Jump to content

Rate the last film you watched out of 5


Raoull duke
 Share

Recommended Posts

Running Red (1998)

Acceptable late-era PM Entertainment action. Jeff Speakman is definitely one of the better lower-tier action stars, has a lot more charisma than most too. It's a shame then he's having to do his best with this routine straight-to-video fare, the unique selling point of him being  ex-Russian army doesn't go anywhere and it ends predictably enough. It does have good action though especially the car stunts, and the train+bus bit is a highlight.

 

3/5

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AlanT said:

Dr Sleep

 

Me and the current MrsT watched this last night as noticed it was on Sky.  We both thought it was excellent.  I personally didnt think much of the shining, but while this is the pseudo sequel, we both though it was a far superior film.  Excellent cast, took its time to develop the story and while its a long film (2hrs+) would recommend.

 

Solid 4/5 from this house


You almost had me going for a moment before I realised you were clearly trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fierce Poodle said:


You almost had me going for a moment before I realised you were clearly trolling.

For the record I’m not trolling.  We preferred it and just giving my opinion.  If anyone was on the fence about watching it, we really liked it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elvira Mistress Of The Dark (1988)

Was in the doldrums so rewatched this to cheer myself up, and it was the perfect film to raise a smile. It's full of the sort of lightly-naughty easy humour that may feel a bit lame to some but it's delivered in a way where everyone is in on the tone. It helps that Elvira is a great character, full of charm and time for the people in the small town who deserve it, and doesn't take any crap from the slimy guys and stuffier townsfolk. Not sure how this would go down with younger people who didn't know who Elvira was. To me though this was good fun with a likeable, strong female lead and a lot of recognisable character actors doing their bit.

 

3.5/5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ImmaculateClump said:

Candyman - **

 

Which one did you watch? The 1992 original (and the first 18 that I saw at the cinema whilst blatantly under age but nevermind that) or this year's version?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, AlanT said:

Dr Sleep

 

Me and the current MrsT watched this last night as noticed it was on Sky.  We both thought it was excellent.  I personally didnt think much of the shining, but while this is the pseudo sequel, we both though it was a far superior film.  Excellent cast, took its time to develop the story and while its a long film (2hrs+) would recommend.

 

Solid 4/5 from this house

 

You deserve each other 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Talvalin said:

Which one did you watch? The 1992 original (and the first 18 that I saw at the cinema whilst blatantly under age but nevermind that) or this year's version?

 

The new one. I can't remember much about the original, I'd have been 12 when I watched it.

I remember it being flawed, but quite visually striking. I remember the buzz around it at the time and thinking, well, this is a bit overrated, but good fun and pretty spooky.

 

I thought this was such a wasted opportunity. Heavy handed, muddled, and dull.

I wasn't sure at first, but when it got going, it got up to 3 and a half stars for me at one point, and then about half way through, it flatlined, and my god, that ending, straight down the shitter.

 

Could have been great.

 

I totally understand the intent, leaning more into the political angle, I think they were right to do that, but you have to be careful. When you push it that hard, it starts to feel like you're patronising the viewer at best, or like you're being exploitative, like you're digging up George Floyd to spice up your slasher flick, at worst.

Subtext works far better when it's kept under the surface. It's far more effective than repeatedly bonking the viewer over the head with your message.

 

Again, I understand the intent, and why you might feel in the current climate that urgency wins out and subtlety will have to take the day off, but we're not here to review a films intent out of 5, we're reviewing the quality of the film, or at least how much we enjoyed watching it, and while I'm not the biggest fan of the original, this one wasn't even half as good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amadeus (1984)

 

I got round to it! I"m not averse to long films (I put down Lawrence of Arabia on a yearly basis), but for some reason I've put off watching this even though its been in my iTunes library for years. It's very good, if not quite the masterpiece I was expecting. I did watch the 3-hour Director's Cut, which may have been part of the issue. I felt it started to run out of steam towards the 2-hour mark, but it did pick up again in the final 30 minutes. It's way more lightly entertaining than I expected, very comical and energetic (at least in the first half). I felt it was less a biopic than a sort of tonal snapshot of a life, and to be honest Salieri was way more interesting than Mozart himself. I never got a feel for why Mozart's compositions were and are considered such works of genius, although this might have buried the movie in dry technicality. There is a scene towards the end where Salieri is helping Mozart pen the Requiem, and here there was a sense of Salieri peeking into the creative mind and being astounded by it, which I really enjoyed.

 

Performances are all great, though a little arch in some cases, but that's the style of the film. Obviously impressive sets and costuming, oh and the score is pretty good.

 

4/5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Promised-Land-2-1140x600.jpg

 

The Promised Land

Andrzej Wajda – 1974

 

It starts as a blissful pastoral: three friends cycle down a country road, singing and laughing all the while. They are Maks (a German engineer), Moryc (a Jewish businessman) and Karol (a Polish nobleman), all merrily travelling to the ancestral home of the latter. Their high spirits are matched by their hosts’, and the scene of their arrival purls with overlapping voices, boisterous greetings, padding footfalls, slapped playing cards, mirthful exclamations and the barking of happy dogs – a democratic cacophony. Wajda’s camera pans towards, zooms in on and tracks alongside the approaching guests, visually integrating them into the existing company with a skill so refined as to be invisible: the men anarchically tumble from their bicycles, and in the next instant they’re essential elements of an elegant conversation piece arrangement. A world of leisure, ease and contentment immediately enchants the viewer.

 

But that’s only how it starts. The friends are going into business together – textile manufacturing, to be precise, and Karol’s boyhood home (the idyllic setting for the above) is to be sold to raise capital for the establishment of a factory in Lodz. With a crassness born from unspeakable power, the city crashes through with a tumorous wide-angle shot that presents a sandy wasteland sullenly occupied by proles, shacks and detritus. Steam whistles summon the horde towards giant chimneys – mechanization and montage have taken command, and a driving score links those swallowed by the factory gates with inserts documenting the morning devotions of pawnbrokers, industrialists and financiers. Psalm 91 in Polish; the Lord’s Prayer in German; the Shacharit in Hebrew – no overlaps, nor anything equitable as the incantatory voices of the mighty abrade the hurrying masses without counterpoint or interruption. Suddenly autocratic and imposing, the manner and expression of the film pay compliment to Lodz’s stark, brutalizing social hierarchy, inhospitable brickwork, and incessant machinery. It is the 1890s, and in this half-mad possession of the Russian Empire, choked with cotton and cash, basking in gore and fire, our trio will have their satanic mill, their promised land, come what may.

 

Grotesque contrasts and affecting disparities – such as those found between these two introductions – are to be counted amongst the great pleasures of this raging jackhammer of a picture. How the film utilises colour offers another great example of this tendency. Usually submerged in a cloudy soup of russets and blacks, bright primaries occasionally pierce through to assert the wretched unnaturalness of proceedings, whether in a minor key (a small trickle of blue dye polluting an otherwise fresh river) or with a full-throated scream: the gushing blood of a worker stains an entire batch of fabric, with the white material carrying the scarlet substance of the man throughout an enormous production line as the grisly herald of a maimed body.

 

Vivid and arresting, yet for all that's on display in the film, it is the intangibles and ambiguities of character that figure largest. Karol, simultaneously headstrong and acquiescent, is hailed as the greatest Lodzermensch, the one best suited to rise within the city’s milieu – the narrative shows how, bit by bit, whatever integrity and independence he might possess is mortgaged off in order for him to secure his pre-eminence, his ultimate reward being to gain vast power but without any discretion as to its application. (There is a fruitful comparison to be made with Michael Corleone in The Godfather, in that both characters enter the stage as ostensible modernisers, but leave it as guarantors of tradition. Failed rebels – or were they? – against their own breeding, who are instead compelled to meld new energies with old evils.) A roaring, lacerating epic of the first rank, The Promised Land is also a probing, astute study of behaviour and acculturation, thereby making it a splendid proof of Wajda’s brilliance as a political filmmaker – not only a warped system, but also its sickly sensibility.

 

You might enjoy this film if you liked: La Règle du jeu; Force of Evil; Senso; Room at the Top; The Bad Sleep Well; The Big City; Heaven’s Gate; There Will Be Blood; Parasite.

 

5/5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/09/2021 at 00:51, Vimster said:

Elvira Mistress Of The Dark (1988)

Was in the doldrums so rewatched this to cheer myself up, and it was the perfect film to raise a smile. It's full of the sort of lightly-naughty easy humour that may feel a bit lame to some but it's delivered in a way where everyone is in on the tone. It helps that Elvira is a great character, full of charm and time for the people in the small town who deserve it, and doesn't take any crap from the slimy guys and stuffier townsfolk. Not sure how this would go down with younger people who didn't know who Elvira was. To me though this was good fun with a likeable, strong female lead and a lot of recognisable character actors doing their bit.

 

3.5/5

 

Speaking of which:

 

https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/2021/9/21/elvira-cassandra-peterson-comes-out-talks-19-year-relationship

 

Good for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/09/2021 at 08:48, Treble said:

chaos filmed by a man seriously detached from regular human experience

 

Are you talking about Kubrick? He didn't become properly reclusive until after A Clockwork Orange had been released. He was scared of flying at this point though, and I don't think he was ever detached from regular human experience he had a very close knit family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PK said:

Strange Days - 5/5

 

Can confirm, this is still brilliant.

 

Been meaning to watch this again for years. Is it on amazon or netflix? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Many Saints of Newark

 

You might think - how could they possible make a bad film, with the rich tapestry of characters, family ties and story lines they have to work with?

 

You might also think - It would be great to see how Tony Soprano became…… you know, Tony Soprano.

 

Well they knocked the first one out of the park, with a confusing, poorly paced mess.

 

And as for the second…. “Anthony” is in the film for less than 1 minute in the first 40 minutes of the film. Who/what is this about again?

 

Such a huge disappointment. Almost as disappointing as the fact that cinema is slowly dying. There were four people in there, including me and my friend. I asked the couple what they thought of it, “Yeah, we liked it they said”. “I thought it was rubbish”, I said. “Not enough Tony!”, I said.

 

”Whos Tony?” They said. Which kind of sums up everything that was wrong with the film on so many levels.

 

2/5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/09/2021 at 12:26, Sabreman said:

Amadeus (1984)

 

I got round to it! I"m not averse to long films (I put down Lawrence of Arabia on a yearly basis), but for some reason I've put off watching this even though its been in my iTunes library for years. It's very good, if not quite the masterpiece I was expecting. I did watch the 3-hour Director's Cut, which may have been part of the issue. I felt it started to run out of steam towards the 2-hour mark, but it did pick up again in the final 30 minutes. It's way more lightly entertaining than I expected, very comical and energetic (at least in the first half). I felt it was less a biopic than a sort of tonal snapshot of a life, and to be honest Salieri was way more interesting than Mozart himself. I never got a feel for why Mozart's compositions were and are considered such works of genius, although this might have buried the movie in dry technicality. There is a scene towards the end where Salieri is helping Mozart pen the Requiem, and here there was a sense of Salieri peeking into the creative mind and being astounded by it, which I really enjoyed.

 

Performances are all great, though a little arch in some cases, but that's the style of the film. Obviously impressive sets and costuming, oh and the score is pretty good.

 

4/5

Tough crowd. Amadeus is a stone cold 5/5 for me. Amazing performances, sets, costumes, funny, sad, epic. Kind of has it all.  Even my kids were mesmerised for the whole runtime…perhaps it wasn’t the 3 hour cut though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 Days Later (on Disney+ now under Star)

 

A film of 2 halves, the second half

Spoiler

making Murphy an action hero is jarring to say the least

 

At least I have not seen that twat solider (you know the one) in anything else since, as he spoils this big time

 

2.5/5 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

X the Man with the X ray eyes

 

Interesting, but hampered by when it was made. It’s Corman so you know you will be entertained throughout but it needed a bit more zip to really get going.

 

2.5/5

 

Saint Maud

 

This was captivating and utterly amazing. Fantastic performances and skilful direction. I haven’t got a clue what was going on though. 
 

4.5/5

 

Friday the 13th remake 

 

My only exposure to the FT13th universe. This starts really well and is nice looking. It also has some fantastic boobs in it. But about two thirds of the way through it starts to lose its way and ends poorly with badly a edited climax. Shame as the Performances are very good for the most part.

 

2/5

 

Nightbreed 

 

Narrative coherence is entirely absent from this odd bit of Barker. Some great ideas but they are chucked with abandon so that what you end up with is the horror movie version of Homers car. I am interested to see the newish directors cut as it apparently fixes some of these issues. Cronenburg is well creepy in his role. 
 

2/5

 

Evil Dead

 

Its….ok I suppose. I liked the premise and it is watchable. But I was never scared or excited at all. It just kind of rolled on and then it ended

 

2.5/5

 

Evil Dead 2

 

This was…..better I suppose. It starts really well but I found the cabin a boring set and they spend far too long there. Campbell I found equally brilliant and annoying. Raimi is more assured here but I found it less and less interesting as it progressed. 
 

3/5

 

Army of Darkness

 

I found this quite funny and utterly bonkers. My favourite of the 3 films, but still far from classic status. At least it wasn’t set in that bloody cabin!  Reminded me of The Spaceman and King Arthur. 
 

3.5/5  I’ve also stared watching Ash vs Evil Dead which is excellent and more fun than the films IMHO

 

The House of the Devil.

 

This takes an absolute age to get going. Once it finally does it great. But it’s nowhere near as good as the reviews make it out to be. Solid, but unremarkable. Noonan is his usual brilliant self. It’s too restrained for its own good.
 

3/5

 

Cabin Fever 2. 
 

Hard to believe this is the same director as House of the Devil. It’s basically American Pie meets Carrie. I did enjoy it for what it was, particularly the grosser bits. 


2/5

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oasis Knebworth 1996 - 3/5.

 

If it had been just the concert on its own I would've given it 5/5, but they've added actors into a documentary, which serves no purpose. Either make a documentary or a film, don't mix the two. Plus Liam isn't in it, I assume because of the falling out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Green Knight. 

 

Looks utterly fucking amazing. But then, so did the emperors new clothes. A thing happens with a thing, by a thing and a person walking into a room, and a cover with a lady or a mother maybe a sister who knows and they do a thing unrelated or not. Maybe but Christmas and thing and ooooh he's yes but no but maybe but ha ha no random. A quest ensues. Set filters to teal and orange MAX. 

 

No. No no no.  No

 

-654.575R8801 out of 5 waisted colour filters that were not teal and orange. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free Guy

 

An NPC in a game heavily inspired by GTA Online with all mods allowed thinks he's real. It all changes when he one day finds his dream girl and decides to speak to her. 

 

To start with the obvious, this was a very silly movie. If you try to make sense of it everything falls apart very early on and it just keep on introducing issues that could've been solved very easily but if you watch it for what it is, a light hearted and fun adventure flick spiced up with some satire it really works. Well, it did for me anyways. 


Ryan Reynolds IS the movie and he steals every scene he's in. I loved that they've put a lot of small gaming related details throughout the movie, and a lot of the funny stuff happens in the background, like players lagging (continuously walking into a wall) or players just jumping all over the place, players who teabag their latest kill and a lot of stupid missions. 

 

Even my wife who isn't into gaming enjoyed this and the youngest kid loved every single moment of it. 

 

4/5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Respect

 

 

This was tripe and pays a disservice to such a rich, complex and challenging artist. Talk about kid gloves. Rated 12, the movie can't even begin to explore some of the darker areas of Aretha Franklin's life with any depth. Instead rape, alcohol abuse, misogyny and abuse are treated, and then brushed aside, like Sunday afternoon melodrama beats.

 

It makes for a long, hollow watch (weighing in at 2 hrs 30 minutes) and it's revealing that the real footage of of her during the end credits packs the most punch.

 

There are a couple of good moments, such as when she's coming up with the arrangement for Respect, but the script is anaemic from start to finish.

 

Hopefully a more thorough and penetrating documentary will be made to highlight Aretha's rich and varied life.

 

1/5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Thing (1982)

 

image.thumb.png.f4912a3bb6203c035eedef461c757df5.png

 

I hadn't watched this for about five years and decided to get the recent 4k release. It still holds up remarkably well, and at almost 40 years old now, the special effects, make-up and prosthetics are still excellent - more tactile and...slimy that anything computer generated could be, certainly compared with the CG that was around back when it was made, but also by modern standards as well. The bit where that guy's head turns into the spider thing and scuttles off should be goofy as hell, and even though there is an element of ridiculousness to it, it's still effective enough to be disturbing.

 

If it loses a star (and I still haven't made my mind up) it's because, at just over an hour and forty minutes, it feels a bit lean, especially compared with modern films. I'm normally one to berate films for going on for too long, but here I could have done with a bit more waiting for the tension to brew. Compared with something like Alien, which came out a few years earlier, things start kicking off a lot more quickly, and the final showdown isn't so much a showdown as it is another excuse to show off the effects before it's suddenly all over. The best bit in the film is the blood testing scene, where the paranoia is at its peak - I could have done with another tense exchange like that to flesh things out more.

 

Still, it's great fun, Morricone's score is timelessly effective, and it's got some grade-A dog acting. A must have for anyone's cinematic sci-fi library.

 

4/5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.