Last Movie You Watched

[Bogey]

Thanks, I'll probably pull the trigger ... the 1st film was directed by a Master (Brian De Palma), so extra interest there .. plus I've heard a lot of great things about the latest one and how entertaining it is.

That's the key....entertaining.  Think Bourne, but with Cruise flair.

TD:



With this cast, I thought I was ready for a treat, but instead it turned out to be a snore fest for me.

[SonicMan46]

The Jungle Book (2016) - Susan & I just saw in 3D on a big screen - amazing production; the only live human is the boy, much of the rest is CGI which is well done - some great voices for the animals (check the quote below from the Disney website for the film).  Ratings: 7.9/10, IMDB; 95% Rotten Tomatoes; 4.6/5*, Amazon - I would do an overall 4* rating there (maybe even 5* for the CGI imagery).  Dave

Directed by Jon Favreau (Iron Man), based on Rudyard Kipling's timeless stories and inspired by Disney's classic animated film, The Jungle Book is an all-new live-action epic adventure about Mowgli (newcomer Neel Sethi), a man-cub who's been raised by a family of wolves. But Mowgli finds he is no longer welcome in the jungle when fearsome tiger Shere Khan (voice of Idris Elba), who bears the scars of Man, promises to eliminate what he sees as a threat. Urged to abandon the only home he's ever known, Mowgli embarks on a captivating journey of self-discovery, guided by panther-turned-stern mentor Bagheera (voice of Ben Kingsley), and the free-spirited bear Baloo (voice of Bill Murray). Along the way, Mowgli encounters jungle creatures who don't exactly have his best interests at heart, including Kaa (voice of Scarlett Johansson), a python whose seductive voice and gaze hypnotizes the man-cub, and the smooth-talking King Louie (voice of Christopher Walken), who tries to coerce Mowgli into giving up the secret to the elusive and deadly red flower: fire. The all-star cast also includes Lupita Nyong'o as the voice of the fiercely protective mother wolf Raksha, and Giancarlo Esposito as the voice of wolf pack's alpha male Akela.

The Jungle Book seamlessly blends live-action with photorealistic CGI animals and environments, using up-to-the-minute technology and storytelling techniques to immerse audiences in an enchanting and lush world.

[Bogey]

Second in the six films with Nick and Nora.  Not as good as the first, but very fun and entertaining if you enjoy this duo.

[Bogey]

Surprisingly watchable.

[Bogey]

The Stranger (1946, dir. Orson Welles) - Haven't seen this in awhile, and it remains quite powerful. I had forgotten how good the score is, too.

[asin]B00E5MIM86[/asin]

--Bruce

A great movie, Bruce.  I picked up the bluray as well and have not watched it yet.  Love Edward G. in it!

[Bogey]

Took this in last night with whole family.  Everyone enjoyed it.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Watching Lethal Weapon again.

New order:

Shared no. 1 spot: Lethal weapon 2 and 4
no. 2: Lethal Weapon 3
no. 3: Lethal Weapon 1

In general I think the series handles much better the tongue-in-cheek style than the morbid suicidality that is so apparent in the first one. Third one had more bland parts than I recalled. Second one was still a very very great movie but perhaps a bit prolonged. I had forgotten how enjoyable movie the fourth one was, and the no. 1 reason is Jet Li's character. It's impossible not to enjoy every single second he's on screen kicking ass and to not be rooting for him is equally hard. In general the lightheartedness of the movie is great, save for a couple of rather short not-that-interesting scenes.

[Todd]

Gaspar Noé's Love.  High art meets medium-core porn; the hook here is the unsimulated sex shot with an auteur's eye.  (It was also shot in 3D!)  Attractive young people engage in meaningful (?) sex frequently throughout, and some of the compositions are simply beautiful.  There are a couple static camera nightclub (non-sex) scenes that are gorgeous to look at, and the unflinching camera placement during some of the sex scenes is well done.  Perhaps Noé, by putting a nude man's erection front and center so often is making some type of statement about the objectification of women in cinema, or perhaps he just tried, and failed, to shock.  Anyway, the dialogue and story are boring and bland and instantly forgettable, and I had to watch in chunks.  It's better than Lars von Trier's Nymphomaniac, but that's not saying much.  I'd love to see what Noé could do with a world-class script.

[Bogey]

Happy 120th birthday to Howard Winchester Hawks.  Out of his vault of wonderful movies my top three are Rio Bravo (pictured above), To Have and Have Not (I do enjoy this a bit more than The Big Sleep), and His Girl Friday.  It's a crime leaving off Red River, but there you have it.

[George]

Morning Bill,

Who is that on the right?

[Bogey]

Morning Bill,

Who is that on the right?

Good morning, buddy.  Angie Dickenson.

[Ken B]

Happy 120th birthday to Howard Winchester Hawks.  Out of his vault of wonderful movies my top three are Rio Bravo (pictured above), To Have and Have Not (I do enjoy this a bit more than The Big Sleep), and His Girl Friday.  It's a crime leaving off Red River, but there you have it.

Baby, Friday, Ball of Fire, Sleep.

[Todd]

The Revenant.  A bit better than I was expecting, the movie is well paced, being neither too fast nor too slow.  The acting is generally very good, though Tom Hardy's difficult to pin down accent doesn't remain consistent.  There's plenty of reasonably realistic violence that always serves the story, and the ending is most satisfying.  The landscapes and photography are generally beautiful.  The extensive use of very wide angle lenses and low angles becomes something of an affectation, with the numerous low angle upward shots of trees and forests a bit repetitive, and the keystoned shots of DiCaprio and Hardy are both intriguing and unexpected.  The physical effects are good, but the CGI has limitations.  The bear is good enough, I guess, but the large bison herd looks hokey.  It was also a bit difficult to suspend disbelief when much of the story is supposed to take place in eastern Montana and western South Dakota, but most or all of the film was obviously shot elsewhere.  Quibbles aside, it is entertaining, though I doubt I watch it again.

[Spineur]

Billy Wilder and Raymond chandler 1944 classic

[asin]B0087ZG7OI[/asin]

based on James M Cain book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Indemnity_%28film%29

on Arte TV.  It's been 20 years since I last saw it.  Amazing actors

[SonicMan46]

   

Happy 120th birthday to Howard Winchester Hawks.  Out of his vault of wonderful movies my top three are Rio Bravo (pictured above), To Have and Have Not (I do enjoy this a bit more than The Big Sleep), and His Girl Friday.  It's a crime leaving off Red River, but there you have it.

Yes - Angie did have a grand set of legs (of course, among other attributes - ) - replaced my old DVD w/ the BD of Rio Bravo - enjoy as much as Bill; great performances from the entire cast and Ricky Nelson surprisingly good (or maybe not a surprise since he was on TV for so long and became a natural in front of a camera).  Dave

[Bogey]

Billy Wilder and Raymond chandler 1944 classic

[asin]B0087ZG7OI[/asin]

based on James M Cain book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Indemnity_%28film%29

on Arte TV.  It's been 20 years since I last saw it.  Amazing actors

One of the all time best!  Another Edward G. stellar performance....heck, everyone did a GREAT job!

[Bogey]

Yes - Angie did have a grand set of legs (of course, among other attributes - ) - replaced my old DVD w/ the BD of Rio Bravo - enjoy as much as Bill; great performances from the entire cast and Ricky Nelson surprisingly good (or maybe not a surprise since he was on TV for so long and became a natural in front of a camera).  Dave

Rio Bravo holds a special place in my viewing, Dave.  Our son has it in his top 3 all time as do I. 

[Karl Henning]

One of the all time best!  Another Edward G. stellar performance....heck, everyone did a GREAT job!

I've probably said this before . . . I need to watch that 'un.

[Karl Henning]

Thread Duty:

I was in Jersey visiting with brothers, sisters, nephews & mom (up from Tennessee) this holiday weekend, so there was some movie-watching.

Merrily We Live (1938). Constance Bennett, Brian Aherne. The Wikipedia article tells that this movie is often mischaracterized as an adaptation of My Man Godfrey.  That appears to be an error, but there are certainly common elements:  a screwball comedy, a tramp (who is not actually as he appears) who is taken into a high society home out of pity, and how the man of the house has no patience with all that rot.  Good fun.

The Enchanted Cottage (1945). Dorothy McGuire, Robt Young, Herbert Marshall (and Mildfred Natwick, whom I recognized from her later turn in The Trouble With Harry).  A charming atmospheric piece, the overall framework is, it is a story told through a piano piece played by a blind composer who was involved in the story.  May be the only serious role I have seen Robt Young in.  A little sentimental, but not (I think) fatally so.

The Old Dark House (1963). Tom Poston, Robt Morley.  Also with Peter Bull & Mervyn Johns (both very well known to us from the Alastair Sim Christmas Carol)!  Apparently a remake of a 1932 movie, based on a J.B. Priestley book;  it's got something of an And Then There Were None vibe (claustrophobic setting, folks being mysteriously killed off, one by one), but it's a light-hearted comedy.

Spectre (2015).  Liked this very well (and I started a re-watch of Skyfall last night, as a result);  plus, it was fun kibitzing about this or that with my brother.

On my return to Massachusetts:

Spoiler alert?  Maybe?

Rope (1948).  First time I'd ever watched it, believe it or not.  I think it's great.  In the half-hour featurette, there were comments by Hume Cronyn (who had done the "treatment" of the source play, on Hitchcock's invitation) and Arthur Laurents (who wrote the final screenplay).  Now, I just watched the movie, without either being cued by Laurents's half-complaints that the homosexual element had been expunged, nor with (I suppose) the era's encoding of [ two young men of a certain age rooming together ] = [ homosexuals ] . . . so I watched the movie and enjoyed it thoroughly, without having been lectured that I ought to have been disappointed because some of the characters "ought to have been" homosexual.  Laurents also remarked to the effect that he felt "betrayed" by Hitchcock, because the murder is shown at the outset, where Laurents's screenplay left it as a question;  he felt that the suspense lay in the audience not being sure whether or not a murder had been committed.  I sort of see the point;  but (contrariwise) I suppose Hitchcock felt that the suspense instead resided in, will the body be discovered.  Doing it Laurents's way would have removed a number of elements which I thought vital to the tone of the movie:  We know that the food is being served inches above a fresh corpse;  we know the truth behind Brandon's coy suggestions that Kenneth may still have a chance with Janet;  and knowing that David is kaput informs how we hear every fresh spout of nervousness from Phillip.

[North Star]

Spectre (2015).  Liked this very well (and I started a re-watch of Skyfall last night, as a result);  plus, it was fun kibitzing about this or that with my brother.

I liked it very well too, in the movie theatre, but the amount of recycling is a getting ridiculous.

On my return to Massachusetts:

Spoiler alert?  Maybe?

Rope (1948).  First time I'd ever watched it, believe it or not.  I think it's great.  In the half-hour featurette, there were comments by Hume Cronyn (who had done the "treatment" of the source play, on Hitchcock's invitation) and Arthur Laurents (who wrote the final screenplay).  Now, I just watched the movie, without either being cued by Laurents's half-complaints that the homosexual element had been expunged, nor with (I suppose) the era's encoding of [ two young men of a certain age rooming together ] = [ homosexuals ] . . . so I watched the movie and enjoyed it thoroughly, without having been lectured that I ought to have been disappointed because some of the characters "ought to have been" homosexual.  Laurents also remarked to the effect that he felt "betrayed" by Hitchcock, because the murder is show at the outset, where Laurents's screenplay left it as a question;  he felt that the suspense lay in the audience not being sure whether or not a murder had been committed.  I sort of see the point;  but (contrariwise) I suppose Hitchcock felt that the suspense instead resided in, will the body be discovered.  Doing it Laurents's way would have removed a number of elements which I thought vital to the tone of the movie:  We know that the food is being served inches above a fresh corpse;  we know the truth behind Brandon's coy suggestions that Kenneth may still have a chance with Janet;  and knowing that David is kaput informs how we hear every fresh spout of nervousness from Phillip.

That is hard to believe.

Hitchcock decision to show the murder is certainly in my view also the right one. Reminds me of that Italian American detective in a shabby raincoat...