Rate The Last Movie You Saw - 2

[JM_]

4 hours ago, Monty said:

I hated it because it’s a weak commentary on mental illness, as a whole. Especially since nobody asked for a “mental illness” take on The Joker. In a comic universe, it’s pretty understood that villains are crazy, and having a “real life” commentary on it being a mental illness, especially done by one of the worst directors and screenwriters, who clearly doesn’t understand “mental illness”, made for a very surface level take. Which, was overall, quite embarrassing on that front.

I actually disagree with that, I thought it did a good job of showing how easily some people are forgotten about and how quickly programs disappear. I thought it was also a commentary on how society will use mental illness for celebrity purposes when its convenient. 

[JM_]

4 hours ago, IBatch said:

The best part of the movie is that it begs for a sequel.  DC has pretty much sh!t the bed since Bales last Batman movie (seriously the next Batman sucks so so bad after that - and yes it all started with picking pancake face.).   Wonder Women is the only good thing they’ve managed but not because of the film as much as the empowerment.    Aqua man? Well I guess it’s ok. Still he was a better Conan even though that script was terrible.  Batman? Please get rid of him fast.  But apparently they have done it again by picking another terrible actor...Superman?  Not bad.  Not great but ok.  Reaves set a pretty high bar all those years ago, even though they should have stopped after 2. 

yeah for some reason DC seems to only get the movies right by accident. Kind of like the x-men movies, the only one of those worth watching twice is Logan imo, because of how it departs from formula so well. 

 

I thought Joker was a pretty ballsy take but i can see why others would really hate it. 

[Monty]

20 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I actually disagree with that, I thought it did a good job of showing how easily some people are forgotten about and how quickly programs disappear. I thought it was also a commentary on how society will use mental illness for celebrity purposes when its convenient. 

We’re talking about two different things. You’re talking about the programs and support being cut.

 

What I’m talking about is the actual portrayal of those with mental illness. Which, in my opinion, as someone who’s enrolled in his Master’s in Mental Health this fall, is not only terribly inaccurate, but insulting. That the only thing keeping someone from going 100% off the deep end and becoming a criminal, is if he/she does not take their meds. There is more to the “movie” than that, but all the other writing is flimsy and doesn’t stand up under basic Psych 101 scrutiny.

 

All that aside, from a pure “comic book” interpretation, I can also see why people hated it. The Joker is an expert in chemical “warfare”. This “Joker” comes across as someone that would be incapable of slapping together a PP&J sandwich.

 

If you like the movie, that’s totally fine. Not telling you to like it or not like it. What I am saying is, from a mental health standpoint, it’s an elementary take on it, at best.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Monty

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Monty said:

We’re talking about two different things. You’re talking about the programs and support being cut.

 

What I’m talking about is the actual portrayal of those with mental illness. Which, in my opinion, as someone who’s enrolled in his Master’s in Mental Health this fall, is not only terribly inaccurate, but insulting. That the only thing keeping someone from going 100% off the deep end and becoming a criminal, is if he/she does not take their meds. There is more to the “movie” than that, but all the other writing is flimsy and doesn’t doesn’t stand up under basic Psych 101 scrutiny.

 

All that aside, from a pure “comic book” interpretation, I can also see why people hated it. The Joker is an expert in chemical “warfare”. This “Joker” comes across as someone that would be incapable of slapping together a PP&J sandwich.

 

If you like the movie, that’s totally fine. Not telling you to like it or not like it. What I am saying is, from a mental health standpoint, it’s an elementary take on it, at best.

we're clearly talking about an "exceptional" individual here, this person if real would be very very rare. I don't think it was meant to be an accurate portrayal of average problems, I don't think thats a fair criticism because I don't think they were really going for that message. 

 

The part I did think mirrored reality was how little his councillor could do for him, in a US-style context for poor people. 

[IBatch]

22 minutes ago, Monty said:

We’re talking about two different things. You’re talking about the programs and support being cut.

 

What I’m talking about is the actual portrayal of those with mental illness. Which, in my opinion, as someone who’s enrolled in his Master’s in Mental Health this fall, is not only terribly inaccurate, but insulting. That the only thing keeping someone from going 100% off the deep end and becoming a criminal, is if he/she does not take their meds. There is more to the “movie” than that, but all the other writing is flimsy and doesn’t stand up under basic Psych 101 scrutiny.

 

All that aside, from a pure “comic book” interpretation, I can also see why people hated it. The Joker is an expert in chemical “warfare”. This “Joker” comes across as someone that would be incapable of slapping together a PP&J sandwich.

 

If you like the movie, that’s totally fine. Not telling you to like it or not like it. What I am saying is, from a mental health standpoint, it’s an elementary take on it, at best.

What is insulting? The fact he’s obviously a complete psychopath? If you’ve ever read a comic about him or at all followed his story before going into the movie .. well you’d have to be clueless not to expect that .. or the fact he’s off his meds and truly snaps?  It happens - you don’t need a masters degree to know that’s a possibility in this world.    Also felt that they did an accurate job of actually being on meds and how “successful” that is (not great but ok) In other words - marginally so.  
 

From the people I know and 50 or so years on the planet I feel Psychology is filled with two main types of people - one a group that genuinely is interested in the subject and wants to help people but because they themselves suffer or know some who suffers  - the other a group that knows little about how to interact (awkward) and about people at all and just wants to figure them out.  Ok I just made that up but I’m pretty sure I’m not far off the mark.   As an average human being I also have enrolled in the “university of life “ and don’t think that saying your getting your Masters in this subject means a whole lot...I’d be much more impressed if you were a mechanical Engineer and we’re ripping on Star Wars.  Definition literally means the study of the soul - why not just go to church (too far?). 

 

Everyone knows someone who’s depressed or has mental illness.  Never before has society given it as much air time as now and acceptance.   That said there has been NO breakthroughs in the study in over a century.   Meds and therapy have changed but the results aren’t much different.  Good luck with your career - and hey I get it from my construction background I can’t stand any renovation show on the air.  It’s not like “real” life either - that said Joker is a made up comic character and if this movie is or has brought some attention to the state of mental health in our society and brought some attention to it then great.   

[Down by the River]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

What is insulting? The fact he’s obviously a complete psychopath? If you’ve ever read a comic about him or at all followed his story before going into the movie .. well you’d have to be clueless not to expect that .. or the fact he’s off his meds and truly snaps?  It happens - you don’t need a masters degree to know that’s a possibility in this world.    Also felt that they did an accurate job of actually being on meds and how “successful” that is (not great but ok) In other words - marginally so.  
 

From the people I know and 50 or so years on the planet I feel Psychology is filled with two main types of people - one a group that genuinely is interested in the subject and wants to help people but because they themselves suffer or know some who suffers  - the other a group that knows little about how to interact (awkward) and about people at all and just wants to figure them out.  Ok I just made that up but I’m pretty sure I’m not far off the mark.   As an average human being I also have enrolled in the “university of life “ and don’t think that saying your getting your Masters in this subject means a whole lot...I’d be much more impressed if you were a mechanical Engineer and we’re ripping on Star Wars.  Definition literally means the study of the soul - why not just go to church (too far?). 

 

Everyone knows someone who’s depressed or has mental illness.  Never before has society given it as much air time as now and acceptance.   That said there has been NO breakthroughs in the study in over a century.   Meds and therapy have changed but the results aren’t much different.  Good luck with your career - and hey I get it from my construction background I can’t stand any renovation show on the air.  It’s not like “real” life either - that said Joker is a made up comic character and if this movie is or has brought some attention to the state of mental health in our society and brought some attention to it then great.   

The problem with talking about psychology is that it is so easy for every person to have an opinion. In the natural sciences there are universal laws and these laws exist regardless of opinions. In psychology, my drunk uncle can think that he has a relevant opinion on mental illness. Some people believe that their highly specific life experience makes them an expert on a really broad topic. 

 

For example, you referred to the Joker as a "complete psychopath" when this isn't remotely what features of psychopathy actually look like... but people hear a term, think that its meaning is self-evident, and use it to label a wide range of different people/behaviors. 

[Monty]

Mad Max Fury Road

 

So, for my 38th birthday, decided to do a deep dive on, what I believe, is one of the most successful pure popcorn movies, around. And by deep dive, the true nerdy “research, watch, take notes, and discuss.”

 

Have seen it a number of times, and each time I appreciate it more than the previous, especially considering how much of a nightmare it was to create, how many hours of footage was shot (over 435 hours), how much the actors hated working on it, that not one extra sustained an injury on the movie (and that the extras were made up of Cirque du Soleil performers and ex Olympic athletes), and then how great it turned out.

 

By and large, popcorn movies are just, “Turn off your brain and don’t think.” And even then, some are bette than others. On that front, I really do like this better than others. Not much is said, and yet you know so much about the world (of you haven’t seen any of the previous Mad Max movies). The world is in peril, everything sucks, and women are treated very, very poorly.

 

As a Mad Max movie, it really works as an overall “end” to his story, even if that doesn't ultimately happen and they make more (Miller is making a Furiousa movie). But that’s why I especially love the ending. Furiousa and the rest of the women ascending up to rule the Citadel, while Max is left (chooses to stay) below and forever wander the world alone. It’s sad, but a fitting story for both.

 

Can watch it over and over again. So many great scenes, but my favourite might be when Max goes off in the distance in the night to kill/take care of those trailing them, but Miller shows enough restraint to not show this action scene, you just hear explosions. When he gets back, he doesn’t say anything, he just has blood on him, to which they say:

“Are you bleeding?”

“That’s not his blood.”

 

Again, Miller is a great director at knowing when to pull back and not show. And that’s ultimately why I love the movie even more. So many movies, where an entire world is created, writers and directors feel the need to explain or show so much (ie: see Star Wars prequels, Matrix sequels). But here, Miller doesn’t explain, nor are there rants of expositions thrown at the viewer. Miller, although creating a popcorn movie for everyone, doesn’t treat his audience like morons who need to be told what they’re watching. He knows his audience is smart enough to figure out the world, what words in the world mean (Witness Me), and where the characters ultimately end up, without the characters even saying where they are going to, or what will happen next.

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Monty

[Monty]

On 5/26/2020 at 1:04 PM, Down by the River said:

Dark Waters: 7.5/10

 

Only gets a lower rating because I feel like this type of movie has been made several times before. But, the story is so shocking and gross that it warrants being told. Mark Ruffalo was great. Far better than his performance in Spotlight.

Watched it tonight. Echo what you said how it feels like a movie that’s been made several times before. I did enjoy it, though. Not the same type of movie, but since you mentioned Spotlight, that was a movie that felt like it was better to be a documentary or a book. I found it excruciating to get through.

 

Interesting story for sure. Exhausting to see how long the whole thing went on for.

 

As for Ruffalo, just a personal preference, but I’ve never been a big fan. He’s good as a supporting actor (ie: Zodiac, Shutter Island), but not a fan when he’s the star.

 

Also, why was Anne Hathaway in the movie?

Edited May 29, 2020 by Monty

[Down by the River]

10 hours ago, Monty said:

Watched it tonight. Echo what you said how it feels like a movie that’s been made several times before. I did enjoy it, though. Not the same type of movie, but since you mentioned Spotlight, that was a movie that felt like it was better to be a documentary or a book. I found it excruciating to get through.

 

Interesting story for sure. Exhausting to see how long the whole thing went on for.

 

As for Ruffalo, just a personal preference, but I’ve never been a big fan. He’s good as a supporting actor (ie: Zodiac, Shutter Island), but not a fan when he’s the star.

 

Also, why was Anne Hathaway in the movie?

They must have cut like 15 of her scenes because I can't recall anyone as famous as her being so underused in a movie. 

[Down by the River]

The Standoff at Sparrow Creek: 7.5/10

 

 

Really enjoyed it for what it was, but certain scenes were so poor as to take me out of the movie altogether. The trailer is one of the best I've seen (doesn't give away the movie). The lighting at the end of the movie was terrific. 

[Monty]

45 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

They must have cut like 15 of her scenes because I can't recall anyone as famous as her being so underused in a movie. 

It was really strange. Mark Ruffalo is the ultimate supporting actor, who should never be the lead. And Hathaway should really never be the 3rd or 4th lead in a movie. She’s far too talented to be used in this role. Her role really could have been done for a fraction of the cost by hiring any unknown actress. Her role was fairly unimportant.

[Monty]

1BR

 

Really like thriller/horror films, especially those that include feeling of isolation. I recommend you go into it blind. I really enjoyed it, especially the ending. 

 

[Down by the River]

Swallow: 7/10

 

 

 

[Monty]

10 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

Swallow: 7/10

 

 

 

I’ve heard good things about Swallow

[Down by the River]

1 minute ago, Monty said:

I’ve heard good things about Swallow

I tend to rate movies lower when they start in the middle of a story. We see this woman in a state of depression but don't see how she got there. Makes it harder to understand why she begins to swallow things. We're supposed to believe that this was her breaking point but don't see the build up. It makes it seem like this was just some decision by a bored housewife as opposed to one final attempt to get some control over her life. 

[Monty]

10 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

I tend to rate movies lower when they start in the middle of a story. We see this woman in a state of depression but don't see how she got there. Makes it harder to understand why she begins to swallow things. We're supposed to believe that this was her breaking point but don't see the build up. It makes it seem like this was just some decision by a bored housewife as opposed to one final attempt to get some control over her life. 

I hear you. It’s a risky move by writers/directors (ultimately the writer) to make. When it pays off to begin a movie in the middle of a story (ie: Marriage Story, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Oldboy, You Were Never Really There, etc), it really pays off.

 

 

[Down by the River]

28 minutes ago, Monty said:

I hear you. It’s a risky move by writers/directors (ultimately the writer) to make. When it pays off to begin a movie in the middle of a story (ie: Marriage Story, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Oldboy, You Were Never Really There, etc), it really pays off.

 

 

it can definitely help with pacing. Uncut Gems and Good Time by the Safdie brothers nailed it in terms of throwing you into the intensity and letting you ride it out. I think this move works when the focus is on a situation/event as opposed to a person. 

[Monty]

32 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

Uncut Gems and Good Time

Man, Good Time was another great example of just throwing you right in.

 

I still haven’t watched all of Uncut Gems, which is crazy. I only watched the first 30-40 minutes

[Down by the River]

6 minutes ago, Monty said:

Man, Good Time was another great example of just throwing you right in.

 

I still haven’t watched all of Uncut Gems, which is crazy. I only watched the first 30-40 minutes

I think that might have been my case as well. In Uncut Gems, every single damn scene is so confrontational it can be energy-draining. 

[Gurn]

Star wars episode 9 The Rise of Skywalker:

 

Mixed feelings. Long movie, yet felt empty at times. Happy that, if any new movies come out, it will be with the new generation of characters. Had enough of Luke etc.

One thing that really stuck out as extremely silly was

Spoiler

How is it that ships that have been abandoned out in the desert or sunk in the ocean for decades, just fire up and fly?