4v291o

I started watching BEEF recently and -- although this stand-up special could hardly be more different or unrelated -- it made me think back to how powerful these bits & their delivery are in Baby Cobra.
The energy & joy of this performance is memorable. She was always a great stand-up but she went to new places with this one. Her set ups sometimes seem banal but it's always a trick to throw us off balance & get us laughing.
Seems to me an exemplary hour of this art form.

Saw this years ago & couldn’t decide how I felt about it. Now I’m writing a review based on hazy memory. An impossible movie that wants to have its cake & eat it, too — but, like its lead character, succeeds in this paradoxical effort more often than not. A mixed bag of more good than bad. I can note a number of flaws, but I also gotta marvel at how many audacious feats this movie pulls off.
Unless I’m blanking on a ton of examples, I feel like the genre of cheerful black comedies has died even in the indie world. Are stars afraid to touch these now? I know studios are. I miss them.

Fun & sweet throughout but the set-up section is particularly golden. Very good command of tone & setting. Clever score is worthy of study.
Not especially punchy or high stakes. This is light as a feather yet it’s entirely enjoyable on those . Riffs on universal themes without getting caught up in them too heavily. Characters without significant flaws only get lackluster arcs. But, honestly, who cares? Its giddy spirit is most welcome. A lot of people shine in this (behind the camera, too).
I hope this was as much fun to work on as it appears.

I’m a sucker for Wald’s witty, snappy dialogue, particularly as delivered by Cagney. (Although 7 contributors to this script so who can say?)
Pretty rousing big Hollywood entertainment even by today’s standards. Camera, costumes, makeup, light/design, stunts — all lavishly realized. And Walsh was among the great studio directors who pushed himself the hell out of the way for the sake of story. It has a lot of sweep & grandeur. Very funny & bracingly paced until we near the finish.
3rd act takes a few unnecessary turns to get where it’s going. Final minute is too heavy on schmaltz. ...Still, I was very taken with it.

Quite polished compared to other legit 100% truly Independent films from the 70s. Sound, camera, art, costumes — all finely tuned.
Some sensibilities felt almost unique to only this movie — at least within US-American cinema. I appreciate its singular flavor. The ride might be a little deliberate but we’re being guided by a sure hand. We wait nearly the whole movie for some payoffs -- all the sweeter for the waiting. Interplay between the two women is fascinating.
Respects its characters, their lives, & their notions. A trio of odd ducks. Filmmaker loves their actors & gets us to love them, too.

The mastery of filmcraft & his go-big style is ever apparent. But does it work for this, his own fabled story? (Same question to most of his prestige movies ostensibly aimed at adult audiences.)
Yes, the script engages in clichéd tropes & thin characterization. Yet, there’s a lot of brilliant seeds & payoffs along with fantastic show-don’t-tell devices —wonderful magicianship. (I do NOT mean the final tilt-up nor the endless nods to his iconic filmography. I mean the more original, less showy bits.) A few sad ages have unexpected weight. Most exuberant ages are harmless fluff. Too many awkward ages that I just cringed through. Judd Hirsch spins sheer gold out of a plumb role (even though his whole part & dialogue is mostly declaring a theme they fail to clearly reinforce through other means).
It’s very pretty & decidedly tidy & muscularly realized & easily forgotten. (How much of the design & texture feels like mimicry of the Speilberg-produced BackToTheFuture?)
Still, I get why devotees love this, despite its shortcomings. It’s mostly winning. Like most love letters to cinema, coulda been much shorter.

Watched years ago but only realized I never logged it today (because the director is in the spotlight again).
The main thing I about this movie is that I was able to stay with it despite the ample gore.
It’s dumb but it delivers with some taut action & thrills. The commentary is so overt. Constantly reminds you that they are turning a sleazy genre on its ear — while decidedly enjoying how they're keeping all the sleaze. Still, not without praiseworthy qualities. There's something there.

Act 1 felt too leisurely in establishing tone & other sensibilities. Yet it's already seducing us. Eschews all cynicism in favor of unabashed, sweet sentimentality. An approach so refreshing that it feels like a rare maturity, oddly enough. Follows textbook screen beat structure to a masterful T*. Involving & winning despite the rigidly followed formulas*.
Director chooses bold approaches to her material. Prod design & period costumes are exquisite yet understated. Scene transitions are sublime.
What new insights do we learn about Mr. Rogers here? Not a single goddamn one. **His arc is complete before our story begins. Take that Screenwriting101. Still loved it!

More serviceable than memorable. 1st 40 min has way more flash than needed. Then a major action set piece makes the music video kinetics feel justified for a while... until an unnecessary childhood flashback.
But the movie does hit a stride about 80 min in. The story beats may be painfully familiar, but it tries very hard to “do the same thing but different” with every single standard trope in this genre.
These political aims are nice to see in a mainstream English-speaking action film. A little strained but agreeable. Really wish they had shot it in India right under Modi’s nose.

Has some great stretches. Has some very awkward stretches. Hard to recommend but has enough highlights that I can’t pan it either. Solid with twists & suspense. Clunky on interpersonal drama.
Martha Vickers really shines in these roles. Dureya seems poorly directed here maybe? Also, 1st movie I’ve seen Jayne Mansfield do more than a little acting in. While she’s not any great master, I certainly get her widespread appeal more than ever before.

I adore this cast & director & on & on. I wanna cheer on the fearless posture portraying rougher edges of pregnancy & a femme-forward attitude. Yet it come off as a mere posture & an assumed attitude. Felt very safe & predictable. Jokes sound like they should be funny. Delivery seems full of verve. Not sure why it consistently failed to make me laugh.
1st hour overcrowded with disted sketches & 1-liners falling flat. Then the movie threatens to go somewhere interesting with a fairly original conflict between the two leads. But the climax & falling action kinda drop all that & deliver on formula (pardon the pun). ☹️ I wanted to love this!

I’ve enjoyed parts of this before but never seen it from beginning to end... since I used to depend on broadcast AMC & TCM to catch it.
So many gags that hold up incredibly well even after subsequent films have rehashed them. (I’ve never seen any of the remakes.) Even straight heist thrillers are indebted to this comedy.
Thoughtfully staged, shot, edited, etc. — all in the service of getting unexpected laughs.
Would be an interesting film to program with The Ladykillers (1965).

If you watch the series first (which I think is the right call), this offers no new information. Just a recap featuring the real-life people in interviews & other stuff from the public record.
That said, most docs produced as companion material to narratives are fluff-by-design. So I'm not sure it's fair to expect any more from this format. Carries the bizarre quality of feeling less intimate than the fictional counterpart... which is crazy when you consider these are the actual people who suffered through the legit injustice.

A friend’s recommendation piqued my interest.
They lay on the feels pretty thick here, almost like a soap opera vibe but dressed up in indie vérité sterility. Yet the emotional payoffs are overwhelmingly effective. The “true story” element lends this production both grace & strength. Can’t help but root for these underdogs wrongly maligned, robbed, & persecuted.
Solid work from hair/makeup, costumes, prod design, etc. And the UK has more than their fair share of wonderful English-speaking actors.
Killer indictment of corporate interests overhauling public institutions.

Bizarre. Memorable. Insanely hokey plotting & dialogue plus demented scene-chewing. Yet there are strong ages.
Felt like much intention behind some imagery (pirates, disabled kids, etc) but I couldn’t figure it… unless its all metaphors that haven’t aged well.
Even if one can guess the movie's destination, there are a number of moments along the way where one’ll likely think, “I can’t believe this scene is where the movie wants to be now. But here we are.”
Striking framing & lighting. Occasionally dreadful staging & direction. This has its own unique flavor of bonkers.

Should’ve let these filmmakers do a miniseries. Several scenes show this team coulda nailed it if the storytelling wasn’t so rushed.
Movie ends up feeling like a collection of “big moments” that seem unearned because there was no breathing room for set up. The ghosts, the wedding, & other stuff from the book coulda been gangbusters in a series… But all requires time to lay the ground work & develop minor ing characters. Act 1 is promising. Act 3 also has strong payoffs. Act 2 is a muddled mess. A bunch of great actors really deliver… performances deserved better framing.

Regularly engaging while watching. Oodles of atmosphere. But maybe I’m not clever enough to deduce what made this story worth telling?
I caught on to several characters chasing an ephemeral sense of self while wrestling with community & individuality. But I don’t follow the commentary on any of those notions. Still, a lot of evocative filmmaking.
Several actors taking big wild swings here & yet Damon Harriman oddly plays it straight.

I’d argue this filmmaking team has made even more masterpieces than they are commonly credited for. This isn’t among them.
While the metaphysical musings are mildly titillating, this lacks conflict or clear characterization or any other ingredients to really invest us. Even worse — regarding the central ideas meant to “inspire wonder” — there is no there there. Many clichés & randomly picked-up-then-dropped ideas.
Are there fleeting glimmers of beauty & cinematic craft throughout this? Yes. Is it worthwhile in any sense beyond that? Not for me.

A weepie with occasional panache. Some storytelling sensibilities have changed over the last 100 years that central contrivances might turn off modern viewers — which can be said doubly regarding some of the implied mores. Some choices in dramatic framing are memorable. A few strong parallels between this & Stella Dallas for Stanwyck stans. Menjou delivers (wrongly maligned by modern critics). Bellamy never gets to play “Walter Burns,” he’s always the other guy.
Did not leave me with any strong feelings one way or another.

When I was a small kid AT an age & IN an age of homophobic fervor, I still came away liking this feature length music video with glistening Solid Gold dancers prancing about. Maybe that’s saying something in the movie’s favor? Or not. But I don’t think I’ll ever try it again because I’ve never met any adult viewer who shared my childhood opinion.
Seen during one of those free trials that cable channels used to do on occasion during the last century. All I is tons of dancing, the ending where he says “I wanna strut!”, & my realization that Stallone had a brother -- who is all over this movie.

Simple. Short. Elegant. Funny. Winning. Quick. Great.
Watched many years ago, but only rated today.

I’m a sucker for this comic & adore when she thrusts her crazy on the audience with abandon -- especially in her previous special: Stage Fright. In this one, the high-pitched shrieking bits kinda tested even my enjoyment. This routine is often personal but not always strong.
She's still a solid performer & I appreciate her taking risks. Will try again if she does another special.

Segments of this could be featured on MST3K. But I stuck with it because the potential for this to be a strong narrative (focused on a woman protagonist with agency) remained.
If you seek realism or reserved sensibility, be warned that this has some unabashedly silly hokum. Still, I was able to go with it.
Our protagonist is tough & daring early in her investigation. But they reduce her to a damsel in need of saving during the final reel.
Overall it's worthwhile. But sound design is awful to non-existent.

Kathleen Madigan is under-appreciated. I suspect this is due in part to ageism/sexism. Her stage persona does not gripe about such things. On the contrary, she’s very self-deprecating & comes off like she has no axes to grind. So I grind in her stead. Her joke construction & delivery is so wonderful. I have to pause her specials to catch my breath from laughing too much & too hard.

A little dismayed by reviews with reductive comparisons to other colonial narrative films ... because this so obviously is trying to offer something different. Yet it’s not always successful in its aims. Sometimes feels forced & clichéd despite efforts to the contrary.
Perhaps the worst thing about it is that it’s just okay. Like everyone does fine work. But there’s still something lackluster about it all in the end.
irable idea, but forgettable.

Given all Hollywood stole from Kurosawa & Company, it seems only fair that they steal from some well-trodden English-language story dynamics.
After a century of crime films, no part of this grabbed me as all that unique. It’s fine... if all too familiar. Coulda been shorter, tighter.
How about that shot of the night club singer as the song starts, though? That camera move and the subsequent editing not only felt fresh for 1948 -- but that technique of song transition has been copied a million times over & is still popular.

Touches on many genres: silent comedy, Chuck Jones & all animation, even video games? Doesn't merely borrow from inspirations, it endlessly invents. Nonstop slapstick. Filmmakers could do big budget action.
While irable, I felt it coulda been 30min shorter. Slow start & an overlong middle. Like 45 minutes of roadrunner cartoon gags with no change in stakes. Had trouble staying focused for stretches. So, not sure if the "watch while high" advice would help. Final third picks up a lot.
Most reviews say it sustains. I wish I agreed cause I got love for some people involved. I’m in awe of what they accomplished on a tiny budget.

One could fault this for numerous little contrivances. As I caught them, I just found myself wanting to go with the sweep of the movie anyway.
They pull some subtle tricks with HMU/wardrobe & lighting for Lana Turner that influence audience perception of her character. Brilliantly employs every damn department to cleverly reinforce & sell a great many ideas, actually.
Fun ride with character arcs & left turns you might not see coming. Dialogue has polish. Unique relationship dynamics for a gangster picture. Not strictly Noir but, for once, that label is accurate. Loved it, in any case.

Read & liked the book. Didn’t think it could amount to much more than a melodrama as a series. The format actually elevates everything. Among the best things produced for TV in the past decade. irably evades the crime-procedural investigation tropes — yet still keeps the audience guessing about so many things. One-of-a-kind, contained, brilliant art.
Motifs & themes evoked clearly but with drowsy grace. For a dialogue-heavy story, nails a lot of great show-don’t-tell. Prestige TV, indeed.
Unique power dynamics throughout felt very real. Just poisonous, rotting Americana. Too many facets worthy of praise. Highly recommend!

A reminder that in 1999, Tarnatino-copycat films were still the rage & many countries took a shot at it. This was Australia’s.
Some things work. Some things don’t. Peppered with some great comic moments. Some trying-too-hard-to-be-cool stuff here, as well. Mixed bag.
Two teen leads mere moments before their stardom. Ledger essentially playing a much dumber version of his character from 10ThingsIHateAboutYou. Bryan Brown & ing thugs seeming much more sure about what kind of movie they are in.

Westerns preach ethics. Jake Wade mighta seemed straightforward on that count in 1958. Yet there's some weird subtext -- beyond the standard homoerotic of most westerns.
Bristled at (a) indigenous men as faceless attackers -- far less human than main villains, (b) the cardboard & servile role of the sole woman, & (c) confederate marauders framed as noble/ heroic. Even if we try to look past all that, we’re left with bizarre & inconsistent sense of what "values" this strains to promote. Mythology of the US-cowboy so overwhelms any attempt at a morality play -- opposite of what we'd expect.
All that said, I enjoyed the macho square-offs throughout. Well-crafted, fast-paced, gorgeously shot, with a lotta fun archetypal performances. Strange companion piece to the more overt Challengers (2024).

I’m a far cry from prudish or traditional. And I'm aware not all popular docs are produced ethically. STILL…
There’s something unseemly here. The subjects come across as incredibly sad, sometimes pathetic, sometimes delusional, sometimes creepy, sometimes idiotic, sometimes sociopathic, & almost always spiraling & irresponsible. Are we being encouraged to judge them? Frankly, the unseen filmmakers come across like possibly the biggest sleazes. (I say that even though I know one of them — and he isn’t.)
Instead of a doc about an entire subculture, this seems like they cherry-picked & narrowed-in on subjects with the most alienating personas. Feels like we are meant to perceive them as freaks rather than as relatable. We get only cursory glimpses of how these folks function in more familiar parts of US society. We find ourselves in a lot of intimate moments with them that, oddly, feel very staged. There’s a light & color pallet in the film that, unless I’m unfamiliar with a trend in consumer home lighting, seems entirely artificial to these people’s lives.
I’m prepared to be wrong & listen to corrective defenses. — Even to find out my interpretation of the film was insensitive. But I can’t a doc that made me feel so much cringe. I felt complicit by the end of this misguided spectacle.

As many strong components as it has, Challengers is greater than the sum of its parts. The director of Melissa P never stopped trying & quickly graduated to mature psychosexual dramas. The forethought that went into this shows. Dramatic tension stands on its own & doesn’t need the filmic fanfare. But the excess is a blast! Sharp as it often is, it gracefully never pretends to offer more than what's actually there.
A good friend's letterboxd review claims he worked practical FX on this. He spun a bizarrely suggestive tale imitating the tenor of the film itself. I've avoided asking him about it & I hope he's okay.

I thought I was sitting down to some obscure near-lost cult film & half-believed that as I watched. Now I know this was a hit for Universal based on a smash stage show. Happy to learn it was so successful.
It’s at least as loony as some MarxBros films from the previous decade. Tries to be even more surreal & irreverent. Playful, absurd farce. Some exceptional comedic performances, especially Martha Raye.
I like how Whitey’s Lindy Hoppers just steal the spotlight for 10 minutes & swing out. They're sensational.
Was that actually Ginger Rogers in the one gag or just a true dead ringer?

Excellent very contained short. Old-fashioned slapstick cartoon madness. Cute but anti-saccharine.

Never saw Guy Ritchie's remake. Guessing it’s more action-packed revenge fantasy. This original isn’t FAR from that description. But we spend lotsa time in the everyday happenings & concerns of the armored truck drivers. A slow reveal of our protagonist, his motives, & his intent.
I like how the violence is clumsy & sad & not heroic or cool. Different sensibility made a super-familiar story somewhat fresh. Doesn’t do all it easily coulda if it obeyed screenwriting formulas. Goes for something slightly different, even if it’s still standard revenge-flick-predictable. Dujardin is so clearly a moviestar. I’ll probably enjoy the redo someday.

Is it a bland yet totally acceptable twee indie movie? Or did it strike nerves so personal that I resisted seeing how prickly & incisive it got?
Two harrowingly convincing central performances -- Persons with so little control over inner emotions that they are prone to cringy outbursts. Scenes feel like they are falling apart as we launch into those moments. But eventually it feels honest & right. Can be sweet, funny, & also brutal.
There's no overarching polemic against folks who build their lives around an obsessive relationship to cinema. Still, we could stand to ruminate about a lot of what's in here… Like 3/4 of the people on this website.

A puzzle of overt metaphor/symbolism/allegory that follows a narrative structure in an elliptic dream reality. Probably rewarding if you enjoy such things. Not bad or badly done, just not for me.
No more graphically sexual than Verhoeven’s US films, but probably labeled as such because frontal nudity/homoeroticism is from male characters. Verhoeven’s standard blurring of the sacred with the profane. Glimpse the future sensibilities of Jan de Bont in a near action-less film.
If it had been made by more popular mainstream weirdos like Lynch or Buñuel or Maddin or Resnais, I probably would hate this.

A worthy homage of everything from Ghostwatch to Network.
In many ways, exceptional. Deftly presented up until an electric climax, after which it surprisingly slipped a little. Little gaps in story logic didn’t bother me. But the ending didn’t maintain the potent emotional logic — nor pay off several fun seeds planted along the way. Goes in too many disparate directions in the final minutes to be fully satisfying. What came before the ending is all otherwise witty & enjoyable. Had a great time with it. Horror satire is often tawdry but this nails a unique tone. Strong filmmaking overall.

Wonderful & ahead of its time. Beyond all the movies it obviously influenced & inspired, it deserves credit for a genuinely naturalistic documentary feel. Live-TV program energy exquisitely maintained.
One of the most brilliant things about this is how it constantly invites & rewards the audience’s skepticism while still building an underlying feeling of unease. Makes us lean in to get creeped out. irably skilled direction. Should be more widely known & praised. Great fun!
Okay, now I consider this Late Night with the Devil business after having been delighted by its predecessor.

Take this review with endless grains of salt. I had trouble following it. Had subpar subtitles. Main characters’ mustachioed faces looked too similar to tell apart. I repeatedly ed out & watched over 3 non-consecutive days. Probably better than I comprehended.
Produced under a dictatorship. Calling out a lot of cultural ills. While focused on male protagonists, it shows many instances of obstinate patriarchy. Often infuriating.
Well made. Herzog says "masterpiece." Dunno which version I saw. libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/785/471/RUG01-002785471_2019_0001_AC.pdf

At first, I was receiving this as pure high comedy. All felt broad & preposterous. I didn’t fully heed the “true story” disclaimer, like Fargo. So the mixed tone really crept up on me. Made it extra unsettling. Better than if I had known which true crime tale this concerned.
Modest environs, costumes, HMU, etc. feel like verité. A clear influence on a laundry list of stark & darkly funny films that came after it.
Performances & direction are wonderfully awkward, blasé, & plain. Much closer to anti-glamorous than most films exploring these topics/themes claim to be. Shoulda watched this 20 yrs ago before all its imitators.

Credit to people who got this made. Shooting in Gary, IN when Chicago wouldn’t grant permits (stealing Chi locations anyway). Fooling UA into thinking it's mere blaxploitation. Believable that the Feds almost succeeded in destroying every print/negative.
Several contributors doing excellent work. Scattered triumphs made me ask, “How’d they pull that off with this budget in 73?” Yet many scenes fall flat. As much courage as the movie shows, it somehow defangs the book by not being of higher quality -- probably due to budget limitations. Lacks the scope of the story being told. Too much feels fake or corny.
Same as the book, "radical" ideas expressed or dramatized here have only gained mainstream white attention in recent years. Imagine seeing this with an audience from 50 years ago.

Would I have loved this in my teens? Am I too stuck on character development & logic now? While there are many strengths, it just feels super derivative while watching. Didn’t get to know a single character well enough to give a damn. Just watching clockwork thriller execution — not feeling any of it. Lacks coherent POV. Still, some solid blocking of camera & performers. I was miles ahead of it before the end of Act II. Gas can tension squandered by introduction of family complications.
I also thought Hateful 8 was poorly structured, derivative, & kept us aloof observers. I’m in that same minority opinion here again.

Just realized I never logged this. I saw it after all the fanfare had well died down.
Nothing to say beyond the obvious. It just feels really honest & raw to me — a person with ittedly little insight into the myriad of existences explored herein.
Not exactly a great script so much as a compelling odyssey following characters that are often a revelation to each other & to us as we watch.

Excellent. Yet my brain can't evaluate it free of Fury Road’s shadow. And frankly, the film constantly asks the opposite of the audience.
Not a stickler for VFX but I occasionally clocked some seams. Expands/ explains details of The Wasteland, making things less plausible. Like why are finite resources limitless? Also, protagonists/stakes not as clearly defined as in other Max-s. A thrilling battle underwhelms cause the only character we’re rooting for is hidden for half of it. But damn, bonkers action scenes delivered with such coherence. Cut above most tentpole extravaganzas. Far superior to most post-apocalyptic films.

A-list talent churns out studio B-picture. Often well crafted. But it’s a sappy excuse for a movie. Great filmmakers/actors can't elevate it.
I dislike the original French version but this is worse. (Didn’t realize it was a remake until midway.) Hays code's G-rated limitations dehydrates a story of entirely adult themes. Fonda does exactly what he was hired for. Nice to see Bel Geddes as a romantic lead. Price delivers menace & charm as only he can. Litvak, Polito, & Lourié are a formidable team.
I've no desire to be a gatekeeper, but why label this “noir”? — cause the night scenes have shadows?

Kudos to Baker focusing on written-off people on the margins of US society (such as sex workers) & not being reductive of their lives to the point of exploitation/porn. Now here comes his movie centering exploitation (& porn) set in a marginal community.
I totally recognize how well this is put together by the filmmaking team -- much more than l enjoy watching it. Conflicted… which generally means I’ll probably like it more after I’ve had some distance. Felt too believably petty, scrounging, & hopeless for me to laugh at with abandon.
Kinda curious why Ornella Muti got a special thanks.

Almost like the stations of the cross with a decidedly different protagonist. Lancaster is so damn powerful & charismatic. Whole movie sinks or swims with his performance (see title for verdict).
Gets progressively expressionistic, almost surreal w/ symbolism. Gotta be willing to go with it. The premise sets us up to ride along with folly.
I can see scoffing at this for being too sentimental, corny, written-for-stage, or any number of other critiques. But it worked on me — even if some late reveals felt obvious. Central theme has since been explored about 500 times. Weird seeing Joan Rivers actually act.

So much potential — kept wanting it to be better. Obsessively recycles a million CoenBros tropes. Too often reminds us of better versions of the same scenes & beats. Entertains in fits & starts. There truly is great work herein. It’s just all uneven. We’re not asked to be invested in people, just the screwy plot twists. Characters/relationships feel stock/artificial. Lowers the stakes. Key moments feel unearned. They insert great little grounded details while simultaneously undermining them with implausible plot holes. Tone sometimes goes off the rails.
Wouldn’t surprise me if these filmmakers created something great. They’ve shown dexterity in a genre that is my comfort food. Probably just need to make it their own.

I don't usually keep up with new releases. But I catch up eventually.

• Civil War
• Ghostlight
• Dune: Part Two
• Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga
• Challengers
• Thelma

Still have not seen a lot of what came out. Quite a year for bold metaphysical ponderings in cinema.

• Nope
• Glass Onion
• Everything Everywhere All at Once
• The Banshees of Inisherin

  www.youtube.com/watch?v=74KPJ--cb7Q

• Decision to Leave
• Three Thousand Years of Longing
• TÁR
• Triangle of Sadness
• Aftersun
• We Own This City

...plus 12 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

I'm usually months behind everyone else seeing the latest releases... until they start sending me awards season screeners and I start seeing things before everybody else.

• How to Blow Up a Pipeline

  Aside from a film festival or two, this was a 2023 release, right?

• Chile '76
• The Holdovers
• American Fiction
• May December
• Chronicles of a Wandering Saint
• Black Mirror: Demon 79
• Anatomy of a Fall
• A Thousand and One
• Killers of the Flower Moon

...plus 13 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.