What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[The Jackal]

Captain Marvel. Though a typically well done Marvel Cinematic Universe film, it's kind of meh. I can't quite put my finger on why it's unsatisfying, because the actors are good, the action is good, it's got the spectacle, it's got the humor, it's got the links to other MCU projects... but I was underwhelmed.

I had the same feelings about it. As I sit and think about it, I've come to the conclusion that the plot never really had any gravity to it. The plot itself didn't seem to have any stakes that were defined in a way that you were invested in the outcome beyond the standard "the hero wins".

The movie was essentially designed to move chess pieces in preparation for End Game, and that's really all it felt like.

 

[2jakes]

Frankenstein (1931)
the uncut version!

 

[Zombie_61]

^ Still my favorite of Universal's "horror" movies from that era.

 

[Fading Fast]

The unfortunate thing is that film criticism was just as heavily censored as the pictures themselves -- the editor/publisher of the leading fan publication of the time, Photoplay magazine's Kathryn Dougherty, was a wholly-owned mouthpiece for the Breen Office, and all the other fan publications followed her lead -- for fear that the studios would cut off their access if they got out of line. So the only commentary fans were allowed to read were comments and letters to the effect of how much better pictures were now that smut was off the screen and that Hollywood was again showing its public-spiritedness by cleaning up its own house. Not just the screen itself, but mainstream film criticism was under the control of an ultraconservative faction of the Roman Catholic Church, and contrary opinions were thoroughly stifled in the mainstream press.

There were many contrary voices heard in the radical left-wing press -- the Daily Worker's film critic routinely mocked the repressed superficiality of American films -- but, alas, Joe and Sally Flannelbutt going out twice a week to play Screeno at the Bijou weren't getting their film criticism from there, or from "New Masses" or "New Theatre." You would probably find, though, that Joe and Sally might have become quite a bit more cynical about they saw on the screen by the end of the thirties. "Aw, that's just in the movies!" was not an uncommonly-heard phrase.

Interestingly, nationwide box office dropped significantly over the second half of the thirties, to the point where, by 1938, the industry was going into something of a panic over it. It was during this period that the craze for Screeno, Dish Night, and other such promotions overwhelmed the neighborhood houses to the point where patrons were more interested in how much was in the jackpot than in what picture was showing. Exhibitors were extremely critical of the product they were given, but chose to focus on certain high-priced stars as "Box Office Poison" rather than thinking deeper about what was really going on -- yes, those specific "box office poison" stars were tanking, but it's very interesting to note that every one of those stars -- most of whom were female -- were performers who had become established in the pre-Code era, and who were associated with a certain type of "sophisticated" film that could no longer be made. The conclusion seems obvious, but it's one even the exhibitors were afraid to draw in public.

Great color and this, "...Joe and Sally might have become quite a bit more cynical about they saw on the screen by the end of the thirties. "Aw, that's just in the movies!" was not an uncommonly-heard phrase[,]" says so much. Before TV, movies were the only game in town, so they could survive with a cynical audience, but eventually, it's not a sustainable model.

One great flaw of humans (myself absolutely included as I fight the instinct all the time) - be it when in businesses or governments (charities do this too) - is to try to "market" or "advertise" a reality that isn't there into existence.

One reoccurring fight I've had in my now three-decade-long career on Wall Street is when I argue that we must treat our clients with respect, which means being honest about our products and services and advertise/market them that way. Not that anyone (or almost anyone) advocates for outright lying, but the desire to "paint a good picture" or only show the good side, etc. is incredibly strong.

I attribute part of the small success I've had to simply being one of the ones who tells it straight. I always open up any meeting, speech, call, etc., with an explanation of the flaws, challenges, shortcomings, etc., of what we were selling or discussing or advocating, etc.

The funny thing is, I've found that it works very well as people respect you more and trust you more. Yes, occasionally, I've had someone get angry because they didn't want to hear the truth about something they owned or believed in, etc., but that was the rarity; in general, I found that people are happy when you are honest with them.

But I assume that only works on a small, one-on-one, scale as, otherwise, private industry and most governments in the world have got advertising/marketing wrong and I doubt that's the case.


Question: Lizzie, when you quote someone and change the punctuation - as I did in quoting you above - to make it flow with the entire sentence, is it correct to bracket the changed punctuation the way I did (it looks funny, but I didn't know how else to to do it)? If not, what is the correct way? Thank you.

 

[LizzieMaine]

That method of punctuating works for me.

And remember, as the motion picture exhibitors desperately bellowed in a nationwide ad campaign to fluff their sagging box office receipts in 1938 - "Motion Pictures Are Your BEST Entertainment!"

 

[HanauMan]

Watched John Wick (2014), 'starring' Keanu Reeves, the other day. Darn it, that's an hour and a half out of my life that I'll never get back!

Caught a film today that I last saw as a kid over forty years ago but which I have remembered ever since.

I thought that it was a American film but it is actually a 1959 British movie called SOS Pacific. It follows a plane load of folk, both passengers and crew, as they fly through a Pacific storm in a clapped out WWII flying boat. There are three crew; a pilot with PTSD (who also owns the 'plane / company), a navigator and the stewardess (a former love interest of the pilot). There are six passengers; a policeman, a prisoner / hero (American actor Eddie Constantine, and the reason that I thought it was an American film as a kid), a loser (who also has a grudge against the prisoner), a upper class English woman, a lower class woman and, of course, a German physicist on vacation.

Anyhow, the plane first catches fire and then, after accidentally getting the navigator killed during the attempt to put out the fire, the plane is forced to ditch near to an island. The remaining cast get off the sinking plane and make it to the island. Just before they ditch into the sea they see a whole fleet of ships at anchor next to the island. On the island they find some livestock and a couple of bunkers. It turns out that they're now on a hydrogen bomb site and it is five hours until detonation of the nuclear device. We find out that the pilot has PTSD due to having been an observer to the Hiroshima bombing 14 years before and having seen the aftermath on a visit to that city soon after. Oh, and he gets eaten by sharks.

I won't spoil the ending, but do remember that one of the passengers is a physicist!

I can see why I remembered the film for so long (a shark feast, a shoot out, a nuclear bomb, a plane crash, I mean, what is there not to like for a kid?). It is a bit wordy and, of course, has a couple of love interest moments thrown in. The action wouldn't win any prizes today (nor, frankly, would the acting though none of the actors are as bad as Keanu Reeves), but, nevertheless, it is a good enough film 'with a message' worth keeping an eye out for.

 

[belfastboy]

Watched "The Favourite" last night. Broke down and spent the $6 on the rental. It was worth the money and my time. Three of us watched it and all loved it. The 3 women's performances were top notch. Olivia Coleman was a stand out. There were a few clunky moments....the director made some strange choices but they were minor glitches and did not detract from our enjoyment. Often a hyped film disappoints but not this time.

 

[Bushman]

Last night, I watched "Signs," and I'd forgotten how creepy this movie is. Easily one of Shyamalan's scariest. What makes it worse is my neighbors house roof looks just like this.

And sometimes I'm scared I might see somebody standing on the rooftop in the middle of the night. Even worse still is the cars moving on the nearby expressway sound EXACTLY like the moaning and howling noises the aliens make.

 

[Julian Shellhammer]

Libeled Lady from 1936 with Myrna Loy, William Powell, Spencer Tracy and Jean Harlow

It gets 4 stars from TCM and a 7.8 (out of 10) rating on IMBD, but still, even after several tries over many years, I'm just meh on it. I want to like it - I really do - as I love each of the stars and I love 1930s newspaper movies, but the enforcement of the code just mangles the plot too much for me.

What starts out as a classic '30s movie about a upper, upper-class guy (played by the '30s go-to upper, upper-class guy Walter Connolly) suing a major newspaper for slander - the paper printed a salacious, false story about his daughter (Loy) - quickly descends into another silly '30s movie with false marriages, races to Justices of the Peace, attempts to "catch" someone in an affair, etc., all making adults say and do stupid things.

Powell's character, a specialist in getting people to drop their liable suits, is hired by the paper's editor, Tracy, to seduce Loy and have her "caught" as the "other" woman, thus, forcing Loy to drop her liable suit in return for the paper hushing up the "other" woman event. To make the plot work, though, Powell has to be married, so, (here comes the super stupidity) at Tracy's request, Harlow - Tracy's long-suffering (and shrill) fiancee, whom Tracy has stood up at the alter several times - agrees to marry Powell, in name only, to help save Tracy and the paper. Uh-huh.

It's just all so stupid that you either run with it (I've tried, it's hard) or you kinda endure it to see the actors. Everyone, but Tracy, is on his or her game in this one. Loy plays the wealthy daughter put upon by the press and treasure hunters with humility and humanity while Powell convincing shifts from her paid seducer to a man truly in love with her (which wouldn't be that hard).

Harlow plays Harlow - a loud, brassy woman who yells her way through scenes (as it's called for here), but who, just when you think she's a one-note actress, settles down and convinces you there's depth of feeling underneath the screeching shell as when she begins to fall in love with her "fake" husband, Powell.


N.B., What the heck did 1934-and-on (when the code was enforced) audiences think happened to the pre-code-movie world when all of a sudden movies went from reflecting real life - affairs, smart and independent woman, rape, swindlers keeping their ill-gotten gains, plenty of sex out of wedlock, abortions, drug addictions, i.e., real, gut-level life - to a world where serious adults hardly kiss until they get a marriage license and women don't do much, period, other than marry men? It's as if, tomorrow, all our movies were suddenly made without graphic sex, gratuitous violence or soul-crushing snark - we'd be stunned / were 1934 audiences equally stunned when their movies suddenly changed?

Only Tracy struggles a bit in this one as he can't seem to decide whether to play it seriously or lightly (lightly would have been the right choice), so his character and performance comes off a bit uneven. And that is basically the movie in a nutshell - uneven to the point of unconvincing even as the stars do a herculean job trying to hold its code-addled plot above water.
One of my favorites, even if it doesn't fit seamlessly into the "screwball" genre. Nonetheless, Powell pulls off the "fixer" role, Harlow is over the top, yes, Tracy is caught on film trying to figure out who is his character, all working together for an enjoyable comedy.

 

[NattyLud]

Strangers on a Train - Which I had seen previously probably several decades ago. Entertaining, and Robert Walker's creepy stalker with panache is just pure fun. Farley Granger and/or his character is somewhat of a letdown as being a bit too wooden and childlike.

 

[Fading Fast]

Strangers on a Train - Which I had seen previously probably several decades ago. Entertaining, and Robert Walker's creepy stalker with panache is just pure fun. Farley Granger and/or his character is somewhat of a letdown as being a bit too wooden and childlike.

Agreed. And fantastically crisp and clear B&W cinematography that provides for outstanding time travel back to post-WWII America.

 

[Fading Fast]

You were never Lovelier 1942 with Fred Astaire, Rita Hayworth and Adolfe Menjou

I believe we've already established that the Fred Astaire movies were, with the rare exception, the Elvis movies of their day. They exist so that we can see Astaire dance with a beautiful partner and have some lighthearted fun in silly scripts that usually have Astaire chasing some woman who is initially turned off by him owing to some misunderstanding - and these movies often take place in an exotic local or are set amidst the upperclass with its country clubs, V-12 cars and mansions.

Pretty much everyone of those boxes is checked in this movie, but it only works okay. Despite (according to the TCM host) Astaire saying Hayworth was his favorite movie dance partner, (I wonder how Ginger felt about that?) they don't seem to have any special on-screen chemistry nor were any of the dance numbers incredible. Additionally, Hayworth and all her stunning beauty seem a bit lost - almost uncomfortable - in this one.

Another disappointment are all the backlot and studio locations - none of them looks like Buenos Aries, where most of the film supposedly takes place. Even the interior shots look very set like. For whatever reason (it was Astaire's first movie at Columbia studios according to TCM), despite the big name stars, the sets simply look cheap and tossed together as if they weren't even going for realism.

All that said, it's an okay Astaire movie in the same way most average Elvis movies are okay Elvis movies - you get what you expect. Astaire dances incredibly; Hayworth looks fabulous and Menjou brings some added spark - there are worse ways to spend an hour and half.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Astaire at Columbia never seemed like a proposition destined for success -- Harry Cohn was pretty much his diametric opposite in every possible way, and I can't see Cohn spending five cents to make Astaire look good on screen. Fred is lucky he didn't get Vera Vague as his leading lady.

 

[Fading Fast]

⇧ It feels just like one of the Elvis movies that really doesn't work well. Sure, you have Astaire dancing, Hayworth radiating and the same plot as all his movies, but it just doesn't come together in a way that makes you smile.

 

[belfastboy]

Last night, I watched "Signs," and I'd forgotten how creepy this movie is. Easily one of Shyamalan's scariest. What makes it worse is my neighbors house roof looks just like this.

And sometimes I'm scared I might see somebody standing on the rooftop in the middle of the night. Even worse still is the cars moving on the nearby expressway sound EXACTLY like the moaning and howling noises the aliens make.

That settles it......I am not coming to visit you!

 

[belfastboy]

Watched a Netflix offering...."Little Sister". Ally Sheedy was in it....she lives!
Not a good movie at all but for some weird reason we couldn't shut it off and watched til the end. The lead character/actress was compelling enough to keep us locked in. It could have been a great movie as the subject...a teenage Goth girl from a wholly dysfunctional family joins a convent then returns to visit her family. The subject matter was rich in potential but the writing was not great and they chose to focus on the superficial and avoided the potential deep discussion the subject matter offered. But then I guess you could say that about a lot of movies.

 

[3fingers]

Fred is lucky he didn't get Vera Vague as his leading lady.

I'd actually buy a ticket for that one.

 

[Fading Fast]

Lady With a Past from 1932 with Constance Bennett

Even some pre-code movies had stupid premises; that said, they still felt closer to real life than the stupid-premised post-code-enforced movies that were coming.

Here, Constance Bennett plays a young heiress (think gobs of money) who - stupidity alert - can't attract men because her conversation is boring and she's known as a "good" girl. There is a subset of men that will date pretty women, and I'm just going to say it, no matter how boring they are and there is a subset of men that will date wealthy women no matter what. And neither of those subsets is small.

Okay, so you just have to go with it and watch Bennett "solve" her problem by taking a trip to Europe (yes, this is another Depression-Era movie set amidst the world of the uber-rich - mansions, luxury steamships, penthouse apartments, champagne, etc.) where she hires a man to escort her around and act interested in her (I know, I know) to see if that will change her luck.

It does and leads to some confusion - too many men will do that - a few hurt feelings and silly misunderstanding until Ms. Bennett is able to find true love. That's pretty much it, but at 80 minutes long, it moves by pretty quickly, the time-travel to the early '30s is pretty cool and being an RKO-Pathe movie you also get the chicken:

 

[LizzieMaine]

I wish Pathe still used that logo. Who doesn't love a continent-sized, globe-dominating chicken?

 

[Julian Shellhammer]

The other day Tangled, because the grandkids were over. Hadn't seen it for a while, and was struck at how cinematic the film is - the "camera work" reminded me of watching a live action film. Also noticeable was the body language and striking of poses of the characters, as though stage actors were rotoscoped. This is not a criticism at all, indeed, I liked it.