What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Open, general discussion of classic sound-era films, personalities and history.
wich2
Posts: 1574
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:11 am

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by wich2 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:02 am

R Michael Pyle wrote:Leonardo DiCaprio ... "The Revenant". For the first time he gave, not only a performance that was very grown up, but a magnificent, beautifully acted piece
He's actually done just that a great many times. Some would say, more often than not.

User avatar
boblipton
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by boblipton » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:08 am

R Michael Pyle wrote:
boblipton wrote:I haven't seen The Revenant yet, but I just took a look at Man in the WIlderness (1971), one of those early 1970s movies which cast Richard Harris as some sort of primitive man who could survive in the wilderness by himself. Composed mostly in browns, it also stars John Huston in a fairly subdued role portaging a ship across a wilderness where Harris is attacked by a hear and left for dead. One of those movies which holds that decency in man is only achievable once you strip 19th-century civilization from him, I don't find the genre or this example compelling.

Bob
You know, I never could stand watching Leonardo DiCaprio because he always seemed like a teenage boy playing big boy parts or older, and he never seemed the parts to me. Then, I saw "The Revenant". For the first time he gave, not only a performance that was very grown up, but a magnificent, beautifully acted piece that actually set him apart for me - for the first time. The film is quite good, and it's worthy to see. Now, the film is also far too long, and it's theme is exploited over and over and over, with DiCaprio not only going through hell to reach his destination of the end of the film, but going through hell over and over. There is a breaking point - at least there was for me. But, one thing was always consistent, and it was consistent in spades: the cinematography! It is simply spectacular. Wondrous in all ways. It was the same with "Gladiator" in 2000. Acting was on par with superb, though the dialogue was typically stilted, as with most films of that ilk. As with "The Revenant", gore was exploited to satisfy the Romans watching the film to see the lions feast on Christians. (In "The Revenant" it's nature and the native peoples feasting on invaders) But the photography of "Gladiator" was incredible, especially the snow scenes in the forest, whether real or invented by some machine. See "The Revenant" for its well-oiled machine of making. I think you'll appreciate Leonardo for his performance, but you may feel the same feelings about the script you felt when watching "Man In the Wilderness". "The Revenant", too, needed an editor from the Warner Brothers school of the '30's.
Mike G. has suggested that we're in a period when, like the late 1950s, every movie is about a half hour too long. I think we're in a decadent phase of moviemaking, in which all those young film makers from the 1970s, just starting out, without budgets or anything, had to scrimp and invent and steal shots from old movies in order to make their little pictures. And they certainly couldn't afford to make a long picture, because that would mean a long shooting schedule, and that would mean a much larger budget than they could possibly afford. Couldn't do it, so they didn't.

Now, of course, things are different, and so they can afford to shoot over and over again and come up with a script that would have von Stroheim asking if they were mad, and then let the editor handle it. None of them need to cut it in the camera.

Except for Spielberg, who apparently distressed Streep, because he doesn't have a formal rehearsal. According to Bob Odenkirk, he would just start rolling the cameras, sometimes print on the first take, sometimes invent shots and show them to him proudly ("Isn't that a perfect 1970s-style shot?" "Steven, you ARE 1970s cinema") and finished way ahead of schedule on The Post.

Bob
Life's too short to sit on our rears watching other people's work.
— Bob Fells

R Michael Pyle
Posts: 1748
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:10 pm

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by R Michael Pyle » Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:19 am

boblipton wrote:
Mike G. has suggested that we're in a period when, like the late 1950s, every movie is about a half hour too long. I think we're in a decadent phase of moviemaking...

Bob
I'll probably be shot down for saying this, but it astounds me simply looking at the credits for most modern films, especially "blockbusters". It has always taken a lot of people to put a film together, but the number today not only fulfills labor agreements, it also bursts the bubble for your word 'decadent'... It is far beyond that when it costs between $200 million and $600 million!!!! To me at my age that's just mind boggling.

User avatar
oldposterho
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:05 am
Contact:

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by oldposterho » Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:44 pm

Gotta give a shout out to Aronofsky's Mother!. After viewing, it's the first movie in a *long* time that made me just turn everything off and think about what I've just seen. Mind, I'm not saying I liked it (hell, I'm not even sure Aronofsky could say he likes it) but it is definitely staggeringly audacious cinema as a meditation on the creative process.

Maybe it's because it hit all of my worst-case-scenarios in terms of real horror points but it was deeply affecting for me despite my usual disdain for films about artists and the artistic process. I doubt I could watch it again - and not because it is infuriatingly slow - although at some point I'll need to. I've gotta say it's a real whiskey tango foxtrot as you're viewing but I was unable to turn it off even though I really wanted to.

Like almost all of Aronofsky's films I'm profoundly glad he made it, and that I saw it, I'm just not sure I'll ever have the gumption to see it a second time, (Requiem For a Dream being the exception).

Hard to recommend but everybody should probably try to give it a go.

User avatar
FrankFay
Posts: 3274
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:48 am
Location: Albany NY
Contact:

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by FrankFay » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:26 am

wich2 wrote:
R Michael Pyle wrote:Leonardo DiCaprio ... "The Revenant". For the first time he gave, not only a performance that was very grown up, but a magnificent, beautifully acted piece
He's actually done just that a great many times. Some would say, more often than not.
DiCaprio has a face type not unlike Orson Welles- it can look incongruously youthful
Eric Stott

User avatar
boblipton
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by boblipton » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:39 am

A motley assortment of passengers take the stage for Lordsburg and Apache Wells; two of them -- Rory Calhoun and Arthur Hunnicutt -- tell Richard Arlen that the Apaches burned a wagon train. I was all prepared for an A.C. Lyles produced remake of Stagecoach. Instead, it switched halfway through and turned into Apache Uprising (1965).

It's still a Geezer Western, with all the actors of an earlier era, happy to pick up a paycheck: Red Barry. Jean Parker and Johnny Mack Brown in small parts, Lon Chaney Jr. as the coach driver, DeForest Kelly as the psycho gunman ... but in the end it switched gears often enough in surprising but sensible ways to keep up my interest, and turned into a tough, hard western.

Bob
Last edited by boblipton on Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Life's too short to sit on our rears watching other people's work.
— Bob Fells

User avatar
drednm
Posts: 7641
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by drednm » Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:27 am

In what may be a career low point, Lily Tomlin is The Incredible Shrinking Woman, a 1981 satire of American consumerism that has Tomlin the victim of toxic products hawked by her advertising man husband (Charles Grodin). After being contaminated, she begins to shrink and becomes a media celebrity. Eventually she becomes the target of a political group that see the shrinking thing as a way to control global enemies. They fake her death and lock her up in a research lab. She's rescued by a gorilla and a dimwitted lab assistant. Nothing works. The comedy is obvious, the satire far too broad, and the special effects incredibly cheesy. While Tomlin has charm and plays several characters, the rest of the cast is just plain lousy. Grodin does his usual slack-jawed dope routine. Henry Gibson and Elizabeth Wilson play evil researchers, John Glover is some sort of politician, Ned Beatty plays the boss, Mark Blankfield plays the lab assistant, and Mike Douglas sings. Production design has the world a place of garishly ugly pastels. Every room and every costume is awash is pink, yellow, green, blue, and purple.
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com" target="_blank

User avatar
Jim Roots
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:45 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by Jim Roots » Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:08 am

R Michael Pyle wrote:
boblipton wrote:
Mike G. has suggested that we're in a period when, like the late 1950s, every movie is about a half hour too long. I think we're in a decadent phase of moviemaking...

Bob
I'll probably be shot down for saying this, but it astounds me simply looking at the credits for most modern films, especially "blockbusters". It has always taken a lot of people to put a film together, but the number today not only fulfills labor agreements, it also bursts the bubble for your word 'decadent'... It is far beyond that when it costs between $200 million and $600 million!!!! To me at my age that's just mind boggling.
Given that the average film today is two and a half hours long, I'd say they're an hour too long, not half an hour.

And yes, those end-credits are mindboggling. Even in fast-forward, they take about five minutes to get through!

Jim

User avatar
drednm
Posts: 7641
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by drednm » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:04 am

Jim Roots wrote:
R Michael Pyle wrote:
boblipton wrote:
Mike G. has suggested that we're in a period when, like the late 1950s, every movie is about a half hour too long. I think we're in a decadent phase of moviemaking...

Bob
I'll probably be shot down for saying this, but it astounds me simply looking at the credits for most modern films, especially "blockbusters". It has always taken a lot of people to put a film together, but the number today not only fulfills labor agreements, it also bursts the bubble for your word 'decadent'... It is far beyond that when it costs between $200 million and $600 million!!!! To me at my age that's just mind boggling.
Given that the average film today is two and a half hours long, I'd say they're an hour too long, not half an hour.

And yes, those end-credits are mindboggling. Even in fast-forward, they take about five minutes to get through!

Jim
And to think that all these credits are on IMDb.....
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com" target="_blank

R Michael Pyle
Posts: 1748
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:10 pm

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by R Michael Pyle » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:25 am

drednm wrote:
And to think that all these credits are on IMDb.....
Well, sort of. I was astounded that the FX companies, and the way they were listed at the end of the film in the credits of "The Greatest Showman", took nearly 1 full minute to go through on screen. The IMDb lists the companies, but not their addresses and some additional info that appeared on screen. As my wife would say, TMI; but I know the legal qualifications behind the listings today. Besides, the toilet paper replacer needs his/her ego rubbed, too.

Scott Eckhardt
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 11:36 am

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by Scott Eckhardt » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:38 am

A while back, I watched a kinescope of a GARRY MOORE SHOW. It was the last show of it's season from May, 1962. At the end, in place of the usual credit crawl, Mr. Moore introduced an on-screen parade of every member of the cast and crew, climaxing with the woman who kept the coffee machine full. I doubt that he knew that all these years later, his tribute to his staff would be dwarfed by today's epic credit crawls.

User avatar
drednm
Posts: 7641
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by drednm » Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:02 am

Scott Eckhardt wrote:A while back, I watched a kinescope of a GARRY MOORE SHOW. It was the last show of it's season from May, 1962. At the end, in place of the usual credit crawl, Mr. Moore introduced an on-screen parade of every member of the cast and crew, climaxing with the woman who kept the coffee machine full. I doubt that he knew that all these years later, his tribute to his staff would be dwarfed by today's epic credit crawls.
I also find the beginning credits for the several production companies involved annoying. Each one has a cutesy animated logo paraded at the beginning of the film, then get each get listed once or twice more. No names, just corporate logos of productions companies. Most of these have a shelf life of a couple years.
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com" target="_blank

User avatar
Donald Binks
Posts: 3168
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by Donald Binks » Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:06 pm

I see we are again discussing one of my pet hates - all the rubbish that has to be tacked on to films these days. I am told that all those credits are necessary at the end of films because it acts as someone's resume material. However, if the same information is supplied on a website - why is it necessary to go on, and on, and on, and on after "The End"? Why make audiences suffer? Another thing in favour of my argument against it is that when films are shown on television, networks speed the film up and the credits whizz by at a rate of knots. Is there anybody who has developed their speed reading to such an extent that they can actually read them?

I agree also about the logos at the start of a picture. We all once enjoyed seeing the lion roar, the stars on the mountain or the lady holding up a lamp - but now - when we have to sit through - sometimes a dozen logos - before any thing happens! It's all a bit much.

So please, picture producers - go back to one logo, put a couple of title cards up to announce the name of the picture and the really important people associated with it - preferably at the beginning. Then do something that is not always done these days - announce the cast. It would be nice to have vignettes again, but I suppose one can;t have everything.

Finally, at the end - just a title telling us "The End".

(Again Donald's voice will shout in the wilderness and he will be told 1,001 reasons why he is talking a whole lot of rot).
Regards from
Donald Binks

"So, she said: "Elly, it's no use letting Lou have the sherry glasses..."She won't appreciate them,
she won't polish them..."You know what she's like." So I said:..."

User avatar
boblipton
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by boblipton » Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:25 pm

Because my cousin is busy with some sort of Editing Wikipedia Festival, I saw my first release of the year, Proud Mary (2018). Taraji P. Henson * is a contract killer for an inclusive Boston gang: there are Black members and Irish members, and they have killers of at least two genders. Good to know, isn't it, that our leading social institutions are keeping up so well with our evolving values?

One day, tooling about the traffic-free streets of Boston in her inconspicuous Maserati, she comes across a young boy, the child of one of her victims. He has been running heroin for one of the Slavic competitors of Ms. Henson's mob. She takes him home, tends to his wounds, goes to see the boys boss and tells him he doesn't work for him any more. When he laughs at her, she kills him.... and triggers a mob war.

It's a nice little 1970s-style Blaxploitation movie, with good production values, both in camera work and fight choreography -- and if you've seen the posters, you'll have recognized the Jack Davis style of illustration he used to turn out between work for MAD magazine, and the opening credits look like the cover from a Lancer paperback. The only change is that the "and..." credit that rounds out the actors, traditionally given to some superannuated minor White star in hoped of getting some Honky butts in the theater seats, goes to Danny Glover. Good to see him.

After that, I said "I haven't seen a Bollywood movie in some time and one starts in that auditorium in a few minutes," so I saw Agnyaathavaasi (2018). A billionaire industrialist and his son are killed almost simultaneously, and a message recorded on a cell phone implicates two high-ranking executives. His widow places a phone call and eventually reaches Pawan Kalyan, a holy man on a pilgrimage to.... beat up people apparently. He shows up, gives a speech about being sure about the target of his vengeance, kidnaps a job applicant to go to work for the company to begin his Hamlet-like campaign to infiltrate the company and seek his revenge.

At this point the movie turns into a Marx Brothers musical comedy, in which a couple of the musical numbers are set at a Bulgarian wedding. I wasn't clear why Bulgaria should be involved, but apparently the Bulgarian Film Commission (or whatever they call it) had thrown some money at the producers, and they had shot some scenes that actually advanced the plot there. It also seems there was enough money left over to film a local wedding -- or maybe they picked up some extra cash filming a wedding video, then cut it into the movie and hoped no one noticed. Other plot points included frequent assassination attempts; a musical number in which an office manager with grabby hands gets beaten with the belts of every woman in the office; a catfight between Kalyan's two girlfriends; and a guy whom Kalyan's associates have kidnapped, who keeps getting free, going to the company to report the conspiracy, and finding he is reporting it to Kalyan.

I found the movie a constant, puzzling, manic delight and after half an hour I gave up trying to figure out what was going on. I just relaxed, enjoyed the jokes and situations and laughed. There are very few revenge dramas that can do that to me. Certainly there aren't that many giggles in Coriolanus. There are here.


Bob


* I wouldn't have thought there wouldn't be enough Taraji Hensons on the acting rolls to warrant the inclusion of a middle initial, but perhaps Ms. Henson or her managers are forethoughtedly anticipating a situation and making room for any newcomers. If so, good for them.
Last edited by boblipton on Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:21 am, edited 4 times in total.
Life's too short to sit on our rears watching other people's work.
— Bob Fells

User avatar
Donald Binks
Posts: 3168
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by Donald Binks » Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:44 pm

I have seen so many pictures of late featuring Sir Winston Churchill that I have taken to building an Anderson Shelter out the back, parading about in a tin helmut and reporting for Home Guard duty each evening at the local hall.

In the latest picture to come out about him, Gary Oldman has been given the guernsey. The film is set just at the time the King sent for Churchill in May 1940. The picture, aptly titled "Darkest Hour" (2017) therefore is taken up when Great Britain was at her greatest peril. Most of continental Europe had been over run by the Nazi hordes and France was on the brink of total collapse. Three hundred thousand retreating British forces are marooned at Dunkirk. Can the war still be prosecuted with Britain and the Empire standing alone? Chamberlain and Lord Halifax don't think so and there is talk of trying to negotiate a peace settlement with Hitler. What will Churchill do?

I was expecting a re-hash of a lot of what I had already seen on the screen, so for me to enjoy this picture, I would have had to see something that would make me sit up and take notice. I am glad to report then that this picture did indeed make me sit up and take notice. Not so much with the story - which is portrayed with much gravitas and impending climaxes, more so the performances of those involved. It's as if Mr. Oldman has climbed into the body of Churchill for he has the man down to a tee. Ben Mendelson as His Late Majesty, King George VI at last presents an actor who at least does resemble the King in some way and he too does a great job in his impersonation.

The picture exudes quality and the photography of the scenes inside the Imperial Parliament at Westminster is superb. On the downside, there are a couple of scenes, which I think have been added to lend some weight to the storyline. Whether they actually occured or not I don't know, but they seem to convey the trappings of a bit of a faery tale to me.
Regards from
Donald Binks

"So, she said: "Elly, it's no use letting Lou have the sherry glasses..."She won't appreciate them,
she won't polish them..."You know what she's like." So I said:..."

R Michael Pyle
Posts: 1748
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:10 pm

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by R Michael Pyle » Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:56 pm

Donald Binks wrote:I have seen so many pictures of late featuring Sir Winston Churchill that I have taken to building an Anderson Shelter out the back, parading about in a tin helmut and reporting for Home Guard duty each evening at the local hall.

In the latest picture to come out about him, Gary Oldman has been given the guernsey. The film is set just at the time the King sent for Churchill in May 1940. The picture, aptly titled "Darkest Hour" (2017) therefore is taken up when Great Britain was at her greatest peril. Most of continental Europe had been over run by the Nazi hordes and France was on the brink of total collapse. Three hundred thousand retreating British forces are marooned at Dunkirk. Can the war still be prosecuted with Britain and the Empire standing alone? Chamberlain and Lord Halifax don't think so and there is talk of trying to negotiate a peace settlement with Hitler. What will Churchill do?

I was expecting a re-hash of a lot of what I had already seen on the screen, so for me to enjoy this picture, I would have had to see something that would make me sit up and take notice. I am glad to report then that this picture did indeed make me sit up and take notice. Not so much with the story - which is portrayed with much gravitas and impending climaxes, more so the performances of those involved. It's as if Mr. Oldman has climbed into the body of Churchill for he has the man down to a tee. Ben Mendelson as His Late Majesty, King George VI at last presents an actor who at least does resemble the King in some way and he too does a great job in his impersonation.

The picture exudes quality and the photography of the scenes inside the Imperial Parliament at Westminster is superb. On the downside, there are a couple of scenes, which I think have been added to lend some weight to the storyline. Whether they actually occured or not I don't know, but they seem to convey the trappings of a bit of a faery tale to me.
I thought Gary Oldman's performance the best performance by a male actor I've seen in a couple of decades! I thought the film was simply superlative; however, as with your own statement, there are a couple of scenes of doubtful authenticity. Nevertheless, they added anyway and made the overall film a true joy.

R Michael Pyle
Posts: 1748
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:10 pm

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by R Michael Pyle » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:00 pm

boblipton wrote:Was the week the Washington Post began to print the Pentagon Papers really the same week the company went public, or was that something the screenwriters added to the script of The Post (2017)? It's a very adult, hip, feminist script that seems timed, not just for the sort of Suffragette script we got a couple of years back during Oscar season, but in light of the post-Weinstein Hollywood that's leading into hysteria and reaction from Catherine Deneuve.

My first reaction to the trailers was that Tom Hanks was channeling Jason Robard Jr. That made me check the cast list of All the President's Men. Katherine Graham doesn't appear in that movie. It's all about the boys of the newsroom, with women keeping the books and fetching the coffee and even writing the stories about the weddings, I suppose, but never saying anything important or central to the story. Rosalind Russell has retired into a negligee for the seventh reel, and Meryl Streep feels herself feels herself alone and inadequate to the job she must do, alone among the merchant bankers, but knows she is the one who must do it.

The principal pleasure in this movie is observing people talking, saying things to each other, eventually hearing and reacting, the way people do. Streep, Hanks, Bob Odekirk... movie-maker Steven Spielberg has not neglected the big shots, but like many a film maker, his technique has gotten simpler as he has aged, and when the story is about people talking, how elaborate do you need to be?

Bob
Don't know exactly why, but, Bob, I found your review slightly cryptic. I think you really liked the film. Well, I went today and thoroughly enjoyed it. Thought Streep exemplary, as usual, but found Hanks to be equally wonderful as Ben Bradley. Some of his looks, especially his eyes, are acting gifts, and they really worked here. Your critique of Spielberg is spot on. I have very personal reasons for watching and - hopefully - enjoying this film. I did. Recommend it to all of us here who are 65 and older. For me, it brought back more than a flood of memories.

User avatar
Donald Binks
Posts: 3168
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by Donald Binks » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:01 pm

One of those films that was made for a special purpose at the time and then allowed to gather dust on the top shelf ever since was "London Entertains" (1951). It was made as publicity for the "Festival of Britain" held in the same year. There's a bit of a story to it - Eamonn Andrews, an announcer at the B.B.C. (who went on to do "This is Your Life") is in the company of a bevy of buxom lassies who are "Festival Escorts" (in the proper, decent way). So, forgetting about all that piffle, the only real benefit of looking at this picture is to see London as it was back then, and perhaps some rare footage of the Goons - Peter Sellers, Michael Bentine, Harry Secombe, Spike Milligan and Ray Ellington doing one of their shows. There is also film of Gloria Swanson wandering around the building site looking generally aghast, plus a lot of stock footage of this, that and the other.
Regards from
Donald Binks

"So, she said: "Elly, it's no use letting Lou have the sherry glasses..."She won't appreciate them,
she won't polish them..."You know what she's like." So I said:..."

User avatar
boblipton
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by boblipton » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:56 pm

R Michael Pyle wrote:
boblipton wrote:Was the week the Washington Post began to print the Pentagon Papers really the same week the company went public, or was that something the screenwriters added to the script of The Post (2017)? It's a very adult, hip, feminist script that seems timed, not just for the sort of Suffragette script we got a couple of years back during Oscar season, but in light of the post-Weinstein Hollywood that's leading into hysteria and reaction from Catherine Deneuve.

My first reaction to the trailers was that Tom Hanks was channeling Jason Robard Jr. That made me check the cast list of All the President's Men. Katherine Graham doesn't appear in that movie. It's all about the boys of the newsroom, with women keeping the books and fetching the coffee and even writing the stories about the weddings, I suppose, but never saying anything important or central to the story. Rosalind Russell has retired into a negligee for the seventh reel, and Meryl Streep feels herself feels herself alone and inadequate to the job she must do, alone among the merchant bankers, but knows she is the one who must do it.

The principal pleasure in this movie is observing people talking, saying things to each other, eventually hearing and reacting, the way people do. Streep, Hanks, Bob Odekirk... movie-maker Steven Spielberg has not neglected the big shots, but like many a film maker, his technique has gotten simpler as he has aged, and when the story is about people talking, how elaborate do you need to be?

Bob
Don't know exactly why, but, Bob, I found your review slightly cryptic. I think you really liked the film. Well, I went today and thoroughly enjoyed it. Thought Streep exemplary, as usual, but found Hanks to be equally wonderful as Ben Bradley. Some of his looks, especially his eyes, are acting gifts, and they really worked here. Your critique of Spielberg is spot on. I have very personal reasons for watching and - hopefully - enjoying this film. I did. Recommend it to all of us here who are 65 and older. For me, it brought back more than a flood of memories.
I always worry about giving away too much in a review, and also in overselling a movie and thereby leaving someone disappointed. "Oh, Bob Lipton said that Tom Hanks was wonderful, particularly in that sequence where he's talking about Jackie Kennedy after the assassination, but I was expecting something big, and there wasn't, really." Because Hanks doesn't play really big, he doesn't play Fairbanks big, he plays.... real.

And I don't think The Post is about news reporting.... it's about the business of news papers. How do you keep your sources when they're the subject of your news? And how do you keep your financing when you can be shut down for doing your job?

Bob
Life's too short to sit on our rears watching other people's work.
— Bob Fells

User avatar
oldposterho
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:05 am
Contact:

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by oldposterho » Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:22 pm

Thinking its reputation might have been overstated and that time might have offered a new perspective had my first go at Steven Spielberg's 1941.

Terrible. Just...terrible.

User avatar
boblipton
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by boblipton » Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:24 pm

oldposterho wrote:Thinking its reputation might have been overstated and that time might have offered a new perspective had my first go at Steven Spielberg's 1941.

Terrible. Just...terrible.
Proving it might be all right to read your reviews, but never to believe them.

Bob
Life's too short to sit on our rears watching other people's work.
— Bob Fells

User avatar
drednm
Posts: 7641
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Belgrade Lakes, ME

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by drednm » Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:58 pm

An excellent little family drama about divorce, Background aka Edge of Divorce (1953) takes a look at an upper class British family just as it is unraveling. He (Philip Friend) is a rising barrister, and she (Valerie Hobson) is a pampered housewife with a maid and a nanny for her three kids. There's also a friend (Norman Wooland) sniffing around. He is preoccupied with his career and although he's involved in divorce cases, he can't seem to practice what he preaches. She's basically bored (the kids are in boarding schools) The couple drifts toward divorce because each is too lazy to bother trying any more. What they don't realize is the effect of their kids. Hard to remember a time when divorce was still seen as a scandal. Hobson is especially good. Co-stars Lily Kann as the wise nanny, Thora Hird, Joss Ambler, Richard Wattis, and Louise Hampton as the school mistress.
Ed Lorusso
Writer/Historian
-------------
https://wordpress.com/view/silentroomdo ... dpress.com" target="_blank

User avatar
oldposterho
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:05 am
Contact:

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by oldposterho » Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:57 am

...
Last edited by oldposterho on Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

R Michael Pyle
Posts: 1748
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:10 pm

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by R Michael Pyle » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:57 am

boblipton wrote:


And I don't think The Post is about news reporting.... it's about the business of news papers. How do you keep your sources when they're the subject of your news? And how do you keep your financing when you can be shut down for doing your job?

Bob
The way Spielberg shows the newspaper business of 1971 is quite good. I was a copy boy when I was 16, and I remember in 1965 the inking of letters and linotype machines and the like. I agree, this is more about the business of newspapers, but the Bradlee/Graham inter-involvement with that business at that time was integrated very well. Spielberg has offered us a look at a business that is quickly becoming absorbed totally into television and the internet, and has changed remarkably because of those factors. My wife and I were discussing investigative reporters after the film. The entire idea has changed to keep up with technology and how technology appeals to people to whom it is directed. To people 25 or younger the entire show must seem like the dinosaur age, and that may be the reason why so many negative comments appear on the IMDb, let alone the wrath of some toward Streep these days.

User avatar
s.w.a.c.
Posts: 2122
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: The Land of Evangeline

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by s.w.a.c. » Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:15 am

drednm wrote:In what may be a career low point, Lily Tomlin is The Incredible Shrinking Woman ... Production design has the world a place of garishly ugly pastels. Every room and every costume is awash is pink, yellow, green, blue, and purple.
Ah, the directorial debut of Joel "Batman & Robin" Schumacher, who prior to this was a costume designer.
Twinkletoes wrote:Oh, ya big blister!

User avatar
s.w.a.c.
Posts: 2122
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: The Land of Evangeline

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by s.w.a.c. » Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:37 am

Donald Binks wrote:One of those films that was made for a special purpose at the time and then allowed to gather dust on the top shelf ever since was "London Entertains" (1951). ... some rare footage of the Goons - Peter Sellers, Michael Bentine, Harry Secombe, Spike Milligan and Ray Ellington doing one of their shows.
As a veritable Son of Seagoon, I would love to see this footage, where did you come across it? I've seen footage of the Goons, but never with Michael Bentine, who was something of an odd duck himself, and maybe one odd duck too many for this crew (it seems only one of the radio shows that he did with the Goons survives). Amazing he became a comedian, since according to his bio he was part of the squad that liberated Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp, and of course was deeply affected by the experience.
Twinkletoes wrote:Oh, ya big blister!

User avatar
Donald Binks
Posts: 3168
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by Donald Binks » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:12 pm

S.W.A.C.
- I shall P.M. you concerning this.
Regards from
Donald Binks

"So, she said: "Elly, it's no use letting Lou have the sherry glasses..."She won't appreciate them,
she won't polish them..."You know what she's like." So I said:..."

User avatar
Donald Binks
Posts: 3168
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by Donald Binks » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:16 pm

I must say that I had quite a few laughs through "1941" - mostly at the expense of the Americans and I think this is why it is not liked so much, as it does lampoon "Home Base" far too much for comfort. It's over the top, I know, but hey - to see a Ferris wheel detach itself and roll down a pier into the water - that's a scream. Then there's those other scenes - the one where the civilian is trying to work this huge gun and ends up blowing up his own house - hilarious - and the Japs in the submarine thinking they are in Hollywood... what's there not to like? :D
Regards from
Donald Binks

"So, she said: "Elly, it's no use letting Lou have the sherry glasses..."She won't appreciate them,
she won't polish them..."You know what she's like." So I said:..."

User avatar
s.w.a.c.
Posts: 2122
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: The Land of Evangeline

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by s.w.a.c. » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:18 pm

1941 has its moments (Robert Stack watching Dumbo among them), and a film where Christopher Lee and Toshiro Mifune share the same frame can't be completely dismissed out of hand. But much of it is an unfunny mess. But the miniature work and special effects are amazing for their day. Sad to see John Candy playing an unpleasant character though, it doesn't really suit him.
Twinkletoes wrote:Oh, ya big blister!

User avatar
Jim Roots
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:45 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: What is the last film you watched? (2018)

Unread post by Jim Roots » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:37 pm

Didn't any of you guys bother to read the review of 1941 that I posted in the 2017 thread only 3 or so months ago?

Jim

Post Reply