Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





Gone With the Wind (1939)






Really interesting reading your thoughts on this classic. And though I haven't watched it in awhile, I agree with most of you what you've said with the possible exception of no one in this movie really loving anyone. I think Rhett really loved Scarlett, but her obsession with Ashley kept her from loving him and eventually drove him away. JMO.





Samaritan is an extremely cliched and predictable superhero film. I wonder if the original concept already was this childish and bland.

Don't Deliver Us from Evil is a weird French drama with some horror elements. Two young girls from a convent school vow to serve Satan, sin, and do evil. There's not much plot, but an (in)decent atmosphere and good chemistry between the two leads. It reminds me of Poison for the Fairies and is loosely based on the same event as Peter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures.

Rob Zombie's Halloween is a pointless remake. The intro takes almost half of the film, and I don't think it improves the original in any way (I'm not even a huge fan of Carpenter's original).

Saladin is an Egyptian medieval epic. It's a somewhat entertaining take on the subject, but don't expect objectivity or historical accuracy. The Arab-speaking Europeans look funny, and the whole movie reeks of Pan-Arabism.

1974: The Possession of Altair is a Mexican found-footage horror. It's slightly above average in its genre. I love how it looks (it's presumably shot on real 8 mm film), and it has a creepy atmosphere. I wasn't a fan of the reveal.

Egomania: Island Without Hope is a German, eh, arthouse movie, I guess. I don't know if it tries to say something (not too unusual when it comes to "art"), but it's an interesting experience. It's flirting with horror themes and some nice visuals.
__________________



What did you find heartbreaking in Pulp Fiction? I don't recall anything being heartbreaking in that film.

Curious about this as well...as much as I love Pulp Fiction, I can't think of anything in that movie that made me cry.



So you liked it, judging by your rating?
It held my interest and my rating is an "overall" one that encompasses cinematography, story, pacing, acting, special effects, mood, music, etc. I also liked the aspect of surprise (for me)... after a lifetime of hype about it, I come to find out it's a movie about scoundrels who have far more animosity for each other than they do feelings of romance.



I've seen Gone With the Wind several times and love it just because it is so soapy...I love a good melodrama with dynamic & colorful characters and GWTW has oodles of them. I had a different reaction to Vivian Leigh's 'Scarlett'...I found her self importance and underhanded ruthlessness to be fascinating and I liked her character's determination. I don't know of any actress at the time who was more lovely to look at than Miss Leigh and I'm a big fan of hers. I should watch this again.
Strangely, the protagonists & the antagonists seemed like the same people.

The only real "good guys" portrayed are secondary, background characters, and very few at that.

I could never tell if I wanted to root for Scarlett & Rhett... or root against them.

In many ways, they deserved each other as they were both egocentric scoundrels. But I see Rhett as the far more honest scoundrel - he made no bones about what kind of person he was - he even displayed a slight bit of honor when he went to join an army he had previously disparaged, when he admitted his fondness for an aging prostitute, showed his devotion to his daughter, and when he admitted he desired the respect of Mammy because he realized she was a pure & honest spirit and her respect could only be earned.

Scarlett was similar, but in her case she was full of deceit and manipulation, never really caring for anyone but herself. She used sex as a lure, even her obsession with Ashley was something I interpreted as an infatuation - she wanted Ashley mostly because he was denied to her - thus she saw him as a pursuit more than a true love.

Still, I could see this story appealing to feminists - despite what a low-character person Scarlett is, she was a take-charge woman and a force to be reckoned with (which Rhett admits several times) - and she was more than capable of getting anything she wanted

Was there ever an attempt at a sequel (either in book or movie form)? I wonder if she got together with Ashley now that he was a widower and she was free from Rhett... or if Rhett came back?



Victim of The Night
QT's acting brought tears to his eyes.
I actually thought it was the best he ever did. I liked Jimmie and I haven't really liked any of his other cameos (that I'm aware of) with the one in Django being just disastrous and one of the big reasons I disparage the film in general.



Victim of The Night
The way you described the film in the post I was quoting, however, made it seem like you either cried while watching the film in the past, or that you found something in it heartbreaking, albeit not enough to make you cry. Granted, Jules' monologue at the end puts me in a certain mood when I watch it, but I wouldn't describe it (or anything in the film, really) as heartbreaking.
Gotcha, no I was more joking that for me even a film like PF requires self-control, but that's not actually true.



Victim of The Night

By http://www.impawards.com/1995/get_shorty.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7557441

Get Shorty - (1995)

I think that Get Shorty thinks it's a little cleverer than it is, but it's not an unpleasant prospect, watching a film-obsessed mob guy slide on over to Hollywood and get into the movie business while tying up a few dangerous loose ends. Especially if his name is Chili. I got a kick out of all the movie references, and Gene Hackman's b-movie producer Harry Zimm. James Gandolfini had another good opportunity here, before hitting it big with The Sopranos. I enjoyed watching it, although I believe Robert Altman did a better job with a film that had the same feel - which I'm assuming influenced filmmakers like Barry Sonnenfeld here. We ended up with a few films which referenced the industry that made them, often in a satirical way. This one was solid, and smooth.

7/10
Watched this one a lot back in the day.
It was obvious that it was not as good as it could have been but it had enough going for it, especially considering it was trying to balance the material with a much lighter tone that something even like Pulp Fiction.
It's also worth mentioning that when I saw the film, the two actors that really jumped out at me from this, perhaps because I was already pretty crazy about Russo and Hackman's effortlessness is expected by '95, were Gandolfini and Lindo. I said to someone the first time we watched it, "I dunno who this "Bear" actor is but hopefully the industry takes notice. He does a lot with a little." And I've always been surprised that Delroy Lindo wasn't a bigger star, maybe not as a leading man but as a character actor at least.



Victim of The Night
Ransom - (1996)

Generally, a formulaic thriller won't get a high score from me just because it is what it is - but Ransom is definitely at the upper tier of formulaic thrillers - if not at the tippy top. Directed by Ron Howard, it knows exactly how to wring the most it can from every stage of it's development and pair of climaxes. You can't watch it and not be impressed. I don't go in for too many action thrillers as they're all a little too much of a retread each and every time, but Ransom can at least fool you into thinking you're watching something different because of it's cool competence, and it reaches for the best in what it has to do.

6.5/10
I agree, I thought this movie was about as good as it could be for the movie it was trying to be, which I think it was. And I think your score reflects that.



Strangely, the protagonists & the antagonists seemed like the same people.

The only real "good guys" portrayed are secondary, background characters, and very few at that.

I could never tell if I wanted to root for Scarlett & Rhett... or root against them.

In many ways, they deserved each other as they were both egocentric scoundrels. But I see Rhett as the far more honest scoundrel - he made no bones about what kind of person he was - he even displayed a slight bit of honor when he went to join an army he had previously disparaged, when he admitted his fondness for an aging prostitute, showed his devotion to his daughter, and when he admitted he desired the respect of Mammy because he realized she was a pure & honest spirit and her respect could only be earned.

Scarlett was similar, but in her case she was full of deceit and manipulation, never really caring for anyone but herself. She used sex as a lure, even her obsession with Ashley was something I interpreted as an infatuation - she wanted Ashley mostly because he was denied to her - thus she saw him as a pursuit more than a true love.

Still, I could see this story appealing to feminists - despite what a low-character person Scarlett is, she was a take-charge woman and a force to be reckoned with (which Rhett admits several times) - and she was more than capable of getting anything she wanted

Was there ever an attempt at a sequel (either in book or movie form)? I wonder if she got together with Ashley now that he was a widower and she was free from Rhett... or if Rhett came back?
That's all well said and so was your review. I concur! I especially thought it astute your viewing GWTW's treatment of the Civil War and slavery as mere backdrops to the personal stories of Rhett and Scarlett.

I think for an early Hollywood film it's refreshing that it doesn't have clear protagonists & the antagonists and that's what I like about...It's a character study that's pure to the core personalities of Rhett and Scarlett, like you said they don't 'learn their lessons and grow' they are just who they are. Just image if Steven Spielberg would've been transported back in time and directed that film...I cringe at the thought!

But I do find Scarlett a dish, a feisty one for sure...but then again I always preferred Ginger over Mary Ann.






Licorice Pizza - Turns out I've seen just about every one of Paul Thomas Anderson's films with the exception of his first, Hard Eight. And TBH I'm not sure you can count The Master because even though I did watch it I don't think I devoted the attention that sort of dense and detailed narrative requires. So a rewatch is definitely in order. I do feel that PTA is one of those "event" directors like some people consider Tarantino where every movie is a must see even though I did end up watching them all without any specific motivation. It just happened to happen and his unique vision and storytelling abilities led me to his projects. Jim Jarmusch is another director you can say that about.

The other reason I mentioned Tarantino is that this movie might be compared to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Not in terms of story of course. But in the milieu both men tried to recreate onscreen. That of late 60's/early 70's Los Angeles. And I'd have to say that I liked this recreation more than Tarantino's. It wasn't as calculated. That might have more to do with the storyline though. Which is weird because there's no ironclad plot to speak of. There's a setup of course. Fifteen year old former child star Gary Valentine (Cooper Hoffman) meets and immediately becomes infatuated with twenty-something Alana Kane (Alana Haim). Gary's a born hustler and extremely likable and Alana is sort of lost and drifting through life. She finds herself strangely drawn to the guileless yet somehow street-smart Gary. The rest of the movie is episodic, a series of vignettes. But it works, mostly because of the charm of it's two stars.

It's hard to believe that it's the feature debut for both of them. The ease they show onscreen might have to do with how comfortable they were with Anderson. He had known Cooper Hoffman most of his life because of his long standing association with his father Philip Seymour Hoffman. And he had directed numerous music videos for Alana Haim and her sister's band, Haim. They also appear as her sisters in the movie. Her real life mother and father play her parents as well. So the set had to have had a familial vibe of sorts. There are also cameos from Sean Penn, Bradley Cooper, Tom Waits and Benny Safdie.

I liked this one just like I enjoy all of PTA's films. This one had more of a heartfelt, nostalgic vibe. LA really seems to work for him.

85/100



Was there ever an attempt at a sequel (either in book or movie form)? I wonder if she got together with Ashley now that he was a widower and she was free from Rhett... or if Rhett came back?
There was a second book written if memory serves. I Googled it and there's apparently a virtual buttload of books devoted to the characters. I don't know which ones are officially sanctioned.

But one featured MMA fighting and another had a cameo by The Harlem Globetrotters.

WARNING: spoilers below
I totally made that up.




Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

There was so much high praise for Top Gun: Maverick from the media, internet and word of mouth that it would have been difficult for a personís eventual viewing of the picture to measure up to that volume of universal acclaim.

To be sure, the filmís chief accomplishment was itís phenomenal aerial footage of high speed jets, both in practice runs, mission, and battle scenes. The production took great pains to physically condition the actors and to train them in filming technique in order to make the action look authentic. And it paid off. Not since Howard Hughesí Hellís Angels (1930) have audiences of their particular era been treated to such spectacular aerial realism and excellence. Those displays by themselves are worth the price of admission.

In fact the story of the film was reminiscent of the type of patriotic and melodramatic movies common from the 1930s to the 1950s, complete with a rousing and patriotic film score. Unfortunately at least the first 45 minutes of TGM didnít update the style of the older films. The settings and dialogue were hackneyed and trite, causing me to question at that point if the movie was going to get better. It did. When it stuck to the preparations and development of the mission, it held oneís interest and even fascination. However the personal stories of Maverick and his former girlfriend, although necessary to the plot, were corny and not altogether believable. Naturally the writing of the Top Gun sequel was somewhat constrained by the original story, surely the writers could have fashioned a better script in that regard.

A major exception was the scene with Maverick and his former fellow flyboy, Iceman --now an Admiral-- who had all along kept Maverick employed with the Navy despite Maverickís rebellious activities. It was lovely to see Val Kilmer return as Iceman. Despite his well publicized problems with throat cancer, he looked and acted as good as ever. When he did speak his voice reportedly was digitally enhanced. The awareness of Icemanís terminal illness, and the genuine affection between the two, provided one of the most touching scenes in the film.

One mystery in the picture that perplexed me was the absence of the name of the country that was operating the ďunsanctionedĒ uranium enrichment plant that the Top Gun crew was tasked with destroying. So during the entire film we have an enemy who was never identified. Perhaps the producers reckoned that we wouldnít notice. But the notion of the urgency in eliminating a thing rather than an enemy took away much of the feeling of conflict.

The picture was not at all overly long at 2 hours and 10 minutes. Once we get into the meat of the action it is a movie well worth seeing. It will be a shoo-in for several technical awards.

Docís rating: story- 5/10; action and technical- 10/10




Top Gun: Maverick (2022)


Docís rating: story- 5/10; action and technical- 10/10
Your assessment of this movie is pretty much on the money...I, too, thought the scene between Maverick and Ice was the best scene in the movie. I totally lost it.



10 Foreign Language movies to go

Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8849686

Notes on a Scandal - (2006)

Two superb actresses here, in Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett, who reminded me why I love movies so much. They play off of each other in Notes on a Scandal, which hits a kind of peak melodrama in it's searing and unforgettable storyline. Judi Dench is Barbara Covett, a history teacher at a British high school nearing retirement. She's bitter and has an acid tongue, but inside she's just desperately lonely - to an extent that includes a proclivity to stalk people. Cate Blanchett is Sheba Hart, a young teacher, new to the school, who is stuck in a marriage to an older man with two kids. Sheba strikes up a friendship with Barbara, and confides in her when she's caught having an affair with a 15-year-old student. From there, events spiral and we get one hell of a dramatic display. I was busy, and could only fit one film in yesterday, but it was one I thought was quite good.

8/10

It's also worth mentioning that when I saw the film, the two actors that really jumped out at me from this, perhaps because I was already pretty crazy about Russo and Hackman's effortlessness is expected by '95, were Gandolfini and Lindo. I said to someone the first time we watched it, "I dunno who this "Bear" actor is but hopefully the industry takes notice. He does a lot with a little." And I've always been surprised that Delroy Lindo wasn't a bigger star, maybe not as a leading man but as a character actor at least.
I heartily agree with that. Gandolfini really stood out in Get Shorty. He'd made the most of his small role in True Romance as well. By way of coincidence, I saw Delroy Lindo play big parts very ably in Get Shorty and Ransom the same day. The mid 90s were really his time, but I guess he was overshadowed by the Travoltas and Gibsons that he was appearing opposite in these big movies, and couldn't turn it into a more prominent career.
__________________
My movie ratings often go up or down a point or two after more reflection, research and rewatches.

Latest Review : Adaptation (2002)



ᱬWanda Maximoff-Scarlet WitchᱬElizabeth Olesnᱬ

loved tilda swinton and Idris Elba on marvel cinematic universe but this movie was okay but boring
__________________
https://youtu.be/M-7QBR6hugc Wanda Maximoff-Scarlet Witch -Elizabeth Olsen
https://youtu.be/78oLEoy5Npo Natasha Romanoff-Black Widow-Scarlett Johansson
https://youtu.be/0LXhnd-CMrQ Agatha Harkness-Kathryn Hahn
https://youtu.be/4E880wNeB2g Yelena Belova-
Florence Pugh
https://youtu.be/V8BhIsWTGUI Clint Barton-Hawkeye-Jeremy Renner
https://youtu.be/Zy66zOMkGsM Loki Lufeyson-Tom Hiddleston




Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

There was so much high praise for Top Gun: Maverick from the media, internet and word of mouth that it would have been difficult for a personís eventual viewing of the picture to measure up to that volume of universal acclaim.

To be sure, the filmís chief accomplishment was itís phenomenal aerial footage of high speed jets, both in practice runs, mission, and battle scenes. The production took great pains to physically condition the actors and to train them in filming technique in order to make the action look authentic. And it paid off. Not since Howard Hughesí Hellís Angels (1930) have audiences of their particular era been treated to such spectacular aerial realism and excellence. Those displays by themselves are worth the price of admission.

In fact the story of the film was reminiscent of the type of patriotic and melodramatic movies common from the 1930s to the 1950s, complete with a rousing and patriotic film score. Unfortunately at least the first 45 minutes of TGM didnít update the style of the older films. The settings and dialogue were hackneyed and trite, causing me to question at that point if the movie was going to get better. It did. When it stuck to the preparations and development of the mission, it held oneís interest and even fascination. However the personal stories of Maverick and his former girlfriend, although necessary to the plot, were corny and not altogether believable. Naturally the writing of the Top Gun sequel was somewhat constrained by the original story, surely the writers could have fashioned a better script in that regard.

A major exception was the scene with Maverick and his former fellow flyboy, Iceman --now an Admiral-- who had all along kept Maverick employed with the Navy despite Maverickís rebellious activities. It was lovely to see Val Kilmer return as Iceman. Despite his well publicized problems with throat cancer, he looked and acted as good as ever. When he did speak his voice reportedly was digitally enhanced. The awareness of Icemanís terminal illness, and the genuine affection between the two, provided one of the most touching scenes in the film.

One mystery in the picture that perplexed me was the absence of the name of the country that was operating the ďunsanctionedĒ uranium enrichment plant that the Top Gun crew was tasked with destroying. So during the entire film we have an enemy who was never identified. Perhaps the producers reckoned that we wouldnít notice. But the notion of the urgency in eliminating a thing rather than an enemy took away much of the feeling of conflict.

The picture was not at all overly long at 2 hours and 10 minutes. Once we get into the meat of the action it is a movie well worth seeing. It will be a shoo-in for several technical awards.

Docís rating: story- 5/10; action and technical- 10/10
Nice read this and hits all the main points although the story didn't really bother me that much and I enjoyed the cheesiness and melodrama. In the original, I think the hostile MiGs are similar in that they're an enemy without a name. Perhaps a little surprising back in the eighties but nowadays I'm not surprised that they left it deliberately vague as to not piss off any countries for both marketing and political reasons.

It wasn't until recently that I watched both films and I had a blast with both. They're utterly ridiculous in many ways but I think they're both really well-made movies, especially Maverick. Same with the new Mission Impossible films for me which manage to be both blockbuster fun but well directed pieces of work.
__________________





This was not a good movie, whle I was expecting something corny but this movie was so cliche in its exection that I couldn't stay entertained. The best part of the movie were fight scenes but the CGI still looked pretty fake.

I watched several other movies by Zhang Yimou and they were all much better than this one.



Ivy + Bean (2022). The first in a series of 3 films based on children's books. As expected, this was silly and cute. I love both little girls in it and their relationship was sweet and charming. It's short, fast and fun. All 3 Ivy+Bean films are now on Netflix.