What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Fading Fast]

The title was changed to One for the Books; we watched it a while ago until that title.
It sort of has the feel of story that started out as a play. "Fluffy" is accurate; could we say a "fluffy comedy of conventions"?

As mentioned above, I like the movie as light (your perfect call, "fluffy") fare, but either title is terrible. With all the marketing skills of the Hollywood machine, how could they only come up with two terrible titles for one reasonably decent movie?

"Love on Leave"
"Weekend Romance"
"Only Three Days to Find Love"

It ain't that hard to do better than "One for the Books" or "The Voice of the Turtle."

 

[Doctor Strange]

A recent film that I'd classify as a fascinating failure, The Love Witch, on Amazon Prime.

The film's look and plot carefully echo what you'd see in a 1970 horror film from Hammer or AIP, even though it takes place in the present. The costumes, hair and makeup, sets, cars, etc. are all exaggerated period styles. The film was shot on 35mm with careful lighting and color styling to look like Technicolor. The story concerns, yes, a practicing witch who enspells young men and ultimately leads them to their doom.

Sounds like classic drive-in fare, no? The main differences from an old exploitation film are:

• Full frontal nudity and more graphic sex (but not more than required)
• The title character - not the police detective - is the protagonist
• Relatively serious treatment of witchcraft and its practitioners, not just the old made-up Latin spells and witches-are-EVIL tropes
• Made by a female filmmaker with a feminine POV, its sexual politics are a lot more nuanced
• Following on that, it makes some sort of thought-provoking observations about men/women and attraction/sex

There's a lot in this film that works like gangbusters, including a transfixing lead performance by Samantha Robinson. The film is just gorgeous in its faux-1970 look, and it's definitely sexy. But some of the acting (and dialog) is seriously terrible... and I'm not sure if it's supposed to be 1970-exploitation-film-terrible, or it's just bad. The plot makes little to no logical sense, and it's too long and runs out of steam in the third act. (To be fair, this is also faithful to many of the movies it's honoring.)

I found it fascinating both because I saw a lot of those 60/70s cheapies in my youth and have real affection for them, and because the woman who made this film (and did nearly everything besides writing and directing, like the production/costume design) had a distinct vision and obvious ambition. In terms of giving an old horror trope a new spin, I'll take this one over the overpraised Get Out anytime.



Recommended because it's unusual and unique, even with its problems.

 

[LizzieMaine]

We've got a two week run of "The Shape of Water," the latest Guillermo del Toro fantasy opus, and it's one of those pictures that will stick with you for a very long time. It's the story of a mute young woman who works in a secret Cold War era government lab and falls in love with a -- well, a Gill Man kept in a tank for nefarious purposes. The CIA agent in charge of the facility, a sadistic ba***rd played by the best of all possible sadistic bastards, Michael Shannon, wants the creature dissected, but the young woman and her oddball group of friends have different ideas.

Sally Hawkins is wonderful as the young woman -- she has one of the most expressive faces in movies today, and makes the most of it here. And Doug Jones, who always plays the creature in a del Toro film, is superb as the Gill Man, who is a gentle soul with a taste for Benny Goodman records. I could have done without the scene where he bites the head off a live cat, but otherwise, I rooted for him the whole way thru.

It's sort of a fond tribute to "creature feature" horror/sci-fi pictures of the 1950s, right down to the queasy greenish-blue Eastmancolor cinematography, but be warned that this is not a film for kids. Del Toro likes his gore, and even aside from the cat scene there's quite a bit of violence and blood. Despite all that, it's the most romantic love story of the season.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Ooh, I'm dying to see that one, but it's not yet playing near me. Love Del Toro. Love Sally Hawkins. Love Richard Jenkins and Michael Shannon. And of course, I love fantasy/SF. This one ticks all my boxes, and I have yet to hear from anyone who's seen it that hasn't been mightily impressed.

 

[AmateisGal]

Confidential Agent (1945) with Charles Boyer and Lauren Bacall about a Spaniard sent to London to help buy coal for the Spanish govt to help fight the fascists. What a great film! Lots of twists and turns, and Boyer's character really goes through the ringer, but it's all very well done. Some memorable performances in this with secondary characters (Peter Lorre is one). I have to say, though, that I have a problem with Bacall's performances...maybe it's just me, but it seems like she's the same in every movie I see her in. Is it just me?

Here's a review from the New York Times from Nov. 1945.

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9E06E3D8123AEF33A25750C0A9679D946493D6CF

 

[PeterGunnLives]

Tony Rome (1967) with Frank Sinatra, on limited-edition blu ray disc together with its sequel Lady in Cement. This is the epitome of "hard-boiled."

 

[2jakes]

Some memorable performances in this with secondary characters (Peter Lorre is one). I have to say, though, that I have a problem with Bacall's performances...maybe it's just me, but it seems like she's the same in every movie I see her in. Is it just me?

Lauren was Lauren same as John Wayne was John Wayne
whether fighting indians, or flying tigers over Burma.
Difference was, Wayne packed more charisma.

Also, Bacall was miscast as an Englishwoman plus when you have characters
like Peter Lorre and Katina Paxinou, you need to have the moxie of a
Bogart to keep up.
Betty just quite didn't have it, although I enjoy watching her with
Bogey all the time.

 

[MondoFW]

Today I watched Shadow of a Doubt.
The movie was great, I was engaged all throughout the story. The maniacal and mysterious attitude of Uncle Charlie reminded me of Bruno from Strangers on a Train, another Hitchcock classic. I bet a lot of other murder mysteries follow this trope as well. I've been meaning to watch other Hitchcock films, even though I wasn't too impressed with the one widely credited as his best, Vertigo.

 

[Fading Fast]

"A Ghost Story"

The best ghost costume ever - a classic design (very Fedora Lounge) not altered or "updated" / no CGI / no digital this or high tech that. Fit the movie perfectly.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Another highly praised current film on Netflix: Mudbound.

Honestly, it did nothing for me. It heavy handedly telegraphed (I guess I could be charitable and say "foreshadowed") everything that was coming, and didn't add much that we hadn't already seen in many other stories about southern farm life, racial strife, and WWII vets suffering PSTD trying to reenter society. Even the acting from folks I very much admire like Carey Mulligan and Garrett Hedlund was underplayed and underwhelming. Anyway, (again) I don't see what's so special here.

 

[3fingers]

Confidential Agent (1945) with Charles Boyer and Lauren Bacall about a Spaniard sent to London to help buy coal for the Spanish govt to help fight the fascists. What a great film! Lots of twists and turns, and Boyer's character really goes through the ringer, but it's all very well done. Some memorable performances in this with secondary characters (Peter Lorre is one). I have to say, though, that I have a problem with Bacall's performances...maybe it's just me, but it seems like she's the same in every movie I see her in. Is it just me?

Here's a review from the New York Times from Nov. 1945.

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9E06E3D8123AEF33A25750C0A9679D946493D6CF

I've never understood her appeal. I think if she hadn't been Mrs. Humphrey Bogart she would likely have been a moderately successful actress. I've also never thought she was one of the most beautiful women in the world either but I admit that to be purely subjective.

 

[PeterGunnLives]

I've never understood her appeal. I think if she hadn't been Mrs. Humphrey Bogart she would likely have been a moderately successful actress. I've also never thought she was one of the most beautiful women in the world either but I admit that to be purely subjective.

It's not purely appearance, it's her sultry manner.

 

[scottyrocks]

ABC's butchery of those movies was shameless. I remember tuning in one afternoon to watch M*A*S*H (1970), and near the end of their "4:30 Movie" run ABC had reduced the time slot to one hour. Incomprehensible is definitely the word to describe it--between editing the movie for content and making time for commercials it was like watching an extended highlights reel, and if you hadn't seen the movie before you'd have absolutely no idea that it even had a comprehensive story. Less than a year later ABC ditched the "afternoon movie" concept in favor of extending their news broadcast, and I can't say I was disappointed.

Some time after the concept had ended (or I stopped being home in the afternoon to watch it), I began to wonder how a two hour movie could be fit into 90 minutes minus commercials.

 

[scottyrocks]

Confidential Agent (1945) with Charles Boyer and Lauren Bacall about a Spaniard sent to London to help buy coal for the Spanish govt to help fight the fascists. What a great film! Lots of twists and turns, and Boyer's character really goes through the ringer, but it's all very well done. Some memorable performances in this with secondary characters (Peter Lorre is one). I have to say, though, that I have a problem with Bacall's performances...maybe it's just me, but it seems like she's the same in every movie I see her in. Is it just me?

Here's a review from the New York Times from Nov. 1945.

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9E06E3D8123AEF33A25750C0A9679D946493D6CF

No, I saw this the other day, and Bacall seemed to be reading her lines off of cue cards.

 

[Fading Fast]

I've never understood her appeal. I think if she hadn't been Mrs. Humphrey Bogart she would likely have been a moderately successful actress. I've also never thought she was one of the most beautiful women in the world either but I admit that to be purely subjective.

I think she had a brief window of being a strikingly pretty young woman who got turbo boosted up by her "just put your lips together and blow" line / image - luck is always part of success. Being the wife of Him, as you note, didn't hurt either.

IMHO, her looks faded quickly and she developed an unpleasant hard / leathery smoker's look early on (all this is opinion and just to prevent blowback, some men also age quickly and some women seem to almost never age). I think her searing looks of the mid-to-late 1940s were over by 1953's "How to Marry a Millionaire."

As to her acting skills - solid B, nothing more, but no worse. It was the early success, the early looks and being married to Him that fueled everything else.

 

[Worf]

Sorry computer problems, kinda got em sorted out... mebbe.

"The Devils Disciple" - Love this kirk Douglass/Burt Lancaster version of Revolutionary History centered around combat in upstate NY. Funny and irreverent to history this film is a hoot. Both the leads are great however Sir Lawrence Olivier steals the show with his wry and cynical portrayal of "Gentleman Johnny" Burgoyne, commander of the Crown forces in the Northeast. He was simply masterful!

Worf

 

[AmateisGal]

I think she had a brief window of being a strikingly pretty young woman who got turbo boosted up by her "just put your lips together and blow" line / image - luck is always part of success. Being the wife of Him, as you note, didn't hurt either.

IMHO, her looks faded quickly and she developed an unpleasant hard / leathery smoker's look early on (all this is opinion and just to prevent blowback, some men also age quickly and some women seem to almost never age). I think her searing looks of the mid-to-late 1940s were over by 1953's "How to Marry a Millionaire."

As to her acting skills - solid B, nothing more, but no worse. It was the early success, the early looks and being married to Him that fueled everything else.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't understand Bacall's acting appeal. That being said, I did enjoy her performance in How to Marry a Millionaire and she does fairly well with Gregory Peck in Designing Women.

 

[Trenchfriend]

And when I mentioned Gary Oldman as the allround-actor, I definitely have to mention Stellan Skarsgard! And the older I get, the more I like him!

Everytime, He appears on the screen, it's kind of magnetizing for me. He upstages all the others.

 

[scottyrocks]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't understand Bacall's acting appeal. That being said, I did enjoy her performance in How to Marry a Millionaire and she does fairly well with Gregory Peck in Designing Women.

I also thought she did well opposite John Wayne in The Shootist (1976). The part, and her treatment of it, worked very convincingly for me.

 

[Fading Fast]

"Friends with Kids" 2011

If artificial intelligence ever starts writing movies, movies like this will be the result.

They are formulaic blends of "The Big Chill," "Definitely, Maybe" and "Must Love Dogs" and all the other movies of upper-middle-class people with more money than brains who spend inordinate amounts of time analyzing their own lives and making normal life challenges existential crises because they are happening to them.

The AI program will call for finding good looking actors with middling acting careers (you know them, but don't know all their names), put them in a hip city (or just use New York, 'cause it's always hip), show their pretty lifestyles with all their nice clothes, cars, homes, etc., find some current social issue (tilt liberal in viewpoint), create a few personal crisis to highlight it - but where the audience can feel smart because it can see the resolution before the characters - throw in some sex and a feel-good resolution and you're good to go.

As computing costs come down and AI capabilities increase rapidly, it seems silly to pay a writer to spit out these formulaic fluff pieces that must do well economically as they keep making them.