Year: 1989
Rating: 7.5 / 10
This is one of those movies that makes you ask-- What IS a good movie? What makes a movie good, worth watching? Is it technical skills; Acting, budget, quality? Is it about storyline and development? Is it determined by how much fun you have with it?
To me, what makes a good movie is the latter. While the former enhances the experience, sometimes a movie that isn't technically good can still be more entertaining and interesting than a technically good film.
Things (1989) is a film like that for me. On every level, it's not a good film. The quality of the film is bad, the audio is messy and looks off, the line deliveries themselves are very poorly done and not fitting at all, and the special effects of the film are not stellar and overall are just laughable. However, all of this said, I enjoyed it. I think there was a huge charm to it in a strange way; it was so laughably bad in earnest that it was enjoyable to watch it. The fact the footage is grainy and off makes it in a way more enjoyable, because I think an even clearer image of the blood, gore and the titular "Things" would make them look more ridiculous. With the bad film quality, there's more of an "unknown" factor, which leads you to see things as more creepy than they actually are since your mind fills in the gaps (that being said, the Things are still more funny than anything). The script is pretty straight forward, but you can't help but keep watching, always look forward to the next goofy scene and it keeps you interested.
Year: 2023
Rating: 5.5 / 10
Putting this after Things (1989) is funny to me, but it also is part of the reason why I was thinking of "what makes a movie good?". By all means, this movie is a fine film, and me giving it 5.5 isn't me calling it bad at all. To me though, it's just an okay film, almost in the opposite way that Things is a good film to me.
Without spoiling too much, AoaF is what you get on the tin; straightforward, the aftermath of a fall and subsequent death. The acting was stellar and what made me push it to a 5.5 instead of just a 5. The child in the movie was amazing and convincing, not to mention the adults who have had far more years to perfect this craft. The story was solid enough that things made sense and the focus on the people and their lives was well-done. The music, at times jarring (if you watch, you'll know what I mean), fit it in an eerie way. The cold and closed off scenery reflected well on the plot and the situation. By all means, this is a good film.
With the glowing remarks out of the way, why does this fall flat? It's hard to say fully. In a way, I think personal preference comes into play heavily. Yes, it's good-- but I wouldn't call it remarkable. After watching it, I didn't feel an urge to look into production or anything behind the scenes, nor think heavily about the plot and what it entails. To me, it's good, but it's not super noteworthy. It's well crafted, but it doesn't stick out. It's a movie I'd be suprised if I remember a month from now other than to see the main cast and say, "Oh yeah, I saw that".
I feel like this comes across unessisarily scathing, but I think the simple fact is I don't connect with the film like others might, and that's fine. It's no harsh view on the film or those who enjoy it.
Year: 1987
Rating: 6.0 / 10
This movie is absolutely gorgeous in terms of art. I know that's what drew me to seek it out in the first place, how elegant it looks. However, I feel maybe it's a fact of missing some context that leads me to give it this score. You can argue it's a fault of the movie for not making it clearer, you can argue it's me not knowing enough about the source material. However, either way it did feel a little confusing at times. I think the art way outperformed the story telling from my point of view. Perhaps if I knew more about the source material, it'd make more sense for me, but even things that required knowing source material that I did not have I've at least found story enjoyment over (i.e., the R-Kun OVA I watched before reading the manga, and while there was stuff that was confusing, the story was coherant enough to enjoy). I do still think it's worth a watch for the sheer artistry of the production.
Year: 1964
Rating: 8.0 / 10
This movie has been on my radar for a while. I really liked this one, and the focus on the human aspect with a "supernatural flare" only coming in at the end. The camera work was interesting, adding in a real sense of dread outside during the daytime and a sense of claustrophobia in the depictions of the houses. I think the story is really interesting and holds up over time, and it makes you interested in where it's going for the whole film, even though it's closer to two hours. The characters are portrayed well, giving a strong sense of motive [survival, loyalty, companionship] for each of them.
Year: 2023
Rating: 8.0 / 10
It's funny, I've hated everything this director has done, EXCEPT this, but I remember reading people did not like this one at all (When I saw the directors name, I was like, 'Oh shit, here we go again...'). I think it's a very ambitious movie, with a lot more questions than answers, but I'm actually fine with that. I enjoy the sense of questioning it left me with. Visually, it was stunning (looking at the budget of a certain movie that was inescapable over the summer and this... I don't get how this didn't get more accolades over that, given it's budget was 1/3). Anyway, bitterness aside, I liked the story, what was understood of it from a single watch. While I never felt scared, the dread and anxiety that movie was able to portray is palpable. Sometimes it hit home, even in it's exaggeration, such as the beginning sequence living in such a dangerous area. While shown hyperbolically, it perfectly captured how it feels to live in an unsafe area. The twists and turns are interesting. A 3 hour movie, but it captivated me through it's strange storytelling and fascinating visuals. A close friend of mine reccomended the movie to me when it came out, and it did not disappoint.
This was reconstructed from multiple old posts, so no real date and time are available.