Rate the last film you watched out of 5

[Clipper]

19 hours ago, Nathan Wind said:

It's absolutely this. I'm going out on a limb and saying that I think it's the superior version, but they're sufficiently different that it's a moot point. I've never understood why Timmy never made it as a leading man in big productions. He's excellent in everything I've seen him in and comes across as a very likeable gent. There are so many vacuous, talentless arseholes at the top of the Hollywood tree, it seems criminal to me.

As per my previous post and with minimal ads (4 instance of 15secs each so these Amazon film with ads on Freevee is pretty good) we have

 

The Crazies (2010)

 

It isn't perfect but it is a very tense well crafted film. Olyphant is superb and does carry the film a bit but then the film focuses on his character. Which is the main point of difference between the original and the remake. The original is about how the military do/don't control a rapidly deteriorating situation and it has a documentary feel to it. The "remake" is a smaller story about a couple who try to make sense of the outbreak from the other perspective. The crazies themselves really aren't zombies, it is a birlliantly crafted alternative take on the zombie style film. The antagonists are still intelligent, still have the drives they had before they "turned" and still have feelings. I like the way their actions post infection are still a reflection of who they are, like with the hunters and the "wronged" Mother and Son. The soulless cruelty they can enact whilst still displaying intelligence is quite chilling and it is a shame it has never been expanded on.

 

It loses a mark for the direction/shot composition/editing being quite pedestrian at times. A perfect example is the brilliant enigmatic "final shot" of the backs of two people which is then immediately ruined by the blunt reveal pullout to satellite footage. However, considering the director it is amazing it turned out as well as it did!

 

4/5

 

(I am rewatching the 1973 original tonight I hope so will follow up with that )

[glb]

Licorice Pizza - 3/5 (Prime)

 

Liked, but didn't love, this, which for a Paul Thomas Anderson is somewhat of a disappointment. Amid the woozy tone of the film I really struggled to warm to the lead actress, Alana Haim, who I found was far too disagreeable to root or really care for, which for me undermined the film's (admittedly loose) narrative. Obviously loads of praise has been heaped on her performance, not least a BAFTA nomination, so fully aware I'm in a minority with this criticism.

 

Could have been my own mindset today too, because while I found the oft bickering, sniping central relationship in this grating, I adored similar themes in Phantom Thread. As with all Paul Thomas Anderson films well worth a watch despite my indifference to certain aspects, as I enjoyed plenty others especially in terms of setting, cinematography and supporting performances.

 

(#941)

[cassidy]

Amsterdam 

 

4/5 for me. Looked fantastic, great performances from everyone involved and rather relevent for the world we live in now where the plan they foiled eventually succeeded. 

 

Don't get the hate at all. 

[Mawdlin]

The Menu

 

The 30 minute set up to this is brilliant which is all the more disappointing when the carnage begins. It's a one note satire. Characters act in unbelievable ways; in particular the chef (amiably played by Ralph Fiennes) and staff motivations don't ring true, undermining the violence that follows.

 

Like being treated to a wonderful starter then being forced to eat an old bit of leather for the main course and a turd sprinkled with sugar for dessert.

 

2/5

[Fierce Poodle]

Speak No Evil

 

On Shudder. Deliciously dark Danish horror/drama about two couples who meet up for a weekend after meeting on holiday. Needless to say, not a good time is had by all. Really well done with great performances and the sense of dread cranks up nice and slowly throughout up until the grim conclusion.

 

4/5

[Clipper]

The Crazies 1973

 

Been meaning to rewatch this since I got the boxset of Arrow blurays that cover Romero's films between Night and Dawn (a badly named boxset as it ignores Martin pft).

 

Anyway having watched the remake the other night I was thinking that the original had a tough mountain to climb to match it but it does it with aplomb. I wouldn't say one is better than the other as they have different aims and both get the same rating for me but for different reasons. In the remake I mention Olyphant carrying it a bit but that can't be levelled at the original as the acting is a little, shall we say, rough round the edges The real star of this film is Romero himself, the direction and editing is so much better than the remake with more interesting shot composition and editing that sharpens the action brilliantly despite the tiny budget it was shot on. In any other hands this would look ten times worse, Romero knows how to make cheap outdoor night lighting and special effects work. Yes it looks dated but I think it works.

 

Thematically the film is similar to the remake but the split focus between the group trying to escape and the military and scientists adds another dimension. The military in the remake look like a relentless machine that is excising a diseased town and its population. The original paints authority as incompetent and brutish, the military as violent and bumbling and scientists as badly done by and a little arrogant. The behaviour of the Crazies between the two films is similar but the remake does produce some chilling and tense moments. The original has a documentary feel and the action of the crazies is variable, the knitting woman is superb and the creepy descent of Artie (played by Dr "FRANKENSTEIN" Logan from Day of the Dead) and his daughter is truly distrubing to a level the remake doesn't quite reach.  However the mass crowd of crazies in the High School is poor and even Romero frantically trying to edit around them can't quite fix it.

 

The acting performances are nothing to write home about but the main escaping group are well played given their talent and the slow descent of some of them into madness is handled really well.

 

This rating is if you can handle dated early 70s low budget scifi/horror

 

4/5

[glb]

The Lost King - 2/5 (work screener)

 

An inoffensive dramatisation of the discovery of Richard III's burial sight. Sally Hawkins pretty much carries the film, giving an earnest performance despite there not being much for her to work with. Steve Coogan's accent is wonky, some other British actors like Mark Addy chip in. It's all pretty flimsy, and the kind of film that gets put on BBC2 at 1.45pm on a Bank Holiday.

 

Also, if you're not familiar with the story, don't watch the trailer, which is less a promo and more a three-minute summary of what happens in the film.

 

(#946)

[tenrou]

Bullet train 3/5.

 

This is to me a fine example of an alright watch film.  I don't hate the premise, the characters while not always well done have something at least semi interesting about them.  

 

It is however way too long, a leaner film would be way more helpful.  Some of the characters are in for so little time removing them would actually help the film and spend more time with the characters that are interesting cause you've given them time to develop.   

 

[Festoon]

Amsterdam

 

Jesus, what a mess. Horrifically stagey and amateurish. Like a local theatre company doing a Coen Brothers film. Only Bale and deNiro are decent. And Daniel Pemberton aquits himself well.

 

1/5

[glb]

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent - 3/5 (Prime)

 

Obviously your mileage will vary depending on how much you worship at the alter of Nic “Nicky” Cage. This is massively self-indulgent but Pedro Pascal does at least inject enough charm to ensure this isn’t just a Cage-a-thon, with added Sharon Horgan for good measure.

 

Nothing too original, Being John Malkovich did similar and much more years ago, but if you like Cage, and a bit of silliness with it, this is an enjoyably daft hour and three quarters.

 

(#948)

[Jamie John]

The Shape of Water (2018) - 4K UHD BD

 

 

I thought this was good, but not great. Like most Del Toro films I've seen, it looks beautiful and is meticulously composed, but the actual story felt a tad predictable. Sally Hawkins' performance as the mute lead was notable, but Michael Shannon, Michael Stuhlbarg and Octavia Spencer felt like they'd been copied and pasted from other films, as did Doug Jones in make-up, for that matter. It was fine, overall - entertaining without being ground-breaking. I don't think it merited Best Picture, especially when you consider the competition that year. If you've got a 4K Blu-Ray player, though, it's a great reference disc for how good it can look, and the soundtrack is excellent.

 

3.5/5

[Capwn]

Nope

 

Struggled with this, found there to be little chemistry with the cast and the plot just not that interesting despite the grandness of it all. I felt Daniel kulellas performance especially distant and difficult to engage with.

 

Some nice vista shots here and there at least

 

2/5

[Boozy The Clown]

An American Werewolf in London (1981)

 

You can't make a horror comedy said the reviews on release. Landis followed his comedy hit Animal House with this gorefest laugh out loud classic take on Lon Chaney's The Wolfman. The horror chills to the bone the laughs are delivered with expert timing. Scene after scene of iconic images that burn into your life experience and stay with you for years. Ever been alone in an underground late at night ? Truly one of the greatest movies to ever be crafted.

 

Full/moon.

[Mikes]

Children of Men (2006)

 

I don't know why it took me so long to watch this. I think because I'd long ago read the novel, but my god this goes down as the leading "The book is always better than the movie" argument.

 

Solid as hell. It even makes Clive Owen's acting seem good.

 

5 of the best car chase scenes ever out of 5

 

 

[Stig]

Entergalactic (2022)

 

An adult animated feature, which was set to be a series originally but released as a feature length film on Netflix. It's a promotional project for Kid Cudis latest album and tells the story of artists Jabari and Meadow who are neighbours and fall for each other. It's basically a rom com but cuts out many of the clichés to tell a simple down to earth story.

 

I really enjoyed this, its super low key with cool and interesting leads that I could easily spend more time with. It's well acted, the conversations feel real (if you get what I mean) and I really loved the animation style. In a world full of Disney and Dreamworks, doing something new and interesting really stands out to me. It's bright pastel colours with thick lines and animated in a low frame rate that gives it this stilted movement which I really liked. It reminds me of some of the stylistic choices used in Into the Spider-verse.

 

The soundtrack is great too and works in perfect tandem with what's on screen.

 

Side note: This is NOT for kids, there's drugs, sex and language throughout.

 

4/5

[Festoon]

Parents will just stick their kids in front of it. If it looks lkke Spiderverse then, y'know, for kids!

[Silent Runner]

Vengeance
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11976532/

 

A writer from New York City attempts to solve the murder of a girl he hooked up with and travels down south to investigate the circumstances of her death and discover what happened to her.

 

BJ Novak is a cliched New York millennial - he writes for the New Yorker, has a string of women in his phone and is trying to get a podcast started. After a miscommunication he ends up in rural west-Texas for a funeral. And while there gets involved in what might be a murder investigation but he sees it as an opportunity to get a new podcast off the ground. 

 

This came out a while back and kind-of disappeared but I thought it was really good. It starts out as a cliched city-type in amongst a load of hicks but it flips that early on. As he records his podcast he discovers that there might be something to the story and that maybe he's in danger. Or maybe the whole thing is a shaggy-dog story with nothing under the surface. 

 

I had an absolute blast with this. The cast are excellent - Novak is perfect as the slightly jaded New Yorker and the support cast (Ashton Kutcher, Boyd Holbrook, J. Smith-Cameron) are all quality. It looks great and the big Texas scenery is always dramatic, the plot is tight and it's really funny in places. It might be recency-bias but this is one of my favourites of the year.

 

Loved it.

4.5/5 

[Ork1927]

19 minutes ago, Silent Runner said:

Vengeance
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11976532/

 

A writer from New York City attempts to solve the murder of a girl he hooked up with and travels down south to investigate the circumstances of her death and discover what happened to her.

 

BJ Novak is a cliched New York millennial - he writes for the New Yorker, has a string of women in his phone and is trying to get a podcast started. After a miscommunication he ends up in rural west-Texas for a funeral. And while there gets involved in what might be a murder investigation but he sees it as an opportunity to get a new podcast off the ground. 

 

This came out a while back and kind-of disappeared but I thought it was really good. It starts out as a cliched city-type in amongst a load of hicks but it flips that early on. As he records his podcast he discovers that there might be something to the story and that maybe he's in danger. Or maybe the whole thing is a shaggy-dog story with nothing under the surface. 

 

I had an absolute blast with this. The cast are excellent - Novak is perfect as the slightly jaded New Yorker and the support cast (Ashton Kutcher, Boyd Holbrook, J. Smith-Cameron) are all quality. It looks great and the big Texas scenery is always dramatic, the plot is tight and it's really funny in places. It might be recency-bias but this is one of my favourites of the year.

 

Loved it.

4.5/5 

 

I meant to write about this when I saw it at the cinema a while ago - but agree that it was really good.

[the_debaser]

Troll. On Netflix. 0/5. 

[Clipper]

45 minutes ago, the_debaser said:

Troll. On Netflix. 0/5. 

surprised you hated that one

[Nathan Wind]

Death Race 2000 - Prime

 

Ridiculous B-movie trash and I loved it.
 

Nonsense attempt at satirising the violence and bluster of American media and culture, served up with the hammiest acting you could ever hope to see. But the thing is, it knows it, and everyone in the film knows it too so they all play up to it.  It’s basically Wacky Races x Road Runner x Running Man so it’s impossible not to like. The constant reuse of the clearly sped up vehicle footage is hilarious, but the piece de resistance (I don’t know how to do accents on an iPad) has to be the fight scene between David Carradine and Sly Stallone. Absolute chef’s kiss.

 

4/5

[Clipper]

I last watched that on late night VHS drunken movie marathon with some friends  in the late 80s/early 90s (we did this once a month - rent films and get pissed and watch round the clock to the bleary morning). My memory is not of a 4/5 film but now I am intrigued enough to fire up Prime

 

[Nathan Wind]

It isn’t if you measure it by any sensible standards, no. But if you can let yourself get into it it’s an absolute riot. At least, I think so. I enjoyed it in the same way as I enjoy shit like Night of the Comet, Blood Beach, Omega Man. They’re all great if you can get into the schlocky spirit of them.

 

 

[iknowgungfu]

On 11/12/2022 at 19:17, Mikes said:

Children of Men (2006)

 

I don't know why it took me so long to watch this. I think because I'd long ago read the novel, but my god this goes down as the leading "The book is always better than the movie" argument.

 

Solid as hell. It even makes Clive Owen's acting seem good.

 

5 of the best car chase scenes ever out of 5

 

 

I love the opening to this film. Managed to tell you pretty much everything you need to know about the film’s world in one scene. 

[Mikes]

Oh hell yeah. It's basically the perfect film. I love how it trusts the audience to pick up visual storytelling without having to make ti explicit.

[englishbob]

On 11/12/2022 at 19:08, Boozy The Clown said:

An American Werewolf in London (1981)

 

You can't make a horror comedy said the reviews on release. Landis followed his comedy hit Animal House with this gorefest laugh out loud classic take on Lon Chaney's The Wolfman. The horror chills to the bone the laughs are delivered with expert timing. Scene after scene of iconic images that burn into your life experience and stay with you for years. Ever been alone in an underground late at night ? Truly one of the greatest movies to ever be crafted.

 

Full/moon.

 

Gave me fucking nightmares back in around 1984 when I was around 13 years old - rented after the success of the Thriller video - still watched it all the way through! It was the dream sequences at the start to the mid point that screwed me up - I think I'd still have a hard time today watching it.

 

This and "Jaws" screwed me for life

[ScouserInExile]

Lords of London (Prime)

 

IMDB says:

Lords of London (2014)

A London gangster must confront his ruthless father's past in order to alter the gritty, abusive path that his life is spiraling down after a shakedown goes awry.

 

This cropped up a suggestion for me in Prime. The summary looked alright, so I gave it a go.

 

I should have realised what I was in for when I spotted there's two versions on Prime - one says it was from 2013 and has the actual lead actor on the "cover", one is from 2015 and has Ray Winston's head on the lead actors body.

 

The premise is actually vaguely interesting - a London gangster is "mysteriously" transported to 50's Italy and has the opportunity to prevent his mum leaving with his dad and suffering a miserable and tragically short life.

 

But it all falls apart fairly quickly. For a start (literally), he's shown dying after being shot in the opening scene, then is confused as to why he wakes up with blood all over his shirt. But this kinda takes the mystery out of what's going on, like you go "oh, so he's dead then?" in the first two minutes. The actor who plays his young dad looks like a young Ray Winston, but he doesn't recognise him for a while and I think the viewer isn't supposed to either. He isn't shown as anything other than a small time gangster, which makes the biggest mystery to be why the film is called Lords of London. He's not the lord of anything. So there's not that "save my mum from a miserable life, but give up my fabulous one" conflict that it seems to imply. But the big thing is that only his grandfather (possibly great, it's a bit confusing) can see him in Italy, so he doesn't actually influence what happens between his mum and dad - his mum works out his dad is an arsehole for herself - despite the outcome changing and the mum then being shown to have a great life in Italy instead.

 

And the acting is universally awful.

 

0/5 avoid.

[NexivRed]

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

 

5/5

 

You can’t change my mind. You can’t fucking change my mind. Was my favourite film as a tween. It’s corny as hell in places but some shots still get me right in the soft part. I swear Rickman wrote his own lines. Christ I miss him. 

[NexivRed]

Oh, and the music’s so good that Disney nicked it. 

[SeanR]

31 minutes ago, NexivRed said:

Oh, and the music’s so good that Disney nicked it. 

Are you talking about the Morgan Creek ident at the start of some Disney releases? It sounds a lot like the soundtrack.