Amph What was the last movie you saw? (Ver. 2)

The Breakfast Club. A bunch of kids, each a different high school type, get stuck in detention together, bicker, and discover that, shockingly, all the kids in detention are messed up and have unhappy home lives, so they bond. It’s a simple premise, but one with potential. With John Hughes and a talented young cast, there’s a lot to like, but the movie really struggles thanks to one character.

Judd Nelson plays an abused kid who poses as a tough guy, which is all well and good, but he spends the entire movie relentlessly bullying everyone else, particularly fixating on rich girl Molly Ringwald, right up to the end. At which point everyone parts as friends and Ringwald feels bad about her privilege and decides to act sweet on him. The problem isn’t that Nelson’s a jerk; it’s that he has no arc. He never goes from being a jerk to learning anything. We learn enough about his home life to feel sorry for him and understand why he lashes out, but he stays a bitter, hostile bully to the end and isn’t forced to confront his actions the way everyone else is. It doesn’t work and it leaves a nasty aftertaste in what’s otherwise a likable teen movie. The role is well-drawn and Nelson is obnoxiously good in it, but Hughes seems to miss that it needs to go somewhere, that the guy who’s a giant jerk either needs to learn to stop being a jerk, or else not be treated as a hero of the film. It contrasts with the parts for Emilio Estevez, Anthony Michael Hall, and Molly Ringwald, which are all finely tuned and do a good job of playing both to and against the types they represent, rounding them out as human characters (Ally Sheedy is deliberately something of a cartoon, and less successful as a result). I was especially delighted that Estevez’s jock was probably the most decent and sensitive of the characters.

It’s unusual to see a film this overall strong mess up something fundamental to what it’s doing so significantly. I’m not quite sure how to feel about it. For as strong a reputation as this has, I think Hughes really missed the mark more than usual.

 

Personally, I'm fine with Nelson's character not going anywhere--his character has a personality disorder and realistically he's unlikely to go anywhere with that, not until he's in his 30s. I'm less fine with his character and Ringwald's character suddenly kissing at the end. Comes completely out of nowhere and feels studio-mandated. I have some other issues with the film but overall it mostly works, mostly. Easily the best of those '80s Hughes-style high school dramedies, IMO.

 

Yes, it's on Netflix (at least it is in the UK).

 

Uncharted this is firmly in that band of films that are sub-par indiana Jones along with National Treasure or Lara Croft or even a Robert Langdon film. I found this quite enjoyable, it’s throwaway in its plot, it beeped heavily from other films in its genre but the leads are likeable and have good chemistry and the quest kept me interested enough. Some of the cgi is a bit ropey and over the top for the end scene, but I’d happily sit through a sequel to this.

The Batman I thought this was a very good take on yet another incarnation of the character. Wisely they ditched the cliche of an origin story and threw us straight in, the story is all the better for it too I think. What I really liked was the fact it was a detective story, no way did this feel like a 3 hour movie either, it flew by. All the characters were excellent especially the creepy Riddler. The bleak Gotham setting and the bleak mood of it all added to it as well.

 

A Matter of Life and Death
1946

Impressive fantasy romance film that is ahead of its time both story wise and in the fx department. It is shot in technicolor and creates a unique juxtaposition of B&W and Color depending on the setting.

It really got me thinking about the art of filmmaking and mortality and lots of stuff. This is a really good picture from Powell and Pressburger. Top-notch cast as well. Highly recommended.

 

I don't care that Bender is such a jerk because he's so damn funny. He has almost all the memorable lines.

 

Among the the various other movies I've been watching so far in July, I've started making my way through the horror (/sometimes kind of noir?) movies that Val Lewton was producing on the cheap but with mandated titles but a pretty high degree of creative freedom for RKO in the '40s. So far I've taken a look at The Seventh Victim (Mark Robson), The Leopard Man (Jacques Tourneur), and I Walked With A Zombie (Jacques Tourneur), all of which released in 1943. I've enjoyed all three thus far, but Robson's The Seventh Victim especially is phenomenal.

 

Something further on The Batman….. I liked the fact that everything wasn’t too over the top and looked to be somewhat more grounded. The look of the characters and Batmans equipment weren’t too comic book and I think that’s a refreshing change from the recent marvel and Warner films. I enjoy a more serious take on a comic book character, and it’ll be interesting to see what they do next.

 

But he didn't deserve Claire, that's the problem. She shoulda just given him a maybe, at best. Other than that, the movie is good.

42

2013

I watched for the cgi ballparks only, I knew I wouldn't like the rest. Why remake the Jackie Robinson Story when jackie himself played himself, you can't top that. The only reason to remake is the cgi. I'm offended that they embellished the story and outright fibbed. The true story is interesting enough, no need to add more drama.

Definitely watch the original if yall gonna peep this. It's like with Cassius Clay, his biopic when he plays himself is way better than the Will Smith joint. Especially the scene when he confronts the racist lady and tells her the deal from the bottom of his heart. No actor can top the actual guy reencting his own life.

 

Play the Uncharted games instead. All the Indiana Jones homage but like ten times better

 

Paris When It Sizzles. The film may not exactly sizzle, but it’s got enough spark to get by. Audrey Hepburn is enough to get any film by, and she plays the typist for playboy writer William Holden, who has two days to write the movie script he’s promised producer Noel Coward. They hole up in his apartment, writing up scenes and falling in love, as the actors play out the frequently-rewritten scenarios that are obviously based on Holden’s infatuation with Hepburn. There’s a significant element of meta-comedy, as stars play themselves in the script, there is much mockery of Hollywood convention, method actors, and new wave, and the film keeps playfully rewriting itself. The results are not really all that funny or all that charming, but they’re amusing enough, and Hepburn and Holden likable enough, to keep the film entertaining. It’s a minor sort of pleasure that has more ambition than it achieves, but it’s worth one watch.

 

The Northman (2022)

Sound and fury, signifying nothing. Wanted to quit after just ten minutes, with people pretending to be dogs drinking out of bowls, and an obnoxious bleating score that refuses to shut up. The overload of sound was literally nauseating as I actually started feeling sick. It's dumb from beginning to end, with one illogical decision after another. Screaming, snarling, howling at the moon, with muscle, violence, blood, and gore, it might as well be Toxic Masculinity: The Movie. Intention didn't make it tolerable, it's 137 minutes of manbabies throwing screaming temper tantrums.

 

Re: the Breakfast Club I think Molly Ringwald's character would have completely ignored Bender on Monday, just like he said she would.

 

Starship Troopers

Wife had never seen this so we watched it over the holiday. HS this really holds up well. Perfect example of the glorious early days of cgi were it wasn't good enough to do literally anything and everything so they had to blend cgi and practical effects. And with the exception of a few shots it looks perfect. The spaceships were actual models that were scanned and composited together to form massive fleets and I have to be honest they look more realistic than any spaceship in Disney SW. There's a shot on a desert planet where the camera moves above a wall and you see thousands of alien bugs and my wife went "wow that looks so good! When did this come out??" Also I remember from a making-of back then that they hired a lot of amputees as extras so fake limbs are really torn off with fake blood spewing everywhere.

The over the top gung-ho mentality is great and we both loved the news reports scattered throughout that make the whole things seem like military propaganda.

The only things that "date" the movie are that soldiers receive mail as a tiny disk and a camera crew uses a huge shoulder mounted camera (which news crews actually still use these days because you can keep the frame steady).

That brings me to my next point: *start rant* what I dislike the most about modern movies is the shakey-cam. I think the directors and camera operators think it gives a 'realistic' or 'documentary' feel but imo it looks amateurish and gives me a headache. The tv show Schitt's Creek is funny but I couldn't get past the second episode because of the camera work. Starship Troopers (and the original Top Gun which I watched a few weeks ago but didn't post about) were good and because the camera doesn't wobble all over the place you can actually tell what's going on without feeling like your running alongside the actors. I watch movies to see a story not live it. *end rant*

Anyway I really recommend Starship Troopers to anyone especially if you liked it back in the day and haven't seen it in years. Bonus it's surprisingly violent and more nudity than I remembered.

 

Plus Denise Richards looks "handsome" in a uniform

 

Starship Troopers is very entertaining.

 

Yeah, a thumbs-up to Starship Troopers from me as well. A propos, if you have it on disk, the Paul Verhoeven/Ed Neumeier (director/writer) commentary track is one of those very rare commentary tracks that is well worth it.

 

The sequels, not so much. The thing that made the original so unique was that it it wasn't just an action/adventure movie. It was kind of philosophical in a way; how the US was portrayed in a sort of totalitarian empire. I don't recall if any of the sequel films (at least the ones I'd watched) included that at all.

 

That's because Verhoeven couldn't even finish reading the book, had it summarized for him, and then proceeded to make fun of it. I haven't seen any of the sequels, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't satires like Verhoeven's.

 

Which wound up 100% being the right move. To this day Starship Troopers remains some of the sharpest political satire I've seen put to film.

 

I like really like the book and Heinlein in general (Moon Is A Harsh Mistress is great) even though I don't agree with the political philosophy. I saw the movie first, the book was given to me 20some years ago by a Korean War vet friend who said his Sargent "gave him ****" for reading it so I assumed the book was somewhat satirical too but recently learned...not so much. He actually believed in a super strong and influential military (at least at the time.)

 

I think one of the sequels, in animated form; featured some of the main characters of the original (and the actors that played them) like Johnny Rico and I'm pretty sure Carmen as well, but I could be wrong.

Spoiler: Federal Network Propaganda

 

I've seen the sequels. Though there are a few good ideas in them (from a certain point of view), neither of them are really worth your time, unless you're a super-super-mega diehard fan and you don't mind cheap, low-budget effects that don't do justice to the original, and don't mind bad actors (who either take their roles too seriously in the second one, or just not seriously enough in the third one).