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

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I can't help but feel it's about the people making it more than the product itself. You may have seen a solider wallow in the mud for 10 minutes while they're slowly dying but you haven't seen ME do a scene where a solider wallows in mud for 10 minutes while they're slowly dying.

I haven't seen the film, but I like this a lot. Might be why Underground is my favorite war movie. Have you seen Kusturica make a war movie (in which war is a movie)?

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I haven't seen the film, but I like this a lot. Might be why Underground is my favorite war movie. Have you seen Kusturica make a war movie (in which war is a movie)?

The only Kusturica movie I have seen is Arizona Dream. This sounds intriguing though.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Cocaine Bear (2023) Directed by Elizabeth Banks 5A

A crazed drug dealer throws a large shipment of cocaine from a plane and it lands in a Georgia state park where a bear becomes quickly addicted. This has nasty consequences for various bad guys and passers-by, The natural comparison here is obviously Snakes on a Plane and Cocaine Bear is way more fun. The movie is a mix of comedy and very, very light horror with a dollop of gore thrown in for good measure. We meet a number of characters who make their way into the nature preserve including a mom and two young teens, three dumb local hoods, a pair of drug dealers, a detective, and a forest ranger with romance on her mind. Some of the characters work better than others and the one-liners are not going to remind anybody of Dorothy Parker. But some of the situations are truly funny. Director Elizabeth Banks brings a nice, breezy approach to the shenanigans keeping things light and briskly moving along at a rapid rate. The bear has some funny moments, too, and I was rooting for her as much as anybody else in the movie. And at 95 minutes, Cocaine Bear doesn't overstay its welcome. I enjoyed myself; there are worse ways to kill an hour and a half.

How in the world did puns not dominate your review? The f***.

 

[Osprey]

All Quiet on the Western Front. (the new one). From Saving Private Ryan on we've been in this age of "war is brutal" extreme filmmaking. I'm not saying each successive film is trying to one-up the prior one in the 25+ years since, but I ain't saying they ain't. Black Hawk Down, Hacksaw Ridge, 1917, to name a few prominent ones, and now this one all are made by people completely aware of the previous movies.

I think I'm just burned out and the more I see the more the cynical part of me takes over. When I see a tank slowly roll over a soldier and pop him like a balloon (which happens here) I no longer think, "Sh*t man, war is AWFUL" I think "the director thought that effect was cool." This very well may be cruel and unfair on my part. I'm not exactly turning into Truffaut here and claiming all war movies to be "pro" war, but directors are very pro directing war movies. It might be the most "show off" genre in film when it comes to a certain kind of filmmaking.

It's a very different kind of movie, but I had a similar feeling when I watched Terrifier 2 recently. Horror is a "show off" genre, as well, and I got the impression that the director was trying to out-do himself and push the boundaries of gore. Several times, instead of thinking how cool an effect was or how disturbed the movie's serial killer was, I was thinking of how sick and disturbed the director must be to come up with such messed up stuff. It just felt a little self indulgent and without the excuse of showing the reality of something (like war).

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I was thinking of how sick and disturbed the director was

Just be glad Lucifer Valentine is not still spamming every message boards horror discussion he could find to tell you how weird he really was (or is? just saw that he made yet another vomit gore film in 2020). Granted the films I've seen from him really make a good case for insanity, the guy was absolutely unbearable, and pushing for it way too much.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

The only Kusturica movie I have seen is Arizona Dream. This sounds intriguing though.

I love Arizona Dream, but Underground is IMO his masterpiece (done through and about the Balkan wars). 10/10 film for me.

 

[Osprey]

Just be glad Lucifer Valentine is not still spamming every message boards horror discussion he could find to tell you how weird he really was (or is? just saw that he made yet another vomit gore film in 2020). Granted the films I've seen from him really make a good case for insanity, the guy was absolutely unbearable, and pushing for it way too much.

I don't know who that is, maybe for the best. Nice name, BTW. I presume that he gave it to himself?

 

[OzzyFan]

M (1931) (subtitles)
3.50 out of 4stars

“When the police in a German city are unable to catch a child-murderer through relentless pursuit, the criminal underworld join the manhunt because of its hindrance on their business.”
An excellent crime mystery psychological thriller with a lot of noir and expressionism characteristics. Lot to chew on in this film. The ending, which arguably includes Peter Lorre’s greatest work, presents the interesting problem of mentally insane criminals. Irregardless of one’s opinion on the subject, great sympathy is generated for Lorre expressing the humanness and complicatedly burdensome dilemma of having such an “invisible” sickness. What is the moral and/or logical plan of action for justice on dealing with this gray area issue? Is it the death sentence or jail time for the murders committed and pain caused directly and indirectly, including public hysteria? Is it professional medical help and seclusion/confinement from the public for the instinctual demon the man mentally battles daily and has clearly lost fights with? The only thing clear is that the sickness is in itself a punishing hardship. The film ending hints wisely at an external answer as the true solution to the problem at hand. The comparative analysis of criminal groups’ and the government’s separate action and investigation on a serial murderer is also of note, as both are cynical in different ways. The criminals are only acting because the police and government can’t do their job properly. Both use effective strategies as they race to catch the murderer. The police use evidence and analysis to take steps closer, while the criminals use ‘street resources’. Both sides bend the laws and morality a bit, with the criminals specifically using any force and means necessary with their street justice. Also seen as a commentary of post World War I Germany, during the transition from the Weimar Republic to Nazi party control. Heavily influential on serial killer films, police procedurals, and sound films amongst other things.

Antichrist (2009)
3.05 out of 4stars

“After the tragic death of their infant son, a grieving couple retreat to their cabin in the woods, hoping to repair their broken hearts and troubled marriage, but nature takes its course and things go from bad to worse.”
A great arthouse horror that is seemingly underappreciated based on the overall public reception of its material, that is seemingly polarizing. The film is existential and psychological, while ironically being controversial for its graphic sex and violence that fit with its story. Stylish with a strong bleak and consuming atmosphere. Existentially it speaks about the world being a place ruled by nature (internal and external forces) with suffering and chaos until the day one dies of which there are constant reminders for, tied to the biblical Eden separation and condemnation of man. The biblical metaphor is a feeling of strong rage or rejection towards God, who doomed humanity after kicking them out of Eden. Adam and Eve went from a blissful immortal state of being with an ever-present God to a world of mortality, sin, and suffering where Satan seemingly thrives and God feels invisible, not to mention evil exists in us. It’s essentially hell. God can’t truly love humanity to do this or put them through such conditions of genocide on a humanity-wide scale nature, and turning the world and humanity itself into a place and being of hostility and downfalls. This is all seen and experienced on a personal psychological scale through our female protagonist. Her grief and trauma creates a debilitating life of pain experienced through depression, anxiety, triggers, bipolar episodes, and compulsive masochistic acts. And her husband’s psychological therapies don’t resolve the true problem, that these ills and that mortality exist in chaotic fashion continually in the world. Other themes include gender roles historically on a personal and wide scale, and life circles/cycles. Of odd note, separately criticized for being misogynistic and commended for being feminist. This was von Trier’s personal and therapeutic film that he wrote while dealing with clinical levels of depression and it feels as so.

The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016)
2.75 out of 4stars

“A father and son, both coroners, are pulled into a complex mystery while attempting to identify the body of a young woman, who was apparently harboring dark secrets.”
A great horror mystery thriller with a great first half and questionable second one. Notably graphic at times with coinciding sound effects, so squirmy-types or those with weak stomachs should stay away. The beginning half works thanks to its brilliant concept and scenario. The physical “coronal” investigation of a Jane Doe, found in a house with multiple dead bodies, brings on a mysterious and creepy atmosphere that works on many levels as the examination progresses: visually given what we see that is unordinary (on top of itself already being unordinary), mentally as we try and put the puzzle pieces together, and mentally as we envision what has actually happened to Jane Doe and interpret what it means on a personal and wide-spread scale. And it fascinatingly works like a charm. Then it swerves into questionable territory in the second half, where it sort of becomes generic with mediocre flair and its intellectual engagement turns off almost entirely minus a few scenes. A comparative let down for sure. I even felt like the material was right in front of him to get more out of the ending/explanation but it was rather flat and a bit rushed imo. I’m curious if the writer ran out of better and/or more expansive continuation ideas or purposely wanted to play that angle out as he did.

 

[nameless1]

M (1931) (subtitles)
3.50 out of 4stars

“When the police in a German city are unable to catch a child-murderer through relentless pursuit, the criminal underworld join the manhunt because of its hindrance on their business.”
An excellent crime mystery psychological thriller with a lot of noir and expressionism characteristics. Lot to chew on in this film. The ending, which arguably includes Peter Lorre’s greatest work, presents the interesting problem of mentally insane criminals. Irregardless of one’s opinion on the subject, great sympathy is generated for Lorre expressing the humanness and complicatedly burdensome dilemma of having such an “invisible” sickness. What is the moral and/or logical plan of action for justice on dealing with this gray area issue? Is it the death sentence or jail time for the murders committed and pain caused directly and indirectly, including public hysteria? Is it professional medical help and seclusion/confinement from the public for the instinctual demon the man mentally battles daily and has clearly lost fights with? The only thing clear is that the sickness is in itself a punishing hardship. The film ending hints wisely at an external answer as the true solution to the problem at hand. The comparative analysis of criminal groups’ and the government’s separate action and investigation on a serial murderer is also of note, as both are cynical in different ways. The criminals are only acting because the police and government can’t do their job properly. Both use effective strategies as they race to catch the murderer. The police use evidence and analysis to take steps closer, while the criminals use ‘street resources’. Both sides bend the laws and morality a bit, with the criminals specifically using any force and means necessary with their street justice. Also seen as a commentary of post World War I Germany, during the transition from the Weimar Republic to Nazi party control. Heavily influential on serial killer films, police procedurals, and sound films amongst other things.

I cannot believe M is almost 100 years old now. The film is in my personal top 10 for the longest time. I have not updated my list in a while, so I am not sure if it will remain there, but I doubt it will ever leave my top 20. I took a class in German cinema back in college, and we had a whole class dedicated to this film. The trial scene by the criminals always stands out to me, because it seems like even back then, in late 20s and early 30s, the idea that the underworld deals faster justice faster than law enforcement is an entrenched idea. Plus, I love how there is even a trial, because even though they are criminals, they still see themselves as part of society. These two ideas have become common troupes at this point, so its influence cannot be understated.

Lang might have also inadvertently started the concept of a cinema universe, because Lang loved one of the minor character, the bumbling Detective Lohmann who basically cracked the case by accident, so much, that he made another appearance in the 1933 film, The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, in a larger role. Dr. Mabuse, coincidentally, is the titular character of the 1922 4 hours long film Dr. Mabuse the Gambler, and it is now clear that all three films are in the same timeline.

Kurosawa will always be the #1 director of all-time for me, but Lang is safely in the top ten. In my opinion, Dr. Mabuse the Gambler, Metropolis, and M all deserve a place in the top 100 films of all-time, and he made them all in the early part of his career. If he did not have to escape Germany and he lost the ability to execute his vision due to the Hollywood studio system, he probably could have made even more great films, and he would have challenged Kurosawa. Metropolis alone showcased his unmatched genius, because it still does not look too out of place to this day, and some of his film noir definitely do stand out from the rest.

 

[nameless1]

I finally saw the SAG speech by the cast of Everything Everywhere All at Once, and I cannot help but feel like James Hong has always been overlooked. Like his speech stated, he has acted since the days of Clarke Gable, and at 94 years old, he still gets work, which is an impressive feat in itself. For a while, it seems like he was in every movie or TV show too, because I always see him make an appearance. Although his appearances are always small roles, I find him to be pretty good when given bigger roles. He gave his character in Everything Everywhere All at Once emotional depth despite the limited screen-time, and when he played Po's adopted father in the Kung Fu Panda franchise, I was impressed that he was able to convey his love for his adopted son even with just his voice. Personally, one of the most overlooked work in his filmography is probably Shanghai Kiss. Now, the movie absolutely sucked, and it is not worth the time, but he actually got a character that was not a bystander or a caricature, and his performance was probably the best part of the movie. Hong does have his handprints on Hollywood Boulevard, but he only got in last year, and Daniel Dae Kim had to start a 2 years campaign in order to get him recognized.

Hong keeps a low profile, and he is a true professional, but one of the stranger stories that I have heard about him is that when he filmed Big Trouble in Little China, he thought Kate Cattrall looked like a doll, and he touched her around the face. Cattrall did not like that, and she bit him. When I learned of the story years ago, I thought it was funny, but now, I am not so sure. Unfortunately, it is also the most memorable thing I know of Hong, which, to me, coincidentally highlights of the complete lack of opportunities for Asian actors to make a mark, no matter the talent.

 

[kihei]

How in the world did puns not dominate your review? The f***.

Consider it an abearration.

 

[Osprey]

Consider it an abearration.

You can make it up to us by reviewing Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey, that is if you can stand for more grizzly murders.

 

[kihei]

You can make it up to us by reviewing Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey, that is if you can stand for more grizzly murders.

I hear it is unbearable.

 

[kihei]

Living (2022) Directed by Oliver Hermanus 6A

Hold the popcorn. Substitute with tea and crumpets. Living is a very British remake of Kurosawa's great Ikiru. Mr. Williams (Bill Nighy) has spent his life as a zombie-like bureaucrat in service to his office job where keeping a firm sense of decorum and a stiff upper lip were more important than actually accomplishing anything. When he is informed that he has six to nine months to live, he begins to reconsider his life and is determined to build a modest park for working class kids. On one level, Living is an example of industrial-strength nostalgia with a good deal of sentimentality accompanying it. In some ways, the movie reminded me a little of A Christmas Carol with Mr. Williams being an updated Mr. Scrooge who finally realises almost too late that life is worth living. It is hard to see the movie appealing to people under fifty years of age and it probably helps if you voted for Brexit. But Nighy is wonderful. I mean, he is always Bill Nighy, but he has managed to create an immensely likeable persona that is somehow actually comforting, which, of course, makes him perfect for this role. His work here is among the best of his career, making Living worth seeing for his sake alone. But if you found The King's Speech too British for your taste, well, Living makes that movie seem practically multicultural in retrospect.

 

[Pink Mist]

Living (2022) Directed by Oliver Hermanus 6A

Hold the popcorn. Substitute with tea and crumpets. Living is a very British remake of Kurosawa's great Ugetsu. Mr. Williams (Bill Nighy) has spent his life as a zombie-like bureaucrat in service to his office job where keeping a firm sense of decorum and a stiff upper lip were more important that actually accomplishing anything. When he is informed that he has six to nine months to live, he begins to reconsider his life and is determined to build a modest park for working class kids. On one level, Living is an example of industrial-strength nostalgia with a good deal of sentimentality accompanying it. In some ways, the movie reminded me a little of A Christmas Carol with Mr. Williams being an updated Mr. Scrooge who finally realises almost too late that life is worth living. It is hard to see the movie appealing to people under fifty years of age and it probably helps if you voted for Brexit. But Nighy is wonderful. I mean, he is always Bill Nighy, but he has managed to create an immensely likeable persona that is somehow actually comforting, which, of course, makes him perfect for this role. His work here is among the best of his career, making Living worth seeing for his sake alone. But if you found The King's Speech too British for your taste, well, Living makes that movie seem practically multicultural in retrospect.

I thought it was a remake of Ikiru?

 

[sdf]

I thought it was a remake of Ikiru?

No

 

[Crosby2010]

"Megan" was the last one I saw in theatres a couple of months ago. Better known as a "Child's Play" movie with a female doll. Not as good as the original Chucky flick but I still thought it was a fun watch.

 

[kihei]

I thought it was a remake of Ikiru?

My error. It is a remake of Ikiru.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

All Quiet on the Western Front. (the new one). From Saving Private Ryan on we've been in this age of "war is brutal" extreme filmmaking. I'm not saying each successive film is trying to one-up the prior one in the 25+ years since, but I ain't saying they ain't. Black Hawk Down, Hacksaw Ridge, 1917, to name a few prominent ones, and now this one all are made by people completely aware of the previous movies.

I think I'm just burned out and the more I see the more the cynical part of me takes over. When I see a tank slowly roll over a soldier and pop him like a balloon (which happens here) I no longer think, "Shit man, war is AWFUL" I think "the director thought that effect was cool." This very well may be cruel and unfair on my part. I'm not exactly turning into Truffaut here and claiming all war movies to be "pro" war, but directors are very pro directing war movies. It might be the most "show off" genre in film when it comes to a certain kind of filmmaking.

To what end? To convey that war is hell? I agree. I've seen it. Repeatedly. This is better than some, worse than others, but it's so repetitive that I can't help but feel it's about the people making it more than the product itself. You may have seen a solider wallow in the mud for 10 minutes while they're slowly dying but you haven't seen ME do a scene where a solider wallows in mud for 10 minutes while they're slowly dying.

This may very well be more about me than the film. I'm burned out. That's fair.

The movie does have a few other flaws though. There are a couple of changes from the book that I really hated. It's not that I demand fealty to the source, but one change feels unnecessary, the other, ironically, I would argue LESSENS the impact of the story, not increases it.

The first is the weaving in of scenes of politicians trying to negotiate a truce. Despite the presence of a great actor like Daniel Bruhl, I thought these really drew out a point that was evident in the main story (or just, you know, life) and didn't need to be drawn out. That it adds time to what already felt like the longest 2.5 hour movie I've ever seen just doubles the problem.

The second is a couple of death scenes. Won't say who so as to avoid spoilers. But there's a randomness to events in the book that make the outcomes all the more tragic. Here that randomness is traded for some action-based reasons and it completely undercuts the real tragedy of these things. Bullets and knives move arbitrarily in the book. They move for reasons here. And that kinda whiffs on the point IMO.

Cool brutal fight scene though bro.

War is what us humans do and we never learn, despite how heinous it is.

I once had someone propose to me very much in a Scrooge like manner that war is our way to “decrease the surplus population”.

Lots to digest when you do a deep dive trying to put something like that into context.

What strikes me most about these films, is how young men were brainwashed and excited to go to war.

The allure of being a hero and “marching on Paris”.

Ya..

The early scenes just leave me shaking my head, but these kids didn’t have the luxury of today’s combination of technology and world history to fully understand the horrors of what they were getting into.

Maybe that wouldn’t change their perspective, who knows…

 

[shadow1]

Shanghai Noon (2000) - 7/10

In the 19th Century, a Chinese Imperial Guard teams up with an outlaw to rescue a Chinese princess who has been kidnapped in Nevada.

Jackie Chan stars as Chon Wang, an Imperial Guard who volunteers to travel to the United States following the kidnapping of Chinese Princess Pei Pei (Lucy Lui). During his journey, Wang is separated from his team following a botched train heist at the hands of outlaw Roy O'Bannon (Owen Wilson). However, after O'Bannon is kicked out of his own gang, and with Wang completely lost, the two men decide to team up to rescue the princess.

Shanghai Noon marked the directorial debut for Tom Dey, and was written by the screenwriting team of Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (2004's Spiderman 2). The film came out in the middle of Jackie Chan's biggest period of commercial success, being released two years after the blockbuster hit Rush Hour (1998). Shanghai Noon follows a similar "buddy" formula to that film, with two men from dramatically different backgrounds teaming up to pursue a common goal. How does Shanghai Noon hold up against Rush Hour?

Pretty well, though a little rougher around the edges perhaps. Shanghai Noon is a popcorn movie through and through, with a plot that is only there to set up the action and comedy. By Hollywood standards the action is pretty good, but by early 2000's Jackie Chan standards it's decided light. Chan's best moment involves some work with a horseshoe in the middle of the film, and there's also a brief homage to 1987's Project A II involving hatchets early in the film.

Where Shanghai Noon shines is its comedy. The film has a lot of inside jokes to other westerns (including the movie's title) and has a number of really funny scenes. The most memorable comedy scene is when Chon and Roy play a Chinese drinking game at a brothel, and it's the moment I always think of when I think of Shanghai Noon. Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson's chemistry is certainly not as good as Chan's and Chris Tucker's chemistry, but the duo still make it work in my opinion.

With that said, Shanghai Noon is very predictable and has a lot of filler scenes in it. I would argue there are even filler characters; Lucy Lui is completely wasted and gets little screen time, and main antagonist Lo Fong (Roger Yuan) is a complete throwaway character. Fortunately Xander Berkley is great as secondary antagonist Van Cleef (yep...), and there is a small but memorable role from Walton Goggins as a member of Roy's gang.

Overall, Shanghai Noon is a highly enjoyable popcorn flick, and did moderately well at the box office ($99M earnings against a $55M budget). I'm rating up slightly by giving it a 7; I think its 6.6 rating on IMDB is about right. I could give the film a 6, but despite its shallow plot Shanghai Noon has managed to entertain me numerous times over the last 23 years. I recommend this film to Jackie Chan fans, or anyone looking for light, fun entertainment.

 

[Ceremony]

The first time I saw Shanghai Noon it was on TV on Christmas Eve one year. I don't think it was period-appropriate but I've watched worse films on that day.

 

[sdf]

Geez

 

[nameless1]

Living (2022) Directed by Oliver Hermanus 6A

Hold the popcorn. Substitute with tea and crumpets. Living is a very British remake of Kurosawa's great Ikiru. Mr. Williams (Bill Nighy) has spent his life as a zombie-like bureaucrat in service to his office job where keeping a firm sense of decorum and a stiff upper lip were more important than actually accomplishing anything. When he is informed that he has six to nine months to live, he begins to reconsider his life and is determined to build a modest park for working class kids. On one level, Living is an example of industrial-strength nostalgia with a good deal of sentimentality accompanying it. In some ways, the movie reminded me a little of A Christmas Carol with Mr. Williams being an updated Mr. Scrooge who finally realises almost too late that life is worth living. It is hard to see the movie appealing to people under fifty years of age and it probably helps if you voted for Brexit. But Nighy is wonderful. I mean, he is always Bill Nighy, but he has managed to create an immensely likeable persona that is somehow actually comforting, which, of course, makes him perfect for this role. His work here is among the best of his career, making Living worth seeing for his sake alone. But if you found The King's Speech too British for your taste, well, Living makes that movie seem practically multicultural in retrospect.

Does Ikiru need to be remade? I will admit I am biased, because Ikiru is in the top 3 of my personal great films list, so to me it is as close to perfection as possible, and any attempt to replicate it would likely fail.

 

[sdf]

My error. It is a remake of Ikiru.

You was actually right, it is remake of ugetsu

 

[kihei]

You was actually right, it is remake of ugetsu

I can never keep these two movies straight in my head either. But it is definitely a remake of Ikiru. Ugetsu is about two peasants whose ambitions get them into lots of trouble.

Does Ikiru need to be remade? I will admit I am biased, because Ikiru is in the top 3 of my personal great films list, so to me it is as close to perfection as possible, and any attempt to replicate it would likely fail.

Short answer, no, of course not.