Reviews

I first saw this film in the 98-minute U. S. release version back in the day. The print was shoddy (faded colors, etc.) and the cheesy English dubbing drove me crazy. Since then, I've become a big Argento fan--"Suspiria" turned the corner for me a year later--and have always been interested in revisiting "Deep Red" in its original 126-minute European cut.

I could hardly believe it was the same movie I saw (and hated) in 1976! Next to "Suspiria," I think it may be Argento's most visually dazzling film. I was, however, confused by the mix of subtitled Italian dialogue and English dubbing--sometimes within the same scene!

Does anyone know whether this was deliberate (it certainly adds to the sense of disorientation Argento achieves), or a result of slicing-and-dicing extant prints of the film to restore the original Euro cut?

I'm surprised more people haven't commented on the laughably bad English dubbing of (seemingly) 90% of the cast. Even Mrs. Chuck, Jill Ireland, appears to have been dubbed.

The credits state that the movie was filmed on location in NYC and at the "Dino de Laurentiis studio." What they didn't say was that Dino's studio was in Italy, which might explain why so many of the supporting roles went to Italian actors who couldn't speak a lick of English. Pretty funny.

That said, it still plays a bit better than it did in 1972 when it opened a mere eight months after "The Godfather." I'm surprised that no one has bought the remake rights and given Peter Maas' book the "A" list treatment it deserves in the post-"GoodFellas"/"Sopranos" era.

Does every part of Jordan Peele's new movie work?

Nope.

Did it hold me from start to finish?

Yep.

Was I dazzled by Peele's increasingly sophisticated filmmaking chops?

Uh-huh.

And the wildly charismatic Brandon Perea steals the movie.

Can't wait to see what Peele (and Perea) do next.

For starters, this isn't the cute kidflick it's being advertised as.

In fact, I wasn't sure whether I even liked it for the first half hour. There were so many edgy, discordant notes the trailer/TV commercial hadn't prepared me for that I wasn't quite sure what to make of it.

But after awhile, it dawned on me that what Tatum and Carolin were attempting was actually a throwback to the New Hollywood era: a quirky, character-driven piece that makes a lot of seemingly random detours along the way before arriving just where it wanted to, audience be damned. I loved that about it, and it's so (sooooo) rare in today's cookie-cutter, increasingly homogenized Hollywood films.

Tatum obviously learned a thing or two working with his "Magic Mike"/"Logan Lucky" director Steven Soderbergh!

I almost decided to pass after discovering that it apparently doesn't exist .(Not a single review on Rotten Tomatoes? Really?) But I'm glad I sat down and watched because it's far better--without being "great." or "destined for classic and/or cult status"--than I assumed it was on the basis of its obscurity.

I appreciated the fact that the actors playing high schoolers actually looked young enough to BE in h.s. (In fact, most actually looked too young to play seniors. Lol.) The lead, Vahe Sevani, is immensely appealing, although I'm puzzled why the script made him an L. A. transplant rather than a New Yorker because he has much more of an "East Coast Vibe."

The movie is a muddled mess that not even a handful of decent performances can save.

But the most depressing thing about it was the physical deterioration of Emory Cohen. He's barely recognizable as the same actor who was so terrific (and pretty adorable) in "Brooklyn." Is it a medical condition that's responsible for his frightening weight gain? Like the character he plays in this film, he clearly needs help.

Sad on every count.

Why no mention of Aldo Ray's small role in the film?

Ray's involvement gave the movie an extra degree of notoriety at the time of its release, and was the sole reason (somewhat sheepishly, lol) I went to a porn theater to see it back in the day.

"Comedy" is not a genre American arthouse audiences traditionally associate with Romanian cinema. But this out of left field sleeper is very much a comedy--and a perfectly scaled, beautifully executed and acted one. I was reminded of the early films of Jim Jarmusch (particularly "Stranger Than Paradise" and "Down by Law").

There was also a soupçon of Milos Forman's Czech New Wave movies like "The Fireman's Ball." I went into this expecting, well, not much of anything (I'd never heard of the director before, and knew that it had a 2016 copyright date which didn't inspire much confidence), and was pleasantly surprised to say the least.

Somebody should buy the remake rights. I could definitely picture an American version set in, say, Atlanta with three African-American leads as the lugheads who lose a winning lottery ticket.

It's pretty obvious that Ryan Murphy was aiming to make an American equivalent to Bertrand Bonello's brilliantly impressionistic Yves Saint Laurent biopic ("Saint Laurent"). But as usual with the ham-fisted Murphy, he misses by a country mile.

That said, it's "watchable" in a camp/guilty pleasure sort of way.

And I suppose it could have been even worse.

I was grateful there were only 5 episodes, and that they were as relatively brief--certainly by Netflix standards--as they were.

And I'm giving it one more star then it deserves for not casting Murphy's favorite, supremely unctuous boy-toys (Ben Platt or Darren Criss).

How does this turkey have a 100% RT rating?

I get Dick Roeper--he's a hack, and it's a Chicago production after all--but the rest?

For shame.

Awful, awful movie: terrible acting, pedestrian execution and a fatally dumb script that could have been written by a precocious 14-year-old who saw too many direct-to-DVD "Se7evn" rip-offs.

The whole thing reeks of amateurishness.

There's a germ of a good satirical idea here (and some really good actors. All of whom are wasted or misused), but the filmmaking is so atrocious that it's literally painful to watch, even with a micro running time.

Among the worst--if not THE WORST--movie(s) ever made.

Beautifully cast w/ some enormously appealing young actors, this is a minor, but worthy addition to the "hang-out" genre (e.g., "Everybody Wants Some!!," "Dazed and Confused," "American Graffiti," "Diner," et al). My only real complaint was that it wasn't long enough at 93 minutes. I for one would have enjoyed spending another night w/ this group of friends. Check it out on Amazon Prime.

That line--spoken by Christopher Lloyd near the end of this movie--beautifully captures this film's gonzo sensibility. It feels like an "Instant Classic," a movie people (especially "boys" of all ages) will be quoting, and speaking of in reverent tones, for decades to come. I just hope they don't ruin its sui generis quality with a sequel. Or sequels. If any movie can bring people back to multiplexes in sizable numbers, it's "Nobody."

Watching this film (with intense pleasure) again many years later, I was struck by the absurdity of Vittorio Storaro not receiving an Oscar nomination for Best Cinematography. WTF!?!?! It's one of the most visually resplendent films ever made, and Storaro is one of the greatest cinematographers who ever lived. This is also among FF Coppola's most personal films and, I think, one of his finest. Deserves to be a lot better known than it is today.

There's a lot to admire here. The cast is uniformly excellent, especially the unknown young actors who genuinely look like high school students. And it's a handsome production despite what I'm guessing was a micro indie budget. The biggest problem I had with the film was Sophie herself (and Jessica Barr who plays her and is every bit as annoying as her screen personage). The character is a real pill, and I grew annoyed with her within the first 15 minutes. Accordingly, the 85-minute run time felt a lot longer. Maybe high school girls who see the film (will they even know it exists?) will have a different reaction. Overall it reminded me of an Eliza Hittman ("Never Rarely Sometimes Always") movie--esp Hittman's debut, "It Felt Like Love"--but not as good.

Although it was in production well before the current global pandemic hit, Chad Hartigan's love story plays quite effectively as a Covid metaphor. Olivia Cooke and Jack O'Connell are both terrific, even though only Cooke is allowed to speak w/ her native (Brit) accent, lol. Moving and even borderline profound at times, it's a film worth seeking out wherever you can find it.

What helps elevate this 1985 Patsy Cline biopic--and why I think it's an even better country music bio than "Coal Miner's Daughter"--is the combustible sexual chemistry between Jessica Lange and Ed Harris. They make you believe that Patsy and Charlie can't keep their hands off each other. Their mutual attraction burns a hole through the screen. I think this is director Karel Reisz's best film, and deserves to be much better known than it is today. Lange, of course, is unimpeachable. She was (and remains) one of America's greatest living actors.

While dotted with isolated moments of remarkable beauty and emotional acuity, the film mostly plays like an attempt at another "Myth of the American Sleepover" (David Robert Mitchell's wonderful 2010 debut), albeit one heavily influenced by the work of David Lynch. It's a difficult film to "get into," but I was ultimately moved by its dreamy, elliptical opacity. I'm just not sure whether it really adds up to a coherent work.

Sensationally entertaining and very evocative of flashy/trashy vintage Brian DePalma. Carey Mulligan (who looks curiously like Kim Cattrall here) gives the best female performance of 2020. I hope Oscar notices. In the pre-Covid days, an indie distrib like A24 could have turned this into a "specialized" blockbuster. Not sure what fate awaits it at this point in time. (And it's definitely one bats**t crazy Xmas Day wide release, lol.)

This is an absolutely wonderful movie and deserves a plethora of Oscar nominations (including for all three lead actors). Why in the world did this sit unreleased since premiering at the 2019 Toronto Film Festival? And why/how did a major distributer (Paramount, Fox-Searchlight, Netflix!) NOT pick it up? I'm stumped. And depressed. Maybe it's even worse out there for non-franchise/comic book movies than even I thought it was.

I saw this on 42nd Street at the time of its original release and thought it was the worst movie I had ever seen. It still might be. Could someone explain to me why Milligan has a cult following, and why (heaven help us!) TCM actually showed two of his films last month?

This is a fascinating movie for multiple reasons.

The up-the-establishment anti-heroes are cops, not anti-war protesters. F&B's equal-opportunity-offending was embraced by the same audiences who just a few years earlier were preaching peace-and-love. Its mix of slapstick comedy and brutal violence would set the template for dozens (hundreds?) of cop/buddy movies in the ensuing decades (the "Bad Boys" series for starters.). Few, though, have done it as well. It's funny/ironic. While a major hit at the time, there weren't any follow-up pairings by Caan and Arkin. If the same film had been equally successful 20+ years later, it would have surely launched a mini-franchise. Of course, studios weren't sequel-obsessed in the New Hollywood Era, thank heavens. To dwell on how politically incorrect it plays to millennials in 2020 is missing the point. It's an energetically directed, beautifully shot (by the great Laszlo Kovacs who performed similar SF magic in "What's Up, Doc?" two years earlier) and superbly performed ENTERTAINMENT. I loved it in 1974 when I was a high school junior, and I still (kind of) love it today. P.S.= In the scene where Caan rides a motorcycle through heavy traffic, it's laughably obvious that it's not him in the long/medium shots. Valerie Harper's Mrs. Bean had to have been an inspiration for Gilda Radner's Roseanne Roseannadanta, right?