Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +5

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Here's my grading scale:

10=a masterpiece: one of the best movies ever
9=one of the best movies of the decade
8=one of the best movies of the year
7=very good
6=good
5=run of the mill
4=below average
3=bad
2=really, really bad
1=worst among the worst


A=accessible
B=mildly challenging in one way or another
C=difficult
D=extremely difficult

Makes sense!!

 

[kihei]

I'm really not sure A) is valid either. People who have their heads buried so far in the sand (or up their asses) to be aware that the sexualization of young girls is something to be concerned about will not appreciate this film and will probably ask for Netflix to be cancelled. I think it's a film for C) people on both sides of the spectrum who tend to blame the other one, as a slap in the face or wake up call regarding their own participation to the problem. I thought the shot with the two outfits laying on the bed side by side (the traditional dress for the wedding and the slutty dance costum) lacked a little in subtelty, but it's really to the point, they are both part of the problem making Aminata isolated between realities that keep her from having a childhood. The last shot, where she goes back to being a child, is beautiful, but another slap in the face: it might just be fantasy (she's flying off).

Good points.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

this one just hit real close to home, and it worked

The trailer for Bande de filles got a few tears from me because it hit right home too, these are the girls I work with and it's both beautiful and sad to see them portrayed as themselves (they are both beautiful and sad themselves), but the film didn't really work (the trailer is 10x better than the film). Mignonnes worked a lot better, to me anyway.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Watched Jackie Brown last night. Good movie, even if I didn’t fully understand everything. Quite long. Actually a lot of Tarantino’s movies are pretty long.

Well acted. Samuel L Jackson is very good, and Pam Grier and Robert Forster do a nice job too. De Niro is always good. Not sure how to grade it in part because I didn’t fully understand everything, so I’ll just give it a thumbs up.

 

[McOilers97]

I had 10 days off, so took in a bunch of movies I'd been meaning to get to - some popcorn-y entertainment, and a few classics as well.

Cloverfield - Matt Reeves 2008
Fun, short and thrilling movie. Not a ton to say really, just that the movie entertained pretty relentlessly while being innovative over the course of less than 80 minutes.

Hanna - Joe Wright 2011
Saoirse Ronan was only 16 during the filming of this movie, but she did a remarkable job. The movie was a pretty entertaining thriller that included some surprisingly artistic shots and filmmaking.

Blood Simple - Coen Brothers 1984
The Coen Brothers' debut film is one of the best debuts I've ever seen. The plot is very minimalist, but has some of the early trademarks of Coen films - shocking violence that borders on humorous, and quirky characters. I adored this movie and it seems like it would be enjoyable on numerous re-watches.

10 Cloverfield Lane - Dan Trachtenberg 2016
Tightly written psychological thriller with great Goodman and Winstead performances. The final act of the movie shifted gears very abruptly and I enjoyed the hell out of it.

The Nice Guys - Shane Black 2016
Fun buddy cop movie that found a place for humour in just about every scene. Chemistry between Gosling and Crowe is what made this movie so enjoyable.

The Game - David Fincher 1997
Great Michael Douglas performance and an entertaining movie. I don't think it would hold up to intense scrutiny over the specific plot mechanics, but I don't really care because it was an effective thriller and I love Fincher movies.

Vertigo - Alfred Hitchcock 1958
Widely considered one of Hitchcock's best, and I can't dispute that this is a great movie. Very strange film, but I dug it and was both in awe of and disturbed by how the movie kind of transformed from one kind of story into another over the course of the run time. It's a classic for a reason. Also seems like a great re-watch.

Seven Samurai - Akira Kurosawa 1954
Another classic that is certainly a must see. This movie is a marathon at nearly 3.5 hours, but the characters and the world presented in this film are incredibly well fleshed out, the direction and cinematography are a marvel, and the script just feels note-perfect. Loved it.

The Usual Suspects - Bryan Singer 1995
This movie just didn't do it for me. I know it is generally a well-regarded movie, but I just wasn't buying what this movie was selling. There are a few impressive directing flourishes in it, and the performances are good (Spacey very good), but the script felt weak and the ultimate twist was a classic case of trying too hard to seem smart. The characters, while acted competently well, felt like bland crime stereotypes that I've seen done better numerous times - Reservoir Dogs skates circles around this movie. Basically, I just couldn't find a way to emotionally invest in what was happening, and the twist rendered the whole experience ultimately just a hollow magic trick.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Think you have a good point concerning A) but I think B) is a bit off base. Might this movie appeal to pedophiles? Sure, Is the movie pandering to pedophiles? No way. I think the movie is intended to shock people--that's the way Cuties gets our attention. The movie confronts us with images, but clearly the aim is not titillation but thought. Doucoure poses a whole lot of questions that need a cold, hard look: What are the roles that social media, fundamentalist religion, advertising, overly permissive adults, pop culture, the pressures to conform, etc,. play in creating a world in which little girls think acting like adult male fantasy hookers is a cool thing. I think people are stopping at the "shock" element, and not going beyond that. And, by doing so, I think they are missing the real point of the movie: how did our notion of childhood come to this? Not by accident.

I was sort of being tongue in cheek (pedos would be probably better off searching the internet for pics than scanning an entire feature length movie), bit here's a question: when the girls were on stage and the lens focused on the lead's twerking motion, did you wonder if that shot was necessary to hammer the point home? The shot took me out of the film in a negative way, and it was at that point where the controversy entered my head. As the scene dragged on I started thinking if the point was getting lost in the method. I'd argue it was too on the nose, and while I had no anger for the film because of (what I considered to be) a faux pas it definitely soured my opinion on the movie's execution and, by extension, development. My initial view of the film being objectively anti-sexualization broke from that point onwards, it reminded me too much of my own childhood nightmare to fight in its corner despite my sympathy towards the director's intentions.

I'm really not sure A) is valid either. People who have their heads buried so far in the sand (or up their asses) to be aware that the sexualization of young girls is something to be concerned about will not appreciate this film and will probably ask for Netflix to be cancelled. I think it's a film for C) people on both sides of the spectrum who tend to blame the other one, as a slap in the face or wake up call regarding their own participation to the problem. I thought the shot with the two outfits laying on the bed side by side (the traditional dress for the wedding and the slutty dance costum) lacked a little in subtelty, but it's really to the point: they are both part of the problem making Aminata isolated between realities that keep her from having a childhood. The last shot, where she goes back to being a child, is beautiful, but another slap in the face: it might just be fantasy (she's flying off).

That's fair, though I don't give Netflix a pass on this one. They earned their scorn on this one. Don't think the film should be pulled of course, and it would be preferable to have American legislation of a french film be non-existent. I'd rather they waste their time on getting Roman Polanski sent back.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

So now the AG of my state is trying to bolster his reputation by declaring Netflix should pull Cuties, which really reeks of political opportunism, so dammit y'all gonna make me watch it now.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

So now the AG of my state is trying to bolster his reputation by declaring Netflix should pull Cuties, which really reeks of political opportunism, so dammit y'all gonna make me watch it now.

Just read an article on the American politicians joining in the fight for streaming decency.

Criminal charges? I had no idea it was going that far. Again, people are stupid, and useless.

 

[Live in the Now]

So now the AG of my state is trying to bolster his reputation by declaring Netflix should pull Cuties, which really reeks of political opportunism, so dammit y'all gonna make me watch it now.

And yet, they don't crack down on the people who actually do that shit. There's a world out there that's full of it. There are groups of people on social media who innocently post these things out of a misplaced source of pride in their children only to have them passed around by creeps. I haven't watched the film so I'm going to make some assumptions here. I usually never talk about anything I haven't watched as a rule, but I did see the marketing and drew a few conclusions from that. One is that this seems like a movie that presents how unsupervised young girls actually are. Every description of this movie...is how they actually are. Second is that it seems to me this concept would be better presented as a documentary.

The movie itself isn't what panders to pedophiles, the way Netflix marketed it is. I fully understand why people are getting triggered about this kind of thing, but this is a legitimate issue that has been overlooked for a very long time. The fact that the movie gets people talking about it is a good thing.

I'm still not going to watch the movie as the thought of the editor deciding which twerking scenes to use in the film is genuinely repulsive to me and I can't imagine having a job like that and not blowing my brains out. My problem with the film and why I won't watch it is because it all seems too realistic and addresses something I already thought was a major problem. Not something I could enjoy in any context.

 

[Power Man]

I had to rethink my rating of Lighthouse

1/10 tbh

Interesting cinematography, good acting, but what a shit story

 

[kihei]

The trailer for Bande de filles got a few tears from me because it hit right home too, these are the girls I work with and it's both beautiful and sad to see them portrayed as themselves (they are both beautiful and sad themselves), but the film didn't really work (the trailer is 10x better than the film). Mignonnes worked a lot better, to me anyway.

I liked Girlhood but I wasn't crazy about it, although it could have been festival fatigue when I saw it. I do think that Sciamma is a marvelous director and that both Tomboy and A Portrait of a Lady on Fire are masterpieces. She is director who can possess perfect touch.

 

[kihei]

I was sort of being tongue in cheek (pedos would be probably better off searching the internet for pics than scanning an entire feature length movie), bit here's a question: when the girls were on stage and the lens focused on the lead's twerking motion, did you wonder if that shot was necessary to hammer the point home? The shot took me out of the film in a negative way, and it was at that point where the controversy entered my head. As the scene dragged on I started thinking if the point was getting lost in the method. I'd argue it was too on the nose, and while I had no anger for the film because of (what I considered to be) a faux pas it definitely soured my opinion on the movie's execution and, by extension, development. My initial view of the film being objectively anti-sexualization broke from that point onwards, it reminded me too much of my own childhood nightmare to fight in its corner despite my sympathy towards the director's intentions.



That's fair, though I don't give Netflix a pass on this one. They earned their scorn on this one. Don't think the film should be pulled of course, and it would be preferable to have American legislation of a french film be non-existent. I'd rather they waste their time on getting Roman Polanski sent back.

Will respond after the hockey game.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I liked Girlhood but I wasn't crazy about it, although it could have been festival fatigue when I saw it. I do think that Sciamma is a marvelous director and that both Tomboy and A Portrait of a Lady on Fire are masterpieces. She is director who can possess perfect touch.

I liked Tomboy a lot, and La naissance des pieuvres too, but I haven't seen the lady on fire yet, and had no idea it was from her.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I had to rethink my rating of Lighthouse

1/10 tbh

Interesting cinematography, good acting, but what a shit story

Could you expand? I'd be curious as to why you think so.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005) - 7/10

Your enjoyment depends on your suspension of disbelief here. It's a pretty stupid movie but also mostly fun. Brad Pitt mainly delivers in his role and I was also reminded that Vince Vaughn is pretty great in smaller roles, wish he was still in notable films tbh as long as it's as a side character.

Let's be honest, 2005 was a pretty bland year for film especially blockbusters so this is solid by comparison. We did get The Office (US), Always Sunny, Craig Ferguson, How I Met Your Mother, and some other solid comedies out of it at least.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Will respond after the hockey game.

No hurry, I'll too busy to roam online this week after I fall asleep. I'll try to read it by next week, always interested in your thoughts.

 

[kihei]

I was sort of being tongue in cheek (pedos would be probably better off searching the internet for pics than scanning an entire feature length movie), bit here's a question: when the girls were on stage and the lens focused on the lead's twerking motion, did you wonder if that shot was necessary to hammer the point home? The shot took me out of the film in a negative way, and it was at that point where the controversy entered my head. As the scene dragged on I started thinking if the point was getting lost in the method. I'd argue it was too on the nose, and while I had no anger for the film because of (what I considered to be) a faux pas it definitely soured my opinion on the movie's execution and, by extension, development. My initial view of the film being objectively anti-sexualization broke from that point onwards, it reminded me too much of my own childhood nightmare to fight in its corner despite my sympathy towards the director's intentions.

I wondered about that scene, too. I thought the scene was justified and it makes a fair amount of sense to me. As Violenza earlier pointed out, it is a confrontational film, and the final dance scene is sort of the show-stopper of that confrontation. Why so heavy, though? Viewers should be, of course, appalled, and Doucoure shows us some of the audience in the movie near the stage react in revulsion and disgust. But we also see the judges and their mixed feelings about what they are looking at while other members of the audience looked shocked or amused but not repulsed. I would guess, only a guess, that it is this degree of passive acceptance that Doucoure is angered by and the point of the film is don't blame the kids (or the filmmaker), blame the forces in society that allow the sexualization of children to occur, even be encouraged, and that is what the audience should really be upset about. It might have been an extreme way of making the point, but I think it was the way to go given what the rest of the movie was building toward. As I said earlier it is a movie where people need to ask questions, and perhaps part of the audience won't see past this sequence to the bigger issues. That may well be a deal breaker for some. For me, Doucoure may have judged correctly that the only way to get people talking about the issues is to shock them into a violent reaction--and a more thoughtful and less-heated debate might follow in the wake of the initial hysteria. Let's face it most movie about social issues leave no footprint at all. Cuties just might. If Congress wants to talk to her, I'm absolutely sure they won't have to ask twice.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Why so heavy, though?

Agree on all fronts. As the young girl is clearly shown doing the split between two cultures, I think Doucouré also goes that far to better underline the extremes of the flip side too: her father taking a second wife, and her having to learn to comply like her mother to what it is to be a woman, something the holier-than-thou crowd won't dare criticize in fear of being caught judging a foreign culture.

 

[kihei]

The Year of Living Dangerously (1982( Directed by Peter Weir 7A

Before Mel Gibson drowned in the juices of his father's bigotry, he was a fine actor with a surprisingly wide range from action hero to romantic lead to Shakespeare (his Hamlet was first-rate). The Year of Living Dangerously was his last "Australian" film before he went to Hollywood and became a super nova. The Year of Living Dangerously is an interesting movie. A lot of the fun is in trying to figure out what it is about. The plot is clear enough: A young reporter (Mel Gibson) from Australia gets his first break going to Indonesia to cover the budding uprising against President Sukarno, once a hero but now a corrupt dictator. What the movie is doing with this plot is another matter. The film tries on a number of different hats like a dowager dressing for a tea party. First, the film seems to be about a cub reporter trying to fit in with a bunch of grizzled veterans. Then it slides into a major subplot involving a Chinese-Australian photographer (Linda Hunt playing a male flawlessly, winning an Academy Award in the process). Then it's a romance with Sigourney Weaver in Indonesia seemingly just to be Mel's heartthrob. Then it's a limp political statement against tyranny. Finally it's an escape movie as the government's response to the nascent rebellion picks up steam. The movie really doesn't have much to say about anything. However, The Year of Living Dangerously does have the feel of a good Graham Greene novel, the British novelist who often dryly focused on British Empire types mucking about in places they shouldn't be. I have no idea why The Year of Living Dangerously works for me--maybe it's a case of the sum of its parts being greater than the whole--but it does.

Criterion Channel

 

[ORRFForever]

You really have to feel sorry for someone who looks like that. Imagine being that homely.

 

[member 51464]

The Year of Living Dangerously (1982( Directed by Peter Weir 7A

Before Mel Gibson drowned in the juices of his father's bigotry, he was a fine actor with a surprisingly wide range from action hero to romantic lead to Shakespeare (his Hamlet was first-rate). The Year of Living Dangerously was his last "Australian" film before he went to Hollywood and became a super nova. The Year of Living Dangerously is an interesting movie. A lot of the fun is in trying to figure out what it is about. The plot is clear enough: A young reporter (Mel Gibson) from Australia gets his first break going to Indonesia to cover the budding uprising against President Sukarno, once a hero but now a corrupt dictator. What the movie is doing with this plot is another matter. The film tries on a number of different hats like a dowager dressing for a tea party. First, the film seems to be about a cub reporter trying to fit in with a bunch of grizzled veterans. Then it slides into a major subplot involving a Chinese-Australian photographer (Linda Hunt playing a male flawlessly, winning an Academy Award in the process). Then it's a romance with Sigourney Weaver in Indonesia seemingly just to be Mel's heartthrob. Then it's a limp political statement against tyranny. Finally it's an escape movie as the government's response to the nascent rebellion picks up steam. The movie really doesn't have much to say about anything. However, The Year of Living Dangerously does have the feel of a good Graham Greene novel, the British novelist who often dryly focused on British Empire types mucking about in places they shouldn't be. I have no idea why The Year of Living Dangerously works for me--maybe it's a case of the sum of its parts being greater than the whole--but it does.

Criterion Channel

kihei, this is a bit of an odd question, but how was the sound mixing on this on the Criterion Channel? I recall trying to watch this years ago and something was very wrong with the audio track. It looked sort of like a poorly done dub of a foreign film. I did some googling about it and it was a known issue that apparently resolved itself a little ways into the film.

I was just curious if it was present at all via streaming or if this particular version was free from issues.

I have no idea why, but as I have gotten older, I have become much more aware and bothered by sound mixing issues, haha.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Here's my grading scale:

10=a masterpiece: one of the best movies ever
9=one of the best movies of the decade
8=one of the best movies of the year
7=very good
6=good
5=run of the mill
4=below average
3=bad
2=really, really bad
1=worst among the worst

10=pretty damn good
9=very good I guess
8=fairly good
7=it's fine
6=it's fine
5=it's fine
4=I'm fine
3=not so good
2=I'm depressed why would I finish watching this?
1=Internet reviews exist why would I watch this?

Speaking of which

The Roaring Twenties (1939) - 7.5/10

James Cagney and Bogart were in it, it was fine.

 

[kihei]

kihei, this is a bit of an odd question, but how was the sound mixing on this on the Criterion Channel? I recall trying to watch this years ago and something was very wrong with the audio track. It looked sort of like a poorly done dub of a foreign film. I did some googling about it and it was a known issue that apparently resolved itself a little ways into the film.

I was just curious if it was present at all via streaming or if this particular version was free from issues.

I have no idea why, but as I have gotten older, I have become much more aware and bothered by sound mixing issues, haha.

I didn't notice any problem, certainly nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[Osprey]

kihei, this is a bit of an odd question, but how was the sound mixing on this on the Criterion Channel? I recall trying to watch this years ago and something was very wrong with the audio track. It looked sort of like a poorly done dub of a foreign film. I did some googling about it and it was a known issue that apparently resolved itself a little ways into the film.

Are you sure that you weren't just thrown off by Mel Gibson's accent? When you're used to his American accent from the mid 80s onward, his original Australian one can sound like a bad dub .

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Just saw Cuties. One, people are morons if they're blaming the director or Netflix for the production. I was expecting a far more shocking presentation of the subject, and more aggressive pieces have been produced in the past. Two, I don't know if it's because I'm a terrible person and am part of the problem, but I wasn't shocked, mostly because I thought those girls looked dumb and goofy and their presentation was sometimes worthy of a satirical video. I'm born in '92. I guess, in a way, I grew up with that shit. I was 11 in 2003. I remember/hearing of girls doing crazy, sad acts on MSN webcams and of one in particular who got caught by her parents and got in the newspaper (which does not seem helpful to me?). It's a problem and it's sad but I guess as a young millenial, when you grow up so used to something, it doesn't shock you as much, hence the problem. I guess I can see both sides of the medal on whether it was necessary or not to have closeups on these girls buttocks throughout the flick and might lean towards the 'weird and not necessary' side. I'll readily admit to being someone who doesn't really give important to art as a public service (although I'm not against it either) but on a purely cinematic level, this didn't do much for me at all. I guess I was amused by the little Ismael boy, who I found oddly majestic and thought that shot of him picking up lingerie off the streets behind the celebrating girls as to be amusing in a goofy way. Outside of that, I find these movies extremely to write and not particularly original, albeit probably useful to some people, and certainly useful to point out a moron.