Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





The Guy Who Sees Movies
The Forbidden Planet (1956) 8.25
Wow, I hadn't watched this for decades. Maybe not since childhood.
This was a sci-fi film WITH a big budget. But they spent so much on the sets, the artistic director and the cinematographer that they had nothing left for a script writer!
It is beautiful to look at, but the story is as dumb as a sausage, and the script as wooden as the hull of the Mary Rose.
It's undoubtedly had substantial impact on sci-fi both in the movies and tv series, and was ahead of its time in many respects. Wish I had room to include more pictures!
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.




I don't actually wear pants.
" 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.
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!



Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses



2nd Rewatch...Don't know how I left this off my list of most disturbing movie experiences. Possibly the finest work of Sydney Pollack's career, this brutal and uncompromising look at capitalism, the human condition, and the business of show business is one of the most difficult films I've ever had to watch. This gritty look at depression era dance marathon is a lot more than a group of couples holding each other up on a dance floor for a few hours. This movie follows a disparate group of people for whom winning this marathon means everything and we're not really sure why. I equate a lot of what happens in this movie to today's reality television where people climb mountains, eat bugs, or betray friends for the sake of winning. Pollack creates such a bleak and depressing atmosphere here that you almost feel like a shower when the movie is over, with a climax that is just devastating. The film was nominated for nine Oscars, including the first Best Actress nomination for Jane Fonda, who is absolutely extraordinary here. On my list of favorite Jane Fonda performances, this one clocked in at #1. Outstanding Direction nomination for Sydney Pollack (who should have won), a Best Supporting Actress nomination for Susannah York, and after two previous nominations, Gig Young won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his oily Master of Ceremonies. If you've got the stomach for it, this is appointment movie viewing.

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.



I don't actually wear pants.
The Forbidden Planet (1956) 8.25
Wow, I hadn't watched this for decades. Maybe not since childhood.
This was a sci-fi film WITH a big budget. But they spent so much on the sets, the artistic director and the cinematographer that they had nothing left for a script writer!
It is beautiful to look at, but the story is as dumb as a sausage, and the script as wooden as the hull of the Mary Rose.
It's undoubtedly had substantial impact on sci-fi both in the movies and tv series, and was ahead of its time in many respects. Wish I had room to include more pictures!










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.



The Guy Who Sees Movies
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.
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.



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.
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.





Conclave

"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.





Mothers' Instinct


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.



I don't actually wear pants.
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.



The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) 8.75
This is a great film, relatively overlooked. It's definitely a key player in the development of science fiction films.
You can probably accept a few obvious plot issues, such as the spaceman arriving with a perfect American accent, humanity posting 2 dopey soldiers to guard the alien invasion etc, and perhaps most of all vehicle engines immediately ceasing to work because there's no electricity.
It's nicely constructed with a good pace.
Very influential film, from .E.T The Extra Terrestrial (1982), to Arrival (2017) to most of David Bowie's career, to Rolo Tomasi.
A few lovely pieces of camera work too, and some really decent special effects.











Its Whats Inside (2024)


Credit to the forum here for posting positive reviews of this one to entice me to watch it, as I thought the trailer was lacking. However, the movie is remarkably entertaining. It has its flaws, but I couldnt stop smiling and laughing throughout.





Elizabeth Banks very good in this underwhelming movie. I did finish it.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) 9
This is a great film, relatively overlooked. It's definitely a key player in the development of science fiction films.
"Klaatu, Barada, Nikto!"



A system of cells interlinked
Weekend watches:

Alien: Romulus

Álvarez, 2024





What a frustrating watch.

First off, I think Fede Álvarez is a skilled director. He clearly has vision and a deep understanding of cinema, and I think he has been able to examine past works of other directors while understanding what made their films unique and special. He has done this wile simultaneously developing his own style, which i think is apparent in his work on the Evil Dead series and now Alien.

The first 45 minutes or so of Alien: Romulus showed a creative reverence for both Alien and Aliens, with meticulous attention paid to the set and sound design, the score, and the earlier films of the series. While some shots were a bit too on the nose, I took them more as dedicated homage and I was impressed at how seamlessly Alvarez's film felt like a natural extension of those earlier films. If only he could have maintained this restraint for the entire runtime.

I understand his style is that of a measured suspense that gets broken up by intense scenes of violence and action, and this film is no exception, but one of the key aspects of the early Alien films is that each of those films spent time developing and building an affinity for the entire cast - a world weary group of space truckers in the first film, and a crack team of seasoned space marines in the second. I guess it just goes to show the skill of both Ridley Scott and James Cameron in the handling of character development, as both the cast of Alien and Aliens ended up being memorable to the point of being almost iconic. Each and every character in Alien, and a vast majority of the characters in Aliens were fully fleshed out characters played by skilled actors who delivered fantastic performances. They also reacted to situations in a very human way, and their actions made sense in the situations into which they were plunged. While Romulus is fully dedicated to capturing the essence of world-building and sound design, and strikes a great balance between the dread of the first film and the ball out action of the second, it falls flat on its face(hugger) as far as characters are concerned.

Alien: Romulus is perhaps the worst in the franchise in this regard - Alien: Covenant is also weak here, but at least you had characters like David and Tennessee that spring to mind immediately when considering that film. Prometheus had quite a few memorable characters, even if a majority of them were dumber than a bag of hammers. Romulus really only tries to develop two of the main characters, and I think it succeeds in really only having one good character: David Johnson's Andy. Sadly, Andy's story has been done to death in science fiction - that of the artificial being struggling against conflicting programming - so he is ultimately kind of an also-ran, even if the actor delivers a good performance. I think using such a young cast was a mistake, even though I understand the strategy of the studio here. This film has the weakest cast of all the Alien films, but I was willing to forgive this if the film managed to deliver a compelling story through to the end. It did not.

Once we get to the second half, which admittedly has some stellar visuals and set pieces, we end up with what felt like a re-telling of the Alien: Resurrection story. The film falls back on the unwanted pregnancy themes of the first film while sort of mirroring the finale of Resurrection, which itself lifted the final scene of Alien...and on and on. I mean, how many times are they going to do this? Just reshoot the same scenes over and over? I don't want to get too far into spoilers, but the final monster in Romulus had me shaking my head and wishing for the film to end; the massive space station plummeting down into the rings of the planet was an apt allegory for the trajectory of this film. The icing on the turd cake was a half-hearted delivery of a now infamous line from Aliens, which it seemed like the actor himself cringed while saying.

Where does this all leave us? With a middling film that looks fantastic, is well-directed, but is poorly written and played out by a weak cast; an overall disappointing experience, with this film landing down in the bottom half of the franchise as far as quality. Not as laughably bad as Covenant, and maybe not as dumb as Prometheus, but still pretty bad. I am sure we will get another Alien film a few years from now, as the studio continues to resurrect the corpse of the Xenomorph.


Scream

Craven, 1996





Wes Craven's love letter to horror films still holds up today. The opening is still one of the best in the genre, and the film is entertaining from start to finish, even generating some fun laugh-out-loud comedy as it moves along. It deconstructs the slasher genre while simultaneously creating a memorable and iconic killer in Ghostface. The film has spawned decades of sequels, reboots, parodies, and copycats, with each one attempting to put a new spin on the meta-analysis of horror tropes and cinema overall with some being more successful than others. This will always be the OG, though - it's steeped in its 90s-ness, and always manages to transport me back to those more carefree times.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



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.
I didn't, and I'm not familiar with the Tempest, but I do know that that junk of a script is nothing like anything written by Shakespeare!!
I suspect any connection is very nominal. Interesting nonetheless.



Wanted eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. idK why people find it that interesting. It was an okayish watch i guess.



Wanted eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. idK why people find it that interesting. It was an okayish watch i guess.
Never been able to finish this movie though I have tried.