Last Movie You Watched

[aligreto]

Unlocked





A thriller which I enjoyed. Worth a watch.

[George]

Unlocked





A thriller which I enjoyed. Worth a watch.

Before I read the top, I thought that was Annie Lennox. 

[aligreto]

Before I read the top, I thought that was Annie Lennox. 

Yes, I can see why.

[SonicMan46]

The problem is that Bradon Routh is wooden.

That, I can all too easily believe.  Not that I know anything of Routh.  But as I consider Christopher Reeves in the role, he made the character astonishingly personable.

Agree - Routh does not have the charm of Reeve, but tries imitating his Kent voice w/ some intermittent enjoyment - for Karl, worth a watch since he owns the BD - again, my preference is for the first two films w/ Reeve.  Dave

[Draško]

Contrary to happy looking poster it's a quite depressing film about middle-aged artist desperately and a bit obsessively looking for love (romantic love) with little success. The film is supposedly based on ideas from Roland Barthes book A Lover's Discourse: Fragments, which I haven't read.

[SonicMan46]

Midnight Cowboy (1969) w/ Dustin Hoffmann & Jon Voight; John Schlesinger (director) - just replaced my DVD version w/ the recently released Criterion BD shown below - great restoration (all 5*/5* for AV & Specials HERE) - still a powerful film - 7 Oscar nominations and winner of 3, including 'Best Picture' - Dave

P.S. Barnes & Noble half price sale is now on - available there for $20!

 

[aligreto]

The Hippopotamus





Quirky and amusing and worth viewing.

[Karl Henning]

Stage Fright

[aligreto]

Triangle





Mildly interesting; it is the twist in the storyline that maintains interest, just to see if there is an eventual resolution.

[Jamie]

Contrary to happy looking poster it's a quite depressing film about middle-aged artist desperately and a bit obsessively looking for love (romantic love) with little success. The film is supposedly based on ideas from Roland Barthes book A Lover's Discourse: Fragments, which I haven't read.

I thought it was a rather affectionate satire on the obsessive nature of desire. I certainly laughed a lot.

[Jamie]

And in TD...Sicario: Day of the soldado
Enjoyed it more than I expected despite the absence of Emily Blunt.

[Draško]

I thought it was a rather affectionate satire on the obsessive nature of desire. I certainly laughed a lot.

It could be read that way definitely. All of Binoche's character suitors are caricatures to some degree. But really fail to see any affection from the authors. Still find it grim, I did manage one chuckle, at 'non-gluten olives'.

[Draško]

Hilarious, for all the wrong reasons.

[Karl Henning]

Last night, with the director's commentary:  Hellboy II

[aligreto]

Don't Breathe




A good one.

[Karl Henning]

I celebrated Independence Day by watching, at last, at long last, both The Silence of the Lambs and Repo Man. I watched DVDs from the BPL, but the combination of B&N having a 50%-off Criterion sale, and a B&N gift card, made the anticipatory order of the Blu-ray editions too tempting.

[SonicMan46]

1776 (1972) w/ William Daniels, Howard Da Silva, Ken Howard, and many others - I've own this film from the VHS days through a DVD and now on BD - a perennial favorite of ours usually on the 4th of July - well worth a watch.

Tom Jones (1963) w/ Albert Finney, Hugh Griffith, Susannah York, and many others - a new arrival and DVD replacement - the Criterion restoration is superb, as expected (5* AV ratings HERE) - Finney and York look so good at that time (I was still in high school) - nominated for 10 Oscars and winner of 4, including Best Picture (see below).  Dave

 

[Karl Henning]

I am going to alert for spoilers, because I had not watched it properly until yesterday, and so I would have appreciated the courtesy.

[asin]B077HP1DSS[/asin]

Well, I had never seen The Silence of the Lambs complete (nor, really, seen much of it) before yesterday.  Once, idly channel-surfing, I chanced upon it in the middle;  what I got to see was the dramatic and grisly escape from the Tennessee confinement.  I suppose that, without context to cushion that sensational narrative climax, I subconsciously recoiled somewhat – and I had not been in any hurry to watch what reason and a solid consensus told me was a marvelously good movie.  Running counter to that reflex-induced disinclination, was an actual interest in watching it, fostered by the BFI volume discussing the movie.  Not that anyone needs my affirmation of this, but – a great movie.  In Psycho, Hitchcock plays the audience the 'dirty trick' of implicating us, as the car bobs before sinking beneath the surface, of in wanting the guilty party to succeed in covering his tracks.  I rather think Demme achieves something similar, making Lecter, a brutal psychopath (I'll risk the possibility that I may be misusing a medical term), a sympathetic character:  by his agreeing to help Starling;  by his 'chivalrous' vengeance upon the vulgar cellmate who defiled Starling;  by the rather tarnished dignity which Hopkins's performance imparts to the character;  by the twist that Lecter is deceived by a false bargain.  Are we really indignant that this monster was offered false coin?  Or is that a sensitive resonance to indignation that Starling was the unwitting agent of the counterfeit?  As Crawford explained of an earlier failure to explain in full to Starling, if Starling was sent with an insincere offer, Lecter would have sniffed it out.  Are we as anxious for Chilton's safety as by rights we ought to be, at the movie's end?

So, yes, a classic of emotional complication.  At the end, one feels an urgent need to shower both to rinse off the pitched anxiety on behalf of both Starling and Catherine Martin, and because with Lecter at large in the world, the horror upon which the movie was a window remains a roaming lion seeking whom it may devour.

[Mahlerian]

Well, I had never seen The Silence of the Lambs complete (nor, really, seen much of it) before yesterday.  Once, idly channel-surfing, I chanced upon it in the middle;  what I got to see was the dramatic and grisly escape from the Tennessee confinement.  I suppose that, without context to cushion that sensational narrative climax, I subconsciously recoiled somewhat – and I had not been in any hurry to watch what reason and a solid consensus told me was a marvelously good movie.  Running counter to that reflex-induced disinclination, was an actual interest in watching it, fostered by the BFI volume discussing the movie.  Not that anyone needs my affirmation of this, but – a great movie.  In Psycho, Hitchcock plays the audience the 'dirty trick' of implicating us, as the car bobs before sinking beneath the surface, of in wanting the guilty party to succeed in covering his tracks.  I rather think Demme achieves something similar, making Lecter, a brutal psychopath (I'll risk the possibility that I may be misusing a medical term), a sympathetic character:  by his agreeing to help Starling;  by his 'chivalrous' vengeance upon the vulgar cellmate who defiled Starling;  by the rather tarnished dignity which Hopkins's performance imparts to the character;  by the twist that Lecter is deceived by a false bargain.  Are we really indignant that this monster was offered false coin?  Or is that a sensitive resonance to indignation that Starling was the unwitting agent of the counterfeit?  As Crawford explained of an earlier failure to explain in full to Starling, if Starling was sent with an insincere offer, Lecter would have sniffed it out.  Are we as anxious for Chilton's safety as by rights we ought to be, at the movie's end?

So, yes, a classic of emotional complication.  At the end, one feels an urgent need to shower both to rinse off the pitched anxiety on behalf of both Starling and Catherine Martin, and because with Lecter at large in the world, the horror upon which the movie was a window remains a roaming lion seeking whom it may devour.

Agreed in full.  I would recommend not ruining that ending by watching the other movies.

[Karl Henning]

No, I have zero interest in the others.