What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Zombie_61]

Non dancing Ginger!
View attachment 122692
You really have to suspend your disbelief when it comes to mistaking Ginger Rogers for a pre-teen girl.

My wife and I watched this on TCM a year or so ago, and from start to finish all I could think was, "How do none of the characters notice this 'child' is 30 years old???" It's not the worst movie I've ever seen, but because of this discrepancy I have to agree with Fading Fast--it doesn't really work.

 

[LizzieMaine]

You'd be surprised how many people still try to pass adults off as 12-year olds at a movie box office window. "Scootch down and look innocent, she'll never notice."

 

[Fading Fast]

"The Man Who Found Himself" 1937 starring John Beal and Joan Fontaine

• This one feels more pre-code than '37, all it needs is some casual sex (which they really wanted to put in at one point)
• And it feels more Warner Brothers than RKO - make it on the cheap and churn out a 67 minute movie by never stopping
• John Beal has a marked resemblance to Franchot Tone and the same somewhat-diffident acting style
• Joan Fontaine can act, but it is hard to tell as your brain goes into vapor lock looking at her beauty
• The classic diner and Art Deco airport in it are Fedora Lounge heaven
• Not a great movie (really, really low-budget special effects), but a solidly entertaining one

 

[3fingers]

You'd be surprised how many people still try to pass adults off as 12-year olds at a movie box office window. "Scootch down and look innocent, she'll never notice."

There is a turd or three in every crowd. The worst offenders are those with the means to easily pay the fee.

 

[Julian Shellhammer]

The Big Steal (1949) with Robert Mitchum, Jane Greer, and William Bendix. Despite its use of "Big" in the title, which makes us think of Big Heat, Big Sleep, Big Combo, et al, it's actually a chase picture mixed with a sort of screwball comedy (sort of), then mixed with a crime/mystery puzzler. There are a couple of twists that I did not see coming at all. More interesting was the nice, pleasant, normal, human being role by Greer, instead of a thoroughly lethal femme fatale.
Since it was directed by Don Siegel there were numerous fistfights and knockdown dust-ups.

 

[Fading Fast]

3fingers, did you see yesterday or have you seen in the past "The Man Who Found Himself?" If so, curious as to your thoughts.

 

[Fading Fast]

There is a turd or three in every crowd. The worst offenders are those with the means to easily pay the fee.

I continue to argue that the world would be a better place if we spent more time emphasizing and teaching children (and reinforcing it with adults through cultural/social norms) basic honesty and decency in day-to-day interactions and transactions with others and put less emphasis on the forced social/charitable work that is drilled into kids today (since there is only so much bandwidth for teaching). I'll take a decent honest person - pays their bills, wouldn't try to lie about their age to pay less at a movie, shakes your hand on a deal and you know it's as good as a signature - over a less-than-honest but out-loud (and maybe really) charitable person.

Some of the last "kids" (young men and women just out of college) I had working for me were not particularly honest or nice (some absolutely were) - they'd cut a corner, twist a story in their favor, bury a bad report - but they were charitable - soup kitchen at Thanksgiving, actively engaged in this or that programs or project to fight this or that social ill, etc. And maybe the charity was sincere, but again, a little more day-to-day integrity would make life better for society than another morally squishy young adult ladling soup at Thanksgiving, IMHO.

 

[3fingers]

3fingers, did you see yesterday or have you seen in the past "The Man Who Found Himself?" If so, curious as to your thoughts.

I did not. We haven't had cable television for several years and TCM still can't/won't offer a stand alone streaming option. I looked for it from some other streaming source after I read your review, but so far no joy.

 

[3fingers]

I continue to argue that the world would be a better place if we spent more time emphasizing and teaching children (and reinforcing it with adults through cultural/social norms) basic honesty and decency in day-to-day interactions and transactions with others and put less emphasis on the forced social/charitable work that is drilled into kids today (since there is only so much bandwidth for teaching). I'll take a decent honest person - pays their bills, wouldn't try to lie about their age to pay less at a movie, shakes your hand on a deal and you know it's as good as a signature - over a less-than-honest but out-loud (and maybe really) charitable person.

Some of the last "kids" (young men and women just out of college) I had working for me were not particularly honest or nice (some absolutely were) - they'd cut a corner, twist a story in their favor, bury a bad report - but they were charitable - soup kitchen at Thanksgiving, actively engaged in this or that programs or project to fight this or that social ill, etc. And maybe the charity was sincere, but again, a little more day-to-day integrity would make life better for society than another morally squishy young adult ladling soup at Thanksgiving, IMHO.

I have noticed this same thing. I agree that there are some fine young people out there. I wonder sometimes if the reasons for the visible charitable work in favor of the day to day decency is driven as much by the ability to put it on farcebook, twitter, etc. than the desire to actually help people. This is not a new thing by any means. The difference is instead of forcing the other people at bridge club or lodge meeting to listen to your boasting about what a good person you are, you can now brag to the world from your phone.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's no mystery to me. It's all part of the competitive "get into the best college" meat grinder kids are now forced into by their social-climbing parents and counselors. It's not done to impress anyone but the people who pass judgement on college applications, and that's all it is.

On the other hand, though, you have kids like one in particular who I know, who ladles out soup on holidays because, as a small child, she herself had to eat at that soup kitchen and she remembers what it was like to be hungry when everyone else was gorging themselves. She didn't get into a good college, but that was never the point. And she never posts about it on social media, either.

 

[Fading Fast]

It's no mystery to me. It's all part of the competitive "get into the best college" meat grinder kids are now forced into by their social-climbing parents and counselors. It's not done to impress anyone but the people who pass judgement on college applications, and that's all it is.

On the other hand, though, you have kids like one in particular who I know, who ladles out soup on holidays because, as a small child, she herself had to eat at that soup kitchen and she remembers what it was like to be hungry when everyone else was gorging themselves. She didn't get into a good college, but that was never the point. And she never posts about it on social media, either.

My dad did charitable work and gave to charity his entire adult life for the same reason as the one kid in particular you point out: he was poor as a kid and when, as an adult, he wasn't, he very quietly did charitable work and gave to charities (and he wasn't rich or anything like that). After he died, we discovered he did more than we knew about. And, interestingly, he never encouraged me to be or taught it to me - he just did what he wanted without saying much (which is how he did most things). However, he proactively taught me honesty and day-to-day decency about your word, a handshake, just helping someone, but he did not proactively teach or encourage me to be charitable in the way he was.

I agree that many parents push their kids into it for college / resume building, but (as the kids say) it's become a meme as the "kids" I'm talking about are past college, but some are still active in charitable efforts and events; however, my anecdotal impressions (and that's all they are) is that it's (for some, not all) still about showing others what they are doing / being competitive than a sincere charitable instinct.

What strikes me as off in a human way is that some (again, not condemning an entire generation, but it is much more prevalent amongst the kids who graduated in the last 10-15 years) are very charitable (ignoring motives), but not very nice people at all. Saying it straight out, they'll help restore a house as a charitable effort on the weekend, but I wouldn't leave my wallet in a room alone with them or trust their word in business or, even, assume they'd help someone who tripped and was obviously hurt lying on the ground.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I guess I don't travel in those circles, because I don't know any kids who are like that. Most of the kids I know -- some of whom are now in their thirties -- are just doing their best to get by in a world that's gone bat-spit crazy thanks to the grasping cupidity of the generations that immediately preceded them. I'd frankly put more trust in any one of them than in any randomly-selected member of my own generation, far too many of whom can't see anything beyond their own personal comfort. They might write off a check to the community chest to get a tax deduction, but god help any flesh and blood poor person who actually strays into their neighborhoods. If said person is lucky, they won't get shot in the back by the cops.

Sure, the kids might seem snarky and cynical, but that's mostly just a self-defensive pose. Get to know them, spend time with them, and don't judge them, and you'll see a different side. They're genuinely good people, wandering thru the bonfires of a preapocalyptic nation and trying to figure out how to survive on the husks and rinds they get tossed.

Which, when you think of it, sounds like the plot for a good movie.

 

[Formeruser012523]

Think there's been a lot of those movies. You both make good points about the younger folks. Being in the middle, it's hard to differentiate. Seen the good and bad. Grew up without the internet, so watching it explode has been weird. Farcebook (like that), I think has been the worst offender on the young and their self-indulgence. It's easy to not speak to a soul, ignore everyone around you in reality, not looking a single person in the eye, yet brag about how great you are and talk about yourself all the time online. (Yet, here I am sort of talking about myself. )

Can't imagine this generation's pressures in society, but they've grown up watching post apocalyptic movies like The Hunger Games, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc. Where the young became leaders. Should probably stop now...

 

[LizzieMaine]

A trend I've noticed is that a great many young people seem to be deserting Zuckerberg's Pleasure Dome in great numbers -- one of my particular acquaintance dumped it cold turkey a month or so back declaring that she was sick and tired of what it was doing to her. My eighty-year-old mother, on the other hand, is a Facebook fiend, and nothing short of nuclear winter could get her off of it -- and even then maybe she'd be on there posting pictures of the fallout and saying MY DOORYARDS ALL GRAY LOL!

 

[3fingers]

I would guess young people tend to be affected more by what others might post. People like your mother to be blunt don't GAF about the background noise. If somebody doesn't ike what she says it bothers her not in the least.

 

[Formeruser012523]

A trend I've noticed is that a great many young people seem to be deserting Zuckerberg's Pleasure Dome in great numbers -- one of my particular acquaintance dumped it cold turkey a month or so back declaring that she was sick and tired of what it was doing to her. My eighty-year-old mother, on the other hand, is a Facebook fiend, and nothing short of nuclear winter could get her off of it -- and even then maybe she'd be on there posting pictures of the fallout and saying MY DOORYARDS ALL GRAY LOL!

Your Mother sounds like my Father. He's constantly looking at his phone and I know he's on Farcebook. He'll ask me "Did you see . . ." I'll answer no before he's done. It's like both my parents (and other relatives) have forgotten I deleted some time ago. Yeah, was glad to be out of that Pleasure Dome some time ago and have found I'm more productive for it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

That was the situation with my friend who quit it -- she was finding herself actively getting worked up over whether certain people liked her posts or not, and over what certain other people were passive-aggressively saying about her in other posts, and spent a distressing amount of her time worrying about this stuff. Quitting it was a good move, and I imagine she's going to be a better person for it.

Mr. Z proved himself one of the Boys of high level when he figured out that the easiest way to manipulate consumers emotionally for the profit of advertisers was to tap into the desperately insecure high school freshman that lurks within all of us. It's the most vicious kind of back-door manipulation I can think of.

Meanwhile, the last movie I saw was this morning, a pre-screening of our current feature "The Rider." I thought it was a heart-tugging story about a guy and his horse, and then I looked at the opening scene to see a guy pulling staples of out his own skull with a hunting knife. Um.

 

[MondoFW]

Just finished Holiday Inn (1942). It was a fun musical, and Fred Astaire's panache really grew on me. I have Top Hat in my DVR, but I wasn't really fond of it when I started it, a while ago. Guess I'll have to watch more Astaire.

 

[Fading Fast]

"Set It Up" 2018 on Netflix. This movie would normally have been released in theaters as an mainstream romcom, but in the upside down world we now live in, it's exclusive to Netflix streaming. While no great loss to the movie-theater universe, it's odd that a full-budget, mainstream movie now gets made and shown only via a single steaming service.

Anywho, it's a color-by-numbers modern romcom that feels reverse engineered and poll tested to the point that any real soul or sincerity had been wrong out of it before a single scene was shot. The variation on a theme in this one is two interns employed at separate companies in the same New York City office tower - who both work crazy hours for successful and demanding bosses - meet by accident and recognize that their only chance at getting their personal lives back is by setting their bosses up with each other in hopes that the bosses will become romantically involved and spend less time working and needing their interns.

It's kinda a modern version of a '30s screwball comedy where you don't really believe it could happen, but go along for, what's suppose to be, a fun ride. And it is to some extent - the interns are young, affable and good looking, New York is exciting and energetic and their bosses are super-successful business people with all the clothes and adult toys to match. But it feels fake and forced. The bosses - the only name stars, Lucy Liu and Taye Diggs - are thoroughly unlikable, two-dimensional and not-believable characters.

And several scenes feel so engineered for "romcom" effect - a kissing-on-the-video-screen scene at Yankee stadium, the obligatory rooftop dance scene or the "we [the interns] wind up together in one of our bedrooms, late at night, eating pizza but we aren't dating" scene - that even as you kinda enjoy them, you feel manipulated. And, of course, several modern political piety boxes are loudly checked which has become an obnoxious Hollywood tick that is annoying now and will only age worse in the film as time passes. Throw in a mean, selfish model girlfriend for the male intern (she's horrible, but he'd never get her in the first place), a not-funny-but-supposed-to-be building maintenance employee and a best friend who's getting married and the pieces are all there, but they feel contrived.

The one saving grace is that the two interns - who we know early on belong together, but they don't see it for most of the movie - are appealing and, overall, earnest despite having painfully unoriginal material to work with. If you already have Netflix streaming, the marginal cost is zero, which is only a bit less than it's worth other than to kill an hour and a half with some pretty New York City scenes and two young, engaging actors. For a better romcom / screwball comedy try to catch "Bringing up Baby," "The Shop Around the Corner," "The Thin Man" or "Bachelor Mother" on TCM. Eighty years of movie making in between and modern CGI has not improved on the formula.

 

[Worf]

Just saw the last 3rd of "CE3K" the other night. Question for all you mavens out there.... At the end the aliens come out looking for all the folks they "invited" for a joy ride round the universe. America decides to send it's "best and brightest" instead... except for Neary who's drafted at the last moment to go with the chosen ones. Now the aliens look up and down the line and choose only our dreamer to go with them. However we never see or find out what happened to the rest of gallant space people? On shot they're there... the next they're gone. No indication that they were invited in.... did they:

1. Bogard their way into the ship?
2. Pack up their toys and go home?
3. Get invited in off camera?

Enquiring minds wanna know. Been pondering this for decades.

Worf