Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate it | {Insert Appropriate Seasonal Greeting Here}

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
12,145
6,637
I only watched roughly thirty minutes of that film but I'd wish a better viewer could explain to me what was gained by filming the film on a stage-like set. Mind you, I think Von Trier has hit some absurd highs (The Idiots especially) so I'm not hating but I don't get the reasoning of that move.

I remember watching Dogville and quite liking it, though I remember thinking it was still a little bit too long and dragged on towards the end. But to me, Dogville is one of Trier's more normal straightforward films, that's probably why it's my favourite of his films (though I haven't seen them all), because I'm not really into "artsy" stuff in general. But yeah, I don't think you're supposed to make that big of a deal of the stage-setting, it's just a setting. Myself I thought it looked really nice and that it worked quite well for the particular small town story.

Personal trivia for this film is that my mom's co-worker was Nicole Kidman's body double during the shooting.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rodgerwilco

ItsFineImFine

Registered User
Aug 11, 2019
3,745
2,389
.....not a vintage year by any means. Looking back on that list now, I think the one I ended up just purely liking the most is Babyteeth, which kept creeping up the list all year, or maybe it's just the wonderful performance by Ben Mendelsohn that I remember so fondly. Only time in memory where my top six were English language, too.

Yeah I was asking about 2020 specifically cos I noticed I had only seen around 25 films from that year when usually I watch 40ish from each year so wanted to view more but they didn't look the best.

It was affected by the pandemic delaying releases. The later part of this year and next year might be the same due to writers strikes.
 

ItsFineImFine

Registered User
Aug 11, 2019
3,745
2,389
The Sniper (1952) - 7/10

An incel who seeks mental help but doesn't get it ends up going on a shooting rampage...honestly this plot line could've been made today. It's a good film but it unfortunately has a bit of a B movie feel from the actors to the overly dramatic music but it's not bad. Reason I sought this out was because I like classics where a group like the police work together to chase down a criminal (see Panic In The Streets I reviewed last week). In this case, it was more focused on the criminal than the investigation which featured a police sargeant. Unfortunately it isn't exactly High & Low because it's a quick 87 minute film and the actual police investigation they show is quite superficial but it still fit somewhat in that plotline of some incident happening in a city in a classic film and a bunch of reporters or police or whoever covering/resolving it.

Stella Dallas (1937) - 7/10

Barbara Stanwyck makes other actors look amateur in another one of her early films where she plays a flawed but not unlikable woman who gets married to a rich man. Unfortunately it sets up a conflict that's so deeply rooted in classism that it's too outdated to take seriously now. The conflict itself is melodramatic and I think the ending is a bit unrealistic even for the time it was made but either way, it's an emotionally mature film in handling a mother-daughter relationship. Mind you, I think we can crticize the amount of classics willing to sacrifice the mother into someone who had to force themselves into some sort of martyrdom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzzyFan

Rodgerwilco

Entertainment boards w/ some Hockey mixed in.
Feb 6, 2014
8,018
7,499
I remember watching Dogville and quite liking it, though I remember thinking it was still a little bit too long and dragged on towards the end. But to me, Dogville is one of Trier's more normal straightforward films, that's probably why it's my favourite of his films (though I haven't seen them all), because I'm not really into "artsy" stuff in general. But yeah, I don't think you're supposed to make that big of a deal of the stage-setting, it's just a setting. Myself I thought it looked really nice and that it worked quite well for the particular small town story.

Personal trivia for this film is that my mom's co-worker was Nicole Kidman's body double during the shooting.
seems like that would have been an uncomfortable set to be around lol. I'm curious what she thought about it.
 

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
12,145
6,637
seems like that would have been an uncomfortable set to be around lol. I'm curious what she thought about it.

I've no idea what she thought about it, and she was just a body double/extra, but it's no secret Paul Bettany absolutely hated making that movie. There's also the 'confession' extra material which is pretty funny. Here's timestamped Bettany making a remark about The Idiots/Dogville.

"Five of us last night had an hour-long conversation about squirrels" :dunno:

 

Rodgerwilco

Entertainment boards w/ some Hockey mixed in.
Feb 6, 2014
8,018
7,499
I've no idea what she thought about it, and she was just a body double/extra, but it's no secret Paul Bettany absolutely hated making that movie. There's also the 'confession' extra material which is pretty funny. Here's timestamped Bettany making a remark about The Idiots/Dogville.

"Five of us last night had an hour-long conversation about squirrels" :dunno:


Ah okay. The entire energy of the movie is just incredibly uncomfortable, so I assumed it would bleed over into the set. I'll check that video out later.
 

shadow1

Registered User
Nov 29, 2008
16,732
5,539
5f0d33509581bf6410fc79f2816f64fb61eb0fbb
memoryfbi.webp


Memory (2022) - 6/10

A hitman with Alzheimer's takes revenge on his handlers after he is asked to target a child.

Liam Neeson stars as Alex Lewis, an aging assassin who is looking to get out of the business due to his worsening Alzheimer's disease. Meanwhile, FBI Agent Vincent Serra (Guy Pearce) is part of a task force working on a sex trafficking ring, and rescues the young Beatrice (Mia Sanchez). When hitman Lewis refuses an assignment to assassinate Beatrice to stop her from talking to the authorities, handler Davana Sealman (Monica Bellucci) puts a hit out on him...

Memory was written by Dario Scardapane and directed by Martin Campbell. The film is a remake of the 2003 Belgium film "The Memory of a Killer", only this time set in El Paso, Texas. As one of seemingly dozens of Liam Neeson action vehicles that have come after 2008's "Taken", does Memory do anything to stand out from the pack?

Shockingly, yes. I went into this movie expecting - and frankly, hoping for - a cheesy action flick that would allow me to turn my brain off. However, Memory is less of a "Liam Neeson action movie", and more of a "Guy Peace police procedural", with Liam Neeson gunplay mixed in. Don't get me wrong, Neeson is still a gigantic part of this film, and slips naturally into the role of an aging gunman. However, when plots A & B converge, it's clear that Pearce is the protagonist of the film, and he gives a really strong performance.

One of the film's strengths is that it's not predictable. It doesn't have M. Night Shayamalan level twists, but several moments happen that you don't see coming, and often they're pretty dark. But on the flip side, I thought Memory didn't play around enough with Alex Lewis's Alzheimer's. I'm not sure about the source material, but this film plays it completely straight, which is a letdown. Also, though it's a nitpick, early on the two plot lines seem almost as though they're from two different movies, with better writing slanted towards the Pearce side (did I mention how good he was in this film?).

Overall, Memory is a highly watchable police procedural, with elements of Liam Neeson action shenanigans. I was surprised how much I enjoyed this film, but maybe wouldn't have been had I realized Martin Campbell also directed 2017's "The Foreigner", a strong later era Jackie Chan movie (not him again!). Despite what I think though, Memory bombed commercially, earning only $13M against a $30M budget. Ether way, I wouldn't tell you to rush out and watch this movie, but if your watchlist is empty you could do a heck of a lot worse.
 

ItsFineImFine

Registered User
Aug 11, 2019
3,745
2,389
Riceboy Sleeps (2022) - 7/10

Another decent Canadian indie film this time about a Korean woman who raises her son alone after moving to Canada in the 90s. It will get compared to Minari and I don't think it has the same emotional breadth as Minari....it's more one-note anecdote after anecdote of struggle but it does have a similar sensitive touch with some really good acting from the lead. Also makes use of the Korean rural landscape with some beautiful shots, it's actually quite nicely filmed in general. Not a fan of the scenes focusing on the teenage son, the ones with the woman were more interesting but that might be because I hate how cliched films portray teens. Also appreciate the filter they used here, another Canadian indie called I Like Movies recently decided to use a 4:3 ratio because it was set 20+ years ago but they shot it in crisp clear HD so it never really felt like it was taking place a couple decades ago.

The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947) - 7/10

Gene Tierney puts on a very good British accent and develops a relationship with a ghost who was a sea captain in a house she's renting at the seaside. It's well paced in general and Tierney's acting is strong especially later on in the film once her character ages two separate times (make-up department did a good job I guess). The rest is standard post-war Hollywood melodrama with lots of sweeping music and characters speaking slowly and tearfully making you wish you had more sharper witted screwballs to watch from before the war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzzyFan and shadow1

kihei

McEnroe: The older I get, the better I used to be.
Jun 14, 2006
43,875
11,145
Toronto
Screen_Shot_2023-05-08_at_10.49.55_AM_umpnxm


Oppenheimer (2023) Directed by Christopher Nolan 7B

This ambitious biopic focuses on Robert Oppenheimer, so-called father of the atomic bomb. In effect, Oppenheimer tells his story in what almost amounts to three separate movies, mostly told in non-linear fashion at that. Which is not as confusing as it may sound. We examine Oppenheimer's (Cillian Murphy) early days as an academic, a left-winger who sometimes sympathized with his Communist friends, but never quite got around to joining the party. The second narrative deals with Oppenheimer's decision to become leader of the Manhattan Project, which was dedicated to building the first nuclear weapon, primarily because of his fear of what would happen if Nazi Germany acquired the bomb first, a very real possibility. The third segment examines the repercussions of the bomb, both in terms of Oppenheimer's feelings of guilt but also in terms of an attempt by vengeful arch-conservative Congress members to smear Oppenheimer's reputation because of his left-wing tendencies and attachments, including to his wife who possessed, for the time, dangerous political convictions (Emily Blunt, wasted except for one key scene).

It seems impossible to avoid discussion of structure when it comes to Christopher Nolan movies. It is doubtful that Nolan could direct a straight narrative any longer if his life depended on it. The non-linear structure of much of this film is both advantageous and problematic. It is advantageous in that it keeps the audience on its collective toes, peaks the audience's curiosity about what happens next, and showcases an abundance of acting talent in a wide variety of characters. With the exception of Jason Clarke, who as usual gracelessly overplays a villainous character, everybody else is excellent, especially Murphy whose facial expressions contribute to the emotional impact which the rest of the film largely lacks. Indeed, Oppenheimer may set a record for Oscar nominations in the acting categories.

But while the non-linear structure is great at riveting our attention and showcasing great acting, its downside is that it lacks the cumulative power that a traditional, linear narrative can build along the way to reach a crescendo at the climax. While the movie is technically impressive as hell, I never felt deeply emotionally involved in the proceedings at all. The only time I felt actual flesh-and-blood life enter the story was when Matt Damon was on screen as the Army Colonel Leslie Groves, in charge of organizing the Manhattan Project. Dedicated, down-to-earth, and blunt, Damon's Colonel seemed like the most human character in the movie. I also think Nolan made a misstep late in the movie focusing so much of the denouement on the fate on Oppenheimer's arch-nemesis Louis Strauss. "Bad guy gets his comeuppance" was not what the ending should have emphasized so dramatically. Tonally, the choice just seemed like an inexplicable unforced error. Nonetheless, Oppenheimer is an impressive achievement, one well worth seeing on a big screen, but it felt more like an intellectual exercise to me rather than providing any kind of profoundly human insight.
 
Last edited:

OzzyFan

Registered User
Sep 17, 2012
3,653
960
Screen_Shot_2023-05-08_at_10.49.55_AM_umpnxm


Oppenheimer (2023) Directed by Christopher Nolan 7B

This ambitious biopic focuses on Robert Oppenheimer, so-called father of the atomic bomb. In effect, Oppenheimer tells his story in what almost amounts to three separate movies, mostly told in non-linear fashion at that. Which is not as confusing as it may sound. We examine Oppenheimer's (Cillian Murphy) early days as an academic, a left-winger who sometimes sympathized with his Communist friends, but never quite got around to joining the party. The second narrative deals with Oppenheimer's decision to become leader of the Manhattan Project, which was dedicated to building the first nuclear weapon, primarily because of his fear of what would happen if Nazi Germany acquired the bomb first, a very real possibility. The third segment examines the repercussions of the bomb, both in terms of Oppenheimer's feelings of guilt but also in terms of an attempt by vengeful arch-conservative Congress members to smear Oppenheimer's reputation because of his left-wing tendencies and attachments, including to his wife who possessed, for the time, dangerous political convictions (Emily Blunt, wasted except for one key scene).

It seems impossible to avoid discussion of structure when it comes to Christopher Nolan movies. It is doubtful that Nolan could direct a straight narrative any longer if his life depended on it. The non-linear structure of much of this film is both advantageous and problematic. It is advantageous in that it keeps the audience on its collective toes, peaks the audience's curiosity about what happens next, and showcases an abundance of acting talent in a wide variety of characters. With the exception of Jason Clarke, who as usual gracelessly overplays a villainous character, everybody else is excellent, especially Murphy whose facial expressions contribute to the emotional impact which the rest of the film largely lacks. Indeed, Oppenheimer may set a record for Oscar nominations in the acting categories.

But while the non-linear structure is great at riveting our attention and showcasing great acting, its downside is that it lacks the cumulative power that a traditional, linear narrative can build along the way to reach a crescendo at the climax. While the movie is technically impressive as hell, I never felt deeply emotionally involved in the proceedings at all. The only time I felt actual flesh-and-blood life enter the story was when Matt Damon was on screen as the Army Colonel Leslie Groves, in charge of organizing the Manhattan Project. Dedicated, down-to-earth, and blunt, Damon's Colonel seemed like the most human character in the movie. I also think Nolan made a misstep late in the movie focusing so much of the denouement on the fate on Oppenheimer's arch-nemesis Louis Strauss. "Bad guy gets his comeuppance" was not what the ending should have emphasized so dramatically. Tonally, the choice just seemed like an inexplicable unforced error. Nonetheless, Oppenheimer is an impressive achievement, one well worth seeing on a big screen, but it felt more like an intellectual exercise to me rather than providing any kind of profoundly human insight.
Excellent review as always with a lot of great points. It's kind of funny/not-funny that Nolan wanted to show the person Oppenheimer and his historical/political jabs as superficial vengeful denouncement, and the only way he knew how to do that properly from his view was adding a good amount more screentime with Strauss's 1959 hearing (albeit the 1954 security hearing did enough justice already for that). I think Nolan wanted undisputed setting the record straight for Oppenheimer, but oddly, it killed the tone more than the narrative style already did. It felt like the combination of guilt and the security clearance revocation, with the final film seen, would have been a perfect sendoff. That said, Nolan accomplished what he wanted, for better or worse. Oppenheimer the person was thoroughly brought to life and Oppenheimer's historical relevance and public withstanding was more than established. Quite ironic about a 7B and given Nolan's status, but what comes to mind for me is something you said about Wind River (and the search engine fails me again), but in the hands of a different/superior director, Oppenheimer could have been a masterpiece....maybe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kihei and shadow1

Pranzo Oltranzista

Registered User
Oct 18, 2017
3,981
2,900
Here's a bunch of stuff I've seen and have not much to say about:

Creed III: 3/10
Knock at the Cabin: 2/10
Extraction 2: 2.5/10
Raiders of the Lost Ark: 3.5/10
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom: 4/10
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: 3.5/10
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: 3/10
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destinry: 3.5/10
Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning part 1: 3/10
Camping Sauvage (Ali & Bonilauri, 2005): 4.5/10 - not the Guy A. Lepage Quebec film that has a terrible reputation (haven't seen it), but a French film of the same title - with Denis Lavant, kind of a bleak variation on the French sex Summer movie. Amateurish, but interesting.
The Flash: 3/10
Barbie: 5/10

After kihei's comment, I was expecting a lot more from the last one, even thought that I would watch a real film for a change, but no, just more crap, with a semi-interesting spin. I'll try and watch something more substantial soon...............................................
 
Last edited:

ItsFineImFine

Registered User
Aug 11, 2019
3,745
2,389
Planet of The Apes (1968) - 7.5/10

It's dated like most 60s films with any aspect of space exploration but it's a pretty good action-adventure. Doesn't overstay the runtime and eventually explores some interesting heavy-handed philosophizing about man. Lots of very obvious lecturing about the fault of man but imo it doesn't get in the way of a good film.

You Hurt My Feelings (2023) - 6.5/10

Rich New Yorkers have middle aged problems and make a fun-ish movie to show their disaffection with modern life. Thankfully, this one has Elaine from Seinfeld in the lead so that was fun but her character unfortunately overreacts to her husband saying he isn't into her book behind her back and it acts as the central conflict for the film. There's still other good stuff going on here but the film spends a lot of time showing that its characters should basically know better and that white lies are okay in a marriage but the characters don't seem to get this until late on in the film. The ending is a bit too neat imo, it descends a bit into Hallmark territory but since Hollywood is in general incapable of making family dramedies like this nowadays minus the occasional good script like The Big Sick, it gets a pass.

Justice League: Warworld (DC Animated Universe) [2023] - Piece of shit/10
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: OzzyFan and shadow1

Pranzo Oltranzista

Registered User
Oct 18, 2017
3,981
2,900
What's wrong with you?
I really tried to find anything interesting about these. I have a good (and brilliant) friend who loves them, but I just can't.

But again, you have to take my ratings with a huge grain of salt (or do like Osprey, and consider that I rate stuff on 5 or 6 and not on 10). I used to watch a lot of great films, so my scale is made so I can differentiate between a very very great film and a very very very great film, you know, and the more common stuff falls into more of a blur. 3/10 is what I give to a commercial film that doesn't do more than it was designed to do (sell tickets and popcorn).
 
Last edited:

OzzyFan

Registered User
Sep 17, 2012
3,653
960
Talk to Me (2022)
3.10 out of 4stars

“When a group of friends discover how to conjure spirits using an embalmed hand, they become hooked on the new thrill, until one of them goes too far and unleashes terrifying supernatural forces.”
A great supernatural horror that solidly delivers the shocks and dread with decently developed themes. Well acted, especially by the lead Sophie Wilde. A fresher twist on mostly recycled tropes, but effective all around. Full spectrum grief, trauma, loneliness, helplessness, and arguably other mental illnesses are at the heart of this film. Feels like a metaphor for drug use/addiction possibly as well, flirting with death, and seems to have a touch of teen insecurities thrown in too.
 

Jovavic

boohoo, Pens "fans", BOOHOO
Oct 13, 2002
15,784
3,484
New Born Citizen Erased
The Resort - awful

The wife and i watch bad horror movies from time to time but this one ranks among the worst. Nothing redeemable and for a rated R horror movie to not have any boobs is a crime that should land all involved in jail.
 

ItsFineImFine

Registered User
Aug 11, 2019
3,745
2,389
What's wrong with you?

I don't rate them as low as he did but I find 80s blockbusters like Back To The Future (especially 2 & 3), Indiana Jones, etc to be grossly overrated. Like these films show up on lists of the top 100, top 200, etc of all time.

As thrillers, they hold nothing against better thrillers from this millennia or pre-80s. And their dialogue is really poor so you can't call them particularly good dramas either, they're quite campy films.

My own theory, is that they're overrated on a lot of film lists today because the people who grew up in the 80s and 90s loved them as kids/teens and it led to them being overrated when sites like imdb were found and that same generation is Gen X and continued to overrate them through nostalgic glasses in the future.

50 years from now I don't think they'll be considered as highly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pranzo Oltranzista

Ceremony

How I choose to feel is how I am
Jun 8, 2012
114,299
17,384
A Quiet Place Part II (2020/2021): Did A Quiet Place need a sequel? Not really. Does it need the further sequel it's getting? Not really. Does it need the prequel it's getting? Not really. Does it need the video game it's getting? Not really. At least I live on an island.

Armageddon (1998): Spectacular. Surprisingly hard to follow when they're actually on the meteor, even by Michael Bay's standards, but still spectacular. There's also a character in the credits listed as "Nerd" which I found hilarious.

Arrival (2016): A genuinely great film, ironically spoiled by the fact I'd seen it before. The visuals and premise of the first half are still engrossing though. I'd like to live in Amy Adams' house.

Braveheart (1995): Quite possibly the strongest concentration of nonsense ever committed to film.

Robocop (1987): The world's worst police force fail to protect capitalism's wet dream. Capitalism tries to replace them with robots. Hilarity ensues. The first time I saw this I thought it was rubbish and lacking Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michael Ironside, the more I see it (I think this was the third time) the sadder and less dated it gets.
 

OzzyFan

Registered User
Sep 17, 2012
3,653
960
Network (1976)
3.25 out of 4stars

“A television network cynically exploits a deranged former anchor's ravings and revelations about the news media for its own profit, but finds that his message may be difficult to control.”
A great satirical drama that is/was prophetic of the future of media and its impact on society as a whole and individually. An Oscar darling, receiving 10 nominations and accumulating 4 wins: Best Actor (Finch), Best Actress (Dunaway), Best Supporting Actress (Straight), and Best Screenplay (Chayefsky). On that note, Peter Finch is electric any time he’s on the screen, many thanks to his delivery of a character that has lost his mind in a “crazy like a fox” way. Material one needs to walk a fine line with, Finch knocks out of the park. Finch is the frustrated man speaking sad truths of the news and world, issues and oppressive forces that seem unchangeable or controllable. Some other nice notes of how money and satisfaction are humanity’s God at the end of the day, and the only way money is trumped is if opinion-pushing/propaganda choices outweigh it for top of the pyramid peoples. The film also has hints or notions on the future of media becoming more fast-paced, sensationalized, crude, and “realistic”, with connections to tabloid shows/tabloid talk shows, reality shows, and personal footage use/publication all for the sake of money and more audience viewers. And society’s overconsumption and attachment to this media/style as their main source of entertainment, translated to even the immediacy and rapidity of TikTok’s and Cell Phone usage now with the younger generation, leads to a “dehumanization” of humanity, shrinking reality for people and turning them into insensitive and indifferent beings with minimal functioning abilities in reality/the-real-world with real people. Personal and functional relationships suffer, and psychological/mental/emotional dysfunctions occur from this now inhuman instant satisfaction. Technology itself has become such a double edged sword even beyond this that it’s frightening of where the future may lead for humanity as a whole.

A Face in the Crowd (1957)
3.20 out of 4stars

“A female radio reporter turns a folk-singing drifter into a powerful media star.”
A great satirical drama about the power of celebrity and media on the public. Andy Griffith as a dominant charismatic and personable personality is ironically just that in this homeless drunk to wealthy star demagogue turn, all while being a manipulative monster behind the scenes(in the film). Being endearing on a national or worldwide scale, thanks to the abilities of TV/media, is itself a tool of epic influential power that appears to be mostly morally and legally unchecked. Capable of convincing millions to make purchases, adopt thoughts/opinions, make decisions, and other actions from their spoken words as if they were religious gospel, even if scripted and paid advertisements/affiliations. Even political affairs. The power of celebrity idolatry, especially on youth and young adults, can be obsessive and destructive, and altogether life changing. Thus large scale impactive across a vast area of people. The craziest part of all this, is that it’s a continuous cycle that will never stop. This film is nearly 70years old and displayed this issue, which is only more susceptible today, and was likely even susceptible prior on smaller scales historically. And of course this all was made possible because of media’s vast exposure ability (radio and TV during the film’s time), which has grown almost limitlessly now to the internet, streaming, and social media platforms connecting billions of people worldwide (supposedly over 5 billion now, with the exception of some countries having bans on social media websites). Kind of makes you question every celebrity’s “molded” and promoted carefully protected public image versus their true selves and motives behind closed doors. Ellen Degeneres is the best recent example that popped into my mind, and there are many others on record as well.

Oppenheimer (2023)
4 Star General Stupendous

“The story of American scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer and his role in the development of the atomic bomb.”
Christopher Nolan knows noteworthy cinema. Oppenheimer explodes off the screen, spewing its greatness all around. It’d be willy-nilly and silly if Cilly Murphy didn’t get an Oscar nom. Not only did he personify JR Oppenheimer, he also became death, became the destroyer of worlds, and, paternity test pending, may be the father of the atomic bomb. And just learning of Cilian’s almond a day keeps the Nazi’s at bay diet was even more consuming, showing that he really went full boar. Once Cilian whispered the words he stole from an 80’s movie, “If you build it, they will come”, a town full of scientists emerged like gremlins at a waterpark. The Manhattan Project became a blast, bursting with enthusiasm which led to a booming success. Fiery mushroom hors d’oeuvres were served to commemorate the big bang and all were pleased…...except iron man, “who always needs to be in the spotlight”, he just couldn’t stay dead and had to try to ruin Oppey’s good name years later. Freaking Robert Downey Jr, let someone else save the world for once.
 

kihei

McEnroe: The older I get, the better I used to be.
Jun 14, 2006
43,875
11,145
Toronto
Oppenheimer (2023)
4 Star General Stupendous

“The story of American scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer and his role in the development of the atomic bomb.”
Christopher Nolan knows noteworthy cinema. Oppenheimer explodes off the screen, spewing its greatness all around. It’d be willy-nilly and silly if Cilly Murphy didn’t get an Oscar nom. Not only did he personify JR Oppenheimer, he also became death, became the destroyer of worlds, and, paternity test pending, may be the father of the atomic bomb. And just learning of Cilian’s almond a day keeps the Nazi’s at bay diet was even more consuming, showing that he really went full boar. Once Cilian whispered the words he stole from an 80’s movie, “If you build it, they will come”, a town full of scientists emerged like gremlins at a waterpark. The Manhattan Project became a blast, bursting with enthusiasm which led to a booming success. Fiery mushroom hors d’oeuvres were served to commemorate the big bang and all were pleased…...except iron man, “who always needs to be in the spotlight”, he just couldn’t stay dead and had to try to ruin Oppey’s good name years later. Freaking Robert Downey Jr, let someone else save the world for once.
You are really fission for puns there.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Osprey and OzzyFan

flyersnorth

Registered User
Oct 7, 2019
4,690
7,158
My own theory, is that they're overrated

Just a few comments on this.

Firstly, I'd argue they are rated exactly as they are because that's how people rated it in the aggregate (barring fake ratings, of course). Some high scores, some low scores, but the average rating is a reflection of how people view it. It isn't "over" or "under" rated; it's simply rated. You happen to disagree with the average rating. Nothing wrong with that.

Secondly, I do agree with your point that it is a reflection of the people who grew up watching those films - and to me, that's the point of art. It is to create a connection, to resonate with the person consuming the art. Can I rate art purely on an objective basis? Maybe, but probably not. I can appreciate the merits of certain techniques, certain choices, clever storytelling, brilliant use of colour, and so on... but at the end of the day, if it doesn't resonate with me, it doesn't resonate with me. That's all that matters to most consumers, and reflexively so. Nothing wrong with that either.

If someone in the future can't connect with Back to the Future or Indiana Jones, I would argue it isn't a confirmation that it was never good in the first place. It's that the social zeitgeist has changed, and people may no longer be able to relate. Some art transcends time, some doesn't. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Just bringing these up for a friendly discussion - not a criticism at all. We all enjoy art, and that is a richness of the human experience.
 

Pranzo Oltranzista

Registered User
Oct 18, 2017
3,981
2,900
Just a few comments on this.

Firstly, I'd argue they are rated exactly as they are because that's how people rated it in the aggregate (barring fake ratings, of course). Some high scores, some low scores, but the average rating is a reflection of how people view it. It isn't "over" or "under" rated; it's simply rated. You happen to disagree with the average rating. Nothing wrong with that.

Secondly, I do agree with your point that it is a reflection of the people who grew up watching those films - and to me, that's the point of art. It is to create a connection, to resonate with the person consuming the art. Can I rate art purely on an objective basis? Maybe, but probably not. I can appreciate the merits of certain techniques, certain choices, clever storytelling, brilliant use of colour, and so on... but at the end of the day, if it doesn't resonate with me, it doesn't resonate with me. That's all that matters to most consumers, and reflexively so. Nothing wrong with that either.

If someone in the future can't connect with Back to the Future or Indiana Jones, I would argue it isn't a confirmation that it was never good in the first place. It's that the social zeitgeist has changed, and people may no longer be able to relate. Some art transcends time, some doesn't. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Just bringing these up for a friendly discussion - not a criticism at all. We all enjoy art, and that is a richness of the human experience.
I guess it depends of the crowd. If we're discussing among cinephiles, with what it implies as aesthetic and intellectual appreciation of films, and we're considering these films against everything else, 8.4/10 for Indiana Jones is certainly overrated and everybody will agree.

That being said, my ratings are only meant as purely personal, and I'm only happy for people who can truly enjoy these films (and somewhat jealous too I guess).
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzzyFan

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad