movies

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

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!