Rate The Last Movie You Saw

__________________
Entertainment Log
Letterboxd profile

WITHOUT REMORSE

Realized I was discussing Sheridan without having seen one of his two new releases. This is certainly his weakest effort and it seems Sollima only gets to direct his minor efforts. That said, the action is and plotting is still more credible than the average Hollywood action flick and this one, like Sicario 2, contains striking sequences that makes it worth watching.

I just wish the casting had been stronger. I consider myself a fan of Michael B. Jordan, with his earlier work in the Wire, Fruitvale Station and Creed being stand out performances. Yet, I find he strains credulity when he tries to be a "badass." I found his Killmonger in Black Panther and Mr. Clark in this film to feel like someone insecure desperately trying to convince everyone else that he's tough. It's unfortunate as he certainly fits the physique but the body language, voice and emotion in his eyes betray him.

I think with stronger casting and a tighter script from Sheridan, this could've been particularly strong. Still, a solid "woke up too early on a Saturday morning so I'm popping on a movie" watch.

I realize that Jordan is jacked, but there's something scrawny about his presence, for lack of a better word.*Willem Dafoe played the same character earlier with the necessary heft.*


I didn't mind the movie (Sollima is a good action director), but setting a Tom Clancy adaptation in modern day kinda ruins what I find distinctive about his work.*

Tokyo Story follows Shūkichi and Tomi (Chishū Ryū and Chieko Higashiyama), a retired couple that have to live with a bit of both. They lost one of their sons, Shōji, in the war and live far from three of their other children, and when they finally decide to take the long trip from Onomichi to Tokyo to visit them, they find themselves feeling like a nuisance, with no real connection to any of them. Ironically, only Noriko (Setsuko Hara), Shōji's widow, seems to be the only one to make an effort to spend time with them.

This is only my second Ozu film, after the excellent Late Spring, but this is such a perfect companion. The way that he weaves a compelling, engaging, and beautiful story out of something as seemingly "banal" as a visit from your parents/in-laws is just magical. There are no gimmicks, just a simple story, great dialogue, and excellent performances.

Grade:


Full review on my Movie Loot and the PR HOF3.

__________________

A scrawny presence is exactly it. He still feels like the tiny kid Wallace from the streets of B-More no matter how buff he gets. He just doesn't exude the cold confidence and sense of self necessary for these roles. It works perfectly with Creed, where he is buff but unconfident. Both Dafoe and Schreiber played the role with more credibility without the physicality. They may not have been able to heave me out of a window without breaking a sweat but they felt like would kill me and sleep easily that night. Jordan seems like he'd cry.

Once again, this wouldn't be a problem if the character was WRITTEN this way but he's not. At all.

Agreed on Sollima. He definitely takes after his dad. Nepotistm wins again!

Tikkun, 2015

A young Orthodox Jewish scholar named Haim-Aaron (Aharon Traitel) is at what looks like the beginning of a crisis of self and a crisis of faith. When he has a near-death experience and is revived by his father (Khalifa Natour), the aftermath pushes him even further into alienation from his faith and his family.

A religious person struggling with temptation--and specifically a younger person struggling with lust and the "temptation of the flesh"--is not new ground. This film distinguishes itself at both extremes of representing the theme. On one hand, bringing an incredibly literal meaning by setting many sequences in the slaughterhouse owned by Haim-Aaron's father; on the other hand, incorporating fantasy sequences that consume not only the main character, but also those around him.

Much like how I felt about Merchant of Four Seasons, this film is a jarring vision of someone who no longer belongs in their own life. Haim-Aaron is the kind of personality driven to extremes---we see him using an incredibly tiny pencil and when he accidentally drops his prayer box, he punishes himself with a strict fast. But what happens when someone drawn to extremes reaches a breaking point? Where does that intensity then find an outlet?

At the intersection of lust and denial, a lot of people turn to anger. And in the very specific case of men who are denied (or who deny themselves) access to sex and intimacy, usually the manifestation is anger or even violence toward women. But in this film, the anxiety Haim-Aaron feels mostly turns inward. When it does turn outward, however, it is very disturbing to see, as he has lost his sense of moral and ethical boundaries.

As someone who is not very religious, it can be kind of painful watching such a narrative unfold. Here is a young person who is so bound up in his beliefs that he must agonize over whether or not to touch his own body for pleasure. And he is so conflicted about how to relate to women and his own desire for sex that he is only comfortable seeking out such intimacy from someone who is not a threat and will not bear witness to his "depravity"--ie someone who is incapable of consent. This is not a specific criticism of Judaism, but rather something that I feel I have seen across different religions. The habit of denying natural urges can lead to an implosion or an explosion.

This is a portrait of a person who has fallen almost entirely out of his own being. Haim-Aaron is alienated from his own body, the bodies of women he finds attractive, his faith, and his family. One of the harshest aspects of the film is when Haim-Aaron's father begins to believe that in reviving his son, he somehow defied the will of God.

In matching the theme of the film, this is a very visceral movie. There are multiple sequences that take place at the father's slaughterhouse, many moments that involve raw meat, and a recurring use of cockroaches. It is a film that is both gorgeous in its black and white image, and disturbing in what it sometimes shows you. I was really shocked to learn that the lead actor was (at the time) a non-professional and that this was his first film. He anchors the film in a strong-yet-subtle way, and the rest of the cast is equally good.

Hotel by the River, 2018

An aging poet named Young-Hwan (Ju-bong Gi) lives for free at a hotel because the owner so admires his work. Young Hwan invites his two sons, Kyung-Soo (Hae-hyo Kwon) and Byung-Soo (Joon-Sang Yoo) for a reunion because he is troubled by a vision he has had of his own death. In the same hotel, two friends, A-Reum (Kim Min-hee) and Yeon-Joo (Song Seon-mi) stay together after A-Reum goes through an upsetting breakup.

This film was made in like 15 days, and for better and for worse, that is exactly how it feels.

On the positive side, the movie pulls of that neat trick of feeling both "real" and very beautiful at the same time. The black and white is very pretty to look at, and the snow-swept landscape makes for a stunning backdrop to all of the drama. The dialogue is very naturalistic, and the actors all sink nicely into their roles.

For me, though, the film was a bit too understated. I felt as if I were just watching events happen. And while there were some themes that seemed to pop up--such as appreciating family, the nature of regret--none of it really grabbed me. I didn't feel a sense of momentum with the story, and none of the characters particularly stood out to me.

A fine film to watch once, and I do think I would recommend it. But I never really felt the impact of the story.

Hunted, 1952

A man named Chris Lloyd (Dick Bogarde), has just killed a man, and runs smack into Irish orphan Robbie (Jon Whiteley), who is running away from a much lesser crime (having set some curtains alight in his foster home). At first merely intending to use the boy to help him retrieve some cash, Chris grows increasingly attached to Robbie and the two end up on the run together. In pursuit of the pair are the police, who begin to piece together the reasons that Chris committed the murder.

A criminal and a cute kid is hardly an original setup for a film. And these kinds of movies always live or die on the interactions between the two characters and the way that they are written.

Fortunately for this film, it is on point in both regards.

In looking for an image to put at the top of this review, several images from the shooting of the film come up, and what they show seems to reflect what is on screen. Bogarde and Whiteley have a really positive and engaging energy between them. The film doesn't make the mistake of Chris being too ruthless nor does it make Robbie overly cutesy. They are a fun pair to watch, especially as Chris reluctantly becomes more protective of Robbie. There is a comfort between the two actors that is palpable, and it lets Whiteley off the hook a bit in the acting department, because the ease between them is so genuine.

The film has several decent setpieces and sequences as the two make their way toward freedom. In one part of the movie, they spend the night in a house where the wife becomes suspicious, especially when she finds horrible marks on Robbie's body while giving him a bath. Chris, who for a long time remains oblivious to the physical abuse that Robbie has endured, does not understand the sudden change in her demeanor.

Something I liked about this film was just how many people the two encounter who are just trying to live their lives or do the right thing. It creates a really nice tension. The woman at the house sees a child who is being abused and wants to get the police. This is the right thing to do! Later in the film, both Chris and Robbie come across others who just want to be friendly or who are good people who become suspicious.

Maybe the best aspect of tension in the film comes from wondering how far things will go. Would Chris kill another person in order to continue his escape? Will Chris be able to survive their escape attempt? I was genuinely in real suspense until the last moments of the film. By building up two likable characters, our investment in them means that every element of the end it important.

I hadn't really heard of this film before, though I have previously LOVED Bogarde in Victim. I'm really glad I checked it out. It's a solid little noir thriller and it is available in a pretty good print on YouTube. Very much recommended.

Paris. The future. Full of people in constant movement. Cars driving all around. No vegetation around. Traditional buildings have been replaced with sterile, squared buildings full of buttons and thingamajigs. A future where brooms have headlights and doors make no sound. That is the future that we see in Jacques Tati's Playtime.

The film follows Monsieur Hulot (Tati), a bumbling Frenchman trying to find his way around the city. During the course of the film, he gets lost in a maze of offices while waiting for an important meeting, stumbles upon a trade exhibition full of modern gadgets, meets a couple of friends "from the army!", and spends the night with a group of guests at a restaurant being renovated. During most of his journey, he befriends a young American tourist.

This is my first Tati film and I have to say it was, for the most part, a pleasant surprise. The film has a very loose narrative with very sparse dialogue and little "actual" plot, but is rather a cavalcade of physical comedy, slapstick, running gags, "jabs" at modern society, and clever visual jokes. For the most part, it works perfectly well, as I found myself smiling and chuckling most of the time.

Grade:


Full review on my Movie Loot and the PR HOF3.

I watched it a while back and was not that into it. Then felt like an outsider because it's on all these "greatest of" lists.

Anyway, I have since watched Tati's earlier films, and I think that I would like Playtime a lot more now that I have the feel of his films and the way that they build. I had a technical appreciation the first time around, but I think now I would have more of the "vibe" of it.

Silverado (1985)

Tati gets better with every film you see so watch them all. Mon Oncle should be the next one.

Then when you watch them all, watch Chomet’s the Illusionist, which animates Tati in an adaptation of an unfinished script. It’s a masterpiece in its own right but a perfect love letter to Tati as well.

By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47822598

Talvar - (2015) - India

Talvar is a true-life crime thriller that has a passing resemblance to Bong Joon-ho's Memories of Murder and consciously includes elements of Kurosawa's Rashomon. Indian audiences will be well versed in the events, a double murder in Noida which was left virtually unsolvable due to astonishing police negligence. 13-year old Aarushi Talwar and household servant 45-year old Hemraj Banjade are found dead, bludgeoned and with their throats slit. The police eventually arrest Aarushi's parents not based on evidence, but purely from a lead investigator's imagination of what might have happened. Almost all of the evidence was lost or never gathered. After attempts to coerce them into confessing fails, Central Department of Investigation joint-head Ashwin Kumar (Irrfan Khan) is put on the case.

This one is a little tricky. While the various filmmakers take care to present all the possibilities, careful editing and large parts of the script point us in one direction only. I'm reminded of JFK, which both shows us visually what the Warren Commission's findings would have looked like, but includes jarring cuts and unlikely action that nudge us in an "oh...that can't be true, it's impossible" direction. The film's third act takes us in unexpected directions that could make or break your perception of the film (if you aren't aware of the events that took place in the years after the murders and investigation.) It leaves us a little high and dry though, because there were continuing developments that occurred after the production of this film.

Overall, it's technically accomplished, well acted and doesn't feel overlong despite it's 133 minute running time - but there'd be more of a sense of mystery if scriptwriters Vishal Bhardwaj and Aditya Nimbalkar didn't have their own convictions on who committed the murders.

7/10

Sounder (1972)

Wholly Moses! (1980) - 7 / 10 - funny comedy movie !

__________________
I'm looking for prison movie:
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=63305

Wise Blood (1979)

Croupier (1998)

An atmospheric and offbeat drama about a cool aloof writer, while trying to get published, takes a good job as a croupier (dealer) in a London casino. His wife wants him to stay full time at his writing but he needs money to help support them. Although scrupulously honest he eventually is drawn into a crime plot against the casino, and is influenced to participate after urging from a lady gambler in trouble with the mob. The story weaves along a semi complex route, and winds up with two surprises at its gratifying ending.

Clive Owen is well cast, particularly due to his natural indifferent demeanor. The ladies in the cast were likewise perfect, and we’re treated to a special look at Alex Kingston, on whose circumstances the story development is based.

This little gem of a film holds ones interest from beginning to ending. It’s another well written tale by Paul Mayersberg (The Man Who Fell to Earth, The Last Samurai), and nicely directed by Mike Hodges (Get Carter, Black Rainbow).

Available on Netflix subscription and various streaming services.

Doc’s rating: 9/10

Snooze factor = Z

Adore the first film, not so much this one. Also needed more Barbara, she was fantastic.



[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

I've tried to watch this on two separate occasions and couldn't get through it. I love Flannery O'Connor's work but I seem to have some kind of mental block when it comes to this movie.