#Once Upon a Crime movie review

[afabstract]

Once Upon a Crime Review - Stage Play Material

2023 Japanese movie "Once Upon a Crime" (Original title: Akazukin, tabi no tochu de shitai to deau) starring Kanna Hashimoto takes two fairy-tales and turns them into a murder mystery. Sounds fun, but is it? Read our spoiler-free review to find out.

⭐⭐ Rating: 2 out of 5. Hahahahaha… what did I just watch?!! Directed by Yûichi Fukuda, the 2023 Japanese movie “Once Upon a Crime” (Original title: Akazukin, tabi no tochu de shitai to deau) takes two classic fairy tales – Little Red Riding Hood and Cinderella – and mashes them into a murder mystery written for ten-year-olds. However, “Once Upon a Crime” is not even child-friendly, thanks to a…

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Michael After Midnight: The Films of Quentin Tarantino

There are few directors out there as ridiculously praised and extremely controversial as Quentin Tarantino. He’s done nothing his whole career but release films that garner critical acclaim and massive fanbases due to the stellar acting and writing within his films, but at the same time he’s been relentlessly criticized for his excessive use of racial slurs, his excessive homages to the point of plagiarism, and his habit of inserting his fetishes into every single one of his movies. What fetishes do I mean? Let’s just say his films have a lot of sole, and it would be no easy feet to go toe-to-toe with how in your face he is about what he likes.

While the man does have his problems (don’t get me started, I’m here to review movies, not gossip) and his style certainly isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, I’ve found myself enjoying his work a lot ever since I was a teenager, and his films are what pushed me into checking out a lot of more obscure films in the exploitation genre; in particular, I’m a pretty big fan of blaxploitation thanks to Tarantino’s work, and I doubt I would’ve ever checked it out if not for his constant homages. I can’t really hate a guy who helped make me aware of Pam Grier, can I?

What’s most impressive is that out of his ten films there’s not one I would say is genuinely “bad.” Sure, there’s at least one I think is a boring, middling affair, and there are a couple of heavily flawed but still solid films, but there isn’t a single awful movie in his filmography. That’s honestly pretty impressive, especially considering the sort of weird throwback films he makes. After finally sitting down and watching Once Upon a Time in Hollywood recently, I decided it was finally time to bite the bullet and do what was a long time coming on this blog: Review Tarantino’s movies. And then I just decided, hey, why not review them all at once, as an homage to Schafrillas Productions and his director rankings? Oho, see, I can homage things too!

To be clear here, I’m only reviewing the films Quentined and Tarantined by the man himself; the “Tarantinoverse” is a bit more expansive than his own filmography, as True Romance (which he wrote) is canon and Machete, Machete Kills, From Dusk Til Dawn, Hobo with a Shotgun, Planet Terror, Thanksgiving, and the Spy Kids movies are all part of the “show within a show” side of his world, but those are all topics for another time. Right now, it’s all Tarantino baby! Now let’s get on to the actual ranking, and pray that I don’t put a foot in my mouth with these opinions.

10. Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood

I feel pretty safe in calling this Tarantino’s worst film. It’s not necessarily awful or anything, it has good qualities to it, but it takes every problem Tarantino’s style has and cranks it up to 11.

The film is long and dialogue-heavy, with lots of that classic Tarantino writing, but while individual scenes are good such as when Leonardo DiCaprio’s character is filming a scene with a little girl or Brad Pitt’s character goes to the ranch the Manson Family are holed up at they never really feel like they congeal into a cohesive narrative, instead feeling more like a long string of vignettes. This is especially bad in regards to Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate, whose numerous scenes really add nothing to the movie but constant looming reminders that Helter Skelter is going to happen and lots of shots of Robbie’s feet. The excessively padded runtime is so bad that when you finally get to the part where the tables are turned on the Manson Family, a historical twist that should feel fun and cathartic, it comes off as too little, too late instead.

It’s really a shame the film is so meandering, because in almost every other aspect it really shines. Every actor is giving it their all; Pitt and DiCaprio are absolutely fantastic, Robbie brings charm even to her filler role, and every single bit part actor is fully committed and leaves a mark. Standouts include Dakota Fanning as the de facto head honcho of the Family when Manson is out and Mike Moh as Bruce Lee in a scene that is at once deeply disrespectful to one of history’s greatest action stars and also very funny. This is a film you can tell everyone involved gave a shit about.

But for me, it’s not enough for me to really love the film. I like a lot about the movie for sure, but I just hate how nothing ever really comes together in a satisfying way. Maybe if a bit of the fat was trimmed I would have a higher opinion of the movie, but as it is three hours of vignettes (even well-acted ones) is truly excessive. It’s mid at worst, but for Tarantino that’s still pretty shocking when everything else he’s done is above average at worst.

9. Death Proof

This is a truly underrated film, but frankly, it’s easy to see why it is that way. This half of the double feature that was Grindhouse is a throwback to films that were actually two movies spliced together, and it has all the issues that entails. The first half of the film is a more grounded, dialogue-heavy buildup to a terrifying conclusion, while the second half is a wild and crazy action and stunt showcase, and the two halves feel at odds with each other…which is by design, but still.

This might be a hot take, but I find the slow burning first half to be the superior part of the film. As much as I love Tarantino’s insane action films, Kurt Russell’s portrayal of the sinister Stuntman Mike is just just utterly gripping; he is easily one of the best villains in Tarantino’s filmography. The whole first half establishes him really well, building up the anxiety until he finally gets to show the girl he leaves with just how well he death proofed his car. He’s just so damn cool.

And then comes the second half where he’s reduced to a bit of a chump. And this probably wouldn’t be nearly as bad if the protagonists up against him were compelling, but they’re not. They’re a bunch of girls who are boring at best and relentlessly unpleasant at worst; the fact they leave behind one of their friends to an uncertain (but likely unpleasant) fate at the hands of a creepy redneck is especially appalling. Beatrix Kiddo they ain’t.

This is a wildly uneven film, so I can see why it didn’t find its audience right away, but I think these days it had garnered a minor cult following. If you can handle the flawed second half, this is still a really good movie with a captivating villain performance that more than makes up for its shortcomings, but I definitely can’t justify putting it any higher on this list.

8. Inglourious Basterds

Oh, this might be a controversial one. This movie is the same sort of beast as OUATIH, which is why I have it so low, but with one crucial difference: It does everything better. Yes, this movie is long and a bit meandering, but it always feels like it’s moving towards a final goal. Yes, it ends with a history-altering plot twist, but this one might be the most cathartic one of all time. And yes, there’s gratuitous feet shots, but at least they’re in plot-relevant scenes.

Of course, the best thing about the movie is the villain, Hans Landa. Christoph Waltz’s big American breakout is one of the most compelling villains of the 2010s, a charismatic, cunning, self-serving Nazi bastard who you really want to see get what’s coming to him. I might be inclined to call him the best Tarantino villain of all time.

I think what weirdly brings the film down is the titular Basterds themselves, and not because they ultimately feel superfluous to the plot; it’s the same sort of thing as Raiders of the Lost Ark, them being absent wouldn’t have changed much but we also wouldn’t have much of an exciting adventure. My issue is that Brad Pitt aside they are just not interesting or compelling at all. You really need to work hard to sell attempted filmmaker Eli Roth as the ultimate Jewish badass, and the film doesn’t really deliver. If only Adam Sandler took the role as was the original vision; we really were robbed. It’s all the worse because it cuts away from the actual compelling plot with Shosanna for these schmucks.

To be clear, I don’t think this is a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, but I find it falls short of the hype around it. I’ve seen it described as movie with a lot of great scenes that never really comes together to be a great movie, and I mostly agree with that assessment; there’s so much to love here, but also so much I don’t care about. It’s definitely worth watching but it’s also where you can see the seeds for the problems with OUATIH planted.

7. The Hateful Eight

This isn’t a Tarantino film held in a particularly high regard; it’s not exactly hated, but it’s not what anyone would call their favorite either. Its contentious nature boils down to something apparent right in the title: Every character in this movie is a fucking asshole. It can be genuinely hard to get invested in these people when they’re a big collection of liars, killers, sadists, criminals, racists, and rapists.

Now, if you can stomach these nasty characters, what you’re left with is “John Carpenter’s The Thing… but a Western!” And I have to admit as a huge fan of The Thing, this is a very solid reimagining of the concept in a grounded setting. I do wish there was any character to root for here, but watching a group of people slowly tearing each other apart in a claustrophobic, isolated setting is still fun to watch. I don’t think it’s nearly as good or insightful as Carpenter’s movie, but very few movies are.

This is definitely a movie I can see people hating more than the previous two films, but I feel like this movie is more consistent than Basterds or Death Proof. Those movies have higher highs, but this movie never hits the lows they do, and even if his character is a massive asshole Samuel L. Jackson is always great to see in a Tarantino flick. Plus that brief appearance from Channing Tatum is great, especially with how it ends. This is a very solid film, but “very solid” is about as high as the praise I’ll give it will get.

6. Reservoir Dogs

Tarantino’s directorial debut, and boy is that readily apparent. It does a good job at establishing hallmarks of his style, like the sorts of conversations his characters have, their love of racial slurs, non-linear storytelling, and his trend of casting himself as a douchey minor character. It does everything fairly well, and I’d go as far as to call it one of the best directorial debuts ever… and that’s about it, really.

Like this is a very good film with strong performances—Michael Madsen and Steve Buscemi being the standouts—but it definitely feels less refined than his later works with the same style. His sophomore film just completely blows this one out of the water, to the point it’s hard to muster up the interest to revisit this as opposed to watching Pulp Fiction for the hundredth time. It’s not that this film is bad; it’s just that Tarantino’s later films do what this one does better.

It’s definitely a good film, maybe even great, but there’s clear room to improve. Hell, there wasn’t a single shot of a woman’s feet in the whole movie! Tarantino was slacking.

5. Kill Bill: Vol. 2

Now we’re in to the really great movies. And yes, while it doesn’t keep up the energy of the first film, I would definitely call this a great movie.

Where the first volume was driven by action, this one is more driven by talking, and thankfully the characters are saying a lot of interesting things here (the standout being Bill’s media illiteracy in regards to Superman, which reveals a lot about his character). There’s also the reveal of Beatrix Kiddo’s name as well as her backstory, and there are some standout moments like Beatrix escaping from being buried alive and the tense final conversation with Bill. Overall, the film does a fantastic job at fleshing the story out and expanding our understanding of the characters.

Like I said, though, it just doesn’t keep up the energy of the first film. Budd is great and serves as a more psychological opponent, burying Beatrix alive as a way to test if she has the resolve to finish her quest for revenge, but both Elle and Bill himself are dealt with in a rather anti-climactic manner. It says a lot that O-Ren, one of Bill’s former lackeys, put up a grander and more impressive fight than her boss did. While I do appreciate the more philosophical approach, it’s hard not to be miffed when a duology called “Kill Bill” doesn’t kill Bill in a more grandiose way befitting the character.

Obviously, I don’t think it brings the film down much, and this is still a good conclusion to the story. I just can’t help but feel it could’ve amped things up just a bit, y’know?

4. Jackie Brown

This is probably the weirdest film in Tarantino’s filmography, being an adaptation of a book that lacks a lot of his usual style and features a lot of people he didn’t work with afterwards (like Robert De Niro and Pam Grier). This has led to a lot of people praising it as one of Tarantino’s best works for being unique among his oeuvre… and also a lot of people deriding it for how different it is from his usual style.

I definitely think it’s up there with his best works, but I don’t think it’s the absolute best. It’s sort of like how I see Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies; they’re great films (well, the first two anyway) but I can’t in good conscience hold them up as the best Batman media because they ultimately lack a lot of what makes me love Batman as a character. And this film lacks a lot of what makes me love a Tarantino movie; it’s a fantastic, realistic crime drama, but that’s not really what I’m watching Tarantino for, you know?

Still, its placement on this list should tell you I still see this as a must-watch. Starring Grier alone makes it worth checking out, and it definitely showcases Tarantino has far more range as a filmmaker than you’d expect.

3. Django Unchained

Right from the opening song, you can tell this is going to be an epic movie. Tarantino truly nailed the Western on his first go around, adding his own spin to the genre and making a truly stellar film. However, it’s not without a few issues.

The main cast is fantastic. We have Christoph Waltz as a noble and heroic abolitionist, an atypical role he pulls off flawlessly; Samuel L. Jackson as a sinister house slave who is all about licking the boot that treads on him; and of course Leonardo DiCaprio as a hammy, egotistical slave owner, a stellar villain role that should have nabbed him an Oscar. Even minor roles are great, with Don Johnson appearing as a plantation owner early on and Jonah Hill of all people popping up as a proto-Klansman.

You might notice I didn’t mention Jamie Foxx as the titular Django. That’s because, unfortunately, he’s a bit of an issue with the film. It’s not Foxx’s performance; he makes Django cool and likable, and his awesome trademark Tarantino roaring rampage of revenge in the third act sells him as a truly badass character. No, the issue is the narrative seems to seriously sideline him in favor of Waltz’s character, to the point for large swaths of the film he feels a bit like a side character in his own story. I don’t find it to be a huge issue, but it can be frustrating, especially since this is a very long movie and a few scenes drag on a bit longer than necessary. You really couldn’t give the title character a bit more to do until the last half hour, Quentin?

Still, I don’t think its issues hold it back all that much. This is an incredibly fantastic film whose highs easily overshadow its frustrating lows. Frankly, if any Tarantino movie deserves a sequel, it would be this one; I think Django has a lot of interesting stories in him, and a film where he actually gets to be the central character the whole time would be great.

2. Kill Bill: Vol. 1

This right here is pretty damn close to being my absolute favorite Tarantino film. Where something like OUATIH is all of Tarantino’s flaws compounded into one film, this is all of his strengths together in one film. Fantastically violent action, stellar casting with not a single weak performance, an awesome soundtrack, tons of great homages to the works that inspired it, non-linear storytelling used effectively, and more style in a single frame than some movies have in their entire runtime.

Frankly, I don’t have a lot of issues with the movie, though I kind of don’t like how all the action is front loaded while all the character insight and dialogue gets shoved into the second part. It’s nothing that makes me think less of either film, but I think maybe sprinkling more insight into who the Bride is in this movie and putting some more action in the second part would keep the sequel from feeling a bit anti-climactic. I also wish we got more of Vernita Green, the first assassin we see dispatched onscreen and the one who gets the least characterization; with a third film increasingly unlikely at this point, meaning we won’t ever see her daughter seek her vengeance, it’s a shame we don’t get at least a little more of a look into who she is as a person like we did with Budd and especially O-Ren.

Aside from that, though? This is Tarantino at his best, and Uma Thurman’s crowning achievement as an actress, one that cements her as action royalty alongside the greats like Schwarzenegger, Stallone, and Weaver. There’s just one film Tarantino did that, objectively, is a much better film, and I’m sure as soon as you saw this ranking you knew exactly what it’d be...

1. Pulp Fiction

Of course this takes the top spot. Was there ever any doubt? This movie is everything Tarantino is about rolled into one supremely satisfying package.

The cast is nothing short of phenomenal. We have Bruce Willis in his prime, we’ve got John Travolta pulling out of a career slump, we’ve got Uma Thurman and Ving Rhames in roles that put them on the map, and we have a veritable buffet of talent in minor roles, the most memorable of which is Christopher Walken telling a child the delightful story of a pocket watch’s journey home from war. There’s not a bad performance here. But of course the real superstar is Samuel L. Jackson, who gave a career-defining performance as Jules, the baddest motherfucker around (it says so on his wallet).

The great performances wouldn’t matter much if not for the great script, though. The dialogue in this film is unreal with how good it is, with characters having very odd yet also very realistic and natural conversations. Jules and Vince discussing burgers, for instance, is one of the most memorable sequences in the film… and it’s just them driving! Some of the writing is a little contentious (did you really need to have your character say the N-word fifty times, Quentin?), but none of it is really bad.

I will say Tarantino as Jimmy is one of my few issues with the film, but also an issue I kind of like anyway. His acting is a wonky and there is genuinely no reason why he should be spouting off all these racial slurs (even in-universe, since his buddy Jules and his wife are black), but the sheer audacity of the whole thing saves it. Still, I can’t help but feel the scene hasn’t aged as gracefully as a lot of the film, and the amateur performance from Tarantino sticks out all the more because he is standing right next to two of the most talented actors ever.

Another aspect of the film I think has aged pretty poorly is the gay hillbilly rapists, but I don’t think this aspect is as cut and dry as “hey maybe the white director who has little acting training shouldn’t play the guy who says the N-word.” On the one hand, having the only queer characters in your movie being depraved rapists is not a good look, though this was par for the course for the 90s. On the other hand, the movie treats Marsellus getting raped with the same level of deadly seriousness that a woman in that position would receive in a film. That’s a pretty bold, progressive plot point, especially since men getting raped (especially male-on-male) was and still is used as a joke. And watching the movie in a day and age with tons of queer characters in media does soften the blow a bit, because these aren’t the only gay characters you’ll see in fiction anymore. I think it’s important to have discussions about these sorts of archaic portrayals of queers in film, but I don’t think this breaks the movie.

In modern times the film has gotten a reputation as a “red flag” film loved by toxic guys, and I think that’s unfair; is it the movie’s fault dudebros fail to see the movie is a refutation of crime and violence? Think about it: The only person in the film who gets an unambiguously happy ending is the one who has a spiritual awakening and abandons his criminal ways to walk the Earth. Every other major character pays in some way for their continued violent ways: Butch goes through Hell and ends up in exile, Marsellus Wallace gets raped, Mia overdoses and nearly dies, and Vince does die. Hell, there’s an entire segment where Jules and Vince are repeatedly chastised for careless violence causing a huge mess; as you may recall, Jules’ pal Jimmy was not too keen to find Phil LaMarr dead in his garage, and had some choice words to say about it. Stupid people see the blood and slurs and take it at face value, but the narrative itself tells these sorts they’re well and truly fucked because when you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Of course, my favorite interpretation of the film is that it is espousing the belief that Beatles fans are superior to Elvis ones, as an extension of Mia’s comment in a deleted scene that you’re either an Elvis person or a Beatles person. Vince is clearly an Elvis guy, and he is presented as an unprofessional, careless buffoon who causes numerous issues and ends up dying due to his own inattentiveness; meanwhile, Jules is vaguely implied to be the proverbial “Beatles guy” (he calls the robber in the diner “Ringo”) and escapes the film unscathed. This is even funnier when you consider that one of Tarantino’s first onscreen roles was as an Elvis impersonator in Golden Girls, something that implies he might be an Elvis guy himself, which would make the film the most epic act of self-deprecation ever.

This is one of the greatest sophomore releases from a director ever, and one of the greatest films of the 90s. This film frequently finds its way to the top of “best films of all time” lists, and with good reason; it is, to this day, just that good. I think there’s a temptation to call any of his other films his magnum opus due to just how acclaimed and pervasive in pop culture this film is, but it got that way for a reason. It is a damn good crime story with all sorts of twists and turns and plenty of stuff for viewers to ruminate on and interpret as they please. Hell, I thought I liked Kill Bill more than it until I rewatched it, but boy does this just blow even that masterpiece out of the water.

If nothing else, the film is incredible for one simple reason: Tarantino managed to insert his foot fetish into the film without it feeling as needlessly gratuitous as it is in some later films! Bravo, Tarantino!

[mellozelle]

Once Upon A Crime, (2023 Netflix)

Appreciated the costume design, cinematography of this film. But the script wasn't as gripping as I hope it to be, and the motive for the murder wasn't much convincing.

I guess this could've been better as a series as Red Riding Hood's adventure. (Kanna Hashimoto as Red Riding Hood is sooo niice!!)

[saturnsaurius]

❣️Little Red Ridinghood❣️

I saw that movie that came out on Netflix a few months ago called “Once upon a crime” it was so good and so weird I loved it sm! I recommend it, if you like murder mystery and fairytales~ I wanted to draw Red because she’s such a cool character in the movie and she’s very pretty 💕 I hope you guys like this fan art I made of her!

.

.

.

.

.

.

#art #digitalart #procreate #drawing #illustration #artstyle #mystyle #myart #artwork #redridinghood #onceuponacrime #fanart #murdermystery #movie #fairytales

[minty-marshmallow]

Once Upon a Crime [Spoiler Warning]

So, this is a retelling of Little Red Riding Hood I assume? I love how overly dramatized Japanese dramas are lol, like why is this woman crackling like that haha?

What a strange lady, and why use magic that you're not even good at lol. Something tells me this was a set up though. So, who is this lady? Why is she out here in the forest like that? Oh, so it's Cinderella.

Little Red is quite observative and smart though.

[I also just realized this is a movie and not a series lol]

Yo, is she crying or laughing? (actors/actresses who can't really cry are annoying to be honest lol but whatever) Wait, she's supposed to be ugly? The actress is so pretty though.

OMG, the step-sister just killed the pigeon like that!? That's crazy!

So the dresses will run out of magic before the shoes do though. I wonder if that will be important? Maybe, it will play out with how the original fairytale goes, and that's how the prince finds Cinderella.

Why is the mouse man laughing like that? That's so ominous. Dang, that just scared me lol what did they hit? Oh...shit they hit a person...is he dead? I mean I guess that's what you get when you let a mouse drive a carriage.

Well, he is dead, but they didn't kill him. So I wonder who did? Poor Cinderella does have a good heart she wants to report it but Little Red doesn't want her to miss the ball. Also why she gotta make an evil face like that?

Well, their dresses really stand out, don't they? I guess the witch didn't get the dress code memo haha. Oh, Margot isn't there, I wonder if she committed the crime? What woman that disappeared?Also, the prince is quite handsome.

Oh no, the body was found and they're probably going to be accused. Little Red is right though, they can't just leave because that's just like seeming guilty.

Well, at least they are doing a pretty good investigation I suppose. Naw, that's too easy of a theory for a movie bruh lol. I don't think Anne did it. Plus, we're not even halfway through the movie yet.

So Han wasn't even really a good guy, he was kind of a jerk. So Anne was sneaking around though lol, but I told you she didn't do it. I don't think the Prince did either though. Okay, so he threw the crown away...so what lol. [I love Japanese shows they're so funny to be honest]

Aww, he really loved the maid. I wonder why she left though? The king says it wasn't because of him, so I wonder why. Look, Little Red does have bad timing but she's got a point. They need to move on with the actual investigation, not try and fix their father/son relationship at the moment. It's good that he didn't give him the mirror. I feel bad that his own father accused him of killing Hans though. I genuinely feel like he wouldn't do that. I mean he might have been upset about being blackmailed and stuff but I don't think he seems like the kind to kill.

Oh, evidence is piling up against him though. Oh is that creepy person that snuck in, is that the missing maid? Hold on, why is the stepmother trying to divert the blame back to the prince? Didn't she want Anne to marry the prince? So why is she trying to put the blame back on him but discounting this lady's testimony?

Lol, that was so quick. Little Red is smart though. But also I think she's just lucky too because she just happened to find the bramble from his clothing. Anyway, I hope that the creepy lady is the maid and that she and the prince can get married.

Okay, so they didn't solve the murder and he's just letting everyone go. Their magic is about to run out lol. I wonder if the prince is going to end up with Cinderella or the maid? If the stepmother doesn't shut up about her daughter Anne...good grief.

So she did leave her shoe like in the story. So, the magic doesn't run out if it's not on her person? Oh, wait...the shoes will last for 24 hours. I forgot that part.

Ah ha, I knew it! I said I thought Margot did it. However, she says it's an accident. Okay, so someone hit her and then set her up to make her look like the killer. This is very interesting.

Well, Little Red didn't lie. She never said she would help her. Margot just kept spilling out the truth. That's a piece of a glass slipper, right? Plus I knew she didn't actually kill Hans.

Wait, what did she figure out? Because I'm kind of confused.

Aww, the prince came to find Cinderella just like in the story. Okay, look in the back of my head I was wondering if Cinderella killed him. Now, I'm bout to find out how and why. Well, I mean I still don't think she intentionally meant to kill him. She didn't want her hair cut and the dude was really creepy. However, I guess it was worse to try and cover it up.

I feel bad for Cinderella though. She did kill him but I don't think she meant to. Aww, I'm glad it was Remi and I'm glad that the prince and her got to reconcile and get married.

So, they gonna make this into a series or what? lol I'd like to see more.

[bob-the-movie-man-film-reviews]

"Flickering Dreams" Ep. 30: Reviews of Past Lives, Haunting in Venice, My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3, Nun II & Once Upon a Crime.

Episode 30 of the Flickering Dreams podcast and the team review Past Lives, A Haunting in Venice, My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3, The Nun II and Once Upon a Crime,

In Episode 30 of Flickering Dreams I’m joined by Andy Godfrey of Sorted Magazine and Konnect Radio, Scott Forbes of The Forbes Film and TV Review and Emma Sewell of Emma@TheMovies on Twitter. In this episode Bob, Scott, Emma and Andy review the following films: Past Lives: The stunning directorial debut of Celine Song; Haunting in Venice: Kenneth Branagh’s latest outing as Hercule Poirot; My…

[warningsine]

Murder mysteries usually present the offense at their center as a puzzle to be solved. There’s a reason the genre and its true crime sisters are often called “whodunits.” And that approach can work, building intricate illusions that are deeply satisfying when revealed a la “The Usual Suspects” or “Only Murders in the Building,” to name two popular titles with wildly different tones.

But this mystery-first approach obscures something essential about their ostensible subject of murder: Its human cost. Based on Rebecca Godfrey’s book by the same name and premiering on Hulu on April 17th, “Under the Bridge” captures the tragedy of homicide in a way very few of its peers have even attempted. It’s a devastating tale of development cut short as it follows 14-year-old Reena Virk and the classmates who last saw her alive in Victoria, British Columbia.

“Under the Bridge” accomplishes this feat by purposefully putting Reena at its center. She’s not a nameless body or a learning tool for anyone else. She’s an imperfect girl who’s trying to navigate her parents’ Jehovah's Witness expectations and her own desires to rebel and fit in. She does at least one terrible thing and makes a lot of bad choices. But she’s also relatable and sympathetic, a girl who never gets out of that teenage feeling of being lost.

Riley Keough plays a wounded and perceptive Godfrey, a journalist who returns to her hometown to write a book about the teens there. She quickly stumbles into the investigation surrounding Reena’s death. More than once, we hear Rebecca say she wants to honor Reena’s life by giving readers a sense of who she was before she died. And the show puts those proclamations to work, regularly having Reena take up the frame. There are plenty of flashbacks, detailing the events that lead up to her death, yes, but also her family history, her musical tastes, her friendships, and her misjudgments.

While we see Reena choose a brutal peer group, “Under the Bridge” is clear that what happened was not Reena’s fault but rather because of the choices of teens caught in a system that happily throws them away. And from there, the tragedy just ripples out, touching nearly everyone in “Under the Bridge” and their real-life doppelgangers.

The show delves into the psyche of teenage bullying, not as some sort of freak show or grotesquery, but rather as another facet of this tragedy. “Under the Bridge” amplifies its tone in early episodes through Chloe Guidry’s Josephine Bell, her queen bee overconfidence powering some laughs and a lot of plot points, but the show also depicts a handful of moments when Josephine’s bravado falls, revealing the scared girl underneath. Javon 'Wanna' Walton as Warren, the lone boy wrapped up in this tragedy, is heartbreakingly sympathetic. And Aiyana Goodfellow as Dusty brings the perspective of the other girl of color, showing how both girls were struggling with an extra set of challenges bravely but imperfectly.

The teens fill up the screen–their petty grievances, faltering alliances, and lack of control forming the building blocks of this death–but, like the sun, it hurts to look directly at them. So “Under the Bridge” gives us a set of grown-ups, acting as foils of sorts. There’s Reena’s mom, Suman, played with a devastating surety by Archie Panjabi; Rebecca guiding us through the story; and her high school friend Cam (Lily Gladstone), who’s now the local cop leading the murder investigation.

Following on the heels of her Oscar nomination for “Killers of the Flower Moon,” Gladstone is the marquee performer in this show, and she brings a tender earnestness to her role. “Under the Bridge” is purposeful about Cam’s identity too, touching upon aspects of Indigenous history that a lesser show would fumble or ignore. But she doesn’t outshine her co-stars like she arguably did in Scorcese’s history lesson. Here, her Indigeneity doesn’t mark her as the bearer of the worst tragedies but rather as part of a damaged and damaging society.

Both Rebecca and Cam see themselves in these teens, having lost Rebecca’s brother when they were growing up in Victoria. They recast that death onto the current one, creating a sad house of mirrors where the guilt spreads out like blood from a fatal stab wound. In fact, perhaps the most devastating line in a show full of them is when Rebecca tells Suman, “I would like to believe that when something tragic happens, it can make you more able to see the beauty that’s still left in the world. That didn’t happen for me but I hope that happens for you.”

With moments like this, “Under the Bridge” offers an unblinking look at the ways we fail each other and, perhaps more importantly, ourselves. This is a tale of how sins can haunt the living, long after the dead have gone cold. How gender, race, and privilege can increase or dissipate the consequences we face, and how that unjust system makes everything worse.

There is some healing in “Under the Bridge” but that path is narrow and incomplete. Instead, it is that pain that lingers. The pain and the call for us to better protect young people from themselves and the systems we’ve built that see them as disposable.

[greensparty]

Blu-ray Review: A Simple Plan

Prior to the late 90s, Sam Raimi was already established for his genre work, especially the Evil Dead trilogy, but when he adapted Scott B. Smith’s 1993 novel A Simple Plan, it was a thriller filled with Shakespearean turns and really showed how skilled Raimi is with actors. It had elements of Raimi's genre skills here and there, but it was a awards-season dramatic thriller that garnered two Oscar nominations including Billy Bob Thornton for Best Supporting Actor. A few years ago when I did my Top Sam Raimi Movies, I named it my #2 Sam Raimi Movie! Now the 1998 film A Simple Plan that I saw opening weekend in the movie theater and have been a big fan of since, is getting a special blu-ray release from Arrow Video.

the 2024 Arrow edition

Set in rural Minnesota, Hank (Bill Paxton) is a local bookkeeper with a pregnant wife Sarah (Bridget Fonda), a local librarian. Hank goes for a drive with his dim-witted older brother Jacob (Thornton), who brings along his redneck friend Lou (Brent Briscoe). They chase a fox into the woods and stumble upon a crashed airplane under snow that appears to have some dead bodies in it and a bag with $4.4 million. They devise a plan to keep the money safe at Hank's house and sit on it until the Spring once they know it's safe to split it evenly amongst the three. Of course this is a simple plan that goes horribly wrong as crimes begin happening.

theatrical movie poster

This film raised a lot of questions about how far will you go for money and will it be worth it in the end. There is a lot going on here in terms of each character having their own motivations and how they coerce others to go along with their agenda. Sarah is clearly a reference to Lady Macbeth, convincing Hank to take action to protect their money that could come in time for their growing family. Jacob wants more than anything to get back to the family farm and if Hank can give him that, he'll go along with whatever plan there is for the money. Hank sees himself as a little smarter and above much of the townies including Jacob and Lou, but that doesn't change this opportunity that's fallen into his lap and the possibilities that cause him to go down a destructive path. This was a serious big swing for Raimi in proving how skilled he is at drama and not just a genre director. But it is always cool to see that old-school Evil Dead Raimi slip into his non-horror films, i.e. a massive gunshot in this. There's a very clear connection to Fargo, directed by Raimi's friends and early collaborators The Coen Brothers. Similar in that they are both film noirs set in the wintry Midwest. Only here there's no humor the way that the Coens intercut the noir with laughs. The ending of this is devastating in it's tragedy of one man's quest for the American Dream. Still guts me away each time I see it. In terms of the new Arrow DVD, there's some cool features here including featurettes with supporting cast and some commentaries from critics Glenn Kenney and Farran Smith Nehme and production designer Patrizia von Brandenstein with filmmaker Justin Beahm. There's some interviews and old on-set features too. This is an underrated film that deserves the massive DVD treatment!

For info on Arrow's A Simple Plan

5 out of 5 stars

[zaffreberries]

Have you ever started reading something and become utterly and irrevocably enthralled by it? Unable to stop reading, losing hours of your time in devotion to the story played out amongst these fictional characters? To have your whole world subtly shift until the only way to get back to a sense of normalcy is to finish the story. That’s what happened to me with “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo”.

I was initially intrigued by the movie trailer, it starred Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig as the main characters and was released in 2011. I hadn’t watched the movie when it was first released, nor did I realise it was based off of a book (let alone a series), I just was looking for crime noir movies to watch and stumbled upon it. Then I found out it was based on a book and I wanted to read the book first before watching the movie. All the reviews had praised the movie in various ways but every review of the millennium trilogy of books spoke of how amazing the series was. My interest had been piqued, my attention was given and so I set out to read this book series.

As soon as I started reading I was obsessed. I barely looked at anything else but the screen of my kindle, I needed to know what happened next. Time happened to fall away as I lost myself in the unfolding story. Thankfully I had gotten the omnibus because I wasn’t sated with just reading the first book. I had finished it that day and I needed more. I yearned for more and could do little else but let myself become lost amongst the story. Some times it’s hard to stay focused on a book when reading, but not this. This, if anything, was the reverse. I couldn’t focus on anything but the story. These fictional characters, mikael and lisbeth, their lives were more important than my own. I cant emphasise how easy it was to read this book. I barely took breaks to eat and sleep, for me the story, the unfolding mystery and resulting drama were all the nourishment I needed. The first book quickly fell away to the second and by the third day I had finished the original trilogy and needed to catch up on sleep and eating. I was sated, I was nourished and I was at peace with the world once more, able to function and live like a normal person without my mind being drawn helplessly back to this fictional place.

Now unfortunately we come to a problem. To elaborate upon the series and its contents and why this problem effects me and why I am choosing to make a point of it, we need to establish a few things. First and foremost is that this book is about feminism. The original title of the book in Swedish is “Män som hatar kvinnor” which translates to English as “Men who hate Women” and a significant theme of this book is about violence against women. Another theme is the noted moral bankruptcy of big capital. Whilst this book focuses predominantly on the Swedish community neither of the themes expressed are unknown to anyone around the world, especially women. Secondly is that Stieg Larsson was a reporter and a noted feminist and his work was on far left journalism and Stieg died of a heart attack in 2004 and his Millennium trilogy was released posthumously. This is where the problem begins. For safety reasons relating to his work on writing about far right extremism Stieg didn’t marry his partner Eva Gabrielsson and he hadn’t updated his will in many years (clearly an oversight). This led to a situation where his possessions were given to his immediate family over his partner, including the rights to the book series. What followed was a he said/she said situation in which his partner Eva who he collaborated with in making the books, was denied any further involvement in the handling and decision making progress of the now best selling series. Eva had in her possession an unfinished manuscript of the fourth book in the series and even offered to finish the series, Stieg’s brother and Father who had control of his estate through legal means were disputing creative control of his literary works. At one point, Larsson's father and brother offered Gabrielsson roughly $3.3 million, but she continues to fight for the literary rights of Larsson's work to this day. Since legally they had control of his works they instead worked with the publisher and a decision was made to continue Stieg’s Millennium series without his or his partners blessing by hiring a new writer to write new books.

I’m not Swedish, I have never met any of these people in my life, nor spoken to them, I don’t speak Swedish and I haven’t been to Sweden. My information is coming from third hand sources who I choose to believe have accurately translated the ongoing issue. Plain and simply I am not a good source of knowledge or information on this issue, I do not have solid facts and this is not verified information and I implore you to investigate this issue yourself. I don’t have any firm idea on who is morally right in this situation or what the whole truth is. I do know that legally it is right that more books were and will be published. But morally…in my opinion (that no one asked for) this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I haven’t read the sequels to the trilogy, I refuse to. It’s not as simple as a “I refuse to pay for this” kind of stand where I would just go and get the books through “other” means which is customary for when a writer of quality is shown to be lacking in morals. No instead this is something that hits different. It doesn’t feel right. Eva lived with Stieg for 30 years. She knew his mind. She knows him best, knows what he would have wanted and there is something tragically ironic about the whole situation in which a feminist writer dies and the literary control of his feminist book series about a left journalist and hacker who go right wrongs, to two men over his partner of over 30 years in a legal dispute and was immediately whored out for profit by the company. It is the kind of thing that the characters in the book would have been disgusted with, would have fought against. It to me is against the very spirit of the book.

*Sigh*

So for me this means the door is closed. My favourite book series ends in a different sort of tragedy. Whilst the original trilogy itself had an ending that is satisfactory, to know there is more (from a certain point of view) to know there could have been more and to have that not being realised, it doesn’t feel good. One of life’s unfortunate unfinished dreams becomes another of my dalliances into the realm of “what if”.

[geenawrites]

[Letterboxd Review, 8/30/23]

Blue Beetle was a 2006 comic book title I kinda stumbled upon back in 2010. DC Comic's answer to Spider-Man, while nowhere near such aged heights, was the best bit of reading I got from a pre-Nu52 era DC. He's a character I've wanted to see on the big screen as much as Milestone Comics' Static Shock, but the current era of comic book films had me praying the opposite. That no one would touch my guy, and he would remain safe in obscurity.

Then I saw Charm City Kings, and they tentatively won me over. As far as debut works go, CCK at the very least convinced me the director (Ángel Manuel Soto) would understand Jaime as a character, even if the executives didn't.

So, yeah, I've been waiting to see this film since I saw Charm City Kings, and the use of Meek Mill ("Uptown Vibes") in the last trailer sent me into the stratosphere with hype. I watched that trailer to death.

Much like Mutant Mayham (TMNT), Blue Beetle was some good-ass fun. I aint get half the jokes that weren't explained (like the soap opera they reffed twice, lmao), but the jokes landed more than not (and for once the tone felt balanced, even the very melodramatic moments).

Blue Beetle is geeky as hell and revels in it. From the questionably synthy soundtrack to Buster sword send-up. My boy damn near goes Super Sayain and pulls off a Kamehameha on the bad guy. I loved every moment.

There were stories about how the greater story was a commentary on American interventionism, most of which is wrapped up in Susan Sarandon's Victoria Kord. Kord hides practical slavery, child exploitation, and war crimes behind white feminism (her entitlement to her family's corporation and suffering industry sexism). The character is flatly antagonistic, unfeeling, and casually racist. She plays it with ease and clearly appeared to enjoy chewing the scenery.

I've never seen Cobra Kai, but Jaime Reyes's actor (Xolo Mariduena) was such an excellent choice for the character. I want to see more of him.

I cannot recommend this movie enough. Check it out, and give the 2006 trade paperback series a read, too. Also, watch Charm City Kings.

[pokemoncenter]

I am going to review the movie I saw yesterday. I suppose this is where I should warn for full spoilers for the movie, I suppose? The movie is Ronin of the Earth.

The movie begins with the main character, a nameless ronin, entering a small village, Kusanomura, in the state of Aoba, accompanied only by their young Cubone companion. They ask for lodgings, but have no money, offering to work for their stay instead. The innkeeper tells them they may stay, but they have to leave early the next day, before they are discovered.

In the night, the ronin and Cubone are awoken by a fire. Bandits had heard of an extra head arriving, and demanded taxes for the ronin- Fifty thousand zeni. The ronin, of course, simply defeated the bandits with powerful strikes, while Cubone watched. The bandits fled, but warned that the shogun would hear of this defiance.

Talking to the innkeeper, the ronin learned that the state of Kaen had been on an expansionist streak, conquering all the lands around- Izumi, Kigan, and Daichi had all fallen already, and it seemed Kaen would become the masters of all the land, by burning all dissidents.

There are scenes interspersed throughout the movie where the ronin trains with their sword, and watching them, the Cubone trains with its bone in the same motions.

In the second act, a great samurai comes to try to attack Kusanomura to defeat the ronin, and the ronin can only win by using their secret technique, a slash so powerful it erupts into flames. The samurai then recognizes this technique, the signature of the former general of Kaen, Homuramaru.

It is revealed that the ronin was formerly Kaen's greatest warrior after all. The ronin, Homuramaru, led the campaign against Daichi despite her own misgivings. However, witnessing the destruction caused by her own forces, including the death of a Marowak, she turned against her own side to protect the infant Cubone left behind. Abandoning her nation, her honor, and even her own name, she became a nameless ronin roaming the land.

Hearing of the traitorous Homuramaru, the shogun musters all his forces to descend upon Kusanomura to destroy the village along with the ronin. Standing against them, alone, Homuramaru does her best to defend it, but is forced to sacrifice her life to protect Cubone. There, she tells the Cubone that she never gave it a name, due to feeling unworthy as one who had cast aside her own name, but with her dying breath, gives Cubone the name Gou'u.

Gou'u then stands alone in front of the oncoming soldiers who plan to destroy Kusanomura, and, using his bone, uses the same technique as Homuramaru. But rather than flames, the slash instead projects the power of the earth, destroying the army in one attack, as rain falls to douse the fires.

One year later, Gou'u, now a Marowak, sits in front of a nameless grave adorned only with a sword. His slash seemingly revitalized the earth around the burned Kusanomura, and the city has been rebuilt into the beautiful Hananomura, a city of flowers. But once the city has been rebuilt, with his bone and Homuramaru's sword at his side, he departs from the city to continue to wander as a ronin.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. The core of the movie was not the action scenes nor the set pieces, but the quiet bond of the ronin and the Cubone, as well as the ronin's guilt for her past crimes. The emotional nature of the movie culminated in an illogical 'miracle' in the end with Cubone's attack, but I did not mind.

It was overall, a very good movie.

[yuexuan]

[Review] 大觉醒

Title: 大觉醒 Great Awakening

Author: 颜凉雨

Length: 166 chapters + 6 extras

Tag: Modern, school, slice-of-life, sci-fi

Summary:

Hu Lingyu, Animal Control Bureau North China Branch General Administrative Office, Civilian Clerk, length of service: three years, family: red fox. 

Lu Qi, Animal Control Bureau North China Branch Operations Brigade, Captain, length of service: three years, family: sika deer.

A red fox working as an office clerk = a normal path in life.

A deer working as the captain of the operations brigade = are you fucking kidding me!?

Lu Qi was just such a dazzling existence. 

After the establishment of the Animal Control Bureau, he was the first deer in the operations brigade, and the first one to be promoted to captain within just three years. Not only that, he had established his authority among subordinates from ferocious families (including but not limited to jackals, wolves, tigers, leopards, raptors, and venomous snakes).

As a fellow graduate from the same year and same university, Hu Lingyu was proud of this, despite the two of them not having any interactions in university or in the Animal Control Bureau, so much so that Captain Lu didn’t even know who he was. 

During an operation to arrest a criminal group responsible for drugs related to genetic modification, Hu Lingyu was transferred there to help the operation brigade in the outer perimeter. However, he accidentally found the escape scene of a key criminal member. Then, he was hurled into the ocean from a clifftop.

No one knew what he saw before he died.

Would you believe the captain of the operation brigade was helping the criminal escape!?

Would you believe that the group of key criminal members were acting respectful towards Lu Qi!?

Hu Lingyu: A perfect character does not exist in this world. If there is a deer, and his appearance is extraordinary, his temperament refined, he is gentle and peaceful, and he has incredible combat power, then he must be a criminal.

Upon waking up from falling into the ocean, Hu Lingyu had returned in time by seven years.

North China Branch Fourth Wild Awakening University, first year student, Hu Lingyu: ???

What would I do if I was accidentally reborn?

Of course it was to seize the opportunity to catch the criminals in one fell swoop, so that the light of righteousness can shine…

Wild Awakening teacher: Hu Lingyu, you’re the only one in your grade who didn’t pass your Wild Power Examination.

Biology teacher: Hu Lingyu, you’re the only one who didn’t submit your review of the movie “the Awakened Planet” that I have assigned.

Wildlife tracking teacher: Hu Lingyu, about your assignment regarding “the similarities and difference of fox and wolf paw prints”...

The office fox who was used to drinking tea everyday and doing nothing: I don’t want to be the light of righteousness, please arrange my graduation immediately (Tired).

Novel

Comments **contains spoiler**

This is the sequel to “Dense Fog”, sharing the same setting where humans have awakened animal abilities and traits. By this time, the world has gotten used to these new changes and developed courses that are relevant to each animal family. Hu Lingyu is transported back in time after he is thrown off a cliff during an operation, whereupon he begins to approach Lu Qi while in university to prevent the other from walking down the path of criminal-hood. 

Part slice-of-life (with all sorts of weird animal-related examinations and after school activities) and part crime and mystery, the novel follows Hu Lingyu and Lu Qi’s developing relationship and their efforts to root out the members of the criminal organization. 

Highlights

As with many of Yan Liangyu’s novels, this is another comedic read. The first part can be a bit slow, focusing mainly around Hu Lingyu returning back in time and trying to remember what happened during his university years. But once the examination starts, the pace of the story picks up and becomes more engaging. Also, as with many of the author’s works, the supporting cast of characters are fun to read about. From a bully jaguar who secretly harbors a crush on Hu Lingyu, to the latter’s best friend who has the best notes in class, each of the characters are goofy and likeable. 

I prefer this to the prequel since it has an element of mystery in it too. Just who is the mastermind behind the development and distribution of the illegal drugs, and the murder of Lu Qi’s parents? And just where did they get the ingredients for developing the drugs? For the longest time, I suspected Hu Lingyu’s parents of being scientists who work on stones harboring remnants of the Great Fog, given the secretive nature of their work. But turns out they are pretty insignificant to the story lol. 

Another thing that I like is how witty Hu Lingyu is. He might not have the physical prowess to excel in his class, but he has the streets smart and wit to help him through different challenges.

Overall an enjoyable read and would highly recommend to anyone looking for something light with a smattering of mystery in it.

[lawtistic]

My review of the horror movies I've seen so far

I've NEVER been a horror person. Then I started getting into true crime, then more horror based topics and horror games, so a while ago I decided that I'd watch horror movies. I haven't watched everything on my list, yet, but this is my opinion on the movies I've seen so far.

Note that I'm kind of sensitive, and I generally don't like gore. I'm also prone to nightmares (although under very specific situations) and paranoia. I'll detail whether the movies had any effect on me on those regards.

Saw (2004)

Times I covered my eyes: 0

Nightmares? Yes

Paranoia? No

Twist Rating: 10/10

Overall Rating: 8/10

Scare Rating: 2/5 - A little scary

Rewatchable? I find Saw very rewatchable. However, some limitations when it comes to rewatching may be needed so you don't tire of it. Although, this is the case for many movies.

Scream (1996)

Times I covered my eyes: 2

Nightmares? No

Paranoia? Yes

Twist Rating: 8/10

Overall Rating: 7/10

Scare Rating: 2/5 - A little scary

Rewatchable? Scream is a movie that I'd say is an obligation to rewatch to get the full effect of the twist. More than twice, even. It's fun and there's many hidden details that you'll notice upon rewatches.

Black Christmas (1974)

Times I covered my eyes: 0

Nightmares? No

Paranoia? No

Twist Rating: 4/10

Overall Rating: 8/10

Scare Rating: 2/5 - A little scary

Rewatchable? I'd claim that Black Christmas is only rewatchable on an annual basis. Maybe twice. Despite the enjoyability of the movie, it can be easy to tire of.

Halloween (1978)

Times I covered my eyes: 0

Nightmares? No

Paranoia? Yes

Twist Rating: 1/10

Overall Rating: 5/10

Scare Rating: 3/5 - Kind of scary

Rewatchable? Maybe once or twice.

Candyman (1992)

Times I covered my eyes: 0

Nightmares? No

Paranoia? Yes

Twist Rating: 5/10

Overall Rating: 7/10

Scare Rating: 4/10 - Pretty scary

Rewatchable? I find that due to the convoluted plot and length of the movie, it's hard to rewatch. But it's harmless to rewatch it once in a while.

Carrie (1976)

Times I covered my eyes? 0

Nightmares? No

Paranoia? No

Twist Rating: N/A

Overall Rating: 5/10

Scare Rating: 1/5 - Not scary

Rewatchable? Every once in a while

[365days365movies]

31 (Films) to Life: End of Year Round-Up I

Well, here we are: the start of another year of movies!

Geez, 2022 was interesting. Changed up the format from doing daily films and monthly genres, and focused mostly on films in one genre: crime. Aimed for 31 films, and out of that goal hit...24. Which, honestly, not too shabby. Didn't get as many reviews out as intended, but that is honestly OK. Was a busy-as-hell year for me, so I'm pretty well satisfied.

So, what did I see last year, exactly? Well, this post is about to be a round-up, which includes the films I wrote about, and the ones I didn't get the chance to. And at the end, I'll get into my plans for 2023. So, before I hit the "Keep Reading" button, here's the full list of crime films I saw in 2022.

M (1931); directed by Fritz Lang

The Maltese Falcon (1941); directed by John Huston

The Third Man (1949); directed by Carol Reed

Rashomon (1950); directed by Akira Kurosawa

The Killing (1956); directed by Stanley Kubrick

Cool Hand Luke (1967); directed by Stuart Rosenberg

The Italian Job (1969); directed by Peter Collinson

The Godfather (1972); directed by Francis Ford Coppola

Chinatown (1974); directed by Roman Polanski)

Dog Day Afternoon (1975); directed by Sidney Lumet

Taxi Driver (1976); directed by Martin Scorcese

Scarface (1983); directed by Brian de Palma

Once Upon a Time in America (1984); directed by Martin Scorcese

Thelma and Louise (1991); directed by Ridley Scott

Reservoir Dogs (1992); directed by Quentin Tarantino

Casino (1995); directed by Martin Scorcese

Heat (1995); directed by Michael Mann

The Usual Suspects (1995); directed by Bryan Singer

L.A. Confidential (1997); directed by Curtis Hanson

American Psycho (2000); directed by Mary Harron

Catch Me if You Can (2002); directed by Stephen Spielberg

Monster (2003); directed by Patty Jenkins

The Departed (2006); directed by Martin Scorcese

Zodiac (2007); directed by David Fincher

And there you have it! Now, this upcoming short set of summaries (behind the Keep Reading wall) may be a little too long for one post, so we'll split it up a little bit. But in any case, let's get this started!

M (1931), dir. Fritz Lang - 92%

This one, you can check out my full recap and essay about if you're curious, but here's the summary: I loved this movie. Lorre's brilliant as the titular killer, the simple story is well-constructed and effective, the ending is beautiful, and the film as a whole is so impactful. Direction and shot composition is top-notch, the sound and music usage is genuinely revolutionary (having essentially invented the leitmotif), and while it's not the most iconic-looking film, it's still brilliant. PLEASE check this movie out if you haven't already.

The Maltese Falcon (1941), dir. John Huston - 92%

Holy shit, I forgot I tried writing that whole review in noir-speak. Anyway, here's another classic film that I really like! Haven't seen many noir films, especially prior to this year, but this was a great one to start with. Definitely the prototypical noir detective movie, complete with Bogart's private eye, Astor's dangerous love interest, and the twists and turns that come with the genre. Beautifully shot, excellent plot and writing, wonderful music, and great acting. No complaints; check this one out.

The Third Man (1949); dir. Carol Reed - 96%

Holy shit, this movie! Absolutely my favorite Orson Welles performance, and that very much includes Citizen Kane. He's extremely good in this movie, which is a sort of non-traditional noir in a number of ways. The cast is perfect, from Cotten to Valli to Howard to Welles (especially the last one). Plot is perfect, and contains more twists than I know what to do with. Directing is great, if a little overly-tilted at times. Production and art design is beautiful. Music is...a lot of zither music. It's...it's a LOT of zither music. As I'm typing this, the score is BACK IN MY HEAD, and I haven't seen this film in 10 months. Let that shit sink in. And yeah, watch this movie, ASAP, please. You won't regret it, I promise you that.

Rashomon (1950); dir. Akira Kurosawa - 100%

It's a perfect movie. A trope-maker, and revolutionary film in its own right, this movie...dear shit, this fuckin' movie. No words. Nothing needed. Just trust me when I say watch this film immediately. It's stellar. Man, I hit a lot of bangers early on this year.

The Killing (1956); dir. Stanley Kubrick - 90%

First of all, before anything else...fuck Sherry. And secondly, this movie is a great one, too. Still have more Kubrick movies to watch, but this one was absolutely worth it. Nail-biting and anxiety-inducing, yes, but also with one of the strongest plots I've seen thus far this year. A fantastic heist movie, it's only real weak points are a kinda normal production and art design, and sorta forgettable music. Other than that, it's an amazing film that people don't talk about. And, honestly, they really should. Check this one out if you're into heist movies and classic films!

Cool Hand Luke (1967); dir. Stuart Rosenberg - 90%

First one of these I didn't post a review on! And honestly...yeah, I'm OK with that. This Paul Newman vehicle is complicated to describe. On one hand, it's an interesting character study full of interesting characters. Newman's Luke is a great example of a rebellious character forced to face consequences for his actions, only to revert to his original nature, Frog and the Scorpion style. It's technically a trope-originator in that way, or at least a major trope-definer. And with a number of interesting supporting characters, especially George Kennedy's Dragline and Struther Martin's Captain, this is a surprisingly memorable movie...in some ways.

But it also...isn't that memorable? Don't get me wrong, there are a number of moments that come to mind in my head, as well as some shots and compositions that are great (the sunglasses of the Captain come to mind immediately), but it's also not exactly Lawrence of Arabia. Rosenberg and Hall are fantastic as director and cinematographer, for sure, but not always the most memorable and iconic. Also...there's the car wash scene. Like, I get the point of that scene, but it definitely cuts through the tone in a way that puts a weird taste in my mouth. Is it an effective scene for what it's trying to do? Um...yeah. Very, very much so. Possibly TOO much, in fact. And I realize that this is a huge nitpick that shouldn't make me give points off for editing, but it speaks to a weirdly inconsistent tone in some places. That scene isn't the only example of that, is all I'm saying. Still, excellent film, check it out if you're into prison movies.

The Italian Job (1969); dir. Peter Collinson - 92%

Holy shit, this movie is fun! I genuinely love this film so much, even if it has its flaws here and there. Other than being a movie that was absolutely made at the cusp of the 1970s, it's one of the most British heist films I've ever seen. And that's not a bad thing in the slightest, believe me. But, it may be an acquired taste for some. But that said, here are the main things to know. This is a British heist film that stars Michael Caine and features a lot of car tricks, as well as one of the most iconic film endings of all time. And that about covers it. Michael Caine is the most Michael Caine you'll ever see him, and if you ever wondered why he was cast as Austin Powers' father in Goldmember, this movie will make you understand why. Supporting cast is also very good, but everyone takes a passenger seat to the car stunts, which are some of the best care stunts I've ever seen on film. If you want Ocean's Eleven with cars, this is the movie for you. Love this one.

The Godfather (1972); dir. F. F. Coppola - 100%

Cliché? Absolutely. The obvious choice to praise universally? For sure. The most mainstream, boring, dull, basic bitch film I could possibly like? Yeah. Yeah. BUT I DON'T GIVE A SHIT, BECAUSE IT'S FLAWLESS. Even if I didn't think this movie was essentially perfect, there isn't really anything I can say was wrong with this movie, in my inexperienced opinion. Cast and acting? Perfect. Plot and writing? Twisted and perfect. Direction? Iconic and perfect. Production design? Immersive and perfect. Music and editing? I CAN HEAR THE THEME SONG RIGHT FUCKING NOW, THIS MOVIE IS PERFECT. And you gotta understand, I put off watching this movie for YEARS because I thought it was gonna be boring. And then, I watched it. And post watching it? It's amazing. Watch. This. Movie. NOW.

Chinatown (1974); dir. Roman Polanski - 96%

...I saw a lot of good movies this year, OK? Look, this is also an excellent film, despite its reprehensible director. Just divorce the art from the artist and all that, and go into this movie completely blind if you haven't seen it. Taking it from me, it's essentially perfect. Only issues I had were that the Production Design wasn't particularly distinctive, and the music was mostly forgettable after the fact. And those were nitpicks. Watch this movie!

Dog Day Afternoon (1975); dir. Sidney Lumet - 90%

Did...did I watch a bad movie this year? I mean...yeah, I did. Black Adam sucked. And, like...Violent Night was...well, no, I liked Violent Night. Ooh, I was forced to watch Minions 2: The Rise of Gru, which was mediocre at best! I...OK, OK, look, you've heard this before at this point, but...watch this movie, OK? Another heist film, based on a true story this time, as well as being a benchmark in LGBTQ film representation, this film is a great one. Maybe I didn't like an acting performance, maybe the plot wasn't perfectly accurate to real life, maybe the cinematography wasn't always iconic, and maybe it could've used literally any music...but it's a great movie. Watch it.

Taxi Driver (1976); dir. Martin Scorcese - 90%

The "good movie" train keeps chugging forward with this one, because yeah...Taxi Driver is also fantastic. Truly one of the best character dissections I've ever seen, as well as a fascinating look at one of the most dangerous and crime-ridden environments in American history, Scorcese makes a really morally complicated film with...well, frankly, troubling consequences and implications. I didn't put out a review on this one (sorry, got stuck in the wasteland that is my Drafts page), but this film was partially responsible for Reagan getting shot, fun fact. And that may be because the shooter partially identified with Travis Bickle, who is a troubled and fascinating character. And for the record, the rest of this is fantastic as well, but De Niro's Bickle and Scorcese's NYC are the most prominent and most important parts of this movie. Love this one, too. Watch this film if you like character dissections!

Scarface (1983); dir. Brian de Palma - 90%

OK, so...is this the most stereotypical college-age dumb jock poster-in-the-dorm-room movie in the fucking world? Yeah. Yeah, it really is. But is it a great movie despite that? I mean...holy shit, yeah, it's a very good movie. Sure, Italian actor Al Pacino playing a Cuban immigrant is a weird casting choice that's aged poorly in today's sociopolitical landscape...but he's also really fucking good at it. Seriously. Over the top, absolutely, but an extremely enjoyable watch all the same. Watching him slide into depravity and chaos when he already started there is fascinating, and Pacino just EATS the movie with how hard he chews the scenery. Look...it's a fun fucking movie to watch, and that's not even talking about the iconic lines, the supporting cast, the well-structured plot and story, the iconic costumes, and every other enjoyable part of this ride of a movie. I resisted watching Scarface for a LONG time, because I associated it with college-age fuckbois, but...shit, it's a good movie. Watch it if you haven't seen it.

OK, lemme pause here. Part Two coming next!

[kevinsreviewcatalogue]

Review Double Feature: Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003) and Kill Bill: Volume 2 (2004)

 Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003) and Kill Bill: Volume 2 (2004)

Rated R for strong bloody violence, language and some sexual content (Volume 1)

Rated R for violence, language and brief drug use (Volume 2)

<Originally posted at https://kevinsreviewcatalogue.blogspot.com/2023/06/review-double-feature-kill-bill-volume.html>

Score: 5 out of 5

There's really no way to talk about Kill Bill as two separate movies. The two volumes are two halves of one story, that story was originally planned and filmed as one movie before it was split in two (which meant that no scenes had to be cut), Quentin Tarantino has screened the original, four-hour cut as one movie titled Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair, and a few weeks ago, Popcorn Frights screened the two volumes back-to-back, treating them as a single movie for all intents and purposes with the time between the two volumes used as an intermission. If you're gonna talk about 'em, you may as well talk about 'em as one big movie, arguably Tarantino's magnum opus in terms of just going wild with every cool idea he's had in his career and making what would be, to a '90s film geek raised on '70s kung fu flicks, grindhouse sleaze, and the aisles of the video store he once worked at, the ultimate action movie: an explosion of gorgeous women in leather outfits, razor-sharp samurai swords, East Asian martial arts, neo-Western atmosphere, cameos from '70s legends, an out-there crime thriller plot and universe that feels like John Wick more than a decade before John Wick, and a flurry of sweet, sweet bloody action sequences.

(And feet, because Tarantino.)

It's a big, sprawling epic rooted less in the gritty realism of "serious" crime movies than in the gonzo, go-for-broke mayhem of Hong Kong action cinema, only here with a much bigger budget than any Shaw Brothers flick ever had. It's obvious just from the runtime why they split this movie in half for its theatrical release, but watching the two halves together, it still felt perfectly paced, with an immediately iconic heroine, a slew of creative scumbags for her to cut through, and a second half whose slower pace felt like exactly the downshift the film needed as I got back in my seat to start my third hour in the theater. The locations, spanning the world from Texas to California to Japan to China to Mexico, felt exotic without feeling exoticized, the action scenes were outstanding, Tarantino's dark humor did a lot to get me in the mood for more, and while the story wasn't particularly deep, it was still a very well-told to some of Tarantino's favorite movies. The John Wick comparisons may be unavoidable watching it today, but if I had to decide between them, I'd say that, while those films have the better action scenes, this one offers the superior story and the better all-around package. The fact that I hesitate to call it Tarantino's best comes down less to any faults it might have and more to Tarantino's high standard of quality throughout his career, as this is still a classic.

The plot is surprisingly simple for a movie that takes two movies to tell it. Four years ago, Beatrix Kiddo was a highly skilled member of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, a team of assassins feared throughout the criminal underworld... until, upon finding she was pregnant, she decided to retire and settle down with her fiancé. Bill, the leader of the DVAS, responds by showing up at her wedding with her former co-workers -- the Japanese yakuza boss O-Ren Ishii, the murderous housewife Vernita Green, Bill's brother Budd, and the one-eyed Elle Driver -- in tow to make it clear to her that there's only one way out of this business, and that's the grave. Everybody at the wedding is killed with the exception of the Bride herself, who survived her injuries but spent four years in a coma, during which time she lost her baby. When she wakes up, she gets right back to work, this time aiming at taking out the rest of the DVAS who destroyed her one chance at a normal life, concluding with Bill himself.

Standing proudly at the center of this movie is Uma Thurman as Beatrix. Thurman is playing a simple character motivated by revenge and loss, but she makes her immediately compelling, a crafty, snarky, and creative badass who manages to feel intimidating even when she's laying in a pool of her own blood looking up at the man who's about to finish her off with a headshot, or trying to get her legs working again after four years in a hospital bed. She doesn't just look the part of a hot babe with a sword, she put in the work to convince me that she really could use that sword to slice my head in two. This is a role that, had it not been for an injury she suffered on set thanks to Tarantino's carelessness, likely would've given Thurman the career second wind as an action hero that Charlize Theron has enjoyed more recently. It's not all action, though, and while Thurman is tough as hell, she also does great work showing how Beatrix mined that toughness out of her losses and vulnerability. I bought how pissed she was at losing her daughter, and her determination to go through her training in a flashback at the hands of a strict martial arts master (played by Gordon Liu) who routinely dismissed and insulted her for her race and gender. She may have been a professional killer, but in various moments, she's not completely comfortable with doing it, between her decision to retire in the first place when she got pregnant and the fact that she knows her revenge mission means killing several people she once considered close friends. She often puts on the image of an airheaded blonde ditz for people who don't realize why she's actually there. Between Tarantino's writing and Thurman's performance, Beatrix sprung to life as one of the most awesome action heroes I've ever seen on film, somebody who did not feel invincible (especially whenever guns came into play) but otherwise felt not only tough as nails but also deep, fleshed-out, and fully understandable in her motives, with a lot of layers beneath a simple exterior.

The rogues' gallery of bad guys she slices through with her Hattori Hanzo katana were also creative and larger-than-life while still feeling grounded within this film's sense of logic. Lucy Liu's O-Ren could flip from congenial to terrifying, her sympathetic backstory paired with an absolute ruthlessness that lets you know right away how a woman of mixed Japanese-American and Chinese heritage managed to take control of a patriarchal, ethnically chauvinist criminal organization (as one poor fucker finds out the hard way). I could've easily seen her as the main character of her own movie with how much she figures into the film's first volume. Vivica A. Fox's Vernita gets the least screen time out of all of them and exists mostly to be the Bride's opening victim (second chronologically, but placed at the start of the first volume), but in her brief time on screen, she's a compelling presence as a soccer mom who wants to put her criminal past behind her -- and sets up a tantalizing idea for a sequel, if Tarantino ever makes one. Daryl Hannah's Elle is characterized as an evil version of Beatrix, albeit one who still has her own sense of honor, hence why she didn't finish Beatrix off when she was in her coma. Michael Madsen's Budd is the lone man among the DVAS barring Bill himself, framed as a redneck living in a trailer in the desert who, despite his slovenly appearance and lifestyle, shows Beatrix the hard way why he should never be underestimated. Finally, David Carradine's Bill, the Charlie to these fallen Angels, spends most of the film looming over it like an ominous presence, shown only in a few flashbacks until Beatrix finally arrives at his mansion, yet he earns his status as the film's big bad.

Between them, they gave the film a particular kind of retro '70s atmosphere where it was clear that it was shot in the early 2000s, but nevertheless felt like the kind of thing an exploitation filmmaker from back in the day might've made with access to $60 million and all the Hollywood production values that money could buy. The overwhelmingly female nature of the DVAS, their one male member being their boss' brother, felt evocative of old chicksploitation flicks and shows about beautiful young women kicking ass and taking names (you think my Charlie's Angels reference up there was just random?), like Tarantino finally got to make the film adaptation of Fox Force Five, the failed TV pilot that Thurman's character in Pulp Fiction starred in. Its portrayal of East Asia is a love letter to Japanese and Hong Kong action films of that period, from to the presence of Sonny Chiba and Gordon Liu as key players in Beatrix's journey to a flashback to her training that's shot like an old Shaw Brothers movie (complete with film grain). The famous "Kill Bill siren" (lifted from the theme to the '60s/'70s cop show Ironside) may have become an overused meme in the twenty years since this movie came out, but there's a reason why it's so iconic, and it's just one of many great musical cues on this film's soundtrack.

Splitting the movie in half also gave Tarantino room to spend each volume tackling a different genre, in a way that still felt cohesive. The first half is a more straightforwardly action-packed martial arts movie, its big action set piece in a Japanese nightclub where Beatrix singlehandedly takes on the Crazy 88, O-Ren's army of goons, not only standing as one of the best and most stylish action sequences of its kind but also firmly establishing precisely why you do not fuck with Beatrix. Make no mistake, for all that Tarantino is known for his dialogue, he's also a legitimately good action filmmaker on top of it. The second half, meanwhile, feels like a more contemplative neo-Western thriller as Beatrix slows down, takes stock of her remaining mission, and starts to encounter serious and tricky opposition that she can't just cut through so easily. It was a shift in tone that served the film well, whether you're watching it as two separate parts or watching it as one movie, as by the halfway mark you're probably in the same position that Beatrix is in, increasingly weathered after the big burst of energy in the first half. This movie is still committed to Beatrix's journey, as evidenced in her battles with Budd, Elle Driver, and finally Bill himself, but it's taking its time now to flesh out its world and give the viewer some room to breathe. I felt like I was with Beatrix every step of the way, all the way up to a satisfying finale.

The Bottom Line

In any other filmmaker's filmography, Kill Bill would be their pinnacle. It ain't a very deep movie, but it sets out on a mission to deliver four hours of throwback martial arts spectacle, and it succeeds with flying colors. Even people who aren't fans of Tarantino can probably enjoy this two-parter simply as one of the finest action spectacles of the 21st century.

[adamwatchesmovies]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 (2010)

It feels silly reviewing any movie with “Part X” in the title on its own. We're not watching a single movie because audiences are not patient enough to sit down for 4+ hours at a time. That, and the studio saw an opportunity to make twice the ticket sales. Everyone sitting down to see this film should know that a second is underway; that we're not getting a proper conclusion. So with all that said, how is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1?

Following the death of Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) receive several seemingly random items as part of the late headmaster’s will. Determined to carry on the mission he began, they set out on their own. They must track down Lord Voldemort’s horcruxes - magical objects in which he has hidden pieces of his soul - and find a way to destroy them. Only then will they be ready to face the dark wizard (played by Ralph Fiennes) head-on.

If you have not seen every Harry Potter film before this one, if you’ve only seen them in passing or have only vague memories of previous adventures, you're not ready for this movie. HPatDH1 is the culmination of a decade-long journey. Details from as far back as the first movie are important to remember. We’ve seen these characters grow up, we’ve seen this world at its brightest and now that light seems almost extinguished. Voldemort’s forces have taken over the Ministry of Magic and imposed tyrannical doctrines that instil fear in the hearts of everyone. Innocent people are being put on trial for crimes that didn’t exist days ago. People are being tortured and killed. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are not in school anymore. Their beloved home away from home has been taken over by Voldemort’s minions and the murderous Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) is in charge. The trio not attending classes may seem insignificant, but it isn't. Before, whenever there was a mystery to solve, you could always count on it being resolved by the time summer vacation came around. They could always fall back upon a helpful teacher or classmate in a pinch. Not anymore. These facts make this the most emotional film in the series so far.

With the end of Voldemort’s reign nowhere in sight, much of the film has our heroes pouring over clues and frantically attempting to decipher the cryptic messages left by Dumbledore. It can make the film feel slow at times, but this is a deliberate choice by David Yates. These teenagers are all alone. The weight of this mission is becoming unbearable. You feel their restlessness. They're camping in the cold wilderness in strange landscapes, barely making ends meet and growing frustrated with each others’ lack of progress. They're completely isolated from everything and everyone we grew accustomed to ever since Harry got his wand. The situation has never been more dire.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 is tense, dark and frightening when it wants to be. Once the adrenaline dissipates, it becomes unlike any of the other films we have seen before. You could call it slow, and incomplete but when your job is to set up a conclusion, that's almost unavoidable. Give it some time and your patience will be rewarded in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2. (On Blu-ray, November 15, 2019)