Which Films have you seen lately? Number K'. Someone was spreading lies about Joseph 20

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Defiant Dames of Silent Cinema
The women featured in this new four-disc set from Kino Lorber are anything but damsels in distress
BY DAVID MERMELSTEIN

‘CINEMA’S FIRST NASTY Women,” a new collection of silent movies available on both DVD and Blu-ray from Kino Lorber, earns points for its catchy, if perhaps sometimes misleading, title.
But it deserves even more credit for its contents—a crop of 99 films (some 14 hours’ worth), made from 1898 to 1926. Most come from France and the U.S., but a handful are from Italy, and a smattering hail from Denmark, Sweden or Britain. In all, 13 international archives and libraries contributed material.
Both the Blu-ray and DVD sets consist of four discs, but only the Blu-ray version is complemented by a perfect-bound, 112-page book of scholarly essays, interviews, archival photos and, most important of all, useful notes on the films themselves. Beyond that, audio commentaries in English accompany 19 of the films, with a further 15 in Spanish. (The set is region-free and being marketed worldwide.) English intertitles are present in all movies that originally contained them, and all foreign-language intertitles have been subtitled in English. Newly recorded music, mostly by female composers, accompanies each picture. Many of the scores are cleverly in sync with the era; others, jarringly not. As the set’s moniker makes clear, the emphasis is on women, but not the demure type often associated with early cinema. Instead, this box revels in disruption, rebellion and, more than occasionally, outright mayhem. Yet a stubborn irony lies at its heart: Most of these films were directed, written and produced by men—in marked contrast to Kino Lorber’s “Pioneers: First Women Filmmakers,” a set from 2018, and its periodic supplements, among them two volumes released in 2020 devoted to the now-celebrated Alice Guy Blaché.

The earliest films here are extremely short (from one or two minutes to about 12). And even the bulk of those shot later seldom exceed a quarter hour.
A notable exception is “The Snowbird” (U.S., 1916), at 82 minutes. Its plot, credited to Mary Ryder and June Mathis, concerns a tough society girl’s trip to rural Quebec, where she tangles with the ornery cuss defrauding her father. A handful of other films clock in at around 25 minutes, so a long attention span is seldom essential.

Each disc carries a loose general categorization (“Disastrous Domestics & Anarchic Tomboys,” “Queens of Destruction,” “Gender Rebels” and “Female Tricksters”) and then groups films under more specific headers to further divide. The oldest pictures may require unusual patience and concentration, for much had to be implied when watching a film took about as much time as frying an egg. But as with many things, immersion can engender appreciation. So it is with the 12 (of 24) films in the so-called Léontine series presented here, all made in France between 1910 and 1912. They feature an incorrigible brat (played by a fully grown woman, who, despite fame in her day, now remains nameless) raining all manner of havoc on nearly everyone she meets, though notably none on animals. Her competition comes from two other Gallic rabble-rousers: the unruly Rosalie (Sarah Duhamel) and the ill-tempered Cunégonde (Little Chrysia), both making life difficult for those around them in their own series.

Two American pictures deserve special mention: “Laughing Gas” (1907), directed by the cinema pioneer Edwin S. Porter and running just seven minutes, features the exuberant Bertha Regustus, a black woman of irresistible charm, under the influence of a dentist’s laughing gas. As she travels home, everyone she encounters, including passengers on a tightly packed streetcar, becomes touched by her uncontrollable mirth.

[IMG alt="image"]http://ereader.wsj.net/eebrowser/ip...,960-0 &medDpi=199&pageW=623&pageH=1249[/IMG]




Mabel Taliaferro in ‘ The Snowbird’ (1916)

That all are white may be the biggest surprise of all. “Fatty and Minnie-He-Haw” (1914), directed by the infamous comedian Fatty Arbuckle and running 21 minutes, stars Arbuckle and Minnie Deveraux, of the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes, in a farce that pits her, the earthy daughter of an Indian chief, against his feckless coward, with the pair clumsily attempting physical affection even as he pines for a different bride.

If anything mars this valuable set, it’s the imposition of trendy academese on its contents. The curators— two film scholars, Maggie Hennefeld and Laura Horak, and an archivist, Elif Rongen- Kaynakçi—have framed the project as a barbed counterpoint to anti-feminist rhetoric, and many of the supplements invoke the wearisome jargon of race-and gender-studies, frequently obscuring the useful insights that may also be present. Another annoyance are the condescending title cards addressing racial stereotypes, which in several cases seem random. Yet those interested in cinema’s infancy and early stages, when technology was slowly but surely metamorphosing into art, will find hours of scintillating footage seen to extraordinary advantage, thanks to recent advances in cinema restoration. This set’s cant can be ignored. The films themselves, like so many of their central characters, are irrepressible.

Mr. Mermelstein writes on film and classical music for the Journal.

It gathers nearly a hundred movies made from 1898 to 1926.
Bertha Regustus in ‘Laughing Gas’ (1907), above; Fatty Arbuckle and Minnie Devereaux (at left) in ‘Fatty and Minnie-He-Haw’ (1914), above center
KINO LORBER ( 3)
 
I watched some movies recently

Speak no Evil - A Danish thriller sort of movie. 3/10, would not recommend. The protagonists in this movie are just so stupid. If you ever get frustrated at horror/slasher movie characters doing stupid stuff that leads to a showdown with the killer.. Yep, this is a lot worse than that. I don't know if this is supposed to be some sort of commentary on something that makes sense to Danish people or whatever, but this movie is just.. stupid. The anticipation building kept me watching, but it doesn't go anywhere good. There is a completely unneeded scene of gore involving a child. There is no other gore in the movie so it's not like it was just another scene in this movie. This was carefully planned out, by I assume some idiot Danish director and his team of movie making idiots. I honestly can't get over how stupid the protagonists are. The wife does actually act a bit smart throughout the movie, and notices some red flags and suggests they leave multiple times. That was the only good part of the movie for me, although it was just so frustrating to watch these people not react to these red flags like any other sane person would. Is going out of your way to be polite a Danish characteristic/stereotype? Is this movie trying to tell us to not do that? Because the protagonists take that idea and go wild with it. These people would have walked right into an active volcano if somebody told them to, even if they were complete jerks about it.

Now you see me - Okay, the premise for this is pretty "meh", and there's too many cliches and all that junk, but I actually ended up enjoying this movie quite a bit! 7.8/10. In the end, when you look at the whole movie, it had a great balance of everything that makes a movie tick, from the climax, to complexity of the plot, to characters, etc. Not an amazing movie, but a very entertaining watch. Somewhat clever incorporation of magic tricks err sorry I mean illusions into the plot.

Now you see me 2 - Why did I even watch this.. This movie did not need to exist, 4/10. It's basically them taking the concepts from the first movie and cranking them up to 11. The thing is that these concepts had a perfect balance in the first movie, so cranking everything up just made it.. goofy. This movie did not grab me much at all, it just seemed silly.

The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard - A mindless romp with witty one liners. This could have been a MCU movie, all they needed is somebody with a cape on. I'll give it a 5/10 because it was entertaining, and Reynolds does a good job playing the guy he always plays. Which is kind of boring, but he does a good job at it, so.. I'll put that down as a plus. I watched it last night though and I couldn't really tell you much about the plot. It's mindless entertainment, like I said. I'm also still not convinced that Salma Hayek or Antonia Banderas can actually act. Banderas actually does a pretty good job with the minimal & short lines he's given, but Hayek pretty much only shines with her boobs, which in this movie are turned into a bit of a prop. Overall I wouldn't watch this unless you're high and don't have anything else to do. And this is something I just now realized, after googling it - it's a SEQUEL lol. Something that isn't really that obvious as you sit down to watch it. Or maybe it is and I shouldn't have smoked that government cheese

edit: also watched Elvis yesterday - This was a great movie, although I don't understand at all how nobody noticed that Tom Hanks' character not only looks completely unrealistic in that bodysuit & makeup.. but is also cartoony evil to such an extent it's hard to take him seriously as a realistic character. I haven't looked up how close to the actual story the movie is, but I loved learning about Elvis' early days.. while at the same keeping in mind that the movie is likely not 100% accurate. Bunch of stuff there I already knew, but a bunch I didn't. I have a newly found respect for the artist (Elvis), but this has got to be Tom Hanks' worst movie. And I've seen Joe vs the Volcano... I would rate this movie at 8.4/10. The beginning seemed clunky but the story quickly caught up and it was fine after that, and then some. Every time Tom Hanks character showed up I cringed a bit, but other than that, I found it a very well put together movie. The guy who played Elvis did a bang up job
 
Last edited:
Watching The Banshees of Inisherin.
It is a sad story, but I like the main cast.
Living in some middle of nowhere island off the coast of Ireland - let alone 100 years ago.

Edit, watched it now. Depressing. But otherwise pretty decent.
 
Last edited:
The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), where Martin Scorsese proves that the formula applied in Goodfellas and Casino still works!

Also, what a brilliant cast.

Great film.
 
Resurrection (2022).
I liked it. @Fippy , I think you may like it too.
That said (and don't read the spoiler before you see it)
Spoiler :

The ending shouldn't have been left like this. Imo the story is about someone who is responsible for her child's death but makes up someone else as the responsible party. OR it is just an allegory about being nervous for your child leaving. But if it is the first, it's not believable (doubt anyone could self-delude like that at 19...would be easier to sell if she was in pre-puberty or early puberty), and if it's the latter...well...it's just sort of trivial.
One other thought: if it was the former, it'd have been good to focus on the "kill me and you kill him" line, I kept thinking how it would simply mean "remove me as the delusion, and you'll be left with the reality of having killed him". But, like I said, the ending was rather botched imo and ruined it :)

Still, worth a watch. Both main actors are good too :)

 
Last edited:
Land of the Dead from 2005 was interesting. The Zombies started remembering stuff from their lives as living beings and got smart. And the rich people were the ones eaten in the end.
 
Last edited:
Hm, Scream 1 was nice, don't recall much of 2, maybe I haven't even watched it. I did watch Scream 3 recently and it was...eh...not that good.
Haven't watched 4, and Scream 2022 was lower-decent to meh and ultimately not as good as 1: another money-grab.
2 was still okay imo, but maybe that was also cos the good memories from the original were still around.
3 was not for me :)

4 was the pleasant surprise..has an actually interesting finale and some fun moments.
Courtney Cox was boring with that same old role, and you need some tolerance vs. girl chatter..but i would still recommend it.
 
Last night, instead of watching a film, I read Yelp reviews of one of the local movie theaters, which averages 1.5 star reviews.

There were clear horror movie and zombie apocalypse vibes. Entering the lobby, no humans in sight, able to walk to any theater you want at times without even buying a ticket. Walking into pitch black theaters with no heat, and if it's a morning show, finding that there is still food abandoned there from the night before when the zombies attacked last movie was shown.

Most of the seating, which in most theaters is office chairs, is in one way or another broken, the floors are nearly as sticky as if they had glue on them in places, and the front of the lobby is stacked with various furniture and miscellaneous items like they were preparing a barricade to keep the zombies out but did not finish it in time.

When the film does start playing, sometimes it's the wrong film, or some of the speakers don't work, or there are holes or red or black spots permanently on the screen. Occasionally the sound cuts out altogether. If you can find a staff member they'll change it to the correct film, or rewind it so you can see that scene with sound, but other times you might just sit in an empty theater with nothing playing for 20 minutes after the scheduled start time waiting for the zombies to arrive.

The staff will occasionally show up behind you while you're engrossed in the film and ask if you'd like to order any food, adding an extra degree of realism to jump-scare scenes. There aren't enough staff present often enough to tell if they intentionally try to time it for maximum effect, tapping you on the shoulder just at the right time to make you think the scene you are watching on the screen is happening in real life, but it would not be surprising.

As one of the 2-star reviews noted, the experience of going to this theater is as much about the experience of the theater itself as it is seeing a film. The film might be altogether forgettable, but you'll remember going to that theater.

It's been a few years since I went to that theater, but seeing how it changed between 2011 and when I was last there in 2017 or 2018, the reviews are entirely believable. It's a small wonder they haven't been shut down for code violations. I'd be surprised if they make it to 2024, but if I'd been reading those reviews a year ago I would have been surprised if they made it to 2023. Whoever buys the property once the theater inevitably folds should shoot a zombie/horror film there before they start renovations or convert it into something else; you wouldn't be able to create a more realistic-looking set in Hollywood.
 
Dante's Peak (1997) was a fun rewatch. Definitely the better of the two volcano movies that year (although Volcano is dopey fun).
Born to Be Blue (2015) with Ethan Hawke playing Chet Baker seemed like it ought to be a homerun, but somehow it ended up being pretty boring. And it didn't feature as much music as I'd hope it would.
This is England (2006) wasn't as violent as its Aussie & Yank cousins, Romper Stomper (1992) and American History X (1998), but it had a better soundtrack.
As it happened, I'd saved the best for last. Selma (2014) has a ridiculously deep cast, and turned out to be an accidental Carmen Ejogo biopic double-feature (with Born to Be Blue).
 
The Good Liar (2019), starring Ian McKellen and Helen Mirren.
A well-cast and -shot story, but the conman being conned all along is one of those things that are a bit repetitive these days, so I suspected for at least the last third of the film.
 
I just watched Fractured (2019) and quite liked it. I'm not sure what to really say without giving too much away, but it was an entertaining if at times frustrating ride.

I wrote a bit more but deleted it all, because it gives too much away. I knew this review would be impossible. This movie left an impression on me though, even if it didn't really seem to shine in any one category. It did things its own way and left an impression on me
 
Resurrection (2022).
I liked it. @Fippy , I think you may like it too.
That said (and don't read the spoiler before you see it)
Spoiler :

The ending shouldn't have been left like this. Imo the story is about someone who is responsible for her child's death but makes up someone else as the responsible party. OR it is just an allegory about being nervous for your child leaving. But if it is the first, it's not believable (doubt anyone could self-delude like that at 19...would be easier to sell if she was in pre-puberty or early puberty), and if it's the latter...well...it's just sort of trivial.
One other thought: if it was the former, it'd have been good to focus on the "kill me and you kill him" line, I kept thinking how it would simply mean "remove me as the delusion, and you'll be left with the reality of having killed him". But, like I said, the ending was rather botched imo and ruined it :)

Still, worth a watch. Both main actors are good too :)

Good acting yup, but i wasn't able to get into the story much.
Imo you have to make up your own conclusions here (of what really happens and what's just in her mind)..which i generally find rather uninspiring.
Spoiler :
I liked the slow turn from the baby as merely a metaphor to being a full-blown delusion, and the uncertainty as to whether that was a change or had been true all along. That is, was Margaret managing her mental illness until David showed up again? Or was it just that her delusion didn't really matter until he showed up? And did he share in her delusion, or was he merely preying on it? I didn't mind that ambiguity. But the very last scene - really the last 20-30 seconds - undermined the entire film, for me. It just didn't make any kind of sense at all that the baby was real.

Good performances, like you say, but the ending made me want to throw my monitor out the window.
 
I just watched Fractured (2019) and quite liked it. I'm not sure what to really say without giving too much away, but it was an entertaining if at times frustrating ride.

I wrote a bit more but deleted it all, because it gives too much away. I knew this review would be impossible. This movie left an impression on me though, even if it didn't really seem to shine in any one category. It did things its own way and left an impression on me
Apart from the rest, jumping after someone who is in free fall, to catch them, is not a good idea ^^ /Pisa
 
Last edited:
Spoiler :
I liked the slow turn from the baby as merely a metaphor to being a full-blown delusion, and the uncertainty as to whether that was a change or had been true all along. That is, was Margaret managing her mental illness until David showed up again? Or was it just that her delusion didn't really matter until he showed up? And did he share in her delusion, or was he merely preying on it? I didn't mind that ambiguity. But the very last scene - really the last 20-30 seconds - undermined the entire film, for me. It just didn't make any kind of sense at all that the baby was real.

Good performances, like you say, but the ending made me want to throw my monitor out the window.
(also @Fippy )

Spoiler :
Imo David was clearly part of the delusion too; it's not like he is ever seen by others. The plot could have worked, if she was a lot younger when the original drama happened - assuming, ofcourse, there was such drama in the first place, by which I mean losing a child or being responsible for the death of a (other person's) child, not the unreal stuff about David eating up the kid. Then again, her career isn't fleshed out either, so the idea doesn't really work - but I did like the kindnesses as a routine of self-control, just needed a more believable timeline :)
As for the ending scene(I mean her frightened stare, not David having a child inside him), I think they lazily used that for people to infer she is delusional, but that was the opposite of elegant.


It's a little similar to that Isabelle Adjani/Sam Neil film, imo.
 
Kyr, Egon
Spoiler :
Maybe the whole delusional thing has been overdone by now, if we take Angel Heart it's much more elegant when you see what really happened later as conclusion.
I am never really happy with a movie if they are too lazy to put together an ending that clears up most questions (usually feels so rushed now).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom