Movies Rate and Discuss the Last Movie You Saw v.16

revoltub said:
I gave the breakfast club a needed rewatch. Spoiler tags added for the 3 people on earth who havent seen it.

Particularly 80s but the film has kept momentum since and kept up with new generations. Though I'm not sure if teenagers today know of it or watched it.

It holds up but there are some things that I didnt notice before. For example they make out right in front of their parents while they are waiting in the cars.

The whole situation with Hall bringing a gun into school is something that seems foreign in this day and age. Or at least it wouldnt be handled the same.

It can get a bit melodramatic but that is part of what makes the film work, since it is pretty dialogue driven. Each character gets a bit of something to chew on and gets rounded out.

I think most can relate to the clique dynamics of highschool, but it portrays things a bit black and white in that regard. At least for me, cliques were a thing but a little more fluid and gray. Also whenever I was in detention everyone just waited It out. Whatever, wont affect my review because works for the movie.

I think the biggest thing i can say about rewatching it is that it kind of made me miss highschool and think back on it a bit, which I rarely do. That's gotta be a win.

8/10 range.
Click to expand...

Great breakdown. You’re absolutely right about the black and white element which is interesting because that does feel a bit shallow in that manner and yet I’d say that the actors and characterizations are so nuanced that it outright counteracts that sort of pat handling of the cliques and what each student represents.

The late great Paul Gleason really deserves props too because he completely seemed to embody what Hughes intended there. The scene with him and Nelson going back and forth with the additional detentions is embedded in the popular consciousness for a reason. Classic scene.

I actually think the initiation of the star crossed relationships might be a weak point too. I mean Sheedy and Emilio narratively works, I think, but I just feel you gotta go either that one OR Nelson and Ringwald. I’m a little incredulous of both happening over the course of that day.

I’m thinking about the Simple Minds song and Nelson throwing his fist into the air even as I type this. Lol.

Solid movie. Probably my favorite Hughes along with Planes, Trains.
 
HenryFlower said:
sounds like a buncha boo-hooing over nothing to me. the only weirdos dunking on Monkey Man are the ones who’d put the john wick franchise as a personality trait on dating apps. i think it’s disingenuous to label Monkey Man a half-assed ripoff because it’s a legitimately well-directed debut effort w/ a legitimately good performance by Dev Patel. that’s enough of a floor to put it well above any actual half-assed ripoff
Click to expand...

I don't have anything to boohoo about re Monkey Man, because I ain't watching it. Looks mediocre, not worth my time. If this take offends you for some reason, I think that's silly.

I Love the John Wick movies for example, but if you don't, that's no skin off my kevlar suit. Different strokes for different folks

I did rewatch GROSSE POINTE BLANK (1997) tonight however, & damn that movie holds up. Fun romp. Cusack at his peak, solid supporting cast, great soundtrack, & even lots of fun action in that one. Even though at the end of the day, it's clearly just another John Wick ripoff...
 
ufcfan4 said:
Great breakdown. You’re absolutely right about the black and white element which is interesting because that does feel a bit shallow in that manner and yet I’d say that the actors and characterizations are so nuanced that it outright counteracts that sort of pat handling of the cliques and what each student represents.

The late great Paul Gleason really deserves props too because he completely seemed to embody what Hughes intended there.
Click to expand...

Yeah Gleason especially gets some good moments of development. A quintessiental dickhead VP on face value but you get a sense he is more understanding than what he let's on.

Definitely a great portrayal of the typical teacher who "became something he didnt want to".

Also, his cameo in not another teen movie is that much funnier after rewatching this. Basically the exact same exchange to the point I was expecting an "eeny meeny miny" from him and a "mo" from Nelson.
 
revoltub said:
Yeah Gleason especially gets some good moments of development. A quintessiental dickhead VP on face value but you get a sense he is more understanding than what he let's on.

Definitely a great portrayal of the typical teacher who "became something he didnt want to".

Also, his cameo in not another teen movie is that much funnier after rewatching this. Basically the exact same exchange to the point I was expecting an "eeny meeny miny" from him and a "mo" from Nelson.
Click to expand...

great call lol. Not Another Teen Movie is sort of underrated funny isn’t it? Certainly not a great comedy per se but it’s easily one of the best of those post Mel Brooks or Zucker Abrams Zucker parody films.

Whether it’s Randy Quaid’s take on the Kevin Pollak character from She’s All That (his demotivational speech- you sure could use the popularity points) or Gleason’s cameo or the use of Aerosmith for the 10 Things big gesture spoof or, particularly Eric Christian Olsen as the Paul Walker (RIP) takeoff- there’s a lot of amusing stuff there.

Considering how many bad spoof films ended up coming out in the years that immediately followed, that one also looks better by comparison.

Stuff like Superhero Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, etc. Cmon now.

Well, as terrible as Meet the Spartans almost assuredly is (I’ll never watch) I always thought that was a pretty damn funny title for a parody of 300.
 
Also, I agree with how the relationships turn out. Does feel a bit rushed and forced a bit. Though I get what Hughes was going for with the added romantic touch.
 
ufcfan4 said:
great call lol. Not Another Teen Movie is sort of underrated funny isn’t it? Certainly not a great comedy per se but it’s easily one of the best of those post Mel Brooks or Zucker Abrams Zucker parody films.

Whether it’s Randy Quaid’s take on the Kevin Pollak character from She’s All That (his demotivational speech- you sure could use the popularity points) or Gleason’s cameo or the use of Aerosmith for the 10 Things big gesture spoof or, particularly Eric Christian Olsen as the Paul Walker (RIP) takeoff- there’s a lot of amusing stuff there.

Considering how many bad spoof films ended up coming out in the years that immediately followed, that one also looks better by comparison.

Stuff like Superhero Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, etc. Cmon now.

Well, as terrible as Meet the Spartans almost assuredly is (I’ll never watch) I always thought that was a pretty damn funny title for a parody of 300.
Click to expand...

Well said. I still consider the NATM the last "great" spoof at least in comparison to to what has followed like you said. It makes intelligent (enough) and funny cracks on the genre it spoofs while still feeling like it could take place in the sameish universe.
 
revoltub said:
Well said. I still consider the NATM the last "great" spoof at least in comparison to to what has followed like you said. It makes intelligent (enough) and funny cracks on the genre it spoofs while still feeling like it could take place in the sameish universe.
Click to expand...

the slow clap. Deon Richmond’s character.
Definitely a funny movie.

Too bad that spoof genre really just sort of fizzled out. Brooks in the 70s and the ZAZ trio in the 80s had it down to a science.

I’m still laughing thinking of the scene in Top Secret where Kilmer performs and the extras emulate the reactions of the Ed Sullivan audience watching the Beatles.
 
ufcfan4 said:
the slow clap. Deon Richmond’s character.
Definitely a funny movie.

Too bad that spoof genre really just sort of fizzled out. Brooks in the 70s and the ZAZ trio in the 80s had it down to a science.

I’m still laughing thinking of the scene in Top Secret where Kilmer performs and the extras emulate the reactions of the Ed Sullivan audience watching the Beatles.
Click to expand...

I realize I have to add Kung Pow to the list, came out after NATM but I swore it came out before. Maybe a bit of a guilty pleasure but I love it without shame.

Maybe the bar for spoofs was set a bit too high too early.
 
The Bedroom Window (USA, 1987)

American psychological thriller directed by Curtis Hanson (LA Confidential) and starring Steve Guttenberg, Isabella Huppert, and Elizabeth McGovern.

Terry (Guttenberg) begins an affair with his boss' wife, Sylvia (Huppert). While having sex at Terry's apartment, Sylvia observes a man attack and attempt to kill a woman named Denise (McGovern). Denise survives and the assailant gets away.

Terry and Sylvia face the predicament that if she comes forward as a witness to the police, the affair will be exposed with terrible ramifications for both of them.

To ease his conscience and do the right thing, Terry claims to be the sole witness.

His lie quickly places him in the middle of a major criminal investigation and a person of interest to both the police and the assailant.

The film gets off to a solid start as Terry gets in over his head. By the third act the plot has moved from unlikely to preposterous.

Guttenberg was mainly known for comedic roles and he is not entirely convincing as Terry. He does have a bit of everyman to him but his limited range is not helped by clunky dialogue and a plot that is badly frayed by the end.

As an aside, amazing how American films often portray the police. Near the end of the film, Terry gets into a fist fight with a rando over a pay phone. The cop who breaks it up is so busy beating the other guy that Terry is able to steal the police car and drive away. The cop responds by opening fire on the car on a city street. Amazing stuff.

Overall, the film is a promising thriller gone wrong. It is still passable entertainment overall.

Rating: 5.5/10

 
Detective Pikachu 2 out of 10

Not a fan of Ryan Reynolds. Story wasn't great. Underwhelming use of the various Pokemons. Took a few tries to finish watching since it doesn't hook you in the beginning.
 
revoltub said:
I gave the breakfast club a needed rewatch. Spoiler tags added for the 3 people on earth who havent seen it.

Particularly 80s but the film has kept momentum since and kept up with new generations. Though I'm not sure if teenagers today know of it or watched it.

It holds up but there are some things that I didnt notice before. For example they make out right in front of their parents while they are waiting in the cars.

The whole situation with Hall bringing a gun into school is something that seems foreign in this day and age. Or at least it wouldnt be handled the same.

It can get a bit melodramatic but that is part of what makes the film work, since it is pretty dialogue driven. Each character gets a bit of something to chew on and gets rounded out.

I think most can relate to the clique dynamics of highschool, but it portrays things a bit black and white in that regard. At least for me, cliques were a thing but a little more fluid and gray. Also whenever I was in detention everyone just waited It out. Whatever, wont affect my review because works for the movie.

I think the biggest thing i can say about rewatching it is that it kind of made me miss highschool and think back on it a bit, which I rarely do. That's gotta be a win.

8/10 range.
Click to expand...
That movie was such a picture of HS life in the 80s in suburbia. A movie with this cast would never be made today. Hughes made movies based on his life and things he knew and saw. As a white dude, that is what he made. Today they would shoehorn in a diverse cast for the sake of diversity....even though this all white cast in the original, were diverse in who they were. Social classes, physical classes, socio economic classes etc.
 
The Searchers 1956---8/10

A John Wayne classic that is heralded for it's textures, scenery and commentary on redemption, revenge, race, obsession, family. Many consider it a master piece.. best Western of all time, a top film of all time. The plot involves Wayne's Ethan coming back home to his brother's ranch after years of War. His family he returned to is killed by Commanche raiders and his nieces are kidnapped. He spends 5 years with an adopted nephew hunting the Commanche war chief to try and get his niece back. Is it for the niece or does he just want revenge? How different is he than the "Savage" he hunts? So much texture and thought-provoking plot points. Rich cast of characters. There are some silly scenes with over-acting, par for the time. Otherwise, it is a beautiful sometimes brutal film. Feels like it could have been made today.
 
Birth (USA, 2004)

American psychological drama co-written and directed by Jonathan Glazer (Sexy Beast, Under the Skin, Zone of Interest). Nicole Kidman is the star, and she is surrounded by an exceptional supporting cast including Danny Huston, Lauren Bacall, Peter Stormare, and Anne Heche.

Anna (Kidman) is a 30 something woman awash in family money and living in Manhattan. Her husband, Sean, collapsed and died 10 years earlier while jogging in Central Park.

Anna still openly grieves for Sean, but she is set to marry Joseph (Huston) after a long engagement. Joseph's speech at the engagement party recounts the numerous times that Anna turned down both his dating overtures and multiple marriage proposals. Joseph tells it as a self-deprecating love story, but we are left to wonder if he simply wore Anna down over time. At the very least, he loves Anna more than she loves him. Yet, Anna seems happy with Joseph. We are already seeing the subtlety of the film; nothing is perfectly clear, perhaps not even to the characters themselves.

A few days later a 10-year-old boy named Sean (Cameron Bright) shows up at the family apartment. He tells Anna that he is the reincarnation of her dead husband and that he still loves her. He tells her not to marry Joseph.

Anna and her family initially laugh off the strange little boy, but Sean is persistent, preternaturally calm, and knows extremely private things about Anna. Anna finds herself having to confront the bizarre possibility that the boy may really be the return of her long dead husband.

The premise is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, the idea is so odd that the film could easily devolve into schlock. Secondly, there is no way to tell a love story between a 35-year-old woman and a 10-year-old boy that does not hit on some major cultural taboos.
In addition to suggestive language, Anna and Sean share a bath together. He later kisses her. These are troublesome scenes, to say the least, and some people will dismiss the film on these grounds alone.

The film is exceptionally well executed. The acting is superb. Kidman is exceptional. I never thought of her as a particularly good actress in the 90’s. In the early 2000’s, this film and The Others completely changed my mind. The film is worth watching for her performance alone. Bright brings a calm otherness to Sean that is perfect. The rest of the cast is great. I loved the direction and camera work. It is an extremely well shot film. The score is amazing..

The central question is whether Sean is really the reincarnation of the husband. The film answers this question but not perfectly. The characters seem satisfied with the truth of it all and I mostly was too.
The genius of the film is that it shows what is really happening, but we can deceive ourselves because we lack the context and want to believe something else, exactly like the people in the film. Sean is a bored, mentally ill but observant boy who spends hours sitting on the lobby of the apartment building as his dad tutors upstairs. He watches and listens. Sean sees Clara bury the love letters, digs them up, and reads them. He becomes convinced that he really is in love with Anna. I think that he is convinced that he is the reincarnation of her husband. He is not running a scam. He is acting out something that he believes. In fact, Sean himself only doubts his own story when he discovers that old Sean was cheating on Anna. If he loves Anna but old Sean did not, how could he be the reincarnation? Sean’s knowledge of intimate details is uncanny but that is because of the letters. He cleverly deflects other questions. When the brother-in-law asks him where old Sean worked, young Sean replies “several places” before giving a single example, gleaned from the letters. He knows little about the maid and gives a vague reply when she asks him if he knows her.

Yet there is just enough ambiguity that somebody could make a counterargument or at least be left with some doubts. Like with everything else in the film, smooth surfaces look slightly askew on closer inspection.

The film shows all this to us but with clever misdirection and slightly out of sequence. We never know old Sean. We hear a few sentences about him being a man of science who does not believe in the mumbo jumbo of reincarnation. Then we see a silhouette in Central Park. We see a baby being born. The film skips 10 years but for us it is a blink of an eye. Glazer is setting us up to believe the possibility of the impossible so that we can relate to what Anna wants to believe..

We eventually discover that the old Sean in the film never existed at all. He is Anna’s creation. It reminded me of Solaris. What, or who, is a person who exists only from the memories of another? Anna’s Sean is a man defined by his immense love for her. The reveal in the film is that that that Sean is as much a figment of imagination as a 10-year-old boy being a reincarnation of a dead man. At minimum, Old Sean did not love Anna enough to prevent him from cheating on her and giving his mistress Anna’s unopened love letters as a type of trophy. More likely, Old Sean was a piece of shit who was fucking his brother’s wife while living as s parasite on Anna’s family money.

Joseph may or may not be a good man. Or, more accurately, he is probably a man with good and bad parts. He is doomed to always be in the shadow of the ghost that Anna has built in her head. He seems to know it too and he either accepts it as the cost of loving her or as necessary minor humiliation required to snag a beautiful heiress.

Money and class are always on display. Anna is wealthy in a way that does not require her to even consider wealth. The order of things is simply as it is. There is nothing to consider. Young Sean’s family is working class. He must go with his father to the fancy apartment building where the dad tutors rich kids. Sean is never invited into that space. He must sit in the lobby instead and maybe hang around with the doorman, a fellow member of the same working class. A great little detail is that Anna gives the doorman some cash and tells him to get young Sean a taxi. The doorman pockets the cash and tells young Sean, “You know how to take the subway, right?”.

When Joseph tracks down Sean’s father in the apartment, he is dressed in a tuxedo and introduces himself to the occupant as “I am Joseph. We live upstairs”. They are penthouse people, not lower floor people.

Old Sean did not come from money as evidenced by Anna’s visit to his brother’s place. Neither does Joseph, apparently, as we see him retreat to a decidedly middle-class looking building after his violent outburst gets him ejected from Anna’s family apartment.

How much did these men love Anna and how much did they love her money and social position? We think that we know the answer for Old Sean. If he ever did love Anna, that was long gone at the time of his death. Joseph’s motivations are less clear. He has been the relentless pursuer, as he himself admits. He is marrying a woman who loves a ghost more than she loves him. He is a patient man except when he explodes into violence against a young boy who has somehow become his romantic rival.

Anna and her family are stuck orbiting the gravity of their domineering mother. Anna and Old Sean lived in the family apartment because Sean was “always travelling”. Her brother is currently living in the same apartment with his pregnant wife because they are having their own place redecorated. We suspect that there is always a reason for the adult children to be in that apartment. They are suspended in time. Perhaps that is why Anna is so disconnected from reality that she found it conceivable that she could run away with a 10-year-old boy. Her mother had not such flights of fancy; ‘I will call his mother and his mother will call the police”.

To be picky, it was odd that Kidman’s wig was not consistent. It is usually red but changes to blonde for a couple of scenes. Hollywood is usually so good at these details that it is weird to see the production screw up.

This was a divisive film when released. I really liked it at the time, and I like it even more now.

Rating: 8.5/10

 
I watched Aliens Special Edition again a few nights ago. 10/10. I've really liked it since the first time I saw it and this cemented it as one my favorite movies of all time. Also one of the most rewatchable movies of all time too.

The only real flaw is Ripley not taking more mags at the end and not saving a couple grenades. That's plot induced stupidity but I still can't bring myself to lower the score.

A timeless classic.
 
Men at Work (1990)

-

Buddy comedy starring brothers Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez. Written and directed by Emilio.

It really wasnt great but wasnt terrible either. The comedy and jokes arent the funniest, but it has a fun spirit to it and isnt a bad way to kill 90 minutes. The characters are all fun and likeable too. Keith David is probably the funniest part of the film.

Overall a valiant effort from Estevez writing and directing wise, although not a homerun by any regard. Him and Sheen are fun to watch together and the film isnt trying to do much other than entertain.

5.8/10 range. Again not the funniest film and a lot of misses but it isnt a bad time. Worth a one time watch on some random day with free time.
 
Mannequin (1987)

-

80s fantasy cheese would be the 3 best words to describe this I'd say. Nothing really makes logical sense.

But if you just accept that this is a PG movie that is basically a live action cartoon, it isnt bad. Kind of charming in a way. Andrew Mccarthy is decent as the typical good meaning loser who cant catch a break, and Kim Catrall is spunky and likeable enough as the mannequin come to life. You also have James Spader, I'm guessing before he went through puberty, as one of the antagonists.

Things go exactly how you would expect for a PG movie.

Overall this is another one that isnt great but kind of fun if you enjoy 80s cheese of the more innocent kind.

Also this is where "nothing's gonna stop up now" by jefferson starship is from which was cool

6/10 range
 
Cade: The Tortured Crossing (USA, 2023) - 1/5
cadethetorturedcrossing.png

there's been a drastic decline in the enjoyment factor of Neil Breen films since Fateful Findings, but this sequel to his 2018 effort, Twisted Pair, is not without its moments. one such moment is a random dance number that is worth the price of your time. gone are the days of actual "sets" & "locations" in Neil Breen shitfests, but there is still enough of that delusional messiah complex charm to keep me hooked.

Crumbs (Ethiopia/Spain/Finland, 2015) - 3.5/5
crumbs.png

despite its low budget, director Miguel Llanso manages to sculpt an endearing postapocalyptic love story on the backs of its almost childlike imagnation, creative use of Ethiopia's landscape, & dedicated performances. a simple quest narrative oftentimes muddled by a surreal bent, it deserves credit for avoiding pacing issues by not getting lost in its own sauce & keeping a tight runtime under 70 minutes.

Love Lies Bleeding (UK/USA, 2024) - 3.5/5
loveliesbleeding.png

typically, it's shorthand hyperbole when you say a movie will make you want take a shower after watching it, but Love Lies Bleeding might be a legitimate exception. this movie has such a grimy aesthetic drenched in sweat that fluids could be considered a central character, much like an environ or wardrode will sometimes get credit for. while not a homerun on the level of Saint Maud, this sophomore effort from Rose Glass clearly solidifies her as a young director on the rise w/ a confident, unique vision. it's also just great to finally have a truly menacing Ed Harris back in business. warning: not recommended for anyone looking for likeable or relatable characters—everyone is a piece of shit & the film revels in it.
 
revoltub said:
Mannequin (1987)

-

80s fantasy cheese would be the 3 best words to describe this I'd say. Nothing really makes logical sense.

But if you just accept that this is a PG movie that is basically a live action cartoon, it isnt bad. Kind of charming in a way. Andrew Mccarthy is decent as the typical good meaning loser who cant catch a break, and Kim Catrall is spunky and likeable enough as the mannequin come to life. You also have James Spader, I'm guessing before he went through puberty, as one of the antagonists.

Things go exactly how you would expect for a PG movie.

Overall this is another one that isnt great but kind of fun if you enjoy 80s cheese of the more innocent kind.

Also this is where "nothing's gonna stop up now" by jefferson starship is from which was cool

6/10 range
Click to expand...


Big fan, and of the song. Childhood nostalgia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,033
Messages
55,532,169
Members
174,819
Latest member
TeKa

Share this page

Back
Top