Rate The Last Movie You Saw
Reply to Topic
I just finished watching Luca (2021) on Disney+. It's a delightful animated film about the friendship between two boys who are actually sea monsters disguised as humans. The animation is gorgeous and the characters are cute. There are some great moments and some really sweet scenes. Definitely worth checking out. My rating is an .
X
Favorite Movies
Army of Shadows (1969)
Gah.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I just finished watching Fatherhood (2021) on Netflix. This drama/comedy stars Kevin Hart as a new dad whose wife suddenly passes away. I really liked this film a lot. For me, this is Kevin Hart's best performance. The little girl is super adorable. This was sweet, funny, and very heartfelt. My rating is
X
Favorite Movies
25th Hall of Fame (REWATCH)
Vertigo (1958) -
This is definitely my favorite Hitchcock film, so I'm glad to revisit it for this thread. When I first watched it, I viewed it as a tragic romance film, but only with future viewings did I really how wrong this reading was and that, in reality, Scottie was dangerous and obsessive. For instance, after Madeleine jumped into a river in an apparent suicide attempt, Scottie's way of handling the situation was by bringing her to his house, undressing her, and leaving her in his bed without telling anybody what happened (a doctor, a neighbor, or even Midge or Gavin, at the very least). If this doesn't make him creepy, I honestly don't know what would. The less time he spends with Midge and the more time he spends around Madeleine, the more clear it is that he's emotionally damaged and that the movie is about the dangers of his obsession, which extend to his fixation on Madeleine in place of Midge, his creepy behavior and demands with Judy, or the reveal that Gavin chose Scottie out of the likely hundreds of acquaintances he had since he knew that Scottie was the only person peculiar and strange enough that his elaborate scheme could possibly depend on. In spite of what we learn about the other characters in the final act, I think the full extent to Scottie's emotional damage is revealed during this part of the film (most of this is caused by Gavin and Judy though) and, as a result, we ultimately fear for Judy and are on her side.
There's also a few other things I love about this film. For one, Hitchcock utilizes technicolor better than almost every film I can think of. Through its red and green color pallet, it's able to convey such a strong emotional reaction, with red indicating danger and green indicating lust. Also, I've seen some people express boredom over Scottie tailing Madeleine by car, but I find that sequence to be an excellent slice of slow-burning tension. In fact, most of that sequence consists of Scottie driving downhill (San Francisco is a coastal city and has a number of hills), symbolizing his descent into obsession. It's a great touch to that sequence which makes it all the more atmospheric. I also loved the terrific dream sequence in the middle as, instead of feeling unnecessary, it was actually a product of Scottie's damaged emotional state. Lastly, I think the ending is perfect. Yes, it's abrupt, but intentionally so as the abruptness and confusion of it matches Scottie's headspace. The emotions it leaves me with linger long after the credits, anyways.
Overall, this is an emotionally complex masterpiece which never ceases to blow me away. Rear Window used to be my favorite Hitchcock film, but it lost its throne to this film a couple years ago.
Vertigo (1958) -
This is definitely my favorite Hitchcock film, so I'm glad to revisit it for this thread. When I first watched it, I viewed it as a tragic romance film, but only with future viewings did I really how wrong this reading was and that, in reality, Scottie was dangerous and obsessive. For instance, after Madeleine jumped into a river in an apparent suicide attempt, Scottie's way of handling the situation was by bringing her to his house, undressing her, and leaving her in his bed without telling anybody what happened (a doctor, a neighbor, or even Midge or Gavin, at the very least). If this doesn't make him creepy, I honestly don't know what would. The less time he spends with Midge and the more time he spends around Madeleine, the more clear it is that he's emotionally damaged and that the movie is about the dangers of his obsession, which extend to his fixation on Madeleine in place of Midge, his creepy behavior and demands with Judy, or the reveal that Gavin chose Scottie out of the likely hundreds of acquaintances he had since he knew that Scottie was the only person peculiar and strange enough that his elaborate scheme could possibly depend on. In spite of what we learn about the other characters in the final act, I think the full extent to Scottie's emotional damage is revealed during this part of the film (most of this is caused by Gavin and Judy though) and, as a result, we ultimately fear for Judy and are on her side.
There's also a few other things I love about this film. For one, Hitchcock utilizes technicolor better than almost every film I can think of. Through its red and green color pallet, it's able to convey such a strong emotional reaction, with red indicating danger and green indicating lust. Also, I've seen some people express boredom over Scottie tailing Madeleine by car, but I find that sequence to be an excellent slice of slow-burning tension. In fact, most of that sequence consists of Scottie driving downhill (San Francisco is a coastal city and has a number of hills), symbolizing his descent into obsession. It's a great touch to that sequence which makes it all the more atmospheric. I also loved the terrific dream sequence in the middle as, instead of feeling unnecessary, it was actually a product of Scottie's damaged emotional state. Lastly, I think the ending is perfect. Yes, it's abrupt, but intentionally so as the abruptness and confusion of it matches Scottie's headspace. The emotions it leaves me with linger long after the credits, anyways.
Overall, this is an emotionally complex masterpiece which never ceases to blow me away. Rear Window used to be my favorite Hitchcock film, but it lost its throne to this film a couple years ago.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Kill Your Darlings, 2013
A young Allen Ginsberg (Daniel Radcliffe) leaves a challenging home life situation--his mother (Jennifer Jason Leigh) is mentally ill--and goes to study literature at Columbia University. Once there, he quickly falls in with Lucien Carr (Dane DeHaan) Jack Kerouac (Jack Huston), and William Burroughs (Ben Foster), and as a group they rebel against the traditions of both the university and the field of literature in general. But Carr's unhealthy relationship with his lover, David (Michael C Hall), leads to tragic results for all of the men.
I always have a mixed reaction to real-story or biographical films because every time something amazing happens I have to wonder if it was a thing that really happened, or something that the writer made up or "adjusted" to make more movie-friendly.
For the most part, I liked this film. While there were several places where reality was, um, adjusted for greater narrative impact, the film wisely centers itself on Ginsberg's reaction to everything that happens. More specifically, Ginsberg experiences the double-edged sword of positioning oneself as a counter to the mainstream. As a Jewish man and someone who is also gay, Ginsberg is already at odds with much mainstream culture (both generally and in academics). This feeling of not belonging makes a satisfying through-thread, and it makes certain events late in the film land with much more power.
If anything, the film takes on a lot of issues, bordering on too many. There is the question of Ginsberg's religion and sexuality, of course. But there are also issues of social status. For all of their counter-culture posturing, all of the men are going to a prestigious school instead of fighting in the war. In one moment, Carr unabashedly positions himself as being better than his "janitor" lover. The film seems to be content with observing that this is all really complicated, and I respected it for that. It doesn't try to tie up anyone's story in a neat bow, but instead lets everything be messy.
A movie like this lives or dies by its performances. I thought that Radcliffe was really strong in the lead role, bringing just the right mix of intelligence, vulnerability, and discontent to his portrayal of Ginsberg. I don't "know" Ginsberg well enough to judge the accuracy of the performance, but the character feels complete and not just like a superficial impersonation.
DeHaan, Hall, and Huston are also good. Elizabeth Olson is very good as Kerouac's put-upon lover, Edie Parker. I thought that Foster's performance as Burroughs was really good--it is very subdued but powerful and a really interesting portrayal of a specific kind of charisma. Now, this isn't his fault, but I cannot divorce David Cross from Tobias Funke. Cross plays Ginsberg's father, and I was mostly distracted when he was on screen because I so associate him with comedy.
I would generally recommend this film, if only on the strength of the performances. I will say that it did get me to read more about the situation with Carr, something I had known a little about previously. People with a stronger knowledge of these real people and the story might be a bit more critical of the portrayal of the story and the characters, but as I said before, I felt that the themes that were developed meant that the movie didn't just rest on the scandal of the story.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Rush, 2013
This film follows the rivalry between Formula One racers James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl). The film opposes Hunt's brash style with Lauda's more calculating approach. After tragedy strikes during a race, the rivalry takes on a deeper intensity and forces both men to reevaluate their desire to win and what they are willing to do.
I am not really big on cars and/or car chases. There are exceptions, of course, but generally they really fail to light my fire. I will say, however, that watching the documentary Senna gave me appreciation for racing, and specifically Formula 1.
I liked this film. Hemsworth and Bruhl (but especially Bruhl) really sink into their characters, and the film strikes a pretty good balance between narrating the historical events and giving moments for character beats and emotional arcs. I felt that the movie captured both the excitement and rush of racing, and at the same time captured the dangers inherent in the sport. And while it isn't the main focus of the film, there is also a point made about the way that sports as commerce can lead to athletes taking risks (or being borderline forced into taking risks) beyond what is acceptable.
The only downsides to me were some dodgy moments with Hemsworth's accent and a handful of choices that were kind of odd to me (like some uses of slow motion during the racing sequences that seemed strangely timed).
I know literally nothing about James Hunt and Niki Lauda, but I found Lauda's narration to be really compelling. I liked the thematic arc about the unique relationship that is a rivalry and how it can drive competitors. I really appreciated the way that the film made the distinction between rivalries and enemies.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
By IMDB - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8247470/, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=58581546
Rosie - (2018)
I've seen a few movies in the last few years that are grounded in the 'real world' - the world Charlie Kaufman was pondering while adapting The Orchid Thief in Adaptation - where "nothing much happens". I've watched I, Daniel Blake, where the titular character drowns in a sea of bureaucracy. Custody, where an obsessive ex-husband stalks his ex, and uses his child - and The Death of Mr. Lazarescu where that poor guy is shunted from hospital to hospital as he dies in agony. They were all grounded to the extent where nothing out of the ordinary happens - but they were also compelling viewing and some of the finest films produced.
Irish film Rosie is definitely in that category. Rosie's landlord is selling the house she rents, along with 4 kids and a partner. They don't have much money, and indeed need government support just to get by. As she drives around ringing place after place for somewhere to stay, at least for one or two nights, she gets more and more desperate. Her kids are bored, and resent having to stay in close quarters all day. As her nerves fray she refuses to admit to herself that they may have to sleep in the car - all six of them. It's a combustible situation. A very sad situation. Disaster lurks in the background...
As A Short Film About Killing put the death penalty under the spotlight in Poland, and Daniel Blake did the same for welfare in the U.K. Rosie has reverberations that go beyond Ireland. Housing crisis after housing crisis seems to be erupting all over the world as poverty rates are high and populations grow too fast for nations to keep up. Where I am they sell shipping containers as makeshift 'houses' - but the plight of larger families is dire. Rosie is compelling enough to make it heard - if only to a small audience.
7/10
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
While not really a "review", I did recently write a new entry for my old, on-hiatus project on the New Hollywood movement on The Wild Bunch (since it's certainly a better choice from '69 than Easy Rider was), so I'm re-posting here in case anyone's interested:
Personal Thoughts:
Personal Thoughts:
WARNING: spoilers below
The Wild Bunch is a bit of a weird one for me, since, while I had watched it twice before this project, it still never really left much of an overall impression on me anyway (except for the final shootout, of course), and an attempted rewatch back in 2017 had to be aborted fairly early due to the film again not really grabbing me, for whatever inexplicable reason. However, my most recent rewatch finally enlightened me to the film's overall quality, particularly in the way it created a bittersweet eulogy for the death of the old West and the men unable to find their way into the modern world that replaced it, helping to kill off Hollywood's inaccurate vision of that landscape in the process, and making us sympathize with those men and their sense of "thieves' honor", even though they're still objectively a bunch of scumbags (Sons Of Anarchy could've learned a few lessons from this one, come to think of it). Anyway, while my favorite Peckinpah is still Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia, but this is pretty close behind it now regardless, and stands tall as one of "Bloody Sam's" stronger efforts nonetheless.
Significance To The Movement:
By building on Peckinpah's previous works (and setting a template for his subsequent career in turn) in taking the Western, a traditionally popular, fairly audience-friendly genre in Hollywood, and helping to radically reinvent it, reversing the traditional dynamic that characterized the genre, with the band of cutthroat outlaws now the protagonists, and without watering down their bloodthirstiness to make them any more palatable to us in the process (such as them showing zero hesitation from using civilians as human shields during the opening robbery). This helped to further popularize the "Revisionist" Western (which is a bit of a misleading term anyway, since the traditional vision of the West that Hollywood presented was already a revision from reality), but besides that, the film is also influential for its cutting edge editing techniques, as it "rubber-bands" back-and-forth in rapid succession between regular and slow-motion shots, giving us a sense of the sort of time dilation that happens to people's perceptions when in life-or-death situations.
This can obviously be seen in the film's legendary final shootout, another example of it subverting traditional genre expectations, since the portrayal of most shootouts in Westerns up to this point tended to be pretty basic and perfunctory by comparison, whereas Peckinpah put a ton of time and effort into making a unique, overwhelming impact with his film's portrayal of such outbursts of violence. By doing this, The Wild Bunch also had a huge impact on the cinematic language of the Action film, a young, burgeoning style that had been coalescing into its own genre throughout the 60's, a genre that TWB ended up having a huge influence on, whether it be the machine-gun driven carnage of Rambo, the bloodily beautiful slow-motion of John Woo's Hong Kong work, or even the visceral cinematography of the Bourne films, which can be felt in a couple of unexpected handheld cam shots sprinkled throughout Bunch. In this way, in addition to helping to dramatically revise the image of a much older, more established genre, it also unexpectedly served as the "Rosetta's Stone" for a brand new one that was just coming into its own, and if that doesn't make The Wild Bunch influential, then I don't know what the hell does.
Significance To The Movement:
By building on Peckinpah's previous works (and setting a template for his subsequent career in turn) in taking the Western, a traditionally popular, fairly audience-friendly genre in Hollywood, and helping to radically reinvent it, reversing the traditional dynamic that characterized the genre, with the band of cutthroat outlaws now the protagonists, and without watering down their bloodthirstiness to make them any more palatable to us in the process (such as them showing zero hesitation from using civilians as human shields during the opening robbery). This helped to further popularize the "Revisionist" Western (which is a bit of a misleading term anyway, since the traditional vision of the West that Hollywood presented was already a revision from reality), but besides that, the film is also influential for its cutting edge editing techniques, as it "rubber-bands" back-and-forth in rapid succession between regular and slow-motion shots, giving us a sense of the sort of time dilation that happens to people's perceptions when in life-or-death situations.
This can obviously be seen in the film's legendary final shootout, another example of it subverting traditional genre expectations, since the portrayal of most shootouts in Westerns up to this point tended to be pretty basic and perfunctory by comparison, whereas Peckinpah put a ton of time and effort into making a unique, overwhelming impact with his film's portrayal of such outbursts of violence. By doing this, The Wild Bunch also had a huge impact on the cinematic language of the Action film, a young, burgeoning style that had been coalescing into its own genre throughout the 60's, a genre that TWB ended up having a huge influence on, whether it be the machine-gun driven carnage of Rambo, the bloodily beautiful slow-motion of John Woo's Hong Kong work, or even the visceral cinematography of the Bourne films, which can be felt in a couple of unexpected handheld cam shots sprinkled throughout Bunch. In this way, in addition to helping to dramatically revise the image of a much older, more established genre, it also unexpectedly served as the "Rosetta's Stone" for a brand new one that was just coming into its own, and if that doesn't make The Wild Bunch influential, then I don't know what the hell does.
X
Favorite Movies
rewatched
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Loved Lucy, but was widely panned. Thought it told a great story.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
well did u know they gonna make LUCY 2? i hope it be good as the first
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Really? Don't know how they could get more out of the story. Unless they went the super hero route, in which I hope not.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
While not really a "review", I did recently write a new entry for my old, on-hiatus project on the New Hollywood movement on The Wild Bunch (since it's certainly a better choice from '69 than Easy Rider was), so I'm re-posting here in case anyone's interested:
Personal Thoughts:
Personal Thoughts:
WARNING: spoilers below
The Wild Bunch is a bit of a weird one for me, since, while I had watched it twice before this project, it still never really left much of an overall impression on me anyway (except for the final shootout, of course), and an attempted rewatch back in 2017 had to be aborted fairly early due to the film again not really grabbing me, for whatever inexplicable reason. However, my most recent rewatch finally enlightened me to the film's overall quality, particularly in the way it created a bittersweet eulogy for the death of the old West and the men unable to find their way into the modern world that replaced it, helping to kill off Hollywood's inaccurate vision of that landscape in the process, and making us sympathize with those men and their sense of "thieves' honor", even though they're still objectively a bunch of scumbags (Sons Of Anarchy could've learned a few lessons from this one, come to think of it). Anyway, while my favorite Peckinpah is still Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia, but this is pretty close behind it now regardless, and stands tall as one of "Bloody Sam's" stronger efforts nonetheless.
Significance To The Movement:
By building on Peckinpah's previous works (and setting a template for his subsequent career in turn) in taking the Western, a traditionally popular, fairly audience-friendly genre in Hollywood, and helping to radically reinvent it, reversing the traditional dynamic that characterized the genre, with the band of cutthroat outlaws now the protagonists, and without watering down their bloodthirstiness to make them any more palatable to us in the process (such as them showing zero hesitation from using civilians as human shields during the opening robbery). This helped to further popularize the "Revisionist" Western (which is a bit of a misleading term anyway, since the traditional vision of the West that Hollywood presented was already a revision from reality), but besides that, the film is also influential for its cutting edge editing techniques, as it "rubber-bands" back-and-forth in rapid succession between regular and slow-motion shots, giving us a sense of the sort of time dilation that happens to people's perceptions when in life-or-death situations.
This can obviously be seen in the film's legendary final shootout, another example of it subverting traditional genre expectations, since the portrayal of most shootouts in Westerns up to this point tended to be pretty basic and perfunctory by comparison, whereas Peckinpah put a ton of time and effort into making a unique, overwhelming impact with his film's portrayal of such outbursts of violence. By doing this, The Wild Bunch also had a huge impact on the cinematic language of the Action film, a young, burgeoning style that had been coalescing into its own genre throughout the 60's, a genre that TWB ended up having a huge influence on, whether it be the machine-gun driven carnage of Rambo, the bloodily beautiful slow-motion of John Woo's Hong Kong work, or even the visceral cinematography of the Bourne films, which can be felt in a couple of unexpected handheld cam shots sprinkled throughout Bunch. In this way, in addition to helping to dramatically revise the image of a much older, more established genre, it also unexpectedly served as the "Rosetta's Stone" for a brand new one that was just coming into its own, and if that doesn't make The Wild Bunch influential, then I don't know what the hell does.
Significance To The Movement:
By building on Peckinpah's previous works (and setting a template for his subsequent career in turn) in taking the Western, a traditionally popular, fairly audience-friendly genre in Hollywood, and helping to radically reinvent it, reversing the traditional dynamic that characterized the genre, with the band of cutthroat outlaws now the protagonists, and without watering down their bloodthirstiness to make them any more palatable to us in the process (such as them showing zero hesitation from using civilians as human shields during the opening robbery). This helped to further popularize the "Revisionist" Western (which is a bit of a misleading term anyway, since the traditional vision of the West that Hollywood presented was already a revision from reality), but besides that, the film is also influential for its cutting edge editing techniques, as it "rubber-bands" back-and-forth in rapid succession between regular and slow-motion shots, giving us a sense of the sort of time dilation that happens to people's perceptions when in life-or-death situations.
This can obviously be seen in the film's legendary final shootout, another example of it subverting traditional genre expectations, since the portrayal of most shootouts in Westerns up to this point tended to be pretty basic and perfunctory by comparison, whereas Peckinpah put a ton of time and effort into making a unique, overwhelming impact with his film's portrayal of such outbursts of violence. By doing this, The Wild Bunch also had a huge impact on the cinematic language of the Action film, a young, burgeoning style that had been coalescing into its own genre throughout the 60's, a genre that TWB ended up having a huge influence on, whether it be the machine-gun driven carnage of Rambo, the bloodily beautiful slow-motion of John Woo's Hong Kong work, or even the visceral cinematography of the Bourne films, which can be felt in a couple of unexpected handheld cam shots sprinkled throughout Bunch. In this way, in addition to helping to dramatically revise the image of a much older, more established genre, it also unexpectedly served as the "Rosetta's Stone" for a brand new one that was just coming into its own, and if that doesn't make The Wild Bunch influential, then I don't know what the hell does.
https://www.imdb.com/review/rw5879977/?ref_=ur_urv
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I'm strongly considering that one just to round that up. We'll see.
I can't say anything about the similarities between the two as I haven't played The Last of Us. But the original short story was published in a collection released September 4th, 2012 (according to Goodreads) meaning it was written at least (and most likely, over) a year before the game was released. It was nominated for an award in 2013 (not published as implied earlier in this thread).
In any case, the film is only OK-ish, and I much preferred the book. The film makes changes to the characters and their motivations that contradict the book (too long time gone to be more specific, but I'm sure I've written about this stuff earlier).
In any case, the film is only OK-ish, and I much preferred the book. The film makes changes to the characters and their motivations that contradict the book (too long time gone to be more specific, but I'm sure I've written about this stuff earlier).
While not really a "review", I did recently write a new entry for my old, on-hiatus project on the New Hollywood movement on The Wild Bunch (since it's certainly a better choice from '69 than Easy Rider was), so I'm re-posting here in case anyone's interested:
Also, what do you mean when you say "it's certainly a better choice from '69 than Easy Rider was"?
|
|