Rate The Last Movie You Saw

I too enjoyed the film very much, although you appreciated it a little more than I. Here's my commentary on it:


Phantom Thread(2017)

It stands to reason that serious movies deserve seriously considered commentary. Films which have drawn together first rate writers, director, cast and craft people are at a higher level in terms of expectations, and set a higher standard for reflection.

Paul Thomas Anderson's Phantom Thread has been placed in that elite group of films which come out every so often that have garnered the type of attention and anticipation reserved for serious cinematic artists. In fact the film was already considered to be of the highest caliber before most people even saw it. And in most aspects the picture did not disappoint.

The film is beautiful to watch. The camera work, art and set design by Denis Schnegg and Veronique Melery, and costume design by Mark Bridges, along with attention to detail, expertly place the viewer into mid-1950s London where the story takes place. The music score by Johnny Greenwood uses an entire palette of musical styles from several periods (Romantic, Impressionism, Modern, avant-garde) to enhance the story. Reportedly Anderson had no cinematographer, but relied heavily for the photography on the camera people.

We are immediately drawn into the high end personal dressmaking trade of the 1950s, and to one of it's most painstaking and eccentric high priests of the trade, Reynolds Woodcock, whose designs grace the figures of wealthy, famous, and royal ladies of London. He lives and breathes dressmaking, which allows him no personal life apart from interaction with his sister, who serves as his manager, confidant, and sounding board. His dress making process is like battlefield preparation, assembling his soldiers for their tasks, and having the maneuvers carried out with military precision. But soon Woodcock happens upon a waitress by whom he is enchanted, and the rest of the story mostly concerns their relationship.

The film was anticipated to be masterful, the presumption magnified by Daniel Day-Lewis' announcement that he was retiring from film making due to the rigors of performance in this project. His acting was predictably exceptional and many-faceted. Lesley Manville, as Woodcock's sister, turned in an icy cold and first class performance, putting many in mind of Judith Anderson's Mrs. Danvers in Hitchcock's Rebecca. Vicky Krieps was good as Woodcock's mistress, although she seemed slightly miscast, lacking of a full range. The rest of the cast was as natural and believable as if it were a documentary. And in fact many of those playing Woodcock's staff were not actors, but professional seamstresses.

There was no plot to the film, but instead more of a linear story. The relationship between Woodcock and his mistress, who he eventually marries, goes through many changes, as does the juxtaposition of his sister and wife. But midway through the final act Woodcock suddenly has a major personality change. Within five minutes the movie shifts from an intriguing drama to an art house film. The result is mystifying and not quite believable.


WARNING: "Phantom Thread" spoilers below
To suddenly believe that Woodcock would knowingly and purposefully consume poisonous mushrooms to make himself ill in order to enter into a pact with his wife, who will then both control and take care of him, is perplexing and uncharacteristic. Putting his life in jeopardy to continuously be his wife's ward strains credulity. The scene offered the opportunity for a fine bit of acting from &nbspay-Lewis; and in fact reportedly the idea for this came from a time when Anderson himself was sick, and his wife showed him extreme tenderness. But yet the notion that the protagonist as a self-centered monomaniacal artist who insists on obedience and complete control of all his endeavors would suddenly cede his life and well being to another is irretrievably far-fetched. Presumably Anderson must have been consumed by the story point, but since it was not lead up to with sufficient preparation, it didn't make sense.

The title Phantom Thread was itself a phantom, since the word "phantom" has no bearing on the story, except to perhaps give the project more mystique. One could imagine that simply "Thread", or "Woodcock's Thread" might have better fit the bill.

Will we see another project for Daniel Day-Lewis, despite his announced retirement from films? It has been several years since his last outing, so perhaps in time he'll change is mind. We hope so.

Doc's rating: 7/10

I must be the only person who wasn't a big fan of T-Men. Don't get me wrong, I liked it. But it just never totally clicked with me.

Phantom Thread rocks

I sure have, and you make a good point. This is the best of the procedurals IMO.

I like to mention He Walked By Night and Raw Deal, both from 1948, as other great collaborations between Mann and Alton.

Nice write-up. Thanks for sharing it.

If I might reply to some of your points...

I didn't see it as "perplexing and uncharacteristic", but the other way around. It is established from the get-go that Woodcock has issues regarding the loss/death of his mother. That's pretty much the backbone of the film, to the point that he asks Alma on their first date about her mother, tells her about the lock of hair he keeps sewn in his jacket, as well as the story about how he made the dress for her second wedding.

His hallucination while ill is the most evident demonstration of what he's lacking and what he craves, and the relationship he has with his sister, as well as the seemingly endless parade of lovers and mistresses before Alma are his attempts to regain some surrogate maternal care. However, it is Alma the only one that provides that, in a way that makes him feel "complete".

Him consuming Alma's food is the ultimate pact (I like that you used that word) in this toxic relationship where he agrees to suffer physical illness, as long as he can have that maternal care he longs for, even if it is by proxy.

A "thread" is something that ties together pieces of cloth, obviously a reference to the craft of dressmaking. But metaphorically, it is a symbol of what ties both Woodcock and Alma (and to a certain extent, Cyril) together. Something that is not necessarily evident to everybody ("phantom") considering how much they clash, as well as all their other differences (age, class, etc.) But regardless of all of that, that "phantom thread" is there.

__________________

Strike, 1925

In a factory town in pre-Revolutionary Russia, workers in a factory decide to strike for better working conditions. When the owners of the factory refuse to agree to their terms, the strikers hold firm and the weight of the law is brought down on them.

This is a film by Sergei Eisenstein, who would later go on to make Batttleship Potempkin, and it strongly utilizes the montage-style of film-making in which images are overlapped or interposed with one another to create meaning.

Generally speaking, I liked this film. I was really blown away by the efficacy of some of the images: then workers as gears (seen at the top of this review), a shot of a woman laughing drunkenly as she is consumed by a housefire, or a group of men sitting on a large ship's anchor as they plot the strike. There are even a few moments of dark humor, such as when a man buttons up his shirt, seemingly unaware that the shirt has been shredded around his body except for the narrow strips containing the buttons and button-holes.

Despite the fact that the workers outnumber the owners (and the police!) by a tremendous amount, the film really shows the way that money and power create an imbalance that cannot be simply overcome with superior numbers. The image of the workers being assaulted with powerful fire-hoses is intense. The film evokes a lot of anger as it portrays the smarmy response of the factory owners, men who would never understand what it means to not have enough.

There were two aspects of this film that I found a bit challenging. Like many films from the silent era, the shots tend to be very short. Combining this with how often Eisenstein cuts between different subjects (a child, a duckling, a child, a duckling!) I was sometimes in information overload from the sheer volume of abrupt cuts.

The second challenge for me was the animal content. I am glad that halfway through I checked out the Wiki page for the film to make sure I was understanding the plot correctly, because it alerted me to two disturbing elements of animal violence. I'd already had some mixed feelings about animal content in the film (captive muzzled bear cubs being forced to perform, the rough handling of a goat). But there are also cats that are hung and the slaughter of a cow. A kitten is seemingly (actually?!) dropped from a balcony. I actually did not watch either of these parts. I understand that the animals in their various situations were being used as allegory for the treatment of the workers, but animal cruelty (simulated or especially unsimulated) is never something I want in a film and always dings it a point for me. It's a shame, because it meant that I could only half watch the climax of the film.

A really interesting film, with a few elements that were hard for me personally as a viewer.

Sergeant Rutledge follows the titular man (Woody Strode), a black sergeant in a regiment of the U.S. Cavalry who is being court-martialed for the rape and murder of a white girl. He is represented by Lt. Tom Cantrell (Jeffrey Hunter), who is also Rutledge's troop officer.

The film starts as the court martial begins and then goes through a series of flashbacks from witnesses and Rutledge himself to explain what happened. These witnesses accounts serve to expose the racism and prejudice that Rutledge was, and still is subject to, as we understand how hard he is trying to stay alive.

The Wild West that is shown here, in 1881, is a West that is still getting use to changes; whether it is the struggles of expansion or the "integration" of black people into society and regular life. There are countless times when characters, with malice or not, refer to Rutledge as "colored", or cower from him as he approaches. Is it because they think he's a murderer/rapist, or because he's black?

Grade:


Full review on my Movie Loot

I’m physically incapable of not being enamored by John Alton cinematography. That was the star of the film and what elevates the ordeal from the countless other procedurals with comparable narratives.

Naked City is the top though.

I think one also has to look at the film in the historical context in which it was made. While Ford was progressive throughout much of his life, during this era he slid more towards the right, eventually supporting Nixon.

Despite this, he was clearly struggling with his views on America and the Old West and this film is essentially him reckoning with his own depiction of a West that was far more tolerant and unifying than reality (well, at least towards non-Comanche and Apache).

To make such a deeply empathetic film that allows his constant supporting character actor the spotlight in a titular role, while his quintessential star John Wayne was spouting pro-segregation nonsense, is something that can’t be ignored or erased from the film.

Adding that it’s among the finest court room dramas ever made from a director who had already done one of the best (Young Mr. Lincoln) and I think it’s a film that deserves a lot more appreciation and attention than it ever seems to have gotten.

I definitely agree about its place in time and the context it was made in. But part of me wishes that Ford could've stayed with Rutledge and not put Cantrell, or the half-baked romance with Beecher, up front so much; especially in the last 5-10 minutes.

One & One is Twelve is a 14 minute short from aspiring filmmaker Ryan Ferlic. It follows a young couple of bank robbers (Matt Rozsak and Hannah Sprigg) that are laying low in a motel. In the meantime, they reminisce about a weird conversation the guy had with a shoeshine earlier that day.

I've seen my share of amateur and independent short films, but few of them are as inept as this one. Ferlic seems to take doses of True Romance and Pulp Fiction, with sprinkles of the Coen Brothers, put them all in a blender, and film what comes out of it, however it comes out.

Grade:


Full review on my Movie Loot

I already posted some thoughts in response to Thief's Phantom Thread review over in his thread, but just to reiterate, I agree with you that it wasn't as good as it could've been... although not necessarily for the same reasons, since I found the resolution to Reynold/Alma's relationship to be plausible enough (and fairly unexpected/intriguing to boot). The real problem I had with it is that Reynold's mother/control issues felt underdeveloped to me, having been set up fairly early in the film, but then mostly forgotten about afterward, except for the moment when

So, it was still a good movie despite that, but it should've been at least a little bit better, IMO.

I think those things relate strongly to the historical context in which it was made. Ford, as one of America’s greatest myth makers, seemed to be especially concerned with how myths were created, as overtly explored in Fort Apache and the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Like those films, the main character is canonized by others, therefore he shifts emphasis to them.

In this film, it’s important to Ford how Rutledge is seen by others (and the audience by proxy). He’s trying to create a new myth that encompasses the ugly, racist past he ignores but optimistically believes it can be transcended.

The result could be that Rutledge loses agency with the construction of his own narrative, which could be problematic racially, but in the context of Ford’s work, he’s no less developed or focused upon than many of the character’s Wayne played, who was often refused the romance or happy ending in favor of more wholesome supporting characters.

With all of that in mind, it’s Ford’s love letter to Strode as a performer and his apology for his previous ignorance.

I wish it had been a rousing success and allowed many black led westerns that weren’t stuck in the confines of the subsequent blaxploitation era (of which I’m a fan, but it does add a few asterisks at times).

By The poster art can or could be obtained from Gaumont Distribution., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=23561565

A Man Escaped - (1956)

A Man Escaped is a film that focuses entirely on one thing so that it absorbs you to the point that you're holding your breath the entire time the titular escape is being carried out. Fontaine (François Leterrier) has already tried to escape once on his way to a prison in Lyon where the occupying Germans are keeping members of the French Resistance. His shirt is bloodied, and he'll remain in it for the entire film - in fact, nothing much changes at all, and since the camera stays with Fontaine mercilessly I started to feel the horror he'd be feeling. It's terrible - there's no time outside for anything, nothing in his cell but a thin mattress and nothing to do but plot escape. This takes time. He daringly starts to dismantle the door with spoons fashioned into chisels, replacing the wooden slats carefully. Once out of his room at night, he plans the rest of the escape - which must be hurried up, as he's sentenced to death and gets a room-mate (can he trust him?) in short order. As I said, the escape itself is real 'hold your breath' kind of stuff. Very interesting film for having such a tight, claustrophobic focus - more so than any other prison or escape film I've seen. Made me feel like I was there.

8/10

Foreign Language Countdown films seen : 62/100

__________________

I don't think I've seen many early Soviet films, but I'm very curious. I've read that due to how expensive and hard-to-find film was in the early Soviet Union, they used to use every little bit and scrap they had - even if they only could get mere seconds out of it, so the whole early Soviet montage style was partially created out of necessity. Many filmmakers had to make do with small scraps of film (and sometimes stock footage) to create their own sense of storytelling through this medium. It kind of woke the rest of the world up though, as to what could be accomplished with the sheer suggestiveness of images when one followed the other, I think. Many early Soviet films consist of many many short shots. It's the whole "necessity is the mother of invention" thing. Great invention though.

Chicago follows Roxie Hart (Renée Zellweger), a housewife and aspiring entertainer that finds herself in jail for murder. While there, she hires Billy Flynn (Richard Gere), a brilliant but self-absorbed attorney that also happens to be representing Roxie's idol, Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones). This puts both Roxie and Velma in a tug-o-war to hog the spotlight of their trials.

One could say that Chicago works on two planes: first, the straightforward plot about Roxie's trial and her attempts to gain fame at all costs through it; and second, the musical numbers, which are usually shot on stage, independently of the first plane, and then weaved into the film through editing.

Putting that aside, most of the songs are quite catchy and lively. I think "Mister Cellophane" and "We Both Reached for the Gun" were the most memorable for me, both in terms of music, performance, and what they mean regarding the story.

Grade:


Full review on my Movie Loot

I definitely appreciated the style, especially in certain moments (like the one in the photo I posted). But while I won't go as far to say "headache" or "nausea", the brevity of the shots and the constant abrupt cuts had, like, a negative physical response for me. And this was for a full 90 minutes. The film itself is divided into six "chapters" and I think I would have handled it better watching one chapter a day for a week instead of watching the film in one go.

I would definitely recommend the film, despite my strong reservations about the treatment of animals in it.

As you all know, Scrooge McDuck (Alan Young) is a selfish miser that doesn't even celebrate Christmas and punishes his loyal employee, Mickey Mouse (Wayne Allwine) with endless work. That is until he is visited by three spirits that show him why he is the way he is, how his actions are affecting those around him, and where his actions will lead to eventually.

There's really not much to say. The story is widely known, but the animation and voice work is really nice. I will say that there seems to be genuine thought and care put into the "casting" of characters against Dickens' story, and those choices work.

Grade:


Full review on my Movie Loot

The Mad Women's Ball (2021)

Behind Enemy Lines (2001)
Directed by John Moore

Saw this once before years ago on TV when that used to be a thing and really liked it. Figured it was time for a re-watch and pleased I did. An easy to watch, loosely based on fact action drama about a downed US Navy airman Lieutenant Chris Burnett (Owen Wilson) who finds himself - unsurprisingly - behind enemy lines in Bosnia. While rescue efforts led by his commander (Gene Hackman) are hampered by indecision and political motives, Burnett uncovers evidence of genocide and battles to evade capture. Among his pursuers is a relentless stereotypical arch villain, made properly amusing by way of his adidas tracksuit. Plenty of action and incidents make it an exciting ride from start to finish. There's loads of movie gimmickry going on as well and that's just fine (in this case ).

I think the main reason I enjoy this film so much is Owen Wilson - such a likable guy. This was also the feature film debut for director John Moore, who I know nothing about, but I guess that's pretty impressive.

7/10