The Movie I Just Watched Thread 2: Revengeance

Dock Fight wrote:

Russell Faraday wrote:

Some first time watches recently -

MOONSTRUCK, filling in a gaping Cage gap, is one bizarre film. Cher's fiancee goes away as his mother is dying, she hops into bed with his brother.... and faces no repurcussions!! The mother doesn't die, Cage takes the ring and proposes to Cher! I have no idea if we're supposed to be glad Cher can do whatever she wants.

I don't think this is really the perspective the film takes, and I find it a bit distressing it's the approach you take to it!

I had a feeling my reaction wasn't the popular consensus! God knows what it says about me that the film came across that way haha, agreed there is some beautiful writing in there and I get she wasn't in love with Johnny but I just wanted something in the way of a conflict or... I don't know. It all felt very neat.

I think there was conflict but it was all inner conflict - characters in conflict with themselves.

And it's pretty much a fairy tale, so it's not meant to be all about the real life consequences of schtupping your fiancee's younger brother!

I, Frankenstein.

I thought I'd be magnanimous. I thought I'd be open-minded. Eight years ago I saw this in the theatre and didn't much like it, but the wife wanted to see it so okay, maybe time will have changed things. But no. They make a great effort in CG and dirt and old gothic buildings to whiz the camera around but the fundamental story of a long-term war between angel-gargoyles and demons that's upended by Adam and his how-to manual for animating dead bodies dropping into the middle of it just gets stuck in the mud of Eckhart's decision to play his soul-less character as not having a soul. It's fitting that a film about lifelessness is so inert, Miranda Otto blandly leading the angels while Bill Nighy vaguely threatens some scientists. Jai Courtney may be an angry jerk but at least he's emoting something.

I remember being surprised at the time, from the trailers, how little interest the movie seemed to have in itself or its protagonist. What a weird, weird decision they made.

Aah, Aaron Eckhart. I remember watching TDK and going 'finally! My man is gonna be YUGE!' and yet he only ever seems to end up in dreck (and I like BATTLE: LOS ANGELES, but I understand it's crap). Is he a jerk to work with or does he simply make bad decisions?

Just watched CORALINE (2009) for the first time via Netflix. Always meant to get around to watching it before now but just didn't for one reason or another. Anyway, what a beautifully animated and macabre film. The craftsmanship involved with this production was something else.

I needed something to iron clothes to and threw in LAST OF THE MOHICANS. I've been wanting to rewatch it for a while but my wife has had no interest (she saw it theatrically when it first came out and didn't like it for some reason). Anyways, about an hour into the film (they're at the fort and the first instance or 'Promontory' is playing), she came in. She had nothing going on so she sat down to watch the rest of it with me since it's what I had playing.

I turned her around on it. The big takeaway that she gleaned: the film has one of the all time best soundtracks. Ever. And the cinematography is magnificent.

Anyways, we got to the finale when the big instance of 'Promontory' kicks in. That sealed the deal for her in terms of the film and the soundtrack. She was like 'OK, I don't remember why I didn't like this when I saw it years ago but this was great.' Then I showed her all of the countless youTube covers of 'Promontory' and she was impressed.

Happy to hear that you won't be needing a divorce attorney, JB!

But seriously: glad she changed her mind on it. No secret to folks that LOTM is in my top 5 GOAT; it's my favorite Mann film (while conceding that Heat is his best).

The score is a huge part of the film; it's unimaginable without it. What's so wild is that it's from two composers and yet manages to gel.

At some point, you'll have to have her sit and watch the entire film, as the first hour is pretty damn great, too.

That soundtrack is all time, for sure.

It's been a looong time since I've watched it. And I don't remember which version I did watch. Is the director's cut worth it?

Yes. The DC on blu is essentially the theatrical release with a few differences, all minor. The earlier DVD DC release had some favorite lines cut and some interesting though unnecessary scenes restored; the blu is something of a compromise, but it's more like the theatrical release than the DVD of the DC was.

It's absolutely worth your time - but check any cynicism at the door. It's not a naive film by any means, but it's an earnestly romantic one.

ETA: this is the cut to which I refer.

Man, my one wish in my entire life is to have someone, anyone tell me that 'No matter how long it takes, no matter how far. I will find you!' the way DDL tells Madeleine Stowe.

By the way, 'Promentory' is based upon this tune:

Some kind soul ripped and downloaded the actual film version - the version on the soundtrack CD is truncated.

Here ya go.

BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS

The high water mark for Roger Corman? I wish this kind of thing still existed. I mean, it does sort of still exist; the business model certainly still exists, but there's a level of craftsmanship on display here that you'll just never get from the current crop of cheap CG knockoffs, designed to sneak into RedBox the week before their megablockbuster counterpart hits theaters.

The miniature work in this is just so fucking cool; you feel like you want to pause on each of these spaceships and just study them for a minute or two and you get a sense watching BBTS that the people making it, at every level, - the effects, production design, the script - legitimately love the stuff they are aping. Its just so much fun.

My one complaint is that Richard Thomas is pretty irritating, doing the Luke Skywalker hothead farmboy thing, only without any of Mark Hamill's innate likeability, but that's ok.

MikeK wrote:

The high water mark for Roger Corman?

His Poe adaptations.

THE WICKER MAN (1973)

Arguably the most important work of “folk horror” ever produced for the screen, this remains a potent examination of a clash between belief systems.  Not a film that will viscerally terrify, but one that will linger in the mind long after the credits roll.  Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee are perfectly cast, and the finale is one of the most chilling pieces of film I’ve ever seen.

I watched the so-called "Final Cut" for the first time on this revisit, and while I couldn't readily identify what was different compared to the U.S. "Theatrical Cut," it certainly isn't diminished in its power, at the very least.

Judas Booth wrote:

I needed something to iron clothes to and threw in LAST OF THE MOHICANS.  I've been wanting to rewatch it for a while but my wife has had no interest (she saw it theatrically when it first came out and didn't like it for some reason).  Anyways, about an hour into the film (they're at the fort and the first instance or 'Promontory' is playing), she came in.  She had nothing going on so she sat down to watch the rest of it with me since it's what I had playing.

I turned her around on it.  The big takeaway that she gleaned: the film has one of the all time best soundtracks.  Ever.  And the cinematography is magnificent.

Anyways, we got to the finale when the big instance of 'Promontory' kicks in.  That sealed the deal for her in terms of the film and the soundtrack.  She was like 'OK, I don't remember why I didn't like this when I saw it years ago but this was great.'  Then I showed her all of the countless youTube covers of 'Promontory' and she was impressed.

Easily one of the top 5 most satisfactory kills of all time:

TC 2000 (1993)

Decided to take a break from my LockDown recommendations to throw on something random that caught my eye. What a terrible, terrible mistake that was. This is the kind of Z-grade movie that reads a lot more fun that it plays: Post-apocalyptic underground society! Cyborgs! Doomsday weapons! Earnest 90's environmentalism! Spin Kicks! Uh...Substandard Mad Max cos-play! More spin kicks, but we only had like 4 hours to shoot at this location so they're kind of sloppy!

Unfortunately the action tends to range from Power Rangers to the Power Rangers American footage, the vast underground city kind of looks like a water treatment plant, the doomsday facility looks like the same water treatment plant, and the whole thing is anchored by a series of performances that could best be described as awkward. Not laughably bad, but just people with an extreme dearth of natural charisma trying and largely failing to portray the most basic of stock action characters. Bolo Yeung (top-billed, respect) probably fares the best, but Billy Blanks and Jalal Merhi are ludicrously stiff. I will say in Blanks' defense that acting ability and unfortunate haircut aside the man definitely looks the part, and has some genuinely impressive action chops. While the choreography overall is very hit or miss, he got some genuinely fun moments and I think with the right character/director he probably could have fared better. Also, good lord, dat physique. Jalal Merhi on the other hand is going for some kind of Joker-esque rapscallion villain and it's the kind of performance so bad you can only get away with it if you're, say, the producer of the movie.

So are there any redeeming qualities to this thing? Well, aside from a couple of fun action beats...not really. It's kind of amusing that the TC 2000 isn't actually Blanks but his partner/girlfriend, who gets a Robocop-esque makeover (if you replaced the "Robo" with "vaguely S&M stripper") that increase her ability to do handspring backflips 1000%, but the novelty wears of quickly. The only other thing of note is that before the final credits role, we get a a bizarre pose-off with Merhi, Yeung, Blanks and head-henchman Matthis Hues all swinging Chinese weapons then awkwardly freezing like it's the end of a Police Squad! episode. It's...something. Overall though, I can't think of a reason anyone needs to see this outside of 90's rental nostalgia or Vinegar Syndrome completionism, and even then you're better off starting at that swank new cover and imagining what might have been.

To Live and Die in L.A. (1985)
This was technically a re-watch, but having only the vaguest memories of this I went in essentially fresh and...it was OK? It definitely feel's like a Poor Man's...uh, Mann, but looking back at what I first wrote about this after the fact I think I was overly harsh on it. Yes, it's extremely dated, but I think the 80's-ness of it works better for me now and operating on the principle that none of it should be taken very seriously it largely works as popcorn entertainment. I especially appreciated the car chase a ton this time around, what a phenomenal set-piece that was.

Where I do think the movie makes a mistake though is with the casting. William Peterson isn't a bad actor (he's great in Manhunter), but big chunks of his performance as Chance give off serious "Cool Dad" vibes, to the point where I was shocked to discover he was only in his early 30's when this came out. Meanwhile, Willem Dafoe feels wasted in a role that reads more interesting than it plays. Honestly, I think if you swapped those two it would have benefited the movie overall, though neither performance is bad enough to be any kind of deal breaker.

What is bad enough to be a deal-breaker though is the ending. Not the *SPOILERS* death of Peterson, which is a great, shocking moment, nor the death of Dafoe, which is both gloriously graphic AND character appropriate! No, I'm talking about what I referred to in my original post as the appearance of Shetland Chance. Why oh why did anyone think it would be a good idea to dress John Pankow EXACTLY like William Peterson for that final scene? Not only is it insulting to the audience's intelligence, but it means you leave the movie laughing at it. Somebody desperately needs to get William Friedkin in there for a director's cut before it's too late! Still, certainly enjoyed it more this time around even if I don't quite hold it in the same esteem a lot of people seem to.

Thanks to Judas Booth for the recommendation!

Johnny Handsome (1989)

This was an odd one. Not really serious enough to work as a drama but not really punchy enough to work as a pulpy noir, it's a movie that at its heart feels like a fairly straightforward revenge flick with a bunch of unnecessary elements stapled on top. There's definitely a fun Count of Monte Cristo vibe to the idea of a criminal with a new face seeking revenge, but the movie spends an inordinate amount of time on Johnny's transformation, with various characters musing on the idea of nature versus nurture, deep themes that end up going nowhere because *SPOILERS* Johnny does the revenge, then dies, but the cop who said he was inherently bad forgives him or something, so it's OK? We never get any sense that Johnny is actually struggling with the ramifications of his new face, which would be fine if the movie had a more nihilistic bent, but instead it just comes across as half-baked. It's a shame because there are a few fun moments with Johnny in his new pretty-boy persona, and if the movie had streamlined the opening and focused more on just being a straightforward thriller I think there was a much better film to be had here. As is, it's still certainly watchable, but ultimately fairly forgettable.

Curiosity got the better of me and I checked out TERMINATOR: DARK FATE on Netflix and it was fine. Nothing ground breaking or revolutionary in execution it felt just like another unneeded Terminator sequel. Mackenzie Davis and Linda Hamilton were solid but honestly they were wasted in this and the whole backstory with Arnold's character was so damn goofy.

Anyways, I'm glad I didn't see this in the theater because I would've felt ripped off.

I thought Hamilton was terrible in DARK FATE. It wasn't a great film anyways but she killed the engagement in any scene in which she appeared.

Dark Fate is Fine? After explicitly trying to start over they end up back in the exact same story all over again. But now with much less interesting characters. And since when is 'fine' even acceptable? Hamilton does ok with a simpler role, Arnold is the most interesting thing in the film, and he's barely even in it.

The Villainess (2017)

I feel like more than perhaps any other country's, Korean movies have this magical ability to make you feel absolutely miserable about something you just saw. Sometimes this can be an effective contrast to a generally lighter tone (The Host is a good example) or it can just make for a very well-crafted, but ultimately excruciating watch, the kind that lingers with you long after the movie (looking at you Vengeance trilogy!). Unfortunately, while The Villainess aims for that kind of tone, both in concept and execution it just comes up short. Put simply it's a needlessly complicated take on the "orphan turned assassin" genre (our protagonist gets recruited by a group of trained killers, and then recruited by a second, separate group of trained killers, but they're government agents and Christians or something (?), the movie seems like it should be a recipe for some fun, over-the-top Nobody style action. Yet the movie gets bogged down with an obsession with triple and quadruple twists, dull rom-com shenanigans, and the need to endlessly tease out a reveal that was pretty obvious about 30 minutes in. It doesn't help that everyone including our lead give performances that are generally fine, but unremarkable. The movie also feels the need to double-down on our her vengeance, which seems both unnecessary and deflating. Which is a shame, because while I was a bit sketchy on the action at first (the opening scene is some FPS stuff that feels like Hardcore Henry B-roll), there's a sword fight bike chase (yep) and a later action scene on a bus that feel fun and inventive and totally at odds with the misery guts melodrama surrounding it. Not a complete miss, but I can think of a lot of movies that handle similar concepts better.

Still, big thanks to Evi for the recommendation!

Okay, so I didn't technically watch it, but THE PEACEMAKER was on last night and I switched it on for a few minutes while getting ready for sleep and oof, man, the few minutes I saw was basically "George Clooney interrupts Nicole Kidman's meeting, takes it over and mansplains nuclear weapons to the nuclear scientist who happens to be a woman". It was so 90s.

And yet, because it's Clooney, we give him a pass!

Is the rest worth watching in a bad 90s actioner way?

THE PEACEMAKER is pure 'product'. You're going to get exactly what you expect from the by-the-numbers script and direction. It's watchable if your requirements are low. It does have its moments that are pretty good, though.

And I did not care for THE VILLAINESS at all. The plot simply did not work for me and the execution with the time jumping felt so arbitrary that I got frustrated with the film. Never even finished it.

Yeah, THE PEACEMAKER steps on its own dick regarding the script with Kidman's character saying he needs to be able to take orders from a woman...and then Clooney proceeds to do exactly the opposite for the entire run of the film.

That said: it's fine. It's not actively bad. As JB says, it's very by-the-numbers. It does have a laudable attempt at humanizing the villain, giving him motives that are....if not exactly relatable aren't mustache twirling, either.

It really only has two action sequences, both of which are competent but not great. I will admit to thinking the car chase in Vienna is pretty good, if only for how the tables get turned, and Clooney ending it and walking away stonefaced.