Last Movie You Watched

[TheGSMoeller]

Into season 3 of Louie, and this show gets better, and better with every episode. Warning: This is not a sitcom, may not even completely qualify as a true comedy, but it is funny, even if it's uncomfortable. It's more of small vignettes of life, some we've all experienced and some are far fetched and a bit unrealistic, but relatable. Some great guest appearances including Robin Williams and Melissa Leo, but one of the best performances I've seen in a while on TV belongs to Parker Posey, in a double episode that finds Louie asking her on a date turns out to be like nothing he expected, which is a premise for many of the scenarios. This show and its characters and stories stick with me long after the credits, and bravo to Louie CK for writing, producing, editing and directing just about every episode.

[DavidW]

Last weekend I watched Rush which was awesome, one of Ron Howard's best films imo.

Will watch Gravity this weekend.

[George]

Could have been called Little Mr. Waterpark. 

All joking aside, I found this funny, tender and absolutely enjoyable. Maybe even better than Little Miss Sunshine in some ways. They really captured what it is to be young and awkward. Sam Rockwell once again knocked it out of the park!!

[Todd]

To the Wonder.  Terrence Malick's latest, and as with The Tree of Life, there is much to admire, but I also have reservations.  Reservations first.  Well, there's one main one: this is really not a narrative film.  Rather it's a series of beautiful images and sequences tacked together.  Don't get me wrong, some of the images and sequences are breathtakingly beautiful – almost literally in some cases.  Indeed, that's what there is to admire.  Malick, along with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki (who also works with Alfonso Cuarón) fill the screen with almost two hours of gorgeous imagery.  One could argue that it's easy to do when the subject is Paris.  But how about a medium sized town in Oklahoma?  Well, they manage that feat.  Sure, Malick relies on early morning and dusk lighting, as is his wont, but even full daylight shots and interior shots are gorgeous. 

As with The Tree of Life, Malick manages to turn some everyday imagery into flashes of brilliant art.  The shots of Olga Kurylenko running through the park with her daughter are intensely captivating.  What man does not find such images irresistibly beautiful?  Well, I do.  And about Ms Kurylenko, she is attractive, yes, but Malick makes her more beautiful than ever.  He does the same with Rachel McAdams.  The sex scenes, tastefully done, are quite appealing and not purely prurient.  It is impossible not to notice that this is very much a film shot through the eyes of a man – and a deeply religious man, at that – not that there's anything wrong with that.  Not at all.

It's hard to gauge acting here.  There's very little dialogue.  No one, not Kurylenko, not McAdams, not Ben Affleck are given much to do other than look serious or confused or what not.  And Skinny Pete is here, too, but he doesn't do much, either.  Perhaps the most actorly acting comes from Javier Bardem as a priest with doubts. 

This not a great film, and it certainly isn't Malick's best effort – that's probably still Badlands, the greatest debut feature yet made.  This is a film about images first and last.  I think Terrence Malick is really a painter who happens to make movies.

[Brian]

That's the last movie Roger Ebert ever saw/reviewed (To the Wonder).

[TheGSMoeller]

That's the last movie Roger Ebert ever saw/reviewed (To the Wonder).

It was a great review too, Brian. Not just in Ebert's view of the film, but the way it was written.

[Drasko]

I really need to see this, especially considering how cool Assayas' films are.

It's very good. Assayas' direction is so fluid and unobtrusive that 5+ hours go by in a blink. Like big merry-go-round of 70s politics and terrorism. I felt locations, languages and cars are three key elements that give it this feel of constant motion and spinning. I liked the way it starts in medias res, he does characterizations lightly, almost in passing like sketches, through interactions. I didn't do much fact checking, hope he is more or less true to the events.

[DavidW]

Same here.

And I did!  And it was awesome.  Gravity and Rush ends the good movie drought.

[Brian]

Just watched Being John Malkovich. The script is like a fireworks show, the performances are stupendous, I loved Combover Charlie Sheen, but I was surprised by how fundamentally sad the movie is. A couple people get what they want, but everyone else is living nightmares. Wild trip.

Malkovich's dance of despair must have been a lot of work to film. Well, and pretty much every other scene, also.

[Wakefield]

That's the last movie Roger Ebert ever saw/reviewed (To the Wonder).

It was a great review too, Brian. Not just in Ebert's view of the film, but the way it was written.

I have never read a better critic than Ebert. And only one that good as him (the Cuban Guillermo Cabrera Infante, if somebody is interested).

Two days ago, I read his excellent review of All About Eve (1950), a superb example of terse prose and sharp intelligence, from the very first line: "Growing older was a smart career move for Bette Davis [...]."

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-all-about-eve-1950

Highly recommended. 

[Octave]

Re: TO THE WONDER, those who visit the Ebert blog have probably read some of Matt Zoller Seitz's writing already, but in case you missed his series of video essays on Malick's films, from 2011:
Moving Image Source (with the other parts in the right-hand margin menu)
Seitz has defended THE NEW WORLD at some length, and with great care; but now that I need his insight most, he has declined to write at length on TO THE WONDER, merely calling it brilliant in a tweet.  I'm assuming that his insights into TNW are supposed to apply to TTW, but for me the latter film had all the kitsch and none of the wonder. 
Still, Seitz offers more to chew on than almost any "reviewer" critic that I've read.

Here is Seitz's more recent (post TTW) article on the 'evolution of the voiceover' in Malick's movies:
http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/whispered-thoughts-the-evolution-of-terrence-malicks-voice-over

On this subject, the video interview with editor Billy Weber (who worked on DAYS OF HEAVEN, THIN RED LINE, and TREE OF LIFE) included in the Criterion edition of BADLANDS is really interesting.  Some of the passing comments on the development of the voiceover in DH really fleshed out my fascination with this aspect of Malick's movies.  The voiceover was one of the few things I could stand about TO THE WONDER; I wished the film's form had seemed as fragmentary as the voiceover suggested it could be, even if the two layers worked obliquely against one another.
I noticed that there were five (!) editors employed in the making of TTW.

MSZ also drew attention to an article on TO THE WONDER by Bilge Ebiri
http://www.vulture.com/2013/04/how-terrence-malick-wrote-filmed-edited-to-the-wonder.html
which contains some links of interest, including an AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER interview (3 pages) with DP Emmanuel Lubezki.

There's also this long review by Jon Baskin from the LARB, which I found commendably substantial and temperate, even though it was a lot happier about the film than I am.

[Cato]

A rather nasty review of Gravity:

WARNING: if you read the entire review, it will spoil some things for you.  The reviewer seems to assume you have seen the movie, and that you want to know his opinion of it.

Disaffected, distant and detached -- the perfect characteristics for an astronaut, right? NASA picks 'em all petulant and purdy these days, if one is to believe that a passionless woman (portrayed by Sandra Bullock) named Dr. Ryan Stone (yeah, her dad wanted a boy) can make her way to the International Space Station and do some "genius" work on the Hubble Space Telescope, while the boys get their kicks out of spinning and jetpacking around. Astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney), for instance, is trying to set a new record for spacewalking on his last mission, whilst listening to Hank Williams, Jr. in what is clearly the vapid vacuousness of space -- that is, the space that exists within this 91 minute film...

...Ryan, however, has the remarkable ability to reverse her tumbling in the vacuum of her own despair. Well, it doesn't really matter: there's plenty of POV shots and disorienting weightlessness to make the scene mighty impressive. There's almost enough visual feasting that your brain forgets the story is thinner than air. (Possible movie tagline: You'll believe a woman can float.)...

Speaking of homage, did you catch the embryonic pose Ryan coils into when she finally gets aboard the first stage of her multi-stage self-rescue? Yes, yes, and then she floats through the fallopian tubes of one craft after another, like she's on some...spermy journey...or space odyssey. Could it be that she's the star child -- rebirthing herself from a life of monolithic meaninglessness and despair into a life that has value because -- well, it just does. Trust me on this. 

http://www.examiner.com/review/gravity-it-s-overweighted

(My emphasis above.)

You will note that the reviewer himself inserts a good number of references to previous movies ! 

We watched the movie last night, and liked it.  Is it a NASA documentary?  No.
Is it supposed to be a NASA documentary?

No.  So we know e.g. that the Hubble telescope is not in the same orbit as space stations.  We know that space shuttles are no longer flying.  Should the director/writer have done something about those plot holes?  Probably.  Does it matter to one's enjoyment of the spectacle and the idea of a marooned astronaut?  Only if you want it to. 

[Brahmsian]

Watched this fairly new documentary on one of my favourite films of all time:  The Shining

[asin]B00EDIP8PC[/asin]

*Wow, I always see and get something new and different anytime I watch The Shining, but  .....many hidden theories and messages the documentary tries to "uncover".  Interesting and intriguing, but some of this is really, really grapsing at straws, me thinks.

Anyhow, any fan of The Shining and Kubrick should watch this.

[The new erato]

Just been to the cinema and watched a transmission of the Globe Theatre's 12th Night. Best time spent in a cinema for many years. Sublime. 

[DavidW]

Anyhow, any fan of The Shining and Kubrick should watch this.

The film studies prof here thought it was mostly crackpot theories that latch onto inconsequential details to support their theories.  Didn't sound like my cup of tea even though I love the movie.  I would rather read up on more serious, professional analysis of the film instead.

[Papy Oli]

Gripping and tense enough 

[asin]B001N4KB7Y[/asin]

[DavidW]

Yup Papy, awesome movie! I have it on my queue to rewatch.

[TheGSMoeller]

Yup Papy, awesome movie! I have it on my queue to rewatch.

As in Netflix queue? If so I'll need to add it to mine, looks interesting. Always enjoyed Clive Barker's stories.

[SonicMan46]

Well, I've become fascinated w/ the US Marshal service, a part of the Federal Government that came into existence after the ratification of the US Constitution in the late 1780s - WOW!  Brings back reminders of Matt Dillon & the Earp Brothers - I've been watching Justified on Netflix (i.e. about the Marshals in Kentucky, near me!) - so tonight put on the film from the late '90s - the cosmos has come together -    Dave

 

[DavidW]

As in Netflix queue? If so I'll need to add it to mine, looks interesting. Always enjoyed Clive Barker's stories.

Yes Clive Barker is awesome!  Yup netflix.  My theme for Halloween are to rewatch horror movies that I like but haven't watched to death.  Midnight Meat Train, High Tension, The Devil's Backbone, and The Orphanage.  That is leading up to Halloween.  On Halloween I will be watching The Exorcist even though I've watched it many times.