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

[kihei]

The Lodger (1927) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock 7A

Alfred Hitchcock was a silent film director long before talkies began and his eventual iconic status arrived. Though it was not his first film, he himself considered The Lodger the real beginning of his career as a director. The story is a simple one: a family suspects that they have taken in as a lodger a serial killer who has been preying on fair-haired London girls for seven straight weeks. Their daughter is a fair-haired London girl, and her boyfriend just happens to be a police detective. With the daughter beginning to fall for the lodger, the detective has a lot more than merely murder with which to contend. As played by Ivor Novello, the lodger is an intriguing character, mysterious, a trifle effete, and vulnerable around the edges. He makes for a compelling potential villain. Though watching a suspense film without dialogue is an odd experience, Hitchcock manages to ratchet up the tension anyway. Some of his sequences are pure genius, particularly the beginning of the film as we watch a crowd of people react to a murder without us ever seeing either the murderer or his victim. The middle part of the movie is well crafted (there is even a shot that brings to mind the shower sequence in Psycho), but slow and creaky, though the tension rises again during the movie’s exciting climax. The Lodger is an impressively directed movie, but Hitchcock got even better at this sort of thing as his career progressed. As a result, The Lodger seems especially promising but some distance short of a masterwork. Consider the film a harbinger of how a very gifted director eventually would transform the suspense genre and make it his own private domain for decades to come.

intertitles

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Fellini's Satyricon

with Italian people doing weird shit and staring at the camera half the time.

In honour of kihei's trip down cinematic history, I decided to watch this one again. Legendary director Frederico Fellini brings us this utterly bizarre and surreal portrait of ancient Rome as we follow a pair of young men through their various weird-ass trials and tribulations. Based on the fragmentary writings of Roman writer Petronius, it doesn't so much tell a story but simply leads us through one lunatic tableau after the next. We go through bathhouses, a brothel, a small theatre, a feast thrown by an egomaniac rich guy who takes everyone down to his tomb and pretends to be dead to hear his "friends" all eulogize him, a pirate ship, a villa, and lots of public sex. Romans really liked sex. Also apparently screaming and laughing at bizarrely inappropriate times. And they also didn't put doors on rooms in their houses or tenements. Which is also weird. The whole thing's just one big weird-a-thon, but in a good way.

Fellini's even got his own adjective; Felliniesque. From Bernard A. Cook (who's definitely a guy who wrote a book at some point): "Felliniesque" has come to mean a certain Italian sophistication yet earthiness, a fascination with the bizarre yet a love of simplicity all wrapped in a flamboyant Mediterranean approach to life and art. These films also contain magic moments that transcended realism, and they introduced the world to a certain flamboyant lyricism we now label Felliniesque. <-- That's totally this film.

On youtube.

"LSD's only 2000 years away! I'd better get a head start!"

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Next film on my hard drive......

A Constant Forge (Kiselyak, 2000) - You'd think that a 3h long documentary on an amazing and enigmatic director would go deep into either his persona or his themes. But none of that here, it's only a long publicity scheme about how a great artist and a great man Cassavetes was. Never more than anecdotal, and even though some of these anecdotes (about his direction, about the relationships on the sets) are quite interesting, much of it just feels like filling. Honestly, I kind of lost interest and I had trouble sticking to it in the last 30 minutes, but I went through anyway... Please don't watch that, watch a Cassavetes film instead, any film. 3/10

 

[kihei]

Fellini's Satyricon

with Italian people doing weird shit and staring at the camera half the time.

In honour of kihei's trip down cinematic history, I decided to watch this one again. Legendary director Frederico Fellini brings us this utterly bizarre and surreal portrait of ancient Rome as we follow a pair of young men through their various weird-ass trials and tribulations. Based on the fragmentary writings of Roman writer Petronius, it doesn't so much tell a story but simply leads us through one lunatic tableau after the next. We go through bathhouses, a brothel, a small theatre, a feast thrown by an egomaniac rich guy who takes everyone down to his tomb and pretends to be dead to hear his "friends" all eulogize him, a pirate ship, a villa, and lots of public sex. Romans really liked sex. Also apparently screaming and laughing at bizarrely inappropriate times. And they also didn't put doors on rooms in their houses or tenements. Which is also weird. The whole thing's just one big weird-a-thon, but in a good way.

Fellini's even got his own adjective; Felliniesque. From Bernard A. Cook (who's definitely a guy who wrote a book at some point): "Felliniesque" has come to mean a certain Italian sophistication yet earthiness, a fascination with the bizarre yet a love of simplicity all wrapped in a flamboyant Mediterranean approach to life and art. These films also contain magic moments that transcended realism, and they introduced the world to a certain flamboyant lyricism we now label Felliniesque. <-- That's totally this film.

On youtube.

"LSD's only 2000 years away! I'd better get a head start!"

As I started university, I was introduced to the work of Fellini and Antonioni at about the same time, and they both seemed like cinematic gods to me. It wasn't that Italy didn't have a bunch of other great directors at the time--Pasolini, Visconti, Petri, De Sica, Bertolucci, Pontecorvo, Rossellini, et al--but it was Fellini and Antonioni who, to me, best captured the zeitgeist of the '60s, Antonioni with his cool, elegant approach to middleclass and upperclass alienation and later-career Fellini with his expressive, what-can-I dream-up-next approach to storytelling (by the time he hit this phase, his best work was behind him, though, culminating in 8 1/2, a movie, after all, about a director with nothing left to say). Antonioni seemed (no doubt simplistically, I concede) to represent the sophisticated, stylish sensibility of norther Italy, (think Milan), and Fellini to my way of thinking represented the more vulgar, chaotic, life-embracing sensibility of southern Italy, (think Rome). I've always preferred Antonioni but I can't help but admire Fellini. I'm a somewhat grudging fan of Satyricon but it has a brazen and perverse charm that I can't quite resist. I can't imagine any director other than Fellini coming up with it. "Flamboyant lyricism" captures the approach perfectly.

 

[Savi]

Ugh. I miss my movie theater.

Haven't been watching a lot recently, even with all the extra time off. I did really enjoy The Last Black Man in San Francisco though.

 

[Savi]

delete

 

[Chili]

The Lodger (1927) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock 7A

One of my favorite Hitchcock movies. Dark and foggy which works perfectly with the story.

 

[nameless1]

Ugh. I miss my movie theater.

Haven't been watching a lot recently, even with all the extra time off. I did really enjoy The Last Black Man in San Francisco though.

Yeah, I liked the film too. It is definitely not everyone's cup of tea, because it is on the slow side, and it is hard to describe what the filmmakers ultimately wants to convey, but I am absolutely entranced by the sentiment and atmosphere. I liken it to a spell, and I am absolutely caught up in it.

 

[nameless1]

I have trouble with Fellini after La Dolce Vita. That magical imagination afterwards is just too much for me to handle, but at least I learned that I tend to prefer films with more of a structure.

 

[Osprey]

Drive (2011) - 4/10 (Disliked it)

A getaway driver (Ryan Gosling) starts a relationship with his neighbor and does one more job. This film has a few thrilling and brutally violent action sequences, but they're separated by long, slow, quiet sections that eventually tested my patience. I don't mind slower sections if there's plot and character development in them, but those are pretty thin here and it often felt like an exercise in style over substance, which I generally dislike. I might've tolerated it, though, if it hadn't been for my main complaint: Gosling's character. He comes off like a caricature of a "too cool for school" kid, except that, here, he's too cool to emote or engage in conversation. Seemingly half of the time that anyone says something and waits for a response, he just stares back. When he does say something, it's so soft spoken that you can barely understand him. I had to turn on subtitles halfway through just to figure out what he was saying. He also has all of the charisma of a statue, and this is a role that could've really benefited from some. It's a similar character and performance as he would have a few years later in The Guest, but I think that it works better there because he's the villain and that film is a slightly tongue-in-cheek horror. Here, he's supposed to be the guy that we want to triumph and get the girl and the "too cool" act was off-putting to me. Anyways, it feels to me like a film that uses style to make up for weaknesses and I'm just not a person who goes for that. Those who don't mind that as much as I do would probably like it, though.

 

[Puck]

Drive (2011) - 4/10 (Disliked it)

A getaway driver (Ryan Gosling) starts a relationship with his neighbor and does one more job. This film has a few thrilling and brutally violent action sequences, but they're separated by long, slow, quiet sections that eventually tested my patience. I don't mind slower sections if there's plot and character development in them, but those are pretty thin here and it often felt like an exercise in style over substance, which I generally dislike. I might've tolerated it, though, if it hadn't been for my main complaint: Gosling's character. He comes off like a caricature of a "too cool for school" kid, except that, here, he's too cool to emote or engage in conversation. Seemingly half of the time that anyone says something and waits for a response, he just stares back. When he does say something, it's so soft spoken that you can barely understand him. I had to turn on subtitles halfway through just to figure out what he was saying. He also has all of the charisma of a statue, and this is a role that could've really benefited from some. It's a similar character and performance as he would have a few years later in The Guest, but I think that it works better there because he's the villain and that film is a slightly tongue-in-cheek horror. Here, he's supposed to be the guy that we want to triumph and get the girl and the "too cool" act was off-putting to me. Anyways, it feels to me like a film that uses style to make up for weaknesses and I'm just not a person who goes for that. Those who don't mind that as much as I do would probably like it, though.

I understand your review. But I think this is a film that is better appreciated if you read up a bit about it first before viewing. I think a lot of people who are disappointed are those that go in believing they are going in to see a Hollywood thriller from the trailers. It's more of an arthouse film. That happened to me with Memento (disliked it at first going in cold, but appreciated it more later after reading up on it. Same could be said more recently with Get Out. (but that's just me)).

I understand your initial reaction though. Watch it again in a few years after reading about it and put your arthouse cap on to view it, you might come out with a different outlook. Or not. Some of the weaknesses you describe were crafted intentionally. I think the film is better if you are forewarned about it before going in though. Like I said, I undertand your review. (I'm not trying to defend the film, it's not in my top favorite list either, but I think it's one of those flicks best watched if you read up on it first before getting into it)

 

[kihei]

Metropolis (1927) Directed by Fritz Lang 10A

Metropolis is quite a piece of work. Its production design, art deco gone berserk, is worth the price of admission alone, but the imaginative design represents only the tip of the iceberg of what the movie has to offer. Part dystopia with a powerful oligarch pitted against exploited workers, part science fiction with the Frankenstein-like creation of the False Maria, part no holds barred action movie with a cast of frenzied thousands dominating the final third of the movie, Metropolis represents an ambitious attempt to look into the future and to observe class discrimination run amok. At the beginning of the movie, society is functioning as usual with a Mayor calling all the shots with the help of an Inventor. However, the Mayor’s son Joh becomes skeptical about his cushy life and trades places with one of the thousands of Workers who toil underground far beneath the city risking their lives every day to keep the Machine that powers the city functioning. Having become a Worker, the Mayor’s son realizes the great inequality and exploitation around him and seeks to change the situation with the help of Maria, a saintly and beloved figure to the workers, who is trying to help them achieve better lives. She is looking for a Mediator who can bring both workers and bosses together. However, the Inventor plans to make a copy of her and twist the Workers to his selfish bidding. Eventually there is a big revolt encapsulated by one of the most mind-boggling and lengthy action sequences ever. Watching the crowd sequences, it’s a wonder somebody didn’t get crushed or drowned. While the politics goes wobbly in the end—everybody not very convincingly shakes hands and makes up—Metropolis remains a one-of-a-kind achievement, the scope of which has to be seen to be fully believed.

intertitles

 

[Osprey]

I understand your review. But I think this is a film that is better appreciated if you read up a bit about it first before viewing. I think a lot of people who are disappointed are those that go in believing they are going in to see a Hollywood thriller from the trailers. It's more of an arthouse film. That happened to me with Memento (disliked it at first going in cold, but appreciated it more later after reading up on it. Same could be said more recently with Get Out. (but that's just me)).

I understand your initial reaction though. Watch it again in a few years after reading about it and put your arthouse cap on to view it, you might come out with a different outlook. Or not. Some of the weaknesses you describe were crafted intentionally. I think the film is better if you are forewarned about it before going in though. Like I said, I undertand your review. (I'm not trying to defend the film, it's not in my top favorite list either, but I think it's one of those flicks best watched if you read up on it first before getting into it)

I did do a lot of reading up on it beforehand, mostly at RT, where I read all of the critic quotes and dozens of user reviews. The summary there even reads "With its hyper-stylized blend of violence, music, and striking imagery, Drive represents a fully realized vision of arthouse action." In other words, I knew what to expect, and I tend to not like "arthouse" and "hyper-stylized" films, so I expected that it probably wasn't going to be my cup of tea. If it makes any difference, I gave Uncut Gems a 2/10, so a 4/10 isn't so bad, relatively .

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Next on the hard drive....

A Divina Comedia (Manoel De Oliveira, 1991) - A mental institute where the inmates are all - or think they are - incarnations of characters from famous texts. Dizzying intertextual experimentation, this is a film that is easier to watch on your computer than anywhere else. It kind of requires frequent pauses so that you can sort out who's from what (no problem with most of the biblical characters, and some of the Dostievsky ones were familiar, but I had to fall back on Google to put Régio and Nietzsche into the equation). The film goes through altered scenes of the Bible, Crimes and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov as if the patients were rehearsing for some meta-theater play (at a few moments you can hear the bar-bells announcing the beginning of a performance). This madhouse of course has a director, and you kind of look to him as the only sane point of reference, but his unforeseeable fate puts him very much as part of the insanity. At no point is the illness of the patients put into words, and the only one being called an imposter is the Messiah, as should be. Even family members coming to visit are characters from other works. Distanciation is through the roof, and culminates with the appearance on-screen of the film's clapboard for the last cut. This whole thing really should be right up my alley, but I still found myself often a little bored. The payoff is far from satisfying considering the time and brain juices required... 6/10

G.I. Joe: Retaliation (Jon M. Chu, 2013) - Ok I was tired and couldn't sleep, so I got away from my hard drive and watched that crap on either Netflix or Prime - can't even say. I haven't seen the first one, but I guess it was pretty much the same. The only thing that I found interesting is that the film is coproduced by Hasbro (?) and I hadn't realized that they were now a film company (I might have seen one of their Transformers film). It was kind of fascinating to me that this film based on ridiculously over-the-top kid toys characters was pretty much the equivalent to any other film of that type. Anyway: 3/10

 

[Puck]

I did do a lot of reading up on it beforehand, mostly at RT, where I read all of the critic quotes and dozens of user reviews. The summary there even reads "With its hyper-stylized blend of violence, music, and striking imagery, Drive represents a fully realized vision of arthouse action." In other words, I knew what to expect, and I tend to not like "arthouse" and "hyper-stylized" films, so I expected that it probably wasn't going to be my cup of tea. If it makes any difference, I gave Uncut Gems a 2/10, so a 4/10 isn't so bad, relatively .

I was not a big fan of Uncut Gems either but the last third salvaged it for me somewhat.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

A Erva do Rato (The Herb of the Rat, Julio Bressane, 2008) - Now we're talking. A little gem of a film, beautifully shot. Again, a film that's not for everyone but where you'll find everything you were looking for: a love triangle between a man, a woman he met unconscious in a cemetery, and a rat. It's mostly a huit-clos, and it's absurdity is only matched by its uttermost seriousness both in tone and rythm (I particularly enjoyed the shadow avatar of the spectator). I guess it was inevitable, they go just a little too far in the last 20 minutes and it loses most of its poetic elusiveness. Still a great find, and the ambient music is amazing too. 8/10

 

[Osprey]

A Erva do Rato (The Herb of the Rat, Julio Bressane, 2008) - Now we're talking. A little gem of a film, beautifully shot. Again, a film that's not for everyone but where you'll find everything you were looking for: a love triangle between a man, a woman he met unconscious in a cemetery, and a rat. It's mostly a huit-clos, and it's absurdity is only matched by its uttermost seriousness both in tone and rythm (I particularly enjoyed the shadow avatar of the spectator). I guess it was inevitable, they go just a little too far in the last 20 minutes and it loses most of its poetic elusiveness. Still a great find, and the ambient music is amazing too. 8/10

I don't know how you knew, but I was just sitting here lamenting the lack of originality coming out of Hollywood and thinking, "Why aren't there more films about love triangles between people and rodents? That seems like an untapped premise." Leave it to foreign cinema to know what the people really want better than Hollywood does.

 

[kihei]

The Cabineet of Dr. Caligari (1920) Directed by Robert Wiene 10A

There is something about the expressionist fable The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari that chills the blood, that makes this movie about the delusions of a madman indeed seem like the product of a seriously diseased mind. On one level it is sort of a folk tale, one in which reality is presented through terribly twisted angles and contorted shapes (the set design is high art). Dr. Caligari, a hypnotist, arrives in a village that is about to put on its annual fair, and he seeks permission to participate. He possesses a cabinet that contains Cesare, a somnambulist, who has allegedly been sleeping for all of his 23 years. The manipulative Caligari uses the helpless somnambulist to not just predict the future but to commit murder. The grim tale plays out from there and made me feel like I was trapped inside somebody else’s nightmare. Eventually we find out who the madman really is…or do we? More than a few critics and historians have suggested that this movie symbolizes the German people’s willingness to accept an authoritarian leader even if he is certifiably insane. On a less alarming note, Roger Ebert suggested The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari might be cinema’s first true horror movie. Neither assertion gets any argument from me.

intertitles

 

[ProstheticConscience]

As I started university, I was introduced to the work of Fellini and Antonioni at about the same time, and they both seemed like cinematic gods to me. It wasn't that Italy didn't have a bunch of other great directors at the time--Pasolini, Visconti, Petri, De Sica, Bertolucci, Pontecorvo, Rossellini, et al--but it was Fellini and Antonioni who, to me, best captured the zeitgeist of the '60s, Antonioni with his cool, elegant approach to middleclass and upperclass alienation and later-career Fellini with his expressive, what-can-I dream-up-next approach to storytelling (by the time he hit this phase, his best work was behind him, though, culminating in 8 1/2, a movie, after all, about a director with nothing left to say). Antonioni seemed (no doubt simplistically, I concede) to represent the sophisticated, stylish sensibility of norther Italy, (think Milan), and Fellini to my way of thinking represented the more vulgar, chaotic, life-embracing sensibility of southern Italy, (think Rome). I've always preferred Antonioni but I can't help but admire Fellini. I'm a somewhat grudging fan of Satyricon but it has a brazen and perverse charm that I can't quite resist. I can't imagine any director other than Fellini coming up with it. "Flamboyant lyricism" captures the approach perfectly.

Italian directors in the 60's aren't an area of great personal knowledge for me, but Fellini is the one who penetrates to even the significantly less film-literate strata I'm in. His works are first and foremost art, unlike so many, many of the unrelenting tonnages of crap churned out these days.

More than a few critics and historians have suggested that this movie symbolizes the German people’s willingness to accept an authoritarian leader even if he is certifiably insane.

Turns out it's not just a German thing.

 

[nameless1]

The Cabinet of Caligari is great. I watched it in university, and I was surprised that it reminded me of The Usual Suspects.

I really am impressed by how far ahead German cinema was in the beginning of the 20th century. The migration of German film workers before World War II helped to push Hollywood forward into the dominant position it is in today.

 

[OzzyFan]

Honey Boy
2.65 out of 4stars

Feels more like a therapy project(which it is) than an actual flowing/thought out movie with a goal, motive, or conclusion in mind. Definitely more art than anything else. But a decent movie about an adult with flashbacks explaining why he is what he is(or why he is where he is now) and how he can try to overcome his weaknesses/faults.

 

[OzzyFan]

...

 

[ProstheticConscience]

The Darkest Dawn

with people you won't recognize or remember. Except for that one guy who's got hair like Darlene from Roseanne.

Found-footage movie following an alien invasion in Britain. This one chick's turning 16 iirc, and she gets a new video camera for her birthday. She immediately starts filming everything, and that's just the moment aliens invade. Surprise, they quickly gain the upper hand, and this chick and her older sister are on the run. They meet some other refugees, and the movie wastes little time in jumping onto the "Humans are the real monsters!" train. Saw it two days ago. Can't remember how it ended. Neither will you.

On Netflix.

Resting alien invasion face.

 

[Osprey]

After watching Sunrise, I decided to check out a few of F.W. Murnau's other silent films:

The Last Laugh (1924) - 8/10 (Loved it)

An aging hotel doorman loses his job and, with it, his sense of self worth. This film is notable because it uses no printed intertitles except for setting up the epilogue. Just about all of the story is told through the camera and the body language of the actors. There isn't a single line of dialogue. I really appreciated the artistic aspect of that, since intertitles can be jarring and feel lazy by stating plainly what might've been communicated silently through acting, instead. This led to me being a little confused about details here and there, but, for the most part, the story is pretty clear. Here's a man who loves his job and the prestige that he feels that its fancy uniform gives him, so he's devastated when the new manager thinks that he's getting too old and re-assigns (demotes) him. It helps to understand that, in German culture in the early 20th century, a uniform was a sign of status and commanded respect (which also helps explain the rise of the Nazis). Even if that's a bit hard to relate to nowadays, the notion of a person, especially an older person, working at one place for a long time and taking it really hard when it comes to an end is timeless. Emil Jannings is terrific as the protagonist and he and Murnau really do a great job of helping us to sympathize with the character, especially considering that there's no dialogue. There are lighthearted moments, but, for the most part, the story is sad (not what you'd expect from the title) and realistic, so much that Murnau felt that he needed to tack on an improbable happy ending, which didn't really work for me, but at least felt good. Also, there are a few shots in this that were quite impressive for the time, such as the camera riding down an elevator, looking out of the glass door as the lobby floor approaches. Anyways, it seems to me to be quite an accomplishment for a film with no dialogue and almost no narration, not to mention such a mundane plot, to be as accessible as it is, which is likely one reason that it's a classic.

********

Faust (1926) - 7/10 (Really liked it)

An elderly alchemist makes a pact with the Devil to spare his town from a plague. With a bigger budget, Murnau really outdoes himself. This has some impressive visuals and special effects, such as one in which the Devil towers over the town and a "carpet ride" of sorts that flies over a miniature model of the landscape. The look is very dark and grim, befitting the folk legend. It was a little hard to follow at times, but that's probably only because I wasn't completely familiar with the legend. Germans at the time surely didn't have that problem. The acting is pretty good, but didn't stand out to me. This is mostly a film remembered for its superb atmosphere and technical achievements and it's those aspects that I appreciated more than the story and acting.

********

Tabu: A Story of the South Seas (1931) - 6/10 (Liked it)

An island girl chosen to be her people's virgin maiden flees with her lover and is pursued. Though this isn't considered a classic like the previous two, I watched it because it's Murnau's last film (he died a week before its premiere from injuries sustained in an automobile accident), it has an exotic setting and it won the Academy Award for Best Cinematography. It was filmed entirely in Tahiti and uses island natives for the characters, which both add a great deal of authenticity. In fact, it sometimes looks more like a documentary or travelogue than a film. It's very different from most of Murnau's films, which rely heavily on imagery, special effects and camera tricks. The images here are only those of nature and island life, like playing around waterfalls, dancing on the sand and riding canoes, which makes it all seem quite idyllic and quaint. Unfortunately, the plot is pretty thin (though there's some charm in its simplicity), we don't get to know the two lovers (who never speak to each other, perhaps a case where a few intertitles might've helped) and the ending is abrupt and unsatisfying. It's a pleasant film, but not a classic.

 

[Elvis P]

Batman Forever. I give it 10/10, because the Batsuit has nipples.​