Recommend a movie

[The Laughing Fish]

"Escape from New York" 1981

Finally purchased the 4K edition the other day, and it's simply outstanding!

To me, EFNY is one of those 'perfect' films that never should be remade (though inevitably will be). Such an intriguing premise, amazing cast (Donald Pleasence, Lee Van Cleef, Harry Dean Stanton, Tom Atkins, Adrienne Barbeau, Ernest Borgnine, Isaac Hayes, and the impeccably cast Kurt Russel as Snake Plissken), and John Carpenter at the height of his powers as a director. Like many other scores composed and performed by Carpenter during this era, this one features yet another memorable gem.

Since checking this out in 4K, I've been reading up on the 1987 Coleman Luck script for "Escape from L.A.", and .... what a trip that would have been! As it leans into the fanciful than even the 1996 sequel did to be perfectly honest.

But yeah, "Escape from New York" is highly recommended.

I watched this last week, damn good film! Carpenter had a good eye and ear to set the mood in this dystopian hellhole, from the cinematography to the score. The shot of the black skyline of NYC, where not a single lightbulb is shining, makes it all the more chilling.

I can see how Escape from New York was inspirational to Rocksteady when they made the Arkham City game. Both New York and Arkham City are citywide maximum security prisons where prisoners run riot to fend for themselves, and both Batman and Snake Plissken's lives are further compromised to complete objectives against their will. This movie, as well as the No Man's Land comics, is perhaps the biggest influence on Arkham City.

I read that there was a comic book crossover between Snake and Jack Burton from Big Trouble in Little China, another Carpenter film. Kinda curious to check it out.



https://www.previewsworld.com/Catalog/AUG161301

[The Dark Knight]

Gave American Psycho another viewing. I read the book well before seeing the movie, and I feel like they did a good job adapting the story and creating the atmosphere. Most of it is included and other things get streamlined, which I'm okay with. The book is heavy on descriptions and routine, which the movie does touch on, but it doesn't go too hard. We get the idea and I think that suits the visual medium.

Certain scenes were just about pitch perfect in how I imagined them in my head, particularly the restaurant and club scenes. Just as The Shining is Jack Nicholson's best role (IMO) this is Christian Bale's. He's generally monotone to show how he's dead inside but there's a spark about him that engages you 100% the whole time. It's a performance where just about every one of his scenes is meme worthy. At under two hours the movie doesn't outstay its welcome and lends itself to being rewatchable.

The interpretation I have is Bateman did commit a bunch of murders, but as his mental state deteriorates the exact body count becomes unclear. The scene of Bateman gunning down the man behind the desk, then returning to see him alive, is a prime example of that. The realtors ignoring the blood soaked apartment in order to resell it makes the story better, on top of others either knowing but not caring/ignoring it, or outright not believing him. Bateman is forever stuck in a loop of his routine with no escape.

I'm satisfied it'a good adaption and companion piece to the source material.

[Silver Nemesis]

I read American Psycho last year. The only other Bret Easton Ellis book I'd read before was The Rules of Attraction. My brother recommended Less than Zero to me years ago, but I still haven't got around to reading that one. I watched the film adaptation of American Psycho immediately after I finished the book so I could compare them when they were both fresh in my mind.

The novel is very funny but also very disturbing. As far as the violence goes, it might surpass the Clive Barker novels I read in my early twenties for how effed up certain scenes are. The movie obviously tones down the violent and sexual content a lot, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. The film is still brutal in places, but it omits many of the more twisted and pornographic elements that can leave a bad taste when you read the book. This makes the cinematic Bateman more palatable to the viewer, allowing you to laugh at his depraved antics and enjoy the satire without being turned off by the visceral excess of what he's actually doing.

A literal scene-for-scene adaptation of the book would be impossible. You just couldn't show those things in live action, and I doubt many people would want to watch them even if you could. The movie does a respectable job of extrapolating what's most important from the book – the satire, horror and narrative ambiguity resulting from the unreliable narrator – and makes it work for a different medium.

Bale's performance really carries it. He's a good physical match for how Bateman's described in the book, but more importantly he clearly understands the satirical nature of the novel and never takes himself too seriously in the role. The comparison with Jack in The Shinning is a good one, as they're both hilariously over the top. It's not surprising that both performances spawned countless memes.

[thecolorsblend]

The interpretation I have is Bateman did commit a bunch of murders, but as his mental state deteriorates the exact body count becomes unclear. The scene of Bateman gunning down the man behind the desk, then returning to see him alive, is a prime example of that. The realtors ignoring the blood soaked apartment in order to resell it makes the story better, on top of others either knowing but not caring/ignoring it, or outright not believing him. Bateman is forever stuck in a loop of his routine with no escape.

I guess I had the more superficial reading (of the film) that Bateman legit committed all those murders. But he lives in such a self-absorbed bubble that nobody believes him when he confesses and he unintentionally has alibis for all of the murders because cares enough about anyone else to remember their names.

Basically, Bateman devalues human life in one way while his peers devalue human life in other ways.

Still, fun fact about American Psycho. Apparently, Edward Norton was considered (to some degree or another) for Bateman. And while I love Bale in the role, I have to admit that I wonder what Norton might've done with the character.

[The Dark Knight]

The movie obviously tones down the violent and sexual content a lot, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. The film is still brutal in places, but it omits many of the more twisted and pornographic elements that can leave a bad taste when you read the book. This makes the cinematic Bateman more palatable to the viewer, allowing you to laugh at his depraved antics and enjoy the satire without being turned off by the visceral excess of what he's actually doing.

A literal scene-for-scene adaptation of the book would be impossible. You just couldn't show those things in live action, and I doubt many people would want to watch them even if you could. The movie does a respectable job of extrapolating what's most important from the book – the satire, horror and narrative ambiguity resulting from the unreliable narrator – and makes it work for a different medium.

Well said. Knowing the novel enriches the experience as you can impart those details onto the avatar of Bale's Bateman. His true depravity of innermost thoughts are more fleshed out as they should be in that medium. Seeing Bateman's drawings in the journal at the end of the film is a good way to show his soul that was hidden to almost everybody. Jean had an idea something was very off psychologically, but proof of murder? No way.

I believe the movie's handling of the material is to be commended in how it makes it a more straightforward narrative not too bogged down with the 'a day in the life' content or excessive music appreciation/beauty regimens that could come off as padding in a film. A number of scenes of that is enough as the viewer can imagine he does these things often. It also allows the story and the intention of it to be clearer to the general viewer. And that story is surprisingly deep and not simple shock factor blood and guts.

Bale's performance really carries it. He's a good physical match for how Bateman's described in the book, but more importantly he clearly understands the satirical nature of the novel and never takes himself too seriously in the role. The comparison with Jack in The Shinning is a good one, as they're both hilariously over the top. It's not surprising that both performances spawned countless memes.

He commands the screen. The way Bateman speaks non stop about apparent interests lulls his prey into zoning out and not being aware of what is coming next (which is a big part of the book too, and is that robotic aspect of him). The nervous energy he imparts in various scenes such as the questioning by Kimball is interesting to watch and gives another layer. There's the odd social interactions which show he's not all there which I also really liked. He's a young man who enjoys the status of Wall Street while doing nothing in his office except listen to music, draw and make dinner reservations. The killing seems to give him purpose and power as he takes serious offence to being disrespected even in minor ways, and is disgusted by anything he deems beneath him.

I guess I had the more superficial reading (of the film) that Bateman legit committed all those murders. But he lives in such a self-absorbed bubble that nobody believes him when he confesses and he unintentionally has alibis for all of the murders because cares enough about anyone else to remember their names.

Basically, Bateman devalues human life in one way while his peers devalue human life in other ways.

I'd be keeping the big kills as legitimate, such as Paul Allen, to properly amplify those themes. I do like the idea of ambiguity as running butt naked through an apartment complex with a chainsaw can either be passed off as surrealist or actually an indictment of a zombie, uncaring public. But if Bateman only killed half of the people in the book/movie, I don't think the themes would be hurt too badly. I'm thinking the content with Bateman shooting the police officers and blowing up their cars is possibly hallucinated. I'm guessing he just walked up to his office and made the call. Or maybe he didn't.

[The Joker]

52 Pick-Up 1986

Honestly, I only watched this for the first time fairly recently, and what a treat it was! The film stars Roy Scheider, Ann-Margret, Clarence Williams III, and also John Glover as a sleazy, but highly entertaining main villain (his narration bits are absolutely hilarious!). It's adapted from a Elmore Leonard's novel of the same name, and it shows. I pretty much did a blind purchase with the the recent blu ray from a Kino Lorber sale, thinking, "It's got Roy Scheider in it. I'll give it a shot!", and needless to say, I'm glad I did.

Sure, it's a Cannon film production, but unlike what Tobe Hooper experienced with his Cannon film trilogy, Golan/Globus was very hands off on this film, and pretty much gave director John Frankenheimer free reign, and final cut. If you go by what the critics of the 1980's had to say about Cannon films, the majority were not kind, but "Runaway Train", and "52 Pick-Up" stood out. 

[The Dark Knight]

As said in another thread I watched Blade Runner again after a long time. The talk of Indiana Jones and Harrison Ford is what compelled me to check it out again. They don't make leading men like him anymore. There's no point looking for another either, because you won't find them.

Anyway, out of all the versions the Final Cut is the way to go in my opinion. The Theatrical release isn't how the film should be viewed. Ford and Scott didn't like the voiceovers, and neither do I. The happy ending that ignores a replicant's life span goes against the spirit of the film and doesn't make sense. The Final Cut has the full unicorn subtext, which introduces ambiguity into the mix which I like, and the violence is all there - particularly the eyes being gouged out, which the Director's Cut didn't have.

What I like about Blade Runner is how it's a simple story, Deckard being tasked to hunt down killer replicants, but one that does take your attention to follow and appreciate, particularly the underlying themes. When you know the plot from repeated viewings the voiceovers only serve to get in the way and break the mood. Blade Runner is also from a time where films were around the two hour mark and didn't feel the need to balloon out to nearly three hours. Obviously it looks amazing, and you could watch it for that alone.

Gave Blade Runner 2049 a look. The original is the better and more iconic film, naturally, but the story here is engaging and just as thought provoking. It's a true extension that retains the general spirit of the original without feeling like a retread. K (Gosling) gets the majority of the content, building up to Deckard for the last segment. Gosling does a good job and Ford puts in one of his better modern day performances.

There's not much action but there doesn't need to be. There's a real ambience about it that seeps into your soul, especially with loneliness. It's all very relevant to our society. K living alone but with the illusion of Joi and Deckard living completely alone for years in his massive building. I love how there's always underlying subtext to the content and how it makes you question if something is real, and if that even matters. All in all, it's a nice companion piece and a sequel done right. I'm willing to entertain this one, two punch up there with Alien-Aliens and The Terminator-Terminator 2. That's where those franchises peaked. There's no need for another Blade Runner movie. They both have style and substance.

[thecolorsblend]

Nurse 3D Official Trailer #1 (2014)

This barely qualifies as a recommendation. Truly a photo finish.

But I'm recommending it because it's an exploitation flick and if you like Dexter, there's a chance you'll like Abby, the protagonist/serial killer of Nurse.

The premise is that Abby spends her days nursing patients back to health and her nights hunting down philandering men. Unlike Dexter, Abby usually arranges for her victims' deaths to be ruled suicides or accidents.

Things take a turn in Abby's life when a new nurse, Danni, begins working in the hospital. From there, attraction turns into obsession turns into revenge turns into bloody revenge by the time credits roll.

The reason I barely recommend this movie is because the premise is so rich but the execution is kind of lackluster. For a supposed exploitation movie, there aren't very many bodies (either in a sexual way or in a serial killer way). The viewer is left with the impression that Abby has been actively murdering people for years, if not decades. And yet, her success rate is inconsistent. There are times when Abby is cool and calculating, knowing exactly how to get the job done. But other times, she comes off slightly amateurish.

Nurse's RT score is 64%. And in this specific case, that honestly sounds pretty much right to me. It's worth watching. But I wouldn't say it's worth prioritizing. If you want an "erotic thriller" or if you like how Dexter Morgan rolls, then there's a chance you might get a kick out of this movie. But there's also a chance you'll come away a bit disappointed.

The films ends in such a way as to not forestall the possibility of a sequel. Frankly, I can't imagine there being overwhelming consumer demand for a sequel. But if a sequel ever gets made, here's hoping the filmmakers learn from Nurse's mistakes.

[thecolorsblend]

AfrAId

Caught this one on Monday. Now, I'll be the first to admit that my fascination with this film could entirely be me and my own baggage. It could be that I'm projecting all sorts of brilliance and sophistication onto this film which isn't actually merited.

Still, I enjoyed the film. It's a fun little low calorie horror film about the potential dangers of AI. Which wasn't new territory even twenty years ago. But I'm kind of a sucker for the whole Evil AI trope. And I think AfrAId handles the trope quite well.

The cast members are all good to serviceable in their respective roles. Nobody is winning an Oscar on this one. But nobody's stinking up the screen either. Which is kind of impressive considering the number of child actors with speaking roles in this film.

In any case, it ultimately comes down to John Cho as Curtis. His character is the main focus of the film.

And... I would argue that Curtis is also the main focus of AIA, your Evil AI in this story. Everything AIA does seems designed alternately to impress Curtis or, when that fails, to at least subdue him into compliance.

It's a minor plot point that AIA's voice is based on Melody, a supporting character. The movie doesn't make a big deal out of it. But when Curtis and Melody first meet, it's evident that there's some attraction there. Curtis, an otherwise happily married man, makes no effort to pursue that. For that matter, the movie itself makes almost no effort to pursue that.

Until the big climax of the film, where Curtis and Melody find themselves holed up in a hotel to hide from AIA. Or so Curtis thinks. But in reality, holing up in the hotel was basically an excuse for AIA to get Curtis and Melody, well, to hole up into a hotel. Melody makes it VERY clear that AIA expects Melody to make herself "available" (if you know what I mean) to Curtis. Anything he wants, whenever he wants it.

The movie abruptly drops that aspect of the story as Curtis rushes back home to potentially save his family's lives.

But there's a level of plot and motivation that went into AIA's attempt to get Curtis and Melody, you know, together. AIA is clearly preoccupied with ingratiating herself to the rest of the family. But she seems especially determined to get into Curtis's good books.

Melody's voice is not AIA's default voice. AIA affirmatively chose that as her voice when Curtis and the rest of the family unboxed her. Did she detect Curtis and Melody's low level attraction to each other? Did AIA choose Melody's own voice for herself because she has some level of attraction to Curtis too?

Again, the film makes practically no effort to explore any of that. But when you read between the lines, there seems to be a LOT going on with AIA and her fascination with Curtis.

The movie is flawed. The business between Curtis and Melody deserved greater attention. In fact, quite a few subplots deserved greater attention. For example, Curtis's daughter Iris goes through a pretty traumatic episode with her boyfriend at school which gets somewhat swept under the rug. AfrAId would have greatly benefited from a little more narrative balance. Even if it meant deleting certain subplots so that other subplots could've been more fully explored.

But I still see merit and value in this film. AIA is fairly unique among AI villains in that she seems more determined to conquer individual people, families and so forth rather than conquer the entire world. She's aiming lower. And because of that, the threat she poses somehow seems greater. Because none of us can truly envision a Skynet/Judgment Day type of scenario. But we can easily imagine getting blackmailed or in some other way coerced into compliance.

All of this is enough to make me wonder what an AfrAId sequel might offer. And yet, a sequel seems highly unlikely considering the film's critical reception and box office returns. Which is too bad. Because while Evil AI might be a well-explored trope, I maintain that this movie handles the trope in effective and unique ways.

Anyway. It's worth checking out.

[The Dark Knight]

A quick set of observations from me about Beetlejuice. I watched it last night in preparation for the sequel on the weekend. Once the credits rolled I thought to myself this could be a perfect film. It's extremely well paced, creative, fun and poignant. It doesn't overstay its welcome and leaves you wanting more. The way Beetlejuice is used is masterful, too. If you haven't seen it in a long time I recommend another look. I'm also keen to revisit Sleepy Hollow and Sweeney Todd in the very near future.