• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

A few reviews

12 Monkeys (1995)
Last time I rewatched ‘12 Monkeys’ I was getting a little tired of Brad Pitt’s zany and shallow performance but this time any deficiencies from him were easily eclipsed by enjoying the controlled, complex, multi-layered, subtle, shifting turn from a never-better Bruce Willis. The story was even better, viewing it from a post real pandemic perspective. I’d somehow never twigged before that the "insurance" lady briefly seen on the plane at the end was one of the scientists from the future, demonstrating that Cole had completed his mission, however unintentionally. A more conventional way to do this story might have been to restrict the viewer's perspective and so make Cole's sanity ambiguous for us but Terry Gilliam goes the more interesting route of making it clear that he is not mad but having him doubt his own sanity by having his multiple planes of experience closely mirrored by production design and camera angles. It’s a shame that Gilliam has never had the stars align as well as they did here, a critical win and a box-office smash without ever feeling like a compromise of his eccentric visual style, wild ideas and macabre humour.

 
Escape from New York (1981)
John Carpenter’s film is slower paced than I remembered but it makes up for that by giving you time to really soak up the menacing atmosphere. The footage of Snake running the dark streets of NY has the same sort of sound, look, score and energy as 1984’s ‘The Terminator’. You know James Cameron must've been taking notes from Carpenter, JC did do models and matte paintings on this film after all. The supporting characters are quite thinly drawn, yet so outlandishly memorable and roguishly likeable that you feel sad when they bite the dust. It’s interesting that this and the 1st two Mad Max movies were made at the same time because they have a similar vision of flamboyant punk gangs controlling a decaying lawless society, short on resources. Although I suppose they both owe a debt to 1979’s ‘The Warriors’ and 2000AD.

 
Niagara (1953)


Don't let the black and white trailer fool you, this movie is in gorgeous color!

I heard about this movie because it was on a few lists of "Hitchcockian" films and sometimes I enjoy hunting for the hidden gems than watching the gold standards. SIDE NOTE: 23 Paces to Baker Street is another that pops up on these lists and it is a REALLY solid Hitchcock feeling movie!

So, outside of Marilyn Monroe catching the eye of every man she walks by, including the insufferable husband in our young-couple-that-gets-caught-up-in-the-plot, she does a pretty ok job trying to sell everyone on the idea that her husband is crazy (but in reality it is seemingly PTSD from fighting in Korea) so that she can help sell her own plot to murder him with the help of her boyfriend.

Under the direction of Henry Hathaway, he really didn't seem to know what to do with this film. We can see that Marilyn is the main character, but when you take a step back, we spend equal time following her, her husband and the young "newlywed" couple that it just doesn't flow all that well. Way too much time was spent with the young couple and they really don't contribute much to the plot (and the husband rarely stops smiling, so it made it entertaining to pick out how many times you actually spot him not smiling than giving a crap about his job and getting in touch with his new boss). Marilyn was sorely underutilized here and when it was over I told my wife what I thought was going to happen and how it would play out and she got wide eyed and said that that would've been a lot more interesting than what we just saw. With such a mess of who to focus on, I didn't particularly care about anyone except the young wife of the newlywed couple (well, it took them 3 years to go on a honeymoon).

Interesting setup, gorgeous shots of the falls, poor execution, pretty decent climax.

DEFINITELY skippable unless you are channel surfing and nothing else is on.
 
The Hateful Eight (2015)
I think this is the 1st time I've watched 'The Hateful Eight' since the cinema, so I'd happily forgotten enough of the plot specifics to still find it nail biting. It's masterful the way Quentin Tarantino builds characters and the tensions between them. The last part when all that creeping build-up has dissipated is less exciting though. QT plays on our shifting sympathies for the characters, our expectations of star casting and our familiarity with hero/villain tropes like a conductor. It's fun on a second viewing to catch all the little looks from Samuel L. Jackson and Jennifer Jason Leigh's characters as they are silently working things out. God that threatening main theme from Ennio Morricone is so addictive. This time I watched the extended 4-part Netflix version but I didn't notice anything obviously different. Unfortunately the poorly done digital colour grading (oversaturated and with blacks rendered as dark blues) is present in this version, the same as the theatrical digital cut. The 70mm "roadshow" cut was apparently handled photochemically from start to finish, it's weird that Tarantino cared so much about that version (which hardly anybody saw) and doesn't seem to give a sh*t about how these other much more prevalent versions look.

 
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)
It’s unbelievable that a film so perfectly constructed to appeal to a wide audience, to delight families of all ages, to make the emotions soar, to lift the spirits, put a song in your heart and transport the viewer into a world of magic could’ve been a box office bomb but apparently it was. What exactly was so distracting for viewers in 1968, that seeing ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’ was nowhere on their list of priorities? The other interesting aspect of the production are it’s numerous links to the Bond film franchise. The script is by Roald Dahl, based on a book by Ian Fleming, the same pair who wrote 1967’s ‘You Only Live Twice’. It features a gadget laden car (built by the same prop guy as the DBD5), spies, supervillains, a heroine with a double-entendre name, the sets are by Ken Adams, it’s produced by Cubby Broccoli, it’s got Q in it and of course the baddie is played by Goldfinger. Most of the songs are total classics. I watched a full “roadshow” version including overture and entr’acte, it looks stunning and rich with colour.

 
Script by Roald Dahl, eh?

rob lowe GIF
 
TM2YC said:
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)
It’s unbelievable that a film so perfectly constructed to appeal to a wide audience, to delight families of all ages, to make the emotions soar, to lift the spirits, put a song in your heart and transport the viewer into a world of magic could’ve been a box office bomb but apparently it was. What exactly was so distracting for viewers in 1968, that seeing ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’ was nowhere on their list of priorities? The other interesting aspect of the production are it’s numerous links to the Bond film franchise. The script is by Roald Dahl, based on a book by Ian Fleming, the same pair who wrote 1967’s ‘You Only Live Twice’. It features a gadget laden car (built by the same prop guy as the DBD5), spies, supervillains, a heroine with a double-entendre name, the sets are by Ken Adams, it’s produced by Cubby Broccoli, it’s got Q in it and of course the baddie is played by Goldfinger. Most of the songs are total classics. I watched a full “roadshow” version including overture and entr’acte, it looks stunning and rich with colour.

Click to expand...
That was a horror movie for me as a kid. The child catcher guy gave me the creeps...that nose...ick!
 
I've always loved Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Yes, as a kid the child catcher gave me the creeps (still does, just less so now). In watching all the extra material with the Bond movies, I'm amazed at all the links between this movie and that franchise.
 
The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973)
This benefits from continuing the storyline of the last movie, having the same cast (mostly), the same director and writer and being produced just a year after the much maligned 'Dracula A.D. 1972'. 'The Satanic Rites of Dracula' isn't a masterpiece but it's a solid horror adventure mystery, with a splash more sex and violence that some previous Hammer outings. Peter Cushing is terrific value as Van Helsing, investigating a cabal of Satan worshipping peers of the realm, with the help of his granddaughter (now played by the classy Joanna Lumley). Christopher Lee has little to do as Dracula, so I can see why this was his last. Thankfully the misguided diversion into 70s funk from the previous score has been replaced by a more traditional spooky soundtrack. I've really enjoyed this watch/rewatch through the 8-ish Hammer Dracula films... so maybe I'll watch the 9th non-Dracula Kung Fu Vampire flick too.

 
Bananas (1971)
As a big Marx Brothers fan, Woody Allen's 'Bananas' has always been something to cherish as perhaps the closest thing to recreating their madcap spirit. Allen does for unstable 60s/70s South American right-wing/left-wing dictatorships (and CIA policy), what the Marxes did for fragile 20s/30s European autocracies in 'Duck Soup'. I wish he'd aimed his sights a bit closer at that topic though, as the film often goes way off into other tangents. There some classic sequences, like; the real Howard Cosell commentating on assassinations, executions and marital consummation as if they were sports events; Allen trying desperately to not notice an old lady being attacked by a thuggish Sylvester Stallone on the Subway; the massive sandwich deli order/heist; and best of all the insane trial sequence at the end, including the brilliant "A mockery of a sham!" tirade, a mad J. Edgar Hoover and Allen cross-examining himself. I hadn't realised before that that courtroom scene isn't just a homage to Chicolini's trial in 'Duck Soup' but a fairly direct satire of the notorious 1969 'The Trial of the Chicago 7', which was dramatised by Aaron Sorkin in 2020.



Starman (1984)
The only downside to rewatching this John Carpenter masterpiece is knowing I'll be walking around humming the magical theme music for a week or two. 'Starman' can be viewed as a deep meditation on life and loss, random human cruelty and selfless kindness, or just a lightly comic sci-fi adventure road-movie. The Christ allegory and Native-American commentary can also be appreciated, or equally not noticed. One of the most beautiful sequences is where Jeff Bridges' "star man" brings a deer back to life, unable to understand why the hunter character has made it dead and why the guy violently attacks him for doing so. It's also the moment where Karen Allen's protagonist realises he isn't someone to fear but a gentle being who needs her help and protection to survive another 48-hours in America. Through him she learns to love life again and accept the death of her husband. Bridges performance is incredible, he genuinely looks like an alien not understanding how to manoeuvre a human body and endlessly fascinated by the everyday, such as how Velcro works. It's got great humorous touches like the awkward way he runs when trying to do something as simple as remaining out of sight, or him kissing Charles Martin Smith's scientist Shermin full on the lips to say thank you. Another fun way to enjoy the movie is seeing it as a "prequel" to 2014's 'Guardians of the Galaxy', pretending "Star-Lord" is the son of "Star-Man"... it's even got a raccoon in it!


 
I take a medication that can elevate the levels of potassium in my blood in some cases so I'm supposed to keep a small eye on the amount of it i intake. Do you think the film Bananas is safe for me to view?
 
TM2YC said:
Munich (2005)
I'd obviously forgotten this fantastic throwback political/espionage thriller from Steven Spielberg
Click to expand...
I've loved this film from the get-go, and always held that it's his most underrated movie.

TM2YC said:
The Hateful Eight (2015)
It's masterful the way Quentin Tarantino builds characters and the tensions between them
Click to expand...
I dunno...just seemed like a whole lotta d**k-swaggering to me, and the second half totally deflates because he lays all the cards out and you know pretty much exactly what's going to happen. Would've been a lot tenser if he gave up on Tarantino-ing the chronology of the film and just played it straight imho.

TM2YC said:
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)
The other interesting aspect of the production are it’s numerous links to the Bond film franchise.
Click to expand...
You Only Live Twice is the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang of the Bond films.
 
Dark Star (1974)
I was hoping a rewatch of John Carpenter and Dan O'Bannon's 'Dark Star' would finally give me a "oh now I get it" moment but no, it's still dreadful. The only bit that made me laugh was Pinback's diary entry and I suppose O'Bannon's prissy voice for the uncooperative bomb computer was mildly amusing too. The film does succeed on one level, it makes the viewer fully share the astronaut's boredom and desperation for it all to be over. To me it feels like the later 'Red Dwarf' and 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' sci-fi comedies, if all the humour, plot activity and clever ideas were removed. I thought 2001's 'Ghosts of Mars' was easily Carpenter's worst film but I've changed my mind after this rewatch of 'Dark Star' because at least that had me absorbed in trying to fathom how the once great JC could've failed on every creative level. 'Dark Star' is at least technically admirable for a no-budget, first-attempt student film.

 
Tenet (2020)
Nolan writes/directs/produces another "intelligent" scifi action film where the more you think about it the more idiotic it becomes. The sound mixing is terrible again and the music still sucks. John David Washington is not a good actor and constantly walks with a swagger like he stepped out of a Blaxploitation film, which might fit his vaguely hinted at undercover alias, but not his CIA operative trying to maintain a low profile. The plot is riddled with holes and makes no sense and the big final battle is laughably lame.

I borrowed this from the library for free and I feel ripped off. I am officially done with Nolan. He is not some grand visionary. He's a hack with some interesting ideas and zero idea of how to accomplish them or weave them into a coherent whole. He doesn't deserve the budgets that studios keep throwing at him nor the praise and love that critics and fans shower him with. To borrow from this movie: he makes a forgery of a good movie. From a distance it looks decent but given any closer examination it falls apart into an amateurish mess.
 
It's an unpopular opinion, but I also am not a fan of Nolan. The only movie of his I've really liked is Memento, and I liked Inception pretty well but didn't love it.
 
TM2YC said:
Dark Star (1974)
I was hoping a rewatch of John Carpenter and Dan O'Bannon's 'Dark Star' would finally give me a "oh now I get it" moment but no, it's still dreadful. The only bit that made me laugh was Pinback's diary entry and I suppose O'Bannon's prissy voice for the uncooperative bomb computer was mildly amusing too. The film does succeed on one level, it makes the viewer fully share the astronaut's boredom and desperation for it all to be over. To me it feels like the later 'Red Dwarf' and 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' sci-fi comedies, if all the humour, plot activity and clever ideas were removed. I thought 2001's 'Ghosts of Mars' was easily Carpenter's worst film but I've changed my mind after this rewatch of 'Dark Star' because at least that had me absorbed in trying to fathom how the once great JC could've failed on every creative level. 'Dark Star' is at least technically admirable for a no-budget, first-attempt student film.

Click to expand...
Oof, I found myself loving Dark Star. Now I'm very curious of which side the general consensus falls on.
 
skyled said:
Tenet (2020)
Nolan writes/directs/produces another "intelligent" scifi action film where the more you think about it the more idiotic it becomes. The sound mixing is terrible again and the music still sucks. John David Washington is not a good actor and constantly walks with a swagger like he stepped out of a Blaxploitation film, which might fit his vaguely hinted at undercover alias, but not his CIA operative trying to maintain a low profile. The plot is riddled with holes and makes no sense and the big final battle is laughably lame.

I borrowed this from the library for free and I feel ripped off. I am officially done with Nolan. He is not some grand visionary. He's a hack with some interesting ideas and zero idea of how to accomplish them or weave them into a coherent whole. He doesn't deserve the budgets that studios keep throwing at him nor the praise and love that critics and fans shower him with. To borrow from this movie: he makes a forgery of a good movie. From a distance it looks decent but given any closer examination it falls apart into an amateurish mess.
Click to expand...
I like Nolan a lot usually.
Hated The Dark Knight Rises and Tenet's plot is not great, I watched it twice and I still don't fully understand what a temporal pincer is or why it has such a bad name. Pincer is an odd word for non military and non crustacean catching folk, and the word temporal does not make it more catchy or soften the edges at all. Call it a roundabout, call it a wraparound, whatever, call it anything but a temporal pincer maneuver.

However I disagree somewhat. I did really like John David Washington, I thought his swagger was charming and likeable and did a lot of leg work for the film considering the lack of personality in the writing. All the actors were great, IMO, despite what they were given.

I consider Inception, Interstellar, and Tenet a loose trilogy of his sci-fi films, similar to Edgar Wright's, Terry Gilliam's, or Dario Argento's spiritual trilogies. They're very similar, each has tech unobtainable in reality at the center of its plot and a cold emotionlessness to its presentation. Sometimes a high concept is enough for a film, execution be damned. Not saying you have to like it, just is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Isn't a "temporal pincer" exactly what it is?

en.wikipedia.org

Pincer movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

A "pincer movement is a military maneuver in which forces simultaneously attack both sides of an enemy". The sides in this context being the past and the future. "temporal" meaning = of or relating to time.

Maybe it just feels odd to you because you're thinking it sounds like "tempura pincer" :LOL:

46833101-crab-claws-tempura.jpg



The Dam Busters (1955)
The last time I rewatched 'The Dam Busters' it was a 75th anniversary screening with a live intro by historian Dan Snow. It was the new 4K restoration in a widescreen 1.75:1 aspect-ratio. It looked fantastic but the many FX shots were noticeably lower quality than the live action. Presumably because the latter was now digitally soured direct from the negative with zero generational loss, where as the FX were from a 4:3 35mm composite with loss baked in, then cropped to widescreen, further reducing the "resolution". So this time I watched the academy-ish 1.37:1 version available on the 5-disc collectors blu-ray. In this version the switch between FX and live action is virtually seamless and a lot of the circular cockpit shots look better composed for this ratio. This will be my go to version from now on.

That George Lucas copied much of the Death Star attack in 'Star Wars' from 'The Dam Busters' (and some of '633 Squadron') is well known, even reproducing dialogue almost word for word (e.g. "some in the field, some in the tower" became "some on the surface, some on the tower"). The action at the end of this old 1955 movie is as exciting but I find the scientific and engineering experiments by Barnes Wallis at the beginning to be just as thrilling. 'The Dam Busters March' by Eric Coates is glorious, I'd rather stand for this soaring anthem, than the actual rather drab 'God Save the Queen'. The big downer for 'The Dam Busters' is it using the n-word 15-times in the space of an hour. I know it's a historically accurate detail from these events but in 2022 it renders an otherwise timeless, uplifting and heroic adventure, unpleasant and dated. I wish an alternate censored version had also been included on the blu-ray, to give the option not to have to hear it.

 
Last edited:
TM2YC said:
Isn't a "temporal pincer" exactly what it is?

en.wikipedia.org

Pincer movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

A "pincer movement is a military maneuver in which forces simultaneously attack both sides of an enemy". The sides in this context being the past and the future. "temporal" meaning = of or relating to time.
Click to expand...

I understand that much, it just doesn't roll off the tongue but is said a lot, and I don't understand how it actually works in the film. Eg. How is it "not time travel" as the film insists? Why is the forward-moving section required at all if you can send people backwards? Etc. The practicalities of it boggle my mind, despite what I saw happen on screen. I understand the rules of time in Terminator, Back to the Future, Doctor Who, Bill and Ted, Primer, TimeCrimes, Predestination, Avengers Endgame, Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time, Chrono Trigger, etc. I don't understand the rules of time in Tenet, it was unclear to me. And at the center of that is this thing Nolan is very proud of, the temporal pincer maneuver.

To be clear, I followed the plot, but not the internal logic driving it.

Maybe it just feels odd to you because you're thinking it sounds like "tempura pincer" :LOL:
Click to expand...

Don't make me hungry. You wouldn't like me when I'm hungry.
Looks delicious though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom