- Messages
- 15,259
- Location
- Arlington, Virginia
The Accountant
-
The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
What Was The Last Movie You Watched?
- Thread starter Amy Jeanne
- Start date
Featured products
-
John Lofgren Monkey Boots Shinki Horsebuttt - $1,136 The classic monkey boot silhouette in an incredibly rich Shinki russet horse leather. -
Grant Stone Diesel Boot Dark Olive Chromexcel - $395 Goodyear welted, Horween Chromexcel, classic good looks. -
Schott 568 Vandals Jacket - $1,250 The classic Perfecto motorcycle jacket, in a very special limited-edition Schott double rider style.
Worf
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 5,212
- Location
- Troy, New York, USA
Surprisingly good movie... worth a sequel if you ask me.
Worf
- Messages
- 15,259
- Location
- Arlington, Virginia
Agreed
Stormy
A-List Customer
- Messages
- 403
- Location
- 460 Laverne Terrace
I was in the mood for an old flick last night, so I dug around and found "23 Paces to Baker Street" online. I have always liked this film, but I think I like the acting and wardrobe even more as time goes on.
PeterGunnLives
One of the Regulars
- Messages
- 223
- Location
- West Coast
I'm planning on watching The Fountainhead tonight, mainly for the modernist architecture eye candy.
Doctor Strange
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 5,262
- Location
- Hudson Valley, NY
Beyond the Black Rainbow - like Under The Skin, a "Kubrick-influenced film" I watched in preparation for an upcoming meeting with a film/TV discussion group I recently joined.
Beyond the Black Rainbow is an "homage" to trippy SF thrillers of the sixties-eighties. A first feature by a director in love with his retro production design and 35mm film technique, far-out visuals and "2001 trip" effects, monotonously droning electronic "score", and ponderously slow fade out/fade ins every 40 seconds instead of straight cutting...
So I find myself going into a variation of my why-I-don't-dig-Tarantino rant again: Having watched dozens of the films over the decades that this one references, I am not impressed with it just regurgitating their style. Worse, this is what I call a "film school movie" - so pretentiously fixated on its technique, but with a really confusing and under-explained narrative. It doesn't work as a thriller, nor does it have any commentary or message. (Though whatever flack wrote its Wiki page labors mightily to convince you it does.)
In retrospect, Under The Skin is a masterpiece compared to this dreck. Not recommended unless you are a fan of nicely photographed but seriously inept SF/horror films.
Beyond the Black Rainbow is an "homage" to trippy SF thrillers of the sixties-eighties. A first feature by a director in love with his retro production design and 35mm film technique, far-out visuals and "2001 trip" effects, monotonously droning electronic "score", and ponderously slow fade out/fade ins every 40 seconds instead of straight cutting...
So I find myself going into a variation of my why-I-don't-dig-Tarantino rant again: Having watched dozens of the films over the decades that this one references, I am not impressed with it just regurgitating their style. Worse, this is what I call a "film school movie" - so pretentiously fixated on its technique, but with a really confusing and under-explained narrative. It doesn't work as a thriller, nor does it have any commentary or message. (Though whatever flack wrote its Wiki page labors mightily to convince you it does.)
In retrospect, Under The Skin is a masterpiece compared to this dreck. Not recommended unless you are a fan of nicely photographed but seriously inept SF/horror films.
green papaya
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,261
- Location
- California, usa
GUESS WHO'S COMMING TO DINNER? starring Sydney Poitier, Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Katharine Houghton (1967)
When Joanna Drayton (Katharine Houghton), a free-thinking white woman, and black doctor John Prentice (Sidney Poitier) become engaged, they travel to San Francisco to meet her parents. Matt Drayton (Spencer Tracy) and his wife Christina (Katharine Hepburn) are wealthy liberals who must confront the latent racism the coming marriage arouses.
When Joanna Drayton (Katharine Houghton), a free-thinking white woman, and black doctor John Prentice (Sidney Poitier) become engaged, they travel to San Francisco to meet her parents. Matt Drayton (Spencer Tracy) and his wife Christina (Katharine Hepburn) are wealthy liberals who must confront the latent racism the coming marriage arouses.
- Messages
- 17,272
- Location
- New York City
"The Last of Mrs. Cheyney" 1937
I'm always amazed at how much talking there is in these '30s movies as fifteen minutes or more can go by in a scene in which not much more happens than the characters talk to each other (they really were "talkies"). It struck me as almost Tarantino-like except the characters weren't nonchalantly talking about mayhem, murder, chaos, crazy, etc.
And Joan Crawford, before middle age froze a full-on scary into her appearance, is still plenty scary here. I have no idea if "Mommy
Dearest" is true or not, but that woman scares me.
We talk about it a lot at Fedora, but this is a great example of how it is important to recognize the prevailing / accepted "views" of the time and the prevailing view of 1967 was that it was a big deal to have an inter-racial marriage. My parents, who didn't know the word libertarian, were that in many ways in that their abject-poverty upbringing gave them an I-don't-care-about-your-background-ethnicity-race-in-general attitude. And they weren't "liberals" as they believed in capitalism, private property and didn't expect the gov't to do squat for them (and this was the era of "The Great Society"), but they, for their time, were very progressive in their attitude toward race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.
When there was a bit of a dust-up at my high school because a male teacher was "accused / rumored" to be gay and I told my parents, they asked me two questions - has he done anything to you or any of the kids and is he a good teacher. My "no" and "yes" respective answers led to a "then I hope they leave him alone, it's his business not ours" response. They weren't self-righteous, just matter of fact.
But while never said, I can't image they would have embraced me in a inter-racial relationship - it was just very "out there" for the time. That's part of the genius of "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" as it is a real rubber meets the road moment for ideology and reality. If the parents had been blatant racists, it would have been boring and predictable. And showing that both sets of parents - to varying degrees and in varying ways - shared the concern showed it was a very embedded societal view at the time.
That's it, just wanted to highlight the need to understand what was the default setting toward this movie in 1967. To judge it by today's standards, we'd all be thinking, "what is the big deal," but back then, everyone got that it was a big deal without even having to say it.
I'm always amazed at how much talking there is in these '30s movies as fifteen minutes or more can go by in a scene in which not much more happens than the characters talk to each other (they really were "talkies"). It struck me as almost Tarantino-like except the characters weren't nonchalantly talking about mayhem, murder, chaos, crazy, etc.
And Joan Crawford, before middle age froze a full-on scary into her appearance, is still plenty scary here. I have no idea if "Mommy
Dearest" is true or not, but that woman scares me.
We talk about it a lot at Fedora, but this is a great example of how it is important to recognize the prevailing / accepted "views" of the time and the prevailing view of 1967 was that it was a big deal to have an inter-racial marriage. My parents, who didn't know the word libertarian, were that in many ways in that their abject-poverty upbringing gave them an I-don't-care-about-your-background-ethnicity-race-in-general attitude. And they weren't "liberals" as they believed in capitalism, private property and didn't expect the gov't to do squat for them (and this was the era of "The Great Society"), but they, for their time, were very progressive in their attitude toward race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.
When there was a bit of a dust-up at my high school because a male teacher was "accused / rumored" to be gay and I told my parents, they asked me two questions - has he done anything to you or any of the kids and is he a good teacher. My "no" and "yes" respective answers led to a "then I hope they leave him alone, it's his business not ours" response. They weren't self-righteous, just matter of fact.
But while never said, I can't image they would have embraced me in a inter-racial relationship - it was just very "out there" for the time. That's part of the genius of "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" as it is a real rubber meets the road moment for ideology and reality. If the parents had been blatant racists, it would have been boring and predictable. And showing that both sets of parents - to varying degrees and in varying ways - shared the concern showed it was a very embedded societal view at the time.
That's it, just wanted to highlight the need to understand what was the default setting toward this movie in 1967. To judge it by today's standards, we'd all be thinking, "what is the big deal," but back then, everyone got that it was a big deal without even having to say it.
Doctor Strange
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 5,262
- Location
- Hudson Valley, NY
As someone who saw Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? in its original release - I was 12 - I can vouch for the fact that it was shocking and boundary-pushing at the time.
My parents were liberal Democrats who'd supported the civil rights struggle from day one: like many Jews of their generation, they'd grown up as a reviled minority themselves and felt real empathy for the movement. They were also long-time fans of Stanley Kramer and his "social problem" films, not to mention Hepburn and Poitier. So it was very much their kind of movie... they wanted to believe it was a problem that could be solved. (I will never forget the image of my father crying at the kitchen table the night MLK was shot the following year.)
But you know, a decade later, when my sister briefly had a "black" (Chinese-Jamaican) boyfriend, my dad's idealism fell away and he was uncontrollably furious with her. It was literally the only fight we ever had with our parents, and the only time he ever behaved less than graciously and essentially color-blind regarding race. Which just goes to show that as much as he was intellectually progressive and had cheered for the couple in that film... he was still a product of having grown up in the 20s and 30s, and he just couldn't handle it when it was his own child.
My parents were liberal Democrats who'd supported the civil rights struggle from day one: like many Jews of their generation, they'd grown up as a reviled minority themselves and felt real empathy for the movement. They were also long-time fans of Stanley Kramer and his "social problem" films, not to mention Hepburn and Poitier. So it was very much their kind of movie... they wanted to believe it was a problem that could be solved. (I will never forget the image of my father crying at the kitchen table the night MLK was shot the following year.)
But you know, a decade later, when my sister briefly had a "black" (Chinese-Jamaican) boyfriend, my dad's idealism fell away and he was uncontrollably furious with her. It was literally the only fight we ever had with our parents, and the only time he ever behaved less than graciously and essentially color-blind regarding race. Which just goes to show that as much as he was intellectually progressive and had cheered for the couple in that film... he was still a product of having grown up in the 20s and 30s, and he just couldn't handle it when it was his own child.
Julian Shellhammer
Practically Family
- Messages
- 899
Shane. I had never seen this before. IMDB says it was completed in 1951, but director George Stevens took about two years in editing and post production, hence the 1953 release date.
The shot where hired gun Jack Wilson enters Grafton's saloon and makes a steady walk towards the subjective POV camera, and Stevens does a gentle dissolve from a top to toe shot to a close up of booted legs striding past, sort of cutting out several steps, breaks down the fourth wall.
The shot where hired gun Jack Wilson enters Grafton's saloon and makes a steady walk towards the subjective POV camera, and Stevens does a gentle dissolve from a top to toe shot to a close up of booted legs striding past, sort of cutting out several steps, breaks down the fourth wall.
Worf
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 5,212
- Location
- Troy, New York, USA
On my side of town "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" wasn't very ground breaking or shocking... We all knew someone or heard of someone who was dating across color lines... But usually it was the reverse a White man and a Black woman. That combination wasn't liable to get you beat up or your neck stretched. We just couldn't understand why any Black man would take on the extra burden of a White wife? He had to know that there would be whole swaths of the country he couldn't go. And that he was going to catch hell from Whites and Blacks. It was more Science Fiction to us than reality. The film was more a curiosity than anything else we weren't rooting for them. Of the Poitier films we talked about it was "In the Heat of the Night" with the "Slap Heard Round The World" and "Brother John" that held sway.
Worf
Worf
- Messages
- 17,272
- Location
- New York City
⇧ For me, "In the Heat of the Night" is top of the list, followed by "To Sir, With Love" and the sleeper on my list is "A Patch of Blue."
Re: "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" and your comment - the thing that does stand out is Poitier's character is no average man (black, white or green) as (haven't seen it in a bit, so my memory could be a bit off) he's some super smart, globe traveling doctor which can be interpreted in a lot of ways, but definitely changes the equation you reference as he's not just an average Joe taking on the challenges you note.
Re: "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" and your comment - the thing that does stand out is Poitier's character is no average man (black, white or green) as (haven't seen it in a bit, so my memory could be a bit off) he's some super smart, globe traveling doctor which can be interpreted in a lot of ways, but definitely changes the equation you reference as he's not just an average Joe taking on the challenges you note.
AmateisGal
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 6,126
- Location
- Nebraska
To Walk Invisible: The Bronte Sisters.
I was fortunate enough to go to the Bronte Parsonage Museum back in 1995 and walk the moors. It's a beautiful place to ponder and reflect. It's so sad, though, that their lives were cut so short due to illness. I wonder what other great literary masterpieces they would have given us?
I was fortunate enough to go to the Bronte Parsonage Museum back in 1995 and walk the moors. It's a beautiful place to ponder and reflect. It's so sad, though, that their lives were cut so short due to illness. I wonder what other great literary masterpieces they would have given us?
Benzadmiral
Call Me a Cab
- Messages
- 2,815
- Location
- The Swamp
Nocturnal Animals (2016), directed by Tom Ford (a clothing designer of some kind? Hadn't heard of him). It turns out to be one riveting film, mainly because of the violent thriller that Amy Adams's ex-husband has written, and which is enacted on screen as she reads it. Also with Laura Linney as Amy's mother (a heavy-handed jab at Republicans), Isla Fisher as the character in the novel based on her (Amy and Isla do look a lot alike, don't they?), and Armie "Illya Kuryakin 2015" Hammer as Amy's current husband. Creepy and quite effective.
Caveat: Don't look at the opening credits. The "performance art" being shown at Amy's gallery is . . . disturbing.
Caveat: Don't look at the opening credits. The "performance art" being shown at Amy's gallery is . . . disturbing.
Last edited:
PeterGunnLives
One of the Regulars
- Messages
- 223
- Location
- West Coast
I still haven't had a chance to get to this!
Hopefully this week.
LizzieMaine
Bartender
- Messages
- 33,840
- Location
- Where The Tourists Meet The Sea
Broke in a new picture tube on my TV set with a viewing of "College Humor," a 1933 Paramount comedy-musical which has to be the prototypical '30s college movie. All the cliches are here in all their glory, with a script revolving around football, romantic entaglements, and musical numbers. Jack Oakie is the least-convincing college boy in the history of pictures -- at least until Fred Waring tried to pull it off in "Varsity Show" four years later -- and it's a bit creepy that his romantic pairing is with Mary Kornman, just six years removed from her days as the leading lady of "Our Gang." Oakie is, in real life, twelve years her senior, and it's hard not to feel a bit squicky in their scenes together.
But aside from that, it's a fun picture. Bing Crosby gets top billing for what's basically a secondary role, as a singing professor who leads his class in a smooth performance of "Learn To Croon," and Richard Arlen -- almost as unconvincing as Oakie as a college boy -- is suitably dissolute as the hard-drinking/hard-partying football player who almost blows the team's chances in the Big Game until Bing, ever the voice of sobriety, gets him squared away. Burns and Allen have an entertaining guest-star bit featuring a song and dance routine which has nothing to do with the plot. Two other guest stars of note are Grady Sutton as an effeminate freshman who annoys Oakie, and Churchill Ross, who had played a bespectacled grind for years in the silent "Collegians" series of comedy shorts at Universal. He plays exactly the same role here, only this time he actually gets the "sex" he keeps talking about all thru the picture.
These early thirties Paramounts are nowhere near as widely shown or known as the Warner pictures from the same period, which is a pity -- they have a lot of pre-Code zip, the musical numbers are always first rate, and the studio had its own stock company of character actors who add to the fun. I make a point of seeing every one I can.
But aside from that, it's a fun picture. Bing Crosby gets top billing for what's basically a secondary role, as a singing professor who leads his class in a smooth performance of "Learn To Croon," and Richard Arlen -- almost as unconvincing as Oakie as a college boy -- is suitably dissolute as the hard-drinking/hard-partying football player who almost blows the team's chances in the Big Game until Bing, ever the voice of sobriety, gets him squared away. Burns and Allen have an entertaining guest-star bit featuring a song and dance routine which has nothing to do with the plot. Two other guest stars of note are Grady Sutton as an effeminate freshman who annoys Oakie, and Churchill Ross, who had played a bespectacled grind for years in the silent "Collegians" series of comedy shorts at Universal. He plays exactly the same role here, only this time he actually gets the "sex" he keeps talking about all thru the picture.
These early thirties Paramounts are nowhere near as widely shown or known as the Warner pictures from the same period, which is a pity -- they have a lot of pre-Code zip, the musical numbers are always first rate, and the studio had its own stock company of character actors who add to the fun. I make a point of seeing every one I can.
- Messages
- 17,272
- Location
- New York City
I was going to ask yesterday, but figured it might have been delayed - can't wait to hear your opinions about it.
This looks God awful.
AmateisGal
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 6,126
- Location
- Nebraska
Midnight in Paris. Love this movie.
- Messages
- 10,885
- Location
- vancouver, canada
Watched Almodovar's newest "Julieta". IMHO it is his best work. A wonderful movie. The only thing that would have been better, if he set it in Canada as homage to the Alice Munro short stories upon which it is based.
Similar threads
