Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched (2013-2016)  (Read 973368 times)

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #4710 on: April 02, 2015, 11:59:04 AM »
I can't believe I like The Parent Trap and 1SO doesn't.  The whole world has gone screwy.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #4711 on: April 02, 2015, 12:56:08 PM »
Your review reads like "not as dreadful as I expected", so stuff like the pratfalls at camp and camping bounced off your cringe shield, while I'd seen Disney do much better in their better films. We seem to be in agreement though regarding Mills and O'Hara. ("that spark", I saw it too.) You enjoyed Brian Keith more than me.

While I wouldn't call the remake "essential", I do remember it being funnier and more economical than the original.

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #4712 on: April 02, 2015, 06:30:39 PM »
The Overnighters



Is the sign of an effective documentary, one that inspires a viewer to action, or one that leaves the viewer in a pool of existential angst? I mean, I'd love to take what I've seen and have a clear path forward, knowing who's in the right and who's in the wrong, but it isn't going to happen. Can I blame the pastor for opening the doors of his church to do just what his doctrine teaches him to do, or the congregation for feeling overwhelmed with the charitable mandate put upon them? No, neither. Should a newspaper provide important information to its community, that may keep even one person safe? Is it right to look beyond a criminal record and find the man who is so much more than that part of him? Two emphatic yeses! In my confusion, a tune is looping through my mind, Sondheim's Cinderella singing, "Nothing's quite so clear now... Feel you've lost your way? People make mistakes, honor their mistakes..."

Well, until I can figure out what to do, anyone want to join me for a swim? The water's perplexing.

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #4713 on: April 02, 2015, 08:22:37 PM »

Strange Triangle - Sam Crane (Preston Foster) has just come home from the war and is eager to return to his work as a bank examiner.  He's promoted to district supervisor, and just before he starts his new job, he has a whirlwind affair with an exotic woman named Francine (Signe Hasso).  She disappears after three days, and Sam goes on his first assignment: a bank managed by Earl Huber (Shepperd Strudwick) -- whose brother happens to the big boss, Harry (Roy Roberts).  Earl takes Sam home to meet his wife... Francine.  In a stolen moment, she tries to renew their romance, but Sam will have no part of it.  But Francine has other plans, and they have something to do with the cash discrepancy discovered by Earl's secretary Betty (Anabel Shaw).

The cast is loaded with noir regulars who can at best be called minor players.  Foster -- who looks like Ralph Bellamy, especially when he wears a bow tie -- is a real dud, no presence whatsoever, playing an uninteresting character whose ethics are too pure to be a compelling noir protagonist.  Hasso -- who notably starred in one of Ingmar Bergman's absolute worst films, the would-be noir High Tension (a.k.a. This Can't Happen Here) -- has the juiciest role as the femme fatale, but neither the actress nor her character are especially good at it.  Shaw is an unbearable goody-goody.  Strudwick comes off as the best of the lot, the only morally conflicted one in the story.

The film's only real asset is its economy, coming in at an easy-to-digest 65 minutes.  But it's a pretty bland meal.  Director Ray McCarey (whose background was mostly shorts featuring Our Gang, Laurel & Hardy, and the Three Stooges) is Leo's little brother, but there's nothing here on the level of Make Way for Tomorrow.  I don't recall a single shot that made me take notice, no intriguing choices or thoughtful treatment.  Very workmanlike.  This was his second-to-last film before his death at age 44, which is certainly sad but judging from this movie I don't think Hollywood lost a great talent that day.

The movie also pokes at one of my pet peeves.  It's told in flashback as Sam tells Harry the whole story.  That's fine, but there are a number of scenes that Sam was not privy to.  It's just abusing the flashback structure (undoubtedly a popular motif at the time, so many noirs use it) that's there no good reason to use in the first place.  There's nothing set up in the beginning in the film that needs to be built up to.  This isn't William Holden floating facedown in a pool... it's two boring guys sitting in a room talking.

There's just not much to get excited for here.  It isn't strange at all, and none of the angles are exciting.  It's also got an uncomfortable undercurrent of postwar xenophobia to it, as the one foreign character is also the truly bad one.  Rating: Crap (36)

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #4714 on: April 02, 2015, 10:04:40 PM »
Alex Gibney's latest, Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief makes it hard to like and support Tom Cruise.

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #4715 on: April 02, 2015, 11:05:04 PM »
The Overnighters


I think the sign of a successful doc is that it makes you examine something from a new perspective.  It could be reality, it could be an idea or it could be our lives.  I think this doc examines radical charity, and the consequences of it.

To do radical charity hurts someone.  To enact justice for those who have been done unto also hurts some people.  In order for society to change, someone has to be hurt and damage has to be done.  And most of the time, those to whom damage is being done try to stop the change.  That doesn't mean the change is wrong. 

Often a well-established order solidifies injustice.  This means that the only way to step away from injustice toward justice we have to embrace chaos. If we don't have chaos in our unjust society, then we will never have peace.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #4716 on: April 02, 2015, 11:22:22 PM »
Alex Gibney's latest, Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief makes it hard to like and support Tom Cruise.

Does.the film talk about him a lot? I kind of worried about that.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #4717 on: April 02, 2015, 11:48:01 PM »
Typical of Gibney, the film makes a very thorough case. Yet, for a while there was barely a mention of Cruise, like he was the one figure they weren't going to get into hot water with. However, they trace the various celebrities who became the poster faces for Scientology and Cruise is their biggest asset. So, once it gets to Cruise, Gibney rehashes a lot of the footage that hurt his career around M:I III. Not the Oprah couch, there's something refreshingly non-gossipy about Gibney. Instead he focuses on speeches and interviews Cruise gave to show support. Like watching an actor on a talk show promote a film they know didn't turn out well, Cruise is on camera talking about how Scientology is the greatest thing to ever happen. He preaches to the choir and they can barely believe they've got the biggest movie star selling their B.S.

My writing is more slanted than the movie. Gibney's closest thing to a slur is showing how John Travolta once assumed this role and detailing how he fell out of love with the group, which makes you wonder why Cruise doesn't see the same things. That and details of how Scientology paid back Cruise, namely by giving him anything he wanted, no matter the cost. This includes one young woman who briefly was placed a Cruise's girlfriend. It's clear that others who left the group are hoping one day that Cruise will walk away. Gibney doesn't go after Cruise, but as a fan of his work, the propaganda footage is hard to stomach.

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #4718 on: April 02, 2015, 11:58:39 PM »
It makes me wonder what they have over Cruise, or if he really is so delusional.



I think the sign of a successful doc is that it makes you examine something from a new perspective.  It could be reality, it could be an idea or it could be our lives.  I think this doc examines radical charity, and the consequences of it.

To do radical charity hurts someone.  To enact justice for those who have been done unto also hurts some people.  In order for society to change, someone has to be hurt and damage has to be done.  And most of the time, those to whom damage is being done try to stop the change.  That doesn't mean the change is wrong. 

Often a well-established order solidifies injustice.  This means that the only way to step away from injustice toward justice we have to embrace chaos. If we don't have chaos in our unjust society, then we will never have peace.

But I want to do radical charity that doesn't hurt anyone. ;)

Embracing chaos is scary and how do we know which chaos to embrace? What charity can I be bold in? I'll be trying to find my own answers to these, but wanted to let you see the questions your post arose in me. Thanks for your insights.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #4719 on: April 03, 2015, 12:21:53 AM »
Should a newspaper provide important information to its community, that may keep even one person safe? Is it right to look beyond a criminal record and find the man who is so much more than that part of him? Two emphatic yeses!

I have some qualms with this, especially as it relates to the individual it relates to in the film. My yes on the first half is certainly not emphatic.

 

love