What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Seb Lucas]

De Niro has completely turned me off from watching anything he appears in with his inability to keep his mouth shut about politics. It is irrelevant whether I agree or disagree with the position taken by singers, actors, or anybody else in high visibility positions. I trade my money to watch or listen to your particular talent. Don't ruin that.
I don't care any more about your opinions on anything else than I do about what the guy a block down the street thinks.

I often enjoy it when artists talk politics. No reason why they shouldn't. I even like it when I disagree with them. A robust discourse is a vital part of life. De Niro as an actor I lost interest in many years ago - probably when he started doing bad comedies for the money. Scorsese I haven't found interesting as a director for a couple of decades. I'm fascinated that a Scorsese film can still arouse public passion.

 

[Fading Fast]

And One Was Beautiful from 1940 with Laraine Day, Robert Cummings, Jean Muir and Billy Burke

At seventy minutes long and with tier-two stars, I assume this was a B-picture., If so, MGM packed a lot of challenging moral dilemmas into this low-profile but impactful effort.

Two wealthy young sisters in their early twenties - Long Island mansion, chauffeur, swanky dinner parties, etc. - are polar opposites as the older one (Muir) loves the social life while the younger one (Day) prefers playing with cars to boys.

But both seem nice and fun with the older one focusing her attentions on the wealthy, glamorous and a-bit-wild young "catch" (Cummings) who just returned from overseas. When Muir sends her tom-boy sister to a dinner party where Cummings isn't expected, but surprisingly shows, the not-interested-in-boys younger sister becomes smitten. Cummings bestows his attentions on her, in part, we are led to believe, to avoid the cloying attentions of the young society women.

The above happens in about fifteen minutes in what is, at this point, just a mildly amusing tale when (spoiler alerts come nonstop now - no way to avoid them) all hell breaks loose. While not really fighting over him, Muir moves in on her younger sister to get Cummings back. She does, but in the effort, Cummings and she wind up alone and drunk at a roadside tavern. Cummings wants to drive; Muir refuses to get in the car, but after this and that happens, Muir, at the wheel with a passed-out Cummings beside her, hits and kills a man on a bicycle.

From here, the movie gets even darker with Muir fleeing the scene and letting Cummings take the rap while tom-boy sister Day all but figures out what really happened. When Cummings is sentenced to five years for manslaughter, Day constantly harasses her sister whose conscience is starting to weigh on her.

In a beautiful Christian moment of both forgiveness and taking personal responsibility, Cummings asks Day - she visits him in prison - to leave her older sister alone as he believes his overall lifestyle and willingness to drive drunk means that he deserves his punishment even if, technically, he's not guilty for the event that lead to his sentence.

There's a little more to go from here in this morality tale - some rise up further while others slip into old habits - but in the end, you are mentally exhausted while still questioning the morality of all that happened. Not bad for a "B" picture just over an hour long.


N.B. The top pic is of older sister Jean Muir and the bottom pic is younger sister Laraine Day - Robert Cummings is in both.

 

[Seb Lucas]

The Irishman. I got through it. Some nice period atmosphere and performances but it tended towards meandering dullness. I agree with those who said it could have benefited from cutting 30-40 minutes. You get through these distended stories of crime and murder and often wonder afterwards what the point was. I guess the point was providing a sheen and kind of glamour to the activities of the Mob. Yet again.

 

[Zombie_61]

The Irishman. I got through it...

"I got through it." High praise indeed.

...You get through these distended stories of crime and murder and often wonder afterwards what the point was...

I've lost count of the number of movies I've watched and afterward thought, "What was the point of that?" I didn't feel that way after The Irishman though.

 

[Fanny]

The other day I watched The 39 Steps. I like Hitchcock a lot, but this one wasn't my favorite. Maybe I was just distracted by my crochet project, but it seemed kind of boring and anticlimactic.

Also recently, The Uninvited, a story about a brother and sister who move into an old house and spooky things start happening. I enjoyed this one quite a bit even though the plot twist was very predictable and I saw it coming.

Last night, we watched It, the remake. My boyfriend wanted to watch chapter two since we recently got it, but I had never seen chapter one. I've never seen the original aside from random scenes while my brother was watching it when we were little. I liked it, but like most horror movies found myself yelling at the tv quite often "yo what are you doing? You're dumb!" Also, that scene where they're in the sewers and Pennywise starts dancing in the fire is hilarious. As soon as it started happening, I burst out laughing.

The night before that, we watched Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. I love Tarantino, but this one was kind of disappointing. At the end my boyfriend and I looked at each other and said "It was ok, right?" "Yeah not bad, but not great." I found the long scenes of them filming movies pretty boring and pointless, but maybe I just missed the point. I think I was expecting more action from a Tarantino movie. I have had the song that the hippie girls were singing as they dumpster dived stuck in my head, though. I must say though, that was the most cheerful I've ever seen anyone while dumpster diving. I know things are different now, but in my experience it's been more like "alright you guys let me know if someone's coming", "man it stinks in here", "come one, why can't they just throw the pizza in the dumpster still in its box like they used to." Either way, I probably wouldn't watch it again.

 

[Seb Lucas]

"I got through it." High praise indeed.

I've lost count of the number of movies I've watched and afterward thought, "What was the point of that?" I didn't feel that way after The Irishman though.

No worries - we all see things differently. One of my problems with The Irishman is that I've seen it all before - the 1960s nostalgia; the twentieth century loss of innocence theme; the coming of age in a 'family' of organised crime; the link between the Mob and the Whitehouse; the grubby reality behind the Kennedy years; the inevitable doomed world of the men who 'paint houses'. Then there's the familiar execution of the material - the customary TV news clips; the groovy soundtrack with sweeping montages and freeze-frame; the sentimental voice over narration; the carefully choreographed acts of violence and assassination that almost look like dance. All this was really cool 25 years ago.

 

[Doctor Damage]

Thank you, as I was beginning to think that my wife and I are the only ones critical of this rather poor effort. A great many critics are giving it high marks and it appears on many of their 'best of' lists. Is it a emperor has no clothing moment here and they can't bring themselves to criticize Scorcesse et al in their golden years?

You're not the only one. Last night I had dinner with one of my oldest friends, someone who's a movie hound (not vintage movies, though), and was critical of that Irishman thing. He said it was 3 hours of nothing.

 

[Doctor Damage]

...killing off Han Solo was a ballsy, but not entirely unexpected move...

I thought killing Solo was unnecessary for the story and was just plain mean. He could have got into a ship with Chewie and took off to parts unknown, to keep hustling. In other words, killing him was a typical Joss Whedon self-hating middle-finger-to-the-fans stunt.

 

[Doctor Damage]

For me, DVD.... sometimes BluRay, but only if it flatters the original source material. Sometimes, even though film is richer than many digital formats, older films simply don't benefit from the HD treatment. I remember however, being utterly astounded at the improvement in picture quality from VHS to DVD, and then seeing it on my dad's face when one year we bought him a DVD player for his birthday and he, a man not given to gadgets, was like an excited little kid about it.

Last night I started watching Barry Lyndon for the second time and I was struck by how good it looks. On the other hand, reading your post it occurs to me how bad it would look if it had been filmed in HD or whatever and watched on blu-ray.

 

[Doctor Damage]

De Niro has completely turned me off from watching anything he appears in with his inability to keep his mouth shut about politics. It is irrelevant whether I agree or disagree with the position taken by singers, actors, or anybody else in high visibility positions. I trade my money to watch or listen to your particular talent. Don't ruin that.

Let me guess, he doesn't share YOUR politics? It's a free country and DeNiro can say what he wants.

 

[belfastboy]

Not ready to hit the sack last night we looked for something to fill in an hour. Came across a documentary on Netflix..."Satan and Adam". Just over an hour and well worth the time. A charming doc about two street musicians that formed a very unlikely partnership. The movie held our interest all the way through. Well worth a watch.

 

[Doctor Damage]

No worries - we all see things differently. One of my problems with The Irishman is that I've seen it all before - the 1960s nostalgia; the twentieth century loss of innocence theme; the coming of age in a 'family' of organised crime; the link between the Mob and the Whitehouse; the grubby reality behind the Kennedy years; the inevitable doomed world of the men who 'paint houses'. Then there's the familiar execution of the material - the customary TV news clips; the groovy soundtrack with sweeping montages and freeze-frame; the sentimental voice over narration; the carefully choreographed acts of violence and assassination that almost look like dance. All this was really cool 25 years ago.

The 30 minutes of the Irishman I saw didn't impress me, which I posted before. It's made me think back on other Scorcese films I've seen. I thought Goodfellas is good but not great. I thought Wolf Of Wall Street was lame and unimaginative, and had done much much better by others. I thought The Departed was too long and convoluted but ultimately pointless. Just like with Tarantino, another director I used to like but have re-assessed negatively based on his recent films, I think Scorsese is over-rated. I think it's interesting that he supposedly failed to get a major studio interested in his The Irishman project.

 

[rocketeer]

Look Who's Back
OK so this one is a year or so old. Anyone see it? One of those satirical looks at life but this time it is Adolf Hitler who comes back by waking up at his old wartime bunker but he still thinks it is 1945. After he is befriended by a newspaper seller he realises it is 2014, then introduced to a TV reporter he realises Germany still needs him but everybody thinks he is an actor.
A funny film made with scripted scenes but also interaction with the German public, reminds me of a sort of 'Borat' in places but even though there are English subtitles I didn't quite get it except where Hitler was ranting about 'Make Germans Proud to be German again' came across a little to near what was being said pre war.
Funny in parts, but I am not into German satire so didn't get some of it.
Anyone else got any views?

 

[Fading Fast]

Look Who's Back
OK so this one is a year or so old. Anyone see it? One of those satirical looks at life but this time it is Adolf Hitler who comes back by waking up at his old wartime bunker but he still thinks it is 1945. After he is befriended by a newspaper seller he realises it is 2014, then introduced to a TV reporter he realises Germany still needs him but everybody thinks he is an actor.
A funny film made with scripted scenes but also interaction with the German public, reminds me of a sort of 'Borat' in places but even though there are English subtitles I didn't quite get it except where Hitler was ranting about 'Make Germans Proud to be German again' came across a little to near what was being said pre war.
Funny in parts, but I am not into German satire so didn't get some of it.
Anyone else got any views?

I read the book a few years back, but haven't seen the movie. From memory, it didn't really work for me as I found it hard to take a kinda light angle on Hitler. I didn't think the author did anything wrong or crossed any lines, but again, it felt awkward - at best - to me.

 

[Edward]

De Niro has completely turned me off from watching anything he appears in with his inability to keep his mouth shut about politics. It is irrelevant whether I agree or disagree with the position taken by singers, actors, or anybody else in high visibility positions. I trade my money to watch or listen to your particular talent. Don't ruin that.
I don't care any more about your opinions on anything else than I do about what the guy a block down the street thinks.

I often enjoy it when artists talk politics. No reason why they shouldn't. I even like it when I disagree with them.

I'm a firm believer that anyone in the public eye has the same right to express their politics as any one of us. To suggest that someone is "only" a singer, for instance, and therefore should not express their political views - which of us would similarly accept that we are not entitled to express our own political views because of the (unconnected) job we do? There have been a number of performers and businesses I have enjoyed over the years who have expressed their politics. Sometimes I like them, other times, I have been disappointed, but it makes no difference to enjoying what they provide. Then there are those who so intertwine their politics with their art / music / business that either I love them all the more, or I am disinclined to patronise them ever again. I would never, however, suggest that they not have the right to do so. On the contrary, I'm a firm believer that anyone should have the right to do so, provided they are (within reason) prepared to accept the consequences thereof. I can think of many occasions where that has cut both ways.

Which is as much as I'll say about that here.

I thought killing Solo was unnecessary for the story and was just plain mean. He could have got into a ship with Chewie and took off to parts unknown, to keep hustling. In other words, killing him was a typical Joss Whedon self-hating middle-finger-to-the-fans stunt.

It was much simpler than that. Harrison Ford (who had petitioned Lucas to have Solo die in Return of the Jedi) only agreed to appear as Solo once more on condition that Solo died in the film. I found it unnecessary, but I also genuinely didn't care either way. Solo was only in the film to pull in the old fanbase as a bridge to the new generation of players - a device oft used before, not least in Star Trek: Generations in which Shatner was used as a hand-over device to Stewart et al. The sole interesting part of his story there was that he and Leah couldn't stay together - too set in their own ways, he presumably couldnt' emotionally commit, whatever. The complete lack of any sense of real relationship with his own supposed son made a mockery of what was clearly supposed to be a big-impact scene. Not as weak as Lucas' 'can't do people' howlers, but still a stand-out weak moment in an otherwise reasonable film.

Let me guess, he doesn't share YOUR politics? It's a free country and DeNiro can say what he wants.

Ok, let's not go down that road. General principle is one thing, but let's not get into the specifics of an individual's politics.

 

[Edward]

Look Who's Back
OK so this one is a year or so old. Anyone see it? One of those satirical looks at life but this time it is Adolf Hitler who comes back by waking up at his old wartime bunker but he still thinks it is 1945. After he is befriended by a newspaper seller he realises it is 2014, then introduced to a TV reporter he realises Germany still needs him but everybody thinks he is an actor.
A funny film made with scripted scenes but also interaction with the German public, reminds me of a sort of 'Borat' in places but even though there are English subtitles I didn't quite get it except where Hitler was ranting about 'Make Germans Proud to be German again' came across a little to near what was being said pre war.
Funny in parts, but I am not into German satire so didn't get some of it.
Anyone else got any views?

I read the book a few months before I caught the film. The book, inevitably, is much better. It's less a satire on Hitler, more about how Germany has moved on. Mostly in the positive, but also there's an element of satire on how cynical pop culture has become and the nature of 'celebrity'. I found it very clever. Also interesting to read when you bear in mind that Timur Vermes, the author, is both German and the son of a Hungarian immigrant father, who fled the invasion of Hungary in 1956. Thus Vermes combines his consideration of what it is to be German with an element of the 'outsider within' experience of the children of immigrants, to great effect. The fact that Hitler ultimately comes across as a buffoon, left behind or at best laughed at because ther Germans and Germany have moved on is a key narrative point.

I found it a brave book - and, arguably, given the much great populism of film as a medium, a braver film, symptomatic, perhpa,s of a Germany confident in its sense of identity and perhaps finally free to satirise and deal with its own history like any other nation, without the pious expectation of others that it must forever self-flagellate.

 

[3fingers]

Let me guess, he doesn't share YOUR politics? It's a free country and DeNiro can say what he wants.

Assume whatever you'd like. DeNiro or anyone else is absolutely free to say whatever they want to. Just as I am absolutely free to not watch his movies.

 

[belfastboy]

Assume whatever you'd like. DeNiro or anyone else is absolutely free to say whatever they want to. Just as I am absolutely free to not watch his movies.

My wife and I are of a conservative political persuasion and tend to put Hollywood celebrities on our 's**t list when they pontificate as experts on areas in which they have no expertise. Once on the s**t list we avoid their movies. We share a love of movies with a friend and she always pokes at us expressing surprise that there are ANY movies and stars left that we will actually watch. ...which is not too far removed from the truth. So we tend to love obscure foreign movies as we don't know the actors, don't know their politics (usually), and can just treat it as a movie.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The idea that politically-outspoken performers are some kind of recent development is way off base. The performers of the Era ran the gamut, and weren't hesitant about expressing their views in public, from the very far left (Charles Chaplin, Paul Robeson, Edward G. Robinson) to the very far right (Ginger Rogers, Barbara Stanwyck, Adolphe Menjou.) Some of my favorite performers were, in fact, bats**t crazy when it came to politics -- the delightful Eugene Pallette ran away from Hollywood to hide in a survivalist compound up in the hills surrounded by guns. But I love to see him on the screen just the same.

It always makes me happy to discover that a performer I enjoy stands on the same side of the line that I do, and I admit to a bit of disappointment when I discover that someone whose work I like was a Red-baiter or a name-namer. But it's not a dealbreaker when it comes to performers of the Era, nor it is it for me with performers of today. When you go to a show, all you have any right to expect from any performer is a good performance. I don't see a show-biz personality as being any less qualified to express an opinion than Joe McBlowhard from down the block venting his spleen on the internet.

 

[belfastboy]

The idea that politically-outspoken performers are some kind of recent development is way off base. The performers of the Era ran the gamut, and weren't hesitant about expressing their views in public, from the very far left (Charles Chaplin, Paul Robeson, Edward G. Robinson) to the very far right (Ginger Rogers, Barbara Stanwyck, Adolphe Menjou.) Some of my favorite performers were, in fact, bats**t crazy when it came to politics -- the delightful Eugene Pallette ran away from Hollywood to hide in a survivalist compound up in the hills surrounded by guns. But I love to see him on the screen just the same.

It always makes me happy to discover that a performer I enjoy stands on the same side of the line that I do, and I admit to a bit of disappointment when I discover that someone whose work I like was a Red-baiter or a name-namer. But it's not a dealbreaker when it comes to performers of the Era, nor it is it for me with performers of today. When you go to a show, all you have any right to expect from any performer is a good performance. I don't see a show-biz personality as being any less qualified to express an opinion than Joe McBlowhard from down the block venting his spleen on the internet.

I concur, whether it Joe McB or said celebrity I pay heed to neither, but they are entitled.