Rate The Last Movie You Saw

By IGN, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=13501435

The Other Boleyn Girl - (2008)

I've been seeing a lot of King Henry VIII lately, and that's what encouraged me to see The Other Boleyn Girl - it presents an interesting take on the King - a monarch ruled by his loins. Still, I think Eric Bana is a strange instance of miscasting, and this hurts the film as a whole. Keith Michell, Damian Lewis and Robert Shaw all felt real - you'd know they're Henry VIII as soon as they step into the room. We know he marries Anne Boleyn (Natalie Portman), but here he at first falls in love with Anne's sister, Mary (Scarlett Johansson), sending Anne into a jealous rage. After being sent to France in disgrace after hastily marrying Henry Percy, she's brought back to court when Mary falls pregnant with King Henry's child - the Boleyn family afraid that during Mary's fraught pregnancy he might forget the Boleyns altogether. Anne, however, has plans of her own - revenge against her sister. Her machinations will prove her own downfall when a besotted King breaks with the church to marry her, and then finds her tiresome and unable to produce an heir. Ironically, Mary gave birth to a healthy son. Alright - straight off - this film is fiction. There was a Mary, but no connection has ever been found that gives her this kind of place in the history of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. It does manage to twist the material, in a soap opera kind of way, into a series of events that "could have" happened though, and provides a good lesson on why entering into complex machinations without scruples might get you to the top, but equally be your downfall in the end. This is for those who enjoy melodrama more than history - and even so, I can't overstate how much this film needed a different actor as King Henry. Mark Rylance, Benedict Cumberbatch and Eddie Redmayne are welcome sights - but they don't get enough screen-time to save the movie completely.

6/10

__________________

3rd Rewatch...This lavish musical biopic was originally aired by ABC back in 2001 as a two part miniseries documenting the life and career of the Hollywood legend. This is the closest thing we have to a definitive film biography of the star. Back in the 80's NBC did a TV movie with Andrea McArdle that only c overed her life up to her being cast in The Wizard of Oz. The 2019 film that won Renee Zellweger an Oscar only covers the final two or three years of Garland's life. This film starts with Garland's vaudeville debut at the age of 3 and takes us all the way to her tragic passing in 1969 at the age of 47. The loving detail and carefully mounting of this story has to be credited in large to Lorna Luft, Garland's daughter, who wrote the book this based on and oversaw every aspect of this production. I loved that original Garland recordings were used for the soundtrack and that two actresses were cast to portray the teenage and adult Judy. Tammy Blanchard and the amazing Judy Davis both won Emmys for their work here and Davis is particularly astonishing. Watch the scenes where she recreates "The Man That Got Away" or her first suicide attempt or the night she was nominated for the Oscar or her meeting with the production team for her television show. Davis is a one woman acting class in a dream role that she completely loses herself in. Victor Garber also impresses as third husband Sid Luft, as do John Benjamin Hickey as Roger Edens, Allison Pill as a pre-teen Lorna, and in the best performance of her career, Marsha Mason as Judy's hard-nosed mother, Ethel Gumm. Absolutely dazzling entertainment about a movie legend.

Down by Law (1986)

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania - I was ready to dismiss this as yet another nail in Marvel's coffin but then I read how it has a 82% audience reaction at RT (IMDb is 6.1/10 which is still way too high IMO). This is also meant as a tentpole or buttress to support whatever phase Marvel has in the works. It certainly spotlighted the next major baddie that was supposed to replace Thanos. Anyone who watched the first season of Loki was familiar with Kang the Conqueror (Jonathan Majors). Comic book readers certainly are.

I've read certain reviews praising Majors' performance but it mostly left me underwhelmed. I would say that it didn't seem to jibe with the rest of the movie but there would have to be something going on to jibe with. Not a series of half thought out premises presented in an indifferent, lackadaisical manner. Either way I just can't see Kang carrying an entire new phase. But again, those audience scores seem to say different.

It's top heavy with characters with none of them the least bit engaging. Michael Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer and Evangeline Lilly are window dressing and fade into the congested CGI background. And the character given the lion's share of screentime and therefore standing out does so for the wrong reasons. Scott's now grown up daughter Cassie (Kathryn Newton) is meant to be the catalyst for all this but comes off as mostly annoying. Even Rudd seems curiously uninvolved and isn't given much to work with outside of "concerned dad".

Can't really blame it on the director because Peyton Reed also helmed the other two Ant-Man flicks and those were passable. But this is the first A-M to not have been co-written by Rudd. Maybe that had something to do with the feeling of disengagement to the proceedings. Maybe the studio will find a way to make ... what is it? Phase 5? To make it compelling. Find a way to mesh this bad guy's particular personality and story arc and make it somehow interesting. Because this movie sure as hell couldn't and didn't do that.

40/100

The Purple Heart (Lewis Milestone 1944) True war film about a crew of B-25 bombers who were captured by the Japanese Army and tried as 'war criminals'....

Interesting story but poorly written.

I agree. This 2001 mini was much superior to the 2019 film. And Judy Davis gave a stunning performance as Garland-- much more so than did Zellweger. I'll never understand why they let Zellweger do her own singing. She sang nothing like Judy Garland did. Might have to go back and re-watch the Judy Davis mini. She's a great actress.

Gran Turismo (2023)

It has it's flaws and some races are better than others; But overall I liked it.

Blue Beetle (2023)

The first half is straight up comedy; The second half is as generic as superhero movie can be.

By http://www.impawards.com/2009/posters/last_station.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25683046

The Last Station - (2009)

I found The Last Station a moving portrait of the many real-life characters orbiting the almost messianic Leo Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer) during the last year of his life - chief among them Sophia Tolstaya (Helen Mirren), his high-strung, at times hysterical wife. She has good reason to be upset - the altruistic author is planning on signing over all of his works to the public domain as an act of generosity to all. A whole movement has sprung up around Tolstoy, and certain Tolstoyans wrestle for favour as Sophia yearns for more of his attention and generosity. Chertkov (Paul Giamatti) his best friend and right-hand man deplores Sophia, and those feelings are mutual. Valentin (James McAvoy), his new private secretary, has just met the man, finding out that the general Tolstoyan "no sex" rule isn't one Tolstoy himself is a particularly big believer of. The great author's fame makes a peaceful decline and death impossible, and the friction between all increases as wills are changed, papers signed, and attention craved, and this is where Helen Mirren's performance really digs deep, coming up as an unfairly maligned member of this entourage who's heart is breaking. She knows how to stage a great tantrum, but she's also deserving of far more than she gets - she's the man's wife, and has been for a half century. To get squeezed out as his death approaches is so painful under the circumstances. Great stuff from the veteran actress. The film is strong from start to finish, ending where Tolstory's journey ended, at Astapovo railway station - surrounded by disciples and media. As far as biographical cinema is concerned, it's pretty good.

7.5/10

The Jazz Singer (1980)

I finally got around to watching this while its been loaded in my app since renting it. The holiest of all the music related movies I've seen yet I was doubtful through the opening half but it got better. A well constructed drama about a fictional musician played by Neil Diamond, someone I haven't really heard but seen the name a thousand times, so I am unfamiliar with him. I wanted to rate this lower but didn't let my bias get in the way. The story is full and progresses nicely and the acting is superb. Out of all the movies about being a musician this one is the cleanest and least offensive. Although the laser light pentagram at the end seems strange.

7/10

Zack Snyder's Justice League, 2021 (B)


This is a very long movie with a great many things happening, but it doesn't really coalesce into something greater than its parts individually. It's all very grey and desaturated, which is a choice that gets pointlessly heavy as it goes along. This movie coloring thing is going to be an embarrassing thing to look back on in the future.


All in all, I feel like not enough was presented in other movies, and the most interesting stuff is only hinted at, mostly at the end of the climax. Steppenwolf sucked and his henchmen sucked. All grey and all dull and forgettable, and the obvious fact that Steppen isn't even a top henchman makes this giant, clunky movie feel like an intermission.

Beyond the Sea (2004)

Well done biopic on standards singer Bobby Darin, the guy who sang the classic "Mack the Knife". There's some artistic shots in there with visuals and the lake scene is like a fine painting. A list actors, nothing under quality, a few surprises. Won't disappoint, nothing lude.

7/10

It is so nice to see some love for this movie...Spacey's passion for this project is evident in every frame.

He was too old for the part. But done well nonetheless.

Death in Venice (1971)

__________________

[ J ] - [ S ] - [ F ]

The Great Ziegfeld (1936)

A biopic on famed stage musical director Florenz Ziegfeld of the 1890s through up to the Great Depression. An Oscar movie much like the one about Glenn Miller, except I like this one more. He died 4 years before this was released, so its a pretty quick turnaround. You can see how hefty MGM was. This film is big, sparing no expense and going the distance as you can see in the elaborate monolithic size of some of the stage constructions. I am not a fan of Broadway myself but the numbers are fine and classy unlike how they are done in other movies. So, you won't be annoyed if that isn't your thing either. A very honest depiction that plays all the parts well whether its comedy, drama or showbiz.

7/10

The Extra Man (2010)

It has been a long time since I have been able to sit through a movie at home. My social media induced ADHD has mostly taken over my life. But last night, I was able to concentrate on something. What was that something you ask? Kevin Kline. The great Kevin Kline, the most theatrical of all movie stars. Who can look away from a Kevin Kline performance? Not this viewer! I was riveted by this odd ball movie, The Extra Man, partly because it was an oddball movie, but in a large part to its inclusion of Kevin Kline. It is about a young man moving to NYC to begin writing and ends up living with an extra man, that is a gentleman who accompanies elderly ladies to dinner and such. The extra man is Kevin Kline and Paul Dano plays the young writer. Besides the odd script and these two wonderful actors, we also have Katie Holmes who looks quite lovely in this film. I give The Extra Man, three stars.

Believe it or not, I don't think I've seen any films dealing with the Conjuring universe until now! But having seen the previews, this sequel to a 2018 spinoff from the original The Conjuring (2013) looked rather interesting. Actually, at my local theater, there were two interesting possibilities: The Nun II or It Lives Inside. The previews of the latter were also interesting, but it felt like perhaps it was too close to the recent Talk to Me, which I had already seen and enjoyed. Also, It Lives Inside was PG-13, and I was feeling in the mood for just a bit more of the "red red kroovy", so The Nun II it was!

But first, a word or two about myself (or as Stephen King would describe it, "an annoying autobiographical pause")...

When I started seriously getting into movies as a young teenager, my first love was the horror genre. I had a lot of interesting books about horror films, including The Encyclopedia of Horror Movies (edited by Phil Hardy), Kim Newman's Nightmare Movies, John McCarty's The Modern Horror Film, and Stephen King's landmark non-fiction study Danse Macabre. But the trouble was, as fascinating and compelling as I found the genre, and as enticing as the horror section of the local Video Vision appeared, my parents were very reticent to let me see any R-rated (never mind un-rated) horror films unless they had already seen them and felt like I could handle it. So Alien (1979) and Psycho (1960) were in, but The Exorcist (1973) - which gave my stepmother nightmares - was definitely out. Beyond that, it was such PG or PG-13 fare such as Poltergeist (1982), Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983), Gremlins (1984), etc., etc. (And even then, a PG-13 rating was still no guarantee. They wouldn't let me see 1984's Ghoulies because of the satanic ritual sacrifice at the beginning!)

(Mind you, this was the '80s, you Gen-Z boys and girls - and others - out there! I'm guessing very few of you have had the pleasure of viewing a pan-and-scan VHS cassette tape of something which, 50% of the time anyway, was meant to be seen in a wider aspect ratio. But hey, that was the only option we had back then - that is, until widescreen special editions where you were initially confused about the purpose of those black bands on the top and bottom of the screen! Ahhh, nostalgia...)

Anyhoo... Where was I? Oh yes. Mind you, as unfair as all this might seem, my parents probably had good reason to doubt my fortitude with regard to horrific images. Because believe it or not, at the age of 11, I had actually been terrified by those Terror Dogs from Ghostbusters (1984) when I first saw it in its first theatrical run. It freaked me out to imagine that Sigourney Weaver's and Rick Moranis's bodies had been taken over by evil spirits formerly incarnated in the form of satanic canines! It was only much later that I actually got into a lot of those harder-edged horror films I had become curious about from looking through the horror section at the Video Vision rental store. Perhaps a bit sooner than my parents would have preferred, but... Well, let's just say thank God for sympathetic relatives, and leave it at that! Anyway, when I finally actually saw The Exorcist, I found it a very compelling and dramatic film, but not particularly disturbing. The minions of Gozer the Gozerian had already busted my "possession cherry" quite some time before! Plus I was getting into the likes of Wes Craven's A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) and a couple of its sequels, Stuart Gordon's H.P. Lovecraft adaptations Re-Animator (1985) and From Beyond (1986), Clive Barker's Hellraiser (1987) and its sequel Hellbound (1988), Dario Argento's Suspiria (1977), Sam Raimi's Evil Dead I (1981) and II (1987), David Cronenberg's The Fly (1986), Ken Russell's The Lair of the White Worm (1988), Alan Parker's Angel Heart (1987), and... Well, the end is listless, as they say.

But even then, I had become interested in many other different kinds of films. (Not romantic comedies, mind you. I found the mere idea of those to be boring.) Many of the other titles I'd gotten into included Apocalypse Now (1979), Taxi Driver (1976), A Clockwork Orange (1971) and Pink Floyd: The Wall (1982). Even in the aforementioned book The Modern Horror Film by John McCarty, a couple of the titles he included were Roman Polanski's Macbeth (1972), Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs and Ken Russell's The Devils (both 1971), and a couple other titles not necessarily considered horror according to any kind of purist definition, alongside the usual suspects such as The Exorcist, Psycho, the Hammer Dracula (1958), Alien, The Shining (1980) and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974). So I definitely made notice of these titles and at some future point I would see them. (BTW, McCarty's book covers the period from 1957 to about 1988, starting with the Hammer Dracula and Frankenstein films and ending with Ken Russell's The Lair of the White Worm. Certainly out of date, by today's standards.)

Anyway, if I had to describe the type of cinema that personally resonated with me, in a nutshell, I would have to say that I was interested in anything which dealt with the darker or more traumatic aspects of the human condition. Anything that has an unsettling, disturbing or cathartic quality, in any way, shape or form. In addition to the aforementioned titles in the last paragraph, that also includes the likes of Sidney Lumet's Equus (1977), William Friedkin's Cruising (1980), Liliana Cavani's The Night Porter (1974), Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood (2007), etc. One of the reasons why I had gravitated towards horror in the first place was precisely because it tended towards the confrontational and cathartic, the way classic fairy tales used to. But as I've indicated, it's certainly not the only genre to enter into such territory. In fact, one could almost argue that the average horror film has become tame and predictable over time, its conventions and tropes subject to blatant self-referencing and cynically ritualistic recycling. Granted, given today's current cultural climate, things which honestly seek to disturb or unsettle have become rare as hen's teeth. Disturbance is certainly not a priority for the corporate merchants who only have their eyes on the bottom line and seek desperately not to offend or even perplex. (Ask yourself why Warner Brothers hasn't yet released the uncut version of Ken Russell's The Devils in a special edition Blu-ray, or even allowed someone like Criterion, Arrow or Shout! Factory to do the job.)

Which, in a highly roundabout way, brings us (finally!) to The Nun II. I'll make this as brief as I possibly can ("Too late!" I can already hear some of you saying): In this movie, two nuns - Sister Irene from the first Nun and Sister Debra - attempt to deal with a series of apparently demonic killings in Europe in 1957. They're finally led to a boarding school in Europe, where a character from the first film is working and has gotten close to a young student named Sophie and her mother. A few more killings and jump scares later, we find out that the titular spirit taking the form of a nun is actually searching for the eyes of St. Lucy (sort of putting us in Indiana Jones territory). Amusingly enough, we also get an evil horned goat with glowing red eyes, first seen in a stained-glass window but which later emerges in the flesh to terrorize and chase the students of the school! The inevitably overblown climax takes place in the former winery (the school previously having served as a monastery), and let's just say that a miraculous piece of transubstantiation takes place to decisively (?) quench the evil spirit!

As you can gather from the somewhat irreverent tone of my condensed plot description, you can probably tell I wasn't overly impressed. Granted, I like me a good religious-themed supernatural horror film, but this one doesn't really bring anything new to the table, being rather clichéd and overbaked. Maybe I'm just a cranky old-timer who's seen it all done before and better, but I just felt The Nun II was all just a bit by the numbers. I guess I could say, on a positive note, that the jump scares were very well-handled. They seemed to be very effective for a good many of my fellow patrons in the theater, anyway! So I guess that's something...

Speaking of religious-themed horror, I find that I am simultaneously looking forward to and dreading the arrival of David Gordon Green's The Exorcist: Believer. The involvement of Ellen Burstyn, returning as Chris MacNeil, has definitely raised my hopes that the movie will be at least decent. Both the trailers I've seen make the film seem somewhat opportunistically cheesy, and give away far too many details of the plot. However, I like the way the first trailer sneaks in the Mike Oldfield Tubular Bells melody gradually and only a few notes at a time. Very clever. And in the second trailer, we definitely get the impression of playing for very high stakes. Apparently, we'll get a situation in which the lives of two possessed girls will be held in the balance. Who will live and who will die? Stay tuned! (I'm reminded of the horrific and impossible moral choice that the Father Merrin character - played by Stellan Skarsgård - was forced into during the flashback scenes of the Dominion and Beginning prequels from 2004.) But my deepest fear is that this is just going to be Star Wars: The Force Awakens all over again, recycling plot elements from the original and cynically attempting to replicate those things audiences remembered best from the original.

Hopefully, after having seen the impressive Talk To Me and the somewhat less than impressive The Nun II, I haven't already spoiled my appetite for The Exorcist: Believer. Do you think I ought to sneak in a viewing of It Lives Inside, or do you think that's enough demonic / possession horror for the time being?

SF = Z



[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