#st: movie reviews

[gaykarstaagforever]

St. Elmo's Fire (1985)

I've always heard nothing but bad things about this movie, how it is a self-indulgent soap opera about awful 1980s people who never pay for their gross behavior. Everyone says the only good thing about it is the John Parr theme song, which is barely in it. And that wasn't even written for it, it was a triumphant pop-rock anthem written to celebrate a kickass wheelchair athlete.

Which is painfully obvious. Then John Parr just worked the name of the movie into it and shrugged. And everyone loves it. But not the movie, which was financially successful because it had members of the smooth and sexy Brat Pack in it, but critics and studio heads hated it then, and many people hate it now.

I, on the other hand, genuinely really liked it.

For all his many shortcomings, Joel Schumacher knew how to put a good movie together in 1985, and he did here. Technically speaking, it's fine. Artistically shot, well paced, the performances are all high-energy and affecting, and even the screenplay is solid, minus a few lazy strolls into trashy melodrama and plot contrivance. But the characters are well-constructed as unique individual people, the occasional jokes are funny, and everything for the most part feels real and earned and insightful.

So why do people hate it? The simple answer is the same one Joel Schumacher apparently got from reluctant studio heads: these people are fucking awful. They're stupid and selfish and cruel, and when that inevitably blows up in their faces, they pout and whine and throw temper tantrums and beg for money. They're well-off white kids from Washington DC who just graduated from Georgetown, and instead of taking advantage of that, most of them are drug-addled mopes for whom the entire world being open to them is STILL not enough.

And I agree with this character critique. These people suck. The whole movie is them ruining the lives of everyone around them with their bad behavior. I have known people like this, and I don't anymore, because they are frustrating and destructive and what they do puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

...But the movie knows this, and that is, in fact, sort of the whole point? Sure, they don't end up dead or in jail, so maybe they don't get the full brunt of what is coming to them. But they're also all 22 years old. Speaking now as a 42 yo man, people who are 22 are stupid baby-things who ruin everything they touch and will absolutely hate who they were in 10 years. That's called growing up, and the entire point of the movie is to show a small part of that process. They DO learn. They DO grow. Not a lot, but a little. And that's how it is, and was, if you were 22 in 1985.

I don't understand why anyone would hate this. You can hate them, if you want. They're detestable. But a lot of privileged people in their 20s are. And while that doesn't absolve them of their shitty behavior, it's kind of unreasonable to not expect this shit from these kinds of people. They are products of where they come from, and now as legal adults, they have to work through that themselves and come out the other side as better people. It's a gross, stupid, weird, terrible process, and the movie shows a glossy, sappy Hollywood version of that.

And it's not bad, for what it is. I don't know if I'd put it on a Top Movies list or even ever watch it again, but it does what it does well. I even kind of fell in love with these big dumb idiots by the end, because as they learn lessons, they become better people. Or at least, differently bad people. But they are still in the middle of that process. I'm not hostile to it or them, or the movie, about it. I don't know why anyone would be.

It IS a movie from 1985, so it has a lot of "movie from 1985" problems. Sexism, treating stalking as a cutesy sitcom plot with a resolution that rewards the stalker, some SA stuff played for laughs, not quite knowing what to do with the women characters that isn't them constantly talking about the male characters, some awkward stuff about one character maybe being gay that seems like it could get interesting, but then the movie remembers it's 1985 and reveals he is super-straight actually, whew! But, honestly, for this era, it is very mild in this regard. I kept expecting it to go dark and problematic and it mostly doesn't (aside from the goofball "I kind of like being stalked" nonsense). For a movie from 1985, it is very watchable and only mildly offensive to 2024 sensibilities. That alone is a rarity, and a big mark in its favor.

Plus it is fun as a fictionalized snapshot of what wealthy white young adults in Washington DC were up to in 1985. Lots of people in their early 20s smoking like chimneys and desperate to get married immediately to people they barely know. Kind of wild.

Also, while these people all have bachelor's degrees, the ease with which they lose and get new high-paying jobs, seemingly without their degrees even being taken into account, is a shocking vision from the past. Sure, some of this is just unrealistic Hollywood guff. But not all of it. They really would just hire you for the modern equivalent of $1500 a week back then, because you seemed cool and your friend called and said yeah, you totally are.

Computers were only starting to be a thing back then. No one could verify anything, no one kept records of anything, and every job a machine does now was something 4 people needed to do in 1985. What a time.

And these idiots STILL whine and moan and never appreciate it! While doing cheap and plentiful cocaine. Ah, the 80s!

...Also, Young Rob Lowe.

Jesus.

...Also, Jules's insane ugly pink neon gay-ass apartment. That I want to spend the rest of my life in.

I'm not just doing a slur. It being designed by her gay designer neighbor is plot-relevant a couple of times.

Also, this poster...

The bar they hang out at is called St. Elmo's Bar. The St. Elmo's Fire thing (the real phenomenon) is from one scene where a character uses it as a metaphor to make another character feel better about how screwed-up their lives are. Arguably he was inspired to do this because they go to that bar a lot, but the connection isn't firmer than that.

The bar is not called St. Elmo's Fire, is my point. So the heat this summer would be at St. Elmo's Bar, not St. Elmo's Fire. Which isn't a place.

This is a poster for the movie! Did they not watch it first? Yes it matters!

And here, finally, because I have to:

HA HA! I GOT YOU! THIS IS THE DAVID FOSTER LOVE THEME!

...Which is way more prominent in the movie, and is honestly way more its actual theme. You will note how it fits the movie tonally a lot better than that driving synth-rock song about a cool guy in a wheelchair.

[andorianminingconsortium]

Review of The Wrath Of Khan

(as much spoiler free as I can be)

As you may know, I recently started watching all the old Star Trek movies for the first time. I started with First Contact, per friend's recommendation, then watched the Motion Picture and I'm now watching chronologically. That brings me to Wrath of Khan.

First things first, I really loved it! I think it's my favourite from the ones I've watched so far! The characters were cool! The movie-only characters were cool! They uniforms looked good! Everyone's hair looked good lol

I loved the character Saavik. The fact that this character exists in a movie made so long ago (lol) proves once again how progressive Star Trek is and is a great example of what I love about Star Trek. Also when Kirk is like "you have no problem with self expression" I screeched. That was such a line. Thank you for your support of gender expression, Admiral.

I thought Khan was very well played! (Poor Chekov, man...) Khan was so evil! Great! He had such a clear goal and mindset. Loved that they didn't water him down. Now that I saw the original movie Khan, I realised that Benedict Cumberbatch in the recent movies wasn't just putting up a "slightly weird but cool villain voice". He was mimicking the way the original Khan spoke! And he did it really well! I'm impressed. The almost whispering, drawn out sillables, teeth-clenched talking. Especially Cumberbatch' iconic "I'll walk over your cold corpses" sound so much like the original Khan in my opinion! I just thought it was really neat!

I also liked the parallels between the old and new movie such as Scotty yelling "you'll flood the whole compartment!" In both movies. Great eye for detail from the makers of the new movie!

What really stuck with me was when one of the crewmates died and Scotty came carrying him in and was like "he's the only who stayed at his post" and then the crewmate, with bloody hand, touched the one white part of Kirk's uniform and left a handprint that remained for the next few scenes. That was so good! Such a chilling detail! Beautiful!

I might have forgotten something but these were the things that stuck with me most! I enjoyed it and I might watch it again after I've watched all the other movies.

My ranking so far:

Wrath of Khan - Motion Picture - First Contact

I have also just watched Search for Spock! Will review later :)

Thank you for reading!

[rotisseries]

glad to see we all like to have a normal one on byler tag dot tumblr dot com

[spookytuesdaypod]

spooky tuesday is a (now not so new!) podcast where we’re breaking down all of our favorite slashers, thrillers, monster movies and black comedies on the new scariest day of the week.

hello, we’d like to order one black comedy done well, please. this week, the menu (2022) is what’s on the menu for spooky tuesday, and we’re breaking down the stunt casting that might’ve been, the cannibalism that should’ve been, and the iconic line-reading of the word “tortillas” that definitely was. in a film all about exactly what ingredients are needed to make real art, it’s clear that this project has a true love for creation baked in.

give spooky tuesday a listen on apple podcasts, spotify, iheart radio, or stitcher

[carcarrot]

composing an incredibly detailed and informed rant about the indiewire juliette binoche retrospective they're doing for the quad cinema and how there are SUCH better choices from her filmography than the ones they picked

[creativedifferencespodcast]

Would you spend $1,250 for a meal? Please say no, because after seeing The Menu, we’re convinced that no good could come from it. But apparently a whole lotta good can come from putting Ralph Fiennes, Anya Taylor-Joy, and Nicholas Hoult together. A recipe for success!

[adamwatchesmovies]

Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return (2013)

While I didn't enjoy this film, that doesn't mean you won't. No matter what I say, the people involved in this project did it: they actually made a movie. That's something to be applauded. With that established...

I can't think of anyone who would enjoy Legends of Oz: Dorothy’s Return. Adults will probably forgive the visuals - they're ok, but nothing spectacular. They won’t be able to look past the annoying characters and will instead wish they were just watching the original Judy Garland flick instead. Small children will do the same thanks to the lackluster songs and forgettable plot. If they haven’t seen the 1939 classic, this picture doesn’t stand on its own, making it an unofficial and pointless sequel.

In the Land of Oz, the Scarecrow (voiced by Dan Aykroyd), the Tin Woodman (Kelsey Grammer) and the Cowardly Lion (Jim Belushi) call their friend Dorothy Gale (Lea Michele) for help. An evil Jester (Martin Short) has stolen the Wicked Witch of the West's broomstick and is using its magic to destroy the Emerald City. With the help of some new friends, Dorothy must take down this new threat.

In all of these Oz sequels, Dorothy befriends a new group of crazy creatures while the original crew is sidelined. Why this happens over and over, I don't know. Fans would much rather see the four best friends reunited than meet a new crew, particularly when they aren't interesting. Dorothy's Return offers a lackluster replacement trio. First, Wiser (Oliver Platt), a flightless owl that’s constantly gorging and has this annoying tendency to finish other people’s sentences. Next is China Princess (Megan Hilty), who adds little to the plot. Finally, there's Marshal Mallow (Hugh Dancy), who provides some neat visuals but is otherwise unremarkable. They all participate in songs (the film is a musical) that are so forgettable you couldn't remember two lines in a row if a gun was pointed at your head. They’re not even bad; just bland.

It’s taking a superhuman effort to muster up memories of Legends of Oz: Dorothy’s Return and tell you why you shouldn’t watch it. The plot is so dull and uninspired it’s impossible to stay invested. You simply sit and wait for the plot to end. It isn’t offensive, but it begs the question: Why? Who was asking for this film? I can understand wanting to revive the Oz franchise, but just like 1985’s Return to Oz, this picture reminds you of the original while never matching its appeal. Actually, that comparison is unfair. Dorothy's Return WISHES it was even a 10th of Return to Oz. Nothing here manages to dredge this children’s story from the haze that forms the instant you hear that first musical number. At least it’s harmless in the sense that, even if are subjected to it, there’s nothing about this picture that’ll haunt you later on. It’s completely forgettable. (On DVD, May 11, 2018)

[ofalltheginjoints]

wishing all ppl who left a letterboxd review on makeup (2019) just to say that joseph quinn was cute a very shut the fuck up <3

[fryesmoviereview]

American Mary - 2012

Katharine Isabelle, Antonio Cupo, Tristan Risk, David Lovgren, Paula Lindberg, Clay St. Thomas, John Emmet Tracey, Twan Holliday, Sylvia Soska, Jen Soska

Review: American Mary is a horror movie that explores the underground world of body modifications. I liked this movie because it explores a world that hasn't been explored a lot by horror movies. Although this movie is really weird, and probably won't appeal to everyone.

Mary is a struggling student studying to be a surgeon. She is trying to find an extra source of income, so she goes to the local strip club to try to get a job. While she is "auditioning", the owner finds out one of his men had been injured. He asks Mary to perform surgery on him to save his life, which she does. This opens the door to a bunch of underground surgeries that Mary takes on.

Some of the body modifications that people want in this movie are extreme. As an example, a set of twins comes into her "office" and asks for her to cut off and switch their left arms so that they feel "closer" to each other. This is probably the least extreme of the surgeries performed, but you watch her as she performs the surgery.

Most of the gore in the movie is surgical, but it doesn't make it any easier to watch. Part of the horror of this movie is that this is a real practice. Body modifications are a thing that actually take place, and when people can't find an accredited doctor to perform the surgeries they go underground. It's hard to think about.

The acting is okay, nothing outstanding by any means. The characters are odd, and the movie is incredibly unpredictable. It keeps your attention, and has an interesting story. The worst part of the movie is the end, it just completely comes out of nowhere. The end was so obscure that the filmmakers felt the need to put a flashback in the middle of the main character dying to explain who it was that killed her because of how small of a role they played during the movie.

6.7/10

[james-stark-the-writer]

see, Darren Lynn Bousman can make good movies, he just needs better scripts, although as far as the writing goes, this is pretty fucking bad, especially in the third act. let's just say you can tell this had four writers who all were making a slightly different movie. great little nunsploitation horror-thriller flick. the acting and the aesthetic pretty much hard carries this. more effective than Midsommar in getting you to actually believe the villains are right.

My ★★★★ review of St. Agatha on Letterboxd

[praiseinchains]

Gratitude Journal Entry (7/18/24)

Today I'm Grateful For:

*I finished my two books today :-) The first one (Cat of Many Tails) has put me off Ellery Queen books in the future, but the second (Suicide Med) has made me a tentative lover of Freida McFadden. I say 'tentative' because while I've really enjoyed the two books I have of hers, I don't want to become a full-out fan and risk being disappointed. Save for a few special series and Simone St. James, I don't typically read books by the same author.

*Despite feeling kind of rotten tonight (allergies and my antibiotic) I had a nice night. MY parents went to a movie with some church friends (Disciples in the Moonlight) so I had the house to myself for about 7 hours and I spent that time reading and watching movies. I watched 'Bait' but didn't really care for it (for some reason I really like shark movies as well as disaster movies) as well as 'Red Shoes and the Seven Dwarves', which I've been wanting to watch for a while and which I really enjoyed.

*That my days are basically back to normal. I no longer spend hours on a single poem, so my day is more open, which I'm very pleased about.

Something I'm Proud Of:

It's really hard finding something I'm proud of every day, but I always try to find something, no matter how small. Today, I'm proud that I got my desk cleaned off and relatively organized. I hate a messy desk, but I've not felt well enough to clean it off.

Tomorrow I'm Looking Forward To:

Finishing my last 2 books and catching up on my reading.

[andorianminingconsortium]

The Search For Spock review :)

Usual intro: watching all the Star Trek movies for the first time and reviewing them as spoiler free as possible!

Unfortunately this was my least favourite so far. However! There were things I liked:

I love Saavik as a character. Really loved seeing him as a returning character. I use he/him pronouns because that's what I hear the Enterprise crew use but tell me if it's something else! I liked that they now more often use "Lieutenant" instead of "Mister" to address Saavik.

I also liked seeing David as a returning character. I hoped to see more of himal and I hoped they would explore his relationship with Kirk more.

I liked how they were careful to not put the actor for Spock in the opening credits (if memory serves me correctly). I think at the time the movie came out, it must have been so thrilling not to know whether or not they were going to find Spock! Unfortunately, because I already knew the outcome, I think much of what made this film so good, was lacking for me. I never felt suspense because I knew the outcome of the movie.

I liked the Klingons. They were cool.

I thought the gentle moment between Saavik and younger Spock was very sweet. I also thought it was a little cringe, but I blame the age of the film for that. I just really enjoy Saavik, who is a little bit gentler than most Vulcans I'm used to. I liked it.

I also liked that in the previous movie I really noticed Spock tell McCoy, "remember" and I remembered that moment very well. So I wondered, why didn't they resolve that moment at the end of the movie? Only to then find out that moment was the plot of the next movie! Very well done!

Unfortunately because the film was about finding Spock and returning his mind to his body and whether or not that would succeed, the suspense of the movie was lacking for me. This is because, obviously, I knew the complete outcome of the movie. I also didn't like that they killed the one character they did. So for me, this movie is at the bottom of the tier list. But I can imagine that at the time it came out, it was really good! Maybe the movie also suffered from not being a standalone, but being a direct continuation of the previous movie. Overall, it was still enjoyable to watch, but it won't be the one movie I would recommend to anyone.

Thank you for reading :)

[therealmrpositive]

Aliens Autopsy Part 3 – Alien Resurrection

In today's a review, I find that even 200 years on a final sacrifice might be in order. As I attempt a #positive review of the 1997 film: Alien Resurrection #SigourneyWeaver #NicoleFellows #WinonaRyder #DominiquePinon #RonPerlman #GaryDourdan

A good ending can be just as hard as a good beginning, even with the stigma of the blank page. Even if you’ve taken the final bow, there might just be a valuable and, in some cases, profitable means to give it one more try. But with great reward comes great risk, and sometimes it is a gamble not for the faint of heart. In 1997, the saga of Ripley finally ended, almost twenty years after it…

[rebuildingrob]

Rob Reviews: St. Elmo’s Fire, and the Power of Nostalgia

Like a lot of people of my generation, I watched the Andrew McCarthy Hulu documentary Brats almost immediately after it premiered last week. I wrote about my feelings on the documentary here. And I’m sure, like a lot of my fellow Gen Xers, after watching the movie I went back and watch the handful of the “ Brat Pack“ movies. In my case, I watched Tuff Turf , Class, and Taps. I chose those three…

[ticketmastersince2k4]

Anime Spotlight #30: Black Clover - Sword Of the Wizard King

It's Friday, Ticketholders!

And you know what that means‽ That means it's time to review a movie, and since there's a movie of the anime that I reviewed on Monday, it's AniMonFriday, which I just made up because my magic is Peaches & Cream Monster, and here's my review of the Black Clover movie!

Enjoy!

[o-the-mts]

90 Movies in 90 Days: The Pruitt-Igoe Myth (2011)

Every day until March 31, 2024 I will be watching and reviewing a movie that is 90 minutes or less. Title: The Pruitt-Igoe Myth Release Date:  February 11, 2011 Director: Chad Freidrichs Production Company: ? Summary/Review: The Wendell O. Pruitt Homes and William Igoe Apartments were constructed in St. Louis in the early 1950s as modern public housing to replace derelict tenements for the poor.…