Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Diva (1981)

Modern Times, 1936

An unnamed factory worker (Charlie Chaplin) struggles through a series of misfortunes and mishaps, eventually meeting up with a down-on-her-luck runaway (Paulette Goddard).

Sometimes you watch a classic that you've been aware of for a long time and it takes a very short period of time to be like "Oh, okay, I get it." And, yeah, I get it. From the numerous set-pieces to the commentary on "modern" life, the film is compelling and moves along like, well, a well-oiled machine.

From the very first shot when an image of herded sheep fades into a crowd of people emerging from a subway station, the commentary on the life of the worker is very blunt. In one of the film's most infamous sequences, Chaplin's character is actually sucked into a large machine, just one step away from being a literal cog in the machine.

In fact, I found the portrayal of Chaplin's factory job in the first 10-15 minutes of the film to be really compelling. The factory works in such a way that the human workers are essentially part of the machinery. There's this really strange visual dynamic where the factory's owner monitors the workers on a large television, shouting orders to a muscular shirtless man who uses a large control panel to control the speed at which the workers must complete their tasks. The factory owner has no care for the physical well-being of his employees, and we see that Chaplin's long hours on the factory line have physical side effects (humorous side effects, but side effects nonetheless). In a scene that is mostly funny but which I also found kind of disturbing, Chaplin's character is used as a guinea pig for a new machine that purports to feed workers as they work, eliminating the need for lunch breaks. The factory owner passes on the malfunctioning machine (which is more like a torture device) not because of its harm, but because it isn't efficient. Through the film there is a constant theme of workers and the unemployed, and Chaplin's character frequently finds himself in the middle of bread line riots, marches, protests, and other clashes between working people and the police.

Also unexpected was a sequence in which Chaplin's character accidentally eats/snorts like a full handful of cocaine and totally loves it. Just . . . not something I would have ever guessed would happen.

Another interesting element of the film is its strange status somewhere between a silent film and one with sound. Many sequences play like a silent film, complete with inter-titles. But in other scenes, characters speak or sing, or a single source of sound (like a radio or one speaker) will exist while everyone/everything else is silent. It adds a borderline surreal element to the film and, having only seen "true" silent films from Chaplin, was almost startling!

The stunts/setpieces are top notch here. I was familiar with a few just from famous screenshots (such as the part where he is in the large gears of the machine or a sequence where he dances), but other parts (such as a trip through a department store on rollerskates) were pleasant surprises.

The only slightly off note to me was the romance between Chaplin's character and Goddard's character. The main problem: she is a teenager and he very much is not. I was relieved to find out that the actress was at least in her 20s when the movie was made (in later scenes when her outfits change she looks more like an adult), but there is a 20+ year gap between the actors and it is very visible. More so, her character is actually meant to be a teen! A main subplot involves her avoiding being taken into foster care(!) and she is being pursued by the juvenile services(!!). There's also kind of an off note at the end where

A lot of great stuff here, just wish that the romance could have actually been between two adults.

By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28110559

The Young Victoria - (2009)

An interest in British monarchs led me here, but alas Victoria's reign was one of stability and calm (if you discount the surprisingly large amount of assassination attempts against her.) This mainly serves as a princely love story between her (Emily Blunt) and the Germanic Prince Albert (Rupert Friend) - and it's not a bad one, especially since it's a true story. Mostly true. At one stage Albert throws himself in front of her as Edward Oxford attempts to shoot her - he takes a bullet, but reading now I find out nobody at all was harmed. For a film that was bending over backwards to be accurate, that's a pretty big invention.

At around the half way point, a thought occurred that never bodes well for a film I watch. "This film is going through the motions and following the rule book." I never thought The Young Victoria was going to be some kind of experimental arthouse movie, but at the same time there's a deep sense of 'sameness' to it that means those who watch will probably never go back. It won an Oscar for costume design and was nominated for makeup and art design. Nevertheless, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, which I watched a few days ago, looked far more beautiful to me. There's little invention needed here - just an attempt at historical accuracy. This passes as a love story, and as an average film - but there's little excitement or invention to it.

5/10

Inferno (1980)

While I do feel that Arrival is a slightly better movie than Place, the point I was making is that it doesn't make sense for all these people online to be hung up solely on the supposed (implausibilities) in the premise of the latter, harping on that while ignoring the fact that the premise of the former is not just implausible, but straight-up scientifically impossible; it's just a completely inconsistent standard when it comes to critiquing movies, if you ask me.

Implausiblity is not a one-size fits all maxim, nor does it relate to realistic possibility in any meaningful way. Much like a superhero film or fantasy, Arrival asks you to accept an impossibility for it's story and bases it's logic within a world where that is possible.

A Quiet Place asks for audiences to buy an improbable premise then asks audiences to not question when that premise breaks by the scenarios it tasks that premise with withstanding.

Find me a sequence when Arrival breaks the rules of its own universe or contrives reasons for sequences to happen beyond the initial premise. It doesn't.

Arrival's biggest sin is some horrendously on the nose dialogue. Something the Quiet Place luckily avoids.

I was picturing the The Grey before watching The Ice Road, it's actually why I decide to watch it, but this is a completely different film. I liked three things about it, the 1st were the first thirty minutes of the film mainly due to the characters introduction and construction, I liked the stories, the 2nd was the tension, the images of the ice under water are scary for anyone that suffers from thalassophobia, the 3rd was the idea for the film, a dangerous road and a dangerous job some truckers had to do, reminded me of a underrated movie with John Travolta called Life on the Line, reminded me because I thought that was what they were going to do, but they kept the typical Hollywood thing, a bad guy in the middle. I'd probably rate this movie lower if I see it a year from now.

I've critiqued Arrival and its fantastical resolution myself (I thought I had a review in here, but apparently not, so it must have mainly been in some random Finnish forum). Still, there's a difference between the issues of the two films. Arrival only postulates the existence of such language and builds, more or less reasonably, from that assumption. A Quiet Place, on the other hand, postulates the monsters but fails to offer reasonable explanations on how the world got where it is or why people do what they do or even have any consistency in the threat. The sequel only adds to the plotholes instead of even trying to fix them:

__________________

I grew up watching Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes films all the time as I think they were in public domain in the late 1970s so they were on as daytime movies all the time and my mom was a big fan.
I always loved Basil Rathbone in basically everything I ever saw him in because he had been Sherlock Holmes (14 times) but after reading all of Conan Doyle's stories and seeing a lot more representations of the character, I find it more of a nostalgic charm thing than actually really digging in on it.

I disagree. The question on Arrival is "is the central conceit fantastical?" The question on A Quiet Place is "are the machinations of the plot so logically weak that people are constantly getting hung up on them?" As we keep seeing in these discussions.

I have a technical question.
Can you please tell me how you add these Popcorn boxes for the ratings in your posts?

I see that there is some in the emoticons list but there are not grey one and half toned one.

Is there a help page which lists all useful shortcuts?

After searching the answer for two days and finally decided to ask and then in seconds the clarifying thread came out.

Thanks!

https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=45798

Also partly because of nostalgia, Jeremy Brett is "my" Sherlock Holmes. But when I revisit his work as the character, I really like the interpretation. I feel as though he embodies the restlessness of the character. I know this is dark, but Brett's portrayal makes you understand why the character would use drugs.

Agreed. Though I’ve always longed for an even more ‘antihero’ version of Holmes. Obviously.

I didn't know anything about it going in but I thought it would be awesome and it was. I don't know what to say without giving something away. Maybe picture if John Carpenter made a Brazilian action thriller. The story turns out to be not so original, but it's presented in an original manner.

Lost in America (1985)

Definitely wouldn’t describe Victoria’s long reign from 1837 to 1901 like this. To give just two examples, The Crimean War was huge during her reign & The Boer War also began during her reign though she died before its end.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

Not an anti-hero take at all, but I really like the Holmes presented in Laurie King's Mary Russell book series (starting with The Beekeeper's Apprentice) and also Michael Chabon's The Final Solution. I liked Ian McKellan's portrayal in Mr. Holmes

I'm not sure that I'd like a full-on anti-hero take on the character. To me, the great tension in his stories comes from the friction of living in a world where he is more perceptive than everyone else and largely lacking in true peers, and sometimes the frustration of not having enough facts at hand to make reasonable deductions. The character is isolated by his intelligence and quirks, and I enjoy more complex portrayals that explore his loneliness, frustration, and impatience. But if he were to turn sort of evil or intentionally harm others or something I don't think I'd be into it.