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

[saluki]

I see your Patton, and I raise you a Grier.

I love Pam Grier. Absolutely love her.

But the Paula Patton of MI:GP is truly one of the most beautiful women of all time.

The scenes in Mumbai? Hold my beer, I'll be back in a bit.

 

[Osprey]

The Arena (Carver, 1974) - Some kind of sister act to the women-in-prison genre (the poster tagline reads "Black slave, white slave" and the film stars both the actresses from Black Mama, White Mama, a prison film I hope Tubi will suggest to me very quickly), this is pure misogynistic trash, I mean fun, I mean trash... Nothing to report, except that the film was offered to Martin Scorsese (now, that would have been something), and that the infamous Joe D'Amato is supposed to have directed a good chunk of it himself. 2.5/10

I like RT's summary: "Beautiful women display their assets as they fight in the arenas of ancient Rome." Most movies get longer summaries, but it sounds like that sums it up.

The Initiation (Stewart, 1984) - Formulaic slasher, with the traumatic childhood prologue and some attempts at misdirections. Big bonus for the absurd final twist straight out of the best soap operas.

Spoiler

It was her evil twin!!

It starts ok, and isn't complete and utter trash, but its psychoanalytical ambitions are paper thin and sewn with white thread. 3/10

Weird. This is one that I was planning to watch soon. Perhaps it's not a coincidence, though, since I think that I learned of it when reading about The Slumber Party Massacre recently. It really is amazing just how many slasher movies were produced in the early 80s. I've seen untold numbers of them and I'm still discovering ones that I've never seen.

 

[ORRFForever]

Cut Off (Abgeschnitten) (2020) :

Paul Herzfeld (think Tom Hardy if he let himself go) is a coroner. His daughter is kidnapped, raped and held captive. He finds out about his daughter's kidnapping after discovering a note in the brain of a corpse - this was the first clue (of many) that this movie was going to be BAD.

Linda is a comic book artist being chased on an island during a storm. She finds a dead body and is pressured to perform an autopsy (or two) while Herzfeld instructs / screams at her over the phone.

For 2 (plus) hours Herzfeld pursues the movie's many serial killers, while Linda dissects bodies and runs for her life.

Cut Off is so far fetched, so disgusting, so stupid, the movie's an insult to the viewer. It is high end Euro torture porn and the worst movie I have seen in years. It is also currently at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.

1/10

Dubbed - the original spoken language was German.

 

[Osprey]

The Big Red One (1980) - 6/10 (Liked it)

A tough, grizzled sergeant (Lee Marvin, who else?) leads Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), the head nerd from Revenge of the Nerds (Robert Carradine) and the rest of the First Infantry Division, nicknamed "The Big Red One," across North Africa and Europe during WWII. Directed by Samuel Fuller, it dramatizes a series of experiences that he, himself, had as a soldier during WWII. These include taking out a big gun in Sicily, storming the beach at Omaha, assaulting a mental institution in Belgium and more. I liked most of these events, though there often wasn't much to link them but a bit of narration, so the film's structure isn't the strongest. Also, the film's low budget is quite apparent. There aren't any big battles or wide shots and you never see more than 10 soldiers or two tanks in any shot. Even the landing at Omaha is extremely small scale, maybe even laughable compared to Saving Private Ryan. On the other hand, this helps to keep the picture focused on the solders, making it more of an intimate war movie than an epic one. For a 1980 film, it felt rather dated, more like Lee Marvin's earlier war movies (such as The Dirty Dozen) than the more modern war movies that would follow it in the 80s. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it surprised me how it felt like a throwback (also, just being a WWII movie in the 80s, the decade of the Vietnam movie, contributed to that). Overall, the film wasn't exactly what I was expecting, but I still liked it and enjoyed seeing a young Mark Hamill in something not space based. FYI, I watched the theatrical cut, which was cut down against Fuller's wishes and added the narration that I mentioned. There's a 40-minute-longer "reconstructed" version from 2004 that is similar to Fuller's original cut and is even better, supposedly, but I wasn't able to find it, unfortunately.

 

[Babe Ruth]

The Front Runner (2018)

Anyone else seen this ?.. It's about Gary Hart's '88 presidential aspirations, that were ultimately derailed by an adultery scandal..
Movie was kinda boring, but thought provoking.. about the media (& public's) appetite for scandal vs. the privacy of political figures, etc.
Hugh Jackman played Hart, and there was a small role played by my man Mike Judge. Not bad..

 

[kihei]

Goodbye to Language (1914) Directed by Jean Luc Godard 7C (down from 8C for Goodbye to Language in 3D)

While many find director Jean Luc Godard's most recent work (Film Socialisme; Goodbye to Language; The Image Book) annoying or incoherent or just too difficult to bother with, a fair number still find these movies fascinating to observe and to attempt to decode. Godard being my favourite living director, I'm definitely in the latter camp. I don't think there is a definitive way of watching a late Godard film, but I do feel that to approach his work the way one approaches straight narrative film is to strongly miss the point and doom oneself to frustration. Godard is not an artist who plays by the normal rules; indeed it is like he creates his own grammar and syntax of film as he goes along, And cinema is the better for it. There is actually more of a story to Goodbye to Language than there is in Film Socialisme and The Image Book, which are doing different kinds of things with film. In this one, a couple, or is it a pair of couples?, spend much of their time walking around in the nude and bickering with one another, a relationship clearly sailing ever closer to the rocks. Because we don't spend a great deal of time with them, we don't really get to know them that well. Or perhaps Godard is interested in them as modern types, rather than as people. Especially later in the film, a dog, your standard mutt, becomes a focal point and the pooch's point of view comes in for consideration, if only to contrast its trusting and spontaneous nature with that of the sad sack humans. Digressions, however, are everywhere, liberally sprinkled about the movie like salt on popcorn. The film is graced with some absolutely stunning images that Godard has invented for 3D. The images are so gorgeous to watch, dolled up in all kinds of visual trickery, that when I initially saw the movie at TIFF, I missed a lot of what else was going on in the movie because I was ignoring the subtitles completely. Clearly in the 2D version, Godard's usual political and philosophical preoccupations are on display, forming a social context for the couple's troubles. These intellectual asides, along with Godard's usual visual and verbal digressions, add a sense of playfulness but, also, a potential for incomprehensibility that can lead to a rough ride even for the initiated. But play with the juxtaposition of the images, the shards of "plot," and approach the film the way you might regard modern poetry, and you may find Godard's point of view about the state of the world an interesting one.

Sidenote: The 2D version of Goodbye to Language is not as impressive as the 3D version of this film. Seeing as how the movie was intended to be seen in 3D, this is not surprising, anymore than it would be when evaluating Gravity or Avatar. For most films, especially action films, 3D is a gimmick and it makes little difference to the movie if you watch it in 3D or not. But the above mentioned films are intended to be seen in 3D; it is part of their particular DNA. To separate them from their natural format is to diminish their value through no fault of their own.

subtitles

available on Criterion Channel

 

[ItsFineImFine]

To Catch A Thief (1955) - 6/10

This is really poorly directed at times with a weird rhythm considering the fact that it's a Hitchcock film. The actual tension is quite poor too. But it looks gorgeous because of the French setting in technicolour (and um, Grace Kelly).

 

[Chili]

The Big Red One (1980) - 6/10 (Liked it)

A tough, grizzled sergeant (Lee Marvin, who else?) leads Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), the head nerd from Revenge of the Nerds (Robert Carradine) and the rest of the First Infantry Division, nicknamed "The Big Red One," across North Africa and Europe during WWII. Directed by Samuel Fuller, it dramatizes a series of experiences that he, himself, had as a soldier during WWII. These include taking out a big gun in Sicily, storming the beach at Omaha, assaulting a mental institution in Belgium and more. I liked most of these events, though there often wasn't much to link them but a bit of narration, so the film's structure isn't the strongest. Also, the film's low budget is quite apparent. There aren't any big battles or wide shots and you never see more than 10 soldiers or two tanks in any shot. Even the landing at Omaha is extremely small scale, maybe even laughable compared to Saving Private Ryan. On the other hand, this helps to keep the picture focused on the solders, making it more of an intimate war movie than an epic one. For a 1980 film, it felt rather dated, more like Lee Marvin's earlier war movies (such as The Dirty Dozen) than the more modern war movies that would follow it in the 80s. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it surprised me how it felt like a throwback (also, just being a WWII movie in the 80s, the decade of the Vietnam movie, contributed to that). Overall, the film wasn't exactly what I was expecting, but I still liked it and enjoyed seeing a young Mark Hamill in something not space based. FYI, I watched the theatrical cut, which was cut down against Fuller's wishes and added the narration that I mentioned. There's a 40-minute-longer "reconstructed" version from 2004 that is similar to Fuller's original cut and is even better, supposedly, but I wasn't able to find it, unfortunately.

I've seen the reconstructed version and there may be some other battle(s) (i.e. there is one scene in an ancient arena where the squad is saved by a group on horseback). Also a lot of down time, which may have been removed. Pretty ambitious to film that much of the war in one movie. Apparently Fuller wanted to make the film in the 1950's and John Wayne was interested in playing the Sgt. but it took many years for everything especially the funding to fall into place. Some memorable scenes especially the ones with kids. 'The real glory in war is surviving'.

 

[aufheben]

Independence Day: Resurgence (2016, R . Emmerich) - 2/5

This is a 1/5 movie gets a 2/5 simply because Judd Hirsch and Jeff Goldblum are in it.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Independence Day: Resurgence (2016, R . Emmerich) - 2/5

This is a 1/5 movie gets a 2/5 simply because Judd Hirsch and Jeff Goldblum are in it.

Controversial opinion but I say the same applies to the original, I saw it for the first time last year and it's soooooo bad, minus Goldblum being hilarious.

 

[nameless1]

I finally finished Waves that had so much critical acclaim, and l, like others have noted, also do not understand the high praises. While there are some things that I liked, such as the performances from the cast, and the splashy candy-like bright colours, which seems to be associated with Florida nowadays, they are all undermined by the rest of the movie. The main problem is that the characters are written as mere caricatures, because there is very little details about them. Thus, it becomes hard to be invested in any of the them, despite the best efforts from the actors, and consequently, the story feels cold and distant. The preference for rotating camera work also does not help, because when used in conjunction with the bright colours, the movie feels like a bad psychedelic trip. In fact, at times, I actually feel nauseous, and it becomes a big turnoff. Lastly, the movie is paced poorly. While the first 20 minutes that showcase the main character's idyllic life is fast-paced and quite fun to watch, the rest of the movie pretty much just grinds to a halt, and the experience increasingly becomes a chore. After the climax and the subsequent narrative switch at the midway point, I just want it to end. It does not help that at the climax, the frame suddenly switches, with no explanation at all, and then switches back later on, which annoys me to no end.

Throughout the runtime, I continue to be reminded New Age influences, and I can see how people can be enamored with movies like these, as it can feel fresh. For me though, I really hope this style does not take hold, because quite simply, it is style over substance, and nothing but a bunch of empty calories.

4/10

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

Are you suggesting that we Americans are indignant and angry? I'm offended. What a stupid suggestion!

I like how they changed it even though she's clearly not upset, but, rather, smiling and amused.

Ha, oh man I forgot she's smiling at the time too. Yeah, just ridiculous haha.

 

[kihei]

Mysterious Object at Noon (2000) Directed by Apichatpong Weerasethakul 5D

Thai director Apichatpong Weerasethakul (Uncle Boonme Who Can Recall His Past Lives; Tropical Malady; Syndromes and a Century; Cemetery of Splendour) is arguably the greatest directorial talent to emerge this century. Mysterious Object at Noon is his first film, and it's a kind of a good news/bad news maiden voyage. The good news is that the movie starts with an interesting idea. It is based on the game Exquisite Corpse, quite popular in Thailand, where in a drawing or a story, multiple people contribute to its completion though they only vaguely know what other people have contributed before them. Obviously some pretty surreal pictures and stories emerge from this process, but it can be a lot of fun, too. Weerasethakul and a small crew drive around Thailand creating an Exquisite Corpse movie whereby people they meet contribute to the ongoing development of the movie. The first woman that they interview, who works in a mobile food van, tells a story about her father selling her for bus fare. She relays this story so convincingly that I didn't know whether she was telling the truth of not, adding a rather disquieting though not unwelcome note of complexity right at the start. Subsequent contributors began a truly made-up story that involves sprites, spirits, teachers, disabled boys, and so on. As we move around Thailand, the story gets developed...sort of. Actually, the places where we visit are often more interesting than the story being created. The final section is devoted mostly to children and they create chaos more than anything else. The story becomes less important than how it is told and by whom. Now here's the rub. Weerasethakul never informs the audience directly about what he is doing. The viewer has to figure out the Exquisite Corpse game on the run, as it were, which is, of course, impossible to do if you have never heard about the Exquisite Corpse game in the first place. Without that key information the movie seems like a muddle with no way to fathom for certain what is going on. Perhaps the game is so popular in Thailand that Weerasethakul, probably not thinking this movie would ever see the light of day internationally, didn't feel the need to clarify what the movie was about. But it is a big flaw for the uninitiated. Still, that image of the woman in tears telling the camera about her father selling her for a bus ticket really stays in my mind. It's the one reason Mysterious Object at Noon continues to haunt me a little, and it probably always will.

subtitles

available on the Criterion Channel

 

[McOilers97]

Had a big weekend where I caught up on a bunch of awesome movies that I should have already seen. My movie history is a bit thin in the first place, as I've been mostly a tv series guy for the past 8ish years, but I'm trying to remedy that this year.

Watched:
- Whiplash (loved it)
- Collateral (enjoyed it)
- Boogie Nights (loved it)
- No Country for Old Men (loved it)
- Lady Bird (loved it)

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Thor (2011) rewatch - 7/10

There's a solid script and a very good cast here but there was something off about the direction and then I looked it up and it was by f***ing Kenneth Brannagh. The egoist that managed to ruin Poirot. Weird directing choice him for a superhero action movie but it's still formulaic enough in terms of Marvel to be a pretty decent re-watch.

 

[kihei]

Stalker (1979) Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky 7B

Stalker is many things, part science fiction movie, part religious parable, part apocalyptic vision, part philosophical debate, part existential dilemma. A meteorite or perhaps a visitation of aliens leaves a large field in Russia off limits to all except military personnel who are responsible for maintaining a perimeter around the surrounding area. Deep within the danger zone, a large bunker contains a room in which, allegedly, the wish is granted to anyone who makes it that far, whatever that wish might be. At great personal risk, Stalkers, who are basically guides, lead clients into the forbidden zone, but no client has ever returned. Our particular Stalker agrees to guide two men, a writer and a professor of science, through the perimeter and surrounding countryside until they reach the bunker where they will travel a perilous journey to get to the room. Once they arrive at the threshold, though, neither entering the room nor having one's wish granted is as straightforward as they thought it might be. If this movie were a classical musical movement it worked be marked "largo" (very slow). In this 163 minute movie, there are only 142 total shots, less than one a minute. However, because Tarkovsky's camera movement and cinematography are so effective, the long takes are not as tedious as they may sound. Still Stalker is a ponderous movie with a lot on its mind, one that tackles some very heavy-duty explorations about art, science, hope, and human nature and its critical failings. Our Stalker can even be seen as a man of god trying to lead people to a sort of promised land, but ultimately there are no takers, as neither the artist nor the scientist can bring himself to accept the kind of belief that would be necessary to enter the room. The science fiction bits proceed on a somewhat lighter note. Actually the thing that I liked most about this movie was its approach to science fiction, especially the journey of the three men from the Stalker's rendezvous point to the bunker in the pasture. Though the movie takes place in Russia, I felt like these guys might just have well been on another planet because their reactions and strategies seem so otherworldly. But the effect is achieved in a simple way. It's almost like watching little kids play some spooky game in their own backyard where they can't approach an apple tree directly, they have to approach it stealthily, and where a small tent can camouflage a whole host of terrible dangers. What is even more remarkable is that the movie uses no special effects beyond such materials one could find in a Russian military junkyard. Like the larger philosophical implications of the movie, the reality of the science fiction setting is based on stuff that's not really there, but stuff that people can be convinced to imagine anyway. As it turns out, that is a big part of the message of the movie.

subtitles

available on Criterion Channell

 

[nameless1]

I watched The Color Purple about 10 to 15 years ago, and back then, I quite liked it, and I fully understood why it got nominated for so many Academy Awards that year, even though it ultimately went home empty-handed. Recently, it was made available to me for free once again, and while it is not something I wanted to see more than once, I decided to give it a try, just to see if my perspective changed as I grew older. Unfortunately, my opinion of the movie changed for the worst, and I also see why Spielberg's reputation became what it is nowadays.

When I first saw it, I thought it is a very honest adaptation that showed the hardships poor African Americans faced in the South. 10 to 15 years later, I feel that the 80s may not have been the best time to adapt the novel, because the novel featured themes of sexuality, in particular the relationship between Suge and Celie, that would have been hard for the American public to accept, especially from a mainstream Hollywood movie. That is why it is not too explicit, and only hinted at. In a way, that choice can even be seen as brave, and definitely ahead of its time back in the 80s. Unfortunately, with today's perspective in mind, that sense of self-censorship is what dooms the movie, because too many themes seems to be glossed over, and the tone becomes too happy to feel real.

Ultimately, this is Spielberg's main issue in his more serious movies, because as a blockbuster director, he always wants to make that crowd-pleaser, and that limits him, because he never goes far enough, and he will even take things out, or gloss over them, so it fits his narrative better. He will even use manipulative music to stir up emotions in his audience that he wants. Thus, other than themes that means a lot to him so he makes no compromise, his movies always lack the deeper emotional impact that transform the medium into an art form.

I also have a problem with Harpo's portrayal. In this movie, he is often used as comic relief, and the actor who plays him has to do a lot of slap-stick routines. Usually, moments of levity is welcomed, but in this particular movie, it feels very out of place, and in a way, it can even be seen as racist.

Honestly, to be completely fair, for an 80s movie, I think Spielberg did the best he can with the subject matter. Nowadays, however, it is simply a cop-out. I also have a different opinion on Whoopi Goldberg's performance, because while I thought she did a good job back then, it now feel forced and unnatural. I do not think she is a bad actress per say, but she may not have been the best choice to play the main character. She may have been too inexperienced to play the role, because I feel it took all her energy just to suppress her comedic side, and her performance becomes void of emotions in the end.

I will give it 6/10. It really is not a bad movie, but it is so restrained, that it ultimately rings false. This is one work that would have been better if it is made today, given today's current political climate.

 

[nameless1]

Man, the Criterion channel seems to be well-worth the money. There are so many good choices, and they even have some that they have not released on DVD or Blu-Ray yet. I really should look into it.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Bugsy

with Warren Beatty, Ben Kingsley, and a whole bunch of Jewish and Italian guys in suits.

Big budget biopic passion project from Warren Beatty starring as legendary mobster Ben "Bugsy" Siegel, blood brother of Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky and formative member of US organized crime. We open with him shooting a betting parlour manager to death just before jetting off to Los Angeles on a "six day trip" to bring LA mobster Jack Dragna's operation into the fold. On the way through Beverly Hills to his hotel, he notices a mansion owned by a famous opera singer and decides to buy it. Right then. Upon introducing himself as Ben Seigel, the owner asks him if he's related to Bugsy Seigel. Bad move. Instantly the furious killer mobster emerges. The nickname "Bugsy"or "Bugs" you see meant crazy once upon a time back in the day; as in, someone who sees bugs everywhere. This is but a taste of things to come as Ben's impulsiveness leads him to be smitten with a clearly predatory femme fatale, side with Mickey Cohen over Jack Dragna, divorce his wife (kinda), and...oh yeah, decide out of the blue to build a giant casino in the middle of the Nevada desert, in a little place now known as Las Vegas. With mob money. And not be that good of an accountant. And allow his femme fatale girlfriend free reign over the purse strings. D'oh.

It's a notch down from the legendary mob movies like Goodfellas or the Godfather saga, but it's still good. Won a couple of technical Oscars, nominated for a bunch more and a lot of Golden Globes. Very strong supporting cast with Harvey Keitel, Annette Benning, Ben Kingsley and Elliot Gould (who I think was under the impression his character was mentally handicapped). Glosses over a lot...but the centre of the story is Bugsy and Virginia. One telling sequence has him in New York wearing an apron and chef's hat baking a cake for his daughter's birthday while simultaneously taking a Very Important Meeting with Meyer Lansky and two carloads of heavy hitters and running between the rooms while calling his guy in LA to keep an eye on Virginia (I want you watching her all the time, Mickey! Or some other guy...but one of the older guys!!). One of the finer Hollywood mobster period pieces, and strongest when viewed as a character study.

But he looks like such a nice guy...

 

[kihei]

La Notte (1961) Directed by Michelangelo Antonioni 6B

Michelangelo Antonioni's groundbreaking trilogy of the early '60s doesn't even have a name. "Trilogy of modernity and its discontents" is as close as anyone came to tagging it, and that's not exactly catchy. I think of it as Antonioni's "intellectual alienation" trilogy, which I think sums it up as well as anything else does. La Notte, the middle film, is generally considered the most problematic of the three movies, lacking L'Avventura's originality and tension and L'Eclisse's architectural concentration on the places and spaces that we live in. Sort of the northern Italian more refined companion piece to Fellini's far brassier La Dolce Vita, La Notte also concentrates on disillusioned intellectuals and writers. But where Fellini gleefully portrays their decadence, Antonioni is far more concerned with their alienation from society and from themselves. Unfortunately, what La Notte ends up being is a fairly alienating movie about alienation. Marcello Mastroianni, the very epitome of the European leading man, plays a writer/journalist in both the Antonioni and Fellini films, but in La Notte it is a thankless task. From the moment that Giovanni almost sleeps with a mental patient very early in the film, the character is a lost cause, and there is not much Mastroianni can do to salvage him. Giovanni and his partner Lidia (Jeanne Moreau) mope around Milan aimlessly until they finally end up at a party attended by more people who lead equally empty lives. For Giovanni and Lidia love is a thing of the past. Lidia considers an affair whereas Giovanni actively seeks them out in the damnedest places. Briefly Monica Vitti pops into the movie as a free spirit and gives the proceedings a needed jolt of energy, but then she quickly succumbs to the general malaise. The movie ends on a jarring note as Giovanni gropes Lidia on a golf course. Not a work I will return to again. But, in Antonioni's defense he was among the first artists, certainly in film anyway, to grasp the importance of alienation in the '60s--a theme that dominated that decade. Most of his movies are studies of the effects of alienation and nearly all of them are superior to La Notte. However, La Notte works better when seen not as an individual film but as part of his trilogy and shouldn't be panned too severely as a result. Antonioni deserves credit for making a brilliant adjustment to Italian neo-realism, one of the most important movements in film history that helped transform cinema and is still paying dividends to this day. Where directors like Visconti, De Sica and Rossellini focused on the external hardships of the working class, Antonioni modified the approach so that he focused on the internal disenchantment of middle class intellectuals. This had a tremendous impact not just on Italian cinema, but on world cinema. It opened whole new territories to explore. La Notte does not wear well taken out its primary context, but it did what it was intended to do at the time--not a great movie, but still an important one.

subtitles

available on Criterion Channel

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I watched The Color Purple about 10 to 15 years ago, and back then, I quite liked it, and I fully understood why it got nominated for so many Academy Awards that year, even though it ultimately went home empty-handed. Recently, it was made available to me for free once again, and while it is not something I wanted to see more than once, I decided to give it a try, just to see if my perspective changed as I grew older. Unfortunately, my opinion of the movie changed for the worst, and I also see why Spielberg's reputation become what it is nowadays.

When I first saw it, I thought it is a very honest adaptation that showed the hardships poor African Americans faced in the South. 10 to 15 years later, I feel that the 80s may not have been the best time to adapt the novel, because the novel featured themes of sexuality, in particular the relationship between Suge and Celie, that would have been hard for the American public to accept, especially from a mainstream Hollywood movie. That is why it is not too explicit, and only hinted at. In a way, that choice can even be seen as brave, and definitely ahead of its time back in the 80s. Unfortunately, with today's perspective in mind, that sense of self-censorship is what dooms the movie, because too many themes seems to be glossed over, and the tone becomes too happy to feel real.

Ultimately, this is Spielberg's main issue in his more serious movies, because as a blockbuster director, he always wants to make that crowd-pleaser, and that limits him, because he never goes far enough, and he will even take things out, or gloss over them, so it fits his narrative better. He will even use manipulative music to stir up emotions in his audience that he wants. Thus, other than themes that means a lot to him so he makes no compromise, his movies always lack the deeper emotional impact that transform the medium into an art form.

I also have a problem with Harpo's portrayal. In this movie, he is often used as comic relief, and the actor who plays him has to do a lot of slap-stick routines. Usually, moments of levity is welcomed, but in this particular movie, it feels very out of place, and in a way, it can even be seen as racist.

Honestly, to be completely fair, for an 80s movie, I think Spielberg did the best he can with the subject matter. Nowadays, however, it is simply a cop-out. I also have a different opinion on Whoopi Goldberg's performance, because while I thought she did a good job back then, it now feel forced and unnatural. I do not think she is a bad actor per say, but she may not have been the best choice to play the main character. She may have been too inexperienced to play the role, because I feel it took all her energy just to suppress her comedic side, and her performance becomes void of emotions in the end.

I will give it 6/10. It really is not a bad movie, but it is so restrained, that it ultimately rings false. This is one work that would have been better if it is made today, given today's current political climate.

That's just a good way to describe Spielberg in general. While I think many of his movies are outright bad, he's a good technician (albeit lacking in satisfying style and originality) but as a storyteller and impactful artist, he is useless, sometimes offensive.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Klimt (Ruiz, 2006) - It gets pretty frustrating reading comments on certain films. This is one of many films that went really high over the head of most of its spectators. Expecting a banal biopic from someone like Raoul Ruiz only indicates the lackings of the commentator's previous knowledge of an amazing oeuvre that will stretch (to its limits) its representations' relationships to both reality and the previous works it might be linked to (as such, an adaptation by Ruiz is not to be expected as a strict adaptation of the text/story of the novel, but of its finer workings as a work of art - see L'hypothèse du tableau volé for the most extreme example of that: started as an adaptation of the novel Le Baphomet, it became an exploration of Klossowki's whole aesthetic vision and philosophy, and can only be linked narratively to the original work by some details in a few of the tableaux). So it's a film about Klimt, but not about Klimt as he might have been in reality. It's made pretty clear in what's probably the most important scene of the film, an encounter between Klimt and Georges Méliès (that I don't think ever happened in reality) in which Méliès presents a film he made about Klimt (that I'm pretty sure don't exist in reality). Watching the film, Klimt sees himself on screen, and afterwards meets the actor, who looks nothing like him. Klimt falling in love with his film persona's love interest, either the real one or the actress playing her, or both, only adds confusion between what's fake and what's not - and when he later fights the actor who played him, Klimt both wins and loses. So it's a film about Klimt, about his obsessions, his influences, and mostly about the fracture between his reality and his work. Early 20th century Vienna is rendered in visuals and in philosophical principles, and the film does a fine job of adapting tensions between the artists in the Vienna Secession, putting emphasis on art as useful vs art as beautiful (nicely illustrated with the film opening on a useful skeleton in a hospital, and deeming it beautiful in the closing scenes, placing the skull as part of an artwork). Klimt, who took position IRL in defense of decorative arts, tends towards the beautiful, and clearly Ruiz agrees, proposing an often very beautiful film, which as no usefulness to anyone who would have liked to know about Klimt's real life. It remains somewhat of a subpar work in Ruiz's filmography (still would be a masterpiece if signed by most other filmmakers). It's not as challenging as his better films, and it borrows most of its visual experimentations to previous films (mainly Le Temps retrouvé and Trois vies et une seule mort). It even feels a little redondant narratively - something that's really rare in Ruiz's filmography - reclycling in parts some of his Proust adaptation's structure. 7.5/10

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Other films I've watched:

Mannequin (Gottlieb, 1987): it is what it is, not unpleasant, not really funny either. 3/10

The Fabulous Baker Boys (Kloves, 1989): drags a little, good performances, some nice dialogues too. 4/10

Un baiser s'il-vous-plaît (Mouret, 2007): Mouret falls somewhere between Éric Rohmer and Woody Allen, closer to the latter, without the cinematographic experimentations (or mastery). Not his best film, still fun. 6.5/10

Golden Temple Amazons (Les amazones du temple d'or, Payet & Franco, 1986): A collaboration between Jesus Franco and Marc Dorcel's first lieutenant, ain't that a dream come true? If you thought that the bare breasts horseback riding scene in Private School was too short, and would have liked it to go on for a good 20 minutes, this is the film for you. With hilarious dialogues and character arcs (the useless sorcerer, ecstatic for making it through alive) - this is really close to being an essential, but falls just short. 1.5/10

 

[ORRFForever]

The Fabulous Baker Boys (Kloves, 1989): drags a little, 4/10

Have to disagree. I LOVED this movie. Every minute of it.

 

[Langdon Alger]

American Wedding - 2003

My least favourite of the Pie series. I find this one doesn’t hold up too well, unfortunately. I could do without seeing Stifler eating shit and f***ing Jim’s grandmother. The scene with Jim trimming his pubes and throwing them out the window is another low moment. A lot of gross stuff, that unfortunately just isn’t that funny to me.

The opening scene in the restaurant where Jim is planning on proposing to Michelle is funny, especially after Jim’s dad shows up, and the dance off in the gay bar is fun too, but there aren’t enough funny moments in this movie for me.

one of the problems is that they didn’t get the whole cast back for this one. I think that’s why I enjoyed the other films more. Good job getting Fred Willard to be in this one though. He’s always funny, and seeing him with Eugene Levy was great.

Levy was perfectly cast as Jim’s dad in these movies. So funny and clearly loves his son very much.

6/10