Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +2

[kihei]

I read that before realizing that it was The Guardian. I suggest that others skip it unless they want to read about how female-centric movies are encouraging but male-centric movies are "worrying."

I wouldn't have responded to this but you attacked my favourite "newspaper." You completely misrepresent what the writer finds "worrying," which is the trend toward boy versus girl films. The author posits that there is emerging a gaping gender divide between men and women's film, a gender divide that may have in part been caused by the #Me, Too movement. He worries further (like a fox worries about the welfare of chickens) that people of colour will be slighted this year because of the "him" versus "her" thing. At no point does he say what you attribute to him as saying.

Yes, the fact that Hollywood still makes movies in 2019 about guys and things that guys are interested in is because men who refuse to write women's stories are fighting back against the #MeToo movement /sarcasm.

Here, the author Steve Rose is just blowing more smoke rings out of his ass trying to be provocative. He's like the guy on the sidelines trying to get other people to fight one another. This is what happens when everything in the world becomes "politicized." In reality more women than ever are directing movies and that is a very good thing. And some of them are directing very good movies--Portrait of a Lady on Fire; Hope; Atlantics; and so on. There have always been "guy" movies like Ford vs Ferrari; we hardly have to worry about a shortage of those. Now there are going to be more "gal" movies which only seems fair. There are also more people of colour movies and more LGBT movies which are also good things because it gives us more movies among which to choose and gives talented people a shot at making movies in the first place. In reality all this shit is just a distraction. A movie is either good or bad or somewhere in between on its own merits--who directed it and what they have dangling or not dangling between their legs is an afterthought. Articles like this one have only the purpose of stirring up controversy because everything seems to be a hot button issue these days. Will these "trends" cause the Academy Awards a problem? Who gives a f***? They brought it on themselves.

 

[kihei]

Who's going to see The Irishman in the next couple days?

The day it opens, but that won't be for a while in Toronto.

 

[ORRFForever]

The day it opens, but that won't be for a while in Toronto.

Glad to see that, K. Looking forward to your review.

P.S. My guess, it will be on line in a few days so... those of us who don't mind seeing it on line will have our chance.

P.S.S. I actually dreamt about this movie last night - being honest/sincere. I miss the days when I dreamt about "babes". It's no fun getting old.

For the record, in my dream, the movie was lousy.

 

[Amorgus]

Stop it! I already have enough horror films to try to cram into the next 3 nights. I don't need another one. I'll probably watch this tonight, and if I end up not being able to watch all of the films by Halloween night that I made plans to weeks ago, I'm blaming you... and Mr Jiggyfly... and Violenza Domestica... and KallioWeHardlyKnewYe.

(The ending is going to have to be something to top that of Sleepaway Camp when it comes to taking me aback. I'm still not over that bit of body horror.)

I went to a local horror convention a few weeks ago and Felissa Rose was there. I had never bothered to watch Sleepaway Camp and assumed it was another Jason rip-off so when she was talking about things they probably wouldn't be able to get away with anymore like the big twist, the pedophile cook, and stuff I knew I had to check it out. I finally did it last night when I found it on Amazon Prime for free. God I wish I could have part of my memory removed that spoiled that twist. Even knowing it was coming at some point, the reveal and ending were so over-the-top bizarre and abrupt that I could not stop laughing and saying "WTF???" over and over. I can't wait to suggest this one to my friends. I've had Society on the back burner for my friends as well. If they didn't have a newborn it could be a double feature night!

 

[heatnikki]

Sweetheart 6/10
Horror movie set on a desert island. Started really well, very creepy, lots of tension. Unfortunately descended into a typical monster movie. Worth a watch though

 

[Osprey]

I wouldn't have responded to this but you attacked my favourite "newspaper." You completely misrepresent what the writer finds "worrying," which is the trend toward boy versus girl films. The author posits that there is emerging a gaping gender divide between men and women's film, a gender divide that may have in part been caused by the #Me, Too movement. He worries further (like a fox worries about the welfare of chickens) that people of colour will be slighted this year because of the "him" versus "her" thing. At no point does he say what you attribute to him as saying.

I believe that he does, in a manner of speaking.

Could this bizarre divide be an unintended side-effect of the #MeToo movement? In the past few years, the film industry has, at least superficially, addressed gender inequalities on and off screen. This year, we have seen more stories with overtly female perspectives across the board: comedies ([snip]), crime stories ([snip]), horrors ([snip]), even superhero movies ([snip]). This femme-friendly realignment could well have provoked some dad-centric counter-programming: tales of gangsters, warfare, cars and spacemen. Or does the gender gap suggest there are a lot of male auteurs out there who can’t or won’t tell women’s stories?

Viewed from a different angle, another worrying aspect of this year’s frontrunners becomes evident: the lack of people of colour.

He writes "another worrying aspect," which suggests that what he just wrote about is worrying, and what he just wrote about is men telling men's stories in response to #MeToo. He starts and ends that paragraph with that. In the middle, he mentions the women's stories from this year, but doesn't appear to imply that there's anything wrong with those. He even calls them part of a "femme-friendly realignment," positive words that connote openness and a return to balance, while he calls the men's stories "dad-centric counter-programming," less than positive words that connote self-interest and fighting back. He could've written "femme-centric counter-programming" and "dad-friendly realignment" (or even could've been fair and used the same language for both, as I did), but he didn't. The real kicker, though, is the final sentence, in which he charges that some of the male writers might not be able to or want to write women's stories, which, along with the lack of any similar charge against the writers of the women's stories, adds further evidence to the idea that he sees the men's stories as the problem.

I pretty much agree with everything that you wrote in your second paragraph. The author is trying to be provocative and stir up controversy. It's just that he seems to be subtly making the men's movies out as the greater problem. There will always be movies about guys and things that guys are interested in (war, gangsters, cars, space, etc.), so suggesting that their existence in 2019 is because of backlash against an equality movement is silly and politically serving. He's essentially throwing out the first grenade in the award season gender war that he predicts is coming.

 

[HanSolo]

Joker-7

Fantastic lead performance, crisply executed artistic vision in its pacing, editing, cinematography and tense score. I just found the story to be a bit superficial and at times glaringly predictable. I also think it attempted to create new lore for the Batman/Joker rivalry that was simply and utterly unnecessary. If anything, presuming it stands as the backdrop for a future Pattinson/Phoenix stand off film, it cheapens the complexity of the rivalry with Star Wars prequels like "poetry".

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

If anything, presuming it stands as the backdrop for a future Pattinson/Phoenix stand off film, it cheapens the complexity of the rivalry with Star Wars prequels like "poetry".

I don't think they've planned to do that at all, though the success of the movie may change that.

 

[Osprey]

I went to a local horror convention a few weeks ago and Felissa Rose was there. I had never bothered to watch Sleepaway Camp and assumed it was another Jason rip-off so when she was talking about things they probably wouldn't be able to get away with anymore like the big twist, the pedophile cook, and stuff I knew I had to check it out. I finally did it last night when I found it on Amazon Prime for free. God I wish I could have part of my memory removed that spoiled that twist. Even knowing it was coming at some point, the reveal and ending were so over-the-top bizarre and abrupt that I could not stop laughing and saying "WTF???" over and over. I can't wait to suggest this one to my friends. I've had Society on the back burner for my friends as well. If they didn't have a newborn it could be a double feature night!

That's awesome. My reaction was kind of the opposite. I paused the movie and was speechless, with my mouth open, for a minute or two. I've still seen the movie only once, maybe because I hope that I might forget the twist if I wait long enough, but it's hard to imagine that happening. BTW, for anyone else, I'm not sure how legal this is, but the full movie has been available on YouTube for years without being taken down.

The two sequels (II and III) are worth watching, but are rather different movies than the first. They're more of slasher parodies, with the running joke being that the killer (whom we know the identity of all along this time) is seemingly the friendliest and most socially adjusted teenager in camp and, yet, joyfully kills other kids, occasionally in funny ways and in broad daylight. They're ridiculous and fun, IMO, but don't expect the same mystery and shock value as the first.

 

[kihei]

I believe that he does, in a manner of speaking.

The operative word is "another," which suggests that what he just wrote is worrying, and what he just wrote about was men telling men's stories in response to #MeToo. That's what he starts and ends that paragraph with. In the middle, he mentions the women's stories from this year, but doesn't imply that there's anything wrong with those. He even calls them part of a "femme-friendly realignment," positive words that connote openness and a return to balance, while he calls the men's stories "dad-centric counter-programming," less than positive words that connote self-interest and fighting back. He could've written "femme-centric counter-programming" and "dad-friendly realignment" (or even could've been fair and used the same language for both, as I did), but he didn't. The real kicker, though, is the final sentence, in which he charges that some of the male writers might not be able to or want to write women's stories, which, along with the lack of any similar charge against the writers of the women's stories, adds further evidence to the idea that he sees the men's stories as the problem.

I pretty much agree with everything that you wrote in your second paragraph. The author is trying to be provocative and stir up controversy. It's just that he seems to be subtly making the men's movies out as the greater problem. There will always be movies about guys and things that guys are interested in (war, gangsters, cars, space, etc.), so suggesting that their existence in 2019 is because of backlash against an equality movement is silly and politically serving. He's essentially throwing out the first grenade in the award season gender war that he predicts is coming.

"In a manner of speaking." What a multitude of sins that can cover.

Let's hope people read the article and come to their own conclusions.

 

[Osprey]

"In a manner of speaking." What a multitude of sins that can cover.

The same can be said for "At no point does he say X," which can act as cover for anything that a person conveys without saying outright. I agree, though, that there's also danger in reading too much into what people say, which is why I followed with my argument for why I feel that my reading is supported by the language that he used. We can debate that or agree to disagree.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I pretty much agree with everything that you wrote in your second paragraph. The author is trying to be provocative and stir up controversy. It's just that he seems to be subtly making the men's movies out as the greater problem. There will always be movies about guys and things that guys are interested in (war, gangsters, cars, space, etc.), so suggesting that their existence in 2019 is because of backlash against an equality movement is silly and politically serving. He's essentially throwing out the first grenade in the award season gender war that he predicts is coming.

I think you got it right. Anyway, the Oscars are so damn bleh that they know they need a little trash to spice things up, otherwise nobody will read their bleh coverage of that bleh ceremony. Might as well bring the gasoline.

(That being said, who gives a f***? I really didn't care for the so white stuff, nor the black-er nominees, nor will I care if this years nominees are all female, all male, all gays, all old, all alive or dead)

 

[nameless1]

Who's going to see The Irishman in the next couple days?

I cannot decide between Netflix, or my local theatre. I do have free tickets, but it is between A Marriage Story, Tel Aviv on Fire, or The Irishman for me.

 

[ORRFForever]

I cannot decide between Netflix, or my local theatre. I do have free tickets, but it is between A Marriage Story, Tel Aviv on Fire, or The Irishman for me.

Go with The Irishman in the theater. A last great hurrah from the greatest director of all time, and many of the greatest actors.

 

[ORRFForever]

Doctor Sleep [2019] :

First there was The Shining...

I'm not a Stephen King fan, nor am I a fan of Stanley Kubrick. So, while I found The Shining deeply stylistic and REALLY cool, I never found it scary. Not one time. Just a lot of fun when Jack Nicholson was on the screen. He stole the movie.

Then came Doctor Sleep...

While still not a fan of Stephen King (the book is good but, like all his work, it's too long), I am a BIG fan of Mike Flanagan. So, while I found Doctor Sleep deeply stylistic and REALLY cool, I never found it scary. Not one time. Just a lot of fun when Rebecca Ferguson was on the screen. She stole the movie.

7.5/10

Movie Trailer :

 

[nameless1]

When 28 Days Later was released in 2002, it revived a zombie genre that had been "dead" for about 20 years. That movie, with the concept of fast zombies, added a lot of thrills to the genre, and it reached its height in 2004 with Synder's remake of Dawn of the Dead, a mainstream Hollywood slick production with a lot of good sepecial effects, and Wright's Shaun of the Dead, which showed that it can be mixed with comedy. Thus, when Zombieland was released in 2009, the market had been over-saturated with all sorts of options, and the tepid initial response seemed to indicate that it will be lost in the shuffle. While it was not an overwhelming success, it received positive reviews, and the way it played around with the genre and even poked fun of itself made it stand out from its contemporaries. It reached a very good balance between humour and drama, the actors, led by the veteran Woody Harrelson, and featured an Oscar-nominated child actress and two up-and-comers, are all very good and have very good chemistry with one another, and the world it introduced is very fascinating. It was all ripe for a sequel, and this time, 10 years late, there were quite a bit of fanfare for Zombieland: Double Tab.

Unfortunately, it becomes a good example of a missed opportunity. While it largely followed the same formula of its predecessor, as the humour is the same, the characters have continuity with the first movie, and it expanded on the Zombieland universe, the world outside the cinema has changed in the last ten years. Suddenly, the same humour is no longer fresh, and while the actors' chemistry is still there, and they are even better at their craft now, as the two up-and-comers now have became an Oscar-nominee and an Oscar-winner, respectively, it is blatantly clear that Stone and Eisenberg, in particular, have outgrown their characters. Quite frankly, the characters are just too easy for them to play now, and the plot do not allow them to add anything more to their characters. As a result, there are times where it feels like they are just with the motions.

Honestly, there is nothing wrong with the movie. It is a worthy sequel, as it is still quite fun, and it kept the spirit of the franchise, but it just took too long to get off the ground. If it was released even half a decade ago, it would have received a better grade. Now, everything has changed, and what worked before is rather stale. As a fan, I did not regret my decision to see it, but I would definitely temper my expectations.

6/10

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

Coherence - 8/10

A really cool, low budget, mind trip of a film. It reveals just enough to keep you invested but doesn't go crazy with exposition and will have you pondering it well after it's over. Apparently much of the film was improvised and the actors were given paragraphs about their character's motivations in lieu of scripts. This shows in the final product, which feels very organic.

 

[Trap Jesus]

I honestly do not see the depth that you see in Pattinson's performance. He is definitely tortured, but I feel no guilt.

For full disclosure, I have seen enough of Pattinson's work, that I do not think he is anything special. To me, he is rather one-note, as he is good at being a tortured soul, but there is no depth in his pain. That is why I never understand why he is praised for Good Times, and this one. Both performances are just more of the same.

That said, I am curious about his role as the new Batman though. I see a lot of potential, because it is right up his alley, and there is so much depth inherit in the character, that it may very well be the breakthrough that he needs.

In terms of depth of pain, there's a scene where

Spoiler

Dafoe calls him out as a phony in a way. It's when he's standing in that doorway and saying that Pattinson wants to see himself as some kind of tortured soul or mysterious figure when he's really not. I think some of what you're saying may have been intentional by Eggers. Still though, I thought the confession scene from him was excellent.

For reference, this is the scene I was talking about:

 

[Savi]

Coherence - 8/10

A really cool, low budget, mind trip of a film. It reveals just enough to keep you invested but doesn't go crazy with exposition and will have you pondering it well after it's over. Apparently much of the film was improvised and the actors were given paragraphs about their character's motivations in lieu of scripts. This shows in the final product, which feels very organic.

Loved that movie as well. Love this kind of cerebral sci-fi in general.

 

[Trap Jesus]

I saw Parasite. There was a lot I liked and admired about this, but it didn't fully connect for me. Still a really good movie though. I think this is kind of like The Favourite for me from last year. Director I really admire, on paper I should love it and I do admire it on a number of different levels, but ended up walking away slightly disappointed. I think a lot of that is just the nature of hype though.

I loved the first half of this. I thought it was working tremendously on a comedic level, but still introduced a lot of different things that kept you engaged in the story and the character dynamics. It was already a bit of a blend of different genres, but it was mostly just mixing comedy and drama at this point, with kind of a heist movie feel. It reaches a point about halfway through where it kind of shifts directions. I expected the shifts because I knew it was that type of movie, but I feel after this point it was more kind of scenes that I found myself enjoying rather than the movie as a whole. It's not like I hated the direction it went, but I don't know, just didn't fully connect for me.

Spoiler

For the above I'm referring to the whole basement plot. I think when the family was gathered around drinking when the rich family was away camping that scene went on for too long, but then when the old housekeeper showed up all of that was gold until they revealed what was down there. In my mind I was like "Are they going to go full-blown horror here?" I was kind of hoping for it. Just the image of the possibly jaded housekeeper coming back looking as eerie as hell on the porch camera, the bizarre way she disappeared into the basement, and then the image of her trying to pry open the shelf was all so gripping. Then I think it got a bit silly with them falling down the stairs and them being held hostage. But then the next part of them having to get ready for the family coming home was great again.

I don't know, I guess I'm just trying to say it was a bit hit or miss from that point on.

 

[nameless1]

For reference, this is the scene I was talking about:

Thanks for the clip. I remember this scene, but I thought Pattinson is still just fine. I have seen a number of his works, and he just does not connect with me, unfortunately.

 

[nameless1]

I saw Parasite. There was a lot I liked and admired about this, but it didn't fully connect for me. Still a really good movie though. I think this is kind of like The Favourite for me from last year. Director I really admire, on paper I should love it and I do admire it on a number of different levels, but ended up walking away slightly disappointed. I think a lot of that is just the nature of hype though.

I loved the first half of this. I thought it was working tremendously on a comedic level, but still introduced a lot of different things that kept you engaged in the story and the character dynamics. It was already a bit of a blend of different genres, but it was mostly just mixing comedy and drama at this point, with kind of a heist movie feel. It reaches a point about halfway through where it kind of shifts directions. I expected the shifts because I knew it was that type of movie, but I feel after this point it was more kind of scenes that I found myself enjoying rather than the movie as a whole. It's not like I hated the direction it went, but I don't know, just didn't fully connect for me.

Spoiler

For the above I'm referring to the whole basement plot. I think when the family was gathered around drinking when the rich family was away camping that scene went on for too long, but then when the old housekeeper showed up all of that was gold until they revealed what was down there. In my mind I was like "Are they going to go full-blown horror here?" I was kind of hoping for it. Just the image of the possibly jaded housekeeper coming back looking as eerie as hell on the porch camera, the bizarre way she disappeared into the basement, and then the image of her trying to pry open the shelf was all so gripping. Then I think it got a bit silly with them falling down the stairs and them being held hostage. But then the next part of them having to get ready for the family coming home was great again.

I don't know, I guess I'm just trying to say it was a bit hit or miss from that point on.

That is fair. I personally like the surprise twists and turns. I cannot anticipate where the film will go next, and that is why I had so much fun at the theatre.

 

[Osprey]

Assault on Precinct 13 (2005) - 6/10 (Liked it)

A burnt-out cop (Ethan Hawke) and a skeleton crew defend a police station against well-armed men determined to get to a gangster (Laurence Fishburne) held in custody. It costars Gabriel Byrne, John Leguizamo and Brian Dennehy. This remake of the John Carpenter classic adds a few twists and changes the setting to Detroit on New Year's Eve in a snowstorm. I liked the setting change because it made it feel a little different and because I just like movies with snow. The combination of that setting and action reminded me a little of Die Hard 2, a personal favorite. It even copies the icicle kill from that movie. Anyways, the action is pretty good and the acting is decent. The writing has a number of cliches and is very average, though. Basically, it's your average, formulaic thriller, but those can be entertaining when you're in the mood for one. This is no different and I enjoyed it, even if there's nothing special about it. It may not compare to the original, but it's not half bad as remakes go.

 

[tealhockey]

Who's going to see The Irishman in the next couple days?

Got tickets for tuesday night

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Walking Out (2017) -

Deliberately slow paced film about a father (Cal), determined to make a man out of his son, David.

Cal believes retracing his own roots when he came of age hunting with his father, would be the perfect bonding experience with David.

Unfortunately things don’t work out quite the way Cal perceived they would in his mind, and their encounter with a bear sets off a chain reaction of life altering events.

Ultimately this movie is all about bad choices and how making one better decision here or there would have helped Cal and David avoid their unfortunate predicament.