What Are You Watching Right Now? Episode 3 - Turtles in Time

[JohnErle]

The Red Shoes (1948) - Remarkable use of colour and a very compelling story, even for someone who couldn't care less about the ballet or movie musicals. The conflict that lead to the climax came out of nowhere, so the ending felt tacked on, which was disappointing after an otherwise very memorable experience. (8/10)

Massage Parlor Murders (1973) - How's that for a double bill? An ultra low-budget, incomprehensible exploitation flick that was unintentionally hilarious. The most shocking thing about it was that the killer's motivation was exactly the same as a big-budget, highly acclaimed thriller that came out 20 years later. (2/10)

[JohnErle]

More oldies but not particularly goodies...

Branded To Kill (1967) - A stylistic tour-de-force from director Seijun Suzuki which, much like Terry Gilliam's Brazil, was rejected by the studio that had paid for it because they thought it was too bizarre for mainstream audiences, leading to a lengthy battle which the director eventually won, forcing the studio to release the film. In both cases, I can see where the studios were coming from, especially in the case of Branded To Kill, which offers a visually appealing blend of film noir aesthetics and surrealism, but very little in the way of a comprehensible story. (6/10)

To Sir, With Love (1967) - A charming film with its heart in the right place, even if aspects of it seem hopelessly dated by today's standards. It must have seemed ground-breaking at the time, but watching it today it's only slightly edgier than a re-run of Head Of The Class. (6/10)

The Fourth Victim (1971) - A mildly diverting giallo film set in England with a plot that's even more absurd and dubbing that's even more distracting than usual for the genre. Mario Bava or Dario Argento might have elevated this material with their sense of style, but this director isn't on that level. (5/10)

Siege aka. Self Defense (1983) – A low-budget Canadian action flick inspired by the likes of Assault On Precinct 13, but it lacks John Carpenter's flair and fails to rise above its low-budget, exploitation trappings. During a police strike in Halifax, a gang of thugs attack a gay bar, but one man escapes and takes shelter in an apartment building where the heroes keep the killers at bay. It's surprisingly progressive that the homophobes are the villains in an early 80s exploitation flick, but apart from that it's unremarkable, and other than the beer bottles on display there's very little about it that's distinctly Canadian. (3/10)

[Buscemi2]

A lot of Canuxploitation was like that, largely suppressing the Canadian elements so that the film could get international sales. A while back, I was watching David Cronenberg's Fast Company and was surprised by how hard they tried to pass Alberta off as the Western United States but weren't very successful (for example, a race track that's clearly in Edmonton is depicted as being in Washington).

[JohnErle]

I keep falling behind in terms of watching modern movies, but I'm doing a decent job of catching up on older titles. Here's most of what I watched this spring. And since everything I watch these days seems to fall into one of two categories -- classics or crap -- that's how I'll divide my ratings.

Classics:
Kashemuga (1980)
For All Mankind (1989)
Viy (1967)
Kill! (1968)
The Piano Teacher (2001)
Blind Woman's Curse (1970)

Crap:
Bringing Up Baby* (1938)
Tenebre (1982)
Summer Of '84 (2018)
Black Rainbow (1989)
Phenomena (1985)

*Okay, Katherine Hepburn was fascinating to watch, but the movie itself is far too screwball for my tastes.

I also re-watched Mike Leigh's Naked and Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot, both of which are excellent. I'd seen Some Like It Hot years ago and didn't like it for whatever reason, but maybe I was just in the mood for a lightweight comedy this time around because I loved it.

[Buscemi2]

I remember having to watch Summer of '84 for a horror marathon, all because some 80's-obssessed guy in our local film club (he also called me an edgelord for not liking Deadly Friend and liking Zuwalski's Possession) wanted it shown. It was like watching Stranger Things made by and for incels. Unwatchable, that one was.

[Chienfantome]

I love Bringing up Baby !!!!!

[JohnErle]

Bringing Up Baby is the kind of comedy where every single actor is desperately trying to squeeze a laugh out of a paper-thin story in every second of the film, but without a straight man there's no one for me to relate to and no one to react wryly to the endless shenanigans. Hepburn's character goes way beyond quirky to the point where she would be locked up in a sanitarium if she didn't have money. She's like the prototypical manic pixie dream girl. And you know a film is contrived when there's not one but two leopards on the loose in Connecticut.

Take that, 85-year old movie!

[Buscemi2]

You just described Hot Rod but without the leopards.

[Buscemi2]

My local Film Club sucks now. Ever since a new person was put in charge of it, it's gone from a well-organized series where the moderator was always asking for input from members and making sure we kept track of titles watched so we could get little prizes to a disorganized mess where a tyrannical employee only picks things that he wants to watch, ignores member suggestions, and just doesn't even try to make it special or anything. He only wants to find new ways to sell beer and rosè by running the same things over and over again.

Tonight was my second visit under the new regime as most of the recent titles were either things already playing on any other day or I had no interest in (such as the time he picked two Harry Styles movies in a row just because they had them booked). The Stylist is a dreadful, nonsensical slasher film that only got booked probably because Mr. Guy in Charge feels that he needs to see every horror movie ever made. What made the night worse is that he also thinks he can host Q&A's but he doesn't research anything related to the movie or its filmmaker and made no attempt to try and get the director's name correct. He also spent much of the intro talking about football for some reason instead of the movie. The Q&A was a little better solely because he opened the forum but it simply felt like the director defending bad writing and editing that made the film look like Cinemax porn when it wasn't droning on with scenes that go nowhere (The Stylist was based on a short film and it shows). And of course, more football.

Good thing they have free movies that actually are worth watching at my local arthouse (I saw Days of Heaven with a sellout crowd last week and they've got a series on modern Asian cinema coming next month) so I don't have to be subjected to being told why Magic Mike's Last Dance or Cocaine Bear, things I'm sure Mr. We Need to Meet Our Fat Tire Quota will pick for the next Film Club, are titles that deserve to be spotlighted.

Also, the same guy got angry at another guy on the Facebook page for not liking Gravity and at me for saying Decision to Leave was a more deserving Best Picture nominee than Top Gun: Maverick. I can't fathom how this guy got put in charge.

[Buscemi2]

Went to see Titanic in 3-D today. The 3-D isn't necessary unless you want to see the new 4K restoration (which by the way looks great). Also, I think I figured out the real reason why movies are longer now. It's so movie theatres can sell more concessions.

Also, someone in the theatre recorded the first five minutes of the movie on their phone. I went to complain but they stopped by the time a manager came in. Just the fact that someone went to an older movie in a theatre and thought it was a good idea to capture sections on their smart phone astounds me. If you're going to do something like that, just watch Titanic on Paramount+ or from a physical copy.

[Buscemi2]

More movie theatre/phone madness: last night, I went to a free for members showing of Come and See and I guess when you go to a free showing of a film that's developed a large online following, you're going to get some badly behaved patrons. The guy next to me was texting for half the movie and walked out with an hour left. Incredibly, he was the only walk-out.

But that's not as bad as the person who started watching YouTube during the movie. During a tense moment in the action (well, all of Come and See is a tense moment), someone has a video about a Federal Trade Commission report playing at full blast. Half of the audience glared at the offending patron and after about a minute, that phone was put on silent.

Somehow, this was preferable to the couple that seemingly came from their barn to see Female Prisoner Scorpion: Jailhouse 41 a few days earlier that talked through the entire movie. As this was an Alamo Drafthouse, I complained three times and they only got a warning. I swear, that place is turning more and more into a Regal or AMC every day.

[Buscemi2]

Not quite a recently-viewed movie but I got mentioned on a podcast for submitting a correction on an 80's movie.

https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-filmj ... -305639724

[Screen203]

That's really cool that you got mentioned on a podcast.

[Buscemi2]

Anyone ever see people walk out on a movie after 20-30 minutes because of content? I was at a showing of Night is Short, Walk On Girl today when I saw a family leave after 20 minutes once they realized it wasn't a movie for kids. Usually, I see families being cool about taking their kids to violent or age-inappropriate movies so I found it surprising that a family left a PG-13 movie so soon.

I imagine the family ended up getting their money back and went to see Barbie again.

[transformers2]

It's probably happened more than I've realized over the years, but my most notable experience in that area was during Tropic Thunder when a handful of 70+ year old folks all effectively walked out in unison by the time the Booty Sweat/Bust-a-Nut commercial was done playing