Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 4/4/2022
I watched part of the Academy Awards last week and it occurred to me that in the good old days if I missed a film that was nominated, I would simply go to my local video store and rent it.
Of course, there are no video stores any longer in this area and it’s doubtful Redbox will be offering these films at its kiosks. Catching up on acclaimed films is indeed a pain in the backside and in the wallet.
How many services can you afford? That’s an important question. And in the days gone by no one was charging $6 to rent a single movie.
The following are some of the films which were highlighted by this year’s ceremony and where – until they come out on physical media – you can see them:
You could ask to use a friend’s password, if that’s possible, or you could venture onto the outer reaches of the internet to see pirated copies. That could get a little dicey.
The irony is streaming may be more convenient, but it has not made accessibility to many movies any easier than 20 years ago. In fact, it’s made it much more difficult.
Theatrical distribution of art house films is tough, as many such theaters won’t book them and if they do, the run is not a long one.
The Amherst Cinema, as I write this column, is playing “Licorice Pizza,” the nominated animated shorts, the nominated live action shots, the nominated “Lunana: A Yak in the Classroom,” the nominated “The Worst Person in the World,” and the nominated “Writing with Fire.”
Thank you. This is really the only place in Western Massachusetts where you could see these Oscar-nominated films.
I’ll have to a keep a closer watch on their offerings as well as those offered by Cinemark in West Springfield, which does take a chance on lesser-known films. It’s like going back in time to the 1970s. If you don’t see a film while it’s in the theater, you may have a very hard time ever seeing it again.
Two recent films which I missed in theaters are on Paramount+ – yes, I subscribe to that one – are director Guy Ritchie’s “Wrath of Man” and “Jackass Forever.”
“Wrath of Man” is a somber crime drama with Jason Statham playing a mobster whose son had been killed when the two of them are accidentally at the scene of an armored car heist. Statham’s character, called simply “H” through most of the film, is now determined to exact revenge on the people who killed his son. His efforts bring him into the center of a gang planning a huge theft.
The film is structured as part procedural crime film and part thriller. It doesn’t have any of the black humor his British crime films have, and Statham gives his most cold-blooded performance. I liked the film a great deal.
I can say without hesitation the viewing experience of “Jackass Forever” was not unlike watching viral videos of auto accidents. I felt guilty for watching, frankly, and yet I stayed through every immensely stupid stunt.
What was a surprise was just the amount of male nudity involved and how many of the stunts were centered on a part of the male body known to be highly susceptible to pain. If the amount of nudity seen was in a dramatic film, it would have been rated NC-17 for sure.
If cringing for 90 minutes is your idea of fun, then “Jackass Forever” is your movie.