Last Film You Saw And Rate It

Dreww · **Posted:** Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:35 am

I saw it opening night before I could possibly know any fan reaction and was totally shocked that it was controversial with the devout. I thought I was watching a straight up popcorn movie scratching any sensible Star Wars fan in their hard-to-reach spots. When I read negative comments about the film, picking apart the flaws of the plot at the literal level, I feel like I'm reading some obsolete, forgotten language. I just don't get it. The metaphorical coherence is so beautiful and continuous across the film that the mechanics of the plot are utterly irrelevant. And even at a straightforward level the scenes between Rey and Luke alone are better than anything else in the rest of the franchise save for maybe the Yoda-Luke stuff in Empire (which I would need to revisit since I can never make it past the first 30 minutes of that film without turning it off in frustration with the completely awful acting and clunky editing.) Man when Rey thinks she's gonna get sucked into the dark side when she first meditates on the force... and her reaction to the sea of mirrors. Dang just dang. If this is an artsy fartsy film by today's standards, let the theaters burn for all I care, just give me my Filmstruck subscription.

boo boo · **Posted:** Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:15 am

Most of the time "artsy" just means interesting cinematography.

pink · **Joined:** Tue Oct 12, 2010 7:42 pm **Posts:** 8450

Dreww wrote:

I saw it opening night before I could possibly know any fan reaction and was totally shocked that it was controversial with the devout. I thought I was watching a straight up popcorn movie scratching any sensible Star Wars fan in their hard-to-reach spots. When I read negative comments about the film, picking apart the flaws of the plot at the literal level, I feel like I'm reading some obsolete, forgotten language. I just don't get it. The metaphorical coherence is so beautiful and continuous across the film that the mechanics of the plot are utterly irrelevant. And even at a straightforward level the scenes between Rey and Luke alone are better than anything else in the rest of the franchise save for maybe the Yoda-Luke stuff in Empire (which I would need to revisit since I can never make it past the first 30 minutes of that film without turning it off in frustration with the completely awful acting and clunky editing.) Man when Rey thinks she's gonna get sucked into the dark side when she first meditates on the force... and her reaction to the sea of mirrors. Dang just dang. If this is an artsy fartsy film by today's standards, let the theaters burn for all I care, just give me my Filmstruck subscription.

I don't have the same complaints about the movie that devout Star Wars fans have. I just thought it was really poorly written and topical. I'm bewildered so many people enjoyed it as much as you did, most especially because of the Finn and Rose subplot — I can't think of a movie I enjoyed that had a comparable 30 minutes of irrelevance. I won't deny there were parts of the film I really loved, but overall, the film made for a mixed and mostly 'meh' experience.

The only positive going forward is Disney will be more open to keeping the next film original.

ahawk · **Posted:** Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:04 pm

Forgive me for saying this and I may take it back because I'm not feeling so great right now but I think it's possible a lot of people have been wasting their time and even their lives constantly taking about and dissecting The Last Jedi. And all of the Star Wars franchise for that matter. Now I'm fan. At least I think I used to be. Maybe I'm just a fan of the old ones now. But when it comes down to do it I think most of them are quite silly and it's even more silly that some people follow it like a like some kind of religion or whatever. To paraphrase John Lennon, Star Wars is bigger than Jesus. Hey I grew up with the original trilogy and there are things I'll love about those films till the day I die, but the popularity and money crunching business machine of Star Wars baffles me. And to be honest, that probably has something to do with my frustration. It's like the most popular thing there is and I have kind of a hipster mentality about it. I like it, I guess but it's too big (and in my feelings too silly) for me to take it completely seriously. Plus personally I've never been a popular person so it when it comes to most popular things (not just movies) I have this instinct to distance myself from it. Maybe there's even a little envy there too. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned there's been 1 perfect live action Star Wars feature film (Empire), 2 really really good but not perfect ones (New Hope and Return), 2 Shitty ones (first two prequels), an ok but still partly shitty one (Sith), an average and uninspired hallow nostalgia cash-grab (Awakens), an ok and mostly pointless one with poor characters and a great final 10 minutes (Rouge), and a slightly above average and slightly more original but still very flawed one (Last Jedi). Also, I know it's not a feature film but The Holiday Special is an abomination and doesn't exactly make the saga look better in my eyes. So, if you ask me, there hasn't been a competently 100% Star Wars film since 19fucking80 so why the the hell do so many people keep deluding ourselves how special and important and great these movies are? Especially these new ones. I admit these movies encourage Star Wars fans and film fans to talk and in some cases argue but it inspires discussion nonetheless. And I guess that's not a terrible thing. But I think it goes overboard and veers into people being encouraged to be talking too much about the wrong thing or a wrong thing. And I don't get why or how people discuss and analyze these silly movies like they're something life altering or intellectual or deep or philosophical. Like the original Blade Runner, Tree of Life, or 2001. Someone once said that "Bad art is a distraction. Great art changes people." And Star Wars is not great art. And I know it's not intended to be. But some treat it like it is. In truth, Star Wars is intended to be great entertainment. But if you ask me, it hasn't even that really since 1980.

Don-Alexei · **Posted:** Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:00 pm

Great post ahawk. I can't really say anything about the saga in general because the only episodes I have seen are 1 (in a noisy coach in French) and 8. 1 looked pretty bad but I enjoyed 8. I thought it had a cartoonish quality that fitted it well and some interesting visuals (dreww mentions the mirror scene, I also liked the spaceship going through another spaceship bit). It's good popcorn, basically. Obviously even though I'm familiar with most of the characters and basic storyline I couldn't relate to everything that was going on.
However I do agree about the plot problems. I honestly don't see why its "metaphorical coherence" would make plot mechanics "irrelevant" (but if you'd care to expand I would be most pleased).
Also, way way too much John Williams. He can write music, ok, but having it such superabundance just makes it less effective.

ahawk · **Posted:** Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:33 am

Darkest Hour
7.8/10

Song to Song
5.6/10

pave · **Posted:** Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:33 am

Dreww wrote:

the Yoda-Luke stuff in Empire (which I would need to revisit)

well i can save you time and effort on this and just post this instead:

pave · **Posted:** Sun Jan 07, 2018 5:09 am

finally saw Coco and its my favorite Pixar movie since idk probably Ratatouille or maybe even Incredibles or Nemo. i mean, its way way up there. i thought id just be predisposed to enjoying it because I generally like Mexican culture and aesthetics and I'd be like a kid just going "oh hell yeah guitars! lucha masks! sugar skulls and dancing skeletons and shit! fuck yeah! holy shit, its El Santo!" i mean, i'm someone who has a skeleton mariachi musician tattooed on me. this movie feels like it was made for me. but honestly, its way better than just being a movie that i was predisposed to enjoying. its just beautiful in every way, aesthetically, emotionally, etc. definitely a 10/10.

ahawk · The Post 8.5/10

The Post
8.5/10

pauldrach · **Posted:** Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:03 am

Don-Alexei wrote:

pauldrach wrote:

Ho, did I spark some outrage! So, it's explanation time.

Anpass wrote:

i watched them back-to-back.

I did the same thing and that (in addition to my becoming super-tired towards the end of '49) may have made my impression of '49 even worse than it would have been otherwise. For instance, I didn't like the visuals of '49 at all. '19 has that much more gritty and dizzy look while '49 looked superpolished. It was the kind of look I'd expect of the new Star Wars but for the BR reboot it seemed very ill-fitting. But these are mere superficial quibbles. The real problems with '49 run much deeper:

First of all, '49 didn't really add anything substantially new to the mix thematically. Sure, there's that whole childbirth thing; sure, there's hologram woman. But does either of them really add anything to the main ethical question raised in '19? Imo the big ethical question in '19 is: If man artificially creates a living organism in his likeness, one that looks like he does, thinks like he does and eventually feels like he does, isn't that organism then essentially the same as man? Shouldn't he be treated as human? Shouldn't he have the same rights? '19 gives us different angles from which to ponder that question. We have an android, who thought she was human. We have a possible human, who begins to reconsider whether he might not in fact be an android. We have an android with a clear sense of aesthetics. '19's answer to its own question is rather unambiguously a yes, they are essentially the same.

Now, how do '49's new aspects help us deal with that ethical question? Imo, not at all. The childbirth is a real bummer. It gives the filmmakers the opportunity to add the kind of "chosen one" theme to the plot that has ruled mainstream fantasy films at least since Harry Potter. While this certainly isn't very original, it wouldn't necessarily have to be a problem either but here it is a big problem. Because what it does is turn the central message of '19 upside down. Suddenly, we're back to the duality of either having been born or merely having been made. I understand that for an android community the possibility of reproduction without the factor man has to be considered a breakthrough. But that's not what K is concerned about when he gets the order to kill the child. His problem is that he doesn't want to kill something that has been born, which does seem plausible since he may see man as his master. But the real problem is the ethical question implied here. Why should it make a difference whether the child was born or not? It's the difference that '19 successfully managed to overcome and now we have it re-established? Stupid.

Hologram girl has similar problems. The idea itself is actually pretty cool because now we have an android who could not possibly be taken for a human. So, what could and should have happened is to establish her as a new kind of organism that in the end also turns out to be essentially the same as man, just with certain anatomical differences. But that's not what happens. The problems begin with the way the character is introduced. Androids in '19, for instance Leon and Rachael, were introduced in a way that made them indistinguishable from humans. With Joi you immediately know something is off because you only hear her voice and when her hologram finally appears, you still question whether she is even sentient at all or a mere designed product. The other way round (to first show her as a human, and then reveal that, hey, there's some distinctions) would have been more effectful. Then, you have the sex scene, the message of which basically seems to be that without an actual body you're incomplete; that you'll always need someone more "real" to satisfy your partner. And finally her death is very lackluster. It comes and goes so quickly and you barely get an emotional reaction from K, not even a short moment of rest in an action-packed scene that it all seemed to scream: So what? She's just a hologram.

So, all in all, to me this was a run-of-mill mainstream action sci-fi that rehashed some ideas from the original, without even grasping the ethical implications of some of its aesthetic decisions. Big waste of talent with Gosling, who was really disappointing in this, and especially Villeneuve. Of the original screenwriters they should probably have brought in Peoples, not Fancher. I expect more from a reboot of one of the all-time greatest sci-fi films.

To me the question explored in both Blade Runners is not whether artificial beings are like humans or not, but more like: what is it to have really lived? And the end of '19 seems to suggest that sensory experience and memories, and the ability to share them with other people, is an essential part of life. If you are capable of that you are capable of living. But a lot of people, whether humans or androids, whether in a dystopian future or today, are not, because they don't "see", or don't feel, or don't love.

Regarding the childbirth thing: I don't think '49 turns anything upside down. The whole trajectory of K is to realise that in the end, having been born or not is not what really matters. But he needs to go through some obstacles first. It's easy for you, as a human who has watched '19 and haven't been brainwashed all your young life. But K has to learn, and I found his whole progression very moving. I thought the film did a great job of subverting the whole quest thing: in the end K isn't the chosen one at all, he's just a tool, but he still decides to help Deckard even though he isn't his son. In a way, it is a development of Batty's catching of Decakrd's arm when he is about to slip, and further answers the question: what is it to have really lived? Here it is: to have fulfilled some sort of destiny. But not a destiny imposed by fate or shadowy organizations, like in a chosen one scenario. Instead, a destiny you choose yourself, out of your own free will, because you think it's right. In the end, K is the one who has really lived, not Deckard's daughter, who is in a artificial world of artificial memories. But by making her finally meet her dad, well, he sacrifices himself to give her the opportunity to love someone real, which is another way to "really live".

Regarding Joi's death, what would you have preferred, slow-motion? Time for a last speech? I thought a sincere last "I love you" was all that was needed. And there is a build-up to the brutality of her death: Joi says to K, just before, that if she comes with him she will become, in all respects, "mortal" (not the word she uses) "just like a real girl". Her new-found vulnerability is what makes her more human. Human life can be snuffed out in a flash, so could hers, and that's what happens. K doesn't cry or anything but he's lying on the ground bleeding so at that moment he has other things on his mind. The emotional "pay off" of Joi's death comes when K is walking in the street and he sees a giant hologram of a generic Joi. He is asking himself "whether she [was] even sentient at all or a mere designed product". Why should the film necessarily answer this question? Why should she necessarily have ended up being the same as a man? Having a body is pretty important part of human experience, so if the film showed that she was essentially the same thing, it would have been too simple. The question is left open, and I don't see the problem with that. Androids are artificial beings, but can be considered like humans. What about holograms? Less easy to answer. Which doesn't prevent K and Joi from seeming to have true feelings for each other.

So, I rewatched BR '49 yesterday without having watched '19 immediately prior to it and without being supertired. Probably due to mainly these circumstances, plus the aid of having DA's view on the film in mind, I had a much better viewing experience this time around. Towards the end, I really must have been very tired the first time I watched it as there were scenes I didn't remember at all or at least very differently and some of them were very good (e.g. the first scenes featuring both K and Deckard up until Luv arrived; the reappearance of 'Rachael'). The problem with watching both BR's back to back, imo, is that they're really very different films. They not only look and feel very different (and I still prefer '19's gritty look to '49's superpolished visuals) but they also approach the main ethical question very differently. '19 can be easily understood on a very general level. It gives you a bunch of different characters (Deckard, Rachael, Batty, in a way also Sebastian), who help to highlight different aspects of the moral problems behind man-made life. '49 turns it mainly into a character study of K, which is a different approach that does help to highlight facettes that '19 merely touched upon. While the other characters in '49 (especially Joi) do sometimes include interesting ideas, they still remain much flatter characters. Which, I maintain, is a slight problem, especially with Joi. But then again '49 may have consciously denied an answer to the question where exactly on the scale between thing and human she falls, just as '19 denied and answer to the question whether or not Deckard is a replicant. All in all, the film is much smarter than I initially gave it credit for. I still vastly prefer the original and imo it could have done without most of the action scenes (especially the entire wet finale between K, Luv and Deckard) but I consider it a worthy successor to the original. Also, some of the shots had an immense beauty to them that had been completely lost on me the first time around.

So, thanks again to DA for making me revisit this film.

Don-Alexei · **Posted:** Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:01 pm

You're welcome! Glad you gave it a second chance.

ahawk · Megan Leavey 7.7/10

Megan Leavey
7.7/10

ahawk · **Posted:** Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:44 pm

Stronger
7.3/10

Get Out
7.5/10

What We Do in the Shadows
7.4/10

The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
8/10

pave · **Posted:** Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:47 am

What We Do in the Shadows is an 11/10. anything less is absurd.

ahawk · **Posted:** Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:54 pm

Thought it had a few good laughs. ("We're Werewolves not Swearwolves"). But I just couldn't really get into it for a few reasons. Main one being I don't like vampires and I never have and I don't care the horror genre in general, even if they're parodies. However, I love Cabin In The Woods. Not THAT is a perfect horror parody IMO. WWDITS was good. Solid comedy. But didn't really do anything for me. Sorry if my opinion differs. Also, I'm surprised. I guess I thought if anyone would say anything it would be about my relatively low rating for Get Out.

Last Film You Saw And Rate It

Who is online