Rate the last movie you've seen

[MinionZombie]

Dirty Cops Written and Directed by Cedric Anger, this French flick is a curious one. It's about two undercover cops who take over a strip joint/peep show in order to take down money launderers in 1982, but they get a bit too wrapped up in the life and end up producing an adult feature film. It's drama with a hint of comedy and a lot of nostalgia and and oddly wistful, even familial, vibe. It's beautifully shot, and there's a liberal approach to nudity, but the storytelling is where the film falters. The characters lack depth for the most part, with only hints at darker sides or troubles, but anything deeper gets kind of abandoned - the same can be said of the plot, which is almost entirely lacking in conflict or any real stakes. Again, you get hints of possible conflict here or there, but routinely these possible plot threads are then dropped as quickly as they're introduced. It's a bit of a meandering film, but in some ways that really works, and the 'small band of filmmakers making a movie' aspect that comes into the film's second half has a charming quaintness to it. Much like the script, the pacing and tone is a little bit all over the place, with moments of farce (the cops bickering on a stake out) clashing with moments of drama (the mutton-chopped copper's outburst at his daughter's tennis practice), and the way the story itself is told is also quite scattered and patchy. It comes flying out the gates with a shedload of nudity and sex in the first half hour (with a whiff of half-gas Gaspar Noe), then it all gets fairly gentle and quiet, and then it turns into a wistful porn film shoot. We rarely properly understand where most of the characters are coming from, with certain developments just kind of breezing by and then wafting away, while many of their actions go entirely without any real consequence for good or bad. Yeah, it's an odd movie. There's various aspects to really like about it, but the storytelling is the big flaw, although at the same time it's never "bad" - but with a more developed story it could have been so much more.

[shootemindehead]

'The Lighthouse' Robert Eggers follow-up to 2015's 'The Witch', sees him tackle a surrealist psychological nightmare set in a New England Lighthouse at the turn of the century. Thomas Wake (Willem Defoe) is an elderly, cantankerous, senior lighthouse keeper who has been sent Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a "wickie" that is to labour under his tutelage. Without wanting to give too much away, things quickly go awry and all is certainly not how it should be, as the two characters appear to descend into madness. 'The Lighthouse' is definitely not going to be to everyone's taste. But for what it is, it's a very good effort at telling an offbeat story that's disturbing, engrossing and bizarre. It may feel over long for some and the technical aspects can be off-putting, but Eggers is to be commended for putting out a film that doesn't even remotely resemble the vast majority of modern cinema fare and for telling a story that wouldn't get a green light from any major studio. And while the story will please fans of odd horror and readers of H.P. Lovecraft, it's the excellent performances by the two leads that is the film's heartbeat. Defoe is absolutely brilliant as the old sea dog who grunts his way through, ostensibly, period dialogue and is thoroughly convincing as the deeply unpleasant head keeper. Pattinson, too, has well and truly thrown off the shackles of sparkly vampires and throws himself into his role revealing himself to be an actor that has completely outgrown his twee 'Twilight' introduction. Atmosphere is oppressive from the very beginning and the sound design by Damian Volpe adds an immense amount to the picture. The subtle soundscapes provide a sense of unease and dread that become almost a character in itself. It's as mad as the two lighthouse occupants and as gloomy as the island the glowing fixture sits upon. The black and white cinematography, by Jarin Blaschke, is delightfully crisp and has a stark beauty, emulating late 19th Century photography and everything looks remarkably authentic. Just like with its sonic values, visually, it's superb...but with personal reservations. The film, while looking great, is shot in an aspect ratio of 1.19:1 which creates almost a square shape that, I have to admit, was extremely irritating for me. And while I am aware of the reasons for directors wanting to use narrower ratios, which is becoming more and more of a gimmick for some these days, 'The Lighthouse' would have lost nothing if it had been shot in 1.85:1 and would have retained the claustrophobic nature that Eggers was trying for in his choice of 1.19:1. Although, I will say that I am generally not a fan of 4:3 in the majority of cases and find the arguments for its use unconvincing, but your mileage may vary. 'The Lighthouse' is a very good and intense film, that will leave viewers thinking about just exactly what it was they saw for a long time after the credits roll. It's hard to pin down and may be a bit rough to digest. But, it'll be worth the time spending a while with its two nutcases on its miserable rock. 8/10 'Shaun the Sheep' Shaun the sheep longs for a day off of Mossy Bottom Farm because he's bored of the daily routine. He and his fellow animals plan to deceive the farmer, but things go horribly wrong and sees Shaun, the other sheep and Bitzer the dog stuck in the "Big City", hunted by animal control and trying to find the farmer, who has ended up with a bout of amnesia from a knock on the head. Having never been that big a fan Aardman's Wallace and Gromit outings, which I found charming but unable to hold my full interest for it's running time, 'Shaun the Sheep' only offered a relatively mild curiosity for me. But barely ten minutes in and I was hooked. It's a brilliantly executed and genuinely funny little film that even has nods to the likes of 'Return of the Jedi', 'Night of the Hunter' and, logically I suppose, 'Animal Farm' and 'Silence of the Lambs' that are so subtlety done they blend in so well to the over all story and never cheaply feel stuffed in. The stop motion, claymation is so lovingly done by people who are obviously dedicated to the craft that it's impossible not to enjoy, with the model design on every character being perfectly thought out and physically rendered. Even the secondary characters, like the pigs on Shaun's farm look brilliant. Even the sets are developed beautifully and everything feels just so well done. But one of the greatest moves by Aardman Animations was to make the movie - and I presume the TV Series - dialogue free and simply rely on the action telling the story, thus making 'Shaun the Sheep' a film that could, potentially, travel the world and traverse all ages. "Lines" in the form of grunts and other sounds are delivered and the voice acting is handled so well that the point gets across with great ease, and how a given character is feeling at a particular time is still captured and expressed clearly. 'Shaun the Sheep' is a very funny film, funnier than most mainstream comedies on a much larger budget. It's done in a pleasing old fashioned way and goes to great lengths to pursue its visual gags, which it pulls off excellently. It's very difficult to draw any true criticism from the film because it just charmed the pants off of me But if I had to, I'd say that there was just too much music in the film and it got a little annoying. I'd sink just a touch when a new song would start up and found myself wanting it to be over sharpish so I could get back to the funny stuff. 9/10

[MinionZombie]

BumbleBee The 1987-set Transformers prequel telling the story of BumbleBee's first time on Earth. I did enjoy the 2007 movie as, even with all the 'Bay-ness', there was still a core story of 'a boy and his first car' about it, but then all the sequels just became thunderous amounts of CGI, over-blown and over-long action sequences, lazy stereotypes, even more CGI nonsense, and a distinct lack of anything even remotely emotional or human about them ... this latest flick, on the other hand, does a good job of balancing human interest story with action stuff and you actually get pulled into it quite effectively (especially with a well animated BumbleBee). Blows the Transformers sequels completely out of the water. Fighting With My Family Based on the true story of a young woman from a family of wrestlers from Norwich who tried out for the WWE. I'm not really into Wrestling, at all really, but it seemed interesting from the trailer and I quite enjoyed it. The central dramatic element of how the brother/sister wrestling duo are split apart (the sister is picked to try out for WWE, the brother is not) drives a lot of the drama and keeps you emotionally invested, as does the fish out of water elements to 'Paige's' underdog story. It's got a nice seam of humour running throughout, but skews a bit more towards character drama. I dug it. ... RE: Shaun The Sheep - I've only seen a few clips of the TV series that the movie spins off from, but it is likewise 'dialogue free' (just noises, grunts, bleets etc) and IIRC the show has been hugely successful worldwide. I enjoyed that film, although I prefer the Wallace & Gromit stuff personally (and Chicken Run), but the new/recent Shaun movie sequel does look fun from the trailer.

[MinionZombie]

Won't You Be My Neighbor? Saw this on Netflix the other day - it's a documentary about Fred Rogers and his TV show Mr Rogers' Neighborhood. I've only seen snippets of the show, and always glimpsed through the prism of something else (e.g. The 'burbs), but with the Tom Hanks starring biopic coming I figured I'd check out this doc. I quite enjoyed it and you get a good look inside the man's mind and purpose and the history of the show. It's quite eye opening at times in a historical context seeing how he addressed major issues and events of the time in a way to broach the subject for children, but without diving into deep and confusing territory - they show clips of how he addressed racial segregation in America (with Rogers and one of the other characters - a black male policeman character - sharing the same paddling pool to cool their feet on a hot day, something which they repeated years and years later on the show), and even RFK's assassination (the cat puppet 'Daniel' asks one of the hosts to blow up a balloon for him and then suddenly asks "what does assassination mean?" in that 'kid who has been hearing the word on TV a lot today' kind of way). I really got drawn into it and it warms your heart, and then along comes 9/11 in the final years of the man's life and you reflect on the world now versus then and how 9/11 changed everything, this act of devastating hatred, and then to see footage of Rogers trying to figure out how to address the subject in some specially filmed PSAs after he'd retired the show. Anyway, it's really worth checking out, even from the point of view of someone who knew only a little about the show (and, as I say, through the perspective of other shows/films).

[MinionZombie]

Waterworld I'd only seen clips before, but I got the Arrow Video Blu-Ray to give it a whirl. I went straight for the "Ulysses Cut" (which is like the extended TV version, but with no censorship - so as close to a Director's Cut as possible, basically) - and I quite enjoyed it! You can see some of the folly of the whole project, but it's got that out-there 1990s apocalypse vibe going on and there's some good action and world building throughout. I looked at the comparison between theatrical and Ulysses cuts on Movie Censorship.com and wow - 43 minutes difference - and a lot of the stuff that Costner & Co cut out (shoving the director out of the edit suite) tells the viewer a lot of stuff. Without it all there's no wonder the movie didn't make an awful lot of sense when it first debuted, plus there's so many scenes that put some nice flesh on the bones. It's also interesting to note how many of scenes of The Mariner being an asshole were initially cut out of the movie, and yet those are some of the best scenes in the film. The guy starts out (and spends pretty much two thirds of the movie) as kind of a scumbag lone wolf, but then he changes over the course of the film. Without those scenes his transformation would be far more muted. There's a couple of ropey effects in there now (a CGI monster, some dodgy blue screen), but I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed it.

[Neil]

Apollo 11 - Saw it at the Dolby Screening Room in London. Generally wonderful footage and a great analog score as well. A great homage to the 50th anniversary. BUT, I'd have to say, as a homage I enjoyed the podcast, "13 Minutes To The Moon" more

[MinionZombie]

Shazam Overall I enjoyed it, although some aspects I enjoyed much more than others. The 'boy becomes a superhero and has to figure out his powers' stuff was all great and fun, but the central villain fell kinda flat for me ... I just wasn't really all that fussed, even though I liked the idea of exploring an 'unworthy' alternative to the titular hero. It's kinda hard to figure out exactly why I was a bit lukewarm on the plot of the movie, but it just didn't quite grab me as much as I'd hoped it would (I had heard a lot of positive things about it). I also don't want to sound too down on it either because, as I said, overall I enjoyed it (the bits I liked I really liked) and I would welcome another one ... perhaps it just needs to find a more compelling central narrative and a balance of tone and story blocks?

[Neil]

Shazam Overall I enjoyed it, although some aspects I enjoyed much more than others. The 'boy becomes a superhero and has to figure out his powers' stuff was all great and fun, but the central villain fell kinda flat for me ... I just wasn't really all that fussed, even though I liked the idea of exploring an 'unworthy' alternative to the titular hero. It's kinda hard to figure out exactly why I was a bit lukewarm on the plot of the movie, but it just didn't quite grab me as much as I'd hoped it would (I had heard a lot of positive things about it). I also don't want to sound too down on it either because, as I said, overall I enjoyed it (the bits I liked I really liked) and I would welcome another one ... perhaps it just needs to find a more compelling central narrative and a balance of tone and story blocks? Have you watched the Amazon TV series The Tick?

[MinionZombie]

Have you watched the Amazon TV series The Tick? No, not yet - although I don't have Prime at the moment. So many things to watch. I would give it a go sometime, though - I'm assuming it's good?

[EvilNed]

Waterworld I'd only seen clips before, but I got the Arrow Video Blu-Ray to give it a whirl. I went straight for the "Ulysses Cut" (which is like the extended TV version, but with no censorship - so as close to a Director's Cut as possible, basically) - and I quite enjoyed it! You can see some of the folly of the whole project, but it's got that out-there 1990s apocalypse vibe going on and there's some good action and world building throughout. I looked at the comparison between theatrical and Ulysses cuts on Movie Censorship.com and wow - 43 minutes difference - and a lot of the stuff that Costner & Co cut out (shoving the director out of the edit suite) tells the viewer a lot of stuff. Without it all there's no wonder the movie didn't make an awful lot of sense when it first debuted, plus there's so many scenes that put some nice flesh on the bones. It's also interesting to note how many of scenes of The Mariner being an asshole were initially cut out of the movie, and yet those are some of the best scenes in the film. The guy starts out (and spends pretty much two thirds of the movie) as kind of a scumbag lone wolf, but then he changes over the course of the film. Without those scenes his transformation would be far more muted. There's a couple of ropey effects in there now (a CGI monster, some dodgy blue screen), but I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed it. I enjoy the Ulysses Cut alot, but as a person who's seen the Theatrical cut at least half-a-dozen times I have to say I didn't really think all that stuff was necessary to sell the world - at least not to me. Having said that, the Ulysses Cut is my go to version from now on.

[Moon Knight]

1917 Exhilarating.

[MinionZombie]

I enjoy the Ulysses Cut alot, but as a person who's seen the Theatrical cut at least half-a-dozen times I have to say I didn't really think all that stuff was necessary to sell the world - at least not to me. Having said that, the Ulysses Cut is my go to version from now on. Hmmm ... I feel a lot of the Ulysses material just makes everything make more sense and generally fleshes everything out more (and gives everything a bit more room to breathe), plus I find The Mariner much more interesting in the full beans version of the movie. 1917 Exhilarating. A mate of mine was in that as an extra (e.g. he's one of the soldiers in that big shot with the guy running across the green field). Not seen the movie yet, but I've only heard good things about it.

[shootemindehead]

'1917' If you can overlook the stupidity of the central premise of Sam Mendes' '1917', there's a good bit to enjoy about it. But, it can be difficult to ignore the idea that any General, worth his salt, would send two men through seemingly abandoned enemy lines to pass on a message to another position, when there is air power that can be utilised instead that would have a much better chance of success and at a speedier rate too. But the hook which Mendes hangs his narrative coat on sees two British Army non-coms, Tom Blake (Dean Charles Chapman) and Will Schofield (George MacKay), being "volunteered" to bring an important communique to the 2nd Batt. Devonshire Reg. to hold off on an attack on German lines south of Arras, on the Western Front in April 1917. The Germans have "retreated" (presumably to the Hindenburg Line) and the British believe that they have "the hun on the run". However, aerial reconnaissance has shown that this is not the case and sixteen hundred men are possibly heading into a trap. The mission also has a special added importance for Lance Corporal Blake as his brother is in the regiment that's set to go "over the top". The fanciful set up of '1917' is certainly not anything we haven't seen in war movies before. Reducing the story down to a few individuals on a mission is a staple of war movies, as there is always the danger of audience confusion of who's who when confronted by too many characters, and armies, whether at platoon, battalion, brigade or whatever level have so many characters.to keep track of. So 1917's "men on patrol behind enemy lines" is familiar territory, even if the war it's taking place in hasn't been the subject of too many movies. There were, of course, "runners" who were used to send messages back and forth between the forward and rear trenches during the First World War (a certain Adolf Hitler was one) and it was an extremely dangerous job. But their utilisation here is a complete flight of fancy. But, if one ignores the unrealistic set up, there is enough realism to be found elsewhere for those of a certain bend toward that direction. Of course, no war movie has ever been a truly realistic depiction of man's most awful pursuit, but the little details that '1917' gets right are pretty admirable in that regard. The long scene at the beginning of teh film detailing Blake and Schofield's meandering trek through their own forward trench shows us a decent representation of what it was like on the British front line. Likewise, the uniforms the two wear are quite accurate, including the badge on Lance Corporal Blake's Brodie helmet and the leather jerkins that were a common sight on "Tommies" during the period. In fact, from a technical perspective, '1917' does an admirable job indeed and seen on a big screen it's a fairly immersive experience, especially if you have a interest in the war. It's just the story that lets it down, while not completely sinking the whole picture and, perhaps, if it wasn't so well produced, it wouldn't be getting the high praise that it has received upon its release, not to mention the Oscar nods. Obviously, central to this praise has the set design by Dennis Gassner and Roger Deakins' excellent cinematography, which has rightly been lauded, even though I wasn't that impressed by the pseudo one shot gimmick he employed. Curiously though, it's up for a Best Writing award too. It's directed well enough, without any kind of revelations in that respect and it's acted decently by the two leads. There are also a number of familiar faced cameos to spot as well, for people who want to play that game. '1917' is a pretty good movie, while never being amazing, and it has some gruelling battlefield scenes that can be wince inducing in a commendable way. It also offers some views of the First World War that are rarely seen in movies about that conflict as the story strays from the trenches that we are all familiar with and associate with that particular conflict. So, while I wouldn't expect to be bowled over by any of it, it's two hours are a relatively entertaining way to pass the time even if it's all rather predictable. 7/10

[EvilNed]

Hmmm ... I feel a lot of the Ulysses material just makes everything make more sense and generally fleshes everything out more (and gives everything a bit more room to breathe), plus I find The Mariner much more interesting in the full beans version of the movie. I'm not saying I don't like it, I'm just saying I didn't need it to become a fan.

[MinionZombie]

Us I really liked "Get Out", but unfortunately "Us" comes as a disappointment. For one, it's too long for the concept and feels quite slow as a result (it's basically 40 minutes before 'they' turn up), and the film feels like it's taking itself too seriously in terms of its presentation while simultaneously being a bit slapdash with the logic of the central conceit. Regarding the logic, as well as the final twist in the film:   It is stated that "The Tethered" have no soul, and yet the main character - who turns out to be a "Tethered" - clearly 'has a soul'. The 'express yourself through creativity' angle didn't really work for explaining that away, for me at least. Similarly, why did this 'government experiment in cloning' or whatever it is, create so many friggin' clones? How/why did they produce that many before realising it's not really working? Why wouldn't they dispatch them? Why would they just abandon them underground? It appears to be that enough were made to recreate The Hands Across America thing from the 1980s, so that's an awful lot of clones! How on earth do you store that amount of clones? Did they all feed themselves with rabbits? How did they hydrate themselves adequately? Where did they all get red jumpsuits and golden scissors from? The more you think about the film, the more questions come rushing forward, and these gaps in the film's logic prove frustrating. There's no doubt some intriguing themes at work behind the intentions of the film, but it feels like they haven't been translated well enough from idea to screenplay to finished film. The film lacked mystery, too. You watch the trailer and who 'they' are is obvious, so there's no surprise in it whatsoever and then it mostly becomes 'attack/run/attack/run'. Whereas "Get Out" had juicier layers to peel back, reveals and twists that changed the trajectory of the story and the plot, and it didn't out-stay its welcome in terms of running time either. "Us", though, despite having some good moments dotted throughout, Nyong'o and Duke's performances, and a couple of potent ideas, felt like a half-figured-out Twilight Zone stretched 20-30 minutes beyond its capabilities. Hopefully Peele's next film will prove to be a return to the form of "Get Out".