Which is exactly why I continue sticking with Blu-ray. I don't have a 4k tv, everything pops up just fine on the 1080p screens.
Exactly why Cameron can fuck off.
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, from my own experience, there's not too much difference between 4k and Blu-ray of Fury Road. However, if you can, I highly recommend the Black and Chrome version of Furiosa on 4k if you can find it (I had to get my copy in a full series box set).
I know Miller stated that Fury Road was meant to be in black and white (and later did), but Fury Road works better in color I feel, but my God does Furiosa absolutely feel like it was made to be black and white, and everything about it really pops, and fits right in with the hard chapters. Plus, it kind of helps smooth over the more obvious comping of shots here and there.
Eventhough physical media is barely on life support anymore, region locking is still a thing, and much of the good stuff is still locked to America. I think I saw the chrome version of Fury Road in the year since the movie released on Blu-ray, but I can't say I've seen it since, let alone Furiosa. It's impossible to track down the extended version of The Shining over here, too.
Whiplash, 9/10
This is the 2014 classic about a young studying jazz drummer, who ends up being put through the wringer in the conservatory band headed by JK Simmons' legendary Terence Fletcher. I hadn't seen this since it came out, and having grown and matured a fair bit since then, I can now see all the hype for this. When I saw the first time I thought it was great, but not necessarily anything groundbreaking. This film really requires some life experience to genuinely appreciate. I now see it as a character study about the line between passion and addiction, and between ambition and self-destruction. And it's brilliant.
The obvious out of the way first: JK Simmons' performance is one of the all-time greats. He creates a picture of a complex man about whom you're still not entirely sure even at the end. On one hand he seems like an abusive, abrasive asshole tyrant with zero regard for the well-being of others. Yet on the other hand he's an enormously talented man who's clearly and deeply passionate about his craft, and can be downright tender if you catch him on a good day. But it's in the way where the film makes you question both aspects where the film is at its most interesting: is his passion just an excuse for the abuse, or does he genuinely believe what he's doing is necessary, and ultimately the right thing to do? Is the tyrant a front, or is it the other way around? That we see his real self when he gets into the arena so to speak? The film gives enough evidence for both.
This will probably always remain Miles Teller's career defining performance, unless he pulls some late-career return in like 2060. He has a sort of slightly off, uncanny-ish presence that fits perfectly into this character: a terminally obsessive, singularly devoted automaton. I definitely didn't pick up on it the first time, but he's autistic-coded as fuck: he has no friends, hardly seems to interact with anyone in his daily life, and his entire being seems to be defined by one single obsession. It's signaled pretty overtly like in the dinner scene, but also in subtler ways: when we see the world through Andrew's eyes, even the people disappear. There's only music, sheets and instruments. I'm not even sure he's happy doing what he does. He seems to be sacrificing everything in his life because he feels like he has to, not because he wants to. Rewatching this reminded me in a way of "Tick Tick Boom", where there's also a protagonist in the art world obsessed with leaving a legacy and being remembered among the greats, and screw everything else. It's a pretty harrowing portrayal of when passion turns into addiction, and very much like addiction, you can't help a person who doesn't want to be helped. Andrew is exactly where he wants to be, no matter the cost. He is willing to drag himself across an ocean of broken glass just to get to that one high.
The music scenes are obviously brilliant, but this time I also took more note of the editing and framing. It's quite subtle, but very purposeful in how it deliberately makes all background characters fade from focus and blend together: to Andrew they're just people in the way, and to Terence they're just pawns to be played with. But the ending is what people discuss most often outside of JK Simmons, and this time I got it. It's an incredibly up to interpretation, bipolar ending, and you can see it in a lot of ways. Is it a triumph over adversity where Andrew finally proves himself? Or is it him wilfully submitting to his addiction and subsequent self-destruction, having finally earned Fletcher's approval at the cost of everything else? Or is it them both jumping off a cliff hand in hand, because Fletcher finally has his Charlie Parker, and Andrew finally feels like Charlie Parker? I've seen different people interpret this in various ways, and while I'm personally leaning heavily into the darker interpretation, I can perfectly see how other people might see it completely differently.
A well earned modern classic.
This is the 2014 classic about a young studying jazz drummer, who ends up being put through the wringer in the conservatory band headed by JK Simmons' legendary Terence Fletcher. I hadn't seen this since it came out, and having grown and matured a fair bit since then, I can now see all the hype for this. When I saw the first time I thought it was great, but not necessarily anything groundbreaking. This film really requires some life experience to genuinely appreciate. I now see it as a character study about the line between passion and addiction, and between ambition and self-destruction. And it's brilliant.
The obvious out of the way first: JK Simmons' performance is one of the all-time greats. He creates a picture of a complex man about whom you're still not entirely sure even at the end. On one hand he seems like an abusive, abrasive asshole tyrant with zero regard for the well-being of others. Yet on the other hand he's an enormously talented man who's clearly and deeply passionate about his craft, and can be downright tender if you catch him on a good day. But it's in the way where the film makes you question both aspects where the film is at its most interesting: is his passion just an excuse for the abuse, or does he genuinely believe what he's doing is necessary, and ultimately the right thing to do? Is the tyrant a front, or is it the other way around? That we see his real self when he gets into the arena so to speak? The film gives enough evidence for both.
This will probably always remain Miles Teller's career defining performance, unless he pulls some late-career return in like 2060. He has a sort of slightly off, uncanny-ish presence that fits perfectly into this character: a terminally obsessive, singularly devoted automaton. I definitely didn't pick up on it the first time, but he's autistic-coded as fuck: he has no friends, hardly seems to interact with anyone in his daily life, and his entire being seems to be defined by one single obsession. It's signaled pretty overtly like in the dinner scene, but also in subtler ways: when we see the world through Andrew's eyes, even the people disappear. There's only music, sheets and instruments. I'm not even sure he's happy doing what he does. He seems to be sacrificing everything in his life because he feels like he has to, not because he wants to. Rewatching this reminded me in a way of "Tick Tick Boom", where there's also a protagonist in the art world obsessed with leaving a legacy and being remembered among the greats, and screw everything else. It's a pretty harrowing portrayal of when passion turns into addiction, and very much like addiction, you can't help a person who doesn't want to be helped. Andrew is exactly where he wants to be, no matter the cost. He is willing to drag himself across an ocean of broken glass just to get to that one high.
The music scenes are obviously brilliant, but this time I also took more note of the editing and framing. It's quite subtle, but very purposeful in how it deliberately makes all background characters fade from focus and blend together: to Andrew they're just people in the way, and to Terence they're just pawns to be played with. But the ending is what people discuss most often outside of JK Simmons, and this time I got it. It's an incredibly up to interpretation, bipolar ending, and you can see it in a lot of ways. Is it a triumph over adversity where Andrew finally proves himself? Or is it him wilfully submitting to his addiction and subsequent self-destruction, having finally earned Fletcher's approval at the cost of everything else? Or is it them both jumping off a cliff hand in hand, because Fletcher finally has his Charlie Parker, and Andrew finally feels like Charlie Parker? I've seen different people interpret this in various ways, and while I'm personally leaning heavily into the darker interpretation, I can perfectly see how other people might see it completely differently.
A well earned modern classic.
The whole time I was watching that movie I was wishing the movie was about the Sophie character and we followed her vs the main chick.
I was thinking it was like a Passengers situation where it easily becomes a horror story if we merely switch POVs.
A ★★★★ review of The Frighteners (1996)
“Alright, Bannister. Can you at least give me a ride so I don't miss my funeral?” This film was conceived by Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh in 1992 while working on Heavenly Creatures. In 1993, they wrote a 3 page treatment, and after that treatment was sent out by their talent agent, it was...
letterboxd.com
Yeah, Fury Road was actually a bit of a nightmare to find a 4k and the black and chrome version since they both seemed to only get a single printing back around 2015 or so (it's why the 4k/HDR isn't as an exciting difference, on of the first ones).
Furiosa might actually be easier for you though, as IIRC, my issue with that one was that I couldn't actually find the black and chrome version of that separately for region 1 (hence the previously mentioned box set; its a rather nice set all told, 4k set of the whole series, with black/chrome versions of Fury Road/Furiosa). I was able to find steelbook standalone copies of it for region 2 however.
The shotgun chase through the abandoned hospital is one of the most terrifically edited scenes I think I've ever seen in a movie, and I'm not even talking about how it fades in and out of the past.A ★★★★ review of The Frighteners (1996)
“Alright, Bannister. Can you at least give me a ride so I don't miss my funeral?” This film was conceived by Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh in 1992 while working on Heavenly Creatures. In 1993, they wrote a 3 page treatment, and after that treatment was sent out by their talent agent, it was...
Rewatched GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies. Man Bond was fun back then! He'd somehow overtake a speeding train with a tank and just park it on the tracks miles ahead, waiting like he's Bugs Bunny reading War and Peace. I can just imagine Daniel Craig standing still, helplessly watching the train chug forever into the distance, still sad because Eva Green died 4 movies ago.
Some notes:
Bond gets put into an exploding helicopter and all he has to do to escape this particular death trap is push the big loud EJECT button that's blaring immediately to his left and perfectly within reach of a headbutt.
This is a case of me misremembering: I could've swore Bond planted the exploding pen on Boris and used that to escape. As it happens, Boris just picks up the pen randomly. And people complain that Indy and Nate are all about dumb luck.
Similarly I wish Bond selling out Alec as a Leinz (?) Cossack to Ouromov played into his escape. I guess he momentarily startles Ouromov but I didn't get the impression it altered the initial outcome of the standoff.
"Don't touch that! That's my lunch"
I wonder which one is crazier, May Day or Xenia Onatopp.
How obvious was it to 1995 moviegoers that Sean Bean survived the intro (I mean, he's billed second during the opening credits) and would become the main villain?
Tomorrow Never Dies has a great opening that might as well be live-action Just Cause 2, but that's the most action we get for a while.
The Hamburg scenes don't feel particularly Bond-ish.
I like that for once a Bond Girl has a preestablished relationship with Bond (other than Mary Goodnight?). Here's what I don't like: M saucily telling Bond to "pump her for information". Lady, you were calling him out as a sexist dinosaur one movie ago.
I like the remote car chase and the bike and helicopter stuff but the movie loses something after the Vincent Schiavelli scene.
Some notes:
Bond gets put into an exploding helicopter and all he has to do to escape this particular death trap is push the big loud EJECT button that's blaring immediately to his left and perfectly within reach of a headbutt.
This is a case of me misremembering: I could've swore Bond planted the exploding pen on Boris and used that to escape. As it happens, Boris just picks up the pen randomly. And people complain that Indy and Nate are all about dumb luck.
Similarly I wish Bond selling out Alec as a Leinz (?) Cossack to Ouromov played into his escape. I guess he momentarily startles Ouromov but I didn't get the impression it altered the initial outcome of the standoff.
"Don't touch that! That's my lunch"
I wonder which one is crazier, May Day or Xenia Onatopp.
How obvious was it to 1995 moviegoers that Sean Bean survived the intro (I mean, he's billed second during the opening credits) and would become the main villain?
Tomorrow Never Dies has a great opening that might as well be live-action Just Cause 2, but that's the most action we get for a while.
The Hamburg scenes don't feel particularly Bond-ish.
I like that for once a Bond Girl has a preestablished relationship with Bond (other than Mary Goodnight?). Here's what I don't like: M saucily telling Bond to "pump her for information". Lady, you were calling him out as a sexist dinosaur one movie ago.
I like the remote car chase and the bike and helicopter stuff but the movie loses something after the Vincent Schiavelli scene.
Last edited:
Tomorrow Never Dies' main villain plot has aged way too well. Jonathan Pryce is also clearly having a blast as the villain, which makes it at least fun to watch. I also wish Wai Lin got her spin-off film.
I watched Train, Planes, and Automobiles again - kind of an autumn/holiday staple - and for years now I wondered; Is this and Jurassic Park the only two movies Martin Ferrero has been in? It can't be, right? Yet I can't think of any other movie I've seen him in.
If only Ed Regis had been in the movie adaptation...
Or The Great Outdoors.
OT, The Substance.
According to IMDb trivia, Universal execs wanted the ending changed after seeing it, and ultimately pulled distribution when the director stuck to her contractual Final Cut privileges. She was forced to shop it out at Cannes where it was picked up by MUBI, which was for the better. Outside of Moore’s ground breaking performance it relies so much on all forms of explicitness that it wouldn’t have worked as well if watered down. I always thought it’d be funny in a movie if some drunk person was in line at a checkout and projectile vomited all over the tabloid stand. This is kinda like a very much more on-the-nose version of that, almost strictly relegated to higher society’s unrealistic beauty standards. It’s of course equally unrealistic in premise, but it kinda needs to be to add some levity, ironically.
The standout influence imo was The Shining’s room 237, but there are certainly others. Despite some serious thematic elements, laughter ultimately wound up the key emotion, for better and/or worse.
Last edited:
Dead Poets Society
First time seeing this classic Robin Williams and Wilson from House boarding school boy's club film. Had a good time with it. The movie is a bit crazy. You could say it finds its own pace. The twist especially is rather mad. 7/10
First time seeing this classic Robin Williams and Wilson from House boarding school boy's club film. Had a good time with it. The movie is a bit crazy. You could say it finds its own pace. The twist especially is rather mad. 7/10
Pearl, 7/10
This is the prequel to the 2022 cult slasher X. It follows the titular character, a farm girl in 1918 rural America with big dreams of showbiz, but is stuck with her stern, strict mother and infirm father. This plot setup could not be more stock if you tried, but Pearl puts a nice twist on it by adding in a, well, twisted side to the main character. From the very first scene it's apparent that Pearl is not all right in the head, and this spirals further down as her clashes with her mother ramp up in intensity.
It's pretty good. It's got a nice retro-style presentation with traditional Hollywood fonts and some old-fashioned cinematography thrown in. It has a great eye for creating uncomfortable, eerie atmosphere despite most of the movie taking place in sunbathed open spaces. The production design's great and manages to draw a lot of visual identity out of a very limited number of settings, though I did at times wonder how accurate the movie was for being set in 1918. Then-nobody David Corenswet's here too, which is kind of funny. It's also got a lot more thematic depth than I was expecting from a prequel to basically a joke slasher. I don't remember that much from X, but I do remember it dealing with themes of regret coming with age, and this fits perfectly into the same continuity.
But what this movie is really about is Mia Goth's central performance, which is genuinely up there with Toni Collette in Hereditary in terms of sheer, unhinged, hysterical intensity. Goth is putting everything on the line here, screaming her lungs out, crying, sobbing and grinning like a maniac, yet never loses sight of the character's humanity or feeling like a caricature. This culminates in an absolutely stunning 8-minute monologue at the end, in which there is a static, over 5-minute long shot of Goth just talking, and I was hanging on to her every word. You really have to see it to truly grasp what a titanic achievement of acting it is.
The movie overall is nothing special, but it has an absolutely nuclear performance by Goth, which alone makes this well worth watching.
This is the prequel to the 2022 cult slasher X. It follows the titular character, a farm girl in 1918 rural America with big dreams of showbiz, but is stuck with her stern, strict mother and infirm father. This plot setup could not be more stock if you tried, but Pearl puts a nice twist on it by adding in a, well, twisted side to the main character. From the very first scene it's apparent that Pearl is not all right in the head, and this spirals further down as her clashes with her mother ramp up in intensity.
It's pretty good. It's got a nice retro-style presentation with traditional Hollywood fonts and some old-fashioned cinematography thrown in. It has a great eye for creating uncomfortable, eerie atmosphere despite most of the movie taking place in sunbathed open spaces. The production design's great and manages to draw a lot of visual identity out of a very limited number of settings, though I did at times wonder how accurate the movie was for being set in 1918. Then-nobody David Corenswet's here too, which is kind of funny. It's also got a lot more thematic depth than I was expecting from a prequel to basically a joke slasher. I don't remember that much from X, but I do remember it dealing with themes of regret coming with age, and this fits perfectly into the same continuity.
But what this movie is really about is Mia Goth's central performance, which is genuinely up there with Toni Collette in Hereditary in terms of sheer, unhinged, hysterical intensity. Goth is putting everything on the line here, screaming her lungs out, crying, sobbing and grinning like a maniac, yet never loses sight of the character's humanity or feeling like a caricature. This culminates in an absolutely stunning 8-minute monologue at the end, in which there is a static, over 5-minute long shot of Goth just talking, and I was hanging on to her every word. You really have to see it to truly grasp what a titanic achievement of acting it is.
The movie overall is nothing special, but it has an absolutely nuclear performance by Goth, which alone makes this well worth watching.
According to James Gunn, it was actually this that put David Corenswet on his radar to begin with.
A ★★★★★ review of Misery (1990)
“I'm your number one fan. There's nothing to worry about. You're going to be just fine.” This adaptation of the Stephen King novel was conceived when producer Andrew Scheinman read it on a plane and liked it so much he took it to his director partner at Castle Rock Entertainment, one Rob Reiner...
letterboxd.com