Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[dave jenkins]

Dredd (2012) 7/10. I missed this in theaters, and so missed seeing it in 3D. I was going to miss it on blu-ray also, until web chatter convinced me it was worth a look. Turns out, it’s worth several. The story is suspiciously close to the one in The Raid: Redemption (2011), but that, apparently, is not the fault of Dredd—although TR:R was released first, the internet informs me that Dredd was written first, and TR:R is the copy. Whatever. The basic premise—a hero must navigate the inside of a skyscraper in which every hand is turned against him—is a Kirby concept that goes back at least to Mister Miracle #3 and #4 (1971). I didn’t enjoy The Raid: Redemption all that much—the fighting was good, but visually the film was nowhere. Part of the problem was that since it was set in a slum building, the murky lighting made the action difficult to see. There’s no such problem with Dredd—in the future, decaying apartment buildings are very well lit. Not only that, because there are things in use like an illicit drug called “slo-mo” the filmmakers have license to present certain scenes in, you know, slo-mo. And, wow. You will believe that blood sqibs can be abstract art. Throughout the movie, great attention has been paid to the look of everything. There are a number of Leonesque shots using close-ups or big heads placed to the side of the frame—unusual for a film composed for 3D. There is CGI, of course, but not as much as you’d expect—some fx were achieved with nothing more than compressed air and a very fast camera. All in all, the film is visually sumptuous; this is the first time I can remember when, having seen a film flat, I was immediately curious to see it in 3D.
 
The solid plot unspools at a terrific clip—it’s all over in 95 minutes. Performances are good: Karl Urban’s chin as Judge Dredd (the Judge NEVER removes his helmet), and a nicely scarred Lena Headey as the top baddie (her final gambit, making her interrupted heartbeat the trigger for a conflagration, is also a Kirby concept—from Uncanny X-Men #9 (1965)). Then there is Olivia Thirlby, who plays a rookie cop partnered with Dredd for her Training Day. Entering danger without her helmet, she is cautioned by Dredd. She replies that her helmet  interferes with her telepathic powers (she’s a mutant). That gives the actress an excuse to show her lovely face for the rest of the film. It also gives Dredd an opening for a dead-pan quip. There are a lot of those—but also one hellacious body count—in this very entertaining film.

What he said.

[dave jenkins]

Vous n'avez encore rien vu / You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet (2012) - 8/10. Alain Resnais finds a very interesting way to adapt a play by Jean Anouilh. With Mathieu Amalric as "Mathieu Amalric," Pierre Arditi as "Pierre Arditi," Sabine Azéma as "Sabine Azéma"... that sort of thing. Who will be the first to say meta-theater? Inventive and enjoyable.

[noodles_leone]

The Apartment (Billy Wilder, 1960) 7.5/10
After a slow, repetitive and somewhat corny start, the film gets really better. Great fast paced dialogues, cool characters that are brought to life by very good performances and gorgeous cinematography. I really don't care about the numerous plot holes: it's a wonderful script. I like how the subplots are tied together and the way everything is (un)resolved.

[stanton]

Dredd 8/10

I easily agree. A pleasure to watch.

The Apartment 7/10

I agree also. Nice, but overrated film, and of course overlong, like nearly every Wilder film.

Silence (not always golden) ?/10

If it is boring as hell it shouldn't get more than 2/10 on the entertainometer, even if it shows some craftsmanship.

[noodles_leone]

The Apartment 7/10

I agree also. Nice, but overrated film, and of course overlong, like nearly every Wilder film.

Wilder films are overlong, and I was very worried when I saw the film was still gonna last 45min at a point when I thought we were 5 to 10 minutes from the ending... but it worked.

Silence (not always golden) ?/10

If it is boring as hell it shouldn't get more than 2/10 on the entertainometer, even if it shows some craftsmanship.

THE RATING OF A FILM LIKE SILENCE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENTERTAINOMETER. Being bored may say a lot about the box office flop a movie is going to be, but it often says nothing about the actual value of it.

[dave jenkins]

The Apartment (Billy Wilder, 1960) 7.5/10
I like how the subplots are tied together and the way everything is (un)resolved.

A little too pat for me. More like a filmed drama than cinema.

[drinkanddestroy]

THE RATING OF A FILM LIKE SILENCE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENTERTAINOMETER. Being bored may say a lot about the box office flop a movie is going to be, but it often says nothing about the actual value of it.

"Entertainment" does not have to mean action or exploitation or sex or funny lines or laughs. It's the simple issue of "Are you enjoying watching this?" If you are miserable and tearing your hair out and screaming at the screen, "Just be over already," then a movie is a failure. Both as entertainment and as art. And it deserves a low rating.

[stanton]

Wilder films are overlong, and I was very worried when I saw the film was still gonna last 45min at a point when I thought we were 5 to 10 minutes from the ending... but it worked.

THE RATING OF A FILM LIKE SILENCE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENTERTAINOMETER. Being bored may say a lot about the box office flop a movie is going to be, but it often says nothing about the actual value of it.

No it says nothing about how a film works at the box office, but how I enjoy a film. And my enjoyment is the main value after which I rate films. Cause all my ratings are of course very subjective (like actually every other rating also imo)

But what bores me and what entertains me has a lot to do how a film is directed, how the narrative works. Interesting characters in interesting stories are of course also important, but if there isn't something more in a film, it is never more than a 8.

So if Silence is boring as hell I would give it a 2 maybe even a 3, but only if I'm still able to see still some other qualities in it. But mostly boring films are poorly made.

[noodles_leone]

No. The two of you.

Of course, also, Drink was really talking (for Silence) about having virtually no interest in the characters and their repetitive actions, which deserves a bad rating... but would say that in that case, boredom is just a symptom, not an evidence. Of course if you're "miserable and tearing your hair out and screaming at the screen", it's probably a terrible movie. But I really don't mind being a little bored here and there as long as it's for good reasons (a pinch of ambiguity, a weird scene/subplot that a Marvel script doctor would have cut out but that actually flesh out the characters a lot and show you the real heart of the movie...).

Stanton, I think we've talked about this previously. I have no problem admitting that every single Kubrick film, many (good) Hitchcock ones and even most Leone ones get me bored at some point. I really don't mind as it's often the price to pay for greatness. Now, as a director/editor, I'll do my best to avoid anything boring in my films, but that's mostly a marketing issue to me: there are so much MORE things about movies that "is it entertaining?".

Blaise Pascal approves.

[drinkanddestroy]

No. The two of you.

Of course, also, Drink was really talking (for Silence) about having virtually no interest in the characters and their repetitive actions, which deserves a bad rating... but would say that in that case, boredom is just a symptom, not an evidence. Of course if you're "miserable and tearing your hair out and screaming at the screen", it's probably a terrible movie. But I really don't mind being a little bored here and there as long as it's for good reasons (a pinch of ambiguity, a weird scene/subplot that a Marvel script doctor would have cut out but that actually flesh out the characters a lot and show you the real heart of the movie...).

Stanton, I think we've talked about this previously. I have no problem admitting that every single Kubrick film, many (good) Hitchcock ones and even most Leone ones get me bored at some point. I really don't mind as it's often the price to pay for greatness. Now, as a director/editor, I'll do my best to avoid anything boring in my films, but that's mostly a marketing issue to me: there are so much MORE things about movies that "is it entertaining?".

Blaise Pascal approves.

I am not talking about being bored for a few minutes here or there. I am talking about not enjoying the film at all. Being miserable for 160 minutes at the film's existence. Hell, for much of that time, I was miserable for my own existence.

I'm not even breaking it down by whether there are interesting characters or whatever. If I do not enjoy watching a film, then as far as I am concerned it is a failure.

Great entertainment does not equal great art, but without entertainment a movie cannot be great art. Entertainment is a necessary but not sufficient factor in a movie being great art. Often, it's circular: The very fact that it is great art is what makes the movie entertaining. But bottom line is that if I do not enjoy watching a movie, then as far as I am concerned it is crap. And I give no deference to whether it's Scorsese who directed the movie or anyone else. There are no good and bad directors, only good and bad movies  

[noodles_leone]

That's exactly why I said no

[drinkanddestroy]

Silence, Monster Trucks, Live by Night Flop at box office

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/hidden-figures-monster-trucks-live-by-night-ben-affleck-1201960810/

I have cut-and-pasted the full article below. If you want to skip to the paragraphs about Silence, they are in orange

Box Office: ‘Hidden Figures’ Prevails as ‘Monster Trucks,’ Ben Affleck’s ‘Live by Night’ Bomb

By Brent Lang

It’s bombs away at the multiplexes.

Family film “Monster Trucks” tanked when it debuted over the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, while Ben Affleck’s “Live by Night” and Martin Scorsese’s “Silence” suffered moribund national expansions. Their failures will lead to tens of millions of dollars in red ink for the studios that backed them. “Sleepless,” an action-thriller with Jamie Foxx, also suffered an underwhelming opening, getting lost in the onslaught of new releases.

“There’s almost an unprecedented number of films out there,” said Paul  Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at comScore. “It’s got to be somewhat daunting and overwhelming for moviegoers.”

Amidst the carnage, Fox and Chernin Entertainment’s”Hidden Figures” retained its box office crown in its second weekend of wide release, earning $20.5 million for the weekend and a projected $25.3 million for the long weekend. That will push its total to $59.7 million. The historical drama about African-American NASA workers during the early days of the space program has been one of the biggest breakouts of awards season.

“Hidden Figures” faced stiff competition from Lionsgate’s “La La Land,” riding high after sweeping the Golden Globe Awards, and STX’s “The Bye Bye Man,” which earned $14.5 million and $13.4 million, respectively. “La La Land” is widely expected to dominate the Oscar nominations. The musical about lovestruck Angelenos should finish the four-day weekend with another $17.5 million in domestic receipts, which would bring its stateside total to more than $77 million.

“The Bye Bye Man’s” strong reception is welcome news for STX, which had expected the film to open to roughly $10 million. The horror movie about college students grappling with a deadly supernatural figure cost less than $8 million to produce. It should make $15 million over the four-day holiday. Studio executives said they weren’t afraid of the crush of new releases heading into the weekend, because they felt they were the only film targeted to younger females. STX also wanted to release the picture on Friday the 13th, a marketing hook for scary movies.

“We knew we were going to be able to get that core audience of females,” said Kevin Grayson, STX’s domestic distribution president. “Not only did they go on Friday, they continued to go all weekend.”

Heading into the weekend, most analysts expected CBS Films and Lionsgate’s “Patriots Day” to put up more of a fight. The drama about the Boston Marathon Bombing earned $12 million after moving from seven theaters to 3,120 locations. It could make $14.3 million over the four-day stretch. That’s below projections — analysts expected the film to earn as much as $18 million. However, the studios believe that “Patriots Day” could benefit from enthusiastic word-of-mouth. Audiences gave the film a rare A+ CinemaScore.

“Monster Trucks'” failure seemed preordained. Last year, Paramount took a $115 million write-down on the film. “Monster Trucks'” reception justified that fiscal white-flag waving. It opened to a pallid $10.5 million and a projected $14.1 million over the holiday, a disastrous result given its $125 million budget.

“The movie works for the audience it’s intended to work for,” said Megan Colligan, Paramount’s marketing and distribution head. “It did really well in the midwest and south. It was over 50 percent kids. The balance was good between boys and girls…without a whole lot of competition, it will keep plugging along.”

Paramount has hit a rough patch. The studio was embroiled in a corporate power struggle that pitted the controlling Redstone family against Philippe Dauman, the former chairman of Paramount’s parent company Viacom. The Redstones ultimately prevailed, but the pressure is now on Paramount chief Brad Grey to prove he can deliver more hits. The studio scored with “Fences” and “Arrival,” but lost millions on the likes of “Allied,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows,” and “Ben-Hur.”

“Live by Night’s” troubles will hit Affleck hard. He directed, produced, and wrote the Dennis LeHane adaptation, and took a starring role as a charismatic rum runner. Warner Bros. is releasing the $65 million production. It earned a sallow $5.4 million and should end the four-day holiday with just over $6 million, which more or less leaves the gangster picture on the slab. Affleck should be on firmer commercial ground reprising his Dark Knight role in “Justice League” later this year.

Open Road’s “Sleepless” didn’t fare too well either, although it cost significantly less than “Live by Night” and “Monster Trucks.” The $30 million production stars Foxx as a morally compromised cop whose extracurricular activities endanger his son. It kicked off with a meagre $8.5 million and should end the long weekend with $10.1 million in the till. The studio says that “Sleepless” will make its way into the black because Open Road covered its financial exposure by selling foreign distribution rights and through tax rebates.

“Given our economics, this $10 million opening on ‘Sleepless’ will certainly become profitable for Open Road,” said a spokeswoman.

Then there’s “Silence,” a decades-in-the-making religious drama. Scorsese struggled for years to cobble together the financing for this story about Jesuit priests who risk torture and death to spread the gospel in feudal Japan, but audiences seemed to have little appetite for his rumination on faith. “Silence” expanded from 51 theaters to 747 locations, earning just over $2 million for the long weekend. The $50 million film was financed independently. Paramount is distributing the picture.

“Marty Scorsese is one of the greatest living filmmakers,” said Colligan. “He’s earned the right to independently finance a movie and make the movie he wants to make. This is a complicated, beautiful film, one that movie critics have named the best of the year and one that will be taught in film schools for years. It needs to be judged on its merits.”

Holdovers “Sing” and “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” continued to show strength, with both films earning roughly $13.8 million. “Sing,” the latest collaboration between the “Despicable Me” team of Universal and Illumination, has earned $237.2 million stateside. “Rogue One” is now the top-grossing 2016 release with more than $500 million in receipts. It will cross the $1 billion mark at the global box office this week.

[stanton]

No. The two of you.

Of course, also, Drink was really talking (for Silence) about having virtually no interest in the characters and their repetitive actions, which deserves a bad rating... but would say that in that case, boredom is just a symptom, not an evidence. Of course if you're "miserable and tearing your hair out and screaming at the screen", it's probably a terrible movie. But I really don't mind being a little bored here and there as long as it's for good reasons (a pinch of ambiguity, a weird scene/subplot that a Marvel script doctor would have cut out but that actually flesh out the characters a lot and show you the real heart of the movie...).

Stanton, I think we've talked about this previously. I have no problem admitting that every single Kubrick film, many (good) Hitchcock ones and even most Leone ones get me bored at some point. I really don't mind as it's often the price to pay for greatness. Now, as a director/editor, I'll do my best to avoid anything boring in my films, but that's mostly a marketing issue to me: there are so much MORE things about movies that "is it entertaining?".

Of course, there is more, but being entertaining is the first step. I say if it is not entertaining for me, it is not good, or in other words it is not art (for me), being entertaining is the basic approach, and from that on it might get better and better, or in other words more and more fascinating.

And the real great ones like e.g. OUTW or The Wild Bunch or 2001 or Eight and a Half or Mulholland Drive are not for a nanosecond boring but instead extremely fascinating. Orgiastic stuff ...

No, if a film bores me in parts there's something wrong with it, it won't become a 10/10. Of course it can be fascinating in parts and boring in parts, but then I don't call it a masterpiece. A masterpiece can have a few flaws, it must not necessarily a perfect film (only few are), but it never is allowed to bore me.

I think it is wrong to say that something is great art even if I can't connect with it. It is more important to feel films, than to understand them, but the best films (songs, books, comics) speak mostly to both, body and mind.

[noodles_leone]

I don't see why "not being boring for a couple of minutes" is a cardinal virtue but I guess it's just personal taste.

[stanton]

I don't see why "not being boring for a couple of minutes" is a cardinal virtue but I guess it's just personal taste.

It is not a cardinal virtue or a rule, it simply don't happens in the absolute great ones. I was bored in parts the first time I watched 2001 or Irreversible, but later, when I got into the films, when I began to feel them, they did not bore me anymore, and it is now mostly mesmerizing to watch them.

There is a common ides of what is entertainment and what not. Most people would say that Star Wars is entertaining and 2001 is boring (but art), but for me 2001 is greast entertainment, sand the alst time I wathced the first Star Wars I was often bored.
I understand what people mean when they speak about things being entertainment, but individually that might not correspondent with ones personal taste.