Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +3

[OzzyFan]

The Invisible Man
3.20 out of 4stars

Pretty great slow burn psychological horror movie that modernizes the classic tale with a twist. The story is multi-layered, clever, greatly directed, and Moss, if the academy gave any recognition to horror films, should probably earn an oscar nom for her performance. Leigh Whannell is growing quite the resume now, from Saw to Insidious to Upgrade to The Invisible Man, he's going close to full spectrum success in the horror genre (gore-torture/paranormal/sci-fi/psychological) . I wonder where he goes next, but sign me up if he's writing and/or directing. Just looked it up, seems like he's got his hands on an Escape from New York remake, possibly an Upgrade sequel if he chooses that path, seems to be a few options on the table for him.

 

[Osprey]

The Invisible Man
3.20 out of 4stars

Pretty great slow burn psychological horror movie that modernizes the classic tale with a twist. The story is multi-layered, clever, greatly directed, and Moss, if the academy gave any recognition to horror films, should probably earn an oscar nom for her performance. Leigh Whannell is growing quite the resume now, from Saw to Insidious to Upgrade to The Invisible Man, he's going close to full spectrum success in the horror genre (gore-torture/paranormal/sci-fi/psychological) . I wonder where he goes next, but sign me up if he's writing and/or directing. Just looked it up, seems like he's got his hands on an Escape from New York remake, possibly an Upgrade sequel if he chooses that path, seems to be a few options on the table for him.

I was quite surprised last night when I saw that it had 90% scores for both critics and audience at RT. This is a movie that I guessed would be awful to forgettable, maybe because I was remembering that an Invisible Man remake was meant to be part of the Dark Universe that The Mummy remake was supposed to launch. It's a nice surprise to hear that it's not just decent or good, but really good.

 

[nameless1]

Just watched Girl On The Third Floor and I’m only posting about it to save others from wasting 1.5 hours of their lives.

Just don’t do it - you were warned.

The reviews have been pretty good though.

I trust you guys. It was never on my list, since I think Punk is just whiny at this point, but I will definitely stay away from it now.

 

[nameless1]

I was quite surprised last night when I saw that it had 90% scores for both critics and audience at RT. This is a movie that I guessed would be awful to forgettable, maybe because I was remembering that an Invisible Man remake was meant to be part of the Dark Universe that The Mummy remake was supposed to launch. It's a nice surprise to hear that it's not just decent or good, but really good.

Blumhouse is a pretty interesting production company. Of course, there have been some absolute duds, but then there are also some that I actually liked, despite the critical disapproval. At the very least, I have to applaud them for taking somewhat of a risk and do something different.

 

[Osprey]

The reviews have been pretty good though.

The critic reviews are good, but the audience reviews at RT are pretty rough (and amusing):

There are no words on how awful this movie is. If there's a Heaven and a Hell, may this movie go suck an egg, seriously. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!! You will regret it. So very much. If your great aunt gives you this movie as a birthday present, burn it, then burn your great aunt. Seriously. DO IT!!!! Make the right choice!

Subjecting yourself to this movie willingly is the cinematic equivalent to opening your mouth so the director can spit in it.

eye bleach eye bleach eye bleach eye bleach eye bleach eye bleach eye bleach

I have to admit that it sounds so bad that I'm actually curious now.

 

[Osprey]

I did it. I watched Girl on the Third Floor tonight. It was... not good. It wasn't as dreadful as I feared, but that may've simply been because I went in with the lowest of expectations. It was sort of watchable, but not enjoyable. I liked some of the visual style, the decent premise and the moral at the end. I didn't like most of the rest: the leading man's acting, the dialogue, some awkward scenes, the lack of interesting or sympathetic characters, the gender subtext, how nothing really makes much sense and the craziness at the end (though I guess that that could be a positive for those who like weird).

I have a feeling that the writer/director was inspired by Aronofsky's mother!, because the story is rather metaphorical, gets similarly weird and tries to make a socially relevant statement. Professional critics seem to eat up anything that has multiple layers like that, even if it's done badly, which is why I think that they tend to give films like this good reviews (while regular folks pay more attention to the "done badly" part and are much less kind). Thankfully, this film does it less pretentiously than mother!, but I would still suspect that how you felt about that movie is a good indicator of whether this one is your cup of tea.

Ya, aside from CM Punk being a doppelgänger of Bruce Campbell in Army of Darkness, this movie was stupid as f***.

What was really creepy was he looked like Bruce Campbell crossed with Ted Raimi (who's been in just about everything that Campbell has ever done, including Army of Darkness). It was rather distracting.

 

[Supermassive]

Bloomhouse is a pretty interesting production company. Of course, there have been some absolute duds, but then there are also some that actually liked, despite the critical disapproval. At the very least, I have to applaud them for taking somewhat of a risk and do something different.

I absolutely love their willingness to take risks and still churn out quality movies that I not only watch, but enjoy rewatching. If I hear Blumhouse, I’m all in.

 

[Supermassive]

Jojo Rabbit - 9/10.

I don’t know why it took me so long to get in the mood to watch this, but it’s such a life-affirming, beautiful movie that makes you feel that you can create hope in the darkest of circumstances. Waititi’s style is so gentle, yet emotionally resonant. He treats children as people. It’s silly, a farce, fiction, sure - but it’s beautiful.

My wife caught part of it, and she often teases me for preferring different genres of movies to her preferred mainstream tv shows. But I think the best movies elicit so much more reaction from the viewer, where most tv feels mostly like procedural, predictable, filler-rich mush to me.

 

[Jugitsu]

Zombieland Double Tap 3/10

Don't exactly know what I expected? Maybe a funny, smart and satirical zombie horror comedy. It's been a long time since I saw the first one, but I think I kinda enjoyed it. The movie has a good, if not great cast and an intriguing setup.

But. Zombieland Double Tap sadly was the opposite of funny and smart. It was downright horrible, boring and a huge waste of time. I don't remember smiling even once let alone crack a single laugh. Too bad I wasted a perfectly good couple of hours of my precious hangover time for this.

 

[OzzyFan]

Waves
2.25 out of 4stars

I have to start off by saying this movie annoyed me on many fronts. So this is me ranting, if you don't want to know or here of the rant, go to the next paragraph. First and foremost, the trailer and description/label depicted this movie to be "a family navigating love, forgiveness, and coming together after loss", while instead I got the camera following the pov of 2 teens lives, the 2 main character children, were like with nothing more than a few touches upon the parents pov, lives, impacts, experiences. I hated this because I feel it mislead me and took the easier way out, by using screen time to show the usual events that a large portion of teens go through vs building the parents lives and emotions and full scale situations involving their lives and the circumstances they are dealing with, not to mention building their characters more in all facets. On that note, the "step mother" we barely know anything about and get barely jots about her life and thoughts, and the father altogether is an incomplete picture who's messages that we hear are somewhat hollow and underimpacting because we don't see more of his life and what he's going through but only tiny spots. Conclusively, expected a family movie with full circle experiences and knowledgeable insights, got a teen drama with touches of enlightened ideas. 2nd, this directing style was awful for me. 2 people I watched this movie with got nauseous within the first 15minutes of watching and even I got a woozy head from this style, I don't know if they want to call it artsy or raw or what have you, but spinning cameras, wobbly cameras, odd angles, odd sequences, overuse of camera flares is a nightmare for some people to sit through. 3rdly, the soundtrack was a complete distraction and the vast majority of the time didn't even feel like it fit, creating more confusion on what meaning it was trying to depict or messages as the characters went through their events. Lastly, the voice mixing/editing what have you felt like the clarity and volume of their vocals was all over the place, another knock on sitting through this movie.

As much as this annoyed me, it did have a few redeeming qualities. The dramatic turn of events were life like and well acted. The messages, albeit some overly heavy handed and some barely scratched upon, were good. Yeah, that's all I want to get into, this is a film that greatly bothered me on many fronts and was not easy to sit through for multiple reasons.

I was quite surprised last night when I saw that it had 90% scores for both critics and audience at RT. This is a movie that I guessed would be awful to forgettable, maybe because I was remembering that an Invisible Man remake was meant to be part of the Dark Universe that The Mummy remake was supposed to launch. It's a nice surprise to hear that it's not just decent or good, but really good.

Bloomhouse is a pretty interesting production company. Of course, there have been some absolute duds, but then there are also some that actually liked, despite the critical disapproval. At the very least, I have to applaud them for taking somewhat of a risk and do something different.

Yeah, a pleasant surprise The Invisible Man was.

Bloomhouse is exactly what the majority of production companies should be, low risk with some boom possibility movies. Naming off some of the money makers they have backed:

Paranormal Activity=150k budget/193mil box office
All the other Paranormal Activity Sequels have netted them a cumulative $670mil+ over their budgets
Insidious=1.5mil budget/97mil box office
Sinister=3mil budget/87.7mil box office
Dark Skies=3.5mil budget/26.4mil box office
The Purge=3mil budget/89.3mil box office
Oculus=5mil budget/44mil box office
Ouija=5mil budget/103.6mil box office
Split=9mil budget/278.5mil box office
Get Out=4.5mil budget/255.4mil box office
Happy Death Day=4.8mil budget/125.5mil box office


Even The Gallows, The Visit, The Gift, Truth or Dare, Ma, on a $5mil or less budget had notable box office sold. Even Fantasy Island, which had horrible reviews, has already accumulated over 5X's it's $7mil budget.

I'm surprised more production companies don't realize that story centric and/or low budget idea gambles are the way to go.

 

[nameless1]

Horror is the absolute best genre to go with the low budget, high reward business model. Unfortunately, the genre has that B-movie association to it, and the movies usually get slaughtered by the critics, so that may be why a lot of studios are turned off by it.

I actually enjoyed Truth or Dare, despite the rather lukewarm critical reception. It is not a masterpiece, per say, but at the very least, the characters and choices they make are actually not dumb, and I like the direction the filmmakers took.

 

[nameless1]

Zombieland Double Tap 3/10

Don't exactly know what I expected? Maybe a funny, smart and satirical zombie horror comedy. It's been a long time since I saw the first one, but I think I kinda enjoyed it. The movie has a good, if not great cast and an intriguing setup.

But. Zombieland Double Tap sadly was the opposite of funny and smart. It was downright horrible, boring and a huge waste of time. I don't remember smiling even once let alone crack a single laugh. Too bad I wasted a perfectly good couple of hours of my precious hangover time for this.

There was too much downtime between the two movies. The humour is the same in both, but the same style that worked the first time ten years ago is now stale. The perception of the main actors has also changed, as Eisenberg and Stone are now Oscar-nominated performers, so it feels as if they are constrained and limited by the same roles that have barely evolved.

I do not hate it, but I am definitely disappointed by it, so I gave it a 6/10 myself.

 

[nameless1]

Breathe (2017) - Inspirational true story. Very well done. 9/10

That is pure by-the-book Oscar bait for me. It is definitely well-done, as it checks every box, but it is not enough of a tearjerker to get that Oscar love. Garfield also gave a similar performance the year before in Hacksaw Ridge, so this one got absolutely no traction during award season.

 

[Chili]

That is pure by-the-book Oscar bait for me. It is definitely well-done, as it checks every box, but it is not enough of a tearjerker. Garfield also gave a similar performance the year before in Hacksaw Ridge, so this one got absolutely no traction during award season.

That was my gut reaction after the movie, found the story and portrayals moving. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is probably a better movie in that genre. I realize this type of story isn't for everyone but I enjoyed the movie thoroughly.

 

[nameless1]

I am very late to the party, but articles continue to bring up Hustlers as a Oscar snub, and I thought that was just ridiculous. Hustlers is a lot of fun, with a outrageous yet authentic story that the audience can believe, but it is just a flashy contemporary movie that is easy to digest, and ultimately forgettable. Jennifer Lopez still talks about her role, and how disappointed she was tat she was not nominated, but that performance does not stand out at all, even in her own filmography. She is merely serviceable, at best.

Personally, I would actually recommend the New York magazine article over the movie. I read the article before I watched the movie, and while the movie largely followed and stayed true to the chain of events described in the article, the filmmakers changed the ending and became too sympathetic towards the protagonists. The article also does not lack sympathy, because at the end of the day, they were survivors who did what was needed in order to survive an economic downturn. However, it was clear that they were never apologetic for their actions, and there was never a chance for reconciliation because they sold each other out to save themselves, so that is actually more consistent with their nature.

6.75/10 would be my grade. I did enjoy it, and it would be a good way to kill about 2 hours, but that is about it. It is not essential viewing.

 

[nameless1]

That was my gut reaction after the movie, found the story and portrayals moving. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is probably a better movie in that genre. I realize this type of story isn't for everyone but I enjoyed the movie thoroughly.

That is fair. I saw it during a film festival 2 years ago, and I merely thought it was fine and nothing special. I definitely did not hate it, but I saw right through it too. Honestly, I would not have been surprised if it got some attention during the award circuit, but I also understood when it ultimately failed to garner any noise. It is just too blatant of an Oscar bait.

I will give Andy Serkis some props for his directorial debut though. He showed a firm hand as a first time director, and he was in total command of the material.

 

[Chili]

That is fair. I saw it during a film festival 2 years ago, and I merely thought it was fine and nothing special. I definitely did not hate it, but I saw right through it too. Honestly, I would not be surprised if it got some attention during the award circuit, but I also understood when it ultimately failed to garner any noise. It is just too blatant of an Oscar bait.

I will give Andy Serkis some props for his directorial debut though. He showed a firm hand as a first time director, and he was in total command of the material.

At least one other movie comes to mind, The Theory of Everything, that I believe won awards a couple of years before. I enjoyed that movie as well, just wasn't as attached. Agree about the director, was impressed with some of the settings.

 

[nameless1]

At least one other movie comes to mind, The Theory of Everything, that I believe won awards a couple of years before. I enjoyed that movie as well, just wasn't as attached. Agree about the director, was impressed with some of the settings.

That was an Oscar bait as well.

 

[Chili]

That was an Oscar bait as well.

Eddie Redmayne won the best actor, I was more impressed with him in The Danish Girl.

I'm not big on awards, a lot of it is popularity. Kirk Douglas among others never won one (except an honorary one). Still enjoyed his movies.

 

[nameless1]

I personally loath Eddie Redmayne. I disliked him in The Theory of Everything, and The Danish Girl annoyed me. I will actively turn away from movies he is in.


The Oscars is big money business for movies, and a win can really propel box office, home video sales and even international sales by 15 to 20%, as most figures suggest. That is why there are movies designed to win Oscars, and we identify them as Oscar baits. It is both a knock and a description. They are very well-produced, emotionally uplifting or inspiring, and has a blatant message that one can see from space. These shared characteristics, unfortunately, also make these movies formulaic, and by extension, artificial. Honestly, I do not mind them too much, and some are enjoyable, but I would never classify them as great. They simply do the job they are designed for.

 

[Chili]

I personally loath Eddie Redmayne. I disliked him in The Theory of Everything, and The Danish Girl annoyed me. I will actively turn away from movies he is in.


The Oscars is big money business for movies, and a win can really propel box office, home video sales and even international sales by 15 to 20%, as most figures suggest. That is why there are movies designed to win Oscars, and we identify them as Oscar baits. It is both a knock and a description. They are very well-produced, and while they are emotionally uplifting or inspiring, there are shared characteristics, which also creates a sense of artificiality, namely the message they hit the audience over the head with. Honestly, I do not mind them too much, and some are enjoyable, but I would never classify them as great. They simply do the job they are designed for.

Interesting because 'back in the day' seemed like there was a different idea of what was commercial. A lot of it reflected the attitudes of the era and walked a fine line around controversial subjects. Kirk Douglas couldn't get anyone to back 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest' in the 1960's as an example.

I just follow my interests, story, actor(s), reviews help but I like to make up my own mind.

Was curious about the Oscar's voting process.

Here's who votes for the Oscars winners and how

If that link is accurate, the whole process sounds contrived.

 

[Osprey]

I personally loath Eddie Redmayne. I disliked him in The Theory of Everything, and The Danish Girl annoyed me. I will actively turn away from movies he is in.

Does this mean that you didn't actually rush to watch The Aeronauts after my positive review a few weeks ago? I'm hurt .

 

[nameless1]

Does this mean that you didn't actually rush out to watch The Aeronauts after my positive review a few weeks ago? I'm hurt .

I did not even know that movie existed.

 

[nameless1]

Interesting because 'back in the day' seemed like there was a different idea of what was commercial. A lot of it reflected the attitudes of the era and walked a fine line around controversial subjects. Kirk Douglas couldn't get anyone to back 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest' in the 1960's as an example.

I just follow my interests, story, actor(s), reviews help but I like to make up my own mind.

Was curious about the Oscar's voting process.

Here's who votes for the Oscars winners and how

If that link is accurate, the whole process sounds contrived.

Yeah, I never watch award shows anymore. I can find better use of three hours plus than to watch a bunch of rich people congratulate one another.

I do check out the results though, just in case I miss a gem or two.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Mortal Engines

with various attractive young people. And evil Hugo Weaving.

1000+ years in the future. Humanity tried to wipe itself out with quantum energy nuke weapons/sparkly light thingies around our time and messed everything up. So now most people live in giant moving cities that roll around on huge, impressive tank treads and trap and munch up other, smaller cities. Because reasons. London is the kingpin of the movie, and evil Hugo Weaving is one of its prime movers. His attractive daughter meets Tom, an attractive young guy in the museum/old tech department and they have expository dialogue as London cruises along and gobbles up a small Bavarian mining town (as large cities are wont to do). However, as their population is being filed into the innards of London, a strange young woman with half her face covered tries to kill evil Hugo Weaving, but fails. Tom intervenes, but both he and the mystery woman are bailed overboard. London rolls on, and the exposition begins in earnest. The mystery young woman is named Hester. You'll be reminded of this as evil Hugo Weaving conveniently visits a moving Arkham Asylum containing a Necron from the Warhammer 40K universe who raised Hester after evil Hugo Weaving killed her mother, and sets him free. Much time is spent with HESSSSSSTERRRRRR...!!! being ominously shouted by the Necron dude. Oh, and evil Hugo Weaving has a plan to use the old doomsday tech to break into the...something or other place guarded by a big wall so as London can...I dunno. There's something called an Anti-Tractionist League out there too. Some Matrix-y Asian chick shows up and does martial arts. Also, it's really stupid to have a flying city.

I don't really know why I watched this. I gather it's adapted from some YA literature series, but the entire concept is too stupid to look past when you think about the energy requirements an RV that could carry even a few thousand people would have. On one hand, the aesthetic is cool and steampunky enough. On the other...yeah. It's just stupid.

Again, I don't know why I watched this. I don't know why you would either.