Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

[Bartholen]

A.I. - Artificial Intelligence, 4/10

Boy, what a stupid-ass movie.

This is the notorious collaboration turned posthumous hybrid between Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg about a boy robot in the not-so-distant future who wants to become a real boy. It's perhaps best remembered for basically being a clash of sensibilities: Kubrick's clinical, hard sci-fi, and Spielberg's more sentimental storytelling. The result is a clown car crash I had a hard time tearing my eyes away from.

The good out of the way first: Haley Joel Osment is a once in a generation talent, and considering the places this film goes, his performance is nothing short of miraculous. The robot effects and overall production are terrific, as you'd expect from Spielberg. Jude Law also turns up as an eccentric robot gigolo, and I really liked his flamboyant performance. Those are the unequivocally good things about the movie. The rest is a goddamn mess where everything but the kitchen sink has been thrown in, and the end result feels (funnily enough) like a movie written by an AI. That's about as much as you can discuss this movie without spoilers, because basically every part you ever see of this movie is in the first act, after which it takes a drastic turn.

Spoiler: Here we go

So at first you're watching this movie exploring humanity, human connection, familial love and all that. And it's not very interesting, feels kinda thrown together, the worldbuilding is slapdash at best and the plotting kinda weird. Then the mom abandons David in a forest, and then Jude Law shows up as a gigolo, and then all of a sudden Brendan Gleeson shows up in a cowboy hat riding an air balloon, and suddenly you're watching proto-Borderlands. Then the movie changes gears again when David decides to seek the Blue Fairy from Pinocchio, and then you're watching Cyberpunk. Then things get all post-apocalyptic when they go into NYC that's been swallowed by the ocean, after which the movie decides to drop some acid, 2000 years pass, motherfucking aliens show up, and the ending is like a mix between 2001: A Space Odyssey and a Disney film.

The whole movie is like this: constantly introducing and dropping new plot elements and doing nothing with them. This is probably the movie where my thoughts first and foremost were just how stupid it was. There are so many holes in the opening setup that I could not take it seriously for one minute. Like how apparently there's no safeguards of any kind for this state of the art child robot, or how the real kid of the couple is supposedly beyond help but then all of a sudden wakes up, or how in this supposedly post-apocalyptic world there are apparently whole hosts of refugee robots, so I guess resources aren't that much of an issue.

There is some entertainment factor to be found from just how all over the place, weird and flat out stupid this movie is. But that doesn't get anywhere near saving the movie: the setup is stupid, the worldbuilding being all over the place would be an understatement, the pacing is slapdash, it's incoherent, and there's like half a dozen plot threads that go nowhere. This is rightly remembered as a goddamn mess.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, it was quite a thing, more memorable for playing spot the actor from something else than because of the story as such.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

A.I. - Artificial Intelligence, 4/10

Boy, what a stupid-ass movie.

This is the notorious collaboration turned posthumous hybrid between Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg about a boy robot in the not-so-distant future who wants to become a real boy. It's perhaps best remembered for basically being a clash of sensibilities: Kubrick's clinical, hard sci-fi, and Spielberg's more sentimental storytelling. The result is a clown car crash I had a hard time tearing my eyes away from.

The good out of the way first: Haley Joel Osment is a once in a generation talent, and considering the places this film goes, his performance is nothing short of miraculous. The robot effects and overall production are terrific, as you'd expect from Spielberg. Jude Law also turns up as an eccentric robot gigolo, and I really liked his flamboyant performance. Those are the unequivocally good things about the movie. The rest is a goddamn mess where everything but the kitchen sink has been thrown in, and the end result feels (funnily enough) like a movie written by an AI. That's about as much as you can discuss this movie without spoilers, because basically every part you ever see of this movie is in the first act, after which it takes a drastic turn.

Spoiler: Here we go

So at first you're watching this movie exploring humanity, human connection, familial love and all that. And it's not very interesting, feels kinda thrown together, the worldbuilding is slapdash at best and the plotting kinda weird. Then the mom abandons David in a forest, and then Jude Law shows up as a gigolo, and then all of a sudden Brendan Gleeson shows up in a cowboy hat riding an air balloon, and suddenly you're watching proto-Borderlands. Then the movie changes gears again when David decides to seek the Blue Fairy from Pinocchio, and then you're watching Cyberpunk. Then things get all post-apocalyptic when they go into NYC that's been swallowed by the ocean, after which the movie decides to drop some acid, 2000 years pass, motherfucking aliens show up, and the ending is like a mix between 2001: A Space Odyssey and a Disney film.

The whole movie is like this: constantly introducing and dropping new plot elements and doing nothing with them. This is probably the movie where my thoughts first and foremost were just how stupid it was. There are so many holes in the opening setup that I could not take it seriously for one minute. Like how apparently there's no safeguards of any kind for this state of the art child robot, or how the real kid of the couple is supposedly beyond help but then all of a sudden wakes up, or how in this supposedly post-apocalyptic world there are apparently whole hosts of refugee robots, so I guess resources aren't that much of an issue.

There is some entertainment factor to be found from just how all over the place, weird and flat out stupid this movie is. But that doesn't get anywhere near saving the movie: the setup is stupid, the worldbuilding being all over the place would be an understatement, the pacing is slapdash, it's incoherent, and there's like half a dozen plot threads that go nowhere. This is rightly remembered as a goddamn mess.

Saw it back in the day in the cinema as a kid.
One of the first movies to ever disappoint me honestly

 

[BrawlMan]

Mortal Kombat II (2026) - A much better film, clearer direction, and even better fight scenes and pacing. See the movie! It's a 10/10 compared to the first film's 5/10.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

Elvis (2022)

Because I'm a big music nerd and my wife likes lazy gift giving, she regularly gets me books from a series called 33 1/3. These are small books each written by a different person- usually music journalists, academics, and musicians- about a record album of their choice. One of the recent additions to our collection was the one about From Elvis in Memphis, Presley's 1969 "comeback" album. This got me down an Elvis rabbit hole where I also watched his 1968 television comeback special (which is a phenomenal piece of late 60's cultural flotsam), and then I figured why not check out the Baz Lurman film.
I had passed it by before because I don't like music biopics- I just feel they're pointless and cliche and trope-heavy. But Lurman is a heavy-handed stylist and that means at least you won't be bored watching his movies (Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliett, Moulin Rouge).

Well, the movie does deliver the spectacle- all goddamn 2 hours and 39 minutes of it. The movie is really about his relationship to his manger "Colonel" Tom Parker, the notorious conman and fiscal abuser, here played by Tom Hanks sporting horrible fat suit + makeup and the worst Dutch accent I've ever heard. He is also the narrator, so the movie has this framing device where Parker is excusing himself to us, which is... uh, a choice, I guess.

Austin Butler's goes for it and that is the part of the movie that was universally praised. He and Lurman's batshit fever dream spectacle-driven direction makes this movie at least interesting, if a confusing mess of any cultural lesson or historical interest.

My thoughts about the racial, gender, and sexual politics in this movie are too much to type out- suffice it to say, any viewer would have some THOUGHTS lol. There are also.. uh, interesting... depictions of musical luminaries such as Little Richard, Hank Snow, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Mahalia Jackson, and B. B. King.

I recommend the movie. But then I also recommend listening to Elvis' music on its own terms. But then I even more recommend listening to Hank Snow, Arthur Crudup, Fats Domino, Chuck Jackson, Jerry Butler, Charley Patton, Jackie Wilson, Chet Atkins, the Carter Family, and Hank Williams.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Elvis (2022)

Because I'm a big music nerd and my wife likes lazy gift giving, she regularly gets me books from a series called 33 1/3. These are small books each written by a different person- usually music journalists, academics, and musicians- about a record album of their choice. One of the recent additions to our collection was the one about From Elvis in Memphis, Presley's 1969 "comeback" album. This got me down an Elvis rabbit hole where I also watched his 1968 television comeback special (which is a phenomenal piece of late 60's cultural flotsam), and then I figured why not check out the Baz Lurman film.
I had passed it by before because I don't like music biopics- I just feel they're pointless and cliche and trope-heavy. But Lurman is a heavy-handed stylist and that means at least you won't be bored watching his movies (Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliett, Moulin Rouge).

Well, the movie does deliver the spectacle- all goddamn 2 hours and 39 minutes of it. The movie is really about his relationship to his manger "Colonel" Tom Parker, the notorious conman and fiscal abuser, here played by Tom Hanks sporting horrible fat suit + makeup and the worst Dutch accent I've ever heard. He is also the narrator, so the movie has this framing device where Parker is excusing himself to us, which is... uh, a choice, I guess.

Austin Butler's goes for it and that is the part of the movie that was universally praised. He and Lurman's batshit fever dream spectacle-driven direction makes this movie at least interesting, if a confusing mess of any cultural lesson or historical interest.

My thoughts about the racial, gender, and sexual politics in this movie are too much to type out- suffice it to say, any viewer would have some THOUGHTS lol. There are also.. uh, interesting... depictions of musical luminaries such as Little Richard, Hank Snow, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Mahalia Jackson, and B. B. King.

I recommend the movie. But then I also recommend listening to Elvis' music on its own terms. But then I even more recommend listening to Hank Snow, Arthur Crudup, Fats Domino, Chuck Jackson, Jerry Butler, Charley Patton, Jackie Wilson, Chet Atkins, the Carter Family, and Hank Williams.

Elvis himself would’ve agreed with that last part, considering he practically lived for whoever he took musical influence from. As for the film itself its main success is shining a light on the corrosive, often codependent relationship with his manager, whom he should’ve ditched after the ‘68 show at the latest. Though even if he knew better then, he was thrust into a life that no one, let alone a simple country boy fresh out of high school had a chance of navigating successfully without some decent guidance. I mean, he was basically the first modern superstar when there was no blueprint for any of it.

I’ve read Peter Guralnick’s two volume bio on EP and one self-admittance stuck out to me, that his biggest personal flaw was being self-destructive. This was a guy who read the PDR religiously but took advantage of such a privileged access to prescription drugs: especially when stuck in the 70’s touring grind. He needed new challenges and without things like a world tour or serious acting roles to focus on I don’t think he saw a way out in the end. It was a “living death”, as John Lennon had once commented.

HBO’s Elvis Presley: The Searcher was perhaps the best introspective piece on Presley as a human being, while Baz’s other more recent outing EPiC is likely the best musical counterpart of him as a performer by a country mile.

 

[thebobmaster]

I will give the real Elvis props for one thing. He never felt comfortable being called "The King of Rock And Roll", because to him, that was Fats Domino. He hated "The King" even more, because being a devout Christian, he had a very different take on who The King was.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

I will give the real Elvis props for one thing. He never felt comfortable being called "The King of Rock And Roll", because to him, that was Fats Domino. He hated "The King" even more, because being a devout Christian, he had a very different take on who The King was.

The film does include the Fats Domino thing, albeit awkwardly and in an uninteresting way, but at least it's there.

One of my frustrations with the musical biopic genre is that, by going to the Big Names, they skip over so many interesting stories. A Fats Domino / Dave Barthalemew story set in New Orleans done well would do wonders to illuminate the history of rock.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Remarkably Bright Creatures: The Feels / Great

Cameron (Lewis Pullman,) a struggling vagabond, get's financially stranded in a coastal town in the state of Washington. To pay for repairs to his RV, he takes on a job cleaning up a local aquarium after local Tova (Sally Field) gets injured and requires time away. Tova has a strong affection for one animal in the exhibit, an octopus named Marcellus (voiced by Alfred Molina,) and she's so very possessive of his care, that she effectively continues to work while training Cameron to performer her duties to her standard. They form a bond that Marcellus proves out all whilst calculating in his tank.

Really sweet movie. Campy? Oh, for sure, but certainly "check for cavities afterwards" sweet. It's Sally Field, for God's sake; the woman is a national treasure.

 

[thebobmaster]

A ★★ review of Smokey and the Bandit II (1980)

“Why didn’t you have your gun loaded?” “When I put bullets in it, Daddy, it gets too heavy.” This film, unlike the first movie, did not seem to have many issues getting made. However, the end result was not well received by critics, viewers, and even Sally Field and Burt Reynolds. The latter...

letterboxd.com

 

[thebobmaster]

A ★★★★½ review of The Breakfast Club (1985)

“Eat my shorts.” John Hughes actually wrote the script for this movie, naming it after the detention class of a high school friend at the same time he wrote Sixteen Candles. However, that was the film that drew studio attention, so Sixteen Candles became his debut, with this being his follow-up...

letterboxd.com

 

[thebobmaster]

A ★★ review of Brother Bear 2 (2006)

“Once you love someone, they stay in your heart forever.” Due to being unavailable, Joaquin Phoenix was recast for this sequel. Initially, Jason Marsden was set to take over for Kenai, but despite recording dialogue, he was replaced by Patrick Dempsey for some reason. This film follows up with...

letterboxd.com

 

[thebobmaster]

A ★★★½ review of Happy Death Day 2U (2019)

“I’m auditioning for this year’s production of The Miracle Worker. Did you know Anne Frank was blind and deaf?” This sequel was already in Christopher Landon's mind when he made the original, with the plan being to expand on the first movie by explaining why Tree ended up in the time loop. It...

letterboxd.com

 

[thebobmaster]

A ★ review of Wuthering Heights (2026)

“Heathcliff? He’d devour you.” “He would not!” “He would indeed. He’s rough and wild, wicked temper.” “Why would you say such a thing? He’s your friend.” “It is because he is my friend that I can say such things with certainty.” I have never read the original Emily Bronte novel of the same name...

letterboxd.com

 

[thebobmaster]

A ★★★★ review of The Mighty Ducks (1992)

“You think losing is funny?” “Not at first, but you get used to it.” Originally, Jake Gyllenhaal was approached to play the role of Charlie Conway, but his parents didn't want to move to Minneapolis for filming, so he turned it down. In addition, another actor who has remained unnamed was tapped...

letterboxd.com

 

[Xprimentyl]

Hot Pursuit: Sofia Vergara Is So Damn Hot / Great

Rose (Reese Witherspoon) is an awkward cop with an overly intense work ethic who is teamed with a US Marshall to get a cartel informant and his wife Daniella (Sofia Vergara) safely to Dallas where the husband intends to testify against the cartel leader. Things go awry almost immediately, and Rose and Daniella find themselves on the lam, evading both the cops and cartel thugs.

It's a rote "odd couple" outing. Witherspoon, the straight-laced cop who insists on doing everything by the book, and Vergara who oozes worldly vice while trying to weasel her way out of Witherspoon's "overly" protective custody. Not a good movie, as the 8% on Rotten Tomatoes would indicate, but it is fun. There are some genuinely funny moments, and let's face it, I can think of a lot worse things to do than stare of Sofia Vergara for an hour and a half. To quote a friend of mine: "I would drag my balls through a mile of broken glass just to hear that b*tch fart through a walkie-talkie."

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

Stargate (1994)

I have seen this one before of course but I decided to watch Stargate SG-1, the TV show. I feel like it's the one major 90s/00s sci-fi show I skipped and since I'm nostalgic for that style of TV, I'd give it a whirl.

For those that don't know, Stargate took the whole aliens built the pyramids idea and turned it into a Hollywood movie. This is the break-out film for disaster schlock maestro Roland Emmerich (Independance Day, 2012, Moonfall, and other such nonsense). James Spader is the suspiciously pretty nerd and Kurt Russell is the disappointingly stoic military dude.

Dude is the appropriate word here- military dudes, evil god dudes, slave rebellion dudes. Women are incidental and decorative in the Stargate world (one old lady sends the dude across the galaxy to earn a pretty young woman in the end).

I mostly remember the slave rebellion part of the movie, less the exposition which took longer than I remember. Maybe I was watching a director's cut, I dunno. None of it is particularly interesting, it's like the History Channel. So many tropes- the scientist that nobody believes, the military dudes that don't take him seriously, the primitive people that need guiding by our heroes like children.
The villain was pretty cool- interesting choice to have a very young boyish looking man embody the spirit of an ancient and cruel alien overlord.

Honestly the most disappointing thing about the movie is that Kurt Russell didn't get to chew enough scenery. Why cast one of the most fun actors and not let him have any fun? There's one scene where he tries to communicate with the locals and it's the best scene.

 

[thebobmaster]

Stargate (1994)

I have seen this one before of course but I decided to watch Stargate SG-1, the TV show. I feel like it's the one major 90s/00s sci-fi show I skipped and since I'm nostalgic for that style of TV, I'd give it a whirl.

For those that don't know, Stargate took the whole aliens built the pyramids idea and turned it into a Hollywood movie. This is the break-out film for disaster schlock maestro Roland Emmerich (Independance Day, 2012, Moonfall, and other such nonsense). James Spader is the suspiciously pretty nerd and Kurt Russell is the disappointingly stoic military dude.

Dude is the appropriate word here- military dudes, evil god dudes, slave rebellion dudes. Women are incidental and decorative in the Stargate world (one old lady sends the dude across the galaxy to earn a pretty young woman in the end).

I mostly remember the slave rebellion part of the movie, less the exposition which took longer than I remember. Maybe I was watching a director's cut, I dunno. None of it is particularly interesting, it's like the History Channel. So many tropes- the scientist that nobody believes, the military dudes that don't take him seriously, the primitive people that need guiding by our heroes like children.
The villain was pretty cool- interesting choice to have a very young boyish looking man embody the spirit of an ancient and cruel alien overlord.

Honestly the most disappointing thing about the movie is that Kurt Russell didn't get to chew enough scenery. Why cast one of the most fun actors and not let him have any fun? There's one scene where he tries to communicate with the locals and it's the best scene.

Fun fact, this is still the only movie I think I've seen Jaye Davison (Ra) in. Yes, I have not seen the role he is far more famous in, just this movie of a show that from what I hear was far superior to the movie. Also, I know the movie came first, I just couldn't think of a way of describing this movie while also acknowledging the show's existence at the same time.

 

[Bartholen]

I decided to rewatch Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest after not having watched it possibly since the 00s, so I watched about half of it. This one I had much less recollection of than the first: I remember action setpieces and Davy Jones, but the mechanics and details of the plot eluded me. Turns out that's for a reason, because man alive this movie's convoluted. Unlike the first movie where it's pretty much "hero's love interest is kidnapped by pirates, hero follows in pursuit" setup, here it's like half a dozen different agendas, deals between characters, conflicting character motivations and subplots, about half of which I'd forgotten completely, and the other half I'm pretty sure I never understood to begin with. There's a crapton of exposition and explanation, but it's still rather hard to follow. I don't know if this is because this and the third were shot simultaneously, and are more like one huge 5-hour epic split in two. I guess I'll have to watch the third one as well to see if this makes any sense by the end of it.

The pacing's pretty whack too: the main plot, aside from the initial setup scene establishing Will's current predicament, doesn't start progressing until like 50 minutes in. A huge chunk of the movie is spent on the cannibal tribe island, which does literally nothing to advance the story. You could literally edit the movie in a way where when Will arrives at the island, he sees the crew of the Black Pearl running to unmoor the ship with Jack running behind, and you'd lose literally nothing of the plot. It's just a giant waste of time.

It's a shame, because everything good about the first movie is still here: Jack Sparrow is a ton of fun, the production's even better with tons of exotic and interesting locations and really strong set design, the action's still fun and creative (if at times very cartoonish), and let's not forget probably the single best CG creature in film history, Davy Jones.

Edit: Finished it. It really is a mess of a fetchquest: Cutler Beckett wants Will to find Jack so he can have Jack's compass so he can find Jones' chest so he can rule the seas, Jack wants to find the key to the titular chest so he can avoid becoming Jones' slave, Will needs to find Jack to get the compass or get the key to gain a pardon but also get the heart for himself so he can free his father, Elizabeth tries to find Will so she can help him, Norrington wants the chest so he can get his former station back... it's genuinely some of the most convoluted motivation I've ever seen in a film, and entirely needlessly so. The overabundance of characters is completely needless. If you cut out Norrington you could have had both a more focused and more emotionally resonant story. It all just seems like a labyrinthine excuse to create the Isla Cruces setpiece, which is genuinely wonderful. The three-way swordfight is honestly one of the best action setpieces of the entire 00's. But the way the movie gets there is convoluted, needlessly padded, indulgent and has lost sight of what made the first film so great. 6/10

 

[thebobmaster]

A ★★★½ review of Jumanji (1995)

“26 years buried in the jungle, and I still became my father.” This film, an adaptation of the picture book of the same name by Chris Van Allsburg, was optioned to Peter (goofy) Guber, with Van Allsburg's script treatment getting the green light from Tristar Pictures with one proviso, one quid...

letterboxd.com