Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate it | New Year New thread

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Yowza. All this ill will toward Nosferatu. I really did love the look of the thing. I don't think it generated as much pure atmosphere as the original, which is close to being in a class by itself. But I thought Eggers' work trumped the Herzog version visually by a considerable margin. I lot of people have found it overlong and slow, but I didn't. Once I got drawn in, I was drawn in for good. So I can understand people's criticism in this regard, it just didn't bother me. As well, I really liked Dracula as a Vlad the Impaler type rather than the usual usual semi-sexy vampire cliche, and I was impressed by both Depp amd, especially, Skarsgard who held my attention whenever they were on screen.

I understand another common criticism is it is unoriginal or adds nothing new to the story. I think the characterizations and the central relationship are fresh takes, but I wasn't expecting the movie to be too "original," in terms of new twists and additions or that sort of thing. Some stories, and I think Dracula/Nosferatu is one of them, have the near verbatim durability of a traditional fairy tale or, better yet, a classical musical score. For instance, there are brilliant adaptations of Brahms' violin concerto and there are mediocre versions of the concerto. But almost all respect the score, deviating from it only in subtle ways. I thought, in effect, Eggers' version of Nosferatu respected the score. To me, the movie seemed familiar in just the right way, aesthetically pleasing (just plain beautiful really), and fresh enough to keep me watching and engaged throughout its running time.

.

Mostly agree with this.

On other news, I went to see Wolf Man yesterday and that was terrible. Very timid something about violent fathers, and otherwise complete void of ideas. 3/10

 

[Neil Racki]

A Different Man - rated "pretty pretty pretty good" .. another good different type arthouse movie from A24

 

[kihei]

Oh, Canada (2024) Directed by Paul Schrader 3B

Leo Fife (Richard Gere), an aging documentary film maker virtually on his deathbed, agrees to an extensive interview by a former student who is making a documentary on Fife's highly successful career. Fife's purpose in agreeing to what is a physical ordeal for him is a simple one: he wants to debunk the myths about his life. He wants to blow up the icon status that he has been given, to expose his faults and duplicity. Much of the movie consists of extreme close ups of Gere struggling to tell his story despite lapses in memory and confusion about events. He means well, but he is a terribly unreliable narrator. I would say that plot summary makes for an interesting sounding chamber piece. But then there is the form that the content takes, and, oh, brother, does that leave a lot to be desired.

Simplicity here would have been the right choice. But director Paul Schrader, himself an aging iconic writer and director, throws in all manner of cinematic trickery. We not only have a movie about making a movie, we have flashbacks, voice-overs by different characters, unexpected narrators, arbitrary shifts to black-and-white, and abrupt switches in perspective. All this stuff is cut in a random hodgepodge that neither strengthens characterization nor themes. In addition there are some really odd directorial decisions. For instance, in one scene of Fife as a young man (Jacob Elordi), Gere inexplicably replaces Elordi, though in no other scene involving the younger Fife does this happen. Worse, it is a bedroom scene. None of this stuff comes off like any of it is remotely a good idea. In fact, it makes the movie seem like, at best, a working draft that was never convincingly thought through to completion. Add often clunky dialogue and a lack of development of minor characters, and you end up with a movie that seems like a failed experiment of a dress rehearsal. Gere is great, but his performance is like putting a Ferrari engine in a broken-down Ford Tempo.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

Shiva Baby (2020). C+
After being completely surprised by "Bottoms" which I thought was one of the more original comedies of the last few years, I decided to check out director Emma Seligman's prior film (and feature-length debut).

The script isn't anything too special, so a tight runtime of 75 minutes is completely logical. It's your basic college-grad "what am I gonna do / what's my direction in life" angst, with a romantic love-triangle sprinkled in for some spice. There's some sex-positive femininity worked in towards the end, but it feels half-hearted and almost completely diminished given the timing.

Where the film does shine is how the direction, score, and sound really accentuate the anxiety, and at times, horror our protagonist (played by apparent Seligman-collaborator Rachel Sennott) is feeling. This lays the groundwork of hyper-realism for comedic (or in this case, dramatic) heightening that Seligman uses to much greater effect in "Bottoms." A mostly singular location helps accentuate the feeling of the walls closing in (and almost certainly saves on budget as well).

Though I've written several sentences here already, my girlfriend offered up a much more concise review right after the film's conclusion: "So, what, we're just supposed to be uncomfortable for 70 minutes?"

 

[flyersnorth]

The Blair Witch Project (1999), 7/10

Back in 1999, I met up with some friends to go see a movie, and when we arrived it was sold out.

Someone pointed at a Blair Witch Project poster on the wall, opening that evening. "What about this one instead?" Hmm, three filmmakers disappear in the woods while shooting a documentary? Sure, why not?

What followed was the single-most memorable (and frightening) movie experience of my life. It was opening night, no one had seen or read any coverage about the movie. We all thought this was real footage.

The worst part is that I was house sitting for my boss that week, and had to make the trek back there. Alone. At night. In a secluded neighbourhood.

So, I decided to rewatch it last night - how does it hold up 26 years later?

It's a great idea that was mostly well-executed. The fear-factor definitely disappears when you know this is fiction. The actors are pretty believable and if I recall, there was a very minimalist script - a lot was off the cuff. And the directors were messing with them at night, creating sounds and doing things that the three actors did not know would happen, capturing real reactions and emotions.

For the budget they had and the novel idea of how it was marketed and presented was brilliant, especially for a time that predated social media and smart phones.