Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It

[nameless1]

Wonderstruck (2017) Directed by Todd Haynes 5A

Wonderstruck follows two parallel stories of two twelve-year-old children, one living in the '30s and one in the '70s, both looking to make a connection with family members. Each eventually runs away from home; each eventually finds herself/himself in New York's Museum of Natural History. After many coincidences, their stories intersect with one another. This movie is an elaborate bit of not very much at all. Switching constantly back and forth between the two stories eventually became annoying as I had trouble making any real emotional connection with the two kids. Plus, what happens to them isn't exactly thrilling. Although Todd Haynes has done some good experimental work, when he tackles Oscar bait-type flicks, such movies (Carol; Far from Heaven; this one) seem bloodless and effete. He is meticulous about all the little details (great mise en scene, for instance), but I always end up with the feeling that less is there beneath the polished surface rather than more. For long stretches, Wonderstruck seems aimed at children, but I can't imagine a kid wanting to sit though this. Although adults may be impressed by the technique on display, the punch line does not seem worth all the time spent on the complicated build up.

The constant switches in narrative take some time to get accustomed to, but in the end, the movie is a very charming story that showcases childhood wonder. I am also rather impressed by the innovative way Haynes incorporates a silent film into a modern narrative. As the closing gala film, I thought it was a good choice, and a great way to close a film festival. For me, it is a solid 7/10, and many people I talked to at the screening thought it was wonderful.

That said, I do agree with your review, especially with how this seems to be aimed at children, even though no children in the world will sit through this, and that only adults will be impressed with the movie. It will certainly be divisive, as it can either be a dud or surprise hit, so I am really curious on how the wider audience will see this movie.

 

[kihei]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm really curious to see what your year-end top ten/twenty movies will be. There have been a lot of good movies this year, and a lot of movies where one of us is saying the glass is half-full and the other is saying that the glass is half-empty.

Do you have a "sleeper" hit for the year? I'd be curious to hear what it is. Mine is The Fortress. Hope that pops up somewhere in Vancouver.

 

[OzzyFan]

Suburbicon
2 out of 4stars

It's a big mess of a dark comedy satire. It does have some salvageable ideas and parts, especially near the end, but boy oh boy, it looks like there were creative differences or schedule conflicts where the writers just threw this together quickly or what have you. You can feel the Cohen's have their hands on parts of this, but their fun dialogue/writing is barely there. Call it tonal issues and/or poor writing and/or poor direction and/or whatever, but I almost lost complete interest early in the movie and it wasn't until a solid short part from Oscar Isaac did my focus on the film change. Not to mention the sidestory is rammed down you throat it's simplistic message and why it exists in the movie in the first place. It sucks when names like this come together and it feels like you get their C effort, especially when the major theme(s) are interesting and could have been explored deeper, especially with a bit more quantity or depth of "main" characters. I'll stop rambling. lol

 

[kihei]

Ex Libris: New York Public Library (2017) Directed by Frederick Wiseman (documentary)

You may not think that you need a three hour, fifteen minute documentary on the New York City library system, but director Frederick Wiseman thinks you do. 87-year-old Wiseman, a chronicler of US institutions, has made some of the most influential and thought provoking documentaries in the history of the form, including Titicutt Follies, about a mental institution, and High School. Ex Libris: New York Public Library is typical of his work in that he employs no narration and no talking-head "explainers." He just shoots people interacting with other people on a wide variety of jobs and tasks and lets this accumulation of snippets tell its own tale. Does he require so much time to do it? Some people we see on two or three occasions, especially the fundraisers, and I don't think, given the vast amount of ground to be covered, we need to watch anybody more than once. But slowly, scene after scene, discussion after discussion, his movie builds its case: libraries are involved in our communities in so many different ways and they are all important. They do so much more than provide books to borrow. They teach, entertain, preserve, and inform. They are a buttress against ignorance. They provide a foundation for intelligent discourse. Wiseman takes no direct political position in the entire documentary. But now that the United States has seemingly entered a Dark Ages of its own making, of course, if only implicitly, this documentary makes a statement that must be seen as political in nature. With one of the library's fundraisers mentions supporting "the First Lady's literacy initiative," the Toronto audience chuckled. Obviously--we didn't have to be told--the librarian was referring to Michelle's, not Melania's, initiative. Some of what libraries do may come under siege in the near future; support may dry up among certain politicians. But, as Ex Libris: New York Public Library makes clear, the benefits that libraries provide are invaluable to a free society.

 

[nameless1]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm really curious to see what your year-end top ten/twenty movies will be. There have been a lot of good movies this year, and a lot of movies where one of us is saying the glass is half-full and the other is saying that the glass is half-empty.

Do you have a "sleeper" hit for the year? I'd be curious to hear what it is. Mine is The Fortress. Hope that pops up somewhere in Vancouver.

I think we deviate from one another quite a bit this year. Strangely though, other than the rating, I actually agree with a lot of what you wrote, and can see your point of view.


I usually do not do a year-end top list, but I might do it this year. I will start with VIFF, and then work from there.

My "sleeper" hits are Beauty and the Dogs from Tunisia and The Great Buddha + from Taiwan. Those are, coincidentally, two of my favourites from the festival too.

 

[Nalens Oga]

The Day The Earth Caught Fire (1961) - 8.5/10

This is like a sci-fi version of noir film Sweet Smell of Success although this also follows around newspaper men. The dialogue is far too clever. Not the most tense apocalyptic sci-fi because it's more character driven. Probably not as well-made as Sweet Smell of Success but far more entertaining in terms of plot.

 

[Mario Lemieux fan 66]

Blade Runner 2049: 7.3/10

kingsman: The Golden Circle: 7.2/10

 

[Puck]

I saw The Foreigner with Jackie Chan and Pierce Brosnan. Meh. IMDb gave it a 7.3, I'll go for 6.5. I saw the trailer and said wow, but all the action was in the trailer. Chan and Brosnan give a good performance but there was too much talk and verbal explaining. The Director should have watched a John Wick movie before doing this, all an action hero needs these days is something to avenge (like his dog) and then set him loose. This was a gabfest, moralizing about terrorism, the IRA, Irish politics, British politics and small talk between Brosnan and his aunts, uncles, kids, wife, mistress, secretary, political underlings, etc...halfway through I was sorry I hadn't bought a ticket for Blade Runner instead.

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

I just caught a double bill of the new 4K Synapse restoration of Dario Argento's "Suspiria" (which looks and sounds f***ing amazing) and then the original "Night of the Living Dead" from 1968.

I'd give Suspiria an 8/10

The original NotLD is an obvious classic and a 4/5

 

[Nalens Oga]

While You Were Sleeping (1995) - 7/10

Sandra Bullock is awesome in this. Very likable, in fact, she's a terrific actress but she just picks a lot of shit movies for some reason. I liked this romcom, it wasn't funny but the acting isn't as bad as today's raunchy romcoms and it's a bit too awkward in the storyline at times but it's also a very sweet film. It captures the 90s optimistic mood well that films back then had but just don't today, I mean look at those frumpy clothes and shots of Chicago and shit. Off to find more underrated 90s films like it.

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

Rewatched for the zillionth time:

Halloween (1978)

4/5

 

[BonMorrison]

Jigsaw - 3/10

That was a really terrible episode of Criminal Minds.

 

[kihei]

Thor: Ragnarok (2017) Directed by Taika Waititi 6A

Asgard and its entire civilization is threatened by super bad-ass Hela while Thor is imprisoned on the other side of the universe and has to fight a gladiator battle with The Hulk as Loki looks sardonically on. With a little help from his passive/aggressive friends, will the god of thunder (or is that lightning?; I forget) get there in time to save the day? Thor: Ragnarok never seriously engages on anything but the most superficial level, but it has a big funny bone; there are more good laughs here than in most Hollywood comedies. In fact, some action fans may think the movie goes somewhat overboard on the humour. The threat to Asgar never packs much of a punch, but Cate Blanchett makes a memorable villain. Elaborate, not infrequently kitschy visuals and lots of often imaginative action keep things moving right along. Hemsworth, Hiddleston (though Loki is going dangerously soft), Ruffalo, et al, have not tired of their roles yet and are collectively still fun to watch. Thor Ragnarok is definitely worth a bag of popcorn, but it's more amiable than involving. No one can say it takes itself too seriously, though.

 

[Nalens Oga]

Come and See (1985)

File under 'that was good but I'm not a psychopath and regret watching it'.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Raising Arizona (1987) - Following Hi and Ed, two oddballs - one a criminal the other a cop - who fall for one another and decide to kidnap a baby (he was part of a quintuplet belonging to a wealthy couple - and raise it on their own after the wife realizes she cannot bear children (but is hellbent on being a mother). Naturally, hell ensues. The worth of the movie here isn't in the story in and of itself - although it is funny and well-done but not as well-written as the Coen Brothers can at their peak - but in the zany camera work and the use of colors and setting, the actors performances - particularly Nicolas Cage, Holly Hunter and John Goodman - which makes the movie high-energy and shows off the technical prowess of the crew (in particular, the scene where Nicolas Cage is chased by the police after a failed robbery is perfect. Suspension of disbelief is required here and yet, everything comes together organically throughout the scene until the Coens end the scene with a perfect bow as Cage speeds off with his wife). Also, in contrast to other Coen works, this movie is rather hopeful and upbeat despite being filled to the brim with criminals who turn on another at the drop of a dime throughout the story. Charming, tight and visually-striking, this is a worthwhile watch, as it often is with the Coen Brothers.

 

[kihei]

God's Own Country (2017) Directed by Francis Lee 6B

Yorkshire farm boy Johnny is stuck with his lot. With an ailing, stern father and dour grandmother, he has nothing to look forward to except a life of toil and misery. Then Gheorghe, a temporary farmhand from Romania, is hired to provide short-term help, and slowly an attraction blooms between them. God's Own Country is a gritty, grimy, gay romance that provides something of a contemporary take on the British "kitchen-sink" dramas of the late '50s and '60s. The national self-hate evident in the early films is replaced here by a believable portrait of the realistic, wildly unglamourous toil that goes with working on a small country farm. In fact, I found out more about animal husbandry and beasty orifices than I ever really wanted to know. While the drudgery of daily living is somewhat mitigated by the often beautiful English countryside, Johnny is fortunate to have found someone with whom to share what otherwise would be a wretched existence. However, being not especially bright, he takes a long time to smarten up. God's Own Country is a good movie, but writer/director Francis Lee is a tad too obvious with some of his interventions. Gheorghe seems a little too good to be true, and the seemingly happy ending struck me as if not false exactly, then certainly a bit of a stretch. Still, Lee has directed an impressive first feature, and it will be worth waiting to see what he does next.

 

[Nalens Oga]

^^ Y'all wanna do a Coen brothers movie ranking? I haven't seen like 7 of them but I've seen a chunk, I'll go:

1. Fargo
2. No Country
3. A Serious Man
4. Raising Arizona
5. Barton Fink
6. The Big Lebowski
7. Inside Llewyn Davis
8. O Brother
9. Hail Caesar

The last three I would've skipped in hindsight.

 

[kihei]

^^ Y'all wanna do a Coen brothers movie ranking? I haven't seen like 7 of them but I've seen a chunk, I'll go:

1. Fargo
2. No Country
3. A Serious Man
4. Raising Arizona
5. Barton Fink
6. The Big Lebowski
7. Inside Llewyn Davis
8. O Brother
9. Hail Caesar

I'll play:

No Country for Old Men
Blood Simple
Fargo
A Serious Man
Raising Arizona
The Big Lebowski
Miller's Crossing

Burn after Reading
Inside Llewyn Davis
True Grit
Tuileries (segment from Paris, je t'aime)--now comes the ones I either really disliked immensely or actively hated:
O' Brother, Where Art Thou?
Barton Fink
The Hudsucker Proxy
The Man Who Wasn't There
Intolerable Cruelty
The Lady Killers
Hail Caesar

When they are good, they are really good, but they have a lot of absolutely terrible movies. On the whole I would say that they are a bit overrated.

 

[NyQuil]

Interesting. I liked a few performances in Burn after Reading but I would rank it near the bottom.

 

[kihei]

Interesting. I liked a few performances in Burn after Reading but I would rank it near the bottom.

That movie looks deceptively high on my list only because my opinion of their works goes down really fast after Miller's Crossing. I thought Burn after Reading was a decent dark comedy with a wonderfully daffy performance by Brad Pitt. I think it's really Pitt that I liked.

 

[Shareefruck]

Personally, I think No Country For Old Men alone is probably good enough to not consider them overrated.

 

[member 51464]

Personally, I think No Country For Old Men alone is probably good enough to not consider them overrated.

Not sure why, but that made this quote come to mind:
"So great is the worth of Dostoevsky that to have produced him is by itself sufficient justification for the existence of the Russian people in the world: and he will bear witness for his country-men at the last judgement of the nations." - Nikolay Berdyaev (1923)

 

[kihei]

Not sure why, but that made this quote come to mind:
"So great is the worth of Dostoevsky that to have produced him is by itself sufficient justification for the existence of the Russian people in the world: and he will bear witness for his country-men at the last judgement of the nations." - Nikolay Berdyaev (1923)

Now that is high praise. Which reminds me of this line from John F. Kennedy at a state dinner in Washington for Nobel Prize Winners (like that's going to happen again anytime soon ): "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

To Shareefruck's point, however, the genius of No Country for Old Men is remarkable but in no way let's the brothers off the hook for the general horribleness of The Hudsucker Proxy, The Man Who Wasn't There, Intolerable Cruelty, The Lady Killers, and Hail Caesar.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Shareefruck]

To each their own, but I've never related to that mentality, personally.

Having bad movies might lessen his reputation and create some annoying misconceptions about their work, but when I'm deciding how good I think a filmmaker is, it's based entirely on how many great films they've made and the degree that they're great, not how consistently and reliably adequate their batting average is.

I think I would only find them overrated if their best movies aren't as good as people say. How much crap they do in addition to their best work have always seemed like non-factors for me.

 

[kihei]

To each their own, but I've never related to that mentality, personally.

Having bad movies might lessen his reputation and create some annoying misconceptions about their work, but when I'm deciding how good I think a filmmaker is, it's based entirely on how many great films they've made and the degree that they're great, not how consistently and reliably adequate their batting average is.

I think I would only find them overrated if their best movies aren't as good as people say. How much crap they do in addition to their best work have always seemed like non-factors for me.

Why would the misconceptions be annoying; why would they be misconceptions at all as opposed to fully deserved reservations? I don't think the brothers have made that many great films. I concede No Country for Old Men. Blood Simple is an audacious debut but I don't think I would call it a great film. And my opinion of Fargo is mitigated by the fact that I think, entertaining though it is, it treats its characters in a condescending fashion. That leaves a couple of good movies and a lot of dreck that should have never seen the light of day.