Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Spring 2021 Edition

[ItsFineImFine]

The Negotiator (1998) - 7.5/10

Damn good 90s thriller directed by the guy who did Straight Outta Compton and starring Samuel L Jackson & Kevin Spacey. I never see this one mentioned online despite solid ratings so I'd categorize it as underrated or forgotten. Spacey's acting is actually better than Jackson who's a bit too angry and over the top (which works in small doses but is a bit much here at times). Definetely some poor 90s-isms and some idioticness with the ending but when it comes to the actual negotiation, can't complain. It isn't Dog Day Afternoon but worth a watch especially for the actual negotiation bits.

 

[Osprey]

The Rock (Bay, 1996) - I had never seen this. First part is a lot better than what I expected, but as soon as the marines are executed and only the overacting Cage and Connery are left, it gets real silly. 3.5/10

Coincidentally, your favorite film critic also gave it 3.5.

That movie is pretty much peak Michael Bay. He will not get any better.

To be fair, one of the best action movies of the 90s is a pretty nice peak. That said, producer Don Simpson died before it was released, ending the Simpson/Bruckheimer team that was responsible for producing Beverly Hills Cop I & II, Top Gun, Days of Thunder, Bad Boys and Crimson Tide. If you think of The Rock as being as good as it is because of those two, then it starts to make sense that Bay's movies went downhill afterward.

 

[cupcrazyman]

Jaws (1975) 8/10

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Coincidentally, your favorite film critic also gave it a 3.5.

Yes! On 4!!!

That makes it better than Le mépris, but not as good as Superman.

And he thinks Cage and Connery were fantastic. I have no words.

I didn't quote the rest of your post because it was juste utter nonsense. Can't believe you got me to read 2 reviews by that ass.

 

[kihei]

Quo Vadis, Aida (2020) Directed by Jasmila Zbanic 8A

Before the war started, Aida was a teacher, happily married with a husband and two adolescent boys. Now, she is an interpreter for the UN troops stationed in Bosnia trying to protect Bosnians from the rampaging Bosnian Serbs. The situation in the small town of Srebrenica has become critical with a few thousand Bosnians seeking refuge in a camp occupied by Dutch troops and another 25,000 Bosnians gathering just outside the camp's fences, none of whom have access to food, water or bathroom facilities. Aida is torn between two responsibilities, translating for the Dutch and trying to protect her very vulnerable family. Meanwhile the Dutch, who keep making promises they can't deliver and who are virtually abandoned by the UN decision makers, try to negotiate with General Mladic, whose history of war crimes of particular ferocity precedes him. Quo Vadis, Aida is a history lesson, a cautionary tale, a personal tragedy, and perhaps the greatest anti-war movie of the century. As Aida, Jasna Duricic gives one of the most indelible performances of the year. A brief coda, perfectly judged, will excite many conflicting emotions in viewers, I suspect. It certainly had that effect on me.

subtitles

TIFF.net

Final 2020 Best of Year List..,No, Really Final...Absolutely Final....I Mean It This Time

1) Nomadland, Zhao, US
2) First Cow, Reichardt, US
3) Small Axe: Lovers Rock, McQueen, UK
4) Never Rarely Sometimes Always, Hittman, US
5) The Father, Zeller, UK
6) Quo Vadis, Aida, Zbanic, Bosnia and Herzegovina
7) Collective, Nanau, Romania
8) Beginning, Kulumbegashvili, Georgia
9) Promising Young Woman, Fennell, US/UK
10) Preparations to be Together for an Unknown Period of Time, Horvat, Hungary

Sidenote: Just noticed: seven of those films are directed by women.

 

[kihei]

Godzilla vs. Kong--Damn, that was a busy film. There were a few fun special effects moments but I'm thinking that maybe Godzilla should be left to the Japanese to do because they have the right touch with the big guy and Hollywood films just don't.

 

[nameless1]

Quo Vadis, Aida (2020) Directed by Jasmila Zbanic 8A

Before the war started, Aida was a teacher, happily married with a husband and two adolescent boys. Now, she is an interpreter for the UN troops stationed in Bosnia trying to protect Bosnians from the rampaging Bosnian Serbs. The situation in the small town of Srebrenica has become critical with a few thousand Bosnians seeking refuge in a camp occupied by Dutch troops and another 25,000 Bosnians gathering just outside the camp's fences, none of whom have access to food, water or bathroom facilities. Aida is torn between two responsibilities, translating for the Dutch and trying to protect her very vulnerable family. Meanwhile the Dutch, who keep making promises they can't deliver and who are virtually abandoned by the UN decision makers, try to negotiate with General Mladic, whose history of war crimes of particular ferocity precedes him. Quo Vadis, Aida is a history lesson, a cautionary tale, a personal tragedy, and perhaps the greatest anti-war movie of the century. As Aida, Jasna Duricic gives one of the most indelible performances of the year. A brief coda, perfectly judged, will excite many conflicting emotions in viewers, I suspect. It certainly had that effect on me.

subtitles

TIFF.net

Final 2020 Best of Year List..,No, Really Final...Absolutely Final....I Mean It This Time

1) Nomadland, Zhao, US
2) First Cow, Reichardt, US
3) Small Axe: Lovers Rock, McQueen, UK
4) Never Rarely Sometimes Always, Hittman, US
5) The Father, Zeller, UK
6) Quo Vadis, Aida, Zbanic, Bosnia and Herzegovina
7) Collective, Nanau, Romania
8) Beginning, Kulumbegashvili, Georgia
9) Promising Young Woman, Fennell, US/UK
10) Preparations to be Together for an Unknown Period of Time, Horvat, Hungary

Sidenote: Just noticed: seven of those films are directed by women.

I have seen three of the Best International Feature Film Oscar nominees, and this is my favourite thus far. I really like how accurate it is, especially the part where the neighbours watch as the atrocities take place, which had often been cited as an issue during reconciliation, and Duricic gave a very memorable performance. That said, I actually disliked the coda, because I think it is way too hopeful and completely contradicts the prior tone of the movie. That is why I have it lower than you, at 7.25/10. It is a very powerful film, but the ending completely throws me off. I do want it to win though, because I do think it is the best from what I have watched, but Another Round looks to be ahead.

 

[Osprey]

I didn't quote the rest of your post because it was juste utter nonsense. Can't believe you got me to read 2 reviews by that ass.

I don't understand what made him an ass, unless he used to tell people that their opinions were just utter nonsense or something. I don't always agree with Ebert, but I respect him because he didn't seem to have an ego or put certain kinds of films above others. He'd give 4 stars to dramas, art films, comedies, horrors and Summer blockbusters alike if they were good examples of the genre. You brought up his 4-star review of Superman and he referenced it years later in a quote:

"When you ask a friend if Hellboy is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to Mystic River, you're asking if it's any good compared to The Punisher. And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if Superman is four, then Hellboy is three and The Punisher is two."

His critical approach was relative, not absolute. He reviewed films against other films in the same genre and by how much he thought that fans of that genre would like them. He didn't just review based on his tastes. He also considered the tastes of his readers. Similarly, he wrote in a down-to-earth style that his readers could understand. He didn't use fancy language and terms just to show what a good writer and film expert he was. Finally, he was not shy to re-review films years later to admit his mistakes, upgrade them to 4 stars and add them to his "great movies" list. All of those things don't sound to me like the attitude of an ass.

 

[kihei]

I have seen three of the Best International Feature Film Oscar nominees, and this is my favourite thus far. I really like how accurate it is, especially the part where the neighbours watch as the atrocities take place, which had often been cited as an issue during reconciliation, and Duricic gave a very memorable performance. That said, I actually disliked the coda, because I think it is way too hopeful and completely contradicts the prior tone of the movie. That is why I have it lower than you, at 7.25/10. It is a very powerful movie, but the ending completely throws me off. I do want it to win though, because I do think it is the best from what I have watched, but Another Round looks to be ahead.

I think the coda's hopefullness is leavened by the presence of a couple of characters who were on the other side--the captain, now gray-haired, who insisted on seeing the male prisoners and the young Serb soldier who was a former student of Aida's. Somehow the virtue of forgiving and forgetting, though perhaps socially necessary, just doesn't seem applicable. That's why I said the coda generated conflicting feelings in me.

As for the nominees, I hope Quo Vadis, Aida or Collective wins.

 

[nameless1]

I think the coda's hopefullness is leavened by the presence of a couple of characters who were on the other side--the captain, now gray-haired, who insists on seeing the male prisoners and the young soldier who was a former student of Aida's. Somehow the virtue of forgiving and forgetting, though perhaps socially necessary, just doesn't seem applicable. That's why I said the coda generated conflicting feelings in me.

As for the nominees, I hope Quo Vadis, Aida or Collective wins.

Yeah, that is fair. I get what the director wanted to do, but it just rings false to me. I will stick with my grade, and I do highly recommend it. It is one of the better films from last year.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I don't understand what made him an ass, unless he used to tell people that their opinions were just utter nonsense or something. I don't always agree with Ebert, but I respect him because he didn't seem to have an ego or put certain kinds of films above others. He'd give 4 stars to dramas, art films, comedies, horrors and Summer blockbusters alike if they were good examples of the genre. You brought up his 4-star review of Superman and he referenced it years later in a quote:

"When you ask a friend if Hellboy is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to Mystic River, you're asking if it's any good compared to The Punisher. And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if Superman is four, then Hellboy is three and The Punisher is two."

His critical approach was relative, not absolute. He reviewed films against other films in the same genre and by how much he thought that fans of that genre would like them. He didn't just review based on his tastes. He also considered the tastes of his readers. Similarly, he wrote in a down-to-earth style that his readers could understand. He didn't use fancy language and terms just to show what a good writer and film expert he was. Finally, he was not shy to re-review films years later to admit his mistakes, upgrade them to 4 stars and add them to his "great movies" list. All of those things don't sound to me like the attitude of an ass.

Ass probably wasn't the right choice of word. I just dislike critics that can't go beyond story and enjoyment surface, but maybe you're right and he was just writing "so his readers could understand", which sounds kind of condescending, but might just sell better.

 

[kihei]

I don't understand what made him an ass, unless he used to tell people that their opinions were just utter nonsense or something. I don't always agree with Ebert, but I respect him because he didn't seem to have an ego or put certain kinds of films above others. He'd give 4 stars to dramas, art films, comedies, horrors and Summer blockbusters alike if they were good examples of the genre. You brought up his 4-star review of Superman and he referenced it years later in a quote:

"When you ask a friend if Hellboy is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to Mystic River, you're asking if it's any good compared to The Punisher. And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if Superman is four, then Hellboy is three and The Punisher is two."

His critical approach was relative, not absolute. He reviewed films against other films in the same genre and by how much he thought that fans of that genre would like them. He didn't just review based on his tastes. He also considered the tastes of his readers. Similarly, he wrote in a down-to-earth style that his readers could understand. He didn't use fancy language and terms just to show what a good writer and film expert he was. Finally, he was not shy to re-review films years later to admit his mistakes, upgrade them to 4 stars and add them to his "great movies" list. All of those things don't sound to me like the attitude of an ass.

I wasn't a fan, either. I enjoyed his enthusiasm but, man, I thought he liked an awful lot of wretched movies.

 

[Osprey]

Ass probably wasn't the right choice of word. I just dislike critics that can't go beyond story and enjoyment surface, but maybe you're right and he was just writing "so his readers could understand", which sounds kind of condescending, but might just sell better.

I think that it's condescending only if you do it to feel superior, especially if you dumb it down to an insulting level. When you tell a story to a child or a mentally disabled adult and you keep it simple for their sake, you aren't being condescending (hopefully). You're being respectful and treating them as equals, which is the opposite of condescension, IMO.

I wasn't a fan, either. I enjoyed his enthusiasm but, man, I thought he liked an awful lot of wretched movies.

You seem more like a Gene Siskel, who took a less relative approach and judged films on an objective scale. I relate better to Ebert and see nothing wrong with liking "wretched movies." In fact, I recently gave a higher score to Frankenhooker than Nomadland, simply because I enjoyed it more, even though the latter blows it away in every objective category. I was reading a review of Ebert's in which he suggested that awful isn't a good reason to trash a film, but awful and boring is. It's so true. Who cares if a film is awful if it's entertaining?

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I think that it's condescending only if you do it to feel superior, especially if you dumb it down to an insulting level. When you tell a story to a child or a mentally disabled adult and you keep it simple for their sake, you aren't being condescending (hopefully). You're being respectful and treating them as equals, which is the opposite of condescension, IMO.

Well, if you feel you need to dumb or simplify things down in a published outlet in order to be understood, it's condescending to your audience. Your examples using children or mental disability is going in the same direction.

I recently gave a higher score to Frankenhooker than Nomadland

I obviously have nothing against that, if you can back it up. I don't think enjoyment is a justification though, otherwise John T. Bone is a fantastic director.

 

[Osprey]

Well, if you feel you need to dumb or simplify things down in a published outlet in order to be understood, it's condescending to your audience. Your examples using children or mental disability is going in the same direction.

You're technically right, but almost no one uses the term without the negative connotation nowadays. It's used to criticize the behavior and my point with the example was to show that it's not necessarily something that should be criticized. Another example is Stephen Hawking putting astrophysics into laymen's terms. While that may be technically condescending, no one in their right mind (except maybe really snooty astrophysicists) would ever imply that Hawking was doing anything wrong. Whenever an expert wants to help others appreciate what he appreciates and puts things into language that they can understand, it should be applauded, IMO.

 

[kihei]

You seem more like a Gene Siskel, who took a less relative approach and judged films on an objective scale. I relate better to Ebert and see nothing wrong with liking "wretched movies." In fact, I recently gave a higher score to Frankenhooker than Nomadland, simply because I enjoyed it more, even though the latter blows it away in every objective category. I was reading a review of Ebert's in which he suggested that awful isn't a good reason to trash a film, but awful and boring is. It's so true. Who cares if a film is awful if it's entertaining?

I'm not familiar enough with Siskel to judge where I stand with him, but, despite Ebert's generosity of spirit and relish for discussing movies, I pretty much found Roger a warmed-over Paulene Kael disciple, much more middle of the road, with far less biting wit and far fewer insights. A reviewer who emphasizes how much he/she liked a movie wears out my interest quickly. There is not much meat on those particular bones.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

You're technically right, but almost no one uses the term without the negative connotation nowadays. It's used to criticize the behavior and my point with the example was to show that it's not necessarily something that should be criticized. Another example is Stephen Hawking putting astrophysics into laymen's terms. While that may be technically condescending, no one in their right mind (except maybe really snooty astrophysicists) would ever imply that Hawking was doing anything wrong. Whenever an expert wants to help others appreciate what he appreciates and puts things into language that they can understand, it should be applauded, IMO.

I understand what you mean but Hawking implying that what he knows I - and people in general - wouldn't understand isn't condescending because it's true. Ebert is an expert of what exactly?

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Timecop (Hyams, 1994) - Another 90s gem I hadn't seen before. This one I was quite happy to see because it's the source of one of the recurring jokes in Jean-Claude Van Johnson, which I liked a lot. Silly it is for sure - just look at that split - but it is also absolutely dumb when it comes to time travel and its paradoxes. The subject in itself is complex enough to bring some material to think about, but the only conclusions here is that they didn't even try to get it right. It's still kind of fun. I had Looper at 5/10, and really wish I could give a better rating to Timecop in order to be on the cooler side of the debate, but I guess I'll need to go back and try to lower the other one cause here I really can't go above 4/10.

 

[kihei]

Timecop (Hyams, 1994) - Another 90s gem I hadn't seen before. This one I was quite happy to see because it's the source of one of the recurring jokes in Jean-Claude Van Johnson, which I liked a lot. Silly it is for sure - just look at that split - but it is also absolutely dumb when it comes to time travel and its paradoxes. The subject in itself is complex enough to bring some material to think about, but the only conclusions here is that they didn't even try to get it right. It's still kind of fun. I had Looper at 5/10, and really wish I could give a better rating to Timecop in order to be on the cooler side of the debate, but I guess I'll need to go back and try to lower the other one cause here I really can't go above 4/10.

Have you ever seen a little Spanish number called Timecrimes (2007)? Worth seeing.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Have you ever seen a little Spanish number called Timecrimes (2007)? Worth seeing.

I have not, but I've watched the trailer and now I want to!

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Cool website for finding film, lacking in foreign films and quantity but concept is strong - https://feelm.com/

Gonna try to finish Pieces of A Woman tonight but really can't stand Shia LeBeaouf in this.

 

[Pink Mist]

The Magnificent Seven (2016) directed by Antoine Fuqua

The Magnificent Seven has a very difficult task to accomplish. Not only is it a remake of a classic western, it is a remake of a remake of an even better classic film, Seven Samurai. So, the reboot has a difficult task on trying to make its film feel fresh and inspired. Unfortunately, it does not seem up to the task. While it tries to inject some fresh ideas into the film, the end result just feels kind of stale, dull, and forgettable. Goes to show that if the recipe works, you shouldn’t mess with it too much (or don't bother remaking it at all, please Hollywood stop making unnecessary remakes, is nothing sacred anymore?).

 

[NyQuil]

I wasn't a fan, either. I enjoyed his enthusiasm but, man, I thought he liked an awful lot of wretched movies.

I always found myself agreeing more with Gene Siskel.

 

[Puck]

I was more of an Ebert fan. Although I did not dislike Siskel. Both were more popular-culture film critics, middle of the road. Pauline Kael was a wordsmith, terrific writer but too much influence in her field. She could give a film a compliment but it was really a backhanded insult, she was good at that. The one I disliked was Rex Reed. Today I mostly just check scores at Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes.

The poster sdf should be around shortly wondering what to call this thread again.....

 

[heatnikki]

Gregory's Girl such a great film