Rate The Last Movie You Saw

I'm going back and forth between a 4 and a 4.5. It was really good.

I'm really curious about Flee and Ascension, so I will probably check them out at some point.

__________________

I like the variety between the three and how they all tackle medium in extremely different but effective ways. Ascension being an example of direct cinema, Attica a talking head, and Flee an animated docudrama.

Writing With Fire was quite solid too.

The only nominee I wasn’t crazy about was the one that won, Summer of Soul.

Attica, while likely the most traditional of the bunch, had such strong subject material and tackles it in such a clear headed and effective way. A clear stance on the subject that manages to feel unmanipulative. Just wonderfully strong meat and potatoes documentary filmmaking but it’s a downer, so I knew it wouldn’t win. Downer docs, no matter how fantastic, never win to the feel good docs.

Eureka - 7.5/10
Roeg is always going to have a little weirdness, eerie atmosphere, but it works with Gene Hackman. I enjoyed this.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

Now that I'm back home, and not having to rely on my phone losing its connection in a subway tunnel, I can't help but try to rewrite my lost response to this, even though the conversation has obviously moved on (I think Blair Witch is a great gateway film, even if one doesn't like it, to talk about film in ways most films don't let us)



I do think there was some amount of intentionality from the filmmakers here. And I'm not going to look at the later output to make my decision on this. There are lots of one trick ponies in the art world. The makers of Blair Witch are probably just yet another one.


For me the key to Blair Witch is in the beginning. Before they even get to the forest, we are given a number of eye witness accounts. All of which are completely contradictory. Each describes the witch differently in both physical ways and the ways in which she operates. What she is capable of doing. This is simply the prep work one needs to do when then proceeding to send the viewers off into a world where much of what we see is unclear. What Blair Witch asks us to do is to scan the shadows for a glimpse of what frightens us. And what all of that unreliable information we get at the top half of the film does is offer us a grab bag of different terrors we can pick and choose from. The films embrace of the amorphous is both visual as well as narrative. And as a result, they compliment eachother.


But if we don't want to accept this intentionality at all, I still don't think this matters much either (at least for those of us who get on board). Too much is made of intentionality in art as it is. As if every blob of paint Jackson Pollock dribbled 'has' to be exactly there. Or every note shredding in a Black Flag solo, has to have been a product of forethought of how to completely deconstruct a guitar solo.



A great artist should learn to embrace those happy accidents that occassionally come around, simply by chance. John Cassavetes is rightly considered one of the greatest directors in cinema, not because he had plans for his movies to look and move like they ultimately do. But almost the complete opposite of this. What John Cassavetes' great revelation is, was to see the director as someone who creates the environment for things to happen. And then you just wait around to capture them.



The directors of Blair Witch are responsible for the environment they created for their actors. And there is a kind of intentionality in that (if that is what you are still looking for), even if they could not control how their actors would ultimately behave. Because how could they? By design, they frequently weren't even on 'set' to give instructions as to how they wanted their movie to go. Instead, what they did was to mess with the actors sense of what was real and what was not real. And by doing so, they find a way to capture real fear on screen.The fear of this cast is palpable for those receptive to it. And it is unlike all of the fear which we normally see in film (an approximation of what fear looks like).


Now, I don't envy your experience with this movie if it didn't go to these places for you. Because, yes, then the movies really might become more a collection of 'things we picked up off the ground during our hike' and less a horror movie. Twigs and rocks and trees only go so far in making a movie, no matter how much shadow they are surrounded by.



But just like those who don't 'feel' a Jackson Pollock painting, or don't 'feel' a guitar solo that feels like it is more falling apart then building towards something, I don't know how much that lack of feeling is entirely the responsibility of the film. It definitely can share some blame (because no film is critic proof). But sometimes the audience has some responsibility to recalibrate what they are looking for in a piece of art. To let themselves be swept away by its sheer organic force of being what it is, and not look at it as an artifact that provides evidence of how talented or untalented the directors were. Sometimes that is secondary to the actual product.

Retaliation, 2017

Malky (Orlando Bloom) is an explosively angry man, constantly working through conflicts with his mother (Anne Reid), best friend Jo (Alex Ferns), and girlfriend Emma (Janet Montgomery). As the film goes on and Malky hovers around a local church, it becomes more and more clear that Malky has been a victim of a local priest (James Smillie). Turning his despair and anger inward or outward at his loved ones, Malky must grapple with how to handle his anger and desire for vengeance.

There are some good things happening in this movie, though they are more often than not outweighed by the not-so-good or even (to me) problematic elements.

On the plus side, Bloom makes for a good center of the film. He manages to capture, honestly, the kind of unfocused rage and disquiet that I have seen in real children who have been victims of traumas. He is well supported by Reid as a woman who wants her child to be happy, but also cannot admit to herself what she knows about his past, choosing to suppress her guilt and therefore continually deny the real source of her son's pain. Montgomery is also good as someone who knows she is in an unhealthy holding pattern and wearily accepts that she will somehow always be at fault. Ferns is also enjoyable as someone who lets way too much slide because of the personal debt he owes Malky.

I also, in a broad sense, appreciate the way that the film explores how people who have been through traumatic experiences will turn their anger and helplessness in on themselves, in the form of alienating loved ones, physical self-harm, addiction, and self-isolation. Further, there is little that his loved ones can do to help him because he will not disclose the reason for his emotional turmoil and pain.

As to the ultimate message, I was a bit mixed. On one hand, do I think that someone who has been a victim of sexual abuse/assault has some sort of moral obligation to disclose that fact? Absolutely not. I was okay with the idea that Malky needs to make peace with what happened to him, and that forgiving the man that abused him was a part of finding that closure. Fine.

But the movie wants to have things both ways, and that really bugged me. Okay, so Malky .

There was certainly potential here, but it shoots itself in the foot going into the last act.

High and Low -

This is an excellent police procedural that I would describe as complete. It does for kidnappings what The Day of the Jackal does for assassinations for how detailed it is about every stage of the story. I like how it deglamorizes police work for the way it shows how all-consuming, detail-dependent and sometimes thankless the profession is. I think it would be a good movie to watch for anyone who would want to do that kind of work for a living. This definitely doesn't mean the movie makes it boring, though. Also, with its wide-angled cinematography, use of real Yokohama locations and real people - the passengers on a train scene are actual passengers - it looks and feels authentic, not to mention provides a visual feast. The movie is old, but with the exception of some sexism here and there, it's not dated. Its theme of the hardly steady relationship between rich and poor make it especially relevant today.

What you’re describing as intentionality strikes me as a fluke (which is why I brought up their other films). They don’t seem to be aiming for some philosophical probing of the unknown but rather the substantially smaller goal of feeling like you’re lost in the woods.

This isn’t inherently a bad thing but it necessitates the same level of skill and planning as numerous other poor horror films that fell apart with comparable goals and materials.

It undercuts my willingness to “meet them” when it doesn’t affect me because I see very little that they did to make me want to. Cassavettes meticulously planned and rehearsed with his actors and SCRIPTED all of his films except for Shadows, so he’s hardly helping the point, as his body of work shows an artist of enormous skill and talent that could even make solid studio work (A Child Is Waiting).

Similarly, a guitar solo implies similar virtuosity. Even when not impacted emotionally, I can appreciate that.

The Blair Witch is the technical accomplishment of playing chopsticks on a Casio with a blown out speaker. I mean, I could comment on how unsettling and discordant that bassy rattle is but… I won’t.*

So if you’re going to imply that my reaction is out of an intellectual laziness in approaching the film, I’ll go right back to assuming you got swept up in the hype alongside everyone else and got scared because it could’ve been “real.”

Um, no. But now I might assume that if you're reading an accusation of intellectual laziness out of what I wrote


EDIT: Also, it should be stated this isn't something I've written to convince you as to why you should like it. Or that you're obligated to fall under its spell. Only a key to understanding why others, like myself, find legitimately critical value in it. As a piece of art. As an experiment. As the product of a unique approach to what a horror film can be, that rejects all previous formalistic requirements of the genre. I'm sure if you could be bothered, you could write a completely fair take down of what you don't like about the film. But, at the same time, you could never write enough to back up your initial claims that (basically) those who liked it were suckers, and that those who defend it are hiding behind the films 'critic proofing'. If there has been any shade in discussing this film, you might think to consider the opening shots you began the discussion with.

I was laying bare that your statement about my responsibility (or failure) to meet them partway could easily be as interpreted as your inference that the only reason anyone liked it were suckers and conned by “critic proofing.”

As I’m sure you’ve done more than enough analysis to justify your initial emotional reaction to the film, I’ve gone out of my way to understand why people loved the film.

I’ve tried to meet the film where I failed to connect emotionally to it and as I’ve said, I don’t see a whole lot to value outside of that emotional reaction.

I will stand by the community experience, largely impacted by the marketing teams decision to sell this as “real,” did greatly intensify that emotional response though. Just look at virtually every response contrary to my own in this thread as evidence. I’m not even saying that is a negative, as it worked extremely well for a lot of people and gave them the desired experience the filmmakers set out to create. I’m not even convinced that has less value than something without the film itself.

But it DID have a great impact and is inextricable from assessing why the film became a phenomenon.

On a filmmaking level, it’s comparable to Clerks. If you don’t find Smith’s film funny, there’s not much to like beyond the can do achievement of making a film for nothing. It’s a great accomplishment and interesting on a production front (which is where a lot of my appreciation for BW comes from) but it doesn’t make Smith’s shots any less point and shoot.

The Osterman Weekend - 7.5/10
Today, I saw a movie also with Rutger Hauer by chance, in "Eureka", which was also good, but both movies have low scores. I didn't know "Eureka" did until after, but I did know about this movie because I'm a fan of Peckinpah (more him than his work) and this was the only movie of his I haven't seen. I wonder if Burt Lancaster was cast in the role he was in because of the role he was in during "Seven Days In May". It's too bad Peckinpah died soon after this.

It is a failure on your part not to meet Blair Witch part way, just like it is a failure on my part not to meet Babydriver part way. When you are a fan of a film, and you are not simply a passive fan and actually have ways to defend what the film is doing that aren't just horseshit, those who dismiss those merits have 'failed' the film. Now, just like you've probably settled on however you feel about BW, and I have certainly settled on how I feel about BD, we have both accepted our mutual failures, because these are films which are not designed to satisfy our particular aesthetic or thematic or whatever ideas of what makes art worthwhile.



I come from a point of view where I hold defiantly experimental and avant garde expression in very high regard. I like artists who make us question what art is, what beauty is, what narrative is, what form is. And I find an awful lot of conceptual underpinnings in BW that make it a great work of art in these respects, even if we want to accept what it got on camera was a fluke (which I don't, but that is beside the point).


So you are not a failure for not wanting to appreciate it under this very particular kind of lens. Most people don't. And I imagine even a lot of ardent fans of the film don't either. But what I am saying is that if you ever get to the point where these positions I have on art have any kind of serious value to you, I'm pointing to where you can find these values in Blair Witch.


As I have repeatedly stated, you don't have to. It's a work that requires one to have an emotional reaction. And I get why it doesn't do that for you. But I feel you keep sniffing around the point that because others do have that emotional reaction, you are holding them suspect for it, because you didn't. Which is at the very least weird, and at worst, wildly solipsistic.


I'd say it is doing a lot more than what Clerks does. It's obviously not an artfully made film in any traditional sense, as the camera people (as far as I know) are not trained as camera people. They are simply documenting their experience. But the way in which the film is put together outside of how it was shot is where the film works its magic. A lot of people may have been given the exact same raw footage to work with, and they would not have gotten the results that the directors of BW did. Most people putting this footage together would have been left with a completely unwatchable mess that even I wouldn't be able to defend.


And even though I am no great fan of Kevin Smith, and his approach is very much 'point and shoot', I hesitate to say such an approach leaves a film without any value if we don't find it (in this case) funny. I believe that stripping a film away from all of its stylistic accoutrements, as Smith usually does, can leave an awful lot of things bare for an audience to consider in different ways. And while I don't find Clerks funny (I briefly did, but not anymore), it is the only film he made I think back on somewhat fondly. And it's not so much the laughs I once had with it, but more its eschewing of the pretense that we need to bring more camera skill to the table, if all a director wants is to document average, working class people talking. Relating to eachother in the most basic of ways. **** framing, and blocking and lighting, when all that is desired is this most basic of things. Communication. There is something even slightly revolutionary about Smiths lazy approach here.



That said, Kevin Smith still sucks the bag though.

Treasure Island - 1934 kind of swashbuckler based on Robert Louis Stevenson's classic, first published as a novel in 1883. It's directed by Victor Fleming who would go on to helm Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz among others. I say kind of swashbuckler because only a portion of the film takes place on the high seas. Young Jim Hawkins (Jackie Cooper) helps his widowed mother run the Admiral Benbow Inn near the Bristol Channel in England. One day a peculiar old man named Billy Bones (Lionel Barrymore) shows up at the Inn. Jim befriends him and Bones pays Jim to keep an eye out for any strangers who might come looking. Soon enough all manner of desperadoes start showing up. Bones decides he'd rather go sleep with the fishes and Jim and his cash strapped mother look through his belongings to settle his sizable bill.

They find a map and it's only when Jim takes it to Dr. Livesey (Otto Kruger) and Squire Trelawney (Nigel Bruce) that he discovers it's a treasure map with the location of a hoard of plunder once belonging to notorious pirate Captain Flint. They decide to hire and outfit a sailing vessel to go after the treasure and Jim runs across a one legged man who introduces himself as Long John Silver (Wallace Beery). This is way before he started his chain of seafood restaurants so he's looking for work and finagles his way onto the ship as cook. He also surreptitiously manages to get most of his crew hired on. He's a brigand himself and has been after Billy Bones, the map and Captain Flint's treasure for quite some time.

This was filmed right around the same time as The Informer but unlike that film I didn't have any problem with the way that Stevenson's book was portrayed onscreen. The pirates were piratey without coming off as caricatures. And this is saying something for this early a portrayal of the rough, bloodthirsty seagoing marauders. There's been countless movies made since then but it didn't seem dated.

Beery kind of chews the scenery and there are moments when you can see how he's bothered by Cooper's overly emotive style. I spotted a couple of times when he stepped on Cooper's delivery and according to some of the anecdotal evidence the two didn't get along all that well. I did think Cooper's child actor hamminess was a bit distracting but it didn't end up affecting the overall quality of the finished product. This was originally conceived as a serialized children's adventure and to get the optimal mileage it should be viewed and judged as such.

80/100

I wouldn’t call either of our misgivings about either film “failures” though. Merely unfortunate outcomes of subjective values being applied, as I don’t think you’ve failed to consider the technical merits of Baby Driver but rather that you don’t value them in the face of narrative and stylistic elements that you detested.

I mean, I think you’re wrong, but it’s rather a matter of taste than inequity. It’s not as though you called Baby Driver a lazily made film, which would reflect a failure to understand filmmaking on even the most basic formal level.

Your description of Smith and Clerks IS my point though. Your crafting an evaluation of Smith’s aesthetic that comes from inability rather than intent because there’s not much to gather from the film since it doesn’t engage you on the intended emotional level. I agree there IS value in that but my issue comes back to is that MUCH value? Or rather is it ENOUGH value to think the film is “very good.”

As with Blair Witch, I *like* Clerks as well (though also fear I’ve grown past finding it funny). But also similar I find myself without much to take away from it beyond fascination of low budget production and the anomaly of its soaring success and impact on the industry. They are certainly IMPORTANT films and people still find Clerks hilarious.

But neither have me cackling or hiding under the covers and the best I can try to do is understand why my square peg doesn’t stuff their round holes.

It is one of my all-time favorites and often sits at the #1 position on my all-time list.

If you've ever seen a movie after seeing it posted here, give me a "rep"

(clicking the thumbs-up button for those who are new here)


I can't do it to myself, but I've seen dozens of movies from this thread, Sometimes all it took was a poster, and in both cases, they were both great!

I enjoyed this awful movie. Realism just got chucked out the window and this movie is awesome because of it. I actually thought Stallone was going to win a tug of war with a helicopter, just pull it right out of the sky with his massive pipes as it's trying to escape, because why not? I had been conditioned to believe anything was possible in the Cliffhanger world. on entertainment value.

Opinion: validated.

It's still neck and neck with Ran and Seven Samurai for my favorite Kurosawa, but this one is easily in my top five. It could be my favorite non-samurai movie of his (granted, I haven't seen Ikiru).

Scene that hit hardest for you?

The "French summer" is one of my most favourite things ever, and from what I've seen of Rohmer, he does it best. The sun bleached aesthetic, the quiet sounds of the country... I find it very calming, almost nostalgic for a youth I'm not sure I even had.

__________________

I absolutely LOVE mystery/thriller films. I've actually seen both High and Low and Seven Samurai on the big screen (thank you, Brattle Theater!), and the latter was absolutely stunning in that format. But High and Low combines great performances, the kind of thriller story with a sociological edge that I adore, and several super memorable sequences.

Honestly, the ending is pretty stellar. But the train sequence is also epic and I've seen it copied straight up several times (including, for example, Along Came a Spider).

I also really love the part where they are tracking where the phone calls were made, including figuring out the specific sound of the trolley car.

Halloween III: Season of the Witch follows Dan Challis (Tom Atkins), a doctor who finds himself in the middle of a deadly plot that involves a mysterious novelty company and its owner, Conal Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy). Dan doesn't know what at first, but something's going down on Halloween night, and it has nothing to do with Michael Myers.

Season of the Witch ended up being quite an effective thrill ride. Not only does it ditch the Myers storyline, but also leans more towards some scifi elements (androids) and the occult, than it does to typical slashers, and that angle is more my jam. Putting aside how ludicrous it is that a regular doctor ends up ensnared in all this mess as if he was a detective, the film does a great job of handling tension, creating atmosphere, and building tension, with some neat kills to boot.

Grade:


Full review on my Movie Loot