What was the last film you watched?

[Willie Oleson]

THE SOUND OF METAL (2019)



I had started watching Nicole Kidman in HOLLAND but my eyes struggled with the constant oversaturation of light and colour.
The story and characters are okay, quite funny sometimes, but I literally couldn't watch it anymore. Since this had never happened to me before I wondered if there was something wrong with my eyes - I panicked and almost started to hyperventilate. Move over, The Exorcist.
I randomly clicked on another film to examine if the problem was still there.
Thankfully that wasn't the case, but it is kinda funny that I went from "video" to "audio" problems (it's about a musician losing his hearing).

Sound Of Metal is a no-frills drama completely devoid of manipulation or cinematic trickery (as in: zooming in on every unimportant detail to make it pseudo-artistic).
The whole story is done by the actors and imo this has become a rarity these days.
Riz Ahmed (previously seen in The Nightcrawler 2014) plays it phenomenally but it doesn't hurt that he's got very expressive eyes.

Incidentally, one of the main characters in HOLLAND is an optometrist. Now I ask you!

I guess the next film should be about a dentist, or a film so bad it stinks.

 

[Willie Oleson]

POOR THINGS (2023)



A retrofuturistic baroque gothic euro-kitsch sex comedy about a Frankensteinian creature trying to find her agency. *cough*female empowerment*cough*
It's a gorgeous film with an abundance of details, shapes and colours, and I simply expected most of it to be the result of CGI. It exhilarates me to know that some or most (?) of the sets were physically created, or used what was already there. That's what I consider real movie magic: to make something fake come alive.
The script is fantastic, it's clever and bold and funny and sometimes it made me think of Terry Gilliam's Brazil but also Candy (1968).

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Mississippi Burning (1988)

In recent times, a new and exciting way to select and discover new films has been through streaming time limitations. This was another of those spontaneous watches based almost solely on its "leaves Prime in 3 days" status (and Gene Hackman's face on the poster). Since this method has yielded some gold, it seems as good a selection process as any other.

Until his name came up on screen, I had no idea this was an Alan Parker film, and this gave me hope that it would be a little gritty and uncompromising. In many ways it is. Certainly the attitudes and language were captured and expressed. I suspect this was still very much toned down from actual events of the time, but it's impressive that this film - epithets and all - has survived cancellation and is still streaming relatively intact. Mind you, it appears to have been six or seven minutes longer in its original form, so there's evidently some degree of censorship.

As I watched, I wondered if this was based on true events as I hadn't noticed anything on screen. Reading up this morning, I discovered it was loosely based on the Chaney/Goodman/Schwerner murders. There was evidently criticism aimed at the film for its inaccuracies, as well as for its portrayal of non-white characters as passive. Both criticisms are valid, though the former is somewhat mitigated by it not claiming to be a true story. The latter could arguably be symbolic at the disenfranchisement of the black people, but once it's seen, there's no denying this aspect is problematic. All the main characters are white, and I'd say that even more underrepresented than black people are Jewish people. Two Jewish men were among the three killed at the beginning, but that's forgotten pretty quickly. Still, though, this film has drawn my attention to events of which I wasn't previously aware, which is no bad thing.

Taken on its own merits, this is a cracking little film with a strong story and great performances. Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe is not a combo I've ever considered, so this pairing wasn't on any kind of wish list. Still, they are electric together: two terrific actors who work surprisingly well together. Hackman's all grins and winks and overconfidence, while Dafoe is focussed and driven as the younger guy who is given seniority on the case. And as the film progresses, this gets somewhat turned on its head, with Hackman being genuinely touched by the events and Dafoe learning that Hackman's questionable methods get results. The supporting cast, too is very strong. There's a lot going for this one and it's well worth a watch.​

 

[Willie Oleson]

Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe is not a combo I've ever considered

I don't think Willem Dafoe could be a bad combo with any actor.

It's in my DVD collection, to represent the "best of eighties cinema".

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I don't think Willem Dafoe could be a bad combo with any actor.

Oh yes - you're quite right. It's by no means a bad combo... just a very unexpected one for me, since I had no idea they'd made a film together.

Seeing their names in the credits was both exciting and a little bizarre as I could not picture them sharing a screen until I'd actually seen it with my own eyes.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Mississippi Burning (1988)

In recent times, a new and exciting way to select and discover new films has been through streaming time limitations. This was another of those spontaneous watches based almost solely on its "leaves Prime in 3 days" status (and Gene Hackman's face on the poster). Since this method has yielded some gold, it seems as good a selection process as any other.

Until his name came up on screen, I had no idea this was an Alan Parker film, and this gave me hope that it would be a little gritty and uncompromising. In many ways it is. Certainly the attitudes and language were captured and expressed. I suspect this was still very much toned down from actual events of the time, but it's impressive that this film - epithets and all - has survived cancellation and is still streaming relatively intact. Mind you, it appears to have been six or seven minutes longer in its original form, so there's evidently some degree of censorship.

As I watched, I wondered if this was based on true events as I hadn't noticed anything on screen. Reading up this morning, I discovered it was loosely based on the Chaney/Goodman/Schwerner murders. There was evidently criticism aimed at the film for its inaccuracies, as well as for its portrayal of non-white characters as passive. Both criticisms are valid, though the former is somewhat mitigated by it not claiming to be a true story. The latter could arguably be symbolic at the disenfranchisement of the black people, but once it's seen, there's no denying this aspect is problematic. All the main characters are white, and I'd say that even more underrepresented than black people are Jewish people. Two Jewish men were among the three killed at the beginning, but that's forgotten pretty quickly. Still, though, this film has drawn my attention to events of which I wasn't previously aware, which is no bad thing.

Taken on its own merits, this is a cracking little film with a strong story and great performances. Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe is not a combo I've ever considered, so this pairing wasn't on any kind of wish list. Still, they are electric together: two terrific actors who work surprisingly well together. Hackman's all grins and winks and overconfidence, while Dafoe is focussed and driven as the younger guy who is given seniority on the case. And as the film progresses, this gets somewhat turned on its head, with Hackman being genuinely touched by the events and Dafoe learning that Hackman's questionable methods get results. The supporting cast, too is very strong. There's a lot going for this one and it's well worth a watch.​

Yes, it's a pretty effective picture in some ways. Although even in 1988, it got accused of "the White Savior" trope (as did GREEN DAY decades later) and I even thought it myself at the time when I first saw the movie.

It's based on one of those saturated darker-than-dark incidents which could only happened exactly then (yes, worse things have occurred before and since, but it's how it feels which could only be emitted circa 1964). It's an at-the-very-bottom-of-the-swamp kind of thing. In this case, literally.

Strangely enough, when I first learned about this triple murder (several years before the movie came out) I remember thinking how much Andrew Goodman reminded me of how Paul Simon looked at that time. I found out much later that Simon penned his song, "He Was My Brother" about the biblically-named Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner (I'd read that Simon actually knew Goodman, but I've been unable to find anything concrete about that. And some sources say Simon actually wrote the song in 1963, so the entire story about the ballad might be a scam).

I recall this as being a more-effective-than-most documentary on the topic. It's always amazing when a cheapy documentary has better period detail than a multi-million-dollar theatrical motion picture:

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The 1967 filming of IN COLD BLOOD, based on Truman Capote's book about the 1959 murders of the Clutter family. It's so good, stark and ice cold as only in a way only possible in the third quarter of the '60s.

It's beautifully photographed.

Richard Brooks is such an interesting director -- he doesn't have a signature style per se; he just seems to absorb himself into the genre at hand and the subject matter. You simply can't tell that one of his films was directed by the same guy that directed any of his other ones.

Creepy note: Robert Blake (who plays Perry, the "nice" one who commits the murders and about whom Capote became obsessed and whose execution became necessary in order for Truman to complete his book) kills someone named "Bonnie".

In Cold Blood - YouTube

 

[Willie Oleson]

based on Truman Capote's book

A few weeks ago I watched the biopic.
I knew nothing about the man Capote, the novel or the circumstances thereof, and with Philip Seymour Hoffman in the lead role I figured this could be an interesting film.
Now I'm pretty sure that PSH portrayed Capote as accurately as possible but that didn't improve my experience of watching a very annoying character - what he says and how he says it.
I continued watching because I thought the story itself had something to offer, but apart from the basic facts (the crime, the novel, the visits to prison) I was still none the wiser after the film had ended.
Because of Capote's hot/cold approach I have no idea what this film tried to convey on a more emotional level.

The supporting actors Catherine Keener and Chris Cooper made it somewhat watchable.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

even in 1988, it got accused of "the White Savior" trope (as did GREEN DAY decades later) and I even thought it myself at the time when I first saw the movie.

That's interesting. I can see how it might have gained that reputation more in recent years, but for it to be criticised back in 1988 shows how wide of the mark it was in that regard.

The 1967 filming of IN COLD BLOOD, based on Truman Capote's book about the 1959 murders of the Clutter family. It's so good, stark and ice cold as only in a way only possible in the third quarter of the '60s.

It's beautifully photographed.

I have both book and DVD in a slightly bizarre combo set. I watched the film for the one and only time circa 2007 when I acquired the set, and I remember thinking how shocking it must have been back in the day. It felt surprisingly grim and frank to me at the time (the line "and then you shit your pants", apropos death by hanging has never quite been excised from my mind). I'd like to rewatch it at some point.

For some reason, I started the book but didn't get beyond the first couple of chapters. This, too, could do with a second look from me.

I knew nothing about the man Capote, the novel or the circumstances thereof, and with Philip Seymour Hoffman in the lead role I figured this could be an interesting film.

Like you, Capote was my introduction to the entire thing. I watched it with a friend around the time it was hot property due to picking up several awards. At the time I thought it was a good film, but not one I'd care to watch more than once. Twenty years on and I still feel no desire to revisit it. I still remember it as a pretty decent film, so perhaps it's best to keep it that way rather than than rewatch and risk disappointment.

 

[Willie Oleson]

EYES WIDE SHUT (1999)



Not a rewatch but more like a second attempt to watch it. The first experience (as soon as it was available on rental video, I suppose) happened at a time in which I was much more into horror and blockbuster spectacle, and I've always considered the possibility that I watched it in the wrong frame of mind.
It's been on and off my to-rewatch list many times and as a result it never materialised - until today.

The film opens rather promising with the pretty and successful high society doctor's couple at the top of their game. It instantly raises the question "how long before this is going to fall apart" because that's the only way to go from there.
That happens when the doctor's wife (Nicole Kidman) confesses to her husband (Tom Cruise) that she's had adulterous sexual fantasies, and she does that to prove that women are in fact sexual individuals and not necessarily hopelessly devoted to their precious husbands.
It's the kind of conversation/argument that would have looked quite interesting in the 1940s or 1950s - and perhaps it has a whiff of BRIEF ENCOUNTER - but in 1999 it all sounds a bit forced.
Another point in this conversation that needs to be proven, with the wife's intent to checkmate her husband, is the difference between physical and mental faithfullness.
It's a "just because you don't do it doesn't mean you don't want to" rhetoric and I find it so utterly pointless because no matter how much you worship your spouse, you can't put a picket fence around your sexual impulses. That's why it's called an impulse, and being faithful is simply not giving in to those impulses.

From that point on we're supposed to believe the Tom Cruise's doctor is becoming obsessed with adultery and secrecy, courtesy of a "thought bubble" showing the wife's imaginary adultery as discussed before. The doctor himself never changes, he's the same polite, stone-faced character from start to finish which makes his lust for adventure hard to swallow.
This is especially visible during a conversation in which a friend of his tells him about a piano gig in a mysterious setting.
When I think of "embarking on an odyssey" - such a dear concept in film - it conjures up images of funny/bizarre/dramatic encounters (e.g. Midnight Cowboy), but this conversation painstakingly roadmaps Tom Cruise to the film's pièce de résistance, maybe the only reason this film was made.
Contrivance is an essential part of (script) writing but the trick is to make it look natural or accidental.
Stanley Kubrick proves once again that he gets the best images out of his film, and he's very generous in showing exactly that, but I don't find him a great storyteller.

Nothing significant happens, Tom Cruise is ordered to strip and that also doesn't happen because nude men don't exist in this erotic psychological world. After that he's ordered to leave the scene (some kind of high-end swingers society) and the rest of the film explains how big and important and serious it all is. But not so serious that it has any impact on the story or the characters. *sighs*

In a nutshell, Eyes Wide Shut looks like a remake of a Peter Greenaway film that has all of Greenaway's bite, humour and audacity stamped out of it.
On top of everything it moves slower than a daytime soap and I think it's telling when the main cast is constantly upstaged by the minor supporting characters.
This time I made it to the end credits, but there were many, many times when I was thinking of my upcoming dental appointment and how much more fun that is going to be.
It's easy for me to say "I hate this film" but I'd like to elaborate by saying that it made me feel awful having watched Eyes Wide Shut. Yes, ironically it does linger on, but with a frustrating and depressing aftertaste, and I wish there was a way to un-see it.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Any film that ends on the eff-word can't be all that good.

 

[Seaviewer]

G20 (2025)
Viola Davis as a US President who uses her Army training to personally take down a gang of terrorists.
Well done, but basically another Die Hard clone.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Viola Davis as a US President who uses her Army training to personally take down a gang of terrorists.

That plot sounds more than a little familiar...

Spoiler

 

[Biggie]

It looks great and it's an interesting idea, but I think it would have worked better as a short film, like an arthouse Twilight Zone episode

Hmmm... that's a pity as I've been keeping an eye on the schedules hoping to come across this movie. Blur's video "To The End" pays homage to Last Year At Marienbad.
Excellent song, excellent video.... one's interest was piqued.

 

[Seaviewer]

That plot sounds more than a little familiar...

Yes, I thought of that one , too.

 

[Seaviewer]

Easter Parade (1948) (again)

 

[Soaplover]

Prom Night (1980).

My favorite of JLC's foray into the horror movie/scream queen genre.

This is probably the most atypical of the slasher films she did during that period of time where there is a strong backstory, character development, a fun disco dance number, an almost ten minute chase scene, and the final shot and song is so heartbreaking.

 

[Soaplover]

I just finished the TV movie remake of SORRY, WRONG NUMBER (1989), starring Loni Anderson, Patrick Macnee, and Hal Holbrook. It originally aired on the USA Network.

First, I'll say this right off the bat -- Loni is no Barbara Stanwyck, but I thought she did a decent job. Her rendition of the bed-ridden heroine is much more sympathetic than Stanwyck's version. There's even some good suspense towards the end.

It's a middling late-80s remake of a classic noir. It's available for free online, so you're not wasting anything but time to watch it.

View attachment 55751

I was introduced to this remake before I saw the original. In fact, my mom got this movie confused with Dial M for Murder when she said that she would be ok at the end. Boy was I in for a surprise in the final moments of this movie.

When i saw the original years later, I was struck by how cold/mean both she and her hubby were in the original version vs the warmer take that both performers did in the remake.

 

[Willie Oleson]

KINDS OF KINDNESS (2024)



My favourite Lathimos film so far. Rather than incomprehensibly trippy, the KoK trilogy delivers three perfectly wacky episodes that are thematically connected.
It's an exercise in getting away with outlandishness because it almost makes sense.
The two-dimensional presentation of story and characters kept me at arm's length but this made the human touches (the kindness, I suppose) all the more surprising and upsetting.
Fans of INSIDE NO. 9 will love this, I think.

 

[Seaviewer]

Fear is the Key (1972)
Half-way between Barry Newman's first appearance as Petrocelli in The Lawyer, and returning to the role on TV, he made this action-thriller.
It's hard to know how to characterise it beyond that description. For the first half-hour it's a chase move before morphing into a James Bond style undercover tale. It's only in the last half hour or so that it's finally revealed what it had all been about.