What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Formeruser012523]

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)

Another one of those movies I somehow missed when it was first out. The whole time I kept thinking, "What even is this?" The camera looked out of focus, or just had a thick filter? Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow had zero chemistry. There was basically no plot and it seemed they were chasing a bad guy that didn't exist. It had a very cool art deco look and feel to it, but otherwise, there was nothing else.

Giovanni Ribisi was probably the best character in the thing (Dex). I only know his name because they kept yelling it over and over again. A funny name too because he saved himself (after he was captured by bad guys) and pulled a Dues-ex-Machina, right when the "heroes" showed up.

And I still don't know why Angelina was top billed when she was in one cheeseball of a scene.

Another movie that looks cool, but just doesn't pan out.

 

[Fading Fast]

...And I still don't know why Angelina was top billed when she was in one cheeseball of a scene.
...

Never saw it, but my guess re Jolie's billing is (1) she was a big draw at the time and the producers wanted her name first or (2) she demanded it in return for her participation in the movie and she had enough clout to get it. Also, in 2004, the "power" couple thing with Pitt might have filliped reason one or two.

 

[MissMittens]

Watched "Midnight" (1939) with Claudette Colbert and Don Ameche. A light romantic comedy with Colbert playing a girl who pretends to be a baroness in order to seduce a rich man's wife's boyfriend, and Ameche playing a cab driver who's in love with Colbert.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Okay, I was totally on top of Sky Captain when it came out - I took my kids to see it in the theater, enjoyed it as a fun (if badly written and acted) steampunk adventure with references to/ripoffs of the Fleischer Superman cartoons, Lost Horizon, serials, etc., and I eventually got the DVD - so let me fill in a couple of points.

This was the first "digital backlot" film, shot on minimal practical sets and expanded with CGI, back when most theaters hadn't even yet switched to digital projection. While there was some good retro design, the process was far from smooth or believable, even given that it's a fantasy with um, "heightened" stylization. It took a while for people to do (a little) better movies using this kind of method, e.g., 300 and Sin City.

But the real lesson of this film was that it began as an amateur's little computer graphics project (done on inexpensive Apple hardware), which was seen and impressed somebody in the film biz enough to come up the budget for expanding the opening five-minute giant robots sequence into a feature. And the techie who was suddenly christened writer/director... didn't remotely have the skill or experience to write dialog, direct actors, or structure a feature film.

It's no accident that the guy who made this movie has never made another, he's just totally inept at everything but the snazzy visuals. The story "logic", pacing, and most of the acting is just embarrassing. Jolie was huge at the moment and she got the biggest payday for an absurd cameo appearance, and Law and Paltrow tried their best to do old-school Hollywood acting to match the amateur director's concept of a thirties adventure film... and it didn't work.

The film is a fascinating failure that quickly wears out its welcome once it leaves New York. It's visually enjoyable if you have affection for the stuff it's pastiching, but it's not actually good. For myself, it was kind of fun at the time, as much of a mess as it is. Now it's mostly a cautionary tale of why a computer geek who made a snazzy little retro robot video should never be handed millions to make a Hollywood feature!

We discussed it detail MUCH earlier in this thread, and here:

https://www.thefedoralounge.com/threads/sky-captain-and-the-world-of-tomorrow.589/

 

[Formeruser012523]

Laughed through that entire thread. Thanks.

 

[Worf]

Okay, I was totally on top of Sky Captain when it came out - I took my kids to see it in the theater, enjoyed it as a fun (if badly written and acted) steampunk adventure with references to/ripoffs of the Fleischer Superman cartoons, Lost Horizon, serials, etc., and I eventually got the DVD - so let me fill in a couple of points.

This was the first "digital backlot" film, shot on minimal practical sets and expanded with CGI, back when most theaters hadn't even yet switched to digital projection. While there was some good retro design, the process was far from smooth or believable, even given that it's a fantasy with um, "heightened" stylization. It took a while for people to do (a little) better movies using this kind of method, e.g., 300 and Sin City.

But the real lesson of this film was that it began as an amateur's little computer graphics project (done on inexpensive Apple hardware), which was seen and impressed somebody in the film biz enough to come up the budget for expanding the opening five-minute giant robots sequence into a feature. And the techie who was suddenly christened writer/director... didn't remotely have the skill or experience to write dialog, direct actors, or structure a feature film.

It's no accident that the guy who made this movie has never made another, he's just totally inept at everything but the snazzy visuals. The story "logic", pacing, and most of the acting is just embarrassing. Jolie was huge at the moment and she got the biggest payday for an absurd cameo appearance, and Law and Paltrow tried their best to do old-school Hollywood acting to match the amateur director's concept of a thirties adventure film... and it didn't work.

The film is a fascinating failure that quickly wears out its welcome once it leaves New York. It's visually enjoyable if you have affection for the stuff it's pastiching, but it's not actually good. For myself, it was kind of fun at the time, as much of a mess as it is. Now it's mostly a cautionary tale of why a computer geek who made a snazzy little retro robot video should never be handed millions to make a Hollywood feature!

We discussed it detail MUCH earlier in this thread, and here:

https://www.thefedoralounge.com/threads/sky-captain-and-the-world-of-tomorrow.589/

I was just as hyped as you when I learned of this film I was heavy into flight-sims at the time. I flew nightly with a squadron. The sight of those hopped up sci-f1 P-40 Warhawks, British Heli-carriers and other space aged gear had me drooling. However, all the flaws with the film that you so neatly point out meant that it never lived up to any of its vast potential. In the right hands... say a Spielberg or Ron Howard, this could've been something iconic along the lines of Indiana Jones. But nope... Sigh.... what could'a been. Don't know which film disappointed me more Sky Captain", "The Shadow" or "The Spirit". The latter being iconic pulp heroes ill-served by Hollywood and Sky Captain a great concept murdered in its crib.

Worf

 

[Edward]

I still like Sky Captain, though I think I read it as more of a deliberate B movie than was perhaps intended. Chimed very strongly with my memories of being about six and watching the Buster Crabbe Flash Gordon (I remember liking it far more than the 70s TV version).

The Spirit was a bit of fluff - fun enough, but TBH I was more disappointed in the source material when I checked it out after the film. The Shadow was much better. I still find it holds up fairly well - indeed, it was a far better Batman than Batman had become by 1994/5. I did hear a rumour that Sam Raimi had finally gotten hold of the rights to The Shadow; that I'd like to see. Perhaps a netflix type run.... I think most thingswith significant depth these days would benefit mored from that than a cinema feature treatment.

 

[2jakes]

I prefer this shorter version although out of focus...it was ok viewing it
on my Dick Tracy 2-way wrist TV!

 

[Julian Shellhammer]

I liked Sky Captain... when it ran in the theatre, and bought the dvd when it came out, then bought the blu-ray later on. It is indeed a pastiche, and yes, the plot line runs all over the place, but I can still enjoy it for its gazillion references to Golden Era movies and pulps and comic books. I guess I can't say I'm disappointed in it, since I approached it for what it was, a first-of-its-kind movie that played around with popular entertainment riffs. Still, as someone pointed out, the idea and the technology in the hands of an experienced director could have been even better.

 

[Zombie_61]

Sky Captain had disappeared from the local theaters before I had a chance to see it, and by the time I finally saw it on cable many years later I had already read about it's various flaws and the fan complaints. As such, my expectations were drastically lowered and I was able to enjoy it for what it was. Not a great movie and not particularly a favorite of mine, but it can be a fun "cult" level film if you don't take it too seriously.

 

[Seb Lucas]

Okay, I was totally on top of Sky Captain when it came out - I took my kids to see it in the theater, enjoyed it as a fun (if badly written and acted) steampunk adventure with references to/ripoffs of the Fleischer Superman cartoons, Lost Horizon, serials, etc., and I eventually got the DVD - so let me fill in a couple of points.

This was the first "digital backlot" film, shot on minimal practical sets and expanded with CGI, back when most theaters hadn't even yet switched to digital projection. While there was some good retro design, the process was far from smooth or believable, even given that it's a fantasy with um, "heightened" stylization. It took a while for people to do (a little) better movies using this kind of method, e.g., 300 and Sin City.

But the real lesson of this film was that it began as an amateur's little computer graphics project (done on inexpensive Apple hardware), which was seen and impressed somebody in the film biz enough to come up the budget for expanding the opening five-minute giant robots sequence into a feature. And the techie who was suddenly christened writer/director... didn't remotely have the skill or experience to write dialog, direct actors, or structure a feature film.

It's no accident that the guy who made this movie has never made another, he's just totally inept at everything but the snazzy visuals. The story "logic", pacing, and most of the acting is just embarrassing. Jolie was huge at the moment and she got the biggest payday for an absurd cameo appearance, and Law and Paltrow tried their best to do old-school Hollywood acting to match the amateur director's concept of a thirties adventure film... and it didn't work.

The film is a fascinating failure that quickly wears out its welcome once it leaves New York. It's visually enjoyable if you have affection for the stuff it's pastiching, but it's not actually good. For myself, it was kind of fun at the time, as much of a mess as it is. Now it's mostly a cautionary tale of why a computer geek who made a snazzy little retro robot video should never be handed millions to make a Hollywood feature!

We discussed it detail MUCH earlier in this thread, and here:

https://www.thefedoralounge.com/threads/sky-captain-and-the-world-of-tomorrow.589/

I didn't mind this film when it came out and despite being an absurd but intriguing failure, to my taste it had more heart and watchability than the bloated priapic pretensions of Sin City and 300.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I wasn't claiming they were better films, just that they used the "digital backlot" methodology better.

That said, I personally like 300 BECAUSE it's just so insanely overwrought and nutso. (Plus I was a fan of The 300 Spartans in my youth and I'm a sucker for the story.) Conversely, Sin City has very quickly turned me off each time I've tried to watch it.

And note that I'm criticizing Sky Captain from a place of love - I was very excited when it came out, saw it theatrically, got the DVD... But I was never blind to its many faults, and alas, time hasn't improved it.

Regarding some of the other things that have been mentioned... The Shadow is far from the worst of the boomlet of comics/pulp films that followed in the wake of the 1989 Batman's success; I'd nominate The Phantom for that position. And The Spirit is just a misbegotten disaster from beginning to end: Will Eisner deserves better.

 

[MisterCairo]

The family is watching our Hallowe'en collection, so far the films are limited to the two Addams Family flicks from the early 90s. Fun fluff, and man, Angelica Huston, wow...

 

[Doctor Strange]

Continuing from last week's 1934 The Age of Innocence, I watched another earlier adaptation of a nineties classic via TCM: the 1960 French film Plein Soleil starring Alain Delon, which is actually The Talented Mr. Ripley.

It's different from Anthony Minghella's film with Matt Damon, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Cate Blanchett in a number of ways. The story begins later, with Ripley already having ingratiated himself, already hanging with Dickie (here renamed Phillipe) Greenleaf and Marge on Phillipe's sailboat. The biggest change is that the Cate Blanchett character doesn't exist, which removes a lot of the suspense about Ripley managing his false identity. Also, Ripley kills Phillipe on the sailboat Phillipe owns, not in a rowboat. And Ripley is captured by the police at the fadeout.

In other respects, it is pretty much the same story... though it's not a period piece like the 1999 film. And it's far more concerned with the mechanics of Ripley's impersonation, there are several too-dragged-out sequences: of him learning to forge Phillipe's signature; of getting murdered Freddy down the stairs to his car; of forging letters on Phillipe's typewriter; of sinking Phillipe's body with the boat's anchor. Anyway, it's nowhere near as compelling as the later adaptation. Interesting comparison, though.

 

[MissMittens]

The family is watching our Hallowe'en collection, so far the films are limited to the two Addams Family flicks from the early 90s. Fun fluff, and man, Angelica Huston, wow...

We've been watching those in the house too lately. Addams Family/Family Values, The Witches, Hocus Pocus...... makes me feel young again

 

[Fading Fast]

Continuing from last week's 1934 The Age of Innocence, I watched another earlier adaptation of a nineties classic via TCM: the 1960 French film Plein Soleil starring Alain Delon, which is actually The Talented Mr. Ripley.

It's different from Anthony Minghella's film with Matt Damon, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Cate Blanchett in a number of ways. The story begins later, with Ripley already having ingratiated himself, already hanging with Dickie (here renamed Phillipe) Greenleaf and Marge on Phillipe's sailboat. The biggest change is that the Cate Blanchett character doesn't exist, which removes a lot of the suspense about Ripley managing his false identity. Also, Ripley kills Phillipe on the sailboat Phillipe owns, not in a rowboat. And Ripley is captured by the police at the fadeout.

In other respects, it is pretty much the same story... though it's not a period piece like the 1999 film. And it's far more concerned with the mechanics of Ripley's impersonation, there are several too-dragged-out sequences: of him learning to forge Phillipe's signature; of getting murdered Freddy down the stairs to his car; of forging letters on Phillipe's typewriter; of sinking Phillipe's body with the boat's anchor. Anyway, it's nowhere near as compelling as the later adaptation. Interesting comparison, though.

Seen both and agree with all you said. The book is better than the first adaptation / the second movie, at minimum, equals the book.

 

[Formeruser012523]

Regarding some of the other things that have been mentioned... The Shadow is far from the worst of the boomlet of comics/pulp films that followed in the wake of the 1989 Batman's success; I'd nominate The Phantom for that position. And The Spirit is just a misbegotten disaster from beginning to end: Will Eisner deserves better.

The Shadow? The one with Alec Baldwin? If that's the one, my sister and I went to see this in the theater and promptly walked out. Haven't seen it since, so I don't recall what was so bad about it that made us look at each other, get up, and leave.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Thirties pulp/radio characters have never been well-served by movies because they can never decide whether to treat them as "camp" or take them seriously. You've got to do one or the other because they don't mix.

The Spirit will never work in any medium other than the original eight to ten page Eisner comics because the Spirit himself was never all that interesting a character. It was what happened *around* the Spirit that made his stories interesting -- in the best of the Eisner stories, the Spirit hardly appears at all. You can't build much of a movie around that.

 

[Fading Fast]

"The Stranger's Return" 1933 with Mariam Hopkins and Lionel Barrymore

Not every pre-code was about tawdry and/or wanton sex (many were), but, as in this one, many were just serious looks at all the challenges and problems adults have trying to live within the moral boundaries of their times. And that, more than the tawdry and wanton sex (as much fun as it is) is a big part of the greatness of pre-codes - they reflect life closer to how it was than the subsequent code-enforced era that used screwball comedies and ridiculously forced-and-convoluted plots to mask the eternal human condition of moral struggle.

In "The Stranger's Return," a recently separated (big deal at the time) Mariam Hopkins returns to her grandfather's farm and ends up flirting heavily with a married man whose marriage is portrayed with thoughtful nuance as being okay - childhood sweethearts who still like each other but have grown apart - but susceptible to temptation. Throw in some conniving relatives of Hopkins trying to steal her grandfather's farm and there's more than enough to fill this ninety minute movie.

It's a bit clunky and, oddly, slow in a few parts, but well worth it for the intricate story and first rate acting. Plus, the rule that female stars in pre-codes were not allowed to wear bras was strictly enforced - if not a real rule, almost all the female leads of the era abided by it. Also worth it just to see Barrymore dress down his venal relatives when they tried to get him committed - he wonderfully (if in a bit contrived manner) turned the tables on them.

 

[Fading Fast]

Thirties pulp/radio characters have never been well-served by movies because they can never decide whether to treat them as "camp" or take them seriously. You've got to do one or the other because they don't mix.
....

Should be put in large print right over every script writer's desk.