Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

[Terminal Blue]

But you ask a star wars fanatic? It's because green is the color of a jedi knight! Indicating they've graduated from rookie status to actual badass! ......yeah, suuuuure pal, let's just asspull more fanfic wank and make it canon, because of course the fans debated "yeah but why is it green?! WHAT DOES IT MEAAAAAN?!?" for decades. And then just, some EU writer made up something and Lucasarts was like "yeah sure, fuck it, whatever, we don't care."

Fans ruined Star Wars.

I say that very literally, as someone who likes the original trilogy, because the original trilogy isn't complicated. It's a mashup of cliches from several different genres, which is probably why it's so successful, it's immediately and intuitively comprehensible in a way much of science fiction isn't. The line between story and theme is incredibly thin in Star Wars, to the point that the plot is actually pretty unimportant and inconsequential. It's a light silly film which packs surprising emotional depth into a dumb premise.

But then the fans come in, people who have been systematically taught by the media they consume to avoid even the most basic thematic analysis, and they do what nerds do and ignore all the obvious theme in favour of vacuous and pointless worldbuilding.

In the final battle, the emperor shoots lightning from his hands. How does he do that? Doesn't matter. The point is that he can do something noone else (so far) has done, and which completely changes the game. Luke can beat Darth Vader in a sword fight, but the Emperor is above sword fighting. The point of this moment is that sudden turnaround, and the realisation that Luke never stood a chance. Heck, because this movie literally spoon feeds you theme, the Emperor literally explains this while zapping him.

But because the fans hate themes, the message they took away from this is that the Emperor is a high level wizard who specced heavily into a shock-damage based DPS build. Force lightning became just another instance of the various superpowers which force users have, with no consideration of its role in the narrative. By the time the prequels come around, force lightning is kind of a joke. People throw it around and block it with lightsabers like it's nothing (which also unintentionally makes Luke seem like a total scrub).

 

[Hawki]

A Charlie Brown Christmas (4/10)

Apparently, this is some kind of Christmas classic. Having watched it myself recently, I really don't get why.

Let's get the obvious out of the way - the animation is extremely basic, and the voice acting is terrible. The former I can sort of forgive, given when this was made, but even then, much better animation existed long before this. Also, apparently in this world, adults don't exist, and children can just walk around everywhere and commandeer halls for Christmas plays as their hearts desire. What's harder to forgive is the voice acting. Again, it's terrible, but then, with this dialogue, you're not missing out on much. Yes, this is meant for kids, but it's not as if kids' TV/films are obliged to have such simplistic dialogue.

But even beyond that, the pieces is clunky when it comes to both theme and presentation. So, Charlie Brown is depressed at Christmas because he thinks it's too commercial. That's a fair observation to make, but it's not an observation that's unique to this film, and it's not an idea that's really explored. It's always kept tangental. Examples of consumerism include


-Charlie's sister's Christmas list

-Lucy being disappointed at Christmas because her wish of real estate is never granted

-Snoopy decorates his doghouse with Christmas decorations as part of some competition where the winner gets a cash prize

-Aluminium Christmas trees are on sale (which are pink for some reason)

These things rear their heads, but fade into the background. The doghouse thing is especially grating, because Snoopy decorates his doghouse with decorations and wins. This triggers Charlie, so he takes off one of the decorations to decorate his little Christmas tree, and soon, the doghouse is stripped of all its decorations to decorate said tree. Yes, how dare Snoopy decorate his doghouse as part of a competition, the selfish bastard. Which leads to the kids singing Hark, the Herald Angels Sing, and...the movie ends. That whole Christmas play thing? It's never completed. It's forgotten as the plot demands.

Y'know, maybe this is unfair, but if you want to look at cartoons parodying consumerism, Futurama did more in a few minutes (the eye-phone stuff) then this film does in its entire runtime. And even if it didn't, it's a case of the film pontificating about it

At the end of the day, it's a clunky film, with clunky dialogue, with a clunky theme, with terrible voice acting. And really not worth my time. It's barely even worth a child's time, because if you're after a "true meaning of Christmas" film, there's much better options out there.

 

[BrawlMan]

A Charlie Brown Christmas (4/10)

Apparently, this is some kind of Christmas classic. Having watched it myself recently, I really don't get why.

Let's get the obvious out of the way - the animation is extremely basic, and the voice acting is terrible. The former I can sort of forgive, given when this was made, but even then, much better animation existed long before this. Also, apparently in this world, adults don't exist, and children can just walk around everywhere and commandeer halls for Christmas plays as their hearts desire. What's harder to forgive is the voice acting. Again, it's terrible, but then, with this dialogue, you're not missing out on much. Yes, this is meant for kids, but it's not as if kids' TV/films are obliged to have such simplistic dialogue.

But even beyond that, the pieces is clunky when it comes to both theme and presentation. So, Charlie Brown is depressed at Christmas because he thinks it's too commercial. That's a fair observation to make, but it's not an observation that's unique to this film, and it's not an idea that's really explored. It's always kept tangental. Examples of consumerism include


-Charlie's sister's Christmas list

-Lucy being disappointed at Christmas because her wish of real estate is never granted

-Snoopy decorates his doghouse with Christmas decorations as part of some competition where the winner gets a cash prize

-Aluminium Christmas trees are on sale (which are pink for some reason)

These things rear their heads, but fade into the background. The doghouse thing is especially grating, because Snoopy decorates his doghouse with decorations and wins. This triggers Charlie, so he takes off one of the decorations to decorate his little Christmas tree, and soon, the doghouse is stripped of all its decorations to decorate said tree. Yes, how dare Snoopy decorate his doghouse as part of a competition, the selfish bastard. Which leads to the kids singing Hark, the Herald Angels Sing, and...the movie ends. That whole Christmas play thing? It's never completed. It's forgotten as the plot demands.

Y'know, maybe this is unfair, but if you want to look at cartoons parodying consumerism, Futurama did more in a few minutes (the eye-phone stuff) then this film does in its entire runtime. And even if it didn't, it's a case of the film pontificating about it

At the end of the day, it's a clunky film, with clunky dialogue, with a clunky theme, with terrible voice acting. And really not worth my time. It's barely even worth a child's time, because if you're after a "true meaning of Christmas" film, there's much better options out there.

This is always kind of been a problem with Charlie Brown. I'll be honest, I hardly ever go back to the cartoons at all. I have a comic strip collection that I occasionally look at from my childhood. But overall, I just don't like this show at all, nor movies much anymore. I especially hate Lucy and sometimes Peppermint Patty. Depending on the writing.

 

[happyninja42]

I always felt that the lightsaber blade color has meaning thing was asinine, particularly the part where "all Sith have red lightsabers always!".
I much preferred the explanation/idea that the color of the blade depended on the crystal used in the weapon. That's why Leia's was ruby red, Jaina Solo's was amethyst, Jacen Solo's was emerald green, Lowie's was molten bronze, Tenel Ka's first lightsaber was white with gold sparks and her second was turquoise. Still remember these decades after the last time I read the Young Jedi Knight series.

Well depending on when you are reading the lore, the color IS dependent on the crystal used (I think later in the game lines, they had it be based on your personality or something? *shrugs). As they are harvested from different planets, with different biomes that impact the color or whatever. And frankly I'm fine with that. That "it's just due to the chemical composition of the crystal used as the focusing lens" ok, fine, that makes sense, as crystals are some weird ass shit IRL, with really wacky properties. And they even said that the reason the sith ones are red, is they used artificially created crystals, and thus red. Plus, they are evil so, they LIKE using red, as it's the color of blood. And frankly, a homicidal magic cult, all using a color scheme for their weapons, to instill fear in their enemies, I can believe that too. I mean it's not like Lucas didn't make Vader's saber red for intimidation/evil purposes when he was visually coding Vader. So the idea that they all do that, well you don't have to look too far IRL to see groups that adopt trappings of dress/weaponry for intimidation factors. Just look at the oni masks the Japanese samurai used, as well as other aspects to just scare the piss out of their enemies. But the green thing? That was purely an IRL technical issue, that nobody but the fans really lost their shit over.

Star Wars, or any movie or media, shouldn't be an identity

I agree. Like, I understand the human tendency to do that, to find something that means a lot to you, and use it as your guiding principle/identity. But yeah, it's just really bothersome to see how much conflict is created by that franchise, and others like it.

 

[Xprimentyl]

A Charlie Brown Christmas (4/10)

Apparently, this is some kind of Christmas classic. Having watched it myself recently, I really don't get why.

Let's get the obvious out of the way - the animation is extremely basic, and the voice acting is terrible. The former I can sort of forgive, given when this was made, but even then, much better animation existed long before this. Also, apparently in this world, adults don't exist, and children can just walk around everywhere and commandeer halls for Christmas plays as their hearts desire. What's harder to forgive is the voice acting. Again, it's terrible, but then, with this dialogue, you're not missing out on much. Yes, this is meant for kids, but it's not as if kids' TV/films are obliged to have such simplistic dialogue.

But even beyond that, the pieces is clunky when it comes to both theme and presentation. So, Charlie Brown is depressed at Christmas because he thinks it's too commercial. That's a fair observation to make, but it's not an observation that's unique to this film, and it's not an idea that's really explored. It's always kept tangental. Examples of consumerism include


-Charlie's sister's Christmas list

-Lucy being disappointed at Christmas because her wish of real estate is never granted

-Snoopy decorates his doghouse with Christmas decorations as part of some competition where the winner gets a cash prize

-Aluminium Christmas trees are on sale (which are pink for some reason)

These things rear their heads, but fade into the background. The doghouse thing is especially grating, because Snoopy decorates his doghouse with decorations and wins. This triggers Charlie, so he takes off one of the decorations to decorate his little Christmas tree, and soon, the doghouse is stripped of all its decorations to decorate said tree. Yes, how dare Snoopy decorate his doghouse as part of a competition, the selfish bastard. Which leads to the kids singing Hark, the Herald Angels Sing, and...the movie ends. That whole Christmas play thing? It's never completed. It's forgotten as the plot demands.

Y'know, maybe this is unfair, but if you want to look at cartoons parodying consumerism, Futurama did more in a few minutes (the eye-phone stuff) then this film does in its entire runtime. And even if it didn't, it's a case of the film pontificating about it

At the end of the day, it's a clunky film, with clunky dialogue, with a clunky theme, with terrible voice acting. And really not worth my time. It's barely even worth a child's time, because if you're after a "true meaning of Christmas" film, there's much better options out there.

Wow, a review that uses more words that can be heard in the show itself.

You realize this was made largely for children, right? That Peanuts predates the intellectual appeal to adults as seen in the likes of "Calvin and Hobbes" by +30 years? The Peanuts Christmas movie is regaled as a "Christmas classic" because you've got a lot of 50-60 year-olds who grew up watching it annually their entire lives who then showed it to their kids, and their kids' kids; literally how classics are made. As for the simplicity and baseness, how much more basic can you get than Peanuts? What level of complexity would you expect from a show about a bunch of literally and figuratively FLAT kids and a dog? The show embodies the comic strip on which it's based nigh perfectly, the "terrible" voice acting becoming one of the iconic sounds of countless childhoods for over half a century.

You're welcome to your opinion, but geeze, it's Charlie fucking BROWN; give the kid a break! It was made during simpler times for simpler people and its charm and appeal exist largely on fond, holiday nostalgia; modern standards are an unfair bar to measure it by. You sound like an art critic in a 3rd grade classroom.

 

[happyninja42]

You realize this was made largely for children, right?

Ah, the eternal defense for something that isn't made well, or doesn't hold up decades later. You realize he addressed that very defense in the thing you quoted right?

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

The Invisible Man (2020)
Yes. Direction and performance retrains brain to fear empty spaces. Abusive relationship gaslighting to the extreme.

The Art of Self-Defense
Jesse Eisenberg (the joker from Batman v Superman I think) returns to awkward antisocialite mode, desperate for confidence, seeks local karate group. Only to learn the boys there are a little too high on testosterone encouraged by their teacher, and what starts as a dry comedy slowly turns darker throughout. The serious moments are handled with the weight necessary, mostly. It's more obvious than most indie films dealing with similar themes, but less obvious than the typical comedy approach. Imogen Poots is delightful yet again in her role too. Probably not for everyone though, but I enjoyed it.

Ad Astra
Had heard this was boring, but despite shortcomings, It didn't feel that.
Brad Pitt goes on space journey to find obvious metaphors in a film that feels like it went through a couple of test screenings where the people who said it was boring said it was definitely boring, so they added a voice over to narrate what is already on screen, and the odd extra action scene in an attempt to placate these easily distracted puppies. The rest is alright though.

Sonic
Ummmm, the wine was nice, a bit fizzy. The buffet a huge intimidating spread, with too many mini pizzas for too little people however. The conversation just awful, I couldn't wait to get away with all the booze and biscuits.
No idea what happened in the film. This is all the inebriated memory I got of it.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Ah, the eternal defense for something that isn't made well, or doesn't hold up decades later. You realize he addressed that very defense in the thing you quoted right?

Yes, I got that, but I felt it was worth reiterating that the standards it's being held to are unreasonable given that children in the '60s through today still enjoy it. Watching it for the first time as an adult today and comparing it what we've since seen almost 60 years later is akin to comparing an Edsel to a Tesla.

Take a look at a Peanuts comic, then take a look at the film; it's basically a point-for-point translation in terms of visuals and feel; the comics have a very amateur and gritty quality that they remained true to in the animation. Also, I doubt they were working with a "Disney quality" budget for a 30 minute Christmas special; It was '60s level recording equipment with child actors; saying it "wasn't made well" and "doesn't hold up" is directly contrary to the fact that it HAS held up.

 

[McElroy]

snip

Good grief!

Agree with you though.

Y'know, maybe this is unfair, but if you want to look at cartoons parodying consumerism, Futurama did more in a few minutes (the eye-phone stuff) then this film does in its entire runtime.

Cursed line. Futurama most likely wouldn't exist without Peanuts (as Groening's Life in Hell is a "punk" version of Peanuts).

 

[twistedmic]

And they even said that the reason the sith ones are red, is they used artificially created crystals, and thus red. Plus, they are evil so, they LIKE using red, as it's the color of blood. And frankly, a homicidal magic cult, all using a color scheme for their weapons, to instill fear in their enemies, I can believe that too.

I should clarify that I don’t like the idea that just being a Sith/Dark sider made your lightsaber red.
Sith lightsabers being red due to synthetic crystals is a fine explanation. And them making red lightsabers purely for the aesthetics and to stay on brand is actually a respectable reason.

 

[happyninja42]

I should clarify that I don’t like the idea that just being a Sith/Dark sider made your lightsaber red.
Sith lightsabers being red due to synthetic crystals is a fine explanation. And them making red lightsabers purely for the aesthetics and to stay on brand is actually a respectable reason.

Right, what you are describing is some kind of mystic change to the crystal's color, due to your force alignment or whatever? I have heard of that being a thing, though only recently with some of the table top roleplaying games. I don't recall, previously that being the rationale for it. I mean we see Anakin after he's fallen to the dark side, clearly still using a blue saber for the entirety of Revenge of the Sith, so it's clearly not something that just happens because you went Emo Mode. For decades, it's been due to the chemical composition of the crystals. So I think, in that regard, the franchise has been doing what you want. Again I'm not sure where you are getting that the films declared it was some just, magical change or whatever? Because I don't recall that ever being a thing when I was growing up. It was just understood to be a crystal thing. And if you wanted a red blade, you had to find a red crystal. And I sort of assumed the reason why only badguys used it, was sort of like how people who aren't nazis, would decline to wear a szwatztika. But people who have drank that koolaid, are happy to let their fascist murderer flag fly.

 

[Hawki]

Wow, a review that uses more words that can be heard in the show itself.

You realize this was made largely for children, right? That Peanuts predates the intellectual appeal to adults as seen in the likes of "Calvin and Hobbes" by +30 years? The Peanuts Christmas movie is regaled as a "Christmas classic" because you've got a lot of 50-60 year-olds who grew up watching it annually their entire lives who then showed it to their kids, and their kids' kids; literally how classics are made. As for the simplicity and baseness, how much more basic can you get than Peanuts? What level of complexity would you expect from a show about a bunch of literally and figuratively FLAT kids and a dog? The show embodies the comic strip on which it's based nigh perfectly, the "terrible" voice acting becoming one of the iconic sounds of countless childhoods for over half a century.

You're welcome to your opinion, but geeze, it's Charlie fucking BROWN; give the kid a break! It was made during simpler times for simpler people and its charm and appeal exist largely on fond, holiday nostalgia; modern standards are an unfair bar to measure it by. You sound like an art critic in a 3rd grade classroom.

I know Peanuts is made for children, but there's a lot of stuff made for children that's still presented and delivered better. Something like...I dunno, Toy Story (or most works by Pixar) can be enjoyed by adults and children alike. This, however, is directed only to children. Which is fine, but makes me wonder about its place in the cultural zeitgeist.

Also, even if we have the argument of modern standards, great works of art stand the test of time. This is an extreme comparison, but we're still performing Shakespeare for instance. So there's not a guarantee that works are fated to be surpassed by later ones.

 

[Baffle]

Jo Jo Rabbit: Excellent, especially Sam Rockwell

Zombieland 2: Not as good.

 

[happyninja42]

Jo Jo Rabbit: Excellent, especially Sam Rockwell

Yes he was great. I think Alfie Allen was fantastic too. Very underutilized in my opinion, but he worked well with Sam's boisterousness wonderfully.
On that note, I'd really like to see someone take Alfie and let him be the lead in a drama. I think he'd be good. I know everyone pigeonholes him as a sniveling dweeb from GoT and John Wick, but I think he's got some really good acting chops, and can be a really strong screen presence when given the chance.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I know Peanuts is made for children, but there's a lot of stuff made for children that's still presented and delivered better. Something like...I dunno, Toy Story (or most works by Pixar) can be enjoyed by adults and children alike. This, however, is directed only to children. Which is fine, but makes me wonder about its place in the cultural zeitgeist.

Also, even if we have the argument of modern standards, great works of art stand the test of time. This is an extreme comparison, but we're still performing Shakespeare for instance. So there's not a guarantee that works are fated to be surpassed by later ones.

There's 30 years of broadcast/cinematic/cultural evolution between Toy Story and Peanuts Christmas. Bugs Bunny smoked cigars in some cartoons not to appeal to adults, but because it's likely what a lot of bright-eyed children saw adults doing in their day; it wasn't a tacit nod to invite adults to appreciate the cartoon. That said, why is it a lot of adults still like Looney Tunes today despite them not nodding towards present adult themes and interests? When Bugs dressed up as a female hare, it wasn't to appropriate/represent LGBTQ culture, rather it was because it was [to a child] silly, a man dressing as a woman.

Yes, it was directed at children, much like most animation of the '60s.

Place in the cultural zeitgeist? The 60-year-olds of the '60s shared a simplistic joy from their childhood with their children and their children's children making it a "classic."

Who said it was a "work of art?" Few would put Shakespeare and Charlie Brown in the same building let alone category. You don't have to like it; I don't, if I'm being honest, but I wouldn't question the imprint it has had on the holiday season for over a half a century. Have better things been made in better ways since? Absolutely. Does that fact dilute the impact it's had since its inception? Not at all.

 

[Baffle]

Yes he was great. I think Alfie Allen was fantastic too. Very underutilized in my opinion, but he worked well with Sam's boisterousness wonderfully.
On that note, I'd really like to see someone take Alfie and let him be the lead in a drama. I think he'd be good. I know everyone pigeonholes him as a sniveling dweeb from GoT and John Wick, but I think he's got some really good acting chops, and can be a really strong screen presence when given the chance.

Agreed. I think he's a bit typecast as he has a slightly (and I don't mean to be unpleasant) ratty face (should be clear, I have a bum for a face), so he gets put in weasel roles.

Whole film was very good. I don't usually go for Scarlett Johansson, but she was good in this. It was all very good.

 

[happyninja42]

Agreed. I think he's a bit typecast as he has a slightly (and I don't mean to be unpleasant) ratty face (should be clear, I have a bum for a face), so he gets put in weasel roles.

Eh, I think he can look quite strong when he wants to. There are several shots in GoT, near the end, when he's having his transition from shitheel, to someone trying to do right, and he pulls it off fantastically I think. I think he's just a really good actor, and is good at physically conveying obsequiousness, to his detriment, in that now he's always cast for that kind of role. I dunno, I just think he's got a lot more range than he's been given a chance to show in his big ticket performances.

Whole film was very good. I don't usually go for Scarlett Johansson, but she was good in this. It was all very good.

Yes, the whole film was good. Everyone had spot on performances. ScarJo was really good. Like, I loved the dinner scene, where she pretends to be his dad. I loved the sort of manic, frantic nature to it. How her natural state of being jovial, playful, and a bit of a prankster, was coming up against the stresses of the life she was living, and how it was getting worse around her. How her own pains were slipping through the cracks at times during that dinner, but how it's not that it's her "true" state to be like that. Just that, she's tired, SO tired, and was reminded of how she doesn't have her husband around, and is terrified of being hung in the fucking street by her country, yet feeling compelled to try and still enjoy life, and instill that joy in her son, AND to try and fight for what she felt was right. All of this, conveyed in a woman, dressed like a dude with soot on her face for stuble, in a short scene at a dinner table. I just loved it.

I also really loved how the rabbit became Jojo's totem animal, and the rational for why it was an animal worthy of respect.

 

[Samtemdo8]

Al Pacino's Scarface.

Can I just say this movie highlights something that I feel is a bit underappreciated, and that's how Scary powerful the Drug Cartels can be, even arguably more powerful then the American Mafia at their peak.


This Sosa guy got Generals and high ranking Political members of the Bolivian Government and a US CIA Agent in his inner circle.

 

[Baffle]

I've snipped you because I don't want to risk including spoilers with my big clumsy hands.

Completely agree. The scene in question is where she really shines.

I haven't watched enough of GOT to see any more of Allen because it's just too unrelentlingly miserable for me. Stopped around beginning of S3. I just like happier stuff tbh.

 

[BrawlMan]

Al Pacino's Scarface.

Can I just say this movie highlights something that I feel is a bit underappreciated, and that's how Scary powerful the Drug Cartels can be, even arguably more powerful then the American Mafia at their peak.


This Sosa guy got Generals and high ranking Political members of the Bolivian Government and a US CIA Agent in his inner circle.

It also shows how small time Tony was compared to all those Cartel leaders. I can't watch this movie much anymore, but even as a 13 year-old (back in mid 2003), seeing that room full of drug dealers told me something was really off and not right.