What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[EmergencyIan]

Kiss Me Deadly (1955)

It's a Mickey Spillane story starring Mike Hammer (Ralph Meeker).

I figured that I would like it, but it was much better than I had anticipated.

- Ian

 

[Wally_Hood]

Kiss Me Deadly (1955)

It's a Mickey Spillane story starring Mike Hammer (Ralph Meeker).

I figured that I would like it, but it was much better than I had anticipated.

- Ian

Parts of that movie are noir turned up to 11. The ending is very bizarre (but in a good way)

 

[Gregg Axley]

Rifftrax-Fun In Balloonland.
Another hit from the guys, but then again the film does 85% of the work, and it was MEANT to be a serious film about a parade.

 

[Stearmen]

Night Flight. Talk about an all star cast! WOW!

 

[1mach1]

Night Flight. Talk about an all star cast! WOW!

That's a good one!

 

[Edward]

Kung Fu: The Movie (1986). David Carradine returns to play Kwai Chang Caine in a disjointed made-for-TV movie that appears to have been a failed attempt to revive the series. Carradine drops back into the role that haunted him throughout the rest of his life and career as easily as if he were donning a comfortable old pair of shoes, but the dual plots aren't intertwined well and much of the "ancient wisdom" sounds like something the writers found in fortune cookies.

I saw Carradine interviewed years ago, and I remember him saying that there was a dash of cod-Confucianism in there but it was mostly just made up fluff that sounded right. I doubt it would fly these days with the level of information so readily available now, but it workec for the time. I remember being entertained by the tv show in the early eighties (on repeats, I assume).

As an old school film buff, I find that position really sad.

Not that I don't partly agree: I have a personal rule about never going to Friday or Saturday night shows because of the rude, rowdy crowds. The truth is, I typically only go to three or four theatrical films a year myself now. Most movies I see on cable...

But as great as a home theater setup can be, there's no substitute for watching a film in the dark with strangers: There's magic there, a connection back to our roots - listening to the tribal shaman telling stories huddled around the fire in the terrifying, huge darkness - that still adds a potent effect. Sometimes, anyway.

And first-run exhibition is still a key part the economics of the movie biz, even with the added importance of all the "ancillary markets." If you really love movies, you should go to a theater now and then to help keep the industry healthy.

I agree. I'm part of the problem myself in that I don't often go... I used to go to the cinema couple of times a month, but since even a BluRay is now significantly less than the cost of one cinema ticket, it's harder to justify, especially given what I can see for the same or not much more in London in terms of cabaret and theatre. I tend to make the effort for films I want to see on the big screen, though- three or four times a year, I suppose. I'm lucky in that there is a fantastic little independent cinema five minutes from my house. Once upon a time it was a music hall where Chaplin performed, too. I'm sure they could make it cheaper if more people went.

I would gladly go to the movies if the theaters were like the ones
I remember as a kid;

The movie theaters were beautiful structures with different levels & balconies.
The candy counter, drinks & popcorn were affordable.
There was double features with cartoons, serials & you could watch the movie again.
The attitude of the folks towards one another when attending the theater was nice.
And there was ushers with flashlights who would make sure you enjoyed the movie.

Most important, there was no cell phones

Were you really supposed to sit there and watch twice, though? I doubt it! The beauty went out of the buildings, for the most part, when they split them up into multi-screens. On the flipside, more screens, more films, more variety.... I well remember having to wait an extra week for Return of the Jedi (for my ninth birthday....) because the one-screen, local cinema back in the old country kept Superman III for an extra week, it did so well.... And if you missed something because you weren't able to go the week it was on, it might be two years or more before you got the chance to see it on television. We didn't get a VCR until December 1989, and even then we didn;t get to hire a tape very often. You certainly didn't buy a film to own.... I suppose that's why you used to see so many novelisations of popular films back then (as distinct from tie-in editions of books which had been adapted to the screen).

Consessions are expensive at a modern cinema, though at least here in the UK that's how they make money. Most films do well to break even - the film itself just gets folks in the door. The cinema's profits come predominantly from drinks, popcorn, and such. But for those, ticket prices would be even steeper.

Mobile phones don't bother me - they're no more to blame for the world's ills than car horns or the evolution of human speech and language. The root cause of the problems are people, usually teenagers in my experience, who don't know, probably have never been taught, how to shut up for a couple of hours at a time. I think many more often watch TV and/or videos at home or online as a social thing. They'll be on Facebook or tweeting at the same time, or talking to their pals in the room. A lot of them don't go to a church / synagogue / mosque / theatre / anywhere they have to be quiet for a while; it's not in their cultural experience. It's a shame. I'm not sure it hasn't always been there, though, that element.... I think the big problem is there's no longer an authority figure in the form of a uniformed usher who will step in and say "take yer feet off the seat", "cut the noise", and such.... I don't remember when exactly that changed. I definitely recall it being a norm in the Belfast Canon (and all other cinemas at the time) in 1988, but by 1996, when I saw Mulholland Falls, they'd gone. I remember that film especially because a handful of Belfast spides turned up and ruined a large section of the film for the rest of us. It was readily apparent they'd seen the trailer which suggested a much greater degree of content featuring the lead female in a sexualised context, and that they lacked the intellectual capacity to cope with a touch of noir.

Night Flight. Talk about an all star cast! WOW!

 

[HudsonHawk]

Consessions are expensive at a modern cinema, though at least here in the UK that's how they make money. Most films do well to break even - the film itself just gets folks in the door. The cinema's profits come predominantly from drinks, popcorn, and such. But for those, ticket prices would be even steeper.

I can't help but chuckle at people who lament the days when you could get a ticket, a bucket of popcorn, a coke, and a box of milk duds for a nickel. It's like people who complain that gasoline isn't still 29 cents/gallon. I just want so bad to tell them "we'll keep ticket prices a nickel, if you'll go back to working for $1/hour."

 

[Doctor Strange]

Last night: Hart's War. Okay WWII POW drama with Colin Farrell and Bruce Willis. The costuming featured a great selection of jackets - Ikes, tankers, M-43s, M-41s, B-10s, a lot of beautiful 1939 overcoats, but only a couple of leather flight jackets on the Tuskegee Airmen characters.

 

[Fading Fast]

I can't help but chuckle at people who lament the days when you could get a ticket, a bucket of popcorn, a coke, and a box of milk duds for a nickel. It's like people who complain that gasoline isn't still 29 cents/gallon. I just want so bad to tell them "we'll keep ticket prices a nickel, if you'll go back to working for $1/hour."

You are absolutely right that it is all relative pricing that counts (and as somebody who grew up with a father who lamented the "nickel candy bar -" I get it), but it seemed - anecdotal and I've done no homework in this - that movie concessions were, relative to the general cost of things (the general price level), cheaper when I grew up in the '70s.

Are they or is that just a faulty impression? Did they increase the price relative to other prices to make up for declining attendance?

 

[Doctor Strange]

Not for declining attendance, for the studios/distributors taking an ever-higher percentage of the box office take. Much more than the exhibitors' share. Concession sales became even more essential for theaters to survive, so prices went up.

 

[HudsonHawk]

You are absolutely right that it is all relative pricing that counts (and as somebody who grew up with a father who lamented the "nickel candy bar -" I get it), but it seemed - anecdotal and I've done no homework in this - that movie concessions were, relative to the general cost of things (the general price level), cheaper when I grew up in the '70s.

Are they or is that just a faulty impression? Did they increase the price relative to other prices to make up for declining attendance?

Not scientific or anything, but a quick online search indicates that the average movie ticke price in 1975 was $2.06, which is the 2014 equivalent of $9.06. It also reveals that the average movie ticket price in 2014 was $8.17. So it can be argued that the price of a movie ticket has actually decreased, relatively. As for concessions, an also not so scientific look indicates the average "medium" poporn in 1975 was about $.85, which is equivalent to $3.69 today. I'm not sure what the average popcorn today is, but an average "medium" is somewhere around $3-5. I think it's pretty well established that portions are much larger today than back in the day. So it appears that it's entirely plausible that the relative cost of attending the cinema today is not signifcantly different than it was say 40 years ago.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Our popcorn prices are $3.25, $4.50, and $5.25 for small, medium and large, and we don't charge for butter. Those prices have been stable since 2010, and will likely remain so unless there's a drastic increase in shipping costs, which usually cost more than the corn itself. We're also an independent theatre and don't have the bulk-purchasing advantage of a chain -- but our corn prices are almost a dollar a size less than those at the chain multiplex up the road. My experience has been that a chain theatre will gouge you deeper than an indie house, because it can.

Our ticket prices are $8.50 for a standard adult ticket and $7.50 for seniors over 65. These also haven't gone up since 2010. I'd like to eliminate the senior discount, because our seniors are not the type to need it, but they'd kill me if we did.

 

[Feraud]

Are they or is that just a faulty impression? Did they increase the price relative to other prices to make up for declining attendance?

It's not exactly a faulty impression. Adjusted for inflation prices seem "relatively" stable. However is it fair to just look at the cost of a theater ticket and popcorn? What about transportation and factoring in other priority bills?
For our family of three to go from Queens to Manhattan to see a film is going to cost an additional 15 bucks.
Cost of subway transportation for three - $15.00
Three adult tickets (at $15 a pop) - $45.00
Concession stand- approx $20.
That's $80 dollars for one film which may end up being a stinker!

Compared to the 70s there are other bills we are paying which figure in to whether we should see a movie. We pay cable, internet connection, Netflix subscription, cell phone bills. Those are all expenses people did not have in the past.

Based on a couple of items I've read, earnings have remained stagnant or even decreased over the last couple of decades. Ticket prices can be the same but our earnings are stagnant and stretched further now than ever before.

Seeing a film in a theater is very low on the list.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Our popcorn prices are $3.25, $4.50, and $5.25 for small, medium and large, and we don't charge for butter. Those prices have been stable since 2010, and will likely remain so unless there's a drastic increase in shipping costs, which usually cost more than the corn itself. We're also an independent theatre and don't have the bulk-purchasing advantage of a chain -- but our corn prices are almost a dollar a size less than those at the chain multiplex up the road. My experience has been that a chain theatre will gouge you deeper than an indie house, because it can.

Our ticket prices are $8.50 for a standard adult ticket and $7.50 for seniors over 65. These also haven't gone up since 2010. I'd like to eliminate the senior discount, because our seniors are not the type to need it, but they'd kill me if we did.

So at your theater a ticket and a medium popcorn would set you back 13 skins, or roughly 1 hour and 45 minutes of the minimum wage earnings. In 1975, you would have spent roughly $2.90 for the same, or roughly 1 hour and 25 minutes of the minimum wage ($2.10/hour). To take this back to what Beaver Cleaver would have spent in 1955, before he'd have heard Janis Joplin...about 75 cents, or right at 1 hour of minimum wage. So, if you were a kid taking his girl out on a Friday night on your money from sacking groceries, it's more expensive today than it was in 1955, but not much more than in 1975. And that's at the minimum wage. If you use "median household income", it's cheaper now than in 1975 and about the same as 1955.

 

[HudsonHawk]

It's not exactly a faulty impression. Adjusted for inflation prices seem "relatively" stable. However is it fair to just look at the cost of a theater ticket and popcorn? What about transportation and factoring in other priority bills?
For our family of three to go from Queens to Manhattan to see a film is going to cost an additional 15 bucks.

You'd have still had to pay that transportation cost in 1975, whatever the going rate, wouldn't you?

And out of curiosity, because I've never been to NYC...do they not have movie theaters in Queens?

 

[Feraud]

You'd have still had to pay that transportation cost in 1975, whatever the going rate, wouldn't you?

And out of curiosity, because I've never been to NYC...do they not have movie theaters in Queens?

Yes I would have to pay transportation but wouldn't have those others costs I noted. One offsets the other.

There are theaters in Queens but none within walking distance. You need car, bus, or train to get there. The theaters in Queens (cleanliness and patrons) are disgusting. Attending a film here is barely an option.
So it's just not a matter of money, but a combination of factors.

Why suffer the indignities of the average theater when I have perfectly viable (and superior IMHO) options at home?

 

[HudsonHawk]

Why suffer the indignities of the average theater when I have perfectly viable (and superior IMHO) options at home?

Well that's a personal preference. I'm not trying to concince anyone either way. It was just a quick smell test as to whether or not going to the theater is significantly more expensive today than in years past.

And whether or not Netflix and similar have contributed to an increase in theater costs is another analysis that would be intriguing.

 

[Fading Fast]

HH - that's is good internet research you did. Thinking back, my parents never gave us money for movie theater food / sodas as they always said "it is overpriced." Also, we only went to matinees where my mom could drop me off and it was (over my childhood - this was the '70s, so prices kept going up) 50 cents to $1.50 for the movie and I'd be out of her hair for an afternoon. I only bought soda and popcorn when I started earning my own money as a kid. So, my view was skewed a bit by the fact that the movie ticket price was a matinee special not a Saturday night date price. But as to the food / soda, I'm guilty of thinking it was cheaper than it really was.

Living in NYC, they don't do matinee specials, but do other parts of the country still do them as they were great value?

And Lizzie, had to chuckle about your senior citizen comment as I know many very well off seniors in the city who would take up arms against anyone who said they didn't deserve their rent-stabalized or controlled apartment. I live in a very old rental building in the city and some of my very nice senior citizen neighbors are paying 15% of what I pay in rent for the same apartment and they have second homes in the Hamptons, take nice vacations and live very well. I am sincerely all for helping the poor and needy, especially seniors, but rent control / stabilization has become - as with some many well-intended programs - just something else that is gamed by the well connect and politically powerful voting blocks.

 

[Feraud]

Well that's a personal preference. I'm not trying to concince anyone either way. It was just a quick smell test as to whether or not going to the theater is significantly more expensive today than in years past.

And whether or not Netflix and similar have contributed to an increase in theater costs is another analysis that would be intriguing.

Yes it absolutely is just a personal preference. Theaters in Queens are nasty, Manhattan is somewhat better and I've gone to nice ones out on Long Island.

All things considered I rarely choose to see films in theaters.

 

[Doctor Strange]

There are still first-show specials at many theaters in the northern suburbs of NYC, but they aren't exactly tremendous savings. Last time I went to the theater nearest me, in Fishkill, the difference was $8.50 vs. $10.50.

There was also a much bigger spread in types of movie theaters in the past, and a different releasing structure: exclusive run, first run, second run, and neighborhood houses that played year-old films. Lots of films that I saw back in the 60s/70s were at second- and last-run theaters that were real bargains. Many were double features for 99 cents! (For example, I originally saw the earlier Sean Connery James Bond films as 99-cent double features circa 1968.)