What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Seb Lucas]

My only real issue with Connery's performance in Last Crusade is that he doesn't seem to know how to play "clueless" convincingly. So when Dr. Jones Sr. was befuddled by the circumstances he found himself in, I didn't buy it for a moment.

I think Connery did a fine job as a fustian, bumbling professor and I had no problem buying the performance. I just didn't see how his cliche-ridden character could be Indy's father (and hated the idea of the writers trying to explain Indy in dollar-book Freudian terms in the first place). And they totally robbed Denholm Elliot's character of any dignity and made both him and Connery play silly old men, mainly for cheap laughs. For me Connery is the Jar Jar Binks of the Indy cycle.

 

[Zombie_61]

I think Connery did a fine job as a fustian, bumbling professor and I had no problem buying the performance. I just didn't see how his cliche-ridden character could be Indy's father (and hated the idea of the writers trying to explain Indy in dollar-book Freudian terms in the first place). And they totally robbed Denholm Elliot's character of any dignity and made both him and Connery play silly old men, mainly for cheap laughs. For me Connery is the Jar Jar Binks of the Indy cycle.

I agree with your "silly old men, mainly for cheap laughs" observation, which is why I prefer those moments when Professor Jones is more confident. Marcus Brody was far more competent (or appeared to be) in the previous movies, and I can't help but wonder how Denholm Elliott felt about playing him as a buffoon. Then again, Mr. Elliott was reportedly diagnosed with AIDS shortly before filming began and was seriously ill on some days during production, so he probably didn't care one way or another.

For me the Jar Jar Binks of the Indiana Jones franchise is Willie Scott. Her incessant stupidity, overreactions, and obnoxious drama queen screaming ruin the movie for me. Mind you, I don't blame Kate Capshaw--I blame Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz for writing the character that way, and Steven Spielberg for directing her to play the character that way. Capshaw herself said the character was "not much more than a dumb screaming blonde", so who am I to disagree?

 

[Edward]

My issues with the movie have more to do with the execution than the concept. When they first announced it would have more of a sci-fi element because it would be set in the 1950s I thought it made some sense. But I have a real problem with fake-looking/obvious CGI, and this movie was loaded with it. If they had used a little restraint with the visuals and kept it more "real world" I would possibly have enjoyed it more, but that obviously didn't happen.

I would have liked it if they'd been a little more subtle about the spaceship, and we hadn't seen the alien fleshed out, just the skeleton, though as a rule I thought they were reasonable restrained in not doing "everything" just because it was possible. I really liked the ants.... The amphibious vehicle going over the rapids was a bit silly, but no more so than jumping out of a plane in an inflatable life-raft.... That said, the now more obvious than ever shortcomings of the effects in the original films, especially the first two, never ruined them for me.

I appreciated those nods to Ford's/Indy's age too. But watching Ford at some points during Crystal Skull I was reminded of Charles Bronson in some of his later "action" movies when he was clearly no longer able to chase the much younger "bad guys" down the street. It was embarrassing. I know there's a lot of money (and egos) at stake, but at some point someone has to sit these actors down and tell them, "You're too old for this ****," and Ford may have reached that tipping point.

I'm not sure Ford is going to need telling, based on some of hat I've read he said in and around Star Wars.

And I agree that Indy is becoming anachronistic. The concept still worked set in the 1950s, but the 1960s was a very different era and he'd likely be perceived as "The old man who still wears fedoras". That could work in their favor, allowing some humor and perhaps showing how his methods are still better than relying on the advancing technologies of the day, but it all depends on how they handle it.

Mn, see, that's the thing... for me, they've already done this in Crystal Skull; I just can't see what else they would d that would be new here, other than turn him into a total old man, which seems a bit pointless.

Connery is good at subtle humor and knows how to underplay dialogue like that, and it was a great character moment; Professor Jones might be up in years, but he's still "got it". But it's those "fish out of water" moments like, "What about the boat? We're not going on the boat?" where he loses me.

That didn't bother me at all, but then I've seem a lot of those sorts of moments in the last few decades when you take brilliant academics out of their comfort zone...

I think Connery did a fine job as a fustian, bumbling professor and I had no problem buying the performance. I just didn't see how his cliche-ridden character could be Indy's father (and hated the idea of the writers trying to explain Indy in dollar-book Freudian terms in the first place). And they totally robbed Denholm Elliot's character of any dignity and made both him and Connery play silly old men, mainly for cheap laughs. For me Connery is the Jar Jar Binks of the Indy cycle.

I liked that Indy's dad was quite different than him; for me, it would not have been credible had they been similar characters.

I agree with your "silly old men, mainly for cheap laughs" observation, which is why I prefer those moments when Professor Jones is more confident. Marcus Brody was far more competent (or appeared to be) in the previous movies, and I can't help but wonder how Denholm Elliott felt about playing him as a buffoon. Then again, Mr. Elliott was reportedly diagnosed with AIDS shortly before filming began and was seriously ill on some days during production, so he probably didn't care one way or another.

Isn't the difference, though, that in Raiders we only see Brody in his own environment - the university, with Westerners, English speakers... His ridiculousness in Last Crusade comes entirely from him being out of his own environment and stuck somewhere where he doesn't speak the language and can't blend in. Let's not forget he's an Englishman of a certain class and time: the education he will have received and social circles in which he will have mixed, no matter how well-meaning, will have never seen a need for him to have the skillset of blending in....

For me the Jar Jar Binks of the Indiana Jones franchise is Willie Scott. Her incessant stupidity, overreactions, and obnoxious drama queen screaming ruin the movie for me. Mind you, I don't blame Kate Capshaw--I blame Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz for writing the character that way, and Steven Spielberg for directing her to play the character that way. Capshaw herself said the character was "not much more than a dumb screaming blonde", so who am I to disagree?

Watching the films back to back, it really does become obvious she is no Marion Ravenwood. Had Temple been set in 1937 instead of 1935, things may have been different - I doubt Indy going for Willie would have been credible. In 1935, long after falling out with Abner and before meeting Marion again, maybe some flighty but glam blonde might be a bit of fun.... What seems odder is that after bringing such a strong female lead to the first film, Lucas and Spielberg didn't demand the same for Temple.

(It strikes me that Mutt reminds me a lot of Jim Kirk's son in The Wrath of Khan. Apparently KIrk Jnr was originally intended to be one of a bunch of characters who would be introduced by that film and then spun off into a 'Next Generation' Star Trek; this some five years or so before the Picard team came to screen. Supposedly Kirstie Ally was lined up for the 'Spock' role, later filled by Brent Spiner's android Data. Presumably plans changed while they were still filming, leading to KIrk Junior's death being mad a plot point involving one of the most memorable lines of the whole film...)

 

[Touchofevil]

Last night, because it starred Gary Oldman, we watched Dark Hour. Worth a watch. Oldman’s performance was top notch.

 

[belfastboy]

Watched Chloe Zhao's first feature..."Songs My Brothers Taught Me". She is the Chinese director that also did this year's acclaimed "The Rider". It is a very similar work to The Rider, similar in emotional tone and pacing (understated and slow) which I happen to love so she sits high on my list of beloved directors. Interesting how a Chinese woman originally from the north of China can excel in capturing an aspect of the American experience.

 

[Zombie_61]

I would have liked it if they'd been a little more subtle about the spaceship, and we hadn't seen the alien fleshed out, just the skeleton, though as a rule I thought they were reasonable restrained in not doing "everything" just because it was possible. I really liked the ants.... The amphibious vehicle going over the rapids was a bit silly, but no more so than jumping out of a plane in an inflatable life-raft.... That said, the now more obvious than ever shortcomings of the effects in the original films, especially the first two, never ruined them for me...

And I saw very little in the way of restraint. But then, I'm very aware of George Lucas' love of CGI because it feeds into his "control freak" issues--with CGI he can get exactly what he wants in a given scene. I'm obviously still not completely sold on CGI, and I prefer imperfect practical effects to imperfect CGI.

...I'm not sure Ford is going to need telling, based on some of hat I've read he said in and around Star Wars...

I'm not sure how much of that was Ford being honest about his advancing age and how much of it was him using it as an excuse to get out of doing any future Star Wars projects. I still haven't heard or read confirmation that he would only appear in The Force Awakens if they killed off Han Solo, but I'm convinced that was a negotiation point.

...I liked that Indy's dad was quite different than him; for me, it would not have been credible had they been similar characters...

I agree, and I thought those differences made for some great moments between the characters. They clearly have the same taste in women though.

...Isn't the difference, though, that in Raiders we only see Brody in his own environment - the university, with Westerners, English speakers... His ridiculousness in Last Crusade comes entirely from him being out of his own environment and stuck somewhere where he doesn't speak the language and can't blend in. Let's not forget he's an Englishman of a certain class and time: the education he will have received and social circles in which he will have mixed, no matter how well-meaning, will have never seen a need for him to have the skillset of blending in...

That's an excellent point and, to be honest, one I hadn't considered until now. I'll have to keep it in mind the next time I watch The Last Crusade.

...Watching the films back to back, it really does become obvious she is no Marion Ravenwood. Had Temple been set in 1937 instead of 1935, things may have been different - I doubt Indy going for Willie would have been credible. In 1935, long after falling out with Abner and before meeting Marion again, maybe some flighty but glam blonde might be a bit of fun.... What seems odder is that after bringing such a strong female lead to the first film, Lucas and Spielberg didn't demand the same for Temple...

That's another reason I don't care for the character. They had already established with Marion that Indy liked strong intelligent women, and with Willie it seems they put her and Indy together purely for the "opposites attract" and "comedic" values; otherwise, it doesn't make much sense. I also didn't see much "romantic" chemistry between Capshaw and Ford, and certainly not as much as he had with Karen Allen. I thought Capshaw and Ford worked off of each other well when their characters were bickering, but it was clear to me from the beginning that Willie would never be anything more important to Indy than a "fling" at best. But then, considering Temple of Doom was a prequel to Raiders, maybe that was intentional because they had to clear the way for Marion to re-enter his life. *shrug*

 

[Edward]

I have a vague recollection of reading *somewhere* that they decided early on in the process of working up a second film that Indy should have a different woman in every film, so that ruled out Marion - this all before they set it a year earlier than Raiders. But yes.... Willie was no Marion, and while I can sort of rationalise it especially with that being a prequel (and even if it hadn't been, maybe he might have "needed" a meaningless fling after leaving Marion - which he also got, to an extent, from Elsa Schneider, though she was another smart woman), it still jars that they went from a strong character in Raiders to a female lead who was more of a helpless damsel in distress in Temple. #timesup, and all that.

 

[Seb Lucas]

I liked that Indy's dad was quite different than him; for me, it would not have been credible had they been similar characters.

Isn't the difference, though, that in Raiders we only see Brody in his own environment - the university, with Westerners, English speakers... His ridiculousness in Last Crusade comes entirely from him being out of his own environment and stuck somewhere where he doesn't speak the language and can't blend in. Let's not forget he's an Englishman of a certain class and time: the education he will have received and social circles in which he will have mixed, no matter how well-meaning, will have never seen a need for him to have the skillset of blending in....

I didn't expect the father to be like Indy at all. But I also didn't expect a clown either. A stern, patriarchal academic from the old world might have been fine - they got it partly right.

Mind you I think it was a mistake to give Indy a Dad and half-baked origin story in the first place. It's not On Golden Pond. Puerile psychologising garnish can only undermine the snap and vigour of the action genre.

In relation to Brody - the university man who is lost when he is in the field? What a cliché! And played for such cheap laughs. In Raiders we understand that Brody did go into the field when he was younger. He even says if he were ten years younger he'd be going after the Ark himself.

Either way, there's no reason to think Brody is an gormless fool until we get to the LC script. And to me it's no coincidence that the character of Sallah is similarly played as a risible comic sidekick and magnificently robbed of dignity. It was bloody lazy writing, like so much in this film. God, that dreadful opening circus sequence with the appalling trope of the awkward fat kid. I'm going to stop now so I don't have an embolism.

 

[MisterCairo]

Incredibles 2.

 

[Fading Fast]

Dr Zhivago 1965

• I'm in the double-digits viewing numbers for this one / we chose yesterday's minus-windchill day as an appropriate one to view it again

• Not hard to see why the book was banned for years in the USSR - it condemns the revolution and its ideology, but in an almost oblique way that makes it a more powerful rebuke than a full-frontal assault

• Kudos to the author's (Boris Pasternack) talent as he wrote a male character who has a long-running affair despite having a wonderful wife and family, yet female readers and viewers still love Zhivago (at least several I've known have) - that is not easy to do

• Julie Christie

 

[Fading Fast]

Dark Passage 1947 staring Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall and Agnes Moorehead

• The gimmick of not seeing Bogart's pre-plastic-surgery face wears thin after about ten minutes / well before the ~hour it goes on for. It would have worked if dispensed with quickly

• The beautiful B&W cinematography of just-post-WWII San Francisco alone makes it worth seeing the movie

• The plot flaws pile up, just like the bodies do around Bogart, but somehow we're supposed to believe that Bacall still completely believes in his innocence - the man couldn't eat breakfast without a dead body landing at his feet

• That said, if you just go with it, it's an enjoyable enough movie with Agnes Moorehead doing some of her best work - even dominating scenes with both Bogart and Bacall

 

[Touchofevil]

Dark Passage 1947 staring Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall and Agnes Moorehead

• The gimmick of not seeing Bogart's pre-plastic-surgery face wears thin after about ten minutes / well before the ~hour it goes on for. It would have worked if dispensed with quickly

• The beautiful B&W cinematography of just-post-WWII San Francisco alone makes it worth seeing the movie

• The plot flaws pile up, just like the bodies do around Bogart, but somehow we're supposed to believe that Bacall still completely believes in his innocence - the man couldn't eat breakfast without a dead body landing at his feet

• That said, if you just go with it, it's an enjoyable enough movie with Agnes Moorehead doing some of her best work - even dominating scenes with both Bogart and Bacall

The movie hooks me with Bogart, the fact that it is a David Goodis story, and the “beautiful B&W cinematography ofjust-post-WWII San Francisco.” It has its flaws, but as you said, “...if you just go with it, it’s an enjoyable movie...”

 

[Touchofevil]

The Breaking Point starring John Garfield on TCM. Entertaining, but then I am a big fan of Garfield so there is a chance I might be biased.

 

[Fading Fast]

The Breaking Point starring John Garfield on TCM. Entertaining, but then I am a big fan of Garfield so there is a chance I might be biased.

I'm with you on Garfield and I feel the same about Patricia Neal - I'll give any movie either one of them is in a chance. The fact that both are in "The Breaking Point" only doubles that factor. Also, I like Phyllis Thaxter as a not-well-known, but quite-talented actress. All that said, the movie itself is only okay as, from memory, it's uneven and bumpy in its story and tone.

 

[Worf]

"The Dark Tower" - Puddin's in LOVE with Idris Elba so I rented this one for her. After the horrific reviews I was dreading this one. Not having read the books I also went into this one with scant knowledge. I enjoyed it personally. I know the book brood hated it for condensing too many books into a film barely 2 hours long but I had no quibble. I know there'll never be a sequel so... what I get is what I got.

"Do they have fire arms in your world?"

"You're gonna love America!"

Worf

 

[Doctor Strange]

For my film discussion group... Nocturama - a recent French film about a gang of young people who detonate bombs around Paris, then hide out in a department store after. Eh, I thought it was too long and seemingly pointless. Oddly, the filmmakers have no interest in explaining why these kids are terrorists or what it is they're protesting, which leaves a big question mark re motivation. And the characterizations are very thin, making identification with the characters nigh impossible. Honestly, I can't recommend it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

We're in the middle of a two week run of "The Favourite," and it's interesting -- the first week it didn't draw flies, but yesterday, for the first matinee since the Oscar nominations, suddenly it's *the* picture to see, and we get swamped.

But it isn't any better a picture than it was before the nominations came out, and I don't see all the hype. I got burned once by this director -- people here still spit on the ground at mention of "The Lobster" -- and while I like all the talent in this film, the story and the way it's told do nothing for me. The rabbits are the best part of the picture.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I didn't like The Lobster or Dogtooth at all, so I've been avoiding subsequent films directed by Lanthimos. I agree it's got an interesting cast... but I expect to be seriously underwhelmed, so The Favourite is clearly a wait-for-cable film for me.

Of course, the intersection of art films and the Oscars is always problematical. I was hugely impressed with Roma... but I expect that 80% of the folks who rush to see it after the Oscar noms will either give up on it in the first 45 minutes, or if they do stick it out, still not "get" it.

 

[Touchofevil]

Tried to watch the MadsMikkelsen film Polar, but it didn’t work for us. Rarely do we turn a movie off, but that’s what we did.
Instead, we watched Noomi Rapace’s Close and stuck with it the whole way. It had a few moments, but isn’t worth recommending.
We followed this with Chris Pine’s Outlaw King, but shouldn’t have. Pine’s Scottiah accent was very hit and miss with a lot more miss. It was also hit and miss with the story telling: all over the place. And then there was Pine’s horrible mullet-like thing he had going. No one would follow anyone anywhere with that haircut. Overall, it was the best of the three, but still a waste of time.

 

[belfastboy]

Tried to watch the MadsMikkelsen film Polar, but it didn’t work for us. Rarely do we turn a movie off, but that’s what we did.
Instead, we watched Noomi Rapace’s Close and stuck with it the whole way. It had a few moments, but isn’t worth recommending.
We followed this with Chris Pine’s Outlaw King, but shouldn’t have. Pine’s Scottiah accent was very hit and miss with a lot more miss. It was also hit and miss with the story telling: all over the place. And then there was Pine’s horrible mullet-like thing he had going. No one would follow anyone anywhere with that haircut. Overall, it was the best of the three, but still a waste of time.

I wanted to like Close but it really fell short. I agree with your thoughts on Outlaw King. Glad both were Netflix and not $7 rentals.