Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Spring 2021 Edition

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Clearly. 4/10 is a pretty high score for you. I used to be confused by your rating system, but, now, I imagine them out of 5 and they make a lot more sense. When you gave Die Hard a 5/10 the other day, I wasn't even mad because that's basically a perfect score from you.

Well, I know you're joking, but you ain't that far from the truth. For films that are purely entertainment and where I can't find another level of appreciation, you could indeed consider my ratings out of 6. It's the highest I would go.

 

[Megahab]

I just watched Minari and Nomadland. They were terrible. So boring. I just don't get the praise at all.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Love and Monsters

with people you won't recognize

It's the end of the world as we know it...again. This time, an asteroid was about to destroy Earth but the world's powers blew it up with a ton of missiles...which then rained toxic spew down on the planet and f***ed everything up royal. Bugs got big and mean, frogs became the size of swimming pools and developed a taste for humans, and shit just went sideways. Seven years later Joel is languishing in a shelter with a few couples audibly having sex next door and also a cow. (Nobody is having sex with the cow, it's just there) He cooks, cleans, talks to his old girlfriend on the radio...and freezes once the action starts. He's understandably traumatized after 95% of the human population got killed...but he's still pissed off by the guy in the next dorm over getting laid while he isn't. He decides to brave the outdoors to find his girlfriend and his balls. Carnage and self-actualization ensues.

Not...terrible. Manages to be uplifting once in a while. All the various mutated monsters have wiped out most of the world, but they're very cooperative when the plot needs to be helped along. Also for the benefit of Merle from the Walking Dead and the little girl who tags along with him. You'd think all those horrible predators would home in on loud noises such as human speech and dogs barking...well, not these guys. But somehow it makes an okay product. Not great, not even all that good. But far enough above Meh to be worth it. Go Joel!

On Netflix

"Uh...sit?"

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Femina Ridens (Schivazappa, 1969) - Crazy film about the power dynamics between men and women. The characters are proxies for their respective gender, sometimes without much subtelty (that vagina dentata anxiety is quite something). Its gogo-psychedelic tones, with mandatory dance numbers, make up for every weakness it could have. I had it a little lower on IMDB, but I had lots of fun going back to it and I'd be comfortable with 8.5/10

IMDB Summary: A rich and sadistic man, who enjoys degrading women as part of elaborate S&M games, abducts a female journalist. She is subjected to his unpleasant games but soon begins subverting him.

 

[kihei]

Femina Ridens (Schivazappa, 1969) - Crazy film about the power dynamics between men and women. The characters are proxies for their respective gender, sometimes without much subtelty (that vagina dentata anxiety is quite something). Its gogo-psychedelic tones, with mandatory dance numbers, make up for every weakness it could have. I had it a little lower on IMDB, but I had lots of fun going back to it and I'd be comfortable with 8.5/10

IMDB Summary: A rich and sadistic man, who enjoys degrading women as part of elaborate S&M games, abducts a female journalist. She is subjected to his unpleasant games but soon begins subverting him.

Sounds like a denture adventure. I hope this doesn't seem like a biting comment but you chompion some pretty strange movies. (Don't take offense, I'm just teething you). Tooth to tell, I want to see this one. That's just a snap reaction, though. I'll try to nip the impulse in the bud.

 

[Pink Mist]

Under My Skin (1950) directed by Jean Negulesco

After running away from Italy when he failed to throw a race for Italian mobsters, an American jockey (John Garfield) relocates with his son to Paris to try to make money at the tracks there and evade his past. Follows the beats of a fairly standard American sports movie but with the distinction of a European locale. Has a good performance by Micheline Presle who plays a nightclub singer who becomes a surrogate mother to Garfield’s son. But in particular, the film was elevated above what could have been a run of the mill b movie by Garfield’s strong performance which would be one of his final roles before he was blacklisted by Hollywood for refusing to name names to the farcical anti-communist House Committee on Un-American Activities (and dying prematurely shortly after from a heart attack caused by the stress of the blacklisting).

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Watched The Fury with the likes of Kirk Douglas, John Cassavetes, etc. It's about a CIA wet works guy (Douglas) who has a son that has powerful psychic powers and the efforts of the government to control him (and another girl) for their own nefarious purposes. Crazy movie. The final scene blew my mind (literally). LOL. I'd give it a 7/10. Very entertaining and well paced.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Sounds like a denture adventure. I hope this doesn't seem like a biting comment but you chompion some pretty strange movies. (Don't take offense, I'm just teething you). Tooth to tell, I want to see this one. That's just a snap reaction, though. I'll try to nip the impulse in the bud.

I'm really curious of what you'll think of it, knowing that we don't agree on some of these stranger reels (Jodo of course, but I remember you crapping on Brass too, and I can't imagine you defending Metzger!). I wrote that at 5:52 AM, having not slept yet, so I skipped over a lot of stuff, but the film is gorgeous, so that will probably hit target with you. It uses reflexivity in its reversal of power dynamics, so I'm sold right away. Certainly a close descendant of Clouzot's La prisonnière, and an ancestor to Metzger's The Image, two other films I love.

 

[kihei]

I'm really curious of what you'll think of it, knowing that we don't agree on some of these stranger reels (Jodo of course, but I remember you crapping on Brass too, and I can't imagine you defending Metzger!). I wrote that at 5:52 AM, having not slept yet, so I skipped over a lot of stuff, but the film is gorgeous, so that will probably hit target with you. It uses reflexivity in its reversal of power dynamics, so I'm sold right away. Certainly a close descendant of Clouzot's La prisonnière, and an ancestor to Metzger's The Image, two other films I love.

Doesn't sound like my cup of tea. Degrade women for an hour and a half and then they turn the tables in the end like that was some sort of meaningful social comment. Pass.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Doesn't sound like my cup of tea. Degrade women for an hour and a half and then they turn the tables in the end like that was some sort of meaningful social comment. Pass.

I'm not sure what to make of this comment - on films you haven't seen? - since you just said you wanted to see it, but yeah, you might wanna skip 'em. The idea that these films were made in order to pass as social comments is pretty amusing (and ain't that just another way of saying they're "pretentious"?).

 

[kihei]

I'm not sure what to make of this comment - on films you haven't seen? - since you just said you wanted to see it, but yeah, you might wanna skip 'em. The idea that these films were made in order to pass as social comments is pretty amusing (and ain't that just another way of saying they're "pretentious"?).

Oh, like I said, I've nipped the impulse in the bud. To be honest, the initial comment was made just so I could get a lot of puns in. All movies pass as social commentary of one kind or another in my book, good ones, mediocre ones and bad ones alike. In fact, I find the sociological approach to film criticism quite fascinating.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Oh, like I said, I've nipped the impulse in the bud. To be honest, the initial comment was made just so I could get a lot of puns in. All movies pass as social commentary of one kind or another in my book, good ones, mediocre ones and bad ones alike. In fact, I find the sociological approach to film criticism quite fascinating.

Of course you can read everything through it, but it's not the same as saying they're trying to mask what they really are behind what they excuse themselves as. I think both Femina Ridens and La prisonnière are more complex than that regarding their use of gender. The Image might be considered as "degrading to women", but the simple fact that it was written by one (Robbe-Grillet's wife) demands for a more exhaustive examination.

 

[Osprey]

The idea that these films were made in order to pass as social comments is pretty amusing (and ain't that just another way of saying they're "pretentious"?).

Social commentary isn't necessarily pretentious, IMO. Pretentious means "expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature." If a film actually has something important to say and doesn't exaggerate it, I wouldn't call it pretentious. On the other hand, I would call it that if it feels like the filmmakers are being too obvious and hitting viewers over the head with the commentary (like Aronofsky's mother!), trying too hard (like Sorkin with The Trial of the Chicago 7) or just making bad commentary (like A Serbian Film's poor excuse for making an exploitation flick).

Social commentary needs to make a good point in a subtle fashion, IMO. Have some respect for the audience's intelligence and the fact that not everyone may like your commentary by making it subtle enough that it's not distracting and can be spotted by those who want to see it and not by those who don't. In fact, I think that the best commentary is the kind that influences people without them even realizing it, like an "anti-war" movie that war buffs love because they think that it's just a good war movie.

 

[Osprey]

All movies pass as social commentary of one kind or another in my book, good ones, mediocre ones and bad ones alike.

Even Freddy Got Fingered? Speaking of which, I read the other day that a man had a warrant out for his arrest for 15 years for not returning that film to the rental store. I wonder what's more embarrassing: getting arrested or having it be on public record that you rented Freddy Got Fingered.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Social commentary isn't necessarily pretentious, IMO.

Not what I meant. I thought kihei was implying they were trying to pass as something they were not (social comments), and that would have been pretentious. I've said it a thousand times already, I don't understand people who blame a film for being pretentious. A film can't be pretentious, it is what it is, it has no "intent". A director can be a pretentious prick, but this doesn't affect his films. The only trace of pretentiousness I've seen on film was in the credits of Le désirable et le sublime where Bénazéraf puts his own name alongside Shakespeare, Baudelaire and Camus.

 

[Osprey]

Not what I meant. I thought kihei was implying they were trying to pass as something they were not (social comments), and that would have been pretentious. I've said it a thousand times already, I don't understand people who blame a film for being pretentious. A film can't be pretentious, it is what it is, it has no "intent". A director can be a pretentious prick, but this doesn't affect his films. The only trace of pretentiousness I've seen on film was in the credits of Le désirable et le sublime where Bénazéraf puts his own name alongside Shakespeare, Baudelaire and Camus.

I wasn't so much replying to your conversation with kihei as wanting to address your question about how a film can be pretentious.

Something doesn't need to have "intent" to be pretentious. Merriam-Webster gives examples of "pretentious language" and "pretentious houses" for its second meaning. You might argue that language and houses have no "intent," that the intent really comes from the person using and presenting them, but it's still a valid use of the word because it's understood that the intent is coming from elsewhere and is reflected in them.

Language, especially, is a good example here because film is a "language" of sorts, just with moving images and sound... the "language of film," if you will. Just as words communicate, so do films. Often, the director/writer is just telling a story, but, in films with commentary, he's also communicating a point. He can communicate that point as pretentiously (or subtly) with moving images as he can with words. It's just a different medium and form of expression.

 

[nameless1]

Femina Ridens (Schivazappa, 1969) - Crazy film about the power dynamics between men and women. The characters are proxies for their respective gender, sometimes without much subtelty (that vagina dentata anxiety is quite something). Its gogo-psychedelic tones, with mandatory dance numbers, make up for every weakness it could have. I had it a little lower on IMDB, but I had lots of fun going back to it and I'd be comfortable with 8.5/10

IMDB Summary: A rich and sadistic man, who enjoys degrading women as part of elaborate S&M games, abducts a female journalist. She is subjected to his unpleasant games but soon begins subverting him.

That picture reminds me of Blind Beast from Japan, released in the same year. The plot is coincidentally very similar too, so I kind of want to check it out now.

 

[kihei]

Even Freddy Got Fingered? Speaking of which, I read the other day that a man had a warrant out for his arrest for 15 years for not returning that film to the rental store. I wonder what's more embarrassing: getting arrested or having it be on public record that you rented Freddy Got Fingered.

Yup, for sure, even Freddy. And Plan 9 from Outer Space and Deep Throat and the worst Steven Seagall movie. So, too, for Moonlight, Manchester by the Sea and Through a Glass Darkly. Superhero movies, too. Perhaps, the problem is with the word "commentary" which implies something conscious, wilful. But what I mean is every movie ever made is a product of its time and place and the movie reflects what is going on in that time and place in terms of values, beliefs, hopes, fears, and so on. Social change is reflected in movies--how could it not be? Just one example: do a study of Bond girls and you will see a change in attitudes towards women over the years. These movies aren't made to pass on social information but they ultimately do. And they have an impact. How would a Texas millionaire oilman know how to behave if he didn't see himself in movies? Consciously or not a movie provides clues. Quite personal idiosyncrasies can be copied from movies, too, without one even realizing it. I once had a habit--using a cold bottle to cool off my forehead after tennis--that I was shocked to see years later portrayed by James Dean in a movie I saw in my teens. So, what I am talking about is a kind of constructed social commentary that the makers of the film may not be the least aware of, that simply reflects the creator existing in the society of a particular time and place. That constitutes one form of subtext, and it is fascinating to explore. So, yes, a movie that depicts the humiliation of women for an hour and a half only to turn the tables in the last twenty minutes is making a social comment whether it intends to or not. And I am at the point where I have seen enough of those, despite whatever the hell else the director thinks he/she is doing.

 

[Osprey]

Yup, for sure, even Freddy. And Plan 9 from Outer Space and Deep Throat and the worst Steven Seagall movie. So, too, for Moonlight, Manchester by the Sea and Through a Glass Darkly. Superhero movies, too. Perhaps, the problem is with the word "commentary" which implies something conscious, wilful. But what I mean is every movie ever made is a product of its time and place and the movie reflects what is going on in that time and place in terms of values, beliefs, hopes, fears, and so on. Social change is reflected in movies--how could it not be? Just one example: do a study of Bond girls and you will see a change in attitudes towards women over the years. These movies aren't made to pass on social information but they ultimately do. And they have an impact. How would a Texas millionaire oilman know how to behave if he didn't see himself in movies? Consciously or not a movie provides clues. Quite personal idiosyncrasies can be copied from movies, too, without one even realizing it. I once had a habit--using a cold bottle to cool off my forehead after tennis--that I was shocked to see years later portrayed by James Dean in a movie I saw in my teens. So, what I am talking about is a kind of constructed social commentary that the makers of the film may not be the least aware of, that simply reflects the creator existing in the society of a particular time and place. That constitutes one form of subtext, and it is fascinating to explore. So, yes, a movie that depicts the humiliation of women for an hour and a half only to turn the tables in the last twenty minutes is making a social comment with it intends to or not. And I am at the point where I have seen enough of those whatever the hell else the director thinks he/she is doing.

That's a far more thoughtful response than I expected to a wisecrack about Freddy Got Fingered, but I'll take it!

...and the worst Steven Seagall movie.

Wait. Which one is that?

 

[kihei]

I wasn't so much replying to your conversation with kihei as wanting to address your question about how a film can be pretentious.

Something doesn't need to have "intent" to be pretentious. Merriam-Webster gives examples of "pretentious language" and "pretentious houses" for its second meaning. You might argue that language and houses have no "intent," that the intent really comes from the person using and presenting them, but it's still a valid use of the word because it's understood that the intent is coming from elsewhere and is reflected in them.

Language, especially, is a good example here because film is a "language" of sorts, just with moving images and sound... the "language of film," if you will. Just as words communicate, so do films. Often, the director/writer is just telling a story, but, in films with commentary, he's also communicating a point. He can communicate that point as pretentiously (or subtly) with moving images as he can with words. It's just a different medium and form of expression.

Yeah, I'm not sure why PO has trouble with this. Different people will have different examples but for me a number of films Ken Russell directed about classical composers fits the bill--Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Liszt (The Music Lovers; Mahler: Lisztomania, respectively).

 

[kihei]

Wait. Which one is that?

You ask too much of a mere human. Wait until we get a quantum computer. Maybe it will be able to figure that out.

 

[Puck]

Billie Eillish is just Cillian Murphy in a blonde wig

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I wasn't so much replying to your conversation with kihei as wanting to address your question about how a film can be pretentious.

Something doesn't need to have "intent" to be pretentious. Merriam-Webster gives examples of "pretentious language" and "pretentious houses" for its second meaning. You might argue that language and houses have no "intent," that the intent really comes from the person using and presenting them, but it's still a valid use of the word because it's understood that the intent is coming from elsewhere and is reflected in them.

Language, especially, is a good example here because film is a "language" of sorts, just with moving images and sound... the "language of film," if you will. Just as words communicate, so do films. Often, the director/writer is just telling a story, but, in films with commentary, he's also communicating a point. He can communicate that point as pretentiously (or subtly) with moving images as he can with words. It's just a different medium and form of expression.

"Often, the director/writer [confusion already] is just telling a story, but in films with commentary, he's also communicating a point" - that's a way too simple way of understanding meaning. I, for one, think an artwork's meaning is built by the reader, meaning that you can understand something as pretentious (or as degrading to women) but this reading doesn't belong to the object being read. So many people read Godard's films as being pretentious, a proposition that's mostly ridiculous to someone who has the tools to read his work with a different angle.

The idea of language, or a house, being pretentious is also absolutely silly to me. Isn't it only built on context, which as nothing to do with the object itself? Otherwise, give me a list of fundamentally pretentious words, please!

And film language too? So are we talking about the travelling or the close-up? Ah, the jump-cut!! Godard, again.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

That picture reminds me of Blind Beast from Japan, released in the same year. The plot is coincidentally very similar too, so I kind of want to check it out now.

I must have this somewhere in my collection - I just went through 200 films or so to make some sense of this mess. If I find it, I'll watch it for sure!


Edit: got it!! Next on my watch list!

 

[kihei]

"Often, the director/writer [confusion already] is just telling a story, but in films with commentary, he's also communicating a point" - that's a way too simple way of understanding meaning. I, for one, think an artwork's meaning is built by the reader, meaning that you can understand something as pretentious (or as degrading to women) but this reading doesn't belong to the object being read. So many people read Godard's films as being pretentious, a proposition that's mostly ridiculous to someone who has the tools to read his work with a different angle.

The idea of language, or a house, being pretentious is also absolutely silly to me. Isn't it only built on context, which as nothing to do with the object itself? Otherwise, give me a list of fundamentally pretentious words, please!

And film language too? So are we talking about the travelling or the close-up? Ah, the jump-cut!! Godard, again.

You seem to have a problem with adjectives, period. I believe you are saying that the movie is an object unto itself alone and cannot be anything more than what it is. It is we the audience who perceive it to be something that is not fundamental to the thing itself, something that we append to the experience of watching it. But by that definition the movie is no more than a series of reels or digital information. Thus, there can be no such thing as a melancholy movie, a happy movie, a sad movie, a funny movie, a disgusting movie, or any other descriptor-of-choice movie. In reality most of us know a comedy when we see one because such movies are structured to make us laugh. As long as an individual or a group of people largely agree on what is comic in the movie, we can call it a funny movie. Same thing as a disgusting movie--as long as an individual or group of people can agree on the elements that make the movie repellent, we can label it disgusting. A coherent defence of the adjective we are using allows us to explain why a movie is funny or disgusting. When these opinions are shared by others, we have a kind of consensus. Same thing with "pretentious"--as long as there is some coherent elaboration of the criteria which the commentator(s) is (are) using to defend their consideration, a movie can be defensibly labelled as "pretentious." In short, a critic can call any movie what he or she wants as long as he or she can back it up with a reasonable defence.

As for demanding a list of words, well, you could do that with any descriptor just about. You could as easily say, give me a list of silly words, or annoying words, or elegant word, or petulant words. Like pretentious, silly, annoying. elegant, and petulant require elaboration to explain. To sum it up, the fact that no movie is inherently anything but itself does not mean that the action it contains cannot be described as pretentious, silly, annoying, elegant, petulant, or anything else as long as one has a persuasive argument to back up the claim.