Rate The Last Movie You Saw

When I saw Repulsion I was still at music conservatory. I can't imagine seeing that film on drugs!! In '68 some of us in the band went to see 2001: A Space Odessy. A few were a little high from weed, so I'm sure they had an enhanced experience..

I was with Zappa/MOI from '67-'70, and Beefheart from '70-'74.

Elemental
7.5/10
Disney has had a string of less-than stellar movies. But I enjoyed this one.

The funniest bit: Wade's family crying (believe it or not, this was funny)
The almost-brought-me-to-tears bit: Ember saying goodbye to her father at the end.

__________________
Boldly going.

Malignant (2021)


A young girl has a "Malignant" invisible friend.. or are they invisible, all grown up it returns.






It has its moments but meh it's ludicrously preposterous and not scary

By Imp Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=398031

Alien - (1979)

Double feature night at the movies last evening kicked off with Ridley Scott's quintessential sci-fi classic Alien, aboard the grimy and functional spacecraft Nostromo - a very thespian take on the horror and science fiction genre, with the likes of John Hurt, Ian Holm, Harry Dean Stanton and Tom Skerritt beefing up an acting department that included future and contemporary stars like Sigourney Weaver and Yaphet Kotto. I enjoyed the production and set design on the big screen - the extra scrutiny does nothing at all to expose this as fakery, and as such you really feel like you're out in the complete isolation of space. That was the big take-away from seeing it on the big screen. Alien plays on our fear of contamination, claustrophobia, death and especially the fear of being isolated and alone. Apart from that, the most glaringly obvious effect is the xenophobia (a word co-opted to have a different meaning these days) our characters feel. This is a really moody film, and completely different to the movies that formed a part of the franchise when sequels were made. It's all about the atmosphere, and the complete lack of an atmosphere. Cold dread.

9/10


By http://www.impawards.com/1986/aliens_ver1_xlg.html WebArchive Archive, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=897538

Aliens - (1986)

Aliens was made to be seen on the big screen - I thought I'd seen this enough to have drained all of the white-knuckle excitement and edge-of-my-seat delirium out of it. I was wrong. The last time on the big screen for me was back in '86, and I was reminded of why this was so huge at the time - James Cameron took the original, put it on steroids, gave it a shot of adrenaline and then set it alight. After enduring endless CGI vistas, the stuff here is wonderful and beautiful - how did he do it? By the looks of it hard work and a real belief in the project. Bring back miniatures, fiberglass and vacuum-formed castings, styrofoam and true optical effects. Isolation isn't at play here as it is in the original - instead, Cameron plays on our fear of battle, and the bloody destruction of war. The whole concept of bringing in Colonial Marines to fight swarms of what we'd seen in the first film was intuitively brilliant, and comes off by being anchored with a very assured and confident Sigourney Weaver. The performances in this are actually quite good, and every laugh and thrill still lands exactly where it should. I was surprised just how exciting and enjoyable this rewatch on the big screen was. It's an astonishingly rare cinematic beast - a mainstream action/sci-fi blockbuster that also happens to be a masterpiece.

10/10

__________________

An Alien/Aliens double feature in theaters is my white whale. Where’d they put that on @PHOENIX74 ?

It's the second time this year they've run the Alien/Aliens double feature at the Luna Leederville, here in W.A. Australia. Next week it's Lawrence of Arabia, which will be another "must see on the big screen" ticket to cross off my list. It's an 8 screen place, but Cinema 1 is a nice two tiered big old-style cinema.

Late Autumn (1960)

__________________

[ J ] - [ S ] - [ F ]

Ha amazing man. Bet you have a load of stories from that era.

Spanish / Basque film about an 8 year old trans youngster who experiences family struggling to come to term with her changes. Some critics have said this film is a little thin and with a run-time of over 2 hours there are some scenes that felt a little unnecessary. There is also perhaps an analogy too far in terms of the central theme. Some of the images remidned me of Victor Erice's classic 'Spirit of the Beehive', but the coming of age narrative is only part of the story here.

The central performance by Sofia Otero though is nothing short of remarkable. There are so many child performances these days that catch the eye, especially in European cinema, and this is right at the top. Otero’s facial expressions and body language is so natural.

The film itself is very tenderly directed by Estibaliz Urresola Solaguren, who gives us a couple of weeks in the life of a child trying to make sense of why she is different as she goes on holiday with her family. Most people around her seem more confused at her gender than she is, and that just makes her feel even more out of place. Her mother Ana is on board with whatever Lucia wants to be, but has struggles of her own in terms of identity and family dynamic. The only person Lucia really connects with is her Aunty who is widowed and keeps bees. Lucia connects to nature and finds solace in the stories her aunty tells her about bee-keeping and her faith in the church. The last 40 minutes or so of the film has two or three heart-rendering scenes that make it all worthwhile and the pay off is so satisfying.

2nd Rewatch...Danny DeVito knocks it of the park as the star and director of this comic reworking of the Hitchcock classic Strangers on a Train. This film seems to improve with each rewatch, primarily thanks to DeVito's imaginative camerawork and the slightly pathetic layer he brings to the character of Owen, actually bringing a sympathetic element to the character we're not really sure he deserves. Watch DeVito in that scene where he shows Larry (Billy Crystal) his coin collection...it actually makes my eyes well up with water. Billy Crystal's razor sharp performance as Larry and the insane, Oscar-nominated performance by Anne Ramsey as Owen's momma are fresh as ever.

1st Rewatch...This film version of the classic Lerner and Lowe Broadway musical provides suitable entertainment for fans of Gene Kelly and Cyd Charisse, but for fans of the original stage show, this film will disappoint. Stripped to its bones, it seems to have just been re-tailored to fit the talents of Kelly and Charisse. Most of the glorious Lerner and Lowe score has been cut, leaving a lot of scenes of Kelly and Charisse dancing on sound stages painted to look like Scotland. Van Johnson attempts to inject some comic relief into the proceedings, but I kept picturing Donald O'Connor as Jeff. This would have been a perfect film to reunite him and Kelly after Singing in the Rain. Vincente Minnelli's eye for color is still there, but this film was a disappointment, considering the talent in front of and behind the camera. Even Kelly's choreography was kind of blah.

It was that disappointing? What didn't work about it?

It was weird, it didn't seem like the right people being chose to tribute him. People who were probably provided with prepared speeches and google searches from which to work instead of people of his generation at the very least. There were a couple of teen actors up there gushing about the guy. What would a teenager, even a teen actor, know about Norman Lear? I don't know may be it's just me, maybe you need to watch it for yourself but the whole thing was very strange to me. And Sally Struthers wasn't even there.

Rocky - 8/10
It's more allegorical than I remembered ... "The American Dream" with the black champion (Ali is an entire story regarding Vietnam and how they never oppressed him) who is on top of the world, void of stereotypes, and the usual stereotypes about the white guy, Paulie is a mooch, and Mick couldn't stand him or his locker until he got the title shot. And it's addressed, but that's life. People don't necessarily live on principles or what they think is right/wrong, and they make exceptions. "America was found by an Italian"... It's all marketing. It's a set-up, like the American system. There are values on paper, but there's reality, too, and they show it.. Even the name "Apollo" is symbolic. "Apollo, this guy means business", "I mean business, too.. Get me some coffee" he says to his secretary, but talking about two different things. On the eve of the fight, the promoter is wondering why Rocky is there. "It doesn't matter who wins, it's all about the show" is a constant theme. Apollo's trainer says, "But he thinks this is a fight" when his only focus is marketing, doing commercials, after-school special to tell kids to go to college, etc... Bicentennial, white/black, rich/poor, opportunity, fighting, love, outcasts, the loan shark is the only "good guy".. and as a replacement. The entire boxing match is built around the idea of "I've spent over a million promoting the fight" (get me ANY fighter) until they come up with this "special"..



Unfortunately, because it made so much money on a low-budget, they made so many sequels they might as well call it "Greed". I think a lot of serious movie people will think, "Ah, I'm not watching that franchise crap, I want something independent" not realizing "Rocky" is independent, helped by the underrated King of The Underdogs (John Avildsen) who has great vision. I compared the script, and feel Avildsen took the best, and made it more allegorical.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

Really? I thought this movie was stupid...here's a link to my review:

https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/...the_halls.html

I found more versions of A Christmas Carol on Prime. Actually there were countless others but these appeared to be the most faithful to Dickens' story. I'm not much into adaptations set in modern times but, since I still haven't seen it, I would like to watch Bill Murray's Scrooged. And I'm definitely going to re-watch the 1951 version with Alastair Sim.


A Christmas Carol (1954) - In this version I immediately noticed a confined sort of scope to the opening shots of Victorian era London and thought it looked like a television production of some kind. Which it was. The fact that Fredric March headlined as Ebenezer Scrooge and Basil Rathbone as Marley's ghost is what drew me to it. But then it also turned out to be a musical of sorts which immediately dropped it a couple of points. But since it was only 51 or so minutes long I stuck with it. The fact that it was designed to fill an hour long slot along with the addition of the songs led them to truncate the story quite a bit especially with the spirit of Christmas to come. This is a trifling bit of stagecraft with some of the characters hamming it up and playing to the back rows like the beefy actor playing Scrooge's nephew Fred. This being TV there was none of the ambient set design of the more well known productions and the abbreviated nature of the story being told made it impossible to immerse yourself in it.

45/100


Scrooge (1935) - This one features Sir Reginald Hicks playing Ebenezer and is notable for being the first full length sound adaptation. It's mostly faithful to Dicken's novella but it does play out in typical mid 1930's fashion with the same music playing in the background that you may have heard in the Our Gang or Laurel and Hardy shorts. And since it's in the public domain the print I watched was noticeably subpar. Hicks, who portrayed the character over a thousand times during his career, goes for a frail, elderly and fearful Scrooge complete with a palsied shake. Which made me realize that, despite Scrooge's age, all the versions of the character I had seen before were played with a modicum of vigor.

And I'm not sure if it was due to budgetary constraints or the technology not being up to snuff but Marley's specter was invisible as was the ghost of Christmas past (outside of a vague outline). The only other real difference I noticed was the inclusion of the Christmas Eve Lord Mayor's Banquet in London. I thought it made for an effective juxtaposition between the opulent surroundings of the banquet and the impoverished children begging for food at the windows of the kitchen preparing the feast. Outside of these few touches this adaptation didn't really offer much in the way of originality or pizzazz.

55/100


A Christmas Carol (2012) - This is an Irish production and opens at an estate on the outskirts of London. I thought it was going to be some sort of flashback to Ebenezer Scrooge's childhood but it turned out to be the home of Charles Dickens. He corners a servant and has them sit while he proceeds to read his latest story to them, which so happens to be A Christmas Carol. Having the author himself narrating parts of the story was a clever way of covering up what had to be a limited budget. It is most noticeable in the paucity of extras and the mise en scene. There are no scenes featuring substantial crowds and none of the convincingly cramped and shabby Victorian London settings. Instead all of the characters, including the Cratchits and even the ragpicker, seem to reside in bright, spacious homes. In an attempt at adding atmosphere there are endless shots featuring scudding clouds, ghostly figures staring forlornly into the camera and echoing voices. This adaptation doesn't really add anything innovative to the telling. Lead actor Vincent Fegan however makes for a middle aged, younger Scrooge and the overall acting is decent enough.

60/100

Great looking theater! Lawrence of Arabia was one of the greatest pictures ever made. I hope the theater has a wide screen. The original was shot in Super Panavision 70mm, which was really impressive at the time, and it made the film even more overwhelming.

Ha! Yes, dozens, but I won't hog up this thread with any. I tell one from time to time.