Rate The Last Movie You Saw

The Parallax View (1974)

A 70s conspiracy thriller that didn't live up to its reputation. I didn't like Beatty in the lead, most of the story felt forced and the ending was too expected. It's not bad but I was expecting way more.

__________________

Period. End of Sentence, 2018

This is an ~25 minute documentary that won the Oscar for best documentary short in 2018. The film follows a small village in India where, thanks to a machine invented by a social activist/inventor named Arunachalam Muruganantham, local women are able to produce and distribute pads to the women of the village. The film includes interviews with women about how they cope with menstruation, the tabboo around discussing it, the installation of the machine, and reflection from the women about how it has changed their lives.

It can be easy when making a film such as this to wallow in vicarious misery porn. But the film instead devotes most of its time to the innovation and efforts of the people working for change. After establishing that most women don't use appropriate sanitary products, that there's little medical understanding about what periods are, and the way that menstruation is shamed (you aren't supposed to worship while on your period, and if you do the gods won't listen to you), the film goes on to show how a range of women are working to change things.

The story is neat because it is doubly empowering. Not only do women have better access to sanitary products, many of them are able to generate their own income for the first time in their lives. One woman remarks it's the first time she's ever had a job. Another tells about how she was able to buy her brother a new suit, when normally it's the brothers who buy for the sisters. And a third woman uses her money to pay for training to become a police officer--something she hopes will help her to escape the traditional path of marriage and babies.

Significantly, I appreciated that the film didn't villainize the men in the village. They are ignorant, yes. But we also see that they are curious about the machine. It is a man who invents the machine in the first place. And while the men are embarrassed to discuss menstruation, there doesn't appear to be any pushback to the women running their company. India is home to a lot of gender-based violence, but the film is more focused on the way that the people are making progress.

I read a few complaints online that the film looked too "amateur" and that it only won for "political reasons". I didn't have a problem with the look or style of the film. And every documentary short that year was political in one way or another (a look at racism in the UK, a documentary about a KKK rally in the 1930s, a film about terminally ill patients and their care, and a film about immigration). I was also amused by two different complaints about the "feminist content" of the movie, as if women getting jobs is some sort of radical notion.

I watched it on Netflix, but I saw that it's also on YouTube. It certainly made me grateful for all of the sanitary options that I have available to me!

I too loved "Sheba". Shirley Booth was phenomenal, and it was really her film. Lancaster was good, but it was a difficult part I think. Interesting that he was a Chiropractor-- one of the earliest instances in film of a physician being written as a Chiropractor. And also AA was at the time just starting to be ubiquitous. Having started in 1939, its spread was pretty steady. Very memorable film.

Yes, and it's interesting that this is how they have him be "not a real doctor".

I didn't write about it in my review, but I was fascinated by the portrayal of AA! Announcing people with their full names! Having a lot of women be prominent in the meeting! The outreach to local hospitals!

Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut) - (2005)






I have mixed feelings about this film and there are several elements which irritate me. It starts off well enough and I was enjoying it for the first half but then it seems to lose its focus and direction and ends up being rather underwhelming and even annoying. The film falls victim to one of the most annoying trends in historical movies; imposing contemporary attitudes and morality upon historical characters in a manner that is unrealistic, inappropriate and disrespectful. This is incredibly jarring and frustrating to watch. There are several instances of this but I'll stick to the obvious ones.


Firstly, our hero (and by the end of the film pretty much every character that's portrayed in a positive light) is a disillusioned agnostic which is an absurd mindset for a character in the 12th century, especially a crusader in Jerusalem. This seems to have been done to make the character relatable to modern audiences and give the film a religiously neutral viewpoint, but it is historically disingenuous. Catholicism dominated every aspect of life in western Europe during the Middle Ages and almost everybody was a believer, especially those in the Holy Land. It's like making a film about Genghis Khan as a pacifist.


This brings me to my second complaint about Orlando Bloom's (severely miscast) character Balian; he makes it clear in the final battle that he doesn't care about Jerusalem or the Holy sites, only about the people. If that's the case then why not just surrender? They have several days before Saladin arrives, plenty of time to evacuate and save lives.


Thirdly this film is overtly anti-clerical. Balian's brother priest is greedy and cruel, the Patriarch of Jerusalem is cowardly, dumb and evil and the Templars are all stupid war mongerers. They are caricatures. Obviously all the Muslims are noble devout warriors.


Fourthly, the film implies an egalitarian attitude which was simply not present in the highly stratified and socially immobile world of the 12th century. The idea that a peasant could journey to the Holy Land and become nobility is ridiculous and the scene where Balian makes everyone a knight is comical.


Having said all that, there were some positives; the set design, effects and costumes were all excellent, I really felt visually immersed in the world. The leper King was a fascinating character, well acted by Edward Norton. The actor who played Saladin imbued him with the gravity and nobility that the great man must have possessed - he really held the screen. As a Star Trek fan it was also good to see Alexander Siddig in a decent film role. Eva Green is always easy on the eye and her character had an interesting arc and Jeremy Irons and Liam Neeson were as solid as ever.


2.5/5 Stars

Snooze factor = Zzzz



[Snooze Factor Ratings]:
Z = didn't nod off at all
Zz = nearly nodded off but managed to stay alert
Zzz = nodded off and missed some of the film but went back to watch what I missed
Zzzz = nodded off and missed some of the film but went back to watch what I missed but nodded off again at the same point and therefore needed to go back a number of times before I got through it...
Zzzzz = nodded off and missed some or the rest of the film but was not interested enough to go back over it

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Tenet -

Review forthcoming

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Dammit. Even earlier than myself.

I hoped this movie would kind of combine the best of early and later Nolan. I guess not. I’ll see how I like it on Monday...

Funhouse [2019]

Like a low budget big brother except when the housemates get voted off they don't give an interview in a brightly lit studio, they get taken in a shady back room by evil panda henchmen with machine guns and made to participate in a sadistic game by an evil panda overlord who has something to say about the nature of "celebrity"

This is low brow stuff but honestly I was anticipating worse.. tolerable and mildly entertaining

__________________
Do you know what a roller pigeon is, Barney? They climb high and fast, then roll over and fall just as fast toward the earth. There are shallow rollers and deep rollers. You can’t breed two deep rollers, or their young will roll all the way down, hit, and die. Officer Starling is a deep roller, Barney. We should hope one of her parents was not.

Not much to say. It wasn't very good but I think it may be a case of knowing a little too much about the subject to buy into any of it.

Troop Zero (2019)


My wife wanted to watch this as soon as Amazon Prime started pasting it all over it's app, though I knew it wouldn't be my kind of movie. It lived up to my expectations; sweet and charming, though nothing about it was terrific in my opinion. The story reminded me a bit of Little Miss Sunshine, the characters reminded me a bit of Sandlot, and everything worked just fine.

Howards End, 1992

This is a Merchant-Ivory period drama based on the EM Forster novel.

Sisters Margaret (Emma Thompson) and Helen (Helena Bonham-Carter) live with their brother Tibby. Margaret becomes friends with an ill women who lives next door, Ruth Wilcox (Vanessa Redgrave). At the same time, Helen becomes friends with a low-income man named Leonard (Samuel West), who is struggling to support himself and his fiance, Jacky. On her death bed, Ruth scribbles out a direction to leave her family home, Howards End, to Margaret. In an act of greed, Ruth's husband Henry (Anthony Hopkins) and his children decide to tear up and burn Ruth's request. Later, Henry becomes engaged to Margaret and the complex relationships and the secret threaten to upend things.

I've had a pretty good run of movies lately, and this one was no exception. The costumes, scenery, and acting are totally on point, as you'd expect.

The film reminded me a lot of Middlemarch (one of my favorite books, and one that includes a similar element of a will that is disregarded and the consequences of that). It's not so much about waiting for the secret to come out, as it is about the way that someone like Henry thinks. He assumes that he deserves everything, but that others deserve nothing. His attitude toward Leonard and Jacky is incredibly heartless ("The poor are poor and that's that", basically). Yet the thought of losing a house (not even a house that he loves, and only one of several houses that the family owns) leads him to disregard the dying wish of his wife. It's a timeless critique about the way that people who are born rich think about themselves and others (isn't it interesting how many "self-made" millionaires and billionaires just happen to be the children of millionaires and billionaires and had access to those resources growing up?), the way that resources are hoarded and immoral acts justified if it means holding onto wealth.

But when Margaret discovers a past discretion of Henry's, the film really kicks into gear. The way that the rift develops between Helen and Margaret/Henry was really well done. Margaret just goes along with Henry which is so frustrating to watch. Under his direction she parrots cruel and dismissive words about Leonard and Jacky. Helen is over-the-top in her passions, but she comes off really well compared to the cold-hearted actions of Henry's family.

While the drama is solid, I wasn't ready for how funny the film would also be. My favorite sequence is after Margaret has discovered one of Henry's secrets. He literally runs away from her like a child. Then when they do talk, she's like, "It's in the past, and I forgive you and we can move on." The scene fades to black . . . but then fades back in as Henry gives a little speech justifying his actions ("All men have indiscretions at some time . . ."). Margaret forgives him again and the scene fades to black. . . and then fades in again for Henry to give yet another round of justifications. It's a subtle and very funny way of showing that Henry's "apology" is really about him talking himself into believing that what he did was okay.

The only thing that I didn't care for in the film was the treatment of Jacky. Yes, she's low class. But we never see cruelty or malice from her. The film treats her with a decent amount of respect, but then toward the end the narrative just drops her like she's unimportant. In a film that's largely about class politics and selfishness, it's ironic that the movie simply throws away Jacky's character. She's not given the same sense of closure that the film gives all of the other--even more minor--characters. Whenever a book is adapted to film you always lose a little bit and certain things end up getting abbreviated. You can tell that certain things were cut. It mostly doesn't hurt the film, but there are a few moments where you can sense things have been skipped over or truncated.

Agree. It's fine. Charming enough and Viola Davis makes for a strong center. But nothing particularly memorable, and I honestly couldn't tell you a single character's name.

Wasp, 2003

Andrea Arnold is really exceptional at creating characters that feel incredibly real, and specifically at evoking a sort of misery in which characters find themselves trapped.

Zoe is a young, single mother with four children (three kids and a baby), living on a shoestring budget. One day, after a nasty confrontation with a neighbor, she happens to run into an old flame. Pretending that the children belong to a friend, Zoe arranges a date at a local bar.

The title has two meanings, one of which I won't spoil. But the other meaning is demonstrated when Zoe spots a wasp trapped in the kitchen. Angry, the wasp buzzes against the glass of the window until Zoe releases it into the outside. Zoe is like the wasp--angry and battering against the world.

The films is very short (~26 minutes), but you really feel a whole range of emotions. I think that it would be easy to see Zoe as a monster. And to be clear, she is a horrible parent. She gives her children a bag of sugar for a snack, she leaves them in the parking lot behind the bar for hours while she's on her date, she models aggressive and inappropriate behavior in front of them.

But there's still a humanity in the story, and it comes from the way that the world around Zoe treats her. The neighbor relishes threatening Zoe that she will call Child Services and have the kids taken away. Whether the kids are all from the same father or not, there are clearly no men supporting Zoe financially. The challenges of a single mother in poverty might be cliche--but I have seen those struggles in the families of some of my students. What are you supposed to do if you are a single parent and cannot afford childcare? It's easy to say that Zoe shouldn't have had the kids--but she did. You can't unring the bell.

This short definitely shows the potential and character development that Arnold would demonstrate later in her feature films. Oscar winning as a short film, and deservedly so.

__________________
“Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are, it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!” ~ Rocky Balboa

Marriage Story, 2019

In this drama/comedy, Charlie (Adam Driver) and Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) play a married couple on their way to a divorce. Beginning with a mediator who wants to start things on a positive note, the film charts the way that their divorce, for all their good intentions, takes them to a place that is messy and hurtful.

While I was overall a bit more sympathetic to Nicole's point of view in the film, I think it's admirable that both lead characters are meant to be the protagonists. Neither of them are the villain in the story, and their marriage is not one marked by betrayal or abuse. Rather, it's clear that over time a failure to communicate has led to feelings of bitterness between them and resentment on Nicole's part.

One of the most interesting aspects of the film is how their relationship is filtered through the lawyers that they each hire. Predictably, there's a sequence where every misstep they've taken is blown into something larger by the opposing side. But more interesting than that is an earlier, more amicable scene where they've sat down together around a table. "So when it's something you want, it's a deal. When it's something Nicole wants, it's just a discussion?". Through the conversation we see how the partners have each framed their decisions. Moments that one thought was a fair compromise is seen as a betrayal by the other.

The supporting cast adds some much needed levity. Laura Dern is excellent as a skilled (but not heartless) divorce attorney who takes on Nicole's case. Alan Alda and Ray Liotta are also good as two very different attorneys hired by Charlie. Martha Kelly, as a woman appointed to evaluate the home life of the parents for custody purposes, is amazing in her quiet awkwardness.

The tragedy of the relationship is not something that one did to the other, but the fact that they did not work through their disagreements earlier in their marriage. They are both loving parents to their son, and both want what is best for him. They don't want to put him in the middle, but he is also their main point of contention.

I don't know that I'd watch it again, but I enjoyed it quite a bit.

Grave of the Fireflies - 89/100
A calm, composed, realistic film about two kids trying to survive a war. The setting is believable, the characters relatable, the animation immersive, and the writing mature and tasteful. Not the 10/10 I'm looking for, but great stuff nonetheless.


Ghost in the shell - 7/100
80 minutes of vapid techno-babble with characters that couldn't feel more soulless and robotic if they tried. Completely misses the point of what makes for good sci-fi. The imagery is also ugly as sin. What kind of drugs does it take to enjoy this?

Rogue (2020)

Kind of an 80s throwback that combines b-action with animal horror. Poorly written but somewhat sympathetic in its 80s stupidity (I would have loved this when I was 12 or something). Also a prime example of a horrible CGI (both the lion and blood spatters).

The author of the short story on which it was based had


The '95 version?

I thought it was pretty good sci-fi. Its questions about what constitutes identity and "life" are increasingly relevant, and the question of whether humanity and mortality go hand in hand is interesting.

As for the imagery, I think that the visuals do a good job of matching the tone of the film. Despite the technological advances, there is a sense of rot and decay. The palette--dominated by yellows and browns and grays--reflects this. The bright primary colors belong only to the ads that play inside stores.

If you look at the montage scene, for example, I think that the shot of the plane flying low over the city, which then switches to the shot of that same plane reflected in the mirrored surface of a building. In fact, reflection is a strong motif in the film, but always with distortion.



It's not a perfect film to me (maybe a 3.5/5), but I think there's a lot that it does right.