What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Cuvier]

You all have me on a classic movie kick. Last week it was China, then Death on the Nile, Dick Tracy's Dilemma, Dick Tracy meets gruesome, and another Tracy film but I forget what it was called. Then last night I watched The Untouchables.

 

[Fading Fast]

Madame Racketeer from 1932 with Alison Skipworth, J. Farrell MacDonald, Richard Bennett, Evalyn Knapp, Gertrude Messinger and George Raft


In the 1930s, mature, heavyset actresses Alison Skipworth and Marie Dressler had a vogue, leading to them starring in several B movies. These movies required some deft story telling, since the women usually played roguish characters with good souls down deep.

Skipworth is probably best known as W. C. Fields' partner, but in Madame Racketeer, we see once again, that this seventy-year-old actress can carry a movie by herself, here playing a confidence woman just out of prison.

Penniless, she goes to stay at the struggling-just-to-get-by inn owned by her ex-husband. He lives there with his and Skipworth's two, now young adult daughters, who do not know that Skipworth is their mother.

Skipworth, unreformed and presenting herself as "The Countess Von Claudwig," immediately starts working a scam on her husband, played by Richard Bennett, and a separate one on the local banker.

She also, though, sincerely wants to see and help her children who believe their "sainted" mother died when they were infants.

One daughter, played by Evalyn Knapp, wants to marry the son of the same banker Skipworth is setting up for a scam, but the banker wants his son to marry a rich girl.

The other daughter, played by Gertrude Messinger, is having an affair with a confidence man, played by a ridiculously young George Raft, presenting himself as a wealthy businessman.

Following Skipworth is a federal officer, played by J. Farrell MacDonald, who's been chasing and arresting Skipworth, off and on, for twenty years. They have a wonderful "adversaries who respect each other despite being on opposite sides of the law" relationship.

With all those pieces in place, the movie is really about Skipworth's brand of sarcastic, but also self-deprecating humor, which includes a lot of under-her-breath asides, jokes at her own expense and some physical / screwball comedy.

Much of the humor feels dated, but still, there are some funny lines even for modern audiences, plus Skipworth's abundant talent is obvious and engaging to this day. You have to marvel at the smooth transition this mature actress made from the stage to the screen.

Her scenes with "nemesis" Farrell are the entertaining antecedent to all the future cop-and-criminal buddy movies, like 48 Hrs., that never go out of style.

The story, itself, a wash-rinse-repeat one, has Skipworth working her scams as she secretly "mothers" her daughters by trying to steer their lives to good outcomes. It's her force-of-will personality that somehow makes everything work.

For some reason, in the 1930s, a couple of matronly looking actresses had, as we say today, "a moment." This produced a lot of small-budget, entertaining films where these unconventional heroines harmlessly scam their way through life, while often doing good deeds.

Madame Racketeer is just another by-the-numbers version of these simple stories. Yet it has a nice message about motherly love and sacrifice, put over by talented Alice Skipworth playing a character who remains unreformed, but lovable to the end.

 

[Edward]

I went to see Barbie yesterday, and enjoyed it immensely. Laughed out loud quite a few times. A surprisingly deft and knowing handling of the material, given its "official" status. Third in a good run I've had at the cinema (after Dial of Destiny and Asteroid City) since having time to go while on holiday, and not having been to the cinema at all since Joker in late 2019. Hoping to catch Oppenheimer tomorrow. Did look at going to the Imax, but it's sold out there until well into next week, and I want to see it before I go back to work on Monday.

 

[FOXTROT LAMONT]

Imax is really the only locale for an epic. Oppenheimer I hear offers its promise with enigma protagonist yet
mystery still novel's end. A tortured soul who for briefest moment shown mortals.

 

[Michiganiac]

Last night I watched To Have and Have Not.

I suspect tonight I'll watch either Key Largo or The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

My discovery of, and subsequent lust for, the Akubra Fed has made me pull out all my Bogart Movies.

Yet to watch: Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep (both versions), Dark Passage, Casablanca, and The African Queen.

I've seen most of them. But it's been a while for all of them.

 

[FOXTROT LAMONT]

Last night I watched To Have and Have Not.

I suspect tonight I'll watch either Key Largo or The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

My discovery of, and subsequent lust for, the Akubra Fed has made me pull out all my Bogart Movies.

Yet to watch: Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep (both versions), Dark Passage, Casablanca, and The African Queen.

I've seen most of them. But it's been a while for all of them.

I'll confess here my love of Ingrid Bergman and absolute adoration for Dorothy Malone.
Casablanca gives a punch to a thinking man's gut should he foolishly fall in love with Ilsa, so be careful
not to make the mistake I did. And Sleep will roll your heart up in a windowshade if you're not equally alert.

 

[Fading Fast]

Jules and Jim from 1962, a François Truffaut film


Jules and Jim, François Truffaut's tale of an offbeat love triangle, set in early twentieth-century France, has a lot of enjoyable style, but somewhere along the way, this nagging thought enters your mind: do I care about any of these self-absorbed, shallow people?

Insecure Jules, played by Oskar Werner, and confident Jim, played by Henri Serre, meet the unstable, free-spirited Catherine, played by Jeanne Moreau. All young at the time, these three then spend decades being all French angsty about their weird love triangle.

Austrian Jules and French Jim meet first and form a genuine friendship. They then meet Catherine who has a crazy, spontaneous, erratic (probably bi-polar), but engaging at times personality. She's more appealing than pretty, but at first, youth is on her side.

The three form a close platonic relationship. Jules, knowing confident Jim could win over Catherine, asks him to not pursue her, so that he, Jules, can. Jim, who has a somewhat girlfriend separate from the group, agrees. Right before the start of WWI, Jules and Catherine marry.

Jules and Jim are on opposite sides of the trenches. In the movie's most touching and honest reflection, both note after the war, how throughout the fighting, their thoughts were dominated by fear that they might kill the other. But both make it home safely.

Years later, they resume their uncommon friendship when Jim visits Jules, Catherine and their infant daughter in their chalet in Germany. Jules tells Jim their marriage is troubled because of Catherine's numerous affairs, including one time when she left for months.

It's now that you start to wonder why these men are so passionate about selfish and, often, mean Catherine. You begin to lose some respect and interest in them as they've gone through enough in life, especially the war, to understand she's not worth it.

It only gets weirder and very 1970s from here. In the ensuing years, Catherine asks Jim to live with them; then, she wants him sexually; then, she wants to marry and have children with him; then, she doesn't want him; then, it loops around a bit differently a few more times.

In the swirl caused by Catherine's ever-changing whims, the men get buffeted emotionally and physically as Catherine quixotically withholds and then gives herself sexually, at different times, to each one of them, as well as to others.

Jules explains to Jim, of all people, that loving Catherine is an ordeal you go through because you want to face the challenge of loving Catherine, not because it's easy. Okay, dude, you have one life to live, if that's how you want to spend it, good luck and Godspeed.

The climax (no spoilers coming) feels a bit rushed, in an otherwise slow-moving movie, and forced, in a French tragic way, but this is a journey not a destination picture with the sweep of their lives and relationship being the point of the film.

Werner's Jules is the movie's most-sympathetic character even though he is often, well, pathetic. He's an addict whose drug is Catherine. Toward the end, and credit to Truffant, the visual of healthy Jules looking like an invalid in a chair with a blanket over his legs says so much.

Henri Serre's Jim is the hardest to understand as he seems smart and confident enough that he would have gotten off the Catherine merry-go-round after a few loops, but he doesn't. The heart and the head don't always see eye to eye.

There's a separate movie to be made (it could still be made today) about Jim's long-suffering girlfriend who was always there for him when he returned, battle scarred, from his latest tumble with Catherine.

In Catherine, Jeanne Moreau creates a spoiled "queen bee" who never grows up. She's arrantly selfish and unaware, but like many narcissists, she created a tiny bubble where she could indulge her ego insulated from the demands of the real world.

Truffaut's French New Wave look has held up well cinematically as the movie is visually engaging in a style-shapes-theme way. Look for the scene when Catherine drives her car in a maze-like loop around a tiny park: it's the movie summed up without words.

Jules and Jim, set at the end of the Romantic Era, can also be seen as a throwback to that Era when love - an unquestioning, all-consuming love that one is willing to die for - was the highest ideal. Jules and Jim also explains, by example, why we quit that Era.

Notable movies like Jules and Jim come with a lot of "iconic film" baggage. But if you put that aside and just watch it like any other movie, it's a flawed but engaging picture that holds you as much with its visual appeal as its intriguing but overwrought characters.

 

[Edward]

This past week I went to see both Barbie and Oppenheimer. On different days - I didn't do the 'Barbenheimer'. I am not become death, destroyer of Barbieworlds.


Barbie is tremendous fun. A lot of great gags, both satirical and visual. The gag around Barbie's feet is wonderfully carried off, and I laughed out loud at a lot of the material around both Barbie and the 'Kendom'. The satire is a lot gentler than it might have been had the film been 'unofficial', but on the other hand it's also able to be much bolder in some respects owing to the support from Mattel. Wonderful cast all round - not least on the part of Robbie and Gosling, who really carry much of the heavy lifting.

Oppenheimer is wonderful also, if in a very different way. Visually stunning, I very much enjoyed the costuming. I'm sure more expert eyes than mine can pick out mistakes, but I enjoyed it very much. Of particular note are Downey Junior's spectacles. He wears several pairs across the film, each reflective of fashion of the era in which the scene takes place. A nice touch. Murphy's tailoring echoes nicely the different time periods. His performance is impressive in fleshing out a man whom it would be all too easy to turn into a cartoon (Manhattan went a little further in emphasising his eccentricities, albeit he was very much a peripheral character in that). It's clearly a sympathetic portrayal, albeit one that I think leaves the viewer still able to make up their own mind on his merits. There are much bigger themes that can be drawn out of course about the clash between the civilian academic and military mindsets. Although left again for the audience to sift that out, I am sure it was deliberate, not least given the brief appearance of Oppenheimer in the military uniform he quickly rejects. In some regards I'm reminded of Liam Neeson's Schindler (albeit the debate on the merits of Oppenheimer's achievement is significantly more nuanced) by the warts and all element of this presentation of Oppy and his affairs. He is not sanitised to be presented as a flawless hero, or even victim of circumstance, here. Downey Junior makes a wonderful villain. I enjoyed a wry chuckle at the nod to conspiracy theories surrounding JFK's assassination. This is one I'll return to when it lands on 'included with Prime' next year.

 

[ChrisDamned]

Seen last night for the first time on a small screen. This movie is magical. The images and sound are breathtaking. Seems pretty true to the story of Elvis to me.

 

[FOXTROT LAMONT]

Loved ELVIS. And that poster.

Saw Oppenheimer at IMAX big screen. Year's best and a classic.

 

[FOXTROT LAMONT]

I enjoyed a wry chuckle at the nod to conspiracy theories surrounding JFK's assassination. This is one I'll return to when it lands on 'included with Prime' next year.

I have considered why such theories exist, why some insist that JFK had to have been felled by conspirators instead
of a lone assassin acting on his own for his singular purpose. Oswald served as an American marine, owned the rifle
used, and had affixed a scope then zeroed his weapon to distance locus. He did said deed, fled locus, later killed a
Dallas police officer. Arrested. Later shot by Jack Ruby. Another denizen of Dallas, albeit a rat from a different alley.
A tragedy but spooled separate actors rather than a sole spider and far from an intricate web these theorists claim.

 

[Edward]

Seen last night for the first time on a small screen. This movie is magical. The images and sound are breathtaking. Seems pretty true to the story of Elvis to me.


View attachment 537547

I'm due a re-viewing of that. Saw it a couple of months ago for the first time. I enjoyed it, though with the caveat that as it's officially sanctioned and was made with the full support and co-operation of the EP estate, it's going to be limited in some aspects. I thought it was very strong in the early stuff, and an interesting (and seemingly accurate) take on Tom Parker. Towards the end, it glosses over an awful lot, not least Elvis' relationship with other women after divorcing Priscilla. Great film, still, even if not the definitive biopic. Such is the control over the Presley IP by EP Enterprises that I very much doubt we'll see a definitive and fully objective version any time soon. The young actor who played Presley was fantastic, especially in the live scenes. The one major flaw I found in terms of telling the legend is that they were clearly so sensitive to the charge that "Elvis stole from black music" that I think the end credit performances, great as they were, somewhat underplayed just how far he influenced such a wide range of music. It's there in hip hop, but other popular music, not least punk rock, was missed out, which was a shame.

I have considered why such theories exist, why some insist that JFK had to have been felled by conspirators instead
of a lone assassin acting on his own for his singular purpose. Oswald served as an American marine, owned the rifle
used, and had affixed a scope then zeroed his weapon to distance locus. He did said deed, fled locus, later killed a
Dallas police officer. Arrested. Later shot by Jack Ruby. Another denizen of Dallas, albeit a rat from a different alley.
A tragedy but spooled separate actors rather than a sole spider and far from an intricate web these theorists claim.

Oswald the illusionist with his magic bullets. I doubt we'll ever get the full truth on that one either way. I've yet to hear any theory, including the 'lone assassin', that could reach the 'beyond all reasonable doubt' standard.

 

[Frunobulax]

Oswald the illusionist with his magic bullets. I doubt we'll ever get the full truth on that one either way. I've yet to hear any theory, including the 'lone assassin', that could reach the 'beyond all reasonable doubt' standard.

Oh, I think we all know what really happend.

 

[FOXTROT LAMONT]

Oswald the illusionist with his magic bullets. I doubt we'll ever get the full truth on that one either way. I've yet to hear any theory, including the 'lone assassin', that could reach the 'beyond all reasonable doubt' standard.

Returns to supposition rather than factual analysis. Oswald, ex-marine fired thrice at Kennedy and hit him twice
using a bolt action scoped rifle. A lone assassin beyond reasonable doubt standard. Flees and later killed a Dallas
cop before arrest. Horrid tragedy no doubt, but evidentiary standard plain and puts paid all laboured conjecture.

 

[Julian Shellhammer]

Two years after his last filmed case, Lt. Chan of the Honolulu Police shows up in Washington, DC, working for the Secret Service, chronicled in 1944's Charlie Chan in the Secret Service. Returning to the screen via Monogram Pictures, with considerably less budgeting, Sidney Toler takes over as Chan, with Marianne Quon as daughter Iris and Benson Fong as son Tommy, Jimmy presumably (a) still at Twentieth Century Fox, or (b) still in the Army.
Set bound for most of the story, we follow the solving of the murder of a brilliant scientist who designs a super-destructive and high-tech torpedo, and who, despite two Secret Service agents assigned as body-guards day and night, is mysteriously killed and his plans for the torpedo are taken.
The suspects had all been invited to the late inventor's house for cocktails, and Chan spends the balance of the movie finding and interpreting clues. In a little more than an hour of screen time Chan overcomes bumbling Federal agents, local police, several attempts on his life, and the shenanigans of his kids to spot the killer. Believe me, it is not who you might think.
Very much a film to boost home front morale, with cops wishing they were back in the Marines so they could go to war, and jabs at the Axis powers. Most of the law enforcement characters are well into middle age, what with the draft.
NB: Chan gets a call at his office to hurry over to the scene of the crime. He walks out of an impressive government-type multiple-story building with the California state flag flying out front. He's supposed to be in Washington, DC.

 

[FOXTROT LAMONT]

Barbie. I cannot do the ''Barbheimer'' same day. Feasted with pizza and vino afterwards. I probably should
have waited a week after Oppenheimer before subjecting myself to this but it is over and done.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Saw Barbie a week ago and am still chuckling over it. It wasn't at all what I was expecting, and my only complaint is that they left out Francie. When I played Barbies with my cousin in the long ago, I always had to be Francie. But otherwise, I thought it was a complete, as they say, hoot. I'm going again next Sunday with one of the kids and her husband, whom we have talked into it. We hope to screen the Barbenheimer package here in September, so I can write it off as a "fact finding mission."

 

[FOXTROT LAMONT]

I'm going again next Sunday with one of the kids and her husband, whom we have talked into it.

A criminal conspiracy wherein spousal abuse inflicted on an unsuspecting husband and innocent victim.

 

[Edward]

Saw Barbie a week ago and am still chuckling over it. It wasn't at all what I was expecting, and my only complaint is that they left out Francie. When I played Barbies with my cousin in the long ago, I always had to be Francie. But otherwise, I thought it was a complete, as they say, hoot. I'm going again next Sunday with one of the kids and her husband, whom we have talked into it. We hope to screen the Barbenheimer package here in September, so I can write it off as a "fact finding mission."

Tremendous fun. I loved Alan. I think the last picture that made me hoot the same way at its satire on consumerism might have been Josie and the Pussycats in...2001? Barbie really nails it, though.

 

[Frunobulax]

Tremendous fun. I loved Alan. I think the last picture that made me hoot the same way at its satire on consumerism might have been Josie and the Pussycats in...2001? Barbie really nails it, though.

While I don't have much interest in seeing the movie, I've read many reviews and analyses due to its popularity. I've come to the conclusion that the "message" depends on who is receiving it.