Amazon Vehicles Up to 80 Percent Off Textbooks Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Snacks Totes Amazon Cash Back Offer ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Florida Georgia Line Shop Now
Customer Discussions > Movie forum

Your Review of the Last Movie You Watched

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 8801-8825 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 1:38:59 PM PST
PoM: Don't say you haven't been warned.

Europa is a good film.

Everything after that is dreck.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 1:47:10 PM PST
WAS: I won't. It's just my belief that every director should be given the benefit of the doubt with at least one film.

But don't count on it soon. I've got so much to watch these days.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 2:14:48 PM PST
Zolar Waka says:
A lot of von Trier's work is fun to watch....don't listen to the naysayers. I was a bit tired by "Melancholia" and "Antichrist" hasn't aged well, yet, but try "Europa," "Epidemic," "Element of Crime," "Boss of it All," and "Dancer in the Dark."

It's fashionable to bash von Trier right now. I say you are on the right track with "let me decide after seeing some of his work."

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 3:06:20 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 27, 2012 3:07:30 PM PST
Zolar: I think you have to divide von Trier into two periods--up to Europa, and after Europa. I have several of the early films you mention on my queue.

Dancer in the Dark--feh. More fashionable, ugly nihilism.

I haven't seen The Boss of it All--and it does appear to be a departure from the corrosive nihilism of his post-Europa work--but it also appears to be a Dogme 95 film--fashionable bad technique. It's a bit like trying to write in words of one syllable without adverbs and adjectives. You can do it--but why??

Breaking the Waves still heads my list of the vilest films I have ever seen.

And even at his best--as in Europa--I would never call his work fun.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 3:36:28 PM PST
Zolar Waka says:
You won't like "Boss of It All." It's a new style approach for von Trier, but really more of a riff on Dogme95. It was experimental in terms of allegedly random (computer programming within controls) camera movement, despite location of the actors, etc. You gonna hate it, man! But, the story itself was cool and fun to watch, and funny as heck....for me, anyway. And, I didn't mind the style. I don't feel it was as radical as perhaps von Trier might've thought it would be or intended...or maybe it was, I don't know.

I likes me some Dancer in the Dark, though. Nihilism or not....you and I differ greatly on the value of nihilism in film, anyway. I get that.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 4:31:50 PM PST
Jon says:
>Zolar Waka says: "It's fashionable to bash von Trier right now."<

So far as I can see, it's still highly fashionable to give von Trier unreserved praise. Unlike another artistically bankrupt fake, Christopher Nolan, for whom the tide is finally turning against. I've seen very little evidence to the contrary of that in this world today.
Aside from a few of us on this forum, he seems universally adored by critics and Euro-cinema fans. Most audience members respond respectfully to his stuff. Much praise has been spoken of 'Dancer in the Dark' on this forum, from all sides accept William Smith's, Toby Soan's, or my sides.
I've heard almost no serious criticism of his long string of schlock-arty trash. Which is interesting. I don't think any director has made such an unbroken line of virtually worthless claptrap as Trier, and given a free pass from critics, even lavish acclaim for his dubious accomplishments.
He is the very definition of a fashionably "dark" provokateur. Seems that Trier has replaced Almodovar as the go-to director to acclaim for their enfant terrible, derivative, shallowly 'transgressive' ways. At least Almodovar always hired a capable cinematographer.

It's amazing how little critics ask of their provokateurs these days. Godard once had something to say, and an exciting, filmically fluent way to say it.
Trier is in an artistic and spiritual muddle, more about cheap shock effects than anything else. Far closer a moviemaking cousin or son to Rob Zombie or Bert I. Gordon, than Ingmar Bergman or Carl Th. Dreyer.

Like recent Godard movies, I find his aesthetics to be counterfeit money (phrase borrowed from Herzog). I don't really care what his subjects are. It's not the "darkness" or politics that bothers me, it's that he is a supreme faker with nothing interesting to say, and no intelligent way to get it across if he did. I have more respect for Rob Zombie, an honest trash-flinger.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 4:50:38 PM PST
Zolar: And what, pray, is the point of that sort of stylistic nonsense?

I once say John Cage doing one of his aleotoric pieces--as i recall, random bits of Thoreau's Journals selected by a I Ching process and then electronically transformed. It sounds far more interesting than it actually was.

Nihilism is not merely an aesthetic flaw, but a moral and philosophical flaw as well. It certainly speaks to our--dare I say decadent--artistic climate that von Trier continues to be taken seriously in so many quarters. And that other pointless exercises in style, like this new version of Anna Karenina, elict so much praise as well. Toy trains, forsooth.

I might put things somewhat differently--and frankly more bluntly--than JB on this matter, but I find myself in agreement with him--and in large part on Nolan as well.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 7:04:29 PM PST
Mike Gordan says:
WAS: I kinda forgot that von Trier directed Melancholia and just stumbled upon it late that Saturday night. Needless to say, I found out relatively quickly that he directed, but decided to give it the benefit of the doubt (I was half asleep by the time the killer planet appeared). And within the first few minutes of said film, I figured I'd be able to give an entertaining review pretending to be a fanatic in a somewhat hyperbolic way.

Frankly, I'm only going to give him three or four more chances. Manderlay, Dancer in the Dark, and Zentropa are on my list of considerations to check out, as well as, quite possibly, Breaking the Waves (that depends if I can preserve my sanity long enough to give it a shot). After that, consider myself done, unless you can recommend me his pre-Zentropa films quite highly.

Speaking of which, I also made a somewhat entertaining review of Cloud Atlas in which case I was pretending to be giving it heaps of praises only to condemn it at the end (I even went so far as to paraphrase the famous quote from the high school principle from Billy Madison). Check that review out too if you want.

PS: So you consider Breaking the Waves to be the single worst film you've ever seen, correct? It sounds like I have yet to really understand what real s*** in films is until I come to know that film.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 7:55:47 PM PST
Zolar Waka says:
I think it was a bit too clinical and there was virtually no payoff. So, not much point, but who cares? Nihilism? Morality and philosophy are subjects distinct from my enjoyment of film.

I don't watch Nolan films.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 7:58:38 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 27, 2012 8:00:20 PM PST
Zolar Waka says:
I do find his later films less enjoyable than his earlier work. So, if I was in the business of defending other peoples' work, I'd say it might be a bit difficult. Personally, I've enjoyed at least parts of all of von Trier's films.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 9:14:30 PM PST
Robin Williams and Jim Carrey are both comedians who have the ability to act, but they need directors who are not afraid to "direct" them, and not let them go off and do their usual schtick.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 11:34:42 PM PST
I'm similar, in that I can't remember ever thinking of a film as immoral. I remember lots of immorality *in* films, but not the film itself. Perhaps I'm just not morally sensitive. Perhaps I have a deeper understanding of immoral characters, their motives and so on. I don't know, but whatever it is, I've never been morally outraged by a film.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 6:16:39 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 29, 2012 2:08:07 PM PST
I don't consider films immoral; pushing an agenda, yes. Propaganda, yes? There was a time in the last decade when I started noticing that a lot of films seemed to be pushing this reprehensible protagonists schtick. Which is completely different from bad guys that happen to be the focus of the story. I don't mean films like The Godfather, or even Goodfellas, where you know that these are not good people even if you're intrigued. I'm talking about films like The Devil's Rejects, the remake of 3:10 to Yuma. Natural Born Killers, you could even go back as far as Bonnie and Clyde in which bad people are deliberately shown to be "cool" and beautiful and the filmmakers seem to go out of their way to show any characters with any sense of a moral compass or good intentions to be naive, stupid, or actually twisted as well. Those films really started to get old fast, but there seemed to be a not so small element in society that respond to films like that. Probably an off shoot of that mindset in the 80's that "dark" equaled "realistic".

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 6:20:53 AM PST
stevign says:
Very true, Williams is far too manic without serious direction. I think it's safe to say if Robin Williams had been on the Oprah show along with Tom Cruise, he would have joined Tom in dancing on the couch.

As for serious Drama, I saw him in the phenomenal tv series Homicide: Life on the Street back in 1994 and he was excellent. This youtube example is labeled "Jake Gyllenhaal in Homicide: Life on the Street", but it's more about Robin Williams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMqfrvSXJ0

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 7:17:16 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 28, 2012 7:18:35 AM PST
stevign says:
Your assessment is right on the money James. Hollywood has become enamored with and prefers grey over black & white. And in a society like ours which is already obsessed with trying to be anything that's remotely considered "cool", the idea behind an Antihero can really get out of hand and have unwanted social consequences.

Am I advocating that Hollywood go back to the days of White hat vs Black hat, no, but in a conversation about the Antihero in modern American society one must admit that films like "Dillinger", for example, which stars the very popular and sexy Johnny Depp, would more than likely have a detrimental effect on young kids who are already struggling with the decision of joining a gang or not.
Boys without fathers are more susceptible to gang life than their peers and a "cool" bad guy in movies can look pretty romantic to a kid and it may easily be the tipping point in their decision to become one.

If there is an answer to this dilemma, I don't have one other than society as a whole needing to make it clear that "cool" can and should contain morality. I hear gang members, rappers with reprehensible lyrics and other tough guys demanding respect; to this I ask, "For what?".

Posted on Nov 28, 2012 7:34:40 AM PST
Larry Kelley says:
stevign: This isn't exactly about movies but more about morality: In a conversation last night a friend mentioned that he had heard a news report that some country had made beastiality illegal. I suggested that it was England and we both laughed, but I tried to look it up on Google and guess what, it isn't illegal in some states in the US. This year (I think) the Dutch made it illegal after 2 years of debate. I read that and started laughing again. "As long as the animal isn't being hurt" seems to make it okay in some places. oh, my. As to movies, moral or immoral, I have found myself enjoying movies that I know are reprehensible morally. If it is well made, well acted, all that, I will watch it. I have gone to movies/or watched them out of shear curiosity, as often as not, to be honest, prurient curiosity.

In another vein, there has always been a big debate over violence in movies/TV. The fact of the matter is that humans, by and large, have a great capacity for violence, for violent feelings that are restrained with great difficulty. Those that would deny that fact are looking at the world through black out glasses.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 8:35:01 AM PST
stevign says:
re: "I have found myself enjoying movies that I know are reprehensible morally. If it is well made, well acted, all that, I will watch it. I have gone to movies/or watched them out of shear curiosity, as often as not, to be honest, prurient curiosity."

I do too and often enjoy them quite a bit.....BUT, I'm 65, know the difference between right and wrong and no longer susceptible or naive.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 8:55:11 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 28, 2012 8:58:01 AM PST
ROFL!!! I was drinking my coffee and I spluttered :))

(Are we still engaged??????? Now I know you're definitely a sugardaddy, and I'm not a cougar, lol)

Posted on Nov 28, 2012 9:02:52 AM PST
Steelers fan says:
Robin Williams doesn't need a director; he needs a guy with a baseball bat to give him one if he tries to step in front of a movie camera again. Nothing permanently disabling, of course.

Posted on Nov 28, 2012 9:03:51 AM PST
Steelers fan says:
I bet the late Pauline Kael would have liked that one.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 10:34:30 AM PST
There are a few performances of Robin Williams' that justify his career. He just needs more roles like that of the therapist in Good Will Hunting.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 10:36:34 AM PST
My favourite Robin William's film role was John Keating in Dead Poets Society.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 10:38:54 AM PST
I haven't seen that film in years. I was planning on changing that, but then I got way too busy.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 10:48:29 AM PST
He was okay in that, I particularly liked him in The Fisher King, and The World According to Garp.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 3:15:04 PM PST
stevign says:
Sugardaddy? No way toots, women don't have any more gold in their pants than I have in mine.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Movie forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Movie Locations 10 42 minutes ago
Movie Game! Ten Movies Where . . . (June 2016) 2089 48 minutes ago
Bette Davis 11 1 hour ago
One Degree of Separation - Season Five 4805 1 hour ago
Bernard Herrmann Movies Poll & Discussion 94 3 hours ago
Alibi Lounge II: Cast Iron 3220 5 hours ago
TV Talk 4498 5 hours ago
★ Return of the World's Worst Discussion Thread...Ever! ★ 1176 5 hours ago
Even More Reviews on the Last Movie You Watched 5100 5 hours ago
"The Big Short": Quite an eye opener 2 7 hours ago
"Star Trek: Beyond" 241 9 hours ago
Westerns 508 9 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  272
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Nov 17, 2010
Latest post:  Mar 1, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 17 customers

Search Customer Discussions