Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





Victim of The Night


You've Got Mail, 1998

Kathleen (Meg Ryan) owns and operates an independent children's bookstore in New York City. Joe (Tom Hanks) is in the middle of opening a corporate, Borders-like book superstore just around the corner. Obvious animosity develops between the two, but they are unaware that they are corresponding online with each other via AOL forums. As their online relationship grows, their real-world dynamics become more and more contentious.

This is a remake of The Shop Around the Corner, updated to the internet age. While the cast is stacked with very charming talent, some the dynamics of the story end up making the romance kind of icky.

Ryan and Hanks are both proven romantic-comedy talents, including their work in Sleepless in Seattle. They both bring plenty of charm to their roles, especially Hanks, who must still come off as likable even though he is driving Ryan's character out of business. They are supported by a whole slew of secondary characters, like Greg Kinnear's goober of an intellectual poseur, who is dating Kathleen, or Parker Posey as Joe's girlfriend. Even much smaller roles are filled by talents like Dave Chapelle, Steve Zahn, and Jean Stapleton.

But the plot. The plot. Oof.

There's a plot point in both the original film and this adaptation (MILD SPOILERS) that about a third of the way or halfway through the film, Joe learns that Kathleen is his secret correspondent. In both versions, the male lead leverages this one-sided knowledge to feel out the relationship and generally mess with his love interest. It's not hard to see how this is problematic and kind of gross.

But in the original film, the characters were co-workers in the same store, with the female lead being remarkable for her salesmanship. So there was a power imbalance, but other elements somewhat balanced it out.

In this film, though, Joe's store is literally destroying Kathleen's work, something that not only brings her great joy, but is also the thing that she most connects with to her dead mother. At two hours long, this adds up to about an hour of Joe manipulating, humiliating, and otherwise playing mind games with Kathleen as her business goes under. There's a grace period right after he finds out who she is where you think, yeah, he needs to buy some time to figure out how to navigate this. But an hour of run time?! And to then have Joe basically start pitting himself against . . . himself and forcing Kathleen to choose just feels cruel. But because the movie needs us to be okay with this, Kathleen is perpetually apologizing to Joe when she's angry, and then so grateful for his attentions.

The cast is great, and deliver their lines with aplomb. But all the charm in the world can't save an overall premise that is pretty yucky if you think about it for more than two minutes.

Yeah, couldn't understand why any of this was supposed to be good or positive. I kinda hated the idea of it.
Also just wasn't nearly up to the other comedies these two had done in the previous few years.



Yeah, couldn't understand why any of this was supposed to be good or positive. I kinda hated the idea of it.
Also just wasn't nearly up to the other comedies these two had done in the previous few years.
Making them co-workers, as in the original film, would have been such a better way to go. Making him a millionaire corporate king and her an independent bookstore owner creates a power imbalance that destroys the stuff that just passes muster in the original.

In the original film, there are literally two minutes where the guy pretends to know the letter-writer and jokes about him being old and overweight. In You've Got Mail, Joe spends days (or maybe even weeks) feeding her ideas about why this man refuses to meet her.

I think that the best thing about this film--which I realize I didn't mention in my review, LOL--was the incredibly adult and mature break-up conversation between Frank and Kathleen.



Elvis - Like everyone else, I thought Austin Butler played a good Elvis. Tom Hanks despite acting out his character well, I really do not think that Tom Parker behaved that manipulative in real life. I felt the rap music was also out of place for this movie. The movie was also too long, that the people I watched it with were complaining about it as well. It was a watchable one, but was not really anything special.

Seventh Seal - I enjoyed this one. I loved the medieval setting of the movie, I loved the characters I was following, and also the symbolisms as well. I then liked the ending where the knight loses the chess game, but saves the family by distracting Death. It was obvious that Death was going to win at the end, but it still felt satisfying how the characters are going to learn from it. I actually felt like I was with them in this world while watching this. As for Ingmar Bergman, I already loved Persona and I love The Seventh Seal a bit more.

47 Ronin - I actually did not watch this. Someone put it on, so I sat through it. It just became some bad parody of Chinese fantasy films. So awful, and cheesy, and Keanu Reeves was out of place for this junk. I played the guitar and paid no attention to THIS. I also meaninglessly read reviews about this movie and several other Ebert reviews during the run. That is sayin' a lot. I could watch any Chinese set film and have the same effect. This one really turned me off.
7 Samurai seems like a better movie anyway, but I have not seen it yet(mainly due to its length), but I saw something else directed by Akira Kurasawa...
Ikiru - This was a lovely movie because it shows the boredom of real life and how rank does not seem to matter but instead what one accomplishes. It showed how someone should live his or her life to the fullest no matter how much time you have left. I loved going through Ikiru's adventures with the novelist and the young woman. They help him find the meaning of life, so then he tries to accomplish something in the 6 months he has left due to stomach cancer. Then the second half plays out kind of like Citizen Kane where the old man dies, and people put together a puzzle trying to figure out the meaning of the built playground. We then see the iconic scene of him swinging and singing the song Gondola no Uta. Then I feel happy watching how a low-ranking bureaucrat accomplished way more than anyone else at his job did that at a higher rank. This completely made up for the last movie I saw.



I forgot the opening line.

By Charles Chaplin Productions / United Artists - Here, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/inde...curid=63076137

The Gold Rush (1942 version)

There's a certain level of fascination that creeps into my consciousness as I watch old silent films, even when they're not being silent. This was Chaplin's re-release, with added music and narration, and is what he considered the definitive version of The Gold Rush (he also re-edited it and changed a few aspects.) While I certainly think it's funny, I don't laugh the same way I do when I watch a Buster Keaton film - and that's just my preference, but it's not to say that this film isn't brilliant in a number of ways. Originally released in 1925, it was shot partly on location, and is seemingly flawless - this man's professionalism being far ahead of the pack in these early days of cinema. I often enjoy Chaplin's films more after I see them several times, for they move forward awfully quickly and pack as much material into their runtimes as possible - so I look forward to watching this again (and will probably check out the 1925 silent version.) This is iconic stuff, and a reverential feeling quickly settles into me as I take it in.

8/10


By Max Kady - IMDb, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61488830

Ted & Venus - (1991)

This was Bud Cort's first and last stab at being a filmmaker, and while it might be interesting to fans and those fascinated in him, others should steer well clear. Ted & Venus is poorly made, and that's just what this dank, dark and depressing feature didn't need. Cort stars as Ted Whitley, an award-winning poet who is nevertheless a failure and bearded tramp-like figure. He falls in love with Linda (Kim Adams) one day while watching her swim, and the rest of this film features his obsessive pursuit of her - despite her constant rejection. This leads Ted to being arrested, assaulted and imprisoned. His stalking of Linda becomes more and more crazed as his sanity slips far beyond his grasp. The dark and blue-tinted version I saw needs an urgent remastering and restoring - but nevertheless, everything seems sub-par. Also features James Brolin and Gina Rowlands.

5/10


Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61488830

The Amityville Murders - (2018)

Amityville II : The Possession (1982) is one hell of a goofy and wild ride - and while it's no doubt an awful film, I've watched it many times with friends and family. No other supposedly spooky horror film just goes all out in such a ridiculous manner, and every scene is memorable in some way. So when The Amityville Murders was announced as a retread of the same "true story" - starring Burt Young and Diane Franklin, who appeared in the 1982 version it was exciting news. We were expecting some kind of revival or a spiritual successor. Instead, this one is as bad as all the others - grim faced, boring, unimaginative and ugly. Just another load of trash. I'm glad I watched it alone, and avoided what would have been a group let-down.

3/10
__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.
We miss you Takoma

Latest Review : Le Circle Rouge (1970)



Victim of The Night
Making them co-workers, as in the original film, would have been such a better way to go. Making him a millionaire corporate king and her an independent bookstore owner creates a power imbalance that destroys the stuff that just passes muster in the original.

In the original film, there are literally two minutes where the guy pretends to know the letter-writer and jokes about him being old and overweight. In You've Got Mail, Joe spends days (or maybe even weeks) feeding her ideas about why this man refuses to meet her.

I think that the best thing about this film--which I realize I didn't mention in my review, LOL--was the incredibly adult and mature break-up conversation between Frank and Kathleen.
I can't say I remember that conversation. But I was really pissed about the movie. She really did kinda just feel like a victim for a significant portion of a romance. Not good.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses


Fat City, 1972

Ernie (Jeff Bridges) is an up-and-coming boxer. Tully (Stacy Keach) has already made a go at it once. Each man gets involved in a romance: Ernie with the sweet Kaye (Candy Clark) and Tully with the troubled Oma (Susan Tyrrell). Both of them must navigate the changeable world of boxing.

I've said before that I have a slight personal aversion to films that feature a lot of boxing. It's not something I hold against a film, but it does make it harder for me to get invested in the narrative. This film, much like The Set-Up, managed to get around that personal bias with its intense focus on the lives and hopes of the men at the center of the story.

What's most remarkable about the film is the way that it captures how hopes of the remarkable can slightly collapse into the unremarkable. The film is really masterful in how it builds moments that feel like they will be dramatic or climactic, and sometimes they are and sometimes they simply . . . diffuse. A great example of this is a conversation between Faye where she muses aloud about the chance that she is pregnant now that she and Ernie have started having sex. She basically works her way around to pitching that they get married. In most films this would be a point for a dramatic confrontation, but instead Ernie is just sort of like, "Yeah, okay." When he later speaks about his marriage (and his child), he is neither effusive nor bitter, just mildly positive.

As a huge fan of Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker, I did a total fangirl squeeeeeeeeeee! when Susan Tyrrell popped up. Her vocal tone is this really unique thing that naturally accents what is meant to be intoxication, but makes her sound as if she's perpetually experiencing a deep heartbreak. She's a perfect match for the character of Oma who, with a lot of help from alcohol, is clearly a person who lives deep, deep in her feelings.

Bridges and Keach are both very strong in their roles, but Keach really owns the film. Tully is a man who somehow seems to have totally given up and yet still has some glimmer of hope left in him. Keach absolutely nails a sort of guarded ferocity, a desire to connect and succeed having to make its way through years and years of baked on cynicism.

A really excellent example of a film driven almost entirely by character work.




Hooray! I've looked at everyone who has seen this movie, and everyone gives it such a high score (including myself - 10/10), but many won't or haven't seen it


I think the story is great, and I'm surprised John Huston fans didn't rush to see this, either back then or today.. somewhere.... Stacy Keach delivers one of the very, very best performances I have ever seen.


And to use some bait, it's Jeff Bridges' first movie



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
I enjoy reading this thread, but if you have a few seconds, could you please tell us where/how you saw this -- I can't find any of these movies.








I've heard good things about this movie. Would one be interested if they had no interest in space? I guess I'm hoping this movie is about people, their relationship with each other, etc.



I enjoy reading this thread, but if you have a few seconds, could you please tell us where/how you saw this -- I can't find any of these movies.
I highly recommend using JustWatch to see where films are available.

https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/fat-city



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Fourth of July - 7.5/10
Best American movie I've seen since "There Will Be Blood".. Well done, Louis CK... It's been out since July 1st, yet only 500 ratings on IMDB. That's the way it is, I guess.






matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
I highly recommend using JustWatch to see where films are available.

https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/fat-city

Thanks, but they never seem to have my titles. Something entirely different comes up, despite typing it the exact movie title (even in its original language sometimes)





Wind River, 2017

When a young woman is found murdered on the Wind River Indian Reservation, young agent Banner (Elizabth Olsen) is the closest federal officer and is thus assigned the case. But her unfamiliarity with both the local landscape and culture means that she needs assistance from local tracker Lambert (Jeremy Renner) to find the perpetrator.

I think that if I'd watched this film a year or two ago, I'd have thought a lot more highly of it. As it stands, the dynamics of who was put at the forefront and who was used mostly as background left me a bit underwhelmed.

There are a lot of positives to this film. I have liked or loved everything that Tyler Sheridan has written and/or directed, and this film shows his usual strengths in telling a compelling story that rolls along at a great pace while still leaving room for small character moments.

The performances themselves are also strong. Renner and Olsen are both good in their roles, and they have some great support from Graham Greene as the local sheriff and Jon Bernthal as a man involved somehow in the crime. Everyone in the supporting cast acquits themselves well.

The scenery is also absolutely stunning. The film really captures both the beauty and the danger of the mountains and their extreme weather. Much of the action takes place outdoors, and the film is stronger for it.

Finally, the plot itself and the detours it takes through the different pockets of the community are woven together quite well.

But complaint-wise, here it is: why is this a movie about two white people solving a crime on a reservation? Why is every heroic character white? And did no one stop to consider how it looks to have a white man delivering words-of-wisdom lectures to only native people and the young woman he works with? This isn't a slam on Renner, who is fine in his role, but more a question about why every scene in this movie centers white characters when one of its goals seems to be addressing the issues---boredom, isolation, drug use--that mar the lives of the people (and especially the young people) on the reservation.

Fundamentally, I understand that this is a question of good ol' capitalism. Why wouldn't you put two Marvel universe actors at the center of your movie? Is there an indigenous actor with the kind of box office pull that Renner or Olsen have? No, there isn't. But I believe that Olsen or Renner alone could have drawn a crowd and it seems like a hugely wasted opportunity for the movie to put its money where its mouth is and pair either of those actors with someone from the community it uses as its murder mystery backdrop.

Solid stuff, but a real missed opportunity when it comes to how it explores the very specific setting it uses.




LUCK
(2022, Holmes)



"Forever family. It's the people who are always there for you, no matter what happens. The ones who don't leave, they stick."

Luck follows Sam (Eva Noblezada), a young woman that has to leave the orphanage where she has lived all her life after turning 18. Not wanting to leave her younger friend Hazel alone, Sam wants to make sure she is successfully adopted by her "forever family", but fears that her "bad luck" would prevent this to happen.

That is until she meets Bob (Simon Pegg), a black cat that comes from the Land of Luck where leprechauns and other magical creatures create "good luck" for people. Sam then recruits Bob, and some of his friends to find a lucky penny for Hazel, thinking that would help her to be adopted. But, of course, they end up creating all kinds of shenanigans in the Land of Luck.

Grade:



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



This film is a perfect example of a film that has all the ingredients to be great (director, cast, premise) and still somehow fumbles the ball a bit. Like you said, solid but a missed opportunity indeed.



This film is a perfect example of a film that has all the ingredients to be great (director, cast, premise) and still somehow fumbles the ball a bit. Like you said, solid but a missed opportunity indeed.
You mean because of the white savior optics, or something else?



You mean because of the white savior optics, or something else?
There is that, but I don't think the main characters were properly explored. Here is my review, for what it's worth.



This film is a perfect example of a film that has all the ingredients to be great (director, cast, premise) and still somehow fumbles the ball a bit. Like you said, solid but a missed opportunity indeed.
I think it's because it fails to establish any real kind of relationship between the lead characters and the people living on the reservation. It sort of gestures at it, with Renner's character also having lost a daughter, but it never feels quite right.

I also took a little exception to that final speech where
WARNING: spoilers below
she says that she survived because she got lucky and he says that in this environment there's no such thing as luck, and that she fought for her life and earned it. Despite them repeatedly gesturing at how hardcore it is that Natalie, the murder victim, ran 6 miles in the snow, it still feels kind of like a weird slam on her that she didn't survive.

And her character made just some really bad judgment calls. Setting aside her stumbling through a house with a loaded weapon while half-blind early in the film, once she realizes how hostile the Dept. of Energy people are---and that they are armed and evenly matched in terms of people---clearly they should have made an excuse and left.

I think that the acting does a good job of covering for the fact that the character development and growth just wasn't quite there.



There is that, but I don't think the main characters were properly explored. Here is my review, for what it's worth.
Agreed. And because of the lack of character developments, the white savior aspect (which would be unavoidable anyway) feel amped up.