Skin Trade

Skin Trade (2014)

Runtime: 96 minutes

Directed by: Ekachai Uekrongtham

Starring: Dolph Lundgren, Tony Jaa, Ron Perlman, Celina Jade, Michael Jai White

From: Several different studios

This Thai/Canadian/American production is worth seeing, and is more than a crappy lazy DTV effort: 

Watching this, I realized the three main players all deserve better careers in Hollywood. Dolph Lundgren should not have been in DTV hell for years; sure he's been in some awful flicks for a paycheck but some others-including those he directed himself-are more worthwhile. Hell, he is now 60 years old and yet he's still in great shape so him getting more roles in films like Aquaman is not so far-fetched. Michael Jai White, it's a tragedy he is not an A-lister now. He can act, is not bad-looking in any way, and knows martial arts. Tony Jaa, if his former management wasn't so terrible, he would have been able to break into the Western world much sooner, and right after people were wow'ed by Ong Bak and The Protector. Instead, he had to make apparently awful sequels and that's why he did not act for awhile and made statements proclaiming he was going to be a monk.

This movie is about human trafficking and while the message is in the trappings of a random action flick, it's still a good message to share. Lundgren was a co-producer and co-writer; he waited years until he could make exactly the film he wanted, and that turned out to be doing it with Thai involvement. Ron Perlman (as a Serbian) is a really awful human being, as he leads a gang of really awful human beings who-among other things-engages in human trafficking; girls in Southeast Asia and other locations are taken and sold across the world. Tony Jaa is a cop in Thailand who deals with the problem there while Dolph is a cop in New Jersey that kills (in self defense) one of Perlman's sons. Ron gets revenge by killing his family-which is not a spoiler as both the description here and on Netflix mentions this-so he is on a rampage and goes to Thailand to try and find Perlman.

Dolph ends up doing some things that are not so great on a ethical scale but how you feel about that is up to you. It is natural to think of his turn as The Punisher in those moments. There are several “hey, wait a minute now...” bits but even factoring in that, I'll still say this is a pretty good film and the action fans may feel the same way. There are entertaining action scenes that are not shot incoherently, and when the movie is in Thailand the scenery can be quite lovely. Me, of course I'll be happy to watch a motion picture involving Dolph, Jaa, Perlman, White, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, and Peter Weller, even if some of their roles are pretty small. To me the film was a lot more fun than many of the action films of recent years that actually got theatrical releases.

Not to get political here, but unlike what Roseanne recently claimed, this movie shows actual proof of someone saving some victims from the ravages of human trafficking...

Pulp Fiction

You should know all the info by now

Yes, this movie is in fact great:

In the past 25 years, it is hard to think of a more influential movie than Pulp Fiction. It made a lot of money for an independent film, made Tarantino known around the world, started John Travolta from years of obscurity, made stars of a few people (Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, Ving Rhames), made independent cinema a viable alternative to big studios, and helped launch the careers of the Weinstein Brothers... which in hindsight wasn't good, but in the decade after this movie came out, it was filled with Tarantino clones-imitation movies that tried to match its juggling of a non-linear timeline, used rapid fire (and usually R-rated) dialogue, the usage of somewhat obscure old music cues, etc.; generally, people say that most of the clones were pretty bad and above all else were just obnoxious.

Even with hindsight and knowing not just the actions of Harvey Weinstein but also how Thurman has accused QT of literally putting her life on the line during the filming of Kill Bill and being incredibly callous about it (not to mention the other controversies surrounding him) I was able to put that out of my mind as I saw this again; I have watched it a few times in my life, and even like 10 or so years ago I got to see it on the big screen in a revival screening. We all know the plot and how it follows a bunch of shady characters that are on the periphery of the major criminal scene in Los Angeles. The story is lurid and has some shocking moments; then again, I understand the original pulp novels of decades past-which I have sadly never read-were like this. The character that Bruce Willis plays (boxer Butch Coolidge) is straight out of a film noir, as I remember that is not the first time on film you see a boxer be asked to take a dive in a match but whether by accident or on purpose, they end up winning. As Tarantino did cast Willis because he looked like an actor from the 1950's, it was perfect.

Seeing this again, I realized I remembered the film pretty well. I was happy that even with those aforementioned things involving some people involved behind the camera, I can still say this is great and the enjoyment level hasn't diminished. There are so many memorable performances and unforgettable characters, from the major ones to Christopher Walken's one scene and small yet important roles from the likes of Eric Stoltz as Lance and Harvey Keitel as Winston Wolfe the cleaner. Besides QT there were plenty of other talented people behind the scenes, from the late editor Sally Menke to cinematographer Andrzej Sekula. Other people on the Internet have written great articles (and lengthy ones, too) about the film and such aspects as it being classified postmodern by some, all the old works of entertainment that were homaged, etc. No way could I do that as well, so I'll leave it up to the reader to find those if they so desire.

I understand how not everyone would love this. After all it's a decidedly adult movie filled with drug use, almost non-stop vulgar language, and several moments that are graphically violent. Plus, Tarantino has a small role and I am not sure why he wrote himself to drop the N-bomb often, but a person being turned off by that is a valid reaction. Even with those talking points, I can still give this my highest rating due to its impact in the movie-making world and how captivating it still is, and how many moments/lines are still fondly remembered today.

The Message

The Message (1976)

Runtime: 178 minutes

Directed by: Moustapha Akkad

Starring: Anthony Quinn, Irene Papas, Michael Ansara, Johnny Sekka, Michael Forest

From: Filmco International Productions

I saw this film from Lebanon/Libya/Kuwait/Morocco/UK and what an interesting movie it is: 

Even among hardcore film fans like my fellow denizens of Letterboxd, I presume many will know Moustapha Akkad only for the Halloween franchise and haven't seen anything else involving him. Well, this is about as different from a Michael Myers story as you can get, as it is a story about Muhammad and how the Islam faith began and the struggles the first followers had to deal with, including various battles. Oh, and Akkad was also the director.

A unique hurdle the movie had to face was following what most (I understand not all, but most) of the faith believe, which is that an image or any kind of portrayal of Muhammad is utter blasphemy. The movie manages to work even though you never see nor hear the prophet or his wife/children. Anthony Quinn was a sort of surrogate as Muhammad's uncle. The movie (both this and an Arabic version that was shot at the same time) was a source of great contention around the world. I am not privy to most of the reasons why; I just know of what happened in Washington, D.C.; a splinter group had misconceptions of the film and were so angry they held people hostage and unfortunately a few innocents died. United States box office suffering because of that is of course secondary.

I cannot speak of the content that made some Muslims so irate. I can say that Akkad even had trouble finding funding and making this without any Hollywood support. It wasn't the idea at first but parts of the movie were filmed in Libya and he did have the support of Muammar Gaddafi; Google can tell you why he was so controversial if you don't know already but the only other movie Moustapha directed (1981's Lion of the Desert) was also filmed in Libya and received money from Gaddafi. Not a good look, as some people would say and think.

The thing is, all that said I thought this movie was very good. I understand those who think the film is “boring” because it is 3 hours long, features a lot of talking, and if you don't care about the subject matter... I never had that problem. The movie did not seem that long, which is a high compliment whenever I see something this lengthy. The movie was filmed well, had nice sets, an appropriate Maurice Jarre score and the performances were all at least fine.

Even with the constraints put on it in order to make it palatable for the intended audience, I can say the movie at least worked for me, someone who is decidedly not of Muslim faith nor am I fully versed in the religion. I got to see how Islam began and how those at the beginning were so devoted despite all the odds.

The Harder They Come

The Harder They Come (1972)

Runtime: 103 minutes

Directed by: Perry Henzell

Starring: Jimmy Cliff, Janet Bartley, Carl Bradshaw, Ras Daniel Hartman, Basil Keane

From: International Films

Yes, this is a cult classic, mon... although I don't love it like some do: 

This was the perfect month for me to see then talk about Jamaica's most famous movie... which happens to be their first feature length film.

Ivan Martin (Jimmy Cliff; I'll just call him Jimmy Cliff throughout as why not?) moves into the city from the country and in a rather meandering story, he cuts a hit record-the title song, which you hear rather frequently in the second half of this film-but runs into trouble as he has to deal with the typical unscrupulous record promoter so he gets involved in drug running, which goes about as well as you'd expect.

I can understand how the acting isn't always the great, or how the same can be said about the overall filmmaking. But to me a lot of the appeal is both the beautiful Jamaican scenery and the legendary reggae soundtrack, which I loved hearing, repetition issues aside. I certainly did not love Jimmy Cliff as either the hero or the anti-hero. He was just an annoying punk who was all too eager to start killing cops when the heat is turned up on him. Maybe its odd plotting and random non-sequitor moments work best if you're stoned off your ass while watching this... I prefer Jimmy Cliff the musician to Jimmy Cliff the actor and Jimmy Cliff the character.

I do not regret watching this cult classic. It was nice seeing how Jamaica is and was (visiting there would be nice but it's a total pipe dream as of now) plus some of the dialogue is in Jamaican Patois; it is thankfully subtitled as it is sort of English and yet you can only make out parts of each sentence.

Pacific Rim: Uprising

Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018)

45% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 163 reviews)

Runtime: 110 minutes

Directed by: Steven S. DeKnight

Starring: John Boyega, Scott Eastwood, Cailee Spaeny, Burn Gorman, Charlie Day

From: Universal/Legendary

Yes, this is a "movie sequel" in many different ways, much to my dismay: 

As I reviewed a few days ago, I still enjoy the OG Pacific Rim even if it has flaws and cliches are a-plenty. Not everyone clamored for a sequel yet as it was made by Legendary Entertainment, the film did very well in China and as Legendary was purchased by the Wanda Group (a Chinese company), it was only natural for this to occur. Boy, was it missing the del Toro touch.

I won't say much about the plot, and y'all probably saw the trailers already anyhow. The kaiju monsters return 10 years after the events of the first film; Stacker Pentecost's son is John Boyega and several characters from the first are here. I saw this on a Premium Large Format screen (Dolby Cinema at AMC, to be exact) and as I expected, the movie looked and sounded great. To steal a phrase, there's plenty of boom boom, bang bang.

I can say that while the movie has its fight scenes in the daytime which make it different from the rainy night battles in the first, the action scenes still are fun to watch (them never being difficult to follow is always a positive) and the addition of a rogue Jaeger robot was an interesting spin. Boyega was the highlight-as I expected-but most of the cast was fine. Considering this was her very first movie and it was a big role, young Cailee Spaeny did quite good. I wasn't sure about Scott Eastwood but I thought he was fine; the character was very rote admittedly... his performance was still fine. What a homoerotic relationship between the people played by Boyega & Eastwood. Like with the first, the main players are a diverse bunch in terms of ethnicity and of course I am usually fine with such a thing.

Unfortunately, this movie is really stupid-plenty of preposterous and silly moments happen. At times I laughed at how dumb they were, but I couldn't always do that. There were more cliches to witness but my biggest issues surrounded one character. You see, I had more than one problem with this role and I won't say much as it's massive spoilers except that I ended up groaning whenever this over the top farcical person would appear and yeah I had a big problem there.

While this isn't the worst modern blockbuster I've seen by any means, it is still a modern blockbuster and I don't even watch most of them as most of them are brainless, soulless, intelligence-insulting, etc. This movie won't resonate with me like the first one does, although thankfully it is not as putrid as one of those Transformers abominations.

I'll close this out by mentioning how there's both a brief reference to an anime featuring robots (which caused someone by me to exclaim out loud but I had no idea what it was until I saw it explained once I returned home) and a line that was lol-worthy. I haven't watched either of these divisive films but I know many had problems with an important aspect in the final act of Man of Steel so in Batman v. Superman, I know they went out of their way to explain the part of a city that got destroyed “was still in the midst of being built so no one lives there”, which sounds contrived to me. Here, they explain that everyone in a huge city has evacuated so it's OK when you see the area get wrecked. I call poppycock on that, as I do not buy the idea of millions of people getting the hell out of Dodge with not a lot of forewarning.

No Questions Asked

No Questions Asked (1951)

Runtime: 80 minutes

Directed by: Harold F. Kress

Starring: Barry Sullivan, Arlene Dahl, George Murphy, Jean Hagen, Richard Anderson

From: MGM

This is a random, obscure film noir and it's not the best I've seen from the genre... yet even the ones that are "only" good in the genre are ones I am still happy to see: 

I realized recently I hadn't seen any film noir for awhile; last night TCM played this obscure one so I knew that would be better than streaming an appropriate movie online. This is a noir about insurance scams; is no Pitfall, let alone Double Indemnity, but that does not mean the film is bad.

The scam itself is buying stolen merchandise from gangsters, and it's the insurance companies that are involved. Sounds like a paradox, but the lead (Steve) gets a finders-fee, the insurance company avoid a large settlement and the gangsters more cash than they would have otherwise. It is clear that Steve is the one who recovers the stolen goods so to paraphrase what a cop says, “Technically, it's legal. Morally, it stinks.” Morally, Steve does not look like a hero, even if he wants more money in order to impress a woman. There are two main ladies; of course one is a femme fatale bad girl where another is virtuous. Naturally, dealing with such people ends up causing Steve a lot of trouble. This is definitely a noir, and not just for how the movie begins with Steve being chased by the cops and him narrating to us how he ended up there... and all the scenes where you see people in the back of vehicles.

While not the best of its type, the movie is still fine. Barry Sullivan was in his fair share of genre movies so no surprise he did well here. So did Arlene Dahl and Jean Hagen as the two ladies. There are some surprises and amusing moments in the script from Sidney Sheldon, of all people. A villain who wishes to be Olympic-caliber in swimming is rather uncommon. While you may question a thing or two about the movie, it still should be a fine watch for noir fans, even though it is one of many films in the genre which are “fine” or better.

Sennentuntschi: Curse Of the Alps

Sennentuntschi: Curse of the Alps (2010)

Runtime: 115 minutes

Directed by: Michael Steiner

Starring: Roxane Mesquida, Nicholas Ofczarek, Andrea Zogg, Carlos Zeal, Joel Basman

From: Kontraproduktion AG/Superfilm

Yes, even the mild-mannered Swiss can make interesting horror films: 

For awhile now I've known of this Swiss horror film; as it's on Shudder this was the perfect time for me to finally give it a whirl. I made the right choice putting this in my queue-I found the movie to be pretty good.

This is based on old Alpine folklore; the story is that some lonely men create a makeshift doll and wish for it to come alive, so it is a young woman they can have their way with. It does come alive, they act like A-holes then she gets rather gruesome revenge. The plot of the movie bookends around present time but most of it is in 1975, either in a small Swiss village or high up a mountain. It is partly a flashback and partly a flashback within a flashback; the movie is not as confusing as it sounds. Besides the legend being brought to screen, there's also the sheriff of the town falling for the titular sennentuntschi. I say it's understandable as she was a rather attractive young lady. Note that most of the main players who are men are also pretty scummy, to say the least.

Roxane Mesquida as the lead was more than just a pretty face; she never said a word yet she still said a lot with her acting skills. The format this story was told in... it usually worked. The story was pretty entertaining even with there being some unpleasant scenes. I appreciated there being a modern movie based on a fable, and one obscure to most people. The scenery (filmed in both Switzerland and Austria) was absolutely gorgeous. I am glad this was one of the many interesting foreign films Shudder has in its library.

The Legend Of Boggy Creek

The Legend of Boggy Creek (1972)

Runtime: 86 minutes

Directed by: Charles B. Pierce

Starring: Pierce and a bunch of Arkansas locals

From: P&L

What an interesting film this is: 

Last night I decided to randomly see this cult favorite. While it's languorous (meaning it is rather leisurely paced at best) I can still say the movie is good.

What an interesting way Charles B. Pierce told this story. Think of it as a docudrama. The tale is based on real life. In the tiny town of Foulke, Arkansas, a Bigfoot-esque creature was spotted off and on for years. The people in the cast were mainly residents of the city and they played themselves; they told various yarns about encounters they claimed they had. I'll presume those stories actually happened to those people and weren't complete BS written by Pierce, but I can't say definitively either way. I can say Pierce was the narrator-under a different name-and appears at the end.

Like I said, this has a languid pace, rolling along slowly like one of the creeks you see in the film. That said, I wasn't bored. The main drawing card is how it feels authentic due to the cast and all the Southern accents you hear. In addition, there's a creepy vibe under the surface throughout that sometimes bubbles over and becomes apparent. The final act has some very successful moments at being terrifying. You do see the creature, which is a dude in a Sasquatch suit. You never see it clearly up close, which is not only good as the suit was probably cheap, but it does end up making things spookier.

I give Pierce a lot of credit for doing this with an old camera and borrowed cash from a local trucking company, and it was such a hit locally that it received national distribution and was a bit hit on the drive-in circuit. In modern times people may think of it as “dull” and I get that, but the eerie feeling throughout is enough to make me say this was worthwhile.

7 Boxes

7 Boxes (7 Cajas) (2012)

Runtime: 105 minutes

Directed by: Juan Carlos Maneglia/Tana Schembori

Starring: Celso Franco, Victor Sosa, Lali Gonzalez, Nico Garcia, Paletita

From: Maleglia-Schembori Realizadores

How has this not been remade already? See why I feel this way below: 

Paraguay, it's a country I don't know much about; I do know it was a military dictatorship for 35 years until 1989, so that is why their film industry is stunted compared to other countries in South America. However, this did get international attention thus it is easy to rent from a few different streaming sites; considering that and the type of story this is, I am SHOCKED it has not already had an (inferior) American remake.

I understand the movie takes place in 2005; at least that's what I saw in one review. It would make sense, as otherwise Paraguay is way behind the times and it took them years to get cellphones that took pictures and video; oh, what a blast from the past was it to see those circa 2005 Nokia phones. Anyhow, the lead is Victor, a 17 year old who works at a large outdoor market in the capital city of Asuncion. He has a poor background and his job is helping customers transport all the items they purchase at the market. There are a variety of characters you see throughout and yes they do intersect with each other, but Victor is the lead. He does know a girl around the same age as Liz, although they usually bicker with each other.

He is asked by a shady butcher whose shop is about to be visited by police to hold on to 7 boxes for a few hours. Yes, what is contained in those boxes is “pretty hot.” Various misunderstandings happen so things get pretty crazy and plenty of unexpected moments happen too-it was pretty entertaining, if a little far-fetched. 7 Boxes was decently shot and at times it looked like a Wong Kar-Wai movie, of all things. The participants being poor and wanting cash (preferably American dollars, as apparently Paraguay's currency was not doing well at the time) is a major theme, along with Victor being fascinated with television and wanting to become famous.

It was nice seeing the capital city of the country, even if it was mainly the real life market this was set at. As there's an undercurrent of black humor throughout, I never lost interest. One day, I imagine someone from another country (even if it isn't the United States) will do a remake.

Bitcoin Heist

Bitcoin Heist (Sieu Trom) (2016)

Runtime: 116 minutes

Directed by: Ham Tran

Starring: Kate Nhung, Thanh Pham, Petey Majik Nguyen, Suboi, Jayvee Mai The Hiep

From: Old Photo Films

Yes, this is a real movie-from Vietnam, no less-and it was somewhat surprisingly not bad:

I'll be honest here, finding a movie on Netflix Instant called BITCOIN HEIST made me laugh and laugh. I actually made this discovery last year but this seemed like the best month to see a movie from Vietnam for the first time. What a loony film this turned out to be; I am not fully sure they understood everything about bitcoins and QR codes. Then again, most people don't... me included. I suppose that's why this is set in the far-flung future of 2020 (!); it is an excuse for how they explain cryptocurrency and some of the wacky technology that is used.

In the end it isn't too important-the plot is that there is a hacker known as The Ghost who is in Vietnam but his true identity is a mystery. A loose cannon cop (believe it or not, an attractive young woman) goes undercover and recruits quite the motley crue to try and get the cryptocurrency wallet of the guy fingered as The Ghost; this includes a captured henchman, a magician, a thief who has a 10 year old daughter who also is a thief, and a hacker who loves playing League of Legends. What a convoluted plan they come up with to try and defeat all the security measures; this does include the 10 year old, and lol to that. And there's more...

I did not love every plot development and it is pretty silly overall. Yet the movie is still slick and never boring; it's also filmed decently well and is competently made. Bitcoin Heist is usually light in tone (although a few times it's decidedly not; to steal a comment, one scene is straight out of Saw) and to give an example, the magician is named Jack Magique and yet everyone calls him Magic Jack. The humor is hit or miss yet it rarely is awful. I was reminded of a scene in Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation while watching this, and if I had seen any of the Soderbergh Oceans films or the two Now You Can See Me flicks, I am sure I'd be reminded of those too.


While the movie is uneven, I still did appreciate looking at various sights & sounds in Vietnam-along with another country later-and overall I was more entertained than I thought I would be and the movie is not the worst way to spent 2 hours.

Song Of The Sea

Song of the Sea (2014)

Runtime: 93 minutes

Directed by: Tomm Moore

Starring: The voices include the likes of David Rawle, Brendan Gleeson, Lisa Hannigan, Finnoula Flanagan, and Lucy O'Connell

From: This is from a few different countries but it was a Cartoon Saloon production

What better film to watch on the night of St. Patrick's Day than one from Ireland... an animated film featuring native voices, folklore, and music. Turns out, I was extremely charmed by this film.

To explain a key plot point, a selkie is a creature found not just in Irish folklore but also in surrounding regions, like Scotland. It's a seal that becomes human while on land. The movie follows a pair of children, siblings Ben and Saoirse (if you ever wanted to know how to pronounce Saoirse Ronan's name, this movie will inform you); Ben does not like his sister for a big reason that is not her fault. In fact, he's real aggravating in general, at least to start out with. Turns out, his sister-who is mute-is a selkie and they go on what turns out to be an important adventure.

In an age of computer animation it is great to see films that still use the traditional hand-drawn style. I watched plenty of cartoons when I was a kid so I'll always have nostalgia for such things. I loved how this movie looked; it was like looking at watercolor paintings in motion, and you'll see many different colors of the rainbow. There's a wide variety of different characters you see on this journey, all memorable. It's a heartwarming story, although some moments are tearjerkers so for some I imagine the room will suddenly seem very dusty...

This is a movie that people of all ages can fall in love with. Most will have siblings so they can especially feel nostalgic for childhood. Me, I have two younger sisters and I do wish I would have been a better brother. At least the sisters are doing fine as adults; as for myself... anyhow, it's a nice journey which blends the real world and the faerie world quite spectacularly and the comparisons to Studio Ghibli are natural. It's a movie I give my... seal of approval to.

Tomb Raider

Tomb Raider (2018)

50% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 177 reviews)

Runtime: 118 minutes

Directed by: the greatly named Roar Uthaug

Starring: Alicia Vikander, Dominic West, Walton Goggins, Daniel Wu, Kristin Scott Thomas

From: Warner Bros./MGM

This is a good time; not a masterpiece but still fun: 

A few days ago I watched Lara Croft: Tomb Raider; I was not impressed in the least. OK, the dance soundtrack was cool but otherwise the movie was kind of insufferable and as I have never played any Tomb Raider game, it does seem kind of odd I would want to see this. Yet as a kid I loved the Indiana Jones movies (and I still do; let's not talk of Crystal Skull) and I suspected this would be a silly adventure filmed in some exotic locations so it was worth a shot. I imagine a few would speculate it was because of the lead; I don't “stan her” (to use the lingo the kids like to say) yet I was surprised when a few months ago I discovered there were some men that really don't care for Alicia Vikander's appearance. To each their own...

This movie was what I expected. It's not the exact character origin as seen in previous iterations but that is OK. Lara does go looking for her missing father again, which I thought was amusing. She does visit exotic locations as she runs, jumps, swims, uses a bow & arrow, etc... from Wikipedia I know this story borrows some elements from one of the games. There's also Walton Goggins; between the character being played by him and what was shown in the trailers, you can guess if he's a white hat or a black hat kind of person.

It's a silly movie and some moments don't bear close scrutiny. Yet it is still enjoyable. It's not epic like the first three Indy movies but at the same time it wasn't aggravating like Lara Croft: Tomb Raider was. There are entertaining-enough action scenes that provide the requisite amount of thrills and there are also puzzles that Croft has to solve. It's what you'd expect even if this isn't brutal and almost sadistic like the 2013 reboot game apparently is. Vikander is quite good in the role. Sure, she isn't overly muscular but she's still in great shape and sometimes she uses MMA techniques to her advantage. She is not a superhero; Lara does take a beating and when she has to kill a person for the first time, it is a traumatic event.

This is not a great movie, but in comparison to other videogame films it might as well be. Most of those don't make the average film goer or the fanbase happy; at least this is a fun adventure that won't be fingernails on a blackboard like the 2001 Angelina Jolie movie was.

Seoul Station

Seoul Station (Seoulyeok) (2016)

Runtime: 92 minutes

Directed by: Yeon Sang-Ho

Starring: The voices of Ryu Seung-Ryong, Shim Eun-Kyung, Lee Joon, Lee Sang-Hee

From: Finecut/Studio Dadashow

Oh, why couldn't have this been good?

August of 2016 I got to see Train to Busan on the big screen. It was a rotten day and due to some paint-huffers it was not the best theatrical experience either; yet even with all that it was still a great movie and I could recognize that. Sometime next month I'll watch that again so I can give a review with less bitching & moaning and that'll be an exclusive to the Best of 2016 list I will post. Yes I never created one of those yet, let alone Best of 2017.

Anyhow, this is an animated prequel that came out after Train to Busan and yet it was just last night that I got around to it. To say that I am massively disappointed with this would be putting it lightly. Busan is awesome as you follow a bunch of interesting characters (some of whom are rather lousy human beings) as they deal with lots and lots of fast-moving zombies, which could be argued are more like the infected people of Nightmare City or Planet Terror. There are many exciting moments and as it's a Korean movie, not all of those characters survive to the end and yes, there is a crying child but even that was done well.

Here, I did not really care about the few people we had to follow. They included an annoying homeless man, and a father looking for his daughter... who is a young lady that has become a prostitute. Hardcore this isn't. They are not the most pleasant of people so it paled in comparison to Busan. So did the zombie attack scenes, the exciting moments, the scenes filled with pathos, etc. TtB is just better in every way. Then near the end there is a surprising twist, which could have elevated things... yet it doesn't. Instead it's the type of thing that'll likely leave a sour taste in your mouth.

The bitch of it all is that this barely has anything to do with Busan and does nothing to enrich TtB's story. I feel there's no real need to ever see this even if you love Train to Busan and the novelty of this being animation wears off rather quickly. At least this doesn't retroactively ruin TtB.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

Runtime: 100 minutes

Directed by: Simon West

Starring: Angelina Jolie, Jon Voight, Iain Glen, Noah Taylor, Daniel Craig

From: Paramount... and a few other companies

I finally saw this movie, yet I would have been better off never having seen a second of it: 

As the new movie is coming out in a few days, I figured I should finally see this movie. As I've never played any of the Tomb Raider games (I just never cared to) there was no reason for me to check this out when I am not a fan of Angelina Jolie in any way. I did go into this with an open mind; I did not want to see something I thought was going to be insufferable. Guess what, it was.

I know I was in trouble from the opening scene, which is some nonsense involving a robot that might as well be General Grevious. From there, this is pure crap... a preposterous story I don't give a damn about where I groaned when the identity of the villains was revealed, the object they are after is pure nonsense, and I don't like just about all of the characters, including Lara Croft. It reeks of “big budget moviemaking in 2001” in the worst of ways, and Tomb Raider is really damn stupid.

I could have rated this even lower but it was neat seeing Cambodia in a film as it's rare for any sort of movie from the West to film there, and Daniel Craig was fine if unmemorable, albeit him as an American was a little jarring and his accent was not great in terms of being accurate. However, as Croft in the movie always just looked bored and looked as if she was never challenged, so why should I care? What an awkward relationship with her screen dad, although it's more uncomfortable in real life considering it's her real life dad Jon Voight and their actual relationship is pretty bad. Also, this movie thinks its audience is so dumb that we needed to be told 3 times in a 5 minute span that the most important event in the movie “happens only once every 5,000 years.”

Many people say Cradle of Life is even worse, so seeing that is a giant NOPE from me. The new movie with Alicia Vikander has to be better than this offal, yet I am not sure how well it'll do at the box office. On the third of this month when I was at that marathon at a local AMC of 5 Best Picture nominees, during the breaks between films I sometimes was out in the hallway; they had up a poster for the new film and I overheard several different people make pejorative remarks about it and they all noted how much they loved the Jolie movies! Only now do I fully realize how preposterous those comments truly were, at least in my opinion.

Khoon Khoon

Khoon Khoon (1973)

Runtime: 131 minutes

Directed by: Mohammed Hussain

Starring: Mahendra Sandhu, Danny Denzongpa, Jagdeep, Madan Puri, Rekha

From: Eagle Films/United Producers

Indian cinema... what an amazing thing that I hope to explore much more in the near future: 

Would you believe there is a movie on U.S. Netflix Instant which has only a few votes here and 15 votes on IMDb? I'll blame it on Netflix's new-and poor-layout. Yesterday I subscribed to it for the first time in like 2 months and besides there being a grand purge (at least judging by how much smaller my queue now is) there also is a new layout and it is less efficient at searching for films... at least there are multiple sites out there that have the secret links to more specific Instant searching...

Anyhow, I don't recall how I recently found out about this movie but no matter the source, I am glad to know there's an Indian version of Dirty Harry! As there are several main languages in India, I should probably specify that it's a Hindi version of Dirty Harry. It's not quite the same... sure, many story beats are followed so it will be familiar to those that have seen DH before. Of course there are some differences:

* The hero here is more slightly grungy than dirty; he has a wife and kid and even lives with his in-laws. He does not pull out a .44 Magnum and ask a punk if he feels lucky.

* The hero has a bumbling partner who is a real buffoon... this clown's main trait is that he's obsessed with eating boiled eggs! When the movie tries to do humor, it's not always great.

* The score is fine, at least what was made for the movie. Note that not only are several tracks lifted from Lalo Schifrin's score to Dirty Harry, but there's also a song from Goldfinger and even a cover of The Theme from Shaft, because damn the copyright laws.

* When there's action, it's not bad-in fact, there are a few impressive stunts.

* As it's Bollywood, there are some musical numbers, as it is what makes Indian cinema unique. Those tunes are fine. I thought the highlight was going to be the random scene where a belly dancer sings about how great she is as several shirtless dudes are faux playing instruments as they wear black shorts with white socks pulled way up high. Then there was a scene near the end...

* Remember when in Dirty Harry, Scorpio kidnaps that school bus full of young children? It happens here too. Scorpio has them sing songs then he suddenly snaps; here, THEY DO A MUSICAL NUMBER. Yes, the villain sings with the kids a jaunty tune, one so groovy you see some of the children dancing! The kids then mildly diss the villain-who by the way also danced-and that's when he snaps. I swear that this 5 minute long scene actually happened.

* I need to see more movies from India to witness insanity like this.

This is not great like Dirty Harry is, yet the Bollywood remake is so odd and it still is entertaining for what it is, I can give Khoon Khoon a good rating.

Red Mob

Red Mob (Chtoby Vyzhit) (1993)

Runtime: I saw the version that's 111 minutes long

Directed by: Vsevolod Plotkin

Starring: Vladimir Menshov, Aleksandr Rozenbaum, Sergey Veksler, Dmitri Volkov, Andrey Shchehbovich-Vecher

From: Several different companies

In terms of Russian movies, this definitely ain't no Tarkovsky: 

This Russian film I first found out about from a guy I know on a messageboard; he raved about the limited edition release from Vinegar Syndrome. I went to the site and it was already sold out; it wasn't until earlier this year that the regular edition came out. As an early 90's Russian film that was just like an 80's action piece, I was greatly intrigued. Note that I saw the Russian version and not the English dubbed version... the default on the Blu was the dubbed version and the original is in the special features.

To copy and paste what is on their website about this film (which is also on the back of the Blu): "Russia. 1992. The Soviet Union has fallen but there remains an unholy alliance between the mob and the KGB. Oleg, an Afghan war veteran, is running a survivalist summer camp when his son is taken hostage as retribution for his friend’s refusal to lead a drug and gun smuggling caravan. With no other options to save his son, Oleg agrees to lead the caravan himself and is soon pitted against a siege of violence as he attempts to carry out his orders and live to see his son again."

Note that the hero is an overly tanned muscular middle aged man who people would know best as Geser from both Night Watch and Day Watch. Also, lip service is paid to how Russia is now experiencing a capitalist economy again.

The plot was not always coherent yet when it's filled with explosions and other pyrotechnics, gunfire, car chases, and the death of many sons of bitches, I imagine many in its target audience won't care. That target audience is: those that love cheesy 80's action. I imagine you'll probably enjoy this, even if the plot only echoes Commando as the leads are no Arnold and the villain is not a closeted homosexual that loves wearing leather in Vernon Wells' Bennett. The son character is like 13 and unfortunately, he's an annoying little pissant. He does get yelled at-and more-so at least there's that.

The story and what I said about it will likely have convinced you already whether this is of any interest to you or not.

Angst

Angst (1983)

Runtime: 87 minutes

Directed by: Gerald Kargl

Starring: Erwin Leder, Robert Hunger-Buhler, Silvia Ryder, Edith Rosset, Rudolf Gotz

From: This was self-financed by Kargl

What an Austrian motion picture this is: 

For awhile now I've known of this infamous picture, and this was the perfect time for me to see the Austrian production. Two things have to be said which will likely go far in explaining what kind of motion picture this is:

1 I've seen some say it is an artier version of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer; the William Lustig Maniac is not the worst comparison either.

2 GASPAR NOE is a gigantic fan and actually first saw the movie as a kid. I am not sure if that says more about him or about Angst.

Gerald Kargl created this film to deliver a message; it's based on a real-life killer-Werner Kniesek-who had mental health issues yet was not properly treated by the legal system so he was released from prison and started killing again. The plot is that, except that it's a nameless dude and there's an opening where a narrator explained some things about the killer's background, although later the killer narrates much of the same info. After prison he stumbles upon a middle-class house and he does disturbing things to its occupants. As “animal torture” was brought up, I feared the worst when I saw the family had a dachshund dog; thank heavens it did not go in such a direction and the pooch was fine.

This has only one gory scene yet the movie was still banned in many places, and I know it's because of the overall tone. The entire movie is following around this psychopath as the narration from him is inspired by what other serial killers have said about their abhorrent behavior and there's no redeeming factors about this lead aside from the fact he doesn't kill the dog. It's not the easiest sit. Yet it was filmed in a stylish way. Polish animator Zbigniew Rybczynski had several roles in this production, chiefly as cinematographer. Sometimes it's low-angle but it's usually high-angle and that includes such things as big crane shots and the camera moving along with the lead at more than 10 feet off the ground... I understand that was due to a complicated rope setup he created; as I am sure it wasn't easy to put in the extra effort to lens the movie in a creative way, I am glad it was done that way. The electronic score from Klaus Schulze did help in setting a particular mood for this motion picture.

I feel bad yet am not surprised this self-financed movie from Kargl did not make a lot of money-being banned will cause that-and he made no more feature films. It cannot be stated enough that some will never want to have the experience of giving this a shot; I don't regret it even if I don't want to put myself through this experience again anytime soon.

Do The Right Thing

Do the Right Thing (1989)

Runtime: 120 minutes

This is a Spike Lee joint

Starring: Danny Aiello, Ossie Davis, Ruby Dee, Giancarlo Esposito, Spike Lee

From: Universal

This is a movie that should be seen by all audiences and not one in specific, as I explain below: 

I know someone that really doesn't like this movie; no, they aren't a racist. I don't know their exact reasons but I will presume they did not like the tone of the film. After all, it's a movie where most characters are really angry and there's plenty of yelling and characters screaming at each other, and even I don't always like such motion pictures. Here, anger is part of the point so I can't fault the movie for that, even if many of the characters you see are some form of A-hole. I will say... it is not an awful thing that Spike Lee stopped acting in his films, and in 2018, the “mentally handicapped” man named Smiley is incredibly awkward and would be called “a Simple Jack character” today. The film is not subtle and in fact is pretty in your face.

All that said, while this is not the sort of thing I'd throw on often “for fun”, the movie is still very good. It covers an extremely hot summer day (and night) in the Bed-Stuy neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York. We see this world is full of minorities and yet as he has been there for decades, there is also Sal and his pizza joint... yes, he is Italian. His two sons work there-one of them is extremely prejudiced despite liking some black athletes and entertainers-and Spike Lee is Mookie, who does deliveries on foot. One character starts a conflict with Sal and as everyone's tensions are so high with the oppressive weather, it's a powder keg waiting to explode. When it does... that leads to the most powerful 10 minutes of the movie, where you realize in 2018 that what occurs would be the same as if the movie was made today.

Plenty of characters are seen throughout the 24 hour period and many of them you can decide how “right” or “wrong” they are about topics both big and small. There is also some white police officers and well, you can guess how they are portrayed. To me, many police officers are fine but of course there are some that are racist for whatever reasons and that 10 minute segment would be pretty powerful even if it doesn't mirror some events that have happened in the United States these past few years.

The movie has plenty of familiar faces, some of whom did not become pretty famous until a few years later. To me it's always nice seeing the likes of Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee. Somehow, it seemed appropriate of Samuel L. Jackson to play a DJ named Mister Senor Love Daddy. Overall, the movie is quite bold and is definitely impressive as it was one of Lee's first feature films, and it was filmed so assuredly, and featured memorable music eyes, with Public Enemy's Fight the Power being heard quite a few times throughout. While I imagine there are others who will reject it for reasons varying, the impact it will leave on a lot of people is the same as when it came out almost 30 years ago.

High Noon

High Noon (1952)

Runtime: 85 minutes

Directed by: Fred Zinnemann

Starring: Gary Cooper, Grace Kelly, Thomas Mitchell, Lloyd Bridges, Katy Jurado

From: Stanley Kramer Productions

This is one of the many classic Westerns out there, for good reason: 

Last night Turner Classic Movies played this film and as I need to see more Westerns (a refrain I've uttered at least a few times in the years I've been a member of this site) and this is one of the many classics in the genre.

The plot is simple yet effective: it is a tale told in real-time as the town marshal of a little burg in the New Mexico Territory (Gary Cooper) just got married to Grace Kelly and he is about ready to retire and start a new life... until he finds out a nasty villain he caught years ago just got released from jail and his gang arrives in town waiting for their boss to return. As this bad guy Frank Miller has sworn revenge before, Cooper knows that running away is an option but he instead wants to fight and end this once and for all. There is drama as various characters don't agree with this decision and Cooper's idea to form a posse is met with a lot of resistance, including some people that preferred the town when it was full of bad guys.

Naturally there is more and more tension as the clock is ticking and Cooper has more and more difficulty in trying to make this big stand. Plenty of interesting characters are seen throughout and several actors are seen that would become much more famous later... this includes Lloyd Bridges as the young deputy and Lee Van Cleef as a member of the villain's gang. The cast does pretty well; another name I'll bring up is Katy Jurado, who has a connection with both the protagonist and antagonist. The movie does have a lot of talking and much of the action does not occur until the end, yet it's never boring due to the characters and the real-time element.

There is an obvious allusion to the blacklisting occurring in Hollywood at the time. Wikipedia can explain that in detail for those that don't know but the panic against Communism was a hot-button issue at the time; the screenwriter Carl Foreman used to be a member of the Communist Party so no surprise that theme was present in this work and of course he was blacklisted. This is not a typical Western for the time and yet what the film is about is fascinating and not everything in the genre needs an over the top white hat hero that has zero fear no matter the circumstances.

An Update

Tomorrow I'll be posting two reviews; the past few days I rewatched several films... [Rec] 2 is still pretty bad, and Godzilla 1985 is pretty lame, but the original Japanese version of 1985 (The Return of Godzilla) is still pretty good.

Charro!

Charro! (1969)

Runtime: 98 minutes

Directed by: Charles Marquis Warren

Starring: Elvis, Ina Balin, Victor French, Barbara Werle, Solomon Struges

From: National General Pictures

Why this has such a toxic reputation in some circles, I am not quite sure:

Recently, a mutual liked the list I have up of all the Elvis movies I've seen so far; it made me realize I hadn't seen one in too long so that is a mistake I should fix. I decided to go with an atypical movie from him, one that is serious (only a few jokes are heard), has The King sporting a beard, and he doesn't even sing in the movie; the only one is the title tune over the opening credits. I rate this the same as most of his movies but I do appreciate how this wasn't the usual cornball feature from Elvis.

The plot has him as Jess Wade; the gang he used to run around with (led by the dastardly Vince) finds him and sets him up for the theft of a cannon allegedly used to win Mexican independence. He also gets branded on the neck. This does not turn into a mad chase where everyone is after him; what is done instead isn't half-bad as Wade sees some old friends again and has to prove he's a changed man and those accusations are untrue. I saw someone compare this to a Randolph Scott Western (presumably one of the Ranown Cycle) and I get it. After all, the King makes a big decision and sticks to his convictions even if the demands of a town's citizens seems logical from their viewpoint.

The movie could have been pretty good but does not rise above being average and competent; Elvis is not challenged here when it comes to acting; at least his performance was decent. Vince was memorable as the villain as he was a real A-hole; however, the most memorable character (not to mention the most OTT performance) was from Solomon Sturges, who yes was Preston's son. He played Vince's brother Billy Roy, a real weasel, a sh*thead who even annoys his brother by being such a slimeball. He literally jumps around like a chimpanzee at a few points, so it was not a nuanced portrayal by any means.

The score suggests “Spaghetti Western” but that was not what this was; like I said it's at least competent and average, and not ungodly bad like some have said.

Call Me By Your Name

Call Me by Your Name (2017)

96% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 271 reviews)

Runtime: 132 minutes

Directed by: Luca Guadagnino

Starring: Armie Hammer, Timothee Chalamet, Michael Stuhlbarg, Amira Casar, Esther Garrel

From: Many different production companies

This is more than just "a gay movie."

Eat a peach.

This was another film I saw in a movie marathon on Saturday presented by AMC Theatres, and the last one I'll be discussing here. I had no familiarity with the source novel by Andre Aciman-now, I understand the novel is quite a bit more explicit. I had no idea what to expect from the film aside from the general plot of a 17 year old boy falling in love with Armie Hammer in 1983 Italy. To be more specific, the father of Elio (Timothee Chalamet) is an aracheologist and the family lives in scenic northern Italy. Hammer's character Oliver arrives as a graduate student (lol at the character being a 24 year old) and even though Elio has a pretty girlfriend, he starts developing feelings for Oliver, and considering it's Armie Hammer and the way the movie films him, even a straight guy like me can understand Elio's growing attraction.

This feels overlong at times and the characters like a privileged life (Elio does not have a summer job and you rarely see the characters with jobs do their jobs as they live in a lovely rural area outside of a rustic old town) but overall I can still say this was very good. It was a touching romance between Elio and Oliver, in a lovely world filmed quite well by cinematographer Sayom Mukdeeprom. What ups and downs Elio had during those few months, resulting in an astounding final scene for him; no wonder Chalamet received many acting nominations during awards season. Hammer was almost as good, and that is a big reason I can give this charming movie a high grade. Another actor delivers an incredible monologue in the final act.

As I alluded to, the movie does take its time in telling the story, which I usually had no problem with. The relationship between the two and how Elio acts feels all too real and natural; he's a confused young man. Music wise, I prefer the Psychedelic Furs tune to all the Sufjan Stevens songs, but the Stevens songs worked quite well in context of the film. I feel it is great a high profile movie can have “a queer romance” but anyone-irregardless of their sexual orientation-can be charmed and go through several different emotions while seeing the two leads have their summer fling.

It doesn't make me feel any differently about director Luca Guadagnino's upcoming remake of Suspiria but I presume there won't be much interference from Amazon or anyone else so it should at least be pretty, as it also has Mukdeeprom as cinematographer.

The Post

The Post (2017)

88% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 317 reviews)

Runtime: 116 minutes

Directed by: Spielberg

Starring: Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Sarah Paulson, Bob Odenkirk, Tracy Letts

From: Quite a few different studios

The movie is not as bad as I heard some say... yet it's Spielberg so many would hope for better, me included:

This movie is pretty good yet with the talent involved you'd probably expect something better; at least I did. Comparisons to Spotlight doesn't help its case either as Spotlight is great in covering its investigation. It's not fair to compare the two as Spotlight showed the Boston Globe doing a lot of legwork to connect the dots and realized how severe the sex abuse scandal involving priests actually were, while this is different as the Washington Post literally had someone drop off part of the Pentagon Papers in their lap.

The Pentagon Papers is ripe material for a movie, and indeed others have been made about the topic, although they weren't as high-profile as this. Daniel Ellsberg leaked the papers to the press in 1971 and it caused a huge scandal as it showed that the unpopular Vietnam War was unwinnable and the United States government lied to the American public often about it in the preceding years. You don't need to be well-versed in the history of the Vietnam War as the movie explains enough about it and how the United States had been interested in the region for years as they did not want Communism to spread as it would create “the domino effect” of other countries in Southeast Asia to become Communist. The United States spent many years there and indeed it did not win; many got hot that their kids were sent over there under such circumstances; if not for a car accident shortly beforehand, my dad would have been drafted and probably would have gone to Vietnam.

Perhaps a movie about Ellsberg, how he leaked the information and the aftermath would have been more interesting than seeing the higher-ups at the Washington Post struggle over the decision to print the information themselves. I don't mean to slight Katharine Graham (played by Streep) or her struggles in being a woman who inherits the family newspaper and has to go through various struggles, including sexism. However, I know what I find to be the most interesting angle concerning those papers being released. The defending of the media against the government targeting it... sadly it's relevant today and even then, perhaps the New York Times and how they were the first ones to publish the Pentagon Papers would have been a more relevant target to focus on. After all, it was them and the Post that were together in the Supreme Court case that ruled on whether those documents should have had their contents made public. Then again, I understand the original idea was to focus on Graham and her life, and after Hillary Clinton did not win the 2016 election the focus changed to this instead.


Yet I can still give it a decent rating due to its direction and the two stars being legends. The crowd seemed more enthused about the movie than I was, loudly applauding what was a rousing moment. I was not bored by the story that was weaved here; I don't regret seeing this yet it was not something I loved.

Get Out

Get Out (2017)

99% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 301 reviews)

Runtime: 104 minutes

Directed by: Jordan Peele

Starring: Daniel Kaluuya, Allison Williams, Bradley Whitford, Catherine Keener, 

From: Universal/Blumhouse

Or: why in the hell did I not watch the movie on March 3, 2017? What a stupid SOB I am:

Yes, I am the last one to have seen this movie. I have no good explanation for why I did not see this February of 2017; plenty of reliable people gave it sterling reviews and the fact that a horror movie with some comedic elements has a decent chance at winning Best Picture at the Oscars... shame on me, I'll be honest here; shame on me. Thankfully this did live up to the great hype and despite not going into the film blind concerning story beats, the movie is still effectual.

By now everyone should know the general plot of how a white girl brings her black boyfriend to meet her family and things go really wrong. People should also know that the movie skewers “white liberal racism” and it demonstrates two things I've actually experienced while hanging out with people I know (I am a white man, for the record)... white people acting strangely around black people, and whites being condescending in appealing to blacks, whether it be via usage of slang, making comments such as “If Obama could have ran for a third time, I'd definitely vote for him again.”, or what have you. I cannot fully know what it's like to be black and have to deal with all sorts of behavior from whites, whether it be racial insults, stereotypes, having their culture appropriated-I am looking at pigs like Miley Cyrus-etc.

There is a jump scare or two (as this is from Blumhose, I know they couldn't help themselves) but otherwise this isn't a traditional horror movie by modern standards; this is not full of loud noises and demons jumped at the camera. Rather, it makes you more and more uncomfortable; you don't have to be black like our lead (Chris) to feel more and more uneasy with the way that his girlfriend's parents, friends, and servants act. There various unsettling bits I won't spoil and even if the big reveal is something that is highly improbable, you go with it.

The cast as a whole does a solid job but the highlights were LilRel Howery as Rod, the TSA agent you occasionally see that is Chris's best friend and is a voice of reason/audience surrogate, & Chris himself; what a masterful job by Daniel Kaluuya. And what a masterful job Jordan Peele did in his feature film directorial debut. He was assured and confident behind the camera; viewing the film you'd assume it was from someone who was far more experienced in that field.

To me it'd be incredible to have Jason Blum, Oscar-winning producer; I am delighted this was as much a delight as it has been for millions of people. This was the final movie in a 5 movie all day marathon me and a few hundred random people experienced... even after the long day people loved Rod and the ending got a very enthusiastic response. This winning Best Picture would be a marvelous story.

Darkest Hour

Darkest Hour (2017)

86% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 247 reviews)

Runtime: 125 minutes

Directed by: Joe Wright

Starring: Gary Oldman, Lily James, Kristin Scott Thomas, Ben Mendelsohn, Ronald Pickup

From: Perfect World Pictures/Working Title Films

Through tomorrow night I'll be discussing some of the Best Picture nominees. This isn't my favorite of the ones I've seen but that doesn't mean it is bad:

As has become a yearly tradition now, one of the two Saturdays before the Academy Awards I see what AMC Theatres presents in some locations across the country... their Best Picture Showcase, where in a marathon I see half of the nominees before that year's Oscars. I always just go to one of the two as it's an all-day thing. Through tomorrow night I'll post the reviews for what else I saw. Note that the first movie I viewed (late in the morning) was Dunkirk, which I already saw last summer and my “meh” opinion on it hasn't changed after a second viewing. As the perfect thing to book after that was this movie, it was actually what AMC Theatres did, and it worked beautifully seeing those two together.. what happened in Dunkirk was a big component of Darkest Hour.

This covers the first few weeks of Churchill as Prime Minister; World War II in Europe is going great for Germany and there are naturally fears about the UK being the next area to fall, so there is plenty of arguing over Winston's plans to fight against Hitler despite the odds looking dire for that plan being successful. As everyone has said, Gary Oldman was tremendous as the lead... I've heard he was accurately portrayed. No surprise he's been portrayed on film plenty of times, as he exhibits plenty of different emotions. He is irascible and when he is angry or irritated, it is made clear by him. Yet Churchill did have his doubts about his bold plan and he showed sympathy to certain characters in times of need. As he was complex in real life...

Regrettably, there's the old canard of Hollywood blending fiction with fact when it comes to “true” stories and they definitely did so here. Not all the characters shown to be willing to negotiate for peace were so at the time, plus you can tell which scenes were absurd melodrama with little to no basis in reality, and that was unfortunate to me. The film was done well by director Joe Wright and while the color palette is full of gray & brown, I can't complain about its look. Oldman will win Best Actor and I am sure it's deserved but it'll also be an unofficial Lifetime Achievement Award, and the Oscars have been doing such things for decades now, don't kid yourself and say it's just a modern phenomenon.

I wish I could have loved the film but despite the historical inaccuracies I don't regret seeing it.

The Night Of Truth

The Night of Truth (La Nuit De La Verite) (2004)

Runtime: 96 minutes

Directed by: Fanta Regina Nacro

Starring: Moussa Cisse, Georgette Pare, Adama Ouedraogo, Naky Sy Savane, Rasmane Ouedraogo

From: Several different French countries, although this is mainly a Burkina Faso production

Yes, I watched a movie from Burkina Faso... and it was legitimately well worth seeing: 

As the official March Around the World challenge has one of the rules this year be to watch at least one African movie not from Egypt, Algeria or South Africa... even though I am unofficially participating I figured I should follow it too. Amazon's video service now makes it easier to see at least one film from less established filmmaking worlds with the Global Lens Collection, by The Global Film Initiative. I plan on seeing a few other movies they offer besides this one. As for the country of Burkina Faso, it's in the Northwest part of the continent, a landlocked area surrounded by such countries as Mali, Ghana, and Niger. They've had their share of coups and when ranking countries in Africa by how successful they are or their economy, I'll just say they are not near the top. Regrettably, it was just a few hours ago as of the time I post this that the country received the bad kind of worldwide press... suspected Islamic extremists attacked the capital city of Ouagadougou. Note that I picked this then watched the movie before this incident occurred.

Strife within the country is the key plot point of this as it is all about a fictitious country in Africa where the government has fought with rebels for the past decade. Suddenly there is a truce, but naturally after the preceding 10 years featuring bloodshed and horrific atrocities (which a few times are both shown and said) there are plenty on both sides who are against this sudden peace without either side decisively winning. The feelings from both parties were vituperative. The movie is set during one day and night as the President and the leader of the rebels meet together in a show of solidarity, where naturally things don't quite go right. “Shakespearean” is a phrase I've seen a few use, and it's an apt term for this motion picture.

I had no idea what to expect from this film, which is a real rarity as it was directed by a woman, Fanta Regina Nacro. I was impressed with what I saw, featuring actors that may not have had a lot of acting experience at all. This kind of story is universal and yet it still had enough unique flavor related to Africa, a continent where a big reason why it's had all this turmoil since those countries stopped being territories back in the middle of the 20th century was because the country borders were determined by white Europeans with no regard to where the native tribes lived; no wonder that area has had so much turmoil.

Anyhow... don't let the obscurity of this dissuade you from giving this a shot.

Lake Bodom

Lake Bodom (2016)

Runtime: 85 minutes

Directed by: Taneli Mustonen

Starring: Nelly Hirst-Gee, Mimosa Willamo, Mikael Gabriel, Santeri Helinheimo Mantyla

From: Don Films/Munchhausen Productions

Starting now on Letterboxd is a yearly tradition, as I explain below... this is from both Finland and Estonia:

As I've always done, whenever it's time for people on Letterboxd to do these March Around the World events where people watch a bunch of foreign films, I unofficially participate. I always enjoy seeing everyone's lists but I do my own thing and I won't be going foreign every day of the month. I also don't pick beforehand what I'll be seeing; I do things on the fly.

This film, I heard about earlier in the year; there was enough praise where it captured my attention. Recently I signed up for Shudder again for a month via Amazon. As I haven't exactly seen a lot of films from either Finland or Estonia, it was a natural I'd see it sometime this month. This is based on the real life murders that happened in Lake Bodom, Finland back in 1960; it's still unknown whom attacked four teenagers camping by the lake and killed three of them. The lone survivor was accused but never convicted, and there have been plenty of suspects yet there's no solid theory as to who was the perpetrator.

The plot of this movie: four teenagers go camping by Lake Bodom, two boys and two girls. One of the guys is obsessed about the case so his explanation for getting them there... kind of flimsy but it doesn't really matter anyhow. The other guy has neck tattoos and well, he's a teenage male so of course he wants to get laid. One girl is a tomboy and the other is someone who recently was involved in a scandal. Naturally, things go wrong...

I'll mention right away that this isn't just a slasher; the movie is more than that. I was spoiler-free going into this so I'll do the same for everyone reading this. I'll just say there was a big twist that I knew right away would not make some people happy, as it's an old trope. In fact I saw a very popular reviewer here on Letterboxd (one with thousand of followers) note the same and it made them hate the movie. I can comprehend them having such a strong reaction. I'll say the movie is not the most credible or logical.

Yet I can still say it's fine despite my concerns about the plot. Much of the movie is only those 4 characters (or less) and those Finns all do a nice job performance-wise. The real highlights are the synth score and the great cinematography; much of this was set at night and yet it was lit up beautifully, making the woods look very pretty. All that makes up for what may be seen as story flaws. Of course your mileage may vary.