Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It (Part XXVI)

[Nalens Oga]

Ed Wood (1994) - 8/10

More charmingly tragic than it is comedy, Ed Wood manages to make you sympathize with a man considered the worse director of all-time along with his band of misfits. Of course, much of that title is his own fault, he rushes through his work even when given time and it's obvious to everyone but him but you still manage to feel for the guy just because of how much he cares and the innocence that Johnny Depp uses to portray him. I liked the look of this film, Tim Burton's gothic stuff turns me off but this film has a timeless look to it because it does the 50s in black & white while using some elements of noir. The casting was also perfect letting itself get away with being cheesy when it needed to without seeming out of place. This leads to an interesting phenomenon where it looks like you're watching a B film (which happens to be about a director making B films) through the lens of a regular/hit film, almost as if it's a mockumentary. It could certainly have used more lines from Bill Murray's dry character who shone despite being in a smaller role.

 

[Unaffiliated]

Off the top of my non-caffeinated head:

Polytechnique - 8B
Incendies - 7A
Enemy - 7B
Prisoners - 5A
Sicario - 8B

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=very bad
1=worst among the worst


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

I, as well, haven't seen Maelstrom.

Later: Just double-checked in my book and Incendies was an 8A.

Cheers

I don't remember ratings, but I think I roughly have Incendies > Sicario > Polytechnique = Enemy > Prisoners

 

[BonMorrison]

Did an Apes marathon today with some friends so we did the reboot (modern prequels) first then moved onto the originals. Only reviewed the ones I hadn't seen below.

Planet of the Apes - 9/10
Beneath the Planet of the Apes - 3/10

We were supposed to do the rest of the sequels but our spirit was so broken after how bad Beneath was.

 

[Neutrinos]

Hell Or High Water

Highly entertaining film

I'll give it 237 stars

 

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Mediterranea is a modern-day Grapes of Wrath, the Okies are from Burkina Faso and the orange groves are in Italy. But the story is pretty much the same. Faith in humanity questioned and confirmed. [B ]

 

[kihei]

The Mermaid (2016) Directed by Stephen Chow 4A

Shan, a mermaid in disguise, is sent to stop Xuan, a real estate developer, from unwittingly destroying the mermaids' seaside habitat. Love beckons and a lot of crazy things happen. Director Stephen Chow arrived on the scene in 2001 with the very promising Shaolin Soccer and then seemed to realize much of his potential for inspired goofy-ness with the brilliant Kung Fu Hustle in 2004. And then for no discernible reason, his career went off a cliff. The Mermaid is only the third feature film that he has directed since 2004. Sadly, the movie is hardly a return to form. While there is much fanciful whimsy involving mermaids and other sea creatures and a few good sight gags, the movie remains something of a mess. For starters, who does Chow think his audience is? Much of the time he seems to be aiming at 11-13 year olds, the kind of audience who loved the Robert Rodriguez's Spy Kids movies and Pee Wee's Playhouse. Certainly, Chow is very adept as this type of fanciful, surreal humour. But then he will throw in a scene of unnecessary violence that darkens the tone of the film for no good reason before he returns once again to the zany bits. Chow has a great visual imagination, but only with Kung Fu Hustle has he harnessed this gift to tell a satisfying story from start to finish. Time for Chow to devote himself to making successful children's movies or to get out of the sandbox entirely and start making movies that adults can enjoy, not just kids.

subtitles

 

[nameless1]

Ever since Kung Fu Hustle, Stephen Chow is pretty much a parody of his former self. Unfortunately, that is what happens when he is more interested in his side businesses and investments, including real estates, and he can still live off of his name in China. His last three movies, for example, are all huge hits, even if the critical reviews are tepid to downright terrible.

That is the problem with the Chinese film market. Right now, what drives the box office are not the big cities, but rather, mid-to-small-sized cities, whose citizens will go to the theatres, if the stars are big, or even just recognizable enough. That is why a lot of times, even if the movie is a blatant money grab, it will still make an obscene amount of money more often than not.

That said, while it is not the healthiest of business models, it will probably continue for a while, mainly backed by the huge population. There is a reason why every film industry, especially Hollywood, really wants to break into the Chinese market.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

I got the feeling that the spider imagery had to do with Anthony's fear of confronting adulthood/the thought of becoming a father, and that was what the whole movie was actually about, with the body double thing having something to do with psychologically wrestling his own demons/past/feeling like fraud or something. You get the sense that what happened to Anthony/Mary was intended to be closure on his fears/immaturity/attachment, and moments like the mother asking about the acting career of the wrong guy, Sarah being paranoid about another women, and [spoil]the lead being unaffected and breathing a sigh of relief seeing the giant spider at the end after Anthony/Mary are out of the picture[/spoil] all seemed to be pointing to the fact that it's one person's psychology not being able to let things go/having cold feet/facing his fears. It's probably about Anthony being the actual real person, being an actor who envisions himself as other people. Seems to end with Anthony coming to terms with everything, growing up, and ready to become a father. That explains why he/we thought it was Adam talking to his mother when it was actually Anthony and the acting comment takes him by surprise.

I might be way off, but the fact that the movie invites those kinds of potential parallels is really cool. Talking about it is making me like the movie more.

It's all about the spiders -- yeah, I was gonna say, I ended up with a fairly simplistic interpretation of it when it was all said it done, in that it was mostly just about fear of commitment, with spider imagery being the metaphor for controlling women who catch you in their web (or at least, that's how people with those fears interpret woman as being). So you've got the "club" he goes to, where he sees a woman crush a spider underneath her foot, a power dynamic reversal he (and other men) essentially get off on, at least emotionally. He's just a college professor who acts in very bit parts on the side under a pseudonym. His commitment fears rise exponentially the further along his girlfriend is in her pregnancy, which, uncoincidentally, results in her bulbous belly more and more resembling that of, you guessed it, a spider, which is what drives him to start cheating on her and causes the personality-split. And then you've got the ending, which really, really drives the metaphor home in a bit of a blunt fashion.

 

[Shareefruck]

Ahh, I didn't think of the female control angle.

 

[ProspectsSTC]

Arrival: 8.5/10

Very intriguing concept, beautifully directed, while I liked the direction they took it in, I almost wish they hadn't drawn out the emotionality of it. Good to see some personal, rather than collective humanity brought to a movie concept like this, but I think it could have been so much more.

 

[Thucydides]

I went to see Hacksaw Ridge last night , wasn't a huge fan. I can't believe it's rated as high as it is on rotten tomatoes . I had this gut feeling that I should go see Arrival instead . Wish I had of listened to myself.

The good - there's no denying the bravery , the story is good.

The movie is just way too over dramatic , to be taken seriously in the grand scheme of cinema. It's nowhere near Hurt Locker or anything of that sort haha I just thought it was a big mess .

4.0/10

 

[silkyjohnson50]

The Usual Suspects: 7/10. Good stuff. Comoarable to Reservoir Dogs for me.

Steve Jobs: 7-8/10. I thought it was borderline great. It has me engaged from start to finish.

The Revenant: 7/10. I felt like my body temperature dropped by a couple of degrees watching this.

 

[OzzyFan]

Ender's Game
2.5 out of 4stars

Above average sci-fi movie that works best as an example of Asa Butterfield's range/future in acting. Asa was roughly 15/16 when it was shot, but he commands the screen while showing great range. I liked the story and movie a decent amount, even if it felt a little underwhelming in implementation vs ideology at times.

 

[member 51464]

Hell or High Water (2016) Directed by David Mackenzie 8A

In the west Texas panhandle, Toby (Chris Pine) and Tanner (Ben Foster), a couple of desperate brothers take to robbing local banks to collect some cash. They have a good reason for doing so--at least they think so. Marcus (Jeff Bridges), a wily old trout of a Texas Ranger, is on their trail, and he is relentless in his pursuit. While Hell or High Water is not quite as good as any of them, it has a proud lineage that includes Bonny and Clyde (same social consciousness, minus the stylized violence); No Country for Old Men (same locale; similar feel in parts, with the exception that in this movie everybody is overmatched, not just the good guys); and Fargo (same general mix of humour and seriousness; tons of local colour). I'll throw in another heavyweight comparison: Grapes of Wrath, in the sense that few characters can see hope for the future or a better life for their children in a country that has seemingly dispensed with their concerns. The script is a model of bite and economy, true to its own logic from start to finish. And the actors have a field day. Foster and Pine could hardly be better, with Pine providing a rock solid foundation that allows Foster to riff away but with a certain restraint. However, Bridges shamelessly. though entertainingly, steals the show, making a satisfying six-course meal out of the very notion of "laconic." Hell or High Water (someone must have picked the title out of a hat) will easily be among the best American movies of the year. I think a lot of people are going to love this movie.

Best of '16 so far

1) Little Men, Sachs, US 8B
2) Hell or High Water, Mackenzie, US, 8A
3) The Wailing, Na, South Korea 8B
4) Our Little Sister, Koreeda, Japan, 7B
5) Closet Monster, Dunn, Canada 7A
6) Chevalier, Tsangari, Greece. 7B
7) The Innocents, Fontaine, France/Poland 7A
8) Disorder, Winocour, France 7B

I just watched Hell or High Water and quite enjoyed it. As you say, it had a few similarities with enough other movies it felt comfortable and familiar. But it had enough of a unique take and clever direction that I really enjoyed it. Nice cinematography to boot. Not a film I expect to be seen as a classic for years to come by any means, but enjoyable and definitely worth a watch.

 

[Mario Lemieux fan 66]

Hell or High Water 8/10

Don’t think twice 7.4/10

akira 6/10

 

[kihei]

I just watched Hell or High Water and quite enjoyed it. As you say, it had a few similarities with enough other movies it felt comfortable and familiar. But it had enough of a unique take and clever direction that I really enjoyed it. Nice cinematography to boot. Not a film I expect to be seen as a classic for years to come by any means, but enjoyable and definitely worth a watch.

Glad you liked it. If you get a chance, pick up Under the Shadow, an Iranian horror movie. I have the feeling that you might find that one interesting. I think it's among the best movies of the year. Hopefully Netflix or one of those other movie sites will pick it up.

 

[kihei]

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) Directed by David Yates. 3A

Busy, busy, busy. Decades before Harry Potter arrives on the scene, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) arrives in New York with a suitcase case full of magical creatures whom he is trying to protect. He quickly gets involved in a dispute between wizards and "no-mag"s, i.e. the Yankee way of saying "muggles." He gets on the wrong side of the powerful Percival Graves (Colin Farrell), too. Many of these events are rushed, and very little of it is fun. J. K. Rowling tackles her first script and makes a botch of it. The editing jumps around, sometimes very ineptly, and the tone of the movie shifts from cutesy cuddly to something much darker (literally and physically--it is the sort of movie where I wanted to turn up the lighting at least half of the time). Not only that, I was surprised to discover that a number of the people who I thought were bad guys were actually good guys in the end. Did I say "end"? Silly me. There are actually four endings, five if you count the fact that one of them comes back for an encore. After the final confrontation, we get three (or four) additional endings seemingly all designed to make us feel sentimental about the characters. Perhaps this is director David Yates and Rowlings' way of making up for the fact that there is nothing whatsoever endearing about this crowd, especially in comparison with Harry and friends. With the exception of Farrell in a thankless role and a couple of sidekick characters who are fun, the rest of the cast is entirely charisma free. As for Redmayne, well,....if you dislike him coming in to this film, he'll not be doing anything to improve your opinion. He somehow manages to overact just with his eyes which were driving me crazy as he shifts them around, often not looking at whom he is speaking for the longest time. Obviously, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them marks an attempt to start a new franchise, but all we get is a charmless prequel that delivers a lot of special effects but virtually no magic.

 

[aufheben]

Dog Day Afternoon (1975) - 8/10

Seen it a few times before but it was on TV tonight, so, yeah. Classic. Broaches on some subjects that I would have to imagine were pretty groundbreaking for a film made in 1975.

 

[Unaffiliated]

Nightcrawler (2014)
dir. Dan Gilroy
8/10

Jake Gyllenhaal is Louis Bloom, a shady dude with an unknown past who happens into a career as a stringer (a freelance videographer who follows police scanner reports to accidents and crime scenes and sells footage to news stations). He becomes more successful, accomplished, and daring with each story he "covers" to the point of crossing lines both ethically and legally.

The film partially plays as a deconstruction of your typical rags-to-riches story, complete with sometimes weirdly cheery music and a time-skipping-montage, where the main character is a complete sociopath.

I'm not sure if this intentional, cognitive dissonance-type of style adds to or detracts from the experience. It sets it apart, I guess, but I wonder: if you play the movie darker and seedier, do you get a Taxi Driver or do you get a run-of-mill thriller?

Jake Gyllenhaal's performance is the real reason to watch this one, and I think the movie totally flops without him. He seems to have a talent for playing for neurotic, unhinged characters (see e.g. Zodiac, Donnie Darko, Enemy, Prisoners), and I think this is his best outing I've seen.

 

[Shareefruck]

Finally, some good news for a change-- Miyazaki's making another film:
https://thefilmstage.com/news/hayao...t-to-direct-another-feature-length-animation/

 

[ProspectsSTC]

Kihei, please please see Manchester by the Sea ASAP

 

[Mario Lemieux fan 66]

Hacksaw Ridge 7.5/10

 

[kihei]

Kihei, please please see Manchester by the Sea ASAP

It opens in Toronto next week, I believe. I'll catch the first screening. It had huge buzz at TIFF.

 

[kihei]

Nocturnal Animals (2016) Directed by Tom Ford 3A

At about the time that Susan (Amy Adams), an artist discontented with her own work (for good reasons, if the opening credits are any indication), realizes that her latest marriage is falling apart, she receives a draft of a novel her former husband Tony (Jake Gyllenhaal) sends to her for her opinion. As she reads through the novel, she realizes many regrets and begins to think of her former husband with more and more fondness. The movie moves back and forth between Susan's predicament in real life and the goings on that take place in the novel, which involve a man whose family comes to a sad end. The movie is glossily constructed, but it has two overwhelming problems. First, what goes on in Tony's novel is about twenty times more interesting than anything happening in Susan's "real" life, this despite a good performance from Adams. The bigger problem, though, is that I just couldn't buy Susan or her situation or the people in her life. All I saw was make-believe movie characters in make-believe movie reality having make-believe movie problems. By the fifteen-minute mark, my suspension of disbelief was completely blown. In the end, Nocturnal Animals is not much more than a high-concept, post-modern tragic romance with a vengeful sensibility. The most memorable thing about this movie will be the opening credits, and, trust me, that is not meant as praise.

 

[kihei]

Billy Lynn's Long Half Time Walk (2016) Directed by Ang Lee 2A

Billy (Joe Alwyn) and his platoon return to the States as heroes, and justifiably so. They will be part of a Dallas Cowboy halftime show. Billy's sister, Katherine (Kristen Stewart), doesn't want him to go back to Iraq. Billy thinks about it. That's about it--not much of a plot for a nearly two hour movie. Billy encounters various Texans along the way--an arrogant corporate executive, a horny hero-worshiping cheerleader, a dimwitted oil executive, a busy PR man who can't deliver on his promises--all of whom are trying to exploit Billy in one way or another. Ang Lee is clearly on the side of the platoon, understandably so. However, he comes up with some very mixed messages. Given the parade of venal civilians who Billy confronts, Lee suggests that the US doesn't deserve the courageous sacrifices that these young men have made for their country. Okay. So should the soldiers do something about it, like speak out against the war? No, Lee doesn't seem to think that's a good idea either. As for their continued sacrifice, he suggests that there is no right or wrong answer, it just "is." You do what you got to do out of camaraderie for your brothers in arms and that should be reason enough for everything. None of these platitudes actually get explored in any meaningful way--the movie consists of a series of loose sketches that add up to nothing much at all. One part is even unintentionally hilarious--Vin Diesel as a soldier/guru seems like some addled throwback to Monty Python. As the movie was shot in a form of immersive 3D that virtually no theatre has bothered to use (just three screens are providing this 3D process in North America), the movie is noteworthy for grotesque close ups, strange lens choices, and unappealing lighting. Whatever way you want to cut it, Billy Lynn's Long Half Time Walk is a bad one (come to think of it there isn't even a long half time walk in the movie). I would go so far as to say that this is the worst movie that Ang Lee, a very respected director, has ever made.