What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Zombie_61]

Wonder Woman and Justice League from 2017. Not bad, but not great with Wonder Woman being the better of the two by far. Like every other modern movie of this type, both movies suffer from overuse of CGI to tell their respective stories and create battle sequences that are much longer than they need to be.

 

[Seb Lucas]

I hear you Zombie - I found Wonder Woman pretty dull fare, myself. Nice bit by Chris Pine I thought as the love interest. But the film really lacked spark and vitality to add value to the now standard superhero CGI callisthenics. Nothing ever seems to be at stake in these films.

 

[Seb Lucas]

The King of Comedy - from an era when Scorsese still made interesting films - this one is like a companion piece to Taxi Driver - a mono-maniac transforms popular culture through an odyssey of criminal obsession. This one seems to prefigure reality TV and is superbly edited and filmed. And it features the only performance by Jerry Lewis I can sit through.

 

[Fading Fast]

Wonder Woman and Justice League from 2017. Not bad, but not great with Wonder Woman being the better of the two by far. Like every other modern movie of this type, both movies suffer from overuse of CGI to tell their respective stories and create battle sequences that are much longer than they need to be.

Agree fully on WW (didn't see JL). In my comments from when I saw it (here: https://www.thefedoralounge.com/threads/wonder-woman.90714/page-3#post-2270118) I, too, mentioned too much CGI and getting weary from the action scenes over the course of the movie.

When I think back on WW (and I've seen a few minutes of it on HBO recently), what I miss most is a story that rises above or dives deeper into the comic-book good-vs-evil narrative as, IMHO, the Nolan Batam movies do. I've seen, in particular, parts of the second Batman movie several times on cable and it, in general, holds my interest as there is a lot of philosophy about and metaphors to our times layered in and presented in a nuanced way versus WW's surface version where the political views are two dimensional and obviously biased.

And the final battle scenes in WW went on way too long, was silly as the villain morphed into some crazy monster and it all, IMHO, fell a bit apart at that point. Still a decent movie - Gadot and Pine did an outstanding job with the material - but it is a solid level below a great movie.

 

[Fading Fast]

"Advise and Consent" 1962 starring nearly everyone who was an actor in Hollywood at the time

• A solid entry in the having-a-moment early '60s serious-movies-about-politics genre

• Shows the ugly side of the US Senate as everything - horse trading for votes to outright blackmail - is revealed / this is not a "how a bill becomes a law" propaganda film / it's smash-mouth politics

• And the blackmail is (spoiler alert) about a pivotal Senator's hidden homosexual past that, for the time, was pretty dramatic including a gay-bar scene that (to my imperfect memory) seems ahead of its time

• While it's got its soap-opera elements and its too-obvious political biases, the acting (one pro after another), writing (not subtle, but still strong) and directing (also not subtle, but smartly stitches a lot of moving parts together) quality - and its beautiful-and-crisp B&W cinematography - make for an engaging film

• It's also wonderful Fedora Lounge time travel to early '60s cars, airports, clothes, architecture and Washington DC (with some really good inside-baseball views of the Capital Building)

 

[Doctor Strange]

Re the superhero film discussion...

There is practically no superhero/comic book film that doesn't fall apart in its much-too-long, much-too-CGI third-act battle. This is true of Nolan's Bat-films just as much as the more recent DC and Marvel films.

As I've said here many times, a lot of the "more serious and realistic" aspect of the Nolan films is a confidence trick that dissolves if you actually stop and think about it. A decade later, these movies are still entertaining - and still a vastly better adaptation of Batman than the godawful Joel Schumacher films they supplanted - but a lot more of their seams show. (That said, The Dark Knight is clearly the best of them - following the familiar three-star first film, four-star second film, two-star third film pattern that most screen trilogies seem to.)

I mean, I'm obviously a dedicated fan of this genre, but even the best of them fall prey to the third act problem. It's true in what I consider the only four-star MCU films out of twenty so far, The Avengers and Captain America: The Winter Solider. It's really bad in Wonder Woman, which up until the last half-dour does so many things right. It's extremely annoying in Avengers: Infinity War, which squanders its true gold - the meetings and interactions of its wide-ranging groups of protagonists - with endless overwrought fights. Some of these films (I'm looking at you, Justice League) are so buried in pointless CGI overkill that their characterizations and plot are scattershot and effectively incomprehensible.

The genre is largely a prisoner of its (currently very) successful formula. But just as those late-fifties/early sixties days when there were countless westerns crowding the broadcast networks passed into history, the superhero movie cycle will eventually be replaced with a new favorite genre that speaks to younger cohorts. (As I've also said here many times, I gave my kids a very wide-ranging film/TV experience... and the one genre that they never found worthwhile or resonant was the western... in their generation, it was just no longer the great American myth it was to mine.)

 

[Zombie_61]

...Nothing ever seems to be at stake in these films.

A large part of this is that we all know going in that the heroes are going to win. They might take a beating here and there, but they always manage to bounce back and win in the end. So it's the story--how they win--that should be the focus and hold the audiences' interest. But the people making these movies don't seem to know how to operate under any mindset beyond "The spectacle is the thing", hence the drawn out CG battle sequences. Maybe I've just seen too many of these movies, but the moment I realize that big video game final battle is starting I want to go out and have a sandwich and return just in time to see how the hero/heroes manage to win this time.

Just to be clear, I did enjoy Wonder Woman more than my initial comments implied. Gal Godot has made the character her own, I thought Chris Pine was an excellent choice for Steve Trevor, and their on-screen chemistry made the relationship between the characters believable. Good casting and performances throughout, so I'd say the movie being too long for my tastes (as are many movies these days) and the near constant CG assault on my senses are my only real complaints.

I didn't dislike Justice League as much as most people, but it's definitely the weaker of the two movies. It did what it was supposed to do--establish the basic line-up of DC's superhero alliance--but not much more. If you're a fan of the same CG onslaught that I complained about above, this is your movie; I think the actors' CG counterparts got nearly as much screen time as the actors themselves. Like Gal Godot, Jason Momoa makes Arthur Curry/Aquaman his own, but poor Ben Affleck looked uncomfortable and barely able to move in whichever Batsuit he was wearing at any given time.

 

[Seb Lucas]

Great analysis by Doctor Strange.

I have to say I enjoyed the first Nolan Batman - the others I disliked. It wasn't just the CGI that annoyed me, I also found them heavy handed and bombastic.

I'm not a fan of the genre - they just seem formulaic and obvious. As a kid I never read comics so the tradition doesn't resonate much with me overall.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed the series Jessica Jones (no masterpiece but a bit of fun) and have a soft spot for action movies but they need to feel plausible to me.

I now put Bond in the superhero genre - utterly implausible CGI action effects about a man who can't be killed.

I wanted to like Wonder Woman but I felt right from the start on the island, the film utilised too many visual clichés, some dreary dialogue and tired action choreography. I thought Gadot was ok but I wasn't especially taken by her performance.

 

[Benzadmiral]

I don't know if anyone has commented on Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, the latest in the Michael Crichton-inspired dinosaurs-brought-to-life saga. I saw it this weekend, and enjoyed it quite a bit. It's not the strong entry that the previous JW film with Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard was, but it's colorful and fast-moving, featuring a big contrast in backdrops (an erupting volcanic island vs. an isolated, beautifully-appointed mansion in the N. California forest). You also get James Cromwell as the aged, previously-unmentioned business partner of John Hammond (Richard Attenborough in the earlier films), and Ted ("Buffalo Bill"/"Jame Gumb") Levine as a thoroughly rotten mercenary who likes collecting dinosaur teeth. Beyond that, it sports astonishingly realistic dinosaurs, including one I don't recall seeing before, an ankylosaur, the "living tank"; and action scenes that confirm that Pratt should play the next iteration of Indiana Jones.

Mindless fun, but good fun, and not too heavy on the grrrl-power stuff.

I was astonished to find that my local multi-plex has installed leatherette recliners in the theatres, and when you buy your ticket you have to pick your seat! Anything, I guess, to get patrons into the theatre.

 

[rocketeer]

Lift to the scaffold. Original French title, Ascenseur pour l'échafaud
Louis Malle's first film.
Sort of French New Wave Film Noir crime of passion. A great story with a great twist at the end, and a superb Miles Davis soundtrack.
See Paris as it was in the late 50s, like any city it looks great at night in the rain and Davis's music fits these scenes perfectly.
Brilliant.

 

[Zombie_61]

More computer generated entertainment from 2017: War for the Planet of the Apes, the third movie from the rebooted Planet of the Apes franchise. The apes, led by Caesar (Andy Serkis) want nothing more than to be left alone and to co-exist in peace, but a human leader known as The Colonel (Woody Harrelson, deliberately reminiscent of Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now in the role) is convinced the genetically enhanced and intelligent apes threaten mankind's survival and is attempting to eradicate them. This movie is smarter than it probably should be (sorry, no spoilers here), and eagle-eyed fans of the original movies will note a lot of deliberate tie-ins to that franchise. War is deliberately paced and at 2 hours and 20 minutes might seem overly long to some, but I really enjoyed it and consider it to be the best of the rebooted franchise. Whether or not a fourth movie will be produced has not been officially announced as far as I know--they could continue, or end it here; either way is fine with me.

 

[Bushman]

The new live action version of the Jungle Book. Not as magical nor as nostalgic as the original animated version, but it has an all star cast that makes it worthwhile.

 

[Edward]

Wasn't a big fan of any of the original Mad Max movies, but have seen them all years ago. But, I gotta say, I don't get the dislike I'm seeing here for Fury Road. Is it because it had the "feminist" label slapped on it by whoever critics?

Upon my first viewing I thought it was overblown and didn't catch the subtle story elements that were there. It did have plot points, (and characterization) but they went by in the midst of the silliness of the overall shiny production itself. (Giant amp and guitar guy being one of them, really?)

Maybe it's because of the lack of a script (it was planned out using story boards and minimal dialogue. You know, like a silent film, which it was clearly, heavily influenced by.) Think George Miller even wanted a silent version on the DVD release, but the studio said no. Oh well.

*ducks out before tomatoes start flying at her*

I liked it a lot; I found it simply a bit of fluffy fun, based on originals that were a bit of fluff and fun (I liked the first one the best; Road Warrior was fun enough, though I felt too jarring a style-jump from the first; always felt the narrative lacked enough explanation of what had happened in the intervening years: #1 showed a society beginning to break down, #2 seems like there'd been an all-out nuclear war in between which pretty much went unnoticed. I often feel that the sequels could have been better had they stuck to a small budget. #3 had its moments: the Tina Turner stuff was just pathetic and absurd, but the Walker cult crated by the kids was superbly creepy and well played.) I liked how Fury Road fitted in to being the same character in the same world, not yet another, tiresome remake. It was also nice to see some strong female characters in it; I believe this is what a lot of the online critics objected to (doubtless the same folks who hate the new Star Wars films because "wimmin and ethnics" are in lead roles). I'm sure it's the sort of romp that not everyone likes (some folks don't even have the good taste to enjoy a good zombie picture! ), but it is what it is. for me, it's a pretty good example of the post-apocalyptic genre, and managed to pull the franchise back from #3's worst points, which had it bordering on turning into America 3000. A silent version would be interesting.... I'm keen to see the version they included on disk and a limited cinema run in B&W (marketed as the "black and chrome edition"). Apparently it is a whole different experience in B&W.

 

[Formeruser012523]

I liked it a lot; I found it simply a bit of fluffy fun, based on originals that were a bit of fluff and fun (I liked the first one the best; Road Warrior was fun enough, though I felt too jarring a style-jump from the first; always felt the narrative lacked enough explanation of what had happened in the intervening years: #1 showed a society beginning to break down, #2 seems like there'd been an all-out nuclear war in between which pretty much went unnoticed. I often feel that the sequels could have been better had they stuck to a small budget. #3 had its moments: the Tina Turner stuff was just pathetic and absurd, but the Walker cult crated by the kids was superbly creepy and well played.) I liked how Fury Road fitted in to being the same character in the same world, not yet another, tiresome remake. It was also nice to see some strong female characters in it; I believe this is what a lot of the online critics objected to (doubtless the same folks who hate the new Star Wars films because "wimmin and ethnics" are in lead roles). I'm sure it's the sort of romp that not everyone likes (some folks don't even have the good taste to enjoy a good zombie picture! ), but it is what it is. for me, it's a pretty good example of the post-apocalyptic genre, and managed to pull the franchise back from #3's worst points, which had it bordering on turning into America 3000. A silent version would be interesting.... I'm keen to see the version they included on disk and a limited cinema run in B&W (marketed as the "black and chrome edition"). Apparently it is a whole different experience in B&W.

Tina. Oh boy. She overacted. LOL! Have an uncle who loves her to this day. So, yeah, saw that one more than I wanted to.

So, there WAS a B&W version? Interesting. That would be very cool to watch. Read that one could take the musical score from Fury Road and put it over The General and it would match. Wonder how true that was? I might need this on disk. "Black and chrome" edition? I'll have to keep an eye out for this.

 

[Julian Shellhammer]

I don't know if anyone has commented on Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, the latest in the Michael Crichton-inspired dinosaurs-brought-to-life saga. I saw it this weekend, and enjoyed it quite a bit. It's not the strong entry that the previous JW film with Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard was, but it's colorful and fast-moving, featuring a big contrast in backdrops (an erupting volcanic island vs. an isolated, beautifully-appointed mansion in the N. California forest). You also get James Cromwell as the aged, previously-unmentioned business partner of John Hammond (Richard Attenborough in the earlier films), and Ted ("Buffalo Bill"/"Jame Gumb") Levine as a thoroughly rotten mercenary who likes collecting dinosaur teeth. Beyond that, it sports astonishingly realistic dinosaurs, including one I don't recall seeing before, an ankylosaur, the "living tank"; and action scenes that confirm that Pratt should play the next iteration of Indiana Jones.

Mindless fun, but good fun, and not too heavy on the grrrl-power stuff.

I was astonished to find that my local multi-plex has installed leatherette recliners in the theatres, and when you buy your ticket you have to pick your seat! Anything, I guess, to get patrons into the theatre.

Saw JW Fallen Kingdom a couple of weeks ago: the Missus and I, and her brother and his wife, binged all the previous Jurassic movies as preparation for the latest offering. The consensus is the first one and the first Pratt one are the best.
And yes, leather recliners and "reserved seating" are ploys to lure us in to the theater. We rarely go and usually to the recliner place.

 

[Julian Shellhammer]

Death on the Diamond (1934) with Robert Young as a rookie pitcher whose St. Louis Cardinals team-mates are being murdered. The title and the premise seem to have been lifted from Joe Gillis' story pitch to Mr. Sheldrake in Sunset Boulevard.
Walter Brennan is unbilled as part of a trio working the ballpark hot dog stand, and Ward Bond also unbilled as a cop assigned to protect the team.

 

[Worf]

"Extinction" - This Netflix offering is a mixed bag for me. I found the opening half, dull, boring and predictable. Family 1 threatened by other worldly menace... Stupid, ignorant kids and vapid wife do nothing but imperil the family and get other folks killed. Dad goes from helpless lump to killing machine in record time.... Then the shift happens. We're talking M. Knight Shamalamabooboo shift and the film takes on a whole different tone. No spoilers here. If you can stomach the tropes of the first half of the movie perhaps you'll enjoy it as well. I've spent more and seen worse.

Worf

 

[rocketeer]

The new live action version of the Jungle Book. Not as magical nor as nostalgic as the original animated version, but it has an all star cast that makes it worthwhile.

Not seen this version though I have seen the version made in 1942 by the Korda brothers starring Sabu, the worlds first real Bollywood star Disney's version is probably more well known unless you, like most of the loungabouts are familiar with older films.
Since CGI was invented I have lost interest in many action films, probably all in fact. The way dangerous animals can be brought out of nowhere doing amazing things, the same with people just spoils it for me. The only realistic animal film for me was Life of Pi, even then there was the odd moment it showed.

 

[Seb Lucas]

Since CGI was invented I have lost interest in many action films, probably all in fact. The way dangerous animals can be brought out of nowhere doing amazing things, the same with people just spoils it for me.

Great point, I agree.

 

[Edward]

"Extinction" - This Netflix offering is a mixed bag for me. I found the opening half, dull, boring and predictable. Family 1 threatened by other worldly menace... Stupid, ignorant kids and vapid wife do nothing but imperil the family and get other folks killed. Dad goes from helpless lump to killing machine in record time.... Then the shift happens. We're talking M. Knight Shamalamabooboo shift and the film takes on a whole different tone. No spoilers here. If you can stomach the tropes of the first half of the movie perhaps you'll enjoy it as well. I've spent more and seen worse.

Worf

Just watched that the other night myself. It's a bit of fluff, but fun enough. The twist bit it brings in I more or less saw coming, but it's well handled. I think it has something interesting to say that's not fully explored about the value of painful memories as lessons to be learned.

Watched A Ghost Story on Netflix last night. If you don't object to watching something with Casey Affleck in it, it's an interesting piece with some lovely photography and strong visuals (very little dialogue), with something to say about attachment to physical places. Much like Manchester by the Sea, it's a very slow-moving character piece without much complication of narrative. I found it charming, though.


Jurassic World 2 I'll have to see again at some point; when I saw it in the cinema they switched off the air con halfway through and I fell asleep in the heat and missed most of the plot. Same thing happened with Black Panther - not a judgement on either film, just the sad fact that my body cannot cope with this insufferable heatwave.