Last Movie You Watched

[Karl Henning]

Now: Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster.

Teamwork! And that was some trip the Princess was on!

[Madiel]

Last night, Black Panther



Now that I'm back home I'm continuing on my Marvel journey. And... is this the best of the films? I don't really think so. It's one of the better ones, certainly, but then that's not a terribly high bar to clear. I don't think it's that good of a movie dramatically, even if it does touch on some interesting ideas. It could've done a lot more, for example, with the Wakandan attitude to an "outsider" who apparently has a legal claim to the throne. I'm glad it did something, but I wanted more.

[Karl Henning]

Even if life were more normal, I don't think I could face this in IMAX

[DavidW]

@Karl Henning, my favorite thing about the trailer is not the trailer itself but the comments on how extremely bri'ish that accent is!

To me, the movie looks like the most recycled, tired rehash of Alien I've ever seen. And I've seen Alien Resurrection!

[Karl Henning]

@Karl Henning, my favorite thing about the trailer is not the trailer itself but the comments on how extremely bri'ish that accent is!

To me, the movie looks like the most recycled, tired rehash of Alien I've ever seen. And I've seen Alien Resurrection!

Yes! Artistically, there's no point. Niffs of cash grab. Alien Resurrection, now ... the first I watched it, my brother had lent me the Anthology. At about 20 minutes in, I texted my brother, "I think I'm liking this much better than Alien 3. Replied my brother, "wait for it!"

[Karl Henning]

The Pink Panther (1963)
"You should be ashamed of yourself!"
--"I'm planning on it."

[LKB]

The Pink Panther (1963)
"You should be ashamed of yourself!"
--"I'm planning on it."

I'm going to find a way to use that while I'm in Kansas.

[LKB]

I thought I would rewatch the movie since I read Jaws this week. The novel focuses primarily on the tension between the wealthy summer people and the all-year working class that keeps the town going. The infidelity, the mafia subplot, and the lack of heroes or friendship all work in tandem with that theme. The shark is hardly present in the novel and is more symbolic.

The movie strips that away and rewrites quite a bit to make the characters unified together and more relatable with character arcs to progress.

On the surface, the novel sounds more sophisticated and post-modern than the film that created the summer blockbuster. However, the book fails to do anything meaningful with its thematic material other than illustrate it. And the extra subplots are pure pulp. Every part of the movie works together to build a satisfying climax that leads to the end of each of the three characters' arcs; frankly, in my opinion, it is far superior. Sometimes, traditional writing is best. Sometimes, the film is better than the book it was based on.

I watched this in glorious 4k Dolby Vision on my big 77-inch TV. It was like seeing it in the theater.

Jaws is one of the very small number of films I've seen described as perfect by more than one critic or expert. Every scene serves the story, there's no padding or filler to be found at any point.

Take Quint, for example. His entrance is positioned and written brilliantly, occurring as the meeting begins to descend into chaos. The sound commands the attention of all, he already has them before uttering a word. By the time the scene ends there is no doubt that this is the man, and he departs leaving veritable puddles of Alpha Male charisma in his wake. One of cinema's greatest characters imho.

[Madiel]

Even if life were more normal, I don't think I could face this in IMAX

It's the seventh Alien film?

Oh right, yes. I've never got around to seeing the 5th and 6th films, the prequels, even though they were directed by Ridley Scott.

I don't know if I want to. I mean, I don't even know when I'll want to see the first two films again even though they're both excellent.

[relm1]

I hate to say it, I've never seen Gone with the Wind (1939) before now.   Spoilers below but I'll assume I'm the last person on earth who's never seen it!

The first 30 minutes were quite difficult to get in to.  The acting style was so odd.  Think terrible soap opera acting, almost caricatures.  It's also very hard to get over the unflattering portrayal of the slaves.  A bit hard to watch and I'd imagine offensive.  After the first 30 minutes, something changes.  It might be my getting used to the style or the style developed, but the film gets very good.

First, the cast is perfect.  The last time I felt that was 1963's Cleopatra which I might have seen for the first time a year ago when it was on TV in the four or five hour directors cut rather than the theatrical version and loved it entirely, also recalling the cast was born for those roles. 

There was an annoying pro-confederate point of view but I realized part of the brilliance of the story was how this very progressive and independent southern woman (Scarlet O'Hara – played to perfection by the incredibly endearing performance by Vivien Leigh) was at the peak of her social status in that structure and bit by bit, her world eroded while always staying true to her personality.  This film is full of complex, deep characters that aren't flawless.  In fact, they are richly rewarding in their truth and depth. 

This is exceptional character writing and story where the characters have substantial arch's, depths, flaws, and richness.  Secondly, it is exceptionally well directed.  Not just stylistically which is part of what I found way too weird and hard to get in to, but how emotionally involved you become in the plight of the characters. 
By the end of part 1, I was in tears as Scarlet showed so much resilience, depth, and strength of character watching that sunrise in the ruins of Tara (her magnificent former home now in desolate ruins) and swore to rebuild and never be hungry again.  This was so incredibly effective and well earned in an operatic sense.

That brings me to the magnificent score by Max Steiner in full Wagnerian mode.  To me, his score helped make this film feel like an opera with perfectly cast Wagnerian characters. 

I don't know the last time I've seen a film this strong that affected me so deeply.  I LOVED the characters and story.  Rett Butler was so unique in his deep, passionate love for Scarlett and his maturity to understand it can never work between them.  He must let her prosper without him because that is who she truly is and how for the first time in his life, he recognizes who he truly is by knowing her fully.  These characters are flawed but very true. 

It's a very unique, complex, deep love story between two most amazing characters told in one of the most complicated periods of American history.  By the end of the film, I was completely reevaluating my initial impressions.  What first seemed racist or melodramatic was deeply multifaceted.  Characters who were sidelined because of their race or color were actually complex and significant to the story.  I can't imagine I understand what this must have been like to experience it as an audience member when it was first released all those years ago but I do have a unique experience of knowing what it feels like now to experience it for the first time. 

There were so many iconic moments I never really experienced before but felt so familiar.  Magnificent film, beautifully shot, complex, rich, deep...one of the top 5 films I've ever seen in my life but the first 30 minutes are difficult to make it through stylistically.  I don't remember if I felt the same way through Cleopatra but that's probably not as hard to get in to for me but maybe for those born a generation after me it's their equal.  I wonder if I'll ever have that "cinematic" experience again films like this are so, so rare.

[AnotherSpin]

I hate to say it, I've never seen Gone with the Wind (1939) before now.   Spoilers below but I'll assume I'm the last person on earth who's never seen it!

The first 30 minutes were quite difficult to get in to.  The acting style was so odd.  Think terrible soap opera acting, almost caricatures.  It's also very hard to get over the unflattering portrayal of the slaves.  A bit hard to watch and I'd imagine offensive.  After the first 30 minutes, something changes.  It might be my getting used to the style or the style developed, but the film gets very good.

First, the cast is perfect.  The last time I felt that was 1963's Cleopatra which I might have seen for the first time a year ago when it was on TV in the four or five hour directors cut rather than the theatrical version and loved it entirely, also recalling the cast was born for those roles. 

There was an annoying pro-confederate point of view but I realized part of the brilliance of the story was how this very progressive and independent southern woman (Scarlet O'Hara – played to perfection by the incredibly endearing performance by Vivien Leigh) was at the peak of her social status in that structure and bit by bit, her world eroded while always staying true to her personality.  This film is full of complex, deep characters that aren't flawless.  In fact, they are richly rewarding in their truth and depth. 

This is exceptional character writing and story where the characters have substantial arch's, depths, flaws, and richness.  Secondly, it is exceptionally well directed.  Not just stylistically which is part of what I found way too weird and hard to get in to, but how emotionally involved you become in the plight of the characters. 
By the end of part 1, I was in tears as Scarlet showed so much resilience, depth, and strength of character watching that sunrise in the ruins of Tara (her magnificent former home now in desolate ruins) and swore to rebuild and never be hungry again.  This was so incredibly effective and well earned in an operatic sense.

That brings me to the magnificent score by Max Steiner in full Wagnerian mode.  To me, his score helped make this film feel like an opera with perfectly cast Wagnerian characters. 

I don't know the last time I've seen a film this strong that affected me so deeply.  I LOVED the characters and story.  Rett Butler was so unique in his deep, passionate love for Scarlett and his maturity to understand it can never work between them.  He must let her prosper without him because that is who she truly is and how for the first time in his life, he recognizes who he truly is by knowing her fully.  These characters are flawed but very true. 

It's a very unique, complex, deep love story between two most amazing characters told in one of the most complicated periods of American history.  By the end of the film, I was completely reevaluating my initial impressions.  What first seemed racist or melodramatic was deeply multifaceted.  Characters who were sidelined because of their race or color were actually complex and significant to the story.  I can't imagine I understand what this must have been like to experience it as an audience member when it was first released all those years ago but I do have a unique experience of knowing what it feels like now to experience it for the first time. 

There were so many iconic moments I never really experienced before but felt so familiar.  Magnificent film, beautifully shot, complex, rich, deep...one of the top 5 films I've ever seen in my life but the first 30 minutes are difficult to make it through stylistically.  I don't remember if I felt the same way through Cleopatra but that's probably not as hard to get in to for me but maybe for those born a generation after me it's their equal.  I wonder if I'll ever have that "cinematic" experience again films like this are so, so rare.

I don't remember watching it.

[Madiel]

Never seen more than snippets of Gone with the Wind.

[Karl Henning]

't even know when I'll want to see the first two films again even though they're both excellent.

That they are! 

[Karl Henning]

Never seen more than snippets of Gone with the Wind.

When you're ready to make an evening of it, I do recommend it.

[Madiel]

When you're ready to make an evening of it, I do recommend it.

Maybe one day. I fear that both the temporal distance and the cultural distance might make it a challenge, along with the running time.

[Karl Henning]

Maybe one day. I fear that both the temporal distance and the cultural distance might make it a challenge, along with the running time.

I'm not saying it's Shakespeare (it isn't) but similarly the human drama speaks across both distances.

[LKB]

I've seen Gone with the Wind once, in a theatrical re-release decades ago. Maybe in 1989.

It didn't compute for me, possibly for stylistic reasons. I should probably give it another shot now that I'm older and ( allegedly ) wiser...

[Karl Henning]

I've seen Gone with the Wind once, in a theatrical re-release decades ago. Maybe in 1989.

It didn't compute for me, possibly for stylistic reasons. I should probably give it another shot now that I'm older and ( allegedly ) wiser...

Sometimes allegations prove to be supported by the facts.

[SonicMan46]

I've seen Gone with the Wind once, in a theatrical re-release decades ago. Maybe in 1989.

It didn't compute for me, possibly for stylistic reasons. I should probably give it another shot now that I'm older and ( allegedly ) wiser...

For those interested in Margaret Mitchell, her house museum is located in Atlanta, Georgia - her second husband, John Marsh who towered over her (see wedding pic below) lived in an apartment they called 'The Dump' - his feet hung off the bottom of the bed -  She was killed by a speeding vehicle on Peachtree Street at 48 yrs of age. Some trivia, Doc Holliday of Tombstone fame was her distant cousin; as I recall from our tour there is a picture of the Doc hangs in the living room.  Dave

Margaret Mitchell (1900–1949) was an American novelist and journalist. Mitchell wrote only one novel that was published during her lifetime, the American Civil War-era novel Gone with the Wind, for which she won the National Book Award for Fiction for Most Distinguished Novel of 1936 and the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1937. (Source)

 

 
"In the wedding pic above, John Marsh is second from left; Mitchell 5th from right - Gable & Margaret Mitchell"

[T. D.]

I'm going to see this event (showing + director Q/A) next week.
Gimmick is that it's a "generative" film, so no two viewings will be the same (just one for me, thanks...).
But it seems quite interesting and I like Eno.

Eno, with director Gary Hustwit

A SONIC WAVE Weekly and CLOSE UP screening

All screenings follow up with a Q&A w/ director Gary Hustwit
Wednesday, July 31 7:00p
Thursday, August 1 7:00p
Friday, August 2 7:00p

A movie event: this groundbreaking generative documentary about visionary musician Brian Eno is different every time it's shown: presenting a different order, scenes, and music. This innovative approach echoes Eno's iterative practice, his methods of using technology to compose music, and his deep dive into the mercurial essence of creativity. Beginning his career as an original member of the legendary Roxy Music, Eno released a series of classic solo records before pioneering the new genre of ambient music. As a producer, Eno also helped define and reinvent the sound of some of the most important artists in music, including David Bowie, U2, and Talking Heads.  (dir. Gary Hustwit, USA, 2024, 100 min.)

Dang. I am a moron.
Didn't think this would be so popular, went to purchase tickets today and all 3 showings are sold out!