What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Zombie_61]

Neighbors (2014). This was one of those, "I'm going to be awake all night, so I guess I'll watch this" movies. The first 30 minutes are pretty bad, but if you can get through that the rest of the movie is just as bad. I'm sure it sounded like a good idea while the writers were still stoned, but once they had sobered up they should have realized it wasn't. Watch it if you must, but don't say I didn't warn you.

 

[AmateisGal]

We rewatched "Groundhog Day" with Bill Murray. The kids seemed to like it.

An absolute classic.

 

[vmtrevino2]

Not a movie but a great Neil Young Concert from 2011 in Toronto where he is wearing a beat up panama. Great music and a great person...

 

[minkowski1552]

The Interview. Better than I thought it would be.

 

[LizzieMaine]

"Kumiko the Treasure Hunter," now playing at a fine independent theatre near you. If Bunzo the Rabbit doesn't win Best Supporting Actor next year, I'm off the Oscars for life.

 

[Wally_Hood]

Foxcatcher. Middle Hood convinced most of the family to watch it. I found it kinda grim. Steve Carell is remarkable.
LM, I saw a version of Gance's Napoleon at the Balboa (in Balboa, CA) a long time ago. It had the "triptych" effect and ran about two hours (I think)

 

[LizzieMaine]

That would have been 1983, I think, and it was four hours unless you left at intermission. There was a touring roadshow version of Kevin Brownlow's restoration of the film with a musical score by Carmine Coppola. Francis Ford Coppola was involved in the distribution, and got it booked into most of the remaining grand showplaces. I saw it at the Fox Arlington in Santa Barbara that winter and it remains the most memorable movie experience of my life. And I've never even been all that interested in Napoleon.

Brownlow wrote an absolutely fascinating book about his work on restoring the film as a companion to the 1983 release, and it's almost as exciting as the picture itself. He started work on the restoration as a teenage boy in the mid-fifties, and he's still finding bits and pieces to this day.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Hooray for Bollywood!
Mr India, featuring Sridevi singing Hawa Hawai.
Anyone else into Bolliwood/Indian film?

I just saw this one.

[video=youtube;yysbbPStfWw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yysbbPStfWw[/video]

 

[Wally_Hood]

That would have been 1983, I think, and it was four hours unless you left at intermission. There was a touring roadshow version of Kevin Brownlow's restoration of the film with a musical score by Carmine Coppola. Francis Ford Coppola was involved in the distribution, and got it booked into most of the remaining grand showplaces. I saw it at the Fox Arlington in Santa Barbara that winter and it remains the most memorable movie experience of my life. And I've never even been all that interested in Napoleon.

Brownlow wrote an absolutely fascinating book about his work on restoring the film as a companion to the 1983 release, and it's almost as exciting as the picture itself. He started work on the restoration as a teenage boy in the mid-fifties, and he's still finding bits and pieces to this day.

Ah, thanks for restoring my memory. I saw it alone and (I blush to admit) did doze through parts of it.
Favorite part: Napoleon, disgusted with the commissioners, dismisses them as "Chatterers!"

 

[cw3pa]

Finished watching "St Martin's Lane" aka "The Sidewalks of London" (1938) last night with Charles Laughton, Vivien Leigh and Rex Harrison. Laughton was excellent as a poor street performer (busker).

 

[AmateisGal]

Predator (the original). I don't normally go in for these types of films, but hubby was watching it and I got interested, so...

 

[jamespowers]

"Kumiko the Treasure Hunter," now playing at a fine independent theatre near you. If Bunzo the Rabbit doesn't win Best Supporting Actor next year, I'm off the Oscars for life.

I've been off the Oscars for twenty years now.

 

[jamespowers]

I just saw this one.

[video=youtube;yysbbPStfWw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yysbbPStfWw[/video]

Can't see it. Is it like this:
https://youtu.be/XnBbjc5hmho

 

[2jakes]

I've been off the Oscars for twenty years now.

20 years ?
Did Forrest winning it in '95 had something to do with it?

"Run Forrest Run"....jp is after you !

 

[Zombie_61]

The Jungle Captive (1945). The third, and arguably the best, in the "Paula, the Ape Woman" trilogy produced by Universal Studios. Compared to Captive Wild Woman (1943) and Jungle Woman (1944) this is nearly an "A" picture, but that's a bit like saying your second least favorite food is still better than your least favorite food. If anything, it's worth seeing if you're a fan of Rondo Hatton or "B" movies, but otherwise not worth much. lol

Thanks again Dale! :yo:

 

[Worf]

The Jungle Captive (1945). The third, and arguably the best, in the "Paula, the Ape Woman" trilogy produced by Universal Studios. Compared to Captive Wild Woman (1943) and Jungle Woman (1944) this is nearly an "A" picture, but that's a bit like saying your second least favorite food is still better than your least favorite food. If anything, it's worth seeing if you're a fan of Rondo Hatton or "B" movies, but otherwise not worth much. lol

Thanks again Dale! :yo:

Wha? I found this to be absolutely the WORST of the trilogy. Without "Aquanetta" this thing just laid flat and Svengoolie even said as much. Nah this thing was boring except for "The Monster Without Makeup". They did a nice homage to him in "The Rocketeer" and in the pages of the comic.

Worf

 

[Zombie_61]

Wha? I found this to be absolutely the WORST of the trilogy. Without "Aquanetta" this thing just laid flat and Svengoolie even said as much. Nah this thing was boring except for "The Monster Without Makeup". They did a nice homage to him in "The Rocketeer" and in the pages of the comic.

Worf

To be honest, I've never seen the first movie (except for the parts of it featured in the second movie). Considering the amount of screen time Vicky Lane spent under the "ape" makeup, Acquanetta would have been wasting her time and beauty...uhh, even more so than she did in the first two movies, that is. I like Rondo Hatton, so maybe that's what elevated this movie above the others for me. [huh]

 

[dh66]

Wha? I found this to be absolutely the WORST of the trilogy. Without "Aquanetta" this thing just laid flat and Svengoolie even said as much. Nah this thing was boring except for "The Monster Without Makeup". They did a nice homage to him in "The Rocketeer" and in the pages of the comic.

Worf

To be honest, I've never seen the first movie (except for the parts of it featured in the second movie). Considering the amount of screen time Vicky Lane spent under the "ape" makeup, Acquanetta would have been wasting her time and beauty...uhh, even more so than she did in the first two movies, that is. I like Rondo Hatton, so maybe that's what elevated this movie above the others for me. [huh]

It certainly wasn't the worst of the three. That was unquestionably the 2nd. They totally cheaped on the were-ape effects, and lovely as she was, Acquanetta's performance was pretty flat. She seemed bored to tears and not real happy to be there.

The first one had an interesting story, but relied heavily on stock footage to fill it out. It did, however, feature John Carradine - so that's a big plus.

The last one also had a fairly strong story line, and as Alex points out, Rondo Hatton. The thing that most bugged me about it - aside from no Venuzualan Volcano - was that the whole thing sort of ground along, then BAM!! it all got resolved in less than five minutes.

All in all I liked the first and last one about equally, but the second one was a dud. Total ripoff piece of crap trying to make a quick buck off the first...... as sequals usually are.

 

[Fading Fast]

This sounds GREAT!!!! Where can I catch this chestnut?

Worf

As noted, TCM is where I saw "Men Must Fight" as well and, I checked, it is not out on DVD.

Now on to the movie itself (as I finally got a chance to watch the end of it yesterday afternoon).

It is a fantastic movie despite its many flaws.

Let's get the flaws out of the way. The acting, overall, feels like stage actors who haven't learned to adjust to movie acting: stilted movements, over gesturing and posturing and loud enunciation. But, to be fair, it is from 1933 and many stage actors were still learning how to make the transition to film. That said, the movie has some class actors in it, who, notwithstanding the stage-acting issue, still keep you engaged.

Also, the movie is not at all subtle in its presentation of the competing philosophies between those who believe that peace can be achieved if everyone refuses to fight (tautologically sound, but hard to execute in practice) and those who consider themselves pragmatists in a hostile world where having to fight is part of having to survive. I respect that both sides got a chance to state their case, but many times the actors sounded like philosophers advocating their position and not humans discussing passionate topics.

Okay, with that out of the way, the movie is very enjoyable. The majority of it is set in 1940 where Television and Video-telephones are used (the Video-telephone scene is a fun, dated futuristic moment) and the main family's apartment is outlandishly modern - for 1933 - Art Deco. And the story moves at a fast pace from WWI through the inter-war years to the new war in 1940 (pretty prescient).

But what is most amazing is that despite being made in 1933, the movie anticipates the major philosophical battle of the mid-to-late 1930s between the "peace in our time" approach of Chamberlain and others (in the US, UK and Europe) and the "we must prepare to fight now" approach of Churchill and others. There is one scene that eerily foreshadows the time when UK Prime Minister Chamberlain waved his "peace in our time" non-aggression pact agreement with Germany and Italy from the tarmac having just returned home after "successfully" completing peace negotiations. And later on, the same politician makes a speech about how the country is behind because the enemy was building up its armed forces while "we" weren't (very Churchillian).

While the backdrop of the story is a not overly interesting love story, the aforementioned philosophical discussions, the dated "futuristic" view and - quite eerily owing to 9/11 - a jarring scene in which NY City gets bombed early in the war make this a "must watch if you can catch it" movie for me.

Is it a mess of a movie - yes, maybe - but a wonderful, fun and impressively forward looking mess. Now they just need to restore it so that the sound and picture isn't in such bad shape.

 

[MisterCairo]

Sin City. We really enjoyed the look and feel of the film. Not having read any of the graphic novels helps us to just enjoy what's on the screen. I gather Frank Miller's work is often translated fairly literally onto the screen given his direct involvement in projects.