Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    







French Exit, 2020

Frances (Michelle Pfeiffer) is the widow of a wealthy man and has been living off of his estate for the last decade or so. But when the money tuns out, Frances sells everything to go and live in a Paris apartment with her adult son Malcolm (Lucas Hedges) and a cat named Little Frank who she believes houses the spirit of her dead husband. Along the way she makes some uneasy friendships and must face how she sees the rest of her life.

This is a film with a lot of strong parts that doesn't quite cohere. Yet despite falling a bit short, I still found several elements of it to be very good and it was a fun watch.

Pfeiffer has a lot of fun as Frances, a woman who is stuck in some gray area between caring and not caring. She often tries to ice out others with a strong-but-silent manner, yet she clearly still longs for personal connection. Hedges is also good as her son, a young man who is learning how to be an adult from his mother, in ways that are both good and bad.

There are some really fun supporting characters and performances in addition to the leads. Danielle Macdonald plays a psychic that Frances and Malcolm meet aboard the ship that brings them to France, and whom they later call on to help commune with Little Frank. The ever-welcome Isaach De Bankolé plays a private detective they call in for assistance at one point. As the movie goes on, the apartment fills with supporting characters, and all of them are welcome and charming. Imogen Poots plays Malcolm's on-again-off-again girlfriend who is understandably annoyed that he has moved to France without giving her any notice.

There are some very good standalone sequences in the film, most of them comedic. In one scene a waiter very pointedly makes Frances and Malcolm wait for their check. So Frances does something to assure that the waiter gives them very prompt attention. There are two scenes in the last act, though, that veer successfully into the dramatic: one involving Frances and Madeline, and one involving Frances and Malcolm.

Taken as a whole, though, the movie just doesn't feel coherent. The comedy at times sits uncomfortably next to the drama, and even the hints of fantasy/supernatural don't feel well-integrated, though they are effective on their own.

If you're a fan of Pfeiffer's, definitely check it out. I would honestly generally give this a recommendation, but it doesn't stick the landing overall.







So Triangle of Sadness isn't going to get an Oscar for BP, it has about 75% on RT...it's not as good as Prey!. This is what I hate about the Hollywood PC system because this is a great film with a strong message that's being buried by the far left because they can't handle a film that actually criticizes women. It has the audacity to not just hit the same targets over and over again.

So it's basically an anthology film about a pair of models, the first part is an awkward dinner which runs for about 15-20 minutes. The second part of the story is a cruise with a bunch of rich old people. The third part is the longest part where survivors are stuck on an Island. That's in the trailer so I'm not really spoiling it for you.

The film does get too wicked and it leaves certain things up in the air so I might end up rewatching it but this is my favorite of Ostlund's work



this is a great film with a strong message that's being buried by the far left
Really?

Because I've read two rave reviews of it, both from left leaning media outlets. The AVClub gave it an A- and a very strong review. Just skimming the Top Critics, there are plenty of reviews that are positive, even glowing, from left-leaning outlets.

I think that with someone like Ostlund, his films will always be a bit divisive. They are very in your face and uncomfortable.

I've heard more about this film than I have about Force Majeure or The Square, so the idea that it's being "buried" seems strange.



Really?

Because I've read two rave reviews of it, both from left leaning media outlets. The AVClub gave it an A- and a very strong review. Just skimming the Top Critics, there are plenty of reviews that are positive, even glowing, from left-leaning outlets.

I think that with someone like Ostlund, his films will always be a bit divisive. They are very in your face and uncomfortable.

I've heard more about this film than I have about Force Majeure or The Square, so the idea that it's being "buried" seems strange.
He’s talking out of his rear.



Really?

Because I've read two rave reviews of it, both from left leaning media outlets. The AVClub gave it an A- and a very strong review. Just skimming the Top Critics, there are plenty of reviews that are positive, even glowing, from left-leaning outlets.

I think that with someone like Ostlund, his films will always be a bit divisive. They are very in your face and uncomfortable.

I've heard more about this film than I have about Force Majeure or The Square, so the idea that it's being "buried" seems strange.
I check the negative reviews

Ultimately, de Leon is not enough to save this overpraised satire that somehow is at its best during its most outrageous and disgusting moments.
If not for de Leon’s bold and heartsick performance, Triangle of Sadness would fail to achieve any real measure of the physical discomfort that has animated so much of Östlund’s previous work.
De Leon only shows up halfway through the film, the third act isn't really her story. But as the only FPOC she's a stand out in negative reviews which feels like BS to me.

This take on "Titanic" by way of "Das Kapital" and "Gilligan's Island," which admittedly does have its pleasures, has about as much subtlety as a falling coconut.

Ostlund picks an easy, if worthy, target that teeters satire like the obvious allegory of its centerpiece sequence while getting direct hits and making sure we notice the bullseye before its next shot leading to a final act that ultimately sinks it

The sum total of the film’s chapters equals a general portrait of petty human cruelty more than any distinct class analysis.

It’s not so much that all the characters are so unsympathetic. It’s that they’re all so uninteresting. Caricature without gusto is shrink wrap covering .

Östlund’s slog of a film is exceptional in the distance it creates between the viewer and its characters and in how comfortable its attempts at causticity actually feel.

Only the fine cast lends life to the movie’s superficial caricatures, even if the hectic, blatant script edges the performances toward the clattery side and Östlund’s precise but stiff direction leaves little room for inventiveness.

This, in the end, is a very bad movie, executed with enough visual polish and surface cleverness to fool the Cannes jurors, something Ostlund has done twice. Shame on them!

In setting up and then obliterating such easy targets, Ostlund has created a self-indulgent and lazy screed that mistakes anger for wit, scolding for irony, and vomit (so much vomit) for gags of actual substance.

The narrative is wrecked when the yacht sinks and the survivors must make do on a seemingly uninhabited island. At that moment, Östlund's class observations become more superficial and the story drags on to an open end.

In the past, Östlund has shown a deft facility in sending up meaty topics... Here, however, he stoops to the broadness ascribed to his work by its harshest critics, now more parody of himself than parodist.

Triangle of Sadness needn’t be a fair film... A more carefully shaped argument would have been appreciated, though. And one that didn’t dissolve so quickly into a juvenile snicker.

TRIANGLE OF SADNESS is the sort of overlong, pretentious claptrap that valiant critics the world over get paid to see… so that you don’t have to.
A lot of the reviews are we don't like the characters...because in the film all the characters are pretty bad. You don't have any protagonists in this story and it touches on gender roles fairly hard



I check the negative reviews

De Leon only shows up halfway through the film, the third act isn't really her story. But as the only FPOC she's a stand out in negative reviews which feels like BS to me.
But she's also a stand-out in the positive reviews: "But that also marks the foregrounding of Abigail (the inimitable Dolly De Leon, whose name you should memorize if you don’t already know her), the ship’s toilet manager whose blink-and-you’ll-miss-it presence underscores the audience’s culpability for similarly ignoring its staff. But on the island, she proudly becomes the captain, since she’s the only one who can fish, cook, and build a fire."

And the negative review you quote in full doesn't mention her, but just refers to a "fine cast".

A lot of the reviews are we don't like the characters...because in the film all the characters are pretty bad. You don't have any protagonists in this story and it touches on gender roles fairly hard
But the review you quoted in full said it wasn't a problem that the characters were unlikable, but rather that they found the characters to be caricatures and shallow.

None of this sounds like some far left conspiracy to bury the film because it examines gender and social class roles. It sounds more like the satire is landing for some people and not for others.



The trick is not minding
A lot of the reviews I’ve read point to criticism of the satire as well.
For example: “lacks the sharp edges of Östlund's earlier work, but this blackly humorous swipe at the obscenely affluent has its own rewards” is a direct quote. *



We don't have to debate this on and on, because obviously there's subjectivity in how we perceive what "most people are saying" is. I myself am very prone to this because things that disturb or upset me tend to loom large and seem more proportional than they really are.

I just think that Triangle of Sadness getting sandbagged by a PC far left smear campaign is not accurate to what I'm seeing.

I'm glad to hear another positive review of it, though. I've been looking forward to seeing it since reading the AVClub review and I've liked or loved everything I've seen from Ostlund.



I forgot the opening line.
Now I wanna see this movie. Is it streaming somewhere?

(Also, it's funny, I see a lot of that about Malignant, I gave it a very high score as I thought it was fun and was exactly the movie Wan set out to make.)
I'm pretty sure Death Rides a Horse is available on Amazon, and you might find it on Tubi - it's really worth digging up if you like great genre films.

With Malignant, I think our differing takes on it hark back to our differences on Last Night in Soho - the giallo-inspiration behind both of the films. To gel with it more, perhaps I need to go through a phase I haven't been through yet. Anyway, during it's last half hour I thought it lifted a great deal, but the tone of the first three-quarters was way out of my wheelhouse.
__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.
We miss you Takoma

Latest Review : Le Circle Rouge (1970)



I forgot the opening line.

By IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56680851

Poltergeist - (1982)

Had a great time last night - off with a friend to see Poltergeist on the big screen - and oh boy, this film was made to be seen in a cinema. The roaring spectacle of the effects team, coupled with it's incredible score and drama made it feel like I was watching a great present day movie. It hasn't aged at all. Strange to contemplate the fact that it's 40 years old now - a really old film for kids out there, and I think most of the people who came to see it with us were people of around our age, who were transfixed by it back in the day. I didn't realise how much of a kick I'd get out of seeing it cinematically. I encourage others if they get the chance.

9/10


Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7789735

Poltergeist II: The Other Side - (1986)

Ugh. Who is Brian Gibson anyway? Talk of the sequels on the car ride home made me curious of how the sequels to Poltergeist had held up over the years. I liked this one as a kid, but it's typical sequel stuff. A few inadvisable things are added (Carol Anne has psychic powers, Diane's mother appears at the end as an angel) and there are less great things - it sounds worse, the screenplay is nowhere near as good as the first - and the story is contrived. There are a few really great scenes amongst the mess though. The one where Kane (played by a dying Julian Beck - which ended up enhancing his skeletal creepiness) tries to persuade the family to let him enter their house is worthy - and matches any scene in the first film. All-up, this has moments, but as a whole it's better left forgotten.

5/10



With Malignant, I think our differing takes on it hark back to our differences on Last Night in Soho - the giallo-inspiration behind both of the films. To gel with it more, perhaps I need to go through a phase I haven't been through yet. Anyway, during it's last half hour I thought it lifted a great deal, but the tone of the first three-quarters was way out of my wheelhouse.
Hey, speaking of those movies, did you ever read this article about them?: https://filmschoolrejects.com/last-n...-pastiche/?amp



But she's also a stand-out in the positive reviews: "But that also marks the foregrounding of Abigail (the inimitable Dolly De Leon, whose name you should memorize if you don’t already know her), the ship’s toilet manager whose blink-and-you’ll-miss-it presence underscores the audience’s culpability for similarly ignoring its staff. But on the island, she proudly becomes the captain, since she’s the only one who can fish, cook, and build a fire."

And the negative review you quote in full doesn't mention her, but just refers to a "fine cast".



But the review you quoted in full said it wasn't a problem that the characters were unlikable, but rather that they found the characters to be caricatures and shallow.

None of this sounds like some far left conspiracy to bury the film because it examines gender and social class roles. It sounds more like the satire is landing for some people and not for others.

The central part of the film is it's a comedy of manners. It's the whole point of the film is the deeper you go with these characters the worse it is. While the critics are ripping the "satire" because the final "message" doesn't fall into the basic parameters of every other film.



The central part of the film is it's a comedy of manners. It's the whole point of the film is the deeper you go with these characters the worse it is. While the critics are ripping the "satire" because the final "message" doesn't fall into the basic parameters of every other film.
Well, like I said I plan to watch the film as soon as I can because the word of mouth has been so positive and I trust in Ostlund.

Right now I can only speak to what I've seen of the response to the film, which has seemed to me to be overall quite positive.

I'm sure I'll have thoughts once I see it for myself.