Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched  (Read 529378 times)

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 35723
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3060 on: January 31, 2019, 10:00:13 PM »
On a week-long free trial of Shudder so going on a mini-horror binge.

Please try Terrified. Just try it. Do the smirnoff thing of stopping when the film isn't working for you. (My Review)

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26152
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3061 on: January 31, 2019, 10:39:38 PM »
If they've got it As Above So Below was one that stuck with me. Found footage type thing of running around the Paris crypts. Maximum heebie-jeebies.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 22967
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3062 on: February 01, 2019, 05:23:24 AM »

philip918

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4580
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3063 on: February 01, 2019, 10:40:19 AM »
Sabrina (1954)
Overall, a spirited modern fairy tale with a host of fun performances and some great comedic flourishes. That said, I found the central love story to be the weakest part. Bogart and Hepburn are both fantastic individually, both of them leaning into what they do best, but together they don't have much chemistry - probably due to the 30-year age difference, which seems to be a recurring theme in Hepburn's films. It starts off on an especially creepy foot when Bogart's Linus first attempts to distract Sabrina from romancing his playboy younger brother, David (a really great William Holden). He says the line, "It's all in the family." Not once, not twice, but three times. The last time right before he kisses her. Yuck.

My favorite comedic moment came from Walter Hampden, playing Bogart and Holden's father, Oliver Larabee. He's drunk and waiting for a board meeting to start. He's drunk and trying to get the last olive out of a jar. He finally gives up and just pours his martini into the jar and takes a sip and with Swiss-watch timing delivers a deadpan line. Clearly you have to see it to appreciate it.

Roman Holiday (1953)
Easily my favorite of this trio. Hepburn may be one of the greatest drunk - here I suppose "drugged" - actors there ever was. The film's greatest strength is in understanding exactly what kind of romance this is - effervescent and a little one-sided - and really leaning into that. It helps that Gregory Peck is only 13 years older than Hepburn. Just the right amounts of sweetness and melancholy. A tremendous final shot.

Love in the Afternoon (1957)
And then there's this. It does start with a pretty entertaining opening sequence involving Hepburn's attempt to stop a cuckolded husband shooting Gary Cooper. But this features an incredibly strained romance between the 28-year-old Hepburn and 56-year-old Cooper. Even worse it's undramatic and uneventful with only the thin conceit of Hepburn's Ariane keeping her name a secret from him. I will say, the film looks tremendous.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 35723
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3064 on: February 01, 2019, 01:15:02 PM »
I assume you watched these close together. An interesting batch to watch reflected off each other.

I didn't care for Sabrina, but I remember the olive jar moment. Classic.

I need to rewatch Roman Holiday. I couldn't get past Gregory Peck's stiff attempt to substitute for Cary Grant.

You're right that Love in the Afternoon looks great, but it's so dreary. I like Gary Cooper, but he's possibly the worst person to cast in a Billy Wilder film. Wilder responds to actors who can be nimble and Cooper is a hunk of granite.


Now watch Charade. Cary Grant wise acknowledgement of the 25-year age difference is one of the film's many charms.

philip918

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4580
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3065 on: February 01, 2019, 01:47:06 PM »
Love in the Afternoon could have been great with a younger love interest - a devil-may-care playboy in the vein of William Holden in Sabrina - and a re-write of the last half of the film... Ha.

Roman Holiday is great. Peck might be a little stiff, but I thought it worked. He's not there to sweep Hepburn off her feet, she's doing that to him. Part of the beauty of the film is he knows that this day will just be anecdote in her life story and a footnote that wouldn't even make it into her official biography.

Charade is coming up soon. I saw it a long time ago but barely remember it.

Thief

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 145
    • Letterboxd Profile
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3066 on: February 01, 2019, 02:46:14 PM »
I didn't care much for Sabrina either. I don't think Bogart fit the role what with the age difference, the chemistry with Hepburn was almost non-existent, plus the film seemed to move between drama/romance and comedy without being sure of what to be. The film was never too dramatic, the comedy was never that funny, and the romance wasn't that believable. That said, I didn't hate it, just wasn't very thrilled by it.

I still haven't seen Love in the Afternoon or Roman Holiday.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 22967
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3067 on: February 01, 2019, 10:42:13 PM »
All The Creatures Were Stirring

I guess the Coen Brothers just gave us a Western anthology film, but it otherwise seems almost exclusively the domain of horror. In this one all the shorts use Christmas themes/settings for their horror, with segment titles taken from lines of the classic poem that, in inverted form, also gives the film its name. As is the nature of these things, there are ups and downs, but the shell story (a date of sorts to an avant garde theatre performance on Christmas Eve) is amusing at hinting that these characters are seeing the stories all in this rather abstract form. Only as the viewer do we get the full production version. And things are probably best that the strongest segments are first and last, the better to get you invested and then to leave you with a positive impression, even if there are moments to doubt.

B

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26152
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3068 on: February 02, 2019, 04:04:16 AM »
Isle of Dogs (Wes Anderson, 2018)        6/10

My enjoyment seemed to be mostly coming from the animation itself. It was wonderful and detailed and different. But at some point I guess I had my fill because my attention seemed to wander with little regard for what the story was doing. I was ready for it to end after an hour. I kept going because it's a 2018 film, and my having seen it may serve some purpose.

My second favourite Anderson film after the fox one.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 22967
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #3069 on: February 02, 2019, 07:45:34 PM »
Free Solo (2018)

I wasn't aware of the full details to know the outcome, though I did know it was about free solo climbing generally and El Capitan specifically. Alex Hannold is the center of the documentary as one of the most notable free solo climbers and he had his mind set on becoming the first to scale El Capitan without ropes as a safety. I had the general sense that this film wasn't going to end in tragedy because I didn't take it for a snuff film, but it definitely does a great job of making you doubt that assumption. Free solo climbing is, after all, a pursuit that more often than not catches up with its participants at some point as one section of the film details. We also see various moments in Alex's preparations...points on the climb where he falls in roped climbs or otherwise seems to struggle. This all builds anxiety that ties into the discussion from those around Alex about the ethics of even attempting such a dangerous thing, and of those recording it. Especially in expansive IMAX format as I saw it, all this builds to an epically crafted attempt displaying a skill that really is awe-inspiring, even as it seems dubious.

While arguably I'd take a "take whatever dumb risks you want" approach to single men, I tend to have an empathic lacuna where the men have family responsibilities. At that point I become outright hostile to risk takers at even far less extreme risks than this one. As someone who longs to have a family, to see people who have one put it at risk over something functionally meaningless gets to me. Alex does not have a kid but the film focuses a lot on a developing relationship with Stephanie McCandless. That she shares a last name with someone else whose grand ambitions relating to nature ended in tragedy was not lost on me. There are moments where you see where Alex could be appealing but there are many that weigh against that. In response to the death of another free solo climber, he callously says of his widow "she knew what to expect," suggesting Stephanie should be perfectly ready to deal with his death. But while I might chide him, I too judge her a bit along those lines. Here's a guy who basically tells you to your face that he loves his climbing more than he loves you. I know jealousy is an ugly emotion, but I think I'd want to keep myself clear of that set-up for emotional disaster.

Anyway, efficient storytelling and grand visualization makes this a real gem of a documentary. I still probably favor Minding The Gap for the Oscar though.

Miss Bala

Groups like ISIS and Mexican drug cartels are real concerns. They cause a lot of misery. Yet to the degree what we see in mainstream cinema representing Arabic and Latinx characters are terrorists and drug gangs, that creates some false impressions that fuel right-wing fever dreams. This is most clearly on display in apparently Sicario 2 directly contributing to unsupported stories that President Trump cites as fact. This film takes its major structure from the 2011 Mexican film of the same name. I enjoyed some aspects of that film but found it a bit hard to get into emotionally because the lead pretty much played the whole thing in a state of shock. That may be very accurate, but it isn't as good of a movie. Here, abetted by Gina Rodriguez' charisma, you get a wishful thinking adaptation that gives Gloria a lot more personal agency, which gives us a bit more to grasp onto as an audience. With a number of solid supporting performances as well, this is certainly entertaining but not entirely free from the concerns I mentioned at the start. P.S. A wall wouldn't have helped.

 

love