What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[greatestescaper]

Broken Arrow with James Stewart this afternoon during chores.

 

[Stearmen]

Escape From Planet Earth (2013) A few people I know recommended this movie. Wasn't sure at first, but turned out to be pretty funny! William Shatner turned in a great performance for a change.

 

[greatestescaper]

Anyone looking for a nice creepy scifi, one of the films that gets you thinking, Coherence is a good one. I'm not normally one for the shaky camera work that became popular with movies like Blair Witch Project, however, this film is well done. And, I found it to be a fine example of working with a limited budget to create a mood with simple effects, dialogue and acting, rather than wild special effects and cheap jump scares (not that I mind those). If you allow yourself, Coherence will leave you unsettled. At least, my wife and I were unsettled in that "what would we do in such a situation" fashion.

 

[sola fide]

Been a while since logging in. I watched Cinderella Man again, but did some research this time. What a good moving and I also picked up Leatherheads with George Clooney wearing a killer leather jacket. I wore my Montgomery Wards horsehide jacket to church today, felt good along with my Persol Typewriter edition 1920s style glasses. What fun. I need to have some minimal brake work done on my 38 Chev so I can put everything together.

 

[Bushman]

The Omen. This movie is even creepier than I last remembered it. And I still can't stand rottweilers because of this movie.

 

[Worf]

Scary Irish flick called "The Hallows" . To paraphrase Bugs Bunny:

"Don't go out there.... it's DARK!"

Worf

 

[AmateisGal]

The Hollywood Canteen. Such a fun, uplifting movie.

 

[Stearmen]

The Pace That Thrills (1952) Not a very good movie, but noteworthy because it was the transitional period in American racing, going from predominantly V-Twin motorcycles to light weight British bikes! A note that some of you will get, the Matchless single had the M badge right side up. I wounder if it was the same motorcycle used in a certain movie two years latter with the M upside down?

 

[Haversack]

Last night we watched The Hill (1965). A very well done movie directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Sean Connery. Set in a British army prison in Libya during World War Two, it is an intense drama in the same vein as Tunes of Glory. Not for the light of heart.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

From the little I have seen, the puppets were better actors!

Indeed they were & Lady penelope should have got an Oscar. ................Stingray & Joe 90 were great shows too again with superb acting.
I had Lady penelope's pink rolls royce as a kid, in die-cast metal & with a removable Parker " Yes m'lady" ......life was pretty good back then but I didn't know just how great it could be until I had an interceptor from Space 1999, with firing rocket, mind.........life has just been downhill from there.

 

[Fading Fast]

The Pace That Thrills (1952) Not a very good movie, but noteworthy because it was the transitional period in American racing, going from predominantly V-Twin motorcycles to light weight British bikes! A note that some of you will get, the Matchless single had the M badge right side up. I wounder if it was the same motorcycle used in a certain movie two years latter with the M upside down?

As you said, not a great movie, but the crystal-clear B&W cinematography and time-travel details made it kinda fun anyway - but some of the stilted dialogue / delivery was painful.

 

[Fading Fast]

Last night we watched Woody Allen's "Cafe Society." The period details are outstanding as the movie abounds in eye candy for Fedora Lounge member that is stunning and keeps coming at you from houses, cars, clothes, appliances and on and on. The movie looks more 1930s than the actual 1930s as the set designers created a visually perfect world versus reality's imperfect one.

The movie itself seems like Woody Allen has consciously and quietly decided to parody himself as the picture feels like someone trying to make a Woody Allen film: the male lead is a young, insecure Jewish man who talks out loud to himself about his eight billion insecurities while pursuing a beautiful Christian woman. All the characters - the successful talent agent, the up-from-the-street mobster, the overbearing Jewish mother - feel like intentional parodies, archetypes you've seen in countless Allen movies that don't even take themselves 100% seriously.

But here's the thing - it basically works. You know you are watching a Woody Allen film that isn't taking itself too seriously, but you wind up caring, lightheartedly, about the characters and their challenges and you end up rooting for this one or that. Also slightly surprisingly, the usually brooding Kristen Stewart plays against type and is charming and unsure of herself in a refreshing and attractive way - the first time I "got" her as an actress. She and the underused-in-this-move Blake Lively bring more realism than the other actors who Allen wrote in the mode of the aforementioned parody.

If you go into this picture with modest expectations - you want to see a decent "Woody Allen" movie with absolutely beautiful 1930s period details - you'll enjoy it. If you are looking for something fresh or revolutionary from Allen, you won't.

 

[LizzieMaine]

My favorite movie of the past summer. I'm only sore we only got to run it for three days.

 

[Worf]

My favorite movie of the past summer. I'm only sore we only got to run it for three days.

I noticed that myself this past summer. Our local art house was recently bought out by Landmark Theatres and ever since it seems the turn-over of films has been far more rapid than in the past with most movies only last a week. How's a film gonna build word of mouth if it's only around for a "hot minute"?

Worf

 

[Fading Fast]

I noticed that myself this past summer. Our local art house was recently bought out by Landmark Theatres and ever since it seems the turn-over of films has been far more rapid than in the past with most movies only last a week. How's a film gonna build word of mouth if it's only around for a "hot minute"?

Worf

I think since - and Lizzie would know better - the theater period is just one stop for a movie today which includes deeper overseas distribution, cable, streaming services and endless repeat runs on odd cable channels, it is more economical to move it in and out of the theater if it isn't putting butts in the seats right away and let it build momentum / word of mouth on cable or streaming.

"The Shawshank Redemption" built its reputation and money-printing machine in the "after" market. I am - sincerely - not saying this is the best model, but it seems that it might be too expensive to let movies build word of mouth in the theater because for every one that eventually does that, how many ones that never build word of mouth would they have to run to empty houses.

Again, I'm just a movie goer - Lizzie is in the business - but it seems, intelligently or not, the model has moved to viewing the theater as just one stop and not the end all to be all that it used to be.

 

[LizzieMaine]

In the Era, two and three day runs were the norm for most neighborhood theatres -- the only places you'd find a picture running a week or more would generally be the big showplace theatres in the cities, which might hold a particularly big show for weeks or even months at a time as a top-dollar attraction before it moved on to the sticks. But those two-or-three-day run houses usually also featured a continuous shows policy that might run the picture four times a day, so there were still plenty of chances to see it.

Longer runs became common when these small houses disappeared or cut back the number of screenings -- well into the 70s box office was still the number one source of revenue for Hollywood, so they had to get those shows in somehow. Home video and cable, both reaching a mass audience in the '80s, changed the proportions of the total take considerably. But theatre screenings are still vital for building "buzz," especially for smaller films that might not catch a lot of notice otherwise.

What frustrates us, specifically, is the difficulty of booking films around all the other stuff we do -- every live event or HD satellite screening we do eliminates at least one and sometimes two or three film shows, and our booker finds it frustrating to have to maneuver around all that stuff, and some studios -- I'm looking at you, 20th Century Fox -- are very very fussy about this point. If you can't give a Fox film at least two Friday night screenings, you won't get it at all.

I noticed that Allen has a new distributor starting with "Cafe Society." For years prior to this one, his pictures were handled by Sony, thru "Sony Pictures Classics," and we never had any trouble getting his stuff for at least a week, sometimes even two. But this latest one was handled by Lionsgate, whose product we rarely handle, and who I suspect doesn't care an awful lot about small markets. I don't know why Woody moved to a different distributor, but it doesn't seem like a real good move.

 

[Fading Fast]

⇧ Great color.

My guess on Woody - the answer is $s. Most of these very publicly liberal Hollywood types are quite aggressive when it comes to profiting on their work. Bob Dylan, recently in the news for something and an anti-establishment icon, is well known inside the businesses for being very money focused.

What did you think of "Cafe Society ?" As per my comments above, I liked it in the context of being a more recent "Woody Allen" film. He no longer is putting out anything close to his classic movies from early in his career, but this one had a kinda "inside joke" or "tongue-in-cheek" Woody Alien-ness to it that I thought worked. And the period details were stunning.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Everything that I've read about Woody Allen - and that's a lot - indicates that he gives no thought at all to the cost of his films, what distributor handles them, the distribution strategy, promotion, etc. He focuses on writing, casting, directing, and editing, and leaves the "business aspects" to his longtime team of agents and producers. He has switched studios and distributors many times over the years. He's happy as long as he gets to make his yearly film with his usual artistic collaborators, and all the young actors that always want to work with him.

No comment on the new film, I haven't seen it yet. But after his last couple of misfires - Magic in the Moonlight and Irrational Man - it looks promising. (That seems to be his MO now: an occasionally excellent film like Match Point, Midnight In Paris, or Blue Jasmine... with a couple of weaker efforts on either side of it.)

 

[Fading Fast]

Everything that I've read about Woody Allen - and that's a lot - indicates that he gives no thought at all to the cost of his films, what distributor handles them, the distribution strategy, promotion, etc. He focuses on writing, casting, directing, and editing, and leaves the "business aspects" to his longtime team of agents and producers. He has switched studios and distributors many times over the years. He's happy as long as he gets to make his yearly film with his usual artistic collaborators, and all the young actors that always want to work with him.

No comment on the new film, I haven't seen it yet. But after his last couple of misfires - Magic in the Moonlight and Irrational Man - it looks promising. (That seems to be his MO now: an occasionally excellent film like Match Point, Midnight In Paris, or Blue Jasmine... with a couple of weaker efforts on either side of it.)

Good color on Woody as I was just generalizing (and seemingly getting it wrong). Living in NYC and working in wealth management, you get to know people who know stars and their financial demands and - generalizing - public liberal politics and aggressive personal business style are quite common which is why I guessed the way I did.

I agree on his hit-or-miss pattern ("Match Point" was my favorite of his newer ones). I look forward to your thoughts on "Cafe Society."

Edit add: My guess of the switch to Lionsgate is $s driven by his team's fiduciary responsibility to maximize the profits for Woody unless they have documentation from Woody to do otherwise - if they don't, they are liable to being sued by him. It's the world our legal and regulatory system has built as our courts and regulators require fiduciaries (like agents / manager - especially if they have control) to make $-driven decisions or face ugly consequences.

 

[MisterCairo]

I was in the mood for a little film noir, so I put in that classic, Sin City: A Dame to Kill For.