What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Doctor Strange]

I detested that film when it was new, have never rewatched it, and will never watch it again. Part of it is my distaste for/disinterest in Streisand, whose talent I recognize and respect... but I have just never liked her singing. Or acting, for that matter. And as noted, the movie is a mess in terms of period detail and politics. But my parents absolutely loved this flick, and it was always something of a bone of contention between us thereafter.

Note that one of the big things about this movie when it was first out was that Robert Redford was the "golden goy" sex object and Streisand the pursuer: this was a then-novel story approach. Of course, this was long before anyone was using terms like "the female gaze"...

 

[Zombie_61]

"The Way We Were" 1973 with Robert Redford, Barbara Streisand and Lois Chiles

• They were not doing period pieces as well back then as the clothes and hairstyles are a blend of '30/'40s and '70s - while there's some cool '30s/'40s stuff, overall, the style and details are a mess as we are spoiled by today's near-perfect period movies..

This is a minor problem I have with two favorite movies--Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and The Sting (1973). At the time Warren Beatty and Robert Redford were known for their looks as well as their abilities as actors, and I understand why The Suits in Hollywood might not want to tamper too much with that aspect of their box office draw, but the end result is that in their respective movies they look like people who threw something together for a last minute Halloween party; too "shaggy" to be period correct. And the wardrobes throughout both movies are of the "Close, but not quite" variety as if Theadora Van Runkle and Edith Head were instructed to exaggerate the details in order to reinforce the notion for the audience that these characters were indeed in the mid-1930s.

 

[LizzieMaine]

We screened "The Sting" just recently, and that exaggeration really hit me -- it had the same sort of hokey look you got on the various "nostalgia" specials that showed up all over TV during that period. Compare that aesthetic to the meticulousness of "Paper Moon," made the same year, and the difference is quite jarring.

 

[3fingers]

Pitfall from 1948 with Dick Powell, Lizabeth Scott and Jane Wyatt. Powell is an insurance guy who gets tangled up with a crooks girlfriend while trying to recover stolen money. Jane Wyatt is his wife. Raymond Burr is an ex-cop shifty P.I. Cautionary film noir on the perils of adultery. No Oscars available here, but it's a pretty decent picture if you are looking for something to watch.

 

[AmateisGal]

Keeping Up with the Joneses. A fun comedy with not a lot of substance to it which is exactly what I needed last night after a long week.

 

[Fading Fast]

"Bridge to the Sun" 1961 with Carroll Baker and James Shigeta

The movie is based on the real-life marriage of Tennessee-born Gwen Harold (as told in her autobiography) and Japanese-born Hidenari Terasaki that, incredibly from a world-events perspective, took place in 1935. Adding to the drama of their marriage, Terasaki was an uppper-mid-level diplomat assigned to Washington - where he met Gwen (he was recalled to Japan after their marriage, but then sent back to Washington before Pearl Harbor) - so an unusual marriage for the time had the added spotlight of being on the radar of both governments.

Much of what happens is what would be expected for a marriage between two very different cultures: all is pretty good at the start - in America - where Terry (as he is known) has assumed a liberal attitude toward women, but when they move back to Japan and he expects Gwen to behave in the demurring manner of a traditional Japanese wife their minor fights escalate. These cultural stress points increase with the birth of their daughter and then ramp up meaningfully again when war breaks out and Terry is returned to Japan as part of a diplomatic war exchange.

While he wants Gwen and daughter Mako to stay in America for the war, Gwen decides to take Mako and go back to Japan with Terry to keep the family together. Not surprisingly, she is not welcomed in an at-war-with-America Japan; their daughter experiences anti-American prejudice; Terry's career is damaged and the family is under regular surveillance from Japan's military police. As the war turns against Japan, internal and external stresses are heightened even further, but the family survives and goes on to live in Japan for several post-war years until Terry's premature death.

Okay, that is an incredible freakin' story, so how come the movie is weak - not terrible, but plodding and only occasionally gripping? The writing captures the events but the emotions often feel pat and two dimensional. The actors are adequate, but can't overcome the mediocre script. You don't "feel" for the actors; you don't fully see them as the characters and you aren't completely drawn into the movie. In the hands of a skilled screenwriter and director, this intensely personal story of a marriage reflecting and buffeted by the racial divides of two nations at war would be an artistic and box-office success. This is one of the few old movie that needs to be remade / is calling out to be remade even today.

 

[NattyLud]

I watched Chaplin's "A Dog's Life", "The Rink" and "The Kid" this weekend. Just how good Chaplin's blend of pathos and silly humor hits you doesn't really need another explaination, but I have to mention it anyway.

That bit at the opening of Dog's Life with him rolling back and forth under the fence is just uproarious in its complete absurdity.

 

[Edward]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

This was a strange one. Can't believe it took me so long to finally see it. Would you really erase anyone from your memory if you could? A cool concept and expertly done.

Great film. Saws it for the first time in the cinema on its original release. While I was in the middle of a very messy break up from a girl who'd said ' yes' and then changed her mind five weeks later. Narrow escape, as I turned out. I still like the film, I see it as a warning.

"Under The Skin" - The most unusual "alien invasion" film I've ever seen. Just so different. Set in Scotland (I had to put on the CC as I couldn't understand a "fookin" word of the dialogue) the story revolves around a group of barely speaking beings who proceed to kill and abduct humans for some sort of harvesting. The primary tool for this work is an almost unrecognizable Scarlett Johansson. All told maybe 5 minutes of dialogue in film just shy of 2 hours long. Very arty with many long tracking shots, extended shots and much moody visuals. I won't say the end was shocking but it is different. Worth a watch if you're tired of ray guns, spaceships, acid for blood and other tropes of the genre.

Worf

I'll be looking out for this.

My daughter was home from college for the weekend, so we watched Peter Rabbit (2018) as we needed something fun and light. It's a delightful story and after watching it, we've decided we need to make another trip to England next year to visit Beatrix Potter's house!

Wanted to seed it until I discovered it's voiced by that vile Corden.

 

[AmateisGal]

Deadpool 2 (my daughter wanted me to see it since she saw it in the theater) and TAG.

Deadpool was okay. I think a lot of the snarky humor from the first was missing in the second.

I really enjoyed TAG. It's based on a true story of friends who have played the game of tag for 25 years.

 

[Harp]

Clearly not my politics, but as you note, it was so sloppily handled that her personality and not her politics is what grated on me - and seem to do so on the Mad Magazine writers as well. I could have respected a movie about politics I don't agree with if well done, but 2 hours of wanting Redford and everyone else in her orbit to tell her to shut up occasionally does not a wonderful movie make. And the entire movie was captured in the scene where Redford told her she should have laughed when they were making fun of her during her college speech - she had no, absolutely no, perspective on herself and, that, sadly was the movie.

Warts-n-all, notwithstanding, the final scene where Redford and his wife run into Streisand protesting in the street,
tears me, tugs my heartstrings, and leaves me profoundly saddened. I know its corny and dumb but this gets me good.

 

[Fading Fast]

Warts-n-all, notwithstanding, the final scene where Redford and his wife run into Streisand protesting in the street,
tears me, tugs my heartstrings, and leaves me profoundly saddened. I know its corny and dumb but this gets me good.

That is an incredibly powerful scene in many ways. Most of us can relate because most of us has had a deep love that didn't work out owing to some core difference (like Babs and Redford), but it doesn't mean the love, in some way, isn't still there. Seeing that person years later - even if you have your past with that person put away in a good place mentally - can bring those old emotions to the surface.

We could see that both of them still loved the other, were sad it hadn't worked out, but, I think, both knew it never would. Throw into the mix, Redford's uber-blonde, uber-WASPy new girlfriend, which is everything Streisand's character is insecure about, and it was like watching someone use a rusty can opener to peel back the skin and tissue over her heart.

It is the best scene in the movie (or tied with the one where Redford's sitting at the cafe by himself before Streisand comes by and they have their first meaningful conversation).

 

[Trenchfriend]

Perfect evening, my loungers!

On german synchro:
"Original babylonian Tupperware!

You want to guess the age of my original VHS-cassette??

 

[Doctor Strange]

"Disobedience" 2017 with Rachael Weisz and Rachael McAdams

Three former childhood friends, raised in an Orthodox Jewish community, reunite upon the death of one of the three's father. Of the three friends - two women and a man - years ago, one of the women moved away and gave up her religion while the other two married.

(Spoiler Alert) The two women are lesbians and had some shared sexual experiences as teenagers, but now, the married one hides her lesbianism from the Orthodox community (her husband kind of knows, but thinks it's behind her). The reunion brings all these old passions and conflicts to the surface.

This is an hour-and-half, at most, movie, stretched to almost two hours making it drag in spots. Also, it takes too long to get to its conflict and, then, after nodding appropriately at all of today's accepted ways to view the morals and values in question, chooses the least believable of the three possible resolutions.

The other challenge is that Rachael Weisz looks and is about ten years older than Rachael McAdams which is confusing at first as they are supposed to be childhood friends. Once you put that aside, you are left with an okay movie that plays it politically safe while going on too long.

Fading, I watched this last night and liked it a bit more than you did.

Rachel Weisz actually IS 9 years older than Rachel McAdams, but I think they also wanted her to look older because she had "lived" more, being buffeted by the vagaries of life beyond this very sheltered Orthodox community. I thought this was one of the best performances I've seen by McAdams, who often coasts on her beauty and charisma, but she played this role more like a character part, very internalized and subtle. I also thought Alessandro Nivola was very good in a difficult part, but then he's a perennially underrated actor.

I do agree that the ending, which makes you think McAdams will stay in the community as the rabbi's devoted wife... but she also MIGHT follow Weisz to New York, was weak and unsatisfying.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Perfect evening, my loungers!

On german synchro:
"Original babylonian Tupperware! Gets never broken, gets never brr... broken... ."

You want to guess the age of my original VHS-cassette??

Aladdin is surely very entertaining, Trenchfriend... but it's a bit soon to be snarking about VHS cassettes as antiques. You know, some of us were already collecting classic Disney films long before VHS was invented! These 16mm prints are now legit antiques.

 

[Fading Fast]

Fading, I watched this last night and liked it a bit more than you did.

Rachel Weisz actually IS 9 years older than Rachel McAdams, but I think they also wanted her to look older because she had "lived" more, being buffeted by the vagaries of life beyond this very sheltered Orthodox community. I thought this was one of the best performances I've seen by McAdams, who often coasts on her beauty and charisma, but she played this role more like a character part, very internalized and subtle. I also thought Alessandro Nivola was very good in a difficult part, but then he's a perennially underrated actor.

I do agree that the ending, which makes you think McAdams will stay in the community as the rabbi's devoted wife... but she also MIGHT follow Weisz to New York, was weak and unsatisfying.

I felt they had a good hour-and-half movie stretched out too long, but as you note, there's good in there. I enjoyed the performances of all three leads. You have an interesting and reasonable take on why Weisz's character looks so much older than McAdams', but lock me into one of those insular communities and I think I'd age like I was living in dog years.

I thought the ending was saying McAdams was going to leave the community, but to make a fresh life for herself not with Weisz. I don't need a story wrapped up with a bow tied on top, but the fact that it was so vague that you and I came to different conclusions is, IMHO, sloppy. The vagueness wasn't "thought provoking" as it can be sometimes, but just unnecessarily gray. Whatever path she chose would be fraught with uncertainty, but not telling the audience which path she was choosing, or leaning toward, was weak.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Wow, I don't see how you could come to that conclusion.

McAdams is finally pregnant, and can do exactly what's expected of her: survive the scandal as the devoted wife of the newly senior rabbi, a privileged position within that insular community. Or she can follow Weisz (who she's always loved) and be her companion, raising the child together in NYC and trying to adjust to a very different secular lifestyle.

But what I really don't see her doing is going off and raising her child as a single mom without either Nivola or Weisz. I'm not suggesting that she's not strong enough to do it, and MAYBE she has the credentials/experience to find a teaching position outside of the Orthodox schools... but it seems like it would be the most difficult, painful path, giving up both her loves and the religious community that's always supported her.

Well, I suppose that's what "open to interpretation" means!

 

[Formeruser012523]

Perfect evening, my loungers!

On german synchro:
"Original babylonian Tupperware!

You want to guess the age of my original VHS-cassette??

Did you watch this on VHS? Does the sound still work? Have an original store bought copy of Fantasia (as well as the Lion King) and the audio is gone. Found many years ago while dubbing several VHS tapes onto DVD that the audio had degraded or disappeared altogether. So... just curious.

Plus I have the box set of Aladdin on DVD already. Loved this one.

Aladdin is surely very entertaining, Trenchfriend... but it's a bit soon to be snarking about VHS cassettes as antiques. You know, some of us were already collecting classic Disney films long before VHS was invented! These 16mm prints are now legit antiques.

View attachment 135090

Steamboat Willie. Nice.

 

[Fading Fast]

"When Ladies Meet" 1941

This is a remake of a 1933 movie by the same name and with the, all but, same script which begs the question, why make it? The answer has to be to make money for the studio as the remake is outright weaker than the original owing to the actors being less comfortable with this very talky - very dialogue heavy - movie.

To be sure, both are major MGM releases with A-list stars, but since the script is basically the same and both movies had, pretty much, the same director (Robert Leonard shared responsibility on the first version and was the sole director on the second), the only big change is the actors and, here, the '33 ones seem more comfortable and natural with their roles. The quick and dirty on the four leads:

• '33's Ann Harding shows more reflection and a deeper understanding of the complexity of being the wife of a philandering husband than does '41's, the quite-talented-but-a-touch-out-of-her-comfort-zone, Greer Garson

• '33's Robert Montgomery is more natural, light-in-manner and believable as the man suffering unrequited love; whereas, '41's Robert Taylor seems to be forcing his ego down to accept this humbling role

• '33's Myrna Loy is more sympathetic as the suffering "other woman" than 41's too-strong Joan Crawford (hard to believe she'd ever accept being second fiddle)

• '33's Frank Morgan is meaningfully more "nimble" as the man juggling a wife and mistress while batting away fastballs thrown from Montgomery trying to expose his two-timing than '41's wooden George Brent

It's a great "lab experiment" in acting as there are only eight years between the two version that, as noted, were made at the same studio and that have all but the same script and director. Which leaves us with the only difference being the actors handling the same role and, for my money, '33's have it all over '41's.

Has anyone else seen these two versions - any thoughts?

And I got so sucked into the whole story that I bought a copy of the book ($4, insane how inexpensive some old books are - and that includes shipping) to see how the story was originally presented in novel form.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Did you watch this on VHS? Does the sound still work?

Yep, my original 90s-VHS on my 2006s Panasonic "NV-HV61" VHS-recorder. Over SCART-connection. All was fine.

But the cassette is not as yet raddled. I think, I watched it maximum thirty times over the years.

 

[Formeruser012523]

I think, I watched it maximum thirty times over the years.

Don't think I've watched it that much, but now I think I should break it out again. Good memories.

Did watch the silent version of The Prisoner of Zenda. Was struck by the similarity it did indeed have to the movie Dave. Even down to the two men who talked him into staying and taking on the role of leadership when he didn't want to. Really thought it would be Ramon Novarro who would be playing the duel role, but oh well. Anyway, it was sort-of new to me, without the happy ending.