Last Movie You Watched

[Madiel]

Because of course the film is wonderfully rich.

I'm glad you think so. I can't even remember whether I've got to the end of it. Many years ago my Bible study group (definitely not of the super-conservative evangelical variety) tried watching it and we frankly found it rather boring. We couldn't help thinking that the controversy had been encouraged in order to get more people to see the film.

I might end up trying it again because I have a vague idea of going through Scorsese's body of work. But it won't be one of the films that I'll approach enthusiastically.

[Karl Henning]

I'm glad you think so. I can't even remember whether I've got to the end of it. Many years ago my Bible study group (definitely not of the super-conservative evangelical variety) tried watching it and we frankly found it rather boring. We couldn't help thinking that the controversy had been encouraged in order to get more people to see the film.

I might end up trying it again because I have a vague idea of going through Scorsese's body of work. But it won't be one of the films that I'll approach enthusiastically.

Late to the party, we might say, but this time I'm wondering how the Greek Orthodox church took Kazantsakis' book, or rather, how strongly and in just what terms they objected to it. I think it interesting how Jesus has history with both Magdalene and Iscariot, particularly that he is friends with the latter, though they are so different in temper. Unlike the Jesus in the Gospel who says I am the Truth, we have a Jesus who denounces himself as a hypocrite because he says he's afraid of the truth. The night I went to see it in the cinemas there were protesters picketing and there was a sign reading something like "Jesus wasn't a wimp," and that is really only a point if one insists that any movie about Jesus ought simply to be a tract in celluloid. In the film Jesus says, "Everything comes from God and everything has a double meaning." which I'm still chewing over. since this Jesus is wrestling with self-awareness, naturally (and obviously unlike the Gospel narrative) John the Baptist isn't sure of who Jesus is, either. I chuckled lightly at Iscariot (who derided Jesus as a collaborator) remarks of John that he acts like a Messiah.

[Madiel]

naturally (and obviously unlike the Gospel narrative) John the Baptist isn't sure of who Jesus is, either.

Actually I think you'll find the Bible recording John the Baptist having exactly those doubts. Luke 7:18-23 is about him sending people to ask Jesus if he (Jesus) was really the one John had been preaching was going to come.

EDIT: The whole "Jesus wasn't a wimp" thing tells you far more about a particular hyper-masculine strand of American Christianity than it does anything about Jesus.

[relm1]

Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) based on George Orwell's book.  This story has been coming up in discussion but I hadn't seen or read it so went in blind.  It was very good, and very timely!  I was first surprised by the excellent cast including an emaciated John Hurt and Richard Burton in his final role.  He must have died just days after filming had completed and didn't seem ill or anything. 

Synopsys/Spoilers/My Thoughts: In a dystopian future, a crowd is stirred to feverish hatred of their enemy Eurasia.  You can tell not everyone is buying in to it, but the crowd is also seeing each other's reaction.  It's a police state and very suspicious of each other.  There are thought police who torture people who don't think in the nationalist way.  The ruling class is Oligarchs (that's literally in the film) who have a slightly better life than the normal citizens.  Truth is defined as that which the ruling party says.  Love, free thought is all forbidden.  Winston, who works at the Ministry of Truth erasing history that doesn't agree with the ruling class's politics, falls in love with Julia - another free thinker.  They are arrested by the police after discovering they've been seen all along by surveillance.  Under arrest, they are threatened and tortured to conform to the party's rules and definitions of truth.  If they are told 2+2=5, they must agree or get tortured.  They reach the breaking point, both turning on each other to survive and no longer have feelings for each other as they agree with the party's version of truth.

Thoughts: The film is way, way deeper than my lousy summary and had excellent directing and performances.  I couldn't believe how relevant it seems now.  The government defining truth, oligarchy as the ruling class, the goal of war not being to win but to sustain a sense of hatred that makes the people easier to rule through propaganda.  A very dark story based on a book written in 1949 that seems like it is not so far off from current reality.  Maybe that's the point of the story too, that it was a warning and will always feel timely so citizens should be vigil and oversee their government doesn't slip into a totalitarian regime ruled by the rich and powerful elites.  It was a disturbing place to visit.

[SonicMan46]

Our son was visiting and we watched an eclectic mix of old and new films:

Wonka (2023) - stars Timothée Chalamet (who played Bob Dylan and was in the new Dune films) - for all click on the name for a Wiki re-direction, if interested.

Avatar: The Way of Water (2022) - my second watch (son's first) - way too long for me (3+ hrs - watched over 2 nights) and mucho CGI! Avatar 3 to be released at the end of this year (and LONG also!).

The Big Trail (1930) - YES, a 95 year-old film and I feel a MUST SEE - John Wayne at 23 y/o and streamed in its 70 mm version - of course, no CGI and many dangerous scenes (7 people died in its filming - check the link for more detail).

Wild River (1960) - about the TVA in the 1930s taming the dangerous Tennessee River - superb acting especially Jo Van Fleet.

The Crimson Pirate (1952) - comedic pirate film with Burt Lancaster and his acrobat buddy Nick Cravat (who was mute - because of his STRONG Brooklyn accent!) - the Flame and the Arrow is another from that era with those two.  Dave

 

   

[Cato]

The Big Trail (1930) - YES, a 95 year-old film and I feel a MUST SEE - John Wayne at 23 y/o and streamed in its 70 mm version - of course, no CGI and many dangerous scenes (7 people died in its filming - check the link for more detail).


 

You must have the restored version, which I also own!  Yes, that is a marvelous movie!

Hear John Wayne's voice before he had ruined it with chain-smoking and whiskey! 

Aside from that, an amazing, experimental movie with a great story: consider that it was made not too many generations after the events, which it depicts.  It has a "gritty," realistic, semi-documentary feel to it.

[DavidW]

I watched a silly comedy about Y2K, resulting in AI robots trying to enslave humanity.

[Number Six]

On Swift Horses

Saw this one last night at the cinema. Admitted, I went for Daisy Edgar-Jones - but the whole cast were terrific and almost across-the-board stunningly gorgeous ("almost" depends on what you think of Will Poulter and his creepy eyebrows  ).

It's a story about queerness and the American Dream in post Korean War America. Beautifully shot and costumed and acted. It gets a little messy at times, not sure if it's a Sirk melodrama or a film noir about gambling in Vegas. But I liked it very much and will maybe go again tomorrow.

[Number Six]

I also saw Pride & Prejudice the other day at the cinema - the 2005 Keira Knightley version.

I have seen it a zillion times, and it never gets old. Thrilled to see it again on the big screen. Might to make a double feature of it and On Swift Horses tomorrow at AMC.

[AnotherSpin]

The Alto Knights — it started with some hope, honestly. The opening had a few promising moments that hinted at a decent old-school mob story. But as the film went on, it just got bogged down in exposition and lost any momentum it had. The pacing dragged, the storytelling felt lazy, and by the time it reached the final act, I was fully checked out. De Niro's double role could've been interesting, but it ended up more distracting than effective, and it doesn't add anything meaningful. The finale sealed it for me: a clear disappointment that left no doubt this was a misfire.

[Karl Henning]

The commentary upon The Last Temptation of Christ, with Scorsese, Dafoe and screenwriter Jn Schrader. Highly interesting and informative. 

[Florestan]

I quite liked Pope Benedict XVI and I'm glad to see that my intuition was correct: under the apparent coolness and aloofness of an intellectual and a scholar there was a friendly and warm human being, no stranger to humor and tenderness. Pope Francis, which I liked too, was very different from him, more directly humane and instantly likeable, but I see them as complementary, not contradictory. I hope the next pope will be just as good as these two were.

[Cato]

In recent days...





One of our favorites: Mrs. Cato's best friend had never seen it, and she was very taken by it.


It is hard to believe that 28 years have gone by, since the movie came out.


Also...




My mother and I saw this in the theater in 1962: an adolescent at the time, I knew nothing about Busby Berkeley, but later, looking at the sequences in Jumbo which he choreographed, his style is obvious!

Doris Day was 40 at the time, but still sunny enough to charm Stephen Boyd.  Jimmy Durante and Martha Raye remained as funny and poignant as ever.

Called a movie which appeared 30 years beyond its time, in the rock-'n'-roll 1960's it probably was an anachronism, but I liked it!

The main song: The Most Beautiful Girl in the World.  Apparently Stephen Boyd's singing was dubbed, despite his quite fine Irish baritone.  The same thing happened with Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady around the same time.

[relm1]

I saw "A Complete Unknown" yesterday.  I enjoyed it but felt it was very broadbrush exploration of Bob Dylan and his 1960's career.  Was he ever as famous as they make him out here?  I thought he was always a niche because there were some huge megastars at that time in history (Beetles, Elvis, The Supremes, James Brown, etc.) but I'm not an expert in pop music.  I thought the story overall was well told, just too many reaction shots of fans acting like they are witnessing history being made that will one day be in a biopic.  Timothee Chalamet really embodies and becomes each role.  I loved the Dylan/Baez team up and how their tension was portrayed. 

My question to those who lived through the 1960's, how impactful was Dylan at that time?  I always thought he was a slow burn who never had a massive reach but again, I'm not so knowledgeable about this type of music.

[Madiel]

My question to those who lived through the 1960's, how impactful was Dylan at that time?  I always thought he was a slow burn who never had a massive reach but again, I'm not so knowledgeable about this type of music.

One does not have to have lived through the 1960s. One only has to read the Wikipedia article on Dylan to see that he was selling records and having chart success. The discography, too, shows a number of singles and albums making the top 10 on the charts.

[Karl Henning]

One does not have to have lived through the 1960s. One only has to read the Wikipedia article on Dylan to see that he was selling records and having chart success. The discography, too, shows a number of singles and albums making the top 10 on the charts.

And always an outsized influence on his peers.

[Cato]

I saw "A Complete Unknown" yesterday....

My question to those who lived through the 1960's, how impactful was Dylan at that time?  I always thought he was a slow burn who never had a massive reach but again, I'm not so knowledgeable about this type of music.

I was not very attentive to popular music back then, as I had been much more thrilled - starting in the mid-1950's - by the great Classical Music composers (from Gabrieli and Gesualdo through Beethoven and Bruckner to Schoenberg and Stravinsky).

However, yes, your impression was my impression 60 years ago.  From what I could tell among my Ohio contacts then, Bob Dylan's talent-challenged, drug-addled mumbling was a niche market, albeit a financially successful one for him.

I will not claim to understand the fuss about him then or afterward.

That he received a Nobel Prize for Literature (of all things) condemns the taste and judgment of the people in charge of it today.

"Well, ah woul' nah' feel so all alone'
Evvver'bah-ee mus' ge' stone' " 

Similar to the fuss about Jimi Hendrix, I recall one of my contemporaries raving about him, while playing one of his records and asking my opinion.

"He really has something there!" said my acquaintance.

As politely as possible, I said: "Well, not really: from what I hear, he uses basic major and minor chords, like everyone else in rock-'n'-roll."   

Of interest was the claim back then of how "radical" and "new" the music of (insert '60's rock group or singer here) was supposed to be.

In fact, the radical music had already been occurring in Classical Music since the beginning of the century:  compare Karl Amadeus Hartmann's Symphony #6 or Schoenberg's Violin Concerto or Alois Haba's The Mother to anything produced by (insert '60's rock group or singer here).

[Karl Henning]

@Cato Strooth, the bestowal of the Nobel Prize in Lit was a (shall we say) cultural curiosity. 

[Florestan]

That he received a Nobel Prize for Literature (of all things) condemns the taste and judgment of the people in charge of it today.

@Cato Strooth, the bestowal of the Nobel Prize in Lit was a (shall we say) cultural curiosity.

It's been discussed here back then.

https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,26301.0.html

[Cato]

@Cato Strooth, the bestowal of the Nobel Prize in Lit was a (shall we say) cultural curiosity.

Aye, and a more polite phrasing would be hard to imagine! 

It's been discussed here back then.

https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,26301.0.html

Thanks for the link!