Rate the Last Film you Watched

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

1 minute ago, CatManDoza said:

I was wondering if it bore any similarites to that Father Ted episode (you're right, it is the best episode). Will no doubt give it a watch at some point whne I have an early night.

It bears all the similarities 😄 They don't have a song as good as My Lovely Horse though!

 

 

[CatManDoza 3,473]

1 minute ago, LimeGreenLegend said:

It bears all the similarities 😄 They don't have a song as good as My Lovely Horse though!

 

 

yeah, i'm watching that when I go to bed!!

[Con 5,703]

1 hour ago, LimeGreenLegend said:

Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga

dir. David Dobkin/2020

I knew this review was coming. 😄 

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

18 minutes ago, Con said:

I knew this review was coming. 😄 

Well it is pretty much a musical 😄 

[djw180 6,836]

Shame.

 

Directed by Steve McQueen and starring Michael Fassbender as the lead character Brandon.

 

This is a film I found hard to like because I simply do not like the main character, and I don't think you are supposed to like him. But I also found some parts of the plot quite confusing. It's saved from a below average rating from me by a couple of scenes involving Cary Mulligan (excellent as Brandon's sister) and some great music at times.

 

Brandon is a 30 something New Yorker with a good corporate job. The subject matter is his s*x life. There is a a lot of it; with prostitutes, women he picks up in bars, on his own in the bathroom at work, watching p*rn at home (and found on his work PC). The one time he meets a woman he might actually want to form a long term relationship with, he can't perform in bed. But after she leaves he calls a prostitute and has s*x with her. This is the first confusing bit for me. I think it is implying this is an ongoing problem for Brandon. He likes s*x, has lots of it on a very casual basis but can't have s*x with women he really likes. But this only happens once in the film and no mention is made of it happening before. So I am not totally sure, it could have just been a one off.

 

Next problem for me is we don't get to know that much more about Brandon, other than his s*x life. So he is a very shallow, hard to like character. He has a sister, a singer named Cissy, who has just moved back to New York and invited her self to live in his apartment for a while. Cissy has clearly had problems in the past (marks on her wrist are noticed) and has a habit of calling Brandon, 'crying wolf', demanding he help her when actually her issues at the particular time are not that bad. The first really good scene is when Brandon and his boss (another unlikeable character) go to see Cissy singing in a bar. Whereas most films in this sort of scene would have the singer in the background or just focus on part of the song, this scene the focus is on Cissy singing a slow tempo version of New York New York and we watch the whole song – which I found great. Brandon's boss is very impressed. Cissy likes him and brings him home (Brandon's home) with her. Not that surprisingly Brandon does not like this and gets out the apartment while they have s*x. This adds to the feeling that Brandon feels she is taking advantage of him, imposing on him – but I don't think his displeasure at this is surprising, nor unreasonable.

 

There's other confusing elements as well. A couple of times he is eyeing up a woman on the train who nervously smiles at him and makes a point of showing she has a wedding ring. I'm not sure if we're supposed to see this as the women finding him creepy and the film implying Brandon ought settle down, or we're supposed to see the women as liking the attention and indicating if they weren't happily married they might be up for meeting him later.

 

The ending of the film is the other good bit, overall, but also has a confusing element. In a very eventful night Brandon has s*x with a man (followed by a threes*me with two female prostitutes). All the rest of the film Brandon only has s*x with women. It's not clear to me if this is supposed to be the first time he has done this, a reaction to other things happening, or the film is just sort of saying, oh, by the way, Brandon does sometimes like s*x with men? This confusion almost spoils the other great scene. It's almost the end of the film. Brandon has been ignoring calls from Cissy all night. As his train pulls into his station it is clear someone has thrown themselves in front of it. I won't spoil this for anyone who wants to see it but the film is very good at building tension, making us, and Brandon, wonder if it was Cissy that killed herself. All I'll say is it wasn't that simple.

 

So overall, well made, but confusing and hard to like characters. 6/10.

[Fido_le_muet 5,197]

Mission Impossible: Fallout

I like the franchise, even if I always watch the movie several years after they're released 😄

I kinda got spoiled before hand about Superman Henry Cavill's role in this but I found out that it wasn't that much of a big reveal as it is quickly dealt with (smart).

Cruise is a bit over the top as always but it kinda works I guess. It's always entertaining and the plot is good. 

I'd give it a 7.5/10

 

[DavidCore89 7,402]

Icarus (2017)

Saw this and was fascinated.

Documentary-film by Bryan Fogel, who enlists the help of the top guy at the Russian Anti-doping lab, Grigory Rodchenkov, to help win a cycling race by using PED's.

Fogel lands himself in the middle of an established international doping scandal, Rodchenkov becomes a whistle-blower before fearing for his life in Russia and fleeing to the US to be placed in witness protection.

I think this doc casts doubts over all elite level sport and shows how easy it can be to bypass the testing agencies. I'm a big boxing fan, the number of fighters getting caught juicing is surprising, it's a regular occurrence lately, more regular than a lot of other sports.

I mean, in cycling, a competitor can be on PED's and nobody gets hurt, but in combat sports it's a different story. It's a matter of time before a fighter is seriously hurt only for his opponent to later fail a drugs test. Makes me wonder if all the top guys are on the juice. Rodchenkov says they are at least 🤔

[Squirrel 5,180]

On 7/2/2020 at 9:00 PM, LimeGreenLegend said:

Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga is a comedy directed by David Dobkin

I actually watched this too the other night. Didn’t have much to watch, I’ve already gone through a lot of the content on Netflix due to having a lot of time on my hands so thought I’d stick it on. 
 

I went in not expecting much, Ferrell has rarely been funny since anchorman but I was pleasantly surprised by how realistically it captured the Eurovision vibe. It’s bad, it’s cheesy, the songs are creative but terrible and that’s exactly what Eurovision is. 
 

It got the mix of comedy and absurdity right. The only really jarring part of the film was the badly mangled Scottish landscaping, a lot of the time you don’t mind a bit of artistic license but when they put castles in the wrong place and actually importing buildings from a different city it does break the immersion. 
 

It will be a good party film, get a few friends around for a Eurovision party and it’s an ideal warm up. I loved the Icelandic references especially the rotten shark delicacy. It absolutely nailed the stereotypes as well of all countries. Graham Norton was spot on too although not exactly a challenging role for him to play. 
 

My opinion, not as bad as you think it will be and give it a go although I do get to go watch American Psycho so hopefully that will cleanse the catchy music from my brain. 

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

8 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

It’s bad, it’s cheesy, the songs are creative but terrible and that’s exactly what Eurovision is

Exactly.  I was expecting a p*ss-take of the competition, but they represented it really authentically.

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

The Color of Pomegranates 

dir. Sergei Parajanov/1969/1h20m

The Color of Pomegranates is an Armenian film from Sergei Parajanov, and is an historical biopic of the 18th century poet Sayat Nova.  To call it a biopic is misleading, as this is unlike any film that I have ever seen.  Rather than presenting the story of his life in a straight-forward manner like recent film club selection The Hurricane instead it is shown to us through a series of carefully composed and choreographed images inspired by Sayat Nova's poetry.  There is minimal dialogue in the film, and what there is is taken from the poetry of Sayat Nova.  This is a film full of dense symbolism that I can't even explain as I am ignorant of the subject and Armenian history, but I still appreciated the beauty of the images that flashed across the screen like a montage of historical tableaux.  I can't possibly describe the singularly unique look and feel of the film in words, so instead the rest of the review will be some screenshots from the film.

9/10

Edited July 6, 2020 by LimeGreenLegend

[Con 5,703]

17 hours ago, DavidCore89 said:

Icarus (2017)

Saw this and was fascinated.

Documentary-film by Bryan Fogel, who enlists the help of the top guy at the Russian Anti-doping lab, Grigory Rodchenkov, to help win a cycling race by using PED's.

Fogel lands himself in the middle of an established international doping scandal, Rodchenkov becomes a whistle-blower before fearing for his life in Russia and fleeing to the US to be placed in witness protection.

I think this doc casts doubts over all elite level sport and shows how easy it can be to bypass the testing agencies. I'm a big boxing fan, the number of fighters getting caught juicing is surprising, it's a regular occurrence lately, more regular than a lot of other sports.

I mean, in cycling, a competitor can be on PED's and nobody gets hurt, but in combat sports it's a different story. It's a matter of time before a fighter is seriously hurt only for his opponent to later fail a drugs test. Makes me wonder if all the top guys are on the juice. Rodchenkov says they are at least 🤔

Not gonna fully read the review until I watch this....it always comes across my searches and I always say I have to watch it. Maybe this weekend.

[djw180 6,836]

Emma  - the 2020 version

My wife's birthday choice of film but one I was quite happy to watch. This is another adaptation of the Jane Austen novel of the same name, set in late 18th / early 19th century England. Quite liking Jane Austen and having seen at least 3 other versions of this it's hard not to compare the actor's performances to their equivalents in other versions, and I don't think this Emma (Anya Talyor-Joy) is quite as good as Gwyneth Paltrow.

Emma is a bit different to Jane Austen's other novels in that it is a comedy about a rather spoilt, very rich (as opposed to merely quite well off), young lady and whilst Emma is no anti-heroine she is harder to like than the main characters in the other novel. This film doesn't quite make me like her enough and the chemistry between Emma and her leading man, Mr Knightly (Jonnh Flynn) isn't quite good enough to make me believe he would really fall in love with her. There is nothing wrong with their acting, in fact I think Johny Flynn is very good, but whereas in the book and other films I could understand him falling for her, in this one I couldn't.

It has some very good supporting performances from Bill Nighy as Emma's father and Miranda Hart as her 'friend' Mrs Bates. I do like the use of colour, even though at times it makes it look like the sets are an over decorated cake, and of course there are lots of great interior shots of oppulant regency houses and great outdoor scenery. There is a very nice touch, that I'm sure must be deliberate, of the girls from the local school all dressed in red capes, walking around in groups like something straight out of The Handmaids Tale (and of course they were essentially being groomed to become dutiful wifes to who ever they got married off to.)

6/10

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

Great review with some interesting points @djw180.  I haven't read any Austen, nor seen any other adaptation of Emma except for Clueless, so this was my first exposure to the story in its original form.  I gave it an 8 overall as I loved the direction and the light, breezy score.  I also liked Taylor-Joy as Emma, as unlikable as that character is, but don't have anything to compare it with, apart from Alicia Silverstone's Cher, who is much more likeable.  If I watch the Paltrow version I'll let you know what I think.  

[djw180 6,836]

Cinema Paradiso

 

Part 1 of a weekend Enio Morriocone tribute double bill. This for me is the film his score made the biggest impact on. Without that score I'm sure I would have still liked the film, but I don't think it would be one of my all time favourites, and it is, in my opinion, one of the best films ever made. It has a wonderful, moving, main theme that recurs in different variations throughout the film. There are many scenes with little or no dialogue and we just watch people, often as they are watching a film, with this theme in the background, and it's these scenes I like the best. It's quite a long sound track, about an hour when most films tend to have one not much more than half that.

 

I had not heard of Cinema Paridiso until it came towards the top of a poll of the best films ever made in a newspaper I was reading. The paper's film critic disagreed calling it over sentimental. He seems to be in the minority though, given this won best non-English language film at the Oscars, Golden Globes and BAFTAs (where it one many other awards as well). I watched it when it was on TV and fell in love with it. Since then I have seen it many times, mostly the director's cut which I think improves it significantly. I think the fact that I don't normally like overly sentimental films nor those with a child in a leading role (which this has for about a third of it) and yet I still love it, is why for me this one of the all time greats. It's a film about films. It's the story of film director and the cinema he grew up visiting almost every night.

 

It begins with an old woman making a phone call. Eventually we see a younger woman in expensive looking bedroom answer the phone. The old woman asks to speak to Toto di Vita. The young woman says he is not there. The old woman say 'tell him his mother called; Alfredo has died, the funeral is tomorrow'. Later a middle aged man, Toto, enters the bedroom and the young woman gives him the message. Toto now starts to reminisce.

 

This is basically two stories in one; the story of a highly successful film director, Salvatore 'Toto' di Vita, and the other the story of the Cinema Paridiso in his home village of Giancaldo in Sicily. I won't try to retell the whole film, but the basics are Toto remembering his childhood and late teens, before he left Giancaldo never to return for 30 years, then him returning for the funeral.

 

So it begins with Toto as a child. It's the late 1940s. Toto's father was killed in the second world war. He loves the cinema and against his mother's wishes sneaks in whenever he can, particularly liking to get into the projection booth and the projectionist, Alfredo, enjoys having Toto around. We see a lot of village life played out in the cinema. People do not have TVs at this time, almost everyone goes to the cinema to watch the newsreels and films. The cinema seems to be run by the village priest who has Alfredo edit out anything he deems immoral, which basically means kisses. Alfredo is supposed to splice these back before the films are returned, but he doesn't always manage to do it. One night a fire breaks out in the projection booth. Toto pulls the unconscious Alfredo to safety but the cinema is gutted and Alfredo left blind. A villager who has had a big win on the pools buys and renovates the cinema with Toto, who has learned by watching Alfredo, becoming the new projectionist.

 

We then move to Toto in his late teens, working at the cinema in the evenings and starting to make films of his own with a hand held camera. Alfredo is still very close to Toto, joining him in the projection booth, talking about film. Toto sees a girl one day, Eleanor, and falls in love. Her father is the new bank manager and considers a mere projectionist unworthy of his daughter, but true love finds a way and Eleanor eventually falls in love with Toto. Their relationship survives most of what could get in the way. There is a great scene where in the summer Toto is working away from home at an open air cinema so has not seen Eleanor for a while. On a warm rainy night Toto is just lieing down outside, presumably thinking about Eleanor. The main theme is playing and suddenly Eleanor appears above him and kisses him, having got away from her parents for the night. But their relationship does not last. Toto is forced to leave to do his national service. He tries to keep in touch but all his letters are returned and phone calls refused. When he does return he and Eleanor make contact again but her family are moving away. She wants to meet up before leaving and tells him she will come to the cinema. But she never turns up. Alfredo tells Toto it's better this way, he needs to leave, this small town is holding him back. Toto takes Alfredo's advice and just before he boards his train Alfedo tells him he must never ever come back. This is why Alfedo's funeral is the first time he comes back in 30 years.

 

So the final part of the film is Alfredo's funeral and what happens afterwards. There lots of characters we recognise from earlier in the film, the priest, the cinema owner etc. Toto is one of the pall bearers and the funeral procession passes the cinema, now closed and due to be demolished. More remembering the past follows, accompanied by the main theme again, as Toto goes to look around the cinema.

 

Now in the original theatrical release this is just about the end of the film. Toto returns to Rome carrying a reel of film Alfredo left him. He watches it, again accompanied by the amazing main theme, and it's all the kisses the priest had cut out that Alfredo never spliced back in. Even though I don't recognise any of the films shown it is an amazing scene, one of the best scenes in all of cinema.

 

If you have seen the theatrical release and like it then you have to see the director's cut. It's not just a couple of extra scenes, there is a whole new section at the end. This is hinted at in the credits of the theatrical release, where we see Toto notice a women who looks like Eleanor as she was the last time he saw her. I won't spoil it for those who have not seen it, but it does lead to Toto and Eleanor meeting up again and them both learning how much Alfredo intervened to ensure Toto left his home town to achieve his full potential.

 

Obviously I give this 10 / 10.

 

 

 

 

 

[djw180 6,836]

The Mission

 

Part 2 of the Ennio Moriconne double bill. The score for this isn't quite as crucial to my liking of the film as in Cinema Paridiso, but I think the music itself is slightly better (Golden Globes and BAFTA wins, Oscar nominated)

 

First of all this film has great cast with Jeremy Irons, Robert di Nero and Ray MacAnnaly (who died a few years after this). The supporting cast includes a young Liam Neeson and a whole host of non-professional actors playing the Guarani indigenous people in the story. The film has stunning scenery, it won an Oscar for it's cinematography. The mission is on top of plateau close to a magnificent water fall that provides some of the most striking scenes.

 

It's roughly based on a true story, set in18th century South America in an area on the Spanish side of the border between theirs and the Portuguese empires. Father Gabriel (Jeremy Irons) is a Jesuit priest who has established a mission. There are a number of similar missions in the area. The film is mainly about this one but what happens to this happens to them all.

 

The Jesuits are a Roman Catholic order who were active in the territories of European states as they established their empires in the 15th century onwards. Like all missionaries they were concerned with converting people to their religion. But the Jesuits were also concerned with this life as well as the next. Their missions provided jobs, education and a place of safety for those who came to them. With slavery legal in the Portuguese empire and effectively allowed, though technically outlawed, in the Spanish, the Guarani found the missions to be a refuge from those colonists who would murder or kidnap them to work on their plantations. The missions also had plantations but as their workforce were not forced labour they were more productive than those of the secular businessmen.

 

The secular authorities therefore want Jesuits, who they see as commercial competition, gone and their missions torn down. But of course the missions have the protection of the Church and the devout catholic King of Spain will not go against it. The King of Portugal however has no such qualms. So Spain and Portugal have done a deal that sees the border between their empires re-drawn in a way that just so happens to put the missions into Portuguese territory, where the Jesuits are not allowed to practice and their missions will be destroyed. But the final decision on this rests with the Church which has sent a cardinal (Ray MacAnally) to make the final decision. He begins the film, starting to write a letter explaining what has happened in the rest of the film.

 

Against the bigger story we also have that of Mendoza (Robert di Nero) a former sl*ve trader who having killed his own brother in a duel over a woman has the Jesuits set him an penance. He carries all his weapons and armour to the recently founded mission. There the people who's friends and relatives he has killed and enslaved forgive him and he decides to become a Jesuit.

 

Most of the story is the cardinal meeting with the Jesuits, the Guarani and Spanish and Portuguese officials, in order to make his decisions. But that decision has already been made. The Church's power only goes so far, and I suspect many in the Church couldn't have cared less what happened. If they don't agree to Spain's and Portugal's wishes it could mean the end of the Jesuits throughout the Catholic world. So, as the Cardinal acknowledges, they have to sacrifice these missions for the good of the whole Jesuit order.

 

Father Gabriel and Mendoza do not agree and vow to oppose their mission's destruction, but in very different ways. Mendoza, most of the other Jesuits and most of the men of the Guarani decide to fight. Gabriel will not sanction violence opposes the mercenaries who come to destroy the mission through simple defiance, carrying on normal. Probably the best scenes are at the end. Those from the mission who fight have initial success, but at great cost. Liam Neeson's character dies engaging the attackers boat's and luring their commander to his death as his boats gets dragged over the falls. Eventually the lightly armed and untrained priests and Guarani are overcome by their professional adversaries and Mendoza is killed. As this is going on Father Gabriel is conducting mass for a congregation of mainly old men, women and children. They are fired on and one by one fall down dead, but at no point do they attempt to run away, they just carry on with their religious service in complete defiance of those sent to kill them.

 

The film ends, as it began, with the Cardinal reflecting on what has happened. He is talking to the Spanish Governor Don Cabeza (Chuck Low) and Portuguese Ambassador Hontar (Ronald Pickup). I don't remember the exact quote, watch the film if you want that. But the cardinal says something like “Did you really have to kill them all?”. Don Cabeza says quite brazenly “Well yes, yes I do believe we had no choice.”. Hontar, looking ever so slightly embarrassed adds “This is the way of the world your eminence”. But the Cardinal replies “No. This is the way we have made it”.

 

 

10/10

 

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

@djw180 great reviews.  I've not seen The Mission, but I love Cinema Paradiso.  I had to watch it for my college film studies course and instantly fell in love with it.  The scene with the montage of all the edited kisses is, as you said, one of the greatest single scenes in film history.

I've got a review of my own now:

Hamilton

dir. Thomas Kail/2020/2h40m

Hamilton is an historical musical directed by Thomas Kail with script, music and lyrics all written by Lin-Manuel Miranda, who also stars as the title character Alexander Hamilton.  It is split into two acts, the first tells of Americas fight for independence from the British, and how important Hamilton was in that fight, becoming the right hand man to George Washington (Christopher Jackson).  The second act focuses on Hamilton's life after the war when he was the first US Secretary of the Treasury, including an affair, the death of his son, and his own death in a duel at the hands of a former friend, Aaron Burr (Leslie Odom Jr.).  

This is a recording of the original Broadway cast performing on stage in front of a hot crowd, so has much more in common with concert films like Amazing Grace than recent musical films like Cats.  This is where my only small problem with the film comes in.  Sometimes the direction tries to be too cinematic, cutting away to swooping crane shots that pan around the cast as they sing.  It just reminded me of shows like The X Factor/American Idol at times.  But those times are rare and quickly pass.  Here, less is more.  The film shines brightest when the camera is not moving, showing us the entire stage, occasionally cutting to a close up, as the show was meant to be seen, at least in this form (I'm sure Disney are hard at work on an actual film adaptation right now).  

The actual staging of the show is fantastic.  It is very minimalist, taking place in what looked to me like a warehouse on a dock, all brick walls and wooden walkways.  A few props are bought on and off, but for the most part this is all there is.  It reminded me a lot of Les Miserables in that it is the story of a revolution told against a simple unchanging set.  The centre of the stage revolves like a lazy Susan and they make great use of it, bringing a lively sense of movement and energy to the production, especially in the crowd scenes which have been intricately choreographed.  The best part of the staging to me though is the lighting.  At times the stage feels like it is lit by warm candlelight, other times bathed in moonlight.  Battle scenes flash with explosions, and the dead return to haunt the living in a ghostly blue glow.  

The performances are so strong through the entire cast and the ensemble.  Miranda's Hamilton has a fragility to him that shows through all of his front making him a relatable protagonist.  Odom Jr's Burr is the standout to me as he goes from friend and peer of Hamilton to a jealous foe, a relationship that reminded me a lot of the relationship between Mozart and Salieri in the film Amadeus.  Jackson as George Washington is the embodiment of strength and wisdom, becoming a father figure to Hamilton.  Daveed Diggs has a double role in this, playing the Marquis de Lafayette in act one and Thomas Jefferson in act two, and both are brilliant and very different performances, but I do prefer his Jefferson who is a bold, bragging jerk who dresses like Prince.  George III, played by Jonathan Groff, only appears a few times but he always steals the show with his demented yet peppy breakup songs, treating the war like a messy divorce.  It was a choice by Miranda and the producers of the show to cast people of colour in a lot of the roles in this play as a way of re-framing and re-contextualising history to make it more relevant and relatable to a modern audience and you can see obvious parallels between seeing Washington as a strong, proud black man leading a fight for freedom from his oppressors and the civil rights and BLM movements.  There is also another clear political message that is sadly becoming more and more relevant when Hamilton and Lafayette, both foreigners who were instrumental in winning key battles in the revolutionary war, say "immigrants, we get the job done".  That being said, none of this is pushed in your face.  This isn't a film with an agenda.  There is clearly symbolism and messages here, but it is all left for us to interpret, rather than being spoon-fed them.  

Now onto the main event, the music.  This is a full blown musical.  There are a couple of lines of spoken dialogue, but 98% of the film is sung.  I was expecting it to be all rap and hip-hop, because that's all I knew about the show before watching it, but there is a hugely diverse genre of songs on offer here from belting RnB ballads and dancehall love songs to full blown musical theatre style showstoppers.  And it's all fantastic.  The music is emotive and diverse with each new song bringing something new and surprising, re-occurring motifs popping up throughout to tie it all into one cohesive work.  The lyrics are witty and funny and sharp and full of character.  I can see now why a lot of people call Lin-Manuel Miranda a genius, and I can't really argue with them.   

This is a breathtakingly good show with incredible performances from everyone involved, perfect staging and a stunningly good soundtrack.  This might be the best musical I've ever seen 10/10

 

 

 

[Con 5,703]

I Still Believe (2018) ...2/5... Christian movie about singer Jeremy Camp and his relationship with his terminally ill first wife. Curiously for someone who is blessed of the lord, the man is seen in a church once the entire film. I used to live in church when i subscribed to that. And i wasnt even blessed with  musical talents for the god. The movie was basically cancer, singing, cancer, singing, some praying, cancer, singing, praying while singing, cancer, singing. If you like his music then youll enjoy it sans the cancer moments. I'm sorry, I just hated the parts where the cancer goes away and they all are thanking God and shouting out that prayer works....and I sat there going, these folks clearly do not understand how cancer cells work and why they come back. The genetic code is re-written and no one can change that...only a God being can fix things at cellular and molecular levels. Once cells begin thinking for themselves, there is no turning back. I hate the false hope that is neatly wrapped up in these types of films. Jeremy Camp is a vocal talent, no doubt about that though. 

Booksmart (2019) ...2/5... When i read the praise that Olivia Wilde got from her directorial debut I set out to watch it and never did but i finally got around to watch it and it has its moments. I think if i was a female, I would give this a 3/5 or 4/5 as it deals with issues close to women and I think that is why the film was praised, and there are some cool cinematic shots in the film that were very creative but I just had a tough time believing at how perfect all those students were...i mean, everyone is going to an Ivy league school and the main characters learn this on the last day of school and try to "fit" by being outrageous in in one night and then they are easily embraced, I didn’t expect Carrie, but expected a bit more. Just didnt feel real. This is a Girl-Dad film that everyone over 16 can watch at the next all girl slumber party, I dont think I was the film's target audience. 

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Con

[Con 5,703]

Tread (2020) ...4/5... Documentary about Marvin Heemeyer who in 2004 fastened a bulldozer with steel and concrete and went on a destruction rampage of his small Colorado town and those he felt responsible for his "misery"...honestly I will be giving this a full review because I have some choice things to say about Marvin. The reason you might have not heard of this story was because that same day, Ronald Reagan died and that took over the newspapers and newscasts. It was interesting seeing how this rampage came to be. 

 

[Con 5,703]

Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020)...3/5... Enjoyed that this wasn't what I would consider a full blown musical and that surprised me. Sure there are some songs and singing but it did not feel like Chicago (2003). I kept thinking, this is similar to A Star is Born and had Will Ferrell not cast himself as the lead and went in a more serious actor direction, I probably would have been bored. But I wasnt thanks to Will and a complimentary Rachel McAdams. I felt terrible when I thought the thing on her face was part of the make-up and was waiting for the punchline...i felt horrible to learn its her birth defect. Ouch. The film had its funny moments, like the first boat incident...LMAO...I was NOT expecting that at all. I liked learning about the competition and how huge and what it means for national pride in that region which really makes me laugh because we are all human and especially closely related to our bordered neighbors but yet, we seem to always choose division. I did not like that there really isn't a bad guy as even the "evil doers" have reasonable impetus. I gave this the same score I gave A Star is Born, so maybe im not the best judge of these types of films. lol. Oh and the film could have used more Demi Lovato moments as I find her to be a strange bird who fit in perfectly in her role.

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Con

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

The Watermelon Woman

dir. Cheryl Dunye/1996/1h25m

The Watermelon Woman is a romantic drama/comedy and a fictional documentary at the same time written and directed by Cheryl Dunye.  Dunye stars as Cheryl, a black l*sbian who wants to become a filmmaker, but can only get hired to do wedding videos.  She does this with her best friend Tamara (Valarie Walker), and they both work at a video store to make some actual money.  Cheryl has an interest for black actresses from the 30's, particularly one from the fictional film Plantation Memories who is only credited as "The Watermelon Woman", just like many real black actors were credited under a derogatory name instead of their real one, if they were credited at all.  She is inspired to make a documentary about this woman, trying to find out who she really was.  She discovers that her name was Fae Richards (Lisa Marie Bronson), and she was also a l*sbian who was in a relationship with the white female director of Plantation Memories, Martha Page.  This parallels Cheryl's life as she has recently gotten into a relationship with a white customer of her video store, Diana (Guinevere Turner).  This relationship puts a divide between Cheryl and Tamara, who accuses Diana of having a fetish for black people and Cheryl for wanting to be white.  Cheryl manages to contact a woman called June (Cheryl Clarke) who was Fae's partner for 20 years, but she is hospitalised before they get a chance to meet.  Cheryl finishes her film, but her relationships with both Diane and Tamara seem to have ended.  

This film was a total surprise for me because I went into it thinking it was an actual documentary.  I was disappointed at first when it became obvious it wasn't, but I was so enchanted by Cheryl, both the character and the filmmaker, that that feeling soon made way to one of joyous discovery.  She has such a likeable and realistic energy to her that it made me care about her project and her relationships as if she were someone I knew.  This is a very 90's no-budget indie film and stylistically it reminded me of Kevin Smith's Clerks in that it is very basic.  There isn't any examples of flashy direction or incredible cinematography, the focus is very much on the story, the characters and the dialogue.  This is inventive though.  The documentary scenes seem to have been filmed on VHS, giving it a real homemade feel, and the subjects she interviews are all naturalistic, some actually being people she stopped on the street for real.  The scenes from the fictional 30's films, and the old photographs from the same era, are all brilliantly done, looking like the genuine article.  You would believe they were real if you didn't know otherwise.  

The performances are good for the most part, Dunye being the standout, and they all come across as real people, although Walker as Tamara sometimes goes too big and feels like she's acting in a distracting way.  The story is really well told.  The drama in both the present and the past unfold in a satisfying way through the framing device of the documentary that always feels natural, nothing is forced in this film.  It also has a lot of important things to say about representation of the LGBT community, people of colour and women in film in an entertaining and engaging way 9/10

 

 

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

Who Killed Captain Alex?

dir. Nabwana IGG/2010/1h11m

Who Killed Captain Alex? is Uganda's first action movie, written and directed by Nabwana Isaac Geoffrey Godfrey, aka Nabwana IGG.  This is a no budget film made in a slum in a third-world country by a man who has never been in a cinema before.  The only surviving copy of this film is a copy of a DVD because Nabwana deleted the film off of his computer to make space for his next film.  He sells his films door-to-door and never even dreamed that anyone outside of his village would see them.  This film is not a good film, on a technical level, or storytelling level, but it is a marvel and delight to watch.  This isn't a bad film that you laugh at like The Room, this is a bad film that you laugh along with.  

The story concerns Captain Alex, Uganda's top soldier, and his fight against the Tiger Mafia, led by Richard.  The plot is only there to get us to the next action or kung-fu scene.  The story is hard to follow though because the film features a "video joker" commentary track.  This is apparently a thing in Uganda, where people in movie houses will talk over the movie, making jokes, their own sound-effects, and generally hyping up the audience by shouting and getting excited during the action scenes, yelling stuff like "COMMANDO!  SUPA KICKER!  ACTION-PACKED MOVIE! EXPECT THE UNEXPECTABLE!" This was very distracting at first, but by the end of the movie I was loving it.  

Obviously, this is not a good movie, but when you look at the context and the goals of the movie you have to respect it.  This is a community coming together just to do something fun.  They have no ambitions to conquer Hollywood or start movie careers with this film, this is something to bring joy and happiness to an impoverished community undergoing violent civil unrest at the time (real news footage of what was happening at the time is in the film and genuinely shocking) and in that respect it was totally successful.  For a realistic score I would give this a 5/10, but for this kind of so-bad-they're-good films this gets a 9/10

 

 

[djw180 6,836]

Holy Smoke

This was my choice for this month's Film Club. My wife mentioned she'd always liked it so we watched it last night.

 

I think Kate Winslett is amazing and I am probably going to like any film with her in. This is one of her better performances. The basic story is Ruth (Kate Winslett) is a young Australian women who had gone travelling around India and decided to join some sort of hippy commune and stay there. Her parents think their daughter has joined a cult so enlist professional help including PJ (Harvey Keitell) a specialist in dealing with young people under the influence of a cult. They pretend Ruth's dad is terminally ill to get her to come home and she eventually agrees to see PJ who takes her to a remote house in the desert to complete his 3-day cult exit plan.

But it isn't long before Ruth is the one in control of PJ manipulating him rather then she being the one to be deprogrammed from the 'cult' she was never really in. I'm not sure you would call this a comedy as such but it has some very funny scenes, mainly from the supporting cast playing Ruth's family and friends. There is also some great scenic landscape shots. One great scene towards the end combines these as we watch Ruth attempting to leave, walking away wearing “shoes” she has made by tieing books to the soles of her feet with plastic bags, pursued by PJ, in a dress and make-up Ruth has made him wear, driving a car adorned with a red nose and light up antlers Christmas decorations.

 

9/10

[Con 5,703]

Downhill (2020) ...1/5..."One of her best movies if 2019! Julia Louis-Dreyfus us an absolute delight!! Much better than the Swedish version!!! The plot was thick and spell-binding. So many twists and turns, each one more inviting than the previous. Will Ferrell was his usual engaging man-child at times, but proved to be a dramatic lead unparalleled in the business. The dialogue of the children was even fascinating as boys 12 and 13 navigated the reality of divorce and dying (almost). A must see for the intelligent movie viewer. Oscar worthy - best picture, best actor, best actress, best script and best directing."

That was an actual review I found...LMAO...someone needs to lay off the cinematic meth. This film was terrible. The only thing going for it was the setting of the Alps and most of it was probably green screen. Anyways, I wish I had chosen to read the book instead, I cannot believe I just typed that, but its true. Why was this film Rated "R"? Not a single *ss crack or n*pple is seen and we don't get any quality foul language, I think Louis-Dreyfus' character says , "I'd f*ck you so hard...something something...", was that why it got an "R" rating? The film wasn't funny nor was it deep, and I think they should have chosen one and stuck with it. Skip this unless you like scenes of people skiing. Why did I watch this? We watched Louis-Dreyfus in a tv interview where she talks about surviving cancer and this film...she said, "Ferrell plays my husband who when an avalanche hits, he grabs his phone and leaves the family behind and we have camera men on skiis going backwards to get some of the shots."  Mfer!!! I should have known right then the film was boring....those were her two selling points??!!! Anyways, why should you watch it? I dunno, you are a HUGE fan of Louis-Dreyfus and she isn't in a lot of films or your a fan of the Swedish novel? 

Edited July 20, 2020 by Con

[DavidCore89 7,402]

Villain (2020)

Crime drama starring Craig Fairbrass. Upon being released from prison and trying to go straight, he is forced back into the underworld after learning that his brother is in debt to a drugs boss.

For me, this wasn't just another British gang film, it has a decent plot with family ties to back it up. Started a little slow, but I was soon enjoying it. Big fan of Craig Fairbrass and the majority of his work. He's underrated IMO.

7/10.

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

Three documentaries about three very different subjects.

Mifune: The Last Samurai

dir. Steven Okazaki/2015/1h20m

Mifune: The Last Samurai is a documentary from Steven Okazaki about the life and career of Japanese cinema's greatest and most famous actor, Toshiro Mifune.  It covers his childhood in China, and his service in the Japanese Imperial Army during WW2 where one of his tasks was to give one final shot of sake to kamikaze pilots before they flew off.  He would tell them to not think about the emporer as they were about to die, but to think of their mothers.  It details the accidental start to his acting career, where one of his friends sent his photo to a studio, and, in what takes up most of the film, his collaborations with legendary director Akira Kurosawa that lasted from 1948's Drunken Angel to 1965's Red Beard, with the two making 14 more films between including stone-cold classics like Rashomon, Yojimbo and Seven Samurai.  Even though he kept working for another 20 plus years after Red Beard, the film hardly covers any of that.  This is a very surface level documentary, so don't expect any amazing revelations about the man.  In fact, this sometimes feels more like a dvd extra rather than a film in it's own right.

This is presented as a standard documentary, with archive footage of Mifune intercut with talking head interviews with his family, people he worked with, and famous fans like Steven Spielberg, who directed him in the comedy 1941, and Martin Scorsese, who draws parallels between the often strained relationship between Mifune and Kurosawa with his own relationship with De Niro.  The film is narrated by Keanu Reeves, who sounds half asleep and uninterested throughout.  Honestly, this film conveys none of the raw animalistic energy that Mifune bought to his roles and the sheer talent of the man.  Kurosawa was famously a perfectionist who exerted total control over every aspect of his films, except for Mifune.  He allowed Mifune to improvise and play on the set, bringing his own incredible persoanlity to the fore of every film he was in.  

If you've never heard of Toshiro Mifune, nor seen any of his films, then this might be a good starter to learn about one of the greatest actors of all time, but honestly, you'd be better off just watching him in his greatest films.  If you've never seen Rashomon or Throne of Blood then watch those, and you'll get more of a grasp on who this man was than this film could ever tell you.  The film also neglects to mention a lot of his films like I Live in Fear where he doesn't play a samurai or a warrior, which ignores a huge chunk of his career. It is still entertaining to hear about this great actor and to see a lot of photographs and footage from his personal life, but there's a feeling that this could have been much more.  6/10

 

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

Athlete A

dir. Bonni Cohen, Jon Shenk/2020/1h44m

Athlete A, from Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk, is a documentary about the s*xual abuse of young girls at the hands of Dr. Larry Nassar while he worked for the USA Gymnastic organisation, and the cover up that several senior members of the organisation engaged in to protect the image of the sport.  It covers the history of the sport, and how important the Olympic games are to the organisation.  It shows how the USA team bought over coaches from Eastern Europe who not only bought prestige but also incredibly controlling and demanding training schedules.  This shows how a culture of silence emerged in the sport because they were getting results and how this allowed Nassar to get away with the disgusting things he did.  This is framed through the investigation of journalists at The Indianapolis Star, who bought these abuses to public attention, resulting in Nassar receiving a 300 year prison sentence.

This is a hard watch because of the subject, and how graphic some of the interviews get.  Footage of Nassar giving intimate massages to young children, knowing that they were being abused at the time, is something that is hard to forget.  But this is also an inspiring film.  Seeing the strength of the survivors of his abuse is really powerful.  These were children whose safety was in the hands of one of the biggest sports organisations in the country. One that has won dozens of Olympic medals. One that has millions of dollars at their hands to hire lawyers to discredit these girls.  Seeing the reporters at The Star receive calls from literally hundreds of survivors of abuse at the hands of US Gymnastics, emboldened by the reports being made public and knowing that people will believe them, is both heartbreaking and hopeful, because for every piece of sh*t like Nassar there are hundreds of good people willing to stand up for what is right. 

As for the actual film, this is a really well made documentary.  Again, like Mifune, this is made up of the standard format of talking heads intercut with archive footage, police interviews, and dramatic reenactments.  This also gives a lot of time to the investigation of the journalists at The Star which reminded me of the film Spotlight, which covers a similar subject and is based on a true story, but presented as a narrative film.  Not comfortable viewing, but a well made film about a subject that needs to be exposed.  8.5/10

 

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

Mr. Toilet: The World's #2 Man

dir. Lily Zepeda/2019/1h29m

Mr. Toilet: The World's #2 Man is a documentary focused on Jack Sim, a Singaporean businessman who quit his job over 20 years ago because he wanted to make a difference in the world, give something back to society.  That something turned out to be clean, safe sanitation for the entire world.  He founded the World Toilet Organisation and for the last few years has been working to bring clean toilets to the poorest parts of India, which is a harder fight than he anticipated because it requires a total social and cultural change.  The film also shows his family life, and while he does come across as a loving husband and father, he is away from home a lot, his obsession becoming obvious as you watch the film.  This man only thinks about toilets.  

The best thing about this film is Sim himself.  He is a charming, charismatic, eccentric force of personality, and that is why he is a success.  You can't help but love this man as you watch him walking a parade dressed as a giant toilet, doing what he can to bring attention to this cause.  You may have heard of the UN's official world toilet day and wondered why they have such a thing.  It's because of Jack and his desire to bring toilets to the entire world.

This is a fascinating watch, mainly for Sim, as you sometimes can't tell if his obsession is healthy or not.  We see him clashing with other members of the WTO over his grand ideas, which he seems to get at the rate of a million a minute.  This is different from the other docs as we actually follow the subject around, and honestly, I could have watched a three hour film about this man.  This is well made and surprisingly endearing for a film I went into with low expectations.  It made me give a sh*t.  8/10