Jump to content
IGNORED

Rate the last film you watched out of 5


Raoull duke
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jamie John said:

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

 

image.thumb.png.5423d9748891fbe61560c92ca9cc6b5d.png

 

:unsure: Hmm. Someone's going to have to explain this one to me, because I really don't understand why this is revered so much.

 

I've not seen it before. All I knew going in was that it was set in a shopping mall and it was supposed to be one of the best zombie/horror films ever made. Granted, it's been about 43 years since it first came out, so it's original impact is impossible to replicate. That said, however, I'm guessing it's really not dated very well at all, certainly compared with several other 70s films released either before or shortly after this which I would count among some of the best ever made - The Godfather, Jaws, Apocalypse Now, Alien, for example - all of which I think still hold up extremely well. I suppose it's not really fair to compare those films to this one (I get the impression that this was made on a far smaller budget, even with all the extras and the helicopters and so on), but I don't understand why this stands alongside films like those in lists of the best cinema of the time.

 

The acting is pretty terrible throughout from everyone bar Foree and (sometimes) Ross (it's quite telling that I don't think I've seen any of the cast in anything else, before or since). I didn't find Scott Reiniger's performance and his transition into a blood-crazed hot-head convincing at all, although he's not helped much in that regard by the script. Other performances are just laughably rubbish, and often bizarre, like the weird copper asking everyone for cigarettes near the beginning (wut?), or Wooley talking about the 'Bastard, bastard' Puerto Ricans (one of whom is obviously some skinny white bloke in blackface) in an early scene. Very strange.

 

As a social commentary about the evils of consumerism, by modern standards this just feels extremely on the nose, about as subtle as a big sign on the screen that says 'Materialism is bad, kids'. Moreover, once this original point has been shoved in your face, it's just repeated throughout the film in slightly different but similarly obvious ways, never really developed into anything more nuanced or interesting. Maybe social commentary in mainstream media was rare enough in the late 70s for this to be notable because of its novelty, but I found the lingering shots of zombies going clothes shopping or pressing their noses up against the window displays annoying by the end.

 

As a gory zombie movie, the special effects are just rubbish, even when compared with other films made at the same sort of time - the blood looks like magenta paint and the bits where people get bitten are laughable. The 'zombies' are only zombies because they're daubed with white paint and have rings under their eyes. They're entirely unthreatening and just sort of goofy (see the weird monk guy in the screencap above, for example - what was that about?) Watching it made me appreciate the SFX in The Thing (which only came out 4 years after this) a lot more.

 

On a technical level, the continuity between quite a few of the shots just don't make sense. Like, a character will look at something they find interesting through an air vent, for example, and you'll expect the next shot to be what they can see, but, instead, the next shot is what a different character can be, in a completely different location - there were three or four shots like this I found entirely jarring. It's the same with the bit when they first get on the chopper at the beginning - the camera suddenly cuts from all the characters talking excitedly to one another to one of them being asleep, and then there's another cut to another character being asleep, without there being any other indication that time has passed. It's hard to explain, but it doesn't work. I actually rewound the film on two different occasions because I thought I'd missed something, but it was just bad editing.

 

The narrative itself and what happens in the film is also just pretty...dull. I didn't really think the plot was very entertaining, and it's absolutely not scary or horrifying in anyway at all (again, you could argue that I'm desensitised to it as a media-hardened millennial, but The Exorcist, which predates this by 5 years, is still pretty fucking disturbing). Even beyond the horror, though, there isn't even that much tension, and any tension that is created is almost immediately undermined by some random comic moment, intentional or otherwise, like a zombie dying in a stupid way or pulling a silly face, or the characters suddenly happy because they can loot fur coats or expensive watches, or the annoying music, which often feels like it's been taken from a different film entirely, or several other films, being a mixture of the gothic stuff you'd find in a Hammer Horror and weird Blaxploitation movie-style funky basslines. Compare the score in this to something like the one used in The Shining (1980) and the difference in quality is notable.

 

I dunno. Maybe I'm just not clever enough to understand it, or maybe you just had to be there, man. I've done a bit of reading on it this evening since watching it and it sounds like it's seen as an 'important', 'seminal' film for the horror genre, and maybe if I was more of a film studies student I'd be able to appreciate it more. I can see why, without this, we wouldn't have stuff like The Walking Dead, or The Last of Us, or (obviously) Shaun of the Dead.

 

Nonetheless, just because something's influential doesn't necessarily make it good, and watching this cold in 2021 for the first time, I thought it was bemusing, but also quite boring and just kind of stupid, as much as I'm aware that I sound like a brat typing that.  I didn't turn it off, but I thought about doing so a couple of times, and I spent most of its 2.07 runtime looking like this :huh:, wondering when it was suddenly going to become this genre-defining experience, or if it was actually all some big piss-take that I wasn't getting.

 

I will say that the second half is better than the first, once the characters are more established in the mall and the 

  Hide contents

raiders

show up. But, even then, it sort of just...fizzles out.

 

All I know is that I paid about £25 for the super-duper 4K boxset and I'll definitely be selling this one on.

 

Sorry!

 

1.5/5

 

(From kerraig, I knew he'd wanna respond to this)

Time hasn't been kind to Dawn of the Dead simply because of the limitations of its budget and the scope of its ambition, but you simply have to put it into context. Very few films by this point had grappled with such huge themes in horror: What do we do when a global supernatural phenomenon affects absolutely everything. Something that isn't aliens or terrorists, but is something existential like death no longer being death. Being forsaken by God, existing outside of ourselves and our own consciousness. 

This is riffed upon in so many clever ways. What does a talk show look like when ratings dont matter? What do the religious poor do with their dead when the government demand the bodies are handed over, where do you escape to when the thing you are trying to outrun is death itself? do trinkets still have any meaning in a post consumerist world? what is the point of getting married?

Etc etc. 

These themes are handled quite clumsily because the film was made by amateurs at night on a shoestring budget, but nobody else was dreaming that large at an indie level at the time. Kubrick and Bergman and Kurosawa were the ones tackling the big themes and they were doing it with all the backing of their studio or their government. Dawn really searches for the big questions and really tries to make you care about humans and humanity. It's very creaky now and almost impossible to go into cold. But for the time it is absolutely beyond seminal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Final Girls 

 

This turned up on Netflix for me last night and the trailer actually had me hooked! It was a bit of a ...wtf, this looks bad type of thinking in my head, but let's give it a go.

 

Featuring the girl from The American Horror Story, Bjorn from Vikings and some other people I've never seen before, this is a comedy horror with a twist, the watches of the film end up in the horror film!

 

Ropey CGI aside, it's an enjoyable 90 minutes.  A bit different from the usual slasher, I'd say it's worth a watch and a 

 

3/5

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Distinct muttering said:

 

(From kerraig, I knew he'd wanna respond to this)

Time hasn't been kind to Dawn of the Dead simply because of the limitations of its budget and the scope of its ambition, but you simply have to put it into context. Very few films by this point had grappled with such huge themes in horror: What do we do when a global supernatural phenomenon affects absolutely everything. Something that isn't aliens or terrorists, but is something existential like death no longer being death. Being forsaken by God, existing outside of ourselves and our own consciousness. 

This is riffed upon in so many clever ways. What does a talk show look like when ratings dont matter? What do the religious poor do with their dead when the government demand the bodies are handed over, where do you escape to when the thing you are trying to outrun is death itself? do trinkets still have any meaning in a post consumerist world? what is the point of getting married?

Etc etc. 

These themes are handled quite clumsily because the film was made by amateurs at night on a shoestring budget, but nobody else was dreaming that large at an indie level at the time. Kubrick and Bergman and Kurosawa were the ones tackling the big themes and they were doing it with all the backing of their studio or their government. Dawn really searches for the big questions and really tries to make you care about humans and humanity. It's very creaky now and almost impossible to go into cold. But for the time it is absolutely beyond seminal.

 

 

Tell kerraig thanks for this! I appreciate what he's saying, and from doing a bit more reading about the film this morning, it's evident that this is a lot more indie, with a lot less of a budget, than I originally gave it credit for, so it does seem pretty mean-spirited to compare it with some of the films I've mentioned. Even with the caveats in place, however, I still stand by my reaction to it having slept on it. Unfortunately, it does seem entirely married to its context and has been iterated upon so much elsewhere that it's something I can only ever hope to respect rather than enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only watched the GR trilogy for the first time last year and thought they were all great. All 4/5 films for me.

 

Each film is more a theme on society and it's issues, the zombies are there more to push the plot along. I thought it was very clever and will have been rather revolutionary when released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

 

image.thumb.png.4efabc5066b9e04d640dad801bd56a90.png

 

I thought this was the weakest of the DK trilogy - it's too long, the plot is quite clunky and contrived in places, and the villains' motivations feel under-cooked. Bane, generally, is just a bit boring and lacks personality - I think a lot of that is due to you not being able to see his face properly. Compared with TDK, it felt a lot more like a Marvel film to me, focusing more on bombast and spectacle over character development or narrative. The ending, with the 'war' for Gotham, also just felt a bit silly.

 

Still, some of the set pieces are pretty amazing, especially the plane hijacking at the start, and the fight between Batman and Bane mid-way through is excellent. Zimmer's score is effective in stirring up the feels in all the right places, and I thought Anne Hathaway was well cast as Cat Woman. Overall, a bit disappointing after TDK, but still very watchable if you've got a spare two and a half hours.

 

3.5/5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

A "revenge" thriller that subverts all your expectations that it almost becomes anti-revenge.

Capital-G Gamers will hate it :lol:

 

 

Intersteller

Enjoyable enough, although I was aware of most of the beats and set-pieces from years of memes. The twist was pretty obvious but fine I guess. I liked the robots. It feels like a lot of it would fall apart with too much scrutiny.

Spoiler

spend 120 years trying to get back to your daughter only to fuck off after like 10 minutes, lol, at least do a wee 'tell me your life story, luv' montage.

3 Forever Wars out of 5

 

Tenet

I liked the ideas and the chemistry between Denzel Jr and Twiilight Bloke but the action was all a bit...shit. Especially the final scenes where you have 2 sets of goodies fighting in a big deathmatch level with absolutely no sense of where the baddies are and what they are doing. I'm sure the work required to get all the backwards stuff was very impressive but I wasn't impressed at all. Zach Snyder would have added a hilarious sex scene. The actual McGuffin item looked so stupid when they found it :lol: 

2 Matrix Sequel Set Pieces out of 5 

 

The Prestige

This was great. Really great. Again the main twist was pretty obvious but it was much more satisfying getting there. I'd watch a Bowie & Gollum spinoff.

4 / 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Limbo

This was my first visit to the cinema since before Covid and what a great film. Tragedy, quirky characters, joy, comedy and some lovely shots of a  barren Scotland. 
I wasn’t sure what to expect after the opening scene as I’d not read anything about it beforehand. Recommended. 4/5

 

In Search of a Midnight Kiss

Never heard of this before, watched it round a friends on the smallest TV I’ve seen a film in since my teens. Suited the style quite well in reality, it’s an off kilter acerbic rom com in B&W. A good slice of that era and very enjoyable. Scoot McNairy is fab in it too. 3.5/5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Punisher: Warzone a comic-book-movie trashy mess, that just about works. With a bad guy from that Warren Beattie dick tracy film… 3/5
 

Dolph Lungren > Ray Stevenson > Thomas Jane

 

though, so that’s good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saint Maud - 3.5/5

 

Im not a massive horror fan and only watch the films that review really well (which is about... Maybe 1 every 2 years?) but I really enjoyed this. 

 

Be alhard pressed to call this a normal horror movie though, it does have elements and I enjoyed the dread and suspense and great performance from the lead. 

 

Some would say the ending is open to interpretation but is it hell. I won't spoil it but I thought it was clear what the film and subject matter was about. 

 

Oh, and it gave me one of the best (worst?) jump scares in movie history. I nearly had a heart attack. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ImmaculateClump said:

 

Aw man, you're missing out. A lot of critics are quite sniffy about the genre and the best horrors tend to review quite badly.

 

I dunno, there's times I watch a few and they are generally shite. 

 

The critics being sniffy is understandable. I tend to like what they like. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of horror (ish)

 

Let the Right One In (2008)

 

I have no idea why it's taken me so damn long to watch this film, but it was great. Ostensibly a film about a 12-year old vampire, it's much much more than that. and something that I want to watch again soon to take in more of the details. That guy though (you know the one) was the most incompetent bloody helper/familiar of all time, to the point of farce at times.

 

4.5/5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ry said:

I dunno, there's times I watch a few and they are generally shite. 

 

The critics being sniffy is understandable. I tend to like what they like.

 

Oh god, yeah, there are looooads of shit horror films :D

 

What I meant was, some of the best ones can be very divisive, so if you're going off review aggregate sites like rottentomatoes or metacritic or whatever, you might miss out on something that you really like just because there wasn't a general consensus on the films quality.

 

Documentaries have the opposite problem, critics tend to view it as a very worthy genre and will be much more lenient with their criticisms.

 

I suppose the gist of what I'm saying is I've seen god awful documentaries that have reviewed 90%+ and excellent horror films that were sometimes below 50%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aliens. It's on Disney+

 

Well, fuck me! Who'd have pegged this as a Disney Classic?! 😆

 

Cinematic perfection. It's the theatrical cut and though I prefer the extended edition with the set-up on Hadley's Hope and the sentry gun stuff this is just lean and barrels along with nary an ounce of bloat.

 

Weaver and Biehn are exceptional leads, Reiser is slimey AF and Paxton is ridiculously OTT.

 

Some of the effects are dated but the Alien suits / puppets are still incredible.

 

5 assholes / 5 Gormans.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Suicide Squad 

 

Yeah that was fun. Best superhero film I have seen in some time. Best DCEU film by a country mile. 

 

They even made Harley suferable for me. Which is a tall order. 

 

3.5/5 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tenet

 

The answer to the question "What if we could do a thing on screen where some people are appear to be going backwards in time while others are just moving normally, could we hang a movie off that?"

 

I know a lot of folks have complained that the plot of Tenet is very complicated  and (needlessly) confusing but there is a more fundamental issue, it's a pretty boring story in and of itself.Which leave the action and the performances of the actors to carry the movie  , both of which are decent and both Pattinson and Washington  do a decent job with Debicki  and Sir Ken  assisting pretty well. The action sequences are spectacular on occasion  for the most part and the opening assault  in particular is excellent , it could be the finale set piece in many other movies and probably should have been in this. Which brings me to the another complaint:

Spoiler

the final set piece looks like someone is just fiddling with the forward/backward knobs in the editing suite and there's little or no tension.

 

 

Anyway, despite those complaints this is still a decent watch ,as with all of Nolan's film's you get some spectacular visuals, set pieces and action and for that and two decent leads it's worth a watch. Inception is a far superior movie though.

 

3/5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zola
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5439812/

 

A stripper named Zola embarks on a wild road trip to Florida.

 

"Y'all wanna hear a story about why me & this bitch here fell out? It’s kind of long but full of suspense," Back in 2015 that was the first tweet in a 150 tweet thread. It was started by a young woman telling the true story of how she and another girl took a road trip to Tampa that goes horribly wrong. This film is that story. 

 

I thought this was absolutely superb. Very much in the Tangerine/Spring Breakers genre and full of those same, grim, American locations; cheap motels, endless freeways, sleazy strip joints. The photography was so nice, full of neon and bright sunshine, making these pretty rough places look so vibrant. 

 

The two leads are superb (Taylor Page and Colman Domingo) and there's a good turn from cousin Gregg from Succession in a funny support role. This was only 80 minutes long and fairly flew by. It's funny and shocking, the score is quality and it has a great energy and you never know where it's going.

 

One of my favourites of the year so far.

4.5/5
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Revenant (2016)

 

image.png.25b37ad0f7f7b8f414d09e5dfd20852e.png

 

This was the first time I'd seen this since watching it in the cinema and I still thought it was excellent. The cinematography and camera work is stunning, particularly the contrast between sweeping, wide shots and claustrophobic, spittle-flecked close-ups, often in the same take. Watching it in 4K, the sweat, blood and mucus are all wonderfully, horribly tangible. DiCaprio's performance is startlingly realistic, often because it's not so much a performance as him literally being filmed near-hypothermic, crawling through snow drifts or swimming in ice melt. On reflection, though, I think I actually preferred Hardy as the half-crazed villain Fitzgerald - he has all the best lines (mostly because DiCaprio has so few) and his understated adaptation of the role contrasts well with DiCaprio's intensity.

 

Recommended.

 

5/5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jungle Cruise

 

I was not expecting to enjoy this, but it's really really good fun.  Indiana Jones mixed with Pirates of the Caribbean with a smattering of Jumanji can't be a bad cocktail as long as you don't expect anything original or groundbreaking.  It does what it needs to do, the cast are clearly having the time of their lives (with surprisingly good chemistry between the two leads Emily Blunt and Dwayne Johnson), it's all just good, swashbuckling fun.

 

3.5/5

 

Great White

 

This was new on Sky Cinema the other week and it's absolute fucking horseshit.  Whereas Jungle Cruise managed to do things right without being original, this festering turd of a film doesn't manage any of that.  Characters are the most 2 dimensional cardboard cut outs you can imagine, the effects are comical, there may well be some form of story there but we didn't manage to locate it - it's just shite.  I'm awarding it an extra star because of the live action great white footage (which make the special effects look even worse) and the fact it made us laugh even though it wasn't supposed to.

 

1.5/5

 

Alien

 

Saw that Aliens was on Disney + so I had to watch it.  But you can't watch Aliens without first watching the first movie and after umpteen watches, it's still an absolute fucking classic.  The tension, the lighting, the performances - it's just top class cinema.

 

5/5

 

Aliens

 

I have always preferred this over the original, mainly because it's so difficult to follow a bona fide classic movie and mix it up so it's essentially a different genre of film, yet still make it absolutely amazing.  This is the original cut, and it's so perfectly paced - memorable lines, performances, scenes, this has to be one of my all time favourite films and I really think it's aged beautifully.

 

So I had to watch them back to back.  "It's the only way to be sure."

 

5/5

 

Sideways

 

I honestly had never heard of this before but my other half insisted we watch it - very enjoyable, Paul Giamatti is on top form as a failing writer suffering from depression who goes on a trip to wine country with his best friend, a chauvinistic actor played superbly by Thomas Haden Church.  

 

3.5/5

 

Blood Red Sky

 

A woman with a mysterious illness boards a plane from Germany to the US with her son so she can receive treatment - but the plane is hijacked.  I don't really want to say anything else because it would spoil things, but things quickly spiral out of control.

 

Very, very entertaining, batshit mental in places but I really enjoyed this - it's on Netflix at the moment.

 

4/5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ocean's Twelve (2004)

 

I unapologetically love this movie. Possibly more than the first one, (can take or leave Ocean's Thirteen).

 

Listening to The Rewatchables podcast on it recently, made me want to watch it again. Even my wife loves it, it's like our hang-out movie.

 

Yes, I'm aware that the entire 'Tess looks like Julia Roberts' thing is bollocks,(Bruce Willis is cringy as fuuuuuuuuck), as is the holographic egg, but I don't care, lalalalalalala!

 

That fucking score, too... Damn!

 

4/5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/08/2021 at 13:18, Ry said:

Saint Maud - 3.5/5

 

Im not a massive horror fan and only watch the films that review really well (which is about... Maybe 1 every 2 years?) but I really enjoyed this. 

 

On 06/08/2021 at 14:20, ImmaculateClump said:

 

Aw man, you're missing out. A lot of critics are quite sniffy about the genre and the best horrors tend to review quite badly.

 

This isn't exactly piercing insight, but it's all about your tastes, innit? I adore horror, it's my favourite genre. But I'd say I enjoy maybe 25% of the horror I watch, and of that 25% that I enjoy, I think less than 50% are objectively good.

 

And those do tend to be the better reviewed ones. Stuff like The Babadook, The VVitch, It Follows, Midsommar, Possum. Films that RT has high critic and low audience score for. 

 

Your more 'mainstream' (for want of a better word) horror like Army of the Dead, which has lower critic scores than audience scores, I generally find to be utter turds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason Bourne (2016)

 

<blog>

 

I really enjoy the Bourne films, the whole premise and Matt Damon's performances. I started watching the latest one a while ago and then stopped halfway through because Matt Damon did something stupid. It just put me off him. Funny thing is I forget why. Anyway, fast forward to the other day and it popped up on an another streaming app and all I could remember is that I didn't finish it. So again I'm half way through before I realize I've actually watched a lot more than I realized. Bear in mind I watch films in chunks while doing the dishes at night. About 3/4s of the way through, Matt Damon, in the year of our lord two thousand and twenty one, has to be fucking reminded not to use "the f word" to refer to gay people, in a joke he cracked to his family. And he didn't back down until his daughter wrote a bloody essay. This pissed me off so much I stopped watching. I eventually picked it back up and I (finally) realized it was only about the last 15 minutes I hadn't see previously, and after all that it was shit. Maybe 2/5 stuff. It was just generic action film, none of the cool espionage stuff that I recall from previous ones, or maybe that's just because I haven't seen then for a while. But even the hacking was just dull, by the numbers.

 

Anyway, this whole thing really pisses me off, because I love The Martian. These sodding actors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.