Okay...so I got back from Killers of the Flower Moon and have had an hour to meditate on it. I loved the book, but it's been a bit over five years since I've read it. And I love Martin Scorsese...not everything he's done, but he's a Top Ten director for me. So I was pre-disposed to like this movie.

First...DO NOT let the runtime be a deterrent to watching the film. There wasn't an ounce of fat on the movie and it absolutely flew by. I thought that The Irishman felt a little bloated and drug at times. This was a sleek masterpiece of film editing.

Lily Gladstone is just stunning in this film. Understated brilliance punctuated by heart-rending grief and betrayal. The performance is probably too subtle to actually capture the imagination of award voters, but who cares. She is not just the equal of DeNiro and DiCaprio...she casts them in her shadow.

I DID NOT recognize Sturgill Simpson as Henry Grammer. Or, rather I did, but I couldn't for the life of me put Sturgill's name to the face. It lacked mustache.

An old CBR friend asked me to address two things, so here we go. I'm a huge Jason Isbell fan. I certainly didn't have any problem recognizing him. I thought he was fine. I remember that DeNiro at first thought that Isbell was doing some kind of weird method acting thing until Isbell let him know that...no...that's just how he talks. I'm not expecting him to make a career of acting based in this.

As to Brendan Fraser and the legal portions in general. I'm still trying to decide about Fraser. I do know that the defense attorneys in the cases pulled some seriously unethical shenanigans that would get them disbarred today. I suspect this was a bit of a composite of that situation. I did have to restrain myself from shouting "Objection, Leading!" during most of Lithgow's direct examination. Just terrible. 

Is this Scorsese's best? I'm not ready to say that. But I've only seen it once. I will say that it's among his best. But when you are up against Raging Bull and Goodfellas that's a tough get. But it really doesn't take a back seat to any of his other films and it showed he is able to shake things up, take chances and do something different than what he's done before.

It's a truly excellent film.

Watched the 2021 action film Nobody last night...



It's one of those insanely violent yet strangely satisfying revenge thrillers; the basic set-up is that the main character, Hutch Mansell (played by Bob Oedenkirk), is a pretty mundane, boring guy living in the 'burbs and working in the office of his father-in-law's tool and dye (or something similar) company. Things spiral out of control not long after his home is invaded by a pair of none-too-competent burglars one night - Hutch even could have taken one out with a golf club but then decides against it - much to the chagrin of his teenage son in particular. However, as the story progresses, we begin to realize that there's quite a bit more to Hutch and that he has a very, very dark past. And while hunting down the two home invaders, he runs afoul of the Russian mob, as one often does in these situations.
Even though the plots are pretty different, this had a very strong John Wick (the first film) vibe to it in many ways, albeit with a bit more dark humor in places - some of it provided by Hutch's father (played by Christopher Lloyd), a retired FBI agent.
Unfortunately, though, like Wick, it looks like this will be turned into a franchise as well (the sequel is apparently already in production). I think it would have been better to just leave this as a one-off gem.

Yeah, I really liked Shoot 'Em Up as well - although I'll readily acknowledge that a big part of its appeal for me is Monica Bellucci.

must have clicked the quote button by mistake when trying to edit

Initially I was sceptical as hell about this film and, like you, just thought that Blade Runner was a film that did not need a sequel in any way. But after British film critic Mark Kermode (who was so into the first film that he made the excellent On the Edge of Blade Runner documentary back in 2000) gave BR 2049 a glowing review, I decided to see it at the cinema. I've since watched it probably 7 or 8 times on DVD.

I have to say that I think Blade Runner 2049 is f***ing brilliant. Much, much better than we fans of the original film had any right to expect it to be. It serves as a continuation of the story from the original film in some ways, but it also has the courage to be its own thing.

In fact, I sort of question whether it really needed a reprise appearance of Rick Deckard; the story of K and his quest for the child, which of course he begins to believe is him, is compelling enough. And by the way, leading the audience and K to believe that he is the special child, but then snatching that away from the central character and the audience was a masterstroke. We're so used to having the central character of a fantasy movie be special or be super powered or whatever, that to subvert that by revealing that, no, K is just another replicant was a really gutsy move.

Something I particularly liked about the film and something which is a rarity with modern movies is that it doesn't ever pander to the audience or insult your intelligence. Much like the original movie, in fact. It's also beautifully shot and directed. The editing, in particular, is much slower paced than most modern films -- really taking its time and lingering over certain shots -- which I love.

Also, and I know that this is probably going to sound smugly superior, but I like that the film is aimed at the more intellectual viewer. So many films today (particularly sci-fi or fantasy films) are aimed at the lowest common denominator, dumbass public. It's really refreshing to get a film like Blade Runner 2049 that doesn't treat the audience like idiots.

Still, pitching the movie at a more intelligent audience obviously brings its own problems, as evidenced by the fact that the film basically tanked at the box office (much like the original did, in fact). A lot of the audience I saw it with were utterly baffled by it, judging from the comments I overheard as I was leaving the cinema. It really isn't a confusing film at all, but it does require you to think and analyse and interpret as you watch, again much like the original did. I love that it left some stuff ambiguous and didn't feel the need to hand everything to the audience on a plate. I guess art really isn't for the masses.

While I wouldn't say that Blade Runner 2049 is an unequivocal masterpiece on a par with the original, it is a worthy and thought-provoking successor. It's also very much concerned with the same big questions about life, death and what it is to be human as the original film. And it's a film that very much rewards re-watches.