Get Shorty

This week is a rewatch. I decided to re-visit the comedy:

Get Shorty (1995).

We meet Chili Palmer (John Travolta), a loan shark from Miami. He is a movie lover that is getting sick of the whole gangster thing. He has to chase down Leo Devoe, a gambler with an outstanding debt, in order to satisfy his new boss Ray 'Bones' Barboni (Dennis Farina). Chili and Bones do not get along and Bones is looking for a good excuse to get rid of Chili. The chase for Leo goes to Las Vegas and from there to Los Angeles.

In LA, Chili has to call in a marker held against a director of cheesy movies, Harry Zim (Gene Hackman). The problem is that Harry is also in deep debt to Bo Catlett (Delroy Lindo), who is having trouble with Pablo Escobar. In the middle of all this chaos, Chili has the chance to ditch his gangster life and become a movie producer, as long as he can take care of all the outstanding business, all the players involved, as well as learn how Hollywood works.

There is a lot more to this story, but that synopsis is already confusing enough as it is. Get Shorty is not really a gangster movie, despite featuring a fair amount of criminals. At the heart it is a comedy about Hollywood. It points a finger at the criminal elements that surround the movie industry, it jokes with the vain, flaky and unreliable nature of movie stars, personified in Martin Weir (Danny DeVito) who eats breakfast at the same table every morning and always faces west so he can look at his own billboard. He also shows up to a lunch meeting, orders something for the whole table that no one wants and dips before the food arrives. According to author Elmore Leonard who wrote the book the movie is based on, the lunch scene is based on a real event featuring Dustin Hoffman.

Get Shorty is directed by Barry Sonnenfeld, and as is usual, it is lovely to watch. Not all of Sonnenfeld's movies have been hits, like Wild Wild West, though others have been, like Men in Black. Whether they were hits or not, his movies are visually great and Get Shorty is no exception.

But lets talk actors. Yes we have John Travolta, Gene Hackman and Danny DeVito, but we also have Rene Russo, James Gandolfini and in a small uncredited role, Bette Midler amongst others. It is a heavy cast, which can sometimes become problematic. If there were problems on set, you can't tell in the movie. It is wall to wall veterans and it works.

Funnily enough, Travolta didn't want the role of Chili Palmer, even though it was written for him, until Quentin Tarantino convinced him to take the role. Likewise, Gene Hackman turned down his role at first, citing that he didn't really do comedies. Sonnenfeld told him that's perfect and that Harry should be played completely straight anyway.

So, do I recommend this movie? Definitely. Get Shorty is a funny movie that doesn't try too hard to be funny, it just is. It is partially a comedy of errors and partially a fish out of water story. Chili Palmer is essentially the prototype for every “too cool for school” character Travolta ever played, but set against all the madness it really works. I do think Get Shorty is the kind of movie anyone can sit down and enjoy. Oh, and the soundtrack is great!

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great week!

 

Lisa and the Devil

I wanted to watch something so I blindly chose:

Lisa and the Devil (1973).

I was aware of this horror title but I knew nothing about this movie. Turns out it is co-written and directed by the legendary Mario Bava, who has appeared on this blog at least four times.

This is the story: Lisa Reiner (Elke Sommer) is on holiday in Toledo, Spain. There she sees a famous fresco called “The Devil takes the dead”, which disturbs her. The devil is portrayed as a leering, bald man and Lisa quickly wants to go somewhere else. Wandering away from the tourist group, she finds a small shop selling all kinds of things. The owner is apparently also a maker of mannequins and to her horror the owner is talking shop with a customer who is a dead ringer for the devil from the fresco. This is Leandro played by Telly Savalas. Lisa flees from the shop but gets lost and can't find the tour group.

Suddenly a well dressed man appears and talks to her as if they are old friends, calling her Elena. She flees again and encounters a wealthy couple and their chauffeur. She begs them for help and the husband, Francis, agrees to give her a ride. Soon the car breaks down outside an ancient villa and they are invited to stay the night. To Lisa's shock, the butler of the house is non other than Leandro! Soon people are killed, and the mystery deepens. Why do some people call her Elena? Why is Max, the son of the countess who owns the villa so in love with her? Is Leandro the devil himself, or just a butler with a very sardonic and macabre sense of humor? You'll have to watch it to find out.

Since this is a Mario Bava movie it came as no surprise to me that Lisa and the Devil is a gorgeous film. Shot after shot are beautiful and actually the best part of the movie. There can be no doubt that Bava was a master craftsman, and he proves it here yet again.

The actors range from very good to decent. Savalas, Sommer and Alida Valli (the countess) are excellent, while Alessio Orano (Max) and Eduardo Fajardo (Francis) are more hammy and less enjoyable.

Overall, Lisa and the Devil is a mixed bag for me. The story could have been a lot better, with the middle dragging surprisingly much. With the focus on the story being Lisa, I would have liked it if she would have done something besides run around in a state of panic and confusion as well as fainting a lot, but alas.

I'm not the kind of movie watcher who wants everything explained down to the last detail, but I find that Lisa and the Devil leaves a bit too much of the story a mystery. Watching it you can easily accept some things as fact but only by not asking any more questions.

On the other hand, the atmosphere is excellent and Telly Savalas steals every scene he's in. Fun fact: Savalas had just quit smoking, so he used suckers (or lollipops) as a substitute, so Leandro cheerfully sucks on the candy while “taking care of business”. This trait was something he moved over to his most famous role, the TV detective Kojak.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes and no. If you are on a Bava completionist journey, then I think you're going to have a good time, but I fear most casual viewers are going to be bored. Lisa and the Devil is not a bad movie, but it could also be a lot better, though it has to be admitted that ending was surprisingly good considering the slow story.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

The Gentlemen

I first saw some clips on Youtube which peaked my interest, so I watched:

The Gentlemen (2019).

Directed, co-written and co-produced by Guy Ritchie (Snatch, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels), this is a return to form for the British director.

Michael Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) is the top producer of marijuana in Great Britain, and he's looking to sell up and retire. One evening on returning home, his number two man, Ray (Charlie Hunnam) finds reporter and scumbag Fletcher (Hugh Grant) in his house. Fletcher has an interesting story to tell, and wants 20 million pounds for what he knows and has in evidence. Thus begins an amazing and convoluted story about crime and manners.

I can't really say much more about the story without going head first into heavy spoiler territory, and that I won't do. The Gentlemen is a movie that has to be experienced first hand. It's worth noting that the movie is not told in pure chronological order, but as a story told by Fletcher, as far as he knows what is going on. It's not a case of an unreliable narrator, as that implies that the narrator lies, it's more a question of who knows what and how things really happened.

From a movie making standpoint, The Gentlemen is a masterpiece. The cinematography, the props, the actors, the dialogue, everything is perfect. I can genuinely say I wouldn't change a thing. Seeing as it is a Guy Ritchie movie, it's worth noting that The Gentlemen is nowhere near as funny as his previous crime movies. But this is not a negative. Instead of funny, it is witty. The dialogue is smart and eloquent which fits this story better than the dialogue in his previous movies.

As I sat there happily watching, it struck me that the plot in The Gentlemen is pretty chaotic, but in the end everything is solved, wrapped up and finished. This is not a small feat considering how many moving parts this story has. Again, a masterfully directed movie.

I want to return to the actors. Matthew McConaughey is amazing as he always is. Not a stand out performance, but great anyway.

Charlie Hunnam, perhaps best known as Jax in Sons of Anarchy, is superb, with his poise and soft spoken demeanor. He is threatening because he isn't yelling.

I can genuinely say I have never enjoyed Hugh Grant as much as I do in The Gentlemen. He is a scene stealer and I loved every minute of his sleazy presence.

Colin Farrell likewise runs away with every scene his Coach character is in. He trains fighters and combines humility with confidence is an amazing way.

So, do I recommend this movie? Of course I do. There isn't a bad thing I can say about it. If you have seen and liked Guy Ritchie's other crime movies, and you haven't seen The Gentlemen, do something about that as soon as possible. If you haven't seen them, The Gentlemen is not a bad place to start. I will absolutely have to re-watch this movie as soon as possible.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have great week!

 

The Real Deal.

Back in 1997 I saw Donnie Brasco in the movie theater.

This gangster movie features Johnny Depp as FBI agent Pistone who goes undercover in the Mafia as Donnie Brasco, and much longer than anyone should be undercover.. Other stars are Al Pacino, Michael Madsen and many more. It is a great movie and even then I knew it was based on a true story. 

Of course, "based on a true story" can mean different things depending on the film. Some follow the events closely while others keep a name or two as well as a few minor events before pulling the rest of the script from where the sun doesn't shine.

 

Today I have a documentary for you about the real events depicted in Donnie Brasco. What happened and what was fiction

 Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7YBiST_wcI 

 

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great week!   

The Funeral

Looking around for something to watch, I chose:

The Funeral (1996).

This gangster movie, directed by Abel Ferrara is about a trio of brothers who run a gangster crew. There is the oldest, Ray (Christopher Walken), the middle brother, Chez (Chris Penn) and the youngest, Johnny (Vincent Gallo).

The movie, set in the 30's, opens with Johnny's casket being delivered to Ray's house. Someone put three bullets in Johnny's chest, and the body is being delivered for the wake. The question everyone wonders is who shot Johnny? There is no shortage of enemies, as we get to see in multiple flashbacks. Johnny was a communist, a loudmouth and a ladies man who had no scruples about bedding married women, and that is on top of being a gangster.

A great part of the film is told in these flashbacks, mostly as memories from his older brothers who are struggling with guilt and grief in equal measure. There are also the long suffering wives, as no one in this movie is even remotely happy. In fact, this is one of the darkest, most gloomy movies I have ever seen. Most of the scenes are set in dark rooms, but even the few scenes we get in sunlight are so bereft of joy that the sunlight becomes wan and depressing.

Mechanically the movie is good. The set pieces, the actors and the music are really good and hammers home how bleak the movie is. The song in the opening shot is Gloomy Sunday, aka the Hungarian Suicide Song. This should tell you how things are going to be.

Overall, I can't say I really liked the The Funeral. It's just so unflinchingly miserable, but I also think it is worth watching just once. I think it is essentially a “reverse gangster movie”, as in there is no glamour, no style, nothing that would make the lifestyle worth having. Other movies like The Godfather or Goodfellas show some positives even as they demonstrate all the negatives. The Funeral have no positives, it is all unrelenting misery.

So, do I recommend this movie? Weird as it may sound, yes I do. Despite all the pain on display, The Funeral is a compelling movie. You get the feeling that something is going to happen, and you want to be there when it does. If you're in the mood for a gangster movie, maybe choose something else, but if you are a fan of crime cinema you should watch it at some point.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Nobody again

A couple of weeks ago, I watched a movie called Nobody but not the one with Bob Odenkirk. This week I watched:

Nobody (2021)

which is the one with Bob Odenkirk, perhaps best known from his role as Saul from Better Call Saul and Breaking Bad.

Hutch Mansell (Odenkirk) is a middle aged accountant who lives in a nice suburban house with a wife and two kids. He takes the bus to his accounting job, he misses the trash pickup every week, his life is frustrating, boring and dull.

One night they have a break in and the thieves steal some cash and his daughters kitty cat bracelet. This is one step too far, and he sets out to get it back. It turns out that Hutch is in fact quite a lot more than an accountant and a suburban husband and father. He is an Auditor, the kind of person the three letter agencies call when they need someone permanently removed. And he's good at it. He soon finds himself accidentally involved in a war with a deranged Russian mobster and his crew. Things will get very bloody indeed.

The movie was inspired by a couple of real break ins that Odenkirk suffered and how people talked about it after the fact. All the “if it happened to me I would have” and the “if it was my family, then” hurt, and he channeled it into Nobody. The movie is essentially a wish fulfillment story of how we all wish we were secretly a total badass one man army.

Visually Nobody is very nicely made. There is really nothing too ground breaking but I liked that I could follow the fights. Many modern action movies screw up the fight scenes, but Nobody does it really well.

The soundtrack features some really good songs, so that was a pleasant surprise. The real star of the show however are the stars. I haven't seen much of Bob Odenkirk before, but this movie really proves how good of an actor he is. Not necessarily because Hutch is a badass. It's easy to look tough, but because you can see his frustrations through the facade he wears for his children and how hard it is to push down his lethal instincts. Both Christopher Lloyd and Michael Ironside have small roles and it is always fun to see old veterans do their thing. Even though seeing how old they are reminds me of how old I am. Oh well, such is life.

Watching Nobody I was reminded of John Wick. The one man army wrecking people left and right is nothing new in film, but I found something in Nobody that many other movies miss: humor. Nobody is not a comedy, it is in fact pretty grisly, but there are some really good comedic moments that lift the movie to a higher place than just another violent romp. It is in fact funnier than a lot of what passes for comedies these days.

So, do I recommend this film? Yes, absolutely. Just be aware that it is incredibly violent and bloody. If you're okay with that, watch Nobody. I'm probably going to have to watch it again. Like I said, it reminds me of John Wick but also RED (2010).

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great week!

 

These things happen.

It so happens I've caught a spring cold and been so busy blowing my nose to the point where I'm unsure if I have any brain left in my skull. 

As a natural consequence, I've been too tired to actually come up with anything this week, so I'll give you some comedy instead. I have two full stand up shows, one with Bill Burr and the other with Jimmy Carr. Both are fantastic comedians but be aware that they both like abrasive and controversial humor.

Join me again next time and until then, have a fun week (and don't get sick)!

 

 

Starfield May patch beta

During the week, Bethesda released the beta for their upcoming Starfield patch. I took the opportunity to try out the Steam beta and these are my thoughts on the matter.

First off, lets talk difficulty. On release Starfield had a classic difficulty scale going from Very Easy to Very Hard. The patch takes that and breaks it into several distinct pieces.

You can now set you own efficiency in combat, as well as the enemies efficiency, and you can set them separately! The same goes for space combat. If you make the game easier you get less XP and likewise if you make it harder you earn more XP. This means that seasoned FPS players can give themselves a harder challenge on the ground, but make the dog-fighting in space much easier until they get the hang of it.

You can adjust your carry capacity, and at max you can carry over a thousand pounds of stuff. To go along with this, you can adjust how much or little money vendors have, to buy all the things you salvage. Like with combat, these changes modify the amount of XP you get.

There are also options for environmental effects and healing, but I haven't had much time to test those.

The ground map is significantly changed. Gone is the boring field of dots and instead we get a vibrant map that actually shows you things. Cities are also mapped out and I can't tell you how nice that is. To make things even better, if you pull up your scanner in town, you can see all points of interest, and if you have been there at least once, you can quick travel from the scanner. Such a great quality of life improvement!

Next up is ship interior decoration. All ships have a button on the wall that opens a building interface similar to the one you build outposts with, and you can also get there through the scanner. This allows you to decorate your ship any way you want. I haven't had time to properly explore this yet, but it looks very promising. You can also buy habitat modules that are empty from the start to give yourself a clean slate to build on. This makes it so that your ship can be a proper base and not just a vehicle.

A smaller thing is that when you start a New Game + you are given the option to change your character including redoing your traits if you wish.

Finally, they are experimenting with adding ground vehicle to the game, but as far as I know, this isn't in the patch and only in the testing stage at the moment.

The addition of these changes do so much to make Starfield an even better game. I liked it from the start, but this patch gives me great hope that this game will bloom into an even better experience. I'll add a video showing off the changes if you want to learn more.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Nobody

Yesterday I tripped over a movie called:

Nobody (2007).

Not to be confused with the Bob Odenkirk movie called Nobody from 2021, this is a small, I guess indie movie, written and directed by Shawn Linden and starring Costas Mandylor and Ed O'Ross, amongst others.

Now, this will be pretty spoiler heavy or I can't do more than tell you that I watched it. That's okay though, since Nobody is a movie that is all about the experience rather than the plot, which is pretty confusing to follow.

Nobody is a Neo-Noir movie set in some kind of mid 20^th century city. No location is ever given, all we know is that there is an empty city, a lake and it's winter.

Our main character is Mortemain (Mandylor), a hitman dressed in black, complete with wide brimmed hat, a long coat with a broad fur collar and occasionally black shoe polish on his face. In the opening scene, he holds a gun to the head of local gangster boss Rolo Toles (O´Ross) and takes a package from him. Later, while making a call to his employer from a phone booth, he notices a man in a similar coat and hat stalking him. A running gun fight takes place and while Mortemain escapes, he is wounded. He goes to a ratty hotel to get a room, but to his surprise he already has a room. Later on, he returns to the boat where the terrified Toles is hiding with his men and to his shock overhears himself having the same conversation with Toles that he did earlier. Soon he follows himself to the same phone-booth and the same gunfight ensues.

Nobody is a loop movie. Or a movie about hell. Maybe some kind of dimension movie or... I don't know. As I said, the movie is very confusing, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that Nobody is incredibly stylish and atmospheric. I had to pause the movie early on to check that the director wasn't Alex Proyas, who made The Crow (1994), Dark City (1998) and I, Robot (2004). Clearly the director is Shawn Linden, but Nobody looks like a cross between Dark City and Miller's Crossing (1990).

Frankly I can't remember whether the movie has any music or not, so never mind that. I don't remember because the plot is so convoluted, even though it makes sense in a way and because scene after scene, shot after shot are so nice. Dark paintings come to life was a thought that bounced through my brain while watching.

There is a total of fourteen actors in this movie and they are all fine, but it is the interaction between Mandylor and O'Ross that matters and it is really good. The cold blooded Mortemain contrasts nicely with the snarling, screaming Toles. Mortemain tries to figure out what is going on and how to break the loop, while in between rants and threats, Toles frantically prays for the night to be over as he can't take much more.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes. Nobody isn't rated very highly which is a shame, but I think people are turned off because of the weird plot. I enjoyed it a great deal, and if you enjoy movies like Dark City and Miller's Crossing with the same sort of mystery as in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, then have at it, you should have a good time. If you want to turn off the brain and relax, choose another movie.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great week!

 

Dead Man Walking

Today I want to talk about something a bit different.

Today we're talking about an extremely rare phenomena called Dead Man Walking. There are books, songs, albums and other idioms called Dead Man Walking, but we are only interested in the super rare tornadoes called Dead Man Walking.

From what I found out, these tornadoes are multi vortex tornadoes, that is a tornado that has more than one visible funnel. This is rare in itself, but if the conditions are right, or very wrong depending on your perspective, you can get a tornado that looks like it is walking across the land instead of gliding like they normally do.

These Dead Man Walking tornadoes seem to always be EF5 storms, or tornadoes that reach up to 200 mph / 320 kph winds. This is strong enough to cause severe damage to anything they come across, but the Dead Man Walking tornadoes can be even worse.

The name comes from Native American myths, and it is said that if you see one, you're going to die. Legends aside, being anywhere near a tornado is dangerous, but winds that strong can hurl tanker trucks long distances, and a small piece of debris traveling 300+ kph can easily kill you, so it's an understandable myth.

I'm linking a video about the Jarrel Tornado below. If you like storms watch it. It was a scary but fascinating video. Normal tornado is already scary, but seeing it slowly walk across the land, slowly destroying everything it touches is incredibly creepy. It's the kind of thing that can trigger more than one phobia, none of which I have, but it really creeped me out. I know you have to see it from the right perspective and all, but it is and always will be terrifying.

If you don't want to watch the whole video, go to about the 40 second mark and you can see the Dead Man Walking.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

Direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xRjHPusRC4

 

 

 

No Way Out

Yesterday I watched:

No Way Out (1973),

aka, Big Guns and Tony Arzenta.

Minor spoilers ahead, even though several synopses mention this anyway.

Tony Arzenta (Alain Delon) is a hitman for an international crime syndicate. He is very good at his job and he's been doing it a long time. He is however married to Anna (Nicoletta Machiavelli) and they have a son, so for their sake, he wants out. He goes to his boss Nick Gusto (Richard Conte, The Godfather) and tells him he is out. Gusto is not sure the other bosses will agree as Tony knows too much. To no ones surprise, they refuse and accidentally kills Tony's wife and son while targeting Tony. Tony, obsessed with a desire for revenge sets out to kill all the bosses.

If you think this sounds familiar, it is. Variations on the theme are common, including John Wick. The variation comes from whether the main character is a killer by trade and who exactly gets killed to spark the roaring rampage of revenge.

The plot in No Way Out is not actually very interesting in itself. You can pretty easily tell what is going to happen to whom very early on. There were a couple of minor surprises here and there, just enough to keep you guessing, but nothing out of the ordinary.

No Way Out is a French Italian production, set mostly in Milan and Sicily, but a good part is filmed on location in Copenhagen which was a neat change of venue.

With the plot being somewhat lackluster, what makes this movie interesting? The way it is filmed! No Way Out has some really good car chases / stunts and the overall cinematography is spectacular. I had to rewind a couple of times just to take in the shot composition, it is that good.

The other elements, like acting, music and so on are fine, no complaints, but for my money, No Way Out is worth watching just for how nice it looks. I will say that the characters are well written. Tony isn't an 80's action hero. He isn't bullet proof, he gets tired and the thugs he has to face are really nasty and despicable. There is nothing glamorous in any of the crimes being committed. It's all dirty and grubby from start to finish. On top of that, there are many faces familiar to fans of 70's cinema, including two who appear in The Godfather, Richard Conte who plays Don Barzini and Corrado Gaipa who plays Don Tommasino. Solid actors, no doubt about it.

So, do I recommend this movie? For fans of 70's action, yes. No Way Out is a bit slow at times but all in all it comes through as a solid and very enjoyable revenge story. Despite its pedestrian plot, it is well worth watching.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Rulers of the City

Today we're talking about:

Rulers of the City (1976),

aka Mister Scarface, this Italian crime comedy/thriller is written and directed by Fernando Di Leo, who has been featured three time before on this blog with; Caliber 9, The Italian Connection and The Boss.

Where the three above mentioned movies are quite heavy, Rulers of the City is much more lighthearted. Even when people get brutally murdered, it's not that bad. The movie doesn't dwell on the violence that much and the tone never gets too dark. It's almost in the same vein as an action adventure movie in that sense.

The story is this:

We meet Tony (Harry Baer), a handsome and happy young man who collects gambling debts for his mid level gangster boss, Luigi, who runs an illegal gambling and loan sharking business. Tony would like to rise in the ranks, but is told to wait his turn. One night, a young man, Rick (Al Cliver) accuses the house of cheating and is kicked out. He then returns in the entourage of high level gangster Scarface Manzari (Jack Palance). Scarface is angry that someone disrespected one of his men and takes all the “casinos” loose cash in return for a check no one is going to dare to cash. Rick is then beaten and thrown out of the gang for being stupid enough to let himself get cheated in the first place.

Tony helps Rick and they become good friends. Being young and cocky, Tony soon volunteers to get Luigi's money back and that sparks off a gang war with the two young men and their older ex-pickpocket adviser in the middle.

Rulers of the City is set in Rome, a place Di Leo knew very well, and he brings it to life in a way that is a joy to watch. The cinematography is first rate, and the acting is good. The fight scenes are excellent, illustrating that these criminals know how to handle themselves. Tony especially knows how to fight and makes it look effortless and almost fun. We get some good chases, both on foot and in vehicles and the gunfights are really nice.

Rulers of the City is one of those rare crime comedies that somehow manages to keep its focus and balance, without veering into either too much slapstick or becoming too heavy due to the serious subject matter.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely! You could accuse Rulers of the City of being a bit slow, and you'd be right, but this movie is all about the journey. All you need to do is sit back and enjoy, and the movie takes care of the rest. Rulers of the City is a rare gem in that it manages to be both grim and brutal without being the least depressing. A mean feat and one to be lauded. If you have any love for 70's cinema or just want a fun time, give it a go, just don't take it too seriously.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Assassinorum: Kingmaker

I recently finished reading:

Assassinorum: Kingmaker,

and I want to talk about it.

This standalone novel set in the Warhammer 40.000 (40k) universe is written by Robert Rath, and is set in the most recent timeline in 40k.

Three assassins are sent to a Knight world, a planet ruled by two noble houses, where the nobles pilot huge bipedal war machines, called Knights. Their job is to kill the current High Monarch before he secedes from the Imperium of Man, while causing as little damage as possible and steering the election of a new High Monarch in a way favorable to the Imperium. This seems at first to be an impossible task, but the characters aren't just deadly in combat, they are smart.

From the start, Rath sets up believable and compelling characters that are easy to like. Not a small task since Imperial Assassins are a truly brutal bunch. He also weaves in many elements that might come into play later, but in such a way, that you don't notice them. There is a theater concept called Chekov's Gun, that states that if you show the audience a gun, it has to be used at some point in the play. Rath manages to hide his Chekov's Guns amongst the rich details of this book all without overloading you with details. A hard task many authors fail at, but Rath pulls off with aplomb.

I have read a lot of novels set in the 40k universe, ranging from very good to completely abysmal, and I can confidently say that Assassinorum. Kingmaker is up there with the best. Many fans recommend the famous Eisenhorn Trilogy as the best place for a completely new reader to start, and I don't disagree, but after finishing with Eisenhorn, I highly recommend Assassinorum: Kingmaker.

A lot of the books in 40k are understandable focused on war, with the setting originally being just a tabletop war game, and this can be a bit boring for those who are just getting into Warhammer. What both Eisenhorn and Assassinorum: Kingmaker do so well is skirt around most of the battle stuff and instead show you what sits behind all the warring, in the cultures, the worlds and everything else that happens in the setting before and on the side of the battles.

All in all, Assassinorum: Kingmaker is an exciting book that never gets dull or bogged down, is always on point and constantly managed to surprise me even though I've been a Warhammer fan since the late 1980's. It felt fresh and fun all throughout.

If you are a fan of 40k and you haven't given Assassinorum: Kingmaker a chance, you are doing yourself a disservice, it really is that good. I wish I could tell you more about it, but that would spoil it and it doesn't deserve that.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

The Real Monuments Men

I sat down and started to watch

The Monuments Men (2014),

but I turned it off at the 40 minute mark. I went in to this movie blind, knowing only that is is co-written, directed by and starring George Clooney, with Matt Damon, Bill Murray, Cate Blanchett, John Goodman and many more.

The movie is based on the true story about the Monuments Men, a group of art experts, museum curators and such, who were tasked with not only trying to preserve important art from the ravages of World War II, but also to track down and return all the art the top Nazis had looted.

Unfortunately, the movie is a complete mess. A movie has to be more than a collection of almost random scenes and up until I turned off the movie, that is all it is. It jumps around at will, inserting scenes that make no sense and then blissfully moving on to something completely different,with no sense of location of chronological order. It's such a shame with the actors involved as they are all really good and this is a story worth telling.

Since I want to use this blog to promote things I like, I won't say anything more about it, just that I do not recommend this movie. This left me in a bit of a pickle, as I still needed something for you. Then I was struck by an idea. Since the movie is based on a true story, there might be a documentary about the subject, and there are in fact many.

So, I present to you Episode 3 of Raider is the Lost Art: The Monuments Men. So that's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

The Weekend Murders

I heard of:

The Weekend Murders (1970),

and decided to watch it.

An old and very wealthy aristocrat has died and the family gathers for the reading of the will. One by one we are introduced to the relatives and quickly realize that they are very dysfunctional. The more you get to know them, the more you understand why they tend to stay away from each other. Only the demand of British propriety keeps them from being physically at each others throats. Soon after the reading of the will, family members turn up murdered, starting with the butler, prompting the tagline, “At least they knew the butler didn't do it... his was the first body they found”.

The Weekend Murders is an Italian take on an English murder mystery with comedic elements. The movie was shot in Somerleyton Hall, Suffolk, and as I was watching, I was momentarily confused. The entire movie is essentially a comedic Agatha Christie mystery, and as such we have the grand old manor, the old cars, gentlemen's straw hats, the usual trappings. But, we also have modern cars (for 1970), modern clothes and other similar trappings. It feels like they wanted to do a 20's Christie mystery but ran into problems going all the way. Instead of backing off that idea and staying in the current year, they mixed the two eras and for some reason it works. I can't explain it.

With all the murders around, the local police sergeant Thorpe (Gastone Moschin - The Godfather II, Caliber 9) calls in Scotland Yard. They send Superintendent Grey (Lance Percival) an arrogant investigator, convinced of his own brilliance, and together the two police officers investigate the crimes. This is where most of the comedy comes into play. Even though Thorpe is a clumsy heavyset man, he turns out to be a better investigator than his superior. Moschin to my surprise turns out to have some pretty good comedic chops. The Weekend Murders isn't a laugh a minute movie, but there were some pretty funny scenes.

This comedy stands in stark contrast to the murders, and the fear, grief and pain they bring. If they had made fun of the killings, I think the movie would have failed hard, but they manage to balance between the two polar opposites fairly well.

I have in my time seen a lot of movies and TV shows with the same basic premise as The Weekend Murders, starting with Agatha Christie herself all the way past Midsomer Murders to this very day. Still, I didn't manage to solve the case. To be fair, they don't give you all the facts, but I had no clue who the murder was, and I enjoy that.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, it's not a superb film by any means, but it was fun. It has appeared on some lists of Gialli movies, which I can't agree with. It is very Italian, yes, but the Giallo aspects are almost accidental. The Weekend Murders is worth watching if you like whodunits and if that's your cup of tea, have at it.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great week!

 

Starfield, what is it like?

I finally finished the main story in Starfield, so lets talk about it.

Starfield, the latest game from Bethesda Game Studios, the people behind The Elder Scrolls and Fallout games, is a huge space epic. You travel between planets, do quests, explore places and try to find out what the deal is with the Artifacts and the mysterious Starborn.

Now, I should point out that I live-streamed Starfield on Twitch, and only four hours at a time, once a week at that, so that is why it took me six months to get through. Not because it is that enormous or that I didn't like it. All in all, I have 200 hours in Starfield doing lots of side quests as well as the main story.

Back before the game released, speculation was rife about what the game would be and a lot of the speculation fed the hype without being based on anything true. Many visualized that it would be “Skyrim in space”, or “Fallout in space” and neither is true. Yes, the engine is Bethesda's engine so it feels familiar, but Starfield is its own thing, and must be viewed as such.

To be honest, Starfield is a somewhat odd game. After the intro, you are set loose on the galaxy and the only limitations you have is how far your starter ship can grav-jump, the games faster than light system. Every system has a level rating, an indicator of how dangerous the system is. It's up to you if you want to take that on now or later. That said, you can easily come across enemies that are much higher level than you in a low system, and you can run into low level enemies in high level areas. This mix means that combat is always exciting while also letting you feel powerful when crushing weaker enemies.

The gameplay is smooth and plays well, like Bethesda's other games. The new kid on the block is dog fighting in space, which is a bit of a mixed bag. The game has no qualms about dumping three higher level pirate ships on you just as you enter a system, and until I got my ship upgraded together with some good piloting skills, I frequently had to lower the difficulty or I was stuck. That could have been handed differently as it was pretty annoying.

The graphics are really nice, at least on a stronger PC, and there were times when I just stood there and took in the sights. Some people have complained that “It's all gray and boring”, to which I say: untrue! There are many such moons yes, but come on, that is what you will find out there. Lots and lots of dusty rocks. However, there are also so many lush planets, filled with interesting plants and creatures. Saying it's all gray is like going to Winterhold in Skyrim and complaining that the whole game is nothing but snow.

Besides the intersting main quest, which I won't spoil, there is a myriad on minor factions you can work for and they were mostly top notch quests. Interesting storylines with good choices, fun loot to get and lots of trouble to get into. I will say that I don't care much for most of the clothes you can find, they were a bit lackluster in both design and function, but the important part are the space suits, which are many and varied.

Speaking of side missions, Starfield has an almost endless capacity for exploration. Sure, the caves are all similar as are the structures you'll find, but at least that makes some sense. Everything has to be prefabricated and dropped down on the surface, so it makes sense that most structures are the same as others. I did run into a base with a mystery story, and to my surprise I later found the exact same base and story on another planet. This shouldn't happen, but whether it was a bug or an oversight, it's not a deal breaker.

The skill system is a mixed bag for me. Some are clear and easy enough to upgrade, while others are a bit of a pain. I should point out that Starfield has a New Game + system, and if you choose to do a new playthrough with an old character, you retain all your skills, but not gear, ships and money.

You can also build your own bases, which is tricky. Hauling around all the needed raw materiel is not easy and the building system in general could be better. It's not bad, but there is room for improvement. Likewise, you can build ships. For some reason, you can't build a ship totally from scratch, you have to have one to begin with, but soon enough you can go nuts slapping bits on pieces and having a blast.

All in all, Starfield is a rough gem of a game. It has flaws, without a doubt, but I think a lot of people were turned off because of unrealistic hype and unfair comparisons to other games. I had a blast playing Starfield, and if you want a huge and fun game set in space with everything I mentioned above, you might just have fun too.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

True Detective Season 4, Episodes 4-6.

Alright, I have finished True Detective season 4.

I am actually struggling a bit with what I can say without spoiling anything, so bear with me.

The entire season is very nicely made. The dark, the snow, the cold all feels very real. Nothing stands out as being cheap or shoddy, and while this isn't the most important part, it carries a lot of weight. Filming can't have been easy, and they receive full marks for the effort they put in.

The actors are likewise both well written and the characters well acted. Motivations work, and with the central themes of grief and guilt and how you deal with them, the characters actions feel realistic. You don't have to like what someone does, but you can still understand it.

My biggest problem comes from the supernatural, or should I say, perceived supernatural events. Season 4 uses the horror elements very sparingly, but to great effect when they occur. There is more of it than seasons 2 and 3 had, and where a lot of weird stuff in season 1 could be explained with drug induced nerve damage, season 4 has mental illness as a possible explanation.

My issue isn't with the presence of potentially supernatural goings on, it is that the explanations kind of ignore them. You get an explanation for the central mysteries, and it is a given that law enforcement officers are going to strive for a logical solution, but I felt that all the mystical elements were shrugged off in the end. Not entirely ignored, but pushed to the side, perhaps for convenience.

As this is True Detective, there are some very dark motifs at play. Season 4 does not shy away from these and a few are on par with or better than the previous seasons. These elements are exemplary, and I'm glad they didn't dig deeper. However, don't go into this expecting lots of these moments, they are also used sparingly.

The season is very female centric, and that can be a touchy point for some with modern media. I did not find anything problematic in season 4. All the characters are well balanced and at the end gender roles actually don't matter. There are other forces at work instead. I can't say more due to spoilers.

So, do I recommend this season? Yes. overall, True Detective season 4 is good. It is better than season 2, on par with season 3 but in a very different way. To no ones surprise I'm sure, season 1 still stands heads and shoulders above the others, and I very much doubt there will ever be a season of this show that can match it, let alone top it. There were a few scenes that I think were added only so that another scene would be more impactful. This is fine, but the way they were added felt a bit out of sync, kind of breaking the flow. No deal breaker by any means, but somewhat sloppy. To summarize, if you were okay with seasons 2 and 3, there is no reason you couldn't enjoy season 4.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great week!

 

True Detective Season 4, Episodes 1-3.

I have written about True Detective before. In fact, I have talked about seasons 1-3 separately. In summary, Season 1 is a masterpiece of modern television, Season 2 is alright but weak compared to Season 1 and Season 3 is better than Season 2 but not nearly as good as Season 1.

One of the things that made Season 1 so good, beside, well, everything, was the possibility of a supernatural presence. It is not confirmed and there is a functional rational explanation, but it could also be cosmic horror. Seasons 2 and 3 really do not have this and I think it is a big reason why they aren't as good as Season 1.

On to Season 4! Today we're looking at the first three episodes out of six. As of writing, I haven't yet seen the last three episodes, and I know nothing about what will happen in them.

This is the setup; we are in the fictional mining town of Ennis, Alaska, north of the polar circle. It is the end of December and the long night has set in. In other words, it will be pitch black for approximately two months. Snow, freezing cold and complete darkness makes for a grim setting and this is felt throughout the show.

Outside the town is the Tsalal research station. The scientists there drill deep into the ancient ice looking for new ways to understand cellular biology. Something happens and they are all found naked and dead on the ice. Investigating this mystery is Chief Liz Danvers (Jodie Foster) and her police department. She is aided by State Trooper Navarro (Kali Reis), and lets just say they don't get along very well. In fact, Chief Danvers don't get along well with anyone. If you want to be more exact, most characters don't get along with each other. This is a central motif in the season, the struggle to live in such a hard environment, the local mine possibly poisoning the local water, the cruel winter and so on. Ennis is a tough and nasty place to live, whether you are a native Alaskan or not.

So far, a few characters have mentioned “She has awakened”, which together with what happened to the scientists an a few other smaller things, infers a supernatural presence. Of course, this does not mean that there isn't a natural solution, but time will tell. One character sees dead people to use the old meme, but it feels more like Twin Peaks than a straight horror production. Being only at the half way point means that anything could happen. I like what I've seen so far even though the constant arguing, yelling and negative attitudes grates on the nerves after a while.

The show is very nicely filmed, with multiple great shots throughout. The actors are good and the effects are fine. I have no complaints from a technical perspective, and only watching the last three episodes will set the seasons place in the overall show.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great week!

 

Gods of the Deep

Sometimes I look forward to watching a movie and sometimes I toss a dart and hope I hit something good. This week's dart hit:

Gods of the Deep (2023).

To be fair, I don't actually know if 2023 is correct. IMDB says it is, but Letterboxd says 2024.

This is a Lovecraftian movie, as in based on the Cthulhu Mythos started by H. P. Lovecraft. In fact it wears it on the sleeve, and dove head first in the Mythos pool. I wish they would have resisted the temptation to call the company Pickman, but this is something a lot of Mythos movies do. I don't know if it is a loving homage or a way to try to look clever, but movies like Gods of the Deep are not subtle in anything they do.

A deep sea probe finds a strange hole at the bottom of the ocean between Antarctica and South America. This area is deeper than the Challenger Deep and the hole is clearly not natural. The owners of the probe, the Pickman Corporation, as in Lovecraft's story Pickman's Model (1927). They contact Doctor Jim Peters (Derek Nelson), an eminent astrobiologist at Miskatonic University to help go down there. The Pickman Corp. has developed a new high tech sub that can handle the incredible pressures. A small team goes down there and things get... squiggly.

Gods of the Deep is a British horror/sci-fi movie with a low budget. I couldn't find how low, but the cutting edge submarine is visibly built from corrugated roofing, PVC piping, thin acrylic and all the hazard tape you could ever want. That's not to say all the effects are bad, they aren't. In fact some are actually good, just as some are pretty bad. To their credit, they stayed within what they could portray in one fashion or another. Not all low budget movies do that.

What keeps Gods of the Deep from being a failure are the actors. They all do a hell of a job selling the entire thing. You believe that they see what they are seeing no matter how it looks. What is funny is that I could swear I have seen four members of the main cast in other movies, but according to IMDB, I haven't seen them in anything. Spooky...

So, do I recommend this movie? To Mythos fans I do. Everyone else should probably find something else to watch. These fans should also have a certain love for cheese or they won't have a good time. Gods of the Deep should be a failure, but for the actors and the fact that they did the best they could. They tried hard and somehow pulled off a win. Gods of the Deep is not a good movie, but it isn't a bad one either. I had a good time, but I doubt I'll watch it more than the once.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

What Have They Done?

This week I took a shot in the dark and watched:

What Have They Done To Your Daughters? (1974)

Co-written and directed by Massimo Dallamano, this movie is labeled as a Giallo and Poliziotteschi combination. Personally I think the Giallo part is fairly minimal, and only really comes to play with a killer in black biker leathers, but technically the terminology stands.

What Have They Done To Your Daughters? opens with the police finding a young girl that has hanged herself. What puzzles the police is that she is completely naked. Inspector Silvestri (Claudio Cassinelli) is on the case together with assistant district attorney Stori (Giovanna Ralli). Soon they discover a sordid prostitution ring that pimps out teenaged school girls to rich old men. The biker in black runs around with a meat cleaver killing, and little by little, the case gets darker and more dangerous until certain unpleasant realities leads to a grim ending.

The subject matter is of course really unpleasant, but the movie handles it well. There is nothing seductive about any of it, not even the brief scenes of nudity that are scattered around the film. Speaking of nudity, the hanged body in the beginning is clearly a puppet, and a badly made one at that. I thought at first that they went with a prop to spare the characters actress, but she shows up in a flashback scene completely nude anyway, so I don't get the bad prop. There are many ways of faking a hanging without endangering the actor.

The director, Dallamano, has twelve directing credits on IMDB and 45 cinematographer credits so it is clear where his expertise lay. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with his direction, but that the entire movie has the look of someone who really knows and cares about cinematography. There are so many great scenes in What Have They Done To Your Daughters? that it becomes pointless to try listing them.

The actors are all really good, being mostly veterans. They know what they're doing and I have zero complaints on that score. The score is fine, and the effects are excellent. Speaking of effects, there isn't all that much gore here, but when it shows up it is There with a capital T. Because the blood is used sparingly, it becomes more shocking, which is nice.

What I found most enjoyable about What Have They Done To Your Daughters? is that I couldn't predict this movie at all. At this point I have seen a lot of both Gialli and Poliziotteschi movies and they, like so many genres, tend towards certain patterns. What Have They Done To Your Daughters? doesn't outright break the rules, but it circumvents a few of them very nicely. What is also really nice is that the villains, the people running the teens, make mistakes. They screw up and that is a refreshing experience. The tendency is to portray the people running conspiracies as infallible. Not so here, and on top of that, the cops are very competent.

So, do I recommend this movie? Oh yes, definitely! Despite the vile subject matter, What Have They Done To Your Daughters? is a top notch thriller that doesn't shy away from the nastiness but also doesn't glorify it. Thriller fans of all kinds should have a good time here, not just Gialli lovers. The movie hints at being based on a true story or at least based on similar events in real life. I don't know about that, but it does add an extra layer of grime on top of the existing slime.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great week!

 

It's not even the 13th precinct.

I decided to knock another movie off the “I'll watch it some day” list, and watched:

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

Written and directed by John Carpenter, Assault on Precinct 13 is one of those movies that have been floating around in my periphery for decades. It has always been mentioned with a certain reverence like, “it's alright, but it's no Assault on Precinct 13”... At least that is the impression I had about the movie.

The movie opens with a group of gangers being gunned down by the LAPD in South Central. We learn that this gang, a mysterious multi-ethnic gang called Street Thunder has stolen a cache of weapons that include assault rifles and suppressors. The leaders of Street Thunder swear a bloody vendetta against the police and (for some reason) the citizens of LA.

We meet Highway Patrol lieutenant Ethan Bishop, who is asked to run the last night shift for a precinct that is moving. It's the final night and everything should be quiet. Suddenly a prison transport bus arrives as one prisoner is very ill, and that is when a man hysterical with fear runs into the station. He is being chased by Street Thunder and it becomes a desperate fight for survival until help can arrive, if it can arrive.

Assault on Precinct 13 is incredibly solid, and I think it's because there was one person at the helm, not a room full of people who all wanted their ideas to shine. The movie is perfectly balanced and if anything would have knocked that balance askew, the movie would have failed miserably. As it is, it is a tense and fun movie. It is competently shot, but it is the actors and the dialogue that really shines. They have great chemistry and it all works so well.

If you are the kind of movie watcher that wants everything explained, then I'm sorry but you're going to be disappointed. What I wrote about the gang is pretty much all you get to know. A fun fact is that no ganger says a single word. Carpenter has admitted that one of his influences for Assault on Precinct 13 was Night of the Living Dead (1968) and he wanted the Street Thunder thugs to have a somewhat zombie like style.

When the movie was released in the US it received a lukewarm reception, but it got an incredibly warm reception in the UK, which spurred a popular reception in the rest of the world, leading the US critics to have to revisit their critique. The UK distributor was called Michael Myers, and a grateful Carpenter wanted to do something nice for him, so he used the name in Halloween.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes. It is a solid action/thriller that despite all the shooting doesn't dwell too much on the killings. Well except for one scene... It's solid and the actors really knock it out of the park. It's not one of Carpenters best but it is good enough. I'm glad I watched it, and I might see it again one day.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Having the flu is not fun...

Okay, so I've been sick for the better part of the week, so I haven't been able to think coherently let alone watch anything or come up with some original content for this blog.

So to give my poor head a break I give you a documentary about people living under Las Vegas. Enjoy that and I'll see you next week!   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHbdLEAeJ8E

 

 

Kill List

I can't remember where I learned of this movie, but I watched:

Kill List (2011).

Married couple Jay (Neil Maskell) and Shel (MyAnna Buring) are having problems. They are low on money and are fighting constantly. Jay has been out of work for a while, but when his old army buddy Gal (Michael Smiley) comes to dinner with his girlfriend Fiona (Emma Fryer), things might change. The kicker is that Jay and Gal are hitmen. They kill people for money and Gal has a client lined up who pays well. Then things start getting weirder and weirder.

A movie about a couple of professional killers is always going to be somewhat dark, but Kill List is something else. At first it seems almost too realistic, with Jay's and Shel's arguments, but as soon as he and Gal go about their business the tone changes and things get really weird. It goes from unpleasantly realistic to horror and you don't know when it did that.

Kill List is a “along for the ride” kind of movie. The destination isn't that important, and in fact I guessed the ending. Don't expect explanations or for anything to really make sense, as I said, it is all about the journey.

The actors are good, I have seen many of them in other roles, and the cinematography is nice. The director, Ben Wheatley, does a really excellent job capturing the bleakness of the urban sprawl. Everything seems cheap and unpleasant. Houses that should be nice seem tawdry and fake. It is all painted with a pale, grim and disturbing brush. You get the feeling that nothing and nowhere is safe. It is almost as if everything is fake, that every location is staged and what you see is just a backdrop. And in a sense that is true, it is a movie not a documentary, but the feeling works within the movie itself. Had they screwed that up, whether it was intentional or not, the movie would have been awful. They do pull it off though.

The sound is a mixed bag. Rather than music, it's sound. Droning sound that drills into your head and makes you uncomfortable. Perfect for a movie like this, but the actors have a tendency to mumble a bit and there were times where I couldn't understand what was being said. Not that you watch a movie like Kill List for the dialogue, good as it is.

A word about gore. Most of Kill List isn't that bloody, and you do expect a bit of splatter in a movie called Kill List after all, and there is quite a bit of blood from time to time. But there is one scene in particular that is very graphic, so be warned.

So, do I recommend this movie? To horror fans I do! Kill List is never going to be considered great, but is is good. You think you have it figured out and then it takes a turn, and then another turn until you're spiraling towards the end. As mentioned, I did guess the ending, but that didn't matter as the road there was good enough. Non horror fans should find something else to watch. I wish I could say more about Kill List, but that would spoil everything, and I refuse to do that.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great week!

Past its prime?

I was in the mood for a classic, so I watched:

The Taking of Pelham OneTwo Three (1974).

Four heavily armed men, Mr. Blue (Robert Shaw), Mr. Green (Martin Balsam), Mr. Grey (Hector Elizondo and Mr. Brown (Earl Hindman) hijack a New York subway train and demand one million dollars in one hour, otherwise they execute one hostage per minute. Against them are Transit Authority Police Lieutenant Garber (Walter Matthau) and basically every cop in New York City.

This movie was adapted from the bestselling novel of the same name by Morton Freegood writing under the name John Godey. The name Pelham One Two Three means that the train left the Pelham station at 1.23 pm.

Apparently this movie is a huge classic, with a Rotten Tomatoes score of 98% and a 7.6 on IMDB. It is counted as one of “those” movies that are always rated extremely highly, and I don't get it.

Don't get me wrong. The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is a fine movie. The actors are excellent, the story is good and the cinematography works. Apparently filming was a nightmare due to the dust, the noise and the ever present threat of being electrocuted by the third rail. Yes, the power to the third rail was turned off, but no one wanted to trust that it was really turned off... The crew looked like coal miners at the end of each day. Serious film making in other words.

The problem is, at least for me, that the movie doesn't give you a chance to care about the victims. Sure, they are innocent, but the movie spends more time getting to know the hijackers, than anyone else. We also spend a lot of time with the rail managers and the Transit Authority police. If the movie was right then being a loud, angry and cantankerous man was essential for running a subway. There is a lot of angry yelling in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, but I didn't care about the hostages one bit.

I guess that the movie was groundbreaking in '74, and there have been so many movies since that a lot of the magic has dissipated. I had a good time, sure, but I was also glad when the movie was over. I read famous critic Roger Ebert's review and the way he talked about The Taking of Pelham One Two Three makes me think my view is correct. It was a golden movie then, but it isn't now. Most of the surprises were pretty obvious, and the story was predictable enough once the film got going.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, I guess so. As I said, there isn't really anything majorly wrong with The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, but like Bullitt (1968) the magic was there for those who saw it back in the day. It is absolutely worth watching, and I'm glad I did, just temper your expectations accordingly.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great week!

 

Informative Entertainment

When I play certain games like World of Warcraft, I like to have something on in the background to listen to if not directly watch. One such source is The Joe Rogan Experience.

I'm not a fan of Rogan as such, but he does love talking to interesting people and today I have two such episodes for you.

The first one is with rocker turned director Rob Zombie, in which they talk about horror movies, New York back in the day and much much more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDLeJ5Rasuo

The second one is with British comedian Jimmy Carr. I have seen a lot of Jimmy's stand-up and he hosts a lot of comedy panel shows that I'm a fan of. This is the first time I've seen him just sit down and talk. They discuss comedy, history and a great deal more. Unfortunately I couldn't find the whole thing on Youtube so Dailymotion will have to do.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8oo4hj

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

  

The Autopsy of Jane Doe

Happy New Year!

We are starting the new year with a newer horror movie:

The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016).

This movie title has been lurking at the corners of my awareness for quite a while, but when I saw a video about less popular horror movies that are well worth watching, and that video compared The Autopsy of Jane Doe with Oculus (2013) I had to watch it.

Oculus and The Autopsy of Jane Doe do not follow the same story but they both play with perception. This is not an easy thing to do in a movie, as it can easily devolve into massive plot holes and deus-ex-machina moments. I can happily say that both movies pass with flying colors.

This is the plot: Police respond to a multiple homicide in a private residence and in the basement they find the half buried body of a naked young woman. The sheriff rushes her to a morgue/crematorium run by the father and son team of Tommy (Brian Cox) and Austin (Emile Hirsch), because "I can explain the other death's, I can't explain her". As soon as they start work on the young woman, the titular Jane Doe, weird stuff start happening and soon devolve into a nightmare for all involved. The more they literally dig into her, the weirder things get.

The Autopsy of Jane Doe is a small movie. Almost the entire film takes place in the underground morgue, but director André Øvredal (Trollhunter) uses the limited space very effectively. The effects are stellar and very gory. In fact, if you are even slightly sensitive, do not eat while watching this movie!

The actors are excellent and despite having mostly only two characters to work with, it never becomes an issue. The star in many ways though, is Olwen Catherine Kelly who plays the titular Jane Doe. She spends the entire movie lying absolutely motionless on the cold table, a role that might seem easy but is horrible to actually do. Only when it became unavoidable did they use prosthetics, so for every other scene, she lies there completely still.

It is also worth pointing out that despite all the gruesome horror, the most unsettling thing in the movie is the corpses sightless eyes staring at you.

The movie does offer up an explanation for why and how all the horror happens, but considering the central theme of twisted reality, I'm not sold that this explanation is true. It could be, but nothing says that it is.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, to all horror fans, absolutely! Non horror fans will not have a good time, but for us that like this stuff, The Autopsy of Jane Doe is an incredible film. A good example of how simple things can be when they are done right!

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great start of 2024.