• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

The Last Movie(s) You Watched... (quick one or two sentence reviews)

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
Moe_Syzlak said:
Garp said:
Re: the ending. The indication is that they are now both alien clones, free to carry out the 'annihilation'. It's in the very last shot, and it's a very cliched horror twist, I would argue. 'Whew! Everything's going to be fine. Wait - no it's not!' (See remake of 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers', the first Jason film - even the 'Thriller' video! - or any of these three films I watched in the last few weeks - the 'Nosfertau' remake, 'Count Yorga' and 'The Return of Count Yorga', just to mention ones fresh from my memory.) With the flashbacks to her previous life with her husband, it would have been more interesting if she was considering starting afresh with this blank slate of a husband, wondering whether she could rectify her mistakes (the affair and consequences) and actually love this guy, even if he wasn't the same. The 'preview' line was a throwaway in a very short review - I have no idea, of course, whether that was the reason, nor if this ending is the same as the book, and frankly I didn't care enough to check. Still, the ending, to me, seemed to go in a different direction than the rest of the film, especially with an affair subplot included. As for Portman, that is my own bias, I admit. I can't think of a film I've seen her in where she doesn't appear to be acting. Some actors, to me, can seem so effortless and natural that I can easily suspend my disbelief - they become the character. With Portman, every twitch and movement seems calculated and forced. But perhaps that's just me. My wife can't understand why I feel the same way about Michael Caine.


Me: *rolls eyes*  :D
 

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
3,451
Reaction score
1,161
Trophy Points
118
Garp said:
Moe_Syzlak said:
Garp said:
Re: the ending. The indication is that they are now both alien clones, free to carry out the 'annihilation'. It's in the very last shot, and it's a very cliched horror twist, I would argue. 'Whew! Everything's going to be fine. Wait - no it's not!' (See remake of 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers', the first Jason film - even the 'Thriller' video! - or any of these three films I watched in the last few weeks - the 'Nosfertau' remake, 'Count Yorga' and 'The Return of Count Yorga', just to mention ones fresh from my memory.) With the flashbacks to her previous life with her husband, it would have been more interesting if she was considering starting afresh with this blank slate of a husband, wondering whether she could rectify her mistakes (the affair and consequences) and actually love this guy, even if he wasn't the same. The 'preview' line was a throwaway in a very short review - I have no idea, of course, whether that was the reason, nor if this ending is the same as the book, and frankly I didn't care enough to check. Still, the ending, to me, seemed to go in a different direction than the rest of the film, especially with an affair subplot included. As for Portman, that is my own bias, I admit. I can't think of a film I've seen her in where she doesn't appear to be acting. Some actors, to me, can seem so effortless and natural that I can easily suspend my disbelief - they become the character. With Portman, every twitch and movement seems calculated and forced. But perhaps that's just me. My wife can't understand why I feel the same way about Michael Caine.


Me: *rolls eyes*  :D

There’s a better video of him talking about acting with his eyes that circulated as a meme of sorts like 20 years ago, but I couldn’t find it.

BTW, I agree with you about the ending of Annihilation as well. It should’ve been ambiguous. Garland is an interesting case. He does some really smart stuff but he also seems to need to tell the audience exactly what is going on. Like Nolan, I think I’d like his stuff a lot more of he trusted the audience more.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
BTW, I agree with you about the ending of Annihilation as well. It should’ve been ambiguous. Garland is an interesting case. He does some really smart stuff but he also seems to need to tell the audience exactly what is going on. Like Nolan, I think I’d like his stuff a lot more of he trusted the audience more.

Perhaps that's the issue, rather than the studio/audience interference I surmised. I'm not sure I've seen too much of his stuff - I have 'Ex Machina'; might have to try and get round to it this week, maybe post an opinion.

I'm obviously far from a professional reviewer and just do it for fun and as a distraction from the seemingly endless case notes my job needs me to write. But I don't read other reviews before posting so as not to get swayed from my own view of the film. Still, I tend to read the reviews from blu-ray.com (after this site, it's where I hang out most) and their final paragraph came pretty close to what I felt:
Annihilation teems with strongly developed and richly realized ideas, but it also falls just short of greatness. For all of the magnificence -- the characterization, the world building, the juxtaposition of beauty and grotesque violence -- it cannot help but to lean on cliché in several moments, and its final shots are dull, stale, and predictable. 
 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
Garp I wonder if you would feel the same on a rewatch.  I did not think it was that simple, and if you read Garland, he's always working on multiple levels...(his scripts even more than his books)

Firstly, it sounds like your real complaint is about the ending, not the setup or the whole middle section of the movie.  I think both are important for understanding what's happening at the ending.  I won't claim to have a handle on the film 100%, but for me the main points are examinations of "What is life?", "What is self?", "How do we define death?", and "Is all life equally valuable?  When is it appropriate to end life then?"  This is set up by making you question how much Lena's husband is still alive.  They continue to develop the questions in the zone by implying what happened to the people who were in the houses there.  Then they show the transformed bear.  And finally, the clone-but-not-really-clone lifeforms at the end.  This is the point of the dance...it's symbolic of the entire process going on throughout the film.  Is it mere replication of existing life, or combination, or appropriation?  What's the difference between transmutation and annihilation?  If a person evolves, are they still the same person, or have they destroyed their previous self?  Etc, etc.  I don't think the film is trying to answer all these questions honestly (the books, while quite different, are a series after all).  But to think of it as a simple alien invasion story misses 90% of the point, in my opinion.  If that's all you got out of it, that the aliens "won" and will invade, of course you would be disappointed. 
I hope this stirred up some ideas to keep in mind if you decide to engage with the film again.
 

Garp

Well-known member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
180
Trophy Points
68
mnkykungfu said:
Garp I wonder if you would feel the same on a rewatch.  I did not think it was that simple, and if you read Garland, he's always working on multiple levels...(his scripts even more than his books)

Firstly, it sounds like your real complaint is about the ending, not the setup or the whole middle section of the movie.  I think both are important for understanding what's happening at the ending.  I won't claim to have a handle on the film 100%, but for me the main points are examinations of "What is life?", "What is self?", "How do we define death?", and "Is all life equally valuable?  When is it appropriate to end life then?"  This is set up by making you question how much Lena's husband is still alive.  They continue to develop the questions in the zone by implying what happened to the people who were in the houses there.  Then they show the transformed bear.  And finally, the clone-but-not-really-clone lifeforms at the end.  This is the point of the dance...it's symbolic of the entire process going on throughout the film.  Is it mere replication of existing life, or combination, or appropriation?  What's the difference between transmutation and annihilation?  If a person evolves, are they still the same person, or have they destroyed their previous self?  Etc, etc.  I don't think the film is trying to answer all these questions honestly (the books, while quite different, are a series after all).  But to think of it as a simple alien invasion story misses 90% of the point, in my opinion.  If that's all you got out of it, that the aliens "won" and will invade, of course you would be disappointed. 
I hope this stirred up some ideas to keep in mind if you decide to engage with the film again.

Thank you. Yes, that does give me food for thought. I didn’t pick up on the same ideas you did, but they are certainly valid and fit. I may have to give it another go in a few months. Thanks again.
 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
The Wind Rises (2013)
I ended up writing another dissertation on this, drawing connections between Miyazaki's family life and the characters in the film.  The cliff notes though are that it's his most complicated and mature work, but still has charming, whimsical dream sequences.  It's an ode to his family, and to the joy of constructing flying machines, but it skirts any responsibility for helping to make more effective killing machines.  Enter at your peril: https://letterboxd.com/nottheacademy/film/the-wind-rises/
 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
X-Men: Days of Future Past (The Rogue Cut) 
Firstly, I was expecting this to have a whole subplot featuring Rogue, which it really doesn't.  It has a lot more for the X-Men to do in the Days of the Future, but very little actual Rogue.  It's just a "rogue" cut, get it?  Yeah, pure marketing.  Still, this EE crucially shifts the balance of the film to feel like a genuine ensemble and a better split between the two X-Franchises (original and First Class).  Full review: https://letterboxd.com/nottheacademy/film/x-men-days-of-future-past-the-rogue-cut/
 

asterixsmeagol

Well-known member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
2,010
Reaction score
924
Trophy Points
128
I liked the theatrical cut of Days of Future Past but I agree that the Rogue Cut does a better job integrating the two time frames.
 

Malthus

Well-known member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
1,598
Reaction score
1,632
Trophy Points
148
Last night I watched Olympus has fallen (2013) in which terrorists take over Nakatomi Plaza the White House and it's up to Detective John McClane former presidential bodyguard Mike Banning to save the day. It has a few good set pieces but ultimately is a pale shadow of the films it is emulating.

Try Hard.
 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
asterixsmeagol said:
I liked the theatrical cut of Days of Future Past but I agree that the Rogue Cut does a better job integrating the two time frames.

Oh, I loved the theatrical cut, don't get me wrong.  This is just even better.
 
Malthus said:
Try Hard.

Ha!

Jaws 3-D (1983)
This earns its reputation as a horrible film.  I mean, there are worse for sure, but in the days before i-phone films when a studio had to put real money into a theatrical release: yeah, this is a horrible follow-up.  Further thoughts: https://letterboxd.com/nottheacademy/film/jaws-3-d/
 

Malthus

Well-known member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
1,598
Reaction score
1,632
Trophy Points
148
Once upon a time in Hollywood (2019) is a well acted, well shot series of vignettes that meanders its way to an ending of sorts. Moments of excellence are undermined by ponderously long and largely irrelevant scenes which pad the runtime of this bloated love letter to Hollywood.
 

Jrzag42

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
3,997
Reaction score
1,017
Trophy Points
138
I watched Jaws 2 a few days ago. It was pretty good. Not as good as the original obviously, but it's good enough. It could've easily been a complete rehash of the first movie, but it's different enough for me to enjoy it. I noticed how much Brody's character seemed to be changed and impacted from the first movie. Unfortunately no Hooper, Hooper is the best Jaws character.

I watched Close Encounters of the Third Kind for the first time a couple days after. So that's where Hooper went. It was pretty great.

I watched Jurassic Park at some point. It was terribly disappointing. I really don't get the love.

I watched Ju-On: The Grudge...Two days in a row. I loved it, it was pretty great. I'm gonna have to watch the rest of the franchise sometime.

I almost forgot, Teen Titans vs Teen Titans Go!. This movie completely slipped past my radar. It was very enjoyable. I'm not a worshipper of the 2000s Teen Titans cartoon, I don't hold it as sacred, and I don't mind Teen Titans Go!. I'm not sure how a big fan of the original would react, but in any case, I really liked it and could definitely watch it again.
 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
jrWHAG42 said:
I watched Close Encounters of the Third Kind for the first time a couple days after. So that's where Hooper went. It was pretty great.
I watched Jurassic Park at some point. It was terribly disappointing. I really don't get the love.
I watched Ju-On: The Grudge...Two days in a row. I loved it, it was pretty great. I'm gonna have to watch the rest of the franchise sometime.

Now see, I am one of those who loves JP but can't get on board with Close Encounters.  The movie just doesn't make a big deal out of a guy abandoning his family to satisfy his craving knowledge.  To me, he's a villain, but he's portrayed as a hero.

The Ju-On series has drastically diminishing returns in my opinion, as do pretty much all Japanese film series.  But maybe you'll find the thrills rewarding enough.

Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
This one felt quite dated to me, and Hitchcock suspense techniques couldn't save it from a script that felt like it had been through 5 different rewrites...one of which had a love story between the uncle and niece.  Read more on the creepiness: https://letterboxd.com/nottheacademy/film/shadow-of-a-doubt/
 

Jrzag42

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
3,997
Reaction score
1,017
Trophy Points
138
mnkykungfu said:
Now see, I am one of those who loves JP but can't get on board with Close Encounters.  The movie just doesn't make a big deal out of a guy abandoning his family to satisfy his craving knowledge.  To me, he's a villain, but he's portrayed as a hero.

The Ju-On series has drastically diminishing returns in my opinion, as do pretty much all Japanese film series.  But maybe you'll find the thrills rewarding enough.

Too many people I know love Jurassic Park. It's not terrible, the acting is all good, I like Jeff Goldblum and Laura Dern, the plot was okay, special effects were good, baby dinosaurs were cute. The kid characters were awful. There was some needless gross out such as the dinosaur sneezing on the girl, and the inclusion of dinosaur feces. I don't overall care about the characters. Some of the science stuff went right over my head. Overall it was just uninteresting, and felt like nothing special. I'm sure it was special in the context of the time, I'm sure some people are satisfied just seeing dinosaurs. Revisiting Jaws a few days prior, seeing how amazing Spielberg can make a movie, how well he can do characters, how well everything is shot... Jurassic Park is just really disappointing.

As for Close Encounters, it's definitely no Jaws I admit, and the main character isn't perfect. It doesn't make a big deal about him leaving his family, but it's also never glorified, he's absolutely no hero, I found his character interesting. He's obsessed with this thing, and him leaving his family just shows how much it's taking over his life. It was interesting to me, and unique, which doesn't necessarily mean good, but I also think it's good. It's also very well made, the way it's shot, the special effects, its beautiful and it feels so real and special. Speaking of beautiful, I really like Richard Dreyfus. You're not the first person I've talked to who didn't care for the movie, and I don't expect to change your mind on it. It was just.. So much better than I could've expected.

Anyways, Ju-On. I've read a couple mixed reviews on some of the sequels. I'm very curious. I know they probably won't be good, but I'm known for liking movies often seen as bad. Who knows. Are the American adaptations any good in your opinion, if you've seen them?
 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
jrWHAG42 said:
The kid characters were awful... Overall it was just uninteresting, and felt like nothing special.... Revisiting Jaws a few days prior, seeing how amazing Spielberg can make a movie, how well he can do characters, how well everything is shot... Jurassic Park is just really disappointing.
I found them much less annoying than the ones in the rest of the series, much less films in general.  (Despite my apparent comparison to Close Encounters) I don't think it has to be an either/or with JP and Jaws.  I mean, Jaws is so good at what it's trying to do that it's kind of unfair to compare another film and find it falling short.  I think JP is trying to instill a sense of childlike wonder, though, which it really communicated to me.  MUCH better than the sequels...how the hell is Jurassic World a thing?!
 
As for Close Encounters... It doesn't make a big deal about him leaving his family, but it's also never glorified, he's absolutely no hero, I found his character interesting.
I'm with you, he is interesting.  I think the film makes a hero out of him, though.  Like he's one of the few that has the perseverance to stick with it and not let anyone shut him down.  He's determined to find out the answers.  It just really bothers me, but yeah, art is subjective.  If it didn't bother you, I'm not trying to ruin the film for ya.
 
jrWHAG42 said:
Are the American adaptations any good in your opinion, if you've seen them?
It's a different kettle of fish.  I did like the first one, with Sarah Michelle Gellar.  It definitely plays better if you haven't already seen the Japanese original, though.  Like with most Japanese->Hollywood adaptations, the effects are better and more convincing.
 

Jrzag42

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
3,997
Reaction score
1,017
Trophy Points
138
mnkykungfu said:
jrWHAG42 said:
The kid characters were awful... Overall it was just uninteresting, and felt like nothing special.... Revisiting Jaws a few days prior, seeing how amazing Spielberg can make a movie, how well he can do characters, how well everything is shot... Jurassic Park is just really disappointing.
I found them much less annoying than the ones in the rest of the series, much less films in general.  (Despite my apparent comparison to Close Encounters) I don't think it has to be an either/or with JP and Jaws.  I mean, Jaws is so good at what it's trying to do that it's kind of unfair to compare another film and find it falling short.  I think JP is trying to instill a sense of childlike wonder, though, which it really communicated to me.  MUCH better than the sequels...how the hell is Jurassic World a thing?!

I agree that JP and Jaws are completely different. I only meant to compare them in the sense that here he made the characters compelling, and here he didn't. Or something like that. How it's made rather than comparing the plots. As far as it succeeding at what it's trying to do, instilling a sense of childlike wonder didn't really work for me. But yeah, it's really just subjective.
 

addiesin

Well-known member
Messages
5,888
Reaction score
1,502
Trophy Points
163
The Red Turtle
The lack of dialogue makes it meditative and universal, sure, but emotional investment isn't as strong as it could have been, and there's a scene early on that I found rather disagreeable. Still, a beautiful film, a fable, and while the story is a little shallow and there isn't much of a lesson to learn, it's short and isn't boring, and I bet I would have gotten more out of it at a younger age, so I think my daughter will like it in a few years.

Studio Ghibli helped with animation but it's not anime, I think it's technically Dutch? Idk. Characters look kinda like Tin Tin (I think the style is French, called ligne claire).
 
Top Bottom