What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Newer Films)

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You look like shit, Jerry!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

My 2nd favorite movie of 2017!  I loved it.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

1 minute ago, Stefancos said:

You look like shit, Jerry!

Hey, watch the language!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Up yer shaft!

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

You know that's just Gary Oldman, right?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Doesn't look like him!

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

21 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Doesn't look like him!

That's the idea.

 

Wow. What an awesome film-a great historical drama. Oldman is so captivating as Churchill-he takes on the role completely. There are so many well crafted lines and superb dialogue. What the movie depends on isn't action or suspense per se, but pure following of the leader of Great Britain during, well, his country's Darkest Hour. I've been told that it would make sense to watch Dunkirk next, so that's up now.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

2 minutes ago, Jerry said:

That's the idea.

 

Wow. What an awesome film-a great historical drama. Oldman is so captivating as Churchill-he takes on the role completely. There are so many well crafted lines and superb dialogue. What the movie depends on isn't action or suspense per se, but pure following of the leader of Great Britain during, well, his country's Darkest Hour. I've been told that it would make sense to watch Dunkirk next, so that's up now.

 

Here's what I had to say in a different thread.  I think it's a near masterpiece of the genre

 

On 5/29/2018 at 8:07 PM, Disco Stu said:

 

I thought it was wonderful how Wright managed to give the film this feeling of unstoppable dread.  Like a German invasion was the sword of Damocles always hanging just over the frame.  It was an excellent example of carefully calibrated tone.

[John 2,032]

Oldman's performance was the best of the year. It's a really nicely shot film as well. I found the ending a bit too biopic-y and predictable, though; the script was definitely the weak point there. Other than that, it's a perfectly solid historical drama.

 

I'd love to see an edit of Darkest Hour and Dunkirk as one film, almost like when The Godfather and Part II were re-cut in chronological order.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

6 minutes ago, John said:

Oldman's performance was the best of the year. It's a really nicely shot film as well. I found the ending a bit too biopic-y and predictable, though; the script was definitely the weak point there. Other than that, it's a perfectly solid historical drama.

 

I'd love to see an edit of Darkest Hour and Dunkirk as one film, almost like when The Godfather and Part II were re-cut in chronological order.

Oldman was Churchill there, no mistake. 

 

The script was good for the most part.

"Bloody, cat's under the bed again"

and

"Tell the privy seal that I'm sealed in the privy"

and

"I'm coming out in a state of nature"

are among memorable moments.

 

I thought that it was hilarious when King George came to see Winston to give him his support. Winston was told it was the King at the door. 

"The king?" he asked. And his wife said something like "Well, if its not him, its a marvelous impersonation", which is funny because Ben Mendelssohn does a great job as George.

[Jay 37,336]

Mendelssohn is great! 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

That role was but an inkling of his DESTRUCTIVE potential!

[Chen G. 3,948]

On 20.6.2018 at 10:11 PM, Jerry said:

"Bloody, cat's under the bed again"

and

"Tell the privy seal that I'm sealed in the privy"

and

"I'm coming out in a state of nature"

are among memorable moments.

 

Yeah, but a good script is more than just good dialogue, now is it?

 

That's not to say that I have an issue with the script (I like the film, although to expand on its in any way would require a rewatch), but just to help make @John's point more clear.

[Fancyarcher 350]

Jurassic World: Lost Kingdom - Brainless, but I had a blast with it. It was pretty awesome. - 7.5 / 10

[Hurmm 91]

On 6/15/2018 at 7:53 AM, Fancyarcher said:

My review of Hereditary.

 

https://dailyuv.com/feed/961236

 

I watched Hereditary yesterday, and came back here to check out your review. It was a good thing I didn't click on it earlier because your review spoils a ton of the movie. Anyone who hasn't seen Hereditary, DO NOT READ Fancy's review. It spoils one of the greatest shocks I've come across in a long time. 

 

Anyway....

 

Hereditary

 

I'm not sure what to think of this. I've heard of the immense hype for the past months. Lots of comments that it's the scariest film of all times, having some of the all time scariest scenes. 

I didn't find it particularly scary. Unnerving and foreboding to a point, sure. But not scary. Maybe a couple of scenes near the end, but never nearly close to being the scariest of all time. Hype, it can be such a downer. 

 

The film itself is quite impeccably mounted and shot, with the stillness you expect from a classy horror film. However, it is a film of two halves -- one a straight up family drama, and the other a horror movie. Sure, the plot eventually ties both together, but for most of the running time you're unsure...what am I watching? Horror? Family grief drama? There's always a hint of the former, but for the first hour it is so deep-seated that I felt it may have been to the detriment of the film. Part of this I'm sure is because of the hype. The hype, you know, of it being a scary scary movie. 

 

Nonetheless I still found it an admirable film, one that keeps you on your toes, with a melange of influence from films like Rosemary's Baby, The Shining, The Exorcist, Don't Look Now, Black Swan... Not the scares per se, but little bits and pieces of themes from them. The cast is uncharacteristically great. Accolades have been pouring in for Toni Collette so I won't add on there. Similarly, the girl who plays the ultra creepy Charlie. What I'll say is that Alex Wolff, who plays the teenage Peter, is really great as well. And not in a showy manner like Collette. He's so natural and believable as a teenager who's stuck in some of the worst possible familial situations you can think of. To me that the movie works as much as it did owes as much to him as it did to Collette. 

 

And then there's that singular, bravura sequence in the first half of the film that's genuinely shocking.  And it's not quite cut from horror movie elements as you'd expect. It's really a gasp-inducing sequence, punctuated by an equally memorable immediate follow up by the reaction of the characters after the moment. That one scene shifts the movie into high stakes, in that you no longer know what to expect from the movie whatsoever. 

 

The last act has been called bonkers. I found that the shift in tone jarring and unearned, not because of all the crazy shit happening on screen, but because the first 2 acts were so classy and low-key that the mainstream horror/Asian horror-ish last act cheapened the whole affair. For the first 100 mins of the movie it just never seemed that it would devolve into this, and when it happens it feels a little disappointing. The stuff that's there would have been good in a movie like a less jumpy The Conjuring, but not this. 

 

There's been some comparisons with The Witch. But I find that the be a much better, coherent movie. It is told with a simplicity and grace that befits it, and yet has layers and themes to it. This movie is more fractured, and relies more on complicated plotting at several turns which to me dulls the horror. Horror should never be overly dependent on plot details...the kind that you have to watch a second time to catch all the clues. Which this one to some extend relies upon. And The Witch never stopped to the level of cut-rate scares (however well executed they were) in the last act of this film. 

 

Still, an interesting movie that's worth at least a watch. Letting it simmer may increase how much you appreciate it. Let's see how it holds up on a second viewing 6 months later. 

 

Spoiler

the stuff with Annie crawling on the wall just does not fit in with the tone of the rest of the film, even though it was executed really well. I'm torn between liking that shot with the faint glimpse of Annie on the wall in the left of the frame, and being disappointed with it because at that very moment the film degenerated into a typical Asian horror movie.

 

[Fancyarcher 350]

1 hour ago, Hurmm said:

 

I watched Hereditary yesterday, and came back here to check out your review. It was a good thing I didn't click on it earlier because your review spoils a ton of the movie. Anyone who hasn't seen Hereditary, DO NOT READ Fancy's review. It spoils one of the greatest shocks I've come across in a long time. 

You mean the 

Spoiler

death of Charlie, or the introduction of Joan, and communicating with Charlie from the grave?

 

I didn't consider the first a super spoiler since it happens in the first thirty minutes. I did find it unexpected though, and was surprised by how gruesome it was. As for the later, I thought it was approriate given the main plot. 

 

When it comes to a film like Hereditary, it's hard not to accidentally spoil something by accident in my review, since while it is one of those films where it's better to see it without any spoilers, so much of why the film works for me has to do with how well the build-up to the finale is, so I can accidentally slip a secret or two about the film, when I'm writing about it. I guess that's what makes it so good though.

[Hurmm 91]

18 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:

You mean the 

  Reveal hidden contents

death of Charlie, or the introduction of Joan, and communicating with Charlie from the grave?

 

I didn't consider the first a super spoiler since it happens in the first thirty minutes. I did find it unexpected though, and was surprised by how gruesome it just went. As for the later, I thought it was approriate given the main plot. 

 

When it comes to a film like Hereditary, it's hard not to accidentally spoil something by accident in my review, since so much of why the film works for me has to do with how well the build-up to the finale is. It's just so eerie and greatly executed. 

 

Spoiler

I meant all the things you mentioned in your spoiler tag, but particularly Charlie's death. You could smell something wasn't right with Ann Dowd from a mile off... But there is no way anyone sees what was coming to Charlie. I thought she was going to be integral to the plot (well turns out she still was but in a different manner). She was either the creepy but innocent kid or the creepy and evil kid. But not the kid that dies so early in the movie. That was the movie's greatest sequence, and the family's reaction, including the brother's utter shell-shock was so believable. 

 

Right after the decapitation I sat there thinking to myself did that really just happen? My emotion and reaction were almost similar to that of the brother. 

 

I think it doesn't really matter if something happens early or late in the movie. Specific plot points, especially one which was designed to catch you off guard, shouldn't be spoiled. 

 

As for the finale, I'm actually fine how the story pans out, just not a fan of the style in which it pans out. 

[Fancyarcher 350]

Oh well yeah, that's fair. I didn't even see it coming. That's what made it so shocking. 

 

I loved how they build-up to the finale, but I can understand why somebody wouldn't care for it. It's clearly not for everyone. 

[Sweeping Strings 2,351]

Have read that while Hereditary has had (overly?) glowing critical acclaim, audiences are less enamoured.  

[Holko 9,514]

Call Me by Your Name

 

I really loved the mood and look if it.

I could have bought the relationship easier with more or more explicit buildup - it was fine from the war memorial scene onward, but that seemed very sudden and spontaneous. I guess the book must have had a lot of internal thinking which is pretty hard to translate to the screen. The last 20something minutes are the best part.

 

Side note: thankfully I'm not big on fruits, I will never look at a peach the same way again...

[Fancyarcher 350]

Ocean's 8 - Entertaining heist film with a mostly good cast. I didn't find it especially great though, and Ross's direction came off a bit too much like second-rate / diet Steven Soderbergh for my tastes, but it was a good timewaster. - 6 / 10

[Quintus 5,399]

Holy shit, a Fancyarcher 6 out of 10?

 

Frame it! 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

5 hours ago, Fancyarcher said:

Ocean's 8 - Entertaining heist film with a mostly good cast. I didn't find it especially great though, and Ross's direction came off a bit too much like second-rate / diet Steven Soderbergh for my tastes, but it was a good timewaster. - 6 / 10

My problem is there was no drama at the end. Everything was too smooth.

 

But it was enjoyable.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom

Typical Jerry entering a franchise not named Star Wars on the second movie with very little knowledge of the first (Jurassic World that is, not Park). It's a bridge for something larger in No. 3, so it has a direction to go. In short, it's a look at the stupidity of humanity. Life cannot be contained (but it doesn't help if you keep letting these things out of the cage).

 

It goes from a recon mission, Claire approaching Owen like Beckett in Solo: Putting together a crew, you in?. Blue is the deciding factor of course. There are some big twists (which may have meant more if I cared), but the majority of the film is shot in two places, so it feels limited.

Spoiler

Jurassic World 3 will have no limits as to where things will go, I assure you that.

People are once again fueled by greed, causing turmoil. It's a big mess. There are a lot of stupid calls on the characters, but the movie isn't all that bad. The second half takes things to an intense and horrific scare show, with enough jumpscares to even get the quick witted Jerry jumping. Someone a few seats down fell out of their chair halfway through, but I don't know why as nothing was really happening onscreen. 

 

The score is only noticable when the theme kicks in. Other than that, it was mediocre. 

 

It was okay, Incredibles 2 may have been a better call, but I can accept this JW. Jeff Goldblum is back too, so that's a bonus.

 

6.5/10 on the Jerrymeter

 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Mediocre is what MG does.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,511]

Why would anyone put their life on the line, for a manufactured creature that would eat you, soon as look at you?

 

I'd see this, for one reason only.

[A24 4,330]

1 minute ago, Richard said:

I'd see this, for one reason only.

 

If they pay you?

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

4 minutes ago, Richard said:

I'd see this, for one reason only.

 

The female lead?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,511]

7 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

If they pay you?

 

 Close, Alex, but no Cuban.

 

5 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

The female lead?

 

"The female lead" as you put it, so succinctly, couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag, that had an opening in one end, and a 20ft. neon sign pointing to it, saying THIS WAY OUT.

I'd see it for one of my all-time favourite actors - Toby Jones.

[A24 4,330]

4 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

The female lead?

 

No, Richard is above that.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,511]

2 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

No, Richard is above that.

 

There are several female leads I'd like to be above, but BDH is definitely not one of them.

[A24 4,330]

1 minute ago, Richard said:

 

There are several female leads I'd like to be above, but BDH is definitely not one of them.

 

Today's leads? Really? 

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

If I make the bad decision to see it, it will be because of The Goldblum.

 

[A24 4,330]

Couldn't you watch Thank God It's Friday instead?

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

I could, since he basically plays the same role in all his movies, but alas, it doesn't include dinosaurs.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,511]

At least that's got a decent songtrack.

 

Sorry, JS, but Screen Junkies got their first (ffi, see the JP Honest Trailer).

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

Today's leads? Really? 

No, not today's leads. I wouldn't know a modern day movie star if she stepped into the shower with me.

[A24 4,330]

The first time I watched Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (which was many decades ago), I remember that I was thinking: "Ah, it's with that guy, great!" 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,511]

"Ah, yeah, I've forgotten my mantra".

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

34 minutes ago, Richard said:

At least that's got a decent songtrack.

 

Sorry, JS, but Screen Junkies got their first (ffi, see the JP Honest Trailer).

 

Been there, done that. But it's still a valid point.

[Fancyarcher 350]

Tag - Really enjoyed this. The actors had good chemistry (Renner and Fisher were particular standouts), and they actually did a lot with the premise of a bunch of grown-ass men playing tag. Plus I laughed quite a bit. - 7 / 10

[Wojo 2,453]

Thor Ragnarok 

Really enjoyed it. 

 

Doctor Strange 

I don't think I've seen a movie with a less likeable protagonist, at least at first. But when he donned the necklace, nobody stopped him, because the script wouldn't let them. 

 

I suppose I'm ready for Infinity War now. 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Doctor Strange!

 

That's pretty good. But it's taken!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I saw Infinite Wars again. Liked it more. Saw things I missed because of the sheer scope.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's good!

[Quintus 5,399]

Is that The Avengers one? Is the second movie important beforehand? 

[Chen G. 3,948]

A bit. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Not really. Many of the ones that come after it are more important. Captain America: Civil War, Thor Ragnarok and Doctor Strange in particular.

[Chen G. 3,948]

Yeah. 

 

I've been spending some time thinking what's the most rudimentary viewing order of the Marvel universe. I'm not really such a fan that I'm going to rewatch all of them.

 

2 hours ago, Stefancos said:

It's good!

 

Yeah, I like Infinity War. I didn't hear good things coming into it, but it was quite good. Finally, Marvel gave us a serious, dark film with stakes! And the reason why it works is that the main character of the film is, unusually (and refreshingly) the villain. 

 

Also, from a studio that gave us mostly plain storytelling, it was refreshing to see a movie structured like this one: its almost avant-garde in the way it juggles multiple storylines and characters.

 

That's not to say its without its flaws, though: I don't mind cliffhanger endings in a serialized franchise (especially when the two parts were made simultaneously), but the funny thing here is that there is at least one more essential movie, Captain Marvel, that's sandwiched between the two parts, which will probably make for a jarring rewatch experience. Also, I just fear that Avengers 4 will return to the lighter mould of Marvel and just undo this film's consequences all too easily, making the whole thing feel unearned.

 

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I thought Tony Stark was the main dude.

[Chen G. 3,948]

Stark was certainly the main focus among the good guys. Aptly so, because he's the most interesting of the lot.

 

But ultimately Thanos was the one driving the plot, the others mostly reacting to it.