Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

Is this the first poll?


  • Total voters
    45

Bartholen

At age 6 I was born without a face
Legacy
Jul 1, 2020
770
856
98
Country
Finland
Master and Commander: Far Side of the World, 8/10

Quite a spectacle. This was meant to be the start to a series, but despite a whopping 10 Oscar nominations and critical acclaim it never came to be. I think there's a parallel universe where this became the multi-million dollar franchise instead of the other naval setting adventure movie with a two-part title to be released in 2003 (that being Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl). I do understand why though: this is definitely a more adult-oriented, mature film with much slower pacing which don't tend to make for hit franchises.

The best part about this movie is the setting. It absolutely nails the atmosphere of an 18th century ship, and you feel like you're right there in the claustrophobia, the spraying water, the smoke and the sweat. The music, sound design and cinematography come together perfectly, including in the (admittedly few) battle scenes. The film has a plot, but it's more about the overall sense of adventure and life on the ship. There's lots of characters, none of which are given much time or an arc, but I think it works for this type of film. What does work against it though is Russell Crowe's character, who's basically a Mary Sue: he's a charismatic leader, a tactical genius, capable combatant, refined and educated, served with admiral Nelson, and he basically has no flaws or character arc. There are a few scenes that seem to exist solely to make the audience think he does, but his decisions always turn out justified and right. It does stick out like a sore thumb, because the rest of the film is fairly grounded and mature.

The film looks stunning. For a $150 million film from 2003 this could easily have gone wrong with overt CGI, but as far as I could tell there was next to none. The landscapes in the Galapagos are gorgeous, the period detail is pitch perfect and the look of the ship is impeccable. It doesn't shy away from the griminess of the time period either: there's some pretty gruesome and intense stuff here for a PG-13 film, especially the self-surgery scene.

The film's pacing can be a bit uneven. It has a more of an episodic structure than a three-act one, and some of the segments can feel a bit slow. I don't know what I'd take out though, all those elements serve a purpose to create and reinforce the setting. Still, the 2 hours and 15 minutes are well worth it, and I'm glad I rewatched it.
 
Last edited:

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,398
3,531
118
It's worth a watch in terms of them making a completely unempathisable protagonist. Just, like, really annoying. It's not a bad film, though very similar to something I watched a few months ago with David Tennant in (but set in America).
I get what you're saying, but: which protagonist? They don't seem to settle on one tbh, and each one has unsympathetic flaws yet in their own way do seem to be trying to do better whether it's effective or not. In films like I Care a Lot, it's blatant that they're awful ppl merely coming up against other awful ppl. And in this film the main actors do look to be sometimes self-interested but not in a way that differentiates them from the average everyday ppl. They're not 'movie charismatic' but again that kinda makes them feel more grounded.

Is the David Tennant film you speak of Bad Samaritan? If so, I really wanted to like it due to Tennant being a brilliant actor doing great bad guys elsewhere, but quit after 15 minutes cause it just felt too much like a passionless straight-to-TV movie. This felt like more ppl involved in the creative process cared, even if the results aren't perfect.
 

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,476
2,758
118
I get what you're saying, but: which protagonist? They don't seem to settle on one tbh, and each one has unsympathetic flaws yet in their own way do seem to be trying to do better whether it's effective or not. In films like I Care a Lot, it's blatant that they're awful ppl merely coming up against other awful ppl. And in this film the main actors do look to be sometimes self-interested but not in a way that differentiates them from the average everyday ppl. They're not 'movie charismatic' but again that kinda makes them feel more grounded.

Is the David Tennant film you speak of Bad Samaritan? If so, I really wanted to like it due to Tennant being a brilliant actor doing great bad guys elsewhere, but quit after 15 minutes cause it just felt too much like a passionless straight-to-TV movie. This felt like more ppl involved in the creative process cared, even if the results aren't perfect.
The 'first' protagonist. The others all seem decent people, but he's just a bit of a tool.

And yes, it was Bad Samaritan. I think I Came By is actually a better film - IIRC the people in Bad Samaritan are just too stupid (necessarily so in order for the plot to work).
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,169
4,933
118
What does work against it though is Russell Crowe's character, who's basically a Mary Sue: he's a charismatic leader, a tactical genius, capable combatant, refined and educated, served with admiral Nelson, and he basically has no flaws or character arc. There are a few scenes that seem to exist solely to make the audience think he does, but his decisions always turn out justified and right. It does stick out like a sore thumb, because the rest of the film is fairly grounded and mature.
I'm gonna have to hard disagree with this. He has plenty of actions and opinions that are, and that we as the audience are supposed to find, questionable, it's just that the movie doesn't focus on them as a moment of growth, because that would require Jack to truly question the society he's a part of, which he won't. No one in this movie really does, because everyone, even Jack, are just regular people who accept the world around them for what it is. The character closest to a Mary Sue is Blakely, and even he isn't a Mary Sue because he'll still go along with the whole show even after someone got ostensibly bullied into suicide. The movie never outright condemns any of the characters for their questionable actions, because it's not that kind of movie - It's not a story about one or more characters realizing their place in the world and current society is unfair, and how it should change. It's a story about simply observing the little world on this ship without really pointing fingers, eventhough their are huge fingers that should probably be pointed.

The reason this movie paints such an authentic picture of its time period is precisely because every character is an accesory to this way of life. There's not the one character (usually the main one) who is remarkably kind to, for example, the native americans in a Western.
 

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,398
3,531
118
The 'first' protagonist. The others all seem decent people, but he's just a bit of a tool.

And yes, it was Bad Samaritan. I think I Came By is actually a better film - IIRC the people in Bad Samaritan are just too stupid (necessarily so in order for the plot to work).
Ah yeah, he was a dodgy one, the sweaty bug-eyed shady guy who most ppl would cross the street to avoid getting close to, and avoiding the washing up at home does nobody any favours.

In fairness to Bad Samaritan...they were Amercians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baffle

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,940
3,497
118
National Lampoon's Vacation

I can't get over how much Beverly D'Angelo looks like Malin Akerman. Well, other way around.

Man were "family comedies" a lot nastier, hornier, generally sleazier back in the day. I know the Stranger Things generation chose to memorialize the late Harold Ramis as a schlocky Spielbergian lovable uncle but nowadays 1983's National Lampoon's Vacation has more in common with the hicks it makes fun of than the white middle class family that reacts to them.
 

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
6,666
4,959
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
My recommendation is to head to the nearest movie theater and express yourself as simply and succinctly as possible. Just go to the counter and say "I want see Men. Want see Men." Adopt a grug the caveman voice if nevessary. I'm sure you'll get to see Men.
Well, my gf wanted to see Men, so like a good cuckold, I not only watched Men too, I paid the $5 to rent it on Prime. So...

Men: What in every fuck / Great

I'll let Bartholen do the heavy lifting for a synopsis:

This is the latest from Alex Garland of Annihilation and Ex Machina fame. It's a very small scale, very strange horror thriller about a woman who rents out a manor in the english countryside to recuperate after a traumatic experience. She goes around town a bit and has some... let's say less than pleasant encounters with the local male populace. The big conceit here is that every male role except one is played by the same actor, Rory Kinnear. So it's very abstract and artsy and ooh what does it all mean. It's definitely the most abstract of Garland's work that I've seen, and I daresay most of it is non-literal. The movie goes whole hog with this, and as a result produces some spectacularly unnerving imagery that won't leave my mind's eye for quite some time. Sometimes it does feel a bit like overkill and self-indulgence, but there's always a purpose behind it all. It's just some of the more avant garde sequences go on for maybe a tad longer than they need to.
And I'll simply say: Jesus H Christmas, what the hell was THAT?!? The tense moments leading up the *dry heave* "ending" were intriguing enough, but that ending simply explodes with all the basic cardinal questions of "who, where, what, why and how." Whatever the meaning was there, I'm not willing to dig through that pile of mind-fuckery to find it. Fucking gross.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,398
3,531
118
Thor Love n Thundums - (Disney)
Wtf is going on here? Why is everyone except Christian Bale acting like they're in some cheap TV family comedy series? Why do all the props and costumes look cheaper? Why is it edited and filmed so fleetingly like nothing in it matters? Why does the CGI and stunt work look so much worse? Why can't I care a single second beyond Bale's (fck knows what his character name is) origin story? Oh they got jokes though. Do you like jokes? Well they got 'em! Lots of them. All as brief and breezy as an Uzi blindly firing farts into an aimless crowd.
The best bits were the Kiwi representation moments at least. And Bale.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,387
1,972
118
Country
USA
Event Horizon.

I am late to the party. A decent film (possibly overrated), and apart from a few bits of bad CGI it looks good for the time I think. But, come on now, just look at the interior design of your ship. How did you think it wouldn't be a chaos ship? Just, like, spikes and coffin-shaped doorways everywhere for no reason at all.
I have buds who hated it but found it improved upon re-watch.
I'm gonna have to hard disagree with this. He has plenty of actions and opinions that are, and that we as the audience are supposed to find, questionable, it's just that the movie doesn't focus on them as a moment of growth, because that would require Jack to truly question the society he's a part of, which he won't. No one in this movie really does, because everyone, even Jack, are just regular people who accept the world around them for what it is. The character closest to a Mary Sue is Blakely, and even he isn't a Mary Sue because he'll still go along with the whole show even after someone got ostensibly bullied into suicide. The movie never outright condemns any of the characters for their questionable actions, because it's not that kind of movie - It's not a story about one or more characters realizing their place in the world and current society is unfair, and how it should change. It's a story about simply observing the little world on this ship without really pointing fingers, eventhough their are huge fingers that should probably be pointed.

The reason this movie paints such an authentic picture of its time period is precisely because every character is an accesory to this way of life. There's not the one character (usually the main one) who is remarkably kind to, for example, the native americans in a Western.
Movie is very reminiscent of OG Star Trek, including the friendship of the Captain for his doctor.
And no, neither Aubrey nor Kirk are Mary Sues (or a Gary Stu). Both have talent but we can presume they had a butt ton of training to get where they are. People show them respect but, at a minimum, they exist in military hierarchies in which they are at the top in a given environment.
I loved the movie, lament it isn't a franchise but I do have to check out the books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey–Maturin_series
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,940
3,497
118
Antebellum

They really should've kept the twist for the ending... I'm not sure why they give it up like that 40 minutes into the movie.

The directors shoot music videos and the lead actress is a singer, and boy does it show in how tasteless/clueless the movie can be at parts.
 

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,599
2,504
118
Country
United States
Just watched Thor Love and Thunder. I...really don't get the hate for this movie. At all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,458
5,713
118
Australia
Master and Commander: Far Side of the World, 8/10

Quite a spectacle. This was meant to be the start to a series, but despite a whopping 10 Oscar nominations and critical acclaim it never came to be. I think there's a parallel universe where this became the multi-million dollar franchise instead of the other naval setting adventure movie with a two-part title to be released in 2003 (that being Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl). I do understand why though: this is definitely a more adult-oriented, mature film with much slower pacing which don't tend to make for hit franchises.

The best part about this movie is the setting. It absolutely nails the atmosphere of an 18th century ship, and you feel like you're right there in the claustrophobia, the spraying water, the smoke and the sweat. The music, sound design and cinematography come together perfectly, including in the (admittedly few) battle scenes. The film has a plot, but it's more about the overall sense of adventure and life on the ship. There's lots of characters, none of which are given much time or an arc, but I think it works for this type of film. What does work against it though is Russell Crowe's character, who's basically a Mary Sue: he's a charismatic leader, a tactical genius, capable combatant, refined and educated, served with admiral Nelson, and he basically has no flaws or character arc. There are a few scenes that seem to exist solely to make the audience think he does, but his decisions always turn out justified and right. It does stick out like a sore thumb, because the rest of the film is fairly grounded and mature.

The film looks stunning. For a $150 million film from 2003 this could easily have gone wrong with overt CGI, but as far as I could tell there was next to none. The landscapes in the Galapagos are gorgeous, the period detail is pitch perfect and the look of the ship is impeccable. It doesn't shy away from the griminess of the time period either: there's some pretty gruesome and intense stuff here for a PG-13 film, especially the self-surgery scene.

The film's pacing can be a bit uneven. It has a more of an episodic structure than a three-act one, and some of the segments can feel a bit slow. I don't know what I'd take out though, all those elements serve a purpose to create and reinforce the setting. Still, the 2 hours and 15 minutes are well worth it, and I'm glad I rewatched it.
If you can tolerate a little less impressive spectacle, you should check out the Horatio Hornblower television film series with Ioan Gruffudd. And if you like the period but want a different perspective, the Sharpe adaptations starring Sean Bean are pretty excellent, though like Hornblower the limits of their budget becomes very obvious in certain scenes.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,169
4,933
118
I'm trying to watch Top Gun since I'm going to see Top Gun: Maverick with my sister on Monday, but man is this movie fucking boring. How did this movie ever become a hit with anyone, let alone kids back in the 80's?! I got about half an hour in till I needed to do anything else. I'll try to take another chunk out of it later today or tomorrow.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,580
12,291
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
How did this movie ever become a hit with anyone, let alone kids back in the 80's?!

I was never a big fan of the movie, and it always been a glorified Air Force commercial. Not one of Tony Scott's best, but the movie did put him on the map to direct better action & suspense films. The sequel is definitely better and more interesting to watch.
 
Last edited:

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,156
3,895
118
If you can tolerate a little less impressive spectacle, you should check out the Horatio Hornblower television film series with Ioan Gruffudd.
Apparently both the Hornblower series and Master and Commander were adaptations of book series that were (at least loosely) inspired by the same real person.