u/EditorRedditer

​An abortive attempt at watching 'Jagged Edge' left my wife and I so dissatisfied at the clunky direction that we bailed around the 20-minute mark. Stuck for an alternative murder mystery, at my wife's suggestion we thought to give 'The Boston Strangler' a go, a film whose title I knew well, but had never seen.

It grabbed my attention almost as soon as the title popped up. It was made by the director of ‘Soylent Green’, Richard Fleischer, a film I had enjoyed, but this work was infinitely superior to that. A taut, dark, Police Procedural, based on a book written about the infamous murders, before the term ‘Serial Killer’ had even been coined.

Whilst the strong cast had at least two megastars in the form of Fonda and Curtis, no single actor was allowed to outshine the others; it was almost as if everyone got to play the leading role for a time. It had an impeccable sense of style and period realism, and the muted grey and brown colour palette made the film look far more recent than its 1968 vintage. The screenplay is great and the script flashes and sparkles like a gem.

The pace and unvarnished narrative seemed to herald the coming generation of gritty urban film-making; I’m sure that Friedkin was taking notes (‘The French Connection’ came out three years later) and there were scenes that reminded me of Scorsese and even Fincher. A quick heads up here, whilst I’m on the Fincher reference - this movie IS quite violent in places and that might not suit viewers of a more nervous disposition.
The one slightly contrived thing about it is the heavy use of multiple screens to tell different aspects of the story - it’s a very brave attempt to play with narrative, but some sections work better than others.

The last quarter of the film then mutates into a psychological thriller, with a career-defining performance from Tony Curtis (in fact I don’t think he ever gave a better one.) The final scene, a two-hander between Fonda and Curtis, is one of the most memorable of ANY film that I can recall and could have been shot yesterday.

I cannot understand why more people do not cite this important film in the history of crime movies; I can only think that it was somewhat overshadowed by ‘Bullitt’ and ‘Madigan’ (released in the same year.)

This film verges on ‘masterpiece’ level, imo, and gets almost every element just right – a rarity…

NOT written via AI.

I have seen it before, but can’t remember when. We are in a massive heatwave in London atm and so...what better choice of movie?

This tale of a Black American detective effectively trapped into dealing with a murder case, in a prejudiced Southern town in the mid-60s, has lost none of its impact over the decades.The two sterling leads, a memorable double-header of Poitier and Steiger were the engine that drove the film forward but, in fact, I thought that every actor gave of their best, and that consistently good quality of performance can only be due to the assured direction of Norman Jewison.

After a while I realised that, whilst the dialogue was impeccably written, the silences between the lines was as important as anything actually said; a look, a gesture, a heel turn or merely the juxtaposition of two characters in a limited space also delivered their own impact.

Some of the lesser characters were portrayed with a Coen Brothers-style eye for quirkiness; they must surely have drawn on this film for ‘Blood Simple’. In fact I’m going to put that next on my list...because this heatwave ain't going away...

The project I have been working on (which I was in the final stages of, thank goodness) has just been utterly junked by your update.

So, thanks for that…

Many thanks (old Fabia owner.)

Where was THIS when I was watching movies in 2018...?!?

The usual Blumhouse fare, great production values, impeccably cast with actors of whom I have never heard (Blumhouse have one of the best casting departments in the industry, imo) nicely-paced and with a promising storyline that reminded me more of ‘The Hands of Orlac’ than anything else.                          

Within 30 minutes, I was totally engrossed and kept telling myself that I could not believe that this 2018 film had slipped under the radar. The plot was like the best Philip K Dick story he never wrote and the direction was very Blomkamp, although it was written and directed by Leigh ‘Saw’ Whannell, and was one of those very rare examples where neither suffered to the cost of the other.                       

Smart, slick, absorbing and made on a ridiculously low budget of $5 million, compared to the vast funds of its 2018 rivals such as ‘Black Panther’ and ‘Ready Player One’. It once again proves that Blumhouse knows how to spend its money wisely and they deserve their place in the forefront of fantastic cinema, which it maintains to this day. Great fun!!

It’s long watch but, just as a heads-up, the people in the piece not only ‘tick all the boxes’ as to your garden-variety QAnoner, they ARE most of the boxes…

https://preview.redd.it/jqx0ufqxz27h1.jpg?width=736&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6016386352536a6e5b8d90af51003d8b5e4b471

This review is non-AI generated

I haven’t seen this since I was 10 and it was quite a revelation to see it again.            

Chaplin used a soft blade but with a very sharp point, taking aim at the monotony and dehumanisation of industrial mass production but also putting social injustice, and human exploitation up on the big screen. The whole work is shot through with Chaplin’s humanity and his concern FOR humanity.                                                                                        

There are protests (the Spanish Civil war was in its first year)  references to both the Depression and the 2^(nd) New Deal and probably many others; lost to us, but perfectly relatable to the millions who watched it at the time. There are a few sound grabs in it but mainly it's silent and so possibly one of the last great silent movies to be made.                                                                                                                 

Some of the sight gags might run a little too long for modern eyes (it IS 90 years old) but others are breathtaking in both ingenuity and execution. I had completely forgotten the Cocaine sequence (literally Charlie, on Charlie) which has to be the earliest comedy reference to drugs of which I am aware – it seems Chaplin was an innovator in more ways than one, lol!                                                                                                                                                        

As a last word, the sheer quality of the film production is astonishing, the cinematography and the set design is absolutely perfect, something I had never really appreciated before, which is why I feel that it’s important to revisit great classics as the years go by; they may not change but you do…

PS: Got to love Chaplin's 'Crucifixion' pose in the poster. HE knew what he was doing...

Reams has been written about this movie already, so I'll keep this short...

Within 15 minutes, I had nodded off and my wife had to give me a nudge, not something I would have expected to write when reviewing a Spielberg movie. Thereafter I managed to stay awake, but it was as if Spielberg had taken the current ‘slow-burn’ trend to an extreme degree; there was way too much exposition before anything of significance happened. The movie became more engaging, but only through isolated events, rather than having the pace pick up as a whole.

There was ‘action Spielberg’ and ‘wonder Spielberg’ but, after each, the impetus of the film just became bogged down in story and kept losing momentum; it was akin to watching a marvellous juggler perform, but one who also kept dropping the balls. The denouement, when it eventually arrived was well-executed but, by that point, it was almost too late to be much cared about and lost most of its impact.

I saw ‘Close Encounters’ ten times on its initial release and even dreamed about it. Would I see this again? Yes, when it hits the streamers…

https://preview.redd.it/sf9eweixna6h1.jpg?width=3902&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e052d7e5bef6b5d19dc3dba5f2b305d643ca754f

Preface: I feel I have to point out that this is NOT an AI-generated review. I write at least a thousand words a day, every day, which just makes written expression easier...

You couldn’t wish for a better slice of Southern Gothic Noir, with Robert Mitchum at his most monstrous. Justly-praised for his role in ‘Cape Fear’, I felt that he was even better in this movie, and he later said that Charles Laughton was the finest director he ever worked with.

A thriller, yes, but with an astonishing subtext dealing with the hypocrisy of Christian leadership and the willingness for people to be subjugated by it; a recognisable parable for the current situation in the US. The performances by the two kids are extraordinary and the boy was a 1950s equivalent of River Phoenix, he was that good.

Beautiful cinematography throughout by Stanley Cortez, someone completely unknown to me; it’s why I haven’t gone for the easy option of a Robert Mitchum still to illustrate this review but used one of Lilian Gish instead (who steals the last quarter of the film, btw.)

It fully deserves the reputation that it has – practically perfect in every way.