Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

Doctor Strange

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,228
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
Born To Be Blue, the recent biopic about jazz trumpeter Chet Baker. Another one (like Miles Ahead) that takes all kinds of dramatic license, bringing in characters and events that never actually happened.

Ethan Hawke labors mightily in the lead, and some of the musical performances are good... but here's another one that hits every damn musical biopic trope (drug-addicted creative genius is ALMOST saved by the love of a good woman, etc.) like clockwork. As I recently said of both Miles Ahead and I Saw The Light, I simply can't take these plot beats seriously - even though Miles Davis, Hank Williams, and Chet Baker actually WERE all self-destructive addicts - after they were hilariously destroyed in Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story. There are also other problems with the screenplay (or final edit), as things that are set up as big plot points, like Baker's "competition" with Miles for who's the most important cool-jazz trumpet player, just trail off without resolution. Not recommended.

Brief comments on some of the things said above:

The Lugosi Dracula is indeed a stagey antique that wears its early-days-of-talkies limitations openly... but it's still creepy, and nearly as effective as more recent adaptations. Come on, who doesn't love Dwight Frye as Renfield?!?

I agree that both versions of The Man Who Knew Too Much are just two-star Hitchcock flicks. Even two-star Hitchcock is entertaining, but so many of his other films tower over these.

The Fountainhead is an imperfect film of a difficult novel, but it's still a classic.

The Haunting is a masterwork: my all-time favorite ghost film, featuring some of Robert Wise's best direction. (Avoid the awful remake!)
 

Worf

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,175
Location
Troy, New York, USA
The 1931 Dracula, with (of course) Bela Lugosi. This new print shown on the Svengoolie syndicated show was beautiful, crisp and sharp, and it contains the often-cut scene aboard the Varna, the ship bringing Dracula to England. Yes, Lugosi's performance is rather stagey to us today, 86 years (!) later. So were a lot of early movie performances using stage-trained actors. It took a while for screen actors and directors to realize that film acting was different from stage performing, that a lifted eyebrow could convey surprise in a film as well or better than the "shocked face" which is necessary to reach the back rows of a theatre.

That said, Lugosi's vampire gives the distinct impression of someone -- something -- undead, not completely alive. Which is exactly right for the style of the film. It's basically a photographed stage play with outdoor scenes added (the Borgo Pass by night, the storm tossing the ship, the Count stalking down a London street on his way to the theatre).

To this day, though, when Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) faces off against Dracula, when Lugosi aims a clawlike hand at the elderly vampire-hunter and says in a grave-deep tone, "Come . . . here," I swear I want to get up and walk toward the TV screen!

I watched the same show that night.... I too love that scene, particularly when Dracula tells Van Helsing that he's got a will of iron to resist his glamouring (True Blood). I loved the new soundtrack as well.

Worf
 
Messages
16,870
Location
New York City
We've caught a bunch of reasonably new releases on Netflix and Amazon recently and am amazed that some of these unimpressive movies even get made. Other than that they are included in our streaming packages, I wouldn't have paid to see anyone of these.

"Intervention" 2016. Several in-their-30s couples and single friends reunite at a lake house to stage an intervention for a fighting couple's marriage. This "Big Chill" wannabe misses a soundtrack of any note, a believable story and characters with depth, while it moves through one forced moment - a lesbian cheating scene, an alcoholic meltdown, etc. - after another leaving the viewer drained but bored.

"Demolition" 2015. A man in his late 30s' wife dies in a car accident and he, then, begins to lose control of his life as (I think) guilt over the fact that he didn't love his wife (but hid it from even her) causes him to slowly meltdown. This meltdown has him ignoring his lucrative job in finance while he starts an off-beat, undefined relationship with an older woman who works at a vending machine company. Physically, the meltdown manifests itself as he, literally, begins just taking things apart in his home and at work to, eventually, spiraling to where he's rented a bulldozer and is destroying his house. The symbolism here is easy, but there is no conviction to the story, no sense of center and you feel as if you went on this journey for very little reason.

"It's Not Me, It's You" 2013. Yup, after several years of dating, this in-their-late-30s couple breaks up because the man can't commit. Using the devise of having actors represent the thoughts in their heads (less bad than it sounds), we follow the couple as they individually try to restart their lives by going through every cliche - bad dates, therapy, new hobbies, etc. While this one is stupid, I enjoyed it more than the other two as it didn't really take itself seriously and had some good one liners and funny scenes.

TV is simply better than movies today. Sure a really good movie pops up now and again and there's still plenty of junk on TV, but any episode of "Taboo" or "Man in the High Castle" or, heck, even "The Crown" is better than any of these movies.
 
Last edited:

PeterGunnLives

One of the Regulars
Messages
223
Location
West Coast
"The Fountainhead"

Probably my fourth or fifth time seeing it, in addition to having read the book twice which, thus, allows one to find "other things" in it than just the plot and action.
  • Gary Cooper is perfect for the role of Howard Roark, but he's too old / Patricia Neal is perfect for the role of Domonique Francon - cold and beautiful - like Roark's buildings
    • Neal is an under-apreciated major talent who aged gracefully in a business that rarely allows its female stars to do so. But let's not kid ourselves, man or woman, there is a moment when one's youth and beauty is perfectly aglow - and hers was in this movie
  • The architecture in this movie is insane and it could be watched with the sound off for that alone. Some of the windows and casements are so gorgeous that they should be studied today. Wynan's office is perfect over-the-top, full-on Mid-Century modern meets austere Art Deco
  • With the current vogue of Mid-Century Modern architecture, this movie should be getting more press (my guess, its politics is so out of vogue that it cancels out its architectural verve for today's audiences)
  • Perfect line for the perfect moment (and tells you all you need to know about Howard Roark)
    • “Toohey: "Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us. "Roark: "But I don't think of you.”
  • Howard Roark's name only works said fully or as a last name: he's Howard Roark or Roark, but not a Howard.
  • Dominique is a brutally hard character to understand: she gets it all, sees how little real integrity, honesty, talent and artistic beauty there is in the world and how little it is appreciated. And - and this is the hard part - would rather destroy what little there is of it than have it wasted or denounced by the majority of people who don't get it or, even worse, hate it for its greatness. It's taken me along time to (I think) understand the mystery of her mind
  • Peter Keating is not a foil to Roark -- Keating is a failed ideology crying for help. Toohey is not a foil for Roark -- Toohey is the banal but brutal evil of the USSR, of the Statsi, of Mao. Wynand is Roark's foil -- he is Roark without out the full courage of his convictions, an inferior Roark
  • This movie can only be appreciated as as stylized representation of a philosophy - taking it as literal drama misses the entire value of the movie
I love modernist architecture and design. I'll definitely check this out soon.
 

MisterCairo

I'll Lock Up
Messages
7,005
Location
Gads Hill, Ontario
Trainspotting.

We're going to see the sequel, and my wife had forgotten what happened in the original.

Which, it seems, came out yesterday, so fresh is the memory of seeing it and watching Iggy Pop's video on MuchMusic.

Or, 21 years ago.
 

green papaya

One Too Many
Messages
1,261
Location
California, usa
mcq.jpg

John Wayne in "McQ"

Police Lieutenant Lon McQ investigates the killing of his best friend and uncovers corrupt elements of the police department dealing in confiscated drugs.
 

Edward

Bartender
Messages
24,789
Location
London, UK
On Monday night we went to see Lost City of Z (pronounced 'zed', as it turns out). Interesting film, based on the real-life English explorer Colonel Percival Fawcett, whose exploration discovered, or at least led to the discovery of, very significant archaeological sites in South America, and uncovered the existence of a complex civilisation among the "savages" that predated Western Civilisation - something not widely believed possible in Europe at the time. A very episodic film in nature (Herself noted that she felt it would have been better served as a Netflix series in six parts or so, rather than a single film), I quite enjoyed it. The clothes are - of course- beautiful. I would very much like to have that coat that Charlie Hunnan wears during the WW1 battle scene (it's very close to the now discontinued Kakadu 1903 Gunner Coat). The clothes are all very lovely (I can't speak to accuracy in the details as I'm no expert on British Edwardian and 1920s civilian clothing, but the uniforms and the jungle exploration clothing certainly looks good). Fine performances turned in by the two male leads; Hunnan is convincing as the higher class (but, owing to his father, socially disgraced - "poor choice of ancestors" as one of his "betters" puts it when excluding him from the inner circle early on) English gentleman in a largely undistinguished military career. Robert Patinson is largely unrecognisable from his disco vampire teeny bop days, turning in a fine performance from behind a voluminous beard. The one bit I thought could have been done better was the ending - I'd have preferred them not to speculate about what happened to Fawcett (even if they do leave it sort of open, potentially, a bit), but rather ended with what we know of him, while acknowledging the rumours. Of course, this was far from the sole liberty they took with the truth: the screen Fawcett is a modern man decades ahead of his time - supportive of his wife's independence (to a degree; he baulks at the idea of her accompanying him on an exploration), respectful of the indigenous Amazonians, open-minded.... in reality, it seems, Fawcett was something of a racist ass, given to rather Nietschian views of eugenics. I don't blame them for making that change, though it is interesting to see how they market this alternate-reality as "a true story"! The whole look of the film is beautiful, worthy of seeing on the big screen if you care for the romantic notions of the explorers of the 1900-1930 period in particular. Also marvellous is the soundtrack - part original score, part highly judicious use of classicla pieces. In this age of tinny digital sound being what we mostly hear, it was a pleasure to sit through the closing credits and listen to the music on a sound system with the quality of that installed in my local cinema. (Made me look forward all the more to getting my flat redecoration finished and the new turntable system built!)
 
Messages
13,376
Location
Orange County, CA
And? Please give us your opinion! Missed you by the way....

Worf

Kong: Skull Island is the second movie of the Monsterverse franchise which started with the 2014 Godzilla movie. Just like the Marvel universe has S.H.I.E.L.D., the Monsterverse has Monarch, a joint US-Japanese organization whose mission is to investigate kaiju (big monsters). Monarch organizes an expedition to Skull Island in 1973 just at the end of the Vietnam War. The two memorable characters in the movie are Colonel Packard, played by Samuel L. Jackson, the Ahab-like military leader of the Skull Island expedition who sort of becomes the villain of the piece when he becomes obsessed with destroying Kong to avenge the deaths of his men. And the other character is an American pilot, played by John C. Reilly (the voice of Wreck It Ralph), who was shot down over Skull Island during WWII and was stranded there for 30 years. I liked the movie and wouldn't mind getting the DVD when it comes out.
 
Last edited:
Messages
16,870
Location
New York City
"How to Marry a Millionaire"

I want to like this movie, but it's not easy.

The bad: The plot resolutions are telegraphed practically in the opening credits, the acting, pretty much other than William Powell's, is awful even from some actors who aren't half bad, the technicolor is amped-up obnoxious, some of the sets are so obviously sets that it almost felt like it was intentional and more than half of the dialogue is cringe worthy.

The good: great NYC time travel shots and there are a few scenes of sincerity (Marylyn Monroe's character deciding to wear her glasses in public and Betty Grable's character haltingly and, then, gushingly telling her best friend about her new husband being a forest rangers are a couple).

The worst: Lauren Bacall's character being surprised at the end that her new husband is mega-wealthy. She deserved neither him nor to get her "dream" to marry money. She's a crass, money grubbing snob whose grudging decision not to marry the older wealthy man and, instead, marry what she thought was a poor mechanic was neither heartfelt nor genuine at least as she played it. Every single man in this movie was too good for her character.

The fun: Bacall's character arguing that she likes older men by saying (paraphrasing), "you know, like that guy in 'The African Queen'."
 
Last edited:

Worf

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,175
Location
Troy, New York, USA
Kong: Skull Island is the second movie of the Monsterverse franchise which started with the 2014 Godzilla movie. Just like the Marvel universe has S.H.I.E.L.D., the Monsterverse has Monarch, a joint US-Japanese organization whose mission is to investigate kaiju (big monsters), who organizes an expedition to Skull Island in 1973 just at the end of the Vietnam War. The two memorable characters in the movie are Colonel Packard, played by Samuel L. Jackson, the Ahab-like military leader of the Skull Island expedition who sort of becomes the villain of the piece when he becomes obsessed with destroying Kong to avenge the deaths of his men. And the other character is an American pilot, played by John C. Reilly (the voice of Wreck It Ralph), who was shot down over Skull Island during WWII and was stranded there for 30 years. I liked the movie and wouldn't mind getting the DVD when it comes out.

I concur wholeheartedly... we enjoyed it to. Is this a "Marvel" property?

Worf
 
Messages
16,870
Location
New York City
"Rules Don't Apply" 2016

Set in the late '50s, the story revolves around the young starlets that Howard Hughes brings out to Hollywood for screen tests. Specifically, the story focuses on one starlet and the young man hired by the Hughes Company to drive her around.

Hughes, himself (and as played by Warren Beatty), floats in and out as a reclusive, but not recluse, figure whose interactions with others are clownish and controlling with a hint of menace. Maybe the story and his character evolve after that, but we couldn't take any more than 40 minutes of this empty plot and poorly acted movie so we dropped out then.

Beatty - always a bit of an odd duck as and actor, director, writer, etc., IMHO - is horrible as Hughes. It didn't even seem as if he was really trying to play a historical character; it seemed, he was just hamming it up. And since he was the writer and director as well, this vacuous mess of a movie - with its forced scenes, fake drama and silly dialogue - is all his fault.

The only good thing - and it is really good - are the period sets, clothes and architecture which take you to late '50s Hollywood (probably a bit stylized, but still darn good).

My girlfriend and I are the target audience for movies like this and we couldn't sit through it - did anyone else here even try?
 
Last edited:

Doctor Strange

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,228
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
Under The Skin, a bizarre SF/horror flick with Scarlett Johansson as a disguised alien driving around Scotland in a van picking up men (it's easy, 'cause she's ScarJo!) and luring them to their doom. She plays a real "black widow" for a change!

Weird, totally unexplained, slow moving, hardly any dialog, disturbing as hell. It's inspired by films like 2001: A Space Odyssey in taking its time and making you figure it out... But it's not in the same masterpiece league. And it's ultimately unsatisfying because it doesn't explain itself or resolve anything, it just stops.

Only recommended for adventurous viewers into totally WTF?!? films.
 
Last edited:

Worf

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,175
Location
Troy, New York, USA
Under The Skin, a bizarre SF/horror flick with Scarlett Johansson as a disguised alien driving around Scotland in a van picking up men (it's easy, 'cause she's ScarJo!) and luring them to their doom. She plays a real "black widow" for a change!

Weird, totally unexplained, slow moving, hardly any dialog, disturbing as hell. It's inspired by films like 2001: A Space Odyssey in taking its time and making you figure it out... But it's not in the same masterpiece league. And it's ultimately unsatisfying because it doesn't explain itself or resolve anything, it just stops.

Only recommended for adventurous viewers into totally WTF?!? films.

ROTFLMBBAO! Snorf! Chuckle! Guffaw! Wheeze! Best laugh I had all week!

Worf
 

Forum statistics

Threads
107,269
Messages
3,032,604
Members
52,727
Latest member
j2points
Top