Rate The Last Movie You Saw

I rarely watch movies that I would call "truly bad."

But sometimes at the end of a long week I need to put on the kind of movie where I can feel zero guilt about not giving it 100% of my attention (or even . . . 43% of my attention).

So given the choice between a film I suspect will be a and a film that seems more like a , the latter is more likely to get the play button at 9pm on a Friday.

Spencer (Pablo Larraín 2021)

Yeah I know, that's an ugly distorted image...but it's fitting for an equally ugly distorted film. Spencer=Diana and that title is about the only clever thing in this poultry movie. Yup I said poultry as in it laid an egg.

Wholly crap Kristen Stewart really can't act, at least in this flop. Kristen does a pantomime imitation of the Princess of Wales. Stewart flops her head back and forth, side to side, until I thought it might fall off and roll away...and her breathy, gulps of line delivery are as monotone as this silly, insipid story is. The tale is all fantasy, made up crap to sell the film. No one could ever confirm all this exacerbated behaviour ever happened. Nor can we confirm Diana once told her parlor maid to inform the Queen that Diana needed time to masturbate before dinner. I guess that spices up this otherwise dull movie. Oh don't get overly excited we don't actually see her doing herself. We don't see much of anything but a film by a director who just shoots s*** and calls it a movie.

Personally I think the toilet should've had a credit in this movie.

Attachments

 

Fine film! Impeccably shot, scored and acted. Taking a cue from Cassavettes with Woman Under The Influence and especially Opening Night was an inspired choice for the stuffy Royal cosplay genre.

Stewart gives a great performance but never really feels transformed into Diana.

The real strength is the film’s presentation of the panopticon effect of the guilded cage. The complete lack of privacy and autonomy forced upon her is expertly done.

I have a bias against anything concerning the Royals and can’t help but sense that this and the Crown (which I haven’t seen) is some attempt to humanize them and show the “cost” of royalty, which I don’t buy.

But it’s good cinema!

I forgot to mention the score, I loathed it. It was this annoying light jazz score that came at all the wrong times.

I think for me, the idea that there are all of these movies out there I would love that I would never find if I listened to the opinions of others, is worth the occassional bad movie. It has also made me realize critical consensus is deeply unreliable when trying to find what is tailored to my interests


But I also have never seen what's so bad about watching a movie you don't like anyway. It deepens the appreciation of what I do like. Makes me understand filmmaking considerably more. In some ways, the bad movies are nearly as vital as the good ones

Pitfall, 1962

A miner (Hisashi Igawa) and his young son (Kazuo Miyahara) arrive in a town where there is an ongoing union dispute taking place. The miner is followed by a mysterious man in a white suit (Kunie Tanaka). As events spiral out of control, it seems there are bigger plots at hand, some involving one of the local union leaders (also played by Igawa).

This is a enjoyably strange film that combines drama, thriller elements, and a touch of horror. The main noteworthy element of the film is something that only comes to light about 20 minutes in, so if you haven't seen this film yet, I'd not read the rest of this review and go watch it!

After being followed by the man in the white suit, the miner finds himself inexplicably attacked by his follower. He is stabbed repeatedly and then . . . gets up. As a ghost. Standing by in disbelief, the miner watches as his murder is investigated, quickly discovering that he was probably killed by accident, in place of the union leader. He also discovers that the ghosts of other dead villagers also haunt the town.

The movie's approach to its two stories---that of the living and that of the dead--is fascinating. The ghosts have no power over anything. They can only watch helplessly as events play out. There is a brutal realism to the events in the village. It seems clear that someone in power wants to disrupt the union negotiations, and that the man in the white suit is there to do just that. But even when the ghosts get the chance to learn the truth about what happened---even when the miner has the epiphany that he was probably killed by mistake---it does nothing to change their circumstances.

The film takes time to show us the life of a village woman (Sumie Sasaki) who happens to witness the murder. What happens to her---first at the hands of a local police officer and then at the hands of the man in the white suit---is harrowing and ruthless. Then we also see the unemotional reaction of the miner's son, who takes in his dead father's body with a mostly blank face.

There's something very interesting in the way that the fantastical is made almost banal, and then allowed to sit next to a murder mystery way in such a manner that it all goes a little flat. And not "flat" in a bad way, but rather in that the realism of the living neutralizes the thrill of the ghosts and the dull image of the afterlife casts a "what's the point" feeling over the union murder plot.

Igawa does a nice job in his dual roles, playing the desperate miner and the more composed union leader. Tanaka is nicely menacing as the man in the white suit who never reveals his exact motives to the living or to the dead. But it was Sasaki, as the candy shop owner, who was my favorite. She really embodies the futility of someone with no power trying to simply survive. And we see the way that she is . Her alternating exhaustion and indignant reactions speak volumes.

A different and interesting film.

Loved it. Felt like Jonny Greenwood really captured the off-kilter dread and mental instability meets high class. That he did this, Power of the Dog and Licorice Pizza in one year is an astounding achievement.

Nightride (2021)





When a film is so committed to a one-shot that it turns into a radio play. Like that shot of our protag through the windshield? I hope so, because that is what you're going to be looking at for 90% of the film. The film tags itself as high-concept (the continuous oner), but the production screams "low budget."

Drive My Car (2021)

Drive My Car is an okay film. It reminds me a lot of the Dekalog in that each chapter it's broken up into feels like it's teaching us the viewer a morality lesson. Visually it's good but for me when I look at international films that are three hours long I need to connect with it and it kept putting me to sleep. It basically never got out of first gear, none of the performances stood out to me they are all just superficial stories that never felt like real people which is a shame. It's not the worst of the BP's...and I still have to see Belfast but it's bottom tier of the nominees.

Raise the Red Lantern (1991) -

Zhang Yimou's Raise the Red Lantern is set in the 1920's in the Republic of China during the Warlord Era. Set several years before the Chinese Civil War, it shows that, in spite of how China seemingly moved beyond its troubling past, it was still held back by patriarchalism, as is seen through a wealthy lord and several women (concubines and servants) who live in his household. Through the complex character dynamics and the setting, Yimou explores the power imbalances amongst gender and class that were engraved into this lifestyle back then.

There's a lot to say about the various characters in the film. Yuru, the first wife, is the oldest of the bunch. She seems cold and distant when Songlian visits her in the opening, she mainly stays out of the conflict between the other mistresses, and (if I'm remembering correctly) the Master doesn't spend any nights with her throughout the film. It's apparent she has accepted she's growing old, is far past her prime, and that the Master prefers the other mistresses over her. Compared to the other three mistresses, she doesn't do or say that much in the film, but I felt like her limited screen time was earned, so I didn't have an issue with it. Zhuoyun, the second concubine, is the nicest of the bunch. She's the only one who acts friendly around Songlian and, as a result, they quickly bond. After she betrays Songlian though (however, I use the word betray very loosely as the detail which sets off the conflict between them could've meant something else), they fall out of touch with each other in one of the most shocking and upsetting scenes in the film. Her character bridges the gap between the somewhat light first half and the comparably darker second half. Meishan, the third concubine, is spoiled and unable to cope with how she's no longer the Master's favorite mistress. It initially seems like she's out to sabotage Songlian's relationship with the Master, but as the film goes on, her ruthlessness is trumped by Songlian, the fourth mistress. Though you may sympathize with Songlian at first, you eventually hate her as the effects her conspiring behavior has on the other people in the household keeps increasing in severity. Other notable characters include Yan'er, Songlian's servant, who's forced to put up with her harsh treatment throughout the film.

Master Chen, however, is the most significant character in the film as he provides the backbone for the film's patriarchal themes. As the one who runs the household, he leaves a bit of power open for his mistresses to vie for it. The mistresses, in turn, compete for the Master's full attention, because having obtained it will result in power, status, and privilege. As we soon learn though, whatever successes the mistresses find throughout the film are ultimately insignificant and short-lived as, whenever things begin to look up for them, the film is quick to remind you of the superiority the Master (and even the other occupants of the household, to a degree) has over them. For instance, whenever the Master spend a night with a mistress, she gets a foot massage, but at one point in the film, the Master says "A woman’s feet are very important. When they feel comfortable, she’s healthier and better able to serve her man", showing that he's still above them in rank. Other examples include how the Master confiscates Songlian's flute and burns it without letting her know, how Yuru, the Master's first wife, is largely ignored by him since she's aging, and how the household has several rules the mistresses must follow, for which breaking them will result in punishment. My favorite extension of the patriarchal themes though is how you never get a clear view of the Master's face (save for at least one shot in the film, where you get a good look at about half his face). This is a great distancing approach which illustrates that, since the competition amongst the mistresses never slows down, the Master is always just out of their reach.

There's also a lot that can be said about the cinematography and the setting. When I was first introduced to the Master's household, I found the houses which the four concubines lived in to be well-designed and pretty to look at. That they could walk on the rooftops was the cherry on top. The more I watched the film though, it soon dawned on me that none of the mistresses ever walked outside of the Master's property. Instead, they appeared to spend their entire time within his walls. Since the rooftops in the Master's household show occasional glimpses of other houses and structures stretching far off into the distance, you're provided with enough of the outside world to show what the concubines are missing out on. Given that, it feels like the concubines are stuck in a prison-like environment. A beautifully designed and roomy prison, but a prison nonetheless. The lone room on the roof where prior women were hung and the various punishments the mistresses could receive for breaking the rules are great touches which cause the mistresses to seem even more ensnared in the household.

Overall, this is a brilliant film, albeit one I watched with a couple small interruptions. While watching it, the film buffered at a couple points in the middle due to my internet acting up, thus breaking the flow a bit. This hopefully won't happen again when I rewatch this film later this year though as I can see myself bumping it up to a 10/10 with a second or a third viewing.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Love that film and it was my nom in Raul's Second Chance HoF and it won!

Ah, nice. I watched it for the first time yesterday and it really impressed me.

And I liked it more on second watch too

But, to be clear, I'm not talking about critical consensus. I'm talking about vetting. Basically what I do is find out what kind of a movie it is. Is it a movie to be taken seriously, is it light fun, is it audacious but risky, is it an underground gem, etc. What is the best framing for the movie (because I usually don't want to know what a movie is "about" going in). Then I try to track down the people who seem to have the most exposure to the movie, hopefully who are the target audience or the audience that responded, whose opinions I can validate to some degree. If this is a Horror movie, for example, do fans of Horror (and I mean real fans of Horror) like this movie or do they at least find something valuable/worthwhile about the film that will make it worth my time?
I mean, this is how I came to view, and kinda love movies like:

Valerie And Her Week Of Wonders
Spider Baby
City Of The Living Dead
Messiah Of Evil
Lemora: A Child's Tale Of The Supernatural
Lady Snowblood
Carnival Of Souls
Dead & Buried
Liquid Sky
Hausu
Apple Pie
Vampyros Lesbos
Eaten Alive
Let's Scare Jessica To Death
The Visitor
Viy
Eyes Of Fire
... and so many others.
I mean, I vetted The Being and I knew what to expect going in (though not the plot) and I was not really disappointed even though many might call that a bad movie.

Some of it, maybe, is using the vetting process to set one's expectations appropriately.
But it's also just that I don't wanna watch garbage. I have limited time. Some ******** studio-approved action or comedy or whatever movie is not going to eat 90+ minutes of my life without someone I at least sorta trust telling me it's worth it.
That's what you guys are for.

Oh, one notable exception: I will watch virtually anything if I think the poster is awesome.
This is how I came to see A Virgin Among The Living Dead and am currently watching Murder Mansion.

The Naked City, 1948

A young woman is murdered in her apartment, leading detectives Muldoon (Barry Fitzgerald) and Halloran (Don Taylor) to investigate the killing. Their chief suspect is a man named Niles (Howard Duff), who was "friends" with the victim. Yet the further they dig, the more seems to be going on beneath the surface.

I tried to watch this movie several years ago and remember totally failing to click with it. I ended up barely paying attention to it and returned the DVD afterward. This time I liked it much more, but I also remembered why it was that I had a less positive reaction the first time I tried it.

There is a lot of really great stuff happening in this film. Some of the visuals are simply stunning, and true to the title, make great use of the sights and geometries of the city.



It's also nice to see a film attempting to portray the nitty-gritty of detective work, with montages showing us that talking to all the jewelry stores in town is a huge, huge ask with very little payoff sometimes. There is time given to the forensics, the interviews, the family identifying the body, the impact of publicity, and the dangers involved. The film also takes moments to zoom out, to remind us that the dead woman is just one person out of hundreds of thousands, and one of the most chilling shots is simply a cut from a discarded newspaper with her face on the front being swept into a trash bin to her bereaved parents on their porch back in the countryside.

Fitzgerald is a fun actor (I really like him in And Then There Were None), and Taylor is a good counterpart as the fresh-faced detective just learning the ropes. Duff is a perfect blend of pathetic and smarmy as the deceptive Niles. There's also a good turn from Adelaide Klein as the murder victim's mother, who rails against her daughter's immorality before breaking down in sobs when she finally sees her body.

There were two things that I didn't care for in this film and definitely were the reason I couldn't click with it perviously.

The first is that the movie has some elements that really work against each other. For all of the talk about this being a real look at the process of a murder investigation, complete with some documentary-like flourishes, the murder investigation itself is incredibly outlandish, involving chases, more murders/attempted murders, conspiracy, multiple players, an attempted suicide, scandal . . . and so on and so on. And I absolutely hated the cutesty voice over, which took several sequence into the realm of camp. In one shot, a woman nervously bites her thumb as she looks at a front page headline about the murder. "Don't worry young lady," the voice over intrudes in a chipper tone, "Not many stenographers getting murdered these days!". Just . . . why. Why. I honestly don't mind that the film is a bit over-the-top or improbable, but it goes entirely against the realism it is purporting to show. This persists for the whole film and dinged every scene it was in.

Then very specifically, I HATED a sequence where Halloran goes home and then engages in the world's longest conversation with his obnoxious wife where she just repeatedly insists that he go upstairs and beat their child. (The fact that she does this after offering him "jellied tongue" for lunch makes this easily one of the most repulsive sequences of middle class America I've ever seen). And the scene just does not end. Please someone tell me why this interaction had to last more than 60 seconds. I do not understand.

Overall I enjoyed this, and I finally consider myself as having actually watched it.

The voice over in the Naked City is a key element in what makes it the quintessential procedural and a refutation of film noir (a genre in which its often erroneously attributed)*

Essentially, this film is the antithesis of the cynicism of Film Noir and the narrator reflects that. Rather than the hard-boiled, highly subjective POV of a private eye or anti-hero, we’re given a jovial and omniscient perspective. There’s someone watching all of us in this Naked City and he’s not malevolent!

The film further subverts Film Noir with its narrative, implying that through teamwork and rational application of procedure, we can and will overcome the evils of society.

Given that this was eventually turned into a series and lays the framework for countless other procedurals (and planted the seeds to the death of classic Film Noir) makes it a fascinating and important film even when my sensibilities run counter to it.

It’s especially interesting when juxtaposed with the other works Dassin would make after getting blacklisted, especially Riffifi, which is French noir cynicism incarnate. That the man made such a naive and optimistic film about our social systems would become to target is one of cinemas great tragic ironies.

As a fan of horror films, I can't help but imagine as a child you would blind watch all manner of old b horror films that came on television. No vetting necessary. Just a kind of ignorant bliss of seeing what might happen. And sometimes its nothing. But sometimes its revelatory.


It's that kind of adventure of uncharted waters that I still find most exciting of all. Sure, if I hit a long dry patch of real garbage, I might head for a few reliable choices. But to me there is almost nothing better than a sense of discovery. Having no idea what something is, if it is any good, if any one has even seen it, and suddenly coming to the realization that it's amazing. Like said, for me it's worth the shitty movies to get to the good ones. They feel like they are more all mine that way.


But I also have no idea what else I'm supposed to be doing with my time. Other people have kids and professional responsibilites and social obligations, and I'm just a hermit who can afford to waste untold numbers of hours. Exactly as I had always intended.

I don't mind the idea of moving away from the gritty noir into the procedural. But it felt like the film, at times, wanted to enjoy being gritty. It is, as you say, a fascinating and important movie. But the way it sometimes feels as if it's pulling in different directions kept me from ever really sinking into it.

I'm too old for all that. I just ask you.