Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +2

[kihei]

In Fabric (2019) Directed by Peter Strickland 7B

A malignant red dress wreaks havoc on those who wear it in this artsy attempt at a horror movie. This is one of those fanciful works of the imagination that is almost entirely self-referential. a story for the sake of a story with no resonance of any kind beyond itself--a semi-kinky tale, occasionally mildly creepy but never scary. Director Peter Strickland might actually find creating scares a bit gauche. The emphasis here is on style, elegant presentation and subverting the audience's expectations. Some of this works fine--the women's fashion store run by decidedly weird characters is a lot of fun. The whole enterprise seems a little silly, a fact that Strickland seems willing enough to concede--In Fabirc is a polished amusement for an artsy crowd who can pride themselves on "getting" the really black humour and the refined approach to the genre. Whether it will attract much of a general audience, I don't know. But everyone involved in this poisonous little bon bon seems to have put a lot of effort into making it work.

The next day; Like a good wine, the film leaves a distinctive aftertaste, in the case of this movie wry but menacing. Though the bar isn't set that high, In Fabric could become my favourite Peter Strickland film.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Catch Me If You Can (2002)
Dir. Steven Spielberg

One of my favorites from Spielberg, up there with Munich and Saving Private Ryan. Hollywood often tries to be entertaining, sometimes interesting, but rarely do they punch out flicks holding both qualities simultaneously; Catch Me If You Can is one such singularity.

Score: 8/10

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

8.5/10

An interesting entry into Zombie genre

A very well filmed movie with some good acting by Freeman and decent storyline

Only real weak point is Vic character and his rather weak motive/plotline for what he does thru film

All in all reminded me of "The Dead" but with far better acting and cinematography

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Knives Out

10/10 and a film I might want to see on the big screen again, a very rare occurrence.

The less you know going into the movie, the better the experience. I honestly would recommend it to anyone aside from very young children. Tense yet funny, serious but never graphic, highbrow and lowbrow but never pretentious or focusing on low-hanging fruit. Just go see it, there's something for really anybody.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Knives Out

10/10 and a film I might want to see on the big screen again, a very rare occurrence.

The less you know going into the movie, the better the experience. I honestly would recommend it to anyone aside from very young children. Tense yet funny, serious but never graphic, highbrow and lowbrow but never pretentious or focusing on low-hanging fruit. Just go see it, there's something for really anybody.

Really is a superbly entertaining film. Glad you enjoyed it.

 

[Trap Jesus]

In Fabric (2019) Directed by Peter Strickland 7B

Did you see this at like a regular cineplex? I've been wanting to see this for a while.

 

[kihei]

Did you see this at like a regular cineplex? I've been wanting to see this for a while.

No, not a regular one. I saw it at Bell Lightbox in Toronto where each theatre offers state-of-the-art projection and sound. Really brings out the best in a film like In Fabric.

 

[Puck]

Ad Astra, by James Gray, 7.0

I really enjoyed this but not for the right reasons I suppose. It was refreshingly nice to watch a sci-fi film that wasn't Star Trek, Star Wars or Marvelized with super powers. The tech was more grounded in the sense there was no gravity or anti-gravity device, faster than light speeds, teleportation, light sabers, ray guns, aliens and super powers. I enjoyed the sci-fi without gimmicks. There should be more of that. I know enough science though that I didn't like some scenes (believing that cosmic rays from Neptune for whatever reason were causing havoc on Earth and walking on the Moon was like 1G walking on Earth). The plot seemed to be more about daddy issues, using the backdrop of sci-fi to get the psychological message across.

From a pop psychology point of view, one might assume at the end Brad Pitt might be sending a message to his own kids about not getting hung up on his own behaviours, each individual needs to find a break with the past to move on with their own life (not written for him specifically but it might be why he liked the project). It's not the first time (nor the last) that a sci-fi setting is used to getting some other social point across. Not a great film classic IMO, but I much prefer this type of sci-fi than the lightsaber/phaser stuff full of cartoonish aliens (Not totally dumping on Hollywood sci-fi, I still like Star Trek, Star Wars etc., I just enjoyed this less fantasmagorical story-telling style)

 

[kihei]

Ad Astra, by James Gray, 7.0

I really enjoyed this but not for the right reasons I suppose. It was refreshingly nice to watch a sci-fi film that wasn't Star Trek, Star Wars or Marvelized with super powers. The tech was more grounded in the sense there was no gravity or anti-gravity device, faster than light speeds, teleportation, light Sabres, ray guns, aliens and super powers. I enjoyed the sci-fi without gimmicks. There should be more of that. I know enough science though that I didn't like some scenes (believing that cosmic rays from Neptune for whatever reason were causing havoc on Earth and walking on the Moon was like 1G walking on Earth). The plot seemed to be more about daddy issues, using the backdrop of sci-fi to get the psychological message across.

From a pop psychology point of view, one might assume at the end Brad Pitt might be sending a message to his own kids about not getting hung up on his own behaviours, each individual needs to find a break with the past to move on with their own life (not written for him specifically but it might be why he liked the project). It's not the first time (nor the last) that a sci-fi setting is used to getting some other social point across. Not a great film classic IMO, but I much prefer this type of sci-fi than the lightsaber/phaser stuff full of cartoonish aliens (Not totally dumping on Hollywood sci-fi, I still like Stdy Trek, Star Wars etc., I just enjoyed this less fantasmagorical story-telling style)

Have you ever seen the original Solaris by Andrei Tarkovsky? I think it might be an example of the kind of science fiction that you favour.

 

[Puck]

Have you ever seen the original Solaris by Andrei Tarkovsky? I think it might be an example of the kind of science fiction that you favour.

Had not seen that version but heard of it. I had seen the Steven Soderberg version from the early 2000s. The latter with George Clooney was a box-office flop. Good reminder to check the first one out. Thanks.

p.s. I just checked and Ad Astra just only pulled in 130 million at the Box Office on a 100 million budget. Not enough to cover costs after splitting with theatres. Unfortunately, more serious sci-fi might not sell as well as the pop culture stuff with laser blasters and won't be enticing studios to invest more in this than Lucas style or Marvelized content.

 

[kihei]

Richard Jewell (2019) Directed by Clint Eastwood 3A

Not Clint's finest hour.

 

[ORRFForever]

In Fabric [2019] :

"A Killer (Red) Dress" : You wear a red dress and your life goes to hell.

Sound familiar? Sounds like The Ring, One Missed Call or It Follows.

The difference? In Fabric is funny. Really funny!

So, if you're looking for a horror/comedy that is light on the horror but heavy on the laughs (the comedy is really dark), In Fabric is for you.

8/10

Note : In Fabric was released in England but won't be in North American theaters until December 2019.

Movie Trailer :

I couldn't remember if I liked it so I needed to revisit my review - after seeing K's. Looks like I really liked it, too.

 

[ORRFForever]

Richard Jewell (2019) Directed by Clint Eastwood 3A

Not Clint's finest hour.

That's disappointing. I believe (not sure, of course) I am more conservative than K, so perhaps I will like it more than he did.

 

[ORRFForever]

Ad Astra, by James Gray, 7.0

I really enjoyed this but not for the right reasons I suppose. It was refreshingly nice to watch a sci-fi film that wasn't Star Trek, Star Wars or Marvelized with super powers. The tech was more grounded in the sense there was no gravity or anti-gravity device, faster than light speeds, teleportation, light Sabres, ray guns, aliens and super powers. I enjoyed the sci-fi without gimmicks. There should be more of that. I know enough science though that I didn't like some scenes (believing that cosmic rays from Neptune for whatever reason were causing havoc on Earth and walking on the Moon was like 1G walking on Earth). The plot seemed to be more about daddy issues, using the backdrop of sci-fi to get the psychological message across.

From a pop psychology point of view, one might assume at the end Brad Pitt might be sending a message to his own kids about not getting hung up on his own behaviours, each individual needs to find a break with the past to move on with their own life (not written for him specifically but it might be why he liked the project). It's not the first time (nor the last) that a sci-fi setting is used to getting some other social point across. Not a great film classic IMO, but I much prefer this type of sci-fi than the lightsaber/phaser stuff full of cartoonish aliens (Not totally dumping on Hollywood sci-fi, I still like Star Trek, Star Wars etc., I just enjoyed this less fantasmagorical story-telling style)

Mr. Pitt is finally starting to show his age. It happens to the best of us.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Richard Jewell (2019) Directed by Clint Eastwood 3A

Not Clint's finest hour.

Wonderfully concise review. I feel compelled to see it because I don't think it's fair to complain about something without seeing it ... but man, I have some problems based on some of the advanced word alone.

 

[Trap Jesus]

Have you ever seen the original Solaris by Andrei Tarkovsky? I think it might be an example of the kind of science fiction that you favour.

I'm usually a big fan of slow, meditative sci fi so Tarkovsky was someone I wanted to check out forever (at least Solaris and Stalker). I put Solaris on about a month back and was quite honestly bored to tears. I just could not get into it whatsoever. I was watching it really late at night and as soon as I saw the "Part 2" come up I just had to check out. I watch most stuff with my GF, who was actually a lot more into it than I was, but it's just something we've never circled back to to finish off, which is OK with me haha. I feel like it's one of those movies that's such a critically acclaimed classic that I'll have to give it its due and properly finish off at some point but yeah, can't say I'm looking forward to it.

I thought by far the most engaging part of it was when they had that meeting (in the past) discussing what he saw and whether it was a hallucination. I thought it was intriguingly vague and bizarre, and I LOVED the editing choices where they'd cut between different rooms with that delayed beep, and just some of the odd zooms they'd use at different points. But then you get to something like the extremely long car scene, and it just feels self indulgent and painfully slow. I thought once they got to the station I'd feel a different way, but if anything it became more boring for me at that point.

I don't know, I can't judge something that I've only seen part way through, and maybe it's something I shouldn't have watched when I was already feeling a bit tired, but it's kind of one of those things that just did not grip me at all.

 

[Osprey]

Not Clint's finest hour.

I'm confused. Is the old man yelling at the clouds supposed to be Clint or you?

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I'm usually a big fan of slow, meditative sci fi so Tarkovsky was someone I wanted to check out forever (at least Solaris and Stalker). I put Solaris on about a month back and was quite honestly bored to tears. I just could not get into it whatsoever. I was watching it really late at night and as soon as I saw the "Part 2" come up I just had to check out. I watch most stuff with my GF, who was actually a lot more into it than I was, but it's just something we've never circled back to to finish off, which is OK with me haha. I feel like it's one of those movies that's such a critically acclaimed classic that I'll have to give it its due and properly finish off at some point but yeah, can't say I'm looking forward to it.

I thought by far the most engaging part of it was when they had that meeting (in the past) discussing what he saw and whether it was a hallucination. I thought it was intriguingly vague and bizarre, and I LOVED the editing choices where they'd cut between different rooms with that delayed beep, and just some of the odd zooms they'd use at different points. But then you get to something like the extremely long car scene, and it just feels self indulgent and painfully slow. I thought once they got to the station I'd feel a different way, but if anything it became more boring for me at that point.

I don't know, I can't judge something that I've only seen part way through, and maybe it's something I shouldn't have watched when I was already feeling a bit tired, but it's kind of one of those things that just did not grip me at all.

Blasphemy!

 

[ORRFForever]

Wonderfully concise review. I feel compelled to see it because I don't think it's fair to complain about something without seeing it ... but man, I have some problems based on some of the advanced word alone.

What advanced word are you hearing?

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

What advanced word are you hearing?

Reviews overall seem mixed, but I have a big problem with the handling of the female journalist character in the movie which has been reported on extensively. They portray her as exchanging sex for information for stories. Haven't seen anything to contradict this yet, so I'll trust what I've heard. That's not only an EXTREMELY lazy and offensive cliche regardless, but there's no actual evidence that the reporter portrayed in the movie who was a real person whose name they use ever did that. The real woman died in 2011 and isn't around to defend herself. Jewell's lawyer even came out today and said that's untrue.

It is absolutely true that the media had a lot of failings during the reporting of the Richard Jewell case. They don't need to concoct nasty, lazy, untrue things to enhance the argument. Just really gross and offensive to me. Probably also worth noting that while Jewell sued and settled multiple court cases with media outlets, he actually lost the one against the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (where the reporter portayed worked).

The crazy thing to me is the screenplay was written by Billy Ray who wrote and directed one of the better movies about journalism in the past 20 years or so -- Shattered Glass.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

I don't know if it'll impact my viewing of the movie, but I do have an issue with how the journalist appears to be handled in that regards, because it's making claims against her that seem to be untrue, and she's also unable to defend herself.

And.. isn't that exactly what this movie is preaching against? Seems odd to me. I'm still really excited about the movie, but hearing this stuff the last few days does bother me.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I don't know if it'll impact my viewing of the movie, but I do have an issue with how the journalist appears to be handled in that regards, because it's making claims against her that seem to be untrue, and she's also unable to defend herself.

And.. isn't that exactly what this movie is preaching against? Seems odd to me. I'm still really excited about the movie, but hearing this stuff the last few days does bother me.

The irony is probably lost on them.

It just feels so unnecessary. It isn't remotely true so why even introduce it? I think it's mostly just laziness but it's hard to feel like there isn't some element of cruelty to it as well. That's hard for me to shake. Can't believe someone behind the scenes didn't think, "Hey, we might catch some shit for this." And if that did indeed occur that means someone said, "I don't care."

Part of me wants to be fair minded and see for myself, but the other part of me feels the movie doesn't deserve my money.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

But I do highly encourage people to seek out Shattered Glass! Great, under seen movie. And it redeems Hayden Christensen as an actor!

 

[Trap Jesus]

Blasphemy!

Lol I wanted to like it, I really did. I LOVE 2001, I wasn't necessarily expecting a similar movie, but at least a similar kind of response to it. What's the thought on 2001 vs. Solaris? Around the same time and it feels like they always get brought up together.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

The irony is probably lost on them.

It just feels so unnecessary. It isn't remotely true so why even introduce it? I think it's mostly just laziness but it's hard to feel like there isn't some element of cruelty to it as well. That's hard for me to shake. Can't believe someone behind the scenes didn't think, "Hey, we might catch some **** for this." And if that did indeed occur that means someone said, "I don't care."

Part of me wants to be fair minded and see for myself, but the other part of me feels the movie doesn't deserve my money.

I'll still give it a shot, because it looks like a solid movie overall that has a good point to it. I don't want to let one aspect drive me away.

But yeah, it kind of hurts when you undermine your own point within the movie itself. Not sure how they let that happen.