Oh, that’s why it’s called “the good house”… I’m so smart S M R T.

I’m not quite sure how I ended up with this movie — it’s probably just because it’s got Sigourney Weaver? It seems like a very undramatic drama — the kind of movie you don’t see much these days (except from streaming services). But this is apparently a real made-for-cinema movies, in 1.85:1 and all.

Oh, this is one of those movies where a character looks at the camera and talks to the audience… but it’s not a comedy! I think! Weaver is playing an alcoholic real estate agent?

Yes, lots of these shots.

What’s with the colour grading? Everything is really desaturated and dull… perhaps things are gonna pop once she gets all non-drinkey and stuff.

It looks so nice and warm on that beach…

Aww.

I’m quite enjoying this movie — it’s so down to earth… and I’m not able at all to guess the critical reception. I could see this both being totally panned (because it’s so old fashioned and sincere), and also being praised (because it’s Sigourney Weaver like duh).

Oh, people like it.

I mean, I know that this isn’t Mexico, but c’mon.

That’s more like it.

This isn’t my kind of movie at all, really, but it’s a very enjoyable movie to watch. It shouldn’t work, but it’s sensitively directed and has amazing actors. And there’s nothing annoying — no overbearing soundtrack or nothing.

I’m adding one ⚀ to what I was originally going to give this because it plays Down to Zero by Joan Armatrading over the end titles.

The Good House. Maya Forbes/Wallace Wolodarsky. 2021. ⚄

I’ve basically watched all the super-hero movies, but the last few have been so boring that I’m going to stop, I think. I’m giving this a chance, because I… forgot that the the first one was tedious.

(I should look up my blog before buying blu rays.)

You’d think that CGI smoke was a solved problem, but that’s what’s looking fakest in this sequence…

It’s pretty amusing, but… it looks like they’ve told the CGI people “make it look really big, but generic”. It’s all just a bit dull graphically.

It doesn’t exactly move too slowly on a scene by scene basis, either — most of the scenes are just fine. But we’re one hour in, and it feels like we should be further ahead in the storyline by now.

I was thinking — no movie should be longer than 90 minutes? Unless that movie is Noli me tangere or Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles. Most movies aren’t. I mean, the vast majority. This is 130 minutes, and there really isn’t any good reason for being that long, even if each scene is perfectly unannoying.

The first Shazam movie was well-received, and this one was panned:

So, of course, I think that this movie is better than the first one. The first one bored me silly, while this is more entertaining — probably mostly due to the presence of Helen Mirren and Lucy Liu.

I find the audience score amusing — better on the second than the first, while the first movie did 3x bigger box office, and the second movie didn’t earn back the budget. People voting on rottentomatoes are mostly brigaders and trolls, I guess?

The professional reviewers are more in tune with the audience than these trolls.

Nice dragon!

Heh heh.

We’re now at 95 minutes, and it really, really feels like this movie should be over already. We’ve had some nice fights and all… but there’s still half an hour to go?

[time passes]

Well, that was another big huge fight, and it was OK. But the entire movie just feels… not that necessary, perhaps? Perhaps audiences went “another one? do we need this?” and they answered “no”. Which is the correct answer.

But it’s really not that bad a movie. It’s way too long, but it’s amiable.

Shazam: Fury of the Gods. David F. Sandberg. 2023. ⚂

Whoa! Fast boat!

I think this may be the last Rock Hudson/Jane Wyman Douglas Sirk movie I haven’t seen before? (This is a Criterion blu ray.)

But there’s a whole bunch of Sirk movies I haven’t seen yet. I’ve only seen, like, one third of those? Why doesn’t somebody release a Sirk box set? Hop to it!

Movies like this raise unrealistic expectations for hairdo preservation while driving convertibles!

Hospitals were nice in those days…

But this restoration is rather odd. Were there problems with the source material? The graininess isn’t unusual, but there’s er chromatic aberrations in a lot of the scenes. That is, sometimes there’s a shimmery orange outline that’s floating around…

Hm, it says here in the liner notes that it was created from an interpositive, so I guess the negatives were lost? (Or in bad shape.) An interpositive is copied from a negative to create new negatives, so it could theoretically be second generation.

So the plot is that Wyman’s husband (who was a total saint) died because Hudson (who was a total asshole) bogarted the life-saving equipment. So I’m guessing Wyman is going to end up marrying Hudson? That’ll be a properly melodramatic melodrama.

Hah! I knewed it!

Is that Agnes Moorehead? She’s wonderful, anyway.

Symbolism!

Oh, is this some cult movie? Seems like the good doctor was the leader of a do-gooder cult of some kind…

Wow, this isn’t going where I thought at all. I mean, it is, but not in the particulars.

This is the creepiest movie I’ve ever seen! I mean, the plot is satisfyingly preposterous, but like wow. It’s all gaslighting, but the guy doing the gaslighting is… the hero?

I guess it’s a bit ambiguous whether we’re supposed to go “aww” or “what’s the number for 911!”, but it’s… it’s creepy. I suspect Sirk is aiming for the latter?

Suddenly a scene that’s all fuzzy… I mean, image quality wise.

I’d never have guessed that a Sirk movie could be too over-the-top, but this is?

I’m not sure. It’s beautifully shot, and with very enjoyable performances from everybody involved, especially Hudson and Wyman, of course. It’s enjoyable to watch. But it’s not one of Sirk’s better movies, in my opinion. It’s just a bit to leaden, and the payoff isn’t as magnificent as this obsession seems to warrant.

Magnificent Obsession. Douglas Sirk. 1954. ⚃