Movie Tab II

Tools    





Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Why such a low rating for Mon Oncle, Mark?
My main problem with Tati in general and Mon Oncle in particular is that a little of Tati goes a long way. I enjoy his persona, but he's often off-screen for long stretches of time, and the other characters aren't very memorable. He comes up with a unique world and obviously spends a lot of time on his art direction and production design, but the actual payoff in viewer engagement and enjoyment seems minimal. It takes a lot of time for his gags about a cold, mechanized, modern society to be set up and build and by then my interest has often waned.

Also, this film is two hours long and it could have made a cute short, but I just don't see why his brand of low-key humor is so critically praised. I would have enjoyed more scenes similar to the bit with the "rubberized" plastic pitcher and the glass. Now that I laughed out loud at. I don't need anyone to tell me what Tati does, doesn't do or means to do. I understand all that. I would be glad if his cinematic sensibilities made me feel more happiness while watching since I believe he would want me to laugh. His fans can explain his greatness better than I can, and I hope they can do it without referring too much to philosophy or something too intellectual because I believe he's a comic entertainer at heart.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



Rather appropriately, some 90s films.



The Player (Robert Altman, 1992)
+


Copied from the 90s thread: I watched this one recently as part of my exploration into the world of Altman. A fantastic dark tale with a great, clever and funny screenplay, there are lots of scenes I love in this - from the long take opening to the brilliantly hilarious Bruce Willis film within a film at the end. Self aware and filled with lots of enjoyable cameos and intelligent dialogue, this is for me an essential film for film fans.



Man Bits Dog (Rémy Belvaux, André Bonzel, Benoît Poelvoorde, 1992)
+


Heavily recommended by Honeykid, I managed to watch this film just before I sent my list in and I am delighted that I did. Some might find its sick and twisted protagonist and his actions disturbing and difficult to watch, but I found it to be a hilarious dark comedy, highly original and entertaining with lots of great scenes. I have never seen anything like it, its crazy and some scenes do challenge your enjoyment as a viewer, but it would not be the same film without them.



Die Hard with a Vengeance (John McTiernan, 1995)
+


I am a massive fan of the original Die Hard, and before this I had also seen the fourth and fifth instalments to the series, I disliked both, especially the woeful fifth film. Although I have not watched the second film yet, this is definitely the second best film of the series that I have seen so far. McTiernan returns to the directors seat and delivers a highly enjoyable action film full of energy, fantastic set pieces and great humour.

Unlike the first film which was set in one building with great success, this film is spread out over a number of different locations. Plot wise its a bit of a mess, its one action set piece after another and the film does seem a little long, but at least in these scenes we have fun with great chemistry between Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson.



Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Terry Gilliam, 1998)
-


This film is a hell of a trip that some will find disgusting and intolerable, but others will find themselves enjoying every minute of it. I am part of the latter group. The film is basically a visual portrayal of the effects of psychedelic drugs, perfectly created by Gilliam, with a number of fantastic scenes such as near the film's beginning where we see Johnny Depp panicking as he sees the room's people transform into strange creatures.

I found the film to be absolutely hilarious, with two great performances by Depp and Del Toro. Depp gets a lot of stick (mainly for his 'less serious' films like Alice in Wonderland, Pirates of the Caribbean etc.) from some people but I honestly love him and some of his roles, Del Toro is another favourite actor of mine, although someone I have seen less off. He is superb as the sometimes calm, sometimes crazy Dr. Gonzo, with a superb performance both in terms of phsyical apperance and dialogue.

Criticised for its excessive visceral and sometimes grotesque style and lack of substance, these complaints are not fully correct in my opinion. The film acts as a critique of the American dream and is negative and ironic in its portrayal of this, using Las Vegas to show it. I do not see how this film would encourage drug use either, if anything I think it would have the opposite effect, although in some instances the effects seem fun and interesting, the characters find themselves in very dangerous, life threatening situations because of them in others.



Dead Man (Jim Jarmusch, 1995)


I am going to copy a lot from what I said to Donnie about the film in a conversation between ourselves, as it is basically what I think of the film.First of all I will say that I honestly do not understand complaints about the film being a boring and slow experience, even if you do not understand the meaning, which I was unsure of on the first viewing, I felt this film worked anyway as a chase film, with some great and funny scenes shared between Blake and Nobody keeping things lively, and all the encounters with the various smaller characters proving interesting and enjoyable.

I will say am not completely sure what the film is about, but I do not think it has a clear meaning or it is particularly essential to the film I think it is kind of a criticism of America and the West, shown through the Indians and racist scenes like the shop owner's attitude towards Nobody, and the way we have Robert Mitchum - who gives a very small but great final performance, the powerful white man running the town and chasing down Depp. This white businessman has taken over nature and the original habitants of America, like industry versus nature, the town is even called Machine. There are also other subtle hints towards the theme industry versus nature, such as the paper flowers that the girl has at the film's beginning, a normally natural object that is now man made, and there is the shooting of the buffaloes from the train at the beginning.

Spoilers in paragraph: I liked the spiritual stuff, we know Depp is going to die, he is a dead man because the bullet is trapped. And I liked how he was preparing to die. I like the idea that Nobody was the only thing keeping him alive, and was simply their to guide him. Notice how literally as soon as Nobody is shot moments later Blake finally dies. I liked the lamb (I think it was a lamb) scene where Depp literally lays down and it looks like he kind of others himself and accepts nature and his death.

Aside from that I found the film incredibly funny and enjoyable, The Blake/Nobody relationship was awesome and like when Blake walks into the camp with those three people is great when Nobody saves him, although the violence is always kept kind of gruesome. And then of course there's the electric score, which is brilliant and one of the best that I have heard.
__________________



Your ratings have really been lowered?
Haha I was waiting for someone to say that, but yeh, believe it or not, a lot of these films I would have gave like 4.5/5s before, I just happen to be watching a lot of great films. There's not many films I would give 5 right now, like my top 10 and maybe like 10 others, just more 3.5s - 4.5s now

Edit: Like, The Player and Man Bites Dog would have been 4.5+, Die Hard 3 would have been 4, Fear and Loathing a 5. 4s are are still very much achievable for films I really enjoy, the ones above I honestly loved.



We've gone on holiday by mistake
Mark F what films if any have received a fabled 5 stars from you?



Probably those listed in my Favorite Films; at least the first nine. Happy Anniversary!
I have watched around 70-80 films that I would rate as five stars. Considering that I have watched way less movies than Mark I guess that my five star rating would be a four or even three and half star rating for Mark.



I've given seven movies a
, and then about 45 movies a
So how do you rate your movies? Is it based on how much you enjoyed the film, or how much you got out of it. Or do you look at it without taking those things into consideration?



So how do you rate your movies? Is it based on how much you enjoyed the film, or how much you got out of it. Or do you look at it without taking those things into consideration?
It kind of matters, if I give a movie a 5/5, I had to enjoy it to a high degree, and at the same time consider it a technical masterpiece. It can't be either or, and for the most part that applies to a 4.5 movie unless its the guilty pleasures like Hobo With a Shotgun. I've given movies up to a 4/5 based on just enjoyment, and not looking at any technicals, but then I really had to get into it. And I gave films maybe up to a 3.5 based on just respect of the techniques and how it worked, even if I didn't enjoy it at all, I don't think I've given a film higher than that just out of respect, since for the most part I can enjoy a film just based on how it's made.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
These are open questions and not aimed at a specific person. What I'm more interested in is what films you give
and below. Most films fall into these ratings, yet very few people seem to use them. You can't honestly believe all the films you're "supposed" to like are worth
and above, do you? Movies and your opinions about them aren't that predictable, are they? I can tell a lot about a person by how they differentiate movies, just as I assume you can tell things about me. Whether you like my opinions or not, at least I hope they're mostly transparent.



These are open questions and not aimed at a specific person. What I'm more interested in is what films you give
and below. Most films fall into these ratings, yet very few people seem to use them. You can't honestly believe all the films you're "supposed" to like are worth
and above, do you? Movies and your opinions about them aren't that predictable, are they? I can tell a lot about a person by how they differentiate movies, just as I assume you can tell things about me. Whether you like my opinions or not, at least I hope they're mostly transparent.
Generally speaking, if I think a film has a very big flaw, then I'd be unlikely to give it a high or even average rating.

For example, I think Raiders of the Lost Ark is xenophobic. I'd probably give it a
because of that fact.

On the other hand, I'd give Battleship Potemkin a
, even though I wasn't all that into it.



Briefly explain why you think Raiders is xenophobic and how that is its most important cinematic trait.
Sorry, was meant to put all the Indiana Jones movies, mainly Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Why I think they are: Tunisian thugs, South American savages, and Nepalese grotesques all seem to exist for Indy to kick, whip, and abuse, and even shoot in the chest. Although I think that may qualify more as racism than xenophobia.


I don't think that is its most important cinematic trait, though.



You don't seem to know what Raiders is about and the history of movie serials or even cinematic history.
That's because he's plagiarising critic's reviews as a substitute for having an actual opinion, even after being called out on it by several people, including Yoda.

Tunisian thugs, South American savages, and Nepalese grotesques all seem to exist for Indy to kick, whip, and abuse, and even shoot in the chest.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Tu...hrome&ie=UTF-8