I was a bit disappointed with the film, personally. It's well crafted, Directed by a Master but the story was dark and depressing. He is like Robert Altman, he seems to let the actors here do their thing. It seemed like they had a blast working with Soderberg. I liked the fish-eye lens thingy he played around with. But the storyline? Meh. The meek shall not inherit the Earth. I get it. Story was convoluted enough to keep me going to see what twist would come up next but I could still foreshadow what was coming next. I was a tad disappointed but I mentioned that already didn't I.No Sudden Move. Steven Soderbergh loves toying with genres. He's cat-like. Pawing, poking. He's gone back to heist movies so many times I feel like his latest movie is him playing with playing with the heist genre. His take on his take. The sounds masturbatory when I write it, but as with most of his work, it's too deft to get bogged down in such ... to use a term, pretentiousness.... This isn't as light and breezy as the Ocean's movies or Logan Lucky but it certainly can't be considered heavy either (therein lies his magic, I'd say). There are some laughs but it's mostly from performance, no real wit or quips or cleverness.
The plot is convoluted (honestly not sure I could accurately account for everything after just one viewing) but it FEELS like it works, if that makes sense? I wasn't annoyed by the turns. The stacked cast glides, particularly Don Cheadle, Benicio Del Toro and an against-type David Harbour.
Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Mid-Spring Edition. Happy Beltane!
- Thread starter ProstheticConscience
- Start date
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,772
- 3,808
He really does underline the message in big black marker once it gets to that point. I'm kinda sidestepping the specifics because I think the gradual build to the eventual reveal of what exactly is at stake is one of the movie's strong points. Whether folks buy into it or now, however ...
Yeah, this film is one that's hard to discuss openly because anything you say might be a spoiler. The twist mysteries are important that they stay hidden in this case. But I figured out the plot algorithm (the cadence) to it quickly, so I was a tad disappointed. Other than that, I thought it was well crafted. He got a lot of A-listers to play parts, I'm sure they worked for scale for a chance to play along with Soderbergh. He seemed to let them go and do what they wanted in their respective roles. That part was good.
Last edited:
Savi
Registered User
The Tomorrow War
with Chris Pratt, a deeply annoying Sam Richardson, a pumped-up J.K Simmons, and other people.
Pratt is a former Green Beret who's stuck working as a high school biology teacher (that's a thing! shut up!) who's bummed due to missing out on a job he wanted. He cuddles up with his hot wife and adorable daughter on his nice couch in his nice house to watch the World Cup on their nice tv in front of all their nice friends at their nice Christmas party...when a purple time distortion thingie opens up on the pitch and out come some heavily armed soldiers to announce they're from the future, humanity is almost completely wiped out, and they need conscripts for their losing war against invading aliens they call the white spikes. Bummer. Two and a half hours of shooty stabby absurdity commences.
Where to start with this one. It's just dumb. Relentlessly dumb. On a variety of levels. Every plot point has logical holes you could drive a truck through. It's just insulting. It doesn't know what kind of tone it's going for; the humour is painfully wedged in against a backdrop that should be so utterly depressing that anyone still alive would be lucky to get off the floor in despair. The time travel gimmick here may only work to drop people off from one time to another...but they can still give the past information, can't they? It's quickly established that machine guns are terrible at killing the white spikes...so arming random middle aged people with machine guns and dropping them randomly on the future battlefield would seem like a terrible plan. The invading aliens are given a backstory that's a mishmash of Alien and The Thing, and there's about a hundred better ways of fighting them than any the humans settle on. You're waiting for the macguffin which will fix time, and of course it goes to Chris Pratt's gormless soldier. He spends 75% of his screen time staring in disbelief like someone's explaining sex to him for the first time. You can feel yourself losing IQ points as you go along.
On Prime. Ugh.
Please die. Painfully. Right now. All of you.
Yeah this one was pretty silly, even though it had some entertaining moments.
You talk about plotholes, but isn't the entire movie just one big plothole? I mean think about it
why would you send a huge chunk of your population to the future to fight a war? what does that actually do for you? Aren't you still going to have to fight that war yourself again? 
I really didn't get it
I really didn't get itAlso that fight at the end was f***ing hilarious
Time travel seems to be all the rage now. It's everywhere in the Star Trek Universe, Marvel and DC universe and many other sci-fi works. I don't think it's going away either. People seem to enjoy the time travel paradox, butterfly effects. Writers and film directors love non-linear storylines too, just to complicate things sometimes I think. The other concept gaining ground is the multi-verse. That also gives creative writers and directors room to change things up when needed. You'd think if they go to this well too often, people would get tired of it. But so far, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
it's too deft to get bogged down in such ... to use a term, pretentiousness.
Whenever I see that term now in this thread...deuces!
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
ItsFineImFine
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2019
- 3,745
- 2,389
Good Morning (1959) - 8/10
A playful and lighthearted Ozu film featuring one of the cutest kids I've seen along with one of the best uses of a long-running fart joke. I mean just look at his chubby little cheeks. The scene at the end where he playfights with his brother then makes some loud noises then randomly starts hoola-hooping while his big brother tries to study beside him is a perfect encapsulation of my own childhood. I found the colours and symmetry to be even more satisfying here than in most other Ozu films, it's on Youtube but has to be seen in sharper HD quality to really enjoy imo.
Seriously just look at his cheeks!
A playful and lighthearted Ozu film featuring one of the cutest kids I've seen along with one of the best uses of a long-running fart joke. I mean just look at his chubby little cheeks. The scene at the end where he playfights with his brother then makes some loud noises then randomly starts hoola-hooping while his big brother tries to study beside him is a perfect encapsulation of my own childhood. I found the colours and symmetry to be even more satisfying here than in most other Ozu films, it's on Youtube but has to be seen in sharper HD quality to really enjoy imo.
Seriously just look at his cheeks!
The Sea Wolf (1941) - 8/10 (Loved it)
Shipwreck survivors (Alexander Knox, Ida Lupino) are taken aboard the Ghost, a ship manned by criminals and captained by a sadist (Edward G. Robinson). This is considered the best of the many film adaptations of Jack London's 1904 novel, a favorite of mine. You might describe it as a nautical film noir with more of an emphasis on character and psychology than action and adventure. Wolf Larsen is an interesting character who captains with an iron fist but also appreciates intellectual conversations and has vulnerabilities. You're never quite sure whether to hate him or have sympathy for him. In the novel, he's a tall, blonde Scandinavian who's physically stronger than everyone else. That isn't Robinson, yet it works because he's such a good actor (much like Laughton as Bligh). In fact, it might even improve the story because overcompensating for weakness helps explain his behavior. The rescued writer (an example of an author writing himself in as a character if I've ever seen one) sees both of the captain's sides and finds himself having to choose between helping him and helping the mutinous crew. Also in the cast are John Garfield as a convict, Gene Lockhart as a drunk doctor and Barry Fitzgerald as the most odious crew hand (quite a role reversal from his conservative preacher in Going My Way that he won Best Supporting Actor for earlier that year). I loved how atmospheric and moody the film is, particularly with all of the foggy night shots. It was directed by Michael Curtiz, who would win Best Director for Casablanca the following year. It does get rather melodramatic and feel dated in some parts, mostly the scenes with Lupino in them, but it's common for the era and never lasts for long before getting back to the real drama, so I can forgive it. The suspenseful ending, a mental showdown more than a physical one, is also worth the wait. I'd seen this adaptation before and vaguely remembered the story, but I still really enjoyed it and recommend it, particularly if you liked Mutiny on the Bounty but felt that it wasn't dark enough.
Last edited:
Scandal [醜聞’] (1950) directed by Akira Kurosawa
While on holiday in the Japanese countryside, a famous artist (Toshirō Mifune) is photographed by paparazzi in the room of a famous singer (Shirley Yamaguchi) and has their photo published in a tabloid magazine that they are secretly lovers in a fabricated story. Outraged, the artist tries to sue the magazine with the help of a down on his luck lawyer (Takashi Shimura) who has secretly taken a bribe from the magazine publisher. More of a sensation than a scandal I would say, but it does feel a bit ahead of its time in terms of a critique of the media circus surrounding celebrity, paparazzi, and of course fake news and misinformation (not to say those things didn’t exist in the 1940s or 1950s but they’ve only amplified since). Decent performance by Mifune and Shimura and some good scenes written by Kurosawa particularly an absurdist scene involving a montage of the artist and the tabloid publisher having dueling escalating press conferences, in addition to an excellent Christmas/New Years scene involving Shimura that seems like an early sketch of Kurosawa’s later film Ikiru which would also star Takashi Shimura. However, of the Kurosawa films that I have seen this is probably the weakest of the bunch and a far drop from his best work. That’s not to say it’s a bad film, it is still decent but its just a little too messy and has too many storylines going on with a fairly shallow narrative. Not his best work, and it doesn’t help that it is sandwiched between some of his better films, including Rashomon which would be released just a few months later, but there are still glimmers of Kurosawa’s talent and its still fairly engaging but more so a film for Kurosawa completionists than a starting place for watching Kurosawa.
While on holiday in the Japanese countryside, a famous artist (Toshirō Mifune) is photographed by paparazzi in the room of a famous singer (Shirley Yamaguchi) and has their photo published in a tabloid magazine that they are secretly lovers in a fabricated story. Outraged, the artist tries to sue the magazine with the help of a down on his luck lawyer (Takashi Shimura) who has secretly taken a bribe from the magazine publisher. More of a sensation than a scandal I would say, but it does feel a bit ahead of its time in terms of a critique of the media circus surrounding celebrity, paparazzi, and of course fake news and misinformation (not to say those things didn’t exist in the 1940s or 1950s but they’ve only amplified since). Decent performance by Mifune and Shimura and some good scenes written by Kurosawa particularly an absurdist scene involving a montage of the artist and the tabloid publisher having dueling escalating press conferences, in addition to an excellent Christmas/New Years scene involving Shimura that seems like an early sketch of Kurosawa’s later film Ikiru which would also star Takashi Shimura. However, of the Kurosawa films that I have seen this is probably the weakest of the bunch and a far drop from his best work. That’s not to say it’s a bad film, it is still decent but its just a little too messy and has too many storylines going on with a fairly shallow narrative. Not his best work, and it doesn’t help that it is sandwiched between some of his better films, including Rashomon which would be released just a few months later, but there are still glimmers of Kurosawa’s talent and its still fairly engaging but more so a film for Kurosawa completionists than a starting place for watching Kurosawa.
End of Line
Sic Semper Tyrannis
- Mar 20, 2009
- 27,751
- 5,519
Fripp
Registered User
I was slightly underwhelmed by the comedy, but it was still an enjoyable watch. I'm a huge Sam Richardson fan, and god damn is Milana Vayntrub cute and charming. They were a compelling dual lead.
I feel like Part II had the higher highs, but also the lower lows. Overall I still struggle to decide which one I like better.
Vayntrub got a role other than AT&T? Oh, I’m definitely gonna have to watch this.
Yeah, it turns out that she's a pretty good actress and this sort of role really suits her. I hope that she gets more roles. Speaking of commercial actresses going into horror, the Sodastream girl is in the latest The Conjuring movie. What's next, Flo in an upcoming Halloween movie?
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
Monster Hunter (Anderson, 2020) - I watched this without knowing it was a game adaptation and without knowing it was a Anderson film. Well, had I known... It's terribly boring on every level. A weak Enemy Mine crossed with a Tremors on steroids, without the wits of the first or the (even limited) fun of the second. 2/10
Chili
Time passes when you're not looking
- Jun 10, 2004
- 8,787
- 4,922
Rewatched both. Appreciated right away the short length of credits and the camera telling the bulk of the story in both films. The first one is based on facts, the real life detectives were consultants to the film (and also both appear in the film). Gene Hackman and Roy Scheider went out on patrol with them to prepare for their roles. There is a scene in a bar that they witnessed in one of the sorties. Many other cops involved in the story appear as extras. There is a realism to both films because that's the way they were shot in NY and Marseilles. The main chase scene is the highlight to the first film. Different type of chase in the second film but also effective. Enjoyed both films.The French Connection (1971) - 5/10
Detective Doyle chases a French heroin smuggler in NYC. It didn't really leave an impression when I last saw it over 20 years ago, so I decided to re-watch it in hopes that I would see this time why it won Best Picture. Honestly, I still don't understand. It does have a terrific car chase with an elevated train and an entertaining cat-and-mouse game in a subway station, but the rest is less exciting and a bit nonsensical. For one, I still don't understand how they returned the car to its owner in like new condition after they literally sawed and ripped it into hundreds of pieces. Also, it has an ambiguous ending, which is not really satisfying for a crime thriller, but what's worse is that the film clears it up in the postscript. What's the point of leaving the audience guessing if you give them the answer seconds later? Overall, it felt like a good enough crime thriller, but I can't really see what makes it exceptional, besides the iconic car chase. Maybe it was a weak Oscar year or I've just seen so many crime thrillers that were made since that I can't imagine how fresh and exciting it felt in 1971. Then again, I don't have any problem understanding why The Godfather, Jaws, Star Wars and Alien are exceptional, despite over 40 years of copycats in those sub-genres. Who knows.
French Connection II (1975) - 5/10
Detective Doyle chases a French heroin smuggler in Marseilles. I hadn't seen this before, probably because I assumed that it was bad. It actually isn't, though it's not that good, either. "Unnecessary" is the best way to describe it. I'm curious as to whether they made a sequel to a Best Picture winner because they couldn't resist capitalizing on it or they actually thought that they could repeat the feat. I'm at least pretty sure that Gene Hackman thought that he might win Best Actor again because, for one, a third of the film is an acting clinic for him as his character is under the influence of drugs and then goes through really bad withdrawals that include a lot of yelling and curling up into a fetal position. It felt a little over the top, but at least he didn't mail it in like actors can do when they do a sequel for the paycheck. I liked that Popeye Doyle is in France this time and can't speak a lick of the language, and that he walks into a crowded restaurant with a can of gasoline, spills it all around the customers and lights it with a match before anyone can get out.
Edit: apparently restoring the vehicle in the first film is based on fact. The police had a dept dedicated to vehicle searches. The man seen doing the search in the film was the real guy from the story.
Last edited:
Hockeyfrilla
Swe prospect fanatic
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
Yeah this one was pretty silly, even though it had some entertaining moments.
You talk about plotholes, but isn't the entire movie just one big plothole? I mean think about it
why would you send a huge chunk of your population to the future to fight a war? what does that actually do for you? Aren't you still going to have to fight that war yourself again?
Also that fight at the end was f***ing hilarious
Oh, the whole "plan" was absolutely moronic. Everything about it. My review could easily be several pages long just to recount all the stupid logical lapses. Why are you scooping random people off the streets just to feed them into a meat grinder? Why does nobody just say: "Hey, can you guys nuke the living shit out of this particular place in Russia around X time? Like, we don't know exactly when or where these badass alien guys showed up but we do know the basic area so just blast everything around this bit of frozen tundra for, say, a month or two?" The white spikes are quickly shown to have both melee and range attacks that shred humans...so let's send hordes of people to fight them using only close-range weapons and not tell them anything about what they were fighting! I could expound quite a bit. I won't, though. I've already used more of my time than the movie deserves.
Last edited:
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,772
- 3,808
Across 110th Street. Half of this movie is a half-assed In the Heat of the Night rehash with Yaphet Kotto and a sentient ham dinner in the shape of Anthony Quinn. Kotto deserves better. The other half is a bleak and gritty down-on-their-luck dudes rob some very bad people story. Didn't add up to a very good whole for me. I laughed at the end (which is definitely not their desired response).
Body Heat. William Hurt is very good at being simultaneously very smart and very dumb. (See also Broadcast News). Kathleen Turner is steamy, but is at all times more of a classic movie vamp than a real character. Acting upon acting, if I were to be generous but honestly she feels too phony to me. Still good, sweaty fun. Younger Ted Danson and Mickey Rourke add some delightful spice to the broth.
Body Heat. William Hurt is very good at being simultaneously very smart and very dumb. (See also Broadcast News). Kathleen Turner is steamy, but is at all times more of a classic movie vamp than a real character. Acting upon acting, if I were to be generous but honestly she feels too phony to me. Still good, sweaty fun. Younger Ted Danson and Mickey Rourke add some delightful spice to the broth.
ItsFineImFine
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2019
- 3,745
- 2,389
Watching Black Widow right now, oh man it's good to have movies back I mean there was some decent stuff this year and the Marvel TV shows have been enat but let's be honest a proper blockbuster is a blockbuster.
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
Barbarella
with Jane Fonda and (I think) people.
1968's cult classic comes to life with a young and buxom Jane Fonda as the titular heroine. Barbarella and her colossal hair (which probably has more IQ points) are sent off to the Tau Ceti system from a future Earth to find lost/escaped inventor/lunatic Duran Duran, who created a space laser thingie. She promptly crashes on one of the planets, and spends the rest of the movie being rescued from various perils and having soft-core late 60's sex with an assortment of muscular late 60's guys. Psychedelia and blank stares happen.
Well aware of its place in pop culture, but I'd never actually sat down and watched it before. On one hand, it's dirt stupid. Writing? Acting? Awful. Bottom of the barrel. Soundtrack that managed to be dated and yet also timeless in its awfulness. On the other, someone really went for it in the art direction, costumes and set design. It's late-60's totally; but it manages to find its own unique aesthetic. Soft-core, occasional boobs and ass (not Jane Fonda's of course), mass cheesiness but high production values. Someone sat around painting a whooooooole lot of foam rubber. Anyway. Despite the dumbness, it does manage to generate its own momentum and energy as you're going along, mainly you're looking around at all the weird stuff and people...almost felliniesque in its way.
Cool to look at but not so much to watch. Certainly not to hear. Or listen to.
Poor Pygar.
You'd be surprised how many people in this movie greet you by heavy petting.
with Jane Fonda and (I think) people.
1968's cult classic comes to life with a young and buxom Jane Fonda as the titular heroine. Barbarella and her colossal hair (which probably has more IQ points) are sent off to the Tau Ceti system from a future Earth to find lost/escaped inventor/lunatic Duran Duran, who created a space laser thingie. She promptly crashes on one of the planets, and spends the rest of the movie being rescued from various perils and having soft-core late 60's sex with an assortment of muscular late 60's guys. Psychedelia and blank stares happen.
Well aware of its place in pop culture, but I'd never actually sat down and watched it before. On one hand, it's dirt stupid. Writing? Acting? Awful. Bottom of the barrel. Soundtrack that managed to be dated and yet also timeless in its awfulness. On the other, someone really went for it in the art direction, costumes and set design. It's late-60's totally; but it manages to find its own unique aesthetic. Soft-core, occasional boobs and ass (not Jane Fonda's of course), mass cheesiness but high production values. Someone sat around painting a whooooooole lot of foam rubber. Anyway. Despite the dumbness, it does manage to generate its own momentum and energy as you're going along, mainly you're looking around at all the weird stuff and people...almost felliniesque in its way.
Cool to look at but not so much to watch. Certainly not to hear. Or listen to.
Poor Pygar.
You'd be surprised how many people in this movie greet you by heavy petting.
Last edited:
Fear Street Part Two: 1978 (2021) - 4/10 (Disliked it)
16 years before Part 1's murder spree, a killer rampages a Summer camp while the teens find time in between the beheadings to resolve their personal differences. If the first movie was inspired by Scream, this one was by Friday the 13th. Likely because of that, there's less attempt at humor and more emphasis on horror. That was welcome, though I still didn't find it the least bit scary or even suspenseful. For one, there's no mystery about the killer because we know exactly who he is and why he's doing it. There also isn't much chance for suspense when the quieter moments are taken up by teen drama, such as when two characters hiding from the killer plan their post-massacre courtship. I got the sense that all of them were more concerned with making new friends than making it out alive. Like with Part 1, I didn't really find any of them likable and didn't care what happened to them. Even Sadie Sink, who should be likable, plays a standoff-ish character, like in Stranger Things.
Also contributing to a lack of suspense is that you can guess what's going to happen because you've seen everything before in other horror movies, such as when the camera slowly zooms in on an open door as ominous music swells, only for a friendly character to appear, or when a character reveals personal details and gives an inspiring speech, only to be killed seconds later. It's as if the film was made for people who have never seen a horror movie before. Like Part 1, it relies a little too much on familiar songs and references from the era to evoke nostalgia in older viewers. Despite that, it felt like a film aimed more at younger audiences, those who might be more interested in the sections of teen melodrama and more easily scared by things that older viewers have seen before. Because of that, unlikable characters, no mystery, no scares, no surprises, little plot and nothing original, I was somewhat bored by it. That said, I found it to be an improvement on the first part, just not a big one. The next and final part in the trilogy takes place in 1666, so I'm anticipating it
Last edited:
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
Fear Street Part Two: 1978 (Janiak, 2021) - Without that witch & witchcraft stuff trying to advance the trilogy story, this could have been a very interesting slasher pastiche. This second film is a lot more effective in its intertextual weaving through the slasher genre (even though there is some more concrete allusions to F13) than was the first one was through the 90s horror cinema. I certainly had more fun with it but it's still not a good horror film. 3/10
I might have went to 4 if that killer would have dropped the axe and pick up a hedge shears for one kill - I was so expecting that.
I think that in both cases, we're more in pastiche territory than in any concrete relation to a single film (a homage would be in intertextual studies working like a serious parody). The first film sure goes for a Scream vibe with its intro, but with no concrete link to it (that I could identify), and quickly goes away from that. The second one is a more delicate case, because the Summer camp settings, the axe and especially the sack mask all point to F13, but none of these are unique to that particular series. There is at least one concrete reference to F13 through music, and maybe the twitch of the finger near the axe could be one too, but otherwise, it's all pretty common elements of the slasher flicks.
