Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[titoli]

The wife liked it.

Uhmm, that means she didn't. So it might be good in the end. Still, judging from the trailer and watching LDC (the only actor rivalling Cruise as to ineptitude in the trade) I still don't buy it.   

[titoli]

If I told you the "if only" I'd be giving the plot away.

I presume you're referring to the moronic finale...

[cigar joe]

I presume you're referring to the moronic finale...

See it when you can.

[titoli]

See it when you can.

Tarantino and the cast will present the movie over here next friday. I won't go.

[cigar joe]

Tarantino and the cast will present the movie over here next friday. I won't go.

It's well done and pretty restrained, it's closest to Jackie Brown than any of his other films, it has references to American TV Westerns and Italian Westerns, Dean Martin, I liked it a lot.

[titoli]

It's well done and pretty restrained, it's closest to Jackie Brown than any of his other films, it has references to American TV Westerns and Italian Westerns, Dean Martin, I liked it a lot.

The fact is that all the last Tarantino's movies (with the possible exception of KB) were under par. And I detest LDC, even more than Cruise. As usual, there's a lot of praise in the first days of release but I won't buy it. Which I'll try to do, on the contrary, for the next Scorsese's mafia romp.

[cigar joe]

I liked Brad Pitt's stunt double buddy character quite a bit more than LDC, it's probably my favorite performance now of Pitt, but they are still both good in this along with the pit bull, Brad Pitt's dog. This one is quite a bit above par and a lot of fum to watch.   Damian Lewis looks like Steve McQueen reincarnated. Al Pacino plays a Hollywood big shot.

There is also a pretty funny bit between Brad Pitt and with Mike Moh as Bruce Lee.

Pry some Euros out of the safe and take a gamble on it you'll enjoy yourself.

P.S. Did you watch Gunn (1967)?

[titoli]

P.S. Did you watch Gunn (1967)?

Not yet. Have you seen American Made?

[cigar joe]

Not yet. Have you seen American Made?

Next on my list

[noodles_leone]

Cul de Sac (1966) 8/10

I had never seen it and finally caught it on Arte's replay. Mostly thanks to Mike Siegel's enthusiasm about the movie. It lived up to the hype, although Pleasance is often too heavy handed for my taste here. I'm not sure Polanski ever tried again to create such a powerful and (especially) in your nose imagery... I wish he did.

Made me think of Sergio Leone's picaresque characters and Peckinpah's Straw Dogs quite a bit.

[noodles_leone]

Midsommar (2019) - 4 and 9

The story and characters are irredeemably bad / weak.

The technical merits are astounding, especially: pacing, cinematography, sound design. Some very good performances, some very weak ones.

It's also quite funny.

Taking the best parts of Hereditary and merging them with the best parts of Midsommar = one of the best horror films ever made.

There's so much I want to really, really love about Midsommar but I can't get past the basic flaws.

I really just wanna know what n_l has to say

More or less the same thing. The characters are the main flaw here, which wasn’t the case in Hereditary. You cannot have weak/cliché characters in a “prestige” horror film, that’s the rule.

I’ll still buy it on iTunes, it’s still one of the most inspiring films of the year and i’ll still run into a theater for his next film.

[dave jenkins]

CONTAINS MILD SPOILERS
Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood (2019). 35mm projection. 5/10. I found this hugely disappointing. The writing is flaccid and lazy and the directing is not much better. Most of the acting is awful—Lenny 3CpO is almost never good and here he is doing an awful accent (but maybe the character he’s playing doesn’t want to break character and this is a way of showing that Rick Dalton isn’t much of an actor). That broad from The Wolf of Wall Street is embarrassing. The one good performance is Brad Pitt’s. The highlight of the film is the scene where his character goes to Spahn Ranch and has the initial confrontation with the Mansons. But the rest is pointless and the ending is QT just rehearsing a trick he’s done better before. The biggest problem with the film is that it relies on viewers’ knowledge of 1969 for basic things like motivation and suspense, things that should be supplied by the film itself. And for all the vaunted authenticity—“Tarantino recreates 1969!”—there’s a shot where Brad Pitt turns on to the freeway and we see sound reduction walls on the side of the road. Needless to say, such things did not exist in 1969, and QT could have had them digitally removed but didn’t bother to. Why? I’m sure it was because he was in a hurry to get the thing done and assumed no one would notice. There’s a general cheapness to the production: when a character smokes an acid cigarette we never see things from his point of view while he’s tripping. No love for SFX, Quentin? Another thing adding to the film’s cheapjack quality: the voice-over is badly recorded, and the narration is supplied by Kurt Russell, who is playing a character in the film but that character is NOT narrating I don’t think, or if he is the point is confusing. And why does there have to be narration anyway? Answer: it covers the gaps in the plot QT couldn’t be bothered to fill in other better ways. The man making films these days who goes by the name Tarantino is not at all the creative force he was in  the 90s. It’s very sad.

[noodles_leone]

The film will only be released in 2 weeks here so I don’t know what i’ll Think of it. I have been watching recent QT interviews though, and I’ve noticed a big difference with older interviews: he seems much more relaxed and sincere than he was. Which is a good thing for him as a human being because I guess he’s much happier and at peace with himself now that’s he’s not lying on every possible topic just to prove to us (and thus to himself) that he’s cool as hell, but i’m Not sure it’s a good thing for his work.

Now that’s just what I feel listening to him. But it also matches what he says. There is an interview somewhere where he describes the way he writes, his process. According to him, he used to write all night long. And that state of urgency, of transe, was part of his process. Now he writes during the day, until something like 6pm, on his balcony, in front of a beautiful view of Hollywood hills or something. Then he goes to his swimming pool and “meditate” there for 2 hours or so, and takes notes of what came from there’s and he stops.

According to him it makes him much happier. He also says he tries to make his set a happy place for everybody, because “it’s our duty to take he films we make seriously, but also having a good time making them”. This is all great for everybody involved but i’m far from convinced it’s rest for the audience.

I’d take a hungry, bullshiting, somewhat angry Tarantino instead of a happy one any day. Making great films often requires some actual struggle and fight.

[noodles_leone]

Don’t Look Now (1974) 8,5/10
I’d appreciate if you guys could let me know when such gems exist.

[cigar joe]

CONTAINS MILD SPOILERS
Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood (2019). 35mm projection. 5/10. I found this hugely disappointing. The writing is flaccid and lazy and the directing is not much better. Most of the acting is awful—Lenny 3CpO is almost never good and here he is doing an awful accent (but maybe the character he’s playing doesn’t want to break character and this is a way of showing that Rick Dalton isn’t much of an actor). That broad from The Wolf of Wall Street is embarrassing. The one good performance is Brad Pitt’s. The highlight of the film is the scene where his character goes to Spahn Ranch and has the initial confrontation with the Mansons. But the rest is pointless and the ending is QT just rehearsing a trick he’s done better before. The biggest problem with the film is that it relies on viewers’ knowledge of 1969 for basic things like motivation and suspense, things that should be supplied by the film itself. And for all the vaunted authenticity—“Tarantino recreates 1969!”—there’s a shot where Brad Pitt turns on to the freeway and we see sound reduction walls on the side of the road. Needless to say, such things did not exist in 1969, and QT could have had them digitally removed but didn’t bother to. Why? I’m sure it was because he was in a hurry to get the thing done and assumed no one would notice. There’s a general cheapness to the production: when a character smokes an acid cigarette we never see things from his point of view while he’s tripping. No love for SFX, Quentin? Another thing adding to the film’s cheapjack quality: the voice-over is badly recorded, and the narration is supplied by Kurt Russell, who is playing a character in the film but that character is NOT narrating I don’t think, or if he is the point is confusing. And why does there have to be narration anyway? Answer: it covers the gaps in the plot QT couldn’t be bothered to fill in other better ways. The man making films these days who goes by the name Tarantino is not at all the creative force he was in  the 90s. It’s very sad.

Totally disagree. The recreation of 1969 was spot on, it's way more than than a few cars (as titoli seems to think) or something that is easily dispelled by the inclusion of a sound wall. I sure didn't see one BTW I was more interested in the performances in the vignettes that magically linked us back to a time period.

He got that evolving end of the 50s early and mid 60s zietigest perfect. Dean Martin, Westerns on TV, Cigarette commercials Bruce Lee, hippies, etc., etc. The acid cigarette sequence did indicate that Pitt was seeing trails (the effect of the LSD) it was vividly demonstrated to the cognoscenti of all the pleasures the "sixties" had to offer. Why would we have to see things from his POV? That would be the expected thing from a cheapjack CGI production. Maybe you should go to see too many blockbusters.

I didn't notice the voice over, I did notice Kurt Russell, I don't know WTF your're talking about. Maybe you should watch it again, titoli I can forgive since he wasn't in the USA during the 60s so he'd have nothing to judge it by except the obvious, the old cars.