Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Momotaro Divine Sea Warriors (1945)



Japanese WW2 animated propaganda film. Designed to brainwash kids. Released in the last months of the war, it couldnt be exhibited in many theaters and probably made a big loss.

Add: It was the first feature length anime. Very primitive, its far inferior to modern animation.

I really enjoyed that. Quite gut wrenching.

Gut-wrenching...excellent word for it.

It could well be the same for me. I wasn't too keen on it when I saw it back when it came out but really had fun with it this time around.



Second viewing -

Dave Chappelle (Comic Strip Live) - 10/10

4-hr show! This was really, really awesome. I wasn't expecting it. I saw him do a 3-hour live in Detroit (and a shorter show in Ann Arbor, met him too) but this show was not only longer, it had an interesting audience.. A majority of the people were from overseas, staying in hostels (which took me back) and there was a LOT of back and forth with Dave.. This was in 2009, in front of about 20 people.. I will have to watch this again -- it took me three days, only because I'd start this late in the night, since I think laughter is a great way to end the day... The last hour is nothing but chatter, and the people are very cool, funny stories, some even heckling this Australian "cheeky" guy... Eh... Just watch it.

It's nice to observe human behavior. You don't have to LOVE stand-up to appreciate this.

Full show down below

Certified Copy (2010) -

Simon Killer (2012) -

Upstream Color (2013) -

__________________
"A film has to be a dialogue, not a monologue — a dialogue to provoke in the viewer his own thoughts, his own feelings. And if a film is a dialogue, then it’s a good film; if it’s not a dialogue, it’s a bad film."

- Michael "Gloomy Old Fart" Haneke

Ivan's Childhood (1962)

__________________

[ J ] - [ S ] - [ F ]

Here's one for the MoFo Top 100 of the 1940s Countdown that is coming up... get your list in!


Unfaithfully Yours (Preston Sturges,1948)

A highly rated film that is both a dark comedy and a screwball comedy. Did it work? I didn't care for it, but you might like it. It is Preston Struges after all.

My full review of Unfaithfully Yours, it's a good read to! At least I hope

The juxtaposition is justified since the film does draw attention to how these camps were located so close to an otherwise ordinary pastoral setting where people still more or less went about their lives. It underlines how grim scenes of immense atrocity can so easily occur side-by-side with normalcy, plus the footage shot decades later indicates how easily said atrocity could be forgotten if there was no effort to record and remember the past (and that's without getting into the people who treat the whole thing like a hoax no matter what). I don't think it's in poor taste to do that - showing images of the camps by themselves with no score could end up feeling dry and distant and monotonous (which could potentially lessen their impact anyway), so including such a strong and (deliberately) discomforting contrast ends up creating a stronger impression in the long run.

In any case, I do question how "objective" documentaries can be. They are still films made by filmmakers; films always get constructed in such a way that they communicate whatever the filmmakers want them to regardless of whether or not the finished films ultimately line up with what is considered objective anyway (and who gets to decide what is objective in the first place?). What would you consider an example of a purely objective documentary anyway?

Last movie I watched...

Batman (1966) -

Remarkably functional.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

This is a slice of life film from Italy near the turn of the century. It's three hours long, very little happens. Couldn't tell you the characters or the plot but it was pretty to look at.





Another sort of slice of life film, but things actually happen in this one. This is the story of a colonialism in Africa and a clerk who believes he's British. The film has a genuine sort of humanity to the characters where the villains aren't really that bad and nobody is really that good.





Wallace Shaun and Andre Gregory reunite for an adaptation of the Ibsen play. Much like a sequel the returns are someone dulled...this is no My Dinner with Andre or Vanya on 42nd Street but it is watchable.

Red Desert

First non documentary film in quite a while

__________________

15 Minutes (2001)

I don't care if this movie is manipulative or not, I enjoyed the heck out of it. From the moment the two bad guys in this flick start killing people and filming it, with the intention to get famous in America, you want them dead. Because the first couple of people they murder are also set on fire with a huge apartment fire as a result, both a famous detective and a fire marshal are called in. Robert De Niro is the detective and Edward Burns is the fire marshal. Burns wants to learn from a reluctant De Niro, but they soon learn to respect one another. Meanwhile, the killers go after a witness (the beautiful Vera Farmiga) and soon set their sights on a larger target. The entire cast is very good, including those already mentioned. Kelsey Grammer is super as a sleazy "newsman" who has his own show and soon runs afoul of the demented pair who want him to make them famous. Yes, part of this film is an indictment of sleazoid Jerry Springer-type shows, but the best of it is the relationship between De Niro and Burns and the action that takes place as they hunt down the murderers. Good stuff.





The Boy (2016)

A young woman hires on as a nanny for an English couple who leave her to care for their son. She's shocked when she learns that the "boy" is actually a life-size doll that they all treat like a real boy. Greta, the nanny, (Lauren Cohan) goes along with the family's wishes concerning the doll named Brahams, and soon strange events start to occur around the doll, like it moving of its own accord. She has a friend named Malcolm (Rupert Evans) who also begins to witness the weirdness. There are several twists and turns, especially the end reveal, which can make you go "oh yeah" or roll your eyes. I'll admit I wasn't expecting it, so I liked it, but didn't love it. Still worth one look at least.

__________________
"Miss Jean Louise, Mr. Arthur Radley."

OOOOHHH!!! I actually kinda loved that when it came out, and it came out during the time I disliked Ben Affleck.

Had a real couch potato day yesterday, and did nothing but let the cats ile on me while I watched movies. All re-watches, but it had been some time, so why not.



How is Daniel Day-Lewis still so perfect?


After that, felt like something light, so did the following, back to back:

Girl with a Suitcase 1961

__________________
A normal man? For me, a normal man is one who turns his head to see a beautiful woman's bottom. The point is not just to turn your head. There are five or six reasons. And he is glad to find people who are like him, his equals. That's why he likes crowded beaches, football, the bar downtown...

The only Antonioni I ever liked was "Il Gido" (Outcry) -- is this a good one? Or is it slow as hell?

I do reckon that it can be justified, but I still believe that leaving the images speak for themselves would of been a better approach, at least for me. Again, the score left me distracted, and it definitely lessened the overall impact that the documentary could of had. As to it possibly ending up being "distant", I don't think that really matters, since there already is a feeling of distance between the viewer and the subject matter, considering how helpless to the situation and to its results we are, and the quietude would only reconfirm that. As for it being "dry" or "monotonous", I really don't think that's even possible, not to mention, the documentary is 32 minutes short, and it is way too informative (with a score or not) to ever end up feeling or being dry and monotonous. I would say even subtle and calm music could be more effective, a score of nature could definitely establish what the juxtaposition tried to do, while also not being distracting.

Agreed, there is no such thing as a completely objective documentary, although, what I do think should be necessary is trying to achieve objectivity, by at least having a variety of opinions and points of views on a subject or a situation. Although, after much thought, if one documentary's goal isn't to be objective, I don't think it should be negatively criticised for that, I guess the intent of the filmmaker is what matters the most, and their work should be judged on how successful their intent came out.

No one decides what's objective, it's already decided by nature and meaning of the word itself. Who gets to decide what is blue ? Who gets decide what is fluid ?...

I haven't seen enough documentaries in my life to even try and answer this question.

It's difficult to do book adaptations right because someone, somewhere will always complain. My take on it is to never really compare the two. They are completely different mediums and unless they DRASTICALLY change the story elements, leaving bits and pieces out is completely fine and even expected. With The Martian, Ridley Scott manages to stick to the core idea and themes presented in the novel, capturing the isolation and loneliness brought fourth and delivering an entertaining survival flick.

The book was one of my favourite books to read that year. It was a hilarious, thrilling and scary read. The thought of being alone there terrified me and I wouldn't have survived a second. Mark Whatney, played by Matt Damon, not only survives the initial disaster, but inspires. The man does so many things with so little and here I am sitting on my ass with a bag of chips watching bad sitcoms. I knew the film wouldn't perfectly capture the same feeling the book had, but it does a decent job of attempting to.

Whatney is struck by some debris after a storm hits home base on Mars. The crew decide to leave, thinking he's dead. Guess what? He survived. With the crew heading back home, Whatney is literally stuck on a deserted planet by himself. He has to find a way to survive, communicate and hopefully live long enough to find rescue. The harsh elements of Mars might be a challenge for him.

Damon does a pretty good job of bringing the humour to life. Whatney uses comedic relief while talking to himself and his video logs to help with the mental strain of being in this situation. In all honesty, I would do the same thing. Being able to laugh a bit and have some fun, helps alleviate tense and impossible situations. Had he been down and depressed the whole time, maybe he wouldn't have found ways to accomplish things. While Damon is indeed a focal point of the film, the rest of the cast is stacked. Here's a quick list: Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels, Sean Bean, Michael Peña, Kate Mara, Sebastian Stan, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Donald Glover and Mackenzie Davis. Not bad for a film about one guy trapped on another planet. Each serve their roles fine, some more than others. Glover's character is an odd one, popping up to help solve and issue, then disappearing right after.

Arguments have been made about whether or not this is a comedy. It is not, there are certainly comedic elements, but expect a survival struggle story with beautiful desolate terrain shots and lots of science mumbo-jumbo. One thing the book did was explain, a lot, of the science, the film sidesteps this, which is an improvement. I'm all for the realism of situations, but my understanding of those elements were next to none. Scott's slight change of the climax is understandable to add more tension to the scene and overall, the film is an enjoyable treat. Scott's film record has been hit or miss in his later career and the Martian, is a hit for him and the audience.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews