• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Which movie did you watch today and how would you rate it?

Salo, 120 days of Sodom

It still holds up. Undoubtedly a masterpiece. It's pornography. Which is cool. It's unique in the sense that it's a BDSM porn film made by one of the greatest directors of all time. Acting isn't great. But very good considering that it's a porno.

It's also amazing that a shocker film that pre-dates the slasher 80'ies and gore 90'ies still is shocking. It did not leave me untouched (unmolested?). It's quite jarring. I watched it together with a group of friends and we were all troubled by it, while also liking it.

Cinematography is great. It's amazingly beautiful. I like the long slow scenes. And the framed shots that linger for a while, giving a painterly quality. I think he drew a lot of inspiration from Catholic religious painting for these scenes. Which are equally gruesome. Any painting depicting the torment of Jesus can be classified as BDSM porn.
 
Early Man - Aardman's latest project, and while it was something I wanted to love, despite the film being over 70 minutes long, it felt like a Wallace and Gromit special. The concept is decent and the animation is spectacular, which unfortunately in this day and age isn't as WOW as it used to be. But it seemed like this could have been a 30 minute thing that was needlessly dragged out into a feature film length. The film does have some real funny moments (such as the message birds), but while Pirates wasn't uproariously funny, it at least felt like a movie. This, just felt a bit hollow, kind of like a "We only had 10 minutes of material so be ready for a lot of filler Charlie Brown" special. Sorry Nick Park. :(

2.5 of 4
 
Tusk

I don't know what to make of this movie. For the first half hour or or 40 minutes, it really establishes a legitimately suspenseful and creepy vibe--to the point where I was thinking, "Wow, how have I never seen this movie before?" However, it then tries to become funny while retaining the tone it initially established. Then none of it works the way the filmmakers probably wanted it to work. It does bill itself as a horror-comedy, and it does have some good humored quirks, but that's how those parts should've remained (quirky), rather than setting an entirely new tone and trying to mix it with the original vibe.

Apparently some people really love this movie, and others hate it. The tomatometer on Rottentomatoes has it at 42%, but it really is one of those you have to see for yourself to decide. There's a lot of great in this movie, and there's a lot of WTF?

5.5/10
 
Opoponax said:
Apparently some people really love this movie, and others hate it. The tomatometer on Rottentomatoes has it at 42%, but it really is one of those you have to see for yourself to decide. There's a lot of great in this movie, and there's a lot of WTF?

5.5/10
Click to expand...
to provide some context that might put the film in a new light:
kevin smith (clerks, mall rats, dogma, etc) is in something of a weird stage of his career where he's become successful enough from his previous films and other work (podcasts, TV show, writing work) where film making has become a sort of hobby where he just does weird or interesting shit that defies traditional movie making.
Tusk came about from some kind of twitter thread or reddit AMA or something, where he basically dared an audience to give him the stupidest idea possible for a horror movie and someone yelled out "a guy turns into a walrus!" and kevin smith went "alright fuck it, i'm making that into a movie" .... and then did.
 
Opoponax said:
Tusk

I don't know what to make of this movie. For the first half hour or or 40 minutes, it really establishes a legitimately suspenseful and creepy vibe--to the point where I was thinking, "Wow, how have I never seen this movie before?" However, it then tries to become funny while retaining the tone it initially established. Then none of it works the way the filmmakers probably wanted it to work. It does bill itself as a horror-comedy, and it does have some good humored quirks, but that's how those parts should've remained (quirky), rather than setting an entirely new tone and trying to mix it with the original vibe.

Apparently some people really love this movie, and others hate it. The tomatometer on Rottentomatoes has it at 42%, but it really is one of those you have to see for yourself to decide. There's a lot of great in this movie, and there's a lot of WTF?

5.5/10
Click to expand...

I think Kevin Smith was trying to make one of those "so bad it's good" movies without understanding that the reason movies of that type are enjoyable is that they are made by people with no talent who are trying really hard. Smith was bound to fail to duplicate that vibe. First, he has actual talent. Second, by trying to make a deliberate "bad movie," there's always going to be a tongue-in-cheek quality that fails to reproduce the earnestness of a genuine "so bad it's good" movie.
 
Underseer said:
Opoponax said:
Tusk

I don't know what to make of this movie. For the first half hour or or 40 minutes, it really establishes a legitimately suspenseful and creepy vibe--to the point where I was thinking, "Wow, how have I never seen this movie before?" However, it then tries to become funny while retaining the tone it initially established. Then none of it works the way the filmmakers probably wanted it to work. It does bill itself as a horror-comedy, and it does have some good humored quirks, but that's how those parts should've remained (quirky), rather than setting an entirely new tone and trying to mix it with the original vibe.

Apparently some people really love this movie, and others hate it. The tomatometer on Rottentomatoes has it at 42%, but it really is one of those you have to see for yourself to decide. There's a lot of great in this movie, and there's a lot of WTF?

5.5/10
Click to expand...

I think Kevin Smith was trying to make one of those "so bad it's good" movies without understanding that the reason movies of that type are enjoyable is that they are made by people with no talent who are trying really hard. Smith was bound to fail to duplicate that vibe. First, he has actual talent. Second, by trying to make a deliberate "bad movie," there's always going to be a tongue-in-cheek quality that fails to reproduce the earnestness of a genuine "so bad it's good" movie.
Click to expand...

Kevin Smith is a genius at writing dialogue. But awful at writing story. I love his movies, but I've never once cared whether the protagonists succeeded with their mission. His best films are about nothing much. Clerks, Jay & Silent Bob and Zack & Miri Make a Porno. Dogma was damn awful.
 
I've only seen a handful of Kevin Smith movies, but there's something about them that nags at me. They're held up as Geekdom Anthems, where nerds sit around and discuss Star Wars arcana.

And yet, I've sat around with other nerds and discussed Star Wars arcana, and I've overheard other nerds discussing Star Wars arcana. In Kevin Smith movies, they don't sound like me and my friends geeking out on the economics of the Death Star. What they are saying is valid, but they sound like they're reading off of cue cards.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/iQdDRrcAOjA?t=36s[/YOUTUBE]
 
James Brown said:
I've only seen a handful of Kevin Smith movies, but there's something about them that nags at me. They're held up as Geekdom Anthems, where nerds sit around and discuss Star Wars arcana.

And yet, I've sat around with other nerds and discussed Star Wars arcana, and I've overheard other nerds discussing Star Wars arcana. In Kevin Smith movies, they don't sound like me and my friends geeking out on the economics of the Death Star. What they are saying is valid, but they sound like they're reading off of cue cards.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/iQdDRrcAOjA?t=36s[/YOUTUBE]
Click to expand...

Clerks is a b-movie. They sound that way because they are shit actors. Remember the illustrious careers of the actors in Clerks afterwards. No? You failed to notice how they became super stars? Because they didn't. They were bad actors.
 
prideandfall said:
Opoponax said:
Apparently some people really love this movie, and others hate it. The tomatometer on Rottentomatoes has it at 42%, but it really is one of those you have to see for yourself to decide. There's a lot of great in this movie, and there's a lot of WTF?

5.5/10
Click to expand...
to provide some context that might put the film in a new light:
kevin smith (clerks, mall rats, dogma, etc) is in something of a weird stage of his career where he's become successful enough from his previous films and other work (podcasts, TV show, writing work) where film making has become a sort of hobby where he just does weird or interesting shit that defies traditional movie making.
Tusk came about from some kind of twitter thread or reddit AMA or something, where he basically dared an audience to give him the stupidest idea possible for a horror movie and someone yelled out "a guy turns into a walrus!" and kevin smith went "alright fuck it, i'm making that into a movie" .... and then did.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that Kevin Smith was in a public bathroom somewhere and pulled a handbill off the wall. The writing stated that someone could live at the writer of the handbill's house for free as long as they put on a walrus costume for two hours a day and acted like a walrus. So that's where the idea came from.

At any rate, the movie is too disturbing to be able to blend comedy with, and that's where the film goes awry, I think. Had Smith just played the whole thing as straight horror, it would've been far more effective. Plus the ending is so poorly thought out, that it seems laziness had really crept in by the time they were finished writing the script.
 
James Brown said:
I've only seen a handful of Kevin Smith movies, but there's something about them that nags at me. They're held up as Geekdom Anthems, where nerds sit around and discuss Star Wars arcana.

And yet, I've sat around with other nerds and discussed Star Wars arcana, and I've overheard other nerds discussing Star Wars arcana. In Kevin Smith movies, they don't sound like me and my friends geeking out on the economics of the Death Star.
Click to expand...

They sound like Kevin Smith and his friends. That's the thing about his movies (at least the ones I've seen). They exist within the View Askew universe. It's Kevin Smith's alternate reality, and all the characters speak as him. Except of course, Silent Bob. Except in that one scene in Chasing Amy.
 
Three Billboards...

Excellent movie, in acting, screenplay, and story telling. The conclusion pissed my wife off to no end though. Highly recommended.

9/10
 
Once Upon a Time in America
? out of 10

Sergio Leone's mob epic. The first couple of hours are just a boring old gangster movie with DeNiro being DeNiro and nothing really happening. But the ending is almost surrealist. There are multiple interpretations of what actually happens at the end, and what happened during the movie. Go watch it and don't get discouraged by the boring movie before the Shayamalanesque ending. My own thoughts:

Max and Noodles were the same person. It was mentioned that Max's father was mentally ill, and that Max was afraid that he might be too. Turns out he was a schizophrenic. That also explains why both Max and Noodles were dating both Deborah and that other girl. And where the money from the suitcase went. Or how Max was able to "find" Noodles. Or why Noodles went to jail for a murder that Max committed (at least I think that's what happened).

Man this movie was way deeper than I thought. I'm still not sure what the ending means. Maybe nothing of it really happened and everything is just an opium-fueled delusion in Noodles' mind.

 
Yesterday, I saw BlacKKKlansman which I give 8/10.

The latest from Spike Lee, who has been goading me to be a better person for most of my life. This film, as many have said, is his 'most entertaining' in years. However, do not think that it skimps on the social activism, which it certainly doesn't. I agree with most of the reviews I've seen, so I won't rehash them too much: Main character is first black officer ever in Colorado Springs police department. After being ordered to go undercover to observe the local college's Black Student Union, he decides to even the score by answering an add for the Ku Klux Klan, using his best white telephone voice to sign up. With the help of a white police officer, he pulls of an infiltration of his local clan, speaking to David Duke, and eventually thwarting a terrorist bombing. Advertised as a comedy, for obvious reasons, (it is quite funny for much of its runtime) it nevertheless had me leaving the theater with tears in my eyes, and not from laughter. While it wastes no opportunity to make fun of the Klan, it is also a very serious exploration of white supremacist mentality and organization. It is a testament to the skill of the director to be able to shift tone so ably and completely, between the many lighthearted comedy scenes, and the very serious scenes. This tonal and thematic shifting is the only thing that keeps this movie from being an entirely coherent whole, and I think that's part of the point.

Stray observations:
That is not Steve Buscemi, that is his brother Michael. I watched the whole movie and thought it was Steve.
John David Washington is as handsome as his father, and a good actor as well.
Adam Driver is quite good in this movie. I'm glad to see that he's not getting sucked into Star Wars entirely.
Isiah Whitlock shows up just to say "Sheeeeeeeeeeeeyit!" and it's magnificent.
 
Sarpedon said:
Yesterday, I saw BlacKKKlansman which I give 8/10.

The latest from Spike Lee, who has been goading me to be a better person for most of my life. This film, as many have said, is his 'most entertaining' in years. However, do not think that it skimps on the social activism, which it certainly doesn't. I agree with most of the reviews I've seen, so I won't rehash them too much: Main character is first black officer ever in Colorado Springs police department. After being ordered to go undercover to observe the local college's Black Student Union, he decides to even the score by answering an add for the Ku Klux Klan, using his best white telephone voice to sign up. With the help of a white police officer, he pulls of an infiltration of his local clan, speaking to David Duke, and eventually thwarting a terrorist bombing. Advertised as a comedy, for obvious reasons, (it is quite funny for much of its runtime) it nevertheless had me leaving the theater with tears in my eyes, and not from laughter. While it wastes no opportunity to make fun of the Klan, it is also a very serious exploration of white supremacist mentality and organization. It is a testament to the skill of the director to be able to shift tone so ably and completely, between the many lighthearted comedy scenes, and the very serious scenes. This tonal and thematic shifting is the only thing that keeps this movie from being an entirely coherent whole, and I think that's part of the point.

Stray observations:
That is not Steve Buscemi, that is his brother Michael. I watched the whole movie and thought it was Steve.
John David Washington is as handsome as his father, and a good actor as well.
Adam Driver is quite good in this movie. I'm glad to see that he's not getting sucked into Star Wars entirely.
Isiah Whitlock shows up just to say "Sheeeeeeeeeeeeyit!" and it's magnificent.
Click to expand...

Good review. I'll have to see this. I was hesitant because I hate being clumsily beaten over the head with social/political themes in a movie, even ones I happen to agree with, and Spike Lee is prone to do that.
 
Death of Stalin
9/10

Best comedy of the year. Written and directed by Armando Iannucci, the man behind HBO's Veep, this film details the events following Stalin's death and the inevitable power plays of various surviving members of the Central Committee. Historical accuracy be damned though; it's not a history lesson as much as it is satire, and while the broad strokes and some details such as the absurd applause scene in the beginning are based on reality, Death of Stalin plays fast and loose with details. Personally, I think that's the right call. If a historical movie wanted to be accurate, it should be a documentary instead of a drama. Or in this case, a farcical satire of a regime that hasn't existed in almost 30 years.

Steve Buscemi does a wonderful job as Nikita Khrushchev, he even looks like him. But other actors are top notch too. The main source of humour is, as with Veep, in fast barrage of insults and sarcasm, but on a deeper level the funniness of this movie is in the absurdity and paranoia of the Stalin-era Soviet Union, and how every character is, with good reason, constantly looking over their shoulder and watching what they say about the late great leader. The casting of Michael Palin as Molotov is quite appropriate because some of the scenes are like straight out of Monty Python.

Unless you live in Russia, Kazahkstan or Kyrgyzstan, go see this movie. And if you live in one of those countries where it's banned, pirate it. It's that good.
 
Opoponax said:
Sarpedon said:
Yesterday, I saw BlacKKKlansman which I give 8/10.

The latest from Spike Lee, who has been goading me to be a better person for most of my life. This film, as many have said, is his 'most entertaining' in years. However, do not think that it skimps on the social activism, which it certainly doesn't. I agree with most of the reviews I've seen, so I won't rehash them too much: Main character is first black officer ever in Colorado Springs police department. After being ordered to go undercover to observe the local college's Black Student Union, he decides to even the score by answering an add for the Ku Klux Klan, using his best white telephone voice to sign up. With the help of a white police officer, he pulls of an infiltration of his local clan, speaking to David Duke, and eventually thwarting a terrorist bombing. Advertised as a comedy, for obvious reasons, (it is quite funny for much of its runtime) it nevertheless had me leaving the theater with tears in my eyes, and not from laughter. While it wastes no opportunity to make fun of the Klan, it is also a very serious exploration of white supremacist mentality and organization. It is a testament to the skill of the director to be able to shift tone so ably and completely, between the many lighthearted comedy scenes, and the very serious scenes. This tonal and thematic shifting is the only thing that keeps this movie from being an entirely coherent whole, and I think that's part of the point.

Stray observations:
That is not Steve Buscemi, that is his brother Michael. I watched the whole movie and thought it was Steve.
John David Washington is as handsome as his father, and a good actor as well.
Adam Driver is quite good in this movie. I'm glad to see that he's not getting sucked into Star Wars entirely.
Isiah Whitlock shows up just to say "Sheeeeeeeeeeeeyit!" and it's magnificent.
Click to expand...

Good review. I'll have to see this. I was hesitant because I hate being clumsily beaten over the head with social/political themes in a movie, even ones I happen to agree with, and Spike Lee is prone to do that.
Click to expand...

"Beaten over the head"

Is that what you call it? Sounds like white fragility to me.
 
To be fair, I count Spike Lee's beating things over my head as being key to my discarding white fragility. He absolutely changed me by challenging my comfort zone.

So I don't necessarily disagree with the assertion that he beats people over the head with things.
 
Sarpedon said:
To be fair, I count Spike Lee's beating things over my head as being key to my discarding white fragility. He absolutely changed me by challenging my comfort zone.
Click to expand...

I had that experience with Do the Right Thing. To me, that's still his best movie. It did a tremendous job of really humanizing nearly every single person with even just one line of dialogue, combining humor with seriousness, and crafting an important message for anyone that watched it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom