Last Movie You Watched

[SonicMan46]

Watched Topaz afresh last night. Not merely better than some detractors made it out (on which, more presently) but genuinely good. Not A-list Hitchcock, perhaps, but well-paced for its two-hour run time (notably longer than your typical Hitchcock film.) I don't remember any particular disappointment with it from my first viewing, though perhaps found it longish the second time. Mostly, I allowed my sense of the movie to be overawed by the witty disparagement from members of the Firesign Theatre who saw it on a trans-Atlantic flight (a movie by the CIA under the guise of Alfred Hitchcock.) In fairness, it would not make very entertaining in-flight viewing and it lacks so many elements of the A-listers (star actors, a Herrmann score, e.g.)

Hi Karl - have not watched that film in years (believe have it on an old DVD-R from TCM), but was curious about its ranking among Hitchcock's 50+ films - Entertainment has it at #34 and RottenTomatoes at #42 - BUT interesting to look at the ranking differences in these two lists.  Dave 

ADDENDUM: For those interested, Topaz is available on Amazon Prime as an UHD streamer - also found another Hitch ranking on IMDB, and put the top 16 into the list below - most of my favs, all of which I own except Psycho - for me Rope is missing in the top echelon of that ranking - 

[Karl Henning]

Hi Karl - have not watched that film in years (believe have it on an old DVD-R from TCM), but was curious about its ranking among Hitchcock's 50+ films - Entertainment has it at #34 and RottenTomatoes at #42 - BUT interesting to look at the ranking differences in these two lists.  Dave 

Was just gabbing with my sister, Dave, and we agreed that of the latest Hitchcock films, our favorite is Family Plot.

[Todd]

Reds.  A cinematic monument to Portlander and commie John Reed, one of only a handful of Americans buried in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis.  I'd never watched the entire movie, and I'd not watched any of it since the late 80s, so I decided to give it a go.  Given its length, the intermission ended up providing a perfect point to split the movie into two viewing sessions.  First, the debit side.  The multiple witness interview scenes are entirely worthless and detract mightily from the narrative.  (I streamed it, so perhaps an optical disc allows for excising the interviews.)  The film is poorly edited, with some almost jarring but mostly just amateurish transitions from scene to scene.  There's a herky-jerky sense to the storytelling as a result.  Stephen Sondheim's original music kinda sucks.  Not all the stars put in particularly good work.  Jack Nicholson seems more like Jack Nicholson than Eugene O'Neill, for instance.  His Oscar nomination seems unwarranted forty years on.  Oh well.

On the credit side, it is fun to see actors earlier in their careers, like Paul Sorvino.  Maureen Stapleton steals every scene she's in as Emma Goldman.  The locations are well selected and act as good stand-ins for the historical locations.  The physical sets and old-fashioned matte paintings look excellent.  Some of the individual scenes are mighty compelling, and some of the dialogue is sharp and realistic.  While the scenes may seem stitched together in many places and the editing ain't so hot, the overall arc of the story works very well.  It's essentially a grand, romantic opera in multiple acts and scenes translated to film and stripped of great music.  It's not even close to being in the same league as a flick like Lawrence of Arabia, even though it shoots for that type of thing.  It earned far too many award nominations and wins, and it has not really held up among movie buffs as far as I can tell – though I could be wrong on that front as I'm not a true movie buff – but it was good enough to warrant one split viewing session.

[AnotherSpin]

Reds.  A cinematic monument to Portlander and commie John Reed, one of only a handful of Americans buried in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis.  I'd never watched the entire movie, and I'd not watched any of it since the late 80s, so I decided to give it a go.  Given its length, the intermission ended up providing a perfect point to split the movie into two viewing sessions.  First, the debit side.  The multiple witness interview scenes are entirely worthless and detract mightily from the narrative.  (I streamed it, so perhaps an optical disc allows for excising the interviews.)  The film is poorly edited, with some almost jarring but mostly just amateurish transitions from scene to scene.  There's a herky-jerky sense to the storytelling as a result.  Stephen Sondheim's original music kinda sucks.  Not all the stars put in particularly good work.  Jack Nicholson seems more like Jack Nicholson than Eugene O'Neill, for instance.  His Oscar nomination seems unwarranted forty years on.  Oh well.

On the credit side, it is fun to see actors earlier in their careers, like Paul Sorvino.  Maureen Stapleton steals every scene she's in as Emma Goldman.  The locations are well selected and act as good stand-ins for the historical locations.  The physical sets and old-fashioned matte paintings look excellent.  Some of the individual scenes are mighty compelling, and some of the dialogue is sharp and realistic.  While the scenes may seem stitched together in many places and the editing ain't so hot, the overall arc of the story works very well.  It's essentially a grand, romantic opera in multiple acts and scenes translated to film and stripped of great music.  It's not even close to being in the same league as a flick like Lawrence of Arabia, even though it shoots for that type of thing.  It earned far too many award nominations and wins, and it has not really held up among movie buffs as far as I can tell – though I could be wrong on that front as I'm not a true movie buff – but it was good enough to warrant one split viewing session.

I heard John Reed was buried in a common grave. Quite appropriate for a communist. Did you read his Ten Days That Shook the World book? I did, but it was a long time ago and I do not remember a thing from it.

[Todd]

Did you read his Ten Days That Shook the World book?

No.

[Karl Henning]

Revisiting The Fellowship of the Ring. I'm already on record as liking it the better, when truest to the source, so I shan't belabor the point. I'm not crazy about the fight between Gandalf and Saruman in Isengard, but I accept it, as a suitable cinematic liberty. Something which may be new upon this viewing, I think it a nice touch to have Arwen come to fetch the wounded Frodo to Rivendell.

[Karl Henning]

Revisiting The Fellowship of the Ring. I'm already on record as liking it the better, when truest to the source, so I shan't belabor the point. I'm not crazy about the fight between Gandalf and Saruman in Isengard, but I accept it, as a suitable cinematic liberty. Something which may be new upon this viewing, I think it a nice touch to have Arwen come to fetch the wounded Frodo to Rivendell.

I cannot forestall disappointment in the Council of Elrond devolving into rather a barroom brawl. There is a great deal of dignity in the books which the screenplays scuttle utterly. Just calling balls and strikes, here.

[Ganondorf]

I cannot forestall disappointment in the Council of Elrond devolving into rather a barroom brawl. There is a great deal of dignity in the books which the screenplays scuttle utterly. Just calling balls and strikes, here.

I actually started re-reading Lotr a little while ago and I agree with this post of yours wholeheartedly. While your overall feelings may be more positive I have never liked Lotr movies by Jackson, especially scenes with Frodo, Sam and Gollum. Also taking The Eye of Sauron literally annoys me and shows marked superficial reading of The book.

[71 dB]

The Day of the Jackal (Fred Zinnemann, 1973)

Surprisingly good movie! The runtime is about 140 minutes, but the movie feels shorter than that.

[Karl Henning]

Also taking The Eye of Sauron literally annoys me and shows marked superficial reading of the book.

Heartily agreed.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Reds.  A cinematic monument to Portlander and commie John Reed, one of only a handful of Americans buried in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis.  I'd never watched the entire movie, and I'd not watched any of it since the late 80s, so I decided to give it a go.  Given its length, the intermission ended up providing a perfect point to split the movie into two viewing sessions.  First, the debit side.  The multiple witness interview scenes are entirely worthless and detract mightily from the narrative.  (I streamed it, so perhaps an optical disc allows for excising the interviews.)  The film is poorly edited, with some almost jarring but mostly just amateurish transitions from scene to scene.  There's a herky-jerky sense to the storytelling as a result.  Stephen Sondheim's original music kinda sucks.  Not all the stars put in particularly good work.  Jack Nicholson seems more like Jack Nicholson than Eugene O'Neill, for instance.  His Oscar nomination seems unwarranted forty years on.  Oh well.

On the credit side, it is fun to see actors earlier in their careers, like Paul Sorvino.  Maureen Stapleton steals every scene she's in as Emma Goldman.  The locations are well selected and act as good stand-ins for the historical locations.  The physical sets and old-fashioned matte paintings look excellent.  Some of the individual scenes are mighty compelling, and some of the dialogue is sharp and realistic.  While the scenes may seem stitched together in many places and the editing ain't so hot, the overall arc of the story works very well.  It's essentially a grand, romantic opera in multiple acts and scenes translated to film and stripped of great music.  It's not even close to being in the same league as a flick like Lawrence of Arabia, even though it shoots for that type of thing.  It earned far too many award nominations and wins, and it has not really held up among movie buffs as far as I can tell – though I could be wrong on that front as I'm not a true movie buff – but it was good enough to warrant one split viewing session.

I remember watching that movie years ago...long (thankful for the intermission), but very very good.

PD