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

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

More Halloween season watchin' ... (trying to hit 31 horror/horror-ish movies over the month. going to cut it close.)

The Dark Half. George Romero + Stephen King isn't a bad combo. Clever enough story about a pen name come to brutal life. Romero add some gore. Its flightier fancies play a little better in the book than on screen. It's fine enough.

The Serpent and the Rainbow. Fact(ish) based story of voodoo/zombie/drug research in Haiti. Wes Craven knows nightmares and creates a few memorable ones here (that blood filling coffin still creeps me out ...). I completely forgot how bonkers the last 20 minutes or so gets. More than a little corny towards that end. I still enjoy it though.

Halloween (2018). David Gordon Green is a real damn director and this is what happens when you give someone like that an otherwise somewhat rote rehash of the same old story. It's good! A clear reverence (and understanding) of its predecessor and a willingness to have a little fun with it too. An impressive and entertaining swing at an idea that's been bumbled so many other times.

 

[Savi]

The Gent International Film Festival (which is Belgium's biggest film festival) has wrapped up, I got to see 15 films in total which was pretty good because I couldn't take much time off from work. Still, while last year's festival saw several films end up in my 'best of the year' list, this year was kinda meh.

Top movie: Climax (Gaspar Noé)

Very good: The Favourite (Yorgos Lanthimos), Carmen y Lola (Arantxa Echevarria)

Good: Savage (Vincent Mariette), The Angel (Luis Ortega)

Okay: Mary Shelley (Haifaa Al-Mansour), The 12th Man (Harald Zwart), A Woman's Name (Marco Tullio Giordana), Bad Times at the El Royale (Drew Goddard)

Watchable: First Man (Damien Chazelle), Unsane (Steven Soderbergh), Danmark (Kasper Rune Larsen)

Disappointing: Wildlife (Paul Dano)

Wtf: High Life (Claire Denis)

Bad: Kursk (Thomas Vinterberg)

 

[Nalens Oga]

Sorry To Bother You (2018) - 7/10
Decent but didn't have an awkward rhythm. I also didn't find the whole transposing one scene's scenery to another gimmick to be very clever. Kind of messy and hard to take seriously in plot too.

Kramer vs Kramer (1979) - 7/10
It was alright, well-acted by everyone and moving in parts but hard to sit through as a whole. Just too much of bad thing one happens then bad thing two happens etc....it made it a bit soap-opara-ish.

 

[Osprey]

If anyone is unfamiliar with my rating system for movies or simply could use a refresher, here it is:

10=a masterpiece: one of the best movies ever
9=one of the best movies of the decade
8=one of the best movies of the year
7=very good
6=good
5=run of the mill
4=below average
3=bad
2=very bad
1=worst among the worst


A=accessible
B=mildly challenging in one way or another
C=difficult
D=extremely difficult

It's a good system that I can tell that you put a lot of thought into, but, to be honest, I think that it's partly wasted if readers need to memorize a guide that you publish only now and then. That's putting the onus on the reader to know your system and recall it when reading your reviews when, ideally, the onus ought to be on you to communicate your rating even if someone is reading your reviews for the first time. I, for one, am a regular on his forum and have visited this thread and those before it countless times over the years, yet even I wasn't sure how to read your ratings until now. There's even a good chance that I'll forget and, say, 6 months from now, go back to being confused by them.

If I may offer a suggestion... take the translation from your list above and add it to each review. For example, you might do:

Movie (2018) 7A (very good; accessible)

or

Movie (2018) 7A
Quality: Very good
Difficulty: Accessible

The first would be concise and cleanest, while the second would be more verbose and give room to expand on it (ex. "Difficulty: Mildly challenging; Slow pacing through the first half might test some viewers' patience"). Either way, people who aren't familiar with your system will still know where you stand on a film. It would also benefit everyone who is familiar with your system and just forgets what a particular number or character translates to (ex. "is 7 one of the best movies of the year or is that 8?").

 

[kihei]

It's a good system that I can tell that you put a lot of thought into, but, to be honest, I think that it's partly wasted if readers need to memorize a guide that you publish only now and then. That's putting the onus on the reader to know your system and recall it when reading your reviews when, ideally, the onus ought to be on you to communicate your rating even if someone is reading your reviews for the first time. I, for one, am a regular on his forum and have visited this thread and those before it countless times over the years, yet even I wasn't sure how to read your ratings until now. There's even a good chance that I'll forget and, say, 6 months from now, go back to being confused by them.

If I may offer a suggestion... take the translation from your list above and add it to each review. For example, you might do:

Movie (2018) 7A (very good; accessible)

or

Movie (2018) 7A
Quality: Very good
Difficulty: Accessible

The first would be concise and cleanest, while the second would be more verbose and give room to expand on it (ex. "Difficulty: Mildly challenging; Slow pacing through the first half might test some viewers' patience"). Either way, people who aren't familiar with your system will still know where you stand on a film. It would also benefit everyone who is familiar with your system and just forgets what a particular number or character translates to (ex. "is 7 one of the best movies of the year or is that 8?").

That's pretty good advice actually, and I will incorporate your minimalist approach suggestion into my future reviews. I used to have no ratings of any kind at all accompanying my reviews--which is what I was most happy with, the assumption being that a reader should be able to tell from my written commentary whether he/she wants to see the movie or not. I only changed my approach at the request of my publisher when I was writing the book. But, afterwards, I kept the ranking system because people mostly seemed to fine it useful--so fine tuning it a little further sounds like a reasonable idea. We'll see how it goes anyway.

 

[Shareefruck]

Was just about to suggest the same thing. What's the timeline on that book, by the way?

 

[Nalens Oga]

The Fifth Element - 5/10

Awfully acted and very cheesy. Milla Jovovich is a semi-Pejorative Slured Alien and Chris Tucker does his best to completely ruin the film. I can't say it's all that fun either but it has some nice colours I guess?

Also reminds me I need to watch the final Resident Evil film, never got around to it.

 

[kihei]

Was just about to suggest the same thing. What's the timeline on that book, by the way?

Basically 2000 to 2014 with a very, very few, non-consequential 2015s thrown in there somewhere.

 

[Shareefruck]

Basically 2000 to 2014 with a very, very few, non-consequential 2015s thrown in there somewhere.

Oh, no, I meant how's it coming along and when can we expect to see it?

 

[Mario Lemieux fan 66]

first man: 7/10

 

[kihei]

Oh, no, I meant how's it coming along and when can we expect to see it?

Beyond Hollywood: 21st Century International Film came out in March of 2016. Still available on Amazon and other on-line sites.

 

[Shareefruck]

Beyond Hollywood: 21st Century Film came out in March of 2016. Still available on Amazon and other on-line sites.

Oh, what the... Somehow I missed that.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Apostle. Boy this was a hard, nasty piece of work. Gareth Evans (director of The Raid and The Raid 2) ditches kinetic action for a creepy, gruesome story of a religious cult of sorts that has set up town on a remote island. Dan Stevens is an imposter come to find his missing sister. Michael Sheen is the cult's firebrand of a leader. Gripping and gory. A solid addition to any Halloween viewing.

 

[Puck]

Beyond Hollywood: 21st Century Film came out in March of 2016. Still available on Amazon and other on-line sites.

I missed that too. You prolly mentioned it when I was just lurking occasionally on this thread. Kudos

 

[nameless1]

Halloween (2018). David Gordon Green is a real damn director and this is what happens when you give someone like that an otherwise somewhat rote rehash of the same old story. It's good! A clear reverence (and understanding) of its predecessor and a willingness to have a little fun with it too. An impressive and entertaining swing at an idea that's been bumbled so many other times.

I am actually surprised by the high praises for this rebooted sequel. In the beginning, the scares worked, and I liked the subtle filmmaking techniques the director utilized, but pretty soon, everything falls into cliche, and I am utterly bored by it.

That said, I think I am just tired of the slasher genre, because they are all formulaic, so take my comment with a grain of salt.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I am actually surprised by the high praises for this rebooted sequel. In the beginning, the scares worked, and I liked the subtle filmmaking techniques the director utilized, but pretty soon, everything falls into cliche, and I am utterly bored by it.

That said, I think I am just tired of the slasher genre, because they are so formulaic, so take my comment with a grain of salt.

As much as I liked it, it certainly walks that same path pretty much all slasher flicks do. Definitely not innovative that way.

 

[Don'tcry4mejanhrdina]

The Wailing

A bumbling, hilariously cowardly police officer investigates several violent murders in his small village. What starts out as a crime thriller/dark comedy that reminded me of the beginning of Memories of Murder quickly turns even darker and the comedy completely dries up, turning into a horror film. It mixes several different genres together almost seamlessly. At over 2 and a half hours you'd think it would be a movie that tries to be too much but at no point was I bored or lost interest. The acting is very good, the main character easily conveys stupidity, humour, anger, terror and pain throughout the film in a character arc that you'll want to watch. You'll wonder where the story is going, as does the main character. Beautifully shot and with an ending you likely won't be disappointed in (a common problem with many horror films, I find). One of the best horror films I've seen.

8.5/10.

 

[nameless1]

In light of Halloween in about a week, I highly recommend the Japanese film One Cut of the Dead. I saw it after the film festival, as VIFF will replay some popular and highly-scored films in a segment call "VIFF Repeats", and I am so glad I decided to go, even though I was on the fence about it. This is the most fun I had in a movie theatre in a long time, and I am thoroughly impressed by this micro-budget fare which showed immense skills by this new director.

As the title hints at, this is a zombie movie filmed in one take. Unfortunately, this is all I can say, because this is one of films where the less one knows about, the better it is. I went into this one with a complete open mind, because it was never on my preliminary list to begin with, and I only went because what little I know of the plot seems to be fun. This is definitely one of those hidden gems that depends on word of mouth, and I will gladly contribute, because it definitely deserved to be seen.

I give it a 8.5/10, and I hope this very brief recommendation will get more people to go see it. If not, I hope the title will at least stick in people's mind, and they will check it out when they find the time.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

The Wailing

A bumbling, hilariously cowardly police officer investigates several violent murders in his small village. What starts out as a crime thriller/dark comedy that reminded me of the beginning of Memories of Murder quickly turns even darker and the comedy completely dries up, turning into a horror film. It mixes several different genres together almost seamlessly. At over 2 and a half hours you'd think it would be a movie that tries to be too much but at no point was I bored or lost interest. The acting is very good, the main character easily conveys stupidity, humour, anger, terror and pain throughout the film in a character arc that you'll want to watch. You'll wonder where the story is going, as does the main character. Beautifully shot and with an ending you likely won't be disappointed in (a common problem with many horror films, I find). One of the best horror films I've seen.

8.5/10.

My favorite film of 2016. The criticism levied against its length is legitimate, but like you I did not mind it much if at all.

 

[Nalens Oga]

Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2017) - 5.5/10

This movie is so bad at times but I do enjoy watching Milla Jovovich kill zombies. And her arms are friggin ripped, I need to work out more.

A Most Violent Year (2014) - 7/10

Well acted but a bit too methodical in its execution which doesn't work because the underlying tension isn't very well done. I think it's a movie that could've used a bit more of an aggressive/faster approach rather than trying to be a more refrained and thoughtful film.

 

[kihei]

Sharkwater Extinction (2018) Directed by Rob Stewart 7A (very good documentary; accessible to all)

Sharkwater Extinction, Canadian Rob Stewart's last documentary (he died while shooting this film), continues his crusade to stop countries from killing sharks indiscriminately. His 2006 film Sharkwater had an important impact on protecting sharks as 90 countries legislated some form of action as opposed to the 20 countries that had already done so before the documentary. However, much of that legislation suffers from loopholes that allow fishing for sharks to continue almost unabated. The initial documentary was also great at promoting ecological awareness to a generation of young viewers who had little understanding of the importance of sharks in keeping in balance the ocean's ecosystems. As hundreds of thousands of sharks are still being slaughtered, mostly just for their fins, Sharkwater Extinction continues the fight for their protection twelve years later. Stewart speculates that 90% of the global shark population has now been killed. Shark fin soup is the main culprit, but sharks can also be used for other nefarious purposes as well in animal food, in cosmetics and in the fast food industry. The documentary uses drones, helicopters and underwater footage to acquire some very damning proof of the continued slaughter of the species--to which the charismatic, still very youthful looking Stewart provides a human face and intelligent commentary. Many of these images are remarkable--some are heart-wrenching but others are wondrously captivating as Stewart swims with these animals without fear of attack. While Sharkwater Extinction credits Stewart as sole director that is impossible. Shooting additional deep sea footage for this film, Stewart was victimized by a faulty air tank and died from oxygen depletion. The final part of the film serves as a touching memorial to a very good and decent man.

 

[Nalens Oga]

My college decided to not renew or something their subscription to A LOT of classic films (mostly Janus Criterion) on Kanopy and some newer indie ones. So my 'watch list' on Kanopy went from 130ish films to 9 films overnight.

The most annoying thing though was that I was in the middle of watching Samurai Rebellion just when it was getting really juicy and the next day, it was gone. Not that I mind pirating movies, especially older ones, it's just that it's a pain in the ass when it comes to subtitled ones because you can't use a stream for them, you have to hunt down an actual mkv copy.

 

[Spawn]

Sharkwater Extinction (2018) Directed by Rob Stewart 7A (very good documentary; accessible to all)

Sharkwater Extinction, Canadian Rob Stewart's last documentary (he died while shooting this film), continues his crusade to stop countries from killing sharks indiscriminately. His 2006 film Sharkwater had an important impact on protecting sharks as 90 countries legislated some form of action as opposed to the 20 countries that had already done so before the documentary. However, much of that legislation suffers from loopholes that allow fishing for sharks to continue almost unabated. The initial documentary was also great at promoting ecological awareness to a generation of young viewers who had little understanding of the importance of sharks in keeping in balance the ocean's ecosystems. As hundreds of thousands of sharks are still being slaughtered, mostly just for their fins, Sharkwater Extinction continues the fight for their protection twelve years later. Stewart speculates that 90% of the global shark population has now been killed. Shark fin soup is the main culprit, but sharks can also be used for other nefarious purposes as well in animal food, in cosmetics and in the fast food industry. The documentary uses drones, helicopters and underwater footage to acquire some very damning proof of the continued slaughter of the species--to which the charismatic, still very youthful looking Stewart provides a human face and intelligent commentary. Many of these images are remarkable--some are heart-wrenching but others are wondrously captivating as Stewart swims with these animals without fear of attack. While Sharkwater Extinction credits Stewart as sole director that is impossible. Shooting additional deep sea footage for this film, Stewart was victimized by a faulty air tank and died from oxygen depletion. The final part of the film serves as a touching memorial to a very good and decent man.

I found it sort of aimless. Which is certainly understandable. Rob Stewart never had the chance to finish the movie.

But as the movie played out, I couldn't help but wishing that whoever finished the film took it in a direction that focused more on Rob Stewart, his life, his death and the impact he had as a film maker and an activist.

I recognize that that is something that Rob Stewart himself probably wouldn't have wanted the movie to be about. So in that sense I get why whoever finished it decided to try and keep the focus on the plight of sharks in the world.

I just kept thinking to myself through the first 90% of the movie that this is like the first Sharkwater, but with less interesting footage and a less interesting story. And then he dies and the movie ends. We aren't really given the opportunity to grieve his death outside of a handful of news reels that play over footage of the search and then its over. The film makers who finished the film for release don't finish Sharkwater Extinction and they don't tell the other story either.

We're left in limbo.

I say all of this feeling kind of gross and guilty that I am perhaps wishing that a documentary and the people who finished the film (likely close friends with Rob Stewart) exploited his death more. But as a film it just seemed uninteresting. And that was sad to me, because I loved the first Sharkwater, was sad when I found out the filmmaker had died and was very much looking forward to seeing his last work.

 

[nameless1]

Based on my observations, the English Canadian film industry, which is basically everywhere else other than Quebec, is always in a state of constant struggle. That is not to say there is a dearth of talent; rather, it is just awfully inconsistent. Some years, there are at least one or two films that rank amongst the year's best, but in most years, they mainly disappoint. It may be a lack of money or avenues to showcase the works, or the best talents leave for greener pastures, or even a lack of identity, since many movies are indistinguishable from American movies, and even use American settings and currency. Whatever the reason may be, English Canadian films always seem "off", and Firecrackers is the latest example.

On the surface, it checks all the boxes of a good coming-of-age film. The plot is largely logical, and the atmosphere and characters feel authentic and raw, buoyed by the great performances from the majority of the cast. Combined, the film highlights the angst and struggles of teenagers that the audience cannot help but sympathize, despite the warts and all. Initially, I am impressed, and I had high hopes for it. Then, about halfway through, the excitement quickly turns into disappointment, because I realize that I have seen this movie before, and it is called Fish Tank, the 2009 film from Andrea Arnold that I rave about. Save for a few geological adjustments, updates to technology that reflect the modern times, and some more fleshed out characters, all the important plot points including the ending, the foul languages of the kids, and right down to the shaky camera work, are all identical to Arnold's work. Unfortunately, even though the filmmakers are able to capture the rawness of the original film, and hence, the sense of authenticity, everything about this copycat work is a notch below, as it goes overboard with the shaky camera, to the point of annoyance, one of the major plot point is rushed and it makes the plagiarism even more blatant, as that was an important part of the former film as well, and it also does not have the dynamic talent of Michael Fassbender as one of the main supporting character which gave the previous film an extra dimension, as his stand-in is rather dull and not that charismatic.

That is why I say the movie is "off". On the one hand, if one has not seen Fish Tank before, this is definitely not a bad film, and I will give it a 6.5 out of 10. However, if one has seen the original, then it becomes a 6, or maybe lower. It is still decent enough, but I am just not sure I can recommend a plagiarized work that tries to pass off as an original. Still, it is a a good microcosm of the English Canadian film industry, and it does highlight one of the issue that prevents it from being seen as a cinematic powerhouse. Somehow, the filmmakers cannot be just inspired by foreign influences, and try to tell a good story with its own cultural identity. Instead, they are often consumed by the outside forces, and most of the English Canadian movies I have seen are just cheap knockoffs, indistinguishable from the American counterparts. Now, Quebec is often held as the saving grace, and the films from there do have their own identity, but it too likely has its own struggles. This year, nobody really talks about Quebecois films, unlike in years past. In fact, one of them, Mango Shake, is even entirely in English, and it is one of worst movies I have ever seen in my life.

Also, this movie makes me wonder. Does people in rural Canada, even the kids, swear that much? In Fishtank, that is believable, because other movies about lower class kids in Britain share the same foul languages. I buy that for American rural kids too, because they too are largely the same in many different movies. Is that the case in Canada? Now, I have never been to rural Canada, but I have been to some inner B.C. Rocky Mountain towns, and the people there are quite polite. I honestly do not believe that they will actually swear that much, and I think that is just another proof that the movie copied Fishtank.

 

[Nalens Oga]

Any of this worth watching? Last stuff I have left on my Netflix watch list before my subscription runs this month.

• También la lluvia (2010)
• My Happy Family (2017)
• Silence (2016)
• Contratiempo (2016)
• Frantz (2016)
• Twelve O'Clock High (1949)
• I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore (2017)
• Field of Dreams (1989)
• In the Line of Fire (1993)
• Okja (2017)
• Hello, My Name Is Doris (2015)
• Miss Stevens (2016)
• Win It All (2017)
• Mallrats (1995)
• The Adjustment Bureau (2011)
• The Hollars (2016)