User Avatar Image

Rate The Last Movie(s) You Watched

posted by Secret Fawful on - last edited - Viewed by 18.6K users

Same as the Rate the Last Game You Finished topic but with movies. There should be more film talk around here. So, I'll start off with the movies I've seen in the past few days.

Law-Abiding Citizen - 5.5/11

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World - 7/11

Sword of the Stranger - 9/11

Blade Runner: Final Cut - 11/11

Blade Runner is one of those films I want to love but also want to hate.

1.8K Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @mgrant said: Cutthroat Island: 5/10 Dear Christ, I could see why this movie sunk Geena Davis' career. slow meandering plot, bad costumes, bad dialogue and SHAW (I will kill you for this Modine, I don't care if you were Joker in Full Metal Jacket, that doesn't excuse this). I was bored and very irritated. This is not the worst movie I've seen (Manos the Hands of Fate will always get that, methinks), but it was certainly a waste of 2 hours.

    Ugh, my dad knows that this absolutely should be a bad movie. He knows that most people despise it. And for some perverse reason, it's still one of his favorite movies.

  • Alice in Wonderland - 4/5

    It was really good actually, and Johnny Depp did a good job as The Hatter.

  • @GuruGuru214 said: Ugh, my dad knows that this absolutely should be a bad movie. He knows that most people despise it. And for some perverse reason, it's still one of his favorite movies.

    It's more than just him. I know of three people in my house here in York who swear it's their favorite movie, terrible flaws and all.

  • Citizen Kane - 1/11 - Technically skillful. Would have preferred it as a book. I'll probably spend months figuring out all of my problems with it.
    Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - 10/11 - I adore this film. I adore it's direction, craziness, filthiness, and its performances.
    Where the Buffalo Roam - 8/11 - Not as good or stylized as FaLiLV but Bill Murray plays Thompson equally as well as Depp did in Gilliam's picture.

  • Prince of Persia: The sands of time 8/10

    Nice entertainment.

  • @Secret Fawful said: Citizen Kane - 5/11 - Technically skillful. Would have preferred it as a book. I'll probably spend months figuring out all of my problems with it.


    I'm sorry, but there are some points that can't just be "stated" like that. To just say "Citizen Kane Sucks" without backing is to just sound blindly arrogant. The film is considered to be great by pretty much everyone who knows their shit in terms of cinema. Why do you think that is? Do you think they're all wearing rose-colored glasses, or sitting in some monocle club that you are far too great to ever join?

    Also, you say it's "technically skillful", but then say it would have worked better as a book. What? That doesn't make any sense. You can't write this shot, you can't write deep focus, the excellent score, the fantastic effects, the elaborate sets meant to communicate as much to the viewer as the fucking words, or many of the things that make Citizen Kane an almost objectively incredible film. To just walk in and say "I don't like it, that is all, goodnight" is just to kick up shit just for the sake of kicking up shit.

    Citizen Kane is a miracle of cinema. You have a score by Bernard Hernman(who later would write scores for Psycho and other Hitchcock films, Taxi Driver, and The Twilight Zone), cinematography by game-changer Gregg Toland, a screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz(whose witty and satirical style of humor came to define an era, on top of being fucking hilarious), and a cast and crew that brought with them a diverse range of knowledge in terms of design from a range of creative disciplines including radio and the stage play, which is part of the reason why Citizen Kane is such a strongly dialog-driven film(but, due to other aspects, is also hardly something that could be done without major and regrettable loss in radio, stage, or book formats). Fuck, I'm not even scratching the SURFACE of why this film is so great. The AFI didn't say it was the greatest American film as some sort of joke, or due to some academia version of peer pressure. There are damn-near objective reasons to call this film one of the greats. Greatest? Maybe, maybe not, but it sure as Hell deserves better than a fucking 45%.

    But perhaps it's not entirely your fault. Citizen Kane was never meant to be seen on a screen the size of your average television computer monitor. Modern films are often framed so that they will perform just as well on video as they do in theaters, which was a non-factor in the time of Citizen Kane. I've known people who never really appreciated the film until they've seen it on a large enough screen, because this film? It's fucking DENSE. And I mean that in the best possible way, the film is layered, intelligent, and almost playfully communicative. The details are so prevalent that it's one of those films that makes you say "Wow, I noticed a new thing every time I watch it".

    This film is not only a great movie, it's an American treasure, and it deserves a great deal of respect and value, far more than your three small-sentence blurb gave it.

  • Um, I'll toss my two cents in on that.

    Yes, Citizen Kane is an utterly unique, brilliantly shot and wonderfully atmospheric film. I don't think there's any real debate about that. However, personally I find the story to be lacking. It's an analysis of a man whose noble goals degrade into grab for power, but while I recognize the potential power of such a narrative, I find myself unable to really sympathize or care about what happens to Kane. This may just be that I really find Orson Welles an impersonal actor who, while bringing a lot of power to his role, seems to leave his humanity back in his trailer.

    Ultimately, I don't DISLIKE Citizen Kane so much as I feel that it personally does not effect me the way a truly great film should. I finish the film with an 'well, it was a gorgeous film' but no deeper emotional reaction than that.

    This isn't the only 'classic' film that I find I don't care for either. Casablanca is considered one of the greatest love stories put to film and honestly I'd put it on the level of the English Patient in terms of sheer tedium. It's possible to make an interesting character based film, but Bergman and Bogart have little onscreen chemistry in my mind, and Bogart is really a one-note actor on the whole. Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE fan of film noir, particularly Bogart's Sam Spade stuff like The big Sleep and The Maltese Falcon, but he does just play the same jaded character in all his films.

    Again, this is not to say the film is bad, by any stretch of the imagination. I make it a hobby to hunt down the worst films possible and take the piss out of them, so believe me I know bad cinema. My problem, again, is that I'm not personally effected by Casablanca. I don't see it as this glorious love story everyone makes it out to be. Sleepless in Seattle, a film much less highly rated, made me care a hell of a lot more.

    This is just my opinion though, I was just throwing it out there for consideration.

  • @Rather Dashing said: I'm sorry, but there are some points that can't just be "stated" like that. To just say "Citizen Kane Sucks" without backing is to just sound blindly arrogant. The film is considered to be great by pretty much everyone who knows their shit in terms of cinema. Why do you think that is? Do you think they're all wearing rose-colored glasses, or sitting in some monocle club that you are far too great to ever join?

    Also, you say it's "technically skillful", but then say it would have worked better as a book. What? That doesn't make any sense. You can't write this shot, you can't write deep focus, the excellent score, the fantastic effects, the elaborate sets meant to communicate as much to the viewer as the fucking words, or many of the things that make Citizen Kane an almost objectively incredible film. To just walk in and say "I don't like it, that is all, goodnight" is just to kick up shit just for the sake of kicking up shit.

    Citizen Kane is a miracle of cinema. You have a score by Bernard Hernman(who later would write scores for Psycho and other Hitchcock films, Taxi Driver, and The Twilight Zone), cinematography by game-changer Gregg Toland, a screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz(whose witty and satirical style of humor came to define an era, on top of being fucking hilarious), and a cast and crew that brought with them a diverse range of knowledge in terms of design from a range of creative disciplines including radio and the stage play, which is part of the reason why Citizen Kane is such a strongly dialog-driven film(but, due to other aspects, is also hardly something that could be done without major and regrettable loss in radio, stage, or book formats). Fuck, I'm not even scratching the SURFACE of why this film is so great. The AFI didn't say it was the greatest American film as some sort of joke, or due to some academia version of peer pressure. There are damn-near objective reasons to call this film one of the greats. Greatest? Maybe, maybe not, but it sure as Hell deserves better than a fucking 45%.

    But perhaps it's not entirely your fault. Citizen Kane was never meant to be seen on a screen the size of your average television computer monitor. Modern films are often framed so that they will perform just as well on video as they do in theaters, which was a non-factor in the time of Citizen Kane. I've known people who never really appreciated the film until they've seen it on a large enough screen, because this film? It's fucking DENSE. And I mean that in the best possible way, the film is layered, intelligent, and almost playfully communicative. The details are so prevalent that it's one of those films that makes you say "Wow, I noticed a new thing every time I watch it".

    This film is not only a great movie, it's an American treasure, and it deserves a great deal of respect and value, far more than your three small-sentence blurb gave it.

    1233928590_citizen%20kane%20clapping.gif
    Now allow me to disagree. For one your post in its entirety and reactions like it to any person daring to not adore this movie is one of my first problems with this movie. If you dislike it, if you have a differing opinion about it, you're automatically a moron. No matter what you know. You could praise Casablanca until you're practically jerking off, you could marvel at the technical beauty and spectacle of Brazil, and you could praise and applaud Sergio Leone's beautiful cinematography until you're blue in the face. But once you dare to do anything but lovingly idolize Kane you're a bluthering nincompoop. When people begin to tell you what to think about a film you lose all personal connection to it.

    @Rather Dashing said: I'm sorry, but there are some points that can't just be "stated" like that.

    Any point can be stated like that.
    To just say "Citizen Kane Sucks"
    I didn't say it sucks. I rated it based on my personal evaluation of it based on how much I liked it. I didn't like it. I didn't enjoy it. I have problems with it. And I can still praise it for the things it did well.

    The film is considered to be great by pretty much everyone who knows their shit in terms of cinema.


    Except me.

    Why do you think that is?


    I thought it was because people have differing opinions. I'll have to change my name to Citizen Kane Fan #2556584848954 or perhaps I'll be shot at sunrise for treason.

    Do you think they're all wearing rose-colored glasses, or sitting in some monocle club that you are far too great to ever join?


    That's just hilariously over-exaggerated.

    Also, you say it's "technically skillful", but then say it would have worked better as a book. What? That doesn't make any sense. You can't write this shot, you can't write deep focus, the excellent score, the fantastic effects, the elaborate sets meant to communicate as much to the viewer as the fucking words, or many of the things that make Citizen Kane an almost objectively incredible film.


    As a book I would just enjoy it much more than watching it, regardless of how well the film is built. This particular thing just comes down to enjoyment. I would rather spend my time reading the story of Citizen Kane than watching it.

    To just walk in and say "I don't like it, that is all, goodnight"-

    I thought that was the point of the whole damn topic. Simple ratings.

    Citizen Kane is a miracle of cinema. You have a score by Bernard Hernman(who later would write scores for Psycho and other Hitchcock films, Taxi Driver, and The Twilight Zone), cinematography by game-changer Gregg Toland, a screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz(whose witty and satirical style of humor came to define an era, on top of being fucking hilarious), and a cast and crew that brought with them a diverse range of knowledge in terms of design from a range of creative disciplines including radio and the stage play, which is part of the reason why Citizen Kane is such a strongly dialog-driven film(but, due to other aspects, is also hardly something that could be done without major and regrettable loss in radio, stage, or book formats). Fuck, I'm not even scratching the SURFACE of why this film is so great.


    Amazing. You're selling it AND telling it.

    The AFI didn't say it was the greatest American film as some sort of joke, or due to some academia version of peer pressure.


    Screw the AFI. I'm not the AFI.

    There are damn-near objective reasons to call this film one of the greats. Greatest? Maybe, maybe not, but it sure as Hell deserves better than a fucking 45%.

    But perhaps it's not entirely your fault. Citizen Kane was never meant to be seen on a screen the size of your average television computer monitor. Modern films are often framed so that they will perform just as well on video as they do in theaters, which was a non-factor in the time of Citizen Kane. I've known people who never really appreciated the film until they've seen it on a large enough screen, because this film? It's fucking DENSE. And I mean that in the best possible way, the film is layered, intelligent, and almost playfully communicative. The details are so prevalent that it's one of those films that makes you say "Wow, I noticed a new thing every time I watch it".

    This film is not only a great movie, it's an American treasure, and it deserves a great deal of respect and value, far more than your three small-sentence blurb gave it.

    Right. Anyway when I said it was technically skillful, I mean in cinematography, production, acting, music, tone, screenplay, music, atmosphere, art design, etc. That's what the five points was for. Plenty of films are much better.

    Kane isn't the only movie Toland did work on. His work on the Grapes of Wrath and Wuthering Heights is fantastic and those are better films. However, I've decided to change my score.

    Citizen Kane - 1/11

    Because now that you've told me what my opinion about the film should be, preached me a sermon, labeled me as a film heretic, talked down to me as if I don't already know the film's history as if you're the most righteous knowledgeable encyclopedia on the subject (I knew everything you preached to me about the films production already btw because I wanted to seriously evaluate every aspect of this well-praised film before coming to a serious conclusion on rating it and I still don't know all of my reasons hence why I said it will take me months to figure them out) and the champion for Kane's rights plus self-proclaimed biggest Kane fan, etc. I wouldn't be able to enjoy the film again if it spit gold at me. I'm not going to watch it again ever. But hey. I guess it's my loss. And don't come at me claiming I'm venomous or antagonistic. You started this argument, not me. You're the one with a spear up your ass because I don't like your beloved film, and who came to me about it with your heroic crusade. I rated it how I thought it was fair after a lot of serious deliberation. I gave it that courtesy because of it's reputation, and because I wanted to be fair. And I'm not sorry in the slightest. I'm sure that while my big bad 45% score is chomping at Kane's heels, Citizen Kane can rest easy knowing that the entire rest of the world is soothingly licking it's feet clean from my drivel. Oh wait, it doesn't care. It's a movie.

    Yes, Citizen Kane is an utterly unique, brilliantly shot and wonderfully atmospheric film. I don't think there's any real debate about that. However, personally I find the story to be lacking. It's an analysis of a man whose noble goals degrade into grab for power, but while I recognize the potential power of such a narrative, I find myself unable to really sympathize or care about what happens to Kane. This may just be that I really find Orson Welles an impersonal actor who, while bringing a lot of power to his role, seems to leave his humanity back in his trailer.

    This is a big reason for me. I cared about Kane for the first half of the film and I really began to like it, and then it went downhill from there.

  • @Secret Fawful said: Except me.


    Have you considered the idea that, i dunno, perhaps you don't know your shit when it comes to cinema?

    I mean, instead of stating why you don't like the film, you just went: BAWWW YOU'RE MEAN I DON'T LIKE THE FILM NOW.

Add Comment