Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

[Dirty Hipsters]

The Flash

Yes, I'm late to this. I didn't want to watch it by myself, and I couldn't convince any of my friends to watch it with me...until last night.

Oh man what a ride.

Ezra Miller might be one of the worst actors I've ever seen. I mean, the only other thing I've seen them in is Justice League, but it wasn't as obvious there because they weren't the focus of the movie. Here the acting skills are on full display and they sure are something.

Ezra Miller acts like an alien figuring out how to be a human, and failing in every respect, and it's fascinating. Every scene where Miler eats food (which is a surprisingly large number of scenes) is utterly disgusting to watch. How did they get cast? Are they a nepo baby? Do they have blackmail on some producers and executives? I have so many questions.

The CGI is some of the worst I've ever seen in a major studio film. It's especially apparent in all of the daytime shots, of which there are many. One that really stood out to me was Batman's cape. For some reason they CGI'd Batman's cape during a motorcycle chase sequence, and it looks like an untextured blob flowing behind him. It looks like when you load up a game in Unreal engine and it takes the textures a few seconds to pop in. It's also one of the worst if not the worst Batman costume I've seen. Legitimately the CGI in the CW Flash TV show may be better than the effects in this movie.

It's incredible how this movie utterly fails at being a movie in just every respect. How did Warner Bros. release this into theaters rather than just cancelling it for the tax write off?

Honestly, this movie is completely worth watching just to understand what a massive train wreck it is. At every turn you think "well this can't actually get worse right?" and yet somehow every time you are proven wrong in a new an fascinating way.

If anyone is as late to this as me and hasn't seen it yet, you need to watch this movie. Just don't watch it alone, you need someone there to confirm that what you're seeing is real. You also need to have some drinks before, during, and after.

Is it possible to trick Warner Bros into re-releasing this movie like Sony did with Morbius?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

The Man Who Loved UFOs

Based on TV personality José de Zer, a charlatan who in the 80s singlehandedly created a media circus in the sierras of Córdoba, Argentina when he started reporting UFO sightings. The movie remembers him fondly as a semi-delusional, Quixotic figure who was willing to fake it - and spur people's sense of wonder - in the hopes of eventually finding the real thing. He was also forever accompanied by his loyal but long-suffering cameraman Chango, whose name sounds like Sancho and he even kinda looks like the character.

De Zer is basically your typical Herzog main character, an obsessive madman existing somewhere between the pathetic and the sublime, but the movie's not quite as interesting as him. It gets about halfway there, checks all the boxes of the ingrate teenage daughter subplot and the executive higher up pressure subplot, and then derails into a sappy third act that I found cute and not much more.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

The Flash

Ezra Miller might be one of the worst actors I've ever seen. I mean, the only other thing I've seen them in is Justice League, but it wasn't as obvious there because they weren't the focus of the movie. Here the acting skills are on full display and they sure are something.

Ezra Miller acts like an alien figuring out how to be a human, and failing in every respect, and it's fascinating. Every scene where Miler eats food (which is a surprisingly large number of scenes) is utterly disgusting to watch. How did they get cast? Are they a nepo baby? Do they have blackmail on some producers and executives? I have so many questions.

I thought Ezra Miller was annoying until the movie introduced the younger Ezra Miller, which did wonders for my estimation of the first Ezra Miller.

I do think he has great chemistry with himself though.

 

[Gordon_4]

The Flash

Yes, I'm late to this. I didn't want to watch it by myself, and I couldn't convince any of my friends to watch it with me...until last night.

Oh man what a ride.

Ezra Miller might be one of the worst actors I've ever seen. I mean, the only other thing I've seen them in is Justice League, but it wasn't as obvious there because they weren't the focus of the movie. Here the acting skills are on full display and they sure are something.

Ezra Miller acts like an alien figuring out how to be a human, and failing in every respect, and it's fascinating. Every scene where Miler eats food (which is a surprisingly large number of scenes) is utterly disgusting to watch. How did they get cast? Are they a nepo baby? Do they have blackmail on some producers and executives? I have so many questions.

The CGI is some of the worst I've ever seen in a major studio film. It's especially apparent in all of the daytime shots, of which there are many. One that really stood out to me was Batman's cape. For some reason they CGI'd Batman's cape during a motorcycle chase sequence, and it looks like an untextured blob flowing behind him. It looks like when you load up a game in Unreal engine and it takes the textures a few seconds to pop in. It's also one of the worst if not the worst Batman costume I've seen. Legitimately the CGI in the CW Flash TV show may be better than the effects in this movie.

It's incredible how this movie utterly fails at being a movie in just every respect. How did Warner Bros. release this into theaters rather than just cancelling it for the tax write off?

Honestly, this movie is completely worth watching just to understand what a massive train wreck it is. At every turn you think "well this can't actually get worse right?" and yet somehow every time you are proven wrong in a new an fascinating way.

If anyone is as late to this as me and hasn't seen it yet, you need to watch this movie. Just don't watch it alone, you need someone there to confirm that what you're seeing is real. You also need to have some drinks before, during, and after.

Is it possible to trick Warner Bros into re-releasing this movie like Sony did with Morbius?

I genuinely want an accountant to explain to me why pulling the plug on this absolute rectum shredder was somehow not an option when all that wild shit with Ezra Miller was in the news - the fuck happened with all that anyway? - and the thing had been rewritten thrice and yet the reasonably smooth and lower cost Batgirl had to be given the blindfold and cigarette.

 

[thebobmaster]

A ★★½ review of Carved: The Slit-Mouthed Woman (2007)

“Am I pretty?” Based on the Japanese urban legend of the slit-mouthed woman, this film follows two schoolteachers named Noboru Matsuzaki (Haruhiko Kato) and Kyoko (Eriko Sato). When a student named Mika (Rie Kuniwa) goes missing after running off, Noboru suspects a local urban legend, the...

letterboxd.com

 

[thebobmaster]

I genuinely want an accountant to explain to me why pulling the plug on this absolute rectum shredder was somehow not an option when all that wild shit with Ezra Miller was in the news - the fuck happened with all that anyway? - and the thing had been rewritten thrice and yet the reasonably smooth and lower cost Batgirl had to be given the blindfold and cigarette.

Apparently, what happened with all that was Ezra Miller checking themselves into a mental hospital at the request/pushing of WB execs.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

The Flash

It's incredible how this movie utterly fails at being a movie in just every respect. How did Warner Bros. release this into theaters rather than just cancelling it for the tax write off?

To me, the weirdest thing about it was James Gunn throwing all his support behind it. Obviously as the new head of DC movies, he can't exactly throw it under the bus like he kinda did with Joker 2, but he was insisting it was one of the greatest superhero movies of all time. Which he hasn't done for any of the other slop that DC released before they finally killed off the DCEU.

So does he actually like it? Is he best buds with the director? Did Ezra Miller kidnap his children?

 

[thebobmaster]

To me, the weirdest thing about it was James Gunn throwing all his support behind it. Obviously as the new head of DC movies, he can't exactly throw it under the bus like he kinda did with Joker 2, but he was insisting it was one of the greatest superhero movies of all time. Which he hasn't done for any of the other slop that DC released before they finally killed off the DCEU.

So does he actually like it? Is he best buds with the director? Did Ezra Miller kidnap his children?

Most likely, he just doesn't want to rock the boat after his experiences with the MCU.

 

[thebobmaster]

A ★½ review of Children of the Corn (1984)

“Does he speak to you, Isaac?” “He speaks to me always. But today he is displeased. He is displeased with you, Malachai.” This film did not have the smoothest production. After Hal Roach Studios obtained the film rights to Stephen King's short story from the collection Night Shift, King himself...

letterboxd.com

 

[Bartholen]

Westworld (1973), 7/10

This is the original film from which the much later HBO series was adapted. Directed by Michael Crichton of all people. Yes, the same guy who wrote the Jurassic Park novel and whose books you've seen at every airport ever. It's about a western-themed theme park full of androids where guests are welcome to do as they please. I don't think it takes a genius to figure out it's all going to go wrong. Unlike in the HBO show, here we passingly follow two other theme parks as well: Medieval World and Roman World.

I really enjoyed it, but at the same time I can fully see why this premise works better as a series, and why the more advanced effects of the modern age also can do it more justice. There's so much thematic and philosophical depth to be potentially explored from the premise, but this movie can only scratch the surface of that in its very punchy 88 minute runtime. That doesn't mean it's badly done at all, the film takes a very "show don't tell" approach to its storytelling, and you can infer a lot from the character just by the way they act. The set design and acting are all pretty great, and there's some really nice cinematography as well. The film narrows in scope as it goes along (something that a lot of 70s films seem to share), and the climax reminded me a lot of Ex Machina. It's punchy, well paced with some chin-stroking elements peppered in there.

But there are a lot of elements that IMO will always be holding this premise back, because it reeeeallly stretches the limits of the suspension of disbelief. It's impossible to not be thinking of the logistics of Westworld since the film and series both very overtly and deliberately draw the viewer's attention to it. A lot of time is spent behind the scenes of the theme park in both versions, and it's done better IMO in the HBO series. The amount of wanton destruction and damage the guests are allowed to engage in willy nilly just makes the entire idea seem completely ridiculous. Yeah, there's a whole lab repairing the androids during downtime, but who's repairing all the property damage from the bar fights? Who's cleaning up the bloodstains? Who's resetting the furniture? The series sidesteps this issue by setting itself in mostly outdoor locations and not having scenes of wild destruction in it, in the film it's right there in your face. The gaps left in the worldbuilding also leaves a lot of stuff pretty hard to swallow. Like there apparently being no emergency doors in the labs, or any kind of security forces in the theme park, or how there seem to be no failsafes of any kind anywhere. Again, because the film deliberately draws your attention to the logistics, it's hard to not be thinking about this stuff.

 

[roomescap]

Platform 2 offers many interesting features, with a rather intuitive interface. However, it can sometimes be a little slow to load, and some customization options are missing. Overall, it is pleasant to use, but some improvements could make it even more efficient
Note : 7/10

 

[Bartholen]

The Father, 8/10

Decided to watch this in the spirit of father's day. This is the 2020 Anthony Hopkins vehicle based on a play that the director wrote. It's basically a one-room drama centering on the titular protagonist who's falling to dementia, and his daughter (Olivia Colman) is trying to keep things in check. The film is very interestingly told through his perspective, where past and present, memories, faces and even names sort of blur together, and it's purposely difficult to try to make sense of the chronology of things or keep up with what exactly is happening.

Suffice to say it's not exactly a cheery film, but it is excellent nonetheless. Hopkins' central performance is fantastic, and paints a vivid, multilayered picture of the character with fairly little information. The movie's not some weepy tearjerker as it depicts the problems, discomfort and hardship that comes with dealing with dementia for all parties with unflinching authenticity (I assume). It can be a very uncomfortable watch emotionally, and Hopkins' character isn't some fluffy old chap: he's abrasive, mean, selfish and uncaring a lot of the time. Despite the lack of exposition, the viewer is given just enough information to piece things together, and infer a whole interpersonal history from the conversations between the characters. All the dialogue's excellent and very true to life. There are tons of background details that subtly change to signal the passage of time, but they're not in your face, so the movie has a degree of rewatchability.

It wasn't some great revelation, but an excellent adult drama nonetheless. The Oscar was also well deseved.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Twisters

I feel slightly bamboozled. I thought this was going to be fun Summer disaster shlock starring 2020's favorite swinging dick Glen Powell. It's actually closer to one of those thrillers about a chick getting over emotional trauma (usually the mom or a bf died) via tense life or death situation. Like that movie where Blake Lively goes surfing or the Shazam girl climbs a really tall radio tower. Here the lead girl's bf gets tornado'd to death at the beginning, and so she needs to relearn that she's actually awesome at chasing tornadoes so by the end she stops being so afraid of them. I mean, what's a tornado, right? Just drive right into 'em. It's probably more afraid of you than you are of it.

Becky's played by a Brit putting on a 'murican accent. She mopes the whole movie and kills the mood whenever she's on screen. She doesn't bring Twister energy, she brings Babadook energy. Meanwhile Glen Powell and his band of merry men and/or women are having fun shooting fireworks up twisters for clicks and comments. Why couldn't the movie be about them?

 

[BrawlMan]

Why couldn't the movie be about them?

Better question: who was asking for a near 30 years late sequel to Twister?

 

[thebobmaster]

A ★★★★★ review of Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

"Oh, what a day! What a LOVELY day!" This film lived up to the productions of the previous movies in terms of troubles, and then some. Initially conceived in general concept around 1987, when George Miller had an idea about a movie that was nothing but a car chase, he finally came up with a plot...

letterboxd.com

 

[Xprimentyl]

Conclave: Good / Great

The Pope has died, and it falls to the Cardinals of the Catholic church convened in a conclave to decide his successor. There are a few likely candidates, but each has a secret and/or a reason they do or do not want the Papacy. This complicates matters for the Cardinal chosen to run the conclave who has to use his every angle to untangle the tacit mess and ensure the right person is chosen for the right reasons.

As expected, this is a very dialogue-heavy film. It carries itself with intrigue and fantastic acting from a star-studded cast. It was refreshing to go to a theater and be engaged without spectacle. It helps to be Catholic and understand the basic machinations of the processes on display, but not a deal breaker if you pay attention and don't mind reading subtitles. Recommended.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Hellraiser (1987)

I've been reading some Clive Barker lately, which is why I had a hunch to check out his his first directorial effort Hellraiser, based on his own short story "Hellbound Heart".

Married couple Larry and Julia move into a house previously occupied by Larry's deadbeat brother who disappeared under unknown circumstances. It turns out, the brother had acquired a mysterious puzzle box that opens a portal to a hellish dimension occupied by otherwordly creatures called Cenobites. He sees a chance to escape when he's brought back to the world of the living after blood has been spilt in his house, seducing the wife to bring him more sacrifices to give him back his human form.

Hellraiser is a movie with quite a bit of striking imagery but a muddled and underwritten narrative that never really does justice to it. There are the basic shapes of something interesting there but it just doesn't explore those things enough. Clive Barker is an odd fellow, like many horror artists he's fascinated with the intersection of lust, pain and the grotesque. And I do find the general idea of an order of deformed otherwordly BDSM monks condemning humans to an eternity of ritualized, sexualized torture very interesting. I just think that Hellraiser stays way too close to the surface of these themes and never quite gets as weird or as perverted as it should.

What I'm saying is, Hellraiser mostly uses these genuinely beautifully designed creatures more or less as generic movie monsters in a relatively generic horror movie setup. There is something kind of compelling about the whole angle of Frank, the movie's de facto antagonist, coming back as a kind of ghoul who demands to be fed with blood and the way the wife falls for him but... I dunno, I just think it's not fleshed out enough. I kinda feel like there are, like, three different really good hooks in this (no pun intended) and each one could have maintained an entire movie but here all of them are just crammed into the same one with neither of them having enough room to breathe.

Which is all kind of a shame. What makes Barker's approach to horror interesting is not so much just the psychosexual body horror stuff, although all of that is pretty cool. What makes it interesting are all the elaborate mythologies he constructs around it, the way his entire metaphysics and cosmology revolve around the concepts of lust, pain and the limits of both. But all of that is just barely hinted at in Hellraiser, leaving some of the iconography intact but only barely scratching what that iconography signifies.

Hellraiser is not a bad movie, it has some fantastic creature designs, some very impressive practical effects and some hints at the sinister worlds and rituals that fuel Barker's imagination but it all comes off as a rather truncated and sanitized depiction thereof that mostly follows well worn horror cliche's. Maybe that's also the reason why Barker's later works moved away from pure horror into more gothic flavoured urban fantasy that let him indulge in the nerdier, more long winded crafting of worlds and mythologies around his ideas. I mean, the guy's been writing children's books recently, so you can't really accuse him of not branching out and adapting his sensibilities.

Either way, I wasn't very impressed by this. It has some iconic visuals, for sure, but I didn't feel like they were part of a particularly memorable story.

 

[thebobmaster]

Hellraiser (1987)

I've been reading some Clive Barker lately, which is why I had a hunch to check out his his first directorial effort Hellraiser, based on his own short story "Hellbound Heart".

Married couple Larry and Julia move into a house previously occupied by Larry's deadbeat brother who disappeared under unknown circumstances. It turns out, the brother had acquired a mysterious puzzle box that opens a portal to a hellish dimension occupied by otherwordly creatures called Cenobites. He sees a chance to escape when he's brought back to the world of the living after blood has been spilt in his house, seducing the wife to bring him more sacrifices to give him back his human form.

Hellraiser is a movie with quite a bit of striking imagery but a muddled and underwritten narrative that never really does justice to it. There are the basic shapes of something interesting there but it just doesn't explore those things enough. Clive Barker is an odd fellow, like many horror artists he's fascinated with the intersection of lust, pain and the grotesque. And I do find the general idea of an order of deformed otherwordly BDSM monks condemning humans to an eternity of ritualized, sexualized torture very interesting. I just think that Hellraiser stays way to close to the surface of these themes and never quite gets as weird or as perverted as it should.

What I'm saying is, Hellraiser mostly uses these genuinely beautifully designed creatures more or less as generic movie monsters in a relatively generic horror movie setup. There is something kind of compelling about the whole angle of Frank, the movie's de facto antagonist, coming back as a kind of ghoul who demands to be fed with blood and the way the wife falls for him but... I dunno, I just think it's not fleshed out enough. I kinda feel like there are, like, three different really good hooks in this (no pun intended) and each one could have maintained an entire movie but here all of them are just crammed into the same one with neither of them having enough room to breathe.

Which is all kind of a shame. What makes Barker's approach to horror interesting is not so much just the psychosexual body horror stuff, although all of that is pretty cool. What makes it interesting are all the elaborate mythologies he constructs around it, the way his entire metaphysics and cosmology revolve around the concepts of lust, pain and the limits of both. But all of that is just barely hinted at in Hellraiser, leaving some of the iconography intact but only barely scratching what that iconography signifies.

Hellraiser is not a bad movie, it has some fantastic creature designs, some very impressive practical effects and some hints at the sinister worlds and rituals that fuel Barker's imagination but it all comes off as a rather truncated and sanitized depiction thereof that mostly follows well worn horror cliche's. Maybe that's also the reason why Barker's later works moved away from pure horror into more gothic flavoured urban fantasy that let him indulge in the nerdier, more long winded crafting of worlds and mythologies around his ideas. I mean, the guy's been writing children's books recently, so you can't really accuse him of not branching out and adapting his sensibilities.

Either way, I wasn't very impressed by this. It has some iconic visuals, for sure, but I didn't feel like they were part of a particularly memorable story.

I honestly think the remake/re-imagining on Hulu in 2022 of Hellraiser did a much better job of really digging into the themes that Clive Barker was going for with the original movie, but just didn't have the budget or know-how in order to really capitalize on the ideas.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

I honestly think the remake/re-imagining on Hulu in 2022 of Hellraiser did a much better job of really digging into the themes that Clive Barker was going for with the original movie, but just didn't have the budget or know-how in order to really capitalize on the ideas.

Might check it out. There's, like, a dozen of Hellraiser movies and I'm not gonna watch every single one but I'd be ready to give that one a chance.

 

[thebobmaster]

Might check it out. There's, like, a dozen of Hellraiser movies and I'm not gonna watch every single one but I'd be ready to give that one a chance.

I've watched them all. Other than maybe the second and the reboot, you aren't missing much if anything.