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

Spring in Fialta

A malign star kept him
Apr 1, 2007
25,085
14,267
Montreal, QC
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 Sunrise 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.



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.



As we all should!!

I love the entire trilogy but I think Before Sunset is a clear couple of notches above both Sunrise and Midnight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Howard Beale

Pranzo Oltranzista

Registered User
Oct 18, 2017
3,826
2,673
I love the entire trilogy but I think Before Sunset is a clear couple of notches above both Sunrise and Midnight.

Oh shit, my bad, you are absolutely right, that's what I wanted to post. Before Sunrise is actually the weakest link of the trilogy!
 

OhCaptainMyCaptain

Registered User
May 5, 2014
22,170
2,279
Earth
Dunkirk - 8/10

I've seen this complaint with this movie, but my biggest complaint would be the lack of emotional attachment to the characters. Liked the story and the technical aspects, but wish there was just more connection to some of the characters. Also slightly confusing to a point, but I always expect that with the first viewing of a Nolan movie. Lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NyQuil

NyQuil

Big F$&*in Q
Jan 5, 2005
95,345
59,247
Ottawa, ON
Dunkirk - 8/10

I've seen this complaint with this movie, but my biggest complaint would be the lack of emotional attachment to the characters. Liked the story and the technical aspects, but wish there was just more connection to some of the characters. Also slightly confusing to a point, but I always expect that with the first viewing of a Nolan movie. Lol.

I had the same criticism.

Obviously the small boat had the most emotional moments but the need to cover so much ground across different timelines made that difficult with the jarring shifting of viewpoints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OhCaptainMyCaptain

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
11,845
6,289
North by Northwest (1959) by Alfred Hitchcock – 7.75/10

Pretty good film, although sometimes a bit phony in the edges. Not surprised reading afterwards some chunks of the script was spitballed/patch-worked between screenwriter/director. The auction scene was hilarious, senior edler had a few good laughs at that one.
 

Trap Jesus

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
28,686
13,456
I saw The Two Popes. I think it's a well made enough movie, it's just extremely boring. Still, I commend them for doing what they could with the pacing. Like it's a really simply told story that trims out all the fat, and you're just left with a handful of long conversations that are critical to the dynamic between the two. I did quite like the performances by the two leads, and thought they fed off each other very well. There was a clear arc between them for their relationship, even if it was a bit sappy.

I thought there were some odd camera movements in this. Out of nowhere in the middle of their long conversations they'll do these weird, frenetic zooms for closeups of their faces. I couldn't help but think of something like Good Time or something lmao (not near that level of consistency, but just every once in a while, which made it stand out more).* Considering the subject matter, it could not have been more jarring to me.

* 18 seconds in is the kind of zoom I'm talking about



My main problem though, which I think will be the same for a lot of people, is that it just felt like it was pandering to the Church, which I couldn't stop thinking about while I was watching it. It took the approach of "look, we're realizing that we have flaws" but they aren't going in depth on anything, or are just completely glossing over different things. I know the director of City of God did this (one of my favorite movies of all time), but like I don't know how much input the Church itself had. I just know they supported this movie, which makes a lot of sense to me.
 
Last edited:

OhCaptainMyCaptain

Registered User
May 5, 2014
22,170
2,279
Earth
I saw The Two Popes. I think it's a well made enough movie, it's just extremely boring. Still, I commend them for doing what they could with the pacing. Like it's a really simply told story that trims out all the fat, and you're just left with a handful of long conversations that are critical to the dynamic between the two. I did quite like the performances by the two leads, and thought they fed off each other very well. There was a clear arc between them for their relationship, even if it was a bit sappy.

I thought there were some odd camera movements in this. Out of nowhere in the middle of their long conversations they'll do these weird, frenetic zooms for closeups of their faces. I couldn't help but think of something like Good Time or something lmao (not near that level of consistency, but just every once in a while, which made it stand out more).* Considering the subject matter, it could not have been more jarring to me.

* 18 seconds in is the kind of zoom I'm talking about



My main problem though, which I think will be the same for a lot of people, is that it just felt like it was pandering to the Church, which I couldn't stop thinking about while I was watching it. It took the approach of "look, we're realizing that we have flaws" but they aren't going in depth on anything, or are just completely glossing over different things. I know the director of City of God did this (one of my favorite movies of all time), but like I don't know how much input the Church itself had. I just know they supported this movie, which makes a lot of sense to me.


My only real complaint with this movie was the flashbacks. I really liked everything between the two popes, but I thought some of the flashbacks took a bit too long at times. They were purposeful, but I thought they could have been shortened and still had the same impact.
 

PK Cronin

Bailey Fan Club Prez
Feb 11, 2013
33,827
23,184
Just re-watched Daybreakers with Ethan Hawke and Willem Dafoe. I had completely forgotten about this movie. The only strong area of this movie was the set pieces and the little details. Everything else was a little boring/generic. The acting wasn't particularly good either.
 

Pattysaurus

Registered User
Oct 28, 2007
2,112
37
New York
Watched The Two Popes last night and found it pretty enjoyable because of both Pryce and Hopkins. I do agree that there were some odd camera movements. Also agree the flashbacks could've been cut down a little, as well.
 

Pranzo Oltranzista

Registered User
Oct 18, 2017
3,826
2,673
My main problem though, which I think will be the same for a lot of people, is that it just felt like it was pandering to the Church, which I couldn't stop thinking about while I was watching it. It took the approach of "look, we're realizing that we have flaws"

Every once in a blue moon, they realize their positions are Pejorative Slured and change superficial stuff, which only makes the whole thing more ridiculous. I think they kind of admitted that the world might not have been created in six days, but will stick that their guy walked on water, at some point they will probably admit that condoms aren't an evil thing, give them a few dozen years. Not a lot of people despise the whole thing as much as I do, but I can't really fault the movie for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kihei

ItsFineImFine

Registered User
Aug 11, 2019
3,534
2,263
The Lighthouse (2019) - 7/10 - One of those films that I got through for the sake of getting through and I admire but I can't say I enjoy it. Just like in Mickey and Nicky, I don't like this type of antagonistic film and the abstract drunkenness doesn't really help.

The Sun Is Also A Star (2019) - 4/10 - Not only did I have to sit through this awful teen shit, I had to watch it on a TV with motion smoothing with a relative who doesn't know what motion smoothing is or even knew that it was on. Watch The Other Side of Hope or The Visitor for a non-shitty version of a movie about someone who shouldn't be deported facing deportation.

The Limey (1999) - 7/10 - The weird cuts detract from the film, the over the top cockney accent and terminology is a bit laughable, but it has that cool 90s crime flick feel that's consistently entertaining.

The Lady Eve (1941) - 6/10 - It was fine, All About Eve is much better, Fonda is a bit pathetic to watch here but Barbara Stanwyck is very good. I should see more of her lighter films as I only remember her from the more serious but far better Double Indemnity

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood (2019) - 7.5/10 - I like aimless films that are fun but it wasn't always that fun, it was fine.

The Swimmer (1968) - 7/10 - I honestly preferred the dreamlike state of the first half compared to the more tangible coming apart second half.

The Devil & Daniel Webster (1941) - 6/10 - Starts well ends poorly. Good concept bad execution at times, also putting the devil on trial in a court of law...just weird and dumb.

The Farewell (2019) - 7.5/10 - It was pretty good, I felt sad but then I didn't.

Match Point (2005) - 6.5/10 - Really exhausting to watch. The emotional toll from seeing a guy potentially get caught cheating but then not get caught and for this to go on constantly is tiring, I ended up reading ahead on the plot before seeing the rest of the film which is not something I've done in 10+ years. Not very Woody Allen-esque at all sadly.

Star Wars Episode 9: The Rise of Skywalker (2019) - 6/10 - The more I think about it, the worse it gets so I try not to think too much about it. Enjoyed it somewhat in the theatre while also rolling my eyes, hope to never watch it again.

Blow Out (1981) - 7/10 - Great mood, great setup, dumb everything else and it gets dumber as it goes along.

Day of Wrath (1943) - 7/10 - Danish film not as good as the classic Ordet, the spiritual crisis feels more superficial and the directing is cheaper

The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (1933) - 7.5/10 - Really impressive for an early talkie but not as good as Lang's M. The mystery is better than the reveal, everything here is very good while Dr Mabuse is more of a sinister background character.
 

Finlandia WOAT

js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
May 23, 2010
24,134
23,681
Uncut Gems
The shocking thing about the movie isn't what goes wrong for Howard. It's how much goes right. Scene after scene you sit and think this is going to follow the normal dramatic formula of escalation, buildup and payoff- but it sets up Howard to fall only to yank him right out of the fire and give him a Happy Meal for his troubles. For example, the person I saw this with and I both conferred and agreed a certain scene was staged to give a certain impression- yet it is played entirely straight and within Howard's control!

The scene where he's hiding in Julies closet and texting her. We thought the punchline was going to be that she was cheating on him- but its completely straight! There's also how his final bet goes perfectly, up until he gets shot- I thought that was gonna blow up in his face the entire time! He loses at the last minute; Julie absconds with the money; the creepy guy steals/harms Julie
I think Howard's problem isn't an addiction to the rush of gambling per sw, though he literally gets off on it at one point, but that desire for control (which is why said ejaculation isn't to the danger, but the realization he won). He's small fry who desperately wants to feel like King of the World, Cream of the Crop, God, etc., which is why he doesn't just bet 20$ or 20,000$ on the Celtics to win- he makes profoundly stupid bets and dares fate/destiny/God to strike him down. It's in his speech to Kevin Garnett- who does an AMAZING job of acting like a millionaire athlete stuck in coach next to some crazy mofo- he wants to win BIG, he wants to know he walked the line and came out on TOP.

He kind of comes off like a psychopath. The kind of guy who goes Defcon 1 when he learns his mistress may or may not have cheated on him with The Weeknd (like c'mon dude, take you're eskimo brothers with that angelic cokehead and move on) but then cheesily tries to convince his estranged wife to stay with him (she's divorcing him because of said cheating) after a Passover where they don't physically attack each other (note: they did not interact once until the scene where Adam Sandler asked his wife to stay).

Speaking of, where has this Adam Sandler been??? Why did he make Jack and Jill? Why did he make Pixels???? I can't see anyone but him playing this role, which is about as much a gentile can ask of an actor, imo. Give him an oscar just so the next piece of **** he puts out all the reviewers have to say "Oscar winner Adam Sandler's latest bowel movement".

Annihilation
I am not a psychiatrist. These opinions are my own.
The thing I feel this gets right about depression/self destruction is that these patterns can become the status quo for a person. The human brain is naturally conservative and resistant to change past the age of [redacted], your ego demands an adherence to currently establishes patterns of behavior because that is what you know. Even if those patterns of behavior are self-destructive and will eventually lead to.... This is why Natalie Portman
kiboshes her marriage and hurts her career in the same stroke by sleeping with a coworker
Because what she knows is hating herself. Sometimes people don't drink to their detriment because they're depressed and that's the only thing that helps, it's because the state of being depressed is what they know, and the drinking is an excuse to stay there because it is to their detriment. If your superego is out of whack and telling you you suck all the time, this is probably why.

Anyway, Natalie Portman
survives the movie because she's the only one able to resist the literal cancer/metaphoric forced change on a stalwart Earth and come out in her status quo. She was miserable because she thought she had gotten her husband killed, which is where she wanted to be (I base this on the structure of information revealed: we see her f***ing her co-worker, with the knowledge that hubby was gone for 12 months. Oh, you think, she's lonely and wants to cope with her loss. Then then twist: not only was it before he left, it was what sent him into the Shimmer in the first place!). So her learning that her husband didn't come back is metaphorically what allows her to survive because she can then return to her self-annihilating tendencies. How do the others function when their ossified self-annihilation is tested?
-One submits to her fate
-One gives up
-One runs away
-One is mauled by a bear (bear=Canada=Justin Trudeau....we're through the looking glass people)

The ending: the thing is, the Greeks didn't come up with the 3/5 story structure by accident. It's human to desire a catharsis to our problems, a climax and then a resolution, a change. And it's why the person who drinks alcohol to his detriment can do so in a neverending string of "This is my last time!"- because that is catharsis in place of conflict: by which I mean, you don't deal with alcoholism/trauma/ self-annihilation by catharsis, ie the 3rd act, ie the resolution, ie the end, but by recognizing its the second, the impetus of change. Basically, AA is right in a sense, to live with this shit is to live with it forever- which is the ending, an explicit denial of catharsis, the insight that allows genuine change to occur.
Under the Shadow
Took a while to get going, but then it got going. After a certain point every time the camera cut away from the daughter (coincided with the Mom looked away from, surely just a coincidence) I wanted to throw my XBox controller at my TV. A wonderful little horror film that seamlessly combines the conflict of remaining steadfast, to the point of intentional ignorance, commitment to normal behavior in unusual times, and when change is simply the best damn option. By which I mean:

That mom doesn't get her kid out of the warzone until ghosts start threatening to steal the child. Which is why I'm partial to the theory- that I just made up, not that no one else has ever come up with the obvious- that the ghost is the Mom's dead mother, trying to get her daughter away from SCUD targeted Tehran. If for no other reason than it explains the opening of Mom wanting to be a doctor because her mother died
 
Last edited:

OhCaptainMyCaptain

Registered User
May 5, 2014
22,170
2,279
Earth
Dunkirk - 8/10

I've seen this complaint with this movie, but my biggest complaint would be the lack of emotional attachment to the characters. Liked the story and the technical aspects, but wish there was just more connection to some of the characters. Also slightly confusing to a point, but I always expect that with the first viewing of a Nolan movie. Lol.

Re-watched this with a bigger TV and surround sound, and that definitely enhances the experience. It was for sure meant to be watched that way (or, more accurately, in the theaters, but I didn't have that luxury). The story also hits a little harder when you have a better grasp on what Nolan is doing with the timeline. Still would say the lack of an emotional connection hurts the film a little, but it did get better on the second viewing for me.
 

OhCaptainMyCaptain

Registered User
May 5, 2014
22,170
2,279
Earth
Sorry to keep speaking of Dunkirk, but do you suppose not focusing or trying to attach us to one character is a point being made by Nolan? That point being that not one solider or person is important, but it's about the entirety of the group? Or am I reading too far into it?

Curious what others think about that.
 

PK Cronin

Bailey Fan Club Prez
Feb 11, 2013
33,827
23,184
Sorry to keep speaking of Dunkirk, but do you suppose not focusing or trying to attach us to one character is a point being made by Nolan? That point being that not one solider or person is important, but it's about the entirety of the group? Or am I reading too far into it?

Curious what others think about that.

I thought it was a mistake. The non-linear nature of the film without a connection to particular characters makes it harder to care about what is going to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OhCaptainMyCaptain

OhCaptainMyCaptain

Registered User
May 5, 2014
22,170
2,279
Earth
I thought it was a mistake. The non-linear nature of the film without a connection to particular characters makes it harder to care about what is going to happen.

That's fair. It's interesting. It seems he wanted it to be a movie about the moment and not necessarily the characters in the moments, but you risk exactly this. I did care what happened, but it definitely didn't have the same emotional impact.
 

PK Cronin

Bailey Fan Club Prez
Feb 11, 2013
33,827
23,184
Uncut Gems
The shocking thing about the movie isn't what goes wrong for Howard. It's how much goes right. Scene after scene you sit and think this is going to follow the normal dramatic formula of escalation, buildup and payoff- but it sets up Howard to fall only to yank him right out of the fire and give him a Happy Meal for his troubles. For example, the person I saw this with and I both conferred and agreed a certain scene was staged to give a certain impression- yet it is played entirely straight and within Howard's control!

The scene where he's hiding in Julies closet and texting her. We thought the punchline was going to be that she was cheating on him- but its completely straight! There's also how his final bet goes perfectly, up until he gets shot- I thought that was gonna blow up in his face the entire time! He loses at the last minute; Julie absconds with the money; the creepy guy steals/harms Julie
I think Howard's problem isn't an addiction to the rush of gambling per sw, though he literally gets off on it at one point, but that desire for control (which is why said ejaculation isn't to the danger, but the realization he won). He's small fry who desperately wants to feel like King of the World, Cream of the Crop, God, etc., which is why he doesn't just bet 20$ or 20,000$ on the Celtics to win- he makes profoundly stupid bets and dares fate/destiny/God to strike him down. It's in his speech to Kevin Garnett- who does an AMAZING job of acting like a millionaire athlete stuck in coach next to some crazy mofo- he wants to win BIG, he wants to know he walked the line and came out on TOP.

He kind of comes off like a psychopath. The kind of guy who goes Defcon 1 when he learns his mistress may or may not have cheated on him with The Weeknd (like c'mon dude, take you're eskimo brothers with that angelic cokehead and move on) but then cheesily tries to convince his estranged wife to stay with him (she's divorcing him because of said cheating) after a Passover where they don't physically attack each other (note: they did not interact once until the scene where Adam Sandler asked his wife to stay).

Speaking of, where has this Adam Sandler been??? Why did he make Jack and Jill? Why did he make Pixels???? I can't see anyone but him playing this role, which is about as much a gentile can ask of an actor, imo. Give him an oscar just so the next piece of **** he puts out all the reviewers have to say "Oscar winner Adam Sandler's latest bowel movement".

I thought they did a really good job with the misdirection as well. It happened a few times throughout the movie, but I could see how it might irritate certain viewers.

To your point about the final bed,

I thought they did a nice job setting that up with the bet he made to Francesa that would've won him a ton of money if Arno didn't stop the bet, because he got the bet right but didn't get a payout. Then they showed you his miscalculation with the gem and the price, so he takes a massive loss. The entire film is him making a smart decision followed by a really dumb one or an unfortunate event. You really had no idea where it'd go. You're absolutely right that he's addicted to being a somebody, but his gambling is definitely a part of that and they show how much influence it has in his life when they show his son gambling as well. The final bet was the ultimate demonstration of even when things go right for Howard, they ultimately end up poorly.
 

PK Cronin

Bailey Fan Club Prez
Feb 11, 2013
33,827
23,184
That's fair. It's interesting. It seems he wanted it to be a movie about the moment and not necessarily the characters in the moments, but you risk exactly this. I did care what happened, but it definitely didn't have the same emotional impact.

It's been a while since I watched it, but I don't remember the non-linear story adding much of anything. Did you think it created more tension or more confusion?
 

Pranzo Oltranzista

Registered User
Oct 18, 2017
3,826
2,673
Sorry to keep speaking of Dunkirk, but do you suppose not focusing or trying to attach us to one character is a point being made by Nolan? That point being that not one solider or person is important, but it's about the entirety of the group? Or am I reading too far into it?

Curious what others think about that.

I don't think much of it, but this will be of interest to you:

A film can work without a strong audience bond to a main character, but the price paid lies in a diminished impression of any deeper meaning.
https://scriptmag.com/features/storytelling-strategies-dunkirk-finely-tuned-watch

As for your proposition, it is certainly a valid one. You could add that the confusion, and loss of time references is adding to the experience. Interpretation is in the viewer and not in the film and I think you can go and articulate quite a few different interesting interpretations of a single work, if you're exhaustive enough to make them stand. I just don't think there's really much to it here. I said in another thread that Nolan built his films on gimmicks, and that to me is just one of them. It's a good film, it could have been a great film if there was meat on this bone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OhCaptainMyCaptain

Smelling Salt

Busey is life
Mar 8, 2006
6,955
3,375
Winnipeg
The Snowman

1/10, with the 1 being for some gorgeous long shots of winter landscapes.

I've read half a dozen of Jo Nesbo's books. I'd rate them as average thrillers.

The movie for this particular book is absolute garbage. Seemingly random scenes just stitched together leading to zero flow. It's absolutely jarring. Awful editing.

I understand Val Kilmer was ill during filming and that's unfortunate for him (I like Val), but his scenes were very uncomfortable and his dialogue obviously punched in. Why was Chloe Sevingy even in this movie? Was there any reason for her to be chopping heads off of chickens in her 5 minutes (or even less) of screen time? They could have pulled someone off the street to play this part. JK Simmons what were you thinking being in this movie? I can understand Fassbender since he is the lead, but Simmons isn't in the movie a whole lot and he's better than this.

How are attackers not seen in an empty room before they attack?

Pretty good cast in this one, but awful direction and the plot was just nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Violenza Domestica

OhCaptainMyCaptain

Registered User
May 5, 2014
22,170
2,279
Earth
It's been a while since I watched it, but I don't remember the non-linear story adding much of anything. Did you think it created more tension or more confusion?

I thought the non-linear story added more the second viewing, once you finally had a better grasp of what was going on. It seems to be that way with a lot of Nolan films. Not sure if that's good or bad, but his movies do seem to get better with age, at least for me.
 

OhCaptainMyCaptain

Registered User
May 5, 2014
22,170
2,279
Earth
I don't think much of it, but this will be of interest to you:

A film can work without a strong audience bond to a main character, but the price paid lies in a diminished impression of any deeper meaning.
https://scriptmag.com/features/storytelling-strategies-dunkirk-finely-tuned-watch

As for your proposition, it is certainly a valid one. You could add that the confusion, and loss of time references is adding to the experience. Interpretation is in the viewer and not in the film and I think you can go and articulate quite a few different interesting interpretations of a single work, if you're exhaustive enough to make them stand. I just don't think there's really much to it here. I said in another thread that Nolan built his films on gimmicks, and that to me is just one of them. It's a good film, it could have been a great film if there was meat on this bone.

A fair criticism, I would say. It's certainly an interesting film where I can see people getting all kinds of different experiences from.
 

PK Cronin

Bailey Fan Club Prez
Feb 11, 2013
33,827
23,184
I thought the non-linear story added more the second viewing, once you finally had a better grasp of what was going on. It seems to be that way with a lot of Nolan films. Not sure if that's good or bad, but his movies do seem to get better with age, at least for me.

It's weird, I never found the other movies of his to be hard to follow or figure out as they went. Some had twists or turns that I wasn't necessarily expecting, but it only added to the films. Inception is the only where I didn't enjoy subsequent viewings as much. That wasn't because it was complex or hard to understand the first time, it was because the more you watch a movie like that the more holes you find in the plot.

Maybe I'll give Dunkirk another go.
 

Ralph Spoilsport

Registered User
Jun 4, 2011
1,234
426
Dunkirk featured a non-linear narrative structure?

Okay then. There have been articles written about it (well, at least one article anyway) so I'm not disputing it. I just don't remember it being a noteworthy element. Unless I missed something, I just assumed the story lines were unfolding more or less concurrently. Maybe I'm misremembering. :dunno:

I think the lack of a star as our emotional focal point just added to the sense of chaos and confusion on the ground and gave the film a more convincing "you-are-there" realism.
 

OhCaptainMyCaptain

Registered User
May 5, 2014
22,170
2,279
Earth
Dunkirk featured a non-linear narrative structure?

Okay then. There have been articles written about it (well, at least one article anyway) so I'm not disputing it. I just don't remember it being a noteworthy element. Unless I missed something, I just assumed the story lines were unfolding more or less concurrently. Maybe I'm misremembering. :dunno:

I think the lack of a star as our emotional focal point just added to the sense of chaos and confusion on the ground and gave the film a more convincing "you-are-there" realism.

Yeah, it's non-linear. The events at The Mole take place over a week, I believe; the travel by sea takes place over an hour; and the airplane stuff takes place over the course of an hour. It eventually ties itself together at the end.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->