Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Spring 2021 Edition

[Spring in Fialta]

Oh... "Thanks" for reminding me of Halloween: Resurrection... The terribly low point of a vastly terrible series. True that there is links to be made. I'm with you with the basement mystery, it was pretty well built, but majorly disappointing. It showed how limited the production was, I was hoping for something gruesome to counterpoint the whole "leave it in the dark" approach.



I hate to be that guy, but:



But you're right. Don't Look Now is not exactly a horror film - it's actually one of the very rare true "fantastic" films, as Todorov understood the genre.



I've watched it recently because it was mentionned here (by kihei and someone else), and I liked it a lot. In fact, someone just asked me for my horror recommandations of the last 10 years, and this is what I sent her (horror understood in its widest form):

Saint Maud (2019)

Possessor (2020)

The Strange Color of Your Body's Tears (2013)

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)

The Babadook (2014)

Berberian Sound Studio (2012)

Hereditary (2018)

Under the Shadow (2016)

Suspiria (2018)

It Follows (2014)

Under the Skin (2013)

Mother! (2017)

The Woman in Black (2012)

The Conjuring (2013)

Evil Dead (2013)

The Neon Demon (2016)

The Void (2016)

The Witch (2015)

Color Out of Space (2019)

The Lighthouse (2019)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Couldn't disagree more about where you ranked The Lighthouse. I've watched about half the films on your list and a ton of others and still have The Lighthouse as an easy entry for top-5 (if not top-3) of its decade. I think it's a masterpiece and the biggest leap I've noticed from a filmmaker regarding debut to sophomore effort.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Tried to watch the Lighthouse three times. Never made it further than a half hour. The last time I tried my tv got up, jumped off the balcony and killed itself out of boredom.

 

[kihei]

Watched The House of the Devil tonight. Enjoyed the retro approach to suspense, but not all the loose ends and I thought the payoff was severely disappointing. Interesting to see a young Greta Gerwig popping up early before she goes kaput. Tragically she plays a character who can't smoke and drive at the same time. Why did the candy and pizza taste bad? Nevermind. 4A.

 

[Osprey]

Watched The House of the Devil tonight. Enjoyed the retro approach to suspense, but not all the loose ends and I thought the payoff was severely disappointing. Interesting to see a young Greta Gerwig popping up early before she goes kaput. Tragically she plays a character who can't smoke and drive at the same time. Why did the candy and pizza taste bad? Nevermind. 4A.

I guess that I liked the build-up enough to not be as disappointed by the wrap-up.

Spoiler

I don't know about the candy (which was strange because why would she take another and why would it taste any better?), but I think that the pizza was bad because the son drugged it. Remember that the owner suggested that she order pizza, left her extra money for it and even provided the phone number to order it. The son then intercepted her order, drugged the pizza, delivered it, himself, and waited for it to knock her out.

As for Gerwig, she tragically plays a character driving a Volvo. More Volvo owners get attacked and/or killed in horror films than owners of any other cars. I'm thinking that it's partly a running joke about their safety.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Couldn't disagree more about where you ranked The Lighthouse. I've watched about half the films on your list and a ton of others and still have The Lighthouse as an easy entry for top-5 (if not top-3) of its decade. I think it's a masterpiece and the biggest leap I've noticed from a filmmaker regarding debut to sophomore effort.

Oh I prefered The VVitch, but everything under Suspiria I'd recommend but wouldn't praise. I might have missed something in both Eggers' films, and in Under the Skin, but I just didn't buy into the hype. Interesting films for sure, but anything above that went over my head.

 

[kihei]

I guess that I liked the build-up enough to not be as disappointed by the wrap-up.

Spoiler

I don't know about the candy (which was strange because why would she take another and why would it taste any better?), but I think that the pizza was bad because the son drugged it. Remember that the owner suggested that she order pizza, left her extra money for it and even provided the phone number to order it. The son then intercepted her order, drugged the pizza, delivered it, himself, and waited for it to knock her out.

As for Gerwig, she tragically plays a character driving a Volvo. More Volvo owners get attacked and/or killed in horror films than owners of any other cars. I'm thinking that it's partly a running joke about their safety.

Hey, that bit about Volvo owners is cool, Though if makers of horror movies can be that witty, why can't they come up with better movies?

 

[kihei]

Though no one has called The Father a horror movie, it's a great one if you think long enough about it.

 

[OzzyFan]

The Courier
2.70 out of 4stars

A relationship-centric cold war spy film about the British(and partly American) governments sending a British traveling salesman to and fro Russia to smuggle out information through a high ranked Russian government informant. Not knowing anything going in, it's a nicely rounded and well acted spy film without too much unconventional going on until the third act, and then you realize why this story was brought to film and it's supposed impact and message on the previously stated cold war conflict.

The Devil's Candy
2.60 out of 4stars

A short and tight family focused possession style horror film with a different kind of spin and lots of religious symbolism and heavy metal music sprinkled throughout. It's a bit of fun and effective, but nothing groundbreaking. And it's surprisingly thorough and specifically constructed when you realize the meaning and purpose beyond a lot of the things done within the film.

 

[Pink Mist]

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) directed by Stanley Kubrick

A psychotic general, Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden), sets off a nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, while the United States war room, containing ultranationalist General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott), President Merkin Muffley and ex-Nazi Operation Paperclip scientist Dr Strangelove (Peter Sellers in both roles, in addition to a third role as Captain Lionel Mandrake, a captain locked in with the psychotic general); try to put a stop to the nuclear sequence. A great satire of the Cold War military and political strategy, in particular the doctrines of Command and Control and Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). The film could have easily been a very good thriller (like Fail-Safe which was released around the same time), but instead it is played as a dark comedy, something which must have been very powerful satire in the 1960s during the height of the Cold War. And the satire here is very strong and still holds up today, there are some very good lines in this film and laugh out loud moments. Kind of embarrassing, but I didn’t realize until after the film that Sellers was playing three roles in the film. His roles as the President and the RAF captain are very good, however his role as the titular character, Dr. Strangelove, is very uninspired and arguably the weakest part of the film in my eyes. The Dr. Strangelove character is just way too over the top and ridiculous for me and bends the humour too far from satire to farce. Still Dr. Strangelove is an excellent film, and I can easily see why it is a classic, but I don’t consider it a perfect film nor one of Kubrick’s best.

Also, as an aside, in my undergrad I had a professor who legally changed his last name to Strangelove so that he would be called Dr. Strangelove and I can’t watch this movie without thinking about him. He was an insane professor, he would always come to class wearing Hawaiian shirts (to be far I took his course during a summer) and would enter each lecture like a WWE wrestler with his own entrance music (Strangelove by Depeche Mode, of course). Definitely one of my more memorable professors.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

A Man Called Ove (2015) - 6/10

A dark comedy for boomers. My parents certainly enjoyed it far more than me, it felt extremely meh and I felt like I have little to say about it one way or another. Reminds me a lot of those generic post-2000 British films like Summerland or Guernsey Potato and Literary Club.

 

[kihei]

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) directed by Stanley Kubrick

A psychotic general, Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden), sets off a nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, while the United States war room, containing ultranationalist General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott), President Merkin Muffley and ex-Nazi Operation Paperclip scientist Dr Strangelove (Peter Sellers in both roles, in addition to a third role as Captain Lionel Mandrake, a captain locked in with the psychotic general); try to put a stop to the nuclear sequence. A great satire of the Cold War military and political strategy, in particular the doctrines of Command and Control and Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). The film could have easily been a very good thriller (like Fail-Safe which was released around the same time), but instead it is played as a dark comedy, something which must have been very powerful satire in the 1960s during the height of the Cold War. And the satire here is very strong and still holds up today, there are some very good lines in this film and laugh out loud moments. Kind of embarrassing, but I didn’t realize until after the film that Sellers was playing three roles in the film. His roles as the President and the RAF captain are very good, however his role as the titular character, Dr. Strangelove, is very uninspired and arguably the weakest part of the film in my eyes. The Dr. Strangelove character is just way too over the top and ridiculous for me and bends the humour too far from satire to farce. Still Dr. Strangelove is an excellent film, and I can easily see why it is a classic, but I don’t consider it a perfect film nor one of Kubrick’s best.

Also, as an aside, in my undergrad I had a professor who legally changed his last name to Strangelove so that he would be called Dr. Strangelove and I can’t watch this movie without thinking about him. He was an insane professor, he would always come to class wearing Hawaiian shirts (to be far I took his course during a summer) and would enter each lecture like a WWE wrestler with his own entrance music (Strangelove by Depeche Mode, of course). Definitely one of my more memorable professors.

I have 37 Hawaiian shirts (just verified the count), but have not changed my name. And tend to avoid grand entrances.

 

[nameless1]

A Man Called Ove (2015) - 6/10

A dark comedy for boomers. My parents certainly enjoyed it far more than me, it felt extremely meh and I felt like I have little to say about it one way or another. Reminds me a lot of those generic post-2000 British films like Summerland or Guernsey Potato and Literary Club.

It had been a while, but I remembered that I liked it, and I was happy it got nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars. It is not one of the great films, but I am touched by the sentimentality of it.

 

[Osprey]

I'm waiting for the Russian adaptation, A Man Called Ovi, about a grumpy ex-hockey player not taking well to his own retirement.

 

[The don godfather]

1978 Halloween what a classic and one of the best by master of horror John carpenter. The soundtrack can't be beat .

 

[nameless1]

I'm waiting for the Russian adaptation, A Man Called Ovi, about a grumpy ex-hockey player not taking well to his own retirement.

I am not sure I will watch it. He made a ton of money in his career, and his wife's family is quite well-off too. It may have to be a comedy, but I am not sure Russia has that genre.

 

[heatnikki]

The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind 9/10
Lovely movie, great story, scenery, acting, and nice soundtrack.

 

[kihei]

Hard Candy (2005) Directed by David Slade 6B

Ye olde switcheroo plays big here. Hayley (Elliot Page), a seemingly flirtatious 14-year-old, falls into the lair of 32-year-old pedophile Geoff (Patrick Wilson). He woos her on the internet, meets her at a coffee shop, talks her into coming over to his remote-ish house, plies her with alcohol--and not too soon after finds himself tied up in a chair while Hayley slowly takes revenge on him for past sins. Hard Candy is a movie that a lot of people have found controversial and some have called "deeply disturbing." My reaction was, hey, I get to watch a pedophile be tortured by a child for two hours--COOL. What's the problem here exactly? I suspect this movie is supposed to give me moral qualms, but, like, what about? Is the audience supposed to have confused allegiance, tainted rooting interest, general all-purpose squeamishness as the situation unfolds? Does castration seem a little much? Is this a "be-careful-what-you-wish-for" moment? Does, gulp, Hayley have the wrong man? Well, that last one would be a large fly in the ointment, for sure, but there is never the slightest doubt in the movie that Geoff is anything but a complete scumbag. I know violent pedophiles should probably not be tortured by child victims, but, let's face it, my moral outrage level on this one would be around .000000001% if it actually happened. Anyway, I enjoyed the vicarious experience of watching it occur. Hard Candy is too long, the script not always as astute as it needs to be--which somewhat spoils the, ahem, fun. But as contemporary horror movies go, Hard Candy appealed to my sweet tooth.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Hard Candy (2005) Directed by David Slade 6B

Ye olde switcheroo plays big here. Hayley (Elliot Page), a seemingly flirtatious 14-year-old, falls into the lair of 32-year-old pedophile Geoff (Patrick Wilson). He woos her on the internet, meets her at a coffee shop, talks her into coming over to his remote-ish house, plies her with alcohol--and not too soon after finds himself tied up in a chair while Hayley slowly takes revenge on him for past sins. Hard Candy is a movie that a lot of people have found controversial and some have called "deeply disturbing." My reaction was, hey, I get to watch a pedophile be tortured by a child for two hours--COOL. What's the problem here exactly? I suspect this movie is supposed to give me moral qualms, but, like, what about? Is the audience supposed to have confused allegiance, tainted rooting interest, general all-purpose squeamishness as the situation unfolds? Does castration seem a little much? Is this a "be-careful-what-you-wish-for" moment? Does, gulp, Hayley have the wrong man? Well, that last one would be a large fly in the ointment, for sure, but there is never the slightest doubt in the movie that Geoff is anything but a complete scumbag. I know violent pedophiles should probably not be tortured by child victims, but, let's face it, my moral outrage level on this one would be around .000000001% if it actually happened. Anyway, I enjoyed the vicarious experience of watching it occur. Hard Candy is too long, the script not always as astute as it needs to be--which somewhat spoils the, ahem, fun. But as contemporary horror movies go, Hard Candy appealed to my sweet tooth.

I'm sure you probably know this but David Slade was responsible for much of the TV show Hannibal's visual look and style ...

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Collective. A riveting double-Oscar-nominated Romanian doc about journalism and political corruption. There are about four or five substories going on in this and I found all of them to be pretty engaging. The level of access the filmmakers get to the subjects here really is shocking. It did at times raise questions in me about how much people were performing for the cameras, so to speak, but that wasn't really a detriment to me. I'm impressed with the ability to balance the film because it would be easy for it to tip too heavily in one direction or another. Honestly each thread probably could have been its own movie. It's the type of movie that makes me want to watch a completely separate movie about the making of this movie.

Zach Snyder's Justice League. I know it has it's own thread. I just don't have that interesting of a take on it. To it's credit, it was better than its predecessor and better than my expectations (which were extremely low). Snyder's thematic and artistic obsessions aren't mine, but unlike his previous DC movies I thought it worked ok here. Finally. He's a dude like Michael Bay whom detractors love to call hacks, but they both actually have clear talents, particularly for scale and bombast. He still ain't my thing, but I will concede he is pretty good at doing his thing. For the amount of CGI in this, I thought it looked surprisingly good. It also moved pretty well despite the four-hour run time (though I thought the last hour was easily the worst of the four due largely to the prolonged climax and epilogue -- woof that dream sequence).

 

[kihei]

I'm sure you probably know this but David Slade was responsible for much of the TV show Hannibal's visual look and style ...

Didn't know that. Makes sense, though, now that you mention it.

 

[Pink Mist]

Spider-man: Homecoming (2017) directed by Jon Watts

It’s Spider-man (Tom Holland), you know the story, it’s only been told eight times in the last 20 years. High school teen gets bit by a radioactive spider and gets superpowers (thankfully left out of the reboot) and uses his powers to fight crime in NYC while being a total dork in high school. In this one, he is stopping Vulture (Michael Keaton, reprising his role from Birdman) an arms dealer selling super weapons made from the scraps of aliens from The Avengers. Much of this one follows the beats of a John Hughes teen comedy and that’s when it shines and is often funny and enjoyable – though many of its references are too on the nose (Ferris Bueller like chase through backyards, then in case we didn’t catch the reference Spider-man smashes a TV playing that exact scene was eyerolling). Unfortunately, despite Spider-man being sidelined by the Avengers being a major plot point in this movie, the film repeatedly insisted on tying the Avengers and Iron Man into the movie which caused it to drag at times. Why not just leave them out of this one? I get it, I get it, this is the first Spider-man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe so they needed to show that off, but it would have been refreshing to have a film with the frequent cameos from the characters from the other films that always end up dragging and bloating the films. Also not a fan of this depiction of Spider-man who is divorced from his working class roots and instead is made into a tech bro. This is no Spider-man 2 (2004).

The Marvel Moment: My Ongoing Rankings of the Marvel Movies

1. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
2. Guardians of the Galaxy
3. Captain America: The First Avenger
4. Iron Man
5. Doctor Strange
6. Thor
7. Spider-man: Homecoming
8. Ant-Man
9. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
10. The Avengers
11. Avengers: Age of Ultron
12. Iron Man 3
13. Thor: The Dark World
14. Captain America: Civil War
15. Iron Man 2
16. The Incredible Hulk

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Patrice O'Neal: Killing is Easy (2021) - By the numbers, fun but certainly won't change anybody's opinion of O'Neal. If you liked the guy, you'll still like him after the documentary is over. If you didn't, there's very little in there that's going to change your mind. I think he was a superb comic but some of his stuff hasn't aged well at all. In fact, it wasn't appropriate even 10 years ago. The film largely works as a love letter, but I tend to find most of the comics who had a word in the documentary annoying, save for Burr and Norton. Everybody seems very pleased with themselves. None moreso than O'Neal, but his sheer arrogance, unabashed honesty and singular talent makes him far more tolerable. But to this viewer, the stakes of his dilemmas presented never seem particularly meaningful. So, he didn't want to sell-out and couldn't stand the thought of taking directions from hack workers. No doubt, who would? Most tolerate it - I don't blame him for shunning it. He talked about not desiring to be in 'golden handcuffs' and there's a tinge of regret there. Other comics still seem to think he made a mistake or that he should have been more lenient about his creative control on corporate projects - which is, really, a a joke as O'Neal, unless severly restrained, has zero corporate appeal or potential - which from my POV, really speaks to their privileged careers. So far as I can see it, O'Neal was still able to make a living while performing without compromise. This, to me, is a more than satisfying niche in exchange for a few millions less. Unfortunately, it's not a particularly in-depth look at his creative process, however messy it seemed. The most interesting moments don't come from the filmmakers or the interviewees, but rightfully, from O'Neal himself. His jokes, his sincere and intense positions regarding his desire to do everything on his own terms. He wasn't the first. He certainly won't be the last. He gets his first hour a few months before his death. He was close to making it. 10 years later, it's extremely doubtful he would have lasted too long in the limelight anyways. He was far more antagonistic than any current living comic, including a Burr (who I like very much but is nothing more than a pup next to O'Neal) or a Stanhope. A sample of how brilliant yet ruthless he could be:

A green Kevin Hart is bombing on stage. O'Neal is in the crowd. He hurls a telephone book on stage and shouts: 'Call anybody in there and ask them if you made the right decision!' Yeah, in the tough world of comedy - which is funny considering how sensitive many of them seem to criticism from anyone that isn't a comic - he was as gritty as they come but with a carapace that nobody could break through.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Thor & Iron-Man over Homecoming is strange but over Winter Soldier is a travesty.

 

[Osprey]

Don't Look Now (1973) - 5/10 (Didn't like or dislike it)

A grieving couple (Donald Sutherland, Julie Christie) takes a trip to Venice, where they encounter a psychic who claims to be in touch with their dead daughter. What I liked best about this psychological thriller is that it's shot mostly along and on the waterways of Venice. There's also a theme of drowning that makes the location particularly suitable and for a moody atmosphere. Unfortunately, though the film is predominantly about grief, I didn't sense much because the characters are in relatively good spirits even early in the trip. In fact, after receiving the haunting news that their dead daughter is with them, even sitting unseen between them, they have passionate sex that night. I think that that news would creep me out enough to go to bed early, not have wild sex that my daughter might be watching from beyond. As the film went on, I didn't feel that it increased in suspense like it should and it became too slow, not quite boring, but not very interesting. It's not until an hour and a half in that it picks up and the final 30 minutes are better. I found the ending a bit disappointing, though.

Spoiler

A dwarf serial killer? Really? Wearing a bright red raincoat just like his daughter, as well? Isn't something that noticeable not what you'd want to wear to murder people? Also, how did she lure her other victims, assuming that they didn't follow her because they'd lost daughters with similar raincoats, and did she lure them all to the same raised platform, where she could conveniently reach their throats? Finally, are we to believe that this dwarf dragged her much larger victims to the canal by herself? These questions wouldn't need answers if this were just a horror, but the reveal is meant to show us that there was a natural explanation for him seeing what looked like his daughter, yet a dwarf serial killer really stretches the meaning of natural.

Overall, I liked the premise, but not the execution. For my tastes, the director paid too much attention to the artistry--the imagery, symbolism, themes and motifs--and not enough to the performances, story and pacing. More attention to the latter might've drawn me in and made me feel for the characters and a greater suspense. As it is, I couldn't get invested to the degree that the film seemingly intended.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Don't Look Now (1973) - 5/10 (Didn't like or dislike it)

A grieving couple (Donald Sutherland, Julie Christie) takes a trip to Venice, where they encounter a psychic who claims to be in touch with their dead daughter. What I liked best about this psychological thriller is that it's shot mostly along and on the waterways of Venice. There's also a theme of drowning that makes the location particularly suitable and for a moody atmosphere. Unfortunately, though the film is predominantly about grief, I didn't sense much because the characters are in relatively good spirits even early in the trip. In fact, after receiving the haunting news that their dead daughter is with them, even sitting unseen between them, they have passionate sex that night. I think that that would creep me out enough to go to bed early, not have wild sex that my daughter might be watching from beyond. As the film went on, I didn't feel that it increased in suspense like it should and it became too slow, not quite boring, but not very interesting. It's not until an hour and a half in that it picks up and the final 30 minutes are better. I found the ending a bit disappointing, though.

Spoiler

A dwarf serial killer? Really? Wearing a bright red raincoat just like his daughter, as well? Isn't something that noticeable not what you'd want to wear to murder people? Also, how did she lure her other victims, assuming that they didn't follow her because they'd lost daughters with similar raincoats, and did she lure them all to the same raised platform, where she could conveniently reach their throats? Finally, are we to believe that this dwarf dragged her much larger victims to the canal by herself?

If this were just a horror, I wouldn't bother asking these questions, but the film seems to lean in the other direction and say there there was a natural explanation for him seeing what looked like his daughter, yet a serial killer dwarf seems hardly natural to me.

Overall, I liked the premise, but not the execution. For my tastes, the director paid too much attention to the artistry--the imagery, symbolism, themes and motifs--and not enough to the performances, story and pacing. More attention to the latter might've drawn me in and made me feel for the characters and a greater suspense. As it is, I couldn't get invested to the degree that the film seemingly intended.