Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Spring 2021 Edition

[Spring in Fialta]

Not that I've ever followed a particular critic religiously - it feels a bit before my time - but I've always preferred following recommendations from artists I admire as well as the fine folks here.

 

[NyQuil]

Not that I've ever followed a particular critic religiously - it feels a bit before my time - but I've always preferred following recommendations from artists I admire as well as the fine folks here.

In the days before imdb and RT, I used to have to read the Ottawa Citizen and read the reviews by our local critic, Jay Stone.

Cut, print that: Film critic Jay Stone calls it a career | Ottawa Citizen

That or watch the odd review on television, like Ebert and Siskel, or that ridiculous guy on the Today Show, Gene Shalit.

 

[kihei]

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.....

She wrote some monumental reviews, though: Bonny and Clyde, original and revision; Last Tango in Paris; Nashville; Shampoo; Taxi Driver; and Weekend to name just a few (she was also a great champion of Godard and Truffaut, much less so Resnais). She loved movies as passionately as Ebert but it never dulled her critical apparatus, and, man, she had a way with words and the intellect to match. I've always argued that she and Dwight Macdonald were in a class by themselves in terms of film criticism (sometimes with a nod to James Agee, the father of modern film criticism).

Here's some excerpts, but they really don't do the full reviews justice:

15 of Pauline Kael’s Most Passionate Takes | IndieWire

 

[NyQuil]

She wrote some monumental reviews, though: Bonny and Clyde, original and revision; Last Tango in Paris; Nashville; Shampoo; Taxi Driver; and Weekend to name just a few (she was also a great champion of Godard and Truffaut, much less so Resnais). She loved movies as passionately as Ebert but it never dulled her critical apparatus, and, man, she had a way with words and the intellect to match. I've always argued that she and Dwight Macdonald were in a class by themselves in terms of film criticism (sometimes with a nod to James Agee, the father of modern film criticism).

What do you think of revised reviews?

(and I'm not sure if you mean two versions of Bonnie and Clyde or two versions of the review of Bonnie and Clyde)

Personally, I think they are a cop out, and usually an excuse for a critic to rectify a bad opinion that history has not been kind to.

I have the same issue with Pitchfork reviews of albums that were released decades ago, or updated reviews.

 

[nameless1]

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.

The movie has a good idea, the pace and acting is good, and the story is tight overall, but the ending is tied too neatly together, that it becomes rather illogical. I do not buy the bluff at all, and that just ruins the movie for me.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Not that I've ever followed a particular critic religiously - it feels a bit before my time - but I've always preferred following recommendations from artists I admire as well as the fine folks here.

In the days before imdb and RT, I used to have to read the Ottawa Citizen and read the reviews by our local critic, Jay Stone.

Cut, print that: Film critic Jay Stone calls it a career | Ottawa Citizen

That or watch the odd review on television, like Ebert and Siskel, or that ridiculous guy on the Today Show, Gene Shalit.

She wrote some monumental reviews, though: Bonny and Clyde, original and revision; Last Tango in Paris; Nashville; Shampoo; Taxi Driver; and Weekend to name just a few (she was also a great champion of Godard and Truffaut, much less so Resnais). She loved movies as passionately as Ebert but it never dulled her critical apparatus, and, man, she had a way with words and the intellect to match. I've always argued that she and Dwight Macdonald were in a class by themselves in terms of film criticism (sometimes with a nod to James Agee, the father of modern film criticism).

Here's some excerpts, but they really don't do the full reviews justice:

15 of Pauline Kael’s Most Passionate Takes | IndieWire

The only film critic I enjoyed reading was Pascal Bonitzer, but he had something to say about cinema, he was himself writing great films, for Rivette, for Ruiz, and later on also directed a few of my favorite French films. Le champ aveugle and Décadrages are also two of my favorite books about cinema.

Most film reviews are all opinions and no ideas, and though opinions are fun, they have no purpose.

 

[NyQuil]

Most film reviews are all opinions and no ideas, and though opinions are fun, they have no purpose.

In my case, basically a preliminary vetting process for someone with limited time (as an adult) or money (as a teenager).

It’s not really about deciding what to see but more so about avoiding disasters.

I’ll watch a bad movie for the laughs but I have to be in the right mood and would like to know ahead of time what I am getting into.

 

[kihei]

Every Man for Himself (1980) Directed by Jean Luc Godard 8B

After a decade of Godard dabbling in experimentation and in political collaboration with the Dziga Vertov Group, Every Man for Himself was Godard's return to narrative form, an event many critics on both sides of the Atlantic had been praying for as his '70s work was not infrequently challenging to the point of tedium. Godard supposedly called Every Man for Himself "my second first film" and comparing the movie with Breathless is fun. Yes, both are narrative films, but Breathless for all its insouciance and style is a fairly straight-forward narrative whereas Every Man for Himself seems to be Godard telling critics "be careful what you wish for" as he indeed creates a narrative and then finds a zillion different ways to intentionally punch holes in it. Initially, the movie is the story of a separated couple still at great odds with one another who probably would not even be speaking except they have a daughter, a daughter whom the father seems to delight in making sexually offensive comments about. Rather than being sympathetic characters, Paul and Denise are a wretched pair of humans and boring on top of it.

The camera seems to have a personality of its own in this one. It doesn't like Paul and Denise either, and it can get distracted by other things, going off on little tangents before returning to the couple. Eventually observing this couple is too much for the camera and it adopts a new character, Isabelle (Isabelle Huppert, who is absolutely perfect), for almost the rest of the movie, a blase prostitute who has nothing to do with Paul and Denise except she will eventually rent their old apartment. The "action" in the movie is depressing but in a rather droll way. It wouldn't take much to see this movie as a sour comedy. We get all kinds of nastiness, sexual perversity, and in general boorish behaviour. The movie seems to say look at these sad specimens, they are not worth the air they breathe. Yet all this is presented as more cantankerous than outraged with Godard finding an endless number of clever tricks to keep us on our toes: stop motion; soundtrack music that is all over the place so much so that characters in the film even occasionally comment about it; superb jump cuts that leave us hanging in mid-air; a voice-over by Marguerite Duras; and on and on. Every Man for Himself is a return to form of sorts but it comes accompanied by its own half angry/half playful little rain cloud. I thought the movie was a blast.

subtitles

Criterion Channel

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Every Man for Himself (1980) Directed by Jean Luc Godard 8B

After a decade of Godard dabbling in experimentation and in political collaboration with the Dziga Vertov Group, Every Man for Himself was Godard's return to narrative form, an event many critics on both sides of the Atlantic had been praying for as his '70s work was not infrequently challenging to the point of tedium. Godard supposedly called Every Man for Himself "my second first film" and comparing the movie with Breathless is fun. Yes, both are narrative films, but Breathless for all its insouciance and style is a fairly straight-forward narrative whereas Every Man for Himself seems to be Godard telling critics "be careful what you wish for" as he indeed creates a narrative and then finds a zillion different ways to intentionally punch holes in it. Initially, the movie is the story of a separated couple still at great odds with one another who probably would not even be speaking except they have a daughter, a daughter whom the father seems to delight in making sexually offensive comments about. Rather than being sympathetic characters, Paul and Denise are a wretched pair of humans and boring on top of it.

The camera seems to have a personality of its own in this one. It doesn't like Paul and Denise either, and it can get distracted by other things, going off on little tangents before returning to the couple. Eventually observing this couple is too much for the camera and it adopts a new character, Isabelle (Isabelle Huppert, who is absolutely perfect), for almost the rest of the movie, a blase prostitute who has nothing to do with Paul and Denise except she will eventually rent their old apartment. The "action" in the movie is depressing but in a rather droll way. It wouldn't take much to see this movie as a sour comedy. We get all kinds of nastiness, sexual perversity, and in general boorish behaviour. The movie seems to say look at these sad specimens, they are not worth the air they breathe. Yet all this is presented as more cantankerous than outraged with Godard finding an endless number of clever tricks to keep us on our toes: stop motion; soundtrack music that is all over the place so much so that characters in the film even occasionally comment about it; superb jump cuts that leave us hanging in mid-air; a voice-over by Marguerite Duras; and on and on. Every Man for Himself is a return to form of sorts but it comes accompanied by its own half angry/half playful little rain cloud. I thought the movie was a blast.

subtitles

Criterion Channel

I didn't know the English title and had no idea what film it was reading your comment (thought I hadn't seen it). I have it at 8 too and have the DVD here, but I realize I don't remember any of it. Might watch it again tonight.

 

[Ceremony]

To add to the discussion of critics, if you are unaware of him then just type "mark kermode" into youtube, sit back and relax:

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

@kihei - I was going through my DVDs to find Sauve qui peut (la vie) - I have an asian DVD with titties on the cover - and put my Godard films together in that mess (turns out I have 11 on DVD), and look what I found!!!!

Spoiler

I had no idea I had it. Never seen it. I know what I'll be watching after I finish the one I started on Tubi.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

What do you think of revised reviews?

(and I'm not sure if you mean two versions of Bonnie and Clyde or two versions of the review of Bonnie and Clyde)

Personally, I think they are a cop out, and usually an excuse for a critic to rectify a bad opinion that history has not been kind to.

I have the same issue with Pitchfork reviews of albums that were released decades ago, or updated reviews.

It's tough because I tend to agree with you ... it's easy to question the motivations of someone who is published for a living eventually wanting to put themselves "on the right side" so to speak, especially if their initial impression and thoughts were dumb. However, we grow and (presumably) get wiser so it's also fair to acknowledge that opinions can and do change with time...

I suppose if the revised review openly grapples with what has changed for the author then that's good. If it wants to act as if the prior review doesn't exist, well then that's weak sauce.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

To add to the discussion of critics, if you are unaware of him then just type "mark kermode" into youtube, sit back and relax:

f***ing liar, "won't even rant about it" and then goes scorched Earth on this abomination of a movie.

 

[kihei]

@kihei - I was going through my DVDs to find Sauve qui peut (la vie) - I have an asian DVD with titties on the cover - and put my Godard films together in that mess (turns out I have 11 on DVD), and look what I found!!!!

Spoiler

View attachment 419115

I had no idea I had it. Never seen it. I know what I'll be watching after I finish the one I started on Tubi.

Yup, life is full of little surprises.

 

[Ceremony]

f***ing liar, "won't even rant about it" and then goes scorched Earth on this abomination of a movie.

There's an irony in this hateful, awful film making the world a better place by producing this rant.

 

[kihei]

What do you think of revised reviews?

(and I'm not sure if you mean two versions of Bonnie and Clyde or two versions of the review of Bonnie and Clyde)

Personally, I think they are a cop out, and usually an excuse for a critic to rectify a bad opinion that history has not been kind to.

I have the same issue with Pitchfork reviews of albums that were released decades ago, or updated reviews.

Seems an odd thing to have a burr in the saddle about. I don't have a problem with revised reviews if there is a substantive reason for their revision or I learn something new. Oddly enough, I am currently in the process of writing a revised review, of Satyajit Ray's Devi in which I am pushing it up to a "10" from a "9" after my recent viewing (probably save it for the Movie of the Week page). But even if I did have a problem with revised reviews, I would still make a huge exception for Kael's two versions of her reviews (sorry for the confusion) for Bonny and Clyde as the latter review made just about everybody put on the brakes concerning their criticism of that movie and do a u-turn, as though Kael had magically removed a veil from their eyes. She, indeed, resuscitated the film at the box office more or less single-handedly and I guess one could say ensured its lofty standing among Hollywood films in perpetuity.

Actually the more I think of it, the more I like the idea of revised reviews. One's first impression of a movie is seldom the definitive impression. And I find the older I get, my opinion of a lot of movies shifts, usually slightly but sometimes greatly. I like the notion that good criticism isn't poured in concrete, like everything else it is subject to re-examination and change. So I guess we are in opposite camps on this one.

 

[NyQuil]

So I guess we are in opposite camps on this one.

I can certainly respect your rationale.

I guess I am a bit cynical in terms of what @KallioWeHardlyKnewYe articulated about not wanting to have an embarrassing review on your resume.

 

[kihei]

I can certainly respect your rationale.

I guess I am a bit cynical in terms of what @KallioWeHardlyKnewYe articulated about not wanting to have an embarrassing review on your resume.

I can't imagine a genuine critic worrying about that or even thinking about it. The people who would do that are the people I wouldn't be reading anyway.

 

[Puck]

Aside from coming here to get tips on films I would tend only to head to IMBD or Rotten Tomatoes to look at good scores for film suggestions. That changed recently after viewing Under the Silver Lake, not because it was a good film necessarily but because it confused me. The IMDB page for Silver Lake had a link to reviews and movie blogs that I started reading (link below) and I enjoyed exploring the list (I recommend the list ). Most I had never heard of before. Some of the writers are interesting and I bookmarked a bunch. I'm still quietly going through it ( a few weeks later) when I have the time. I just read what they have to say about Silver Lake and if I like it, I'll head to their Home Page to see what else they have to say about other stuff. I can also read French and Spanish so there is a good list of a bit of everything here. I probably have too much time on my hands during the pandemic, but I find it interesting aside from reading too much about my other favorite topics, science, computers and politics (...and hockey).

Under the Silver Lake (2018) - External Reviews - IMDb

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Excess Flesh (Kennelly, 2015) - This one will feel too amateurish (or too close to a student film - altough a good one) for most, but it still managed to remain interesting to me. It announces itself with enough fanfare to disappoint - a reference to L'année dernière à Marienbad (the worst kind of intertext, through dialogues) makes the "punch" way too predictable, and all the film's shortcomings only too obvious. It's tough to make socially relevant horror, even more so to try to flesh out a feature film with a subject that thin (puns intended). I have a friend who made a short film years ago with pretty much the same subject - it's not the most original and you can't help but think it could have went further and that it's thematically limited. The film is bordering on the experimental and Kennelly's background in music video (with clipping. among others) and performance art comes handy - Excess Flesh is far from a great film, but it has some aesthetics and narrative interesting moments. The whole thing walks a fine line that could have easily flipped in total ridicule if not for the absolute commitment of the main actresses. I wouldn't recommend it because it is higly flawed, but it was worth my time. 4.5/10

 

[Pink Mist]

Excess Flesh (Kennelly, 2015) - This one will feel too amateurish (or too close to a student film - altough a good one) for most, but it still managed to remain interesting to me. It announces itself with enough fanfare to disappoint - a reference to L'année dernière à Marienbad (the worst kind of intertext, through dialogues) makes the "punch" way too predictable, and all the film's shortcomings only too obvious. It's tough to make socially relevant horror, even more so to try to flesh out a feature film with a subject that thin (puns intended). I have a friend who made a short film years ago with pretty much the same subject - it's not the most original and you can't help but think it could have went further and that it's thematically limited. The film is bordering on the experimental and Kennelly's background in music video (with clipping. among others) and performance art comes handy - Excess Flesh is far from a great film, but it has some aesthetics and narrative interesting moments. The whole thing walks a fine line that could have easily flipped in total ridicule if not for the absolute commitment of the main actresses. I wouldn't recommend it because it is higly flawed, but it was worth my time. 4.5/10

Looks like someone doesn't like their vegetables

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Looks like someone doesn't like their vegetables

It's pretty much the whole point.

 

[Osprey]

The only film critic I enjoyed reading was Pascal Bonitzer, but he had something to say about cinema, he was himself writing great films, for Rivette, for Ruiz, and later on also directed a few of my favorite French films. Le champ aveugle and Décadrages are also two of my favorite books about cinema.

Most film reviews are all opinions and no ideas, and though opinions are fun, they have no purpose.

It sounds like what you prefer are film essays that are meant for people who have already seen a film and want to look at it from a different perspective and learn about ideas that they might've missed in their viewing. Essays can also go on tangents to say things about cinema or even things not about cinema (like cultural issues). Pauline Kael even wrote a book-length essay on Citizen Kane, which I can't imagine was intended for people who hadn't seen the film.

The purpose of most film reviews is to help people who haven't seen the film decide whether they'll like it, based on the opinions of the reviewer. They can't dive too deep into ideas and meanings when the reader doesn't have the context of having seen it and when the reviewer can't even discuss the whole film because that would give too much away. Essays with no ideas have no purpose, I agree, but reviews don't need them to fulfill theirs, IMO.

 

[Osprey]

I guess I am a bit cynical in terms of what @KallioWeHardlyKnewYe articulated about not wanting to have an embarrassing review on your resume.

There's a funny excerpt from Wikipedia along these lines:

Joe Morgenstern for Newsweek initially panned [Bonnie and Clyde] as a "squalid shoot-'em-up for the moron trade." After seeing the film a second time [the following week] and noting the enthusiastic audience, he wrote a second article saying he had misjudged it and praised the film. Warner Bros. took advantage of this, marketing the film as having made a major critic change his mind about its virtues.

 

[Osprey]

It Always Rains On Sunday (1947) - 7/10

Just can't miss on these British classics. This one has a weak ending because it goes for a prolonged chase scene involving one of the non-major actors. I preferred when it was following the family members around. It's a good little glimpse into post-war east-London middle class family life.

I just watched this. I really liked the look of the neighborhood and the view into lower class British post-war life. I didn't mind the chase scene because a little action was needed and it was shot very film noir like, reminding me of The Third Man, which it actually pre-dated. My issue with the ending is that all of the side stories for the supporting characters went nowhere. They needed to all tie into the main plot somehow, not lead to dead ends, IMO. Despite it not coming together in the end, I liked it and would probably give it the same score as you. Thanks for the recommendation.