Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It

[Spring in Fialta]

Wait, where can I see I Love you, Daddy?

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Oh man, I hated Call Me By Your Name. It is one of those Hollywood faux-art movies that imitates European arthouse films, but simply cannot capture the essence that makes the latter great due to the North American influence.

The audience is supposed to be moved by the love story between the two main male characters, but I do not buy the story at all. Maybe it is just me, but there does not seem to be any chemistry between the two. Also, the people's cavalier reaction to their relationship baffles me.

Spoiler

The story is set in the 1980s, when the AIDS crisis has just began. There is no way people would show so much acceptance and tolerance, even if the parents of younger main character are intellectuals. Furthermore, I find it downright unbelievable that the girl who had a physical relationship with the younger main character would simply forgives him, after the way he used her. The way the movie simply glossed over the ramification of his actions just does not sit well with me, and I turned off as a result.

I had it no higher than a 4, because other than the lighting, there is not much that stands out to me. That is why I am rather confused by the nominations it had racked up, but movie reviews are entirely subjective.

One of the few movies who's trailer completely turned me off speficially because of your first gripe. My sister and girlfriend wanted to go see it but I balked.

 

[kihei]

Oh man, I hated Call Me By Your Name. It is one of those Hollywood faux-art movies that imitates European arthouse films, but simply cannot capture the essence that makes the latter great due to the North American influence.

The audience is supposed to be moved by the love story between the two main male characters, but I do not buy the story at all. Maybe it is just me, but there does not seem to be any chemistry between the two. Also, the people's cavalier reaction to their relationship baffles me.

Spoiler

The story is set in the 1980s, when the AIDS crisis has just began. There is no way people would show so much acceptance and tolerance, even if the parents of younger main character are intellectuals. Furthermore, I find it downright unbelievable that the girl who had a physical relationship with the younger main character would simply forgives him, after the way he used her. The way the movie simply glossed over the ramification of his actions just does not sit well with me, and I turned off as a result.

I had it no higher than a 4, because other than the lighting, there is not much that stands out to me. That is why I am rather confused by the nominations it had racked up, but movie reviews are entirely subjective.

Funny thing. I'm very sympathetic to most of what you are talking about--I spent about two thirds of my review slamming numerous other flaws in the movie before doing a u-turn in the end and giving the movie a "7" and even eventually putting it in the nether regions of my top twenty for the year. I think all you comments are justifiable ones, that is, I can see why somebody might legitimately feel the way that you do about the film. The only qualification I would put forward concerning your criticisms relates to the faux-art imitation arthouse line. I agree with that kind of, but I chalk it up to the script by American-born but Euro-centric James Ivory, a writer and director whose entire career could be described as a faux-art imitation of European (and Indian) arthouse films.

In the end, I found all the criticisms faded because I eventually totally bought into the story of first love that the movie was telling. One of the major areas where we do disagree has to do with the chemistry between Chalamet and Hammer. I thought that they had fantastic chemistry, and both gave thoroughly sympathetic, convincing performances, especially Chalamet whose performance is the beating heart of the movie. For all that it did wrong, for all of the false notes, I thought, from Elio's perspective, it beautifully got at what first love feels like in all its confusion, distress, ecstasy, pain, desire, and inundation. That it was a homosexual couple being focused on became utterly irrelevant, too, because the movie managed to transcend whether it was an opposite sex couple or a same sex couple that I was watching. The movie just got at the nature and feeling of the thing itself--first love. That didn't mean I could ignore the movie's flaws, but it did mean that they kind of faded into significance because of the one thing that the movie did so well (which again is really a tribute to its actors). I can't say for certain, but I have the gut feeling that many of the critics who liked the movie might have been responding to something similar to what I was seeing. Because, lord knows, the rest of the movie could be picked apart endlessly.

 

[Nalens Oga]

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) - 7.5/10

My favourite Val Kilmer performance so far, Robert Downie could basically have used this as an audition tape for Iron Man, and Michelle Monaghan should've been in more movies. This is probably better than The Nice Guys, its story is a bit more cohesive and style is more fun even if Gosling/Crowe were the better duo.

 

[nameless1]

Funny thing. I'm very sympathetic to most of what you are talking about--I spent about two thirds of my review slamming numerous other flaws in the movie before doing a u-turn in the end and giving the movie a "7" and even eventually putting it in the nether regions of my top twenty for the year. I think all you comments are justifiable ones, that is, I can see why somebody might legitimately feel the way that you do about the film. The only qualification I would put forward concerning your criticisms relates to the faux-art imitation arthouse line. I agree with that kind of, but I chalk it up to the script by American-born but Euro-centric James Ivory, a writer and director whose entire career could be described as a faux-art imitation of European (and Indian) arthouse films.

In the end, I found all the criticisms faded because I eventually totally bought into the story of first love that the movie was telling. One of the major areas where we do disagree has to do with the chemistry between Chalamet and Hammer. I thought that they had fantastic chemistry, and both gave thoroughly sympathetic, convincing performances, especially Chalamet whose performance is the beating heart of the movie. For all that it did wrong, for all of the false notes, I thought, from Elio's perspective, it beautifully got at what first love feels like in all its confusion, distress, ecstasy, pain, desire, and inundation. That it was a homosexual couple being focused on became utterly irrelevant, too, because the movie managed to transcend whether it was an opposite sex couple or a same sex couple that I was watching. The movie just got at the nature and feeling of the thing itself--first love. That didn't mean I could ignore the movie's flaws, but it did mean that they kind of faded into significance because of the one thing that the movie did so well (which again is really a tribute to its actors). I can't say for certain, but I have the gut feeling that many of the critics who liked the movie might have been responding to something similar to what I was seeing. Because, lord knows, the rest of the movie could be picked apart endlessly.

I forgot that Ivory was the screenwriter, which does explain a lot. Still, this is so blatant, that I just cannot get into it.

I also think your analysis of the acting is fair. While Chalamet and Hammer looks uncomfortable to me when they get intimate, and Chalamet simply plays a gloomy know-it-all teenager, which he rehashed in Lady Bird, so I am not particularly impressed with his performance, it is entirely subjective, so I respect your opinion. That said, the relationship appears to be superficial, and I remain unconvinced of the attraction. Everything seems to come together out of the blue, and it is more of an experiment for both. Personally, I do not sense any of the wonders, pleasure, and pain of first love.

The more I think about it, I believe the relationship itself is the real culprit to why I dislike the movie. It is, after all, a relationship between an adult, and a teenager. Right off the bat, there are all sort of moral questions there. In real life, if a relationship like that comes to life, all forms of authorities will be involved, irregardless of the sexual orientation. Milo Yiannopoulous, a Breitbart editor, was touted as a potential right-wing superstar against liberal bias, due to his own sexual orientation. However, it came to an end, once he expressed the benefits of relationships between men with large age differences in a podcast interview. That happened just last year. If people are up in arms even today, then in 1983, when the movie is set, the relationship between the two leads would have been under even deeper scrutiny. That is why I find the nonchalant and even encouraging attitudes by those around the two leads to be unbelievable.

 

[aufheben]

I am surprised that someone else saw Suck It Up. It is a Canadian movie, so I thought I would be the only one from this site.

Even though it is not all that special, I did enjoy it, and I thought it was one of the better Canadian movies I have seen lately. I thought the story is, while simple, relatively well-told, and the way the characters speak and interact with one another is authentic and believable. Most importantly, and this is perhaps why I like it, is that it does feel very Canadian, and I would love to see more movies from Canada that does not try to simply imitate American movies.

I give it 6.25 myself. Like you said, I dug it as well, despite its imperfections.

The actress who played Ronnie did a nice job. The other actress looked like a younger Amy Adams. Like you said, nothing special, but they really did do a good and honest job of portraying, well, pain, and everything else that goes along with losing a loved one. I watched it, straight up, because I saw the movie poster online somewhere and thought it was killer.

I would like to write more often, but the website does not load properly for me a lot of times. However, I saw some interesting reviews, and I really wanted to respond to them.

Out of all the Oscar contenders that I have seen, the one I really liked is The Darkest Hour. Gary Oldman owns the role, and based on my own knowledge, I find it quite historically accurate. I also like the way the film is edited, and some of the cuts are just seamless, which impresses me. That said, I only have it as a 6.5/10, because while it is good, it is still just a very well-made Oscar bait.

Other than that, nothing stands out for me. Downsizing is like every other Alexander Payne movies, which simply scratches the surface and does not go deep enough, and that is a waste of an amazing idea full of potentials. The Shape of Water has great mise-en-scene, and Hawkins gives a great performance as a mute, but it is simply a weird fairy tale that does not have a message, and that is hard to resonate with anyone. These two are in the 3 to 4/10 range for me.

Strangely, I rather enjoyed The Greatest Showman. Yes, the story is weak, it is not historically accurate, it is very formulaic and predictable, and it tries to push today's values in a past setting, which is a big turnoff, but the music is very well written, and all the performers does a good job. As a mainstream mindless entertainment, I thought it is very well-done, and the time just flies by. It is 5.5/10 for me, mainly because I had a good time at the screening, despite the many problems with it.

I have yet to see The Post and Molly's Game, but based on kihei's reviews, I might not need to write anything.

I tried initially to put it less bluntly, but I really thought that movie was trash.

 

[nameless1]

The actress who played Ronnie did a nice job. The other actress looked like a younger Amy Adams. Like you said, nothing special, but they really did do a good and honest job of portraying, well, pain, and everything else that goes along with losing a loved one. I watched it, straight up, because I saw the movie poster online somewhere and thought it was killer.

Yeah, I also thought Ronnie is very good. I am glad you are able to see it, because Canadian movies are not very accessible. I agree the poster is very well-done. I wanted to see it myself because of that.

I tried initially to put it less bluntly, but I really thought that movie was trash.

I do not hate it, mainly because the set is very well-done, and I love the colour and lighting, but the entire thing feels empty and pointless. It is not a good movie, even though I do not regret watching it, because there are some very well-done aspects in it.

 

[kihei]

I forgot that Ivory was the screenwriter, which does explain a lot. Still, this is so blatant, that I just cannot get into it.

I also think your analysis of the acting is fair. While Chalamet and Hammer looks uncomfortable to me when they get intimate, and Chalamet simply plays a gloomy know-it-all teenager, which he rehashed in Lady Bird, so I am not particularly impressed with his performance, it is entirely subjective, so I respect your opinion. That said, the relationship appears to be superficial, and I remain unconvinced of the attraction. Everything seems to come together out of the blue, and it is more of an experiment for both. Personally, I do not sense any of the wonders, pleasure, and pain of the first love.

The more I think about it, I believe the relationship itself is the real culprit to why I dislike the movie. It is, after all, a relationship between an adult, and a teenager. Right off the bat, there are all sort of moral questions there. In real life, if a relationship like that comes to life, all forms of authorities will be involved, irregardless of the sexual orientation. Milo Yiannopoulous, a Breitbart editor, was touted as a potential right-wing superstar against liberal bias, due to his own sexual orientation. However, it came to an end, once he expressed the benefits of relationships between men with large age differences in a podcast interview. That happened just last year. If people are up in arms even today, then in 1983, when the movie is set, the relationship between the two leads would have been under even deeper scrutiny. That is why I find the nonchalant and even encouraging attitudes by those around the two leads to be unbelievable.

I agree the time period is problematic and more than a little expedient. I think the idea was to focus on the early days of AIDs when people weren't taking the disease all that seriously yet while counting on the audience to bring into the movie theatre our more contemporary attitudes toward gay relationships. Dodgy, that. But the time period thing didn't bother me either really--just another flaw in a sea of them in this movie. What did bother me was Roy Moore, the Alabama Neanderthal. I struggled with that one a lot: how could I condemn Roy Moore for being a sleazy pervert chatting up 17-year-old girls yet argue Elio and Oliver somehow encompass an ideal of the wonders of first love. Never did resolve that dilemma--I just decided to go, "Well, f*** it, I don't know, and I'm not going to waste any more time thinking about it" Thank goodness for relativism.

 

[nameless1]

I agree the time period is problematic and more than a little expedient. I think the idea was to focus on the early days of AIDs when people weren't taking the disease all that seriously yet while counting on the audience to bring in our more contemporary attitudes toward gay relationships. But the time periiod thing didn't bother me either--just another flaw in a sea of them in this movie. What did bother me was Roy Moore, the Alabama Neanderthal. I struggled with that one a lot: how could I condemn Roy Moore for being a sleazy pervert chatting up 17-year-old girls yet argue Elio and Oliver somehow encompass an ideal of the wonders of first love. Never did resolve the dilemma--I just decided to go, "Well, **** it, I don't know, and I'm not going to waste any more time thinking about it" Thank goodness for relativism.

The movie should have been set in the early or even late 70s, when free love is still all the rage. That would have solved a lot of issues.

When I wrote my response, I hesitated with that part as well. I really did not want to get into it, because it can be controversial, and a source of endless argument, but it is the main reason for my dislike, so I decided to post it regardless.

That is it though. I have said my piece, and I will leave it at that.

 

[kihei]

The movie should have been set in the early or even late 70s, when free love is still all the rage. That would have solved a lot of issues.

When I wrote my response, I hesitated with that part as well. I really did not want to get into it, because it can be controversial, and a source of endless argument, but it is the main reason for my dislike, so I decided to post it regardless.

That is it though. I have said my piece, and I will leave it at that.

Me, too. Good discussion.

 

[member 51464]

Margin Call. My first watch of a movie involving Spacey after the allegations and all. It definitely was odd and sort of took me out of the film.

 

[Mantis]

I Love You Daddy 1/10

Honestly probably the shittiest movie I have ever seen in my life.

 

[OzzyFan]

The Darkest Hour (2017)
2.75 out of 4stars

A good intimate/personal bio pic about Churchill during his 1st month in office, during WW2/Hitler's conquering of Europe. Dialogue heavy movie elevated by an oscar worthy performance by Oldman. Not only is he transformed physically and emotionally for the role, but he feels like he does everything you could ask for out of the performance and his deliveries feel perfect imo. Oldman will probably win the oscar in what feels like a rather weak year for the category, interestingly.

Edit: Forgot to add, the first half of the movie was a tad underwhelming and felt very "set-up-y", but the 2nd half more than made up for it, especially with Oldman's acting/range on full exposure.

 

[Mantis]

Dunkirk. 8/10

 

[kihei]

1987: When the Day Comes (2017) Directed by Jang Joon-Hwan 4A

An uneasy mix of fact and fiction, 1987: When the Day Comes recounts the start of an eventually successful revolt against a dictatorial South Korean government that was as anti-democratic as it was anti-Communist. The uprising begins win a grumpy prosecutor ignores orders and decides he wants a full autopsy before he signs a certificate of death that is supposed to show that a 22-year-old dissident student died of a heart attack while in police custody. A chain reaction then ensues that finally brings the government down. This is a movie with a lot of different players, and it can get confusing. The director tries to have it both ways, so his film sometimes bears serious witness to the events while at other times resorting to garden-variety suspense cliches to keep the audience engaged. The end result is a movie that seems more fanciful than factual and a lot less than fully satisfying.

subtitles

 

[Mantis]

Justice League 5/10


Tried way too hard to be like Avengers and was nowhere near as enjoyable. A lot of the dialogue and jokes are super cringy.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Locke

with Tom Hardy.

Tom Hardy is Ivan Locke, hyper-organized construction site boss who abruptly decides one night that he's not in fact going to stick around to oversee the biggest civilian concrete pour in UK history the next morning, nor is he going to home watch the football match with his wife and 2 boys. He's going to drive to London to be with the woman he knocked up one night and be there for the birth of their child. The movie documents his long drive down the motorway as he juggles phone calls from everyone and listens to his life disintegrate.

Tom Hardy is very good as he is in everything, but the movie is every bit as interesting as a two-hour car ride.

Overrated. Yawn.

 

[Mantis]

Baby Driver 6.5/10

 

[OzzyFan]

The Post
2.5 out of 4stars

Good solid movie but nothing special. Can't believe it got so many nominations.

 

[tacogeoff]

Kingsman: The Golden Circle.

Outlandish plot, ridiculous villains and action packed theatrics. It was a fun ride from start to finish. Elton John was hilarious. A very fun movie to watch for entertainment purposes.

7.5/10

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

The Post
2.5 out of 4stars

Good solid movie but nothing special. Can't believe it got so many nominations.

Spielberg + Hanks + Streep is automatic for awards, especially when it's voted on by people who haven't even seen all these candidates to begin with.

For the record, I don't think I'll even bother to go see this one myself.

 

[Arizonan God]

I actually really like the last Spielberg/Hanks flick, Bridge of Spies

Gotta say though, I have little to no interest in The Post. Maybe I’ll watch it if it pops up on Netflix

 

[OzzyFan]

Spielberg + Hanks + Streep is automatic for awards, especially when it's voted on by people who haven't even seen all these candidates to begin with.

For the record, I don't think I'll even bother to go see this one myself.

Agreed.

I actually really like the last Spielberg/Hanks flick, Bridge of Spies

Gotta say though, I have little to no interest in The Post. Maybe I’ll watch it if it pops up on Netflix

Yeah, I did enjoy Bridge of Spies a lot more than The Post. Bridge of Spies had better main performances (from writing or otherwise), feeling unforced drama(Post's was a bit more forced/nagging and the decisions/outcomes were predictable from a mile away), and a more than satisfying conclusion, if I had to compare them.

I don't get why Spielberg/whoever thought The Post would work as an oscar piece given that script and it's issues: "2nd fiddle/2nd in action to the NY Times" in every event and response that happens/Hanks-Streep playing fairly contained and "mostly" one note characters(although Streep has her "inner battles face" and "turning points" so to speak)/the soundtrack's forgettable/not to ruin anything but I'll speak indirectly on the other issues: "sympathy-empathy-moral dilemmas being force fed instead of developed"/overextended scenes-speeches for no real purpose and even a couple odd scenes that serve no true purpose to the film's message and disrupt it's main story/amusing-but not pull you in engaging/etc. Don't get me wrong, it's a good movie, but it either didn't have the subject matter/dialogue to make it better than it was or it's mostly subpar writing for a supposed to be oscar worthy story, or both. I think it's both.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Murder Inc.

with Peter Falk and other very old people.

Dramatization of the downfall of Abe Reles (Falk) and Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, his boss and leader of the famous Murder Inc. contract killing arm of the US mob. Compelling-ish for a 1960 effort if you're into mob stuff. Falk's first big screen role for which he earned an Oscar nomination as the nasty, cold-blooded Reles, later dubbed "the canary who could sing but couldn't fly" in mob lore. Based on a book by a US attorney who was involved in prosecuting the case, and the movie's epilogue is hilariously optimistic about how well the fine men and women of Law and Order are combating the menace of Organized Crime.

Meh. Okayish.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I Love You, Daddy (2017) - I liked it a whole lot better than the previous reviews but funnily enough, I liked it for the reasons I thought I would dislike it, but disliked what I tend to like about Louis C.K.'s art. The movie starts off terribly - I thought it was heading for a disaster - but really settles itself and takes off about 20-30 minutes to form an excellent movie, although with some flagrant flaws. For one, Louis C.K. made a mistake in casting himself in the lead role. He's unable to play anyone but '' Louie '' or a variation of that character (like Horace Wittel) but it doesn't feel this is how he had written Glen Topher here, but his C.K.'s public persona really comes through here, to the detriment of the movie. The writing often clunks as well, especially in the beginning of the movie, which makes the scenes awkward and lacking in polish, which can sometimes work, but doesn't here, particularly because it comes across as such a polished film. It often felt like a decent first draft that still needed the kinks to be worked out before being shown to the world. With that said, outside of Louis C.K. and Chloe Grace Morentz, the performances are fantastic, particularly Edie Falco and John Malkovich. I also thought - based on what I had read about the movie before watching it - that Charlie Day's character would annoy me, but it was the opposite. I thought he added a well-done, crass touch to the movie and the masturbating scene which he takes part in - which I thought I'd hate and is far more mild than what had been previously said - was a great balls-to-the-wall (no pun intended) moment which contrasted well with the scenery and tension of the take. His last scene is also probably my favorite of the movie. With that said, I can absolutely see now how terrible the optics of this movie appear in the light of the Louis C.K. controversy. As the auteur of the work, C.K.'s stance towards old-man/teenager relationships seems murky at best, and the most compelling argument is made by Rose Byrne's character in favor of said relationship (with C.K. never mentioning the easiest rebuttal: that the onus is on the adult not to act upon a teenager's feelings) and Leslie Goodwin, the famed director, essentially ends up being portrayed in a sympathetic light.

With that said, the movie still has jarring, uncomfortable but ultimately statisfying moments that makes the film a fine one, IMO (the '' warming '' talk being an example) and while the movie is certainly derivative of Woody Allen's work, it's still authentically C.K. in it's own way and all my early gripes had been taken care of by the end of the film. And maybe it's because of what recently happeened that I feel that way, but it does feel that Louis C.K. as kind of trying to justify his own behavior to himself troughout the film. Still very well-done though, even if it is his weakest work, which I think says a lot about how I feel about his earlier works than it does about the movie.

Edit: I also loved how repetitive China's '' I love you, Daddy '' was throughout the first half of the movie. A great, cheeky touch to the film's writing.