[wrathzombie]

 
Yesss, it is indeed "Another Year". Fits the hints perfectly. If you don't mind a similar theme with two women albeit a lot younger and set in NYC, "Frances Ha" might be a great watch.
 

I have seen frances ha and loved it

 

[Subhakar]

  I have seen frances ha and loved it

But the question is, have you seen Gerwig's latest ones?
 
Weiner-Dog
(Edit: Turened out to be bad film, after all)
 
Maggie's Plan
Mistress America
 
"If you say, 'she is, like, terrified,' it is not as strong as saying, 'she is terrified'. 'Like' is a language condom."

- "Maggie's Plan" (2015)

 
 
 
 

 

[wrathzombie]

 
But the question is, have you seen Gerwig's latest ones?
 
Weiner-Dog
 
Maggie's Plan
 
 
"If you say, 'she is, like, terrified,' it is not as strong as saying, 'she is terrified'. 'Like' is a language condom."

- "Maggie's Plan" (2015)

 
 
 
 

Nope, but will check it out

 

[tdockweiler]

Captain Fantastic - 6.5/10
 
Knew nothing about this movie before renting it.
Found it really too slow, barely interesting enough to watch and dragged on and on.
Not much fun either. Too bad because it had some really good ideas. It really could have used more comedy.
 
 

 

[vwinter]

So I got the Star Wars saga box set on a really great deal and will be making my way through the series for the first time in a long while, episode order.


Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (Episode I) [8/10]

I know what you're thinking: 8?!?!!!
Yea 8. Especially after rewatching Episode II which IMO was a train wreck of bad writing and everyone involved and their mother mailing it in.

There are a lot of things here that don't work, facepalm inducing even. Names will not be named... But surrounding all that is genuine wonder in reigniting a cultural phenomenon set in a world that is larger than most imaginations. Watching this made me smile. It was truly grand and made you feel the Star in Star Wars.

The pacing was actually pretty good, everything looked like they spent significant time in concept and eventually art design and was crafted with imaginative abandon. The film was visually alive. Jokes were well placed throughout and even cringeworthy young Anakin couldn't bring this high down.

Even the classic wipes were well placed. "Meanwhile, back at the ranch" was executed juuuust right over and over again. I'd say there were very few cuts that were jarring.

The purpose of this film was to introduce a wide-eyed youth to something beyond what they can imagine. In that, as an adult, I think it succeeded.


Star Wars: Attack of the Clones (Episode II) [6.5/10]

This movie takes the larger than life aspect of The Phantom Menace and does a complete 180. They jump head-first into a character-focus which is pretty jarring after Ep. 1. This is the feeling despite taking place on and between multiple planets across galaxies with gigantic battles.

While having not the best acting or characters was mitigated by the scale of Episode I, the character focus of Attack of The Clones puts this front and center. And holy mother of all train wrecks. Hayden Christensen is head-shakingly bad. I even feel a bit bad about saying this, but it was like "is he somebody's cousin? Did you pay him for this? Can you get the money back?" bad. To the point of distraction. I can't imagine what Natalie Portman and Ewan McGregor were thinking during their scenes.

I actually enjoyed watching Episode I. It was fun. Episode II was not much fun. There were some great scenes, like the arena batter against the beasts, but it felt mostly mailed in. Flying car chase right from the Fifth Element. Not too much felt really new and exciting in terms of the world creation. Even John Williams lost inspiration. The main theme used in Episode II was pretty much a well done arrangement from Hook. Don't get me wrong, it's a great theme and works well here and is quite memorable, but it was memorable in Hook too. At least he picked a good one...

Then there's

Spoiler

Anakin's turning point:
Anakin is having dreams of his mother in trouble. He eventually goes to Naboo, finds that she has been abducted by Sand People a month ago and goes to save her. By some sheer cosmic coincidence, he gets to her the moment the flame of her life gives out, after a month of torture in captivity, and has the unfortunate opportunity to watch her die in his arms. This is lazy writing.

Yes, you could have literally erased Episode I from existence and made no real dent on the main story. But you can't erase Episode 2 from the origin story. And that's the tragedy.

It's just disappointing what could have been if the the approach was just a bit different.

 

[WraithApe]

I don't often disagree with you @vwinter but this is one of those times! The kid is absolutely terrible in the role of Annakin in The Random Menace, almost as bad as Hayden Christensen in Attack of The Clowns. The story is virtually non-existent, the characters anemic (I like McGregor in other things, but he doesn't have the gravitas to pull off a young Obi Wan) - it's an insult to anyone who grew up watching the original trilogy and on top of that it has the insufferable Binks, who makes you want to put your foot through the TV every time he appears on screen... in fact, just about the only good thing about it is the Pod Race and I could get that from playing Wipeout! Last time I watched the prequels, I swore I'd never watch 'em again. Sith is probably the pick of a bad bunch. My ratings: 4, 3 and 5 respectively.

 

[Subhakar]

  Nope, but will check it out

"Wiener-Dog" is a real horrible film, I must add. Wonder why Greta Gerwig signed it. On the other hand, "Mistress America" is beautiful.
 
 

 

[62ohm]

Is Greta Gerwig similar to Brit Marling in a sense that she's sort of idealistic in the roles she chose to be part of? If she is, then I would have to add her filmography to my watch list.. 

 

[vwinter]

I don't often disagree with you @vwinter
 but this is one of those times!

The kid is absolutely terrible in the role of Annakin in The Random Menace true

almost as bad as Hayden Christensen in Attack of The Clowns. true, but he's like 2 years old here so it's hard to measure him to the same standards

The story is virtually non-existent, true

the characters anemic true

(I like McGregor in other things, but he doesn't have the gravitas to pull off a young Obi Wan) agree, casting a name for the wrong part

- it's an insult to anyone who grew up watching the original trilogy i did not, which probably goes a long way to explaining the score

and on top of that it has the insufferable Binks, who makes you want to put your foot through the TV every time he appears on screen... the struggle is real

in fact, just about the only good thing about it is the Pod Race and I could get that from playing Wipeout! from a film perspective, I could take or leave the pod race. it was alright, done well, but I don't think they understood what makes an edge of your seat race, so besides being pretty, it kinda bored me.

Frankly, the shots of the marketplace and cities on tattooine naboo were more interesting to me, what with all the creativity that went into it.

Last time I watched the prequels, I swore I'd never watch 'em again. Sith is probably the pick of a bad bunch. will probably agree with this. Once I rewatch it. Its been a loooong while for me on these.

My ratings: 4, 3 and 5 respectively.

At least we agree on Phantom Menace being better than Attack of the Clones

Somehow forgot this above, but Sam Jackson, who I usually am good with, was so terribly miscast in the role, that it was hard to watch, in both episodes.

It's definitely a rating of form over substance in sort of a bubble of the prequel trilogy. Outside of the bubble, they'd probably be at 7 and 5, respectively for me. I don't really give less than a 5 unless it was so bad that it wasn't even a bit entertaining.

But I feel the form and most of the execution (around the script and casting, I know I know) is pretty strong on ep 1. Potatoes are great, like top notch gratin, but meat is mostly missing from the plate.

 

[Hutnicks]

I'd still love to have a copy of the fan edit Lucas sued into extinction where Binks was completely edited out.

 

[WraithApe]

Quote:

My ratings: 4, 3 and 5 respectively.

It's definitely a rating of form over substance in sort of a bubble of the prequel trilogy. Outside of the bubble, they'd probably be at 7 and 5, respectively for me. I don't really give less than a 5 unless it was so bad that it wasn't even a bit entertaining.

 
Yeah, this marks a difference in approach to rating I think and it might be worth a bit of clarification. I know some people on this board won't rate anything below a 5 unless it was actually technically inept, but I prefer to make use of the whole scale, and for me technically inept would actually be around a 2. I use 5/10 to mean bang average. 4 is sub-par with little redeeming entertainment value (to me) and 3 is for anything that practically bored me to tears (which was the case with Clowns).
 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

I recall that someone on this thread - a long time ago... in a galaxy far away (sorry) - said that if you rate anything 3 or under, it's your ego as a critic getting in the way of an objective rating. Forget who it was, but it obviously stuck with me as I resented it so it became like an anti-yardstick, in much the same way my old art teacher said you should never use raw black in any painting (he was a frustrated impressionist, who believed that because pure black "didn't exist in nature", it didn't belong on the canvas). I've used a good quantity of pure black in every painting I've done to this day! 

 

[oqvist]

War dogs 3/5
 
Could rate it higher if not 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

oh we have tons of boxes with chinese markings what do we do what do we do...  
Me with my brilliant mind thinks (get rid of the boxes with the chinese markings)
 
After tons of mumbling about being screwed and we are ****ed 15 millions years later... 
 
"Oh I have an idea we get rid of the boxes I am so amazingly super smart nobody will realize where it comes from"
 
150 millions years later... This was double smart. We save a lot of weight on shipment who could have guessed cardboard is lighter then steel boxes! 
 

 

[vwinter]

Yeah, this marks a difference in approach to rating I think and it might be worth a bit of clarification. I know some people on this board won't rate anything below a 5 unless it was actually technically inept, but I prefer to make use of the whole scale, and for me technically inept would actually be around a 2. I use 5/10 to mean bang average. 4 is sub-par with little redeeming entertainment value (to me) and 3 is for anything that practically bored me to tears (which was the case with Clowns).

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

I recall that someone on this thread - a long time ago... in a galaxy far away (sorry) - said that if you rate anything 3 or under, it's your ego as a critic getting in the way of an objective rating. Forget who it was, but it obviously stuck with me due to its as I resented it so it became like an anti-yardstick, in much the same way my old art teacher said you should never use raw black in any painting (he was a frustrated impressionist, who believed that because pure black "didn't exist in nature", it didn't belong on the canvas). I've used a good quantity of pure black in every painting I've done to this day! 

This post of mine was hard to find =/

...
It's more an issue with my ratings scale. The trip from 0-5 is a gimme, like writing your name correctly on a test. If you have a camera and a mic and a script, and the concept was interesting enough to have me watch it, you'll likely get a 5. Then 6-7 is a matter of not screwing it up too badly and it just being reasonably enjoyable. 8 is a good movie, you did things pretty much right. The trip from 8-9 is where there's an exponential increase in what I expect. This needs to be closing in on what I consider flawless to special in some way. I don't really give out 10's so over a 9 is pretty much a 10.
...

Maybe I'm stuck on the US school scale where < 50% might as well be a zero.

I think essentially having a 5 point scale requires decimals, hence my usual decimals. If I was watching a movie I'd give less than a 5. There's a 50/50 chance that I'd turn it off in the middle.

Spoiler

Not sure why spoiler but ok!
i don't understand why giving under a 3 would provide anything resembling causality to lack of objectivity. Some movies are just bad. I'm sure there are movies that I would give less than a 3. Movies that would be an insult to movies. I just have so many potentially decent to good movies on my list that I'd literally have to be surprised to catch a lower than 3 anytime soon. Literally don't have enough time to watch movies that bad unless going in blind.

The way I railed on Attack of The Clones, one would think i'd have given it a 3 but end of the day it was closer to just a plain ol 5.

 

[Subhakar]

  Is Greta Gerwig similar to Brit Marling in a sense that she's sort of idealistic in the roles she chose to be part of? If she is, then I would have to add her filmography to my watch list.. 

I see Great Gerwig as a younger and self-adopted alter-ego of Woody Allen's character we see in his own films in a gender-reversal. And the films she did with writer-director Noah Baumbach remind me of Diane Keaton - Woody Allen pair of 80s but for our generation; except they did only 2 or 3 films together and might not last so long as the latter did. Brit Marling might have done a few indies herself but the screen characters of these two are way dissimilar. I wouldn't mind missing Brit's film but not Greta's. "Frances Ha" and "Mistress America" are the first two films one should watch to see if they could take a liking to Greta Gerwig or not. One doesn't exactly dislike Allen despite exactly knowing what to expect from his next or any of the films he has ever done, does one?!

 

[mutabor]

   
Yeah, this marks a difference in approach to rating I think and it might be worth a bit of clarification. I know some people on this board won't rate anything below a 5 unless it was actually technically inept, but I prefer to make use of the whole scale, and for me technically inept would actually be around a 2. I use 5/10 to mean bang average. 4 is sub-par with little redeeming entertainment value (to me) and 3 is for anything that practically bored me to tears (which was the case with Clowns).
 

 
I usually rate movies from 6 to 9.5. I would rate below 5 if I'm butt-hurt. Because my range of numbers is narrow I have to use decimals. For example, 8.2 or 7.9.
 
6 - poor, 7 - not bad, ok, 8 - good, 9 - excellent