Rate The Last Movie You Saw
Reply to Topic
For me, I think the line between whether a War film qualifies as being anti-war on the whole or not should be drawn at whether the film in question depicts the costs of war (at least, the particular portion of the specific war that it chooses to focus on) as being worth it in any way, shape, or form; in other words, is anything at all positive accomplished by the warfare?
.
.
.
And, while I'd say that 1917 is closer in its portrayal of WWI to Paths than it is to York, I also can't really say that feels 100% anti-war in the end either (although again, I do not mean that at all to say 1917 is a worse film than it should've been as a result).
.
.
.
And, while I'd say that 1917 is closer in its portrayal of WWI to Paths than it is to York, I also can't really say that feels 100% anti-war in the end either (although again, I do not mean that at all to say 1917 is a worse film than it should've been as a result).
I think that the film's highly subjective focus on Schofield's experience draws us into his mission. But I think it's important that we see basically zero actual military action. What do we see? Dead animals. Felled cherry trees. Weary men in a caravan. All of the interactions with "the enemy" are horrifying and any "victories" in them are undercut by the horror of the situations. There is one battle sequence, shot in a highly disorienting fashion and our main character literally running perpendicular to the action.
In what way was anything positive accomplished by warfare in 1917?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I would argue that absolutely nothing positive is accomplished by warfare in 1917. Schofield's personal bravery and determination has a positive impact on his fellow soldiers, but I would argue that this is not at all the same as saying that the war is a good thing. If anything, we see that warfare is taking a tremendous human cost--and that the heroic actions of the main character might ultimately not even have much of an impact.
I think that the film's highly subjective focus on Schofield's experience draws us into his mission. But I think it's important that we see basically zero actual military action. What do we see? Dead animals. Felled cherry trees. Weary men in a caravan. All of the interactions with "the enemy" are horrifying and any "victories" in them are undercut by the horror of the situations. There is one battle sequence, shot in a highly disorienting fashion and our main character literally running perpendicular to the action.
In what way was anything positive accomplished by warfare in 1917?
I think that the film's highly subjective focus on Schofield's experience draws us into his mission. But I think it's important that we see basically zero actual military action. What do we see? Dead animals. Felled cherry trees. Weary men in a caravan. All of the interactions with "the enemy" are horrifying and any "victories" in them are undercut by the horror of the situations. There is one battle sequence, shot in a highly disorienting fashion and our main character literally running perpendicular to the action.
In what way was anything positive accomplished by warfare in 1917?
Not being as overtly anti-war as another work doesn’t render something pro-war. Paths of Glory isn’t as Anti-War as O’Brien’s How to Tell a True War Story. I wouldn’t use that to question whether or not PoG is anti-war due to that. I find Stu’s whole argument in that regard befuddling.
X
User Lists
SANTA JAWS
It’s neither competent enough to pull off the “Jaws meets Krampus” vibe it’s going for nor incompetent enough to deliver on the schlocky promise a title like “Santa Jaws” promises.
It’s neither competent enough to pull off the “Jaws meets Krampus” vibe it’s going for nor incompetent enough to deliver on the schlocky promise a title like “Santa Jaws” promises.
X
User Lists
Freddy Got Fingered (2001)
I feel stupid even posting about a movie as dumb as this, but it's a film I latched on to as a kid based on friends I had. A few scenes make me laugh every time, but there are more than a few that are practically unwatchable, and I don't know if it's intentional based on Tom Green's style of humor or unintentional entirely. The story itself is good enough, but the editing/script/etc are pretty poor.
I feel stupid even posting about a movie as dumb as this, but it's a film I latched on to as a kid based on friends I had. A few scenes make me laugh every time, but there are more than a few that are practically unwatchable, and I don't know if it's intentional based on Tom Green's style of humor or unintentional entirely. The story itself is good enough, but the editing/script/etc are pretty poor.
Burning (2018)
Mixed feelings with this one. It is very slow and the cinematography isnt particularly great, however the acting is very good and I really liked the ending. Overall, I'm disappointed as I expected more.
The Gentlemen (2019)
This was pretty much the opposite, in terms of expectations and certainly exceeding them. Its been a while since Ive enjoyed a Guy Ritchie film so maybe it was the low expectations that did it. Its pretty much standard from the director, nothing new, same old formula but it worked here. Pacing was spot on and tons of humour. Shame that Farrell wasnt in it more.
__________________
Too weird to live, and too rare to die.
Too weird to live, and too rare to die.
X
Favorite Movies
Burning (2018)
Mixed feelings with this one. It is very slow and the cinematography isnt particularly great, however the acting is very good and I really liked the ending. Overall, I'm disappointed as I expected more.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Exactly the same as me. Western audiences seem to go crazy for this movie. I have no idea why, it's probably Chang Dong Lee's 5th or 6th best film. It's good but it's not worth all the hype. There are some scenes I didn't really understand the nature of. I just feel there's a disconnect in the film somewhere. And yes it could have been shorter.
For some reason I thought you loved it. Ive only seen Oasis and Peppermint Candy from the director but both were better than Burning.
I think Ive seen Poetry but Ive not got it rated on IMDB
X
Favorite Movies
For some reason I thought you loved it. Ive only seen Oasis and Peppermint Candy from the director but both were better than Burning.
I think Ive seen Poetry but Ive not got it rated on IMDB
I think Ive seen Poetry but Ive not got it rated on IMDB
-Poetry
-Oasis
-Peppermint Candy
-Secret Sunshine
-Burning
I've got a copy of his debut 'Green Fish' somewhere, I must get round to it
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Operation Finale -
This is an inert retelling of Mossad's operation to smuggle Holocaust organizer Adolf Eichmann (Ben Kingsley) from his hiding place in Argentina so he could stand trial in Israel. To its credit, the movie begins promisingly enough. It does a decent job at setting up the redemption arc for project leader Peter Malkin (Oscar Isaac) by showing how haunted he is about losing his sister, nieces and nephews to the Nazis. Also, the oft-entertaining "getting the team together" sequence held my interest and the parts that show Eichmann's post-World War II life made me hungry for justice. After that, the movie struggles to justify its existence. The drama in the middle of the movie hinges on whether Eichmann will sign the document for Mossad to extradite him to Israel. Despite Eichmann pushing Malkin's buttons about losing his family and the scenes of his son Klaus (Joe Alwyn) leading the search for Mossad's safe house, I spent most of this sequence straining to stay interested or checking the time. It doesn't help that the movie tries to maintain the tension with complications like airplane trouble and the need for yet more documents to be signed, and while they may be historically accurate, they still reek of contrivance. Speaking of historical accuracy, the movie looks nice and like it's set in the early '60s, and while he doesn't have much to do, it's nice to see Nick Kroll stretch his drama muscles. Despite these highlights, it does not have enough going for it to prevent it from rubbing against the likes of Jakob the Liar and The Book Thief in the Holocaust drama bargain bin.
This is an inert retelling of Mossad's operation to smuggle Holocaust organizer Adolf Eichmann (Ben Kingsley) from his hiding place in Argentina so he could stand trial in Israel. To its credit, the movie begins promisingly enough. It does a decent job at setting up the redemption arc for project leader Peter Malkin (Oscar Isaac) by showing how haunted he is about losing his sister, nieces and nephews to the Nazis. Also, the oft-entertaining "getting the team together" sequence held my interest and the parts that show Eichmann's post-World War II life made me hungry for justice. After that, the movie struggles to justify its existence. The drama in the middle of the movie hinges on whether Eichmann will sign the document for Mossad to extradite him to Israel. Despite Eichmann pushing Malkin's buttons about losing his family and the scenes of his son Klaus (Joe Alwyn) leading the search for Mossad's safe house, I spent most of this sequence straining to stay interested or checking the time. It doesn't help that the movie tries to maintain the tension with complications like airplane trouble and the need for yet more documents to be signed, and while they may be historically accurate, they still reek of contrivance. Speaking of historical accuracy, the movie looks nice and like it's set in the early '60s, and while he doesn't have much to do, it's nice to see Nick Kroll stretch his drama muscles. Despite these highlights, it does not have enough going for it to prevent it from rubbing against the likes of Jakob the Liar and The Book Thief in the Holocaust drama bargain bin.
Last edited by Torgo; 04-26-21 at 09:03 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
THE THREE WISE MEN (2020)
A Holiday or Christmas film
A sort of a freebie as my wife put this to the kids last night, so I joined in. The film follows the story of the three wise men setting out to meet and greet Baby Jesus, but it is told in such an approachable and funny way for children to follow and understand. This is made more impressive by the fact that the dialogue is all told in rhyme, but everything is still very easy to understand. The animation was also very crisp and superb, I really loved it.
If I were to say anything against it is that it doesn't really break any ground, but there's no need to. It's also a short film (around half an hour) so if you have children, or a children's soul, and enjoy animation, check it out.
Grade:
A Holiday or Christmas film
A sort of a freebie as my wife put this to the kids last night, so I joined in. The film follows the story of the three wise men setting out to meet and greet Baby Jesus, but it is told in such an approachable and funny way for children to follow and understand. This is made more impressive by the fact that the dialogue is all told in rhyme, but everything is still very easy to understand. The animation was also very crisp and superb, I really loved it.
If I were to say anything against it is that it doesn't really break any ground, but there's no need to. It's also a short film (around half an hour) so if you have children, or a children's soul, and enjoy animation, check it out.
Grade:
__________________
Check out my podcast:
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Nine Miles Down, 2009 (B+)
I'm surprised I never heard of this one before. It's not groundbreaking, but it's original and has personality. It's like a tame version of Event Horizon in the desert.
I'm surprised I never heard of this one before. It's not groundbreaking, but it's original and has personality. It's like a tame version of Event Horizon in the desert.
The Ipcress File - 1965 spy movie with Michael Caine. It's like the anti-James Bond but if you stick with it you'll be rewarded with a brainy but downbeat John LeCarre type of thriller. Caine plays Harry Palmer, an insubordinate (according to most, including Palmer himself) British Army sergeant now working for the Ministry of Defence as a counter espionage agent. The monarchy is suffering from a brain drain with several of their leading scientists and researchers retiring or defecting. The latest is Dr. Radcliffe who's kidnapped and the agent watching over him found murdered. In comes Harry Palmer as his replacement and to join in tracking down the missing scientist. His unorthodox investigative techniques lead him to a suspect who eventually agrees to negotiate a ransom.
This isn't so much flashy as it is feasible. There are no gadgets or exotic locales or sex kittens throwing themselves at our hero. Harry Palmer is a grunt. Forward thinking and discerning but a grunt at heart. Which is what makes him so likable and easy to root for. There are other entries in the series starring Caine and I'll be on the lookout for Funeral in Berlin next. 90/100
This isn't so much flashy as it is feasible. There are no gadgets or exotic locales or sex kittens throwing themselves at our hero. Harry Palmer is a grunt. Forward thinking and discerning but a grunt at heart. Which is what makes him so likable and easy to root for. There are other entries in the series starring Caine and I'll be on the lookout for Funeral in Berlin next. 90/100
The Ipcress File - 1965 spy movie with Michael Caine.
I'll definitely be checking this out. Sounds very much like my preferred style of spy film, along the lines of A Dandy in Aspic or the Callan TV series, which this would appear to have preceded. Many thanks.
