Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Lakota Woman: Siege at Wounded Knee (1994) - 8 / 10

__________________
I'm looking for prison movie:
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=63305

Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7481639

Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid - (1973) - DVD

I'm certainly glad that this was my introduction to Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, a tortured production of what was to be Sam Peckinpah's last old time western. MGM, and in particular it's president James Aubrey, put Peckinpah under pressure to complete the film fast and to his specifications - leading to a troubled production. On the other side, Peckinpah himself was drinking heavily, leading some people to note that he was only coherent 4 hours out of every day. A problem with a camera lens meant there had to be much reshooting, and the editing was rushed. The final cut was taken out of Peckinpah's hands, and ended up being a rough one - the film was released before it was ready, was mauled by the critics and failed to make any impact.

A much improved version, Peckinpah's original preview version before it was taken out of his hands, was put together and released in 1988. It was worked over once again for it's 2005 DVD release - and this effort was really worth it in my opinion. Both the 1988 and 2005 versions are on the Special Edition DVD and the 2005 is far superior - though Peckinpah himself passed away in 1984 and therefore can't give his blessing to either. The 2005 version retains Bob Dylan's 'Knocking on Heaven's Door' during Slim Picken's death scene, shifts the great raft scene back to where it really belongs and has the best ending of any of the versions. It brings back an early scene between Pat Garrett and his wife, which really gives the scene where Garrett cavorts with half a dozen prostitutes added meaning.

Both versions of the film start both in 1909 and 1881, melding vision of Garrett's assassination by those who had overseen his pursuit of Billy the Kid with Garrett and Billy meeting one final time under good terms, despite Garrett having become sheriff. I thought it was a bit confusing and awkward, this double beginning, but doesn't impact the film all that much. The rest of the film deals with how Garrett is torn asunder and how Billy can't bring himself to run in any meaningful way. Garrett wants Billy to get away. He doesn't want to be the one who kills him. After bringing him in once Billy kills two deputies and escapes the hangman's noose - forcing Garrett to choose which life he really wants to live.

I thought James Coburn was great in this, and Bob Dylan is a real surprise package as 'Alias'. There are many other actors from old time westerns in this and the film is aided a great deal by Dylan's soundtrack. It would have been fitting if, in a perfect world, Peckinpah had of been allowed to make the film he wanted to make - sober - with no egos from the studio or himself to get in the way. It really feels like it was meant to be his final word on the genre and the history it represents. I think it's a great film.

Special Features - There is a commentary track for both the 1988 and 2005 versions. Both from biographers/documentarians Nick Redman, Paul Seydor, Garner Simmons and David Weddle. A featurette : One Foot in the Groove : Remembering Sam Peckinpah with Kris Kristofferson and Donnie Fritts. A featurette : Deconstructing Pat and Billy. 2 songs performed by Kris Kristofferson and Donnie Fritts.

9/10

I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career writing about movies. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let The Commuter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.

Apologies to the makers of Taken and @Dr. Badvibes

__________________
Entertainment Log
Letterboxd profile

I'd heard good things about this film so was eager to watch. It's themes include the refugee crisis, treating humans as a commodity, the lack of free movement some humans have. This is all wrapped up in a central plot that sees a refugee become the star attraction in an exhibit of a world renowned artist. It's a very interesting premise, and some of the film reminded me of Ruben Ostlund's brilliant 'The Square'. The trouble is, it's not as intelligent as The Square and the script doesn't match.

The first half of the film is very promising and shapes up to be a neat relationship drama with a socio-political background. The set design and photography is also very easy on the eye. Then as we move on, the director seems to weave in a very unsubtle plot that borders on silly. There's even a rather needless twist right at the end that just devalues the film a little. I'd have preferred a more ambiguous, mysterious ending, but maybe that's personal taste.

Worth seeing. But can't help feel it's a missed opportunity.

__________________
There has been an awekening.... have you felt it?

Wow. One of my favorite Sci Fi movies. I care more about those characters than any one Lucas (for example) has produced since the OT. So much heart. And generic? I thought it was the opposite of generic, totally different and interesting approach. River alone is worth the price of admission to me but honestly, every character in the crew is someone I care about except maybe Zoe.

I mostly agree with you but not about the women. For the end of the 70s both of these women were very progressive, strong, independent women. The fact that it is Barbeau who is the adult in the room throughout the movie, who figures everything out, and is the one who tries to warn everybody is significant but also the fact that none of the men in the town actually solve or defeat anything either balances this film pretty well for a film shot in 1979. The line you point out actually accentuates how she is the strong one while the men are weak. They find her sexy because they are just typical men sitting on a barstool struck by a strong woman while she has no interest because she's above weak men. Her relationship with the Weather Guy makes this even clearer. Janet Leigh is the head of the Centennial Committee and every man in the town does what she says while her husband was out getting drunk on a boat. It's pretty clear Carpenter actually thought pretty highly of his female characters. I think you've misread Carpenter's representation of women here, but I think the rest of your points about the film are spot-on.

You didn't mention it in your review, so I have to ask if you were aware that this film was a culmination of the TV series Firefly?
Watching the series first would at least have an effect on the "couldn't care about the characters" part, I'd think.

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

Ya know, I saw Serenity first, had no idea anything came before it, and I absolutely loved it.

PS - I have since watched the series 2 or 3 times. Because I love the characters.

It's been a while since I've seen it, but I remember the writing for the Summer Glau character being a lot worse than in the series.*Don't remember too well if I had other issues, but that sticks out in my memory.*

I've watched both the series and the film exactly once, so I don't really remember how I felt about one vs the other. (Vague recollection of enjoying the series more). I do consider myself a fan, just to be clear.

Interesting that you watched the movie first though. It would never occur to me to suggest that to a newcomer. You're outta control!

I’m aware that there was a tv series that came before, which I never watched. If I had seen the series first, it is possible that I might have enjoyed the film more. I do feel that a good movie should be able to stand on its own though. I enjoyed the Dora the Explorer movie even though I never watched the cartoon. I have never watched Twin Peaks tv show but loved the Twin Peaks movie. I liked the Pokémon movie even though I never played or watched Pokémon.

Yeah, fair enough. Just wondering if you were aware of it.

My Night at Maud's (1969) -

My Night at Maud's explores how Christianity, religion, and faithfulness conflicted with the sexual revolution. This story is framed around a devout Catholic who initially takes the church's teachings on marriage very seriously, shown with his interest in Pascal's wager. The time he spends with Maud, Françoise, and Vidal though challenge him on whether he can remain loyal to Christianity since the three of them (both intentionally and unintentionally) slowly pull him into this revolution throughout the film. Coupled with solid performances from the four main actors and a great deal of sexual tension which runs throughout a few sequences (with the highlight being Jean-Louis's first encounter with Maud), it contains plenty to enjoy. I've seen some people criticize the church scenes for their length, but watching the film with all these aforementioned themes in mind gives those scenes a biting layer of irony. They're an essential ingredient and I couldn't imagine this film without them. Overall, highly recommended.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Go (1999)

It's interesting how two people can watch the same movie, and come away with opposite observations. Probably another reason why John Carpenter is a multi-millionaire with a mansion and a yacht, and I am not.

I think you're wrong about Barbeau figuring things out first. I believe it was the priest after almost being hit over the head with that diary. Then again, Barbeau's character did figure out that something wasn't quite right about that particular fog bank.

McCartney 3, 2, 1 (2021)

Fascinating 6 part docu-series about Paul McCartney, the Beatles, his work with Wings, and solo career. Fans of the Beatles will love the revelations of how some of their famous songs were composed and recorded.

The interviews took place along side a recording console on a sound stage (probably Rubin's Shangri-La studio in Malibu) where famous producer Nick Rubin draws McCartney into explaining the easy to understand process of McCartney's song writing methods, and his surprising inability to read or write musical notation. McCartney uses the guitar and piano to illustrate examples and interesting points that he makes.

The engaging part is McCartney's obvious infectious love for the music he has done, both from years ago and also in the present day. We get a good look at his mammoth gift and talent as a pop composer and musician. Fans as well as experienced pros will enjoy this mesmerizing and insightful series.

Available on Hulu, Apple TV, and various streaming sources.

Doc's rating: 9/10

7/10

Paper Chase (1973)


A group of freshmen law students at Harvard law spend an academic year chasing the top grades that will hopefully make them rich and possibly even famous. The only thing keeping them from their dreams is an old professor who is always three steps ahead of them.



I love the vibe of this movie, and of course, John Houseman absolutely owns his classroom, his students, and the movie.

SHINE A LIGHT

I’ve yet to have the opportunity to see the Stones live so I figured a Scorsese rock documentary would be the next best thing.

It begins with an amusing opening that may or may not be a fabrication of Scorsese struggling to get the necessary information to film this concert effectively. “We don’t want to catch Mick Jagger on fire… but we do want the effect,” he says sardonically. It’s a fun and dynamic start but in hindsight, also feels like something of an apologia for what is to follow and an explanation as to why it isn’t on the level of The Last Waltz.

It is good, mind you. But the coverage doesn’t seem as precise nor inventive as I’d expect from Scorsese. Similarly, the performance is good. Both the Stones and Scorsese can deliver something quality on autopilot.

It just kind of feels like that’s what happened here. A series of seasoned pros not quite winging it but also not quite hammering out the final details to deliver a transcendent concert experience.

Maybe it’s just because my expectations were too high, as I’m a much bigger fan of the Stones than I was of The Band, so the combination of them and Scorsese seemed most tantalizing.

That said, it’s quality and I miss live shows so this helped a good deal. My score will probably seem disproportionately positive to the write up but sometimes a high quality movie can still be disappointing for not having been at the level it could’ve been.

By A24 Films - Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49388086

Equals - (2015)

This science fiction film made it easy for me to write about because THX 1138 pretty much covers most of it - you could almost call it a remake. Here we have another dystopian society where everyone wears white - and there's little vibrant colour, although the whites are bright. Similarly, emotions have been done away with - but there is a new 'disease' that those in authority worry about. SOS - 'Switched on Syndrome' - sufferers find themselves regaining emotions. Silas (Nicholas Hoult) and Nia (Kristen Stewart) both seem to be suffering from it, which allows them to fall in love and partake in activities which are strictly banned. They plan to flee this society before a cure is administered to them.

Hoult and Stewart at least seem to have chemistry, making their love scenes much more involving - I can't underestimate how many times I complain about actors not having that. I don't know if the film as a whole offers anything different though. Guy Pearce and Jacki Weaver appear briefly as insiders who are against the emotionlessness (spellcheck is allowing that so I guess it's a word) of the society they find themselves in.

5/10


By Roadshow Films - Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=64369806

Rams - (2020)

Remake of one of my favourite films, the 2015 Icelandic production Rams. It sticks to the original very closely - until...



Chances are you'll enjoy the 2020 Australian version of Rams a lot - but it won't be remembered as long as the original. If you've seen the original though, I'd advise you to skip this.

5/10



Shilo - (2016)

Woops. When I started watching Shilo I was confused as to why I'd borrowed it in the first place. A glance on the IMDb at it's rating - 8.4/10, might have done it. The problem? Shilo had garnered for itself a score from 11 votes. That's probably an unbreakable record for as long as I watch movies. 11 votes. 9 of them were probably from the cast and crew, because they were all 10/10. A couple of people were not though, giving the film a more realistic 1/10. I added my 1/10 to that, so it now has a score of 7.8/10.

Shilo is an amateurish production, written, co-directed and starring Edwin Nichols. The editor couldn't do his job right - scenes start a moment too soon as actors pause and then start - and end a moment too late. Actors miss their marks. There are far too many 'montage' scenes with terrible country music - some start moments after the last montage finishes. The acting and script in general are deplorable. I don't know how Shilo managed to make it to a DVD release which was picked up by my usually faultless public library.

I didn't mind watching it at all, because some of it was delightfully funny.

1/10


By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59359784

All is True - (2018)

The perfect antidote to Shilo, this intriguing film gives us an inside glance at the life of William Shakespeare after the fire which destroyed his Globe Theatre. Shakespeare (Kenneth Branagh) returns home to his wife and two daughters, and only now starts to grieve the loss of his son Hamnet, who had died some time before. He can't bear the fact that he has no male heir - which upsets all three women in the Shakespeare household.

Shakespeare comes out of this all a somewhat diminished man, although the script allows him to make some withering observations of those who criticize him. Especially the Earl of Southampton (Ian McKellen.) It's a fairly accessible film, unlike some of his plays which I always need Cliffs Notes for.

6/10