Jump to content

What Was The Last Movie You Watched?


Rugster

Recommended Posts

Interstellar

Wasnt a bad film however did end up a bit all over the place. Considering its nearly 3 hours long, i dont think i would invest that time watching it again. Some of the space shots etc are exceptional though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kingsman. Not awful but not the sophisticated and witty spoof I was promised by the reviews. Two laugh out loud moments, one involving a church, and the other Scandinavian royalty and the word arse.

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched Mud this evening. Kind of an update of Huckleberry Finn, with 2 teenage boys finding a fugitive living on a small island in the Mississippi river. The performances were top notch, especially Matthew McConaughey in the title role and the 2 boys. Great supporting roles too for Sam Shepard, Reese Witherspoon, Joe Don Baker et al..

Good story, well acted, well paced and well told.

8/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Gambler - 5/10. Thought this was going to be so much better than it was. Really disappointed.

The Interview - 7/10. This was the total opposite from The Gambler. Was pleasently surprised at how much I enjoyed it. Total nonsense and great fun for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been using the old cineworld card recently:

American Sniper 8/10 - didn't think it was quite as God Bless 'Murica as some

The Gambler - 6/10 meh

Ex Machina 7/10 - bit on the slow side but I enjoyed it.

Kingsman 8/10 - really enjoyed this, very good fun.

Big Hero 6 - 7/10 - nothing earth shattering but again good fun. Beymax will be the next must have toy I suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tales of the Grim Sleeper 7.5/10

Not always a fan of Nick Broomfield docos but this one is really good. Horrific tale of a serial killer operating in south central Los Angeles for 25 years, raped and killed dozens of women but because they were black prostitutes and crack addicts the police did not give a solitary f**k, never really even bothered to investigate it, he was only caught by a fluke in the end. It was as much a portrait of the area as it was the story of a serial killer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inherent Vice

The first thing I have to say about Paul Thomas Anderson's new film is that the plot is too hard to follow. I get the feeling that after multiple viewings I'll discover that the story makes sense, that it isn't contrived but actually incredibly clever, but on the first watch I think one has to take the plot out of the equation and just enjoy the ride- in my doing so, the results were very satisfying. Indeed, the film has no need for a plot; the main focus on the personalities and relationships is a story in itself- even in a PI mystery Paul Thomas Anderson was brave enough to draw primarily on the characters, because with the characters he writes, that's compelling enough.

Earlier in his career people were claiming Anderson as the next Scorsese, but as his career develops there seems to be more of a streetwise Terrence Malick in his filmmaking. Whether you like it or not, in cinema narrative can be anything, and there are more ways than one to handle it. Anderson is trying to unlock new methods of storytelling, and just like There Will Be Blood and The Master this is a work of discovery, one of the most forward-thinking 21st century movies, whose original and complex characters, moods and focuses manage to reach interesting and strange new depths. It plays a bit like a unique film noir- narrated not by the usual hard-nosed voice of a male protagonist but by a whiny Californian female who seems to be talking to both us and the hero. It isn’t up there with my favourite private detective movies, like Chinatown or Vertigo, but I think it draws lots of comparisons with them- definitely in the character focus, and the strange portrait of the setting, through which the film takes a downward journey- those are two of the most important things that this film gets right.

This is not Anderson’s best film but I believe it is his best portrait of California. Set in the year of his birth, I got a real feeling that this film is at least partly about himself- in many ways it's indulgent but to any fan of the director that should be heaven. The film takes you into 1970, and when you're watching it it really is 1970- the clothes, cars, constantly-changing haircuts and interior designs are right on. All over it you can see the post-1960s decline of flower power and identity crises of "hippies-for-life" in transition; the drugs- a staple part of the California diet; the sex- which is casual, including prostitution and statutory paedophilia, contrasted with the establishment's unashamed fascism and institutional homophobia- leading to mass closet homosexuality.

Phoenix and Anderson’s last creation, Freddie Quell, was an ex-marine obsessed with sex and alcohol. This protagonist is a private investigator named Larry Sportello, known as "Doc". At first glance his inherent vice appears to be hallucinogens, but as the narrator later points out, especially in liberal '70s CA, his biggest problem might be with his "ex-old lady" from whom he's never been completely free- uninvited, she infrequently reappears into and disappears from his topsy-turvy life, and all the while his drug-influenced pursuits as a private detective get him into very strange situations- those are the ones that are hard to understand. When there are scenes of a sexual nature or sudden bursts of action, the sex isn't voyeuristic or exploitative, and the violence comes in the form of very strange, dazed and confused nightmare scenarios- none of those are exactly straight-forward either.

When Doc meets his clients he takes notes, not about the case, but about the person- and ultimately I think that’s what Paul Thomas Anderson is trying to do with cinema. That's part of why I think he's one of the most important filmmakers around- although I'm not sure whether I'd prefer him to do something more simple or to go even further. Whatever he does, there will be no dip in quality or technical excellence- he’s right to show so much confidence in his own style, which avoids all the traps and clichés of the standard, and eludes genre and classification. Whatever you think of the script, I'm sure anyone will agree that is the triumph of Inherent Vice.

9/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Most Violent Year

About as deliberately paced a movie as you'll find that doesn't outstay it's welcome. I DO think it drags at times, and it brings the score down a touch, but I don't think the movie would have the same impact without the pace that it had, which is why I say it doesn't outstay it's welcome. Any quicker and it becomes a different movie. The performances are magnificent, especially from Oscar Isaac who is one of very few actors who strikes me as just a total class act.

8/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billy Dynamite, on 06 Feb 2015 - 22:35, said:

Thought his character was the best ive seen in a new movie for a long time.

I think his progression is where the pace was so vital. You couldn't get from point A to point B so believably if you start rushing everything. And so it seems like a very gradual shift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...