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

[GlassesJacketShirt]

I really like The Shining, but I would not put it ahead of Dr. Strangelove or A Clockwork Orange or Fullmetal Jacket (or Barry Lyndon or Eyes Wide Shut or 2001).

But he is definitely in my top 1 of directors of all time.

Also, finally saw The Witch. I'll give a review tomorrow or Sunday when I don't feel the need to search for a sleeping pill.

 

[Baby Punisher]

Back Draft 2. So bad that it's really f***ing bad. Holy shit! It was f***ing terrible. They actually got Sutherland and Baldwin back to act in this piece of shit. The kid that plays the kid in the first movie all grown up now is a terrible actor. This sequel does a terrible disservice to the original

 

[Osprey]

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

I knew that you'd be along soon enough. This sort of discussion is like peanut butter to a mouse to you .

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.

You and Trap both seem to regard substance as a layer of meaning on top of everything. Substance is a lot more than that, IMO. It's also the story, characters, ideas and themes. It's the base ingredients. Style, on the other hand, is how those ingredients are presented. To me, "style over substance" is putting more attention into the presentation than what's actually being presented. It's like obsessing over the technique and perfection of the icing on a cookie and neglecting how the cookie tastes. No judge would give it a pass for not tasting good simply because of the high level of artistry that went into its decoration. In film, it tends to mean that how its filmed (ex. the usage of the camera) and the mood that it evokes is given more attention than the story, the characters and other more traditional elements. Some films, like Mandy, definitely fall into that category, so it shouldn't be annoying or assumed to be a rebuke of style when that's pointed out, IMO.

 

[Shareefruck]

I knew that you'd be along soon enough. This sort of discussion is like peanut butter to a mouse to you .

You know it.

You and Trap both seem to regard substance as a layer of meaning on top of everything. Substance is a lot more than that, IMO. It's also the story, characters, ideas and themes. It's the base ingredients. Style, on the other hand, is how those ingredients are presented. To me, "style over substance" is putting more attention into the presentation than what's actually being presented. It's like obsessing over the technique and perfection of the icing on a cookie and neglecting how the cookie tastes. No judge would give it a pass for not tasting good simply because of the high level of artistry that went into its decoration. In film, it tends to mean that how its filmed (ex. the usage of the camera) and the mood that it evokes is given more attention than the story, the characters and other more traditional elements. Some films, like Mandy, definitely fall into that category, so it shouldn't be annoying or assumed to be a rebuke of style when that's pointed out, IMO.

I was actually just bringing up meaning as a way of quoting whoever brought it up. You can freely sub in narrative components/characters/ideas/themes if you like-- I did intend to refer to them like they're all part of the same bubble. Although I would argue that the way that something narratively unfolds is still just as much about style, so "story" would probably be split in half between the two for me (a part of "characters" would probably qualify as style as well).

I think the cake analogy is a really bad one that's similarly doing a disservice to style by equating it to just the surface-level icing of something (and that's really the whole problem with the way that people use the phrase). If we want to relate it to food, it would be more like the way something tastes vs. it's nutritional value. Or if you like, the sensation/comfort of it being eaten/the patterns in which tastes are revealed vs. taste/nutrition (really hard to differentiate between a lot of these things-- afterall, "tastefulness" in movies is arguably about style, so why is taste substance?). Even that's kind of a bad analogy though-- I'm not sure food a good comparable (it's another pet peeve of mine the way people always use common food and sports analogies about movies/music/literature-- they usually don't really work the same way or follow the same rules/objectives).

To me, it's a lot more like obsessing over the way that a song sounds, the way it's delivered, the way it progresses, and the overall intangible mood and energy that these decisions create while ignoring what it's intellectually about, what's being communicated about its musical ideas, and the themes that its lyrics allude to. A song can be equally effective obsessing over one, the other, or both. Focusing on one isn't necessarily a failure of the other, and doing both isn't automatically optimal/better. The former stands on its own-- it isn't just a superficial surface-level means to deliver the latter.

Now, admittedly that's a lot more obvious with music than it is with typically subject-driven mediums like films, but films don't have to be subject-driven to be equally effective, valuable, or memorable. The same is true in television, paintings, and literature. The aesthetic, form and energy created by these things are just as valuable as the literal content. I would even say significantly more-so, for me, personally.

When "style over substance" is used to point out inadaquecy, the problem usually lies in the fact that the style and delivery isn't actually very strong or effective in the first place (or is very inconsistent, or only small components of its style are strong, like, say, camera-work). Not enough to sustain itself, anyways. That's the fault of the style that exists being insignificant, not necessarily the absence of complementary substance.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

You know it.

I was actually just bringing up meaning as a way of quoting whoever brought it up. You can freely sub in narrative components/characters/ideas/themes if you like-- I did intend to refer to them like they're all part of the same bubble. Although I would argue that the way that something narratively unfolds is still just as much about style, so "story" would probably be split in half between the two for me (a part of "characters" would probably qualify as style as well).

I think the cake analogy is a really bad one that's similarly doing a disservice to style by equating it to just the surface-level icing of something (and that's really the whole problem with the way that people use the phrase). If we want to relate it to food, it would be more like the way something tastes vs. it's nutritional value. Or if you like, the sensation/comfort of it being eaten/the patterns in which tastes are revealed vs. taste/nutrition (really hard to differentiate between a lot of these things-- afterall, "tastefulness" in movies is arguably about style, so why is taste substance?). Even that's kind of a bad analogy though-- I'm not sure food a good comparable (it's another pet peeve of mine the way people always use common food and sports analogies about movies/music/literature-- they usually don't really work the same way or follow the same rules/objectives).

To me, it's a lot more like obsessing over the way that a song sounds, the way it's delivered, the way it progresses, and the overall intangible mood and energy that these decisions create while ignoring what it's intellectually about, what's being communicated about its musical ideas, and the themes that its lyrics allude to. A song can be equally effective obsessing over one, the other, or both. Focusing on one isn't necessarily a failure of the other, and doing both isn't automatically optimal/better. The former stands on its own-- it isn't just a superficial surface-level means to deliver the latter.

Now, admittedly that's a lot more obvious with music than it is with typically subject-driven mediums like films, but films don't have to be subject-driven to be equally effective, valuable, or memorable. The same is true in television, paintings, and literature. The aesthetic, form and energy created by these things are just as valuable as the literal content. I would say even more-so, personally.

When "style over substance" is used to point out inadaquecy, the actual problem usually lies in the fact that the style and delivery isn't actually very strong or effective in the first place (or is very inconsistent, or only small components of its style are strong, like, say, camera-work). Not enough to sustain itself, anyways. That's the fault of the style that exists being insignificant, not necessarily the absence of complementary substance.

That's a very nice post. "The medium is the message". As for food analogy, McLuhan compares content to the meat, not as "substance", but as distraction. “For the “content” of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind.” - an idea he borrowed from T.S. Eliot

 

[sdf]

Die Hard 1988

in fact, I'm not going to talk about the film itself, I watched it as a child and it seemed rather boring to me because I preferred either sci fi action films or films with an abundance of hand-to-hand combat, so I’m talking about it just because I discovered that the original title of this film is Die Hard, whereas in Russia this film is called Strong Nut, lol

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Just got out of Midsommar. I'll add more later but on a visceral level, I can't remember the last time I had an experience like at the movies. By far the unsettling thing I've ever experienced outside of sleep paralysis. Just difficult to process right now. I don't even know if I'd recommend it.

Edit: I would absoutely recommend it.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

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.

Sorry, missed this. Well, in that case, I think it's important that we define substance. It's an easy example that I notice I find myself referencing/leaning on a lot (everyone knows it and it has a pristine critical reputation) despite my own problems with it, but then how would you - the general you - rate something like Nabokov's Lolita? It's a purely stylistic work. It has no moral value, no message, nothing to teach or personal sentiment to impart to its reader. Yet, in its best moments, it is transcendent and has often been rated by the artistic/literary world has one of the greatest novels of all-time, if not the greatest.

 

[Osprey]

Sorry, missed this. Well, in that case, I think it's important that we define substance. It's an easy example that I notice I find myself referencing/leaning on a lot (everyone knows it and it has a pristine critical reputation) despite my own problems with it, but then how would you - the general you - rate something like Nabokov's Lolita? It's a purely stylistic work. It has no moral value, no message, nothing to teach or personal sentiment to impart to its reader. Yet, in its best moments, it is transcendent and has often been rated by the artistic/literary world has one of the greatest novels of all-time, if not the greatest.

I think that that's a sign that there's a lot more to it than just style. I would say that the novel is about obsession, narcissism, perception and justification. It can be viewed as a bad man corrupting an innocent girl or as a weak man being seduced by a bad girl. It's an experiment in persuading the reader to rationalize behavior that he knows is wrong and a demonstration of how it's not so hard to be brainwashed if we only ever hear from one side. It challenges us to confront our own desires and the lies that we tell ourselves. I would say that it does have a lot to teach us... about ourselves.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I think that that's a sign that there's a lot more to it than just style. I would say that the novel is about obsession, narcissism, perception and justification. It can be viewed as a bad man corrupting an innocent girl or as a weak man being seduced by a bad girl. It's an experiment in persuading the reader to rationalize behavior that he knows is wrong and a demonstration of how it's not so hard to be brainwashed if we only ever hear from one side. It challenges us to confront our own desires and the lies that we tell ourselves. I would say that it does have a lot to teach us... about ourselves.

I agree that this is the trick that the book may pull on the less critical reader, but I disagree that it was ever its intention - and Nabokov was very clear that it wasn't. He was very adamant that his only goal with fiction, whether it was in reading it or writing it, was to achieve what he called aesthetic bliss - and I think to describe Lolita as either an innocent girl or a bad one is a very grave mistake and actually takes away stylistically from the novel, as well as from its complex narrative. While I do agree that obsession, narcissism, perception and justification are all themes present in the novel, they're not the essence of it. They're purely vessels for Nabokov to create a complex and stylish story. The way the sentences and narrative is constructed in Lolita is what truly matters. Not what it makes the reader ponder about (and then we can get into the rabbit hole of the artist's intention and the recepient's reaction and interpretation following the art's delivery but that's another subject) . And even if the trick in Lolita can be reflective for the singular reader, it's always read to me as a practical joke (which would be style!), moreso than an appeal to intellectualism. And I don't think that's me stretching an interpretation either. Nabokov was well-known for his dark and witty humour, and his mocking of the common man's stupidity.

 

[ORRFForever]

Crawl [2019] :

How low do the summer movie standards have to be for Crawl to have an 88% Critic's Approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes?

Answer : Really, really low!

A father and daughter discuss their feelings while dodging "gators" during a Category 5 hurricane in Florida. As a result, Crawl provides more (unintentional) laughs than a Seth Rogen movie and is awful. Just awful.

Spoiler : The dog survives.

2/10

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I agree that this is the trick that the book may pull on the less critical reader, but I disagree that it was ever its intention - and Nabokov was very clear that it wasn't. He was very adamant that his only goal with fiction, whether it was in reading it or writing it, was to achieve what he called aesthetic bliss - and I think to describe Lolita as either an innocent girl or a bad one is a very grave mistake and actually takes away stylistically from the novel, as well as from its complex narrative. While I do agree that obsession, narcissism, perception and justification are all themes present in the novel, they're not the essence of it. They're purely vessels for Nabokov to create a complex and stylish story. The way the sentences and narrative is constructed in Lolita is what truly matters. Not what it makes the reader ponder about (and then we can get into the rabbit hole of the artist's intention and the recepient's reaction and interpretation following the art's delivery but that's another subject) . And even if the trick in Lolita can be reflective for the singular reader, it's always read to me as a practical joke (which would be style!), moreso than an appeal to intellectualism. And I don't think that's me stretching an interpretation either. Nabokov was well-known for his dark and witty humour, and his mocking of the common man's stupidity.

You seem to imply that there's one good or better reading of an artwork (here, the novel). And that the author's intention should be guiding it. I'm a sucka for work analysis and intellectualization, but I can't agree with that stance.

 

[Osprey]

Crawl [2019] :

How low do the summer movie standards have to be for Crawl to have an 88% Critic's Approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes?

It also has an audience rating of 78%, so it seems like you're in the minority on this one. Besides, who cares how good it is when it stars Kaya Scodelario? I want to see it now. Thanks for the recommendation .

 

[Osprey]

Black Sea (2015) - 6/10 (Liked it)

An underwater salvage expert (Jude Law) and a ragtag skeleton crew of Brits and Russians take a rust bucket submarine to find a sunken Nazi U-boat beneath the Black Sea that supposedly holds a fortune in gold, but things do not go smoothly. It takes a little bit of time to get going, but it has some good drama and a twist or two. It's a bit different than your usual submarine movie, since there's no global conflict going on and no torpedoes (but, of course, they do approach crush depth; it's simply not a submarine movie without maxing out gauges and springing leaks). The majority of the conflict comes from between the crew. The plot may be a bit implausible, but not really any more so than most thrillers of this style. Jude Law has to carry the film by himself and does a pretty good job. The Russians in this actually speak Russian, which helps the authenticity. Overall, it isn't memorable or exceptional in any way, but it's a solid thriller to fill a couple of hours.

Phantom (2013) - 6/10 (Liked it)

Set during the Cold War and inspired by a real incident, a Soviet missile submarine goes missing and almost starts a war. It has the look of a slightly higher budget film than Black Sea, thanks to slightly better cinematography, effects and star power. It stars Ed Harris, David Duchovny, William Fichtner and Lance Henriksen (in a small role), and the performances are pretty good, especially from Harris. The problem, and this is the biggest issue with the film, is that all of these American actors play Soviets without bothering to do even the slightest of accents. This is exacerbated a bit by the make-up, hair and wardrobe units not making much effort to make them appear Soviet, either, as well as by frequent comments about "the Americans" (which feels odd coming from American actors who sound American). It's all awfully immersion breaking. If you can manage to look past that, though, it's a pretty decent thriller. It's a bit silly in places, but the overall plot is interesting. It reminded me a lot of a cross between The Hunt for Red October and Crimson Tide, just without the same energy, tension or soundtrack. Those are two of my favorite submarine films, and though this isn't nearly as good, I liked it. It's also a lean 95 minutes long. If you're a sucker for submarine movies and can look past the American accents, you may find it a worthwhile watch.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Back Draft 2. So bad that it's really ****ing bad. Holy ****! It was ****ing terrible. They actually got Sutherland and Baldwin back to act in this piece of ****. The kid that plays the kid in the first movie all grown up now is a terrible actor. This sequel does a terrible disservice to the original

I'm only watching this if it's the son of the same fire from the first movie coming back for revenge against the family that killed his dad. Is that what it is?

 

[John Price]

Wreck It Ralph (8/10)

Ralph Breaks The Internet (8/10)

Like the 2nd better

 

[ORRFForever]

It also has an audience rating of 78%, so it seems like you're in the minority on this one. Besides, who cares how good it is when it stars Kaya Scodelario? I want to see it now. Thanks for the recommendation .

If you're watching it because you find her attractive, you better enjoy the first 10 minutes - she's in a bathing suit. After that, she's a mess.

 

[Pilky01]

Yesterday - 2019

It was okay. Could have been better, but was a fine, light, breezy film. Biggest complaint is just that it went on a little too long.

 

[Mario Lemieux fan 66]

Spider-Man: Far from Home: 7.5/10 pretty good movie the 2 lead actors did a great job.

Menteur: 6.8/10 an average summer comedy. Out of the 4 Gaudreault and Houde movies, it's the worse one.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

You seem to imply that there's one good or better reading of an artwork (here, the novel). And that the author's intention should be guiding it. I'm a sucka for work analysis and intellectualization, but I can't agree with that stance.

I didn't mean to imply that there's only one way of reading or enjoying the book or that Osprey was was somehow a lesser reader - I mostly agreed with that he said and just expanded on it - and if that's how it came across, then that's my mistake. What I was saying was that yes, the author has no control over how a work is interpreted following its release, but that the author's intentions, if expressed, should not be open to interpretation. We have that with Lolita/Nabokov. While the author can't control how the reader reacts and takes in the book, the reader's take can be directly challenged by information that we about a given work (i.e. X goes around saying that they believe Lolita is a story written as a warning against toxic mascunality. Person Y can directly dispute that sourcing Nabokov's words, who was clear that there was no morality to Lolita and that it was written as a love letter to the english language).

That's why I said I thought it'd be important to define substance first. Because we're dealing with a work that explicitly denotes its lack of morality/intellectualism/ideas which a lot of people would define as substance, but I wouldn't be comfortable with calling the book a book without substance.

 

[ORRFForever]

Yesterday - 2019

It was okay. Could have been better, but was a fine, light, breezy film. Biggest complaint is just that it went on a little too long.

Yes, yes and yes.

Another complaint... Too many snippets of songs. I would have preferred to hear the whole songs.

 

[Shareefruck]

I stand by my comment in the movie's thread that I couldn't believe so many people thought Yesterday looked promising in the first place and bothered to see it. The trailer looked completely by-the-numbers lame/generic, and the premise/delivery looked no more interesting than that typical whole "Oh no, me and my daughter switched bodies! What life lesson will this kooky ordeal teach me?" trope or the typical Adam Sandler movie gimmick, but the Danny Boyle and Beatles factor seemed to supersede that for everyone. I think it should have been scoffed from the moment we saw the first trailer, personally.

Also, to add to the nitpick above, while I haven't watched it and it does admittedly kind of make sense story-wise, as someone who heavily favors Lennon, one other perception I have with it that kind of bugs me is how heavily Paul McCartney dominated it seems to be.

 

[ORRFForever]

I stand by my comment in the movie's thread that I couldn't believe so many people thought Yesterday looked promising in the first place and bothered to see it. The trailer looked completely by-the-numbers lame/generic, and the premise/delivery looked no more interesting than that typical whole "Oh no, me and my daughter switched bodies! What life lesson will this kooky ordeal teach me?" trope or the typical Adam Sandler movie gimmick, but the Danny Boyle and Beatles factor seemed to supersede that for everyone. I think it should have been scoffed from the moment we saw the first trailer, personally.

Also, to add to the nitpick above, while I haven't watched it and it does admittedly kind of make sense story-wise, as someone who heavily favors Lennon, one other perception I have with it that kind of bugs me is how heavily Paul McCartney dominated it seems to be.

In our defense, the trailer was well done and looked promising.

Plus, of course, there's the amazing music.

 

[Shareefruck]

In our defense, the trailer was well done and looked promising.

Plus, of course, there's the amazing music.

To each their own and everything, but I thought it looked pretty much exactly like what everyone ended up being underwhelmed/disappointed by, personally. In fact, I would have been pretty shocked if it turned out any better than that.

 

[ORRFForever]

To each their own and everything, but I thought it looked pretty much exactly like what everyone ended up being underwhelmed/disappointed by, personally. In fact, I would have been pretty shocked if it turned out any better than that.

It was such a cute premise, I could see it being very good but, sadly, it wasn't.