Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Rate The Last Movie You Watched
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rate The Last Movie You Watched - Page 1054

post #15796 of 16121

Paradise Lost 3 10/10.

 

I had not seen the previous documentaries so this was new.

Incredible that the justice system can work like that. Screwed in every instance over and over again. Is there even another side of the coin here?

What a fantastic irony since the state can´t be wrong they must plead guilty to be set free and no they shouldn´t get compensation for 18 years in prison for something they didn´t do. That is obnoxious.

post #15797 of 16121

Her - 7.5/10

Here, I give Phoenix 10/10 for acting.  The basic premise 10/10. I agree with other viewers that it had unnecessary profanity and although I somewhat get the idea of the surrogate thing, it was too over the top for me.  The film does make you wonder if the premise is the future to some degree.  I live very near Microsoft land and get to see Google land every time I visit family in Cali, so I get to see a lot of personalities that I would bet my third born on would adopt the idea having a OS for a girl/boy friend.  What would've been icing on the cake if at the end of the movie, the sound theme of "Terminator" played through the credits to indicate the creation of Skynet.

 

Edge of Tomorrow - 8/10

Very entertaining movie.  Worth my coin seeing it in 3D!  It find of felt like a futuristic version of  "Memento", which I gave 9/10.

post #15798 of 16121

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004) - 8

 

Steve Zissou is a reputed oceanographer. After the documentary screening of his last expedition where he lost a close friend, Zissou publicly announces the intent to document another journey where he aims to destroy the presumable Esteban's assassin--a so-called "Jaguar shark." The scientific purpose of this expedition is "Revenge." Soon after, he and his crew will embark on a new ordeal, marked by personal revelations and bizarre setbacks, until they are face-to-face with the daunting creature. I noticed that critics, in general, nurture weak appreciation for this movie; as a result of an insanity outbreak, I suppose. The style is not for everyone, true, but they should know better than judge a movie merely by its surface. The most ridiculous is that when those philistines criticize this particular work, they necessarily criticize the whole cinematic system of Wes Anderson, i.e., they bad-mouth the same thing that they laud in his cinema. It shocks me a little because I think this is his most characteristic work. This is the clearest expression of the director's cinematic DNA before Moonrise Kingdom. In my opinion, this brings only good things and automatically prevents this movie from falling into redundancy. Surely, there is always the chance that I'm the real lunatic here, but in defense of my ego, I declare myself the sole and absolute voice of reason.

 

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou shares the typical plot with other Wes' movies--the characters' path is equally liberating and reconciling--but on the aspects that juice up the cinematic experience, this movie seems the most uncompromising to me. Starting by the central character, oceanographer Steve Zissou. My favorite character in Wes universe; the oddity subverted in his gestures, attitudes and quirks, make him a fascinating and hilarious caricature. He endures a conturbed period in his life--he watched a friend die at the jaws of a shark, and then runs into his presumable son, Ned Plimpton, for the first time--balancing the gag-inducing charm with an equal dose of drama. I think Bill Murray did an excellent job playing this complex and sentimental goon. I also enjoy the reporter, Jane Winslet-Richardson--played by Cate Blanchett--who has a caustic relationship with the oceanographer, and an affair with his (pseudo)son.

 

We see something rare in a Wes' plot: one of the main characters, Ned, dies; absentee until the end. This, among other things, reinforces the dichotomy between comedy and drama, happiness and suffering. The bittersweet flavor is stronger in this movie compared to the others, except Moonrise Kingdom. The fleeting nature of some personas, something that haunts me forever in Wes' cinema, also seems more evident here. But this is probably a reflection of my own lunacy. The sea theme is nicely explored, in my opinion; the animated sequences don't come across as a sign of technical limitation, on the contrary, I feel the cinematic experience is more rewarding thanks to it. Technically, this movie showcases the usual standards of Wes; there's just more playfulness here. The cinematography of Zissou documentaries is charming and nostalgic; I wish that the real adventure was dressed up like this as well. The soundtrack has a few brilliantly hilarious moments, just like Rushmore; both movies are equally generous and intelligent laugh wise. Typically formal camera work as expected.

 

Sweetly awkward, silly fun, bittersweet; potentially pointless and dull-witted for insane minds. This is one of his most eccentric and colorful works. There's no way to dislike The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou for those who enjoy the cinema of Wes Anderson. Although all his movies follow the same basic formula, each one leaves me with a unique impression. I enjoyed this movie as much as any other work from Wes, recommended!


Edited by kkl10 - 6/17/14 at 12:50pm
post #15799 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by oqvist View Post

Paradise Lost 3 10/10.

I had not seen the previous documentaries so this was new.
Incredible that the justice system can work like that. Screwed in every instance over and over again. Is there even another side of the coin here?
What a fantastic irony since the state can´t be wrong they must plead guilty to be set free and no they shouldn´t get compensation for 18 years in prison for something they didn´t do. That is obnoxious.

+1 outrageous and absurd!
post #15800 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkl10 View Post
 

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004) - 8

 

Steve Zissou is a reputed oceanographer. After the documentary screening of his last expedition where he lost a close friend, Zissou publicly announces the intent to document another journey where he aims to destroy the presumable Esteban's assassin--a so-called "Jaguar shark." The scientific purpose of this expedition is "Revenge." Soon after, he and his crew will embark on a new ordeal, marked by personal revelations and bizarre setbacks, until they are face-to-face with the daunting creature. I noticed that critics, in general, nurture weak appreciation for this movie; as a result of an insanity outbreak, I suppose. The style is not for everyone, true, but they should know better than judge a movie merely by its surface. The most ridiculous is that when those philistines criticize this particular work, they necessarily criticize the whole cinematic system of Wes Anderson, i.e., they bad-mouth the same thing that they laud in his cinema. It shocks me a little because I think this is his most characteristic work. This is the clearest expression of the director's cinematic DNA before Moonrise Kingdom. In my opinion, this brings only good things and automatically prevents this movie from falling into redundancy. Surely, there is always the chance that I'm the real lunatic here, but in defense of my ego, I declare myself the sole and absolute voice of reason.

 

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou shares the typical plot with other Wes' movies--the characters' path is equally liberating and reconciling--but on the aspects that juice up the cinematic experience, this movie seems the most uncompromising to me. Starting by the central character, oceanographer Steve Zissou. My favorite character in Wes universe; the oddity subverted in his gestures, attitudes and quirks, make him a fascinating and hilarious caricature. He endures a conturbed period in his life--he watched a friend die at the jaws of a shark, and then runs into his presumable son, Ned Plimpton, for the first time--balancing the gag-inducing charm with an equal dose of drama. I think Bill Murray did an excellent job playing this complex and sentimental goon. I also enjoy the reporter, Jane Winslet-Richardson--played by Cate Blanchett--who has a caustic relationship with the oceanographer, and an affair with his (pseudo)son.

 

We see something rare in a Wes' plot: one of the main characters, Ned, dies; absentee until the end. This, among other things, reinforces the dichotomy between comedy and drama, happiness and suffering. The bittersweet flavor is stronger in this movie compared to the others, except Moonrise Kingdom. The fleeting nature of some personas, something that haunts me forever in Wes' cinema, also seems more evident here. But this is probably a reflection of my own lunacy. The sea theme is nicely explored, in my opinion; the animated sequences don't come across as a sign of technical limitation, on the contrary, I feel the cinematic experience is more rewarding thanks to it. Technically, this movie showcases the usual standards of Wes; there's just more playfulness here. The cinematography of Zissou documentaries is charming and nostalgic; I wish that the real adventure was dressed up like this as well. The soundtrack has a few brilliantly hilarious moments, just like Rushmore; both movies are equally generous and intelligent laugh wise. Typically formal camera work as expected.

 

Sweetly awkward, silly fun, bittersweet; potentially pointless and dull-witted for insane minds. This is one of his most eccentric and colorful works. There's no way to dislike The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou for those who enjoy the cinema of Wes Anderson. Although all his movies follow the same basic formula, each one leaves me with a unique impression. I enjoyed this movie as much as any other work from Wes, recommended!

 

Glad to see you getting some mileage out of 'philistine' and that you're enjoying Anderson's work. I think this particular film was treated unfairly by the critics as well, and every time I see it it's even better than I remember it being. Not to mention the final meeting with the jaguar shark is an almost unbearably perfect scene--for me, it's the highlight of Anderson's entire (and very impressive, I think) filmography, and one of Bill Murray's finest moments. I personally know a lot of people who are fairly dismissive of most of Murray's work within the last twenty years--I think those people are utterly bonkers. I think he's probably our best living actor.

post #15801 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpha421 View Post
 

Her - 7.5/10

Here, I give Phoenix 10/10 for acting.  The basic premise 10/10. I agree with other viewers that it had unnecessary profanity and although I somewhat get the idea of the surrogate thing, it was too over the top for me.  The film does make you wonder if the premise is the future to some degree.  I live very near Microsoft land and get to see Google land every time I visit family in Cali, so I get to see a lot of personalities that I would bet my third born on would adopt the idea having a OS for a girl/boy friend.  What would've been icing on the cake if at the end of the movie, the sound theme of "Terminator" played through the credits to indicate the creation of Skynet.

 

Edge of Tomorrow - 8/10

Very entertaining movie.  Worth my coin seeing it in 3D!  It find of felt like a futuristic version of  "Memento", which I gave 9/10.

 

I loved Her for some reason but I couldn't get anyone to watch it with me because everyone thought the premise was too stupid.

post #15802 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalsonata View Post
 

 

Glad to see you getting some mileage out of 'philistine' and that you're enjoying Anderson's work. I think this particular film was treated unfairly by the critics as well, and every time I see it it's even better than I remember it being. Not to mention the final meeting with the jaguar shark is an almost unbearably perfect scene--for me, it's the highlight of Anderson's entire (and very impressive, I think) filmography, and one of Bill Murray's finest moments. I personally know a lot of people who are fairly dismissive of most of Murray's work within the last twenty years--I think those people are utterly bonkers. I think he's probably our best living actor.

 

Can't understand how I neglected to mention it. Yes! That was a wonderful moment, probably my favorite scene in his whole filmography.

Critics can stick their dull-witted gibberish up their arse; feels good to call them philistines, lol.

Bill Murray has the wits, talent and charisma to be whatever he has to be on the screen.


Edited by kkl10 - 6/18/14 at 6:25am
post #15803 of 16121

Apocalypse Now Redux (1979) - 8

From the eve of a secret mission to the confines of enlightening horror. Willard chronicles the journey and the personal implications of what he faces until the echo of his words is muffled by the atrophied voice of a man who has allied with horror and moral terror by his own means to the detriment of a hypocrite army. The atrocious madness of warfare, dissected in a beautiful, spectacular and surreal cinematic feast. This movie looks surprisingly modern for a product of 1979. Modern in the best and the worst. I say the worst because it abounds with redundant moments that distract me. I wanted to nurture higher appreciation for this movie, but there is too much that, in my opinion, is not essential for the cinematic experience; some cuts would help to forge a more consolidated and distinctive work. The excesses are all the more frustrating by means of the typical hollywood-esque pathos so prominent that, sometimes, this movie looks like an exercise in ostentatious vulgarity without substance or appeal so common in nowadays' Hollywood junk food. This is a 1979 movie so it's difficult to pass fair judgement about its originality, but the fact is several scenes are insipid, seemingly pointless and slightly confuse me about the real message that the movie is trying to convey. I suspect that my nagging stems from the additional 49 minutes of runtime in the Redux version. I read about the added scenes and, not surprisingly, a large part of them match with what I consider surplus. I actually enjoy the leisurely, almost wandering, pace of the Redux version; it compels to thorough contemplation and reflection about everything there is to see and interpret. But the shifting pace enhances qualities and limitations in equal measure. I, therefore, agree with some of the criticism received by this version; I think this is a corruption, by excess, of a masterpiece (or so I hope). What is not essential, is excess; the essential of this movie is formidable; then it follows that I lust for the original version. I would love to see it in a big theater to experience all the visceral and haunting juice this movie has to offer.


Edited by kkl10 - 6/20/14 at 2:52pm
post #15804 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkl10 View Post
 

Apocalypse Now Redux (1979) - 8

From the eve of a secret mission to the confines of enlightening horror. Willard chronicles the journey and the personal implications of what he faces until the echo of his words is muffled by the atrophied voice of a man who has allied with horror and moral terror by his own means to the detriment of a hypocrite army. The atrocious madness of warfare, dissected in a beautiful, spectacular and surreal cinematic feast. This movie looks surprisingly modern for a product of 1979. Modern in the best and the worst. I say the worst because it abounds with redundant moments that distract me. I wanted to nurture higher appreciation for this movie, but there is too much that, in my opinion, is not essential for the cinematic experience; some cuts would help to forge a more consolidated and distinctive work. The excesses are all the more frustrating by means of the typical hollywood-esque pathos so prominent that, sometimes, this movie looks like an exercise in ostentatious vulgarity without substance or appeal so common in nowadays' Hollywood junk food. This is a 1979 movie so it's difficult to pass fair judgement about its originality, but the fact is several scenes are insipid, seemingly pointless and slightly confuse me about the real message that the movie is trying to convey. I suspect that my nagging stems from the additional 49 minutes of runtime in the Redux version. I read about the added scenes and, not surprisingly, a large part of them match with what I consider surplus. I actually enjoy the leisurely, almost wandering, pace of the Redux version; it compels to thorough contemplation and reflection about everything there is to see and interpret. But the shifting pace enhances qualities and limitations in equal measure. I, therefore, agree with some of the criticism received by this version; I think this is a corruption, by excess, of a masterpiece (or so I hope). What is not essential, is excess; the essential of this movie is formidable; then it follows that I lust for the original version. I would love to see it in a big theater to experience all the visceral and haunting juice this movie has to offer.


There was good reason all that crap wound up on the editing room floor. Editing in film is rarely done well by the director. They never should have let Coppola re hack that one. It is far and away the WORST directors cut ever pawned off on the filmgoing public.

 

Catch the original cut, you will have a completely different perspective on the film.

post #15805 of 16121

Chushingura (1962) - 7/10

 

Story of the 47 Ronin, but not the best version I think. I watched this maybe 6 years ago and really liked it. Second viewing didn't go so well.

You know how all hollywood movies have to spell everything out for you so you don't get confused? Well, in this one so much of what's going on is left unsaid.

It was kind of hard to know exactly what all was going on and why. Maybe it's a bad translation or how it's supposed to be. I know the general storyline, but confused on a few small details.

 

This time around it took me two days to finish the nearly 4 hour movie. It moves at a snail's pace, is not very interesting and all the characters are dull. The only somewhat interesting character in it was Toshiro Mifune.

 

The end of the movie kind of reminded me of how nazi hunters go after 80-90 year old men. Well, I won't give anything away or tell you what happens. If they waited a few years they wouldn't have to go hunt him down.

 

Makes me wonder if what they all did was even worth it.

 

I also watched the version from 1941 by Kenji Mizuguchi maybe 10-15 years ago. I'll have to go watch that again if it's even available!

 

Based on my research the most accurate version is the 2014 one with Keanu Reeves!

 

BTW I'm a huge fan of samurai films and any one I can find i'll watch. Try to watch Ronin-Gai, Twilight Samurai and "Love and Honor". The last one is directed by Yoji Yamada who also made Twilight Samurai. The third one in his samurai series called "The Hidden Blade" is not good at all. Of course "Samurai Rebellion" and "Haraikiri" are some favorites.

post #15806 of 16121

You love samurai movies, I assume then you've already seen Yojimbo and other Kurosawa masterpieces, right?

I don't necessarily love samurai movies, but I love the samurai concept. I look forward to discover the samurai movie that will trully evoke in me the sheer terror of being attacked by the blade of a sword. The only movie that was able to achieve that with me was A Brighter Summer Day, which is anything but a samurai movie. I wish Kurosawa had managed this accomplishment in any of his samurai films, especialy Ran. Then I'd be happy. I'll checkout the titles you mentioned. Thanks!

post #15807 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkl10 View Post
 

You love samurai movies, I assume then you've already seen Yojimbo and other Kurosawa masterpieces, right?

I don't necessarily love samurai movies, but I love the samurai concept. I look forward to discover the samurai movie that will trully evoke in me the sheer terror of being attacked by the blade of a sword. The only movie that was able to achieve that with me was A Brighter Summer Day, which is anything but a samurai movie. I wish Kurosawa had managed this accomplishment in any of his samurai films, especialy Ran. Then I'd be happy. I'll checkout the titles you mentioned. Thanks!

 

Yep, i've seen most of Kurosawa's samurai films. The first foreign film I ever saw was "Ran" back when I was 17 or so (now 33).

 

Strangely enough i'm not a fan of his samurai films at all. I actually think Kurosawa's best movies are his non samurai titles. Movies like "The Lower Depths" and "Red Beard".

 

Sometimes his style bores me to death. Try enduring "One Wonderful Sunday" and you'll see what I mean. Yet I love Ozu films and never find them boring at all. I even love his old silent comedies.

 

I've been wanting to see more Edward Yang movies in a long time. I sold my criterion movies of "Yi-Yi" to a used DVD store and it sat that for over a year and kept dropping in price. I eventually bought my old copy back!

 

Criterion should try to release some more of his movies.

 

BTW I think more people should skip Kurosawa films and give movies from Ozu or Masaki Kobayashi a try. Titles from Kon Ichikawa are also good.

post #15808 of 16121

Don't forget Mikio Nause, Kenji Mizoguchi, and Hiroshi Himizu!

post #15809 of 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Za Warudo View Post
 

Don't forget Mikio Nause, Kenji Mizoguchi, and Hiroshi Himizu!

 

I have "Travels with Hiroshi Shimizu" and it's one of my favorite boxed sets. I actually never heard of that director until seeing it available.

 I meant to also mention Kenji Mizoguchi too. I actually like his movies more than Kobayashi's and he's one of my favorite directors.

 

I think "Sansho The Bailiff" is one of the best movies ever made. I have his latest boxed set called "Against the System" but somehow haven't made it past the first disc.

 

BTW my favorite set from Criterion/Eclipse is "Silent Ozu". Hard to believe silent movies can be so good. Sometimes I even forget if an old B&W movie is silent or not!

Ozu's early movies are much different than his later movies.

 

Somehow I get confused as to what Ozu movie is which. They all have similar sounding names and themes. Late Summer, Early Spring... Autumn Afternoon etc.

 

Tokyo Story and Floating Weeds are his best I think.

 

Also.. I knew you meant to say "Shimizu", but maybe you were thinking of the Japanese movie "Himizu" when you typed it out :normal_smile : That movie looks too depressing for me to watch.

post #15810 of 16121

Yes I meant Shimizu.  Criterion, Masters of Cinema, and BFI also have some great releases of Mizoguchi and Naruse films.  In addition to the Eclipse Shimizu set, there's volume 2 of the Shimizu HIroshi Collection 

http://www.yesasia.com/us/shimizu-hiroshi-collection-part-2-kodomo-no-shiki-four-seasons-of/1010909089-0-0-0-en/info.html

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Rate The Last Movie You Watched