Dude Rates Movies

Well that was creepy. Didn't get the point though.

All neat and cute. People from the 50s had class and could danse for sure.

Jean Gabin catchlines all the way.

I had originally planned to never watch this adaptation, considering how much I enjoyed the book (and didn't want to spoil it), but I have been forced. This is an excellent adaptation.

Clint Eastwood be casually watching himself act. This is excellent as long as there is the tension. Once the tension is resolved it delves into sentimental afternoon TV movie.

What the actual fuck now. Joaquin Phoenix is so candid lol.

I don't understand how one could hope to stand any chance against something that can alter your senses and consciousness.

Two things are unstoppable in this world: German clubbers, and Parisian traffic.

This might have been a very very good movie, had they reduced the runtime by cutting all the theatricals for the simple plot.

The whole Paris arc is bonkers.

It's really simple, context commutations produces superficial level of focus. Same reason why I couldn't handle Cloud Atlas. I cannot be in the movie, if the movie is constantly slipping through the fingers of my mind.

I liked the rocks.

Filmed plays are weird.

Perfect feel-good lighthearted yet clever romance for a Sunday night.

Fincher's attention to detail in on another level.

In the dinner scene, when the subway is passing through and shaking the flat, we can hear what might be a ball falling to the ground and maybe bouncing a bit. Later that night, when Mills is discussing the case with Somerset, he casually picks up a basketball to put it back on some furniture.

In the same scene, Mills offers a beer to Somerset, which states his preference for wine. While they're chatting, Mills fills up a regular glass with wine (instead of using an actual glass for wine). When served, Somerset is too focused on his documents to notice the glass. But when the subway passes through again, Somerset goes for a sip and gives a weird look at the non-wine glass containing wine.

I love it.

Pornstars don't sound like the smartest ones of the bunch.

Brendan Fraser looks so kind. The depiction of the physical and mental issue is oddly fascinating, but the melodrama seemed out of place to me.

Forgot to take my nap before the screening.

Samuel L. Jackson is a force of nature. Give this man all the catchlines.

This is the second movie I see in a week in which a character explains the principle of moving pictures (The Fabelmans) and in 2023 which celebrates the virtue of movie-going as an escape (Babylon). And to be fair, the scene-as-tribute to cinema in Empire of Light makes the similar one in Babylon look ridiculous.

Roger Deakins doesn't miss. Olivia Colman is a SUPERSTAR.

A diary of Spielberg's coming of age from the man himself is going to be intriguing for any Spielberg fan, so this automatically got my undivided attention, and appreciation. Still, the movie is a bizarre thing, firstly because it contains anecdotes which, as significant as they might be for the director, can seem out of place for an external spectator. Secondly because Michelle Williams and Paul Dano's acting oscillates between some weird phony play and actual great acting, and, in my opinion, just awkwardly personifies the sensibility that Spielberg tries to convey about his parents (which I obviously never met, so I'm completely talking out of my ass here).

It is said that decent writers write for themselves, but great writers write for the reader. Spielberg spent his career making movies for moviegoers, I guess it's fair enough to cut him some slack when he's making a movie for himself. Good of him to let us peek. (Especially the scene with his high school crush, which gave my packed theater a pretty good laugh.)

Absolute beast of a movie.

Gen Z and Millenials at my screening, giggling when Jack is drawing Rose, and clapping when the credits come. This movie is just cruising through generations like fine wine. James Cameron pulled out some sort of magic formula.

Nice TV movie.

Fascinating stuff and great tension!

Internet says that actual nuclear protocoles are top secret. What makes me believe they're better than what is shown in the movie is that if you have the ability to authenticate orders but wouldn't trust a cancellation, why would you trust the original order in a first place (which is by far the gravest).

Back when Andrew Niccol was a killer screenwriter.

Could Shyamalan just make good movies again?

Me at the middle of the movie: so the morale of the story is that telling the truth and being authentic to people makes your life easier.

Me at the end: wait.

How things evolve at each Spider-Man reboot:

• Dumbness: ↗️
• Feel-Good Vibes: ↗️
• Aunt May's age: ↘️
• Suspension of disbelief regarding Spider-Man going on with his shenanigans in public places (sometimes carelessly removing his mask) in spite of the growing ubiquity of video: ↗️

Tony Stark saying to Peter that if he's nothing without his suit, then he doesn't deserve it, and the callback to that being Peter using his BIG STRONG MUSCLES to lift a bunch of rocks is the dumbest thing. Are the screenwriters 8 years-old?

This movie felt like it had infinite duration; but I wasn't even mad about it. I just sat back end enjoyed the stroll with a curious eye. The view from inside the classical music industry is particularly interesting, assuming it is accurate enough.

Ce film peut être interprété comme étant de droite, de gauche, ou neutre.

De droite car le scénario catastrophe qu'il explore le contraint à associer pendant toute sa durée l'imagerie de la cité avec l'imagerie de la violence.

De gauche car son utilisation des codes du film de guerre mythologique lui fait esthétiser les deux camps qui s'affrontent, qui ont chacune leurs raisons et leur cause à défendre suite à un casus belli, atténuant ainsi l'asymétrie des rôles de la délinquance d'un côté, et de l'ordre républicain de l'autre.

Neutre, car il se refuse effrontément à toute tentative de rationalisation, ou d'aide à l'interprétation de ce qu'il montre.

Il faut embrasser l'interprétation de la neutralité pour pouvoir apprécier le spectacle cinématographique sidérant, qui a de quoi rendre fier le cinéma français quant à sa capacité technique et esthétique.

Homo Sapiens: Trained for 300,000 years to detect threats and predators.

Men: don't you think you're a bit stressed out darling lemme tell you about rationality

This movie feels like the aftermath of a solid movie that decided to do cocaine. It has the size of a Scorcese saga, the punch of Mad Max: Fury Road, the excessiveness of The Wolf of Wall Street, and the overwhelming anxiety of Mother! It's a disjointed mess that fires all cylinders in all directions, with bodily fluids and evil Tobey McGuire and jazz and a love of cinema. It's a massive beast that moves with weird gesticulation, grand directing, deliciously outrageous scenes, and kind of lands on its feet, like a cat that just panicked after having set a kitchen on fire.

I had a great time watching it.

Medium-length is a cool movie format. No scene is unnecessary. All dialogues are well-written. Acting is excellent. Good movie.

Could have benefited from taking itself even less seriously, and cut the afternoon-TV-movie psycho drama.

When you look at it, Jake Gyllenhaal has played about the entire psychological range in his career. Discrete but solid performances.

"I don't know anything about anthropology" seems like an appropriate response to witnessing murder. How many red flags do you need god dammit.

Anyway great directing, and stellar acting from Florence Pugh.

The movie burns the doubt card too fast to hold any tension, which was kind of a disappointment, then decides that it wouldn't be a survival but a slasher, which was another disappointment, and ultimately chose to be cynical, which was a final disappointment (I'm sorry but building such an empathy-inducing character so that she can become the queen of psycho-swedish barbarian dickheads is beyond my threshold of tolerability). It still has value in its study of the mechanics of a cult, all wrapped up in a bizarre but captivating atmosphere. It is, in fact, this atmosphere that makes me like the movie in hindsight. Rarely a movie has left such a striking aftertaste in my mind.

No comment

Conclusion is less satisfactory than the first one, but still great intertainment.

Some nice dialogues away from being a complete bore.

Crazy ass shit right there.

I liked the wide range of settings: connecting 1980s neighborhoody Detroit to the 2020s #MeToo era. Main character is a bit too adventurous at times (I would have noped out at the speed of light at multiple occasions) but it's okay. Story is nicely plotted out. Right amount of creepy and frightening. Good horror movie.

This movie is weird 🤔

• It feels like it should be part of a TV show. Story-wise, it doesn't contain that much, and is definitely designed as a component of a franchise. Doesn't have a narrative arc solid enough to stand on its own.
• Uneven structure. The beginning is very fast-paced and looks like they had 5 hours of stuff they needed to compress in 30 minutes. Then there is a long section about summer camp by the sea where nothing happens.
• Almost only Na'vis. Teenage Na'vis, children Na'vis, babies Na'vis, crowds of Na'vis, bad guys Na'vis. Gotta get used to this surreal dreamy ass shit.
• Doubled down on the hippie Pandora-is-alive stuff. The 1st movie was like "nature is cool", now we are remote-controlling algae and whatnots.
• Jake and Neytiri relegated to side-characters as the children take the spotlight.

What works 👏

• The visuals are GORGEOUS. Better than Avatar 1. You are paying to see an attraction. 3D is like fine culinary work.
• Action scenes. James Cameron knows his craft, and seems to be playing with infinite budget.
• The "Sullys stick together" narrative theme works fairly well.
• Big fish is best bro forever.
• Kiri and Tuk so cute and endearing.
• Definitely going to see Avatar 3. The universe has potential.

What doesn't work 🤨

• The human Tarzan kid acting like he belongs. Ridiculous costume and stance.
• Please stop hissing.
• You can assess how unimportant a character is by how late in the movie you get to catch and remember his/her name (if at all).
• Jake Sully making his children call him "Sir" and being all serious. Didn't smoke enough Pandora grass to chill down.
• Boomer James Cameron "back in my days if we had a problem we sorted it out like grown men", trying to make a scene where kids are throwing punhes at each other comical.
• Kiri is played (and voiced) by Sigourney Weaver, who doesn't really have a teenager's voice.

Rich uptight people are apparently very quiet under duress.

Batshit crazy.

How boring.

Nonsense 😭

Props to the reporters for squizing facts out of stones. Weinstein really did have an entire system to shut every victim up. Fortunately it collapsed.

Acting is a bit too much, but ok.

Lacks a plot.

Hard to assess independently of the show (especially when you watch it just after a rewatch of the entire show). Had a good time.

It lacks some vibe somewhere to make it pop, but it's watchable. Eddie Redmayne is out of his usual typecast, and that works very well.

Damn fine horror movie.

I thought Americans needed remakes because they're not used to dubbing and are too lazy reading subtitles. This theory appears to be incorrect with a remake of a movie in which people speak with their hands. The fallback theory is that they need remakes because they're bored with the way Europe makes movies, which I can certainly understand, although this specific remake doesn't bring much new to the table.

Nice balance between the realism and the paranormal. Depends much on jumpscares but it's okay. Some clever tidbits in the story. Some striking visual horror. Ballsy ending.

A French comedy based on a story for a change. Actors are excellent.

Chapter 2 is fire.

So apparently Fake News aren't modern.

The whole final war arc is damn visually good.

Very nice episode of Black Mirror.

The revelation feels a bit underwhelming and unoriginal, although I guess that's just the final form of the Metaverse.

Factual.

Pseudo-profound people distilling complexity out of their simple lives.

A movie from a book about a book about a story whose ending has been altered in the book but revealed at the end of the book.

The predator is a bit too strong for a fair fight against its preys, which results in most fights being phoned-in.

Hitchcock really was a great director, notably camera-work wise.

Interesting character study about entering adulthood. Dialogues oscillate between meh and great. Dinner scene with the fancy lawyers is great.

Brute-forcing humor, one line at a time. Some of them are funny.

The editing is so frenetic it felt like watching a feature-length TikTok. The only time we get to breathe is to transmit non-sexy information about contracts and whatnot. Not a single scene with a beginning, middle and end. Troubled me.

Strengths:

• Original and refreshing.
• Some really scary stuff from suspense craftsman Jordan Peele.
• Daniel Kaluuya and Keke Palmer have a nice brother-sister alchemy.
• Terrific sound effects and mixing.

Weaknesses:

• Lacks some appropriate exposition about the setting. What is this theme park? Oh it's just near the ranch?
• Angel and Antlers are mehh side characters.
• Character development not so great.
• Not very clear ending (yo is this normal shape for the beast?)

Fine movie overall.

The convoluted story got me confused at some point. Even though I liked Brad Pitt's character, his laid back attitude and jokes don't always hit the spot.

Nice slasher.

creepy ass shit, making us identify with the crazy weirdo as in The House that Jack Built.

Character study of a man who entirely surrendered and stopped giving any sort of fuck. It's the genre of movies which usually bore me to hell, but for some reason this time I was fully in it. Maybe I slept well the night before. Maybe Tim Roth was sufficiently perfect for the role. I don't know, but I liked the experience so let's have a good rating. I will surely never watch it again.

Very Shyamalanesque. In the best way.

Scary shit.

I don't what separates it from any random crime story, but it's good and somehow haunting.

I fell asleep.

This shit had me scared shitless when I was a teenager. It's fine but not that good.

Outstanding experience. Beyond the technical achievement, it's a powerhouse of sheer intensity and beauty.

That's a lot of goofiness to endure for a great monologue.

Entertaining stuff.

It's actually a cool flick.

Low-key chill nostalgia movie with a nice playlist.

Second movie from the guy who made Shithouse. This one is rather weird.

Interesting story but gosh is it possible to make eveything more cliché than that. The music I swear.

I liked all the scenes with dinosaurs. I disliked all the scenes without dinosaurs.

The training part is a boring advertisement for the Navy. The mission part is spectacular.

I don't know if it was due to my tiredness or just how the movie was made, but I didn't manage to be connected with the movie; I was a distant and uninvolved spectator. I liked the battle scene when they invade the village; extremely gritty and intense. I liked the music and its percussions, although it sometimes sounded muffled, lacking clarity. The story was okay, but the middle was a bit slow, and I think some of it could have been cut to enrich the exposition, and give Ethan Hawke more screentime.

Idiotic.

No comment

Nicole Kidman looks like she's made of plastic.

No comment

The editing is a bit frenetic, and I felt like I didn't see any proper exposition to the character of Nick Cage. It's like 30 seconds into the movie he's already discussing his role with some director/producer, and the next 10 seconds he's at his daughter's birthday. What the hell is going on here. Then the whole CIA act is so generically boring I literally fell asleep as if I was the one having taken a drop of acid.

Interesting acting idea. Ridiculous story. John Woo's action be like pew pew boom I have on idea what's happening boom pew boom look slow motion pewpew bam.

No comment

Interesting yet depressing, ultimately tedious, Nicolas Cage's character study #2.

Interesting yet depressing, ultimately tedious, Nicolas Cage's character study #1.

Tooooo long. Also didn't really explain how destroyers manage to get to them when they're so deep.

Great concept (step by step, factual depiction of the event), moderately good execution (some cheesy parts).

I watched it because it's from the director of Portrait of a Lady on Fire, which I love. But this one didn't quite got my attention as much.

😯⚠️ Very explicit movie (basically porn). This is an almost-documentary (fictitious story with fictitious characters, but it looks very real) about a Swedish girl who goes to LA to become a pornstar. We get to see the inside of this industry (assuming the movie is accurate), including some very shocking aspects. The movie is explicit, but not unnecessarily so: it shows what it needs to show to hold to its goal of pure realism, and hides the rest. This is really an interesting take on the subject.

This looks like it was synthesized by a cocaine-powered artificial intelligence who just took control of drones.

So this is actually a pretty good flick. I always had difficulty with Batman as a super-hero since this guy is a strong karate man in a strong suit, like how the hell you're going to save a city because you know kung-fu or whatever. But this opus strikes a good balance between a simple vigilante and a full-fledged super-hero, playing on the theme of fear (through the bat symbol), making him a skilled investigator, and of course showcasing the extent of his equipment and skills with impressive action scenes. I also enjoyed the fact that Bruce Wayne has close to no screen time, to the opposite of Batman, who is often expressive through gestures and glances rather than words. This is truly a movie about The Batman.

This is a well-directed movie, with many pretty nice shots and directing ideas (this scene in the hallway, wow). The music uses a simple haunting theme whose creshendo I can't get enough of, damn this is strong shit.

The movie has some weaknesses. The character of Selina Kyle (Catwoman) is not strong enough in my opinion; Batman always has the upper hand over her, physically and psychologically, she's like an intern to him instead of a sidekick. The cast is weak; Robert Pattinson is like an emo teen with mascara falling off his eyes when he get out of his mask (fortunately this rarely happens); Andy Serkis as Alfred suffers from the comparison with Michael Caine; Jeffrey Wright "this guy from Westworld" lacks charisma as Officier Gordon; Paul Dano is the only cast good call.

This is not a great movie, but this is a good movie. Well played, DC. The 3 hours (!) pass rapidly.