Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

[Ag3ma]

The Pale Blue Eye (2022)

Murder mystery set in a military academy (West Point?) in the 1800s. Christian Bale stars as an investigator nursing personal tragedy who is invited in to resolve the murder of a student. There he discovers mysterious goings-on hinting at a connection to Satanism or witchcraft, plus also for some reason Edgar Allen Poe, who becomes his assistant in the investigation.

You know, this is okay. There's little great about it, but it goes off and does its stuff in a solid, if unspectacular fashion. So, I sort of enjoyed it. That is, until it decided to throw in a completely superfluous twist at the end that adds about 15 minutes of running time with precious little of value, and in certain ways is slightly bizarre and frustrating. Meh. Look guys, you don't need a twist to make a good film. If your film works fine without it, don't bother.

 

[thebobmaster]

A ★★★ review of Meet the Robinsons (2007)

Definitely a step up from the last two films, but not without flaws that hold it back. The plot of the film follows a 12 year old named Lewis (voiced by Jordan Fry or Daniel Hansen, depending on the scene), an orphan who wants to be adopted but keeps getting rejected due to his love of inventing...

letterboxd.com

 

[gorfias]

Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) Amazon Prime

This started out quite ambitiously. The promise/threat of the OG from 1993 was that with the cork out of the bottle, dinosaurs could roam the modern world. In this? They're here. And this can raise a ton of interesting questions regarding how and even if, the modern world can cohabitate with them.

But it quickly switches gears to a park far away from the rest of the world and we are treated to some suspenseful scenes of dinos chasing humans that look, sound and are choreographed in a fun enough manner.

Good popcorn movie. It made $1 Billion world wide. This was fine, but I feel like I've seen enough of this franchise.

C+

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

The Menu - Disney Plus (still a better deal than NowTV (UK's HBO Max))
This is a very likeable, watchable film, and I can't honestly add any fresh praise that ain't already been said more eloquently elsewhere. So take that as an easy recommendation before I add the petty spoilt criticisms that were disappointing to me.

Smallest first: when films want to signal to you there is comedy occuring so they play jaunty "plucked/muted strings" music like the first scene in this...it's kinda annoying more often than not, and I notice this grumpy inner rebellion each time thrashing against the implied musical signal of "you're supposed laugh now" to the point where it overshadows any possible good jokes being made. It's only one quick scene, so no biggy, but it did remind me I got that problem.

Main second: near the end, I feel like the specific fate of certain people of whom was an important question lingering over the whole movie got answered in a rather quick and unsatisfactory manner. There was a lot of creativity and intrigue developed for other peoples' fates beforehand, so I was expecting more of that near the finale. But instead it's like the list of fates just got scribbled out in one hasty last-min edit to fit a very tight runtime goal. That part did underwhelm unfortunately. However, the rest makes it a general net positive for the archives!

 

[Piscian]

I did an Anya-taylor joy double feature this week. The Menu and then Last Night in Soho . The Menu I watch a few days ago...Last Night in Soho took me the other 3 days to get through.

The Menu - 9/10 The easy answer is that it's great. Spoiling the trailer right now, no it's not gross horror. You're safe to watch if you're afraid it's gonna be gory. It's a Bleak Comedy Horror. I think if you enjoyed Midsommar and The Bear you're gonna like it just fine. If I had any complaint it's that the character cast isn't very three dimensional. This isn't Glass Onion bad, these are all fairly realistic recognizable stereotypes, but with the exception of a couple high-lights much of the group is vapid socialites. I'm not sure he's even in the trailer, but aside from Anya and Raph, John Leguizamo's character stands out as a celebrity that is stereotypical, but very aware of his flaws and I appreciated that bit of humanizing. Nicholas Holt fucking hilarious as always. I'm getting to this point where I'll watch whatever he's in. I liked Anya, she was fine, however one issue that's gonna follow her, her whole career is that she looks like an elf out of one of Jean-Baptiste Monge's art books. It's impossible to watch her play a normal person, which she is here. I suspect she's aware of this because I don't think I've seen her play anything other than crazy people and serial killers. I'd be curious know if that's intentional. She seems to love the horror genre.

Last Night in Soho 5/10- Man I think I really get why this movie didn't take off. I was sooo fucking bored. I like the ideas, I like the acting, but I was just not engaged the entire time. I was constantly taking breaks or playing on my phone. I think my other problem is that I felt like I've seen this before the entire time, it's another one of those bland horror movies where somebody is haunted until they solve a murder. I realized towards the end that this is pretty much a bad stir of echos. It's got a kind of interesting twist, but it takes too long to get there and there's no edge to it. No biting wit or dialog here. It's doesn't help that the Ghosts are pure ugly CGI. I'm also kinda surprised to say the trailer sold this on being a bit of a musical, but it never really celebrates music. It dabs in some real bangers here and there, but if you go in thinking this is going to be like an intense musical 60s gothic horror it's not. Its most just a by the numbers ghostie murder crime movie.

I will grant LNIS one thing, I had no idea "I've got my mind set on you" was a cover. Love you George, but the original smokes the cover.

 

[thebobmaster]

A ★½ review of Bolt (2008)

I should have known it was too good to last. The plot of the film follows the title character (voiced incredibly distractingly by John Travolta), a dog who has been led to think that he has superpowers because apparently, the director of his show thinks method acting should apply to animals as...

letterboxd.com

 

[Xprimentyl]

I liked Anya, she was fine, however one issue that's gonna follow her, her whole career is that she looks like an elf out of one of Jean-Baptiste Monge's art books.

She reminds me of a live-action anime woman. With those large, wideset eyes and pointed chin, I've often wondered if she's the object of affection for some of the waifu weirdos, but not wondered enough to dip a toe into their... culture(?) to find out.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

A House on the Bayou: Good / Great

A woman plans a family vacation after it's revealed her husband has been having an affair. She is determined to keep the family together and plans a trip to a large, remote home in the Louisiana Bayou. Not long after their arrival, a young, ostensibly kindly stranger knocks on the door, and a series of convenient circumstances finds the family hosting the stranger and his grandfather for dinner. Things immediately go from uncomfortable, to strange, to fucking crazy.

This one is pretty nuts. It wastes no time getting to the good stuff, so for the bulk of its runtime, you're in the thick of things asking yourself "WTF?!" There's a really unexpected twist in the middle the pays off fairly well with another not-completely-unexpected twist towards the end, but they balance well. Recommended... just recommended.

Yeah, watched this the other night. Even somewhat knowing what to expect I didn’t see it going down like that lol. It’s clearly lower budget horror but not necessarily a bad thing in this case. I think it works better with a no name cast. The middle has the best stuff, as I think that’s where everything fires on all cylinders and it had its hooks in me. Kinda blew its load after the first big twist happens though, as the other one like you said could see it coming (no pun).

Worth a watch just because it takes a familiar horror concept and manages to not be completely formulaic with it, like almost anything higher budget and *Hollywood* would.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Main second: near the end, I feel like the specific fate of certain people of whom was an important question lingering over the whole movie got answered in a rather quick and unsatisfactory manner. There was a lot of creativity and intrigue developed for other peoples' fates beforehand, so I was expecting more of that near the finale. But instead it's like the list of fates just got scribbled out in one hasty last-min edit to fit a very tight runtime goal. That part did underwhelm unfortunately. However, the rest makes it a general net positive for the archives!

In my review/post on this film, I mentioned the same thing: it's the first film in a long time I felt should have been longer. There was a lot of unexplored territory that I feel could have made an already exceptional film even better.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Yeah, watched this the other night. Even somewhat knowing what to expect I didn’t see it going down like that lol. It’s clearly lower budget horror but not necessarily a bad thing in this case. I think it works better with a no name cast. The middle has the best stuff, as I think that’s where everything fires on all cylinders and it had its hooks in me. Kinda blew its load after the first big twist happens though, as the other one like you said could see it coming (no pun).

Worth a watch just because it takes a familiar horror concept and manages to not be completely formulaic with it, like almost anything higher budget and *Hollywood* would.

Yeah, the middle of the film when you've a hint, but still NO idea what's actually going on is the film at its best, and I feel does so well enough to carry the build and finale to call it a good, recommendable movie overall.

 

[gorfias]

I did an Anya-taylor joy double feature this week. The Menu and then Last Night in Soho . The Menu I watch a few days ago...Last Night in Soho took me the other 3 days to get through.

The Menu - 9/10 The easy answer is that it's great. Spoiling the trailer right now, no it's not gross horror. You're safe to watch if you're afraid it's gonna be gory. It's a Bleak Comedy Horror. I think if you enjoyed Midsommar and The Bear you're gonna like it just fine. If I had any complaint it's that the character cast isn't very three dimensional. This isn't Glass Onion bad, these are all fairly realistic recognizable stereotypes, but with the exception of a couple high-lights much of the group is vapid socialites. I'm not sure he's even in the trailer, but aside from Anya and Raph, John Leguizamo's character stands out as a celebrity that is stereotypical, but very aware of his flaws and I appreciated that bit of humanizing. Nicholas Holt fucking hilarious as always. I'm getting to this point where I'll watch whatever he's in. I liked Anya, she was fine, however one issue that's gonna follow her, her whole career is that she looks like an elf out of one of Jean-Baptiste Monge's art books. It's impossible to watch her play a normal person, which she is here. I suspect she's aware of this because I don't think I've seen her play anything other than crazy people and serial killers. I'd be curious know if that's intentional. She seems to love the horror genre.

Last Night in Soho 5/10- Man I think I really get why this movie didn't take off. I was sooo fucking bored. I like the ideas, I like the acting, but I was just not engaged the entire time. I was constantly taking breaks or playing on my phone. I think my other problem is that I felt like I've seen this before the entire time, it's another one of those bland horror movies where somebody is haunted until they solve a murder. I realized towards the end that this is pretty much a bad stir of echos. It's got a kind of interesting twist, but it takes too long to get there and there's no edge to it. No biting wit or dialog here. It's doesn't help that the Ghosts are pure ugly CGI. I'm also kinda surprised to say the trailer sold this on being a bit of a musical, but it never really celebrates music. It dabs in some real bangers here and there, but if you go in thinking this is going to be like an intense musical 60s gothic horror it's not. Its most just a by the numbers ghostie murder crime movie.

I will grant LNIS one thing, I had no idea "I've got my mind set on you" was a cover. Love you George, but the original smokes the cover.

I like Last Night in Soho more than you. 7/10. It has some serious issues (people that die before just for heaven's sake, spitting it out!) but I was not bored.

What bothered me most in The Menu was that some lines that are timed like laugh lines in this, should not be. An interesting film as well and Holt, again is a stand out. Hope you get to check him out in "The Great" on Hulu. He is a riot in that.

 

[Hawki]

Bolt (6/10)

...it's fine.

Prior to seeing this film, I heard a lot about it saying it was an underrated gem, that while many people put the start of the Disney Revival era with Princess/Frog, the "true" start of the revival is with Bolt. Haven't seen Princess/Frog, so can't comment on that, but having seen Bolt, gotta say, it's nothing special.

I'm going to assume most of you are familiar with the story (if not, use Wikipedia - it's been 14 years), so I'm going to get into the clincher of things. Bolt is perfectly serviceable, but comes off as being underbaked. I could describe it as a mix of The Truman Show (Bolt/Truman confined to a movie set, thinks it's the world), Toy Story (Bolt/Buzz think they're real, drive Mittens/Woody insane, while Rhino/other toys believe it) and Homeward Bound (trio of animals does a cross-country trek to find their owner(s). However, bar Homeward Bound (which I saw so long ago I can't really rank), those other movies I listed are easily better than this one. For instance, when Buzz finds out he's not real, he has a full existential crisis. When Bolt finds out he's not real, not nearly enough time is spent on that revelation to give it emotional oomph.

There's other things at play as well. There's the idea of Bolt's still a hero because of his actions, and that there's still worth in a fictional show because it gives animals who watch it hope, but it never really examines these ideas. I don't think Rhino ever actually learns that Bolt's not the real deal. There's a falling out between Mittens and Bolt over staying in Las Vegas rather than Bolt making his way to Hollywood to reunite with Penny, but there's no real buildup to this. It's implied that Mittens has been biding her time to pop the "hey, maybe let's not go to Penny," but because the events leading up to this point have been a montage, there's no sufficient buildup. And while I won't nitpick and question the logistics of the titular Bolt TV show, I WILL question why, at the end, Penny is able to take Bolt with her (who's probably TV company property), but Mittens and Rhino as well, despite the fact that she never actually interacts with them in the movie proper.

Still, there's things that I like. Despite Bolt being the titular character, Mittens is the MVP of this film, in that she has the best lines, and, IMO, the best voice acting. Also helps that she's the one sane animal character when compared to a dog who thinks he's not!Superman, and a hamster who believes he's not!Superman (or is that Krypto?), but this isn't Mittens's story, and Mittens by herself can't save the movie. So at the end of the day, it's a perfectly fine, reasonably enjoyable 90 minute flick, but when I think of some of the films Disney put out in their revival era (Frozen, Moana, Zootopia)? Yeah, this isn't in their league.

Anyway, current DAC ranking is below.

Spoiler

30) The Black Cauldron

29) Dinosaur

28) Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

27) Dumbo

26) Oliver & Company

25) The Sword in the Stone

24) Pocahontas

23) Peter Pan

22) Bambi

21) Basil, the Great Mouse Detective

20) The Aristocats

19) Frozen II

18) Bolt

17) Tarzan

16) Wreck-it Ralph: Ralph Breaks the Internet

15) 101 Dalmations

14) The Jungle Book

13) Alice in Wonderland

12) Hercules

11) The Emperor’s New Groove

10) The Hunchback of Notre Dame

9) Fantasia

8) Moana

7) Big Hero 6

6) Beauty and the Beast

5) Treasure Planet

4) Frozen

3) Aladdin

2) The Lion King

1) Zootopia

 

[Hawki]

A ★½ review of Bolt (2008)

I should have known it was too good to last. The plot of the film follows the title character (voiced incredibly distractingly by John Travolta), a dog who has been led to think that he has superpowers because apparently, the director of his show thinks method acting should apply to animals as...

letterboxd.com

So by coincidence I reviewed Bolt as well (see above), so going over this...

the villainous Dr. Calico (Malcolm McDowell in an utterly wasted role)

Oh, this. Soon as I heard the voice, it didn't take me long to recognize it as McDowell's.

Bolt's character arc is basically finished halfway through the movie, leaving him little to go after that point.

Pretty much.

Mittens is probably the best character in the movie,

Mittens IS the best character in the movie, scrub.

But, yeah, pretty much agree with all of what you wrote.

 

[Hawki]

The Fabelmans (7/10)

...well that was kinda weird.

Alright, let's back up. The Fabelmans is a semi-autobiographical work by Spielberg that depicts his childhood and teenage experiences, coming to love film, dealing with family dramas, anti-semitism, etc. Even having seen this, part of what I said makes me a bit uneasy, in that a director writing/directing their own personal story for public viewing makes me feel a bit wary, and to Spielberg's credit, he waited until his parents passed away before making this movie. Having said that, despite Sam "Sammy" Fabelman being a surrogate for Spielberg himself, he isn't put on a pedastal, and he's pretty much as imperfect a human being as everyone else.

That's to the film's credit, in that it's very much an "authentic" film, in that it feels true to life. The characters feel less like characters, and more like people. Apart from one scene, there's no speechifying on the subject of film/art, the film conveys its own thoughts on the subject organically. There's nothing approaching an act structure, it's more a steady pace from childhood to late teens/early twenties.

So in one sense, the film is solid. However, speaking more subjectively, I can't say I enjoyed it that much, because of its very nature as a biographic that doesn't follow cinematic structure. There's not highs or lows, it just moves forward. This isn't a flaw, mind you, but it's not the type of movie I can see people rewatching for fun or anything like that. Not that a film is obliged to be fun, and Spielberg's got his share of non-fun films, but while on one level, I was able to connect to it deeply (Sammy's love of film mirrors my love of writing, and no, I am not comparing myself to Spielberg, don't get your jimmies nickered), on another, it's not the kind of film I can really say I loved, or even liked that much. If I were to rank every Spielberg film I've seen, this would probably be near the bottom.

So, yeah. I think it's a good film, but I can't outright reccommend it.

 

[Piscian]

Avatar: This Time It's Papyrus

I finally found a free day from work to go see this...this...WHATEVER THE FUCK THIS WAS. As an Engineer I have......so many complaints. As a person I have one, AWOTW is



Seriously, its what like 3 1/2 hours? and it does not fly by. You literally feel the run time about midway through when they're pulling at your heart strings with the whale shit. You're like "No..no..dude I know how whaling works I don't a play by play and this kid is called Monkey, he has no idea wtf you're talking about anyway.". The movie does A..LOT of telling, not showing, in regardless to the science.

I defended Cameron previously because he's usually pretty clever about hiding exposition in chit chat. It really falls flat here. There many times when they'll have one character explain how something works to another character and often times, there's no in context reason for that character to even care.

Cameron, for whatever reason, decided to make a new unobtanium for this film which was completely unnecessary as there are completely conventional reasons expounded upon earlier in the film for why they'd be doing their latest round of empty souled imperialism.

I gave Avatar a lot of free passes because it was showing us something we'd never seen before and it's a "rollicking" adventure. I think this films biggest weakness is it's run time because it's definitely not "rollicking". They spend so much time showing you Cancun vacation videos, trying to give the plethora of new characters depth, that you have a lot of time to ponder what is and what isn't working. I'm not saying there wasn't value in a blue rabbits learn to swim montage, but that this film could have been severely edited down and lost nothing.

To the films credit, the character beats pay off in the third act...or is it fifth? with some big emotional ooo's and aww's. I just don't think we need a full hour with the new cast hugging dolphins.

Lastly I gotta say it - I just sorta felt like this was a rehash of Avatar. Thematically the overarching story is Avatar again. More characters, different setting, still basically dances with wolves. I was trying to come up with a similar example of my feelings leaving the theater because I didn't hate the movie, nor was I wow'd. It's fine, weaker than the first one. For some reason Ghostbusters II comes to mind. I liked Ghostbusters II. More than this movie, but its that kind of equality where its entertaining but doesn't quite justify its own existence. Like something inbetween Rocky III & IV where it fills an afternoon. I feel like I grew up with a lot of Avatar 2's.

6/10 - It isn't bad. It's entertaining, but considering I have a 77" at home I would have been just fine waiting on this one.

 

[thebobmaster]

A ★★★★½ review of The Princess and the Frog (2009)

Nice to see Disney bounce back in a big way. The plot of this film follows Tiana (voiced by Anika Noni Rose), a waitress who dreams of saving up enough money to open a restaurant for herself and her deceased father. Because this is the 1920's South, and the movie will acknowledge this whenever...

letterboxd.com

 

[gorfias]

Avatar: This Time It's Papyrus

I finally found a free day from work to go see this...this...WHATEVER THE FUCK THIS WAS. As an Engineer I have......so many complaints. As a person I have one, AWOTW is

View attachment 7702

Seriously, its what like 3 1/2 hours? and it does not fly by. You literally feel the run time about midway through when they're pulling at your heart strings with the whale shit. You're like "No..no..dude I know how whaling works I don't a play by play and this kid is called Monkey, he has no idea wtf you're talking about anyway.". The movie does A..LOT of telling, not showing, in regardless to the science.

I defended Cameron previously because he's usually pretty clever about hiding exposition in chit chat. It really falls flat here. There many times when they'll have one character explain how something works to another character and often times, there's no in context reason for that character to even care.

Cameron, for whatever reason, decided to make a new unobtanium for this film which was completely unnecessary as there are completely conventional reasons expounded upon earlier in the film for why they'd be doing their latest round of empty souled imperialism.

I gave Avatar a lot of free passes because it was showing us something we'd never seen before and it's a "rollicking" adventure. I think this films biggest weakness is it's run time because it's definitely not "rollicking". They spend so much time showing you Cancun vacation videos, trying to give the plethora of new characters depth, that you have a lot of time to ponder what is and what isn't working. I'm not saying there wasn't value in a blue rabbits learn to swim montage, but that this film could have been severely edited down and lost nothing.

To the films credit, the character beats pay off in the third act...or is it fifth? with some big emotional ooo's and aww's. I just don't think we need a full hour with the new cast hugging dolphins.

Lastly I gotta say it - I just sorta felt like this was a rehash of Avatar. Thematically the overarching story is Avatar again. More characters, different setting, still basically dances with wolves. I was trying to come up with a similar example of my feelings leaving the theater because I didn't hate the movie, nor was I wow'd. It's fine, weaker than the first one. For some reason Ghostbusters II comes to mind. I liked Ghostbusters II. More than this movie, but its that kind of equality where its entertaining but doesn't quite justify its own existence. Like something inbetween Rocky III & IV where it fills an afternoon. I feel like I grew up with a lot of Avatar 2's.

6/10 - It isn't bad. It's entertaining, but considering I have a 77" at home I would have been just fine waiting on this one.

That extensive run time has me really trepeditious about seeing this in the theater. But I don't have a 3D TV. My boy has the 55" I gave him. Might have to watch at his place as I'd like to see it in 3D. But 3.5 hours!?! The 1st was a bit long. 2.45. The extra 45 min. that I hear is so unnecessary sounds like a killer. But I have friends telling me the thing is so great to look at I'd have a good time regardless.

 

[Ag3ma]

6/10 - It isn't bad. It's entertaining, but considering I have a 77" at home I would have been just fine waiting on this one.

I am minded of a friend of mine reviewing a different 3.5h film saying he would give it 10, but as it's the length of two movies, that'll be 5/10 for each half.

 

[Piscian]

That extensive run time has me really trepeditious about seeing this in the theater. But I don't have a 3D TV. My boy has the 55" I gave him. Might have to watch at his place as I'd like to see it in 3D. But 3.5 hours!?! The 1st was a bit long. 2.45. The extra 45 min. that I hear is so unnecessary sounds like a killer. But I have friends telling me the thing is so great to look at I'd have a good time regardless.

The film mostly works, but it spends a lot of time telling you whats going on. Imagine if LOTR spent its first 30-45 minutes recapping the Hobbit movies, all of them. I think a better writer would just allow you to catch up as the movie goes along, "meet" the new characters rather than giving me a character sheet. They spend a significant amount of time on a particular characters "mysterious" back story rather than just hinting at it through dialog. There's entire scenes that tell you nothing and don't really add any depth to the characters in question. Thinking back to the LOTR example it's like if they spent a great deal of time giving you side stories explaining ferormirs relationship with his dad. These are fine ideas for directors cuts or a tv series or something, but in a movie that stars Sam Worthington it would have been better served to keep the viewer focused on the action which is very theater worthy.

 

[gorfias]

I am minded of a friend of mine reviewing a different 3.5h film saying he would give it 10, but as it's the length of two movies, that'll be 5/10 for each half.

Teacher once told me of a guy writing a letter to a pal, "I would have written you a shorter letter but I don't have time to do so."