Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
I agreed with...pretty much everything you said, just wanted to address one thing. I never got the feeling that the Firebird was necessarily a villain. As you said, it was representing the "death" part of the "life and death" dichotomy. As such, it was more a force of nature outside of any real morality. The sprite came off as good, but that's partially because "life=good" and also being much more anthropomorphized. Remember, while yes, the Firebird devastated the land in the short run, the Sprite was able to bring it back better than even before the Firebird, which to me showed that the yin and yang of the two was completely necessary.
Or maybe I just thought the animation was gorgeous and am reaching.
I actually do know the reason for this! See, Fantasia was originally supposed to be something done every few years, but Walt Disney cancelled the plans for that once the box office for Fantasia came in. Fantasia 2000 was basically Roy Disney taking advantage of the upcoming millennial celebration to give his uncle's idea one more go.
Innocence (2005)
French arthouse fantasy-ish mystery movie based on an early 20th century German novella. Set at a mysterious european boarding school for young girls where they get ribbons in their hair denoting their age and get ballet instruction to perform in an underground theater in front of a faceless audience.
It's the first feature length movie by Lucille Hadzihalilovic, wife of the famously provocative french director Gaspar Noe Innocence is a movie is a slower, more restrained affair, dripping with atmosphere and only hinting at the darkness at its heart.
When Innocence welcomes us to its secluded girls school, surrounded by a large wall, within a deep forest and overgrown with ivy where students arrive inside a coffin, it becomes clear to us that what we're watching is a parable, a fairy tale of sorts. Innocence, especially in its setting, greatly resembles an anime series called "Promised Neverland" (Along with Italian horror classic Suspiria, which took inspiration from the same book)
Promised Neverland, you see, was the story of an orphanage where kids are raised to be fed to monsters and followed their attempts to escape. In Innocence escape is never seriously attempted and the monsters are never seen. It does, however, leave very little doubt that they exist. Between the oddly sexualised dance routines, the way age is equated with value, the performances in front of an unseen crowd, the underground dungeons with secret train lines, there's little doubt to what Innocence is about.
If we look at fairy tales, and we treat Innocence as one, we will recognize most of them as clearly didactic stories. Stories that are meant to teach lessons to children as part of a narrative. Don't stray off the path or you'll get lost in the woods. Be wary of strangers. Be wary of wild animals. If Innocence is a fairy tale adults, it asks us to reconsider the lessons we teach to children.
It's child characters are unambiguously exploited, but not only that, they're taught to be exploited. If we consider the school and its grounds as a metaphor for the walled garden of childhood where adults oversee the development of their children, it makes us ask what it is, exactly, we're raising them to be. Whether we prepare them for a life of exploitation at the hand of sinister elites. Innocence, of course, makes it specifically about young girls and clearly invokes a sense of objectification that is all but exclusive to women.
Innocence is a slow, atmospheric movie that doesn't have much in the way of great plot revelations or twists. The message behind it will sink in probably sooner rather than later. But it's a message wort contemplating presented in a way that is worth seeing. Outside of being a visual marvel whose textures you can almost feel, it does an admirable job with it's child actors. Though, on that note, as a heads up, it features a good deal of child nudity that you most likely will find at least a bit uncomfortable. Nevertheless, the directors eye for a specific kind of gothic romanticism is nothing if not impressive. It's quite a debut.
French arthouse fantasy-ish mystery movie based on an early 20th century German novella. Set at a mysterious european boarding school for young girls where they get ribbons in their hair denoting their age and get ballet instruction to perform in an underground theater in front of a faceless audience.
It's the first feature length movie by Lucille Hadzihalilovic, wife of the famously provocative french director Gaspar Noe Innocence is a movie is a slower, more restrained affair, dripping with atmosphere and only hinting at the darkness at its heart.
When Innocence welcomes us to its secluded girls school, surrounded by a large wall, within a deep forest and overgrown with ivy where students arrive inside a coffin, it becomes clear to us that what we're watching is a parable, a fairy tale of sorts. Innocence, especially in its setting, greatly resembles an anime series called "Promised Neverland" (Along with Italian horror classic Suspiria, which took inspiration from the same book)
Promised Neverland, you see, was the story of an orphanage where kids are raised to be fed to monsters and followed their attempts to escape. In Innocence escape is never seriously attempted and the monsters are never seen. It does, however, leave very little doubt that they exist. Between the oddly sexualised dance routines, the way age is equated with value, the performances in front of an unseen crowd, the underground dungeons with secret train lines, there's little doubt to what Innocence is about.
If we look at fairy tales, and we treat Innocence as one, we will recognize most of them as clearly didactic stories. Stories that are meant to teach lessons to children as part of a narrative. Don't stray off the path or you'll get lost in the woods. Be wary of strangers. Be wary of wild animals. If Innocence is a fairy tale adults, it asks us to reconsider the lessons we teach to children.
It's child characters are unambiguously exploited, but not only that, they're taught to be exploited. If we consider the school and its grounds as a metaphor for the walled garden of childhood where adults oversee the development of their children, it makes us ask what it is, exactly, we're raising them to be. Whether we prepare them for a life of exploitation at the hand of sinister elites. Innocence, of course, makes it specifically about young girls and clearly invokes a sense of objectification that is all but exclusive to women.
Innocence is a slow, atmospheric movie that doesn't have much in the way of great plot revelations or twists. The message behind it will sink in probably sooner rather than later. But it's a message wort contemplating presented in a way that is worth seeing. Outside of being a visual marvel whose textures you can almost feel, it does an admirable job with it's child actors. Though, on that note, as a heads up, it features a good deal of child nudity that you most likely will find at least a bit uncomfortable. Nevertheless, the directors eye for a specific kind of gothic romanticism is nothing if not impressive. It's quite a debut.
In a factual sense (well, what I'd call factual), no, the Firebird isn't a villain. As you said, there's a cycle of life and death, because of the Firebird, the area bounces back, more beautiful than before.I agreed with...pretty much everything you said, just wanted to address one thing. I never got the feeling that the Firebird was necessarily a villain. As you said, it was representing the "death" part of the "life and death" dichotomy. As such, it was more a force of nature outside of any real morality. The sprite came off as good, but that's partially because "life=good" and also being much more anthropomorphized. Remember, while yes, the Firebird devastated the land in the short run, the Sprite was able to bring it back better than even before the Firebird, which to me showed that the yin and yang of the two was completely necessary.
Or maybe I just thought the animation was gorgeous and am reaching.
However, per the animation (again, which is gorgeous), when we see the Firebird itself, it comes off as a malignant figure. A being that isn't doing its job, but rather a being that actually enjoys the destruction it causes. Partly through its facial animations, partly because it seems to hunt down the Sprite directly. And while it might be coincidence, the Suite struck me as a potential counterpart to Bald Mountain/Ave Maria - while it's one composition instead of two, there's the dichotomy of life/death and dark/light in both. If that's the case, then the Firebird would be Chernebog in a sense.
But nitpicking.
Beast (2022) Amazon Prime
Nice cat and mouse game between humans Idris Elba, Sharlto Copley and a couple of well acted young daughters (Elba's) who are suitably cute, annoying and don't freakin listen! in Africa being stalked by a rogue lion.
We've seen similar enough but this is beautiful to look at with plenty of tense action scenes and a terrific, smart climax. B.
Nice cat and mouse game between humans Idris Elba, Sharlto Copley and a couple of well acted young daughters (Elba's) who are suitably cute, annoying and don't freakin listen! in Africa being stalked by a rogue lion.
We've seen similar enough but this is beautiful to look at with plenty of tense action scenes and a terrific, smart climax. B.
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,558
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
All right. So.
There are times where all the honest trailers, pitch meetings, rlm, etc, tend to "review" a same movie and, well, two possibilities there :
a) It is a movie that is worth watching before all these, in order to not spoil it.
b) It is a movie that can be skipped and enjoyed solely through these.
And it's sometimes difficult to guess which one of these two categories a movie belongs to.
So. Heads up. M3gan -> b. You're welcome.
There are times where all the honest trailers, pitch meetings, rlm, etc, tend to "review" a same movie and, well, two possibilities there :
a) It is a movie that is worth watching before all these, in order to not spoil it.
b) It is a movie that can be skipped and enjoyed solely through these.
And it's sometimes difficult to guess which one of these two categories a movie belongs to.
So. Heads up. M3gan -> b. You're welcome.
The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
This is an interesting film from Yorgos Lanthimos, a sort of psychological thriller starring Colin Farrell as Steven, a cardiothoracic surgeon who has a strange association with a adolescent boy, Martin, almost seeming like a sort of mentor or surrogate father. Martin increasingly inserts himself into Steven's life and family - his wife (played by Nicole Kidman), son and daughter, and then the drama ratchets up. What is Martin's game here, and what has Steven done to attract his attention? Right at the start, Steven clears up after a surgery and his bloody gloves are thrown in the bin; what then does this mean for later references to his beautiful surgeon's hands?
There's a lot to muse on in this film. All the characters are deliberately unexpressive: facial expressions and voice tone are heavily muted to diminish the emotion. This alone gives the film a very strange feeling. I am not sure what the function is - is it just to unsettle us? To force us to confront the facts, and to try to avoid having our sentiments twisted by emotion? It's lush with metaphor and imagery to get its points home. At some point relatively early on, the film overtly references a Greek myth - if I remember rightly, Iphigenia. If you know your Greek myth, you will probably have a much better idea of what is going on and what is likely to come, as this film very much feels like a modern take on an ancient Greek tragedy: hubris and nemesis.
Anyway, this is not a great movie. But it is a good one. A satisfying, thoughtful, arthouse horror.
This is an interesting film from Yorgos Lanthimos, a sort of psychological thriller starring Colin Farrell as Steven, a cardiothoracic surgeon who has a strange association with a adolescent boy, Martin, almost seeming like a sort of mentor or surrogate father. Martin increasingly inserts himself into Steven's life and family - his wife (played by Nicole Kidman), son and daughter, and then the drama ratchets up. What is Martin's game here, and what has Steven done to attract his attention? Right at the start, Steven clears up after a surgery and his bloody gloves are thrown in the bin; what then does this mean for later references to his beautiful surgeon's hands?
There's a lot to muse on in this film. All the characters are deliberately unexpressive: facial expressions and voice tone are heavily muted to diminish the emotion. This alone gives the film a very strange feeling. I am not sure what the function is - is it just to unsettle us? To force us to confront the facts, and to try to avoid having our sentiments twisted by emotion? It's lush with metaphor and imagery to get its points home. At some point relatively early on, the film overtly references a Greek myth - if I remember rightly, Iphigenia. If you know your Greek myth, you will probably have a much better idea of what is going on and what is likely to come, as this film very much feels like a modern take on an ancient Greek tragedy: hubris and nemesis.
Anyway, this is not a great movie. But it is a good one. A satisfying, thoughtful, arthouse horror.
Tár
About a female musical conductor who finds herself abusing and manipulating every person unfortunate enough to establish a dynamic with her. Her wife accuses her of turning every relationship into a transaction, which about sums it up. This is coupled with the looming, vague yet ominous threat that as she settles in the peak of power - she's about to publish a memoir and conduct her magnum opus, among other things - she's also at the brink of losing it.
Great performance by Cate Blanchett. She's a keeper.
This is a very cold, meticulous movie that slowly stokes the paranoia surrounding her undoing. Maybe it's one thing, maybe it's a combination of things. So arthouse movie set in Europe about bourgeois stability being threatened in cryptic, maybe violent ways? Also there might be a ghost involved. The most Michael Haneke movie not to be directed by Michael Haneke.
About a female musical conductor who finds herself abusing and manipulating every person unfortunate enough to establish a dynamic with her. Her wife accuses her of turning every relationship into a transaction, which about sums it up. This is coupled with the looming, vague yet ominous threat that as she settles in the peak of power - she's about to publish a memoir and conduct her magnum opus, among other things - she's also at the brink of losing it.
Great performance by Cate Blanchett. She's a keeper.
This is a very cold, meticulous movie that slowly stokes the paranoia surrounding her undoing. Maybe it's one thing, maybe it's a combination of things. So arthouse movie set in Europe about bourgeois stability being threatened in cryptic, maybe violent ways? Also there might be a ghost involved. The most Michael Haneke movie not to be directed by Michael Haneke.
"Devotion" on Paramount +
Biographical story of two naval aviators at the start of the Korean conflict, one of which is a black man who is among the 1st black men of that era to be a navy pilot. He has to deal with his fear of the dangers inherent in the job, not wanting to leave his family alone by getting killed, and with his relative isolation being so singular a person in this situation and environment.
Jonathan Majors (Kang in Ant Man 3) stars with Glen Powell (Hangman in Top Gun Maverick) to good effect.
Some good action scenes and delivers some flavor of the time. One learn a little about the Korean conflict too.
7/10
Biographical story of two naval aviators at the start of the Korean conflict, one of which is a black man who is among the 1st black men of that era to be a navy pilot. He has to deal with his fear of the dangers inherent in the job, not wanting to leave his family alone by getting killed, and with his relative isolation being so singular a person in this situation and environment.
In one scene he is not following directions in landing an air craft on a carrier and the audience is left bewildered. Later he speaks of the difficulties he has following directions as for all he knows, the person giving them can't be trusted.
Jonathan Majors (Kang in Ant Man 3) stars with Glen Powell (Hangman in Top Gun Maverick) to good effect.
Some good action scenes and delivers some flavor of the time. One learn a little about the Korean conflict too.
7/10
A ★★★★ review of Zootopia (2016)
This review may contain spoilers. Visit the page to bypass this warning and read the review.
letterboxd.com
Smart in terms of drawing the lion out into the pack, but let's also be real. An unarmored person would not be walking away from a pissed off lion attack.
OT...
Wakanda Forever!!!
Good, but too much of the runtime suffers from pacing issues to really get into it. Felt more like it was trying to be a GoT or HotD episode with all the plotting and deliberating, which doesn't work nearly as well under the movie format. Especially for a movie based on comics. At least it ended with some aplomb, but I'd still be more inclined to rewatch the first one. The villains here were just too annoying and reminded me more of Avatar 2 than anything.
Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania
To be clear here, I go into these things just wanting to be entertained by the audio-visuals and a serviceable plot with acting that does what it needs to. Suspension of disbelief and expecting the need for plot armor are both indispensable prereq's. With that considered, it checked all the boxes for me. Not nearly as pretty as something like the latest Avatar, but way more fun and often in a wacky kind of way. The main point of this seemed to be establishing the latest villain, and in some respects it dropped the ball. Like, this guy should've really just wiped the floor with Ant-Man but, like I said, plot armor prevails. All in all, at least it basically lived up to its title.
Last edited:
Exactly. One swipe across the body by such a critter would end most people. I don't buy this guy walking away from this scene.
Clipped before seeing your Antman review. Avoiding till I see it tomorrow night.
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,558
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
The faculty. Let's see.
Pro : Very amusing cast (Clea Duvall, Robert Patrick, Jon Stewart, Famke Janssen, Elijah Wood, Salma Hayek...), thorough geekery (nerd reference galore, including to Body Snatchers and Puppet Masters), soundtrack occasionally reminiscent of Goldeneye's intro (which is fun for a Famke Janssen movie).
Con : Possibly the worst body-snatchers-like ever. Every shot facepalm-worthy, every characterisation and acting bit facedesk-worthy, every plot twist and turn faceconcretesixfloorssbelowwindow-worthy. I really have to get back to watching good movies at some point.
Pro : Very amusing cast (Clea Duvall, Robert Patrick, Jon Stewart, Famke Janssen, Elijah Wood, Salma Hayek...), thorough geekery (nerd reference galore, including to Body Snatchers and Puppet Masters), soundtrack occasionally reminiscent of Goldeneye's intro (which is fun for a Famke Janssen movie).
Con : Possibly the worst body-snatchers-like ever. Every shot facepalm-worthy, every characterisation and acting bit facedesk-worthy, every plot twist and turn faceconcretesixfloorssbelowwindow-worthy. I really have to get back to watching good movies at some point.
Hear hear. Enjoyable but like a sugar rush, will leave you in t minus 10. I do think it helps way too much to have seen the TV show LOKI, which I hated, to really understand the villain and the stakes. Otherwise,
Janet just tells us the guy has slaughtered trillions of people. Instead of trying to pare down the multiverse to ward off catastrophe, he's just a conqueror. The last action scene blows a lot. Kang is not that formiddable as Antman just kills him. On the other hand, after the ants have broken him up pretty badly, Kang is left just a formidable human man. Antman still has his powers. He should have been size changing and kicking Kang's butt in. But no. So then, Wasp saves the day, the portal closes, everyone sad and Lang and Wasp will have to remain in the realm but then, no worries, Cassie just opens the portal again. I enjoyed MODOK but he was cute and silly. The perfect killing machine doesn't kill anybody. Don't know why but I loved the diode head guy.
I think his mask being smashed up might’ve affected his suit functionality but yeah, these kinds of fake tension moments have become too par for the course in these movies.
Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania
Gf had to see it, so I had to see it. I liked a bunch of the creature and environment design, and the sort of pulp science fiction vibe it has going. But it's an extremely predictable movie, completely devoid of any surprises or tension, not to mention it's one of those movies that basically only happens because one character withholds extremely vital bit of information from her compatriots for stupid reasons, which annoyed the shit out of me the entire way. I did like Jonathan Meyers tho. I get what he's going for with his portrayal. Shame everything around him is so bleh.
Gf had to see it, so I had to see it. I liked a bunch of the creature and environment design, and the sort of pulp science fiction vibe it has going. But it's an extremely predictable movie, completely devoid of any surprises or tension, not to mention it's one of those movies that basically only happens because one character withholds extremely vital bit of information from her compatriots for stupid reasons, which annoyed the shit out of me the entire way. I did like Jonathan Meyers tho. I get what he's going for with his portrayal. Shame everything around him is so bleh.
I have still yet to see any solo Ant-Man movie, and I still don't like seeing any of them.
Do you like Marvel Movies? More Thor Ragnarok or Guardians of the Galaxy than Winter Soldier.