Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Spring 2021 Edition
- Thread starter Lshap
- Start date
- Status
jasonleaffan
Registered User
Just finished a film from 2016 called Morgan, very much a meh movie.
I'm starting on The Void right now. I've seen it before, but it's worth a second watch.
I'm starting on The Void right now. I've seen it before, but it's worth a second watch.
Osprey's take is so removed from my initial and subsequent reactions to Don't Look Now that rather than comment on his position directly, I will just talk about a few of the reasons why, in my opinion, I think the movie is an absolute masterpiece.
Don't Look Now is among the best edited movies that I have ever seen. It may be the best edited film that I have ever seen actually (Battleship Potemkin is the only other contender I can think of at the moment). What I especially like about the editing, especially the cross cutting, is that it cannot be created in a book with words, not with the accompanying feelings and forebodings that it generates in this film. It is a purely cinematic phenomenon that nurtures much of the emotional impact of what follows. The editing contributes greatly to the sense of foreboding that permeates the film, yet feels more intuitive than calculated. While it must have been very carefully thought through and worked out in advance, we only see the result, not the effort and imagination involved. It is one of the elements that allows the movie to generate feelings that can't be put into words.
Venice is the perfect backdrop. This story ain't going to work in Newark or Limerick. Venice is creepy and romantic and beautiful and decaying all mixed together, and its elegant dissipation and somehow timelessness suits the film to a tee.
In short, in this movie, everything in it complements everything else in it. All the details contribute greatly to the whole. Roeg's attention to visual detail, his use of music, his way of shooting supporting actors' faces (the detective, the old ladies, the bishop), the incredible sense of foreboding he creates by using all the tools of his trade, his ability to get great performances from lead and supporting actors alike, all this contributes to the grief evident in the movie and its wrenching effects on two characters who have such different ways of coping with it that despite their love, their feelings might tear them apart from one another.
As for the sex scene, I think it about the best I have ever seen, and I love how it is inter-cut with their post-coital preparations to go out, which creates just the right level of intensity. The reason it works so well, for me anyway, is I had come to feel like I knew them as characters and cared about them. The sex seemed genuinely intimate and personal. There was also the haunting sense that in some way, somehow this might be a good bye as well--for by then foreboding has bled into the very fabric of the film. In other words, lots of complicated emotions, more than I usually have to deal with at the movies. And could a grieving couple have great sex? Absolutely. It reaffirms their bond and provides a moment's escape from the reality awaiting them. Didn't find that hard to believe at all.
Grief does haunt people. Grief can be thoroughly destabilizing. Grief can eat at people's flaws. I think the film deals with these themes beautifully but so does Truly, Madly, Deeply, and I don't love it anywhere near as much as Don't Look Now. My love for Don't Look Now is a mix of the feelings it generates inside me, the sense of experiencing something that I had never felt at the movies, the incredible execution of all the artists involved to help create those feelings, and the overall haunting quality of the film which has something to do with the inescapability of destiny, the fleeting nature of life, and something else that is hard to put in words, the notion that Donne wrote about in one of his poem's that we run to death, and death runs to meet us just as fast.
Don't Look Now is among the best edited movies that I have ever seen. It may be the best edited film that I have ever seen actually (Battleship Potemkin is the only other contender I can think of at the moment). What I especially like about the editing, especially the cross cutting, is that it cannot be created in a book with words, not with the accompanying feelings and forebodings that it generates in this film. It is a purely cinematic phenomenon that nurtures much of the emotional impact of what follows. The editing contributes greatly to the sense of foreboding that permeates the film, yet feels more intuitive than calculated. While it must have been very carefully thought through and worked out in advance, we only see the result, not the effort and imagination involved. It is one of the elements that allows the movie to generate feelings that can't be put into words.
Venice is the perfect backdrop. This story ain't going to work in Newark or Limerick. Venice is creepy and romantic and beautiful and decaying all mixed together, and its elegant dissipation and somehow timelessness suits the film to a tee.
In short, in this movie, everything in it complements everything else in it. All the details contribute greatly to the whole. Roeg's attention to visual detail, his use of music, his way of shooting supporting actors' faces (the detective, the old ladies, the bishop), the incredible sense of foreboding he creates by using all the tools of his trade, his ability to get great performances from lead and supporting actors alike, all this contributes to the grief evident in the movie and its wrenching effects on two characters who have such different ways of coping with it that despite their love, their feelings might tear them apart from one another.
As for the sex scene, I think it about the best I have ever seen, and I love how it is inter-cut with their post-coital preparations to go out, which creates just the right level of intensity. The reason it works so well, for me anyway, is I had come to feel like I knew them as characters and cared about them. The sex seemed genuinely intimate and personal. There was also the haunting sense that in some way, somehow this might be a good bye as well--for by then foreboding has bled into the very fabric of the film. In other words, lots of complicated emotions, more than I usually have to deal with at the movies. And could a grieving couple have great sex? Absolutely. It reaffirms their bond and provides a moment's escape from the reality awaiting them. Didn't find that hard to believe at all.
Grief does haunt people. Grief can be thoroughly destabilizing. Grief can eat at people's flaws. I think the film deals with these themes beautifully but so does Truly, Madly, Deeply, and I don't love it anywhere near as much as Don't Look Now. My love for Don't Look Now is a mix of the feelings it generates inside me, the sense of experiencing something that I had never felt at the movies, the incredible execution of all the artists involved to help create those feelings, and the overall haunting quality of the film which has something to do with the inescapability of destiny, the fleeting nature of life, and something else that is hard to put in words, the notion that Donne wrote about in one of his poem's that we run to death, and death runs to meet us just as fast.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
This made me wonder: have you read the short story?
http://perso.univ-lemans.fr/~xlacha...ES & Agregation)/Master/ddm_dont_look_now.pdf
As for me, I've brushed at it quickly already, but I love the film for its unequaled ambivalence and its amazing work with the limits of the genres. Plus, it's a masterful film on pretty much every level (the pace, the buildup, and - despite what Osprey felt - the payoff (imitated in many other horror films), and the confirmation that comes after it, maybe not needed, but only doubling on its creative manipulation of genres).
No, oddly enough, never did read the short story. Guess I just never felt the need after seeing the movie. Still, uncharacteristic of me.
But, thanks very much for the link, I will get to this eventually, after March Madness most likely.
But, thanks very much for the link, I will get to this eventually, after March Madness most likely.
Last edited:
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
Only interested in the girls' games! Watched a game today with two girls I used to coach against that faced one another (VCU vs Indiana).
Too one sided. It would be the equivalent of watching Canada play Somalia in hockey. Has anyone beat Connecticut in the last twenty years?
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
They haven't won the tournament in 3 years now. They should be in the final four this year, but other teams are now attracting the best rookies. I can't say I'd be surprised they'd take it all this year (because it's UConn), but they're not favorite.
kihei's take is so removed from my initial and subsequent reactions to Don't Look Now that rather than comment on his position directly, here's a picture of a sad panda:
Pranzo, you're welcome to add that to your wall-facing collage.
Pranzo, you're welcome to add that to your wall-facing collage.
Last edited:
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
kihei's take is so removed from my initial and subsequent reactions to Don't Look Now that rather than comment on his position directly, here's a picture of a sad panda:
Pranzo, you're welcome to add that to your earlier collage.
I know that you're joking, but Don't Look Now didn't go over my head. I understand what it's about and how it goes about it and it just wasn't very effective for me or entirely my cup of tea. Most of what kihei just described about what he likes about the film is how it made him feel. I didn't get the same feelings, but that's fine. Art is subjective. Everyone doesn't need to be moved by or in admiration of the style of every piece of work just because someone else was.
BTW, I haven't seen Anaconda. Maybe I've always been afraid that it would go over my head.
Last edited:
I've noticed if a horror movie is of any quality, they call it something else and it graduates to another label. Like Gothic ghost story, or occult themed thriller. Other top line horror flicks are called a 'psychological drama'. I've seen post-apocalyptic adventure on some others. If you just call it a horror movie, you instantly come to the conclusion it's a B class movie. The really good ones seem to call themselves something else like suspense thriller and avoid the B horror movie label at all costs.
Last edited:
For goodness snakes, you would have to have a very constricted view of horror movies for Anaconda to go over your head. In terms of critter horror, I would rate Anaconda just below Arachnophobia and just ahead of Lake Placid. But it's a tight squeeze, as I enjoyed them all.BTW, I haven't seen Anaconda. Maybe I've always been afraid that it would go over my head.
I know what you mean. I have a tendency to do this myself; for instance my position that Don't Look Now transcends the genre, like to place the movie in the horror genre is to somehow cheapen it. I guess I feel that way about other films as well like Hitchcock's The Birds, Almodovar's The Skin I Live In, and Almond's Isabel. Perhaps the reason is that I don't expect quality from the horror genre as much as I expect cheap thrills. "Horror" as a category seems quite restricted to me: when I get art along with it, the genre no longer seems to be able to contain the work. It is a genre in which the standard tropes seem self-limiting. I mean aren't movies like Amour, Polytechnique, The Father, Cries and Whispers, Schindler's List, Awakenings, even Manchester by the Sea, horror films on some level. But I don't normally think of such movies that way because they are about life. Or maybe that's the saving grace of the genre--horror movies, standard definition, allow us to experience comfortably escapist horror as a means of getting away for awhile from life's real horrors.
Thor's fish out of water plot mixed with Shakespeare worked for me, and a respect Iron Man's relatively low stakes plot now especially compared to the bloat of the later films in the MCU. But outside of the top couple movies ranked and the bottom, pretty much everything in the middle is interchangeable in my rankings.
Was not really a fan of Winter Soldier, honestly forgot about the Bucky character going into the movie so his relationship with Captain America didn't really resonate with me. And the action scenes (outside of a couple of really well done ones) were a terrible mess
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,772
- 3,808
This is sometimes a pet peeve of mine too. Another variation is some form of "it ELEVATES above the genre ..." I think those descriptors can be true and accurate and used in good faith, but it's also sometimes snobby code speak from folks who don't typically like horror. (To be clear, I see @kihei as more the former than the latter). But there are critics out there who I generally like who'll rave about someone like Robert Eggers or Ari Aster but also bend over backwards to distance the work from horror because THEY ... gasp ... couldn't possibly enjoy such things or such a disreputable genre couldn't possibly yield something great.
It's akin to the occasional "Is this a TV show or movie?" debate that often boils down to a person's need to classify a TV show (generally and historically regarded as lesser) as a movie (generally and historically more respected) because again TV couldn't possibly .... gasp ... be good on its own terms. See any critic that rushed to claim Twin Peaks as film despite all evidence to the contrary.
So in summation: Is Twin Peaks horror?
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
I know that you're joking, but Don't Look Now didn't go over my head. I understand what it's about and how it goes about it and it just wasn't very effective for me or entirely my cup of tea. Most of what kihei just described about what he likes about the film is how it made him feel. I didn't get the same feelings, but that's fine. Art is subjective. Everyone doesn't need to be moved by or in admiration of the style of every piece of work just because someone else was.
BTW, I haven't seen Anaconda. Maybe I've always been afraid that it would go over my head.
My take on Don't Look Now is pretty objective. You can still dislike the film, but what it does with genre is absolutely unique - and I'm not speaking about horror, but with the purist conception of the fantastic. It doesn't make it objectively good, but it makes it for a brillantly crafted work.
As for horror, I love the genre and I think it's always been an incubator for creativity, so yeah, Don't Look Now is a horror film - the second best I've seen!
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) Directed by Toby Hooper 8B
Watching this movie, I felt like I had finally struck the mother lode of horror movies. That I hadn't seen it before this is kind of strange. Had I been squeamish once, why at this late date and a gazillion of horror movies later would I be squeamish now? But then again, I only saw Night of the Living Dead fairly recently and that film utterly underwhelmed me. Guess you had to be there at the time. Speaking of which I can't imagine the effect that The Texas Chain Saw Massacre must have had on its initial audience. The shock value alone must have been through the roof. But as overwhelmed as that audience likely was, it may have missed both the humour and the careful balance between reality and outlandishness that gives the Hooper movie its juice. Oddly, after the impact wears off a little, this seems a movie with something of a delicate touch. The film is jaw dropping one moment and then it would nudge me in the ribs the next. The crazies are outlandish but such parodies of real crazies that they seem both threatening and cartoonishly zany at the same time. Meanwhile, the unlucky teens seem slightly more realistic and believable than their usual counterparts in subsequent Hollywood horror movies whose characters usually just seem like cannon fodder to me from the word go. It took a talented director of orchestrate this thing. The way the shock is set up in some scenes and that long chase through the woods that leads to the dinner table scene is brilliant by any standards. I'm way more impressed by The Texas Chain Saw Massacre than I would have guessed I would be.
I agree with this. And though I have deep "feelings" about Don't Look Now, they are a byproduct of the skill and artistry of its creators. It's a great movie in my book--what former Esquire film critic Dwight Macdonald would have called "an obvious masterpiece."
Last edited:
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
Interesting take that really makes me wonder what you'd think of its sequel (where the cartoonish quality is pushed to its limits). I think you're wrong about Hooper though, his talent is very limited. I can't believe this really was your first viewing of it!
edit: the sequel is atrocious
I've only seen two other Tobe Hooper films, that I remember anyway. Poltergeist and Invaders from Mars and though I liked the former, the latter was certainly nothing to write home about. In my earlier comment, I don't think that I implied that he was a great director overall, only that he was brilliant with the original Chainsaw.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
Yeah, about that....
"In recent years, people associated with Poltergeist have talked about how much Spielberg micromanaged Hooper on set — so much that it seemed like Spielberg was really directing the movie. In 2017, John Leonetti, who was an assistant cameraman on Poltergeist — his brother Matt was the cinematographer — asserted, “Candidly… Steven Spielberg directed that movie. There’s no question.” But even back then, there were whispers that Spielberg was the film’s true auteur. Those rumors were strengthened by a May 1982 article in The New York Times published just a few weeks before the release of Poltergeist — which would come to theaters a mere week before Spielberg’s other movie, E.T., would arrive. The article, which never mentions Hooper once, certainly created the impression that not only was Spielberg the creative engine behind both films — they represented two sides of his artistic soul."
There's a few Hooper films I've enjoyed, but he ain't very good himself. TTCM was clearly his great moment of brilliance.
True genre movies have always been treated as slumdogs to some extent by the tonier critics. I suppose the argument goes (or went) that any movie which has to play by a predetermined set of conventions is thus limited in what it can accomplish as a work of art. So some critics have a tendency to look down their noses at such works as being formulaic and of limited intellectual depth or potential. But not all genres are created equal in this respect--a lot of critics love of Alfred Hitchcock and John Ford as brilliant directors led to their genre films being taken more seriously than, say, those of Sam Fuller or Roger Corman, who had to wait for auteur critics to receive their portion of praise.
Horror movies are right at the bottom of the barrel for serious film critics who seem to see the genre as inherently vulgar (which, you gotta admit, it often is). While much of this is perhaps snobbery, I think many of us lower our expectations (not to mention, standards) when we see a genre movie. I certainly don't judge most genre movies by the same set of aesthetic guidelines that I apply to The Grand Illusion, Days and Nights in the Forest, Alice in the Cities, or Persona, for instance. That would be like using a bazooka on a snail--(a statement with a patina of elitism, I admit). So I think while genre movies can be wildly entertaining, they have to work harder to be great. Where I differ from the snootier types, though, is I believe genre films can be great, can be works of art; that though seldom realized, the potential is there--to automatically exclude that possibility has nothing to do with critical acumen and seems more like a form of hubris on the part of the critic. So such movies as The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, Singin' in the Rain, Vertigo, McCabe and Mrs. Miller seem like genuine works of art to me and they can enter my establishment through the front door.
Last edited:
What scared me most as a kid:
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Siegel)
Night of the Demon (Tournier)
Burn, Witch, Burn (Hayers)
The Picture, one of a trilogy of three short films (hosted by Orson Welles, no less) called Three Cases of Murder.
If anyone has seen The Picture, obscure though it is, let me know. Nothing creeped me out more than this little flick did when I was a kid . A guy in a museum is looking at a spooky painting of a house on a hill and suddenly he is inside the picture's setting for real, not knowing how he got there. When I saw it again recently, I even remembered the ending differently than it was, an indication of what it did to my little kid mind at the time. I don't remember the other two films in the anthology except that one was boring and the other one was sort of okay. But The Picture, that was truly the stuff of nightmares.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Siegel)
Night of the Demon (Tournier)
Burn, Witch, Burn (Hayers)
The Picture, one of a trilogy of three short films (hosted by Orson Welles, no less) called Three Cases of Murder.
If anyone has seen The Picture, obscure though it is, let me know. Nothing creeped me out more than this little flick did when I was a kid . A guy in a museum is looking at a spooky painting of a house on a hill and suddenly he is inside the picture's setting for real, not knowing how he got there. When I saw it again recently, I even remembered the ending differently than it was, an indication of what it did to my little kid mind at the time. I don't remember the other two films in the anthology except that one was boring and the other one was sort of okay. But The Picture, that was truly the stuff of nightmares.
Chili
Time passes when you're not looking
- Jun 10, 2004
- 8,788
- 4,924
The movie that scared me as a kid was The List of Adrian Messenger-John Huston, it helped that it was on the late, late, late show. The setting was like out of one of the early Hitchcock movies. Mist, masks, murder and mystery. It's cool at the end of the film when there is a kind of curtain call and the masks come off to see who was behind them.
Last edited:
- Status
