Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





I forgot the opening line.
I really enjoyed the first season of Agent Carter, and thought Atwell was great in it.
Her Peggy Carter seems to have really cemented a place for herself in the MCU. (My only memory of having seen Hayley Atwell in anything else is when she played the third wheel to a marriage between Ralph Fiennes and the ever-present lady in period dramas Keira Knightley in The Duchess. She was nominated for a British Independent Film Award and a London Critics Circle Film Award. Good early career notices.)
__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.

Latest Review : Before the Rain (1994)



Captain America : The First Avenger - (2011)

This and Thor really felt like quick introductions leading up to the first ensemble film - so that's what I have in front of me next.

6/10
Fans liked it of course. But for everyone else it was more of a culmination event. People holding their breath during the years long setup and finally getting to let it out. I don't know if it's held up or not since I wasn't a die hard fan. The one thing that stuck with me was that Cap's uniform makes him look like the chorus boy they made fun of in CA:TFA. The character and uniform improve over time so that by the time you get to Winter Soldier he makes for a credible badass.



Just learned in the top 100 of the 2010s thread that mark f has passed away. I guess it happened while I was away.
Seen his posts a lot in this thread... talk about someone with an avid passion for cinema.
RIP





Glass Onion, 2022

Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) is back, this time invited to an exclusive island murder mystery party hosted by obnoxious billionaire Miles (Edward Norton). Also along for the ride are friends of Miles, including a politician named Claire (Kathryn Hahn), a model/clothing line head Birdie (Kate Hudson), a scientist named Lionel (Leslie Odom Jr.), and an alpha-male-type YouTuber named Duke (Dave Bautista). Shocking everyone, the woman Miles shut out of a partnership, Andi (Janelle Monáe) also shows up. And before long, the island is home to a real murder.

I've been intrigued by the range of reactions I've seen to this film: everything from declaring it superior to the original film to saying it's not good at all. I have to report that my own reaction to it is a very tepid, eh, it's okay, I guess.

Let's start off with the positives. This is a great cast, and I could say nice things about every single one of them. Craig is clearly having a great time in the lead role, Kathryn Hahn is someone I'll watch in anything, Janelle Monae is just a fun person to watch doing whatever, Norton captures the doofus billionaire wonderfully, and there is a somewhat infectious sense that the people making this movie are having a really good time.

I'm also very partial to movies (especially mysteries, but of any genre) that can do that thing where they double back to a flashback, then let you rewatch a scene with a new understanding of the real dynamics at play. During its middle stretch, Glass Onion does this to pretty good effect.

But fundamentally I struggled with a lot of this movie because, for me, it takes the stories and the characters far too deep into farcical territory, to the point where it feels ridiculous in a not-good way. Knives Out had over the top characters, sure, but there was a much more grounded feel to it, mainly in the form of Ana de Armas's falsely accused nurse.

But here? Here we get people literally hiding behind trees to spy on people. Everything is overly poised and arranged. It's all too slick, and at the same time the mockery of everyone involved, including Blanc, robs it of any real suspense or emotional stakes. For about maybe 5 minutes, there was something that made me go "Oh, whoa!", but that feeling quickly falls by the wayside. Blanc is made a really active player in this story, as opposed to a keen observer. While this yields some good moments, overall I think that it makes for a weaker story.

There are some great little details in the set, just as in the first film. I loved a sequence of two characters eating at an outdoor restaurant, a bottle of sparkling water and a bottle of hand sanitizer in the middle of the table. There are lots of rewarding things if you look (like a perpetually slightly out of focus/uncentered self-portrait of Miles shirtless and lifting weights?).

I think I would have enjoyed this if it were a play that I was watching in a theater. But as a film it was kind of a miss. There's a distance and a contempt toward everyone involved. I love an ensemble mystery, but there have to be compelling character dynamics involved. When terrible people kill terrible people, eh. Who cares?

I hope that the future entries in this series steer back towards the vibe of Knives Out, which I really enjoyed. There's an obvious familiarity with old school mysteries, but what this film is missing that its predecessor had is a sense of affection.

I agree, it wasn't as good as the first one. The whole setting and vibe of the first movie was superior imo.





Very nice movie. At first, I was worried I would be bored, but when the movie started to show the world from the perspective of someone suffering from severe dementia, the movie got really interesting. Still, I think it was a bit short, and could have been a slightly more robust movie with a few more scenes to make the audience more immersed into the plot. Overall, it still is a very good movie. 8/10





The Mutations (aka The Freakmaker), 1974

Dr. Nolter (Donald Pleasence) is determined to solve world hunger by mutating people into human-plant hybrids. With the assistance of a man with a serious facial deformation, Lynch (Tom Baker), he kidnaps college students from the school where he teaches and transforms them using a formula he's created. Using a side-show carnival as a cover, Nolter puts his experiments in public as "freaks". Tensions mount as the disappearance of the students makes waves and the workers in the carnival begin to suspect something truly devious is happening behind the scenes.

This movie owes pretty much all of its significant moments and images to other films (especially Browning's Freaks!), and mainly comes off as a lesser-imitation of better films with similar premises and settings.

Pleasence is fine as the mad doctor character, determined to make his big breakthrough, but clearly driven more by his ego than by any real sense of humanitarianism. Baker injects some okay friction as a man who emphatically doesn't see himself as a "freak", holding on to the hope that Nolter will cure him. There are some genuinely good sequences of Lynch clashing with the "sideshow freaks" who live and work in the carnival. Unfortunately, the prosthetic Baker wears is pretty imposing, and it makes it hard to understand some of his dialogue.

I also really appreciated a sequence where the college students go to watch the freakshow. In turn, the workers come on stage, but many of them narrate their lives, including a woman who talks about her brother being born with the same affliction but passing away, or another woman who talks about having married and given birth to "normal" children. It's an empathetic lens on the characters. Now, that said, my sympathies for the carnival workers were somewhat stunted by an early scene where several of them help Lynch catch a young woman because they thought "it would be funny." They all casually sit around and talk about the fact that she was probably raped, and was too ashamed to call the police about it. Cool. Neat.

The movie also suffers from several aspects that make it feel cheap and exploitative. The costumes/effects for the monsters are very rubber monster man. There's also a really obvious string of sequences meant to showcase nudity and it's done so artlessly that I just rolled my eyes every time. (A sadly hilarious contrast is that both women who are transformed are seen fully nude. The man who is transformed? Don't worry, we only see him in an entire normal outfit plus a huge trenchcoat.)

Ultimately the movie ends up trapped between two horror "modes": not good enough to recommend, too slow and not bad enough for a so-bad-it's-good viewing.






Devil Times Five (aka People Toys), 1974

In the middle of a snowstorm, a van transporting children from a psychiatric hospital crashes on a mountainside. David (Leif Garrett), Hannah (Gail Smale), Moe (Dawn Lyn), Brian (Tierre Turner), and Susan (Tia Thompson) emerge from the wreck and make their way to a home where a slew of adults are engaged in their own petty dramas and jealousies. Unfortunately for the adults, the children have a very extreme sense of fun.

Outside of torture porn, "evil kids" is probably my absolutely least favorite horror subgenre. The kids are often these smarmy, precocious creatures and, evil or not, I tend to find them more obnoxious than scary. While this is not necessarily a great iteration of the evil kids trope, it does manage some interesting dynamics by situating the kids inside of an insipid soap opera-type scenario and letting the carnage fall between cat fights and masculine corporate posturing.

The most winning aspect of the film is the set of child actors. Tierre Turner and Leif Garrett as Brian and David both bring a kind of cool confidence and energy to their characters. Turner's character feels like a real child, with his interest in using his stolen watch to talk in military time and just the overall way he interacts with the adults. Garrett's performance, on the other hand, has a lot of weird adult vibes to it. While I had mixed feelings about some of the sequences specifically involving David, it can't be denied that there's a kind of eerie focus to the character.

Smale brings an on-edge jittery aspect to Hannah. Lyn's Moe is the most child-like, but you can tell that when she decides to lash out it will be something special. And while Thompson's Susan is pretty low key, the final sequence with her character rewards a kind of still waters run deep element to the character.

Another major benefit of the film is how easy it makes it to dislike the adults. While two of them, Julie (Joan McCall) and Rick (Taylor Lacher) are okay, the rest are total creeps. One of the first scenes we get is of a character named Lovely (Carolyn Stellar) seducing and mocking the house's developmentally delayed worker, Ralph (John Durren). There is a kind of dark humor that develops nicely as one of the guests, Harvey (Sorrell Booke) spends the whole movie working up the nerve to tell head honcho Papa Doc (Gene Evans) that he wants a promotion, finally doing so after there are at least two dead bodies bobbling around the winter house.

The major downside to the movie is what you often get with this type of scenario, namely the portrayal of mental illness in a pretty exploitative way. This mainly comes out in the portrayal of David, who is frequently seen dressing in women's clothing and makeup. It plays into the well-worn (but completely false) narrative about genderqueer or transgender people being crazy or dangerous, and it's especially rough seeing that trope play out with such a young child. I'm not saying that every movie with a "crazy killer" needs to be 100% accurate to how mental illness really looks, but the film definitely plays fast and loose with how it shows the different kids and the manifestation of their disorders. It also doesn't totally make sense to me that a group like this would stay on the same wavelength, but that's the kind of thing you can sort of handwave away in the spirit of the thing.

I was somewhat torn on the style of the film, which employs a lot of slow motion, color filters, and freeze frames. At times it works, such as when the film will slow down when one of the kids decides to commit a murder. And a slow-motion shot of David climbing a ladder is pretty effective, but at times it's a bit goofy, especially some of the freeze frames.

Overall a good time.




I remember finding People Toys a total slog when I watched it at the beginning of the pandemic. It mainly came to my attention when I was googling the posters of every horror movie ever made for Captain Terrors game, and I kept a list of films I had literally never heard a single thing about.


It must have coincidentally been going through some kind of critical reevaluation at the time though since as soon as I watched it, I kept coming across articles about how it was a lost classic, or hearing about how friends of mine had just watched it, or finding it on a list of Tarantino's favorite horror films. And all I could think was 'that piece of shit...why is anybody talking about this....were more people playing Captain Terrors poster game than I had previously thought'


I immediately watched a dreadful VHS transfer, assuming that was the best this supposedly completely unknown film was going to get. But, due to its supposed beloved nature, a restored version shortly appeared about a month after I watched it.



I remember finding People Toys a total slog when I watched it at the beginning of the pandemic. . . And all I could think was 'that piece of shit...why is anybody talking about this....were more people playing Captain Terrors poster game than I had previously thought'.
LOL.

I remember there was (is?) a terrible looking version of it on YouTube. The version I watched (on Shudder) was surprisingly crisp.

Lost classic . . . eh. I do think that there is something interesting in the way that a group of sociopathic/psycopathic children are smashed into an adult soap-opera drama, and that the child actors give performances that are much more interesting than almost every other "evil kid" character.

My
would more accurately be a 3.25. It's got enough going on to be interesting. Would I watch it again? Probably not on my own.



So I guess one major side effect of Things is that you sit in your living room, mimicking the slurred line deliveries of basically every other piece of dialogue?

I knoooowwwwww he's deadddddddddddd.





Dark Glasses, 2022

A sex worker named Diana (Ilenia Pastorelli) narrowly escapes an attack by a serial killer who has been targeting women in her line of work. But her evasion comes at a very heavy cost, as she crashes her car and both loses her eyesight and kills the parents of a little boy named Chin (Andrea Zhang). Diana gets some independence back, courtesy of a social worker named Rita (Asia Argento) and some help from Chin. But she is haunted by the fear that the man who attacked her is still out there, and still coming to get her.

This is a passable, but not great, horror thriller with good central performances, a great dog, and some fun-if-contrived sequences.

Pastorelli is an engaging lead, and she plays off of all of the other characters quite well. I liked the presentation of her work as work: she's neither an overly embittered victim nor a "whee this is fun" prostitute. We see that she has mainly positive encounters with her clients, but from time to time is put in physical danger. She has a complex set of emotions after the accident--relief that she survived, fear of the killer, guilt about the couple she harmed--and I found it pretty easy to root for her.

Zhang and Argento make for good supporting characters, as does a protective dog that Rita procures for Diana. This is not a movie where our hero is going to go through a character arc--she is mainly the focal point for a series of sequences that range from scary to kind of silly. But having capable supporting characters along for the ride helps.

I think that taking this film overly seriously would be a big mistake. There's a level of absurdity here that would not reward a sincere viewing. We're talking about a movie where a blind woman manages to stumble right into a nest of water snakes, and somehow immediately has one wrapped around her neck and wrist. (Is that . . . a thing that a water snake would do?). This is also a movie where the main character crosses paths with the killer to a degree that is ridiculous, even given the fact that he is pursuing her.

But if you take a step back, I think there is plenty of fun to be had here. You have to embrace the heightened stupidity, and at least on that level is is pretty consistent.

The killer does not make a huge impression, and the kills themselves are not overly stylish. There is a lot of graphic violence against female characters, and the killer has some obviously strong misogynistic views, but beyond this simple vague motivation he's not at all well fleshed out. The ending is generally satisfying, but I wish it had been a bit more thrilling. I thought the best part--thematically and visually--was a sequence where Diana tries to get Chin to help her aim a gun at the advancing killer. For me, that hits just the sweet spot of stupid but a little scary.




So I guess one major side effect of Things is that you sit in your living room, mimicking the slurred line deliveries of basically every other piece of dialogue?

I knoooowwwwww he's deadddddddddddd.

The damage Things does to a viewer probably runs much deeper than this.

For one, blame it for 90 percent of my critical sensibilities.

Significant intellectual impairment



Things, Freakmaker and Devil Times Three. What a nightmare of a lineup lol
I'm living the life over here, man. Watching these on a marathon while I grade student work.





Things, 1989

A man named Doug (Doug Bunston) gives his wife Susan (Patricia Sadler) experimental pills because they are having trouble conceiving a child. Unaware of some terrible things happening in their house, Doug's brother Don (Barry J. Gillis) and friend Fred (Bruce Roach) pay them a visit. Unfortunately for all involved, the pills have worked in a way . . .

Let's be real: I knew exactly what kind of movie I was getting into here. I've seen various quotes, images, and other references to this film and its, um, unique presentation that I wasn't some naive viewer shocked at what I saw.

But at the same time, I mean, WOW. Going into a movie expecting a so-bad-it's-good fun time can actually backfire, when you're like "Oh, this is just kind of boring." Say what you want about Things (and I'm going to say some things about Things!) it certainly isn't boring.

This is exactly the kind of movie that just mesmerizes you with an entire continuum of bad movie goodness. The flat acting, the misaligned sound/dialogue, the stiff creatures, the bizarre camera movement, THE WRITING THE WRITING THE WRITING!

I really think that this is a movie you just have to see for yourself. At a just about perfect 85 minutes, there's plenty of time for madness to unfurl, but it doesn't drag on to the point that you're counting the minutes for it to end. And there's just enough bizarre stuff here to give it a real personality. Adult film actress Amber Lynn appears as a newscaster reading from a comfy chair in a living room, eyes constantly on the cue cards that are way too far off to her right. And the lines venture past bad writing into the plain old weird. "Aw, blood and guts, that's all that's left of her!" or "I already had your baby!" to "I learned to do this at camp" as a man catches another man's bloody stump of a wrist ON FIRE while attempting to cauterize the wound.

Okay, so how do you even rate a film like this? If this were a new release, you want to talk about its merits. But we all know what Things is at this point. To give it a low rating kind of feels like waltzing into Manos: Hands of Fate and pretending to be surprised that it's not crisply made or well-acted. This rating is on entertainment value and I stand by it. Probably the best, most delightful minutes I gave to any film today.






Very nice movie. At first, I was worried I would be bored, but when the movie started to show the world from the perspective of someone suffering from severe dementia, the movie got really interesting. Still, I think it was a bit short, and could have been a slightly more robust movie with a few more scenes to make the audience more immersed into the plot. Overall, it still is a very good movie. 8/10
I too loved this film. A tour de force. Here is my impression of it:

The Father (2020)
It’s hard to recall in many years ever having been so taken by a film. It’s production brought together heavyweights in each aspect of movie making: writer, director, actors, cinematographer, editor,
and composer. Their collaboration resulted in an astonishing and unique portrayal of an old man’s descent into dementia, his daughter’s journey in living with him, and its outcome.

Anthony Hopkins, in one of his greatest performances, introduces us into the mind of a gentleman who does not quite realize that his mind is failing,
or what his circumstances are. He shows us every emotion-- sometimes overtly, others with nuance. The story disguises itself by presenting his awareness from several points of view, although the audience does not realize it at first, which introduces a feel of mystery and mild surrealism. Each perception melds together in the end, leading to a moving but sympathetic conclusion.

So too does Olivia Colman --as the daughter-- let out all the stops. Her large limpid eyes express her innermost thoughts, and lead us through sadness, irony, and determination. She is the perfect accompaniment to her father’s befuddlement and confabulation. Olivia Williams shines as a compassionate

nurse, and Imogene Poots impresses as an in-home care worker. The veteran Rufus Sewell is believable as the daughter’s mate who tries to convince her to put her father in a home.

Reportedly French writer/director Florian Zeller had Anthony Hopkins directly in mind as Zeller was writing the screenplay-- so much so that he stated that if Hopkins did not accept the role, Zeller would have made the film in the French language. We are grateful that Hopkins accepted. There simply was not a better acting performance this year,
and one would hope he deservedly wins awards.

The production was instantly absorbing, and drew me in with concentration to the point that when it ended I felt as if I came to. Everything and everybody came together perfectly in this film, and it will be one for the ages.

Rating: 10/10







Hunt (2022)


I'm kinda surprised this one hasn't had more buzz? South Korean spy vs spy thriller with some very competent action scenes. Worth watching if you're in the mood for a classic Tom Clancy-style cold war spy movie.






Bullet Train (2022)


I came in with the expectation that this was going to be a stylish John Wick-style action movie, but really Bullet Train is more of a comedic send-up of modern action movies. I think? I'm not 100% sure how much of this movie was a deliberate spoof of action movie tropes and how much of it was sincerely meant to seem cool. I had some good laughs either way.