Amph What was the last movie you saw?

gaslight (1944) A famous singer is murdered in her London home, the case remains unsolved. Ten years later the singers niece who used to live with her aunt eventually inherits the house and moves back in with her husband. It's unsettling for her at first as the memories come back, she then finds a mysterious letter addressed to her aunt from a fan. Following which as slowly starts to settle in the home she begins to lose her mind, hearing noises in the mysterious boarded up attic room, things start to go missing in the home, she feels unable to go outside and meet people. But what secret is her husband hiding and why does the gaslight dim whenever he goes out every night?

What a great film. Ingrid Bergman is immense as the wife who believes she is mad, the emotion and doubt she portrays is so believable. The husband played by Gregory Anton is excellent. They're ably supported by a fantastic cast, not least by Joseph Cotton (Hitchcocks Shadow of a Doubt) as the detective and also a very young Angela Lansbury.

It's got all he hallmarks of the classic 40s and 50s thrillers, emotion, soft focus close ups, a good period setting and perfect performances.

 

I have my issues w/TOD, but in general its reputation is akin to an analogy I use for such franchises. TOD is like the successful real estate agent who has one sibling who becomes a Nobel Prize winner and another who becomes the first person to step foot on Mars. They have a younger brother as well, but no one talks about him unless Mom has a few too many cocktails.

Speaking of franchises, POTC is one that seems to be living on the extreme goodwill of the first one, which I do enjoy. It's a rip-roaring popcorn movie, and a lot of fun. But boy, those sequels. Those bloated, joy-zapping, god awful sequels. And they're making another one! No más , Mr. Sparrow.

Must be. I saw and thoroughly enjoyed Scout's Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse, which tanked hard.

 

Have you seen the original British version from 1940?

 

I've got a copy on DVD, I've yet to watch that version yet.

 

The local Shakespeare-in-the-park company put on a production of The Adventures of Pericles. Not one of the bard's more artistic works; more of a summer popcorn audience pleaser. This production was done with a Victorian/steampunk theme, and mostly set in the woods and trails of the park. It was fun to watch, but not a classic like Hamlet or Macbeth, and the plot was all too clichéd, with a true deus ex machina ending. OTOH, kidnapped by pirates is good.

 

Hey Sarge your a cool guy and all and I like you and stuff but...............


Shakespeare make me go.

 

Alas, Darth Basin, thou art to be pitied above all men.

 

The Transporter Refueled

Ed Skrein is no Jason Statham, and in this case that's a bad thing. Ray Stevenson puts on a slightly upper class accent whilst playing Frank Martin Sr, and while he brings the film's only slice of charisma, I think he'd have been better off using his natural northern accent.

 

Life Gamble (1979) So Shaw Brothers official twitter put up the challenge, watch this tonight to answer trivia on Monday to win posters and stuff. It's been awhile, so I jumped in. I love how 99.999% of the characters here betrayal everyone they come in contact with. Like the best spaghetti westerns (which this resembles on many fronts: gambling, knife fights, greed over the piece of wealth, betrayal, an honorable character etc.; you get wrapped up in the plot for the He Huan Jade. As the noble blacksmith Qui Zi Yu, Philip Kwok (Kuo Choi) delivers one of his best performances at Shaws both acting and physically. I would utterly love a prequel with his character trading his weapons making for kung fu techniques, Chang Cheh teases this, but the few seconds only make me want a full movie. Unusual for Chang Cheh, this one also boasts several strong women (and like Qiu Zi Yu, one of them is honorable. The rest are entertainingly wicked / selfish), and the many characters and double and triple crosses are a hoot.

It's great to see this is one of those Shaws I fell in love with a year ago and still feel the same way about.

 

It was the best of times, it was the worst of Sarge!

 

The Finest Hours. It's not trying to be a great film, but it hits the mark it's aiming for. A family-friendly tale of heroism against long odds, it's a pleasant, thrilling, and has a certain period charm. And the cast is wildly overqualified, with Chris Pine (endearingly dweeby), Casey Affleck, Ben Foster, Eric Bana, Graham McTavish, and a great bunch of character actors. It's competently executed, and I liked the justaposition of Pine's heroism, a determination to do the right thing and risk his life doing his job, with Affleck's more down-to-earth resourcefulness and determination not to give up in finding a way out of the situation he's been thrown into and keeping the crew alive. It could have been a better film, fleshed the characters out a little more, but as it is it's pretty good. I liked it quite a bit.

 

Death Wish. Classic thriller showing Charles Bronson's transformation from loving family man to cold hearted vigilante. I liked how the film was somewhat ambivalent as to whether or not it was advocating what Bronson is doing.

 

Runnin' Down A Dream

The running time of four hours may present as a chore before actually sitting down to watch the film. But, unlike History Of The Eagles (despite being very well made), Runnin' Down a Dream never feels long because the story telling flows as the narrative meticulously shifts through the band's expansive history. The presentation is broken up into two halves so it can easily be watched over two nights. Though, I could have comfortably sat through this documentary in one four hour sitting. It was a case of needing a full night's sleep for the next morning. So, why is Runnin's Down a Dream so long? Each member's history and contribution to the group is affectionately detailed. One by one, the audience is introduced to each member through very intimate and conversation like interviews which don't feel forced or formulaic. Instead, the presentation plays more like the critically acclaimed Beatles Anthology documentary series where the band members reflect upon their past while being absolutely present in their demeanour and passion for their craft.

Bogdanovich begins the story with the childhood of Tom Petty, followed by the earliest incarnations of The Heartbreakers: The Epics, to Mudcrutch. While obviously spending most of its time on The Heartbreakers, Runnin' Down A Dream also spends time exploring some of Petty's side projects including The Travelling Wilburys, Johnny Cash and works with Roger McGuinn. Contributions from Johnny Depp, George Harrison, Jackson Browne, Stevie Nicks, and Eddie Vedder add to the layering of the story telling. Hence, the documentary never truly feels long because of the abundance of guests, interviews, and archive footage of the band's performance along with exploration of their years during MTV. The Heartbreaker's story unfolds with intrigue, and chronological logic with its mix of highs and lows through the lives of the band members. Runnin' therefore will not only appeal to long term fans but may even invite some new fans aboard.

5 out of 5

 

gaslight (1940)

So in 2 days I've watched 2 different versions of the same film. This starts off with the brutal murder of the an elderly lady in her home. The killer ransacks the house seemingly looking for something.

20 years later a couple move in to the same house and from the off the husband is trying to drive the wife mad. Things are going missing that he puts down to her. She starts hearing noises in the room above hers, every time her husband goes out the gaslights dim as if someone else has switched a light on in the house, but there's no one else home. A former detective recognises the husband as the previously murdered woman's nephew, but he must prove it and find out what he's up to late at night creeping around the empty property next door.

I didn't think this one was as good as the 1944 version. From the off we are straight into the husband driving the wife mad plot, yet we are unsure why. We don't see the catalyst for the reason why he feels he must drive her mad (she had seen a letter addressed to her husbands real name). We don't see him upstairs in the house above his wife's room and we are let to assume at the end that he's searching for his murders aunts jewels.

The husband is excellent, creepy and convincing as being manipulative, but overall I do prefer the 1944 version. The suspense is built better and the story fleshed out more too, plus the performances are better. Don't get me wrong it's a good thriller but the 1944 take on the story improves it.

 

Terminator Jinysysysysysysysyssssszzzz Ugh. Some kernels of good ideas in there. For example, I liked that they killed a Terminator with a time machine. I liked the explanation for Ah-nold's age. I would have liked the decision to make the timeline a lot more complicated... complicated, not hopelessly convoluted. They clearly didn't bother trying to figure out a way for it to make any sense. Really, the only way is a multiverse, and I guess they're avoiding that because infinite universes where Judgement Day does and does not happen would be some nihilistic horror? I think that could have worked if they had tried. Instead Sarah Connor and "Pops" and others almost literally handwaved the confusing parts. Yeah, no, that's not acceptable. Build your ****ing universe.

I liked... eh, not much else. The humor always fell flat. Most jokes were dated and/or franchise self-plagiarized. John Connor becoming a Terminator was clearly supposed to be a bit of a surprise but it was spoiled by the trailers. And it wasn't a terribly good idea in the first place. I'm not sure what, effectively, the difference would have been if they had just sent a Terminator in his image instead of some sort of Skynet magic. The effects were dodgy. Young Ah-nold was technically good for the most part, but it was stuck so deep in the uncanny valley that James Cameron would need a submersible in order to find his lost creation. The American accents were dodgy. Emilia Clarke often sounded like she had a speech impediment, and I don't know why they made Matt Smith do it. People like AI with English accents! Whatever Generic Handsome White Guy played Kyle Reese-- Jai Courtney? doesn't matter-- is cardboard. His (lack of) charisma was to the movie as that MRI machine was to the Terminators. And them interacting with child Kyle was weird. "Hey, kid, when you grow up we're totally going to ****."

Also, what the **** was so special about this Genisys program that one billion people would preorder it?

 

Zoolander. A thing of sublime stupidity. This is a film that is relentlessly, overpoweringly dumb . . . and that's exactly why it works. It's not a great comedy, and as a film it's pretty haphazardly made; I'm not sure it has the cult level of rewatchability it's gained. But it lands a lot of laughs from sheer ridiculousness.

 

Deadpool- It was funny.

 

Independence Day Resurgence. It was good but not great but that's comparing it to the original. It was great to see Jeff Goldblum and those aliens again, battles were good, visual effects were top notch. I think the only things I didn't like were some of the characters were a bit generic, too much comedy and the scope appeared smaller yet it was suppose to be more global.

 

"The Happening", with Rifftrax commentary.

 

The In-Laws. Peter Falk and Alan Arkin. Very funny.

 

Double feature at the drive in with the kids...

Finding Dory & Alice Through the Looking Glass

Wrapped up at 1 am and the kids made it through both.