Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Obsession (1976)

By 20th Century Fox - http://www.movieposterdb.com/poster/fdcd5a75, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=37131420

Desk Set - (1957)

Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy had made 7 films together before Desk Set, which would be the penultimate film for the pair (10 years later, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner came along - a belated swansong.) What interests me most about this film, however, is the fact that it's a 1950s comedy about computers - which weren't even called computers in this, but "electronic brains". (Kind of reminds me of those "Electronic Brain Enhancements" on Look Around You*.) It's set in a reference library which is run by Bunny Watson (Hepburn) and her team of ladies, one of whom is played by Joan Blondell. Along comes Methods Engineer and efficiency expert Richard Sumner (Tracy) to gauge the possibility of installing one of his EMERAC ("Electromagnetic MEmory and Research Arithmetical Calculator") machines - a computer which takes up half the space of the library. The girls are all afraid that they'll become redundant and be let go, but EMERAC can't reason - it's only a kind of reference tool that spits out information that's been added to it manually.

Against this setting a romance plays out between Bunny and Sumner. Bunny is already in a relationship with Mike Cutler (Gig Young) - her reference library is in service to the television network he's an executive of. Mike is treating Bunny badly though - having fun with her when he has the time, he always expects her to be available for him like "an old coat" in a wardrobe, and 7 years of waiting for him to propose has come to nothing yet. As Sumner learns more about Bunny, so do we - she has a savant-like memory and ability to calculate and reason complex matters in moments, which stuns the unprepared engineer. This is a pleasant film - it didn't set my world on fire, but it was amusing and quaint in many different ways. Hepburn and Tracy obviously have chemistry together and have learned to perform as a team. I haven't seen many films that deal with the first tentative steps into the computerization of the world and the fears many people had about that, so watching this dream acting team and that was enough for my enjoyment.

6/10

*Don't be a fool. Go easy on your EBEs



By IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=57360124

X-Men : The Last Stand - (2006)

Many years late, but I've finally seen all three films in the original X-Men trilogy. I came in knowing how most fans of the franchise feel about this film, and that coupled with the fact that I'm not a huge lover of this original trilogy is a difficult position to judge this from. I never got to a point when I was saying, "Hey, I actually like this," to myself. I was expecting a little more since this was meant to cap off the overall story, but obviously my expectations were also low. It hit pretty much where I thought it would - that "mildly interesting" level on average. I'm much more a fan of X-Men : First Class, which I think is on a whole other level.

5/10

__________________

Fists in the Pocket (1965)

Drowning by Numbers, 1988

Cissie (Joan Plowright) comes home unexpectedly one evening to find her husband drunk, naked, and philandering with a local woman and impulsively drowns him in the bathtub. Her actions are covered up by the local coroner, Madgett (Bernard Hill), who has feelings for Cissie. But soon Cissie’s actions trickle down into the lives of her daughter, Cissie (Juliet Stevenson), and her niece, Cissie (Joely Richardson). Also impacted is Madgett’s son, Smut (Jason Edwards), an odd but sensitive boy.

Enlivened by quirky touches, this is a fun and fantastical variation on a classic murder caper.



Full review

The Time Machine (1960)

I've seen this a number of times, but not for at least 15 years. A classic movie as always.

10/10

Not sure...disappointment? It's the latest epic, directed by Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer. The story of this conflicted, enigmatic physicist, the largest figure in the Manhattan Project, seems to not know what it wants to be. There's a huge story here, and a great cast, and lots of FX. There's also flashbacks, flashforwards, sequences that lurch between black and white and color. I've read several books on this project, the one that launched the atomic world, for better or worse, but I walked out of the theater perplexed tonight. I had high hopes, but found myself befuddled. Oh well....maybe see it again? We saw it on IMAX too, but it's not that much of a visual spectacle.

SF = Z

Unfortunately I knew the ending beforehand, so probably would have loved it even more... sigh.




[Snooze Factor Ratings]:
Z = didn't nod off at all
Zz = nearly nodded off but managed to stay alert
Zzz = nodded off and missed some of the film but went back to watch what I missed
Zzzz = nodded off and missed some of the film but went back to watch what I missed but nodded off again at the same point and therefore needed to go back a number of times before I got through it...
Zzzzz = nodded off and missed some or the rest of the film but was not interested enough to go back over it

White Lightning (1973)

They're not the only ones. I saw this when it came out and left thinkinig, meh, at best. I was a little bored, if anything But then, I'm not much of a Bond or De Palma fan either. Though both have their moments.

This is exactly the sort of film I have to ask why you'd pay extra to see it that way?

Nighthawks - - I've seen this a few times and liked it quite a bit when I was a kid. It's an easy watch with Hauer making a cold yet charasmatic terrorist who always keeps your attention whenever he's onscreen. Stallone and Dee Williams are a good partnership, though don't develop the 'buddy' feeling you'd expect, but that's probably intended because of Stallone's characters personality/issues and plot reasons. It's a standard thriller of its day with little to recommend it beyond nostalgia and Hauer's performance, but it's not a bad film.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Basically because it was there in the theater and the time slot fit into our schedule and I had not seen an IMAX for a while. It really was not worth the premium price.

Ironically, not only was it an unnecessary IMAX but it wasn't showing in one of our usual downtown venues, so I drove out into the big-burbs into one of those mega-cineplex places, and parked across a huge parking lot and ate in a big-chain restaurant. It was culture shock all around.

The Searchers - 1956

Always on my list but finally got around to watching it. First time I've really watched a John Wayne flick. He takes a little time to adjust to because to me he isn't a terribly great actor. Feels a bit one note. But he is so confident you finally accept it and move past it until he feels like he is killing it. Is that what confidence does for you? Wouldn't know The film surprisingly has a decent amount of comedy for such a dark plot. Which the plot keeps you intrigued enough through the whole movie. I enjoyed it. I am not running back to rewatch it but it was fun enough.

I am usually against remakes but a lot of these old Westerns feel ripe for an updated interpretation ala 3:10 to Yuma and True Grit. It's the one genre I am more forgiven with remakes. Rumor has it Spielberg was developing a remake of it. That would have my intrigue. If not the old one is just fine though :-)

__________________
I came here to do two things, drink some beer and kick some ass, looks like we are almost outta beer - Dazed and Confused

101 Favorite Movies (2019)

Sounds similar in some fashion to Renfield.

On the old mentality (Stoker's) Dracula was a blood-sucking revenant. In his novel, the battle is really between the old-world irrationalism of a demon-haunted world and the rationalism of a new scientific age. Van Helsing is a scientist and uses scientific instruments and theories to understand and combat Dracula. The vampire, on the other hand, goes to London in the hope of updating his OS--to understand this new age and adapt to it. He does not wish to stay behind in the fading old-world.

On the new view, Dracula is a toxic narcissist who thrives on co-dependency, a psychological vampire. Renfield is a bit of a weeping wimp himself, a victim of a bad boss. He's done bad things, but they're not really his fault (or so it seems) and he comes into his own finding agency in resisting his oppressor. Thus it is a perfect film for this generation (e.g,. anti-work, anti-cap, obsessed with therapy, status determined by victimage). Both films serve the needs and reflect the anxieties of their time.

I recommend this to a lot of people.. A lot more than some in my Top 10, because it's unique.


For those interested, the full movie is free/remastered on YouTube

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

Oppenheimer- 2/10

Barbie- 10/10

Death Warmed Up, 1984

Dr. Howell (Gary Day) believes that he’s pioneered a new form of brain surgery/medication that can control behavior. When he gets pushback from a co-worker, Howell abducts the man’s son, Michael (Michael Hurst) and uses his techniques to get Michael to kill his own parents in their home. After being released from a mental institution after several years, Michael goes on vacation to an isolated island with his girlfriend Sandy (Margaret Umbers), and friends Lucas (William Upjohn) and Jeannie (Norelle Scott). Once there, Michael is thrown into a crisis when he spots Howell in town, realizing that what he thought was a delusion was actually reality.

Landing in that just-right zone of low-budget charm, this film gets a surprising amount of emotional heft from some good character work and disturbing imagery.



Full review

I don't know if it was the movie, or if it would have improved with another leading actor. But, Kazan made up for it with the only movie of his I liked after "Splendor in the Grass" with 1972's "The Visitors" -- such a dark movie! I wish Kazan would have made more independent movies like that, but luckily it's available on YouTube for free for everyone to see.

Hmm, I'm hearing troubling stuff about this one.

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness - Let's start with the good. Great visuals and cinematography. And Sam Raimi directing automatically raises it to a higher level. But the cold opening introduces what turns out to be the central protagonist with little to no setup. Which is probably okay if you're a comic book reader and familiar with America Chavez. Everyone else, myself included, will be left a bit adrift.

It's big and kinda, sorta messy with lots of fan service moments that have become the norm and oftentimes are used to coverup or distract from weak storytelling. Once I found out Raimi was directing I figured that any parts I liked were directly attributable to him. Which is probably an accurate take. But in the end though I just couldn't accept Wanda Maximoff as the big baddie.

So all in all it was a prosaic kind of experience for me. Results may differ. I do get the feeling that Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania might make this look better by comparison. At least I hope it does. Sam Raimi deserves better than to be remembered for a second superhero stinker.

70/100

By http://www.thesandpebbles.com/terpning/terpning.htm, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6628725

Doctor Zhivago - (1965)

Taken as it is, Doctor Zhivago is a great film, but I also see it as a missed chance at perhaps being one of the greatest films of all time. It's all to do with Boris Pasternak's novel being banned in the Soviet Union, which had the flow-on effect of the Soviets refusing to let David Lean make his film in their country. So, all those grand shots that would have featured Moscow and the steppes were either filmed in studios or in Spain. It hurts the film somewhat, and I'm always cognizant when what would ordinarily have been some great shots on Moscow streets are more stunted and studio-bound. Aside from that major issue however, this is a profoundly moving film - the story and Maurice Jarre's haunting, romantic score are enough to rouse almost anyone's heart. Omar Sharif, Geraldine Chaplin, Julie Christie, Tom Courtenay, Alec Guinness and Rod Steiger perform their roles admirably. It's still hard though, not to view this as a missed opportunity.

8/10


Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15394732

Father's Little Dividend - (1951)

This sequel to Father of the Bride followed hot on the heels of it's predecessor, with the same director and stars participating. I'm glad, because the same dynamic that I liked so much in the first film still exists here. Spencer Tracy is fantastic and extremely funny as Stanley T. Banks - one of his best comedic characters. Stanley can say a lot with a look, or with body language - and I grin even when he's not doing anything. I mean, he's always doing something - but sometimes it's just a certain look that betrays what he's thinking in a subtle way. This time he's put out by becoming a grandfather, and later by the fact that his grandchild bursts into tears whenever he goes near him. Joan Bennett, Elizabeth Taylor, Russ Tamblyn and Don Taylor are all there basically to play against Tracy - it's his show, and I enjoyed this nearly as much as the first film. There are some very old fashioned ideals and manners which would be offensive today though - it was a very different time.

7/10