What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Fading Fast]

^^^Alastair Sim and George C Scott are my favorite Ebenezer Scrooge cast.

I'm partial to the Sim version, but (as noted above) the Stewart version is good as is the '38 one by Reginald Owen.

And for a modern (well, 1960s) riff on "A Christmas Carol," the movie "Cash on Demand" has Peter Cushing in the crypto Scrooge role. It's a thoroughly enjoyable movie, comments on it here: #27268

 

[LizzieMaine]

Not a movie, but my radio reading of "A Christmas Carol" is available here.

 

[Julian Shellhammer]

Personal choice is the Alastair Sim version. Michael Hordern as the ghost of Jacob Marley is stunning. If you have not seen the film, it is well worth the time.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Personally I find that 1938 version of A Christmas Carol unwatchable.

I'm not a fan of the 1970 musical Scrooge either, though Albert Finney makes a valiant effort. (Same with Michael Caine in the Muppets version.)

And I'm somewhat underwhelmed by the Patrick Stewart version... Apparently the real thing to see was his earlier one-man theatrical reading of the story "in which he became every character, right down to the pudding singing in the kettle" as I recall the NYC reviews said.

I love the Sim and Scott versions equally - one earlier Noirish b/w, one later classy TV color - both are excellent adaptations/productions with great casts. The Sim version was my favorite before the 1984 adaptation was made.

George C. Scott is so good that you don't even notice he's the only actor in the film without a British accent, and David Warner is my favorite Bob Cratchet - a rare good guy role for this villain specialist. His delivery of the speech about visiting Tiny Tim's grave in the future sequence always gets me ferklempt!

I also have a soft spot for Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol. A surprisingly good telling with better original songs than the 1970 musical.

 

[Fading Fast]

The Seventh Victim from 1943 with Kim Hunter, Tom Conway and Jean Brooks

• TCM film-noir host Eddie Muller (whom I enjoy as a commentator) had a lot of positive things to say about this one - subtle acting, early psychological thriller where the horror is implied but not shown (true), effectively an antecedent to Rosemary's Baby and a haunting closing scene

• Um, sure, yeah, it has some faint echo of Rosemary's Baby as both have a group of NYC elites who are devil worshipers, but that's about it for parallels

• As to all the rest of his praise, maybe his professional eye is seeing things I'm not, as the movie moves at a slow and disjointed pace with uneven directing where several scenes felt independent from the rest of the movie

• Overall, the story is confusing and boring: a sister, looking for her missing sister in NYC, discovers that her sister, who has weird suicidal tendencies, is/was a member of the aforementioned devil-worshiping cult. And with everyone's motives hidden for so long, you all but don't care when they are finally revealed

• Lead Kim Hunter's acting, which Mr. Mueller saw as subtle and reactive, struck me as somnambulant to the point that I thought she might have been on some sort of prescribed sedative during the filming

• I'm not a horror-film guy, so maybe this is an early entry in the genre that has all these subtly brilliant features that will later become part of the horror-film canon, but I just saw an awkward movie, unevenly directed, with a mishmash of a story and mediocre acting - and almost none of it was scary.

 

[Doctor Strange]

No, it's not an exciting film, but it's an odd, interesting one. The idea of Greenwich Village cults, and the moody dread of the film, were something new at the time.

You didn't mention Val Lewton - the producer who was responsible for this run of low-budget but very intelligent thrillers at RKO directed by future biggies like Robert Wise (who honed the techniques he'd brilliantly deploy later in The Haunting in these films). It's an interesting set of psychologically sophisticated films - Cat People, The Body Snatcher, I Walked with a Zombie, Isle of the Dead, Curse of the Cat People, etc. That is, to those of us who seriously studied classic horror films, it represents an uniquely different approach to the genre ascending as the second wave of classic Universal monsters were petering out.

Trivia note: The opening scene at the girls school was shot on the huge staircase set built for the mansion in The Magnificent Ambersons. RKO reused that set every chance they could to try and make up for that costly film's failure.

Trivia note 2: Tom Conway was George Sanders brother and played the same kind of erudite, often vaguely villainous roles.

 

[Julian Shellhammer]

And, a little earlier than usual, we watched A Christmas Story, because the grandkids wanted to. A couple of generations calling out their favorite lines and laughing before the next scene came on was delightful.

 

[Trenchfriend]

I think, "Amen" is still one of the best movies about NS-Germany and Holocaust. Like in "Alien", the horror is mostly in your imagination!

And Ulrich Tukur <> Ulrich Mühe.

Thriller!

 

[Fading Fast]

Winter Meeting from 1948 with Bette Davis, Jim Davis and John Hoyt.

At some point, actors become too old for certain roles, but usually, stars overstay their welcome in the type of character that has propelled them to fame. Also, movies need to be about something, which is usually a conflict between ideas, people or events.

In Winter Meeting, we see Bette Davis having overstayed her welcome in the role of the young, smart, pretty socialite, in this case, with an aversion to marriage. The young-socialite role is one she played many, many times in her twenties and thirties, but now, in her early forties, it's forced and not believable.

Here she plays a wealthy Manhattan dilettante poetess (it's nice to have a substantial trust fund behind you) who, at the end of the war, meets a moody and aloof WWII naval hero, Jim Davis. Instead of acknowledging their age difference, we are just supposed to accept Ms. Davis as a woman in her twenties. She might be the best movie actress ever, but even she can't act twenty years off her real age.

Even putting that aside, we are left with a movie without much story or conflict. Moody Jim Davis and hesitant-to-love Bette Davis, in theory, are too angsty soles who find comfort in each other, but their love affair struggles to take flight owing to some unknown internal conflict each has.

The bulk of the movie is watching each lead try to draw the past secrets out of the other so that they can overcome their inner demons and embrace their new love affair. That effort takes way too long - extended kitchen conversations, a trip to a country house, exhausting fireside chats - and then offers up challenges that are not dramatic.

(Spoiler alerts) Bette Davis' wealthy, socially proper minister father married a working-class Irish Catholic girl, Davis' mother, who proceeds to have affairs and finally abandons him and Davis - the shame! Meanwhile, Jim Davis has struggled since he was a teenager with a desire to become a priest (I know, what!?, it comes out of nowhere), but an uncertainty if it is the right path for him. Additionally, he dislikes that his heroic war efforts are being used by the media and Washington for propaganda reasons. That's it, those are the two big secrets that torture these struggling lovers.

Sure, there's a bit of a connection between Bette Davis' embarrassment over her Catholic mother's behavior and Jim Davis' desire to become a priest and, yes, he helps to minister her through her guilt and anger, but by now the movie has gone on for almost an hour and a half. And even then, the angst kinda continues and the resolution, I'll leave that for those who want to see it, is pat and unsatisfying.

But there are two bright spots. One is the 1940's version of east-coast elitism on display throughout as Bette Davis and her snarky sophisticated friend, businessman John Hoyt, look down on all things not east-coast establishment and money, like the Midwest roots of war-hero Jim Davis. It's only hinted at here, but Hoyt's character, today, would loudly proclaim his homosexuality as he is, and there's no other word for it, bitchier than Davis is when looking down his elitist nose at everything from how someone holds a fork to who their parents are. Bette Davis and he have a friendship chemistry that, unfortunately, never develops between her and Jim Davis.

The other bright spot, and it's a very inside-baseball thing is Davis' voice and delivery. By this point in her career, she had perfected her acting voice: a subtler but as distinct a voice as Cary Grant's. Her diction and inflection are all her own as she constantly varies her speaking pace and cadence, from long pauses to rapid-fire delivery, all the while bringing her idiosyncratic pronunciation as words and vowels seem to go through some sort of high-brow nasal filter before coming out. The result is an incredible ability to project complex emotions - and condescension - with nothing more than the delivery of a few words and a look to match.

Unfortunately, neither Hoyt's performance nor Davis's voice are enough to wake up this sleepy effort where Bette Davis is too old for the role and the conflicts too mild to carry nearly two hours of movie.

 

[Touchofevil]

Tomorrow is Another Day (1951) on TCM’s Noir Alley this morning with my big cup of coffee. Not great, but not bad. Definitely worth the viewing. Unfortunately, I came in to it a little late; I wasn’t paying attention to the time. I especially enjoyed the cinematography of the outdoor scenes. I will try to catch it from the beginning sometime.

 

[Doctor Strange]

The Old Guard on Netflix. Mainly an action flick about a group of immortal warriors (with Wolverine-like instant healing/revival) who've "done the right thing" for thousands of years in the service of humanity, with Charlize Theron as their eldest and leader. The modern world has become harder for them to remain hidden, and an EVIL TECH MAGNATE wants to capture them to discover the secret to their immortality and monetize it.

An okay addition to the "secret immortals" genre with a typically good performance by Theron and well-done fight sequences. Though a standalone, it clearly sets up a possible sequel film or series.

 

[Trenchfriend]

The Great Escape (1963), right now.

 

[Fading Fast]

The Racket from 1951 with Robert Ryan, Robert Mitchum, Lizabeth Scott and Ray Collins

This crime-drama film noir offers, for the early '50s, a surprisingly frank and nuanced look at political corruption via mob influence in local politics and policing. To be sure, it's wrapped up neatly and nicely, but audiences, then and now, can see past the code-approved packaging.

That frankness and nuance start with local mob boss, Robert Ryan - an old school rough-'em-up-or-kill-'em boss - who is somehow now part of a national mob syndicate that has influence at the highest level of the (never named) city's political leadership. And it's presented here not as a-bad-apple-or-two type of corruption, but a web of crookedness - graft, fraud, bribery, shady land deals - going up to the mayor and, maybe, state governor where even judgeships are handed out as political favors and crimes swept under the rug when necessary.

Fighting the good fight is incorruptible police captain Robert Mitchum and his small band of honest officers who have been banished to a marginal precinct. The real-world nuance here is that, while the powers that be don't like Mitchum, they know that, with the press watching, they have to deal with him in a somewhat above-board manner. Similarly, Mitchum notes that the district attorney is far from honest, but he "sometimes wants to be a good guy," so Mitchum compromises and tries to work with him. It's real world stuff where heroes and villains aren't all good or bad and principles have to bend a bit to reality to get anything done.

With those pieces in place, Mitchum goes about trying to bring down mob-boss Ryan and, maybe, expose the larger web of corruption. Meanwhile, Ryan, who hates Mitchum on principle (Mitchum can't be bought), is also angry that the new mob syndicate wants him to rein in his violent ways and compromise more with the local politicians.

From here, the story pivots around a trumped-up gun-possession charge against Ryan's brother - a stupid young man who gets involved with a nightclub singer, Lizabeth Scott - and a naive reporter being played by Mitchum. In response to the charge against his brother, Ryan loses his cool by trying to use both his political connections and bullying personality to free his sibling. In another example of the movie's moral ambiguity, Mitchum steps over the line of legal actions to expose Ryan - writs get torn up, people are held on false charges and lawyers are kept at bay while suspects are aggressively interrogated.

It's a film noir world where even the good guys need to get some dirt on them to get the job done. In the end, Ryan does get his, but the larger political corruption is left unexposed. Mitchum explains all this to a demoralized newbie officer as being a fight that is never over. He avers, you don't win it all on one day, but, in a closing code-approved speech, Mitchum says that (paraphrasing) "while the machine of justice often gets some sand in it, it still grinds on to eventually right itself."

Maybe, but audiences probably saw that his speech is at odds with the movie's real message of a more difficult battle against both a national crime syndicate and a corrupt political organization. For 1951, it's a pretty frank look at big-city politics and mob activity. And it's all inside a solid noir with plenty of action - bombs, car chases, gun fights, a high body count and everybody throwing punches. Finally, it has a lot of star power and is all filmed in beautiful and crisp black and white.


N.B., I'm a fan of film-noir regular Lizabeth Scott, however, here, she seems a bit unsure of herself in the role of a nightclub singer trying to do the right thing - help Mitchum - perhaps because she's used to doing the wrong thing of just going along with all the corruption.

 

[Bushman]

Last night I watched "Elf", which in spite of Will Ferrell's antics, still manages to be a heart warming Christmas movie. I've never been a fan of Will Ferrell's "loud" form of comedy, but this one always does manage to get a few good laughs out of me, and really has the true spirit of a Christmas movie.

Then I watched Bill Murray's "Scrooged." Despite loving the '80s Ghostbuster movies, I've not really seen a whole lot of Murray's '80s resume outside of Caddyshack and the remake of "Little Shop of Horrors." I found a cable channel doing a Murray marathon, and recorded a bunch of his movies including "Scrooged" and "Groundhog's Day". Amazingly, my aunt lived in Woodstock for a few decades, and I've been to the famous square many times despite having never seen the movie. Anyway, with "Scrooged," while the movie seems to get the "gist" of the story (stingy rich guy scared into being charitable by 3 Christmas spirits), the characterizations and overall plot just... aren't there for me.

I understand that this movie is meant to be a modernized take on the tale, but there's several characters that I don't quite understand how they're meant to fit into the story, and many of the already established characters are nigh unrecognizable to their traditional origins. For example, I don't understand how Eliot Loudermilk is meant to fit into the larger story other than being a catalyst. His character seems to be utterly superfluous and could have easily been merged into Grace's character, who is the modernized Bob Cratchit. In fact, his inclusion in the story as a whole seems based solely on the need to give Bobcat Goldthwait something to do. Other characters, like the Ghost of Christmas Present, have become twisted forms of themselves. In the given case, the noble and proud Spirit of Christmas Present is turned into a clumsy and even abusive fool played by Carol Kane. While the performance is funny, I think the writing could have definitely been a lot more suiting of Kane's talent beyond mere slapstick.

In the end, Murray's turn is almost as shallow as the live production he's managing. He shows random concern for a child he was so ready to literally toss out the door mere hours earlier, but otherwise shows no interest in a change of heart even during the Ghost of Christmas Future's warning. It's not until he returns to his time and is staring down the twin barrels of Loudermilk's shotgun that he seems to show any change. And even then, it's almost as if it's an act to save his own skin. That only makes his live television rant for goodwill towards men all the more unbelievable in the close of the film.

In all, I really didn't care for this interpretation.

 

[Doctor Damage]

"Streets Of Fire", a Walter Hill film from the early 1980s, billed as an action/musical. I picked this up on dvd several months ago but didn't get around to watching it until a couple nights ago. I loved it!! Okay, it's flawed in some ways, but there are some great scenes, and Hill (and his photographer) was not afraid to film lots of night scenes, and the concert scenes and the biker bar musical scenes are outstanding.

 

[Fading Fast]

"Streets Of Fire", a Walter Hill film from the early 1980s, billed as an action/musical. I picked this up on dvd several months ago but didn't get around to watching it until a couple nights ago. I loved it!! Okay, it's flawed in some ways, but there are some great scenes, and Hill (and his photographer) was not afraid to film lots of night scenes, and the concert scenes and the biker bar musical scenes are outstanding.

I saw it on cable back in the '80s and a couple of times since and never quite know what to make of it. As you said, it's flawed, but somehow it's also engaging. It was billed as a "Rock and Roll Fable -" whatever that means, but that's a good description of this quirky flick. Plus, Diane Lane.

 

[MisterCairo]

The Cairo Christmas Cavalcade of Christian Characters started prior to my leaving on TD at the Canadian Army Command and Staff College, with Christmas with the Kranks and Elf. Recent viewings on return include the Saturday Night Live Christmas special dvd, with the infamous Schwetty balls NPR skit. On Sunday last we went out to the great outdoors, well, Benjamin Tree Farms, Waterloo, Ontario, and got our old fashioned family Christmas tree, so naturally it was the "hap, hap happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap danced with Danny f*@#$%g Kaye" that evening with the Griswolds!

 

[Fading Fast]

Three from TCM's Sean Connery Day.



Thunderball from 1965

While still a decent Bond effort, the "cartoonification" of Bond advanced a lot with this one (the jetpack was painfully forced and the quips seemed cheesier). Of course, Bond was always an adult cartoon, but the first three movies had an intimacy and scale that almost made them kinda sorta believable.

Also, the pace was a touch slower in those early ones, which made them feel more like a story and less like a series of scenes as Thunderball does. And while this is not a fault of the later ones, we were still being introduced to 007 in those first three, which felt fresh, but by this one, it's all pretty much old hat.

Oddly, this is also the first one where Connery's toupee, to my eye, was clearly visible in every scene, which all but kills Bond's "cool" factor. It's hard to look super-spy suave wearing a hair hat.

I did like the theme song to Thunderball more than I remember, but the story left me indifferent. Again, it's a good effort, just not up there with the first three.



You Only Live Twice from 1967

I'd repeat most of my comments from above for this one as well, but I did enjoy its view of mid-'60s Japan a lot. Also, Bond's relationship with both of the Japanese women was more mature and equal - for a Bond movie - than I had remembered from my long-ago viewing of this one.

Both women held their own intellectually and in physical skill with Bond, more so than some of the Bond women from the earlier or later ones. These women gave as good as they got from the super spy.

More broadly, considering how supine Japan was in 1945, what it had accomplished in twenty years was quite obvious and impressive. But the story felt like a retread of Goldfinger, just in Japan and with space capsules not a precious metal.

I get it, you can only do so much with a spy story and the first three had a newness that later ones simply couldn't match. That said, give it five or more years and I'll happily watch this one and Thunderball again.

Marnie from 1964

If you learn nothing else from this overwrought psychological Hitchcock drama, it is this: Rule number one when meeting a deeply psychologically damaged person is to try to get them professional help and rule number two is to not marry them. That's it; it's not hard, but Connery's character ignores both of those simple rules and spends the next two hours in a whirlwind of crazy.

After wealthy publishing magnate and amateur sociologist Connery marries a thieving and aloof Tippi Hedren in the worst case of wounded-bird-rescue syndrome ever, he tries to "fix" her. For no apparent reason, he's decided that she is really a good person who will make a loving wife, despite her kleptomania and being repulsed by a man's touch, if he can just figure out the root cause of her psychological problem.

This beautifully stylized Hitchcock effort didn't do as well at the boxoffice as several of his other films as most viewers were probably just annoyed that Connery had taken on this completely unnecessary effort. It's hard to root for the hero when you think he's an idiot.

Heck, initially, you think Connery's sister-in-law, Diana Baker, (Connery's a widower in this one) is just a conniving little witch, who wants Connery for his money. But after watching Hedren twist Connery into knots in their sexless marriage and seeing that Baker is a just a garden-variety tribalist - she'll lie, cheat and steal to get her way, but if you are part of her tribe, she'll fight ferociously to protect you - you wish he had just married her. She has her morality issues, but he could have managed through those. And she made it clear to him that she's not frigid.

As to all the Freud and dream stuff that, no surprise, is behind Hedren's psychosis, it seemed pretty by the numbers if a bit dated by 1964. Despite the movie's serious issues, it is, as noted, Hitchcock beautiful and has enough of the master's touch to make it well worth the watch. And, thankfully, the good toupee was still being used on Connery in this one.

 

[Lew Decker]

Verna: What're you chewin' over?

Tom Reagan: Dream I had once. I was walkin' in the woods, I don't know why. Wind came up and blew me hat off.

Verna: And you chased it, right? You ran and ran, finally caught up to it and you picked it up. But it wasn't a hat anymore and it changed into something else, something wonderful.

Tom Reagan: Nah, it stayed a hat and no, I didn't chase it. Nothing more foolish than a man chasin' his hat.

 

[Julian Shellhammer]

The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) with Michael Caine as E. Scrooge, and the entire Muppets repertory. It is not A Christmas Carol, done by the Muppets, it's the Muppets doing A Christmas Carol; Muppet humor, established Muppet characters barely inhabiting their roles, Muppet to Muppet interplay just like the tv show. In other words, a really funny take on the classic book. We laughed a lot-