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

Ginger Papa

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 21, 2019
15,440
72,550
Quesnel, B.C.
I’m curious what you rated Once upon a Time?

Furthermore, I’m curious which Tarantino film you’d rate the highest and/or which one was your personal favorite?

I know you weren’t asking me, but I Posted this as my 1st review in the previous Thread in case you’re interested.


Once Upon a Time in Hollywood 2019 8/10


I finally watched this Movie a little while ago. I don’t use any other Social Media & do not plan to start. I wanted to discuss this movie and feel safe here with you folks. In reading through this Thread, I’ve been impressed by the love of Cinema you all share & have enjoyed the reviews.

Full disclosure, I’m a big QT fan. That said, I do not love everything he does.

I enjoyed this movie the first time I watched it, recognizing it had ‘flaws’ or ‘dips’ for me as a viewer. I’ve now watched it a couple more times and feel better able to give an opinion.

However, I can easily overlook those ‘flaws’ or ‘dips’ when there are so many great scenes. Including:
- Bruce Lee fighting Cliff Booth daydream. Would have preferred to see more respect given to Mr. Lee, but in reading the rationale for the scene, I get it.
- Rick Dalton & young Trudi Fraser reading between scenes.
-Clay’s trip to Spahn Valley Ranch.
-The Finale. Imho, much like Inglorious Basterds, QT’s revisionist history leaves Sharon Tate as someone who has no idea what she was saved from. Rick Dalton finally gets to meet his neighbours and perhaps both he and Cliff go on to make many more Shows together….

Further, dare I say, there are a couple of scenes that escape my vocabulary, so I’ll use exceptionally amazinginly awesome for those who can relate to them on a personal level. Including:
-Rick Dalton melting down when he forgot his lines and then segues into his trailer. For anyone who has ever struggled with substance abuse or supported someone they’ve cared about with it, this was so spot on. I had chills watching Leonardo’s performance talking to himself in the mirror.

-Rick Dalton’s performance following the meltdown. I could almost envision this dialogue between Leo and Alejandro Inarritu after his work on The Revenant.

I loved the Movie, despite its many flaws as they were somewhat necessary to glue the subject matter together to a degree. Yes, this could have been a tighter, shorter film. Except, QT is a bonafide genius and who am I to criticize him. I’m still very grateful to be able to enjoy his films.

Hopefully he tightens up the next one. Even if he doesn’t, I’m still going to watch it & damn sure won’t wait 2 years this time.

————————————————————
9F95CABA-16C5-41CA-8D49-000578318C0D.jpeg

Black Mirror “HATED IN THE NATION” 8.25/10


Although it’s an episode of a Series, I felt comfortable including it here as the runtime is 1h 29 mins.

Set in the not so distant future, Karin Parke (Kelly Macdonald) is a veteran detective in London who catches a homicide case which appears to be linked to Social Media. A young, tech savvy Blue Parsons (Faye Marsay) partners with her as they discover that there is much more to this case.

For those not familiar with Black Mirror, be prepared for twists and dark humour. I really enjoyed this episode and after watching it the first time I was comfortable with my 15 year old Ginger daughter viewing it with me this evening. I found watching it again (it was a few months ago my first time) I didn’t really notice any flaws that stood out, which is the mark of a winner for me. That, and I was still quite entertained watching it again, of course :).

Although it’s one of the longer Black Mirror episodes, there is very little time wasted. The pacing is even as the story unfolds and characters are brought on with clarity, there’s no confusion over who’s who. Tough to write much more without giving parts of the story away, but I strongly recommend it. I’ve added a few items in the spoilers section for those who have seen it.


I thought the reveal of ADI’s after the first 2 murders was well done.

The next twists were perhaps a little more expected (facial recognition, government involvement)

The big twist honestly caught me totally off guard though, even though Parke hinted at it, I didn’t think it would happen.

The ending was atypical for Black Mirror as it was a happy ending. Different, but a nice change.
[spoiler/]
 
Last edited:

OzzyFan

Registered User
Sep 17, 2012
3,653
960
All I got to say about Brad Pitt in Burn after Reading is that he made me laugh...a lot. I thought he was great. Would the movie even be memorable without him?

Also, for some perverse reason, I rewatched Once upon a Time in Hollywood last night. The first time around I thought DiCaprio was weak, but this time around I just thought that was because Pitt stole every scene in which they were together. DiCaprio never finds a believable shape for his character while Pitt does so effortlessly.

On a scale of 1 to 10, where does everyone rate Pitt's charisma? What about Pitt's comedic abilities amongst non-comedic actors? It's obvious Pitt is over the top in Burn After Reading, but it wouldn't have worked as well if he did it any other way, and he stole the screen any time he was on it and was truly hilarious. I honestly don't think he gets enough credit as Chad in the that film, the character he plays on paper would have been screwed up if he played it a little more straight or a little more "stupid". Pitt's charisma and delivery were near perfect for the Oscar he earned in OUATIH. Your view of Pitt's accent in Inglorious Basterds determines what you feel of his turn in that, he's fine imo. Pitt has the ability, from charisma or acting choices or fate or what have you, to steal scenes throughout some of the films he's in. For me he's the most memorable character in Burn After Reading, OUATIH, Fight Club, Snatch, Moneyball, and 12 Monkeys(albeit that is Willis's film), amongst other films he's the leading actor of not named here. I'd say there are a dozen or so films where Pitt's charisma is turned up to 11 and overcome any acting shortcomings he's got. Oddly, I wouldn't rank him on any top acting lists, but his moderately successful versatility shows he's not just some face people throw into movies, like many under 30 actors are and disappear into oblivion sooner or later (or go to TV series'/stick to 1 note acting roles). He's best suited and most memorable in supporting roles, albeit he is and likely will be doing more producing than acting moving forward.
 

ItsFineImFine

Registered User
Aug 11, 2019
3,745
2,389
Nostalghia (1983) - 5/10

Some nice camera usage but does it really matter? In this shot we zoom out instead of in and in another we pan right instead of left and we do it slowly, then a stray dog. Feels like I've already seen it in past Tarkovsky films and done better in The Mirror tbh with a better narrative too, got nothing out of this. For as good as he might be with camera movement, he's quite bland with muted colours (except maybe in Stalker). I know time is linear but that's certainly two hours of my life that...
 

Spring in Fialta

A malign star kept him
Apr 1, 2007
27,302
16,112
Montreal, QC
I’m curious what you rated Once upon a Time?

Furthermore, I’m curious which Tarantino film you’d rate the highest and/or which one was your personal favorite?

I know you didn't ask me but I still want to play:

Kill Bill (both films counted as one)

--

Jackie Brown
Pulp Fiction

--

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Reservoir Dogs
Death Proof

--

Django Unchained
Inglorious Basterds

--

The Hateful Eight
 

silkyjohnson50

Registered User
Jan 10, 2007
11,304
1,195
I know you didn't ask me but I still want to play:

Kill Bill (both films counted as one)

--

Jackie Brown
Pulp Fiction


--

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Reservoir Dogs
Death Proof


--

Django Unchained
Inglorious Basterds


--

The Hateful Eight
How would you rate them though? Are we ranging between loved and hated here?
 

ItsFineImFine

Registered User
Aug 11, 2019
3,745
2,389
Shit I stumbled into a Tarantino thread, anyways.

Nostalghia (1983) - 5/10

I like the camera movement here (though Tarkovsky's muted colour pallete is a bore in most of his films except Stalker) but what's the point? A pan out here, a slow tracking shot there, another stray dog, and some time jumps....really very little going minus a few scenes of dialogue that threatens to be entertaining before he ends it short and conflict which is too repressed for even the calmest of films. I bet Tarkovsky would've made a great photographer but do we gain any insight from a camera moving left to right in one shot instead of the other way around in another?

The Killer (1989) - 7/10

A decent plot behind a thick curtain of melodrama which I don't think has aged well. 80s movies are cheesy enough without the added assistance. Still, the central conflict is good enough to care about the characters (even if not fully invested). The action scenes start off as clever then become increasing repetitive like you're playing a shooter game for the dozenth time and they're long, really long. Actually same goes with multiple car chase sequences. This certainly isn't the tight film making that Le Samourai was but it's better than an average action film.
 

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,922
10,805
theraven.jpg


The Raven (1963) - 7/10 (Really liked it)

As I lay there, not so sleepy, and in mind for something creepy,
This old film called to me to rent it, rent it from the Apple store.
With Vincent Price as Doctor Craven, Peter Lorre as the raven,
Jack Nicholson and Boris Karloff as a sorcerer.

The latter plays a sneaky game by luring Craven with a dame,
Climaxing in a wizards' duel for the hand of Lenore.
Instead of being dark and chilly, it was light and rather silly,
Certainly a comedy more than a classic horror.

I was amused but also guessed that Poe would not be so impressed,
With Roger Corman's treatment of the poem he labored o'er.
Yet no sense in me complaining since I found it entertaining.
So, for that, I give a score of seven tenths and nothing more.
 
Last edited:

kihei

McEnroe: The older I get, the better I used to be.
Jun 14, 2006
43,875
11,144
Toronto
I’m curious what you rated Once upon a Time?

Furthermore, I’m curious which Tarantino film you’d rate the highest and/or which one was your personal favorite?
I don't remember what I gave Once upon a Time in Hollywood at the time, but I think I would give it a "6" now. When it comes to Tarantino, that is a very high score for me. I don't really have a personal favourite. I think Reservoir Dogs provided the training wheels for Pulp Fiction which I think is his best film. I would rate Once upon a Time in Hollywood just behind it, because it has a bit more depth than QT's other works....and then I really don't give a damn about any of them. They seem merely like "clever kid" exercises, often self-indulgent ones.

I have a hard time describing my feelings for Tarentino. He seems like the really brilliant class cut-up who makes everybody laugh but me. He has terrific skills as a director but they are in service of such shallow material that those skills just seem wasted to me. All zippy sizzle, which gets me in the theatre, but almost no steak. His effects dazzle but they fade away almost instantly like the morning dew. I don't know who I would compare him to, but the first director that came to mind was Jacques Tati, an odd choice, granted. But he is the only director I can think of with a distinctive style that is all his own, but which leads to movies I find easy to ignore and hard to take seriously. Maybe a better comparison would be Weird Al Yankovic. Yeah, I like that.
 
Last edited:

NyQuil

Big F$&*in Q
Jan 5, 2005
99,188
65,528
Ottawa, ON
I don't remember what I gave Once upon a Time in Hollywood at the time, but I think I would give it a "6" now. When it comes to Tarantino, that is a very high score for me. I don't really have a personal favourite. I think Reservoir Dogs provided the training wheels for Pulp Fiction which I think is his best film. I would rate Once upon a Time in Hollywood just behind it, because it has a bit more depth than QT's other works....and then I really don't give a damn about any of them. They seem merely like "clever kid" exercises, often self-indulgent ones.

I have a hard time describing my feelings for Tarentino. He seems like the really brilliant class cut-up who makes everybody laugh but me. He has terrific skills as a director but they are in service of such shallow material that those skills just seem wasted to me. All zippy sizzle, which gets me in the theatre, but almost no steak. His effects dazzle but they fade away almost instantly like the morning dew. I don't know who I would compare him to, but the first director that came to mind was Jacques Tati, an odd choice, granted. But he is the only director I can think of with a distinctive style that is all his own, but which leads to movies I find easy to ignore and hard to take seriously. Maybe a better comparison would be Weird Al Yankovic. Yeah, I like that.

I feel like he's difficult to classify because he's fairly highly regarded by cinephiles and has won his fair share of awards, but his catalogue is pretty much an homage to pulp and B-movie fare which is of itself not particularly impressive or noteworthy.

The real question is whether his films would stand on their own if they had been released in the 1960s and 1970s.
 

OzzyFan

Registered User
Sep 17, 2012
3,653
960
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
3.50 out of 4stars

"At a carnival in Germany, Francis and his friend Alan encounter the crazed Dr. Caligari. The men see Caligari showing off his somnambulist, a hypnotized man who the doctor claims can see into the future. Shockingly, the somnambulist then predicts Alan's death, and by morning his chilling prophecy has come true."
A well done early horror. The setting/stage design being purposefully unorthodoxly warped or curved with unnatural darkness and light created through "drawings" is functionally creative and effectively agitating. Almost "early arthouse" I might guess. The story itself I feel alongside it's visuals lives up to it's historical hype also. Manipulation is the main resonant theme in this movie. I can only imagine what the audience felt seeing these events occur on screen 100years ago, and still today they are authentically scary. Lastly, there are 2 major twists at the end, both alone would have been memorably fully satisfying, but combined really are a shock, especially given the context of time period. And at under 70minutes, it's certainly worth giving a try if you want to see what "early silent movie horror" looked like. Free on YouTube.

Candyman (2021)
2.55 out of 4stars

"A sequel to the horror film Candyman (1992) that returns to the now-gentrified Chicago neighborhood where the legend began, following an artist and his investigation into the 30year old legend."
It's quite an achievement to have the socio-political messages mirror the horror story so directly, which also makes it possible for you to say "why is my slasher horror movie beating me senseless with it's repetitive political agenda" (no pun intended). My opinion lean's toward the former, which makes the movie overall a better movie, but definitely overshadows the average-ish slasher elements of the story which bring very little new to the table. They are stylized nicely, albeit fairly ordinary. I'll admit, the messages of the true fears and struggles of the people of color in government run project communities did hit me and lingered. I have never seen the original, for the record. And for the record, there are some voices I literally can't hear enough of for some reason, and Colman Domingo is one of those I wouldn't mind listening to narrate an audiobook (and Sterling K Brown is another).

Space Jam: A New Legacy (2021)
1.85 out of 4stars

"A rogue artificial intelligence kidnaps the son of famed basketball player LeBron James, who then has to work with Bugs Bunny to win a basketball game."
Bluntly, it just feels like a lesser uneven cash grab reboot. It's a completely boring movie for the first 15minutes until the Looney tunes show up. There are endless amounts of referential cameos and referential jokes throughout the movie, most of which I am not sure that children under 10years of age. How many kids this age know of The Matrix, Casablanca, Training Day, Back to the Future, Shatner's Star Trek, Bobby Knight, Mad Max Fury Road, Austin Powers, Steve Jobs, and Game of Thrones even? The main lessons are about having fun vs training hard and doing what you want to do irregardless of what your parents or coaches want or tell you to do? Yet, ironically it stars Lebron James, and in the earliest scenes of the movie shows his coach pushing him to train and focus harder to become the best player he can be (avoiding distractions) followed by a sequence of all his achievements from adolescence to present time, concluding ultimately that because he followed that strict advice he became one of the greatest basketball players of all-time. Lastly, they change the rules in basketball on scoring in this movie with an unmeasurable scale, as if something else needed to become more incomprehensible in the movie. So it's a non-sensical movie that wants to please kids and adults, but confuse kids at the same time it does this in so many different ways.

Space Jam (1996)
2.35 out of 4stars

"In a desperate attempt to win a basketball match and earn their freedom, the Looney Tunes seek the aid of retired basketball champion, Michael Jordan."
Let me start by saying that the original is no masterpiece either, that said it's a literal improvement in just about every facet of the reboot, visual advancements aside. Better storytelling? By far, story growth is non-existent in the first one. Better supporting cast? Cameos are in this one too, but supporting cast humans actually have meaningful moments in this from Bill Murray's jokes and "twist" to the 5 NBA player's "talents" being taken and them being run through multiple physical and mental tests with funny commentary, and even Wayne Knight was a snippy tool utilized beyond having 1 or 2 lines of speech. Jordan is no Olivier, but even his acting was better than Lebron's, not to mention his earthly existence was more developed and grounded with a few funny winks at his terrible baseball experiment. And a conclusive tie up into Jordan's return to the NBA, yes this story actually coincides with a real life event timeline of Jordan's life and professional career. Likely not purposeful, but even the Monstars physically abusing Jordan and the Looney Tunes during the 2nd half mirrored the Bad Boy Pistons roughing up and stopping Jordan in the 88-90's playoffs before he overcame them in 91' on the was to winning his first title. And did I mention the soundtrack for this movie is somewhat legendary, going 6X platinum in sales and the original single off the album "I Believe I Can Fly" won 2 Grammy awards. Again, no Mona Lisa, but a hell of a lot more polished, coherent, and smooth.
 

Unholy Diver

Registered User
Oct 13, 2002
20,203
3,862
in the midnight sea
Paw Patrol - the Movie 8/10

The pups travel to adventure city after Mayor Humdinger gets elected there and starts causing mayhem with his half cooked infrastructure projects (Loop-de-loops for the subway trains, and a huge poorly constructed tower) and the pups have to save the citizens, Humdinger also commandeers a giant weather drone device that sucks up clouds for scientific purposes, but he uses it to manipulate the weather which creates a superstorm issue endangering the city. Secondary story looks into Chase's first connecting with Ryder and the Pup's, and overcoming his insecurities and fears. Enjoyable movie overall, would have liked to see some digging into how Humdinger got elected, something shady was hinted at but never explored. Could have used Mayor Goodway and Chickaletta more, as they only had cameos
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pink Mist

Babe Ruth

Looks wise.. I'm a solid 8.5
Feb 2, 2016
1,595
697
Roadhouse 66 (1984).

Judge Reinhold is terrorized (by a local bully) as he attempts to drive thru a small Arizona town. And back before prevalent cell phones & ATMs, breaking down in a small town could be a time-consuming adventure.
This movie reminded how strong the meme of the bully (almost as a force of nature) was back in the 80s.. bullying for the sake of bullying.
Mostly slice of life, as Reinhold becomes a part of the town's ecosystem waiting for his car to be fixed. Some laughs, romance, and a predictable bully competition/confrontation at the end. Cool (stark) Arizona scenery.. pretty good movie..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chili and Osprey

Spring in Fialta

A malign star kept him
Apr 1, 2007
27,302
16,112
Montreal, QC
I don't remember what I gave Once upon a Time in Hollywood at the time, but I think I would give it a "6" now. When it comes to Tarantino, that is a very high score for me. I don't really have a personal favourite. I think Reservoir Dogs provided the training wheels for Pulp Fiction which I think is his best film. I would rate Once upon a Time in Hollywood just behind it, because it has a bit more depth than QT's other works....and then I really don't give a damn about any of them. They seem merely like "clever kid" exercises, often self-indulgent ones.

I have a hard time describing my feelings for Tarentino. He seems like the really brilliant class cut-up who makes everybody laugh but me. He has terrific skills as a director but they are in service of such shallow material that those skills just seem wasted to me. All zippy sizzle, which gets me in the theatre, but almost no steak. His effects dazzle but they fade away almost instantly like the morning dew. I don't know who I would compare him to, but the first director that came to mind was Jacques Tati, an odd choice, granted. But he is the only director I can think of with a distinctive style that is all his own, but which leads to movies I find easy to ignore and hard to take seriously. Maybe a better comparison would be Weird Al Yankovic. Yeah, I like that.

Vincent Gallo described him perfectly - especially at QT's point in his career - in a discussion with Elvis Mitchell circa 1998-1999. He said, with major annoyance in his voice: 'He's a collage artist.'

Granted, I think some of it is great, mostly Kill Bill, that gorgeous movie. He really doesn't have a voice of his own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Puck

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,922
10,805
Parasite (1982) - 4/10

In the future (all the way in 1992) and in post-apocalyptic rural California (which looks a lot like pre-apocalyptic rural California), a scientist on the run hides out in a small town with a deadly lab specimen that he stole. Eventually, it gets loose and starts killing people in this very 80s creature horror B-movie. Unlike that misleading foreign film from a few years ago, this one actually lives up to its title with not one, but two flesh-eating parasites. Also, these Stan Winston-created slugs with teeth come flying toward the screen a lot because the movie was originally released in 3D. I must say that literal parasites flying around are more exciting than figurative ones sitting around. The movie is mostly known for being Demi Moore's first major role. It sure seems like 80s horror movies gave a lot of actors and directors their starts. It's also an early Charles Band horror. It's very low budget, yet oddly features a Lamborghini Countach that the villain drives around the dusty, nearly abandoned town and which probably cost as much to rent as the rest of the film. Anyways, it's a rather bad movie, but I expected worse and found it somewhat watchable if only because I have nostalgia for cheap 80s monster flicks. It's free on Plex.tv.

Willy's Wonderland (2021) - 3/10

A passer-through (Nic Cage) spends the night in a small town cleaning up a children's fun house and defending himself from its demonized animatronics. My niece likes those mobile games in which you're given messy rooms to clean up. Watching Cage clean in this movie was like watching her play those games... except that she's never interrupted by bloodthirsty Muppets that she needs to fight and decapitate. Seeing Cage violently kill them provides a little bit of entertainment, but it wasn't enough. The rest of the film felt pretty dull. It also relies on really awful exposition, going to great lengths to give the whole backstory of the establishment and town, which contrasted sharply with knowing nothing about Cage's character, not even his name or his voice. That's right... Cage doesn't say a single word in the entire movie. It made me realize that a lot of his appeal comes from the corny way that he delivers his lines and how bad the dialogue is that he's made to say. In spite of that, it banks on his appeal, seemingly too much to me, but big fans of his crazy films might like it better. It's on Netflix in Canada and Hulu in the US.
 
Last edited:

Pranzo Oltranzista

Registered User
Oct 18, 2017
3,981
2,900
I thought 20 would be enough before I went back to the Cattet/Forzani films, but I guess I'll keep on going a little... #20 and 21 are both considered classic gialli, but one is slightly better than the other.

Who-Saw-Her-Die2.jpeg


Who Saw Her Die? (Chi l'ha vista morire?, Lado, 1972) – One of my favorite gialli – while the second half is a classic giallo with not much surprise, the first half of this one is amazing. The intro scene leads you to believe that we (spectators) saw her die, subjective camera (the sight of the killer), through a veil (reminding us of the camera as apparatus), but the question wasn't intended in regards to that first victim, and the real answer will end up far more complex. This is maintained with brio through the first half of the film, first with the opening credits being shown over photographs of the murder scene and the victim, and then through other reminders (“an artist doesn't create, he records”). All of it mixed with the insistence of looking and watching. The male gaze is the real threat here, from the father's friend lustfully checking out the young daughter, to the father watching a naked young girl on TV (on screen, obviously), to the group of men starring at the corpse of the young victim (not a single woman in the crowd) – the first half of this film manages to lay down a real creepy atmosphere. Second half has the murders and the whodunit intrigue, some very weak stuff (can these slaps be more fake?), but some other punctual moments of reflexive brilliance: a murder in a movie theater where people go watch sex and violence (the montage on screen doesn't even make sense), a son watching nudies of his mother and, first thing we see after the classic resolution of the mystery, a camera that points to us, the spectators. The film also has some amazing imagery (I love the shot saturated with pigeons) and pretty nice cinematography and scenery, and a very good score by Morricone (the main theme is overused, but great). The intrigue is thin and, in trying too hard to come as a surprise, the resolution is disappointing and moves away from what's really intriguing and interesting throughout. 7.5/10

Red-Queen-Kills-7-Times.jpg


The Red Queen Kills Seven Times (La dama rossa uccide sette volte, 1972, Miraglia) – Miraglia uses all of the classic tricks with this inheritance intrigue/whodunit, mixed in the fashion industry. The only original thing here is the plot's impressive level of stupidity. It's not a good giallo, not a good suspense, and certainly not a good whodunit: the killer flees with her car, and you know who it belongs to (you'd think it'd be a red herring, but no – well, they'll add another layer to make things dumber and convoluted). Miraglia even uses a few of the common giallo reflexive elements (models, photographers, images), but contrarily to Who Saw Her Die?, the subjectivity here is always female (in Lado's film, even when it is implied that the point of view belongs to a woman, it's not the case). There's no point to it, but I guess it's something. What else? Atrocious acting, and the whole ending is a mess, editing and continuity are so weak it feels like there's shots missing. 1.5/10
 

Babe Ruth

Looks wise.. I'm a solid 8.5
Feb 2, 2016
1,595
697
The Alligator People (1959)

Sci-fi/monster movie, that reminded me a lot of the original Outer Limits.
A newlywed bride basically finds herself mixed up with a were'gator (who knew).
Some classic '50s memes in this one. I thought it was entertaining. Watched it on Hulu.
 

ItsFineImFine

Registered User
Aug 11, 2019
3,745
2,389
The Green Knight (2021) - 7/10

Yep that's an A24 film alright. They're starting to blend a bit stylistically and it feels like doing something more grounded would be more groundbreaking than more of this. It's a film that looks and feels better than it is which is where the positives come from for me. In terms of how the actual story is executed....I have my qualms and I think A24 gets in the way of their own storytelling. It did work better in A Ghost Story but it just leads to a rushed ending here and a frantic montage of an ending which doesn't click for me.

Also can't say I enjoy Dev Patel at all, the best parts of the film Lion were the ones before he came in but there is a lack of visible minority leading men types so this is what we get.
 

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,922
10,805
Batman vs. Superman

Everything Scorsese says is true.

I like the contrast between your film reviews and your video game reviews...

The Last Guardian (PS4, 2016)


When I review games I usually try to judge them on their own merits, with as few comparisons to other games as possible. Whether it's by genre or series, unless there's something egregious that I feel needs to measured against an existing title I try to judge a game itself. It's fair. Especially in the case of standalone titles that aren't part of a series and don't have sequels, a game has to be considered in isolation. That's what you play, that's what you judge.

It's a bit difficult to decide which category The Last Guardian falls into. Here is a unique, self-contained story with no possibility of a sequel. Here is a game released a full ten years after the same team's last effort. Here also is a game with obvious stylistic and thematic holdovers from that team's last two works. It invites it upon itself, even if the basis of gameplay is mechanically completely different. So then, how is The Last Guardian? And how many times will I compare it to Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, despite it being a (mostly) completely different game?

You play as... Boy. I don't think the boy has a name, come to think of it. Through flashbacks we learn that the boy is at a camp somewhere in a forest, in a location where the humans present possess vaguely Japanese features and voices. This camp is poorly situated however, as it's prone to creatures coming and stealing children in the night. The creatures in question are about the size of a double decker bus, have wings, are covered in feathers, are built like a cross between a cat and a dog, and are covered in armour. The people in the camp are prepared for this, because when one of them comes to take Boy all the adults gather round with spears and torches to try and ward it off, and one of them hits a gong to raise the alarm. They all just stand about watching as it reaches in a window, grabs the boy and swallows him, and flies off.

Sadly the beast is hit by lightning as it's flying to its destination and instead of landing on a tower at the top of a huge, deep crater in the ground it falls to the bottom of something which is clearly hundreds of feet deep. Once he's landed a bunch of suits of armour with glowing eyes gather round him and put him on a stretcher. They take him to a small cave and chain him to the ground, where he spits out Boy and our game begins.
The actual purpose of this game is never really explained. You free the beast from his chains and then have a look around. After leaving the cave you start in you just sort of progress forward through a linear route. The assumption is that you're in the Nest - something that Boy was told about by the adults who failed to protect him - and it's obvious you want out, but this is never explicit. I realise it doesn't sound as if it has to be, but the game ultimately is more of a character development exercise than a purposeful story.

What then of the other character? The Beast is actually called Trico. I don't know how the boy decides on this name. It's not a name he gives to that specific creature, because we later discover other creatures that boy calls "other Tricos." Trico is just as weird as I describe. During the loading screen when you start the game you see some of the inspiration for Trico. The game shows an assortment of old-fashioned field drawings of different animals and their Latin names, like something from a biology textbook from the 1800s. Here you can see the inspiration for Trico and how he moves, as there are pictures of everything from fish to snakes to ibex to griffins and almost everything else you could think of, real and mythical. For the most part it's fairly easy to see a lot of care and attention went into Trico's animations and sounds. It does look and react like a real animal, and you're quick to grow attached to it in the way you would a real pet. Mostly.

(Side-note: I decided Trico was a he, but I don't know why. As far as I can tell it's completely asexual.)
I say mostly because this is largely a third person platforming game in an environment which dwarfs your playable character, so you're reliant on this other, larger creature to get you through it. Which means you have to give it commands. It's here I have to admit the inescapable truth which I've realised after four full playthroughs of the game. Despite it being in development for a decade, it's broken. Or at the very least, it's the most poorly optimised game I've ever played. I get that Trico is an animal, that he's unpredictable, but this game doesn't get any better no matter how much you play it. The inconsistency is maddening.

I could genuinely sit here for hours describing how bad it is, but I'll give you one example. At one point in the game you have to stand on Trico's back as he dives underwater and swims through a tunnel. You can "command" him by standing on his back and holding R1 while pressing one of the face buttons, which apparently vaguely correspond to your controls for the boy. On my first playthrough I was at this section for at least half an hour, trying every button possible. Trico would just get out of the water without diving. One time he started diving, reached the opening he was supposed to go through, then came back up. On my second playthrough, I did this first time. The game is filled with moments like that. These utterly kill any pacing the game has. There are genuine moments of tenderness and real emotion as the bond between the two of them grows, but it's so often let down by knowing that as soon as they're over you'll be back to swearing at it endlessly trying to get it to jump to the only ledge it can possibly go to to advance, only to go in the opposite direction entirely.

You can really tell the controls for Trico aren't finished in other locations, where movement just isn't possible the way it should be. You can command him to go somewhere, the only possible way forward, and he won't. Or he'll jump to it then jump back. Or go in completely the opposite direction. Then there are the times where the game gets all fiddly and needs something to be perfect or it won't happen. Trico eats barrels filled with a fluorescent blue substance which attracts butterflies. Occasionally throughout the game you have to feed him these to progress. You can sit the barrel down in front of him, he'll reach out and grab it, and eat it. Only sometimes the barrel won't quite catch in his beak and it'll roll away. Or maybe he's standing up and the barrel isn't quite in the place where his mouth can reach, and he'll just stand pawing at it. These moments are unbelievably frustrating, and you really start to resent the game when they build up.

On a similar note, the controls. The camera. Holy f***. Throughout the game there are numerous small ledges you need to shimmy along or hang from, as well as jumps you need to make over large drops. The controls feel as if they're for a different kind of game. There's no finesse at all. The slightest movement of the stick in any direction has the boy lunging off into an uncontrolled run. You can sort of get the hang of this eventually, but it's still amazingly awkward and doesn't get any less stressful. Plus, like Trico, there are times when your input doesn't match what the boy does. I don't get it at all. The camera has a mind of its own, and is often fond of clipping inside of Trico and going completely black.

The actual control scheme itself doesn't make any sense either. Triangle is jump. X is hang/climb down. Great idea, make an awkward game even harder by not using the most common button layout. Then you've got several wasted buttons. I'll give you an example. At certain parts of the game the boy has a mirror he can shine on things so Trico can fire lightning bolts out his arse. To do this, you press circle. But sometimes you'll be doing this while on Trico's back. Pressing circle while on Trico makes you start petting him. Meanwhile L1, L2 and R2 all sit vacant. This is basic stuff that I noticed after playing for about ten minutes, how could a team of dozens of people make this game and not notice?

So then, why the spiel at the beginning about comparisons with other games, specifically Ico and Shadow of the Colossus? The game is made by the same people and is similar in a lot of ways, especially aesthetically. As I've written here before I really like the design of both of those games, and the world design of The Last Guardian is very similar. A ruined, clearly once-great civilisation is here for you to explore, all the while feeling as if your burgeoning control over your character pales into insignificance to your surroundings.
The ultimate problem is that there's a purpose and a clearly defined story to those games. The local village sacrifices boys to an evil queen in a twisted Snow White rip-off. A boy wants his dead girlfriend brought back to life and travels to a forbidden land for help, only to find an evil demon was imprisoned there. What's The Last Guardian about? A big hole in the ground populated by empty suits of armour and big flying dogs is commanded by a big glowing ball in a tower. The tower occasionally sends the flying dogs out to capture the local children, bringing them back to the hole in the ground and being fed barrels in return.

I get, I think that the game is a character study above all else but that doesn't change the fact that the premise is very, very weak, at best. The problem with the growing relationship between the boy and Trico is the impending sense of a payoff, and there just isn't one. It's clear that what Trico did was bad. It's clear that as he shakes off the various control methods used by the big glowing ball that his bond with the boy is greater than anything he had done previously. Even the ending when they escape and the boy is returned to his camp ties this off neatly, but there's never even an attempt at an explanation for what was going on. The boy tells the story through voiceover segments throughout the game and he just says there's a Nest, and they're taught to be scared of it. The nest was clearly once more populated than it is, but there's just no explanation for any of it, and the game suffers.

Here's where the comparison comes in. In Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, a sense of isolation and bewilderment was a necessary part of the experience. You were exploring an unfamiliar land, and you had to be made to feel small and uncertain. Here, you travel with a resident of the land. You get a dreadful payoff, and you get a completely killed sense of pacing because of how bad the controls are. As much as I've tried to view The Last Guardian on its own terms the amount it has in common with similar, better games just left me empty throughout.

I was getting a bit ahead of myself when I said the Nest was unpopulated. I mentioned empty suits of armour, and they're the game's main enemy. The pop up occasionally and stagger towards you, picking you up and taking you through a blue door with light beaming out of it if they get too close. Trico is usually always on hand to bat them out of the way though. Every time you do this Trico gets angry and needs to be calmed down by jumping on his back and petting him on the back of the neck. This also kills the pacing of the game, because you know every time you face an enemy there's no threat, and you'll have to struggle up Trico's back for a few minutes afterwards.

It's actually worth repeating that there's no threat. The suits are easy enough to avoid in most cases. They can throw spears at Trico but Trico is virtually indestructible. He never gets injured to the point of reduced mobility. On the few setpiece occasions where he does you quickly revive him with some barrels, so there's never any sense of stakes or peril to engender any care for him. While this isn't so bad because there are other opportunities for the relationship to develop, this is a video game. There is presumably supposed to be some challenge with consequences, but I suppose it's all in the awkward platforming. Even the suits themselves aren't that threatening. They have their own music cue, but it's this weird French horn tune that sounds more like it should be accompanying a scene change in an episode of the Pink Panther. It's really ridiculous and ill-fitting, and just serves to further delegitimise these sections as any sort of threat.

The final aspect of the enemies I'll complain about tie in with the sense of repetition and unexplained nature of enemy encounters. Throughout the world there are strange eye-shaped glyphs made of glass which Trico is afraid of. They stop him from moving, and you have to destroy them to continue. These turn up in the strangest places, with no possible explanation for their location or purpose. They're obviously some means of control of the creatures, because the suits of armour carry them around, but why then are some hanging suspended hundreds of feet in the air from a giant mobile? Why are there two on the narrow bridge leading to the final tower, on small bits of rail to the side which don't go anywhere, and are easily pushed off? Why does Trico overcome his fear on this one occasion when the boy is taken away, but is still catatonic afterwards?

The comparisons to other Team Ico games at this point become fair because although in those you enter half-destroyed worlds of what were once clearly purposeful locations, there are too many aspects of The Last Guardian which seem to have been added for stylistic purposes rather than thematic ones. A sense of wonder only works when it's predominately awe on the part of the player, seeing something grand yet long-eroded and now unexplainable. The Nest itself fulfils this role, but everything in it seems to have been added later. The architecture is fantastic, the content is as grand and imposing as you'd expect, but the player interaction with it undermines it a lot.

I honestly don't know what I expected when I played this. As much as I enjoyed Ico and adored Shadow of the Colossus (the PS3 versions) it's not like I went in to this expecting something similar. I know it was in development hell for a long time and there are times where you can see that it suffers for this, but it honestly feels like a game centred around an idea/relationship with nothing else to fill the space. Seeing the bond develop between Trico and the boy is fine, and for the most part it is engaging, but there's too much fiddly bullshit surrounding it to really think the game is great. Both the gameplay and the content itself seems ill-suited for the central theme of the game, and what should be a unique experience ends up overpowered and spoiled.

:laugh:
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad