Rate the last film you watched out of 5

[ZOK]

The Beat That My Heart Skipped - 5/5 (MUBI)

 

This is a gorgeous slice of Noughties French cinema, a remake of a US film called Fingers. It’s the story of low-life estate agent Tom Seyr who seeks to break out of the profession of beating up immigrant squatters for profit by auditioning for his dead concert-pianist mother’s agent. He finds a Chinese pianist who has recently arrived in Paris to school him, and she shapes his playing while his business and personal relationships fall apart.

 

I haven’t see Fingers but this is splendid, mainly because Romain Duris as Tom is magnetic on screen, and his portrayal of the shifts from scumbag to artist is a must watch. Throw in a stellar collection of supporting roles from Linh Dan Pham, Niels Arestrup, Aure Atika and Emanuelle Devos and you can’t lose.

[Fierce Poodle]

Barbarian

 

Started off well enough and I wasn’t quite sure where it was going after the first section. After that it completely shits the bed however, and is laughably bad in places.

 

2/5

[JoeK]

Ghostbusters 

 

It's not quite perfect. The stain of the sequels inveigles it's way into my mind too much. Also, there are a couple of moments - just a couple - where the direction fails the actors and they kept in the wrong annunciation of their lines. Plus, there was clearly a big fucking argument behind the scenes where old Bill Murray sticks to his guns and refuses to have more than a dollop of shaving foam/marshmallow substitute on him when the rest of the cast went all in and drenched themselves.

 

But...it is very, very nearly there, and it's always worth a watch.

 

4.5/5

 

 

 

 

[Orion]

23 hours ago, Vimster said:

I can't remember what my review said but on Letterboxd I gave it 1.5/5. From what I remember it was pretty cheap, relied a bit too heavily on tired London gangster cliches, had a bit of alright fighting but the humour was weak. It didn't really chime with me.

 

I apologise, sorry. I did watch it off a recommendation from here but not sure who posted it.

[glb]

Plan B - 3/5 (Disney+)

 

A little comedy gem about two teen friends chasing down a 'plan b' pill in American heartland. Has some gross-out moments, but also has plenty of spirit, and is a cut above the usual fare in the genre. Not quite Booksmart levels of brilliance, but an enjoyable film hidden away in Disney+'s archives.

 

(#995)

[tejinashi]

No Time To Die, Prime, 2 stars.

 

Put this on hoping for some festive Bond fun, but with Daniel Craig around I was extremely disappointed. Bloated, turgid and too light on action. Couldn't care less about the characters, with only Lea Seydoux earning pass marks. The best thing by far was the Ana de Armas sequence. Make her the new Bond!

 

Rami Malek was totally wasted, a real shame as he's a brilliant actor.

 

After this, the franchise really needs to change - or die.

[glb]

Black Adam - 2/5 (work screener)

 

Cack Adam, amirite?! Wanted an easy screener while WFH and while this is not as bad as I feared, it is a colossal waste of talent, including managing to nullify Rocky 'The John' Dwayneson's innate charisma. Maybe all those workout supplements frazzled his charm button.

 

I don't know how DCEU films continue to suck the joy out of what should be fairly knockabout fun films but they keep doing it bar a couple of exceptions. And now this and everything before is rendered null and void because WB has decided to reboot the universe. More fool me for opting to watch this, a mechanical, clanking vanity project, I suppose.

 

Oh, and LOL and the post-credits.

 

(#996)

[JPL]

@glb Is there any chance you’re going to rate all the films you watched this year? A mammoth task I know, but it’d be really interesting.

[glb]

6 minutes ago, JPL said:

@glb Is there any chance you’re going to rate all the films you watched this year? A mammoth task I know, but it’d be really interesting.

 

I've kept track on Letterboxd (and an Excel sheet), and started going through them because some are probably, for example, worth 2.5/5. I'll do a summary month-by-month once I reach 1,000 (hopefully tomorrow) I'll whack it all in spoilers tags so as to not clog up the thread too much. Need to whittle them down to a top 10 too, although will focus on films released this year for that. If it was all of them, The Exorcist would comfortably be #1.

[JPL]

29 minutes ago, glb said:

 

I've kept track on Letterboxd (and an Excel sheet), and started going through them because some are probably, for example, worth 2.5/5. I'll do a summary month-by-month once I reach 1,000 (hopefully tomorrow) I'll whack it all in spoilers tags so as to not clog up the thread too much. Need to whittle them down to a top 10 too, although will focus on films released this year for that. If it was all of them, The Exorcist would comfortably be #1.

Brilliant! Why not start a new topic for it, rather than putting them in here? Interesting you rate Exorcist at No.1. It's years since I've seen it, but it hasn't stayed with me, like a lot of films have.

[Festoon]

3 hours ago, tejinashi said:

No Time To Die, Prime, 2 stars.

 

Put this on hoping for some festive Bond fun, but with Daniel Craig around I was extremely disappointed. Bloated, turgid and too light on action. Couldn't care less about the characters, with only Lea Seydoux earning pass marks. The best thing by far was the Ana de Armas sequence. Make her the new Bond!

 

Rami Malek was totally wasted, a real shame as he's a brilliant actor.

 

After this, the franchise really needs to change - or die.

 

<McClure> No, Time To Die! </McClure>

[Timmo]

3 hours ago, tejinashi said:

Rami Malek was totally wasted, a real shame as he's a brilliant actor.

citation needed

[Tequlia]

Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence  -  3/5

 

This popped up on Mubi on Christmas Eve (do you see?!)

 

I’ve avoided this film for years - never fully understood why but think it’s a mix of David Bowie looking unfeasibly handsome, some of the acting looking pretty hammy, and a Japanese hating teacher back at junior school giving me my fill of their war crimes against POWs from the age of 11.

 

Fortunately turns out I was being silly; this is worth watching. Bowie is great - there’s a scene where he mimes the “luxury” of shaving in front of bewildered captors which is  heartbreaking.  The other actors are ok - it even has Takeshi Kitano who very effectively combines childlike with terrifying.  

 

Unsurprisingly, it’s a gruelling watch - and there is something “off” that I can’t put my finger on - maybe it’s the clunky editing, maybe it’s Tom Conti’s constant eye rolling, maybe it’s how that piece of music is overplayed. 

 

 But if you have a couple of spare hours I’d recommend it.

[multi]

Another Round (now on netflix) 4/5

 

Really good, starts funny gets grim.

 

4 disillusioned and bored teachers in a Danish school decide to follow the recommendation of a Norwegian philosopher who thinks that humans are 0.05% below the ideal alcohol level for a happy and fulfilling life without added alcohol.

So they decide it would be a good idea to get pissed up at work and that turns out as you'd expect it to (or does it?)

 

Contains Mads Mikkelsen. Need I add more?

 

Easily amongst the best films I've watched this year. Cried a lot in the last 10-15 mins of it.

 

 

 

 

 

[g wings]

9 hours ago, tejinashi said:

The best thing by far was the Ana de Armas sequence.

 

Totally agree. It also felt nothing like Bond which is probably why it was so good.

[Mike S]

8 hours ago, glb said:

If it was all of them, The Exorcist would comfortably be #1.

 

 

This would, of course, apply to any list of films watched, at any time, that also included The Exorcist.

 

 

[mexos]

Cabin in the woods 2/5

 

Horror is not my thing at all but I knew that this was a bit different. It had some nice concepts to it and a few laughs but I was hoping for a bit more. 

[Clipper]

Yes it is low budget zombie time

 

Wyrmwood : Apocalypse (Prime)

 

An Australian zombie film and this one falls into the cheap but decent category. The zombie plague has an interesting twist with the zombies being a useful commodity making some survivors farm them. The zombie threat isn't really the point of the film, as with many zombie films, but it doesn't even pretend to be this time which makes the zombies less interesting/relevant. The plot is ok but I think it has too many duplicated characters making it feel less focused. This lack of focus makes the film dribble away towards the end which is a shame.

 

The filmmakers seem to love evil dead and Bad taste (use of shots and angles and "steadicam") which is a good thing as they seem to have some technical talent. THe film is set in either a series of forest clearings or in interior sets in a studio. The exterior sets are well made but make no sense as the protagonist lives in the middle of a field with barricades around him. The incredibly cheap settings are due to budget but the quality of the dressing of the  interior/exterior sets and vehicles etc is pretty good, the money they do have is all on the screen and they didn't spend it on fancy locations

 

All in all it was watchable and didn't outstay its welcome and the inventive use of zombies as a commodity gave it a USP

 

3/5 (as usual knock a point off if you arent as into zombie films as me )

 

And then Prime said I might like to watch this next one and I haven't for about 10 years so I reappraised it

 

HItchHiker's guide to the galaxy (2005)

 

I love the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in all its forms. I still regularly listen to the radio series (first and second series), I loved the books when I read them, The version on two LPs is a wonderful abridged version and the TV series is a fantastic piece of concentrated goodness. All are subtly different, all have their positives and very few negatives and all of them are concentrated Douglas Adams genius. I have watched/listened and read this for 40 ish years and it is the one work that I never really tire of and it is, to me, perfect.

 

Obviously this film is a different entity as it was produced after Douglas Adams' death. Yes the producers go to great lengths to tell us it is his vision and he co-wrote the screenplay etc. but it is obvious that he didn't "finish" it. The film got mixed reviews and it deserves some of the critiques it did get but, to me as a fan, it is achingly close to briliant.

 

The biggest positive for the film is that it feels utterly british. The humour is pretty much solid Douglas Adams and I can see why the producers were so keen to say it was "His Vision" , some of the reviews complained it americanised the concept too much but I didn't see that at all. It has americanised influences, but so did the original in its various forms. Trillian, for instance, is different in various versions.

 

The film at times feels expensive with the utterly brilliant Magrathean "shopfloor" with the earth being spun around, at others it looks super cheap like the outskirts of Vogsphere (a gravel pit) and whatever was used for the nightclub exterior shots - this makes the film feel anarchic and a bit chaotic which is a good feeling. Similarly the mix of practical effects, puppetry evoking Pink FLoyd's the wall and Gerald Scarfe-ish inspired Vogons, and expensive cgi collide on the screen from scene to scene. It looks like half the film was shot on 5% of the budget with the other 95% going on the rest and sometimes even in the same scene. Again this chaos is very idiosyncratic and fun.

 

I don't really have any qualms about the casting apart from Marvin, the book and some other ancillary examples. Yes the characters deliveries differ from the other versions but it is personal choice, I am utterly wedded to certain characterisations of the main characters but I can see merit in all but two of the versions presented here. Marvin is a horrible misstep in almost every way, physically it doesn't work and the voice provided by Rickman is completely off beam. Similarly Stephen Fry is technically a perfect choice but he is too recognisable and  something about his delivery feels off. Also the book parts are almost word for word from the radio and TV series with only 2 short sections that don't come from them so they could have used Peter Jones' recordings!

 

Onto the problems and why this film isn't a success and is a poor sibling to the other interpretations. It lacks the polish Adams would have given it. In the first 3 mins of the film there is a perfect example. Arthur lies in front of the bulldozer and Prosser tells him that the plans have been on display and Arthur says he had to go the basement and then there is a ugly cut of the scene. The dialogue is cut chopped and hacked to pieces and loses its humour completely. It may seem picky but it makes the scene fall flat. Obviously the 3 hr tv series/radio/book have to be cut to fit and I can see where they have done that effectively, but to chop and change a comedy exchange in a single scene is madness and shows a lack of genius at the tiller. Moments like this a peppered throughout and stop the film reaching the heights of its predecessors. It lacks the bite of Adams. Also my other reason for assuming it isn't "finished" is the book sections I mention earlier, all appear almost word for word the same as the original radio series apart from two new very short sections. Adams co-wrote the screenplay but if Adams was as involved until the film's production I can't believe he wouldn't have done a new pass on the book sections especially as the plot explores the Great Green Arkleseizure and Humma Kavula further. Some sections feel shoehorned in at incorrect points in the plot as if they want to get in all the Adams stuff despite other changes.

 

Such a shame as when it hits heights it is superb and some of the new stuff on Vogsphere is great fun but all in all it is a missed opportunity. The scenes on nu-earth/magrathea almost rescue the film as it is utterly gorgeous and full of wonder at that point but it is too late and the many deficiencies have hobbled it.

 

It still sits ont he shelf with the other interpretations, just with an asterisk next to it.

 

3/5

[PK]

That's a really interesting H2G2 review @Clipper, thanks. I've lost count of how many times I've listened to the radio series and read the books but I've never watched the TV series nor that film because I've always just assumed they were both doomed to fail (the former by its visual effects & budgetary constraints, and the latter by Adams' absence). In fact I can't really get on with the newer radio series they made either, because they seem to just be transcribing the later books into a format they weren't written or intended for.

 

I'm still not sure I can bring myself to watch the film but you've certainly made it sound more interesting!

[glb]

19 hours ago, JPL said:

Brilliant! Why not start a new topic for it, rather than putting them in here? Interesting you rate Exorcist at No.1. It's years since I've seen it, but it hasn't stayed with me, like a lot of films have.

 

I love 1970s cinema; the growing paranoia in society reflected on screen by some groundbreaking filmmakers. Such 'grittiness' did start in earnest, in Hollywood at least, in the 1960s, when B-movies popularised by Roger Corman, then given a jolt in the arm by George A Romero, showed a viable alternative to the studio system. As Hollywood's strict censorship started to erode it paved the way for much more expressive and experimental cinema.

 

The '70s then became a transitional period in the history of film, with European and those B-movie influences really starting to show on screen once the generation that grew up with a broader output in the decade prior started to make their own films. Reflective cinema in the first half of the decade were joined by escapist films in the second half, with Jaws heralding the birth of the blockbuster and a change to the way films integrated with culture. The Exorcist has a look and feel that was unique to that period, and along with other personal favourites One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Apocalypse Now, just hit the right notes with me. There's a weight to those films that I can't quite put into words, but they resonate.

 

I consider myself a fairly optimistic person but I love the pessimism of films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Dawn of the Dead and Westworld, not to mention the wealth of political thrillers and dramas, where the distrust of the era is blazed onto the silver screen. Also, The Exorcist contributed to what was an amazing decade for horror. I'm slightly disappointed it took me this long to get around to watching it, but sometimes the timing just has to be right, and I was spellbound by it as a film.

[glb]

The Young Victoria - 3/5 (iPlayer)

 

There's not really been any rhyme or reason to the films I've watched this year simply because of the intended volume. When not watching a screener, a lot have just been viewed on a whim, including this. The hit rate has been mixed but this is at least a pretty lavish period piece, anchored by Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend's chemistry as Victoria and Albert. Not my favourite genre or subject but do appreciate, perhaps as a result of this year's viewing, films that are well-made, well-scripted and to the point. 

 

(#999)

[Clipper]

1 hour ago, PK said:

That's a really interesting H2G2 review @Clipper, thanks. I've lost count of how many times I've listened to the radio series and read the books but I've never watched the TV series nor that film because I've always just assumed they were both doomed to fail (the former by its visual effects & budgetary constraints, and the latter by Adams' absence). In fact I can't really get on with the newer radio series they made either, because they seem to just be transcribing the later books into a format they weren't written or intended for.

 

I'm still not sure I can bring myself to watch the film but you've certainly made it sound more interesting!

The TV series is as valid as the radio series and books, and just as clever with alterations to suit the medium. The fx are obviously a problem but the comic timing and inventiveness of Adams are all present and correct. Also the visual representations of the book are a delight.

 

The movie is not as valid due to the stunted Adams contribution to it. I put the later radio series in the same category for a similar reason. They are both terrified of getting it wrong so they try and transcribe what they have faithfully as a tribute. In the case of the former it is missing Adam's polish and has editing issues which ruin the timing too often and is frustratingly close to being great and in the latter it lacks his genius of adapting his work for different media so it just feels like an audiobook (there is nothing wrong with an audiobook just it isnt in the same league as the original radio series). The changes he made from radio to TV were important as were the changes from radio to book and from all of those to the film. The later radio series just didn't have that input.

 

When the film gets it right it can give me those feelings I get from the original adaptations but they are still a bit like a tribute band.

[Vimster]

Ebola Syndrome (1996)

Film from director Herman Yau is most definitely not for the faint of heart, or weak of stomach. Murderer flees Hong Kong, contracts Ebola whilst working in South Africa, becomes a carrier and goes on a nihilist rampage spreading the infection.  I felt like I needed a wash after watching this, it's that grimy. Ebola spreads through contact with bodily fluids and this film has plenty of all of them. A hard watch generally but not least due to the heavy dose of sexual violence. Anthony Wong really sells the sleazy, depraved, filthy Kai whose contempt for everyone comes off the screen in waves, so much nasty shit right from the off. The commitment to bad taste here is at least 100%.

 

4/5

 

Anna (2019)

Luc Besson continues his fascination with strong, emotionless women kicking off, this time in an espionage tale that flashes back, forwards and sideways that much you'll forget what day it is. In fact by the end of the film I didn't trust any scene and just waited for the flash-back reveal. Bit of post-John Wick slick action. Not sure if the lack of period detail was deliberate or lazy (applying to join the navy online, in 1987). By the end I just wanted to leave this lot to their endless crossing and double-crossing and get on with my life.

 

2.5/5

[glb]

Elvis - 4/5 (screener)

 

Have had mixed reactions to Baz Luhrman’s films but thoroughly enjoyed this. The director’s glitzy, gaudy, deliberately OTT style perfect for an icon intrinsically linked with the Mecca for such ostentatiousness, Las Vegas.

 

Of course, that’s reductive to Elvis Presley’s legacy, a man who changed rock n roll forever with a level of charisma few to have walked the Earth have ever matched. But as a favourable snapshot of The King, twisting versions of the truth into flashy entertainment, the film works wonderfully. It captures Elvis’s lightning-in-a-bottle verve while hinting at the loneliness that underpinned the need to perform under the brightest of lights.

 

Austin Butler’s performance is outstanding, so too Tom Hanks as the leaching Parker, a man who cornered the market in being at the right place at the right time (and no doubt sold the tickets for his position)

 

A very enjoyable way to reach a pointless milestone.

 

(#1,000)

[Mike S]

7 hours ago, glb said:

I love 1970s cinema;

 

 

I trust you have read, or are planning to,  Tarantino's brilliant look at 70's cinema 'Cinema Speculation'?

[Stig]

50 minutes ago, glb said:

Elvis - 4/5 (screener)

 

Have had mixed reactions to Baz Luhrman’s films but thoroughly enjoyed this. The director’s glitzy, gaudy, deliberately OTT style perfect for an icon intrinsically linked with the Mecca for such ostentatiousness, Las Vegas.

 

Of course, that’s reductive to Elvis Presley’s legacy, a man who changed rock n roll forever with a level of charisma few to have walked the Earth have ever matched. But as a favourable snapshot of The King, twisting versions of the truth into flashy entertainment, the film works wonderfully. It captures Elvis’s lightning-in-a-bottle verve while hinting at the loneliness that underpinned the need to perform under the brightest of lights.

 

Austin Butler’s performance is outstanding, so too Tom Hanks as the leaching Parker, a man who cornered the market in being at the right place at the right time (and no doubt sold the tickets for his position)

 

A very enjoyable way to reach a pointless milestone.

 

(#1,000)

 

Nice one on reaching 1000 films, you picked a great one to watch for your it too. It's my favourite film of the year.

 

What's your letterboxd btw?

[Stig]

Strange World (2022)

 

It was a really odd decision of Disney to not advertise this during its cinema run as they've always championed their mainstream animated films but after watching it, I can kind of see why. I don't think they would have recuperate the advertising money at all, let alone the production budget. 

 

It looks amazing, and there's some wonderfully creative animals/plants but the story is really dull and just another parent and child dont get on story. It's boring and played out.

 

This film wouldn't be out of place with those terrible mid-00s Disney films. I can't understand them putting the likes of Luca or Turning Red straight onto Disney+ but releasing this in the cinemas. Should have been the other way round. 

 

Ultimately it's just very mediocre with some really forgettable characters.

 

2/5

[lolly]

The Banshees of Inisherin

 

Wrote some words in the dedicated thread , I can see why people wouldn't enjoy it  but I thought it was fantastic .Dark, funny, depressing  and ultimately very good.

 

4.5/5

 

Bullettrain

 

I assume there's an original manga or movie in Japanese "that's much better", great, this might inspire me to go find that. In the meantime this is a fun ,violent romp with Pitt on top form and a few  extended cameos  from some well know names. 4/5

[Steve McQueef]

4 hours ago, Mike S said:

I trust you have read, or are planning to,  Tarantino's brilliant look at 70's cinema 'Cinema Speculation'?

It's funny you should mention that, it's the one thing I asked my wife for, for Christmas, but she forgot to order it...

Spoiler

 

Happily, it magically appeared today, via Amazon. 

 

[glb]

14 hours ago, Mike S said:

 

 

I trust you have read, or are planning to,  Tarantino's brilliant look at 70's cinema 'Cinema Speculation'?

Planning to now! Thank you for the recommendation

 

14 hours ago, Stigweard said:

 

Nice one on reaching 1000 films, you picked a great one to watch for your it too. It's my favourite film of the year.

 

What's your letterboxd btw?

A good choice! I really enjoyed it. Been a decent last week or so of viewing. Didn’t post a score but watched Fire of Love (Disney+) the other night. Didn’t pip Moonage Daydream to being my favourite doc of the year, but is another film I wish I’d watched on a big screen. Only managed 10 cinema trips across the year, which is low for me. Will make more of an effort to go when I’m in the office.

 

Letterboxd profile link: https://boxd.it/rWnd