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

Chili

Time passes when you're not looking
Jun 10, 2004
8,788
4,924
Hot take - the adage that books tend to be better than movies based off of them isn't something that I've ever thought really held up to scrutiny. Obviously it's a mixed bag but there are hundreds of examples where the film is superior.
Just going by the books I have read, there are certainly some films that live up to the book but I can think of great films that still aren't up to the books level. The original Papillon is an example. The Day of the Jackal is another and I love both of those films, not as much as the books though.

To Have and Have Not was chosen by Howard Hawks because he wanted the challenge of turning what he felt was Hemingway's worst book into a film. He borrowed heavily from Casablanca in the process.

I do like to read books of the films I watch, just have a hard time of thinking of examples where there is a similar night and day difference in the quality as in this one.
 

CDJ

Registered User
Nov 20, 2006
57,344
47,905
Hell baby
The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare

7.9/10


If you like Nazi killing this is a f***ing sweet movie. Had some inglorious basterds vibes for sure. Directed by Guy Ritchie
 

Babe Ruth

Looks wise.. I'm a solid 8.5
Feb 2, 2016
1,595
697
Hot take - the adage that books tend to be better than movies based off of them isn't something that I've ever thought really held up to scrutiny. Obviously it's a mixed bag but there are hundreds of examples where the film is superior.
Yeah, it's a case-by-case basis..
I think the 'book was better' routine is sometimes just a flex. There will be a group of dumb co-workers sharing how much they liked a movie etc.. and then an equally dumb, but more smug, eavesdropping co-worker will interject: 'the book was better', to seem more literate/intellectual etc.
I've seen it many times over the years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Macho King

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
49,088
30,030
There may be hundreds of examples of film adaptations that are better than the books, but there are thousands that are worse, so isn't it still true that books tend to be better?
It's tough - different media right? But it's kind of one of those selection bias issues - books that get adapted have to meet a certain threshold of popular appeal/critical success before they're adapted. So a bad adaptation of a great book is going to stand out. A great adaptation of a good book has less of a quality delta.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
49,088
30,030
Filled a blindspot with The Lost Highway .

Very normal movie. Of Lynchs films that I've seen, the most obvious comparison point is Mulholland Drive. But where MD has Watts to kind of give you an emotional center to navigate the weirdness and surrealism, I think this one suffers a bit with Patricia Arquette almost acting as a Femme Fatale and the main male characters being kinda shitty.

Definitely feels like a kind of critique on masculinity vis a vis controlling women? Also just real f***ing weird. Liked it, didn't love it. 6/10.
 

kihei

McEnroe: The older I get, the better I used to be.
Jun 14, 2006
43,875
11,145
Toronto
Die Hard
Hunt for Red October
The Shining
Barry Lyndon
The Godfather
Gone Girl
The Social Network
Fight Club
The Handmaiden
Snowpiercer (graphic novel but still)
Princess Bride
The Wizard of Oz
Full Metal Jacket
Etc.
Oh, those....:D

Actually I was thinking of works by more serious writers--Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Faulkner, Joyce, Nabokov, Dostoevsky, Grass, Marquez, Mann, Melville, etc. The batting average with those types is not that great.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
49,088
30,030
Oh, those....:D

Actually I was thinking of works by more serious writers--Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Faulkner, Joyce, Nabokov, Dostoevsky, Grass, Marquez, Mann, Melville, etc. The batting average with those types is not that great.
I mean... those are some dense f***ing books though - not only in length (but definitely in length), but also in complexity and theme.

Like take Nabokov for example (since he was adapted by Kubrick) - Lolita just straight up doesn't translate well out of print. The story, the action - it's almost entirely internal. Humbert's depravity and self-deception are completely evident when reading the book, but that is so difficult to translate to screen.

Studios didn't really give a shit about how well it would translate - they just knew it was a popular work and wanted to capitalize on it. Kubrick's film is... fine, but with the code, the source material, and just the limitations of the medium, the adaptation was doomed to fail.

Anyway that does kind of get to my overall point - We're dealing with a stacked deck here. You just listed off basically the canon of 19th century to modern literature. But Barnes and Noble is filled with a lot of shit that won't get adapted too. Similarly - I don't really want to read the novelizations of a lot of film classics. Like... do you want a novelization of Fury Road? It'd be terrible. So much of the greatness of a movie like that is due to the nature of the medium and what it can accomplish - the kineticism, the use of color, and how it makes you buy in to the absurdity of some of the stuff that happens that - by hour 2 when a character says "Witness Me" you sit there and you f***ing witness.

Obviously it's a mixed bag - but my overall point was just that I don't really like the adage because a) I think it's often used in a dismissive way by jackasses (not saying you were - thinking more of the types that denigrate anything that isn't their own preferred medium), and b) it's more of a truism than an actual truth.
 

PK Cronin

Bailey Fan Club Prez
Feb 11, 2013
34,533
23,964
Watched The Fall Guy yesterday.

It's about what I expected, an easy to watch action comedy. As a big fan of Gosling it felt like this was a role to help ease out of being Ken in a slow/natural sort of way rather than jumping back into a more dramatic role. He was excellent in this, as was Emily Blunt who gave a nice follow up performance to her Oppenheimer role. The rest of the cast was adequate but largely replaceable or unmemorable.

The entire premise of the move is so over the top ridiculous that any of the over the top ridiculous plot lines or action sequence are completely fine since it's not taking itself too seriously.

Worth a watch if you're looking for something to just throw on for a more casual viewing experience. If you miss this one you'll be fine too.

A strong 6/10 from me.
 

McGarnagle

Yes.
Aug 5, 2017
30,437
41,815
I watched Unfrosted on Netflix last night. It was simultaneously the dumbest and yet funniest movie I've seen this year. Seinfeld took something so anodyne, turned the silliness up to 11, and got an unbelievable all star cast to join in. Also, I noticed that they filmed at the school I did my master's at, I'd recognize that ugly brutalist architecture anywhere.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
49,088
30,030
I watched Unfrosted on Netflix last night. It was simultaneously the dumbest and yet funniest movie I've seen this year. Seinfeld took something so anodyne, turned the silliness up to 11, and got an unbelievable all star cast to join in. Also, I noticed that they filmed at the school I did my master's at, I'd recognize that ugly brutalist architecture anywhere.
Reviews on that have been extremely mixed. I don't know if I care enough to give it a shot. I saw the Mad Men clip and it didn't grab me so... eh.
 

McGarnagle

Yes.
Aug 5, 2017
30,437
41,815
Reviews on that have been extremely mixed. I don't know if I care enough to give it a shot. I saw the Mad Men clip and it didn't grab me so... eh.
I can see why people wouldn't like it, seems like reviewers either loved it or hated it. It's a bit absurdist while remaining clean and inoffensive, so that limits its audience. The Don Draper and Roger cameo made me laugh hard, but likely because I was watching in context of the movie and didn't know it was coming. Had I read about it in advance it probably wouldn't have hit the same way.

I found it enjoyable just for Jerry Seinfeld getting all those comedians together to just fool around with dumb characters. Hugh Grant particularly kills it whenever he's on screen.
 

SimGrindcore

Registered User
Mar 16, 2021
495
331
www.facebook.com
The Fall Guy. I enjoyed it. Great to turn off you brain switch.

Real nice action set pieces. Really entertaining. Emily Blunt and Ryan Gosling have a great chemistry.

The Fall Guy > Roadhouse (2024) I watched recently too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CDJ

ItsFineImFine

Registered User
Aug 11, 2019
3,745
2,389
WarGames (1983) - 7.5/10

Honestly quite enjoyed this and it wasn't as campy as I expected being an 80s blockbuster with computers and hacking. Of course how they arrive at the ending is a little dumb but there are some great scenes of tension here. While it isn't exactly like Fail-Safe as far as nuclear war films go, it holds its own with a climatic build-up while using a teenage actor as the protagonist (Matthew Broderick in this case). Honestly I enjoyed this more than Dune 2 which was the previous film I'd seen which probably says more about where I'm at now.

8 Women (2002) - 5/10

This was just dumb. A French murder 'mystery' which is made as a stage play full of characters becoming hysteric and then suddenly breaking into song including the idiotic ending. How did this same director make Frantz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zeppo

kihei

McEnroe: The older I get, the better I used to be.
Jun 14, 2006
43,875
11,145
Toronto
MV5BNzgzNzNjYTYtOTkwYS00OTYxLWEyZTgtOTRiMzg0NTc0YzNhXkEyXkFqcGdeQVRoaXJkUGFydHlJbmdlc3Rpb25Xb3JrZmxvdw@@._V1_.jpg


Challengers (2024) Directed by Luca Guadagnino 4A

As a tennis player (well, former tennis player) you might think i would look forward to movies with tennis backstories, but I don't. There are usually two of me watching the film at the same time. The tennis me is picking out all the flaws, especially in the actual tennis playing. The only movie that I have ever seen that gets the tennis right is King Richard, so it is a rare occurrence indeed. Challengers does a better job than most at this but still falls well short of being convincing. To make matters far worse, the effort at tennis realism is compromised even more egregiously by the excessively loud sound of tennis balls virtually exploding every time that they are struck and by the exaggerated effort the players display when striking the ball, like pit bulls straining on a leash. This gets annoying very fast, and not just on the ear drums. The rest of the movie is about a tennis menage a trois told in a constant mishmash of flashbacks (Guadagnino's exertions only made me recall how infinitely better Alain Resnais was at this sort of thing). But I enjoyed the story part of the way. Our threesome has an early meeting on a beach that crackles with nascent desire and demonstrates how emotionally disconcerting those initial feelings can be. But, then, I really hated the last third of the movie. In fact, I would say that Challengers is the most overdirected movie that I have seen in years.

For starters, the tennis player in me couldn't believe the central premise of the rivalry, that a six-time Grand Slam champion, who probably spent a lot of time at number 1 or 2 in the world, could be totally owned by a player ranked #271 who never had the ambition to get out of Challenger tournaments, the AHL of tennis competitions. But beyond that there are several ultra annoying directorial unforced errors, including the vast overuse of blaring music to hype scenes and turn up the intensity, to the point that sometimes the dialogue was inaudible. Then there was the slow, excruciating build up once the final match was underway. I found that tedious as hell--like stretching a rubber band to the breaking point for no particular reason at all. On top of which we have a very stupid open ending that tells us nothing that we don't already know but leaves several plot developments thoroughly up in the air. As well, somebody should have explained to Guadagnino that whoever touches the net automatically loses the point, or maybe that was just a detail he didn't care about anyway in his rush to an exasperating conclusion. Zendaya and Josh O'Connor are very good playing characters that I liked less and less as the movie progresses, and Mike Faist is good, also, with a character who has his share of flaws as well. But this movie pissed me off from both my perspectives, and, despite the occasionally snappy dialogue, I think basically Guadagnino sank his own ship here.
 
Last edited:

Spring in Fialta

A malign star kept him
Apr 1, 2007
27,330
16,114
Montreal, QC
I never thought in a million years I would ever wake in here and find myself reading Kubrick's Lolita slander.

As a big fan of Nabokov (my username is based on a short story of his, which is the one of the greatest works for all-time all artforms included) I think Kubrick's adaptation is a top-5 all-time film, the most perfect example of how novels should be adapted for the screen and I find it more satisfying than the book.

If it's of any merit, Nabokov himself (who didn't give a damn about movies and saw his own contributions to the film pretty much tossed out the window yet described by Kubrick as the greatest screenplay ever written) thought the movie was fantastic.
 
Last edited:

Spring in Fialta

A malign star kept him
Apr 1, 2007
27,330
16,114
Montreal, QC
Two Hands -

A fun Australian movie starring Heath Ledger before he really hit it big. Also features Rose Byrne, in the first role I have ever heard her natural accent.

I understand this is a bit of a cult favorite down under, and I can see why. Heath plays a young man stupid enough to do a job for a gangster and foolish enough to.....well, you need to watch to find out. Some bad choices come into play, and a rather entertaining movie featuring a great soundtrack ensues. 7 or 8 out of 10, I say.

I remember watching this as a teenager on TV. Fun flick. Haven't thought about it in years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nakatomi

kihei

McEnroe: The older I get, the better I used to be.
Jun 14, 2006
43,875
11,145
Toronto
I never thought in a million years I would ever wake in here and find myself reading Kubrick's Lolita slander.

As a big fan of Nabokov (my username is based on a short story of his, which is the one of the greatest works for all-time all artforms included) I think Kubrick's adaptation is a top-5 all-time film, the most perfect example of how novels should be adapted for the screen and I find it more satisfying than the book.

If it's of any merit, Nabokov himself (who didn't give a damn about movies and saw his own contributions to the film pretty much tossed out the window yet described by Kubrick as the greatest screenplay ever written) thought the movie was fantastic.
I'm amazed that anyone would fine the movie, good as it is, "more satisfying than the book." We're talking about one of the best books written by one of the finest writers in the history of the English language. To me, I like the movie just fine, but I don't think it comes anywhere close to matching the same sort of complexity and nuance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Macho King

Spring in Fialta

A malign star kept him
Apr 1, 2007
27,330
16,114
Montreal, QC
I'm amazed that anyone would fine the movie, good as it is, "more satisfying than the book." We're talking about one of the best books written by one of the finest writers in the history of the English language. To me, I like the movie just fine, but I don't think it comes anywhere close to matching the same sort of complexity and nuance.

I find there's a pretty big lull between when he 'captures' the girl and when the denouement happens. The cross-country travelling is okay but I find pretty suffocating at times. Whereas I think that the movie kept a lot of what makes the book tick (especially the comedy), added its own touch (Kubrick's perfect eye for photography) and is powered through by an all-timer of a performance (Sellers as Clare Quilty).

I think the book is very good overall but there's other stuff from Nabokov that I like a hell of a lot more. For example his campus novel Pnin published just before or after is crazy good.
 
Last edited:

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
49,088
30,030
Watched Fallen Angels.

Wong Kar-Wai just makes cool f***ing movies man. Loved all the little winks at Chungking Express. Preferred the mute storyline to the assassin, but both were great. I've seen 4 of his films now and absolutely adore 3 of them (As Tears Go By is pretty middling imo). This guy just... idk from a technical perspective he does some weird shit with framing, when to go handheld, when to go with wide angle lenses and stuff, which could all easily be distracting but instead just pulls me in. He may have the best ear for music in creating his soundtracks. Just a wonderful film. Probably at the bottom of the three I loved (In the Mood For Love/Chungking Express can Duke it out for #1).

8/10

I never thought in a million years I would ever wake in here and find myself reading Kubrick's Lolita slander.

As a big fan of Nabokov (my username is based on a short story of his, which is the one of the greatest works for all-time all artforms included) I think Kubrick's adaptation is a top-5 all-time film, the most perfect example of how novels should be adapted for the screen and I find it more satisfying than the book.

If it's of any merit, Nabokov himself (who didn't give a damn about movies and saw his own contributions to the film pretty much tossed out the window yet described by Kubrick as the greatest screenplay ever written) thought the movie was fantastic.
Never said it was bad. Said it fell short in translating all of the complexity and nuance of the book, and instead came across as almost broad. I don't think there's a better way to adapt it, but just that the adaptation is lesser than the source material.

Never thought that was a controversial opinion honestly.
 

Spring in Fialta

A malign star kept him
Apr 1, 2007
27,330
16,114
Montreal, QC
Watched Fallen Angels.

Wong Kar-Wai just makes cool f***ing movies man. Loved all the little winks at Chungking Express. Preferred the mute storyline to the assassin, but both were great. I've seen 4 of his films now and absolutely adore 3 of them (As Tears Go By is pretty middling imo). This guy just... idk from a technical perspective he does some weird shit with framing, when to go handheld, when to go with wide angle lenses and stuff, which could all easily be distracting but instead just pulls me in. He may have the best ear for music in creating his soundtracks. Just a wonderful film. Probably at the bottom of the three I loved (In the Mood For Love/Chungking Express can Duke it out for #1).

8/10


Never said it was bad. Said it fell short in translating all of the complexity and nuance of the book, and instead came across as almost broad. I don't think there's a better way to adapt it, but just that the adaptation is lesser than the source material.

Never thought that was a controversial opinion honestly.

It's not at all, I'm the outlier. I was just being funny. It's pretty much a forgotten film at this point, especially compared to his others. I just find it perfect and criminally underrated.

Fallen Angels is probably my favorite Wong-Kar Wai film as well lol
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
49,088
30,030
It's not at all, I'm the outlier. I was just being funny. It's pretty much a forgotten film at this point, especially compared to his others. I just find it perfect and criminally underrated.

Fallen Angels is probably my favorite Wong-Kar Wai film as well lol
I need to rewatch Chungking Express again nut I need to see Days of Being Wild and Happy Together soon too, so prioritizing is tough.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad