Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.

Purple Sea (Amel Alzakout & Khaled Abdulwahed, 2020)
4/10
Troma's War (Michael Herz & Lloyd Kaufman, 1988)
6/10
Spider-Man 2 (Sam Raimi, 2004)
7/10
Sweet Thing (Alexandre Rockwell, 2021)
- 6.5/10

Brother Nico Rockwell, sister Lana Rockwell and new friend Jabari Watkins have picaresque adventures when they run away from home.
Werewolves Within (Josh Ruben, 2021)
+ 6/10
Deadbeat at Dawn (Jim Van Bebber, 1988)
+ 5/10
Rare Beasts (Billie Piper, 2019)
5.5/10
Buddy (Heddy Honigmann, 2018)
6.5/10

Guide dog and its blind human show great love for each other.
Aquarela (Viktor Kosakovskiy, 2018)
- 6.5/10
The Last Matinee AKA Red Screening (Maximiliano Contenti, 2020)
6-/10
Roadkill: The Last Days of John Martin (Jim Van Bebber, 1994)
4/10
The Scarlet Pimpernel (Harold Young, 1934)
+ 6.5/10

"That damned elusive pimpernel" - Leslie Howard.
Vacation Friends (Clay Tarver, 2021)
+ 6/10
The Stairs (Peter 'Drago' Tiemann, 2021)
+ 5/10
Rushed (Vibeke Muasya, 2021)
+ 6/10
Brian Eno: 1971-1977 - The Man Who Fell to Earth (No Director Listed, 2011)
+ 6.5/10

Eno, here with Roxy Music founder Bryan Ferry, was one of the most innovative music makers of the 1970s.
Los Reyes (Iván Osnovikoff & Bettina Perut, 2018)
+ 6/10
Behemoth (Peter Szewczyk, 2020)
+ 5/10
The Old Ways (Christopher Alender, 2020)
5.5/10
The Wild One (Laslo Benedek, 1953)
7/10

- Johnny (Marlon Brando), leader of the Black Rebels Motorcycle Club.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page







SF = Z


[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 went and saw Candyman (2021) today. I thought it was an intelligent, socially conscious horror film that I enjoyed. I thought Nia DaCosta did a very good job directing the film, building on the legacy of the original Candyman and putting her own spin on it. The story was told in a smart and satisfying way. I felt the cast, especially Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Colman Domingo, gave effective and engaging performance For me, this is the 5th best film of the year so far.
This is great news! I am a huge fan of the original, but I also think it's a premise that could be great for a reimagining, so I was both excited and nervous when I heard about the new version. I've heard enough positive things that I'm excited to see it.




Mulholland Drive (2001)

Responding to Phoenix74, I finally sat down to watch this picture after avoiding it for 20 years. There were several enjoyable elements, chiefly the superb acting of Naomi Watts in a role that demanded the use of a wide range of her acting chops; but also the production’s obvious technical achievements, such as Lynch’s use of Crayola type colors in his sets, and also the first rate cinematography by Peter Deming. The art and production designers certainly had a work out as well.

The film is basically a lesbian fantasy wrapped in an abstract and often incoherent neo-noir mystery. At times the primitive scenes are morphed into something entirely new with no explanation. The actors played against a dream-like but pretentiously incongruous or muddled narrative made it seem like someone’s graduate film school project. During other passages the action and suspense were very Hitchcockian. Yet at no time did I feel as if I were watching a great motion picture.

Some of the film is very comparable to abstract painting, as it is in other segments of Lynch’s movies: make of it what you will. There is no “right” answer, which allows endless speculation and intellectualization. The story starts as a mystery with the common noir trope of amnesia, and ends with a disquieting thud, followed by a mysterious uttered coda. The film has dream-like quality for sure, but it’s not surrealism. Some find the picture endlessly hip, while others might consider it artsy bunco. I lean toward the latter. It’s likely that Lynch has not revealed its meaning simply because it has no meaning.

The cast was enjoyable, from the brief cameos by Robert Forester and Dan Hedaya, to the smoldering sensuality of Laura Harring (in her best Rita Hayworth impersonation). Naomi Watts, who puts me in mind of a 20th Century Teresa Wright (Shadow of a Doubt), is the keystone of the movie, and she came through in spades. Justin Theroux as the director Adam Kesher was put through the hoops, and provided some of the minimal comedy. It was delightful to see the great Ann Miller as Coco, the landlady, in her last film screen role.

In the final analysis I experienced the film much the same as when listening to a great jazz solo. I enjoy it, notice several outstanding portions, but resist analyzing it any further.

Doc’s rating: 6/10



Drugstore Cowboy - (1989)

Good second feature from Gus Van Sant - a critical success that preceded My Own Private Idaho. Four drug addicts, led by Bob (Matt Dillon) rob pharmacies and hospitals - both using and dealing what they get away with. Will it be redemption or disaster for Bob in the final act? The film gets down and dirty without really getting as down or dirty as it could. I think it holds back a bit simply due to the rating it would have got if if didn't, but it's a decent film regardless.

6.5/10
I really enjoyed that film. Very real. And I loved seeing the "Beat Generation's" William S. Burroughs as "Father Tom" Murphy, a natural talent.



Very clever movie. Brando is nearly always good, and I really love Richard Boone as a bad guy-- one of the best. The twist puts me in mind of The Woman in the Window (1944) with Edward G. Robinson.



I watched HOLY MOTORS after my distaste for ANNETTE set a fire under me. As I expected, I liked it far more than ANNETTE in virtually every single way except that, for a movie about life as an acting performance, it doesn’t contain a performance nearly as strong as Adam Drivers, instead asking Denis Lavant to rely more heavily on make-up than performance as he mimes his way through bizarre cinematic scenario after bizarre cinematic scenario. I don’t mean to sound as though it is a poor performance, as it is both daring and the correct approach for this material, it’s just lesser next to Driver.

I’m gonna chalk my dislike for Annette almost entirely on Sparks at this point.




I watched HOLY MOTORS after my distaste for ANNETTE set a fire under me. As I expected, I liked it far more than ANNETTE in virtually every single way except that, for a movie about life as an acting performance, it doesn’t contain a performance nearly as strong as Adam Drivers, instead asking Denis Lavant to rely more heavily on make-up than performance as he mimes his way through bizarre cinematic scenario after bizarre cinematic scenario. I don’t mean to sound as though it is a poor performance, as it is both daring and the correct approach for this material, it’s just lesser next to Driver.

I’m gonna chalk my dislike for Annette almost entirely on Sparks at this point.

I think that rating is more or less where I fell on my first viewing; it has improved a bit for me, because of how much it stuck with me. Anyway, not sure if I shared this with you, but this is something I wrote back when I saw it.

I really enjoyed Lavant's performance(s). I really felt him immersed in the different scenarios, all of which are wildly different. But putting the dramatic part of the performance, I doubt there would've been another actor with the athleticism that Carax required for the role.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!




Mulholland Drive (2001)

Responding to Phoenix74, I finally sat down to watch this picture after avoiding it for 20 years. There were several enjoyable elements, chiefly the superb acting of Naomi Watts in a role that demanded the use of a wide range of her acting chops; but also the production’s obvious technical achievements, such as Lynch’s use of Crayola type colors in his sets, and also the first rate cinematography by Peter Deming. The art and production designers certainly had a work out as well.

The film is basically a lesbian fantasy wrapped in an abstract and often incoherent neo-noir mystery. At times the primitive scenes are morphed into something entirely new with no explanation. The actors played against a dream-like but pretentiously incongruous or muddled narrative made it seem like someone’s graduate film school project. During other passages the action and suspense were very Hitchcockian. Yet at no time did I feel as if I were watching a great motion picture.

Some of the film is very comparable to abstract painting, as it is in other segments of Lynch’s movies: make of it what you will. There is no “right” answer, which allows endless speculation and intellectualization. The story starts as a mystery with the common noir trope of amnesia, and ends with a disquieting thud, followed by a mysterious uttered coda. The film has dream-like quality for sure, but it’s not surrealism. Some find the picture endlessly hip, while others might consider it artsy bunco. I lean toward the latter. It’s likely that Lynch has not revealed its meaning simply because it has no meaning.

The cast was enjoyable, from the brief cameos by Robert Forester and Dan Hedaya, to the smoldering sensuality of Laura Harring (in her best Rita Hayworth impersonation). Naomi Watts, who puts me in mind of a 20th Century Teresa Wright (Shadow of a Doubt), is the keystone of the movie, and she came through in spades. Justin Theroux as the director Adam Kesher was put through the hoops, and provided some of the minimal comedy. It was delightful to see the great Ann Miller as Coco, the landlady, in her last film screen role.

In the final analysis I experienced the film much the same as when listening to a great jazz solo. I enjoy it, notice several outstanding portions, but resist analyzing it any further.

Doc’s rating: 6/10
I'm a huge fan of the film so obviously I disagree with your dismissal of it, but at least I'm glad you got some enjoyment out of it.

As far as I'm concerned, I find it mesmerizing. I think I've said it before here but when I first rented it back in 2001, I saw it three times back-to-back-to-back, and have seen it several times afterwards. I think that once you get the drift of the story, it's fairly "straightforward", but regardless of that, I don't think the enjoyment is in "understanding" the film, but in "feeling" it, as cliché as it might sound.

If you're interested, here's what I wrote about it last time I rewatched it (a couple of months ago), and if you want to dive further, here's a special episode of my podcast that I dedicated to one scene from the film.





Romy and Michele's High School Reunion, 1997

Romy (Mira Sorvino) and Michele (Lisa Kudrow) are high school best friends, still living together a decade after graduating high school. When they learn that their 10-year high school reunion is approaching, they take a stark look at their lives and begin to panic. Together they decide to put of a fake front of success at the reunion.

This is one of those films where I can vividly remember it being released. Specifically, I can remember the trailer playing on TV ("We're not the ones who got fat." "We're pregnant, you idiot!"). I was never super interested, but actually watching it I was pleasantly surprised.

Now, is this an all-time great comedy? Nah. But I found it solidly entertaining from beginning to end. The structure is kind of an enjoyable mess, with long flashbacks, interludes, and an extended dream sequence.

The biggest delight, for me, was Mira Sorvino and her excellent chemistry with Lisa Kudrow. Sorvino was one of the women named as someone who was knowingly blacklisted after enduring harassment from Harvey Weinstein. I've only seen her in a few things, and I really enjoyed the way that she played her character and her comedic timing.

Romy and Michele are interesting main characters. They walk this line between two stereotypes: the dumb blondes and the high school misfits. In a way, it's kind of neat. A lot of movies show attractive, charismatic people as "outsiders" in movies and it just never feels real. Romy and Michele are pretty and thin and all that, but they are also just really weird. (To up the misfit-status, Romy is overweight and Michele wears a huge back-brace).

The film does lack a compelling villain. The mean girls who tormented Romy and Michele in high school are, of course, just as awful at the reunion. Ultimately, though, the film is about the relationship between the two leads. In a moment of discord, they turn on each other as the reason that they haven't "made it." the nature of both their split and their reconciliation makes a lot of sense from an emotional point of view, even if they are wrapped in an absurd story about inventing post-it notes and synchronized dancing.

Aside from lacking a great villain, there's also something a bit off about a romantic subplot between Michele and a guy named Sandy (Alan Cumming). Sandy has a huge crush on Michele in high school, which she knows about but ignores (not unkindly, but also not . . . super kindly). The final act is very ridiculous and over-the-top, but I still found it a bit icky that Michele changes her mind about someone because he is now handsome and rich. It's literally what Romy and Michele thought they'd need to be loved and respected by their peers. It's just a very strange double standard. Again, the absurdity of the last act does mitigate this, but it kind of bugged me and it puts sort of a negative spin on the main characters, especially Michele.

In a week where I really needed some goofy joy, this was the perfect film.




I like Romy and Michelle. It's one of those movies that doesn't have to be a fully good movie to be good. It lives or dies with those two characters, and even though I don't remember anything in particular about them, I remember liking watching them. Which is sometimes enough.





Untold: Malice at the Palace, 2021

In this documentary, several players (mainly Ron Artest/Metta World Peace, Reggie Miller, Jermaine O'Neal, and Stephen Jackson), coaches, and other related witnesses recount the ugly 2004 brawl between the Indiana Pacers, the Detroit Pistons, and Pistons fans in the Detroit stadium. The documentary sets up the internal team dynamics, the bigger picture of the league at that time, and then dissects the event and the aftermath.

I am not a huge sports fan, and I run very hot and cold with different sports. For example, sometimes I will watch a ton of a hockey season or basketball season, or whatever. But I definitely do not have a great sense of the game.

So it is always interesting to me to watch documentaries like this one, because I really don't have my own perspective, memories, or opinions on the events. In fact, I'd be interested to hear what someone more familiar with the players and the situation thinks of the events as they are presented.

The thing that stuck out to me the most in this documentary is just how many different pressures were placed on this group of men. Don't get me wrong: I think that professional athletes (like any group of people with a lot of money and power) can be the absolute worst, But there's an apparent honesty to the way that the players reflect on their behaviors that I found really compelling. Metta World Peace, in particular, and the way that he describes the dynamics of his depression and anxiety is very interesting to watch. The guy is dealing with some serious mental health issues (seriously, look no further than how borderline distraught he is after winning a championship, describing himself as a coward and looking like something horrible has happened). One of the most compelling things to me was when he describes that ANY extreme--whether it's scoring a winning layup or getting in a fight--is not a good mental state for him. So often, one of the things that is idolized when it comes to professional athletes is their intensity. But what the interviews seem to show is that intensity can come from a healthy place or an unhealthy place.

I was also very interested in the discussion of fan culpability. I was an athlete in high school and in college, and I coached a middle school team for seven years and the absolute worst part of it all is the fans. There is this bizarre cultural acceptance of really despicable, cruel behavior (some of it barely-veiled or just explicitly bigoted). While I didn't approve of a lot of the behavior from the players, I found myself absolutely disgusted by the behavior of the fans. Throwing everything from beers to a chair, dumping food and drinks over the players, coming down to the court to confront the players, and so on. The documentary interviews a fan who came onto the court (and I'll be real--watching Artest punch him out was a highlight of the documentary) and the man who instigated the fan fight by throwing a beer, and they were easily the worst. Just the worst. Like, the smirk on the face of the man who threw the drink as he says he has zero remorse about the wrong fan being attacked by a player was just . . .ugh. At least the players have the excuse of high emotion and adrenaline from a competition.

And the third most interesting aspect for me was the examination of the aftermath. Everything from the racialized language used against the players who were involved (the word "thugs" and "hip-hop" are thrown around to an absurd degree), to the fact that Stern, the commissioner of the NBA, acted alone in determining who was suspended and for how long. Even the disclosure from the prosecutor that the NBA basically requested that the players be charged and that the prosecutor had to push back and assert that he was also going to go after the fans. There's also the absurd moment of a police officer preparing to mace Reggie Miller, asserting he didn't know who he was, immediately followed by Jackson's disbelieving "How do you not know Reggie Miller from the Pacers?!?!".

There wasn't much that I felt was missing from this. Whether the interviewees were honest with the interviewer (or honest with themselves) is something that others would be more qualified to say. I really enjoyed listening to all of the men speak. They are at an interesting place where they have some distance from the events and have had some time to come to terms with the aftermath, and yet a lot of it is still clearly very raw.




I like Romy and Michelle. It's one of those movies that doesn't have to be a fully good movie to be good. It lives or dies with those two characters, and even though I don't remember anything in particular about them, I remember liking watching them. Which is sometimes enough.
Exactly.



I like Romy and Michelle. It's one of those movies that doesn't have to be a fully good movie to be good. It lives or dies with those two characters, and even though I don't remember anything in particular about them, I remember liking watching them. Which is sometimes enough.
Yeah, I haven't seen it in a long time, don't remember much about it, but do remember having fun with it.





The Family Next Door, 2020

This documentary uses police bodycam footage, text messages, Facebook posts, news reports, and other primary sources to document the investigation following the disappearance of a woman named Shanann Watts and her two young daughters.

About three minutes into this one, I realized that I'd seen some of the footage already. The case of Shanann Watts is actually pretty big-profile, and so I did have a sense of where things were going. But with 90 minutes to fill, there was a lot more background, context, and aftermath than I'd ever been aware of.

WARNING! The rest of this review discusses the true-crime case of Shanann Watts and the outcome of the case!!! So SPOILERS, sort of, because I think most people are probably actually familiar with this case and how it ended.

It's apparent (or seems apparent, more about this later) as Chris Watts smirks his way through various interviews that Shanann and the kids are dead. What the documentary does, quite well in my opinion, is layer Chris's unraveling story with text messages and videos that illuminate the nature of the conflicts in his relationship with Shanann.

It's very dangerous, of course, to look at someone and declare that they are guilty because of the way that they behave. Different people have different responses to trauma or anxiety, and saying that a smile or fidgeting is an automatic indicator of guilt can obviously lead to great harm. And yet, it is bizarre to watch the way that Watts behaves at different moments. In particular, a moment in which he "confesses" to his father at a police station, and seems to be choosing his words with very specific design and intent.

The most grueling part of the film comes after Watts gives his version of events: that Shanann killed their children, and so he had to kill her. It's a disturbing (and improbable) story, but what's more disturbing is the way that so many people flock around to defend him. It goes as far as people declaring that even if Watts did kill all three (as well as Shanann's unborn fetus), it was because she drove him to it. "How can you say that?" someone asks on a radio show or maybe a podcast. "She made him do it. She's a b*tch.". In fact, the theme of women being at fault is a thread that runs through the film. Did Chris do what he did because Shanann was controlling and crazy? Or because his mistress didn't want him to have the "burden" of kids? Or because his mother indulges him? Repeatedly--whether by people on social media, in the news, or from Chris himself--there's this idea that his hand was forced. (Don't you just hate it when people around you are unreasonable and you have to murder three people?)

The biggest revelation for me is the fact that Watts later gave a more complete confession, in which he actually admits to all three killings. The last I had heard of the story (admittedly, something I was only peripherally aware of), Watts was still claiming that Shanann has smothered the children and he killed her in a rage. Hearing him confess to the actual sequence of events is utterly chilling.

This documentary is different from most others I've seen because the creators are incredibly "invisible". Everything on screen (aside from title cards that tell us the date of whatever we are about to see) is a primary source. There are no interviews. In some ways, this is neat. You are just seeing "real" footage. There is a moment at the end of the film where the creator "personality" asserts itself, as two different title cards announce that on average, three women are killed every day in the US by their current or ex-partner; then that these crimes are mostly committed by men and are premeditated. These two title cards practically ooze with offense at the way that Chris attempted to cast Shanann as the killer of her own children and himself as the righteous protector.

This is a well-curated mix of primary sources. Simply as a timeline of a crime, what led up to it, and what came after, it works very well.




I forgot the opening line.

By Derived from a digital capture (photo/scan) of the Film Poster/ VHS or DVD Cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by the film company or the artist. Claimed as fair use regardless., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=33716722

What Price Glory - (1952)

Catching up with a few John Ford films - this one, a slightly strange World War I comedy backed with some beautiful cinematography in technicolour. While the humour is often endearing, I'm a little taken aback by how fun the First World War looks in this film - and I have to wonder what veterans of that conflict would have thought of it (Ford himself had seen conflict from 1942 to 45 granted.) The horrors of war only make a very brief interlude in the pranks and jokes going on. Other than that sense of the wrong tone - the film is actually quite good and at times like a glorious colourful painting.
Corinne Calvet is gorgeous - but falls prey to early 20th Century gender roles when two officers decide who will marry her in a game of poker. To be fair to them though, her character, Charmaine, had a chance to choose herself - and couldn't decide.

This could have been a truly great film, but it seems there was a lot of pandering to audiences and executives. That said, I like it.

6/10


By Box Office Mojo, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56552686

My Own Private Idaho - (1991) - rewatch

Gus Van Sant's bittersweet and daring follow-up to Drugstore Cowboy really put his name on the map. River Phoenix is a street hustler with narcolepsy called Mike Waters and Keanu Reeves his closest friend and lover Scott Favor. Waters has a tortured history which includes abuse and abandonment, Favor is just rebelling while waiting for his father to die to collect his massive inheritance - after which he plans to go straight and turn over a new leaf. It's the relationship these two have, along with father-figure bum Bob (William Richert) that provides the crux of the film.

It's a somewhat sad ode to free spirits and the search for greater meaning in our lives - whether that be in the past or the future. Being this upfront about homosexuality was quite a risk even though that taboo had thawed somewhat by the beginning of the 1990s. Other themes might be slight spoiler territory. Good on New Line Cinema for picking this up.

7/10



Mulholland Drive (2001)

In the final analysis I experienced the film much the same as when listening to a great jazz solo. I enjoy it, notice several outstanding portions, but resist analyzing it any further.

Doc’s rating: 6/10
I like your jazz analogy. If I were to critique the film on it's faults my mind always goes to the unevenness between alternate realities. Approximately two hours for one, twenty minutes for the other - but it is so uneven that it's obviously deliberate. I call them alternate realities - but they exist together which is another interesting element to the film. I agree with you not so much that Lynch made a film with no meaning, but that he made one with no solution.

I fall somewhere between you and Thief in how much I like the film - but my appraisal has gone up as the years have gone by.




Return to Babylon (2013)

Right from the opening credits, as arpeggio chords of the enchanting and mysterious The Aquarium by Camille Saint-Saens washed over me, I was drawn into the wonderful era of silent films, and Hollywood of the early 20th Century. For nearly 30 years the public was treated to a fantasy realm by silent moving pictures that really would not have been possible in the same way by talking films. The dramatic and mystical were adorned by stylized Egyptian, Oriental, and Art Deco elements which contributed to their fascination and other-wordly appeal.

The film’s beginning reinforced those feelings due to its use of 16 mm black and white film shot with a vintage hand cranked camera. This replicated the exact look of a film produced during the mid silent era. The techniques and staging rang true, and were a joy to watch. The genuine location settings were very effective in representing the silent era.

The film was basically a series of short vignettes featuring biographies (both fictional and real)
and sketches of a number of famous film stars from the era: Clara Bow, Lupe Velez, Gloria Swanson, Josephine Baker, Alla Nazimova, Mabel Normand, Fatty Arbuckle, Erich von Stoheim, Douglas Fairbanks, Rudolph Valentino, and many more.

Yet there were two detractions for me. The first was the film’s frequent slide into campiness and hackneyed frank sexual innuendo in the title cards-- and the overuse of dialogue intertitles in general. The second was the choice of actors to portray some of the famous figures. The portrayal of Fatty Arbuckle in particular was cringeworthy, as the stuffing used to increase his girth was obvious, which was not matched by the rest of his body. The actor who played Valentino was all wrong. On the other hand Maria Conchita Alfonso as Lupe Velez, Rolonda Watts as Josephine Baker, Laura Harring as Alla Nazimova, Michael Goldman as Adolph Zukor, and Phillip Bloch as Ramon Novarro, were very well cast, and portrayed their characters in a believable manor.

Directed by little known Alex Monty Canawati, and written by Canawati along with Stanley Sheff, the project was on a shoestring budget, and was developed from 2001 to 2008, only getting enough post production money to have it released in 2013. It never found a distributor, and was finally released on You Tube, where it continues to be viewable in full. Certainly a project of this type would have benefited greatly from a much larger budget. I have a hunch that it was Alfonso and Sheff who kicked in some of the production financing, and were both instrumental in acquiring money piecemeal for the project. As it
remains, it strikes me that this was a fun project whose participation in it by several late middle aged actresses was fueled by their desire to strut their stuff portraying some of the great silent film stars.


I’d had hopes for another film approaching the quality of
The Artist (2011), which is solidly in my list of top 100 films. Unfortunately that was not to be. However at only 75 minutes Return to Babylon is a fun and absorbing watch, and has enough excellence to impress the viewer for what it is and for what it could have been.

Doc’s rating: 6/10