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

[Arizonan God]

Man, all of the Knives Out hate is bumming me out. One of my favourites of 2019.

 

[ORRFForever]

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

I loved it, too. M.R. is one beautiful woman.

 

[Arizonan God]

Persona dir. Ignmar Bergman (1966)

Well then...that was quite fascinating, to say the least. Bergman's Persona, a film that could be described as being about identity, motherhood, and just the experience of life in general, doesn't hold your hand. It let's the viewer come to their own conclusions about Alma and Elisabet, and I'm sure over the past 54 years, many different conclusions have been made
.

Spoiler

My instant gut reaction interpretation: neither Alma nor Elisabet are a figment of each other's imagination, but simply representations of a similar story, told in two different ways. One about guilt, regret, shame and depression. But I think I'll have to watch this again sometime down the road to really flesh out my thoughts.
Either way, it's easy to understand why many consider this to be Bergman's "masterpiece".

Also, I can tell Robert Eggers drew a lot of influence from Persona in The Lighthouse.

8.5

 

[Osprey]

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.

We seem to have different approaches to reviews. I, personally, don't think that they should be theses or necessarily have something to say about cinema or put forth "ideas." I think that that's better saved for analysis and discussion, which is why I left what you just responded to out of my review. I think that a review should primarily be informative and broad and help the reader decide if he/she might want to watch the film. I like to keep my reviews focused on that and practical. To that end, a synopsis helps because some people, including me, like to know a little bit about the plot when deciding whether to watch a film. To me, it's essential, not "filler." A review that doesn't give the reader any indication what a film is about fails on a fundamental level, IMO. Anyways, I'm not trying to judge films as "art" or push my own ideas, but evaluate them as entertainment and help people decide if they're worth their time to watch. To that end, a formulaic method makes it easier for me. I'm more science inclined than art inclined, so that's probably why. I wasn't saying that "this is how you write a review." I was just sharing the method that's comfortable for me in case it might help the person who found it harder.

 

[Langdon Alger]

I loved it, too. M.R. is one beautiful woman.

Indeed she is, but she’s also a great actress to boot. Looking forward to seeing her future films.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Predators

with Adrien Brody, Lawrence Fishburne, and various other badasses. Also Topher Grace.

(reviewed this one before in some other earlier incarnation of this thread, but what the hell. It was on and I was bored. My wife was monopolizing the comp.)

Don't you hate when you're a badass super-soldier doing badass super-soldier stuff in a war somewhere...but then black out and wake up hurtling through the air parachuting down towards an alien planet? That's how it went for Adrien Brody (who really ate his Wheaties and pumped up), a cynical US merc brandishing an automatic shotgun. Also a bunch of other tough stereotypes; huge Russian heavy gunner, Israeli sniper chick, taciturn Yakuza henchman, Danny Trejo, etc...and oddly, Topher Grace. Why's he there? Because he's a doctor? Hmm. Anyway, they're all on the Predators' alien hunting ground planet because periodically they sweep up a bunch of humans nowadays and dump them in this alien jungle. They sic nasty tusked dog/things on them, set traps, and generally do Predator stuff. Adrien Brody and the gang aren't going down without a fight, though. They run into Lawrence Fishburne, who's survived from a hunt sweep years ago, and he helps set the tableau for them. But he's gone a little batty from the stress and isolation...so a group merger isn't on the horizon. Also the Predators are still out there, but as competing teams. Might one offer a ride home if freed from the other? Be moderately entertained by the answer.

Okay for a mindless action flick. The premise is still silly and implies the Predator guys are spending a hell of a lot of time watching the crew, particularly Topher Grace. Considering the movie lore has been built up to the point where the Predator/Alien/human species hunts and interactions go back thousands of years, you really wonder about the stagnation of the Predator society. You've had interstellar spaceships for millennia...haven't you guys got anything better to do that follow Topher Grace around for what must have been months if not years on end? But an okay movie. Easily the second best movie with Predators in it. Not exactly a high bar to clear, but it is what it is.

"We were voted Most Metal species by the galaxy FOUR TIMES!!"

 

[Chili]

Yesterday-2019

Have a personal attachment to a number of the songs so was skeptical beforehand, the quality of the covers though was impressive. Was like a walk into history down Penny Lane or Abbey Road, remembering the lyrics. And maybe that was one of the reasons for the Beatles success, many memorable lyrics (and melodies) which didn't realize I knew.

Enjoyed it.

 

[kihei]

We seem to have different approaches to reviews. I, personally, don't think that they should be theses or necessarily have something to say about cinema or put forth "ideas." I think that that's better saved for analysis and discussion, which is why I left what you just responded to out of my review. I think that a review should primarily be informative and broad and help the reader decide if he/she might want to watch the film. I like to keep my reviews focused on that and practical. To that end, a synopsis helps because some people, including me, like to know a little bit about the plot when deciding whether to watch a film. To me, it's essential, not "filler." A review that doesn't give the reader any indication what a film is about fails on a fundamental level, IMO. Anyways, I'm not trying to judge films as "art" or push my own ideas, but evaluate them as entertainment and help people decide if they're worth their time to watch. To that end, a formulaic method makes it easier for me. I'm more science inclined than art inclined, so that's probably why. I wasn't saying that "this is how you write a review." I was just sharing the method that's comfortable for me in case it might help the person who found it harder.

Okay, that's fine for you. But the problem with formulas, one of many, is what do you do when you see a movie and your response doesn't fit the preconceived formula? Formulas tend to lock the writer in to a way of thinking that can be inherently self-limiting. Basically a reviewer is or should be in service to the movie and how one approaches writing about that movie requires flexibility. It would drive me crazy to put the formula before my thoughts; my writing would not benefit from such a cookie-cutter approach. I think each writer has to find what is best for him/her, and that may take time and be frustrating, but the effort usually pays off in the long run.

 

[Osprey]

Okay, that's fine for you. But the problem with formulas, one of many, is what do you do when you see a movie and your response doesn't fit the preconceived formula? Formulas tend to lock the writer in to a way of thinking that can be inherently self-limiting. Basically a reviewer is or should be in service to the movie and how one approaches writing about that movie requires flexibility. It would drive me crazy to put the formula before my thoughts; my writing would not benefit from such a cookie-cutter approach. I think each writer has to find what is best for him/her, and that may take time and be frustrating, but the effort usually pays off in the long run.

I don't feel that having an introduction (including a synopsis), a list of likes, a list of dislikes and then a conclusion is self-limiting. Your reviews seem to follow pretty much the same "formula." Your synopses tend to be quite a bit longer than mine, but, other that that, I don't think that there's a whole lot of difference between how you and I write our reviews, when you break them down. You allow for flexibility, but so do I. I don't stick to my template all of the time. In fact, in my most recent review, I didn't even include two steps because I didn't feel like it. I jumped directly from my synopsis to what I disliked about the film. Other times, I don't bother with a synopsis (such as if I'm reviewing a blockbuster that no one needs one for) or, when I love a movie, I might not bother with my dislikes because they're so minor that it feels like nitpicking. A few times, I've abandoned my template almost entirely. I think that you're both taking it too seriously and not recognizing that I offered it as a suggestion to get started if anyone doesn't know where to start. Naturally, as a person gets more comfortable, he can get creative and develop his own style.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I think that you're both taking the template that I gave too seriously and not recognizing that I offered it as a suggestion to get started if anyone doesn't know where to start.

I really didn't want this to make you feel attacked or anything!! What I said is that I ALMOST reacted to your initial post (because I think it's problematic in two ways: 1) it's a formulaic approach that values opinions over ideas and 2) it invites someone who has nothing to say to still feel the need to say it anyway) - but I didn't. I only mentionned that to underline that I was on the contrary happy with your last comments on Knives Out, because they put ideas over form, formula or opinions. That's all. Never wanted to criticize the overall value of your comments - wouldn't be fair, I evaluate the number of times I made valuable/valid comments on films here at about 5 or 6. Otherwise, I mostly just enjoy sharing my "tastes" with others, who are a lot more knowledgeable than what you'd expect from a hockey board.

 

[Jussi]

Eurovision Song Contest - The Story Of Fire Saga 9-/10. Loved it. Manages to to both parody (if that's even possible anymore) and respect the Eurovision Song Contest at the same time. Could be about 10 minutes shorter but has some really funny moments and killer tunes. Some of the songs could easily win the actual competition and Husavik deserves an Oscar nomination. The song along scene with several winners from recent years was good. Funny note about the Finnish band in it though, they're toasting at a party but instead of "kippis" they say "kirppis" which pretty much means flea market in Finnish.

 

[Osprey]

I really didn't want this to make you feel attacked or anything!! What I said is that I ALMOST reacted to your initial post (because I think it's problematic in two ways: 1) it's a formulaic approach that values opinions over ideas and 2) it invites someone who has nothing to say to still feel the need to say it anyway) - but I didn't. I only mentionned that to underline that I was on the contrary happy with your last comments on Knives Out, because they put ideas over form, formula or opinions. That's all. Never wanted to criticize the overall value of your comments - wouldn't be fair, I evaluate the number of times I made valuable/valid comments on films here at about 5 or 6. Otherwise, I mostly just enjoy sharing my "tastes" with others, who are a lot more knowledgeable than what you'd expect from a hockey board.

No worries. I recognized your intention. I was just happy to explain myself further, anyways, especially since there was something to debate and I enjoy that. In fact, I expected to have this debate and thought it curious that no one took issue with it before. Now I know that you and kihei did but decided to bite your lips, which I respect .

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

"We were voted Most Metal species by the galaxy FOUR TIMES!!"

I legit LOL'd at this kicker.

 

[kihei]

I don't feel that having an introduction (including a synopsis), a list of likes, a list of dislikes and then a conclusion is self-limiting. Your reviews seem to follow pretty much the same "formula." Your synopses tend to be quite a bit longer than mine, but, other that that, I don't think that there's a whole lot of difference between how you and I write our reviews, when you break them down. You allow for flexibility, but so do I. I don't stick to my template all of the time. In fact, in my most recent review, I didn't even include two steps because I didn't feel like it. I jumped directly from my synopsis to what I disliked about the film. Other times, I don't bother with a synopsis (such as if I'm reviewing a blockbuster that no one needs one for) or, when I love a movie, I might not bother with my dislikes because they're so minor that it feels like nitpicking. A few times, I've abandoned my template almost entirely. I think that you're both taking it too seriously and not recognizing that I offered it as a suggestion to get started if anyone doesn't know where to start. Naturally, as a person gets more comfortable, he can get creative and develop his own style.

You're looking at the end product of our work which might sometimes appear similar in form. But it is a question of how we got there. My way of getting there approaches writing more as a process than as a product. What's that mean in practical terms?

My suggestion would be to never see the first draft as a final draft. Do not try to make the first draft perfect. Write with the intention that you will have to revise what you initially compose, often more than once. That's because writing is a process of discovery. Ideas take time (and thought) to emerge. Take the pressure off the first draft and write to explore potential ideas and figure out what you have to say, not to polish those early thoughts up immediately or necessarily to even keep them--just let your thoughts flow in the first draft and don't sweat mechanics or grammar or spelling. Then take a break and come back and see what raw material you have provided yourself in that first draft. Don't try to fix that draft. Keeping a skeptical reader in mind, create a second draft that builds on what you have learned about what you wish to say. Has a theme emerged that you can develop or maybe a central conclusion about what you really think about the work? If so, re-organize your thoughts, radically if necessary, to bring your imagined reader to accept the validity of the central conclusion that you have come up with. Create a skeptical reader in your mind when you are composing second drafts and beyond--let him or her help you decide what comes next in the second or later draft--what does he or she need to know next to understand your argument? Your goal is to persuade that imaginary reader of the validity of your conclusion, not that it's the only possible conclusion that exists.

I think such a process-oriented approach is more likely to lead to interesting writing.

 

[kihei]

I legit LOL'd at this kicker.

Me, too.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I legit LOL'd at this kicker.

Me, too.

Always nice to hear feedback.

And as for review format, mine is more force of habit than anything else. I try to write a review under the assumption the reader hasn't seen the movie before and knows nothing about it, but it's never a hard and fast approach. I didn't bother writing a recap of Cats because everyone reading this thread knows exactly what it is...and also it wasn't possible just because that thing didn't really have a plot to recap. Some big blockbusters I won't bother reviewing because there's already a glut of opinions out there on them, and my adding to the pile is pretty redundant. Sometimes I see reviews for movies in here and want to see them for myself, and it's always interesting to see how other people's takes on things differ from my own. I mean, you look through these threads and the regulars all have our own format and general vibe going; kihei for example I've always considered the elder statesman of this thread, and he's clearly an educated cinephile who makes an effort to inform us about important works of art and history...whereas I just tend to make smartass remarks about whatever's on. We are who we are, and it's not like we're getting paid for this, so the important thing is to have fun with it. Since a while ago I've challenged myself to end on a picture with a pithy caption, and I enjoy that little bit of creativity. You try to make it interesting for the reader, after all.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

You're looking at the end product of our work which might sometimes appear similar in form. But it is a question of how we got there. My way of getting there approaches writing more as a process than as a product. What's that mean in practical terms?

My suggestion would be to never see the first draft as a final draft. Do not try to make the first draft perfect. Write with the intention that you will have to revise what you initially compose, often more than once. That's because writing is a process of discovery. Ideas take time (and thought) to emerge. Take the pressure off the first draft and write to explore potential ideas and figure out what you have to say, not to polish those early thoughts up immediately or necessarily to even keep them--just let your thoughts flow in the first draft and don't sweat mechanics or grammar or spelling. Then take a break and come back and see what raw material you have provided yourself in that first draft. Don't try to fix that draft. Keeping a skeptical reader in mind, create a second draft that builds on what you have learned about what you wish to say. Has a theme emerged that you can develop or maybe a central conclusion about what you really think about the work? If so, re-organize your thoughts, radically if necessary, to bring your imagined reader to accept the validity of the central conclusion that you have come up with. Create a skeptical reader in your mind when you are composing second drafts and beyond--let him or her help you decide what comes next in the second or later draft--what does he or she need to know next to understand your argument? Your goal is to persuade that imaginary reader of the validity of your conclusion, not that it's the only possible conclusion that exists.

I think such a process-oriented approach is more likely to lead to interesting writing.

On the contrary, I think aiming at a persuasive conclusion is counter-productive. Ideas should prevail over arguments and opinions. I can draw my own understanding of a work, and that understanding can feed on incomplete or unattached ideas you'd throw my way.

Most reviews are just opinions. It's fun here to see who appreciates what, because we kind of "know" each other a little, but this type of comments is of zero value (to me anyway) when you open a film magazine. No matter the process, the result, like Osprey said, is often very similar. I really dislike film summaries, unless they're made to be funny or to point out elements that will feed a reflection on the work, but most reviewers only use them to make it look like they've written something. I prefer 1000% anecdotal elements about the movies (I don't remember who was doing the snipets on the Schwarzenegger films, but that was very interesting to me), as these can also feed my understand of them.

I also only watch trailers after having seen the films.

 

[kihei]

Big Deal on Madonna Street (1960) Directed by Mario Monicelli 7A

Not all classics from the past wear equally well, and Big Deal on Madonna Street is no exception. But the movie's charms still have a lot to recommend them. A mixed-bag of five malcontents stumble upon a heist caper that can't possibly go wrong. This collection of oddballs--an ex-jockey, a photographer without a camera (Marcello Mastroianni), a former not very good boxer (Vittorio Gasssman), and a would-be Romeo--collectively do not possess any significant skills when it comes to robbing people but that doesn't dampen their enthusiasm a great deal. There's is a long, not always funny, build up to when the big day arrives. Everything is carefully planned, and then reality takes over as one little thing after another starts to go wrong. The movie owes a lot to its milieu which, in turn, owes a fair amount to the Italian neo-realist movement of the '40s and '50s. We are looking at a not very glamorous situation in the middle of much poverty and strife, but that doesn't manage to get in the way of the movie's good spirits. The characters are all likeable in their scruffy ways, and I rooted for them to succeed though I realized that was likely going to be a long shot. Big Deal on Madonna Street is considered the first heist movie spoof ever with its target being the earlier, far slicker Rififi, which is also about four friends planning to pull off a heist. While Big Deal on Madonna Street lapses in interest from time to time, the highlights of the film make it still well worth seeing.

subtitles

available on Criterion Channel

 

[kihei]

On the contrary, I think aiming at a persuasive conclusion is counter-productive. Ideas should prevail over arguments and opinions. I can draw my own understanding of a work, and that understanding can feed on incomplete or unattached ideas you'd throw my way.

Persuasive conclusions can be used for qualified positions--it's not a question of throwing the good stuff away or ignoring the contradictory bits but of discovering these ideas in the first place and then finding effective ways to communicate some of them to your reader. Certainly in a review, unlike, say, most argumentative essays, a thesis (conclusion) isn't required and the process doesn't have to be as elaborate, but thinking about a conclusion that you have come to about a work (or a non-conclusioon for that matter, which can be equally interesting) can help organize your thoughts. A lot of different roads lead to Roma.

 

[Howard Beale]

Man, all of the Knives Out hate is bumming me out. One of my favourites of 2019.

Same for me, I liked it a lot. Probably the best in-theatre experience I've had in a few years.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Persuasive conclusions can be used for qualified positions--it's not a question of throwing the good stuff away or ignoring the contradictory bits but of discovering these ideas in the first place and then finding effective ways to communicate some of them to your reader. Certainly in a review, unlike, say, most argumentative essays, a thesis (conclusion) isn't required and the process doesn't have to be as elaborate, but thinking about a conclusion that you have come to about a work (or a non-conclusioon for that matter, which can be equally interesting) can help organize your thoughts. A lot of different roads lead to Roma.

Oh of course, a perfect rounded text would propose to organize these ideas into a coherent whole. I was just reacting to the "Your goal is ..... persuasive conclusion" part of your post. The first goal of a review shouldn't be that IMO, but only to propose something, anything. After that, if you want to build this up to great length, only the better.

 

[LeafalCrusader]

Man, all of the Knives Out hate is bumming me out. One of my favourites of 2019.

Daniel Craig's Kentucky accent made my ear's bleed.

 

[kihei]

Oh of course, a perfect rounded text would propose to organize these ideas into a coherent whole. I was just reacting to the "Your goal is ..... persuasive conclusion" part of your post. The first goal of a review shouldn't be that IMO, but only to propose something, anything. After that, if you want to build this up to great length, only the better.

Couldn't agree more. Only I would say one's ultimate goal should be to figure what, if anything, you have to say that is worth another person's time to read. Starting with an articulated proposal gets the ball rolling, a definite good start, a way of kicking off a writer's voyage of discovery. The proposal may be a good starting point, but it is the investigation and the conclusions, if any, you have come to through exploring your proposal, that most people will be curious about. I would never suggest coming to a conclusion of any kind at the start of the writing process. Conclusions, if they arrive, usually come at the end of a thinking process, not at its beginning (or, in your case, at the end of the investigation of your proposal, assuming, as I do, that you keep an open, skeptical mind about the initial proposal throughout your explorations). When people start with conclusions at the beginning, they get locked into positions that they feel they can't abandon, or even qualify--and that can be anathema to good writing.

 

[Osprey]

You're looking at the end product of our work which might sometimes appear similar in form. But it is a question of how we got there. My way of getting there approaches writing more as a process than as a product. What's that mean in practical terms?

My suggestion would be to never see the first draft as a final draft. Do not try to make the first draft perfect. Write with the intention that you will have to revise what you initially compose, often more than once. That's because writing is a process of discovery. Ideas take time (and thought) to emerge. Take the pressure off the first draft and write to explore potential ideas and figure out what you have to say, not to polish those early thoughts up immediately or necessarily to even keep them--just let your thoughts flow in the first draft and don't sweat mechanics or grammar or spelling. Then take a break and come back and see what raw material you have provided yourself in that first draft. Don't try to fix that draft. Keeping a skeptical reader in mind, create a second draft that builds on what you have learned about what you wish to say. Has a theme emerged that you can develop or maybe a central conclusion about what you really think about the work? If so, re-organize your thoughts, radically if necessary, to bring your imagined reader to accept the validity of the central conclusion that you have come up with. Create a skeptical reader in your mind when you are composing second drafts and beyond--let him or her help you decide what comes next in the second or later draft--what does he or she need to know next to understand your argument? Your goal is to persuade that imaginary reader of the validity of your conclusion, not that it's the only possible conclusion that exists.

I think such a process-oriented approach is more likely to lead to interesting writing.

That's exactly how I approach making an argument, which I do a lot, so I don't disagree with that in the least. I just don't approach reviews that way because my goal with them is not really to make a persuasive argument, but to give readers enough information to decide if they want to watch the movie and judge it for themselves.

 

[kihei]

That's exactly how I approach making an argument, which I do a lot, so I don't disagree with that in the least. I just don't approach reviews that way because my goal with them is not really to make a persuasive argument, but to give readers enough information to decide if they want to watch the movie and judge it for themselves.

Sure, though, of course, persuasive point making helps you to do that.