watching several films

heya

and phew, this might well be a lengthy post. or not, look you see. chance has intervened and i have had both the time and the inclination to watch some movies, or if you like films, of late. several, as it happens, although it might be fair to assume you worked that out from the title. 

no idea at all if my comments or insights are of any value on the subject of these films. probably not, as it happens. also, not really "insights" but opinions. there is a difference. be wary of anyone claiming they can share insights into something; invariably it shall be merely an opinion what they have elected to elevate to something more authoritative sounding. 

there's a picture of some of this several, then. presented, yes, of course, in the greater good and glory of Commodore 64 mode. to the delight of some and the sadness of others, any comments on the films shall be presented with "just" a regular pic, a screen shot off of a trailer or something. no, i am not abandoning the joys of Commodore 64 mode, i simply could not be bothered. 

right, here we go, then. in no particular order at all, so no indication of what order i watched or any preference. should such a thing really be required, yeah, a *** SPOILER WARNING *** thing now exists for you going forward. or forwards, if that's a more better way of saying it. 

of all the films i have watched (recently), it was just The Batman that i didn't do so in the comfort of home, or if you like my lodgings in place of exile. this one is a (fairly) current big cinema release thing. up to now my sons, the boys, have been to see it three (3) times, with me going the once. and just once at the cinema will be quite sufficient for me, as it is rather long. 

what is it? it's a Batman film. no, really. as in just Batman. in a very welcome and refreshing change there is no p!ssing about telling the backstory all again. also, for just about the whole film Batman is Batman, doing Batman stuff. so no sort of usual Bruce Wayne soap opera. in a move likely to appease the more hardcore / dedicated comic book / graphic novel and indeed video game fans, this one goes all the way back to the origins or roots, so Batman (or Bats, if you will) does actual detective stuff in this one. but yes, a modern setting to it all. 

any good? rather. exceptionally well cast, in particular the titular role. not sure it needed to be nearly 3 (three) hours long, but also couldn't identify a section of the film to cut, or felt like it lagged. should one accept that The Dark Knight was one of the greatest films ever, never mind Batman one, then this comes reasonably close to being second best ever Batman film. the box office suggests i need not bother doing so, but yes, recommended. 

exactly how i came to know that there was such a film as The Limehouse Golem, and then saw it, is a curious tale. a good friend said they were watching it, missed a bit, got lost and asked if i could get the tape of it. presuming that the tape was the disc, then yes. it sounded interesting, and was based on a novel off of that Peter Ackroyd who Bowie was a fan of, so i gave it a watch. 

plot? not sure i followed it all properly, to be honest, which is kind of what happened when i tried to read a novel by this bloke. best i can do is suggest that it is vaguely similar to the (in)famous case of Jack The Ripper, but fiction, with a heavy and (sadly) historically accurate level of antisemitism in it, and some other historical figures featuring. a detective, played by Bill Nighy, seems railroaded into the impossible task of solving the case of a serial killer lurking the Limehouse region of London (innit).

getting down to simplistic bones, and mindful of spoiler warnings being given (at least one), it's a twisty turning "whodunnit" thing with the twist being, in this day and age, one that can kind of be spotted from some distance prior to reveal. quite gruesome with the visuals this film is. whereas not bad, it does suffer a bit from the excellent Bill Nighy playing a "straight and serious" role for a change. like many others, i half expected witty retorts or similar comedy moments all the time. 

on to my usual sort of trash viewing, then, and one that i hadn't ever got around to seeing but certainly wished to. a film of many names, this one, but Inglorious B@st@rds is the best known of them, and certainly the one which Quentin Tarantino elected to borrow and alter for his own WW2 film. 

whilst aware of the film i just really hadn't had the time or opportunity to watch all these years. and there it was, sat in a charity shop, ready to be bought as part of buy one get one free, or 3 discs for a pound or similar. looking at the other titles on the shelf available, it just seemed, or even felt, that now was the time to finally give it a go. 

a kind of taped together vague plot, of sorts, which did seem to borrow (very) heavily off of The Dirty Dozen, only the budget (and script) appeared not to stretch to a gang of 12. effectively, a group of American soldiers are, towards the end of WW2, arrested by their own side for a variety of misdemeanours. by chance the escape, then do a naughty, then elect to try and redeem themselves by undertaking a dangerous, important and all but impossible mission. 

this was, on the whole, ruthless fun, and not just because of a scene featuring nude ladies with powerful machine guns. but yes, that bit was nice. you can't really say this is "so bad it's good" as it is not so bad at all, even here in a dubbed back into English (Italian, originally, i believe) form. the movie seeks only to be an entertaining ninety minutes, and this it excels in doing. had this been available at my local video shop close to 40 (!!) years ago, it would have been one i rented again and again right up until the point i worked out how to connect to video machines together to remove the need for repeat rentals. 

back to the realm of super hero blockbusters, and one does have to wonder if films what are not super hero ones have any chance of being big money these days, with Spider-Man No Way Home. this is the third and presumably final of the current trilogy what Sony have made, blessed as it is with the deal allowing for them to borrow people off of Disney Marvel films. 

do i need to do a plot? essentially all Marvel super hero films for the last, what, 10 to 15 years, have done the same thing, which is copy The Blues Brothers. a hero who has fallen from grace must redeem themselves, they do so by "getting the band back together", triumph but then pay a price. the only one of them to deviate from this was probably Black Panther, which did a remarkably good job of pilfering the story for The Lion King instead. 

nonetheless, or all the same, this is hugely enjoyable and most agreeable. a particularly pleasing aspect was to see just how much time on-screen one of my all time favourite actors, Alfred Molina, was given to reprise his "Dr Octopus" role. excellent stuff. well, to be fair, as usual all of the cast (even the surprise ones who are probably no longer a surprise) were boss. it's very good, but also likely highly disposable. rather like the more recent Star Wars films, the sheer volume of these films means that few get the chance to be copy & paste instant entertainment to be immediately disposed, leaving no legacy of truly iconic moments. hey ho, enjoy it whilst it lasts. 

another Robert Pattinson film on this list then, in the form of The Rover. yet no, he is not the "star" or lead actor in this one, that's the magnificent Guy Pearce. to confess, yes, i did stumble upon this film when looking at other ones what this Robert Pattinson bloke had done, after watching The Lighthouse, reading up and discovering that (or so it is claimed) a 'signature move' of his in films is to have at least one (1) scene of him furiously masturbating for no apparent plot related reason. 

no, it is not so that any such scene of such nature appears in this film. at least not that i noticed, maybe it was implied. what does it feature, then? in terms of the plot? well, we are once again in that not too distant future, if not post apocalypse then post breakdown of the world we know society. being set in Australia (g'day) it of course invites comparisons to the realm of Mad Max, yet features more resigned apathy rather than it does people cutting holes in the back of their trousers and adopting outrageous hairstyles. 

essentially, then, the quasi plot exists to sort of showcase the kind of Talking Heads (band, not play) quote of as the world fell apart nobody paid much attention. the car of Guy Pearce gets stolen, and so off he goes to get it back, by any means necessary. which is often quite violent. he effectively takes Robert Pattinson "hostage", as he is of the gang what stole his car and can lead him to them, and his wheels. 

ultimately it's a very good, if not quite "excellent" film, which appears to exists mostly to showcase acting talents. the point made by the film, that of no one seems to care of the world going to sh!t, is hardly a new one and is likely to be ignored by most anyway. much if not most of what went on, be it themes or scenes, were unsettling viewing, so it's not exactly a tape to rent for a fun Saturday night. certainly worth a watch, if for no reason other than to sit baffled that Guy Pearce doesn't get more a grade roles, as he is truly exceptional. 

marketing types certainly earned their coins with the selection of trailers on the tape (disc) of The Rover, for on that they had the trailer for a film i had not heard of before, The Homesman. it looked really, really good, so i found the tape (disc) of it and watched it. 

plot? it's a western, and out in the west a lady farmer (Hillary Swank) is successful but apparently unable to get married, with the accusation of being too plain. in seeking some sort of meaning from life, she undertakes to take three "crazy" ladies back to the east of America, a daunting and dangerous journey. on the way she saves a gent (Tommy Lee Jones, who also directed) from execution to come along with her, as a "homesman" for the epic journey. 

very little is "wrong" with this film. beautifully filmed, superbly acted and a quite engrossing story. and yet, well, it doesn't feel quite like it works as it should. disjointed, i think, is the best way of putting it. much needed comic relief scenes tend to come, for instance, far too abruptly on the back of truly harrowing, upsetting moments in the film. certainly still worth watching, for it is so that Tommy Lee Jones has called in, for what i believe was his directorial debut, some chums in the form of John Lithgow, Meryl Streep and James Spader to deliver significant, excellent sort of cameo performances. 

last for now, then, was me getting around to watching this John Wick film. yes, i know there are three (3) of them, no i had not seen any, and just this first one for now, since it was sat on the shelf in a charity shop. i believe i got this the same time as Inglorious B@st@rds above. 

do i even need to bother with the plot on this one? if so, Keanu Reeves out of Bill & Ted is some sort of ultra uber successfully retired hitman, who feels obliged to come out of retirement when the idiot, halfwit son (interestingly played by the idiot, halfwit son of Keith Allen) of a big mobster type elects to kill his dog and steal his car, if not quite in that order and not quite so simplistic. effectively, then, what 'plot' exists does so to give an excuse for ninety or so minutes of fast paced action and violence. 

it wasn't bad, i suppose. not great, not the best action film ever, but pacy enough to keep it well away from being the worst. just a film thrown together to provide entertainment for a fairly large audience, which is why movies ultimately exist as a business rather than an art form. sure, i may well end up having a look at the next two (2) films, and i believe another is being considered. any such viewing of them, however, will be by chance if circumstance allows, rather than me going right ahead and full tilt out of my way to try and find them.  yes, probably (or mostly) it was a complete lack of any quality nudity which held back any view of this being anything but an average film. nice though it is to watch, on screen and in a fictional way, any offspring of Keith Allen get killed. 

so that's that for this lot, then. blimey, compared to how many i usually get to see these days, that's a fair few films watched in the last few weeks. and, for a change, me not just going to the comfort zone of watching things what i had seen before and knew i would enjoy. oh yeah, now that i think, i did put the blu ray of For Your Eyes Only on recently too. considering that is a Sir Roger era James Bond film, my review is of course that it was excellent, anyway. 

right, anyway, let me get on with things of stuff. many thanks indeed to the dozen or so people what still drop by and read all of this, as ever boss and nice one if any of the above was of remote interest, even if only in passing!! 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!