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

[member 51464]

Tree of Life was the last movie I walked out on. It was just so up its own ass. I started laughing and couldn't stop and had to walk out to not distract the one other person in the theater.

 

[Babe Ruth]

Light Sleeper (1992)

Willem Dafoe plays a drug dealer (selling to NYC yuppies), who is in a full on existential crisis.. After running in to an old girlfriend, Dafoe's crisis accelerates. Good atmosphere thru the movie.. Subtle, but tense drama.
Bcuz it is kinda slice-of-life (until final scenes), it feels mundane in parts. But an overall powerful story. I love the early 9os sh*t. I give it a 7 (10 point scale).

 

[Savi]

Tree of Life was the last movie I walked out on. It was just so up its own ass. I started laughing and couldn't stop and had to walk out to not distract the one other person in the theater.

This.

Last couple of years he even made a few movies that were even worse if you can believe that

 

[Puck]

Ad Astra - I watched this on the flight home to Detroit last week. While I get that it was more the story of a guy trying to reconnect with his distant father, the physics made no sense, but that, and the slow pacing were distracting and frankly boring.

Based on the critical reviews, I feel like they only exist to self congratulate the industry, because otherwise they watched a different film than I did. 4/10

Guinness, while I agree with you on some of the physics holes in the film, but I was so pumped to see a sci-fi film without ray-guns, faster than light travel, aliens speaking English with an American accent, time travel, and artificial gravity in spaceships, I decided to suspend belief on the rest and just enjoy the ride. We aren't so critical of the fantasy science in Star Trek, Star Wars, or even other Marvelized entertainment content, I figure we can give others a break too. I understand your response though, I had it too initially in some scenes in the film but I gave my head a shake and decided not to let it ruin the rest. You know, we don't even worry about interbreeding with alien Vulcans these days (we accept a Spock as possible), never-ending multi-verses, Jedi mind tricks or time travel, why worry about evil cosmic rays from Neptune.

I saw one Ad Astra review complaining that in space, a tear in one's eyes should not flow downward on your face. Geez, if I complained about all the holes in all sci-fi movies, I could draw you up a list a mile long. I'd rather complain about the fact that there are way too many zombie movies out recently.

If slow-pace is distracting, then you'll also have issue these days with much of the art-house indie and foreign fare films out there. Anyway haven't seen you in awhile guinness, hope all is well and may the Force be with you

 

[guinness]

Guinness, while I agree with you on some of the physics holes in the film, but I was so pumped to see a sci-fi film without ray-guns, faster than light travel, aliens speaking English with an American accent, time travel, and artificial gravity in spaceships, I decided to suspend belief on the rest and just enjoy the ride. We aren't so critical of the fantasy science in Star Trek, Star Wars, or even other Marvelized entertainment content, I figure we can give others a break too. I understand your response though, I had it too initially in some scenes in the film but I gave my head a shake and decided not to let it ruin the rest. You know, we don't even worry about interbreeding with alien Vulcans these days (we accept a Spock as possible), never-ending multi-verses, Jedi mind tricks or time travel, why worry about evil cosmic rays from Neptune.

I saw one Ad Astra review complaining that in space, a tear in one's eyes should not flow downward on your face. Geez, if I complained about all the holes in all sci-fi movies, I could draw you up a list a mile long. I'd rather complain about the fact that there are way too many zombie movies out recently.

If slow-pace is distracting, then you'll also have issue these days with much of the art-house indie and foreign fare films out there. Anyway haven't seen you in awhile guinness, hope all is well and may the Force be with you

Unfortunately, even if I ignore the bad science, it's not a good movie to me - I can deal with bad sci-fi, the Star Treks and Star Wars of the world aren't trying to put forth a message, but that's what Ad Astra wished it could've done, but it never resonated with me. And father/son had to basically kill everyone in their way too, just to discover the truth of what they were each seeking. They could've put Clifford in the bottom of the ocean, the middle of Antarctica, it would've been the same to me.

The space subplot and bad science was a giant blackhead on face full of acne, although it wasn't until the space surfing and then nuclear explosion (!!!) that could somehow transport him nearly 3 billion miles (wut?), without radiating the shit out of him that I did the final mental check out. I could even deal with the ridiculousness of having to travel to Mars to send a radio message and space pirates on the Moon (queue Futurama flashbacks), as otherwise, some dude sitting in a studio on Earth would be boring.

And while something like the Martian had BS moments, but it didn't completely treat me like an idiot, and that did character development way, way more effectively, and it was basically just Damon talking to a camera the whole time.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Glengarry Glen Ross. This is just an all-timer for me. Pure amped-to-11 acting joy. Bilious dialogue spat more than said. Big fat, bloody steaks of dialogue devoured with glee. Endlessly quotable. Frayed edge male fragility. Well-drawn characters who are their own worse enemies. Nice small mystery at the heart of it too. Alec Baldwin’s big speech is the iconic bit and Pacino was nominated for an Oscar, but this is Jack Lemmon’s movie (which is saying something amid this cast). Incredible late career performance of sadness, last gasp desperation and even a little bit of swagger.

Death Race 2000. The 1970s version. All I want from a low-budget cheapy sci-fi. Ridiculous but fun plot. Shabby but workable sets/props. Passable acting (a young Sly Stallone is really on one here). This is the stuff you stay up past bedtime to watch.

(FYI: If anyone subscribes to The Criterion Channel, they just dropped an 18–movie 1970s sci-fi collection that is absolutely to die for if you’re into such things.)

The Times of Harvey Milk. Still a powerful and infuriating documentary. A trailblazing man who died too young and too tragically. The interviews and archival footage here are quite the time capsule. You celebrate his victories and beliefs but then realize despite the progress many of the same issues remain decades later. The only thing more upsetting than that is the legal handling of his assassin, which feels like it would have been rejected if it were pitched as fiction. A stunning documentary.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Looper - 9/10

You could say it threw for me a loop, but one that I thoroughly enjoyed.

 

[Trap Jesus]

Looper - 9/10

You could say it threw for me a loop, but one that I thoroughly enjoyed.

Was anyone else extremely thrown off by JGL's eyes in this? I know why they did it but it reminded me of when they put in a CGI human character into a movie, it just looked so unnatural.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

I saw Marriage Story last night. I swear every film Adam Driver is in he is just better than his last film. This guy is an incredible actor, and this movie was such a great movie. I was surprised considering a lot of other Netflix movies are not very good.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Was anyone else extremely thrown off by JGL's eyes in this? I know why they did it but it reminded me of when they put in a CGI human character into a movie, it just looked so unnatural.

His entire face threw me off more than his eyes.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Uncut Gems - 9.5/10

In competition with Ford v Ferrari for my favorite movie of the year.

 

[kihei]

63 Up (2019) Directed by Michael Apted (documentary) 8B

In 1964, director Michael Apted released the first film in this series, 7 Up. The movie borrows its central premise from Aristotle (or maybe St. Ignatius of Loyola. There is some debate): "Give me a child for 7 years and I will show you the man." In the original film, Apted interviews fourteen British 7-year-olds from all walks of life and they talk about their dreams and expectations. Since then, every 7 years Apted releases another film--14 Up; 21 Up; 28 Up; and so on--updating these individuals' lives, almost all of whom have continued to participate in this ongoing project. 63 Up is the ninth installment and for viewers like myself who have followed the series from its inception, it is like running into a bunch of old acquaintances and finding out what kind of hand life has dealt them since I saw them last. Some have done wonderfully; some have had great hardship; one has died--but whatever the case, I can still see in each of them a healthy portion of that 7-year-old who I first met all those decades ago. In fact, it is astonishing to see how much of one's life is determined at such an early age. While each documentary provides enough back story to be a stand-alone film, it helps if you have seen at least the first film of the series. But the Up series represents a fascinating idea extremely well-executed. Anyone with even a mild interest in other human beings should find this film and the others well worth exploring.

 

[Mimsy]

The Company of Wolves (1984)

Director: Neil Jordan
Angela Lansbury, David Warner, Stephen Rea

After being wholly disappointed by werewolf-themed “Dog Soldiers” a few months ago, I was delighted to discover this 80s gem in my movie channel library.

Part fantasy, part fairy tale, part horror, “The Company of Wolves” is the second feature film from Neil Jordan. I vaguely remember hearing about the movie years ago, or at least about Lansbury’s association with it. While unavoidably retro in appearance by 2020 standards, “The Company of Wolves” holds up well as pure fantasy entertainment. It’s loosely akin in style to a lower budget version of Ridley Scott’s “Legend” or “The Neverending Story”, or even 2015’s “Tale of Tales”, but with more nightmarish themes. The movie isn’t scary, but there are frightening scenes, and while the plot meanders among several short stories told by Lansbury’s Grandmother character, the central theme of werewolves and threatening men remains focused. The stories are brief but engaging and filled with dark imagery. The movie uses Grimm’s “Little Red Riding Hood” as a template from which to tell its various stories.

Sarah Patterson plays Rosaleen/Red Riding Hood. While the story begins in present day, it quickly jumps to an 18th century setting. The narrative establishes from the onset that Rosaleen is dreaming everything she experiences for the rest of the film, although waking nightmares are not impossible. This was Patterson’s first, and effectively last, significant acting gig (one other film credit). Her performance is admirable for a role that doesn’t demand too much of its lead. Apart from Lansbury, who is effective and playing a quite different character from her usual roles, most of the cast have smaller parts (including a brief appearance by Terrance Stamp).

The movie was filmed almost entirely on sound stages. Practical effects abound. The movie is better for its lack of CGI. There are no bipedal monsters here (apart from its depiction of mysterious men). Real wolves - and what are clearly many sheep dogs doubling for wolves - are plentiful. I liked the transformation effects, even though they’re hokey.

For its genre appeal, cult status, and 80s nostalgia, I’m giving “The Company of Wolves” an 9/10. Not trying to overhype this one, as it’s a small, sometimes haphazard movie that just happens to check a lot of boxes on my personal score card. I won’t offer a general rating, as the movie is very 80s in presentation and may have only niche appeal to fantasy geeks.

I wish I had seen “The Company of Wolves” in its day. Like Coppola’s “The Outsiders” (a very good but not great movie that I watched at an impressionable age), I would cherish it now like a vintage wine. Gave me the feels.

 

[Fantomas]

63 Up (2019) Directed by Michael Apted (documentary) 8B

In 1964, director Michael Apted released the first film in this series, 7 Up. The movie borrows its central premise from Aristotle (or maybe St. Ignatius of Loyola. There is some debate): "Give me a child for 7 years and I will show you the man." In the original film, Apted interviews fourteen British 7-year-olds from all walks of life and they talk about their dreams and expectations. Since then, every 7 years Apted releases another film--14 Up; 21 Up; 28 Up; and so on--updating these individuals' lives, almost all of whom have continued to participate in this ongoing project. 63 Up is the ninth installment and for viewers like myself who have followed the series from its inception, it is like running into a bunch of old acquaintances and finding out what kind of hand life has dealt them since I saw them last. Some have done wonderfully; some have had great hardship; one has died--but whatever the case, I can still see in each of them a healthy portion of that 7-year-old who I first met all those decades ago. In fact, it is astonishing to see how much of one's life is determined at such an early age. While each documentary provides enough back story to be a stand-alone film, it helps if you have seen at least the first film of the series. But the Up series represents a fascinating idea extremely well-executed. Anyone with even a mild interest in other human beings should find this film and the others well worth exploring.

I saw this just recently and enjoyed as well. Have been watching these installments since 49-Up came out.

One of the criticisms I hear often of the series is that the folks featured did not grow up to become the most interesting people. But I think they're interesting and pleasant enough, and every one quite engaging and articulate. And different from one another.

It was also neat (and depressing) to hear a few of them remark on the decline of UK's social welfare, and how it was easier - particularly for women - to get assistance with childcare and employment when they were young (in the 70s). UK's future looks pretty bleak to me.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Little Women - 9.5/10

Between this and Uncut Gems, what a weekend!

 

[Howard Beale]

63 Up (2019) Directed by Michael Apted (documentary) 8B

In 1964, director Michael Apted released the first film in this series, 7 Up. The movie borrows its central premise from Aristotle (or maybe St. Ignatius of Loyola. There is some debate): "Give me a child for 7 years and I will show you the man." In the original film, Apted interviews fourteen British 7-year-olds from all walks of life and they talk about their dreams and expectations. Since then, every 7 years Apted releases another film--14 Up; 21 Up; 28 Up; and so on--updating these individuals' lives, almost all of whom have continued to participate in this ongoing project. 63 Up is the ninth installment and for viewers like myself who have followed the series from its inception, it is like running into a bunch of old acquaintances and finding out what kind of hand life has dealt them since I saw them last. Some have done wonderfully; some have had great hardship; one has died--but whatever the case, I can still see in each of them a healthy portion of that 7-year-old who I first met all those decades ago. In fact, it is astonishing to see how much of one's life is determined at such an early age. While each documentary provides enough back story to be a stand-alone film, it helps if you have seen at least the first film of the series. But the Up series represents a fascinating idea extremely well-executed. Anyone with even a mild interest in other human beings should find this film and the others well worth exploring.

Would you recommend going back and watching them all, starting from 7 Up?

Or perhaps it's a better idea to just watch the latest one, and then decide whether it's worth going back and starting from the beginning?

 

[kihei]

Would you recommend going back and watching them all, starting from 7 Up?

Or perhaps it's a better idea to just watch the latest one, and then decide whether it's worth going back and starting from the beginning?

I'd suggest watching 7 Up first, and then the latest one, 63 Up. Which may be enough. But, if your interest continues after watching those two, go back to 14 Up and proceed in chronological order. After the first two, though, I would spread subsequent chapters out over some significant time period so as not to get bored with the format.

 

[kihei]

Little Women - 9.5/10

Between this and Uncut Gems, what a weekend!

Proceed to 1917 and hit the trifecta.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Proceed to 1917 and hit the trifecta.

Later this week (doesn’t release here until Thursday night). Can’t wait!

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

"Marriage Story" was pretty good. One of those movies where the whole ends up being greater than the sum of its parts. The two leads are good, Driver in particular, but unfortunately every other character is just a stock stereotype. There's also one eye-roll moment that felt like it came from a different movie.

Hard not to compare it to something like "Before Midnight," which I thought had a way more natural feel to it. Marriage Story doesn't really have many surprises in store, both in the large-scale sense and within individual scenes themselves. You kind of know where everything is going, for the most part, save for one scene late in the game with Driver, that, surprise surprise, turns out to be maybe the most memorable scene from the movie, partly because it comes out of left field.

Anyway, still worth checking out, but I was hoping for something with a little less calculated of a feel.

 

[kihei]

Marriage Story" was pretty good. One of those movies where the whole ends up being greater than the sum of its parts. The two leads are good, Driver in particular, but unfortunately every other character is just a stock stereotype. There's also one eye-roll moment that felt like it came from a different movie.

Hard not to compare it to something like "Before Midnight," which I thought had a way more natural feel to it. Marriage Story doesn't really have many surprises in store, both in the large-scale sense and within individuals scenes themselves. You kind of know where everything is going, for the most part, save for one scene late in the game with Driver, that, surprise surprise, turns out to be maybe the most memorable scene from the movie, partly because it comes out of left field.

Anyway, still worth checking out, but I was hoping for something with a little less calculated of a feel.

I liked it a lot initially, but then took my partner to it and all the flaws you pointed out became obvious on second viewing. Fine performance by Driver, but your comparison to Before Midnight is really telling. It made me realize how less convincing and insightful A Marriage Story is.

 

[Trap Jesus]

I'm surprised at so much negative reaction to Marriage Story. It's dealing with subject matter that can just inherently come across as sappy and contrived but I don't think it ever swayed too far in that direction. The opening monologues had me a bit worried, but they turn that on its head pretty quickly. I think the caricature-like performances by Dern and Liotta worked so well because of the juxtaposition vs. the 2 more subtle performances by the leads. It's just showing a heightened sense of the ugliness that can be prevalent in the legal aspect of divorce, it doesn't need to be super realistic.

The main reason I loved it so much though was because of how funny it was. It packs in a lot of heart, but I honestly think this may have been the funniest movie I've seen since maybe The Nice Guys in 2016. Widely released straight up comedies don't really exist anymore, and the ones that do don't hold my attention at all (last one I'd consider decent was probably Game Night), so the funniest movies I see are never labeled or thought of as straight up comedies. This movie was packed with character humor (Liotta, Dern, ScarJo's mom and sister, court-appointed evaluator), commentary on divorce, and situational humor. Driver has a comedic background and I thought he did such a good job at being subtly hilarious throughout. Honestly, the knife scene could have been straight out of There's Something About Mary or something, yet somehow it still worked perfectly in a divorce drama. That is insanely difficult to pull off convincingly.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Had other viewing plans for the weekend, but have been so enamored with the 70s sci-fi collection I came across (plugged in a previous post about Death Race 2000) that I spent my non-angry-sports-watching time consuming these “gems” of varying and debatable quality. It’s been a very Goldilocks like quest for me thus far. This movie’s too hot, this movie’s too cold, but interesting to consume in bunches.

The Terminal Man. Based on the Michael Crichton novel, it’s a pretty solid story: Man has violent blackouts, turns to science for a cure. Mike Hodges (Get Carter, Croupier, Flash Gordon) is a director I’ve always kinda dug and he does good work here. The first half is a slow burn. Talk of the procedure, showing the procedure, initial evaluation of the procedure. I thought it was pretty gripping and Hodges stages things well. Things go wrong (of course they do!) and that’s where the movie takes a fatal turn. George Segal is the lead and while he’s fine in the first half, just when the story demands more of him, he fails miserably. Been a while since I’ve seen actor’s performance submarine an otherwise solid movie this badly. Especially funny since he really is fine for half of it.

THX-1138. George Lucas’ debut. Classic dystopian stuff, straight from likes of Burgess or Huxley or Orwell. Big brother, loss of humanity, sedation drugs. I’ll start with the negatives. It’s a bit of a dour slog. Kinda lifeless. Hard to generate much feeling with characters who are engineered flat by the very story they’re in. An always game Donald Pleasance injects a little life, but not much. Positives: This thing looks great. This is going to sound flip though I don’t mean it too — Lucas has to be one cinema’s great conceivers of hallways and corridors. The overwhelming use of white. He does so much conceptually simply with props and set design. It’s a distinct vision and some capital D Direction though unfortunately the story doesn’t support it. The guy had some chops. It’s easy to forget that now after the prequels and write off his early work as maybe a bit lucky. Good with ideas, but bad with execution. This is Lucas the idealistic film school nerd and it’s fascinating to imagine an alternative career for him had this been successful. Would Star Wars have happened and would it have happened the way it did? Was there a Kubrickian unlived life here?

God Told Me To. On the surface and for much of its actual run time it doesn’t really fit or feel like a sci-fi movie. But then when it gets sci-fi, it gets real sci-fi. I’ll spare a plot recap because it’s an interesting mash-up of a few genres and despite being decades old, if you can see it with an empty mind, I encourage you to do so. Ahhh Larry Cohen (RIP, 2019) one of cinema’s great el-cheapo schlock masters. Not quite as revered as a Roger Corman, but much more going on than a guy like Charlie Band. There are actual interesting ideas here within its nutso story that are far bigger than something like this probably deserves. Not particularly well acted and I’m not confident it FULLY works, but I’m still pawing it around in my brain and that’s got to count for something, right?

The Ultimate Warrior. I’m not still pawing this one around. Pretty disposable post-apocalyptic yarn about rival clans in a bombed out NYC. Max von Sydow leads the good guys and recruits a mysterious stranger played by Yul Brynner to help. Story is very The Road Warrior, but instead of loud, badass cars and gas tankers you get a lot of talking and a rooftop tomato farm. Yep, that is as exciting as it sounds. The world building is cool, but overall it’s fairly forgettable. Von Sydow has his gravitas and Brynner does his Brynner things if that appeals to you. It's neither good nor bad and not even bad-good. Director did a couple of Bruce Lee movies and Gymkata as well. I’ll never miss a chance to plug Gymkata.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Killer of Sheep (1978) - I had been looking for this one for a long time. It was worth the wait although I think the film's hype and mystique might have upped my expectations just a tiny wee bit. What a gorgeous film, though. For a movie without a plot, I was impressed by its story-telling abilities. It is not an ambitious affair - the film revolves around a few moments in the life of Stan, a father and factory worker in Watts whose dignity is never at stake but who nonetheless struggles with its upkeep - and Burnett looks to concentrate more on its presentation and effective content over dazzle (but dazzle it does) or flash and complexity. The pacing and editing is a little janky at times but I don't think this is due on any flaw of the director instead of simply a lack of money. Delicate in its delivery despite its harsh themes, I loved the intimate presence it communicates. Like the best of films, I got the sense that the film was speaking to me only. I loved it. It's a shame though - this movie is the finest example I can think of when it comes to simultaneously showing how much more money can help a film while also being a beautiful example of how to do more with less. Burnett's eye for angles and poetry in motion are first-rate. It's not surprising he didn't need many words to make such a beautiful film. A great achievement.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I'm surprised at so much negative reaction to Marriage Story. It's dealing with subject matter that can just inherently come across as sappy and contrived but I don't think it ever swayed too far in that direction. The opening monologues had me a bit worried, but they turn that on its head pretty quickly. I think the caricature-like performances by Dern and Liotta worked so well because of the juxtaposition vs. the 2 more subtle performances by the leads. It's just showing a heightened sense of the ugliness that can be prevalent in the legal aspect of divorce, it doesn't need to be super realistic.

The main reason I loved it so much though was because of how funny it was. It packs in a lot of heart, but I honestly think this may have been the funniest movie I've seen since maybe The Nice Guys in 2016. Widely released straight up comedies don't really exist anymore, and the ones that do don't hold my attention at all (last one I'd consider decent was probably Game Night), so the funniest movies I see are never labeled or thought of as straight up comedies. This movie was packed with character humor (Liotta, Dern, ScarJo's mom and sister, court-appointed evaluator), commentary on divorce, and situational humor. Driver has a comedic background and I thought he did such a good job at being subtly hilarious throughout. Honestly, the knife scene could have been straight out of There's Something About Mary or something, yet somehow it still worked perfectly in a divorce drama. That is insanely difficult to pull off convincingly.

I won't go back to my earlier comments on the film, but I think there's a layer more to Marriage Story than there is to Before Midnight. I love the Linklater trilogy, and these two films I'd probably rate approximately equal (Before Sunset (*edit*) being the higher point), but I don't think the comparison is worth a lot of ink if realism/naturalism is the basis, something I think Marriage Story only partialy aims at.

God Told Me To. On the surface and for much of its actual run time it doesn’t really fit or feel like a sci-fi movie. But then when it gets sci-fi, it gets real sci-fi. I’ll spare a plot recap because it’s an interesting mash-up of a few genres and despite being decades old, if you can see it with an empty mind, I encourage you to do so. Ahhh Larry Cohen (RIP, 2019) one of cinema’s great el-cheapo schlock masters. Not quite as revered as a Roger Corman, but much more going on than a guy like Charlie Band. There are actual interesting ideas here within its nutso story that are far bigger than something like this probably deserves. Not particularly well acted and I’m not confident it FULLY works, but I’m still pawing it around in my brain and that’s got to count for something, right?

I like this one quite a bit. I think it makes for a very nice double header with Bogdanovich's Targets. It's been a while, I think I'm due.

I’ll never miss a chance to plug Gymkata.

As we all should!!