What was the last film you watched?

[Willie Oleson]

I also just realised that the trailer for The Beguiled remake basically shows the entire plot of the film in 2 minutes

This seems to be a new trend, I think? Velvet Buzzsaw was also the whole movie in a trailer, and even those few minutes were awful.
I knew I shouldn't watch it but I did it anway. Sometimes I really hate myself.

 

[James from London]

The other night I watched THE BEGUILED from 1971 with Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page. I had been meaning to see it for a long while. I absolutely loved it. It's a slow dreamy/nightmarish southern gothic tale. Set around the Civil War in a creaky old plantation house. Clint plays a Yankee soldier who finds himself at a seminary for young girls being nursed back to health before he can be turned over to the Confederate soldiers for imprisonment. While recuperating he flirts with and manipulates the girls and their teacher. It all becomes a bit of a pot boiler and ends horribly for Clint.
The film is dreamy and ethereal in parts and then nightmarish in others. There is a subplot with a vague story of an incestuous relationship between the head teacher played by Geraldine Page and her brother who is missing, presumed dead. It's not stated in the film but I got the idea that Page had murdered him and buried him on the property. She seems to equally yearn for him, and be disgusted at the thought of him. This plot line seems to add to the tension in the film. All the women in the house become beguiled by this young handsome soldier. All that repressed sexual tension bubbling over into other things. It's a wonderful film.

After watching I decided to watch the remake from last year starring Nicole Kidman and Colin Farrell in Page and Eastwood's roles respectively. This remake was directed by Sophia Coppola and just seems so utterly unnecessary. On the one hand it seems in parts to be a simple copy and paste remake. On the other hand, it leaves out all the more interesting bits of the original. The incest subplot is completely dropped. The black slave girl from the original doesn't exist in the remake. In the original, Clint and her scenes are the ones in which we learn more about who he is. The slave girl also shows a stronger female role and the film looses something in loosing her. The remake also completely does away with the flirtation of the Yankee soldier with a 12 year old girl. In the original he kisses her on the mouth and the girl becomes innocently infatuated with him.

The remake isn't terrible. It's just not as good. I like Kidman a lot as an actress and she does a great job in her scenes. I just felt that the remake was weaker and was trying in a way to tell the story from a strong female view point. Which isn't really what the story is.

It's interesting that when the original was released the studio didn't know how to sell it, and so it was a flop. They had a film where Clint Eastwood wasn't the winner or the hero. And he's in this film with all these women. There's no real action, it's not really what his fans wanted. So they sort of sold it as a sexy thriller horror, which it is more than.
I would say that the remake had some of the same problems as far as selling it. It was presented in the trailers as much more of a gothic horror than it really is.

The original is a beautiful film in every way. See it if you can, the remake is only ok.

Interesting, thanks. I haven't seen either film but I recently listened to a podcast review of the second Beguiled where the reviewer also much prefers the first version, which he refers to as "the Segal version".

(To be tediously annoyingly pedantic, the second version isn't strictly speaking a remake of the first; rather, they're both adaptations of the original novel.)

The review wangs on a bit, but if you can be bothered, about four minutes in, he starts comparing the second version with the first:

 

[Alexis]

Interesting, thanks. I haven't seen either film but I recently listened to a podcast review of the second Beguiled where the reviewer also much prefers the first version, which he refers to as "the Segal version".

(To be tediously annoyingly pedantic, the second version isn't strictly speaking a remake of the first; rather, they're both adaptations of the original novel.)

The review wangs on a bit, but if you can be bothered, about four minutes in, he starts comparing the second version with the first:

Yea I was aware that both are adaptations of the novel, originally titled The Painted Devil. Coppola's version just isn't as good. On reading up on her version my suspicions were proven right. She had wanted to make a more female empowered version. Which to me seems ridiculous as in the novel and the Segal version the women basically have the power in the end. That's the film. The Yankee is beguiled by the women and the women at the same time beguiled by him. The Segal film does better at showing both views though. I just listened to that review and pretty much agree with Kermode. It makes no sense to remove Halle the slave girl from the story. He, and I, both pointed out that she was a strong character, a strong female character and one that opened up the story a lot. She had some of the best lines in the Segal film and Coppola's film feels a bit empty with her not there. Coppola mentioned she didn't want to include her because she wasn't a strong representation of women or a good role model for young women, or words to that effect which I feel is a bit stupid. As if a slave couldn't be wise and strong? The very fact of her being a slave makes her invalid as a strong female? It didn't suit her 2017 view of feminism therefor it didn't happen.

It's funny that in wanting to make a more female empowered adaptation she had to cut out probably the strongest female in the source material.

 

[Willie Oleson]

An original concept that works well for short sketches, but it's too bizarre to support a whole movie.
They can't choose between playing it straight and juvenile/oversexed comedy.
There's also a bit of drama lurking in the background that was ready to become a dark comedy.

I'm truly puzzled.

 

[Justine]

Puzzle of a Downfall Child (1970) - Much better than expected, since '70's films tend to be the weirdest in the history of Hollywood. Faye Dunaway's performance is one of her best and she looks extraordinarily beautiful in every scene.

 

[James from London]

'70's films tend to be the weirdest in the history of Hollywood

That's what I like about them! I've not heard of this film. It looks interesting - thanks!

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Co-starring Adriana!

 

[Toni]

Tonight I had a double feature show at home: Two movies from last year that earned big reviews, and even some awards. I´m totally disappointed with them. One is "Hereditary", another proof of how clueless Toni Collette is for picking up good scripts. It´s more a disgusting experience than a horror flick or human drama. And the cast is great, including Ann Dowd and Gabriel Byrne. What went wrong?

Oh Toni Toni...When are you going to do "Muriel´s Wedding II"?
(It couldn´t be worse than this or "Mamma Mia II"!)​

The other one still is more disappointing at least to me. I´m talking about the gay favorite of 2018 "Call By Your Name". It should better be titled "Call Me Bi". I only liked the Italy scenery. Both leads are pathetically unexpressive and their characters are even more pathetic and undefined, and the writing is as outdated as Miss Piggy´s fake eyelashes. I didn´t expect this from such a talented writer as James Ivory but hey, I think the director here is the one to blame.

I didn´t buy the love story and most characters seem to be stupid in one or other way, which makes the film itself rather stupid too. I hope somebody here could enjoy these two movies but I didn´t. Heck, I even liked more "Annabelle Creation", watched last night, and that is saying something...!

 

[Richard Channing]

THE BEGUILED from 1971 with Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page.

I remember seeing this as a young boy and thinking it was fantastic! Your review has me tempted to watch it again.

 

[Michael Torrance]

The other one still is more disappointing at least to me. I´m talking about the gay favorite of 2018 "Call By Your Name". It should better be titled "Call Me Bi". I only liked the Italy scenery. Both leads are pathetically unexpressive and their characters are even more pathetic and undefined, and the writing is as outdated as Miss Piggy´s fake eyelashes. I didn´t expect this from such a talented writer as James Ivory but hey, I think the director here is the one to blame.

I didn't buy the love story and most characters seem to be stupid in one or other way, which makes the film itself rather stupid too. I hope somebody here could enjoy these two movies but I didn´t. Heck, I even liked more "Annabelle Creation", watched last night, and that is saying something...!

Funny, I had the exact same reaction when I first saw the movie. I have read the novel, and Andre Aciman's writing is astounding. When I first watched the movie, I was thinking it wasn't even apparent they were falling in love.
Then I watched it a second time on the plane, and I actually came to appreciate it as a period piece of early 80s (it reminded me so much of my 80s teenage years, down to the italo-disco) and on its own terms, separate from the novel. Now, the novel is a masterpiece and the movie is above average (there are also some terrible edits) so there is still no comparison.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

he other night I watched THE BEGUILED from 1971 with Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page. I had been meaning to see it for a long while. I absolutely loved it. It's a slow dreamy/nightmarish southern gothic tale. Set around the Civil War in a creaky old plantation house. Clint plays a Yankee soldier who finds himself at a seminary for young girls being nursed back to health before he can be turned over to the Confederate soldiers for imprisonment. While recuperating he flirts with and manipulates the girls and their teacher. It all becomes a bit of a pot boiler and ends horribly for Clint.
The film is dreamy and ethereal in parts and then nightmarish in others. There is a subplot with a vague story of an incestuous relationship between the head teacher played by Geraldine Page and her brother who is missing, presumed dead. It's not stated in the film but I got the idea that Page had murdered him and buried him on the property. She seems to equally yearn for him, and be disgusted at the thought of him. This plot line seems to add to the tension in the film. All the women in the house become beguiled by this young handsome soldier. All that repressed sexual tension bubbling over into other things. It's a wonderful film.

t's interesting that when the original was released the studio didn't know how to sell it, and so it was a flop. They had a film where Clint Eastwood wasn't the winner or the hero. And he's in this film with all these women. There's no real action, it's not really what his fans wanted. So they sort of sold it as a sexy thriller horror, which it is more than.
I would say that the remake had some of the same problems as far as selling it. It was presented in the trailers as much more of a gothic horror than it really is.

The original is a beautiful film in every way.

Yes, I've swooned on about the original THE BEGUILED before (before the old soapchat died). It's a terrific movie, and one which could only have been made in the early-'70s, in terms of atmosphere.

It's my favorite Eastwood film, to be sure.

 

[Seaviewer]

Carol (2015)

This was on TV last night. I'd heard a lot about it and am glad I watched. It lives up to the hype.

Even though it's set the decade before, you could imagine any of the characters showing up in Mad Men -

I was a little confused about exactly what year it was. Eisenhower is called "president-elect" which makes it late 1952 or early '53 but then they seem to be celebrating New Year's Eve 1951 with one character calling out "come on 1952!"

In the title role, Cate Blanchett is like the missing link between Marlene Deitrich and Gena Rowlands -- chilly and remote but ultimately sympathetic. In a parallel world, you could imagine someone like Joan Crawford or Barbara Stanwyck playing the part in black and white.

I thought of Lauren Bacall.

 

[Toni]

Funny, I had the exact same reaction when I first saw the movie. I have read the novel, and Andre Aciman's writing is astounding. When I first watched the movie, I was thinking it wasn't even apparent they were falling in love.
Then I watched it a second time on the plane, and I actually came to appreciate it as a period piece of early 80s (it reminded me so much of my 80s teenage years, down to the italo-disco) and on its own terms, separate from the novel. Now, the novel is a masterpiece and the movie is above average (there are also some terrible edits) so there is still no comparison.

I don´t know if I´ll ever find time to re-watch the movie but it certainly has let me down. I was a teenager too in the early 80´s (and I was in Italy too, look what!), and I didn´t notice there was an interest to reflect that era aside from the oh-so intellectual conversations. Arnie Hammer doesn´t seem to have a clue on how to play the role (he made me think of John James even physically, go figure!), and anyway the character is pretentious, manipulative and self-absorbed, and I didn´t care a bit about Chamalant´s because he was going after him despite his many faults. The hype was undeserved, that´s for sure. And don´t get me started about the peach scene...

 

[Toni]

This was on TV last night. I'd heard a lot about it and am glad I watched. It lives up to the hype.

I was a little confused about exactly what year it was. Eisenhower is called "president-elect" which makes it late 1952 or early '53 but then they seem to be celebrating New Year's Eve 1951 with one character calling out "come on 1952!"
I thought of Lauren Bacall.

"Carol" is the exact opposite of what "Call Me By Your Name" turns out to be: the story is a character study, not a pamphlet of "gay love rules" (which I agree with basically, if well done). We get to know both women as well as the times they live at, and the production design is astounding, despite not shouting "look at how big our budget is". I agree with JoL with his definition of Cate Blanchett´s role. She belongs to her own league and there are a lot of great Australian actresses out there.

You can see her in this, then in "Hanna" and let´s say, in "Blue Jasmine", and she is three different people. I also think that the characters become more and more engaging as they give in on their mutual feelings, and the resolution rings true. Oh and yeah, they could perfectly belong to "Mad Men"...or "Masters of Sex", for that matter.

There is a hilarious spoof of the movie on YouTube, played by Kate McKinnon, Wanda Sykes, Kumail Nanjiani & Jane Lynch, for the 2016 Film Independent spirit Awards Gala! Don´t miss it!

 

[Alexis]

Tonight I had a double feature show at home: Two movies from last year that earned big reviews, and even some awards. I´m totally disappointed with them. One is "Hereditary", another proof of how clueless Toni Collette is for picking up good scripts. It´s more a disgusting experience than a horror flick or human drama. And the cast is great, including Ann Dowd and Gabriel Byrne. What went wrong?

I went to see this on a date with a guy I was seeing for a while. It was our second date and I insisted we see it because the trailers looked really good. It seemed like a throw back to tense horrors from the 1960s and 70s. It was one of the worst films I have ever seen. Part achingly slow and boring and part utterly ridiculous. People in the cinema actually laughed out loud at the ending which I am sure was not the intention of anyone involved with the film's making. It was a real stinker, I think I posted about it on this forum after I had saw it.

It was trying very hard to be a bit Rosemary's Baby too. That film to me is a masterpiece in horror. This film is a steaming turd. There were also massive plot holes in the film too if I recall correctly. Like why wasn't the son arrested and charged with manslaughter and reckless driving when the daughter was killed, beheaded!

Terrible, terrible film! Avoid it all costs, you will never get that time back.

 

[Toni]

I went to see this on a date with a guy I was seeing for a while. It was our second date and I insisted we see it because the trailers looked really good. It seemed like a throw back to tense horrors from the 1960s and 70s. It was one of the worst films I have ever seen. Part achingly slow and boring and part utterly ridiculous. People in the cinema actually laughed out loud at the ending which I am sure was not the intention of anyone involved with the film's making. It was a real stinker, I think I posted about it on this forum after I had saw it.

It was trying very hard to be a bit Rosemary's Baby too. That film to me is a masterpiece in horror. This film is a steaming turd. There were also massive plot holes in the film too if I recall correctly. Like why wasn't the son arrested and charged with manslaughter and reckless driving when the daughter was killed, beheaded!

Terrible, terrible film! Avoid it all costs, you will never get that time back.

I watched it in English with subtitles so at least it was useful for that...But really, "Annabelle: Creation" at least was fun every time they showed the doll!!

 

[Willie Oleson]

 

[Sarah]

Captain Philips

 

[Angela Channing]

If Beale Street Could Talk (2018)

This is a beautifully crafted and acted film telling the love story of the 2 lead characters and how racism impacted on their relationship. Although a good film, I wasn't blown away by it and I felt the racial element of the film was handled a bit too heavy-handedly.

 

[Toni]

Finally I watched a movie I can recommend you though it´s not for the squeamish...So if you disliked profoundly such films as "Nocturnal Animals", "The Girl on the Train", "Sharp Objects", or "Gone Girl", just stop reading or, if you are slightly masochistic, go on...Here is the trailer (I chose the version which exposed the plot the least).

"Dark Places" is a 2015 movie starring Charlize Theron in another of her so-frequent roles of damaged woman who doesn´t care if she looks ugly. The big problem here is that a makeup-less, tomboy-ish Charlize STILL is a very be beautiful woman...

This is no "Monster II: The Return" (lucky us!)​

The story has been adapted from the novel by the same author who wrote "Gone Girl" and "Sharp Objects", and, undoubtedly, the characters of all these movies belong to the same universe, though are separated by a lot of differences. Traumatized people, fractured families, unfit characters and tragedies that aren´t what they seem to be. Luckily, the script and direction here are much better than the one for "GG", which was too hilariously bad to be taken seriously.

The casting is great. Curiously enough, it depended on luck, because Amy Adams had to quit because a previous commitment, and was replaced by Theron. Then it was Samantha Morton who left and wonderful Christina Hendricks stepped in (when she initially was going to play a one-scene role, much more in her "Mad Men"-vibe...) and did a great job against all odds. She plays Charlize´s mum in flashbacks, which is not a spoiler but a little help for you to get into the plot more easily than moi. At first I didn´t realize this was key to understand everything (or was I briefly sleeping already?).

The rest of the cast is up to these two superb ladies. Of course, Charlize has done sooo many roles like this one that it gets a bit boring at first. Other outstanding actors are Corey Stoll ("House of Cards", "The Strain"), Tye Sheridan and Nicholas Hoult (both from the new "X-Men" franchise), Sterling Jerins ("The Conjuring" and the series "Divorce"), Andrea Roth ("13 Reasons Why"), Chloë Grace Moretz ("The 5th Wave" and that much-maligned "Carrie" remake), and Drea de Matteo ("Desperate Housewives"), among others. My personal favorite is Stoll, who steals the movie with only a few scenes.

Incredibly sexy,
amazingly talented​

The story is gritty, unpleasant, and at some point, it even seems to take a satanic turn. But when it ends, it makes you believe that something like that might have happened in a Kansas rural area, and it´s not based on true facts, thanks God, and, especially, that in every hopeless case there might be a ray of hope too.

My only problem with it is what I commented above: I can´t actually distinguish immediately they are narrating the events in two timelines, present and past. I can´t either see any effort to make the eras recognizable, but after all, this may be a virtue because it avoids the non-ending sense of being tuned in to a Top 50 nostalgic channel. I hope you enjoy this movie if you take a look at it. It´s moving, surprisingly recognizable to anyone who has a dysfunctional family, and ultimately satisfying. Acting is top-notch.