What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

^^^I missed this when it first came round town, ditto the read. I went to college with some of Cusack's family,
and I admit that I rather like the dude-there's another flick where he portrays a hit man attending his high school
reunion-but I wish I had seen this. Chicago has lotza record shops falling into disrepair, Vid and a lot of other stuff,
and I can name two or three guys that fit the profile-if not the lit protagonist. He was also good in Eastwood's
Midnight in The Garden of Good and Evil. Cusack should have cut his ego down for the flick in accord with the
script, no two ways about. Sos I'll check it all out and rerport back.
LIKE THE PSYCH STUFF ANALYSIS

Harp said:

^^^I missed this when it first came round town, ditto the read. I went to college with some of Cusack's family,
and I admit that I rather like the dude-there's another flick where he portrays a hit man attending his high school
reunion-but I wish I had seen this. Chicago has lotza record shops falling into disrepair, Vid and a lot of other stuff,
and I can name two or three guys that fit the profile-if not the lit protagonist. He was also good in Eastwood's
Midnight in The Garden of Good and Evil. Cusack should have cut his ego down for the flick in accord with the
script, no two ways about. Sos I'll check it all out and rerport back.
LIKE THE PSYCH STUFF ANALYSIS

Click to expand...

I think the guy's a talented actor and he did an okay job in a role for which he was simply miscast. Not many big, tall, good-looking men can pull off trying to play an insecure-around-women neurotic mess. Still, an enjoyable enough movie for what it is, ditto the book. And Iben Hjejle is ridiculously gorgeous.

Fading Fast said:

I think the guy's a talented actor and he did an okay job in a role for which he was simply miscast. Not many big, tall, good-looking men can pull off trying to play an insecure-around-women neurotic mess. Still, an enjoyable enough movie for what it is, ditto the book. And Iben Hjejle is ridiculously gorgeous.

Click to expand...

I saw him in Eastwood's Midnight, playing a mild mannered mag writer, no stretch atall, nada chops.
As a layman I would think a thespian would grab at the chance to play a difficult demanding role, not force himself
into a squeeze where he essentially played himself. Tom Cruise reminds me of what Dorothy Parker said
about Katherine Hepburn having a range from A-B. Cruise only plays himself, seemingly can only play hisself.
Mebbe Cusack's the same slice. For an Irishman, that's a surprise.

Harp said:

...Tom Cruise reminds me of what Dorothy Parker said
about Katherine Hepburn having a range from A-B. Cruise only plays himself, seemingly can only play hisself...

Click to expand...

John Wayne had a pretty good career playing "John Wayne", a.k.a. an on-screen version of himself, a false persona. So has Clint Eastwood, and Burt Reynolds, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone...surely you get the idea. Tom Cruise's problem is that few people like the version of himself that he's created on-screen, and even he's not particularly good at playing "himself". I don't care for "Tom Cruise" myself, and can only think of two or three of "his" movies I've watched more than once voluntarily.

I do like John Cusack and some of his movies, but as he's grown older and has concurrently matured he seems to have lost the ability to convincingly play characters who are below his own IQ level, i.e. "dumb".

^^^
Prior posts focused Cusack's seeming recuse from pushing himself, and Cruise as a contemporary ditto.
Perhaps complacency is culprit.

I found, simply speaking from an editing and story writing point of view, that Snyder's Justice League is a better movie than the theatrical cut. It's simply more cohesive, and you can understand what's going on and the character motivations behind it.

I'm honestly wondering if Whedon purposely sabotaged JL so the MCU didn't have to compete.

Worf said:

"Justice League - The Snyder Cut" - Well SOMEBODY had to watch this thing. Full disclosure I'm first and foremost a Marvel Man. Never had much use for DC until "The Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller. Other than that and a few Batman and Superman films (and the first Wonder Woman) DC has always left me cold. I did NOT see the J.L. movie and after the reviews would sooner gouge my eyeballs out than watch it.

It was clear, to me at least, that DC/Warner's was going mad about the success of the MCU and desperate to come up with something to compete... they failed... miserably and promptly cancelled their extended universe after the JL's dismal box office. However all the buzz around TSC made me curious... curious enough to give up 4 plus hours of what little life I've left. The Snyder Cut is a "good" superhero movie but still doesn't hold a candle to ANY of the Avengers films. If you're a DC nut or a Batman completist then watch it, if not you can skip it and not feel any FOMO.

Worf

Click to expand...

DC can't hope to compete with Marvel. After Christian Bale's Batman, they just sort of fell apart. Batman vs. Superman was one of the worst movies I'd ever watched until I watched Aquaman and then that one took the cake. That they're making a SECOND Aquaman movie just makes me shake my head. Why they can't make a decent movie is beyond me. I did enjoy the first Wonder Woman immensely but heard the second is another dismal failure.

It's curious to me how they don't see how truly awful these movies are when they finish them up. I mean, as a writer, I couldn't stand to put out something to the public that I wrote knowing it was awful. No way.

Marvel has outdone DC in every conceivable way: movies, stories, special effects, actors...they have done an absolutely incredible job.

Last night: The Thrill of It All with James Garner and Doris Day.

This morning: Don't Eat the Daisies with David Niven and Doris Day.

Right now: The Flying Leathernecks with John Wayne and Robert Ryan. I needed a good WW2 flick.

I caught the last third the other night of "I Want To Live!," starring Susan Heywood as a California prostitute convicted of murder, and fighting a death sentence with the help of a sympathetic newspaper reporter. The title makes it sound like a cheap fifties exploitation film, but what it is is a taut, semi-documentary study of the death penalty as it stood in mid-century California. Presented in counterpoint to Heyward's last desperate appeals is a slow, drudging moment-by-moment depiction of how the San Quentin gas chamber actually worked -- as operated by bored-looking men who've done this a hundred times before and obviously don't like it much. "But hey, it's a living."

Heyward, an actress who I've never really had much of an opinion of one way or another, spends most of the picture alternating between anger, resignation, and frustration, but the plod-plod-plod of the death-chamber preparations played against her histrionics was very very effective. Someday I'll have to watch the whole thing.

Mission: Impossible-Fallout
I had forgotten how entertaining this movie is. A great cast, great cinematography, great action, great stunts, pretty darn great all around. It’s got me looking forward to the next installment in the series.

As a lifelong comics fan, I also schlepped myself through the Snyder Justice League a couple of weeks ago.

The theatrical release was awful, a total mess, one star. This longer version is both better and worse. It's even more of a slog, but some of the recuts/additions are improvements. One star and a half.

Better includes the addition of boatloads of exposition: Cyborg's backstory, Steppenwolf's relationship with Darkseid (who finally appears vs. being held back for future sequels), more buildup for Arthur and Diana, more choice dialog from Jeremy Irons as Alfred, a bit more character development and explanation of character motivations throughout, and deleting that damn Russian family trying to drive away from the parademons...

Worse includes the score (which, for example, I thought hurt one of the sequences I'd liked in the first cut that was retained: the Bruce-recruits-Barry scene), the endless CGI onslaught of all the much-MUCH-too-long, too-frequently-slow-mo'ed fight scenes, the out-of-Midsommar sequence of the Icelander women singing praises to floating-around Arthur, the Return of the King-ish too-many epilogues (including the now longer "Knightmare" dream sequence that still belongs in another film)... and still nothing worthwhile for Amy Adams and Diane Lane to do. (I thought one of the few scenes in the original that had anything like real human feeling was when Lois and Martha commiserate about having lost Clark... which is this version, is totally lost when it's revealed afterwards that it's not really Martha, it's the Martian Manhunter disguised as Martha!)

And I will never like the shoehorning in of stuff "borrowed" from LOTR (the ancient "last alliance" of gods, Atlanteans, Amazons, and men) and ripping off the Infinity Stones (in Kirby's original conception, mother boxes were more like super, sentient, smartphones carried by all the New Gods, not three Macguffins that when united spell DOOM). And I'll take Tyler Hochelin's classically optimistic and likable take on Clark/Supes on Supergirl/Superman & Lois on the CW over Snyder/Cavill's emo orphaned Christ figure anytime!

The only one of the post-Christopher Nolan trilogy DC films that I thought worked decently was Wonder Woman. It had boatloads of charm, good performances, that thrilling No Man's Land sequence... but even it eventually suffered from the dreaded too long CGI fight at the end. Warners/DC/Snyder's decision to play up the DC heroes as a pantheon of iconic-posed "gods" in opposition to Marvel's snarkier, more flawed-human heroes is a reasonable approach to differentiate their universe. Too bad their films suck.

LizzieMaine said:

I caught the last third the other night of "I Want To Live!," starring Susan Heywood as a California prostitute convicted of murder, and fighting a death sentence with the help of a sympathetic newspaper reporter. The title makes it sound like a cheap fifties exploitation film, but what it is is a taut, semi-documentary study of the death penalty as it stood in mid-century California. Presented in counterpoint to Heyward's last desperate appeals is a slow, drudging moment-by-moment depiction of how the San Quentin gas chamber actually worked -- as operated by bored-looking men who've done this a hundred times before and obviously don't like it much. "But hey, it's a living."

Heyward, an actress who I've never really had much of an opinion of one way or another, spends most of the picture alternating between anger, resignation, and frustration, but the plod-plod-plod of the death-chamber preparations played against her histrionics was very very effective. Someday I'll have to watch the whole thing.

Click to expand...

An excellent study of capital punishment. Recently Lisa Montgomery was executed for a horrific crime but in my
opinion her psychological state precluded mens rea constituent elements requisite capital punishment, without
mitigating guilt and justified life imprisonment without parole. Unfortunately, she was denied such leniency either
at the bench or podium; including the Chief Justice of the United States, indicative of a collective lack of compassion
and intellect by those for whom Justice should be a priority....

Susan Heyward, like many starlets from adolescence is fondly remembered, and together with Simon Oakland cast
this flick toward a more serious portrayal of criminal law and punishment.

Doctor Strange said:

...The only one of the post-Christopher Nolan trilogy DC films that I thought worked decently was Wonder Woman. It had boatloads of charm, good performances, that thrilling No Man's Land sequence... but even it eventually suffered from the dreaded too long CGI fight at the end. ....

Click to expand...

Exactly how I felt about the first "Wonder Woman" movie. Also, while it tried somewhat, it lacked a coherent philosophical narrative/discussion the way the Nolan Batman ones did.

"Wonder Woman" was as good as a superhero picture gets for me, but it's been three years and I still don't understand why they had to move her from WWII to WWI. WW and Captain America are the two superhero characters inextricably linked to one specific historical setting for their origins, and it really didn't make any sense to me that they found it necessary to change that aspect of the story.

Other than that, I gave up on the DC movies a long time ago. I grew up reading DC comics, and the characters are unrecognizable to me now.

Although, I'll say this -- if they ever get sense enough to do a "Superman" movie reboot built around the original squinty-eyed New Deal Siegel & Shuster hell-raising Superman, set in the 1930s, I will absolutely be the first one in line.

Fading Fast said:

Exactly how I felt about the first "Wonder Woman" movie. it lacked a coherent philosophical narrative/discussion the way the Nolan Batman ones did.

Click to expand...

When you have Gal Godot, who needs a coherent philosophical narrative/discussion?

Worf said:

"Justice League - The Snyder Cut" - Well SOMEBODY had to watch this thing. Full disclosure I'm first and foremost a Marvel Man. Never had much use for DC until "The Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller. Other than that and a few Batman and Superman films (and the first Wonder Woman) DC has always left me cold. I did NOT see the J.L. movie and after the reviews would sooner gouge my eyeballs out than watch it.

It was clear, to me at least, that DC/Warner's was going mad about the success of the MCU and desperate to come up with something to compete... they failed... miserably and promptly cancelled their extended universe after the JL's dismal box office. However all the buzz around TSC made me curious... curious enough to give up 4 plus hours of what little life I've left. The Snyder Cut is a "good" superhero movie but still doesn't hold a candle to ANY of the Avengers films. If you're a DC nut or a Batman completist then watch it, if not you can skip it and not feel any FOMO.

Worf

Click to expand...

For my tastes, DC always had an advantage with darker source material for the most part. Their big mistake was that, unlike Marvel, they have long over-relied on the big properties - Batman and Superman. Marvel, partly in the early stages because of their big properties being tied up in other rights arrangements, which forced their hand in experimenting with lesser-known properties, which proved much more successful than churning out more and more versions of the same old same old.

DC now are prepared to take more risks - Doom Patrol was a great show. Justice League I'd be curious to see clips of the Snyder version, but the cinematic version was so dreadfully bad I can't imagine anything could save it. Phantom Menace in superhero tights. For me, for it to be any good it would have needed to delete Aquaman entirely, and wholly replaced Ezra Miller with almost any other actor. I don't blame him for a poor performance, it was just a rally bad miscasting.

Watch Godzilla Vs Kong last night as it came out yesterday on HBO Max. I found it rather... mediocre. I enjoyed the human drama interlaced into the first Godzilla movie. It felt very much like the original 1954 version to me, with strong atomic parallels. The second, much to the enthusiasm of the fans, featured much more monster action. It seemed very "Heisei Era" to me. Monster action, strong morals, strong human characterizations, no goofy, silly schlock.

GVK feels like it's a move set dead center in the peak of Showa Era Godzilla. Showa Era Godzilla was marked by characterizing Godzilla as this kid-friendly, silly, almost superhero type figure. He became a single father, formed a Kaiju Justice League, it was all very schlocky. GVK is no exception. A child is able to teach Kong sign language... secretly, Godzilla acts almost human in movements and mannerisms, and it's all tied together with rather lower quality visual effects. At least, low quality by today's standards.

This contrast is even starker by the fact that the previous two Godzilla films kept the effects very grounded. It wasn't bumbling like a man in a rubber suit, but it felt realistic. That all goes out the window with GVK. The movements are fast to the point of ridiculousness for creatures of this size, and I almost half-expected Godzilla to do that tail slide thing from Godzilla vs. Megalon. In all, I was actually kind of disappointed with this movie. It seemed like it had the potential to do something great, but took the schlock route instead.

LizzieMaine said:

"Wonder Woman" was as good as a superhero picture gets for me, but it's been three years and I still don't understand why they had to move her from WWII to WWI. WW and Captain America are the two superhero characters inextricably linked to one specific historical setting for their origins, and it really didn't make any sense to me that they found it necessary to change that aspect of the story.

Click to expand...

I personally don't mind the change of era. I find that WWI is already underrepresented in film compared to WWII or Vietnam. The fact that America only entered the war in its final year probably makes it harder for Hollywood to push their more famous American faces, unlike WWII.

LizzieMaine said:

I caught the last third the other night of "I Want To Live!," starring Susan Heywood as a California prostitute convicted of murder, and fighting a death sentence with the help of a sympathetic newspaper reporter...Someday I'll have to watch the whole thing.

Click to expand...

My wife and I watched this too. It was my second viewing, and didn't change my opinion that it's worth seeing at least once, but plays out very much like every other "crime drama" of it's era. The one way in which I feel the movie fails is in the way it leaves Barbara Graham's responsibility for the murder of Mrs. Monahan somewhat ambiguous despite her being convicted and put to death; most of the crew allegedly believed without question that Graham did indeed commit the murder.

Zombie_61 said:

My wife and I watched this too. It was my second viewing, and didn't change my opinion that it's worth seeing at least once, but plays out very much like every other "crime drama" of it's era. The one way in which I feel the movie fails is in the way it leaves Barbara Graham's responsibility for the murder of Mrs. Monahan somewhat ambiguous despite her being convicted and put to death; most of the crew allegedly believed without question that Graham did indeed commit the murder.

Click to expand...

It has been awhile since I saw this. And I would like to see it again. Cannot recall most of the film except its final scene,
and Oakland reading the deceased's letter though it was evident by the overall tenor that Heyward had committed
the crime and she had the requisite moxie for murder.