Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

[Xprimentyl]

The Matrix: Resurrections: Fine / Great

I finally saw it. And yeah, it could easily have been called "The Matrix: Another One; Give Us Money." As much as I did enjoy it for what it was (yeah, I'm the one, no pun intended,) it is shameless in acknowledging it's own pointlessness. It almost goes out of its own way to say "I shouldn't be a thing," taking potshots at itself almost from the jump. This might be the swan song of the franchise as Revolution was supposed to be. It's completely contrived from the ground up, but they've laid the foundation for probably another film or two which I'll likely pay to see because calling anything "The Matrix" is a surefire way to get me to reach for my wallet.

I do think they missed out on an opportunity suggesting a much more interesting film that happened between the end of the third and this one, though. The idea that the machines themselves had a civil war would have been much more interesting to watch over "Neo and Trinity have eternal hard-ons for one another because love." We got that... 3 movies ago. I mean how many times are these two going to literally resurrect each other? At this point, they're coming off as the couple that can't stop fondling and cooing over each other in polite company. Rusty nailed it in '85...

 

[Bartholen]

Inside Out, 6/10

I hadn't seen this since it came out, and I later realized I haven't seen a single Pixar film released since, which I aim to correct soon. My memory of this was curious: I remember laughing massively while watching it in the theater, but everything I could remember from it were things that either bothered or annoyed me. And after a rewatch that opinion was more firmly entrenched.

This film does have some of Pixar's best and most creative bits from any of their films. The abstract thought part where the animation just goes completely nuts for a moment was the highlight of the film for me, and the way they depict various psychological concepts visually is for the most part really inventive and surprisingly dark, like how the memory of the birthday clown is stuck in Riley's subconscious. The mechanics of the world are really fun to watch and there's some genuinely hilarious gags like the headlines in Anger's newspaper and the running gag about the gum commercial. And the mere fact that Pixar decided to depict some pretty complicated and adult concepts in a family film is laudable.

However, I was still left only lukewarm on the film. I found it quite sentimental and schmaltzy in a way I don't think I've found any other Pixar film I've seen. The music seemed way more prevalent in emotional scenes, and the beginning of the movie felt particularly Hollywood in that "oh isn't childhood so wonderful" kind of way. The part where Bing Bong basically dies left me completely cold, because I still remember my imaginary friend from when I was a kid, and I didn't feel we'd really established a connection between him and Riley enough for that scene to have the effect it was going for.

I kept paying particular attention to the Riley scenes to try to figure out if they would make sense as a short film by themselves, and the answer I personally I arrived at was "no". Her emotional state seems to turn on a dime, and her reactions to things seem way too extreme, like when she suddenly apparently forgets how to play hockey. I guess this is the part where you could go deep analysis and say Riley could be potentially bipolar, but I feel if you open that can of worms you can make any excuses for this movie. I think the film is clearly expecting us to think of her as an ordinary everyday kid who ends up in emotional turmoil as a result of moving to SF. If she was bipolar or some other kind of neurodivergent, I don't think you'd even need that plot device.

While I said the mechanics of the world are fun to watch, the visual depictions of things they go with ultimately end up pretty confusing. Like how the various islands of personality crash into the chasm which is supposed to signal her forgetting stuff. Does the family island crashing down mean she's forgotten her family? Or how towards the end when the Train of Thought crashes while Riley is on the bus. Does that mean her entire thought process has crashed and she's basically a vegetable now? They do make for some exciting setpieces, but with the amount of time the movie spends establishing all the rules of its world it ends up being somewhat at odds with itself. Like with the aforementioned hockey scene: you'd think that with one of her earliest defining memories being a happy one related to hockey, and one of her core personality traits revolving around her playing hockey, that playing it would be a safe haven for her. But no, apparently it's just incidental and easily removed despite being a bedrock of her identity.

Ultimately I feel that one's feelings on this film will vary vastly based on personal experiences. I can totally see how people absolutely adore this film, I'm just personally not part of that group. As a final note, I noticed an interesting pattern with Pixar movies that I'd call the 3:1 bad/good ratio, that started with this film:

• The 3 films that preceded this were Cars 2, Brave and Monsters University which were met with middling to bad reviews. Then this came out, and "Pixar's back on track".
• The 3 films that followed this were The Good Dinosaur, Finding Dory and Cars 3, again, middling to bad reviews. Then Coco came out, and "Pixar's back on track"
• The 3 films following Coco were Incredibles 2, Toy Story 4 and Onward, and then Soul came out. I'm pretty sure you can see how the pattern seems to work at this point. It's nothing but a curiosity, but I think it's interesting.

 

[Gordon_4]

Inside Out, 6/10

I hadn't seen this since it came out, and I later realized I haven't seen a single Pixar film released since, which I aim to correct soon. My memory of this was curious: I remember laughing massively while watching it in the theater, but everything I could remember from it were things that either bothered or annoyed me. And after a rewatch that opinion was more firmly entrenched.

This film does have some of Pixar's best and most creative bits from any of their films. The abstract thought part where the animation just goes completely nuts for a moment was the highlight of the film for me, and the way they depict various psychological concepts visually is for the most part really inventive and surprisingly dark, like how the memory of the birthday clown is stuck in Riley's subconscious. The mechanics of the world are really fun to watch and there's some genuinely hilarious gags like the headlines in Anger's newspaper and the running gag about the gum commercial. And the mere fact that Pixar decided to depict some pretty complicated and adult concepts in a family film is laudable.

However, I was still left only lukewarm on the film. I found it quite sentimental and schmaltzy in a way I don't think I've found any other Pixar film I've seen. The music seemed way more prevalent in emotional scenes, and the beginning of the movie felt particularly Hollywood in that "oh isn't childhood so wonderful" kind of way. The part where Bing Bong basically dies left me completely cold, because I still remember my imaginary friend from when I was a kid, and I didn't feel we'd really established a connection between him and Riley enough for that scene to have the effect it was going for.

I kept paying particular attention to the Riley scenes to try to figure out if they would make sense as a short film by themselves, and the answer I personally I arrived at was "no". Her emotional state seems to turn on a dime, and her reactions to things seem way too extreme, like when she suddenly apparently forgets how to play hockey. I guess this is the part where you could go deep analysis and say Riley could be potentially bipolar, but I feel if you open that can of worms you can make any excuses for this movie. I think the film is clearly expecting us to think of her as an ordinary everyday kid who ends up in emotional turmoil as a result of moving to SF. If she was bipolar or some other kind of neurodivergent, I don't think you'd even need that plot device.

While I said the mechanics of the world are fun to watch, the visual depictions of things they go with ultimately end up pretty confusing. Like how the various islands of personality crash into the chasm which is supposed to signal her forgetting stuff. Does the family island crashing down mean she's forgotten her family? Or how towards the end when the Train of Thought crashes while Riley is on the bus. Does that mean her entire thought process has crashed and she's basically a vegetable now? They do make for some exciting setpieces, but with the amount of time the movie spends establishing all the rules of its world it ends up being somewhat at odds with itself. Like with the aforementioned hockey scene: you'd think that with one of her earliest defining memories being a happy one related to hockey, and one of her core personality traits revolving around her playing hockey, that playing it would be a safe haven for her. But no, apparently it's just incidental and easily removed despite being a bedrock of her identity.

Ultimately I feel that one's feelings on this film will vary vastly based on personal experiences. I can totally see how people absolutely adore this film, I'm just personally not part of that group. As a final note, I noticed an interesting pattern with Pixar movies that I'd call the 3:1 good/bad ratio, that started with this film:

• The 3 films that preceded this were Cars 2, Brave and Monsters University which were met with middling to bad reviews. Then this came out, and "Pixar's back on track".
• The 3 films that followed this were The Good Dinosaur, Finding Dory and Cars 3, again, middling to bad reviews. Then Coco came out, and "Pixar's back on track"
• The 3 films following Coco were Incredibles 2, Toy Story 4 and Onward, and then Soul came out. I'm pretty sure you can see how the pattern seems to work at this point. It's nothing but a curiosity, but I think it's interesting.

The islands of personality crashing aren’t her forgetting things. They’re her ceasing to value what they represent. Because she’s depressed; which here is (reasonably) accurately depicted as unable to feel happy OR sad. Bipolar is extreme highs and lows.

As for her personality turning on a dime, well, she’s a kid going through her first true major upheaval. I mean a cross country move isn’t the worst thing that can happen to a kid by perspective is a *****

But you’re right, Inside Out is a move you’re either gonna be onboard with or you won’t. I have kids so it gripped my heart with icy terror for some parts. Incidentally if you get a chance, check out the short “Riley’s First Date” if you are a dad; holy shit it’s hilarious.

 

[Bartholen]

The islands of personality crashing aren’t her forgetting things. They’re her ceasing to value what they represent. Because she’s depressed; which here is (reasonably) accurately depicted as unable to feel happy OR sad. Bipolar is extreme highs and lows.

Therein I think lies the issue of choosing to depict such complex topics visually in a movie that kids are supposed to be able to grasp: the movie clearly sets up the chasm as forgetting things, but stopping to value things is way different psychologically. Therefore the movie would need to depict it with a different visual, and therefore do even more setup. I feel the island(s) shutting down would have sufficed way better, but that wouldn't be nearly as thrilling and just sorta grim and depressing. As for how the movie is I'm just left wondering what actually happens in the mind world when she suddenly decides to head back. Does the family island suddenly just spring back up? Is a new one formed? If the islands form her personality (something the movie states out loud), does she literally lose all her personality in the few days time the movie takes place in, becoming just an empty husk? And since Riley is meant to be depressed towards the end, is the movie saying that depressed people have no personality? Yikes, Pixar.

 

[Gordon_4]

Therein I think lies the issue of choosing to depict such complex topics visually in a movie that kids are supposed to be able to grasp: the movie clearly sets up the chasm as forgetting things, but stopping to value things is way different psychologically. Therefore the movie would need to depict it with a different visual, and therefore do even more setup. I feel the island(s) shutting down would have sufficed way better, but that wouldn't be nearly as thrilling and just sorta grim and depressing. As for how the movie is I'm just left wondering what actually happens in the mind world when she suddenly decides to head back. Does the family island suddenly just spring back up? Is a new one formed? If the islands form her personality (something the movie states out loud), does she literally lose all her personality in the few days time the movie takes place in, becoming just an empty husk? And since Riley is meant to be depressed towards the end, is the movie saying that depressed people have no personality? Yikes, Pixar.

It isn’t that Riley has no personality, but her outward manifestation of depression makes her come across that way since she has trouble at the time relating to anyone without Fear (dodging her mother’s questions), Disgust (her apparent disinterest in the local hockey) or Anger (her fight with her dad). And she’s in a new place with no friends so she’s also withdrawn. And her logic is pretty straight forward from a kids perspective: “I was happy in Minnesota, I’m now in San Francisco and I’m unhappy. If I go back to Minnesota I’ll be happy again”.

As for her ‘Come to Jesus’ moment; well since my thimbleful of knowledge about depression is already exhausted, I’m putting that down to movie magic. I don’t know if emotional stability can just return like that; I fuckin’ wish it could.

 

[Ezekiel]

Underworld

Found this shot cool. I had to go back and look at it again.

Spoiler

Not very good in any aspect, but not a waste of time either. Felt padded, though. I probably should have watched the theatrical cut.

 

[BrawlMan]

Underworld

Found this shot cool. I had to go back and look at it again.

Spoiler

Not very good in any aspect, but not a waste of time either. Felt padded, though. I probably should have watched the theatrical cut.

I find nearly all the Underworld movies of waste of time. The only one I genuinely enjoyed was Rise Of The Lycans.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Lamb: What. The. Fuck. / Great

If ever a movie made less sense than this one, I'd be hard pressed to believe it.

A couple in Iceland witness the birth of an half human, half goat "creature" on their farm(?) and take it in as ostensibly their own child. It's suggested this abomination is somehow fulfilling a hole in their hearts as they name it after their own child who apparently passed away. The husband's brother shows up, asks the main question we're all asking, then... well, and then the movie continues for another hour or so and ends.

Completely surreal drivel. I think the only people who "enjoyed" this garbage are people who think it somehow more intellectual than literal, and think themselves better than the rest of us for "getting it"... which is exactly how the film comes off. It's fucking 15 minutes before the first words are spoken, that time being eaten up with a showing of the farm couple's isolated lives doing daily chores and menial tasks about their property. The reveal at the very end, arguably the most interesting part of the film, passes by without explanation; it just happens, and the film ends. This felt like the first half-hour of a much better movie protracted needlessly for almost two hours. The only thing I can think is that it was some harkening towards Icelandic/Nordic culture or folklore that is lost on those on the outside looking in. Maybe it's a great film, but I feel like I just watched performance art in a foreign language meaning both its purpose and meaning were completely lost on me. Do NOT watch unless you've got to choose between watching it and two hours of self-flagellation for sins unknown.

 

[Ezekiel]

Dune (1984)

My brother and I watched Dune 2021 about ten days ago and Dune 1984 tonight. We both found David Lynch's movie visually more interesting, even with all its budgetary shortcomings and absence of the magic wand that is CG. Music was better too. Roger Deakins and Hans Zimmer are both overrated. Last forty minutes of Lynch's movie are, unfortunately, rushed. The floating guy was too bizarre in this and some of the characters are less developed.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Dune (1984)

My brother and I watched Dune 2021 about ten days ago and Dune 1984 tonight. We both found David Lynch's movie visually more interesting, even with all its budgetary shortcomings and absence of the magic wand that is CG. Music was better too. Roger Deakins and Hans Zimmer are both overrated. Last forty minutes of Lynch's movie are, unfortunately, rushed. The floating guy was too bizarre in this and some of the characters are less developed.

Hans Zimmer definitely, Deakins though has always been pretty great except in the last few years, with his work looking pretty flat and digital now. Both Blade Runner 2049 and what I've seen of Dune visually do nothing for me, while Fargo and No Country for Old Men still blow me away with how good they look.

 

[thebobmaster]

Just watched a classic slasher movie tonight, The Slumber Party Massacre. It was definitely an experience. You see, the script was written as a send-up/parody of slasher films, but it was filmed as a serious slasher film, so the tonal whiplash could be crazy at times. You have a killer who is killing people with a power drill (probably the most phallic weapon you can think of), and more bare female chests than possibly any other slasher movie, as per the request of producer Roger Corman. Interestingly enough, both the scriptwriter and director are women, which perhaps explains why the characters feel surprisingly well-rounded for slasher movie fare. All in all, a pretty fun watch, even it it seems uncertain whether or not it wants to be taken seriously due to the aforementioned difference in opinion between the director and the writers.

 

[Ezekiel]

Hans Zimmer definitely, Deakins though has always been pretty great except in the last few years, with his work looking pretty flat and digital now. Both Blade Runner 2049 and what I've seen of Dune visually do nothing for me, while Fargo and No Country for Old Men still blow me away with how good they look.

Fargo and No Country are old news. I don't understand why he is considered the hot shit NOW. Paul Thomas Anderson blew everything he's worked on in the last decade out of the water with Phantom Thread.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Fargo and No Country are old news. I don't understand why he is considered the hot shit NOW. Paul Thomas Anderson blew everything he's worked on in the last decade out of the water with Phantom Thread.

He's certainly put on a bit too high of a pedestal now, likely due to him being ignored for the longest time, eventhough he's work currently is of a much lesser quality.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Shang-Chi And The Legend Of The Ten Rings: Fucking Awesome / Great

Best Marvel movie to date. Sets the bar at 11 for the 6s and 7s I've seen from the MCU. It slightly disappoints me knowing that after this film, this character and unique world will be relegated to cash-grab sequels and mash-ups with other MCU characters befitting the next inevitable Endgame-esque moneyshot.

I didn't want to watch this film, and about halfway through, I was only upset I hadn't watched it sooner in theaters.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Dune (1984)

My brother and I watched Dune 2021 about ten days ago and Dune 1984 tonight. We both found David Lynch's movie visually more interesting, even with all its budgetary shortcomings and absence of the magic wand that is CG. Music was better too. Roger Deakins and Hans Zimmer are both overrated. Last forty minutes of Lynch's movie are, unfortunately, rushed. The floating guy was too bizarre in this and some of the characters are less developed.

Hans Zimmer definitely, Deakins though has always been pretty great except in the last few years, with his work looking pretty flat and digital now. Both Blade Runner 2049 and what I've seen of Dune visually do nothing for me, while Fargo and No Country for Old Men still blow me away with how good they look.

Sorry for being that guy, but Roger Deakins didn't work on Dune.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Roger Deakins and Hans Zimmer are both overrated.

Hans Zimmer definitely

As someone who likes Zimmer's work, I feel the need to defend him and make the distinction between "overrated" and "overused." Zimmer's work is amazing. He's able to elicit power and intense emotional reaction from any given scene; if Hollywood finds reason to defer to his talent more often than some might appreciate, that's one thing, but to say he's not good at what he does is another. You or anyone may hear his scores as amorphous walls of sound with a ton of brass stabs, but there's no denying they work and are more nuanced than dismissing them for apparent lack of subtlety or nuance. I watched Interstellar twice in theaters, and I didn't even like it; I just loved the score in the IMAX theater; it was so overwhelming (in a good sense.)

Not suggesting everyone needs to like his work as much as I do, but it certainly has been the zeitgeist to hate on his prevalence, which I think is unfair, i.e.: a popular thing sucks if you've any assumed intellect about yourself, right? I don't like popular music, but I won't call it overrated if it appeals as much to the masses as it clearly does. It does its job, and entertainers like The Weeknd are able to exist profitably without my insight that his music is utter garbage upon the 45th forced listen.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Sorry for being that guy, but Roger Deakins didn't work on Dune.

Than where the heck did I get that?! Coulda sworn he was tied to this movie.

As someone who likes Zimmer's work, I feel the need to defend him and make the distinction between "overrated" and "overused." Zimmer's work is amazing. He's able to elicit power and intense emotional reaction from any given scene; if Hollywood finds reason to defer to his talent more often than some might appreciate, that's one thing, but to say he's not good at what he does is another. You or anyone may hear his scores as amorphous walls of sound with a ton of brass stabs, but there's no denying they work and are more nuanced than dismissing them for apparent lack of subtlety or nuance. I watched Interstellar twice in theaters, and I didn't even like it; I just loved the score in the IMAX theater; it was so overwhelming (in a good sense.)

Not suggesting everyone needs to like his work as much as I do, but it certainly has been the zeitgeist to hate on his prevalence, which I think is unfair, i.e.: a popular thing sucks if you've any assumed intellect about yourself, right? I don't like popular music, but I won't call it overrated if it appeals as much to the masses as it clearly does. It does its job, and entertainers like The Weeknd are able to exist profitably without my insight that his music is utter garbage upon the 45th forced listen.

That's cool, but I never liked the guy. Zimmer's score is typically designed to overwhelm your eardrums, and shit like that is what makes me wanna run out of the theater. The most nerve wracking thing for me about every theater visit used to be that fucking THX screen reving up, when that was still a thing. And Zimmer has made that into his signature style.

And I mean, I can't for the life of remember the score to Blade Runner 2049 (apart from the melody of the original movie) and I've seen that movie a a good couple of times.

 

[Ezekiel]

Than where the heck did I get that?! Coulda sworn he was tied to this movie.

I made the mistake because Denis Venenuevleiss has worked with him on a few movies and they mostly look about as muted as Dune.

And I mean, I can't for the life of remember the score to Blade Runner 2049 (apart from the melody of the original movie) and I've seen that movie a a good couple of times.

Blade Runner 2049's score was DOMMMM DOMMMM DOMMM DOMMM DOMMM DOMMM. So deep your home shakes. That movie has a ridiculous LFE channel. Too much. But yeah, bland soundtrack.

 

[Xprimentyl]

That's cool, but I never liked the guy. Zimmer's score is typically designed to overwhelm your eardrums, and shit like that is what makes me wanna run out of the theater. The most nerve wracking thing for me about every theater visit used to be that fucking THX screen reving up, when that was still a thing. And Zimmer has made that into his signature style.

And I mean, I can't for the life of remember the score to Blade Runner 2049 (apart from the melody of the original movie) and I've seen that movie a a good couple of times.

That's where we amicably differ; I like ambient music, both when it underwhelms and sooths, and when it takes up the entire room and headspace so long as anything falling in either category is masterfully-enough crafted and purposeful, i.e.: a thing being "loud" and "overwhelming" can suit a specific purpose and/or mood acutely.

My issue is when someone/thing is given an objective quality from a subjective perspective. I'd much rather someone say they dislike something versus saying it's "overrated." Tell me why YOU don't like a thing; not that the thing is somehow overvalued by others. I know; it's nitpicky and I'm more than likely guilty of it myself as it's an easy line to cross, but sometimes it flicks a nerve; Zimmer's work is one of those areas for me, particularly when it seems to be the "hip" thing to hate on it.

 

[CaitSeith]

Don't Look Up (2021)

Satirical comedy and allegory for climate change starring Leonardo di Caprio, Jennifer Lawrence and a load of what amount to cameos. And of course heavily based on traditional disaster movies: scientists realise there's a problem, the politicians don't listen, cue disater. It's not bad, some of the stuff is funny (if also a little too obvious). It is however between 30 and 60 minutes too long: comedy is hard to sustain, and here as is often the case, the joke runs thin after a while.

Spoiler

Without the context, "Don't Look Up" would be basically "Idiocracy meets Deep Impact". I found it was a nice detail that "Don't Look Up" was the deniers' propaganda; but the real Don't Look Up happened on the last moments spent by the scientists and their families (instead of looking up when the comet finally hit, they focused their attention on their families and close friends).