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

[Jussi]

Greyhound 8+/10.

The Old Guard 8½/10.

 

[ORRFForever]

Please explain how a film is pretentious. And I'm asking very seriously and honestly. I see it all the time, but I never really understood. Jean-Luc Godard, pretentious? (maybe, don't know - there's a few of his fellow filmmakers who have nasty things to say about him for sure). But his films? How can his films be pretentious? A film is an object, without intention of its own. A filmmaker could be the most pretentious hack ever, his film would still just be hit or miss. No?

I found the initial conversation between the 2 kids pretentious - the writer was trying too hard to impress.

After that, I enjoyed the movie.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I found the initial conversation between the 2 kids pretentious - the writer was trying too hard to impress.

After that, I enjoyed the movie.

What was pretentious about the conversation or the way it was written? I'm not even sure what film we're talking about, but I think I need to see this.

 

[Mantis]

Rochelle, Rochelle (1997) :

You should check out Chunnel, Prognosis Negative and Cry, Cry Again. Sack Lunch is pretty funny too.

 

[ORRFForever]

You should check out Chunnel, Prognosis Negative and Cry, Cry Again. Sack Lunch is pretty funny too.

 

[ORRFForever]

What was pretentious about the conversation or the way it was written? I'm not even sure what film we're talking about, but I think I need to see this.

I thought we were talking about The Vast Of The Night.

It just seemed "pretentious". Not sure how else to explain it. It was just so... "pretentious".

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I thought we were talking about The Vast Of The Night.

Ahah, yeah sorry about that, I had to go back in the thread... I'll watch it on Prime in the next few days.

 

[ORRFForever]

Ahah, yeah sorry about that, I had to go back in the thread... I'll watch it on Prime in the next few days.

No worries. Tell us if you feel the same way. It's only for the first 20(?) minutes, then it gets better.

 

[ORRFForever]

Volition (2020) :

I've given up trying to understand time travel movies - they're above my paygrade. I either like them or I don't, and I liked Volition.

7/10

 

[Osprey]

Z for Zachariah (2015) - 7/10 (Really liked it)

After a nuclear holocaust, Ann (Margot Robbie) is seemingly the last woman alive in Appalachia when the luckiest man alive (Chiwetel Ejiofor) wanders into her valley. Before long, however, another stranger (Chris Pine) appears and threatens to come between them. This is very much a relationship drama that just happens to be set after the apocalypse. It doesn't look very traditionally apocalyptic, either, because it takes place in Ann's idyllic farm, which is sheltered from fallout by the hills around it. The cinematography is gorgeous, the score is beautiful and the acting is excellent all around. It's a slowly paced film that may not be for everyone, however. It's only 90 minutes and I didn't find it boring in the least, but a lot of people may (if the RT user reviews are any indication). That pace and the beautiful setting make for a rather tranquil viewing experience that I found very relaxing, but which might put some people to sleep. Even when the tension escalates, it's a passive aggressive tension as the characters try to avoid conflict by not saying what's really on their minds. The script keeps viewers guessing about what the characters suspect and have done through vague dialogue and not showing us key moments so that we're kept in the dark like the characters at times. I, personally, think that it's really clever because imagining what they think and have done is more interesting than knowing and leads us to be as suspicious as them. Some viewers may not like that, though, especially when it comes to the ending, which is also very open to interpretation. I think that these are the reasons why it has a mediocre 45% from users at RT, but, for once, I'm actually with the critics (79%). I really liked the film (and might've loved it if the ending hadn't been quite so abrupt), but it's the kind that you're going to either love or hate, depending on how you feel about the slow pace and ambiguity.

 

[kihei]

Volition (2020) :

I've given up trying to understand time travel movies - they're above my pay grade. I either like them or I don't, and I liked Volition.

That would seem to exhaust the possibilities.

You might consider a little, low-budget Spanish number from 2007 called Timecrimes. In its modest but effective way, it plays as fair as any time travel movie that I have seen. Here's the RT page if you are interessted:

Los Cronocrímenes (Timecrimes) (2007)

 

[kihei]

Tokyo Drifter (1966) Directed by Seijun Suzuki 6A

I’m not even going to try to summarize the super convoluted story of this yakuza satire except to say it is about a whole bunch of gangsters double crossing one another…except for one, a real straight shooter. All you need to know is we have a dumb central hero named Tetsu, the Phoenix, he of the powder blue suit, who gets in and out of outlandish scrapes. He’s not cool dumb, he’s just plain dumb—but he is an excuse to playfully deface a multitude of yakuza cliches. But don’t worry about the comic book-level story. Style is everything in this movie, pop art personified with clever staging and an uber-garish color scheme. When combined with the rare joke that actually works (it is kind of funny when the gangsters start tripping one another), Tokyo Drifter can be a lot of fun to watch. The soundtrack is yet another thing. The central theme is repeated about nineteen times and it drove me crazy by the third. There are a few equally awful musical numbers scattered through this scattershot film like fleas on an alley cat. However, at least some are interestingly staged. Still I could have lived without having to actually hear them or anything else in this movie. My advice on this one is to turn the sound off completely, put your favourite jazz album on, and just let Tokyo Drifter drift along unencumbered by dialogue or soundtrack music. The movie is a cool package to look at but there is nothing inside.

subtitles

available on Criterion Channel

 

[kihei]

Please explain how a film is pretentious. And I'm asking very seriously and honestly. I see it all the time, but I never really understood. Jean-Luc Godard, pretentious? (maybe, don't know - there's a few of his fellow filmmakers who have nasty things to say about him for sure). But his films? How can his films be pretentious? A film is an object, without intention of its own. A filmmaker could be the most pretentious hack ever, his film would still just be hit or miss. No?

I used Godard only because he is the most popular target of this type of comments.

La mécanique des femmes is a film that felt to me like it was aiming at a level of artistry and relevance that it could never reach. Maybe it was pretentious to try. But then again, I could say the same about Replica, another film that doesn't come close to what it sets itself for.

Oh.... I have an example of filmic pretentiousness.... I can't remember from which film it was, for some reason I think it's something by Arrabal (but I might be wrong!!), but there was in the credits something like: All quotes by Nietzsche, Freud, and Arrabal (again, maybe it wasn't him at all - and it certainly wasn't Nietzsche and Freud, but other thinkers of that level of reputation, plus the director's name, 3rd person) - I remember that made me lol.

I find Alejandro Jodorowsky's El Topo and Ken Russell's Mahler and his Tchaikovsky biopic The Music Lovers pretentious in the sense that they attempt to impress by affecting greater importance than they actually possess. But those are the only examples that come to mind. In general, when somebody uses the word "pretentious" to describe a movie, I just think they mean "I don't like it and you shouldn't either."

And, yeah, as a big Godard fan, I think the word pretentious is laughable when applied to his work. There's lots of reasons people can have for not liking some of his films, but pretentiousness isn't one of them.

 

[ORRFForever]

That would seem to exhaust the possibilities.

You might consider a little, low-budget Spanish number from 2007 called Timecrimes. In its modest but effective way, it plays as fair as any time travel movie that I have seen. Here's the RT page if you are interessted:

Los Cronocrímenes (Timecrimes) (2007)

Thank you.

I use to try and think thru the timeline craziness of time travel movies but it would get me nowhere. It was either 1) B.S. or 2) I was too stupid to figure it out. Most likely the latter.

 

[ORRFForever]

After a nuclear holocaust, Ann (Margot Robbie) is seemingly the last woman alive in Appalachia when the luckiest man alive (Chiwetel Ejiofor) wanders into her hills and into her care.

She is sooooo good looking. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I find Alejandro Jodorowsky's El Topo and Ken Russell's Mahler and his Tchaikovsky biopic The Music Lovers pretentious in the sense that they attempt to impress by affecting greater importance than they actually possess. But those are the only examples that come to mind. In general, when somebody uses the word "pretentious" to describe a movie, I just think they mean "I don't like it and you shouldn't either."

And, yeah, as a big Godard fan, I think the word pretentious is laughable when applied to his work. There's lots of reasons people can have for not liking some of his films, but pretentiousness isn't one of them.

I liked the Jorowsky one, but that's another film I haven't seen in a loooong time. I don't think I've seen the Russell ones, a director I have a love/hate relationship with. But then again, what you say makes sense on a semantic level: the films pretend at some form of importance they don't possess, so they're pretentious. Still don't work for me. The films are what they are, and you think they're of no great importance, that's fine, but how do they pretend they're more than that? Jodorowsky's work is very tongue-in-cheek, always borderline absurd, and I think he's having more fun than any of us with his material - maybe he is pretentious (I don't know), but I still can't see how the films themselves could be. And I don't know if I'm making sense here.

 

[kihei]

I liked the Jorowsky one, but that's another film I haven't seen in a loooong time. I don't think I've seen the Russell ones, a director I have a love/hate relationship with. But then again, what you say makes sense on a semantic level: the films pretend at some form of importance they don't possess, so they're pretentious. Still don't work for me. The films are what they are, and you think they're of no great importance, that's fine, but how do they pretend they're more than that? Jodorowsky's work is very tongue-in-cheek, always borderline absurd, and I think he's having more fun than any of us with his material - maybe he is pretentious (I don't know), but I still can't see how the films themselves could be. And I don't know if I'm making sense here.

Don't worry about it. However, if you concede that there are directors who one could identify as pretentious (thinking Ken Russell big time here), then why doesn't it follow that some of their movies are indeed pretentious in turn, i.e. reflect the pretensions of their creator? But, mama mia, we are pretty much on the same side in this argument, except I'm saying about movies and pretentiousness "almost never" and you are saying "never with maybe one or two exceptions." In other words, not much of a difference. I just don't think that it is an adjective that can normally apply to art objects.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Haven't seen it, but Too Old to Die Young's rythm often seemed a little forced. But wanting to make a very slow film (or series) and not mastering that rythm perfectly isn't (to me) anymore pretentious than wanting to make an action film with spectacular stunts and coming up with Commando.

I think a dividing line for me is whether or not whatever flourish/technique/whatever is being used is being used for a purpose that isn’t simply “watch me do this cool thing!” That is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. And frankly, there are probably even times where “this is cool” would pass muster for me as a reason. But generally speaking the cases where I most often drop the word “pretentious” are where I feel a filmmaker is kinda just doing something to do it without larger purpose.

A couple of examples. I can see why TOTDY would be considered pretentious, but I don’t think so. It’s showy and stylized, but it all feels like there is a purpose. It’s deliberate and difficult but that’s also the point. At least I think so.

I wish I had a better movie pretentiousness example to give but I’m struggling to think of one at the moment. So I’m going to point to a TV creator who particularly annoys me. Sam Esmail (Mr. Robot, Homecoming) directs a lot of his own stuff and it’s so loaded with tricks and tactics that often feel completely unneeded. The quickest, easiest example is an episode of Mr. Robot he did that was completely “silent.” No dialogue for the whole run time. But here’s the thing ... there was no in-story reason for that gimmick. He’d literally just cut away at any point when characters would logically have to speak. So why did he do it? My answer is pretension.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Bond rewatch update. The Brosnan years.

Goldeneye is a nice recalibration and reintroduction. I’m a defender of the two Dalton films (to an extent), but the throwback pleasures of Brosnan’s debut are undeniable. Brosnan is a nice midpoint between serious and cheeky. This is one of the most purely fun Bonds. Some grounded stretches mixed with some classic (but not absurd) ridiculousness. A good supporting cast, particularly the intro of Judi Dench as M who brings a gravitas none of her predecessors possessed.

I’ll bunch Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough together because I feel very similar about both. I don’t think either is offensively bad. They’re both more forgettable than anything. Jonathan Pryce’s villain in the former is so over-the-top, even for a Bond villain, but I kinda liked it on this rewatch. The “evil” media mogul is an oddly prescient bit in a Bond movie, which tends to be more of a reactive franchise than a proactive one. TND is more on the jokey side. LOTS of entendres. Honestly maybe too many. WNE dials it back and makes Brosnan a little more serious. I just don’t buy the emotional beats.

Die Another Day is the most interesting of the Brosnan movies. I’ve always gotten the sense it is not well regarded. I highly doubt it would crack my top 10, but I have to say I enjoy it quite a bit. Feels like a descendent from The Spy Who Loved Me strain of Bond DNA. Absurd. It’s the 20th movie so they went out of their way to pack in references to the past (which probably drives continuity preachers nuts). I like the numerous little Easter eggs though I can understand if one finds them a distraction. The villain Graves as a commentary on Bond himself is an unexpected little bit of cleverness. I think I’ll differ from consensus here too ... but I actually think Halle Berry is a weak spot in the movie. She’s so unabashedly a “female Bond” right down to the quips that it’s a distraction. I love a good, strong female action hero, but I like them well written, not generically molded. She’s fine when she’s punching but she can’t sell the quips at all. Also, Bond should never, ever surf (which he does here TWICE). Still, this one is memorable at the very least which gives it a leg up on the two predecessors.

 

[Langdon Alger]

You should check out Chunnel, Prognosis Negative and Cry, Cry Again. Sack Lunch is pretty funny too.

Don’t forget Means to and end and Blame it on the rain.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Oh.... I have an example of filmic pretentiousness.... I can't remember from which film it was, for some reason I think it's something by Arrabal (but I might be wrong!!), but there was in the credits something like: All quotes by Nietzsche, Freud, and Arrabal (again, maybe it wasn't him at all - and it certainly wasn't Nietzsche and Freud, but other thinkers of that level of reputation, plus the director's name, 3rd person) - I remember that made me lol.

It wasn't Arrabal. I'm 99% positive that it was José Bénazéraf, not sure what film, but most probably Le désirable et le sublime.

 

[Osprey]

Predestination (2014) :

I'm not going to pretend that I understood this wonderfully acted time travel movie, because I didn't, but I really enjoyed Predestination.

7.5/10

Spoiler

Wait.
Hold up.
She had sex with herself?
She impregnated herself?!

She gave birth to herself?!

...and to think that I was once weirded out by Marty McFly's mom merely having the hots for her son.

I liked it, too. It reminded me in several ways of Looper, but with more mystery than action, and is one of the most twist-filled movies that I've ever seen. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

[kihei]

Chimes at Midnight (1965) Directed by Orson Welles 8A

In about as audacious a move as is imaginable, Orson Welles created a new Shakespeare play, Chimes at Midnight, which focused on one of the Bard's most endearing rascals, John Falstaff. The irresponsible mentor of soon to be king Prince Hal, Falstaff figures in multiple plays. So Welles pieced together dialogue from five of Shakespeare plays, Henry IV, part 1, Henry IV, part 2, Henry V, Richard II, with a smattering of lines from The Merry Wives of Windsor. Welles altered timelines, did some judicious editing, and created a new play with Falstaff as its central figure, no longer merely a bit player in grander designs. Chimes at Midnight is a play about friendship, almost kinship, betrayed as Hal must learn to outgrow the rowdy, disreputable old man when Hal finally ascends to the throne. Of course, Welles, who was the size of a small whale by this time, was born to play the corpulent, fun-loving, frivolous character who possessed no real substance beyond easy camaraderie. Welles financed the production on a shoe string budget, and it showed in the original release where sound syncing problems nearly ruined the production. Cleaned up by Criterion, Chimes at Midnight now looks like a million bucks and the sound problems have been drastically reduced and are negligible anyway on a small screen. Though Falstaff is a comic figure, the movie is not as funny as I expected, with Welles emphasizing the poignancy of the relationship over laughs. Worthy of note, though, is an extended action sequence that is a wonder to behold, full of chaos and brutality and mud--not exactly the kind of sequence one associates with Welles, but he was after all a master director. There is some major league acting going on here with Welles leading the way but including no less a Shakespearean icon than John Gielgud as Henry IV and the little known Keith Baxter as a sunny, seemingly carefree Prince Hal. The cinematography is wonderful to watch. Thanks to Criterion, Chimes at Midnight is now the film that it was meant to be, and maybe Welles second best movie.

available on the Criterion Channel

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Chimes at Midnight (1965) Directed by Orson Welles 8A

In about as audacious a move as is imaginable, Orson Welles created a new Shakespeare play, Chimes at Midnight, which focused on one of the Bard's most endearing rascals, John Falstaff. The irresponsible mentor of soon to be king Prince Hal, Falstaff figures in multiple plays. So Welles pieced together dialogue from five of Shakespeare plays, Henry IV, part 1, Henry IV, part 2, Henry V, Richard II, with a smattering of lines from The Merry Wives of Windsor. Welles altered timelines, did some judicious editing, and created a new play with Falstaff as its central figure, no longer merely a bit player in grander designs. Chimes at Midnight is a play about friendship, almost kinship, betrayed as Hal must learn to outgrow the rowdy, disreputable old man when Hal finally ascends to the throne. Of course, Welles, who was the size of a small whale by this time, was born to play the corpulent, fun-loving, frivolous character who possessed no real substance beyond easy camaraderie. Welles financed the production on a shoe string budget, and it showed in the original release where sound syncing problems nearly ruined the production. Cleaned up by Criterion, Chimes at Midnight now looks like a million bucks and the sound problems have been drastically reduced and are negligible anyway on a small screen. Though Falstaff is a comic figure, the movie is not as funny as I expected, with Welles emphasizing the poignancy of the relationship over laughs. Worthy of note, though, is an extended action sequence that is a wonder to behold, full of chaos and brutality and mud--not exactly the kind of sequence one associates with Welles, but he was after all a master director. There is some major league acting going on here with Welles leading the way but including no less a Shakespearean icon than John Gielgud as Henry IV and the little known Keith Baxter as a sunny, seemingly carefree Prince Hal. The cinematography is wonderful to watch. Thanks to Criterion, Chimes at Midnight is now the film that it was meant to be, and maybe Welles second best movie.

available on the Criterion Channel

I just watched this as well and was fairly blown away by it ... especially Welles' direction. There's nothing about the direction that gives away its play roots. It's active and lively. Lots of movement, not just characters but the camera and especially the editing. The battle scene really is something to see.

My one quibble is Welles himself. Falstaff is indeed a large character in girth and personality and Welles is likely one of the most fitting actors to ever portray him. But I found myself slightly annoyed by the performance. That's unfair because it's a big, bold character in need of big, bold acting. Still, I struggle a little with Welles the actor. I watched The Lady from Shanghai recently as well and found Welles the actor to be a stumbling block for me there too.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

It wasn't Arrabal. I'm 99% positive that it was José Bénazéraf, not sure what film, but most probably Le désirable et le sublime.

Found it!!! Indeed from Le désirable et le sublime. It wasn't thinkers, it was important figures from literature.

It reads: "Oh, I forgot... the texts you have heard are from Shakespeare, Baudelaire, Albert Camus, and from José Bénazéraf [himself]".

That's kind of pretentious, and that's in the film itself.