I Just Watched...

[LawrenceA]

That's a much more "neutered" sculpture of Pazuzu than I'm used to seeing.

[CinemaInternational]

Two films I associate most with vomiting:

An Unmarried Woman
Knives Out

There is upchucking in both Postcards from the Edge and the Help, but you don't actually see it happen there.

I know that you're not a horror film aficionado, CinemaInternational. So you've missed the, arguably, ne plus ultra of movies that feature vomiting -- it is an Essential for Enthusiasts of Emetic Cinema: The Exorcist. BARF-O-RAMA!

The 2022 satire Triangle of Sadness reportedly features copious upchucking.

POLL: Do you want a Like button?

Actually, I have seen The Exorcist. Strong performances from Jason Miller and Ellen Burstyn. Awfully nasty visuals in the second half, so much so that it was hard to look at the screen at points. I'll also always remember the Tubular Bells musical piece. Not bad, for its type, and maybe because the demon was defeated at the end, it didn't disturb me as much as Rosemary's Baby did. I also saw 1990's The Exorcist III, which aside from a tacked-on studio ending, was a mostly low-key meditation on evil.

[TikiSoo]

Actually, I have seen The Exorcist. Strong performances from Jason Miller and Ellen Burstyn. Awfully nasty visuals in the second half, so much so that it was hard to look at the screen at points.

I put off watching THE EXORCIST for years, afraid it would scare me. Those years were filled with comedy & parody of the worst scenes, completely desensitizing me to them! I found the movie to be very sad more than anything else-for what the little girl & her Mother endured.

I'll also always remember the Tubular Bells musical piece.

That was done by Mike Oldfield who is an incredibly talented musician. Glad he got recognition, but it's not indicative of his entire body of work.

Upon mention in the Premieres Thread, I borrowed SOMETHING WILD '87 from the library. This was my first time seeing Melanie Griffith and Ray Liotta (at least that I remember) I was surprised how cute Jeff Daniels was-what a passage of time!

This movie was confusing in that I wasn't sure if it was cute, fun or scary.
Cinema International said it succinctly:

The film already had a few hints of danger before Liotta arrived with Griffith leading Daniels into a world of petty theft and casual habitual lies to say nothing of the very kinky bedroom scene with the handcuffs. They were living life on the wild side, and the film carefully hinted that they could not get away with it. But at the same time, Liotta's character was an awfully fierce punishment for what were at heart, two likable characters, who were already changing toward more normal characters in the Pennsylvania scenes.

Liotta was, by all accounts, a nice guy in real life, and I remember that one member on the old boards who knew him personally offered nothing but praise for him being so kind when he passed away, but the film caused him to be typecast as a sicko afterwards, much like Widmark in the 1940s. Liotta played very few likable roles.

Very true, but boy, did I love Liotta in this role-he was strikingly handsome & full of rage. I loved his seedy hotel room apartment & LOL at his outburst towards those in the adjoining room. Obviously a star. I saw Dominick & Eugene and liked him in that, but he seems like a wholly different person-that's shows good acting!

Although Griffith is much prettier than I expected, her baby voice is incredibly annoying, especially for 2 hours. Her charactor wasn't fun, she was dangerous. There was no childlike fun scene for her like Holly-go-lightly stealing the halloween masks in Breakfast At Tiffany's. Instead of lighthearted cerebral fun, she offers sex, ho-hum.
I didn't buy Daniels' charactor at all but then again, I'm a woman. The presumption is a man is stupid enough to fall for the sex lure. While I like Daniels, he too often plays weak, whining charactors. (my fave movies of his Pleasantville & Fly Away Home)

Once Liotta shows up, the movie gets violent...I had to FF to the end to avoid it.

[Detective Jim McLeod]

A Christmas Carol (1972) Youtube-5/10

An animated short version of the Charles Dickens classic.

This was a fair version that won an Oscar for best animated short subject that year. The drawing is a bit crude but the characters of Marley's Ghost and the starving children under The Ghost Of Christmas Present's robe are quite frightening. The most interesting thing about it is Alastair Sim, who played Scrooge in the 1951 version, does the voice of Scrooge here. His laughter when he awakens from his dream is similar to the way he portrayed it in 1951. Michael Hordern is another actor from the 1951 film, again playing Marley's Ghost. So it mostly worth seeing as a curio.

[EP Millstone]

A Christmas Carol (1972) Youtube-5/10
An animated short version of the Charles Dickens classic . . .

My Favorite Animated Version of A Christmas Carol

. . . which is also my favorite version of Dickens' classic.


POLL: Do you want a Like button?

[j.lunatic]

The 2022 satire Triangle of Sadness reportedly features copious upchucking.

Plus toilets...shall we say operating in reverse?

I like the Jackass movies--crudest humor, but at its best--and often the boys' stunts involve, or result in the participants vomiting. I haven't yet had a sympathy puke, but sometimes it was close.

[Masha]

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Replicants are now blade runners tasked to find and retire earlier model replicants. A blade runner performing his duties finds evidence of an anomaly from thirty years before and he decides to investigate it.

I love very much most versions of: Blade Runner (1982) and so I had both high and low expectations for this movie. My expectations were high because it was a very rich and finely detailed world with nearly endless source of pathos. I knew that it would take a true idiot to ruin that setting. My expectations were low because I know that Hollywood is full of great idiots.

The plot reminds me of the streets of North Omaha: so full of holes that the best you can do is grit your teeth and hope that a decent stretch is ahead. It is like the streets also in that it never gets better.

It is a visual treat with very high production values and a respectable cast. The sound quality on the print that I saw was mediocre. I did not notice any spelling or punctuation errors in the credits. I am at a loss for more good things to say of it.

3.8/16

This is available for viewing for free with commercials for only one or two more days. I had meant to watch it and post here of it nearly two weeks ago but I have limits and repeatedly had to pause it and come back to it on a new day because it was so mindnumbingly mundane.

[LawrenceA]

One of my favorite films of the past decade.

[Masha]

One of my favorite films of the past decade.

Our tastes seem to be at odds lately.

[LawrenceA]

Our tastes seem to be at odds lately.

It's fine. I learned long ago that the internet is the place you go to find out everything you like actually sucks.

[EP Millstone]

It's fine. I learned long ago that the internet is the place you go to find out everything you like actually sucks.

. . . or that you have better taste than a lot of people.

[TikiSoo]

Our tastes seem to be at odds lately.

It's fine. I learned long ago that the internet is the place you go to find out everything you like actually sucks.

I don't know what you mean by that, Lawrence.....but I couldn't get through the first BLADE RUNNER movie so I admire you BOTH!
I'm not into action films and found it lit rather dimly. I couldn't follow the story at all and was completely lost after the first 45 minutes & gave up.

I hate missing out on something everyone else loves & thinks is great.

[Masha]

Our tastes seem to be at odds lately.

It's fine. I learned long ago that the internet is the place you go to find out everything you like actually sucks.

I learned that circa 1982 when I was first introduced to: Usenet. Those were the wild and wooly days!

[Masha]

I don't know what you mean by that, Lawrence.....but I couldn't get through the first BLADE RUNNER movie so I admire you BOTH!
I'm not into action films and found it lit rather dimly. I couldn't follow the story at all and was completely lost after the first 45 minutes & gave up.

I hate missing out on something everyone else loves & thinks is great.

I am mildly astounded each time some person who does not regularly watch science fiction movies likes: Blade Runner (1982). It is not just that the general setting is a common trope but there are concepts which need time to filter into the subconscious and are not readily accepted or understood on first exposure.

The: "disenchanted cop in a dystopian society" is fairly standard character. Charlton Heston in: Soylent Green (1973) is perhaps the most well known example because that is a nearly-mainstream movie. A viewer familiar with it from movies, books or philosophy will automatically pick up clues to the details of that character's backstory. This creates a richer and more nuanced experience than if the viewer has only a passing acquaintance with such a character and is taking it at face value only.

Are you familiar with the: "uncanny valley"? It is that most people feel at least a little unease when exposed to a robot, CGI-animated character or other 'being' which looks very nearly human but is not. A viewer with little experience with science fiction assumes the replicants in: Blade Runner (1982) are simply advanced humans and can be dealt with in human terms. It is no big deal to them. Viewers who are steeped in science fiction worlds are subconsciously unsettled by the "looks human but is not" and this adds to the experience of watching the movie.

It does at all times make me wonder what situations or events in pre-history created increased chances of survival if a person was afraid of things which closely resemble humans but are not human. Evolutionary pressure is the only thing which reasonably explains that widespread trait.