Locked Rate and Discuss the Last Movie You Saw v.15

[The_Renaissance]

Rampage (2018)

The plot was just as thin as you'd expect from a movie based on an arcade game, that I wasn't even aware had an actual storyline/plot in itself! But, it's a big gorilla, a big wolf and a big 'gator type thing going bonkers and climbing skyscrapers......brainless but harmless enough.
6/10

 

[Philo-Publius]

Capote (2005)

This was an interesting fact-based drama with a stellar performance from Phillip Seymour Hoffman. What a colossal loss that guy's death was. Even the small parts he played in most films were memorable, and there was a lot more he could have accomplished.

7/10 - "B"

 

[Deleted member 220895]

Hereditary - an actually creepy movie. I haven't seen one in some time and it was nice to see an original one at that. Even for a horror film this movie was fucking dark. Good use of hereditary insanity to carry the plot. Good movie and great performance by Toni Collette. 7.5/10

Jurrasic world 2: We're Going Overboard - my faux titles says most of it. You would think a movie about bringing the dinosaurs back somehow wasn't insane enough, this movie is a predictable one, and corny as ever. It has some good parts, mostly the action. Though Chris Pratt has a couple moments where he reminds you that hes still pretty likable. What they're doing with the dinos in this is on a B movie rate of acceptability. A lot of it felt like one of them deep blue sea sequels that aren't worth the piss and vinegar put into. Universal has finally turned the T-Rex into a fucking gimmick wrapped around a cliche skewer. 5.5/10

Rewatched
Only God Forgives - yes I agree, what's with this movie... but I still like it a lot. Its a very simple plot, even for NWR, but its told completely through visuals and bits of subtext later in the movie, and I'm a nerd with a stiff ruler up my ass. You still shouldn't like this movie. 8/10

 

[ufcfan4]

Hereditary

Billed as a "slow burn" type of horror movie, this movie delivered. I'm not a fan of jump scares and I felt like this director opted not to do that so much, but instead put things in scenes and let your eyes adjust to it. This is incredibly effective in the sense that you kind of have to rub your eyes and think to yourself, "did I just see what I thought I saw?" One scene in particular people either saw it immediately, or it took their eyes a minute and once they did it was like, "oh crap!" You let the scene dictate the scare, not the abrupt music and that's brilliant filmmaking for sure.

Acting was top notch. Not much more I can say about that. There are scenes that are unsettling more than scary, and that had in part to do with the acting in this movie. Great job.

I wouldn't say the plot is predictable at all. Like I knew the direction they were going to take it, but there were some scenes that I needed to pay attention to in order to fully grasp the whole story. A second viewing will help that. I think the best/worst part about this movie is that this poor family are just puppets on a string and there is no hope for them...just flat out despair. Like there is zero hope for them.

I initially gave this movie a 7/10, but it really stuck with me. I watched it Saturday and I'm still thinking about it. Watching breakdown videos and learning new aspects of this movie all the time. It's extremely layered.

With that being said, it's a 8 or 8.5/10 for me.

We've talked about this one a lot in the other thread but your writeup here is virtually spot on in terms of my feelings about the film. I went 7.5 initially I think and now I'd definitely say an 8. The only horror movie I can think of seeing in the past decade at least where I was still thinking about the damn thing three days later and when I watched those videos you posted in the other thread, I was kicking myself for doing so at night because they would describe something from the movie and I would be envisioning it again and would legitimately feel creeped out.

There are few jump scares, as you point out, but many shocking, disturbing images and moments.

It is an uncompromisingly eerie, dark, and disturbing film with a sense of doom throughout. That scene you mention- that's part of the reason why I'm almost hesitant to watch this one again, much as I want to in order to catch some things I missed- because I know for a fact that I'll immediately be looking in the corner and when I see that right away (which I initially did not), it's going to be some shit.

 

[ufcfan4]

Mother


Eh, a swing and a miss by Aronofsky. The biggest problem with the movie is that it thinks it's smarter than it is. That might just be me though, and perhaps the intent wasn't meant to be clever in any way, and just be an unconventional take on a host of Bible stories. It's hard to separate the director from the film for me, and Aronofsky isn't one for being so shallow. I expect a little more depth and ambiguity from him, but maybe he didn't intend to play with the audiences' minds. I don't know. I guess I was expecting something more "artsy" and ambiguous, and instead got a fairly standard retelling of Biblical tales. So, perhaps the fault is on me for thinking too hard about it.

For what it is, it's okay. Nothing mind blowing, but it will hold your attention. I gotta say that Jennifer Lawrence gave a particularly weak performance though. She turns it on in the end and almost redeems herself, but for the most part, she's just so wooden, and some of line delivery is downright cringe worthy. In some scenes, I couldn't help but think "That's the take you stuck with?". It didn't help that she was surrounded by others who were acting their asses off. Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer, Javier Bardem, etc, are all in top form, and really outshine her at every turn. When the weakest actor of the bunch is the main focus of the movie, that's a problem.

I will say, the movie excels as one big dream sequence. I never really thought about it until I saw some review that pointed it out, but it really does capture how a dream plays out, with all it's random escalation in events, and no sense of time. When I looked at it that way, it bumped my impression of it up a bit. It works well, if you simply look at it as a dream realized on film.

All in all, it won't blow your socks off, but if you're up for some bible tales being turned on their head, and being told in an unconventional manner, it's worth a look.

7/10

I'd describe it as a really solid first hour or so and then just goes off the rails and becomes noxious, over the top, and ugly. The film works way better, in my opinion, in the earlygoing when it seems more like a straight up psychological horror film with unwanted guests Pfeiffer and Harris (both superb) pushing the conventions of acceptable houseguest behavior and violating norms of privacy and disrupting the order which Lawrence holds so dear. To me, you had a very good movie right there? Who are these people? Why does it seem like they know Bardem in a way that he is not letting on? Why does Bardem take to them so quickly and seem willing to bend over backwards for them? There was something nefarious lurking there and it could have been a good movie- like a better version of the okayish What Lies Beneath...

But somewhere around the time that Domnhall Gleason and his brother come into play and the movie absolutely hits you over the head with its central allegory, it becomes a mess. I particularly thought that the Gleason brothers just walking into the house to argue with Harris and Pfeiffer with no care for the fact that the owner does not know them or want them there was almost laughably overdone. I said this in the other threads where I talked about the movie, but I seriously thought with the awkwardness and the setup that scene was like right out of Curb Your Enthusiasm but with Jennifer Lawrence and her confused visage taking the place of Larry. You could have put David in there with that same wtf look on his face and not missed a beat.

The last twenty minutes are dark and disturbing and not the type of thing I would like to watch again. Lawrence did really well in that final segment though. She really conveyed emotion and a sense of horror in a palpable way. As you said, Bardem, Harris, and Pfeiffer stole the show.

 

[Adamant]

Jurrasic world 2: We're Going Overboard - my faux titles says most of it. You would think a movie about bringing the dinosaurs back somehow wasn't insane enough, this movie is a predictable one, and corny as ever. It has some good parts, mostly the action. Though Chris Pratt has a couple moments where he reminds you that hes still pretty likable. What they're doing with the dinos in this is on a B movie rate of acceptability. A lot of it felt like one of them deep blue sea sequels that aren't worth the piss and vinegar put into. Universal has finally turned the T-Rex into a fucking gimmick wrapped around a cliche skewer. 5.5/10

Maybe after Jurassic World 3 we'll finally get the movie we've all been waiting for.......... Fast & Furious / Jurassic World Crossover. Do it Universal. Do it.

 

[Deleted member 220895]

Maybe after Jurassic World 3 we'll finally get the movie we've all been waiting for.......... Fast & Furious / Jurassic World Crossover. Do it Universal. Do it.

They are making it more possible. Especially how this one ended.

 

[Deleted member 220895]

Sicario: Solid Dad, Yo - A really cool movie, bruh. Benico killed it, dude. Bro-ling Bling fucking couldn't be more tight, chief. It's an all new dynamic, hutch, but it's still violent as some fatty's diarrhea at sizzler, Chet. Peep that shit, man, peep it good and don't be a pussy, puss. 8/10

 

[GordoBarraBJJ]

Saw Sicario 2 last night

8/10. Not quite as good as the first one but definitely one of the better movies out this year. Refreshing to have something out there other than superhero movies.

 

[pinkybrief]

hereditary
seems like the babadook ripoff that westerners prefer cause Murica

 

[BB in Crazy!!!!]

Finally saw Blade Runner 2049.

Should have won best picture. Although slightly predictable. It was still great and loved the noir feel to it.
9/10

 

[Deleted member 220895]

Saw Sicario 2 last night

8/10. Not quite as good as the first one but definitely one of the better movies out this year. Refreshing to have something out there other than superhero movies.

Did you know that this was an anthology and not a sequel? It was made as if the first one never happened. I just found out, and its messing with me.

Spoiler

That's why Alejandro is still out for vengeance for his family.

 

[GordoBarraBJJ]

Did you know that this was an anthology and not a sequel? It was made as if the first one never happened. I just found out, and its messing with me.

Spoiler

That's why Alejandro is still out for vengeance for his family.

question

Spoiler

do you think Benico's character killed that kid at the end?

 

[Deleted member 220895]

question

Spoiler

do you think Benico's character killed that kid at the end?

Spoiler

he might after he uses him to get inside, and get revenge on that border dude who ordered his death. But who even knows if theres going to be a sequel.

 

[HHJ]

I, Tonya (2017)

This was a good production with good performances, but I couldn't enjoy it because of the story. It was horribly depressing and painful to watch.

4/10 - "D"

You gave the movie a 4 because its a depressing story? thats not fair.

 

[TrueBias]

Did you know that this was an anthology and not a sequel? It was made as if the first one never happened. I just found out, and its messing with me.

Spoiler

That's why Alejandro is still out for vengeance for his family.

I just watched Sicario on Wednesday night and loved it. Thought of seeing the 2nd so....id prefer an anthology

 

[SiKnSiN]

Did you know that this was an anthology and not a sequel? It was made as if the first one never happened. I just found out, and its messing with me.

Spoiler

That's why Alejandro is still out for vengeance for his family.

It's more of a stand-alone film, but it's also definitely after the first film. There was a major reference made from the first film, which directly tied into Alejandro's motivation.

 

[Deleted member 220895]

It's more of a stand-alone film, but it's also definitely after the first film. There was a major reference made from the first film, which directly tied into Alejandro's motivation.

That's what an anthology is. A set of standalone stories that are tied together through the world. In this case characters too. I think we're on the same page.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...l-toro-suburra-gomorrah-trilogy-a7082241.html

From the director

...the Italian filmmaker revealed: "The idea is to make three anthology movies with some of the core actors and [set] in the same world.

He backed up this notion by stating that Soldado - billed as a follow-up to 2015 cartel drama Sicario - will share only characters, and not much else.

"It's not a real sequel," he continued. "It's absolutely a standalone movie - a completely different story with just two of the characters that you met in Sicario. "The reason that I love [Soldado] is because it's not exactly a sequel...

 

[moreorless87]

I'd describe it as a really solid first hour or so and then just goes off the rails and becomes noxious, over the top, and ugly. The film works way better, in my opinion, in the earlygoing when it seems more like a straight up psychological horror film with unwanted guests Pfeiffer and Harris (both superb) pushing the conventions of acceptable houseguest behavior and violating norms of privacy and disrupting the order which Lawrence holds so dear. To me, you had a very good movie right there? Who are these people? Why does it seem like they know Bardem in a way that he is not letting on? Why does Bardem take to them so quickly and seem willing to bend over backwards for them? There was something nefarious lurking there and it could have been a good movie- like a better version of the okayish What Lies Beneath...

But somewhere around the time that Domnhall Gleason and his brother come into play and the movie absolutely hits you over the head with its central allegory, it becomes a mess. I particularly thought that the Gleason brothers just walking into the house to argue with Harris and Pfeiffer with no care for the fact that the owner does not know them or want them there was almost laughably overdone. I said this in the other threads where I talked about the movie, but I seriously thought with the awkwardness and the setup that scene was like right out of Curb Your Enthusiasm but with Jennifer Lawrence and her confused visage taking the place of Larry. You could have put David in there with that same wtf look on his face and not missed a beat.

The last twenty minutes are dark and disturbing and not the type of thing I would like to watch again. Lawrence did really well in that final segment though. She really conveyed emotion and a sense of horror in a palpable way. As you said, Bardem, Harris, and Pfeiffer stole the show.

There does always seem like an careful balance with Aronofsky between pushing things too far towards pulp and too far towards high minded pretension. When it comes to the latter I feel he's simply not at his best a lot of the time believing that biblical references and the like carry weight just by themselves, he's not the equal of someone like say Tarkovsky IMHO. Actually rewatched the other obvious more recently unfavourable comparison last night...

The Tree of Life - At the most basic level I do think it has the edge on the above that whilst perhaps somewhat locked into a christian view the story of the balance of "nature" and "grace" feels like it has worth beyond merely self important grandeur. Again I wouldn't say that Malick quite reaches Tarkovskys level (in a film that's IMHO very similar to The Mirror), he does fell a little too straight forward at points to me in the idealised 50's US setting relative to the weight of drama that the Russian history in the latter has and oversells it a little more(how many wideangle shots of capering children do we need?). Still I think its very well acted/shot and indeed I find the infamous 15 min "history of the universe" cutaway actually works very effectively indeed not feeling over pretentious. 8.5/10

A bit before that I saw for the first time...

The Great Beauty - Modern spin on Fellini with an aging ex author reflecting on life in the midst of Rome's high society that I spose you could argue is dispite having a lot of ambition the total opposite of the straight faced importance of Malick. It kinds of feels like Eurotrash by way of Randy Newman's I Love LA, theres no Antoine de Caunes dressed as a vampire but the same image of haute society taken to extremes which like the song above seems to be both pointing fun at it excesses of pretention, debauchery and cheesey techno music yet ultimately ends up being something of a love letter to it as well. It does make a very nice alternative to a lot of praised Italian cinema of the 90's that for me always felt rather too much like watching a Bertoli advert with its rustic clichés waiting for the odd appearance of Monica Bellucci's bottom. This has a lot more to it than that in self awareness, visuals and especially Toni Servillo's aged dandy performance. Maybe a bit hard top judge on one viewing but I rate it highly partly due to not really feeling on the mood for it at first but being won around, generally the sign of good cinema for me. 9/10.

 

[SiKnSiN]

That's what an anthology is. A set of standalone stories that are tied together through the world. In this case characters too. I think we're on the same page.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...l-toro-suburra-gomorrah-trilogy-a7082241.html

From the director

Yes, we're basically on the same page, except for the statement "it was made as if the first one never happened". I don't see it as a straight up sequel, but I also don't see it as an anthology. As a viewer, I don't entirely agree with his notion of it being basically just two shared characters, and not much more.

Spoiler

There's a common narrative shared between the two films. And that's Alejandro's quest for revenge. That's a story which carries over. It might be in the background, but it's definitely there as a continuation. I'm willing to bet it will also carry over to the third film as well, with him using the kid to help him get to Reyes and completing that narrative.