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

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I somehow missed this review the first time around.

We are definitely in agreement on this one. Not 10/10 agreement, but Calendar is my second favourite Egoyan film behind The Sweet Hereafter. I think your reading of the film is excellent. But I would add that in addition to everything else happening on so many different levels, Calendar is also a wonderfully funny film, perhaps my favourite Canadian comic film. quite the trick given everything else Egoyan has going on here. The darker reality, the stuff he is really thinking, his frustrations, the strains in the marriage, and Arsinee's growing relationship with their driver/guide, just kind of glides in there two thirds of the way through the movie. When it comes it almost feels like getting splashed with cold water, but once it arrives, it's here to stay. At a surface level, though, the humour really impressed me, how inventive it was, how Egoyan seemed to be taking the piss out of himself, poking fun at his own oblivious self-absorption and what a turn-off it can be for those around him, while also making fun in general of movie making and the creative process with calendar art as the foil. Having only seen Calendar a couple of years ago after watching most of Egoyan's films to that point, I would have said he was the least likely Canadian director to display a sense of humour. So Calendar really came as a very pleasant surprise. Also I think Arsenee Khanjian's gives one of her best performances in the film. She can be a little stiff as an actress sometimes, but here she is very charming--which gives their growing estrangement an added pang of loss.

Absolutely. I couldn't condense everything in here (not even sure these texts are read most of the times), so I cut out everything regarding the sadomasochistic staged phonecalls which are too pretty funny.

 

[nameless1]

I am undecided on Uncut Gems. I do not dislike it, but I also cannot say I like it, and I definitely cannot tell if it is good or not. Even though the story is interesting enough, and the pace gets my attention, I lost interest towards the end, because I fail to see the point of the movie. There are no moral lessons, no observations of the state of the world, and I do not think it can even be called a character study, because the main character remains the same throughout the movie.

That is the problem with the Safdie brothers. While they manage to get my initial attention, they cannot close the movie, and I am always disappointed by the ending. Frankly, I have no idea why I need to watch their movies, because they say absolutely nothing. Plus, it does not help that most of the time, the protagonists are jerks, and there are no character development whatsoever. They just trudge along in their world, with no definite conclusion.

Sandler is indeed good in the movie, but I thought he is just better than usual, so I cannot say that he is actually snubbed for any acting awards, to be honest. That is why I cannot exactly recommend it, because while it is not terrible, there is also nothing noteworthy about it, and I am not sure if it was worth the time.

6/10

 

[ORRFForever]

For some reason (I don't know why), I hate Dave Franco, but I'm still looking forward to see The Rental.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Kicking and Screaming - 2005

Will Ferrell coaches kids soccer, Robert Duvall plays his dad and Mike Ditka is in the movie for some reason.

Meh.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I am undecided on Uncut Gems. I do not dislike it, but I also cannot say I liked it, and I definitely cannot tell if it is good or not. Even though the story is interesting enough, and the pace gets my attention, I lost interest towards the end, because I fail to see the point of the movie. There are no moral lessons, no observations of the state of the world, and I do not think it can even be called a character study, because the main character remains the same throughout the movie.

That is the problem with the Safdie brothers. While they manage to get my initial attention, they cannot close the movie, and I am always disappointed by the ending. Frankly, I have no idea why I need to watch their movies, because they say absolutely nothing. Plus, it does not help that most of the time, the protagonists are jerks, and there are no character development whatsoever. They just trudge along in their world, with no definite conclusion.

Sandler is indeed good in the movie, but I thought he is just better than usual, so I cannot say that he is actually snubbed for any acting awards, to be honest. That is why I cannot exactly recommend it, because while it is not terrible, there is also nothing noteworthy about it, and I am not sure if it was worth the time.

6/10

While I don't think Uncut Gems is anywhere near a masterpiece (but I did like it). I can't stress enough how I disagree with your gripes having to be a negative. They're not inherently positive, but I have no issue with them if well-executed. If it means anything (I don't think it does), it also shows more 'realism' than the typical arcs of storytelling. Apologies for digressing but as an example, does anyone ever really know when or why or how they changed forever in a singular moment or do you just walk mindlessly one day and without any perceptible reason think, 'Oh. I've changed.' Disjointed stories can be absolutely beautiful and even be a point in and of themselves.

 

[nameless1]

While I don't think Uncut Gems is anywhere near a masterpiece (but I did like it). I can't stress enough how I disagree with your gripes having to be a negative. They're not inherently positive, but I have no issue with them if well-executed. If it means anything (I don't think it does), it also shows more 'realism' than the typical arcs of storytelling. Apologies for digressing but as an example, does anyone ever really know when or why or how they changed forever in a singular moment or do you just walk mindlessly one day and without any perceptible reason think, 'Oh. I've changed.' Disjointed stories can be absolutely beautiful and even be a point in and of themselves.

Could you define disjointed story? The story telling is very straightforward in this one.

I do agree that in some movies, a lack of change is fine. In Five Easy Pieces, Jack Nicholson's character is like that, and while it is not my favourite movie, I do think it works. However, the character has to be interesting, and Nicholson is very compelling. I do not understand him, and I do not like him, but I cannot take my eyes away from him. Sandler's character in Uncut Gems, unfortunately, is not. He is a deadbeat through and through, and in real life, one has to cut your losses with them. Why would I care about him, if I do not care about these types of people in real life?

Also, there has to be opportunities for change, and rather or not the main character take them is up to him or her. We as the audience are only there for the ride, and we have to respect the character for his or her respective choice. Uncut Gem has no such instances that I can see, and we all know he will just do the same things over and over again to his ultimate doom. That alone makes it predictable and boring, so not only is it a bad character study, it is also bad storytelling.

While I understand that it can feel realistic, and I do not argue with you on that point, a movie has to be interesting too, and Uncut Gem, for the reasons I have listed, is just not a good movie. The main character is boring, and not only is he predictably doomed, he has no shot at redemption, so why should I even watch it? That is why this movie feels absolutely pointless.

Honestly, I really do not think it is a bad movie, but I absolutely do not care about it.

 

[deadinthewater]

The Prestige. I last watched it maybe 5 or 6 years ago, but just an amazing film where you catch something new with every viewing. 9/10

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

The Prestige. I last watched it maybe 5 or 6 years ago, but just an amazing film where you catch something new with every viewing. 9/10

The thread is "last movie you watched" - you haven't seen a movie in 6 years?

 

[deadinthewater]

The thread is "last movie you watched" - you haven't seen a movie in 6 years?

Okay, there may have been some awful garbage on Netflix not worth mentioning.. lol

 

[kihei]

Crazy Rich Asians (2018) Directed by John M. Chu 4A

Crazy Rich Asians, a “will she won’t she marry the rich guy” movie, is a Timex watch that is as carefully conceived as a Rolex. The purpose of this movie is to entertain while being as innocuous as possible and to make boatloads of money in NA and abroad while being praised as a cultural breakthrough. Kevin Kwan’s best selling book is the perfect choice for source material. His trilogy comes with a built-in audience, not to mention the almost certainty of sequels. Plus, Singapore is close to an ideal location. China is too problematic; Hong Kong is a hot potato; a lot of Asian countries seem to hate Japan, Vietnam won the war; Cambodian and Laos bring back bad memories; and Bollywood would do it better. And who knows much about Singapore culture, anyway. For a movie that is basically a culturally tweaked version of a Katherine Hepburn ‘40s comedy, Singapore is the perfect safe choice. Because we don’t know much about the culture, we don’t know what to be offended by. The culture on display is way more a Hollywood version of “rich people” culture than it has anything to do with Singapore. What cultural takeaways are there from this movie? Old Singapore women are really mean. Still, the cast is very attractive; the hero is very dashing; the sets and costumes scream high production values. Even a slow fourth grader could follow the story. Save for a few Singapore old ladies, nobody will be offended, and life is a fantasy anyway. Corporate genius.

Netflix

 

[Osprey]

Solaris (1972) - 3/10 (Really disliked it)

A psychologist is sent to a space station orbiting a planet to investigate hallucinations by its skeleton crew. This sci-fi "masterpiece" has some interesting ideas, but it was a chore to get through. At 2h 46m in length, it was at least twice as long as it needed to be for its relatively simple story (which the fact that the 2002 remake is only 98 minutes long would seem to bear out). Much of the film is just conversation between the characters that wouldn't be out of place over a game of chess. The rest are long shots, slow pans and other sequences that felt self indulgent and there just to make the film longer and seem smarter, more meaningful and/or more artistic. For example, early in the film, before it transitions to space, there's a full 5-minute-long sequence of a character driving to work through tunnels and on freeways, all without any dialogue or soundtrack. At another point, the camera pans around a 16th-century landscape painting for two full minutes. At another, the camera slowly zooms into a close-up of a character's ear while he's talking. I, personally, have a low tolerance for films that are artistic and slow for the sake of being artistic and slow. I really like intelligent sci-fi, but not when it tries so hard to be and tests the viewer's intelligence and patience just to enjoy it. This film does have an interesting premise, but it wasn't interesting enough to me to make up for the pacing and length, nor was the ending, which felt rather weak for a nearly 3-hour film. I was really hoping to at least like and appreciate this classic, but I came away disappointed and just glad to have gotten through it.

 

[NyQuil]

Solaris (1972) - 3/10 (Really disliked it)

A psychologist is sent to a space station orbiting a planet to investigate hallucinations by its skeleton crew. This sci-fi "masterpiece" has some interesting ideas, but it was a chore to get through. At 2h 46m in length, it was at least twice as long as it needed to be for its relatively simple story (and even at only 1h 23m, it probably still would've felt slow). Much of the film is just conversation between the characters that wouldn't be out of place over a game of chess. The rest are long shots, slow pans and other sequences that felt self indulgent and there just to make the film longer, smarter, more meaningful and more artistic. For example, early in the film, there's a 5-minute-long sequence of following a car through city traffic, without dialogue or soundtrack. At another point, the camera pans around a famous 16th century painting for 2 full minutes. At yet another, the camera slowly zooms into a close-up of a character's ear while he's talking. I, personally, have a low tolerance for films that are artistic and slow for the sake of being artistic and slow. I really like intelligent sci-fi, but not when it tries so hard to be and tests the viewer's intelligence and patience just to enjoy it. This film does have an interesting premise, but it wasn't interesting enough to me to make up for the pacing and length, nor was the ending, which felt rather weak for a nearly 3-hour film. I was really hoping to at least like and appreciate this classic, but I came away disappointed and just glad to have gotten through it.

There are two films - the one by Tarkovsky and the remake by Soderbergh.

I liked this film because the horror of what it presents is so mystifying and unfathomable that it drives people to different levels of insanity.

I think as humans we strive for order and understanding and to be confronted with the emotional juggernaut that Solaris provides with no real explanation or judgement is psychologically traumatizing.

 

[Trap Jesus]

I think the fact that Sandler stays the same throughout the movie is kind of the point. He just can't help himself falling back into the same habits. (Almost) everyone hates him for a reason, he's just a despicable character. But as a viewer removed from the situation I couldn't help but laugh at how flawed he was and how much things were just piling up. That whole school play/trunk scene was one of the funniest things I've seen in years.

Safdie bros to me are a perfect example of how much style can elevate a movie. There's nothing complicated going on plot-wise, it's just the main characters making bad decisions, and they capture the chaos that unfolds from that through their loud and frenzied filmmaking style. In a way it reminds me of Yorgos Lanthimos' first two English films The Lobster and The Killing of a Sacred Deer where he just came in with this very specific and unique dry delivery that was very specific to him as a filmmaker, and you wondered if he'd stay the course with his next movie or not. He ended up changing it up with The Favourite, but I'm interested to see what the Safdie bros do from here.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Could you define disjointed story? The story telling is very straightforward in this one.

I do agree that in some movies, a lack of change is fine. In Five Easy Pieces, Jack Nicholson's character is like that, and while it is not my favourite movie, I do think it works. However, the character has to be interesting, and Nicholson is very compelling. I do not understand him, and I do not like him, but I cannot take my eyes away from him. Sandler's character in Uncut Gems, unfortunately, is not. He is a deadbeat through and through, and in real life, one has to cut your losses with them. Why would I care about him, if I do not care about these types of people in real life?

Also, there has to be opportunities for change, and rather or not the main character take them is up to him or her. We as the audience are only there for the ride, and we have to respect the character for his or her respective choice. Uncut Gem has no such instances that I can see, and we all know he will just do the same things over and over again to his ultimate doom. That alone makes it predictable and boring, so not only is it a bad character study, it is also bad storytelling.

While I understand that it can feel realistic, and I do not argue with you on that point, a movie has to be interesting too, and Uncut Gem, for the reasons I have listed, is just not a good movie. The main character is boring, and not only is he predictably doomed, he has no shot at redemption, so why should I even watch it? That is why this movie feels absolutely pointless.

Honestly, I really do not think it is a bad movie, but I absolutely do not care about it.

Apologies for any confusion. I didn't mean to imply that Uncut Gems was disjointed. It was just your review that prompted the thought. What I mean by disjointed stories are stories that don't follow any sort of direct, perceptible, common thread and/or without the direct stating of a message or point or an attempt at persuasion and grand declarations. Quickly and off the top of my head, think of something like Slackers by Richard Linklater perhaps...but it has been a while since I've seen it. In short, I do not have a problem with random sequences, the avoidance of an A-B-C, and a story being a presentation of fragments, partially covered, without full explanation or denouement. I guess, in a way, a story doesn't have to be 'full' in practical terms. While I don't consider character development or plot as mortal enemies to be destroyed, I just don't think they're as primordial as lots of people claim.

I agree with you about interest - of course art has to keep one's interest, but I don't think my post claimed the opposite. But to continue, I'm also not sure why one has to 'care' about a main character to be captivated by the moment, especially if you avoid the type in real life. They can still be interesting, morbid, and used for style, or a naturally fit within the delivery, context and construction of the story that is desired to be told. If I should only watch movies with the types of people I genuinely care for in real life...I'd be screwed. How many varieties are there, how many have I never interacted with, let alone known of their existence, both pleasant and unpleasant? Why limit myself in this way? I will always be back within my 5'9 box of bones after the required ninety minutes anyways. Without mentioning that despite many attempts to combat the experience and subvert its victory, art, storytelling, holds a sort of spell that no matter how terrible the things in them are portrayed, it always seems to stay one, unreacheable step ahead of regular, fleshy life (even if the story is unoriginal and conventional!) probably because it often, almost always, discards the long stretches of repetitive (no matter where you are or what you're actually doing with your life) and comparatively uneventful that compose one's life and pertain to being an actual person. So in that sense, whether I should care or relate to a character's fate or the lack of it is not something that I concern myself with, no matter how much I can disagree with their choices, be repulsed by their persona, or how dumb I believe their choices to be. Boredom is the only thing that has to be dismissed, and that's not something that I believe can be avoided automatically by opportunities for change, respect for a character, or the repetition of mistakes. The lack or amplification of all of these things can be of interest (and/or make a point, if one desires it), even if you know that your character is doomed, in the case of Uncut Gems (which I don't think was that obvious, but I digress again.) So really, I think the idea of ever using the word has in explanation of how story-telling has to be ( ) is a dangerous approach that should always make me perk my ears like those of an alert dog.

 

[Osprey]

There are two films - the one by Tarkovsky and the remake by Soderbergh.

I'm aware of the remake and have been planning to watch it next. It's funny because I was expecting to like the original more than the remake, but that seems doubtful now.

I liked this film because the horror of what it presents is so mystifying and unfathomable that it drives people to different levels of insanity.

I think as humans we strive for order and understanding and to be confronted with the emotional juggernaut that Solaris provides with no real explanation or judgement is psychologically traumatizing.

That's the premise that I found interesting and one of the things that kept the film from being a complete bore. I just think that it could've been explored in a 45-minute Night Gallery episode or, at least, a much shorter film than one that's nearly 3 hours long. Incidentally, the remake is only 98 minutes.

 

[tacogeoff]

The Gentlemen (Netflix)

It was a fun movie. I did not watch many previews or read about it before viewing it. I have been a long time fan of Guy Ritchie and he did not disappoint me. I enjoyed the way the story was unfolded for the viewer. it was simplistic and the plot was easy to pre determine but I was entertained and the acting was very well done. I won't reveal the plot or meat of the movie as others may wish to view it without pre knowledge.

9/10

 

[NyQuil]

I'm aware of the remake and have been planning to watch it next. It's funny because I was expecting to like the original more.

That's the premise that I found interesting and one of the things that kept the film from being a complete bore. I just think that it could've been explored in a 45-minute Night Gallery episode or, at least, a much shorter film than one that's nearly 3 hours long. Incidentally, the remake is only 98 minutes.

I actually preferred the remake. LOL.

 

[zombie kopitar]

I have dozens of movies I've watched during quarantine with the GF...just gonna throw a few out off the top of my head

Raising Arizona (1987)- I hate Nic Cage but love the Coen brothers, this was the most enjoyable I've ever seen him and the script is flat out incredible 9/10

Annihilation (2018)- I thought it had it's moments, unfortunately for me they ended it in way too cliche of a way that it zapped whatever unique qualities it was carrying 5/10

Night at the Roxbury (1998)- This was an early quarantine movie I've been meaning to watch, and I thought it was great. It was campy and extended SNL skit, but it knew it was so it completley works 7/10

The Nice Guys (2016)- I enjoyed the pacing and tone, it again is another self aware film. The gf absolutely hated it though. 6.5/10 for me, 1/10 from her

Zodiac (2007) - Great performances, even if everyone is playing their typical roles, it all works and it does a great job telling the story 7.5/10

Brokeback Mountain (2005)- We watched this after Crash because of the whole 2005 best picture thing (which we had both already seen), I think we were both a little underwhelmed. However, Ledger's performance is so good and it really stuck with me for a few days....can't say the same for Jake. 6.5/10

Death Becomes Her(1992)- Super campy and fun, I thought it was a riot and everyone is great in the movie during their peak stardom 7.5/10


Onward (2020)- Pretty much trash except the 90's family film homage they were kind of sort of going for. For my money the worst Pixar movie since the Cars series, pretty easily 2/10


The Lovely Bones (2009)- It was pretty okay for a heartstring pulling movie, everyone did a great job and Peter Jackson definitely put his distinct style on the film 6.5/10


Arrival (2016)- Amy Adams is a slayer. This movie was such a refreshing twist on an alien flick 8/10


Videodrome (1983)- Very relevant today, I thought it was gripping, unsettling, and prophetic. 8.5/10

 

[Langdon Alger]

I have dozens of movies I've watched during quarantine with the GF...just gonna throw a few out off the top of my head

Raising Arizona (1987)- I hate Nic Cage but love the Coen brothers, this was the most enjoyable I've ever seen him and the script is flat out incredible 9/10

Annihilation (2018)- I thought it had it's moments, unfortunately for me they ended it in way too cliche of a way that it zapped whatever unique qualities it was carrying 5/10

Night at the Roxbury (1998)- This was an early quarantine movie I've been meaning to watch, and I thought it was great. It was campy and extended SNL skit, but it knew it was so it completley works 7/10

The Nice Guys (2016)- I enjoyed the pacing and tone, it again is another self aware film. The gf absolutely hated it though. 6.5/10 for me, 1/10 from her

Zodiac (2007) - Great performances, even if everyone is playing their typical roles, it all works and it does a great job telling the story 7.5/10

Brokeback Mountain (2005)- We watched this after Crash because of the whole 2005 best picture thing (which we had both already seen), I think we were both a little underwhelmed. However, Ledger's performance is so good and it really stuck with me for a few days....can't say the same for Jake. 6.5/10

Death Becomes Her(1992)- Super campy and fun, I thought it was a riot and everyone is great in the movie during their peak stardom 7.5/10


Onward (2020)- Pretty much trash except the 90's family film homage they were kind of sort of going for. For my money the worst Pixar movie since the Cars series, pretty easily 2/10


The Lovely Bones (2009)- It was pretty okay for a heartstring pulling movie, everyone did a great job and Peter Jackson definitely put his distinct style on the film 6.5/10


Arrival (2016)- Amy Adams is a slayer. This movie was such a refreshing twist on an alien flick 8/10


Videodrome (1983)- Very relevant today, I thought it was gripping, unsettling, and prophetic. 8.5/10

Zodiac is really good. One of my favourite Fincher films. Since you mentioned Brokeback Mountain and Crash, which film do you think is better?

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Moneyball (2011)
Dir. Bennett Miller

Very good film based off a questionably accurate story (I may be generous). Billy Beane is a failed baseball player turned manager who manages a good baseball team that baseballs with a low salary floor. The salary floor must be circumvented with analytics, so he and Paul De, er, Peter Brand must analyze undervalued players who can help get the team over the hump.

It's a good story concept built on the dynamics of an unfair game, like life itself I suppose, and it's well executed though pretty fabricated. History suggests Billy Beane wasn't the genius the film made him out to be. Should I hold it against the film? I dunno.

Score: 6/10

 

[zombie kopitar]

Zodiac is really good. One of my favourite Fincher films. Since you mentioned Brokeback Mountain and Crash, which film do you think is better?

Honestly I don't think either one holds up exceptionally well, as in a classic best picture type movie; but I think they also need to be acknowledged for what they were at the point in time in pop culture. Aside from their social connotations they are complete opposites in their narration and character development. I think Crash is one of the best films at that inter-winding storyline style, but it was also trendy at the time (Lost), and I think we as viewers got kind of sick of it pretty quickly.

I remember how much Crash impacted me when I first watched it as a teen, I loved it....it does remind you how different those times were. I think I'd give it the nod, but barely.
As a character driven story, I just think Brokeback missed the mark a little bit with moving too fast at the start, and honestly not really getting a feel for any character except Ledger's.

I watched it about 6 years ago, but if I went and re-watched it again, Goodnight, and Goodluck would probably be ahead of both of them

 

[nameless1]

Apologies for any confusion. I didn't mean to imply that Uncut Gems was disjointed. It was just your review that prompted the thought. What I mean by disjointed stories are stories that don't follow any sort of direct, perceptible, common thread and/or without the direct stating of a message or point or an attempt at persuasion and grand declarations. Quickly and off the top of my head, think of something like Slackers by Richard Linklater perhaps...but it has been a while since I've seen it. In short, I do not have a problem with random sequences, the avoidance of an A-B-C, and a story being a presentation of fragments, partially covered, without full explanation or denouement. I guess, in a way, a story doesn't have to be 'full' in practical terms. While I don't consider character development or plot as mortal enemies to be destroyed, I just don't think they're as primordial as lots of people claim.

I agree with you about interest - of course art has to keep one's interest, but I don't think my post claimed the opposite. But to continue, I'm also not sure why one has to 'care' about a main character to be captivated by the moment, especially if you avoid the type in real life. They can still be interesting, morbid, and used for style, or a naturally fit within the delivery, context and construction of the story that is desired to be told. If I should only watch movies with the types of people I genuinely care for in real life...I'd be screwed. How many varieties are there, how many have I never interacted with, let alone known of their existence, both pleasant and unpleasant? Why limit myself in this way? I will always be back within my 5'9 box of bones after the required ninety minutes anyways. Without mentioning that despite many attempts to combat the experience and subvert its victory, art, storytelling, holds a sort of spell that no matter how terrible the things in them are portrayed, it always seems to stay one, unreacheable step ahead of regular, fleshy life (even if the story is unoriginal and conventional!) probably because it often, almost always, discards the long stretches of repetitive (no matter where you are or what you're actually doing with your life) and comparatively uneventful that compose one's life and pertain to being an actual person. So in that sense, whether I should care or relate to a character's fate or the lack of it is not something that I concern myself with, no matter how much I can disagree with their choices, be repulsed by their persona, or how dumb I believe their choices to be. Boredom is the only thing that has to be dismissed, and that's not something that I believe can be avoided automatically by opportunities for change, respect for a character, or the repetition of mistakes. The lack or amplification of all of these things can be of interest (and/or make a point, if one desires it), even if you know that your character is doomed, in the case of Uncut Gems (which I don't think was that obvious, but I digress again.) So really, I think the idea of ever using the word has in explanation of how story-telling has to be ( ) is a dangerous approach that should always make me perk my ears like those of an alert dog.

I get what you mean, and I would agree with you on principle, but my comments are specific to Uncut Gems. Yes, storytelling does not have to be conventional, but Uncut Gem is very straightforward, as it goes from Point A, then B, and finally C. A hero's journey is a commonly used template in modern screenwriting, and this story pretty much follows it to a T. There is a goal, he reaches some difficulties, he tries to overcome them but then other issues arises that may or may not evolve into a new goal, he eventually comes to a head with the issues, and then he reaches a conclusion. Frankly, there is nothing special about the story.

I also agree that you do not have to like or even care the main character in real life in order to like a movie, but that has to be the case here. This movie is from Sandler's point of view, so he is pretty much in every scene, and if he does not hold the audience's interest, then it is very difficult to be invested in the movie. Like the example I used before, I dislike Jack Nicholson's character in Five Easy Pieces, and he is just as self-destructive as Sandler's character, but even though I do not like Five Easy Pieces that much, I still hold it in a higher regard, because Nicholson's character is an interesting ass that I cannot look away from, and I actually wants to know him better. Sandler's character just does not have that same effect.

Honestly, I agree with you on your overall theory, but for this particular movie, I will stand firm on my point of view. Sandler's character is uninteresting to me, and that is why he ultimately dooms the movie. It really is not bad, and the Sadfie's style works in this one, but I honestly do not think it is that good of a movie, and one that is worth someone's time to watch. It is, quite frankly, an empty husk of a movie that says absolutely nothing, and I do not care for it.

 

[nameless1]

I think the fact that Sandler stays the same throughout the movie is kind of the point. He just can't help himself falling back into the same habits. (Almost) everyone hates him for a reason, he's just a despicable character. But as a viewer removed from the situation I couldn't help but laugh at how flawed he was and how much things were just piling up. That whole school play/trunk scene was one of the funniest things I've seen in years.

Safdie bros to me are a perfect example of how much style can elevate a movie. There's nothing complicated going on plot-wise, it's just the main characters making bad decisions, and they capture the chaos that unfolds from that through their loud and frenzied filmmaking style. In a way it reminds me of Yorgos Lanthimos' first two English films The Lobster and The Killing of a Sacred Deer where he just came in with this very specific and unique dry delivery that was very specific to him as a filmmaker, and you wondered if he'd stay the course with his next movie or not. He ended up changing it up with The Favourite, but I'm interested to see what the Safdie bros do from here.

Yeah, there is a sense of schadenfreude with Sandler's character, but he is too much of a trainwreck for me to enjoy. That might just be a case of personal preference.

Unlike you, I am not a fan of the Safdies. Their frenzy style works for their movies, but like Good Times, the lack of a point annoys me, as I feel I just wasted my time. Again, it is just a personal taste, but so far, I am not a fan of their works.

Lanthimos is a different story. For one, his premise and universe that he creates is really fresh and different. How he develop them is another story, but at the very least, I am very enthusiastic from the very start, and wants to know more.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Solaris (1972) - 3/10 (Really disliked it)

[...]I, personally, have a low tolerance for films that are artistic and slow for the sake of being artistic and slow.

And how did you get to that conclusion? I think it's one thing to dislike the film, and you may like or dislike whatever you want, but to justify it by pulling stuff like that... Isn't that the same as saying the film is pretentious?

As I said earlier, I used to put my students to sleep with Duras films. It would work every time. I'd wake them up and tell them: you like movies, you don't like cinema - I have three and a half months to get you to love cinema. Film aesthetics, first class of the semester.

 

[Osprey]

And how did you get to that conclusion? I think it's one thing to dislike the film, and you may like or dislike whatever you want, but to justify it by pulling stuff like that... Isn't that the same as saying the films is pretentious?

Most of my review consisted of explaining that conclusion. Also, I worded it that way to avoid calling it pretentious because I didn't want to go that far. I want to believe that Tarkovsky was just too focused on being artistic that he neglected pacing and viewer patience.