4v291o

Screened 4/16/25 in Cinema One at the glorious Carolina Theatre, this noir is remarkable for cruelty of its protagonist, whose greed would be played up more obviously by a lesser actor. Robert Wagner situate's Bud Corliss's emptiness exactly where it belongs, squarely between sociopathy and envy -- the class cues are everywhere, most notably in Corliss reading his mother the riot act for wearing the wrong blouse to his engagement party. The tension of the film's first half is incredibly high; the second act is less nervous, but impeccably sketched.

Well, at least Mark Mothersbaugh got a paycheck out of it.

Saw this movie on the big screen on my 58th birthday -- a very deep movie, slow and careful and lush and un-obvious -- this is catnip to me. Several intersecting storylines -- a romance; a man growing older and perceiving the general falseness of the age; the changing of the times in Italy during the time of Garibaldi. The sets -- the Italian countryside, an old half-abandoned palace, another more lived-in palace in Sicily -- are breathtaking, Alain Delon is wonderful, Claudia Cardinale is electric, and Burt Lancaster gives a nuanced performance of great depth and power. Stunning in every way.

I adored this movie -- it's hagiography no doubt but I don't care because we stan. Kind of an abrupt closing arc. But it makes a beautiful case for Minnelli's artistry, for her accomplishment, for her place in the pantheon. The Fred Ebb footage alone is worth the price of ission, but there are several dozen reasons to drink in every minute of this movie.

The book that drives the person who reads it insane is an honored trope and this is a version of that -- it's a good time, and well done, and I love how long the movie makes you wait for anything like a payoff. At the same time, especially on film, when you're presenting a "cursed object" you're faced with the inevitable challenge of reality: nobody who sees the movie loses their mind, nothing bad actually happens. So the only thing remaining for a filmmaker to do with a concept like this is stick to their guns, which the makers of Antrum irably do, tacking talking heads onto the end who describe what, in the film the viewer's just seen, might have lasting effects. It's a cool schtick, and I'd certainly look for more from whoever made this movie. Points off for using the spectral girl-singing-a-"creepy"-melody motif throughout, it's really time to retire this.

Incredible sets, incredible wardrobe, perfect casting, beautiful pacing, total ownage, perfect movie. If it has any point to make, it's something about the tension between the richness of working with others and the value of self-reliance, but the theme is something of an afterthought, which means the theme is in right relation with what's actually important: those sets, that wardrobe, this cast. Conan doesn't really do a lot of destroying but I get why if you had a title like "Conan the Destroyer" you'd just sort of go for it even if it didn't really fit. This movie has pretty much everything I like; I indulge in plenty of arthouse fare and will really get started about that stuff if you let me, but when I'm watching this I'm experiencing film as pure pleasure. I'll take this over any superhero movie that's not the first Spider-Verse.

Watched on Sunday February 2, 2025.

Watched on Saturday February 1, 2025.

Seen on the big screen in Cinema One at the Carolina Theatre. 70s dystopian movies are a sweet spot for me and this is of course a known classic; it suffers from "has a line people like to repeat" syndrome, a tiresome phenomenon that makes one pine for the sweet repose of the grave, but the movie itself is genuinely outstanding. This era of filmmaking was slower and quieter -- there are long stretches where the images and motion alone tell the story without dialogue or music -- the effect is richly hypnotic. Heston's a ham but Edward G. Robinson in his last on-screen role is an absolute treat; the sets are magnificent; the message ("rich people think of you as food") is still true today; and the film succeeds both in having character all its own & feeling part of a mainstream film impulse of a time and place worth ing: Logan's Run figures in this impulse, Phase IV, Silent Running. If you've never seen Soylent Green, it's probably a much better movie than you think it is; it punches above its weight.

This is very good -- it's about identity & responsibility and sustain the deeper resonance of its story through the telling, a rare feat. it doesn't over-explain itself and doesn't save anybody from themselves or from the machinery of its plot. in this way it's a very atypical film; some of the gonzo make-you-feel-bad directors would like to attain the moral seriousness of this movie, but they lack the chops. deeply compelling, often horrifying in several ways, and dramatically absorbing. Recommended.

Total masterpiece. I'll need to see the X version that's reported to be floating around. Every movie should be like this. I won't be taking further questions at this time

Watched on Wednesday January 22, 2025.

This review may contain spoilers.

Saw this in Ames when it came out, in a packed house; the hype was omnipresent. It made my wife physically ill: the handheld camera. I liked it well enough but the cacophony of it grated at the time; if you're recording people screaming and yelling a lot it's important to EQ them or else the listener loses sympathy and begins to resent the people doing the screaming and yelling.

Last week I got the big Blu-Ray reissue that just came out but I haven't watched it yet. (95% of the movies I buy don't get watched at all.) But I'm posted up in a t with a VCR this week and I saw Blair Witch among the many relics of the 90s on the shelf and I said to myself, what about a little Blair Witch? Not having seen it since the initial release. It's good! The development of the plot is really its biggest flaw -- there aren't many traditional cinematic "beats," things all happen at more or less the same until the final 5 minutes or so, which remain masterful. The places where traditional camerawork might have sold the tells better are moments for reflection about filmmaking, in my view -- the child who doesn't want her mother to talk about the Witch, Michael itting that he kicked the map into the creek. These moments may take on their power from how unemphasized they are, but Heather's flashlight scene -- the one they used for the trailer -- feels almost silent-cinema in the intensity of its framing, and it gets what it wants, so you're left wondering what a harder edit might have produced.

Still, this is a terrific, smart movie. It trusts the viewer in ways most movies would never. Four stars for the actual movie and a bonus star because movies with much bigger budgets don't usually put in half this much effort to do something new.

My man Rob says over on Facebook, and I quote, "Having quality horror films regularly hit theatres makes me happy we're no longer in the times where the only horror in theatres was this kinda slop" alongside an image of this poster. "I'm goin in," I say, and so kick off my movie-watching of 2025 with a true stinker. 1998 -- does anybody say "Man, I wish times were more like they were in 1998?" Of course they do, and when they do, they should watch Disturbing Behavior. From the opening sequence which features a dog in a bandana and a blowjob that ends in death to the ittedly winning "how we gonna end this?" climactic scene, this movie can't find the note it wants. It's a brooding 70s horror movie minus the brooding atmosphere, it's a post-Scream horror with no good jump-scares. Everybody involved is talented enough to give it their best, so it doesn't plod so much as make you anxious for it to end: nobody's really having fun here. I have a policy of not hating on the work of fellow musicians, I've outgrown that, but the soundtrack, to speak plainly, is rough going, most notably the edit of "Flagpole Sitta" ("I'm not sick, but I'm not well / 'cause I'm in Hell!") -- the music coordinators presumably responsible for this are named in the credits, and if this really is their doing, shame on them for making me feel pity for a song of which I wasn't fond in the first place. I watched this because I threaten at least twice a week to watch a movie. I chose badly. I wish I could say I won't do this again, but I have known myself for years.

This is a made-for-TV movie; I saw it when it first aired, when I was a child, and have had sound of Dennis Quaid speaking its title stuck in my head ever since. Like several made-for-TV movies of the era, it punches above its weight; you can feel that the TV guys wanted some of the respect the movie guys were getting. This isn't to say it's a great movie -- it's pretty confused about what it wants to be, but its giallo chops are solid (easy-to-solve stalker mystery heavily decorated by characters' internal drama) and the acting is just fine. When it's not in giallo mode it's trying to address 70s conflicts of family, career, and role function; but the most remarkable thing is how everybody gaslights the lead when she says she's being threatened. In this, the movie is incredibly lucid -- Gail becomes more depressed and desperate as everyone in her life tries to help her pretend that she's not in danger. When the danger becomes real, the movie pivots to morality play in classic movie-of-the-week style, and when the movie of the week pivots to morality play, it's on solid, familiar ground. The concluding act is genuinely righteous -- in shaming the perp and not the victim, in delivering justice, and in the victim getting the final word. It's not a Bergman movie and it's not an Argento movie but it is a movie that weirdly melds the two approaches to making a film.