Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Yup.
And I been through a LOT of hurricanes. But that one legit gave me the shivers.

I like this one a lot. Makes me sad for Christopher Reeve not being able to get good roles outside of Superman. He makes a great sociopath.

Oh man, I agree completely.
Gibson is what he is now, but back in his youth he was a powerful, James Dean/Marlon Brando type (I'm not gonna debate whether he was on their level but he was in that vein, that style of acting), and he verily sizzles in this role and brings as much, in my opinion, to the conflicted mind of the character as his predecessors, Gable and Brando, ever did.
Obviously Hopkins is great, as good a Captain Bligh as he was a Hannibal Lecter. And early DDL and Liam Neeson appearances are a nice treat.
Yeah, I don't think I have anything negative to say about this film, it absolutely captures the story as it should be captured.

I respectfully disagree almost across the board.
I agree that the writing could have been a little better but given the gimmick that they are trying to twist it up as a stage-play being filmed to a degree, there are certain allowances I was wiling to make.
Loved Reeves, it's easily my favorite performance of his. Thought their chemistry was actually really good given that they were supposed to have bad chemistry - I thought all their awkwardly edgy little exchanges were not a fault but the intention of two very good actors. I don't know what to say about the gay content, it's one of my closest friend's, who is gay, favorites because of the gay content in its day. Can't quite imagine what's problematic about it, it's a gay relationship that's also toxic because one is a sociopath but it's not always totally clear which one.

Rocky Marciano, my favorite boxer of all time. I didn't knew why this film wasn't talked about, since it's a very well known fighter. Well, that was clear the minute I started watching it. The cinematography was awful, the acting wasn't bad, the script wasn't that bad, certain things didn't make much sense, you can't loose fingers in a shoe factory, even in those days, but I get the point. This movie had a dramatic pull to it, it made a very sentimental portrait of Rocky Marciano, the people's champion, no doubt. I think they made it accurate, needed a better director that's all.

When I first saw the trailer with Jason Clarke playing Reinhard Heydrich and Rosamund Pike as his wife in 2017, I got the impression this could be a good movie. It started well, the acting was good, the actors were rightfully picked, maybe I couldn't see Stephen Graham as Heinrich Himmler, but moving passed it.

The first part of the film was very good, I liked it, has soon has I saw Jack O'Connell I knew where they'd lead this film, Hollywood, hero and villain, I knew right away I shouldn't even end the film, managed to do it out of respect for Jason Clarke performance. It's Hollywood.

Glad you're ok, man.

__________________

It's not really my kind of movie, but I didn't have a better suggestion and someone else was interested - Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings - a martial arts movie. According to Wikipedia - "Thousands of years ago, Xu Wenwu finds the Ten Rings, ten mystical weapons that grant their user immortality and great power. Wenwu amasses an army of warriors called the Ten Rings and conquers many kingdoms and topples governments throughout history."

True love intervenes and an insufficiently combative son recruits another fighter and his girlfriend. There's a lot of fighting. And, then more fighting. There's a dragon and some creature even bigger than a dragon that needs to be dispatched and then order is restored to the universe.

What surprised me is that it's mainly an American movie. The cast is racially Asian, with a few noteworthy exceptions (you will definitely see that guy), but production and locations are in the US, shot around the Bay area in California by a crew that, based on names, was not plainly Asian. A significant number of fans were in the theater (the busiest theater I have been in for a while) and they were very pleased with the movie. I liked it better than I generally like these sort of movies. There's lots of FX, lots of fighting, improbable stunts, miraculous recoveries from huge falls onto rocks, and a helpful dragon. I did leave thinking that I'd like to have my own dragon. A helpful dragon would be preferable to endless fighting.

Were I an actor, I could see playing all sorts of villains, but Heydrich would go beyond me. I recall when this movie was released, was curious but never got there. I do recall seeing Downfall, where Bruno Ganz portrayed a deteriorating Hitler, but Heydrich would be more difficult since he's not that well known to movie audiences and it would be hard to get that level of evil into a character without lapsing into melodrama. I'd be minimally curious but I don't see anywhere to stream it.

There are piece of it that work (and I totally agree that seeing Reeves as a sociopath is an incredibly fun subversion of expectations).

And I agree that the winning dynamic should come from a situation where you have two manipulative people and you're not totally sure what each of them is after and who will ultimately triumph.

However. Given the dearth of gay representation--and especially of lead characters--I agree that it's exciting to even have that in a film. But the stilted nature of the acting between Reeves and Caine is off. The moment that they kiss is a reveal. Oh my God, they're lovers!!!! That kiss--which is also a moment of triumph for the pair--should be passionate. The stilted stuff should creep in later as we begin to see the cracks. Which is to say that the idea that these two men are in any kind of relationship (sexual or romantic) never feels in any way real.

Consider this: "An article in Variety described how the script is not overtly gay at all: "Bruhl and Anderson are implied to be lovers in Levin's play - they've conspired to get Bruhl's wife, Myra, out of the picture, after all - but that's not made explicit. Still, Imparato noted that the 1982 movie version of "Deathtrap," which starred Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve, contains a scene with the two men kissing." The Ira Levin estate objected to any gay representations of the play, insisting Clifford and Sidney "were just friends, and it should be represented that way.""

Then there's the trivia that the two lead actors had to drink a bunch before filming it. And honestly, that's how the scene struck me the first time I saw it: like two straight dudes reluctantly doing something. I remarked to my viewing companion at the time that it was the least convincing kiss. And the huge problem with that is that if someone is manipulative and planning to possibly betray or off their lover, they should be kissing them in a way that conveys passion.

It's not all bad, and there are parts that I enjoy, but the lack of chemistry (not just sexual, but like, character chemistry) between the two leads bumps it down to second-tier for me. (Though I just looked at my shelf and I do own it, LOL). If I'm going to watch Michael Caine and Christopher Reeves in a play adaptation, I turn to Noises Off!.

Glad you're safe, man.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

The Girl Without Hands, 2016

This film follows a young woman (Anaïs Demoustier) who is lusted after by a demon (Philippe Laudenbach). The demon follows and torments the young woman in an attempt to make her his.

I watched this film as part of the Criterion Channel's "Avante-Guard Animation" collection and I thought it was pretty neat.

The animation style is very cool. The whole film has a very painted look, and the characters seem to pulse and ebb on the screen. At times, a character might be nothing more than a hint of a face or a hand. Other times, characters are drawn in much more detail, usually in moments of emotional intensity.

The story is a mix of classic fairy tale tropes, but certainly with a dark edge to them. Right from the beginning, the demon tries to buy the woman from her father. The father agrees. When the girl is "too clean" for the demon to touch her, the man trees the girl so that she cannot bathe. When she weeps onto her hands (making them too pure), the father complies with the demon's directions to cut off her hands.

In the second half of the film, the young woman finds herself married to a handsome prince. But thanks to mischievous misdirection caused by the demon, their marriage--and the life of their child--is threatened.

The story on its own is not incredibly original, but the marriage of the narrative and the visuals is really exceptional. Despite the "simple" style of the film, quite a few of the scenes manage to be genuinely horrifying or emotional.

Son of the White Mare, 1981

In this mash-up of different Eurasian fairy tales, the three sons of a powerful white mare must set out to rescue princesses who have been kidnapped by fearsome dragons.

When I was younger, I had a huge book of Russian fairy tales, and I recognized a lot of elements of those stories here.

The main thing to recommend with this film is the animation style. To begin with (and this is something I couldn't articulate until I read the trivia about the film), the choice to use very little black outlining has a really cool effect. There's also a vibe to the animation that I really liked. It made me think of things like Watership Down or The Last Unicorn, where the choice of angles and colors creates an atmosphere that is both intriguing and foreboding.

I was very taken with the way that the film chose to portray the dragons in particular. They are almost explicitly industrial or robotic. There's this one really great shot of the hero reflected in the many faces of one of the dragons. One of my favorite images actually came at the very end when, in a seemingly unconnected moment, one of the brothers strides through a modern city, towering above the buildings and the smog.

Unsurprisingly, while the brothers have a lot of personality and playful banter and competition, the princesses are pretty poorly developed. They're hot. They're mostly helpless. I did appreciate that they were at least slightly differentiated in personality and animation style, but they are little more than trophies. Thank goodness the dragons are so interesting, because the princesses are so one-dimensional that it slightly detracts from the sequences that take place in the underworld.

This was a very cool and unique animated film. It is also in the Criterion Channel's animation collection.

Hunchback of Notre Dame, 1996

Physically deformed Quasimodo (Tom Hulce) has lived his entire life in the church, where he is the bellringer, under the cold eye of his patron, Frollo (Tony Jay). But things change when he meets a beautiful Romani woman named Esmerelda (Demi Moore) and a kind Captain of the Guard, Phoebus (Kevin Kline). But Frollo's hatred of the Romani people coupled with his lust for Esmerelda puts everyone on a dangerous trajectory.

Boy, talk about a tale of two movies. Watching this film was like being witness to a creative tug-of-war, leading to a movie with some incredible highs and some baffling lows.

To begin with the positive, I think that the film goes a lot further than you'd expect from a Disney movie in terms of the portrayal of characters and events. Yes, the film makes some MASSIVE changes to the story (as in, entirely changing major plot points), but I appreciate that it keeps some of the themes present.

The strongest---and darkest--aspect of the film is Frollo's demented relationship to Esmerelda. He lusts after her, explicitly, and yet the only way that he can cope with these feelings is to condemn her as a witch who has manipulated him. In what I found to be shockingly on-point lyrics to the song "Hellfire", he actually prays that either she will be his or that she be destroyed or damned. "My greatest hope is that I get to have sex with her OR she be brutally killed. Either or." It's such an effective portrayal of the resentment that people can have toward those they find attractive (but can't have), and the way that the resentment can morph into anger and the desire to punish. Frollo is disgusted at himself for feeling lust for someone who is "lesser", and because he has power, he is able to turn that disgust outward to punish those around him.

The okay part of the film is the main plot involving Quasimodo and Phoebus and the rest of the city. This is where the cracks begin to show in terms of the film trying to make the story one of acceptance and friendship. Kevin Kline is fine as Phoebus, but his character is very much the glib, wise-cracking Disney hero of the 90s. If only the film had had the courage to play his character a little straighter, as a horrified witness to Frollo's abuses of power. Instead, this is where the film begins to feel a little stranded. One moment, Phoebus is risking his life to save a family from being burned alive by Frollo, the next he's talking to his horse with a funny name.

But the dregs of the film are the gargoyles. In any other Disney film, these characters would not be all that out of place. They are the perpetual goofy sidekicks wearing impromptu silly costumes, making period-inappropriate jokes, and doing armpit farts. But here they make so little sense that it made my brain hurt. Their potty humor clashes horribly with the emotional heart of the movie. I'm sorry but this:


does not belong in a film that also contains this:
.

Overall I liked the animation and the voice performances. The music wasn't amazing (though "Hellfire" was certainly the best), but neither was it wholly forgettable. In the end, this feels like a movie that has unresolved conflicts between artistry and commercial appeal. Better than I expected, but certainly nowhere close to how powerful and compelling it could have been.

Well, you're citing a bunch of off-screen stuff to criticize what is on the screen. I was actually a young teenager when that movie came out and I can tell you that it was a world-changing representation of gay relationships for a young man. Here are two grown men, represented by really famous actors, who are in a gay adult relationship... and it's not something weird. They're not deviants throwing their AIDS at everybody. They're the main characters. They have strengths and weaknesses and serious flaws. They're smart and even devious. They're wearing sweaters, for god's sake. And the fact that within that relationship could exist something more complex than just "they're gay", that plays huge in 1983. Mainstream culture was really afraid of homosexuality at that time, trust me I was there, but this movie portrays it where it is a just an unexpected fact of the situation, not this thing the movie has to leer and linger over or vilify. I still think back on it, and I've watched it fairly recently, as a very positive representation for the time.
Also, I thought the kiss worked exactly because it was so stilted. Yeah they're lovers but they're also totally putting each other on. The kiss says that.
Finally, on them drinking a lot before the scenes, while again that is not a commentary on what's actually on the celluloid in any way, that is unsurprising given the context of the time. They were risking a good bit and doing something that, in the context of the time, they were probably very uncomfortable with. They did it anyway.

The off-screen stuff is all what I learned after watching the film. And honestly, it explains a lot of what I felt when I first watched the movie.

My mom (who maybe recommended the film to me?) also gave me this context. It's not that I disagree. And I think it's really cool, honestly, that Reeves especially (with his All-American image) would play a gay character.

I give the film vague props for the representation.

But I'm not arguing that the portrayal is problematic or offensive. I'm arguing that I find it cautious and unconvincing in some ways, and I think that this undercuts the story and the dramatic tension. I think that both of their character lack humanity. They feel like chess pieces being moved around. In some ways, their homosexuality is just a part of the twists of the film. But it doesn't feel essential to any part of the story. Absent the kiss, these guys could just be friends, right? And I think that feels kind of disingenuous.

But it should't say that in that moment, because in that moment we are supposed to be taking in the fact that they were in on it together. Insincerity between them should develop later.

It confirms my original impression (which, again, was an impression I had before I read a single piece of background or trivia about the film), which is that there was a vibe of discomfort and a total lack of passion that does not gel with what should be happening in that moment on screen.

The Brøken (2008, Sean Ellis)

A poor man's 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' without the 'evil conspiracy' element. We get a vague idea of what's going on with the mirrors and doppelgangers but nothing is explained or elaborated. Not horrible, with some decent moments here and there, but the plot and execution definitely lacked originality and depth.

I understand what you're saying a little more clearly now.
I disagree because I think they both acted very much how sociopaths actually do and that's actually the thing I like so much about the movie. During my downtime as a doctor I've made a pet-study of sociopathy, psychopathy, narcissism, and borderline personality disorder, and I'm always interested in movies that play those conditions accurately, and I felt, revisiting it, like this film did that.

War of the Worlds, 2005, 3rd watch (C+)

There's undeniable craftsmanship in this movie, and the tripods are some of the greatest aliens put to film, though I reckon that mostly has to do with Wells' original story more than this version. It has a lot of problems past that though.

The original story was written at one of the peaks of the British Empire. One of, if not the original Invasion Fiction stories. A commentary and a critique of the British tendency to beat mercilessly down anyone who had anything they wanted and take it for themselves. I can fully appreciate the attempt to tweak the story to fit a post 9/11 America, but it just doesn't work. The original tripod's exit from the ground is the peak of the movie, because it's really the only part where the action starts and the attempt doesn't fall apart.

Having the tripods come out of the groud, as this threat that was always there everywhere, ready to be activated at any moment is a smart way to turn the aliens into terrorists. Afterwards however, you're stuck with the original concept from the book. An invincible, world-invading alien force bent on total human genocide. This doesn't fit into a terrorist narrative, but you need to deal with it nonetheless. The movie doesn't do that good.

Spielberg has the same problem here and in Minority Report. It's a high concept, intelligent and intellectually grounded story that he doesn't seem know how to adapt and make evolve intelligently. Both movies start with a core concept, and degenerate into a series of chases and encounters that ignore the original theme so much that it might as well never have been there in the first place. I believe the bacteria ending from the book had to do with the fact that diseases kept Europeans out of Africa until the 1800s, and so it doesn't fit here at all either.