Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

[Gordon_4]

Legionnaire - 9/10

Well shit do we have a rare beast here. Jean Claude Van Damme....in a period war drama. Yes in this one the Muscles from Brussels makes - in my view - a valiant attempt to flex his acting chops instead of his legs as a boxer who basically pulls a Butch on Marsellus in 1920s France. When that goes utterly pear shaped, he takes the option of many a man who feels he's lost it all and needs to regain his honour: the French Foreign Legion.

Van Damme is joined by reliable character actors Nicholas Farrell, Stephen Berkoff, Daniel Caltagirone and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as men searching for a purpose in life. There's maybe one or two brawls, but they're brawls. Not a spin kick to be seen. There's a training montage, a march, an ambush and a last stand. I mean sure there's better versions of this movie out there but all things being equal, this is pretty damn good. Especially since it ends on a rather down note.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Filth: ... / Great

I can't really "rate" this film because I only made it about 25-30 minutes in before deciding it was too much a mess to keep watching. Between James McAvoy's narration thing that supposedly sets the tone and characters (which I hate when films do this,) constant jumping around between McAvoy's interaction with various characters, the thick Scottish accents that made understanding the dialogue all but impossible and some fairly lewd and unnecessary sex scenes (including one with an underaged girl,) I was completely confused and turned off by what I was seeing. I might give it another shot someday, but as it stands, that day is a long ways out. Maybe someone has some input to encourage me to try it again, i.e.: does it get better and less gross? I know that's a tall order for a film called "Filth," but maybe it has some redeeming qualities?

 

[Mister Mumbler]

No really that's the whole stuff with Emmet and the plans is about and why he builds following the plans initially. Most of the Lego stuff with the Dad is meant to be based on sets. The near identical town sets the Western Saloon set and environment etc etc

No, it really isn't. You're talking to a man who has spent pretty much his whole life around lego. First off, the movie is working with the knowledge of actual, genuine lego sets, because it straight up tells us;

This is the set they used to explain the 'pirate world' to Emmet's city-scape and their current location in the old west. With this in mind, actually take a look at the basement set the father has set up: he has a giant table, filled with huge 3-4 foot tall skyscrapers, he's built sweeping desert landscapes, and a giant castle. Now take a look at the sets that their 'based on';



'Near identical', I mean...have you actually played with lego before? Like, this is why Lego's recent push into more older/adult themed kits has been so great in the first place, because before you would have these sets or things like the giant, $1000+ Star Destroyer on the extreme opposite, with practically no in-between.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

What's more, is you keep looking for boogiemen where there are none: there are no 'shots' taken, at anyone, least of all the Lego Corporation in what is the largest and most public love letter to them. They are called Master Builders because, what the fuck else would you call them? And actually think about their role in the story: they are stand-ins for the imaginations of the son and the father, but they are still actual things. Who are the Master Builders? They are all the special, cool mini-figures, and they get locked up because the father is confiscating them back (and I very much doubt the makers of the movie would bag on the real Master Builders, people who for a living, get to both play with lego and design new lego sets for others to enjoy, as you can see from the videos on Youtube of the various designers explaining the larger sets they work on Youtube). Which leads...

Part 2 stuff

Spoiler

Ok, so cards flat on the table, this is starting to sound less like someone watched these movies than it does like a set of talking points from the sort of 'video essay' like the sort posted ironically enough by people like Anita and that other guy you posted, but for the opposite side. I mean, his ship is a fist because his answer to problems is literally punching them. But the big one was that point you made last about how they were going for a 'soft hero who wins with words' because...that does not happen in Part 2. Emmet talked Lord Business with the 'everyone is special' speech in the first one, meanwhile Emmet ends part two in a fist fight with his evil, alternate timeline doppelganger that ends when Lucy shows up and Rex realizes that he's been caught in a Back-to-the-future-esque paradox and vanishes. And (sorry if I wasn't clearer before), my problem is that he does fit into the story, that's the problem. Remember, this whole 'anything goes rules' started in part 1, basically two minutes afer finding out 'kids imagination' we have Emmet moving around in the real world, to the point that he is noticed by the kid and father. Time-traveling-evil-doppelganger fits well in this sort of 'fuck-it' approach to the rules, that's why I don't like it. Plus, I would argue that Part 2's basic plot stucture of 'alien civilization that has been attacking us is now also kidnapping us to force a union of the two species in a shotgun wedding' is less 'cheap romance' and more of something from like Star Trek.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

What's more, is you keep looking for boogiemen where there are none: there are no 'shots' taken, at anyone, least of all the Lego Corporation in what is the largest and most public love letter to them. They are called Master Builders because, what the fuck else would you call them? And actually think about their role in the story: they are stand-ins for the imaginations of the son and the father, but they are still actual things. Who are the Master Builders? They are all the special, cool mini-figures, and they get locked up because the father is confiscating them back (and I very much doubt the makers of the movie would bag on the real Master Builders, people who for a living, get to both play with lego and design new lego sets for others to enjoy, as you can see from the videos on Youtube of the various designers explaining the larger sets they work on Youtube). Which leads...

Spoiler

Ok, so cards flat on the table, this is starting to sound less like someone watched these movies than it does like a set of talking points from the sort of 'video essay' like the sort posted ironically enough by people like Anita and that other guy you posted, but for the opposite side. I mean, his ship is a fist because his answer to problems is literally punching them. But the big one was that point you made last about how they were going for a 'soft hero who wins with words' because...that does not happen in Part 2. Emmet talked Lord Business with the 'everyone is special' speech in the first one, meanwhile Emmet ends part two in a fist fight with his evil, alternate timeline doppelganger that ends when Lucy shows up and Rex realizes that he's been caught in a Back-to-the-future-esque paradox and vanishes. And (sorry if I wasn't clearer before), my problem is that he does fit into the story, that's the problem. Remember, this whole 'anything goes rules' started in part 1, basically two minutes afer finding out 'kids imagination' we have Emmet moving around in the real world, to the point that he is noticed by the kid and father. Time-traveling-evil-doppelganger fits well in this sort of 'fuck-it' approach to the rules, that's why I don't like it. Plus, I would argue that Part 2's basic plot stucture of 'alien civilization that has been attacking us is now also kidnapping us to force a union of the two species in a shotgun wedding' is less 'cheap romance' and more of something from like Star Trek.

Spoiler

Now you can say I am sounding like a video essay but the issue is having seen the film, what I'm saying should very much make sense and it also makes sense as to why Rex doesn't fit that well into the movie logically. Also yes his answer to things is punching it which yeh again Toxic masculinity etc etc. with Lucy showing up it could be seen as Emmet realising he's not been abandoned so is no longer toxic. I'm sure if I stretched it a bit there would be some "incel" comparisons to make here too lol.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Dune (2021)

In IMAX no less. I didn't go to an IMAX screening since Joker. I haven't read the book so with only the Lynch movie to go by I was surprised how similar the plot was (some of the weirder or sillier stuff I would've assumed was Lynch's doing) yet how infinitely clearer the Villeneuve movie is. It's also very slow and very deliberate: it's longer than Lynch's movie yet somehow covers less plot, ending at the halfway point or so. Gotta say I felt a bit scammed as soon as Dune: Part One appeared as the title. But nobody will say the 1984 version wasn't rushed as hell towards the end. Or that it was very good to begin with.

Visually it's a spectacle, sound, Hans Zimmer's bwaaaaam score, etc. I will say I doubt the movie's gonna connect with younger audiences though, and anybody who mistakes it for YA is gonna be disappointed. Paul is too passive a character, and the fiercely religious narrative and mystical tone don't play as well as uncomplicated bargain bin action adventure these days I think.

I have actually read the book before I saw either movie, and for all you can say about Lynch's version, it is a relatively faithful, if rushed, adaptation. I'm pretty sure the only things that really stuck out to me as Lynch taking creative liberties was the squid like appearance of the guild navigators (I'm pretty sure in the book they were still described as recognizably human) and Baron Harkonnens disfiguring skin condition. If anything, Lynch's movie tried to convey a bit more of the books worldbuilding than Villeneuve's did.

I too feel like the fact that the new movie wouldn't actually cover the entire book was conspicuously absent in any of its marketing and I was not exactly happy that the first time I had ever heard of it was when I was actually watching the movie. I feel like that was genuinely misleading marketing. For what it covers, it's hard to deny that Villeneuve's adaptation is better than Lynch's, though stylistically, where 80's Dune was easily the least David Lynch movie, 20's Dune is a very Denis Villeneuve movie. It's something that sticks out to me, considering his last two works were a sequel and an adaptation, respectively. His presentation is very cold and sterile. It's a bit jarring, watching Blade Runner 2049 and the original back to back. The original had such a lived in feel to it, which makes the sequel feel weirdly empty and lifeless in comparison.

 

[Gordon_4]

Danger Close: the Battle of Long Tan - 9/10

A dramatised but not overwrought war drama that depicts the engagement between Australian/New Zealand troops and a combined Viet Cong and North Vietnamese force at the titular Long Tan. It stars precisely one person who'll be recognised outside Australia: Travis Fimmel, playing the role of Major Harry Smith, commander of 6 Royal Australia Regiment in the field. The rest are local flavour, and most of them not ones I'd recognise off the bat outside of Richard Roxburgh. In fact there's two different blokes who at first go I thought were Sam Worthington.

The movie is not terribly introspective nor does it take any kind of meta nuance - short of one scene where a lone Australian soldier comes across two women taking a wounded Vietnamese soldier for aid - and presents itself as boots on the ground view of a single battle. In that sense however its pretty effective with blood and dirt flying all over and artillery getting shot and rained down. Its not quite as visceral as say, Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down but its good enough at getting the point across.

The movie's ending was fairly effective, its a just a roll call of the company while a montage of the wounded being recovered is played, and its backed by one of Australia's most famous songs about war. It then follows up with a cast call showing the actor and a photograph of whom they portrayed. Some of the resemblances were uncanny.



I loved the movie but its genetically designed to get a positive reaction out of me. Outside Australia, I'd recommend it if you an avid historian of the Vietnam war or just want to see a war movie that's a little different.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Snowpiercer (Prime)
Been avoiding this for so long due to hearing negative meh's about it, which surprised me when I started watching as it seemed mostly alright with a fantastic grimy steampunk aesthetic and a distinct British sensibility to the acting and visual approach, with Tilda Swinton being an absolute screen hogger of a villain. At times it almost felt a tad Terry Gilliam-esque, and it's pace was not hanging about for any fool. Though Chris Evans is unavoidably a dull protagonist.

However, about halfway through, it's like the whole project got infected with syphilitic dementia and everyone only makes the dumbest choices they can muster from the bowels of idiocy. Why the fuck would you use your own limb to stop a machinery when literally right beside you is a perfectly good set of chair legs?? For crying out loud, not even panic-induced adrenaline would explain that level of lemming judgement! That brought me back to the moment in Brightburn when the father tried shooting evil superman boy in the back of the head which just bounced off, yet he goes to reload and try again, cheesus! There's a TV series I just found out about, so may give that a go. Pity, really. It started off somewhat promising alongside a fantastic cast apart from Chris, sorry dude.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Snowpiercer

Christ, I completely forgot that was Tilda Swinton.

I remember quite liking the movie, Chris Evans and all. But admittedly I don't remember most of it anymore, and I watched it like last year maybe. I wasn't a big fan of the ending either, but I'm not a fan of Game of Thrones style bleakness and despair. I wonder what the movie would have been like if the director had been allowed to do as he wished. I mean, the guy is clearly talented.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I have actually read the book before I saw either movie, and for all you can say about Lynch's version, it is a relatively faithful, if rushed, adaptation. I'm pretty sure the only things that really stuck out to me as Lynch taking creative liberties was the squid like appearance of the guild navigators (I'm pretty sure in the book they were still described as recognizably human) and Baron Harkonnens disfiguring skin condition. If anything, Lynch's movie tried to convey a bit more of the books worldbuilding than Villeneuve's did.

I too feel like the fact that the new movie wouldn't actually cover the entire book was conspicuously absent in any of its marketing and I was not exactly happy that the first time I had ever heard of it was when I was actually watching the movie. I feel like that was genuinely misleading marketing. For what it covers, it's hard to deny that Villeneuve's adaptation is better than Lynch's, though stylistically, where 80's Dune was easily the least David Lynch movie, 20's Dune is a very Denis Villeneuve movie. It's something that sticks out to me, considering his last two works were a sequel and an adaptation, respectively. His presentation is very cold and sterile. It's a bit jarring, watching Blade Runner 2049 and the original back to back. The original had such a lived in feel to it, which makes the sequel feel weirdly empty and lifeless in comparison.

You know I rewatched the Lynch movie in preparation for Dune 2021 and was surprised by how it wasn't as awful as I remembered it. Messy and rushed, with some terrible effects even by 1984 standards, but nowhere near as incoherent as I remembered. I will fault the book for the lack of clarity - I read some of it and for a book mostly told through dialogue and action (like you would expect from a screenplay) it manages to be infuriatingly vague. Fuck context, description and knowing when and how to introduce your esoteric techno gobbledygook. Reminded me a bit of Neuromancer. That flow of making up super complex concepts as you go regardless of whether the story will have use for them or not, and not a care in the world for context.

Lord of the Rings starts with a birthday party. Dune begins with the bene gesserit using the gom jabbar to spot the kwisatz haderach.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Christ, I completely forgot that was Tilda Swinton.

I remember quite liking the movie, Chris Evans and all. But admittedly I don't remember most of it anymore, and I watched it like last year maybe. I wasn't a big fan of the ending either, but I'm not a fan of Game of Thrones style bleakness and despair. I wonder what the movie would have been like if the director had been allowed to do as he wished. I mean, the guy is clearly talented.

Yeah, the film does have a lot to like, and Chris Evans isn't so much "bad" as he is more bland like an average videogame protagonist. I was on board (lol) for most of it until specific dumb moments clashed hard, like another part where people are shooting through glass at each other despite the outside being shown to be super deadly cold. Tbh I thought the film wasn't that bleak compared how the premise looks on paper, as the British sensibilities include a certain style of offbeat humour when it's not murdering everyone. And the ending was, in my opinion, unrealistically positive. It's...a bit of a rollercoaster.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

You know I rewatched the Lynch movie in preparation for Dune 2021 and was surprised by how it wasn't as awful as I remembered it. Messy and rushed, with some terrible effects even by 1984 standards, but nowhere near as incoherent as I remembered. I will fault the book for the lack of clarity - I read some of it and for a book mostly told through dialogue and action (like you would expect from a screenplay) it manages to be infuriatingly vague. Fuck context, description and knowing when and how to introduce your esoteric techno gobbledygook. Reminded me a bit of Neuromancer. That flow of making up super complex concepts as you go regardless of whether the story will have use for them or not, and not a care in the world for context.

Lord of the Rings starts with a birthday party. Dune begins with the bene gesserit using the gom jabbar to spot the kwisatz haderach.

Actually, Lord of the Rings starts with an elaborate description of the tobacco Hobbits smoke.

Yeah, but no, Dune is a weird novel and everyone trying to adapt it has to dig themselves through a shitload of very opaque world building. But, you know, that's what Science Fiction nerds are into.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Actually, Lord of the Rings starts with an elaborate description of the tobacco Hobbits smoke.

By that you mean the prologue, which is largely meta and talks freely about The Hobbit book. The story proper - Chapter 1 of Fellowship of the Ring - begins with a birthday. A short one sentence paragraph about Bilbo, a character you already know from The Hobbit (or the prologue you just read).

Dune's relationship with anything realistically relatable is so cryptic and tenuous it's already hard to tell what the hell's going on even without the rampant esoteric technobabble clouding the text. Where you don't even get a feel for the significance of what's being presented because it feels like I dropped in the middle a business meeting and I don't even work there. It would be like Fellowship opening halfway through The Council of Elrond.

Since you read the book - what's up with Feyd and the cat? Is that Lynch or the novel?

 

[Hawki]

You know I rewatched the Lynch movie in preparation for Dune 2021 and was surprised by how it wasn't as awful as I remembered it. Messy and rushed, with some terrible effects even by 1984 standards, but nowhere near as incoherent as I remembered. I will fault the book for the lack of clarity - I read some of it and for a book mostly told through dialogue and action (like you would expect from a screenplay) it manages to be infuriatingly vague. Fuck context, description and knowing when and how to introduce your esoteric techno gobbledygook. Reminded me a bit of Neuromancer. That flow of making up super complex concepts as you go regardless of whether the story will have use for them or not, and not a care in the world for context.

Lord of the Rings starts with a birthday party. Dune begins with the bene gesserit using the gom jabbar to spot the kwisatz haderach.

I'm the opposite. Dune, the novel, of what I've read of it (the first part, up to where Paul and Jessica are stranded in the desert) is a masterclass of worldbuilding, and with interesting characters inhabiting that world. Dune, the film, is a mess. It's not even an interesting mess, and I nearly fell asleep when I watched it.

 

[gorfias]

OMG: On Hulu. 4/5 Vacation Friends. Sorry it took me so long to get to this but I started to watch it, realized I was having fun, and needed to arrange to ensure my family was with me to watch it.

To enjoy a comedy, I need there to be a lot of joy. I hate "comedies" full of stress. This has stress, but so much fun and joy. I really hate serious, downer acts. (Loved Bridesmaids, but there was like a whole act devoted to being a bummer!!!!). There is a moment of downer. I can ignore that in favor of all the sex, drugs and craziness that follows. In a time when comedies are considered risky business and so absent out there... this is so refreshing. Hope you all watch it. Whether you've had some drugs or not.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'm the opposite. Dune, the novel, of what I've read of it (the first part, up to where Paul and Jessica are stranded in the desert) is a masterclass of worldbuilding, and with interesting characters inhabiting that world. Dune, the film, is a mess. It's not even an interesting mess, and I nearly fell asleep when I watched it.

Nobody will defend Dune (the Lynch movie) as not being a mess. I posit the book is an even bigger mess, and Herbert isn't a very good writer. He's like JK and the GoT dude - a very passionate, very creative visionary who builds fantasy worlds better than sentences.

 

[Hawki]

Nobody will defend Dune (the Lynch movie) as not being a mess. I posit the book is an even bigger mess, and Herbert isn't a very good writer. He's like JK and the GoT dude - a visionary

Well, I'll agree to disagree that Herbert isn't a good writer, but how are JK and JRRM visionaries? Nothing JK's written is a projection of how the world can, or should, operate. GRRM has set some works in the future, yes, but the Haviland Tuf books are short adventure stories.

I'm not even sure if "visionary" is the best word to describe Herbert either, because Dune takes place 20,000 years in the future, and there's no real road from here to there. Dune's saying a lot, yes, but it's not a real projection of human society.

 

[Hawki]

Dracula Untold (5/10)

Fuck this movie is stupid.

Basically, it's an origin story for Dracula - taking place in Transylvania in the 15th century, as the Ottoman Empire closes in on Europe. Not sure how this factors in, as the Turks mention the upcoming Siege of Vienna, but wasn't that in the 16th century? Fine, whatever. The movie's got enough problems with its 'vampire rules,' how they seem to fluctuate how the plot demands they do.

So basically, what you have left is a bland movie with bland characters, engaging in mostly bland action. I say mostly bland, because there's some exceptions, but when your vampires are so strong they can easily tear through human-armies singlehandedly, it removes any sense of tension...except when they can't, because...reasons.

Waste of time.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

By that you mean the prologue, which is largely meta and talks freely about The Hobbit book. The story proper - Chapter 1 of Fellowship of the Ring - begins with a birthday. A short one sentence paragraph about Bilbo, a character you already know from The Hobbit (or the prologue you just read).

Dune's relationship with anything realistically relatable is so cryptic and tenuous it's already hard to tell what the hell's going on even without the rampant esoteric technobabble clouding the text. Where you don't even get a feel for the significance of what's being presented because it feels like I dropped in the middle a business meeting and I don't even work there. It would be like Fellowship opening halfway through The Council of Elrond.

Since you read the book - what's up with Feyd and the cat? Is that Lynch or the novel?

I'm not gonna defend Dune's opaque storytelling here. I'm not a big fan of the property or any of its adaptations. I haven't even read the sequels and from what I've heard, they get really bloody weird really quick.

No, I don't think the cat was in the book. Mind you, I've read it, like, 12 years ago but I'm pretty sure I'd have remembered if it was.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Halloween Kills

I watched at home on the Peacock app which was convenient, except for the one time it froze and had to be reset. Anyways let’s face it, no matter how you slice it or stab it these movies have ultimately gotten to be about watching Michael get down to business and little else. However, with the latest installment they added some allegorical meat to the tale smack in the middle, and it ended up being more than a bit overdone. Subtly is not something this movie emphasizes in terms of narrative and it was its biggest sore spot IMO, along with the pacing being dragged down in the middle. The opening is a nice callback that includes some hidden details not seen in the original, and the ending takes a bit of a surprise detour because trilogy, but it’s kinda amazing they’ve been able to reassemble so much of the original cast after so many decades have passed.

If you’re willing to overlook some pacing issues, cringey performances and a couple horrible sound bites (”EVIL DIES TONIGHT!!”) it’s a fun and entertaining killing spree. Michael’s skills are on full display doing what he does best here, though I’m perhaps pleasantly surprised they didn’t turn it into a complete showcase of death, given the title. There are really only a couple particularly gruesome kills, worst of which is not even by Michael’s hands. Also has a few laughs early on by the shortest lived characters, and what is probably my favorite kill in the whole series. It might have even surprised Michael. A buddy said he and his brother also laughed their asses off while most of the theater gasped, which makes it pretty crystal clear we’re from a completely different generation, and therefore mindset.

All in all, three out of four bloody smashed pumpkins.