<n>These are my notes to remember what I watched and kinda what I thought about it. I've recently transferred my reviews to IMDb and made <a href="http://www.imdb.com/user/ur1323291/ratings">the list</a> of over 900 ratings publicly available. I've included the individual ratings with my notes for each movie. These ratings are not absolutely comparable to each other---I rate the film on how well it suited me for the <i>genre</i> and my mood. YMMV.</n> <dl dt_class="field"> Dead Calm (1989) --- <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097162/">5/10</a> <div>Nicole Kidman and Sam Neill star as couple who've lost their child in a car crash that she caused. He's an accomplished sailor and suggests an ocean journey just for the two of them. They're in chains (dead calm) when they happen upon another sailboat on the main (what happenstance!) Hughie (Billy Zane) rows his way over in a dingy, desperate to get away form the death ship, but he's shamming and takes over their sailboat, stranding the husband on the half-sinking boat that's home to his five other victims. He and Rae (Kidman) have a great time getting to know each other, while she buys time until her husband can catch up. It is not explained why she so readily sleeps with him, other than perhaps the implicit reason that Zane is quite handsome. Thrills all around, but not a very interesting movie. Who brings a dog on a multi-week or -month cruise on a small sailboat? I wonder if she'll tell her husband that she pretty much slept with Hughie not under duress? Makes sense, right? He'd defeated her husband, so he was the new alpha. A minor plot point of interest was in how the movie made clear that catching someone on the open ocean was a one-time--only thing: you miss and the currents pull you apart forever, unless you have power (which they didn't). Not recommended.</div> The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015) --- <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1638355/">6/10</a> Ostensibly a Guy Ritchie move, but with very little of his imprimatur. Henry Cavill is the American agent and the ravishing Alicia Vikander is his ad-hoc partner. Then his real partner shows up in the form of a Russian agent, Illya (Armie Hammer). So Hammer fakes a Russian accent while Cavill fakes an American one. And how long are they going to go before they acknowledge how ridiculous the last name Vinciguerra is, right up there with Dr. Goodhead? How does Armie Hammer (Lone Ranger) make Henry Cavill (Superman) look small? Probably because Cavill's character is a douche.<fn> This feels like a remake of Moonraker and I'm unsure whether this is a spy movie or a romantic comedy. A redeeming quality is that a lot of the movie is in Italian and German where appropriate, and the German is quite good. The tech is all over the place, some of it is era-appropriate, like the giant tracker stuck to her leg, and some is not even available today, like a hand-held CO₂ laser. With the cast and director, I was expecting more than just a bog-standard action movie trying to set up for a franchise. The cast is decent, with Armie Hammer standing out. F is for Family (2015) --- <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4326894/">8/10</a> This is a six-episode animated series about a lower-middle--class family in the 1970s somewhere in the northeastern U.S. It's not clear where, but the airline that patriarch Frank Murphy works for is called Mohican Airlines and the tiny airline just a couple of doors up the terminal is called Utica Air. Burr probably placed it somewhere near Boston or in Massachusetts, but upstate New York isn't out of the question either. Murphy is voiced by Bill Burr, who also produced it and clearly inspired much of the story. The youngest son is Bill Murphy and he's a redhead. The rest of the cast is also good and by the sixth episode things had gelled quite well. The first couple of episodes were a bit slower and rockier, but it really started firing on all cylinders after the characters had been fleshed out. This series is a love letter to Bill's generation, with the 70s placed front and center. Recommended. Audition (1999) --- <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0235198/">6/10</a> <div>This Japanese movie is about a widower, whose wife wasted away from illness. After a melancholy introductory scene, we seque to 7 years later, when the father and son have been joined by a beagle dog and are living a humdrum existence. The father meets an old friend for a drink, a film producer, and laments that he'd like to get married again but has no idea how to go about meeting women, much less marrying one. The producer has an idea: stage a fake audition. From this audition arises a single candidate who seems to the suitor to be ideal, but to his friend she's a cypher and a vaguely threatening one, at that. She's very soft-spoken, achingly thin and bony, but wins his heart. None of her contacts can be reached, the locations she mentioned don't exist. But he is smitten and ignores these warning signs. He breaks his promise to his friend and calls her. She is at home, meditating in a twisted position while something bound up in a sack lays on her tatami. The director is Takashi Miike, the same guy as directed <i>Gozu</i> and it shows. They grow closer, he pledges love, she proves herself a shape-shifting psycho killer who keeps a severely mutilated former victim as a pet (the guy in the bag). The movie goes off the rails after she drugs Aoyama's drink for not having gotten rid of the picture of his wife in his apartment and breaking his promise to <i>love only her</i>. Things go even more tits-up from there and everyone gets what's coming to them. It was a slow buildup and the depths of her depravity were well-explained and -grounded, but I couldn't really get into it.</div> Begotten (1990) --- <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101420/">2/10</a> <div>I haven't seen a movie this black and white since <i>Eraserhead</i>. Most black-and-white movies are actually grayscale but this one is <i>only</i> black and <i>only</i> white, overblown, overexposed and with off-the-charts dynamic range. The film is almost purely visual, with layered audio forming a background that matches the starkness of the images. The movie starts with a gagged human creature disemboweling itself, covering itself in gore---more akin to black ichor if you read that the scene depicts the death of a God. Most of the time, though, the image is so washed-out that your brain is making up a dozen different things that could be happening until you realize what you're really looking at. Against character, immagonna call artsy-fartsy bullshit<fn>---not recommended to anyone I can think of, but I can't give it a 1/10 because I understand that there's more of a point than truly crappy movies, but fock dood, it took them 20 minutes to kill the Son of Earth---and even after they set him on fire, he still wasn't dead, just shaking like he had been for the last 25 minutes. Now it's Mommy's turn. The raw image does lend more gravitas than a cleaner image would, I'll grant them that. This movie was not crappy, but I didn't like it. And a lot of these more bizarre movies---and I freely admit that bizarre movie comprise a good chunk of my list---I rate lower at first, then raise the rating by movie's end just because they seem to have pulled off whatever they were going for. The fact that there's no dialogue for 72 minutes <i>and</i> the picture is awful makes this a more difficult movie than most. Enhance artificially or watch with friends, just skip it or maybe put it on in one of those small viewing studios at the Whitney in Manhattan---I watched it so you don't have to.</div> Martyrs (2008) --- <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1029234/">8/10</a> <div>Lucie was abducted and horribly abused as a young girl. She meets Anna in a home for troubled youth and the become extremely close. Fifteen years later, the two have teamed up to find Lucie's captors and exact revenge on them. Nothing is what it seems, though, as Lucie's madness makes it nearly impossible to know what is real---after she kills an entire family with one remorseless shotgun blast after another, she's visited once again by the dark imp that visited her in the foster home, which slashes her across the back. Does the imp exist? How else would she get knife wounds on her back? Anna takes care of the bodies while Lucie sleeps. But the mother survived. or did she? This is madness. The imp is terrifying...and now Anna can at least hear it blasting on the door. Lucie has exacted her revenge and still she's lacerated from head to foot. And always with the flashbacks to Lucie's abduction and her shadowy captors, and finally to her escape---during which she discovers that there were others captured by her oppressors. It tortures her to this day. The imp is the woman she left behind, it's her own psyche, her own guilt that's making Lucie hurt herself...kill herself. It's brilliantly filmed---it reminds me of how I pictured the madness in the book <i>I Never Promised You a Roes Garden</i>. In the end, Lucie succumbs, taking her own life. An utterly brutal film. And we're not even halfway done yet. Anna takes her leave of Lucie but, before leaving the house, discovers two lower levels of hidden torture chambers, proving Lucie was right all along---mad, but right all the same. Anna finds a horribly disfigured woman still alive, incapable of speech, with no idea how to interact with normal humans, horrifically scarred. There is a group systematically torturing women and the family that Lucie slaughtered was part of it. She tries to help the woman, but doesn't even know where to start with the peroxide. Then Anna removes the headgear <i>stapled</i> to her head---instead of taking her to a hospital? Why? Predictably, she is captured by the even higher-up members of the psychotic cadre that torture women in an attempt to have them see through to a better world. The scenes we saw hinted at with Lucie are repeated with Anna, who is their newest subject. Have I mentioned how visceral the brutality is? I thought <i>The Yellow Sea</i> or <i>Oldboy</i> had rivers of blood in them, but the French have got the Koreans beat, hands down. The people in this cult are <i>really</i> convinced that beating will help someone achieve Nirvana. It's honestly not too far off from actual experiments that have been performed in the name of science throughout the last several centuries (from Torquemada to Goebbels to the guys from <i>Men Behind the Sun</i> to our very own unnamed heroes in the CIA). Really well-done, well-filmed, gut-wrenching. A unique and well-written horror/slasher story. The ending's a bit drawn-out, but I can forgive the director his desire to draw it out, especially with the excellent ending. Saw it in French with English subtitles.<fn></div> Un Chien Andalou (1929) --- <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020530/">6/10</a> This is a 16-minute silent film with French titles by the surrealist master Salvador Dali and director Luis Buñuel. It's hard to describe or rate (other than praising the craftsmanship nearly 100 years ago). In one (famous) scene, a woman's eyeball is sliced with a razor. In another, ants crawl convincingly out of a ragged but not bloody hole in a man's hand, while he looks on in fascination. In the next scene. he and another lady watch a gorgeous woman inexorably run over in the street, after which he becomes extremely lustful and she less interested, though at least partially acquiescing, but in the end defiant. A few more nonsensical and loosely cohesive scenes follow. No idea what it all means. An extra star for production values in the 1920s and also for brevity. Salõ, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975) --- <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073650/">3/10</a> <div>This feels at first like something like <i>The Stanford Prison Experiment</i> but soon proves itself to be much more depraved than that. It kind of reminds me of the secret society in <i>Eyes Wide Shut</i> a bit, but with far less class. The old men are disgusting, nearly sucking one girls tears with their lascivious looks (although it's hard to tell just what the one severely cross-eyed dude is looking at). There are classical influences, like Dante's Inferno and material taken from the Marquis de Sade's notebooks. While it's debatable whether any of this should ever end up in a film, it's clear to me that it deserved a better director and better actors, though it's difficult to imagine that anyone of quality would be willing to participate. The shot selection is pretty boring and the scenes are scripted as if by juveniles. It's from the 70s and it's got a bit of a bad 70s porno vibe to it---although the subject matter is considerably over the top, even for a pornographic film. The third act is the most difficult, I thought, where the entire party, captives and master, all become coprophagous in an utterly unmistakable scene---there is no doubt what they're doing. It certainly depicts the depths of depravity, though it's not exactly purely sexual in nature, despite their protestations. And the old prostitutes chatter on, regaling the gathered company with depraved stories of their careers. There is so much buggery and cross-dressing going on, it hardly merits mentioning---I'd just as soon describe the water in an aquarium. It's unclear why some captives are dressed, others are completely nude and others are in a state of near-permanent semi-dishabille. The ass-judging contest is inspired because it's so clinical, we have no idea what their criteria are and the audience is not invited to participate---all raised behinds face away from the camera. That is, again, taking everything on the face of it---I haven't read the Marquis de Sade's unfinished book of the same name but I can only imagine that on paper it's better than on film. Film leaves nothing to the imagination and the only way for this type of depravity to survive a critical eye is to leave more detail away. The enthusiastic participation of some of the captives is also not really explained---it's just taken as a given that this would happen. An interesting part is perhaps at the end, where a single detected transgression triggers a cascade of betrayals, leading one of the four men in charge (the Duke?) on a merry chase, looking for the ultimate transgressor to punish. There is surprisingly little violence, actually, until the very end. Some of the youth are armed and it's not clear why they don't rebel. It's all so chaotic and senseless, again perhaps based on the source material---I'm honestly not willing to waste my time finding out. They all seem fabulously stupid. It's just not that convincing at being awful. You might claim that it's dated or that I'm jaded, but it just not a good enough film. It survives on its reputation for it's subject matter, which is no doubt provocative, but terribly juvenile in its execution. Saw it in the original Italian, with English subtitles. Not recommended.</div> Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) --- <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392190/">10/10</a> <div>This movie is absolute non-stop action from the very first minute. It builds a believable and coherent world with shot after shot of glorious detail about that post-apocalyptic world. Very few words are spoken, but rich detail floods in, rarely repeating itself. There are sigils and rites and ritualistic phrases---"witness this"---that build the world without effort, without belaboring anything. Even the story is allowed to unfold like a good science-fiction story does, gradually, with detail coming into focus over time. The experience of watching this movie is one of, "wait, what was that?" "should I rewind?" "What's a universal donor here?" "will they show it again?" "Oh, good, they did." "Dammit what did he say?" "Why are they going there?" "Why do they trust her?" "Oh, of course, because she's Imperator Furiosa" "What the hell is going on with Max?" "Why are they taking blood?" "Or are they giving him blood?" "Good God, the decorations and decals and endless attention to detail of the warring clans, and people chained to vehicles and the somehow-not-at-all-cheesy-guitarist riding point in front of dozens of amps mounted on a truck and the destruction and jury-rigging and exotic weapons and primitive weapons and garb and leather and armor bits and scars and dessicated lips and piercings and whatever the hell that spray is and the suicide cult and Furiosa's arm and her steering wheel and her bony-arm decal on the truck and the giant pillar in the desert topped by a jungle and the smoke and fire and tattoos and mutations and tumors and flying bits of mechanical mayhem and the DETAIL and the DUST and the sheer DRIVING ADRENALIN RIDE." And yet, it's cohesive action and not confused and muddled. It's visually interesting and relatively easy to follow. We get a minute breather, during which we drown/revel in more detail---the blood-donor spigot, the lock on the back of his head---and then there's a gloriously choreographed, seemingly single-shot scene in which a one-armed Charlize Theron is made to look a realistic match for Tom Hardy. She's ferocious and merciless, as is he and the <i>Defiant Ones</i>-like chain to Nicolas Hoult's minion is used to the fullest extent. And slowly and naturally and seemingly easily, the story coheres out of the dust, with the phrase "Who Killed the World?" explained as much by showing as possible. Men killed the world. The power-hungry, the lustful, the primal, the primitive, the savage. Savage cults and primitive ideas and simplistic visions that reach nearly nowhere because they need only reach as far as the needs of the few. The women are incongruous to everything else in this world. The vehicles are not beautiful but they're amazing and intricate. The sound design and soundtrack are well-matched as well. The switch to blue coloring is jarring, but effective. Some things, like the guitarist and the birthing party, seem unaffected. Furiosa pushing the giant truck and Max leaning on the tree are both equally futile, but it shows their desperation rather than seeming ludicrous. When she asks "but what if you're not back by the time the truck cools?", he gives the only possible answer, "well, then, you keep moving." Almost as if to say, did you think this was a movie? Where all the heroes have to survive? And when he comes back? How is that not cheesy? I don't know, but it is so HARDCORE instead. Similarly, why are those guys holding lookout from those poles when they have a mounted binocular that sees just as well? Because it looks cool. Just like flames roaring out of the side of a car look cool. And so does the reversed vanity mirror that is the driver's-side side-view mirror and the shoe-sizer gas pedal in the war rig. The darkness, the hopelessness, it's nearly overpowering. Furiosa and Max can't combat everything---there's too many of them. How amazingly well-filmed, with none of the main characters spared. This is a tragedy. In the end, only the women return---Max exits stage right. Then, during the credits, we see that all of the characters had elaborate names, but you have no idea which one's which. Hardy and Theron are great. Better than Star Wars. Highly recommended. What a ride.</div> Irréversible (2002) --- <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290673/">8/10</a> <div>This is a movie of a night gone horribly wrong, starring Monica Belluci and Vincent Cassel. It's told in reverse order and filmed in an incredibly confused manner, it's told in reverse-chronological order, starting with a man's search for the man who raped his girlfriend, followed by an extremely graphic depiction of her rape in an underpass. She surprises her assailant while he's in the middle of disciplining his ostensible girlfriend (or at least companion for the evening) and he turns his sadistic attentions to her, easily changing direction to rape her on the cement floor. The guy is as despicable as can be imagined. Seriously, he makes Dennis Hopper in <i>Blue Velvet</i> look like an absolute gentleman. We see a man enter the subterranean passage and then creep back away when he sees what's happening. His experience is completely disconnected from her suffering---indicated by near-constant and by-him muffled screams. Up until the rape scene, the camera is absolutely psychotic, swirling back and forth---do not watch when too drunk, pro tip. But probably be a little drunk, or you'll have a very difficult time getting through this harrowing film. I mean, Monica Belluci conveys amazingly well her horrific experience, but it's very difficult to deal with. Gaspar Noë, the director, had an unflinching story to tell about the horrific half of the human race (men). All the more harrowing for the camera work and the the reverse chronology. As the film unfolds into the past, we see the vengeful boyfriend transform into a drunk, unfaithful pig bent on dipping his wick despite having Belluci at home. And as the movie progresses, you see them move from horror at her destroyed face/body (him) and her absolute destruction in the underpass...to them being happy at a party at their home, with everyone beautiful and whole and happy. It's amazingly well-done: even as the horrific scene recedes in the past, it infects the remainder of the film, which becomes increasingly upbeat, as the upcoming strife between the colleagues recedes into the future. And yet, you continue to anticipate some accompanying horror...but there's nothing. no indication of what is to come and additional closure for the fleeting scenes of horror we saw at the beginning (chronologically the end) of the film. The end/beginning is positively idyllic, with Cassel and Belluci unbelievably natural and loving with one another. The reverse chronology serves to emphasize how absolutely happy they are as a couple and how that's all wrenched away in such a short time. All the more tragic this way, I think. Recommended, but beware, not for the faint of heart. Saw it in French with English subtitles. P.S. if you think you can understand colloquial French, let this film test your mettle: I found most of it nearly incomprehensible and I can follow a lot of news and sports on the radio in French. The style and feel and even the music would serve Noë again in his next film <i>Enter the Void</i> which was <i>even stranger</i>. Also, and I cannot stress this enough, be very careful of watching this if you're too drunk or epileptic.</div> </dl> <hr> <ft>Also because Armie Hammer, at 6'5" is <i>very tall</i></ft> <ft>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begotten">Wikipedia article</a>, which I used as a <i>crutch</i> to even halfway know what was going on, includes this citation, <iq>The film incorporates many different religious themes and events from Christian and Slavic mythology including Creation, Mother Earth, and various other religious themes on which the events that take place in the film are loosely based upon.</iq>. Bullshit. That's what the director might have <i>told</i> you he'd intended, but without dialogue, with visuals that look like they came from the 1880s and a soundtrack that sounds like a cicada with indigestion, the only way you can get any meaning is for someone to tell you what the fuck you just saw. I could barely even tell the "characters" near the end were even "dismembering" anyone. This is a horror movie? And Susan Sontag named it one of the 10 most important movies of all time? Was this before or after she took ill?</ft> <ft>The French I could understand was much more eloquent than the subtitles, most especially in the case of the fervent and absolutely psychotic speech about creating martyrs.</ft>