Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

[Hawki]

If anything, it shows how cowardly the US military can be sometimes. God forbid, there is any grey areas or not everyone is clean and pure. Even back then, I felt it was not the best decision when finding out that later detail.

It's been ages since I saw Black Hawk Down (and when I did, I was coughing like Hell, so it wasn't a pleasant experience), but I disagree that the film is black and white (and no, that isn't a pun).

The film struck me as being not exactly anti-war per se (it doesn't attempt to excuse the attrocities going on in the country at the time), but cynical about the prospect of armed intervention. There's a scene I recall where a captured US pilot is being interrogated by a Somali fighter, who asks (paraphrased) "what did you think was going to happen here? You think we would adopt American democracy? This is our world. Go back to yours."

Silence! BP is awesome. It has some flaws, but it's a good film. I disagree big time.

Not that this was directed to me, but it's kind of uncanny how many similarities Aquaman and Black Panther have, not to mention that they were released in the same year.

That said, I'd say BP's the stronger of the two.

Casino Royale

I wasn't a fan of the new direction proposed for the Bond Franchise so I'm only just getting round to bothering with them.

I surprisingly enjoyed it more than I thought I would but I still think it really didn't feel right. It felt like it wanted to be more silly or should have been allowed to be because it was still over the top as hell but trying to play itself more serious.

Also can anyone tell me if this was a plot hole or if it is just some set up for something later in the new bond franchise.

Spoiler: Casino Royale spoiler

Le Chiffre's girlfriend / lover poisons Bond's drink and she wasn't that concerned over the idea of the terrorist group wanting to cut off her arm, she also wasn't there at the torture room / hide out. Is there more to her than was revealed because you'd think Bond or MI6 would have considered her a lead but seemingly she was ignored later in the film and just didn't seem to appear.

Valenka's shot when Mr. White enters the hideout.

On the subject of the film as a whole, Casino Royale is my favourite Bond film. To me, Bond's always been at his best when things are taken more seriously than not. And coming off the heels of Die Another Day, we got a taste of just how insane the franchise could be.

More grounded, less laser satellites please.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Thaluikhain]

Finally got back to my marathon and watched Leprechaun: In the Hood.

While the title makes the movie sound ridiculous, and the movie is in fact ridiculous for the most part, it is certain the best of the Leprechaun movies so far. It knows when to get goofy, but when it wants to be serious, the acting on display is actually pretty solid, especially for a horror movie.

Not seen it myself, but is that a common opinion? Read recently that the franchise was less popular and profitable with that film, dunno if it is true.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[BrawlMan]

Not that this was directed to me, but it's kind of uncanny how many similarities Aquaman and Black Panther have, not to mention that they were released in the same year.

That said, I'd say BP's the stronger of the two.

I appreciate that. Thank You. Aquaman has a huge edge in having better action, fight sequences, and choreography. I call Aquaman, Devil May Cry 3, but underwater. I love both movies about the same though.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Swallow.
Woman who resembles childlike behaviours while falling to an overly passive half of a fresh marriage into a rich family starts to develop curious eponymous habits, leading to further degradation of mental state and relationship. Is very good, shot and acted almost entirely from the central character's point of view, played by Haley Bennett, who is a confusing mix of repressed compulsions underneath people-pleasing tendencies, not aided by the faux concern of her condescending in-laws. It calls itself a psychological horror, which I'd say is a bit of a stretch, as while it is an uncomfortable and tense watch, with the odd squirmy scene peppered in for good measure, a lot of viewers may go into this expecting something else...perhaps more brazen? It worked effectively for me at least, but I am an anxious and sensitive little snowflake.

Life.
Alien but not alien, everyone but me has seen this already so what can I say? It was a solid space monster horror, but not as interesting as it could've been. Would've like more evolutions please! Like one for every corpse consumed, and they get a crazy new power each time until it's a level 100 galactic anus with the power to create a black hole! Or should I say br...nope, not doing that joke. Respect to the ending for not wimping out though. I'm sold on the trashy high-budget sequel that may never happen.

Velvet Buzzsaw.
Ah, the sweet balance of a horror comedy...how I have missed you so. Except, well, I was kinda expecting some smarter twists instead of the bog-standard vague antagonist (being careful with words here cause I care about your spoiler sensitivity like a digital grandma with no concept of boundaries) power. It's still alright, but the setup, cast and the brilliantly pretentious ramblings of Jake Gyllenhaal's art critic character gave me the impression they had grander plans for the plot, which is: Art critics are killed off one by one after some lovely art is obtained by dubious means to sell.

Possessor.
Set in an America that looks like the 70s West Midlands in England on a particularly overcast day, corporate assassin Andrea Riseborough takes over other people to set up murder/suicide of high-profile targets using retro-futuristic technology also from the West Midlands NHS clinics probably.
This may be the brazen psychological horror of which the average movie glutton would expect when seeing those genre tags. And it is quite bleak. But also brilliant if you appreciate grotesque, unsettling cerebral horror imagery. There is a distinct talent in visualising the messed up cocktail of innermost thought and emotion when two consciousnesses are fusing and unfusing in tangled and torturous ways. Reminds me of a bad trip at times. Sean Bean shows up just to die, for those who miss the old days. Can get gruesome, but makes sense when the writer/director is Brandon Cronenburg: son of David. It is not a happy time, so if you're looking for happy time, don't come here. But it is a finely crafted unpleasant experience.

Phew, that was a lot of horror to binge! Time to bask in a sea of affectionate puppies I guess.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Valenka's shot when Mr. White enters the hideout.

On the subject of the film as a whole, Casino Royale is my favourite Bond film. To me, Bond's always been at his best when things are taken more seriously than not. And coming off the heels of Die Another Day, we got a taste of just how insane the franchise could be.

More grounded, less laser satellites please.

Ah I just thought it was some regular henchperson who was shot as it happens off screen as such.

 

[Baffle]

Hide and Seek. Fairly predictable but not at all a bad film, definitely watchable. It knows what it is (I'm thinking of making this my film-review statement, so no one nab it please).

 

[Agema]

The Trial Of The Chicago Seven (2020)

All these sorts of legal / trial movies are the same. You could be watching Silkwood, A Few Good Men, Dark Waters, The Trial Of The Chicago Seven, and they're all basically kind of the same. I find them instrinsically a little bit sort of dull. Some are funny where others are serious, some have more out-of-court stuff than others, but really they're all just slightly different variations of the same stuff designed to tweak your sense of outrage against whichever bullying, selfish and negligent institution.

This is well scripted (with the sort of artistic licence you'd expect) and well acted, but it's still just a courtroom drama. So feel free to give it your time - it won't be a waste - but I don't doubt you could watch better stuff, too.

 

[Piscian]

I watched The Dark and The Wicked (2020) yesterday. This one gets a real *booo hisss* out of me.

The premise is that on a lonely family farm a family patriarch is in the final stages of hospice. His Son and Daughter arrive to stay with him despite the mother warning them away. It becomes evidently clear that something evil has invaded the home and spooky things are happening around the death of the father. Anyways it turns out pretty quick that a demon or devil is there and trying to take the fathers soul. The movies pretty graphic and there's a very clear influence from Evil Dead going on here that excited me initially. In fact there's a couple scenes that are almost beat for beat. Unfortunately thats the end of the positive notes from me. I really has a distaste for these religious monster films. It all because quite drab when it boils down to the devil wants everyones soul or wants them to be evil and it becomes all mundane stab stab and jump scares. The movie never really seems to be going any where and you're just sort of twiddling your thumbs and waiting for everyone to die. There's no rhyme or reason to it and no revelation around the father. The Devil is just a big meany.

There's an argument to be made that theres good "devils gonna get you films" out there, but those always succeed by having layers. I think of things like In the Mouth of Madness, Event Horizon and even Evil Dead. Those dont really come to mind for most audiences when thinking of religious horror, though they technically are. I think it's because bog standard priests yelling and screaming with crosses at insidious demons that they thought they excised but didnt whatever.. are....fucking boring. The best horror is when it's opaque, confusing, terrifying in a way thats difficult to describe. The Dark and the Wicked is not. 3/10. Big pass unless you want to see some neat Evil Dead call backs.

 

[thebobmaster]

Just watched Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood.

Despite, or maybe because, it is better made than In the Hood, I found this one to be significantly less enjoyable to watch. The chemistry between the leads was a bit lacking, and when the Leprechaun was not on-screen, the film took itself a bit too seriously for my liking, focusing on the main characters' struggles to better their lives and escape the hood, dealing with gang bangers, and all that stuff. Wasn't a terrible watch, though, and I actually quite liked the Leprechaun outfit in this one.

 

[happyninja42]

The Trial Of The Chicago Seven (2020)

All these sorts of legal / trial movies are the same. You could be watching Silkwood, A Few Good Men, Dark Waters, The Trial Of The Chicago Seven, and they're all basically kind of the same. I find them instrinsically a little bit sort of dull. Some are funny where others are serious, some have more out-of-court stuff than others, but really they're all just slightly different variations of the same stuff designed to tweak your sense of outrage against whichever bullying, selfish and negligent institution.

This is well scripted (with the sort of artistic licence you'd expect) and well acted, but it's still just a courtroom drama. So feel free to give it your time - it won't be a waste - but I don't doubt you could watch better stuff, too.

Yeah if you haven't already found his channel, Legal Eagle on YT, is a real lawyer, who started out just reviewing legal movies, and "grading" them on legal realism. Spoilers, most fail terribly in a lot of ways, but it's still funny to watch him break down what is wrong/right about the various films. Given the political/legal climate of the last few years, a lot of his content has shifted to more real world stuff, which I approve of, but it's still a channel with some funny content. I'd check out his stuff if you want to see an analysis of legal films.

 

[happyninja42]

I appreciate that. Thank You. Aquaman has a huge edge in having better action, fight sequences, and choreography. I call Aquaman, Devil May Cry 3, but underwater. I love both movies about the same though.

There were a lot of little things in BP that irked me, and made me dislike my viewing experience. Some of them were funny in the "holy shit they went THAT way with the culture? I can't believe they put that in." angle, and others were just frustrating writing/script issues. I appreciate that it was a ground breaking film, and the acting was spot on for pretty much the entire cast, but the motivations, and personas of a few of them, just rubbed me the wrong way on SO many levels.

 

[Agema]

Yeah if you haven't already found his channel, Legal Eagle on YT, is a real lawyer, who started out just reviewing legal movies, and "grading" them on legal realism. Spoilers, most fail terribly in a lot of ways, but it's still funny to watch him break down what is wrong/right about the various films. Given the political/legal climate of the last few years, a lot of his content has shifted to more real world stuff, which I approve of, but it's still a channel with some funny content. I'd check out his stuff if you want to see an analysis of legal films.

I remember watching a lot of the old 50s-60s SF movies when I was young, and enjoyed them. In the 1980s there was a biotechnological revolution; I became a biological scientist in the 90s, and cinema made a ton of SF movies where biological sciences took the place that physics did in 1960s movies as the basis for SF plots. Of course, I would mentally howl in protest at the utter garbage biological science in films. Just imagine how much less I might have enjoyed those old 60s movies if I'd been a physicist.

 

[happyninja42]

I remember watching a lot of the old 50s-60s SF movies when I was young, and enjoyed them. In the 1980s there was a biotechnological revolution; I became a biological scientist in the 90s, and cinema made a ton of SF movies where biological sciences took the place that physics did in 1960s movies as the basis for SF plots. Of course, I would mentally howl in protest at the utter garbage biological science in films. Just imagine how much less I might have enjoyed those old 60s movies if I'd been a physicist.

Eh, considering how many engineers and scientists, flat out said "I was inspired to help pioneer X invention because of the cheesy old scifi shows I loved", I don't really mind as much. I mean Legal Eagle himself said the he loved watching law related stuff as a kid, and it was one of the things that inspired him to go into the legal profession. I mean I get it, the little bit of your brain that goes "that's not right!" , as I see it a lot now that I've worked in veteran's affairs for over 13 years. Military details about service, and characters of discharge and the like, are more noticeable to me. But I always try and beat that reaction down with the knowledge that "these aren't experts in the fields they are portraying, they are experts in the field of making movies/tv shows. They've already got enough on their plate with trying to just make a damn film, that I am willing to ignore them getting details wrong, or just flat out ignoring them, for the sake of the plot."

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Tenet

In typical Christopher Nolan fashion, this is a very simple story obfuscated by time manipulation gimmickry. In this case it's a James Bond movie with a James Bond plot (complete with Bond expy, Bond girl and Bond villain) yet obfuscated by time travelling shenanigans. This means enduring lots of randomness and vagueness for the sake of saboring a few 'gotchas' by the time the plot gets around filling in the gaps in the timeline.

It starts simply enough with 'inverted' bullets that fire backwards into guns. Fair enough. This escalates into inverted action scenes, with some characters moving backwards and others forwards, and eventually of course the movie itself folding into a time loop. Maybe it's less of a headache on the third or fourth rewatch, but I don't think there's much to discover from the movie by rewatching it.

Dialogue and interactions are suffocating - there's little to talk about other than what just happened and what's gonna happen next. Even then the primary emotion I had watching the movie was one of disorientation. Everything moves at 1.25% speed, feels like. And it's rarely clear who knows what, and how they know it, or since when.

I liked the action scenes for their intensity and their staging, but also because they're the easiest thing to follow on the movie. FX, sound, production, score, top notch. It doesn't just look great, it also makes it *look* like a great movie, if that makes sense. But the story and characters are a wash.

 

[thebobmaster]

To finish off my Leprechaun marathon as best as I could (I don't have access to Returns on any streaming service), watched Leprechaun: Origins.

I do not recommend anyone do this. It is by far the worst of the Leprechaun movies for many reasons. It takes itself completely seriously, has nothing to do with the rest of the series (liked Warwick Davis as Leppie Boy? Well, this "leprechaun" is a feral creature who can't even talk, but only snarls like a wild animal. And is played by Hornswoggle of WWE fame), and I've never felt less invested in the lead characters.

On top of all that, it takes at least 50 minutes for the first post-opening deaths to kick in, so even watching it in the frame of mind of "at least the kills might be nice" is disappointing at best. There are a couple of decent gore moments, but overall, this movie is legitimately one of the worst horror movies I've ever watched. Out of all the movies, it is the one that I was actually tempted to turn off partway through.

 

[Piscian]

To finish off my Leprechaun marathon as best as I could (I don't have access to Returns on any streaming service), watched Leprechaun: Origins.

I do not recommend anyone do this. It is by far the worst of the Leprechaun movies for many reasons. It takes itself completely seriously, has nothing to do with the rest of the series (liked Warwick Davis as Leppie Boy? Well, this "leprechaun" is a feral creature who can't even talk, but only snarls like a wild animal. And is played by Hornswoggle of WWE fame), and I've never felt less invested in the lead characters.

On top of all that, it takes at least 50 minutes for the first post-opening deaths to kick in, so even watching it in the frame of mind of "at least the kills might be nice" is disappointing at best. There are a couple of decent gore moments, but overall, this movie is legitimately one of the worst horror movies I've ever watched. Out of all the movies, it is the one that I was actually tempted to turn off partway through.

Ugh another WWE studios film. It always makes me sad to see that logo because you know it's a cash-in just taking advantage of the fact that WWE fans will watch anything tangentially related to it.

What makes me even more sad is that they probably could have done it on a micro budget in Ireland and just hired local actors and crew and still gotten something of better quality than this.

 

[gorfias]

Zack Snyder's Justice League
Snip

I liked it a lot. I liked a couple of things from 2017 I am sorry he left out. Particularly Batman encouraging Flash to save just one person and go from there.

And no, Barry is never called the Flash. So in this brief TV crossover at about 1 min. it is apparent the idea of that name is new to him:

 

[Xprimentyl]

Yeah if you haven't already found his channel, Legal Eagle on YT, is a real lawyer, who started out just reviewing legal movies, and "grading" them on legal realism. Spoilers, most fail terribly in a lot of ways, but it's still funny to watch him break down what is wrong/right about the various films. Given the political/legal climate of the last few years, a lot of his content has shifted to more real world stuff, which I approve of, but it's still a channel with some funny content. I'd check out his stuff if you want to see an analysis of legal films.

Legal Eagle is great. Despite him talking well above my head and paygrade a lot of the time, I still find myself drawn to his content. You just feel “smarter” hearing someone in the business of the law breaking it down so matter-of-factually as a third party observer with no stake in the trials at issue. But his reviews of the movies are particularly priceless; when Batman got something like 17 consecutive life sentences for his actions in The Dark Knight, you can really come to appreciate the consequences of being a vigilante.

I posted in the comments on one of his videos that I’d like for him to review the “Trial of Tim Heidecker” (video below,) but he hasn’t done it yet (if ever, who am I kidding?) It’s a really “slow burn” comedy (more a string of moments of absurdity rather than a few singular moments of hilarity) framed in an entirely serious and realistic court proceeding. Not knowing it to be fictitious, you couldn’t be faulted for not realizing it’s a farce; I would absolutely love to get Legal Eagle’s take on it. Its production is actually quite impressive and detailed given the extremely niche audience who might find its appeal.