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

kihei

McEnroe: The older I get, the better I used to be.
Jun 14, 2006
43,875
11,145
Toronto
master-gardener.jpg


Master Gardener (2023) Directed by Paul Schrader 6B

Narvel Roth (Joel Edgerton) is a skilled gardener looking after a large estate owned by Norma (Sigourney Weaver), an aging and haughty Southern belle of the old school, with whom he has a very complicated relationship. She asks him to look after her grand-niece, and he reluctantly takes on the task of tutoring her about horticulture. Norma has a past that keeps following her around, and Narvel has a past that he has tried very hard to disavow. Things get complicated for both of them.

Paul Schrader has a long history of making movies about isolated, damaged men with something in their past that cries out for redemption. Master Gardener is actually part of a trilogy--Schrader calls it his "men in a room" trilogy--that includes the searing First Reform with Ethan Hawke and the more problematic The Card Counter with Oscar Isaacs. Master Gardener lacks the sense of personal claustrophobia that distinguishes the first two films in the trilogy--I can see why people may feel there is not much bang for the buck here. But what sets it apart from First Reform and The Card Counter is that, for once, hope for one of Schrader's tortured souls is actually presented as not a complete impossibility. In a society increasingly skeptical of the whole notion of redemption for the fallen, this movie's treatment of the theme feels almost like a radical statement. That being said, without a fine, deeply internalized, minimalist performance by Edgerton, the whole structure might have been to flimsy to stand.

Sidenote: Speaking of horticulture, when involved in a pun contest Dorothy Parker once spontaneously cracked, "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think." As a play on words, that's tough to beat.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chili and OzzyFan

Bahama Mama

Sunny days
Oct 12, 2022
172
310
Winding Bay
Great film. The studio wanted to use their back lots but William Wyler insisted they go on location to Rome. One flaw, which Wyler acknowledged, would be an even better film in colour.
We really enjoyed it. It might just be me and whomever we see old films with but actors then seem to have much more charisma.Of course we didn't know that,interesting though. I much prefer films when they shoot on location,sets often look just too fake,as for color enhancing it,perhaps but as you say,it was great as is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chili

Ceremony

How I choose to feel is how I am
Jun 8, 2012
114,299
17,384
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

I can't do the brief, glib reviews any more. This was stupefying. I've seen bad films before. I've seen films I couldn't follow before. I've seen films where I didn't care about what was happening before. The second film was apparently panned much more than this and the first, and I'm not sure how. There's an irony that in a film about warring robotic aliens coming to Earth that absolutely nothing that happens bears any resemblance to any sort of reality ever experienced by anyone in the history of humanity. No one in this is real, and look who's in it. John Turturro! John Malkovich! Patrick Dempsey! Alan Tudyk! Frances McDormand! She has three Oscars! She didn't when she did this and she seems to be doing a bad Jane Lynch impression, but look at the names! People you've heard of who can actually act! Maybe it's a joke. An elaborate ruse. They all treat what's going on with the contempt it deserves. Kelsey Grammer is in the next one. Sideshow Bob, that'll improve things.

You might have noticed if you've seen a Michael Bay film, but do me a favour if any of my reviews have intrigued you enough to give these a try. Count how many shots you see where the camera doesn't move. I don't know how people can watch these and not suffer from motion sickness.

I checked the time as I was watching this and I was 1 hour 50 in. It felt like I'd been there for years. It felt like I'd been getting battered round the head by the robots too. Endless. Horrible. Ugly. Stupid. Insulting. Perverted. At least it wasn't racist.
 

OzzyFan

Registered User
Sep 17, 2012
3,653
960
The Sixth Sense (1999)
3.35 out of 4stars

“Child psychologist Malcolm Crowe starts treating a psychologically disturbed 9 year old boy who claims to be able to see dead people.”
An excellent psychological drama thriller that is a very human film that excels beyond its deservedly iconic twist ending. The film is many things including Shyamalan shocking, touching, eerie, sad, hopeful, and at times even sneakily humorous. Sporting a great Oscar nominated supporting actor turn from Osment, the film uses mental illness to show how society can be so ignorantly and purposely cruel to people, and how deeply affected people are from this. The pain and sadness and fear caused by such abuses and traumas is heartbreaking, and Osment verbally and visibly emits and describes this so well. On the other side, Willis’s failure with a similar past patient brings the situation full circle, in an opposite end perspective and two-fold redemptive undertaking. Without putting the pieces together for everyone, the solutions lie in emotional intelligence, true expression and listening gathered apprehension, and ultimately intimate connection. Through this form of active compassion and communication, peace and resolutions can hopefully be found. The whole film is thematically and narratively well connected. I’m on the fence on calling it a psychological horror as many do, because there are portions that fit the bill but overall I’m not sure it gets there. Problems are bad, but being alone with one’s problems is infinitely worse.

Pursued (1947)
2.90 out of 4stars

“A boy haunted by nightmares about the night his entire family was murdered is brought up by a neighboring family in the 1880s. He falls for his lovely adoptive sister but his mysterious uncle wants him dead.”
A great western noir melodrama that is as peculiar as it sounds. A bit too outlandish and needing suspension of disbelief, ideally to be viewed as a parable when going in. After you are able to do that, the film is a different sort of experience. Psychological at its foremost with a dark mood and occasional shimmers of light. Subjects brought up include family importance, belonging/purpose, justice, love and hate, forgiveness and revenge, fate and chance, past and future, and a bit of nature vs nurture. Ultimately, I’d say it’s a film about the power of human will and emotion.

She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949)
2.90 out of 4stars

“In 1876, Captain Nathan Brittles, on the eve of retirement, takes out a last patrol to stop an impending massive Indian attack. Encumbered by a couple women who must be evacuated, Brittles finds his mission imperiled.”
A great western with some of the most beautiful cinematography in the western genre, and was awarded an Oscar for it. Shot in technicolor in Monument Valley, watching some of the scenes is like walking through a museum, ironically so as John Ford and Winton Hoch based the filming off of the artwork of Frederic Remington. The story itself has an anti-war and support of soldiers message delivered intermittently with a scattershot tone, thanks to some humor, romance, action, and heart thrown in. Contains a quality John Wayne performance as he carries the film admirably. Tactical with some good messages and a pretty clever ending.
 

Chili

Time passes when you're not looking
Jun 10, 2004
8,788
4,924
We really enjoyed it. It might just be me and whomever we see old films with but actors then seem to have much more charisma.Of course we didn't know that,interesting though. I much prefer films when they shoot on location,sets often look just too fake,as for color enhancing it,perhaps but as you say,it was great as is.
That`s an interesting thought on charismatic actors. maybe a reflection too on the type of films that are made today. Light comedies, musicals, etc seem rare. Another Audrey Hepburn film I liked was The Nun`s Story and don`t know if that film would be made now. Even then there was a question of whether it would have an audience. Agree on location films, probably why I`ve always liked westerns.
 
Last edited:

ItsFineImFine

Registered User
Aug 11, 2019
3,745
2,389
His Girl Friday (1940) - 7/10 (rewatch)

Much better on second viewing though the first viewing was in my early 20s on Dec 13, 2013 where I rated it lower having watched the stronger High Noon, Sierra Madre, and All About Eve just before.

The reason was because the film is just pure chaos and if you aren't fully paying attention which is what I think must've happened the first time I saw it, it's a pretty boring watch. While the comedy is generally poor here, the quick-fire dialogue is much better when paying attention. The opening and close of the film when Grant/Russell are in the same room are much better than the more tedious middle bit. The over the top yell-speak is certainly grating and it deserves to be criticized for it but there's some pretty good dialogue underneath all that.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: OzzyFan

shadow1

Registered User
Nov 29, 2008
16,732
5,539
6b31e9861b0435d428a3527a53fd1c83265f19c9.gif


The Flash (2023) - 7/10

Barry Allen travels back in time to repair his reality, but gets stuck in the year 2013 of another reality.

Ezra Miller stars as Barry Allen / The Flash, who is struggling with the trauma of his family's dark history. After accidentally discovering he can travel back in time, Barry decides to travel back decades in order to right a wrong. However, things go awry during his return journey back to the present, and he must team up with a younger version of himself to get back to his own reality...

The Flash written by Christina Hudson and directed Andy Muschietti. Based on the well-known comic Flashpoint, the film was in development since 2014, but was delayed due to multiple writer and director changes, as well as the Covid-19 pandemic. Filmed in 2021, the film's release was further delayed following multiple disturbing controversies and arrests of star Ezra Miller. Almost shelved like DC's doomed $90M Batgirl (2022) film, The Flash finally hit cinemas this weekend. How does it fare?

Pretty well, and extremely well compared to other films in the DC Extended Universe. The Flash is a fun popcorn movie with good comedy, but also has more somber moments, with themes similar to a film like Arrival (2016). Ezra Miller gives a great performance as multiple versions of Barry Allen, as they are able to add nuance while having to play two extremely similar characters. The film overall has a good cast, with supporting roles that include Ben Affleck returning as Batman and Sasha Calle being introduced as Supergirl. Speaking of which...

The main attraction for me, and I suspect many viewers of this film, is Michael Keaton's long awaited return as Batman / Bruce Wayne. Keaton naturally slides back into the role, making it feel like a shame we had to wait 31 years between appearances. Keaton proves one again that he is Batman, and the film is slathered with easter eggs and familiar lines.

The Flash is not without its problems. As seems to be the case with many super hero films recently, some of the CGI is very rough looking, which is a huge problem considering how special effects heavy the film's third act is. Additionally, though the movie has a robust 2h 24m run time, one of the main characters has an underdeveloped arch due to their relatively late introduction to the events (even though I enjoyed the performance). Finally, the film's plot is nothing we haven't seen before - or even recently - due to being very similar to 2022's Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

Overall, The Flash is an enjoyable DCEU movie. It doesn't add anything new or special to the genre, but it's a fun popcorn movie with a little heart to it. It would've been a shame if the movie never saw the light of day due to off-screen issues, and I'm personally thankful we got to see a 71-year-old Michael Keaton don the black cape one final(?) time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzzyFan

Chili

Time passes when you're not looking
Jun 10, 2004
8,788
4,924
The first two films are gems:

rooftop.jpg

Big Deal on Madonna Street-1958 (subtitles)

A group plans a jewel heist in Rome. They are long on ambition and short on experience. If there's a way to misstep these guys will find it. Strong cast and performances but the real strength is the writing. And catchy jazz themed music. Pass the pasta and beans! Comedy gold.


aurevoirleseenfants.jpg

Au Revoir Les Enfants-1987 (subtitles)

WWII drama set in a Catholic boys boarding school in France. Among the residents, the fathers are sheltering a few Jewish boys. The director Louis Malle also wrote the story based on his own experience. The two lead boys (Gaspard Manesse & Raphael Fejto) are very good as well as Francine Racette (Mrs Donald Sutherland) playing a mother. Interesting that Malle chose Chaplin's The Immigrant as the film shown to the boys which goes over well with them. It's a sad true story but so well done.

laugh2.jpeg

Laughter in Paradise-1951

A life long practical joker passes away. In his will, he leaves £50k each to four relatives but for each one there is a catch. A lady who is mean to her maid must find a job as a domestic and keep it for 28 days. A playboy must find a wife. A meek bank clerk must hold up the bank manager. And a man who has secretly been writing books must get arrested for a sentence of 28 days (Alastair Sim visits the police station and asks if they can recommend a crime). Whoever fails their task forfeits the inheritance. Interesting premise and some good fun. Audrey Hepburn makes a very brief appearance as a cigarette girl.
 
Last edited:

nameless1

Registered User
Apr 29, 2009
18,202
1,020
The Apartment (1960)
3.35 out of 4stars

“A Manhattan insurance clerk tries to rise in his company by letting its executives use his apartment for trysts, but complications ensue.”
An excellent romantic comedy drama satire from Wilder-Lemmon that is as effectively very serious as it is very humorous. It explores the funny and not so funny sides of extramarital affairs, corporate favoritism through immoral exchanges, and being used as a pawn in both of those circles. That’s not to say that all parties aren’t at fault, which they definitely are, but I’d suggest there is a clarity on who has more power and is the aggressor in those situations. It’s essentially a film about moral corruption, and the effects and consequences of it on seemingly good people. Emotional and psychological mind games commence throughout alongside sincerity and sympathy.

I watched it about a year ago, and personally, I think this is a relic of the past, and it should stay there. Right of the bat, the plot is problematic nowadays, and from the look of things, that sentiment will only increase.

Lemmon's performance is praised, but his style is not a natural one, so at times, he takes me out of the rhythm, because it is obviously that he is acting. To be fair, it is probably a personal preference, as I like naturalistic acting styles more and more as I grow older, but Lemmon does have a tendency to ham it up. The director himself noted that, as he pretty much call him a ham, and one has to cut away the fat in order to get to the good stuff.

On the other hand, I am thoroughly impressed by MaClaine, as she injected enough innocence into her character to make her sympathetic and likeable, but that is not enough to make me like the movie.

I have it at 6/10. Even though I did not like it, and I probably will not recommend it for anyone, I do think it does correctly reflect the attitude towards women at that particular point in time, so at the very least, it has that cautionary tale aspect to it.

Escape from New York (1981)
2.90 out of 4stars

“In the future of 1997, when the U.S. president crashes into Manhattan, now a giant maximum security prison, a convicted bank robber named Snake Plissken with a military background is sent in to rescue him.”
A great sci-fi action that is one fun journey that does leave one wanting, and stands alone enough even if inspired and influenced by many films prior. Well set-up and featuring a group of familiar faces, it’s solidly paced and has Kurt Russell doing his best Clint Eastwood impression in the lead. The film oozes coolness alongside good weird dystopian vibes, occasionally ‘interesting’ special effects, and throws out some nice action movie dialogue as well. And of course tinged with Carpenter’s political underpinnings.

Carpenter is great in the 80s. This is a B-movie, at best, and it is clear the budget is rather low, but Carpenter is able to create a very unique atmosphere and mise-en-scene with what is clearly limited funds. The plot is light and straight-forward, but pace is brisk, as the time just flies by, the characters are all interesting, and all the actors are great for their roles. Of course, it is not a masterpiece, but it is very enjoyable, even nowadays, and it has definitely achieved cult status. I have it at 6.75/10, but it is probably closer to 7/10. I only grade it lower, because I have The Thing at 7.5/10, and this one is about .75 point off.
 
Last edited:

nameless1

Registered User
Apr 29, 2009
18,202
1,020
The Fast and the Furious series always confuse me, because I stopped after the first three movies, and then jumped back at the eighth one. By that point, it no longer resembled anything I remembered, other than a couple of characters, and even though I was entertained by the much improved action sequences and fight scenes, the plot became so ridiculous, to the point that I thought it insulted my intelligence. Honestly, I did not know if the series became better or worst. I have argued that it had jumped the shark some time before the eighth one, because I thought an idea could also do that, but others here disagreed, since they thought that there has to be some failure, and by box office numbers alone, that is clearly not the case. Of course, to put the argument to rest, I had to watch the whole series, but at the time, there were 9 movies, which are over 18 hours long altogether, so I was reluctant to do that for a series that I am not exactly enamoured with. Now, with the tenth one out, my curiosity is piqued once again, so I decided to give it a shot. Hence, it partially explains my long absence from this sub forum.
:laugh:

Even though The Fast and the Furious kickstarted the future franchise all the way back in 2001, so a lot of people do view it rather favourably, I never liked it even back then. The plot is weak, and it is a dime-a-dozen Hollywood mass produced action flick that did not stand out at all at the time. On my second watch, over 2 decades later, it is just as terrible as I remembered. In fact, I dislike even more now, because I noticed that the director may have coloured Paul Walker's eyes to make them even bluer, so that they practically shine every time he is on screen. While it is likely a cheap ploy to make him into a Christ-like figure, for no reason at all as it does not advance the plot, nowadays, it can be considered to be racist. The fact that one of the authority figure who openly sabotages and belittles the main character is played by an African American actor only reinforces the point. With that said, the chase and race sequences are somewhat entertaining, and I do think the development of the friendship between the two leads is believable, so I will give it a 5/10. The movie is bad, but it does not exactly fail. Plus, it does give a base the future franchise to work with.

John Singletary took over director duties for the second one in 2003, and as someone whose works specialized in racial tensions, he must had realized the racial undertone of the previous movie, because suddenly that character who gave the lead trouble does an 180 and becomes very supportive and helpful. While it is admirable on his part, it is also indicative of a major problem, as the movie is a sequel in name only. Other than the street races, the movie barely makes any connection or even mentions of events in the first movie, and while Paul Walker's character is still there, he feels completely different. Clearly, the studio rushed to make this one after the original turned out to be a surprise hit, but it had no plan, so it gave Singletary free reign to create his own vision. Unfortunately, Singletary knew little to nothing of the subject matter, so in the end, this blatant cash grab by both parties became a jumbled mess that did not entertain one bit, as even the action sequences are mostly weak, other than the major one. Frankly, this one has no redemptive qualities, and for better or worst, it introduces two characters that later become mainstays for the series, though the one who specializes in comic relief is rather annoying, so I give it 3/10.

The third one, Tokyo Drift in 2007, was even more of a cash grab, because this time, the plot has no connection to the previous two films at all, and all the main characters are gone, until the very end by Vin Diesel, but that appearance seems tacked on, at best. Even though I do not like the original characters all that much, they at least have lead charisma. These new ones, unfortunately, are just bland and forgettable. Furthermore, since this is basically the director Justin Lin's first mainstream movie, his inexperience showed, as the car sequences are just boring overall. While it does introduce another character that later becomes a mainstay of the series who is a lot more likeable this time, the movie is just terrible overall, and a very forgettable experience. Honestly, I was surprise this is not the death nail, because I have it at a 2 or 3/10. It is certainly worst than the previous movie, but not by much.

As I wrote this review, I actually want to know if people knew about drifting when the movie was released. It seems like a complete new thing to the Western audience, but I watched Initial D back in the early 2000s, so I knew actually what it was. While drifting was all the rage back then, it seemed to have done nothing in North America. My guess was that it was because the movie was bad, so it did not make a dent in pop culture, and geography was not favorable for the technique. North America just did not have too many narrow or tight turns to allow the practice of drifting to flourish.

Justin Lin returned to make the fourth one, Fast & Furious, in 2009, and this time, the studio finally had a plan in place to make this a franchise. As a result, the movie gets a bigger budget that allows it to escape the B-movie quality of the previous movies, and the money is put to good use with much better and exciting action sequences. Plus, it helps that the two leads from the original movie are back, and they are given more time to develop their characters. As a result, by the end of the movie, they are no longer caricatures as the previous movies portrayed them as, but full three-dimensional characters, which helps the audience to make a firm connection and subsequently create a bigger fanbase. It is also the first full introduction of the family theme that becomes the underlying basis for all future movies, which helps the franchise to establish a firm direction. That said, the plot is still rather run-of-the-mill, with a major plot hole as Paul Walker's character somehow becomes an FBI agent despite his federal crime of aiding and abetting a criminal as a member of law enforcement. Plus, even though the villain is actually interesting, the ending basically destroys all the good groundwork the movie laid out, as it is rather pathetic at how he is defeated. Thus, I have it at 6/10. I do enjoy it, and the major plothole is not exactly fatal, but it is also apparent that this franchise has a clear ceiling, as this is likely as far as the production team can take the street race genre.

Fast V in 2011 basically turned the series on its head, as it suddenly changes from street races to a heist movie, as the races are not even shown. The heist is very well filmed, and it is likely an inspired choice, because a lot of possibilities open up, and it bypasses the ceiling issue the previous movie demonstrated. However, there are signs that the franchise is on the verge of being a bloated mess, as logic has started to be ignored in parts, and people will return from the dead, but overall, the movie is still within an acceptable range where the audience is not completely intellectually insulted. Thus, I have it at 6.5/10. Honestly, it is a very good popcorn flick, but I do feel a sense of whiplash with the sudden genre change.

Fast & Furious 6 in 2013 saw another change in direction, as the franchise is now a spy film more akin to Mission Impossible or James Bond. While there were hints before in previous movies, logic is optional now, as the endless runway became endless fodder for Internet gossip and discussion back at the point of release. I did not care for the franchise at that point, but I remembered that I read a couple of articles about it. Frankly, it was a meme, before the term was even invented. Again, it is a well-done mindless popcorn flick, but the movie makes very little sense. These people started out as simple small time criminals, and now they are international spies who are tasked to save the world, after which they are all pardoned for all previous crimes as well. For me, it is a 6/10, because it is entertaining enough, and the endless runway is basically the only major assault on intelligence, so I can forgive it as a one-time offence. However, it is clear that the franchise will only become even more bloated.

James Wan took over the director reins for Furious 7 in 2015, and while there are still some frivolous scenes that only adds screentime and does nothing, like how the whole cast spends some time next to a pool, and one of the new character exits the water in a bikini, it is clear he is a better director than Justin Lin, as he has better techniques, and I like how he draws inspirations from his horror works to create different looks. The movie is also the last movie by Paul Walker, who died 2 years before the release of the movie. Most of his scenes were completed at the time of his depth, and the production team used a combination of CG, archival footages, and his lookalike brothers as stand-ins to finish the movie. Since he was one of the leads of the franchise, there is an added layer of emotional depth, both by the deliberate efforts of the production team who wanted to dedicate the movie in his honour, and the audience who wanted to pay their respects to him. Consequently, this focus on emotions actually balances and perhaps even distracts the over-the-top illogical nature of the movie. As a result, this becomes one of the better movies of the franchise, and frankly, it gives the franchise a second life. It also helps that Jason Statham plays a great character, and Tony Jaa was still at the top of his game at the time the movie was filmed, because even though his stunts are mere rehashes of his previous movies, they are still incredible to watch. Overall, it is a 6.75/10. The heavy emotional aspects certainly give the movie another dimension, but by the final scene, it just feels too manipulative and exploitative. Thus, even though it is probably more in the 6.5 range, it is also slightly better than Fast V, so I push the score up a tiny margin too.

The Fate of the Furious in 2017 was the one that got me back in the franchise again, and I remembered that even though I liked it as a mindless popcorn flick when I watched it the first time, I was also uncomfortable with the complete disregard for logic. When I watched it a second time recently, I actually feel fatigue, as the whole exercise has become repetitive and very tedious, in particular the theme of family. By this point, the "family" has gone from five to double digits, as blood relatives, good friends, some acquaintances, and even former enemies are all included. Frankly, the definition is so loose, that it no longer means anything. Theron is great as the villain, but she alone cannot make me invested in the movie. Thus, even though I had it at 6.5 or 6.75 when it was first released, I have dropped it to 6 now, as I am very familiar with the storyline now, and have no gaps in knowledge.

If there were still confusion about rather or not the franchise ever jumped-the-shark, F9 in 2021 left no doubt, because they drive a car into space now. That is just the tip of the iceberg too, as character backgrounds can be reconfigured so new characters can be added, with John Cena as Vin Diesel's never-before-mentioned real brother, and death is not final, with the return of a long deceased character. This one is so over-the-top, that it can be argued that it is a parody. I disliked it the first time I watched it, and I still dislike it on a recent second watch. Thus, I have it at 5.5/10. At least the last villain from the previous movie is still an enemy, and the action sequences are good, but the main antagonist never feels like a threat, and the amount of suspension of disbelief required for this one feels like work, to be honest.

When the James Bond franchise gets too ridiculous, it always pulls back and becomes more grounded. Since the Fast and Furious franchise is clearly modelled after the James Bond series at this point, it does the same thing with Fast X. However, it is only a slight step back, because while the plot is no longer a complete assault on intelligence like the previous outing, past offences that has plagued the franchise are still present, as the family extends again, a character returns from the dead, and past characters' pasts are reconfigured in order to add new characters that were never mentioned before, even though they are blood relatives. Jason Momoa steals every scene he is in, and he is probably the best villain from the entire franchise, but the series is definitely on its last legs. From the box office numbers, the audience probably has enough too, because the domestic gross is very weak, and the worldwide box gross is probably not enough for the movie to break even. At this point, it is a classic case of diminished returns, because no amount of budget can reinvigorate the franchise anymore, and it is clear that it is just not worth it to make anymore. For me, I give it a 6.25/10. I definitely like it than most critics, because I am not bored by it like I was the last one, but there are just too many issues with it to give it a higher grade.

Frankly, this franchise is a miracle. It should be similar to the fate of blatant money grab franchises like Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Halloween from the 80s and 90s, since they all have multiple sequels that reaches or even surpasses ten, but somehow, it becomes a blockbuster moneymaker despite its many flaws. As for the moment it jumps the shark, I personally think it happens at the sixth movie, because while it might not fit the traditional definition of the term, as the box office numbers remains strong afterwards, this is the point where everyone decides to disregard logic, and each subsequent release gets closer and closer to parody. However, for the more traditional definition, it is definitely F9, because parody is finally reached, and box office numbers has suffered immediately afterwards.

There are likely two more movies in the franchise, but so far, I will rate it at 5.5/10. The first three movies are really bad, but it starts to find itself in the fourth one, as the budget is bigger, and more importantly, there is a plan. From that point on, they are mostly enjoyable mindless popcorn flicks. That said, I am not sure I will ever recommend it to people, because I just spent over 20 hours to finish this franchise, and it feels more like a chore than entertainment. There are a couple of enjoyable movies, for sure, but they are not worth it to get into the franchise for, since they get very repetitive and tiresome even after just two. However, I am also not sure they can be enjoyed as standalone fares either, because one needs to at least watch the first one to understand the basic outline of that universe, but I honestly cannot recommend it to anyone in good conscience.
 
Last edited:

OzzyFan

Registered User
Sep 17, 2012
3,653
960
I watched it about a year ago, and personally, I think this is a relic of the past, and it should stay there. Right of the bat, the plot is problematic nowadays, and from the look of things, that sentiment will only increase.

Lemmon's performance is praised, but his style is not a natural one, so at times, he takes me out of the rhythm, because it is obviously that he is acting. To be fair, it is probably a personal preference, as I like naturalistic acting styles more and more as I grow older, but Lemmon does have a tendency to ham it up. The director himself noted that, as he pretty much call him a ham, and one has to cut away the fat in order to get to the good stuff.

On the other hand, I am thoroughly impressed by MaClaine, as she injected enough innocence into her character to make her sympathetic and likeable, but that is not enough to make me like the movie.

I have it at 6/10. Even though I did not like it, and I probably will not recommend it for anyone, I do think it does correctly reflect the attitude towards women at that particular point in time, so at the very least, it has that cautionary tale aspect to it.



Carpenter is great in the 80s. This is a B-movie, at best, and it is clear the budget is rather low, but Carpenter is able to create a very unique atmosphere and mise-en-scene with what is clearly limited funds. The plot is light and straight-forward, but pace is brisk, as the time just flies by, the characters are all interesting, and all the actors are great for their roles. Of course, it is not a masterpiece, but it is very enjoyable, even nowadays, and it has definitely achieved cult status. I have it at 6.75/10, but it is probably closer to 7/10. I only grade it lower, because I have The Thing at 10/10, and this one is about .75 point off.
The Apartment, definitely period related, but you can say that for countless other films as well and not need relatability to enjoy it. That said, as the plot may specifically be outdated, the scenarios aren't. There are many powerful (and not powerful) men still having affairs left and right with empty promises and manipulation of women, some in and some not in on the real circumstances of their situations. The work related romance with people in positions of power part is up in the air, because it exists on varying levels still. Lemmon's performance is an interesting debate. You say unnatural, but I believe there are countless yes men in the world that will do nearly anything and everything to move up in the corporate world and please their superiors. If you mean Lemmon's schtick specifically, sure he is more charismatic and funny than your average person, but I believe the above along with his genuinely good guy persona to be believable. I've personally met and worked with a few of those types.

And I fixed that The Thing rating for you. ;)

Frankly, this franchise is a miracle. It should be similar to the fate of blatant money grab franchises like Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Halloween from the 80s and 90s, since they all have multiple sequels that reaches or even surpasses ten, but somehow, it becomes a blockbuster moneymaker despite its many flaws. As for the moment it jumps the shark, I personally think it happens at the sixth movie, because while it might not fit the traditional definition of the term, as the box office numbers remains strong afterwards, the franchise has decided to disregard logic and become more ridiculous with each subsequent release. However, for the more traditional definition, it is definitely F9, because that cannot be seen as anything but parody, and box office numbers has suffered immediately afterwards.

There are likely two more movies in the franchise, but so far, I will rate it at 5.5/10. The first three movies are really bad, but it starts to find itself in the fourth one with a bigger budget and more importantly, a plan. From that point on, they are mostly enjoyable mindless popcorn flicks. That said, I am not sure I will ever recommend it to people. I just send over 20 hours to finish this franchise, and it honestly feels like a chore than entertainment. There are a couple of enjoyable movies, for sure, but they are not worth it to get into the franchise for, and I am not sure they can be enjoyed alone. One needs to at least watch the first one to understand the basic outline of that universe, but I honestly cannot recommend it to anyone in good conscience.

Not quite apples to apples given comparative budgets and box office expectations, but F&F and the never ending horror franchises both have iconic beginnings and sequels at minimum deliver some popcorn genre entertainment "comfort food" for appearedly many people. Fast and the Furious specifically is supposed to up the ante, at least recently, with their action set-pieces to bring people back. That's my view. That said 20 hours of Fast and the Furious, I hope you have a personal enjoyment of car action and often cheesy soapy interplay, because that'd be a real nightmare to go through without that. :eek:
 

nameless1

Registered User
Apr 29, 2009
18,202
1,020
The Apartment, definitely period related, but you can say that for countless other films as well and not need relatability to enjoy it. That said, as the plot may specifically be outdated, the scenarios aren't. There are many powerful (and not powerful) men still having affairs left and right with empty promises and manipulation of women, some in and some not in on the real circumstances of their situations. The work related romance with people in positions of power part is up in the air, because it exists on varying levels still. Lemmon's performance is an interesting debate. You say unnatural, but I believe there are countless yes men in the world that will do nearly anything and everything to move up in the corporate world and please their superiors. If you mean Lemmon's schtick specifically, sure he is more charismatic and funny than your average person, but I believe the above along with his genuinely good guy persona to be believable. I've personally met and worked with a few of those types.

I agree that scenarios like what The Apartment portrayed still exists today, but the issue is the implicit and explicit acceptance of it by everyone involved. That also includes the whole production team, because the movie ends on a happy note where everyone moves on without any consequences, just like another day. That is just not realistic anymore, and it is certainly not accepted behaviour that can be passed off as a joke. That is why I noted that while the movie is too dated to be relevant today, it is an accurate portrayal of how things worked back then, so there is at least this chronicle aspect to it.

The Assistant in 2019 also takes a similar approach to these issues, as there is acceptance and no evident consequences, but everyone, at the very least, knows it is not acceptable, and the main character does suffer from a guilty conscience. Thus, I graded it a lot higher, because that is more realistic and relevant to the times.

In regards to Lemmon, his character is not the issue. Rather, I have a dislike for his acting style, because it is not naturalistic. It got a lot better as he grew older, as he finally encompasses the roles he is given more often than not, but in his early days, like in this one, he tends to ham it up, to the point that he is clearly just acting, which at times distracts me. To be fair, I do recognize that it is probably a personal preference, but at the very least, Billy Wilder says the same thing, and he has worked with him multiple times.

And I fixed that The Thing rating for you. ;)

I actually really like The Thing, and I do think it is an all-time great, but I put everything on the same scale, and action flicks tends to have a high-floor-low-ceiling for me. Very few action films will surpass 8 on my scale, but at the same time, if they are watchable, at the very least, it will be around a 6. Personally, I prefer dramas, so they tend to grade higher on my scale.

I wrote about this before, and back then, I watched The Thing and The Power of the Dog at around the same time, which I graded 7.5 and 8.5, respectively. While I will re-watch The Thing multiple times, and that would likely be the only time I watch The Power of the Dog, I do think the latter film is superior, because it connects with me deeper on an emotional level, and the production value is a lot higher.

I hope this explains my scale. I try to be fair, but I do put an emphasis on emotional connection, and I also take note of production value and overall quality. Action films, unfortunately, tends to be of lower quality too, especially back in the 80s to perhaps even the early 2000s.

Not quite apples to apples given comparative budgets and box office expectations, but F&F and the never ending horror franchises both have iconic beginnings and sequels at minimum deliver some popcorn genre entertainment "comfort food" for appearedly many people. Fast and the Furious specifically is supposed to up the ante, at least recently, with their action set-pieces to bring people back. That's my view. That said 20 hours of Fast and the Furious, I hope you have a personal enjoyment of car action and often cheesy soapy interplay, because that'd be a real nightmare to go through without that. :eek:

I did it over about 3 weeks, because I had an urgent issue which took precedent in the midst of it, so I am not too overwhelmed, but it was still a terrible experience that I did not enjoy one bit. I had an inkling that I would hate it even back when I first conceived the idea a couple of years ago, which was why I pushed back the plan until now, but it was honestly worst than I imagine. Frankly, if a person had to do it over a day, it can be considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. They would tell the interrogator anything, just to get it to stop. Worst of all, it is not over yet, because there are at least 2 more movies in the works.
:facepalm:
 
Last edited:

shadow1

Registered User
Nov 29, 2008
16,732
5,539
argento-dracula.jpg


Dracula 3D (2012) - 1/10

A 3D retelling of the 1897 Bram Stoker novel.

This ensemble cast features Unax Ugalde as Jonathan Harker, who in this version is a librarian is hired by Count Dracula (Thomas Kretchamann) to tend to the library in his castle. Harker's wife Mina (Marta Gastini) arrives in the same village shortly after, but is unable to locate her husband. Worse, there has been a series of unexplained deaths in the area. Mina seeks the help of Dr. Abraham Van Helsing (Rutger Hauer), a vampire expert who has just arrived in the village...

Dracula 3D was written and directed by Dario Argento. In a 2013 interview, Argento was quoted as saying he had wanted to direct a Dracula film for a long time, and could now find a way to do a unique take on the story thanks to the updates in 3D advancements. However, the film was maligned upon release, and currently sports a 3.6 rating on IMDB. Despite the poor reputation, this reviewer went in with an open mind. How did it fare?

This movie does literally everything wrong.

The plot is a chopped down version of Dracula, foregoing the portions of the story in England in favor of taking place exclusively in Transylvania. Similar to 1980's Inferno, the audience spends each of the three acts with a different protagonist (Jonathan -> Mina -> Van Helsing), which makes things feel clunky. But that's the least of this film's problems.

Visually, the film looks horrible. Though the sets in Dracula's castle aren't bad, the lighting in the film is too bright and gives the movie the appearance of a stage play. Adding to that is the poor cinematography, which often features stagnant camera work. There's one moment where Marta Gastini and Rutger Hauer are talking to each other and the camera is just pointed at their profiles as they make eye contact with each other. I cannot stress enough how much this movie looks like a play.

In at least once instance though, I would've preferred more stagnant camera work. There's a scene where Mina is investigating Dracula's castle and there are way too many cuts, causing the audiences to lose all sense of direction and space. It is an extremely poorly directed sequence by Argento, who also turns in a bad effort overall.

The acting in Dracula 3D is also very rough, but it's hard to blame the performers considering how poor the writing is. A lot of the dialogue, especially earlier in the film, is completely pointless and filled with characters simply exchanging pleasantries. The film is also needlessly sexualized, with Argento once again being unable to resist having daughter Asian Argento - who plays Lucy - bare all. With how bad literally everything else is, if Dracula 3D were just a bit more gratuitous, I'd swear this was an adult version of the Stoker novel.

Possibly worst of all is the special effects, which are unacceptable and at times hilariously bad. There's one scene in which a character catches on fire, and it is hands down the worst "fire" scene you'll ever see in a serious movie. There is also a scene in which someone is attacked by a computer generated mantis, which looks like it was drawn in Microsoft Paint. I did not watch the film in 3D, but from what I could tell, the most dramatic 3D effect involved a big fly randomly hovering around Jonathan Harker. Dracula 3D did not have a large budget ($7.7M USD), but it looks like his cost about as much as a Big Mac to make.

The final sin committed by Dracula 3D is that it's nearly 2 hours long, and feels even longer. The first hour in particular moves extremely slow and is an absolute chore to get though. Things pick up a bit once Rutger Hauer appears in the film, but not by much. Even though the audience spends so much time with the characters, thanks to the lack of horror and tension, you're never even remotely invested in what happens to any of the characters in this film.

Overall, Dracula 3D is one of the worst movies I've ever watched. Legendary director Dario Argento has had a rough last 20 years, but this film managed to fall below my already extremely low expectations. I have no idea what Argento was going for here, as it's neither scary or stylish. It's the type of film where you start to ask yourself questions like "Did this guy really direct Suspiria?" as you're watching it. I've seen some reviewers say Dracula 3D is bad, but has some redeemable qualities and is a better film than 2009's Giallo (which I rated 3/10). I could not disagree strongly enough, and in hindsight feel as though I was too hard on Giallo. Only watch Dracula 3D out of morbid curiosity, or if you're interested in seeing the worst special effects to be featured in a mainstream film.
 

Pranzo Oltranzista

Registered User
Oct 18, 2017
3,981
2,900
The Fast and the Furious series

That was courageous. I've only seen Fast Five (because I was with a group of kids), and it's clearly a 2/10 movie for me. I have Hobbs and Shaw at 3.5/10 and I'm sure that's the higher any of them would get.

And I fixed that The Thing rating for you. ;)

I was hoping someone would do it. I'd put it at 9, but I can't argue against your 10.

"Did this guy really direct Suspiria?"

Valid question. Thank you for watching it so nobody else has to. I knew it would be absolutely terrible, your comments make me think I was too optimistic.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: OzzyFan and shadow1

OzzyFan

Registered User
Sep 17, 2012
3,653
960
I agree that scenarios like what The Apartment portrayed still exists today, but the issue is the implicit and explicit acceptance of it by everyone involved. That also includes the whole production team, because the movie ends on a happy note where everyone moves on without any consequences, just like another day. That is just not realistic anymore, and it is certainly not accepted behaviour that can be passed off as a joke. That is why I noted that while the movie is too dated to be relevant today, it is an accurate portrayal of how things worked back then, so there is at least this chronicle aspect to it.

The Assistant in 2019 also takes a similar approach to these issues, as there is acceptance and no evident consequences, but everyone, at the very least, knows it is not acceptable, and the main character does suffer from a guilty conscience. Thus, I graded it a lot higher, because that is more realistic and relevant to the times.

In regards to Lemmon, his character is not the issue. Rather, I have a dislike for his acting style, because it is not naturalistic. It got a lot better as he grew older, as he finally encompasses the roles he is given more often than not, but in his early days, like in this one, he tends to ham it up, to the point that he is clearly just acting, which at times distracts me. To be fair, I do recognize that it is probably a personal preference, but at the very least, Billy Wilder says the same thing, and he has worked with him multiple times.



I actually really like The Thing, and I do think it is an all-time great, but I put everything on the same scale, and action flicks tends to have a high-floor-low-ceiling for me. Very few action films will surpass 8 on my scale, but at the same time, if they are watchable, at the very least, it will be around a 6. Personally, I prefer dramas, so they tend to grade higher on my scale.

I wrote about this before, and back then, I watched The Thing and The Power of the Dog at around the same time, which I graded 7.5 and 8.5, respectively. While I will re-watch The Thing multiple times, and that would likely be the only time I watch The Power of the Dog, I do think the latter film is superior, because it connects with me deeper on an emotional level, and the production value is a lot higher.

I hope this explains my scale. I try to be fair, but I do put an emphasis on emotional connection, and I also take note of production value and overall quality. Action films, unfortunately, tends to be of lower quality too, especially back in the 80s to perhaps even the early 2000s.



I did it over about 3 weeks, because I had an urgent issue which took precedent in the midst of it, so I am not too overwhelmed, but it was still a terrible experience that I did not enjoy one bit. I had an inkling that I would hate it even back when I first conceived the idea a couple of years ago, which was why I pushed back the plan until now, but it was honestly worst than I imagine. Frankly, if a person had to do it over a day, it can be considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. They would tell the interrogator anything, just to get it to stop. Worst of all, it is not over yet, because there are at least 2 more movies in the works.
:facepalm:
Gotcha. I see what angles/perspectives you were going with. It appears mostly we are discussing around each other on different points. Interesting point, the "connects with me deeper on an emotional level", with The Thing vs Power of the Dog. For comparison's sake, with what or how would you compare The Thing respectively in this category? Kurt Russell's character's point of view, your personal fear level while watching, joy level while watching, decisions made throughout, or otherwise? Cross genre is a bit tough on 1:1 comparison, but in what way is it fair to contrast The Thing on in this regard, or is it just points taken away/not given? The "production value being a lot higher", if you are speaking in terms as an aspect for film quality grading, I feel is unfair to use, but to each his own.
 

nameless1

Registered User
Apr 29, 2009
18,202
1,020
That was courageous. I've only seen Fast Five (because I was with a group of kids), and it's clearly a 2/10 movie for me. I have Hobbs and Shaw at 3.5/10 and I'm sure that's the higher any of them would get.

I just wanted to see how it turned from street racing, to the hybrid street race-action-spy monstrosity today, because when I went from the third one directly to the eighth one, the experience was akin to a caveman who was suddenly transported into the modern age. Now, after I went through it all, the transition is not as farfetched as I thought, but I would never recommend anyone else to do it, because it is a truly painful idiotic experience. I had to push myself to finish the most recent one, as I had enough by that point. If people thought jump the shark was bad, then they really should try car in space.

As for my ratings, I have a high floor for action flicks. If I am entertained, and it does not completely insult my intelligence, it basically starts at 6. Sometimes I am more than happy to turn off my brain, but there is a limit to my suspension of disbelief.
 
Last edited:

nameless1

Registered User
Apr 29, 2009
18,202
1,020
Gotcha. I see what angles/perspectives you were going with. It appears mostly we are discussing around each other on different points. Interesting point, the "connects with me deeper on an emotional level", with The Thing vs Power of the Dog. For comparison's sake, with what or how would you compare The Thing respectively in this category? Kurt Russell's character's point of view, your personal fear level while watching, joy level while watching, decisions made throughout, or otherwise? Cross genre is a bit tough on 1:1 comparison, but in what way is it fair to contrast The Thing on in this regard, or is it just points taken away/not given? The "production value being a lot higher", if you are speaking in terms as an aspect for film quality grading, I feel is unfair to use, but to each his own.

Yeah, the thriller/ horror/ action genre does have a disadvantage in my system, because it is usually hard to connect with another creature, or place oneself in the same farfetched situation. I do recognize that, but it also makes very little sense to have separate systems, because that is just an endless rabbit hole. That is why I am also more lenient towards those genres too, as they tend to have a high floor, but it is definitely not perfect. Unfortunately, I also do not know how to revamp it, because my preference is towards drama anyways. That is why I always write that people should take my ratings with a grain of salt.

On the other hand, if you ever see me give a 9 or above to any thriller/ horror/ action movie, then it is definitely worth a watch.
:laugh:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OzzyFan

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
94,942
12,131
Mojo Dojo Casa House
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Almost legible plot, completely illegible robots, stupid, slightly racist, extremely perverted and still ugly.
Yup, that's the one considered "a victim" of the writer's strike. Things got in that film that would've been re-written if not for the strike. Michael Bay has even admitted it: Writers' strike ruined Transformers 2, says Michael Bay

It was written in 3 weeks and it showed. :laugh:
 

ItsFineImFine

Registered User
Aug 11, 2019
3,745
2,389
Trying to get through Beau Is Afraid.....I think I'm done with modern films unless it has a really good rating or is a blockbuster worth watching or something of interest. Better to just stick to classics, the foreign ones are sometimes overrated but they're generally much more watchable.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad