Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Cinema at the End of the World Edition

[PK Cronin]

If it makes you feel any better, you're not alone, and I even grew up with it. I should love it because I love sci-fi and the 80s, so I occasionally re-watch it, hoping to appreciate it more, but I may actually appreciate it less each time. It's rather gloomy, slowly paced and not very entertaining, like many other Ridley Scott films. It's too bad because I love the setting and aesthetic and like the premise. They're strong and unique enough that they've made the film a classic and keep me coming back to it, but I can't help but imagine how it could've been even better if it were actually entertaining, as well. It's too bad that neither movie was commercially successful because I'd like to see more stabs at the franchise. I'd really welcome a series.

The fact that it's premise is interesting enough that discussing it is fun says something positive about it, but I generally agree. Scott has some great movies to his credit, and ones I really enjoy, so I had really high expectations. I don't mind gloomy, but there's just a severe lack of development. All of the characters seem forced/lazily placed into the good guy/bad guy role, and it's painfully obvious from the start that those roles are going to be questioned as the movie progresses. I didn't feel anything towards any of the characters really. If they died, okay. If they didn't, that's okay too. Replicant? Not a replicant? Couldn't care any less. The progression of the plot is so slow at times, allowing for the viewer to soak up the atmosphere and then rushed along once they get to the dialogue where everything is supposed to move along. I can appreciate the existential questions it raises, I just think it could've been so much more.

I'm a big fan of Gosling so I'll definitely be watching the newer one and I'll be hoping for an improvement.

 

[Pink Mist]

John Wick: Chapter 2 (Chad Stahelski, 2017)

The things we’ll do for our home.

Minutes after taking down the Russian mob in John Wick, an old Italian friend shows up at John’s house asking him for a favour – a favour John refuses. In retaliation the Italian burns down John’s house and sets off John on yet another path for vengeance. Can’t this guy get a break? Basically more of the same from the first film. I actually thought it was much worse than the first film up until a big action set piece near the end of the film that I’ll get to in a second. The villain in this film is not as strong as Michael Nyqvist’s villain in John Wick, and John’s motivations for revenge isn’t as interesting as in the first film (of seeking revenge after his puppy is murdered). So, for the first two thirds of the film, I just thought John Wick: Chapter 2 was just okay. The neon visuals are amped up and it looks beautiful, and the action is still solid, but it felt lacking. However, then the climax has an action set piece in an art exhibition full of fun mirrors which was equal parts surreal and thrilling, and the film won me over. It’s not the first action film to have a fight in a fun house (maybe because I recently watched the latest Bond, but the fight in the villain’s fun house in The Man With The Golden Gun comes to mind) but it is probably the best. The mythology of the world that John Wick lives in is expanded upon and still interesting; I love the paranoid idea of a world where everyone in public is a hitman for hire. Keanu Reeves is still is poor as an actor, and I think he is worse here than in the first one with some really odd and unconvincing line deliveries, but he somehow still works within the scope of the film. While I think Chapter 2 is weaker than the first film, it still is a good turn your brain off action film.

 

[Pink Mist]

The fact that it's premise is interesting enough that discussing it is fun says something positive about it, but I generally agree. Scott has some great movies to his credit, and ones I really enjoy, so I had really high expectations. I don't mind gloomy, but there's just a severe lack of development. All of the characters seem forced/lazily placed into the good guy/bad guy role, and it's painfully obvious from the start that those roles are going to be questioned as the movie progresses. I didn't feel anything towards any of the characters really. If they died, okay. If they didn't, that's okay too. Replicant? Not a replicant? Couldn't care any less. The progression of the plot is so slow at times, allowing for the viewer to soak up the atmosphere and then rushed along once they get to the dialogue where everything is supposed to move along. I can appreciate the existential questions it raises, I just think it could've been so much more.

I'm a big fan of Gosling so I'll definitely be watching the newer one and I'll be hoping for an improvement.

Perhaps a controversial statement, but I actually prefer the Blade Runner film starring Gosling over the original one, so it's definitely worth checking out even if you didn't enjoy the original

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Perhaps a controversial statement, but I actually prefer the Blade Runner film starring Gosling over the original one, so it's definitely worth checking out even if you didn't enjoy the original

I veer back and forth. I often lean towards 2017 but there's a few scenes about it that always leave me kind of iffy in terms of art direction and writing. Definitely has higher peaks though.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986): Boy, oh boy. Probably the most unflinching horror film I've ever seen. Could it even be considered horror as we typically think of it? To me, horror always seems to insinuate something alien or improbable, even within human based stories. Henry offers no flights of fancy and remains completely bound to derelicts, pariahs, humdrum apartments and psychopathic, poverty-mauled diversions and schemes. In fact, the prettiest aspects of the film, from an aesthetical point of view, are probably the completed murders of Henry, the main character, where the viewer is shown various arranged corpses, most without background or build-up, and which serve simultaneously as a portfolio/demonstration of the murderer's prolific activities. Shot on a small budget, I wonder if it had an effect on its extremely lean narrative. Almost athletic in its cadence, every scene has a purpose to the story it is telling, it never meanders or offers a visual or line that is not revealing or necessary to the whole of its point of view. This is no Hollywood film or one that is interested in pandering to an audience. There is no cop. There is no tension. Barely anything that could even register as a climax. And this is good, because while he is not involved in every scene, the movie, by and large, is strictly viewed from Henry's point of view or - barely - by his degenerate friend and eventual partner-in-crime, the dim-witted and extremely bizarre Otis.

Besides one really unsettling scene - anyone who has seen the movie will be able to know which one I'm talking about even if I'm discussing a movie filled with murder - I found it was the small details that were often the most unsettling and they often did not involve Henry. He makes more sense than Otis. I must say, I ended up finding Otis the more unsettling of the characters. Henry, in the world of murderers, is fairly straight-forward. No weird fetishes, no dilly-dallying, kill and go (but without motive, without MO, even his explanation to Otis I'm not sure he believes) but Otis... deviant sexuality plays a part, of course, but the hints are very well-done. So feral is he that it doesn't seem to it doesn't seem to register with him that what he's doing is strange (even within the confines of the demented world he shares with Henry!) and unacceptable. At any rate, lots of meat on this lean bone and not for the faint of heart, but however harsh it is, the artistic leanings are undeniable (it's use of sound and juxtaposition is to be noted as well) and while I don't think it would be a recommendation for every moviegoer, its ability with technique and narrative choices are worth a watch.

 

[Hockeyfrilla]

Those Who Wish Me Dead - 6/10 (HBO Max)

 

[Pink Mist]

John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum (Chad Stahelski, 2019)

The third film in a series only someone named Chad could direct, John Wick: Chapter 3 takes place minutes after the last one ended with John Wick having an hour to flee before a $14 million bounty is put on his head and all the world’s assassins are after him. The film starts off hot with two of the best fight scenes in the series thus far, in particular a big knife fight where John and some opposing assassins keep throwing knives at each other that had been previously impaled in their bodies. However, after the opening the film really starts to have some diminishing returns for me. It becomes clear that Stahelski really doesn’t know where he wants to go with this series and the shine of the mythology begins to look less polished. There’s a little bloat to the film as we take a detour to the desert with John, but the film can’t help checking in on characters back in NYC that at times felt a little unnecessary and were designed to continue building the world of John Wick but they came at the expense of the plot’s momentum. The film does end with an extended battle (which includes some cameos from characters from The Raid films, a nod Stahelski makes to that series’ influence on John Wick) but although it is well done, it is nothing we hadn’t really seen previously in the series, and it begins to feel a little empty and exhausting.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

The Edge of The World (1937) - 6.5/10

Early Powell English film where the highlight is some really strong cinematography for a 30s film mainly because the whole thing is set on a scenic Scottish island. Not much else going on asides from that largely because of the usual pacing issues from early British films and with clumsy acting along with conflicts we really can't relate to at all.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Vivarium

with Jesse Eisenberg (wait, no, stop scrolling, he's actually not that bad), Imogen Poots, and some kid who's creepy AF.

Tom (Eisenberg) and Gemma (Poots) are a couple living somewhere in Britain who want to buy a house, so they go visit the world's most off-putting real estate agent. He leads them to a vast housing estate where every house is identical and all the streets are basically one big maze. The house has odd artwork on the walls, a welcome basket of champagne and strawberries in the fridge, and the real estate creep vanishes after being creepy. Tom and Gemma are nonplussed and decide to leave. Uh-oh, they can't. They try to drive away in their VW, but every turn leads back to #9, where they were left. They run out of gas, patience, good humour, and food in short order. Mysteriously, a cardboard box of food begins appearing every day for them, and after burning the house down, it then contains a baby with a note: Raise the child and be released. Oh, and the house grows back after the smoke clears. Paranormal shit happens.

Saw this on Halloween...actually not bad. Eisenberg is refreshingly non-annoying for him, although he and Poots have exactly zero chemistry. The child grows as only creepy non-human children do; a month in he's like a ten year-old, dangling the hope of release for the trapped couple. No such luck. Insanity, desperation and bland food are the order of business, though there is the question of whether the human couple can bond with the obviously non-human child/thing. There's an ending...although I can't really call it a payoff. As is so often the case with this kind of movie, it's a lot easier to raise questions than give satisfying answers. Better than I expected...creepy and a cut above mediocre.

Worst. Open house. Ever.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Oh yeah, and I watched Warlock 2 the same night. Total pile of crap. The first was was a lot better, and it was utter garbage.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

The Harder They Fall. I thought this was an absolute blast. A tinge of Leone's big Western operatics and a healthy does of Tarantino-esque pop modernism in its dialogue and music. Quippy and somewhat self-aware (like QT) but without being excessively pleased with itself. It's knowingly, actively even aggressively striving for COOL but damned if it doesn't achieve that velocity pretty quickly and manage to stay there (for the most part). A lot of chewy, charismatic movie star performances here (Lakeith Stanfield's laconic Cherokee Bill chief among them). Characters that in several cases leave you wanting more. In this age of bloat and spin-offs and corporate synergy, this is the rare movie I left thinking "Yeah I really would watch the further adventures of about five or six of these characters ..."

 

[Osprey]

The Harder They Fall. I thought this was an absolute blast. A tinge of Leone's big Western operatics and a healthy does of Tarantino-esque pop modernism in its dialogue and music. Quippy and somewhat self-aware (like QT) but without being excessively pleased with itself. It's knowingly, actively even aggressively striving for COOL but damned if it doesn't achieve that velocity pretty quickly and manage to stay there (for the most part). A lot of chewy, charismatic movie star performances here (Lakeith Stanfield's laconic Cherokee Bill chief among them). Characters that in several cases leave you wanting more. In this age of bloat and spin-offs and corporate synergy, this is the rare movie I left thinking "Yeah I really would watch the further adventures of about five or six of these characters ..."

I watched the first half of it last night on Netflix and got tired of it, unfortunately. It definitely tries to be a lot like Tarantino and a little like Leone, as you said. I hated the "pop modernism," as you called it, though. The last thing that I want to hear in a Western is hip hop. It also felt like it was more concerned with being cool than telling a good story. I'd love to see a serious and authentic Western about the black outlaws. This just wasn't my style. Tarantino fans will probably like it, though.

 

[Richard]

The Forgotten Battle 2020

Honestly, this started off pretty engaging but it was just a bad movie. The combat was hilarious, almost like civil war soldiers with machine guns. The premise of the final battle was so laughable stupid. None of the three stories really intertwined at all- there didn't need to be three stories because nothing was resolved.

4/10

 

[Pink Mist]

A Man Escaped / Un condamné à mort s'est échappé (Robert Bresson, 1956)

As the title may hint, A Man Escaped tells the true story of a member of the French Resistance’s attempt to escape from a prison in German occupied France. But this isn’t your normal prison break film, this film is singularly focused on the methods by which the man, Fontaine (François Leterrier, in his first film role before he would become a director for works such as Emmanuelle 3 in the 1970s French softcore porn series Emmanuelle), meticulously plots and prepares for his escape from the prison. Because the title of the film contains a spoiler and we know Fontaine will eventually escape, the film allows the viewers to hyperfocus on his methods. The film is fantastic at presenting the small details instrumental in his escape, Fontaine’s hands as he braids a rope together from bedsheets, the coughs and taps from fellow inmates warning him about incoming Nazi guards, the crunch of guard’s approaching footsteps. It is a masterwork of sound design and shot decisions as because we know the outcome it allows the viewers to focus on these small things and turns something like Fontaine chiselling away at removing wood boards from his jail cell door while listening for guards for one and a half hours into a thrilling affair. This minimalist approach to filmmaking worked so effectively here at presenting the physical and psychological struggle of surviving and escaping prison and makes A Man Escaped a masterpiece.

 

[Osprey]

Finch (2021) - 7/10 Really liked it)

A robotics expert (Tom Hanks), his creations and his dog journey across a ravaged, post-apocalyptic America. It's a sentimental sci-fi road trip drama about companionship and trust that's both heartwarming and heartbreaking. The primary relationship between Finch (Hanks) and his newest robot is like that between a father and a teenage son. The latter (who reminded me a bit of Johnny 5 from Short Circuit in his innocence and personality) makes mistakes and is scolded, but means well and learns. Practically the only actor in the film, Hanks puts on a one-man show as he interacts with only this CGI robot and a dog. It just looks so effortless for him that I often had to remind myself that he was acting by himself. The story isn't the most original, since we've seen a lot of the elements before--man and dog in a wasteland, road trips to better places and charming, anthropomorphized robots--but I'm not really one to criticize when the familiar is done again well. Don't expect much action or the highest stakes. It's not that kind of sci-fi. I found it similar to I Am Mother (which I also loved) and could even imagine it not being sci-fi at all if set pre-apocalypse and with a human son. It has some humor and is often feel good, but also occasionally sad. The balance reminded me of Forrest Gump (and maybe not coincidentally, Robert Zemeckis executive produced this). The sentimentality may be a bit excessive for some--it even dares to prominently feature the song American Pie--but I didn't mind it. I even teared up a bit at one point... and I sort of have a rule that a film gets at least an 8/10 if it can do that to this crusty cynic. It may not be for everyone, but if you're prepared for a touching film with familiar elements, can buy into the premise and happen to like Hanks, robots and dogs, you may really enjoy it, as I did. It's a Universal film that was planned for theaters until COVID, has since been bought by Apple and is now on Apple TV+.

 

[Pink Mist]

Dune (Denis Villeneuve, 2021)

I consider this film a massive insult and slightly racist to my Finnish-Canadian culture by making the gross, obese, and slimy villain, the Härkönens, Finnish and to top it off, they add insult to injury by making him played by a Swedish actor - the ultimate insult!

That's all I have to say about Dune

 

[Osprey]

Dune (Denis Villeneuve, 2021)

I consider this film a massive insult and slightly racist to my Finnish-Canadian culture by making the gross, obese, and slimy villain, the Härkönens, Finnish and to top it off, they add insult to injury by making him played by a Swedish actor - the ultimate insult!

If you think that that's bad, Tom Hanks, a longtime LA Kings fan, wears a St. Louis Blues shirt in a few scenes in Finch. In fact, maybe I should've lowered my score for that.

 

[member 51464]

Judas and the Black Messiah - 7/10

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

The Unholy (Spiliotopoulos, 2021) - First movie directed by a D-list screenwriter, it predates Midnight Mass by a few months, with which it shares a few themes - misguided faith mostly, but here there's no rational position, only good faith, bad faith, and idiots everywhere. Weird that it came from a screenwriter, the series of expository dialogues trying to make that contrived story work was just atrocious, and the film is a one-(unefficient)-trick pony on scare tactics, with poor CGI jump scares. The 80s b-horror classic that shares the same title is 100x more fun. 2/10

 

[Chili]

Fury-1936

On a long drive to visit his fiancee, a man is stopped and questioned about his knowledge of a local kidnapping. He fits the description of one of the kidnappers and is held on circumstantial evidence. When word leaks around town of his arrest, rumours spread and a lynch mob intent on their own justice develops.

Fritz Lang's first Hollywood film. Powerful story. Impressive court room scenes. Great film.

A Day at the Races-1937

One of my favorite Marx brothers films as they liven up a sanitorium with their hijinks. The music is below par but otherwise lots of fun.

 

[kihei]

The Harder They Fall. I thought this was an absolute blast. A tinge of Leone's big Western operatics and a healthy does of Tarantino-esque pop modernism in its dialogue and music. Quippy and somewhat self-aware (like QT) but without being excessively pleased with itself. It's knowingly, actively even aggressively striving for COOL but damned if it doesn't achieve that velocity pretty quickly and manage to stay there (for the most part). A lot of chewy, charismatic movie star performances here (Lakeith Stanfield's laconic Cherokee Bill chief among them). Characters that in several cases leave you wanting more. In this age of bloat and spin-offs and corporate synergy, this is the rare movie I left thinking "Yeah I really would watch the further adventures of about five or six of these characters ..."

I wish the director had never seen a Tarantino or Pecanpah or Leone movie because the stylistic mishmash seemed intrusive to me. Plus, maybe too many potentially interesting characters for the movie's own good. So for me the movie lacked focus and wasted some good performances. Man, somebody please write scripts actually worthy of Idras Elba before he becomes an old man. He is too often so very much better than his material, and it just seems a waste. Also, I hated every single musical choice in the movie.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Dune

with...oh, you all know who.

Frank Herbert's epic and much beloved seminal sci-fi doorstop of a novel comes back to the big screen with Denis Villeneuve at the helm. In the far, far future, we can travel to the stars but the dashboard on your ship is about as sophisticated as a 60's Camaro. Oscar Isaac strides in as Duke Leto Atreides, leader of the grand noble House that bears his name. He and his coterie of nobility have been given stewardship of the desert planet Arrakis, the only source in the universe for the spice melange, which makes space travel and a host of other transhuman abilities possible. He who controls the spice controls the universe...and the outgoing stewards, their bitter rivals the House Harkonnen, aren't happy. But it's all a setup, and many players in the grand game of galactic politics have a vested interest in seeing Duke Leto and his son Paul take a hard and serious fall. Explosions and drama happen.

I...I dunno. I'm still processing. I think you'd be in a better place seeing it cold knowing nothing of the lore and background. It's my own fault for watching what turned out to be all the best parts on youtube over the last few weeks since it came out. Because if you haven't seen the Lynch movie or read the books or stupidly spoilered everything for yourself like I did, you're not waiting for explanations for concepts that never come, like the mentats, Spacing Guild navigators, and why there are no computers or robots in the Dune universe or waiting for deaths you know are coming.
Oh, here's Oscar Isaac (who I really like as an actor) as Duke Leto the Just!

Spoiler

(who I know is doomed)

Oh, here's Jason Momoa (who my wife really likes) as badass Atreides warrior Duncan Idaho!

Spoiler

(who I know is doomed)

Anyway, Villeneuve's visual sense is in full effect; got a lot of Blade Runner 2049 in it. Big, big vistas...of monochromatic blurs. Lots of either big gray blurs or big orange blurs depending on whether they were inside or outside. Much less high on the photography than others have been. IMAX? Oh great. A three-story tall grey blur instead of a one-story tall grey blur. I think the kid who played Paul did very well in the role, but as for others...I dunno, I think I might actually prefer Lynch's version. Even as deeply annoying as the relentless expository voice-over whispering got, at least it tried to explain some stuff. Before, Brad Dourif chews *all* the scenery as Piter de Vries; now the guy may as well be a department store mannequin. Little things like that I missed. The Lynch version may have been weird, stupid and absurdly overacted, but at least it was fun. The Villeneuve version? Not so much.

And whoever plays Feyd Rautha in part two has a long way to go to match Sting in a leather diaper.

Wait til you see Harkonnen condoms...

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Vivarium

I think he had another movie with her an year or two ago called The Art of Self-Defense and it was pretty decent.

 

[nameless1]

I think he had another movie with her an year or two ago called The Art of Self-Defense and it was pretty decent.

Yeah, that one was decent. It is not a masterpiece or anything close, but it is provocative enough that I still remember it.

 

[Osprey]

One Shot (2021) - 6/10 (Liked it)

When a U.S. prisoner camp is attacked and overrun, a Navy Seal (Scott Adkins) and his team must protect a VIP prisoner that both sides want. It's a low-budget action movie with a gimmick that it even announces in the title. Like 1917, the whole movie is made to appear as a single, uninterrupted camera shot. Even though it's a gimmick, I have to say that it suits the movie because it contributes to the immersion and the feeling that the Benghazi-like attack is happening in real time. It also helped me to appreciate the action, since there was no margin for error. The fight scenes, particularly, looked realistic. Some of that is probably due to the actors, including Adkins, being actual martial artists, but I still wondered how they didn't hurt each other. Something else that I appreciated is that the actors actually acted like trained fighters by firing only in bursts, using cover and checking every corner. It added an authenticity that I'm not used to seeing in action movies, even big budget ones. The acting is hit and miss. The guy who plays the prisoner is the standout while Ryan Phillipe is pretty bad. Everyone else, including Adkins and Ashley Greene, is somewhere in the middle. It's not a movie that relies on acting or even story, though. It's really just a 90-minute, non-stop action movie and definitely delivers on that (especially the non-stop part, literally). It's low budget, but better than you'd probably expect a low-budget action movie to be. I'm not sure if I'd recommend renting it for the current $6.99 unless you're a diehard action fan, but it's at least something worth checking out for an action fix once it's cheaper or included with a subscription.