[SHAMuuu]

Life of a King ... 7/10

 

[Hutnicks]

 
 
The Killer Inside Me - 1/10
 
A vile, exploitative thriller with no redeeming features. The plot, such as it is, makes little sense and is a paper thin excuse for the director to show some scenes of sickening violence against women on the flimsy pretense of exploring the inner workings of a damaged mind. Ben Affleck's younger brother Casey plays a walking charisma void called Lou; a detestable little worm whose voice apparently never broke. You who wait the entire film for him to get what's coming to him but when he does, it's as unsatisfying as the rest of this mess. Is that a spoiler? I don't really care, this film deserves to be spoiled. In fact it deserves to be thrown onto a pile of great celluloid fails and set fire to. To add insult to injury, Winterbottom probably thinks he's being edgy by scoring his pointlessly violent and unrealistic psychodrama with a jaunty little ditty - yeah, no-one's ever thought of that before. You tosser.

Ha I forgot about that one. And rightly so

 

[mutabor]

Moana ( 2016, Disney) 7.5/10
 
I found it more enjoyable than I had expected. It was definitely more superficial as a representation of an Asian fairy tale or a mythology in comparison for example to recent 'Kubo and the Two Strings' ( American Laika studio) which looked and felt authentic to the source material ( as if it were Japanese themselves who made the animation film). While 'Moana' made by Disney looked like an American animation movie about Polynesians. For example Moana's facial gestures were mimicking American gestures. It felt as if it was American girl which was drawn. The same can be said about other characters.
 
Nocturnal Animals ( 2016) 4/10
 
Made by American clothes designer Tom Ford. One of those movies which I dislike entirely. Some people say it's style over substance but there is no way you can compare it with say Nicolas Refn's movie The Neon Demon. 

 

[Subhakar]

LA LA LAND (5/10)

Let me save you the surprise. This picture isn't all it is being trumpeted up to be. A 5/10 at most, if "Whiplash" were 7/10. Music soars. Story stays flat. Gosling looks uneasy in the drama parts and very convincing at the piano. Stone is convincing enough but the restrain in her acting does have nothing in the scenes that needs restrain. For some weird reason, she looks a lot more natural and adorable in unrestrained roles than subtle ones. Remember "Birdman?"

Whats saves the film is only the last 20 minutes that are as lovable as the best of the musicals ever. The Whiplash wizard, Damien Chazelle, with this film, starts showing what might be just the beginning of a lifelong obsession with dark-humor-like endings that we saw only a glimpse of in his early film "Guy and Madeline on the Park" and, of course, "Whiplash." He sure likes his coffee extra black and no sugar and it is indeed a pleasure for us too. Nothing comes to the rescue of a beautiful dream better than the dreary reality. Keep walking, Mr.Chazelle.

A good watch during this cold winter.

 

[mutabor]

LA LA LAND (5/10)

 
Low score for the Must See movie.

 

[WraithApe]

 
Low score for the Must See movie.

 
So was yours for Nocturnal Animals. People are entitled to their own viewpoints.

 

[Subhakar]

Low score for the Must See movie.

It's just the standards I seem to sport. "Casablanca" tops at 8.5/10 on my scale. "Out of Africa": 8/10. " On the Waterfront": 8.5/10. 5/10 is pretty appreciative for "LA LA LAND." I just find it difficult to understand people who give a 8/10 to "Wolf of Wall Street" - what is there left in their heart to give a "The Godfather" or a "Raging Bull" out of the same 10?! I believe people should stop rating unless and until they have watched at least 200 films that they strongly feel deserve 8/10 and then normalize that 8 to 6 and then start rating the films that follow in their lives. You don't know precisely how beautifully stars glimmer untik you camp a night in the Grand Canyon or travel to the Sahara or the North Pole which is when one can have a decent idea about the shimmer quotient of the stars in LA sky. YMMV.

 

[bavinck]

It's just the standards I seem to sport. "Casablanca" tops at 8.5/10. "Out of Africa": 8/10. " On the Waterfront": 8/10. 5/10 is pretty appreciative for "LA LA LAND."

If you use an 8.5 point scale instead of 10 you should say that.

 

[Subhakar]

If you use an 8.5 point scale instead of 10 you should say that.

They award marks for languages out of 100 just like they do for math or physics. Have you ever seen anyone getting 100/100 in French or English?! That's because even the greatest ever English answer sheet in the history of all schools across the world can always be bettered by someone later in the future. That's why they never give 100/100 in languages. Perfection is always time-challenged. Even Stephen Hawking accepted some of his revolutionary theories of his lifetime just turned out to be just plain wrong after the whole world celebrated them for decades. There is a reason why in math and sciences we begin the definitions of even the truest of all concepts with the phrase "It maybe defined as..." not "It is defined as..." although we have been depending on them for our lives for centuries. Even E maybe defined as m multiplied by c square. Still. One may be allowed to do a 10/10 for his favourite film just before WW-III ends.

 

[bavinck]

They award marks for languages out of 100 just like they do for math or physics. Have you ever seen anyone getting 100/100 in French or English?! That's because even the greatest ever English answer sheet in the history of all schools across the world can always be bettered by someone later in the future. That's why they never give 100/100 in languages. Perfection is always time-challenged. Even Stephen Hawking accepted some of his revolutionary theories of his lifetime just turned out to be just plain wrong after the whole world celebrated them for decades. There is a reason why in math and sciences we begin the definitions of even the truest of all concepts with the phrase "It maybe defined as..." not "It is defined as..." although we have been depending on them for our lives for centuries. Even E maybe defined as m multiplied by c square. Still. One may be allowed to do a 10/10 for his favourite film just before WW-III ends.

This is seriously flawed logic. If 100/100 is not possible then it is not an appropriate scale. 100/100 (or 10/10) does not mean perfect, never has. It means exemplary, well above the standard and execution of the expectations. What you have done is made a new scale.
 
And yes, as a teacher I have seen students awards 100/100 for English. A 5-point rubric allows for that.

 

[mutabor]

I've seen 11 out of 10 score ( in forum boards). Yes, it's possible.

 

[Subhakar]

This is seriously flawed logic. If 100/100 is not possible then it is not an appropriate scale. 100/100 (or 10/10) does not mean perfect, never has. It means exemplary, well above the standard and execution of the expectations. What you have done is made a new scale.

And yes, as a teacher I have seen students awards 100/100 for English. A 5-point rubric allows for that.

I didn't change the scale at all. The scale is still 10. It's just that I have this feeling that even my #1 film "Casablanca" at my 8.5/10 could still have been made better in the hands of, well, so many people who contributed to the making of the film - a collaborative art. It doesn't mean that I changed my scale from 10 to 8.5. It just means that in the 40-50 years left in me, I am confident I could run into a film that can be even 9.5/10. "The Enlish Patient" was a near 8.5 and so was "The Shawshank Redemption" or "Life is Beautiful" in my heart. Tomorrow is always another day. Watch your 9/10 film a ten times and you will see what could've been improved on in it to push it into 9.5/10. It's that simple. Said someone, "a work of art is never finished - only abandoned."

 

[Subhakar]

They are the same ones that say they are 110% (!) confident, aren't they?!

 

[WraithApe]

 
The Limey - 5/10
 
Terence Stamp puts on his best cor (b)limey gov'nor act and heads over to America on a fish-out-of-water assignment to avenge the killing of his daughter. What would be a fairly prosaic thriller is elevated somewhat by Soderbergh's admittedly unique style of direction, but it walks a fine line between realism and artifice. Some might find the use of expositional snapshot flashbacks, decontextualized conversations and prolepsis to be captivating but it actually started to get on my nerves well before the end of the film, as it's used ad nauseam.
 
For a thriller, it's also unusually muted in tone, but that's Soderbergh's style - at its best, it can make for understated brilliance but too often it simply slides into the mundane. Here, the screenplay is just too flat for this style of direction to pay dividends.

 

[Hutnicks]

Rogue One  (2016)    7.5/10
 
  Easily the most watchable Star Wars effort since 1977 and a welcome change (sort of) from the last 4 visual scrapfests.  Tropes galore here from the original and some homage that really works well in the vehicle. This one works by using not so well known talent in lead roles which allows the similar latitudes that gave the original it's legs. The martial arts angle I could do without but better that than mystic green treefrogs spouting Force teachings by speaking backwards or Rasta Aliens saving the day. No cute fuzzies here, you get a reprogrammed Imperial Droid instead which actually works well . He counters a lot of the previous messes and is no 3P0 by any means.
 
 I have to think that any of the series sequels or prequels are going to suffer from very similar plotlines. The formula is set long ago and how far can you really stray from it and have a working SW film? No one has explored that option and this film could have gone further down that road. As it is, it is significantly darker than most in plot if not execution. It ties up well with the original and the makeup on Leia and Tarkin should really get academy awards. I sincerely jumped, wondering how on earth they managed to resurrect Peter Cushing, it is eerie. Leia the same without the creepy bit, actually better than the original The only real gripe I have with the cast is Whittaker reprising his role from Battlefield Earth here, puzzling.
 
 The film to me, really appears as if the franchise holders were reluctant to give it the go ahead and starved it out in some budget areas. It just gives off the vibe of "we were going to go here with this scene but..." in a few instances. That could well just be editing errors and that would be consistent with some of the films jumpiness. More here than is needed to really get the exposition across.