Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +4

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

In the Realm of the Senses (1976) Directed by Nagisa Oshima 7C

Sada, a former prostitute and current servant, begins a torrid affair with her employer Kichizo, a rich man with a wife of his own. The affair starts out as sexy and fun but the excitement soon crosses a line into a far darker and more dangerous obsession. Because In the Realm of the Senses employs graphic sexual intercourse and oral sex and a lot of it, the movie has become one of the most controversial works in film history. While I can see why some people would consider the film to be pornographic and of no artistic worth, I would disagree. While the sex is nearly constant--the couple's passion is literally all the movie is about on a strict narrative level--, the sex is never gratuitous. This is a movie about the power of sexuality and how that power can lead to extremes of behaviour by its very nature that can become almost impossible to control. Oddly, enough, that seems to me a hyper conservative message. Further, no stranger to pushing envelopes, director Nagisa Oshima has portrayed the force of romantic passion, how all-consuming and destabilizing it can be, more persuasively in this film than in the work of any other director I can think of. Part of the reason this is so is that we have few movies dealing with explicitly sexual themes, something that I have always found odd because of how important a part of the human condition sexual passion can be. Or one gets awkward compromises, like in Last Tango in Paris where Maria Schneider is nude while Marlon Brando keeps his pants on or in Blue Is the Warmest Colour where the explicit lesbian sex seems to be tailored awkwardly to the male gaze. Oshima makes no such compromises. In the Realm of the Senses is as powerful today as when it was first released.

subtitles

available on the Criterion Channel

This is usually an eyebrow raiser when I say it but this really is one of my favorite movies. It understands sex and obsession and becoming lost in someone better than just about any movie I've seen. Powerful is absolutely the right term. Believe it or not, I also find it oddly romantic.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

This is usually an eyebrow raiser when I say it but this really is one of my favorite movies. It understands sex and obsession and becoming lost in someone better than just about any movie I've seen. Powerful is absolutely the right term. Believe it or not, I also find it oddly romantic.

10/10 from me too.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

A bunch of films I don't have much to say about that I watched in the last few days:

Replicas (Nachmanoff, 2018): A little of Pet Semetary, a little of Minority Report, and very litle interest here. Add terrible CGI effects, even worse acting, and you've got a masterpiece. Something to stay away from. 2.5/10

Tootsie (Pollack, 1982): Funny, charming, relevant - and an amazing performance by Hoffman. 6/10

Planes, Trains & Automobiles (Hughes, 1987): A little cheesy, but still funny to this day. 6/10

Le Bison (et sa voisine Dorine) (Nanty, 2003): Should be funny and charming, but weirdly formulaic and way too soft - conceived for family viewing. 3/10

Blame It On Rio (Donen, 1984): This film should be ridiculous and yet it manages to work through complex dynamics with some very likable lightness and sillyness. 5/10

 

[NyQuil]

Tootsie (Pollack, 1982): Funny, charming, relevant - and an amazing performance by Hoffman. 6/10

Planes, Trains & Automobiles (Hughes, 1987): A little cheesy, but still funny to this day. 6/10

Can it be argued that comedies sort of peaked in the 80s in terms of their place in the zeitgeist?

Obviously there have been funny movies before and since, but in the 1980s, they represented blockbuster movies that did very well at the box office. Comedic actors were among the biggest earners and the biggest stars.

Now we have the Apatow films (almost a genre and cast unto its own) and mockumentary style films (Christopher Guest, What We Do In the Shadows etc.) but the "comedy" film almost seems like an afterthought in the wake of all of the superhero films and action movies.

Maybe I'm being selective in my memory. The 90s had Wayne's World and Austin Powers.

 

[kihei]

This is usually an eyebrow raiser when I say it but this really is one of my favorite movies. It understands sex and obsession and becoming lost in someone better than just about any movie I've seen. Powerful is absolutely the right term. Believe it or not, I also find it oddly romantic.

Yeah, me, too, partly to which I attribute the fine performance by Tatsuya Fuji who so genially allows himself to drift into ever deeper and darker waters like he doesn't care a whit that she is dangerous.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Can it be argued that comedies sort of peaked in the 80s in terms of their place in the zeitgeist?

Obviously there have been funny movies before and since, but in the 1980s, they represented blockbuster movies that did very well at the box office. Comedic actors were among the biggest earners and the biggest stars.

Now we have the Apatow films (almost a genre and cast unto its own) and mockumentary style films (Christopher Guest, What We Do In the Shadows etc.) but the "comedy" film almost seems like an afterthought in the wake of all of the superhero films and action movies.

Maybe I'm being selective in my memory. The 90s had Wayne's World and Austin Powers.

Some of my favorite comedies do come from the 80s, but I think it has a lot to do with the moment I've seen them. The 90s had their comedic superstars (think of Jim Carrey for instance), and I'm sure there's still some actors who are cast in this light today (Seth Rogen? ahahahahah where is my smiley throwing up?)... I don't know, the 90s had Le dîner de cons, Living In Oblivion... the 2000s had Team America, Borat... Generic stuff don't really make me laugh anymore, I'm sure there's little gems here and there...

 

[NyQuil]

Generic stuff don't really make me laugh anymore, I'm sure there's little gems here and there...

I can't really remember the last time I watched a contemporary generic comedy.

Maybe We're the Millers which was actually quite funny.

Oh, I saw Game Night, Horrible Bosses, the Hangover films, none of which were really good.

90s and 2000s had the Adam Sandler films. Waterboy probably being the best.

So I guess I lied and have seen a few, they just didn't make much of an impression.

I guess there's the Kevin Hart stuff too.

Some of my favorite comedies do come from the 80s, but I think it has a lot to do with the moment I've seen them.

Yeah, I think I'm just showing my age.

 

[Osprey]

I was rather unimpressed with In the Realm of the Senses, myself. I knew, going in, that it wouldn't be exciting, but I was surprised at how a film filled with such explicit sexual situations could be so... boring. There's not much plot, just lots of progressively kinky love making. It didn't help that I've always been cynical of things being justified in the name of "art," though. Perhaps I'd appreciate the film a little more by seeing it again, but I really don't have an interest in doing that.

Yeah, I think I'm just showing my age.

No, I think that you may be onto something. It does feel like comedies were bigger movies and their stars bigger in the 80s. I mean, wow, I just looked up Spies Like Us, since it was from the middle of the decade, and see that it had a $22M budget. That was huge for 1985. That's a few million more than Back to the Future cost to make that same year. Nowadays, pure comedies cost around 1/10th of what a blockbuster movie does. For example, the upcoming Bill & Ted Face the Music cost $25M to make, only a few million more than Spies Like Us, but made 35 years later.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I was rather unimpressed with In the Realm of the Senses, myself. I knew, going in, that it wouldn't be exciting, but I was surprised at how a film filled with such explicit sexual situations could be so... boring. There's not much plot, just lots of progressively kinky love making. It didn't help that I've always been cynical of things being justified in the name of "art," though. Perhaps I'd appreciate the film a little more by seeing it again, but I really don't have an interest in doing that.

No, I think that you may be onto something. It does feel like comedies were bigger movies and their stars bigger in the 80s. I mean, wow, I just looked Spies Like Us, since it was from the middle of the decade, and see that it had a $22M budget. That was huge for 1985. That's a few million more than Back to the Future cost to make that same year. Nowadays, pure comedies cost around 1/10th of what a blockbuster movie does. For example, 2019's Good Boys, cost $20M, actually less than Spies Like Us, but made 34 years later.

I might take a minute to come back on the Oshima film later, but that's a very simplistic take on the film. As for comedies, you can make an argument of anything... Spies Like Us had a 22M$ budget, The Hangover Part II, 80M$.

 

[Osprey]

I might take a minute to come back on the Oshima film later, but that's a very simplistic take on the film.

I wasn't suggesting that the film is simplistic, only the plot. I'm aware that the film has some deepness to it and it's possible to get more out of it than the plot would suggest.

As for comedies, you can make an argument of anything... Spies Like Us had a 22M$ budget, The Hangover Part II, 80M$.

The Hangover Part II is a rather big exception, I would say, because its budget was massively inflated due to the original (which cost only $35M) grossing nearly half a billion dollars. Most comedies today don't cost anywhere near $80M because they're lucky if they break $100M at the box office, which, coincidentally, is about the same threshold for a hit comedy in the late 80s (when ticket prices were less than half what they are now).

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I wasn't suggesting that the film is simplistic, only the plot. I'm aware that the film has some deepness to it and it's possible to get more out of it than the plot would suggest.

The Hangover Part II is a rather big exception, I would say, because its budget was massively inflated due to the original (which cost only $35M) grossing nearly half a billion dollars. Most comedies today don't cost anywhere near $80M because they're lucky if they break $100M at the box office, which, coincidentally, is about the same threshold for a hit comedy in the late 80s (when ticket prices were less than half what they are now).

I meant the it's boring / it's using "art" to justify sex scenes.

Ted - 65M$
Meet the Fockers - 80M$
22 Jump Street - 84,5M$
Grown Ups 2 - 80M$

Can't believe someone would invest that type of money to produce such garbage.

 

[NyQuil]

I meant the it's boring / it's using "art" to justify sex scenes.

Ted - 65M$
Meet the Fockers - 80M$
22 Jump Street - 84,5M$
Grown Ups 2 - 80M$

Can't believe someone would invest that type of money to produce such garbage.

They're all sequels (aside from Ted) where I imagine most of the cost goes to the returning actors.

You're right in that all but very few sequels are absolute garbage. Particularly with respect to comedies.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

They're all sequels (aside from Ted) where I imagine most of the cost goes to the returning actors.

You're right in that all but very few sequels are absolute garbage. Particularly with respect to comedies.

We can do this all day.

Meet the parents - 55M$
21 Jump Street 42-54M$ (not clear)
Grown Ups - 80M$
The Other Guys - 100M$
Date Night - 55M$
Dinner for Schmucks - 69M$
Morning Glory - 50M$
Crazy, Stupid Love - 50M$
What Women Want - 65M$
Bruce Almighty - 81M$
It's Complicated - 85M$
You Don't Mess With the Zohan - 90M$

Those are not cheap movies.

 

[NyQuil]

Those are not cheap movies.

Cheaper than the blockbusters.

Wedding Crashers is a more recent comedy that I enjoyed.

 

[nameless1]

We can do this all day.

Meet the parents - 55M$
21 Jump Street 42-54M$ (not clear)
Grown Ups - 80M$
The Other Guys - 100M$
Date Night - 55M$
Dinner for Schmucks - 69M$
Morning Glory - 50M$
Crazy, Stupid Love - 50M$
What Women Want - 65M$
Bruce Almighty - 81M$
It's Complicated - 85M$
You Don't Mess With the Zohan - 90M$

Those are not cheap movies.

It seems like the more expensive movies starred well-known and very established stars, so it is likely that their salary alone drove up the production cost. To me, star power, while helpful, is not the key ingredient to success anymore. In fact, it might be more profitable to invest in a good script, and get lesser known stars to carry the load.

 

[kihei]

I'm, like, a big zero for the century when it comes to American comedies. In fact, for me, pickings get really slim after about 1940.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

It seems like the more expensive movies starred well-known and very established stars, so it is likely that their salary alone drove up the production cost. To me, star power, while helpful, is not the key ingredient to success anymore. In fact, it might be more profitable to invest in a good script, and get lesser known stars to carry the load.

My only point was that big-budget comedies didn't seem to be less of a thing than they were.

 

[member 51464]

I'm, like, a big zero for the century when it comes to American comedies. In fact, for me, pickings get really slim after about 1940.

I enjoyed "What About Bob?" quite a bit when I was younger, but haven't seen it in probably 25 years. I wonder if it would hold up. Hmm

 

[kihei]

The Battle of Algiers (1967) Directed by Gillo Pontecorvo 9A

The Battle of Algiers begins in 1957 with three Algerian men and a boy hiding behind a wall waiting for the French to kill them. The movie then flashes back to earlier in the year and recounts both the uprising in the Casbah that first threatened France's colonial grip on Algeria and then looks at the military response initiated by France in an attempt to eliminate the FLN, the liberation organization most responsible for nurturing the growing revolution. While director Gillo Pontecorvo is an artist with strongly leftist sympathies, he presents an almost eerily balanced look at both the Algerian terrorist acts used to mobilize support and the deadly professionalism of the French army assembled to nip the uprising in the bud. It is this studied quasi-objective view that gives the movie much of its power as Pontecorvo doesn't sugar-coat anything. One can see the position of the terrorists (or freedom fighters, depending on one's point of view) and the French military with equal clarity and fairness. Memorable sequences abound. In one instance, we watch as three Algerian women put on make up and dress in Western fashion so they can move past check points and deliver their bombs to shops and cafes in the European section of town. One woman pauses for a coke and looks around casually at the lives she is about to destroy. The movie does not condemn her for her actions, it only records her act. Later a French general comes to town with no illusions about the need to torture people which under his command proceeds to happen with real urgency. He is presented not as a sadist but as an honourable, intelligent soldier who respects his enemy and tries to avoid needless carnage whenever possible. All of this is shot in black and white in a way that you would swear was a documentary, and it comes as a real shock to learn at the end of the movie that no archival or documentary footage was used at all in the making of this film. The movie has the immediacy of a fist to the face, and is as relevant today as when it was first released. Powerful, gripping cinema from the first moment to the last, The Battle of Algiers is in its own unique way among the best war movies ever made.

subtitles

available on Criterion Channel

 

[McDeepika]

Song of the Sea (2014) - 9/10

I'm no good at writing reviews, but I really wish I could write one for this movie. It's an animated feature on Netflix. The animation is beautiful and the characters were wonderful. It only runs 93 minutes and would be in everybody's best interest to check out.

 

[Osprey]

Song of the Sea (2014) - 9/10

I'm no good at writing reviews, but I really wish I could write one for this movie. It's an animated feature on Netflix. The animation is beautiful and the characters were wonderful. It only runs 93 minutes and would be in everybody's best interest to check out.

You didn't ask, but I'll share my methodology just in case anyone might find it useful. It helps me to break review writing down into sentences and use a simple template, like so:

1. Start with a one-sentence description of the plot.
2. Follow it with a sentence indicating the genre and maybe the director or country of origin.
3. Give a few sentences of things that you liked.
4. Give a few sentences of things that you disliked.
5. Give a sentence or two summarizing your thoughts and whether you recommend it.

That's just my template and there are other ways to construct a review, but that's what helps me. Sometimes, even, I'll not really feel like writing a review, but will just start to fill out that template because it's so easy to and soon discover that I have a lot to say and my review ends up twice as long as I intended .

 

[ORRFForever]

Song of the Sea (2014) - 9/10

I'm no good at writing reviews, but I really wish I could write one for this movie. It's an animated feature on Netflix. The animation is beautiful and the characters were wonderful. It only runs 93 minutes and would be in everybody's best interest to check out.

You did just fine.

 

[Chili]

I'm, like, a big zero for the century when it comes to American comedies. In fact, for me, pickings get really slim after about 1940.

So much great comedy in film back in the day: Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Marx Brothers, Mae West, WC Fields, Our Gang, Shirley Temple, Burns & Allen, Laurel & Hardy, Ma & Pa Kettle...

Was watching a Richard Pryor/Gene Wilder film : Another You. Weak film but they still had chemistry (highlight for me was the end, where Wilder, standing beside Pryor holds up a sign 'Partners Forever!'). Seems like there have been so few great comedy teams since the early days of films. Always enjoyed Matthau and Lemmon. Aykroyd and Belushi could have been another, if it had lasted awhile longer.

Seems like most of the best comedy has been from tv sitcoms since 'the old days'. A lot of the best comedians seem to have ended up playing serious roles in movies (Bill Murray, Billy Crystal, Steve Martin, Robin Williams...).

One of the reasons I watch a lot of old movies.

 

[nameless1]

My only point was that big-budget comedies didn't seem to be less of a thing than they were.

You are absolutely correct. I am not sure if they are better or funnier these days, but at the very least, they seem to be a lot more polished. It may just be the technological advancement, but I feel movies these days just look a lot better.

 

[kihei]

So much great comedy in film back in the day: Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Marx Brothers, Mae West, WC Fields, Our Gang, Shirley Temple, Burns & Allen, Laurel & Hardy, Ma & Pa Kettle...

Was watching a Richard Pryor/Gene Wilder film : Another You. Weak film but they still had chemistry (highlight for me was the end, where Wilder, standing beside Pryor holds up a sign 'Partners Forever!'). Seems like there have been so few great comedy teams since the early days of films. Always enjoyed Matthau and Lemmon. Aykroyd and Belushi could have been another, if it had lasted awhile longer.

Seems like most of the best comedy has been from tv sitcoms since 'the old days'. A lot of the best comedians seem to have ended up playing serious roles in movies (Bill Murray, Billy Crystal, Steve Martin, Robin Williams...).

One of the reasons I watch a lot of old movies.

There were a ton of good comedies in the first decade or so of sound, and some wonderful actors who had great comic timing: Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn, Jimmy Steward, Claudette Colbert, Jean Arthur, et al. Lot of fun movies, too:

The Marx Brothers stuff
The Thin Man series
Bringing Up Baby
The Philadelphia Story
Trouble in Paradise
It Happened One Night
Ninotchka
Topper
The Awful Truth
His Girl Friday
You Can't Take It with You
Mr. Deeds Goes to Town