Recommend a movie

[Silver Nemesis]

I've always liked TMNT '07. It is underrated. With regards to its canonicity, it now appears to exist in its own self-contained universe. But when it first came out, I definitely viewed it as Turtles 4. In addition to the Easter eggs colors mentioned, there's also Shredder's absence and Karai's allusion to his impending return at the end of the movie. I figured that was a reference to Oroku Saki's apparent death at the end of Secret of the Ooze.

The villains in TMNT also feel like a natural progression from the bad guys in the first two movies. In TMNT '90 we got Shredder, Master Tatsu and the Foot. Then things escalated in Secret of the Ooze with the addition of super strong mutant foes Tokka, Rahzar and Super Shredder. One of the reasons the third film was such a letdown was the lack of threatening bad guys. TMNT makes up for that with the Stone Generals and thirteen monsters.

For me, it works as a coda or epilogue to the live-action trilogy. I remember reading somewhere that the Turtles were meant to be slightly older in the 2007 movie than in the Golden Harvest trilogy, which is why their personalities are a bit more serious. In the earlier films they're meant to be around 15 years old, while in TMNT they're about 17. But I can easily buy into them being the same Turtles. The CG movie certainly works better as a continuation of the live-action trilogy than The Next Mutation did. I wish we'd gotten a TMNT II instead of the Michael Bay reboot.

I'll use this post to once again recommend the 25th anniversary film Turtles Forever (2009). It came out just two years after TMNT and is very much of the same vintage. It's easily the funniest of the Turtles movies. Moreover, it was Into the Turtle-Verse nine years before Into the Spider-Verse existed. Nowadays multiverse movies are all the rage, but the Turtles did it first back in 2009. We've got a thread on Turtles Forever here: https://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=3672.

My current ranking of the TMNT movies, from favourite to least favourite, goes like this:

1.   Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)
2.   Turtles Forever (2009)
3.   TMNT (2007)
4.   Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze (1991)
5.   Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2019)
6.   Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows (2016)
7.   Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993)
8.   Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)

I'm not enthusiastic about the new movie, mainly because I don't like Seth Rogen. I'll watch it if it's on TV or available free on a streaming service, but otherwise I'll give it a pass. What happened to those reports of a live-action sequel to the nineties trilogy? That would've been a much cooler concept and would've made a good companion piece to Keaton's return in The Flash. No amount of CGI can match the brilliance of the costumes from the first two movies. They were the only times the Turtles looked convincingly real to me.

[thecolorsblend]

Eyes Wide Shut

From the jump, it's wide open to speculation if that trailer does the eventual movie any kind of justice whatsoever.

But that aside, the cynicism in Eyes Wide Shut is pretty hard to escape. Everyone is, you know, exploiting everyone else on some level or another in Eyes Wide Shut. Sex is a commodity that the characters buy or sell depending on their station in life. The fact that all that unfolds during Christmas, of all times, adds an extra veneer of cynicism.

I suppose the elephant in the room is the amount of nudity (shown and obscured) in Eyes Wide Shut. What I find interesting is that the nudity is very rarely intended for titillation. On the contrary, the objectification is meant to make the viewer uncomfortable. Because it's not, ahem, a celebration of the human form. Rather, it's the exploitation of it. You're not supposed to enjoy seeing the exploitation of the human form. And if you DO enjoy seeing it, I think you need professional help.

None of this is to say the movie is bad. Far from it. In fact, I praise the movie for deliberately taking creative risks. And yet, t's tempting to argue that the runtime is a little bloated. There are many scenes which are absolutely crucial to the movie's story and themes. But at the same time, there's a lack of focus. I am not convinced that the movie was completed to Kubrick's satisfaction at the time of his death.

Then again, you could argue that Stanley Kubrick wasn't known for his brevity.

The tone of menace is virtually relentless in the movie. Even if you choose to take the death of Amanda and the disappearance of Nick at face value (which I'm not sure is advisable), you're still left with the fact that the cult knows a lot about Bill and clearly has the ability to "get" him. Aside from that, the danger is always lurking just out of sight even from the very start of the film. All the cult does is bring the threat more to the forefront.

Another interesting fact is how Ziegler's Christmas party is festooned with the Star Of Ishtar. It takes a special type of sick mind to put something like that up as a Christmas decoration. And the fact that (1) Ziegler did it and (2) none of the guests at the party thought it was unusual should tell you a lot about the kind of world Eyes Wide Shut takes place in.

Anyway. Eyes Wide Shut was controversial in its time and the ensuing years have not lessened that. It's certainly not my place to argue that it's Kubrick's greatest film (hello, "The Shining"!). But Eyes Wide Shut is definitely still worth checking out.

[Travesty]

I'm a huge Kubrick fan, and I love Eyes Wide Shut, but I think 2001 is still my favorite from him.

I need to do another Kubrick marathon soon.

[Silver Nemesis]

I've never actually seen Eyes Wide Shut right the way through. I've seen bits of it on TV, but never the entire movie. That and Killer's Kiss (1955) are the only two Kubrick films I haven't seen. I'll have to add them both to my watch list.

[Edd Grayson]

I'm a huge Kubrick fan, and I love Eyes Wide Shut, but I think 2001 is still my favorite from him.

I need to do another Kubrick marathon soon.

My favorite Kubrick films are Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket, although 2001 is damn fine.

[The Laughing Fish]

Manhunter is the first film of the entire Hannibal Lecter film franchise, with Brian Cox starring in a small role before Anthony Hopkins and based on the book Red Dragon.

Having watched this and Brett Ratner's adaptation of Red Dragon, I am kinda drawn to Manhunter. It may not be as comprehensive as Ratner's adaptation i.e. using sequences and echoes of Francis Dollarhyde's abusive mother condemning him during childhood, and Manhunter is more dialogue heavy. But Michael Mann's version has distinctive 1980s cinematography and use of colours, such as Will Graham in bed with his wife in a wash of blue that has this arresting hold of you as you watch. Graham, played by CSI's William Petersen, has a more intense way as he tries to get into the Tooth Fairy's head compared to Edward Norton and Tom Noonan sells the intimidating look of Dollarhyde quite well, although I think Ralph Fiennes was a bit more imposing.

As for Cox? He's fine as Hannibal, but it's rather hard to compare to Anthony Hopkins, who had far more to do with three films under his belt. Perhaps my favourite moment of the film is Graham runs out of the prison after having a panic attack during his interview with Hannibal, and you come to realise the building itself isn't a normal prison. It turns out the building in real life is a high-class museum.

https://www.movie-locations.com/movies/m/Manhunter.php

Michael Mann really had a habit of using unusual locations for institutions back in the 1980s, the Miami Vice TV show had tons of them.

Give Manhunter a shot.

[The Dark Knight]

I still love the Harry Potter books. Maybe not as much as I did when I was a child/teenager, but I certainly do.

As for the movies, I regard the second movie as the best. Faithful to the book but also having its personal touch. The first movie was good, but lacked some unique personality. The third movie on the other hand tried to distance itself too much from the book, and I didn't enjoy it. The fourth movie was a large failure in my eves, as was the sixth. The sixth book is actually my favorite. The fifth movie was second best. And then the last two movies were pretty good due to the fact that they had enough space to adapt a single book.

So, I'd rank the movies:

1. Chamber of Secrets
2. Order of the Phoenix
3. Philosopher's Stone
4. Deathly Hallows, parts I and II
5. Prisoner of Azkaban
6. Half-Blood Prince
7. Goblet of Fire

And here's how I'd rank the books:

1. Half-Blood Prince
2. Chamber of Secrets
3. Goblet of Fire
4. Prisoner of Azkaban
5. Order of the Phoenix
6. Deathly Hallows
7. Philosopher's Stone

I finished all the books again a week or so ago. I took my time with the last couple because once the journey is over, it's over. Finishing the series makes one melancholy about the journey of growth we go on. It's kind of hard going back over the old ground when the characters are younger even though that material is great. Rowling really wrapped the story up effectively in that regard. It feels complete, and the flash forward contributes to that. It puts a bow on the whole thing.

Harry is our avatar of discovery into the Wizarding world. He's someone who has fame but doesn't want it. Especially in Order of the Phoenix he increasingly becomes sick of being whispered about and stared at. I appreciated that side of things, showing him thinking and acting like a teenager. He's a good character even if I prefer others (Snape and Dumbledore are outstanding).
   
Thinking about the ending, I like the premise of the last book because of its starkness. It's a school year but they're camping out in soaking wet wilderness all alone, hungry and cold. They're uncertain about the future and questioning what they knew about the past. There's tension between them and it spills over, magnified by the presence of the locket horcrux. Their previous life at Hogwarts is a faraway dream and progress towards saving it is glacially slow, until their perseverance begins to pay off.

I like all that. I do think it should have been an expanded tome and parts of it feel rushed. But Rowling knew how to intertwine plot lines and have them combine in the last few chapters like a pro. One of her greatest skills as a writer to be honest. I don't think there was a moment in my months long read-through that I lost interest, and I can't say that about many things. Life just got in the way at times.

I have a ton of opinions on a wide variety of Harry Potter issues but issues would have to be raised for me to respond. I'm just giving my general assessment here. From Cedric's death onward, the books, while good beforehand, went to another level in my opinion. I rank them like this:

1. The Goblet of Fire
2. The Order of the Phoenix
3. The Half Blood Prince
4. The Deathly Hallows
5. The Prisoner of Azkaban
6. The Philosopher's Stone
7. The Chamber of Secrets

[thecolorsblend]

Late last year, I noticed that The Deep House was on sale. Naturally, I snapped it right up.

Obviously, the main gimmick of The Deep House is how it takes place mostly underwater. For that reason alone, the film is sort of a technical achievement. I can only imagine what a nightmare The Deep House must have been to shoot. Between the innumerable safety measures that must be taken to the sheer logistical problems that go in with filming underwater, this had to have been a very complicated production.

But the results are worth it, imo.

The Deep House creates a sense of claustrophobia and dread. Plus, the underwater setting creates new dramatic possibilities. When gravity is less of a factor, all kinds of new potential is unlocked to where there truly is no safety to be found.

If Wikipedia is any indication, The Deep House wasn't a runaway success. Which is a real shame too if you ask me, because this is a new approach to the archetypal haunted house story.

Highly recommended.

[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.

I'm compelled to check out The Shining again too.

[The Dark Knight]

I'm compelled to check out The Shining again too.

What a powerhouse of a movie.

The performances from ALL the cast members are phenomenal. Just as a skyscraper is the perfect location for an action movie, an abandoned hotel frozen out in winter is the perfect location for psychological terror. Claustrophobia and boredom. Walking around large areas full of empty but furnished rooms, half expecting to see people in there even though it's just you and your family present. What strikes me is how this movie isn't just scary but sad, given we're dealing with a father, wife and young child. You naturally want to see a happy family but that's not what we have.

The ghosts who speak to Jack are incredible. They feel like frozen, blank avatars of permanent haunting. When they speak there are silences that follow their statements, hard stares and authority. If you enjoy dialogue scenes with atmosphere give this movie a watch. Now.

I think I side with what Kubrick said: Jack is a reincarnation. IMO the residual energy of past guests are used create other copies and eventually pull them back to the building to protect it from destruction, and any visitor that simply doesn't like it there. I'm thinking someone else with Jack's face (the original) stayed at the hotel years ago. When our Jack arrives at the hotel in the present day he feels a familiarity with it due to having a shared soul. As soon as he's inside the building's energy decays his already troubled psyche, which had somewhat been under control beforehand. There are probably still some inconsistencies with this theory but that's what makes the premise so thought provoking and mysterious.

I don't care about the differences from the book. The movie is a slam dunk and the showcase for Nicholson as an actor. His charisma and unhinged danger level are off the charts here enough for me to say prime Nicholson is the best Joker type performance you're likely to get.