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

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I realize that this makes me look like a popcorn muncher who should stick to superhero movies (even if I dislike both)

I don't see why it would. I enjoy a lot of crappy films myself, but I'll normally prefer the more complex (often slower) films. Phantom Thread didn't impress me much either. I had to go back to IMDB to see how I ranked it at the time, and it's pretty close to you (5/10).

 

[SniperHF]

Black Sea

An entry in my favorite niche genre (the submarine thriller) I had never heard of showed up on Netflix. It's a pretty straightforward classic story, down on their luck types who worked in the underwater salvage business turn to criminal activities and try to steal some Nazi gold (obviously, it's always Nazi gold) from a sunken submarine long forgotten. A few interesting change ups like having the crew be a mix of Russians and Brits forced to work together. It's mostly about the internal conflicts between the crew, I kinda wish they did more with the external threats referenced a few times. It was also different to have a submarine movie that was not based on military conflict of some sort. The acting is competent but not outstanding. The Russian crew dialogs (subtitled) inject a little humor at times.

Solid entry into the sub genre. If I had to give it a number I'd say 7.

 

[Live in the Now]

Phantom Thread (2017) - 4/10 (Didn't like it)

A famous dressmaker (Daniel Day-Lewis) and his much younger assistant (Vicky Krieps) fall for each other and maintain an unhealthy relationship. The acting is very strong and the aesthetic is nice, but I found it painfully boring. The first half is especially so and it gets only slightly better in the second half. Very little of interest happens. It's very much a character study, but I didn't find the characters interesting. Neither the dressmaker nor the assistant has any personality and both speak in low, slow, measured voices and aren't very likable (especially the dressmaker, who is narcissistic and rude to the other on his good days). In addition to that, I never felt the attraction between them, which is supposed to be the thing that holds the relationship and the story together.

Reading up on the praise for the film, so much of what others got from it just missed the mark for me. One description that I read said that it's supported by humor and romantic tension, but I can't remember laughing once and I felt no romantic tension because of the lack of attraction and chemistry. I just didn't connect to anything. I realize that this may make me look like a popcorn muncher who should stick to superhero movies (even if I dislike both), but I'm not adverse to slow character dramas and have liked many films that others have called boring. I just didn't like this one. If you tend to like most critically acclaimed films and appreciate good acting over all else, it may be your cup of tea, but if not (and, especially, if you're not into really slow films), you may want to pass.

Its been a while since I watched this one, but...

I could honestly not disagree more with this. I agree that they aren't likable and that is the point, they are both toxic. The characters are developed perfectly and remain true to themselves. I did find the film rather amusing as well. Of course, the end result is not what people would want, and neither is much of anything else. Based on what you've said, I presume that's what the problem you have with this is. I thought the film beautifully evoked films of the period in which it was set. There are too many things to mention specifically, but everything in the ballroom was incredible and of particular note when I think about why I liked this.

I was also going through the extras and saw a deleted scene that would have ruined the film as a whole. I was surprised this scene was conceived to begin with because of how inconsistent it was with everything else, and I should post it now that I've brought it up. Certainly a crowd pleasing scene, but no thanks.

‘Phantom Thread’ Deleted Scene: Daniel Day-Lewis and Lesley Manville Have an Epic Food Fight — Watch

 

[Puck]

Black Sea

An entry in my favorite niche genre (the submarine thriller) I had never heard of showed up on Netflix. It's a pretty straightforward classic story, down on their luck types who worked in the underwater salvage business turn to criminal activities and try to steal some Nazi gold (obviously, it's always Nazi gold) from a sunken submarine long forgotten. A few interesting change ups like having the crew be a mix of Russians and Brits forced to work together. It's mostly about the internal conflicts between the crew, I kinda wish they did more with the external threats referenced a few times. It was also different to have a submarine movie that was not based on military conflict of some sort. The acting is competent but not outstanding. The Russian crew dialogs (subtitled) inject a little humor at times.

Solid entry into the sub genre. If I had to give it a number I'd say 7.

I'll check it out.

Hunter Killer and The Wolf's Call are two more sub movies on Netflix. Wolf's Call is French but has English audio and subs. No Kursk (2018) yet (also called The Command in some places mainly because there was another Kursk film in 2012 I believe).

 

[Trap Jesus]

DDL's mannerisms and his overall bluntness are hilarious. I loved how he'd consistently push things in a childish manner too. Stuff like repeating "Where's your gun?" like 5 times in a row during the asparagus scene. I think that's what that deleted food fight scene may have been trying to evoke, but it takes it way too far. Something like this is perfect:



There's also humor in seeing Reynolds' quirks and relationship dynamics with his sister through Alma's eyes for the first time. That scene where they're on a first date and then he just starts fitting her into a dress while his sister comes in and instinctively starts taking her measurements. It's just so bizarre, which makes it funny.

 

[Live in the Now]

I'll check it out.

Hunter Killer and The Wolf's Call are two more sub movies on Netflix. Wolf's Call is French but has English audio and subs. No Kursk (2018) yet (also called The Command in some places mainly because there was another Kursk film in 2012 I believe).

Black Sea is good. Hunter Killer is very very bad.

 

[Puck]

Black Sea is good. Hunter Killer is very very bad.

I agree it's not great, but I didn't think it was that bad.

Netflix calls Black Sea a hidden gem.

I see U-571 is also on Netflix.

 

[Osprey]

Thanks for mentions of Black Sea. I could do with a good sub movie. I'll check that out.

I could honestly not disagree more with this. I agree that they aren't likable and that is the point, they are both toxic. The characters are developed perfectly and remain true to themselves. I did find the film rather amusing as well. Of course, the end result is not what people would want, and neither is much of anything else. Based on what you've said, I presume that's what the problem you have with this is. I thought the film beautifully evoked films of the period in which it was set. There are too many things to mention specifically, but everything in the ballroom was incredible and of particular note when I think about why I liked this.

That's not what I mean. I mean that that the characters didn't appeal to me on any level, which is exclusive of how good or bad they are as people. Even villains can be likable, even if there's nothing redeeming about them. Roger Ebert once observed that "one key to [The Silence of the Lambs'] appeal is that audiences like Hannibal Lecter." The fact that you found the characters in Phantom Thread to be developed perfectly and remain true to themselves suggests that you liked the characters, even though they're both toxic and "unlikable" as people.

 

[SniperHF]

Another sub movie that's decent, though not as good as Black Sea, is Phantom. It sort of rehashes The Hunt for Red October right down to not bothering with the accents, but it's not exactly a genre we get a lot of so I consider it watchable

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

As another fan of submarine movies, just chiming in to also endorse Black Sea. Underseen/underrated. Very solid and entertaining.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

The Phantom Thread didn't stick with me at all either, besides the Jonny Greenwood soundtrack. I often find Hollywood period dramas romanticize (particularly aesthetically) their time-periods a little too much which makes the entire thing become overtly performative in a self-satisfied manner.

 

[Fantomas]

I don't see why it would. I enjoy a lot of crappy films myself, but I'll normally prefer the more complex (often slower) films. Phantom Thread didn't impress me much either. I had to go back to IMDB to see how I ranked it at the time, and it's pretty close to you (5/10).

The Phantom Thread story is like something out of an Everybody Loves Raymond episode. Very sitcom-ish: the wife puts a little something-something in her husband's food so he stays home from work. Hijinks ensue. C'mon.

 

[Osprey]

Mandy (2018) - 3/10 (Really didn't like it)

A lumberjack (Nicolas Cage) gets bloody revenge on the bikers and religious zealots that took his wife, but only after working himself into a rage while in his underwear. I am utterly convinced that this film was conceived, written and directed under the influence of a strong hallucinogenic drug. It's a two-hour acid trip that's shot like one long dream sequence and looks like it was lit by lava lamps (to borrow a reviewer's description of the director's previous film). There are even a few short animation sequences that look like they belong in the 1981 classic Heavy Metal. It's a pure style over substance film, where the substance is a very barebones, run of the mill revenge plot. One reviewer said that the style is the substance, which may be true. It's as if the plot is deliberately lacking so that there's nothing to think about and we can just ride the wave. One of the few things that I found interesting is that the director is clearly aware of the public's love of Cage's campiness and exploits it. Many scenes (like the one above) seem to be deliberately ridiculous in order to thrill Cage's cult fans. I might've enjoyed that, myself, but the overall surrealness and etherealness of the film aren't my cup of tea at all. Make no mistake: this will quickly become a cult classic, especially among Cage fans, and many of you will love it, but it was just way too bizarre for me.

 

[Trap Jesus]

Mandy (2018) - 3/10 (Really didn't like it)

A lumberjack (Nicolas Cage) gets bloody revenge on the bikers and religious freaks that took his wife, but only after working himself into a rage while in his underwear. I am utterly convinced that this film was conceived, written and directed under the influence of a strong hallucinogenic drug. It's a two-hour acid trip that's shot like one long dream sequence and looks like it was lit by lava lamps (to borrow a reviewer's description of the director's previous film). There are even a few short animation sequences that look like they belong in the 1981 classic Heavy Metal. It's a pure style over substance film, where the substance is a very barebones, run of the mill revenge plot. One reviewer said that the style is the substance, which may be true. It's as if the plot is deliberately lacking so that there's nothing to think about and we can just ride the wave. What's a bit interesting is that the director is clearly aware of the public's love of Cage's campiness and exploits it. Many scenes (like the one above) are deliberately ridiculous in order to thrill Cage's cult fans. I might've enjoyed that, myself, but the overall surrealness and etherealness of the film aren't my cup of tea at all. Make no mistake: this will quickly become a cult classic, especially among Cage fans, and many of you will love it, but it was way too bizarre for me.

I really liked it, I almost always tend to love stylistic movies though. "Style over substance" is my biggest pet peeve for a movie criticism, but I know a ton of people see it that way (not just for this movie, but for movies in general).

Seeing the trailer for it, I'm not sure if I've ever seen a movie that exactly matched my expectations of what I thought it was going to be.

 

[ORRFForever]

Mandy (2018) - 3/10 (Really didn't like it)

A lumberjack (Nicolas Cage) gets bloody revenge on the bikers and religious freaks that took his wife, but only after working himself into a rage while in his underwear. I am utterly convinced that this film was conceived, written and directed under the influence of a strong hallucinogenic drug. It's a two-hour acid trip that's shot like one long dream sequence and looks like it was lit by lava lamps (to borrow a reviewer's description of the director's previous film). There are even a few short animation sequences that look like they belong in the 1981 classic Heavy Metal. It's a pure style over substance film, where the substance is a very barebones, run of the mill revenge plot. One reviewer said that the style is the substance, which may be true. It's as if the plot is deliberately lacking so that there's nothing to think about and we can just ride the wave. One of the few things that I found interesting is that the director is clearly aware of the public's love of Cage's campiness and exploits it. Many scenes (like the one above) seem to be deliberately ridiculous in order to thrill Cage's cult fans. I might've enjoyed that, myself, but the overall surrealness and etherealness of the film aren't my cup of tea at all. Make no mistake: this will quickly become a cult classic, especially among Cage fans, and many of you will love it, but it was just way too bizarre for me.

You're right. It's awful.

 

[Osprey]

I really liked it, I almost always tend to love stylistic movies though. "Style over substance" is my biggest pet peeve for a movie criticism, but I know a ton of people see it that way (not just for this movie, but for movies in general).

I didn't mean to peeve your pet. I don't think that "style over substance" is necessarily a criticism. In fact, I was echoing the usage of it by a reviewer who really liked the film. I, personally, use it more as a description... a description of something that I don't like, but one that I'm not necessarily placing judgment on. In fact, I mentioned it as much for people like you who do like ultra-stylish films. There's just no better way to describe this film, IMO. It may be the most style over substance film that I've ever seen. That's a big reason why I didn't like it, but, as I tried to communicate, it may appeal to others' tastes more.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Genuine style becomes its own substance. You don't always need to make a point, or even have one. Some of the greatest art ever produced is just art for art's sakes. A work of art needing a point or a message is just about the most retrograde and infantile way to negatively judge it. If it is, we can just tell artists like Captain Beefheart, Brian Eno, John Kennedy Toole or Vladimir Nabokov (probably the most significant example even if I've got my own literary gripes with him) to go f*** themselves.

A lot of the great works have been both, but a some of the truly great works are purely stylistic works, whether it's in film, literature or music.

 

[Osprey]

Genuine style becomes its own substance. You don't always need to make a point, or even have one. Some of the greatest art ever produced is just art for art's sakes. A work of art needing a point or a message is just about the most retrograde and infantile way to negatively judge it. If it is, we can just tell artists like Captain Beefheart, Brian Eno, John Kennedy Toole or Vladimir Nabokov (probably the most significant example even if I've got my own literary gripes with him) to go **** themselves.

A lot of the great works have been both, but a some of the truly great works are purely stylistic works, whether it's in film, literature or music.

I would say that the point of art, if it's to be great, is to make you feel something. Art that doesn't make you feel anything, while not necessarily bad, probably shouldn't be considered great, IMO.

I also think that great works, at least when it comes to films, have both style and substance. It's not so hard to be either stylish or substantial, but it is to be both at the same time and balance them so that they complement and enhance the other. I suppose that that means using both sides of your brain, the logical side and the creative side, which could be why it's hard to pull off.

 

[Trap Jesus]

I didn't mean to peeve your pet. I don't think that "style over substance" is necessarily a criticism. In fact, I was echoing the usage of it by a reviewer who really liked the film. I, personally, use it more as a description... a description of something that I don't like, but one that I'm not necessarily placing judgment on. In fact, I mentioned it as much for people like you who do like ultra-stylish films. There's just no better way to describe this film, IMO. It may be the most style over substance film that I've ever seen. That's a big reason why I didn't like it, but, as I tried to communicate, it may appeal to others' tastes more.

Yeah, I wasn't going at you specifically, I was just kind of bringing it up as a whole because it's something that you hear a lot as a criticism, and I think Mandy is a great launching point for that discussion.

As an example, I've heard someone say that they thought in the movie Midsommar, a lot of it was just the filmmaker trying to show off with certain visual choices (ie. style over substance). There's a scene (not a spoiler) where there's an overhead shot of a car driving down a road lined with gigantic trees on either side, and the camera slowly rotates until it turns completely upside down, and the blue sky replaces where the road was. You can interpret it as the characters entering into a situation that's strange and unfamiliar (ie. their world turning upside down), but even if there was no metaphorical reason for including that shot, who cares? It's an interesting looking shot, and I don't know why that should be discredited. It's something that can help keep the audience engaged to present something in a way that is visually interesting.

Not to say I'm always on board with stylistic shots or presentation, it's only if it's something I find aesthetically pleasing or interesting. I threw the movie Polar on and tapped out immediately because of the style they presented it in.

 

[Osprey]

The Wandering Earth (2019) - 5/10 (Didn't like or dislike it)

With the Sun becoming unstable, all of the people of Earth join together and build huge thrusters on the surface to turn Earth into a spaceship and fly it to a neighboring solar system. Yeah, you read that right. It makes Armageddon sound downright plausible and scientific. In fact, it feels like a Chinese mismash of every Hollywood sci-fi blockbuster from ~20 years ago (Armageddon, Independence Day, Deep Impact and The Day After Tomorrow). That includes ridiculous plot points, cardboard characters, sappy sentimentality, lame dialogue, cliches and so on. On the positive side, it has a nice Earth unity message (i.e. it's not pro-China like you might fear), it's action packed and it's chock full of CGI. Much of that CGI is gorgeous and seemingly on par with Hollywood, but some shots, especially action shots, look much less so. Overall, it's not a good movie, but it's often pretty to look at, it's quite unoffensive and there's something sort of charming about seeing China try their hand at a 90s Hollywood blockbuster in 2019. I was also curious because it's supposedly China's first crack at this sort of movie, it's the 2nd-highest grossing Chinese film ever and the 3rd-highest grossing film worldwide of 2019 (after Avengers: Endgame and Captain Marvel). If you're a sucker for sci-fi blockbusters, are curious about what a Chinese one would look like, feel like a mindless visual feast and keep your expectations really low, you might find it watchable. 50% of RT users can't be wrong.

It's available on Netflix and you can watch it in Chinese with English subtitles or with English dubbing. I started out with subtitles, but found that I couldn't really take in the visuals when I was looking down every other second, so I switched. The dubbing is not very good and makes the film hokier, but it hardly ruins it because it's already hokey. Anyways, I mention it so that you know that you have a choice.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

It may be the most style over substance film that I've ever seen.

Haven't seen Mandy, but these posts make me want to! As for style over substance, try this:

 

[ORRFForever]

Haven't seen Mandy, but these posts make me want to!

Don't do it. Life's too short.

 

[Shareefruck]

Count me in as someone who hates the phrase "style over substance" as well.

Effective style is its own substance, and when it isn't (eg. when its aesthetic merits aren't capable of feeling powerful/satisfying/complete and standing on its own), it's merely a poor attempt at style that shouldn't really qualify as such, and should instead be called "flash-in-the-pan-aesthetic-gimmicks over either style or substance" or something. At that point, it's only something artificially posturing as style and failing miserably.

Calling bad movies that rely entirely on aesthetic gimmicks "style over substance" or "style" at all is an insult to the very concept of style and all of its value, in my opinion.

When aesthetics are truly striking and has true style, it doesn't and shouldn't need any more meaning or feeling added on top of it in order to feel whole.

 

[The don godfather]

The shining simply the best movie of all time. Kubrick pure genious.

 

[ORRFForever]

The shining simply the best movie of all time. Kubrick pure genious.

I never understood the love for this movie. Hopefully the sequel will be great.