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

[ORRFForever]

In that shot, there are shadows on the people but no shadows from the hedges or statues....how the f*** did they do that? Paint the shadows and film the scene on a clear day or something? Seems like the kind of thing a director would do come to think of it.

Anyways, that was a good film once you got past the opening 15 minute monologue which was excruciating pain for me.

Which film are you talking about?

 

[Jevo]

In that shot, there are shadows on the people but no shadows from the hedges or statues....how the f*** did they do that? Paint the shadows and film the scene on a clear day or something? Seems like the kind of thing a director would do come to think of it.

Anyways, that was a good film once you got past the opening 15 minute monologue which was excruciating pain for me.

The shadows were painted on the ground, and it was filmed on an overcast day, which is what I think you were trying to say, so you were right.

 

[nameless1]

Z (1969) Directed by Costa-Gavras 9A

Following the assassination of democratic Greek politician Grigoris Lambrakiis in 1963, the untra-right wing Greek government at the time had no choice but to commit itself to an official investigation of the murder. This investigation was supposed to be a sham, designed to quickly deflect any blame from the ruling junta. To that end, a young Examining Magistrate (Jean Louis Trintignant) was appointed because of his impeccable conservative credentials. It was his goal to bring the investigation to a quick close, too, one that would keep the ruling party happy. And that's the way he starts the investigation--and then slowly, incrementally he begins to change his opinion. To the government's great dismay, he starts investigating for real. And what he finds will shock all of Greece and may indeed threaten a totalitarian regime. Z is the best political suspense movie that I have ever seen. Director Costa-Gavras is expert at building tension as each new revelation points to greater government complicity. The arc of suspense which goes from cover-up to expose is worthy of Alfred Hitchcock. And Trintignant is perfect as the Examining Magistrate. Prim and proper, the consummate right-ring professional, he is riveting as he slowly transforms himself into a genuine prosecuting attorney. A closing coda details what happened after the investigation ended. Z is an important political movie and an absolutely rousing entertainment.

Note: About the title: the letter "Z" became a symbol among the Greek people that meant "He Lives" referring to the assassinated liberal politician. The Greek military dictatorship responded by banning the letter "Z" from the alphabet. For real.

subtitles

available on Criterion Channel

Z continues to be very enjoyable even to this day. It is still my top political thriller to this day.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Doctor Sleep

with Ewan MacGregor, and a whole bunch of people who vaguely look like the cast of The Shining.

Present day sequel to The Shining. The years have not been kind to wee psychic moppet Danny Torrance. In 2011 he's an unkempt, alcoholic Ewan MacGregor, who's trying to stay one psychic step ahead of the ghosts of the Overlook Hotel. He's learned to keep his Shine under wraps, and for good reason. Apart from the hungry ghosts, there's some nasty psychic vampire types led by Rose the Hat, who prey on the Shining folks. Scaring and torturing them makes the "steam" they feed on purer as well. A bit further on, Danny's cleaned up his act a tad, but he comes into contact with Abra, a young black tween girl who can Shine like you wouldn't believe. Rose notices the tempting snack...but Abra's much more powerful than either Rose or Danny know, and Rose gets blown back hardcore. In fascinated outrage, Rose sends her posse of vampires out hunting...with serious consequences for both sides. The stage is set for a showdown...and where else could it happen but the old Overlook Hotel.

The director of this mess was no Stanley Kubrick, that's for sure. There's definitely potential in the story, but the movie makes a couple of big mistakes. First, the editing is a complete mess. It's way too long, and too many things go nowhere. Rose has a posse of like 7 or 8 people; only a couple have names and all are killed off with no backstories. Waste of time. Second, we've got several characters from the original movie recast where putting in scenes from the original would've been a lot better and a hell of a lot more impactful. Recovering alcoholic Danny is sitting at the ballroom bar being served Jack Daniels by a Jack Nicholson lookalike in one particularly egregious scene. I'm sorry, that's just sacrilege. And while the movie *is* okay, it's not good enough for that kind of disrespect.

Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's...it's just not.

 

[Jussi]

Watched some anime in the past week or so.

Howl's Moving Castle - 9+/10

Spirited Away - 8½/10

 

[Howard Beale]

I'm looking to check out the Studio Ghibli movies, now that they're on Canadian Netflix. Any recommendations on an order, or where to start?

I saw Spirited Away about a decade ago, but that's it.

 

[Osprey]

Knives Out (2019) - 3/10 (Really disliked it)

An investigation into the suspicious death of a rich family patriarch exposes possible motives for murder. This was disappointing. First, it's not the mystery that I was expecting because, only 30 minutes in, we're shown how the patriarch died and the film becomes more about other characters trying to find out what we already know. At first, I found that interesting because it was different, but I feel now that it took a lot of energy out of the film. I started to lose interest and get a little bored by the midway point because there wasn't much to deduce but the details. Some twists (seemingly for the sake of twists) come near the end, but it was a little too late for me. Several things are predictable and there are plot holes (see spoilers for explanations). The characters are also all one-dimensional stereotypes and caricatures. A whole family of spoiled, rich, white people is contrasted against the sweetest Hispanic caregiver, and the dialogue drives the theme home. The social commentary felt to me about as blatant and silly as Rian Johnson's Canto Bight sequence in The Last Jedi. I don't mind a little commentary, but it was so obvious and the film just felt pretentious to me. I read one review that suggested that Daniel Craig's assured character is Rian Johnson's projection of himself, and I can totally see that. I've watched 3 or 4 Rian Johnson movies by now and haven't liked any of them, so I think that it's safe to say that I'm just not a fan of him at all. Anyways, despite that and my criticisms, it's still a rather watchable film, but it just didn't do much for me and, the more that I think about it, the more that my opinion of it suffers.

Spoiler

Plot holes:

• Marta tells Harlan that he'll experience sweats and disorientation 5 minutes before he finally dies, so why in the world would Harlan cut his throat before feeling such symptoms?
• What are the chances that Harlan's mother would just happen to be standing by the window when Ransom and Marta got off of the trellis hours apart?
• It's rather hard to believe that Ransom, who seems disinterested in the family and probably wasn't around much, would know enough about Marta's drugs to conceive his plan, swap the drugs and then steal the one bottle that would've saved his grandfather's life.
• Harlan likes the idea of an "accidental" overdose as a clever way to commit murder enough that he writes it down in his notepad, which the investigators apparently never bother to read, even though it's in plain sight in the room that he died in.

As for being predictable, the big thing is that it was obvious, almost from the point of the reading of the will, that Marta would end up keeping the fortune. It certainly wasn't going to go to the spoiled family, and the story is, basically, a wealth redistribution fantasy, after all.

As for the characters being one-dimensional and caricatures, everyone who starts out looking bad (mostly the rich, white people, of course) ends the film looking as bad or worse and everyone who starts out looking good (especially Marta) ends the film looking as good or better. The only attempt at any kind of character twist is Ransom acting like a good guy for a while, but it turns out that he really wasn't one, which was another of the more predictable things in the film.

It seems odd that Rian Johnson goes out of his way to portray a Hispanic character as a very good person and a very good nurse, but then portrays the film's only black character as useless at his job, naive and dependent on a white man to solve the case for him. I feel that he made a similar oversight in The Last Jedi by introducing Rose as a positive Asian character, but then making Finn into a more embarrassing character.

 

[JackSlater]

Knives Out (2019) - 3/10 (Really disliked it)

An investigation into the suspicious death of a rich family patriarch exposes possible motives for murder. This was disappointing. First, it's not the mystery that I was expecting because, only 30 minutes in, we're shown how the patriarch died and the film becomes more about other characters trying to find out what we already know. At first, I found that interesting because it was different, but I feel now that it took a lot of energy out of the film. I started to lose interest and get a little bored by the midway point because there wasn't much to deduce but the details. Some twists (seemingly for the sake of twists) come near the end, but it was a little too late for me. Several things are predictable and there are plot holes (see spoilers for explanations). The characters are also all one-dimensional and, basically, caricatures. A whole family of spoiled, rich, white people is contrasted against the sweetest Hispanic caregiver, and the dialogue drives the theme home. The social commentary felt to me about as blatant and silly as Rian Johnson's Canto Bight sequence in The Last Jedi. I don't mind a little commentary, but it was so obvious and the film just felt pretentious to me. I read one review that suggested that Daniel Craig's assured character is Rian Johnson's projection of himself, and I can totally see that. I've watched 3 or 4 Rian Johnson movies by now and haven't liked any of them, so I think that it's safe to say that I'm just not a fan of him at all. Anyways, despite that and my criticisms, it's still a rather watchable film, but it just didn't do much for me and, the more that I think about it, the more that my opinion of it suffers.

Spoiler

Plot holes:

• Marta tells Harlan that he'll experience sweats and disorientation 5 minutes before he finally dies, so why in the world would Harlan cut his throat before feeling such symptoms?
• What are the chances that Harlan's mother would just happen to be standing by the window when Ransom and Marta got off of the trellis hours apart?
• It's rather hard to believe that Ransom, who seems disinterested in the family and probably wasn't around much, would know enough about Marta's drugs to conceive his plan, swap the drugs and then steal the one bottle that would've saved his grandfather's life.
• Harlan likes the idea of an "accidental" overdose as a clever way to commit murder enough that he writes it down in his notepad, which the investigators apparently never bother to read, even though it's in plain sight in the room that he died in.

As for being predictable, the big thing is that it was obvious, almost from the point of the reading of the will, that Marta would end up keeping the fortune. It certainly wasn't going to go to the spoiled family, and the theme of the story is, basically, a wealth redistribution fantasy, after all.

As for the characters being one-dimensional and caricatures, everyone who starts out looking bad (mostly the rich, white people, of course) ends up looking bad and everyone who starts out looking good (especially Marta) ends up looking good. The only attempt at any kind of character twist is Ransom acting like a good guy for a while, but it turns out that he really wasn't, which was another of the more predictable things in the film.

It seems odd that Rian Johnson goes out of his way to portray a Hispanic character as a very good person and a very good nurse, but then portrays the film's only black character as useless at his job, naive and dependent on a white man to solve the case for him. I feel that he made a similar oversight in The Last Jedi by introducing Rose as a positive Asian character, but then making Finn into a more embarrassing character.

I saw this two nights ago and I've been baffled ever since that it's seemingly so well liked. I agree with your take on the movie completely, I'd just dd that the hammy acting by some of the actors was a turn off as well. I really enjoy Brick by Johnson but outside of that what I've seen of his work is terrible.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Resnais is probably to me the second best director ever (behind only Raoul Ruiz, who is absolutely untouchable). Couple his amazing talent with my favorite author's playful imagination and the result is truly something special.

(Robbe-Grillet is himself another very good director)

Are there many relations between his novels and films? Personally, I think his Jealousy could make for quite the experience in a cinema.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

In that shot, there are shadows on the people but no shadows from the hedges or statues....how the f*** did they do that? Paint the shadows and film the scene on a clear day or something? Seems like the kind of thing a director would do come to think of it.

Anyways, that was a good film once you got past the opening 15 minute monologue which was excruciating pain for me.

Ah! I love the opening monologue! Don't read a Robbe-Grillet novel then.

 

[kihei]

Is that the one based on Kafka's Amerika? I've always been curious to watch that one.

I've never read that novel but according to Wiki, Europa is "influenced by" America and the title of the film was chosen "as an echo" of that novel.

 

[kihei]

I'm looking to check out the Studio Ghibli movies, now that they're on Canadian Netflix. Any recommendations on an order, or where to start?

I saw Spirited Away about a decade ago, but that's it.

Chronological makes the most sense to me, though I really don't think it matters a whole lot. My three must-sees would be: My Neighbor Totoro; The Tale of the Princess Kaguya; and Ponyo. You are in for a treat in any order.

 

[kihei]

Ah! I love the opening monologue! Don't read a Robbe-Grillet novel then.

....banana trees....rows and rows of banana trees....more rows of banana trees.....still more....

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Are there many relations between his novels and films? Personally, I think his Jealousy could make for quite the experience in a cinema.

Absolutely. If you haven't seen one yet, Trans-Europ-Express and L'homme qui ment are good starting points (and both amazing films - probably his best work - with Trintignant to boot), after that you can watch anything from him, all of his films are interesting (N. a pris les dés being the most abstruse one - it's kind of a collage+ of L'Eden et après, of which the title is an anagram). Le jeu avec le feu and C'est Gradiva qui vous appelle are IMO the closest to his novels, not necessarily his best films, but very rich and interesting ones (I did a conference at NYU on the second one, in a previous life).

 

[kihei]

Absolutely. If you haven't seen one yet, Trans-Europ-Express and L'homme qui ment are good starting points (and both amazing films - probably his best work - with Trintignant to boot), after that you can watch anything from him, all of his films are interesting (N. a pris les dés being the most abstruse one - it's kind of a collage+ of L'Eden et après, of which the title is an anagram). Le jeu avec le feu and C'est Gradiva qui vous appelle are IMO the closest to his novels, not necessarily his best films, but very rich and interesting ones (I did a conference at NYU on the second one, in a previous life).

I enjoyed Trans-Europe-Express which, from one perspective, has as many layers as an onion to sort through given its "creation" and ongoing destabilizing commentary while from another perspective it is surprisingly playful, that is, until it takes a mean turn right at the end. Still I can see this film having more appeal to film theorists and graduate students than to most other viewers.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I enjoyed Trans-Europe-Express which, from one perspective, has as many layers as an onion to sort through given its "creation" and ongoing destabilizing commentary while from another perspective it is surprisingly playful, that is, until it takes a mean turn right at the end. Still I can see this film having more appeal to film theorists and graduate students than most other viewers.

You appear familiar with Jealousy too. What did you think of it? I wasn't sure what to make of it after finishing it but then couldn't stop thinking about it for days.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Bond rewatch update. The Dalton years. The Living Daylights, License to Kill.

I think history has rightfully been kinder to Dalton than the reality at the time was. The series has a long history of bouncing from tone to tone, sometimes maybe even over correcting. Coming off the light, fluffy cheese of Roger Moore, Dalton’s approach was more business-like. Decried as TOO serious at the time, the series would shift to Pierce Brosnan who is a natural midpoint between the two.

Daylights remains my standard answer for most underrated Bond movie. The first hour or so in particular is a nice, classic bit of Cold War spy story telling with some Bond spice thrown in. Assassination, defections, double agents, snowy European settings. It’s a tad flabby. The back half as it veers into Afghanistan and arms trading is mostly forgettable. The cargo net plane stunt is pretty rad though. A fitting introduction and change of pace.

Then we get to License. Moonraker, thanks to Bond going to space, is often cited as if not the worst, then certainly the weirdest Bond. But my vote for oddest is actually this one. It almost feels like an existing action script that a Bond Movie was just grafted onto. It’s a pretty straightforward vigilante tale. Bond is a essentially a Taken/John Wick style vengeance machine. Sure the bad guys DESERVE it, but it never feels much like Bond. There were serious entries before this and after this, but none as dark-edged and gross as this one (again, relative to other Bond films). Bodies are ground up, emolated, fed to sharks, impaled on a forklift and exploded in a pressure chamber. Don’t get me wrong, sharks have a history of eating well in Bond movies, but it’s definitely more graphic and heavy here (and it’s done twice). Another touch of non-Bondness ... the theme (or any of the other classic music cues) is hardly used. I counted just twice in the movie and even then it was a jarring reminder that they’re trying to mash up two things that just weren’t working here. The series also has a history of trying to capitalize on current trends/fads/events so being the post Miami Vice days we get drug cartels, which just doesn’t fit with the typical Bond silliness. I will say this though — Wayne Newton is a welcome and fun bit of levity late and a young Benicio Del Toro is memorably menacing.

I respect what they’re going for, but it doesn’t work.

 

[kihei]

You appear familiar with Jealousy too. What did you think of it? I wasn't sure what to make of it after finishing it but then couldn't stop thinking about it for days.

Ah, that's going way back. I saw Last Year at Marienbad, and was totally taken by it. So I immediately became more curious about Resnais and about Robbe-Grillet. Jealousy was the first novel of his that I could get my hands on in English, so I read it, went "What the f***?" and did some more reading up on Robbe-Grillet and the French new novel. Then I returned to the book with fresher eyes and had a better idea of what he was doing. In the end, sussing out how to treat what is and is not going on with the narration kept me busy thinking for days, too. Definitely challenging, but certainly well worth the effort.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

You appear familiar with Jealousy too. What did you think of it? I wasn't sure what to make of it after finishing it but then couldn't stop thinking about it for days.

Ah, that's going way back. I saw Last Year at Marienbad, and was totally taken by it. So I immediately became more curious about Resnais and about Robbe-Grillet. Jealousy was the first novel of his that I could get my hands on in English, so I read it, went "What the f***?" and did some more reading up on Robbe-Grillet and the French new novel. Then I returned to the book with fresher eyes and had a better idea of what he was doing. In the end, sussing out how to treat what is and is not going on with the narration kept me busy thinking for days, too. Definitely challenging, but certainly well worth the effort.

La jalousie might be his most complex work too. I tend to prefer his simpler stuff, his unique humor gets a little lost in that one.

 

[ORRFForever]

Irresistible (2020) :

If someone can explain the appeal of Steve Carell, I'd appreciate it because he's horrible in just about every movie he's in. There's an early scene in Irresistible where Carell inhales a dessert - it's so good he stuffs his face. It's overdone, embarrassing and the kind of thing you'd expect in a bad TV sitcom, not a feature film. Unfortunately, it's an indication of what's to come.

Irresistible is a fish out of water story about an obnoxious national campaigner who goes to Wisconsin in the hope of turning a local hero into a Democratic mayor. Carell's overacting and a script that tries too hard to be even handed / clever / edgy makes Irresistible painful to watch - everyone is so folksy it made my teeth grind.

I expected better from writer / director / producer Jon Stewart.

3/10

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

It's me again with my Stuart Gordon flicks.....

Stuck (Gordon, 2007) - When he died earlier this year, Gordon had gone 12 years without making a film (I have no idea why that is). Stuck is not the swan song you'd hope for from the director who signed From Beyond, but it's still a provocative and original little film. Sometimes wrapped together with King of the Ants and Edmond as his American trilogy (a dark and often humorous portrait of the Bush era), it's not as edgy nor as interesting as either of its predecessors. It's based on a shocking true story, but it feels like a clumsy remake of that Creepshow II Hitchiker sketch that just couldn't decide if it wants to be a satire or a serious story. 4.5/10

Dagon (Stuart, 2001) - Last horror feature film from the master, last film of his so-called Lovecraft cycle (with Re-Animator, From Beyond and Castle Freak), and possibly just his best film overall (certainly the best Lovecraft adaptation I've seen - even if it once again takes huge liberties with the stories it adapts). It doesn't have the artistic ambitions of some of its counterparts, but it's still among the best horror films made in the last 20 years - one of these rare films that manage to be both very dark and lots of fun, with great athmospheric work in a coastal little town under constant torrential rain. Some absolutely terrible CGI shots come and tarnish the ensemble a little bit (you'd wish they'd gone rubber all the way through), but there's really few and it's not enough to spoil the whole thing. 8/10

Films I rate that high are most often multi-layered and normally more complex, but there's just something with this one.

 

[Osprey]

I saw this two nights ago and I've been baffled ever since that it's seemingly so well liked. I agree with your take on the movie completely, I'd just dd that the hammy acting by some of the actors was a turn off as well. I really enjoy Brick by Johnson but outside of that what I've seen of his work is terrible.

Spoiler: Knives Out spoilers

I suspect that a lot of people really like the premise, which is a bunch of spoiled, rich, white people having all of the money and property that they don't deserve given away to a sweet but poor, immigrant caregiver. As I said in my review, it's a wealth redistribution fantasy. Others might interpret it as a take on "the meek shall inherit the Earth." Even if you don't really subscribe to such principles in real life, it's still really easy to root for saintly Marta to get the wealth instead of the rotten family. When she does, it's very satisfying. I imagine that audiences wouldn't have been as satisfied with any other outcome and would've been even upset if any of the family had kept the wealth and Marta had gotten next to nothing. To fulfill the audience expectations set up by its subtext, it had to end a certain way, which undermined the mystery and the genre that it was trying to pay homage to, IMO. That ruined it for me, but, evidently didn't for many others.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Spoiler: Knives Out spoilers

I suspect that a lot of people really like the premise, which is a bunch of spoiled, rich, white people having all of the money and property that they don't deserve given away to a sweet but poor, immigrant caregiver. As I said in my review, it's a wealth redistribution fantasy. Others might interpret it as a take on "the meek shall inherit the Earth." Even if you don't really agree with such principles in real life, it's still really easy to root for saintly Marta to get the wealth instead of the rotten family. When she does, it's very satisfying. I imagine that audiences wouldn't have been as satisfied with any other outcome and would've been even upset if any of the family had kept the wealth and Marta had gotten next to nothing. To fulfill the audience expectations set up by its subtext, it had to end a certain way, which undermined the mystery, the genre that it was trying to pay homage to, IMO.

When you posted your "review methodology", I almost went full beserk because there's really no need for such formulaic approach to art (you perfectly described 95% of film comments you find in major mags, mostly written by people who have nothing to say about cinema). Here, you've got ideas. You don't need no synopsis (please! that's just filler) or appreciation to make a relevant comment on film, you just need one coherent idea and from there you can write a thesis.

I'm just saying I liked your post a lot, the VD likes this mention didn't satisfy me.

 

[ORRFForever]

When you posted your "review methodology", I almost went full beserk because there's really no need for such formulaic approach to art (you perfectly described 95% of film comments you find in major mags, mostly written by people who have nothing to say about cinema). Here, you've got ideas. You don't need no synopsis (please! that's just filler) or appreciation to make a relevant comment on film, you just need one coherent idea and from there you can write a thesis.

I'm just saying I liked your post a lot, the VD likes this mention didn't satisfy me.

When I read a review, I don't care about a synopsis (altho most of us give one), I just want an interesting take. What stood out? What made you laugh? What pissed you off? What could you have done without?

It's that perspective that gives me something I can relate to or argue against. That take is what makes me think.

After that, I enjoy the grading of the film. It's a nice way to summarize how you feel about the movie.

The plot is something I either know, because I've seen the movie, or I don't want to know, because I haven't seen the movie, so I prefer limited details.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Watched I Tonya tonight. Very good film, although I enjoyed the second half more than the first. Margot Robbie and Allison Janney were excellent. Man, Tonya Harding had a tough life. Her mother was horrible to her.

8/10