atomicpoet

I finally played the PC version of Lost Planet. I used to own it for Xbox 360 and had an absolute blast with it—definitely one of the titles I regret selling. For a long time, I wanted to get the PC version, but it was nearly impossible to play due to Games for Windows DRM. When Microsoft stopped supporting Games for Windows, Lost Planet was effectively unplayable on PC.

Thankfully, in recent years, Capcom finally removed that DRM, and now I can play it. Not only that, but I’m playing it on my Steam Deck. Supposedly, Lost Planet is “unsupported” on Steam Deck—at least from Capcom’s perspective—but I’m here to tell you it works perfectly. In fact, it runs great. It plays at full 800p with a 16:10 aspect ratio, and you can choose between DirectX 9 and DirectX 10.

Let me tell you, this game is incredible as a handheld experience—spectacular, even. It was always meant to be played with a gamepad, but with the Steam Deck’s control schemes, it just feels awesome.

I haven’t finished it yet—I’m only two hours in—but I’m so glad it’s playable again. So far, it’s a spectacular game, and I definitely think it’s one of Capcom’s most underrated titles.

@[email protected]

Finally got my mitts on Nightdive Studio's 2024 remaster of Doom!

And I'm happy to report that it is Doom in every way that matters. It looks spectacular in HD while still looking like Doom.

The controls, especially with WASD, feel great. At the same time, this still feels like Doom.

The music? Still one of the greatest soundtracks of all time, and sounds pristine.

Even now, the level design with Doom is fantastic. It holds up even now. It's stood the test of time for a damn good reason.

This game has a 96% positive rating on Steam, which means that Nightdive definitely did something right.

@[email protected]

For longest time, I thought James Taylor (the folk singer) also sang “It’s Ladies Night” and “Celebration”.

But it turns out that the James Taylor who sang in Kool & The Gang does not moonlight as a folk singer. He is not the same James Taylor who sang “Fire and Rain”.

These two James Taylors, though sharing a same name, are completely different people.

@music

I've created #Piefed's first dedicated community to movies!

If you're on #Mastodon, #Akkoma, or #Sharkey, follow it here:

@[email protected]

And if you're on #Lemmy, #Mbin, or Piefed follow it here:

[email protected]

From now on, all my posts about movies, including reviews, will be posted there.

Everyone is welcome and you're allowed to chat about whatever movie-related things you like. 🎬🍿

@[email protected] @[email protected]

Bach played on clavichord.

When Bach was composing music, pianos didn’t exist. Instead, Bach composed almost all his music on a clavichord which, while sharing similarities with a piano, sounds completely different.

When you hear Bach played on a clavichord, it changes your entire perception of his music—makes you realize how it was meant to be heard.

https://youtu.be/Ldo30nD9q84

@music

Wild Honey is one of the most unique romcoms I’ve ever seen. The pitch is simple: it’s about a phone sex operator who falls for one of her clients. But it’s so much more than that. This is a film with real heart.

One thing I have to say upfront—Gabby, the main character, isn’t just a phone sex operator. What makes her so compelling is that she’s one of the most unlikely protagonists in a romcom, period. She’s 49 years old, living with her mom, fat, and drifting from one relationship to the next.

A lot of films with a lead like Gabby would focus on self-confidence, body positivity, or “finding yourself.” And while there are hints of that, Wild Honey is about something different. Gabby is a transgressive person—she’s a teenager in a middle-aged woman’s body. She acts on impulse, makes reckless choices, and is, in every way, trouble. And it’s so refreshing.

Rusty Schwimmer plays her perfectly. You look at Gabby and think, She fucked up. She made stupid choices. Of course, she ended up here. And the film doesn’t shy away from that. But then something surprising happens: character growth. And not the contrived kind that ties everything up neatly, but real evolution.

Since this is a romcom, you’d expect it to be about Gabby finding love—or is it? Because Wild Honey is ultimately about desire, passion, and following your heart, even when it’s messy.

What makes this film so special, why it speaks to me, is that it understands something a lot of movies don’t: as we grow older, move into middle age, and beyond, we don’t fundamentally change who we are. We grow, we evolve, but that core part of us—the thing that makes us us—never disappears.

I highly recommend Wild Honey. A fantastic movie. A great romcom.

@[email protected]

Bread & Fred looks like a fun game, but I'm a little bummed out.

This was supposed to be published by Apogee but I guess they sold the rights to Atari, which is publishing this under their Infrogrames label.

Might sound silly, but I really wanted Apogee to start publishing these quirky little indie games again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2kPf5ohFsI

@[email protected]

Trancers (1984) is the best film I’ve seen in a month.

Everything about this film is fantastic—the story, the setting, the actors, the aesthetic. It’s over-the-top amazing.

Trancers takes a unique approach to time travel in sci-fi. Unlike most time travel stories, there’s no machine. Instead, people from the future travel to the past by taking a drug that allows them to inhabit and possess an ancestor’s body. The stakes are high—if your ancestor dies before conceiving your next ancestor in the line, you never existed. You just disappear.

The film stars Tim Thomerson, Helen Hunt, and Art LaFleur. Tim Thomerson plays Jack Deth with a hard-boiled affect, full of grit and aplomb, harkening back to noir thrillers of the ’30s and ’40s—right down to the scar on his head. And Thomerson chews the scenery—oh, he chews it up in the best way possible. Side note: the name Jack Deth is ridiculous. The movie knows it’s ridiculous. Characters even ask, “What kind of name is Jack Deth?” It’s hilarious. This self-awareness makes it even better.

Helen Hunt plays the female lead and love interest, a punk rock chick who takes a mall job as Santa’s assistant and lives above a punk club. And Helen Hunt—especially young Helen Hunt—oh my god, hot. She has charisma. She has gravity. I’m glad she became a bigger star in the ’90s with Mad About You and Twister, but damn, she was a force of nature here. I love punk rock Helen Hunt.

The side characters are equally amazing: the angry mall Santa, the radical dude at the tanning salon, and, of course, the detective from the future constantly annoying Jack Deth.

But the most compelling character in this film is its aesthetics. Everything bathes in neon glow. You know all those retro-futuristic cyberpunk visuals we see today—stuff that feels like the ’80s but isn’t? Trancers is the real thing. The future has this almost Art Deco look—everyone in suits and ties, even an Egyptian influence. It’s funny because Blade Runner, another sci-fi flick from around the same time, also imagined the future this way. Then we jump to present-day Los Angeles (1985), and watching it now, 30 years later, is a trip. Seeing ’80s LA—East Chinatown, the malls, the clubs, the slums—everything drenched in neon is incredible. I love the cars, the fashion, the hairstyles—especially Helen Hunt’s blue streak in her blonde hair.

I remember looking at Trancers back in the video rental days, always sitting in the sci-fi section with that striking VHS cover—Jack Deth holding his gun. I always meant to watch it but kept putting it off, thinking, it’ll always be around. Then the video stores closed, and I forgot about it. Somehow, I finally got around to watching it, and now I’m kicking myself for waiting so long.

In terms of plot depth or subtext, Trancers isn’t on the level of Philip K. Dick, though it’s clearly inspired by his work. But aesthetically? I think Trancers surpasses Blade Runner. I know, sacrilege—but hear me out. Blade Runner is legendary and still looks amazing, but Trancers has an art and style that hit differently. Even after the credits roll, I can feel this movie. It embeds itself in my brain.

Trancers. That’s the stuff. I recommend it.

@movies

I watched Invasion of the Star Creatures because it was only an hour and ten minutes long.

I thought, I can sit through that. How bad can it be? Famous last words, right?

But I should admit, there was another reason I wanted to see this film: I love sci-fi B-movies from the ’50s and ’60s. Roger Corman, anything by American International Pictures—if you know, you know. So, I decided to throw my hat in the ring and give this one a shot.

The most surprising thing? It’s not a straight-up sci-fi film. It’s a comedy in the vein of Abbott and Costello or The Three Stooges—that old-school slapstick humor from the ’30s and ’40s. The actors do their best, but the shtick gets old fast. The premise? Two army privates who are beyond stupid trying to save Earth from aliens. And I mean these privates are *mind-numbingly stupid.* If this were a short SNL sketch, maybe it would be funny. But an hour and ten minutes? Oh, God. I was counting down the seconds.

That said, there is a silver lining: the alien scientist women, played by Dolores Reed and Joanne Arnold (credited as Gloria Victor, but it’s Joanne Arnold). Every time these two are on screen, the movie becomes great. I could listen to them talk about science forever. On top of that, they’re absolute knockouts—both were successful pin-up models in the 1950s. Joanne Arnold was on the cover of Playboy twice in 1954. Dolores Reed, though not as famous, had a stellar modeling career and even appeared in a few solid movies like Hit and Run and Party Girl (though uncredited).

Joanne Arnold, who plays Dr. Puna, is especially charismatic. You can tell she must have been a health nut because even though this movie was made in 1962, she’s still alive today at 93. That’s incredible. Dolores Reed, unfortunately, had a much sadder fate. Invasion of the Star Creatures was her last film—she died at just 30 from a heroin overdose. From what I’ve read, she had a terrible husband who got her hooked. Just a tragic story.

But back to the film. These two women are the best part, hands down. They’re beautiful, smart, funny, and know how to wink at the camera. Meanwhile, the male leads, Robert Ball and Frank Ray Perelli, have the charisma of a vole.

Here’s my biggest gripe: you have these two compelling, talented actresses playing powerful alien scientists, and the ending should have had them triumph. I don’t care if they were trying to conquer Earth—at least they had *ambition*, unlike the useless army bozos. Plus, their goal was to save humanity from nuclear war, so they’re arguably the most *sympathetic* characters in the movie.

But what happens? They fall in love with the bozos. Because they’ve been lonely in space for too long, they settle. And then comes the kicker: the aliens ask what marriage is, and the bozos basically tell them, “It’s like slavery”. And the women just… go along with it. These brilliant, powerful alien scientists become submissive housewives to two absolute duds.

That scene? A kick in the teeth.

Maybe I’m weird, but when I see a talented woman doing incredible things, I want her to keep being awesome—because that’s sexy. Success is sexy. You have alien women who can create life forms out of plants, and they’re just going to sit in the backseat? *Fuck that shit.*

Anyway, I don’t recommend Invasion of the Star Creatures. It’s not worth watching.

@movies

I watched Irrational Man starring Joaquin Phoenix and Emma Stone, because I wanted to see something different.

I was tired of watching bad movies, so I thought, “Let’s go for a simple rom-com with some decent actors.” I had no idea what this movie was about—Prime Video just recommended it.

Well, it’s awful. It’s terrible in ways that felt particularly off. It’s clear this was written by a guy who can’t write women. All they do is obsess over men, especially the main guy, Abe Lucas, who’s a complete jerk with zero redeeming qualities.

Abe, played by Joaquin Phoenix, is supposed to be some troubled bad boy, but he’s just a drunk slob who does the bare minimum. And honestly, I don’t get why all the women on campus are into him. He’s not in shape, and the movie even says he’s not impressive.

The plot? It’s meant to appeal to white, middle-class liberals. Abe’s character is like a cheap version of Charles Bukowski meets Rodion Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment. It’s so heavy-handed, they even have him reading Dostoevsky.

But it doesn’t work. Raskolnikov was an idealist, while Abe’s just jaded and believes in nothing. So when he commits his crime, there’s no emotional weight. He doesn’t even seem to care except that he thinks it’s a game.

As for the love story? There’s no real one. The women just want to sleep with Abe because they think he’s some kind of god. I don’t get it—he’s just a professor with no original thoughts, but everyone’s obsessed with him.

Sure, Joaquin Phoenix is good-looking, but that’s not the point. The movie isn’t about him being hot. It’s about a narcissistic failure who commits a crime, and it just doesn’t work.

Emma Stone’s character is equally annoying. She talks about Abe like he’s some mythical figure, which no real woman would ever do. It’s just not believable.

And the dialogue? Everyone sounds like they’re trying way too hard to sound smart. It’s like they just threw in big words to make the characters seem intellectual.

And then I found out Woody Allen wrote and directed it. Of course he did. Abe Lucas is just Woody Allen imagining himself as a tortured genius.

I’m done with Woody Allen’s self-mythologizing. I was done years ago, and if I knew he was the mind behind this film, I probably wouldn’t have watched it. Irrational Man is a mess, and I couldn’t stand it.

@movies

Candy (1968) is the worst film I've ever seen. I'm shocked that Roger Ebert gave it three stars and that most critics in the '60s liked it.

Now, you might be wondering what possessed me to watch a film this old. Well, here's the cast:

• John Huston
• James Coburn
• Richard Burton
• Marlon Brando
• Walter Matthau
• Charles Aznavour,
• in the role of Candy herself, Ewa Aulin

Oh, and one more cast member shocked me: Ringo Starr. Yes, Ringo fucking Starr is in this film, playing a Mexican—badly. Specifically, a Mexican gardener with aspirations of becoming a Catholic priest. Yes, I can't believe it either.

So, what's this film about? Supposedly, it's a sex farce—a satire of pornographic plots that I guess were in vogue at the time. I don't know, I don't research old porn. But I assume the director thought the subject deserved satirization. The movie itself is based on the 1958 novel Candy by Terry Southern and Mason Hoffenberg, which in turn is based on the 1759 novel Candide.

I watched this film from beginning to end. It was a chore. I could barely get through it. It's supposed to be funny. Maybe people in the '60s thought it was a laugh riot, but I didn’t understand a single thing. There were a few moments that could have been funny—the poet with his hair blowing in the wind, Marlon Brando playing a guru (he tries his goddamn best with what he's given, but ultimately, he can't save it).

But let me stop tap-dancing around it: this whole film is just a series of vignettes—episodic "adventures" with our titular heroine, Candy. And Candy is played as stupid. A naive—a high school student, no less. And she spends the bulk of this movie being sexually assaulted and raped. Over and over again. The constant theme of this movie is that every man who comes into contact with Candy can't resist her. They become overwhelmed with lust, and she is assaulted, blackmailed, and abused at every single turn. And it's all played for laughs.

Ha ha, Candy. Stupid Candy. How dare you exist? For the crime of existing, we're going to make your life a living hell.

The film presents all this as though it’s just a frolic. Candy just, you know, oopsie-daisies her way into sexual violence. Now, I should clarify: this is not a pornographic movie per se, though it attempts to skewer pornography. There is some nudity, but no actual sex happens on screen. And in many ways, that makes the movie even more horrifying. Because every single event, as ludicrous and ridiculous as it is, could plausibly happen in real life. Candy goes to school. Candy tries to take care of her father. Candy visits an Italian restaurant. And just for being herself, she can’t catch a break.

And it’s not just the sexual assault—it’s the racism. So much racism. I’ve already mentioned Ringo Starr’s terrible portrayal of a Mexican, but it doesn’t stop there. Italians, Polish people, Irish people, Black people—they all get it. And then there’s Sugar Ray Robinson in a cameo. What role does he play in this movie? A chauffeur. The greatest athlete of the 20th century, reduced to that. What the actual hell?

There’s a scene involving gay and transgender characters, and if you want a stark reminder of how horribly they were treated in the '60s, this film provides it. Not that anyone needs a reminder.

And then, there’s the ending. It’s so horrifying, so terrible, so absolutely disgusting that I can’t even bring myself to describe it. There is no way this film could be made today. Hell, even 10 or 20 years ago, no studio would touch it. I’m not trying to be coy about spoilers here—the ending is just that bad. It left me feeling awful.

Even so, what fascinates me about Candy is that this film could have only been made in 1968. That singular year. Not two years earlier, not in the '70s. Even then, theatres would have looked at this film and said, "This is so offensive, there’s no way we’re showing it." And yet, somehow, they got the crème de la crème of Hollywood to be in it. How? How did they get John Huston, Marlon Brando, and Richard Burton to sign on to this?

The whole movie is very hippie-dippy, filled with psychedelic effects. The film basically turns into an acid trip. At the very end—right after the most traumatizing thing possible happens to her—Candy walks into a field full of literal hippies playing music. She sees all the characters she encountered throughout the film doing ridiculous things, and then—she transforms into an ethereal being and ascends into space. Yes. That is the actual ending of Candy. Sorry if I spoiled it for you, but you literally can’t get any more 1968 than that.

After watching this film, experiencing it from beginning to end, I can’t help but wonder: what was life really like in the 1960s? I was born in 1981, so I missed out on that era. But for someone who lived through it—how would they even interpret this film? Because I feel like you need the lens of someone who lived through that time to properly understand it.

Hell, I’d love to talk to women who lived in the '60s and ask them: what was life like for you? How different was it? I’ve read some Andrea Dworkin. I come to her work as a heterosexual man, and at times, I disagree with much of what she says. But after watching Candy, I get where she was coming from. I’m a hell of a lot more sympathetic to her stance on pornography. If you had lived through this time—especially this time—I can see how you’d reach the conclusion that pornography socialized men to become rapists.

Now, I don’t think that’s the function of erotica in general. I don’t think erotica is morally wrong. I’m not trying to stigmatize desire. But we are all products of our environment, of our culture. And judging 1968 by Candy—a film that got great reviews, attracted Hollywood’s elite, and was even a box office success—the fact that this film succeeded at one time, in one era, is telling.

Wow. Candy is horrible. I don’t recommend it. I feel terrible for having watched it. The only positive thing that came from this experience is that I now have a little more understanding of where feminists like Andrea Dworkin were coming from.

@[email protected]

The worst thing about Heist (2015), starring Robert De Niro, is the title. This is not a heist film.

I mean, it is for the first 15 minutes or so, but then it turns into Speed. Remember Speed, the ’90s thriller starring Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves? Yeah, Heist is more like that—down to the fact that most of it takes place on a bus that has to keep moving or else disaster strikes.

But you know what? I actually like Heist. I think the majority of critics got it wrong. At its core, it’s a fun thriller that makes the most of its all-star cast—which is stacked, by the way. Apart from Robert De Niro (who, for the record, does an excellent job), the film stars Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Dave Bautista, Kate Bosworth, Gina Carano, and even Morris Chestnut, who turns in a fantastic performance, breathing menace into every scene.

Is Heist as good as the films it was inspired by? No. But it’s certainly better than the forgettable Netflix fare that dominates today. The film has spectacle, great special effects, excellent sound mixing, high stakes, and plenty of action. And you know what else? It’s funny at times—I laughed.

Critics didn’t like Heist. At least, the professional ones didn’t. Audiences, on the other hand, did. Right now, it holds a 6.1 on IMDb and a 2.7 on Letterboxd—above average. So what did the critics miss? Was it that Heist was a video-on-demand release with only a limited theatrical run? Was it because it was a genre film that wasn’t fashionable at the time? I don’t know. But this movie deserved far more respect than it got.

And let’s talk about Robert De Niro’s performance for a moment. In a lot of films like this, when De Niro is the big name, he’s often reduced to a glorified cameo, trotting out his usual mannerisms—a parody of himself. But here, as Francis “The Pope” Silva, a casino owner tied to the mafia, obstinate in his principles and facing his own mortality, he actually delivers. He could have phoned it in, but he gives the role gravity—something this genre rarely gets.

Now, I won’t pretend Heist is flawless. There are plot holes. A few moments border on the ridiculous. But if you accept the film for what it is—an action thriller that entertains and features some excellent performances—it’s absolutely worth recommending.

I’ve seen terrible films. Once you’ve sat through Mac and Me, Mutant Hunt, or anything made by The Asylum, you learn to appreciate the value of simple entertainment. A movie that holds your attention, that’s fun, exciting, and delivers spectacle—that’s worth something.

Heist isn’t perfect. It won’t change your life. But it’s better than average. And if you’re looking for a Robert De Niro film that may have escaped your notice, Heist is just the ticket.

https://youtu.be/BvJDL8v8lTk

@[email protected]