What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Fletch]

Just finished up with The Letter (1940). Now I am not a Bette Davis devotee, but it's hard to imagine anyone else fleshing this role out so totally. In addition to everything else, she was actually attractive for once.

Yes, it's melodramatic. Even the lighting, artistic as it is, is melodramatic. So what.

The last 45 seconds or so, with the camera panning around the place as the music plays and the house party goes on, is worth half the picture.

 

[AlanC]

We watched The Black Dahlia a couple of days ago. Eh. Didn't do much for me.

 

[Feraud]

Try the Devil's Backbone. Same director, great lead character (a young boy) and better story than Pan's.

LD

Agreed. Devil's Backbone is an all around better film than PL.


Just watched The Eddie Duchin Story and Get Carter.

 

[Josephine]

Just finished Fistful of Dollars (again). Young Clint is one of my crushes. <3

 

[Lady Day]

A Mighty Wind

*been looking at movies in my library all week

LD

 

[Lady Day]

Agreed. Devil's Backbone is an all around better film than PL.

For me, it was the boys reaction to the ghost. Yes he was afraid of him, but he wanted to know why he was there and how he could help him. That floored me. You never see that! It was great.

LD

 

[Sarge]

Last night we watched City for Conquest and then They Drive by Night.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I showed my teenage kids Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. They were appropriately fascinated, repelled, mystified, shocked, etc. But they somehow couldn't seem to grasp its masterpiece status...

I was just their age when I first saw it during its X-rated original run, and I've always considered it an astoundingly virtuoso piece of filmmaking, though it's not exactly a pleasant experience.

 

[Edward]

I showed my teenage kids Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. They were appropriately fascinated, repelled, mystified, shocked, etc. But they somehow couldn't seem to grasp its masterpiece status...

I was just their age when I first saw it during its X-rated original run, and I've always considered it an astoundingly virtuoso piece of filmmaking, though it's not exactly a pleasant experience.

It's an intersting work. I preferred the book, myself. The film is one that I do think is rightfully regarded as a classic, though I wish it was known for its (very clever) satirical take on crime, punishment, and manipulative politicians as opposed to the controversy caused by Kubrick's withdrawing it from circulation during his lifetime, following death threats against him and his family in the wake of various thuggish acts alleged to have been copycat incidents inspired by the film. However iconic Alex and his droogies, the look of the film overall has not dated well - very much of its time, as depitctions of the future so often are. I can live with that, though. The bigger issues I had were:

- the seduction scene with the two younger girls. In the film it's played for laughs,a comedy threesome almost like a scenefrom one of the Confessions... series. In the book, however, they were younger girls than Alex by a good couple of years, and it'sa a mucxh more sinister seduction, him taking grave advantage of them. I think it softens his character rather much (and certainly does the girls a disservice) to play it the way the film did. I suppose though that's hardly uncommon in cinema, where studios all want identifiable heroes who you can like without feeling uncomfortable about it - even when they're violent anti-heroes.

- the ending. This is the thing that bugs me the most about the film. In the book, after Alex wakes up cured, there is one more, final chapter as an epilogue. In this last segment, Alex is back out on the town, and meets his old friends, discovering that they have all grown up and moved on, leaving him behind in the juvenile ways of the gang violence. It's a downbeat ending which really paints Alex as an ultimately pathetic, childlike figure who has never grown up - a twisted Peter Pan, in a sense. To me, this downbeat ending makes it a very different work than with Alex let loose, free again to be violent and return to where he started.

I did read somewhere that the US version of the book omitted the final chapter, the publishers having decided that a "happy ending" would sell better. Apparently Kubrick had only ever seen the US version, and so made the film not knowing that he was stopping short of the original ending - anyone got any more on this?

Last night, I watched two and a bit films on the television. I saw the tail end of Empire Strikes Back - bitter as I am about those vile prequels and the "special edition" mockery, it does still hold up. The I watched the remake of Flight of the Phoenix, about a group of engineers who crashland in the desert and then build a new plane from the wreckage to escape. Sounds kinda hokey, but actually it was well done and very entertaining - even the ending avoided undue schmaltz. Finally, I saw Up the Creek, a more recent comedy. I was expecting something more along the lines of American Pie, but I was pleasantly surprised. Dumb, but fun and genuinely amusing here and there. I find Seth Green very watchable as a performer, and he does have a particular gift for comedy IMO.

 

[Edward]

The film exchange really screwed up on this one, by the way. They first sent us the first three reels of "Darjeeling" packaged with the last three reels of some bizarre sci-fi apocalypse thing. When the heroes end up fighting radioactive zombies in some post-nuclear wasteland of destuction, it becomes a very different picture.

Sounds like Planet Terror, the Rodriguez half of Grindhouse.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Edward - It's true that Kubrick didn't know of the book's last chapter until well into the making of the film, but apparently once he found out about it, he considered it to be something of a dramatic cheat to ultimately redeem Alex so thoroughly. I gather that he and Burgess disagreed about it in later years.

I read the book years ago and loved it, but I think the film stands up quite well on its own. It's a good example of an adaptation that gets much, much more right than wrong... This was the first time I've seen it in probably 20 years, and apart from the obvious future predictions that were wrong (e.g., people still using typewriters, and no sign of a computer anywhere, not even in the high-tech hospital scenes), I think it holds up very well. And its such visionary, gutsy, bravura filmmaking!

Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, I was a total Kubrick fanatic at the time that film came out. (Ever since I had seen 2001 in 70mm during its original run in 1968, I was a disciple!) As I got older, I eventually became less impressed with his work, since there's so little human element in much of it, despite its technical viruosity. But Clockwork, despite its reputation for being brutally cold and manipulative, does manage to have quite a bit of recognizable human feeling on display...

(One thing I found amusing regarding the "futuristic" aspect of the film was the tiny microcassette of Beethoven that Alex plays at one point - my kids thought it hopelessly antiquated for "futuristic technology" to include tape at all, and I had to explain to them that a full-fidelity cassette that size appeared to us as an absolutely incredible advance in 1971!)

 

[deadpandiva]

Gone With The Wind. Some how I can never turn that movie off if I happened to flip passed it. I love all the actors but I don't really like the film. I guess there must be something compelling about it though.

 

[Edward]

Edward - It's true that Kubrick didn't know of the book's last chapter until well into the making of the film, but apparently once he found out about it, he considered it to be something of a dramatic cheat to ultimately redeem Alex so thoroughly. I gather that he and Burgess disagreed about it in later years.

Now that I didn't know.... Interesting slant. I can kind of see his point, though equally having read the book first, I was a bit disappointed by the complete unredemption of Alex in the film.

I read the book years ago and loved it, but I think the film stands up quite well on its own. It's a good example of an adaptation that gets much, much more right than wrong... This was the first time I've seen it in probably 20 years, and apart from the obvious future predictions that were wrong (e.g., people still using typewriters, and no sign of a computer anywhere, not even in the high-tech hospital scenes), I think it holds up very well. And its such visionary, gutsy, bravura filmmaking!

To be fair, parts of it have really dated, though most of what was made in the 80s has dated far worse than the 60s / 70s stuff. Inevitably anything future-set will be overtaken at some point, but i think CO holds together as an "alternative timeline" kind of thing...

Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, I was a total Kubrick fanatic at the time that film came out. (Ever since I had seen 2001 in 70mm during its original run in 1968, I was a disciple!) As I got older, I eventually became less impressed with his work, since there's so little human element in much of it, despite its technical viruosity. But Clockwork, despite its reputation for being brutally cold and manipulative, does manage to have quite a bit of recognizable human feeling on display...

I've always been hit and miss with Kubrick. I liked Clockwork Orange, really liked The Shining (albeit that it wasn't so faithful to the book), but I didn't like a lot of the other stuff. Eyes Wide Shut I found tedious (though not so bad as I'd expected). I have mixed feelings about 2001 - some beautiful sequences in it, but I really felt it dragged a lot - it could have been about an hour shorter, I think ,and not really have lost anything. That said, I didn't see it when it was first released, so obviously I missed a lot of the impact of the space scenes which were so far ahead of their time. They got so much spot on with that that it hasn't really dated at all, IMO.

(One thing I found amusing regarding the "futuristic" aspect of the film was the tiny microcassette of Beethoven that Alex plays at one point - my kids thought it hopelessly antiquated for "futuristic technology" to include tape at all, and I had to explain to them that a full-fidelity cassette that size appeared to us as an absolutely incredible advance in 1971!)

Heh, yeah - it reminds me of an old fifties sci-fi book cover with a Space Pirate climbing on board a vessel he's raiding, with a slide-ruler clamped between his teeth. It's always fun to look back on these things and see how the perception of the future looks a few years on. Back to the Future II is another great one for that.

 

[Doctor Strange]

2001 is a special case. Having seen it in 70mm at age 13 in 1968, when change/confusion was everywhere... While it was indeed a slow-moving film, the total immersion of the experience, overall metaphysical seriousness, and incredibly believable effects work made you feel that it was an exciting new kind of film storytelling. (So many new things seemed to be everywhere then!) Nothing was explained, it just engulfed you, and you either kind of understood it, or didn't. To me, seeing it was absolutely life-changing.

Of course, to anyone of the post-Star Wars generation, it's unacceptably slow and obscure, though with some lovely design and effects work that's still impressive... but geez, "it's so damn boring!"

There is just no way that a modern audience can appreciate 2001, and I've simply given up trying to argue its greatness to people who don't know the difference between fun, action-oriented space opera and serious SF. Nobody has the patience to watch it now. It's a generational divide thing, and I guess you really had to be there...

So, I'm an old-school Kubrick fan: The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange. He lost me with Barry Lyndon - by which time I was in college and was "outgrowing" his style - and while I kind of admire his later films, I don't think that they match the brilliance of the earlier ones. But Kubrick was a maverick: he wasn't interested in "entertaining", and he didn't care if his pacing or focus was odd. He wanted his audiences to work... His films are definitely an acquired taste. Even the lesser ones have their moments...

And Clockwork, as much as its predicted future was off, still got an awful lot of stuff right. I remember being stunned about a decade later with how well it had predicted the anger and nihilism of Punk, even if it got the specific look and style totally wrong...

 

[Smithy]

Saw "Bobby" the other night. Slightly on the slow side but generally I liked it and some nice acting.

 

[carter]

Out of the Past on TCM this evening.
1947, B&W with Robert Mitchum, Jane Greer, and Kirk Douglas.
Good film with period hats, clothes, cars, hair, the whole nine yards. :eusa_clap

 

[Jovan]

All I have to say about the cassettes is... Star Trek has not made any attempt to retcon their "microtapes" from the old series. And all the better for it! I love little anachronisms like that in old scifi. It carries a delightful retro feel.

2001 wasn't boring to me. I actually thought it quite a refreshing change of pace from all those ridiculously over-budgeted and under-thought scifi "epics" like Starship Troopers and Battlefield Earth when I saw it. (Which, I hear, weren't very good adaptations of their respective novels anyway.) I didn't get everything, sure, but it was a fun ride nonetheless and a very visual experience. I also applaud its dramatic use of non-sound in space (which carries the bonus of realism) which filmmakers are starting to utilize well again. Firefly, anyone?

 

[sweetfrancaise]

I just watched Help! for the nth time...but tonight on DVD (it comes out tomorrow)! Excellent, excellent. The picture quality as remarkable, and the sound was amazing. Go buy it. Or rent it.

*sigh*

Oh John!!

 

[Ada Veen]

Yes! I liked it, it was dark and beautifully done. I should watch it again, the first time around I wasn't too impressed with the depth of the story. What did you think of it?

I liked it. I was shocked by the violence, too, Lizzie. I thought all the actors were superb and it made me want to extend my knowledge of the spanish civil war. The story was very simple, I agree Clara, but I don't think it lost anything for it. I'm glad it did so well at the cinema!

 

[Fleur De Guerre]

28 Weeks Later. I liked how it got into the action straight away, but there were some really huge, gaping plot holes and other assorted errors that annoyed me a fair bit! Also, my office is in Canary Wharf, so it made me think of work lol