Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

Is this the first poll?


  • Total voters
    45

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
Rebel Moon Pt. 1 (2023)

Haha, so I finallly watched this.

This surely puts paid to any lingering beliefs that Zack Snyder is a good director. I'm not sure any good director can create a film this superlatively terrible. Even a good director misfiring creates a decent movie, or something with conspicuous merits despite its problems. This is a staggering, full spectrum failure of colossal proportions.

So we start off with a load of exposition. Something about some dead monarchs of a "motherworld" and this regent taking over (evil, obviously) and then this massive starship turns up at a farmstead with about 50 people demanding food. Here we immediately encounter a problem. Why is a hugely powerful spaceship with an admiral on turning up and harassing some yokels toiling away with 19th century technology? How much food do they think they're going to get? It's also just such a painfully crude way to evoke a disparity: Tatooine was the back of beyond in Star Wars, but it still had technology. Nor do you even get the sense that this is really a planet. Is this planet inhabited by one, single hamlet (pop ~50)?

And how is there such a massive waterfall on that mountain in the background? I mean, I'd be checking that out. It's a veritable Niagara Falls: there can't possibly be enough rainfall on that lone peak to support such a torrent. There surely must be some amazing alien technology pumping water up. No? Just scenery? Okay, move on.

Anyway, the soldiers of the evil empire are cartoonishly evil thugs, threaten to ravish a villager in the most dedicatedly lazy female victimisation plot ever, and our heroine pops up and kills them all. Plus another massive dose of backstory exposition, then what appears to be a quest to find some "Magnificent 7" type people to protect the village and lead a revolt and oh whatever.

No-one in this film is interesting. Literally no-one. I'm sure the actors do decent enough work (it has some good actors), but the best actor in the world cannot make a character interesting that is fundamentally badly written, with terrible dialogue, too little time or backstory, and a leaden script. Immediately therefore, at it's core, there is no emotional weight to this movie because you're not able to care about anyone in it. There is a a lot of weight to the movie, however: it is ponderous, po-faced, utterly humourless, dragged down with clumsy exposition. A vast, leaden millstone of pompous seriousness around its neck. The plot is trash. It's nonsensical. It lacks flow. It completely fails to hold attention. It is lazy and cliched to a genuinely terrifying degree, lazily copying the simplest stuff from much better movies.

As above, it's probably mostly aiming at the "Magnificent 7", but with Star Wars tropes. (Actually, this concept already exists, it's called "Battle Beyond The Stars" from ~1980 and it's massively better than Rebel Moon Pt. 1, but then almost anything is better than Rebel Moon Pt. 1, and I say this as a man who recently watched The Toxic Avenger Part II). I can't help but notice that the Magnificent 7 collected their heroes and saved the village in one movie. For roughly the same running time, Rebel Moon is completely underdeveloped in comparison, neither getting you involved with characters, and still needing Part 2 to save the village. Who are these heroes? None of them even really register, so who even cares? I was at least mildly interested to note it had both actors who played Daario Naharis in Game Of Thrones, but if a small spot of trivia is what engages you most, there's a big problem.

Part of the dislocating nature of the movie is it keep jumping hither and thither to pick the heroes up, in busy but forgettable CGI environments that flitter by leaving you with no sense other than that the GFX team had to do a lot of work (and some of the CGI isn't even that good). Each seems to be punctuated by a tedious, long fight / action scene with catastrophically overused slo-mo. Films need time in their locations, to get a sense of what they are, some continuity and solidity. You don't to know and engage with a character through an action scene. This film just drags you through a load of stuff going on.

Mercifully, after a deeply underwhelming and even somewhat unpleasantly sadistic end boss fight and another chunk of exposition (from the villain), the audience is put of its misery by the film ending.

I've watched some of the mega-turkey blockbusters of the decade, and whilst poor, none of them were as resolutely bad as this. What a disaster.
 
Last edited:

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,425
2,333
118
Country
United States
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,774
3,320
118
Poor Things

A woman takes a paid holiday across the globe (well, Europe) on a journey of self-discovery and liberation as she gorges on food and sex, gets sick of earthly pleasures, develops social awareness and ends back where she started with renewed purpose.

Wait a freaking minute, I thought on the ride home. That's just Eat, Pray, Love but without the self-help shtick!

So yes, Poor Things is the artsy, infinitely more interesting version of Elizabeth Gilbert's midlife crisis memoir. Not that I was thinking on those terms while watching the movie, which has a steampunk-y setting and has Emma Stone playing a suicidal woman resurrected with the brain of her own unborn fetus. She's awesome. She very convincingly plays an infant/puppet/experiment without making it come across as quirky or studied. I also thought Mark Ruffalo was rather brilliant and hysterical as the devil fop who finds himself emotionally clinging to his "prey".

I also loved the movie's warped fish eye look and the whole art nouveau aesthetic that made the fantastic scenery slightly recognizable but not quite. It's a very effects heavy movie and it gets away with a whole lot of CGI simply because none of it is trying to look realistic at any point.

Anyway, my turn to make dinner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,209
1,059
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
On the Beach (1959)

This is...not one I'd really recommend, but not for the obvious reasons. On its merits, it's very well done. It's got a good cast who are all bringing their A-game in portraying likable characters and following a solid script with good direction. So where's the problem, you ask? Well...it's a "terror of the bomb" story.

The film opens with an American submarine coming up near Australia, and we soon learn that the atomic war is officially over. We learn a bit later that the entire northern hemisphere is dead, and the nuclear fallout is steadily creeping southward. Everyone tries to dance around directly saying it, but they it's made clear that they've got at most five months before the radiation levels become lethal and the planet becomes uninhabitable. A few people are still in denial and desperately hoping that the radiation won't reach them, but but everyone knows that this is the end. There are no last ditch plans, and no appreciable lashing out aside from a handful of arguments over who's to blame, just sad acceptance that everyone is going to die soon. Life for the moment is carrying on as normal, but that Sword of Damocles is hanging over everyone's head.

This is not a story about finding answers or meaning, nor is it some "humanity will find a way" story. It's following the last survivors as they face their inevitable doom and ends with shots of empty streets after that doom finally comes, ending on the banner reading only "There is Still Time...Brother", which in-story was set up by the church to offer some last solace about finding comfort in religion before the end, but for us in the audience is meant to serve as a plea to course correct, in the vein of "if these shadows remain unaltered, this is our fate". (Subtlety, thy name is not "On the Beach")

It's effective, but very depressing...which it's supposed to be. Like other terror of the bomb stories, On the Beach is very message driven, with the message being - per usual for the theme - that nukes are more dangerous than anyone wants to admit, could easily doom us all if we don't step back from the brink we're standing on. The film wasn't made to be fun or entertaining, it exists to be sobering and make you think about how the proliferation of nukes make them less a weapon or deterrant than they are a murder-suicide pact. Nobody even knows who started the war, and ultimately it doesn't matter. Once someone brought out their nukes, everyone else had to do the same or risk annihilation, ultimately killing everything on the planet.

Again, it's very well done, but it's not a film I plan to watch again because it left me so depressed. Which, mission accomplished, I guess, but that does mean that I don't feel I can actually recommend it without feeling like an ass for doing so. For my money, I prefer "it's not too late" stories like Wargames (1983).
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,970
3,741
118
Apparently Ava Gardner's supposed quote about Melbourne being the place to film about the end of the world was made up by a journalist.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,209
1,059
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Apparently Ava Gardner's supposed quote about Melbourne being the place to film about the end of the world was made up by a journalist.
That is my understanding, yes. Though supposedly Fred Astaire had a grand old time shooting there because everyone was so interested in catching a glimpse of Gardner that he was able to walk around pretty much under the radar.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,340
5,598
118
Australia
On the Beach (1959)

This is...not one I'd really recommend, but not for the obvious reasons. On its merits, it's very well done. It's got a good cast who are all bringing their A-game in portraying likable characters and following a solid script with good direction. So where's the problem, you ask? Well...it's a "terror of the bomb" story.

The film opens with an American submarine coming up near Australia, and we soon learn that the atomic war is officially over. We learn a bit later that the entire northern hemisphere is dead, and the nuclear fallout is steadily creeping southward. Everyone tries to dance around directly saying it, but they it's made clear that they've got at most five months before the radiation levels become lethal and the planet becomes uninhabitable. A few people are still in denial and desperately hoping that the radiation won't reach them, but but everyone knows that this is the end. There are no last ditch plans, and no appreciable lashing out aside from a handful of arguments over who's to blame, just sad acceptance that everyone is going to die soon. Life for the moment is carrying on as normal, but that Sword of Damocles is hanging over everyone's head.

This is not a story about finding answers or meaning, nor is it some "humanity will find a way" story. It's following the last survivors as they face their inevitable doom and ends with shots of empty streets after that doom finally comes, ending on the banner reading only "There is Still Time...Brother", which in-story was set up by the church to offer some last solace about finding comfort in religion before the end, but for us in the audience is meant to serve as a plea to course correct, in the vein of "if these shadows remain unaltered, this is our fate". (Subtlety, thy name is not "On the Beach")

It's effective, but very depressing...which it's supposed to be. Like other terror of the bomb stories, On the Beach is very message driven, with the message being - per usual for the theme - that nukes are more dangerous than anyone wants to admit, could easily doom us all if we don't step back from the brink we're standing on. The film wasn't made to be fun or entertaining, it exists to be sobering and make you think about how the proliferation of nukes make them less a weapon or deterrant than they are a murder-suicide pact. Nobody even knows who started the war, and ultimately it doesn't matter. Once someone brought out their nukes, everyone else had to do the same or risk annihilation, ultimately killing everything on the planet.

Again, it's very well done, but it's not a film I plan to watch again because it left me so depressed. Which, mission accomplished, I guess, but that does mean that I don't feel I can actually recommend it without feeling like an ass for doing so. For my money, I prefer "it's not too late" stories like Wargames (1983).
I haven’t seen this version, but they made another one in 2000 or so which I did see. The flashpoint conflict there was China and Taiwan. So that’s aged pretty fuckin’ well.

But yeah, movies like this, or Threads, they’re not things you sit down and watch for fun or even some artistic fulfilment. They’re brutal reality checks with famous people.
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Jan 30, 2011
2,032
861
118
Irreversible (2002)

I don't normally do this, and if you're reading this on letterboxd you probably already know what the movie is about but: Trigger Warning, both the movie and this review deal with sexual violence in a very explicit way.

French director Gaspar Noe's debut. Irreversible recounts the events leading up to the rape of a young woman, the rape of a young woman and her boyfriend and his friend, drunk and cokes up, taking revenge for the rape of a young woman, all set within a single night and presented in reverse order.

I don't usually use my movie reviews as an excuse to talk about myself, and I don't mean for this to sound like a therapeutic exercise, but please indulge me for a moment. Most of my formative memories as a child and teenager are related to being a victim of violence. At least for a period of time, that probably feels longer to me than it actually was, I returned from school beaten and bruised more often than not. Both the experience and the anticipation of violence, even though they are an increasingly distant memory by now, are feelings that are still crushingly familiar to me.

This childhood trauma is probably one of the primary reasons why I have a morbid fascination with the psychology of violence now as an adult, particularly the kind that appears inexplicable and arbitrary. Rape, for obvious reasons, might be one of the purest examples. Within the past week there have been two cases of rape close to the train station in Regensburg, a place I've been to many times. And it's the sort of thing that keeps me awake at night, you know. A man, one who lived a normal or at least an unremarkable life for many years, presumably had friends and family, one day decides to commit an act of life altering cruelty on a helpless stranger on barely more than an impulse.

The idea that, outside of violence that arises from a state of previous conflict, there's this violence that just results from some latent sadistic urge in a persons head is one that I find both frightening and confounding. And that leaves me wondering wether there isn't a way to neutralize or at least recognize that urge in a person before they're able to express it.

Irreversible has little interest in the mental state of its main perpetrator, who is characterized as little more than a drug and sex fiend, but it does have tremendous interest in the idea of inevitability. Which is, of course, the primary reason behind its big stylistic decision to present the events in reverse order. Starting off the movie with its conclusion, the murder of the perpetrator in a seedy BDSM club, serves to take away any catharsis such a sequence might have had, had it served as the climax of the film. Along with camera work that is hectic to the point of making some of the events difficult to make out, it conveys the idea of vengeance as not a expression of righteous anger but of impotent shock and desperation.

Irreversible goes from this escalation, to the act of senseless violence in its center, to a point of unawareness of the events that would transpire. Bits of foreshadowing that would have felt hokey in chronological order take on a bitter irony when they're presented after the event they allude to, poor decisions take on a distinct tragedy. If Alexandra, played by Monica Bellucci, had not gone to the party, had not left early, had not gone on her own, had not decided to take an underpass...

Noe clearly intends to explore the merciless sequence of cause and effect in Irreversible, my issue with it is though, that it does so purely from the victims perspective. In doing so, it frames the act of grotesque sexual violence that serves quite literally as the centerpiece of the movie as an event, rather than a deed. Something that is, perhaps, the big problem of many works of extreme cinema, an intent to confront human cruelty as a force of nature that happens to people, rather than one that is inflicted by people. I can't accuse Irreversible of glorifying or exploiting violence, nor can I accuse it of shifting blame to the victim, but it's core thesis on inevitability reads as defeatist, if not fatalistic in a way I just don't see as warranted in regard to the sibject matter.

Irreversible is considered essential "shock" cinema which, I think I pointed out when talking about Serbian Film, just doesn't mean much to me. The wonderful thing about cinema is that you can immerse yourself in the beauty and detach yourself from the ugliness of it. It doesn't upset the way it might someone who can't easily detach themselves from it. I wouldn't, by any means, call it exploitation cinema though. It shifts from a mode of deranged anger, to one of trauma, to one of sad anticipation of events that are inevitable because to us, they've already happened. I don't quite share Gaspar Noe's fascination with this type of structure and I don't think Irreversible is as compelling a movie on its subject matter as it could have been but it's a respectable work, if one that more concerned with lamenting the inevitability of senseless violence, rather than questioning it.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
28,575
11,932
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,774
3,320
118
I watched Ferrari.

As with every sports movie, obligatory disclaimer that I don't care for the sport itself but the movie is just that good to make me care for the story. And while I don't think it's a great movie (it's a biopic that unironically quotes Dewey Cox within the first few minutes, which should set your expectations for the next 2 hours) I found it perfectly made and simply bubbling with too much conflict on a whole lot of different levels for me to not be engaged by it.

It was also over surprisingly quickly at 130 minutes. Somebody's watch beeped at one point, signalling o'clock, and instead of me being surprised that 2 hours had already gone I instead thought how weird it was that only 1 hour had passed. Ten minutes later the movie was over, to my shock.

Lastly, Jesus fucking Christ that one car crash was disturbing in a way I hadn't felt in a while.
 

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,425
2,333
118
Country
United States
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
Irreversible is considered essential "shock" cinema which, I think I pointed out when talking about Serbian Film, just doesn't mean much to me.
Irreversible is not the most grimily horrible extreme movie I've watched, but it's certainly my least favourite extreme movie. I hated it. I accept that there's a lot of subjective opinion on this, but for me it passed "shock" into grotesque exploitation. Yes, there are all sorts of nods to the "Time's Arrow" idea of a plot told in reverse and other artistic notions as you say, but at core I just could not get past the feeling its toxic unpleasantness far outweighs any redemption it can offer.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,774
3,320
118
Irreversible (2002)

Starting off the movie with its conclusion, the murder of the perpetrator in a seedy BDSM club, serves to take away any catharsis such a sequence might have had, had it served as the climax of the film.
The dude they fuck up with the extinguisher isn't even the rapist ("Le Tenia"), it's one of his friends. The underpass scene reveals Monica was actually raped by a different dude to the one they kill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Jan 30, 2011
2,032
861
118
The dude they fuck up with the extinguisher isn't even the rapist ("Le Tenia"), it's one of his friends. The underpass scene reveals Monica was actually raped by a different dude to the one they kill.
Fuck, I didn't realize. Well, makes sense in terms of denying any catharsis.