Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Being There - Read the Jerzy Kosiński book ages ago but never quite got around to watching this for some reason. Peter Sellars plays the simple-minded Chance. He's lived with an unnamed "old man" since he was taken in as a child. His only other companion is the man's maid Louise.

Chance works in the man's garden and has never been allowed outside the walled confines of the man's home and grounds. His only interaction with the outside world comes in the form of incessant TV watching. One day the old man turns up dead and Chance is forced to vacate the only home he's ever known.

Out in the real world he is accidentally injured by a chauffered limousine and the occupant, Eve Rand (Shirley MacLaine) decides to take him home to her mammoth estate. She's the younger wife of business tycoon and power broker Benjamin Rand (Melvyn Douglas). He's on his last legs and suffering from aplastic anemia.

Because of continuous misperceptions the Rand's come to think that Chance is a fellow well-to-do Washingtonian named Chauncey Gardiner. What starts as a simple misunderstanding soon snowballs into Chance/Chauncey being hailed as a major financial and world player. His rudimentary remarks on gardening are misconstrued as metaphor and taken as weighty proclamations.

Sellars does a marvelous job as Chance and was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar. Melvyn Douglas won one for Best Supporting Actor. The rest of the cast is excellent as well with MacLaine, Richard Dysart and Jack Warden turning in solid performances.

Director Hal Ashby had been on quite a roll since his feature debut The Landlord in 1970. This was his seventh and arguably his last great film. I personally liked 8 Million Ways to Die but he definitely peaked with Being There.

90/100

SF = Z


[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

By POV - Impawards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=45669596

Sleeping With the Enemy - (1991)

This was a surprise from the corridors of time - a thriller that to my eyes now is surprisingly lacking, but one that was incredibly popular back in the day. I think my mother used to love it - or at least someone in my family did, and seeing it myself because of that, I didn't think it was too bad. Cut to yesterday, and I found myself watching something that could easily pass for a midday movie on TV, with your typical movie of the week plot involving a psychotic husband hunting down his wife after she escapes his clutches. Usually, after he finally finds her, you'd get a climax that involves quite a bit of excitement - but Sleeping With the Enemy ends in mere moments and is over. A lot of people have all kinds of complaints regarding Sleeping With the Enemy - but I really don't feel like adding to the chorus. It's not offensively bad as much as just very plain, simple, standard and lacking in innovation or ideas.

5/10


Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16205549

What Lies Beneath - (2000)

Now, somebody here will have liked What Lies Beneath, considering how varied opinions are about it - so I'm about to get into trouble with somebody here, I just don't know who yet. I saw What Lies Beneath as a bad movie. It's most interesting element was it's references to past Hitchcock films, from Rear Window to Psycho - it does this in a very direct way sometimes, or at others it samples a little from it's score. But what got me was how the tone of the film was all over the place, as if it really didn't know what it wanted to be - so decided to be a bit of everything. There are many dead ends for plot strands, which build up and then go nowhere. The editing and continuity are always out of whack, and the ending seemed like everyone involved in making the film decided to get high and see what happened. What a crazy ride. Perhaps if I watched it again, it would make more sense - and moments by themselves were sometimes quite good. But as a whole, this just came off to me as a mess.

4/10

__________________

Funny I’ve been eyeing Sleeping with the Enemy because people talked about it a lot back in the day but the bad reviews haven’t prevented me from pulling the trigger.

I saw What Lies Beneath in the theaters and barely remember it. I found it kinda slow but it has its fans.

Trunk to Cairo (1965)

Amusing friday night fare for me with this Israeli-West German '60s spy film, with American agent Audie Murphy employed to infiltrate and disrupt German scientist George Sanders' secret Egyptian rocket program. Exotic music and locations, espionage, guns, gals, cars, planes, submarines, terrorist baddies, a local guy wearing a fez hat and sunnies, Murphy dressed as an Arab woman riding a horse on a beach pursued by motorcycle cops. You know, that sort of film.

6/10

SF = Zzz


[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

The Favourite (Yorgos Lanthimos, 2018)

They might as well have called this movie Catty Bitches in Queen Anne's Court. I generally try to avoid movies with such a predominantly female cast but The Favourite looked like it was going to be a good bit of fun and it did not disappoint. I really liked the dark humor and, as a bit of a sucker for costume dramas, I really loved the sets and the clothes. I have to say that I wasn't expecting this to be a love triangle and was a little surprised by the sexual elements, but it wasn't at all graphic and worked well with the story it was telling. All three lead performances were very strong and, while it did drag in a few places and I didn't quite love it, I do think this is a movie I will want revisit. I may even try to get a second viewing in before it's time to vote for the 2010's list, though there is quite stiff competition and it probably won't make the cut for me.

__________________

Netflix thriller that currently has just a 5.9 IMDb rating. I wonder if not a lot of people have seen it yet because there are many worse movies with a much better rating. PG-13 worthy content yet it kept me uneasy and at the edge of my seat. I enjoyed all of the performances and would definitely recommend.

On the Waterfront - This one took me two sittings to finish due to late times. I liked Marlon Brando here and the rest of the acting performances were strong as well. I kind of think that it is a typical rebellion movie, but then I notice that this film was the root for a ton of scenes that appear in movies today such as the truck horn scene, the famous taxi scene, and also the idea of corrupt officials killing other people so that their reputation could stay put. The ending where Johnny Friendly loses his trust and is betrayed kind of makes me think of something that would happen in a cartoon quite a bit. It felt nice to see the beaten up Terrence Malloy walk towards the door at the end thanks to encouragement from the priest and Edie. Some pieces of media I think of with this movie were Fahrenheit 451 due to someone getting their eyes open by kind people around them and like LA Confidential because of corrupt officials killing rebels to prevent anyone from exposing him. This is a good movie. Again it feels a little typical for me but maybe this is a "seinfeld is unfunny" moment. Maybe it could-a be a contender for my favorite movie, but I need to spend more time with it first.
Claire's Knee - Took 3 sittings to watch! I watched this movie because I wanted something to remember this summer by. The movie reminds me of Cleo from 5 to 7 for several reasons: Both look super appealing to look at, both have a woman in the title(altough in Claire's Knee, it is mostly about Jerome), both are really charming, have simple plots with some complex stuff in there(Claires Knee is about Jerome making a story throughout the month he spends with the teenagers), and well their French. This was quite fun as I enjoyed Jerome's desire for Claire and her step-sister Laura with some character building involved in it too. This is also like a Bunuel movie quite a bit due to Claire's Knee being about a knee fetish. I liked the part where Jerome tells Claire a story about how her boyfriend kissed another woman and caused her to cry, giving him the advantage to touch her knee(his goal throughout part of the movie). During the experience, I played some music as this show does not have any music at all with the exception of the dance scene. It baffles me as to why these french movies lack scores most of the time at least from what I saw. Guess I better watch the other five moral tales by Eric Reimer.

What to watch next: Singin in the Rain, Cabaret, The Double Life of Veronique possibly, La Dolce Vita, Casablanca, probably Seven Samurai.

That's pretty much exactly how I'd put it.

We are just of one mind today. That is also exactly how I would describe WLB. I kinda wanted my time back when it was over. But that's always my gripe when I feel like a movie simply didn't earn two hours of my life.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Detour, 1945

Al (Tom Neal) is a piano player whose girlfriend has left him to go build a career in California. Al decides to make his way west to meet her and try to get her to marry him. Low on funds, he is forced to hitchhike and is picked up by a bookie named Haskell (Edmund MacDonald). When Haskell accidentally dies, Al fears being accused of murder and ends up hiding the body and stealing Haskell's identity. Crossing paths with a woman named Vera (Ann Savage) who quickly susses out his secret and the pair of them end up as reluctant partners in the deception.

I thought that I'd seen this film before, and even have it rated on IMDb. I'm not sure what movie I watched that I thought was Detour, but this was a great film that packed a lot of punch into a brisk 68 minute runtime.

The real punch of this film is in the way that every bit of fortune that shines on Al comes with a terrible price. There's always the other shoe hovering, waiting to drop. Al just happens to look enough like Haskell that he's able to use the other man's driver's license and clothing. But this creates a paper trail and a series of witnesses. Every time Al manages, usually through luck, to get out of one scrape, he finds himself heading straight into another.

There is a great friction between Al and Vera, something that in most films would collapse into a love-hate romance, but the film admirably never goes there. Instead, it lets the characters tear at each other even as they work together. Al still wants to hold to the idea that he is a good person and that he wants to do as little harm as possible. Vera has seen a much nastier roll of the dice. In addition to revealing that Haskell tried to assault her--how she recognizes the car--she is sick, probably dying. She has nothing to lose, and she's willing to drag Al along for the ride as she tries to get what's hers before clocking out.

The whole film moves in a short, steep downward spiral. Depending on how you feel about the characters, you can either read the end as tragic or a relief.

That's a great one. Very suspenseful.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Nope (2022)



I expected a mediocre film but it was pretty nice. I even cheered for the siblings. The show must go on, and so on, the Asian dude talks straight to the viewer. And we, viewers, love the spectacle. But there are stronger spectacles. There's exploitation cinema. There's the snuff film. But hey, people are crazy to have the image. Now that's an obsession. Add to that a spin on the UFO craze, and a giant monster movie twist and you got yourselves a pretty neat flick. The monkey was pretty cute, too. Oh well, it all revolves around staring at something we're not supposed to stare at. Something repulsive, literally out of this world, horrifying. But we just can't help but take a peep. And not just that. We want to save it so that we can watch it again later. And we want to show it to others. That's some moral sheet right here. I dunno how well the metaphor works but I don't care because I just like to see Good movie. I need to watch the other two Peele flicks now.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

By The poster art can or could be obtained from Fox Searchlight Pictures., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1061448

One Hour Photo - (2002)

I've always enjoyed One Hour Photo, but watching it yesterday, I found myself wanting a little more from it's anticlimactic ending - overall, most of the film's enjoyment comes from watching Robin Williams and his tour de force performance as "Sy - the photo guy". I went through the 1980s becoming more and more antagonized by Williams and his manic, oppressive and overbearing style, which carried over from his standup into his acting. It got so I pretty much hated Robin Williams. There were always exceptions - such as his shy and reserved doctor in Awakenings and eccentric and damaged vagabond in The Fisher King. But come the 2000s, after numerous terrible films, he took a leap, playing a serial killer in Insomnia, and the deranged Sy in One Hour Photo - and boy, he was good in those roles. I saw a whole different side of Williams - the reserved, inner man who impressed me with intelligence and acting ability. Mark Romanek captures a lot in this film, but we never take our eyes from Williams the whole time, and his lonely, deluded, desperate character with a quiet rage building up from a lifetime of torment.

7/10


By http://www.impawards.com/1994/speed.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1398334

Speed - (1994)

Action films belong to editors, who should nearly have their name placed above the directors - as such films are their babies. Editor John Wright was nominated for an Oscar for Speed, but somehow lost out to Academy favourite Arthur Schmidt and that darn Forrest Gump. I'm pretty sure John Wright should have won. Anyway, I caught up with this famous action film yesterday, with it's brilliant set-piece on a bus which will explode if it slows to below 50 miles-per-hour. This film had the added advantage of Dennis Hopper, who chewed the scenery marvelously, channeling his Frank Booth from the decade before. Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock fit their respective niches perfectly, and with a great score everything comes together. It's nothing more than an action movie - but everyone did right by it, and I don't know anyone who didn't love Speed in the 90s. It may have dated a little, but it will always remain a classic of the genre.

7.5/10


By impawards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9949333

Speed 2: Cruise Control - (1997)

One day I'll have to write a full review for Speed 2: Cruise Control. Obviously, the entire formula that made Speed related in any way to speed was lost in this, and the action elements were forced and confusing. It's set on a lumbering cruise ship. Keanu Reeves read the script and opted out, being replaced by a wooden Jason Patric. Speed felt a little excessive at 116 minutes, but Speed 2 doubled down, and went for 126 minutes. Yet for all of that, if you sit down and dispassionately examine Speed 2 like I did last night, you'll see what this was meant to be - and you'll notice that the spectacular excess is kind of interesting, and at times damned impressive. It has all the hallmarks of a revised Die Hard screenplay, and also borrows from films such as The Poseidon Adventure and Titanic. The final, record-breaking stunt - where the ship collides with an island harbour - is jaw-droppingly stunning. There's too much wrong with this film to just sum it up neatly, but as far as failures go Speed 2 is a cinematic mess that aimed to be history's greatest blockbuster and ended up being a forgotten flop. My partner accidentally hired it on video one night, and we endured it, but looking at it last night was really interesting.

4/10

Tim's Vermeer, 2013

This documentary follows inventor Tim Jenison, who is intrigued by the process of the painter Vermeer. Specifically, Jenison is fascinated by the fact that Vermeer's paintings are so life-like, and yet there are no preliminary sketches to be found underneath the paintings. Wanting to figure out what kind of technology Vermmer may have used, Tim interviews experts and constructs an enormous camera obscura in a quest to paint his own Vermeer.

There's something really invigorating about watching someone work through a problem solving process. Even more so when the person doing the problem solving is incredibly dedicated to the task at hand.

Tim is an engaging protagonist. Okay, did I have a few jealous moments thinking "Gee, it must be nice to have the time and money to spend half a year making custom lenses and building a set to paint!"? Yes. But Tim has come by his money and time honestly enough, and there are certainly worse things that someone could spend their resources doing. His is creative and detail oriented, and watching him go through the process is pretty captivating.

There are two aspects to the film that I found most engaging. The first is just the quest that Tim is on. He is not in any way a trained painter, but through the camera obscura he is able to darken and lighten colors until they match the image that is being copied. This is slow, meticulous work. Using the technology to paint a vase ends up taking two men eight hours. For Tim to reproduce Vermeer's The Music Lesson? It stretches in hours and then days and then weeks, becoming almost an extreme sport.

The other aspect is a theme that is stated and then restated throughout the film, and really driven home by Penn Jillette at the end. (The film is directed by Teller, while Jillette contributes via hosting). And that theme is the strange and unnecessary desire to separate art and technology. During a discussion with two art history experts, they talk about the fact that many art historians don't like the idea that Vermeer might have used something like the camera obscura, because it would have been "cheating". But what does that even mean? As Jillette notes, coming to understand how Vermeer accomplished his art merely turns him from being unfathomably skilled into someone fathomable. Is he any less genius for figuring out how to almost photograph the scenes before him?

And this question of technology's role in art is a really cool one. As one of the men points out, all artists use tools. So where is the line of "cheating"? And if you can't define it, does that mean that the only "real art" is someone walking up to a canvas and putting the paint on with no tools aside from the brush? As technology becomes more and more adept at making decisions and completing the technical side of things, the question of what is means to be an artist seems more relevant now.

The film does feel like it's a bit stretched to be feature length. Most of the anecdotes that fill the time are fine---including Tim and his crew giving themselves carbon monoxide poisoning by running an outdoor heater in their warehouse--but there is a sense of someone trying to fill the time.

Worth a watch, especially if you're interested in art or the intersection of art and technology.

I love this movie. I’m not somebody with an art background (beyond an art course in high school), so the ability to break down the actual work and problem solving involved in art is something that I find incredibly satisfying to my own thought process and also something that I don’t think many other movies offer insight into. At least not with as much humour as this. I was laughing out loud during parts of this.

When he decided he had to paint all the little dots to show the weave on the blanket.

And then spent five days just drawing little blanket dots, LOL.

SF = Z



[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