Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched  (Read 90763 times)

Beavermoose

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4761
  • Samsonite! I was way off!
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3750 on: September 04, 2019, 06:07:33 PM »
It (2017)
An extended scene of children wearing only their underwear is just icky. I wish I could find it innocent and simply true to life, but it was off-putting.
Probably because of how weirdly eroticized the teenage girl is.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 12:15:20 AM by Beavermoose »

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 16247
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3751 on: September 04, 2019, 10:51:53 PM »
Definitely don't read the book.
Switchboard
Watched 2019

Top 250  |  Great  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Poor  |  Crap

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 18423
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3752 on: September 05, 2019, 10:03:05 PM »
The Last Black Man in San Fransisco

In Portland, there is a band of houseless people who have been forced to move all of their belongings every couple weeks. They had had enough and organized to establish a village on church property.  The church voted and kicked them off the property immediately.  Then they found a property that wasn't owned by the city, but was managed by parks and was out of the way.  They set up their tents, rented a porta-potty, cleaned up their trash, picked up all the needles that were in the surrounding area, and lived a quiet existence.  They remained on that piece of "no man's land" for 42 days.  In the meanwhile, the city called the toilet company, got their bathroom taken away, harassed them for two weeks and then took their possessions away, eventually coming back every day until they had nothing left.  Their food, their beds, their tents, all taken.  And a couple of them arrested, just because they wouldn't move out of their tents.

In Mad Max: Fury Road the Imperiator says, "Do not, my friends, become addicted to water. It will take hold of you and you will resent its absence."   This is what the powers that control resources say about all necessary things, eventually.  And the same goes for a place to hang your hat.  When people are not allowed a space to live, despite land being plenty, it is like a dictator hoarding water and saying it is your fault for having nothing to drink.

The Last Black Man in San Fransisco is the gentlest, most beautiful, most touching film about gentrification that has been made.  That probably could be made.  As opposed to my top two paragraphs above, there is nary a hint of fury in this film, nor any real blame.  It is images of a collapsing city, the restoration of a gorgeous house and time quietly spent with two dear men.  Yes, it is about space, having a place for people who have no place.  But it is not slapping you across the face, but lullabying us, rocking us to soothing realization that something is deeply wrong.

4/5
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

jdc

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 6426
  • Accept the mystery
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3753 on: September 07, 2019, 11:35:13 PM »
<b>John Wick 3</b>

I think I have to give it some bonus points for being Creative in its style of action. Some of the knife throwing scenes as well as the use of dogs as weapons was quite brutal. Not sure if this is scaring my dog when she watches the screen, she was fixated on the movie the entire time.

I thought about going back to watch the second one since I really can’t remember it, but then thought, does it really matter? I don’t think so, even the first for that matter. Though I was sort of hoping it would wrap everything up but seems like they are making too much money so it ends just at a point where they get a rest till the next bounty goes out and we will start again.

Enjoyed but not sure I was wanting to invest in more.
"Beer. Now there's a temporary solution."  Homer S.
“The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations” - David Friedman

philip918

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4554
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3754 on: September 07, 2019, 11:54:47 PM »
I thought John Wick 3 was a big step down from the previous entries.

The Wind (2018)

Beautifully filmed, but my interest waned fairly quickly. Caitlin Gerard has a strong presence and feels right as a pioneer woman. She's great in the silent moments, but the dialogue really lets her down, especially when things turn to the demonic horror elements, which are incredibly cliche. The score is grating. The editing is straight from the contemporary horror playbook. Plus, the time-hoping storyline doesn't add anything interesting. A let down. Thought this looked promising.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 28122
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3755 on: September 08, 2019, 08:55:54 AM »
Agreed on The Wind. An effective use of space and distance, but that's about it.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 25089
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3756 on: September 09, 2019, 12:04:49 AM »
It (2017)
An extended scene of children wearing only their underwear is just icky. I wish I could find it innocent and simply true to life, but it was off-putting.
Probably because of how weirdly eroticized the teenage girl is.

I feel compelled to defend IT, even though there's not much I can say to change how the scene struck you. I mean, at least it's not  Sandlot. A scene of adolescent boys in their underwear (swimsuits), ogling a girl and then playing sexual assault off as harmless hijinks. A film actually meant for children no less.  :-\

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 31455
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3757 on: September 09, 2019, 10:25:42 AM »
The kids in the Sandlot are a couple of years younger, and they're definitely playing younger. Their hijinks seem more harmless because they're not sexually activated yet. The film is meant for children be cause that's closer to the age of the characters on screen. With It, the characters are just hitting puberty, the actors are a couple of years older and it's set in the 80s instead of the more innocent 50s. It's the type of scene that can feel very real, but it plays better when you read it because once you put it on screen we the audience are now watching underage actors in their underwear.


BTW, It Chapter 2 is terrible. It has more good scenes than Hellboy 2019, but being an hour longer I was just aching for it to end.
Must See  |  Should See  |  Good  |  Mixed  |  Bad

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 20692
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3758 on: September 10, 2019, 07:08:23 PM »
TIFF Roundup
Portrait of a Lady on Fire

In the Q&A, Sciamma talked about how there were a lot of female painters in this era (1770) but they were largely marginalized. Thus she decided to create a story of a fictional painter, Marianne (Noémie Merlant), hired to paint a portrait of the daughter of a noble family, Heloise (Adèle Haenel), to be sent to her future husband. But Heloise is not cooperating so Marianne has to do it covertly with the cover being that her function is simply to be temporary company for Heloise. It is in many respects a sparse film with essentially four roles (Heloise's mother and the family's maid), and definitely female-centric. It hits upon art, on love and on womanly duties. There are interesting thematic things and it is certainly well-crafted, but I did find it more of an intellectual venture because to the degree it settles into a romance, it is a touch courtly given the era. Still greatly impressive and that's really only to say why it wasn't as big a success for me as Water Lilies.

B+

Just Mercy

This one had my attention in that I have read Bryan Stevenson's book, not great for one's blood pressure with its detailing of blatant racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. I have nothing but good things to say about the cast here with Michael B. Jordan playing Stevenson and Jamie Foxx as the death row inmate whose story is the central focus. It is definitely emotionally moving by hitting all the big points, but it does play as a completely standard order legal drama. Already over two hours, I'm not sure I see a better way the book's depth (and multiple story points) could have been smoothed into a feature. It is an important film for message, but just lacks a certain something. I will say that in contrast to Green Book, it does completely avoid the issue of being told from a white perspective. I probably liked Green Book more.

B

Seberg

I saw a review saying this was a standard-order biopic, but I guess I don't see that at all. Maybe part of it is I guess I didn't really know anything about Jean Seberg. I've seen Breathless and assumed she was French. I did not know she was actually from America and in the years following her emergence in Breathless had made an attempt to break back into Hollywood, while showing public support for the Black Panthers and similar civil rights movements. The thing that shakes this from being a stock biopic is it really hones in on that aspect of her life story, playing out as a bit of a paranoid thriller as suits the era that would come to cinema in the years following. Kristen Stewart is stunning in this role...maybe we'll see an Oscar next to her Cesar as more people overcome the negative feelings Twilight seems to have earned her. Jack O'Connell plays one of the FBI agents that puts her under surveillance. Aside from just the compelling nature of the storytelling and the performances, this really does feel like an important/timely story. The history of policing is less keeping the public safe and more keeping those in power in power. Police put down strikes, police caught escaped slaves, and police tracked and interfered in civil rights movements to destroy their efficacy. Add that to incidents like the massacre of Black Wall Street in Tulsa and we get the continued ways that the underclass are continuing to be kept down (something that Just Mercy certainly speaks to as well).

I guess one could take issue about telling the story of J. Edgar Hoover's intervention with MLK Jr. and Black Panthers, etc. through the lens of a famous, wealthy white woman, but this is absolutely not a white savior story because (spoiler alert from real life) she's brought down with it. It says something new to look at how far those truly at the top are willing to go to keep their hold.

A-

Ordinary Love

Throwing in a gentle British drama, one might say along the lines of Mike Leigh's work, though that could be because of the presence of Leslie Manville. She plays Joan, who along with husband Tom (Liam Neeson) are living in a pretty settled point well along in their marriage and life when Joan notices a lump in her breast and we see how that relationship is tested by cancer. The moments of charming marital bickering do cede into outright hostilities at times such that I was wanting off of this ride.

C+

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 25089
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3759 on: September 12, 2019, 12:12:14 AM »
Sideways - Rewatched. Wonderful film. A little masterpiece. :))