RSS

Monthly Archives: November 2011

Which films of the 2000s will be remembered?

Which films of the last eleven years or so are the ones people will still talk about 20-30 years from now? I don’t just mean hardcore film buffs, because hardcore film buffs will take any excuse to talk about any movie. No, I mean the public at large. Which movies will be remembered and pop up in conversations even in the 2030s? Which films will be referenced? Which films will be the ones people know of even when they haven’t seen them?

This question is trickier than what it might seem at first glance. Any of us can rattle of a bunch of great films that have received critical approval and made good money at the box office. But consider movies of the 70s and 80s. How many are still talked about or remembered today? Not just by you and your circle of friends and acquintances, but the films that you could mention the title of to any random person on the street and they’d be able to tell you something about them. It’s probably not that many. I can think of a few. Jaws. Star Wars. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Karate Kid. Carrie. The Godfather. Back to the Future. The Terminator. The Exorcist. Nightmare on Elm Street. Rocky, though more the sequels than the original, probably. These are movies that have in one way or another entered the public consciousness.

Everyone knows what this is.

This question occurred to me during the last awards season, when I was looking up nominees for the acting Oscars through the years. What struck me was that while the name of the actors and actresses were familiar, the films they were nominated for didn’t ring any bells. And this wasn’t movies from ancient times or anything; just looking through the Best Actress nominations of the 1990s was enough to leave me confused. The End of the Affair? One True Thing? Afterglow? Marvin’s Room? Lorenzo’s Oil? What were all these films I’ve never heard of? In their respective years, there must have been lots of talk about and critical acclaim for them. But they haven’t stuck in people’s minds to any real degree. This caused me to realize that a similar fate would befall lots of the movies everyone was buzzing about at the time. As great as they are, who’s going to remember Winter’s Bone, 127 Hours or The Fighter 20 years from now?

So the question I ask is this: What films from 2000 to today do you think people at large will still mention or know of 25 years from now?

To me, the most obvious pick would be The Lord of the Rings. A massive undertaking that gave use three epic movies that will live on for a long time in people’s memories. Being based on well-known novels doesn’t hurt either as the films are far removed from them and doesn’t fall under their shadow. Compare this to Harry Potter. The films will live on, yes, but they arrived so close to the books that they won’t be standing on their own. The fact that the films haven’t had universal acclaim hurts their chances too.

But scoring big at the box office always helps. If the film made tons of money, it means lots of people went to see it. Avatar won’t be soon forgotten. It bested Titanic‘s money record (even if that’s likely to be toppled again as inflation continues) and also brought on the latest trend of 3D movies. We’re still feeling the effect that movie has had on the cinematic landscape. The Dark Knight is another big success story, though I think the love for it will morph into more of general adoration for Christopher Nolan‘s Batman trilogy as a whole once The Dark Knight Rises arrives. And probably Pirates of the Caribbean too, largely thanks to Johnny Depp‘s memorable Captain Jack Sparrow. Characters like that don’t come around too often.

Pixar’s animated films will of course all be remembered. The kids who see them today will keep them with them and probably show them to their own kids in the future. Which ones will be the stand-outs? Hard to say, but I think Finding Nemo and Toy Story 3 will be the big ones. Will any animated films from other studios stick with us? I can’t see any that really will. Maybe How to Train Your Dragon or Kung Fu Panda, but even those seem iffy. How many non-Disney animated films from the 70s and 80s do people talk about today?

Comedies can have an easier time then other genres. As long as they manage one or two gags that become really memetic, they can be set for eternity. More than any other from this past decade, Borat will probably live on for a long time. Everyone was quoting it for a long time, it’s an unforgettable character and the film’s semi-documentary approach also helps to make it stand out. The films Judd Apatow has been involved in have dominated mainstream comedy during the brunt of the past years, and of these, I see Superbad being the one to stand the test of time. If mostly for McLovin.

Love it or hate it, the Saw franchise will live on too. A high concentration of movies (seven in as many years) that kicked off the whole “torture porn” genre, and yet they still have managed to remain uneclipsed and even unequalled by any of its followers in terms of mass appeal. And just because there wasn’t a new movie this year doesn’t mean there won’t be any attempted revivals somewhere down the line. Teens of the 00s will hold on to Saw the way teens of years past did to Friday the 13th and other slasher films.

What about Best Picture winners at the Oscars? They all enter the history books, but there’s no guarantee that they’ll be remembered for anything other than their victories. Mention some of the 80s winners like Ordinary People or Out of Africa to someone today and you might well be met with a blank stare. Of the winners during the aughts, it’s slim pickings. Gladiator seems the most likely one since it was such a big box office hit and spawned a short-lived resurgence of historical epics (Alexander, Troy et all). Apart from that and the aforementioned Return of the King, none of the others seem like they will really stick. Maybe The Departed? One non-winning nominee definitely will, though: Brokeback Mountain. People will always remember “that gay cowboy movie”.

Now it’s your turn. Which films from the 2000s (so far) do you think will be remembered?

Advertisements
 
11 Comments

Posted by on 28 November, 2011 in Discussions

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

My Top 10 Favorite Movies of 2005

Just as the 2006 list featured plenty of comedies, this one has a surprisingly high amount of another genre: documentaries. Four of them appear on this list of ten, which, while not dominating, is certainly disproportionate if one looks at the amount of fictional and nonfictional movies I’ve seen from that year. Does this mean that 2005 was a weak year for “normal” movies? No, not really. The documentaries that made this list are all excellent and would have had a good shot of making the top 10 no matter what year they’d been released in. It just so happens that they all got clumped together in 2005. The ten films here are all 5/5 in my book, which is more than I can say for most other years.

I’m perfectly fine with this. Documentary films are often overshadowed by their fictional brethren, and I know some people who don’t even consider them movies at all. Which is ridiculous. Of course they are movies. They have the same power to move us, thrill us, shock us and make us laugh and think as any other genre of film. They deserve as much attention as anything, so I’m happy that four of them have found their way onto this list of mine.

As usual, this is 2005 as listed on IMDB.

10 – MARCH OF THE PENGUINS (LA MARCHE DE L’EMPEREUR, Luc Jacquet)

“There are few places harder to get to in this world. But there aren’t any where it’s harder to live.”

What always strikes me about this documentary is how much work it must have taken to shoot it. Showing the remarkable mating cycle of the emperor penguins of Antarctica, a lot of time was spent to capture every phase of the long process in a truly inhospitable climate. The result of the crew’s labor is a wonderful documentary that’s both informative and charming. The English-language version also plays the trump card of having Morgan Freeman as its narrator (though the Swedish one with veteran comedian Gösta Ekman behind the microphone is nothing to sneeze at either).

9 – THE WEATHER MAN (Gore Verbinski)

“Nothing that has meaning is easy. ‘Easy’ doesn’t enter into grown-up life.”

Here’s an oft undervalued film that Gore Verbinski put out inbetween the two first Pirates of the Caribbean films. Nicolas Cage plays a Chicago weatherman who’s unhappy with his life. His flaws are twofold: he takes no pleasure in his work, and he tries too hard to patch things up with his family. He can’t get over his ex-wife (Hope Davis), his kids struggle with weight issues and drugs, and his father (masterfully played by Michael Caine) is quietly disappointed by his son. It’s a comedy of the glum kind, where the laughs have to fight hard to break through the clouds but feel well-earned when they do. One of Cage’s best and most overlooked performances of the decade.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
21 Comments

Posted by on 23 November, 2011 in Lists, Top 10 of a year

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Review – Crash (1996)

(Note: This Crash is David Cronenberg‘s 1996 film, not Paul Haggis‘ one from 2004 that would go on to win Best Picture at the Oscars. The two films have nothing to do with each other.)

Crash is a good example of a film that immediately grabs attention with a unique premise, plenty of sex and nudity and impressive visual flair by director David Cronenberg. It is thus disappointing that the story comes to a screeching halt a mere third in and then refuses to budge. This is a film that could have been really good but doesn’t quite get there.

The subject at hand is people who are aroused by car crashes, which takes various expressions throughout the film. Some want to be in real traffic accidents. Others stage reenactments of famous crashes, such as the one that killed James Dean. They sit around and watch foreign documentaries on crash test dummies as though they were pornos. Some are entranced by the mere sight of a scar or injury suffered in a car crash. They go cruising through the streets in hopes of coming across real accidents. And they have sex. Lots and lots of sex.

There are five central characters in Crash, and the lead is arguably James Ballard (James Spader). We learn early on that he’s in an open marriage with Catherine (Deborah Kara Unger). During the day they have sex with other people, then compare notes about their experiences at night. One day Ballard gets into a head-on collision while driving. The driver of the other car dies, but his wife Helen (Holly Hunter) survives. Ballard and Helen briefly encounter one another in the hospital, then meet up again later on. Neither seems very perturbed by what has happened. He offers to drive her to her work, but on the way they almost get into another accident. When they arrive at their destination, they have impromptu sex in the car. Sensing a connection between their arousal and the near-crash, they find other likeminded individuals, including the intense Vaughan (Elias Koteas) and Gabrielle (Rosanna Arquette), who wears restrictive steel braces on her legs after an accident.

Throughout Crash, these people have sex in almost all possible pairings. Most of these scenes come more as a follow-up to witnessing a car crash rather than in direct contact with them, so there’s nothing particularly weird about them by themselves. But are they arousing? No, not really. There’s nothing cold or distant about the way they’re shot, and the soundtrack is suitably fitting. But there’s no escaping the fact that the traffic accidents is what gets them off. This isn’t a simple matter of it being a weird fetish that I don’t share, but that it stems from destruction. People are injured and die in crashes. This never seems to faze any of the people in this film (most strangely with Helen, who one would think would be kind of upset that her husband died). Nobody ever voices any concerns about any of this in the movie, with Cronenberg instead leaving it up to the viewer to insert his or her own thoughts on the matter. We’re merely shown the situations and how the characters react to them. It’s a clear disconnect.

The problem here is that none of it goes anywhere. Once Ballard and Helen meet Vaughan and Gabrielle, there’s no further plot development. Instead, we’re just shown the various ways in which they explore their kink. The characters don’t develope any further, and their relationships with each other are all set. It’s just crashes and sex, crashes and sex. Once it’s established that none of the persons are in a monogamous relationship, none of the sexual pairings seem surprising. This in not an automatic problem, as there are a number of good films that take a more observatory approach towards its characters and subject. But I struggle to see what Cronenberg is trying to convey here. A connection between sex and violence? Yes, it’s there, but why? Perhaps part of the blame belongs to the actors. They’re all talented people as we’ve seen in other films, but the only one who’s impressive to any degree here is Koteas, who finds a raw and striking streak in Vaughan and plays it for all its worth. The others feel uninteresting; Arquette’s character is nothing at all, Hunter is surprisingly bleak with the occasional stroke of eagerness, Unger delivers every line in the same hoarse whisper and Spader is just bland. I can’t read anything in any of these people.

Crash isn’t without merit. There are scenes that effectively set up and visualize the eroticism the characters see in the car crashes, such as an early part where we’re treated to a zoomed in shot of Helen caressing the mangled grill of Ballard’s car. A leter episode in a car wash also feels fresh due to the interesting camera angles Cronenberg utilizes. The music is also above average and lends the movie an eerie dreamlike atmosphere. But taken as a whole, the movie is an unsatisfying experience. An intriguing first half hour doesn’t amount to much when the rest of the film plays like a void.

Score: 2/5

 
5 Comments

Posted by on 21 November, 2011 in Reviews

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The remake conundrum: Open Your Eyes and Vanilla Sky

A few years ago, I watched Cameron Crowe‘s Vanilla Sky for the first time. It’s the favorite movie of a friend of mine, and he insisted I give it a go. So I did, and found it to be very much to my liking. It’s a very intriguing mystery of a film, dipping into various genres on its way to a surprising conclusion, all helped along by a number of great acting performances. Simply put, a really good watch.

At the time, I wasn’t aware that it was in fact a remake of the Spanish 1997 film Open Your Eyes (Abre los ojos), directed by Alejandro Amenábar. Nowadays I generally try to watch the original first before seeing a remake. It seems more fair that way. The people involved with creating a movie from scratch deserve to have it seen by someone who knows nothing about the story, who experiences it the way they envisioned it. It also means that I’m able to recognize little nods and homages to it once I get around to seeing the remake. But this wasn’t how it turned out that time. The remake was seen first, and while I was interested in checking out the original, it never was very urgent for me.

Cruz and Noriega, Open Your Eyes

Today I did finally see Open Your Eyes, and it was a really strange experience, not quite like anything I’ve been through before in my film-watching. The movie was good. Really good. Great, actually. It’s a very slick and engaging movie, bringing along many of the same qualities that Vanilla Sky did. I could find nothing to complain about.

But I had already seen it. Except then it was called Vanilla Sky.

I already knew all the twists and turns. I knew who the characters were, what they were like and what they were going to do. I knew what was going to happen in any given scene. Yes, the movie was great, but the sense of discovery wasn’t there. I couldn’t make heads or tails of which one was the better film. It was really baffling. A rewatch of Vanilla Sky seemed in order so I could make some sense of it all. So I saw the story unfold once more (and on a whim, I turned on the audio commentary with Crowe and Nancy Wilson, who composed the score for the film).

(Mild SPOILER ALERT: I’ll go into plot developments of both films to some degree in the next few paragraphs. If you haven’t seen at least one of the movies yet, proceed at your own risk.)

Read the rest of this entry »

 
13 Comments

Posted by on 9 November, 2011 in Misc.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

My Top 10 Favorite Movies of 2006

When I start putting one of these lists together, I first check which movies I’ve given high scores to during the years to get a general selection of likely candidates. Then I pick my favorites. No attempt is made to add variety to the list just for the sake of variety. I simply try to determine which ten films I liked the most from that year.

This 2006 list is very heavy on comedy. I count five clear-cut comedies and three more where humor plays a substantial part. That 2006 was a great year for this genre of film isn’t something I have reflected upon before, but there it is. It’s no secret that I’m very fond of films that make me laugh and smile, so one of these years were bound to pop up sooner or later in this series. The way things look at the moment, the eventual 2005 list will feature an unusually high amount of films of a different genre. Again, not a concious decision.

This doesn’t mean that 2006 was a weak year for more serious film. Plenty of great stuff from a variety of genres was released upon the world. The multitude of comedies on here is not due to a lack of competition. It’s just that I happen to love these funny movies so much.

As usual, this is 2006 as listed on IMDB. Also note that this is a list of my favorite films of the year, and nothing more.

10 – LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN (Paul McGuigan)

“You mean this isn’t the first time a crime lord asked you to kill the gay son of a rival gangster to pay off a debt that belongs to a friend whose place you’re staying in as a result of losing your job, your apartment, and finding your girlfriend in bed with another guy?”

A smart crime thriller in which a young man (Josh Hartnett) finds himself caught in a war between two crime lords due to a case of mistaken identity. The main draws here are the funny dialogue that has its own unique rhythm to it, and the contrived but delightful plot. And Lucy Liu, whose role as hyperactive neighbor Lindsey surprisingly steals the show despite her being in the presence of some of the all-time greats in Morgan Freeman, Ben Kingsley, Bruce WIllis and others.

9 – TALLADEGA NIGHTS: THE BALLAD OF RICKY BOBBY (Adam McKay)

“Hakuna matata, bitches!”

Sitting down to watch a Will Ferrell comedy is a bit of a gamble, as he has about as many misses as hits on his resume. This one is hilarious though, as his standard idiotic man-child character meets the world of NASCAR. A lot of credit needs to go to the supporting cast, especially John C. Reilly as his held-back team mate and Sacha Baron Cohen as the stereotypically French antagonist. Holds up surprisingly well on a rewatch, too.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
21 Comments

Posted by on 8 November, 2011 in Lists, Top 10 of a year

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Review: Contagion (2011)

With Contagion, director Steven Soderbergh and writer Scott Z. Burns have crafted a viral outbreak movie that differs from the norm. This one has a very realistic feel to it as it examines the way a fatal pandemic begins, how it spreads, who tries to stop it and how. We also get a look at the effect it has on people, as well as that of the efforts to contain it. The film has similarities in its matter-of-fact tone and multi-character structure to Soderbergh’s 2000 drug trade film Traffic, but Contagion places less focus on the characters and more on the core subject. The virus is always the center of attention.

It comes from Chicago. Or Hong Kong. Or somewhere else. Nobody knows at first. What’s initially thought of as just a fluke occurrence or two soon manifests itself as a highly contagious disease. People who contract it get a nasty cough and might die within a day or two. The mortality rate is estimated at one in four, but that might be incorrect. Through carefully zoomed-in shots, we become aware of the way it spreads before the characters explain it explicitly. A handshake. There’s the virus. A credit card being handed to a cashier. The virus is there too. And in a world where jet planes fly halfway across the planet in a day, we know contagions spread easily.

As said, there are plenty of characters in this movie. Beth (Gwyneth Paltrow) is the first one we see as she sits in a hotel lobby coughing. She might well be Patient Zero. Dr. Cheever (Laurence Fishburne) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spearheads the work to contain the virus. He might find himself biting off more than he can chew. Working with him is the driven Dr. Mears (Kate Winslet) who’s sent to Minnesota to investigate one cluster of the disease. Dr. Orantes (Marion Cotillard) of the World Health Organization, meanwhile, is sent to Hong Kong for similar reasons. Scientists, most notably Sussman and Hextall (Elliott Gould and Jennifer Ehle) work tirelessly to come up with a vaccine. Inserting himself into the mix is freelance journalist Alan Krumwiede (Jude Law), spreading conspiracy theories and sowing dissent online. There are reasons for his actions. While all this is going on, family man Mitch (Soderbergh-veteran Matt Damon) loses his wife and one of his children to the virus but is given little time to grief as his older daughter (Anna-Jacoby Heron) still needs to be kept safe from the contagion. Mitch himself appears to be immune, but others in the cast will contract the virus.

The realistic tone of Contagion occasionally reminded me of Paul Greengrass‘ 9/11 drama United 93. Particularly in the early goings where nobody is really sure what’s going on, the same sense of helpless dread is present, if not to the same degree of effectiveness (the first act of Contagion moves a bit slow and is bogged down somewhat by technical jargon). But once the ball really gets rolling, the film’s strive for realism becomes it’s greatest asset. Why? Because it’s different and fresh. There’s no immediate breakdown of human civilization, no sensational miracles and no evil army sent out to reinforce quarantines by any means necessary. The aim is to paint a picture of what a large-scale outbreak could be like if it happened in real life, and the film certainly feels believable.

The movie jumps back and forth between all its characters and their story arcs (which rarely intersect directly). At times the film gets too crowded, leaving some people on the sideline for a bit too long. Most egregious is the case of Cotillard’s character, who very much disappears during the film’s second half and had me going “Huh? Oh, right, she’s still here” when she suddenly popped up again. Her story could have used another scene or two both to keep it in the viewers’ mind and to flesh it out more. It’s easy enough to infer what happens as it is, but the emotional weight is diminished when we don’t get to see it. But in a way, this works to hammer home the point that the film is about the virus, not the people. All story threads are resolved in the end, but the aftermath for many characters is left ambiguous.

While Contagion isn’t a perfect film, the good far outweighs the bad. It engagingly shows many different aspects of the outbreak in its effect in personal (Mitch and Beth), professional (the doctors) and social (Alan) spheres. The actors all deliver good to great performances, with Winslet and Law leaving the strongest impressions on me. It’s shot beautifully and has an oddly fitting score. Is it Soderbergh’s best film ever? No, but it puts in a very admirable effort. It’s more ambitious than your standard Hollywood flick (the star-studded cast and the marketing gives off that vibe) and its stark tone which might turn some people off. For those willing to immerse themselves in its narrative, a feast is waiting.

Score: 4/5

 
7 Comments

Posted by on 3 November, 2011 in Reviews

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Films I’ve forgotten, and why

I got a bit bored today, so inbetween a couple of failed attempts at writing new blog posts, I went to Swedish movie site Filmtipset, which is my main record-keeper as fair as what movies I’ve seen is concerned. I noticed that I had commented on some 500-odd films during my time there, so in lieu of anything better to do, I read through them all. It turned into a fun little trip down memory lane. Sure, the actual comments weren’t very enlightening (“[Actor] and [Actress] are pretty good, but the story isn’t anything special”), but I was reminded of the existance of plenty of films I had forgotten ever seeing.

Why did I forget these films? Most of them are, simply speaking, unremarkable. Not terrible, not great, maybe kind of decent. They may have a generic title. Perhaps the premise is just something seen many times before. A lack of big names attached is another possibility. But I believe the main reason is just that they’re never talked about. Nobody mentions them when discussing awful films, or great films, or underrated films. Few people see them, so theres no random “Hey, I just saw this film, anyone else seen it” conversations. Even just a passing mention of a film at some point can be enough to refresh its presence in one’s memory banks for a long time. When no such mention is made, the movie fades from memory.

Rick Kirkham, TV Junkie

I there’s one of these films I rediscovered that you ought to see, it’s definitely TV Junkie. It’s a documentary on TV reporter Rick Kirkham, who for 14 years filmed himself every day of his life. The footage of these personal recordings make up the bulk of the film, and it’s quite harrowing. His drug addiction takes a tremendous toll on both his career and his family, and we see it all just as it happens. It culminates in a really uncomfortable domestic arguement, as Rick and his wife scream and fight right in front of their kids. It’s a shame this one has slipped my memory for so long, beause it’s a really good film that I remember reacting very strongly too. I’d love to call it unforgettable, but that’s obviously not the case. Definitely worth checking out, though.

The Dark Hours was a real headscratcher for me when I came upon the title. More so than any other film on here, I really struggled to remember anything about it, even reading the short plot synopsis on the site. It took a trip to IMDB for even the vaguest of bells to ring, and I still can’t really tell you anything about it. It’s a thriller, at least. Canadian. Wikipedia says it made $423 at the U.S. box office, so it’s no wonder it’s rarely talked about, I guess.

A movie that should have been memorable is Danny Deckchair. Rhys Ifans plays a man who, after having his vacation unceremoniously cancelled by his girlfriend, attaches a bunch of helium-filled balloons to his deckchair and just flies away (think Up on a smaller scale). A novel idea, but it all devolves into a fairly standard romantic comedy as it goes along, unfortunately. Not a bad film by any means, as far as I recall, but not worth going out of your way to see either.

Knockaround Guys has a fairly star-studded cast (Vin Diesel, John Malkovich, Dennis Hopper, Barry Pepper and more), but all I can really remember about it is that Seth Green‘s character loses an important briefcase at some point. Hospital horror Sublime is another one I can’t recall much of, except that it careens off in a weird direction towards the end. At least the DVD box art is kind of nifty. And The Salton Sea has Val Kilmer playing a saxophone. Possibly in a burning building. Drugs might be involved at some point. That’s about it as far as my memory goes.

Pathfinder I can’t remember anything about except that it was really damn boring. American Crude has some degree of name value to it (Michael Clarke Duncan, Rob Schneider and John C. McGinley), but it has a muddled plot with weird characters that obviously failed to leave much of a lasting impression. The Deaths of Ian Stone, meanwhile, is a god-awful horror fiilm, and I’m glad it had managed to drift out of my memory for so long.

Love Object at least has a neat-sounding premise about a guy who buys a custom-made sex doll based on the appearance of a co-worker he has the hots for. Complications arise when he finds himself starting a real relationship with said co-worker, however. The comment I made on this film at the time was actually fairly positive, so maybe this one’s unfairly forgotten.

One film that actually did cross my mind briefly just the other week is Lost in the Dark, a movie about a blind girl who ends up alone in a cabin with criminals soon popping in to harass her. It briefly came to mind when I was watching Audrey Hepburn-flick Wait Until Dark, in the form of “Hmm, didn’t I see another thriller once about a blind girl?”. Well, Lost in the Dark was it. An okay film, as I recall, but Wait Until Dark is definitely superior.

An interesting case here: The Girl Next Door. No, not the teen comedy with Elisha Cuthbert. No, not the horror film based on a Jack Ketchum novel based on a true story either. This one’s a documentary on adult actress Stacy Valentine. You’d think I’d remember a film like that, but apparently not. I assume title confusion is part of why this has gone forgotten. I can’t recall any other trio of films I’ve seen that all share the same name.

Kristen Stewart, Speak

Last on this list are two films featuring now-famous actresses early in their careers. Speak stars Kristen Stewart and arrived two years after her initial breakthrough in Panic Room. In Speak, she plays a teenager who stops talking upon returning to school after a summer holiday. An intriguing little film, actually. I recall liking this one. And then there’s The Last Supper, only the second movie in the career of Cameron Diaz. A very black comedy in which five friends invite guests for dinners and, if they deem them “bad people”, kill them. The film is a bit stiff at times, but at least it presents some interesting questions and has a fairly delightful supporting turn by Ron Perlman.

Time will tell if I’ll forget these movies again. Maybe some film I saw just the past week will meet a similar fate. With the exception of TV Junkie, there’s none of these that I’d call essential viewing, so it’s not a big crime that I haven’t remembered them. But forgetting TV Junkie is bad enough. If there’s one think to take away from this blog post, it’s this: Remember to talk about good films! Don’t let yourself forget them. They deserve better.

Have you seen any of the films I’ve mentioned in this post? What did you think of them? Have you had any similar experiences yourself with remembering long-forgotten movies? Leave a comment!

 
19 Comments

Posted by on 1 November, 2011 in Misc.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,