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

[Spring in Fialta]

Er, speaking of which:

What Did Jack Do? (2020) Directed by David Lynch ??

What Did Jack Do? is a seventeen minute film by David Lynch, shot in film noir style (mixed with Lynch's trademark weirdness, of course). The film is an interrogation by Lynch of a suspect in a murder case. So far, so good...but now we go way, way off the beaten path. The suspect is a Capuchin monkey who may have killed an orangutan who flirted with a chicken that the monkey claims he was in love with. The dialogue is both funny and very strange, especially as the monkey is something of a hard case who does not give information away easily. This short film is the oddest damn thing I have seen in I don't know how long. Must be seen to be fully appreciated.

availaable on Netflix

Didn't like it, personally. I think a lot was lost by having the monkey speaking.

 

[kihei]

Didn't like it, personally. I think a lot was lost by having the monkey speaking.

To the extent that it works, I don't think it could have without the monkey speaking.

I wouldn't want to go to bat too much for Being John Malkovich, though I liked it okay at the time (6B) or try to defend this Lynch thing overmuch, though I thoroughly enjoyed it. But I like that there are creative artists using film in this way. After all, cinema is the most malleable of art forms. Stories don't have to unfold in a temporal order nor confine themselves to reality, and it is good to see talented people pushing the envelope of what film can be. I don't know why more directors haven't tried their hand at this kind of experimentation. There is also a well-respected history of surrealist film. If anyone wishes to explore the potential of this approach, I would recommend checking out the work of Luis Bunuel (The Exterminating Angel; The Discrete Charms of the Bourgeoisie; Belle du Jour; et al), a career long surrealist and on a very short list of the greatest directors in film history.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

To the extent that it works, I don't think it could have without the monkey speaking.

I wouldn't want to go to bat too much for Being John Malkovich, though I liked it okay at the time (6B) or try to defend this Lynch thing overmuch, though I thoroughly enjoyed it. But I like that there are creative artists using film in this way. After all, cinema is the most malleable of art forms. Stories don't have to unfold in a temporal order nor confine themselves to reality, and it is good to see talented people pushing the envelope of what film can be. I don't know why more directors haven't tried their hand at this kind of experimentation. There is also a well-respected history of surrealist film. If anyone wishes to explore the potential of this approach, I would recommend checking out the work of Luis Bunuel (The Exterminating Angel; The Discrete Charms of the Bourgeoisie; Belle du Jour; et al), a career long surrealist and on a very short list of the greatest directors in film history.

Can't see the link between the Lynch short and Bunuel, but I'll second the recommandation. Amazing director. Favorites of mine: L'âge d'or, Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie, Le fantôme de la liberté.

As for Jack, I don't agree that the monkey shouldn't have spoken (that's kind of the point), but I agree that it was kind of a let down. My comment when I saw it (search engine is back, but doesn't work - found it through Google):

What Did Jack Do? (Lynch, 2017) - A fun short that kind of runs a little too long. It's Lynch, and it's no surprise that there's a uniqueness to it, but it quickly wears thin, and the ending is underwhelming (the atmosphere makes you expect something more of a punch, comedic or absurd, but nah, just falls flat at the end). Still, you've got a monkey speaking and saying stuff that feels like clichés you've all heard before - and that in itself is comedy gem. 5/10

 

[Osprey]

I wouldn't want to go to bat too much for Being John Malkovich, though I liked it okay at the time (6B) or try to defend this Lynch thing overmuch, though I thoroughly enjoyed it. But I like that there are creative artists using film in this way. After all, cinema is the most malleable of art forms. Stories don't have to unfold in a temporal order nor confine themselves to reality, and it is good to see talented people pushing the envelope of what film can be. I don't know why more directors haven't tried their hand at this kind of experimentation. There is also a well-respected history of surrealist film.

Yeah, I respect the creativity behind Being John Malkovich and, in a way, found it refreshing. Not all experimentation begets success, though, and this just didn't succeed at clicking with me on any level. I didn't find it funny like others do and didn't relate to or like any of the characters. Maybe it would've helped if I'd been in a different mood. I was actually going to watch Adaptation last night, but realized a few minutes in that it referenced Being John Malkovich, which I hadn't seen, so I stopped it and started up the latter, instead. If I'd been in the mood for a whacky movie, maybe I would've gotten a little more out of it and at least given it a 5/10 (which, honestly, maybe I should've just given, anyways).

 

[kihei]

I think Lynch certainly owes a debt to surrealism but the only connection that I was implying above is that both Lynch and Bunuel are willing to use cinema in unconventional ways.

 

[kihei]

Yeah, I respect the creativity behind Being John Malkovich and, in a way, found it refreshing. Not all experimentation begets success, though, and this just didn't succeed at clicking with me on any level. I didn't find it funny like others do and didn't relate to or like any of the characters. Maybe it would've helped if I'd been in a different mood. I was actually going to watch Adaptation last night, but realized a few minutes in that it referenced Being John Malkovich, which I hadn't seen, so I stopped it and started up the latter, instead. If I'd been in the mood for a whacky movie, maybe I would've gotten a little more out of it and at least given it a 5/10 (which, honestly, maybe I should've just given, anyways).

Or just let it go and try it again in a few years if the idea strikes your fancy. Usually people's instincts are there for a reason--maybe it's just not your thing. No harm in that.

My problem with Charlie Kaufman is his arbitrariness. Let's pretend for a moment that I had the power to alter Being John Malkovich. While poking about in John Malkovich's brain, I could insert a Chicago Cub in full uniform selling raffle tickets. No one would be the wiser that I inserted that into the movie, not Kaufman.

 

[Osprey]

Or just let it go and try it again in a few years if the idea strikes your fancy. Usually people's instincts are there for a reason--maybe it's just not your thing. No harm in that.

Yeah, my instinct is why I put off watching it for 20 years. It didn't look like something that I'd like... and my instinct ended up being correct. There are lots of movies that I haven't watched for a reason. I'll give them a chance eventually, because it's fun to realize that I was wrong about a movie and its appeal to me, but that doesn't happen very often. With BJM, what didn't appeal to me 20 years ago still doesn't, so I doubt that anything will change in a few years or even another 20. I'd love if it were to happen, but I think that it's just not my thing, as you said.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Er, speaking of which:

What Did Jack Do? (2020) Directed by David Lynch ??

What Did Jack Do? is a seventeen minute film by David Lynch, shot in film noir style (mixed with Lynch's trademark weirdness, of course). The film is an interrogation by Lynch of a suspect in a murder case. So far, so good...but now we go way, way off the beaten path. The suspect is a Capuchin monkey who may have killed an orangutan who flirted with a chicken that the monkey claims he was in love with. The dialogue is both funny and very strange, especially as the monkey is something of a hard case who does not give information away easily. This short film is the oddest damn thing I have seen in I don't know how long. Must be seen to be fully appreciated.

availaable on Netflix

Saw that a while ago. It's so utterly bizarre when you hit the "more like this" tab on Netflix, it just gives up entirely and displays random results. I got Better Call Saul and The Irishman on the first page.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Fury

with Brad Pitt, Shane from the Walking Dead, Shia LaBeouf, Michal Pena, and other people.

The four above are the grizzled and weary crew of the eponymous tank Fury in the final stages of WWII. Germany still won't surrender despite the war's conclusion no longer being in doubt, so it's still a bloody slog through the German countryside. Despite the streams of refugees and surrendering troops plodding morosely towards the Allied lines, Hitler Youth kids with Panzerfausts can still kill you from the hedgerows just as easily as veteran SS crews with Panzerfausts, and those SS battalions are still out there. So are 88mm tank killer artillery, Panzer tanks, and foxholes chock full of Nazis just begging to be run over. This movie certainly doesn't skimp on the blood and guts. Brad Pitt's crew loses a member early on and has to bring in a green replacement named Norman. Norman was a clerk in a typing pool who barely knows which end of the gun the bullets come out of, and isn't really happy with the idea of killing people. Norman's in for a very rude awakening. The harsh and grim reality of war is hammered home for both him and the audience. And one aspect of that reality is that Allied tanks were for the most part vastly inferior to their German equivalents, which was certainly true in real life. The boys in Fury get very lucky a few times where indirect hits from a roving Panzer deflect off...but eventually their luck runs out. Their platoon is whittled down from four tanks to one, and then they hit a mine which blows off the tread. Hey...what's that marching Nazi battalion sound in the distance there...?

Blood, guts, gore everywhere. Did I get any on me? Starts off decently but veers downhill into a predictable slog by the halfway point. Turgid and relentless.

Who wants to see exploding Nazis? You do!!

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Waxwork (Hickox, 1988) and Waxwork II: Lost in Time (Hickox, 1992). I guess that if you weren't around when these came out, they must feel really dated today. They are still fun films, the first one being vastly superior to the sequel, but the Bruce Campbell bit in part 2 is pretty over-the-top funny. The premise and original idea are great, and are pretext to create cool metafilms before it was overdone (for the first one at least, the second one is in itself overdone on all levels).

Problem #1 - Hickox is an ass and a very bad director. The pastiches of the first film are ok at best. The parodies of the second one are atrocious (only the The Haunting one has interesting formal elements, probably because he tries so hard to emulate Sam Raimi's style, without knowing how relevant it is to a The Haunting parody). His parodies only work on sets and costumes, he has no idea about film language. It either falls flat (his Dawn of the Dead) or has a little too much MTV (his Aliens). After the relative success of these two wax films, Hickox went on and ruined Hellraiser 3.

Problem #2 - Hickox is an ass and a very bad actors' director. At some point, you can't just blame the casting. Of course, the films being so 2nd degree, it's tough to play these parts seriously, but reality is they are just baddly written (the main actress, Hickox ex-girlfriend, refused to be part of the sequel, ok can't blame her, but that's no excuse to rewrite the character completely). Same for Galligan's character who is all over the map and you just can't get a hold of.

Problem #3 - Hickox is an ass and a fanboy. It's obvious that he is having a blast recreating parts of his favorite films/genres, and that's one thing that's pretty cool about these films. But apart from the premise, there's really very little original ideas left here. Borrowings (from Evil Dead 2, from Back the the Future 2, etc.) are so close to the original films, you have to wonder if they're weak allusions, weak parodies or plain plagiarism.

Problem #4 - I'm an ass and a nostalgic one at that. So I can't blast these films without feeling cheap. There's a lot of fun and a lot of love for cinema involved in these. And I'm a sucka for intertexutality, even when it's not very well done. So I'll still go with 6/10 and 5/10, just know that they're not completely worth that.

 

[aufheben]

Contagion (2011, Soderbergh) - 2.5/5

That was like...intensely mediocre.

This movie wants to have its cake and eat it too, but falls flatly between a reality check and a popcorn thriller. The high-profile cast is silly and undermines the story.

 

[kihei]

The Trial (1962) Directed by Orson Welles 5B

There is a lot more Orson Welles in this adaptation of The Trial than there is Franz Kafka. Joseph K. (Anthony Perkins) is leading a quiet life when he is accused by police officers of committing some unnamed crime, but he is never informed what that crime is nor what any of this investigation has to do with him. As he tries to find out more information, he becomes trapped within a maze constructed by an impersonal bureaucracy that is based on absurd rationalizations that make no sense in the real world. It is as if Joseph K. is doomed to chase his own tail endlessly in a legal system divorced from reason. This story of bureaucratic dehumanization should play like a nightmare one can't escape from--and part of the time it does. However, overall, The Trial is a long and sloggy affair with much empty dialogue and no tension to speak of. Anthony Perkins seems less fussy than usual but still is miscast. And too many scenes ramble on in order to give guest actors (Jeanne Moreau; Elsa Marinelli; and Romy Schneider) something to do. On the other hand, if you are a fan of Welles' direction, The Trial is awesome on a purely visual level despite what must have been a modest budget. It looks like Welles rented a deserted European railway station and constructed most of the sets within those confines. He certainly had lost nothing as a technician here--the visual aspect of the movie is frequently dazzling. Bottom line, though, is Kafka's great novel deserves a lot better than it gets here.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Only Angels Have Wings. I never hear this among the great Howard Hawks movies so I was initially half-tempted to call it underrated but upon some post-viewing research, it seems to have a pretty decent fan base so I suppose that doesn't fit. Still, the fact that it's squeezed between Bringing Up Baby and His Girl Friday in the chronology probably hasn't helped it.

However one rates it among Hawks' work, I absolutely adored it. It's a precariously balanced tale of tough men gritting out a living on the edge of society with just enough of a dash of comedy and romance from some inconveniently interloping women. Neither too hard nor too soft. It opens with a great and gripping 30 minute sequence of a luminous Jean Arthur arriving at this South American outpost as a stopover on a trip and meeting a crew of cocky, grimy airmail pilots led by a charming but cynical Cary Grant (if Harrison Ford didn't steal half his shtick from this movie I'll eat a replica Indiana Jones hat). From there we get occasional dashes of screwball intermixed with a decently tense tale of masculinity vs. machine vs. nature. Questions of honor and duty (but never over dramatic) and the lengths desperate people will go to for redemption and/or a paycheck. An unexpectedly good view of Alpha male camaraderie as well.

Perhaps Arthur goes ga-ga for Grant a little too quick? Maybe. But that seemed to be the style at the time and it is Cary Grant afterall. Great music scene with them at one point as well.

Would make for a happier half of a great double bill with The Wages of Fear.

 

[Osprey]

Adaptation (2002) - 4/10 (Disliked it)

I guess that I'm just not a Charlie Kaufman fan. I appreciate the originality of the concept (a movie about the screenwriter making the movie that we're watching), but it also felt self-indulgent to me, which is a quality that I don't like.

Contagion (2011, Soderbergh) - 2.5/5

That was like...intensely mediocre.

This movie wants to have its cake and eat it too, but falls flatly between a reality check and a popcorn thriller. The high-profile cast is silly and undermines the story.

As I said in my review a month or two ago, it's so forgettable that I got over halfway through before it even started to occur to me that I had already seen it .

 

[aufheben]

Adaptation (2002) - 4/10 (Disliked it)

I guess that I'm just not a Charlie Kaufman fan. I appreciate the originality of the concept (a movie about the screenwriter making the movie that we're watching), but it also felt self-indulgent to me, which is the kind of thing that I don't like.



As I said in my review a month or two ago, it's so forgettable that I got over halfway through before it even started to occur to me that I had already seen it .

Lmao dude same here. I was like “wait a minute I feel like I’ve seen Gwenyth Paltrow gamble before...”

Also starring Matt Damon in literally the most Matt Damon role ever.

 

[Osprey]

Lmao dude same here. I was like “wait a minute I feel like I’ve seen Gwenyth Paltrow gamble before...”

For me, it was...

Spoiler

...when Kate Winslet's character dies. I was like "Wow, they killed one of the film's stars only halfway through." Then, I was like "Wait a second... didn't Kate die halfway through some other movie?" Then, I was like "Wait a second!... Oh, for crying out loud! " In hindsight, I should've realized it when Paltrow died only 10 minutes in and had her scalp removed, and that did register as familiar, but I guessed that I dismissed it and, then, as you said, Matt Damon had such a Matt Damon role that nothing else until Kate croaked stimulated a memory.

 

[ORRFForever]

Also starring Matt Damon in literally the most Matt Damon role ever.

Matt Damon is underrated as an actor.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Matt Damon is underrated as an actor.

Only if by underrated you mean ridiculous.

 

[ORRFForever]

Only if by underrated you mean ridiculous.

I think he's a terrific actor.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

I'm re-watching Arrival for the first time. It holds sentimental value for me as it's the first film I saw alone. I had a four hour exam I'd been preparing months for so after it ended, I took a bus to the cheap $5 theatre that shows films that had already been out for a few months. It was a budget theatre so the picture quality and stuff was mediocre and lacking brightness/vividness but it was a nice experience to watch a movie almost alone in the dark of the matinee.

Anyways, I love the atmosphere of the film's first half hour. The desolate Amy Adams character it shows and how it portrays the unfolding of an alien landing, it feels very modern and anti to the typical Hollywood portrayal. Amy Adam's eyes and expressions are really good here, Jeremy Renner I never completely was sold on as the other choice.

 

[aufheben]

Her Smell (2018, Perry) - 4.5/5

Now that’s a movie! Elisabeth Moss, wow.

 

[ORRFForever]

Bad Education (2020): (* HBO *)

Hugh Jackman plays Dr. Frank Tassone, a smooth talking School Superintendent with a closet full of secrets. Together with his partner in crime, an always good Allison Janney, they live well beyond their means until a school reporter smells a rat.

Bad Education is in the same vein as HBO movies And The Band Played On and Barbarians At The Gate - just not as intense, interesting or funny. Still, it's an entertaining two hours.

7/10

 

[Osprey]

Grand Isle (2019) - 5/10 (Didn't like or dislike it)

In 1988 Louisiana, a young man (Luke Benward) arrested for murder recounts his story to a detective (Kelsey Grammer) of what happened the previous night in the home of an irritable Vietnam vet (Nicolas Cage) and his seductive wife (KaDee Strickland). This is a low-budget, straight-to-disc/streaming suspense thriller with a little bit of mystery because we aren't told the victim up front. Its main draw is Cage being Cage, except in a darker role than usual. The first hour is a pretty decent setup and has good atmosphere, but, once the twists come, they're a little underwhelming and the whole thing feels like missed potential. It passes the time if you like suspense or Cage, but is run-of-the-mill and not memorable.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

The Wandering Earth

with Chinese people and a couple of loser white guys as dummy comic relief.

China throws its hat in the ring in the arena of swoopy, high concept sci-fi epics with this...thing. A hundred or something years from now, the sun is becoming a red giant star several billion years ahead of schedule...because reasons...and the solution is to implant hundreds of massive rocket engines on the Earth which will then propel it out of our solar system entirely and set it on a course for Proxima Centauri, which it will reach in 2500 years. Uh...huh. Okayyyyyy...I guess the Chinese have 2500 years' worth of energy bars stashed away somewhere. Anyhoo, we meet a scientist who's stationed on the orbital station running forward interference for the Earth, his dad and kids stuck in the city below Hangzhou (I think), and various other tropy people. We get to Jupiter, but there's been an error. The plan calls for the Earth to make a gravitational slingshot through Jupiter's orbit, but someone messed up big time, and the orbit's too shallow. Earth's about to be eaten by Jupiter and our entire species will perish. D'oh. Jared Kushner claims this is a massive success through his press agent, but the situation is still dire. Who will save the day? Will there be some heroic heroes to make heroic sacrifices? Will anyone actually render the textures on frozen Earth's surface properly? Watch and be not the least bit surprised by the answers to two of those questions.

So, the Chinese dollar store knockoff of the Hollywood blockbuster is upon us, and it's about as great as the Chinese dollar store knockoff of everything else. The visuals...I dunno, they range from okay-ish to what you'd expect from a decent FPS game from Blizzard or Bethesda circa five years ago. The entire premise is stupid on its face. The physics are laughable. It insults the intelligence of a ten year-old. I never cared for a second about anyone in this movie. Apparently it made big, huge, honkin' dumpsters full of cash, and when I look the popularity of this and things like Tiger King, FOX news, and the Kardashians and everything, it really makes me wonder where we're going as a species. It's one of those things that I look at at can't help but think that its success represents a failure at an evolutionary level. That's how bad it is.

Really not that thrilling. Really.

 

[kihei]

Interesting take, but that's a lot of ammunition to unload on a dumb Chinese movie.