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

[Spring in Fialta]

I find Ridley Scott completely hit or miss. He's both made some of my favorite movies, but also some of my most hated, and some of those movies are in the same universe (Alien -> Prometheus).

The only thing I feel that he can usually do well is that his movies look good.

I find his filmography to be a long list of total crap save like, two, maybe three movies.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I find his filmography to be a long list of total crap save like, two, maybe three movies.

I like more of his movies than I dislike but I think a lot of that is his taste more than his skill. I don't know that he has a signature other than high competence... which is totally fine.

Funny enough I almost just picked a Ridley Scott movie for the movie club. An underrated one IMO. Still may. Just not this round

 

[OzzyFan]

I find Ridley Scott completely hit or miss. He's both made some of my favorite movies, but also some of my most hated, and some of those movies are in the same universe (Alien -> Prometheus).

The only thing I feel that he can usually do well is that his movies look good.

Got me scrolling through Ridley Scott's filmography, and that's a decent way of putting it albeit I wouldn't agree to that negative extreme. I'd say a lot of his films are good/decent but he has at least a handful or so of home run films. It's not like he's churning out garbage, just stuff that's not always "fresh" or creative material I'd say is the best way to put it. I think it may come down to him not writing films and having a hit and miss selection process. Well, at least he must enjoy what he's doing to be doing so much of it.

 

[OzzyFan]

I find his filmography to be a long list of total crap save like, two, maybe three movies.

Just out of curiosity, With the exception of 2 or 3 films below as you suggest, which ones are crap and why are they crap?:

-Alien
-Blade Runner
-Gladiator
-Black Hawk Down
-American Gangster
-The Martian
-Thelma and Louise
-The Duellists

 

[guinness]

For me, I'll briefly touch on the Martian.

I didn't think it was bad, just profoundly generic. Generic tropes, generic beats, I never felt danger in the survival of Damon's character. It added nothing new or a different take on sci-fi rescue material.

It was about on par with Apollo 13 for me, but a less dull Marooned.

I'm pretty harsh on reviewing things, but it was a 5/10 film for me all day long. I was entertained, but mildly.

 

[Osprey]

It's kinda like Titanic but better

That's so tragic. Literally hours of construction down the drain. What's the point of all of those lifeboats along the side if not even one gets launched?

 

[Kshahdoo]

That's so tragic. Literally hours of construction down the drain. What's the point of all of those lifeboats along the side if not even one gets launched?

What did you expect from a company named Cardboardia Cruiselines? I bet those lifeboats were just simulacrums. I've heard they made them out of paper.

 

[nameless1]

Just out of curiosity, With the exception of 2 or 3 films below as you suggest, which ones are crap and why are they crap?:

-Alien
-Blade Runner
-Gladiator
-Black Hawk Down
-American Gangster
-The Martian
-Thelma and Louise
-The Duellists

Yeah, I largely agree with your list, and based on that list, Scott really is not a bad director, and I am actually impressed that he is versatile enough to make quality movies in a variety of different genres. I personally did not like Blade Runner that much, but I can understand why it is considered to be a groundbreaker.

Coincidentally, I watched Alien and Black Hawk Down recently, and Alien is definitely one of the best survival-horror movies I have ever watched. I still love the look of the spaceship even with today's standard, and I like that he limited the appearance of the xenomorph to maximize its impact. Black Hawk Down, meanwhile, is pretty much what Michael Bay wished he could make with 13 Hours. I find it to be mere fine, but it is clear it became the template for later war movies.

People might disagree with me, but I would actually put Kingdom of Heaven on that list too, though only his Director's Cut. I watched it before I became more well-versed in the art of cinema, but I remember that I enjoyed it.

 

[nameless1]

For me, I'll briefly touch on the Martian.

I didn't think it was bad, just profoundly generic. Generic tropes, generic beats, I never felt danger in the survival of Damon's character. It added nothing new or a different take on sci-fi rescue material.

It was about on par with Apollo 13 for me, but a less dull Marooned.

I'm pretty harsh on reviewing things, but it was a 5/10 film for me all day long. I was entertained, but mildly.

That is a good take. I personally liked it, but I realize it is nothing great. My biggest issue is that Damon basically played himself, because while I did not mind his presence, and he showed that he can definitely carry a movie, there is nothing impressive about that, which basically epitomized exactly what the problem with the movie was.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I like more of his movies than I dislike but I think a lot of that is his taste more than his skill. I don't know that he has a signature other than high competence... which is totally fine.

Funny enough I almost just picked a Ridley Scott movie for the movie club. An underrated one IMO. Still may. Just not this round

Let me guess, The Counselor?

Just out of curiosity, With the exception of 2 or 3 films below as you suggest, which ones are crap and why are they crap?:

-Alien
-Blade Runner
-Gladiator
-Black Hawk Down
-American Gangster
-The Martian
-Thelma and Louise
-The Duellists

Point taken. I was too hard on him. Still, how many of those really resonate? Outside of Blade Runner, those that I've seen from him just get to that was alright at best yet it seems like he gets talked about like he's a legend.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Also, all this talk of Ridley Scott reminds of the biggest belly laugh I ever got out of this thread. Ol'Kihei had reviewed The Last Duel and went on about how nobody else could look as physically ill-suited as Matt Damon does for medieval times and posted this picture to start his review:

Good stuff.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Also, all this talk of Ridley Scott reminds of the biggest belly laugh I ever got out of this thread. Ol'Kihei had reviewed The Last Duel and went on about how nobody else could look as physically ill-suited as Matt Damon does for medieval times and posted this picture to start his review:

Good stuff.

lol there he is.

I couldn't ever take him and Blondfleck seriously there. Just utterly, utterly braindead casting.

And yeah, Ridley Scott is verryyy erratic. He's done legitimate genre classics, but also just total and complete shite. I think a couple of underrated ones were Black Rain and Legend (c'mon, who can tell me that wasn't the GOAT onscreen Devil ever?) but then the Alien prequels happened. And according to:

Ridley Scott | Producer, Director, Production Designer

Known for: The Martian, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise

www.imdb.com

...there's another Alien prequel announced. And Gladiator 2. Ugh.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Let me guess, The Counselor?



Point taken. I was too hard on him. Still, how many of those really resonate? Outside of Blade Runner, those that I've seen from him just get to that was alright at best yet it seems like he gets talked about like he's a legend.

Ha. It actually wasn't!

 

[OzzyFan]

Yeah, I largely agree with your list, and based on that list, Scott really is not a bad director, and I am actually impressed that he is versatile enough to make quality movies in a variety of different genres. I personally did not like Blade Runner that much, but I can understand why it is considered to be a groundbreaker.

Coincidentally, I watched Alien and Black Hawk Down recently, and Alien is definitely one of the best survival-horror movies I have ever watched. I still love the look of the spaceship even with today's standard, and I like that he limited the appearance of the xenomorph to maximize its impact. Black Hawk Down, meanwhile, is pretty much what Michael Bay wished he could make with 13 Hours. I find it to be mere fine, but it is clear it became the template for later war movies.

People might disagree with me, but I would actually put Kingdom of Heaven on that list too, but only his Director's Cut. It was before I became more well-versed in the art of cinema, but I remember that I enjoyed it.

I can definitely agree with that ideology. And it's funny you bring up Michael Bay, who is a great action director himself and like Scott does not do any screenwriting. I don't know if Bay has ever tried to do something deeply serious and dramatic. Even 13 hours has a decent amount of humor thrown in and we all know how "subpar" the dialogue and writing can be with his movies. I don't know if he gravitates towards those movies or they gravitate toward him or it's a 2-way magnetic relationship, but I don't think he's ever put out a fleshed out and fully realized movie versus his on the surface thrills (or whatever he wants or tries to). Not that he ever needs to and has been clearly professionally/monetarily successful as a director and producer of films in his own right/"style".

And I'd definitely agree with you on Kingdom of Heaven, underrated for sure and an "epic attempt". Just looking at Scott's cross genre success and attempted swings, it's admirable to see him trying unorthodox movies and career moves that often. Even if he does go for spinoff stuff here and there alongside some "lesser" choices.

 

[NyQuil]

 

[OzzyFan]

This is funny, but there are a number of exceptions, some notable:

-The Thing (1982)=Upon release critics ripped apart, mediocre response from audiences, and caused Universal to buy Carpenter out of his multi-movie contract. The movie is a horror masterpiece.
-Shawshank Redemption=Upon release was a box office flop even though it received Oscar nominations and critical praise. The movie is usually in the upper echelon on many greatest movie of all time lists.
-Office Space=Upon release was considered a box office disappointment. The movie is a cult classic comedy that many have in their top 50-100 greatest comedy movie lists.
-I don't excel in knowledge of this field, but there are many highly acclaimed filmmakers/films that honestly don't have or receive the opportunity for a wide enough audience period. And by just searching, there seems to be lists of many "great films" that were either "box office flops/disappointments" and/or "critic shamed".

Essentially. Everyone is fallible.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Deep Red (1975) (subtitles)
3.25 out of 4stars

Not sure what Pranzo thinks, but I have seen it ranked #1 on many lists as the greatest giallo film of all-time.

If you want to know what I think, it's this way:

The Giallo ultimate thread.

 

[nameless1]

I can definitely agree with that ideology. And it's funny you bring up Michael Bay, who is a great action director himself and like Scott does not do any screenwriting. I don't know if Bay has ever tried to do something deeply serious and dramatic. Even 13 hours has a decent amount of humor thrown in and we all know how "subpar" the dialogue and writing can be with his movies. I don't know if he gravitates towards those movies or they gravitate toward him or it's a 2-way magnetic relationship, but I don't think he's ever put out a fleshed out and fully realized movie versus his on the surface thrills (or whatever he wants or tries to). Not that he ever needs to and has been clearly professionally/monetarily successful as a director and producer of films in his own right/"style".

And I'd definitely agree with you on Kingdom of Heaven, underrated for sure and an "epic attempt". Just looking at Scott's cross genre success and attempted swings, it's admirable to see him trying unorthodox movies and career moves that often. Even if he does go for spinoff stuff here and there alongside some "lesser" choices.

I just found it remarkable how similar both Black Hawk Down and 13 Hours look and feel. Black Hawk Down is definitely superior, but it is mere okay. I am entertained, but that is about it. It is not something I feel the need to watch again.

 

[nameless1]

This is funny, but there are a number of exceptions, some notable:

-The Thing (1982)=Upon release critics ripped apart, mediocre response from audiences, and caused Universal to buy Carpenter out of his multi-movie contract. The movie is a horror masterpiece.
-Shawshank Redemption=Upon release was a box office flop even though it received Oscar nominations and critical praise. The movie is usually in the upper echelon on many greatest movie of all time lists.
-Office Space=Upon release was considered a box office disappointment. The movie is a cult classic comedy that many have in their top 50-100 greatest comedy movie lists.
-I don't excel in knowledge of this field, but there are many highly acclaimed filmmakers/films that honestly don't have or receive the opportunity for a wide enough audience period. And by just searching, there seems to be lists of many "great films" that were either "box office flops/disappointments" and/or "critic shamed".

Essentially. Everyone is fallible.

Coincidentally, I happened to watched The Thing and Office Space recently. The Thing definitely lives up to its great status, but Office Space has really fallen off.

Judge did manage capture the tedious nature of the office life, especially in that opening traffic scene, and the overbearing boss character who wants to to hands-on is accurate, and in the 2000s, I can see why it is so well-liked. Nowadays though, the humour no longer works. In fact, it is somewhat offensive, and definitely not politically correct. Add to the non-sensical plot that involves hypnosis, it just becomes too hard to resonate.

It does not happen very often, but this movie might be the rare occasion where the original gut feeling is right, and it was never that great to begin with. If others have the time, I would love to read what they think. I might be completely wrong, but I never had a movie where I can see the high praise for it, only for it to fall back to the original opinion as time went on.

 

[shadow1]

This is funny, but there are a number of exceptions, some notable:

-The Thing (1982)=Upon release critics ripped apart, mediocre response from audiences, and caused Universal to buy Carpenter out of his multi-movie contract. The movie is a horror masterpiece.
-Shawshank Redemption=Upon release was a box office flop even though it received Oscar nominations and critical praise. The movie is usually in the upper echelon on many greatest movie of all time lists.
-Office Space=Upon release was considered a box office disappointment. The movie is a cult classic comedy that many have in their top 50-100 greatest comedy movie lists.
-I don't excel in knowledge of this field, but there are many highly acclaimed filmmakers/films that honestly don't have or receive the opportunity for a wide enough audience period. And by just searching, there seems to be lists of many "great films" that were either "box office flops/disappointments" and/or "critic shamed".

Essentially. Everyone is fallible.

Not to veer off topic...

According to an online blog by producer Stuart Cohen, Carpenter had to attend some post-production meetings for The Thing by phone because he was in another state for pre-production of Firestarter (eventually directed by Mark L. Lester). This included a meeting where the final ending was decided, mere hours before the film went to print. Test audiences did not like the ambiguous ending between MacReady and Childs, and Universal pushed for a new ending. If not for the meeting I just referenced, the ending we would've gotten had Child's spliced out of the final scene; instead it was just MacReady sitting there in the cold. What a horrible mistake that would've been.

Ironically Carpenter just did the score for this year's remake of Firestarter (which seems to be a bomb from what I've read - pun intended).

The Thing is in theaters this Wednesday as a 40th Anniversary Fanthom Event. Fans that saw it yesterday said the picture, sound, and even aspect ratio are all a mess. I'm still planning to see it. For one reason or another, this movie seems to be cursed when it comes to movie theaters.

 

[member 51464]

I had somehow never seen The Outsiders (1983).

My goodness it is awful. The dialogue, the pacing, the plot. It is just....really bad. 3/10.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I had somehow never seen The Outsiders (1983).

My goodness it is awful. The dialogue, the pacing, the plot. It is just....really bad. 3/10.

Hey, I had to read the book and do a paper on it for school. Grade...9? 10, maybe? *shudder*

The only thing worth seeing the movie for is catching a small glimpse of Tom Cruise's original teeth. I think they're in the Scientology hall of fame or something by now.

 

[nameless1]

Not to veer off topic...

According to an online blog by producer Stuart Cohen, Carpenter had to attend some post-production meetings for The Thing by phone because he was in another state for pre-production of Firestarter (eventually directed by Mark L. Lester). This included a meeting where the final ending was decided, mere hours before the film went to print. Test audiences did not like the ambiguous ending between MacReady and Childs, and Universal pushed for a new ending. If not for the meeting I just referenced, the ending we would've gotten had Child's spliced out of the final scene; instead it was just MacReady sitting there in the cold. What a horrible mistake that would've been.

Ironically Carpenter just did the score for this year's remake of Firestarter (which seems to be a bomb from what I've read - pun intended).

The Thing is in theaters this Wednesday as a 40th Anniversary Fanthom Event. Fans that saw it yesterday said the picture, sound, and even aspect ratio are all a mess. I'm still planning to see it. For one reason or another, this movie seems to be cursed when it comes to movie theaters.

I watched the 4K remaster version, and it is beautiful. Kurt Russell looked really pale for some reason though.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) - 7/10
Kinda devolves into a revenge tale but it's a peaceful movie almost through the wilderness for a good half almost.

Belfast (2021) - 7/10
I really don't like Kenneth Brannagh or his directing here (a man who thinks Hercule Poirot would shoot a gun or run around has some screw loose) but the actors in here and the human interactions are a strong point.

Top Gun: Maverick (2022) - 7/10
Fantastic final act, tricks you into thinking it's one of the better blockbusters in a while on the strength of that act. The first two thirds though are a cheesy rehash of the already cheesy original.

Drive My Car (2021) - 7/10
I'm not one for long songs or big films with lots of words but this was a relatively easy watch for most of it without too much boredom in between. Fantastically shot though with a sharp camera, looks great on a 16:9 monitor with the aspect ration filling almost the entire screen rather than leaving two black bars, wish more modern films did that rather than just foreign ones.

 

[Osprey]

I had somehow never seen The Outsiders (1983).

My goodness it is awful. The dialogue, the pacing, the plot. It is just....really bad. 3/10.

I somehow hadn't seen it until last year and I didn't care for it, either. Besides the somewhat boring plot and pacing, I recall feeling that the women who wrote it didn't really capture how boys act. I imagine that girls in the 80s loved it, though.