Last Movie You Watched

[Karl Henning]

"Porky in Wackyland" is marvelous.

[André]

Dheepan, by Jacques Audiard (2015). Palme d'or in Cannes, 2015.

At once luminous and somber, fraught with life's hopes and miseries.

[listener]

a pair of Shaw Brothers HK
SINFUL CONFESSION 1974  Li Han-hsing dir.  with Michael Hui in four rôles
... like a HK Benny Hill 90 minute film.     Regional humour does not travel well.  Lots of bare female flesh
LIFE GAMBLE  1978 Chang Cheh dir. with Alexander Fu Shu Sheng, Kuo Chue and Lo Meng
one of the better martial arts films, lots of bare-chested males.

[Ken B]

Rewatched two Ophuls docs

The Sorrow and the Pity

Hotel Terminus

[TheGSMoeller]

The soundtrack alone is worth buying  Beautiful film

Yann Tiersen is an immense talent.

[Mister Sharpe]

Erroll Garner - insufficiently appreciated these days - is given his due in this documentary, well worth seeing.  The title derives from a response he gave to a question about his inability to read music.

[asin]B00AZ43C5Q[/asin]

[aligreto]

Jean-Pierre Jeunet - Amélie


The soundtrack alone is worth buying  Beautiful film

One of my favourite films 

[aligreto]

Erroll Garner - insufficiently appreciated these days - is given his due in this documentary, well worth seeing.  The title derives from a response he gave to a question about his inability to read music.

[asin]B00AZ43C5Q[/asin]

I love that title 

[George]

Erroll Garner - insufficiently appreciated these days - is given his due in this documentary, well worth seeing.  The title derives from a response he gave to a question about his inability to read music.

[asin]B00AZ43C5Q[/asin]

Just saw this and enjoyed it. Thanks for the recommendation!

[aligreto]

Lions for Lambs....





A hard hitting political thriller.

[Todd]

mother!  Darren Aronofsky has essentially put a nightmare on screen.  The basic plot involves an age mismatched couple, played by Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem, living in a dream home under reconstruction being visited by pesky house guests, and then it spins out of control from there.  Aronofsky outdoes himself in the extreme and outrageous images he puts on screen, and there are all manner of other subjects involved - religious themes, environmental themes, the cult of celebrity, the maltreatment of women, the potentially damaging power of blind love (eg, giving someone your heart, sorta like in the poster image) - almost always in an over the top way.  This has been referred to as a sort of horror film, but I didn't really see it as that.  People wanting a standard narrative type film really ought not to see this.  It makes The Fountain appear linear and simple.  (Which, after several viewings, it sort of is.)  A few devices are used repeatedly.  First, Aronofsky relies extensively on close-ups - extreme close-ups.  Lawrence's face, especially, dominates the screen, and it changes from scene to scene, sometimes lovely and innocent, sometimes subtly distorted and disoriented.  I'd love to know how much CGI was actually used for subtle effects.  (Too, some early shots of Lawrence in sheer clothing objectify her body in a devotional way; they sure seem like the work of a middle age dude enamored of his much younger main squeeze, like both Javier Bardem's character and the director himself in real life.)  Second, and most refreshing, there's basically no soundtrack.  The film relies on dialogue, silence, and Foley effects throughout.  This is definitely not for everyone.  It is not the worst film of the year or century, as The Observer reviewer claims, and I doubt it will be the best, and it's not Aronofsky's best work.  It ain't your typical film, that's for sure.

[Karl Henning]

Last night, Ghost Story (1981).  I am sure I saw this in the cinema, back in Wayne, New Jersey, the season it was released, but I scarcely remembered any of it on reviewing it now (save probably the opening descent from a NY high-rise).  But, I am sure it is the movie I remember having seen, with the elder-statesmen cast (Fred Astaire, Melvyn Douglas, Douglas Fairbanks Jr, Jn Houseman).  Better than a B movie, not quite good enough for an A movie . . . more an A- than a B+, I think.  I remember it not quite creeping me out back in the day, but I have a recollection of unease.  I guess I have become a less squeamish movie-watcher.

[Ken B]

mother!  Darren Aronofsky has essentially put a nightmare on screen.  The basic plot involves an age mismatched couple, played by Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem, living in a dream home under reconstruction being visited by pesky house guests, and then it spins out of control from there.  Aronofsky outdoes himself in the extreme and outrageous images he puts on screen, and there are all manner of other subjects involved - religious themes, environmental themes, the cult of celebrity, the maltreatment of women, the potentially damaging power of blind love (eg, giving someone your heart, sorta like in the poster image) - almost always in an over the top way.  This has been referred to as a sort of horror film, but I didn't really see it as that.  People wanting a standard narrative type film really ought not to see this.  It makes The Fountain appear linear and simple.  (Which, after several viewings, it sort of is.)  A few devices are used repeatedly.  First, Aronofsky relies extensively on close-ups - extreme close-ups.  Lawrence's face, especially, dominates the screen, and it changes from scene to scene, sometimes lovely and innocent, sometimes subtly distorted and disoriented.  I'd love to know how much CGI was actually used for subtle effects.  (Too, some early shots of Lawrence in sheer clothing objectify her body in a devotional way; they sure seem like the work of a middle age dude enamored of his much younger main squeeze, like both Javier Bardem's character and the director himself in real life.)  Second, and most refreshing, there's basically no soundtrack.  The film relies on dialogue, silence, and Foley effects throughout.  This is definitely not for everyone.  It is not the worst film of the year or century, as The Observer reviewer claims, and I doubt it will be the best, and it's not Aronofsky's best work.  It ain't your typical film, that's for sure.

Does it have a goat anus?

[Todd]

Does it have a goat anus?

I cannot say for sure.

[Karl Henning]

Last night, Ghost Story (1981).  I am sure I saw this in the cinema, back in Wayne, New Jersey, the season it was released, but I scarcely remembered any of it on reviewing it now (save probably the opening descent from a NY high-rise).  But, I am sure it is the movie I remember having seen, with the elder-statesmen cast (Fred Astaire, Melvyn Douglas, Douglas Fairbanks Jr, Jn Houseman).  Better than a B movie, not quite good enough for an A movie . . . more an A- than a B+, I think.  I remember it not quite creeping me out back in the day, but I have a recollection of unease.  I guess I have become a less squeamish movie-watcher.

[...] Peter Straub's best-selling novel Ghost Story contained all of those elements, and so I plugged away at it for what must have been hundreds of pages before his unspeakable prose finally got to me. At least, he knows how to make a good story, if not how to tell it, and that is one way in which the book and the movie of "Ghost Story" differ. The movie is told with style. It goes without saying that style is the most important single element in every ghost story, since without it even the most ominous events disintegrate into silliness. And "Ghost Story," perhaps aware that if characters talk too much they disperse the tension, adopts a very economical story-telling approach. Dialogue comes in short, straightforward sentences.

Background is provided without being allowed to distract from the main event. The characters are established with quick, subtle strokes. This is a good movie.

[Cato]

Quote from: Roger Ebert

    [...] Peter Straub's best-selling novel Ghost Story contained all of those elements, and so I plugged away at it for what must have been hundreds of pages before his unspeakable prose finally got to me. At least, he knows how to make a good story, if not how to tell it, and that is one way in which the book and the movie of "Ghost Story" differ. The movie is told with style. It goes without saying that style is the most important single element in every ghost story, since without it even the most ominous events disintegrate into silliness. And "Ghost Story," perhaps aware that if characters talk too much they disperse the tension, adopts a very economical story-telling approach. Dialogue comes in short, straightforward sentences.

    Background is provided without being allowed to distract from the main event. The characters are established with quick, subtle strokes. This is a good movie.

Again!  The Hitchcock Rule that a movie can improve a mediocre or even terrible book. 

[GioCar]

[TheGSMoeller]

[aligreto]

A Lonely Place to Die....





A tale of what ruthless people and determined people are capable of.

[Ken B]

For the second time this jewel

[asin]B00CVB6XF2[/asin]

An outstanding proto-noir based a bit loosely on Eric Ambler's book. Greenstreet and Lorre are cinema gold together, as always.