What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[MisterCairo]

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. Movie night selection with the girls. Our eldest loves the book (Christmas gift from daddy).

Great fun, creepy enough at times, and two words - Eva Green...

 

[Touchofevil]

Out of the Past on TCM's Noir Alley.
I have seen it many a time so I did not
plan on watching it this morning, but I
could not help myself but watch it one
more time. Cup of coffee in hand, nice
breeze from outside, and a good movie.
What a nice way to begin my day.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Long Strange Trip, the new four-hour documentary about the Grateful Dead, on Netflix. Not sure how much interest there is here for this (apart from BluesForChallah!), but I'm gonna give it a quick review anyway...

First off, my credentials: I am a reformed Deadhead. I went to lots of shows 1976-1993, and have read most of what's been published about them. While I have not followed any of the surviving members' projects since Garcia died in 1995, I still listen to the music all the time: it's just a really big part of me...

The film is the first long-form doc about the Dead, and it's likely to be unchallenged as being "definitive". There's a lot of great stuff in it... but also much left out and ignored, and far too much focus on some areas, with too much time spent on a few talking heads whose observations and experiences just aren't that interesting. And - okay, this is gonna sound weird - there's too much focus on Jerry Garcia. (The film is only interested in the 1965-1995 official Dead, it doesn't cover any the projects by the surviving members following Garcia's death.)

The overarching narrative isn't so much about how the Dead become more and more successful by always taking the "wrong" approach per the music biz (like letting fans tape their concerts), or that they pushed the concert experience into all kinds of new directions, or that they tapped "misfit power" to create a unique community of fans... though all of that's said. It's that Garcia, despite his tremendous talent and unique approach, never wanted to be considered the "leader" of the Dead, he just wanted to have fun playing live music... and he ended up being crushed beneath the weight of having to be the improvising genius at the center of a mammoth money-printing machine, with scores of employees' paychecks depending on his continuing to play in giant stadiums where the audience was simply too big and too far away to provide the audience/band gestalt that was essential to the Dead concert experience. Essentially, the ultimate free spirit became a slave to an unstoppable juggernaut, and he was miserable but there was no escape, and he basically self-medicated himself to death despite the best repeated efforts of his bandmates and wives/girlfriends to stop him. (*)

Okay, that's a great dramatic hook for the story... but there are plenty of other significant things ignored to keep it central. Somehow the music itself doesn't get enough attention, despite careful deployment of the surprisingly few longer performance sequences. Don't get me wrong: this is a must-watch for Dead fans, and it will be really eye-opening for the uninitiated. But as a particularly well-read Deadhead, I think it missed saying a lot of important stuff. And that's unfortunate, because there's unlikely to be another documentary on this scale.

(* One thing it does well in regards to Garcia: observes that despite his sunny demeanor, he was always obsessed with death, and that the Dead's music is loaded with major foreboding in balance with the vaguely optimistic messages in so many of their lyrics. Garcia says the first movie he remembers seeing is Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, which both terrified and fascinated him. He remained obsessed with the Frankenstein Monster, making endless drawings of him throughout his life. Thus the "misfit power" of the Dead starts with Garcia's identification with the Monster. The film runs with this, using sequences from the Frankenstein films [especially Bride, where the Monster speaks] to comment on developments.)

 

[Fading Fast]

Out of the Past on TCM's Noir Alley.
I have seen it many a time so I did not
plan on watching it this morning, but I
could not help myself but watch it one
more time. Cup of coffee in hand, nice
breeze from outside, and a good movie.
What a nice way to begin my day.

I am jealous. My girlfriend and I told a friend we'd help her with something this morning and that we'd be over by 11am. At 10am I flipped on the TV and started watching "Out of the Past" just to kill a half hour before we had to leave - I saw it recently anyway. But five minutes in, I knew I was in trouble as I was hooked.

It's such a good movie that it's like visiting with an old friend - I did not want to leave. Mitchum powers it forward with film noir angles and feel everywhere (and some great Art Deco architecture thrown in). As you said, just a perfect way to kick the day off*. When I heard the blowdryer shut off from the other room around 10:20, I knew my time was about up. I thought about recording it, but the moment was then - there's something to the serendipity of just stumbling onto a movie versus sitting down to one you recorded.

I sadly shut if off and we left - moment lost.


* TCM's film noir Sunday morning is brilliant programing.

 

[AmateisGal]

Wonder Woman.

Incredible. Everything was so well done. I was beyond impressed.

 

[Worf]

Long Strange Trip, the new four-hour documentary about the Grateful Dead, on Netflix. Not sure how much interest there is here for this (apart from BluesForChallah!), but I'm gonna give it a quick review anyway...

First off, my credentials: I am a reformed Deadhead. I went to lots of shows 1976-1993, and have read most of what's been published about them. While I have not followed any of the surviving members' projects since Garcia died in 1995, I still listen to the music all the time: it's just a really big part of me...

The film is the first long-form doc about the Dead, and it's likely to be unchallenged as being "definitive". There's a lot of great stuff in it... but also much left out and ignored, and far too much focus on some areas, with too much time spent on a few talking heads whose observations and experiences just aren't that interesting. And - okay, this is gonna sound weird - there's too much focus on Jerry Garcia. (The film is only interested in the 1965-1995 official Dead, it doesn't cover any the projects by the surviving members following Garcia's death.)

The overarching narrative isn't so much about how the Dead become more and more successful by always taking the "wrong" approach per the music biz (like letting fans tape their concerts), or that they pushed the concert experience into all kinds of new directions, or that they tapped "misfit power" to create a unique community of fans... though all of that's said. It's that Garcia, despite his tremendous talent and unique approach, never wanted to be considered the "leader" of the Dead, he just wanted to have fun playing live music... and he ended up being crushed beneath the weight of having to be the improvising genius at the center of a mammoth money-printing machine, with scores of employees' paychecks depending on his continuing to play in giant stadiums where the audience was simply too big and too far away to provide the audience/band gestalt that was essential to the Dead concert experience. Essentially, the ultimate free spirit became a slave to an unstoppable juggernaut, and he was miserable but there was no escape, and he basically self-medicated himself to death despite the best repeated efforts of his bandmates and wives/girlfriends to stop him. (*)

Okay, that's a great dramatic hook for the story... but there are plenty of other significant things ignored to keep it central. Somehow the music itself doesn't get enough attention, despite careful deployment of the surprisingly few longer performance sequences. Don't get me wrong: this is a must-watch for Dead fans, and it will be really eye-opening for the uninitiated. But as a particularly well-read Deadhead, I think it missed saying a lot of important stuff. And that's unfortunate, because there's unlikely to be another documentary on this scale.

(* One thing it does well in regards to Garcia: observes that despite his sunny demeanor, he was always obsessed with death, and that the Dead's music is loaded with major foreboding in balance with the vaguely optimistic messages in so many of their lyrics. Garcia says the first movie he remembers seeing is Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, which both terrified and fascinated him. He remained obsessed with the Frankenstein Monster, making endless drawings of him throughout his life. Thus the "misfit power" of the Dead starts with Garcia's identification with the Monster. The film runs with this, using sequences from the Frankenstein films [especially Bride, where the Monster speaks] to comment on developments.)

Nice review, I've resisted watching this documentary for a while... I've had a long tempestuous relationship with The Dead or more correctly their fans. I was introduced to the Dead in Junior High when a kid who I disliked and disliked me (intensely) but who knew I was a musician asked me if I'd heard of them and I replied "sure" "Workingman's Dead" was their current album and it had some pleasant nuggets. He then asked me if I'd ever heard anything so amazing... I said "yes... Funkadelic". He appeared dumbfounded that I didn't recognize the brilliance that was The Dead and we promptly went back to hating one another. The biggest fights I've ever had with other musicians and fans over the years has been over my disdain for the musical genius of that Band. Hell I've even played some of their music but if one more person slips me one more bootleg guaranteed to sway me to the cause I'll commit homicide! Hours and hours of endless noodling... usually out of tune, and tepid covers of better material. I heard them cover "Man Smart (Woman Smarter)" and "Fiyou On the Bayou" and I found them barely recognizable. Those who love them god bless you. Just please leave the rest of us alone.

Worf

 

[green papaya]

SANDS OF IWO JIMA (1949) starring John Wayne as "SGT STRYKER"

Marine Sgt. John Stryker (John Wayne) is despised by his own men for his rough attitude and exhausting training regimen. As the war in the Pacific progresses, though, they begin to respect Stryker's hard-edged outlook on war and his brutal training methods, as it has helped them prepare for the harsh realities of the battlefield. They'll need all of Stryker's battle tactics if they want to survive what will end up being one of the bloodiest engagements of the war: the Battle of Iwo Jima.

 

[Fading Fast]

About Time - a lovely little light comedy film that the British do so well. Bill Nighy... need I say more!

We just watched it base on your recommendation and enjoyed it.

It's a bit of a mashup of a rom-com, a time-travel story and, at the end, a philosophical reflection of the meaning of life and one's path to happiness.

That said, the real heart of the movie is its rom-com aspect and the real heart of the rom-com aspect is the quirky but genuinely lovely family at the center of it.

The time-travel "stuff" is just a plot device - no real science, no real concern with inconsistency or ramifications here - to emphasize life's important connects and turns and, heck, most movies have a gimmick.

Bill Nighy, while not the lead, is the glue that holds it all together as the patriarch who passes his limited time-travel capabilities on to his socially awkward young-adult son. From there, a series of standard rom-com happenstances, aided and abetted by some time-travel "do-overs," help move the young son and his new girlfriend forward and over the usual hiccups, misunderstanding and other hurdles young couples in rom-coms encounter.

But Nighy and his bit-goofy family keep you engaged and caring about it all while preventing it from becoming too formulaic. As you noted, it's a light film, but IMHO, with a bit more genuine feeling than the usually rom-com offering. Perfect movie for a pleasant evening at home.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Nice review, I've resisted watching this documentary for a while... I've had a long tempestuous relationship with The Dead or more correctly their fans. I was introduced to the Dead in Junior High when a kid who I disliked and disliked me (intensely) but who knew I was a musician asked me if I'd heard of them and I replied "sure" "Workingman's Dead" was their current album and it had some pleasant nuggets. He then asked me if I'd ever heard anything so amazing... I said "yes... Funkadelic". He appeared dumbfounded that I didn't recognize the brilliance that was The Dead and we promptly went back to hating one another. The biggest fights I've ever had with other musicians and fans over the years has been over my disdain for the musical genius of that Band. Hell I've even played some of their music but if one more person slips me one more bootleg guaranteed to sway me to the cause I'll commit homicide! Hours and hours of endless noodling... usually out of tune, and tepid covers of better material. I heard them cover "Man Smart (Woman Smarter)" and "Fiyou On the Bayou" and I found them barely recognizable. Those who love them god bless you. Just please leave the rest of us alone.

Worf

We've discussed this before, Worf. I'm not trying to convert anybody here. Nor am I going to defend the Dead's shortcomings, which became much more obvious in their last few years as Garcia faded: I stopped going to shows well before the end, because they were generally playing FAR below their abilities, and the younger fans (the millions who came onboard in the post-Touch of Grey "mega-Dead era") didn't seem to even realize it... they kept cheering like maniacs no matter how badly they played. The sets were much shorter, the jamming less frequent and less inspired, much of what they played was on autopilot... and the sense that they had become "the leaning tower of Jerry" - as a Village Voice review of a last-tour show memorably observed - was obvious to most seasoned Deadheads.

And while they had played plenty of great cover tunes throughout their career, towards the end they did awful covers of songs that they had no business doing: Dear Mr. Fantasy, Dear Prudence, I Fought The Law, flabby Chuck Berry and Beach Boys covers, and plenty of others besides Iko, Iko and Man Smart, Woman Smarter. It became a sad spectacle to someone like me, who'd seen them in tremendous form back in the 70s. (I was right up front at the Cornell 77 show, often voted their best performance... though it's not.)

Anyway, the Grateful Dead were never everyone's cup of tea... and that won't change. (That their music only grabbed SOME people was always central to the scene.) But theirs is a unique and interesting story. Long Strange Trip is a valiant effort to tell that story, despite its shortcomings... which is really all I wanted to say here.

And hey, I dig Funkadelic too!

 

[Benzadmiral]

Sully, Clint Eastwood's story of the river landing of US Air 1549, and its aftermath with Capt. Sullenberger being grilled by the NTSB. Beautifully done, including the recreation of the actual landing of the jet on the Hudson River. And Tom Hanks, well, he has come a very long way from his early sitcom and light-comedy days, hasn't he?

 

[Fading Fast]

Sully, Clint Eastwood's story of the river landing of US Air 1549, and its aftermath with Capt. Sullenberger being grilled by the NTSB. Beautifully done, including the recreation of the actual landing of the jet on the Hudson River. And Tom Hanks, well, he has come a very long way from his early sitcom and light-comedy days, hasn't he?

DVR'd it recently and now am even more excited to see it. And no kidding on Hanks, he's a quality actor. Recently (last year or so), saw him in "Bridge of Spies" and thought the same thing as you - he's come a long way. He reminds me a lot of Spencer Tracy in his skills and approach to acting.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I also watched Sully last week and was really impressed. Not surprised, because Eastwood's a dependably solid director and Hanks is always excellent. But it was better than I was expecting. And there's really outstanding effects work on the landing sequences, they have tremendous impact.

SPOILER - don't read on if you haven't seen it:

I did think there was one odd screenwriting "mistake". There wasn't a brief scene at the end showing Sully reunited with his wife after the NTSB hearing. You get an actress the caliber of Laura Linney... and then don't even let her and Hanks appear on camera together at the end, after nothing but hideously tense, separately shot telephone conversations throughout the film? One wonders if such a scene was written and shot, but was left on the cutting room floor because it somehow weakened rather than strengthened the ending?

 

[Benzadmiral]

DVR'd it recently and now am even more excited to see it. And no kidding on Hanks, he's a quality actor. Recently (last year or so), saw him in "Bridge of Spies" and thought the same thing as you - he's come a long way. He reminds me a lot of Spencer Tracy in his skills and approach to acting.

In Hanks's early days, up through about You've Got Mail, he reminded me more of the young Jack Lemmon. Both had background in TV, both honed their skills in screen comedies, both moved on to drama. If YGM had been filmed (with postal mail, of course) in 1962, remaking The Shop Around the Corner, I'd bet the studio would have cast Jack and Shirley Maclaine as the unknowing lovers-to-be.

 

[Fading Fast]

In Hanks's early days, up through about You've Got Mail, he reminded me more of the young Jack Lemmon. Both had background in TV, both honed their skills in screen comedies, both moved on to drama. If YGM had been filmed (with postal mail, of course) in 1962, remaking The Shop Around the Corner, I'd bet the studio would have cast Jack and Shirley Maclaine as the unknowing lovers-to-be.

Reasonable assumption as she seemed to be the go-to girl for quirky cute in the early '60s and he was the bubbling "mensch."

In one odd matching with her for that era that somehow worked, they paired her up with Robert Mitchum in "Two for the Seesaw." A gritty movie for the time that, IMHO, gets less attention than it deserves today.

While "You've Got Mail" is okay (I guess), it doesn't live up to the original which got almost every pitch perfect. But I can take YGM better than "In the Good Old Summer Time," a painful musical remake of "The Shop Around the Corner."

 

[Benzadmiral]

Reasonable assumption as she seemed to be the go-to girl for quirky cute in the early '60s and he was the bubbling "mensch."

In one odd matching with her for that era that somehow worked, they paired her up with Robert Mitchum in "Two for the Seesaw." A gritty movie for the time that, IMHO, gets less attention than it deserves today.

While "You've Got Mail" is okay (I guess), it doesn't live up to the original which got almost every pitch perfect. But I can take YGM better than "In the Good Old Summer Time," a painful musical remake of "The Shop Around the Corner."

I think the film of Two for the Seesaw came by its cast quirkiness honestly. The original Broadway production featured Henry Fonda and Anne Bancroft!

YGM and SAtC are both on my short list of "movies I wouldn't change a thing about." With Corner it's partly because of James Stewart and the Golden Era charm. With Mail it's because it has actual funny dialog, the characters are likeable, and -- a rarity in movies since the '80s, it seems to me -- the male half of the couple is the one who realizes the situation they're in, and makes the needed moves to get them together. He's not the Standard Male Doofus of modern rom-coms. Yes, Stewart's character in the original does the same, but I saw Mail first, so I have a strong affection for it.

 

[Fading Fast]

I think the film of Two for the Seesaw came by its cast quirkiness honestly. The original Broadway production featured Henry Fonda and Anne Bancroft!

YGM and SAtC are both on my short list of "movies I wouldn't change a thing about." With Corner it's partly because of James Stewart and the Golden Era charm. With Mail it's because it has actual funny dialog, the characters are likeable, and -- a rarity in movies since the '80s, it seems to me -- the male half of the couple is the one who realizes the situation they're in, and makes the needed moves to get them together. He's not the Standard Male Doofus of modern rom-coms. Yes, Stewart's character in the original does the same, but I saw Mail first, so I have a strong affection for it.

I saw them in the "original" order, so that might have impacted my views. Also, as noted, "In the Good Old Summer Time" is so bad, I was probably prejudice against any remake of it after seeing that one.

Great point on Hank's character. I'm tired of the "men as stupid in relationships" trope - they can be, and movies should show it, but sometimes they aren't, movies should show that too. The same with women, they can be smart and insightful about relationships sometimes and clueless others. Also, I can't stand how smart, insightful and cynical kids in sitcoms are today versus their almost-always clueless parents (with the dad being the most clueless). It's insulting and boring.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Went with one of the kids from work to see "Wonder Woman" at the local multiplex. I'm not a big fan of the multiplex, or the current wave of superhero pictures, but this one was surprisingly good. Wonder Woman is a character who has not been well served outside of comics -- and really, not even by comics themselves, given how many times she's been "rebooted" and "reimagined." But this movie managed to capture the original comics' melange of oddball Greek mythology, female empowerment, and wartime intrigue without resorting to the cheesy, cloying camp of the '70s TV show or the "grim and grittiness" of some of the recent comics versions. Notably omitted from the film was any trace of creator William Moulton Marston's fixation on sexual kinks, a fixation which was all over the 1940s comics and is very much an embarrassment today. Wonder Woman herself is not sexualized in the least bit, which is very refreshing.

One decision that I had misgivings about before seeing the film was the idea of transferring the setting of Wonder Woman's origin from World War II to World War I. I had read about this before seeing the picture and was prepared to be annoyed by it, but I was surprised to see how well it worked, and upon seeing the film and thinking about it, I can understand why they *had to* do it given the way the story turned out. It simply couldn't have worked in a WWII setting given the revelation about the real identity of the villain. Notable too is the idea that Wonder Woman is less concerned with promoting the "American" side of the war, as she was in the WWII/Cold War comics, and more with the idea of promoting peace -- which is also a concept which would not have flown well in a WWII setting. Athough her uniform is still red, white, and blue, it's no longer garishly modeled after the American flag, which is a change I like. Star-spangled hot pants were ridiculous in 1942, and they'd be even more so in 1918 -- or today.

I note too that the kind of men who say they won't watch this movie because it's "too feminist" need not let their delicate sensibilities be bruised. Steve Trevor actually comes off as far less of a whiny inefficacious drip than he does in most other versions of the property.

 

[Trenchfriend]

"Bone Daddy", some minutes ago. Rutger Hauer-parade.

 

[Worf]

We've discussed this before, Worf. I'm not trying to convert anybody here. Nor am I going to defend the Dead's shortcomings, which became much more obvious in their last few years as Garcia faded: I stopped going to shows well before the end, because they were generally playing FAR below their abilities, and the younger fans (the millions who came onboard in the post-Touch of Grey "mega-Dead era") didn't seem to even realize it... they kept cheering like maniacs no matter how badly they played. The sets were much shorter, the jamming less frequent and less inspired, much of what they played was on autopilot... and the sense that they had become "the leaning tower of Jerry" - as a Village Voice review of a last-tour show memorably observed - was obvious to most seasoned Deadheads.

And while they had played plenty of great cover tunes throughout their career, towards the end they did awful covers of songs that they had no business doing: Dear Mr. Fantasy, Dear Prudence, I Fought The Law, flabby Chuck Berry and Beach Boys covers, and plenty of others besides Iko, Iko and Man Smart, Woman Smarter. It became a sad spectacle to someone like me, who'd seen them in tremendous form back in the 70s. (I was right up front at the Cornell 77 show, often voted their best performance... though it's not.)

Anyway, the Grateful Dead were never everyone's cup of tea... and that won't change. (That their music only grabbed SOME people was always central to the scene.) But theirs is a unique and interesting story. Long Strange Trip is a valiant effort to tell that story, despite its shortcomings... which is really all I wanted to say here.

And hey, I dig Funkadelic too!

If more Deadheads were like you... reasoned, intelligent and thoughtful, I guess it wouldn't be such a sore experience with me. I've had raging arguments... something I don't like to do.... with people I love and respect over this band. I know that it was an "experience" less than a band... mebbe I should have dropped a tab and tried it once... but that ain't me. One of my best friends... Sugi was at the Fillmore West New Year's Eve show (while Hendrix was playing the Fillmore East) and thought it the most amazing show she'd ever seen. Her I never doubt. I'm sure they put on some monster shows over the years... I've just never heard it. For decades one of the local college stations had a nightly Dead show "Bring Out Your Dead" where they played nothing but bootlegs.... after a while it drove me nuts. I liked Jerry's work with "Rolling Thunder" and some of the other things he tried to break away but people aren't shoving that at me. Still we can agree to disagree.

Worf

 

[Fading Fast]

Went with one of the kids from work to see "Wonder Woman" at the local multiplex. I'm not a big fan of the multiplex, or the current wave of superhero pictures, but this one was surprisingly good. Wonder Woman is a character who has not been well served outside of comics -- and really, not even by comics themselves, given how many times she's been "rebooted" and "reimagined." But this movie managed to capture the original comics' melange of oddball Greek mythology, female empowerment, and wartime intrigue without resorting to the cheesy, cloying camp of the '70s TV show or the "grim and grittiness" of some of the recent comics versions. Notably omitted from the film was any trace of creator William Moulton Marston's fixation on sexual kinks, a fixation which was all over the 1940s comics and is very much an embarrassment today. Wonder Woman herself is not sexualized in the least bit, which is very refreshing.

One decision that I had misgivings about before seeing the film was the idea of transferring the setting of Wonder Woman's origin from World War II to World War I. I had read about this before seeing the picture and was prepared to be annoyed by it, but I was surprised to see how well it worked, and upon seeing the film and thinking about it, I can understand why they *had to* do it given the way the story turned out. It simply couldn't have worked in a WWII setting given the revelation about the real identity of the villain. Notable too is the idea that Wonder Woman is less concerned with promoting the "American" side of the war, as she was in the WWII/Cold War comics, and more with the idea of promoting peace -- which is also a concept which would not have flown well in a WWII setting. Athough her uniform is still red, white, and blue, it's no longer garishly modeled after the American flag, which is a change I like. Star-spangled hot pants were ridiculous in 1942, and they'd be even more so in 1918 -- or today.

I note too that the kind of men who say they won't watch this movie because it's "too feminist" need not let their delicate sensibilities be bruised. Steve Trevor actually comes off as far less of a whiny inefficacious drip than he does in most other versions of the property.

This is one I'm looking forward to seeing. The trailers, reviews, comments like yours all are encouraging. And they made a series of well-balanced "updates" if they didn't overtly sexualize her and they allowed for a strong male - both were big flaws IMHO in prior versions. Women and men can both be strong in the same movie for God's sake, like it is in the real world.

My dad was a Golden Era man through and through. His style didn't not accommodate the late-'60s change nor did much of his world view (even though he didn't know the word, he was a mix of GE and libertarian views his entire adult life). Also, he was an older dad, in his 40s when I was born. My dad "felt" out of place in many post-'60s environments. You would have been able to pick him out of a crowd at a stadium rock concert in ten seconds or in line at a fast food restaurant (he wasn't fancy and ate in diners and delis, fast food was just outside his window of experience). Somehow, Lizzie at a multiplex reminded me of my dad at the Gap (he went once with me and it was unbelievably hilarious watching a young kid try to help him). I'm not making fun of you - sincerely, I'm not - and I know you enjoyed it, and were perfectly nice / professional, it just isn't your natural environment based on your history - that's all I'm saying.