Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





Brute Force (1947)




Birdman of Alcatraz (1962)


__________________
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...



Punishment Park - 7.5/10

Lots of left/right political cliches, but still interesting.
I've seen that one too. I thought it was pretty darn interesting, almost an experimental type film. Cricket had it as his Movie of the Month. I don't know why more people didn't participate in that, I thought the Movie of the Month idea was pretty good and I ended up seeing a bunch of movies I never would have seen otherwise...all of them were worth watching too.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Doctor Strange

(Scott Derrickson)



A Decent Introduction to the Mystic Arts.


Going on to about a dozen films or so in the Marvel Universe, there comes a point when you have to present something new to the audience. Everyone was on board with the individual films, which led to the team up of the Avengers. People were blown away with how well they pulled that off. Shift to the second phase of films and we get some decent and generic sequels. Knowing early on that they had to spice things up a bit, Marvel took a chance on some third party characters, hoping that they were unique enough to be considered "refreshing". So we are introduced to Guardians and Ant-Man. This seemed to hold the fans attention for a bit longer. Now were closing in on another set of films and I'm sure Marvel was asking themselves, what can we show them now? Their answer is Doctor Strange. A wonderful kaleidoscope of imagery to grab your attention, despite the same tepid story Marvel has been chugging out for years now. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, the movies are all good in my book, but I feel that the spectacle will not be the only offering people want in the next phase of films.

Strange is a genius surgeon, the best in his field. The only thing that matches his talents is his arrogance...hmmm, sounds like another goatee wearing hero on the marvel universe. Anyway, one night while driving, he ends up in a terrible accident, which destroys his hands. Determined not to live a life of mediocrity, believing he is better than that, Strange dedicates his life to bettering himself. The search takes him to some far corners of the earth and opens his eyes to a new healing power, the power of magic. Quickly learning his new formed powers, Strange must battle some guy who has some evil plan....this is where the story gets a little generic and forgettable. So forgettable, that I forget the villains name, I only remember that he was played by Mads Mikkelsen.

That has been one universal issue that everyone agrees on when it comes to Marvel films. The lack of a compelling villain. Save for Loki, the Marvel films have continuously dropped the ball in this department. They seemed to try and steer back into the right direction with this year's Civil War, but Strange seems to throw them back down a peg as Mikkelsen is not given enough screen time to shine. Before I look anything up, if I recall correctly. He was a former student of the Ancient One, who has suffered some personal loss. This turns him evil and he teams up with a giant cloud monster to bring the destruction of earth. Hmm, some pretty hollow motivation if you ask me. So I'll copy and paste some info from the Marvel wiki to clear some of that motivation up.

Kaecilius was a sorcerer and a former member of the Masters of the Mystic Arts who became disillusioned with the Ancient One when he felt his mentor was not allowing other dimensions to come to Earth, which he believed could reunite him with his deceased wife and son. He formed the Zealots with the intention of defeating the Ancient One and bringing the inter-dimensional being known as Dormammu to Earth.

So with this new information in my mind, I still stand by the fact that these films tend to drop the ball on the villains. So where does the film excel? Well, for starters the aforementioned Ancient One, played by Tilda Swinton. I'll admit, at first I was not a fan of her. Her alien like features and dramatic turns seemed to turn me off of her acting in previous films, but I have since developed a new found appreciation for her. I guess if she sticks to genre flicks or quirky comedies, I like her. She is the highlight in Doctor Strange for me. Cumberbatch does well enough for himself, he plays the arrogant jerk to perfection, but he will have more time to develop that role. For now, this film belongs to Swinton. Rounding out the rest of the supporting cast is Chiwetel Ejiofor, with an irritating character arc and Rachel McAdams, relegated to being the girlfriend sidekick.

I mentioned earlier the kaleidoscope imagery...I literally meant that. The background images of this film were obviously inspired by the images one would find looking through the glass of the toy. Strange takes the Inception leveled effects and kicks it up a notch and to great effect. These visuals are what makes the film stand out from the other entries. Strange's first venture into other dimensions is trippy enough to warrant a viewing.

Doctor Strange is another generic entry into the Marvel franchise, but those generic entries are still pretty damn entertaining. The film fumbles with the villain and some forced comedic bits that don't land, but is strong enough entertaining you that you might not mind. It cleverly sidesteps the usual "city destruction" climax and turns it on its head. Doctor Strange is a welcomed addition to the series.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



Welcome to the human race...
What a coincidence...

Doctor Strange -


Says a lot about me that I can give this the same rating as TUS yet can offer quite a few counterpoints to his comments. Also, I liked this more in 2D and on a second viewing.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Ossessione -
+



I've heard this described as the first Italian Neo-Realism film, i've also heard that some don't class it as Neo-Realism, either way it is an important film. I'm not 100% clear on what Neo Realism is since from what i've read there's some dispute over what does and doesn't qualify but either way this was my first i believe. I've also never read The Postman Always Rings Twice or seen any adaptations of it so i'm not sure on how faithful this is or anything. Very good film. The dialogue and performances felt completely natural and realistic which allowed you to get to know and feel what the characters were feeling alot as well as feel involved with their interactions. This film brought about conflicting feelings towards all of the characters and their actions from me because while understanding their reasons i often didn't agree with things they did.

Really liked the story, it was simple yet effective. I did have a few problems. They did fall for each other a bit too fast, it wasn't a big problem though as it was quickly explained that she was a bored housewife of a man she doesn't like or love who she is with for money/security. Typical story and what i would've inferred if it hadn't been explained anyway, wouldn't expect or want something more original anyway because it was more about the characters interactions than the reasons. Plus it makes it clear that this started of as a fling based on attraction for her rather some love at first sight crap that i just can't deal with anymore. I know she starts demanding that he love her but it is believable to me that after the attention of this young attractive guy she has reflected on her situation and decided that this could be a way out. Still it maybe could've been handled a bit better. There were some other things here and there, mostly things that are staples of movies about affairs: blind spouse syndrome basically. How Gino and Giovanna would get really close, Gino staring at her, them sneaking away to kiss, etc, without Giuseppe suspecting a thing. It's explained here the exact way it usually is that he is uncaring, dumb, whatever, still it always feels like the affair was so easy to have. It wasn't really bad in this at least, there weren't more than five instances if even that.

Other than those and a few other small things i thought the story was great. One thing i really liked in particular was that Giuseppe wasn't actually that dislikable, at least no more than Giovanna. He was loud and threatened violence against her once, but they also gave him good characteristics like the friendship he genuinely thought he was fostering with Gino. Too often in films about affairs the one being cheated on is completely terrible and abusive or at least very distant, the affair-haver is often driven into his/her arms to make the people having the affair more likable. Have to applaud them not going down that route here, it made it more believable. Giovanna didn't have these reasons that made you greatly feel for her, she married Guiseppe for his money and her problems with him were superficial: he's fat, old and ugly. Gino became more sympathetic as it went on, at the start it was as simple as he got a chance with a beautiful woman and he didn't care if she was married, but his feelings for her became very real which i completely bought and you could tell he didn't want to be in this situation from his constantly asking her to run away with him. While both ended up murderers Gino definitely came out looking better because of this, Giovanna clearly had no intentions of giving up that wealth to be with him while that was what Gino would have preferred. Anyway i think this is already way too long without going through the rest of it ,overall i really liked the story.

My god Clara Calamai was beautiful. I remember Daniel saying about Pursued the other day that Teresa Wrights face was made to be filmed i felt the exact way about Clara, anytime there was a close-up on her i swooned. Solid performance from her. Massimo Grotti too, as i said i really felt his feelings towards Giovanna were portrayed very convincingly and ignoring his actions he was very likable as a person. Whoever played his friend he met on the train (forgetting his name now) was great as well, i loved those scenes and wish he was in it more.

My main complaint has nothing to do with the movie at all, it was the subtitles on my copy. It didn't happen that much but some lines of dialogue were left out, it felt a bit like those jokes you see in comedies where say a Japanese person speaks for a full minute yet it is only translated into 5 words. The weird thing is it honestly wasn't a big problem because i don't think i missed anything of importance. It only seemed to happen during parts when you could generally tell what was being said because of the way the character was acting, almost as if whoever made the subtitles deliberately left these parts out because he knew people wouldn't really need them. None of the dialogue of any importance was left out as far as i'm aware, i was never confused or felt like i missed anything my only problem with it is that it is weird to clearly see a character say something without subtitles.

Very good film. I'm very interested in checking out more of Visconti and Neo-Realist films in general.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
What a coincidence...

Doctor Strange -


Says a lot about me that I can give this the same rating as TUS yet can offer quite a few counterpoints to his comments. Also, I liked this more in 2D and on a second viewing.
I only saw the 2D version, but a friend of mine went to the new 4DX theatre in Toronto. The seats move, they pump smells at you, mist you with water, shoot air at you. All in an effort to immerse you. Think of 3D rides at theme parks.

He said they had fans blasting when Strange is on top of Everest. So loud he couldn't hear the dialogue.

So I'll take 2D over any new "invention".



Finished here. It's been fun.
Boyhood
+
Perhaps a bit too over-reliant on the "12 years to make" gimmick, but the cumulative effect is still rather powerful.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Boyhood
+
Perhaps a bit too over-reliant on the "12 years to make" gimmick, but the cumulative effect is still rather powerful.
It's not a gimmick, but whatever.




The BFG

I adore the 1986 animated film, when I heard this was being made, I sighed deeply, even more when I heard Spielberg was at the helm, alas I loved it 4/5



Officer Downe 5.5/10



Boyhood
+
Perhaps a bit too over-reliant on the "12 years to make" gimmick, but the cumulative effect is still rather powerful.
The public, promotional material, critics as well as Oscar and Golden Globe buzz generated the gimmick out of what was simply a challenging and revolutionary way for Linklater to push his otherwise humble and honest filmmaking - as well as the filmmaking standards themselves - to new and fascinating heights.

Personally, I thought Boyhood felt almost anti-gimmicky with the 12-year concept tbh...