What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

Watched the original Aussie version of "Animal Kingdom". Much much darker and grittier than the US version but I guess that goes without saying. Steller performances particularly by Ben Mendelsohn. He is a revelation in his role as 'Pope'. Jacki Weaver is also great in a much understated performance compared to the US version of Smurf. I think the US version has jumped the shark a few seasons ago and I am not sure I will watch a Season 5 should there be one. Most series seem to hang around at least one season too long.

Worf said:

I got shanghaied in to taking a group of Seniors to the multiplex AGAIN! (Dammit why am I the only one that can still pilot an automobile!) I was "treated" to the latest in what seems to be and un-ending string of canine/religion mashups. "The Art of Driving in the Rain" details the life and times of an erstwhile race car driver (NOT NASCAR) who's life and times are narrated by his faithful dog Enzo (yes named after Enzo Ferrari). The dog, voiced by Kevin Costner (what's with him and dog movies all of a sudden?) talks us through his master's life with all the depth and drama of a Hallmark TV movie... which is all this is. The twists and turns are foreshadowed a mile away, the characters may as well be cardboard cutouts and the whole "death is not the end" theme is hammered home relentlessly. Of course the old folks loved it. I wasted 2 more hours I'll NEVER get back. Unless you're into sentimental drivel wait till it's on TV for free.

Worf

Click to expand...

So, I'm reading your comments and thought, "haven't I seen a very similar movie." Checked and realized "A Dog's Purpose" was what I had in mind. We both even used Hallmark as a descriptive for the movies. My comments on "A Dog's Purpose" from 2017:


I really want these movies to be better, but clearly there's a market for the cliched version, which is easier to make, so, my guess, they figure, why bother - just give the public what it wants.

I will say this, "The Art of Racing with the Moon" has one heck of a movie poster:



Sadly, it sounds as if that is the best part of the movie.

Out of Africa from 1985 with Meryl Streep and Robert Redford

Not a lot of timeless classic movies were made in the '80s; hence, Out of Africa is the exception that proves the rule (a truly horrible expression when one stops and analyzes it).

If David Lean - of Doctor Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia and others fame - was still making movies in the '80s, this epic drama, with its sweeping, loving cinematography of Africa and life-altering personal heartbreak delivered in poignant "small" reveals, would have been the result, but instead - and much to his credit - Sidney Pollack channeled his inner-Lean to direct it.

At its heart, Out of Africa is a good old-fashion, wholesome love story of boy chases and gets married girl / loses married girl / married girl gets syphilis from her cheating husband / boy gets now-cured and divorced girl back / boy wants both the girl and his freedom / girl just wants the boy / boy dies in plane crash before it's all resolved. A simpler story from a simpler time. And it all plays out against the backdrop of early 20th Century British Colonial Africa.

While the love story is rolled out slowly but directly, the conflicts, intents, good and bad of colonization is only peeked at as ambiguity - not "Yah Colonialism!" nor modern perfect political piety - is revealed. The British didn't invent conquering and ruling other people, but they did it more successfully than others for a long period of time resulting in a far-flung empire where a wide-range of support and resistant developed in both the conquering and conquered populations.

Did author Karen Blixen, writing under the nome de plume Isak Dinesen, intentionally juxtapose the conflicted love and hate of her personal relationships with that of the British to their empire and the subjugated to the British? Probably, but it doesn't matter if intentional or not as great authors intuit their way to brilliant writing by revealing parallels, which, when in the hands of skilled screenwriters and directors, translate into timeless film epics.

And if all that isn't enough, Africa itself, with its sweeping open spaces, looming mountains and majestic animals, brings its own power and drama and heartache and hope to Blixen's tale and Pollack's movie - just as Mother Russia did in Lean's "Doctor Zhivago." There's so much here in the story and so much here in the visuals that multiple viewings enhance the experience. And there's also this - the clothes are period awesome.

I didn't enjoy Out of Africa very much but the score by John Barry is wonderful. Lots of movies seem to benefit immeasurably form Barry's scores, giving them them almost mystical qualities.

The Favourite. This was one of the best films of last year? It didn't work for me at all, and I'm usually a sucker for any royal court drama.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I've hated all the other films Yorgos Lantimos has directed that I've seen. The intrusive technique (fisheye lenses, portentious music, verging-on-camp costumes) and too-modern vocabulary in the dialog ("makeup", "paranoia") sabotaged the mostly good performances... Though it takes some major suspension of disbelief to accept uber-American Emma Stone as a denizen of early 1700s England.

The Maltese Falcon in the background while reading over/grading some papers. I have viewed it so many times it makes for nice company.

Avengers Endgame

Touchofevil said:

The Maltese Falcon in the background while reading over/grading some papers. I have viewed it so many times it makes for nice company.

Click to expand...

I did the exact same thing with "Red Dust" yesterday. As I occasionally looked up from my work, it was fun just seeing Gable, Harlow and Astor, even with the sound off.

The Barefoot Contessa from 1954 starring Ava Gardner, Humphrey Bogart, Edmond O'Brien and Warren Stevens.

Written and directed by Joseph Mankiewicz - of All about Eve and many others fame - The Barefoot Contessa has all the ingredients of a successful, nay, blockbuster, film including big name stars and exotic locals, but while it kinda, sorta holds your interest, it morosely plods along from scene to scene never really gelling.

Ava Gardner* is the Barefoot Contessa - a poor Spanish flamenco dancer plucked from obscurity by an American film-producer wannabe and preternaturally rude and laconic millionaire (Stevens) who hires washed-up film director (Bogart) and a PR man (O'Brien) to travel the globe to find him an undiscovered star and make a hit movie.

Maybe that's not a bad premise for an inside-Hollywood movie, but Mankiewicz chose to tell it through the flashbacks the men in the Contessa's life have during her funeral - with the story's mystery being why this young, beautiful and successful star died (at some point, I stopped caring even when the "big" reveal came, insider hint: think a twist on the Jean Harlow story). Since, right away, you know she died young and her funeral frames it, the entire movie has a lugubrious feel - it drags, it's sad and it gave the real conclusion away up front - she's dead / the unknown-until-the-end "how" never seems that interesting.

And there's so much soap opera here, so much melodrama - husbands shot by wives, bed-hopping by almost everyone, fake love affairs (yup, he's happy if everyone just thinks she's sleeping with him), millionaires behaving boorishly and on and on - that the story gets lost in asides that aren't that important.

I'm a Bogey fan, but even he seems a bit lost in this one and, worse, Edward O'Brien so overacts and Stevens so underacts (or sleepwalks) that, at points, it seems like everyone's just reading dialogue.

Still there's enough talent here to produce some good scenes and drama, but the sum is much less than the parts and only some of the parts are good. As to the big reveal [spoiler alert], Gardner, the Contessa, who's been used by men her entire life, believes she's found true live with a rich Italian Count, who does truly love her, but owing to an unrevealed-until-after-they're-married war injury, can't fully "express" his love. From there, it's a quick affair and a miraculously pregnant Countess, an irate Count, a gun and a funeral.

I'm glad I saw it for the stars and the effort - and the Count's awesome car (a ~1950 Alfa Romeo 6C 2500 SS Cabriolet, see below) - but now that it's checked off, I don't have to sit through it again.


* I know Gardner was a huge star, but I'm always left a bit underwhelmed - I have a feeling her famous beauty and sexuality were either a period thing or more apparent in person. That said, she is still the author of possibly the most audacious quote a 1950s movie star ever said. There are several version of it floating around, but that she said something close to one of those versions does not seem in doubt. Here's a link to one version (it's the second quote down):

https://www.imdb.com/news/ni5371215 (pass if you don't want to read a profane word)

The car:


Bonus pic:

An American in Paris from 1951 with Gene Kelly, Leslie Caron, Nina Foch and Oscar Levant

This is not a good movie unless you are in the mood for this specific type of movie, then it's a pretty darn good one.

Okay, let's unpack that starting with the story. An American ex-pat wanna-be painter (Kelly) living in post-WWII France hangs out with his friend (Levant, another ex-pat, but he wants to be a concert pianist), tries to sell his paintings on the street, meets an attractive female benefactor (Foch), simultaneously meets a cute French store clerk (Caron) who is also the fiancé of a French friend of his, which leads to plenty of romantic contretemps and opportunities for song and dance - the backbone of the movie.

Nothing is really believable - these are the healthiest looking starving artists ever, the landladies and bistro owners are financially forgiving good friends, the conflicts are predictable and safe, the acting not too serious and the sets (away from a few stock-looking location shots) nothing more than an American romanticized view of Paris right down to the cute, beret-wearing French girl on the bicycle with a crusty baguette peaking out of her grocery bag (not really, but you get the idea).

Hence, if you are not in the mood for an ersatz romance, set in an ersatz Paris with some song and dance numbers tucked in, this is a tough movie...but, if you feel like an escapist movie where everything is pretty, Kelly's dancing is infectious, the songs catchy and the romance light and safe - you can't get much better than this one.

(Spoiler alert) Personally, if I had been Kelly, I'd have chosen smart Foch - an under-appreciated actress - over mousy Caron, but I'll always go for the smart one that will help you stand up in the world as you help her do the same.

Usually, this is the point where I talk about the time-travel value of the movie, but this one's time-travel only works if you want to time travel to an American postcard version of early '50s Paris - fun, but hardly historical. However, there is this pleasant surprise: the Technicolor is pretty darn good as it's not amped up - as most '50s Technicolor movies are - to an almost cartoon look; instead, the tones are deeper and richer than usual with not too many scenes intentionally stocked with an overload of loud color.

And if all else leaves you meh, you have this - Gene Kelly dancing, which never leaves you meh.

Nice review - agree totally. Although I have always found that Kelly tended to oversell his dancing. Preferred Astaire. But worst that this. First time I saw this movie it was only 26 years old. It was as far away then as Jurassic Park is from us today. In the 1970's it was a lovely safe studio piece from the recent past and everyone knew the whole thing was somewhat corny. I seem to remember MGM's old sets being derelict at the time, ready to be flattened for malls and housing estates. Someone now could have a toilet where Kelly once pirouetted.

An American In Paris is one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, M-G-M musicals. But it's a total backlot fantasy, never intended to be anywhere near reality, and I don't know why you'd even approach reviewing it from that standpoint. You don't watch an M-G-M musical to believe it, just to enjoy it.

And this one's got Gershwin music, Vincent Minnelli's florid visual sense, Gene Kelly at peak ability and ambition, Oscar Levant playing the Concerto in F as an entire orchestra, and everything else that Cadillac studio M-G-M could bring provide. The plot is barely serviceable, who cares about Nina Foch or that alleged French music hall star? It's the spectacular, art-inspired ballet sequence that matters... and abides.

Seb Lucas said:

Nice review - agree totally. Although I have always found that Kelly tended to oversell his dancing. Preferred Astaire. But worst that this. First time I saw this movie it was only 26 years old. It was as far away then as Jurassic Park is from us today. In the 1970's it was a lovely safe studio piece from the recent past and everyone knew the whole thing was somewhat corny. I seem to remember MGM's old sets being derelict at the time, ready to be flattened for malls and housing estates. Someone now could have a toilet where Kelly once pirouetted.

Click to expand...

I prefer Astaire as well - he seems effortless; whereas, Kelly lets you know he's working at it.

Doctor Strange said:

An American In Paris is one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, M-G-M musicals. But it's a total backlot fantasy, never intended to be anywhere near reality, and I don't know why you'd even approach reviewing it from that standpoint. You don't watch an M-G-M musical to believe it, just to enjoy it.

And this one's got Gershwin music, Vincent Minnelli's florid visual sense, Gene Kelly at peak ability and ambition, Oscar Levant playing the Concerto in F as an entire orchestra, and everything else that Cadillac studio M-G-M could bring provide. The plot is barely serviceable, who cares about Nina Foch or that alleged French music hall star? It's the spectacular, art-inspired ballet sequence that matters... and abides.

Click to expand...

And as my father would say, that's what makes a horse race. I appreciate your perspective and views. Have you noticed (while not in this one) that I've tried to take you advice to heart and note points about the director more often in my comments?

Yes, I have noticed, and I appreciate it. Your reviews are always a pleasure to read.

But this one surprised me, because I've considered An American In Paris an unassailable masterpiece, a high-water-mark of Hollywood in its prime, for fifty years. It's been so long since I looked at any musical as "realistic and believable" in any sense that that just seems pointless. Musicals have never stood up to that kind of analysis, they function emotionally, not realistically.

For the record, I love Fred Astaire too... but the plots in his films are so much flimsier, and the settings and supporting characters generally even deeper into fantasyland, than An American In Paris.

Doctor Strange said:

Yes, I have noticed, and I appreciate it. Your reviews are always a pleasure to read.

But this one surprised me, because I've considered An American In Paris an unassailable masterpiece, a high-water-mark of Hollywood in its prime, for fifty years. It's been so long since I looked at any musical as "realistic and believable" in any sense that that just seems pointless. Musicals have never stood up to that kind of analysis, they function emotionally, not realistically.

For the record, I love Fred Astaire too... but the plots in his films are so much flimsier, and the settings and supporting characters generally even deeper into fantasyland, than An American In Paris.

Click to expand...

I've seen every part of AIIP before - several times - but this is (I think) the first time I ever sat down and watched it from beginning to end. The comments reflected how I experienced it - and, as noted, I get that as a suspend-belief musical, it's darn good.

I agree Astaire movie plots are no better (sometimes much worse) and some of those movies I can't sit through anymore; whereas, others I enjoy from beginning to end. Another factor: I've seen all the Astaire movie several times, which changes one's impression versus this being my first all-the-way-through watching of AIIP.

It will be interesting (pretty much only to me) to see how my impression changes on subsequent viewings.

I prefer Kelly over Astaire. Kelly’s dancing was more manly and energetic.

As for my last movies... Stan & Ollie, and First Man. I enjoyed Stan & Ollie. First Man was meh. 2 hours of Gosling showing no emotion and acting stoically void while really scary/emotional stuff is happening. Yawn. And I don’t care for historical movies where they go out of the way to make it devoid of any mention of God, faith, or religion. Buzz and Neil took a Bible with them and had communion when they landed. But the movie doesn’t even mention anything about God/faith. Sort of like the Johnny Cash movie leaving out all the stuff about his conversion. When you leave out very important things, the story just sort of misrepresents what actually happened. But hollywood today seems to be very anti-religious so that’s the way it goes. If there’s a preacher in any movie he’s almost always a charlatan or hypocrite or coward. It annoys me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fading Fast said:

I did the exact same thing with "Red Dust" yesterday. As I occasionally looked up from my work, it was fun just seeing Gable, Harlow and Astor, even with the sound off.

Click to expand...

We have had this chat a number of times, but it just shows how important atmosphere is to a happier life. TCM is a part of our happy little world at the House of ToE.

On HBO, Can You Ever Forgive Me? An interesting true-story tale about forging letters from literary figures and selling them to collectors. Features an excellent, completely serious lead performance by Melissa McCarthy and an entertaining supporting performance by Richard E. Grant.

On Showtime, Hitsville: The Making of Motown. Very interesting documentary with good talking head commentary and wonderful vintage footage.

Catching up on the thread here-- the Missus and I watched Gambit (1966) with Shirley MacLaine and Michael Caine, on the surface a heist movie, but with several twists and turns. Then it was The Little Giant (1933)(not the one about Stephan A. Douglas) with Edward G. Robinson and Mary Astor. Prohibition puts an end to bootlegger Bugs Ahern's career, so he leaves gangland Chicago for the refined society of Santa Barbara. We laughed a lot. Without the subtitles we'd have missed a great many zingers. Very cool to see 1932-33 Santa Barbara in the outdoor shots.
Compare this to A Slight Case of Murder from 1938: the parallels are interesting.

Julian Shellhammer said:

Catching up on the thread here-- the Missus and I watched Gambit (1966) with Shirley MacLaine and Michael Caine, on the surface a heist movie, but with several twists and turns. Then it was The Little Giant (1933)(not the one about Stephan A. Douglas) with Edward G. Robinson and Mary Astor. Prohibition puts an end to bootlegger Bugs Ahern's career, so he leaves gangland Chicago for the refined society of Santa Barbara. We laughed a lot. Without the subtitles we'd have missed a great many zingers. Very cool to see 1932-33 Santa Barbara in the outdoor shots.
Compare this to A Slight Case of Murder from 1938: the parallels are interesting.

Click to expand...

We, too, enjoyed "The Little Giant." A fun, quick movie with, as you noted, outstanding performances by Robinson and Astor. They had a surprising amount of screen chemistry working. It got silly in parts, but those two made it worth the effort.