Mad max: Fury road
Mad max is sometimes described as a futuristic western. This reboot is one long chase and I liked the movie.
Sahara
2005 movie with Matthew McConaughey. Nice entertainment but not more than that.
Jason Bourne
Catched up with the latest one out of the series and certainly not the best one. Hope this concludes the Bourne franchise.
Last night: Hereditary (Aster, 2018)
Annie (Toni Collette, The Sixth Sense) is an artist. She constructs dollhouse-sized dioramas of important incidents from her own life. She lives with her husband (a largely muted, almost incidental Gabriel Byrne, The Usual Suspects) and their teenage kids, son Peter (Alex Wolf, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle) and daughter Charlie (newcomer Milly Shapiro). Peter is your average teenage doofus. Nice guy, likes to hang out, get high once in a while, think almost constantly about girls. Charlieā¦ well, sheās a little different. Quieter. On the autism spectrum, somewhere? Possibly. Probably. Sheās creative like her mum, although with different outlets. She enjoys creating toy figures out of household bric-a-brac, drawing sketches of people screaming or in considerable distress, scissoring the heads off of dead pigeons so she can keep the head in her pocket and pet it from time to time, that sort of thing.
Annieās mum has just died. It was expected, she was quite old, quite ill, et cetera. Annieās struggling with this. Not in the traditional fashion though. She wants to be appropriately sad about it, to grieve as all of us do in these moments, and she does feel some sadness, someā¦ regret, but not properly. As it transpires, she had had a fractious relationship with her mother for most of her life and had only become somewhat closer right at the end, when Annie and her family had become her motherās main carers. Anyway, she goes through the motions, arranges the funeral, gives a suitably deferential eulogy, yada yada, and thatās that. Bye, mum.
I mean, thatās not that, of course. The death of nanna has hit Charlie quite hard and sheās exhibiting increasingly strange behaviour. And, less than a week later, the funeral directors call Steve to tell him that nannaās grave has been desecrated. Maybe best not to tell Annie that right now. Sheās busy pressing Peter to take Charlie to a house party to which heās been invited, to get her out of herself, cheer her up. He doesnāt especially want to drag his oddbod sister to a party where thereāll be drugs and chicks but what can you do when your mum puts her foot down?
Now, it sounds as though Iām cutting this review off in mid-flow terribly inelegantly but to say any more would be to spoil the movie. But, very soon, nannaās passing will be by far the least harrowing thing happening to this family.
Hereditary, from first-time director Ari Aster, is an incredibly measured and deliberately paced picture. An air of menace pervades everything but it moves at a crawl for the first ninety minutes, with only a small handful of jolts to the senses smattered throughout (although at least one is a humdinger which changes the tone of the movie from ābleakā to āpitch fucking blackā in an instant). Iāve seen a few reviews likening Hereditary to The Exorcist - I think one is even given space on the trailer - but the careful, square framing of each scene - designed to mirror the dollshouse dioramas Annie is creating - combined with the fantastic sound design put me more in mind of The Shining. Toni Colletteās performance is receiving a lot of praise and itās all justified. She has a face which looks ready to grieve and to scream and Hereditary affords her the opportunity to do plenty of both. This is a very slow-build picture for the most part but it ramps up in the last half hour to an intensity which was drawing gasps from the cinema audience and even a few misplaced titters, possibly as a means of release. In fact it could be argued that the movie takes a swan-dive off the deep end of reality and goes completely fucking bonkers. Iād just say that, for me, it hit the spot.
If you liked The Witch and, perhaps more pertinently, The Blackcoatās Daughter (both of which were also brought to us courtesy of Hereditaryās production company A24), youāll love this. If youāre after a jump-scare laden thrillride, this is not that picture at all. Itās my favourite movie of the year so far.
Sounds worth a try
Dead Again (1991) - 4/10 - A supposedly Hitchcockian fantasy thriller that is not all that interesting in my view and towards the end, it gets gratuitously stupid with its lame attempt to be more action-driven than it needs to be. I guess the acting was okay and the direction isnāt all that bad, but itās not my thing I guess. It endeavors to be this kinda-sorta whodunit with a silent-era splendor thrown in there, but it just looks naive.
White Sands (1992) - 7/10 - More of a low-key neo noir, but at the same time, itās got that early nineties vibe going on there and the white desert, where some of the action takes place, makes for a stunning location that significantly enhances the movieās memorability. Dafoe is excellent in the role of a righteous, but also artful sheriff who tries to get out of a jam. Performances by Samuel L. Jackson as well as Mickey Rourke aināt bad at all either. Lots of double-crossings and shenanigans. Overall a very decent flick.
Breakdown (1997) - 6/10 - Most of the time, itās pretty goddamn excellent, but it unfortunately turns into this nonsensical actioner in the second half. Later down the road, it regrettably endeavors to tap into the common set of action bromides. The film should have stayed grim, minimal and menacing. I guess the action part potentially mightāve rendered the film more viable commercially, but at the end of the day, once the kabooms came into sight, it ceased to be this gripping study of terror, lost most of its credibility, which had made it interesting in the first place, and turned into this nonsensical porridge of a pop-culture thriller. A bit of a missed opportunity there IMO.
Unlawful Entry (1992) - 8/10 - A very nice one. The thing that distinguishes it from a legion of similar thrillers is its emphasis on the psychological motives of its characters. I really like the portrayal of the cop on the edge by Ray Liotta who really hits it out of the park with his performance here. The entire cast is very good, but letās be honest, at the end of the day, itās his movie. I guess you could say that the film is rather schlocky in its approach to the subject matter and pursues rather obvious thematical motifs most of this kind of shockers tend to aim for, but the way itās all presented is pretty quality all around.
Bad Dreams (1988) - 2/10 - A total trainwreck of a movie. There are practically no redeeming qualities about this one. Everything ranging from the script, the acting, the narrative, the pacingā¦ literally everything sucks. It feels overlong despite being only 80 minutes long and most of the turnabouts the film has to offer are so cliched it is mind-numbing. The comedic parts are unfunny, the scary parts are not scary. Itās just pure trash and a badly concocted A Nightmare on Elm Street rip-off.
The Man Who Sleeps (1974) - 9/10 - A re-watch.
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974) - 6/10 - The movie feels remarkably schizophrenic in the sense that it combines a lot of elements from both buddy and heist genres, never truly becoming one or the other. The chemistry between Eastwood and Bridges is uncannily good, but the remainder of the flick just feels bland and the execution of the robbery feels somewhat inert and outdated by todayās standards. Itās watchable mostly by virtue of Bridgesās and Eastwoodās performances.
Hardware (1990) - 3/10 - I donāt get this one to be honest. I mostly love style-over-substance flicks and can appreciate all-style-no-substance affairs, but this thing here just doesnāt get me excited all that much. I guess when it comes to a low-budgeted Sci-Fi of this sort, Iād rather watch Split Second rather than this thing here. Not that that movie had much more story to tell, it was totally bonkers to be perfectly honest, but all the gore, cheese nā sleaze in Hardware is over-the-top and all over the place insofar as it becomes truly distracting and kind of annoying.
A Breed Apart (1984) - 6/10 - A nice little adventure flick. Nothing that unusual about it, but the locations and the acting made this sufficiently worthwhile for a viewing. I found Kathleen Turner to be incredibly annoying though.
Lady Beware (1987) - 6/10 - Another low-budgeted neo noir and itās a neat one. You can obviously sense that the film crew didnāt have much money at their disposal, but they did fine I guess. The portrayal of stalking is the best thing about the venture and the actor playing the part of the stalker does a good job at being a creep. The movie couldāve been truncated at several points and it does feel somewhat protracted on a couple of occasions, but nothing too bad.
The Mean Season (1985) - 7/10 - An underrated little thriller. The story is about a reporter that is regularly contacted by a serial killer terrorizing the city of Miami and gets sucked into the spiral of lunacy. It gets really interesting because the reporter played by Russell becomes more participatory in the events than he is willing to admit and subsequently regrets having been involved in the whole matter altogether. The fantastic performance by Richard Jordan also make this one a gripping viewing and the persona of the killer himself is a very interesting and intriguing one. Highly recommended.
Third Degree Burn (1989) - 7/10 - A John Dahl-ish exercise in neo noir, not as good, but it definitely serves as a neat form of entertainment. I guess it works so well because of the nice direction by Spottiswoode and excellent performances by Williams and Madsen. Itās too bad Treat Williams never gained any considerable recognition because heās hell of an actor IMO and had all the charisma in the world to take on some of the more badass roles. The resolution is rather foreseeable, but it is all kept together by the satisfactory execution.
Down Twisted (1987) - 3/10 - I mean, itās another Cannon movie, it looks like one, it feels like one, therefore it is one? I was brought round by the high IMDb rating to give this one a shot andā¦ wellā¦ itās a Cannon film. There is nothing exceptional about it and I found it to be a complete bore. Stuff happens, but itās all put together in a distinctively shoddy way youād expect from a film of this stature. I was hoping it would turn into something akin to The Warriors (1979) or Streets of Fire (1984), but wellā¦ itās shit. I mean I donāt know. Perhaps the film is this diamond in the rough and I merely fail to see its grandeur because of my inability to decipher its latent meanings and shit. Perhaps. The IMDb rating is really skewed though, no idea how it got such a stellar rating from the community of people there. Donāt be fooled. Itās a regular fucking Cannon film, donāt make a mistake of wasting your time on this one.
One of my scifi favorites, no kidding. Somehow Iām totally in that creative space together with Richard Stanley. I also like Split Second, but obviously for different reasons.
I do get why some people really like this one, cosā I also shouldāve enjoyed this one, I did not though, couldnāt get into it at all. Itās got all the elements that are right up my alley, but itās too edgy, too over-the-top for me and feels kinda messy, like there is too much of everything going on.
Last ten days:
Mallrats (Smith, 1995) 
Waiting For Guffman (Guest, 1997)
Killing Zoe (Avary, 1993)
Lights Out (Sandberg, 2016)
Dumb and Dumber (Farrelly, 1994)
Schindlerās List (Spielberg, 1993)
Heat (Mann, 1995)
Desperado (Rodriguez, 1995)
Groundhog Day (Ramis, 1993)
Dances With Wolves (Costner, 1990)
To Die For (Van Sant, 1995)
The Quick and the Dead (Raimi, 1995)
Hereditary (Aster, 2018)
Ninja Scroll (Kawajiri, 1993)
Trainspotting (Boyle, 1996)
Cape Fear (Scorsese, 1991)
Pi (Aronofsky, 1998)
Toy Story 2 (Lasseter, 1999)
Beavis and Butt-Head Do America (Judge, 1996)
From Dusk Till Dawn (Rodriguez, 1996)
The Silence of the Lambs (Demme, 1991)
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (Cameron, 1991)
Ring (Nakata, 1998)
It Comes at Night (Schults, 2017)
Dogma (Smith, 1999)
Carlitoās Way (De Palma, 1993)
Cop Land (Mangold, 1997)
The Belko Experiment (McLean, 2016)
Very Bad Things (Berg, 1998)
American History X (Kaye, 1998)
Bound (Wachowski/Wachowski, 1996)
The Autopsy of Jane Doe (Ćvredal, 2016)
Falling Down (Schumacher, 1993)
The Green Mile (Darabont, 1999)
Leon (Besson, 1994)
Two-thirds of the way through my āNinety From the '90sā June challenge.
Thatās inhuman 
Hi Last.caress
Where do you find the time to watch 35 films in 10 days 
I am glad if I can watch 2 movies in 1 week.
How is Beavis and Butt-Head Do America? I still have fond memories of the shorts they made for MTV when this station was fun to watch.
With great difficulty. 
a) lots of very late nights (I donāt sleep very well. I should be doing more to change that, not enable it. But, well, f*ck it)
b) No World Cup. Well, almost none. Two-and-a-bit matches, thatās all Iāve watched live.
c) Very little telly. At present I am literally only watching Westworld and nothing else. One hour of telly per week. I mean, the television is on for more time than that - my wife still watches some other bits and pieces (although mercifully she doesnāt watch any soap operas and the proliferation of summer sport on TV right now means sheās not watching all that much more) - but, largely, thereās time for at least one movie every day in the early evening, thereās occasionally room for one more straight after and thereās always room for one at bedtime (although Iāll watch a couple if Iām up).
d) I donāt have to sit and concentrate fully on a movie I own and have likely seen multiple times already so, as long as itās on, it counts, even if Iām cooking the dinner or vacuuming the house or carrying out any other function, or if we have friends over or whatever.
It IS stupid though. Too many. I love a movie challenge and a movie marathon and Iāll happily pull an occasional all-nighter or weekender but three a day (and sometimes more if Iām fitting in a newer movie) for what will be roughly a month-and-a-half by the end of June was just crackers. Calling it āNinety From the '90sā seemed snappy at the time but itās pinned me to a number. If Iād called it āMy Nineties Favouritesā or something I could miss a few if I couldnāt get them in but I canāt watch any less than 90 for a āNinety From theā 90sā challenge (I appreciate that itās hardly as though Iām contractually obliged or anything but it would just feel wrong to me now if I only watched, say, 87). Iāve got āBest of the '00sā and āBest of theā 10s (So Far)ā challenges set for myself over the next four months but Iām going back to two per day and if I miss some, I miss some. Tbh though Iāve enjoyed it anyway, even though Iām unlikely to try it again over such a long period.
Itās a bit dated now tbh but I loved it at the time so it retains a lot of nostalgia points for me. Beavis and Butt-Head was one of my favourite shows in the nineties (and indeed, I consider Mike Judgeās follow-up show King of the Hill to be the finest animated sitcom ever made and one of the finest sitcoms ever of any kind). I thought it was a funny comedy and, more crucially, a bloody brilliant and eclectic music show.
Makes sense then. That is basically cheating 
I understand that you only do that with movies you are familiar with but you arenāt watching them then. I canāt multitask at all. If I check my phone when a movie is on I have no idea what happens on the screen and often have to ārewindā. I donāt do as much re-watching as you do though so have to stay sharp to have any chance really
It counts, it counts! You say āCheatingā, I sayā¦ um, āGeneral Cinematic Ambienceā, or āMovies by Osmosisā. So there. 
Iām more like you though with a movie I havenāt previously seen (if Iām at home of course). Iāll rewind anything I think Iāve missed, I have subtitles on if theyāre available just to combat the possibility that a character might mumble a piece of vital exposition and I often have the movieās Wikipedia page open (if there is one) and sat beside me in case itās a particularly confusing piece and I need clarification on what I just saw.
Haha. Movies by osmosis. That would be an awesome power. Imagine having Books by osmosis and having read 100 books just by passing a bookstore window.
I donāt like you have any reference books on hand when watching a movie but do enjoy reading the various pamphlets or booklets that accompany a lot of releases. Subtitles are always on as we often have to watch movies in the dark of the night when the kids are fast asleep
āGet out moreā? Iām sorry, Iām not familiar with the concept. 
Hmmm, now I understand why so many great flicks got such a low ratings from you. 
His ratings are a little erratic, yes. Maybe this is the reason why. On the other hand: it happens to me that I rewatch a movie - one that I used to like - and notice that I start wandering off after a while. A reason for me to take one or more stars away ā¦
Yes, it happens. And it also happens that I rewatch after years some movie I didnāt like that much and realize itās pretty good this time around. A reason for me to give it one or two stars moreā¦
Itās not so much that Iām not paying attention - these are my movies, Iām familiar enough with them for the most part - but what I have noticed is that in predetermining what movies Iām going to watch and when, I might find that Iām not quite in the right frame of mind for a particular movie on a particular day, and some movies really do require you to be in the correct headspace. Some movies suit Sunday afternoon a lot more than they suit, say, 2am on a Wednesday. You know? That type of thing is certainly proving a factor.
I remember watching Land of the Dead (Romero, 2005) when it first came out and finding it bitterly disappointing. Thought it was a pile of old crap. And, well, it is a pile of old crap, really. But I caught it quite by accident many years later on TV, on one of these backwater satellite stations like Movies4Men or The Horror Channel or SyFy or something, at about midnight on a Saturday. And suddenly, it was tremendous fun. It had found its home.
Thatās definitely true. The opposite is true, too. Iāve seen Dogma (Smith, 1999) many, many times - although Iād not seen it for a good few years up until the other day - and Iād long considered it to be one of my favourite pictures of its time, but this time I was struck by how flat most of it fell. It hasnāt changed, but I have I guess.
