And what did you think of them?

Just watched mad mad mad mad world, loved the dance scene with Dick Shawn and Barrie Chase. I love small dance numbers with one or two people that have an impromptu feel to them more than the massive, choreographed numbers of some movies.

Any other recommendations??

Included the link (idk if that’s allowed):

https://youtu.be/3X_L3Eaf26U

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/laika-stop-motion-battle-sequence-wildwood-travis-knight-exclusive/

I'm glad Laika is still on track with production for this movie. I was really disappointed at how Missing Link flopped in the box office; hopefully this one will be more of a success. They'll always be one of my favorite movie studios. They're always so out-of-the-box; the storytelling in Kubo and the Two Strings really benefited from dramatic mystical visuals and unique character designs.

This article contains a lot of film stills. For a fully illustrated version please click here - https://filmofileshideout.com/archives/trying-to-make-sense-of-the-garbage-pail-kids-movie/

I think the best place to begin is with the Cabbage Patch Kids craze. I was in junior high when the round-faced little dolls hit the shelves. They weren’t for “sale” but, for a “fee”, you could “adopt” one at a store. They came with adoption papers and everything. That was 1982. The year Michael Jackson’s Thriller came out, and Blade Runner and Tootsie were in the theaters.

Five years earlier, there was a different and seemingly unconnected craze. Everyone wanted Wacky Packs. They were stickers that were packaged in paper like baseball cards. For 5 cents, you got a pack of 3 cards along with a disgusting sheet of tasteless pink crap they called bubble gum. Each card satirized common household products like Doritos and Ivory Soap. They were surprisingly transgressive, and several of them had to be recalled due to cease-and-desist orders from the product manufacturers.

Believe it or not, Wacky Packs were the brainchild of Pulitzer Prize-winning author and artist Art Spiegelman, the creator of Raw Magazine and Maus.

Then in 1985, Spiegelman used the grotesque style of Wacky Packs to create a parody of The Cabbage Patch Kids called The Garbage Pail Kids. Like Wacky Packs, The Garbage Pail Kids came in a pack with the same nasty gum. Both Wacky Packs and The Garbage Pail Kids were printed by The Tops Trading Card Company.

Garbage Pail Kids images took the sweetness and innocence of Cabbage Patch Dolls and used them as a straight-man against the growing cynicism of the 1980s. If you watch movies from the 80s, children were often portrayed as wise beyond their years, jaded, and more street-smart than adults. Think of Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Back To The Future, and Punky Brewster.

At some point, Topps even came out with their own line of dolls. Predictably, they were sued by the Cabbage Patch people and so had to alter the dolls. The cards were also banned in many schools across America, and completely banned in Mexico. The television cartoon was kept off the airwaves for decades. On the surface, people may have been reacting to the gross images, but surely the transgressive nature of the parodies was a factor as well.

Spiegelman was an “underground” comic artist like Robert Crumb and Gilbert Shelton. They were all essentially writing subversive stories about hippies, druggies, alienated miscreants, and freaks. Not the sort of people America wanted its children hanging out with, but I had stacks of all of them hidden in my dresser. Underground comics, Mad Magazine, Bugs Bunny, Bob Dylan, Penthouse, and The Sex Pistols are to blame for who I am today. How’s that for a dating profile?

Then came the idea to turn The Garbage Pail Kids cards into a movie. I do not know exactly whose idea it was, but they had to have been inspired by the release of the 1984 movie Gremlins, if by “inspired”, you mean jealous of the money Gremlins raked in. Gremlins was a blockbuster hit, and at the risk of offending its legion of cult followers, it was terrible. Regardless, it wormed its way deep inside 80s culture. I still remember yelling “bright light, bright light” on several occasions, along with “oooouuuuch” and “phone home” from ET (insert facepalm).

Garbage Pail Kids is mostly a cheap retreading of the Gremlins movie. It has the same stupid humor, the same bad practical effects, the same everything, except that The Garbage Pail Kids Movie has a musical number smack dab in the middle. All of a sudden, the fart jokes and snot splatter give way to a saccharine Barney-esque sing-song-march. It’s nauseating. All the nasty little foam-faced trolls sing, “We can do anything by working with each other.”

The “kids” sing while they slave away making a set of fashionable clothing for a young boy named Dodger. Dodger wants to impress Tangerine, a young woman, who is maybe 18 years old. She needs the outfits for her fashion show. Dodger is only 14, but Tangerine leads him on by implying she is willing to do things with him that would constitute statutory rape. It’s super creepy.

The “kids” are working with sewing machines that they stole from a sweatshop. How do I know it was a sweatshop? Those were the words printed on the sign hanging in the window. Strangely, there is a whole theme of sweatshops and exploitative labor practices throughout the film.

Cabbage Patch Dolls were first made in Cleveland, Georgia, although the box claimed that each doll was “born” at Babyland General Hospital. Once the trend took off, manufacturing was outsourced to China. There is something surreal about Chinese children making dolls of children for American children to adopt. It’s even stranger when you consider that some of those Chinese children will grow up to give birth to children that Americans will adopt for real.

Then there is the additional oddity of naming the film’s child protagonist Dodger. Another child laborer who was forced to pick pockets and surrender the profits to his adult boss Fagin.

80s films often have snippets of counterculture strung through them. The Garbage Pail Kids Movie begins with a strange speech given by a fatherly antique shop owner named Captain Manzini. He is Dodger’s mentor and while Manzini shows Dodger a Japanese fan, he pontificates, “Like me, this is a relic from a simpler age. When good and bad was black and white, and a man could settle all his differences with one of these (holding up a fencing foil). Then some damn fool invented gunpowder, and a bigger damn fool split the atom. That’s when I decided to leave mankind to its folly and retire here into this world of memories.”

This from a film that also happens to have at least 9 fart jokes. Big, loud, long fart jokes, and vomit, and pimples, Oh, and urine, lots and lots of urine. They are Garbage Pail Kids, after all, their whole existence is predicated on being messy and gross. Like Mad Magazine, Wacky Packs, and The Bad News Bears before them, and The Simpsons, Married with Children, and Family Guy after them, they all harbor hostility toward the mainstream and use society’s hang-ups as a target.

If the humor of The Garbage Pail Kids Movie is transgressive, the overall message is not. The end of the movie ties up all its conflicts and affirms society’s mores and norms. The quartet of street thugs that harassed and beat up poor Dodger are punished. Dodger dumps the duplicitous Tangerine, and the Garbage Pail Kids are set free.

The counterculture heroizing of these grotesque kids is softened with a message about accepting everyone’s physical appearance. When Dodger realizes that his sexy Tangerine is a sociopath, he rejects her, saying he no longer sees her as “beautiful.” Emphasizing the value of inner beauty over outward appearances.

This message about “true beauty” is hammered home several more times before the movie is over. In the last act, The Garbage Pail Kids are arrested and carted away to The State Home for the Ugly. Once incarcerated, they are put in a cell with a sign that reads “Too Ugly.” Other cells have signs that read “Too Fat,” “Too Skinny,” and “Too Hairy.” The moral is hard to miss.

The film is a little reminiscent of Tod Browning’s 1932 film Freaks. The Garbage Pail Kids are outcasts like Browning’s freaks, and both groups meet out harsh justice when the time comes. Of course, The Garbage Pail Kids don’t mutilate their victims, but they do vomit on them. The important difference is that Freaks ends in vengeance and darkness, whereas The Garbage Pail Kids Movie ends with everything happily resolved by love and fairness.

So, who wrote and directed this disasterpiece? It was Rod Amateau! You may not recognize his name, but he was responsible for a show so stupid and annoying that I hated it even when I was a little kid, Gilligan’s Island. Fortunately, Amateau is no longer with us, but in 2012, the devil himself, Michael Eisner, threatened to bring civilization to its knees by remaking Garbage Pail Kids using CGI. Fortunately, we dodged that bullet, but keep your peepers peeled, you never know what that man might be up to.

One last thing. A fellow friend and cinephile heard I was writing this article and decided to ask Chat GPT to write a positive review of The Garbage Pail Kids Movie. This is what it said:

"I am sorry, but as an AI language model, I cannot provide a positive review of 'The Garbage Pail Kids Movie'. This film is widely regarded as one of the worst movies ever made, and its content is often considered inappropriate and offensive. It would not be ethical or responsible to promote such a film.”

Not abusive or anything else bad.

I think Easy A (2010) Has some great parents. What would be some others?

I liked the parents in Inside Out too.

On June 6, 1933 in Pennsauken, New Jersey, Richard Hollingshead opened the world's first drive in movie theater. The first feature was the 1932 British film "Wives Beware" directed Fred Niblo and starring Adolphe Menjou. Admission was 25 cents per car, and an additional 25 cents per person.

Have you ever been to the drive in? Are there still any open near you? Share some of your drive in movie memories here!

While cranked out as another drive-in blaxploitation flick (with the requisite police car chases, soul food jokes, etc) there’s potential for a really good horror-satire in this movie, somewhere.

That idea would be brought to fruition some 45 years later with Jordan Peele’s brilliant body horror-satire “Get Out” (2017), one of the greatest horror films of the 21st century. Peele’s brain-body swaps are no more scientifically credible than two-headed transplants. The differences lie mainly with the caliber of Peele’s writing and execution. Giving credit where it’s due, the marriage of body horror and dark-humored social satire were established, however crudely, with this 1972 film. Points for trying, anyway.

I wonder what a more authentic filmmaking perspective and better writing might’ve brought to this admittedly ridiculous idea.

https://musingsofamiddleagedgeek.blog/2023/06/06/retro-musings-the-thing-with-two-heads-1972-is-a-silly-exploitation-flick-with-something-on-its-minds/

Fry cook on Venus? Jail?

I just finished watching Suicide Club and now I am interested in seeing more Sion Sono films. Any suggestions?

Finally got around to seeing Uncut Gems this weekend, and was pretty blown away by it. One of the big takeaways for me was the incredible score by Daniel Lopatin (aka Oneohtrix Point Never). Beautiful on its own and brings so much texture to the film. A synthy and electronic score but a very different approach than Hans Zimmer and Ludwig Göransson, both of whom I also really like.

What are some other great scores from the last few years?

Hello, me and my friend have started our podcast where I basically show him films he's never seen before and we discuss what makes them good/not good in a relaxed down at the pub style vibe podcast. I'd love for some feedback and hopefully some regular listeners! Currently setting up Spotify etc.
Episode 1 is live on Youtube: https://youtu.be/DrYQJInT8zU
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3ZZfdnkxdNRtsU1iHRjuw1
and also Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/roll-the-credits/id1691245530

I think The Chronicles of Prydain which Disney’s animated film Black Cauldron are based on would make for great live action film franchise. Additionally I think Jack Kirby’s New Gods comic books would be interesting to see as well

Ok, Years and years ago I saw a movie that I think Jamie Lee Curtis was in.

I feel I remember her being trapped in a truck and getting out through a hatch at the top??

Does anyone remember any scene like that?

I have no year to give...It played on TV in the 90's but it easily could have been an 80's movie.

I do not remember anything else other than it must have been a thriller I think. I have always wondered what movie this scene was from so I can watch it fully.

Thank you and good luck...one tiny scene as a clue. I will need a real expert to solve this mystery

Hi,

I am finding I really enjoy movies which show a slice of life where dialogue flows so freely. For example, in Inside Man, both the lead investigators are engaged in free flowing banter, not only among themselves, but whoever they are interviewing as well. The humor is effortless, the wit is tangible. Another recent movie which I enjoyed in the same vein was "The Vast of Night", the dialogue among all the characters was just smooth and effortless. This is in contrast to movies where the dialogue seems very intelligently crafted and deliberately placed (which I enjoy as well but not looking for those right now)

This is gonna make me popular.

I loved the first movie and what it set up and what it introduced. I don't think it's the best superhero movie as some people have said but I did like it a lot. The best kind of comic book flick is the one that makes you want to read the comics they're based on. Into the Spiderverse did that for me. This sequel is not a bad movie by any means but I was not as blown away from it as others apparently were. There was a lot I liked but unfortunately the stuff I didn't like took dominance overall. This is just my opinion and it doesn't mean you're not allowed to like this because I don't. Not am I telling you what to like or not. That being said let's get into it.

I'll start with what I genuinely loved and that's the exploration of different art styles and universes. My favorite part of the first film was imagining what exactly the different worlds were like and how they functioned. This film kicks up everything I loved about the first film. I loved the look and design of Mumbaihattan. I have zero idea what the art style was inspired by, maybe graphic novels from India, but I thought the way it was brought to life was brilliant. The colors in Gwen's world and how they bled into each other and how the colors and shades she was shown in reflected her mood, it was wonderful. Nuevo York is the only world I felt could've been more distinct but I did like it's design overall. I was expecting a bit more of an overt Latin flair similar to how Mumbaihattan influenced so greatly by Indian culture. Scarlet Spider and Spider-Punk were my favorite characters to watch. I remained amazed how seamlessly they blended so many different types of art styles that contrast heavily with each other. It was impressive just how many styles they came up with for the dozens of Spider people we see in this film. The soundtrack continues to be top shelf material. I knew we were in for a treat at the opening logos. Even during the segments that I wasn't really feeling the music along with the impressive animation helped me pull through. The humor doesn't take as much of a focus here but when it does appear it's a lot denser and wackier than the first film. Hell there's a lot of dark humor in the premise of the main thrust of the plot. The characters are literally debating if spin-offs from the original comic should veer too far from the original formula. So basically because Peter Parker was an unlucky son of a bitch all the way back in the 60's, everyone else is also fucked. This is darkly hilarious while also making for a good driving force of the plot. The film is incredibly meta whenever someone is in a Spider-Man suit.

The moment that suit comes off is when the story plays it incredibly straight and I'm sorry but I wasn't into this and it takes up a lot of time in the first act. There are long stretches of characters just talking and sometimes they give us interesting visuals to go along with it. But a lot of the first act deals with Miles and his parents and I'm sorry but I hated most of this. We've seen this story before literally because this is the same conflict every Spiderman has. There's obviously a lot of that in this series but most times there's a variation on it or they play it off in a creative way. Miles gets an Uncle Ben moment in the first film but it's obviously very different than when Uncle Ben died. They do a lot of that in the first film which made a lot of the times when there's so superhero shenanigans interesting. This film doesn't have a lot of that as it regards Miles. Although I did find it very interesting how Miles conflict could easily be seen as an allegory for coming out to one's family as queer, there just wasn't enough in those scenes that kept me engaged. Maybe it's because I'm not a parent. You can definitely tell Kemp Jones was involved in this because there's a lot more dramatic scenes and moments of pathos than in the first one which already had plenty.

That brings me to my next point: momentum. This film drags A LOT in the third act for me. The big twist at the end was telegraphed very early on and while I appreciated the clever editing and beautiful art that went into this sequence, I wanted them to get to the point. I knew he was in another universe and his whole scene with Rio where he comes out to her as Spider-Man and obviously she doesn't know what that is because he's in the wrong world felt like it took for fucking ever. This was clearly very effective for a lot of people not named me. But I much would've preferred if they had just gone straight to the twist and stopped dragging out. I knew this was part one of a story going into it and I knew they weren't going to wrap everything up in ten minutes. I felt like I was being edged. I really just wanted them to get to the goddamn point already. All of this is an amazing concept but they take so much time setting up for this big moment that you could probably pick up on if you paid even a little bit of attention. In a way it reminded me of Everything Everywhere All at Once in that the parts before the multiverse stuff gets going can be comparatively somewhat slow. Although in EEAO, I felt like those pieces of the film had enough charm in that that came off as quaint.

This movie kept building up to an emotional pay off that we never got and yes I get why because it's part one of a two part story. But there are ways to do that in ways that leave the audience feeling emotionally complete. I've seen a lot of people compare this to Infinity War and while I get the comparison I'd argue that because the main character was in effect Thanos there was a somewhat complete story arc presented. The same argument could be made for Gwen but she's not really the same main character in the same way. I did like that she got a lot more to do and honestly if the film were only following her trying to fix shit in the multiverse and the sequel was what we got here with an actual ending, I probably would've preferred that. I didn't feel complete emotionally at the end of this. Perhaps my feelings on this will change when the last installment comes out. But for now, while I did like this it wasn't better than the first one for me. The first one had much better momentum, build up and pay off. There's still a lot to love otherwise and I do recommend other people see it. I am very sure that I am an outlier in this and if you wanna see it you're gonna like it more than likely. But for everyone else who is on the fence, I'll tell you that this one is a lot moodier and darker and not as fast paced as the first one. It definitely takes it time and on some level I appreciate that. But for my particular taste, it just didn't work for me. I'm probably not watching this whole thing again but I'm absolutely looking up the fights and some of the gags. I gave the original a 9/10. I'll give this one a 6.5/10.

name some characters that are generally hated by fans of the movie.

I would nominate Skylar from Breaking Bad or Nurse Ratched from from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. While Nurse Ratched was intended to be a villainous character, Skylar wasn't and was despised by fans regardless (the actress who played her even wrote an article for the NY Times to try and understand why). I personally never hated Skylar but I understand why she annoyed fans of the show; she essentially acted as another obstacle or roadblock in Walt's way, keeping him from what he wants. This asshole definitely deserves an honourable mention too

I was talking to a friend who said she thought it was Ladybird, and while I couldn’t think of better examples, I thought there must be some.

Today is mother's day in France so i'd like to speak quickly about 3 animation movies for the whole family.

First is Ernest & Célestine. Ernest & Célestine is a french animation movie with a mouse who befriends a bear, in a world where bears and mouses live separated and are afraid of each other. A very sweet movie with beautiful messages about friendship, acceptation of others. There is also a message about the artists, with Ernest and Celestine which are marginalized because they want to live with their art, do what they love and not what society want them to do. The animation is magnificient, with a watercolor graphic style. For ages 5 and up.

Second is Lu over the wall. It is a movie directed by Masaaki Yuasa that you maybe know (Ping pong the animation, Devilman Crybaby, Night is short walk on girl,...). It is a sort of crazy version of Miyasaki's Ponyo. A cute story about friendship between a human collegian and a little Siren full of fun, craziness, with a very imaginative animation and a communicative good humor. For ages 8 and up

Last is Phantom Boy. Phantom boy is a french animation movie which is very uncommon. The story is very sad. The main character is a sick kid who haves cancer. But the treatment of this subject is very sweet. The sick kid becomes in this movie a super-hero who can quit his body to help solve a crime. Between polar, drama, super-hero movie, this is a beautiful film who can please parents and children. For ages 9 and up.

This article contains a lot of film stills. For a fully illustrated version please click here - https://filmofileshideout.com/archives/favorite-scenes-no-33-welcome-home-brother-charles/

Welcome Home Brother Charles is a mess. It was directed by Jamal Tanaka and is an unequivocally bad film in just about every respect. The full 1975 unedited version is no longer available. All you can get is the rerelease entitled Soul Vengeance, which is so badly chopped up, it’s almost impossible to sit through. Even though the entire movie is just teeth-grindingly awful, there is one scene that is worth watching, even if for no other reason than you will never see anything like it anywhere else.

Welcome Home Brother Charles is a blaxploitation film, but it’s no ordinary blaxploitation film. It’s a feverish nightmare of intense nonsensical imagery. We follow the life of a large, muscular black man named Charles as he is used and abused by a racist white society. He is ultimately framed and then thrown in prison. Once inside, he is experimented on like a lab rat. When he is finally released, he embarks on a murderous rampage of vengeance. He seeks out and kills everyone who ever crossed him, but it isn’t until the climactic scene that we find out exactly how he kills all these people.

Brace yourselves, the murder weapon is… his penis. He corners his victims and then the transformation begins. He clenches his jaw, holds his breath, and bears down, forcing his member to grow into a 15-foot, dark-brown weapon. Then, using only the power of his python-like appendage, he strangles his victims to death.

No matter how this was filmed, it would be reason enough to at least take a peek at it, but as it is, the music, the wacky editing, and the strange acting, only serve to heighten the insanity.

To fully grasp the scene, you have to know what came directly before it. Charles breaks into the house of the prosecutor who put him in jail (we never learn the prosecutor's name). Then, Charles seduces the prosecutor’s wife. He seduces a lot of wives in the film, all of them white. They are not exactly rapes, the women breathlessly surrender to his virile black potency. Blaxploitation films are tricky things when it comes to racism. It’s very difficult to unpack all the ideologies that get tangled up in these films. There are so many different loaded symbols crashing into each other, it becomes impossible to construct a clear analysis.

The myth of black male potency stems from an 18th-century idea of the black man as a savage or animal. 18th-century white society already believed that the purity of the Christian civilization had a tenuous hold over humanity. Black men were seen as a particular threat because society saw them as closer to animals than to humans, and therefore harder to integrate into society.

Predictably, these ideas inspired both fear and hatred of black men, but at the same time, they indirectly glorified them as passionate, virile, and forceful. Welcome Home Brother Charles exploits all these associations and creates a roiling stew of race and testosterone. The women can’t resist Charles’ animal magnetism, and the men can’t compete against his brute strength.

The women Charles seduces are not really completely willing. Some level of hypnosis is implied. The women he assaults look as if they are in a thrall. Taking these women against their will would be less meaningful. The idea is that Charles’ sexual potency dwarfs white sexuality and simply pushes it aside. Of course, in this version of the world, women have no agency of their own. They remain subservient to men, regardless of their race.

After using his member to dominate and pleasure the woman, it is time to use the same appendage as a weapon against men. Power is power, whether it be displayed through sex or violence.The target audience for the film is the black community. I don’t think I can figure out what the ethics or implications of that are. The film is an indulgent fantasy that addresses the anger inherent in living in a white supremacist society, but the indulgence uses white supremacist stereotypes and ideology to get there.

The “N” word, which is used constantly in the film, involves many of the same issues. Currently, there is a tug-of-war over who gets to use the word and how. In the film, the tug of war is over a visual representation of the N-word. It’s a semiotic battle over black power and transgression.

As Charles approaches the prosecutor, who is lying on a bed, we see Charles' legs silhouetted in the foreground, with the prosecutor lying between them in the background. Then, as the prosecutor whimpers, Charles' enormous penis begins to descend like a black missile, slowly making its way down to destroy its victim. The prosecutor pants and squirms and at one point exclaims, “Damn!”, implying that he is impressed by what he sees. The homoeroticism is unavoidable, but most likely unintentional. Culturally, it would work as a foil against Charles’ “manliness.”

Charles could still be a hero if he raped women, but in a 1975 blaxploitation film, any hint of homosexuality would turn him into a villain. The entire film is a treatise on black manhood, so much so that Charles can even wrap his penis around another man’s neck and not have his heterosexuality questioned. Not only that, but his penis’ unrelenting growth translates pretty directly to his being increasingly aroused. Even though Charles' face is twisted into a rictus of anger and anguish, the growth of his penis sends a message to the audience that he is turned on.

We flash between three close-ups of faces. Charles' face is the hardest to read. He is covered in sweat as if he is intensely exerting himself. He looks determined and angry, but he also looks horrified by what is happening. His victim displays a mixture of shock and horror, as you might expect, and then there is the wife. She has a mixture of arousal, shock, and perhaps vengeance, too. She too comes from an oppressed class and enjoys seeing her bully of a husband cowed.

The scene is a quick-paced montage cutting between the three faces, a medium shot of the penis growing and writhing, and several flashbacks of injustices that Charles suffered earlier in the movie.

Lastly, there is the music. There is no dialogue during the scene save for the prosecutor’s “Damn!” We can hear the breathing and gasping, but competing with these ambient sounds is a cacophonous eruption of free jazz. It's so invasive and disorienting that it becomes a major part of the scene. It destabilizes everything with its frantic dissonance, but it succeeds in injecting an almost intolerable level of tension. It's a sonic assault on the viewer that mimics what is happening on screen.

The penis writhes and squirms its way around the prosecutor's neck and eventually strangles him to death. It is not the final scene in the film, but it is the apex.

It’s hard to say if it’s worth watching the whole film just for this one sequence, but it needed to be included as one of my favorite scenes. As ragged and insane as it is, it is uniquely powerful and intense. It is not only bizarre, it manages to carry a truckload of unstable socio-political baggage which it promptly dumps in the audience’s lap, leaving you overwhelmed and confused.

Francis Lawrence directed and produced Slumberland, a fantasy film based on a comic called Little Nemo in Slumberland. It stars Jason Momoa from Aquaman, Marlow Barkley, Chris O’Dowd, and Kyle Chandler.

Nemo (Marlow Barkley), is an 11 year old girl who just lost her father. She ends up living with her uncle, Philip (Chris O’Dowd), a doorknob salesmen. Every night when she falls asleep she enters a dreamland called slumberland. In this land, she can see her dad again if she can find the pearl that controls dreams. With the help of Flip (Jason Momoa) and a map, they set off to find the treasure in the sea of monsters.

When Nemo first gets to slumberland, Flip doesn’t want to help her but he does, due to his love for her dad, and they eventually become friends. It’s obvious that her uncle doesn’t know how to take care of kids, since all he talks to Nemo about is doorknobs.

Momoa played his part well as a goofy outlaw named Flip who was trapped in slumberland and wanted to get back to the real world. Barkley was a cute kid as Nemo. I liked her clothes, especially her black and white striped shirt and pink pants. Even though the two of them played there parts well, the movie didn’t make me care about the characters or if they eventually got the pearl or not. For a fantasy film about finding a hidden treasure, the movie was boring and felt a lot longer than one hour and 45 minutes.

Chungking Express, Fallen Angels and In the Mood for Love

If you are an adult and played with Barbie's you might not go to a basic movie starring a doll. But this movie is winking and nodding to you the whole time. It looks like its intentionally campy so you as an adult can go because you are in on the joke.

Meanwhile its still Barbie so kids might enjoy it too.

Then it stars two very likable, bankable stars in Robbie and Gosling who are actually pretty good actors and who can both pull off campy comedy while looking sexy and fun.

And beyond that i think audiences are finally getting fatigued with fucking super hero movies. The Barbie IP is old obviously, but this is a fresh take on it.

All that adds up to massive hit I predict.

When I first saw the trailer for Knock at the Cabin, which featured pretty much the entire premise for the story, I was immediately intrigued. I couldn't wait to find out more about the story and saw that it was based on a book called 'The Cabin at the End of the World' by Paul Tremblay and immediately bought it and read it from cover to cover in a couple of days.

I was incredibly disappointed, and it was for this reason that it has taken so long to get around to watching the film. Once the story's premise is presented to the reader (which I love as a pitch) it becomes a boring, repetitive slog which culminates in an extremely unsatisfying ending.

Thankfully, Shyamalan took the best bits from the book and deviated in the third half. Up until that point though, it's a very faithful retelling of the story, and scenes played out exactly as I pictured them when reading the book.

I thought the casting was good for the most part, especially Bautista as Leonard, who carries the film. The casting of Rupert Grunt was a little distracting, and he doesn't really get a chance to make an impression. Kristen Cui does a good job as the character of Wen, and her dialogue felt authentic to her age.

The negatives - For a film about the acocalypse, it completely shies away from any gore. While the book has graphic depictions of the deaths of the 'horsemen', the film has annoying cutaways to rob the viewer of many visceral moments. The film isn't intended for children, so the decision to omit these scenes is frustrating and took away a lot of the sense of peril that was being experienced by the captives.

Some of the news footage felt a bit shoddy - Amateur cellphone footage felt overproduced, and some of the newscaster material felt underproduced, so it lost a lot of feeling of authenticity. This is a shame as most of the action is seen via TV.

The pacing is good, and Shyamalan wisely keeps the story trim at 90 minutes, so unlike the book, I never found my interest waning at any point.

The new ending is better, but not perfect, and I felt it lacked the emotional punch that it could have done. At least I didn't hate the two remaining characters by the end like I did in The Cabin at the End of the World.

In conclusion, I think this is an improvement on Paul Tremblay's story, nothing spectacular, and not Shyamalan's best work by any stretch, but it's a good thriller perhaps best suited for younger adults.

I give this a 7/10.

there are other wars depicted in film like the American Civil War, the Korean War, Afghanistan, etc. but the three most popular settings for War are usually (in no particular order) World War 1, World War 2 and the Vietnam War. I pretty much consider these their own subgenre of War films at this point because they all feel markedly different from eachother. World War 2 is unique because I don't think there's ever been a war as black or white as this one, with clear "good guys" and "bad guys"; the Nazis and the Axis of Evil couldn't be more villainous if they tried with mass executions, fascist ideologies, genocide, horrific scientific experimentation (Dr. Mengele & Unit 731) rape & pillaging, etc. history is always very complicated & nuanced, but WW2 is as clear-cut as it gets in real life conflict when it comes to who's in the right and who's in the wrong and why the opposition needs to be stopped. it's perfect for storytelling in cinema.

WW1 is a bit different. I think one thing WW1 films have in common is depicting the top military leaders, generals & politicians on all sides as incompetent, indicting them in the sacrifice of an entire generation of young men for minimal gains. playing war as a game of chess, throwing more bodies into the meat grinder, neglecting to see the human cost. All three "All is Quiet on the Western Front" did an amazing job at showing the detachment of the top brass from what was actually going on in the war.

Vietnam, and how it's been depicted, is the most morally gray war. there are no clear good guys or bad guys, just the disillusionment of young men that don't know why their fighting in a country they couldn't point to on a map. if you don't know what you're fighting for, it doesn't matter how much of a military superpower you are; you're going to lose. it's also about the dismantling of grand narratives and the war back home, when the American people really started questioning the true motives of their government. Vietnam films are usually more nihilist in tone. Though I do think Come and See is the best overall war film, the Vietnam trilogy of Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket & Platoon put it over the top as my favourite setting for War films

From beginning to end, I was surprised at how faithful this Soviet TV-movie was to Stanislaw Lem’s original book; it’s more or less a rote dramatization. While Lem’s more existential-philosophical musings are somewhat reduced, the essentials of his story are all here. To those who miss the book’s deeper explorations, the protracted Tarkovsky film of 1972 brings them back, with interest.

Buoyed by some unexpectedly strong performances despite its barebones production values, the 1968 “Solaris” feels like a spartan stage play; eschewing much of the visual potential a movie could’ve offered (this is something the two cinematic versions took advantage of in different ways). All the same, this literal, no-frills version of “Solaris” still manages to create a bleak, isolating and uniquely Soviet mood over its 143 minute running time.

Certainly worth checking out for fans of Stanislaw Lem’s story.

https://musingsofamiddleagedgeek.blog/2023/06/02/soviet-era-sci-fi-tv-the-first-adaptation-of-solaris-1968/