4v291o

(In case you’re wondering, he’s the pilot who says “…you ever seen a grown man naked” in Airplane!, for anyone else who can’t for the life of them where they know Price from.)

A solid film, though closer to Wilder’s mid-tier than his masterpiece (most movies are), this one is still pretty good. It is kind of a strange blend of “prisoner of war” drama with comedy, and I imagine it felt kinda risqué when it premiered. Still, Stalag 17 mainly works as a comedy, though probably not as perfectly as To Be or Not To Be. The comedy never gets bad or offensive, just that some of the premises’ credulity gets stretched very far. I, for one, would certainly be surprised to learn that the Germans had a camp for Russian female POWs, and that all of these prisoners also happened to be smoking hot.

My one other critique is how Holden’s Sefton is such an asshole early in the film as to be practically asking to be distrusted. I know that’s the point, I’m just saying it stretched believability. He didn’t feel like a “realistic” jaded asshole with backstory, but rather a simple jerk. Far from a massive flaw, just a critique given how well Wilder can write dark, cynical assholes.

On the whole Stalag 17 is a unique WWII comedy film with a unique perspective. Closet to a 3.5 than a 4.5, but Stalag 17 has enough good stuff in it to definitely be worth a watch, especially for fellow Wilder-heads (and a special acknowledgement to the film’s abrupt ending, for not sucking).

EDIT: HOLY FUCKING SHIT LEONARD FROM COMMUNITY IS IN THIS I DIDN’T EVEN REALIZE, LITERALLY STOP EVERYTHING

Hard not to like this film. Quite simply it’s masterful silent comedy the whole way through. Funny that’s it’s called Sherlock Jr. though given how the detective side plot ends up being only half important to the movie itself.

This review may contain spoilers.

As a general rule, I do not log or review miniserieses due to the fact that they are not movies. This is not to imply they are bad in any way, just that they are a distinct from film as an art form. But, I have too many thoughts about “The Young Pope” to not put it somewhere, so here we go.

So the main thing that frustrates me on the whole with this show is that it is probably the best example of the 2000’s “anti-hero problem.” Essentially the critique of many phenomenal tv shows from the 2000s-2010’s, such as “The Sopranos” and “Breaking Bad” that the shows, while trying to critique their bad main characters, end up glorifying them through making them protagonists. It’s a worthwhile consideration, though generally feels dismissive of these shows’ writing. With “The Young Pope,” I felt that problem a bit more.

For the first 8 episodes or so, Pope Pius is textually a bad man. A pope who suddenly reveals himself to be an arch-conservative, and uses his papacy to spew hate in an unhinged manner. Of course he’s surrounded by other corrupt cardinals, but still, he constantly does and says bad things. Pius is also a hypocrite, as he says in the first episode how he may not even believe in God, making his actions more reprehensible.

Yet, in of actual imagery on display in “The Young Pope,” I think the show glorifies Pope Pius. Jude Law is a handsome man, sure, but including multiple scenes where women find themselves swooning over Pius, and other people constantly calling him handsome, makes him seem “cool.” Having multiple scenes where the pope verbally “DESTROYS” other people was maybe intended to make the viewer go “oh, this guy is bad,” but I can’t help thinking it’s scenes that Nazi trad-cath types enjoy masturbating to.

Then, what makes “The Young Pope” even more strange is that Pius in the last two episodes, seems to have an actual change of heart(?). Despite all of the awful shit he’s done, he loses some people important to him which cause Pius to become a better person.

The Pope sort of goes back on some of his bad deeds, but not substantially, and takes down a few bad people. Some of his malicious acts feel almost retconned into being more noble. It is as though a switch had been flipped, and we are supposed to now accept Pope Pius as a better person while ignoring all the bad shit he was doing in the earlier episodes. Pius’ final sermon is good, but I don’t fully understand what truly motivated him to give it.

I was compelled enough to keep watching the series the whole way thru, though some of what it was truly going for eludes me. I guess I’ll half-heartedly recommend the show, but as I said I needed to get all my thoughts down after finishing it. So take what I said about it however you will.

Edit: all of my critiques are 100% vindicated by all the top reviews for this show lmao

*Director’s cut reviewed* 

I have no clue what distinguished the director’s cut from the theatrical, but still, I must note that.

Anyway, Eggers’ continues his streak of making his films with such immense quality that one cannot help but be taken in by it. While on my first viewing here it feels like a straightforward nosferatu retelling, its sheer quality means I can recommend it even just from that alone. For right now, I don’t have much more to add, other than absolutely check it out.

Basically it’s a classic “not as good as the original” sequel. Has some good ideas in it, but ultimately it felt too lodged in the shadows of the original, and didn’t properly expand beyond it. For example, our main character’s wife is once again not really a character, and in general just feels too much like an imitation of Maximus. With the emperors it’s like “why have one Joaquin Phoenix when we can have TWO Joaquin Phoenixes!” I did like the inspirational speech at the end at least, and Denzel Washington is good (not a surprise but still). Glad I finally saw this film, but yeah, it wasn’t as good as the first.

So I coming across the trailer months ago and thinking “oh shit, Daisy Ridley’s doing a die hard type action movie with Martin Campbell directing, I gotta see that.” I then proceeded to see nothing else about the film for months, till I was browsing Kanopy of all places, where I saw this film there. Gotta be the weirdest method I’ve ever come across a film.

Anyway, this film frustrates me a bit because there a fair number of story elements here that I like on paper, but the overall execution wasn’t up to snuff for this one. So much of the interesting set-up just did not click together on screen.

A good example are Cleaner’s villains. (Spoilers?) The idea of extremist suddenly taking over a radical group in the middle of a plot is a unique angle for action movie bad guys. However Noah, the main villain, ultimately is just kind of dull. No way do half of the radical environmentalists become full-on killers based off of Noah’s charisma. Makes the interesting on-page concept fall flatter than I’d like.

Other story elements feel similarly underdeveloped, but Cleaner’s biggest issue is, to put it bluntly, Daisy Ridley spends way too much time on the window washer cart and not nearly enough in exciting set pieces. It’s only in the last half hour when the Die Hard action finally kicks in. Ridley’s good in that part, but it’s too truncated.

Too many good elements or concepts just didn’t get used well enough here. I wonder if the film’s budget was cut, and that’s why it feels weaker than it should. Whatever the case however, when it comes to modern Die Hard ripoffs, White House Down and Violent Night remain the gold standard. Cleaner is not a bad film, just disappointing.

Solid animated adventure, I understand why some truly loved this film. The depth provided to many iconic characters is compelling, and so for people who love those characters, the story  really resonates. As not a massive transformers fan by any stretch, I can’t call it a “must-see,” but I enjoyed watching it.

You know, for the film that possibly codified the image of the “unapproachable existentialist foreign film,” The Seventh Seal is shockingly watchable.

Put simply, as of now its wider themes have not penetrated my thick skull, but the characters themselves and story are decently compelling on their own. I’m a little shocked at how little of the chess game (do I even need any more specificity before the image came into your head?) is actually shown on screen, yet I never felt “cheated” by the movie.

I can’t tell you “why” the film is a classic, hell this is my first Bergman film so it’s worth keeping that in mind, but I can say there’s definitely something here. Worthy of its iconic status and definitely worth seeing, but judging The Seventh Seal beyond that is still unknown for me.

This movie is so fucking dumb. I love it.

Kurt Wimmer is kind of fascinating as a storyteller. He comes up the most ludicrous worlds and concepts, but then executes them with a complete earnestness to make it… well, not “work” but at the very least make a film unlike any other (when I saw him listed as a writer of The Beekeeper, a lot more of that film suddenly made sense).

I got it just now! Wimmer’s work can be summed up well as “what if the Wachowski sisters were bad at writing?” Works even better since this film was 100% greenlit to be a Matrix ripoff.

Anyway, Christian Bale and everyone else on cast all are fine, the material is just so ridiculous that it almost becomes camp. The fact that the flag of the evil regime looks almost identical to Frank Reynolds’ CharDee MacDennis flag, having a fascists society literally requiring every single person to to take a shot, like if you stop to think about it for .05 seconds it makes no sense. But damn, do they commit to it. Worst thing about Equilibrium is probably just the subtextual (though is it even?) demonization of anti-depressants, but even then with how insane the world of the film is, it’s hard to take it seriously.

Similarly, the action is ridiculous but remarkably well executed. For the stupid ass “gun-martial arts(???)” scenes alone, I can recommend it. Equilibrium will probably forever have a soft spot in my heart, because it partially inspired me to start writing (I am somehow not joking lmao). The action is creative enough that I’ll say it’s worth a watch, but I am laughing at the film for a solid amount of the runtime.

I do not know what to make of this one. Like, I can’t with certainty say what it is going for. The premise intrigued me, but the story is structured weird. Maybe Herzog was going for another Aguirre type of film?

Maybe it’s just having this film be about the African slave trade is such a thematically dark concept that I just feel uncomfortable trying to grapple with it, I don’t know. It’s not outright bad, so will absolutely hand that to the film.

Remarkable how kinetic this whole film is, even when exciting things are technically not occuring on screen. Whole time you really get into Henry’s mindset better. On this watch I feel like I more understood what Roger Ebert meant when he said (paraphrasing) Henry’s problem is not that he sinned, but that he liked the sin and wants to sin again. Remains a truly excellent film.

This review may contain spoilers.

How much does this town pay its mayor?!

Anyway, pretty good, but the film maybe puts one too many threads together into its ending, which maybe hurt it somewhat. I also think the film would’ve overall benefited from being more consistently comedic. Sometimes everything’s a caricature, but then at others it’s more straightforward, and the shift can be a bit jarring. The two styles didn’t quite find the right balance here, but that didn’t derail it. On the whole, I liked the movie.

Man, with the sheer creativity emanating from every single frame of this film, Edgar Wright continues his hot streak as a director. A remarkable blend of brilliant over the top action with a subtlety insight tale of a guy making himself better. It took me multiple watches to realize that Scott Pilgrim is not actually a good person for almost the entire film despite being the main character. With how easy his story is to misinterpret, I can understand someone being put off by that aspect. Hell, Scott probably figures all of his shit out a little too quickly in the last scene. Nonetheless, what is actually being said, with its hero needing to learn self-respect rather than love, makes for compelling thematic depth. It is quite simply a superbly crafted comedy action film unlike any other, and I recommend watching it.

This one is hard for me to fully judge, because there is a dichotomy between my intellectual reaction and surface level one. Intellectually, the film is offering brilliant commentary both on the specific perpetration of the holocaust, and a more general look at the “banality of evil.” But, I also cannot deny the fact that The Zone of Interest is boring.

This is not due to an artistic failing, in fact I am 99% certain it was a creative choice, but that is how I was feeling. At times, the film seems to straight up deny the audience any sort of drama. The “on paper” conflict within the Hoss family is so mundane and dull, that it is almost impossible to miss the silent contrast with the unspeakable horrors on the other side of the wall.

In this instance, the intellectual achievements of the film undoubtedly “win out” over any emotional (for lack of a better word) shortcomings that I experienced with this film. What is being said by The Zone of Interest is compelling enough to warrant a watch. I just want to be straightforward about how the shortcomings exist. I recommend it, just know it’s a slow film going in.

Ya ever find yourself browsing Kanopy and then stumble across a movie you’ve never heard of but with a surprising stacked cast, and then when you look it up on Letterboxd where you find out that it is so obscure that your single review might honestly shift overall ratings for the film?

Oh, literally no other person alive? Well…shit.

Anyway this movie is quite weird. I imagine Sebastian Gutierrez is someone who has a huge amount of LA connections and was able to ask his major actor friends to be in the movie. I say this because City of Sin genuinely feels like a student film. It’s doing an “overlapping characters and storylines” thing, but the screenplay here is no Pulp Fiction. Cast is all fine enough, but that’s all I can think to say about this. It’s not particularly bad, just a strange instance where someone had the resources to actually produce the first script they had ever written for a creative writing class.

Side note: this film was originally black and white? Why did they make a colorized version?

Still a masterpiece, still think it deserved to win best picture, but I can acknowledge that I think some of my initial 5 star rating was out of a sheer excitement that “Steven Spielberg pulled it off!!!”, and then sustained by me and my friend infrequently debating this film’s true qualities (despite both of us liking the movie lol). So I see more imperfections here, but the film remains excellent. I’ve sung its praises numerous times, go see it.

Undoubtedly a great film, though one that comes very close to (perhaps even going into) “insisting upon itself” a bit. 

The reason for this might have a bit to do with looking at Heat on its own, without the meta-textual weight given by its cast. To put simply, I think Neil (the main bank robber) wouldn’t actually be all that interesting of a character were he not played by Robert De Niro. Luckily he is played by Robert De Niro, and thus you feel like there is depth to the character. A contrast can be made with Al Pacino’s Vincent, who is an interesting character which Pacino does a phenomenal job at bringing to life.

A question to pose here: would Heat work as well if it did not have the meta-weight of it being De Niro vs Pacino? The answer is still yes, but I feel the character focused scenes would feel like more of a drag between the heist set-pieces (which are all legit masterpieces).

What I’m trying to get at is that Heat only just barely misses feeling like it “insists upon itself,” and that is thanks to the amazing cast. Thanks to them, Michael Mann’s absurdly epic, stylized heist film works. Mann flew close to the sun here, but it wasn’t enough to make this film bad. Absolutely worth seeing.

The entire problem with the film can be summed up in four words: “this won best picture?!”

I suppose Around the World in Eighty Days had at least some charm to it, but at no point did I truly find any of its comedy funny, nor did the film give much of anything towards set pieces. Honestly the whole thing is remarkably episodic and low stakes.

Maybe in the fifties it was inherently more exciting just to see other parts of the world, but even the I don’t know. Even if you can look past all the weird racist stuff, and boy is there a lot of weird racist stuff to look past, the film never explores any of its locations with any sort of depth. Half the time everyone looks like they’re on a soundstage. Maybe a 4k restoration would change that, but honestly I think that’s just how the film looks.

It’s hard for me to land on an exact score for this movie, because it is competent. It is even slightly charming at times thanks to David Niven. Yet on the whole, I do not like this movie, and I am convinced that if it hadn’t won the Oscar, there’s no way anyone would it. Meh movie, but easily the worst best picture I’ve seen so far.

Despite having no early connection to his work, Jerry Lewis as a historical figure kind of fascinates me. I think it’s his sheer duality, this goofy comedian to the public who was an awful human being in private, liked well enough in America but beloved in , made The Day the Clown Cried but realized that was a mistake, the whole thing makes him someone I can’t look away from despite all the bad things about him. So when I heard there was a murder mystery film about the break up of the Martin and Lewis comedy duo (or rather a fictionalized version of them), I was excited.

Unfortunately in execution, the movie was only ok. For starters the story wasn’t really about Martin and Lewis. All of the elements are there, but it never truly examines “Lanny” (Jerry) or “Vince” (Dean) to any meaningful extent by the end of the film, which felt disappointing.

The story itself also lacked a little. The structure is a bit confused, and Karen ultimately isn’t as compelling of a main character as much as I want her to be. I like the idea of her, as one of those children at one of the telethons now grown up and investigating the two men, but the film never does a lot with that aspect. It’s not a bad film on the whole, I just wish it could have lived up to its own potential.

Still funny, though I think on the whole it didn’t hold up for me as much on my second viewing. The question permeating my mind here is this: is Tropic Thunder a subversive send-up of Hollywood and all its absurdities, or is it an edgy comedy entirely within the norms of the 2000’s? I’m not sure, but I do think a tighter script would have allowed for a greater thematic cohesion overall.

The film is at its best when it’s mocking movie production, so the fact that it spends so long parodying Vietnam war films does feel like a misstep (edit: just occurred to me, but I wonder if part of the reason RDJ steals the show here is actually because his character is a “modern actor” parody, thereby keeping him in that area of humor compared to the rest of the cast who have to mine more from the “war movie parody” area).

Still, I do like the movie. While it is probably not as funny now as it was back in 2008, it does still have the laughs to make it worth a watch.

Excellent film, I can see people are connecting with it. There are some true 10/10 scenes, though on first watch I think some of the vampire action in the climax wasn’t as top notch as I’d prefer. As well I think on my initial viewing here, some of the thematic choices feel strange enough to at least give me pause. Nevertheless , a great film and beyond question worth seeing in theaters. Check it out.

It’s honestly kind of insane just how good this film is. Just one element off and the whole thing could’ve come tumbling down in a pile of annoyance, but everyone here is just completely on point. I love this film.

I appreciate the tone this film was going for, with how it was sort of parodying the classic “high schoolers at end of the world” thing, but also playing it straight enough for there to feel like genuine stakes. I think Mooney just managed to pull it off, so props there. Script was still a bit messy, but I’ll push it up to 4 stars just because of the practical “evil computer” suits used throughout the film. Overall, enjoyable.

Fine noir, though the contrivances of the main plot did annoy me. Like I’m not calling Dennis O’Keefe ugly, but I truly doubt he’s “love of your life” material for one woman, let alone two.

On the whole, a pretty good short film. Put that on the cover.

Overall solid, though not as good as White House Down. The action could have been better on the whole, and while I appreciate the unique nature of the bad guys’ evil plan, on the whole they all didn’t really stand out as characters.

In thinking about this I realized something: it was a mistake for G20 to keep its politics vague. While we see how the bad guys characterize the president’s international plan (that is the basis for the initial conference), the film never fully explains what the plan truly is after one sentence about it at the beginning. We aren’t allowed to ever get a full sense of Sutton as a politician, weakening the overall themes of G20. I mean, hell, the film doesn’t even explicitly state her political party (obviously she’s heavily implied to be a democrat, given that she experiences empathy for other human beings thru out , but the point remains).  There’s probably an interesting comparison to make with White House Down in that regard actually. 

Still, it’s an ok film, I just wish G20 was more memorable in its execution.

Humorous MST3K commentary, but dear lord the movie was so fucking terrible lmao. Not uniquely bad just so fucking boring with zero tension for the entire runtime. Took real effort to actually finish this, even with the joke commentary.

The story of Rumble in the Bronx is kind of weird due to it being strangely convoluted (it first seems like it’ll just be Chan vs some gangsters, but then diamonds and larger crime bosses get thrown in, it’s a lot). Though it does have a certain interesting nature, being a depiction of America from an 80’s Hong Kong perspective. A cultural time capsule, if nothing else.

However this is one film where the action and stunt work absolutely make up for the story. It’s some of the most impressive in all of Jackie Chan’s ouvere. Police Story is still probably the best, but this film is nonetheless very solid.

Long and short of it, this is a story that works a lot better on the stage than on film. The comedy of “Noises Off” is partially based on the inherent tension of live theater itself, and the laughs from watching an actual worse case scenario performance that the audience all has in the back of their minds whenever they sit down in the theater.  So, making a filmed version of this play is almost inherently taking something away a major source of comedy.

To add on to the problem however, I think Bogdanovich never truly takes advantage of film as a medium for this adaptation. The world of the play is never expanded, nor is the opportunity ever taken to do stunts or gags that are impossible during a live performance. The camera stays within the same confines as the actual stage, which just makes you wonder why you aren’t simply watching a filmed performance.

The remarkably stacked cast all do a fine job here, though as I said they are hampered by the medium (many gut-busters onstage are made solid on film). Now, the original play’s ending is weak, so I ire at least taking the opportunity to tweak it. However the new version for the film is also weak, so whoops lol. 

On the whole I don’t think this film was bad, I was just merely disappointed. If you want to see a version of the play, this is a fine way to do it, but the live performance is undoubtedly the better option if that’s available. Wish this film could have felt more like an adaptation than a lesser recording.

Edit for posterity: saw my sister do a performance of this a few weeks back, which is the reason why the comparison between the play and the movie is so prominent in my review.

Watched this film mainly because I saw that Tom Stoppard of all people wrote the script, and so I was curious. It’s essentially a fine realistic spy thriller, but never quite grabbed me. Nothing about it is bad, I was just wasn’t that into the film. Still, if you like end of the Cold War Soviet Union history, or your spy thrillers slow and realistic, it’s probably worth a watch at least.

Hell of a lot of fun, but goddamn is this some serious copaganda. Like I’m pretty sure most wartime propaganda has more nuance than this film lol. It’s probably one of the most archetypal “cops and robbers” scripts, but executed superbly. An overall enjoyable film, but it comes with caveats.

A legal drama that is also shameless Oscar bait, but there is not getting around the simple fact that it is incredibly satisfying to watch the story of scum like David Irving get intellectually destroyed in a court of law by much smarter people.

Given how relatively straightforward the whole situation is (“David Irving is actually misreading his sources intentionally, in order to specifically deny the holocaust, because he is a racist anti-Semite WHAAAAT??!!!! 🫨”), the film does a good job at both keeping the stakes high and creating tension about how this all will play out. They also do a solid job at laying out relatively complex ideas, like the motivation behind holocaust denial as an example, in an understandable fashion. It’s a great courtroom drama the whole time, and certainly worth a watch. Nice to see historical research so soundly ed on film.

I feel so mixed on this film. At times it feels overly schmulzy, feeling way too simplistic in its depiction of the 54th Massachusetts regiment and its many struggles with racism. The score borders on parody with how emotional it wants to make the audience. I see Glory and wish I could see the better version of this story that contains more grit and the reality of 1860’s warfare and culture.

Denzel Washington however legit feels like he’s in that movie I just described. He’s magnetic and raises all of his material, compared to Mathew Broderick who is fine but I feel isn’t able to give Shaw much depth (though I get the impression they wanted to, what with the minor subplot of him suffering from ptsd and all). I don’t think you could replace Shaw’s character with a loaf of bread for all the depth he has, but I would have to double check that to be certain.

The other problem I’ll just note is at times I could feel gaps in the film’s budget. Stuff like showing the Georgia town from one single angle was more noticeable on this watch.

I do still like Glory and do recommend it, but it isn’t perfect. There is good stuff in this film, I just wish someone like Spielberg was directing so that the film could find a better balance between sentimentality and gritty reality.

I’m pretty sure that literally all movies receive a boost when they’re watched on 35mm at the Coolidge theater

This review may contain spoilers.

Sorta wish I could’ve somehow seen this without learning the twist before hand. Would’ve at least been able to experience the film more fully “as is,” or at least had the experience that so many others had when they discuss their love for this film.

I had for years heard about Fight Club (lol) as a classic but also a “dude bro” movie that is easy to misunderstand. Expectations like that probably were too much for any film to withstand. What I’m getting at is, I didn’t really like it but I respect the fact it exists.

As a personal taste thing, Fight Club’s style of dark comedy was too over the top. Like, given how long the film is, it spends a lot of time essentially stewing in the nihilistic violence angle, or at least so it seemed to me.

Man, as I said before, the baggage associated with this film is making it impossible for me to properly judge this movie. It wasn’t to my taste, but I cannot tell you if the movie itself was good or bad on its own. This is a useless review for acquiring a recommendation on if you should watch it lol.

Man, I wonder what’s been going on these past few days to make me want to rewatch this film?

For real, this is an excellent film. It is truly remarkable how this film is able to be compelling while never once giving  any sympathy towards any of the Nazis (except for the children, but even then they don’t sugarcoat the brainwashing they all received).

We watch as the world literally crumbles around everyone, because they gave their entire selves to a single man, and most of them will not even let go of that devotion. Instead, these people will commit the worst atrocities possible that to betray their leader. And the leader we see is a man completely untethered from reality, wholly self-absorbed, blaming everyone around him for the problems that he caused. It’s essentially an apocalypse movie, but one where no revelation ever comes for the main characters.

And let it be said, Bruno Ganz’s performance as Hitler is rightfully iconic. Both in physicality and performance, he nails the lack of real personality for Hitler. We watch as some characters slowly, almost-realize that they have given everything imaginable to dim raging narcissist (man, what is it about this film that feels so real???).

The one critique I’ll give to Downfall is that the ending started to boil on “Hollywood-esque” almost. Never goes fully there, and the final texts balance it out enough, but it still felt a little lame. Besides that however, Downfall is a great film that is absolutely worth watching.

Long story short, I felt it wasn’t as good as The Beekeeper. Statham is still solid, but the story ended up feeling overstuffed on the whole. The film felt long by the end, which is not a superb place for an action movie to be. It’s not bad outright, but overall weak and not among Statham’s best.

Some damn good stunt work here, but unfortunately it doesn’t happen often enough to make up for the pretty weak story (which is too bad because I’m pretty sure this is the only movie to give Jackie Chan a permanent injury. Like damn, wish I found this one to be a classic given those circumstances).

Liked it overall, kinda between a 3.5 and a 4. I think my main problem with this film is, quite simply, I don’t have as strong of an instinctual knowledge of French history that would help me connect all of the story together (example: I did not know going in that this film was covering the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, though in retrospect that would’ve been obvious at the very start had I known about the lead up to that). Thus, at times it felt a little difficult to follow all of the film’s plot points and character developments. Still, it’s well acted and remains a compelling historical drama for its entire runtime. If that genre is also your bag, I think you’ll like this film too.

(Quick edit for posterity, since it turns out there are more that one editions of this film: the cut I saw was around 2 hours and 38 minutes)

Very mixed on this one. I respect the endeavor of making a (quasi-)small scale alien invasion movie with almost no dialogue, but I think doing that hampered the opportunity to connect with the main character. Nothing is bad here per se, I just didn’t connect with it. I guess you can call this a “high 3,” though that label feels like a joke even as I write it.

Was just about to say that it reminded me of La Commune (Paris, 1871); the two films have the same director lol. Anyway, solid docudrama about the battle of Culloden. It’s basically Commune but on a smaller scale. Still works, still both informative and well made. History buffs especially will probably dig this one.

I can see how this one inspired a long running tv show. The concept for this screwball comedy is excellent, and everyone executes it quite well. I think this should get a remake, and I mean that as a compliment to the original script. My only major critique maybe is I wish the screwball energy was even higher throughout. Besides that, I certainly recommend this film.

Given how infamous yet well known this film is, I was honestly surprised to learn that it’s much more “baffling” bad than “funny” bad. Like at times it felt like it was approaching the avant-garde with its unexplainable editing and pacing (were they able to edit some reels but not others?).

Weird to see a famous bad movie not be more outright ridiculous. I enjoyed making fun of this with my friend, but I’m not sure Manos would have even kept my interest otherwise. The story is so ineptly told that there is arguably no central narrative. My bafflement was mixed with a lot of boredom while watch Manos: The Hands of Fate, and being boring might be the worst sin possible for a “famous” bad movie.

For the cinematography alone this film deserves 5 stars. Seriously, the sheer beauty of the setting captured here is among the best of possibly all Hollywood filmmaking. My phone screen has probably never looked more beautiful!*

From the very beginning, I feel like no opening credit has ever looked more insane/impossible than “and introducing Peter O’Toole.” I still have difficulty wrapping my head around the idea that this was Peter O’Toole’s first film role. He’s so good here, easily suring my unofficial rule for old-school epics that “the central figure must be compelling enough to watch for three hours.” The ing characters as well are all phenomenal. All I’ll say is, despite all the work he has to do, Orson Welles never had to perform Charles Foster Kane in a desert.

But yeah, many people are familiar with the name Lawrence of Arabia, but I do fear too many haven’t quite gotten around to actually watching this one. Do truly mean it, this film is absolutely worth seeing, there’s simply nothing else like it.

The thematic depth of the filmmaking is also quite interesting, mainly to do with the nature of warfare and its effects on people. As just one observation, I didn’t realize till this watch that motorcycles are the lingering specter of death for Lawrence. I will also acknowledge now that the complete absence of female characters was probably a conscious choice by the filmmakers and not a “mistake” (though honestly it’s still pretty baffling).

The brown face used here is unfortunate, but I don’t believe it should distract from what the film actually says about its subject matter. I mean the Sykes-Picot agreement is directly referenced here after all.

There’s a lot of movie to actually cover, and no matter how long I write, my review will feel like half a scratch on the iceberg’s tip. So I’ll just summarize and say that, for all its modern flaws, Lawrence of Arabia is possibly the greatest historical epic ever produced. It has more than earned its iconic status in the history of film. 

*(This is a joke, do not watching Lawrence of Arabia on your goddamn phone)

Overall pretty solid if straightforward. The characters are a bit flat and unmotivated, even by silent standards, and the visuals aren’t quite stunning enough to make up for that (besides Lon Chaney’s masterful and rightfully iconic make-up as The Phantom). Still, the film moves pretty well, and there is still cool stuff to see. I liked The Phantom of the Opera, it certainly deserves its iconic status, but it wasn’t as good as I might’ve hoped. Nonetheless, a good movie is a good movie, so I won’t fault this film for being “just” that.

Enjoyable, but I think this story is better read or seen in a production on the whole (Plus, I feel like I should have reread Hamlet before watching this, but that’s another matter). The cast is a lot of fun and make the movie work, but I think Stoppard wasn’t quite as good as a director as I would like. There are a number of great moments, but on the whole it wasn’t as on point compared to other parts of the film. Still, it’s understandable why this play is so famous. I’m glad I got to see Roth and Oldman perform it, just wish this movie version was a bit better.

Phenomenal comedy film. It’s one where every single character acts at least somewhat insane, but insane in a way that I haven’t seen before. The characters here make those of Anchorman look like Italian neorealism, yet their arcs are still shockingly great. The first half was probably funnier, just because of how unexpected it was, but the whole film was great. Definitely check it out.

Entertaining documentary, though ultimately more of a meditative examination of Werner Herzog’s time with Klaus Kinski than a completely examination of Kinski’s life. Herzog seemed to ask one day “why did I work with him so many times” and made a whole documentary to answer. The one thing I’ll critique is that Herzog can be vague at times, especially towards the ending. Would have loved to hear more about Kinski’s directorial debut beyond it being “unfilmable,” but Herzog gives pretty much nothing. 

If you want to know what the hell was wrong with Kinski, this probably isn’t the best resource. But, if a documentary about the bizarre relationship between Herzog and Kinski intrigues you, this is certainly worth watching.

I would probably place this among the mid tier of Kurosawa films. So, essentially, another towering achievement of the art of cinema, I just enjoyed Seven Samurai more

Honestly Total Recall works better if you just accept everything at face value and try to completely erase the “is it all a dream” question from your mind (heythatsjustlikethemovie!-)

Putting greater weight on direct adaptations/ “closeness to the text” when ranking adaptations here, hence why something like West Side Story is not here, as one example.

• Henry V
• The King
• Throne of Blood
• Chimes at Midnight
• Richard III
• Richard III
• Romeo and Juliet
• Coriolanus
• Macbeth
• Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead

Screw it, let’s rank all the best picture winners that I’ve currently seen. Any not on the list are ones I simply have not gotten to yet. Criteria is mainly my own personal opinion, though stature plays a role. Still, the list is not rather an  attempt at quantifying these films’ “true” quality. (Some are films I haven’t seen in a long time as well)

1. Parasite
2. The Apartment
3. Schindler's List
4. The French Connection
5. Casablanca
6. 12 Years a Slave
7. Lawrence of Arabia
8. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
9. The Godfather
10. The Godfather Part II

...plus 38 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

Two main points of focus for this list: 

First, the dark comedy is at the thematic forefront. In other words, I can unhesitatingly call them “dark comedies,” hence why greats like Parasite (which I think of mainly as a dramatic thriller with some comedic elements) or Knives Out (a comedic whodunnit mystery) are not present.

Second, I am judging how funny they truly are in spite of the dark subject matter.

• The Kid Detective
• Adaptation.
• A Futile and Stupid Gesture
• Beau Is Afraid
• Four Lions
• To Be or Not to Be
• American Psycho
• Triangle of Sadness
• Jojo Rabbit
• Death to Smoochy

Posting a list I made over a year ago. I suppose I will double check all the first time watches from that year, but I’m fairly certain my list would remain pretty much the same if I made it today. Still, this list is not truly ranked. Also, some of these took me way too long to finally see, I freely it to that (Grateful to acknowledge Eyebrow Cinema once again for the initial inspiration)

• TÁR
• 12 Years a Slave
• In the Mouth of Madness
• The Lighthouse
• The Kid Detective
• The Killing
• To Be or Not to Be
• Night of the Living Dead
• Jaws
• The Hudsucker Proxy

Actually watched quite a few genuinely great films this year for the first time. It was honestly tough narrowing it all down. First half is ranked, second half is more a less structured list of honorable mentions which will be added later. (Special thanks to Eyebrow Cinema for the inspiration)

1. The Age of Innocence

   Instant 5 star film for me

2. Adaptation.
3. The General

   On the one hand, villain protagonist. On the other hand, trains.

4. Strange Days
5. A Man for All Seasons

   Oh wow I wonder why this one hit so hard in December 2024?(AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH)

6. The King of Comedy
7. Seven Samurai

   This was a coincidence I swear

8. Night Moves
9. Manchester by the Sea
10. Hundreds of Beavers

My list of the best movies whose title is just a first name

• Carol
• Cyrano
• Logan
• Cleopatra
• Akira
• Emma.
• Coco
• Barbie
• Shrek
• Coraline

Original idea by Adam Quelch (though I took the idea from Daniel Simpson/Eyebrow Cinema)

I genuinely wasn’t sure if I had seen that many films with less than 15k views, but luckily for me it turns out that most people here don’t watches Shakespeare adaptations lol.

I like all of these films, but it is a wide range of my opinion on this list, from “absolutely loving” to “enjoyed it when I saw it.”

• And Starring Pancho Villa as Himself
• Best Worst Thing That Ever Could Have Happened...
• La Commune (Paris, 1871)
• Cromwell
• Coriolanus
• Ride the Eagle
• Richard III

These aren’t necessarily the best, but rather the films that I consider to be my favorites

• Lincoln
• Star Wars
• The Apartment
• Her
• Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
• Knives Out
• The Other Guys
• The Prince of Egypt
• Citizen Kane
• Raiders of the Lost Ark

...plus 7 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

My contribution to the vote for best films about filmmaking

• Sunset Boulevard
• 8½
• Ed Wood
• The Fabelmans
• The Player
• Bowfinger
• Babylon
• The Artist
• Barton Fink
• Hail, Caesar!

• Gangs of New York
• Speedy

• The Power of the Dog
• El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie

• Uncut Gems