Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Bill Burr: Live At Red Rocks - 7.5/10
The first act = good
The second act = "The Trip" = one of his best
The third act = lesbians (very weak, it's going on too long)


Final 5 minutes is very "current" and good. This special is better than his last couple. I think his first specials were his best, getting better until the b&w one hitting his peak, and then not able to hit.



It helps if you also hear the podcast, because you'll recognize a real "true story"





Allaby's Avatar
Registered User
Trauma (1978) Directed by León Klimovsky. Not one of the best Giallo films, but enough style and sexy shenanigans to keep things interesting. It was a little predictable and the story could have been better, but I did enjoy the performances. Watched on blu ray as part of Vinegar Syndrome's Forgotten Gialli set.





Not interested in lesbian love affairs as a movie theme, but the movie is quite good though overlong. I really like Waterston & she was excellent. Kirby good too.



Jolly bunch of Welsh characters in a true-story movie. Predictable kind of feel-good movie, but quite enjoyable. Toni Collette playing a Welsh woman was very convincing. And I didn’t know Damian Lewis’s paternal grands were Welsh so his Welsh accent was also convincing.

Did @ScarletLion see this movie?
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



I recently watched this as well, and also didn’t care for it. Like….at all.

Only positive I had was Divine, out of drag, actually turning out the only believable performance in the whole film.

Can you believe this film is so highly rated?
I had to read most of your review before I remembered actually watching this. It was your take on Carradine's increasingly ridiculous hair that finally jogged my memory. I wasn't sure if it was supposed to signify his growing success or his burgeoning slide into criminality. I also remember the campy fashion and the film in general being somewhat stilted. I felt it was something you got through but not necessarily enjoyed.
So I went and read Ebert's 4-Star(?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!) review of it, and I still don't really understand why I am meant to enjoy this film.





With Byrd at the South Pole, 1930

This documentary follows the exploration and challenges of Admiral Richard Byrd's expedition to the South Pole.

Sometimes, I just have to watch a movie as more of a historic document and less a piece of art, and that was certainly the case here.

First and foremost, I find it pretty amazing that the filmmakers were able to shoot as much footage as they did. And some of the shots are absolutely stunning, helped along by a landscape that is beautiful and daunting from any angle. Some of the footage, especially of the whales surfacing through holes in the ice, or of the penguins waddling around are really gorgeous.

I also appreciate that the film covers the range of scientific endeavors undertaken by the crew.

But where I part from the film in spirit is in the act itself of being a film.

Take it or leave it, but I'm not a fan of jaunty, cute little intertitles. At one point there are several written as if the penguins are talking to each other and, woof, cutesy puns are not what I want in my documentary. (SAMPLE: "Hey does that guy look familiar? I hear his name is Byrd." Please do not put such mediocre words in the beaks of such amusing animals.)

Further, while I understand and do not mind that certain sequences were clearly staged for the camera, at times this practice felt unethical to me. In one sequence, a litter of newborn puppies is pulled out of their mother's kennel so that they can jokingly attach them all to a little sled. The worried mother frantically moves them back into the shelter and out of the freezing air. I wish I could have found a screencap of this look the dog gets, chained and protective over her puppies. It is a look that says, "I have had enough of this crap." Worse, there's a scene later where a limping dog runs out to join its peers who are pulling a sled. Realizing the dog is injured, the men decide to take it out on the ice and shoot it. While this may well reflect the reality of handling a disabled animal in such an extreme setting, it's also obvious that someone knew the dog was running and let it keep going to get footage. Then we get a bunch more footage of the limping dog. Like, why? Why are you letting this animal continue to suffer just for a great shot? Why did they let it get to that point? When the intertitle declares this the last "great act of a brave soldier" I was like, very much over it.

Some of the images are gorgeous, but my conflicted feelings about how it's all put together (and how some of the footage was obtained) kept me from enjoying it all that much. It gets an extra half point for historical significance.




Further, while I understand and do not mind that certain sequences were clearly staged for the camera, at times this practice felt unethical to me. In one sequence, a litter of newborn puppies is pulled out of their mother's kennel so that they can jokingly attach them all to a little sled. The worried mother frantically moves them back into the shelter and out of the freezing air. I wish I could have found a screencap of this look the dog gets, chained and protective over her puppies. It is a look that says, "I have had enough of this crap." Worse, there's a scene later where a limping dog runs out to join its peers who are pulling a sled. Realizing the dog is injured, the men decide to take it out on the ice and shoot it. While this may well reflect the reality of handling a disabled animal in such an extreme setting, it's also obvious that someone knew the dog was running and let it keep going to get footage. Then we get a bunch more footage of the limping dog. Like, why? Why are you letting this animal continue to suffer just for a great shot? Why did they let it get to that point? When the intertitle declares this the last "great act of a brave soldier" I was like, very much over it.

Some of the images are gorgeous, but my conflicted feelings about how it's all put together (and how some of the footage was obtained) kept me from enjoying it all that much. It gets an extra half point for historical significance.

Ugh, I could never watch this. Funny how humans think only we have emotions.



Each entry in the Ip Man quadrilogy features some excellently choreographed fight scenes, but the stories and characters are a mixed bag. The first Ip Man is easily the best because it successfully builds up the rivalry between Master Ip and the Japanese oppressors, which pays off in the climactic fight with their general. The first half of Ip Man 2 is fantastic, but it lost me in the second half. Going from fights against Sammo Hung on a wobbly table and against dozens of guys with knives to one-on-one boxing matches left me underwhelmed.


I felt that all of the sequels had disjointed storytelling. After a big fight, a story arc will just end and the movie will shift focus elsewhere. That makes sense for biopics like these, but the stories portrayed are mostly untrue. Someone came up with the idea of turning the real-life kung fu master of Bruce Lee into an action hero just like him. Every non-Chinese character is cartoonishly evil and its up to Ip Man to show them the superiority of Chinese martial arts. I don't mind one-dimensional villains, but this series has way too many and it gets old. Ip Man is worth watching in its entirety; the sequels are only worth watching for the action scenes.



Ugh, I could never watch this. Funny how humans think only we have emotions.
Yeah, I hear you.

While nothing is overly graphic, the indifference of the men toward the nature around them (one of them ties a bow tie around a penguin's neck, which the penguin clearly hates and is trying to get out of) and the animals they brought along is just disheartening.



Yeah, I hear you.

While nothing is overly graphic, the indifference of the men toward the nature around them (one of them ties a bow tie around a penguin's neck, which the penguin clearly hates and is trying to get out of) and the animals they brought along is just disheartening.
Sounds ghastly. Recently re-watched Amores Perros. Horrid dog-fighting scenes, really brutal, but the director says none of it was real. Had to believe him in order to watch this very good movie again.



Bill Burr: Live At Red Rocks - 7.5/10
The first act = good
The second act = "The Trip" = one of his best
The third act = lesbians (very weak, it's going on too long)


Final 5 minutes is very "current" and good. This special is better than his last couple. I think his first specials were his best, getting better until the b&w one hitting his peak, and then not able to hit.



It helps if you also hear the podcast, because you'll recognize a real "true story"


Nice! New stand-up from Bill Burr!



Sounds ghastly. Recently re-watched Amores Perros. Horrid dog-fighting scenes, really brutal, but the director says none of it was real. Had to believe him in order to watch this very good movie again.
While I really struggle with any animal cruelty/mistreatment in movies, it's always horrid when it's real/unsimulated.

Like, I don't even think that shooting a sick/disabled animal in such a harsh environment is cruel, per se. Our horse vet, who we loved, said that until recently ("recently" being like mid-2000s) she felt that the most humane method of euthanasia was a well placed bullet. It's the sense I have that the animal's pain was prolonged (and possibly caused if they intentionally let him run for so long after the sled) just to create a "scene".



I forgot the opening line.

By May be found at the following website: =source:www.impawards.com, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8288426

Braveheart - (1995)

It's funny how sometimes you see bits of a film over time, and pretty much reckon that you've seen it for the most part. That's been my experience with Braveheart, but wanting to be able to tick it off my list I decided to watch it properly, from start to finish, and realised that I'd only ever really seen 5% of it. I thought it was good, and although I suspected it was no way near to being historically accurate I'd advise those complaining to acknowledge the fact that if people made these films 100% accurate they wouldn't work as movies - there are things a movie needs to flow for 2 or 3 hours, and as such, a dry recitation of facts would mean hardly anyone would like it, and it would lose millions of dollars. This was your standard epic, with hero, villains, action and romance - and it works fairly well as that, keeping me interested and entertained. It has blockbuster written all over it, giving us some idea of who William Wallace was, and gave two actors who I really like - Sophie Marceau and Angus Macfadyen - more exposure to a wide audience. The battle scenes are great, and so is the lush photography. Finally seen it.

8/10
__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.

Latest Review : Before the Rain (1994)





Leave Her to Heaven, 1945

Novelist Richard (Cornel Wilde) meets Ellen (Gene Tierney) by chance on a trip and the two engage in a strange, brief courtship before marrying. But very soon into the marriage, Richard discovers that Ellen's love is a dangerous beast, and she has no patience for anyone or anything that might come between them. This includes Richard's little brother, Danny (Darryl Hickman) and Ellen's own sister, Ruth (Jeanne Crain).

I mean . . . dang Gene Tierney!

There's nothing like watching a few middling films in a row and then watching something that just totally knocks your socks off. And a certain sequence in this film may have blasted my socks into the neighboring county.

The icy heart of the movie is Tierney's turn as Ellen, a woman who seems to have some issues from the start---including an unhealthy fixation on her deceased father---but before our eyes (and, more slowly, before Richard's eyes) morphs into a stone-cold sociopath. Everything about it is perfect. Tierney's performance, which somehow creates a stomach-turning mix of ferocity and blankness, is utterly compelling. Many images of this film include an iconic shot of Ellen wearing red-rimmed sunglasses. But I love the shot at the top of this review because it captures a perfect stillness that just doesn't belong on a human being. The makeup and styling of Ellen also does wonders for the character: everything is just too perfect, too in its place.

While the film makes no bones about Ellen's status as villain, I did appreciate that there seem to be some nods toward the way that Richard--and to a lesser extent Ruth--behave in ways that seem almost engineered to upset her. I realize that might sound like victim blaming, but how can you not facepalm when Richard, knowing Ellen's obsession with her father AND her hatred of surprises, decides to surprise her by dismantling her father's laboratory?! Richard, ya big dummy! What are you doing? Likewise, Ellen gives up her honeymoon to care for Richard's brother, and yet Richard totally fails to make any gesture toward finding them some time alone together. While Ellen's reactions to these transgressions are totally out of scale, it does slightly do a job of putting you in her shoes and feeling some of her frustration. It keeps her just human enough, whereas a character being cruel for truly no reason would have felt unrealistic.

The look of the movie is also just splendid. Wide open spaces and deep color saturation. The more vivid the colors around Ellen become--including the ruby red of her own mouth--the more blanched and icy her eyes seem to become.

The supporting performances are all quite good, including a young Vincent Price as Ellen's former fiance.

I have one qualm with the film, something that I think is a symptom of its age, that I cannot discuss without MAJOR SPOILERS. If you haven't seen this movie yet but are reading this review, I really really urge you to skip what is in the spoiler text, as it would rob you of one of the most breathtaking, out-of-nowhere moments of the entire movie.
WARNING: spoilers below
The decision to put Ellen's induced miscarriage after her killing of Danny didn't play that well for me. I think that they should be in the opposite order, and the movie implies that the former should be more horrifying and it just isn't. I'm sorry, but a depressed, upset, pregnant woman throwing herself down the stairs is nowhere near as upsetting in terms of a "crime" as the cold-blooded murder of a person thrashing and pleading for help in a lake. I'm absolutely not wanting to start any kind of conversation about abortion here, but a woman being forced to carry a fetus she doesn't want in her body is something that makes me sympathetic toward her, even if her reasons for not wanting the baby are totally selfish and warped. Additionally, throwing yourself down the stairs is really dangerous, meaning Ellen herself could have been killed or seriously injured in the attempt. It overall makes for a far less upsetting scenario than what happens in the lake. This isn't helped by the film not being willing to make Ellen look very pregnant at all. Dialogue later suggests that the baby might have been far enough along to be viable(?), but she doesn't look like a woman any further along than a first trimester.

I do see how the miscarriage attempt shows an escalation in Ellen's behavior in the sense that she is willing to endanger herself, something that then pays off in the last act. I just think that the lake scene is so searing and intense that it would have played better after something less intense.


But these are minor, minor quibbles.

What a scorcher. Am I gonna give it a perfect score? I think I just might!




I prefer Leave Her To Heaven to Laura if I'm getting my Tierney noir on.



I prefer Leave Her To Heaven to Laura if I'm getting my Tierney noir on.
The academic term is Tiernoir.





Not interested in lesbian love affairs as a movie theme, but the movie is quite good though overlong. I really like Waterston & she was excellent. Kirby good too.



Jolly bunch of Welsh characters in a true-story movie. Predictable kind of feel-good movie, but quite enjoyable. Toni Collette playing a Welsh woman was very convincing. And I didn’t know Damian Lewis’s paternal grands were Welsh so his Welsh accent was also convincing.

Did @ScarletLion see this movie?
Ah y'know what - I haven't. I struggle with non welsh actors trying to do welsh accents as they are mostly terrible. Even though I really like Toni Collette - I can't bring myself to watch it. I'm, familliar with the story, and I think I'll stick to the documentary on it.

The world to come is good too.