The Napa Boys. The concept is, what if the movie Sideways had spawned a series of increasingly terrible, raunchy, American Pie style direct-to-video sequels, and this is the fourth movie in the franchise. It’s full of juvenile gross out humor, bad editing, plot points that get introduced out of nowhere or disappear into nothing, and incredibly cheap production values. But on purpose.

It’s a fun concept, and it wrings some genuinely funny moments out of the absurdity. It also has some fun roles for a few comedians I like: David Wain, Paul Rust, Mike Hanford, etc. Ray Wise and DJ Qualls show up in small parts too.

But it’s still sometimes a hard watch; cause even if a bad movie is bad on purpose, that doesn’t inherently make it good. I’d say it’s worth checking out though if the premise intrigues you. Just know what you’re getting into

I saw 2009’s Redline for the first time tonight, and it was absolutely wild. Completely over the top in the very best way, and absolutely gorgeous.

Kung Pow: Enter the Fist

It’s not cinema, but the kids seem to like it.

About to sit down with Runaway Train in 4K.

Rewatched Arrival. Absolute top-tier movie.

Rewatched Girl with all the Gifts. Still like it.

Rewatched Nope. Still like it.

Finally watched Zombieland: Double Tap. I mostly liked the first one. This one had some good jokes throughout, but the story was a dud and there was an unfortunate amount of boomer humor.

Watched the first 15 minutes of Scary Movie. After at least 14 minutes worth of sexual assault and homophobia, I gave that one a miss.

Good Luck Have Fun Don’t Die

Its a bit of a trip and kind of a strange parody on current society. It holds up well the entire way through even with some of the wild shit going on. Overall it was great fun.

The Lair of the White Worm (1988) dir. Ken Russell. Starring Amanda Donohoe, Hugh Grant, and Peter Capaldi. A very loose adaptation of the 1911 Bram Stoker novel of the same name, which can be reductively summarized as “What if Dracula, but snakes?”.

This was a total unknown for me. Purchased the movie out of a bargain bin at Walmart based on the cover art alone. Did no research on it beyond learning it was a Stoker adaptation, and that it was a surreal horror-comedy with some psychosexual elements. Considering how much I enjoyed Coppola’s adaptation of Stoker’s more famous novel when I finally got around to watching it, that was enough to get me in the door.

In fact, I had such a good time discovering what this movie was, I’m hesitant to talk about all of the things I loved about it. So, I’ll leave it at this: if you like Coppola’s Dracula and you like Rocky Horror Picture Show, there’s a better than good chance you’ll like this. I absolutely loved it. 4.5/5

I watched The Banshees of Inisherin and I really liked it. I went in totally blind. I was a little uneasy that it would turn into a shock horror movie, but from what little I’d heard it wasn’t that sort of film. Literally all I knew is that it was mentioned positively several times in an online thread about something else.
And indeed it did get a little gory and intense, but not to a level that, for example, my mother wouldn’t be able to take. But it was funny, and well-acted, and beautifully shot. And beautiful production design. As a woodworker I want to meet their chair consultant. A lot of the textiles, too…
I liked it enough that I looked up the writer/director, Martin McDonagh, and it turns out he made In Bruges, which I’ve seen but remember nothing of. So I might rewatch that, and I’ve already acquired the “billboard” movie as well.

I watched Columbus last night. Pretty interesting film, it was a debut for the writer/director but you wouldn’t know it based on how good it looks. The choice of locations is superb, and it is shot in such a creative and beautiful way that literally every single scene is a joy to watch. The ambitious cinematography is paired with a very minimalist story, a choice reminiscent of Yasujiro Ozu’s work.

Just generally, I’d say Columbus takes a very Japanese approach to this type of subject matter with long ASL (average shot length), static camera-work and significant use of short, static transition shots of everyday settings and phenomena that stitch together the longer scenes and create some contemplative breathing space between them. It’s very subtle, meticulous film-making that is deeply satisfying and also oddly exciting to watch as someone who loves this type of stuff.

I think it does struggle a little bit on the story side, though. John Cho’s character feels secondary and his acting comes across a little wooden in some scenes. The relationship between his character and that of Haley Lu Richardson, who is very good, also feels a little lacking, though that is often the case with this type of film. Not every relationship is long, rich and full of deep meaning. People come into and go from each other’s lives and there can often be a sort of transactional feel to relationships outside of our core circle of family and friends, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing in this context.

Slow week for me

Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die 4.5/5 - Did a rewatch to see what I missed from the intro, not much is the answer. Still pretty entertaining and fun

All You Need is Kill 4/5 - It’s strange that they made this novel into a movie twice and neither time did they tell the same story. This one is the furthest departure from the source but it looks really cool and keeps the climactic battle. Don’t watch it expecting anything like the movie/book but it is a good watch

Continuing with the Mystery in Paris movie anthology, I watched Mystery at the Louvre Museum. I liked it more than Mystery at the Opera but surprisingly not as much as the Mystery at the Place Vendome movie