I love this architecture. So much concrete. Brutalism!

Gorgeous!

That’s how I want my living room to look like! Except the floors.

Anyway, I remember watching this movie at the Cinematheque in the early 90s/late 80s. And the only thing I remember about it is that the architecture was awesome, but the movie itself sucked.

Which is basically what I’m thinking now, too.

This is the final Cronenberg movie in my (re-)watch of his movies. This is very studentey, of course, but the visuals are very interesting.

This is what I want my next flat to look like!

This building Cronenberg is shooting in is just so gorgeous.

There’s not really much of a movie here, but Cronenberg keeps the interest up just by the visuals.

Stereo (Tile 3B of a CAEE Educational Mosaic). David Cronenberg. 1969. ⚂

Robert Redford!

OK, I’m riveted by this movie, but I’m also remembering that I’ve seen Triple Frontier by the same director, which totally sucked.

But that was a Netflix movie, so perhaps that explains the suckitude.

I was thinking “boy, Redford looks kinda harried here… he’s, like, 55?”

WHAT THE FUCK!!?!?

77!?!? He’s the spryest 77 ever in the history of ever!

Now I’ve flipped from “wow, this movie is awesome” to “this movie is elderly abuse”!

The first half of this movie is absolutely fabulous. All his travails on the boat are so gripping, and Redford’s performance is fantastic.

But then we get the last half of the movie, and it’s just… snoresville? It seems like they wrote themselves into a corner, and didn’t know how to make that part interesting. It’s a shame, because they really had something special there.

So I’d give the first half of the movie a ⚅, and the last half of the movie a ⚁, which means we’re at:

All is Lost. J.C. Chandor. 2013. ⚃

This is also by Joseph Kohn! I just watched Rock ‘n’ Roll Revue, which was totally brilliant — every performance perfect.

So I guess this is… part II? It’s even got some of the same performers. But it’s twice as long?

I’m excited! But worried? Perhaps there’s gonna be fillers since it’s longer?

OK, it starts with a longish skit… which is pretty amusing…

Yeah, this DVD transfer is… it’s really really bad. But it’s bad in ways I’ve never seen before! Artefacts are kinda constant? It’s like if someone projected the movie onto a really badly painted, very textured wall… and then somebody filmed that? It’s got more texture than seems possible, is what I’m saying.

Huh:

Rhythm and Blues Revue is a plotless variety show, one of several compiled for theatrical exhibition from the made-for-television short films produced by Snader and Studio Telescriptions, with newly filmed host segments by Willie Bryant.

So perhaps all those artefacts are from the television-to-film transfer?

Anyway, the audio track isn’t bad.

Faye Adams! What a voice.

This one isn’t as tautly edited as Rock’n’Roll Revue, but the performances are really good. They’re hamming it up for the camera, of course, but the music’s fine. Really fine.

So it’s kinda cheesy, and it’s not as good as Rock’n’Roll Revue — it’s got more novelty acts. But the good bits are great.

I missed this woman’s name, but she’s fabulous. And very funny.

Nat King Cole!

I haven’t got any of his albums. I have to fix that. This is amazing.

Rhythm and Blues Revue. Joseph Kohn. 1955. ⚄