What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

belfastboy · Apr 30, 2020

Fading Fast said:
Let us know what you think afterwards; hope you feel I didn't steer you wrong. If you haven't pulled the trigger yet - my last thought would be this: if you like Tarantino movies in general, I think you'll like this one; if you don't like Tarantino movies in general, I doubt you'll like this one either.

Thanks for further thoughts…..I have two strikes against me...I dislike Tarantino AND DiCaprio but it is offered for rent at only One dollar. That appeals to the cheapskate in me. My wife and I have movie watching protocols. We have a 10 minute rule so that after that time if one of us says 'we're done here' we shut it down. (kind of like tapping out!). We have another level where the movie is bad but not bad enough to turn off or really really bad, so we declare open season on it and both of us have free reign to trash the movie as it progresses. Sometimes that is the most fun and we get our monies worth of fun from the trashing. My biggest hurdle will be convincing my wife to give it a go....she dislikes DiCaprio and Pitt.

Fading Fast · May 1, 2020

Dana-Andrews-Shepperd-Strudwick-Beyond-a-Reasonable.jpg

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt from 1956 with Dana Andrews, Joan Fontaine, Sydney Blackmer and Barbara Nichols

An ardent anti-death-penalty big-city newspaper editor (Blackmer) joins forces with an sympathetic young novelist (Andrews) to "expose" the inhumanity of capital punishment by - get ready for it - planting false evidence, that, they hope, will result in the state convicting an innocent man. Of course, immediately after the conviction, the dynamic dual of justice plan to produce exonerating evidence while a hailstorm of condemnation rains down upon death-penalty advocates.

This would not be an incredibly stupid premise except for two things: (1) no justice system claims it will never convict an innocent man (that standard is unachievable) and (2) pro-actively trying to generate a false positive proves absolutely nothing about the system's real-world fallibility.

Okay, in movies, we know sometimes we just have to "go with it," and if you do, this one works a little bit - notwithstanding the self-satisfied smugness of the editor nor the eight-hundred plot flaws - as the upside-down world of trying to get oneself convicted of a murder one didn't commit is modestly interesting (if you're insane).

Adding tension or conflict or something, the novelist is engaged to the editor's daughter (Fontaine) who thinks their idea is nuts because, well, it is. As one of the few voices of reason, her role is limited - something one guesses Fontaine was quite happy about in a get-me-out-of-this-nut-house way.

So, in advancing their scheme, as Andrews and Blackmer run around the city and its outskirts planting incriminating evidence after the fact, such as dropping an initialed lighter at the crime scene (come on) and taking putatively exonerating pictures of their efforts. One part of this ridiculousness has urbane, upper-class Andrews - tall, good looking and impeccably dressed - trying to pick up a burlesque dancer (wonderfully played by Nichols) at the same bar the murder victim worked at so as to create more incriminating evidence.

Proving that neither brains and money nor brains and surface manners have any correlation, one of the burlesque dancers, upon noting that Andrews is politely courting, and not just trying to sleep with, Nichols (her brassy, gum-smacking, gold-digging burlesque dancer friend), summarizes her disbelief with this line: "With his looks and his dough, what's he shopping around in the basement for?" Beyond being a perfect film noir line and sharp elbow to Nichols, it also shows that this rough-and-rowdy girl has more self awareness and brains than the "sophisticated" editor and novelist combined.

On the chance you want to see this one, I'll leave out the end and its "big twist," which takes disbelief to a whole other level while managing to double the number of plot flaws all in one or two scenes. That said, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt does have some good film noir time travel to Chicago (a pretty good noir city even if it isn't New York or San Francisco).

(⇩ Note: On the left, Andrews "shopping" in the "basement;" on the right, "Park Avenue")

belfastboy · May 1, 2020

Fading Fast said:
Let us know what you think afterwards; hope you feel I didn't steer you wrong. If you haven't pulled the trigger yet - my last thought would be this: if you like Tarantino movies in general, I think you'll like this one; if you don't like Tarantino movies in general, I doubt you'll like this one either.

Well, we settled in last night to watch only to discover that it was no longer the $1 special....it was now Hustlers. So I went to my recorded classics and we watched "Outrage"....Hollywood's version of Rashomon. Tonight we watch the original. In a word.....it was terrible. I can now say I have seen a performance by Newman that was awful, laughable even. Newman defended his work as being one of his best performances which is hard to believe. Overall it was just drek…..Newman was bad, Bloom was laughable. I really liked the scenes at the rail station with Edward G, and Captain Kirk....they worked well just the rest of the movie stunk. On the plus side I didn't waste a dollar on it.

Fading Fast · May 1, 2020

belfastboy said:
Well, we settled in last night to watch only to discover that it was no longer the $1 special....it was now Hustlers. So I went to my recorded classics and we watched "Outrage"....Hollywood's version of Rashomon. Tonight we watch the original. In a word.....it was terrible. I can now say I have seen a performance by Newman that was awful, laughable even. Newman defended his work as being one of his best performances which is hard to believe. Overall it was just drek…..Newman was bad, Bloom was laughable. I really liked the scenes at the rail station with Edward G, and Captain Kirk....they worked well just the rest of the movie stunk. On the plus side I didn't waste a dollar on it.

Thank you for the update. Hang out several months and it will hit the pay-cable channels and, then, several more months, the regular cable channels.

Edward Reed · May 2, 2020

My weekends this past month I have been on a world tour with Bob, Bing and Dottie...

Worf · May 2, 2020

I needed a laugh last night after finding out that Puddin's sister has the Hoogee Googee virus and has been hospitalized (yeah she's in Manhattan)... Soooo we watched the Wayan's Bros. "Scary Movie". Forgot how low brow funny this movie was. Laughed out loud for a good while. I needed that so bad.

Worf

Fading Fast · May 2, 2020

Worf said:
I needed a laugh last night after finding out that Puddin's sister has the Hoogee Googee virus and has been hospitalized (yeah she's in Manhattan)... Soooo we watched the Wayan's Bros. "Scary Movie". Forgot how low brow funny this movie was. Laughed out loud for a good while. I needed that so bad.

Worf

Very sorry to hear that. At least the hospitals here are in better shape - capacity and experience wise - than they were even a few weeks ago. I wish her the best. If I can do anything, I live here as you know, PM me and I'd be glad to help. FYI, we've found it all but impossible to get an update on a patient - it's not a bad sign, it's just the way it is right now.

Trenchfriend · May 2, 2020

Godfather I.

"Leave the gun. Take the Cannoli."

Fading Fast · May 2, 2020

The Revolt of Mamie Stover from 1956 with Jane Russell and Richard Egan

It's not a bad movie at all, but the book is better, much better. (Comments on the book here: #8207)

Mamie is a whore - yes, a whore; she's not a woman men or sailors pay good money to drink tea and play cards with. The movie kinda wants you to believe the latter, but it also gives you enough dots to connect to what's really going on, but that's all a distraction when the story's reason for being is that Mamie's a whore.

Ready, set, go: Mamie grew up dirt poor and laughed at by the "good" people in a small Midwest town; she tried to make it in Hollywood, but came up short, so she turned to the oldest profession to make a buck but wound up on the wrong side of the mob and police and got shipped off to Hawaii where her options to earn a living were to become either a whore or a whore.

On the boat over, she meets a "respectable" man from the "hill" and proceeds to spends her time in Hawaii trying to make money and elbow her way into his "polite" society. This attempt is aggressively thwarted by the police who are bought and paid for by the good people on the "hill." Then, the war comes and Mamie exchanges her piles of (genuinely) hard-earned cash into good real estate offered cheap by scared-by-the-war sellers. Fast forward a few years and Mamie has real-estate money rolling in, but, even with the loosening of societal rules during the war, she is still not acceptable on the "hill -" painful lesson learned.

That's the story in the book and it's a good one with the addition of a bit of a love triangle between Mamie, the man she met on the way over and his "respectable" girlfriend from the "hill." He's wishy-washy as he likes being a rebel and "seeing" Mamie, but he's not going to truly throw his position away for her.

Unfortunately, as noted, the movie wouldn't or couldn't face the whore thing head on (the movie code was starting to wobble by '56, but was not gone yet), so a lot of energy is wasted with the card-playing-and-tea-serving charade. Also, the movie speeds through the whole "respectable-society-doesn't-want-a-whore thing," so all it's left with is a woman trying to make money as a "hostess" (wink-wink, nod-nod) and win a man in a love triangle.

Okay, so the story from the book got shredded in the movie, but surprisingly the movie still works. You can see through enough to understand what Mamie really is about. Also, Jane Russel, an actress I've always been indifferent to (big-boned, sloppily full-figured, man-like jaw line, thick mane of blazing red hair, in this one), was born to play Mamie Stover - a woman who is more about exuding sex than beauty, more about attitude than femininity. Russell is the physical embodiment of Mamie and seems to know it as she acts with more confidence here than in many of her other efforts.

And, if all that isn't enough, you get some really nice location shots of Hawaii.

Still, read the book first and, then, check out the movie.

Fading Fast · May 4, 2020

MV5BMzQ3MGI5MmMtZjIzYS00NzkzLWFkNjItNjM1YWJiODA1YTY0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjAyODg1OA@@._V1_.jpg

Julie from 1956 with Doris Day, Louis Jourdan and Barry Sullivan

An early woman-in-distress movie: newly remarried woman realizes her husband is an insanely jealous sociopath who killed her first husband so as to marry her and will kill her if she leaves him. From this early set-up, it's a how-does-she-get-away-from-him effort until taking a weird twist for the last half hour or so (more shortly)

Doris Day (the titular Julie) does an admirable job after realizing her concert-pianist husband (Jourdan) is nuts as she shows courage and smarts trying to escape, while also soliciting help from long-time friend Sullivan

It probably felt a bit fresher back in '56s, as, by now, the plot's become a cliche

Jourdan is effectively scary as the cold, psychotic murderer husband who leverages his brilliant mind to hunt his wife down through every evading twist and turn she makes - his preternatural ability to track her keeps the movie somewhat engaging

The sympathetic police - clearly advocating for updated stalker laws - explain that there is little they can do do if all Julie has is her word against her husband's

In an odd twist that dramatically changes the tone of the movie (spoiler alert), Julie, an airline stewardess, ends up having to land a passenger plane after her husband kills the pilot and co-pilot (and dies himself in a gun battle in the cockpit) / I'm all for women saving the day, but it felt as if one movie ended an hour in (psychotic husband dead, phew) and a new one started (untrained woman must save the day by landing the plane)

Despite its standard story and a strange plot shift, it's an interesting enough hour and half, greatly enhanced for us today by its wonderful time travel to 1950s coastal California, all filmed in beautiful and crisp black and white

Zombie_61 · May 4, 2020

It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963). I can't say it's a "favorite" movie, but it's one I've seen so many times that I lost count long ago. It's endlessly goofy, and at almost three-and-a-half hours I seem to see something new every time I watch it. *shrug*

ton312 · May 4, 2020

It’s May the 4th. So naturally I’m pulling an all nighter at:

Fading Fast · May 6, 2020

Angels in the Outfield from 1951 with Paul Douglas, Janet Leigh and Keenan Wynn

The rules are different for Christmas movies as, for those, we accept angels, divine interventions, spiritual transformations, faith overcoming mendacity, etc., it's Christmas for God's sakes. Heck, it took three ghosts to arm wrestle Scrooge into buying one lousy Turkey for his family, and our eyes welled-up when he did.

But trying to bring that Christmas magic - that whimsy - to a not-Christmas movie is harder as, away from the Christmas season, we're rational people - men and women of science - who know angels don't alter the outcome of, say, baseball games...or do they?

Paul Douglas is the gruff, cursing, punching manager of the last place Pittsburg Pirates - he's a Scrooge, not about money, but about life. To him, it's all baseball with no friends, family, faith or hobbies - he treats his players like they are all Bob Crachits. And like Scrooge with his business, Douglas seems angry about the only thing - baseball - he cares about; his is a dour life even doing the thing he loves.

But instead of visits from ghosts, late one night at the stadium, after an embarrassing defeat, Douglas hears an angel offer him a better life and winning team if he'll mend his cursing, combative ways. Simultaneously, a female reporter (Leigh) is assigned to cover the Pirates and, like Scrooge's nephew Fred, she tries to see the good and ignore the blasphemy in Douglas. They initially get along about as well as Scrooge and Fred did.

When the Pirates start winning and Douglas stops fighting and cursing and ranting and raving, the public is happily bemused. The media hounds want the real story behind the team and its manager's turnaround. Enter a little eight-year-old girl from the local Catholic orphanage who, at an outing to a Pirates game, actually sees the angels help the Pirates win.

While the girl's story is picked up by reporter Leigh as a human interest piece in the local paper (further alienating her from Douglas) and dismissed by all adults as a child's fantasy, Douglas goes to the orphanage to quietly talk with the young girl about it. Unfortunately for Douglas, the newspapers catch on to his visit and try to turn it into a "this manager is nuts and believes in angels" story.

Douglas denies all until he's hit in the head by a baseball and, in a concussed state, admits to the angels. Even Leigh tries to tamp his public statements down, despite sorta being a believer herself. A firestorm ensues resulting in a hearing by baseball's commissioner to assess Douglas' sanity and competency to stay in baseball.

Here the movie veers from the Scrooge narrative to the Miracle on 34th Street trial scene where, effectively, faith itself is put on trial. In this case, Leigh, the little orphan girl, a Minister, Rabbi and Catholic Father (wonderfully working together) all aver that, yes, angels can actively engage in the affairs of mankind.

All that's left is the complete transformation moment - Scrooge gleefully throwing the money out the window to secure the best Turkey for Christmas dinner. Angels in the Outfield doesn't disappoint with (minor spoiler alert if you haven't been paying attention) everything working out really, really well...even for the orphan girl.

Whimsy is a hard thing to pull off in any movie and harder still when you don't have a leg-up from Christmas, but Angels in the Outfield pulls it off with charm, passion and, well, faith. If Christmas movies work for you, this not-Christmas one should too; if they don't, well...

Plus, there's incredible time travel to 1951 America. Yes, the architecture, cars, clothes, appliances and furniture are outstanding, but also, in this one, you get a look at 1951 baseball and baseball stadiums and even, maybe, a peek at a 1951 angel.

N.B. Look for the scenes where Douglas and Leigh, after he has to carry her, playfully argue about how much she weighs; an aging pitcher (Bruce Bennett - Mildred Pierce's first husband) gets one last chance at glory and Keenan Wynn, as the acerbic baseball radio announcer, puts his anti-Douglas inflections into almost every word.

belfastboy · May 6, 2020

My local cable provider is running recent hit movies on the $1 specials....I missed "One Upon a Time in Hollywood" last week but scored last night with "Joker". I have wanted to see it as many critics had it on their best of 2019 lists but not willing to risk the $7. For a buck I jumped.....and what a great movie. Phoenix was a tour de force and overall a very good watch. Even my wife really liked it and it def is not in her wheel house.

Edward · May 7, 2020

Finally watched Midsommar last night. Good, if not as revolutionary as itspr liked to claim. In terms of The Wicker Man, it will never eclipse that, but it can certainly sit alongside it as a decent film. It isprobably closer in tone to the sequel, THe Wicker Tree, though it somewhat lacks the same sense of menace as both. It could have been more chilling, I think, had the English kids been more fleshed out as they seemed sympathetic. The American boys were largely unsymparthetic characters, and it's harder to be shocked by their ends when they are not exactly pleasant or sympathetic. Soem suspension of disbelief required; the American kids not wanting to leaqve immediately after the first death they witness doesn't fully ring true, and the tragedy in the background of the female lead serves little purpose, other than to make her boyfriend further unsympathetic, and her more sympathetic. Both could have been acheived without that aspect, though it does, I suppose, leave her 'free' to impiedly joni the cultists. Definitely will support a rewatch, though I'd reach for Kill List first.

Doctor Strange · May 7, 2020

It's a creepy film with some good visual flair. But since all the main characters are major a-holes, it's hard to feel any sympathy as things get ugly. And quite apart from its debt to The Wicker Man, since every familiar trope of the dead-teenager movie is in play (e.g., black guy dies first, let's split up), it's hardly the strikingly original film it's been called. And I'm really getting tired of the last-girl-standing-joins-the-coven ending that seems to be used a lot now (like The VVitch.)

Worf · May 7, 2020

Yeah... I enjoyed it but not as much as I did "Hereditary" which was a mind blower. I can see the comparison to the original "Wicker Man" but that movies plot was more of a slow burn. From the second these folks show up at the "creepy commune" I'd a been out of there. Common sense is very uncommon I suppose. I'm used to being "the only raisin in the puddin'" at times, but that was too creepy a color scheme for me... I'd a been gone. Still I liked Midsommar a lot.

Worf

Worf · May 7, 2020

Fading Fast said:
Very sorry to hear that. At least the hospitals here are in better shape - capacity and experience wise - than they were even a few weeks ago. I wish her the best. If I can do anything, I live here as you know, PM me and I'd be glad to help. FYI, we've found it all but impossible to get an update on a patient - it's not a bad sign, it's just the way it is right now.

Thanks for the offer of help. We traveled down a couple of days ago. Elanor is out of the ICU and will be home tomorrow. Puddin could see her but I had to cool my heels in the car. Never seen Manhattan like THAT it was like a scene from "The World The Flesh and the Devil" or some other apocalyptic film. Weird. Still thanks for the love. And she's doing better!

Worf

Bushman · May 8, 2020

Just finished up "Rambo: Last Blood." Although none of the sequels hold a candle to the moral told in "First Blood," I feel like this one comes the closest. Much like the original, at its heart, it's a film about loss and the difficulty John Rambo has in dealing with it. You could say that the movie wittles down to "the cartel screwed with the wrong man," but I feel like that would be a disservice to the story Stallone was trying to tell.

I think it's interesting how both Stallone and Rambo adapt the story, the acting, and the character to math his age. Rambo is old, and this movie doesn't hide that fact. He can't just face a problem by jumping head first into it and slicing as throats as they come to him. When Rambo tries it in this movie, he gets hurt, real bad. He's quickly reminded that the the brute strength of his use is just not there. I liked seeing Rambo overcome this by using his wits to create traps, and force the cartel to come fight him on his terms. He's the Rambo we've always known, but wiser from experience.

Worf said:
Yeah... I enjoyed it but not as much as I did "Hereditary" which was a mind blower. I can see the comparison to the original "Wicker Man" but that movies plot was more of a slow burn. From the second these folks show up at the "creepy commune" I'd a been out of there. Common sense is very uncommon I suppose. I'm used to being "the only raisin in the puddin'" at times, but that was too creepy a color scheme for me... I'd a been gone. Still I liked Midsommar a lot.

Worf

I agree "Hereditary" was definitely the superior film. I found "Midsommar" to be too "out there" in terms of storytelling. It was hard to tell what kind of story they wanted to tell, other than random events stitched together. "Hereditary" was superior alone in that it was far more coherent in story.

Fading Fast · May 8, 2020

Worf said:
Thanks for the offer of help. We traveled down a couple of days ago. Elanor is out of the ICU and will be home tomorrow. Puddin could see her but I had to cool my heels in the car. Never seen Manhattan like THAT it was like a scene from "The World The Flesh and the Devil" or some other apocalyptic film. Weird. Still thanks for the love. And she's doing better!

Worf

That's fantastic - we're so happy to hear that. It's an awful disease; so wonderful that she's out of ICU and coming home. That is a big achievement. Still here if you need us.

As to NYC, I agree with what you said and am stunned by how I am not getting used to it - I hate going out and seeing the city this way.

What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

belfastboy

Fading Fast

belfastboy

Fading Fast

Edward Reed

A-List Customer

Worf

I'll Lock Up

Fading Fast

Trenchfriend

Fading Fast

Fading Fast

Zombie_61

ton312

Fading Fast

belfastboy

Edward

Doctor Strange

I'll Lock Up

Worf

I'll Lock Up

Worf

I'll Lock Up

Bushman

I'll Lock Up

Fading Fast

Similar threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Latest posts

Latest posts

What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

A-List Customer

I'll Lock Up

I'll Lock Up

I'll Lock Up

I'll Lock Up

I'll Lock Up

Similar threads

Log in

Forum statistics