What have you watched recently: Electric Boogaloo

Looper007

Tony EH wrote: »

I heard it goes to pieces in the final 1/3?

I have it knocking around. Just haven't bothered watching it yet. Might throw it on tonight.

It's a tad overlong and some of the CGI is slightly dodgy, but it's not Spectre third act bad. It could have done with some editing.

ancapailldorcha

Looper007 wrote: »

Has this even got a DVD/Blu Ray release here or even on Netflix. I seen it a few months back, its completely bonkers and a lot of fun (if they got a bigger lead someone like Di Caprio in the lead role would this have been treated with more respect, no disrespect to Chris Evans who was excellent).

I'd honestly never heard of it before I read Johnny's post. My film-buff housemate has also never heard of it and he's usually quite well informed. Odd that you say "bigger" in that one of the production issues was hiding Evans' physique.

e_e

Great vid on Snowpiercer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X05TDsoSg2Y

Pierce_1991

Hachi: A Dog's Tale

Continuing my slow journey through IMDB's Top 250 I watched this one with Richard Gere. A bizarre movie. How it has such a high rating I'll never know. It must just be dog lovers who thought the dog was cute. Right throughout the film I kept thinking this had been done better by a thousand youtube videos, not to mention an episode of Futurama. There's also this weird thing that keeps happening where people say 'good morning' or 'hello' to the dog from about 20 feet away. As if it was a person. I can understand petting a dog and saying good morning but you don't shout greetings from across the street! Some weird performances as well. Gere is ok in fairness, and the dog is great. Everyone else acts like they're in some amateur play, just sorta trying to remember their lines. Really odd one.

e_e

Pierce_1991 wrote: »

Hachi: A Dog's Tale

Continuing my slow journey through IMDB's Top 250 I watched this one with Richard Gere. A bizarre movie. How it has such a high rating I'll never know. It must just be dog lovers who thought the dog was cute. Right throughout the film I kept thinking this had been done better by a thousand youtube videos, not to mention an episode of Futurama. There's also this weird thing that keeps happening where people say 'good morning' or 'hello' to the dog from about 20 feet away. As if it was a person. I can understand petting a dog and saying good morning but you don't shout greetings from across the street! Some weird performances as well. Gere is ok in fairness, and the dog is great. Everyone else acts like they're in some amateur play, just sorta trying to remember their lines. Really odd one.

Loved it, gave it 4 stars on Letterboxd which is really unusual for me with this kind of sentimental movie. But then again I'm a big softie when it comes to dogs. :P

Pierce_1991

e_e wrote: »

Loved it, gave it 4 stars on Letterboxd which is really unusual for me with this kind of sentimental movie. But then again I'm a big softie when it comes to dogs. :P

I suppose that explains it then!

johnny_ultimate

Seconds - The best episode of the Twilight Zone that isn't an episode of the Twilight Zone. John Frankenheimer's film is a wonderfully weird, blacky comic gem of 60s cinema, exploring its potent setup's inherent themes with playfulness, visual ingenuity and intelligence. Surreal and creepy throughout, the only thing that's missing is a Rod Serling introduction. The new Masters of Cinema edition is, predictably, superb.

Almayer's Folly - The penultimate film that the brilliant and recently deceased Belgian filmmaker Chantal Akerman must be one of the most beautifully shot films of the decade so far. Every single composition is elegiac, thoughtful, bewitching. The narrative, while not as sedate as Akerman's most famous film (the ever-essential Jeanne Dielman), is slow and measured - based on Joseph Conrad's novel, it (unsurprisingly, for perhaps the greatest feminist filmmaker of her time) subverts the perspective to focus on the daughter of the titular Almayer, while also carefully exploring the cultural and colonial nuances of the tale. But my word it's those long, lyrical takes that make this such a memorable watch.

FloatingVoter

Steve Jobs:The Man In the Machine

Documentary from the same guy (Alex Gibney) who told us that Scientology was a crock in Going Clear. Nothing new in the Jobs tale either. The man was a borderline sociopath and a bully. We knew that.
It is funny watching people he walked over crying for the camera. You can only hope they're getting help or the money was that good.
As a documentary it probably comes across as a hatchet job but I have never heard anything positive about the individual from other sources - so 7/10 for passing away an evening.

Sad Professor

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Steve Jobs:The Man In the Machine

Documentary from the same guy (Alex Gibney) who told us that Scientology was a crock in Going Clear. Nothing new in the Jobs tale either. The man was a borderline sociopath and a bully. We knew that.
It is funny watching people he walked over crying for the camera. You can only hope they're getting help or the money was that good.
As a documentary it probably comes across as a hatchet job but I have never heard anything positive about the individual from other sources - so 7/10 for passing away an evening.

There's plenty of people with positive things to say about Jobs. The a**hole narrative is just in vogue at the moment. I'm not saying he was a nice guy, but the thing that the Gibney documentary fails to show was his ability to inspire people, to work ridiculous hours and put up with his sh*t because they really believed in him and what he was trying to achieve. This is something that interviews with people who hadn't seen him in years and ended things on a sour note are never going to capture, especially when the interviewer (Gibney) has already made up his mind about his subject.

johnny_ultimate

Dragon Inn / Dragon Gate Inn

Now this. This is the good **** right here.

Easily one of the best action films I've ever seen. It's a luxurious wuxia delight - bold colours, stylish costuming, imaginative action and tightly maintained tension. The Taiwanese landscapes are beguiling - from the rockland that surrounds the eponymous inn to the grand mountains and cliffside where the action occasionally diverts to. There are several shots that justify an audible 'wow' just on the basis of the environments alone. Thankfully King Hu's direction is far less complacent than simply pointing his camera at this captivating sights. The cinematography and editing instead a confident mix of controlled and lively, featuring a few moments when the camera dynamically moves between several fetching compositions without a cut thanks to only a subtle nudge, or perhaps an action within the environment itself.

While it is a clear inspiration for your Crouching Tigers and Hidden Daggers, the more acrobatic, fantastical combat is more reserved here than other films in the genre, ultimately packing all the more punch thanks to its conservative use amid otherwise brutal, grounded fight scenes. It's also an immensely witty film - there's a playfulness throughout proceedings, including some hilarious, surprising punchlines to tense moments (best

arrow catching

ever). Parts of it reminded me very favourably of the likes of Leone's Dollars films, and the simple, to the point plot doesn't get lost in the internal politics like some other films of its ilk.

The Masters of Cinema transfer is pretty much flawless, doing wonderful justice to the vibrancy of the images here. Greatly looking forward to their A Touch of Zen release next year now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySSUsV_qGS8

Irish Aris

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Almayer's Folly - The penultimate film that the brilliant and recently deceased Belgian filmmaker Chantal Akerman must be one of the most beautifully shot films of the decade so far. Every single composition is elegiac, thoughtful, bewitching. The narrative, while not as sedate as Akerman's most famous film (the ever-essential Jeanne Dielman), is slow and measured - based on Joseph Conrad's novel, it (unsurprisingly, for perhaps the greatest feminist filmmaker of her time) subverts the perspective to focus on the daughter of the titular Almayer, while also carefully exploring the cultural and colonial nuances of the tale. But my word it's those long, lyrical takes that make this such a memorable watch.

Guilty as charged, I fell asleep halfway through it.

2 very beautiful films I saw couple of weeks ago:

La Planete Sauvage/Fantastic Planet (1973)

This gorgeous stop motion animation tells the story of a distant planet where humans are pets to an alien species.
The film can be seen in different levels, namely as an allegory about humanity and how we treat each other - there is a czech studio involved in the making (director's Jiri Trnka), so it could also be seen as an allegory for the Eastern Europe situation back then.
But even if you ignore this, this is an absolute beauty to watch. The themes that writers Rene Laloux and Roland Topor (the former also directs, the latter did the production design) are varying but never off the mark: the whole thing has a kind of surreal and, at times, apocalyptic/post apocalyptic notion (especially the morphology of the planet) but supports the story brilliantly.
Being a fan of Tim Burton, I can only imagine that Fantastic Planet might have served as inspiration for his own animated films.

La Antena/The Aerial (2007)

Allegory is even more obvious in this black and white, almost silent film by Argentinian director Esteban Sapir. The film tells the story of a city ran by a dictator of sorts that has lost its voice.
The messages can again be seen throughout the story - power of words, power of the voice, power of the people. There is of course a happy ending, but until we get there there is enough doom and gloom: in that aspect the black and white photography intensifies even further the darkness of the story. In fairness to Sapir, at times he introduces some funny elements (some loans of the silent era comedies included), but the tone never becomes too light. The music plays a very important part too and substitutes the lack of sound nicely, without becoming too overwhelming.

Del.Monte

"The Friends of Eddie Coyle" (1973) on Netflix.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WtR-mi6VtU

Classic Robert Mitchum movie which I return to every couple of years. Mitchum is small time crook who gets in over his depth when he starts snitching on his pals to stay out of prison. Great stuff from start to finish. 10/10

Harry Palmr

The Ghost and the Darkness 1956 (Dir Stephen Hopkins)

Resolutely old fashioned drama set at the end of the 19th century about an engineer sent to the Kenyan savannah to supervise the construction of a bridge on a railway project, the work site comes under attack from mysterious lions. A real curio in 1996 to say the least of it - top notch credentials abound (William Goldman, Vilmos Zsigmond etc) but it never really works as a story - the way its shot suggests the lions are are meant to be a metaphor as much as reality though for what is hard to say.

The oddest thing is that its a true story and the preserved lions are in a museum in Chicago.

Chain Smoker

I've had a pretty great weekend of cinema screenings

The Thin Red Line
First time I've seen it, more narratively structured than his more recent works which has it's positives and negatives. Was really digging it up until a point where it started to feel really confused, like it had no clear idea of what it was at all (after they conquer the hill or whatever that was, I'd say). Once that magic wears off with a Malick film and you start focusing on the dialogue of those voiceovers rather than sentiment behind it... it's difficult.
Also, literally 5 minutes before it ended, I realised one of the more confusing characters through the film was actually two different people. Seemingly the two relative unknowns in the whole thing had the exact same f*cking accent and looked just enough alike to not be clearly distinguishable.


Apocalypse Now
Finally got to see it in a cinema!
Love it, this time more than any previous viewing (think it's the first time I've seen it since watching Hearts of Darkness), I really noticed just how much of a miracle the whole thing was, especially the Brando part. Could've easily completely fallen apart right up to the final edit. The whole latter part of the film was a lot better than I remembered it being (and I liked it before).
Have never seen Redux and never want to.


Seven Samurai
About what I expected, thoroughly entertaining quasi-western (hope I got that adjective right!) but not really my thing all the same.


Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles
Woah, this film was ****ing brilliant.

Have to go on about how immaculately constructed it is, I was expecting a serious slog of a film I mean, google describes it as "Jeanne Dielman, the widowed mother of a teenage son, Sylvain, ekes out a drab, repetitive existence in her tiny Brussels apartment". It's near 4 hours and I didn't check the time once!
The whole way it was set up to constantly give the viewer enough to feel a sense of constant progress and intrigue over the future was extremely impressive (e.g. on an basic level my terrible attention span was quite happy how the film

started midway through a Tuesday so Wednesday would be the first time you see a full day and then you're only one day off from the a likely change in routine for the weekend, then wednesday night has Jeanne suggest Sylvain's friend go with them to do whatever it was for Thursday, followed up by Sylvain unintentionally expressing his disgust for her work to guarantee lots of room for a change on the next day

).

The details were immaculate, extremely relatable and believable. Found myself at times getting a bit frustrated with the way the son and their relationship were portrayed but quickly realised it was because in that moment I was pretty much viewing it as an adaptation of the life of someone or another I knew. Had similar moments where I was like "why on earth is she doing that that way?" only for it to immediately become crystal clear.
Delphine Seyrig was beyond perfect for the role, absolutely transfixing. The way it was shot (e.g. the occasional bursts of her bouncing from room to room, fixed shot to fixed show, lights on and off) was so on point, eschewing what would seem like the most likely choices for such a film and probably seriously complicating the editing process.

I'm obviously rambling, but, yeah, great film!

Tony EH

Yeh, 'The Thin Red Line' is a tough one. One the one hand you have a well designed and well made war picture, that's really quite detailed in its depiction of the campaign in Guadalcanal during the Second World War.

But then you have this terrible decision to have a bunch of 20 year old grunts, talking like Schopenhauer and waxing lyrical about the nature of war in an irritating Southern drawl that never once rings true.

I'd love a someone to do a "Blade Runner" on that film and strip out all those annoying voice overs and just leave the film.

As for 'Apocalypse Now', you'd be better off leaving the "Redux" version alone. It's, for the most part, absolutely pointless.

johnny_ultimate

Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles is pretty much as essential a film as ever been made. It's perhaps the most fascinating use of both cinematic space and time - from the way Akerman uses the apartment space and closed doors to the weight every single moment, however seemingly mundane they are, is given. For a film as long as it is where apparently 'not much happens' (but of course everything ****ing happens), it's bewitching stuff.

Chain Smoker

Tony EH wrote: »

But then you have this terrible decision to have a bunch of 20 year old grunts, talking like Schopenhauer and waxing lyrical about the nature of war in an irritating Southern drawl that never once rings true.

That's a problem with all post comeback Malick. With the thin red line the dialogue was probably more out of place than the later ones but I felt the voiceovers achieved a certain purpose of ensuring it (mostly) remained thoroughly focused on individuals rather than typical war movie stuff like the camaraderie of the troops. The whole visual style of his films does really require some kind of guidance too, it's a shame he has no clue how to go about it.

Tree of Life is really as close as i can imagine him getting to perfecting the approach, and even that was divisive as all hell.


Personally, iI let him away with a lot of thatbecause I feel like it's down to overreaching ambition more than anything. One thing that suddenly bothered me at one point though was how he tends to cast extremely famous people in as many roles as he can. A lot of roles feel like they'd be much better served with unknown actors at the very least. (George Clooney and John Cusack in particular just shouldn't have been there at all)

2 days on, my opinion of the film is quite favourable overall, to be clear.

Tony EH

I'm not sure but I think a lot of Clooney's efforts ended up on the cutting room floor, as did a lot of other people like Gary Oldman and Mickey Rourke. 'The Thin Red Line' had an original running time of about 6 hours or something. IIRC, a lot got snipped to try and make it an, even remotely, cinema friendly film. Even then, I still think there's a lot of guff left in the 3 hour picture we have today.

As for Malik, 'The Thin Red Line' is the last picture I've seen of his. I'm just not that big a fan. 'Badlands' is probably the only film of his that I think is a true triumph, out of what I've seen anyway. I've not seen 'The Tree of Life' and I've only seen snippets of 'The New World', much of which I wasn't impressed by.

I think he's a great visual director, but is severely lacking in other aspects, with a lot of what he does leaving me cold and there's a definite tendency in him toward cinematic waffle. I think his pictures are glorious failures for the most part, but he's absurdly overrated by some.

e_e

Chain Smoker wrote: »

Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles
Woah, this film was ****ing brilliant.

Have to go on about how immaculately constructed it is, I was expecting a serious slog of a film I mean, google describes it as "Jeanne Dielman, the widowed mother of a teenage son, Sylvain, ekes out a drab, repetitive existence in her tiny Brussels apartment". It's near 4 hours and I didn't check the time once!
The whole way it was set up to constantly give the viewer enough to feel a sense of constant progress and intrigue over the future was extremely impressive (e.g. on an basic level my terrible attention span was quite happy how the film

started midway through a Tuesday so Wednesday would be the first time you see a full day and then you're only one day off from the a likely change in routine for the weekend, then wednesday night has Jeanne suggest Sylvain's friend go with them to do whatever it was for Thursday, followed up by Sylvain unintentionally expressing his disgust for her work to guarantee lots of room for a change on the next day

).

The details were immaculate, extremely relatable and believable. Found myself at times getting a bit frustrated with the way the son and their relationship were portrayed but quickly realised it was because in that moment I was pretty much viewing it as an adaptation of the life of someone or another I knew. Had similar moments where I was like "why on earth is she doing that that way?" only for it to immediately become crystal clear.
Delphine Seyrig was beyond perfect for the role, absolutely transfixing. The way it was shot (e.g. the occasional bursts of her bouncing from room to room, fixed shot to fixed show, lights on and off) was so on point, eschewing what would seem like the most likely choices for such a film and probably seriously complicating the editing process.

I'm obviously rambling, but, yeah, great film!

Great review, a film in sore need of a Region 2/B release but I'm happy with my Criterion copy all the same.

Looper007

Chain Smoker wrote: »

That's a problem with all post comeback Malick. With the thin red line the dialogue was probably more out of place than the later ones but I felt the voiceovers achieved a certain purpose of ensuring it (mostly) remained thoroughly focused on individuals rather than typical war movie stuff like the camaraderie of the troops. The whole visual style of his films does really require some kind of guidance too, it's a shame he has no clue how to go about it.

Tree of Life is really as close as i can imagine him getting to perfecting the approach, and even that was divisive as all hell.


Personally, iI let him away with a lot of thatbecause I feel like it's down to overreaching ambition more than anything. One thing that suddenly bothered me at one point though was how he tends to cast extremely famous people in as many roles as he can. A lot of roles feel like they'd be much better served with unknown actors at the very least. (George Clooney and John Cusack in particular just shouldn't have been there at all)

2 days on, my opinion of the film is quite favourable overall, to be clear.

Christopher Plummer said it best about Malick that he has to oversee everything and he has a habit of re writing his screenplays to the point it ends up been pretentious.

I can see why he hired big name actors, bigger names on the cast list means more money for the budget. I think Thin Red Line is one of his best films probably his last film I can sit through without been bored. I admire Tree of Life but it's hard work at times.

Tony EH

Looper007 wrote: »

Christopher Plummer said it best about Malick that he has to oversee everything and he has a habit of re writing his screenplays to the point it ends up been pretentious.

I can see why he hired big name actors, bigger names on the cast list means more money for the budget. I think Thin Red Line is one of his best films probably his last film I can sit through without been bored. I admire Tree of Life but it's hard work at times.

There were big names ringing him up to be in 'The Thin Red Line'.

I think Sean Penn did his part for a couple of grand.

But I don't think Malik gives a tuppence haypenny about actors TBH and if some of the stories regarding how he treated actors before, during and after their work was done is to be believed, I can well believe that.

I think Malik would happily work with anyone, so long as he has absolute and complete control.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

There were big names ringing him up to be in 'The Thin Red Line'.

I think Sean Penn did his part for a couple of grand.

But I don't think Malik gives a tuppence haypenny about actors TBH and if some of the stories regarding how he treated actors before, during and after their work was done is to be believed, I can well believe that.

I think Malik would happily work with anyone, so long as he has absolute and complete control.

For The Thin Red Line I think Malik has a lot to thanks Nick Nolte for. For me he was the best thing about that movie and brought a huge charisma to his scenes even if I remember correctly he wasn't in all that much of it.
Tree of Life and New World I found hit and miss and too tough going which sums him up perhaps, Badlands was brilliant though.

Looking on IMDB he seemed to do nothing for 20 years, anyone know why? Some sort of Mctiernan esque law suit?

Chain Smoker

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm not sure but I think a lot of Clooney's efforts ended up on the cutting room floor, as did a lot of other people like Gary Oldman and Mickey Rourke. 'The Thin Red Line' had an original running time of about 6 hours or something. IIRC, a lot got snipped to try and make it an, even remotely, cinema friendly film. Even then, I still think there's a lot of guff left in the 3 hour picture we have today.

That 6 hour figure is misleading, it was almost certainly a fairly early into post-production workprint. You hear the same thing be said about that 5.5 hour version of Apocalypse Now that's online but it's clearly not a finished product.

Looper007 wrote: »

Christopher Plummer said it best about Malick that he has to oversee everything and he has a habit of re writing his screenplays to the point it ends up been pretentious.

That sounds fairly on the money! He's able to get it down right for some characters (Nolte's voiceover in the Thin Red Line, Brad Pitt's in the Tree of Life) but horrifically wrong for others, women in particular.

Tony EH wrote: »

I think Malik would happily work with anyone, so long as he has absolute and complete control.

Yep, that's about the sum of it all. It definitely sounds like the reason for his 20 years of silence.
I'd say having these actors on the cheap at his disposal certainly gets him a bit extra funding but I wouldn't be sure how much.
Can remember thinking part of the reason he shot two films immediately after Tree of Life was such a critical hit was because he might never find it as easy to get funding to take things off the ground as in that moment.

Deleted User wrote: »

Looking on IMDB he seemed to do nothing for 20 years, anyone know why? Some sort of Mctiernan esque law suit?

Nope, just a ton of projects that never got past pre-production. Mostly due to his own uncompromising nature but a few had extenuating circumstances. It's made into a bit more of a mystery than it probably was.




RE: People magazine's sexiest man in the world 1992, Nick Nolte, I think he's almost always great to be honest. Feel like he gets something of a bad rap for his weird voice and not having a ton of range, but the guy absolutely exudes a certain charisma and is capable of carrying some really weak material by times.

gucci

Zero Dark Thirty

Watched this on Friday night, which was a little unnerving considering when I turned off the play station the news was on and was facing into more terrorist action…..

Anyway back to the movie:
To be honest I remember a lot of chatter about this movie when it came out, obviously people had big expectations with the subject matter and the previous work on Hurt Locker. I found some elements of the film slightly difficult to follow regarding the investigations, but perhaps that was more down to a long week at work and not the fault of the production.
The final phase/climax of the movie is well constructed, and I was very happy to see that it was treated on screen with the same sort of cold hearted ruthless efficient manner that would probably be true to the level of the actual mission. These people are professional killing robots, even when the helicopter crash happened they seemingly don’t blink and just get on with it and finish the job. I am sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but I would imagine it was reasonably accurate. I was glad it didn’t resort to too much high fiving and flag waving(there was no flag waving at all by the way, just some gentle back patting!) and in contrast the final scene was very fitting. The main character sitting alone…..has dedicated her life to the hunt of this man and yet there doesn’t seem to be the joy there you think she was expecting to have felt.
A good solid 7.5/10 movie for me, and something I will give a re watch to again.

Tony EH

Chain Smoker wrote: »

That 6 hour figure is misleading, it was almost certainly a fairly early into post-production workprint. You hear the same thing be said about that 5.5 hour version of Apocalypse Now that's online but it's clearly not a finished product.

Yeh, sure it's a first cut. My point is there are loads of parts involving many actors that simply never appear in the final 3 hour film.

Also, I'm absolutely positive that if he could have got a Once Upon a Time in America - esque 4 hour cinema cut, Malik would take that happily.

Personally, there's too much waffle in the 3 hour version as it is. I think another hour or more would be nearly unwatchable.

Nerdlingr

Carol

Apparently this is gonna win Blanchett another oscar (Or Rooney Mara). I dunno. I heard it got a standing ovation after the credits rolled in Cannes (or wherever). Maybe its beacuse of the "being a lesbian in the 50's/60's theme" that people are drooling over it...I just found it rather bland and plodding. It meanders along to its final conclusion without much drama. Very stylish but lacking substance imo. 6/10

Chain Smoker

Tony EH wrote: »

Yeh, sure it's a first cut. My point is there are loads of parts involving many actors that simply never appear in the final 3 hour film.

Also, I'm absolutely positive that if he could have got a Once Upon a Time in America - esque 4 hour cinema cut, Malik would take that happily.

Personally, there's too much waffle in the 3 hour version as it is. I think another hour or more would be nearly unwatchable.

He pretty much makes his films in the editing room though, I'd rather someone who's willing to cut whole characters in that stage.

Not so sure about the 4 hour thing, the final product for Days of Heaven was only something like 90 minutes long with an extensive editing process. His most recent two are under the two hour mark and Tree of Life, outside of the whole creation section and the ending, was fairly lean imo, especially for something that was being worked on on and off for 30 years. It's also somewhat interesting to note that there is no clear specification of which version (135min, 150min and 170min), if any, of the New World Malick stands by (with the longer version being titled "the Extended Cut" rather than the much stronger title of "Director's Cut"). I can't find anything about him being made to do different edits at any point either.
I reckon if length was something he wasn't conscious of, he'd at least try to get longer versions of his films put out instead of toiling away in the editing room for absolutely ages while everyone's demanding some kind of idea of what he's got.



Honestly though, I'm glad I saw Tree of Life before the Thin Red Line and, especially, To The Wonder. A lot of his approach would likely have grated on me quite a bit otherwise because I'd've seen it before in less effective overall systems for it.
Kind of dread his next two films potentially drifting into perfume ad level silliness.

Sugarlumps

The Redemption of the Devil

Big EODM fan, was looking forward to seeing this. Pretty lackluster, I was hoping for more studio footage. Ordained as a minister segment, got boring real quick.

Psychedelic

Uncanny (2015)
This was similar to Ex Machina, in the story setup - someone visits a reclusive scientist who claims to have developed the most realistic AI. Both films also share a slightly unsatisfying conclusion. The script was clever enough but

within the first few minutes I knew there would have to be a twist and it was very easy to guess that the robot and the scientist were playing opposite roles.

In fairness it played out okay. 7/10

Triangle (2009)
This was a good psychological thriller, with a small cast of Melissa George in the lead and some unknowns. Part slasher horror, part time travel-ish head scratcher. One of those films that's fun to puzzle over during and afterwards. 8/10

The Gift (2015)
Excellent suspenseful thriller, well written, like a Hitchcock film. 8/10

The Fall (2006)
Lovely film this, cinematography is amazing, loads of colour, elaborate sets and costumes. Similar in narrative structure and spirit of The Princess Bride and The NeverEnding Story. 9/10

Ben Hur (1959)
This is a proper classic, some fantastic scenes such as the rowing scene and the famous chariot race. It dragged after the race but overall this was classic filmmaking and storytelling with a bit of everything. 8/10

OldRio

'Bridge of Spies'

A Spielberg film with Tom Hanks and Mark Rylance. A Cold War spy thriller.

I am a great fan of Spy books and films. The Karla trilogy by John Le Carre are all such a wonderful read. The adaptions for the small and big screen have been very good. Alas this is not Le Carre.

Set in 1959 the first part of the film is superb catching the feeling of paranoia in the USA during the Cold War period. Unfortunately when the drama moves to Berlin the story becomes way to 'Hollywood' for my liking.

Very good performance by the two main actors. Rylance in particular.

6.5/10.....Disappointing and easily forgot.