What was the last film you watched?
- Thread starter Mel O'Drama
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
- Awards
- 27
ADAPTATION (2002)
I had never heard of this film before but I was intrigued by the short description of a daft plot, and since the image showed Nicolas Cage and Tilda Swinton I assumed it would be intentionally daft. Maybe something like Being John Malkovich.
Then the film starts on the set of Being John Malkovich and it turns out that this film is about the writer of Being John Malkovich who is trying to write a screenplay based on a novel about Orchids, written by Susan Orlean who is really the co-writer of Adaptation.
It's such a meta Russian doll thing I feel my head is still spinning. Oh, and it's not about Tilda Swinton it's about Meryl Streep.
I think it's a fantastic and delirious story about not being a story constructed in such way that it becomes a story anyway. But who writes what?
I had never heard of this film before but I was intrigued by the short description of a daft plot, and since the image showed Nicolas Cage and Tilda Swinton I assumed it would be intentionally daft. Maybe something like Being John Malkovich.
Then the film starts on the set of Being John Malkovich and it turns out that this film is about the writer of Being John Malkovich who is trying to write a screenplay based on a novel about Orchids, written by Susan Orlean who is really the co-writer of Adaptation.
It's such a meta Russian doll thing I feel my head is still spinning. Oh, and it's not about Tilda Swinton it's about Meryl Streep.
I think it's a fantastic and delirious story about not being a story constructed in such way that it becomes a story anyway. But who writes what?
- Awards
- 27
JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG (1961)
I don't think I could call it a beautiful film, but it appears to be made with intellect and respect, and shows the frustrating complexity of WWII.
To talk about this film is as difficult as the situation shown on screen: how to focus on the matter at hand when it represents horrors of this magnitude?
The one thing that stood out to me was the comment "what good will it do?" and I guess the answer is "none" because a story like this could never have a satisfying conclusion. Sometimes we need an awful conclusion to put things into perspective, to make some sense of it and, optimistically, hope to learn something from it.
It's even beyond damage control and I jokingly started to think that we should have these trials before the bad stuff happens, and then I realise that that's not too different from Hitler's vision and practices.
As for fighting for democracy and the good way of living, especially since the story has a strong American input, I find it increasingly difficult to understand what that means in the grand scheme of things. Unlimited consumerism that destroys the planet, insane profits from producing and selling weapons? Is that it? Is that our goal?
It almost makes a good case for communism but I don't want that because I'm one of the lucky ones who can profit from the democracy and freedom and consumerism that we have here. Only goes to show how easy it is to be guilty.
I'm going to watch something completely different after this post otherwise I'll be tossing and turning all night long.
The screenplay is impeccable and they get the very best out of the international cast. It does get a bit shouty here and there but the case kinda justifies it.
It took me a few minutes to understand the difference between the real English/American language and the spoken English language that actually represents German language (albeit with a strong European accent).
Of course, if they had included the ongoing translations for accuracy then the film would be twice as long, and it's interesting to see how they play different languages.
The German housekeeping couple are fantastic, they sort of embody the whole tragedy without saying anything about it and even avoid talking about it.
A very impressive film that doesn't look dated at all.
I don't think I could call it a beautiful film, but it appears to be made with intellect and respect, and shows the frustrating complexity of WWII.
To talk about this film is as difficult as the situation shown on screen: how to focus on the matter at hand when it represents horrors of this magnitude?
The one thing that stood out to me was the comment "what good will it do?" and I guess the answer is "none" because a story like this could never have a satisfying conclusion. Sometimes we need an awful conclusion to put things into perspective, to make some sense of it and, optimistically, hope to learn something from it.
It's even beyond damage control and I jokingly started to think that we should have these trials before the bad stuff happens, and then I realise that that's not too different from Hitler's vision and practices.
As for fighting for democracy and the good way of living, especially since the story has a strong American input, I find it increasingly difficult to understand what that means in the grand scheme of things. Unlimited consumerism that destroys the planet, insane profits from producing and selling weapons? Is that it? Is that our goal?
It almost makes a good case for communism but I don't want that because I'm one of the lucky ones who can profit from the democracy and freedom and consumerism that we have here. Only goes to show how easy it is to be guilty.
I'm going to watch something completely different after this post otherwise I'll be tossing and turning all night long.
The screenplay is impeccable and they get the very best out of the international cast. It does get a bit shouty here and there but the case kinda justifies it.
It took me a few minutes to understand the difference between the real English/American language and the spoken English language that actually represents German language (albeit with a strong European accent).
Of course, if they had included the ongoing translations for accuracy then the film would be twice as long, and it's interesting to see how they play different languages.
The German housekeeping couple are fantastic, they sort of embody the whole tragedy without saying anything about it and even avoid talking about it.
A very impressive film that doesn't look dated at all.
- Awards
- 17
I’ve tried to watch it a few times but never could quite get into it. Will you be seeing the new Gladiator film that’s currently out in the cinema? I’m not hearing good things about it to be honest.
- Awards
- 27
DESPICABLE ME 4 (2024)
After the wife and the brother here comes the baby, and also yet another larger than life villain.
Broadly speaking, I think this type of comedy is about repetition and familiarity and to tell the jokes in different ways and that's very much what's going on in chapter four.
The problem is always that the best supervillain, Gru himself, can't be a supervillain and he's got softer with every subsequent episode.
Therefore it's not surprising that my favourite sub-plot in DM4 is the heist at Lycée Pas Bon courtesy of wannabe-supervillainess Poppy Prescott, and Principal Übelschlecht completely overshadows Maxime Le Mal who was created as the film's main nemesis.
I love language caricature and Maxime is properly voiced but the cockroach mutation is too fantastical and gross for my taste. The best part is that the actual cockroaches aren't used to advance the plot.
DM4 features two copies of Cruella De Vil: Maxime's sidekick Valentina, and Mayflower resident Melora, and all the previous villains make a cameo appearance in one of the last scenes.
Some of the minions are getting "incredibled" and I really love the joke about the window cleaner in peril.
It was a given that any sequel would no longer have the novelty of the first film but overall Despicable Me 4 delivers non-stop jokes and over-the-top action and I might watch it again. Actually I don't remember much of the previous instalments so there's an idea.
I don't watch many computer animated films therefore I was easily bedazzled by the perfectly crafted details in some of the scenes.
Not necessarily this one, but it made me laugh out loud.
After the wife and the brother here comes the baby, and also yet another larger than life villain.
Broadly speaking, I think this type of comedy is about repetition and familiarity and to tell the jokes in different ways and that's very much what's going on in chapter four.
The problem is always that the best supervillain, Gru himself, can't be a supervillain and he's got softer with every subsequent episode.
Therefore it's not surprising that my favourite sub-plot in DM4 is the heist at Lycée Pas Bon courtesy of wannabe-supervillainess Poppy Prescott, and Principal Übelschlecht completely overshadows Maxime Le Mal who was created as the film's main nemesis.
I love language caricature and Maxime is properly voiced but the cockroach mutation is too fantastical and gross for my taste. The best part is that the actual cockroaches aren't used to advance the plot.
DM4 features two copies of Cruella De Vil: Maxime's sidekick Valentina, and Mayflower resident Melora, and all the previous villains make a cameo appearance in one of the last scenes.
Some of the minions are getting "incredibled" and I really love the joke about the window cleaner in peril.
It was a given that any sequel would no longer have the novelty of the first film but overall Despicable Me 4 delivers non-stop jokes and over-the-top action and I might watch it again. Actually I don't remember much of the previous instalments so there's an idea.
I don't watch many computer animated films therefore I was easily bedazzled by the perfectly crafted details in some of the scenes.
Not necessarily this one, but it made me laugh out loud.
- Awards
- 27
Since I don't love the much celebrated original I just might like the much criticised sequel, but I won't pay to watch it.
- Awards
- 27
December is Film Month and we've got to move fast before the awful Christmas movies take over the WWTLFYW thread.
NIGHTCRAWLER (2014)
A very apt title because it's about modern-day vampires looking for blood to be consumed by the viewers of competing TV news broadcasts.
Jake Gyllenhaal plays a quirky, fast-talking, self-educated small-time criminal desperate to land a steady job, and his ultimate career choice happens by chance rather than something that's been planned from the very beginning.
It's all about opportunity and to take those opportunities without hesitation, and I guess it could be seen as a satire on the actual news vultures who are always ready to poke their cameras in to the misery of other people.
The story becomes more of a story when TV news honcho Nina (Rene Russo) pressures him to deliver what he promised, and it is also from that point on that the story becomes a little bit more predictable but nonetheless very exciting.
In a funny way, the film imitates the story and the joke is on the viewer because we're basically in the same position as the bloodthirsty Nina.
Nightcrawler shows, once again, that it is possible to have a villainous protagonist but it usually only works in a more cynical, guilty-pleasure kind of context.
It's not a game changer and it doesn't reach the heights (or depths) of films like American Psycho or Nocturnal Animals, but if you're looking for a fun and well-made B movie then this film is a good choice. Jake Gyllenhaal and Riz Ahmed are a very entertaining duo.
NIGHTCRAWLER (2014)
A very apt title because it's about modern-day vampires looking for blood to be consumed by the viewers of competing TV news broadcasts.
Jake Gyllenhaal plays a quirky, fast-talking, self-educated small-time criminal desperate to land a steady job, and his ultimate career choice happens by chance rather than something that's been planned from the very beginning.
It's all about opportunity and to take those opportunities without hesitation, and I guess it could be seen as a satire on the actual news vultures who are always ready to poke their cameras in to the misery of other people.
The story becomes more of a story when TV news honcho Nina (Rene Russo) pressures him to deliver what he promised, and it is also from that point on that the story becomes a little bit more predictable but nonetheless very exciting.
In a funny way, the film imitates the story and the joke is on the viewer because we're basically in the same position as the bloodthirsty Nina.
Nightcrawler shows, once again, that it is possible to have a villainous protagonist but it usually only works in a more cynical, guilty-pleasure kind of context.
It's not a game changer and it doesn't reach the heights (or depths) of films like American Psycho or Nocturnal Animals, but if you're looking for a fun and well-made B movie then this film is a good choice. Jake Gyllenhaal and Riz Ahmed are a very entertaining duo.
- Awards
- 27
CLERKS (1994)
I wish I could call it "over the counter culture" but the film poster already does that.
Via-via I discovered that this is a 1990s indie cult hit (the American "Trainspotting"?) and information like that always needs to be verified.
The crudeness and filthy, deadpan humour is somewhat similar to the John Waters/Andy Warhol films but it is juxtaposed by disproportionately mature dialogue and they even manage to produce a little food for thought.
There's no compromise and some parts are very boring but it's all for the greater good (I think!).
Caitlin, the holy grail of girlfriends, gets knocked off her pedestal in a deliciously filthy twist.
I'm sure there's a lot more to say about this film but it was very late and I was tired when I watched it therefore it goes straight on the re-watch list.
Oh wait, there's another thing. One of the male characters (well, it couldn't be more than one character) is called Randal and that just didn't make any sense. It sounds like parents getting a little too creative with naming the child,
On the other hand it's also realistic because we all have a cousin, male of female, with a name that sticks out like a sore thumb. A name that begs to be mocked.
This is stupid lazy Randal, btw. (warning: profanity alert)
Edit: the public announcement of a random fictional character getting married is very soapy.
I wish I could call it "over the counter culture" but the film poster already does that.
Via-via I discovered that this is a 1990s indie cult hit (the American "Trainspotting"?) and information like that always needs to be verified.
The crudeness and filthy, deadpan humour is somewhat similar to the John Waters/Andy Warhol films but it is juxtaposed by disproportionately mature dialogue and they even manage to produce a little food for thought.
There's no compromise and some parts are very boring but it's all for the greater good (I think!).
Caitlin, the holy grail of girlfriends, gets knocked off her pedestal in a deliciously filthy twist.
I'm sure there's a lot more to say about this film but it was very late and I was tired when I watched it therefore it goes straight on the re-watch list.
Oh wait, there's another thing. One of the male characters (well, it couldn't be more than one character) is called Randal and that just didn't make any sense. It sounds like parents getting a little too creative with naming the child,
On the other hand it's also realistic because we all have a cousin, male of female, with a name that sticks out like a sore thumb. A name that begs to be mocked.
This is stupid lazy Randal, btw. (warning: profanity alert)
Edit: the public announcement of a random fictional character getting married is very soapy.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 21
Oddly, I had never really seen FAR FROM HEAVEN (2002) although I'd certainly heard about it and always meant to watch it. There's been so much Douglas Sirkian conversation about the look and style of the film, and one can certainly understand why. A typically prim, Connecticut post-war housewife (Julianne Moore) eventually learns her husband (Dennis Quaid) needs inversion conversion, leading to her attraction to her African-American gardener (Dennis Haysbert) during the fall of 1957.
It gets the overall vibe of the late-'50s about as right as any movie could be expected to do in the twenty-first century -- the clothes, the production design, the gestures and body language (although Quaid's hair is a bit too long for the period)... Cinema sure couldn't pull off this kind of detail in the '70s or the '80s (although that improved dramatically by the '90s)... The camerawork, too, is very evocative.
Shockingly few motion pictures have ever made much of an attempt to vividly capture the season of autumn, but this one makes a decent stab at it. There is usually something so effectively nostalgic about fall and winter when it's used in a movie, especially a period movie -- which is strange, since fall and winter happen pretty much every year. But it's particularly resonant when used specifically to summon the late-'50s, for some reason (the aspirations of idealized Americana of that decade?). The cozy little lies.
It gets the overall vibe of the late-'50s about as right as any movie could be expected to do in the twenty-first century -- the clothes, the production design, the gestures and body language (although Quaid's hair is a bit too long for the period)... Cinema sure couldn't pull off this kind of detail in the '70s or the '80s (although that improved dramatically by the '90s)... The camerawork, too, is very evocative.
Shockingly few motion pictures have ever made much of an attempt to vividly capture the season of autumn, but this one makes a decent stab at it. There is usually something so effectively nostalgic about fall and winter when it's used in a movie, especially a period movie -- which is strange, since fall and winter happen pretty much every year. But it's particularly resonant when used specifically to summon the late-'50s, for some reason (the aspirations of idealized Americana of that decade?). The cozy little lies.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 20
Rocketman (2019)
Elton John biopic. This is an unusual film - befitting, I suppose, the persona of its subject. It moves from fairly standard dramatic exposition to Hollywood style musical sequences and Ken Russell style surrealism without taking a breath. Some bits work better than others, but it ends up being a rather emotional ride for all that.
Elton John biopic. This is an unusual film - befitting, I suppose, the persona of its subject. It moves from fairly standard dramatic exposition to Hollywood style musical sequences and Ken Russell style surrealism without taking a breath. Some bits work better than others, but it ends up being a rather emotional ride for all that.
- Awards
- 14
Star Wars Rogue One.
In a galaxy in some corner of the universe, a plucky band of space dwelling being's and that find common ground in thwarting their shared foe.
Thankfully the Force is on their side and ensured that the engineer tasked with building the Death Star under duress never had his work peer reviewed by his malevolent overseers. Get over that hurdle and the pretty lady, handsome rebel alliance soldier, blind ninja and pessimistic robot finding a win over Darth et al, all rather enjoyable.
Frankly Rogue One is just a fun movie with humor, action, and sci-fi gold.
The star of the show... the blind ninja wrecking up Storm Troopers with nowt but The Force and his cane.
In a galaxy in some corner of the universe, a plucky band of space dwelling being's and that find common ground in thwarting their shared foe.
Thankfully the Force is on their side and ensured that the engineer tasked with building the Death Star under duress never had his work peer reviewed by his malevolent overseers. Get over that hurdle and the pretty lady, handsome rebel alliance soldier, blind ninja and pessimistic robot finding a win over Darth et al, all rather enjoyable.
Frankly Rogue One is just a fun movie with humor, action, and sci-fi gold.
The star of the show... the blind ninja wrecking up Storm Troopers with nowt but The Force and his cane.
- Awards
- 27
FALL (2022)
Talk about taking Covid-rules to the extreme (or had the pandemic already ended in 2022?)
"Fear reaches new heights" only applies to the viewer, not the fearless characters who willingly ignore all the bad signs and take a huge risk in what seems a rather unprofessional climbing activity, not to mention the stunts they perform in order to get more likes for their youtube video. It simply defies all common sense and that's why FALL looks like nothing more than a theme park attraction made into a film.
It sure does the trick in the first part (going up) and I wouldn't have the courage to watch it in 3-D, but once things go wrong and the film becomes a survival story it loses a lot of that effect. I guess because the characters take the fear away from me.
Oddly enough this proves that the film works best in its most stupid moments (and wasn't there any risk of severe sunburn?)
The many warnings are almost comical: "no trespassing - danger of DEATH!", the vultures (admittedly, very well used throughout the film), the rattling construction and the cliché close-ups of screws unscrewing à la Final Destination.
There is an attempt to inject some logic into the story and it certainly helps that the characters are likeable enough, and perhaps it all connects with the suicide attempt in the first part of the film.
There is a surprise twist that wasn't a surprise anymore because I had already seen it on youtube, but it still looked creepy and dramatic enough.
The ending was too abrupt for my taste and I would have liked to see how she got rescued. By helicopter?
I have no idea how the film was made but I'm pretty sure it wasn't filmed "on location", as it were. It must have been a lot work to edit the actors into the special effects, or vice versa.
I'm not sure how to rate a film like this. For the most part it's nothing but unadulterated stupid fun, and I just happened to be in the mood for it.
Talk about taking Covid-rules to the extreme (or had the pandemic already ended in 2022?)
"Fear reaches new heights" only applies to the viewer, not the fearless characters who willingly ignore all the bad signs and take a huge risk in what seems a rather unprofessional climbing activity, not to mention the stunts they perform in order to get more likes for their youtube video. It simply defies all common sense and that's why FALL looks like nothing more than a theme park attraction made into a film.
It sure does the trick in the first part (going up) and I wouldn't have the courage to watch it in 3-D, but once things go wrong and the film becomes a survival story it loses a lot of that effect. I guess because the characters take the fear away from me.
Oddly enough this proves that the film works best in its most stupid moments (and wasn't there any risk of severe sunburn?)
The many warnings are almost comical: "no trespassing - danger of DEATH!", the vultures (admittedly, very well used throughout the film), the rattling construction and the cliché close-ups of screws unscrewing à la Final Destination.
There is an attempt to inject some logic into the story and it certainly helps that the characters are likeable enough, and perhaps it all connects with the suicide attempt in the first part of the film.
There is a surprise twist that wasn't a surprise anymore because I had already seen it on youtube, but it still looked creepy and dramatic enough.
The ending was too abrupt for my taste and I would have liked to see how she got rescued. By helicopter?
I have no idea how the film was made but I'm pretty sure it wasn't filmed "on location", as it were. It must have been a lot work to edit the actors into the special effects, or vice versa.
I'm not sure how to rate a film like this. For the most part it's nothing but unadulterated stupid fun, and I just happened to be in the mood for it.
- Awards
- 44
I'd forgotten about this one. Ome watched it last year, and we spoke a little about it then (and I drew a similar theme park conclusion just from the trailer).
This is still an "I'd love to watch it but fear it would give me nausea" film.
- Awards
- 27
Yes, I remember that now *flashbacks in sepia*
Somehow I thought you had already watched it.
I had sweaty palms, like I said mostly during the first part, and it must have been quite an experience in the cinema even in 2-D.
It's doable if you watch it on a standard screen but then again I have no idea how big your screen is. Just make sure to keep enough distance.
Just checked the running time on IMDB - 107 minutes?? That's not at all what it felt like.
- Awards
- 44
I had to think twice about it. And even now I'm doubting myself again. It wouldn't be the first time I forgot an entire film.
Well, it's big enough. But then again it's fairly standard by the standards of some "take up the entire wall" TVs I see in people's homes when I walk round at dusk. Not that I make a habit of eyeing up other people's televisions but when something is huge and moving it kind of catches the eye.
Those sound like wise words. Perhaps I will watch it for real one of these days.
Was that in a good way? As in... it felt shorter than it actually was?
- Awards
- 27
I don't understand the reason for those mega TVs. It only means that you need to increase the space between screen and sofa, and as a result the screen becomes "smaller" again. And with every detail enlarged to the max I assume it only works for super-ultra HDK screenings. That's not going to work for my Falcon Crest and Paper Dolls DVDs.
Definitely in a good way.
- Awards
- 27
THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE & HER LOVER (1989)
An excess in food, vulgarity and sensuality presented in various breathtaking sets, and it's precisely the combinations of havoc & ceremony and glamour & kink that I love in Ken Russell's films.
Michael Gambon is wonderfully entertaining as the opinionated villain and Helen Mirren plays it fearless like she always does. Several characters get shoved around or worse and there were many moments that made me laugh out loud.
This is the third Peter Greenaway film I've seen and I also love The Baby Of Mâcon that tackles the theme of cult and religion in mind-bogglingly gorgeous sets and mixes film, play and quasi-reality in a most bizarre way.
I thought The Draughtsman's Contract was so-so but maybe I'll rewatch it sometime, and I don't know much about the other films so that could be hit or miss.
An excess in food, vulgarity and sensuality presented in various breathtaking sets, and it's precisely the combinations of havoc & ceremony and glamour & kink that I love in Ken Russell's films.
Michael Gambon is wonderfully entertaining as the opinionated villain and Helen Mirren plays it fearless like she always does. Several characters get shoved around or worse and there were many moments that made me laugh out loud.
This is the third Peter Greenaway film I've seen and I also love The Baby Of Mâcon that tackles the theme of cult and religion in mind-bogglingly gorgeous sets and mixes film, play and quasi-reality in a most bizarre way.
I thought The Draughtsman's Contract was so-so but maybe I'll rewatch it sometime, and I don't know much about the other films so that could be hit or miss.
- Awards
- 27
POSSESSION (1981)
Now this is what I call a fun Christmas movie for the whole family.
Filmed in 1980 by Andrzej Zulawski, two years after David Cronenberg's "dievorce" film The Brood, and starring a European cast, Possession takes on-screen extremity to the next level. And then some.
Not the story or imagery, the horror doesn't look disproportionately gruesome, it's what they made these actors do that makes this film unique.
I wouldn't even call it acting, or over-acting or great acting, it needs a verb that hasn't been invented yet, and apparently this was not without consequences for the two leads (Heinz Bennent is terrific as the lover who gets involved).
It doesn't show how the characters were before the story begins, it starts with a breakup seemingly caused by the wife's internal crisis. Perhaps it represents a moment in real-time - the historical significance of place and time, and the director's troubled state of mind courtesy of his own divorce - and what came before simply isn't relevant.
Sam Neill plays the husband who happens to be a spy (foreshadowing Reilly ?) but that job also ends at the very beginning, leaving the next mission for his surrogate.
That last part returns in the final act although I have no idea how to connect it.
If David Lynch and David Cronenberg and Lars von Trier and Gaspar Noé all fathered the same baby, it would be Possession. It's the end of everything!
Spanish import DVD without subtitles and sometimes I struggled with the non-native English dialogue, but I'm so glad I've finally watched it.
Now this is what I call a fun Christmas movie for the whole family.
Filmed in 1980 by Andrzej Zulawski, two years after David Cronenberg's "dievorce" film The Brood, and starring a European cast, Possession takes on-screen extremity to the next level. And then some.
Not the story or imagery, the horror doesn't look disproportionately gruesome, it's what they made these actors do that makes this film unique.
I wouldn't even call it acting, or over-acting or great acting, it needs a verb that hasn't been invented yet, and apparently this was not without consequences for the two leads (Heinz Bennent is terrific as the lover who gets involved).
It doesn't show how the characters were before the story begins, it starts with a breakup seemingly caused by the wife's internal crisis. Perhaps it represents a moment in real-time - the historical significance of place and time, and the director's troubled state of mind courtesy of his own divorce - and what came before simply isn't relevant.
Sam Neill plays the husband who happens to be a spy (foreshadowing Reilly ?) but that job also ends at the very beginning, leaving the next mission for his surrogate.
That last part returns in the final act although I have no idea how to connect it.
If David Lynch and David Cronenberg and Lars von Trier and Gaspar Noé all fathered the same baby, it would be Possession. It's the end of everything!
Spanish import DVD without subtitles and sometimes I struggled with the non-native English dialogue, but I'm so glad I've finally watched it.
- Awards
- 25
That subway scene! Nobody could accuse Isabelle Adjani of not fully commiting to the role. She's mesmerising.