I saw Ugetsu at Brown University back in the early 80s when it had a film society that showed movies five or six nights a week. I'd go see just about anything, whether I had heard of it or not. I had to wait another twenty or so years before Criterion put out the DVD before I could see it again.

I'd start with his feelings about his dead son and his failed relationship with that lady who's chasing him.

Agreed. I wanted to know more about his past as a chaplain and the story of his son. I think they could have been made clearer with conciser storytelling, without dragging out the film. (I don't know what the time and budget constraints were.)

I thought his relationships with the woman and the young wife were intentionally ambiguous.

I just watched Paddington 2. I liked it, and the cast, which features Sally Hawkins, Hugh Bonneville, Hugh Grant, Peter Capaldi, Brendan Gleeson, and Ben Whishaw as the voice of Paddington, is wonderful. Great for movie with granddaughter night--even if you don't have a granddaughter.

Oh yeah, Bridge of Spies was one I really enjoyed.

Ever start to watch a movie ironically and then find yourself actually getting into it? That's where I'm at with the trippy cult sci-fi movie Zardoz. Humanity has transcended death, only to find themselves bored with immortality. Coming in to disrupt this utopia is a mustachioed Sean Connery dressed up like an S&M Zapatista. Director/producer John Boorman had just won acclaim for Deliverance, and decided to make Zardoz on a 1.8M budget as a kind of self-indulgent pet project.

Zardoz is confusing, trippy, and full of WTF moments right from the get go, but as someone who loves psychedelic science fiction from this era, I rather enjoyed it. Probably not for everyone (45% on RT), but give it a shot if you like psychedelic high-concept stuff like The Prisoner, THX, Kubrick, etc.

That floating scary demon stone thing from Zardoz has a permanent place in my youthful nightmares.

I imagine Certain Women to be a pretty polarizing film, yet I find myself in the middle. It is sloooowwww. I’m usually fine with that, but this was pushing it. V little happens in the 3 main stories and they are only loosely connected.

The best parts of the movie are that the characters are deep and the actresses are excellent. This would never work w/ less talented people, but their nuanced performances breathe life into an otherwise mundane world. Montana seems like a pretty boring place, even if the cinematography makes it look beautiful at times.

This reminded me of Olive Kitteridge or a Malik film, but a little less interesting. It’s on Netflix.

I've always loved Zardoz. Gun Nuts please note that the pistol Sean Connery has above is the same weird automatic revolver that kills Miles Archer in the Maltese Falcon.

I do.

That sucks. OK ... Widows is excellent. It's different from McQueen's previous work - The Troubles; Sex Addiction; Slavery; Heist Flick.

12 Years > Shame > Widows > Hunger. The middle two are very close.

Daniel Kaluuya is an incredible actor. (He doesn't have a large role or particularly stand out in Widows but he plays a polar opposite character to Get Out and I always find it impressive when an actor does that well).

There's a lot more I'd like to discuss but I'd rather wait until more people have seen it if I'm at risk of revealing spoilers.

Actually, I see spoiler tags, not the spoilers.

Tapatalk uses SPOILER instead of SPOIL. You could embed one in the other if you really wanted to go the extra mile.

Forgot to mention that Zardoz also has a smokin' hot Charlotte Rampling as a co-star, so there's eye candy for everyone. It's a very 70's movie.




A lot of the visuals have really stuck with me, amazing sense of style and all of it done on a shoestring budget. As a sci-fi I don't know why I'm just learning about this movie now.

Not to derail too much, but do you know the model of the pistol? I can't imagine how a revolver could produce automatic fire. You know that automatic means you hold down the trigger and the gun fires repeatedly?

With pistols, automatic usually means auto-loader. Webley-Fosbery, called a Webley-Formsby in Maltese Falcon. I owned one for a few weeks in the 70's. It was a hoot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webley...matic_Revolver

They Shall Not Grow Old Peter Jackson’s WW1 documentary is a must see. Using lots of digital wizardry, he’s taken original footage of WW1, smoothed out the frame rate, and then colourised it to amazing effect. It brings these images to life in a way so vivid that it hit me right in the gut. The moment where the film transitions from black and white to colour is stunning and so visceral. This feels like a genuinely important movie, that should particularly by anyone who glorifies WW1, or on the other hand criticises the annual Armistice Day commemoration for glorifying war. There’s nothing triumphant about this film.

Finally waited out the crowds and saw Bohemian Rhapsody. Tend to feel the quality of the music in a theatre setting+sound overcame a relatively pedestrian script. The Mike Myers cameo was amazing.

I just wanted to brag that my buddy was a big part of converting They Will Not Grow Old to color / 3D. He was working his face off for a year +, but it sounds like everyone is v happy w/ how it turned out. I was blown away by how different the new footage feels to watch. It’s like the difference between watching sports on TV vs live. Much more relatable.

I've only seen the previews, but am really looking forward to it.

anyone see the Nazi zombie flick? I'm going to go see it in IMAX lol

I saw one a while back. Can't remember the title but I really enjoyed it.

Just saw a fantastic doc on HBO called The Price Of Everything. It's about the art world, artists, collectors, and the question, "what IS art?"

It's got Jeff Koons, Gerhardt Richter, Njideka Akunyili Crosby, Larry Poons, and other luminaries, all discussing and making art.

Rocky IV in a theater, though sadly not in 35mm because the prints are all around the country being screened in anticipation of Creed 2. First time I've seen it in I think 25 years.

It is unironically good, and a tight fast-moving 90 minutes. Brings montages to the next level (if you made some remark along the lines of "the final evolution of Eisenstein" and perhaps made a thin Soviet montage connection with the film's setting, I wouldn't dismiss you). I got those final fight goosebumps.

I'd rank it something like 1 > Balboa > 4 > Creed > 2 (haven't seen 3 and 5 in 25 years).