Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +4
- Thread starter ProstheticConscience
- Start date
ItsFineImFine
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2019
- 3,745
- 2,389
The Running Man (1987) - 7/10
It's pretty damn stupid but it's also pretty damn fun. I think the directing ruins this film. Way too many crowd shots and fluff shots that drag out the length, way too much cheese even for an 80s film, some awesomely bad lines by Arnold, and action which is poorly done and quite choppy, but still somehow fun, mainly just from the premise I guess.
It's pretty damn stupid but it's also pretty damn fun. I think the directing ruins this film. Way too many crowd shots and fluff shots that drag out the length, way too much cheese even for an 80s film, some awesomely bad lines by Arnold, and action which is poorly done and quite choppy, but still somehow fun, mainly just from the premise I guess.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
Two films with similar themes and source material that work as counterpoints to each other:
La captive (Akerman, 2000) – A modern, timeless for most of it, very loose adaptation of Proust's La prisonnière. Slow, contemplative, mostly beautifully shot, with themes like the male gaze, possession, objectification, and jealousy – this film has everything for me to love it. But... it's not that efficient. There's a tangible pictorial quality to Akerman's images (and a few allusions to paintings), conveying the idea of looking or of the gaze – most often associating its female character to the object of that gaze. In that, the scene of the dual baths separated by a textured window (screenshot above) is not only the most beautiful image of the film, it's also its most powerful: an image where the female character actually becomes a painting (with that amazing frame within the frame). Akerman's take on the male possessiveness, jealousy and obsession is interesting in that it's him who is suffering from it. The woman, the object of the gaze, is only presented as happy in his absence or in images, but that's probably only part of his insecurity as she never manifests dissatisfaction. He is weak, suffering from allergies to the point of having no energy, unable to speak up (all of his dialogues are murmurs), pale, impotent. She is to him sexually unreachable (as shown by the glass separating them), but always there for him to take: he will watch her sleep, and rub his pajamas against hers, but never more. With his pale figure, pink lips, and passiveness, he is “feminized” and ultimately presented as incapable (Akerman speaks of this character as if he was a vampire, and that might be an interesting hint for a reading). Still, the film's offensive towards the male gaze is tame and even though the male perspective is weakened and emasculated, it's really only pale compared to the strikes landed by Catherine Breillat's masterpiece that came out the year before. Indeed, rewatching Akerman's take on this proustian narrative only made me want to watch Clouzot's La prisonnière again – and Breillat's Romance. 5.5/10
La prisonnière (Clouzot, 1968) – If Akerman's film is a loose adaptation, Clouzot's version of La prisonnière really only kept the title and themes from the original material. In fact, the film follows up Clouzot's aborted take on Proust (L'enfer, an unfinished project, abandoned after he had a heart attack) and he recycled some of its themes, concepts and images. Even though the main themes are the same, the story strays far away from both Proust and Akerman (you only have hints of it, with a jealous man following his girlfriend, or said girlfriend experimenting with homosexuality). The narrative is jolting, and the female character's submission and bulgoning passion for her dominant new flame are not brought forth skillfully or with great care, but it's a daring and surprising film (with tiny cameos by Pierre Richard and Michel Picoli, among others). It's a sleazy psychedelic version of Proust, with long close-ups on kinetic artworks that echo some early experimental films by Marcel Duchamp or Hans Richter. The relationships established between submission and modeling (offering oneself to the gaze of the other), and between dominance and the possession of the photographic image – proposed in the film not only through the erotic photography seances, but also in the documentary film testimonies where assaulted women submit to their assailants, and again by the photographer's refusal to being photographed – are important patterns of sleaze and erotic films (the interesting ones at least), this might be one early important occurrence. 9/10
La captive (Akerman, 2000) – A modern, timeless for most of it, very loose adaptation of Proust's La prisonnière. Slow, contemplative, mostly beautifully shot, with themes like the male gaze, possession, objectification, and jealousy – this film has everything for me to love it. But... it's not that efficient. There's a tangible pictorial quality to Akerman's images (and a few allusions to paintings), conveying the idea of looking or of the gaze – most often associating its female character to the object of that gaze. In that, the scene of the dual baths separated by a textured window (screenshot above) is not only the most beautiful image of the film, it's also its most powerful: an image where the female character actually becomes a painting (with that amazing frame within the frame). Akerman's take on the male possessiveness, jealousy and obsession is interesting in that it's him who is suffering from it. The woman, the object of the gaze, is only presented as happy in his absence or in images, but that's probably only part of his insecurity as she never manifests dissatisfaction. He is weak, suffering from allergies to the point of having no energy, unable to speak up (all of his dialogues are murmurs), pale, impotent. She is to him sexually unreachable (as shown by the glass separating them), but always there for him to take: he will watch her sleep, and rub his pajamas against hers, but never more. With his pale figure, pink lips, and passiveness, he is “feminized” and ultimately presented as incapable (Akerman speaks of this character as if he was a vampire, and that might be an interesting hint for a reading). Still, the film's offensive towards the male gaze is tame and even though the male perspective is weakened and emasculated, it's really only pale compared to the strikes landed by Catherine Breillat's masterpiece that came out the year before. Indeed, rewatching Akerman's take on this proustian narrative only made me want to watch Clouzot's La prisonnière again – and Breillat's Romance. 5.5/10
La prisonnière (Clouzot, 1968) – If Akerman's film is a loose adaptation, Clouzot's version of La prisonnière really only kept the title and themes from the original material. In fact, the film follows up Clouzot's aborted take on Proust (L'enfer, an unfinished project, abandoned after he had a heart attack) and he recycled some of its themes, concepts and images. Even though the main themes are the same, the story strays far away from both Proust and Akerman (you only have hints of it, with a jealous man following his girlfriend, or said girlfriend experimenting with homosexuality). The narrative is jolting, and the female character's submission and bulgoning passion for her dominant new flame are not brought forth skillfully or with great care, but it's a daring and surprising film (with tiny cameos by Pierre Richard and Michel Picoli, among others). It's a sleazy psychedelic version of Proust, with long close-ups on kinetic artworks that echo some early experimental films by Marcel Duchamp or Hans Richter. The relationships established between submission and modeling (offering oneself to the gaze of the other), and between dominance and the possession of the photographic image – proposed in the film not only through the erotic photography seances, but also in the documentary film testimonies where assaulted women submit to their assailants, and again by the photographer's refusal to being photographed – are important patterns of sleaze and erotic films (the interesting ones at least), this might be one early important occurrence. 9/10
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
The Gentlemen
with Matthew McConaughey, Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunnam, and other people who all talk like Guy Ritchie. Except Colin Farrell, who's allowed to be Irish for once.
The latest Guy Ritchie movie takes us back once again to his beloved London underworld populated entirely by overly verbose gangsters who love nothing more than babbling exposition at each other in London street jabber for hours on end. Mr Awwwright is Michael Pearson, UK marijuana kingpin (whose character is obviously American as not even Guy Ritchie is insane enough to try to make Matthew McConaughey attempt a London accent) who's rolling in cash, high-class patronage, and middle-aged ennui. He may sit astride a vast empire of weed, but he's looking to cash out and sell the business. He hits up a swishy US Jewish billionaire who just might fit the bill to take over the estate...but complications arise. One of his farms is suddenly raided by youtubing MMA thugs in horrible plaid tracksuits, an uppity Chinese mobster is looking to move up in the world at Mikey's expense, and a sleazy Hugh Grant is a paparazzi with blackmail ambitions who spends half the movie narrating the various scams to Charlie Hunnam (Mikey's lieutenant). They also eat Waygu beef.
Flaccid, talky, and boring. This is basically like watching Guy Ritchie and a couple of London friends snorting coke and babbling to each other for two hours. About ten minutes of action and 1 hour 55 minutes of "cool" talk. The scam is obvious from the start. The layers of who's really playing who are predictable and rote. Hugh Grant is gloriously sleazy, but his entire subplot gets deeply tedious. I foolishly entertained the hope that Guy Ritchie could regain the heights of stylistic cool he reached with Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels when Rock'n'Rolla came out, but it seems that was a red herring. He resumes his downward trajectory here in a big way.
Not as bad as Revolver or the shit he made with Madonna, but wow. It's pretty damn bad.
On Netflix.
Yes, this is one of the gangster factions. And they actually wear these. Really. That's where we are here.
with Matthew McConaughey, Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunnam, and other people who all talk like Guy Ritchie. Except Colin Farrell, who's allowed to be Irish for once.
The latest Guy Ritchie movie takes us back once again to his beloved London underworld populated entirely by overly verbose gangsters who love nothing more than babbling exposition at each other in London street jabber for hours on end. Mr Awwwright is Michael Pearson, UK marijuana kingpin (whose character is obviously American as not even Guy Ritchie is insane enough to try to make Matthew McConaughey attempt a London accent) who's rolling in cash, high-class patronage, and middle-aged ennui. He may sit astride a vast empire of weed, but he's looking to cash out and sell the business. He hits up a swishy US Jewish billionaire who just might fit the bill to take over the estate...but complications arise. One of his farms is suddenly raided by youtubing MMA thugs in horrible plaid tracksuits, an uppity Chinese mobster is looking to move up in the world at Mikey's expense, and a sleazy Hugh Grant is a paparazzi with blackmail ambitions who spends half the movie narrating the various scams to Charlie Hunnam (Mikey's lieutenant). They also eat Waygu beef.
Flaccid, talky, and boring. This is basically like watching Guy Ritchie and a couple of London friends snorting coke and babbling to each other for two hours. About ten minutes of action and 1 hour 55 minutes of "cool" talk. The scam is obvious from the start. The layers of who's really playing who are predictable and rote. Hugh Grant is gloriously sleazy, but his entire subplot gets deeply tedious. I foolishly entertained the hope that Guy Ritchie could regain the heights of stylistic cool he reached with Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels when Rock'n'Rolla came out, but it seems that was a red herring. He resumes his downward trajectory here in a big way.
Not as bad as Revolver or the shit he made with Madonna, but wow. It's pretty damn bad.
On Netflix.
Yes, this is one of the gangster factions. And they actually wear these. Really. That's where we are here.
The World, the Flesh and the Devil (1959) - 7/10 (Really liked it)
A miner (Harry Belafonte) emerges from underground to discover that he's seemingly the last man alive. After traveling to a deserted New York City, he encounters a young woman (Inger Stevens), but another man (Mel Ferrer) eventually shows up to come between them. If that sounds familiar, it's because it's similar to 2015's Z for Zachariah, which I reviewed a couple of nights ago, and 1985's The Quiet Earth, which is a remake of this. The main difference between this and the remake is that this includes racial commentary that would've been relevant in the late 50s. Even though the black man and the white woman are seemingly the only people alive, the taboos of the era still pose a mental obstacle to them forming a closer relationship. Perhaps this would've sorted itself out over time, but the sudden appearance of the second man complicates things and forces decisions and conflict. The ending is also different than The Quiet Earth. As with that film, though, the plot revolves more around the relationships between the three characters than on action or external threats. I often wanted to shake the characters for being obtuse and old fashioned, but that was the era and it also makes for more drama. For a singer-turned-actor, Belafonte does a pretty good job of carrying this picture. Overall, I enjoyed the film. It has good themes and I'm a sucker for films that feature deserted cities because they're different and I'm easily impressed by the preparation that it must've taken to get the shots. I tend to like most "last man on Earth"-style apocalyptic films, so I'm probably biased, but this seemed to me to be a pretty good one. It's not a classic or anything new if you've seen the films that I just mentioned or any of the I Am Legend adaptations, but it also came before all of those (and likely inspired them), which gives it points.
Last edited:
As my favourite work of literature is In Search of Lost Time, I pick my Proust adaptations judiciously and a little warily, I guess, because I don't want to see anything that will compromise my own impressions about the work. So this is helpful. The Clouzot work sounds really worth chasing down. Unfortunately it is not among his films available on the Criterion Channel, so patience will be required.Two films with similar themes and source material that work as counterpoints to each other:
La captive (Akerman, 2000) – A modern, timeless for most of it, very loose adaptation of Proust's La prisonnière. Slow, contemplative, mostly beautifully shot, with themes like the male gaze, possession, objectification, and jealousy – this film has everything for me to love it. But... it's not that efficient. There's a tangible pictorial quality to Akerman's images (and a few allusions to paintings), conveying the idea of looking or of the gaze – most often associating its female character to the object of that gaze. In that, the scene of the dual baths separated by a textured window (screenshot above) is not only the most beautiful image of the film, it's also its most powerful: an image where the female character actually becomes a painting (with that amazing frame within the frame). Akerman's take on the male possessiveness, jealousy and obsession is interesting in that it's him who is suffering from it. The woman, the object of the gaze, is only presented as happy in his absence or in images, but that's probably only part of his insecurity as she never manifests dissatisfaction. He is weak, suffering from allergies to the point of having no energy, unable to speak up (all of his dialogues are murmurs), pale, impotent. She is to him sexually unreachable (as shown by the glass separating them), but always there for him to take: he will watch her sleep, and rub his pajamas against hers, but never more. With his pale figure, pink lips, and passiveness, he is “feminized” and ultimately presented as incapable (Akerman speaks of this character as if he was a vampire, and that might be an interesting hint for a reading). Still, the film's offensive towards the male gaze is tame and even though the male perspective is weakened and emasculated, it's really only pale compared to the strikes landed by Catherine Breillat's masterpiece that came out the year before. Indeed, rewatching Akerman's take on this proustian narrative only made me want to watch Clouzot's La prisonnière again – and Breillat's Romance. 5.5/10
La prisonnière (Clouzot, 1968) – If Akerman's film is a loose adaptation, Clouzot's version of La prisonnière really only kept the title and themes from the original material. In fact, the film follows up Clouzot's aborted take on Proust (L'enfer, an unfinished project, abandoned after he had a heart attack) and he recycled some of its themes, concepts and images. Even though the main themes are the same, the story strays far away from both Proust and Akerman (you only have hints of it, with a jealous man following his girlfriend, or said girlfriend experimenting with homosexuality). The narrative is jolting, and the female character's submission and bulgoning passion for her dominant new flame are not brought forth skillfully or with great care, but it's a daring and surprising film (with tiny cameos by Pierre Richard and Michel Picoli, among others). It's a sleazy psychedelic version of Proust, with long close-ups on kinetic artworks that echo some early experimental films by Marcel Duchamp or Hans Richter. The relationships established between submission and modeling (offering oneself to the gaze of the other), and between dominance and the possession of the photographic image – proposed in the film not only through the erotic photography seances, but also in the documentary film testimonies where assaulted women submit to their assailants, and again by the photographer's refusal to being photographed – are important patterns of sleaze and erotic films (the interesting ones at least), this might be one early important occurrence. 9/10
By the way, the other night I watched Breillat's early film A Real Young Girl about a 14-year-old rebellious girl's sexual awakening with explicit sex scenes that, to say the least, aren't your usual explicit sex scenes. I found parts of it hard to watch, but I did think the film captured from a woman's perspective a believable notion of the sexual awakening of a young girl and how different that might be than anything a male writer/director could come up with dealing with similar material. So I liked it (though, "like" seems a odd word in this case) quite a bit (7C). Child pornography it is not, though I can see why it might make some timid souls more than a little nervous. Here's the kicker, though: Where did I see it? On YouTube.
Last edited:
Gloria (1980) Directed by John Cassavetes 7A
John Cassavetes, my favourite US director, directed ten movies, but it is the eight that he wrote and directed that best represent his career. Of that number, Gloria is easily the most readily accessible, a fairy tale gangster movie about Gloria, a really tough broad (the magnificent Gena Rowlands), and a six-year-old Puerto Rican kid who falls in her lap after his entire family is killed by Mafioso types....Mafioso types who happen to be friends of hers. For starters, she hates kids. But against her better judgement she decides to keep little Phil as safe as she can. Cue lots of tough/cutesy dialogue between Gloria and the kid, but keep in mind that Cassavetes isn't too concerned about what would really happen in this circumstance, he's just having fun with his wife (Rowlands). As long as you don't take the proceedings too seriously Gloria is a delightful romp and a terrific showcase for Rowland's superb talents. With Cassavetes' other written and directed films one would struggle to summarize a plot. Certainly among North American directors, his loosey-goosey style is unique. Cassavetes movies are about edgy, often dissatisfied, often marginalized people who can communicate their pain but just can't do much about it. The approach often feels like improvisation, though Cassavetes claimed his movies are tightly scripted, though at some point the actors don't have to worry about that too much. Spontaneity and passion, being in-the-moment for good or ill, are the emotions that Cassavetes values most, and he will follow them where they lead, even at expense of story. The camera work can be dazzling, probing, a force to itself. In short, his movies are showcases for actors and for discovery in which story is considered secondary to the power of the moment. His films are an acquired taste, but when they work, and almost all of them do, they take you places other movies don't venture into. You have to keep on your toes because you never know for sure where the ride is taking you. In a way Cassavetes' best work is comparable to good jazz. Starting out with the straightforward Gloria may not be a bad way of wading into the water. I don't think that I can possibly mix more metaphors.
Last edited:
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
The Clouzot film is great, just don't go in expecting to see Proust. L'enfer was supposed to be the serious adaptation, La prisonnière only has some of its remains, mixed in sleaze and artsy stuff. You could give a chance to the Akerman film, it has a lot of qualities. To me, it just doesn't achieves what it should.
I'm a great fan of Breillat. I haven't seen her last film (the previous three - somewhat of a "fairytale" cycle - were all different levels of disappointment compared to the genius of some of her earlier work). If you're curious to see more, her best films IMO are Romance (masterpiece - 10/10), Anatomie de l'enfer (unbearable to most) and Une vraie jeune fille (which I guess is the one you've seen, but I've never seen it under that title - should be A Real Young Girl - which is of course an amazing use of reflexivity and a first step to create that "real" image of a young girl). Brève traversée is a film of more humble ambitions but still brilliant. À ma soeur! was her most well received film, it's pretty good. And then Sex is Comedy (helps understand some of her other films), Tapage nocturne are good films too. Just don't ever get close to Sale comme un ange, that's pure shit.
I've seen quite a bit of her work actually, enough to realize what I was potentially getting into.
And, yes, I didn't remember the title accurately--it is A Real Young Girl.
Spikey
Registered User
- Feb 12, 2020
- 139
- 50
I watched Fever Pitch to get me more pumped up for the baseball season. It's a pretty good funny movie where the main actor is obsessed with baseball and has trouble keeping a relationship because of it but the new girl he finds they're able to work things out.
I give it at 7.5 out of 10
I give it at 7.5 out of 10
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
Gloria (1980) Directed by John Cassavetes 7A
John Cassavetes, my favourite US director, directed ten movies, but it is the eight that he wrote and directed that best represent his career. Of that number, Gloria is easily the most readily accessible, a fairy tale gangster movie about Gloria, a really tough broad (the magnificent Gena Rowlands), and a six-year-old Puerto Rican kid who falls in her lap after his entire family is killed by Mafioso types....Mafioso types who happen to be friends of hers. For starters, she hates kids. But against her better judgement she decides to keep little Phil as safe as she can. Cue lots of tough/cutesy dialogue between Gloria and the kid, but keep in mind that Cassavetes isn't too concerned about what would really happen in this circumstance, he's just having fun with his wife (Rowlands). As long as you don't take the proceedings too seriously Gloria is a delightful romp and a terrific showcase for Rowland's superb talents. With Cassavetes' other written and directed films one would struggle to summarize a plot. Certainly among North American directors, his loosey-goosey style is unique. Cassavetes movies are about edgy, often dissatisfied, often marginalized people who can communicate their pain but just can't do much about it. The approach often feels like improvisation, though Cassavetes claimed his movies are tightly scripted, though at some point the actors don't have to worry about that too much. Spontaneity and passion, being in-the-moment for good or ill, are the emotions that Cassavetes values most, and he will follow them where they lead, even at expense of story. The camera work can be dazzling, probing, a force to itself. In short, his movies are showcases for actors and for discovery in which story is considered secondary to the power of the moment. His films are an acquired taste, but when they work, and almost all of them do, they take you places other movies don't venture into. You have to keep on your toes because you never know for sure where the ride is taking you. In a way Cassavetes' best work is comparable to good jazz. Starting out with the straightforward Gloria may not be a bad way of wading into the water. I don't think that I can possibly mix more metaphors.
Wow, I can't believe you like this film.
I actually left the theatre with Mrs_NyQuil.
She picked it. It's her "walk out" movie that we laugh about.
I have two: "Avengers (with Fiennes and Thurman)" and "Mission to Mars".
EDIT: Oh, sorry, I walked out of the remake with Sharon Stone.
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
I am Sam Kinison
with 80's people.
Biopic about the life and times of legendary shouty standup comedian Sam Kinison. He's hard to describe if you weren't there in the late 80's. A former Pentecostal preacher from a family of preachers, Sam shed his upbringing and moved to Houston to become a standup comedian. He combined shouting, scowling, and a frothing hatred of his wife to create a monster persona that became huge back in the day. The forerunner of lots of "edgy" comics, he was the real deal for manic hollering, but all was not well. His comic shtick was that of the unhinged politically incorrect psycho heavy metal comic...and he developed substance abuse problems to match any dozen LA rockers from the 80's. To his credit, he did clean himself up and reinvigorate his act...only to be tragically killed by a drunk driver on the way to a show in 1992.
You look at a lot of innovators after the fact and think: hey, I could do that. I've known plenty of guitar players who can play Jimi Hendrix and Eddie Van Halen solos, but it's another thing entirely to invent the techniques of feedback and overdrive control, fretboard tapping and whammy bar wank. Sam Kinison was akin to those people in the art of standup comedy. There wasn't anyone like him before he came along, and there really hasn't been since. Joe Rogan...a bit? But however great Sam was a comedian, there are issues. Corey Feldman's one of those interviewed, and was one of Sam's really close friends. You wince as he describes snorting rails of coke ten feet long at one of Sam's legendary parties...then you remember how old Corey Feldman was in 1988, 89. Yeah. Like I said however, Sam did clean himself up in the end and while his story was left unfinished, his mark on the comedy world was indisputable.
Stay tuned for the bit that starts off: "So, homosexual necrophiliacs..."
The jokes go from ME!!! To YOUR FACE!!!
with 80's people.
Biopic about the life and times of legendary shouty standup comedian Sam Kinison. He's hard to describe if you weren't there in the late 80's. A former Pentecostal preacher from a family of preachers, Sam shed his upbringing and moved to Houston to become a standup comedian. He combined shouting, scowling, and a frothing hatred of his wife to create a monster persona that became huge back in the day. The forerunner of lots of "edgy" comics, he was the real deal for manic hollering, but all was not well. His comic shtick was that of the unhinged politically incorrect psycho heavy metal comic...and he developed substance abuse problems to match any dozen LA rockers from the 80's. To his credit, he did clean himself up and reinvigorate his act...only to be tragically killed by a drunk driver on the way to a show in 1992.
You look at a lot of innovators after the fact and think: hey, I could do that. I've known plenty of guitar players who can play Jimi Hendrix and Eddie Van Halen solos, but it's another thing entirely to invent the techniques of feedback and overdrive control, fretboard tapping and whammy bar wank. Sam Kinison was akin to those people in the art of standup comedy. There wasn't anyone like him before he came along, and there really hasn't been since. Joe Rogan...a bit? But however great Sam was a comedian, there are issues. Corey Feldman's one of those interviewed, and was one of Sam's really close friends. You wince as he describes snorting rails of coke ten feet long at one of Sam's legendary parties...then you remember how old Corey Feldman was in 1988, 89. Yeah. Like I said however, Sam did clean himself up in the end and while his story was left unfinished, his mark on the comedy world was indisputable.
Stay tuned for the bit that starts off: "So, homosexual necrophiliacs..."
The jokes go from ME!!! To YOUR FACE!!!
Just remember: you asked for it
...I watched Relic last night and really didn't like it (3/10). I didn't find it scary, just silly. It tried to be clever and meaningful like The Babadook or Hereditary, but nothing made sense or was explained. It has a few creepy scenes and good atmosphere, but the strange last 1/3rd and confusing and unsatisfying ending didn't pay me back for being patient through the first hour. Also, having the premise be as sad as dementia was just uncomfortable to me, personally. If most of it worked for you, though, then that's all that matters. Also, don't feel bad that you convinced me to try it, since I likely would've watched it eventually, anyways, so I just got it out of the way sooner rather than later.
Last edited:
Barbarella (1968) Directed by Roger Vadim 6A
Barbarella would make a great double feature with Tokyo Drifter, two movies that could only have been conceived and made in the '60s. Basically the same shtick applies to both: dumb ass plot but wild visuals. In a future where weapons are now obsolete in the universe, Barbarella (Jane Fonda) is sent to a far off galaxy to try to find an inventor named Durand Durand (well, that's one trivia question answered) who has gone missing. The set designs and the costumes--or in Fonda's case, lack of them--are the main attraction here. Jane Fonda starts the movie with an interstellar strip tease and shows an aversion to clothes the rest of the way. In fact, the movie would certainly qualify as soft core porn by most standards. Her adventures aren't very exciting, even one where she meets an angel, but the kitschy sets, the scanty costumes, and the general celebration of sex and pop culture gone berserk are enough to give the movie enough of a jolt to sustain it. If nothing else, Barbarella isn't the kind of movie that comes down the road every day. And if you haven't seen a lot of Jane Fonda lately, you can see a lot of her in this movie. Wink, wink.
Available on Criterion Channel
Last edited:
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
Just remember: you asked for it
I watched Relic last night and really didn't like it (3/10). I didn't find it scary, just silly. It tried to be clever and meaningful like The Babadook or Hereditary, but nothing made sense or was explained. It has a few creepy scenes and good atmosphere, but the strange last 1/3rd and confusing and unsatisfying ending didn't pay me back for being patient through the first hour. Also, having the premise be as sad as dementia was just uncomfortable to me, personally. If most of it worked for you, though, then that's all that matters. Also, don't feel bad that you convinced me to try it, since I likely would've watched it eventually, anyways, so I just got it out of the way sooner rather than later.
Try Color Out of Space. Not great, but interesting enough.
ORRFForever
Registered User
- Oct 29, 2018
- 19,861
- 11,106
Yikes! I am surprised but... since no one else has commented on the movie, maybe I'm the only one that liked it.Just remember: you asked for it
I watched Relic last night and really didn't like it (3/10). I didn't find it scary, just silly. It tried to be clever and meaningful like The Babadook or Hereditary, but nothing made sense or was explained. It has a few creepy scenes and good atmosphere, but the strange last 1/3rd and confusing and unsatisfying ending didn't pay me back for being patient through the first hour. Also, having the premise be as sad as dementia was just uncomfortable to me, personally. If most of it worked for you, though, then that's all that matters. Also, don't feel bad that you convinced me to try it, since I likely would've watched it eventually, anyways, so I just got it out of the way sooner rather than later.
Thanks for the review.
That's another one that I considered and then went "nah" after I read enough reviews. Many of the people who hated the film sounded like they dislike the same things that I do. I'll give it a chance, anyways, though. Thanks.
Yikes! I am surprised but... since no one else has commented on the movie, maybe I'm the only one that liked it.
You're certainly not alone in liking Relic, since 91% of critics liked it. Also, half of regular viewers (49%) liked it. You're just in that half and I'm in the other. That'll happen.
Last edited:
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
Richard Stanley is a legend and expectations might be a little too high, but it's a fun film, good enough to deserve being seen.
I just looked him up and learned that his feature film debut was the "legendary" Hardware
. I remember seeing that in the theater and feeling very uncomfortable sitting next to my dad during one of the scenes (you know the one). I also just read that Stanley went on to get fired from directing the infamous The Island of Dr. Moreau just 3 days into filming and then snuck back onto the set, got into costume as one of the dog-men and performed as an extra in the movie without anyone realizing it. Ok, that's pretty legendary, I have to admit .
Last edited:
You’re more generous than I am. I wouldn’t give it that high a score. It’s fun to watch any baseball movie, since I love the sport, but this movie was ok at best for me. I do like how Fallon’s character was so obsessed with baseball and Barrymore’s character has to learn to deal with it. I’m guessing a lot of women can relate.
I Tonya
2.70 out of 4stars
Biopic about the famous figure skater. Portrays the crazy world Tonya Harding lived in and through, including physical and mental/emotional emotional abuse from her mother and on and off again husband, her poor redneck upbringing, her lack of education (and common sense), and all the idiots in her life around her (skating coaches aside it appears). That said, she didn't exactly help herself out in these situations in numerous ways portrayed in the film, and she apparently gave it back verbally and physically to some of those around her also. With much thanks to this being told as a first person retelling at times, with a darkly comedic tone, and with the actors all giving great performances, this turned out to be a very breezy fun movie that is much lighter than the subject matter it deals with. First half of the movie show Tonya up to the Kerrigan incident, 2nd half of the movie shows everything surrounding the Kerrigan incident and it's after effects. Entertaining, solid, a little bit repetitive and predictable with it's events(albeit a tiny bit of that is no fault of it's own), elevated by seemingly great acting and storytelling and directing, but nothing wow worthy imo.
2.70 out of 4stars
Biopic about the famous figure skater. Portrays the crazy world Tonya Harding lived in and through, including physical and mental/emotional emotional abuse from her mother and on and off again husband, her poor redneck upbringing, her lack of education (and common sense), and all the idiots in her life around her (skating coaches aside it appears). That said, she didn't exactly help herself out in these situations in numerous ways portrayed in the film, and she apparently gave it back verbally and physically to some of those around her also. With much thanks to this being told as a first person retelling at times, with a darkly comedic tone, and with the actors all giving great performances, this turned out to be a very breezy fun movie that is much lighter than the subject matter it deals with. First half of the movie show Tonya up to the Kerrigan incident, 2nd half of the movie shows everything surrounding the Kerrigan incident and it's after effects. Entertaining, solid, a little bit repetitive and predictable with it's events(albeit a tiny bit of that is no fault of it's own), elevated by seemingly great acting and storytelling and directing, but nothing wow worthy imo.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
I just looked him up and learned that his feature film debut was the "legendary" Hardware
Not sure about the
... ? I like Hardware a lot. Dust Devil is something too, not necessarily that good, but the guy was doing his own thing.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
Less interesting stuff I've watched:
Queen & Slim (Matsoukas, 2019) - Ok road movie - can't blame it for not being relevant, even though I wasn't always sure what it wanted to say, pretty good actors too. 4.5/10
The Story of Us (Reiner, 1999) - I wasn't aware this existed, kind of a thematic sequel to When Harry Met Sally, not as good. 4/10
The War of the Roses (DeVito, 1989) - I was impressed by DeVito's directing (a lot less by his acting), especially the last part where he pastiches a lot of horror processes. Didn't remember how good that was. 5.5/10
Hustlers (Scafaria, 2019) - Prime, why are you doing this to me? 3/10
WarGames (Badham, 1983) - I understand this has some kind of historic importance or whatever... it would have been an ok film if not for the facility of the dénouement. 3.5/10
Robocop (Padilha, 2014) - I understand this will never have any importance whatsoever. Ok commercial remake I guess, but it lost everything that made the original, too soft all the way through. 3.5/10
Queen & Slim (Matsoukas, 2019) - Ok road movie - can't blame it for not being relevant, even though I wasn't always sure what it wanted to say, pretty good actors too. 4.5/10
The Story of Us (Reiner, 1999) - I wasn't aware this existed, kind of a thematic sequel to When Harry Met Sally, not as good. 4/10
The War of the Roses (DeVito, 1989) - I was impressed by DeVito's directing (a lot less by his acting), especially the last part where he pastiches a lot of horror processes. Didn't remember how good that was. 5.5/10
Hustlers (Scafaria, 2019) - Prime, why are you doing this to me? 3/10
WarGames (Badham, 1983) - I understand this has some kind of historic importance or whatever... it would have been an ok film if not for the facility of the dénouement. 3.5/10
Robocop (Padilha, 2014) - I understand this will never have any importance whatsoever. Ok commercial remake I guess, but it lost everything that made the original, too soft all the way through. 3.5/10
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Confirmed with Link: Tomasino to PIT for '27 4th round pick- Latest: Sike Mullivan
