I just watched an old movie on television: The Boy With Green Hair. It’s a boring afternoon, with nothing to do, and I thought this old 1948 movie would be a pleasant way to kill an hour or two.

I was wrong.

It moved me to tears.

It stars Dean Stockwell, whose name I recognised from ‘Battlestar Galactica’, as a child actor, which is one reason I decided to watch it. He gives a great performance. Doing a bit of research, it looks like he was dragged into acting by his performer parents. His Wikipedia page quotes him as saying he didn’t enjoy acting. Despite that, he was great in this movie.

It also has ‘Nature Boy’ as its theme song, which I know from ‘Moulin Rouge’.

The movie itself is a powerful anti-war message. The central character is Peter, a war orphan (the aforementioned Stockwell). After being placed with a number of different relatives, he ends up with a kindly old ex-Vaudeville performer he calls “Gramp” (who he’s not actually related to). Gramp’s a sweet old man, played very sympathetically by an actor called Pat O’Brien.

Peter doesn’t know he’s a war orphan. He thinks his parents are still on a trip. (A very long trip!) His school holds a charity drive to collect clothes for war orphans, and one of Peter’s classmates tells him, quite matter-of-factly, that Peter is a war orphan: their teacher said so. Peter rejects this, and they get into a fight. Gramp is there, and he confirms the news.

Later that evening, Gramp is reminiscing to Peter about his old flame Eileen, who loved having “a spot o’ green” around the place (a plant) to remind her of Spring and hope. To cheer Peter up, he promises him a surprise in the morning.

The next morning, after taking a bath, Peter’s hair has turned green. He assumes this is Gramp’s surprise, and it cheers him up. It’s not. Gramp knows nothing about it. In fact, the cause of the green hair is never revealed.

When Peter finds out the green hair is not from Gramp, he hates it and wants to get rid of it. However, they’re unable to figure out a cause, and Peter’s unwilling to “paint” his hair (dye it) or cut it off, so he’s stuck with it.

It’s hard to explain why this movie moved me, without giving away certain important plot points. If you don’t want too many spoilers, watch this trailer and stop reading now, until you’ve watched the movie for yourself.

If, like me, you’re not fussed about spoilers, read on. (Spoiler alert: spoilers make you enjoy stories more)

I have to say there were some plotholes in this movie. It’s far from perfect.

Reading the backstory, it’s based on a short story which doesn’t mention war: it’s originally an allegory for racism, which is reflected in one scene in the movie where Peter’s teacher takes a roll call of students by hair colour. The adaptations to make it an anti-war message were inserted by the director, which makes it a bit clunky and obvious.

And, supposedly, the progressive movie studio executive who signed off on the movie was replaced by a conservative executive during production, who tried to change it into a pro-war movie. The movie is therefore a bit patchy and disconnected at points.

But it has heart. The two central actors, playing Peter and Gramp, carry most of the movie. The actor playing the teacher is also sympathetic and warm.

It's not a great movie, but the central performances are strong and the messages are powerful.

Some sources I found tell of Stockwell talking back to the conservative executive when the executive lectured him in favour of war, so Stockwell supported the message of the movie, even as a 12-year-old boy.

This was just supposed to be an old movie to distract me for an hour and a half on a boring afternoon. Instead, it grabbed my attention for the whole 90 minutes, and moved me deeply. So deeply that I just had to share it with someone. I considered putting this in @kfwyre’s Tildes Pop-Up Movie Event thread, but the 1940s slot is already taken. Not that I’m upset by that. I’m very glad I watched this movie, for its own sake.

Falling Down

Runtime: 1h 53m

Budget: $25m

Tomatometer: 75% 6.8/10 (Audience 88% 4/5)

IMDB Rating: 7.6 / 10 - 188k ratings (Top 1000 7.5/10)

Language: English

Streaming: Vudu , Amazon

Michael Douglas plays Foster, a man with 1950's era mentality who is having a really bad day. He just wants to make it across LA in time for his daughters birthday. The increasing setbacks he faces from modern 1990's society see him increasingly break down into a string of violence episodes. But his violence is guided by his 1950's era set of morals. And in spite of Fosters nerdy 50's appearance, he is surprisingly good at the modern violence thing. Does the movie glorify the violent anti-hero? Not so fast.

Robert Duvell plays Prendergast. A retiring cop on desk duty who is the only who connects the violent dots together. But because he is a retiring desk jockey who is clearly too afraid to take on a real cops job, almost no one listens to him. Almost no one. There is one person on the force who knows Prendergast has a lot more going on than people realize.

This story is an interesting analysis of the male psyche under pressure. Foster reacts with anger and aggression. Predergast bends to the point of being a doormat, and he just lies there and takes it.

What the movie uncovers at the end, is there is a middle ground, that handling life's setbacks sometimes requires patience and grace, and sometimes requires assertiveness and boldness, and that wisdom is knowing what you can and should try to change and what you can and should try to accept.

This movie has always been a favorite of mine, because I love a little bit of the old ultra violence, and I love an unusual ending that makes you rethink about the entire movie with a new perspective.

But what is really interesting, is this movie touches on the 1950's era males ideals and expectations men are still raised with today, and the outrage that arises when that sense of entitlement goes unfulfilled.

Out of Death

Runtime: 1h 36m.

Budget: Unknown. Shot over 9 days.

Tomatometer: 0% - "The cryptic title is about the only intriguing facet of this formulaic cat-and-mouse thriller."

IMDB Rating: 3.2 / 10 - 4.9k ratings

Language: English

Streaming: Hulu , Amazon

This movie is bad. The acting is bad. The dialogue is bad. The plot is bad. But it's a good kind of bad, a watchable kind of bad.

This is the last movie Bruce Willis stared in before he announced his retirement due to Aphasia. He filmed all his scenes in one day. It's not easy watching a great actor brought down low. But even on his worst day, he still out acts all the other actors.

Just finished watching it, and while I’m sure I need to process and reflect a little more on it, I can at least give my initial impression: meh.

I came in not expecting much because, to be honest, the trilogy didn’t end as good as it started. I was pleasantly surprised that it didn’t end up a kaleidoscope of colors either, since the promotional material seemed to insinuate it might take after some of the other Wachowski’s works.

The first hour felt like a rehash of the first Matrix. While the callbacks were good fan service, it felt uninspired and something I would expect from a Disney franchise. The second half seemed to lose the thread and the plot got rambled through to the point that you forget what the whole point of the movie was supposed to be. It basically ends as a…love story? The deeper philosophical elements of the trilogy were eschewed for predictable tropes and artificial suspense.

The characters lacked depth, and I was particularly disappointed in the new incarnations of Agent Smith and Morpheus. The younger actors lacked the gravitas that the original duo brought to the screen. The bated, deliberate delivery that provided weight to the characters was replaced by trite, pithy lines that don’t do the original characters any justice. Neil Patrick Harris is also better suited for a comedic role rather than a dramatic one, and his character failed at both in this movie.

The movie had a decent environment and art direction, but it got ruined by overuse of CGI and green screen. The action scenes either had stilted fights with aging actors, or had so much action that they lacked any real sense of danger (there were scenes with throngs of people attacking the main characters with bullets never seeming to hit anyone important).

I had hoped that after 20 years there would be some real contribution to the canon, but this movie answered enough questions to explain why Neo is alive, without contributing any further philosophy into the series. It ends with a clear open ending for future installments, which would only serve as cash grabs.

The movie started off with many meta-references to itself, making a joke about sequels being unoriginal. I had hoped this self-awareness would have translated to either a new level of meta-discussion or at least an attempt to not fall into the folly of most half-assed sequels. Apparently that line was solely a joke, and it cheapens the movie because of it.

Was it a good movie? Not really. Was it a bad movie? Not necessarily. It was entertaining in the same way a Michael Bay explosion is entertaining, but those looking for intellectual stimulation will be left empty-handed.

I just finished watching it (pirated, because I wasn’t going to give Disney money after all the controversy regarding Taiwan).

Uhh, it.. was bad? I mean I’m usually pretty positive especially about all the Disney remakes, and I liked the general darker mood of this Mulan version. But what’s with the 90s era cgi physics?

Also, and I get the Mulan plot line is entirely about how ridiculous gender-gating is in general, but whew there is a serious case of The Stupids around a lot of the tradition, much more so than in the original. This felt very tropey to me, convenient idiocy. I mean yes okay this takes place 1200 years ago but …

I appreciated not seeing mushu, but the Phoenix could have just been a lot lot lot more subtle.

And I’ve never seen snow look so much like party foam. This is the same studio that produced Frozen?!

Man, this movie felt like it was written, produced and directed in 1998. I would say I watched the wrong one by mistake but the original was actually good for its time.

What happened, did I miss something? This could have been an amazing movie full of great music, awesome choreography, and a super dark take on the original. Instead, I watched the equivalent of a machine learning exercise in turning anime to live action.

OK, well. Dune then. Sort of a live review, as I watch. Some more in-depth thoughts at the end. Mildly spoilery, but not if you know the story already.

Fair warning, I will not be judging this film on purely it's own merits. It exists in the world and also in the world are Lynch's film (for reference I consider the spicediver fanedit, Alternative Edition Redux, to be the canonical version of that), the Sci-Fi channel miniseries and obviously the books. Yes, even the prequels - the first of which is one of the worst books I've ever read and I've read The Davinci Code. Anyway, on to actually watching it...

Well, it's pretty. One problem is that no matter how good the design is - and the design is VERY good - it's just not as good as Tony Masters and David Lynch building on material from Mobius and HR Giger. This film is obviously heavily influenced by them though.

In my head Caladan is a lush, fertile, welcoming world. It's been colour graded to grey and desaturated. Feels wrong.

He's lifting both shots and dialogue from Lynch's film. That's good. My brain is filling in the missing bits of internal monologing.

Nice implementation of Chakobsa. I like that.

Hans Zimmer can just fuck off with that big stupid honking sound he shoehorns into everything. So annoying.

This film is missing Roger Deakins. I mean you can say that about a lot of films but this one especially. It is beautifully shot but Deakins would have taken it to another level.

Why are people whispering at each other over like ten metre distances? I hate that. Speak up, you're outside, it's windy and you're far apart! It's not moody if you obviously can't even hear each other. Yes, small thing, but things like that which upset your suspension of disbelief are jarring.

You can't put a crysknife away without it tasting blood. Pffft. That's just ignoring lore for the sake of it. Five seconds would be all it took to do that bit. We could have had one fewer lingering shots on the knife itself instead. As an aside, the Shadout Mapes as a means to explain bits of Arrakeen and Fremen lore to the Atredies (and us!) is horrendously under-used.

The ornithopters in this movie are badass. There is an in-universe reason for them that I can't remember.

I wonder how much of this works if you haven't seen Lynch's version (which has much more internal thoughts of characters) or read the books?

Stellan Skarsgard is channelling Apocalypse Now era Brando pretty hard and that is in no way a bad thing. His Baron is absolutely superb, probably the best part of the whole film. Piter de Vries is nowhere near weird/creepy/insane enough. Leaving out Feyd-Rautha is a mistake, he's the anti-Paul and even though Sting did a relatively terrible job in Lynch's film, that doesn't mean he's not important.

Zimmer teasing elements of Eno's original theme is a nice touch as well.

You know what's cool? What's cool is that at certain key moments I get lines from the book appearing in my head, from whichever scene is happening. That's a really good sign. I haven't read Dune for years.

So OK, overall, it's not as bad as I was expecting. It's pretty. It's stylish. It's annoyingly colour graded but what isn't these days? But this film doesn't add much to the telling of Dune over the Lynch's film or even, really, the Sci-Fi miniseries. Villeneuve is obviously a fan of both books and Lynch's movie and what he has made is good. A lot of what he's made is basically just a remake of what Lynch did, and I don't just mean because both films are based on the same book - there are multiple direct lifts straight from Lynch's film, and that is perfectly OK. But it's not about what is here, it's about what isn't.

Because it leaves a lot out - it's shallow where it should be deep, it's straightforward where it should be mystical, simple where it should be weird. It's 8-10 characters when it should be twice that and worst of all a lot of it seems to rely on viewers knowing the lore rather than having time to explain it: and all that is because film is the wrong medium for this story.

It misses out on exploring much about any of the characters simply because nobody has enough screentime to go into their motivations, which are generally multifaceted and complex - I do appreciate Villeneuve not wanting to have characters stand around expositioning at each other (MCU, looking at you), or doing a voiceover of character's thoughts like Lynch did, but that means you really need to spend time with them so they can show us what they're thinking, not tell us. "Show don't tell" is good filmmaking but it takes time.

For example, Paul and Jessica get most of the screen time but we don't really learn much about them. Because you need a lot of lore to contextualise their motivations - Jessica's actions and desires need to be placed in the wider context of her relationship to Leto and the Bene Gesserit and their plans and while Villeneueve does try to do that a bit, it's one or two lines with Leto and one rushed (literally, they're doing a walk-and-talk) conversation in which Helen Moahim mentions the Kwisatz Haderach and little more.

The Guild are barely even mentioned. You see some lower level navigators but you don't know who they are if you don't already know who they are. The Guild's influence is so important to so much of what happens in Dune but if you didn't know they existed already I'm not sure you'd leave this film knowing there was a spacing guild at all. Same goes for the Emperor and the Landsraad, they hardly come up at all. The thing about Dune is that it's not just about Paul. Paul is important but he's really just the pointy end of a lot of long-game players and systems and their interactions. That doesn't really come over in Villeneuve's film. Also it's not really a structural issue but I'd have loved to have seen more of the Heighliners. A Navigation sequence would have been fun too.

The thing is, Dune deserves a TV series. A high budget one like Game of Thrones. I want an hour on Caladan, learning about the Atredies. I want an hour on Kaitain learning about the Padishah Emperors and the Bene Gesserit. Same with the Harkkonens. I want to be 3 or 4 episodes in before I even see Arrakis. Movies are great for telling short stories, maybe novellas at best. But big, long, complicated books need to be on TV where they can spread out, take their time, develop characters and fill in backstory and motivations.

Overall, 7/10 and I really hope the second movie gets funded because stopping here would be even worse. It's worth watching but don't expect a great deal underpinning what is still a very beautiful film. I could have written that same sentence about Bladerunner 2049, thinking about it.