probably still stands as his most popular movie, a violent action comedy about an ensemble of characters in the criminal underworld of Los Angeles, connected mostly by their association with kingpin Marsellus Wallace, played by Ving Rhames, going through various misadventures.
Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta play a duo of fast talking hitmen on a quest to retrieve a tremendously valuable suitcase with ambiguous contents, a side story deals with Travolta being tasked to accompany Wallace's wife who enjoys cocaine a bit too much on a date, Bruce Willis plays a price boxer trying to screw Wallace over and skip town, and an englishman and his girlfriend trying to rob a diner bookend the movie.
While it's not my favourite Tarantino movie, it's probably the one that best displays all the qualities people like about them. Dialogue that's both fun to listen to and incredibly efficient at establishing characters and their dynamics, brief bursts of over the top violence and pacing that's basically a back to back of memorable setpieces with barely any lull between them.
Honestly, it can't be understated how well the dialogue in this works, especially looking back at it now after three decades of everyone and their mother trying to replicate it and just about everyone who's not the Coen Brothers failing at it. Consider the introduction of Jules and Vincent, a sequence so iconic that just about every line of it has been a meme since before anyone other than Richard Dawkins knew the word "meme". It establishes these characters, their relationship and their motivation even though it's 80% banter about burgers and foot massages. Or the almost equally famous sequence at the house of loudmouth Jimmy, played by Tarantino himself. The way he scolds Jules and Vince like a pair of unruly children, using some language that... well, I imagine very few people would use to the face of a guy like Jules, while treating Harvey Keitel's clean up specialist Winston with utmost respect. It's still a masterclass in writing dialogue that efficiently communicates information, avoids obvious exposition and is entertaining to listen to.
I suppose the least interesting plotline is the one involving Bruce Willis's boxer Butch and his girlfriend who kind of stand as the movies blandest characters. Perhaps Tarantino was aware of that, because it's this subplot that probably has the most outrageous climax. It's just that I don't think these two characters have the kind of chemistry Jules and Vincent or even Jules and Mia had, nor are they individually as compelling as either of them. It's the closest the movie ever comes to settling into a bit of a lull, in my opinion.
And there is certainly very little of that otherwise, it's 2.5 hours go by very fast. It is basically back to back fun setpieces, not that many of which actually involve action. All of which makes for a very fun romp. Which, mind you, on a thematic level is kind of all it is. Tarantino has a very recognizable style but most of his later movies are very explicitly about something. Kill Bill, Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained are respectively feminist and historical revenge fantasies and as much as Once Upon A Time in Hollywood has been described as an easy going, nostalgic hang out movie it's also very much about nostalgia and the golden age of American film. Pulp Fiction is mostly what its title suggest, entertaining, outrageous, a crowd pleaser. The closest it ever comes to social commentary is in the fact that the pair of crazed hillbilly rapists that act as the catalyst of the climax of Willis's arc are explicitly depicted as a store owner and a cop.
It is not hard to see, though, why the movie is the cultural milestone it is and why it's probably one of the most unsuccessfully imitated movies of all time. It's a meticulous blend of comedy, violence and and sharp character writing that I don't think anyone who's not a very skilled writer and director could easily get right. How many other movies and on that note, television shows and games, have tried to do this nonlinear, semi-anthology format? How many did the "banter between two quirky gangsters" bit? How many did the whole "long, pointless conversations about trivial stuff" thing and more importantly, how many managed to make it entertaining rather than obnoxious? And that right there is why Tarantino stuck around in the public consciousness where so many other darlings of the 90's and 00's have become directors for live action Disney remakes or even worse, Kevin Smith.
You don't need me to tell you that but this is still really good.
Quentin Tarantino's big hit, what probably still stands as his most popular movie, a violent action comedy about an ensemble of characters in the criminal underworld of Los Angeles, connected mostly by their association with kingpin Marsellus Wallace, played by Ving Rhames, going through various misadventures.
Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta play a duo of fast talking hitmen on a quest to retrieve a tremendously valuable suitcase with ambiguous contents, a side story deals with Travolta being tasked to accompany Wallace's wife who enjoys cocaine a bit too much on a date, Bruce Willis plays a price boxer trying to screw Wallace over and skip town, and an englishman and his girlfriend trying to rob a diner bookend the movie.
While it's not my favourite Tarantino movie, it's probably the one that best displays all the qualities people like about them. Dialogue that's both fun to listen to and incredibly efficient at establishing characters and their dynamics, brief bursts of over the top violence and pacing that's basically a back to back of memorable setpieces with barely any lull between them.
Honestly, it can't be understated how well the dialogue in this works, especially looking back at it now after three decades of everyone and their mother trying to replicate it and just about everyone who's not the Coen Brothers failing at it. Consider the introduction of Jules and Vincent, a sequence so iconic that just about every line of it has been a meme since before anyone other than Richard Dawkins knew the word "meme". It establishes these characters, their relationship and their motivation even though it's 80% banter about burgers and foot massages. Or the almost equally famous sequence at the house of loudmouth Jimmy, played by Tarantino himself. The way he scolds Jules and Vince like a pair of unruly children, using some language that... well, I imagine very few people would use to the face of a guy like Jules, while treating Harvey Keitel's clean up specialist Winston with utmost respect. It's still a masterclass in writing dialogue that efficiently communicates information, avoids obvious exposition and is entertaining to listen to.
I suppose the least interesting plotline is the one involving Bruce Willis's boxer Butch and his girlfriend who kind of stand as the movies blandest characters. Perhaps Tarantino was aware of that, because it's this subplot that probably has the most outrageous climax. It's just that I don't think these two characters have the kind of chemistry Jules and Vincent or even Jules and Mia had, nor are they individually as compelling as either of them. It's the closest the movie ever comes to settling into a bit of a lull, in my opinion.
And there is certainly very little of that otherwise, it's 2.5 hours go by very fast. It is basically back to back fun setpieces, not that many of which actually involve action. All of which makes for a very fun romp. Which, mind you, on a thematic level is kind of all it is. Tarantino has a very recognizable style but most of his later movies are very explicitly about something. Kill Bill, Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained are respectively feminist and historical revenge fantasies and as much as Once Upon A Time in Hollywood has been described as an easy going, nostalgic hang out movie it's also very much about nostalgia and the golden age of American film. Pulp Fiction is mostly what its title suggest, entertaining, outrageous, a crowd pleaser. The closest it ever comes to social commentary is in the fact that the pair of crazed hillbilly rapists that act as the catalyst of the climax of Willis's arc are explicitly depicted as a store owner and a cop.
It is not hard to see, though, why the movie is the cultural milestone it is and why it's probably one of the most unsuccessfully imitated movies of all time. It's a meticulous blend of comedy, violence and and sharp character writing that I don't think anyone who's not a very skilled writer and director could easily get right. How many other movies and on that note, television shows and games, have tried to do this nonlinear, semi-anthology format? How many did the "banter between two quirky gangsters" bit? How many did the whole "long, pointless conversations about trivial stuff" thing and more importantly, how many managed to make it entertaining rather than obnoxious? And that right there is why Tarantino stuck around in the public consciousness where so many other darlings of the 90's and 00's have become directors for live action Disney remakes or even worse, Kevin Smith.
You don't need me to tell you that but this is still really good.
Yet ironically one of the rare movies where Arnie did at least some of his own stunts.
Loved it the 1st time I saw it. 2nd time, with a buddy at the theater, was hilarious as I could allow myself to be distracted to listen to the other theater goers gasping and squirming in their seats like when Travolta is about to administer the shot.
I thought the Jimmy scene the biggest lull in the movie.
The movie stands up to a metric ton of analysis though, and it's fun even if wrong. Example: Travolta's Vincent (as a realistic portrayal of how Vinnie Barbarino likely turned out?) speaks to Jules of how wrong it is to touch another man's wife's feet. But he is dumb. After the restaurant, he and Mia go back to her place and enter doing "The Tango" which was once considered a scandalously sexual dance. He buys an ounce of H for $1,500 without blinking, but later is aghast that Mia's milk shake cost $5. And more.
I was talking with a guy about how much I love this movie and he pulls out a credit card. It was the movie poster.
I love Tarantino's movies but I don't think he'll ever top this one.
A ★ review of Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return (1999)
“You know, whatever you’re looking for here, Miss Martin, you’re not gonna find it. Do yourself a favor and go back to California. You’re only gonna be disappointed.” This is the 6th entry in a horror series that has been direct-to-video since the third. Do you really expect me to have much to...
letterboxd.com
I saw that Smile 2 got good reviews so I watched Smile first and it was solid; a bit too long, a bit of a poor man's It Follows. However, I thought Smile 2 was complete garbage because you don't know which scenes are real or not, thus I didn't care about any of the scenes at all then. And the whole movie felt like random scenes thrown together that had no connection to each other.
Yeah it was a mess that doubled down on the hallucinations bit, because the ending relies on it the confusion. But it ultimately felt unearned because the audience is expected to go along with how she got there with no real lead-in other than…another hallucination.
Ninja Assassin: Wow / Great
A ninja goes rogue from his clan after they killed his girlfriend, and gets tangled up with a Europol agent who's been investigating the existence of ninja clans.
Wow, really dumb movie, but I had dumb fun. It has the trappings of a B movie with an A movie budget. Give me over-the-top gore, and I'll turn my brain off for you; I may not like your cooking, but I'll eat your meal if I'm hungry enough, and Ninja Assassin established exactly what was on the menu in the first 2 minutes.
A ninja goes rogue from his clan after they killed his girlfriend, and gets tangled up with a Europol agent who's been investigating the existence of ninja clans.
Wow, really dumb movie, but I had dumb fun. It has the trappings of a B movie with an A movie budget. Give me over-the-top gore, and I'll turn my brain off for you; I may not like your cooking, but I'll eat your meal if I'm hungry enough, and Ninja Assassin established exactly what was on the menu in the first 2 minutes.
Glad to see a new fan of this fine film. It's one of my favorite ninja movies of all time. Can I recommend you Scott Adkin's Ninja (2009), if you're interested for more ninja action?
Hmmm... maybe I'll give it a go, but I can only turn my brain off so many times in close succession without risking permanent damage.
Phenomena (1985)
Horror movie by prolific Italian film maker Dario Argento, primarily known for the original Suspiria. Interestingly enough, a much shorter version of it was originally released unter the title "Creepers" in America.
Phenomena follows Jennifer, played by Jennifer Connelly, daughter of a famous American actor, in a rural Swiss boarding school for girls that is haunted by a series of mysterious murders. "That sounds exactly like Suspiria", you might say. And you'd be right. Except unlike her equivalent in Suspiria, this young American brunette has the mysterious power to telepathically communicate with insects which she discovers after ending up at the residence of an eccentric paraplegic scientist and his monkey servant after a night of sleepwalking. She uses these powers to track down the mysterious killer.
This isn't as silly as it sounds. It's even sillier. Phenomena is a movie that, with all due respect, makes absolutely no sense. Some people like to invoke the term "dream logic" when invoking something with a particularly hazy or abstract plot but I think it's quite appropriate here. With the way Suspiria 's mood, plot and genre seems to be constantly shifting and the way it keeps introducing absurd, left field elements and plot points, expecting you to just go along with them without questioning them it feels a whole lot like you're falling asleep on your couch while someone is switching between five different channels on your TV, all of which happen to be showing a different hokey European B-Movie.
So, Phenomena is kind of a slasher and kind of a murder mystery and kind of a horror movie and kind of a coming of age drama and kind of... a superhero origin story? Connelly uses her insect powers, which the movie never explains, to pursue some bizarre leads in this Swiss mountain village. Her presence also makes insects fall into their mating behavior and like... is the message I'm supposed to take from this that young Jennifer Connelly was so hot it transcends the difference of species? I mean, I can kinda see it, but...
Anyway, for as weird as this movie is, it gets even weirder, considering Argento stated it's meant to be set in a version of Europe where the Third Reich had won World War 2 and in his own words, it's obvious if you pay attention. And I think the word "obvious" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, because nothing that's actually in the movie would have tipped me off that this is canon to the Wolfenstein series. The movie does, however, confirm that in this universe the BeeGees and Richard Gere still exist. Oh, on that note, Jennifer was also initially supposed to be the daughter of Al Pacino. Not, mind you, of a character played by Al Pacino, just, the actual actor Al Pacino.
Add to that how... off the performances in this are. Maybe a lot of this goes back to the weird way Italians used to make movies where they had everyone perform in their own language and then just dubbed over whoever they had to but almost everyone in this talks like they are in a high school play. According to Wikipedia Inga, the chimpanzee, played by Tanga, the chimpanzee, bit off a part of Connelly's finger during the filming of this movie which tragically spelled the end for her career. Tanga's career, that is, Connelly's still working. Which I think is very unfortunate, she was far and away the best actor in the movie.
I could tell you how the climax of the movie plays out but in case you're at all interested, I'm not gonna give it away. I will only say, it's completely insane and kind of ableist.
Make no mistake, by any rational definition, Phenomena is absolutely awful. Suspiria 's weird quirks could still pass as artistic decisions that go with the whole expressionist vibe of that movie but Phenomena doesn't have that excuse. The visuals are still nice and once again the score is provided by prog rock band Goblin in what might have been their best movie score but yeah, not by any stretch of the imagination can I call Phenomena a good movie. I will, however, say that I did enjoy it a lot. It's just a baffling affair. It's almost surrealist but I'm pretty sure it isn't trying to be. I think if you go in with the right attitude you can have a pretty good time with it.
Oh, in case anyone's interested, it's on YouTube, too:
Horror movie by prolific Italian film maker Dario Argento, primarily known for the original Suspiria. Interestingly enough, a much shorter version of it was originally released unter the title "Creepers" in America.
Phenomena follows Jennifer, played by Jennifer Connelly, daughter of a famous American actor, in a rural Swiss boarding school for girls that is haunted by a series of mysterious murders. "That sounds exactly like Suspiria", you might say. And you'd be right. Except unlike her equivalent in Suspiria, this young American brunette has the mysterious power to telepathically communicate with insects which she discovers after ending up at the residence of an eccentric paraplegic scientist and his monkey servant after a night of sleepwalking. She uses these powers to track down the mysterious killer.
This isn't as silly as it sounds. It's even sillier. Phenomena is a movie that, with all due respect, makes absolutely no sense. Some people like to invoke the term "dream logic" when invoking something with a particularly hazy or abstract plot but I think it's quite appropriate here. With the way Suspiria 's mood, plot and genre seems to be constantly shifting and the way it keeps introducing absurd, left field elements and plot points, expecting you to just go along with them without questioning them it feels a whole lot like you're falling asleep on your couch while someone is switching between five different channels on your TV, all of which happen to be showing a different hokey European B-Movie.
So, Phenomena is kind of a slasher and kind of a murder mystery and kind of a horror movie and kind of a coming of age drama and kind of... a superhero origin story? Connelly uses her insect powers, which the movie never explains, to pursue some bizarre leads in this Swiss mountain village. Her presence also makes insects fall into their mating behavior and like... is the message I'm supposed to take from this that young Jennifer Connelly was so hot it transcends the difference of species? I mean, I can kinda see it, but...
Anyway, for as weird as this movie is, it gets even weirder, considering Argento stated it's meant to be set in a version of Europe where the Third Reich had won World War 2 and in his own words, it's obvious if you pay attention. And I think the word "obvious" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, because nothing that's actually in the movie would have tipped me off that this is canon to the Wolfenstein series. The movie does, however, confirm that in this universe the BeeGees and Richard Gere still exist. Oh, on that note, Jennifer was also initially supposed to be the daughter of Al Pacino. Not, mind you, of a character played by Al Pacino, just, the actual actor Al Pacino.
Add to that how... off the performances in this are. Maybe a lot of this goes back to the weird way Italians used to make movies where they had everyone perform in their own language and then just dubbed over whoever they had to but almost everyone in this talks like they are in a high school play. According to Wikipedia Inga, the chimpanzee, played by Tanga, the chimpanzee, bit off a part of Connelly's finger during the filming of this movie which tragically spelled the end for her career. Tanga's career, that is, Connelly's still working. Which I think is very unfortunate, she was far and away the best actor in the movie.
I could tell you how the climax of the movie plays out but in case you're at all interested, I'm not gonna give it away. I will only say, it's completely insane and kind of ableist.
Make no mistake, by any rational definition, Phenomena is absolutely awful. Suspiria 's weird quirks could still pass as artistic decisions that go with the whole expressionist vibe of that movie but Phenomena doesn't have that excuse. The visuals are still nice and once again the score is provided by prog rock band Goblin in what might have been their best movie score but yeah, not by any stretch of the imagination can I call Phenomena a good movie. I will, however, say that I did enjoy it a lot. It's just a baffling affair. It's almost surrealist but I'm pretty sure it isn't trying to be. I think if you go in with the right attitude you can have a pretty good time with it.
Oh, in case anyone's interested, it's on YouTube, too:
Last edited:
It is definitely an Argento film. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is dependent on the viewer, because Argento is almost the definition of style over substance when it comes to his films. That said, not many slasher films feature Motorhead and Iron Maiden on their soundtrack.
You don't have to watch it now, but whenever the opportunity strikes or whenever you were up to it. You won't have to turn your brain off as much, but anything by Adkins or the director, Isaac Florantine, are all about old school style action. At least you won't have to worry about shakey cam nor quick cuts.