What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Doctor Strange]

Of course we all prefer The Wolf Man! I have loved the old Universal horror flicks ever since I was obsessed with them as a little kid. I've owned a 16mm print of Bride of Frankenstein since around 1980, and have lots of the others on VHS/DVD.

I used to call myself a giant horror movie fan... until the seventies onslaught of slashers and dismember-ers changed the definition of "horror movie" completely. Absolutely not my thing. I'll stick with the classics.

 

[Fading Fast]

"Frances Ha" 2012

A solid movie, shot in B&W (we need a happy dancing emoji - think Snoopy), about a mid-twenties woman living in NYC and still fighting "adulting" as she stretches the "struggling kid out of college" timeline a bit too far. Frances, the lead character, is trying to become a dancer - which all but assures a life of disappointment - while doing the live-in-dives-for-my-passion thing. But she is reaching a decisioning moment as her college friends are moving on - getting married, careers improving, etc. - while she still flounders professionally, in her romantic pursuits and, even, in her lifestyle.

This is an intense look at her life and thoughts: a passionate platonic girlfriend relationship that is tipped over when said girlfriend gets married, frustration at seeing others in her profession succeed while her dancing career flounders and the painful realization that it might not "happen" for her, an anticlimactic ending to her romantic relationship and a somewhat gypsy stye of living as she bounces from apartment to apartment - as post-college kids do - which is now slightly embarrassing as others her age become more established.

It all works because it is, over all, honest. Frances is, basically, a good person, a bit selfish and self-absorbed (as most of us are, especially in our 20s), who wears her emotions on her sleeve and only slowly realizes that those around her see her as immature and flighty. It's also a reasonably realistic look at how kids out of college live in NYC - sloppily, with a lot of alcohol, casual sex and financial help from home. While not groundbreaking, it's a good movie - the type of movie we complain they should make more of after watching the trailer for another overly slick rom-com (that will be neither romantic nor comedic) or superhero movie (how many times can the world be saved?). And, as noted, smartly shot in black and white (which is still not as crisp as the glorious B&W of movies from the '50s).

 

[LizzieMaine]

That one was a big hit for us, largely because Greta Gerwig is just so fun to watch in anything she does. She's got a screen persona utterly unlike anyone else making pictures right now, and she knows how to work it. If you like "Frances," see her in "Mistress America," which is even better. I'm not especially fond of Noah Baumbach as a director, but Gerwig is much more talented than he is.

 

[Fading Fast]

That one was a big hit for us, largely because Greta Gerwig is just so fun to watch in anything she does. She's got a screen persona utterly unlike anyone else making pictures right now, and she knows how to work it. If you like "Frances," see her in "Mistress America," which is even better. I'm not especially fond of Noah Baumbach as a director, but Gerwig is much more talented than he is.

She's impressive - and obviously super smart as she wrote "Frances Ha" and several other movies and plays. I was also impressed with Mickey Summer who is the daughter of Sting and Trudie Styler. More than anything, it was nice to watch a movie without a gunfight or chase scene or that didn't feel reverse engineered by an major studio to make a "small" film at one of its "independent" studios.

 

[AmateisGal]

Life of the Party with Melissa McCarthy. Very silly, but fun, as most of her movies are. They are definitely NOT serious films or anything approaching great cinema.

Frenchman's Creek (1944). This was one of the first classic films I watched as a kid (my PBS station used to have a show called Silver Screen Classics) and even though I know the critics panned it and others haven't been kind with their reviews, I love it to this day. It inspired me to read the book by Daphne Du Maurier that it's based on, and it was just as enthralling as I hoped it would be.

The costumes are lavish, the technicolor rich and luscious, and Joan Fontaine does not play the passive female as she does in so many of her other roles. She'd bold and daring. I know in her autobiography she didn't enjoy making this film and thought the end result was silly, but I still don't care. I love this movie and always will (probably because I was a sucker for swashbuckling romances as a middle school girl!).

 

[Worf]

And don't forget The Wolfman from just a few years ago, another attempt to reboot the Universal Monsters. Like Dracula Untold, I believe Universal has contradicted themselves a couple of times about if it's part of the Dark Universe or not.

I've seen The Wolfman (2010) three or four times and enjoy it for what it is, warts and all, but I still prefer The Wolf Man (1941). I can't say I've seen any of Universal's attempts since because they all looked terrible, and I probably won't see the latest Mummy movie purely because I dislike Tom Cruise.

I didn't like this version of "The Wolfman" at first because I had such high hopes for it. I wanted a modern retelling of the tale with all the emotion and pathos of the original but with modern production values. Originally it failed to live up to my expectations but it did give me two things I'd always hoped for:

1. A werewolf on werewolf battle.
2. A transformation from man to werewolf in front of the whole world.

The transformation scene in the asylum was amazing, brutal and worth the price of admission. Anthony Hopkins sprouting fangs and fur was a close second. I watch it when it's on.

Worf

 

[Edward]

"Paddington 2"

I enjoyed P2 more than the first Paddington movie mainly because Huge Grant is more engaging and more-consistent-to-the-rest-of-the-movie's style and theme (with the use of the old-fashioned pop-up book as the crux of the story) than Nicole Kidman's high-tech villain was in the first Paddington. I also enjoyed the entire prison plot line and the character of the prison cook (you almost believe that Paddington's optimism and good nature changed his outlook on life) .

Grant was a revelation in this - and part of the joy of it was that he was obviously having a ball. I think it's actually the first time I've ever seen him act, rather than playing little more than a thinly veiled version of himself.

Bendan Gleeson does a wonderful turn as Knuckles - he's an actor I've admired since his break-out role in The Treaty (Liam Neeson made a good fist of the titular role in Michael Collins, but Gleeson was the Big Fella in the former). A genuinely gifted character actor who can play it for laughs, serious, and all points in between.

Also, for a kids movie, they keep the modern political pieties and messaging reasonably under control. There are few gag moments and some gratuitous shoving of the ideology down your throat, but less than in many other movies. And the darn bear - and his love of marmalade sandwiches - is just freakin' cute.

Anything 'political' I noticed in the films was certainly not 'modern' per se; allegories to issues re migration, refugees and so on were very much part of Bond's original intent when he wrote the first book in 1956.

Recent double feature on demand last night:

The Mummy - Universal's second botched attempt to set up their "Dark Universe" of interrelated films a la the Marvel Cinematic Universe based on the old Universal Monsters (following the botched Dracula Untold). Wow, this is a pretty terrible film, with an uber-familiar grade-Z comic book plot. It's only vaguely watchable because Tom Cruise is still an old school, charismatic movie star.

Ironically, Tom Cruise is the key reason I didn't bother to see it at all. I find him ridiculous, and barely watchable even at his best (Minority Report, or Valkyrie). There are probably quite a few films out there I could enjoy if not for him.

Dracula Untold was entertaining enough in the same was as Dracula 2000, or even Dracula AD1972. Bit of fluff, fun enough, but.... The closest there's been to a definitive version of the book was Coppola's run at it; certainly, for me that's the one that has been most faithful to the book (including Dracula's ability to walk in the sunlight in London - something that Hollywood has generally avoided since forever, more Orlok than Dracula). The concept of the Dark Universe would be nice, but yeah, they really could do with just doing a nice version of the original stories, instead of trying to rewrite them all. Especially as something true to the original tales is the real rarity in cinema!

"Second" botched attempt? Surely you're aware of this, but for anyone who isn't Universal has been attempting to reinvigorate their monster/horror legacy since Van Helsing in May of 2004. Encouraged by the reasonable success and popularity of The Mummy from 1999 starring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz, Van Helsing was supposed to be the "spearhead" movie that would launch their return to their classic horror/monster characters--Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, the Wolf Man, the Invisible Man, the Phantom of the Opera, and so on. Even then it was fairly clear that no one involved knew how to do this, and when Van Helsing performed far below their expectations at U.S. box offices Universal almost immediately announced they would have to "rethink" their plans. 14 years later they're still trying, but at this point they seem to be even more clueless about how to do it.

Van Helsing was fun enough... I think too many people went into it expecting a serious horror picture rather than a bit of B movie fluff. Or maybe I've just seen one too many Hammer Horror pictures.... It certainly wasn't popular. I did eel that the marketing was all wrong in the impression it created. Again, though, the mistake they made was too much all at once, I think. Whereas Marvel did a bunch of unconnected pictures that gradually introduced the ensemble before they threw everyone in the mix together... VH felt like a picture where they assumed a lot of background knowledge, but then made it in a style that would appeal to kids who didn't have that rather than those who wanted the originals.

And don't forget The Wolfman from just a few years ago, another attempt to reboot the Universal Monsters. Like Dracula Untold, I believe Universal has contradicted themselves a couple of times about if it's part of the Dark Universe or not.

That was a fun one. It put me very much in mind of the sort of thing that Hammer would probably be doing now if they were still carrying on as they were on their heyday. I liked the linkage in to the real life character of Inspector Abberline. I went in expecting a straight remake of the original picture; I liked very much that it went in a different direction and did its own thing.

And Worf, I liked The Mummy enough to watch it all the way through. That's not always the case with today's action movies masquerading as genres I like. Anyway, as dumb as it was, it held my attention, though there was so much second-rate and second-hand stuff in it (like his dead friend doing the American Werewolf in London schtick), and the usual CGI overkill. And as I said before, I think that's a serious contender for the worst Russell Crowe performance ever.

You've not seen Robin Hood, then....

I've seen The Wolfman (2010) three or four times and enjoy it for what it is, warts and all, but I still prefer The Wolf Man (1941). I can't say I've seen any of Universal's attempts since because they all looked terrible, and I probably won't see the latest Mummy movie purely because I dislike Tom Cruise.

TBH, what I think they really should just do is option the Kim Newman Anno Dracula series; each of the four main books would make an excellent Netflix-type series on its own (12 one hour parts), while the shorter novellas that come in between them could be effectively done as one-of, film-length specials. The interweaving of multiple real life characters and literary figures with Newman's own, original creations are a perfect Dark Universe of their own.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Wow, lots of quick responses to make:

Edward, I've seen Robin Hood. It's awful, just totally misconceived... but I think Crowe is merely bad in it. Whereas he's epically, embarrassingly bad in The Mummy and Winter's Tale. (And for the record, he's capable of very good performances too, I've been a fan since L.A. Confidential.) And while I like Coppola's Dracula and the other Drac films you mentioned, my vote for best adaptation goes to Count Dracula, an early 1970s BBC videotape miniseries with Louis Jourdan (who then looked exactly the same as he did in the 1950s, which really helps sell his immortality.) What it lacks in production values in makes up for in the added time and fine performances (e.g., Frank Finlay as Van Helsing.) And yes, he walks in daylight.

(Aside: as a fan of the old Hammer films, do yourself a favor and seek out the recent faux-1970 horror film The Love Witch on Amazon Prime if you haven't seen it. It replicates an AIP/Hammer flick of that time really well... and turns it on its ear with a feminist POV. Not everything in it works - some of the acting is horrible, and I'm not sure if that's supposed to be part of the accuracy of its replication! - but it's charming.)

Re Frances Ha, Mistress America, Greta Gerwig and Noah Bumbach… I really liked both of those films, both because Gerwig is delightful (she's been on my radar since 2010's Greenberg) and they were interesting stories. But I really run hot and cold on Bumbach, I find some of his films just unwatchable. Two further points on Gerwig: she's also delightful in Whit Stillman's odd Damsels In Distress; and re her writing/direction of Lady Bird... that I found extravagantly overpraised. It's okay, but I didn't think Lady Bird was any better than a whole bunch of other coming of age stories of recent years.

 

[Julian Shellhammer]

Battleground (1949) with Van Johnson, John Hodiak, James Whitemore, and a boat load of others. Directed by William Wellman, it tells the story of a group 101st Airborne soldiers during the siege of Bastogne. A true ensemble film, without a weak performance in the lot. Filmed and released in 1949, with scenes shot in Oregon, northern California, and MGM.

 

[Roadopen]

I had some movie fixation over the weekend and repeatedly watched again :
- The Untouchables
- Tombstone
- Open Range

A must watch movie over...and over....and?

Roadopen

 

[Edward]

Wow, lots of quick responses to make:

Edward, I've seen Robin Hood. It's awful, just totally misconceived... but I think Crowe is merely bad in it. Whereas he's epically, embarrassingly bad in The Mummy and Winter's Tale. (And for the record, he's capable of very good performances too, I've been a fan since L.A. Confidential.) And while I like Coppola's Dracula and the other Drac films you mentioned, my vote for best adaptation goes to Count Dracula, an early 1970s BBC videotape miniseries with Louis Jourdan (who then looked exactly the same as he did in the 1950s, which really helps sell his immortality.) What it lacks in production values in makes up for in the added time and fine performances (e.g., Frank Finlay as Van Helsing.) And yes, he walks in daylight.

(Aside: as a fan of the old Hammer films, do yourself a favor and seek out the recent faux-1970 horror film The Love Witch on Amazon Prime if you haven't seen it. It replicates an AIP/Hammer flick of that time really well... and turns it on its ear with a feminist POV. Not everything in it works - some of the acting is horrible, and I'm not sure if that's supposed to be part of the accuracy of its replication! - but it's charming.)

I'll see if I can find both of those. The Beeb (I think it was) last did Dracula in about 2006ish, from memory.... I remember they really tried to be "daring"and ham up the sex in it (basically, Invisible Dracula rapes Lucy, but It's OK Because She Enjoys It or something..... embarassing to watch with me dad, a man who regards the Carry On series as "unacceptably smutty".... Christmas TV, eh?) It wasn't great. The 70s one sounds better.

I had some movie fixation over the weekend and repeatedly watched again :
- The Untouchables
- Tombstone
- Open Range

A must watch movie over...and over....and?

Roadopen

I've watched a few films on a loop over the last few years. I remember introducing some younger friends, interested in rock and roll and the 50s, to Cry Baby one night, and we watched it right through three times in succession.

 

[31 Model A]

Key Largo...last night.

 

[Fading Fast]

Key Largo...last night.

Get's better with each viewing.

Claire Trevor's best supporting actress award wasn't a big enough honor for her performance.

Also, the hotel is one of Hollywood's best sets ever. Usually, you can tell something is a set pretty easily - I've picked out a thousand fake Grand Central Terminals - but "Key Largo's" hotel is spot on to so many pre-war Florida hotels that I was stunned to learn it wasn't real.

 

[Roadopen]

Fargo is another that comes to mind!

Roadopen

 

[31 Model A]

American Graffiti...……Ahhhhh!!! memories.

 

[Worf]

I watched an odd offering this evening. An English post-war offering called "The River". Over all an uneven affair that kinda left me flat. In the right hands it could've been "To Kill A Mockingbird" set in the late days of the British Raj. As it was it was a stilted mess that wandered all over the place resolving nothing. In a nutshell a wounded American cousin of the neighbors shows up and every girl in the area over 12 goes wild for him one way or another. Man what could've been. All in all I'd say don't waste your time.

Worf

 

[Doctor Strange]

On Netflix, The Land of Steady Habits, the new film by Nicole Holofcener.

I have really enjoyed most of Holofcener's earlier features - Lovely & Amazing, Friends With Money, Please Give, Enough Said - and her writing/directing of well-nuanced, contemporary stories generally laser-focused on complex women characters. This film is a departure for her, centered on a male character, a divorced stock trader who blew up his marriage and took early retirement to make a new life... but he's handled it all badly and he's pretty much a mess. Ben Mendelsohn plays the lead... though I kept thinking he was Thomas Haden Church every time he was onscreen!

Anyway, the film is well done but disappointing. Though set in the present, it mines the same old 50s-70s soulless suburban ennui as The Ice Storm, Revolutionary Road, The Swimmer, and the like. Marriages falling apart, ungrateful self-destructive kids, the futility of consumerism, and trying to paper over the whole mess with sex and drugs. At every decision point, the protagonist makes the wrong choice and causes more pain and chaos. Nobody learns anything. The story doesn't seem to have any point beyond showing us wealthy suburbanites screwing up (again).

Recommended if you're already a fan of Holofcener... but I don't think this flick will make you one if you're not.

 

[Fading Fast]

"The Last of Mrs. Cheyney" 1937

Having seen this movie several times over several decades, what jumped out at me this time is how the entire movie pivots on the importance of manners, surface civility and customs even when everyone, truly everyone, knows and, eventually, is forced to acknowledge that their image is fake or that they are hiding an embarrassing, or worse, truth.

It's a long talky movie that is all style over substance as - if my above comment is correct - that is the point. But, ah, what style. Joan Crawford, Robert Montgomery and William Powell bring their A-game of charm and panache; more than enough to carry this entirely unbelievable story along. And that is also what makes it watchable time and again - the story doesn't matter / you watch it for the verve and acting confidence.

 

[Fading Fast]

"Spring Madness" 1938 staring Maureen O'Sullivan, Lew Ayres, Ruth Hussey and Burgess Meredith

Back in the '30s, MGM made a a bunch of light college movies with (brief aside coming) "These Glamour Girls" being a noteable exception as it is a dark and insightful look at the human frailty below the surface of college hi-jinx. It's a pre-code-real-examination-of-life film masquerading as a code-era "fluffy" college movie. If you get a chance, it's a good one to check out - TCM runs it now and again (aside over).

"Spring Madness," however, never rises above (nor digs below) its surface-fun-and-formulaic approach to college romance issues. That said, for what it does, it does it well owing to the talented acting of the female leads, not the hackneyed story. Marginally interesting in the story, though, is that the big conflict between the two college lovers is the boys' (Ayres and roommate Meredith) plan to go to Russia for two years after college "to study its economy" before joining the rat race and, therefor, Ayres can't marry his college sweetheart (O'Sullivan). One assumes the censors were at work as not much more is made of the ideology behind this "travel" decision - but it does provide the obstacle to marriage the plot pivots around.

Since (according to these movies), the real goal of college, for most women, is to find a husband and, for the men, to launch a career and not get "hooked" too soon, most of these movies have some "will they, won't they fall in love / get married / overcome their parents' objection / career hinderances / etc." plot. Once you have the conflict down (and figured out - ten minutes in should suffice for "Spring Madness"), you'll either enjoy the lighthearted look at college life in the '30s (it was a well-to-do kids affair, not the democratic one of today) and the acting / actors or you'll be bored.

In "Spring Madness" the acting of the female leads carries it all. Maureen O'Sullivan - as "the love interest" and still in the middle of her Tarzan-movie stretch - looks ridiculously beautiful, but also brings a combination of toughness and vulnerability that has you rooting for her despite your cynical side. And right next to her, both upping the "holy cow she's gorgeous" factor and the acting-talent factor, is Ruth Hussey - as O'Sullivan's best friend - bringing her usual combination of smarts, sarcasm and underlying decency. These two women keep this one engaging as the scenes without them are flat despite a reasonable effort by Lew Ayres but - sorry - a bit of an over-acting-as-goofy-sidekick effort by Burgess Meredith.

The one other fun thing, especially for Fedora Lounge members, is the look at college life in the '30s. The insanely elegant dorm rooms, the housemothers protecting "their girls," the special college trains (keeping boys and girls apart - unsuccessfully) and the clothes, cars and architecture - and peek into the social norms - all provide outstanding time travel to a just-pre-WWII moment in America.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Street Scene (1931) - an enjoyable antique, based on a hit play, about 24 hours in front of a crowded NYC tenement, with a host of familiar character actors as its denizens. It's your basic New York melting pot story: Italian, Jewish, and Irish (etc.) families all bouncing off each other. Pre-Code, so it's got adultery too. A typically classy Sam Goldwyn production with an awesome NYC street set that looks forward to Dead End. And the hats, oh, the hats...