Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Wolfs - (2024)

I love these kind of movies, right up my alley. 8/10

__________________
There has been an awekening.... have you felt it?

Airport (1970)

__________________

[ J ] - [ S ] - [ F ]

" I like the idea of a movie with little action and effects"

I was thinking and wondering about that as I watched it. I've never seen the Vatican, so I don't really know where this was set, but it seemed very convincing, like Sistine Chapel convincing. I see in IMDB that it was shot in a studio in Italy. Given the look of the movie, I suspect that a lot of it was done with FX, but mainly backdrops for this clerical debate. It also definitely has no action aside from cardinals shifting in their seats and walking around, but I also guess that they did not have the "leave" of the church to shoot in the real Vatican. It very well may have been heavily FX laden, but perhaps a virtual Vatican? I don't know.

It's an old favorite of mine but I loved the script. The idea of runaway technology conjuring a monster without the knowledge of the person doing the conjuring is fascinating and seems almost inevitable in the real world. I loved how Morbius is asleep, materializing the monster in his dream, while the power gauges behind him are going ballistic churning out energy to materialize the monster. It's a journey into a sort of Freudian sci-fi.

I also love the sound FX. The electronic "music" really adds to the whole effect. The amazing animation of the Krell technology is one of my favorite sci-fi scenes ever.

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...et+power+plant

The Id Monster is a favorite that gave 6 year old me nightmares for a couple weeks, especially the screams of the crew members who are being eviscerated.

Hm yeah that's fair enough. Would it be fair to say it has background effects over character effects? A lot of films have settings manufactured in post, but that's not typically what people mean when they reference "effects". I think I get what you mean though. Like instead of CGI characters and items, it's just settings. It's not the flashy effects that are seen so often.

Conclave does look really good. I will have to check it out.

__________________
I destroyed the dastardly dairy dame! I made mad milk maid mulch!

My 4th favorite movie ever.



SPOILERS
It means everything for Fonda because she's tried everything else, and is ready to end it all, so she thinks, one last try... I think it's much more relevant today as well.. Notice the spectators watching? It's "social media". Everyone tries to get a cut some way, and it's a dog-eat-dog world. Even the winners lose! When "sailor" (Buttons) dies, their media spins it with "Sailor is doing great. He'd want you to keep going. IT's all about the show". Gotta keep that fire (income) going, even if we have to burn everything inside. And then the corruption, with Fonda pleasuring Gig Young. So many other examples.. Dignity (Dern and his wife). And now it happens at home, alone, so it's easier for some (and more) to engage in this behavior for peanuts, but do it because they're desperate - the system isn't broken, it's fixed.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

You do know they based the story on Shakespeare's Tempest don't you? It's basically a contemporary future retelling of Tempest. The dialogue is also rooted deep in 1950s society, although I can understand a culture gap with it.

It's about as dialog-driven as any movie I've seen for a while. Outdoor scenes, lobbies, etc are just establishing shots and indoor scenes make very little use of the actual setting.

I was just going to point this out, but you beat me to it. Yes, the story is indeed Shakespearean in its source inspiration. I think it's a beautiful conceit.

"No sane man would want the papacy!" says Cardinal Bellini (Stanley Tucci) in Edward Berger's new movie, Conclave.

Indeed, it's hard to disagree with him after having watched the movie, which is obviously fictional but, if anything, probably underestimates the level of intrigue that may actually take place in the middle of a papal conclave.

I had not been in much of a rush to watch this movie - I feared that it would be too talky, too stodgy, and perhaps a little sanctimonious in tone. Well, I was right about part of that, but the last third of the movie kind of redeems all that preceded it (No, I'm not going to spoil it!).

The biggest problems with Berger's new film, aside from the fact that it suffers in comparison to his previous one, is how dramatically uneven it is, and how - for the most part - predictable it is. Most of what happens can be seen coming miles away, or at least it was for me.

There is a clever twist thrown in - but, as I said before, no spoilers.

There's some good actors in the case, mostly Ralph Fiennes and Stanley Tucci, though I don't think they're given a chance to really shine; John Lithgow is dramatically misused as a cardinal who may not be as nice as you'd like to think. Isabella Rossellini is also wasted in one of the smallest talking parts of the film.

It's also a movie that's oddly uncinematic - a lot of it just looks drab and undistinguished. One of the cool things about it, though, is that parts of the movie were filmed in the Royal Palace of Caserta in Italy, which is doubling for the Vatican. This is the palace where the Naboo Castle scenes from Star Wars Episode 1 were filmed almost a quarter-century ago.

Since I have not read the Robert Harris of the same name on which the film is based, I can't say how accurately it follows the source material, but a more cinematic adaptation would probably have helped.

It's still more likely than not that the film will receive some Oscar nominations, and perhaps Fiennes or one of the other guys in the film might win, but it would take more than a miracle for this to become an Oscar frontrunner.

It's fairly mind-boggling that a 2024 movie starring two famous Oscar-winning actors like Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain simply didn't get a theatrical release. But actually watching it, it sort of doesn't seem that surprising in hindsight.

The film is an adaptation of a French novel, Derrière la haine, and marks the directorial debut of acclaimed cinematographer Benoît Delhomme - it's possible that his lack of experience as a director may have doomed the project.

At its core, it is very much one of those "did so-and-so really do XYZ, or is the other person crazy for suspecting then of doing XYZ?" movies that was surprisingly popular in the 1990s.

While it is extremely well-acted, it also feels very much like a by-the-numbers effort, where there is less and less uncertainty as the movie progresses, and then perhaps the smallest little surprise in the denouement.

As with Conclave, I have no idea how closely this follows the source material.

It may not be a particularly bad movie, but I can very much see why it is the kind of material that, despite the actors attached, really feels like the kind of stuff that goes straight to streaming these days, lacking any of the pizzazz that would be expected of something that gets a theatrical release.

As such, I would strongly recommend it to fans of Chastain and/or Hathaway, but not really to anyone else.

The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988)

South Pacific - C
My Fair Lady - A++

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

I watched Immaculate. What a trippy movie. I thought it was awesome. It had some good jump scares and some great visceral imagery. The ending was a good wrap up. I am glad I watched it. Whether I ever watch it again is beyond my current scope of vision. We'll see. I thought Sydney Sweeney did a great job. She does unhinged really well.