Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +3

[Spring in Fialta]

When it comes to effects, I think Miike has always been a "close-enough-for-country" sort of guy as evidenced by this shot from Yakuza Apocalypse (2015):

I'm not sure I understand your comment, if you could expand. I was referencing more to folks being cut in half and the likes. It just looks so, so B-movie in the worst of ways. Jijii's muscular body - which is a nice minor twist - is another one where the composition looks god awful. As is Kakihara's wide open mouth. It's like a PS1 game.

 

[nameless1]

I would recommend the original manga for Ichii the Killer too. I read it while I was in my teens, and I had to ask myself a lot of questions, because of how messed up it was.

 

[Arizonan God]

Been watching some 2019 releases with my dad since he doesn't go to the cinema. We recently watched Knives Out, and man is it a blast watching that movie with someone who hasn't seen it yet. Probably the most entertaining movie of 2019.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Paradox Alice

with people you'll never hear from again.

Zero budget supposed sci-fi thing from a little while ago. Earth is running out of water so they've sent 4 idiots to Europa to get some. Stuff goes awry, lights flash, and the ship returns to a dead Earth, and the 4, no, wait, 3 people on board the ship are the last humans left. More lights flash, I turn off the tv.

This is someone's film school project or something. Must be. The outer space visual effects are inferior to any PS3 space game, and the "human" angle is inferior to any 1960's Twilight Zone episode. No idea why the f*** they bothered. I went to film/music school from 91 to 94, and I could have easily produced something better in that time with that technology and using cast and crew with that era's substance abuse issues.

I lasted about 35 minutes into it. I defy any regular ITT to make it further.

On Prime.

 

[Trap Jesus]

Paradox Alice

with people you'll never hear from again.

Zero budget supposed sci-fi thing from a little while ago. Earth is running out of water so they've sent 4 idiots to Europa to get some. Stuff goes awry, lights flash, and the ship returns to a dead Earth, and the 4, no, wait, 3 people on board the ship are the last humans left. More lights flash, I turn off the tv.

This is someone's film school project or something. Must be. The outer space visual effects are inferior to any PS3 space game, and the "human" angle is inferior to any 1960's Twilight Zone episode. No idea why the f*** they bothered. I went to film/music school in 91 to 94, and I could have easily produced something better in that time with that technology and using cast and crew with that substance abuse issue.

I lasted about 35 minutes into it. I defy any regular ITT to make it further.

On Prime.

I was looking for a sci fi movie to watch the other day and couldn't make it through the trailer for this. Sci fi is the absolute worst genre if you have a nothing budget. Visual effects are always going to be important to this genre and there's just nowhere to hide.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I was looking for a sci fi movie to watch the other day and couldn't make it through the trailer for this. Sci fi is the absolute worst genre if you have a nothing budget. Visual effects are always going to be important to this genre and there's just nowhere to hide.

No, you can do it with a nothing budget. You just can't do it if you have no idea what you're doing or what you're trying to say. Or if you're totally useless at making movies like the guys who did that Paradox Alice thing.

*edit* Space Milkshake. See if you can find that. No budget, no nothing, filmed in f***ing Saskatoon with nobody, but still at least fun for an hour and a half. It *is* doable.

*editedit* Okay, I just thought of where that Paradox Alice thing is. Remember when they first brought back Twilight Zone and Outer Limits in the 80's and 90's? It's worse than that on every level. It can't even measure up to technological or thematic standards from 30 freaking years ago. That's how bad it is.

 

[Osprey]

No, you can do it with a nothing budget. You just can't do it if you have no idea what you're doing or what you're trying to say. Or if you're totally useless at making movies like the guys who did that Paradox Alice thing.

*edit* Space Milkshake. See if you can find that. No budget, no nothing, filmed in f***ing Saskatoon with nobody, but still at least fun for an hour and a half. It *is* doable.

Cube is another one that comes to mind. I saw it for the first time a few years ago and I was impressed that it's as decent as it is with a budget of only $350K. It's carried by its interesting premise. Sci-fi needs a good premise more than it needs visual effects, IMO. Visual effects certainly help, but if you have them without a good premise, you get something like Star Trek: Discovery.

Space Milkshake looks simply too ridiculous... for me to not watch it .

 

[kihei]

I'm not sure I understand your comment, if you could expand. I was referencing more to folks being cut in half and the likes. It just looks so, so B-movie in the worst of ways. Jijii's muscular body - which is a nice minor twist - is another one where the composition looks god awful. As is Kakihara's wide open mouth. It's like a PS1 game.

It means Miike has never been overly concerned with getting special effects perfect or even close . He doesn't mind if the effects are cheesey. He's often anything but meticulous on this score, and doesn't mind being fast and sloppy.

 

[Supermassive]

Bloodshot (2020) - 7/10.

A fantastic fast food film. Perhaps because I stopped watching the Fast & Furious movies after #2, Vin Diesel doesn’t annoy me like Dwayne Johnson or Jason Statham do. Hobbs and Shaw are dumb. Bloodshot is cool. Anyway, Guy Pearce has a fun role, there’s lots of splosions and a pretty girl and nanites and car chases and it’s kind of sounding like F&F but it’s better. It’s the movie equivalent of a spicy beef Donair. Hits the spot, but you know you shouldn’t indulge every week.

 

[Osprey]

Battle Beyond the Stars

with 70's people

A little trip down memory lane, with Richard Thomas, Robert Vaughn and the holy shit luscious Sybil Danning in this ridiculous sci-fi romp. The peaceful planet of Akir is under attack by Sador and his 20 or so ships of Malmori mutants, who decide to take over the planet for reasons. Sador and his horrible combover will not be denied! So Richard Thomas and the giant mole on his left cheek hop onto the only spaceship in the planet's garage to look for help. The ship looks like...I don't even know. The slurm worms on Futurama with big outrigger weapon pods? HR Giger smoked a joint and got inspired by a dildo crossed with two electric shavers? Something like that. Anyway, they strike out to find people to play Seven Samurai in space. George Peppard shows up as the space cowboy who's explicitly from Earth. Who knew the future would look so much like the 70's? He's got a belt that dispenses scotch, water and ice cubes, and they didn't think about what that would look like until they filmed it. We spend time with him, a space valkyrie (Danning...hummina hummina hummina...), a lizard dude, a space bounty hunter, some space clone dudes...space mutants...lots of space things. And 70's hair. Also, sound effects from Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers and Star Wars.

You really don't know how not-weird this was at the time. It was. Seriously. All you millenials, get on Prime and see what us old folks had to watch in 1980. This wasn't really considered strange at the time. Really! I'm honestly not joking at all. This is what we had to watch.

I watched this last night. I had no idea what was going on, it was so bad and tedious at points and it took a long while to get used to it... but the last third, when all of the space action occurs, was almost kind of enjoyable. I wouldn't say that I liked the movie, but it wasn't the worst thing that I've seen and it was kind of nostalgic, even though I can't say that I'd ever seen this particular one before.

It helped me appreciate the movie more when, about halfway through, I looked it up on Wikipedia and discovered that James Cameron did all of the special effects and set design. It shows, since both are very good, especially considering the budget. Apparently, critics at the time agreed and panned the movie but praised the effects, which gave Cameron his big break.

I also enjoyed James Horner's score. At the very end and in the credits it's very noticeably similar to the ending and credits of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (which he would score 2 years later). Of course, Horner would go on to score Aliens, Titanic and Avatar for Cameron.

Speaking of connections, I noticed that the head Nestar in this movie is the actor who plays the psychologist in The Terminator and Terminator 2. Also, Wikipedia notes that Bill Paxton was a carpenter on this film and caught the attention of Gale Ann Hurd with his great personality, which likely led to him getting his small role in The Terminator, which led to collaborating further with Cameron on Aliens and Titanic.

Anyways, with the effects, sets and score that this movie had, it's a shame that the rest is lame and more reminiscent of 70s TV shows like Buck Rogers. To be fair, most of the space adventure films churned out in the years following Star Wars were lame, but this one had a few good talents and might've been better and more memorable if it had had a few more, especially behind the script.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Anyways, with the effects, sets and score that this movie had, it's a shame that the rest is lame and more reminiscent of 70s TV shows like Buck Rogers. To be fair, most of the space adventure films churned out in the years following Star Wars were lame, but this one had a few good talents and might've been better and more memorable if it had had a few more, especially behind the script.

I also recently watched this. I knew what I was getting into but had some hope I might be able to derive some base level B-grade enjoyment out of it. I wasn't able to. Bad on its own merits and doesn't really even have a camp or any other level of appeal (like a Flash Gordon, for instance which I adore). Not even its cheapness is a charm. A bit of a snoozer to be honest.

 

[OzzyFan]

Dr Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
3.25 out of 4stars

Very funny satire on nuclear war. Absurdist but frightfully possible if the wrong person is in the wrong high-power position in a military and/or political regard. Good acting, but Sellers and Scott put it over the top. My favorite Kubrick film.

Bedazzled (2000) rewatch
2.25 out of 4stars

Guilty pleasure. A fun comedy with heart I rewatch from time to time because I find it hilarious. It works so well because Fraser's well balanced charisma and "straight man" turn, Ramis directing/co-writing, Hurley seductiveness, and the whole ensemble coming with their sideshow A game. Why not take it a step further, also teaches the life lesson many of wish our younger adolescent/adult selves knew, don't try and force or hold on to relationships based off immaterial/on the surface things.

Intolerance (1916) Directed by D W Griffith 9A

It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that director D W Griffith gave birth to Hollywood. He was by no means the first American director to emerge, but he was the first who had the genius to realize film's vast potential for storytelling in the silent era. His Birth of a Nation is considered a watershed work in film history though it is thoroughly compromised by its unflinching racism. Perhaps in recognition of this fact, Griffiths made Intolerance in the following year and that movie has become his magnum opus. In a little over three hours, Intolerance intertwines four separate stories, all to do with its central theme: the great damage intolerance does to individuals and societies. The main story is set in then contemporary America and involves a big group of do-gooders making people's lives miserable. That the acting and character development is overstated and sentimentalized to the point of absurdity is actually little more than a quibble given the rest of the movie, The other three stories, reinforcing the same theme, are set in Catherine de Medici's France, in the Holy Land during the time of Christ, and during the Babylonian empire. Each era has its own elaborate sets, including life-sized reconstructions of ancient building and casts that must collectively number in the tens of thousands. Much of the time in these historical stories action supplants melodrama in wondrous and mind-blowing ways. Many of the images and sequences from these settings remain unique today. With Griffiths continually cutting back and forth among all four stories, there is no time for the audience to get bored. Though Intolerance was made in 1916, only the seven-hour Russian version of War and Peace from the '60s has a scale even remotely as monumental as this film.

intertitles

How did you obtain this movie for viewing?

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Rewatched a pair of movies I really loved from earlier in the decade. Interestingly, though I still would call myself a fan of both, neither held up quite as well as they had in my memory.

First up was Drive which I remember proclaiming to be my favorite movie of that year. Yeah, it's style over substance. It was then and still is now. It's crisp and polished and stylish and to this day has an absolutely banging soundtrack that I still listen to. The supporting cast is stellar, particularly Bryan Cranston and Albert Brooks. No one feels out of place. The issue I ran into this time is that ... it's a little corny. Gosling is fine, but he's better in the placid/cool moments than in his sad puppy dog moments with Carey Mulligan. I still think it's pretty damn good. Just not quite as exemplary as I remember. Damn it still looks and sounds so cool though.
In retrospect, I would move it down my favorite list. I think Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Warrior and Midnight in Paris all have held up a little better over time. Yes I understand who made that last movie. I still enjoy the hell out of it.

Then there's Inception. Another slick and stylish one here. Wonderfully creative. Another good cast. The emotional moments don't really land for me, but when its defying physics who cares? The thing that really stood out to me on this rewatch is how much of this movie is just straight explanations. Seriously, rename it Exposition. I suppose that's a necessary side effect of Nolan's world building here, but underneath and inserted into all those cool scenes are characters explaining exactly what's happening. Again, I still really enjoyed it, but the constant "well this is this" and "that is that" of it brings me down a star or so.

 

[kihei]

How did you obtain this movie for viewing?

YouTube.

 

[kihei]

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) Directed by F W Murnau 10A

After an exceptionally distinguished career in Germany, F W Murnau (Nosferatu; The Last Laugh; Faust) moved to Hollywood where Sunrise was his first American film. The movie is generally considered a masterpiece, and not just of the silent era. Sunrise is a melodrama all right, but one that kept me glued to the screen from start to finish. A man falls in love with a femme fatale who suggests he should drown his church-mouse of a wife. He goes so far as to paddle her out to the middle of a lake, threatens the act, but ultimately can't bring himself to do it. She is, of course, devastated, but he is so repentant that she eventually forgives him. They spend a day frolicking in the big city to the extent that it looks like the movie is going to transform itself into a comedy. But then rowing back home after their day of renewal and reconciliation, a monstrous storm comes up and both are thrown overboard. He survives but he can't find her anywhere. Has a kind of karma occurred; has the movie reverted back to tragedy? Yes, the plot twists are melodrama personified, but Murnau is such a marvelous director and such a brilliant technician that the movie, oozing in sensuality and atmosphere, often comes off as a kind of visual poetry. Many of the scenes are both gorgeous and imaginative as he uses a whole host of camera trickery to get his effects, and the story propels itself right along with great emotion and suspense. The gender relationship element is what one would expect from the 1920's (it's all the femme fatale's fault), but the end result is a gripping movie that is beautifully constructed.

intertitles

 

[Jevo]

Then there's Inception. Another slick and stylish one here. Wonderfully creative. Another good cast. The emotional moments don't really land for me, but when its defying physics who cares? The thing that really stood out to me on this rewatch is how much of this movie is just straight explanations. Seriously, rename it Exposition. I suppose that's a necessary side effect of Nolan's world building here, but underneath and inserted into all those cool scenes are characters explaining exactly what's happening. Again, I still really enjoyed it, but the constant "well this is this" and "that is that" of it brings me down a star or so.

Nolan really likes these convoluted narratives, but it seems he doesn't trust either his own ability to tell these stories, or his audience's ability to understand them. So he often ends spending a lot of time explaining his movie instead of showing it. I think particularly Inception and Interstellar suffers from this. I can't really remember The Prestige, but I actually think it spends a lot of time not explaining itself, but then the whole ending is basically the movie being explained. Memento does it a lot too, but it works better there, because we are basically seeing the movie from the perspective of the main character, and due to the gimmick of the film it works out quite well. I really wish Nolan would dare one day to make one of his films, and just keep exposition to a minimum. He doesn't need to full Shane Carruth, but somewhere inbetween would be nice.

 

[OzzyFan]

From Up On Poppy Hill
2.50 out of 4stars

Maybe the blandest, least imaginative, and lowest emotion stirring Ghibli film I've seen. That said, still a good story and good themes/messages throughout it, but the direct and indirect story and character development in this compared to most other Miyazaki films is night and day.

Now having seen every Hayao Miyazaki film that he's either written and/or directed, besides 2 panda movies, I feel like ranking them "based on personal enjoyability":

1=Castle in the Sky
2=Spirited Away
3=Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind
4=Lupin III: The Castle of Cagliostro
5=Princess Mononoke
6=The Wind Rises
7=Howl's Moving Castle
8=Porco Rosso
9=Kiki's Delivery Service
10=Ponyo
11=The Cat Returns
12=My Neighbor Totoro
13=The Secret World of Arietty
14=From Up on Poppy Hill

YouTube.

Thanks. I'm mostly interested for the cinematography, but might check it out or skim through it. I still have a bunch of movies on my list to tackle and 3hour movies kill me, especially when I demand to watch a movie in 1 sitting and have my subconscious telling me that I could see 1 and a half to 2 movies in the same time frame roughly.

 

[Osprey]

I also recently watched this. I knew what I was getting into but had some hope I might be able to derive some base level B-grade enjoyment out of it. I wasn't able to. Bad on its own merits and doesn't really even have a camp or any other level of appeal (like a Flash Gordon, for instance which I adore). Not even its cheapness is a charm. A bit of a snoozer to be honest.

Yeah, I snoozed through the first half, which is why, out of boredom, I looked the movie up on Wikipedia. Learning about Cameron doing the special effects and sets and Horner doing the score helped me to get a little more out of the second half because I paid more attention to those and appreciated them. Last year, I watched Piranha II: The Spawning solely because it was Cameron's directorial debut, so I likely would've watched this just to see some more early work from him. The movie as a whole, though, didn't do anything for me.

Bedazzled (2000) rewatch
2.25 out of 4stars

Guilty pleasure. A fun comedy with heart I rewatch from time to time because I find it hilarious. It works so well because Fraser's well balanced charisma and "straight man" turn, Ramis directing/co-writing, Hurley seductiveness, and the whole ensemble coming with their sideshow A game. Why not take it a step further, also teaches the life lesson many of wish our younger adolescent/adult selves knew, don't try and force or hold on to relationships based off immaterial/on the surface things.

Ramis was so good at comedy. I'm particularly fond of the drug deal segment. I tend to end up slightly disappointed that the whole movie isn't as hilarious as that segment, but it's still a solid, fun movie.

 

[Osprey]

Sunrise: A Story of Two Humans (1927) Directed by F W Murnau 10A

Wow. This is the first 10 that I've seen you give, which makes it all the more surprising that you made an error in the title .

Seriously, I should probably watch this. I've always gravitated more to the historical, adventure and horror silent films, so this "love story" is one that I've never been interested enough to try to see. I should probably finally watch it now, seeing as how some of the reviews are calling it the height of silent filmmaking.

 

[Puck]

Les Miserables (2019), Directed by Ladj Ly, 7.0

Stephane, only just arrived from Cherbourg, joins the anti-criminality brigade of Montfermeil in a sensitive district of the Paris suburbs. Paired up with Chris and Gwada whose methods are sometimes "special," he rapidly discovers the tensions between the various neighborhood groups. When an arrest starts to get out of hand, a drone is filming every move they make.

My expectations were up for this one. Nominations at Cannes and for Best Foreign Picture at the Oscars. Good reviews on RT and a 7.7 on IMDB. But I only gave it a 7.0. It's good but not great. It's Ly's first major film, an impressive one but I was a tad disappointed. It's basically a film about heavy-handed police tactics in a minorities suburb, tactics that turn badly. He leaves the ending open, and I agree with that part. Draw your own conclusions at the end. (I won't spoil it)

 

[Puck]

The Gentlemen, Diected by Guy Ritchie, 7.0

An American expat tries to sell off his highly profitable marijuana empire in London, triggering plots, schemes, bribery and blackmail in an attempt to steal his domain out from under him.

Decent British gangter movie. One scene almost resembles Les Miserables (mentioned above), chasing kids who recorded something they should not have; and both Directors use of 'lion' symbolism to indicate the law of the jungle and alpha males. Guy Ritchie juggles the time sequences in the film (going back and forth in time), that makes it a bit difficult to follow but that's done more and more these days. Here it is done to lead the viewer astray somewhat, to provide a twist one doesn't expect later after viewing the start. There's no deeper message in this one though (unlike Les Miserables), this is focused more on simple entertainment. It looks like the actors had fun doing this project with the Director. I'll have to watch this one again a second time at some later date, I blinked a few times and missed some parts, I'm sure. Matthew McConaughey must love the marijuana, this is his second recent dope movie (Beach Bum).

 

[nameless1]

Les Miserables (2019), Directed by Ladj Ly, 7.0

Stephane, only just arrived from Cherbourg, joins the anti-criminality brigade of Montfermeil in a sensitive district of the Paris suburbs. Paired up with Chris and Gwada whose methods are sometimes "special," he rapidly discovers the tensions between the various neighborhood groups. When an arrest starts to get out of hand, a drone is filming every move they make.

My expectations were up for this one. Nominations at Cannes and for Best Foreign Picture at the Oscars. Good reviews on RT and a 7.7 on IMDB. But I only gave it a 7.0. It's good but not great. It's Ly's first major film, an impressive one but I was a tad disappointed. It's basically a film about heavy-handed police tactics in a minorities suburb, tactics that turn badly. He leaves the ending open, and I agree with that part. Draw your own conclusions at the end. (I won't spoil it)

This one is a surprise for me. I had very little expectation when I saw it, but I left rather impressed. I do agree with your review overall, and I too think it is good, but not great. My main gripe with this one is the cinematography, because it took me about 20 minutes to get used to the very shaky camera, and the very unorthodox quick cuts. After that, I am very absorbed into the story.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Escape From Alcatraz (Siegel, 1979) - Simple and enjoyable film that looks surprisingly close to the real events, but the elements that should build suspense are brought with too much emphasis and always feel artificial and fall flat. Fails to avoid all of the clichés of this type of films (the painfully evil warden being the worst), but diverts most of them. 5/10

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Rewatched a pair of movies I really loved from earlier in the decade. Interestingly, though I still would call myself a fan of both, neither held up quite as well as they had in my memory.

First up was Drive which I remember proclaiming to be my favorite movie of that year. Yeah, it's style over substance. It was then and still is now. It's crisp and polished and stylish and to this day has an absolutely banging soundtrack that I still listen to. The supporting cast is stellar, particularly Bryan Cranston and Albert Brooks. No one feels out of place. The issue I ran into this time is that ... it's a little corny. Gosling is fine, but he's better in the placid/cool moments than in his sad puppy dog moments with Carey Mulligan. I still think it's pretty damn good. Just not quite as exemplary as I remember. Damn it still looks and sounds so cool though.
In retrospect, I would move it down my favorite list. I think Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Warrior and Midnight in Paris all have held up a little better over time. Yes I understand who made that last movie. I still enjoy the hell out of it.

Then there's Inception. Another slick and stylish one here. Wonderfully creative. Another good cast. The emotional moments don't really land for me, but when its defying physics who cares? The thing that really stood out to me on this rewatch is how much of this movie is just straight explanations. Seriously, rename it Exposition. I suppose that's a necessary side effect of Nolan's world building here, but underneath and inserted into all those cool scenes are characters explaining exactly what's happening. Again, I still really enjoyed it, but the constant "well this is this" and "that is that" of it brings me down a star or so.

I get the Drive criticism but don't you think Midnight in Paris is infinitely more corny than Drive? In a different way for sure, but I can support the former's much more than the latter's. Also, Oscar Isaac has the best performance in either movies. I think MIP is alright but the whole 'And here are the Fitzgeralds at party for Jean Cocteau! And now they're heading out to meet Hemingway who's drinking alone and talks about writing and boxing and love-making! And now Dali is being weird and oh weren't the 20s so wonderful and stylish and all these great artists were friends and you could step into a random bar and meet a genuius and and and ' a little too much even if the movie does shamelessly try to play back from it at the end.

 

[Puck]

This one is a surprise for me. I had very little expectation when I saw it, but I left rather impressed. I do agree with your review overall, and I too think it is good, but not great. My main gripe with this one is the cinematography, because it took me about 20 minutes to get used to the very shaky camera, and the very unorthodox quick cuts. After that, I am very absorbed into the story.

Yes there are things to like there. They say he used an old 16mm film camera without electronic stabilization. So he did a commendable job on low budget equipment. It's also his first major film, so that's impressive too. He did a good job with the interesting characters. On the downside, he could have been more subtle on some story telling points and his editing was not a strong suit. But it's an impressive start, I'm sure many will be looking forward to his next project.