The last movie you've seen thread 2016

[Gass3268]

Straight Outta Compton a few weeks ago.

Gonna see Black Mass this weekend.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As a side note, I was a bit surprised by the anachronistic style that this movie goes for (in the music, but not only), making it sometimes hard to believe it was really set in the 20s. It's too obvious not to have been intentional, and I don't really mind it, but it's weird.

Most or all of Baz Luhrmann's movies are like that. I watched Moulin Rouge! last week, and that movie, which is set in I think 1899, has a medley that includes 'Smells Like Teen Spirit'.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As a side note, I was a bit surprised by the anachronistic style that this movie goes for (in the music, but not only), making it sometimes hard to believe it was really set in the 20s. It's too obvious not to have been intentional, and I don't really mind it, but it's weird.

Most or all of Baz Luhrmann's movies are like that. I watched Moulin Rouge! last week, and that movie, which is set in I think 1899, has a medley that includes 'Smells Like Teen Spirit'.

Ah yeah, I've heard about Moulin Rouge, and now that I think about it the two movies definitely seem to share a lot visually.

[Gustaf]

Dogcatcher which was pretty good and haunting. Crazy story, can't believe I never heard about it before.

Kung Fury which was stupid but pretty entertaining.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Fright Night (the 1985 version)

An excellent horror film, easily one of the best (if not the best) vampire films ever made.  Like Gremlins, the movie did an almost perfect job of balancing the horror and comedy elements in a way that few films have managed before or since.  However, where Gremlins was a comedy with some horror elements, Fright Night is definitely a horror film with some comedy elements (mainly in the first half of the movie).  

I'm sure others have already thought of this, but there is also a lot of symbolism regarding the various sexual aspects of the vampire myth.  This is handled by Tom Holland (who wrote and directed the film) with varying levels of subtlety, depending on what a given scene requires.  However, with one big exception (and in that case it was absolutely what the story required and makes it work better as a result), the sexual symbolism is never front and center making it an interesting secondary layer that you only really notice once the film is over and you think about it a bit.  Aside from the obvious stuff that you see in stories like Dracula like Jerry Dandrige's desire to turn the protagonist's love interest into a vampire because she resembles a woman he loved before becoming a vampire, Jerry's interactions with two different male characters have unmistakable homosexual undertones (word of God has confirmed that at least one of these was intentional), and one might even argue that Jerry's vampirism is almost like spreading an STD (although this is a bit of a stretch imo).  Again though, this is very much a horror film (especially in the last third of the movie, which is by far the best part) and the sexual symbolism is generally takes a back seat to that.  

As for the acting, it is mostly meh (especially William Ragsdale as the main protagonist), but there are two standouts.  Chris Sarandon is well-cast as Jerry Dandrige, but it isn't as showy a role as one might expect.  Still, he single-handedly makes several lines that should be painfully cheesy work perfectly (ex: "Welcome to Fright Night...for real!" and "Amy awake, I command it!  Show me how much you love me!  Kill them both!").  You wouldn't think those lines could possibly work, but in Sarandon's hands, they feel like some of the best in the film (and that isn't d***ing with faint praise or anything like that).  Roddy McDowell gives what is easily the best performance of his career and steals the show as Peter Vincent (obviously a combination of Peter Cushing and Vincent Price), a washed up horror host who slowly starts to become his character ("I am Peter Vincent, the great vampire killer.  I am Peter Vincent, the great vampire killer...") as a psychological defense mechanism about 2/3s of the way into the movie and it is absolutely hilarious.

A few other things that standout are the makeup which is excellent and actually holds up surprisingly well (given that this was a low budget horror film from the mid-80s).  Ultimately, this is a film that "should" be an absolute mess on paper (I wasn't expecting it to work on any level and watched it, expecting a SY-FYI-style "so bad it's good" movie).  However, against all odds, it works almost perfectly for what it is (obviously it isn't Shakespeare or anything like that, but it isn't supposed to be).  I liked it so much that I decided to check out the remake from 2011, but sadly turned out to be complete garbage.  Aside from completely screwing up the tone and simply not being as good a movie, they absolutely butchered the Peter Vincent character.  Additionally, instead of the sexual predator aspect of Jerry's vampirism being very subtle/subtext like in the original, the remake does everything short of having him go door to door telling the neighborhood how often he is required to check in with his parole officer  Furthermore, where the Jerry Dandrige of the original was polite, cultured, yet extremely menacing when he wants to be(in a "there's just something kinda off about this guy, but I can't quite put my finger on it" sort of way), Colin Farrell played him as an obviously sadistic psychopath from his first scene in the remake.  Basically, the remake is absolutely awful.  Really the only good thing about it is the way that they rewrote the "Evil" Ed Thompson character, which was a huge improvement over the original's version of him.

Alas, Fright Night does have a few cringe-worthy flaws that keep me from giving it a perfect rating.  The main character, Charley Brewster, is so hard to believe as a high-schooler (the idea that a high-schooler already borderline believes vampires exist before he's even seen Jerry requires more suspension of disbelief than I have in me ) and he has a Scott Walker-esque dopiness to him that makes it hard to care what happens to him (especially in the first half of the movie, before it goes from horror-comedy to full horror).  This is neutralized somewhat by the fact that the other major protagonist, Peter Vincent, is introduced about 1/3 of the way into the movie and he's such an entertaining character that one can overlook the aforementioned problem most of the time.  The part about no one believing Charley is also not handled well in the sense that while obviously no one would believe him, (with the exceptions of the cop and Peter Vincent who react pretty normally) the dialogue people such as his mom and his girlfriend use when showing they don't believe him just doesn't work (and even with the cop, it only kinda works).  However, the biggest weakness is Charley's girlfriend, the character is very poorly written and simply never works imo.  At least a good 2/3s of her dialogue is either nails-on-chalk board annoying, makes absolutely no sense, is generally cringe-inducing, or some combination of the above (ex: upon finding out that Charley is convinced his neighbor is a vampire, her response is literally "Is this some kind of crazy plan to get me back?").

TL;DR: I'd give this movie a solid A, even though on paper it really "shouldn't" work on any level.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fight Club.

Honestly, the movie was starting to seriously annoy me right before the big twist occurred. This is the example of a twist that works perfectly, because it makes sense and actually explains plot holes instead of creating them (like, why does the protagonist look like the only sane man in the whole gang, and if so, why does he keep putting up with Tyler's crap? Or why does Tyler even bother with him when he has plenty of other people who seem to obey him blindly?). I really admire movies that manage to pull that off.

Still, when you take away the twist, there's not much left. The narrative and visual style is entertaining at first, but I got used to it pretty fast. It's also hard to take seriously at some points, like when it wants us to believe that Tyler built from scratch a terrorist organization so ubiquitous and powerful as to infiltrate the police and evade any sort of prosecution? Come on! But mainly, the film's nihilistic tone gets trite really fast. Maybe it's because this sort of "commentary" was new at the time and has since become painfully mainstream, but there seems to be a lack of self-awareness of how stupid and pretentious this whole "screw society" mindset comes across. It's not cool or edgy. And honestly, every character (even the protagonist we're supposed to root for) in this movie is so unlikable that I ended up not really caring what would happen.

I still end up liking it for the twist, but I've seen a movie with a similar twist (I won't cite the movie to avoid ruining it for you), which had the advantage of having a far more complex and interesting protagonist, being more thrilling, and also being a period piece on the early Cold War period.

[Enduro]

Avengers: Age of Ultron

[RI]

Saw The Martian today.

It was pretty decent, but not nearly as good as its 92% rating on RT. It's the epitome of a movie that tells instead of shows, and the characters aren't really characters as much as chess pieces that exist to make the plot move (more so than in any Nolan film). There's very little tension in a film that should have tension, but the relentlessly jocular tone robs it of any hint that everything will turn out anything but hunky-dory. The movie never slows for introspection or to delve into the internal feelings of any character, even the protagonist. As far as I can tell, there were zero ill psychological effects of being stranded on Mars for nearly two years. The movie is fun, humorous, etc., but it's just so incredibly hollow. Essentially a 2.5 hour talky-montage. I'd rate it about a 6.5/10.

On a side note, I was surprised at just how much this film pushed the PG-13 rating. Not that I'm complaining, but I'm it was interesting to see just how much they got away with. 2+ f-bombs, a scene with lots of blood and profuse bleeding, male nudity, etc.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I saw Sicario last night.  It was alright, but nothing amazing like I was expecting (not awful or anything, just above average).  With a few big exceptions (two scenes in the first third and one near the end), this was a pretty slow, thoughtful film which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it really wasn't advertised as such and that was a bit jarring at first. 

One thing that is clear from this movie is that Denis Villeneuve can create suspense like nobody's business.  Prisoners was an excellent film, but I feel like even a lesser director could've made it very suspenseful even if they failed to pull it off overall.  However, despite being a fairly slow film (especially after the first third), it always feels like everything is building to something absolutely horrifying and this constant sense of dread hangs over even the slowest of scenes.  I suspect that's a pretty tough thing to pull off and if Villeneuve's next movie (The Story of Your Life) has the same sort mounting sense of dread in even the slower scenes then he may well deserve to join directors like David Nutter, John Carpenter circa 1976-1982, and Alfred Hitchcock circa 1951-1963 as one of the great masters of suspense. 

But I digress, there were some other good elements of Sicario that are worth mentioning.  The highlight of the film was definitely Benicio del Toro's performance (easily his best to date), but it's hard to talk too much about why or even his character without spoiling the best part of the movie.  All I'll say is that it's clear from the moment we see him that there is something very dangerous lurking just beneath his calm, quiet demeanor.  As for what that something is, that's the mystery at the heart of Sicario.  For most of the film, he exists on the outer edges of the plot like a single shark fin ominously circling a shipwreck survivor from a distance.  When he finally strikes, well...you really have to see it to fully appreciate it.  I don't think I can do it justice, tbh.  It may not be a flashy enough performance, but I wouldn't be surprised if del Toro gets a best supporting actor nomination, especially if it ends up being a weak year in that category.  That said, he could also easily get lost in the shuffle.  We shall see, not that it really matters or anything

From a technical standpoint, the cinematography was excellent and it is quite possible that Roger Deakins will finally win an Oscar for his work here after 12 (IIRC) previous nominations.  The music was also really good and while it was effectively used in certain scenes to ratchet up the tension and add to the sense of dread that I mentioned earlier, it was never used as a crutch to tell the audience how we're supposed to feel in the heavy-handed, lazy way that it is in certain movies.

TL;DR: For better or worse, Sicario is not the type of movie it has been advertised as and is simply a good, but not great movie with an excellent performance by Benicio del Toro.  It's also the sort of movie where one will likely come away admiring a number of individual components (some of the performances, the cinematography, etc) without necessarily enjoying the movie itself.  As good as some of those individual components are, I'd give the film itself a B-

[Mr. Morden]

Watched "Coherence" last night.  Pretty good movie.  I'm flying back to Australia tonight, so I guess I'll see plenty of movies on the plane.

[7,052,770]

Just saw The Martian. Absolutely loved it and one of my favorite movies of the decade.

[DemPGH]

Reds from 1981. It's a a wonderful, well-written, well-acted bio-drama. Too bad more movies aren't made like that these days.

 
But I digress, there were some other good elements of Sicario that are worth mentioning.  The highlight of the film was definitely Benicio del Toro's performance (easily his best to date), but it's hard to talk too much about why or even his character without spoiling the best part of the movie.  All I'll say is that it's clear from the moment we see him that there is something very dangerous lurking just beneath his calm, quiet demeanor.   

Classic del Toro. When I think of him I think of his performance in Fear and Loathing from 1999.

Gonna see Black Mass this weekend.

Depending upon how that's edited, I think I'd really like to see it. If it's edited so that you get tons and tons of backstory in the first 10 minutes with tons of annoying jump cuts, with shock-value stuff after, I may skip it. If it's paced like a traditional movie, I will absolutely watch it.

[JackV982]

Last movie I saw was "Catch Me If You Can". Overall great movie.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Sicario

[Mr. Morden]

The kid sitting next to me on my flight from LAX to Sydney was probably about 9 or 10 years old (and she was Asian, so Tender Branson would probably mistake her for Kim Jong-un’s sister).

Anyway, I bring this up because the first movie I watched on my personalized video thing was “Mad Max: Fury Road”.  Wow, there are quite a few images in that movie that are liable to induce nightmares.  I tried to block this kid’s line of sight to my screen at the worst parts by cupping my hand over the side of the screen when necessary.  I’m assuming that was good enough, though if not, I blame her mom for not switching seats with her.

[Middle-aged Europe]

The Martian

This may very well be Ridley Scott's best movie since at least American Gangster.

A pretty "hard" science fiction film with beautiful cinematography. Also suprisingly light-hearted and humourous, given the content and the director, but it works. Having an all-star cast consisting of Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Sean Bean doesn't hurt either.

[Mr. Morden]

Just watched "Upstream Color".  WTF was that?

[RI]

Went to Bridge of Spies last night. Great movie. Classic Spielberg. Probably his best since Catch Me If You Can.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Paranormal Activity

It's Halloween Season, and I realized that I have seen almost no scary movie, so might as well try one of the recent hits.

Ugh, it was so boring... 90% of the time, nothing happens except for the couple's antics. And even when stuff happens, it's extremely mild. There are a few slightly creepy moments that feel like they might build up to something big, but they don't really. In addition, the guy is such a colossal moron that it gets distracting. The demon probably did a service to humanity by offing him.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Paranormal Activity was a fun movie to watch in a half-full theater on a late fall night several years ago.

Watched in any other context it's beyond hideously boring.

Also the IMDB boards at the time of its release were some of the most disgusting things on the net at the time, since about half of the discussion was about how the lead actress was "so fat".

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The first two V/H/S movies are probably the best two horror films of recent years and are still quite watchable even outside the original context.

For a non-anthology film, Sinister was very good, although I never saw the sequel as the reviews were atrocious.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thanks for the tip.

[Classic Conservative]

I also went to see Bridge of Spies it was wonderful.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The first two V/H/S movies are probably the best two horror films of recent years and are still quite watchable even outside the original context.

For a non-anthology film, Sinister was very good, although I never saw the sequel as the reviews were atrocious.

I haven't seen either of the V/H/S movies, but I've the first one is good for what it is (didn't know there even was a second one).  That said, I'm still pretty confident The Babadook is the best horror movie in recent years.  I'd highly recommend it, if you haven't seen it.  It's not a slasher film or anything like that, but (at least imo) that is a good thing.  That said, if you prefer slasher-type horror films, I'd recommend You're Next.  It's a slasher film, but it doesn't really have very many of the usual cliches of the slasher sub-genre (ex: with two exceptions, the characters who die don't get killed by acting like complete idiots, there aren't any teenagers who get killed because sex/drugs, a lot of the deaths come as genuine surprises, etc).  In fact, it's so well made and the script is so strong that it really transcends the slasher sub-genre, despite being a slasher film through-and-through.  And without giving anything away, the ending is absolutely perfect (especially the way the end credits begin).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thanks! I think I'll check out at least one of these within the next month or so.

Generally speaking, I'm looking for something scary rather than horrifying. The latter can achieve its goal simply by showing things that we know to be bad (murder, torture, etc), and I have absolutely no interest in that. Scare, on the other hand, relies on the unknown and the presence of a menace that is not entirely defined. It's even possible to write a scary story where nothing bad actually happens. It's all about the psychology.

Now that I think of it, the "gold standard" I have in terms of fear is probably the New Who episode The Empty Child, back when Steve Moffat was still good. It actually haunted my nights for at least a week, and did so again when I rewatched it. And yet it has one of the sweetest and happiest endings in the entire show.