Last Movie You Watched - 2020

[Av Demeisen]

Also, one thing that was pointed out by, of all things, Family Guy, is that in the first three movies, there are only two women in the entire Star Wars universe, and one of them dies at the beginning on Luke's homeworld!

I never realised Mon Mothma was a transman.

 

[Trollheart]

Fine. Three, then. It's hardly a cry for sexual equality or equal opportunities in the Empire or Rebellion, is it?

 

[AtramentousFlux]

This fan cut of Dune (1984):

A shame the video resolution is low. A competent cut, but having not seen the movie for a while now, I was surprised at how cringe-inducing some of the dialogue is - I'd forgotten. Still, it's definitely Dune.

Looking forward to December.

 

[ArthurFrayn]

Just watched Hereditary, and scrolled through here -didn't see it mentioned. Surprised at the negative push back of it online -it's not a rip off, it's an effective psychological horror film. In a way, kind of like Rosemary's Baby. Good performances and beautifully shot. Another one of these artisinal horror movies that people are making these days. Like The Lighthouse, not shot on location, all the interiors are sets. The director said that was actually cheaper! Budget on this one - 10 million.
I don't know if I loved it-have to think about that -but I'm glad I saw it!! Worth a view, IMO...Guess I'll put Midsommar in the queue sooner than later...

 

[Hobbit]

I liked Midsommar, but really didn't like Hereditary.

Like The Babadook, I had high expectations for it, but felt it was muchly overrated. They both distinctly underwhelmed me - sorry, Arthur!

(And I really like Rosemary's Baby... )

 

[JunkMonkey]

not a

This fan cut of Dune (1984):

A shame the video resolution is low. A competent cut, but having not seen the movie for a while now, I was surprised at how cringe-inducing some of the dialogue is - I'd forgotten. Still, it's definitely Dune.

Looking forward to December.

For those (like me) unable to see that video, because Youtube have pulled it in my country because of copyright thingies, may I recommend the Tor Browser https://www.torproject.org/ which allowed me to see it after a couple of clicks on 'Yes! Just play the flaming Thing!" buttons.

 

[Trollheart]

What does everyone think of - or does anyone know of - the furore going on about Netflix with this French movie Cuties? Apparently there's a big campaign to have people drop Netflix because it deals with 12-year-old girls in a sexual atmosphere or something. I mean, I ain't seen it, don't particularly want to, but surely if you don't want to watch something don't watch it. What's the point in getting your knickers in a twist and demanding the platform remove the film or you'll stop subscribing to them? Something like 200,000 on the #CancelNetflix thing. I mean, get a life, surely? Agree? Disagree? Interested?

 

[JunkMonkey]

I suspect, from my brief research, that this is another case of people not seeing (or bothering to find out) what the film is actually about before jumping to condemn it because of its subject matter.

Just as it would be stupid of me to call for Films like Amistad and Twelve Years a Slave banned because they show dark-skinned people chained and enslaved. No way could either of those films be described as condoning slavery but they show in the course of a larger narrative, scenes of black people in chains and being whipped and treated like animals.

 

[Hobbit]

For what it's worth, I'm with JM here.

In a wider context, just because a service provides a movie I don't like (not specifically the one mentioned, but any movie) does not mean that I automatically throw a tantrum and claim I will stop using the service. Obviously to not use/pay for the service is my right, but as an adult I accept that people's tastes are broad and not everything offered is to my own taste.

Sometimes such films deal with uncomfortable issues, but they can raise awareness that such things happen/have happened, and by highlighting these points they can lead to sensible, adult discussion of the issues.

Or they can lead to childish hysteria where it becomes all about me rather than accepting and understanding the wider perspective.

 

[Av Demeisen]

I suspect, from my brief research, that this is another case of people not seeing (or bothering to find out) what the film is actually about before jumping to condemn it because of its subject matter.

I have no intention of seeing it, but don't the photos speak for themselves?

 

[Hobbit]

I have no intention of seeing it, but don't the photos speak for themselves?

Me neither, but as its a film rather than a photo, I think I would want to base an opinion on watching the film rather than what others say or what I think the film is about.

I guess that it's rather like me reviewing a book without reading it first.... I wouldn't do it.

 

[Av Demeisen]

Me neither, but as its a film rather than a photo, I think I would want to base an opinion on watching the film rather than what others say or what I think the film is about.

I guess that it's rather like me reviewing a book without reading it first.... I wouldn't do it.

You would be happy to have your twelve year old dressed like that for the world to see?

 

[Trollheart]

I'm certainly on the side of "at least watch it before you judge." After all, as the simian one says, certain movies could be assumed to be about one thing or seeing certain subjects certain ways, when in fact they approach them totally different. Anyone looking at Downfall might think it was offensive for attempting to humanise Hitler, when in fact what it does is throw his megalomania and incompetence and refusal to face reality into harsh focus. People campaigned against The Last Temptation of Christ, The Passion of the Christ and even Life of Brian. I bet few of those who protested had even watched any of the movies.

@ AV Demeisen: I don't think anyone's saying it's right to have those girls dressed as they are, but have you seen the movie and do you know the context in which that's used? Even if you have, and do, and still hate the movie, are you saying it should be banned/removed because you and others don't like it? Where does that end? Thin end of the wedge, surely? Slippery slope to fascism?

 

[Av Demeisen]

@Trollheart Those images are out there for all to involuntarily see and I find them inappropriate in themselves. How could the context of the film legitimise them? I am not interested in the movie's plot, nor do I care about an anti-Netflix campaign started by right wing hotheads.

As for Hitler in Downfall, it was necessary to portray Hitler as a human being. He had been depicted as either a madman or empty vessel (with only remarkable rhetorical abilities) for decades. The same trend can be observed in recent outstanding Hitler biographies: Kershaw (published in 2000, Hitler still an empty vessel) and Volker Ullrich (published last decade, Hitler as human being). Part of this taboo was a moralising argument of the sort that it would make him less of a monster and could/would excuse Nazi crimes. In fact the opposite is true, I think. Acknowledging Hitler's humanity makes him all the more frightening.

In my opinion the comparison of these two controversies is invalid.

 

[Trollheart]

That's fine; you have an objection to the movie. I have no problem with that, as long as you believe (or don't care) that a knee-jerk reaction by certain people to have it removed and punish, or try to punish Netflix (who, I don't believe, even made it, just carry it) is wrong. That's all I'm saying. I'm neither trying to argue for the legitimacy of the movie nor its capacity to upset or even disgust people; that's entirely up to every individual to evaluate for themselves. But I don't hold with so-called moral leaders who seem to think that just because they think something is bad, nobody else should get to see it, or have the choice to. It smacks of the work of Mary Whitehouse in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s. People who think they can direct the morals of others get up my nose.

 

[Av Demeisen]

That's fine; you have an objection to the movie.

I have an objection to the images I am involuntarily confronted with online. By extension, I guess that means I would likely have an objection to the film, should I decide to read up on it.

Pedophilia is criminalised. If boundaries were crossed in this film, and I am not saying they are, it would not be forbidden just because so-called moral leaders try to decide for you and me what we can watch. This is the difference with the Hitler depictions.

 

[Av Demeisen]

And of course for The Last Temptation of Christ, The Passion of the Christ, Life of Brian it goes without saying blasphemy is a victimless crime.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I have no intention of seeing it, but don't the photos speak for themselves?

No they don't. I'm assuming we are talking about stills from the movie.

The film is 1 hour 36 minutes long =96 minutes.

At 24 frames a second that gives you (24x60x60) 86,400 images to take out of context.

If we are talking about publicity materials I can assure you that film makers often have very little, if ANY, control over that.

 

[ArthurFrayn]

I liked Midsommar, but really didn't like Hereditary.

Like The Babadook, I had high expectations for it, but felt it was muchly overrated. They both distinctly underwhelmed me - sorry, Arthur!

(And I really like Rosemary's Baby... )

No worries. I completely get underwhelmed as a response. But there are people online who effing hated it. That I confess to be puzzled by. Pretty sure if it was made 20 years ago, it would currently be regarded as a cult classic, warts and all. There is a little TV movie-ish-ness about it. Just like The Color Out of Space which is an arguably similar film. Perhaps closer in overall tone than Rosemary's Baby. Haven't seen the Babdook yet.

 

[JunkMonkey]

You would be happy to have your twelve year old dressed like that for the world to see?

When my oldest daughter (now 18) was aged 12 she was determined to be an actor. If she had been offered a part in this film I would have been damn sure I had read the script and talked to the director and, if I had agreed to the film's worth and agreed to her taking part, I would have insisted on being on set during production to make sure that the script I had been shown was the one they were shooting. Under those conditions, yes, from the stills I have seen then I would have been happy ('happy' is the wrong word) I would have been prepared to let her to appear dressed 'like that' for the world to see.