What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Doctor Strange]

Legend, the recent film about the Kray twins and their criminal reign in sixties England. Since my limited knowledge of the Krays mainly comes from the Monty Python "Piranha Brothers" sketch, I found it interesting. And Tom Hardy - an actor whose performances have mostly struck me as inexplicably overpraised - is excellent as both Kray brothers. A worthy addition to the gangster movie pantheon.

 

[Touchofevil]

The latest installment of The Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I went in with low expectations, they should have been lower.
The reboot of The Mummy. Went in with high expectations to be entertained, I wasn't. Bad acting throughout and bad writing made for a long evening.
Chinatown. I have seen this movie many times, but stumbled upon it and had to watch it once again.

 

[LizzieMaine]

We're wrapping up a run of "Their Finest," a small but lovable comedy-drama about a young female screenwriter in wartime Britain getting a shot at writing a propaganda film about Dunkirk. This is the kind of ensemble period-piece that only the British know how to do well, and it hits all the right notes without an overload of schmaltz. Bill Nighy is priceless as the full-of-himself faded matinee idol reduced to playing a "drunken uncle" in the film, and the rest of the cast, especially Gemma Arterton as the young can-do writer stuck with an oppressive artiste boyfriend and a sarcastic, cynical co-writer, come together very nicely. The result is a picture not unlike "Mrs. Henderson Presents" in spirit, except everybody keeps their clothes on and there are no circumcision jokes. The period setting is impeccable -- again, the British seem to be so much more thorough in seeing to the kind of detail necessary to make such a picture work, and this one's a fine example.

It probably won't show at your googolplex, but if there's an indie house near you, you might get lucky.

 

[Formeruser012523]

Doctor Strange (2016). First, let me say that I had heard of Doctor Strange before seeing this movie, but otherwise had zero knowledge of him and/or his back story. That being said, I found it entertaining enough but felt it suffered from being another "by the numbers" Marvel Studios script--relatively average guy/girl gets drawn kicking and screaming into a world of superheroes/supernatural beings/supervillains/whatever, faces insurmountable odds, and emerges victorious despite having minimal training and/or experience. This movie, perhaps more so than the other Marvel superhero movies, also relies too heavily on CGI, but it's well done and quite beautiful in some scenes. Worth seeing if you're a fan of the genre, not so much if you aren't.

Probably my least favorite of the Marvel films. As always, like you said, one of those "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few." Did they have to make the female co-star seem so dingy? Why is my favorite character a cape? And why Cumberbatch, who I'm so sick of seeing? And the post-credits scene? Oy vey.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I'm a little surprised at all the hate for Doctor Strange, but I won't take it personally!

I liked it a lot, despite the various changes to the Strange mythos and numerous dramatic mistakes it made. Frankly, I'm just astonished to see a blockbuster about a Marvel character so far off the mainstream, whose own books have been canceled repeatedly over the decades because he has never been popular enough. Considering how similar Strange's origin is to Iron Man, etc., and the dreadful Lost Horizon orientalism that's always suffused his stories, it's a problematical character. They did about as well as could be expected.

And who would you want other than Cumberbatch? None of the various actors whose names were floated before he signed for the role - Joaquin Phoenix, Jared Leto, Ryan Gosling, Oscar Issac, Colin Farrell, Ethan Hawke, etc. - would have been nearly as good. And as for "least favorite MCU film" (let's not count the highly uneven X-flicks and always botched Fantastic Four adaptations), just off the top of my head I'd put it above The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor: The Dark World, Ant-Man, and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2... But hey, whatever.

 

[Formeruser012523]

Didn't say I hated it. Just didn't love it as much as others. It definitely had it's moments. Maybe, sometime, IF I see it again, I'll like it more.

Don't have the background of comics that some of you here obviously have. The only comics I ever read were my cousins X-Men comics when I babysat him when I was in my early teens. He was OBSESSED! So by the time the movies came out I was extremely burned out by all the cartoons he forced me to watch, video games we played, and toys he had. So, yeah. Not a fan of those. He's still a fan, btw, and he's a grown man. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just to say, I haven't seen any of the new X-movies.

The Incredible Hulk - I don't remember, Iron Man 2 - Wouldn't completely call that one a wash. No, it wasn't great, but it did introduce Black Widow & had memorable lines from Fury & Coulson. Ant-Man - Was pleasantly surprised by this & found it to be better than I thought. At least he had a daughter & that made things different than I expected. But, once again, the female character (who was perfectly capable) was set aside and needed to be rescued by the man. Ugh. SHE TRAINED HIM! Sexism in Hollywood, what're ya gonna do?

What was wrong with Guardians Vol. 2?

 

[Zombie_61]

I'm a little surprised at all the hate for Doctor Strange, but I won't take it personally!

I liked it a lot, despite the various changes to the Strange mythos and numerous dramatic mistakes it made. Frankly, I'm just astonished to see a blockbuster about a Marvel character so far off the mainstream, whose own books have been canceled repeatedly over the decades because he has never been popular enough. Considering how similar Strange's origin is to Iron Man, etc., and the dreadful Lost Horizon orientalism that's always suffused his stories, it's a problematical character. They did about as well as could be expected.

And who would you want other than Cumberbatch? None of the various actors whose names were floated before he signed for the role - Joaquin Phoenix, Jared Leto, Ryan Gosling, Oscar Issac, Colin Farrell, Ethan Hawke, etc. - would have been nearly as good. And as for "least favorite MCU film" (let's not count the highly uneven X-flicks and always botched Fantastic Four adaptations), just off the top of my head I'd put it above The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor: The Dark World, Ant-Man, and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2... But hey, whatever.

If I gave any impression of "hate" for Doctor Strange (the movie, that is), I apologize as that was not at all my intent. I liked it well enough, but I've seen so many of these "origin story" movies in recent years that I've noticed they're all pretty much the same; different details, but essentially the same story told in the same way.

 

[Julian Shellhammer]

The Desert Rats (1953) with Richard Burton, Robert Newton, and James Mason as Rommel. Directed by Robert Wise. IMDB says it was filmed in Arizona and California. Tight story-telling with enjoyable characterizations by Burton (officer thrust into a thankless assignment) and Newton (whose relationship with Burton's character is sort of mentor, conscience, and sounding board.)

 

[Fading Fast]

"Mr Roberts"

• A very good movie, but not as good as the - basically - same story in "The Caine Mutiny"

• But "Mister Roberts" does one thing better, it plays against the easy populist meme
  • "The Caine Mutiny" argues "smart" college kids need to respect the working-man's captain even if the captain is wrong about many things. "Mister Roberts" says, sometimes, the college kid is right, is more decent and the up-by-the-bootstraps captain is a jerk. Neither is an eternal truth, but good to see the meme reversed: The poor, the weak, the powerless and/or the disrespected are not always moral and good hearted; and the rich, successful, educated and/or well-born are not always immoral and selfish

• Fonda and Powell outact Lemmon (too much goofiness) and (one of my favorites, but not his best performance here - good, but two-dimensional in many scenes) Cagney

• Movie took a half hour too long to kick into gear

• The entire story line with the nurses could have lifted out and the movie would have lost nothing and been tighter

 

[Julian Shellhammer]

We watched A Tree Grows in Brooklyn recorded from TCM, and, as they do, they filled up the time to the top of the hour with a short, this one featuring Glen Gray and the Casa Loma Orchestra. The short was directed by Jean Negulsco, who had a solid career directing shorts. But this one was amazing to me: Negulsco placed the band members to form sort of geometric designs, the soloist rising into the picture from out of sight below the frame, some crane shots, closeups of a singer's face filing half the screen while the band plays in the background (and he wasn't looking at the camera, he was singing to stage left), other stunning set-ups. Most tricking was a dancing couple, she dressed as a bobby-soxer and he with the high-waisted pants that came up onto his chest. They were performing in front of huge mirror that reflected them dozens of times. But the trick was that you thought you were watching the couple dance, when in reality you were watching their reflection. This became apparent when from the left hand side of the screen you suddenly saw a the twirling of the skirt and the wildly dancing legs of the couple. Then they danced out to the left again, only to appear later. And the band itself was delivering the goods while cranking at a high-speed tempo.

 

[Worf]

The Desert Rats (1953) with Richard Burton, Robert Newton, and James Mason as Rommel. Directed by Robert Wise. IMDB says it was filmed in Arizona and California. Tight story-telling with enjoyable characterizations by Burton (officer thrust into a thankless assignment) and Newton (whose relationship with Burton's character is sort of mentor, conscience, and sounding board.)

I own this one... I've a love/hate relationship with Burton. He takes himself so effin' seriously sometimes. This is a war movie not Hamlet (emphasis on HAM) but at least he didn't totally kill the film and the ending where we find out just how me DOES love his men... was pretty good.

Worf

 

[vitanola]

"Mr Roberts"

• A very good movie, but not as good as the - basically - same story in "The Caine Mutiny"

• But "Mister Roberts" does one thing better, it plays against the easy populist meme
  • "The Caine Mutiny" argues "smart" college kids need to respect the working-man's captain even if the captain is wrong about many things. "Mister Roberts" says, sometimes, the college kid is right, is more decent and the up-by-the-bootstraps captain is a jerk. Neither is an eternal truth, but good to see the meme reversed: The poor, the weak, the powerless and/or the disrespected are not always moral and good hearted; and the rich, successful, educated and/or well-born are not always immoral and selfish

• Fonda and Powell outact Lemmon (too much goofiness) and (one of my favorites, but not his best performance here - good, but two-dimensional in many scenes) Cagney

• Movie took a half hour too long to kick into gear

• The entire story line with the nurses could have lifted out and the movie would have lost nothing and been tighter

Well, the nurse story line was an important part of the 1946 novel and was a very important part of the 1948 hit play. Audiences who were familiar with the play would have expected it.

The Caine Mutiny was based on the 1951 Herman Woulk novel, which appeared to draw a great deal from the eariler work, though Would always calimed that it was based entirely on his personal experience in the South Pacific.

 

[vitanola]

We watched A Tree Grows in Brooklyn recorded from TCM, and, as they do, they filled up the time to the top of the hour with a short, this one featuring Glen Gray and the Casa Loma Orchestra. The short was directed by Jean Negulsco, who had a solid career directing shorts. But this one was amazing to me: Negulsco placed the band members to form sort of geometric designs, the soloist rising into the picture from out of sight below the frame, some crane shots, closeups of a singer's face filing half the screen while the band plays in the background (and he wasn't looking at the camera, he was singing to stage left), other stunning set-ups. Most tricking was a dancing couple, she dressed as a bobby-soxer and he with the high-waisted pants that came up onto his chest. They were performing in front of huge mirror that reflected them dozens of times. But the trick was that you thought you were watching the couple dance, when in reality you were watching their reflection. This became apparent when from the left hand side of the screen you suddenly saw a the twirling of the skirt and the wildly dancing legs of the couple. Then they danced out to the left again, only to appear later. And the band itself was delivering the goods while cranking at a high-speed tempo.

You might enjoy reading "Things I Did and Things I Think I Did", Jean Negulesco's autobiography.

 

[Fading Fast]

Well, the nurse story line was an important part of the 1946 novel and was a very important part of the 1948 hit play. Audiences who were familiar with the play would have expected it.

The Caine Mutiny was based on the 1951 Herman Woulk novel, which appeared to draw a great deal from the eariler work, though Would always calimed that it was based entirely on his personal experience in the South Pacific.

Re the nurses - I have no doubt you are right about their significance in the novel and play - and, therefor, would have been expected by a meaningful amount of the movie's audience - but as someone who came to the movie without having experienced the novel or play, the nurses storyline was vapid, slowed the story down and reduced the quality of the overall production.

If Wouk was being honest, then he simply wrote a better story: I've read "The Caine Mutiny" but not "Mr Roberts," so my comment is not really fair, but I can say his book resulted in a better movie than "Mr Roberts." If he was, ahem, borrowing, then at least he did a good job with the material.

 

[vitanola]

Re the nurses - I have no doubt you are right about their significance in the novel and play - and, therefor, would have been expected by a meaningful amount of the movie's audience - but as someone who came to the movie without having experienced the novel or play, the nurses storyline was vapid, slowed the story down and reduced the quality of the overall production.

If Wouk was being honest, then he simply wrote a better story: I've read "The Caine Mutiny" but not "Mr Roberts," so my comment is not really fair, but I can say his book resulted in a better movie than "Mr Roberts." If he was, ahem, borrowing, then at least he did a good job with the material.

I agree with you on both points, but was adding context. It is difficult to overstate the popularity of "Mr. Roberts" in that immediate postwar period.

 

[AmateisGal]

Suite Francaise. I have the book it's based on, but haven't read it yet. The movie was good but I have a feeling the book was much better.

 

[Worf]

"The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" - Panned by critics and not well received by audiences but I still love the film. This is one comic book adaptation I DIDN'T read... I just like it for the story itself. Full of holes and often silly, I still watch it when I can...

Worf

Perhaps this belongs in the guilty pleasures thread....

 

[Zombie_61]

"The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" - Panned by critics and not well received by audiences but I still love the film. This is one comic book adaptation I DIDN'T read... I just like it for the story itself. Full of holes and often silly, I still watch it when I can...

Worf

Perhaps this belongs in the guilty pleasures thread....

I like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen myself. Admittedly it's not a great movie, but it's a fun romp anyway.

 

[Worf]

I like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen myself. Admittedly it's not a great movie, but it's a fun romp anyway.

I mean all those legendary heroes/monsters in one film... what could go wrong? Plenty I guess as far as the critics were concerned.

Worf

 

[Doctor Strange]

It's not a good film, but I kinda like it too, for it's cool concept rather than its lame execution. No doubt the Alan Moore comics it's based on are vastly better. I gotta read them sometime.

As Connery's Alan Quatermain observes, "I'm waiting to be impressed."

I think Penny Dreadful did the Victorian monster mash a lot better, but of course it's not fair to compare a three-season cable series with an older standalone film.