Last Movie You Watched

[SonicMan46]

Just a bit of personal trivia, Dave . . . this was the in-flight entertainment on a transatlantic flight with a non-US carrier (I was too preoccupied to enjoy the movie).  I chuckled to hear the flight attendant mis-announce the title as The Brides of Madison County.

Hi Karl - LOL!  The Brides of Madison County sounds like a Burt Reynolds movie a la 'Smokey & the Bandit' -  

Don't do transatlantic flights anymore but did a lot in my early years - never liked watching films on planes and this one would have been hard to keep one's attention - much nicer in the quiet of your own living room w/ a big screen HDTV and decent sound.  Dave

[Bogey]

I do this .. it provides context/insight, but still the film itself should entertain and provoke something in the viewer on it's own too. Often, a lot of the words/talk/hype surrounding cinema doesn't really hold up. Film .. more often than all other art/entertainment forms suffers from the ravages of time the most.

Agreed.  But sometimes that added insight can take it further.

[TheGSMoeller]

James Bond meets Kick-Ass meets Kill Bill. I had a lot of fun watching this film, especially watching Firth become an action star. I did chuckle out loud during the fireworks scene near the end, those who have seen it will know.

[Mirror Image]

Watched this earlier:



I watched the hour-long documentary on Nielsen's life titled The Light and the Darkness. Very nice and contained some great live footage of Nielsen shaking hands and walking around. This footage alone is quite indispensable.

[Drasko]

.. and while it definitely contains seeds/roots for the genre ...

When speaking of earliest examples of gangster film Sternberg's 1927 silent Underworld shouldn't be missed.

[Bogey]

When speaking of earliest examples of gangster film Sternberg's 1927 silent Underworld shouldn't be missed.

Yikes!  $159 for this set. OOP I am guessing.

These sets look interesting to me.  Would love to preview it before buying a I am not familiar with these films.

http://www.criterion.com/films/2955-i-am-waiting
http://www.criterion.com/films/788-stray-dog
http://www.criterion.com/films/845-drunken-angel

Along with others from Japan.  Anyone here familiar with any of these or others' work:

http://www.criterion.com/explore/17-noir-and-neonoir

[Bogey]

Speaking of historical gangster films, this is a MUST:

The Musketeers of Pig Alley (1912), the first gangster film.  You can catch the 16 minutes film here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2jjTmRclFM

[James]

Speaking of historical gangster films, this is a MUST:

The Musketeers of Pig Alley (1912), the first gangster film.  You can catch the 16 minutes film here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2jjTmRclFM

Yes .. in the special features to Little Caesar, Scorsese speaks of that one & others that came before .. the true dawn of the gangster pictures of the 30s that made an impact.  The genre really began to take hold & define itself when (among other things) sound entered the equation .. and for instance, the gunshots could be heard .. the earlier films are credible but nothing really rising above historical curiosity as far as this genre is concerned. Even the earlier classics (as far as I have seen so far), considering the nature of their content seem light, incredibly cartoonish & tame in comparison to the contemporary gangster pictures (& TV series) of which I have been spoiled rotten.

[Ken B]

Most early 30s gangster movies look dreadfully dated. But for one kinda related, with Paul Muni, seek out I am a fugitive from a chain gang.

[Karl Henning]

Over two evenings and for the first time, Eyes Wide Shut.  In a number of ways, a little weird, but then, which Kubrick film is not?  I am not sure I find the narrative arc convincing/satisfying, but I could understand the filmmaker not much caring.  The curtain line seems to me a bit of a throwaway.  I think that what I was least prepared for, was the impression that Cruise had out-acted Kidman;  but apart from her monologue -with-the-other-guy-there when they had burnt a J, hers was not a particularly interesting role, I thought.

[mc ukrneal]

Over two evenings and for the first time, Eyes Wide Shut.  In a number of ways, a little weird, but then, which Kubrick film is not?  I am not sure I find the narrative arc convincing/satisfying, but I could understand the filmmaker not much caring.  The curtain line seems to me a bit of a throwaway.  I think that what I was least prepared for, was the impression that Cruise had out-acted Kidman;  but apart from her monologue -with-the-other-guy-there when they had burnt a J, hers was not a particularly interesting role, I thought.

Did you watch it twice over two evenings or split it into two parts over two nights. I think I would have liked it more had I split it up...(hence the question)...

EDIT: Perhaps I should clarify, instead of hating it, I might at least tolerate it...

[Karl Henning]

Split in two over the two evenings.

[mc ukrneal]

Split in two over the two evenings.

Gotcha. I agree that Kidman is not at her best here.

[Karl Henning]

Beautifully shot, of course.  I could imagine, had I gone to see it in the cinema, finding it something of an uncomfortable movie to sit and watch in toto;  and I could see that being part of Kubrick's point.

[mc ukrneal]

Beautifully shot, of course.  I could imagine, had I gone to see it in the cinema, finding it something of an uncomfortable movie to sit and watch in toto;  and I could see that being part of Kubrick's point.

I didn't mind the discomfort, which I think was something he was aiming for. I just found it to be too over the top and ridiculous. It didn't engage me. Then again, I find it hard to understand why they would act this way, when they should have made changes in their lives long before the start of this movie. I cannot put myself in their shoes, so to speak.

[Karl Henning]

I didn't mind the discomfort, which I think was something he was aiming for. I just found it to be too over the top and ridiculous. It didn't engage me. Then again, I find it hard to understand why they would act this way, when they should have made changes in their lives long before the start of this movie. I cannot put myself in their shoes, so to speak.

You're right;  I certainly watched them as characters in a piece, not as personalities like anyone I know.

[George]

Just finished this series for the 4th or 5th time. What a great show!


Next up, a third spin of this series:

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Over two evenings and for the first time, Eyes Wide Shut.  In a number of ways, a little weird, but then, which Kubrick film is not?  I am not sure I find the narrative arc convincing/satisfying, but I could understand the filmmaker not much caring.  The curtain line seems to me a bit of a throwaway.  I think that what I was least prepared for, was the impression that Cruise had out-acted Kidman;  but apart from her monologue -with-the-other-guy-there when they had burnt a J, hers was not a particularly interesting role, I thought.

It's intriguing how that movie has both so entertaining and horrifying scenes. The bar scene where he learns the password Fidelio is definitely former. I couldn't believe it's from the same movie that had that horrifyingly interesting cult meeting. And yes, those entertaining scenes do not feel like they are comical touches in a mainly depressing movie, it feels like those scenes are from whole other movie, which, oddly, makes me like the film more.

[Drasko]

Anyone here familiar with any of these or others' work:

http://www.criterion.com/explore/17-noir-and-neonoir

I've seen about half of that list. Any of those in particular interest you?

[James]

Just finished this series for the 4th or 5th time. What a great show!

Love that show. Hopefully it gets the blu treatment.