What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Fading Fast]

Overall, I like Woody Allen movies, but I get there by hating some, loving some and feeling everywhere in between on others. The average is close to like, but the dispersion, as they say in statistics, is quite stretched.

"Hollywood Ending" is much closer to the "hate it" side of the continuum as, about 50 minutes in, when Allen's character - dating somebody, of course, ridiculous younger than he is - went into another off-the-shelf Allen lament about sleeping alone and his closet full of fears, I had had enough.

Even Tea (with and accent over the "e," really?) Leoni - one of my favorites who should have had a better career - couldn't save this mailed-in Allen effort. Allen playing an insecure director was too much self-absorption wrapped inside self-absorption for me.

Two other quick thoughts from the movie: George Hamilton looks almost too much like George Hamilton - the image of a Hollywood star, playing a Hollywood star and Debra Messing should be very happy "Will and Grace" made her - that was a lucky break for her.

And one more thing - the only really good thing are the classic New York City settings - the Plaza, Bethesda Fountain, Balthazar and a never-looked-better-on-film Bemelmans Bar were almost, but not quite, worth staying with this mind-numbing effort.

 

[belfastboy]

Watched "Fracture" last night, Ryan Gosling when he was still a great actor before he became RYAN GOSLING!!! Anthony Hopkins was good but really just doing his evil man schtick but he does it well. All in all a very good movie.

 

[Worf]

Damn you TCM! (Shakes fist in anger). I got "monster mashed", it was "Atomic Radiation" night. First "Them" (must watch), then ole "Stoneface" in "Godzilla - King of the Monsters". Followed up with "It Came From Beneath the Sea" and capped off by "The Giant Behemoth" . My mind is melting!

Worf

 

[Fading Fast]

"Marty" from 1955

• Incredible Bronx time-travel to a period when working men, butchers like Marty, put on suits and ties to go to the movies or church / to a time when you could walk home at 1am and not be concerned about crime
  • I saw it for the first time in the mid-'80s, when the Bronx looked like a bombed out city - hard to believe it ever looked like it did in the movie

• Marty is a 34 year old "ethnic" Italian Catholic butcher who lives with his mother - he could have been one of my dad's friends as his group of Irish, Italian, Jewish, Greek, etc. friends all grew up in the same neighborhood and interacted the same way Marty did with his friends.
  • They joked, they made fun of each other, they took care of their families, they argued with their families, they were real with each other
  • Today, any limitations of interaction is viewed suspiciously, but while Marty's friends, like my dad's friends were tight as could be, the the Catholics weren't going to marry the Jews - not out of hate or anger or prejudice, but because the framework (maybe Lizzie would say the propaganda of the time create this view and they didn't even know it) made it beyond even a thought. When Marty asks a girl he met if she's Catholic, he's not (IMHO) being prejudice, he is just trying to understand if there is any chance for them - in his mind, Catholics just marry Catholics
  • When, today, we judge all of this, sometimes harshly, I think we miss that many of these were very good people who had a different frame of reference than we do today. My dad's friends would move heaven and earth for each other, but again, the Jews weren't marrying the Catholics who weren't marrying the Protestants...

• The movie itself works because it's real - almost no false moments - just people being themselves at a time of several critical life decisions.
  • When they say they aren't making simple story telling movies anymore, this is the type of movie I think they are referencing

 

[Fading Fast]

Watching "Breakfast at Tiffany's" now on TCM, despite its flaws and sadness - I love it.

So, Riddle me this Batman (or, in this case, Lizzie for sure):

I saw "BATs" in the movie theater at the end of last year (TCM screening special) and the picture is clearer on my TV now than on the movie screaen- why? I know I'm accurate as I remember looking at George Peppard's herringbone jacket - as I have a very similar one - and I focused on the pattern, it's much clearer on my TV now than it was on the giant movie screen.


My review of "BATs" from back when I saw it in the movie theater: http://www.thefedoralounge.com/thre...ovie-you-watched.20830/page-1120#post-2173464

 

[AmateisGal]

Arrival.

Wow. Mind-bending. Trippy. I enjoyed it a lot. Amy Adams did a wonderful job in her role.

 

[Benzadmiral]

On the Waterfront, Elia Kazan's Oscar-winning crime story of early Fifties New York, with Brando and Eva Marie Saint. I saw it many years ago on TV, so long ago I'd forgotten all but the very end, and the famous scene between Brando and Steiger in the cab: "I coulda been a contender!"

Still I'm not a Brando fan. Still I don't see why some people say Steiger over-acted in things (he was just more intense than your usual actor). Everybody should see this film once, but it doesn't grab me the way The Apartment (or almost any Billy Wilder flick) does .

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

La La Land

 

[Fading Fast]

La La Land

What did you think?

My thoughts if you care: http://www.thefedoralounge.com/thre...ovie-you-watched.20830/page-1168#post-2244981

 

[Julian Shellhammer]

Saturday night at our movie night get-together, Libeled Lady (1936) with William Powell, Jean Harlow, Spencer Tracy, and Myrna Loy. Screwball comedy, with the one-liners and snappy dialogue coming at you at high speed, courtesy of rich folks and cynical newspaper characters

 

[Stearmen]

Deadly Mantis (1957) Took a page out of Worf's book. A pretty good comedy!

 

[AmateisGal]

Really wishing I had a DVR player. TCM is doing a Memorial Day Weekend Marathon of war movies. Can't wait!

 

[Worf]

Deadly Mantis (1957) Took a page out of Worf's book. A pretty good comedy!

Yeah..... I saw this weeks "Monster Mash" lineup and said "meh". I'd seen them all countless times before and nothing said "must see" to me this week. But these bad SciFi oaters are like candy or popcorn... once you get started.....

Worf

 

[Fading Fast]

1974's "The Great Gatsby" via the "Movies!" channel. This was a terrible print - the picture was just shy of fuzzy and had a ton of commercials (which I sped through on the DVR, but they still broke the flow quite often and to the film's detriment).

But we've all seen this movie before, so on to a few "once you've seen a movie a bunch" observations:

• For a mid-'70s movie in which that decade's horrible style adulterated even period productions, this one was beautifully filmed. Sure the women's hairstyles and the widths of the men's ties, lapels, etc. were more '70s than '20s, but the houses, cars, furniture were very period thoughtful and hinted at the beautiful period productions to come in later decades. While I appreciate the crazy beauty of the big mansions, for me, Nick Caraway's little early 1900s bungalow is a dream house

• The movie is very faithful to the book and the acting, overall, is strong, but there's something slow and sleepy in the production. To be sure, the story takes place amongst the idle rich during a hot summer where boredom is part of the issue, but the book moves along; whereas, the movie drags in many spots

• And here's the big thing that pops in the movie: Daisy ain't worth it. And while that is - at one level - the point of the novel, it somehow seems almost absurd on screen
  • Here's Gatsby, this poor young man who makes a lot of money (illegally or legally, you know it wasn't easy to do) and spends an insane amount of it to buy a mansion and throw parties all in hopes of attracting a now-married college sweetheart whom he knew for a few months ten or so years ago
  • And when we meet her - she's vacuous. Her voice (as interpreted by Mia Farrow) doesn't "sound like money" as Gatsby opines, but has more of a high-pitched whine associated with spoiled children and entitled ne'er-do-wells. She acknowledges that she won't marry someone poor - points for honesty, demerits for lack of character - but there's just nothing there and certainly nothing to inspire a ten-year passion in an obviously complex and driven man

• But still, this movie version of the book is ten time better than the 2013 production that turned the movie into a glamours ball of confusion, anachronisms and noise

 

[Doctor Strange]

Gotta disagree, I'm not a big fan of that version. It's way too mannered and stolid. If you don't already venerate the novel before seeing it, this movie won't convert you.

Of course, the Baz Luhrmann version is far too frenetic and overdone. But buried beneath the bombast, annoying contemporary music, and retina-burning production design is a reasonably solid adaptation of the story with a more interesting cast than the earlier film. (I avoided it theatrically, expecting to seriously hate it. But it surprised me.)

 

[Fading Fast]

Gotta disagree, I'm not a big fan of that version. It's way too mannered and stolid. If you don't already venerate the novel before seeing it, this movie won't convert you.

Of course, the Baz Luhrmann version is far too frenetic and overdone. But buried beneath the bombast, annoying contemporary music, and retina-burning production design is a reasonably solid adaptation of the story with a more interesting cast than the earlier film. (I avoided it theatrically, expecting to seriously hate it. But it surprised me.)

The negatives of the '13 version you highlight so well made it impossible for me to enjoy the story underneath - it was like someone was playing a boom box loudly as I tried to listen to the book on audio.

I think we are close in opinion on the '74 version as your elegantly worded "mannered and stolid" comment is a more astute version of my "slow and sleepy." I also agree that you have to be a fan of the book to enjoy the movie - otherwise, you'd be thinking, what is all the fuss with this Daisy about?

In part it's because so much of the book's power comes from the overall backstory and emotional hold (sickness) Daisy has over Gatsby. But those elements are only revealed slowly in the movie and by the time you get there, you're too bored to care if you weren't already, as you said, converted.

As a fan of the book, I enjoyed the visual of the '74 movie - which is stunning - and its faithfulness to the book, but as noted, fully recognize that it comes across flat. Just saying it again, in the movie, Daisy is so obviously unworthy of a ten-year fixation that it makes you lose interest as you think - this Gatsby fella's just stupid.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Guess I should state for the record again that I don't grovel before the book as THE GREATEST AMERICAN NOVEL either. I'm more of a Sinclair Lewis guy. So let's say I have far less passionate feelings about how the story is adapted. Agreed that the '13 version is insanely overwrought... but I find that preferable to the '74 version, which always struck me as stilted and dull.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Two strange recent films on Amazon last night:

Wiener-Dog - Follows the titular dog through four owners and their stories. Very uneven (like Julie Delpy's attempt at an American accent in the first story!), but it has its moments. I don't know what message/feeling you're supposed to take away from this one, it's a pretty weird flick.

Elvis and Nixon - Imagines what happened at their famous 1970 Oval Office meeting... where Elvis requests being made an undercover-agent-at-large to infiltrate the hippie counterculture! This was better than I was expecting, mostly because Michael Shannon(!) is just great as Elvis. (Nixon has a much smaller role, and Kevin Spacey's performance veers closer to caricature.) This would make a great double feature with another what-really-happened-with-Nixon comedy, Dick (1999).

 

[Fading Fast]

"Somewhere I'll Find You" 1942 staring Clark Gable and Lana Turner.

• A combined WWII propaganda film and love triangle where the propaganda is heavy-handed (to be fair though, what '42 propaganda film wasn't?), but the real excess was the ridiculously confusing gamesmanship in the love triangle

• Gable and his brother play reporters both, at times, vying for Turner's - also a reporter - affections
  • But Gable, the older brother, sometimes seems to be trying to show his younger brother that Turner's not a "good" women, sometimes he seems to be going after her for himself, sometimes he seems to just want to bed her, sometimes he wants to marry her and all of that gets cycled and repeated too many times to keep it straight
  • And while the younger brother plays it right down the fairway - he wants to marry Turner - Turner is also all over the map - good woman / hates Gable / loves Gable / bad women and on and on
  • After awhile, I didn't care as long as the younger brother - the only one not playing a game - didn't get hurt

• The war / propaganda story is pretty good - shows the US attitude toward the war prior to Pearl Harbor as being mixed (which it was) and then, as a propaganda film does, becomes "we're all in" once Dec 7th happens

• The time-travel / period details are great - the clothes, cars, architecture, etc. are Fedora Lounge fun (the vacuum tube message system and dictaphone were office scene treats)

• Gable will always be a mystery to me. I know he was the "king" of Hollywood and the box office receipts back that up - and there is no question he can power through dialogue and is a presence on screen - but he always comes off as acting to me. He's always playing Gable - the big, powerful, (in his mind) sexual man. And his gestures always seem scaled to the theater, but too loud, too obvious for film.

 

[belfastboy]

"Christine"....the movie about the TV news person that shot herself on camera. Overall a decent movie although they (why do they do that when the real story is compelling enough?) change certain elements supposedly for dramatic effect.