Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Victim of The Night

11-12-22

Originally Posted by Takoma11

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), 2014

Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) is a former superhero franchise actor trying to breathe some life back into his professional life by writing, directing, and acting in a Broadway play based on a novel by Raymond Carver. Forced to hire a new actor (Edward Norton) when one of his leads is injured, Riggan grows more and more stressed as their opening night approaches. Oh, and maybe he's also developed some telekinetic powers.

There's a really nice thing that happens sometimes when I'm watching a movie and I suddenly realize I'm not sure exactly what the movie is about. Not what it's about, plot-wise, but what it's about. And then right on the heels of that thought is the realization that knowing or not knowing what it's about is having zero impact on my enjoyment of it.

Such was the case with Birdman. I'm sure I'll read a review at some point that will spell out some major themes that I missed, but whatever. This was an engaging, funny, propulsive ride and it more than lived up to the tremendous acclaim it received at the time it came out.

I've always been a fan of Michael Keaton. As a kid, he was one of the only actors who I could enjoy as both bad (Beetlejuice) or good/silly (Multiplicity) characters. The character he plays here--clearly aligning to Keaton's own foray as Batman--strikes just the right notes of self-aware fun. Riggan seems to know who he wants to be, and Keaton does a great job of showing a man who oscillates between the highs of confidence and the low lows of doubt.

The supporting cast is pretty terrific. Edward Norton is enjoyably hateable as the overly self-assured Mike, a guy whose notions about "truth" on stage are so important that he won't let unprofessionalism or even a little sexual assault interfere with his process. Emma Stone is her usual excellent, feisty self as Riggan's daughter, Sam, fresh out of rehab and still on spiky terms with her father. Zach Galifianakis does solid, funny work as Riggan's friend (and lawyer), who believes in Riggan but also knows that they need to make things work on the bottom line. Naomi Watts plays Lesley, Mike's long-suffering girlfriend. In smaller roles, Amy Ryan makes for a great scene partner for Keaton in some of the slower, more meditative scenes in which Riggan discusses his past with his ex-wife. Lindsay Duncan also makes the most of her limited screen time playing a theater critic whose hatred of celebrity culture has made her determined to sink Riggan's play.

I really enjoy films that deploy a limited degree of magical realism, and I thought that Birdman really hit the sweet spot in that regard. Is Riggan really moving things with his mind, or is it all in his head? The film is more than happy to leave the point ambiguous right until the very last moments.

I also appreciated the way that the film largely shifted its attention away from Mike's character in the last act. Don't get me wrong: Norton is great in the role. And all of Mike's bluster about truth and methods and limits makes him a great foil for Riggan. But his character adds a degree of absurdity that doesn't gel quite as well with the direction of Riggan's character arc as the film goes on. (I also found the whole subplot about Sam romantically/sexually pursuing him after he tried to sexually assault someone weird and gross, and while their scenes on the roof were beautifully lit, I didn't need any more of them).

I also really loved the in-your-face score, which could be summed up as DRUMS!, and yet it works really beautifully. On a technical level, everything about this film feels like it's firing on all cylinders, and as a piece of art it's just a joy to look at and experience.

I love this movie and when I was on social media I went out of my way to champion it and try to get people to go to the theater and see it. Didn't work, but I tried.

Takoma11

Registered User

11-12-22

Originally Posted by ThatDarnMKS

I think it�s the way that Haneke idiosyncratically frames his shots, often obscuring what most films would focus on, in particular moments of violence (such as the lingering shot on Huppert�s face during the inciting murder), or during moments most filmmakers would either leave on the cutting room floor or not shoot altogether that capture the banality of existence (the shots of trains passing in the station).

In a few scenes, yes.

But frankly, if I'd watched this movie and someone told me it was a random low-budget flick they'd found in the dredges of Amazon Prime, I wouldn't have questioned it that strongly.

Aside from the occasional visual flourish or character moment, this was lacking on almost every level. My rating mainly reflects the acting and that powerful last image.

And all of his usual tics (like choosing what to put on screen or not) here feels random as opposed to purposeful. We can't see someone get shot but we can watch a woman get raped? We can't watch someone die but we can watch a horse have its throat cut?

In reading with kids, we talk about "What? So what? Now what?". And I never felt like this film did heavy lifting in the "so what" department and so it just ends up being a series of scenes that did very little for me.

SpelingError

AKA Popcorn Reviews

11-12-22

I loved Birdman when I first saw it, but I haven't felt an itch to rewatch it for some reason. I'm sure it'll still hold up though.

Rockatansky

Wallet Inspector

11-12-22

I remember nothing about Time of the Wolf, but I suppose it didn�t actively annoy me like Haneke usually does. Isabelle Huppert goes a long way, it seems.

I liked Birdman when I saw it, but haven�t thought about it since. I guess my one gripe is that I would have ordered the one-take visual style to stick with Keaton instead of hopping around to the whole cast.

WHITBISSELL!

Registered User

11-12-22

Dracula's Daughter - This 1936 Universal Pictures release was the official, studio sanctioned sequel to their 1931 hit Dracula. But their first choice for director, James Whale, ended up getting replaced by A. Edward Sutherland. He in turn was replaced by Lambert Hilyer who had mostly directed B Westerns. Additional financial wrangling with proposed star Bela Lugosi and Bram Stoker's widow Florence cost them their lead actor and access to Stoker's novel. The resulting compromises left them with this rather lukewarm and occasionally atmospheric effort.

The film opens in a promising enough way as two London policemen stumble across a dead body. It turns out to be Renfield and the film is keen enough to bring back Edward Van Sloan as Professor Von Helsing. He tells the two bobbies of another dead body in the next chamber. When the officer checks he finds a man impaled through the heart with a wooden stake. So this takes up right where it's predecessor ended. That opening though is the high-water mark as far as the plot goes.

Von Helsing is charged with murder but he argues his innocence by insisting that the corpse belonged to a man that had been dead for 500 years. Instead of a lawyer he requests that one of his old students, psychiatrist Jeffrey Garth (Otto Kruger), come to his aid. Gloria Holden plays Countess Marya Zaleska and with the help of her uber creepy manservant Sandor (Irving Pichel) she spirits away the body of Dracula. She then burns it in hopes of freeing herself from her never ending thirst for blood. She meets Dr. Garth at a party and asks for his help in breaking her dead father's influence. He advises her to confront her fears and she's immediately convinced that he's the one person who can help her.

It all transpires in what to me seemed prosaic fashion even though there were small flashes of distinctiveness. Kruger's performance as the overweening Garth and his love/hate relationship with his secretary Janet Blake (Marguerite Churchill). Pichel's dead on resemblance to Benicio Del Toro in his portrayal of the lugubrious Sandor. And, according to just about everyone but me, a heavy lesbian undercurrent that apparently flew right over my head. All in all though there's just not enough here for me to recommend.

65/100

StuSmallz

Forum Nomad

11-12-22

Originally Posted by PHOENIX74

By https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101912/, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3840903

Frankie and Johnny - (1991)

I thought Frankie and Johnny was good - it reflected what middle-aged romance is really like, and expanded Terrence McNally's play into the real world - a play that I would have loved to have seen with it's original leads - F. Murray Abraham and Kathy Bates. By casting Michelle Pfeiffer as Frankie you've changed the whole story, because Frankie is meant to be "frumpy, fat, and emotionally defined by her unattractiveness." That's certainly not what we've got here.

Sort of like when they tried to make her "unattractive" in Batman Returns by making her look like this, huh?:

Wooley

Victim of The Night

11-12-22

Originally Posted by StuSmallz

Sort of like when they tried to make her "unattractive" in Batman Returns by making her look like this, huh?:

This always makes me laugh because I'm one of the those guys that if you wanna make a hot woman even hotter, put glasses on her. And movies be like, "Oh, we need to make her seem not-hot, put glasses on her!"

chawhee

Registered User

11-12-22

House of Gucci (2021)

I knew practically nothing of what this movie was supposed to be in terms of what the Gucci family history consists of, but the cast is what drew me in to watch. That feeling is still with me, where I don't feel like I have enough interest in learning the drama behind a fashion industry empire.

The movie itself was fine, though things like editing (something I usually dont notice, whether good or bad) and dialogue (accents were all over the place) seemed rather amateur. It also seemed light on some details, which is odd for a movie over 2 hours, but maybe there was more to tell if it was something like a mini-series on streaming.

cricket

Registered User

11-12-22

Senna (2010)

Blind pick because it was the highest placed film from the 2010's on our documentary list that I hadn't seen. I initially thought it had to do with laxatives until I saw the poster. It's about race car legend Ayrton Senna. I had no idea how this would end but given the subject matter I feared the worst. There's a ton of footage of this guy in interviews, getting ready for races, racing, and whatnot, so you really get to know him. That's what makes this a strong documentary but it's not a happy watch.

matt72582

Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses

11-12-22

The Lunchbox - 7/10
Saikh to me was the most interesting character, but he played 3rd banana. I didn't feel any romance. Partly because they didn't meet, and partly because it seemed like he was just a platonic pen-pal. Still a good movie.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

matt72582

Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses

11-12-22

Originally Posted by StuSmallz

Sort of like when they tried to make her "unattractive" in Batman Returns by making her look like this, huh?:

Hollywood not wanting to take a financial chance, and instead getting a good looking star...

Or "Marty" (1954) with Betsy Blair.

Takoma11

Registered User

11-12-22

Death of Stalin, 2017

Josef Stalin (Adrian McLoughlin) signs off on a list of citizens to be imprisoned, tortured, and/or executed, reads a nasty note from a woman who has had enough of his tyranny, and suffers a cerebral hemorrhage that leaves him sliding toward death. Facing the lost of their leader, various ministers and other higher ups in the government begin jockying for the crown, including Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi), Beria (Simon Russell Beale), and Malenkov (Jeffrey Tambor). The men play deadly, deceitful political games as they try to best position themselves.

This one came highly recommended when I asked for several 2010s movies to watch and it definitely delivered.

What works throughout the entire film is the contrast between the banal, middle-management waffling conversations among the various ministers and the ridiculously high stakes involved in those conversations. The men banter about whether or not to halt the latest slew of executions with little more passion than you'd expect from a debate over whether to order pizza or sub sandwiches for a lunch.

The barely controlled manipulations of the main cast gets tested by an assortment of far less controlled and predictable supporting characters, including a plain-spoken military general (Jason Isaacs), and Stalin's children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough) and drunk son Vasily (Rupert Friend). An air of uncertainty undercuts every decision, and the willingness of characters to betray each other leaves everything on a knife's edge for the entire run time.

While the film is a comedy, it is very dark at times. The realities of Stalin's regime are on display, including torture, sexual assault, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, executions, and general terrorizing of civilians. It's jarring to be asked to laugh at Beria sprinting to be the first to greet and hug Svetlana, when just moments earlier we watched him abduct and sexually assault a teenage girl, or when we've seen him torture a man and then demand the sexual assault of another man's wife.

Visually, the film looks great. The costumes and sets exits in a space of slight unreality, which pairs well with the decision to not have the actors speak with accents. It strikes just the right balance of history/not-history.

In terms of satire, I feel that the movie does an incredible job of showing the very warped nature of "loyalty" that emerges from a system of oppression and fear. It's miserable. No one can trust each other. No one feels fully free to speak their mind. I also thought that there was a powerful moment when a decision comes down to (at least temporarily) halt executions. As the news is delivered, a soldier executes one last man. The man next to that man looks down for a moment, processes that he would have been next. For me, part of the message of that moment relates to justice or civil rights movements and times that people are extolled to be "patient." Patience doesn't help that last person who took a bullet to the head.

A very solid dark comedy.

PHOENIX74

I forgot the opening line.

11-12-22

Originally Posted by StuSmallz

Sort of like when they tried to make her "unattractive" in Batman Returns by making her look like this, huh?:

Originally Posted by Wooley

Definitely lump me in with the "glasses just make her even more attractive!" grouping. I don't understand why movie-makers think glasses make a woman some kind of horrifying, deformed and hideous monster. I love Pfeiffer's hair in that Batman Returns picture too, all frizzied up, with that strand falling right down the center of her face. Looks super cute. So, yeah - the character of Frankie, with a central defining characteristic being her concern over how unattractive she is - so who do they get to play her? Michelle Pfeiffer.

__________________

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

Latest Review : Le Circle Rouge (1970)

PHOENIX74

I forgot the opening line.

11-12-22

By http://www.impawards.com/intl/misc/2...adis_aida.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=65554033

Quo Vadis Aida? - (2020)

So, a surprise yesterday, with this being the big stand-out winner of my movie marathon. I guess it shouldn't have been a surprise - it was nominated for a Best Foreign Film Oscar at the 2021 Academy Awards (Another Round was the winner) but still, I wasn't expecting something that both stung so much, and provided compelling viewing from start to finish. Can't stop watching kind of stuff. Those of us old enough to remember the Bosnian War recall how low certain armies sank during that conflict - we're talking Nazi-level atrocities on a continent still hurting a little over the 2nd World War. This film shows us the Srebrenica massacre from the viewpoint of a United Nations translator who on the one hand has a kind of safe immunity, and on the other is trying to rescue her husband and two children as Serbian troops capture her town. The limp, impotent United Nations troops promise much, and deliver nothing - their officers humiliated by Serbian commanders who break every rule in the Geneva convention there is, and then end up being coerced into helping the Serbs commit atrocities. Frightening, and very sad, this film takes you right to the heart of the terror - and I really recommend it to everyone.

8/10

By May be found at the following website: IMPAwards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=34437182

The Woman in Black - (2012)

The Woman in Black, although effective, also tries a little too hard to scare us. The majority of the film takes place in a haunted house that just won't let up - sending Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) careening from one room to the next. I don't know why - I'd be running away from all the creepy stuff that's happening. For the most part it's pretty straightforward - the last living occupant of a strange house surrounded by a boggy sea-level marsh dies, and Kipps is the lawyer sent to organize the estate. The owner's dead sister has cursed the town the house is part of, with children willed into suicidal acts - and we unravel the secrets of a child's death that started it all. The movie just overplays it's hand a little, with either an apparition, suicide or spooky occurrence roughly every 20 seconds. There ends up being little suspense built up, and it's those rhythms mixed with the scares that fall flat that make this a little less than what it could have been - for some of it is excellent.

6/10

By https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7279188/, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=57484344

Woman at War - (2018)

Watched this last year and rated it 8/10 - it's really good, and has gorgeous cinematography - really stunning. A modern tale of a woman in the midst of her own personal climate war - destroying Icelandic infrastructure to prevent giant international conglomerations coming in to spoil the environment even further. At the height of her battle her name comes up on the adoptions list, and she has to choose between her battle, or saving a cute little girl in Ukraine. That's if she can stop - consequences be damned.

Old review :

"Neat little movie about a woman (an excellent Halld�ra Geirhar�sd�ttir playing Hanna and her twin sister �sa) resisting industrialization in the beautiful Icelandic coast, mountains and rivers. As she ratchets up her pressure on authorities they call her a 'terrorist' and are determined to hunt her down. In the meantime she finally has the chance to adopt a gorgeous young Ukranian girl after 4 years of processing and waiting. Everything collides in a drastic way - will we get some kind of happy ending, or has Hanna completely wrecked her own life?

Another great film from Iceland (not from the makers of Rams) - they must have some kind of burgeoning scene. Worth the price of admission alone just to see Geirhar�sd�ttir ply her craft. She's really exceptional. The story is timely, and has everything from a First Blood-style chase in the wilderness to touching scenes between the sisters and their dreams being crushed by ill-considered actions. Still, you respect her for putting everything on the line to protect the Iceland she loves. Beautiful shots of the landscape. Not original - but I still love the device of musicians playing the score while they're literally included in scenes (coming mostly from Hanna's imagination - she's a musician herself.) Definitely one to look out for."

7/10

Takoma11

Registered User

11-12-22

Captain Phillips, 2013

In this based-on-a-true-story thriller, Richard Phillips (Tom Hanks) is the captain of a ship called the Alabama, a cargo vessel whose route takes them around the African cape where a string of hijackings has taken place. Sure enough, the ship is seized by a small group of Somali men, led by Muse (Barkhad Abdi), a smart but unpredictable young man determined to make a better life for himself.

I overall enjoyed this film, even if it seemed like it ran a bit long. Hanks gives an assured lead performance, and his calm, America's dad energy is well balanced by the jittery energy of Abdi's Muse.

I appreciate that the film, while it obviously changed some events for the sake of the film, kept the narrative in a scale and scope that felt real. The pirates didn't kill anyone aboard the Alabama, and the movie doesn't feel the need to exaggerate their actions for the sake of making them seem more evil.

Generally, I thought that the film did a good job of portraying the pirates as criminals but not as one-dimensional characters. They work for a warlord and live in a country where economic hardship makes criminal activity a very tempting path out of poverty. The film doesn't demand a ton of sympathy for them, but the fact that they are humanized to a degree makes the film more compelling.

I did enjoy the nature of the action sequence in the film, specifically the boarding of the ship in the beginning and the rescue attempt in the last act. They have this fast/slow dynamic where there is quick action and changing circumstances, but at the same time a real-life drawn out quality. This is maybe most effective in the boarding sequence, as the attacking boats draw closer and closer and the crew of the Alabama realizes that no one is coming to help them and they must rely on their own evasive maneuvers and limited defensive moves to protect them.

I really appreciated the way that the camera moved around the ship and inside the lifeboat. It both gives you a good sense of the layout and flow of the spaces, as well as creating a claustrophobic energy.

As far as "based on a true . . . " movies go, I thought this one was pretty good. Some liberties taken, yes, but still a compelling story.

Thief

Master of None

11-12-22

Originally Posted by matt72582

I felt quite differently about their romance, but beyond that, I liked what the film had to say about age and relationships in general. I'm a big fan of it.

__________________

Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!

Gideon58

Registered User

11-12-22

skizzerflake

Registered User

11-13-22

It seemed really overblown to me. Wakanda Forever, an exercise in having handsome people strike poses, slim on plot, long on poses. There are two factions in this story. One are the Wakandans, based on land, and their conflict with another group, a bunch of amphibious "humans" who don't handle dry land very well, belong in the water.

The movie amounts to a nearly 3 hour conflict between them when it seemed, all along, easy to solve, like leave the water humans in the water and the dry land human on dry land.

Somehow, this got to be a big epic. Visuals are excellent, but it was way too long and, very unsatisfying when it was over (note the previous paragraph). Oh well.

Thunderbolt

Masterpiece

11-13-22

Point Break (2015)
There are very few films that I have started to watch and not finished but this is one. I managed an hour but it was too painful to continue. The original rules. This was bulls@#t.

__________________
What would Hitchcock do?

Marco