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

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Patton. This is actually a sitcom that should have been retitled That's So Patton! (This is an endorsement)

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Things Heard & Seen (Berman & Pulcini, 2021) - At first, this feels like something that could turn out pretty good - the couple's backstory is interesting, it reminds you of some other great horror couples, without getting too close. Then comes the supernatural elements, and it really feels like they cheapen the whole thing. It doesn't really work as a ghost story (key elements lacking), and its scare tactics are too few and too weak - so why bother? It's too bad, because there's something original and interesting at its core. It's a film about uxoricide, that draws a subtle enough link between the arts and the supernatural, and both are here feminine (the wives are the artists in these families, the husbands are dangerous liars who only pretend to paint or write). It feels like its going places you've seen a thousand times before, but the ending brings you elsewhere, and you really end up (disappointed) thinking there could have been a great film in there, had they dared to get to this sooner. I'm tempted to give it a 4 for effort, but too many things fall flat. 3.5/10

 

[Osprey]

The Woman in the Window (2021) - 3/10 (Really disliked it)

A crazy cat lady (Amy Adams) witnesses a murder in an apartment across the street; no one believes her; news at 11. Probably intended as an homage, it just feels more like a bad rip-off of Hitchcock's Rear Window, as kihei said, and one that adds a major psychological element, as if daring to try to improve on Hitchcock ("Rear Window is OK, but what would make it even better is if Jimmy Stewart's character is depressed and suicidal!"). Gary Oldman is in this, but probably only because he won Best Actor for Darkest Hour, also directed by Joe Wright, and he felt that he owed it to him. Julianne Moore and Anthony Mackie both have only one real scene each and probably took the roles for the paycheck. I just discovered that Jennifer Jason Leigh is in this. I didn't even recognize her and she does nothing but seemingly take a paycheck, herself. The plot twists are predictable and the whole thing lacks suspense. Director Joe Wright tries so hard to create it and emulate Hitchcock that it comes off less as an honest effort and more as hubris. I read that he once told an audience that he likes to "show off" with his direction, and I think that that says a lot. I suddenly have even more appreciation for Brian De Palma, who proves that it does take skill to be a 2nd-rate Hitchcock, skill that Wright doesn't appear to have. Anyways, I found the film dull and boring from start to finish and couldn't wait for it to end so that I could go to bed. If you really feel like a "Hitchcockian" thriller, you can find it on Netflix, but I recommend skipping it.

 

[nameless1]

Taylor Sheridan just came off of his excellent American Frontier trilogy, so when I saw the trailer for his latest movie, Those Who Wishes Me Dead, I wanted to check it out. While it pales in comparison to his previous works, and this time he shared screenwriting credit with the writer of the book the movie is based off of, the writing is still pretty tight, and he once again manages to put out a decently entertaining mainstream work.

While Sheridan made a decent directorial debut with Windriver, it was clear that he was a first-time director, and there were parts where it looked rather green. In his second feature, there are less frivolous cuts that breaks the tempo, and as a result, the whole production flows and looks a lot crisper. That said, the story set up takes too long and tend to be rather slow, but once it gets to meat of the movie, the pace picks up significantly, and it does not let up until the end. It is not perfect, but for a thriller, it is quite fun, and I am entertained.

The casting of Angelina Jolie is a smart decision too. Some people, rather you like them or not, are just draws. I am not the biggest fan of Jolie, but when she stars in something, I tend to be curious, and at least want to check it out. That is star power, and that is not something that everyone has. It helps that Jolie is a somewhat decent actress, and even though it is not an inspired performance, it does enough to carry the movie. The other supporting players like Jon Bernthal, Aidan Gillen, and the child actor Finn Little also do a great job with their role, but this is Jolie's movie through and through.

I give this one a 6 to 6.25/10. It is not great, but Sheridan is a decent writer who knows how to make a decent movie of this genre, so I am entertained. There are certainly worst ways to send about an hour and 40 minutes.

 

[Savi]

Jules and Jim is also a 10/10 in my books, and in my personal top 10 too. I really should check out kihei's list. I know all of the films, but I have not gotten a chance to watch them yet.

Might as well post your list too while we're at it

 

[nameless1]

Might as well post your list too while we're at it

Network
Tokyo Story
Once Upon A Time in America
Ikiru
La Dolce Vita
Seven Samurai
Jules and Jim
400 Blows
Bicycle Thieves
Solaris

HM:
The Human Condition Trilogy
M
Army of Shadows
City Lights
Rules of the Game
Wages of Fear
Rififi
Pickpocket
The Third Man
Wings of Desire
The Marriage of Maria Braun
Chinatown
Ivan the Terrible, Part I
Chunking Express
Naked

I actually dropped Network from 10 to 9.75 recently, because I realize the campiness of it at times, but it is still my favourite film of all time, and the way it predicted reality T.V. by at least 20 years made it hard for me to lodge off the top of my list. I guess my top 10 list is more like my top 10 favourite list.

Other than that, everything else is 10/10, which includes the honourable mentions. My top 10 is in order, but since everything is in the same tier, I actually played with the order quite a bit. There are still a lot of movies I have not yet seen, so it is by no means not a set list. I actually really want to check out kihei's list, and I have not yet got to common go-to best films of all-time like 8 1/2, Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Breathless, Raging Bull, Godfather series, etc., which means my list will probably change in the near future.

I remember I had all three of the Three Colours Trilogy in my top 10 before, but I like White less and less over the years, so I drop it off my top 10. I was tempted to just put Blue and Red on there, but I am not sure they are exactly 10/10, so I kept it off for now. I had the same consideration with the BDR trilogy, but I am not impressed by Veronika Voss, and Lola is more of a 9+ movie. However, The Marriage of Maria Braun is a 10/10 film for me, so I put it on the honourable mention list.

I actually really wanted to include either Kes or This Sporting Life, because I had Kes on my top 10 list for the longest time, and I still think This Sporting Life is probably the best sports movie I have ever seen, but they are more like 9+ movies. If... also creeped up on my list, but even though I now consider it to be a masterpiece, it is far too messy for me to give it a 10/10. In the end, I ended up with Naked. I really cannot shake how accurately it captures the rather dystopian atmosphere of the post-Thatcher era in Britain, and David Thewlis gave one of the best yet criminally underrated performance I can remember.

Finally, I actually agree with kihei's assessment of Wild Strawberries, where he gave it 4 out of 10, so I dropped it from my top 10 list. However, I cannot shake the spell it casted on me when I first watched it, so I will keep it on the second tier list.

 

[nameless1]

For some strange reason, I watched some widely acclaimed 90s romantic comedy, and I cannot shake how creepy they are nowadays.


Sleepless in Seattle made a killing at the box office, and it helped to establish Meg Ryan as one of America's Sweetheart, but has anyone actually thought about the plot? Ryan's character heard a lonely man's confession on a radio show, and she decided that he might be the one. Even though she has a fiancee, she still decides to fly to Seattle from the East Coast where she was based just to see what he looks like. In any era, that is stalker behaviour, and she would have gotten a restraining order against her. Seriously, how did this idea get greenlit? Is Hollywood so morally bankrupt, that they consider this to be romantic?


Four Weddings and a Funeral is another example. Again, it got great box office, and it helped to establish Hugh Grant as a leading man, but he is essentially a creep. He had a one night stand at a wedding, and when he meets her again, she is engaged, but that does not stop him from sleeping with her again. She gets married, but at his own wedding, when he learns that she is single now, he leaves his future bride at the altar, and this cheating couple ends up together. Again, how is this romantic? He humiliates someone at her own wedding, and yet, he got a happy ending. It is not as bad as the previous example, where the action is likely criminal, but at the very least, it is morally bankrupt. There is also a homophobic element to the movie when the partner of a gay couple was referred to as a "friend" at the eulogy, even though everyone knew their sexual orientation, but it was different times, so I see it more as a time capsule of how 90s attitudes towards gay people are.

While these are the two most prominent examples, I remember that My Best Friend's Wedding is borderline problematic, and while I have not seen Runaway Bride, the plot already sounds pretty bad, when Robert's character leave people at the altar multiple times. Frankly, the 90s is a weird times, and seems downright dangerous. Romance, according to the movies, often involves criminal to borderline criminal activities.

 

[kihei]

Might as well post your list too while we're at it

You, too. I've always wondered. And I've always wanted to see Nameless 1, too.

 

[kihei]

Pink Mist, Spring in Fiala, Pranzo, Kallio, Osprey, Puck, Chili-- curious about all your top tens. Put your cards on the table

 

[Savi]

You, too. I've always wondered. And I've always wanted to see Nameless 1, too.

Mine would be vastly different than yours/Nameless' lists but I'm probably way younger too. It's not that I haven't seen most of you guys Top 10 movies listed, it's that a lot of those are from a very different era, an era where I find it hard not to be bothered by the flaws of filmmaking and acting of that particalur moment in time. It's hard to explain, I guess maybe it's just down to being a born in the 'modern' film era which makes it a bit harder to fully appreciate the earlier stages of movie(making) history.

You know, the last time I made a list, two years ago, I compiled a Top 400 to participate in a Movie Top 1000 List organised at a Dutch film forum. From kihei's list I only had Jules & Jim (at 152) and The Mirror (154), and from nameless' top 10 I also had Solaris (at 33) although I do have some other Kurosawa movies than the ones you named. Anyway, out of my 400 favourite/best films, a total of 288 are from 2000-2019 so that tells you everything really. I've got 20(or more) films alone from each of 2004, 2007, 2013 and 2014. That's more films from one year, than from every decade 1980's down.

Now, I do find it a bit hard to rank my true favourites. I think American Beauty will always be my #1 because of what it means to me, that movie really represents how my love for cinema started, it's a long story I won't bother you with.
3-Iron (2004) and The Best of Youth (2003) are near the very top, too, so are Stalker (1979), Eyes Wide Shut (1999) and both Apocalypse Now (1979) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) who already were among favourites but I like even more since I got to see them on a big screen in recent years. Irréversible (2002) has to be there as well, About Elly (2009), Drive (2011), Last Life in the Universe (2003), Cinema Paradiso (1988) can't miss out either, but so can't Spirited Away (2001), Castaway on the Moon (2009) and Lilja 4-ever (2002) and I'm probably up to 15 by now

edit: when I think about it, I can name my top 10/15 films but I do feel that my full list (of 400) really shows what I like and what I don't, especially when you go deep into the 200's/300's - there's a lot of cerebral sci-fi, a lot of melancholy, a lot of dark themed films. I got every Gaspar Noé film in there, almost every Winding Refn film, every Tarkovsky and Zvyagintsev film, almost every Kubrick, Farhadi and Coen film. I think that gives much more clear picture than just naming the very top of the list.

 

[nameless1]

You make me sound ancient. I am in my mid-30s.


I actually watched Drive in the last 2 months. That movie is the epitome of style over substance. The story is rather thin, so much so that the flair it is shot with is not enough to make me interested. I have it around the 6 to 6.25/10 mark.

 

[Savi]

You make me sound ancient. I am in my mid-30s.

I'm honestly a bit shocked by that I thought you were twice my age, not just a couple of years older

I've never been bothered by the 'style over substance' negativism. Some of my favourite films barely have a plot. If the 'style' is so beautiful, so mesmerizing, why wouldn't you be able to enjoy that instead of complain about the (lack of a) narrative. To me Winding Refn is almost a cinema God, I barely even care what his movies are about anymore (although to be fair, there is much more substance than the haters will want to admit)

 

[kihei]

You make me sound ancient. I am in my mid-30s.

Well, I'm ancient. He got me right.

 

[Osprey]

Pardon my interruption of your high-brow discussion, but I have a couple of low-brow movies to rate...

One Million B.C. (1940 ) - 6/10 (Liked it)

A caveman from the uncivilized rock tribe is exiled and taken in by the peaceful shell tribe and its most attractive (and oddly single) cavewoman, only to be constantly scolded for what a brute he is. It's sort of like a caveman version of Romeo and Juliet or West Side Story. There's no intelligible dialogue, just lots of grunts and gesturing. It actually felt a bit like a silent movie. Except for one guy in a ridiculous dinosaur suit, all of the creatures are real animals, some of them wearing costumes, themselves. There's an elephant wearing fur to look like a mammoth, a pig wearing a triceratops suit, an armadillo with horns glued onto its face and an alligator with scales glued onto its back. A few were made to fight to the death and one lizard slowly dies for the camera. Because of this film, animal cruelty advocates (well, they weren't advocating for cruelty, but you know what I mean) got such animal treatment banned from future films, making this the very last film to feature a baby alligator with scales glued on his back killing another lizard. Pity. The first hour of the film isn't anything special, but the final half hour (which features volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, fires and a big battle with a two-story iguana) has some good excitement and impressive special effects for 1940.

-------------------------------------

One Million Years B.C. (1966) - 6/10 (Liked it)

I don't know why the title is a little different, because it's almost the same movie, just in color and with a little less material, if you know what I mean. There's the rock tribe, the shell tribe, the exiled caveman and the bodacious shell girl who falls for him. You wouldn't know it from the marketing, but there's more to this movie than Raquel Welch in a fur bikini. It's not as exciting, but it's there. For example, the caveman in this gets just as much screen time and is even better than the one in the original, not that matters much, though, when everyone is looking at Welch, instead. There's also quite a bit of stop motion wizardry from Ray Harryhausen (because abusing real animals was off of the table), including a couple of allosaurs, a triceratops and a few pterodactyls (one of which tries to feed Raquel Welch to her chicks). They give the film a Jason and the Argonauts feel, and, if the film were known for that, maybe I would've watched it a lot sooner than this. The ending is a bit abrupt and not as impressive as the original, but, overall, it was entertaining enough and a perfect Saturday afternoon film. Did I mention that Raquel Welch wears a fur bikini?

 

[kihei]

Mine would be vastly different than yours/Nameless' lists but I'm probably way younger too. It's not that I haven't seen most of you guys Top 10 movies listed, it's that a lot of those are from a very different era, an era where I find it hard not to be bothered by the flaws of filmmaking and acting of that particalur moment in time. It's hard to explain, I guess maybe it's just down to being a born in the 'modern' film era which makes it a bit harder to fully appreciate the earlier stages of movie(making) history.

I have a different point of view. I think great art is timeless. I don't think, if it is great art, it matters when it was made. Michelangelo's David and the Pieta are never going to be anything but great art, same with Hamlet, King Lear, War and Peace. In Search of Lost Time, Marlowe's Faust, Bach, Mozart, Van Gogh, Monet, and on and on. They've stood the test of centuries already. And movies, too, will stand that test. I know recency bias is a problem in sports, and it may be becoming a problem in art evaluation but I hope not. Most of the films that obviously show their age likely aren't great art to begin with. However, I believe movies, as with other arts, can come from any time and place. Just my way of looking at it.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Top of the list comes easy, afterwards there's too many films competing for a spot... My mood for today (cheated and put 2 fims at #4):

1. Les trois couronnes du matelot (Three Crowns of the Sailor, Ruiz, 1983)
2. L'année dernière à Marienbad (Last Year at Marienbad, Resnais, 1961)
3. L'hypothèse du tableau volé (The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting, Ruiz, 1978)
4. Le Navire Night & Aurelia Steiner (Melbourne) (Duras, 1979)
5. Sans Soleil (Marker, 1983)
6. Ni na bian ji dian (What Time Is It There?, Tsai Ming-liang, 2001)
7. Topazu (Tokyo Decadence, Ryu Murakami, 1992)
8. Nothing About Robert (Rien sur Robert, Bonitzer, 1999)
9. Nostalghia (Tarkovsky, 1983)
10. Caché (Haneke, 2005)

Could get in the bottom of the list any other day :

Trans-Europ-Express (Robbe-Grillet, 1966)
Uzak (Ceylan, 2002)
Windows On Monday (Kohler, 2006)
Calendar (Egoyan, 1993)
Le temps retrouvé (Ruiz, 1999)
Combat d'amour en songe (Ruiz, 2000)
Landscape in the Mist (Angelopoulos, 1988)
H Story (Suwa, 2001)
Code Inconnu (Haneke, 2000)
Mon oncle d'Amérique (Resnais, 1980)
Passion (Godard, 1982)
Le mépris (Godard, 1963)
Éloge de l'amour (Godard, 2001)
Un homme qui dort (Queysanne, 1974)
Videodrome (Cronenberg, 1983)
Crash (Cronenberg, 1996)
Romance (Breillat, 1999)
Vive l'amour (Tsai Ming-liang, 1994)

 

[nameless1]

2 Tsai's on there. Interesting.

Personally, I love Vive l'armour, but it is more in the top 100 range.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Pink Mist, Spring in Fiala, Pranzo, Kallio, Osprey, Puck, Chili-- curious about all your top tens. Put your cards on the table

Man, you're gonna make me commit something to print ain't ya.

 

[nameless1]

I'm honestly a bit shocked by that I thought you were twice my age, not just a couple of years older

I've never been bothered by the 'style over substance' negativism. Some of my favourite films barely have a plot. If the 'style' is so beautiful, so mesmerizing, why wouldn't you be able to enjoy that instead of complain about the (lack of a) narrative. To me Winding Refn is almost a cinema God, I barely even care what his movies are about anymore (although to be fair, there is much more substance than the haters will want to admit)

I understood movies through screenplays. That is why I place big emphasis on plot. I will only ignore weak plots, if the other aspects are very strong, or downright game changers. The best example I can think of is Gravity. It has a thin plot, but the special effect is so impressive and so ahead of its time, that I cannot but marvel at the technology. To this day, I cannot recall a space movie that is as beautiful as that one.

That said, I tend to be a lot more lenient on action movies. As long as it is not downright dumb, and I am entertained, I usually will not grade it under 6. However, most good ones also will not get more than 7 for me, and the very special ones that are game changers usually do not grade above 8. To me, the action genre is high floor, but low ceiling.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

For some strange reason, I watched some widely acclaimed 90s romantic comedy, and I cannot shake how creepy they are nowadays.


Sleepless in Seattle made a killing at the box office, and it helped to establish Meg Ryan as one of America's Sweetheart, but has anyone actually thought about the plot? Ryan's character heard a lonely man's confession on a radio show, and she decided that he might be the one. Even though she has a fiancee, she still decides to fly to Seattle from the East Coast where she was based just to see what he looks like. In any era, that is stalker behaviour, and she would have gotten a restraining order against her. Seriously, how did this idea get greenlit? Is Hollywood so morally bankrupt, that they consider this to be romantic?


Four Weddings and a Funeral is another example. Again, it got great box office, and it helped to establish Hugh Grant as a leading man, but he is essentially a creep. He had a one night stand at a wedding, and when he meets her again, she is engaged, but that does not stop him from sleeping with her again. She gets married, but at his own wedding, when he learns that she is single now, he leaves his future bride at the altar, and this cheating couple ends up together. Again, how is this romantic? He humiliates someone at her own wedding, and yet, he got a happy ending. It is not as bad as the previous example, where the action is likely criminal, but at the very least, it is morally bankrupt. There is also a homophobic element to the movie when the partner of a gay couple was referred to as a "friend" at the eulogy, even though everyone knew their sexual orientation, it was different times, so I see it more as a time capsule of how 90s attitudes towards gay people are.

While these are the two most prominent examples, I remember that My Best Friend's Wedding is borderline problematic, and while I have not seen Runaway Bride, the plot already sounds pretty bad, when Robert's character leave people at the altar multiple times. Frankly, the 90s is a weird times, and seems downright dangerous. Romance, according to the movies, often involves criminal to borderline criminal activities.

Meg Ryan's character is HORRIBLE in that movie. Then Tom Hanks' character is even worse in You've Got Mail.

 

[nameless1]

Meg Ryan's character is HORRIBLE in that movie. Then Tom Hanks' character is even worse in You've Got Mail.

She seriously creeped me out. She should have gotten a restraining order, even for 90s standard.

 

[kihei]

Top of the list comes easy, afterwards there's too many films competing for a spot... My mood for today (cheated and put 2 fims at #4):

1. Les trois couronnes du matelot (Three Crowns of the Sailor, Ruiz, 1983)
2. L'année dernière à Marienbad (Last Year at Marienbad, Resnais, 1961)
3. L'hypothèse du tableau volé (The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting, Ruiz, 1978)
4. Le Navire Night & Aurelia Steiner (Melbourne) (Duras, 1979)
5. Sans Soleil (Marker, 1983)
6. Ni na bian ji dian (What Time Is It There?, Tsai Ming-liang, 2001)
7. Topazu (Tokyo Decadence, Ryu Murakami, 1992)
8. Nothing About Robert (Rien sur Robert, Bonitzer, 1999)
9. Caché (Haneke, 2005)
10. Passion (Godard, 1982)

Could get in the bottom of the list any other day :

Trans-Europ-Express (Robbe-Grillet, 1966)
Uzak (Ceylan, 2002)
Windows On Monday (Kohler, 2006)
Calendar (Egoyan, 1993)
Le temps retrouvé (Ruiz, 1999)
Combat d'amour en songe (Ruiz, 2000)
H Story (Suwa, 2001)
Code Inconnu (Haneke, 2000)
Mon oncle d'Amérique (Resnais, 1980)
Le mépris (Godard, 1963)
Éloge de l'amour (Godard, 2001)
Un homme qui dort (Queysanne, 1974)
Videodrome (Cronenberg, 1983)
Crash (Cronenberg, 1996)
Romance (Breillat, 1999)
Vive l'amour (Tsai Ming-liang, 1994)

Surprised I've seen as many on your list as I have.

 

[kihei]

I'll throw in a few honourable mentions, too, in alphabetical order:

Alice in the Cities, Wenders
Charulata, Ray
La Chinoise, Godard
The Exterminating Angel, Bunuel
Ivan, the Terrible, Eisenstein
Loveless, Zyagintsev
The Maltese Falcon, Huston
The Rules of the Game, Renoir
Still Life, Zhan-ke
Tokyo Story, Ozu
Uncle Boonme Who Can Recall His Past Lives, Weerasethakul

On any given day, one of these could pop up in the #9 or #10 spot pretty easy.

 

[kihei]

Man, you're gonna make me commit something to print ain't ya.

I'm looking forward to it.

 

[nameless1]

I'll throw in a few honourable mentions, too, in alphabetical order:

Alice in the Cities, Wenders
Charulata, Ray
La Chinoise, Godard
The Exterminating Angel, Bunuel
Ivan, the Terrible, Eisenstein
Loveless, Zyagintsev
The Maltese Falcon, Huston
The Rules of the Game, Renoir
Still Life, Zhan-ke
Tokyo Story, Ozu
Uncle Boonme Who Can Recall His Past Lives, Weerasethakul

On any given day, one of these could pop up in the #9 or #10 spot pretty easy.

I should put Ivan The Terrible and The Rules of the Game on my honourable mention list too. They are 10/10 film for me too.

Loveless is 9+ for me, but I am pretty sure in later years, I may bump it to 10/10. I cannot find any holes in the movie, to be honest, but it misses that little extra something for me.