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

[Spring in Fialta]

Out of (massive) curiosity @Pink Mist @KallioWeHardlyKnewYe @kihei @OzzyFan @ItsFineImFine @shadow1 @nameless1 @Osprey @Jevo
@Rodgerwilco those of you who have seen Last Year at Marienbad, where do you rank it/how do you feel about it?

 

[Pink Mist]

Out of (massive) curiosity @Pink Mist @KallioWeHardlyKnewYe @kihei @OzzyFan @ItsFineImFine @shadow1 @nameless1 @Osprey @Jevo
@Rodgerwilco those of you who have seen Last Year at Marienbad, where do you rank it/how do you feel about it?

I haven't seen it in at least a decade and it was when I was still fairly new to art house films. Probably due for a re-watch

 

[kihei]

Out of (massive) curiosity @Pink Mist @KallioWeHardlyKnewYe @kihei @OzzyFan @ItsFineImFine @shadow1 @nameless1 @Osprey @Jevo
@Rodgerwilco those of you who have seen Last Year at Marienbad, where do you rank it/how do you feel about it?

Number 5 on my all-time list, behind

Children of Paradise, Michel Carne
Pather Panchali, Satyajit Ray
Jules and JIm, Francois Truffaut
The Double Life of Veronique. Krzysztof Kieslowski
Last Year at Marienbad, Alain Resnais

I think it is an absolute masterpiece.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Not sure where I'd rank it overall and not sure if it makes my top 250 or whatever but it's a great film, probably around an 8/10 for me. I think its rating can be elevated because of the style which probably lends itself better to re-watches. Also it's an absolutely gorgeous film to watch in HD one of the nicest looking b/w films I've seen.

1961 was a strong year in film so I've rated Breakfast At Tiffany's, The Day The Earth Caught Fire, Viridiana, Yojimbo, Divorce Italian Style, Il Posto, and Leon Morin Priest all higher but I should add that I usually don't enjoy arthouse stuff as much as others.

 

[kihei]

Sisu (2023) Directed by Jalmari Helander 6B

Leave your suspension of disbelief at the door and you will likely have a good time watching this grindhouse-style "kill all the Nazis" movie. When a troop of retreating Nazis try to rob a prospector of his gold, the old codger fights back. Unbeknownst to the bad guys, he turns out to be a legendary killer of Nazis and Russians who is nicknamed, for good reason, "The Immortal." As you will be able to judge for yourself, it is an apt nickname because he is one tough cookie to kill. Can he survive, say, a hanging? Pfft, child's play. Sisu is a pleasantly single-minded little gorefest that gets more outrageous as it goes along. Because of its great cinematography, it is easy to mistake Sisu for a serious movie at first. But it quickly becomes clear that this is the kind of movie that a 15-year-old Quentin Tarantino would have approved of and forced all his friends to watch, probably multiple times. Sisu knows exactly what kind of flick it wants to be and makes no apologies for the liberties it takes with plausibility. It's a tall tale, for sure, but a fun ride. And the Nazis die is so many different but entertaining ways.

subtitles

 

[NyQuil]

When I think of the film Shane, I always think of the scene from Good Fellas when Joe Pesci's character shoots Michael Imperioli in the foot:

 

[Jussi]

Sisu (2023) Directed by Jalmari Helander 6B

Leave your suspension of disbelief at the door and you will likely have a good time watching this grindhouse-style "kill all the Nazis" movie. When a troop of retreating Nazis try to rob a prospector of his gold, the old codger fights back. Unbeknownst to the bad guys, he turns out to be a legendary killer of Nazis and Russians who is nicknamed, for good reason, "The Immortal." As you will be able to judge for yourself, it is an apt nickname because he is one tough cookie to kill. Can he survive, say, a hanging? Pfft, child's play. Sisu is a pleasantly single-minded little gorefest that gets more outrageous as it goes along. Because of its great cinematography, it is easy to mistake Sisu for a serious movie at first. But it quickly becomes clear that this is the kind of movie that a 15-year-old Quentin Tarantino would have approved of and forced all his friends to watch, probably multiple times. Sisu knows exactly what kind of flick it wants to be and makes no apologies for the liberties it takes with plausibility. It's a tall tale, for sure, but a fun ride. And the Nazis die is so many different but entertaining ways.

subtitles

It's historical fact. Google Simo Häyhä for comparison.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

It's historical fact. Google Simo Häyhä for comparison.

Comparisons aren't historical facts and how does what his review describe compare to an extremely prolific sniper? There's a massive leap between what the movie seems to entail and the soldier you're bringing up.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Out of (massive) curiosity @Pink Mist @KallioWeHardlyKnewYe @kihei @OzzyFan @ItsFineImFine @shadow1 @nameless1 @Osprey @Jevo
@Rodgerwilco those of you who have seen Last Year at Marienbad, where do you rank it/how do you feel about it?

Been a decent chunk of time since I last saw it ... maybe 15-20 years to be honest. But I rate it VERY high. The first time I saw it I was able to see it in a theater and it was when I was still in a very Film 101 phase of my consumption. While I bumped on movies by Bergman and Ozu and other classics at that time I distinctly remember being enthralled by Marienbad almost instantly. I still think about it often.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Out of (massive) curiosity @Pink Mist @KallioWeHardlyKnewYe @kihei @OzzyFan @ItsFineImFine @shadow1 @nameless1 @Osprey @Jevo
@Rodgerwilco those of you who have seen Last Year at Marienbad, where do you rank it/how do you feel about it?

I've not yet seen it, but judging from the responses I think it'll be next on my list.

 

[kihei]

It's historical fact. Google Simo Häyhä for comparison.

Other than the fact that the real-life sniper and the hero of this movie have 500 enemy kills, there is nothing historically factual about the movie. The title, Sisu, might seem like a play on the real-life character's name Simu, but even that is deceiving. The movie's hero is named Aatami Korpi, not Sisu; the movie takes its title from the word "Sisu," a Finnish term that the movie says is untranslatable but then takes a stab at it anyway: "Sisu" means something like "insanely courageous in utterly hopeless situations."

So outside of the 500 kills reference and the vaguest of allusions to Simu, the historical figure,, there is nothing factual at all about this movie. It is a pure fantasy, more intimately connected to super-hero mythmaking than to any kind of historical fact. In other words, it should be right down your alley. But this is Tarantino or even Leone territory, nowhere close to biography.

 

[Jussi]

Other than the fact that the real-life sniper and the hero of this movie have 500 enemy kills, there is nothing historically factual about the movie. The title, Sisu, might seem like a play on the real-life character's name Simu, but even that is deceiving. The movie's hero is named Aatami Korpi, not Sisu; the movie takes its title from the word "Sisu," a Finnish term that the movie says is untranslatable but then takes a stab at it anyway: "Sisu" means something like "insanely courageous in utterly hopeless situations."

So outside of the 500 kills reference and the vaguest of allusions to Simu, the historical figure,, there is nothing factual at all about this movie. It is a pure fantasy, more intimately connected to super-hero mythmaking than to any kind of historical fact. In other words, it should be right down your alley. But this is Tarantino or even Leone territory, nowhere close to biography.

Well the Germans that were in Lapland were burning it: Lapland War - Wikipedia

Also, yes, I fully know what "sisu" mean, being Finnish. As for what it really defines it, google the Winter War.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Dungeons & Dragons (2023) - 7/10

It's an empty calorie action film but it's a decently enjoyable one. It's very obviously using that modern Marvel formula in terms of the style of acting and writing and how it incorporates comedy along with how it concludes itself but that's just the style thees days, meh. It doesn't have the advantage of an overarching story the way certain Marvel movies did as they led to bigger things but it's far better than most recent standalone fantasy type films.

Chris Pike is obviously the star and you know Hugh Grant's role as soon as he speaks but everyone else is a bit budgetary including Michelle Rodriguez who's made a niche and probably a fortune as the side character in a lot of action blockbusters.

Going back to the ending....there are some quests which lead up to it but the actual ending is frentic and doesn't really slow down to properly build tension imo. It's a bunch of moments of small tension and a CGI battle at the end which is 'barely an inconvenience' and I think this sort of undoes some of the other good of a film like this which is better when the characters are on their journey rather than the ending.

 

[kihei]

Well the Germans we're in Lapland were burning it: Lapland War - WikW

Well, yeah. I'm certainly more than happy to concede that one. However, in terms of historical accuracy, it was the character whom I was concerned with , not the setting.

 

[Jussi]

Dungeons & Dragons (2023) - 7/10

It's an empty calorie action film but it's a decently enjoyable one. It's very obviously using that modern Marvel formula in terms of the style of acting and writing and how it incorporates comedy along with how it concludes itself but that's just the style thees days, meh. It doesn't have the advantage of an overarching story the way certain Marvel movies did as they led to bigger things but it's far better than most recent standalone fantasy type films.

Chris Pike is obviously the star and you know Hugh Grant's role as soon as he speaks but everyone else is a bit budgetary including Michelle Rodriguez who's made a niche and probably a fortune as the side character in a lot of action blockbusters.

Going back to the ending....there are some quests which lead up to it but the actual ending is frentic and doesn't really slow down to properly build tension imo. It's a bunch of moments of small tension and a CGI battle at the end which is 'barely an inconvenience' and I think this sort of undoes some of the other good of a film like this which is better when the characters are on their journey rather than the ending.

I kinda felt the same way. I've read and heard a lot of praise for this both from critics and Youtubers. But...I wasn't feeling it quite like they. 7/10 would be about what I's give this one too. Now apparently there's loads of D& D Easter eggs in the movie which I did not recognize. Though the last fight did give off that vibe. Chris PiNe was pretty good and the cast in general. But the humor was very hit and miss for me. The wizard kid was a bit annoying. I felt the Willow show managed to pull this type of humor better and I felt it had a better ending or final fight.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

The Factory (O'Neil, 2012) - I'm mostly watching MST3K episodes lately and I suddenly felt like watching some "thriller" and went for this, and really it's so dumb that I was expecting riffs at every turn (and was kind of bummed they never came). I guess it does a few things right, 'cause there's an investigation and major clues are effectively given to the spectator, but everything is just so stupid that you could only "get it" if you consider the film as major, major trash. They tried real hard to make it feel like some of the better known 90s thrillers, and in tone sometimes were close, but the writing is abysmal (the female characters are just inexplicable - that's the only polite way to word it). 1.5/10

 

[Sentinel]

Out of the Blue (2022). In the late 1980s and 90s the genre of erotic thriller was quite popular (peaking in 1992 with Basic Instinct) but then, with the advance of internet porn, it died. All attempts to bring it back (50 Shades of Grey) failed, so I don’t understand why did some Hollywood studio think it was a good idea to make this by-the-numbers predictable erotic thriller that’s not particularly erotic or thrilling. The only thing going for this film is Diane Kruger. Twenty years ago she was the most classically beautiful woman in cinema and cinema she ruled (Troy, National Treasure, Inglorious Basterds). She still looks fantastic. But when it comes to being “a woman with dark secrets,” Sharon Stone she isn’t. The plot is simple: an ex-con falls for a complicated rich woman. Every twist is seen from a mile away. The only surprise here is the R-rating. I saw absolutely nothing in this film that was beyond PG. 3/10

Fathom (1967). A comedic thriller about a beautiful skydiver who becomes entangled in a web of espionage and crime. Despite occasional funny dialogue (“If it isn’t the face that launched a thousand ‘Wanted’ posters!”), it’s so silly it makes James Bond movies from the same era look positively realistic. But the main character is played by Raquel Welch, she is in bikini a lot, and that alone makes this film worth watching. TBF Welch is more of a “static” beauty (meaning, she looks better in stills than in motion, especially when she is required to act) but she is still an eye candy that you just cannot look away from. A bunch of people are running around Spain, looking for an ancient Chinese statue. It’s got boat races, bullfights, dogfights (of the airplane variety), shootouts, and so on. Pure 60s fun. 6/10

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Beau Travail (1998) - 6/10

Nice to look at and at times it has a nice rhythm but I don't get it nor can I get attached to intentionally unemotional films. Really an exercise in portraying how French taxpayer money is wasted and they're pissed about it but a bit too late now that their pension age is being pushed and their pensions will eventually get depegged from inflation. They should've protested the wasteful spending decades ago.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Criterion has a Seijun Suzuki collection up now and it is pretty damn rad. I was well familiar with his major movies (Branded to Kill, Tokyo Drifter, a few others). But this program has a lot of his lesser known and less distributed films. I’m four in and three of the four are just such fun, pleasurable watches. Each are quick, propulsive, poppy, genre stories. Eight Hours of Terror. Bad guys take a bus full of strangers hostage. Man With a Shotgun. Stranger wanders into a rough town looking for work. Detective Bureau 2-3: Go to Hell Bastards! Detective goes undercover to bust up local gangsters. (side note: few directors have better titles than Suzuki).

Bastards is a real gem. Chubby-cheeked Jo Shishido (a Suzuki favorite) plays the lead. Not as wild as Tokyo Drifter, but clearly a test run for some of the fun with music and color Suzuki would do later.

In this day of generally bloated movies two-hour-plus movies, I have a deep affinity for filmmakers who can take 75-90 minutes and give you a wholly satifsyfing experience. I had a similar reaction to Budd Boetticher-Randolph Scott Westerns, which I previously described as cheap, dusty paperbacks. That applies to a lot of Suzuki too. Good, pulpy fun.

The only miss for me was Everything Goes Wrong (another great title). And by miss I just mean it isn’t up to the level of the other Suzuki films I’ve seen. This teenage rebellion story has its moments — Suzuki’s very active camera leads to some good sequences and the end is impressively bleak. But I have short patience for mopey teen characters.

 

[Fiji Water]

Am I the only person who prefers Hiroshima Mon Amour to Last Year at Marienbad?

 

[OzzyFan]

I’d like to suggest for those that have not seen Last Year at Marienbad to not read my review below. As Spring in Fialta has said, the movie is so interpretable and subjective that knowing nothing and being tilted toward no views is far and away the best way to get the most out of the film, especially on a personal level.


Last Year at Marienbad (1961) (subtitles)

“Part mystery, part fever dream, and possibly a ghost story, Last Year At Marienbad follows a married woman, A, and a man, X, through the empty rooms of a luxurious, baroque hotel that time forgot. X tries to persuade the incredulous A that they met in the same place the year before.”

An excellent art film with stylishly stunning cinematography, brilliant narrative approach/enactment, and persistently poetic surrealism. It’s hypnotic. The beginning portion feels like a commentary on how there is so much going on in the world at once from so many different opinions and for so many different reasons, that life itself has endless possibilities and actualities. I can understand why it is amongst the top of many’s all-time best film lists, because if you open up to the film and really absorb it, it’s incredibly rewarding (and challenging). It’s good overwhelming, yet basic in premise. Continuously pulling you in but making you question every word and everything occurring along the way. It’s heavily psychological. Thematically I felt the film was about the objectivity of truth/reality and memory, and/or the power of obsession/love/lust on the mind, and/or a combination of those 2 in motivated perception…the process by which people’s active desires, needs, and motivations shape their perceptual experiences. Also thematically, it seems to be about how powerless people can be on impacting other people at times and about fate itself. No matter how hard the man tried or wanted, it felt like he was never going to change the woman’s mind, in the future or past or present. We are only in control of ourselves, and even then still limited by fate and external factors. The film is just about perfect in its manipulations and obscurities. Legitimately the man and woman can be explained by extreme ends of the spectrum in their identities/personas and backgrounds or anything in between and it would not feel out of place. For example, the man could be a psychotic serial rapist meeting an old victim/coming upon one that got away/foreseeing a future account or a tender cultured hopeless romantic that is in the presence of his true love/remembering his true love/dreaming of what his true love would be like. He could be everything from a complete and absolute liar to “one hundred percent” truthful with some recollection and confidence issues. As Spring in Fialta said, the possibilities are endless in interpretation. My take on the literal story is about a seemingly rich (given the setting) lonely depressed man reliving inside his head, or possibly even a tangible long stay at the hotel in which he is recalling, a fling he had in the supposedly past year with another woman patron. Everything is playing out inside the man’s head as he’s hopelessly tortured by the love and high he experienced alongside eternal questions of what possibly went wrong or seemed off to end that relationship from becoming something more. It’s “a game he can win, but always loses”. It’s “past” and “too late”, arguably bittersweet but in the end tragic and haunting. The audience has no idea on the why or any of the woman’s point of view, but only knows what the man felt and now deals with internally.

 

[shadow1]

I’d like to suggest for those that have not seen Last Year at Marienbad to not read my review below. As Spring in Fialta has said, the movie is so interpretable and subjective that knowing nothing and being tilted toward no views is far and away the best way to get the most out of the film, especially on a personal level.


Last Year at Marienbad (1961) (subtitles)

“Part mystery, part fever dream, and possibly a ghost story, Last Year At Marienbad follows a married woman, A, and a man, X, through the empty rooms of a luxurious, baroque hotel that time forgot. X tries to persuade the incredulous A that they met in the same place the year before.”

An excellent art film with stylishly stunning cinematography, brilliant narrative approach/enactment, and persistently poetic surrealism. It’s hypnotic. The beginning portion feels like a commentary on how there is so much going on in the world at once from so many different opinions and for so many different reasons, that life itself has endless possibilities and actualities. I can understand why it is amongst the top of many’s all-time best film lists, because if you open up to the film and really absorb it, it’s incredibly rewarding (and challenging). It’s good overwhelming, yet basic in premise. Continuously pulling you in but making you question every word and everything occurring along the way. It’s heavily psychological. Thematically I felt the film was about the objectivity of truth/reality and memory, and/or the power of obsession/love/lust on the mind, and/or a combination of those 2 in motivated perception…the process by which people’s active desires, needs, and motivations shape their perceptual experiences. Also thematically, it seems to be about how powerless people can be on impacting other people at times and about fate itself. No matter how hard the man tried or wanted, it felt like he was never going to change the woman’s mind, in the future or past or present. We are only in control of ourselves, and even then still limited by fate and external factors. The film is just about perfect in its manipulations and obscurities. Legitimately the man and woman can be explained by extreme ends of the spectrum in their identities/personas and backgrounds or anything in between and it would not feel out of place. For example, the man could be a psychotic serial rapist meeting an old victim/coming upon one that got away/foreseeing a future account or a tender cultured hopeless romantic that is in the presence of his true love/remembering his true love/dreaming of what his true love would be like. He could be everything from a complete and absolute liar to “one hundred percent” truthful with some recollection and confidence issues. As Spring in Fialta said, the possibilities are endless in interpretation. My take on the literal story is about a seemingly rich (given the setting) lonely depressed man reliving inside his head, or possibly even a tangible long stay at the hotel in which he is recalling, a fling he had in the supposedly past year with another woman patron. Everything is playing out inside the man’s head as he’s hopelessly tortured by the love and high he experienced alongside eternal questions of what possibly went wrong or seemed off to end that relationship from becoming something more. It’s “a game he can win, but always loses”. It’s “past” and “too late”, arguably bittersweet but in the end tragic and haunting. The audience has no idea on the why or any of the woman’s point of view, but only knows what the man felt and now deals with internally.

Appreciate the disclaimer.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Am I the only person who prefers Hiroshima Mon Amour to Last Year at Marienbad?

It's certainly another great film, I like it a lot too and would never fault anybody prefering the Duras-Resnais duo.

The most important difference between both to me is that Duras made better films on her own, contrarily to Robbe-Grillet, who never could get to the level of Resnais's take.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Am I the only person who prefers Hiroshima Mon Amour to Last Year at Marienbad?

Also, try to find/watch Suwa's H Story. It's not an easy film, but I think I might like it even more than Hiroshima mon amour.

 

[kihei]

Guardians of the Galaxy 3 (2023) Directed by James Gunn 5A

About the only comic-book movie franchise that I follow with some enthusiasm is Guardians of the Galaxy, While I have watched several super-hero movies in addition to this franchise, I must concede that what goes on in these movies stays in my head for, like, 45 minutes, tops. GotG3 is definitely the last go-around for the franchise, at least in this configuration. While I am sorry to see it end, I'm still working out how I feel about the finale. On the plus side, at least until the endless third act, the movie held my attention. Set and costume design and some of the non-violent CGI were wonderfully imaginative. Rocket's back story was a touching and unexpected one, and how it was integrated into the plot made it seem essential and worth the time alotted for that part of the film's narrative. It was fun to get reacquainted with the central characters. Sort of.

But a lot of the strengths of the movie, looked at from a different perspective, seemed transformed into weaknesses. Rocket's story, for instance. It's imaginative and touching and really ups the emotional power of the movie. But is also, graphic and cruel, and will probably have little kids in the audience in tears for weeks. I thought these sequences of, basically, animal torture were effective but they seemed way too dark for a comic-book movie. Then there was Gamora. It took me a long time to put the pieces together that this Gamora is a very different character than the original. And not a lot of fun to be around. It didn't help that she seemed to turn every argument into a screeching contest. Throughout this movie, what often used to be friendly, irreverent banter among the characters had a much shriller edge.

The Adam Warlock character baffled me. Why is he even in the movie? His scenes seemed to do little than to disrupt the rhythm of GotG3. Cut those scenes, what do you lose? You get a shorter, less bloated, better paced movie, is what you would get.. I know that Gunn and the producers are pulling out all the stops here to give the characters (and the fans) a bravura send off, but occasionally that just makes this movie seem more like a generic Marvel workhorse with too many explosions and not enough wit. I missed the goofball sweetness of the original, the way it felt stripped-down and willing to mock the excesses of super-hero movies. I missed the funky, scruffy characters, and their funny dialogue. This one has some good lines, mostly between Peter and Drax, but the movie is about half as funny as the second one which was, in turn, about half as funny as the original. I couldn't help thinking that while this will be a worthy "send off" for many of its fans and an enjoyable production in many ways, the characters nonetheless deserved better closure than what GotG3 provides, a send-off more in keeping with the spirit and relative economy of the original.