Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





is thouroughly embarrassed of this old username.
Science Without Substance (Daniel Barnett, 2019)
These type of art films, ie. montage of pre-existing footage with visually stimulating edits and effects, have always been my jam and this is no exception. Love the look, tone and vibe and the sound editing adds a lot.


Substance Without Science (Daniel Barnett, 2020)
See above.


Kamikaze Girls (Tetsuya Nakashima, 2004)
It's cute and fun and likeable but the mid-2000's Amelie-core aesthetic is not for me and the film leans on that a lot.


Redoubt (Matthew Barney, 2019)
This is a lot more subtle than the bulk of Barney's work and, despite the wonderful opening scene, took a bit to really hook me but each segment (or "hunt" as the film puts it) is bolder than the last and by the end I thought it was great little piece.


Last and First Men (Johann Johannson, 2020)
Catching up on 2020 stuff and I really don't think anything from that year is gonna top this. What a beautiful experience this is from start to finish. Gorgeous score, visuals, tone, atmosphere and story and at one point there was even a cut that literally took my breath away. I honestly don't think there's going to be many films of this calibre this decade let alone year.



How accessible do you think it is for someone that's not that familiar with Capote himself or his works? I mean, I read Breakfast at Tiffany's decades ago and I barely remember it.
Just watch Murder By Death. Easy peasey.



'Minari' (2020)


Minari is as sweet and watchable as everyone says it is. The tale of the South Korean family pursuing the American dream is very well crafted and written with some tear-jerking moments especially towards the end. Steven Yeun and Alan Kim are as good as everyone says they are, although personally I thought Yeri Han as mum Monica was the standout performance.

Dad Jacob toils in the fields to try and make a success of his farm so his children actually see him be good at something. The family struggles and eventually sends help in the form of grandma

WARNING: "minari" spoilers below
The minor problem I have with it is the large catastrophic event towards the end. That happens and then everything is reset? And they try again? That seemed to be a very cut and dry plot device that we are just supposed to accept? Having said that, the film hints that this is largely the young boy David's story and that it may actually entirely be a memory of him growing up that we are watching play out, so I'll cut it some slack on that part - our memories often wander off the beaten path of 100% accuracy, and to be honest the film is dreamy and ethereal enough to actually pull it off. Most of the conversations and arguments actually occur when David is present there or thereabouts somewhere (in a car watching, in another room listening or in the field admiring his dad's work). So on that level it does work. It's a good film. This seems to be a big hit with Western audiences so I hope that those people now go and watch similar films such as the work of Hirokazu Kore-eda, although Japanese not Korean his filmography has many likenesses to Minari.




7.9/10





Safe (1995, Todd Haynes)

I almost felt physically ill watching this movie - yet utterly transfixed at the same time. Masterful direction by Haynes, with camerawork brilliantly evincing the mounting atmosphere of isolation and dread enveloping Carol (tremendous performance by a young Julianne Moore). The ominous score by Ed Tomney, very similar to Badalamenti's in Mulholland Drive, helped convey the film's eerie, enigmatic vibe to perfection.
Great film.




Last and First Men (Johann Johannson, 2020)
Catching up on 2020 stuff and I really don't think anything from that year is gonna top this. What a beautiful experience this is from start to finish. Gorgeous score, visuals, tone, atmosphere and story and at one point there was even a cut that literally took my breath away. I honestly don't think there's going to be many films of this calibre this decade let alone year.
Thanks for reminding me about this. I really need to watch it. God rest his soul.



Very.

I mean, my exposure to Capote is . . . the two movies I watched about him. I'm sure that people more knowing would have a better understanding of some of the secondary characters, but it's not needed.

If you're doing the 2021 film challenge, it could be something that fills one of the awards categories. Just sayin'.
Double feature it with Richard Brooks' IN COLD BLOOD adaptation and you're perfectly groovy.
Just watch Murder By Death. Easy peasey.
Thanks!
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

I finished the rewatch of the trilogy today. The third film is a significant improvement over the fiasco that was the second part, but it's still heavily flawed. The way it creates the starting point for the original trilogy is so forced and clumsy. Like the first one, it has the ingredients for a good film, but it fails to deliver. Still sort of OK, at least for someone who likes SW universe.
__________________





Subtitles were non-existent so this was troublesome.

Not sure I fully understood this movie. A bit of a slog to get through it. Hoffman very good, as per usual.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



The lighthouse (2020) **9.1/10**

I tried to not like this movie given the overwhelming praise it has received over the last few months or so but it’s good very good. Surreal in places but not too artsy fartsy (no pun intended), so many visually intriguing moments that will stay with me. That poor seagull. Dafoe was great from the start and Pattinson was monumental by the end, one of the best final acts of a movie I’ve seen in a long time, quite frankly sublime.

Hellboy (2019) **5.8/10

All show but no substance, every element was weaker than the 2004 Hellboy, I actually felt David Harbour done a good job as the red beast but doesn’t touch Pearlman and his cigars. The visuals are inconsistent, dialogue robotic and narrative is all over the place. This movie was simply not needed.

Laura (1944) **7.1/10**

The pacing of the movie is the standout here, we get a reveal relatively early on almost ‘psycho’ like In that I couldn’t have imagined it happening this early. In many films the writing and scene to scene transition would become difficult from here but from start to finish it was masterfully done. Clifton Webb as the unrequited ageing man was excellent but I wasn’t enamoured by the third act of the film where it kind of fell apart to me. Some of the character decisions failed to add up and there were too many contrivances, well made movie but other than Webb’s performance, largely forgettable.

Nightworld (2017) **5.3/10**

Terrible, watched it to see what Robert England was up to, wish I never. James London who I’ve never heard of before this is possibly the worst lead actor in history, you could be sawing his head off with a chainsaw, his speech and mannerisms would still remain the same. The door to another world thing has been done time and time again, at least the giant door looked kinda good, that’s the only praise I have for this movie.

American sniper (2014) **8.3/10**

Wow I couldn’t believe this was 7 years old felt like it came out just yesterday. I’ve never liked Bradley Cooper, I respected him in ‘a star is born’ but then who didn’t. My hate could be in part be down to his muscular physique as I sit here with a beer belly eating meat sticks. He was fantastic, and I loved that this movie was neither anti or pro-war, it was basically all about this guy the sniper and the decisions he had to make. Whether it be on the shots he fired or his decisions when it comes to family, everything seemed completely believable in visuals and story, a real gem.



[
American sniper (2014) **8.3/10**

Wow I couldn’t believe this was 7 years old felt like it came out just yesterday. I’ve never liked Bradley Cooper, I respected him in ‘a star is born’ but then who didn’t. My hate could be in part be down to his muscular physique as I sit here with a beer belly eating meat sticks. He was fantastic, and I loved that this movie was neither anti or pro-war, it was basically all about this guy the sniper and the decisions he had to make. Whether it be on the shots he fired or his decisions when it comes to family, everything seemed completely believable in visuals and story, a real gem.
Can't agree on the film not being pro-war. The film lionizes a controversial figure that operated as something of a conservative firebrand by smoothing out his rough edges (the nicest way to type war crimes), claims of extra judicially killing American looters and car jackers in what are hotly contested as likely being Death Wish fantasies, and a grossly self-inflated legacy by emphasizing his heroic nobility, fabricating an Iraqi counter-sniper nemesis that never existed and pushing the narrative that connects 9/11 to Iraq (juxtaposing the image of the Twin Towers with a jump cut to the Iraqi invasion) with no context, questioning or clarification is the opposite of neutrality, in my eyes.

Cooper is very good in it and Eastwood hadn't yet fully lost his immense talent behind the camera (I'm still at a loss over 15:17 to Paris and the Mule) so it works well, but it's white washed propaganda that runs far away from the complexities needed to address the War in Iraq and its titular subject.

It crushing the far superior Selma on MLK weekend remains a big signifier of where we are as a country.



Can't agree on the film not being pro-war. The film lionizes a controversial figure that operated as something of a conservative firebrand by smoothing out his rough edges (the nicest way to type war crimes), claims of extra judicially killing American looters and car jackers in what are hotly contested as likely being Death Wish fantasies, and a grossly self-inflated legacy by emphasizing his heroic nobility, fabricating an Iraqi counter-sniper nemesis that never existed and pushing the narrative that connects 9/11 to Iraq (juxtaposing the image of the Twin Towers with a jump cut to the Iraqi invasion) with no context, questioning or clarification is the opposite of neutrality, in my eyes.

Cooper is very good in it and Eastwood hadn't yet fully lost his immense talent behind the camera (I'm still at a loss over 15:17 to Paris and the Mule) so it works well, but it's white washed propaganda that runs far away from the complexities needed to address the War in Iraq and its titular subject.

It crushing the far superior Selma on MLK weekend remains a big signifier of where we are as a country.
His innocent brother coming up to him saying “**** this war” half way through the film is about as anti war as you get, we see Kyle stare thinking about his stance and what he’s doing. The extreme injuries and deaths of the men in his unit really get to him, you see Kyle with his kids toward the end, just the passing of a ball strikes bad memories so it has affected him deeply which is stoic. He’s not home being celebrated a great deal as he looks back on a bar stool depressed with tears in his eyes probably debating whether it was worth it or not. All the men in his unit celebrating his kills get killed, their enthusiasm and respect for him is clearly way over the top in how it’s performed showing how foolish they were. Finally Kyle is killed by an American veteran so one of his own, after everything he seemingly done for the country it was one of his own men that finished him, so basically conveying that no perhaps it wasn’t worth it is this pro war? For me it strikes the right balance and simply follows the journey of one man. You’re correct when you say the movie shows 9/11 immediately leading to the war in Iraq, but that’s the reality, troops were deployed after this event, no politics has trained to fight for his country and off he goes.

I don’t think movies signify where you are as a country, Eastwood one of the greatest known actors and directors of all time was at the helm and Cooper one of the most popular actors on the planet is the main guy. That’s why people flocked to watch it not because they necessarily agreed with the message, If you even watched the trailer to American sniper at the time how could you possibly know it was anti or pro war? I’m guessing the budget was much greater too, so for that to signify anything other than the better advertised movie made more money on opening weekend I’m not convinced.
__________________
"If you're good at something never do it for free".





Ghost, 1990

(Note: You know what doesn't play all that well at the end of 2020, beginning of 2021? The opening scene of this film in which the main character and his friend "prank" a crowded elevator by coughing over and over and talking about having a contagious disease.)

Sam (Patrick Swayze) works in finance and lives with his girlfriend Molly (Demi Moore). One night Sam is killed in a violent mugging, but his spirit lingers in the world. As he begins to understand that his death was more than a matter of chance. Sam enlists phony (or not so phony) psychic Oda Mae (Whoopi Goldberg), the only person who can hear him, to aid him in his quest to keep Molly safe.

For me. hands down, the best thing about this film was Goldberg and her exasperated psychic/hustler. Her line delivery is incredibly on point, and she easily anchors the broader comedy aspect of the film.

Moore and Swayze are both fine in their roles. I found that the romance between them felt a little overly scripted. And despite the memorable and playful sex scene that is one of the film's most iconic moments, I never 100% bought the romantic attraction between them. On the other hand, they are only genuinely together for about 15 or 20 minutes of run time.

I can't pin this down specifically, but the film felt a bit too long for me. At one point I thought, "So this must be about the end," and then somehow there were 40 more minutes!

I did enjoy Tony Goldwyn as Sam's two-faced friend, Carl. Carl's attempted seduction of Molly ("Oops! I spilled coffee on myself! Better just . . . take this off.") was in equal parts funny and tense.

I'm not heartbroken that it took me so long to get around to this film. It had some good moments and I felt that Whoopi Goldberg really carried a lot of the film's momentum.




His innocent brother coming up to him saying “**** this war” half way through the film is about as anti war as you get, we see Kyle stare thinking about his stance and what he’s doing. The extreme injuries and deaths of the men in his unit really get to him, you see Kyle with his kids toward the end, just the passing of a ball strikes bad memories so it has affected him deeply which is stoic. He’s not home being celebrated a great deal as he looks back on a bar stool depressed with tears in his eyes probably debating whether it was worth it or not. All the men in his unit celebrating his kills get killed, their enthusiasm and respect for him is clearly way over the top in how it’s performed showing how foolish they were. Finally Kyle is killed by an American veteran so one of his own, after everything he seemingly done for the country it was one of his own men that finished him, so basically conveying that no perhaps it wasn’t worth it is this pro war? For me it strikes the right balance and simply follows the journey of one man. You’re correct when you say the movie shows 9/11 immediately leading to the war in Iraq, but that’s the reality, troops were deployed after this event, no politics has trained to fight for his country and off he goes.

I don’t think movies signify where you are as a country, Eastwood one of the greatest known actors and directors of all time was at the helm and Cooper one of the most popular actors on the planet is the main guy. That’s why people flocked to watch it not because they necessarily agreed with the message, If you even watched the trailer to American sniper at the time how could you possibly know it was anti or pro war? I’m guessing the budget was much greater too, so for that to signify anything other than the better advertised movie made more money on opening weekend I’m not convinced.
Given the last paragraph, I'm going to take it that you don't pay particular attention to conservative politics in America nor the impact combining America's quintessential conservative filmmaker with a conservative icon like Chris Kyle has on the box office, as they CERTAINLY pushed and championed the film for it's depiction of the man.

Justifying the Iraq War with 9/11 makes the film about as far from anti-war as possible (that films like Paths of Glory exist and you make that statement also makes me want to ask how much you've delved into the genre).

A "pro-war" film doesn't have to depict it as a fun, cool, great time. Your biggest War Hawks understand that atrocities and tragedies will occur. What makes it a pro-war film is it's decision to depict the life of Chris Kyle (I would advise you to familiarize yourself with the man and his propensity for self aggrandizement and bragging about events that at best didn't happen and at worst make him a War criminal. He even lost a libel lawsuit from Jesse Ventura after making up a fight they had) in a manner that has you discussing him in terms of nobility and sacrifice.*In fact, it humanizes Kyle's performance more than his own writings ever did.

You're only engaging the film within its own narrative and if it were purely fiction, it wouldn't be a particularly questionable film.

Unfortunately, the film doesn't exist in a vacuum and has the misfortune of being attached to a heavily flawed, real life individual and a modern, documented and unending war that it helps perpetuate.

Is it propaganda on the level of Battleship Potemkin or Triumph of Will? No. But its camouflage is part of what makes its propaganda so effective.

Lastly, Selma had being the first MLK biopic, released in MLK day with Oprah's presence and backing. To basically flop against the competition of a film that aggrandizes a man that bragged about shooting any man on the streets, a violation of Geneva, is definitely a statement on the condition of the country. The ability to draw top notch talent, gain wide release, and dominate the box office definitely informs about the type of film we want to consume.



The Battle of Algiers - I immediately researched the background on this 1966 war movie ("war movie" sorely lacking as descriptors go) It does deal with the Algerian War of Independence and in particular the events that occurred in the capital city of Algiers between 1954 and 1957. But it's so much more than that. The director, Gillo Pontecorvo, uses a neorealist documentary style to such great effect that I was left repeatedly wondering if he was using actual eyewitness recordings.
WARNING: spoilers below
Take the numerous bombings for instance. There was one moment where an explosion went off at a racetrack that I would have sworn was actual footage.
Pontecorvo also uses non-professional actors to great effect, with many of them actually having played a role in the real life events depicted. With the use of title cards ticking down the pertinent dates of the incidents he shows how the tit for tat atrocities steadily escalated between French paratroopers and the National Liberation Front. It’s only towards the very end of the film that Pontecorvo sheds light on the methods of torture and interrogation the colonial government employed. Even though the viewer is pretty much shell shocked by that time they’re still harrowing images and I think that may have been the director’s intent. He presents them without much buildup and in an offhand, almost clinical way yet they lose none of their effectiveness. This is almost a tutorial on how to build and display an effectively compelling historical narrative. It’s certainly influenced several filmmakers over the years. Great movie. 95/100



Victim of The Night

Can't really review it, couldn't make it through it.
I don't know if it was my mood or if it was really that bad but I tried and just couldn't do it.
It's like Warren Beatty tried to be Tim Burton. It's not that he did that bad at it but it was just, I dunno, I wasn't enjoying any of it and mostly it was putting me off.
And Beatty mis-cast himself because he was a fan. A producer like him shoulda known better. Don't know what the **** Dustin Hoffman was doin' in this movie.





Judy, 2019

This is the kind of biopic I really enjoy: one that is focused on a specific period in its subject life.

In 1968 Judy Garland (Renee Zellweger) is in a tough spot. She is massively in debt, effectively homeless, and in the midst of a divorce from her husband and the father of her two younger children, Sid (Rufus Sewell). On advice from her lawyer, Garland agrees to a series of performances in London, leaving her children behind in hopes that she will be able to return on firmer financial ground. But Judy is unable to escape the physical and emotional/psychological damage that she endured during her childhood in the Hollywood movie studios.

Fresh of of Phillip Seymour Hoffman's standout performance in Capote, I was really taken with Zellweger's performance as Garland. It's not so much about her performance or how she nails the voice (and, wow, I thought her singing was amazing), but about the way that she feels like a real human being. Zellweger expertly portrays someone who has had her outlook on the world and on herself permanently altered by a traumatic experience and now operates with constant dips into fight-or-flight mode.

The overall structure of the film is very strong. The sequences in 60s London are occasionally interspersed with flashbacks to Garland's teenage years on film sets. With a few deft sequences we see the genesis of an eating disorder, the sexually inappropriate abuse/harassment Garland receives from studio bigwig Louis Mayer, and the parade of uppers and downers pushed on an overworked Garland until she comes to depend on them. All of these sequences pay off during the film, as we see echoes of them in Garland's adult life. It allows for some really moving, quiet moments, such as when an adult Garland stares down at a piece of cake on a plate, finally tentatively taking a small bite off of her fork. The movie doesn't need to insult the audience by showing a flashback at this point--we can more than remember the fake birthday party Garland was thrown for a photo shoot, or the numerous times she was berated for wanting to eat like a normal teenager.

Like any good biopic, this one doesn't pretend that Garland was a saint. We are shown behavior at times that is clearly unacceptable or self-destructive. But it does exactly what it should do, which is to help us understand how this woman's life came to be the way that it was. Aside from Mayer and a particularly uncaring studio matron, the film is very empathetic to the characters.

Really highly recommended. Not just for Zellweger's rock-solid performance, but for an incredibly well-told story about one of Hollywood's most iconic actresses.




Forgot to transfer this here...

ANIARA
(2018, Kĺgerman & Lilja)



"The answer is 'none'."
"None?"
"No."
"What?!"
"There's no celestial body to turn at."

Aniara, which is based on a Swedish poem with a title that comes from a Greek word meaning "despair", offers a lot of that. The film follows the titular ship which is making a supposedly routine journey from a ravaged and almost uninhabitable Earth to newly established colonies on Mars. But when the accident occurs, the ship is left fuel-less drifting into the unknown. Much can be unpacked about the religious, philosophical, and existential symbolisms of it, but on the surface, the passengers find themselves getting slowly but surely more desperate about their situation, while trying to cling to numerous things in their search of hope and meaning.

Grade:



Full review is at the HOF24 thread here.



Charming movie.
Wait. Are you being sarcastic? I mean, I really like that movie. Great cast. Peter Falk slays it. And Truman Capote is hilarious when he's talking through a moose head.

Oh and in case you don't read my edited post: Sally Field is a perfectly fine actress.



Victim of The Night
Wait. Are you being sarcastic? I mean, I really like that movie. Great cast. Peter Falk slays it. And Truman Capote is hilarious when he's talking through a moose head.

Oh and in case you don't read my edited post: Sally Field is a perfectly fine actress.
No, why would I be being sarcastic? It's a charming movie. I've seen it several times over the last 3 or 4 decades. The cast is downright ridiculous. Dame Maggie Smith? Sir Alec Guinness? Peter Sellers, Elsa Lanchester (!), literally Truman ****ing Capote?!!!
It's utterly silly but that's all it was ever trying to be.