I got this bluray because I read a joint interview between Alice Diop and Claire Denis in Sight & Sound, and Denis had many nice things to say about this movie.

And I understand why immediately — from the very first scene, it’s kinda gripping, and not completely unlike Denis’ films.

*gasp*

Wow. This movie is fantastic. It’s so … It’s not that it’s a subtle movie, because it tells you exactly what’s going on all the time — but not by having characters explain it at you, as most movies do. There’s these incredible shifts in where we suddenly realise something (like in the scene where Medea is mentioned) and everything shifts and you feel like shouting “DID YOU SEE THAT!” because if you’re looking at your phone while watching this, you’ll feel like nothing actually happened.

It feels like a movie in conversation not only with Claire Denis but Jeanne Dielman: It’s low key, but gripping and exciting.

And the actors in this are amazing. So many wonderful performances. Except, weirdly enough, the central character (but not the protagonist) — the woman accused of killing her child? I just didn’t buy her as the character she was portraying.

But on the other hand… perhaps that’s a very calculated move? Because that’s one of the mysteries of the movie.

Ah! It’s the second best film of 2022 according to Sight & Sound!

Saint Omer. Alice Diop. 2022. ☐ ⚀ ⚁ ⚂ ⚃ ⚄ ⚅

The name of this movie is really familiar — it has to be a major classic or something? But I bought this bluray pretty much at random, and I have no idea what this movie even is.

I assumed that the uniforms in question were military uniforms, but they’re school uniforms instead?

This has to be one of the earliest German talkies, I guess? 1931?

Oooh.

The cinematography is somewhat inconsistent? Some scenes have shots that are totally blown out, and other scenes look meticulous.

That’s my nightmare! Tender scalp.

It’s a fun movie in many ways — it seems to unsentimental and … abrupt? … which seems so unusual for its time. And, of course, everybody on screen being women (and kinda lesbian).

I think my problem with the movie is in how little character the characters have. Well, most of them — Ilse has lots of character, but the rest of them are sort of a melange.

Not even the play within the play really gets things going. There really isn’t much of a plot here, is there? (Not that there’s anything wrong with not having a plot.)

Heh heh:

The film was almost banned in the U.S., but Eleanor Roosevelt spoke highly of the film, resulting in the film getting a limited release in the US in 1932–33.

The last fifteen minutes of this is amazing — it’s unexpected, and really emotionally affecting. The rest of the movie is… It’s OK? It’s interesting and everything, but doesn’t quite fire on all cylinders.

Mädchen in Uniform. Leontine Sagan. 1931. ⚃

Well, the first movie was mid, but sequels are always better, eh? Eh? EH?

Trixie’s Motel?

Very subtle logo.

This looks incredibly early-digital — blown out highlights and bad white balance. I had to check the date, but it’s really 2016 and not 2001. Did they film this with a vintage 2001 Canon?

Perhaps the director just hates Tom Cruise and wants him to look as awful as possible — but without making it obvious that that’s what he’s doing?

This movie looks so ugly — it’s just hard to get past that. But it’s not that bad otherwise? The plot makes more sense than in the first movie, and there’s fewer long stretches of unnecessary exposition.

I’m kinda enjoying this on an 80s cheapish action movie basis — it could, like, have been a Golan-Globus production.

OK, I take that back. It’s been really boring for the last half hour.

Man, that last hour was just … without interest? The first movie had a lot of fun action pieces, and this totally didn’t. And I understand why Cruise wanted to do the first one — it’s a fun character to do, and he really leaned into it. And in this movie, he was sleepwalking through the movie. Perhaps he just had a multi movie contract that he couldn’t get out of?

Right:

While Jack Reacher was intended to be a tent-pole for a film series, a sequel was initially reported to be unlikely due to its lackluster run at the North American box office.[6] In February 2013, a sequel became more likely after the film surpassed a gross of $200 million worldwide.

It took them years to decide to do another movie, and only after it grossed a lot abroad.

Sheesh.

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back. Edward Zwick. 2016. ⚁