Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Movie-mber Edition

[kihei]

Small Axe: Alex Wheatle (2020) Directed by Steve McQueen 7A

Though coming of age in the early '80s. Alex Wheatle seems like a character right out of Charles Dickens' London, a modern-day Oliver Twist whose parents have abandoned him in infancy and who is forced to grow up on the mean streets of Brixton with few resources to aid him. He meets several Artful Dodger-type mentors along the way who help him make the adjustment from State institutions in posh Surrey to the very tough streets of Brixton where life follows a different set of rules than he was taught, often brutally. Despite the dangers of the street and the ever-present possibility of random police harassment, Alex manages to not only survive but find a sense of direction that may lead to a better life. All this goes by too fast. While the more frequent complaint is that a movie should be shorter, Alex Wheatle is an instance where a film should be longer. Director Steve McQueen sets up a wonderful milieu, the simultaneously vibrant and dangerous street life of Brixton. But Alex's complex transformation from ward of the state to street-wise song writer to imprisoned rioter to successful author seems too often rushed and not fully developed. His final hopeful transformation is hinted at in about thirty seconds right at the end of the movie, making this information way too abruptly presented given what has preceded it. Alex Wheatle is still a fascinating movie, just a flawed one. And Newcomer Sheyi Cole is extremely sympathetic as the title character. Few would know--I certainly didn't--that the real life Alex Wheatle grew up to be a successful writer of YA literature and was awarded an MBE by the Queen for his literary contributions. A very happy ending, indeed.

subtitles helpful

Prime Video

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I can't rate it because I was asleep for large parts of it, but I tried to watch The Wraith (Marvin, 1986) last night. I don't know if it's just because I was barely conscious most of the time, but that looked really weird and stupid.

I went on and rewatched the first episode of Jean-Claude Van Johnson on Prime. You gotta love this series. Like JCVD, it uses reflexivity and self-mockery to create the most absurd situations - it's really not as smart as JCVD, but it's even funnier.

 

[Pink Mist]

Anhey Ghorhey Da Daan [Alms for a Blind Horse] (2011) directed by Gurvinder Singh

In rural Punjab, India, a village awakes to the news that a home has been demolished after being sold by its landlords. Meanwhile, a union of rickshaw drivers go on strike in a nearby city. The film reflects on the everyday oppression of the Dalit caste in India, the lowest and poorest caste often called the “untouchables” characterized by their ostracization and segregation from mainstream Indian society. Through slow and mostly silent periods, the film builds and builds from different narratives within one family within the caste to meditate on the agony of the plight from rural farmers trying to protect their land and labour relations in an increasingly neoliberal Indian state. Beautifully shot, the film takes some time to get going and certainly doesn’t hold your hand when plunging you into the politics of rural and urbanizing Indian society, but is effective in centering the viewer’s perspective with the Punjab Dalit and their everyday struggle.

 

[Osprey]

Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964) - 6/10 (Liked it and not afraid to admit it)

Martians kidnap Santa Claus so that he can bring cheer to Martian children just as he does for Earth children. This is considered one of the worst films ever made? Yes, the plot is ludicrous, the costumes are ridiculous, the sets are simplistic, the acting is over the top and everything is incredibly corny... but... it's a children's movie... from the 1960s. What do people expect? The sci-fi elements, like the "Martians" simply being humans with green skin and funny hats and a man walking around in a robot costume, aren't really any cheesier than an episode of Lost in Space, which this even predates by a year. Still, even if we agree that the plot, sets, costumes and acting are awful, the film simply has a great deal of cheer and innocence that makes it entertaining... at least if you're a child or a child at heart (guilty). If it's a bad movie, then it's one of the best so-bad-it's-good movies that I've ever seen. Hooray for Santy Claus!

Spoiler: Full movie

]

Spoiler: Full movie for Canadians

 

[Spring in Fialta]

12 Monkeys (1995) - Terry Gilliam links up with David Webb Peoples (Blade Runner, Unforgiven) for one of the latter's heady scripts (What ever happened to him? No credits since '98). I've never been too sure what to make of Gilliam. Every movie I've seen of his has instances of great (seemingly spontaenous) delivery and creativity and other moments where I wonder what the hell was he thinking when when editing the film or in post-production. 12 Monkeys is a great example of that. Even the performances have the same quality as described above. Therefore, I'm not sure whether I like the Willis or the Pitt performances (although his Ripper Roo introduction is very amusing). The latter one really leaves one stumped. It's so...strange and goofy but without the fascination. I don't think Willis was ever meant to play the gentle giant but then sometimes it's hard to imagine anyone else playing the role. The other bit actors are largely underwhelming. Certain scenes and props seem ridiculously dated despite being shot and released in '95. Others hold up perfectly, including the silly wig and mustache Willis wears at the end or a zoo being released on the city of Philadelphia. the plot is complex and executed as to be purposefully so and again, not sure whether it was optimal or not. I certainly enjoyed the film. The plot twists are kinda, sorta easy but still are delivered as a decent and intriguing crumb trail. Two time travellers being mistakenly sent in the trenches of WWI was pretty funny and probably intentionally so. Still, some plot holes/easy coincidences that are sometimes hard to take seriously. Still, I really enjoyed and suspect most fans of intricate sci-fi would as well. Really makes me want to check out Chris Marker's La Jetée which inspired this film. Might do a double short-feature on friday, as I've been meaning to watch Un Chien Andalou as well and both are available on Youtube.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964) - 6/10 (Liked it and not afraid to admit it)

Martians kidnap Santa Claus so that he can bring cheer to Martian children just as he does for Earth children. This is considered one of the worst films ever made? Yes, the plot is ludicrous, the costumes are ridiculous, the sets are simplistic, the acting is over the top and everything is incredibly corny... but... it's a children's movie... from the 1960s. What do people expect? The sci-fi elements, like the "Martians" simply being humans with green skin and funny hats and a man walking around in a robot costume, aren't really any cheesier than an episode of Lost in Space, which this even predates by a year. Still, even if we agree that the plot, sets, costumes and acting are awful, the film simply has a great deal of cheer and innocence that makes it entertaining... at least if you're a child or a child at heart (guilty). If it's a bad movie, then it's one of the best so-bad-it's-good movies that I've ever seen. Hooray for Santy Claus!

That video ain't available here, but I hope it's the MST3K version. ;-)

12 Monkeys (1995) - Terry Gilliam links up with David Webb Peoples (Blade Runner, Unforgiven) for one of the latter's heady scripts (What ever happened to him? No credits since '98). I've never been too sure what to make of Gilliam. Every movie I've seen of his has instances of great (seemingly spontaenous) delivery and creativity and other moments where I wonder what the hell was he thinking when when editing the film or in post-production. 12 Monkeys is a great example of that. Even the performances have the same quality as described move. Therefore, I'm not sure whether I like the Willis or the Pitt performances (although his Ripper Roo introduction is very amusing). The latter one really leaves one stumped. It's so...strange and goofy but without the fascination. I don't think Willis was ever meant to play the gentle giant but then sometimes it's hard to imagine anyone else playing the role. The other bit actors are largely underwhelming. Certain scenes and props seem ridiculously dated despite being shot and released in '95. Others hold up perfectly, including the silly wig and mustache Willis wears at the end or a zoo being released on the city of Philadelphia. the plot is complex and executed as to be purposefully so and again, not sure whether it was optimal or not. I certainly enjoyed the film. The plot twists are kinda, sorta easy but still are delivered as a decent and intriguing crumb trail. Two time travellers being mistakenly sent in the trenches of WWI was pretty funny and probably intentionally so. Still, some plot holes/easy coincidences that are sometimes hard to take seriously. Still, I really enjoyed and suspect most fans of intricate sci-fi would as well. Really makes me want to check out Chris Marker's La Jetée which inspired this film. Might do a double short-feature on friday, as I've been meaning to watch Un Chien Andalou as well and both are available on Youtube.

Yes please do see these two, it's more than time! La jetée makes 12 Monkeys look real pale.

 

[Osprey]

That video ain't available here, but I hope it's the MST3K version. ;-)

Oops. Thanks for the notice. I've added another video that does work in Canada. It's worse quality, though, unfortunately.

No, neither is the MST3K version, though that's on YouTube, as well. As much as I like the idea of MST3K/Rifftrax, I can't bring myself to watch movies like that. It's similar to how I like the idea of commentary tracks, but have never actually listened to one all the way through. When I watch a movie, I want to listen to the actual movie. I know; I'm weird.

 

[Osprey]

I've never given a 1/10... until now. This might just be the worst movie ever made.

Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny (1972) - 1/10

Santa Claus gets his sleigh stuck in the sand of a Florida beach and a bunch of local kids try to help him. They somehow get their hands on all kinds of farm and zoo animals to try to pull him out. When they lose hope, Santa inspires them by telling them the story of Thumbelina, which is an hour-long film that the producer made a few years earlier and wanted to release theatrically, but had to pad it on either side with the Santa story to make it long enough. This film-within-a-film is really awful (bad acting, bad costumes, bad sets, etc.) and takes up the majority of the 95-minute runtime. After that ends, a person in a bunny costume with a freakish head comes along in a fire engine to offer Santa a ride to the North Pole (naturally). Throughout the film, characters break into bad songs that are clearly dubbed. In fact, even all of Santa's dialogue is dubbed, probably because no one could understand the actor under the fakest Santa beard that you've ever seen. The whole thing is exceedingly amateurish, from all of that to bad writing, acting, sets, camerawork, editing and every other production metric. It's a children's movie, like Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, which I excused for being such, but that looks incredibly professional and polished compared to this, which seems only one step up from a backyard movie. Anyways, I dare you to watch at least the first 7 minutes and the last 7 minutes (when the bunny makes his appearance).

 

[Langdon Alger]

Birdman - 2014

Finally got around to seeing this. I thought it was interesting, and Michael Keaton is very good in it. I also really liked the performances from Edward Norton and Naomi Watts. The way the film is shot is interesting. I’m not sure on a score for this, as I think I’ll watch it again soon and give my score later.

What did you guys think of it?

 

[nameless1]

Birdman - 2014

Finally got around to seeing this. I thought it was interesting, and Michael Keaton is very good in it. I also really liked the performances from Edward Norton and Naomi Watts. The way the film is shot is interesting. I’m not sure on a score for this, as I think I’ll watch it again soon and give my score later.

What did you guys think of it?

It has its moments, but I am not impressed by it. Frankly, I quickly forgot about it, because it relied on the supposedly one-take gimmick to say absolutely nothing. It is definitely not my pick for Best Picture that year.

 

[Langdon Alger]

It has its moments, but I am not impressed by it. Frankly, I quickly forgot about it, because it relied on the supposedly one-take gimmick to say absolutely nothing. It is definitely not my pick for Best Picture that year.

Just out of curiosity, what would you select for best picture from that year?

 

[kihei]

It has its moments, but I am not impressed by it. Frankly, I quickly forgot about it, because it relied on the supposedly one-take gimmick to say absolutely nothing. It is definitely not my pick for Best Picture that year.

Yeah, I didn't like it at all.

If you want a really terrific one-take movie, check out Victoria (Schipper, 2015).

 

[kihei]

2 or 3 Things I Know about Her (1967) Directed by Jean Luc Godard 9C

Juliette, a middle-class housewife, turns to prostitution to help pay the bills. While that sounds an awful lot like Luis Bunuel’s Belle du Jour, the two movies could hardly be more different. Godard eschews anything approaching a traditional narrative. 2 or 3 Things I Know about Her feels like it is edited in a stream of consciousness manner which in turn is a reflection of its characters’ dialogue which often appears to be stream of consciousness as well. That’s not quite a fair description, though, as Godard’s hands are firmly on the steering wheel. By this still relatively early stage of his career, he is far less concerned with narrative than with ideas, and this is nothing if not an idea movie. In lieu of the usual dialogue, when his characters speak, we get their thoughts whatever they happen to be at the moment. However, while what they say does indeed skip around—Juliette, looking at the camera, can go from discussing make up and pop fashion to contemplating great epistemological questions--it is not really random. Godard is examining modernity here, the very stuff of existence.

A theme emerges related to the impossibility of being certain of anything. Meaning is arbitrary and subject to transformation. The only thing we can say for sure is that things happen, but which of these things is more important than another is impossible to determine with any finality. Language, which may ultimately fail us, may be secondary to images...or perhaps not. The film consists of characters' musing about these issues as Godard sometimes shifts our gaze to look at cityscapes of freeways and construction sights. Yet anything is possible. With a stir of a spoon, a galaxy can exist in a coffee cup. Bland scenes of Juliette’s hooker activities suggest that sex is a commodity and not an answer to anything. If 2 or 3 Things I Know about Her has a message it is a Sisyphean one: Life is a constant going back to zero and starting over again. And over again. Not your average night at the movies.

Sidenote: I hated this movie when I first saw it in my youth. Change is the only constant.

subtitles

Criterion Channel

 

[nameless1]

Just out of curiosity, what would you select for best picture from that year?

In my opinion, it was a weak year. I looked back, and I was surprised to find that I was either indifferent, or just downright dislike four of the eight nominees. Birdman is meh, Imitation Games and The Theory of Everything are pure Oscar bait, and I absolutely hated the message in Whiplash.

At least Boyhood made the list, because it is my pick as the best film of the year. Selma will be second.

 

[nameless1]

Yeah, I didn't like it at all.

If you want a really terrific one-take movie, check out Victoria (Schipper, 2015).

If I remember correctly, I had it at 8 to your 9. While it is very well-done, I docked a point because I thought that technique is nothing more than a gimmick, as it adds nothing to the experience. The movie would have been perfectly fine with a conventional cut.

In fact, now that I think about it, I pretty much dislike this one take technique. It seldom adds anything to the narrative, and most of the time, it seems to be done just to show off the technical prowess.

 

[kihei]

In my opinion, it was a weak year. I looked back, and I was surprised to find that I was either indifferent, or just downright dislike four of the eight nominees. Birdman is meh, Imitation Games and The Theory of Everything are pure Oscar bait, and I absolutely hated the message in Whiplash.

At least Boyhood made the list, because it is my pick as the best film of the year. Selma will be second.

I think the only English language films that I rated highly in 2014 were Mr. Turner, which is very underrated, and Only Lovers Left Alive. Wasn't a great year for international film either, though I thought Xavier Dolan's Mommy was the best film I saw all year, followed by Goodbye to Language 3D by Godard.

 

[Pink Mist]

The Wayward Girl [Ung Flukt] (1959) directed by Edith Carlmar

A teenage couple runs away to an isolated cabin to play pretend at domestic life together. Gerd (Liv Ullman) is a “bad girl” (though fairly tame by today’s standards) who is a relationship with Anders (Atle Merton) a university student from a middle-class family who disapproves of their relationship since Gerd is crass and has had previous lovers. While in their isolated cabin retreat, the family tries to bring them back home and they come across a stranger who tests their fidelity. This film is notable as it is the first film to star Liv Ullman who would go on to become a frequent collaborator with the great auteur Ingmar Bergman. For such an early film, it does have a surprisingly progressive attitude on sexuality and Ullman is already fully formed as a magnetic film star as a defiant and rebellious teenager aware and dismissive of the gendered expectations of her. Surprisingly fun little film.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

1. @Osprey - you have to see a MST3K movie. They're not all good, they're never good all the way through, but some of them are a lot of fun. And nah, you don't need to see most of these films in their original format.

2. @Darcy Loewen - I have Birdman at 7/10, same as Boyhood. I didn't see anything particularly good from 2014, so I was more than ok with the selection.

3. Russian Ark is probably my favorite "one-shot" film.

 

[nameless1]

1. @Osprey - you have to see a MST3K movie. They're not all good, they're never good all the way through, but some of them are a lot of fun. And nah, you don't need to see most of these films in their original format.

2. @Darcy Loewen - I have Birdman at 7/10, same as Boyhood. I didn't see anything particularly good from 2014, so I was more than ok with the selection.

3. Russian Ark is probably my favorite "one-shot" film.

Agree with 3. That is one of the few exception to my opinion.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

Birdman - 2014

Finally got around to seeing this. I thought it was interesting, and Michael Keaton is very good in it. I also really liked the performances from Edward Norton and Naomi Watts. The way the film is shot is interesting. I’m not sure on a score for this, as I think I’ll watch it again soon and give my score later.

What did you guys think of it?

I'll call it a "prestige popcorn flick." It's fun, it's got energy, but look for anything deeper and you'll be disappointed, despite what the presentation is pushing.

In my opinion, it was a weak year. I looked back, and I was surprised to find that I was either indifferent, or just downright dislike four of the eight nominees. Birdman is meh, Imitation Games and The Theory of Everything are pure Oscar bait, and I absolutely hated the message in Whiplash.

At least Boyhood made the list, because it is my pick as the best film of the year. Selma will be second.

Oh? I'm not sure who else I discussed this with back when it came out (Kihei maybe?) but minor thematic spoilers ahead, when the dust settles, the ending is quite a downer. It's basically a case of relapse. He had his chance to get out and got roped back in. Nothing good will ultimately come of that. he's back in the abuse relationship. Chazelle himself has said he has a very dark view of how the story unfolds. J.K. Simmons' nod at the end is chilling. Nothing ra-ra about it.

I don't think the movie itself really takes a side on whether or not it's ultimately worth it to be a Charlie Parker type, it just presents a character who believes strongly in one side of that argument, and the choices and consequences born from those beliefs.

 

[nameless1]

I'll call it a "prestige popcorn flick." It's fun, it's got energy, but look for anything deeper and you'll be disappointed, despite what the presentation is pushing.



Oh? I'm not sure who else I discussed this with back when it came out (Kihei maybe?) but minor thematic spoilers ahead, when the dust settles, the ending is quite a downer. It's basically a case of relapse. He had his chance to get out and got roped back in. Nothing good will ultimately come of that. Chazelle himself has said he has a very dark view of how the story unfolds. J.K. Simmons' nod at the end is chilling. Nothing ra-ra about it.

I don't think the movie itself really takes a side on whether or not it's ultimately worth it to be a Charlie Parker type, it just presents a character who believes strongly in one side of that argument, and the choices and consequences born from those beliefs.

Yeah, I think I read it too. That dynamic just pisses me off, and I hate the abuse by Simmons' character, and the seemingly acceptance. I will concede that it is realistic, down to the lack of consequences, but it does not appease me any less.

 

[kihei]

The Wayward Girl [Ung Flukt] (1959) directed by Edith Carlmar

A teenage couple runs away to an isolated cabin to play pretend at domestic life together. Gerd (Liv Ullman) is a “bad girl” (though fairly tame by today’s standards) who is a relationship with Anders (Atle Merton) a university student from a middle-class family who disapproves of their relationship since Gerd is crass and has had previous lovers. While in their isolated cabin retreat, the family tries to bring them back home and they come across a stranger who tests their fidelity. This film is notable as it is the first film to star Liv Ullman who would go on to become a frequent collaborator with the great auteur Ingmar Bergman. For such an early film, it does have a surprisingly progressive attitude on sexuality and Ullman is already fully formed as a magnetic film star as a defiant and rebellious teenager aware and dismissive of the gendered expectations of her. Surprisingly fun little film.

I watched this movie this morning, fell asleep for an hour afterwards, scrolled through this thread, saw Ullman's still from the movie and thought, "My god, I don't remember writing that yet." While I concur with everything you say, let me add a couple of points:

I was struck by the progressive attitude of the parents, too. Though I don't know if we should be surprised...I think Norway may have been several decades ahead of NA when it came to adolescent sexual experimentation. I actually don't think this continent has caught up yet.

Ullman, her physical beauty accented for once, gives a very sexy performance in my book. Surprising if only because Bergman more often called on her to repress her sexuality than to express it.

I was also very surprised how much I enjoyed The Wayward Girl. It is very conventional except for its treatment of the subject matter. I have never seen a film by Edith Carlmar before, never even heard of her, but I think I will be seeking out more of her work. She is great with the actors and with moving the story along at a brisk pace.

 

[NyQuil]

I liked the ending of Whiplash, personally.

A lot of folks came out of the woodwork to decry the apparent message that the only way to succeed is through abuse and struggle.

But I see the film as a character portrait, not a fable or aspirational story, in which we have two extremely flawed characters interacting with one another.

I think the film does a good job in illustrating the dark side of Fletcher's approach in terms of the allusions to his past students and their eventual tragedies.

I will say that there is a bit of a message here in that the tragic artist who dies in his prime is often feted above his/her/their contemporary who dies of old age. That's a criticism that we all are collectively guilty of at times I think.

"What might have been?" is the mystery box that may or may not contain a boat, while the aging and increasingly irrelevant artist is just a boring old boat that you've sailed on many times before.

I found this letter written by Scott Weiland's widow (ex) to be a sobering realization:

Scott Weiland's Family: 'Don't Glorify This Tragedy'

I don't think the movie itself really takes a side on whether or not it's ultimately worth it to be a Charlie Parker type, it just presents a character who believes strongly in one side of that argument, and the choices and consequences born from those beliefs.

This exactly.

 

[kihei]

If I remember correctly, I had it at 8 to your 9. While it is very well-done, I docked a point because I thought that technique is nothing more than a gimmick, as it adds nothing to the experience. The movie would have been perfectly fine with a conventional cut.

In fact, now that I think about it, I pretty much dislike this one take technique. It seldom adds anything to the narrative, and most of the time, it seems to be done just to show off the technical prowess.

You are right about the scores. You are right about the fact that it's a gimmick. I disagree that it does nothing for the narrative in this particular case...I think what it added is cinematicallly thrilling. I saw this film in an ideal circumstance, true. I saw Victoria at its first screening at TIFF 2014 in a theatre packed to the rafters. In that environment, the excitement and tension created by the single take nature of the film was practically a physical presence, positively infectious to every member in that audience. I remember passing by people on the way out of the theatre and we all just shook our heads at one another in happy amazement. This century, I've felt that kind of excitement watching Kung Fu Hustle opening night in Hong Kong and watching Gravity opening night at TIFF in 2013. Very rare though the experience is, it is one huge reason why the death of movie theatres would be a crying shame.

 

[NyQuil]

This century, I've felt that kind of excitement watching Kung Fu Hustle opening night in Hong Kong and watching Gravity opening night at TIFF in 2013. Very rare though the experience is, it is one huge reason why the death of movie theatres would be a crying shame.

I saw Black Panther at a theatre in Miami and was startled to see how many black folks showed up in traditional African dress.

It really meant something special to them, which I think was important for me to see. For my part, I had thought it could be a solid addition to the MCU.

It definitely changed how I experienced the film.