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

[Baby Punisher]

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?

Yep, that's it! Have fun!

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

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).

Again, you imply that the author's intention should be guiding a good or better reading. Can't agree with that. Shame on me, I haven't read the novel, but I know that whatever Nabokov says about it cannot dictate its readings. It certainly can (and probably will) influence your interpretation, but any other reading that wouldn't be aware of his opinion on the novel could be just as interesting/valid (or more). Even the most honest and rational author can't be aware of his place in time and culture, the countless influences that are at work through his writing, or even his own unconscious mind - his reading is only one among others (possibly a very educated one, and those are the most interesting, but still).

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Again, you imply that the author's intention should be guiding a good or better reading. Can't agree with that. Shame on me, I haven't read the novel, but I know that whatever Nabokov says about it cannot dictate its readings. It certainly can (and probably will) influence your interpretation, but any other reading that wouldn't be aware of his opinion on the novel could be just as interesting/valid (or more). Even the most honest and rational author can't be aware of his place in time and culture, the countless influences that are at work through his writing, or even his own unconscious mind - his reading is only one among others (possibly a very educated one, and those are the most interesting, but still).

I don't see where I'm implying good or better. Perhaps more understanding, but I don't know that I'd argue that this automatically makes it good or better - I'm certain I've watched films and read books who's perceived meaning/what I got out of it wasn't precisely what the artist intended/the essence of his work. And sure, even the most honest author can't be aware of his place in time and culture, but I find that separate from what the author was intending with his work - especially if that work is art for art's sakes and not meant/framed to be political or didactic. His reading obviously isn't the only one possible, but it's difficult to argue it's the one that bring the most understanding (and whether that's important or not is another debate) to what actually went into the execution/construction/intention of the art, and should hold precedence over what X reader's would be in terms of intellectual understanding or critical study, even if it isn' the only one. All things aren't equal here.

 

[Osprey]

I don't see where I'm implying good or better. Perhaps more understanding, but I don't know that I'd argue that this automatically makes it good or better - I'm certain I've watched films and read books who's perceived meaning/what I got out of it wasn't precisely what the artist intended/the essence of his work. And sure, even the most honest author can't be aware of his place in time and culture, but I find that separate from what the author was intending with his work - especially if that work is art for art's sakes and not meant/framed to be political or didactic. His reading obviously isn't the only one possible, but it's difficult to argue it's the one that bring the most understanding (and whether that's important or not is another debate) to what actually went into the execution/construction/intention of the art, and should hold precedence over what X reader's would be in terms of intellectual understanding or critical study, even if it isn' the only one. All things aren't equal here.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but you originally brought up the novel because it's considered perhaps the greatest novel of the 20th century. By whom is it considered that? It's the readers, so it should be their reading of the novel that matters in this particular case, IMO. Put another way, if you're going to use the fact that it's considered a masterpiece to argue that a purely stylistic work can be one, then you have to accept the reasons why people consider it one, even if the author didn't intend many of their interpretations.

 

[kihei]

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.

Picked it up tonight. It's definitely a strange movie, but ultimately I got bored (although the gruesome moments revved up my attention). I thought it started out as a terrific character study of a badly traumatized woman but that aspect of it slowly petered out until the ending which says something pretty weird and not all that convincing about catharsis. Most of the rituals on display quickly wore out their welcome for me, but they absolutely refused to go away for the longest time.

Spoiler

I also have trouble with horror movies that don't leave their characters a way out, even if they don't take it. This one fairly early on seemed to telegraph that none of the group of Americans would come out intact. Such plots seem unnecessarily sadistic and predictable.

I liked the movie's touches of humour, but found a lot of the writing unintentionally hilarious (note to director: get a scriptwriter). Plus, there are themes galore related to catharsis, religious cults, duplicity, morality, and betrayal, but virtually nothing is done satisfactorily with any of them. I didn't like Hereditary either, one of the relative few around here who didn't. So maybe Aster just isn't my kind of director. Aster seems to me to have more of Shyamalan than Lanthimos in him

 

[Osprey]

Hunter Killer (2018) - 6/10 (Liked it)

A U.S. submarine crew (commanded by Gerard Butler) and a Navy SEAL team (led by Toby Stephens) undertake a daring rescue mission inside the Russian border in response to a coup. Gary Oldman is also in it as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Unlike the two recent submarine films that I reviewed and were mostly straight to disc/streaming, this one looks much more like the theatrical film that it was. That comes with good and bad. The good is that it feels like a Tom Clancy thriller in scope, non-stop action and excellent pacing. It never gets dull. Having the sub and the SEALs to cut back and forth between helps. The bad is that it's a little predictable, generic feeling, over the top, corny and not very smart... basically, like every Gerard Butler action film (though the 71% audience score at RT is one of the highest a film of his has gotten). In spite of those issues, I enjoyed it. It may not be an objectively good film, but those can still be fun, and, sometimes, two hours of non-stop action is all that you're looking for.

 

[Trap Jesus]

Just saw The Disaster Artist. As someone who is a fan of The Room, my main concern for this movie was it just being overkill. I think The Room has walked that line for years, where it's just so easily the choice for the "best worst movie" and so many people are making fun of it that it starts to lose a bit of its charm. I still don't think that has happened, but my worry is that this movie would kind of push it over the top.

Having seen it, that wasn't my thought coming out of the movie. I think it was handled respectfully and it gave a lot of context behind the shooting of it rather than just being a retread where they endlessly repeat the most memorable lines from the movie. How true that context was I don't know, but it still made for an entertaining watch. That being said, I still didn't find it overly funny or special. It was just kind of decent.

I think my biggest problem is Dave Franco. He's such a bad actor that he can't even convincingly pull off bad acting, if that makes sense. It was so obvious to me that he was trying to act poorly in scenes where he was shooting a scene, rather than it just coming off more naturally.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Picked it up tonight. It's definitely a strange movie, but ultimately I got bored (although the gruesome moments revved up my attention). I thought it started out as a terrific character study of a badly traumatized woman but that aspect of it slowly petered out until the ending which says something pretty weird and not all that convincing about catharsis. Most of the rituals on display quickly wore out their welcome for me, but they absolutely refused to go away for the longest time.

Spoiler

I also have trouble with horror movies that don't leave their characters a way out, even if they don't take it. This one fairly early on seemed to telegraph that none of the group of Americans would come out intact. Such plots seem unnecessarily sadistic and predictable.

I liked the movie's touches of humour, but found a lot of the writing unintentionally hilarious (note to director: get a scriptwriter). Plus, there are themes galore related to catharsis, religious cults, duplicity, morality, and betrayal, but virtually nothing is done satisfactorily with any of them. I didn't like Hereditary either, one of the relative few around here who didn't. So maybe Aster just isn't my kind of director. Aster seems to me to have more of Shyamalan than Lanthimos in him

The movie hasn't lingered with me, but I struggle with the Shyamalan comparison. For one, Shyamalan's sense of aesthetical style, which is utterly banal, isn't even in the same stratosphere as Aster's. I haven't watched Hereditary, but Midsommar's visual are more impressive than anything I've seen in the horror genre (not that much, I'll admit) and stand on their own. I found the costume designs and set pieces very beautiful (I think some of them might even be protected by UNESCO). I also thought Midsommar's sense of atmosphere and mood was very inventive, where Aster let the movie's lugubrious soundtrack contrast and partner well with the bright colors and images. At least for this viewer, it created a tense feeling of anticipation while waiting for the story's bizarre wanderings to develop.

Personally, I thought that the certainty of the characters' ultimate fate to be a positive, instead of a negative. It allows the story, which I agree, on a thematic level, attempted a little too much without quite ever pulling it off, to become more interesting. Instead of focusing on what is point A and point B, it concerns itself with how the characters get from A-B. Personally, I found that more horrifying as a viewer. It neatly gives stake to the distracting and sometimes superficial what next? That question is still present, but in a way that requires the viewer to pay attention to how the what next will happen, instead of simply wondering what it is and how it will affect the characters fate, and enhances the intrigue/suspense of the villains and their story, who then become more than stereotypical and vapid monsters.

But yes, I found some of character dynamics a bit forced and their denouement to be a little too unrealistic (particularly Christian and Josh) and their sustained motivation when the wheels are set in motion can feel like an insult to the viewer. Also, if I'm being really nitpicky, the entire premise can be deconstructed as faulty in about two seconds. The way the cult works would have absolutely no chance at sustainment in real life, especially in the digital age. Still, the movie works for me on a purely physical/scare level. I thought it was a hell of a ride, and have kind of given me rekindled hope when it comes to horror films. Me and my girl were shook walking out of the theater. We went for a beer and a splash of whiskey right afterwards.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but you originally brought up the novel because it's considered perhaps the greatest novel of the 20th century. By whom is it considered that? It's the readers, so it should be their reading of the novel that matters in this particular case, IMO. Put another way, if you're going to use the fact that it's considered a masterpiece to argue that a purely stylistic work can be one, then you have to accept the reasons why people consider it one, even if the author didn't intend many of their interpretations.

I agree, but I don't think I need to explain that the reading interpretations of the novel are vast, and that a major stated appeal of novel is specifically it's use of prose, outside of the story's pulpy narrative and interesting characters.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Recent burst of binging this week...

The Death of Stalin. Thought it was one of 2018's best. Was in the mood to rewatch and I think it's only grown in esteem. Brutally darkly funny about brutally petty men. Though the story here is specific, I think the overall sentiment about politicians probably applies broadly.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. Was in the mood for literate, bickering Brits on Sunday I suppose. It's pretty stagy in execution (of course, it was a play), but the wit is incomparable. Roth and Oldman are a great pair. Oldman doesn't often play a dunce or comic relief, but he does so here with aplomb. Also watch for a young Iain Glenn (Jorah Mormont) as Hamlet.

No Country for Old Men. Another rewatch. Still so precise. Still so perfect. Can't really add anything that hasn't already said about this masterpiece.

Train to Busan. Finally watched this. Feels a little drawn out (though that exhaustion is part of the point) but hits about everything you'd want out of a zombie movie. I was surprised at the emotional punch the end packs.

Stranger than Paradise. Jim Jarmusch is my jam. His movies tend to be hangs and I'm always happy to hang. This is one of his most hangiest.

Blue Velvet. Have been on a David Lynch kick the last month or so. Been years since the last time I watched this. I still think it's his best. All his themes, all his style -- it's all here in maybe it's most precise and focused form. I know Dennis Hopper is really up to 11 in this, but I forgot how up to 11 he is. An unforgettable performance.

Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives. Been wanting to watch this for a looooong time. Finally made the time last night and feel rewarded for doing so. Haven't seen anything quite like this quiet, reflective ghost story.

Under the Silver Lake. Went in skeptical (I think It Follows is one of the more overrated movies of the past decade) but I admit I was taken in by this and came out digging it. Then again, I'm a sucker for these types of shaggy, stoned L.A. detective stories. Definitely bloated, but a few scenes that will stick with me and a memorable soundtrack. The greatest mystery though is why any of the many attractive women in the movie would ever want to sleep with Andrew Garfield's smelly loser of a protagonist.

The Perfection. A tawdry, but fun enough Netflix horror/thriller. You kinda see where it's going, but it's well shot and acted (Allison Williams is perfectly cast) for what it is. Writer-director Richard Shepherd did a pretty good movie years back called The Matador with Pierce Brosnan that might be of interest to James Bond fans (though that's another thread).

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but you originally brought up the novel because it's considered perhaps the greatest novel of the 20th century. By whom is it considered that? It's the readers, so it should be their reading of the novel that matters in this particular case, IMO. Put another way, if you're going to use the fact that it's considered a masterpiece to argue that a purely stylistic work can be one, then you have to accept the reasons why people consider it one, even if the author didn't intend many of their interpretations.

This is all beside the point, though, that it's valid for a purely stylistic work to be considered a masterpiece. The fact that arguably many people who consider it a masterpiece ascribe some unintended meaning to it (whether that's still a reasonable interpretation or not) doesn't really change the fact that many people with that knowledge and who agree with its intended reading do as well. I mean, do you really feel that it would cease to be a masterpiece and could be reasonably dismissed as "style over substance" if that "substance" were not present?

 

[Osprey]

The Hole in the Ground (2019) - 6/10 (Liked it)

A young mother and her son start a new life in the country, but the son eventually starts to act strangely. This Irish indie horror movie from yet another first-time writer/director (quite a rage this is becoming in this genre) is not very original, but has pleasant execution. It has horror cliches like a creepy old woman, broken mirrors and such, but no jump scares. It's a slow burn horror that's really never scary, but is often unsettling. It seems to try to be allegorical in a way similar to The Babadook (another single mother and son horror), but isn't as effective. Still, even though it isn't as good, if you liked The Babadook's style, themes and pacing, you might like it enough. It's not one of the better recent horror films, but it's not one of the worst. It's decent and watchable if you're in the mood for a somewhat creepy movie.

 

[kihei]

Yesterday (2019) Directed by Danny Boyle 3A (bad movie; accessible)

Due to a freak world-wide occurrence, Jack (Himesh Patel) believes he is the only human on earth left who remembers the Beatles. First, he is understandably utterly dumbfounded. A failing musician, he can't resist incorporating Beatle songs into his set and everybody welcomes him as a new musical messiah. Initially, he is cool with this but fame and how he achieved it rests heavily on his shoulders. I thought this was a potentially great premise, but Yesterday is a work of commercial schlock of the laziest kind. Given the wonderful things they could have dreamed up, Boyle and company settle for a bland protagonist and surrounds him with stock cliche characters--the patient but long-suffering girlfriend, the money-grubbing manager, the semi-zonked out friend, the annoying father--and a tired, eventually kind of creepy script that limps to the finish in the least convincing way imaginable. The climax especially grated on my nerves partly because it was not only saccharine in the extreme but because it was so threadbare and unconvincing I felt embarrassment for all concerned. Boyle doesn't even trust the music, amping the sound to "11" when a song is performed in hope of generating excitement that the rest of the movie doesn't come close to providing on its own. I still like the premise, but the execution here is worst-case scenario stuff.

 

[Puck]

Edmond, by Alexis Michalik, 7.5

Historical drama about Edmond Rostand's writing of the play Cyrano de Bergerac. It was written, directed by Alexis Michalik who additionally plays the role of Feydeau (another playwright of the era and an Edmond Rostand competitor) leading some reviewers to call the film "Cyrano de Michalik". The acting performances and scenes in the film are more theatrical in nature, played out somewhat like a stage show, less like a reality film. I suppose that's because it was a film adaptation derived from Michalik's original stage play. I doubt it's an accurate history of events, Michalik took artistic licence to fantasize it to his liking. Most of the film depicts the genesis of the play Cyrano by (then) failed playwright Rostand until his first masterpiece's unimaginable success in Paris. The fun is watching Rostand piece the play together. The sets are gorgeous, it's a good film, but the storytelling doesn't attain the quality of the original chef d'oeuvre, although it is entertaining. I would not recommend this for folks who prefer Hollywood thrillers, but it's definitely worth the watch if you like more artistic cinema.

 

[Live in the Now]

Yesterday (2019) Directed by Danny Boyle 3A (bad movie; accessible)

Due to a freak world-wide occurrence, Jack (Himesh Patel) believes he is the only human on earth left who remembers the Beatles. First, he is understandably utterly dumbfounded. A failing musician, he can't resist incorporating Beatle songs into his set and everybody welcomes him as a new musical messiah. Initially, he is cool with this but fame and how he achieved it rests heavily on his shoulders. I thought this was a potentially great premise, but Yesterday is a work of commercial schlock of the laziest kind. Given the wonderful things they could have dreamed up, Boyle and company settle for a bland protagonist and surrounds him with stock cliche characters--the patient but long-suffering girlfriend, the money-grubbing manager, the semi-zonked out friend, the annoying father--and a tired, eventually kind of creepy script that limps to the finish in the least convincing way imaginable. The climax especially grated on my nerves partly because it was not only saccharine in the extreme but because it was so threadbare and unconvincing I felt embarrassment for all concerned. Boyle doesn't even trust the music, amping the sound to "11" when a song is performed in hope of generating excitement that the rest of the movie doesn't come close to providing on its own. I still like the premise, but the execution here is worst-case scenario stuff.

In complete agreement here. I should post more here as the volume of things I watch is ludicrous.

There's a particularly offensive scene near the end as well. Not offensive because it exists, but because of how it plays out. The film also has a strange refusal to acknowledge any of the realities of modern times. Boyle is seemingly incapable of understanding that the Beatles became successful because of the realities of that era. The Beatles were powered by a lot of things, but a large factor in that was the new phenomenon of television. That is obviously not the case as it pertains to Yesterday, TV has existed for many a year in the universe of this story. The majority of the songs chosen in the film are also not the Beatles best work and are the songs that were most accessible for a large audience, but those are the kinds of songs that would be lambasted if they were released today. When you throw in the fact that there is no exploration as to why the man became famous merely by composing the songs, why he has a trail of women following him around as a result, and that there's no moment at any point where it is considered that an British-Indian man is such a large cultural sensation and what that would actually mean...it's a terrible film. I checked it out a week ago and it has stuck with me in all the wrong ways.

While sitting there, I liked the first ten minutes or so. Did not know what else was to come, could not have been more disappointed.

 

[Puck]

First bit of news I've seen out on TIFF. There is no TIFF thread yet, so I will post it here.

The World Premiere of Once Were Brothers: Robbie Robertson and The Band will be the Opening Night Gala Presentation for the 44th Toronto International Film Festival on Thursday, September 5, at Roy Thomson Hall.

Directed by Daniel Roher (Ghosts of Our Forest) and executive produced by Martin Scorsese, Brian Grazer, and Ron Howard, the feature documentary follows Robertson from his early life in Toronto and on the Six Nations of the Grand River reserve, in Southern Ontario, to the creation of legendary roots-rock group The Band.

The World Premiere of *Once Were Brothers: Robbie Robertson and The Band* will kick off TIFF 2019

 

[kihei]

In complete agreement here. I should post more here as the volume of things I watch is ludicrous.

Definitely post more.

 

[Osprey]

Whoops! I did a search for reviews of the movie that I was going to review, wound up in this old thread and didn't realize it was old, so I ended up bumping it. My mistake. I'll move my review to the current thread.

Someone should consider closing these old threads to prevent this from happening again... or someone could just be more careful about where he's posting from now on.