Last Movie You Watched? 7.0

trevanian wrote:

Didn't DePalma want Annette Haven for the Melanie Griffith role? I remember a book called DOUBLE DEPALMA (unfortunately the subtitle was not 2 MUCH OF A GOOD THING) on the making of and I think the studio flat-out refused to make a film with a real and still-active porn actress in it.

Yep. He had Haven in mind.

I personally love BODY DOUBLE. For whatever reason, it does it for me.

Rolling Thunder (1977)

I enjoyed it. I wasn't really bothered by the violence. Nice to see William Devane as Paul Kersey with a hook hand and Rosco Coltrane as a scumbag. Linda Haynes is appealling.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Didn't DePalma want Annette Haven for the Melanie Griffith role? I remember a book called DOUBLE DEPALMA (unfortunately the subtitle was not 2 MUCH OF A GOOD THING) on the making of and I think the studio flat-out refused to make a film with a real and still-active porn actress in it.

Yep. He had Haven in mind.

And in penis.

Night Moves (1975, Arthur Penn)

Another film with Mel Griffith,what an unpleasant coincident! But she is better here than in most of her other films (not that I've seen many). A fairly good p. i. film. Not sure what to say, other than that Hackman is pretty good.

Also watched most of ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS (1955, Sirk), but it's too much of a sirupy melodrama, and not very original, either. I like what the film wants to say about society's prejudices on that particular matter, but the film does not convey its messages in a truly convincing way. But it's partially well made, at least.

Manhunter wrote:

Night Moves (1975, Arthur Penn)

Another film with Mel Griffith,what an unpleasant coincident! But she is better here than in most of her other films (not that I've seen many). A fairly good p. i. film. Not sure what to say, other than that Hackman is pretty good.

Also watched most of ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS (1955, Sirk), but it's too much of a sirupy melodrama, and not very original, either. I like what the film wants to say about society's prejudices on that particular matter, but the film does not convey its messages in a truly convincing way. But it's partially well made, at least.

RE: NIGHT MOVES. I really like the film.

RE: ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS. I really like Sirk's technical style. His melodrama's in the 50's are certainly very melodramatic, to repeat the word. But that's part of what I like about them. WRITTEN ON THE WIND is my favorite.



You've gotta take them as they are. They're very over-the-top in a lot of things, and some of the attitudes of the time play as hilarity today. And there's the sorta ironical, post-modern pleasure of watching these romances knowing that Rock Hudson was a total queen.

But Sirk was very good with a camera. You might say I get stuck on that issue. If I don't like how something is shot and lit, I have a tendency to disregard the whole thing.

EDIT ADDON: As for WRITTEN ON THE WIND, the whole first act or so seriously plays so much like a MAD MEN episode it's ridiculous. I'd cast Bob Stack as Roger and Rock as Don.

Struggling to watch anything these days and this one didn't help...

The Mechanic (2011)

Generally I quite like Stathams actioner's but this one just lacked any sense of impact, the initial premise is decent enough, although it leaves the viewer with no one really to root for or care about - every one basically deserves to die despite the attempt to villainise the various 'marks' (or is that Marques..meh).

I can't remember the Bronsan original at all, but am confident it must be better than this - altogether too routine and bland with nothing to warrant a second dip.

4/10

Lawless - I needed something to take away the shadow that The Watch had cast over my weekend, and this based-on-a-true-story Prohibition-era 'family of moonshiners vs. out-of-town-lawman' did quite nicely. Excellent cast (Shia LaBoeuf, Tom Hardy, Guy Pearce and Gary Oldman). There's not much by way of 'sanitised' violence here ... most of it is brutal and bloody, made me wince quite often.

Soul Kitchen (2009, dir. Fatih Akin)

A passable film with some decent humour and local colour. Not believable, instead full of comical exaggerations. The last scene with Udo Kier is pretty hilarious.


10 Rillington Place (1971, dir. Richard Fleischer)

A very well researched film about the real life events surrounding the serial murderer John Reginald Christie. This film handles its material commendably. It's an utterly realistic portrayal of events, and compelling from beginning to end. Attenborough is marvelous in this most believable portrayal of such an extraordinarily bad person, it's as natural and convincing a performance as you can draw out of an actor. I am also pleased with John Hurt's acting on display, and Judy Geeson is also quite admirable as naive and pitiable Beryl. It's such a restrained and compelling film, it - along with PEEPING TOM and THE COLLECTOR - makes THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS and, much more so, SE7EN look pretty fake and ludicrous. I wonder why Fleischer is universally hated; you could not have handled the film better than he did.






PS: Recently watched the SIMON & SIMON episode with Gregg Henry. It's from 1984, too.

the Ladykillers

fantastically dark and funny film with each actor in their element particularly Alec Guinness as the Alistair Sims-esque lead. The film looks rich in colour bringing out the King's Cross location brilliantly. Good to see the likes of Jack Warner and Kenneth Connor in the film.

THE BEST EXOTIC MARIGOLD HOTEL. This ensemble-fish-out-of-water "dramedy" was, like many other British films, shot in 2.35:1 in the apparent belief that this aspect ratio automatically lends a "cinematic" quality. It doesn't, and especially not when, as here, the material is fundamentally televisual. More extended sitcom episode than movie (with a shoehorned-in subplot that feels like a retread of SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE with the same lead, Dev Patel), THE BEST EXOTIC MARIGOLD HOTEL incorporates virtually every cliché and stereotype about India imaginable, sometimes in ways that make INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM seem restrained, and no joke is too old or too obvious to be included in the script. Being as how this is a "classy" film with a cast crammed with some of Britain's most revered thespians (and is, one presums, aimed chiefly at senior citizens with a certain amount of education and taste), it's surprising how low it sometimes goes. For instance, shortly after arriving in India, our elderly white British heroes and heroines are served curry for dinner and they all immediately get the runs. Hilarious! THE BEST EXOTIC MARIGOLD HOTEL is pretty tired stuff, blending implausible and/or predictable plot turns with its less-than-refreshing observations and humour. That said, the actors do what they can, and given how talented many of them are they do succeed in carrying the show for the most part. It's a flick that offers no novelty, or even anything particularly interesting, but it just about passes muster as a so-so rainy day rental.

LADYBIRD, LADYBIRD. If there's one genre that the Brits do well it's the unremittingly bleak and almost unwatchably realistic kitchen sink drama, and Ken Loach is a giant in this field. Deeply harrowing and ridiculously well-acted, LADYBIRD, LADYBIRD is horrifying, haunting and a must-see.

ALMOST FAMOUS: UNTITLED. Cameron Crowe's extended cut of his 2000 near-masterpiece is, as expected, a delight. Superb performances by Frances McDormand and, especially, Kate Hudson.

CLOVERFIELD. I was told that it was good. I was misinformed.

EDDIE MURPHY RAW. Stupendously unfunny.

The Good Shepherd (2006, dir. Robert De Niro)

Another film that is comparatively subtle in making and endeavours to be realistic. Roth seems to be a capable guy; both intelligence service affairs and personal drama are well conceived. The acting in general is pretty convincing, though I would have preferred another lead. Even the best make-up won't turn him into a believable incarnation of a man who has lived through personal and professional hardships. I am surprised how good Bobby does his directing job. In addition, cinematography and score are pleasing, too. A fine film, but it requires at least one more viewing.

Ridiculously underrated film.

Once upon a time I tried to watch it. Maybe I'll make another attempt some day. But I'll probably forget.

I'll keep reminding you until you've no choice but to watch it.

It's worked for Harms, it'll work for you.

Just don't send Joe Pesci to remind me.

Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea

one of the films to pass time by still. Glorious in colour, fun in scope and plot (well not quite fun but the word remains). Dare to imagine Basehart/Hedison in the film but you have the third season episode "The Sky's on Fire" for that. Whereas Basehart's Nelson is mostly serious, gruff there's something almost jaunty about Pidgeon's Nelson. Sure he takes matters seriously, the Earth's predictament and even slapping about Avalon but he doesn't take other moments seriously. Hell with it, bit of fun as I wonder.
Sidenote being that Robert Easton (Sparks) voiced dear old Phones in Stingray, somehow did the Klingon Judge's voice in Star Trek VI and sadly died almost a year ago.

Winchester '73 (1950, dir. Anthony Mann)

Very good film. I found it more interesting and engaging than SPUR, but that's not meant to criticize that film (I saw it under sub-standard viewing conditions). Well shot, acted and directed. I'd like to see more of Mann.

Manhunter wrote:

Winchester '73 (1950, dir. Anthony Mann)

Very good film. I found it more interesting and engaging than SPUR, but that's not meant to criticize that film (I saw it under sub-standard viewing conditions). Well shot, acted and directed. I'd like to see more of Mann.

I found THE FAR COUNTRY the most fun and entertaining.

Femme Fatale (2002, dir. Brian De Palma)

Yes, it's a film that plays with the ability to foresee the future and the consequences of that knowledge for the character of the person with that ability. The femme fools the men she encounters just as much as the director of the film plays tricks on the audience. Yes, the aquarium is overflowing to indicate it's a dream vision while the bath tub is overflowing, and yes, the clock in the interrogation room shows the exact same time that the femme falls asleep at in her bath tub, and the hands don't move; the film posters on the ad pillar give clues to the story as well - the film is rich with details, and Brian, you're a clever bloke, but with this film you just bore me. Romijn looks like a skinny pubescent milk face (a male one at that); the whole heist sequence bored me this time, while I quite enjoyed it the first time (and not only because of its cheesiness and improbability and its not too hot sex); the striptease/ f*ck Banderas part is also stale and ludicrous, just like all of the sexual elements, they aren't enticing in the slightest. Overall, the film leaves me cold; it just is not good. A serious thriller once again would have been the better route to take. The slo-mo sequences are stale and silly after a career-long reuse. The femme's character changes only after she foresees her own death; she actually does not really have any insights into the amorality of her own character. In addition to many cheesy scenes, the ending comes across as quite the kitsch. I can't say anything in the film affects me positively as far as emotions are concerned. It's a filmmaker's fun romp that feels very much like Tarantino's self-pleasing hackwork. It's a film for the brain only, and certainly one of the weakest by De Palma. Some of his lesser film, while not as ambitious as FEMME FATALE, are at least enjoyable. It's a pretty poor film, no matter what the De Palma addicts say. I won't get through all of it another time. It's not rewarding.

The knowing absurdity of FEMME FATALE is a big part of what makes it so appealing to me. It was really the first film where I really "got" what De Palma was up to. I can easily understand why it doesn't work for everyone, though.

I wasn't crazy about it on the first viewing, but I loved it on the second.

I haven't been posting about the films I've watched, have I?

RE: various avatars. Wish I could upload animated gifs.

And Lady Sects' avatar takes it to a hole new level.

GOOD WILL HUNTING. Overlong and not always believable, this is still a terrific movie by pretty much any measure, as well as probably the best-crafted and most captivating underdog yarn since ROCKY. Like Sly's breakthrough smash, HUNTING is, when you get right down to it, shamelessly manipulative (as all great movies are and must be, of course), and basically a good old-fashioned slab of feelgood fare (pure "Hollywood" in other words, its "indie" credentials notwithstanding), but it has genuine heart and soul (and wit), along with characters worth caring about. Fifteen years on, it almost seems a throwback to a vanished age of solid, satisfying filmmaking for intelligent viewers (although that perhaps says rather more about how filmmaking appears to have declined since 1997 than it does about how brilliant HUNTING is). Gus Van Sant does an excellent job of handling a highly talky script with five main characters, and superb performances are given by all and sundry.

MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO was alright, but beyond that I'm no fan of Gus Van Sant.

DARK PASSAGE (1947, dir. Delmer Daves)

Of the four Bacall/Bogart films, I've only seen THE BIG SLEEP, but I've never be overwhelming fond of that picture. DARK PASSAGE, though, really struck a chord with me. PASSAGE may well contend with IN A LONELY PLACE for the title of my favorite Bogart flick.

Largo's Shark wrote:

MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO was alright, but beyond that I'm no fan of Gus Van Sant.

I found the majority of it pretty torturous, although part of that was probably having to watch it in a film appreciation class.

The Avengers...street date is September 25 but advance copies are already out.