Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

Doctor Strange

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,252
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
Sky Captain is fun, but it gradually wears out its welcome as its one gimmick loses its novelty. Sure, the visuals are thrilling fun if you're always wanted to see a live-action Flesicher Superman cartoon... But the storyline, pacing, and direction of the actors leave a lot to be desired: it's pretty much the classic example of giving a techno-geek with no proven ability to make a feature film a chance to make one. The result is a gorgeous, retro-themed, technological marvel that essentially fails at being a good movie. You'll notice that Kerry Conran hasn't been given a chance to direct another feature in the last ten years.
 

EmergencyIan

Practically Family
Messages
918
Location
New York, NY
D.O.A. (1950) starring: Edmond O'Brien, Pamela Britton, Luther Adler, Beverly Garland, etc.

It was on TCM last night. Apparently, it's a Film Noir classic. Count me as a fan. In my opinion, it was excellent.

- Ian
 
Messages
17,220
Location
New York City
D.O.A. (1950) starring: Edmond O'Brien, Pamela Britton, Luther Adler, Beverly Garland, etc.

It was on TCM last night. Apparently, it's a Film Noir classic. Count me as a fan. In my opinion, it was excellent.

- Ian

I like it as well (don't waste your time on the 1980s' remake), but always laugh when the narrator tells us [or is it a written notice?] that "luminous toxin [or something like that] is a real disease." The director was clearly not Hitchcock who knew that the Macguffin didn't have to be real, it was only there to advance the plot.
 

EmergencyIan

Practically Family
Messages
918
Location
New York, NY
I like it as well (don't waste your time on the 1980s' remake), but always laugh when the narrator tells us [or is it a written notice?] that "luminous toxin [or something like that] is a real disease." The director was clearly not Hitchcock who knew that the Macguffin didn't have to be real, it was only there to advance the plot.

It was the narrator at the beginning of the movie...lol

But, as Robert Osborne said in the introduction, "the movie is griping from beginning to end."

I just happened upon it last night.

- Ian
 
Messages
17,220
Location
New York City
I just happened upon it last night.

- Ian

That is the best, the absolute best way to "discover" a movie. Once you know something about a movie before hand or have some impression of it, it somehow diminishes it. Almost all of my favorite movies, especially my "under appreciated masterpieces" have been "discover" that way - just turning on a movie I knew nothing or almost nothing about. For example, I love "Separate Tables," "The Uninvited," "Executive Suite," and "Holiday" ('38 Grant - Hepburn one) - all of which I just stumbled upon.

Conversely, it took me years to appreciate "Citizen Kane" because I had heard so much about it being "the best movie ever, ever!" that I was underwhelmed the first several times I saw it. Then, when I had given up on trying to like it, I happened on it one day, watched it without expecting anything and really enjoyed it.
 

LizzieMaine

Bartender
Messages
33,766
Location
Where The Tourists Meet The Sea
"Citizen Kane" is only the best movie ever if you started watching movies in the mid-twenties, when the silents were hitting their creative peak, and then lived thru the entire talkie era up to 1941 watching them re-learn everything from the beginning. You can't appreciate it out of its proper context.

There are quite a few pictures and performers like that. I love Harry Langdon, but unless you've had a steady diet of silent comedy *before* you discover him, he isn't funny at all. Watching "The Jazz Singer" and "The Singing Fool" today they seem melodramatic, cloying, manipulative tripe and you think Jolson is, you will pardon the expression, the biggest ham in the butcher's window. But if you're in 1927-28 and have never seen a talkie and only know Jolson from records, to see him suddenly, larger than life, on the screen, bellowing out songs, is the most impressive thing you've ever experienced. Or if you think "Gone With The Wind" is retrogressive, pretentious nonsense, you should have been there in 1939, after three years of the book being *the* most talked-about-book on the best-seller lists, and constant speculation and anticipation over who was supposed to play who when they finally made the picture. GWTW can't be fully appreciated as a movie unless it's first appreciated as a media phenomenon.

A lot of the stuff that people are excited about today will seem just as overrated in eighty or ninety years. When the last seventies kid has died off, people will look at "Star Wars" and wonder just what all the fuss was about.
 
Last edited:

DesertDan

One Too Many
Messages
1,582
Location
Arizona
I've experienced exactly that while watching movies with my children.
I'll never forget the night my daughter and her boyfriend, who were 19 at the time, sat and watched Alien with me. Afterwards their comments were along the lines of "Why is this movie considered to be so scary?" I had to explain that at the time it came out there had never been a science fiction movie like this. Up until then sci-fi monster movies were a joke. In fact I remember very clearly going to see it along with all my friends fully prepared to throw popcorn at the screen and give it the MST3000 treatment. Instead we came out of the theater totally shellshocked.

Some things one just has to be there to truly appreciate.
 
Messages
15,259
Location
Arlington, Virginia
I've experienced exactly that while watching movies with my children.
I'll never forget the night my daughter and her boyfriend, who were 19 at the time, sat and watched Alien with me. Afterwards their comments were along the lines of "Why is this movie considered to be so scary?" I had to explain that at the time it came out there had never been a science fiction movie like this. Up until then sci-fi monster movies were a joke. In fact I remember very clearly going to see it along with all my friends fully prepared to throw popcorn at the screen and give it the MST3000 treatment. Instead we came out of the theater totally shellshocked.

Some things one just has to be there to truly appreciate.

Very well put, Dan.
 

EmergencyIan

Practically Family
Messages
918
Location
New York, NY
That is the best, the absolute best way to "discover" a movie. Once you know something about a movie before hand or have some impression of it, it somehow diminishes it. Almost all of my favorite movies, especially my "under appreciated masterpieces" have been "discover" that way - just turning on a movie I knew nothing or almost nothing about. For example, I love "Separate Tables," "The Uninvited," "Executive Suite," and "Holiday" ('38 Grant - Hepburn one) - all of which I just stumbled upon.

Conversely, it took me years to appreciate "Citizen Kane" because I had heard so much about it being "the best movie ever, ever!" that I was underwhelmed the first several times I saw it. Then, when I had given up on trying to like it, I happened on it one day, watched it without expecting anything and really enjoyed it.

I agree on both counts. Also, I stumbled upon "Holiday" with Hepburn once and enjoyed it. "Citizen Kane" is one that I first watched not too long ago and while I thought it was a good picture, I didn't get all of the hubbub, bub.

- Ian
 

Horace Debussy Jones

A-List Customer
Messages
417
Location
The Bowery
Yup. Very well put. Entertainment loses it's luster if viewed out of it's original context by people who can't really understand that context. It's almost like watching the most critically acclaimed Chinese film ever made without translation. The viewer would not be able to relate to it at all if they did not understand the Chinese language.
I think this is why I could never really watch Citizen Cane, or a lot of older movies for that matter. I've tried to get into them, but they are completely foreign to me because of that context incongruity.
"Citizen Kane" is only the best movie ever if you started watching movies in the mid-twenties, when the silents were hitting their creative peak, and then lived thru the entire talkie era up to 1941 watching them re-learn everything from the beginning. You can't appreciate it out of its proper context.

There are quite a few pictures and performers like that. I love Harry Langdon, but unless you've had a steady diet of silent comedy *before* you discover him, he isn't funny at all. Watching "The Jazz Singer" and "The Singing Fool" today they seem melodramatic, cloying, manipulative tripe and you think Jolson is, you will pardon the expression, the biggest ham in the butcher's window. But if you're in 1927-28 and have never seen a talkie and only know Jolson from records, to see him suddenly, larger than life, on the screen, bellowing out songs, is the most impressive thing you've ever experienced. Or if you think "Gone With The Wind" is retrogressive, pretentious nonsense, you should have been there in 1939, after three years of the book being *the* most talked-about-book on the best-seller lists, and constant speculation and anticipation over who was supposed to play who when they finally made the picture. GWTW can't be fully appreciated as a movie unless it's first appreciated as a media phenomenon.

A lot of the stuff that people are excited about today will seem just as overrated in eighty or ninety years. When the last seventies kid has died off, people will look at "Star Wars" and wonder just what all the fuss was about.
 

Horace Debussy Jones

A-List Customer
Messages
417
Location
The Bowery
Yes. Good summation Doc. It did have a cool art deco feel to it throughout, but the gimmicky lighting was overdone, and the story just didn't flow like a good comic book story would. Another director would have helped immensely as Conran should have obviously been director of cinematography only. But who?,..Ridley Scott?,..Quentin Tarrantino?? :D
Sky Captain is fun, but it gradually wears out its welcome as its one gimmick loses its novelty. Sure, the visuals are thrilling fun if you're always wanted to see a live-action Flesicher Superman cartoon... But the storyline, pacing, and direction of the actors leave a lot to be desired: it's pretty much the classic example of giving a techno-geek with no proven ability to make a feature film a chance to make one. The result is a gorgeous, retro-themed, technological marvel that essentially fails at being a good movie. You'll notice that Kerry Conran hasn't been given a chance to direct another feature in the last ten years.
 

Doctor Strange

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,252
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
It was far too low-budget a project for an A-list director, and it didn't even earn back its modest production cost in its original release. I was one of the few who dragged my kids to see it theatrically and subsequently bought the DVD. And I enjoyed it, despite its weaknesses. After all, this was the first trailblazing "digital backlot" film, coming out before Sin City and 300, so we can cut it some slack. Even given the ways is which fails, it's certainly a fun flick for hardcore retro-SF types like us who can recognize all its references...

I mean, what's recent Best-Picture-winner The Artist but a similar stylistic exercise? It replicates a 1928 silent flick perfectly, but has absolutely nothing to say other than "silent movies are cool", yet folks went gaga over it. In that regard, a style-without-meaningful-content film like Sky Captain was just a bit ahead of its time!
 

Forum statistics

Threads
109,306
Messages
3,078,461
Members
54,244
Latest member
seeldoger47
Top