RATE or REVIEW The Last Movie You Watched.

[Sassafras]

Beetlejuice 2 - 7/10

This turned out better than I thought it would. What was the point of the ex-wife plotline though? I kept waiting for it to pay off in some way, but they could have cut that out of the movie completely and it would have changed nothing.

I might give it an 8/10, finally caught it last night. Keaton is a treasure. Very enjoyable, all the actors did a good job.

 

[BeefEaster]

Strange darling - 6/10

This movie is hard to describe without spoiling anything. Great performance by Willa Fitzgerald.

It was like a weird cross between a Tarantino film and a Wes Anderson film.

 

[intothevoid]

I watched Oppenheimer last night for the first time. First regarding the 4K blu ray quality, the transfer both visually and for sound is basically stellar. It’s gorgeous.

This film is legitimately impressive in so many ways. It’s a fascinating story, and obviously an important one. So of course I would recommend to anyone that they watch it. For all the standard objective reasons I can think of it’s a great film.

But I’m now going to deviate into a more personal reaction and explore it to hopefully learn something useful (?).

As mentioned it’s easy to see why someone might even rhapsodize over this objectively exquisite film. For example, the one film critic that I follow on Twitter, Darren Mooney, loved it and he makes some great observations about it: 1) he feels it is a deconstruction of the “great man in history” biopic, and 2) that it takes us into fundamental human psychological and existential themes related to opening the Pandora’s box of harnessing the atom. I can easily place a checkmark next to both.

This is a film that should be right up my alley! But honestly I really struggled with it greatly in terms of relatability and likability. My relationship to a film in some ways reminds me of relatedness to a person. It’s probably wisest and most mature of me to accept other people in their full depth and complexity, warts and all, enjoying things I like and accepting and tolerating things I dislike. And to maintain good healthy boundaries with! But as with people, with a film sometimes you resonate and connect, and sometimes you don’t.

I guess it’s what Mooney means by deconstruction of the “‘great man in history’ biopic” genre, but Oppenheimer is pumped full, and inflated with, a kind of an anxious and self-important emotional energy. I get that that mirrors both the personality of “Oppy” and the feelings elicited by subject matter of creation of the atomic bomb. The film does repeatedly show what I’m on about here in the scenes where Oppenheimer becomes immersed in his own internal thoughts—which is a highly energized and hyperbolic internal experience—and then he snaps back to the more mundane, low key reality of the actual moment in physical reality. And the entire film is infused with a sort of frenetic energy that I suppose must represent Oppenheimer’s internal efforts to wrestle inwardly with his own conscience—and in the immortal words of Linkin Park to try (in vain?) to make peace with “what I’ve done.”

Oppenheimer’s personal vanity serves as a metaphor for the mythic hubris of Prometheus, and the film shows that clearly. But frankly it’s still exhausting! And it’s actually pathetic, even. He’s not a very stable genius in the way that apparently Einstein was. Empathically getting into this guy’s head and walking a mile in his moccasins is challenging.

All the details to the story had me feeling at some level that hey, I’m sorry, but I’m just finding myself not at all gripped and absorbed by this. Especially the minutiae and Machiavellian plotting of his and Strauss’s Senate hearings (one closed, one open).

I usually love films with long run times. I generally prefer the cinematic long form of story telling. But this is a rare case where about halfway I was just wanting the movie to end already. That in itself compounded the weirdness for me, i.e., I felt slightly discomfited by that, again because the film is so well made and dealing with such important issues.

I remember trying to watch David Lynch’s Eraserhead many years ago, and I was simply unable to get through it. I jetted after about 10 minutes. It was just flat out bizarre unpleasantness. (Which was probably the point.) Oppenheimer of course doesn’t elicit that sort of stark uncomfortability reaction at anywhere near that scale. But personally I did find it to be a more low key, modest expression of a similar sort of energy. I was feeling that I really ought to stick this out for a variety of very sound reasons but honestly I’m actually not enjoying myself!

So what did I learn? I guess it is that at the end of the day I can’t deny that when I sit down to watch a movie, I fundamentally seek to escape comfortably into the fictional world of that film, of its story. And yes, I want for that immersion to come easily and effortlessly. The epitome of that to me is the experience of watching the Lord of the Rings. Not only do I love entering that fantasy headspace, I don’t want to leave it!

Strictly from a personal standpoint for me individually, I think I’m better off reflecting about the story of the creation of the atom bomb simply reading up on the subject as a student of history. Versus taking this film’s journey into the head of Robert Oppenheimer. And I do have mixed feelings about that! But that’s where I was left by it.

I’m a massive Nolan fan but felt almost nothing from Oppenheimer

It’s a strange one. The cynic in me feels it was literally made to tick all the typical Hollywood oscar bait biopic boxes and was a home run in that regard.

 

[karamazov80]

Trap: 6/10

Interesting premise. Executed reasonably well for the first half of the movie or so. But it got completely fumbled in the last third. Shyamalan just doesn't have it anymore. And the shameless narcissism of casting his daughter in that role is off the charts. She was ok as the pop star but when she was actually required to act it was really bad.

Crisis on infinite earths part 3: 7/10

Totally serviceable but it could have been more. They took some more interesting detours from the source, and tied this together not only with the full series of new 52 animated films, but also super friends, batman the animated series, and even teen titans go. Question has an opportunity to really shine which was cool.

Doctor Sleep: 6.5/10

Reasonably entertaining but felt pretty uninspired in several ways. I'm also not sure how I feel about all the references to the shining film. Recasting and reenacting scenes from that film feels icky.

The Card Counter: 6.5/10

I like the tone and Isaac's performance. It is generally well made as well, but there are odd divergences throughout and the resolution is unfulfilling. The last shot doesn't make sense to me.

Promising Young Woman: 7.5/10

Very good, smart and interesting movie, though not exactly my cup of tea. And one of the more depressing movies I've seen. Like Requiem of a Dream, I don't think I'll ever see this again.

The Fly: 8/10

Wonderful and off the charts disgusting. Cronenberg is one of the greats.

 

[choombaz]

Ministry Of Ungentlemanly Warfare 7/10
This is an insanely fun movie. Amazing cast including Superman and Jack Reacher. I’m loving this period of Guy Ritchie’s career. I’ve watched this three times already.

Jaws 10/10
The greatest film of all time. There I said it. My son surprisingly/not surprisingly loved it as well.

Smile 7/10
Really enjoyed this and looking forward to the sequel. Great concept and solid follow through (unlike many high concept horror).

Rebel Ridge 7/10
Solid drama/action. Aaron Pierre is going places for sure.

It Happened One Night 8/10
Crazy I had never seen this before. Classic screwball comedy.

And now my over the top October horror fest:
You’re Next 6.5/10
Predictable but fun.

Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1931)
Frederic March is astonishing in this. His Jekyll is a matinee idol while Hyde is truly hideous.

Dracula: Prince Of Darkness 7/10
Not the best Lee/Hammer but still a lot of fun with some amazing Lee closeups. He did so much with so little in these films.

Last Voyage Of The Demeter 5/10
Disappointing. Didn’t see the point in making this.

Alien and Aliens 10/10
Introduced my son to these and he loved them. Agrees that they are both amazing and couldn’t decide which is better.

Creature From The Black Lagoon (1954) 8/10
Really shocked how well made this is. I mean the suit has always been fantastic but the production values are amazing for a film of this era.

The Monster Squad 6/10
I think the shine has worn off on this one for me. I mean it’s kinda cute but kinda dull. Can’t believe Shane Black wrote this.

The Hitcher 8.5/10
Still a g##d##n classic. Doesn’t make a lick of sense but I don’t care. JJL’s death in this has haunted me ever since I first saw this. The Arrow 4K is chefs kiss.

Tenebre 8/10
Another 4K that shows off how magnificent this is. The **** is full on, I’m always hesitant and nervous to watch Argento, but once I do, I admire his panache. There is one camera shot in this where it goes up and over and then back down the other side of an apartment building that is just wow.

Ready Or Not 6.5/10
Had heard almost nothing about this one but it’s a ton of fun. Samara Weaving is delightful in the lead and has a terrific support cast. Good concept and reasonably well played out.

Longlegs 5/10
Was really looking forward to this. Dull. I feel asleep. That never happens. I think my score is too generous.

Thanksgiving 6/10
Never been a big Eli Roth fan but this is fun. The **** is insane!

And then there is my Bond rewatch so quickly:
Dr No 7.5/10 not great, dull villan, but iconic anyway.
From Russia With Love 9/10 one of the best in the series
Goldfinger 8.5/10 probably the best in terms of fully formed iconic Bond
Thunderball 6.5/10 not good, dull, but still great iconic pulp imagery
You Only Live Twice 5/10 I used to love this one but it’s awful!
OHMSS 7.5/10 Lazenby is perfectly fine as Bond. I don’t get the hate. Amazing action setpieces.

I’ve been busy.

 

[Alatar]

I watched the Blu-ray for Lust for Life last night, curious to revisit this classic on home theater with an OLED and via a high quality transfer to Blu-ray. It’s a pleasure to revisit older films that in recent years have been remastered either in 4K or in some cases from an even higher scan of the film stock. It’s a whole new experience of the movie from my memories of them growing up when I watched them on SD television. The higher resolution scans displayed in HDR reveal nuances and details we have never seen before. And that’s true for the sound tracks as well.

Reportedly the transfer for Lust for Life in 2015 is from a 4K scan. And the results remind of me of Ben-hur (1959) which I watched a couple months ago with respect to the quality of the transfer to 1080p Blu-ray. The transfer looks great! The results are fairly comparable to 4K honestly. If the scan was transferred to a 4K disk I’d be able to tell the difference probably, sure. But even with as much data could be packed onto a standard Blu-ray disk everything looks crisp. And while standard Blu-ray lack 4K’s HDR, even so the higher resolution scan captures finer detail, subtlety, and nuance to color, as well as for color transitions and light and shadow. It’s notably a superior experience of the film visually. And this is a visually gorgeous film to see enhanced in such a way.

Director Vincent Minelli battled with MGM to use Ansco Color instead of Technicolor because he was concerned that the colors would look garish in Technicolor. And he got his wish. I’m not so sure that his fears would have been realized had Technicolor has been used instead. But the results of the comparatively more naturalistic, less saturated Ansco Color palette seems to have counterintuitively been a solid choice. Minelli was correct that there is indeed a subtlety to Van Gogh’s use of color despite its sheer boldness and the powerful emotional intensity behind it. Minelli was wise to err on the side of accentuating that subtlety. And this theme of self-restraint, I believe, is mirrored by other aspects of the film as I’ll elaborate below.

I was mainly struck by three main things about this film. The first is that Minelli was able to so vividly and seemingly faithfully able to recreate the world that Van Gogh lived in, both in terms of outer world physical settings and inwardly through his paintings. The world Minelli creates on film does indeed look like Van Gogh’s paintings brought life in external reality. It is showcased in parallel throughout the film with Van Gogh’s drawings and paintings prominently displayed in the background. At one point we even see the artist’s self-portraits in the background directly behind Vincent in the foreground with Kirk Douglas looking remarkably like Vincent Van Gogh. But overall, the Oscar nominated set and art design to recreate the world of Belgium and France rendered in Van Gogh’s paintings is extraordinarily good. As is the costume design, hairstyling, makeup, etc. Minelli gives us a richly detailed visual feast in his recreation of the world Van Gogh lived in. The castings of actors to play the people Van Gogh painted is also on point. Anthony Quinn, especially, is superb as Gauguin. Composition of the visual field and play of light and shadow in every frame are beautifully managed. The cinematography is wonderful.

The second main thing I noticed is that there is for me a kind of experiential acceptance state, a “going with the flow” mode, to Hollywood films of that era. I grew up watching films of this era on television but I haven’t seen them for many decades. My brain has become reconditioned to the modern storytelling style. And during this watch of Lust for Life I found myself having to consciously shift gears internally in that sense. This movie uses a form of storytelling that my psyche has to make a shift to receive and accept in order to fully enjoy.

Lust for Life is Old Hollywood. The dialogue, acting, and film scores tend to belong to an aesthetic style that conveys a sense of grandeur to the storytelling. Dialogue tends to be rather “on the nose” and expositional—although that being said, there are subtle and understated artistic meanings and intentions flowing beneath the surface as well, for sure. The main difference I see is in terms of the naturalism of human speech and behavior, which both in real life and New Hollywood is actually most often not communicated directly at all (epitomized perhaps by the 1970s films of Robert Altman). This sort of Old Hollywood film delivers its messages in very dense, compact, straightforward exposition through dialogue, such as when Vincent and Paul Gauguin explain and debate the differences to their respective philosophies of painting. Or, honestly, for any of the dramatic conflicts that are explained through dialogue, for that matter. Dialogue is expressed almost in a kind of shorthand. And the emotional expression by actors is also similarly overt, direct, and forceful. By New Hollywood’s standards it is comparatively exaggerated and overdrawn. Intense emotionality in this type of film is usually accentuated by a swelling musical score. But contemporary audiences of Old Hollywood surely understood that to be a form of stylization. In any case, my point is that in order to enjoy this Old Hollywood aesthetic I have to allow my mind to engage with it as it was intended, on its own terms. I occasionally have to remind myself of this when I watch these older films nowadays. And this brings me to my third main observation.

The third thing that caught my attention is how the film works with is underlying theme, it’s core message. For many artists there exists a fundamental conflict in the human psyche between a competing set of demands and drive energies. On the one hand for some artists a kind of raw, unbridled almost animalistic passion and uninhibited self-expression fuels creation of the work. They create from a powerful drive and intense inner desire to express something. And on the one hand, internal discipline and self-restraint are required in order to develop finely tuned skills to excel at the art form, and to live relatively harmoniously within civilization.

Van Gogh was gifted with an abundance of the former and cursed with a paucity of the latter. The society of his day did not support artists that were revolutionary, that broke barriers and pushed their art form forward. The painters of that day maintained a life within a rather rigid society alongside managing the drive energies that compelled them to be creatives, to paint. To those who made a living this way they were fortunate if they found art dealer patrons and regular customers that were relatively well off. Many customers approached art as a financial investment. Some surely speculated on Impressionism in the hope that it would be the next hot commodity to get rich from. But public taste was ultimately controlled by recognized experts and publications.

The Impressionists challenged the status quo in a rigid society. Still, though, they were able to make the case in the public arena for their unconventional approach to painting. And as we know over time they did gain acceptance.

Van Gogh as a unique personality however lacked the normal internal emotional regulation and mature, adult coping skills that the other Impressionists seemed to have. That limitation forced him into a sort of feral existence. He felt hugely constrained by both his own technical limitations and by the Victorian society in which he lived. In order to express what was inside him as an artist, i.e., the deep inner experiences that drove and moved him the most, he felt compelled to live a kind of monkish, ascetic, and impoverished existence. He truly was a tortured soul. Vincent desperately needed human love and acceptance but was cursed with a personality and artistic gifts that made those sort of social rewards in life feel next to impossible to achieve. His limitations in navigating social existence placed a crushing demand on Vincent that he eventually concluded he was unequipped to meet.

I have been perhaps over-explaining what is obvious in the film. But here’s my personal observation about it: That philosophical theme… for the sake of argument let’s call it the movie’s “big idea”… is (at least to my mind) delivered as a fairly subtle and understated undercurrent within the film. And the subtlety of that message creates a dynamic tension with the showier, grander, more melodramatic aspects of the Old Hollywood storytelling style. This innocently reflects something in life itself, I suppose. The “moral of the story” for anything we go through in life tends to operate at a more subtle and refined level, compared with the outward drama that animates it. And I appreciate being reminded of that fact. Because it helps me notice it more.

Yes, the “moral” of Lust for Life is right there on the surface in the dialogue and Van Gogh’s personal life story. But the actual subtlety of that fundamental conflict as Van Gogh would have lived through it personally in that time and place in history is contrasted by the more bombastic, tempestuous, showier elements of the Old Hollywood storytelling style. This is a man in turmoil wrestling with powerful psychological drives and social forces that are far, far beyond his ability to manage. The sheer energy of that fight punctuates the film. The violent mistral wind of southern France is one expression of that sort of emotional energy. The scenes of Van Gogh and Gauguin’s heated debates. Van Gogh mutliating his ear.

The Old Hollywood form of expression for this sort of human pathos isn’t naturalistic. As mentioned it is stylized, pronounced, and exaggerated. For modern audiences it can at times seem to go too far. It can even be immersion breaking unless one has fully gone with the flow of that style. For example, the scene in which Vincent shares to his brother Theo his anguish over feeling trapped within a social existence that inhibits him from earning a living as a painter in which he says

“I want nothing but to work. Only, I can't. I'm in a cage. A cage of shame and self-doubt and failure. Somebody, believe me, I'm caged. I'm caged and I'm alone. I'm frightened,”

is perhaps (? maybe?) parodied hilariously in Achorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy where Ron while standing in a phone booth wails out “I’m in a glass cage of emotion!” In the Old Hollywood style of storytelling that expression of Van Gogh’s inner torment is melodramatic. But the core existential problem that Van Gogh is struggling to work through arguably is indeed something much more intangible and subtle in nature. So during this watch I was able to notice that, and I’m thankful for it.

And as mentioned above, I think the subtlety of the color palette that the Ansco Color film process brings in some sense mirrors that as well. (Whether that was conscious on Minelli’s part or not.)

 

[Alatar]

My wife and I are going to see Gladiator II on an IMAX screen this afternoon, so it made sense to watch Gladiator the night before.

I’d only watched Gladiator a couple of times back in the day on cable TV in the early 00s. I was very impressed with it when it released. This time the movie lacked the same wow factor as when I first took it in. But there is so much to the movie that is truly brilliant.

I watched the extended edition that adds 15 more minutes. It adds additional scenes that flesh out character and relationship arcs, plus some more graphic violence in the gladiator battles.

Interestingly Scott says he considers the theatrical cut to be his definitive version. Usually I prefer extended cuts to theatrical. But I think I agree with Scott this time, since in this case the brisker pacing of the theatrical cut keeps me more fully engaged with the story. This is probably mostly a “me” problem, but early on in the film I actually got a bit antsy despite the opening battlefield action. The film didn’t feel as taught as I had remembered it from decades ago.

First about the Blu-ray experience. It’s outstanding. Visually speaking, the 4K resolution and Dolbyvision HDR did make this a brand new experience for me. I was struck in particular by a scene in which Maximus and Commodus speak where they’re dramatically backlit by the sun. It was just beautiful in UHD resolution and with the enhanced color of HDR. And of course the pure blacks and whites of an OLED TV improves that even more. All the fine details really popped. I noticed it also especially in all the indoor scenes within the emperor’s royal palace, which are stunning in their detail. The film delivers a visual experience of what seems a very impressive approximation of the grandeur of Ancient Rome, in particular the Colosseum.

The cinematography, art direction, costumes, and make-up are all sensational to begin with. Gladiator was nominated for 12 Academy Awards and it won five, which are Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Costume Design, Best Sound, Best Visual Effects, and Best Edited Feature Film - Presentation.

It won Best Picture for good reason: it’s an epic story with an extremely well written script, and excellent acting performances. Joaquin Phoenix steals the show. But every performance carries both gravitas and subtlety.

I was still genuinely touched by the scenes in which Russel Crowe’s Maximus’ expresses his profound love and grief for his family and home. And I’d forgotten what a great performance Connie Nielsen gives. I look forward this afternoon to seeing how she continues developing that character close to two and a half decades later. I’d also forgotten just how good Djimon Honsou is as well. But all the actors are wonderful.

I wasn’t crazy about the depiction of Marcus Aurelius. I know him mostly from his private journal “Meditations.” I’m aware that he is generally regarded by historians as the last of the great Roman emperors. He at least didn’t descend into either abject depravity or even madness, or both, as many of his successors did.

I’m admittedly not very up to speed on how Marcus Aurelius governed. Certainly from the opening act it looks like he essentially continued with a less overtly aggressive variation on sating Rome’s unquenchable thirst to conquer more lands and peoples. Rome had for centuries pushed the Huns and Parthians out of their own lands who by then were fighting to reclaim their homeland. Rome’s citizens and Senate would have rejected any ruler that did otherwise.

But it does seem however that in real life like he was exceptionally fair and principled. If that was indeed the case, the movie doesn’t impart a sense of true virtue to Marcus. It basically just shows him to be utterly exhausted with political corruption. The film ignores his Stoic philosophy and misses what actually makes him a great man. But perhaps in the final analysis that does work best for the type of story the film invents.

While watching this movie I was mainly struck by the parallels I see currently between the US and Ancient Rome. Time will tell obviously… But many folks at the moment do not consider it farfetched at all that we in the United States may actually be at peril to end up with a government disturbingly similar to what Commodus pulls off in the film. Which is in no way to equate the current White House to Marcus Aurelius. Anything but.

The film posits the notion that winning the hearts of the Roman “mob”, with political support ultimately depending on those who relish the spectacle and carnage of the Colosseum, is the key to success in governance. Commodus feels the key to maintaining the people’s support is to give them increasingly grand, lavish, and hugely stimulating spectacles. To keep them constantly entertained by feeding their basest instincts. And as such to keep them distracted from the reality of his own corruption and personal excesses. Sadly, it seems we’re more or less at the same place today in the US.

History does tend to repeat itself. Ancient Rome had the Colosseum. Today we have the World Wrestling Entertainment organization. And with each day that passes in the US, politics takes on an increasingly eerie resemblance to the WWE. The general population has successfully been dumbed down to that type of crowd.

The obvious difference being it is only “theater” in US politics…

This country is so badly in need of a Marcus Aurelius. Or even a Maximus. But someone like that today would probably never want to enter politics to begin with.

And even if those like Commodus are fated to end up bringing about their own destruction through their own insatiable appetites and hubris, how much damage can they still do regardless?