NEW: List some movies you've watched recently. Theatre, rental, TV... and give a */10

[sactoking]

Watched Slumberland. Probably a 6/10, maybe 6.5. Pretty standard YA traumatic adventure tale in the same vein as like Big Fish. Mild tearjerker. Was a bit disappointed that Flip didn't seem to be anything special; Jason Momoa really didn't bring anything to that role and I felt it could have been done by a dozen different actors.

 

[sactoking]

Finally got around to Into the Woods. Not sure what to rate this one. 5/10? I enjoyed the whole converging fairy tale storylines concept even if they did make Thumbelina a bit obtuse by not actually mentioning Thumbelina (and then the kid ended up a boy!). Many big-name actors but still seemed to lack star power. Even Meryl Streep seemed kinda poorly used. Some of it just didn't make sense, like the turn Prince Charming took or that Rapunzel's familial relationship to the Baker just seemed to be forgotten.

Oh, and Sondheim's music was a garbled mess with poor flow.

 

[DigDog]

i watched North - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110687/reference/

A delicious Christmas-time film that both those geniuses Siskel and Ebert rated N1 Worst Of 1994 @Muse

Elijah "Mr. Frodo" Wood plays 11yo North, a kid who is good at everything, but whose parents do not appreciate him. Another 11yo kid who thinks himself a journalist, hires a sleazeball lawyer and with his help they get North to "divorce" his parents. In a show-trial shown across the nation, the judge grants North "1 summer" to find himself a new set of parents (or be confined to a orphanage).

And then obviously North goes on a worldwide tour to find a laundry list of famous actors who play the perspective parents, all great, but all with some secondary reason for wanting North as their son. Along the way a guardian angel, played by Bruce Willis impersonating different characters, advises North of such wisdoms as "parents should love their children for what they are, not for what they want them to be".

.. it's a perfect little film. I mean, it's a christmas film, it does those feelgood things that every.fucking.one of those films does, but it does them well.
Bruce Willis is wonderful as the guardian angel, being this the thing that prompted me to watch the film in the first place. Every scene he is in, he plays a different character (or rather, the angel in disguise pretending to be different characters) and the film trailer from 1994 had the line "also starring, Bruce Willis, Bruce Willis, Bruce Willis and ... Bruce Willis).

Directed by none other than Rob Reiner, it has a similar vibe to The Princess Bride, but slightly more christmasey/for kids.

i might have been 30 years late, but it was worth it.

7/10 - the soundtrack could use a little trimming.

 

[DigDog]

i also watched The Northman - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11138512/reference/

and it was ok. The style absolutely is that of a documentary made into a film, and while that isn't great, it sticks to what it wants to do. Essentially what i'm trying to say is that it's too long because *it wants* to be too long. It wants to tell a story in its own way, a story which is fairly simple with just a tiny twist at the end, and adds some occasional eye candy that isn't out of place.

You can probably do better, but if you like exactly this type of film, maybe 7/10

 

[Muse]

i watched North - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110687/reference/

A delicious Christmas-time film that both those geniuses Siskel and Ebert rated N1 Worst Of 1994 @Muse

Elijah "Mr. Frodo" Wood plays 11yo North, a kid who is good at everything, but whose parents do not appreciate him. Another 11yo kid who thinks himself a journalist, hires a sleazeball lawyer and with his help they get North to "divorce" his parents. In a show-trial shown across the nation, the judge grants North "1 summer" to find himself a new set of parents (or be confined to a orphanage).

And then obviously North goes on a worldwide tour to find a laundry list of famous actors who play the perspective parents, all great, but all with some secondary reason for wanting North as their son. Along the way a guardian angel, played by Bruce Willis impersonating different characters, advises North of such wisdoms as "parents should love their children for what they are, not for what they want them to be".

.. it's a perfect little film. I mean, it's a christmas film, it does those feelgood things that every.fucking.one of those films does, but it does them well.
Bruce Willis is wonderful as the guardian angel, being this the thing that prompted me to watch the film in the first place. Every scene he is in, he plays a different character (or rather, the angel in disguise pretending to be different characters) and the film trailer from 1994 had the line "also starring, Bruce Willis, Bruce Willis, Bruce Willis and ... Bruce Willis).

Directed by none other than Rob Reiner, it has a similar vibe to The Princess Bride, but slightly more christmasey/for kids.

i might have been 30 years late, but it was worth it.

7/10 - the soundtrack could use a little trimming.

Well, of course, Rob Reiner! Spinal Tap, When Harry Met Sally, The Princess Bride. Top notch comedies.

I like a whole lot of what Ebert wrote, wasn't much into the TV show. I mean thinking on your feet about a movie is perilous, I don't care who you are.

 

[sactoking]

The wife and I finally finished season 2 of Carnival Row. It was mostly entertaining but I had some gripes. First off, Amazon's sound balancing sucks. Had to turn the volume up to over double the normal level to hear the dialogue. Some of the deaths, especially one particular one in the last episode, were ridiculous. Both the wife and I agreed that the Korra ending was stupid and out of nowhere.

Also, I may have missed it but where the hell did the incandescent light bulb come from?

 

[mikeymikec]

Predators (2010)

This is a Predator movie that is much more in the spirit of the first film. I'd say chances are if you enjoyed that film then you will enjoy this one (unless you've put the first one on a pedestal). I enjoyed it; as I said about the first film recently about doing something basic but doing it well, this film borrows/references from the first as necessary to help advance the plot without having to go through the same stages of discovery.

Spoiler

I wonder if this film tries to go a bridge too far in one respect in that the humans who are teleported to the 'game reserve' planet realise that they are chosen because they are killers, but then one of them wonders whether it is they who are the monsters to be hunted rather than 'just game'. IMO if you as a screenplay writer are going to attempt to take a bite into that philosophical chunk of meat, do it right or don't bother, rather than tentatively poking at it and not going any further. IMO an example of getting it right is in the finale of Blade Runner when Roy dies and Deckard realises that he's been stalking to all intents and purposes a human being rather than a thing.

At the end of the day I don't think this 'bridge too far' ruins the whole experience, but perhaps if that conversation had been removed then maybe the more intelligent audience members will ask that question themselves.

I also wonder if asking "maybe we're the monsters" isn't that appropriate considering your opponents kidnapped you and while on the whole they kill you quick, they're absolutely happy to use hunting animals and maiming traps to fuck with you as well. Maybe wondering if this fate is karma would be more appropriate if it wasn't artistically speaking a bit insipid.

 

[DigDog]

just the highlight`, regarding Rotttten Tomatoes

 

[IronWing]

Avatar- I forgot how much violence there is in the movie. I guess I remember the pretty scenes and bumper sticker environmentalism more than the nonstop violence of the last hour. Still an okay movie, very pretty. 7/10

 

[DigDog]

I watched Lady Snowblood - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158714/reference/

To say that this film was "the inspiration" for Kill Bill is an understatement. Just a bunch of comedic Jidaigeki film tropes, with a young lady (the titular) being born of rape, and sworn to vengeance, tracks down 4 men who assaulted her mother. Cue fountains of blood as Terminator-like Yuki plows through hordes of nameless goons armed with Zatoichi-katana and squibs.

.. for a 1974 film, it's really well filmed. The soundtrack is also easily recognizable as something that Tarantino ripped off, and i'm pretty sure if you watch Takeshi Kitano films (which you should, you unwashed peasants) you'll spot some references as well.
The action is .. serious, but campy. Lady Snowblood swinging from the chandeliers and stabbing the bad guy THROUGH his hostage. That kinda stuff.

idk, watch it, don't watch it. The real risk here is that it will make you lose respect for Tarantino, because the film itself is okaish.

My vote: 6.5/10, plus 1 for historic relevance, of which it has in spades. 7.5/10

 

[igor_kavinski]

The real risk here is that it will make you lose respect for Tarantino

Nah. Most people who know Tarantino know that he is a fan of cinema himself so of course his favorite scenes/ideas from whatever he watches, spill into his material. He's good but has certain weaknesses (long drawn out scenes) and suddenly changing the mood of the movie from serious to comedy or dark comedy. The only really bad movie of his for me is Reservoir Dogs. It was painfully long with too much dialogue and not enough happening. Could have been edited into a 30 minute short movie.

 

[DigDog]

The only really bad movie of his for me is Reservoir Dogs. It was painfully long with too much dialogue and not enough happening. Could have been edited into a 30 minute short movie.

unpopular opinion there bud. But i think you are on something.
I think RD was written as a theatre piece, then put on film. It makes sense in the way that the film is created from the ground up; sure, there is a lot of dialogue - but it's the type of dialogue that is important. Back when this was released you were still limited to about 3 swear words per film, maybe 1 FUCK. QT has this crude dialogue like these are actual criminals and not film characters (although with hindsight, we're still pretty far from reality), and this IMHO is the reason why also the violence has to be over-the-top, because "over-the-top" is what describes this film.

I mean, this was a cultural revolution, when it came out. That's gotta mean something, no?

 

[igor_kavinski]

I mean, this was a cultural revolution, when it came out. That's gotta mean something, no?

How? Really don't see it that way. What was so great about that movie? Someone (possibly you) tell me.

 

[DigDog]

How? Really don't see it that way. What was so great about that movie? Someone (possibly you) tell me.

Me, i can't. I never saw this as amazing, but i remember at the time *everyone* talking about it.

The film summarized is; we are introduced to a gang of bank robbers. They tough and mean but not "crude" or ignorant. Some of them are actually cool.
They do a bank heist OFF-SCEEN, and return to the same set they were in before. [this is pretty good when it comes to screenwriting, because it's different than any other bank heist film. A heist film without a heist?]
They fight among themselves because they think one of the group is a traitor. Rather than this problem being solved and moving forward with the heist plot, the scene descends in extreme violence and pretty much all the protagonists are dead, with one killed off-screen. [again, this is contrary to any sensible script-writing rules you would normally work with]
The last 2 characters standing run away, having lost all of the diamonds stolen in the not-actually-a-heist, heist. And this one scene has a plot twist that flips over the entire previous scene, and the film ends. Considering the film has basically 3 scenes, that's pretty hardcore.

It's a very modern script. It's a script that defies a lot of .. well, good rules, and gets away with it. I don't think RD is anywhere near the perfection of Pulp Fiction, but it's certainly admirable as a film that is different.

Back when this was in theatres, everyone i know loved it. The tipping scene mostly, but also "why Pink? why do i have to be Pink?", back when Tarantino knew how to write good dialogue.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Back when this was in theatres, everyone i know loved it. The tipping scene mostly, but also "why Pink? why do i have to be Pink?", back when Tarantino knew how to write good dialogue.

Found the one hour edition on Internet Archive (just 300 some MB). Going to see if I get bored to death. But the fact that this exists means I wasn't the only one.

EDIT: Couldn't manage to put myself through it. Just watched the end. My verdict stays MEH.

 

[DigDog]

I watched Barbie - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1517268/reference/

and i kinda liked it.

The film is divided in two main segments;

1. barbieworld, the "real world", return to barbieland, and everything up to when barbie gives up. About the first 2/3s of the film.

2. "the plan" and the final speech on "oh the humanity". Pretty much the last 3rd of the film.

I thought the first part was fantastic. The fake carboard beach, the shower without water, the trippy behaviours of barbie as if she was a doll being manhandled. The car moving at walking speed, the neon-yellow skate boots, man this film has some serious fucking attention to detail, when it comes to the production. Cups without liquid!
The second part was .. meh.

The thing is, the plot has coherence when it attacks the concept that, in barbieland, there is no reality. And i'm on board with the concept of the real world being just as bad as barbieland, for the very opposite reason.
Obviously though at some point you need a ham-fisted resolution that's the same you've seen a million times, and the low-brow emotions of the last section clash with the absurdism of the first part. Because, i liked that part.

*breath*
I waited a long time to see it because i watched - by mistake, i admit - a review by The Critical Drinker, and since HIS MONEY is literally "fighting the woke agenda" the guy bashed the film as feminist propaganda without, probably, having actually watched it. Can't pass up an easy paycheck. (decent film reviewer otherwise, but not a genius in any sense)

.. instead Barbie is .. very reasonable. In the end the message - which is that neither Kens (Men) nor Barbies (Women) can live in a fantasy world - is somewhat skewed towards women, BECAUSE IT'S THE FUCKING BARBIE MOVIE. I seriously question your upbringing as a young male if you picked Ken over GI Joe. It's from the point of view of people who owned Barbie dolls.
Also, the film is - at least in the first segment - fairly out there, so it's really what you read into it. If you want to get pissed off, pick something, misinterpret it, and off you go.

*example*

if Ken doesnt join barbie, Barbie finds (America), brings her back to Barbieland, where she see the Barbie President and Barbie Nobel Prize Winner, everything goes back to "normal", barbie returns being a plastic mannequin without cellulitis. No happy ending, just market manipulation and brainwashing. Ken is the real hero.

or
It's Barbieland. Barbies treat Kens like shit because obviously, women's fantasies are just as bad as men's. Ken is the real victim.

.. you know, you can have this argument forever, when instead you can focus on the many great aspects of this production. The fantastic costumes, sets, lighting, Matrix references, come on there is even a Space Odyssey reference.




I found America Ferreira to be mediocre as usual. I found the young girl to be horrible, but then again most teenagers today are. Michael Cera can barely be cast in roles like this, where he has no relevance as he is such a pathetic excuse for an actor. Both Gosling and Robbie were good, and were given good characters to work with. Kate McKinnon is my forbidden dream so i'm cool with her being in everything (yes i know, i know). Will Ferrell was good *probably* because the role was written for him, but he can still deliver provided that you keep him on a leash.

The whole production was spectacular, except for the weird and absolutely out of place Ken singing part at the end

current IMDb vote: 7.2/10, i am going to go a little higher and say, 7.6/10

 

[igor_kavinski]

I thought the first part was fantastic. The fake carboard beach, the shower without water, the trippy behaviours of barbie as if she was a doll being manhandled. The car moving at walking speed, the neon-yellow skate boots, man this film has some serious fucking attention to detail, when it comes to the production. Cups without liquid!
The second part was .. meh.

I found America Ferreira to be mediocre as usual. I found the young girl to be horrible, but then again most teenagers today are. Michael Cera can barely be cast in roles like this, where he has no relevance as he is such a pathetic excuse for an actor. Both Gosling and Robbie were good, and were given good characters to work with. Kate McKinnon is my forbidden dream so i'm cool with her being in everything (yes i know, i know). Will Ferrell was good *probably* because the role was written for him, but he can still deliver provided that you keep him on a leash.

The whole production was spectacular, except for the weird and absolutely out of place Ken singing part at the end

Agree with all that. Not the rest. Even 6 is too high a rating for this movie. It didn't need to turn into a long dreary social lecture of sorts. It could just have been a fun adventure INSIDE barbieland without involving the real world.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

Asteroid City - 4/10

Fuck did I just watch? I've quite enjoyed Wes Anderson's previous flics, with The Royal Tenenbaums & Fantastic Mr. Fox being my favorites, but Asteroid City, yeah - nope - this was not good.

Cinematography with the muted pastels and weird set pieces can only provide so much relief from the TV Show inside a Play inside a Movie. Clearly I'm not intelligent enough to get this movie and the high snobbery takes are just laughable.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

i also watched The Northman - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11138512/reference/

and it was ok. The style absolutely is that of a documentary made into a film, and while that isn't great, it sticks to what it wants to do. Essentially what i'm trying to say is that it's too long because *it wants* to be too long. It wants to tell a story in its own way, a story which is fairly simple with just a tiny twist at the end, and adds some occasional eye candy that isn't out of place.

You can probably do better, but if you like exactly this type of film, maybe 7/10

We agree on the score, for different reasons. I did not find the run time an issue at all. I wanted better fight choreography and more Anya.

Winning Time on MAX. Has a bit of that Mad Men feel for me, love it. They dramatize the right stuff too. Some of it would be boring otherwise. John C. Reilly, Sally Field, Adrien Brody, Michael Chiklis, Jason Segel. And Solomon Hughes kills it as Kareem. I read his book Giant Steps; It takes me back. This show is excellent 8/10.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Ahsoka: This is the best Star Wars show so far IMO. It refuses to go full cheese like the others did. To this point- 8/10.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Ahsoka: This is the best Star Wars show so far IMO. It refuses to go full cheese like the others did. To this point- 8/10.

-NGL the first two episodes kinda sucked, but it has gotten progressively better as it's gone along.

Ray Stevenson (13th!) is adding a lot of gravitas that's preventing the whole thing from flying off into typical Disney territory.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Ahsoka: This is the best Star Wars show so far IMO. It refuses to go full cheese like the others did. To this point- 8/10.

You don't find it slow? It could be edited to be shorter and hold my attention better. Mary Winstead looks weird as a Twi'lek and smiles too much. It's hard for me to watch it at night (only time I can) because the pace is slow enough to be sleep inducing.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Ray Stevenson (13th!) is adding a lot of gravitas that's preventing the whole thing from flying off into typical Disney territory.

Yeah. Looks like a very imposing figure. Sad that he's gone. Just found out.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

You don't find it slow? It could be edited to be shorter and hold my attention better. Mary Winstead looks weird as a Twi'lek and smiles too much.

No I don't find it slow or boring. I also like the first 2 episodes.

 

[Ajay]

Wife and I started Homeland (was added to our Paramount+ steaming sub). 8/10 for the first season. 9/10 for intensity. Very good acting from Lewis, Danes and Patinkin, IMHO. If he was still alive, I'd have like to see P.S. Hoffman in Patinkin's role (not that he'd ever do a series).