movies

A Year and Change (2015) is a romantic drama that really connected with me.

It’s about a divorced man who has made numerous terrible choices in life. He drinks too much, parties too hard, hangs out with sketchy friends, neglects his son, and engages in too many toxic relationships with women he’s not invested in.

During a New Year’s party, he gets drunk, falls off the roof of a house, and breaks his arm. That moment is the catalyst for many positive changes in his life—including a blooming romance.

One thing I really love about this movie is the character of Owen, played with tremendous humor and likability by Brian Greenberg. A lot of lesser films would have written Owen as an immature man-baby who can’t take care of himself. I’m tired of the man-babies. They’re almost never realistic. Owen, on the other hand, is troubled but still functional—he has a steady job, keeps a house, and despite getting into fights and drinking too much, he can still connect with people and make friends. Because beyond all that trouble, Owen still has the capacity to do good.

This movie is less about the romance and more about the events that push Owen to want to be a better person. He remains flawed throughout the film—certainly never a saint—but the difference between the old Owen and the Owen that is changing is that he now gives a damn. He cares. He’s willing to invest himself in the motley crew of quirky folks who have suddenly surrounded him.

There’s Victor, a relative who just got out of prison and is trying to start over. Todd, now a quadriplegic, bound to a wheelchair after a horrifying accident. And of course, there’s Vera—just like Owen, she’s newly divorced and looking for her place in life.

The whole film takes place in a small town, and you really feel it. You get the sense that everybody knows everyone else, and word spreads fast. That creates real stakes when Owen has to make a critical decision about one of his old friends and where their relationship is headed.

While this film has a few comedic moments, it’s clearly a drama, and it deals with some heavy topics. The actors hit those high dramatic notes with conviction. A Year and Change can get very heavy at times—actually, downright sad. If you decide to watch it, be prepared.

One thing I noticed while watching this movie is that it’s clearly marketed toward men. That said, I think it has something to offer a wide audience. Even though it explores the male experience—specifically from a heterosexual perspective—the story is deeply human, and its themes of growth, relationships, and change are universal. You don’t have to personally relate to Owen’s journey to find something meaningful in it.

I bring this up because I keep hearing people say there aren’t any slice-of-life movies specifically tailored for men. That everything is either action or sci-fi. Well, pure dramas—especially slice-of-life ones—certainly do exist. And if you’re looking for one that really digs into the male experience, this one sure as hell is it.

Because what we have here is a movie about a guy who isn’t just trying to be better—he has to make some really tough, painful choices.

Every single actor in this film is fantastic. My hat’s off to Brian Greenberg, who plays Owen. I’m not too familiar with his work, but apparently, he’s an established TV actor. He recently played Rick Dodson in Suits: LA and starred as Ben Epstein for 16 episodes in How to Make It in America. Claire van der Boom, TR Knight, Marshall Allman, and Kat Foster round out the supporting cast. None of them are household names, but they’re tremendous actors who put everything into their performances.

Stephen Suettinger, who wrote and directed this film, did a stellar job. To date, this is the only full-length movie he’s ever directed. Before this, he worked on the visual effects for Avatar. I hope to see him direct again—especially in this genre—because he tells a great story.

Something a lot of people say about low-budget movies is that they can’t be good, that a lack of budget will always hold them back. A Year and Change is a big rebuttal to that. This film was clearly made with minimal resources. There’s not a single A-list star in the cast. But with stellar writing, strong direction, and incredible acting, we have ourselves a tremendous romantic drama.

I highly recommend this film.

https://youtu.be/Krr7r1Y9OwU

@movies@piefed.social

Good golly, Bad Detectives (2021) is so bad I’m just going to admit it—I was fooled.

Fooled by the awesome movie title and poster. But there is very little good about this movie, other than the premise.

It’s about two very different granddaughters who inherit their grandfather’s private detective agency. The conceit? They’re lousy detectives. Now, I would love to see a movie about two 20-something bad girls behaving badly and doing detective work even more badly. Maybe someday, if I’m lucky, I’ll see a movie like that. But this is not it.

The only good thing about Bad Detectives—aside from the premise—is the lighting. Great lighting. So much in this movie just glows, and that’s an attractive thing to see. But everything else? It’s horrible. Where do I even start?

First off, the characters. They’re a doozy. We have two women who are supposedly in conflict. One is apparently a former military vet, though she looks like she just graduated from high school. The other? Her only personality trait is that she’s Chinese. For real, I don’t know anything else about her. And neither does the movie. One character even says, “You should go back to an office job,” and you can tell the script struggled with what to call that job because they don’t even know what she’s all about.

Their grandfathers are dead, and despite their supposed differences, they have to put aside their conflicts and find out who killed them. However… there’s very little conflict between these two. Most of the time, they’re just drinking, staring into bottles of booze, and inexplicably flirting with each other.

And on that last point—at first, I thought I was going crazy. My wife always accuses me of seeing things in movies that aren’t there, especially when it comes to romantic or sexual tension. And for most of the movie, I was thinking, “Nah, these girls are just buddies.”

But my god, the lesbian tension in this film is thick. You could practically cut it with a knife. These two are always standing way too close, deep in each other’s eyes, all up in each other’s body space. There’s even a scene where they get incredibly handsy, and their friskiness results in one of their grandfather’s urns crashing to the floor, ashes spilling everywhere. This should be the moment where their relationship goes to the next level—if this were a well-written movie. But no.

This film could have had the courage to develop a tender lesbian love story, but instead, it took the coward’s way out and just left them as… friends. Friends? I don’t believe it. I don’t believe they can be friends. And I’m not just bitter that the plot didn’t go the direction I wanted. I’m mad because if you’re going to make them just buddies, at least make them buddy detectives, like every other filmmaker in the world seems capable of doing.

But I get it. It’s a low-budget film, a film noir made to appeal to the male gaze. Of course, it’s going to pander. But still, it doesn’t deliver. And rarely is that so blatant as in Bad Detectives.

Apart from the characters, I don’t even know what’s going on. I really don’t.

You have a random guy walking into their office, beating the snot out of both women, leaving, and that’s that. They act like this is an everyday thing.

You have police who claim their grandfathers died of natural causes—despite knowing they were murdered. You have villains introduced in the last 15 minutes of runtime, with no background, but we’re supposed to care about them? You have old detective guys who are supposedly on the girls’ side… but why? No explanation. You have friendly guys who suddenly turn evil. Why? Who knows.

There are so many plot holes, so many threads that go nowhere. It’s just a whole lot of nothing.

And when I say, “I don’t know why things happen”, it’s not because I wasn’t paying attention. I was. But the sound mixing in this film is beyond horrible. Some of the worst I’ve ever encountered.

The big problem? Too much music. Way too much. There’s never silence. And for reasons unknown, the director decided the music was more important than the dialogue. The music is louder than the actors. I could not hear them. I had to turn on closed captions just to figure out what was going on. But even then, the music was so distracting that it was hard to focus. And it’s not even bad music! But are we making a music video or a movie? Because I’m here for the story.

I wanted a neon-drenched neo-noir film with misbehaving girls doing everything wrong. Instead, I got a story that goes nowhere, a strong lesbian subtext that also goes nowhere, and two leads I barely know anything about. There’s no character development. By the end of the movie, I know just as little about them as I did at the beginning.

So, who the hell made this film? Why is it so bad?

Bad Detectives was directed by Presley Paris, who has mostly done shorts. Their only other movie is The Contrast, another film with awful reviews. I haven’t seen it, but every complaint about The Contrast applies here too. Chris Johnson wrote this movie. He also wrote The Contrast. Enough said.

I actually feel bad for the actors because I don’t think they were terrible. They just weren’t given anything to work with. Freya Tingley, who plays one of the granddaughters, does the voices of Mene and Fymryn in Dota: Dragon’s Blood—a fantastic show. She also played Christina Wendell in Hemlock Grove and did an excellent job there, too.

As for Dralla Aierken? She has charisma and presence. I do want to see more from her. She’s a young Uyghur Chinese actress with plenty of experience—she starred in Only Children and even wrote, directed, and acted in a 23-minute short called Cindra. I saw Cindra—it was pretty good!

There were a lot of other bit players in this film, and I do appreciate the Asian cast and the Chinatown setting—that’s a great backdrop for a noir film.

But as I said, the movie does not live up to its premise. It understands aesthetics but can’t deliver. It knows how to pitch a plot, but whoever made the poster was clearly more creative than whoever made the film.

And for that reason, I cannot recommend Bad Detectives.

https://youtu.be/EYHbaBtrqMo

@movies@piefed.social

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/58769480

Weed Watch: The Beekeeper (2024)

I discovered this hidden gem quite by accident. I like to take edibles and progressively watch weirder stuff as time passes, to align with the intensity of the high. The Beekeeper was supposed to be the first watch, a simple run of the mill action thriller.

Then the uncanny valley started. Not specifically in a visual sense, but the pacing of the cuts, and the dialogue. There is something very slightly off no matter where you look, but that clashes with what you expect from a Jason Statham movie in just the right way.

There is also so much left unexplained and unexplored in terms of the plot that it feels exactly like when you're high and everything feels like it's going out of its way to be undecipherable.

All of this combines with the honestly decent action and cameos by Josh Hutcherson and Jeremy Irons (who I think is trying to do a Southern accent, but he hasn't gotten back to me) to make for quite a unique experience for stoners and good-bad movies alike.

Have you seen the movie? What did you think about it?

There’s lots of romance films made for men.

But they tend to be romance dramas, not romance comedies. For example:

* Jerry Maguire
* Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
* 500 Days of Summer

These tend to have slight comedic elements but the emphasis is on the drama.

However, there are exceptions like Groundhog Day but it felt like the focus was more on existential dread than the romance.

@movies

Max Cloud (2020) is a martial arts space opera with a video game theme, and I love this movie. I love it so much that after watching it, I immediately bought the Blu-ray.

Not everyone shares my enthusiasm—it’s a polarizing film. Some people think it’s trash. Me? I think it’s a sheer delight that blew away my expectations.

The movie takes place in 1990 and follows a teenage girl, Sarah (Isabelle Allen), who gets sucked into a video game while playing her Sega Genesis. She finds herself trapped in the body of Max Cloud’s sidekick, Jake, and to make things even more complicated, she’s being controlled by her best friend, Cowboy (Franz Drameh), a hot dog-eating teenager.

The game, of course, is called Max Cloud, and Max Cloud is played by Scott Adkins. I love that the protagonist is the sidekick rather than the main character—it creates so many hilarious situations. One of the joys of the film is that Max Cloud is this ridiculously arrogant space captain who always assumes he’s right and charges headfirst into danger, while Sarah has everything at stake. If the game ends or the console is turned off, she’s done for.

The concept of being trapped in a video game is nothing new. Tron did it back in 1982, and video games have played with this idea too—Kid Chameleon, a Sega Genesis game from around the same time as this fictional game, had the same premise. More recently, Rad Rodgers explored a similar theme, where a kid gets sucked into a video game and becomes a space opera protagonist. But what makes Max Cloud stand out, what makes it special, comes down to two things I genuinely love.

First, the attention to detail. It might seem like a small thing, but it’s not. The movie takes great care to use period-accurate hardware. They can’t call it a Sega Genesis for licensing reasons, but it’s absolutely a Sega Genesis. The graphics look era-appropriate too—more like something from a VGA-capable PC game, but still totally plausible for a 1990s beat ’em up, right down to the color palette. As a video game nerd, these little details matter. Almost everything in the film is something you would have actually seen in a ’90s game: the cutscene dialogue, the stiff action, the goofy uniforms, even the celebratory poses. I played games like this as a kid. The level of detail here surpasses films with much bigger budgets.

The second thing is the aesthetics. The style is just incredible—the lighting, the candy-colored purples and blues, the CRT display. Granted, the small pink CRT they use isn’t typical, but it’s plausible. Low-budget VOD films have reached a point where the effects look incredible, and even though this movie is five years old now, it still looks like a million bucks. Compare the practical effects and animations here to big-budget sci-fi films from 20 or 30 years ago, and it’s amazing what they were able to accomplish on what was clearly a small budget. No one’s going to mistake this for Star Wars or a Marvel movie, but for what they had to work with, they pulled off a lot.

Another thing I love is the characters. They’re all unique, they all have different motivations, and they’re all fun—over-the-top, but fun. The bounty hunter? A riot. The main villain, Revenger? There are multiple bad guys, but Revenger stands out. There’s even a side plot involving Sarah’s dad trying to shut off the video game, and when his secret is revealed, it put a huge grin on my face.

And one of the funniest touches? Max Cloud, this brash, macho, chauvinistic action hero, never wanted to be a space-faring savior. His dream all along was to be a pastry chef.

Perhaps the best touch? The soundtrack. I want it on vinyl. It’s synth-laden, gets the blood pumping, with a few rock tunes thrown in for good measure.

Of course, not everyone loves this film, and I get why. The biggest issue is probably the marketing. The poster prominently features Scott Adkins as Max Cloud, which attracted a lot of Adkins fans expecting high-octane martial arts action.

Before watching this, I didn’t even know who Scott Adkins was, but apparently, he’s a big deal in direct-to-DVD action films. People went in expecting wild, over-the-top fight scenes, and while the film does have some, they’re stylized to fit the video game theme. Plus, Adkins isn’t even the main character, despite his name being front and center on the poster. If you’re expecting a typical Scott Adkins action flick, you might feel misled.

Then there’s the humor. A lot of the jokes require some knowledge of ’90s video games—specifically, 16-bit games. If you don’t have that context, some of the humor might not land. The film is intentionally campy and ridiculous, but some people just don’t get that. If there’s no laugh track telling them when to laugh, they won’t realize it’s supposed to be funny. It’s wild to me that so many people completely miss the humor, but they do. And if you went in expecting a serious Scott Adkins action film, the campiness would probably just annoy you.

The other big reason people dislike Max Cloud? It’s a B movie. It doesn’t have a big budget. Personally, I love B movies—most of the time, I prefer them to blockbusters. When I watch them, I appreciate what they’re able to do with the budget they have. That’s part of the charm. It’s why I love old Roger Corman films like Little Shop of Horrors, Battle Beyond the Stars, and Death Race 2000. No one mistook those for big studio productions, but they were still a blast, and Max Cloud is the same way.

Well Go USA made this film, and they have an interesting history. The studio was founded by a Taiwanese-American woman in 1989, and they started out making karaoke videos—if you’ve ever been to a karaoke bar and seen those music videos playing in the background, you’ve likely seen Well Go’s early work. Eventually, they branched out into indie films and built a reputation for martial arts, action, and horror. Max Cloud hasn’t found a huge audience, but it really should because it’s just so much fun.

I also think this is director Martin Owen’s best film so far. He’s made other low-budget movies like Killers Anonymous, Let’s Be Evil, and L.A. Slasher, but Max Cloud is the one that feels like it was made with the most love and passion.

So, do I recommend Max Cloud? Absolutely. It’s a blast. I can’t wait to watch it on Blu-ray with my kid. While I understand that it’s not for everyone, it’s definitely a movie for me.

https://youtu.be/F_i7u1Rkuw8

@movies@piefed.social

I looked at the film poster for Transmutators and thought, “Okay, a mockbuster of Transformers, probably made by The Asylum.” But this isn’t a mockbuster.

In fact, it has nothing to do with Transformers. That poster, which promises something like Optimus Prime? It’s a lie. And that’s not the film’s fault.

In reality, Transmutators is a post-apocalyptic, Filipino-made sci-fi movie about an alien invasion, mutants, and mech suits. There are almost zero robots here. The film was made in 2007 but didn’t get a North American release until 2023, when—for some unidentified reason—Samuel Goldwyn Films decided to distribute it on Prime Video and Tubi.

The original title is actually Resiklo, which in Tagalog means “recycle.” And that makes sense, because the premise is that aliens and the mutated humans they’ve taken over have all but conquered the planet. What’s left is a small human outpost in the Philippines, where survivors build mech suits out of recycled parts to fight back.

That has nothing to do with Transformers. There aren’t even any transforming abilities in this film. So why did Samuel Goldwyn Films, of all companies, pick this movie for release—and market it like an Asylum-style mockbuster? That’s the real mystery. They usually distribute arthouse films, but this? Not an arthouse film at all.

Now, if there are bad reviews of this movie, I think we should place less blame on the filmmakers and more on Samuel Goldwyn’s marketing department. So let’s break it down—what this film actually is, who it was made for, and what its intention was.

It was made in 2007. It’s a Filipino film. You should never expect a Hollywood production budget from something like this. But for what they had? They made something okay. Is it amazing? No. Is it Tommy Wiseau-level bad? Also no.

If you’re going to watch Transmutators, you have to treat it as a cultural experience. This is a Filipino sci-fi movie. The performances? We’re not getting the true quality of them, because we’re stuck with dubs. The original Filipino audio isn’t available, so you can’t judge the actors based on the voices you hear. And the lead actors—Dingdong Dantes (yes, that’s his real name) and Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.—are credible performers. They’ve starred in solid Filipino films before, and here, they take everything seriously. They’re not treating it as a joke.

Visually, for a 2007 film with a minimal budget, the CGI is pretty decent. By 2023 standards, it looks rough, but for its time, it does a solid job. The set design, the settings, the costumes—all respectable. I actually liked the mech suits. And the fight choreography? It’s all right. Is it on par with Hong Kong action cinema? No. But it’s certainly better than most direct-to-DVD action films.

More importantly, the movie has an original story, interesting characters, and even compelling villains. These characters have motivations and unique abilities, and everything builds toward a crescendo that works.

At times, Transmutators feels too ambitious for its budget. From the opening scenes alone, you can tell the director wished he had a multi-million-dollar budget. He clearly wanted to do a lot, but the film’s limitations are obvious.

Another issue is that it sometimes tries too hard to be family-friendly. I get it—mech suits and aliens have kid appeal—but the child-focused plot points feel shoehorned in. Then there are the narrative flaws: plot holes, story threads that go nowhere, and missed opportunities. A good love story could have developed, but it didn’t. And without spoiling the ending, let’s just say there are some Star Wars-like familial entanglements that don’t really go anywhere.

If you were a Filipino teenager in the 2000s, you’d probably be pumped to see a legit sci-fi movie in Tagalog, with action scenes and special effects.

Are there better Filipino sci-fi movies? Yes. Better Filipino action films? Absolutely. But at the time, there weren’t many Filipino films with this kind of ambition—the ambition to reach for the stars and deliver something that looks like a Hollywood blockbuster, even if it doesn’t have the budget to match.

Clearly, the filmmakers did the best they could with what they had, and I can’t knock them for that.

If you’re expecting a blockbuster—or even a mockbuster—don’t bother. But if you’re willing to ignore the marketing, ignore the Transmutators title (because this is really Reciklo), and recognize this as a unique cultural experience? Then yes, it’s worth checking out. It’s an ambitious 2000s sci-fi film that doesn’t quite meet its own ambitions—but that ambition is still worth appreciating.

https://youtu.be/CDWgb4GYk9o

@movies@piefed.social

I watched Noah’s Shark because the title was so ridiculous I had to check it out.

But of course, I don’t watch movies just because of their titles—I also checked out the trailer. From what I saw, I knew exactly what I was getting into: a no-budget horror movie about a supernatural shark guarding Noah’s Ark.

Now, if you know anything about the Noah’s Ark story, you’ll remember the Ark supposedly rests on Mount Ararat—a very high mountain. So how the hell does a shark end up there? Well, the film actually goes into deep detail on that.

It involves a witch, Noah’s supposed fourth son. The Bible says he had three, but apparently, this fourth son was such an irredeemable asshole that he knocked up a girl before the flood, then abandoned her and their unborn child to die. Somehow, she and the baby survived on a different mountain peak. Meanwhile, Noah’s fourth son died aboard the Ark, and now his descendants are doing everything they can to prevent the Ark from being discovered.

And where does the shark come in? Apparently, this supernatural shark made a deal with the fourth son: sharks would have dominion over all animals that hate humans. This somehow led to a shark swimming around a very shallow lake on Mount Ararat. Convoluted? Oh, absolutely.

Fast forward to the present day: a televangelist exorcist sets out to find Noah’s Ark, film his discovery, and reveal it to the world. That’s the bulk of Noah’s Shark’s plot.

Now, let’s talk about the budget—or rather, the complete lack of one. Whatever money was spent on this film seems to have gone entirely into green screens, dollar-store costumes, and terrible CGI. And when I say dollar-store costumes, I mean it. If you see Noah in this movie, that beard was absolutely bought at a dollar store.

At this point, you might be thinking, This sounds like a terrible, irredeemable movie. And no, I’m not going to tell you it’s top-shelf cinema. But here’s the thing—Mark Polonia, the director, knows exactly what he’s doing, and the laughs are intentional.

If you’re unfamiliar with Mark Polonia, he’s behind countless Z-grade horror films—films that once populated Blockbuster shelves and now live on Amazon Prime and Tubi. Along with his late brother John, he made Splatter Farm, Feeder, and The House That Screamed, among others. After John’s passing (RIP John Polonia), Mark kept making movies—Camp Blood First Slaughter, Sharkenstein, RIP Van Winkle—all in the same wonderfully awful vein.

If you love “bad” movies—and I put “bad” in quotes because I’m not convinced these movies are entirely bad—you might already be familiar with Polonia’s work. His films get trashed in reviews, but they’re hilarious. And it’s clear that both he and his actors are fully in on the joke.

For example, there’s a scene where a female character suddenly wants to have sex, only to trigger a death trap. Her partner, somehow still in the mood, tells her he has a safe word. Come on—that’s funny. Or the scene where an exorcist priest tries to cast a demon out of a plank of wood, only for it to possess an adorable little rodent—which he then immediately squashes, because who knows what evil a demon-possessed rodent could unleash? And don’t worry—no animals were harmed. The squashing is done with hilariously bad CGI.

The lead character, Father Benna, is played by Jeff Kirkendall, a Polonia regular. In fact, he’s also played Father Benna in Amityville in Space. Kirkendall has starred in 84 films—almost all directed by Mark Polonia. The rest of the cast is just as ridiculous, fully embracing the ham and cheese of it all.

Now, let’s talk ratings. On IMDb, Noah’s Shark sits at a 1.8/10. On Letterboxd, it actually fares better with a 2/5. Professional critics? Almost nonexistent. The few who have reviewed it tend to be from horror blogs—and they like it far more than IMDb does.

So why the discrepancy? I think IMDb users don’t get that this is a joke. They’re expecting a serious horror movie, see the low-budget effects, and dismiss it as garbage. But if this exact movie were written, directed, and starred in by Tim Heidecker, people would love it. This hits all the same absurd, low-budget high notes as Decker, and I know people laughed at that.

That said, Noah’s Shark isn’t without its flaws. The biggest issue? Polonia sometimes tries to get artsy—leaning into psychedelic effects, weird camera tricks, and general artsy-fartsy nonsense. I get what he’s going for, but it doesn’t work. It just wastes time. Sure, if you’re drunk or high, maybe it’s fun, but as someone who’s been stone sober for a long time, I just wanted to get back to the ham and cheese.

Would I recommend this? Not to everyone. If you lack a sense of humor about low-budget schlock, or if you’re actually looking for a straight-ahead horror film, this is not it. But if you love Mystery Science Theater 3000-style riffable movies, or just want some dumb fun, give it a shot.

Just remember—when you mock this movie (and it is mockable), the director is clearly in on the joke.

https://youtu.be/X01qoMaJ4oY

@movies@piefed.social

I watched Dinosaur Hotel because I am a simple man. Put simply: I like dinosaurs. And I like it when dinosaurs terrorize humans.

In this case, the dinosaurs are terrorizing a hotel full of women playing a game show where, essentially, the last person who doesn’t get eaten wins.

I won’t lie—there’s something about badly CGI-animated dinosaurs, ones that look like they were rendered on a ’90s Commodore Amiga, chomping on some humans. There’s a lot of screaming involved. And watching these women scream at such hilariously bad CGI dinosaurs? That never gets old.

The lead actress in this film is Chrissie Wunna, a bit of a Z-list celebrity in the UK. Her character, Sienna Woods, makes the mistake of bringing her two children to the Dinosaur Hotel. So not only are these dinosaurs terrorizing a bunch of women, but now children are involved. And if you know the pecking order of these movies, moms come first. Sorry, ladies—if you don’t have kids, you’re not making it out alive. I don’t make the rules. It’s just how these movies go.

Now, calling Dinosaur Hotel a B-movie is charitable. It’s more of a bottom of the bargain-bin movie, with almost no budget. But because it’s a British production, most of the cast are classically trained theater actors. That’s not to say they’re good—they’re not. No one could be, given the production quality. You could be Dame Judi Dench, and your performance still wouldn’t look good in this movie.

There’s also something about the women in this film that feels distinctly British. It’s hard to put my finger on, but they all have a certain look—the kind of look you only find in Britain. It’s that “standing outside a nightclub in freezing weather, barely wearing anything, struggling to walk in high heels after too many drinks, and about to do something embarrassing” aesthetic. That’s what every woman in this movie embodies. Except for the one older woman, who looks to be in her 50s—but I wouldn’t put her above freezing her ass off outside a nightclub even if she should know better.

Back to Chrissie Wunna—she’s the lead, and believe it or not, the two children in the movie are her real-life kids. She’s not a great actress, and the production does her no favors, but she has a way of getting lots of work. She’s been on Good Morning Britain and a bunch of reality TV shows. Admittedly, she’s very attractive and has a unique look you don’t often see in movies like this—she’s Burmese British, and in America, women of her background rarely get leading roles. So it’s nice to see her here. Even though she’s not great in this movie, I found her charismatic and charming, even in an incredibly trashy film.

At the end of the day, Dinosaur Hotel has a minuscule budget, wooden acting, and laughably bad effects—but it delivers exactly what it promises: terrified women being chased around a hotel. And that’s more than I can say for a lot of big-budget movies that promise the world but don’t give the audience what they want.

So, can I recommend Dinosaur Hotel in good conscience? No. But was it entertaining? Absolutely. And hey, at least all those theater actresses got paid, got a credit on their résumés, and gave us some unintentional laughs.

https://youtu.be/82zuFM-AcLE

@movies@piefed.social

Hannibal Rising, released in 2007, is terrible. Horrible. Awful. Where do I even start?

Audiences seemed to like it. Critics hated it. Sometimes, I think critics get things wrong, but in this case, they were right. The audiences were wrong. Hannibal Rising is a film that shouldn’t have existed.

The movie tries to offer a rationale for why Hannibal Lecter became a violent psychopath. Guess what? It’s because of Nazis. This film paints him as a hero, as though he’s some kind of Nazi hunter avenging a great injustice—and that completely wrecks the character.

In the first Hannibal Lecter film, The Silence of the Lambs, he was pure evil. That was the appeal: not just that he was evil, but that he was skilled at manipulation. Hannibal Rising kicks sand in the eye of that portrayal. It’s a total tonal shift. We don’t need Hannibal as a good guy. We don’t need to feel empathy for a serial killer. He doesn’t need to be an antihero.

And what is with this obsession with antiheroes? Why do they need to exist? Why can’t bad guys just be bad guys? Do we really need a psychological breakdown explaining why Hannibal became what he was? I don’t know. This whole appetite for antiheroes rubs me the wrong way. We don’t need to pretend bad people are somehow good. And we definitely don’t need a sexy Hannibal.

That’s another thing. This movie presents him as a suave bad boy, and it just becomes even creepier—but not in the way the film intended. And I’ll get into why in a moment.

Because beyond all that, this movie suffers from inexplicable Orientalism.

Young Hannibal—who, by the way, is a minor at the start of the film—has a guardian, a Japanese woman living in France. And somehow, she embodies every Asian stereotype imaginable. She has a basement where she worships her ancestors. She keeps ancient swords. Her house is full of kimonos and various Japanese knickknacks.

I don’t know how Gong Li felt playing this character, especially given China’s history with Japan—particularly during World War II, when much of this film takes place. But the exoticism of her character really rubbed me the wrong way. It reduces Asian women to caricatures.

And since I have a Chinese Canadian wife, I would never watch this film with her. I know she’d find it offensive.

But it gets worse.

This Japanese guardian—again, his guardian when he was a minor—becomes his love interest. That’s right. They kiss. She becomes his lover. Who approved that decision? My God, it’s so awkward. Why did she have to be his guardian? Why couldn’t she just be someone he met by chance in France? No, she had to be his literal guardian. And yeah, the whole thing felt incestuous.

And let’s talk about the budget.

This film cost $75 million. Seventy-five million dollars. And for what? The entire story is ridiculous. You know, yesterday I was talking about The Asylum—the kings of mockbusters—and how sometimes, just sometimes, their mockbusters are better than the blockbusters they’re parodying. If The Asylum had made a mockbuster of Hannibal Rising, it probably would have been better. And it would’ve cost $500,000.

I mean, I see where the money went. The big crowd shots. The technically impressive cinematography. The sound design. Sure, it all looks good. But in terms of storytelling? In terms of characters making any sense? Nothing works.

And the ending? Completely absurd. I won’t spoil anything, just in case someone decides to watch it, but let’s just say—I laughed. Not because the film was being intentionally funny, but because it was so bad.

The one good thing about this film?

Gaspard Ulliel. He gave a solid performance with what little he had. He played a decent Hannibal. If you judge the film solely on his performance—great. But one good actor doesn’t make a movie. He still had to act alongside everyone else. And as good as he was, one actor can only do so much.

By the way, RIP Gaspard Ulliel. He passed away in 2022 in a skiing accident, which was tragic. But he donated his organs and saved six lives in the process. That’s something worth remembering.

I’d like to check out his other films because Hannibal Rising did not do him justice.

So, you probably know where I’m going with this—I don’t recommend Hannibal Rising. Out of all the Hannibal films and even the TV show, this is the worst offering by far.

Skip this one. You don’t need a sexy, Nazi-hunting Hannibal who sleeps with his Japanese guardian.

https://youtu.be/NCCFleJPTAU

@movies@piefed.social

Young & Beautiful (2013) is a French drama about a teenage girl who, after losing her virginity, decides to become a prostitute. And that’s pretty much it.

This film received a lot of praise upon release—it was even nominated for the Palme d’Or at Cannes. Audiences seemed to like it, too. On IMDb, it scores 6.8 out of 10, and on Letterboxd, 3.3 out of 5.

As for me? I thought it was boring.

The film is very French. And, much like the title suggests, it worships at the altar of youth and eroticism. Because when you really break it down, all it does is follow Isabelle (played by Marine Vacth) as she moves from one man to the next, collects cash, gets found out, gets yelled at by her parents. The film almost bends over backward trying to make a mystery out of why she becomes a prostitute—especially since she comes from a good family, has all her needs met, and is spoiled rotten.

But the answer isn’t profound. In fact, it’s simple—anyone who’s been around long enough will recognize what motivates her. She enjoys transactional relationships. She even says it herself: when money is exchanged, it creates clarity about what the relationship is. Fine. That’s what Isabelle is all about, even outside of paid encounters. Even in her personal relationships, where no money is involved, she still makes them transactional.

And the other women in her life—her own relatives—are afraid of her. Because they know Isabelle will take their men just because she can. It’s all a lark. Fun and games.

Of course, there’s a twist in the story, but I won’t spoil it. Still, that twist—the dramatic event that supposedly gives the film weight—doesn’t change who Isabelle is. By the end of the movie, I don’t feel like she’s grown as a person.

If that sounds compelling to you, go for it. But I don’t find any thrill in transactional relationships. I like love. I believe in love. I think there’s something beautiful about being with someone, seeing who they really are, in a way that goes deeper than monetary value.

It’s not that people like this don’t exist—they obviously do. We’ve all met people who don’t feel anything for anyone but like sex, so they acquire it like a business deal. No different from a corporate merger. And to me, that’s just boring.

I don’t find people like Isabelle particularly fascinating. A transaction might provide clarity, but it also provides no mystery.

And for that reason, I can’t recommend Young & Beautiful.

https://youtu.be/HMndje0nRiE

@movies@piefed.social

Freeway (1996) is one of the darkest but also funniest films I’ve ever seen, and it’s the movie that made Reese Witherspoon a star.

And this is shocking stuff. It’s Reese Witherspoon like you’ve never seen her. I don’t think she’d ever take on a role like this again. She was 19 when the movie was released, and she displays an impressive range—really hits the high notes—that few actors ever achieve in their entire careers.

Let’s be real: this movie isn’t high art. It can be lowbrow at times. But it has something to say.

Freeway is an urban retelling of Little Red Riding Hood—except here, Little Red Riding Hood is Vanessa Lutz (Reese Witherspoon), a 14-year-old girl who can’t read. Her mother is constantly turning tricks on the corner outside their house, and her stepdad is a drug addict who won’t stop trying to have his way with her. But when her mom gets arrested, and shortly after, her stepdad too, Vanessa is left alone. She’s about to be taken in by Child Protective Services when she gets an idea: she’ll go live with her grandmother instead. So, stepping out on her social worker, she heads down the freeway—and that’s where she meets Bob Wolverton (Kiefer Sutherland), who exudes an impressive menace. And, as his last name implies, he’s the wolf in this retelling.

As you can probably imagine, Vanessa and Bob collide in a battle of wills. But Vanessa, a victim of the system, does things no 14-year-old in a healthy environment would ever do. This film is as much about her descent into criminality as it is about the world that made her this way. Because Freeway makes a point: girls like Vanessa don’t just happen. They are created. They are products of an unjust world. We already know what kind of person Vanessa is going to become because the system makes her. When you grow up like that, you’re just trying to survive. And sometimes, the only thing keeping you alive is your will to live. That’s what this film is about.

Now, I have to mention the supporting cast—because they’re amazing. Brooke Shields plays Bob Wolverton’s wife, Mimi, and wow, is she obnoxious. I wanted to slap her a few times. Brittany Murphy has a short but memorable role—she grabbed my attention right away, and honestly, it’s too bad she didn’t get a longer career. RIP, Brittany Murphy. Wolfgang Bodison and Dan Hedaya play the detectives, and they are riveting.

Now, to say this film is offensive is an understatement. It is wildly offensive. If I had known some of the scenes that were coming, I might not have watched it at all. At one point, Vanessa utters the N-word, and I was furious that the scene even made it into the movie. It was inexcusable. There is no situation where a white person should ever say that word, and it came with a hard R. Had I known, I wouldn’t have watched the film.

And yet—I have never seen a movie like this before, and I don’t think a movie like this will ever be made again. I don’t think Reese Witherspoon will ever play a character like this again. It’s kitschy, maybe even trashy. There were moments where I laughed and immediately felt like I was going to hell for laughing—but it was funny. Especially when Vanessa, pointing a gun at someone, drawls in her thick Southern accent (I think it’s Southern, not sure if it’s Texan—my ear for American accents isn’t great):

“Do you accept Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior?”

Come on. That’s funny.

Do I regret watching this movie? No. Did I laugh? Yes. Did it give me a lot to think about? Absolutely. Is Reese Witherspoon an incredible actress? No doubt.

But the one thing that keeps me from recommending this film is that N-word scene. I just don’t think there’s ever a reason for that word to be said.

All I can say is, I wish more films like Freeway could be made. It’s just too bad about that N-word, though.

https://youtu.be/C5aNEQ-xP48

@movies@piefed.social

Thor: God of Thunder is a 2022 mockbuster produced by The Asylum.

If you’re not familiar with the term, a mockbuster is when a small studio creates a film with a title similar to a major blockbuster to attract attention. In this case, Thor: God of Thunder is a mockbuster of Thor: Love and Thunder, the 2022 Marvel Studios film.

The Asylum is the king of mockbusters, though not the only studio that does this. In fact, this isn’t even their first Thor-based mockbuster—they also made Almighty Thor in 2011. However, Thor: God of Thunder is not a sequel to Almighty Thor. It has different actors, a completely unrelated plot, and no connection between the two.

Before diving into the film itself, it’s worth talking about The Asylum. You probably know them best for films like Sharknado, Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies, or even the TV show Z Nation. Over the past 20 years, they’ve made well over 500 films—an absurdly high output, far more than most major studios. They produce so many movies that they even have a live stream running their films nonstop for months without repeating. Personally, I like The Asylum. I know they get a lot of criticism for making mockbusters, but the truth is, they often achieve the same thing as their big-budget counterparts for a tiny fraction of the cost. And sometimes, they’re even better.

So, how do I feel about Thor: God of Thunder? Well, after 20 years, The Asylum has gotten pretty good at what they do. I go into their films with a certain expectation—I don’t expect greatness. These movies are made on a few hundred thousand dollars and often shot in just 12 days. But given those constraints, Thor: God of Thunder does more than most filmmakers could with a similar budget. The special effects aren’t half-bad anymore. The cinematography is okay. The sound mixing is great. Even the acting is… decent.

Granted, the actors aren’t anyone famous. The guy who plays Thor, Myrom Kingery, has a few small roles in other movies, usually uncredited, but he does an okay job. He’s acting alongside Vernon Wells, a character actor you’d definitely recognize. He played Wez, the mohawked villain in Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior. Another notable name in the cast is Tyler Christopher, best known for General Hospital, in one of his last roles before he passed away. They all do fine—not exceptional, but fine.

Now, let’s talk about the plot. Or rather, the lack of one. It’s as basic as it gets: Thor has to stop Loki from resurrecting Fenrir, the giant wolf, which would trigger the apocalypse. That’s it. Thor teams up with some mortals, including a Norse archaeologist, and with Odin’s help, they take on Loki. If you’re expecting surprises, don’t. It plays out exactly as you’d imagine.

Technically, this is a better film than Almighty Thor. The acting is better, the effects are better, and it doesn’t feel quite as low-budget. It’s not a blockbuster, but it’s passable as a TV movie. The thing about early Asylum films is that they were so terrible they were fun—you’d get friends together, laugh at the absurd plots, and mock the sheer incompetence. That’s why a movie like Transmorphers ended up as a Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode.

But you can’t really make fun of Thor: God of Thunder because it’s too competent. That might sound like praise, but in reality, it’s a problem. What’s left? If a movie isn’t exceptionally bad or exceptionally good, what do you have? Mediocrity. And mediocrity is boring.

Sure, the acting is serviceable, the cinematography is fine, the sound mixing is decent, and the effects are passable—but the story is utterly predictable. It doesn’t say anything, it doesn’t surprise you, and it doesn’t even have the ridiculous charm of classic Asylum films. This isn’t Meth Gator. This isn’t Nazis at the Center of the Earth. It’s just… there.

I’d only recommend this movie if you need background noise while doing something else—washing dishes, cleaning the house, whatever. Just don’t expect to be entertained.

https://youtu.be/Lv4ME566BKQ

@movies@piefed.social

Two Lovers (2008), starring Joaquin Phoenix, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Vanessa Shaw, was a brutal watch for me—so difficult I had a hard time getting through its 110 minutes.

I even had to stop the movie for half an hour before continuing. Not because it’s terrible—far from it. It’s actually a great film, a tremendous romantic drama. But it cuts close. It hits home. I feel trauma watching this movie.

You see, I know this world. I understand Jewish families—the parents, the expectations. I understand the loneliness portrayed in this movie, the loneliness of the main character. If you want to understand male loneliness, goddamn, does this film portray it well. Oh man, I’ve been there. In my 20s, with little to no prospects, living with my parents, wondering if I had a future.

And what this film gets so spectacularly right is the dilemma between the two lovers, two women who are opposites. I found myself yelling at Leonard Kraditor, played by Joaquin Phoenix, because I’ve been there. I’m shaking my head, telling him, Leonard, you can do better than that! But that’s tough to believe when you feel like you have nothing.

Man, I know these two women. I’ve dated these two women. Not at the same time, like in the movie, but goddamn, do I know this world.

The first lover, Michelle Rausch (Gwyneth Paltrow), is Leonard’s aspiration, his dream of a better world. She’s glamorous, she’s got friends, she goes nightclubbing, she has a great job. She seems sunny. But there’s a darkness in this girl. And you know she’s all wrong. She sees Leonard as nothing more than someone to take advantage of—an emotional vampire, sucking the life out of him because she craves his support. But she won’t give him what he truly wants: real love.

Then there’s the other girl, Sandra Cohen (Vanessa Shaw). Sandra is good for Leonard. She loves him—absolutely, unconditionally. She understands who he is, how he’s a wounded person. And it’s not that she wants to rescue him; she just loves him in a way he can’t comprehend, a way he’s actually afraid of.

The problem? Sandra isn’t aspirational. She comes from a family just like his. She’s Jewish. His parents set them up. She’s the nice Jewish girl that all Jewish parents want their sons to marry. And what’s the glamour in that? What’s the risk in following the script? There’s nothing unpredictable about Sandra. She is good. And if Leonard ends up with her, he’ll live a very predictable life, at a very predictable job, with very predictable Jewish children.

But here’s something I know now, being in my 40s, being married: What’s wrong with who you are and where you come from? Leonard’s family may be overbearing at times, but they love him. They support him. They want the best for him. And that’s one of the reasons I love this movie—it could have played Leonard’s family as obnoxious Jews, but it doesn’t. They’re not obnoxious. They’re a loving family. Middle-class Brooklyn Jews, living in a humble apartment building. I know these people. They are my people.

It’s interesting—this film got great reviews, but it was overshadowed by Joaquin Phoenix’s infamous interview on Letterman when he was promoting it. But I think this is one of his best performances. So often, he gets pigeonholed into the lonely eccentric role—like with Joker—but Leonard isn’t eccentric. He’s depressed. And that’s a real thing. A lot of men go through it. I’ve gone through it. And it’s brutal.

I did read one review that dismissed the movie as “pretentious ideals with no realism whatsoever.” To that, I say: What movie were you watching, dude? No realism? If this film isn’t real, then my life wasn’t real.

It’s a difficult movie to watch, but it’s an amazing one. Very emotionally heavy. I highly recommend it. Definitely watch this one.

https://youtu.be/zi8nt8Ejm_M

@movies@piefed.social

When I started The Disappearance of Alice Creed (2009), I thought it was going to be a paint-by-numbers hostage film.

And at first, that’s exactly what we got—two criminals who have planned a kidnapping down to the minute detail. But, of course, the best-laid plans almost always go to waste.

What makes this film exceptionally fun, what makes it punch above its weight, is a script that delivers real surprises. Who are these two criminals? What is their relationship to each other? And what is their relationship to Alice? Can anybody trust anyone? This film explores that in-depth while dialing the tension up to eleven.

When you watch this film, you’re going to sweat. Your heart’s going to race. You’re going to have to wipe your brow every now and then. Because let me tell you—what happens in this film? I did not see it coming. You think it’s going one way, and then it side-swipes you.

Writer and director Jay Blakeson made a film so good it’s been remade multiple times in different languages—there’s a Dutch version, an Indian version, and even a German remake. When a film gets remade that often, you know it’s special.

Another thing I have to mention is the soundtrack. My God, does it sound amazing. Pianos, strings, beautiful orchestration—the music tells a story all on its own.

And, of course, what’s a film without its cast? What’s incredible about this one is that there are only three actors for the entire runtime. No extras, no supporting cast—just Jemma Arterton, Eddie Marsan, and Martin Compston. And they deliver a tour de force in the craft of acting.

This one’s special. Believe me, it deserves all the praise in the world.

In fact, I’m seriously thinking about buying it on Blu-ray.

https://youtu.be/5dWUqrbIJCY

@movies@piefed.social

Astro Loco, released in 2021, is a strange experience.

Ostensibly, it’s like a bizarro version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, except instead of an AI trying to kill the crew, it’s desperately trying to stop them from going insane. That’s the plot, anyway.

But the actual movie? Well, this thing had zero budget. And I mean almost nothing. They paid the actors, but nearly everything else is CGI or shot in front of a green screen.

Because of this, the actors pretty much gave up on playing it seriously. They knew they were in a B-grade movie, they knew it wasn’t going to be good, so they just went hog wild. Not a single person delivers a straight line or a serious performance—everyone is either intentionally overacting or clearly doesn’t give a damn.

Some actors are just here to pick up a paycheck, and in the process, they’re having the time of their lives. It wouldn’t surprise me if they were high on set, because I have no idea how anyone involved could get through this film completely sober.

The result? One of the funniest movies I’ve seen in a while. It’s almost like a really long episode of Red Dwarf—except there’s no laugh track, no direct jokes, just constant winks at the camera. And the special effects? Beyond horrendous.

Then there are moments that happen with zero explanation. Like, for some reason, when the astronauts go on a spacewalk, they put animal onesies over their spacesuits. A bunny onesie, a dinosaur onesie—you name it. No one ever acknowledges this. No one reacts. It’s just a thing that happens. We, the audience, are left thinking, Okay… I guess that’s normal in this universe? There’s no reason for it. The film never explains.

Then there’s the “alien” lifeform, which is just a guy in a bug costume, complete with visible sweatpants and sneakers poking out from underneath. Clearly, CGI wasn’t in the budget—even bad CGI.

It’s as if the entire cast and crew collectively agreed: This will never be Star Wars. It won’t be Dune. Hell, it’s not even Star Trek. But they do love sci-fi—at one point, they even quote Asimov’s Laws of Robotics. Still, the attitude is very much screw it, let’s just make something ridiculous and cash the check.

As for availability? You can watch this pretty much anywhere—Prime Video, Tubi, YouTube. There are multiple uploads floating around. Did the filmmakers make their money back? No idea. But hey, I watched it.

Would I recommend Astro Loco? Not if you’re a serious sci-fi fan. If you want anything resembling good sci-fi, you’re going to hate this. But if you enjoy low-budget B-movies that lean into their own ridiculousness, it’s worth a laugh. Like I said, it has Red Dwarf energy, but I wouldn’t call it a satire. It’s just… a sci-fi comedy that doesn’t take itself seriously. At all.

https://youtu.be/HPls6UGJKsk

@movies@piefed.social

Reign of Fire (2002), starring Matthew McConaughey and Christian Bale, is such a disappointment.

This movie had a fresh, awesome idea—a post-apocalyptic world ruled by dragons. Imagine that: dragons returning to our modern world, wreaking havoc, destroying everything in their path. Humanity is left in ruins, struggling to survive against the new apex predator. We’re just lunch meat.

What a fantastic setup. So how does it all go wrong?

The biggest issue is the world-building. There’s an old adage: show, don’t tell. Post-apocalyptic films work because we see the world as it is now, the ruins of what came before. That’s why Mad Max is so effective. Hell, even Waterworld, for all its flaws, succeeds in world-building. But Reign of Fire? No.

At times, it hints at the idea of a modern world reverting to medieval-like society, which could have been fascinating. But they don’t show any of it. We don’t see the broader world. London? Never shown. The devastation? Barely glimpsed. The entire movie is cooped up in a little castle, and we never get a sense of the scale of destruction.

Now, the dragons themselves? Cool, no doubt. But again, we don’t see enough of them. We’re told how they work, but we don’t get to see it in action nearly enough.

Then there’s McConaughey’s character. He’s introduced as this badass dragon slayer—a tactical expert who knows how to take the fight to them. But when we actually see him in action? What a letdown. You’re telling me this guy somehow got from the U.S. to the U.K. with troops, tanks, and even a helicopter… and yet, he completely fumbles when it counts? If you’re going to give us dragon hunters, at least make them competent. And for God’s sake, show us how he got there. How did they cross the Atlantic? That’s something I’d love to see. Instead, they skip over it entirely and expect us to just accept it.

It’s not just the plot, though. The cinematography is a mess. Whatever color filter they used makes everything so dark, I can barely see what’s happening. I get that they’re going for a certain mood, but come on—I shouldn’t have to crank up my TV’s brightness just to make out what’s on screen. If I’m struggling to see the movie, I’m struggling to stay engaged.

One thing I will praise, though, is the sound design. Watching this on DVD reminded me why I still keep my collection. The audio mix is so much better than what you get on streaming platforms like Netflix. My home theater system makes a difference, and I plan to keep using it until the whole setup dies.

This movie was supposed to get a sequel, but I think audiences rejected it for the same reasons I did. It had tremendous potential. Personally, I’d love to see someone else tackle the idea of dragons bringing about the apocalypse. It’s just a fantastic concept. But next time, actually show the destruction. Let us see dragons taking on armies, facing off against modern military power. How would they handle something like a nuclear bomb?

That’s what makes Godzilla so compelling—it shows the destruction. Godzilla breathes fire. He’s practically a dragon. He doesn’t fly (well, sometimes he does), but he’s a massive, unstoppable force. The key is that we see his power firsthand.

Reign of Fire had the budget. It had the effects. It had two A-list actors—Matthew McConaughey and Christian Bale. And yet, I’ve seen B-movies with better world-building than this.

I can’t recommend Reign of Fire. Skip this one.

https://youtu.be/Xd2hHvq-SEA

@movies@piefed.social

Finally bought a Blu-Ray player today.

Why? Because my old DVD player finally kicked the bucket. It no longer reads discs.

Meanwhile, just saw a Sony Blu-Ray player at Value Village selling for $15. And it plays SACDs, which is pretty important to me since I own several of them.

Now you might be wondering, “Why are you bothering with physical discs when we live in the age of streaming?”

First of all, I own several DVDs—many which aren’t available on any streaming platform. And I still want to watch them.

But the other, most important reason has nothing to do with video but, rather, audio: Netflix sucks for audio mixing. Dialogue is always muffled. So I end up turning the video up only to be blasted when something big like an explosion happens.

You know what? That’s never been a problem with physical discs. I can actually hear people when they talk.

And despite the fact that Blu-Ray is 19-years-old, it still has a better bitrate than Netflix. Further, it requires no Internet to function—which means nothing will be interrupted if my router or ISP suddenly stop working.

It’s a good time to invest in Blu-Ray.

@movies

Miss Willoughby and the Haunted Bookshop (2021) is a British mystery movie.

It doesn’t do anything new. It follows a lot of tropes, yet I had a fun time watching it.

I often play a video game genre known as hidden object games (HOGs). These are almost always mystery games, sometimes with supernatural themes. The gameplay involves combing through areas, looking for clues, and solving riddles. They’re very popular, particularly on PC and mobile, and are primarily played by middle-aged women. If you’re a younger man, you might not even be aware they exist because they never get console releases. One of the biggest producers of HOGs is Big Fish Games.

Why mention hidden object games? Because Miss Willoughby and the Haunted Bookshop is the movie equivalent of one. The film follows an intrepid amateur detective who talks to people, searches for clues, and pieces together a mystery. It’s a film that appeals primarily to middle-aged women.

The advertisements compare it to Miss Marple, but there’s a world of difference between them. Miss Marple is an elderly spinster, whereas Miss Willoughby is more like Lara Croft—young, dashing, skilled in kung fu, boxing, and a host of martial arts. She lives in a vast estate, works as a university professor specializing in classical antiquities, and has written numerous books. On top of that, she is breathtakingly beautiful—not in a way that appeals to the male gaze, but in a way that is aspirational to the women watching. She serves as a vehicle for the viewer’s own fantasies.

And you know what? I’m not complaining. This kind of character serves a need. It’s something a lot of people want to see, and it’s why this style of protagonist will never go out of fashion. But unlike Lara Croft, who scours the world for treasure, Miss Willoughby—closer to Miss Marple but as sharp as Sherlock Holmes—arrives on the case when one of her family’s dearest friends swears that her bookshop is haunted. She claims to see visions of her dead father. Is she going crazy? Is she hallucinating? Or is something more dastardly afoot? That’s what we aim to find out.

Shoutout to Natalie Cox, who plays Miss Willoughby. She’s best known for the Mr. Mayfair films, also largely written and directed by Philip Martinez. Interestingly, she has a strong connection to video games—she played Juno Eclipse in Star Wars: The Force Unleashed and its sequel, as well as a recurring role in the F1 racing games. It’s funny that I compare this film to video games, considering her background.

Miss Willoughby has her own version of Watson, a former Marine and doting guardian played by Kelsey Grammer. Grammer does an amazing job, bringing humor, restraint, and nuance to the role. He knows when to step back and when to show concern at just the right moments. The supporting cast is also excellent.

The film feels like Miss Willoughby is walking into a lion’s den—or a lioness’s den—since much of the supporting cast consists of women in a book club. And these women are vicious. One is a gossip who knows every town secret, another specializes in backhanded compliments, the kind that sound polite but drip with venom.

Now, we already know how these films turn out. This one presents a mystery that’s meant to be solved. The film never strays from formula, yet it executes that formula well.

The film implies that Miss Willoughby was meant to be a series, but it was released in 2021, and there’s been no sequel or announcement of one. I think this is it—no franchise, just a single film.

Another question you might ask: Is this based on a book series? No. This is an original property. So, if you want more Miss Willoughby, unfortunately, this is all there is.

Do I recommend Miss Willoughby and the Haunted Bookshop? If you enjoy mysteries with a touch of archaicism, a bit of aspirational fantasy, and something aimed at middle-aged women, then yes, I do. It’s delightful, it’s fun, and it’s too bad there won’t be more.

https://youtu.be/l/_1UpfQJkRU

@movies

Me and two friends had "classic movie nights" for a couple of years before I moved away. We would watch something which is considered a classic and it had to have been released before 2000. We watched only those which none of us three have seen before and we would watch it like once every two months or so. Movies like:

• M
• Gone with the Wind
• The Godfather
• Taxi Driver
• Murder on the Orient Express
• One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
• Rear Window
• Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
• Chinatown
• Le Grande Bouffe
• L'Avventura
• Tengoku to jigoku
• etc.

It was a ton of fun and we talked about the movie before, what our expectations are and after just generally and each of us would give it a IMDB star rating.

Now sadly my friends live 9 time zones away, so we can't really do that anymore. But I was thinking to try to convince my wife to do this classic movies night with me. Right now she is reluctant because English is her 4rth language and especially older movies are using language differently too, but one day she will give in :D.

Anyway, now that you know the rules, what movies do you think I still missed and should watch?

Just watched it. Good trippy thriller, and a tight 90 minutes. Don't want to say too much about it, it's one of those movies you're better off going in blind for.

If anyone else has seen it, any other similar movies you'd recommend?

Odd Thomas (2013) is certainly an odd movie, and it never lets you forget that.

It’s a film adaptation of Dean Koontz’s novel, also called Odd Thomas, which is part of an eight-book series—an entire literary universe. The story follows a clairvoyant who can communicate with the dead and solves crimes in the process. Specifically, he speaks to the dead to uncover crimes committed by the living.

Typically, films targeting this kind of subject matter lean into a dark, brooding antihero. But what I found refreshing about Odd Thomas is that the main character is a sunny, optimistic guy who loves his town and his girlfriend.

Anton Yelchin, the late actor, plays Odd Thomas, and it’s clear in this role just how much potential he had. He oozes charm and likability. Willem Dafoe, as the town’s local police chief, provides both humor and gravity. I also have to give credit to the love interest, played by Ashley Summers, who sees past Odd Thomas’s oddities and recognizes him as a man with a heart of gold.

What fascinates me about this movie are two things. First, it had a $27 million budget but was a complete dud at the box office, earning only $1.3 million. I remember when the movie came out, I was completely unaware of it. There were no trailers, no advertisements—I don’t even think I saw it in theaters. Apparently, the film faced a lot of legal trouble and delays, but it found an appreciative audience once it hit Blu-ray and streaming services.

The second notable thing is how polarizing the film is. Critics didn’t like it; it has a 37% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which means it’s deemed “rotten” there. However, on IMDb, it has a 6.8/10, and on Letterboxd, it’s rated 3.1/5. There’s a broad disagreement between critics and the audience. Why the discrepancy? I think critics were expecting something scary and ominous, but fans of the Odd Thomas books know that this isn't supposed to be horror. It’s a light, sunny movie with dark undertones. What’s interesting is that critics who are familiar with the books agree with the audience—they understand the tone and feel of the story. Unfortunately, many critics approached it with preconceived ideas about what the film should be, rather than letting it exist on its own terms.

That’s a shame because the world of Odd Thomas is fantastic. It’s a unique, enjoyable, and fun exercise in world-building. The ghosts and supernatural elements can be creepy, but it’s Odd Thomas’s understanding of this world and his humor that makes it a fun romp. Anton Yelchin sells it perfectly.

The real tragedy of this movie is that it bombed at the box office, meaning we won’t get adaptations of the next seven books. Even if Odd Thomas had been a success, we likely wouldn’t have seen the rest of the series, because Anton Yelchin, who essentially made the film work, tragically passed away in 2016. That’s too bad because Odd Thomas was an original idea, and in a world dominated by remakes and superhero franchises, it could have been a great supernatural franchise, much like Harry Potter. If you love Harry Potter, you’d probably love Odd Thomas.

One good thing that came from watching Odd Thomas is that I now want to read Dean Koontz’s books. I’ve never read one before, but after seeing this movie, I’m interested in checking out the Odd Thomas series. The whole series is available on Amazon for about $90, and I’m seriously considering picking it up.

Do I recommend this movie? Absolutely. It’s fun and could be something you share with older children (over 10 years old) or teens. It would also make a wonderful date movie. Check out Odd Thomas—it’s fantastic.

https://youtu.be/UbHQ/_Rk-T1Q

@movies

Hey all, welcome to Piefed's first movie community!

A little bit about why I created this community: a mod on !movies@lemmy.world removed two comments of mine with no explanation. When I asked that mod why my comment was removed, he wouldn't tell me why. He instead called me an "ass".

I feel it's very important for community members to be respected by mods. If a comment is removed, it's a mod's duty to explain exactly why and what rule was broken, and to state so in a professional manner.

So it's my explicit promise to all of you that no comments or posts will be removed for arbitrary or opaque reasons. All moderators here will be transparent and fair. When action is taken, moderators here will provide explanations in a coherent and respectful manner.

With all that said, I'm excited to talk about movies!