What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Edward]

I too enjoyed Batman vs. Superman moreso than most. I also enjoyed it more than that which I have seen of the Justice League film. I have yet to be able sit through all of it. I am not a big fan of Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. I do like Henry Cavill as Superman and Ben Affleck as Batman.

Eisenberg I found a perfect casting - mendacious and hateful, grating and self-obsessed.... but then given how well he played Mark Zuckerberg, I don't find it at all hard to see him as a villain.

Finished the film last night; I loved the parallel deaths of Superman and Clark Kent.

 

[Fading Fast]

After the '34 enforcement of the movie production code, many great, many good and many just okay movies were still made, but some movies were strangled to death by it, such as 1935's In Person staring Ginger Rogers and George Brent.

Starting off with the silly, but not-horrible, premise that Rogers, as movie star Carol Corliss, had a nervous breakdown and was "hiding" by only appearing in public in a disguise of a bad wig, buck teeth and coke-bottle glasses that made her genuinely not attractive and unrecognizable.

From there, all the code-enforced stupidity takes over. She accidentally meets Brent's character - Emory Muir, a young, eligible, handsome psychiatrist who is, oddly, somewhat attracted to Corliss in disguise. After a serious of not-believable coincidences, Brent takes the still-in-disguise Corliss to his mountain cabin for her to recover where he can professionally watch over her medical progress while he has a fishing vacation. Conveniently for the code, he has two cabins at his disposal as, God forbid, this unchaperoned couple slept under the same roof.

The subtext at this point is that Corliss is falling for Muir while he is curious but not really interested in her. Then, he accidentally discovers who she is when she (believability is not a big part of this movie) decides to go swimming out of disguise early one morning. Just a note, Rogers in '35 is a stunning slip of a woman who - code or not - was tucked into a, for the time, small bikini that showed a body ready to more than hold its own with any of the surgery-and-gym-perfected ones of today's starlets.

And here's were it gets even sillier. For some unexplainable reason, Muir, who has been a bit dismissive of Corliss' advances, becomes almost hostile to them. Reality check: a young, single man isolated in nature with what he just discovers is a beautiful woman who is attracted to him doesn't become antagonistic toward her, he - what does he do, oh yeah - has as much sex with her as is humanly possible until the vacation ends - be it 1935 or 2019, humans aren't cars and the model doesn't change much decade to decade.

Instead, more silly hijinks and misunderstandings ensue until as - and this happens often in code-enforced movies - the stars go from fighting and never wanting to see each other again to finding a conveniently available judge to marry them so that the movie can end happily and we can imagine the stars finally having all the sex - now, sanctified by marriage - that they would have had in the real world much earlier on.

There's only one reason to watch this code-mangled movie - a young, coruscating Rogers (and that bikini scene).

 

[Touchofevil]

North by Northwest on TCM. Always entertaining, hence the reason for its numerous viewings.
Underworld on IFC. Another movie I have seen many times andfind more entertaining than most.

 

[bluesmandan]

Temple of Doom. My daughter (almost 5) liked it. Even though it was scary. I fid have to cover her eyes at parts!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bushman]

Temple of Doom. My daughter (almost 5) liked it. Even though it was scary. I fid have to cover her eyes at parts!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was a little older than her when I first saw the movie. I'd already seen Raiders and loved every minute of it, but never seen the sequels. I freaked when the guy was being lowered into the pit and his heart burst into flame.

 

[AmateisGal]

Is the former as questionable viz gender politics as the trailer made it look?

No, I wouldn't say that it is. For me, it focused more on women's self-image and how some of us think we need to look like the models in the catalogs (which is ridiculous as they're mostly Photoshopped). I thought it was a pretty good message.

 

[bluesmandan]

I was a little older than her when I first saw the movie. I'd already seen Raiders and loved every minute of it, but never seen the sequels. I freaked when the guy was being lowered into the pit and his heart burst into flame.

Yeah, that was one of the eye covering parts.

The scene when they were eating snakes and bugs and monkey brains was great! She had some wonderful gross out reactions while I teased her about what we were gonna have for dinner next!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Edward]

Temple of Doom. My daughter (almost 5) liked it. Even though it was scary. I fid have to cover her eyes at parts!

ToD was the first one I saw, in the cinema. I'd never heard of Indiana Jones before (though I'd see all the TV take-offs, not knowing that's what they were - Tales of the Gold Monkey, Bring 'em Back Alive and the rest) that night. I was about two months off turning ten; my brother would have been seven. That Summer, we spent most night sleeping out in a tent in the garden. The kid whose family took us to see it ducked out of a tent stay that night, but we were (much to my parents' surprise) absolutely fine. Not sure why.... the heart-ripping was pretty full-on (much more so than anything in any of the other films), though the rest of it wasn't a million miles off Roald Dahl, of whom w were fans, so.

No, I wouldn't say that it is. For me, it focused more on women's self-image and how some of us think we need to look like the models in the catalogs (which is ridiculous as they're mostly Photoshopped). I thought it was a pretty good message.

I was put off by the trailer at the time, which seemed to suggest that the humour lay in the fact that woman who isn't fat (but society deems she is) thinks she is attractive, and that's the butt of the joke. (I had similar issues with Shallow Hal, which I have actually seen in full.) Good to hear that the trailer was misrepresentative. (Though it would be nice if, one day, they actually did a film like this with a woman who genuinely was larger... granted, in context, that may be the point, of course).

 

[Fading Fast]

The last hour of 2015's "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." which only gets better every time I see it as I now have the modestly complex and not-that-important plot down and can just enjoy the incredible style and insouciant dialogue.

 

[Zombie_61]

The last hour of 2015's "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." which only gets better every time I see it as I now have the modestly complex and not-that-important plot down and can just enjoy the incredible style and insouciant dialogue.

I never watched the television series, but I had heard of it and understood the premise so I watched the movie when it was broadcast on cable/satellite. I liked it for what it was, but I remember thinking Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer didn't quite have the necessary chemistry for the "buddy cop" vibe they were aiming for.

 

[Doctor Strange]

A dissenting view of The Man From U.N.C.L.E.: I HATED that film. As an original fan of the sixties series who was looking forward to it, I thought it did everything - EVERYTHING - wrong.

It did a terrible job of "honoring" the original series, especially failing at doing the central thing that made it cool in the sixties (spies from the enemy USA and USSR who worked together as friends). Besides underperforming at the box office, it utterly failed at establishing a new franchise to younger folks who didn't know the old TV show. And while the cast was certainly attractive, I didn't feel that anybody had ANY chemistry with anybody else. It exemplifies everything I hate about Guy Ritchie's movies: a bunch of cool pseudo-criminal bros having a gas in an illogical, style-over-substance mess. Ugh.

 

[Fading Fast]

Play It Again Sam from 1972 has the Woody Allen core-story element - an insecure neurotic about everything in life mainly focuses on having sex with this or that (or several) woman and then obsesses over every detail whether it works out or not.

While it feels almost formulaic Allen today - as we've seen some version of this movie several times in almost every decade since - it probably felt fresh and edgy when it came out. My only real complaint with it is the gimmick of having Allen's character speak to Humphrey Bogart for inspiration and guidance becomes tired and forced as the movie goes along. It's a good idea pushed too far.

Another good idea pushed too far in it is Allen's real-estate wheeler-dealer friend obsessively calling in his phone number from wherever he is so that he can be reached - it's funny until it gets old. That said, it did remind me of a time when people did that or called to check their answering service multiple times a day.

 

[Zombie_61]

Just finished watching Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970) on TCM. I'd guess those familiar with the facts of the attack could pick it apart, but from a "moviegoer" perspective I think this is one of the better movies made about it. The visual effects are surprisingly good for a movie produced in the late-1960s (if you can overlook the lack of glass in the close-up shots of the fighter plane cockpit frames), and it makes no one-sided statements about the war, the countries involved, the politics of the day, or anything of the sort; for all intents and purposes a relatively straight telling of the event.

 

[Worf]

Just finished watching Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970) on TCM. I'd guess those familiar with the facts of the attack could pick it apart, but from a "moviegoer" perspective I think this is one of the better movies made about it. The visual effects are surprisingly good for a movie produced in the late-1960s (if you can overlook the lack of glass in the close-up shots of the fighter plane cockpit frames), and it makes no one-sided statements about the war, the countries involved, the politics of the day, or anything of the sort; for all intents and purposes a relatively straight telling of the event.

One of my faves. Great practical special effects! The minute by minute tension of the Japanese trying to decode their "ultra matem" was riveting. The mistake made, the blunders shown... it's all there. The failure of the Japanese to blow up the fuel depot (which would've caused much more damage than the rest of the attack put together) or catch any of the U.S. Carriers in port was a key failure. As was the failure of getting the warnings fully up and down the chain of command in time for the U.S. to mount a proper defense. This movie was made BEFORE the whole "Roosevelt knew and let the fleet get bombed" conspiracy became widespread soo.. you'll have to decide if Roosevelt's move to put the fleet there (a move widely criticized by some admirals) was deliberate bait for the Japanese to attack and push a neutral America into the war. Great film!

Worf

 

[LizzieMaine]

Pre-screened "Stan and Ollie," which begins a week's run tonight.

Much has been said about the uncanny reproduction of the real Laurel and Hardy by Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly in this biopic focusing on their last stage tour before Hardy's illness-forced retirement, but until you actually see it on the screen you'll find it hard to believe. But they really do channel the original performers, right down to a precise reproduction of that spasmodic early-talkie comic timing from L&H's films. Reilly, in particular, is absolutely spectacular, even under about a hundred pounds of fat suit and facial prosthetics. Coogan is perhaps a bit less exact, but that's just quibbling -- let's just say the real Stan Laurel would have appreciated his performance very much.

The story is simplified for dramatic purposes, with a bit of compression, a bit of exaggeration, and perhaps a bit of outright fabrication, but that's par for the course. The meat of the picture is an exploration of what Laurel and Hardy *meant* to each other, as performers and as human beings, and in achieving that it accomplishes its goal quite well. The supporting performances are a mixed bag -- Shirley Henderson, as Hardy's wife Lucillie is so focused on recreating the real life Mrs. Hardy's distinctive helium voice that her line readings suffer in places, while Nina Arianda's borscht-thick Russian accent as Laurel's wife Ida treads the thin line between authenticity and hilarity. But for the most part, the wives complement the husbands as, in the words of L&H's impresario in the film, "two double acts for the price of one."

The period recreation is understated but well-done, although the early scenes on the Hal Roach lot are a bit more lavish than the actual Roach lot ever was -- I don't recall any Egyptian or Roman spectaculars filming there in 1937, although I would have paid good money to see Lyda Roberti and Patsy Kelly team up in "Cleopatra's Needles" or something like that. The portrayal of Hal Roach himself was a bit of a caricature, although he needs to be an antagonist in the scene he's in, and you can say that he does accomplish that.

I advise actually seeking out and watching a selection of real Laurel and Hardy material, especially "County Hospital" and "Way Out West," so you can do the comparisons for yourself. It's a good picture for anyone, but if you're a comedy buff it's especially worthwhile.

 

[Haversack]

Just watched Its a Wonderful World (1939) last night. I've had it on DVD for some time but hadn't really watched it. It stars James Stewart and Claudette Colbert. If I had to classify it, I would call it 'Screwball Noir'. Stewart plays a P.I. tasked with guarding a wealthy man. When his client is framed for murder, Stewart hides him out while he in turn tries to crack the case. He fails and is sentenced to prison as an accessory and his client is to sent to the Chair. While being escorted to Sing-Sing, he discovers a clue and jumps from the train to clear his client, (and get the $100K promised by his client for doing so). All good Noir stuff so far. Its then he meets Claudette Colbert's poetess and it all goes screwball. Rather like how Spike Jones and his City Slickers would start on a number playing it straight for a page or two and then go sideways with it. (e.g. Laura).

 

[belfastboy]

Watched a TCM offering last night..."Billy Budd" the Peter Ustinov vanity project based on the play not the book. This is a great film that has aged so very well. Terence Stamp is a marvel as is Ustinov. Robert Ryan almost over the top as the bad guy. But it tackles some big themes and handles them well. I did not realize how much they had sexed up the play and in many ways made it a more compelling drama than the book....and I love Melville's writing.

 

[AmateisGal]

All About Eve which only gets better with every viewing.

 

[1967Cougar390]

Yesterday evening I watched The Scene of the Crime staring Van Johnson. It is a good film noir movie that has the feel of a more modern police TV show. Lieutenant Mike Conovan, head of the homicide detective squad, when his former and a member of his squad is murdered while off-duty and carrying $1,000. Trying to find out who’s responsible for the murder leads to night clubs and gambling halls. It’s an enjoyable movie with good story.

Steven

 

[Zombie_61]

Currently watching Bonnie and Clyde (1967) on TCM. I've mentioned this somewhere here before, but this was the first movie I saw in a theater when I was six years old. It plays more than a little fast and loose with the facts, and some scenes and plot points are complete fabrications, but I still like it warts and all.