Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    







The 13th Warrior
(1999)
3.5/5

@Citizen Rules , you may like this film.
We were just discussing this one over in the Movie Questions forum. Solid film and a neat take on the Beowulf story.



We were just discussing this one over in the Movie Questions forum. Solid film and a neat take on the Beowulf story.
I was discussing it with my young movie friend who works at my local Chili's restaurant... She, her boyfriend and his cousin watched The Descent and she was scared over it. Yes, she's not that fond of horror films. I told her this has caves but isn't so dark.



Just getting into the spirit of things
Kingsman: The Golden Circle (Matthew Vaughn, 2017)

That opening scene flatters the rest imo
__________________
20162017201820192020
Noms
Pre-1930 Countdown


Almost famous for having nailed Madonna once



The Mountain Between Us (2017)

Found this a pretty turgid watch. It wasn't written at all well and I found the love *connection* side of it frankly predictable and cliched. The performances got it out of a 1 for me.




One of those movies where you're rooting for a trained killer. It was so modern and Matt Damon *is* Bourne...a great film.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.


Beckman (Gabriel Sabloff, 2020)
5/10
Ashfall (Kim Byung-seo & Lee Hae-jun, 2019)
6/10
A Life at Stake (Paul Guilfoyle, 1955)
5/10
Enola Holmes (Harry Bradbeer, 2020)
- 6.5/10

Is Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) a better detective than her brother Sherlock (Henry Cavill)?
The Legend of Halloween Jack (Andrew Jones, 2018)
- 5/10
Bird Island (Maya Kosa & Sergio Da Costa, 2019)
6/10
Robin's Wish (Tylor Norwood, 2020)
6.5/10
A Dark Path (Nicholas Winter, 2020)
- 5/10

Sisters Makenna Guyler & Mari Beaseley get trapped in a European forest with a noisy monster.
Coastal Elites (Jay Roach, 2020)
6.5/10
Unidentified Flying Objects AKA UFO (Winston Jones, 1956)
5/10
Tommaso (Abel Ferrara, 2019)
6/10
J.C. (William F. McGaha, 1972)
5/10

J.C. (William F. McGaha) rebels against his Baptist upbringing and comes back to his racist Alabama hometown with his disciples.
Gun Law (David Howard, 1938)
5/10
No Escape AKA Follow Me (Will Wernick, 2020)
6/10
C.C. & Company (Seymour Robbie, 1970)
5/10
Alone (John Hyams, 2020)
- 6.5/10

Widow Jules Willcox is traveling to start a new life when she comes across a psycho stalker (Marc Menchaca). Better than most such movies.
Leather Burners (Joseph E. Henabery, 1943)
+ 5/10
I Met a Girl (Luke Eve, 2020)
6/10
Secret Society of Second Born Royals (Anna Mastro, 2020)
5/10
Antebellum (Gerard Bush & Christopher Renz, 2020)
5.5/10

Is Janelle Monáe a Civil War slave or a modern-day journalist/civil rights advocate or is she both?
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



PHENOMENA 1985 Dario Argento


Not an Argento expert but it seemed he tried to please three different types of horror fans here. First act has a mystery, European art house vibe, second act; fairytale, supernatural, occult and the third act; full gore cult slasher. Making it a bit incohesive overall. I give it one popcorn bucket for the cinematography, atmosphere and style. One for the performances by Donald Pleasence, Jennifer Connelly and the Monkey, and one for the soundtrack and wardrobe, soundtrack by Claudio Simonetti, Iron Maiden, wardrobe by Giorgio Armani.









The Babysitter is, in my opinion of course, one of the best things Netflix has produced to date. It is dark comedy done right, cheeky and irreverent and proud of it. I cannot compliment that film enough. This sequel is not that at all. Killer Queen is predictable and boring. Sequel cliche's galore with returning cast, repeated scenes, and endless calls-back to the original. I almost had to add this to the "Movies you couldn't finish" thread, but managed to power through. I gave this one star for some decent performances by Judah Lewis, Jenna Ortega, and Robbie Amell (I really just love watching Max catch hell). Would not recommend.
Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	The Babysitter; Killer Queen.jpg
Views:	75
Size:	107.4 KB
ID:	68124  



Primer (2004)

For some reason I never got around to see this until now. Saw it last night and my head still hurts.

It's clever I guess, and a bit different. I do have some issues with parts of the story line, but if confusion is your thing then I give this 10/10. Easily



aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
The Mountain Between Us (2017)

Found this a pretty turgid watch. It wasn't written at all well and I found the love *connection* side of it frankly predictable and cliched. The performances got it out of a 1 for me.

does winslet get naked in this one as well ? ugh



she's done it so many times...so now its ugh
You want to see a good performance by Kate Winslet.. watch "Jude" from 1996. Not sure if she's nude in it ... because I don't pay attention to that stuff.





Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, 2019

There's something to be said for watching a film where you can feel the affection that the creators have for their subject. The potent and technically masterful nostalgia of Once Upon a Time . . . is both its strength and its weakness.

The film follows an actor named Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his stunt double/best friend Cliff (Brad Pitt) as they navigate Rick's declining career and the new cultural landscape of the late 60s. Along the way their story intersects with real-life personalities, most prominently Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and several members of Charles Manson's infamous Family.

Almost everything in this film cut two ways for me. To start with the stuff that is only positive, I thought that DiCaprio and Robbie were absolutely amazing. In a film stuffed with name actors, they were the two who actually vanished into their characters for me. I will also say that the stylistic evocation of things like 60s Western television or spaghetti Westerns, based on my experience with them, was loving and meticulous.

Everything else, though, was a real mixed bag. The cast is great, but at times it felt like a parade of "Oh, look! It's ______!". And since so many of these roles border on cameos (like Kurt Russel as a stunt coordinator or Al Pacino as a studio head), there was no time to adjust to the stars as their characters. It does look like everyone is having fun.

Then there's the nostalgia element. Like I said, it's loving and meticulous. But, my god, so many scenes felt like they were about 25-50% longer than they should have been. It's fine to love an era, but editing is a thing! And speaking of editing, the first 20 minutes have this ADHD feeling that I found actively off-putting. The editing settles down after the first half-hour, but it's like no one put their foot down about the film elements. Why is there a voice over narration? Why are we getting all these cute little cutaways? Why do we need so many "fixed camera in car backseat" sequences?

And of course, now I know why there were so many spoiler-texted conversations about the ending when the film came out.

WARNING: spoilers below
Frankly, I did not care much for it. The whole film builds suspense leading up to the Sharon Tate murder. I can sort of appreciate the concept of this "Hollywood" style ending to the story--replacing a horrific event with a happy ending where the handsome, rugged man brutally dispatches the evil hippies. But the ending felt unearned to me. Looking back at the film, it almost seems like this fantasy centered on the character of Cliff--the loyal friend who ultimately saves his best friend's wife and through heroic action also saves the lives of all the people next door. Oh, and he gets to throw Bruce Lee into a car.

I get that this alternate history in theory creates a situation where the 60s get to hold on to some of their innocence. But there was something, I don't know, I can't find the right word. Not "disrespectful", but something wrong with rewriting this part of the story. There's also something about the way that the ending fight goes down--especially how the most brutality is saved for the two women, including burning a woman to death. It's like Tarantino just swapped out the exploitative violence of Tate's murder for an equally (if not more) brutal sequence of violence against women that the audience could cheer for. Again: I get the concept. This is the "Hollywood ending". I just found it distasteful.


Also, dude, we get it. You like feet.




aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer


Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, 2019

There's something to be said for watching a film where you can feel the affection that the creators have for their subject. The potent and technically masterful nostalgia of Once Upon a Time . . . is both its strength and its weakness.

The film follows an actor named Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his stunt double/best friend Cliff (Brad Pitt) as they navigate Rick's declining career and the new cultural landscape of the late 60s. Along the way their story intersects with real-life personalities, most prominently Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and several members of Charles Manson's infamous Family.

Almost everything in this film cut two ways for me. To start with the stuff that is only positive, I thought that DiCaprio and Robbie were absolutely amazing. In a film stuffed with name actors, they were the two who actually vanished into their characters for me. I will also say that the stylistic evocation of things like 60s Western television or spaghetti Westerns, based on my experience with them, was loving and meticulous.

Everything else, though, was a real mixed bag. The cast is great, but at times it felt like a parade of "Oh, look! It's ______!". And since so many of these roles border on cameos (like Kurt Russel as a stunt coordinator or Al Pacino as a studio head), there was no time to adjust to the stars as their characters. It does look like everyone is having fun.

Then there's the nostalgia element. Like I said, it's loving and meticulous. But, my god, so many scenes felt like they were about 25-50% longer than they should have been. It's fine to love an era, but editing is a thing! And speaking of editing, the first 20 minutes have this ADHD feeling that I found actively off-putting. The editing settles down after the first half-hour, but it's like no one put their foot down about the film elements. Why is there a voice over narration? Why are we getting all these cute little cutaways? Why do we need so many "fixed camera in car backseat" sequences?

And of course, now I know why there were so many spoiler-texted conversations about the ending when the film came out.

WARNING: spoilers below
Frankly, I did not care much for it. The whole film builds suspense leading up to the Sharon Tate murder. I can sort of appreciate the concept of this "Hollywood" style ending to the story--replacing a horrific event with a happy ending where the handsome, rugged man brutally dispatches the evil hippies. But the ending felt unearned to me. Looking back at the film, it almost seems like this fantasy centered on the character of Cliff--the loyal friend who ultimately saves his best friend's wife and through heroic action also saves the lives of all the people next door. Oh, and he gets to throw Bruce Lee into a car.

I get that this alternate history in theory creates a situation where the 60s get to hold on to some of their innocence. But there was something, I don't know, I can't find the right word. Not "disrespectful", but something wrong with rewriting this part of the story. There's also something about the way that the ending fight goes down--especially how the most brutality is saved for the two women, including burning a woman to death. It's like Tarantino just swapped out the exploitative violence of Tate's murder for an equally (if not more) brutal sequence of violence against women that the audience could cheer for. Again: I get the concept. This is the "Hollywood ending". I just found it distasteful.


Also, dude, we get it. You like feet.

It's not building up sharon tate murder....the murders are a footnote to the whole story and in that footnote hollywood came out on top instead of manson. But the problem is, the stuff that happens before the ending is supposed to stand on its own but it doesn't. It's just very basic elements of an actors struggle and his stuntman's boring lifestyle with some cinematic elements thrown in there. To see a nuanced actors anguish, watch birdman. Even the ending is un-tarantino. So as a whole the film looks greats but its hollow.