"Oh, sweet mystery of life, I've finally found you~!"
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
If Beale Street Could Talk
It's been a while since last watching any romance focused movies, so mayhaps my defenses are weakened or down, but I thought this was kinda flawless and a simmering audio-visual dream, laced with the dark overlying inevitableness of reality. The soundtrack goes above and beyond with these memorable tender string notes that somehow reverberate with the warm scene colours, giving emotional texture not felt in most other films. That's not even getting into the jazz too!
I suppose if I had to want something more, it would be what happened with Brian Tyree Henry's character, as he was kinda dropped after a rather attention-grabbing scene. But is understandable as it's not really his story anyway. Don't know what else to say, maybe trailer help?
Vesper
Ah hang on, there's still a quarter left to watch before can fully form some mirage of an opinion, but it's an interesting sci-fi with a lot more Cronenberg weirdness than I was expecting from a YA film. It's certainly darker along with it. Am hoping it'll stick the landing, which would be a rare spectacle in sci-fi movie world, but it's gotten further than most so far...
It's been a while since last watching any romance focused movies, so mayhaps my defenses are weakened or down, but I thought this was kinda flawless and a simmering audio-visual dream, laced with the dark overlying inevitableness of reality. The soundtrack goes above and beyond with these memorable tender string notes that somehow reverberate with the warm scene colours, giving emotional texture not felt in most other films. That's not even getting into the jazz too!
I suppose if I had to want something more, it would be what happened with Brian Tyree Henry's character, as he was kinda dropped after a rather attention-grabbing scene. But is understandable as it's not really his story anyway. Don't know what else to say, maybe trailer help?
Vesper
Ah hang on, there's still a quarter left to watch before can fully form some mirage of an opinion, but it's an interesting sci-fi with a lot more Cronenberg weirdness than I was expecting from a YA film. It's certainly darker along with it. Am hoping it'll stick the landing, which would be a rare spectacle in sci-fi movie world, but it's gotten further than most so far...
Willow
I kind of been meaning to watch this ever since it came out but since it was more of a childhood curiosity than anything else I didn't care enough to do it until The Escapist dudes started making it a whole thing now so I figured what the heck.
It is very much not good lol. It's basically Lord of the Rings but without the interesting creatures or villains. A hobbit (practically) leaves his idyllic village to adventure and save the world.
It's 1988 and looks largely like the 1978, with all sorts of little people and littler people- I don't know why George Lucas and Ron Howard were obsessed with tiny people.
Best part is Val Kilmer as a Han Solo type, being very good looking basically.
It is just a silly old movie for children, which is fine for its time but holds no value for 2022. But because nostalgia re-hashes rule, we are getting a sequel series.
I kind of been meaning to watch this ever since it came out but since it was more of a childhood curiosity than anything else I didn't care enough to do it until The Escapist dudes started making it a whole thing now so I figured what the heck.
It is very much not good lol. It's basically Lord of the Rings but without the interesting creatures or villains. A hobbit (practically) leaves his idyllic village to adventure and save the world.
It's 1988 and looks largely like the 1978, with all sorts of little people and littler people- I don't know why George Lucas and Ron Howard were obsessed with tiny people.
Best part is Val Kilmer as a Han Solo type, being very good looking basically.
It is just a silly old movie for children, which is fine for its time but holds no value for 2022. But because nostalgia re-hashes rule, we are getting a sequel series.
A Prayer Before Dawn 10/10
I think I might have seen this on release or maybe I just dreamed it, but anyway I watched this yesterday on HBOMAX. It's the True Story of a Boxer named Billy Moore living Thailand who gets arrested and sent to the infamous Klong Prem Central Prison. The story is told through visuals, while there's dialog, none of it is really directed at or meant for the viewer. Billy doesn't speak Thai well. Most of it is filmed back and forth as the viewer watching from the corner or over billys shoulder as the director pushes the audience to see this from Billys perspective but also as a fly on the wall. In a weird way it's also like a documentary in its matter of factness, but with no narrator or running commentary. It's just showing you what happened. It's, at times, a pretty hard watch. It's gets very dark. This is NOT some feel good sports redemption story. There's no ring triumph, with Billy screaming "Adrian". That said, the way it allows you to "feel" like you are there, experiencing his life with judgement or handholding is extremely engrossing. It's near voyeuristic. 10/10
Miss Sloane 5/10
Miss Sloane is the anti-thesis of the previously discussed film. It's an impossibly "American" melodrama oscar bait callling itself a political thriller. The painfully fictitious story revolves around Miss Sloane, an infamously successful DC lobbylist, who quits her firm and joins the Lobbylist firm trying to get a Gun registration act passed, going up against her previous firm representing The Gun Lobby. Jessica Chastain is wonderfully twisted and at the same time human, in a non-film about an act that will never happen. The film most copycats "The Usual Suspects", attempting to surprise the audience with twists and double-crosses and subterfuge. Schemes within schemes. It's all very cute, but the reality doesn't support it. The most laughable being the accounting of perjury and ethic violations. I will give the film credit that the average citizen, at the time of the release, didn't have these concepts as well spelled out for them, but we know today, right this moment, that perjury and ethics violations rarely amount to shit. Most of the time a fine is paid and everybody goes home. Nobody goes to prison for life as the film might try to sell you. The movies premise, initial scene is Sloane being interrogated in a public hearing for congressional violations. The movie tells you this is all cloak and dagger gun lobby stuff, but the reality is that those days of political subterfuge are long past. Politicians do whatever they want, give and take bribes, without consequence. In short "Miss Sloane", is a dumb movie.
Gripes of naivete aside, it's all just very blandly melodramatic. The dialog lacks any kind of emotion. Like everyone is reading their lines, Like nobody asked the director "Are you sure this is how this character would talk?", expect Jessica Chastain and Mark Strong. They both do excellent job of breathing life into their characters. The film ends being ...fine? Just kind of watchable because Jessica Chastain. If she doesn't get your rocks off I'd say this is an easy pass.
I think I might have seen this on release or maybe I just dreamed it, but anyway I watched this yesterday on HBOMAX. It's the True Story of a Boxer named Billy Moore living Thailand who gets arrested and sent to the infamous Klong Prem Central Prison. The story is told through visuals, while there's dialog, none of it is really directed at or meant for the viewer. Billy doesn't speak Thai well. Most of it is filmed back and forth as the viewer watching from the corner or over billys shoulder as the director pushes the audience to see this from Billys perspective but also as a fly on the wall. In a weird way it's also like a documentary in its matter of factness, but with no narrator or running commentary. It's just showing you what happened. It's, at times, a pretty hard watch. It's gets very dark. This is NOT some feel good sports redemption story. There's no ring triumph, with Billy screaming "Adrian". That said, the way it allows you to "feel" like you are there, experiencing his life with judgement or handholding is extremely engrossing. It's near voyeuristic. 10/10
Miss Sloane 5/10
Miss Sloane is the anti-thesis of the previously discussed film. It's an impossibly "American" melodrama oscar bait callling itself a political thriller. The painfully fictitious story revolves around Miss Sloane, an infamously successful DC lobbylist, who quits her firm and joins the Lobbylist firm trying to get a Gun registration act passed, going up against her previous firm representing The Gun Lobby. Jessica Chastain is wonderfully twisted and at the same time human, in a non-film about an act that will never happen. The film most copycats "The Usual Suspects", attempting to surprise the audience with twists and double-crosses and subterfuge. Schemes within schemes. It's all very cute, but the reality doesn't support it. The most laughable being the accounting of perjury and ethic violations. I will give the film credit that the average citizen, at the time of the release, didn't have these concepts as well spelled out for them, but we know today, right this moment, that perjury and ethics violations rarely amount to shit. Most of the time a fine is paid and everybody goes home. Nobody goes to prison for life as the film might try to sell you. The movies premise, initial scene is Sloane being interrogated in a public hearing for congressional violations. The movie tells you this is all cloak and dagger gun lobby stuff, but the reality is that those days of political subterfuge are long past. Politicians do whatever they want, give and take bribes, without consequence. In short "Miss Sloane", is a dumb movie.
Gripes of naivete aside, it's all just very blandly melodramatic. The dialog lacks any kind of emotion. Like everyone is reading their lines, Like nobody asked the director "Are you sure this is how this character would talk?", expect Jessica Chastain and Mark Strong. They both do excellent job of breathing life into their characters. The film ends being ...fine? Just kind of watchable because Jessica Chastain. If she doesn't get your rocks off I'd say this is an easy pass.
A ★★★½ review of The Jungle Book (1967)
The last Disney movie made under Walt Disney's watch, and the last of the 1960's Disney movies, at least Walt Disney's last film is a good one, and he didn't have to go out on Sword in the Stone. The plot of this film follows Bagheera (voiced by Sebastian Cabot, who also did the narration for...
letterboxd.com
A ★★ review of The Aristocats (1970)
The first post-Walt Disney Disney movie, this really shows how rough things could get without Disney around to oversee things. We'll start with the plot. The plot follows Duchess (Eva Gabor in the first of two starring roles for Disney) and her three kittens Toulouse (Gary Dubin), Marie (Liz...
letterboxd.com
A ★★ review of Robin Hood (1973)
While the score doesn't fully show it, this is an improvement over The Aristocats...although not much of one. The plot of the film is a retelling of Robin Hood. Narrated by Alan-a-Dale (country singer Roger Miller), we follow Robin Hood (Brian Bedford) and Little John (Phil Harris continuing his...
letterboxd.com
Would you say that it is a movie that should avoid re-watching if you thought it was fantastic as a kid?A ★★ review of Robin Hood (1973)
While the score doesn't fully show it, this is an improvement over The Aristocats...although not much of one. The plot of the film is a retelling of Robin Hood. Narrated by Alan-a-Dale (country singer Roger Miller), we follow Robin Hood (Brian Bedford) and Little John (Phil Harris continuing his...
I remember thinking that Double Dragon (1994) was an awesome, kick-ass movie when I first saw it at age 10-14, only to realize it was utter crap when I watched it as an adult.
I enjoyed the animated Robin Hood as a kid and wouldn’t want to tarnish those memories.
It wouldn't necessarily tarnish your memories, but what didn't work for me with Robin Hood on a rewatch REALLY didn't work. It's definitely not one of Disney's stronger efforts, but it isn't terrible, like the Double Dragon movie. It's more...unmemorable, I guess, other than Prince John who is memorable in a bad way, IMO.
Rewatched The Shining recently.
One of those movies that are so overdiscussed that I can't even pretend I have something worthwhile to say about it that hasn't been said before. That said though, I always found Stephen King's disdain for this adaptation to be kind of interesting.
I have actually read the book and all things considered, Kubrick's adaptation doesn't stray too far from its plot. It differs in some details, a few of them quite major, but overall most of the same things happen. What makes Kubrick's Shining so different from Kings is, mainly, the characterization of protagonist Jack Torrance played in the movie by Jack Nicholson. In the book, you see, Torrance was your typical Stephen King protagonist, the struggling writer with substance abuse issues. Those characters, let's be honest, have clearly quite a bit of King's own personality in them.
What makes Nicholson's Jack so different from his book counterpart is that, even before starting his job at the Overlook Hotel and falling under its malevolent influence, he treats his wife and son with barely concealed contempt. Kubrick turns the story of a troubled but loving man driven to violence against his family by outside forces into that of an abusive husband and father giving in to his already present violent urges as they eventually escalate into murderous rage.
That way Kubrick turns Jack Torrance almost into a symbol of everything wrong with the baby boomer generation. His version of the character is explicitly portrayed as a sexist, a racist and a deadbeat who resents his family and thinks of them as a burden society is forcing him to put up with. When he tries to comfort his son and assures him that he loves him and would never hurt him, he is trying to convince himself more than the boy.
Kubrick's the Shining is less about a family trapped in a house full of evil spirits as it is about a woman and a child trapped in a house with an abusive man. The remnant psyches of the Overlook Hotel don't manipulate him to act on their behalf, they welcome him as one of their own. Much like them, he's a vengeful relic of a bygone age. Unlike the book, the Overlook Hotel doesn't go down in flames at the end of the movie. It's still there, with one more demon haunting its halls
One of those movies that are so overdiscussed that I can't even pretend I have something worthwhile to say about it that hasn't been said before. That said though, I always found Stephen King's disdain for this adaptation to be kind of interesting.
I have actually read the book and all things considered, Kubrick's adaptation doesn't stray too far from its plot. It differs in some details, a few of them quite major, but overall most of the same things happen. What makes Kubrick's Shining so different from Kings is, mainly, the characterization of protagonist Jack Torrance played in the movie by Jack Nicholson. In the book, you see, Torrance was your typical Stephen King protagonist, the struggling writer with substance abuse issues. Those characters, let's be honest, have clearly quite a bit of King's own personality in them.
What makes Nicholson's Jack so different from his book counterpart is that, even before starting his job at the Overlook Hotel and falling under its malevolent influence, he treats his wife and son with barely concealed contempt. Kubrick turns the story of a troubled but loving man driven to violence against his family by outside forces into that of an abusive husband and father giving in to his already present violent urges as they eventually escalate into murderous rage.
That way Kubrick turns Jack Torrance almost into a symbol of everything wrong with the baby boomer generation. His version of the character is explicitly portrayed as a sexist, a racist and a deadbeat who resents his family and thinks of them as a burden society is forcing him to put up with. When he tries to comfort his son and assures him that he loves him and would never hurt him, he is trying to convince himself more than the boy.
Kubrick's the Shining is less about a family trapped in a house full of evil spirits as it is about a woman and a child trapped in a house with an abusive man. The remnant psyches of the Overlook Hotel don't manipulate him to act on their behalf, they welcome him as one of their own. Much like them, he's a vengeful relic of a bygone age. Unlike the book, the Overlook Hotel doesn't go down in flames at the end of the movie. It's still there, with one more demon haunting its halls
And then the sequel happened. I personally enjoy Doctor Sleep.
Speaking of the original movie, the first time I saw that ending (at age 9), I was shocked and questioning reality. Was he there back then, or just got absorbed into the hotel? The answer became more obvious as I got older, and because of the sequel, but left me questioning for a good minute.
It was around the age of 9 and 10 that I started realizing how crappy that movie was. Watching multiple showings of Double Impact on HBO/Cinemax did not help either. A movie starring double the Van Dammage is truer to the Double Dragon source material, than the official movie.
Last edited:
The Mummy (1932)
Like most of these Universal monster movies, it starts off at its strongest (the first 15 minutes usually contain everything anybody remembers from these), becomes dull and repetitive around the middle section (a sceptic hero, a victimized lady and an elderly scholar keep having circular conversations about the nature of some foreign terror) and then ends so abruptly it feels like an anticlimax. In this sense The Mummy is practically a remake of Dracula. Imhotep has the same hypnotic powers, puts a spell on a few vassals and lusts after the hero's betrothed while affecting a public persona of wealth and culture. They even bring back David Manners as (not) Jonathan Harker and Edward Van Sloan as (not) Van Helsing. Most of this movie is about these two discussing "urgent" matters that always seem to happen just off screen, but our sceptic hero is never quite convinced until it's too late.
I quite like how the movie's shot. It was directed by Dracula's DP, Karl Freund, who pioneered or at least popularized this newfangled technique of, uh, moving the camera around. So there's a lot of creepy shots and slow crawls as the camera turns around a corner or goes to an overhead shot as something is revealed to the audience (but not the characters), building up the tension not only of the reveal but also of how clueless or in over their heads the heroes are. The very first scene of the movie with Imhotep slowly awaking in the background as some schmuck reads a cursed scroll in the foreground is really well put, especially how the camera keeps panning back and forth.
And I was surprised by how many plot points the 1999 movie borrowed from this. Imhotep being buried alive for treason, his doomed love with Ankh what's her name, his attempts to revive her via lead lady, the Scroll of Thoth, flashbacks to Old Egypt... And for a change I believe this is the first monster movie I see where the heroes don't rescue the damsel, but she instead breaks free from Imhotep's hold and authors his undoing. Yeah, she pleads to Isis to intercede, but I still think there's an element of subversion on that. Even the deus ex machina is female.
Like most of these Universal monster movies, it starts off at its strongest (the first 15 minutes usually contain everything anybody remembers from these), becomes dull and repetitive around the middle section (a sceptic hero, a victimized lady and an elderly scholar keep having circular conversations about the nature of some foreign terror) and then ends so abruptly it feels like an anticlimax. In this sense The Mummy is practically a remake of Dracula. Imhotep has the same hypnotic powers, puts a spell on a few vassals and lusts after the hero's betrothed while affecting a public persona of wealth and culture. They even bring back David Manners as (not) Jonathan Harker and Edward Van Sloan as (not) Van Helsing. Most of this movie is about these two discussing "urgent" matters that always seem to happen just off screen, but our sceptic hero is never quite convinced until it's too late.
I quite like how the movie's shot. It was directed by Dracula's DP, Karl Freund, who pioneered or at least popularized this newfangled technique of, uh, moving the camera around. So there's a lot of creepy shots and slow crawls as the camera turns around a corner or goes to an overhead shot as something is revealed to the audience (but not the characters), building up the tension not only of the reveal but also of how clueless or in over their heads the heroes are. The very first scene of the movie with Imhotep slowly awaking in the background as some schmuck reads a cursed scroll in the foreground is really well put, especially how the camera keeps panning back and forth.
And I was surprised by how many plot points the 1999 movie borrowed from this. Imhotep being buried alive for treason, his doomed love with Ankh what's her name, his attempts to revive her via lead lady, the Scroll of Thoth, flashbacks to Old Egypt... And for a change I believe this is the first monster movie I see where the heroes don't rescue the damsel, but she instead breaks free from Imhotep's hold and authors his undoing. Yeah, she pleads to Isis to intercede, but I still think there's an element of subversion on that. Even the deus ex machina is female.
A ★★★½ review of The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)
This film is actually a collection of 3 shorts: "Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree", "Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day", and "Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too". Because they were actually made earlier, and only tied together for this release, the first two shorts are officially the last of...
letterboxd.com
The 1999 movie also takes a lot from the 1940's film (first of a series of 4), The Mummy's Hand. Not bad, though it was reeeeally popular back then to have lots of terrible, terrible comedy. So many otherwise decent films are damaged by this, often to the extent of making them unwatchable.
I disagree, 1999's 'The Mummy' has a good balance of humour and drama.
Sorry, was unclear, 30-40s era films often had terrible comedy in them.
The Mummy worked, in part, because the comic relief character (Johnathan) was useful.
Well, fair. I'd have to watch them to figure out if I agree but that makes sense.
He was a much bigger fan of Dr Sleep, and I presume it had a lot to do with the more humane characterization of Danny as an adult. As more of a spiritual sequel seeking to redeem some of the perceived wrongs of the original, it was worthwhile and highly watchable.
I don't want to sound like a buzzkill, but honestly, I thought Dr. Sleep was kinda ridiculous. It was very well directed, but, you know, when asked to imagine a sequel to the Shining... well, "grown up Danny and his teenage sidekick fighting the psychic gypsy vampire Manson Family" isn't exactly what I'd think of first.
Don't get me wrong, I get how it's trying to reconcile Kubrick's and King's vision of that story but that's kind of a complicated matter all by itself, considering only one of those two artists is still alive to give his input.
Last edited: