• Napoleon Of The Living Drunk

    What did we watch?

    • Napoleon Of The Living Drunk

      LOST, Season One, Episode Seventeen, “Numbers”
      “Okay… that thing in the woods? Maybe it’s a monster. Maybe it’s a… pissed off giraffe! I don’t know! The fact that no one is even looking for us? Yeah, that’s weird. But I just go along with it, ’cause I’m along for the ride. Good old fun-time Hurley! Well, guess what? Now – I want some friggin’ answers!”

      “Do you believe in that? Luck?”
      “I believe in a lot of things.”

      We’ve now hit the first episode where I recognise a good story is being told, but I don’t find the emotion it explores #relatable. The general rationalist view is that there are true things and false things, that when you find something you believed to be one way to be another, you swap out your beliefs, and that life consists of sorting out what’s true and what isn’t. My specific view on things is recognising that all individual viewpoints are limited, including my own, and while that comes from a lifetime of ‘rationally’ trying to sort truth from falsehoods, it does click in with the show’s view some of the time, in the way that it presents people as basically irrational beings with irrational drives that at least make sense from their own perspective.

      Where we differ is that I’m not nearly as insulted by being called ‘crazy’ as the show. We now have had two characters who take it extremely personally when someone even implies the word ‘crazy’. In my view, I’m already an irrational being; discovering I have an extra layer of irrationality simply means the world is the same, but moreso – I already know that the layer of hopelessness and anxiety is simply my filter between reality and my mind, what would another symptom be? For this show, being ‘crazy’ means your entire worldview collapses.

      (For whatever it’s worth, I have the same relationship with the word ‘stupid’ that Hurley does with ‘crazy’)

      Where I’m stuck, at least for now, is what do you do with this information? This isn’t a ding against the show; I find it’s point of view valuable, I just need to process it. If I were with Hurley, I think I wouldn’t dismiss his perspective the way everyone else did, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say “yes, you’re right” like Rousseau did. I’d take the agnostic point of view until evidence arose one way or another.

      Michael has already figured out some of Jin’s language, and in fact has developed a funny rapport with him.

      I double-checked what the numbers turned out to be, and for some reason I remembered what purpose they served in the ARG that ran with the show, but not the show itself. In the ARG, they were part of an equation that predicted mankind’s extinction, which, who cares.

      There was an early interview with Lindelof where he admits we’d never find out what the numbers meant, which he regretted because it quickly got out of hand. Near the end of the show, he clarified that there were two kinds of Lost mysteries – engaging mysteries, and midi-chlorian mysteries. Midi-chlorian mysteries were, as you’d expect, mysteries where explaining them demystified them. I can see where he’s coming from, and I even sympathise because the numbers developed organically and accidentally, but I feel like the numbers fall under a different category than midi-chlorians.

      For one thing, you don’t need to explain the Force because everything you need to know is laid out for you and nothing raises further questions (except maybe moral questions). The numbers raise one extremely tantalising question: who is spreading them around the universe? Actually, thinking on it, that’s really the separation between the cool mysteries and the boring ones – the cool ones are actions implying a character, with the cool payoffs revealing that character. I think ahead, and Dharma is a cool mystery. The Others are a cool mystery. Jacob and The Man In Black are a functional mystery. The numbers are not – the meaning is revealed, but the reason they’re spread around the universe is not, and in fact I’d forgotten what their purpose was until I looked it up.

      Ownage: it’s basically all Rousseau, and it’s almost all explosions and traps she left.

      Sawyer’s Book Club: A Wrinkle In Time.

      Accuracy of Australian Accents: “Bad Steve Irwin Impression” level.

      The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou, Wes Anderson
      “O’Seary, this is probably my son Ned. We just met.”

      “Anne-Marie! Do the interns get glocks?”
      “No, they all share one.”

      “I wonder if it remembers me.”

      This was my first Anderson film (of, currently, two); the quality is easy to recognise but I find myself wondering what the point is, which is because it’s literature and the point isn’t in an exciting plot, but in both fun characters and a general mood, conveyed through both the plot details and the Anderson aesthetic. You don’t watch this for a point, you watch it to immerse yourself in the world. If there is a specific point, it’s in studying a Bill Murray character. This is a man who spent his life doing the kind of things Bill Murray characters get to do – make jokes, evade responsibility, make art, and generally be kind of a prick – and this is what his life is like because of it. This is everything he does and does not have.

      Anderson is one of the most studied modern filmmakers, and he’s an extremely popular subject for video essays, to the point that Tony Zhou vowed never to make an essay on him and is sick to fuck of people asking. From my vantage point, it’s pretty easy to see what his deal is – he set himself a few rules a long time ago, and he’s followed them so long and so strictly that they’ve become intuitive, like he developed his own language. This makes him extremely easy to homage and extremely difficult to imitate, because you’ll just come off as watered-down Wes Anderson.

      The thing I find fascinating about frequent actor-director collaborations is that often, they do things that other people would never let them. Only Tarantino could give Sam Jackson the space to create Stephen, and Anderson lets Owen Wilson be something strange and different from all his other characters – a smart, shy, kind, quietly heroic man.

      It’s a minor point I can’t really turn into anything, but something that stands out is that the moral universe of the movie is pretty diverse – no one character in this movie wants the exact same thing. This is one aspect that makes it pleasurable to watch.

      Ownage: A pirate owns Ned, and in response Steve murders the shit out of them. Steve and Ned exchange punches at one point, surprising the other both times. Steve owns the pirates to save Hennessy.

      • The Life Aquatic was my first Anderson film too, and I think it’s still my favourite of his films to watch just for the world he creates and the characters that inhabit it, even if some of his other films are stronger overall.

        • Napoleon Of The Living Drunk

          I like The Grand Budapest more because it channels the sheer originality of, you know, Anderson into a fun adventure plot, but Life Aquatic has a football in the groin one of Bill Murray’s best and most heartrending sad old man performances.

      • GhostZ

        What makes Anderson work for me is that the hyper-organized whimsy is laid over a genuine and unsolvable sadness. The failure mode of this is bad indie comedy, where everything is twee except we’re all just people trying to get through this world, man; it’s a hard style to work in and not fail, which is part of what makes Anderson impressive as both a stylist and a storyteller. The balance is perfect–his characters live in a strange world (and it’s specifically strange, which helps) and use its strangeness to cover for their own, all while being both genuinely funny and genuinely hurting.

        • Napoleon Of The Living Drunk

          That’s probably why Bill Murray fits in his universes so well.

          • Miller

            I am a card-carrying member of the Snide Asshole Bill Murray Fan Club, we get into rumbles with the Sad Clown Bill Murray Fan Club, but you’re right about how well Anderson uses that mixture of humor and pathos that Murray can bring. You’ve got me thinking about an Anderson version of Scrooged, which could lend itself to his meticulous style (especially in flashback) and has a Murray performance that is far more manic and jerkish than his general Anderson mode but wrestles with sadness underneath.

          • Napoleon Of The Living Drunk

            Like many things in life, I go both ways. I think I’ve spoken before about being irritated with people who can’t get into the fantasy of being a snide asshole anymore.

        • Perfect, yes. I’ve just realised that this is the exact same thing I like about Bojack Horseman but with, you know, animal puns instead of perfect symmetrical compositions.

          • GhostZ

            It’s ridiculous how few works of art come with extensive animal puns.

        • People like to point to his sense of nostalgia, but in some ways, the better word is loss. He knows that whatever he’s pining for, he can’t have it (“nostalgia” itself means “homesickness”, & Anderson knows you can’t go home again). Gustav can’t have his old world sense of propriety back, and the Tenenbaums lost their youth. I wonder why Anderson has this sensibility, too – did he lose something early on?

          • Miller

            Yeah, his sled.

          • Son of Griff

            Surely you jest, but maybe you’re right. I got a strong sense watching RUSHMORE that this was a high modernist biography of the young Orson Welles.

          • Miller

            Ooh, I like that take. But stop calling me Shirley.

        • Conor Malcolm Crockford

          That specificness is what a lot of twee indie movies really lack – the characters are weird but they don’t have the passion and interests of say Royal St. Clair or Mrs. Fox (that and Anderson is just a much better writer).

          • Miller

            I remember being extremely disappointed in Fantastic Mr. Fox and what I viewed as him Andersoning up a perfectly fine Dahl story (oh good, more daddy issues), but while I did not like it, I do appreciate the balls of Mrs. Fox saying their marriage was a mistake. Daaaaaaamn.

      • Conor Malcolm Crockford

        Life Aquatic is my least favorite Anderson movie because I never found Zissou as a character all that compelling, and even then there are things I really like about it (like “I wonder if it remembers me” and Dafoe being so hysterically needy). It has enough of a cult that I should likely see it again.

      • Rucker and Cohlchez vs. Evil 🌹

        This was actually the first Anderson film that disappointed me, after I’d been a pretty big fan of Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, and The Royal Tenenbaums. This was the first one I watched where I felt like the artifice of Anderson was the point and not anything particular about these characters.

        • Napoleon Of The Living Drunk

          Unrelated: A+ Halloween name.

          • Rucker and Cohlchez vs. Evil 🌹

            It handily doubles as a mission statement!

    • My Bloody Valentine – I’m not a big slasher fan, I generally prefer my horror a little more supernatural, but if they have a decent setting, fun characters and a sense of humour then it doesn’t take too much to win me over. My Bloody Valentine has a GREAT setting (Canadian mining town and the tunnels beneath it), a fine cast of small-town folks and plenty of wit, so I had a great time with it. There’s only one area that its lacking, and that’s the music – with an iconic score, this would be the Ultimate Slasher, in my eyes at least. Even without, I’d still say it’s one of the best.

      • Cennywise The Ploughn

        This refers to the OG movie, not the remake I presume?

        • It does! Although I’m considering checking out the remake this month as well, as I did that with the Houses of Wax last year and it was good fun.

          • The remake isn’t terrible. It’s, at least, not a Marcus Nispel/Platinum Dunes disaster affair. It also seemed like the perfect type of movie to get a remake; a lesser know, not quite perfect movie that needs a bit more polishing.

    • GhostZ

      The first two episodes of Jessica Jones, which I really like so far: it’s genuinely dark and unnerving, the relationships are complex, and so far it’s moving forward at a nice clip.

      And You’re the Worst, “There’s Always a Back Door.” I’m not proud of this, but I laughed at the wildly-unprofessional joke Lindsay makes that horrifies everyone in her office. (“No, Gretch. He killed the little boy. That’s the joke.”)

      • Miller

        JJ is easily my favorite of the Marvel shows (only the hypothetical second season of Daredevil where everything but the Punisher is excised comes close) but be prepared for that steady clip to go through some tempo changes.

        • Conor Malcolm Crockford

          Aw man I wanna watch your hypothetical second season so bad even if I’d still deal with some goofy legalese.

          • Miller

            “Objection! Witness describes a scene he was not there to observe, relying on a third party!”
            “But counselor: I WAS that third party!”
            “GASP!”
            Jesus was that show fucking stupid.

      • Conor Malcolm Crockford

        Enjoy a fantastic David Tennant performance as a total monster (albeit a pretty fun one in all honesty).

    • hellgauge

      Only Yesterday: Such a lovely film. The world and characters are realized with the usual Ghibli elegance. From the incredulous facial expressions of children to the painterly semi-impressionistic natural backdrops. The film’s flashback structure seems a bit rigid and labored at first, but eventually it becomes clear that this is merely an expression of the way these memories are really something constraining and labored over for the main character. One interesting aspect is that, at least compared with the films directed by Miyazaki, this is not only completely within the boundaries of the real, but also the story is really very small and undramatic. Not unlike the work of Ozu and Naruse in that sense, though certainly tonally, visually and structurally quite distinct (not just by being animated). I’ll admit this hit me extra strong for personal reasons: The grown up main character’s stage in life reminded me of my own; the two incarnations of her reminded me in subtle ways of female relatives, which was also true for the final song. Speaking of which, what a stunning way to end the film. Not only does it work in a dramatic sense, but the way it’s realized is so unique to the medium. It certainly blew away my remaining defenses against a film that had for the most part been fairly muted in its emotions.

      • I think this might be my favourite non-Miyazaki Ghibli film. It’s lovely.

        • hellgauge

          I haven’t seen many (maybe not any) non-Miyazaki Ghibli yet, so this is more or less my favorite by default. However, I suspect it will anyway remain high up on the list.

      • PCguy

        There’s a lot of Ozu in this film. Not just because of nationality but in the way they deal in a realistic but sentimental way with the dynamics of family life. The sequence that gets me in ONLY YESTERDAY is the narrative where the two sisters fight over who will get the old purse. The film perfectly captures the childish sense of absolute yearning for an object–the permanence of a thing being only established in its’ possession. Then for the protagonist to reflect back on her childhood and laugh about how serious she took the everyday drama of domestic life–this is such an adult movie. It parallels nicely with Ozu’s GOOD MORNING, another great film about childhood longing. ONLY YESTERDAY is the rare film that shows you can go home again and remains sentimental without becoming maudlin.

    • glorbes

      Carnival of Souls – A re-watch, but it’s been a loooong time since I watched it last. The copy I had was the criterion dvd from ages ago, so the picture was gorgeous. Anyway, it is definitely a movie that suffers from being copied and harvested for parts over the years, and it has the stilted performances of a budget production, but that just adds to the atmosphere as far as I’m concerned. It’s very sparse, and very little happens in it, but I don’t find it drags at all, and it has a creepy and consistent tone. Candace Hilligoss gives such a bizarre but compelling performance, and her character has some badass moments. The creep-out effects still work like gangbusters for me.

      • Criterion UK are finally giving this one a decent release here later this month, I’m looking forward to checking it out.

      • Crimson Pico

        Yeah, this is one of those rare movies where the things that don’t work somehow make it work even more, like the stiltedness makes it even more unnerving. I love it.

    • Blade Runner 2049. Well that was a whole lotta movie. I’m still turning it over in my head, but, scattered impressions:

      This cost more than all of his previous films combined but it’s still a Denis Villeneuve picture through and through, which I respect a lot even while I have some reservations. Slow, clinical, technically stunning, under- rather than overplotted, often valuing silence over dialogue and scenes of traveling to places as much as what happens in those places; having been given the world of Blade Runner and all the resources in the world, Villeneuve is content to observe it and its inhabitants with no hurry rather than deliver requisite dramatic or action beats. The world is expanded organically and is given new post-2019 history that feels right.

      It’s a long as hell film, and you feel the length. Ignatiy Vishnevetsky was spot on when he pointed out that this already feels like a lurching, unbounded director’s cut of a shorter movie. Some of the precision in the storytelling gets lost: there’s one big scene that feels like it is from another movie entirely (and the movie itself seemingly agrees because what was said in that scene is never brought up again), one small scene seemingly exists only to showcase a particular visual effect, and certain thematic threads, such as human bigotry against replicants (“skinjob” is a repeated slur) are emphasized early on but become seemingly forgotten later. Most viewers, even those who love it, will probably agree that anywhere from 10 to over 30 minutes could have been cut with no real harm done.

      On the positive side of that, every scene here gets to breathe in a way that’s become pretty much alien to 99% of modern blockbusters, and this leads, among other things, to stronger emotional payoffs near the end and to more memorable, detailed performances even from actors with limited screentime. Speaking of actors, and perhaps the most pleasant surprise: Gosling and Ford do the job, but this movie belongs to the women. Ana de Armas gets the best character in the entire film to play, and she, Sylvia Hoeks, Robin Wright and Carla Juri all do terrific work.

      Dramatically the film covers its bases by using both the new characters and

      • Geez, yeah. I didn’t mention it in my own blurb, but this movie is fucking long. I didn’t really mind too much, which is weird because I’m normally quite sensitive to movie lengths. But there is definitely a more spry movie hidden within this one.

        • It helps that they got that Deakins magic that ensures the movie is always gorgeous to look at even when little or nothing “happens”, and all throughout there’s a carefully maintained atmosphere and sense of immersion into the world. Still, at one point I almost wondered if Deckard was even going to show up at all because it felt like more than 2 hours had already gone by.

          • I felt the exact same thing. I think the visuals being so engaging was what was carrying me forward.

    • Blade Runner 2049–This was better than I thought it was going to be. My fear was that it was going to be The Force Awakens for Blade Runner: something whose sole purpose seems to be to winsomely exploit our affection for the imagery and plotting of the original (I like The Force Awakens, but it’s not an especially *exciting* movie, artistically). Thankfully, this movie finds a great balance between borrowing familiar images and vibes from Ridley Scott’s masterpiece and establishing a fresh identity for itself; this is definitely the Blade Runner universe, but it’s not a retread. And holy hell, speaking of imagery, they sure got their money out of that Deakins cinematography–this movie is a very close contender for the best-looking movie I’ve seen all year, and it’s not just the camerawork: the production design is lush and amazing, its decaying austerity a nice contrast with the crowded urban clamor of the original film. The plot itself mostly left me cold (though I love, love, love the twist near the end that Joe isn’t actually Deckard’s son–“We all wish we were” is a fucking fantastic line, and it’s the one moment in the movie that got me emotionally engaged with the characters), but it’s smart enough that I don’t think it’s throwaway, either. I’m also not sure about the female representation here; I know we’re in a man’s world, it’s Joe’s POV, blah blah blah. But that doesn’t change the fact that almost every female character we see is in some way sexualized and basically exists as an object owned by a man and who we only know through the man’s relationship with her–none of this feels exactly like “commentary,” either, just a kind of latent misogyny. And while I’m griping, I guess I have to bring up the score, which has some lovely passages but is far too often punctuated by BRAAWWWWWNMMMMM (damn you, Hans Zimmer). But on the whole, I really, really liked this movie. Nice job, all involved.

      • I kinda don’t care about what else comes out this year; Deakins needs the Oscar for this. 0-13 is unacceptable for arguably the GOAT. And to win it on the follow-up to one of the best visual movies of all time? Damn straight.

        • Yeah, I think even setting aside his career thus far, he deserves it for this movie. It looks amazing.

          • It kills me I likely won’t see it in theaters. I’m penny-pinching right now, and it suuuuuuucks.

          • Aw… that’s sad. But even on home media, I’m guessing it’s going to look stunning.

        • Right now The Shape of Water‘s Dan Laustsen looks to be his biggest competitor, but I doubt he overtakes him. Everyone in Hollywood probably knows that Deakins should have a statue by now.

      • I was very relieved when K/Joe turned out not to be Deckard’s child, because the movie kept pointing you at that direction so aggressively without giving you a direct answer that I worried if we were just waiting for a reveal we already guessed. It was an effective red herring though I think K’s entire arc of becoming convinced he is the child could have been a little shaved as well.

        If this doesn’t win Deakins the damn Oscar the only thing to do is laugh.

        • I was super relieved, too, as I thought all that foreshadowing was one of the more obvious, tedious parts of the movie.

      • Conor Malcolm Crockford

        I just watched it and the more I think about it the more I like it. Joi is I think direct commentary on this ownership though, and her whole “character” feels like this side delve into the sort of thematics of Her but with more of a question of free will and agency. There’s no sense of condemnation either – Joe needs this even if he knows it’s a program and is uneasy with this information, and if she says she loves him, does things for him, isn’t that about the same? (I have a friend who I’m pretty sure would love a Joi because damn are they lonely and even an artificial intimacy amounts to the same thing.)

        • Joi was interesting, but I’m not sure that she was interesting enough as a commentary on Joe, though, since she’s killed, and then the movie never mentions her again (and Joe doesn’t really get a chance to react). I think in isolation, her character would have been a cool little detail (if a bit underdeveloped)–in the larger scope of the film’s portrayal of women, it made me a little uncomfortable. But on the bright side, we did get probably the most visually interesting sex scene of this cinema decade.

    • Miller

      Rome, “Spoils” — THIRTEENTH! THIRTEENTH! Ownage on par with Spartacus at its best, Lucius finally stops trying to play politics and stands up for his bro. Fantastic gladiator fight scene, the show has taken shortcuts in other battle scenes and spends those savings here in bloody style. And Brutus finally grows a pair and commits to getting rid of Caesar. These decisions come after Caesar makes clever political moves, but the moves underestimate the men being moved.

      Rome, “The Kallends of February” — well, that escalated quickly. An all-time great title fakeout as threads are pulled together, secrets are brought to light and everything comes crashing down. Last episode’s gladiator brawl is hilariously reprised as a dumbshow for the plebs, but the end of the episode is soaked in real blood and a twitching corpse that no one knows what to do with.

    • Surprisingly little. I did start watching Friday the 13th (2009) for another adventures in remakes entry, but the video store gave me the wrong disc (I wanted the killer cut; they gave me theatrical) and the dvd is so scratched that my player rejected it first then skipped several times in 15 minutes. Bleh.

      I did watch Carnosaur. It’s not better than Jurassic Park. But it is way more entertaining by the end. This movie is ca-razy. I just wish it had better storytelling in the beginning because there are so many disparate methods to madness that you don’t know which one the movie was about (it’s actually about all of them at once, but the movie doesn’t tell you that until Act 3). Also, Carnosaur does a lot of things that Jurassic Park, in all its “respectable” glory, would never have dared to do. Wait until Oct 18 for more.

    • PCguy

      I saw HALLOWEEN 4 & 5. This lead me to the following question. What is the best highest numbered sequel to a horror franchise not counting modern reboots? Bonus points if the previous films in the series were actually good as opposed to the movie just being an outlier.

      I went with the David DeCoteau helmed PUPPET MASTER 3. It’s a quirky follow up to two solid films that manages to enrich the franchises backstory.

      • Bride of Chucky (Child’s Play 4) is a particular highlight.

        Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is the second best of the series (behind 2), Though some have argued for VI: Undiscovered Country. (I will not hear arguments in favor of IV: The Whales.) (OK, rereading this, you only wanted horror franchise, but I’m leaving this here anyways).

        Some debate over whether Leprechaun In Space or In The Hood are actually good. I will argue for In Space’s bugnuts insanity but In the Hood is actually pretty fun.

        • Nemesis was pretty fucking horrifying, in the sense of “desecrating everything good and true in the series and also Tom Hardy,” so we can count that.

          • We needed a Star Trek/Leprechaun cross over movie back in the late 90s.

          • glorbes

            Didn’t the leprechaun go to space at some point?

          • But he never met William Shatner. Imagine how great a Leprechaun/Shatner scene would be!

          • glorbes

            Warwick Davis vs William Shatner. A duel for the ages.

        • glorbes

          I like Star Trek V, but…Jesus, Julius….

          • The Wrath of Khan is a great movie. V is an exemplary television episode turned into a movie.

          • glorbes

            It’s a season three episode turned into a movie.

        • PCguy

          The William Shatner directed one? Where the Enterprise hero model was rotting and falling apart from being used over and over? The one with some of the worst special effects ever committed to the screen? With Shatner at the hammiest point in his career climbing mountains just because they’re there?

          I was thinking primarily of horror franchises with numbers in their titles. Also, it just occurred to me that the answer to this question is most likely JASON X. There’s some excellent kills in that one and the spaceship is a nice twist on the stale FRIDAY formula.

          • Cennywise The Ploughn

            As someone who spent a summer cataloging Friday the 13th movies, I award no bonus points for previous entries.

          • Crimson Pico

            I love Jason X. Guilty pleasure, but like you said, it’s trying to inject something new into a dead franchise, with a healthy bit of Scream-ian self-awareness, too.

          • Miller

            Thirding Jason X, tons of fun. “In Space” is two for two in horror franchises as far as I can tell, it is a setting that should be used more.

        • Miller

          It has been a long, long time since I saw Leprechaun In The Hood but I remember it being a decent time if not as batshit as In Space. Silent Night, Deadly Night 5 is also a very watchable insane horror movie, if not as lovably mercenary and gory as 2.

      • Cennywise The Ploughn

        Would you be willing to stretch the definition of horror to Thin Man films? Otherwise, I got nothin’.

      • I really liked all the Final Destination sequels except 4.

      • Babalu-ghost

        Silent Night, Deadly Night! Horror’s most strangely fascinating franchise, that despite an intensely boring third entry, was still punching well above its weight class with Silent Night, Deadly Night 5: The Toy Maker.

        • PCguy

          Sold. Also, Garbage Day.

        • Miller

          Oh shit, should’ve scrolled down! Mickey Rooney as pervert Geppetto (named, of course, Joe Petto) — what more do you want in the fourth sequel to a killer Santa flick that has absolutely nothing to do with the original movie?

    • Crimson Pico

      The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, somehow for the first time. What an odd movie. There are some shots that are more sophisticated than anything in his peer’s work (a low angle shot coming under a yard swing, seemingly static shots that suddenly pan – the latter is one of my favorite film techniques), and others so bad they look like some kid got his hand on his parents’ camcorder. The first three deaths are hilarious, with poor Leatherface having a Tucker and Dale-like day of kids running into his cleaver. The last act plays out like a grimmer but less entertaining Spider Baby. Some of it’s effective for sure – I think the American backwoods is creepier here than almost any other movie that relies on it for cheap “look how weird these folk are!” – but like the original Friday the 13th, this was more interesting for spotting the kinds of things later directors would beg, borrow, or steal.

      • glorbes

        I love the original TCM. I think it’s one of the rawest and most effecting horror films ever made. I also saw it for the first time when I was much too young.

      • glorbes

        Oh, and the opening shot of the corpse propped up in the cemetary…that has to be one of the best examples of beautiful composition and lighting for something downright disgusting and unsettling.

        • Crimson Pico

          The best shot in the movie, for sure. Almost shocking it comes from the same director of the very next scene (man in wheelchair rolling down hill).

      • When that one guy approaches the metal door, then Leatherface slams it open, clubs him, then drags him away – that’s my favorite horror kill, bar none.

        • Crimson Pico

          My favorite Leatherface moment is when he’s fretting at the windowsill, like “Oh my god where are all these awful teenagers coming from?” All he wanted to do was stay home and work, but three kids in a row have broken into his house!

          • Conor Malcolm Crockford

            I had a debate with someone once about how you absolutely don’t go into a house without invitation, its just rude – but then maybe it’s because I’m from New England.

          • Crimson Pico

            Where was the other person from? It’s hard for me to imagine an area where that isn’t a nuclear breach of etiquette. I’d say “In the South we’d…” but Hooper basically made a 90-minute version of that.

          • Conor Malcolm Crockford

            They might have been West Coast from what I remember, so big surprise! *runs from Californians armed with like kombucha bottles* Seriously though these hippies are fucking asking for it.

          • Miller

            Shit, the New Hampshire Chain Saw Massacre would be ten minutes of these dickbacks getting slaughtered, five minutes of the local court ruling in favor of Leathuhface and then credits.

          • Crimson Pico

            *take-my-money.jpg*

  • Cennywise The Ploughn

    Question for the day: Most inspired one-off on-screen pairing?

    You’ve got your Rogers and Astaires, your Lemmon and Matthaus, your Lockwood and Lamonts. I’m looking for the duo that only had one shot and made you wish there were more.

    I’m thinking about this after a discussion about Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, with its scenes of Michael Caine and Steve Martin bouncing off one another. The movie overall isn’t a favorite of mine, but I’d sign up to see a sequel in a heartbeat if it featured both of them again.

    • Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. “Pity.”

      Michelle Pfeiffer and Jeff Goldblum in Into the Night. (I even wrote about it!)

      Harrison Ford and John Boyega in The Force Awakens. Dammit, there shoulda been a spinoff series with them.

      Not actor-actor, but actor-director-prop: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil with the Lady Chablis and a Confederate flag in a Clint Eastwood film. All of those are words but they never all came together in a sentence before.

    • Lemmon and Matthau had three more outings together much much later (Grumpy Old Men, The Odd Couple 2, and Grumpier Old Men) so do they count? Also, only one of those is worth watching.

      Did Dan Ackroyd and Bill Murray ever work together again other than Ghostbusters 2? They were fantastic together.

      • Cennywise The Ploughn

        Lemmon and Matthau are in the common couple category to me, but that might be because I started paying attention to movies in the Grumpy Old Men era with a knowledge of The Odd Couple.

        A Google of the second question reveals they had supporting roles in an unreleased film called Nothing Lasts Forever, but other than that it doesn’t look like it. More’s the pity!

        • Nothing Lasts Forever is a really fun curio but yeah, it’s definitely not an Aykroyd-Murray film.

    • Delmars Whiskers

      I would have loved to see Pam Grier and Robert Forster become the Tracy and Hepburn of the aughts. And I really loved the chemistry between Sean Connery and Frances Sternhagen in Outland, and even though I actually like that movie as is, it would have been nice to see them in something that didn’t involve her spouting constant exposition.

    • Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins in Psycho
      Brando and Vivien Leigh in Streetcar
      Streep and Eastwood in The Bridges of Madison County
      Leo Di Caprio and Jonah Hill in The Wolf of Wall Street

    • Babalu-ghost

      It’s weird that Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman never worked together after Casablanca.

      Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman pushed eachother to career best performances in The Master and we were robbed of what was likely to be a long and fruitful partnership.

      Tom Hanks and Leonardo Dicaprio really compliment eachother well, I’d like to see them reunite, and if Amy Adams is there to, that’d be just fine by me.

    • Miller

      Ward. Bacon. Tremors. There’s still time to make this happen again, people.

    • A. Square

      Charlize Theron and Patton Oswalt.

  • Spooky Narrator Man

    MOSAIC TRAILER, THANK BLESSED GERWIG

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km_u51OE3VA

    • hellgauge

      As much as I appreciate the creativity and innovation, I kind of just want to sit down and watch stuff.

      • Spooky Narrator Man

        Luckily, there’s a straightforward TV version of this coming out in January. Of course, I’ll do both and love it.

        • hellgauge

          I would expect nothing less from you.

    • Your unabashed Gerwig fanboyism makes me unironically want a My Dinner with Andre-type film with ALL HAIL GOD TREJO and her, preferably at his taco shop. It would be a true unification of two living legends.

      • Spooky Narrator Man

        Add Isabelle Huppert in there and I think you’ve actually got Barry Jenkins’ next project.

        • hellgauge

          Co-directed by Claire Denis.

          • “The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced today that it is cancelling this year’s Academy Awards ceremony, and in fact will never hold another such ceremony. In a statement, the president said ‘Well, after this film, there’s simply no point in going any further. The Academy unanimously agreed that cinema has now arrived at its highest achievement, and also agreed to use all our resources for its preservation and distribution. Many of us expect to take up hobbies in the aftermath.'”

  • CineGain

    Since I have been away from the tube the last five days, I guess this is the right place to talk about Harvey Weinstein predatory behavior.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html

    • Crimson Pico

      Guillermo del Toro has famously said that working under Weinstein was worse than when his father was kidnapped. Can only imagine how much worse had GDT been a woman, to boot. And that statement he sent out, about how he was just raised “in a different era”? Good riddance.

      • His statement trips over itself so much it manages to do the opposite of what it’s intended to, which is no small feat. Gets more embarrassing with every sentence. My favorite part is “I may suck, but y’know who else sucks? Donald Trump! That always goes over well with you guys right?”

        • Conor Malcolm Crockford

          “I may have a history of casting couch sexual assault but at least I’m woker than Trump! Wait, what did I say wrong?”

          • Rucker and Cohlchez vs. Evil 🌹

            Ugh, I could totally see him saying “What? That worked for Bill Clinton and Joe Biden!”

        • Crimson Pico

          Also, that ending line is wild. “I hope I won’t disappoint [my mother].” Buddy, that ship has saaaaaaailed.

    • I’ve been working up a roundup but, Jesus they keep coming. There was his story, Polanski is back in the news for his case, and now Andy Signore, head of Screen Junkies.

      • Somewhere, Rachel Handler is saying “I tried to warn you, buddy.”

      • CineGain

        This chain reaction of events has been shaping the film culture since last month Alamo fiasco. For all the smeariness being exposed we should hope this resulted in a tide of change that better protected women from any sexual harassing/rapey behavior.

        • I’m at least glad that more and more people are now feeling safe enough to call out the sleazebags.

          • CineGain

            If these brave women had spoken out during Weinstein heyday of the 1990’s, they would’ve been forcefully silenced out of the Hollywood machine.

        • It’s been like this since the Joss Whendon scandal and Cinefamily scandal back in August.

          • CineGain

            Month and half to be exact. You can pinpoint the Crosby rape allegations as being a turning point in how we reposes to sexual harassment in the entertainment world.

      • Rucker and Cohlchez vs. Evil 🌹

        I am again reminded that, as much as my writer friend in Hollywood has been attacked as a sexist by Woke Liberal Critics– the same kind who fall all over themselves for Joss Whedon’s feminism– he’s never assaulted, harassed, or coerced anybody.

        • I’m curious who this writer friend is…

          • Rucker and Cohlchez vs. Evil 🌹

            I’m a little reluctant to explicitly say it for anonymity reasons, but you can find me defending his TV show a lot— including at the reviews of it on this site!

          • Miller

            Holy shit, you know Sherwood Schwartz? Why the fuck didn’t they build a god damn raft and get off the island?