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

[Osprey]

Gemini Man (2019) - 3/10 (Really disliked it)

The Marines' best sniper (Will Smith) is targeted by another hitman who bears a resemblance to him. I usually try not to make declarations, but this movie is bad. It may not be quite as bad as Smith's After Earth, but it's not far off. The dialogue is terrible and Smith's acting is cringeworthy. The dialogue does him no favors, but Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Clive Owen manage to give decent performances in spite of it. The plot is simple and cliched. Supposedly, the film had been in development hell for 20 years, which makes sense because the plot feels as substantive as a 90s action movie. There are elements that don't make much sense, like how this sniper spends almost the whole movie not doing what he's best at (sniping), but running around as an assault and martial arts expert, how Will's doppleganger somehow didn't notice anything familiar about him despite fighting with him on adjacent motorcycles without helmets and how his agent sidekick outmuscles a hitman and shoots dozens of soldiers like a pro after telling him that she's never had anyone try to kill her before. It's also scientifically ridiculous and insulting to the viewer's intelligence.

Spoiler

The characters repeatedly say that Will's clone "is" him, as if that's what having the same DNA means. Try telling identical twins (especially those raised apart) that they're the same person. That could possibly be let slide as simply dramatic language, but, then, there's a crucial moment when Will surprises his clone by listing off a dozen things that were true of his 20-year-old self that must also be true of his clone, like the fact that he dislikes cilantro, is a chess player, likes puzzles, suffers from insomnia and is still a virgin... i.e. things that are mostly not genetic. The script actually suggests that clones develop and grow up exactly the same, with the same tastes, hobbies and choices, even when raised by different parents three decades apart.

Finally, I found the action scenes to be awfully fake looking, thanks to excessive CGI. They're shot by director Ang Lee in "Hong Kong" style, but are totally reliant on CGI instead of expert stunt work. Instead of being mesmerized by the action, I just kept thinking about how fake it all looked. In its defense, the movie does have a little bit of charm here and there, the visuals are occasionally nice and the characters are sort of likable... but it's just so subpar in too many other areas. If you just like Will Smith in anything and can grab the popcorn and turn your brain off completely, you may be able to get some enjoyment from this movie, but I couldn't.

Edit: I just noticed that David Benioff is responsible for this movie's story and screenplay. If he rushed the final season of GoT so that he could move on to projects like this...

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Mountain of the Cannibal God (Martino, 1978) - Sergio Martino attempting Cannibal Holocaust, with animal cruelty and all, and failing miserably. 2/10

Phantasm (Coscarelli, 1979) - Proof that with a little originaly and a huge commitment, you can make up for some lack of talent. Kind of amateurish, and with really dumb characters, but still a fun ride. I don't know much about Coscarelli, but he's an interesting character for sure... 4/10

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

1917 - 8.5/10

Not my favorite movie overall of the year, but man I adore some of the shots/sequences/scenes of this movie. One of them is probably my favorite of the year. I am wondering if I may feel a little different about this movie on my second watch, which I definitely plan to do at some point.

 

[Jussi]

ORRFForever no longer comes up as a user in searches, his profile returns an error and he was "last seen" on Dec 28th. Does anyone know what happened? Did he get banned?

Edit: No one knows, not even a mod? Oh well. RIP, ORRFForever. We hardly knew ye.

With his views on women for example, it would not be surprising he'd say something racist for example sooner or later. He sort of ticked all the wrong boxes.

Edit: could be he went too far in the Roenick thread(s).

 

[OzzyFan]

Burn After Reading
3.25 out of 4stars

A fun short comedy movie, albeit almost every character in the movie is self indulgent and acts mindlessly. That said, all the characters are fun in their own sort of way, Pitt was my favorite but all were great.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Blade Runner

Got a chance to see the Final Cut on the big screen. Impressive, stylistic, beautifully shot, wonderfully acted, and dull, dull, horribly dull. I changed my mind on whether Deckard is a replicant, he clearly is not, he reactions are muted and subtle, but they're there. Watch his eyes, they're constantly moving, observing, reacting, alive (thank you big cinema screen + 40k resolution). All the replicants have a sort of autistic aura about them, something doesn't seem quite right. Like Rachel's large, unchanging doe eyes or how she goes out into the street absurdly overdressed; how the snake lady doesn't react to an unknown man in her dressing room; how Leon or Roy drop cliched one-liners in their fight scenes, which beautifully pays off in the final scene of the film, moments will disappear like tears in rain. Tarkovsky said the purpose of art is to prepare us for death; Blade Runner is a film of a group of people facing their imminent demise against a man who hardly seems alive in comparison. It is one of the most pure renditions of that Tarkovsky quote I've seen and part of why it resonates 30 years later. It failed initially because most of the time you're waiting for stuff to happen. I can't believe Hollywood thought the audience wouldn't get the "plot" of this film. Harrison Ford is hunting down clones. Yeesh.

Side note: I wonder if the opening of Angel's Egg (1985) is a reference to Blade Runner (1982)



First 20 seconds.

 

[kihei]

Honeyland (2019) Directed by Ljubbomir Stefanov and Tamara Kotevska 7B

So whatcha think about curling up with your significant other and watching a movie about a near destitute beekeeper in remote North Macedonia as she struggles to care for her dying mother and overcome the moronic mistakes of a family of f***-ups who move in virtually next door and screw her beekeeping activities up royally? Pulse racing stuff, eh? Actually, if you can get into its slow but interestingly detailed rhythm--this is not life as you or any of the rest of us know it, not even remotely so, unless you are living in a location that has yet to emerge from the 16th century in any important way--Hatidze Muratova, the lonely, isolated beekeeper, becomes a character of some significant pluck and resilience. Safe to say there is not a character this side of Hungarian director Bela Tarr's harrowingly existential films anything like her. Honeyland is also a curiosity as it has been nominated for an Academy Award in two very different categories: best documentary which suggests non-fiction and best international film which suggests fiction. A narrative does eventually emerge about her hardship as well as her strength of spirit, making Hatidze, whose only modern vanity is that she likes to dye her hair, one of the more off-the-wall root-for heroines of the year. Untypical though this movie is, Honeyland has an audience approval rating of 87% on Rotten Tomatooes (99% from the critics) and an 8.2 rating on IMDb. I would have given its cinematography a third Academy Award nomination, as well.

subtitles but not many

 

[Mario Lemieux fan 66]

Little Women: 7.8/10 One of the best movie of the year. Gerwig should have been nominated over either Phillips or Tarantino.

I Lost My Body: 7.5/10 Great score and great animation but an open ending let down the movie big time for me.

Terminator Dark Fate: 6.5/10 below average movie.

The Lighthouse: a generous 6/10 not very good.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Let's see.... Tubi didn't have Phantasm II, which is probably the better one of the sequels, so I had to skip it.......

Phantasm III: Lord of the Dead (Coscarelli, 1994) - The first film is kind of a cult horror movie, and the first sequel was a fun ride with a lot more action and gore, better direction, comedy and slightly better acting. They kind of stay the course here, but for some reason go back to the lesser actor from the original film (who was a bad kid actor who grew into a terrible adult actor), maybe because James LeGros just didn't feel like doing that stuff over again. It really goes into every and any direction, and lands somewhere close to the 'any-of-this-could-be-a-dream' atmosphere of the Elm Street series, and to the humor tone of the Evil Dead films, just in way cheaper version. The characters make just as little sense as the movie itself. 3/10

Phantams IV: Oblivion (Coscarelli, 1998) - At some point, you gotta learn to quit. Makes me think that I still haven't seen Romero's Survival of the Dead... Coscarelli, who I maintain is an interesting character, doesn't even try here. The first three films have a lot of structural elements in common (with weirdly the same ending, an ending Wes Craven stole for his Nightmare on Elm Street, so it's basically 4 films with the same ending), but this one doesn't give a f***... Each of the sequels are in direct continuity with the previous film, and again, IV starts where III ended, but with an important character that disappeared from the film with no explanation and not a single mention, really really doesn't give a f***... it's bits & pieces of abandoned screenplays, mixed with important chunks of the original film that somehow got lost and was never used. So basically flashbacks and scenes that don't really match. 3/10

My rating system doesn't really allow me to differentiate between films that just 'do what they do' - it's no good, but not absolutely terrible - but III was still better than IV by quite a margin.

Phantasm: Ravager (Hartman, 2016) - Why this film exists is really beyond me. IMDB tells me filming started in 2008 as a spinoff TV series about one of the characters, and somehow ended as a 2016 feature film, again made of bits & pieces. It's a direct sequel to the IV, but the actor is 18 years older and is 71 y/o, so you've got a little bit of an Irishman situation here, without the acting talent (the previous films had some terrible acting, here it's abysmal). I think the new director (I guess Coscarelli understood) tries to make sense of the whole thing, and of course it was such a mess that the only viable common thread left was to imply the whole pentalogy was the delirium of a dying old man, which is not that satisfying and kind of an insult to - at least - the first film that still was a pretty original horror film. What was fun gore and effects in the second and third films end up here as terrible CGI that makes the Michael Ninn porn extravaganza look like James Cameron masterpieces. 1/10

 

[Trap Jesus]

I saw Knives Out. Well wasn't this just simply delightful. Really funny, engaging and kept you hooked all the way through. Numerous characters just really stood out in this (Ana de Armas and Daniel Craig in particular) and I had a vested interest in the outcome. I don't think it was anything earth-shattering or like completely unpredictable, but it was so enjoyable that it would still be right up there among my favorites of the year. I guess I don't have too much to say about it, but would wholly recommend it to anyone really.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

A Taxi Driver (2018) - 7/10 - Decent Korean film but a bit too Hollywood in the second half. Also apparently President Carter was the one responsible for providing the US military backing that incited the Korean crackdown on protestors.

Seven Days To May (1950) - 7.5/10 - A British gem, thriller with a really good premise (Seven Days to Noon (1950) - Criticker - Read Film Reviews and Rate This Film), fairly well-acted. Quite a cold film and very procedural but a good watch.

Closer (2004) - 7.5/10 - Some pretty goo dialogue here, the time jumps are idiotic, I think I've got a thing for Natalie Portman now.

Yesterday (2019) - 6/10 - Great promise uninteresting mainstream-ish execution

 

[Osprey]

Outlaw King (2018) - 7/10 (Really liked it)

In 14th century Scotland, Robert the Bruce (Chris Pine) launches a guerrilla war against the English. It's not as epic as Braveheart, but it's supposedly more historically accurate. I liked how little goes right for Robert for the majority of the movie. It feels like the rebellion could be quashed at any minute, as opposed to being unstoppable. I liked how authentic the visuals (settings, costumes, etc.) are, as well. I was also impressed by an 8-minute-long single take at the very start that involves dozens of extras, transitions from indoors to outdoors and back, closeup shots and a sword fight. This Netflix film isn't quite as good as The King, but it's still well worth watching if you like medieval historical dramas. Florence Pugh, who's up for an Oscar for Little Women, has a supporting role.

Good Boys (2019) - 6/10 (Liked it)

Three 12-year-old boys have a series of misadventures as they prepare to attend their first kissing party. I watched this in ORRFForever's honor and was confused because this "Seth Rogan crap" doesn't actually have Seth Rogan in it; he's only a minor producer. Anyways, it's a comedy about friendship and growing up, with obvious nods to Stranger Things. A lot of the humor involves the boys' youthful ignorance (ex. "I'm not a misogynist! I've never even given a massage!") and is clever and funny. I laughed out loud quite a bit, which is rare with modern comedies. I could've done without so much raunchy humor (including a lot of gags with sex toys), which was uncomfortable, given the ages of the boys. I would not watch this with the family, but it's a funny movie for adults nostalgic for their tween years.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

The American President (1995) - 7/10

5 minutes in: Nice this is just like the West Wing but with Michael Douglas as president.

45 minutes in: Wait a minute.....this is a 90s chick-flick!

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

War and Peace. The Russian one. The loooooong one. Took me a little more time to get through this than I had planned. Watched parts 1 & 2 in fairly close proximity, took a break before 3 and then a larger break before 4. Because of this, I have to confess I lost a little bit of the plot. At least I think I did. The whole thing is executed in somewhat of a dreamy manner I wasn't sure if my occasional bouts of confusion were self-inflicted or intentional. Might even be cultural, frankly. I could keep the core trio of characters straight, but beyond that names and faces started to blend together as the narrative progressed. One character I thought was dead wasn't then later I think he was. I think. There's a stretch in one movie that I thought might have been a flashback. It wasn't. Obviously hadn't read the source material either. I don't say any of this as a criticism of the movie(s), because again I'll concede there's a decent chance the fault may lie with me.

That's almost irrelevant though. The themes and the cultural significance, however, shine through clear. No misunderstanding there. Fascinating to contrast this with an American equivalent, Gone With the Wind being the most obvious parallel. Epic tales of love and loss amid the backdrop of war. Time marching on as privileged and proper society loses their hold and are confronted with harsher, harder realities. But while Scarlett O'Hara raises her fist to the sky defiantly with Atlanta burning down around her, Pierre seems more accepting of the suffering while Moscow burns. Also, while an invading Sherman burned Atlanta, the Russians set fire to Moscow ahead of an invading Napoleon. There's a level of defiance in both, but while the American version feels very physical, the Russian version is spiritual. Just one example, but certainly the most obvious. I also thought it was telling that while Russian defeat is shown in detail, a key military victory late in the story is presented almost as an afterthought. Somewhat like the British, it seems the loses are in some ways more important than the wins. Not America! We want wins, baby! Moral victories are for losers! (Yes, this is why soccer will never fully conquer the U.S.)

The real reason, however, to seek this out is the filmmaking. You like war? This series has multiple, massive battle sequences. Hell, the third movie is almost entirely a chaotic dive into battle, with very little character or story of which to speak. Massive is an understatement. This was the mid-1960s so everything there is real people, divisions mobilizing and moving across vast plains and hills and thanks to ample aerial photography you see much of this at full scale. It's breathtaking. The ground-level view is loud and dirty and confusing and really conveys the mess of it all. You can never quite tell who is winning or what is happening. But again the scope is really what sets this apart. You've seen chaos before, but not from on high, not like this. At least I hadn't.

Beyond battle, director Sergei Bondarchuk brings the same energy and verve to shooting ballroom dancing scenes (several of those too).

Now the backstory to this all is interesting in its own right. This was peak Soviet times. Cold War. So the government not only financed the movie, but gave Bondarchuk full access to all of the country's museums from which to choose all the art, dishes, weapons, authentic details he could want. It also gave him access to actual Russian troops to be extras in those battle scenes and military airplanes and helicopters for the many aerial shots. That all pays off. Again, this epic, grand scale stuff. One doc I watched about it said the budget is estimated in today's dollars as nearly $1 billion when factoring in not just reported costs but all those freebies it got from the government.

The reason for this big investment? Hollywood made its own version of War and Peace a few years earlier staring Henry Fonda and Audrey Hepburn. There was no way in hell Russia was going to let American's try to claim the definitive adaptation of one of the country's most beloved pieces of literature. I haven't yet seen the American version BUT I find it hard to believe King Vidor could top this.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Good Time - 9/10

Robert Pattinson is so good. The more I watch, the more I am excited to see him take on Batman.

 

[kihei]

War and Peace. The Russian one. The loooooong one. Took me a little more time to get through this than I had planned. Watched parts 1 & 2 in fairly close proximity, took a break before 3 and then a larger break before 4. Because of this, I have to confess I lost a little bit of the plot. At least I think I did. The whole thing is executed in somewhat of a dreamy manner I wasn't sure if my occasional bouts of confusion were self-inflicted or intentional. Might even be cultural, frankly. I could keep the core trio of characters straight, but beyond that names and faces started to blend together as the narrative progressed. One character I thought was dead wasn't then later I think he was. I think. There's a stretch in one movie that I thought might have been a flashback. It wasn't. Obviously hadn't read the source material either. I don't say any of this as a criticism of the movie(s), because again I'll concede there's a decent chance the fault may lie with me.

That's almost irrelevant though. The themes and the cultural significance, however, shine through clear. No misunderstanding there. Fascinating to contrast this with an American equivalent, Gone With the Wind being the most obvious parallel. Epic tales of love and loss amid the backdrop of war. Time marching on as privileged and proper society loses their hold and are confronted with harsher, harder realities. But while Scarlett O'Hara raises her fist to the sky defiantly with Atlanta burning down around her, Pierre seems more accepting of the suffering while Moscow burns. Also, while an invading Sherman burned Atlanta, the Russians set fire to Moscow ahead of an invading Napoleon. There's a level of defiance in both, but while the American version feels very physical, the Russian version is spiritual. Just one example, but certainly the most obvious. I also thought it was telling that while Russian defeat is shown in detail, a key military victory late in the story is presented almost as an afterthought. Somewhat like the British, it seems the loses are in some ways more important than the wins. Not America! We want wins, baby! Moral victories are for losers! (Yes, this is why soccer will never fully conquer the U.S.)

The real reason, however, to seek this out is the filmmaking. You like war? This series has multiple, massive battle sequences. Hell, the third movie is almost entirely a chaotic dive into battle, with very little character or story of which to speak. Massive is an understatement. This was the mid-1960s so everything there is real people, divisions mobilizing and moving across vast plains and hills and thanks to ample aerial photography you see much of this at full scale. It's breathtaking. The ground-level view is loud and dirty and confusing and really conveys the mess of it all. You can never quite tell who is winning or what is happening. But again the scope is really what sets this apart. You've seen chaos before, but not from on high, not like this. At least I hadn't.

Beyond battle, director Sergei Bondarchuk brings the same energy and verve to shooting ballroom dancing scenes (several of those too).

Now the backstory to this all is interesting in its own right. This was peak Soviet times. Cold War. So the government not only financed the movie, but gave Bondarchuk full access to all of the country's museums from which to choose all the art, dishes, weapons, authentic details he could want. It also gave him access to actual Russian troops to be extras in those battle scenes and military airplanes and helicopters for the many aerial shots. That all pays off. Again, this epic, grand scale stuff. One doc I watched about it said the budget is estimated in today's dollars as nearly $1 billion when factoring in not just reported costs but all those freebies it got from the government.

The reason for this big investment? Hollywood made its own version of War and Peace a few years earlier staring Henry Fonda and Audrey Hepburn. There was no way in hell Russia was going to let American's try to claim the definitive adaptation of one of the country's most beloved pieces of literature. I haven't yet seen the American version BUT I find it hard to believe King Vidor could top this.

Vidor couldn't. He shouldn't have even tried. And why Henry Fonda of all people? Vidor would have been better off casting a Muscovy duck in the role.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Vidor couldn't. He shouldn't have even tried. And why Henry Fonda of all people? Vidor would have been better off casting a Muscovy duck in the role.

From what I understand the Pierre character is supposed to be in his late 20s in the book. Bondarchuk casting himself in the role was criticized because he was nearly 40 at the time.

Fonda was in his early 50s when he played the role.

The doc I watched said the only thing the Russians liked about Vidor's War and Peace, unsurprisingly was Audrey Hepburn. Apparently Bondarchuk agreed since he pretty much cast a doppelganger in he version.

 

[Puck]

The Peanut Butter Falcon (2019) - 7.5+

This isn't meant as a review, just wanted to give a shout-out to catch this one if you have not seen it yet. I watched this right after Jojo Rabbit and actually enjoyed it a bit more than Jojo (not dumping on Jojo Rabbit here, I liked that one too). This is kind of The Florida Project (2017) for 2019 (another nice surprise). Some poor down and out characters on the lower rung of society's scale with the odds stacked against them attempting to strive towards something better. Hadn't seen actor Thomas Haden Church in awhile and he makes an appearance at the end as wrestler Salt Walter Redneck. Good storytelling.

 

[Babe Ruth]

It happened in L.A. (2017)

Have mixed feelings about this one. My opinion, mostly boring & poorly acted. But it's a spot-on depiction of a young Hollywood culture. Back in the day, I worked for a company in LA that was overwhelmingly staffed with aspiring (or former) actors & screenwriters. And this movie reminded me of old friends & co-workers. It definitely did the culture justice in terms of realism.. but my complaint is that the movie basically laughed with this vapid culture, when I think it should be laughed at..
There was a blunt prostitute who was likable & entertaining.
All things considered, I give it a 4 (out of 10).

 

[kihei]

oops

 

[David71]

just finished watching 3 ninjas kickback and the first one. nostalgic. used to love those movies while growing up.