Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.

The Unholy Night (Lionel Barrymore, 1929)
5.5/10
Bop Girl Goes Calypso (Howard W. Koch, 1957)
5/10
Hunter Hunter (Shawn Linden, 2020)
6-/10
Luca (Enrico Casarosa, 2021)
- 7/10

Luca [the small one] learns from Alberto, another sea monster, about the joys of land life against the wishes of his family.
A Family (Michihito Fujii, 2020)
6/10
Sofia (John Reinhardt, 1948)
5/10
The Remarkable Mr. Pennypacker (Henry Levin, 1959)
6/10
Be Pretty and Shut Up (Delphine Seyrig, 1981)
6.5/10

[Not an image in the film] Delphine Seyrig interviews two dozen actresses in the '70s about the dearth of meaningful women characters in the cinema and the rampant sexism in the industry.
The Warm Money (Christian Petzold, 1992)
6/10
Siberia (Abel Ferrara, 2019)
+ 5/10
Nobody from Nowhere (Matthieu Delaporte, 2014)
6/10
Little Fish (Chad Hartigan, 2020)
6/10

During a memory loss pandemic, the marriage of Jack O'Connell and Olivia Cooke is threatened repeatedly.
Circumstantial Pleasures (Lewis Klahr, 2020)
5/10
Censor (Prano Bailey-Bond, 2021)
6-/10
The Passion of Darkly Noon (Philip Ridley, 1995)
5.5/10
The Monster (Roland West, 1925)
6/10

Lon Chaney is a literal monster and an attempted monster-maker in a thriller with more comedy than his usual.
Seven Keys to Baldpate (Reginald Barker, 1929)
6/10
Code of the Cactus (Sam Newfield, 1939)
5/10
A Girl at My Door (July Jung, 2014)
6/10
The Female Closet (Barbara Hammer, 1998)
6.5/10

Historians reveal some early cases of lesbianism and feminism through the art, writing and [in the last case] videos of Alice Austen, Hannah Höch, and Nicole Eisenman.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



Victim of The Night
The extended cut of Two Towers was the only one if felt on the fence about being inferior. I enjoyed the development of Faramir and Theoden in particular but I ultimately think the development of those characters is superfluous and for side characters, they were developed enough in the theatrical cuts.
.
I felt like those things were important. I read the books and still struggled to make too much sense of Faramir and Theoden and that whole conflict in the films. I just thought, honestly, that the Extended cut was a better movie than the theatrical, period.

I agree that the Extended Fellowship didn't have that escalating pacing but I did enjoy some of the stuff that was retained.



Victim of The Night
25th Hall of Fame (REWATCH)

Whiplash (2014) -


Though my appreciation of this film has somewhat decreased throughout the several times I've watched it, I still think it has a lot to offer. In the brutal world Chazelle crafts in this film, you need to pay a price for your dreams to come true (Chazelle's La La Land has a similar theme). Not only do we see the toll Andrew's pursuits of being a great drummer have on him, but also on his relationship with those around him given his alienation of some of his family or how he cuts off his contacts with someone who may have gotten in the way of his dream. Also, even though Fletcher's teaching strategies technically work, the film simultaneously acknowledges the downsides to them given what we learn about Sean Casey and how some of Fletcher's students leave his program. In spite of the darker bits though, the movie also manages to be a lot of fun. The jazz concerts are both well-shot and edited, with the standout being the technically outstanding ending which dropped my jaw when I first watched it back in 2014. Finally, J. K. Simmons does a terrific job in this film. He's electrifying when he teaches the band and equally compelling in his quieter scenes, with the standout being his conversation with Andrew about Charlie Parker.

In spite of these strengths though, something about the film's message turns me off. While I don't think the film champions Fletcher, it does imply that the only way to achieve greatness is through being abused. You can either roll with the abuse and become famous or give up your dreams. While I'm not denying some people will require that kind of pressure to improve, that isn't the only way someone can become famous. I wish the film would've presented more options to achieve greatness to Andrew, but have him choose to stay in Fletcher's program (staying in abusive relationships that you recognize as being abusive is normal, so this would've worked just fine). As it stood, I thought the film's message was conflicted. Yes, it does acknowledge the flaws to Fletcher's teaching methods, but it also acted like Andrew had no other options to pursue his dream and that didn't sit right with me. In spite of this, however, I still like the film quite a bit. Its strengths are compelling and engaging enough to carry the film.
I didn't come away with that. I actually came away with something kind of ambiguous.
WARNING: "many sperlahs" spoilers below
Yes, of course, the kid got much, much better through the intense amount of practice he put in which he did because someone demanded more of him. That actually is how it works. But it's also the kid's talent that that's there and while Fletcher may feel rewarded for what the kid is able to do, he did NOT plan it that way, it was absolutely his intention to humiliate the kid in a career-ending way... but the kid rose above it. It was the kid's ambition and determination that ultimately wins because, like it or not, Fletcher still has to live with what he lost by pushing the kid too hard, but the kid rose above it and excelled anyway. So the kid actually won, not Fletcher. And Fletcher was punished for his behavior. He is not ruined but a significant part of his career is and a lot was taken from him. He's wounded and the kid is triumphant.



Victim of The Night
And I'd have to say that I feel the opposite of you about the BR movies; for me, while both of them are a bit slog-y as far as their tone/pacing goes, the original (while beautiful visually) was still more difficult to be fully engaged by, because I cared very little about Deckard or Rachael as main characters (because it felt like Ridley Scott didn't care that much about them himself), while 2049 had a more compelling protagonist, which helped make up for the film's flaws otherwise. At any rate, what was wrong with the third act? I found the ending to be surprisingly touching on an emotional level, speaking personally.
This is a really interesting discussion for me because I didn't care one bit about Gosling's character or his AI girlfriend in the second one and I couldn't understand why I would care about the movie at all even when I think back on it, while the original, to me, is almost an important piece of work in cinematic history that I have very powerful feelings about to this day, nearly 30 years after I first saw it.
And I thought the third act was just an incredible mess. Leto's character was poorly handled and ended up coming across as just a device to get to the resolution that they wanted, which I thought was a terrible resolution, and the whole thing I thought cheapened the narrative of the original as well. I remember that it was a pretty and moody film, but I don't feel like I could slog through it again knowing how poor I thought the finale was.



I didn't come away with that. I actually came away with something kind of ambiguous.
WARNING: "many sperlahs" spoilers below
Yes, of course, the kid got much, much better through the intense amount of practice he put in which he did because someone demanded more of him. That actually is how it works. But it's also the kid's talent that that's there and while Fletcher may feel rewarded for what the kid is able to do, he did NOT plan it that way, it was absolutely his intention to humiliate the kid in a career-ending way... but the kid rose above it. It was the kid's ambition and determination that ultimately wins because, like it or not, Fletcher still has to live with what he lost by pushing the kid too hard, but the kid rose above it and excelled anyway. So the kid actually won, not Fletcher. And Fletcher was punished for his behavior. He is not ruined but a significant part of his career is and a lot was taken from him. He's wounded and the kid is triumphant.
That's an interesting interpretation on the ending. I never thought of the film like that before, but your reading makes sense.
WARNING: spoilers below
It provides significance to Fletcher telling Andrew he was aware he got him fired right before the final performance started or how Fletcher switched out the song to something Andrew was unfamiliar with. I take it that fixing one of his cymbals after it fell over and smiling at him at the end was Fletcher changing his mind about destroying his career after he realized that, out of the presumably hundreds of musicians he taught throughout his career, he was finally about to create a great artist.
__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd



Maybe if Whiplash had been a little more explicit in illustrating Fletcher's white man god complex who uses jazz, and the chip on his shoulder for not being (per his perception) oppressed enough to make great jazz, as an instrument to punish true and nascent talent, whipping them like a slave master because of his stunted understanding of inspiration, to simultaneously compensate for and tacitly reinforce this complex insecurity on his part.

Or maybe that's just too close to the bone for a rich kid like Damien.



ACE IN THE HOLE
(1951, Wilder)
A film from the Criterion Collection whose number includes the #6 (#396)



Get this. There's three of us buried here ‒ Leo, me and you. We all wanna get out, and we're going to. Only I'm going back in style.

Ace in the Hole follows Chuck Tatum (Kirk Douglas), an ambitious but disgraced reporter that has been exiled from New York to Albuquerque for reasons that go from his alcoholism and womanizing to his work ethics (or lack of) and simply burning too many bridges. But he's determined to get back on the horse at any cost.

This is my sixth film from Billy Wilder, and I have to say he's becoming one of my favorite directors. Not only is his direction great, but the script is full of snappy dialogue that's perfectly delivered by the cast. Douglas, an actor that 4-5 years ago I don't think I had seen anything other than Spartacus, has been surprising me with every performance I see. From his scene-stealing supporting performance in Out of the Past to his lead role in Paths of Glory, and now this.

Grade:



Full review on my Movie Loot
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



The
WARNING: spoilers below
rapturous way that the final drum solo is filmed (as a soaring moment of triumph from an artistic point of view AND as a moment of the student surpassing his teacher) DOES suggest that it was worth it.

The film ends on this note of triumph and leaves us with the emotional high of Andrew achieving his artistic dreams and Fletcher getting a subtle moment of public comeuppance.


I agree that a movie does not have to present a binary. We didn't need some genius drummer who was also a gentle, patient instructor to show Andrew the "right way". And we also don't need the (false) conclusion that Fletcher's methods will always end in failure. Heck, the documentary Athlete A quite capably demonstrates that emotional manipulation, isolation, and abuse can win you a boatload of Olympic medals and cultivate top-of-the-world talent.

But I still think that the film does not satisfactorily resolve the tension between artistic success and personal cost of such extreme methods. I agree that it is a very well-realized portrayal of a toxic teacher-student relationship. Where I find fault is in how the moments and beats are sequenced so that the
WARNING: spoilers below
suicide of a character is left in the dust behind an exhilarating moment of personal and professional triumph. If Andrew did that solo and then there was a shot of him walking out into the back of the theater alone, I might feel differently. But I find that the chosen emphasis of the final moment feels like endorsement of the relationship---it suggests that the ends did justify the means.
.
It’s certainly…

WARNING: spoilers below
a triumphant moment. That’s why it works. It’s a pitch perfect climax because it’s a provocative mix of emotions. Great art IS often created via horrible abuses and conditions.*

Fletcher is hardly proven infallible by the outcome, as he outright tries to sabotage Andrew out of revenge. Andrew is hardly solely the product of Fletcher’s abuse. But they did push each other to be better at great personal cost.

Emphasizing the loss or other options reduces what it IS, which is far more engaging and interesting than Chazelle saying “this is wrong an unhealthy!”

To compare it to Midsommar, once again, Aster films the climax in a fairly rapturous way. He ends with gorgeous colors and smiles. It’s cathartic because getting out of this toxic relationship is something she should do but she’s compromised herself in doing so. We don’t need to see the eventual cost of this choice to know that it is problematic (nor does he need to hold the hand of the terrible hot take crowd).

Another comparison could be made for The Phantom Thread. Hardly an example of a positive relationship but it is provocative specifically because of the way their toxicity impacts each other and the “positivity” they pull from that relationship.


I just don’t see anyone watching Whiplash and thinking “yeah, that’s how it should be taught.” Given that I have seen more viewers taking issue with the film’s supposed stance on that subject than agreeing with it, I feel like Chazelle is just crediting you with already having that assumption before you engage with the film.



I felt like those things were important. I read the books and still struggled to make too much sense of Faramir and Theoden and that whole conflict in the films. I just thought, honestly, that the Extended cut was a better movie than the theatrical, period.

I agree that the Extended Fellowship didn't have that escalating pacing but I did enjoy some of the stuff that was retained.
They’re important for relatively unimportant characters. Certain supporting characters should be less developed than the primary cast and run time should be allocated accordingly. The scenes are nice in fleshing them out but they’re hardly cyphers. All you need to know is Faramir and Boromir have an ******* dad they try to please for their arcs to work. And we know that in the TC.

Like I said, I don’t feel passionately between the TT theatrical and EE as I do Fellowship or ROTK. It just also doesn’t stand out as being certainly better to me, while the others feel marginally worse.



[center]ACE IN THE HOLE
(1951, Wilder)
A film from the Criterion Collection whose number includes the #6 (#396)
Initially, I thought this was a boring choice but then I realized it wasn't a film where an object is in a hole
__________________



Victim of The Night
That's an interesting interpretation on the ending. I never thought of the film like that before, but your reading makes sense.
WARNING: spoilers below
It provides significance to Fletcher telling Andrew he was aware he got him fired right before the final performance started or how Fletcher switched out the song to something Andrew was unfamiliar with. I take it that fixing one of his cymbals after it fell over and smiling at him at the end was Fletcher changing his mind about destroying his career after he realized that, out of the presumably hundreds of musicians he taught throughout his career, he was finally about to create a great artist.
I agree but I felt that the possibility of
WARNING: "sperlah" spoilers below
Fletcher destroying his career was over. The kid was simply too good at that point as he had just proven. Fletcher knows he's in the presence of greatness and his natural instinct as a musician and creator of musicians takes over and his ugly pride steps in to in his mind take some credit for this. But the kid has emerged victorious and Fletcher has had to learn a hard lesson that was a lifetime in coming, without losing absolutely everything or somehow redeeming himself, which would have been too Hollywood for me.



Victim of The Night
They’re important for relatively unimportant characters. Certain supporting characters should be less developed than the primary cast and run time should be allocated accordingly. The scenes are nice in fleshing them out but they’re hardly cyphers. All you need to know is Faramir and Boromir have an ******* dad they try to please for their arcs to work. And we know that in the TC.

Like I said, I don’t feel passionately between the TT theatrical and EE as I do Fellowship or ROTK. It just also doesn’t stand out as being certainly better to me, while the others feel marginally worse.
I guess this is just knowing the source material too well. I felt that Faramir, for example, was ONLY a supporting character in the film and that was a shortcoming of the film. The Extended kinda fixed that.



I guess this is just knowing the source material too well. I felt that Faramir, for example, was ONLY a supporting character in the film and that was a shortcoming of the film. The Extended kinda fixed that.
While I’ve only read the trilogy once, I stand by calling Faramir a supporting character. I’d consider virtually anyone that wasn’t in the Fellowship or Gollum to be supporting.

It just comes down to whether or not I value making Faramir a better character over the pacing of the film and I don’t believe I do.



I agree but I felt that the possibility of
WARNING: "sperlah" spoilers below
Fletcher destroying his career was over. The kid was simply too good at that point as he had just proven. Fletcher knows he's in the presence of greatness and his natural instinct as a musician and creator of musicians takes over and his ugly pride steps in to in his mind take some credit for this. But the kid has emerged victorious and Fletcher has had to learn a hard lesson that was a lifetime in coming, without losing absolutely everything or somehow redeeming himself, which would have been too Hollywood for me.
Yeah, I see what you mean. I've already seen the film several times, so I don't know if I'm in the mood to watch it again for a while, but if I ever get to it again, I'll keep both yours and MKS's readings in mind.



Women will be your undoing, Pépé



Children of the Sea aka Kaijû no kodomo (2019)
A mystical sojourn of a poetic, philosophical nature that is an utterly gorgeous, lush viewing of a young girl who's parents work at a seaside aquarium where she comes across two young boys who cohabitate land and sea. Finding an internal connection to them and the cosmic occurrence that links them all. Centered between the connection of the stars and the sea.
Very, very lovely film I stumbled across on Netflix.
__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes
~Mr Minio



I watched Good on Paper (2021) on Netflix. Directed by Kimmy Gatewood, this comedy stars Iliza Shlesinger as a stand up comic who meets a guy who seems perfect, only to suspect he may not be who he claims to be. I really enjoyed this. It was funny and entertaining. Iliza Shlesinger was really good in the role. My rating is a