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

[kihei]

Does "complexity" and different readings necessary confirm on a film "good movie" status, though? Don't get me wrong, I think you give a likely purrfect reading of between-the-lines Neon Demon, one that at my most catty I would not dispute. And I can see why one might want to bump a movie a point upwards because of clever use of symbolism, subtext, academic cleverness, and so on. But to me, even with your reading, Neon Demon is still a tedious, excessive, indulgent mess of a movie. So while the dimension you discuss is of interest, it does not significantly transform the value of the movie in my eyes. I have a feeling this sort of stuff goes on a lot with both directors who I actively dislike on the whole--Jadoworsky, Aronofsky, some Pasolini--and directors who I usually tolerate well--Von Trier, Malick, Bunuel. It would rarely if ever make or break a movie for me, though.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Does "complexity" and different readings necessary confirm on a film "good movie" status, though? Don't get me wrong, I think you give a likely purrfect reading of between-the-lines Neon Demon, one that at my most catty I would not dispute. And I can see why one might want to bump a movie a point upwards because of clever use of symbolism, subtext, academic cleverness, and so on. But to me, even with your reading, Neon Demon is still a tedious, excessive, indulgent mess of a movie. So while the dimension you discuss is of interest, it does not significantly transform the value of the movie in my eyes. I have a feeling this sort of stuff goes on a lot with both directors who I actively dislike on the whole--Jadoworsky, Aronofsky, some Pasolini--and directors who I usually tolerate well--Von Trier, Malick, Bunuel. It would rarely if ever make or break a movie for me, though.

Doesn't necessarily makes a movie great, for sure, but to me it's enough to avoid the "bad movie" tag. Bad movies don't go there. And (again, to me), none of the directors mentioned ever made a bad movie (well, I haven't seen Jodo's and Aro's last few).

Oh, and I really don't think TND is a mess. I think it's a rather beautiful film, and it feels pretty calculated to me (until Jesse's death anyway).

 

[kihei]

Doesn't necessarily makes a movie great, for sure, but to me it's enough to avoid the "bad movie" tag. Bad movies don't go there. And (again, to me), none of the directors mentioned ever made a bad movie (well, I haven't seen Jodo's and Aro's last few).

Oh, and I really don't think TND is a mess. I think it's a rather beautiful film, and it feels pretty calculated to me (until Jesse's death anyway).

I know you are restricting this to you, which is laudable, but c'mon, none of them has ever made a bad movie? That's an almost ecclesiastical dispensation. I think I might make that claim for Michelangelo works of art but that's where I would draw the line. No other human can claim perfection on that level.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I know you are restricting this to you, which is laudable, but c'mon, none of them has ever made a bad movie? That's an almost ecclesiastical dispensation. I think I might make that claim for Michelangelo works of art but that's where I would draw the line. No other human can claim perfection on that level.

Never said they made "perfect" movie. They made pretty good films. I know you hate everything by Jodo, that you hate Teorema... all great films IMO.
As for restricting my opinions about art to myself, I think everybody should - I know few people watch films or listen to music the way I do, and as much as I appreciate Jauss' reception theory, I still don't think a greater experience with the artform, allowing one to better appreciate more difficult works, equates to these works being objectively better than simpler productions (in other words, I think my uncle's love for Bud Spencer is as valid as my love for Raoul Ruiz).

 

[Unholy Diver]

Mufasa: the Lion King 6/10

Lion King prequel story of how Mufasa grew from a cub separated from his family to become the eventual leader of Pride Rock, it had it's moments, and the music was decent with songs from Lin Manuel Miranda, but overall I'd say it was just pretty good, a clear and distant 2nd place to fellow holiday family drop Sonic 3

 

[kihei]

Carry-On, 2024
6.5/10

A decent, mindless Christmas thriller. I like Jason Bateman in general, so that's 90% of why I was compelled to watch it. The main character is dumb and frustrating, but overall, a solid distraction for a few hours during the holidays.

I think Carry-On represents everything that is wrong with 98% of Netflix movies: high production values but totally anonymous direction; a script that virtually screams "nobody around here actually gives a f***;" and sloppy plot holes you can drive a 747 through. Carry-On is not a contender for Christmas season Die Hard status; if that was the intent, the notion is ludicrous. Soon, very soon, Carry-On will come to rest in the Netflix graveyard where close to all of their godawful movies end up and no one will ever think of it again.

 

[kihei]

Never said they made "perfect" movie. They made pretty good films. I know you hate everything by Jodo, that you hate Teorema... all great films IMO.
As for restricting my opinions about art to myself, I think everybody should - I know few people watch films or listen to music the way I do, and as much as I appreciate Jauss' reception theory, I still don't think a greater experience with the artform, allowing one to better appreciate more difficult works, equates to these works being objectively better than simpler productions (in other words, I think my uncle's love for Bud Spencer is as valid as my love for Raoul Ruiz).

Been thinking about this one some. At the risk of sounding elitist, I don't think art is egalitarian. Loving a work enough is not sufficient to presume that said work is the equal of a masterpiece. Somebody might like the lesser work better, fine, I have no problem with that. And that person's pleasure and mine in watching the works of our choice may be equally ecstatic. I mean, taste is incredibly subjective. But if a Ruiz work is "objectively" on the same level of a Bud Spencer work, well, so must Hamlet be on a par with Barefoot in the Park; the Beatles on a par with the Monkees; and Melville's Moby Dick on a par with Peter Benchley's Jaws. I don't think you have to be fascist about standards to recoil at those comparisons.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Been thinking about this one some. At the risk of sounding elitist, I don't think art is egalitarian. Loving a work enough is not sufficient to presume that said work is on the equal of a masterpiece. Somebody might like the lesser work better, fine, I have no problem with that. And that person's pleasure and mine in watching the works of our choice may be equally ecstatic. I mean, taste is incredibly subjective. But if a Ruiz work is "objectively" on the same level of a Bud Spencer work, well, so must Hamlet be on a par with Barefoot in the Park; the Beatles on a par with the Monkees; and Melville's Moby Dick on a par with Peter Benchley's Jaws. I don't think you have to be fascist about standards to recoil at those comparisons.

I get exactly what you mean, and it's been my position too for the longest time. And of course, from a "scholar"'s point of view, I could argue about why/how Pasolini / Jodorowsky did great stuff (for example, my thread about Panic films), or that TND is "objectively" more complex both in narrative structure and in themes than The Substance, or, to hit it through the park, that Bud Spencer never did a film on the level of the worse of Ruiz's filmography. None of that would really be objective, though. It would be, as I said, from a scholar's point of view. I think that's exactly what I was missing from Jauss' theory: yes, my field of experience will determine what I receive as pleasant, original, or brilliant (if it manages to stray away from the banal and retain its meaningfulness), but this horizon of expectations is everything but objective and will differ from one reader to the other, no matter their prestigious academic level or experience.

For sure, I'm for the Hippotomaus is an "objectively" better (and certainly more pleasant) experience than On Top of the Whale for most viewers (and I say that confidently without having seen the Hippo one - I just looked through Spencer's filmo and thought it was a great title to oppose to Ruiz's Whale film). I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't even get through Ruiz's film. I would not agree, I could write an essay and back it up, but there still would be no objectivity either way. We tend to think our subjectivity, based on experience, readings and studies, is closer to the truth of what makes a great film, or a great work of art, but in fact, there is no measurable determinant other than consensus, which is determined by a selected group that mostly agrees with itself (and is often fabulously wrong).

Still, I think you are right when you say Carry-On is a smelly pile of garbage that will soon be forgotten. I can't help myself.

 

[kihei]

I get exactly what you mean, and it's been my position too for the longest time. And of course, from a "scholar"'s point of view, I could argue about why/how Pasolini / Jodorowsky did great stuff (for example, my thread about Panic films), or that TND is "objectively" more complex both in narrative structure and in themes than The Substance, or, to hit it through the park, that Bud Spencer never did a film on the level of the worse of Ruiz's filmography. None of that would really be objective, though. It would be, as I said, from a scholar's point of view. I think that's exactly what I was missing from Jauss' theory: yes, my field of experience will determine what I receive as pleasant, original, or brilliant (if it manages to stray away from the banal and retain its meaningfulness), but this horizon of expectations is everything but objective and will differ from one reader to the other, no matter their prestigious academic level or experience.

For sure, I'm for the Hippotomaus is an "objectively" better (and certainly more pleasant) experience than On Top of the Whale for most viewers (and I say that confidently without having seen the Hippo one - I just looked through Spencer's filmo and thought it was a great title to oppose to Ruiz's Whale film). I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't even get through Ruiz's film. I would not agree, I could write an essay and back it up, but there still would be no objectivity either way. We tend to think our subjectivity, based on experience, readings and studies, is closer to the truth of what makes a great film, or a great work of art, but in fact, there is no measurable determinant other than consensus, which is determined by a selected group that mostly agrees with itself (and is often fabulously wrong).

Still, I think you are right when you say Carry-On is a smelly pile of garbage that will soon be forgotten. I can't help myself.

Methinks "objectivity" has pretty much gotten itself blown out of the water. Quantum physics, the teensy little bit I pretend to understand anyway, has pounded several extremely sharp stakes through the heart of that one. So I would never claim objective standards for anything, not even the excellent Irish whiskey that I am sipping right now. Doesn't mean that I don't think that some aesthetic standards are better/wiser/smarter/more useful/more pleasing/more revealing/more persuasive than others. Eye of the beholder thing? Sure, no question.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

Hundreds of Beavers (2022). B+
Summarizing the plot of Hundreds of Beavers seems pretty pointless, but I'll do it anyway. An alcoholic cider man has his farm destroyed by beavers and must learn to survive in the harsh winter. That's it. But the hook is in the presentation. Equal parts 20th century silent film and live-action Looney Tunes, Hundreds of Beavers is a predominantly dialogue-free, slapstick-driven one-man-show, and boy oh boy, what a show it is. I wouldn't have minded a couple mins being trimmed here or there, but it by-and-large justifies its 100min+ run time (and gives Love Exposure a run for its money in how late the title sequence is revealed).

Though a festival release in 2022 & 2023, it's finally enjoyed a very limited, select theatrical run in 2024, and trust me, the theater (preferably packed with unsuspecting patrons) is the place to see it. Made on a shoestring budget of 150K (I guess that's shoestring these days), its manic DIY-energy results in one of the more inspiring trips to the cinema in quite some time (it's also streaming on Prime if it's not playing in your area).

You'd be forgiven 15 minutes in thinking this is just a pale imitation of the films of yore it's paying tribute to, but stick with it and you'll bear witness to some truly inspired world-building.
Case in point: a common complaint of detractors is the repetitiveness of some jokes, but this isn't the same joke being beat to death as much as it is the film slyly teaching you the rules of the world, and working these rules out alongside the protagonist can result in an especially rewarding viewing experience, including a supremely satisfying button at the end. Simply put, it takes real smarts to be this dumb.

 

[kihei]

The Return (2024) Directed by Uberto Paolini 4B

The Return is a deadly serious retelling of Odysseus' return to Penelope after years seemingly lost at sea. It is a modernized version of The Odyssey that jettisons all the mythical elements--no Cyclops, no sirens, no sorceress, no fun, basically. Ralph Fiennes plays Odysseus like he is auditioning for King Lear, which, when you come to think of it, would not be a bad idea at all (I'd take him over Branagh and even Day-Lewis in this specific instance). Juliette Binoche provides the best performance in the movie as the long suffering Penelope, who has spent years knitting and then unravelling a never-completed shawl, thus keeping her legion of suitors at bay. The movie hints, but doesn't develop, the notion that there might have been a little more to it than that. Missed opportunity, I'd say. One wonders who will want to see this movie. I suspect it may find its niche in first year, required Western Civilization courses at universities where its discussion will directly lead to thousands of earnest essays primarily written by AIs.

 

[Baby Punisher]

Gladiator 2
A worthy enough successor to the first one. I love Denzel, but he was miscast in this one.
6.5/10

 

[flyersnorth]

I think Carry-On represents everything that is wrong with 98% of Netflix movies: high production values but totally anonymous direction; a script that virtually screams "nobody around here actually gives a f***;" and sloppy plot holes you can drive a 747 through. Carry-On is not a contender for Christmas season Die Hard status; if that was the intent, the notion is ludicrous. Soon, very soon, Carry-On will come to rest in the Netflix graveyard where close to all of their godawful movies end up and no one will ever think of it again.

I don’t think it’s specifically a Netflix phenomenon. I think that’s the case for most Hollywood / mainstream movies. The same is true for music, books, TV shows, video games.

Substance and depth is not something most people want in their entertainment. It’s where we are as a society.

 

[flyersnorth]

Been thinking about this one some. At the risk of sounding elitist, I don't think art is egalitarian. Loving a work enough is not sufficient to presume that said work is the equal of a masterpiece. Somebody might like the lesser work better, fine, I have no problem with that. And that person's pleasure and mine in watching the works of our choice may be equally ecstatic. I mean, taste is incredibly subjective. But if a Ruiz work is "objectively" on the same level of a Bud Spencer work, well, so must Hamlet be on a par with Barefoot in the Park; the Beatles on a par with the Monkees; and Melville's Moby Dick on a par with Peter Benchley's Jaws. I don't think you have to be fascist about standards to recoil at those comparisons.

This is an interesting topic I’ve discussed at length for years with friends.

The subjective experience someone gets from The Beatles in comparison to the subjective experience someone gets from the Monkees can be the same in terms of its impact and meaning.

But I tend to agree that there is probably some objective difference in quality between Mozart’s Requiem and Ed Sheeran. But what is that objective difference that is free of bias or human subjective interpretation?

Sales? Sheeran wins hands down. Listens (streams)? Sheeran wins again. Application of musical theory? Requiem has more range but Sheeran has distilled musical theory down to four chords that have appealed to hundreds of millions of people.

I tend to believe Ed Sheeran shouldn’t even be in the same sentence as Mozart, but on what truly objective basis?

 

[McGarnagle]

Maria with Angelina Jolie was really bad

 

[kihei]

This is an interesting topic I’ve discussed at length for years with friends.

The subjective experience someone gets from The Beatles in comparison to the subjective experience someone gets from the Monkees can be the same in terms of its impact and meaning.

But I tend to agree that there is probably some objective difference in quality between Mozart’s Requiem and Ed Sheeran. But what is that objective difference that is free of bias or human subjective interpretation?

Sales? Sheeran wins hands down. Listens (streams)? Sheeran wins again. Application of musical theory? Requiem has more range but Sheeran has distilled musical theory down to four chords that have appealed to hundreds of millions of people.

I tend to believe Ed Sheeran shouldn’t even be in the same sentence as Mozart, but on what truly objective basis?

I've come to accept that it is a fool's errand wasting time on objectivity, something that doesn't really exist in terms of the judgement of art. I don't think it is a bad idea, though, to figure out your own subjective criteria that suits your taste. But I doubt most casual movie goers have much interest in being even that reflective. I think too many people see being critical about anything as a form of rudeness and pretentiousness. Give 'em their Super Heroes and their explosions (and their Sheerans) and they are happy.

Gandhi was once asked what he thought of Western civilization. His (perhaps apocryphal) reply: he thought it would be a good idea.

 

[Osprey]

I don’t think it’s specifically a Netflix phenomenon. I think that’s the case for most Hollywood / mainstream movies. The same is true for music, books, TV shows, video games.

Yeah, this isn't a "Netflix phenomenon." Most of what people call "Netflix movies" would still exist without Netflix. They're made by independent studios and then are picked up by distributors like Netflix. If Netflix didn't pick up Carry-On, then Amazon, Apple, Paramount or someone else would've, instead, and put it on their service. Before streaming, these types of movies that weren't considered good enough for theaters were released straight to video (VHS/DVD) or cable. They didn't have a good reputation then and they don't have a good reputation now. Not much has changed except that, nowadays, they're just released straight to streaming instead of to video/cable. There will always be endless numbers of lower budget, lower quality movies that are independently produced and need distribution, and streaming services are just the currently preferred mode of distribution. Distributors like Netflix are not to blame for them being low quality. They're just making them available even though they're low quality. It's our fault if we expect them to be higher quality.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

Yeah, this isn't a "Netflix phenomenon."

I don't disagree with the post, but I think the big difference with a lot of the current movies being discussed vs the standard straight-to-dvd fare of days past is the money being pumped into these suckers. Carry-On for instance has an estimated budget of 47 million. That's like...47 straight-to-DVD releases.

 

[Osprey]

I don't disagree with the post, but I think the big difference with a lot of the current movies being discussed vs the standard straight-to-dvd fare of days past is the money being pumped into these suckers. Carry-On for instance has an estimated budget of 47 million. That's like...47 straight-to-DVD releases.

Oh, I didn't realize that, nor that the deal with Netflix was signed before the movie was even made. That really does make it a "Netflix movie" and part of the "Netflix phenomenon." That's not the case for most of the movies on Netflix, but it was my mistake to assume that about this movie. Thanks for the correction.

 

[kihei]

Bird (2024) Directed by Andrea Arnold 7A

Bird is a British working-class coming of age film about Bailey (Nykiya Adams), a 12-year-old girl of mixed race who is growing up in incredibly difficult circumstances. She lives with he dad Bug (Barry Keoghan), who became a father at 14, and is a wannabe drug dealer with a troubled son and an upcoming marriage to a woman whom he has only known for a short time. Her mother, who lives nearby, already has three younger kids and now a boyfriend who is a violent lout. In addition, Bailey is restless, hard to control and rebellious, and it all adds up to a complicated cocktail of hopelessness and rage. In earlier films, director Andrea Arnold would have just played out this hand, the end result being a gritty, powerful but depressing movie. With Bird, something entirely different happens. Director Andrea Arnold replaces the usually dreary visual palette in these types of films with a use of eye-catching colour that Almodovar would approve of. Then Bailey meets by chance Bird (Frank Rogowski) who befriends her but is not quite what he seems. Boy, is he ever not quite what he seems. Bird eventually takes a turn into magic realism which viewers will either love or hate. I loved it. About the need for protection and the vulnerability of puberty, Bird is also about Bailey's resilience and sense of responsibility in the toughest of situations. Bird didn't go anywhere close to where I was expecting it to go. And it has left me with a lot of feelings that I am still working out. But right now the overall effect of the film has been exhilarating, somehow both very positive and more than a little sad and concerning at the same time.


Best of '24 so far

1. Flow, Zilbalodis, Latvia
2. Anora, Baker, US
3. Caught by the Tides, Jia, China
4. All We Imagine as Light, Kapadia, India
5. Do Not Expect Too Much from the End of the World, Jude, Romania
6. Green Border, Holland, Poland
7. Bird, Arnold, UK
8. The Room Next Door, Almodovar, US
9. The Seed of the Sacred Fig, Rasoulof, Germany
10. Dahomey, Diop, Benin (documentary)

 

[Osprey]

The Holdovers (2023) - 6/10

This was a pleasant enough film with some heart that still disappointed me a little because it didn't live up to being the new Christmas classic that I've heard it called. What I appreciated was the focus on the characters and their arcs, the subtle sentimentality, the story simplicity and the authenticity for the time period. It's a simple, believable film that reminded me of ones from the 80s and 90s, especially Dead Poets Society (but with a teacher who torments rather than inspires his students). I miss moviemaking like this. What I didn't like so much were, for one, the main characters. I never really cared for the teacher and I found the main student to be insufferable through the entire thing. Of course, their abrasiveness is a big part of the plot, but the film was trying to tug on my heartstrings and that doesn't work on me if I don't care for the characters. I did kind of like and sympathize with the cook, but she felt shoehorned into the story and her screen time distracted from the central, teacher-student relationship and made the film a little longer than it needed to be. I also could've done without the crude language, which I don't mind in 99% of films, but which felt jarring in what's supposed to be a heartfelt Christmas movie. Along the same lines, it's kind of a downer of a film, and though I appreciate that it's realistic in that sense, it's not what I expect from a Christmas movie or see myself caring to watch again at Christmas, when I'm looking to feel good, not mildly depressed. So, it wasn't exactly what I expected and was a little disappointing, but I did enjoy it enough, just not nearly as much as some people.

 

[kihei]

The Holdovers (2023) - 6/10

This was a pleasant enough film with some heart that still disappointed me a little because it didn't live up to being the new Christmas classic that I've heard it called. What I appreciated was the focus on the characters and their arcs, the subtle sentimentality, the story simplicity and the authenticity for the time period. It's a simple, believable film that reminded me of ones from the 80s and 90s, especially Dead Poets Society (but with a teacher who torments rather than inspires his students). I miss moviemaking like this. What I didn't like so much were, for one, the main characters. I never really cared for the teacher and I found the main student to be insufferable through the entire thing. Of course, their abrasiveness is a big part of the plot, but the film was trying to tug on my heartstrings and that doesn't work on me if I don't care for the characters. I did kind of like and sympathize with the cook, but she felt shoehorned into the story and her screen time distracted from the central, teacher-student relationship and made the film a little longer than it needed to be. I also could've done without the crude language, which I don't mind in 99% of films, but which felt jarring in what's supposed to be a heartfelt Christmas movie. Along the same lines, it's kind of a downer of a film, and though I appreciate that it's realistic in that sense, it's not what I expect from a Christmas movie or see myself caring to watch again at Christmas, when I'm looking to feel good, not mildly depressed. So, it wasn't exactly what I expected and was a little disappointing, but I did enjoy it enough, just not nearly as much as some people.

If you haven't already, you really owe it to yourself to see A Child's Christmas in Wales with Denholm Eliot which is only 54 minutes long. It is still available on YouTube.

 

[Jack Straw]

But I tend to agree that there is probably some objective difference in quality between Mozart’s Requiem and Ed Sheeran. But what is that objective difference that is free of bias or human subjective interpretation?

There isn’t one.

I tend to believe Ed Sheeran shouldn’t even be in the same sentence as Mozart, but on what truly objective basis?

Objective means there is some measurable criterion that you can apply equally to things being compared. Such things exist in sports (Usain Bolt is objectively the fastest 100m runner of all time) but not the arts.

 

[Rob]

Nosferatu 10/10: I went to the theatre with high expectation and they were exceeded.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

The Holdovers (2023) - 6/10

This was a pleasant enough film with some heart that still disappointed me a little because it didn't live up to being the new Christmas classic that I've heard it called. What I appreciated was the focus on the characters and their arcs, the subtle sentimentality, the story simplicity and the authenticity for the time period. It's a simple, believable film that reminded me of ones from the 80s and 90s, especially Dead Poets Society (but with a teacher who torments rather than inspires his students). I miss moviemaking like this. What I didn't like so much were, for one, the main characters. I never really cared for the teacher and I found the main student to be insufferable through the entire thing. Of course, their abrasiveness is a big part of the plot, but the film was trying to tug on my heartstrings and that doesn't work on me if I don't care for the characters. I did kind of like and sympathize with the cook, but she felt shoehorned into the story and her screen time distracted from the central, teacher-student relationship and made the film a little longer than it needed to be. I also could've done without the crude language, which I don't mind in 99% of films, but which felt jarring in what's supposed to be a heartfelt Christmas movie. Along the same lines, it's kind of a downer of a film, and though I appreciate that it's realistic in that sense, it's not what I expect from a Christmas movie or see myself caring to watch again at Christmas, when I'm looking to feel good, not mildly depressed. So, it wasn't exactly what I expected and was a little disappointing, but I did enjoy it enough, just not nearly as much as some people.

In fairness, many of the Christmas classics people love today initially fell flat - Christmas Story and It’s a Wonderful Life come to mind.

A Wonderful Life was a dud after its initial release.

If I recall correctly, it took 30 years until the film became public domain in the mid 70s and got played on the major networks.

This was the catalyst that gave the film a new lease on life and launched it into the beloved classic it is today.

I do agree with the thought that rewatching The Holdovers isn’t something I would want to do every Christmas.

I absolutely loved this movie, but much like Manchester by the Sea (which I adore as well), it’s a very depressing plot that I’m not sure I’d care to rewatch.

So I admit it isn’t fit with the uplifting spirit of Christmas in my opinion.