Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched  (Read 78108 times)

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 20579
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3710 on: August 14, 2019, 09:10:22 PM »
The Souvenir

You have that friend who continues to complain about how crap her man is. You tell her girl, you have to leave him. She doesn't. At some point you throw up your hands. She has consented to being treated poorly. I feel no sympathy for her plight because while he is at fault for being abusive, she increasingly takes on blame by tolerating it. It isn't like they have kids or she is reliant on him financially. Of course, she's no terrifically interesting person either. Just a drab affair all around.

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 27064
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3711 on: August 14, 2019, 09:32:21 PM »
So are you in for Part II or...?

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 20579
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3712 on: August 14, 2019, 10:34:48 PM »
Hard pass!

philip918

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4449
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3713 on: August 15, 2019, 06:48:09 PM »
Holiday (2018)

This got under my skin. The film starts out seemingly making a very clear and very obvious case that bad things happen to young women who cavort with drug dealers. I was starting to write it off as a dumbly nihilistic, but then it twists and turns and gives its protagonist much more agency than the viewer was lead to believe (probably through biases of our own), and it becomes... smartly nihilistic. Victoria Carmen Sonne is very good. The photography is outstanding. Isabella Eklf favors long wide shots that showcase group dynamics and the gorgeous Turkish Riveria backdrops. It's a bit like Gaspar No and Paul Verhoeven's provocations taking place within Hou Hsiao-Hsien's compositions.


Also, a warning: there's a simulated sexual assault that is very graphic and very real looking and extremely disturbing.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 31098
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3714 on: August 16, 2019, 12:13:54 AM »
Really looking forward to that one. I just happen to have a large backlog at the moment. I debated even posting reviews right now.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
★ ★
David Fincher is the clear choice to adapt this heartwarming, feel good fable for the big screen but there's too much icy chill, too much discomfort and a plot so heavy with set-up and fallout it's like they took a Netflix series and just kept the first and last episodes, trimming the rest down to the middle hour. The title is catchy, but much less accurate than the original book title, Men Who Hate Women, a title that takes the focus away from Lisbeth, which is good because she's not the lead or a character central to the mystery.

Rooney Mara has all the affectations of an actor putting on a character, but Noomi Rapace's Lisbeth was more lived in. Michael Nyqvist was also a more compelling Blomkvist compared to Daniel Craig's too cool reserve. (I'm not meaning to compare, but the best way to point out what isn't working here is by using what did work in the other adaptation.) I even found some of Fincher's camera technique more of an empty flash than usual for him. His sound mix though is much more impressive. Unfortunately, the best scene in the movie remains the opening credits, which was designed by Tim Miller, director of Deadpool.


The Eagle and the Hawk (1933)
★ ★ ★ - Good
Often simple and sometimes heavy-handed story of young men fighting in the skies during World War I. Memorable thanks to stars Fredric March, Cary Grant and Jack Oakie, who have a number of really effective scenes that cut through any cliche. Grant in particular impressed me in an uncharacteristic part of someone who takes risks for the pleasure of gunning down the enemy. The last 10 minutes focus on some tough decisions made by his character and it's an early sign that Grant was going to be a superstar. Carole Lombard appears for a brief but important scene.


The House on 56th Street (1933)
★ ★ ★ - Good
Kay Francis vehicle tells an epic story spanning decades in under 70 minutes. She pulls herself up from being a showgirl into high society, but a cruel twist strips everything away. The back of the film is very interesting as she attempts to get by with the help of a grifter (Ricardo Cortez) bumping into her past like a delicious Greek tragedy.


Edison, the Man (1940)
★ ★ ★ - Okay
I recently watched a documentary on Spencer Tracy narrated by Burt Reynolds that got me wondering what it would've been like to watch Tracy's movies chronologically. (This makes my 49th.) While Tracy always has a similar everyman quality, there's more range to him than meets the eye. He's played blue-collar, white-collar, tough priests, soft fishermen and here he's a once-living genius. The film is very bio/pic-y but Tracy is in top form and the supporting cast playing engineers is endearing. This is actually the sequel to Young Tom Edison, which stars Mickey Rooney and I have little interest in seeing.


Apartment for Peggy (1948)
★ ★
George Seaton again with Edmund Gwenn and also William Holden. Has much of Seaton's lighthearted charm, but can't get past the central idea of Gwenn planning out his suicide after his life's work is complete and before he grows too old. A wrong-headed treatment of the subject.


The Forest Rangers (1942)
★ ★
Fred MacMurray is on the hunt for a serial arsonist, but most of the film is spent between new wife Paulette Goddard and old gal pal Susan Hayward. (Some guys have all the luck.) Goddard does some slapstick on a river of logs that's like prime Lucille Ball, but the highlight is when the trio are stranded for the night with only one large blanket and attempt to share it. (Again, so jealous of MacMurray). From the director of Destry Rides Again and also featuring the great Eugene Pallette. Too much talent for such a silly script.
Must See  |  Should See  |  Good  |  Mixed  |  Bad

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 31098
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3715 on: August 16, 2019, 09:06:52 AM »
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark

A frame story that does interesting things with its setting (1968 election season) and modern parallels is still pretty poorly written on a moment to moment basis. Luckily, the scary stories, adapted from the book of the same name, are pretty neat and often (lightly) scary. This is basically baby's first horror film stuff, but it's good at that. It felt Amblin/Bradbury-esque in its aesthetics and characters while embracing producer Guillermo del Toro's intricate monster design, and that's a mashup of influences that I can definitely get behind. It's too bad, then, that the larger story is uninspiring and the ending feels the need to tease (badly) a sequel with, hopefully, More Scary Stories.

B

Caught this late last night. Scarier than I was expecting considering the rating and multiple reviews describing it like you do. The creature designers do great work, reminding me of how freaked out I was to stumble onto that smiling bird Momo image in the middle of the night. This makes sense since the director also did Trollhunter.

The framing device is a disaster, taking so long to get to the stories while explaining and setting up very little. I liked the lead actress, but the person cast as Chuck has an annoying nerd presence and vocal tones the likes of which hadn't grated my nerves since Nic Cage in Peggy Sue. Also, the bully is right out of a bad slasher film.
The Scary Stories: ★ ★ ★ - Okay
Getting to Them: ★
« Last Edit: August 16, 2019, 01:20:42 PM by 1SO »
Must See  |  Should See  |  Good  |  Mixed  |  Bad

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 28047
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3716 on: August 16, 2019, 09:38:19 AM »
Yeah, I think it's super successful at being scary while still being appropriate for kids. I know I would have been morbidly fascinated by this (as I was by the book it was based on). "Baby's first horror film" is not at all a diss in this instance. It's still a horror film. But maybe they can work on the frame for the sequel.
Check out my blog of many topics

Im not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 31098
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3717 on: August 17, 2019, 12:40:40 AM »
Holiday (2018)

This got under my skin. The film starts out seemingly making a very clear and very obvious case that bad things happen to young women who cavort with drug dealers. I was starting to write it off as a dumbly nihilistic, but then it twists and turns and gives its protagonist much more agency than the viewer was lead to believe (probably through biases of our own), and it becomes... smartly nihilistic. Victoria Carmen Sonne is very good. The photography is outstanding. Isabella Eklf favors long wide shots that showcase group dynamics and the gorgeous Turkish Riveria backdrops. It's a bit like Gaspar No and Paul Verhoeven's provocations taking place within Hou Hsiao-Hsien's compositions.
I'll see how far under this gets with me. Hard to describe because it avoids everything you might expect from this type of story. (I thought it sounded like this year's Revenge, but aside from both being directed by women and sun-drenched locations the two films have nothing in common.) The film is observational and the plot doesn't move ahead so much as drift into murky, open water. Left me with more questions than answers, which I often find frustrating, but it made me feel like I walked a mile in some very unique shoes.
Must See  |  Should See  |  Good  |  Mixed  |  Bad

Dave the Necrobumper

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 10957
  • My tinypic changed so no avatar for a little while
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3718 on: August 20, 2019, 08:17:09 AM »
Just watched a couple of Indian movies recently.

Sholay (1975 Ramesh Sippy)

At 195 minutes long this is one of the most highly rated Indian movies and I have to say it did not work for me. Poor acting (overly melodramatic in particular), and generally an interminable bore. Why be quick about a moment when you can drag it out for several pointless time wasting minutes, and this occurred again and again and again.

There were a few good action scenes.

Rating: 49 / 100

3 Idiots (2009 Rajkumar Hirani)

This too is well thought of, and I did enjoy it. There was a charm and humour that helped with the long run time.

Rating: 75 / 100

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 20579
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3719 on: August 20, 2019, 04:50:33 PM »
Sholay>Seven Samurai

Both interminably long with over-big acting in telling essentially the same story, but Sholay has song and dance.