Last Movie You Watched

[Opus131]

So i watched a movie called "The Devil-Ship Pirates" (1964):



Was expecting just a silly oldie swashbuckler movie, what i got was a swashbuckling dark adventure. I had to look it up and apparently this was made by the same low budget company that made all those cheap Dracula horror movies in the 60s (Hammer Films, well known but i wasn't familiar with it since this was before my time) so i guess it makes sense why this one had such a bleak tone. Christopher Lee plays a pirate captain and he is like the perfect embodiment of what i imagined Zaporavo to have been like in the The Pool of the Black One, the Robert E. Howard story. Dark, lean, tall, with a brooding, vile personality. There's nothing cheesy about his performance either Christopher Lee is genuinely indimidating in this role. The rest of the pirates are also veritable bastards i thought it was interesting to see something like this in a 60s movie.

It wasn't super great mind you but overall i found it to be pretty enjoyable. The movie didn't look that cheap either despite the low budget, though i guess they probably saved a ton of money by marooning the ship on land and not having any actual open sea battles except for some stock sequence during the credits. The male action "lead" is the son of a local blacksmith in a town the pirates try to take control over to pillage and use as forced labor to repair their ship. Apparently he was captured and tortured by the Spaniards and he starts the movie with a paralized limp arm which adds to the bleakness of the setting. I say "lead" in quotes because he feels more like a side character despite having the highest number of fight scenes (speaking of which, all the fights are well choreographed and farily well shot as well, with different camera angles and some parts that felt genuinely dangerous for the actors). The actual main character i think is a Spanish officer that ends up being stuck serving under the pirates after Christopher Lee murders the Spanish captain. Apparently the pirates had been enlisted by the Spanish armada to fight the British but the pirates were of course scumbags who defected from the war and this "noble" Spanish lieutenant ended up getting stuck with them, which was kinda of an interesting dilemma.

Overall it's pretty run of the mill all considered, with some average to mediocre acting and some derivative elements but the "dark" tone makes it stand out more. It's a 6/10 movie that gets points for the unusual darker elements (which include an hanging although it happens off screen).

[Karl Henning]

The surprise I somehow set up for myself is that my first Christmas movie of the season is one I've somehow never seen before: the Muppets Christmas Carol. I had no idea what to expect, didn't even know that Michael Caine played Scrooge until I saw the opening credits roll, and the first I've heard Michael Caine sing since Batman Begins. j/k.

[JBS]

Boring, beyond belief. Shockingly boring. Way more boring than I remember.



This is a film of its time. Connery is comically miscast. A feat that would be repeated by Harrison Ford in K-19: Widowmaker. The Soviets are all caricatures, at one point they start singing Russian anthems. I now know why Reagan liked this book so much.

It's better than the book. (It's the only Clancy novel I've read and the only Clancy movie I've seen.) The only three dimensional character in the book got killed on page 2 or 3. But if like most people you knew nothing about submarines it was interesting and the action was fast paced, which is why I read it through.

But being a Cold War baby, I liked it when I saw it. But that was when it first came out. Haven't seen it since. So I can't say how 2023 me would think of it.

[Karl Henning]

It's better than the book. (It's the only Clancy novel I've read and the only Clancy movie I've seen.) The only three dimensional character in the book got killed on page 2 or 3. But if like most people you knew nothing about submarines it was interesting and the action was fast paced, which is why I read it through.

But being a Cold War baby, I liked it when I saw it. But that was when it first came out. Haven't seen it since. So I can't say how 2023 me would think of it.

I've come back to it, and I like it all right. It's quite sentimental in a number of ways, but that doesn't get in the way for me. Far from feeling that Connery is mis-cast, he arguably carries the movie on his shoulders.

TD:
The Never-Ending Story. Thoroughly charming. Will surely return to this again and again. 

[Karl Henning]

I've come back to it, and I like it all right. It's quite sentimental in a number of ways, but that doesn't get in the way for me. Far from feeling that Connery is mis-cast, he arguably carries the movie on his shoulders.

TD:
The Never-Ending Story. Thoroughly charming. Will surely return to this again and again.

Giorgio Moroder's theme song is one of the most '80s things ever. 😉

[Karl Henning]

Now, the two sequels are not worth watching unless you are really, really, really into lame children movies. Lol.

Thanks for the heads-up!

[Karl Henning]

I think this is really the key. I was born in 1983, so by the time I was truly politically conscious - the cold war was over, but I think if you were maybe a decade older then me that there is enough in the film too nostalgize.

That may be the thing. 

[LKB]

Now, the two sequels are not worth watching unless you are really, really, really into lame children movies. Lol.

Agreed. Fortunately, first film is self-contained and closes the main story out neatly.

[Madiel]

But isn't that the whole point of the toy line.

I find the idea of using "Barbie" to deliver a message like the above to be kinda of hypocritical. It's a toy line designed specifically to glamorize fashion and beauty, and make massive profits out of exploiting both.

The "message" Mattel wants to impart young girls seems to revolve around consuming products. Buy clothes, buy make up. Ken drives a Ferrari and Barbie has a multi million dollar mansion and that's apparently the "ideal". Just sheer consumerism and materialism.

Don't confuse a toy line and a film about a toy line. See also: The Lego Movie.

[Opus131]

Boring, beyond belief. Shockingly boring. Way more boring than I remember.



This is a film of its time. Connery is comically miscast. A feat that would be repeated by Harrison Ford in K-19: Widowmaker. The Soviets are all caricatures, at one point they start singing Russian anthems. I now know why Reagan liked this book so much.

I need to rewatch this. The word "boring" next to John McTiernan, one of the most dynamic action film directors of all time doesn't compute in my head but i suppose there's a first for everything.

[DavidW]

Twofer today: Bone Tomahawk and Tusk

Holy snikes! Two of the most disturbing films I've even seen. The gore and violence is all grounded in the concrete, material conditions of reality. In fact, Bone has one scene so real that it still turns my stomach, even having seen that scene multiple times now. Both these films are nihilistic; no hope is offered.

Recommended only to those who have the stomach for it.

I actually thought Tusk was funny! But yeah I liked both of those movies.

[LKB]

I saw Godzilla Minus One yesterday.

I'd rate it as very good, but very different from both Shin and the 2014 franchise reboot. Japanese like human drama in movies more than anything, l think, so there was more intensity in the scenes without the big guy. But when he was there, he was really there, big time. The largest action set piece concerning him is a grand spectacle, with great significance for the human story as well.

There was a reoccurring mistake in the subtitles, but it was both harmless and humorous.

So recommended, but be prepared for more-than-usual angst.

[Karl Henning]

I watched The Muppets Christmas Carol again, with commentary this time.

The Never-Ending Story. Thoroughly charming. Will surely return to this again and again.

I wanted to listen to the commentary upon this one, too, but felt that since I'd only watched it once, I wanted to see it again without the distraction of the commentary, first.

[71 dB]

THE NUN II (Michael Chaves, 2023)

One could expect this to be a lazy sequel to a Conjuring spin-off for quick money, but this doesn't feel that way at all. It feels ambitious and wanting to stand on its own merits rather than just be a lesser member in Conjuring universe. The movie has pretty hefty budget for its kind, $38 million, and it shows. Some exterior shots of France in 1956 are really stunning (as if from a movie with 5 times bigger budget) and the special effects are really well done.

However, this was a mixed bag movie and I had my problems with it. Due to the amount of ambition I guess, there is a lot going on in this movie thematically. Storytelling is scrambled and tedious to follow. The movie lacks rhythm and structure. It doesn't have enough time to develop properly its themes. While this is a quite slow movie compared to ADHD movies of today, it needs to run a little to get everything done in less than 2 hours and there is not enough time for careful creation of creepy atmosphere, because the jump scares come too often and too quickly. Good creative jump scares are not only justified, but essential in horror movies, but this movie isn't very successful on that front. Most of the jump scares are based on loud scary sounds after 15 seconds of silence. I also wasn't a big fan of how religious unnatural horror was depicted in this movie. It looked magic  like in Harry Potter movies. The devil nun was too witch-like imho.

This movie suffers from "flat lighting" like so many newer movies shot digitally. Since digital cameras can capture picture in whatever lighting, movies have become lazy on this front and the result is boring visuals. Dark basement is evenly dark everywhere, but lack of light alone is not scary. If there is one or a few light sources illuminating parts of the environment, the dark corners look much scarier in contrast. Older movies HAD TO DO things in this way in order to be able to capture anything with film cameras. They could do the same with digital cameras, but they don't. I don't know why they are so lazy. Have they replaced every person understanding scene lighting with cgi animators? 

[SonicMan46]

Last few nights, two rather different films from different eras:

Destry Rides Again (1939) w/ James Stewart and Marlene Dietrich (plus others below) - I've been watching this western for decades - a lot of humor for the genre at that time, especially from Charles Winninger and Mischa Auer; ratings: 96%, Rotten Tomatoes; 7.6, IMDB - not ranked up there with other great westerns but worth a watch for the two main stars, IMHO.

Bridge of Spies (2015) - w/ Tom Hanks and Mark Rylance - historical story below - nominated for 6 Academy Awards winning just one, Rylance as best supporting actor - film even kept my wife awake, a good sign -     Dave

Destry Rides Again - the small town of Bottleneck is under the control of Kent (Brian Donlevy), a power-hungry boss who gets control over the local cattle ranchers by winning a rigged game of cards. When the local sheriff questions the legitimacy of the game, Kent has him killed and names the town drunk, Dimsdale (Charles Winninger), as sheriff. What Kent doesn't know is that Dimsdale knows legendary lawman Tom Destry, who in turns sends his daring son Tom Destry Jr. (James Stewart) to Bottleneck to save the day. (Source)

Bridge of Spies is a 2015 American historical drama film directed and co-produced by Steven Spielberg, written by Matt Charman and the Coen brothers, and starring Tom Hanks, Mark Rylance, Amy Ryan, and Alan Alda. Set during the Cold War, the film is the story of lawyer James B. Donovan, who is entrusted with negotiating the release of Francis Gary Powers—a convicted CIA pilot whose U-2 spy plane was shot down over the Soviet Union in 1960—in exchange for Rudolf Abel, a convicted Soviet KGB spy held by the US, whom Donovan represented at trial. The name of the film refers to the Glienicke Bridge, which connects Potsdam with Berlin, where the prisoner exchange took place. The film was a co-production of the United States and Germany. (Source)

 

[Karl Henning]

Labyrinth. I liked it, overall, screenplay by Terry Jones, after all. The set piece musical  numbers were my least favorite bits (YMMV)

[Karl Henning]

Rod Serling's Carol for Another Christmas. 

[Karl Henning]

Such a cultural artifact of its time, it feels curiously nostalgic: I watched Rod Serling's A Carol for Another Christmas for only the second time last night.

[SonicMan46]

Last night, Susan looked at my movies 'in the cloud' and for some reason choose the one below:

Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (1984) w/ Christopher Lambert, Ralph Richardson, and Andie MacDowell (see quote) - I've been a Tarzan fan since boyhood and likely have seen most of the films made (including Elmo Lincoln) - just own a few but not one of my favs, Tarzan and His Mate (1934) (not offered on Amazon Prime as an HD purchase or even view) - Lambert plays a different kind of 'Ape Man' (the name 'Tarzan' is not used in the film) and the ape makeup was nominated for an Oscar - reviews generally good but not stellar - but probably a 'must see' for Tarzan fans.

Quoted below is a ranking of 10 Tarzan movies w/ link - looked at several more listings which were quite divergent, but Greystoke is occasionally in the top ten as in the ranking below. I was somewhat surprised to see two Gordon Scott films in the list - must revisit those features.  Dave

Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes is a 1984 adventure film directed by Hugh Hudson based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' novel Tarzan of the Apes (1912). Christopher Lambert stars as Tarzan and Andie MacDowell as Jane; the cast also includes Ralph Richardson (in his final role), Ian Holm, et al. Greystoke received three Oscar nominations for Best Actor in a Supporting Role for Richardson, Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, and Best Makeup. It became the first Tarzan feature film to be nominated for an Academy Award; the later Disney animated feature film adaptation became the first one to win an Oscar. (Source)

01. Tarzan and His Mate (1934) - Weissmuller & O'Sullivan
02. Greystoke: Legend etc (1984) - Lambert & MacDowell
03. Tarzan (1999) - Disney Animation
04. Tarzan's Greatest Adventure (1959) - Gordon Scott
05. Tarzan the Ape Man (1932)- Weissmuller & O"Sullivan
06. Tarzan and the Apes (1918) - Lincoln & Markey
07. Tarzan the Magnificent (1960) - Gordon Scott
08. Tarzan's Magic Fountain (1949) - Barker & Joyce
09. Tarzan Finds a Son (1939) - Weissmuller & O'Sullivan
10. Tarzan the Ape Man (1981) - O'Keeffe & Derek (Source)

 

[relm1]

Rocketship X-M (1950)

A rather silly but significant vintage sci-fi film about astronauts heading to the moon.  Enroute, they are hit by meteors and go off course waking to consciousness at Mars where they discover the ruins of an advanced civilization killed and mutated by nuclear war!  This film was a low budget rush to compete with Destination Moon (1950) which was considered more groundbreaking and introduced the ideas of the space age to the innocent audiences of that time by none other than a Woody Woodpecker cartoon!  Also noteworthy is Rocketship X-M was scored by Grand Canyon Suite composer, Ferde Grofé.