Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

Is this the first poll?


  • Total voters
    45

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,217
2,167
118
Country
United States
 

FakeSympathy

Elite Member
Legacy
Jun 8, 2015
3,255
2,988
118
Country
US
I watched Citizen Kane.

This is my third viewing; First time I watched in in HS and I hated it for no reason. Second time I watched in for college cinematography class assignment for discussion on techniques used. Back then I said while I appreciate all the revolutionary filming techniques, the narrative was kinda bad.

This time, I've decided to watch w/ bias-free mindset, really paying attention to what's going on in the film.

I'll start by saying I still think the movie has amazing cinematography techniques, whether it's the zoom-in-shot through the glass roof during rain, Kane and his wife growing distant over the years by sitting further away from the dining table (and the table getting longer), cutting holes in a floor to get that amazing angle, or that shot near the end of Kane in front of infinite mirrors, I can wholeheartedly endorse how it revolutionized the film industry.

HOWEVER, I also still think the narrative and the characters are weakest and the only flaws with this movie. Let me start with the main character; Charles Foster Kane. I find him to be really unlikable. I guess the message was how he lost his innocence (hence him remembering rosebud near his death), but he could've redeemed himself at any point in his life. Instead, he kinda lived being a douche, using people then casting them aside, and died alone and pathetic. I get that we are all human beings with flaws, but I also hated how I have to watch nearly two hours of him being an asshole.

Aside from him, everyone around him feels real and one min, then acts like parody characters in the next.

I can totally understand why this movie is revered so much. But I feel like a lot of people would jump in defense of this movie without really acknowledging its flaws.
 

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,217
2,167
118
Country
United States
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,815
3,653
118
Continuing with Rachel Skarsten Hallmark movies (it seemed like a good idea for some reason):

The Royal Nanny

It's again in Christmas, but this time Rachel Skarsten plays a Security Services agent. Apparently there's a plot to do something to members of the royal family, so they get her to go undercover as a nanny. She then goes on about how she's be a terrible choice, doesn't know about nannying, doesn't have kids, didn't have a childhood or a family due to being an orphan nobody wanted, but they have to choose her because...reasons? Cause the only other person in the Security Services is her sidekick/comic relief? Who is black, unlike the previous film not everyone is white, just almost everyone. Here we have a comic relief, a villain, and a trusted palace employee selling off secrets to the villains who aren't white...which, ok.

Of note is a morally dubious rich person, who you can tell is a bit dodgy, because he doesn't want to pay for christmas toys for needy kids at the royal christmas charity thingy. He thinks it'd be better to work on programs to fix the system and alleviate poverty, which apparently is a bad thing.

Otherwise, even more forgettable than the previous film, excepting it's about how nice the royal family is. Boooooo! Also, in Skarsten's native Canada, there's a traitor claiming to be the queen. Why couldn't this movie be about Skarsten fighting the QA queen of Canada?
 
Jun 11, 2023
2,235
1,648
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
The Black Demon: Meh / Great

Combining his family vacation with his scheduled inspection of an off-shore oil rig in Mexico, Paul (Josh Lucas) and his family arrive to find a once ideal fishing/oil mining community almost completely impoverished and neglected. The why? El Demonio Negro, a massive shark that has been terrorizing the ocean surrounding the oil rig.

A really anemic shark horror movie. You get to see the shark all of about 3 times, and it’s attacks are mostly relegated to bumping the rig to remind us that the black demon the scant few cast members are in constant fear of is actually out there. Not a horrible movie, just does very little with the little it has.
I’m watching Under Paris now, which is another shark movie. Apparently it surprised Stephen King who initially wrote it off as a joke movie, so it tapped into my curiosity just enough to bite. Only about half way through so far if that, but it’s certainly the most reasonable killer shark flick I’ve dove into in a long while. The caveat is it’s in French, but I normally have subtitles on at night anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xprimentyl

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
6,368
4,655
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
I Saw The TV Glow (2024)

Wonderful movie. It gave me an existential crisis.

The second movie by newcomer Jane Schoenbrun, after Everybody's Going to the World's Fair, which I found incredibly boring. TV Glow deals with two teenagers in the 90's bonding over a mystery television series for teens. A boy and a girl, played by Justice Smith and Brigette Lundy-Paine respectively, one from an overprotective household, the other one from a negligent one. As they grow up, drift apart and meet again a good while after, they realize that their memories and the content of the television show have become interlinked in mysterious ways.

It's a movie that started off on a note that didn't exactly win me over, much like World's Fair failed to. Dealing mostly with nostalgia and teenage angst, the first of which I never really experienced because the latter never really went away. That said, as the movie went on that became more or less like what it is about. What if your time as a dysfunctional teenager never became the memory it's meant to be, because rather than growing out of it, you just turn into a dysfunctional adult. And what if your only way to contextualize it is finding meaning in the artistic creations that made you who you are. The arc of Justice Smith, or perhaps it's more of a spiral, really hit me.

I dunno. I lost my first real job because I had a panic attack and every subsequent one because my performance wasn't up to standard. Surely it should be obvious to anyone who's seen the movie why the ending hit me pretty hard. It's like... you try to look normal and functional but you realize you're not fooling anyone, not even yourself and you sort of imagine a version of yourself that works right and sort of claw and cut and scratch at yourself to get it out but it doesn't and all that's left is to find meaning in things other people created and the way they reflect off you like, goddamn it, I'm doing right now.

In a sense, Smith and Lundy-Paine seem to be different versions of the same character, just with different outcomes. The latter is left a lot more ambiguous, although on closer analysis it might very well be the bleaker one between the two. There is something very interesting in the way Schoenbrun depicts the show that serves as the medium that connects these two young people. A sort of teen mystery show, some of the footage we see directly references the off-beat Nickelodeon sitcom Pete and Pete. Not to put too fine a point on it, to me it mostly brought to mind some half repressed memories of shows named The Secret World of Alex Mack and So Weird I think I saw a couple of times as a kid. It appears to be the sort of thing that features just enough evocative imagery and and ideas to occupy the mind of a teenager with nothing else in their life. Especially in a time when access to media was more limited.

Past all of its surrealist and postmodernist touches and some rather token feeling lynchian musical sequences, it's a movie about maladjustment, and a very hard hitting one. Jane Schoenbrun is a transwoman... and, well, it's not hard to see how the movie reflects that kind of experience. Especially not in those scenes when the two leads see themselves in the role of the televisions shows two female protagonists. But by all means, it's not only about that kind of experience. This one's for all of the outsiders out there.

All of which is to say, this movie really, really worked for me. Now, as to whether that makes it a great movie on a more objective scale, I'm not entirely sure. A lot of people are going to expect harder hitting payoffs or a less abrupt ending or a sort of more literal treatment of its outwardly abstract elements, that all act as rather straight forward and almost impossible to misunderstand allegory. But I feel it's the sort of thing that either hits you emotionally, or it doesn't. The only other movies that did this for me were Synecdoche, New York and I'm Thinking of Ending Things by Charlie Kaufmann. The latter of which I periodically rewatch, the former of which I don't dare to. Was this as good as either of those? Not quite, but it comes closer than the second movie someone's made has any right to. It left me pretty impressed.
We started this one a few days ago, but were put off within the first 20-30 minutes, not really understanding where it was trying to go, and we gave up on it. More than likely, we'll give it another go; I bought the damn thing for whatever reason. Amazon Prime really needs like a three-stage verification to confirm purchases; lining up $19.99 rentals alongside their $24.99 purchase equivalents really makes for some knee-jerk spending that could be avoided by one additional screen asking me "No, for reals, are you SURE you want to BUY this movie you haven't seen and know nothing about??"
 
Last edited:

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
6,368
4,655
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
I’m watching Under Paris now, which is another shark movie. Apparently it surprised Stephen King who initially wrote it off as a joke movie, so it tapped into my curiosity just enough to bite. Only about half way through so far if that, but it’s certainly the most reasonable killer shark flick I’ve dove into in a long while. The caveat is it’s in French, but I normally have subtitles on at night anyways.
Sorry, I accidentally lumped my reply to you with my previous post.

I might actually check that out. I don't mind subtitles, and a good shark horror film has eluded me for quite some time. I've been recommended 2003's Open Water, but my self-diagnosed thalassophobia puts that one firmly on the "nope" list. I need my shark fears to be exacerbated to levels of complete incredulity; that "yeah, this shit really happened" stuff would have me squirming in my chair, and not in the fun "I want to be this scared" sort of way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hanselthecaretaker2

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Jan 30, 2011
1,983
813
118
We started this one a few days ago, but were put off within the first 20-30 minutes, not really understanding where it was trying to go, and we gave up on it. More than likely, we'll give it another go; I bought the damn thing for whatever reason. Amazon Prime really needs like a three-stage verification to confirm purchases; lining up $19.99 rentals alongside their $24.99 purchase equivalents really makes for some knee-jerk spending that could be avoided by one additional screen asking me "No, for reals, are you SURE you want to BUY this movie you haven't seen and know nothing about??"
I think it's a movie that either clicks with you or it doesn't, although I would recommend you to watch it at least till the second timeskip.
 
Jun 11, 2023
2,235
1,648
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Sorry, I accidentally lumped my reply to you with my previous post.

I might actually check that out. I don't mind subtitles, and a good shark horror film has eluded me for quite some time. I've been recommended 2003's Open Water, but my self-diagnosed thalassophobia puts that one firmly on the "nope" list. I need my shark fears to be exacerbated to levels of complete incredulity; that "yeah, this shit really happened" stuff would have me squirming in my chair, and not in the fun "I want to be this scared" sort of way.
Well, so far this one could be leaning that way, but it also has that Euro-horror feel to it so it’s pretty tense at times but those moments have been few and far between.
 

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,217
2,167
118
Country
United States
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,625
3,162
118
I watched Citizen Kane.

This is my third viewing; First time I watched in in HS and I hated it for no reason. Second time I watched in for college cinematography class assignment for discussion on techniques used. Back then I said while I appreciate all the revolutionary filming techniques, the narrative was kinda bad.

This time, I've decided to watch w/ bias-free mindset, really paying attention to what's going on in the film.

I'll start by saying I still think the movie has amazing cinematography techniques, whether it's the zoom-in-shot through the glass roof during rain, Kane and his wife growing distant over the years by sitting further away from the dining table (and the table getting longer), cutting holes in a floor to get that amazing angle, or that shot near the end of Kane in front of infinite mirrors, I can wholeheartedly endorse how it revolutionized the film industry.

HOWEVER, I also still think the narrative and the characters are weakest and the only flaws with this movie. Let me start with the main character; Charles Foster Kane. I find him to be really unlikable. I guess the message was how he lost his innocence (hence him remembering rosebud near his death), but he could've redeemed himself at any point in his life. Instead, he kinda lived being a douche, using people then casting them aside, and died alone and pathetic. I get that we are all human beings with flaws, but I also hated how I have to watch nearly two hours of him being an asshole.

Aside from him, everyone around him feels real and one min, then acts like parody characters in the next.

I can totally understand why this movie is revered so much. But I feel like a lot of people would jump in defense of this movie without really acknowledging its flaws.
I'm probably going away (love y'all), at least for a while, and this might as well be my final post here.

Jorge Luis Borges wrote a contemporary review of Citizen Kane that I can't find in English anywhere so here's my translation of the ending paragraph:

I dare say, however, that Citizen Kane will endure as certain other films by Griffith or Pudovkin have "endured", films whose historical value no one denies, but no one wants to rewatch either. It's too grandiose, pedantic, tedious. It's not the work of intelligence, but genius: in the most nocturnal and German sense of that foul word.
The review is actually fairly mixed, and duly praises the technique that goes into the film, as well as the nihilism in its failed, overwhelming attempt to reconstruct a life. But I've always thought his rating of the film as a "tedious" masterpiece was surprisingly modern for 1941.

I would add that the movie isn't merely about the trickery of its staging or the trite "loss of innocence" read. You mention Kane "could've redeemed himself at any point in his life", but really the whole point is that - inevitably - he doesn't have that kind of introspection until it's too late, because almost all of his life was just a series of ploys and simulacrums. He never developed a character, which is why the in-universe character study (the reporter questioning the people who knew him, or aspects of him) fails. Citizen Kane is maybe the first character study in film history, at least from a psychological angle, but ultimately the reporter - and the movie - end up giving up on that study, accepting it's like a labyrinth without a center (a metaphor Borges brings up): unreachable, unknowable, kinda horrifying.
 
Last edited:

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,217
2,167
118
Country
United States
 

Old_Hunter_77

Elite Member
Dec 29, 2021
1,880
1,721
118
Country
United States
Coincidentally my wife and I were at our favorite local eatery, a taquiria/bar, and they had a TV on that was playing Two Towers (clearly there was no sporting event happening I guess) and she wondered if the effects still held up. This was a battle scene with horse people. We watched for a few minutes and decided that basically- yes, it did. Yes we could see some of the green screen artifacts, especially with face close-ups during intense action scenes, but the creatures and costumes held up real good. The big elephant things still looked awesome.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,152
1,899
118
Country
USA
I watched Citizen Kane.

This is my third viewing; First time I watched in in HS and I hated it for no reason. Second time I watched in for college cinematography class assignment for discussion on techniques used. Back then I said while I appreciate all the revolutionary filming techniques, the narrative was kinda bad.

This time, I've decided to watch w/ bias-free mindset, really paying attention to what's going on in the film.

I'll start by saying I still think the movie has amazing cinematography techniques, whether it's the zoom-in-shot through the glass roof during rain, Kane and his wife growing distant over the years by sitting further away from the dining table (and the table getting longer), cutting holes in a floor to get that amazing angle, or that shot near the end of Kane in front of infinite mirrors, I can wholeheartedly endorse how it revolutionized the film industry.

HOWEVER, I also still think the narrative and the characters are weakest and the only flaws with this movie. Let me start with the main character; Charles Foster Kane. I find him to be really unlikable. I guess the message was how he lost his innocence (hence him remembering rosebud near his death), but he could've redeemed himself at any point in his life. Instead, he kinda lived being a douche, using people then casting them aside, and died alone and pathetic. I get that we are all human beings with flaws, but I also hated how I have to watch nearly two hours of him being an asshole.

Aside from him, everyone around him feels real and one min, then acts like parody characters in the next.

I can totally understand why this movie is revered so much. But I feel like a lot of people would jump in defense of this movie without really acknowledging its flaws.
I'll jump to its defense. It came out in 1941. It's story telling style was reasonably unique for the time. Imagine if Memento came out in that era!
And Kane is a poor little rich boy story. He is a limousine liberal, trying to be for the little guy but in reality is in a different class. He is a creature of his environment and eventually, cannot escape who he is. You are not really supposed to like him.

This movie really pointed out to me how subjective movie love is. A hero of mine, movie critic Pauline Kael , disliked the movie, writing that its cinematography was too dark. Too dark for who I wondered. If she thought it too dark, that is her right. Period. But from then on, I realized just how subjective art criticism is.

No one was even close to him when he said "Rosebud". There should therefore never have been an investigation of what the name meant to him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FakeSympathy

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,217
2,167
118
Country
United States
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Old_Hunter_77

Elite Member
Dec 29, 2021
1,880
1,721
118
Country
United States
> I'll jump to its [Citizen Kane] defense

Yeah... that's ok. It and Casablanca top the "GOAT" lists for a reason lol. They're also just hella fun to watch so whenever folks go on about how "it was great for its time" and talk about these movies like watching them is homework.. it's just a reminder of how some of us are on completely different wavelengths. I can watch these movies a million times the way some people watch Back to the Future or the Big Lebowski.
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Jan 30, 2011
1,983
813
118
I concur, Citizen Kane is still a perfectly watchable movie. I don't think it's the best movie of all time, or even Orson Welles' best movie (mind, I also can't really appreciate all the ways in which it was technically innovative when it came out) but it doesn't feel dry or poorly aged to me in any way. Like, there's still a very solid premise about a rags to riches story, how money and power change a man, how a rich and powerful man is perceived, about the impact someone like that actually has on the world... and, which is still rather impressive today, how almost every single shot of it does something visually interesting. That's something only very few movies can claim.

There are some classics where I don't really see what the big deal is, but Kane is a genuinely enjoyable watch. Honestly, a lot of those old tentpoles are not nearly as inpenetrable or dull as you'd think. Metropolis is damn near a 100 years old and still holds up just fine. Sunset Boulevard is one of my all time favourite movies.