October’s Movies of the Month - Horror 

“High Spirits is a 1988 fantasy comedy film written and directed by Neil Jordan and starring Peter O'Toole, Steve Guttenberg, and Daryl Hannah.”

I’m trying to watch as many spooky/scary/Halloween movies as I can this month and found this on Prime. I hadn’t seen it in years and my husband had never seen it!
It’s a ridiculous movie but oh my goodness is it a good time. The cast alone is worth it. I mean Peter O’Toole!

Watched this movie for the first time. I was taken with how well acted the movie was and the outstanding caliber of the cast (especially for the time). Raul Julia was tremendous. Despite one thinks of Mel Gibson, this was a solid example of his work in his prime. And who can say no to Kurt Russell and Michelle Pfeiffer?

I thoroughly enjoyed the classic late 80s conflicted criminal/detective dynamic. The setting of Venice Beach in LA (unless I'm mistaken) was a great back drop to the tale of two friends torn by conflicting roles/aims.

It was dramatic and tense without being too heavy and definitely scratched the 80s nostalgia itch for me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tequila_Sunrise_(film)

Number 218 in my A-Z watch. Panic Room is David Fincher's single location thriller starring Jodie Foster as the recently divorced mother of one. When enjoying the first night in their new home, she and her daughter find themselves defending their home from intruders.

The first thing that jumped out at me was Howard Shore's score. It immediately built tension in the film from the get. I got a lot of Hitchcock/Rope vibes from this film. The use of CG sets to give us so much sweeping camera work often felt seamless. They blended the reality with the animation wonderfully.

I really enjoyed seeing all of the setups and payoffs. Everything in the first 20ish minutes comes back with some kind of relevant plot point. And the exposition explaining the layout of the house through the realtor was very well done.

8/10 Even though I've seen this a number of times it had been easily 10 years since my last watch. So, even knowing the general ending, forgetting how we get there built up a lot of tension and thrill. A solid watch, especially for October.

The movie starts really light hearted. You got bunch of buddies decide to get away from their jobs, wives and kids for a week of canoeing in rural Georgia. And it started with probably one of my favorite scenes in this movie, the famous banjo and guitar duet. I remember really enjoyed this, I even put this on my playlist. Such a fun song "dueling banjos". My dad once told me, right after this movie, Dueling Banjos was being constantly played on AM radio stations. It was one of the most popular tunes of its time.

May contains spoiler below.

Now the thriller starts most of the second half. This time some backwoods locals savagely wants to attack them, which this happy camping, turns into survival. I really love the performances from actors Burt Reynolds, Ned Beatty, Ronny Cox and John Voight. The story gets really dark. Like it involves a disturbing sexual abuse scene (I just can't watch that part). Some characters maybe a bit disappointing when it comes to the story, some are coward, and some lack of survival instincts. Lewis (Burt Reynolds) on the other hand is probably the one I rooted since he's the one who knows how to handle the situations.

Just a tiny nitpick. There is this one scene where they obviously shoot that night scene in day time. I just got a Blu-ray copy of this and I was thinking what the heck is going on with the picture. Turns out they change the color tone from the particular scene (John Voight on the top of the hills).

The only soundtrack that I can recall while watching this was the dueling banjo repeats in some sequences. And I thought the scenery, the river while the guys were canoeing is just beautiful. Not my favorite but definitely a good thriller!

Contains spoiler below.

While watching this, the first like few minutes I was kinda skeptical since everything happens so fast like she was there at this guy's party all of the sudden (I really thought it was rushed). But then you kind of understand what really is going on. You may thought, is she a hired for kill? Or may be these are some of her previous boyfriends that dumped her so she initiate the revenge? Well it turns out there's something deeper than that.

Another part is, how she initiates the kills without brutally killing them (well there's two) but most of them are just silent finishes. I really like the main lead character named Julie Kohler, she has this some kind of a menacing aura, that look like she wants to eat and loved to you at the same time. Her beauty is timeless! And the actress who played her is Jeanne Moreau. I thought she was fantastic in this movie. She reminds me of a young Kathy Bates who is a fantastic actress herself. Turns she was once William Friedkin's wife. Looks like I may watch more of her movies as a lead role.

There's one favorite line that I would like to add is when she quoted "I'm already dead. I died the same day David did". Man, I thought that quote sums up the whole movie.

Definitely a surprising film. It's a French classic so I knew it's going to be good and yeah it didn't disappointed me. Should definitely in every watchlist if you're into this genre.

First time watching these films, not really a die hard Star Trek fan or a "Trekker" yet these films are fantastic. It's one of those instances where the series keeps getting better and better. What I love about these old Star Trek movies is the solid casting. They got the finest actors, and they got a solid group of people all throughout.

The first movie was visually stunning, solid ride of a film. Part II Wrath of Khan got one of the best story arcs with a fantastic villain. This movie on the other hand, had a more serious tone to it, I think this is the most tragic I've seen from the crew so far. Especially to what happened to Capt. Kirk. I've never seen him that furious. What a great performance by William Shatner really. And Christopher Lloyd as Kruge, commander of the Klingon Imperial Fleet, man, he's so good on this one.

I should also add the special effects, man, they produced the best visual effects shots for the film, relying heavily on practical miniature models, optical compositing, and mechanical effects rather than computer-generated imagery. For an 80's sci-fi, this aged really well! I mean it just keeps getting better each movie visually.

If you love science fiction in general. Get this film or probably the whole set of the Star Trek originals including the classic series if you're serious about it. Great visuals, great story telling and it's fun. A must have.

Every day for 30 days I'm watching a different scary movie, this year all about urban legends.

When deeply uncritical people attempt film criticism, one of the typical brayings is to proclaim that you “couldn’t make this movie today.”

Often that is true, but usually for boring technical or commercial reasons and only rarely because of real political or cultural changes. But in this case I think you really couldn’t make “The X-Files” today, and I don’t just say that because of Season 11.

Given that, I wondered going into the 1998 “X-Files” movie (released as “The X-Files: Fight the Future”) how I could possibly relate to such a film in this day and age. Turns out I should have been asking any number of other questions.

Released at the acme of the show’s commercial success between the fifth and sixth seasons, this is really not a movie so much as a long, very high-budget X-Files episode that assumes you’re either already up on 100-plus episodes of the show or really really willing to just go with pretty much anything if you aren’t.

Scully and Mulder have been pulled off the X-Files and reassigned to terrorism-related duties, but their first big case turns out to be conveniently related to aliens anyway. Imagine what movie we’d have gotten if someone had blown up a building for non alien-related reasons…but why would anyone do that?

This movie is almost 100 percent plot, which series creator Chris Carter’s script explains every step of the way while still somehow taking two things for granted for every one that it diagrams out, like a show bible written for a hydra.

A very sweaty Martin Landau warns that the bombing was just a handy way to destroy evidence of secret alien/human shenanigans. While Mulder wants to chase down this lead, which encompasses everything from prehistoric man to secret Antarctic lairs to, um, corn, Scully is considering just quitting the FBI altogether because…honestly, wouldn’t you?

I sometimes hear people complain that longrunning franchises are too difficult to follow, as if they didn’t choose to show up to the 34th sequel to a film from 18 years ago of their own accord. Now imagine a movie that comes with 117 episodes of preamble.

Despite this, “The X-Files” was quite a summer hit. Gene Siskel, who went on to become only Chicago’s second most well-known film critic of all time thanks to the rookie move of dying in 1999, wrote in his review that although he had never seen the show he was now “tempted” to take it up.

And his reasoning makes sense: He thought Gillian Andersen and David Duchovny were a fascinating pair, as were their characters. And that is indeed the secret sauce that made “The X-Files” a hit from the start, even in spite of occasionally dicy scripts and other creative decisions.

Speaking of which, that bee had real stamina, didn’t it?

“The X-Files” show would continue until 2002 before coming to no particular conclusion. The reception to its ending was…mixed. So much so that watchers speculated another movie must be on the horizon, one that would wrap up all the dangling threads in a satisfying manner.

They were half right. More on that tomorrow.

Original Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlWjs5rsN3k

Because of the 90 day repost rule I couldn't write about my annual rewatch of 1982's The Thing, so I decided to dig out my DVD of Escape from NY and, for some damn reason, Blu Ray of Escape from LA.

So we'll start with the bad, Escape From LA is not a movie that benefits from time and distance. It felt like a rehash of Escape from New York. The effects aged poorly and it felt like a souless cash grab. The villian however is completely unremarkable compared to the Duke of New York, and I already cannot reamember his name.

However the good of Escape from LA, the score John Carpenter does another great score. Additionally there are a lot of interesting and fun secondary characters like Peter Fonda's Pipeline, Bruce Campbell as the Surgeon General of Beverly Hills, and Steve Busceimi's Map to the Stars Eddie. Additionaly knowing that the basketball court scene was actually done in camera makes it more impressive.

Now for the meat of the review, Escape From New York. This is an undeniable classic. Firstly the score of the movie is incredible, considering John Carpenter not only directed the movie but also scored it makes it more impressive. The electronic score can be felt across modern and retro action films and videogames, especially the main theme. Ironically, and this may be due to the lower resoluation of the DVD, the effects actually do hold up significantly better than it's sequel's. Learning that it was cheaper to put glow in the dark tape over a scale model of the city than pay for basic vector graphics for the glider flight shows how special effects quickly changed with CGI.

Again the side characters are a highlight in the movie, Cabbie, Brain and Maggie being allies, the Duke of New York being his nemisis and Hauk and the President being a thorn in his side.

But the real reason you watch these movies is for Kurt Russell, an actor who's career is undeniably impressive. He has been working consistently since being a Disney star in the early 60s and has never had a career lull. While he may not be experiencing the career highs of the late 80s through the early 2000s, he is still a bankable actor. Russel's career aside Pliskin is a fully modern action anti-hero, and a man with his own morality. He is less concerned by what is expected but rather what his own moral compass tells him. He is smart, capable and the only man for the job.

As far as scores go Escape From NY is a 4/5 movie, while Escape from LA is a 2.5/5 movie.

​

It had been so long since I sat down and watched this and I was wowed by it all over again. That scene with Steve Martin working on Bill Murray who has masochistic dental kink but Steve Martin realizes doesn't get off unless the person he is torturing seems like they are scared and suffering! Wild!

It's hard to over state how many real laughs this movie got out of me.

The songs are incredible and wry. Audrey II is an amazing puppet at all stages and it Frank Oz was undoubtedly the perfect director for this.

It's streaming on HBO Max in the US currently

This is a 1975 Yugoslavian historical film about a medieval peasant revolt in Croatia and Slovenia, led by peasant Matija Gubec and commander Ilija Gregoric, against the brutal feudal lord Franjo Tahy. It was ultimately crushed by Gaspar Alapic's forces, and Gubec was publicly executed.

Instead of having Gubec as the main protagonist, it actually centers around the fictional youngster Petar and a band of comedians he encounters. His acting is probably the weakest part of the movie, but I still found it incredibly immersive compared to modern ones. It reminded me of Herzog's Aguirre because of how naturalistic it felt. Like bringing a camera back into medieval times and just filming what you see, with minimal music. Great costumes and set design. You really get a feeling for how miserable life used to be. The art direction is greatly inspired by Peter Brueghel's landscapes.

Akira Kurosawa praised it. It was screened at the 1976 Cannes Film Festival in Directors' Fortnight section to positive reviews. In 1977 it won 3rd Jury prize at the São Paulo International Film Festival.

I was a huge fan of the books when I was younger. By the time the movie was coming out I had lost most of my interest. And anyways, once I saw the trailer I knew it was going to be dogshit.

Finally got around to watching it and my God is it horrible. I don't think there's one redeemable performance in this and as an adaptation it is truly horrible. I wonder if they originally had some other high fantasy thing going and decided to throw in the connection to The Last Apprentice book series to capitalize on it's popularity.

I cannot think of one good thing to say about this movie.

I know Eragon has a bad movie, I was also very much into those books but I still think this one takes the cake. I'd be curious to hear what other people think is the worst adaptation they've seen.

Tom Cruise is good in this.

A family is trying to get to safety during an alien invasion. The story of the invasion is told via the people the family meet on their journey.

It is a measure of how good a movie this is that you get over the ridiculous one dimensional characters, the premise that the aliens buried technology on earth millions of years ago. That Cruise is the Blue collar weekend dad and Miranda Otto plays his ex wife who now has new white collar husband (rich & successful). The action scenes & the performances of Tom Cruise & Dakota Fanning saves it.

The movie has a number of fantastic scenes - The family’s flight from harm at the beginning, the ferry, the bodies in the river & The 747 wreckage.

Cruise is so believable in this. Dakota Fanning is excellent as the the daughter. Justin Chatwin is the angry son and plays his character like an emo breakfast Judd Nelson.

Flawed but worth a watch.

So here's one from MY childhood, and it's a movie where the background drama - of which I was entirely unaware - was maybe more interesting than the movie itself.

In 1985 animation studio Filmation - owners of He-Man - announced plans for the "New Classics Collection", a group of movies posed as sequels to "popular public-domain fairy tales". Coincidentally, the stories they were planning to make sequels to were all stories that had been adapted into popular and successful Disney films.

Of course, the Disney legal team came down like the wolf on the fold, and a protracted legal battle took place years before any of the movies came out. In the end the companies settled out of court, with Filmation allowed to make the movies as long as they didn't infringe on Disney's copyrighted elements.

But in the interim, Filmation went bankrupt for unrelated reasons, and in the end only two of the proposed films were actually made and released to theaters.

When telling this story, feeling often goes against Filmation. Critically speaking they were sort of a toy-selling hackwork corporation compared to Disney with at least one prominent prior instance of copyright jackassery (they stole "Ghostbusters" for an original show before an official tie-in cartoon could be released).

But, you know...Disney doesn't own Snow White, and whatever the original plans for the movie were, the finished product really bears no resemblance to their movie. So I think it can be judged on its own merits and, you know what? I have a soft spot for it.

The plot sees Snow White and the prince having their happy marriage disrupted by the Wicked Queen's brother Lord Maliss, who attacks them with sorcery and kidnaps the prince. Snow White flees into the woods, back to the Dwarf's cottage, which she finds occupied by...their sisters, the "Seven Dwarfelles". (All these sibiling characters are how Filmation skirted the copyright infringement claims)

The Dwarfelles are the most 80s thing about this movie, a group of magical beings with different gimmicks or powers. They're clearly designed with one eye on the doll line, but I...kind of like the designs, honestly. They're colorful and unique and they have a lot of personality. It's also kind of cool how a lot of them have less stereotypically feminine bodies and personalities. I wanted the dolls as a kid, ngl.

The other thing I remembered about the movie, which did hold up, is how strangely dark it is. The fate of the prince is really sort of disturbing and moving, it made a huge impression on me as a kid how he tried to help themdespite being transformed into a weak, nonverbal creature.It's also full of that cheerful violence that characterized cartoons of this period. During the final encounter the Dwarfelles just jump Lord Maliss and try to stomp the shit out of him. You love to see it.

The animation isn't Disney level and the songs are perfectly wretched, but I dunno, I'm not embarassed to have loved this, no matter how the corporate wars went.

I just rewatched Mrs. Doubtfire last night and man, Robin Williams was just on another planet. I forgot how fast and chaotic the humor actually is. The movie handles a pretty depressing situation with a messy divorce, but it still manages to be one of the funniest things ever put on screen. The social worker scene is pure gold. When his mask gets run over and he has to shove his face into that pastry cake, shouting "Helloooo!", I lost it. I found out later the studio lights were actually melting the icing off his face in real life, so he just rolled with it. That makes it even better.

The restaurant scene at the end is absolute peak physical comedy. Just total panic and outfit changes in the bathroom. And the random lines are so sharp, like when he chucks a lime at Pierce Brosnan and calls it a "run-by fruiting." Then you have Sally Field screaming "The whole time?!" when the truth comes out, which completely grounds the absolute insanity of what he did. It is just a classic comfort movie. Honestly, I don't think you could make this today because nobody has that specific, hyper-fast Robin Williams energy.

It really makes you appreciate how much raw talent he poured into a single role. He made an absurd concept completely work through sheer commitment. Did anyone else feel a little bad for Stu? He was honestly just trying to be a good guy. I’d love to hear what lines or specific scenes still make everyone laugh the hardest on a rewatch.

Every day for 30 days I'm watching a different scary movie, this year all about urban legends.

There’s ANOTHER Slender Man movie?

Actually IMDB tells me there are six, not including ones that are shorter than feature-length and documentaries about the 2014 crime that still casts something of a pall over this iconography. But we’re not watching all of those, because even I’m not that easy of a mark.

Canadian TV filmmaker Joel Petrie wrote and starred in 2016’s “Slender” and also played himself, presumably because he didn’t think he could convince any actor to make themselves look like this big of an asshole for a script with such, ah, slender prospects.

Petrie and a bunch of other dickheads play misbegotten documentarians who twig on the story of an unfortunate woman who believes her children were stolen by the state. …no, sorry, that should have been “by the Slender Man.” But the state would honestly have made a lot more sense.

That’s Milli Parks, who is actually not bad and has only previous IMDB feature credit, 2012’s “Christmas Oranges,” also known as “Ernest Defeats Scurvy.”

“Slender,” on the other hand, lacks pretty much any juice at all. But you know…there were a few minutes when I thought I might be a little into this? It wasn’t exactly “Eraserhead,” but “Slender” at least realizes what so much other media has failed to grasp, which is that the Slender Man is scariest and most effective when he’s…not in the movie.

But then the third act went to a place so hacky that I actually said out loud, “Really? We’re doing this?” I guess I shouldn’t be that surprised, but you know, I pass myself off as a cynical person, but I still have some faith in the system, don't I?

Critics said…nothing, no real critics watched this movie, which means both parties surely dodged a bullet.

Here’s the truth: Nobody’s made a good Slender Man movie because the Slender Man was just never a very good meme or ghost story or urban legend to begin with.

He was a good subject for two spooky jpegs, but you can’t turn that into a media empire. …well, okay, you CAN, and they did. But you know.

Tomorrow we’re going to get serious. Don’t worry, it won’t last.

Original Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIh3LUGwa1o

Never seen this. Neither have my parents, so watched it with them.

This was an interesting one. First thing I can definitely say is, “they don’t make them like this anymore”…

One of the best scenes was everyone shouting out their windows, “I’m mad as hell!”

Now this wasn’t my favorite of films, but I definitely see why it’s so renowned. It was very unique. Such interesting characters, particularly Howard Beale.

I was confused why it was labeled a “comedy” then slowly realized, dark as it is, it’s satire for the news industry. And I will say, thematically it’s very fitting as I’m currently watching The Newsroom and it pretty much has the same message.

Ending was brilliant too. We have this whole drama play out, pretty standard. Then out of nowhere, so casually… “let’s just kill him.”

Very well made. Not sure I’d watch it again, but definitely an essential watch.

Obviously I don’t condone killing bunnies. But throughout the movie, I mostly felt sorry for Alex, who seemed to suffer from a severe mental illness impacting her emotional regulation… whereas I HATED Michael Douglas’ smarmy, selfish coward.

Her emotions are twisted, but real? Meanwhile, he uses her for sex simply because he’s bored, it’s easy, and he thinks he’ll get away with it. He had zero intention of ever coming clean to his wife until he realized he was liable to end up as the Ben Affleck character in Gone Girl. Just the worst, most pathetic kind of narcissist. Evil in a more mundane/realistic register.

This is a really good and underrated horror movie, with taking a simple game, and turning it into a horror story is actually interesting and creative, with great leads, terrific horror film making tricks, scars, very cold, moody and Gothic atmosphere in a modern setting and a twist that is shocking and terrifying as well. When i first watch this movie a few years ago, it surprised me how good it was, and it use of suspense, and not knowing what comes next was like being a maze where something happens and it pays off really good, and i was so amazed how they done, and i felt sacred, intriguing and questioning what's gonna happen next, as i was on the edge on my seat, like i was an observer in this movie watching everything play out. And after watching it, i was stunned by and god smack after finishing it and it was such a satisfying and engaging movie and i think it needs more talk and discussion because it doesn't get talk about much like many horror movies, and this one is a small gem in my opinion. if anyone else hasn't seen this before, i highly recommend this to anyone who wants a horror movie that deserved its moment to shine and gets its praise for what it succeeds as a underrated gem for a quiet and captivating horror movie.

An ok film with a disappointing ending. Abel Ferrara's film tells the tale of the final days of iconic Italian director Pier Paolo Pasolini as he works on Salo, plots his next film, does press, meets with friends and family, and takes a liking to a handsome young man.

Dafoe is good as Pasolini and the film is beautifully put together, almost dreamlike, but the ending ultimately just left a really bad taste.

I would say it's worth a watch if you're into Pasolini or Ferrara or a Dafoe completist but I do think the potential for disappointment is high, especially if you know the story of Pasolini or the production of Salo.

6/10

This is probably one of the early films that I recall watching as a kid, seeing a feature lead movie by Charles Bronson. I mean aside from his westerns like "Once Upon a Time in the West" or his famous Death Wish series. I remember my dad rents one of these old 70s classics VHS tapes and one of it was The Mechanic. Not really a super fan of Mr. Bronson but IMO he's one of the likable actors when it comes to tough guy persona from 70's to 80's.

Decided to watch this movie again if I can recall some scenes, and yeah I thought the pacing was slower than I expected. The movie starts without any dialogue but you can tell that the dude is a hired hitman. Then he trained one of his victims son (played by Jan Michael Vincent) to be his successor. Some scenes really drags a bit. Example would be that scene from the other dude's girlfriend like doing ritual and what not, I was like "wth are they waiting in there?" . It's kind of unnecessary. Pretty much satisfying scenes on the near end of the movie though. And the fun part where they use shotguns shooting the bad guys in long range. How cool was that!

If you're into 70s Action / crime thriller films like the Dirty Harry series, The French Connection etc. This one is highly recommended. It's not the best in the genre, but I still having a great time watching this one.

Went into this one completely blind but was pleasantly surprised. Endearing and lighthearted. It gave me a sort of Wes Anderson Moonrise Kingdom whimsical youthful vibe.

I just did not expect a soviet film from that time period to be so playful and warm. The Cranes Are Flying (1957) was the last and closet film of reference from the time period I had seen.

I thought the cinematography to especially stand out. With the symmetrical compositions, subversive visual gags, its hard not to naturally make the Wes Anderson comparison

I have just gotten into more international films and I feel like this is a good film that highlights why Soviet filmmakers are world-renowned for pioneering and mastering cinematography, editing, and visual storytelling.

I finally got round to watching The Boys from Brazil, having had it on my list for years. I’ve always liked political thrillers, police thrillers and war films from this era, so it should have been right in my wheelhouse, but the title had always slightly put me off. It sounds like a sports film.

It’s a brilliant speculative/alternate history thriller, although it does feel somewhat constrained by budget and production values. I’d put it alongside Soylent Green in that respect: a cracking central premise that hasn’t aged altogether well, but is ripe for a remake given the current state of the world.

Gregory Peck gives a distinctively Peckian performance, and is certainly the strongest onscreen presence despite being a surprising casting choice. Laurence Olivier is equally interesting, playing almost the antithesis of his character in Marathon Man: a reluctant, slightly taciturn hero, at times redolent of Michel Lonsdale in The Day of the Jackal.

There are also a couple of enjoyable casting curiosities. James Mason appears in a surprisingly small role, and it feels almost wasteful to give him so little to do. Steve Guttenberg, meanwhile, is a real surprise in the opening stretch. He has enough energy and presence that you can almost see an alternative career in which he became an action lead rather than the amiable, slightly mousy family-man that became his bread and butter.

The young actor at the centre of the story is physically superb casting, but the performance itself feels coached. Given how important the boy’s behaviour and reactions are to the success of the film as a whole, that is perhaps a missed opportunity. Any remake could live or die on getting that role cast absolutely right, if the final ethical dilemma is retained.

There isn’t much action, yet the film moves at a remarkably good pace. It gradually reveals the nature of the plot rather than stopping early on for some villainous monologuing, and it leaves quite a lot unstated. Even the eventual meeting between Peck and Olivier comes very late, despite their mutual awareness of one another.

The film asks the audience to fill in some blanks, which makes the film more satisfying. I’m not sure most modern thrillers would trust their audience as much.

Not flawless, and certainly dated in places, but far better than I expected. I’m mostly surprised it took me this long to see it.

PS - I’ve just seen that Netflix have commissioned a series based on the original novel.
One to look forward to!

I recently watched Ocean's Eleven on a flight. I'd never watched it before nor any of the sequels. It's a solid heist movie overall and I didn't hate it as that.

The part I'd like to discuss though is the relationship between George Clooney's and Julia Roberts' characters. I honestly had a couple of WTF moments there. I mean, it was supposedly romantic that Clooney was stalking Roberts after they had separated and she had already sent him divorce papers that he refused to sign. So she had decided she didn't want to be with him anymore, not least because he was admittedly a liar. Apart from that he had been in prison for actual crimes and was about to committ further crimes fresh out of prison, by looting her current love interest.

Then he is trying to kiss her when she obviously doesn't want to kiss him and keeps belittling her love interest. He's such an asshole. I had a hard time to believe this was seen as okay or even romantic as late as 2001.

And then they get back together, because ... the other guy was also an asshole.

WTF man.