Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Mid-Spring Edition. Happy Beltane!

[silkyjohnson50]

Agree with last two Conjuring reviews. Clearly the weakest of the the 3, but I still liked it enough. In terms of mainstream horror films, that franchise has stood out for me.

I also couldn’t help but smirk at the not so subtle references to The Exorcist and The Shining.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Well, in the documentary I just watched, she says he had a sadistic inclination and believed he'd end up never having a suitable partner until he met her, and that he was very faithful to her and very much in love (which wasn't her case).

I'd be curious to know how she defines faithfulness. Look, I have no gripes with anybody having their kinks (so long as it's consensual and between adults) as well as their own rules within a relationship nor would I ever point to his literary fiction and films as proof of anything but it's hard to understate how flagrant the warning signs are with ARG. I read an article - possibly the one from 2001? - where he mentions how Balthus lived with a 12 year-old and how her parents and the girl were okay with it. It doesn't diminish his art but he certainly strikes me as a man I wouldn't want an impressionable person (kid or adult) and much less an idiot to be around.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

@kihei I've been on the lookout for a review of The Idiots for a couple of weeks now. When's it coming?

 

[Pink Mist]

Never heard of that (in fact, I know very little of the personal life of these intellectuals), but found the text you are talking about - that's an impressive list of intellectuals!

Françoise Dolto et la révision du code pénal sur la sexualité des grands mineurs

Barthes, Klossovski, Simone de Beauvoir, Deleuze, Derrida, Lyotard, Sartre, Sollers, pretty much the whole Tel-Quel gang is there, with psychiatrist and other professors... A lot of people I have enjoyed reading. I really wonder what came to this.

I'm not really going to do justice to their argument since it's been a long time since I've read it, and I primarily only know the Foucaldian perspective for the petition - not to mention we're veering off topic and into some very controversial waters. But the gist of the argument, to my understanding is that it's a response to the increased move to criminalization of certain so called "dangerous behaviour" in French society to protect "vulnerable young minds". It's a fairly reactionary post-structualist argument in response to a pedophilia legal case at the time, but a lot of the motivation behind the came from the criminalization and medical classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder during the era of the 70s (especially for someone like Foucault who was gay). Much of the rationality to continue outlawing homosexuality and classify it as a mental disorder was to protect youth from what was seen as a corrupting and dangerous force (homosexuality). Doing so classifies certain individuals as dangerous and removes the agency from youth to make their own decisions. Theyre using the age of consent laws to criticize this sort of removal of agency and criminalization of certain dangerous behaviours because they believe that it will overextend from talking about children and pedophiles to homosexuality and other stigmatized behaviours

It's a convoluted argument and it's been a long time since I've thought about it and I'm definitely not describing the nuances of it.

The argument is really problematic to put it lightly for a ton of reasons, in part I think due to the conflation of homosexuality and pedophilia, and of course as a defense of pedophilia itself, but that's kind of the charitable reading of it.

I personally do not agree with the argument and think the petition was a really really bad look for post-structualism and critical theory. And was an example of post-structualism going way too far up its own ass.

There was a similar argument and letter made by many in French high society and the film industry when the #MeToo movement was in full swing

Anyway, we're way off topic and it may be best to abandon this line of conversation

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I'm not really going to do justice to their argument since it's been a long time since I've read it, and I primarily only know the Foucaldian perspective for the petition - not to mention we're veering off topic and into some very controversial waters. But the gist of the argument, to my understanding is that it's a response to the increased move to criminalization of certain so called "dangerous behaviour" in French society to protect "vulnerable young minds". It's a fairly reactionary post-structualist argument in response to a pedophilia legal case at the time, but a lot of the motivation behind the came from the criminalization and medical classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder during the era of the 70s (especially for someone like Foucault who was gay). Much of the rationality to continue outlawing homosexuality and classify it as a mental disorder was to protect youth from what was seen as a corrupting and dangerous force (homosexuality). Doing so classifies certain individuals as dangerous and removes the agency from youth to make their own decisions. Theyre using the age of consent laws to criticize this sort of removal of agency and criminalization of certain dangerous behaviours because they believe that it will overextend from talking about children and pedophiles to homosexuality and other stigmatized behaviours

It's a convoluted argument and it's been a long time since I've thought about it and I'm definitely not describing the nuances of it.

The argument is really problematic to put it lightly for a ton of reasons, in part I think due to the conflation of homosexuality and pedophilia, and of course as a defense of pedophilia itself, but that's kind of the charitable reading of it.

I personally do not agree with the argument and think the petition was a really really bad look for post-structualism and critical theory. And was an example of post-structualism going way too far up its own ass.

There was a similar argument and letter made by many in French high society and the film industry when the #MeToo movement was in full swing

Anyway, we're way off topic and it may be best to abandon this line of conversation

Thanks. It makes it a little clearer as to how they could have come to this.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

La Femme Nikita (1990) - 7/10

I surprisingly loved the ending, I bet its abruptness and anti-climaticness probably pissed people off but it just worked well here and almost felt like a twist. In fact one of the rare instances where the ending was better in this sort of film than the journey. The journey in the first parts is quite tiresome in fairness with a dislikable protagonist who's unpredictability is predictable but Bresson shows some good style late in the film. I will say the plot is absolutely idiotic though.

Just a shame he ended up directing cheesy trash like The Fifth Element or Transporter films.

 

[kihei]

@kihei I've been on the lookout for a review of The Idiots for a couple of weeks now. When's it coming?

I took a quick look around and couldn't find it anywhere. I will check again after the French Open is completed in about another week.

 

[sdf]

The aliens forms in the valerian was just too moronic, and the plot not so interesting, i guese. But fifth element are good, i would say. I like the panorames of future city and some footage, and also humor

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Lawrence of Arabia (1962) directed by David Lean

A big blind spot in my life watching films is that I have never seen Lawrence of Arabia in its entirety. I’ve seen bits and pieces of it growing up when my dad would watch it on TV, but I have never sat and watched the whole thing through. The length of the film, close to 4 hours, and that I basically only knew it was a colonial epic was always just so daunting to me. So what better day to do it and watch a desert flick than on the warmest day of the year so far when it is oppressively hot to go outside? What can you say about this film that hasn’t been said a million times? Not much so I won’t really try. But they certainly don’t make films like this anymore. The dictionary definition of an Epic film – everything is epic in scale from its length, the sets, the amount of actors and extras etc – this would have been a CGI’d mess if made in 2021. And boy is it a gorgeous film, with beautiful cinematography of the desert landscape – it is quite breathtaking to take in. First chance I get to see it in theatres after this damned pandemic I’m jumping at that chance because this film is a film that deserves to be seen on the largest screen possible.

GET OUT OF MY HEAD.

Exactly the same scenario. Exactly the same reason. Also feel like I don't have much to say that hasn't been said about it. One thing I didn't expect is how psychologically murky it is. I always just assumed it was more of a rah-rah-victory! type movie. Politically and psychologically more complex than I was anticipating though.

But now I need to figure out the most prominent movie I've never seen because this was my easy answer for the last 20 years or so ...

 

[Pink Mist]

GET OUT OF MY HEAD.

Exactly the same scenario. Exactly the same reason. Also feel like I don't have much to say that hasn't been said about it. One thing I didn't expect is how psychologically murky it is. I always just assumed it was more of a rah-rah-victory! type movie. Politically and psychologically more complex than I was anticipating though.

But now I need to figure out the most prominent movie I've never seen because this was my easy answer for the last 20 years or so ...

Yeah I was really expecting it to be like a celebration of colonialism but as you said it's a lot more politically murky. I do think the first half up to the intermission is a lot stronger than the second half - a lot more iconic images and scenes - but overall a fantastic movie

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Streets of Fire. I genuinely love this movie. It's goofy and flawed and big and broad and corny but while others may see something to laugh at, I've always been completely won over by it. Walter Hill's "rock and roll fable" is a mash-up of 1950s and 1980s; Ry Cooder rockabilly and operatic Jim Steinman-esque pop (the opening number, Nowhere Fast is great). The good guys are real good. The bad guys (an oily, evil Wilem Dafoe) are real bad. Diane Lane is an angel. There is an unavoidable flaw in that the lead is Michael Pare who for some reason was a thing in the 1980s. Yeah he's got the requisite rugged, stubble-faced good looks but he comes across more as a dullard than capably cool. Everyone else just dines on the stylized dialogue (even a counterintuitively cast Rick Moranis as a shady manager) but Pare can't keep pace.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Bits and pieces of I Am Number Four.

Tim Olyphant was the only guy I recognized in it.

Teen melodrama with aliens. Or something.

Lately there's been construction all up and down the road out front of my building; major civic construction work. Replacing several miles of water/sewage mains or something. Slated to go on for months around the hood, and it's driven all the local little critters into the surrounding habitats. Had a bit of a pest control issue lately, and me and Mrs. PC did a serious deep clean of the place today. She likes to put the tv on "in the background" when she's puttering around the house.

I Am Dumber For seeing those bits and pieces.

That movie was filmed in my local area, a bunch of people I went to high school with were extras in that movie and really hyped it up as this awesome movie. When I finally got around to watching it I was almost irritated with how boring and ridiculous it was. It was almost comical after the build-up from my friends.

I got more entertainment from looking for my classmates and recognizable areas in the background than actually following the premise of the movie.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I'm not really going to do justice to their argument since it's been a long time since I've read it, and I primarily only know the Foucaldian perspective for the petition - not to mention we're veering off topic and into some very controversial waters. But the gist of the argument, to my understanding is that it's a response to the increased move to criminalization of certain so called "dangerous behaviour" in French society to protect "vulnerable young minds". It's a fairly reactionary post-structualist argument in response to a pedophilia legal case at the time, but a lot of the motivation behind the came from the criminalization and medical classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder during the era of the 70s (especially for someone like Foucault who was gay). Much of the rationality to continue outlawing homosexuality and classify it as a mental disorder was to protect youth from what was seen as a corrupting and dangerous force (homosexuality). Doing so classifies certain individuals as dangerous and removes the agency from youth to make their own decisions. Theyre using the age of consent laws to criticize this sort of removal of agency and criminalization of certain dangerous behaviours because they believe that it will overextend from talking about children and pedophiles to homosexuality and other stigmatized behaviours

It's a convoluted argument and it's been a long time since I've thought about it and I'm definitely not describing the nuances of it.

The argument is really problematic to put it lightly for a ton of reasons, in part I think due to the conflation of homosexuality and pedophilia, and of course as a defense of pedophilia itself, but that's kind of the charitable reading of it.

I personally do not agree with the argument and think the petition was a really really bad look for post-structualism and critical theory. And was an example of post-structualism going way too far up its own ass.

There was a similar argument and letter made by many in French high society and the film industry when the #MeToo movement was in full swing

Anyway, we're way off topic and it may be best to abandon this line of conversation

At any rate, thank you for this, because it led me to discovering this beautiful story.

Sokal affair - Wikipedia

'In the second paragraph I declare without the slightest evidence or argument, that "physical 'reality' (note the scare quotes) [...] is at bottom a social and linguistic construct." Not our theories of physical reality, mind you, but the reality itself. Fair enough. Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. I live on the twenty-first floor.'



Apparently, some other blessed souls did something similar a couple of years back.

'Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose wrote 20 articles that promoted deliberately absurd ideas or morally questionable acts and submitted them to various peer-reviewed journals. Although they had planned for the project to run until January 2019, the trio admitted to the hoax in October 2018 after journalists from The Wall Street Journal revealed that "Helen Wilson", the pseudonym used for their article published in Gender, Place & Culture, did not exist. By the time of the reveal, 4 of their 20 papers had been published; 3 had been accepted but not yet published; 6 had been rejected; and 7 were still under review. Included among the articles that were published were arguments that dogs engage in rape culture and that men could reduce their transphobia by anally penetrating themselves with sex toys as well as Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf rewritten in feminist language.[2][4] The first of these had won special recognition from the journal that published it.'

Grievance studies affair - Wikipedia

Man, I'm pretty f***ing far from a conservative and I think a lot of the outrage over campus culture is overblown but it's hard not to be incredibly amused by these stunts.

 

[OzzyFan]

That's a good way to describe The Conjuring films. I wish that I had thought of that for my review. I, too, appreciate that they're story focused, rather than, I dunno, premise or gimmick focused. Too many horror films feel like the writers started with an idea, hook or twist and worked backward to make a 90-minute movie out of it. Their characters also often end up being unlikable and dumb. The Warrens, on the other hand, are fairly likable and smart and have a good relationship (and Wilson and Farmiga have visible chemistry), which adds a solid human element. It's nice and rather unique that they're a husband-wife team. Almost without fail in horror films, a couple doesn't make it to the end without one or both of them dying. I'm even having trouble thinking of another horror film in which a couple at the beginning is still together at the end. I guess that all of this is to say that even the weakest entry in this trilogy still possesses (pun intended) some things that you don't see too often in horror films.

Agreed. Very good points. It's just a combination of it all that makes it work. Wilson and Farmiga bring charisma and believability to their roles which could easily seem farcical with the wrong people in place or "the usual more lower budget/amateur actors" that are cast into these situations in general. It was enjoyable, but I still could nitpick if I wanted. The priest Kastner character really deserved more backstory and dialogue. He was intriguing and obviously plays meshes with the story and could have been used to expand on the "angle" they were going for in this movie or at minimum explained more of his direct history involving the situation(s) he dealt with involving the plot, even without ruining any story turns or twists brought about near the end of the movie. Also, the possession for murder 'boy' for the last half of the movie pretty much just turned into a "scare tactic side show", but he could have been utilized better and more intricately into the story alongside his "demons" and "relationship/life" outside of/prior to this possession occurrence. Again, minor nitpicks of a good enjoyable movie in a solid horror franchise that could have made this movie great imo.

 

[Pink Mist]

At any rate, thank you for this, because it led me to discovering this beautiful story.

Sokal affair - Wikipedia

'In the second paragraph I declare without the slightest evidence or argument, that "physical 'reality' (note the scare quotes) [...] is at bottom a social and linguistic construct." Not our theories of physical reality, mind you, but the reality itself. Fair enough. Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. I live on the twenty-first floor.'



Apparently, some other blessed souls did something similar a couple of years back.

'Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose wrote 20 articles that promoted deliberately absurd ideas or morally questionable acts and submitted them to various peer-reviewed journals. Although they had planned for the project to run until January 2019, the trio admitted to the hoax in October 2018 after journalists from The Wall Street Journal revealed that "Helen Wilson", the pseudonym used for their article published in Gender, Place & Culture, did not exist. By the time of the reveal, 4 of their 20 papers had been published; 3 had been accepted but not yet published; 6 had been rejected; and 7 were still under review. Included among the articles that were published were arguments that dogs engage in rape culture and that men could reduce their transphobia by anally penetrating themselves with sex toys as well as Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf rewritten in feminist language.[2][4] The first of these had won special recognition from the journal that published it.'

Grievance studies affair - Wikipedia

Man, I'm pretty f***ing far from a conservative and I think a lot of the outrage over campus culture is overblown but it's hard not to be incredibly amused by these stunts.

Philosophically I would identify with post-structualism and critical theory. I think it has a lot of interesting and important observations to make concerning power dynamics, language/discourse, and culture and so on. But yeah, a lot of it is too esoteric and abstruse for its own good - at times intentionally so by the theorists - becoming almost incomprehensible and a bit of a joke. As you can see, it's easy to parody it and make it believable as legitimate scholarship.

But a lot of the top theorists: Foucaut, Derrida, Barthes, Baudrillard, Butler etc have made a lot of important observations on culture - albeit in at times very incomprehensible language

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

albeit in at times very incomprehensible language

I loved reading Barthes, Derrida, Foucault, Serres or Kristeva (in French) - their use of language is often opaque, but rich, complex and precise. I might actually prefer Derrida for his use of the French language than for his ideas.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Only one I'm truly familiar with is Foucault and I've enjoyed him.

 

[kihei]

Philosophically I would identify with post-structualism and critical theory. I think it has a lot of interesting and important observations to make concerning power dynamics, language/discourse, and culture and so on. But yeah, a lot of it is too esoteric and abstruse for its own good - at times intentionally so by the theorists - becoming almost incomprehensible and a bit of a joke. As you can see, it's easy to parody it and make it believable as legitimate scholarship.

But a lot of the top theorists: Foucaut, Derrida, Barthes, Baudrillard, Butler etc have made a lot of important observations on culture - albeit in at times very incomprehensible language

I can see how those guys who Spring in Fialta mentioned got away with the hoax. And good for them. I can well appreciate Pranzo's praise of the French theorists' ability to use language in a manner that is opaque but "rich, complex and precise." But some of the lesser run-of-the-mill academics among the post-structural and critical theorist wannabes really do seem to make a fetish out of "opaque" to the extent that the central value of their discourse isn't to provide insight and fresh ways of seeing but rather to construct elaborate, intricate edifices out of obscure language as if the creation of all this verbal filigree was itself the substance of what they were attempting to do. It's easy to parody something that is, in some cases anyway, already a close cousin to self-parody to begin with.

 

[Osprey]

Agreed. Very good points. It's just a combination of it all that makes it work. Wilson and Farmiga bring charisma and believability to their roles which could easily seem farcical with the wrong people in place or "the usual more lower budget/amateur actors" that are cast into these situations in general. It was enjoyable, but I still could nitpick if I wanted. The priest Kastner character really deserved more backstory and dialogue. He was intriguing and obviously plays meshes with the story and could have been used to expand on the "angle" they were going for in this movie or at minimum explained more of his direct history involving the situation(s) he dealt with involving the plot, even without ruining any story turns or twists brought about near the end of the movie. Also, the possession for murder 'boy' for the last half of the movie pretty much just turned into a "scare tactic side show", but he could have been utilized better and more intricately into the story alongside his "demons" and "relationship/life" outside of/prior to this possession occurrence. Again, minor nitpicks of a good enjoyable movie in a solid horror franchise that could have made this movie great imo.

I agree on both points. I was really intrigued by the retired priest and wanted more of him. He was somehow both creepy and likable at the same time, which seems like a testament to the actor. Also, yeah, the young man's second half felt a little manufactured to give the film some more scares and to further develop his relationship with the girl in order to parallel it with the Warrens' relationship at the climax.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Only one I'm truly familiar with is Foucault and I've enjoyed him.

If you want to have a blast, try reading Kristeva's Séméiôtiké: recherches pour une sémanalyse. Kristeva ain't the best writer of the group (not close), but this is - of what I read myself - the most opaque of their propositions. You really have to have some grasp of the whole to understand its parts, and at first it really feels indecipherable (I think I had to read it 4 times for my studies).

I can see how those guys who Spring in Fialta mentioned got away with the hoax. And good for them. I can well appreciate Pranzo's praise of the French theorists' ability to use language in a manner that is opaque but "rich, complex and precise." But some of the lesser run-of-the-mill academics among the post-structural and critical theorist wannabes really do seem to make a fetish out of "opaque" to the extent that the central value of their discourse isn't to provide insight and fresh ways of seeing but rather to construct elaborate, intricate edifices out of obscure language as if the creation of all this verbal filigree was itself the substance of what they were attempting to do. It's easy to parody something that is, in some cases anyway, already a close cousin to self-parody to begin with.

You certainly have a point, but I think that, following Derrida himself, opacity became part of the process whenever language was the object of study - and it makes perfect sense.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Am I the only one who didn’t completely hate “Vanilla Sky”? Just saw it for the first time. There’s definitely some weird moments but I liked the commentary on reality

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Pranzo do you enjoy watching bad films or just aren't aware of Flickmetrix, IMDB, Metacritic, Letterboxd, Criticker, RT, the internet, etc?

Catwoman (Pitof, 2004) - Pitof - that's his whole name, I guess he's an artist - mostly worked on visual effects, he was part of the teams of people responsible for the Jeunet & Caro unique aesthetics. Now his own 100M$ movie looks like total shit. I hadn't seen it before, and I knew it was a very bad film (didn't disappoint on that level), but I just can't understand how a film with that type of money cannot look better than a second grade video game - and not just on action sequences, lots of very simple effects (the wide shots of the lab location) are ridiculous too. As for the rest, well, Halle Berry deserved better than that. 2/10

Wtf you talkin about this scene is a masterpiece they don't make them like this anymore do they?

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Am I the only one who didn’t completely hate “Vanilla Sky”? Just saw it for the first time. There’s definitely some weird moments but I liked the commentary on reality

The fact that Abre Los Ojos is better by a good margin threw shadow on Vanilla Sky. Other than that, I have nothing against it.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Pranzo do you enjoy watching bad films or just aren't aware of Flickmetrix, IMDB, Metacritic, Letterboxd, Criticker, RT, the internet, etc?

Wtf you talkin about this scene is a masterpiece they don't make them like this anymore do they?

I love bad films at night. I've been a purist for years and it wasn't worth it. Catwoman though is not the type of trash that I really enjoy. When I go down to 1/10, you know I had fun.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Am I the only one who didn’t completely hate “Vanilla Sky”? Just saw it for the first time. There’s definitely some weird moments but I liked the commentary on reality

Not awful but the Spanish original is waaaaaay better.