MUBI brings you a great new film every day.  Start your 7-day free trial today!
All Topics  »

Last movie you saw and rate it

NIGHTSH​IFT

about 3 years ago

LOVE DOLL (Hirozaku Koreeda ’09) – 3/5

soiwasw​rong

about 3 years ago

French Cancan (Jean Renoir) 3/5 hahahaha…

DUTCH

about 3 years ago

TAKE SHELTER (Jeff Nichols) 9.5/10
-My #1 film of 2011

THE INNKEEPERS 7/10
-Continues the theme of The House of the Devil in the monotonous struggles people endure to get paid little. Not as tension deep as The House of the Devil but even more self-aware and mystery involved.

KILL LIST 7/10
-It seems either a love it or hate it film. I love the film’s first two acts, incredibly intense and original but it gets way too derivative for its own good in the final act.

Fuzzbuc​ket

about 3 years ago

Just got around to watching Tree Of Life. 9.5/10

Bravo!

Maria

about 3 years ago

Across the Universe: 7/10

Maria

about 3 years ago

Across the Universe: 7/10

Murble

about 3 years ago

Porky’s 6/10

Murble

about 3 years ago

Porky’s 6/10

Murble

about 3 years ago

Porky’s 6/10

Murble

about 3 years ago

Creepers 7/10

Murble

about 3 years ago

@Santino- The Academy awards always blow the foreign language nominations don’t they? I was shocked the year that The Secret In Their Eyes won over White Ribbon. It is a shame that Snowtown did not get a nomination.

Murble

about 3 years ago

@Santino- The Academy awards always blow the foreign language nominations don’t they? I was shocked the year that The Secret In Their Eyes won over White Ribbon. It is a shame that Snowtown did not get a nomination.

Santino

about 3 years ago

^But Snowtown is in English. Doesn’t the film have to be in a foreign language?

Although, it’s not in any English I ever speak. The film could’ve used some subtitles (sorry Joks!). haha

Prewitt

about 3 years ago

Nothing should have beaten White Ribbon…..I liked Secret in Their Eyes but White Ribbon is a masterpiece.

It’s a crap shoot as to which way the Academy will go in that category……I’m almost always wrong on that one.

I’m going to choose A Separation but it’s a role of the dice.

Joks

about 3 years ago

ALEXANDER THE GREAT: (rewatch)

(Spoilers ahead)

Bandits kidnap English aristocrats at the turn of the 20th century and holds them for ransom, demanding the Greek government return stolen land to homeless peasants in an unamed rural area and grant amnesty to his crew for their various wrong doings. Alexander sets about creating a utopian community with Italian anarchists based on egalitarian ideals, but surely enough tensions threaten to rip the dream apart.

Despite its length—and it’s perhaps too long, no doubt—the film is an incisive look at the cult of personality, and the corruption of power, as Alexander moves from benevolent despot to vicious tyrant as his power grows, that also serves as an allegory for the fall of communist regimes under charasmatic leaders, and the death of idealism in the modern world. It also has elements of satire that is kind of reminiscent of Shakespeare’s history plays like Henry IV/V, but Shakespeare probably stole that from the Greeks anyway ;-) The British characters in particular are caricatures, speaking in largely affected accents that sound delightfully pompous. Kenji is quite right that the satire is not easy to pick up on, but it’s definitely there, albeit in an extremely dark and offbeat way.

Omero Antonutti portrait of the character is rather complex, despite(because of?) his relative silence, and we get the sense of paranoia and estrangement from his fellow man as his reputation grows, and the degree to which power has corrupted the very fabric of his being, poisoning his soul. In the end, Alexander is stripped of his mystique as well as his humanity, and that’s the ultimate price of tyranny. The mob’s ‘revenge’ is brutal and exacting.

Imagery is brilliant as usual, with the usual mix of ultra long takes and painterly composition, but it’s also more ‘naturalistic’ than his later works.

Overall not his best film, could have been trimmed by 30-40 mins i’m sure, but it’s one of the most original and daring films ever made about the subject. I just with the film ended on that gigantic severed head though. What an incredibly powerful image. 8/10

Waving Surface

about 3 years ago

Crazy, Stupid, Love. — 9/10

Waving Surface

about 3 years ago

Melancholia — 2.5/10

Nathan M...

about 3 years ago

The Guard (Dir. John Michael McDonagh, 2011)

Holy cow, this was way funnier than I’d expected. Not sure it adds up to anything I could take seriously, but I had a blast watching it.

Pan32

about 3 years ago

Broken Noses (1987) Noted fashion photog Bruce Weber’s first film, a 75 min. documentary
7/10 for effort
words here Link

Jonas Silgali​s

about 3 years ago

Quick Change (1990) 4/5

Funny heist movie

Gary Phillips

about 3 years ago

When You Come Home (John Baxter, 1948), starring Frank Randle 3.75/5

Gary Phillips

about 3 years ago

When You Come Home (John Baxter, 1948), starring Frank Randle 3.75/5

{tries to delete double post}

Jirin

about 3 years ago

Minnie and Moskowitz 7/10

A movie that makes a valiant effort to be realistic with a lot of awkward dialog all of which is screamed.

Roscoe

about 3 years ago

GRAPES OF WRATH – 3.5/5

Better than I remember it being, even Fonda mostly rises to the occasion. The one really false note is that unfortunate “we’re the people” speech at the end, which just makes no sense at all in the circumstances — Production Code Inspirational Ending at its most blatant.

Dennis...Brian

about 3 years ago

and most of which is hilarious

Pan32

about 3 years ago

Démanty noci 1964 aka Diamonds in the Night
Nazi victims on the run
9/10
Link

Ari

about 3 years ago

Young Victoria 2/5
Extremely lush and visually beautiful and better directed than most of its ilk, but poorly structured, awkwardly paced, and straddled with an anachronistic lead performance by Emily Blunt (can she act?). Better when it’s about political maneuverings than matters of the heart, the film can’t escape the confines of its genre and ends in predictable sentimentality. I also have no idea what drew a Quebecois director (Quebec being probably the most anti-monarchy region of the commonwealth) to make such royalist propaganda. Strange.

odilonvert

about 3 years ago

I’m on the fence about rating Greenberg. For the purposes of this thread, I’ll “fake” it though — 3.5.

The core of the movie hit me where I live, it was very good at communicating an emotional place. I think this was due to the actors, but not necessarily the script. When I recall it (just saw it last night), I remember a feeling, and perhaps a few scenes which during the movie, added to this feeling, but now in thinking about it, I don’t want to know whether they were really purposeful, as in consciously put there — the dead thing in the pool before Roger ruins his friendship with Ivan for good, the sick dog which brings Roger and Florence together as if he was some kind of symbol, perhaps even a medium, of what was wrong with them. He had an autoimmune disorder, which means his body was attacking and trying to kill him. I don’t like to make these connections but they came to me in some state of semi-consciousness after I had gone to bed. They were insistent images and perhaps that was why I was trying to explain to myself why they were in the movie, but without making these connections their emotional impact was enough.

It was a good enough movie, and I’m not sure how, but it probably could have been better.

odilonvert

about 3 years ago

dp

Jirin

about 3 years ago

@Den

I think it teetered the line between hilarious and over the top.