Rate The Last Movie You Saw

What does this even look like? You can cut audio for words, but how do you get around the sex, drugs, and drugs during sex?

Here is my review. I wanted to like it and I'll also give it the edge over Perks of Being a Wallflower, but the focus on film does feel like it leans a bit too close to being annoying in its own right.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I think the only significant moments of censorship all involved sexual content. I didn't notice any obvious changes to either the drug use or even the language, but the sex/nudity tended to get censored in really obvious ways, both small (such as every naked woman having their crotch heavily airbrushed or hidden in shadow) and large (the most obvious instance being when Margot Robbie's character walked in on the gay butler's orgy and the whole thing looked like it was being filmed through several sheets of frosted glass). A lot of the sex scenes that were originally filmed as medium/long shots then turned into far less graphic close-ups at around head-height, as well.

Yeah, it's funny because I can't really disagree with any of the faults you found in it, but I found a lot more strengths. Watching it straight away after Perks probably gave it a big boost for me. I liked Perks the first go around, but thought it a pretty all around bad movie the second time. I liked the way Dying Girl dealt with death. It was sad but not so hokey and maudlin as Fault or Perks. Earl was a very refreshing character and even though a lot of the content was recycled it still came across as fresh. To me, anyway. I also related to the main character in a big way. I found it a simple straightforward movie that was immensely likable. Especially now that the teen movie has gone the way of Perks and Fault.

I though it was really boring but I generally find the director's movies unpalatable.

I knew nothing about this going in except it was Japanese, on the Ebert list, and had a rating of 8 on IMDb. That was enough to have me hopeful. I was disappointed right away to see it was in color. Then I realized the fake backgrounds and I knew it wasn't going to be for me. The movie looks to be filmed on some type of set or stage. One thing I love about the older Asian movies is the authenticity with the on-location filming. Another strange thing to me is that there's some narration sung by an unknown voice. I later read that this movie was filmed in the Kabuki style, which I had heard of, but I always thought had something to do with the Son of Svengoolie. Thankfully, I liked the story and the acting was pretty decent. Some of the shots even looked pretty cool with the color. The movie definitely has some artistic merit, but it's not what I'm looking for.

Written on the Wind (1956) - +
Murdered by my Father (2016) -
Jesus Camp (2006) -
Bugsy (1991) -

__________________
Too weird to live, and too rare to die.

I really liked Perks.

You know what, if that's the type of attitude you're going to bring then I'd rather you just left again.

__________________

9/10

Brother

7.5/10

Ha! I knew someone would tell me to go soon. How many times have you seen it? I ask because I liked it the first time and I'm wondering if it may be that kind of movie.

Many films have been made about the Beat Generation of the freewheeling 40's, but none have been so painfully targeted towards a younger generation of movie-goers. Am I saying this as a negative comment? Not at all. I think Dane DeHaan and (especially) Radcliffe more than fill their roles as Lucien Carr and Allen Ginsberg, respectfully.

Their were no other important figures in this particular movement than the men these wonderful actors portray in Kill Your Darlings. Ben Foster, Jack Huston, and Michael C. Hall only fluff up Radcliffe and DeHaan's performances, and by that I mean they were almost equally impressive, although Ben Foster as William S. Burroughs seemed to be a tad underwhelming. Nonetheless this story devolves into debauchery, drug inducing fits of enlightenment, and of course murder.

This is a true story and for people who know a thing or two about these men going into it, they know that DeHaan's character murders a man for reasons I'm not even too sure as to why. But for anybody else who doesn't know, well the beginning essentially zaps any suspense the film could've attained, with the psychological weight of the horrific act viewed before details are in place, giving away the picture's inviting sense of escalation. It's a rookie mistake that I don't see why it was even necessary, but honestly it doesn't bother me because I've studied this bit of American history. It isn't a story like Lincoln though, where of course everybody knows he gets assassinated. Could've been a little secret till the end.

All In All, Kill Your Darlings dramatizes the development of this artistic liberation, using a tale of obsession and murder as passageway into a private world of intelligence, recklessness, and revolution. Daniel Radcliffe shines as a naïve young Allen, only proving once again that he's so far out of that Harry Potter bubble, and thank goodness for that, right? B

It's undoubtedly impressive the world they've created, where every character is charming and cute, and every joke is believable and clever. Zootopia itself is massive and visually stunning, not to mention the animation is astoundingly great, always having something to keep yours eyes on. The writing is hilarious, and the story itself is very compelling, keeping a solid pace from the start of the movie to the end. My only complaints are my weird distaste of Shakira's Gazella, and how heavy handed the unsubtle themes of racism are throughout the movie. It's an obvious comparison, and one that I think they handled well in some cases, but at other times I wanted to roll my eyes at how painstakingly blatant it could be in its commentary. This is a great family movies, humor for this kids, as well as the sublte jokes for the adults. I highly recommend it.

__________________
Best of 2016 - 10 Cloverfield Lane -- Worst of 2016 - God's Not Dead 2
Best of 2015 - Mad Max: Fury Road -- Worst of 2015 - Jupiter Ascending
Best of 2014 - Nightcrawler -- Worst of 2014 - God's Not Dead

Abar: the First Black Superman (1977)

I don't know why TCM listed the title this way - on IMDB it is simply listed as "Abar."
I'd like to say this was "so bad that it was good," but it really wasn't.

It starts with a black family moving into a wealthy white neighborhood where the whites are so racist they immediately start hurling the n-word and picketing the home of their new neighbors. The black family is led my a prominent doctor / scientist who refuses to be pressured to move (kind of like Raisin in the Sun part II). Horrible acts are committed to drive the family out - up to and including attempted bombing of their house & running down one of their children in the street.

Ultimately, it has a comic book superhero plot - the doctor develops a serum that can turn a man into a superhuman. He hopes the serum can be used by someone worthy enough to help end all the racial injustice the Dr. and his family experience after they've moved into the rich white neighborhood. (Almost sounds like a Captain America meets Luke Cage scenario.) But the movie seems to take forever getting to the plot and wastes lots of time with go-nowhere scenes and things like guys riding motorcycles on the highway.

Abar (leader of a local black activist group) drinks the serum, but is framed by police for murder, and is hunted by the Dr. (who now wants to kill Abar because he thinks the man is unstable & may turn into a monster after drinking the serum). Soon Abar develops psychic powers that seem able to not only alter behavior but reality itself - the movie is a convoluted mess. Abar goes on a montage of fixing the ills of his neighborhood that is nothing like Superman's, Spider-Man's or even Robocop's "first night out" montages.

I was expecting a laughably bad "Blaxploitation" flick - and it is laughably bad.

But the movie doesn't seem sure what it wants to be. Sounds like it wants to be a superhero action flick, but never really develops into that. It's somewhat Blaxploitation what with 1977 jive-language and totally evil, overtly racist white bigots, but at the same time it gets preachy: with speeches of Martin Luther King running through it.

The acting is over-the-top bad. Almost like they went out of there way to find people who could not act. There's hardly an actor in this who can deliver a halfway believable line. And I can't give away the surprise ending with one of the white neighbors.

On the "Odd" scale I give this a 5 out of 5. On the bad scale I give it a 4 out of 5 (if it was a little more wacky & less boring it might have qualified as "so bad it's good"). On the good movie scale I give it a 1 out of 5.

Yeah, I'll admit it was pathetic, but I thought it was wacko enough to get a . Also, did you notice it was rated PG?

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Wonder what it would be rated today? (G for violence, but R for all the crackers using the n-word?) And how about the one random dude with the swastika? WTF?

Expelled from Paradise, 4.2/5. It's rare for me to enjoy a 2D/3D hybrid film because they usually look a little, off. This was not the case with this film, and while there were a few moments in this movie where I had to suspend my disbelief, the rest of it was great. The animation was perfect, the characters were great, the story was fitting and the action at the end was done perfectly. I will say I think it was a film that should have been a little longer and along with the few moments of disbelief are why it gets this rating, but it was really fun to see and I'll probably watch it again.

The Seventh Continent (1989)

Michael Haneke employs a two act structure, emphasizing the routine of the picturesque nuclear family before dissolving it. The opening 15 minutes of the picture contain few words and even fewer faces, instead focusing on action and object. Having read many reviews before writing my own, I find the bourgeois, consumerism, and the "vacuity of modern life" to be a little out of my depth, but essential thematic elements of the film.

One aspect that I found my most writers did not touch on, however, is exploration of the partition between the mind and the world at large. A character describes an alternate reality where heads are replaced with screens so that you can tell what the people around you are thinking. That premise is the prime mover of the entire film. From the opening shot in the car wash, to the closing shot of white noise, our characters are drowned out by the world around them. "There is nothing holding us here."

As Fernando Croce of Slant Magazine put it, Haneke is Zeus-on-depressants and this picture is no less technically perfect than any of his other creations. If you find it ideologically, spiritually, or ethically repellent, that's not by accident.

http://boxd.it/9gFw1

__________________
Letterboxd | ReverseShot | SlantMagazine

Angst (1983)

Excellent (psychological) horror concerning a man just released from prison, who obviously has not yet been rehabilitated (to say the least). Raw, unnerving and downright brutal, its a really well made film with great camera work from POV and a brilliant score which really builds up the tension. Quite rightly compared to Henry: Portrait of a serial killer, which I liked but I preferred this. Highly recommended if you can handle it.

Cheers Cricket.