Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Another Simple Favor (2025) This was a significant drop in quality and enjoyment from the first one. The story isn't as good and it lacks the sense of fun of the first one. Anna Kendrick and Blake Lively are fine, but both were better in the first. The cinematography, sets and costumes are pretty good. A couple amusing moments, but not enough for my liking.

Umpteenth Rewatch...The final film pairing of Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepbiu=n, which earned Tracy the acadmey's first posthumous nomination and earned Hepburn her second Oscar, is still a joy to watch. I never get tired of that fabulous scene where Hepburn fires her assistant, played by Virginia Christine (Mrs Olsen on the old Folgers commercials). I think William Rose's screenplay plays it a little too safe in thsi story of an interracial romance. In this film Joey Drayton (Katharne Houghton) brings home a handsome doctor with multiple degrees, honors, and lost a wife and child in an accident. Over the years I've wndered how differently this story would have played if Joey had brought home a drug dealer or a pimp. It's still a great movie and Tracy and Hepburn are always worth watching.

I saw that scene with the grinning chauffeur in Burnt Offerings as a very young child and it severely traumatized me! It still bothers me today.

__________________

Apparently the two female leads can’t stand each other so that surely must have dimmed the movie somewhat?

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

This review might include some SPOILERS

High Plains Drifter follows a stranger (Clint Eastwood) that is hired by the townsfolk of Lago to protect them from a trio of gunslingers, only to have him uncover deep-seated corruption within the same town. That is part of the reason why he is warned to be careful, that people might be afraid of him. But he knows more about who these people are than most (including the audience) and he knows that's why they are afraid.

I've been hearing good things about this Eastwood western for a while, so it was high on my watchlist. Most of what I heard about it was accurate as the film, Eastwood's second, is technically well made. The direction and cinematography are pretty good, and the story has a lot of effective dread and tension as we try to piece out the puzzle of what's going on, and why the Stranger is doing the things he do.

Grade:


Full review on my Movie Loot

__________________

some decent laughs here




haven't had the gimmick of a movie make me not care about anything happening this much since i watched 1917.

__________________
slurps up! 🤙🤙

Loved High Plains Drifter. Sure, a lot of Eastwood westerns go the same but the mystery of what exactly he's doing in this movie had me hooked until the end which I thought was pretty riveting.

>haven't had the gimmick of a movie make me not care about anything happening this much since i watched 1917.

A bit cruel. 1917 was pretty awesome regardless of the single-shot gimmick.

Shadows And Fog (1991)



I think this is a beautiful and lovely film and it delivers enough laughs in the trademark Woody Allen style.
My only critique is that it didn't need this stellar cast to make it work because they don't add anything special to the style or humour of the film, and as a result it looks too much like "special guest stars".
Julie Kavner gets to play the most interesting supporting part and of course Mia Farrow is always good to watch.

It doesn't have the oomph of, say, The Purple Rose Of Cairo, but on the other hand I had never seen a comedy homage to this type of classic filmmaking before so I guess that makes it unique enough.

the fake oner gimmick always sucks but i can't think of a worse place to put it than in a war movie. strips away everything compelling about the genre.

The Last Wave -

This Australian movie succeeds at capturing how it feels to enter a totally different reality. Richard Chamberlain's lawyer, David, convinces as a family man who has never had reasons to question his Christian upbringing or the advice to start a family until he suddenly has plenty of reasons. It all starts when he charitably helps some aboriginals, one of whom, Chris, (Gulpilil) is accused of murder. Kicking off with a series of unprecedented hail and thunderstorms that persist throughout, David's reaction to the phenomena, which becomes more and more influenced by his clients, recalls and is just as affecting as Michael Shannon's in the similar Take Shelter. Is it simply strange weather or is something apocalyptic happening? Weir's direction enhances this ambiguity not only with his masterful dream sequences, but also by making you question where the dream ends and reality begins. I would say more about which sequences I enjoyed the most, but they are best experienced firsthand. As for the big case, those who also became aware of this movie because it could be labeled as a crime drama may be disappointed because the case becomes less important as the movie goes on. Even so, that is kind of the point. The trial scene, for instance, did not make me sit upright in anticipation of justice being done or at least getting some answers. Instead, I found myself laughing because it seems like a half-hearted attempt to bring order to chaos.

Mystical, foreboding and above all, strange (in a good way), this is a highlight of the first half of Weir's career. Also, like Where the Green Ants Dream, it effectively questions the value of colonialism, Australian or otherwise. Despite its similarities to that movie and Take Shelter, though, it is very much its own entity. From an exclusive New England prep school to uncharted Central America, Weir was a master of spinning tales about strangers in a variety of strange lands. This one proves he could also pull it off in lands on another plane of existence.

>the fake oner gimmick always sucks

The "fake oner gimmick?" They're not trying to fake anything. Also, I fail to see why it's a "gimmick" or why it's so offensive when directors do all sorts of tricks with the camera. This feels like it's you were bringing baggage to the movie...if you hate this so much why would you even watch a movie with it? You're basically guaranteeing yourself a bad time.

[i]>but i can't think of a worse place to put it than in a war movie. strips away everything compelling about the genre.[i/]

I have no idea why the genre matters in the least. These are some somewhat arbitrary "rules of cinema" I've stumbled upon.

cool, man

By http://impawards.com/2009/law_abiding_citizen_ver5.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=24616829

Law Abiding Citizen - (2009)

The title is somewhat ironic, because Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) breaks all the laws - but he's doing it to make a point, even if he has to murder all of us until we get it. I watched Law Abiding Citizen because I'd seen the trailer a few times recently and it looked like pure madness - a real guilty pleasure type vigilante action thriller film. Also, a film where the mainspring of all the carnage is a genius and is always 43 steps ahead of those trying to stop him. You know, there's always this scene :

Authority figure : How do we stop him? I mean, he's only one man!

Expository character : He's no man. He's a walking supercomputer. He's the man the President calls when the Pentagon can't solve the problem. He can solve a Rubik's Cube blindfolded, which as you know is probably impossible. His mind is the ninth wonder of the world.

Authority figure : Then how do we stop him?

Expository character : You don't stop him. You pray to him. Because he's GOD.

Authority figure : How about we try to trick him with reverse psychology?

Expository character : That just might work!

Clyde is angry because the guy who murdered his wife and daughter made a plea deal with slick lawyer Nicholas Rice (Jamie Foxx) - and yeah, it's always a bad look, this deal-making with murderers for lesser sentences. So Clyde spends 10 years planning his response to it all, torturing the murderers, killing many lawyers and judges (and one unfortunate random guy), and basically bringing all of Philadelphia to it's knees with uncanny precision (and while sitting in solitary confinement in prison.) It's extremely silly - enjoyably so if you discount the murder, rape and infanticide-filled prologue which made me extremely uncomfortable. An unserious movie made for unserious people.

5/10


By http://www.midnightreview.co.uk/wp-c...o-To-Sleep.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42454477

Before I Go to Sleep - (2014)

Christine Lucas (Nicole Kidman) is living her own personal Groundhog Day - she's forgotten the previous 20 years of her life, and every night when she goes to sleep she forgets everything she learned that day, sending her back to the start again. Every morning Colin Firth tells her "I'm your husband", tells her about the wedding on his way out the door and then "bye!" leaves her to her own devices - and then, every day, she gets a call from a mysterious doctor who leads her to a camera on which she's recorded various discoveries from the previous days. It's not long before I'm really wishing that I were watching Memento. Mark Strong plays neuropsychologist Mike Nasch and you know all is not what it seems but simply have to wait for the big reveal - which is thankfully only an hour and a half from when you popped this on. It hinges on a character transformation which strains credulity. Kidman is fun to watch in this, as is Firth, so at least there's that. I didn't hate this, but the best I can say about it is that it passes the time.

5/10


By The poster art can or could be obtained from Myung Films., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6323675

The Quiet Family - (1998)

This was remade by Takashi Miike as The Happiness of the Katakuris - but in the original the humour is much more consistent, measured, funny and better performed by the excellent cast in it. It's less crazy, but a stronger movie overall and I liked it a great deal. Full review here, in my watchlist thread.

8/10

SF = Z

Viewed: Netflix



[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'd think twice before I watch a Gerard Butler film. He comes across as a B-version of Jason Statham (!)

Isn't that the norm for stars? They add box office, that's the point of them.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Not wishing to get into a huge debate or fight someone elses battle (especially one she's made it clear she's not interested in having) but how can it not be considered a 'fake oner' when that's what it is? Not only was it purposely made to look as if it's done in one shot, it's publicised as such and, IMO, a virtue is practically made of the fact in its publicity and reviews.

As for it being a gimmick, I'd say it almost always is, in as much as there's very rarely any real benefit to it being done that way (I've not seen the film so I don't know about this case) but as it's a big H'Wood film, my guess is there wasn't any 'need or reason' to do so, other than to do so and that it doesn't really bring anything to someones enjoyment of the film, unless they particularly like it, which would be a very small part of the audience of a film with this kind of reach,

This is quite an assumption. It may be a gimmick, but it can bring quite a lot of tension and emotion into the subject matter. The technique has been imitated because of this.

I didn't think 1917 was great, but it was good, and the one-shot technique was effective in my opinion.

Are you now conceding it may be a gimmick? Because that was the only reason I pulled your post up. You don't seem to be disagreeing that it's 'a fake oner' now either, so I'm ok with that.

It is an assumption, of course it is. I don't know the guy and I've not seen the film. Nor have I heard him answer the question. However, history would tell me it is a gimmick and there isn't any need to do it. As for one shot/long takes, they don't do anything for me, so I don't find them effective, but I don't deny others do. My version of this irritation would be split screen, which is almost never used to any affect and is very irritating to me, though The Boston Strangler does it wel, there's still no real need for it.

A Working Man (2025)

Like most brits I'm happy with Statham's forays into blind knucklehead with charm territory. This was no different really except that they completely forgot to write a basically engaging premise and script rather than a poor "Taken" copy. Some of the exchanges between Levon and Lefferty are particularly woeful. Michael Pena totally wasted. Hard to see how this could have been more calculated and then miss the "entertaining" goal so widely. Pretty dismal.