Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched  (Read 683996 times)

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1970 on: February 04, 2018, 09:44:06 PM »
That allowed me to enjoy the little moments I'm not going to get from another film, like Lauraline's giant hat that turns out to have another function. Say what you want, this was the imagination of an artist and not filmmaking by committee.

At times like that it had a great Douglas Adams sense of playful wackiness, which I enjoyed.

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1971 on: February 05, 2018, 12:28:52 AM »
A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night

Saw this as a part of Women In Horror Month at FilmBar here in Phoenix.

Loved the movie. I've seen it described as a film where a woman takes down men who disrespect women, but it's sooooo much more complex and interesting than that. I've not seen a lot of silent films, but Sheila Vand's performance, but the subtle expressions that revealed her intentions, passion, and inner conflict, made it seem like she could fit into that world. The subversion of conservative Iranian culture and oppression toward women avoided a heavy-handedness, but was still thorough and biting. But really, I was just mesmerized by Vand and everything she brought to the performance. It's a film I'm sure I'll rewatch several times over. 
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

chardy999

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3550
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1972 on: February 05, 2018, 04:44:45 AM »
A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night

Saw this as a part of Women In Horror Month at FilmBar here in Phoenix.

Loved the movie. I've seen it described as a film where a woman takes down men who disrespect women, but it's sooooo much more complex and interesting than that. I've not seen a lot of silent films, but Sheila Vand's performance, but the subtle expressions that revealed her intentions, passion, and inner conflict, made it seem like she could fit into that world. The subversion of conservative Iranian culture and oppression toward women avoided a heavy-handedness, but was still thorough and biting. But really, I was just mesmerized by Vand and everything she brought to the performance. It's a film I'm sure I'll rewatch several times over.

It's mesmerising enough to make you forget that nothing happens! This film grows in my estimation with every day away from it. :)

Plenty more style in The Bad Batch, the misunderstood masterpiece of the year.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
- Groucho Marx

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1973 on: February 05, 2018, 08:45:49 AM »
Peter Rabbit (Will Gluck, 2018)

Children's book movies seem a perfect gateway into movies for the youngsters. They come pre-packaged with the type of family fare which parents can rest assured will be PG for their kids, while also coming with built in storytelling and comedy. With classic tales like Winnie the Pooh or, in this case Peter Rabbit, the stories can even be new and and fresh for the young audience who may be experiencing the classic characters for the very first time. That there hasn't been a Peter Rabbit movie before is somewhat surprising, though it is a somewhat secondary classic children's character behind the aforementioned Pooh, whose adventures share the same pastoral setting and desire to find food. But while Peter Rabbit may lag behind in popularity, he certainly makes up for it in charm and wit.

Peter (James Coreden) is the leader of the rabbit clan, which is made up of his three sisters (Margot Robbie, Daisy Ridley, Elizabeth Debicki) and his cousin, after the nearby farmer Mr. McGregor (Sam Neill) has killed their parents for foraging in his garden. Equipped with his father's shirt and wherewithal, Peter devices plan after plan to plunder McGregor's garden until one day, McGregor dies of a heart attack. Inherited by his great-nephew (Domhnall Gleeson), a city slicker who hopes to simply sell the manor, the farm and garden becomes the roost for the rabbits until the new Mr. McGregor shows up, younger and more enthusiastic about doing away with the feisty rabbits. But McGregor soon falls for the neighbor, a pretty woman named Bea (Rose Byrne), who as it turns out is an ally of the country creatures. McGregor struggles to decide whether he truly wants the animals gone, or whether he is truly in love with Bea.

A film of this type can be expected to paint in very broad strokes. It can even be expected to insert a variety of shoehorned pop culture references which age immediately. Peter Rabbit does both of these things, which detract from the true heart of the story, and yet the film still has its soaring moments and endearing character beats which come, no doubt, from the treasured source material itself. Still, I can't help but voice my disappointment that the film does nothing to separate itself from so many other films within the genre by playing it safe, making silly reference and jokes, and not focusing on the treasure trove of opportunity a project like this affords a filmmaker. Peter Rabbit manages to feel, at once, like a film in which director Will Gluck is somehow trying way too hard while also not trying at all.

There is a lot to like about this film, fleeting as it may be. The voice work here is quite good, especially from James Corden as Peter. However, the voices of Robbie, Ridley and Debicki are nearly indistinguishable and completely un-noteworthy. Part of this problem is their characters are so overpowered by the personality and story of Peter that they never get their own moments to shine, or their own story arcs to follow, which certainly is a detriment. The live action performances from Byrne and Gleeson are very cartoonish, which I am sure is exactly what the film wanted them to be. I find myself struggling between understanding the style of this film being one which caters to a young audience who finds silly slapstick simple storytelling engaging and being utterly disappointed that we can't offer our children a little better form of entertainment.

I don't need Peter Rabbit through the eyes of Ingmar Bergman or anything like that, but there have been successful, fun, hilarious, and well made children's films before which were built on strong characters, solid jokes, and inventive storytelling. Instead, with Peter Rabbit we are given a film made for the lowest common denominator among us. As a result it is a film with hit or miss humor, one which may entertain within the moment but is instantly forgettable. It's not a film that will stand the test of time, failing to be relevant even by the time the year comes to a close most likely. We could do worse than Peter Rabbit, that much is true, but all I am saying is we could also do much, much better too.

★★ 1/2 - Average
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

Jeff Schroeck

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 982
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1974 on: February 05, 2018, 10:45:37 AM »
I've had a fairly dry movie watching autumn and half-winter but I'm trying to get back into the swing of things. I watched a couple of recent comedies that I liked a lot but have gotten mostly bad reviews, David Wain's "A Futile & Stupid Gesture" and Taran Killam's "Killing Gunther".

I love Will Forte, especially in his Last Man On Earth persona, a guy who seems oblivious to how obnoxious he is but is really trying to use humor to divert attention away from his serious personality flaws until those close to him call him on it. He does that here and it really works for me. Doug Kenney seemed like a guy who could be charming but has a threshold and Forte nails it, becoming more Doug Kenney than Kenney himself. (I feel that way about Neil Innes in The Rutles movie, playing a more distilled archetypal John Lennon.) I dig the narrative device with Martin Mull and I think his and Forte's moment at the end is touching. The wigs and costumes look cheap and the actors don't try so hard to play their real-life characters, but it fits well with the older sketch aesthetic of jokes over verisimilitude vs. today, when the first thought during a news event is which comedy lookalike is going to play that public figure on SNL.


I was looking forward to "Killing Gunther" for about a year before its release, being a fan of Taran Killam and moreso Bobby Moynihan and Paul Brittain. The reviews were bad, mostly disappointed that Arnold Schwarzenegger's only in it for 20 or so minutes despite getting top billing, so I didn't bother with it (a 9.99 rental price didn't help) until this past weekend (it's free on Prime now). I thought it was great. I had issues with a lack of coherent focus with the comic tone for the first 30 minutes. Killam seems to be trying a lot of different gags that don't add up to a whole, but those gags work on their own. It's a mockumentary, which I felt might've been a lazy shortcut to getting a film done without doing the work of creative screenwriting, but the format itself pays off in the end. And Schwarzenegger seems to be having a ton of fun.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1975 on: February 05, 2018, 11:46:33 AM »
Peter Rabbit (Will Gluck, 2018)

I know you have to watch these films, but that trailer was a far greater offense to watch in front of Coco than Olaf's Frozen Adventure. After sitting through it twice, I'd rather watch The Emoji Movie. For my wife, the bad will spread far enough that she has no interest in seeing Goodbye Christopher Robin because of Domhnall Gleeson.

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1976 on: February 05, 2018, 11:51:22 AM »
He is horridly over the top in this. I used to like him, now I'm not so sure unfortunately.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1977 on: February 05, 2018, 12:46:46 PM »
The Peter Rabbit trailer flat out turned me off of the film. I couldn't imagine having to watch a whole movie like that.

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1978 on: February 05, 2018, 12:48:43 PM »
Marjorie Prime



You know how your grandma would tell you a story a hundred times and do so as if each time were the first? Well, Marjorie Prime is the cinematic equivalent to grandma's need to traverse her well worn pathways, except now it's done with the help of A.I.s' second hand detachment. So much for the excitement and fear of the singularity. An eternal boring loop of reminiscing will be the virus which will be our salvation.

If there was any concern of having missed something for filmspots considerations by not seeing this film, have no fear here either.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 12:50:17 PM by Sandy »

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1979 on: February 05, 2018, 12:56:42 PM »
The Post (Steven Spielberg, 2017)

More or less what I expected, except with even more random TV actors showing up in small roles (Deirdre Lovejoy ! Alison Brie ! Apparently David Costabile is somewhere in there too ?). It's very well directed, and I really like what Spielberg does with framing Streep, emphasizing how alone she is is a men-dominated world, especially when she's going to the stock opening and passes through a crowd of women before entering a room full of men... though I did not care for the further underlining of this at the Supreme Court, especially because this came after her big moment (another very well-directed moment). It doesn't have the laser focus of a Spotlight, and the last 15 minutes are pretty ridiculous in that they're basically all about verbalizing what the film was already doing (Paulson's speech about how brave Kaye is... it's well-delivered, but ugh, same with Carrie Coon's cameo)... but still, it's such a thoroughly well-crafted film, it's hard to have a bad time with it.

I do find it hilarious that it includes the Oscarsy equivalent of a Marvel post credits sequence with that Watergate scene. Can't wait for that sequel !

7/10
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd