Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





Victim of The Night
I just didn't see what those little games like chess and tic-tac-toe had to do with the wargame computer system. Also, in real life, apocalyptic catastrophe just starts by firing a single nuclear weapon into a territory, but i thought it was overrall fun and i don't care that much that we are talking about a fake computer system. This is certainly the best hacker movie i've seen. It's kinda hard to do those because a lot of what hackers and programmers do looks quite boring to someone else.
The games were put into the defense system to teach it strategy so that its decisions would be more clever than the Russians choices. Obviously in the end, the rub is that the computer can't tell the difference between tic tac toe and the end of the human race. But the futility of playing these games leads it to the conclusion that it is better simply not to play the game. In the 80s, when we were all living in fear of nuclear annihilation all the time, it was a powerful message.
I have to ask about the "IRL apocalyptic catastrophe starts by firing a single nuclear weapon..." part. What do you mean by that? I feel like we haven't seen what full-scale nuclear war between the worlds two biggest super-powers (at the time) looks like and, again, having lived in that time, the way it happens in the film seems like the most credible scenario (not the computer part but the "it's war, fire everything, our losses will be less than theirs" part). That's kinda how we all thought it was gonna go down.



CringeFest's Avatar
Duplicate Account (locked)
The games were put into the defense system to teach it strategy so that its decisions would be more clever than the Russians choices. Obviously in the end, the rub is that the computer can't tell the difference between tic tac toe and the end of the human race. But the futility of playing these games leads it to the conclusion that it is better simply not to play the game. In the 80s, when we were all living in fear of nuclear annihilation all the time, it was a powerful message.
I have to ask about the "IRL apocalyptic catastrophe starts by firing a single nuclear weapon..." part. What do you mean by that? I feel like we haven't seen what full-scale nuclear war between the worlds two biggest super-powers (at the time) looks like and, again, having lived in that time, the way it happens in the film seems like the most credible scenario (not the computer part but the "it's war, fire everything, our losses will be less than theirs" part). That's kinda how we all thought it was gonna go down.

From everything I've read, the reason that nation states tend not to use Nukes in war (there so far have only been two exceptions...) is that if you fire one, then the enemy absolutely will retaliate (unless the victim was very smart and restrained...) if they have a nuke, and that's the basis for militaristic thinking and game theory etc...but as you point out, the thing that felt so unrealistic about the movie was all the simultaneous projections of weapons on those screens, and i was a little confused by what was activated by what while watching the movie past the beginning part with the kid infiltrating the system (even though i don't think that was terribly realistic either, tell me that in the 80's you could stream video archives of the guy who built the war machine hahaha...). I'll definitely watch war games again at some point because it was a good movie.



CringeFest's Avatar
Duplicate Account (locked)
Menace II Society







7/10



I felt very disappointed by the ending of this movie, it felt very abrupt, and throughout the film there were places where there could have been more character development. The film does touch on the truism: "those who live by the sword, die by the sword", but i just felt the ending could have been as good as the first half of the movie...




Being the Ricardos (2021)

It’s impossible to overstate the massive viewership and the impact that I Love Lucy had in the United States, especially during the initial series that ran from 1951-1957, and then in an extended run of 13 one hour specials each season from 1957-1960. The 1952-53 season alone had an astonishing Nielsen rating of 67.3, which meant that of the households that owned a TV, over 67% of them tuned into I Love Lucy every Monday night from 9-9:30. To put that into perspective, some other more recent popular series had the following ratings at their largest: Cheers- 21.3; Seinfeld- 20.6; NCIS- 13.5; and The Big Bang Theory- 12.8.

It seemed as though EVERYONE watched that show, and most everybody talked about it the following day at school, at the workplace, or over the back yard fence. I personally missed very few of the initial 180 half-hour episodes, and also the subsequent The Lucille Ball-Desi Arnaz Show for its three seasons. In addition there were two movies with Lucy & Desi: The Long, Long Trailer, and Forever, Darling.

So it was an exceedingly tall order for writer/director Aaron Sorkin to tackle this subject matter, not the least of which was that few people younger than 65 would have much first hand knowledge of the series, or of the star’s and cast’s involvement and private lives, apart from those who have watched the shows in continuous syndication.

Unfortunately the movie was overly ambitious and a bit scattered. The time period was announced to be recounting one week in the production of the I Love Lucy show and the activity around it. But during that span they inserted too much Lucy-Desi lore and series incidents. They also invented some PC exchanges, evidently as a nod to current fashion. For example they had one of the lady writers complain to Lucy that she was being subservient to Ricky, that it made her too submissive. But Lucy had to explain to her that the show’s premise was based on her ditziness, comic deceitfulness, and her always unsuccessful attempts to be an entertainer like Ricky. Lucy was THE focus on the series, and everything was written to feature her and her antics, although Ethel Mertz was often involved as well.

In the main, the casting could have been a tad better. Javier Bardemas Ricky Ricardo was the standout impression. He looked and acted the part from start to finish. It must have been a real challenge to cast for Lucy. Reportedly Cate Blanchett was originally cast, but eventually dropped out. It’s hard to say if she could have been made up to look more like Lucy than did Nicole Kidman. Kidman did look the part when they had her made up like Lucy in the TV broadcasts portions, and her voice impression was oftentimes reminiscent of Lucy’s voice. But at other times she simply looked and sounded like Nicole Kidman. Nina Arianda was passable as Ethel Mertz, although Vivian Vance was never slender-- always rather dumpy. And J.K. Simmons didn’t look a thing like Fred Mertz, but he managed to be somewhat suggestive of him in the Lucy show portions. His voice and manner were not close.

The opening put me in mind a little of the some of the beginning scenes in Citizen Kane, with aged participants commenting on “how it was”. Actually that worked pretty well. But ironically, despite the fly by mention of some important characteristics of the show, they wasted way too much time on one routine that Lucy wasn’t happy with, insisted on being changed, and the drama surrounding it. There was also too much emphasis on HUAC’s charge that Lucy had been suspected of being a communist. She was not only never a communist, but that entire flap raced by at the time with barely a notice by the public.

Still, it was enjoyable to revisit some of the style and history of the I Love Lucy show. Perhaps if they had not insisted on getting big name actors for some of the important characters, and relaxed out the number of scenes and pacing, they might have had a hit. The true story of not only I Love Lucy, but also Ball’s and Arnaz’s real lives and projects both during and after the series is a major and unique tale of Hollywood success. Although this film was intended as only a snapshot of their story, it had the potential to be much better.

Doc’s rating: 6/10



I watched War Games approximately 400 times as a teenager.

EDIT: Heh, I see @Wooley said the same thing in a previous post. This was one of those that I watched whenever it was on, which was seemingly twice daily at least.
__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection



The games were put into the defense system to teach it strategy so that its decisions would be more clever than the Russians choices. Obviously in the end, the rub is that the computer can't tell the difference between tic tac toe and the end of the human race. But the futility of playing these games leads it to the conclusion that it is better simply not to play the game. In the 80s, when we were all living in fear of nuclear annihilation all the time, it was a powerful message.
I have to ask about the "IRL apocalyptic catastrophe starts by firing a single nuclear weapon..." part. What do you mean by that? I feel like we haven't seen what full-scale nuclear war between the worlds two biggest super-powers (at the time) looks like and, again, having lived in that time, the way it happens in the film seems like the most credible scenario (not the computer part but the "it's war, fire everything, our losses will be less than theirs" part). That's kinda how we all thought it was gonna go down.
Plus you get to hang out with Ally Sheedy. Not a bad way to spend the end of the world, IMO.



[In a Lonely Place]

Bogart plays a screenwriter with a bit of a temper. One night he invites the coat rack girl from a restaurant back to his place to describe a book she's read, a book he's supposed to adapt to screen but has no interest in reading. Well, she ends up dead and since she was last seen with Bogart, he is suspect number one. A neighbor comes to Bogart's defense, gets a little closer to him than she should, and as she finds more out about the violent Bogart she begins to doubt her own story. Pretty solid film with very good performances from everybody. Never a dull moment.
Oh, Yeah!! I agree. This is one of the best noirs ever made, rivaling Double Indemnity. Probably Bogart's best performance of all. And several of us LOVE Gloria Grahame.



I forgot the opening line.

By Source: http://img.listal.com/image/1145248/...ble-poster.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25261183

Unthinkable - (2010)

A very confronting exploration of the whole 'is torture ever justified' question. Steven Younger (now converted Muslim Yusuf Mohammed) has managed to put together three nuclear devices, set to go off in a few days time - yet nobody knows where they are. He allows himself to be captured, and investigators bring in a team which includes military personnel, FBI Agent Helen Brody (Carrie-Anne Moss) and Henry Harold Humphries (Samuel L. Jackson) A Black Ops operator with a special talent - and that talent is torture. To Brody's horror, Humphries tortures Younger in a manner that is certainly extreme, and will stay with the viewer as an enduring memory of this film. It's the escalation of this torture, and constant fights and flare-ups over whether it will work and how morally reprehensible it is, that provide the bulk of the film. This leads up to something I won't give away - but provides the film's title - a manner of torture that's "unthinkable" - and yeah, it is.

This is a thriller, but I'd also consider the "horror" label. Michael Sheen plays Younger - a man who has put himself in the horrible position he's in. He has a difficult point to prove, as does this film.

7.5/10


By http://staticmass.net/wp-content/upl...06/night_1.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47479434

Night and Fog - (1956)

I don't think I've ever been as mentally put inside the Holocaust as when I watched this short documentary by Alain Resnais. The shots of deserted, dilapidated concentration camps with overgrown vegetation all around while at the same time flashing back to real images of the horror are of a certain rhythm - as is the lyrical voice-over - that your attention never wavers.

9/10

Foreign Language Countdown films seen : 55/100


By IMP Awards / 2021 Movie Poster Gallery / Old Poster (#2 of 3), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=65447757

Old - (2021)

Somewhat typical of M. Night Shyamalan these days, Old manages to be interesting enough to hold my attention and entertains without producing a really fantastic film that will linger for too long. The whole premise of a beach where you age one year every 30 minutes just reeled me in and made this a must-see for me, and the film delivered in a mild way. It's a "catch it when it comes on TV and you've got nothing better to do" film.

6/10
__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.
We miss you Takoma

Latest Review : Le Circle Rouge (1970)





Anima, 2019

In this extended music video/short film, a man (Thom Yorke) fights against the mundane, repetitive life around him to find connection with a woman (Dejana Roncione) he meets on his commute to work.

I realize that this short film---clocking in at about 15 minutes--will not appeal to everyone. I like Radiohead's music, and I'm into modern dance and highly visual storytelling, and so I thought it was a real treat. Yorke has strong presence in his lead role, and Roncione makes a powerful impression as the woman he falls for.

It's certainly true that the themes explored here are nothing new: the city as a soulless machine through which people move, robot-like, from home to work and back again. The lack of emotional connection. The feeling of trying to fight the tide. But I don't think that work has to be original if it is done well, and this short film is done very well. It looks absolutely stunning, and through the use of simple tricks (wire-work, I believe?) it creates some really memorable set-pieces and dance numbers.

A quick watch well worth checking out.








SF = Zzz



[Snooze Factor Ratings]:
Z = didn't nod off at all
Zz = nearly nodded off but managed to stay alert
Zzz = nodded off and missed some of the film but went back to watch what I missed
Zzzz = nodded off and missed some of the film but went back to watch what I missed but nodded off again at the same point and therefore needed to go back a number of times before I got through it...
Zzzzz = nodded off and missed some or the rest of the film but was not interested enough to go back over it





tick tick . . . BOOM!, 2021

Adapted from a one-man autobiographical stage show, this film follows Jonathan Larson (Andrew Garfield) as he struggles to complete his first musical with his 30th birthday impending. Adding pressure to the situation, his long-time girlfriend, Susan (Alexandra Shipp) has had enough of the New York City life and wants to move away. Jonathan's best friend, Michael (Robin de Jesus) is also struggling as the AIDS epidemic claims the lives of their friends.

I thought that this film, directed by Lin-Manuel Miranda, was a lot of fun and really compelling. Larson is best known for having written the hit musical Rent, but this film takes place before that creation. I had just assumed from the basic premise of the film that I'd be watching Larson have an "aha" moment and compose Rent, but instead he's working on an ambitious sci-fi/dystopian tale.

One thing that always bugs me about biographical films is how often you learn that a ton of liberties were taken with real events. What this film wisely does is acknowledge that there may be inaccuracies because it is based on a version of Larson's life as told by the man himself. The film begins by admitting it may be an arm's length from "reality" and it relieves some of the tension around accuracy and allows us to enjoy the more audacious sequences.

Garfield's performance in the lead role was amazing. He manages to show you a person who is both incredibly in tune with what is around him--because observation is what drives his art and he constantly composes songs about everything from his neighbors to the sugar bowl---and at the same time incredibly self-centered to the point that he alienates many of the people closest to him. It's a performance and a portrayal that walks a pretty brilliant line in terms of allowing us to genuinely root for Larson to succeed while at the same time being exasperated at the way he treats his girlfriend.

The supporting cast is also really great. In addition to the actors in the flashback sequences, the stage play sequences feature Garfield supported by Joshua Henry and Vanessa Hudgens who bring a lot of vocal power to the film's songs. There's also a great small role from Bradley Whitford as Broadway legend (and recently passed away) Stephen Sondheim.

Miranda's direction feels very confident and it's an enthusiastic match for the material, which begs for moments that are small juxtaposed with moments that are bombastic. One of my favorite scenes involves a frustrated Larson finally giving up and going to a local gym to swim laps to try to jump start his brain. A song builds from Larson's thoughts, starting with just counting his laps and observations about the slow swimmer in front of him and the pretty girl next to the pool, and then begins to cohere into something really powerful. As Larson sinks into the song, the scene in the pool morphs into something blatantly fantastical.

I wasn't sure if I would be into this film, despite the positive reviews. Within the first ten minutes I was hooked and it really kept me engaged the whole way through. Garfield's performance and the portrayal of someone grappling with the creative process were both so well done.






Don't Look Up (2021)

Adam McKay is normally pretty solid for me, I think The Big Short and Vice are both very solid films. Don't Look Up misses a mark a bit here, the world is coming to an end and people are being stupid about it is a good concept but it doesn't really work out or pay off. Some characters just don't really work while the focus of the film is often scattered.

Ron Perlman, Tyler Perry, Timothee Chalamet, and Hamis Patel are basically one joke characters given far too much screen time. The film also splits it's time between the two heavies Streep and Rylance which leaves the viewer feeling somewhat empty. McKay doesn't seem to know if he's going after corporate America or political America and both are just underserved.

Leo, Cate Blanchett, and Jonah Hill are all really good in this and it elevates the film from a 2 star to a 3 star film for me. Jonah dunking on Jennifer Lawrence is the best part of the film but once again the film doesn't know who the lead is between Leo and Jennifer. It's like watching two films smushed into one and it doesn't really work.



I watched Nightmare Alley and liked it for the most part. The trailers don’t really give away what it’s about at all and it doesn’t feel like a Del Toro movie to me but I’m not marking it down for either of those things.



Great review, Stu. I’m surprised you saw RW after FR. I remember seeing part of RW on TV as a kid and being like “WTF IS THIS?” And seeking out the movie as soon as I could. But yeah the original MM is kinda slow, especially compared to the sequels. I think it does a great job of capturing a society right on the brink of collapse, as opposed to most movies that are all about the post-apocalypse. Have you seen Beyond Thunderdome?

Some of the smaller moments of RW that I love:

WARNING: spoilers below
Max being all about making deals, with the Gyro Captain to take him to the oil, with Papagallo to get them the rig, etc. It’s what keeps him truly neutral for most of the movie. I love Papagallo’s line, “He fulfilled a contract. He’s an honorable man.” He delivered it with both admiration for a noble deed he doesn’t see much any more and annoyance that he isn’t getting what he wants out of Max. It’s a terrifically delivered line.

Even at the end when he volunteers to drive the rig it’s not out of the goodness of his heart. Max knows it’s his best chance of getting out of there alive. And the set up at the beginning of three cars going one direction to distract the marauders while one car goes in another to try to get away is the same plan at the end with the oil. And all that “hero worship” they heap on Max while asking him to drive the rig. Nobody bothers to tell him he’s the decoy. They’re using him just like he’s using them to get out alive.
Thanks Des! And sorry for the late reply, but I got busy with Christmas stuff. Anyway, the only Mad Max movie I saw as a teen was the original, and it didn't do much for me, and I never heard much about The Road Warrior (in fact, I think I was more aware of Thunderdome, if for nothing else but the gag MST3K made about it in the ep where they riffed Laserblast), so I just never got around to it, and I only went back and checked it out after Fury Road blew up so big online (although I didn't regret watching TRW at all when I did). And yes, I watched Thunderdome four years ago, shortly after I had already watched/rewatched the rest of the series, and it's the weakest of the series so far, but still not a complete waste of time anyway.

At any rate, what strikes me the most about the Mad Max series on the whole is the consistent exploration and evolution of Max as a character from movie to movie, even in the lesser entries; I mean, even though the original suffered a bit from a lack of action, it still did a great job of showing Max's fall from grace as a normal man due to the tragedies he suffers from, setting up The Road Warrior perfectly to have him be an anti-social survivalist loner, who just barely starts to learn how to live with other people again, before Thunderdome shows him as being fully "rehabilitated", although it drops the ball a bit by never really having a truly impressive moment of redemption for him. That's why I really appreciate the way Fury Road reset his character essentially back to where he was at the start of Warrior (and then some), basically being even more anti-social than ever before, like more of a rabid, grunting animal than a man, so that when he finally gives Furiosa his name (and his live-saving blood), it hits really hard, because it's such a stark contrast to where he was at the start of that entry; now that's how you arc a character!



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.

The Nowhere Inn (Bill Benz, 2020)
6/10
Daddy Long Legs (Jean Negulesco, 1955)
6.5/10
Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm (Allan Dwan, 1938)
6/10
C'mon C'mon (Mike Mills, 2021)
- 6.5/10

Not exactly entertaining but documentary soundman Joaquin Phoenix and his nephew Woody Norman bring enough honesty to make it affecting.
The Hating Game (Peter Hutchings, 2021)
+ 6/10
Snow White and the Three Stooges (Walter Lang [& Frank Tashlin], 1961)
5/10
Bright Eyes (David Butler, 1934)
6/10
Carousel (Henry King, 1956)
7/10

"If I Loved You" sung by Gordon MacRae and Shirley Jones.
Gritt (Itonje Søimer Guttormsen, 2021)
+ 6/10
Wolf (Nathalie Biancheri, 2021)
+ 5/10
Curly Top (Irving Cummings, 1935)
6/10
Scrooge AKA A Christmas Carol (Brian Desmond Hurst, 1951)
7/10

Marley's Ghost (Michael Hordern) scares the crap out of Scrooge (Alastair Sim).
Who'll Stop the Rain (Karel Reisz, 1978)
6/10
Meet Me in St. Louis (Vincente Minnelli, 1944)
+ 7.5/10
The Muppet Christmas Carol (Brian Henson, 1992)
6.5/10
A Charlie Brown Christmas (Bill Melendez, 1965)
+ 7.5/10

Worrywart Charlie Brown tries to learn the meaning of Christmas and for the most part, he does.
Play It As It Lays (Frank Perry, 1972)
5.5/10
O. Henry's Full House (5 Directors, 1952)
6.5/10
The World of Kanako (Tetsuya Nakashima, 2014)
6/10
It Happened on Fifth Avenue (Roy Del Ruth, 1947)
+ 6.5/10

A group of rich and poor people share the holiday season and discover who's the happiest.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page





I had an unplanned marathon of sorts with four different versions of A Christmas Carol. The '38 version with Reginald Owen, the '51 with Alastair Sim, the '84 with George C. Scott and the '99 with Patrick Stewart. I had already seen the '38 and '51 versions some time ago and the '84 last year I think but I rewatched all of them over the last couple of days and finally caught Stewart's performance yesterday.

As far as Scrooge portrayals go Sim still wins out with Stewart's in second place. Owen edges out Scott for third. If you go with the overall experience I still prefer '51 simply because it includes more scenes with Scrooges sister Fan (which never fail to hit me right in the feels) and a slightly deeper dive with regards to his fiance Alice. Patrick Stewart also takes a fine, naturalistic turn in his version.

1938 (Reginald Owen) 75/100
1951 (Alastair Sim) 88/100
1984 (George C. Scott) 75/100
1999 (Patrick Stewart) 85/100

EDIT: Oh and I tried watching the FX version with Guy Pearce and got about halfway through the three and a half hour runtime before I gave up on it. This was right around the time that hunky Scrooge (Pearce) rides up (on camelback no less) to his old school with Ali Baba (Ghost of Christmas Past). Then they go on to reveal that
WARNING: spoilers below
Scrooge was molested by his old headmaster
It was that kind of production.