Rate the Last Film you Watched

[Sinister 2,578]

15 hours ago, LimeGreenLegend said:

Doctor Sleep

dir. Mike Flanagan

Doctor Sleep, written and directed by Mike Flanagan from the Stephen King novel, is a sequel to Kubrick's The Shining, starring Ewan McGregor as a grown up Danny Torrance who is haunted by the ghosts of his past and, like his father, has a real serious drinking problem.  This film reminded me of Psycho 2.  That was released in 1983, 23 years after the legendary Hitchcock masterpiece, and when I watched it I was expecting it to be shit.  Turns out Psycho 2 was a great film, it didn't just copy and paste the story from the original, it was respectful to the status of the original, and it actually added something substantial to the lore of the story.  This is the same with Doctor Sleep.

Danny has grown up trying to hide his shine, drinking his pain away.  But one day he forms a mental link with a young girl, Abra (Kyliegh Curran) who can shine as much as he can, and they become mind pen-pals.  But she has also gained the attention of the True Knot gang, led by Rose the Hat (Rebecca Ferguson).  These dudes are basically vampires, but instead of blood they feed on the "steam" released by people who shine when they are in extreme pain and dying.  This is strongest in children, so they roam the country abducting, torturing and killing children, which we see in a pretty harrowing scene with "baseball kid".  When they sense Abra, they sense a huge food source that could sustain them for decades, so they set out to get her.  This is where Dan steps in to help her fight them, culminating in a great finale at the abandoned Overlook Hotel.

What I liked about this film is that it doesn't really get going until about an hour in.  Instead we spend time with Danny, Abra, and the True Knot, getting to know them and actually care about them.  These aren't just disposable sexy teens in a slasher flick.  The performances from all three leads are all great, especially McGregor.  He has this look on his face that absolutely sells the pain and trauma that he's been dealing with since he was five years old.  The directing is pretty good.  It does borrow a lot of shots and edits from The Shining, and no one looks good when they try to copy Kubrick, but on the whole it's solid.  There are a couple of dreamlike shots that I really liked, Rose the Hat soaring above the clouds searching for Abra especially.  The music also borrows a lot of cues from the original soundtrack, but the original score is good on its own.  I would like to watch this again in a double bill with The Shining and get the full story. 

I found this surprisingly good, entertaining throughout, and a worthy sequel to a legendary film.  I'd recommend it to anyone, especially horror fans (@Con ) 8/10

 

 

Fun fact, the kid that played the original Danny Torrance lives in my home town back in Kentucky. He is a teacher and my wife took one of his courses at the Community College. He has no interest in discussing the movie or anything about its filming. 

[LimeGreenLegend 4,173]

4 hours ago, Sinister said:

Fun fact, the kid that played the original Danny Torrance lives in my home town back in Kentucky. He is a teacher and my wife took one of his courses at the Community College. He has no interest in discussing the movie or anything about its filming. 

He has a cameo in this, he only did those two films. 

[LimeGreenLegend 4,173]

Hair Love

dir. Matthew A. Cherry, Everett Downing Jr, Bruce W. Smith

Hair Love is a short film about a father bonding with his daughter by learning how to do her hair.  This won the Oscar for animated short this year, and it popped up on my YouTube recommendations this morning, so I thought I'd give it a watch.  I loved this.  I loved the contrast between the backgrounds which look like they're drawn in chalk and the crisp, clean character models.  The music is fantastic, really setting the mood, whether it's a fantastical scene, like with the boxing ring, or the more emotional moments.  I won't say anything about the story because it's not even seven minutes long and I'll link it below, watch it yourself, but there are a couple of really well done twists, and it left me in tears.  This tells a better story in it's short time than a lot of other films.  Well deserving of it's Oscar, 9/10

 

 

[Con 5,703]

The Babysitter (2017) ...2/5... Horror comedy about a babysitter that protects the teen boys she watches from bullying but only for a satanic reason. Think Fright Night and Evil Dead but with a babysitter, except while the violence was over the top in Evil Dead, it carried a serious tone when it happened. Some of the CGI gore is bad and takes away from the gory deaths. I think it would have worked for me as a more serious movie since it does a great job at establishing a great relationship between the babysitter and the lead...but when nothing else is taken serious enough, i mean, a person gets shot and flies across the room after we just watched a realistic death just moments before. Take a scene where cops show up and get slaughtered and its like is the entire neighborhood dead too? Why should you watch it? The chemistry between the babysitter and the boy is worth watching. Imagine if your hot babysitter was teaching you the ropes. The film is getting a sequel...cannot wait not to see it. This is for the under 14 crowd to sneak watch. 

 

[Con 5,703]

Once Upon A Time in Hollywood (2019) ...3/5... I was not enamored with the love letter to old Hollywood cause I was born after that era so I had no nostalgic attachment to the 60's at all and will never feel fondness as I don't admire that era in general. Brad Pitt and DiCaprio are their usual amazing acting selves so they make the film work. I just didn't see the point of it, not even the dialogue was cool like it usually is for a QT film. Character study that turns into historical fantasy. There are better stories that were going on in Hollywood at the time but the Sharon Tate thing was chosen and I found that part adds nothing to the story except gives Pitt the confrontation. At 2+ hours it went on too long to basically say nothing. I would have preferred a film that focused on all the stunt men and how THEY made the actors famous by risking their lives and how 60's Hollywood did not appreciate their talent and contributions. I'm a fan of QT's work but I probably wont watch this again unless its the director's commentary.

------------

In Search of Darkness - A Journey Into Iconic 80's Horror (2019) ...5/5... Now this was nostalgic on all levels for me. I had to watch it in a span of three days cause it is 4+ hours of documentary and I couldn't get enough! I will save my thoughts for the 'Must See Doc' thread in here later. 

------------

Underwater (2019) ...3/5... Some real good costume design is probably the best thing I can say about this. Take parts from all the underwater adventure films like The Abyss, Leviathan, etc... and "Alien-type" films, throw them in a blender and pour it out and you get this film. Nothing is original at all and is basically an homage film to everything similar that came before it. I loved the set designs as you really feel as if they are trapped in the Mariana's trench. It's a great film if you have nothing to do and have no expectations but if you want something fresh....fuhggeddaboutit. This is a rainy day film if I ever saw one. This film made me watch Leviathan cause I wanted to compare it to something I had liked more. At times I was more terrified of the deep sea pressure than the monster threat. This film probably deserves a 2/5 but like in all these films, I have to take into account the challenge it is to create an underwater based film. Hence the three star status I usually give these films even when story is predictable. 

----------

Leviathan (1989) ...3/5... Basically "The Thing" underwater...i mean right down to the monster transformations but the cast makes this so much fun that you can forgive the imitation attempt. Unlike in Underwater (2019) I cared for the crew in Leviathan because they were more likable and granted, Underwater starts right away, no time to really get to know the characters until they are in danger. What Leviathan did was create tension between the crew that was effective in throwing you off what was going to happen next. I also feel the effects in this were better since we get to see more of the parasite and transformations. Surprisingly, this film ends with a man punching a woman in the face, why was this an interesting choice? Well there is also a woman with the man that had every right to punch the woman too. Again, the challenge of doing underwater features is not lost with me and the film would need to be truly awful for me to give underwater films less than three stars as I feel they are small achievements on their own.

----------

My ratings explained...

0/5...Hope you are drunk and pass out and just miss it entirely.

1/5...Watch something else you already love.

2/5...Seen it done better before with less plot-holes, confusion, or silly elements. Film breaks it's own rules!!

3/5...I could watch this again...if I had to.

4/5...I have to watch this again and again. Will watch the commentary and everything behind the scenes. Cast interviews, etc.

5/5...Everything came together. Script, Direction, Acting, Production Design, Music, and there was something in it that was close or spoke to my spirit. Personal favorite. Probably will buy and happily own.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Con

[LimeGreenLegend 4,173]

Casablanca

dir. Michael Curtiz

Casablanca, directed by Michael Curtiz is an absolute Hollywood classic.  Starring Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman, it tells the story of Rick (Bogart), a world weary club owner in the town of Casablanca during WWII.  The town is the last port of call for people fleeing Europe and the Nazis, but the effort of getting a visa and actually leaving is too much for most people, so they remain stuck there, spending their nights drinking at Rick's, listening to Sam (Dooley Wilson) tinkle the ivories.  Into this world comes Victor Laszlow (Paul Henreid), leader of an underground resistance, and his wife Ilsa (Bergman), an old flame of Ricks, "of all the gin joints in all the towns, in all the world, she walked into mine."  The film then becomes the story of Rick and this couple.  Will he help them?  Will he leave with the woman himself?  Will he make the choice for the greater good?  The ending of this film is well known, I knew what he was going to do, but seeing it play out still had me wondering what he would do thanks to Bogart's performance.  His final speech to Ilsa is heartbreaking, "you'll regret it, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life."

The script for this film is incredible, full of quotable lines, mostly Bogart's, and he really sells them from the off-hand put downs to the searing speeches.  Bergman is also brilliant as the woman torn between two men.  The supporting cast is made up of a whole host of memorable side characters; Rick's rival club owner, the local French police captain, Renault, and Rick's trusty waiter Carl being my favourites.  The direction isn't anything special, but it lets you focus on the chemistry between Bogart and Bergman, and the moral arguments Bogart has with himself, which is mostly played out with just facial expressions.  The music is also fantastic, and plays a large part of the plot, especially the relationship between Rick and Ilsa.  

I would recommend this film to anyone at all.  It's a hard-boiled romance story starring one of the coolest dudes in film history (Bogart in his white tux just looks bad-fucking-ass) with some of the most quotable lines of any script ever written, "here's looking at you kid," "we'll always have Paris," "play it, Sam."  This could be the start of a beautiful friendship 9/10

 

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by LimeGreenLegend

[LimeGreenLegend 4,173]

The Last Black Man in San Francisco 

dir. Joe Talbot

tLBMiSF is the debut film from director Joe Talbot and lead actor Jimmie Fails.  Fails plays Jimmie Fails, a semi-fictionalised version of himself in this sort of biopic.  The plot sees him trying to regain his childhood home, built by his grandfather (the "first black man in San Francisco") and subsequently lost by his father.  He is aided by his best friend, Montgomery (Johnathon Majors), a wannabe playwrite who lives with his grandfather (Danny Glover).  

I can't believe this is the first film from Talbot, the direction is excellent.  He really shoots the city with a loving eye, showing his affection for it, and has already established a unique look that evokes early Wes Anderson films, but with a modern feel.  The script is also littered with great supporting characters; the old white couple who now own Fails' home, the street preacher, Fails' father, and the gang who hang around outside his house acting sort of like a Greek chorus for the film.  All of these characters are bought to life with great performances, but the standout is Fails himself, who gives a powerfully restrained performance building up to a surge of emotion toward the end of the film.

This is a really good film with a strong message about belonging somewhere, the power of "home", and what our personal histories mean to us and how they shape our lives.  A stunning debut that marks Talbot out as someone to watch 8/10

Edited March 2, 2020 by LimeGreenLegend

[LimeGreenLegend 4,173]

Greed

dir. Michael Winterbottom

Greed, directed by Michael Winterbottom, is a satire on the high-street fashion industry starring his longtime collaborator, Steve Coogan.  Coogan plays "Greedy" McCreadie, a billionaire fashion mogul who is approaching his 60th birthday.  To celebrate he organises a huge party in Greece involving celebrities paid to be there (there's a cameo during a flashback that was hilarious) and a replica of the coliseum, complete with lions to fight.  This is juxtaposed with a camp of Syrian refugees who have set up on the beach just next to his villa, and the plight of the low paid workers in the factories actually making his clothes.  

This film doesn't seem to know what it wants to be.  Sure, it's a satire, but it never seems to commit to being either a comedy or a serious film, and never really succeeds at either.  I think I laughed only a couple of times, and I'm a huge fan of Winterbottom and Coogan's previous films together, 24 Hour Party People, A c*ck and Bull Story, and all series of The Trip.  It's also a pretty basic film with pretty two dimensional characters.  I get it, rich people are stupid and selfish.  It's not telling us anything new, or in a new way.  

I did like the plotlines involving his children, particularly his daughter, who is followed around by a camera crew because she's the star of a scripted reality programme, but this never really goes anywhere, it's just a thing that happens.  I'd recommend this to anyone who is a fan of Coogans but you won't be seeing his best work here 6/10

============================================================================================================

Swiss Army Man

dir. Daniels

Swiss Army Man, directed by the team of Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert who go by the name Daniels, is the story of a man lost on an island who is going to kill himself, but stops when he sees a body washed up on the shore.  This corpse (Daniel Radcliffe) gives him companionship and a reason to live and becomes the best friend he could ever hope for.  The film is called Swiss Army Man because the corpse has amazing powers, it can vomit up clean rainwater to drink, it has Action Man style karate chop arms that can cut wood, and his farts propel him through the water, allowing Hank (Paul Dano) to ride him like a jetski. 

This is an amazing movie, I loved every second.  The performances by Dano and Radcliffe are the best of their careers.  Even though one of them is dead, I really believed in their friendship, and how much they need each other.  The directing is fantastic too, not too flashy, everything serves the story.  And the script is one of the best from the last decade.  Radcliffe has a scene where he describes what masturbation is and honestly it's one of the most beautiful speeches.  I was in tears at the end.  Tears.  At dead Harry Potter talking about jerking off!  The use of farts is also beautifully used as a metaphor that bought me to tears.  But that's this whole film.  On the surface you think it's just gonna be a one note joke, but this is genuinely one of the most touching films about loneliness and love and friendship and belonging somewhere and what it means to live and be human.  No, really!  

The use of music is also brilliant.  Sometimes the characters break out singing along with the score (don't worry @Con it's not a musical), which is beautiful, and there is also a hilarious use of the Jurassic Park theme.  Watch this film 9/10

============================================================================================================

Scarface: The Shame of a Nation

dir. Howard Hawks

Scarface: The Shame of a Nation, as it's now known, is a gangster film directed by Howard Hawks and starring Paul Muni as Tony "Scarface" Camonte, enforcer and hitman for gang boss Johnny Lovo.  Camonte has a l*st for power though, and soon starts making moves to become the boss, spurred on by the holiday advertisement across from his apartment telling him "the world is yours".  I really liked this film, putting it on almost the same level as the legendary 1983 remake with Al Pacino.  Just like Pacino, Muni gives an incredible performance, imbuing his Scarface with an almost childlike glee at destruction and violence, and a cocky swagger that makes you think he could take on the world and win.

If you think this will be a slow and boring film because it was made in 1932 then you'd be sadly mistaken.  This film zips along at breakneck pace as we follow Muni from one killing to the next, tommy gun in hand and a maniacal laugh filling your ears.  If you've seen the remake then you know the story, as the remake stayed pretty faithful, just transferring the action to Miami in the 80s and substituting bo*ze for cocaine. 

This was a thrilling and entertaining watch from beginning to end, but it is really Muni's performance that you're staying around for, he is scarily captivating in every scene, and is easily the match for Pacino's Tony Montana.  Now that would be a hell of a film, Camonte v Montana.  Scarface v Scarface.  8/10

=============================================================================================================

Ladri di Biciclette (The Bicycle Thief/Bicycle Thieves)

dir. Vittorio De Sica

Ladri bi Biciclette is an Italian postwar neorealist film by Vittorio De Sica.  It stars Lamberto Maggiorani as Antonio Ricci, a poor working class man who is on the hunt for a job.  He manages to find one, pasting up movie posters, but he needs a bike to do it.  He has one, but it's in the pawn shop.  His wife pawns their bedsheets to get enough money to get his bike back, and he can go to work.  All is going well for their little family, but on his first day his bike is stolen, and we then spend the rest of the film with him and his son Bruno (Enzo Staiola) as he tries to find who stole it and get it back.  

This is a beautiful film in all aspects.  The direction is fantastic, really placing us in these people's lives, and the gorgeous cinematography really helps with that.  The streets of Rome look so real that it almost feels like a documentary.  I mean, they were real as the entire film was shot on location, but they didn't try to pretty it up for the screens, this is the real Rome.  The performance of the lead is also incredible, especially when you learn that he's not an actor, none of the cast is.  De Sica cast amateurs in every role because he wanted that realism in the performances, and he got it.  You really feel for this guy as he desperately scrambles around Rome trying to find his bike, and the ending is so heartbreaking, and gives a new meaning to the title.

The music is great too, the main theme, a haunting melancholy melody, really adds to the overall sombre atmosphere of the movie.  This film also has a beautifully shown relationship between father and son, one of the most real and relatable relationships I've seen in any film 8/10

=============================================================================================================

Emma.

dir. Autumn de Wilde

Emma. (the period is part of the title) is a period comedy based on the Jane Austen novel, the directorial debut of Autumn de Wilde, and the screenwriting debut of Eleanor Catton, Booker Prize winning author of The Luminaries (amazing book).  It tells the story of Emma Woodhouse, a precocious young girl who is rich and bored and has nothing better to do than try to interfere in the love lives of those around her, especially her friend Harriet Smith (Mia Goth).  This mainly involves her childhood friend George Knightly (Johnny Flynn) a dishevelled but handsome young lord of a nearby manor, and Mr. Elton (Josh O'Conner) the local vicar.  

This is a real comedy of manners and I found it, having never read the book, a lot funnier than I was expecting, much like The Personal History of David Copperfield from last month.  The always brilliant Bill Nighy is especially funny as Emma's father, the hypochondriac Mr. Woodhouse, who is always feeling a draught.  Miranda Hart, who I'm not usually a fan of, also gives a great showing as Miss Bates, not just funny but also sympathetic, especially during the picnic scene where Emma says something very cutting about her to her face, meaning it as a joke, but it is pretty harsh, and Hart plays the scene beautifully.  

The film also looks gorgeous.  Very reminiscent of Wes Anderson, there is symmetry in nearly every shot, and the colour palette is full of beautifully bright pastels.  The music is also very complimentary, light and airy it helps the film skip along as if on a breeze 8/10

=============================================================================================================

Clueless

dir. Amy Heckerling

Clueless, written and directed by Amy Heckerling (Fast Times at Ridgemont High) stars Alicia Silverstone and is a modern day (at the time) retelling of Emma.  Transferring the story from 18th century England to 20th century Beverly Hills works really well, and Heckerling manages to hit all of the same story beats while at the same time making a wholly original teen comedy.  We have Cher (Silverstone) in place of Emma, a rich, spoiled LA brat who is obsessed with fashion and money and social standing.  When a new girl arrives at school, Tai (Brittany Murphy), Cher takes it upon herself to adopt her as a friend and make her over in her own image, even helping her to get with Elton (Jeremy Sisto).  But Elton was only showing interest in Tai to get close to Cher, who shows no interest in boys at all, that is until her step-brother, Josh (Paul Rudd looking the same as he does now) arrives in town.

I hadn't seen this since I was a teenager myself, and wondered whether it holds up now, or was something of its time.  It holds up.  Sure, it's incredibly 90's and already looks dated, but the story is a classic one brilliantly adapted, and all of the performances are great, especially Silverstone and Murphy as the leads.  The soundtrack is also great, and features more Radiohead than I would've thought for a film like this, but I'm never going to complain about that.  

Watching this back to back with Emma. was strange because even though that's a period film it feels more modern than this, just from the direction and editing and performances, but I found them equally enjoyable in their own ways 8/10

=============================================================================================================

Lady Bird

dir. Greta Gerwig

Lady Bird, the directorial debut from Greta Gerwig, is the coming-of-age story of Lady Bird (Saoirse Ronan), a girl in her last year of high school, who desperately wants to get out of Sacramento ("it's the midwest of California") and go to college in New York.  We follow her through this year, seeing her have relationships with a couple of boys, including Timothée Chalamet as Kyle, bass player in a local band, and trying, with help from her father, to get enough money to be able to go to college.  The main relationship of the film however, is that with her mother (Laurie Metcalf).  This is an incredibly real feeling relationship between mother and teenage daughter.  They can go from crying together over an audiobook to screaming match in a matter of seconds.  

Her mother is the kind who always seems to criticise everything she does, which drives Lady Bird insane, but it's always done with love, not that she can see that most of the time.  There's one scene later in the film where Lady Bird's teacher asks her why she loves Sacramento so much, which shocks Lady Bird as she didn't this she did.  But her teacher tells her she writes about the city with such care, to which she replies that she's just paying attention.  Her teacher then says aren't the the same thing, love and attention?  This scene really nails the relationships in this film and was beautifully performed.  The performances are brilliant all round in this film.  Ronan is an absolute star and totally holds the lead, but the supporting cast do their jobs just as well.  Beanie Feldstein as Lady Bird's best friend Julie is great, and their friendship really feels like a genuine teenage girl friendship.  Chalamet is also great as the too cool for school Kyle, who you will despise by the end of the film.

A fantastic film about family, friends and the meaning of home, Lady Bird is definitely worth watching, and this, along with Little Woman, has put Gerwig near the top of my "watch everything they ever make" list 9/10

 

[DavidCore89 7,402]

Beats (2019)

dir. Brian Welsh.

Saw this after someone suggested it. Black and white in a 90's Scotland threw me a bit, although I got used to it.

Enjoyed this. Still 6/10.

[JuniorChubb 3,359]

Inglorious Basterds

Picked this after struggling to find something to watch with my son, he really enjoyed WWII in history and I thought a fictional WWII film would be fun.

It was a good choice, and a little tamer than I was expecting. We watched it in 3 parts whilst eating dinner, this worked quite well as it broke up the slightly slower pace of movie between certain scenes.

7/10

Not outstanding in anyway but quite enjoyable wondering what direction the film was going to go in.

[CatManDoza 3,473]

12 minutes ago, JuniorChubb said:

Inglorious Basterds

Picked this after struggling to find something to watch with my son, he really enjoyed WWII in history and I thought a fictional WWII film would be fun.

It was a good choice, and a little tamer than I was expecting. We watched it in 3 parts whilst eating dinner, this worked quite well as it broke up the slightly slower pace of movie between certain scenes.

7/10

Not outstanding in anyway but quite enjoyable wondering what direction the film was going to go in.

love that film, Bing has some good taste too!

 

I watched "the grey" with the wife last week. Planew crash, bloody freezing, pack of wolves, went to bed after 40 minutes as it was utter dogsh*t.

2/10, gets 2 points just for liam neeson being typical liam neeson!!

[JuniorChubb 3,359]

@CatManDoza saw the thumbnail for The Grey somewhere when browsing, glad we gave it a miss now.

[CatManDoza 3,473]

4 minutes ago, JuniorChubb said:

@CatManDoza saw the thumbnail for The Grey somewhere when browsing, glad we gave it a miss now.

the wife said I made the right choice going to bed, you didnt even find out what happened in the end!!!!!

[Con 5,703]

Splinter (2008)...2/5... Ultra thin creature film with some bright spots like the creature design and leaving the creature's origin a complete mystery. I also loved the setting and wish they could have gotten more creative with solutions. The problem with this film is the unlikable characters, I mean the lead actor doesn't even know how to change a car tire and is basically the female stereotype in the relationship, making him even less likable and also makes his character arc predictable. Finding the most convoluted solutions to their problems also did not help. I think where it failed for me mostly was the absurdity of wanting to protect or save a villain that put you in the predicament in the first place. I think the film was miscast and would have worked better with different actors. Biggest issue is that you cannot set your film in a small town and have a cop go missing without backup arriving, if your town has one tiny gas station, i bet your police force isn't A) a large one,  B) Up to their neck in work, so when a cop doesn't respond to their radio, surely others would be sent out to investigate. Anyways I feel this was a decent low budget effort as far as the film making but it only had one star....a severed hand. Why should you watch it? You really like body-horror and the occasional blood splatter. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Con

[LimeGreenLegend 4,173]

True History of the Kelly Gang

dir. Justin Kurzel

True History of the Kelly Gang is an Australian film detailing the life of legendary outlaw Ned Kelly, played by Orlando Schwerdt as the child Kelly, and George McKay (1917) as the adult Kelly.  It also has a brilliant supporting cast, including Russell Crowe as an outlaw who becomes a father figure to the young Kelly.  This is a brilliant film that deconstructs legends like this, opening with the statement "none of what you're about to see is true."  The film is split into three acts, Boy, showing us his childhood, Man, showing us his adult life, and Monitor, which shows us his last stand and downfall.  Each act has a distinct feel to it and reflects his growth as a man.  

The standout is McKay as the adult Kelly.  He's not a likeable character, but McKays performance makes us empathise with him.  He can go from seeming to be very fragile and gentle, to being an absolute monster in the next scene and you totally buy it.  The relationship with his mother, played by Essie Davis is the whole driving force of the movie and it's so complicated, almost Oedipal at times, and you can't tell whether Kelly loves her or hates her.  It's a nice comparison with Lady Bird, which I recently watched and loved, which also features a fractured maternal relationship at the heart of the film.

There's also probably the most instances of the word c*nt in any film I've ever seen.  It was delightful to watch Crowe lead the young Kelly in a singsong with the chorus "he's a c*nt, he's a c*nt, he's a constable c*nt.  He's a c*nty little c*nt of a constable c*nt."  With Charlie Hunnam and Nicholas Hoult playing the hated English officers of the film, and they do a great job, you can see why Kelly thinks they're all c*nts who deserve to die.

This is a brilliant film that doesn't feel like a biopic of a real person, it feels more like a myth or a legend, which is what Kelly eventually became 9/10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WzNmia-Iqk

Edited March 2, 2020 by LimeGreenLegend

[Con 5,703]

James Lipton has died. Some of those interviews are classic.

[Con 5,703]

1917 (2019)

The Awesome: Needless to say, the cinematography and direction was superb. The single shot concept was executed very well and only eagle-eyes will see where the cuts are made. Costume designs also elevate the story, if you pause the film, you'll notice all the details that went into the soldier uniforms. The visuals pop and you can taste and smell the mud in some of those scenes. The sets and locations were amazing and the claustrophobia of the camera work throws you right into the thick of things and its beautiful. The visual cues of death are all around, mutilated bodies, decomposing bodies, body parts, dead horses, etc...all add to the realism of the war. The sequence where Schofield (George Mckay) is looking for Col. McKenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch) was one of the best as the tension is up as the attack has already begun and he must find this man he has never seen before and any bigger delay and the entire journey is useless. 

The Good: Direction was fantastic as there were many inventive camera placements to avoid the whole thing feeling like a video game with a fixed camera. I mean, look at the gif below, and imagine you being the director and yelling "ACTION" to start that scene?----Amazing, right!!! The sense of dread was always around the corner as the war rages on in the background. I enjoyed the twist as I didn't predict it going down like that and that was refreshing as it was shocking...but as every screenwriter knows...you have to kill your babies sometimes. Production design and costume designs were worthy of awards. The acting was pretty damned good I must say. Especially once Schofield realizes his responsibility, his acting kicks into high gear. 

The Bad: There is another scene at night were the character is surrounded by enemies and is shown running and ducking bullets, now i know these were rifles from 1917 and not the most accurate, but come on, why ruin an amazing set piece by going all James Bond or Stormtrooper enemy aim.  I also couldn't get past a scene where one of the characters is being sniped and yet he is still moving forward taking the worst path, leaving himself exposed to the bullets, I could not believe he would do that in real life and was done just to increase tension of his mortality, but it came across as dumb and since its towards the end of the film, i was like, "dude you went through all that and are making the worst decision ever". In a film where the action is always moving forward, its natural for the script to suffer and it does here, there is not one memorable line I can remember or dialogue that stood out. The solution to the film's dilemma of needing to contact a group of soldiers cut-off from radio communication was very thin and made worse by what I was thinking every time the characters moved closer to death. I'll explain in the next section. I almost forgot, there is one pointless scene that involves a baby that I have no idea why it was in the film. Sure I understand, kids were orphaned and left behind but was this scene supposed to up the tension even further from what was already occurring? It just seemed out of place and forced. I remember saying, "What is this A Quiet Place (1917)?" , just didn't get that scene.

The Ugly: f*cking pigeons, man. f*cking airplanes. Anything with wings. I hate when filmmakers do a ton of research and miss important stuff. They research the clothing of the time and the vehicles and technology of the time their films are set in...but here they forgot about f*cking pigeons. Let me explain...you see carrier pigeons of the Racing Homer Breed a.k.a. War Pigeons were used during WW1 to carry messages, I mean, 32 of those pigeons were presented the Dickin Medal! "Okay, Con whats the big deal with the pigeons?", you may be asking. Well considering that these pigeons were a real thing in 1917, it basically sh*ts all over the main story line of needing soldiers to go on an almost impossible journey into enemy lines to deliver a f*cking message that a f*cking war pigeon could have done in a matter of a few short hours or less. Or how about just an airplane dropping a supply package with the message for the regiment about to enter a death zone trap. I hate when movies do this to themselves. Maybe I missed why they couldnt send pigeons or a plane with supply and note attached but both seemed like logical solutions instead of sending two men with just rifles on that dangerous adventure. I really shouldn't research stuff. lmao. 

Final Verdict...4/5... Visually the film is stunning with its vast landscapes and amazing framing and yeah the one shot gimmick worked well as it felt like real life, I wanted to see what others were doing in the background but that wasn't happening as we follow just two men the entire time. Although the huge pigeon thing basically ruined the impetus of the entire journey, I still had fun guessing how some of the shots were done. I was shocked by that one scene I expected but not in the manner it happens in. While pigeons almost ruined this for me, I had to give it a higher grade than I wanted because it's a film that needs to be watched more than twice so you can focus on the stuff happening behind the actors as naturally we follow the main characters, but  lots of detail was paid to what the extras were doing in the backgrounds , so it deserves a high grade because of the filmmakers effort and vision. What was done here is no small feat and I cannot imagine the hundreds of hours it took just to block some of those scenes.The ravages of war are in full display here and really made you feel for those soldiers as we all know the medical advancements were limited at the time and certain wounds would mean certain death. I think the film does well in highlighting the absurdity of war. Men running out from behind cover just to get shot and killed for what? Land that in 200 years will belong to new people? Even if you pass your land down to the next generation, there is no guarantee they wont sell it out. I mean, are we that stupid of a species? Yes we are. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Con

[LimeGreenLegend 4,173]

Apollo 11

dir. Todd Douglas Miller 

Apollo 11 is a documentary by Todd Douglas Miller about the 1969 Apollo mission that first put man on the moon.  This is unlike any documentary that I've ever seen in that it doesn't use any of the typical devices of the genre.  There are no interviews, no narration and no reconstructions.  It is entirely made up of archive footage and audio recordings from the mission itself.  The footage has been restored to an incredible degree.  There are shots that look so clean you would think it was a modern Apollo mission.  This film also uses a lot of previously unreleased footage from NASA so you get a perspective of the moon that you've never seen before.  

Miller, who edited the film as well as direct, did an incredible job of telling a story out of this archive footage, and he also manages to build up tension at certain points through the use of editing, which works, despite everyone watching the film knowing that the mission was a success.  The scene that stands out to me is the descent to the moon's surface.  They only have 3 and a half minutes worth of fuel to make the descent of over 60 thousand miles, and they make it with seconds to spare.  The entire sequence is shown from a camera on the module that just shows the surface getting closer and closer with Armstrong and Aldrin talking to mission control in the background, calm and cool as you like.  The music in the scene also helps build that tension, and the relief I felt when they safely touched down was real.

The entire soundtrack is incredible.  It's a synthy/orchestral score that gives the film a sci-fi feel that's grounded in reality, and the single use of a song toward the end of the film was beautiful.  The entire film is a love letter and a testament to humanity's greatest achievement, and is a must watch for everyone 9/10

[Fido_le_muet 5,197]

Kong: Skull Island

This was on TV the other night and I've been wanting to watch it for some time. 

Another reboot of the King Kong franchise. I liked the one from Peter Jackson in 2005. It had a nice ensemble cast and it followed the story ok Kong from his remote island to the streets of New York and his infamous building climb. I liked that it went full circle with the Kong story.

This one from 2017 is now part of Universal's Monsterverse. Another studio trying to build their own universe with their franchise ala Marvel style. Godzilla was the first movie and this is the second (followed by Godzilla King of the Monsters and the upcoming Godzilla vs Kong...).

It also has a good ensemble cast as Nick Fury, Loki and Captain Marvel are in it 😁as well as the always excellent John Goodman and John C. Reilly (love that guy). Contrary to the previous film, the setting is limited to Skull Island. And that's good ! I guess they're saving the NY stuff for the next movie with Godzilla. Whatever, that's not missed at all. 

Anyway, I liked it overall, even if some stuff was pretty bad IMO. The worst thing (and it pains me to say that) was Samuel L. Jackson. His character is just so lame ! Not layered at all ! Just a trigger happy army boss wanting to kill King Kong at first sight ! He's even worse after Kong starts to kill each of his men (first thing they did when coming on the island was dropping bombs so you understand why Kong is p*ssed). The other characters tell him that Kong is sorta their ally as there are countless evil creature on the island that are way way worse than him. He just wanna be left alone on his island. But no, SLJ wants to kill it. Period. Lame. 2D character. He's awful. Bad writing I think. 

Thankfully, Loki is awesome in this and unlike in the Marvel films, he's the true hero here ! He's badass and understands Kong quickly. He's helped by Captain Marvel, an anti-war photographer who manages to charm King Kong a couple times. That ape has a thing for women that's obvious. 

Another thing that wasn't too great was the music. I feel they wanted to try to do something Guardians of the Galaxy style with the music. Try to make the music a character. So a couple times, we hear some cool 70s rock tunes but they fell flat as there's not really any contet for them and they don't add anything. Plus we only hear them for a few seconds. Disappointing. 

John Goodman is kinda wasted as well as he's only here to set up the island mission for the shadowy governmental agency Monarch (seen in Godzilla as well) and becomes canon fodder for the evil creatures later on. In between that, he just tags along. 

John C. Reilly on the other hand is the highlight of the movie ! He plays a WWII pilot who crashed on the island after a dogfight with a japanese pilot. The expedition finds him 25 years later, living with an indigenous tribe of Kong worshippers (kinda). And he's excellent. He's funny, touching, badass, crazy, all at the same time. Amazing actor. The ending is particularly emotionnal for his character. JCR is wonderful when it comes to expressing emotions (see Chicago 😉).

Now onto the creatures. They are cool. Kong is Kong. He's a giant ape so his design can't really change. He looks identical to the one from 2005. And that's not a problem cause he's badass. The evil skullcrawlers (Kong's nemesis) are scary, well designed. They look and are lethal ! They kill a lot of people and they feel like a real threat to Kong. The final battle between Kong and the giant Skullcrawler is awesome. It's intense, violent and a bit gorey, just how it should be. Great scene. Except for the humans that are in the middle of it and don't add anything. Just get out of the way and let the monsters fight FFS ! 

The giant spider was f*cking scary! I shall never speak of it ever again. The Pterodactyl-like birds were mean as well and a bit scary. The dismembering of that poor guy from the boat was a bit painful to watch. Overall, cool creature design and action. 

To conclude, it was entertaining. Nothing to analyse, just watch the giant ape battle other creatures and the occasional human drama in the middle of all that. The action was cool, so were the visuals and most of the acting. There were a few mentions of events or details linking this to Godzilla and the MonsterVerse and that was nice. 

I will have to watch Godzilla 2 now. 

7/10

 

[Con 5,703]

The Nightingale (2018)

The Awesome: Unrelenting and ultra-intense visual rawness. Been a while since a film scene made me gasp and it wasn't so much what I was seeing in those scenes, but the entire setup was just dark and no doubt, very real because I know things like that did happen because who the hell was there to stop it. I have watched similar scenes and some that have been far more graphic and brutal, but this particular scene happens twice and thankfully by the second time only part of your intestines are turning. The themes and history all seem to be getting high approval marks from actual historians familiar with the Colonized-Tasmania captured in the period of the film. The director did not shy away from truth and history and created an amazing relationship between two people that never realized they are the same person and have the same value to the enemy they share in common and I think that is where I spent most of my post-viewing time reflecting on the dynamic of one person that is born and taught to despise the only person willing to help, only to see themselves and learn from that same individual...sure we have seen this theme before, but not set in 1825 Tasmania, but that's the thing, this story could have happened in any of the colonized territories around the globe. There is plenty of hopelessness in film but not many like The Nightingale-hopelessness, maaaaan, our main character goes through a lot and nothing looks hopeful, I mean, even when you know she is going to arrive at her destination, you have no faith or belief that things will go well for her and in fact as the journey proceeds I was more afraid for Clare (Aisling Franciosi) than the people she is chasing down for her revenge. Tasmanian Aboriginal Elders were consulted during the production so the part of their story was told with truthfulness and accuracy. The acting by the lead actress was just amazing, this woman had to emote so much pain and internal suffering all while keeping her sense of superiority while alongside "Billy" Mangana (Baykali Ganambarr). This is some of the best acting I have seen as I believed everything about Clare, I loved her humanity and vulnerability. I love that she realizes midway that she is way over her head in setting her goal. Another standout is Hawkins (Sam Claflin) as the main antagonist and let me tell you, this was a masterclass in acting.  His portrayal of Hawkins is so disturbing and disgusting that you absolutely hate this man.The cinematography was amazing and the decision to have many of the horrendous things occur during daylight just gave it a haunting undercurrent, well at least for me, something about the contrast of a sunny day with awful things happening inside places. 

The Good: The location is breathtakingly beautiful and betrays the darkness of the story. The pacing of the film was very good and only slows down a few times so the characters can get to know one another better. The realness of the time period really had me enthralled in the story and gave me a history lesson I wasn't expecting. The direction is superb and was surprised to learn that Jennifer Kent (The Babadook) was at the helm and really did a spectacular job handling every aspect of this tough tale as the themes are heavy as you can imagine. None of the intense scenes are there for shock value and instead are a depiction of reality of things that happened in real life. I admire the fearlessness in her film making. She takes the thematic and dramatic weight and displays it with tact and substance, making the arrival of the violence even that more effective...you aren't just watching one person suffer, you can almost see entire groups of people experiencing the pain. The supporting actors were solid and really complimented the main actors. Baykali Ganambarr did great in his first acting role as Clare's guide. 

The Bad: This film is not for everyone because some of the violence and assault is very visceral and that's could prevent people from watching it.  Not a film I would suggest for a group watch or watch with someone who has experienced s*xual assault or physical abuse. Clare had some serious justifiable reasons why she wanted to go on this journey but I didn't like the lack of preparedness, yes, Billy had no idea the truth regarding the journey but she did and she had to know how treacherous the Tasmanian terrain would be and how maybe she had not thought things thoroughly. I felt the film went on a little too long as the third act is stretched and it took away from the great pacing. 

The Ugly: The repetitiveness of the last act did distract me a bit because the cat and mouse game had gotten old by then and while I did enjoy the unpredictability of Clare's realization of her revenge,  I wish they would have not teased us with a false climax as this extends the film when it wasn't needed and is when I felt the length of the film. The resolution left me a little unsatisfied because I wanted to see Clare more involved. Now I understand why the revenge was divided and I was aware of Clare's acceptance regarding her revenge which was phenomenal to see in a film like this because we expect a cathartic reaction and there isn't one, but I wanted to see Clare go fully mental out there, but I didn't mind what they show because it is consistent with the psychological trauma we see her go through. 

Final Verdict...4/5... Think "I Spit On Your 1825 Grave", you don't get to enjoy this film, you kind of survive it. While the 1973 I Spit on your Grave video nasty is far more graphic in its violence, the moments we see in The Nightingale are brutal and because they truly serve a purpose and different context making it more disturbing. What i'm trying to say is that in the 1973 film the violent content is gratuitous and shown for shock value, in this film it was more about why it was happening, how it could happen and how it did happen. The film depicts a time when men wanted owner ship over other men, women, and land and this is woven beautifully throughout the film with just one moment coming across as a bit jarring and somewhat predictable. But for the rest of the film, I had no idea what was going to happen and the brilliance of having Clare pair up with Billy created tension that just made so many scenarios run through my head and that was fun. Things like, if they get caught, will she turn on Billy? Would Billy abandon her because it's not his fight? This is a beautiful looking film with a sobering look at a brutal time of colonization filled with intense scenes of realistic violence and a phenomenal performance by our female lead. Bring lots of popcorn and courage to this one. 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Con

[JustHatched 12,103]

Watched Midway a couple nights ago

This is my kind of movie, lots of action, aircraft and based on true story. The best part of the movie is that it is not the love story that Pearl Harbor was. I for sure recommend watching it.

Related - I did watch Red Tails a couple weeks ago (I've seen it before), it is about the Tuskeegee Airmen. Not a great movie, but it is good. I have met surviving members of the Tuskeegee guys, I have several pics with me, them and a P51C Mustang, so watching Red Tails was a must.

[LimeGreenLegend 4,173]

The Wicker Man

dir. Robin Hardy

The Wicker Man is a British folk-horror film directed by Robin Hardy from a screenplay by Anthony Shaffer, writer of one of my favourite films, Sleuth.  It stars Edward Woodward as a devoutly Catholic policeman in the highlands of Scotland who travels to an island off the coast to investigate the case of a missing child.  When he arrives he finds that no one knows the child, not even her supposed mother.  Ruling over the island is the charismatic Lord Summerisle, played by the legendary Christopher Lee in what he considered to be his best film out of the nearly 300 he appeared in.

Woodward finds the island rife with pagan ritual, which opposes his Catholicism in every way possible, leading to an iconic and truly horrifying ending in which he finally meets The Wicker Man.  This is a fantastic horror film, but it may disappoint the gorehounds (@Con😉) as the filmmakers wanted to make a horror film without blood, guts and jump scares.  Instead they rely on an atmosphere of unease and paranoia to build the horror, as Woodward finds himself being gaslighted by everyone on the island, and finds his puritan virginity challenged by the gorgeous Willow, played by Britt Ekland.  The music really helps build this tension as the film uses traditional folk songs, music that sounds out of time, and makes the island feel like a place that rules itself and doesn't obey the laws of the rest of the world.  

The performances of the two leads are fantastic and very complimentary.  Woodward has this righteous indignation that escalates slowly over the film until he is screaming at the villagers that they're all heathens, meanwhile Lee is calm and cool, playing a man totally in control of everything, including the fate of Woodward.  An absolute classic of British cinema, The Wicker Man is an incredibly influential film whose presence can still be felt today in modern folk-horror films like Midsommar and The VVitch 8/10

 

 

[DavidCore89 7,402]

Pure (2002).

dir. Gillies MacKinnon.

Saw this many years ago and thought I'd check it out again. Wow, such a powerful movie!

The performance of Harry Eden is superb, one of the best I've ever seen from a child, plus he gets a handful of Keira Knightley's t*t, which isn't too bad 

8/10.

[LimeGreenLegend 4,173]

Dark Waters

dir. Todd Haynes

Dark Waters is a legal thriller starring Mark Ruffalo as Rob Bilott, a corporate lawyer who goes from defending chemical companies to suing them after being contacted by a farmer, Wilbur Tennant (Bill Camp), who believes DuPont is dumping chemicals into the local water supply.  This is a great film, but it's one that leaves you angry at the end.  You and I and every single person on this planet has micro plastics in our blood, in our bodies, because of this corporation who only gives a sh*t about profits.

This is a true story, and we follow Bilott from 1998 up to the present day, as he is still fighting DuPont for fair settlements for all of the victims of its negligence.  Ruffalo gives a fantastic performance as Bilott, we can really feel the weight of the situation growing and affecting him as the years go by.  This also affects his home life, with his wife Sarah (Anne Hathaway) coming to a slow realisation that he can't let this go.

The direction is also great.  At times it's shot like a horror film as this man-made sickness crawls across this town, a sickly green colour palette reflecting the situation 8/10

 

 

[Con 5,703]

Hey @LimeGreenLegend...I was thinking...how do you feel about a Film Club Extra this month featuring Pandemic films? You know so we can feel warm and fuzzy about the Corona Virus?

Edited March 5, 2020 by Con