Rate The Last Movie You Saw

__________________
Letterboxd | ReverseShot | SlantMagazine

Eddie Murphy Raw -

Kind of hard to figure out a good rating because half of it is hilarious and the other half just isn't funny (mainly the first 20 minutes and the last 10-15 minutes). Can't tell if that's better or worse than a film that's consistently (but mildly) funny across all 90 minutes.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Been many years, might be worth another look. The cheeseburger bit and the Italian Rocky bit have stuck with me al these years.

__________________
Letterboxd

“Except for markf, you’re all a disgrace to cinema.”

Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood -

Considerably better than Boyz n the Hood.

2nd Watch Rating:

'It Comes at Night'

Superb.

https://www.movieforums.com/communit...15#post1733315

We can all agree with the fact that monsters who thrive in the dark are scary, but what is scarier is the realistic feeling of being unsafe with a parent. One who chooses to ignore the signs for whatever reason and puts their child in immediate danger. While it might not be purposeful, that in itself furthers the trauma. Lights Out tells us that monsters go bump in the night, but true horror comes from neglecting parents.

Martin, a young boy, fears for his safety when his mother begins talking to herself. His fear is so intense that he cannot sleep at night and tries to go to his estranged sisters place for a good night's rest. His sister, Rebecca, knows what he fears because she feared it as a kid herself. A figure lurks in the darkness, it has a hold of their mother and will stop at nothing to be in control of her. Keep the lights on, stay awake and fear the dark.

Sandberg actually directed a short flick of the same name back in 2013. Running a lean 3 minutes, it conjured up some real scares. It must have caught the attention of current horror guru, James Wan, because we have a full length feature film now with Wan producing. Sandberg uses the same tricks he used in the short for the feature length film. The flicking of the lights to produce and hide the lanky, scary looking figure from darkness is a key element to this film. Extremely effective and brilliant use of building tension. Flick the lights on, she's gone, off and she's back. What happens when you flick the light off and she's no longer there? The expectations of the audience are constantly played with to perfection.

Diana, as the figure is called, is shown just enough in the darkness to be intimidating. She is lanky, unhinged and creaky. The sounds she produces might have you up at night listening to every little sound your house makes. I would have liked a little bit more blood from her though, the death count for this film is surprisingly low, but in the end, I'll trade genuinely built suspense over bloodshed.

Lights Out is a scary horror flick that tells a good story. The maternal aspect of the story centres it for the audiences and the performances help elevate that. At this film's centre, it's a family's story and some of the scariest films involve families.

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

Suspect's Reviews

The premise is interesting and has the chance for some great laughs in awkward situations. Yet the film never really plays the bomb into the equation save for one scene. It's almost as if he doesn't wear one at all, so the tension is out the window and all we are left with is a hectic comedy that, despite some funny players, never gets a laugh. The problem is the script, while it's a funny idea, the dialogue and situations these characters find themselves in are not.

Dwayne and Travis want to kill Dwayne's father because he's rich and they hope to gain his inheritance. While at a strip club, a stripper tells him that she knows a guy who will kill his father for $100 grand. So they decide to strap a bomb to a loser pizza delivery guy and force him to do the robbery, so their hands are clean. He has 10 hours to rob a bank with a bomb strapped to his chest and he gets the help of his friend to do so, comic mischief is suppose to ensue.

Jesse Eisenberg is Nick, the lead character, aka our pizza delivery bomb boy. Eisenberg plays it exactly like he does in every other role, only with more attitude and language. He's been called a poor man's Michael Cera, but has since then obviously elevated himself to something more. He was great in The Social Network, here he's pretty much forgettable. Then again, he's suppose to be the straight man to the three comedians who try their best to save the film from the abyss they call the screenplay.

Aziz Ansari has some moments where he can pull off a laugh or two, but he was disappointing in the role that should have really showcased his skills. While I'm not particularly a fan of his work, I do see his appeal. The two knuckle heads who come up with this plan are Danny McBride and Nick Swardson. Both are hilarious and are usually stand outs in whatever role they take on. McBride was hilarious in Pineapple Express and his hit show Eastbound & Down while Swardson stole the show in Grandma's Boy and basically every crappy Adam Sandler movie. It seems like a lot of their chemistry is improv and judging by their previous material, that's where they hit their stride. The film relies too heavily on whatever these two guys say and do. They are funny, but when it's just them coming up with whatever joke they can think of, it kind of wears thin.

The film is fast paced, once it gets in the thick of things, but it's really short. It ended abruptly and I sat there thinking to myself, was that it? 30 Minutes or Less is definitely less and it doesn't compare to the director's previous effort, Zombieland. Which, coincidentally lacked the laughs as well. The film is not that funny and despite two comedians trying their best with the material, this film doesn't really have anything going for it.

The film All That Jazz, details the life of Joe Gideon, who is based on Bob Fosse, who ironically wrote and directed the film. Fosse uses flashbacks to create depth for the characters. For instance, Joe Gideon has a vision of a beautiful woman all in white; this is the Angel of Death, he's dying. While talking to this Angel, he has a vision of his childhood, when he grew up in the Burlesque house. This scene allows the viewer to see what kind of kid Joe was and how he became the man he is today.

Sound is very important to this film, it's all about music and dance. One scene in particular is when the script scene appears. All the surrounding sounds were taken out and it focused on his breathing, knuckles cracking and whatever else he was doing, everything else was muted. Direct and distinct in the presentation.

All That Jazz is a dark and depressing film that deals with drugs, sex, and death. These are controversial elements to add to a musical. The lighting used enhances the sexual elements in the film, especially in the dance number in which all the dancers dance in the dark, but the spotlight hits a select few. These dancers begin taking their clothes off and everything becomes sexual, which upsets everyone....except me. Ba-dum tss

The final dance number is a vision that Joe has on his deathbed; once again the dancers wear all white, which symbolizes angels. Joe has made many mistakes in his life and in this scene he asks for forgiveness. All his friends and family are in the crowd or dance number. A lot of the choreography works for this film.

This film is still influential today, with quick editing and montages such as: Joe taking a shower, taking pills and taking eye drops. All of those are seen in the film Requiem for a Dream, which is where most people remember it from. All That Jazz is a different take on the musical that tries to go for controversy rather than a cheerful jolly ending that most conventional musicals do and this film should be applauded for doing so.

This was the first stand-up comedy I ever saw. High school just finished, and my friend recommended this.. I totally agree with your assessment -- I preferred "Delirious"

My dad told me this is an interesting film, and I knew about it anyway because I read a lot of math books and it was mentioned in one of them. Little did I know Matt Damon and Ben Affleck themselves wrote it. Recieved an Oscar deservingly. But the movie really revolves around the deep Matt - Robin Williams relationship. Everything else is secondary. Ben is the comic relief, like If you'll still be here in 20 years, I'll kill you. That's not a threat, it's a fact. etc. Only his love thing with the girl is above everything, as it should be.

So, Matt plays Will Hunting, a talented young man, who's even compared to Ramanujan in the film. Robin does a psychiatrist who finaly gets to him. The relationship is probably one of the most profound I've seen on film. One particular thing got me thinking. A math profesor, who's sort of Hardy in the movie, told Robin, or rather Robin implied he thinks he's a loser because his wife died of cancer. Now, philosophicaly, is this true? I'm afraid so. His destiny was such. But even he recovered in the end, it has a very positive ending. He turned another leaf, and cherchez la femme. Really,what else is there? Love is the meaning of life.

This movie is also about loss. Matt also suffered as a child. yaknow, traumatized, and that's why he didn't have the guts to pursue a math career, much less cherchez la femme. But Robin cured him in this epic scene which made me cry:



Bastard! He stole my line.

It gets better at every view!



Very well made.
They really captured the real Jidaigeki feel.



Kim Yun-seok was really good in this!

__________________
"This Would Sharpen You Up And Make You Ready For A Bit Of The Old Ultra-Violence."

That Uncertain Feeling (1941) - Decent enough comedy once it gets into gear

Ladybug, Ladybug - 8/10

A very important movie to see... It's very good, too. Told from the perspective of the children mostly. A school gets a bomb alarm, and you see how egos and "leadership" trumps correct decisions, a silly "us vs. them" concept, which in nuclear catastrophe, everyone is a loser.

Very allegoric.. It's very difficult to find movies made by the Perry's (husband-wife writing-directing team).. I especially loved "David and Lisa" and "The Swimmer" but seemed to fade away after "Diary of a Mad Housewife" - which I thought was the first movie of theirs that wasn't only great, but not that good, either, but still worth a watch.

Being a huge fan of David Michod's Animal Kingdom (2010), I was really excited for
War Machine (2017). Due to a number of reasons, I missed it when it initially dropped on Netflix, and once the lukewarm reviews started to seep out, that made me procrastinate watching War Machine even more.

Well, I decided to give it a go this weekend, and I didn't think it was all that bad. Alot of the criticisms do hold water (especially the movie just being the same joke for two hours), but the parts of this film that work, really work. Though it grows a tad stale towards the end, Brad Pitt's performance is hilarious. My biggest gripe about the movie is the voice over; which is far too on the nose (basically the equivalent of someone just shouting WAR IS BAD! THESE GENERALS ARE BAD! AMERICA IS BAD! the entire film) and unnecessary.

The hardest thing to get through is just the sheer wasted potential. With the cast and crew that this movie is packing, you'd expect something a little bit more. But the ending (which I won't spoil) is fantastic and is worth getting through the 2 hours for. Worth checking out if there is nothing else worth watching (you should be watching Castlevania right now anyway).

RATING:

Get Out





Honestly, I thought the movie was pretty good. The first two thirds (I thought) were tight and uncomfortably tense at moments, but then the subtle humor would resurface and ground whatever paranoia might be building for me.

I was disappointed once things started to be revealed what was what though as it reminded so much of a wonderful movie from 1999 (both visually and conceptually, at least for a few shots). I won't give any more clues to what movie as that might spoil this one if you've not seen it. That broke my concentration and as a result, I realized I was more aware from that point on of the flaws that I might have otherwise overlooked. That most of the flaws did not really appear until the end made the movie feel rushed to end. I mean on the development side, not so much the story itself.

3 starts really, for the mistakes and weird wrap-up. +.5 star because it was unique and refreshing!

How is this film "unique"?

Notorious (1946) - Alfred Hitchcock


A daughter of a convicted Nazi collaborator ( Ingrid Bergman) is recruited by an American agent (Cary Grant) to infiltrate an organization of Nazis who have moved to Brazil after the WW2. I've felt about this similarly to majority of Hitchock's work I've seen. Thought it was rather mediocre. Literally no effort was put into developing a romance between Bergman and Grant. Twenty minutes into the film and they were already in love. Kind of ridiculous if you ask me. The performances were mostly iffy, with the exception of Bergman. Cary Grant was just too robotic and expresionless. And the main antagonist (Claude Rains) was pretty bland. His mother (Leopoldine Konstantin) actually looked more menacing than him, which I thought was funny. Because of how spineless and madly in love Rains was with Bergman, I never really got the impression that she was in danger. And even when her cover got blown, there was just a significant lack of suspense. Only tense moment was the final "stairs scene", but the ending itself was pretty inconculsive and underwhelming in my opinion.



Rating: -

https://www.movieforums.com/communit...t=48322&page=8

I love the way Notorious ends

The Big Clock (1948) - John Farrow


Ray Milland plays a crime journalist who becomes a prime suspect for the murder his boss (Charles Laughton) commited. Most of the film is focused around the game of cat and mouse between the two, as Laughton tries to sew his murder to someone else and Milland playing alongside while trying to prove his innocence. I thought this was a pretty good crime flick, despite some nonsensical plotlines, which slightly bothered me. Milland was pretty good as desperate, but crafty journalist trying to clear the dirt of his name. And Laughton did a fine job as a methodical and venal antagonist, who is always used to getting what he wants.



The film constantly generated a high level of suspense, which peaked in the last third, when search for the murderer occured during the building lockdown. This certainly added a nice sense of main character feeling trapped which definitely helped to increase the tension. My main complaints were some seeming plot-holes and weak ending that didn't really manage to satisfy me. Despite of it, this is still an above-average crime flick, definitely worth seeing for its suspenseful atmosphere.

Rating : +

https://www.movieforums.com/communit...t=48322&page=8