Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Mid-Spring Edition. Happy Beltane!

[cupcrazyman]

Blues Brothers (1980) 8/10

 

[Pink Mist]

To Have and Have Not (1944) directed by Howard Hawks

In Martinique during the early days of the Vichy regime, an American charter boat captain, Harry “Steve” Morgan (Humphrey Bogart), gets reluctantly involved in aiding the French resistance. Basically a retreading of the plot of Casablanca starring Bogart again but with Lauren Bacall as the leading lady instead of Ingrid Bergman (and spoiler: the girl leaves with him this time). But this is no poor imitation of Casablanca, this film is pulls its weight and is fantastic in its own right. Much of this has to do with the magnetic chemistry of Bogart and Bacall, arguably two of the greatest actors in American film history. Watching them together is just electric. This was Bacall’s first film role at the very young age of 19 and right from her iconic entrance in this film with her poise and attitude it was clear she was going to be a big star. She easily held her own going toe to toe against Bogart and I think often outshined him. The film is also notable because it was based off of a Hemingway novel and the script was written by fellow canonical American author William Faulkner. This is the first and only time two winners of the Nobel Prize of Literature have been credited on a film script. The script has great dialogue and energy to it with some very memorable lines. The film was made as a bet by Howard Hawks with his friend Hemingway that he could create a film out of Hemingway’s worst novel, To Have and Have Not, and I think it’s clear he won the bet.

 

[nameless1]

I have started to like Hawks quite a bit in recent years. He is a mainstream director, but there is always something extra in his movies that I cannot quite describe.

 

[Osprey]

Dodsworth (1936) - 5/10 - I watched this because it was the first of a record 12 Best Director nominations for William Wyler, a favorite of mine, and was nominated for Best Picture. I'm sure that it's a really good film, but I just find it unpleasant to watch serious divorce films. This is sort of the 1930s version of Marriage Story. Divorce wasn't really spoken of out loud back then, so this film must've originally been powerful, but I had trouble putting myself into that frame of mind after seeing too many films from the 80 years since with couples fighting in them. There also isn't much to the film besides that... no external drama (like a war going on in the background), hardly any interesting settings (at least Bogart had the sense to fight with dames in exotic locations) or even an interesting plot. It's basically just a rich couple fighting, separating, meeting and repeating. That's another thing. Apparently, during the Great Depression, it was fun for people to watch stories of rich people, especially rich people fighting. It seems a little odd, but, then again, maybe it's not so different than the attraction of a lot of reality TV today. Anyways, the performances and direction are very good, and I'm sure that it's a very good film (7 Oscar nominations can't be wrong), but I just couldn't get into the subject matter.

And now for something completely different...

Bereavement (2010) - 4/10 - A psychotic, cow skull-worshipping serial killer kidnaps and kills young people in a rural community so small that you'd think that people would notice and conduct a manhunt, starting at the local abandoned slaughterhouse, but no. I was engaged for the first 10 minutes, when I thought that Michael Biehn might be the serial killer, but he just turns out to be the generous uncle who welcomes Alexandra Daddario into his home (not that you'd need to be generous or her uncle to do that, but I digress). I've always wondered why Biehn didn't become a bigger actor after being in so many classic 80s films, and this film finally gave me the answer: he's just not that good and can't help but come across as a little too intense. I expected for him to say to his niece at some point, "the serial killer is out there, he can't be bargained with, he can't be reasoned with, he doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear, and he absolutely will not stop... EVER, until you are dead!" Anyways, this was a yawner filled with horror clichés, but... I have to say that the ending definitely subverted my expectations and made me laugh.

Spoiler

You expect the girl, while escaping, to rescue the brainwashed boy and kill the serial killer. Nope. The boy (who hasn't hurt a fly to this point) kills the serial killer (his father figure), very violently kills her (the main protagonist of the whole film), even kills an adorable 9-year-old girl (played by the boy actor's twin sister) and takes over as the slaughterhouse's new resident serial killer. The End.

It makes no sense, but it was a welcome development after an hour and a half of predictability and cliché. It wasn't enough to salvage it from being a forgettable horror film, though.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Fire City: End of Days

with people and demons

In a slightly shittier apartment building than mine, humans and demons live side by side, with the humans being none the wiser. The demons take human form when they're around people, and they feed off the humans' despair. There's a tarot card reader, a prostitute, drug dealers, and the main character is Vine, who's (I think) the building super. One day, he witnesses the abusive, hulking boyfriend of a tenant menacing her 11 year-old daughter and takes the unusual step of chasing him off. But then, the next day all the humans are happy and nice to each other! Nobody's miserable anymore, and now the demons can't feed. Some weird demon curse has made everyone unable to feel despair, and Vine and the other demons begin turning on each other as their desperation increases. Weirdness and heavy makeup ensues.

Actually not all that bad. Sweeter than you'd expect for a movie shot entirely in a building full of demons.

On Prime.

"I foresee...no hot water until Tuesday..."

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Flickmetrix - Top Rated Movies -> I know people here were moping about imdb but anyways, this is a pretty damn good ratings aggregator which uses other sites and has a nice interface which is more streamlined for finding top rated stuff. Really good for finding what to watch from a given year range but just be sure to change the default 'on Netflix' to 'on Everything' and play around with the advanced search settings.

The Virgin Suicides (1999) - 6.5/10

Sofia Coppola certainly did make a good atmosphere here, it felt Lynch like but I don't think the film had much depth beyond that atmosphere. Ribsi's narration becomes tiresome and the plot becomes a bit too much of a case of waiting for the inevitable to happen as it slowly trudges along. I think the film really fails to provide depth compared to what I'm guessing is a novel with a lot of depth. It's on Prime Canada and also shows up on Kanopy for me.

The optimist in me knows that by September most people will just be getting their second vaccination (vaccine schedule could even be expedited by then with people getting earlier than the 4 month interval). But yeah the current covid situation is not encouraging at all.

But who knows a lot can change in 4 months for the good and the bad. Forget TIFF, I just want to be able to watch films in theatres again

I don't think I'll be comfortable going back to the theatre in September even with the 2nd dose. A lot of other people I'm sure will be hesitant too even though Canada will likely have a higher % vaccinated by that point than the US. But then again, a high score for Eternals might be too much to resist.

I was actually thinking of switching to the Scene Visa but yeah there's just too much uncertainty for now. What if our cases really drop down a lot after the summer and then we just end up with another 4th wave in the fall/winter?

 

[kihei]

The Stranger (1967) Directed by Luchino Visconti 6A

Through no fault of anyone, certain novels are impossible to translate to the screen. Albert Camus’ seminal absurdist work L’etranger is one such example, but director Luchino Visconti gives it a good try. The film is set near Algiers and Meursault, its narrator, is on trial for the murder of an Arab on a nearby beach. Honest but indifferent, Meursault is as challenging a 20th century character as they come. Indeed, it is not his crime but his manner of thinking that is on trial. His motives for killing the Arab matter less to the court and by extension society than the fact that he doesn’t believe in God and, even more damning, did not mourn at his mother’s funeral. While the film is admirably true to the letter of the novel, it can’t come close to catching its highly interior, deeply philosophical essence. While a key scene with a priest, where Meursault finally angrily articulates the absurdity of existence, works admirably well, too many other scenes, especially the court scenes, are played far too broadly to complement the complex ideas going on inside Meursault’s head. Mastroianni is excellent as Meursault; I can’t imagine anyone being better. However, all The Stranger really accomplished was to make me want to read the book again.

subtitles

YouTube

 

[Pink Mist]

I don't think I'll be comfortable going back to the theatre in September even with the 2nd dose. A lot of other people I'm sure will be hesitant too even though Canada will likely have a higher % vaccinated by that point than the US. But then again, a high score for Eternals might be too much to resist.

I was actually thinking of switching to the Scene Visa but yeah there's just too much uncertainty for now. What if our cases really drop down a lot after the summer and then we just end up with another 4th wave in the fall/winter?

Oh absolutely in agreement here. It's more a cautious optimism, there's no telling what things will be like months from now. If this disease has proven anything by now its that it's pretty damn resilient. But I don't blame TIFF for planning for in person events, though I didn't mind the virtua stuff last year (though the price was pretty ridiculous, $20+ to stream a movie from home - yeesh).

I guess I did tell a half truth though, I haven't been in a theatre to see a movie but I did go to the drive in theatre last summer near where I live (one of the few that still exist) and will certainly take advantage of that again this summer. But there's no beating the true theatre environment

 

[Pink Mist]

The Breaking Point (1950) directed by Michael Curtiz

An honest charter boat captain, Harry Morgan (John Garfield), gets down on his luck and must turn to aiding criminals in order to support his family. After only six years Warner Bros. decided to do another adaptation of their 1944 film To Have and Have Not, a Casablancaesque wartime adventure film, by hiring Casablanca director Michael Curtiz. However, To Have and Have Not and The Breaking Point could not be more dissimilar films. For one, Curtiz’s version is a much closer adaptation to Hemingway’s novel, much of the dialogue is lifted straight from Hemingway’s prose unlike the 1944 film which just loosely uses the premise. The 1944 version is also focuses on the romance of antifascist resistance during the war, while the The Breaking Point is essentially on how a man battles the corruption of his good nature. Garfield is excellent in this film; there are few American actors who can play working class characters with such authenticity like Garfield. While the first version of To Have and Have Not is the more memorable version, this overlooked version (it was released just months after Garfield was dragged through the U.S. Congressional House Committee on Un-American Activities so the film wasn’t well advertised when it was released) is still is an excellent noir and worth watching. It also has a lot to comment about racial relations during the time as the final shot doesn’t pull punches has a very surprising and subversive critique of racial relations in the 1950s – great choice of a shot and I’m surprised it wasn’t cut from the script by Warner Bros.

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

Wrath of Man - 7/10

The dialogue's clunky, the acting's mediocre, there are plot holes aplenty, and I didn't care. Got exactly what I paid for. I was also reminded that Guy Ritchie can still be a pretty slick filmmaker from time to time.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

To Have and Have Not (1944) directed by Howard Hawks

Coincidentally also saw this last night. I thought it was decent but forgettable, I'm not a fan of Howard Hanks I think because I've seen 7 of his films now and thought all were average with Rio Bravo being the best and maybe just above average.

This one was too focused on trying to style up every conversation with Bacall/Bogart and being overly quippy but without that same noir atmosphere. Never really felt tense either.

 

[kihei]

Cop au vin (1985) Directed by Claude Chabrol 7A

Director Claude Chabrol is very often referred to as the European Alfred Hitchcock, a description with which I have always had trouble. While both make suspense movies, their approaches couldn't be more different. Chabrol is not interested in suspenseful set pieces, like crop dusters menacing Cary Grant in cornfields (North by Northwest) or roof top chases between competing cat burglars (To Catch a Thief). In fact, he seldom goes out of his way to deliberately create suspense. If Hitchcock is more interested in the “what” and the “how” of his mysteries, Chabrol is far more concerned with the “who” and the “why.” So, anyone looking for a classic Hitchcock movie from Chabrol may find themselves disappointed. However, Chabrol is every bit the accomplished technician that Hitchcock is which is no small accolade. What Chabrol does provide are perfectly executed plots focused on motive and character that are constructed with wit, elegance and the little twist you don't see coming.

Cop au vin (wretched pun even by my obviously low standards) is about Louis, a rather timid mailman, who still lives with his crazy possessive mother. Richer, more powerful people are trying to scare them off their land, and they appear very vulnerable in their attempt to stay put. But then their enemies start to die off. Inspector Lavardin (Jean Poiret), an out-of-town detective who appears affable and non-threatening, arrives on the scene; however, appearances are quite deceiving and he is out to get his man. Though he often explores dark territory, Chabrol is not a “heavy” director, but he is not usually this light either. Still, because it is almost perfectly constructed and a model of craftsmanship, I ended up having a lot of respect for the ever-so-slightly tongue in cheek Cop au vin.

subtitles

YouTube

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Since there's some Hawks talk here again, gonna put in another plug for Only Angels Have Wings which was one of the best new-to-me movies I watched last year.

 

[kihei]

Since there's some Hawks talk here again, gonna put in another plug for Only Angels Have Wings which was one of the best new-to-me movies I watched last year.

Bringing Up Baby is my favourite, but, man, he has a ton of good movies.

 

[Pink Mist]

Coincidentally also saw this last night. I thought it was decent but forgettable, I'm not a fan of Howard Hanks I think because I've seen 7 of his films now and thought all were average with Rio Bravo being the best and maybe just above average.

This one was too focused on trying to style up every conversation with Bacall/Bogart and being overly quippy but without that same noir atmosphere. Never really felt tense either.

You may enjoy The Breaking Point. Broadly based off the same story but entirely different tellings of the story. It's less quipy, is centered around a very realistic relationship, and actually feels like a film ahead of its time, like something which would have been made in the 60s or 70s

 

[Spring in Fialta]

The Stranger (1967) Directed by Luchino Visconti 6A

Through no fault of anyone, certain novels are impossible to translate to the screen. Albert Camus’ seminal absurdist work L’etranger is one such example, but director Luchino Visconti gives it a good try. The film is set near Algiers and Meursault, its narrator, is on trial for the murder of an Arab on a nearby beach. Honest but indifferent, Meursault is as challenging a 20th century character as they come. Indeed, it is not his crime but his manner of thinking that is on trial. His motives for killing the Arab matter less to the court and by extension society than the fact that he doesn’t believe in God and, even more damning, did not mourn at his mother’s funeral. While the film is admirably true to the letter of the novel, it can’t come close to catching its highly interior, deeply philosophical essence. While a key scene with a priest, where Meursault finally angrily articulates the absurdity of existence, works admirably well, too many other scenes, especially the court scenes, are played far too broadly to complement the complex ideas going on inside Meursault’s head. Mastroianni is excellent as Meursault; I can’t imagine anyone being better. However, all The Stranger really accomplished was to make me want to read the book again.

subtitles

YouTube

Anybody who's ever read the novel should watch this.

 

[Chili]

Shirley MacLaine David Niven, Cantinflas and Buster Keaton.

Around the World in 80 Days-1956

Planes, Trains and Automobiles on a global scale. Impressive location shots, cameos in nearly every scene. There are shots when they are riding an elephant from a camera on the back of the animal. That was a goal of the film, to bring the audience close to the action . Another scene from the top of a moving train, got a kick out of seeing a couple of arrows bouncing off Cantinflas (rubber tipped, surprised the shots were left in). Long but a fun film.

The only film Michael Todd produced before he died in a plane crash. He wanted his next project to be a film of Don Quixote, too bad that didn't get made because he would have probably spared no expense as he did in this film.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

The Exorcist (Friedkin, 1973) – I think the most common reading of the film has Regan summoning the demon in her quest for a surrogate father (she asks her mom if she's going to marry her director, and Captain Howdy, the only name given to the demonic presence, is a pretty clear replacement for her father Howard). The “Northern Iraq” sequence is somewhat problematic in this reading, but otherwise it's basis for a lot of interesting ideas. Something I haven't seen exploited as much as I'd like is how this ties-in with the failure of the disrupted family. In one of my favorite scenes, a doctor tells Chris that her daughter has been vulgar and inappropriate during examination, something that surprises her a lot (she says she never uses bad words). No matter how you eventually read the film, I think this scene is crucial as it compromises both parents. Chris is a bad mother, this is not said enough about the film, she fails to bring her daughter to the hospital when she is clearly in a dangerous state (and when the priest insists she should), she doesn't inform the father of the situation, but most of all, she might be the original bad influence: a few moments before we learn about this new aggressive use of foul language, we see Regan spying on her mother while she badmouths her ex-husbands and insults a clerk, using pretty vulgar bad words herself (the effect of that scene could be read as an interesting illustration of the parental alienation syndrome, even though I doubt there was much knowledge of it at the time). Chris is presented as a strong independent single mother, but she constantly turns to more capable men to come to her family's rescue – surrogate fathers for her daughter. The scene also casts important doubts on the absent father, through association to these surrogates. Through science and religion, Regan is put in the hands of a lot of men who mostly abuse of her body (they pierce her throat, slashes and burn her legs, tie her up and punch her in the face). It is also somewhat implied that Burt was inappropriate to the child before she twisted his head and threw him out the window. These abuse are never overtly sexual except in the scene where the doctor tells Chris that Regan told him to keep his hands away from her private parts. To me, this is enough to question what lead to the divorce and the reasons why Chris doesn't inform her ex-husband of their daughter's condition – which in turn could be used to read some of the possession scenes as traumatic stigma. It's a film you could think and talk about endlessly. Of course, I am partial to it's use of mise en abyme, as well as to the film's relation to “the real” and to its own materiality. 6 years before Lyotard wrote about the rejection of grand narratives, and 8 years before Baudrillard proposed the disparition of reality behind its simulacrum, the film shows a student protest – a very singular element linked to the reality of the times (not directly a protest against the war, but linked to it through the Ho Chi Minh comment afterwards), that is fictionalized in the narrative through mise en abyme (the film within the film) – and not only fictionalized, but presented as polished and unrealistic, “the Walt Disney version of the Ho Chi Minh story”. Another cute reflexive moment is when the inspector tells Father Karras that he looks like a boxer, and then confirms that he really does, like John Garfield in Body and Soul – he looks like an actor playing a boxer. More importantly, the horror appears in The Exorcist through it's construction as film: inserts of flashing demons, extradiegetic sounds meant to scare you through normal human instincts, plus a phenomenal work on the demon's voice (substitution, reversal, multiplicity). Editing, recording, mixing. I can't think of a purest example of horror cinema. You can blame the film for its anti-feminist or xenophobic undertones (rational men vs hysterical women / the Arabic call to prayer that opens and closes the film identifying the evil as “foreign”), but even this is brilliantly constructed. It's a seminal horror film, and for good reasons, and I could go on and on but I doubt anybody has made it this far (oh, and you could write an essay just on the drama on set and surrounding the film and, well, what other horror film has a serial killer in its cast?). 9/10​

 

[Osprey]

I didn't understand anything between "The Exorcist" and "9/10"... but that's enough to earn you a "like."

inserts of flashing demons

For a moment, I thought that we watched a very different film.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I didn't understand anything between "The Exorcist" and "9/10"

Blame it on my poor English!

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Shirley MacLaine David Niven, Cantinflas and Buster Keaton.

Around the World in 80 Days-1956

Planes, Trains and Automobiles on a global scale. Impressive location shots, cameos in nearly every scene. There are shots when they are riding an elephant from a camera on the back of the animal. That was a goal of the film, to bring the audience close to the action . Another scene from the top of a moving train, got a kick out of seeing a couple of arrows bouncing off Cantinflas (rubber tipped, surprised the shots were left in). Long but a fun film.

The only film Michael Todd produced before he died in a plane crash. He wanted his next project to be a film of Don Quixote, too bad that didn't get made because he would have probably spared no expense as he did in this film.

I was a huge book reader in my youth, and this was one of my favorite novels by Verne.

Have to admit it’s kind of upsetting that my ten year old daughter recoils in horror when I try to introduce her some of Verne’s best works and my other favorite books when I was her age... 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Mysterious Island, Red Badge of Courage, War of the Worlds, The Time Machine, etc.

Damn kids these days!

 

[Pink Mist]

The Gun Runners (1958) directed by Don Siegel

A charter fishing boat captain (Audie Murphy) gets involved in a gun smuggling operation when he falls on some bad luck. The third Hollywood adaptation of To Have and Have Not over a 14 year period – hey who said the current cycle of remakes in Hollywood is new phenomenon? This time it stars Audie Murphy who I find fairly wooden and not find a convincing actor who seems like an amateur compared to the great Humphrey Bogart and the solid and dependable John Garfield who came before him in the role. Murphy really seems out of his depth and comfort zone in a non-b western cowboy role. Eddie Albert is very good though as a smarmy bad guy who adds some charisma to an otherwise lifeless film. Don’t know why they decided to remake this one when there were already two fantastic adaptations that came recently before it.

 

[kihei]

Jules and Jim (1962) Directed by Francois Truffaut 10B

Jules and Jim is the most famous menage a trois in film history. In Paris, before the start of the World War I, Jules, who is Austrian, and Jim, who is French, are best friends, living the bohemian life on the Left Bank, concerned passionately with books, art and girls. Catherine enters their life and Jules and Jim, while remaining the closest of friends, are both smitten. Catherine is an incandescent free spirit who plays by no rules except her own. She is seductive without trying, a celebration of life unto herself. As Jules and Jim become more deeply involved with her, the challenges to their friendship mount. Catherine’s zest for living comes at a high price and her inability to compromise or reason with herself has unforeseen consequences.

Jim (Henri Serre) is actually a bit of a flat character, but Jules (Oskar Werner) and Catherine (Jeanne Moreau) are an amazing study. Though Jules has his bourgeoisie side and tends to be unassertive, he selflessly sacrifices everything for Catherine, even accepting her affair with Jim. Surprisingly he does this not out of weakness, but because of the purity of his love for Catherine. His is a stunning act of will. Catherine’s approach to life is dangerous but recklessly alluring. Catherine makes everyone feel alive, the embodiment of pleasure and the cause of anguish. But she walks a knife edge with her whims. Eventually her misjudgment and intransigence lead to a final act of defiance. Jules reaction to the tragedy is closer to relief than sorrow. He has fought the good fight and now it is over.

To quote Paulene Kael once again, Catherine is “about the impossibility of freedom” as well as “the many losses of innocence.” That's pretty much the themes in a nutshell. The film making is exhilarating as Truffaut captures the giddy romance and darker tensions of the era, shifting moods in quicksilver fashion. The French New Wave made film feel fresh and exciting again, full of endless possibilities. I think Jules and Jim is one of the best movies ever made (#3 on my all-time list).

subtitles

 

[kihei]

The Gun Runners (1958) directed by Don Siegel

A charter fishing boat captain (Audie Murphy) gets involved in a gun smuggling operation when he falls on some bad luck. The third Hollywood adaptation of To Have and Have Not over a 14 year period – hey who said the current cycle of remakes in Hollywood is new phenomenon? This time it stars Audie Murphy who I find fairly wooden and not find a convincing actor who seems like an amateur compared to the great Humphrey Bogart and the solid and dependable John Garfield who came before him in the role. Murphy really seems out of his depth and comfort zone in a non-b western cowboy role. Eddie Albert is very good though as a smarmy bad guy who adds some charisma to an otherwise lifeless film. Don’t know why they decided to remake this one when there were already two fantastic adaptations that came recently before it.

Murphy was perpetually out of his depth because he wasn't an actor at all but one of the most decorated war heroes of WWII, a recipient of the Medal of Honor among many other accolades. He starred in a movie about himself (To Hell and Back) and then had a bit of a career. He's more acceptable in "B" westerns, but I give him some points for just hanging in there.

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

Rewatched:

9/10