Rate the Last Film you Watched

[JustHatched 12,103]

17 minutes ago, Con said:

Halloween (2018)

The Awesome: Best of the sequels. Michael Myers looks good in every scene. The kills get more brutal as we move forward. The music is perfect because thankfully we have John Carpenter handling the music which is better than some new guy creating some other imitation. Great atmosphere in some scenes. All the easter eggs nods to the previous sequels, I mean, we even get to see a van with the name "Resurrection Church" on it. I loved Michael's first on-screen kill as I didn't expect it. Jamie Lee Curtis does a great job returning as a granny-Laurie Strode and I appreciated exploring her PTSD from what she experienced back in 1978, the dynamics of the resulting mental anguish and how it affected Laurie as a mother raising a daughter after her near death experience. The scenes where we follow Michael around the neighborhood were superb and highlight of the direction. Some of the cinematography was slick and very effective, like the gas station scene from the trailers, that lighting and gritty color palette really adds to the grimness of the scene. There was one kill inside a home that was pretty damn traumatic and most of the kills we get to see are pretty intense.

The Good: Kept that Halloween movie feeling thanks to the soundtrack and some of the great nods to the other films although it ignores those in this new universe. Sound design was a highlight. The practical effects were pretty good. The Michael Myers mask looks cool after 40 years. Some of the scenes recreate the original almost frame by frame and I liked the nostalgia. Jibrail Nantambu as Julian almost steals the entire fucking movie because his acting is so good in the short time he is on screen and it was a moment in the film where I felt some actual script magic between him and the babysitter and felt that the film should have centered around them instead as I would have really cared for the both of them, they were that good! The subtle shots of the graphic violence at the start are cool as we get just glimpses of the bloody faces, etc. It's not full of needless comedy like we get in The Predator....thank the movie Gods for that. Michael Myers was menacing for most of the movie.

The Bad: The opening sequence seemed so promising in the trailer and it is a tense scene, especially when they tell the podcaster he must never pass the yellow line, so we see his foot at the very edge and we get the sense that if you cross that line, you fucking dead. So tell me why as that scene goes on and the podcaster pulls out the mask and begins screaming at Michael and his arm holding the mask is WAY OVER THE YELLOW LINE and the guards just stand there?...I felt like the only person that noticed he was over the line and you wait for an awesome payoff to the scene and instead we abruptly cut to the opening titles, the sequence didn't work for me at all. Now the titles were cool because they tried to mimic the original credits with the black background and the orange letters but this time there is a deflated pumpkin that is inflated as the opening credits are rolling and my wife told me it was a decomposed jack o' lantern in reverse time lapse but I thought it was a beach-ball like pumpkin being inflated instead and I thought it looked stupid. The movie is filled with small scenes that are so unnecessary, like the scene with the doctor and sheriff driving around looking for Michael and the scene is written just so the doctor can tell the cop, Michael is property of the State and must not be killed or harmed. That line of dialogue could have been said in the previous scene that had Laurie being introduced to the new doctor by the Sheriff and what frustrated me was that moments before the doctor meets Laurie, Laurie is telling the cop why she wanted Michael to escape and it is in direct contrast to what the doctor wants and it was a perfect moment for the doctor and Laurie to have some tension between them and it's these missed opportunities that could have eliminated those short throwaway exposition scenes and in that case could have really added some flesh to the twist we are given that actually goes nowhere and came across as fucking stupid instead. Again there are so many tiny plot lines, like every character gets one and then most of them don't help in moving the story forward. The teen party break up scene was so clunky and only served to eliminate the cell phone element which could have been simpler and again, freed more time to dedicate to a Michael Myers kill scene instead. I wanted a minor character that was part of the city government to die because I just found him obnoxious every time he was on screen but I didn't get that satisfaction. 

The Ugly: What appear to be some of the best kills are all done off-screen. The writers wanted me to dismiss the other films and interpret this as the direct sequel to the original, okay I'll bite, but then they carelessly give us exposition and narrative throughout but the biggest sins come against Michael Myers as they write his behavior so inconsistently and then flip-flop that inconsistency, making it even worse. Too many micro scenes with exposition that could have easily been delivered in a previous scene(s), which would free up time for more Michael Myers moments who I feel should be the main attraction of the series. I get what they wanted to do with Laurie Strode's character but they really turned her into Sarah Connor a bit too much. Because of the not fully developed new ideas and concepts, the third act seems to have been written in reverse to fit the narrative because I found it a bit absurd how the final confrontation is set up, since honestly, there was never an indication that Michael Myers was looking for Laurie specifically at all and Laurie seems to be the one with the obsession for the boogeyman instead. Why poke the bear? It made no sense and while some might enjoy the little role reversal moments, I wasn't a fan. I only want to see Michael doing Michael things in my Halloween movies. There is a major twist I was not expecting and I really hoped it was going to make it into my "Awesome" list but ultimately it's so bumbled and disjointed that had it been done right, it would have added some much needed explanations shedding light on not just the new Michael Myers personification. I hated that we have come to know Michael Myers not as a man but a force of nature, well According to this movie, Michael Myers is now 65 years old human being with no superhuman abilities, who has been sitting in a mental facility for 40 years---- I guess someone forgot to let the cells in his body know he had aged and that's thanks to the brutal inconsistent writing. I know you have to unplug your brain while watching slasher movies but when the writers bring something up making you pay attention to it and then expect you to just throw it all away, that shit is not good. The doctor's character was such a wasted opportunity in so many ways. The final act is so contrived and due to the mandatory sequel this film is designed to generate, it contradicts the heart of the movie itself. There was one moment during the film that I honestly felt like i was watching a crime show on the A&E Network, that is not a good thing AT ALL!! I felt that way because the way it's structured and shot just gave me that familiar vibe from those crime shows. I think making the entire community aware that a killer is loose takes away from why I loved the original...no one was aware a killer was loose and that added so much tension to everything we saw on-screen in the original. 

Final Verdict...2/5... First let me say this...ask anyone that knows me IRL and they will tell you, no one gets more excited than me when the conversations are about the Predator, Friday the 13th, and Halloween films, so when I hear about these remakes I expect the worst but hope for the very best and I temper my expectations but what I don't do is force myself to like new things because I loved the old things. I didn't find the action in sync with some of the story elements and that really hurt my experience. I tried to just enjoy what was on screen as a fan of the slasher genre but as the audience don't ask me to think cleverly and then make things convenient for yourself. I went to Halloween for the mindless kills and thrills and while I did enjoy the effective suspenseful moments and violent kills and do appreciate the efforts on behalf of the filmmakers and writers to try and give this a fresh feel, I just couldn't get past the inconsistencies in their storytelling. Maybe on the rewatch the score might go up as I learn to appreciate what I did like and what entertained me. But going with no expectations and still being let down by the logic and while not as bad as in The Predator, I thought they made a mockery out of one of my favorite killers of all time and while I could look the other way while you tweak things I've come to know, the new Myers tweaks don't clarify anything and instead had me working to make sense of stuff when I should have just been enjoying Halloween/Michael Myers kills.  Danny McBride Says Michael Myers No Longer Immortal in “Halloween” 2018........well then write the consequences appropriately, Danny!!!

Spoilers will be added later for those of you that already watched it and either Loved it or Hated it. Because I do want to elaborate on my low score.

I want to see this, Mike is my favorite killer and Jamie Lee is always top notch even in bad films

[Con 5,703]

Just now, Hatch said:

I want to see this, Mike is my favorite killer and Jamie Lee is always top notch even in bad films

Please go see it. Some people are really liking it. Jamie Lee’s performance is a highlight in this for sure. I just post how I felt about it and it’s not the definite opinion and actually would love to discuss it with people that are loving it. 

[Sinister 2,578]

Yeah, that opening scene was TERRIBLE. No reason for it to exist at all.

That "twist" was a wasted opportunity and frankly shouldn't exist either.

I enjoyed the kills and not much else to be honest.  It was just another in a long list of "meh" horror movies.

Watching it I had a feeling that you would be let down but I didn't want to rain on your parade

[Con 5,703]

59 minutes ago, Sinister said:

Yeah, that opening scene was TERRIBLE. No reason for it to exist at all.

That "twist" was a wasted opportunity and frankly shouldn't exist either.

I enjoyed the kills and not much else to be honest.  It was just another in a long list of "meh" horror movies.

Watching it I had a feeling that you would be let down but I didn't want to rain on your parade

You are absolutely right.

 

There was no need for that opening scene because as a fan of the series, I have never wanted to hear Michael Myers speak and after that opening, I spent the entire movie worried that one of my fave movie killers would have dialogue. I have been listening to positive reviews and I just wish I went to the movie they saw.

 now I saw a deleted shower scene that would have rocked and fit better than that opening scene, why? Because the deleted scene was subtle and more terrifying than some dude taunting MM to speak. You can see it in the video below. Even the reveal of that shower scene is smarter than some of the stuff that actually made it in the theatrical cut. The scene is at the 5:00 mark.

[\spoiler]

Edited October 25, 2018 by Con

[LimeGreenLegend 4,176]

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)

The Good:  Rami Malek.  Wow.  He really becomes Freddie Mercury.  The way he moves, his facial expressions, his mannerisms, how he speaks.  It's creepy how much he's channeling him, it's like he's possessed.  He also lip-syncs well.  It's obviously Freddie's actual singing voice, you can't copy that, but Malek is so good at performing like Freddie that you believe that noise is coming out of his mouth.  The same goes for the guy playing Bryan May, he's not actually playing the guitar, but the notes he's playing and the way he plays it is how you actually play the songs, which was cool because that would have annoyed me, especially as there's so much concert footage.  That's something else I really enjoyed, you see a lot of the band on stage and in the studio.  This is totally a film about the band and not just about Freddie, even though he is the main focus, and that seems to have upset some critics who wanted a grittier film getting into the dark things in Freddie's life.  When Sasha Baron Cohen was attached to play him that was the way he wanted to go, but honestly, I don't want to see a film about Freddie getting deep into drugs, unprotected gay sex at the height of the AIDS epidemic and eventually dying to that awful disease.  That would be depressing as fuck and not what Queen was about at all.  Queen was about fun and giving the people what they want, which is what this film does.  It touches on the darker things but the focus is on Freddie as a performer, which is what he did best.  It's also a funny film, funnier than I was expecting, especially the scenes with Mike Myers, and the constant piss-taking of the song "I'm In Love With My Car" had me laughing every time it came up.

I don't think I really need to say it, but the soundtrack is fucking great  

The Bad:  It really doesn't need to be over two hours long, it could easily lose a good twenty minutes.  It's also a very basic, by the numbers biopic.  You can probably guess the plot of the film already if you've seen films like Ray, Walk The Line etc.  The direction isn't great, it seems like a made for tv film sometimes, but the film did lose it's original director halfway through production before being replaced by Dexter Fletcher (who isn't credited) so that may explain that.  There are also a few dodgy effects shots during the Live Aid concert, which is mostly brilliant, and so close to the real thing it's scary.

The Ugly: Not really anything really bad to say about this film, apart from the fact that original director, and disgusting human trash paedophile scum Bryan Singer is still credited as director, even though he was fired/quit halfway through and seeing his name at the start of the film made me a little bit angry that he can still get work.  But none of that has anything to do with the film

Final Verdict: A basic film with a fantastic lead performance and the best soundtrack you could ask for. 7/10 (9/10 for Queen fans).

Hope you don't mind me stealing your review format, @Con

 

Edited October 28, 2018 by LimeGreenLegend

[djw180 6,842]

I saw Bohemian Rhapsody last night. Not much to add to @LimeGreenLegend's review. I'd probably go to 10/10 if you're a Queen fan, especially one like me who never got to see them live. The various concert scenes, and especially the Live Aid scene at the end, on a big screen are fantastic. I have to repeat how good the casting is as well. All the actors playing the band members do a great job but Joseph Mazello is especially good as John Deacon (the bassist), at some points I could easily have believed it was actual footage of John Deacon and not an actor. Of course it's not a documentary, so there are some things that are not "historically accurate", but that doesn't matter. However the pedant in me has to point out that Freddy and John did not join the band at the same time; Freddy first then they went through a few different bassist till they found one that fit,  they did not tour America playing Fat Bottomed girls in 1975 as it wasn't released till the Jazz album in 1978 and I think that tour they were supporting Mot the Hoople not headlining as the film implies, and likewise Brian May didn't write We Will Rock You in 1980 but a couple of years earlier in 1977 on News of the World. 

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by djw180

[zztop911 1,609]

Kung Fu Hustle

Not your typical Kung Fu movie!  It's NOT a serious Kung Fu movie!

Do NOT see under "herbal influence", unless you want a serious diaphragm workout. LOL!

Absolutely insanely hilarious! 

Extremely imaginative use of special effects.

Totally unpredictable!

And it's a love story!

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by zztop911

[Pb76 3,951]

@zztop911 I Love Kung Fu Hustle! There’s also shaolin soccer

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Pb76

[zztop911 1,609]

6 hours ago, Pb76 said:

@zztop911 I Love Kung Fu Hustle! There’s also shaolin soccer

 

Ultamoorine mentioned that movie also. I need to check it out.

[The_Lady_A 1,280]

Ralph Breaks the Internet/Wreck it Ralph 2

I'm a sucker for the first movie, and like it's predecessor it sits in a very strange place so far as disney movies go. It is very referential to popular culture, and while the first film largely looked at retro video games, this one looks at the internet in popular culture. Because it's dealing with subjects so up to date it may feel a lot more on the nose. Some parts could almost be seen as inspired by what the Emoji movie could have been. It uses the sandbox of a visualized internet world for a much more character driven story. However because it is so character driven, if you don't like either Ralph or Vanellope then the film as a whole may not be for you.

The references can be really distracting at points, with Buzzfeed, eBay, Disney and GTA (they changed the name) all featuring quite prominently. Yet in spite of this there is a really sweet, nuanced story about friendship held within.

I loved it, but your milage may definitely vary. Absolutely worth seeing the GTA references though.

Edited December 4, 2018 by The_Lady_A

[Squirrel 5,180]

Finally seen Bohemian Rhapsody. Such a great film. I wasn’t that hyped for it before. I’ve always liked Queen and grew up with the music but I’ve never really been fussed about biopic films. 

However after watching Mr Robot with Rami Malek I was impressed by his acting style and had to see the film. 

The cinema was still packed for a Wednesday evening showing, earlier viewings were sold out which is pretty impressive for a film weeks after release. 

Probably one of the best films I’ve seen this year. 

[Con 5,703]

Annihilation (2018)

The Awesome: The visuals are spectacular, from the cinematography to the color palettes, it just works, especially once we enter "The Shimmer".  I found some of the images rather original and certain set-pieces really wanted me to pause the movie and just enjoy what I was seeing. The acting was solid and kept me engaged in places where the dialogue was thin. Made me think of the universe as this one huge cell that just continues to divide and replicate like cancer cells do and I had never considered that analogy of the universe before. Tingled my inner-space nerd with what appears to be a random galactic act in which the filmmakers give us a different version of an often used sci-fi alien situation.

The Good: I liked that not everything was spelled out for us in the film which can lead to it having different meanings to each one of its viewers.  The conceptual theme of the entire thing was very profound and leaves many open and valid interpretations. I love the filmmakers use of the science behind atoms and cells of all things combining as one and then adapting and evolving regardless of the origin and value of the organism impacted. Special effects were superb and always took a few seconds for the brain to catch up with what was on screen. A few  moments of tension and thriller elements were done well and just wished there was more of that than there was unnecessary talking scenes.  Really made me think profoundly about the sci-fi themes presented.

The Bad: The themes of duplication, loss, mutation, change...are used to beat us on the head way too often, not only through exposition but also with the character backstories. It just felt heavy-handed throughout the entire film. Some scenes kind of come out of nowhere and can be really confusing as to what you are watching is it a character dream or vision??? which frustrated me and i think that is a flaw in the story-telling. One scene we are lead to believe a person is gone forever and then a few scenes later, they appear and its just confusing because the characters seem more confused than I was about what the fuck was going on....and this is before the movie gets really confounding. The filmmakers decision to intertwine the character psychological states with the phenomenon happening around them really weighed the movie down as I felt everything was becoming needless exposition into the lives of characters that I became disconnected from since not even the main character had a realistic valid reason to venture into "The Shimmer"... I didn't get her purpose to go on that journey, to find a cure??? but for what exactly, when they didn't have a diagnosis (almost like, hey lets go to this strange world and find a pharmacy or something), it just didn't work for me. 

The Ugly: I just didn't enjoy elements of the storytelling because for me it didn't really go anywhere. The payoff didn't impact me the way it probably should have and that is due to not finding myself fully engaged in the main character's plot. I really didn't understand the pacing and order the story was told. By showing us survivors interviewed in the first 10 minutes of the movie, it really takes away from the tension and the climax of the flashbacks since we know who makes it and who doesn't and thanks to the slow pacing of the second act, I really didn't care how the other characters died. And that is what i mean by it felt like the story needed to be edited better as it felt out of order. The scene where the team is introduced comes almost out of nowhere and was kind of cut and paste since I was not convinced by the passion and reasoning of these women to go on the assignment, how could I when we are told early on that for three years several military and otherwise well-trained teams have been sent and no one comes back. No drones, no robots, no elite special operation teams....no one has come back, but maybe if four psychologically damaged females go, perhaps they can find something?? And also the lack of other scientists and military personnel around "The Shimmer" was kind of odd, almost like after three years of this thing growing, no one cared anymore except this military installation? I just felt like the film was forcing me to look at the psychological parallels and not the amazing science elements they had introduced. 

Final Verdict: ...3/5... I really wanted to love this because of the interesting take on the sci-fi element but it just didn't do it for me thanks to what I felt was the heavy-handed analogy of self-destruction and relationship drama. I didn't get how this team of women was chosen to enter the area and discover what was there, unless I missed the correlation in the last act since what I understood was that these women were fractured and is why they were a better choice, and that just came across as filler instead of story. While a lot of the scenes with the flora and fauna were fantastic, I felt that there weren't enough of them and some of the best moments involved the mutations, I wanted more of that than the human drama which for me, really didn't add significance to the story. It felt like two movies of different genres in one, and a more interesting story line for our main character would have elevated this for me since I enjoyed the mystery of "The Shimmer" and the way that part of the story is told and the deep thought inducing results. 

This post has been promoted to an article
Edited December 10, 2018 by Con

[Fido_le_muet 5,197]

13 hours ago, Con said:

Annihilation (2018)

I loved it but I agree it was a bit confusing at times.

[Con 5,703]

3 hours ago, Fido_le_muet said:

I loved it but I agree it was a bit confusing at times.

I can see why people did love it. It’s a deep philosophical film and I truly loved the concept of what is happening around the lighthouse and the “what will happen with the shimmer in 10 years...if it doesn’t go away.”, we could discuss that for days and I absolutely loved the mental gymnastics it put me through...I just couldn’t get into the character motivation and is it “Love” that allows certain people to leave the shimmer but then that story element also falls apart. 

[Con 5,703]

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)

The Awesome: Production and design lived up to the hype, considering they were going to have to pull off convincing us that this family was ultra-rich and they succeeded because everything looks and feels expensive once we enter the lives of those wealthy families. The energy of the film is electric and that is attributed to the spirit the actors brought to the film. I loved that the themes in the film are so universal that I barely noticed the all-Asian cast. The cast did a great job moving the story along and many brought depth to what could have been irrelevant characters. I especially related to one thing that Rachel (Constance Wu) goes through when she arrives in Singapore, being viewed as a 'foreigner' in the motherland. Enjoyed the cultural elements presented in the relationships, like arranged marriages and pre-planned families, things my culture does not practice directly, I say that because at the end of the day, every parent wants their children to marry the most financially secure candidate. Rachel's last lines of dialogue to Eleanor at the Mahjong table basically saved the film because up to that point there was nothing spectacular in the script until the "...just a daughter of an immigrant and a nobody, who made it all possible." line blew the roof off. One thing i appreciated was there were No martial arts moments. Another thing I appreciated from the design was that although we were in modern mansions and opulent locations, they still breath traditional Chinese culture and tradition. 

The Good: Although the rom-com conflict isn't anything we haven't seen before, I thought Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh) and Rachel truly captured the tension needed in their relationship for the film to work. The character of Eleanor was hypnotizing and the subtle touches that made her vulnerable and dominating all while staying in super classy form really made her come to life. I found her dangerous, like she could call some people to deal with you but prefers doing it herself...she was a solid antagonist. The Chinese/American Vogue dress joke was hilarious. The film served to show that regardless of your race or culture, we can't escape the universal human element and themes regardless of how much you think you are different from everyone else. Really related to Rachel when she arrives in Singapore and is told she won't be considered full Chinese because she was raised in the USA. I had a similar experience when I visited Central America...although I was born there, being raised in the USA since the age of 4,  somehow made me less Central American and was told that i even spoke spanish differently even though I'm fluent in all aspects of the language. Feeling semi-rejected by your own hometown was not something I expected, just like Rachel experiences. While not a huge fan of the Astrid (Gemma Chan) and Michael (Michael Teo) sub-plot, I did love how they gave the wealthy Astrid a point-of-view and brought out the unapologetic humanity in her character. I thought I would miss out on the regional inside jokes but didn't feel there were any references that went over my head.

The Bad: Early on we see Rachel and Nick (Henry Golding) at a cafe in NYC and two women snap a pic of both of them, these women work for a TMZ-ish site called Radio1Asia and the pics go viral.....but just in China??? and if that is true, then how the F' doesn't Rachel's best friend in China, Peik (Awkwafina) become aware of the relationship?? Peik only learns of the relationship after Rachel arrives in Singapore and visits her. That bothered me that everyone in Singapore knew about the relationship except the hometown best friend. At times the film came across as just a set up to future sequels as I found it to have a lot more flash than substance. The story was predictable as they usually are in this genre. The rich are better than us because they say so. The fact that it took Hollywood 25 years to once again, get out of the comfort zone and show us that we all share the same life themes and experiences and they are not limited to just one culture or part of the world.

The Ugly: A lot of cuts and edits were so disorienting that I found myself on a few occasions wondering if we had changed country locations. Like the Mahjong scene...i honestly thought that was happening in NYC. I thought it would have more comedy and wanted to laugh out loud but only Peik's character is consistently funny and she almost steals the entire film. The Astrid and Michael sub-plot was a bit muddled and could have used more scandal and I hated how the two wait for the most inopportune time to discuss their situation, i rolled my eyes because I was like, "right now, ya' gonna do this right now? more important shit going on you two"... and is why having their story surface here and there with no real meaning mad e me feel like their story is only there to setup the sequel, hence turning my interest in their story to a minimum, although i did appreciate giving Astrid's side of things a voice when their story is resolved. 

Final Verdict: ...3/5...  I was hoping it was going to be a real funny rom-com but it was actually more serious than I expected. Although I appreciated them keeping any slapstick and physical comedy out of the film, I thought the script had plenty of opportunity for some serious belly-laughs and that is not to say the film is without it's funny moments, I was just expecting to laugh a lot more. I was impressed with the balance in set design between the modern wealth and the rich historical culture and how you can see both in every scene once we arrive in Singapore.  I really enjoyed the cast and the messages from both the regular and wealthy point of views. The film has a stylish-classic feel to it and from the starting credits, it makes you feel like you are going to watch something from 1960 and the film benefits from it. One thing I could not get over was the notion that some cultures control the family path to such extreme degrees. Nick is the heir to all this wealth and he still has to yield to his mother's desires and expectations, that is just so strange to me. It was a cool rom-com because it wasn't too sappy or heavy on the sentiments. We didn't get a lead that cried the entire time and I loved her toughness. I'm not impressed by material wealth so the opulence throughout the film gets boring and I even laughed at the wedding with the water flowing down the aisle...lmao...I thought it was silly. All that money and you want to have a swamp wedding. lmao. I am looking forward to the next RCA film and hope they take the characters and elements that worked and make the entire sequel out of those things. 

 

This post has been promoted to an article

[The_Lady_A 1,280]

Into the Spiderverse.

That was the best Spider-Man movie and one of the best Superheroes/Comicbook movies of all time.

[LimeGreenLegend 4,176]

6 hours ago, The_Lady_A said:

Into the Spiderverse.

That was the best Spider-Man movie and one of the best Superheroes/Comicbook movies of all time.

Excuse me...

Can't wait to see Into The Spiderverse, looks incredible.

Edited December 18, 2018 by LimeGreenLegend

[The_Lady_A 1,280]

13 hours ago, LimeGreenLegend said:

Excuse me...

Can't wait to see Into The Spiderverse, looks incredible.

I see you Japanese Spider-Man and raise you Italian Spider-Man!

 

[Con 5,703]

Yeah that’s only because ya both never seen Indian Spiderwoman and Superman: 

 

[Con 5,703]

The House That Jack Built (2018)

The Awesome: Explicitly intense. The balls it took to make film with such thematic violent content especially since the director is already on people's shit lists. The Dante's Inferno element was fantastic as I have always enjoyed that literary masterpiece. It also reminded me of one of my fave serial killer films, American Psycho, so having element of that film and Dante's Inferno had me glued to the screen. While the violence is shocking it never felt gratuitous as most of the time the camera turns away from the violent action and really only see gore in the aftermaths. The hunting scene was tremendous and one of the most controversial scenes as it is responsible for people walking out of theatres which i find an utter joke considering what occurs and has happened in real life massacres. The cinematography is beautiful and is in full contrast with the dark theme of the film. Matt Dillon as Jack is almost a revelation...his acting and the way camera angles are used really enhance his subtle moments and also manages to capture his humanity despite his behavior. The visuals of the third act really had me excited and I sat at the edge of my seat waiting to see where it was leading and I just found it tremendous. The film left me thinking, do we all end up in the same place at the end and how fractured will my bridge be. The setup of the amazing hunting scene was a highlight as I had no idea where it was going and when it culminates....holy fucking fuck. The metaphor of the house Jack is building is just brilliant as it had me expecting one thing and what we actually get is fucking tremendous.

The Good: The craft of taking violence from a script and turning it into something visually interesting through beautiful cinematography allows those moments not to come across as just gore-porn like we see in films like Hostel. Diving into the mind of serial killer has always been interesting for me so watching Jack's story unfold was cool because in the end it all made sense, his motivations, his thoughts, his past, all which explain his violence. I enjoyed the stock clips used to further explain the metaphors, some people didn't enjoy those elements but I really appreciated them, take the wine explanation, yes they can come across as self indulgence by the filmmaker but I found they all worked really well in the context they were used. The film is almost three hours but for me it didn't feel like it since I was fine going along for the ride as I wanted to know if Jack was going to get what he deserves or was he going to get away with everything, which I find terrifying in itself. I watched the third act in awe as I recognized many of the imagery and those scenes were done so masterfully that I would love to see the inspiration of the third act have it own film but shot in that style we see in this film. The The balance of the horrific and subtle moments of comedy, yes, there are some well placed moments where you will chuckle because Jack shows signs of humanity and that at times conflicts him and leads to much needed light moments. I felt the interview/narration element was used expertly as I wanted to know who Jack was speaking to, was it himself, a counselor, a psychiatrist, or his own conscience, but it never gets in the way and when it is finally revealed, I was fully satisfied. One of the reasons I say viewers need to have an interest in true crime and serial killers is because if you don't have some knowledge of incidents involving serial killers you will find Jack's victims and police as very dumb and unrealistic. But a lot of what I saw mirrored real life stories I have read about, like one Jeffrey Dahmer story where his victim managed to escape into the street right into a cop but because the victim was drunk and gay, the cop dismissed his cries for help and actually handed him back to Jeffrey who easily convinced the cop the victim was his drunk lover just being upset. So knowing that sometimes situations and plain luck have allowed killers to go unsuspected is a very realistic element used in this film, so when I read reviews that claim things like "real cops wouldn't behave like its portrayed in the film", it gets me a little upset because they assume they are right. 

The Bad: People that don't do their research and go into films like this one without knowing what they are walking into...in other words, if you go to a Quentin Tarantino film and hate the film because of the filthy language, then you didn't do your research on his body of work. This is what has happened to this film, yes, the director is known for fucked up movies that usually feel like he just threw some scenes together and added controversial themes, but I felt the narrative really worked and was cohesive, and while some parts are a bit artsy and self indulgent, I think people need to get a grip and research what they are spending money on. The film jumps from the present to the past to stock footage and that can be disorienting. There was one short scene where the camera spins and spins while dialogue is being said and it bothered me because the camera spinning went on too long and I only tolerated it in the hopes it would freeze on some creepy shit. This film is not for everyone. It isn't for the squeamish and it isn't for sensitive viewers. You really have to want to know what makes a serial killer tick and why so many get away with so much before being caught. One of the "incidents" I had a problem with was one where Jack talks himself into a home and i felt that scene was a bit contrived because i felt the dialogue could have been mixed up a bit to make the victim's choices feel more realistic since I felt Jack had really ruined his chances of being welcomed to enter the home. The movie is longer than it should be in some places and I think that is why the filmmaker is accused of self-indulgence not to mention that he uses images of his previous films in flash cuts. 

The Ugly: People that walked out of this film at the Cannes Film Festival get a pass from me because it's France and they aren't used to violence against children like we see in school shootings and mass shootings in the USA, so I can see why scenes depicting the slaughter of children could turn the European viewers off. But knowing I'm watching fiction doesn't give me the same disgust that real life incidents do so I was not angry at those scenes the way some American audiences have trashed the film, but they are missing the value in that part of the storytelling. I didn't think the occasional stock footage of animals being destroyed was needed to move the story forward as after the first act we had a good idea what that metaphor was implying. There is one brutal flashback scene involving the mutilation of a duckling and the outrage it has received is fucking laughable to me because while the scene is really fucked up, it is still fictional and is a realistic, tonally correct, and clinically proven early behavior of all serial killers as 100% of them start by torturing and mutilating animals before they move up to human prey and while the scene will upset animal lovers like myself, I found it easy to separate fiction from reality and that's probably because I have seen plenty of industrial & laboratory animal cruelty videos and know that what happens in real life to animals in industries is far more horrific than the special effect in that scene. Some critics have also attacked the film for being misogynistic but again that has to come from people with no clue about the material since there is a reason why serial killers prey more on women than men. It's just common sense for them and it's not necessarily because serial killers find women weaker, it has more to do with women being more open to helping people in need and letting their guard down around men they don't feel could pose as a possible threat to their lives. Now if the critics are basing their opinion on the filmmaker's past films, well then they must have been watching this movie while thinking of the other films by the same filmmaker that had nothing to do with this one. 

Final Verdict: ...4/5... I cannot apologize for really liking this film. Yes it gets artsy in some places and our main character gets long-winded at times but it never distracted me and really liked how the artsy imagery was used in the third act because once we arrive at the end it just seemed fitting considering the material that inspired it. Serial killer films like Zodiac follow many characters including the killer, but here, just like in the American Psycho film, there is an underlying darkness to it thanks to the unhinged main character we are following around. I laugh at the outrage and people walking out of this film, I mean you are told it's about a serial killer...what are people expecting to see??? If you are like me and just enjoy diving into the darkness of man, the psyche, mental instability, or disconnection required to operate as a serial killer, then I recommend this fully. If you don't do well with films that focus on a character's violent tendencies then you should probably skip this one. I found The House That Jack Built to be an interesting take on the serial killer genre with it's visuals, superb performance by Matt Dillon, throw into the mix some haunting set pieces, moments of curious metaphorical exposition by the main character, unapologetic violence, a narration element that is clear but has you guessing until the very end, and what I felt was a fantastic ending to it all. Did I find this disturbing? No, i did not because while what is shown is based on things that have happened in real life, I was far more disturbed and physically ill watching the film Spotlight about the Boston Globe Newspaper exposing the pedophile priests and their enablers, basically an ignored child molestation ring. Spotlight, now that is disturbing cinema.

This post has been promoted to an article

Edited January 1, 2019 by Con

[LimeGreenLegend 4,176]

@Con really looking forward to The House That Jack Built.  Lars Von Trier is one of my favourite directors, most of his films are very fucked up and very artsy  

[Con 5,703]

2 minutes ago, LimeGreenLegend said:

@Con really looking forward to The House That Jack Built.  Lars Von Trier is one of my favourite directors, most of his films are very fucked up and very artsy  

I tried not to spoil anything in my review so feel free to read it. But don't do more research regarding the movie because you can spoil some things and trust me, your brain will thank you if you experience it the way I did. I knew it was about a serial killer and it was controversial at Cannes. 

If you are a fan of the director, then you have to watch it!! I'm not too familiar with his work besides Dogville which I watched a long time ago before I understood filmmaking. From what i have been reading regarding this Von Trier film is that it is his most cohesive and has a solid narrative. I think you will enjoy it because while the material is horrific, it is based on real life and it is wonderfully cinematic. Don't hesitate watching it so we can discuss it!!! 

[zztop911 1,609]

Thanks for the warning Con. I won't be seeing that movie. Even though it's been MANY years, I can still vividly recall the images and SMELLS  of the barbarism enacted upon young lives. I sticks with you. It embeds itself inside you.

[Con 5,703]

15 minutes ago, zztop911 said:

Thanks for the warning Con. I won't be seeing that movie. Even though it's been MANY years, I can still vividly recall the images and SMELLS  of the barbarism enacted upon young lives. I sticks with you. It embeds itself inside you.

Although the film doesn't focus on children, it is the element that has people walking out of and it's understandable for someone who has witnessed dead children. I watched a review of this film by an ex-cop on Fangoria YT channel and he really brought great insight and opinion. I personally didn't think that particular scene was nasty or over the top or done for controversial reasons. because in context of the story being told it adds to the full darkness of the main character. 

Edited January 1, 2019 by Con

[Con 5,703]

9 minutes ago, zztop911 said:

Thanks for the warning Con. I won't be seeing that movie. Even though it's been MANY years, I can still vividly recall the images and SMELLS  of the barbarism enacted upon young lives. I sticks with you. It embeds itself inside you.

I do have a recommendation for you that I will review later because I had a blast watching it...its called UPGRADE with Logan Marshall-Green. It's set in the somewhat future about a man that becomes a quadriplegic and is given the option to walk again and find the men that killed his wife and left him a prisoner in his own body.