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

[ItsFineImFine]

How Green Was My Valley (1941) - 6.5/10

Solid start but seems to use the same tropes throughout and I do think there are a couple storylines here that just abruptly end without being explored much such as the daughter's marriage. It feels very much like a book that had to be gutted to be adapted. Solid job of conveying emotion but quite heavy-handed by the end. In fairness though, it is far more enjoyable than Snoozefest Kane.

Black Widow (2021) - 7.5/10

That's more like it, first good big-budget blockbuster since the end of 2019/pandemic, I wish I could've seen this in IMAX but there's still a pandemic and even on the small screen it was fine (minus some poor CGI in the final 10-15 minutes). A menacing villain (not the Russian guy), relatively good action scenes minus some of the usual shaky cam, and really really good pacing once the film gets going which Marvel has down to a fine-art at this point along with their knack for getting really good chemistry in every scene with the protagonists. It feels very much a continuation of films like Captain America 2. The unfortunate part though is that with the more interesting TV shows Marvel has put out recently and a few of their more recent films, it feels a bit stale in comparison and probably would've been more enjoyable had it been released around 2015-17.

I definitely have some time for critiques on some of the writing in this film but I usually don't go after the writing on big blockbuster action films as long as they're enjoyable in other regards unless it's a complete mess like in Tenet.

 

[Osprey]

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.

I wasn't happy with "homage," either, and just changed it to "inspired by," but the director of both has confirmed that Scream and Friday the 13th were major influences on the films.

DEADLINE: How did you approach the three Fear Streets visually and tonally?

JANIAK: I was a teenager in the ’90s, and Scream was one of the first horror movies that I really saw as a teenager who could process things. It blew my mind. It felt like a whole new type of movie, and I think it’s one of the best movies ever made, period, genre aside. There was also that whole swath of ’90s slashers, like the I Know What You Did Last Summer films, where there was a bit of self-awareness and a lot of fun. Since the Fear Street books take place in the ’90s, the presence of these movies was obviously the biggest influence.

Then with 1978, I really tried to tilt more in the direction of the ’70s with camera movement, tone, and the fact that you have the girl who’s the virginal, goody two-shoes that’s kind of unlikable. I definitely looked at Friday the 13th. You can’t make a horror movie in a summer camp without doing that.

Director Leigh Janiak On Blood-Soaked Horror Trilogy ‘Fear Street’ – Deadline

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I wasn't happy with "homage," either, and just changed it to "inspired by," but the director of both has confirmed that Scream and Friday the 13th were major influences on the films.

Director Leigh Janiak On Blood-Soaked Horror Trilogy ‘Fear Street’ – Deadline

Yeah the premise in both cases is pretty close. Scream one of the best films ever made? Says a lot.

 

[Ginger Papa]

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood 2019 8/10

I’m relatively new to the Entertainment Section and posted this in the dedicated movie Thread last night. Then, after stumbling across this Thread today, I think my Post probably belongs here instead, rather than bumping a Thread well over a year old since it’s last Post.

I finally watched this Movie a little while ago. I don’t use any other Social Media & do not plan to start. I wanted to discuss this movie and feel safe here with you folks. In reading through this Thread, I’ve been impressed by the love of Cinema you all share & have enjoyed the reviews.

Full disclosure, I’m a big QT fan. That said, I do not love everything he does.

I enjoyed this movie the first time I watched it, recognizing it had ‘flaws’ or ‘dips’ for me as a viewer. I’ve now watched it a couple more times and feel better able to give an opinion.

However, I can easily overlook those ‘flaws’ or ‘dips’ when there are so many great scenes. Including:
- Bruce Lee fighting Cliff Booth daydream. Would have preferred to see more respect given to Mr. Lee, but in reading the rationale for the scene, I get it.
- Rick Dalton & young Trudi Fraser reading between scenes.
-Clay’s trip to Spahn Valley Ranch.
-The Finale. Imho, much like Inglorious Basterds, QT’s revisionist history leaves Sharon Tate as someone who has no idea what she was saved from. Rick Dalton finally gets to meet his neighbours and perhaps both he and Cliff go on to make many more Shows together….

Further, dare I say, there are a couple of scenes that escape my vocabulary, so I’ll use exceptionally amazinginly awesome for those who can relate to them on a personal level. Including:
-Rick Dalton melting down when he forgot his lines and then segues into his trailer. For anyone who has ever struggled with substance abuse or supported someone they’ve cared about with it, this was so spot on. I had chills watching Leonardo’s performance talking to himself in the mirror.

-Rick Dalton’s performance following the meltdown. I could almost envision this dialogue between Leo and Alejandro Inarritu after his work on The Revenant.

I loved the Movie, despite its many flaws as they were somewhat necessary to glue the subject matter together to a degree. Yes, this could have been a tighter, shorter film. Except, QT is a bonafide genius and who am I to criticize him. I’m still very grateful to be able to enjoy his films.

Hopefully he tightens up the next one. Even if he doesn’t, I’m still going to watch it & damn sure won’t wait 2 years this time.

Thank you all for your contributions on this Thread. Positive, Negative & otherwise. I will try to make a point to visit this area more often.

Cheers

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Ms. 45. Sorry to be crass but if my life depended on the question "What movie has Quentin Tarantino masturbated to the most?" I would say this. I mean this very literally, not figuratively. I liked it!

Massacre Mafia Style. Movie history sometimes blesses us with these self-financed weirdos who deeply believe they are movie stars, directors and writers. Tommy Wiseau most famously. Neil Breen to much lesser effect. Duke Mitchell is one of these characters. It's bad. It's good. It's cheap. It's offensive. Can't recommend enough.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I will try to make a point to visit this area more often.

Please do, and welcome aboard! Still haven't seen the last Tarantino film - shame on me

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I will try to make a point to visit this area more often.
View attachment 452405

It's a much more chill environment than another certain part of hf we both know well.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Dark Light

with people and humanoid things.

Annie Knox and her daughter Emily move back to the huge, dilapidated farmhouse in the middle of a vast cornfield somewhere in the deep south following Annie's divorce and mother's death. Ex-husband's also a dick, but the real problem is the house itself. Or, rather, the otherworldly things that live under the house somehow are the issue. Almost humanoid but with a giant headlight taking up most of their faces that somehow absorbs the energy of people; children like Emily preferably because their energy is the purest. Are they aliens? Supernatural? Ugly and weird generally? Watch and be bored.

Starts out as your basic haunted house fare but tries to create its own weird creature...doesn't quite get there. I feel there'd be more publicity over the last few thousand years if these things were really creeping around. Pretty sure we've found all the larger terrestrial fauna by now...anyway. Lame. Boring. Cheesy. Poorly thought out.

On Netflix. Yawn.

"Ohhh...do you know how many illegal high beams tickets I could write you right now...?!"

 

[sr edler]

Touch of Evil (1958) by Orson Welles – 7/10

Nice eclectic & gritty music by Henry Mancini. Opening scene is great. Then the film dips a bit when some semi-cartoonish characters are introduced. Gets back on track after a little while, but then it feels a bit cartoonish again. Then gets back on track again. Pace is a bit roller coaster-ish sometimes. Ending scene is great.

I think the version I saw is the 1998 re-edited version by Walter Murch.

Sometimes it feels like Orson Welles is breaking character, when he smiles. It doesn't look like Hank Quinlan smiling, but Orson Welles. Perhaps he just incorporated a bit of himself in the character.

 

[Osprey]

The Dead Zone (1983) - 7/10 (Really liked it)

Upon waking from a 5-year coma, a teacher (Christopher Walken) discovers that the love of his life left him, which is a bummer, but also that he suddenly has psychic powers, so he has that going for him, which is nice. Rather than appreciate his new superpower, though, the ungrateful cripple regards it as a curse and falls into depression, which is exacerbated by the fact that the ex that he still loves keeps showing up at his door with her new husband and kid. As if that and being the only hope for an incompetent sheriff to catch a killer weren't enough for one broken man to deal with, he eventually has World War III to worry about, as well. Who knew that being a psychic could be so stressful? I liked the aspect of a person not appreciating the power that he's been given. That and the premonitions being brought on by touch contact reminded me of Unbreakable. If Walken seems like an odd choice to star, consider that the first choice of Stephen King, who wrote the novel, was... Bill Murray. Walken ends up suiting the role well, though, not just because he's able to be both sympathetic and a little crazy, but because he naturally looks like someone who has stopped caring. I liked imagining that he filmed each scene with the same hair that he rolled out of bed with that morning. You might not think that one of Stephen King's least horror-like stories, directed by horror master David Cronenberg, but without the gore and body horror that he's known for, and starring Christopher Walken would turn out well, but it does. Go figure.

 

[OzzyFan]

The Third Man (1949)
3.75 out of 4stars

"Pulp novelist Holly Martins travels to shadowy, postwar Vienna, only to find himself investigating the mysterious death of an old friend, Harry Lime."
Wow. You want to talk about playing with an audience's observations and thoughts on characters and events moral standing, you have that in spades in this movie. I've never had any movie rightfully earn such confusion before. This stylish mystery is so well acted, directed, and the other artistic choices are expertly done also. I have a feeling this movie is something you need to see 2 or 3 times to catch everything going on also. Very impressive and very different than anything I've seen.

Rear Window (1954)
3.35 out of 4stars

"A wheelchair-bound photographer spies on his neighbors from his apartment window and becomes convinced one of them has committed murder."
A different kind of Hitchcock mystery thriller mastery. A near first person take for the audience on voyeurism from the setting of a rear apartment city window view. It's tight, builds suspense so effortlessly and in a kind of trivial manner at times, it directly imbeds analytical food for thought into your brain, it brings serious commentary on a it's romantic relationship side story, and has decent comedic relief. A straight forward way of Hitchcock turning something that could be a possible witnessing of ordinary life and actions into a very compelling movie.

Frailty (2001)
3.00 out of 4stars

"A mysterious man arrives at the offices of an FBI agent and recounts his childhood: how his religious fanatic father received visions telling him to destroy people who were in fact "demons."
I was truly surprised how much all involved in the making of this film were able to get out of this horror mystery thriller story. While on the surface it's a thoroughly effective tale about parental influence/family dynamics, faith/religious belief, sanity, loss of innocence/coming of age, and the direct translation "weakness in morals and/or character", but it can be seen as so much more. It's a metaphor for religion fanaticism in the real world, how it can cause personal strife and aggression and even lead to violence, and wars on a larger scale, towards others not of your faith or not directly practicing your beliefs or not following the standards set by your religion or even set inside one's own head of their religion. Lines of morality are blurred completely when one is honestly thinking/talking/acting based on the consideration of one's eternal soul/afterlife and the pleasing or doing of many or just 1 God's will. As in at least 1 of my previous reviews, faith in and interpretation of a deity's word has some scary impressionable and impactful possibilities.

Halloween 2 (1981)
2.60 out of 4stars

"Continuing the same night/immediately after Halloween the original: Sheriff Brackett and Dr. Loomis hunt for Michael Myers and a traumatized Laurie is rushed to hospital and Myers is not far behind."
If Halloween the original masterpiece never existed, I think this would be held in higher esteem. Creative enough, the storyline is above average, the setting is creepy and suspenseful, the murders are mostly solid, and it builds on the Michael Myers and Laurie Strode mythos fairly well, even with the controversial twist. It's definitely missing some of the rawness in all aspects, a few of the murders don't have that same purely primal intimate urge to them, it obviously suffers from the unavoidable sequel stigma: not having fresh main characters or previously disclosed backstory able to be seen anew in this, and the directorial choices while not bad are not as haunting or audience incorporating either. Still, a solidly above average horror movie.

 

[heatnikki]

I just watched adult movie. Love watching porn on pornfxx.me from time to time too. Asian and Latina girls I like the most. I found site with free videos and there are many caterogies on every taste.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

If Halloween the original masterpiece never existed, I think this would be held in higher esteem.

As i don't think Halloween is either original or a masterpiece, I prefer its sequel.

 

[OzzyFan]

As i don't think Halloween is either original or a masterpiece, I prefer its sequel.

Just out of pure curiosity, may I ask why you prefer the sequel comparatively?


PS=My last review post above has a few grammatical errors I just realized. I must have rushed through it, should have reread it to make sure it came across coherently and correct.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Neon Maniacs (Mangine, 1986) - Can't decide if this one is an essential so-big (so bad it's good!) movie or an unfinished and unpolished masterpiece of b-horror. It's all sorts of dumb (water, really?), and once you know the shoot was stopped a few times due to financial problems and that they had to do major cuts to the original script, it becomes obvious that some of it is really just filler to make it to 90 minutes. Also, the music... the battle of the bands is pretty bad, but bearable, but the actual score has to be some of the worst film music ever used. Still, they really had their finger on something and it feels like it really could have been a big deal had it been more competently handled. With its galery of monsters, kid investigators on bikes (even though the actors - even Paula - are well in their 20s), reflexivity and movie references (the Nostromo cap, and that amazing shot of Paula's bedroom... does she live in the Amityville house? blink and you might miss it), it kind of feels like an underprivileged ancestor to Stranger Things. In the hands of Joseph Mangine (a cinematographer who came from the nudies), and caught in production hell, the result is a mess, but they had everything. Maybe it's really a 1/10, but I'll risk it at 4.5/10

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Just out of pure curiosity, may I ask why you prefer the sequel comparatively?


PS=My last review post above has a few grammatical errors I just realized. I must have rushed through it, should have reread it to make sure it came across coherently and correct.

I plan on rewatching both and making a proper post about them, but simply put, I think part 2 is more effective and consistent on atmostphere, darker, and there's less moments that make me roll my eyes (like Carpenter smoking behind the bushes and continuity errors). Plus, I'm a sucka for intertextuality and the inclusion of images from NOTLD at the beginning is one of my favorite fun filmic quotations.

Oh, and don't worry for the grammar, my English ain't what it used to be and I make more than my share of errors.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005)

Tommy Lee Jones directs and stars in this modern western. 7.5/10

So far as I can tell, of those still alive, Tommy Lee Jones is the best of famous actors who moonlight as directors.

 

[Osprey]

So far as I can tell, of those still alive, Tommy Lee Jones is the best of famous actors who moonlight as directors.

He could be the most underrated. I can think of several who won Best Director and are still alive, though: Clint Eastwood, Robert Redford, Warren Beatty, Kevin Costner, Mel Gibson and Ron Howard. Of course, maybe they don't count as "moonlight" directors after that, but then we're arguing over who's the best of the "not best." I guess that it just depends on what you consider "moonlight," what you consider "best" and even what you consider "famous."

 

[Pink Mist]

Camille (1936) directed by George Cukor

Marguerite Gautier (Greta Garbo), a beautiful Parisian courtesan, mistakes her date with a cold wealthy baron (Henry Daniell) whom she had never met for a handsome and charming but less wealthy man Armand Duval (Robert Taylor). Though she eventually strands Duval for her real date, she doesn’t forget Duval and months later sparks a relationship with him and begins to understand the meaning of true love. Unbeknownst to Duval though, the relationship was always doomed as she struggles with her battle against consumption. An MGM produced melodrama based off the Dumas play, that some consider among Garbo’s best work, but boy does this film ever drag. Garbo is great, but Robert Taylor and Henry Daniell can’t keep up with her and are very unremarkable, and the plot is something that has been rehashed countless times before. Very mediocre film elevated a bit by Garbo’s presence.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

So far as I can tell, of those still alive, Tommy Lee Jones is the best of famous actors who moonlight as directors.

He's only done it twice, but Robert De Niro's two directorial efforts are pretty good — A Bronx Tale and The Good Shepherd.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Cotton Comes to Harlem. The acting is a little rough and the directing (by famed actor Ossie Davis) has a few odd choices (more comedic things/people fly through the air that you might expect). But what really grabbed me here was the story. It's a fun one. Based on a novel by Charles Himes who wrote a series of Harlem-set buddy cop detective mysteries. This one has some good action and propulsive flow. Makes me wish there were more.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Body Double. I always want to like this Brian De Palma flick more than I ever wind up doing. Another extensive and mostly effective Hitchcock homage. It's very in on its own jokes, which I appreciate. You get all of De Palma's wizardry with some good, overheated, cheeky fun. It's the yin to Blow Out's far more serious yang. The thing that always keeps me from fully embracing it though is the lead actor, Craig Wasson. I KNOW the character is a bit of a drip and needs to be that way but I always find his performance very milquetoast. He's not likable enough that you worry for him but he's also not sleazy or interesting enough that you want to see him go through the wringer. He's in this meh middle space. Bit of a tough hang. A lot to like surrounding him though.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Body Double. I always want to like this Brian De Palma flick more than I ever wind up doing. Another extensive and mostly effective Hitchcock homage. It's very in on its own jokes, which I appreciate. You get all of De Palma's wizardry with some good, overheated, cheeky fun. It's the yin to Blow Out's far more serious yang. The thing that always keeps me from fully embracing it though is the lead actor, Craig Wasson. I KNOW the character is a bit of a drip and needs to be that way but I always find his performance very milquetoast. He's not likable enough that you worry for him but he's also not sleazy or interesting enough that you want to see him go through the wringer. He's in this meh middle space. Bit of a tough hang. A lot to like surrounding him though.

I love the film, but you are so right.

 

[Chili]

Rhinoceros-1974

Everyone is turning into Rhinos! Run for your lives! The first half wasn't bad, some funny bits with Zero Mostel (i.e. '...we've got to get back to integrity' then kisses a picture of Richard Nixon). Second half got pretty silly. The risk of satire, I guess. There is no rhinoceros in the film, although apparently they did rent one and tried to film a scene with Gene Wilder. Hard to get it on film when the cameraman is one of those running for his life.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Halloween (Carpenter, 1978) – I am fully aware this is supposed to be the superior film and bestest slasher ever. It's just not (IMO). I mean, it's still a pretty decent movie, and I still think it is an important slasher and has to be seen by any fan of the genre, but there's so many things that just don't work for me that it's hard not to think it's overrated (I don't think, for example, that it should be considered more important than Black Christmas, nor a better film). Most of all – and I guess it's kind of a “hot take” – Donald Pleasance's Dr Loomis kind of ruins the film. That character is so bad that I can't rewatch Halloween without considering him an accomplice to Myers, and probably the crazier of the pair. I've watched the extended TV version and it only adds to that feeling (his reaction towards a 6 y/o boy (foreshadowing his inexcusable behavior around the little girl in parts 4&5?) certainly aren't that of a psychiatrist). Don't worry, I know the film is not supposed to be read that way, but the guy leaves the hospital car for Myers to escape with, knows instantly where Myers is going, makes one stop during his 150 miles trip to Haddonfield, exactly where Myers stopped to kill someone and steal his overalls, there he manages to find the nurse's matchbox in the grass but not the body that lies three feet away from him, he sends the cops in every and all directions except the right one, he pretends he doesn't see the hospital car at the hardware store, pretends he doesn't see it right next to him the whole time he waits at the Myers house, and he tells the sheriff not to inform the population. The guy is shady, obsessed with a patient that hasn't said a word in 15 years. It's hard to think it's not blanks that he shoots at Myers.
I won't even comment on the fact that the 6 y/o boy who spends 15 years staring at the window without speaking to anyone knows how to drive when he escapes, because it's probably Loomis who taught him. The extended version has the “Sister” marking in Myers' hospital room that introduced the sequel's family twist. I think it kind of saves the day for the killer, who's too easily read as a frustrated incel who follows women around. At some point, he follows Laurie and her friend, in his stolen hospital car, from daylight to darkness, without them noticing him even though they know a weirdo with a stationwagon has been following them. He's bumper to bumper the whole time! This goes with my second big problem with the film: Carpenter's spatial construction. The body in the grass, the car that Loomis doesn't see even though it's right beside him, the doors that don't open the right way, the interiors that don't match the exteriors of the houses, and Laurie's fall in the staircase – nothing works. You have to give it to Carpenter for a few amazing moments (Myers coming out of the shadows, wow, but right after that he tries to stab Laurie and misses her even though she's 3 inches from him and doesn't see him coming, which for some reason pushes her over the handrail and into the stairs), but I just don't think he's that good a director at that time. The robbery at the hardware store is really hard to place in the timeline too. The film has some cool atmosphere at times, but it has so many weaknesses that I have a hard time going over 5/10.

Halloween II (Rosenthal, 1981) – It had been a while since I'd seen this one. I usually refer to it as my favorite slasher, and it might just be. The last 30 minutes probably are. The ride to get there is a little bumpy, but this last stretch has Michael Myers at his most threatening (and better looking), and manages to create a dark and claustrophobic atmosphere in the hospital. Dr Loomis even almost looks sane and credible (not really but a lot more than usual) for a few minutes there. The first hour is certainly a lot weaker, with more than a few weak characters and with cheap and ineffective “scares” (the cat in the dumpster, the killer behind the closing door – stuff that makes you wonder how few ideas Carpenter was left with), even one that is so weirdly constructed that I had to rewind it a few times (the girl goes towards the door at the right of the frame, something very common to get the spectator's attention to that side of the frame, the jump scare comes from another side, sure, but you have Myers jumping on her from mid-frame as if he was... on the floor?) - but I think it was the only time in this one I had to try to figure out spatial construction, a huge improvement on the original. Some of the kills in the first hour are way too sophisticated for a man who's been locked up since he was 6 years old, but since he somehow learned to drive, I guess he might have pick up some other skills. It's still a little inconsistent with his other range of actions (can't push a door open, walks through it). Points to the sheriff for acknowledging Loomis is in cahoots with Myers. 6/10