I am going to post some of my film reviews in this thread.

[Ghostinthemachine]

The Burning Hell (1974)

Grade – 1 / 5

Rating – Unrated (Equivalent to a R)

Running Time – 58 Minutes​

I am not a part of the intended audience for The Burning Hell, which is a ‘70s Southern Baptist propaganda film meant to scare its audience into the loving arms of Jesus Christ. How it intended to scare its audience was with psychedelic scenes of torment in Hell, featuring sinners being eaten alive by maggots, impaled on spears, fighting each other nonstop because there is no friendship in Hell, only hatred. Cheesy flame effects and embarrassingly amateur gore makeup is abundant during these scenes.

There is no profanity or sexual content to be found here, but HG Lewis grisliness is apparently A-OK for the preacher Estus W. Pirkle, who clearly only wants to avoid going to Hell while not being such a great and kind person on his own right. He offers no proof that Hell exists other than “the Bible says so”. Then he pulls in two of his friends, who also claim Hell is real, simply stating that “the Bible says so” is conclusive evidence. This film was made to preach to the choir, and it is highly unlikely that anybody was converted to the Southern Baptist brand of church after watching this.

There are laughs to be had as Middle Eastern characters from Biblical times all speak in heavy American Southern accents as they burn in eternal torment. Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus is expanded and fully embellished by the great preacher Pirkle who dismisses that it was a parable and states that it was actual fact. This is insulting to Biblical scholars, but it makes for decent B-movie entertainment.

Near the start of this hour-long sermon propaganda film, Pirkle meets two “modern” Christians who dismiss his old-fashioned fire and brimstone views of hell. Then those two friends go motorcycling and one of them ends up dying in a horribly graphic motorcycle crash. His friend should have contacted the authorities, but instead he goes back to the preacher to hear his sermon about Hell. The preacher immediately assures him that his friend is suffering for all eternity in his moment of grief.

This is terrible filmmaking. If I were a Christian, I would not want this piece of violent pornography speaking for my belief in Jesus Christ. And it is pornography, and it is exploitation, and it is made to shock and disgust its audience into Christianity. This kind of insanity is acceptable in some churches. If the only reason why these people do not sin is because they fear eternal torment, they must not be great people to begin with.

Great review,I've got to see this now,is it on YouTube?

 

[Metalhead]

Godland (2022)

Grade – 5 / 5

Rating – Unrated (Equivalent to a R)

Running Time – 143 Minutes​

Iceland appears to be a very beautiful country seeing how it has been brilliantly photographed in Hlynur Pálmason’s volatile psychodrama, Godland. It takes place in the late 19th century, and the story centers on Lucas (Elliott Crosset Hove), a young priest sent from Denmark to make a dangerous trek to Iceland’s southeastern coast to build a church in a remote village and bring the word of God to that isolated community. To say that things do not go according to his plans is a vast understatement.

Lucas is arrogant, and his arrogance ends the life of a member of his crew early on in the trek across Iceland’s dangerous terrain. His Icelandic guide, Ragnar (Ingvar Sigurdsson), does not speak Danish fluently and the language barrier between him and Lucas is a source of constant frustration. Then they get to the village and build a church, where Lucas finds himself tempted by the pleasures of the flesh with the local farmer’s older daughter, Anna (Vic Carmen Sonne). The local farmer, Carl (Jacob Lohmann), is not too happy about this.

Ethnic prejudices, social isolation, and the realities of being outsiders in a harsh wilderness take a deep spiritual toll on every character in the traveling party and in the village. This is all very dour material, but Lucas gives a charismatic leading performance that makes it all very watchable. Another thing that makes this film so watchable is the wonderful cinematography, which puts the best of modern Hollywood to shame at many points throughout the film’s running time.

For example, there are a couple of points in the film where the camera does a slow 360-degree movement around the scenery, soaking up every detail in the environment. Then there are moments where the cinematography captures the passing of time throughout the seasons by cutting a framed moment to the same spot over the course of the seasons. I was very impressed by the camera work in this film, and I am convinced that Godland would not have worked nearly as well as it does without the camera’s eye for beauty and terror. This is a very good-looking film.

Pálmason tackles this subject matter with the same painterly grace and skill that Paul Thomas Anderson used when he directed There Will Be Blood. These two films together would make an excellent double feature. In my opinion, that is incredibly high praise. It also helps that the subtitles differentiate between the film’s two spoken languages – Danish is translated in standard text, while Icelandic is translated in italics. That is very helpful for average Americans like myself who speak neither language. This is one of the most rapturous films of the decade – lovely and terrible, like Iceland’s terrain.

 

[Metalhead]

Great review,I've got to see this now,is it on YouTube?

I saw it with my Mubi subscription, I don't think it is on Youtube. Sorry.

 

[Metalhead]

Oppenheimer (2023)

Grade – 5 / 5

Rating – R

Running Time – 180 Minutes​

Much has already been said about Christopher Nolan’s epic biopic, Oppenheimer. It truly did live up to the hype surrounding it, and its box office success proved to the world that there is an audience out there that is hungry for thoughtful and intelligent big budget pictures. I am happy to report that this biopic thoroughly deserves all the praise it has received to date. I first watched it in 70MM IMAX, which was extremely impressive, but the incredibly sharp nature of the dialogue keeps things entrancing when watching in a home setting.

This is a very rich and dense film that becomes easier to follow the longer it goes on. The editing leaps between Robert Oppenheimer’s (Cillian Murphy) tale of his involvement with the Manhattan project, to his eventual denial of his security clearance, and then to Lewis Stauss (Robert Downey, Jr.) preparing to be elected for a cabinet position in government but being questioned about his involvement with Oppenheimer in the past. There is a rhyme and a reason to the jumping between these three stages that makes sense after an initial period of disorientation that lasts about five or six minutes. The editing here is tighter than a snare drum.

Murphy infuses his performance with the right amount of ego and tortured charisma to make Oppenheimer’s pathos very clear to this film’s audience. In a supporting cast featuring such heavy star power as Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Florence Pugh, Casey Affleck, Kenneth Branagh and Remi Malek, the standout performance is Downey Jr. as the cold and reptilian Stauss. However, there is not a single false note to be found in any of the performances.

Nolan’s film runs for three hours in length, but between the incredibly tight editing, the beautiful cinematography, the practical special effects work, the sometimes vicious and biting dialogue, and the uniformly great work from the star-studded cast, I found that it feels closer to 90 minutes when I am watching it. Fans of Nolan will already be familiar with his jumps in continuity, which here feel more organic and natural than they did in most of his previous films. This is not the confusing puzzle box that Tenet was.

Even when I know how things are going to turn out, I still feel the tension as all the film’s elements (performances, direction, soundtrack, cinematography, editing, screenplay) come together to make a large and sometimes frightening film about the man who ran the Manhattan Project and gave the world the atomic bomb. Murphy’s lanky frame and chiseled face is perfect for this role – I can’t imagine any other actor playing this role at this point. I am happy that Oppenheimer is getting all of the attention it deserves, as I find it rare that the front runner for the Best Picture Oscar is actually the film that deserves it.

 

[Thinx]

These are great reviews, and out of 3 there are 2 here I would seek out now, and one I'm grateful for the heads-up about. That's a first I think, as I more often enjoy your reviews for saving me from watching something than for flagging up something I wouldn't be too scared to watch!

Would I find Godland on Sky?

 

[Levitator]

"The average American is considered to have a readability level
equivalent to a 7th/8th grader (12 to 14 years old)."
What is readability and why should content editors care about it?

What is the average person's reading level?

What’s the latest U.S. literacy rate?

Remind me how autism is supposed to be a mental disability again? Give me a few hours to contemplate the ways that could be offensive, and then I'll delete it.

 

[Metalhead]

These are great reviews, and out of 3 there are 2 here I would seek out now, and one I'm grateful for the heads-up about. That's a first I think, as I more often enjoy your reviews for saving me from watching something than for flagging up something I wouldn't be too scared to watch!

Would I find Godland on Sky?

I am unfamiliar with Sky, so I do not know how to answer that. Sorry. I watched it on The Criterion Channel but it is available to buy and rent on a variety of different retailers.

 

[Metalhead]

A Thousand and One (2023)

Grade – 4.5 / 5

Rating – R

Running Time – 117 Minutes​

The best way to look at writer/director AV Rockwell’s debut film, A Thousand and One, is that it is a fiercely electric melodrama played with a straight face. This could have easily been an exploitative episode of Ricki Lake, but Rockwell was wise enough to not let the more sensational aspects of the story overwhelm the human core of its central characters. The leading character, Inez (Teyana Taylor), makes countless bad decisions throughout this film’s running time, and Taylor is a wise enough actress to not try to play for the audience’s sympathy. Her character is a damaged soul who is trying to do one good thing with her life.

The film starts with Inez being released from Rikers onto the streets of New York. One of the first things she does is track down six-year-old Terry (Aaron Kingsley Adetola), who is in the hospital after trying to escape from his foster home. Inez asks Terry if he wants to escape with her so that they could be mother and son once again. He agrees. They run off to Harlem and make a family unit with another ex-con named Lucky (William Catlett). Both Inez and Lucky are ill-prepared to be parents and they clearly are not right for each other, but both have Terry’s best interests in the forefront of their minds.

As Terry grows older, Harlem becomes more gentrified between 1994 and 2006. This film also works as a snapshot of a city in political transition. But the core of the film is Taylor’s performance. This is a real breakthrough for her professionally. Never before has she handled such a complex character in a feature film, and she knocks it right out of the park. There are surprises to be found in the screenplay, but the real reason to watch this is Taylor.

Catlett is charismatic and likable as Lucky, even when his character is making unwise decisions. The three actors who play Terry (Adetola, Aven Courtney and Josiah Cross) are also surprising in their mature handling of their character’s inner mindspace. Terry may be silent a lot of the time, but it is clear he always has a lot on his mind and that he knows the family house of cards could come down at any second. Getting such performances out of three child actors is an impressive feat.

The tone here is highly optimistic, but also undermined with unspeakable sadness. Rockwell did not want to make a slice of misery porn that a lesser filmmaker would have attempted here. This film centers on the theme of damaged people trying to make sure the child they are raising does not make the same mistakes they did. This is pretty powerful stuff, but like I said above, Taylor is the glue that holds it all together and keeps things from becoming shrill and exploitative.

 

[Metalhead]

I thought it was a fine review. What intrigued me the most were his comments about how the main character deviates somewhat from past films. Plus the casting of other characters is interesting, as all of their names are familiar to me. At least it leaves us with a sense of creativity over a film title redone over and over again. Which under the circumstances strikes me as a good thing.

All jokes aside, Robert Pattinson's career seems in a slow yet upward trajectory, despite how Hollywood so easily typecasts actors and pigeonholes them only for roles based on their greatest degree of notoriety. Not a good thing if you were in any of the "Twilight" films, which frankly I enjoyed. So sue me. Another example of how they put quite a spin on the lore of vampires.

I could have said, "You've got to be kidding" when it comes to Pattinson cast for this role. But I didn't. Mainly because I still chuckle at my own thoughts when I learned that actor Michael Keaton was cast for the original film role in Tim Burton's version. And he pulled it off beyond any doubt.

I read elsewhere on this site that you did not care for this as much as I did. Heh. Well, I do remember one time a local film critic started a survey to see what everybody’s favorite films were. He was expecting the same films to show up in abundance. What he realized was that film tastes were as individual as individuals. Let’s toast to that, shall we?

 

[Judge]

I read elsewhere on this site that you did not care for this as much as I did. Heh. Well, I do remember one time a local film critic started a survey to see what everybody’s favorite films were. He was expecting the same films to show up in abundance. What he realized was that film tastes were as individual as individuals. Let’s toast to that, shall we?

Let's just say that your comment reminds me of the gap between film critics like Gene Shalit and Judith Crist. Or even better, Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel. Quite polarized and quite regularly...lol.

Take your pick. But that said, I still absolutely hated "The Batman".