rate the last movie you saw

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2791 Post by Paul MacLean »

The Revenant

(spoilers)

The Revenant is a tremendously impressive production -- phenomenally well-acted, arrestingly photographed, and bursting with with a visceral intensity and (sometimes) verisimilitude which few films achieve. Such is the surpassing effectiveness of these elements, that one is nailed to the screen for its entire running and completely carried away.

After the film is over however, its shortcomings start to seep into the viewer's mind. The Revenant is an incredibly well-directed film -- of a fair (and often implausible) script. The story isn't bad; it just isn't that great either. Characterization is frankly shallow. Tom Hardy gives a superb performance as the villain, and it's a testament to Hardy's talent as an actor that he can breath so much life into what is a very two-dimentional "bad guy". But there's no depth to the character, no real insight into why he is the way he is. He's just a stock "heavy".

DeCapprio's character is much-more well-rounded and defined, but his story becomes hard to believe after a while, as nobody could go through the kinds of hardships he endures and survive. DeCapprio is mauled by a grizzly (leaving him feverous and near-death), and left to die, half-buried, by Hardy. But DeCapprio soldiers on. He tries to drink water, but it leaks out of gash in his throat (!), so he sprinkles gunpowder on his throat and ignites it (ala Rambo). This, miraculously, heals his wound. All the while he is also starving, trudging through water, gets washed-down a river and is soaking wet for most of the film -- all of this in freezing winter conditions -- yet he doesn't succumb to hypothermia. Later he steals a horse and is pursued by Indians, and rides off a cliff -- but (again, ala Rambo) is saved by falling into a tree whose branches break his fall.

In addition to the "Rambo" moments, other aspects of The Revenant also seem familiar, with many ideas that recall older films. DeCapprio reminisces about his dead wife (a native American murdered by Union soldiers) in abstract flashbacks/dream sequences which are heavily reminiscent of Gladiator. Flashbacks to to the massacre of his wife's tribe smack of The Last Samurai (in particular the flashback that reveals -- surprise, surprise -- Hardy was her murderer). Director Alejandro G. Ianrritu's stylistic approach to the film is also strongly reminiscent of Terrence Malick's The New World (though Ianrritu is a considerably better storyteller).

The score isn't much more than white sound, except in a dream sequence where DeCapprio enters a ruined church, which offers-up some engaging string writing. The cue for the final fight between DeCapprio and Hardy is frankly awful. Director Inarritu falls into the trap of too many directors today, who think a "traditional" score detracts from the film's "believability" yet capitulates to the need for a strong musical accompaniment in one or two scenes. The result is an uneven score which lacks a consistent dramatic style, and does nothing to enhance or uplift the drama for much of the film, then awkwardly sticks-out when suddenly trying to emphasize a dramatic point.

The Revenant actually has a lot going for it and you can't deny the effort that went into the production (which was obviously murder to get through). I can't quibble with DeCapprio winning an Oscar, as he was brilliant. But the script just isn't that great, and DeCapprio's travails reach a level of absurdity that borders on comical. It's a shame, because The Revenant has so much going for it, and (for all its issues) does ultimately "work" as a movie. But it falls short of its potential and could have been a lot better.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34185
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2792 Post by AndyDursin »

Well said Paul. In my review this week, I gave the film 3.5 stars on the account of its cinematography and overall "world," which I felt were meticulously crafted and unbelievably well filmed. The plot, however, is absolutely basic (I used the same word), and I also can't see going back to it for more than one viewing either.

mkaroly
Posts: 6214
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2793 Post by mkaroly »

Just a couple of quick hits here:

THE WOLVERINE (EXTENDED) - 9/10. I was VERY pleased with this film....it was my first time seeing it, and I cannot wait to see DAYS OF FUTURE PAST (which I haven't seen either). I love Japan (even though I've never been there and hope to go one day), and I love that the film takes place there. I didn't feel like there were "gaps" in this film like there were in WOLVERINE - the story took its time and it was just a solid, entertaining film to watch. The locales and colors were so vibrant and stunning; Jackman was great in the role (again), and I enjoyed the supporting cast as well. The end confrontation dragged on a little too long for me (and Logan's "self-surgery" was kind of funny), but that didn't take away from my overall enjoyment of the movie.

IRRATIONAL MAN - 4/10. Woody is back to making those medicore, "flat" films. This time it's an existentialist drama that embraces the randomness of fate. Parker Posey was somewhat disappointing in it; I expected a bit more fire from her. Emma Stone and J. Phoenix are good but the story is just very "there." The ending is very flat too...maybe it was purposeful but normally Allen's film end more satisfactorally (is that a word?) than this one. Definitely not one of his best.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34185
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2794 Post by AndyDursin »

Agreed on both Michael pretty much. Irrational Man didn't work for me either especially the tediously stuffy first half but The Wolverine was very strong for what it was.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 9713
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2795 Post by Monterey Jack »

Greatly enjoyed The Wolverine, although I wish more of it were actually shot in Japan. Shame the excellent "Logan vs. Ninjas" fight at the climax was almost completely removed from the theatrical cut...I can understand why (it definitely would have pushed the movie into an R-rating), but it made the theatrical version seem really choppy at that moment. Especially loved Rila Fukushima as Logan's sidekick, Yukio. Am really disappointed that, due to the timeline "reset" in Days Of Future Past, we'll probably not see her again in the third solo Wolverine flick. :(


sprocket
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:39 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2796 Post by sprocket »

JSA Joint Security Area is a South Korean film set on the border between North and South Korea.

It was made in 2000, but it's politics don't seem to have dated and the setting is just fascinating. The plot is simple enough: an incident resulting in the death of some soldiers has taken place in the DeMilitarized Zone between North and South Korea and an impartial observer is brought in to investigate. None of those involved seem to want to talk about what happened, and as the film goes on, we find out why.

The film was made by Park Chan-wook, the same fellow who directed Oldboy and Snowpiercer and quite honestly, I liked it better than both of those.

Those who are interested in it can pay the $40 odd it cost me to import the blu-ray from Korea, or just watch it for free on youtube. (With sites like youtube, it's not surprising physical media is a money-losing proposition these days. :| )

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34185
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2797 Post by AndyDursin »

CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR
8/10

Not sure what it is about Captain America -- perhaps the writing of Stephen McFeely and Christopher Markus -- but this third "standalone" adventure cements this particular Marvel hero as having the most reliably entertaining flicks among the current stable of comic-book pictures.

Though a bit overstuffed, this is the movie "Avengers: Age of Ultron" SHOULD have been, benefitting from snappy, developed characterizations with a good mix of tonal shifts, courtesy of the Russo Brothers who helmed the prior "Cap" installment. Everything in this film is more interesting than "Ultron" -- even Elizabeth Olsen's Scarlet Witch and the general banter between the Avengers themselves. Whereas Joss Whedon seemingly thinks that sarcastic quips alone constitute character development, this film's writers juggle its two central plot strands -- the whereabouts of Bucky and the government's insistence that superheroes register and only take orders from NATO, creating a rift between Cap (Chris Evans) and Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.) -- and balance the massive cast and its various personalities to far greater effect. The humor is natural when it pops up, and seldom, if ever, does it favor one-liners.

There are some wonderful moments here -- Emily Vancamp's Sharon Carter finally gets some terrific scenes with Chris Evans' Cap, leading to a brief but much-appreciated dose of romance (and the movie's biggest laugh). The introduction of the new Spider-Man, Tom Holland, feels shoehorned in, but the crowd both ate up his appearance and the general tone of his performance -- and Marisa Tomei will not have anyone lamenting the loss of, say, Sally Field in what's a far more "contemporary" portrayal of "(Aunt) May". Holland looks and sounds like a kid -- and that was undoubtedly the reason for his casting -- and he plays off Robert Downey, Jr.'s Tony Stark so well that you can sense next year's "Spider-Man" standalone film might be something special.

On the downside, I wasn't sold on Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther. Boseman is a fine actor but the role seems to cry out for someone with a whole lot of charisma -- which I didn't think he had. I also grew tired of the "super-hero responsibility" discussion -- especially coming after BATMAN V SUPERMAN, which had the exact same thematic material. And the ending, as it is in every one of the Marvel-branded films, is weak -- what is it with these pictures, that they can't end on some kind of notable dramatic flourish that sends you out of the theater excited, satisified, etc.? Instead, just like THE AVENGERS, the movie climaxes with a series of sequences designed to sell not just "Avengers 3" but "Captain America 4" and whatever else is coming down the pipeline.

It makes for a flat conclusion to a movie that's otherwise a tidy and effective piece of comic-book filmmaking from the specialists who, at this point, have the formula down pat.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 9713
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2798 Post by Monterey Jack »

I'd bump your rating up to an 8.5, Andy...I thought this was terrific fun, and everything Batman V Superman should have been. Tom Holland's brief screentime as the new Spidey was just enough to sell me on the kid...like you said, he actually looks like a kid, instead of some thirty-year-old gunning for an appearance on To Catch A Predator trawling high school for underaged tail. :shock: And Tony Stark flirting outrageously with Marisa Tomei's "Aunt Hottie" provided some of the film's biggest laughs. The ending is a tad weak, but getting there was so enjoyable, I was willing to let it slide.

Odd, though, that Paul Rudd didn't receive above-the-title billing for this, only appearing in microscopic type in the general cast list in the end titles. :? Tomei received major billing, and she was in...what, a minute of the movie, tops? Rudd's King Kong moment during the big Avenger scuffle in the middle of the film is one of the movie's highlights ("Little dude just got big...!"), so it seems odd that he didn't warrant major billing, while Daniel Bruhl did.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34185
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2799 Post by AndyDursin »

Well I did like it a lot, but I still was left feeling I'm not going to remember much of anything from this film two weeks from now. I also wonder years from now that these films are going to have a very large problem standing on their own since so many of them are referencing not just their immediate predecessors but also other films in the Marvel franchise -- not to mention spin-off insertions like Spider-Man. 10 years from now someone will drop in and watch this film and forget what specifically is being "followed up on" plot wise.

Plus, the weak ending and lame score always seem to hold these pictures back. I needed more in those departments to put it over the top...but I did like it, no question.

The billing in these Marvel ensemble films is interesting. Technically if you look at the poster credits, the only "above the title" stars are Evans, RDJ and Scarjo (for the first time ever in a Marvel film). Everyone else falls into the "general cast" below the title, in whatever shape, form or their contract dictates. (If you go back to the original AVENGERS and even AGE OF ULTRON, RDJ has the sole above the title credit).

If you go by that, Rudd's credit does appear and Marisa's name doesn't at all. Honestly I wasn't even aware she was showing up in this one. As far as Rudd goes, I wonder if they didn't want to throw his name on the very top of the poster out of fear people would think this is another Avengers sequel. He also, I believe, had less screen time than the others too.

http://www.impawards.com/2016/captain_a ... 9_xlg.html

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34185
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2800 Post by AndyDursin »

THE WITCH
5.5/10

Image

Another example of a recent critical darling in the horror genre being largely rejected by commercial audiences, “The Witch” is a gorgeously filmed but confoundingly basic picture that understandably had a difficult time finding acceptance with traditional horror fans.

Its visuals and production design at least, are palpable, as a family – cast out from a New England village for reasons we’re not explicitly told – sets up shop on the edge of the woods. Soon, strange occurrences begin to manifest themselves as the family breaks down bit by bit, with most of the blame unjustly falling on the eldest daughter (an impressive performance by newcomer Anya Taylor-Joy).

Writer-director Robert Eggers researched classic New England folklore and history in mounting a superb technical exercise, which looks and sounds like something right out of Puritan New England – down to its thick and sometimes incomprehensible accents (more than once I nearly turned the subtitles on). The issue here, though, is that “The Witch” really just generates a sense of “who cares?” instead of terror as it plods along through its 90 minute running time. A choral-chanting soundtrack (someone must have watched “2001" before shooting began) and slow, lingering camera work don’t, by themselves, establish an atmosphere of dread, and so little happens in the film that all you’re left with is the slow, painful disintegration of the clan – complete with uncomfortable moments involving young children. Perhaps some critics were moved by this portrait of would-be pious men and women as a sort of “Ordinary Puritan People,” but the film never gives you a reason why you should care about what the family goes through. Finally, when the movie becomes explicitly supernatural at the ending, all it does is negate the more “grounded” events (such as they are) that preceded it.

“The Witch” was celebrated by critics and festival audiences, but once Lionsgate placed the film into wide distribution this past winter, the movie failed to muster the same level of enthusiasm with audiences likely expecting something more explicitly horrifying. That’s understandable, certainly, but the fact that “The Witch” is low-key, by itself, also doesn’t make it scary or compelling either, as it fails to succeed on its own terms.

Lionsgate’s Blu-Ray of “The Witch” hits stores May 17th. The 1080p (1.85) transfer is superb and the 5.1 DTS MA sound is quietly engineered, though the muffled accents aren’t rendered any more coherently at home than they were in theaters. Supplements include a half-hour Q&A recorded in Salem, Mass. with the director, Taylor-Joy,, a commentary with Eggers, a brief Making Of segment, trailers, and a digital HD copy.

sprocket
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:39 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2801 Post by sprocket »

April Snow (2005) 8/10

I continue watching my films by South Korean director Heo Jin-Ho. This is a very subdued movie about two people who meet at the hospital where both their spouses are in comas, due to a deadly car accident. They quickly realize that their spouses have been cheating on them and, eventually, start an affair of their own.

This story is a minefield of poor plot choices and it is amazing how well the film navigates through them. Unlike Hollywood films, this film is 95% character driven, which means that the story flows from the motivations of the characters, and not vice versa. So when these two people eventually get together, it makes sense. When they are spending time together and not with their comatose spouses, it makes sense. Unlike many films, there is a sense of time passing here, so like in real life, given enough time, anything is possible.
Attachments
Aprilsnowposter.jpg
Aprilsnowposter.jpg (123.92 KiB) Viewed 1976 times

mkaroly
Posts: 6214
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2802 Post by mkaroly »

Getting caught up on super-hero movies (disclaimer: I was never a comic book reader):

THOR: DARK WORLD - 6/10. I like the "universe" of Thor, but to be honest the film played more like a futuristic LORD OF THE RINGS movie from the opening battle sequence (which could have been used in LOTR) to the enemy being "dark elves." I imagine all this stuff was in the Thor comic books though, so it's understandable but still, all I could think of was LOTR as I watched it. It also seems like the writers kind of forgot about humor...lol...the first film was a fish-out-of-water story but I don't see why they couldn't keep the personality and warmth of the first film even in exploring a more heavy side to Thor and his internal struggles. To be honest, I am really tired of everything having a love story - sorry Natalie Portman, but I care nothing for Jane. Definitely a step down from the fist THOR film.

AVENGERS 2: AGE OF ULTRON - 5/10. No personality and warmth in this one, and for that reason it was disappointing. Again, you can keep the personality and warmth of the original even in exploring darker themes. I am not a fan of Natasha and Bruce having a romance; maybe they had one in the comic books but it's just not working for me. It seems forced, as if the filmmakers had a mandate to get a romance in the story somehow and so those were the two characters they chose. I don't think the whole "do you think you're the only monster in the group" thing came through very well in the story; nor did I find the characters' internal struggles as presented in this film compelling. It could have been better. Downey Jr. looked bored and as if he was phoning in the performance; Spader brought his usual smarminess to the role of Ultron, but I think overall the film failed in finding and communicating its emotional center. Thumbs up to Scarlet Witch though!

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 9713
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2803 Post by Monterey Jack »

-The Nice Guys (2016): 9/10

Hugely entertaining mix of gumshoe mystery and buddy comedy is another winner from Shane Black, a spiritual sequel to his terrific 2005 effort Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. With excellent chemistry between Russell Crowe (clearly off his Man Of Steel Slimfast diet and yet more jovial and twinkly than we've seen him in years) and Ryan Gosling (particular props to his spot-on Lou Costello routine when he finds a dead body), a story that's engagingly twisty, and peppered with riotously profane dialogue. Boasting gorgeous photography by Phillipe Rousellot, this is superior noir pastiche, and one of the most enjoyable films of the year thus far. I'm sure it will make pennies at the box office (the era of R-rated buddy movies is sadly in the past), but I had a blast with it.

mkaroly
Posts: 6214
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2804 Post by mkaroly »

More comic book movies...

ANT-MAN - 8/10. Unpretentious, fun movie with a lot of charisma and humor. I like Paul Rudd as an actor (his bit on RENO 911 as the La Maaze instructor is absolutely priceless), and I liked that the movie was kind of goofy without taking itself too seriously. I was reminded of the first SPIDER-MAN movie (Raimi directed). I laughed really loud when Rudd was cleaning off a scrape on himself and showing off his abs and muscles to Lilly's character....hilarious! The movie isn't perfect (how on earth can they infiltrate security at Pym Industries as easily as they did by getting in as a security guard?), but I can overlook all the little things that bothered me. I did notice more than any of the other Marvel movies how often the movie cuts from scene to scene...irritating as heck!

CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR - 7/10. I still feel like the CA movies are the most consistent of all the films; this one carries over some of the darker vibes from ULTRON and DARK WORLD...is Tony Stark really that freaking stupid and blind? He seems to cause the most trouble time after time - that is kind of annoying. It isn't a horrible film, but I think they tried a bit too hard with Spider-Man's character. Some of the action sequences went on a bit too long for me (like the Avenger's battles at the airport). I also kind of didn't buy that the majority of the group would sign something that the UN came up with (one of the most worthless, spineless, and hypocritical organizations on the face of the planet IMO, but whatever); in some ways I think they spent too much time on Tony Stark and not enough on CA. Despite all that I liked that the film spent some time on Buck's and CA's relationship; I also liked that the film pitted CA's ego against Stark's ego, and of the two I felt like I "understood" CA's choices better. Not great but not bad.

mkaroly
Posts: 6214
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2805 Post by mkaroly »

X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST (9.5/10) - I have to think that this is the best film of the series as a whole up to this point. The X-MEN films have a good tendency to get better and better (IMO) of drawing the audience in to the relationships between the characters, much more so than many other super-hero movies. For example, while the Natasha/Bruce Banner "attraction" in AVENGERS 2 failed to draw me in, the relationships between Raven, Charles, and Eric are compelling and moving. That is the X-MEN films' strongest asset. I don't mind a lot of CGI and stuff; these are comic book movies and I feel the filmmakers should be allowed to paint the canvas with CGI as an illustrator would bring a comic book page to live in his/her drawing. The Sentinels are scary and ominous, and I loved the 70s look of the whole film. I felt like I was there. I watched the Rogue Cut and it was nice to see her back in the universe...I am very happy with this one.

Post Reply