grudlian.

Yeah. This can make me feel restless as well. I was going to rewatch Tokyo Story this week and couldn't do it. I have to be in a specific mood or really ready to watch an Ozu film to watch one. I don't know which one you watched, but I have liked Late Spring more than Tokyo Story. I also liked Good Morning more. It's a lot lighter.

I want to point out that The Noriko Trilogy isn't truly a trilogy. Setsuko Hara plays a character named Noriko, but that's it. Noriko has a different last name, her father is different and she's living in different circumstances in all of them. The similarities in the trilogy run through almost all Ozu movies I've seen. I'm really interested in what people think about this film if they've never seen an Ozu film before. This was the first I saw and it didn't do much for me. It wasn't until a couple more Ozu movies that he clicked with me. Also, I'm pretty sure Paul is right about Jarmusch. I'm almost positive I've seen something where he said he liked Ozu but I don't know where I saw it. I was convinced he directed Tokyo-Ga which is on the Late Spring DVD but that was Wim Wenders.

Christmas Romance Crew, are either of these as bad as Christmas In Handcuffs? Because that one nearly broke me. The ghost christmas movie was fine.

That one lengthy sex scene was horny. I think a lot of the risque stuff was probably shocking at the time but pretty tame any time after the late 80s.

Agreed on all accounts. The meta stuff was really interesting but took me by surprise. So, I couldn't fully appreciate it because, by the time it kicked in heavily, I felt I had missed a lot. Cinco said this was better on a second watch and I have to assume he's right. Ben Vereen though. Amazing.

This is a pretty easy no for me. I like the Coen brothers a lot but I definitely prefer their dramatic stuff to their comedies (except Lebowski or O Brother which I love). For much of this, I don't really laugh even though I kind of like the jokes in theory. The last time I watched this, the only time I honestly laughed was Sam McMurray asking "does the pope wear a funny hat?" and Nicolas Cage giving a very serious "yeah, it is sort of funny."

You mean seized with joy at getting the opportunity to fit in another break dancing movie.

I just realized Gabbi's friends are taking about who they will vote for outside on the street. Since Gabbi is only on the physical ballots, this means they were voting just in the streets? I assume California limits voting to actual polling sites.

I had no idea straight ticket wasn't available everywhere. It's only in six states apparently. Still a lot of people who vote for party over candidate which is pretty common so Gabbi being put on the ballot for a major party could in theory get votes that way. I just looked up the ballot for the 2003 gubernatorial recall election in California. Does the California ballot normally list the candidate's current profession? Because that seems 1. weird and 2. another way to make this even less likely for Gabbi to win. The candidate having the same name is absolutely a better story. Or the ballot misspelling Gabbi for Gabby or whatever. I know Paul suggested something similar.

no he is friends with merry

You're right that the entire state votes for governor. The best counter to this would be straight ticket voting which is voting for one party and, in every election I've voted in, is the first option on the ballot (this probably varies state to state). It will say something like Straight Ticket and give you a box to check for your preferred party. With electronic ballots, you can check the straight ticket box which fills in the box and, as you scroll through the rest of the ballot, can make individual changes for a particular candidate. Straight ticket voting has always been a thing but, purely anecdotal evidence based on my friends, is that straight ticket voting has increased significantly after 2016. I don't remember if they listed what party Gabbi was erroneously put on the ballot for. If she was put with one of the two major parties, it's theoretically possible, but not plausible, someone could get a win if no one read the ballot and went straight ticket. Of course, the actual candidate (and millions of others who voted) would have noticed such a discrepancy. This would likely be international news. The guy who changed it would go to jail or prison. Gabbi would have to prove her innocence.

Are you telling me the 10 minute sequence of two grown adults a wardrobe felt forced? This is definitely true. As mentioned earlier, this was definitely done with spaghetti westerns where it seems like they would get an American star to be in the movie which I always assumed was a marketing thing. I remember finding out The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was Italian and thinking Clint Eastwood must speak Italian and dubbed himself. But I was a pretty dumb kid. Burt Lancaster did a movie called The Leopard and said it was one of his best performances of his career. He thought it never got any award recognition because his entire performance was dubbed into Italian.

Yeah, describing Tokyo Story as "fucked up families" is killing me. Even a very vague synopsis doesn't really fit what I would call fucked up families. "Family dynamics" is a way better description for Tokyo Story and this group of movies. My immediate idea for this theme is Murmur Of The Heart but something a little less on the nose is Rachel Getting Married.

I want Gabbi in the House as a potential Squad member.

Seconding Kanopy and Hoopla. If your local library (or your a college student for kanopy), they are worth getting. Once you get your library card setup on the site, you never need to go to the library again to use them. I've found some of the harder to find HDTGM movies on Hoopla. There are also free streaming services like Pluto TV or Tubi (free with ads) that are checking out. They aren't great, but you can find some good stuff on them.

I only have Netflix. Spending a few bucks is no big deal to rent it is no big deal.

This was extremely common for Italian movies at the time. Fellini famously had actors say whatever they wanted on set and would finish writing dialogue in post production, to dub in later. I think it was a cost saving thing since cameras and sets were loud. So, it was easier to simply dub audio later than to trying to remove sound during filming. There's a Hitchcock movie, Blackmail, that used live dubbing with a person off screen speaking while the actress mouthed the words on screen. Talkies were just becoming a thing and the refilmed parts of the movie to cash in on the craze of talking pictures. The actress had a really thick, non-English accent which wouldn't make sense for the character. Audio post production was still in its infancy. So, the solution was have an English woman say her lines off screen.

I get that you were joking but I agree with you. They needed to emphasize their main theme more or give us a a bit more to not question this scenario. Or not contradict themselves with a second half that says "welcoming home veterans will kill you because they are programmed weapons."

It worked for me. He's pretty good looking. I think the initial point of the movie is a weird take on how veterans and families of veterans are screwed over. Dave is their son and they are his family since he can't return home. It's not that Dave is charming, it's that Dave fills the void of the dead son. So, they accept him regardless of logical response to a stranger or his charisma. They kind of dump that idea after half an hour (at least for the audience) because we know he's evil once the father's coworker dies and he attacked the kids in the bar. By then, I think the movie wants us to think of Dave as this weird, programmed weapon in a Rambo First Blood "look what they did to me" way. I don't think the movie accomplishes either of these goals, but I think that's what they are aiming for. I think they were trying to elevate an action thriller as opposed to, again, First Blood with is trying to make a action thriller out of a drama on vets returning home (although, I don't think First Blood totally accomplished it's goal either).

I forgot about the principal's office part. That seemed crazy to me. I don't have any children but don't schools now keep a record of the student's guardians? So they don't release a child to someone without custody or whatever. I would think discussing expulsion of a minor with someone who isn't a legal guardian is a big deal even if the parent is present.

This is kind of what I thought but it only adds more questions. Why did he get surgery to look like the dead guy's friend? Did he even know this guy? How does befriending this family help him?

I was very much under the impression that he was a bad guy from the beginning. I couldn't figure out why and I don't think they explained it satisfactorily (I get Lance Reddick programmed him but are his targets anyone who went after his army buddy's family?). I do agree with you that he doesn't want to hurt the family. That was part of his programming to protect Lance Reddick's company. I looked at trivia on imdb for this. They made a point to say Dave hadn't gotten facial reconstruction surgery yet. Who thinks he had gotten it and who thinks he hasn't yet? I thought he definitely had to look like the dead army guy's buddy. The main reason I think so is because the picture on the screen when the daughter called the army about him was definitely a different guy.

I liked the lead actor enough and the action enough to enjoy this. But there are a ton of problems with it. People act inconsistently or illogically, interesting ideas are brought up and get no follow through. I thought it was very strange how quickly the family was just willing to him stay there. Especially after the father explicitly said we didn't know him and could have PTSD. Then that night was drunkenly telling him his whole work situation. I'm also not totally sure his motivation. He's a mentally conditioned weapon to protect himself and the organization but his backstory is very muddled.

I started watching the Elm Street movies again this year and stopped at 3. I haven't seen 4-6 in almost 20 years and the prospect of seeing them again, I just couldn't do it (but New Nightmare is still a pleasure). Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the one franchise I'm not familiar with. I've seen the original multiple times and the remake but none of the sequels. I've always heard they get very crazy but never got around to them. I agree completely on Friday the 13th. I watched most of them again this month and I'd say they are all about the same quality (which is kind of mediocre). If you like one, you'll probably like them all through 7.

No doubt they will improve on 4-6. I rewatched them last October and it's amazing how bad they are. Probably the worst run of movies in the big slasher franchises. If the next two aren't the same night, they've really messed this up. It's the only way to possibly continue this with it making sense. I don't see them explaining Michael's escape in any satisfactory way. Set fire in a windowless basement where the exit is blocked off isn't technically impossible, but any explanation I can come up with is that weird retrofitting a solution or turns him into a superhuman again. I'm also worried how they address his obsession with Laurie. I understand it in the first one. This one is told so well from Laurie's perspective that you don't question it while you watch it. But any analysis makes me wonder if the answer is "don't think about it. He's crazy."