Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[moorman]

Army of Shadows (1969)   I finally got back around to watching this after starting it a few months back.  Jean Pierre Melville is one of my favorite directors.  The movie was OK.  I didn't like the subject matter and didn't particularly like the plot.  Too many key parts were told in dialogue instead of you actually seeing the scenes.  Cinematography wasn't nothing special.  Music score was good.  I rate it a 7.5 out of 10...

[noodles_leone]

Army of Shadows (1969)   I finally got back around to watching this after starting it a few months back.  Jean Pierre Melville is one of my favorite directors.  The movie was OK.  I didn't like the subject matter and didn't particularly like the plot.  Too many key parts were told in dialogue instead of you actually seeing the scenes.  Cinematography wasn't nothing special.  Music score was good.  I rate it a 7.5 out of 10...

What's the problem with the subject matter?

[moorman]

Modern Times (1936)  The final appearance of Charles Chaplin as the Tramp.  This was also his first film to feature any spoken dialogue.  Its still a silent film but Chaplin used extensive sound effects and some dialogue including a song.  This film also featured what I consider " extended " gags.  Seems he would stay with a gag longer in this than in his previous films.   I rate this slightly below his previous work and put it around 9.5 out of 10...

[moorman]

The General (1927)  This is my first Buster Keaton film.  I was surprised to find out it was about the Western and Atlantic Railroad and based on a true story from the Civil War in Georgia.  Since this is my first Keaton film I had no idea how his comedy style would be.  I saw the Kino remastered HD archive print from the original 35mm negative.  The film just pops in HD.  Thats one of the highlights.  I know this film is held in high regard but for some reason I just couldn't get into it.  Maybe its because most of the action was on the trains.  Keaton's gags were good here and there but I think I laughed only a couple of times.  I can see the art in the stunts he was doing and the precision it took in the stunts and gags.  Other than that I couldn't get into it.  Production wise I was also disappointed that the film was done in Oregon and not on location.   I rate it a 6.5 out of 10.   I know its low but thats how I see it right now...

[moorman]

L Atalante  (1934)    Ehhh.  I don't get why this is considered one of the greatest films ever.   Boring plot.  Its the first foreign film I don't like.   6 out of 10...

[drinkanddestroy]

Roma (2018) - 8.5/10

Can you imagine Tarkowski at the top of his game doing a (almost) mainstream movie, grounded in the extremely detailed reality of Mexico in the 70's? This is what you get here and this is objectively a masterpiece that is both intimate and epic, comic and tragic, social and metaphysical. It's been released 3 days ago and saying it's pure cinema is already a cliché. In a non absurd world it would be nominated at the academy awards in most categories, and win all the major ones. Now I'm only giving it 8.5 because it's a subjective rating and I have problems with this kind of main characters.

Objectively:

Cinematography: 15/10
Performances: 9/10
Screenplay: 10/10
World creation: 12/10
Ambition: 10/10

WTF

I was tearing my hair out halfway through waiting for this shit to end.

I agree that the performances, cinematography and world creation are great. But I find nothing interesting about this story. This movie gets a 5.5/10

I've noticed that lately, you're throwing words "objectively" into your comments, to try to throw extra weight behind supporting shit, like this movie and Orson Welles 

Oh, that dramatic beach scene is done (as I recall) in one take, and that is indeed great.

[noodles_leone]

 

I knew you would never like it.

And I know i’ve been using “objectively”, because film reviewing has to (try to) be from time to time. When a movie is an influential masterpiece, nobody (and I mean it) cares if you liked it or not , if it’s your thing or not. And very few care if it’s flawed (they usually are because ambition and radicality tend to lead to bypassing stuff you aren’t supposed to). It changes history and opens a new path for filmmakers so why the hell am I going to waste my time listening to people - like me - who didn’t like the main character?

Now, it’s easier to call Citizen Kane an influential masterpiece than a movie like Roma, because for the later I don’t have decades of clearly influenced (for the better) films to show. But if there was mone at stake, that’s where I would place my bet, pretty confidently.

I may totally be wrong, though. For instance I sometimes wonder wether I have somehow overstated There Will Be Blood’s influence. Maybe it was already part of a starting trend and not the only big milestone.

So please don’t read my use of “objectively” as “i’m right and you’re wrong” but more as “you’re totally off topic” 

[dave jenkins]

I sometimes wonder wether I have somehow overstated There Will Be Blood’s influence.

I have no such uncertainty.

[moorman]

WTF

I was tearing my hair out halfway through waiting for this shit to end.

I agree that the performances, cinematography and world creation are great. But I find nothing interesting about this story. This movie gets a 5.5/10

I've noticed that lately, you're throwing words "objectively" into your comments, to try to throw extra weight behind supporting shit, like this movie and Orson Welles 

Oh, that dramatic beach scene is done (as I recall) in one take, and that is indeed great.

LMAO...      AND ....  I feel the same way about Orson Welles.   Every movie I have seen of his is garbage with the exception of Citizen Kane being passable and Lady from Shanghai viewable on a boring night...

[noodles_leone]

I have no such uncertainty.

You don't even know the meaning of the word