Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +1

[Spring in Fialta]

Re-watched a lot of accessible films that wouldn't require too much out of me while recuperating. I'd write a review, but don't feel like doing it for numerous films in one post. The number ratings don't mean much, they're just a vague way to communication my feelings about them.

Clerks (1994) - 3.0/5. The acting and editing needed serious work - although the acting is so goofy it's part of the charm - but it's written better than I remember and has a ton of spirit.
A Scanner Darkly (2006) 4.0/5 - Awesome. Downey Jr. is the man, and Linklater cuts up the book pretty efficiently to tell the story. Faithful, and an aesthetic style that works well with the themes of the book (paranoia, drug taking). I'd forgotten how good the film was.

I love this:


Lost in Translation (2003) 4.0/5 - Close to perfect. Great screenplay. Coppola is ridiculously hit and miss, but only Somewhere bests it in her filmography. Marie Antoinette and The Bling Ring are absolute pieces of crap though.
Bottle Rocket (1996) 2.0/5 - Dull by moments, but some decent laughs.
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) 3.5/5 - Great, incredibly funny, but like most of Anderson's work, a little too self-satisfied by moments.
Reservoir Dogs (1992) 2.0/5 - Not particularly original. Harvey Keitel is a gem as always though.
Suburbia (1996) 3.0/5 - A little too poseur-ish by moments - while that was the point with some characters, even the honest moments sometimes gave off that vibe - with some pretty stereotypical characters, the humour was still well-done and Linklater catches the spirit of dull suburbs superbly, gets a certain beauty out of it, and some hilarious work out of Steve Zahn.
Tape (2001) 3.0/5 - Decent one-set film that's mostly carried by strong performances by Hawke and Thurman. Goes a little too much in circles by moments, but still well thought-out. Perhaps some more money for production value would have enhanced it. Some of the editing and pacing felt a wee bit clunky. Strong writing.

Damn, I watched quite a few Linklater's. I hadn't really realized. He's got a couple of duds in his filmography, but he's been pretty damned consistent since he started his career. And he's got a masterpiece trilogy. Oh well, now I'll be back to watching films I hadn't seen before.

 

[Osprey]

Barry Lyndon (1975) - 7/10 (Really liked it)

A young Irish rogue in the late 18th century leaves home, has adventures and takes advantage of opportunities to acquire wealth and status. Not being a big Kubrick fan, I put this off until now. I liked it more than I expected to. It has to be one of the most beautiful films that I've ever seen. It's three hours of gorgeous countrysides, immaculate gardens and lavishly adorned interiors, all often shown in wide shots that are held so that we can soak in the views. There's almost no panning of the camera, lending a very static but unique painting-like quality to every shot. In fact, viewing it feels very much like taking in one gorgeous painting after another. I also appreciated how "real" everything looks, thanks to all of the location shooting, the lack of visual effects and the naturalistic lighting (including many shots filmed only with candlelight, which was an innovation). Finally, I loved the soundtrack of classical music.

Artistically and technically, I found the film to be close to perfect, a masterpiece of direction, cinematography and production design. Unfortunately, I didn't find the story to be at the same level. It's good enough to keep your attention for three hours (well, unless you're easily bored), but not as engaging as I would've liked. For one, the titular character is never really likable or even interesting. He's meant to be a jerk, but jerkish characters can still be appealing. Also, Ryan O'Neal's performance is rather underwhelming, with him exhibiting no personality or range, despite decades elapsing and going through a character arc. There's really nothing appealing about the character of Barry Lyndon, which may well be by Kubrick's design, but I think that it would've helped for us to care at least a little bit about him, especially because Kubrick presents the story largely as a tragedy.

In all, I enjoyed the film more as a work of art than as a good story, if that makes sense. Normally, I'm critical of style over substance. In this case, however, the artistry of the film is so great that I can't help but largely forgive that the substance isn't quite on the same level. I'm not a fan of all of Kubrick's films, but this is one with which I can really appreciate what he was going for, what he accomplished and the genius behind it.

Edit: Check out this incredible shot from near the end of the film. It's undeniable that Kubrick is attempting to mimic a painting and his success at it is phenomenal. Even after watching the scene, it's hard to believe that it's a still from a video camera and not a painting.

Spoiler

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

it's hard to believe that it's a still from a video camera and not a painting.

Oh you must be so young! ;-)

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Damn, I watched quite a few Linklater's. I hadn't really realized. He's got a couple of duds in his filmography, but he's been pretty damned consistent since he started his career. And he's got a masterpiece trilogy. Oh well, now I'll be back to watching films I hadn't seen before.

I think Linklater is low-key one of the great filmmakers of the past 30 years. I say low-key because though he clearly is respected and liked, it never feels like he's quite in the upper echelon. A lot of that is the types of movies he makes. There isn't a lot of flash or grandiosity to it, not much spectacle. I also think he's somewhat dinged by the fact that he's always working. Kinda like Soderberg in that sense — always up to something, sometimes it is mainstream, sometimes it is a quirky little side project. Not everything works, but more often than not it does. His movies aren't necessarily "events" because there's always a new one with little lag in between and again, his scale is often small.

But still! Look at this resume:

Before Trilogy, Dazed & Confused, Boyhood (at least IMO) are almost unassailable A+ classics.

Waking Life, A Scanner Darkly, Everybody Wants Some, Slacker is an enviable second tier.

School of Rock is a crowd-pleasing hit.

I'd go to bat for some of his smaller projects too like Bernie, Tape and Last Flag Flying too. Not great, but with merit.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I think Linklater is low-key one of the great filmmakers of the past 30 years. I say low-key because though he clearly is respected and liked, it never feels like he's quite in the upper echelon. A lot of that is the types of movies he makes. There isn't a lot of flash or grandiosity to it, not much spectacle. I also think he's somewhat dinged by the fact that he's always working. Kinda like Soderberg in that sense — always up to something, sometimes it is mainstream, sometimes it is a quirky little side project. Not everything works, but more often than not it does. His movies aren't necessarily "events" because there's always a new one with little lag in between and again, his scale is often small.

But still! Look at this resume:

Before Trilogy, Dazed & Confused, Boyhood (at least IMO) are almost unassailable A+ classics.

Waking Life, A Scanner Darkly, Everybody Wants Some, Slacker is an enviable second tier.

School of Rock is a crowd-pleasing hit.

I'd go to bat for some of his smaller projects too like Bernie, Tape and Last Flag Flying too. Not great, but with merit.

I pretty much fully agree. His filmography sneaks up on you. Especially as far as American directors go, he's got to be up there since he's been active. Certainly not the flashiest though. Even as a person, Linklater comes across as a little too homely for that.

 

[Osprey]

Oh you must be so young! ;-)

Indeed. I'm also "young" enough to recognize that you just gave away your own age by using that old fashioned smiley instead of an emoji like all younger folks use ;-).

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Forgot a couple:

Monsters Inc (2001) 3.0/5 - Cute, and much better than most kids films. Feels like it had potential to be a lot more if the writers were just a little more courageous.

The King of Comedy (1982) 4.5/5.0 - Flawless. De Niro's best work.

 

[Shareefruck]

I like Linklater (the Before Trilogy is excellent), but I really disliked Boyhood.

 

[ORRFForever]

Child's Play [2019] :

I've never seen any of the previous editions, so I wasn't sure what to expect.

The 2019 edition is suppose to be, as far as I can tell, half comedy, half horror. It works as a comedy. It does not work as a horror film.

Aubrey Plaza is sexy, as always.

5/10

Movie Trailer :

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I like Linklater (the Before Trilogy is excellent), but I really disliked Boyhood.

Why? I thought it was pretty damn good, and I enjoyed the aesthetic of the gimmick, even if I think the entire thing was overhyped by the media/uncritical movie goers and that it blew up the film into something more than it should have been/wasn't intended by Linklater. Either way, I don't think filming the story over a 12 year period was something that should make or break the movie and on its own, I find holds up pretty damn well and nails the various themes within childhood/suburbia a lot more organically - especially Hawke's character and his relationship with his children - far better than most films who go for that.

Then he's got Slackers, Dazed and Confused, Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly which are all pretty damned impressive films in their own right.

 

[Jussi]

Shazam! 7.85/10. I really expected this to be better but unfortunately everything I saw reviews on Youtube criticize, turned out to be correct. Humor was too silly or aimed at kids and the funniest bits were shown in the trailers, as I feared. Well except for that one bit which I thought was funny (the evil guy speech too far away from Shazam for him to hear). Action scenes were disappointing. It's one saving grace was that it had heart and the foster kids had good chemistry. I just feel it should've been shown more. The first/original Captain Marvel ended up falling behind the newer one (despite it's own movie's flaws). I liked Aquabro more than Shazam!.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Re: Boyhood. I think the gimmick, for lack of a better word, gives it an authenticity other films covering similar ground don't have. I also appreciate the moderate frequency it runs on. No big beats. No big events. No overwrought drama. Just these passing snapshots of a life. There's something universal there (which is Linklater's biggest strength) that really hits me.

 

[Shareefruck]

Why? I thought it was pretty damn good, and I enjoyed the aesthetic of the gimmick, even if I think the entire thing was overhyped by the media/uncritical movie goers and that it blew up the film into something more than it should have been/wasn't intended by Linklater. Either way, I don't think filming the story over a 12 year period was something that should make or break the movie and on its own, I find holds up pretty damn well and nails the various themes within childhood/suburbia a lot more organically - especially Hawke's character and his relationship with his children - far better than most films who go for that.

Then he's got Slackers, Dazed and Confused, Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly which are all pretty damned impressive films in their own right.

I thought it was an interesting, ambitious, and admirable gimmick/concept, but for me the actual experience itself ended up feeling very forced, awkward, flat, and meandering/empty. The way that scenes played out and felt actually ended up having the opposite effect as intended for me, and felt very staged and amateurish rather than authentic (like you could tell it was a normal person with no acting ability trying to replicate their life experiences in an unconvincing way-- I actually found that hard to watch). The scenes themselves felt very surface level/simplistic/guarded, with no real moments of clarity/naked exposure actually shining through beyond common cliches that while yes, everyone goes through, is covered more effectively and convincingly by just about every slice of life thing out there. And it also didn't help that I kind of found the kid somewhat unlikeable (maybe this was the point, but to me the older version of him seemed to have a personality that actually came across as kind of inauthentic/posturing to me-- which is obviously understandable and hard to avoid given his age, but I don't really see the draw in watching it. This might sound kind of harsh, but honestly, if I transport myself back to that age, he reminds me most of the uninteresting poser kid that I would probably least want to find out more about and connect with.

Ultimately, seeing it just made me think that maybe the awkwardness of real life doesn't really translate to the screen very well unless it's somehow captured in a more organic and unguarded way (Relatively speaking, fly on the wall documentaries usually come across feeling a lot more authentic to me than whatever this was, and I don't even mean that as an endorsement of them). As a result, it just kind of ended up feeling more like a low budget, uninspired, poorly done/written/acted (aside from Hawke) slice of life movie that from my perspective, seemed like was getting a lot of attention primarily because of the gimmick (one that, in theory, seems like it SHOULD be about as organic/authentic as you can get but for me was anything but that-- and beyond that "authentic" approach, there wasn't really much of anything else there that was substantive, as far as I could see).

I just really didn't enjoy watching it/care about it and found the experience dull and cringe-y-- it gave me similar vibes to watching a bad after-school special. I have no issue with Linklater's other movies (I've seen the ones you mentioned but it's been a while-- they seemed fine, from what I remember) or with him as a director, though.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I thought it was an interesting, ambitious, and admirable gimmick/concept, but for me the actual experience itself ended up feeling very forced, awkward, flat, and meandering/empty. The way that scenes played out and felt actually ended up having the opposite effect as intended for me, and felt very staged and amateurish rather than authentic (like you could tell it was a normal person with no acting ability trying to replicate their life experiences in an unconvincing way-- I actually found that hard to watch). The scenes themselves felt very surface level/simplistic/guarded, with no real moments of clarity/naked exposure actually shining through beyond common cliches that while yes, everyone goes through, is covered more effectively and convincingly by just about every slice of life thing out there. And it also didn't help that I kind of found the kid somewhat unlikeable (maybe this was the point, but to me the older version of him seemed to have a personality that actually came across as kind of inauthentic/posturing to me-- which is obviously understandable and hard to avoid given his age, but I don't really see the draw in watching it. This might sound kind of harsh, but honestly, if I transport myself back to that age, he reminds me most of the uninteresting poser kid that I would probably least want to find out more about and connect with.

Ultimately, seeing it just made me think that maybe the awkwardness of real life doesn't really translate to the screen very well unless it's somehow captured in a more organic and unguarded way (Relatively speaking, fly on the wall documentaries usually come across feeling a lot more authentic to me than whatever this was, and I don't even mean that as an endorsement of them). As a result, it just kind of ended up feeling more like a low budget, uninspired, poorly done/written/acted (aside from Hawke) slice of life movie that from my perspective, seemed like was getting a lot of attention primarily because of the gimmick (one that, in theory, seems like it SHOULD be about as organic/authentic as you can get but for me was anything but that-- and beyond that "authentic" approach, there wasn't really much of anything else there that was substantive, as far as I could see).

I just really didn't enjoy watching it/care about it and found the experience dull and cringe-y-- it gave me similar vibes to watching a bad after-school special. I have no issue with Linklater's other movies (I've seen the ones you mentioned but it's been a while-- they seemed fine, from what I remember) or with him as a director, though.

I love this because I actually think we're seeing and processing a lot of the same things. But our reactions and assessment is different. I love discussions like this.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I thought it was an interesting, ambitious, and admirable gimmick/concept, but for me the actual experience itself ended up feeling very forced, awkward, flat, and meandering/empty. The way that scenes played out and felt actually ended up having the opposite effect as intended for me, and felt very staged and amateurish rather than authentic (like you could tell it was a normal person with no acting ability trying to replicate their life experiences in an unconvincing way-- I actually found that hard to watch). The scenes themselves felt very surface level/simplistic/guarded, with no real moments of clarity/naked exposure actually shining through beyond common cliches that while yes, everyone goes through, is covered more effectively and convincingly by just about every slice of life thing out there. And it also didn't help that I kind of found the kid somewhat unlikeable (maybe this was the point, but to me the older version of him seemed to have a personality that actually came across as kind of inauthentic/posturing to me-- which is obviously understandable and hard to avoid given his age, but I don't really see the draw in watching it. This might sound kind of harsh, but honestly, if I transport myself back to that age, he reminds me most of the uninteresting poser kid that I would probably least want to find out more about and connect with.

Ultimately, seeing it just made me think that maybe the awkwardness of real life doesn't really translate to the screen very well unless it's somehow captured in a more organic and unguarded way (Relatively speaking, fly on the wall documentaries usually come across feeling a lot more authentic to me than whatever this was, and I don't even mean that as an endorsement of them). As a result, it just kind of ended up feeling more like a low budget, uninspired, poorly done/written/acted (aside from Hawke) slice of life movie that from my perspective, seemed like was getting a lot of attention primarily because of the gimmick (one that, in theory, seems like it SHOULD be about as organic/authentic as you can get but for me was anything but that-- and beyond that "authentic" approach, there wasn't really much of anything else there that was substantive, as far as I could see).

I just really didn't enjoy watching it/care about it and found the experience dull and cringe-y-- it gave me similar vibes to watching a bad after-school special. I have no issue with Linklater's other movies (I've seen the ones you mentioned but it's been a while-- they seemed fine, from what I remember) or with him as a director, though.

I'd have to watch it again because I haven't seen it since it first came out but I remember the kid being a little poseur-ish by moments as he's getting deep into his teenage years but I don't know, for such a long film, I didn't find it particularly omnipresent. I thought Linklater's daughter was pretty cool from what I recall.

What I liked about the gimmick was mostly for pacing reason. I thought it made the transitions between eras/through the years pretty seamless and I thought gave a humanistic quality to the film/enhanced the story being told (for example, seeing the creases appear in Hawke and Arquette's faces as they go from their early 30s to mid 40s instead of using make-up/other effects was effective). I remember the dialogue fluctuating between good and bad, though (i.e. the last scene being cringy but Hawke in his car humorously pleading with his kids to tell them about their as being excellent). It's not a perfect film, and while I can understand where your gripes come from, they weren't pervasive enough to outweight its good qualities.

 

[Hockeyfrilla]

Shaft (2019) - 5/10

 

[ORRFForever]

Yesterday [2019] :

Jack Malik is a musician with a fan club of 3 - two friends and a manager who is secretly in love with him. One day, a miracle happens and Jack is the only person in the world who knows the songs of the Beatles. At first he's shocked, but once he gets over the initial surprise, he decides to take advantage of his good fortune - all while feeling horribly guilty about the genius he's stolen, and worrying he will be revealed as a fraud.

Yesterday starts off well. Himesh Patel does a fine job with the songs and it's fun to see him live out the dream we've all dreamt. Unfortunately, the story quickly becomes repetitive and we continually get snippets of songs we'd love to hear more of, while instead being force fed a love story that is both bland and predictable.

I was really looking forward to Yesterday. In hindsight, I would have been better off re-watching 8 Days A Week.

6/10

Movie Trailer :

 

[kihei]

The Souvenir (2019) Directed by Joanna Hogg 7B (good movie; bit of an oblique delivery)

The Souvenir, which I would have called Posh Lovers of London, is a delicate remembrance of a first affair gone eventually terribly wrong. Julie (Honor Swinton Byrne), a film student with a clear idea of the kind of realistic movies that she wants to make, falls hard for Anthony (virtual unknown Tom Burke) who is a bit older than she is, ostensibly works in the Foreign Office, and has a posh accent just this side of affectation. Turns out he has a big problem, big enough to break hearts. We watch the rise and fall of their relationship and the damage it leaves in its wake. Director Joanna Hogg almost provides a parody of the stiff-upper-lip English stereotype as her two lovers are not great at communicating with one another. Still, Hogg finds interesting and subtle ways to document Julie's turbulent feelings and the impact they have on everything in her life. Wisely, the director leaves the emotional heavy lifting to Swinton Byrne who is just wonderful playing a girl who hasn't quite completed transforming into an adult yet. The Souvenir should do for her career what a similarly themed movie An Education did for Carey Mulligan's career a decade ago--that is, place Swinton Byrne near the top of an emerging group of fine young British actresses.

 

[ORRFForever]

Yesterday [2019] :

Jack Malik is a musician with a fan club of 3 - two friends and a manager who is secretly in love with him. One day, a miracle happens and Jack is the only person in the world who knows the songs of the Beatles. At first he's shocked, but once he gets over the initial surprise, he decides to take advantage of his good fortune - all while feeling horribly guilty about the genius he's stolen, and worrying he will be revealed as a fraud.

Yesterday starts off well. Himesh Patel does a fine job with the songs and it's fun to see him live out the dream we've all dreamt. Unfortunately, the story quickly becomes repetitive and we continually get snippets of songs we'd love to hear more of, while instead being force fed a love story that is both bland and predictable.

I was really looking forward to Yesterday. In hindsight, I would have been better off re-watching 8 Days A Week.

6/10

Movie Trailer :

One part of the movie Yesterday that felt "off"...

In the story, Jack, at a relatively young age, realizes he will never be famous and gives up his Rock Star dreams to get a REAL JOB.

Huh???

EVERY musician I've ever known, would rather DIE than give up the Rock Star dream - even if it means remaining UNEMPLOYED FOR LIFE...

 

[Live in the Now]

That’s funny. After getting out of the Air Force after Korea, my grandfather played with a lot of people who would be considered country legends of the time. Gave it up to work at Kaiser Steel. I have a picture that he took of his friends all shooting the shit that I only saw for the first time after he died a year ago. From the time I was born I never saw him play an instrument until I was 16 years old, my dad said that it was longer. I never had the heart to tell him that I didn’t like that kind of music but he probably knew. A lot of the people who don’t really live out their dream the way they wanted won’t ever talk about it.

I’m going to see the movie, but now I assume most musicians would have to have some sort of ‘real job’ on their way to fame or lack thereof.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Arena. Late 80s mindless sci-crap. Like if Rocky was set in the Mos Eisley Cantina. Certainly not good by any standard, though as a person of a certain age, it hits a specific nostalgia pleasure center for relatively harmless cheapo crap. Like going through an old box and finding a chipped and rusty Go-Bot. Not the greatest toy in the world, but we enjoyed each other's company once and it was nice.

The Sister Brothers. A pretty great and entertaining western that really flew below the radar last year. It's not quite the story you think it is and its got four principals who are all great — Joaquin Phoenix, John C. Reilly, Riz Ahmed, Jack Gyllenhaal. Particularly Reilly who starts as the oaf-ish type you expect him to be but proves to be the heart and soul. A small gem of a movie. I liked the way every gunshot sparked. It isn't that I hadn't seen that before, but something about the effect here felt new and fresh.

 

[ORRFForever]

I’m going to see the movie, but now I assume most musicians would have to have some sort of ‘real job’ on their way to fame or lack thereof.

Truth be told, I've known both...

1) Some get part time jobs so they can pursue their true love - music!
2) Some NEVER work and either live off their parents or a spouse.

A close female friend is married to a guy who NEVER works because he says he's a musician and THAT is his career - and he is not young. He gets a few gigs a month and they pay anywhere from $100 to $200. She pushes him to get a real job but he says "NO!!!".

He has a lot of musician friends who are just like him.

Women love musicians... to their detriment.

 

[ORRFForever]

My God, there is NOTHING but junk in the coming weeks.

Summer is movie lover's hell.

 

[Mario Lemieux fan 66]

Us: 7.3/10 Great acting, cinematography and score but the story still needed a good deal of work.

 

[Babe Ruth]

.. NOTHING but junk in the coming weeks..
movie lover's hell.

yeah, I've basically hated the last few years of summer movies. Non-stop Marvel movies (or remakes). And it seems each year Marvel has to go deeper in to their obscure characters. Used to be Superman & Batman (DC) franchises, now we're down to Ant-man, etc. /peace