Rate The Last Movie You Saw

By http://www.impawards.com/2014/guardi...laxy_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42775479

Guardians of the Galaxy - (2014)

I held off and held off and held off - despite my friends and their glowing recommendations. I guess I just went through a period where I didn't want to see any more films like this, and I think I did the right thing leaving it until I was genuinely interested. Guardians of the Galaxy is a film I really want to watch again, despite having seen it less than 24 hours ago. The production design here is a work of art, and the make-up effects, costumes and set design extraordinarily imaginative - but the beating heart of this film is it's screenplay, which manages to take something that's hokey and old-fashioned and turn it into something that feels revolutionary and fresh. Most of all, this film is good old-fashioned fun, and one case of a film using lots of CGI where I think it really enhances the overall feel. There were times when it actually looked real, instead of a video game. Loved the emotional backstory to Chris Pratt's character (I'm really not sure whether to call him Star-lord or not) and loved the fact that actors like Peter Serafinowicz get to feature. Of course, it's also funniest film I've seen so far this year. This, The Avengers and Captain America : The Winter Soldiers are three MCU films I've really enjoyed so far.

8/10

__________________

The Pumpkin Eater (1964)

__________________

[ J ] - [ S ] - [ F ]

Queen of Katwe, 2016

Phiona (Madina Nalwanga) is a young woman living in near-poverty with her mother Nakku (Lupita Nyong'o), brother Brian (Martin Kabanza), older sister Night (Taryn Kyaze), and baby brother. Unable to attend school because their family cannot afford it, Phiona one day follows her brother to a mission where teacher Robert Katende (David Oyelowo) offers free food and lessons in chess. Phiona displays gifts in the game, but her ability to pursue those talents are constantly threatened by her family's precarious circumstances.

This is a very inspiring, sweet story about a family--and specifically a young woman in that family--overcoming very challenging circumstances. It highlights the way that a combination of bias and circumstance perpetually threaten to keep bright lights from shining.

There are no real villains in this film. Sure, there are some children from an elite academy who look down on the students from the mission program. There's the landlord who throws the family out when they cannot pay their rent. But generally speaking the film shows how poverty is a vicious trap that constantly waits to push people over the edge.

The main message of the film, for me, is just how many bright stars are out there just waiting for a chance. Phiona's skill at chess---and her intelligence in general---could have remained basically unrecognized if she hadn't happened to follow her brother to the mission one day. Further, there are a lot of children in her same situation who are clearly smart and capable, but who must work doubly hard to escape from the path their lives are on. It's not just about finding some chess genius, it's about giving these kids a chance to show what they can do.

Nalwanga makes for a great lead. Phiona often has a calm vibe to her right from the get go. Something I like about this movie is that it keeps its growing pains centered on Phiona's metal state and the circumstances of her family. There are no cheesy montages here. Phiona learns the rules of the game and she's pretty good at it. From there, it's a matter of all the things life puts between her and success. Oyelowo brings a lot of warmth to his role as Phiona's coach. Katende cares deeply about the kids, but he's not a miracle worker, and he doesn't have super deep pockets. Nyong'o is also good as Phiona's mother, a single mother struggling to raise a family in precarious circumstances. Nakku wants to support her children, but she also depends on them to help keep the household functional.

The chess sequences themselves are enjoyable. I'll admit to only a very basic understanding of the game, but wisely the scenes of the tournaments focus mainly on the children's feelings during them.

I also really love the way that the closing credits are done, with each actor standing next to their real-life counterpart. It's especially sweet looking at the teenage Richard holding the twins who played him as a child, or the real Brian towering two feet over the actor who portrayed him. I was also very sad to read that the actress who played one of Phiona's classmates, Nikita Waligwa, died of a brain tumor at the young age of 16. She gave a very funny, spirited performance. This sequence also reveals the dedication of Katende, as two of the children are revealed to currently live with the coach and his family.

Very sweet and very inspiring!

Don’t know if it’s because I’ve been sick with bronchitis & Covid at the same time, but could not get into this for the life of me. Loved the original & will have to revisit Maverick when I am through this sickness.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

You are not alone, I don't understand all the gushing about this movie. It just seems like a re-hash of the first film, which I also think hasn't aged very well. And all the talk about this movie winning the Oscar for Best Picture makes no sense to me.

The predictability of him getting the girl bored me. (Jennifer Connolly looked terrific.) I liked the scenes on the boat with the two of them.

There were other predictabilities too.

Jon Hamm in a very stilted performance. Ed Harris scenery-chewing.

Last Night in Soho, 2021

Eloise (Thomasin McKenzie) dreams of being a fashion designer, and is thrilled when she's accepted into a London fashion school. After clashing with her self-centered roommate, Eloise rents a small apartment in Soho from an older woman named Mrs. Collins (Diana Rigg). But soon after moving in, Eloise begins to have intense, immersive dreams/visions centered on a woman named Sandie (Anya Taylor-Joy): a young woman who came to London in the 1960s to be a singer before falling into the orbit of a manipulative man named Jack (Matt Smith). As Eloise loses her sense of reality, she begins to suspect that people she's encountering in present-day London may be connected to what happened to Sandie in the past.

This film takes a talented cast and an interesting premise and then frustratingly spins its wheels for two hours. While it has some moments of visual intrigue, it fails to explore or pay off most of the ideas or themes it raises.

The best aspect of the film is definitely some of the visual style. There are some neat moments with reflections and mirrors as Eloise gets more and more drawn into Sandie's life and story. A sequence where Sandie auditions in an empty nightclub, singing a version of "Downtown" is lovely and stylish, only for a later sequence to reveal the more exploitative nature of the nightclub as Sandie becomes a backup dancer in a vaguely raunchy number.

But really, from there, it gets harder to say nice things about this one. McKenzie is a really talented actress, but I swear about 90% of this film was her staring wide-eyed at a vision and then sprinting in an unhinged manner through the London streets. Taylor-Joy brings an increasingly disaffected spirit to Sandie, whose disillusionment with the nightlife scene is stark and brutal. I liked Michael Ajao as John, a classmate of Eloise's who has a big crush on her and seems to be an ally. Rigg is also solid as the landlady who manages to be very vague about her past residents. Matt Smith's performance tips from nice guy to bad guy almost comically fast, but that feels like more of a writing problem than a problem with the performance.

At the end of the day, I'm not sure what this movie was trying to say or even where the horror was supposed to derive from. The film establishes very quickly the danger of exploitation that exists in the city. Eloise is hit on very directly and creepily by the taxi driver who picks her up from the airport, the telephone boxes are plastered with ads for sex workers. But really there's a disconnect between Eloise's story and what happens to Sandie. Yes, there are some creepy guys she encounters. But Eloise is not a victim of sexual exploitation outside of the usual crap that any women in a city has to put up with. (Now if done right, that could be an interesting film. But it already exists and it's called Lucky.) The backstory we get with Eloise is that her mother died of suicide and she sometimes has visions of her.

So the whole time the film is progressing, I kept waiting for . When it all shakes out, there's just a fundamental lack of coherence. When you get deep into the third act and everything is explained, it just raises a whole lot of questions about everything that came before it.

In a way, the whole movie feels like a graveyard of abandoned themes. Eloise borderline fetishizes the 1960s--the clothing, the music, etc. I thought that maybe the film would explore the idea of the reality of the past and the danger of idolizing "the good old days." Nope. John repeatedly tells Eloise that he connects with her because he also feels like an outsider. So maybe this movie will explore the idea of being an outsider in a creative space. Nope. Eloise encounters a lot of casually gross/predatory sexual attention from men. So maybe this movie will explore the way that such behavior is normalized. Nope. Early mention is made of Eloise's mother and her mental health issues, so maybe that will be an important part of the film. Nope.

There's enough style and enjoyable performances that this wasn't a total loss. But it's definitely a one-time-only watch, and not something I'd quickly recommend.

Meh, X wasn't great but at least I liked its style. I thought this was ok at best. I also felt like I was being force fed a character and an actress that wasn't very interesting. More scarecrow humping and less talking next time.

Gotta love the low key victim blaming

Wow, talk about different strokes...I liked Pearl a lot more than I liked X

I think I rated this the same you did. No, it turns out I rated it a little higher than you did.
Here's a link to my review:


https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/...t-in-soho.html

It sounds like you were a bit more taken with it an involved. I started to get antsy around the hour mark, and sticking it out until the last act didn't end up being as rewarding as I would have hoped.

Incendies, 2010

Twins Jeanne (Mélissa Désormeaux-Poulin) and Simon (Maxim Gaudette) are reeling from the recent death of their mother, Nawal (Lubna Azabal) when their mother's will throws another shock in their direction. The will directs the children to track down a father they believed to have been dead and a brother they never knew existed and deliver a letter to each of them. The film cuts between the present and the past as the siblings uncover details about their mother's past in the heat of serious civil unrest in a Middle Eastern country.

This film is like an emotional gauntlet, beginning and ending with unsettling, distressing imagery and never letting up in between. Based on a play, there are some coincidences and chance encounters that at time strain credulity, but the film is so well crafted and its themes so well explored that I would have granted it far more suspension of disbelief than what it asked for.

Azabal gives an absolutely searing lead performance as Nawal, a woman who suffers at the hands of the unrest around her whether she's peripherally or directly involved in it. Nawal has her own sense of honor, and Azabal balances the character's determination with a vulnerability that allows you to extrapolate just how much trauma and pain this woman has grown used to covering up. Gaudette is also very good as Nawal's daughter, who through the exploration of her mother's past finally comes to understand why at times their relationship may have been strained. I think that part of the grief that we see in Jeanne isn't just learning about how her mother suffered, but knowing that she will never be able to process those injuries and injustices with her mother.

This is a story that in large part centers on the needless cruelties of war. I did end up reading a bit about the film, because I thought I'd missed some important context. I was relieved to learn that the film kept the country deliberately vague and that many of the town names were fictional. This approach pairs with the way that the film repeatedly, intentionally muddies the waters between the two warring sides: the Christian nationalists and the Muslim groups. We see both sides commit terrible atrocities against the other, and the victims are almost always people simply trapped in the middle, such as a harrowing sequence involving a busload of Muslim refugees who are caught by a group of Christian nationalist militants.

Thematically, the film constantly raises the question of dual identities, beginning with Nawal's children being twins and carrying on from there. Identities are alternately hidden or claimed in order to survive. Jeanne and Simon must unravel their own mother's identity and story, learning about things she did and things that were done to her that constantly force them to reframe what they think they know about her.

The film itself is also structured so that we as viewers must constantly reevaluate what we've seen. A sequence that we see in the first act might be given a very different context as we head into the last act. There are even little details that take on deeper meaning, such as the fact that (BIG SPOILERS)

It's amazing writing about this film, because I keep thinking of things I liked about it. I also love that it makes space to show how the non-militant characters can dramatically change the fate of someone else. A family deciding to relocate a child for the sake of family honor. A nurse deciding she must act in a way that is merciful. It's all incredibly complex, and small moments of cruelty or kindness add up in surprising ways. Wisely, the film doesn't try to do too much to unpack (MAJOR SPOILERS)

I'm very intrigued by the idea that this film was based on a play, given some of the very visceral moments it contains. As I mentioned before, there are some moments of coincidence in the film that seem very unlikely. At the same time, events such as the ones shown have happened, so it's not a major criticism.

This is definitely a must-see.

I enjoyed these hidden gems this week.
Home Sweet Hell 2015
Border , Swedish 2018
Robber, German 2010
Infiltrator 2016
Falling Down 1993 I assume most have seen this but is worth a more recent look

Im always open to suggestion on what to watch. Super heros arent my thing

I don't think either is especially good

An interesting and well done picture about the subject, especially for 1968. The screenplay was mostly fiction, but IMO it's one of Tony Curtis' finest performances.

I'm not sure how to include the MoFo rating popcorn graphic, Marnie (1964, Alfred Hitchcock) - "B-"

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

Raiders of the Lost Ark: 10/10

My 3rd viewing of this film, as far as I can recall. As far as I'm concerned, one of those "fine wine" films that gets better with age.

__________________
Fave Directors: Nolan, R. Scott, Scorsese, Spielberg, MacTiernan, Zwick, Tarantino.

Beau Travail, 1999

Galoup (Denis Lavant) is an officer in the French Foreign Legion who craves the attention and affection of his commander, a man named Forestier (Michel Subor). Galoup's desperation increases when a likable, young, attractive soldier named Sentain (Grégoire Colin) joins his squad. What ensues are dangerous power plays involving all of the men.

This is a real firecracker of a film, taking a look at the dangers of jealousy and unrequited longing.

I just read a short review of this film arguing that, guys, it's not about gay stuff. While I agree that there are elements and themes to the film that are more universal than sexuality, I think that such a reading misses out on the multiple levels of tension that Denis manages to pack into the various squad dynamics.

I think that the brilliance of this film is that it exploits the myriad insecurities that you can get in any same-gender group of people. This is heightened by the military setting, in which there are explicit hierarchies, defined values relating to physical and psychological strength, and also the undefined currents of popularity and friendship. If all you have to do with your days is push-ups, wrestling, and taking showers, at some point you're going to start to look at the people around you in some kind of way, whether that's something driven by sexual attraction or simply comparing yourselves to them.

What exactly Galoup wants from Foresier remains deliciously unclear. In fact, I think that one possible reading of the film is that Galoup himself doesn't entirely know what he wants from his superior. Is it father-like approval? Is it friendship? Is it affection? Heck, is it sex? Is it love? It it admiration? Denis repeatedly shows us ways in which the men somewhat blur traditional gender roles by virtue of being so self-contained. Thus we get sequences of manly martial arts practice, followed by a sequence of the men ironing shirts together. While such a closed dynamic can foster strong ties and loyalty, it can also lead to a build-up of pressure.

And this ambiguity of relationship carries over into Galoup's interactions with Sentain. Something that is true of a same-gender pairing and attraction is a weird combination of "Do I want to be with this person, or do I want to be this person?". Galoup's discontent and unease grows as the others show affection and (sexual or not) attraction to Sentain. Whatever it is that drives Galoup (attraction, jealousy, or some combination of the two), it poisons his own actions.

Unfortunately for all involved, the military setting of this triangle means that Galoup has a degree of power over the men and specifically over Sentain. I imagine that a lot of people know the stress and unease of being on the receiving end of affection/attraction that you don't reciprocate. But when you throw a lopsided power dynamic into the mix, it gets downright frightening.

Colin is perfectly charismatic as Sentain. He really pulls off that thing where someone is really attractive and likable, but they somehow manage to convey that they're only sort of aware of the effect they have on others. Subor, in contrast, exudes a kind of distanced authority that surprises you (and dismays Galoup) when approval is shown toward Sentain.

But Levant entirely owns this film. He fully captures the desperation of someone who knows that they are an outsider even among a group, but can't seem to course correct. Characters like this are so painful, because you just want them to figure it all out, and yet it seems that something fundamental about the way that they see the world will always keep them at arm's length. Galoup is seen to be more physically fit than the other soldiers, and yet this doesn't draw them to him. A sequence late in the film where Galoup dances alone in a club is a standout, and sums the character up perfectly--it is at once kind of embarrassing and the most genuine moment we've seen from him.

Denis also makes the most of the setting of the film. The seaside is beautiful yet deadly. The characters are surrounded by mountains and arid salt flats. It's a lovely and yet inhospitable environment, and as the film goes on the landscape itself will take a toll on the characters.

This is one that I'm excited to return to at some point.