Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





I think it's relevant to bring up something that was said a couple of pages ago... since the term "film noir" was coined in the mid 1940s, essentially well after what is now argued to be the "start" of the era and the release of several films that are now considered film noir, the labeling of such films and when the "era" started is going to be inherently shaky and blurry. Scholars, cinephiles, and regular viewers can look back at many films from the late 1930s and see them as "film noir", or precursors of it. However, it's a fact that most literature and sources I've read on the topic like to point out The Maltese Falcon as the "first film noir". As far as I'm concerned, I'm OK with it cause I don't think it's done to dismiss previous films, but rather serves the purpose of highlighting when the "style" came to full form so to speak, while establishing some "boundaries" for the sake of discussion with what can be seen as a perfect example of the "noir aesthetics". Beyond that, of course they're going to be previous films that could be labeled as "film noir", and of course they're going to be films with *some* elements of "film noir". That's how it eventually came to be and like I said, it's inevitable that some people will look at pre-1940s films and see them as "noir".

Another important thing to bring up is that not even scholars agree on *what* exactly is "film noir". Is it an era (1940-1959)? is it a style (lowkey lights, angled shots)? is it a genre (crime, betrayal, etc.)? And this inability to properly define it further complicates the labeling of what films are/aren't "film noir". At the end of the day, I don't think it's that relevant to argue what film was the "first one". Like so many things in life, it was something that was born and grown progressively over several years, not in an instant.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



I think it's relevant to bring up something that was said a couple of pages ago... since the term "film noir" was coined in the mid 1940s, essentially well after what is now argued to be the "start" of the era and the release of several films that are now considered film noir, the labeling of such films and when the "era" started is going to be inherently shaky and blurry. Scholars, cinephiles, and regular viewers can look back at many films from the late 1930s and see them as "film noir", or precursors of it. However, it's a fact that most literature and sources I've read on the topic like to point out The Maltese Falcon as the "first film noir". As far as I'm concerned, I'm OK with it cause I don't think it's done to dismiss previous films, but rather serves the purpose of highlighting when the "style" came to full form so to speak, while establishing some "boundaries" for the sake of discussion with what can be seen as a perfect example of the "noir aesthetics". Beyond that, of course they're going to be previous films that could be labeled as "film noir", and of course they're going to be films with *some* elements of "film noir". That's how it eventually came to be and like I said, it's inevitable that some people will look at pre-1940s films and see them as "noir".

Another important thing to bring up is that not even scholars agree on *what* exactly is "film noir". Is it an era (1940-1959)? is it a style (lowkey lights, angled shots)? is it a genre (crime, betrayal, etc.)? And this inability to properly define it further complicates the labeling of what films are/aren't "film noir". At the end of the day, I don't think it's that relevant to argue what film was the "first one". Like so many things in life, it was something that was born and grown progressively over several years, not in an instant.
It's almost like you took a class on this topic! (With the world's best classmate!)



I think it's relevant to bring up something that was said a couple of pages ago... since the term "film noir" was coined in the mid 1940s, essentially well after what is now argued to be the "start" of the era and the release of several films that are now considered film noir, the labeling of such films and when the "era" started is going to be inherently shaky and blurry. Scholars, cinephiles, and regular viewers can look back at many films from the late 1930s and see them as "film noir", or precursors of it. However, it's a fact that most literature and sources I've read on the topic like to point out The Maltese Falcon as the "first film noir". As far as I'm concerned, I'm OK with it cause I don't think it's done to dismiss previous films, but rather serves the purpose of highlighting when the "style" came to full form so to speak, while establishing some "boundaries" for the sake of discussion with what can be seen as a perfect example of the "noir aesthetics". Beyond that, of course they're going to be previous films that could be labeled as "film noir", and of course they're going to be films with *some* elements of "film noir". That's how it eventually came to be and like I said, it's inevitable that some people will look at pre-1940s films and see them as "noir".

Another important thing to bring up is that not even scholars agree on *what* exactly is "film noir". Is it an era (1940-1959)? is it a style (lowkey lights, angled shots)? is it a genre (crime, betrayal, etc.)? And this inability to properly define it further complicates the labeling of what films are/aren't "film noir". At the end of the day, I don't think it's that relevant to argue what film was the "first one". Like so many things in life, it was something that was born and grown progressively over several years, not in an instant.
Can we put aside your formal education on the matter in order to indulge an arbitrary recognition of similar predecessors?



THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER
*****/*****
An endearing Holiday classic Romantic Comedy that’s become a tradition in my household. Not only is it heartfelt, charming and finely crafted, but also very funny with a sense of comedic timing in its dialogue that feels timeless.

I really need to see more Lubistch. I’ve only seen this and To Be or Not To Be



I struggled to understand what the point of this movie was. I've seen it many times, in the theater on its release, the VHS was lying around our house when I was in college so it got watched a lot, and I revisited it maybe five years ago or so... and I just don't understand what the point of the movie was. What was it actually about? I mean it felt like there was some point to it but if that's true I still don't know what it was.
Ebert seems fonder of the film than I am, but I think his describes its aims pretty accurately:


"He seems to be aiming for the kind of scuzzy, fast-paced vitality of a low-budget Samuel Fuller picture, and he gets it."


I don't know if there's a deeper message, but it's interesting seeing an unserious war movie done on the cheap during that era that has a different flavour than a Cannon Films production.



Who is Afraid of Virginian Wolf. (1966) Mike Nichols.
8

A Ciambra. (2017) Jonas Carpignano
An interesting look into a Romani Community in Italy. The director Carpignano had his car full of equipment stolen, while filming in 2012. He went to negotiate with the Romani community, to get the car back. This is where he first met the Amato family, which we follow in this film, A Ciambra.


7

Riffifi. (1955) Jules Dassin.
4 men plan to pull of an difficult heist. They want to pull of the perfect crime.
8



Victim of The Night
The Black Stallion - This is easily one of the best family movies out there while also being just a damn good film. It's a gorgeous undertaking with first time feature director Carroll Ballard and his cinematographer Caleb Deschanel carefully setting the right mood in the first half of the film set on a deserted island. First time actor Kelly Reno is outstanding as Alec Ramsey, the little shipwrecked boy who ends up forging an unshakeable bond with a wild stallion. Mickey Rooney also turns in a solid performance as retired jockey Henry Dailey, which earned him an Academy Award nomination. Teri Garr rounds out the small primary cast as Alec's supportive mother. The racing scenes are some of the most stirring and kinetic I've ever seen committed to film. Recommended to everyone regardless of age. I hope this makes the top 100 list. 95/100

EDIT: Just two quick recommendations. If you've haven't seen Never Cry Wolf or Fly Away Home by all means take the time to do so. They're also Carroll Ballard movies and they're also pretty darn good.
You talkin' about that '79 version?
And yeah, Never Cry Wolf was pretty cool.



Victim of The Night
Since I saw it on the front page, it reminds me of the similarly tenuous appelation of "slasher", a term formally coined to describe specifically American horror films of 70s and 80s. But despite the fact that the term was coined for these American films, it isn't the least bit controversial to apply the designation to the preceding Italian giallo as well as those prior landmarks, from Leopard Man to Psycho, that happen to fit the substance of the form. Saying that slashers can only be applied to American films from 1974-1989, the "classic era" of slashers, is asinine and provides little understanding of those things which make them distinct.
I don't wanna get too deep into this whole discussion, it feels like it's going somewhere I don't care to invest a lot of energy, but I would like to say for my part, since I put the giallos, The Leopard Man and Psycho on my slashers list, that while I may tend to be one of the most sticklerish people about genre definition ( as we know from many discussions in the past), I intentionally stretched the definition of Slasher for my list of them, kinda just for the lulz. Is an Italian giallo like B&BL a "Slasher"? I'm not so sure it is, but I like playing with the idea. Is every serial-killer movie like
WARNING: "So spoilery" spoilers below
The Leopard Man
a slasher? Probably not. But it's fun to play with that notion.
And I think it's fun to play with the boundaries of other genres, say the Film Noir genre and say that everything that influenced it and led up to it is actually it as well, but that's not the real story and we all know it. Just as, when I was at USC they were very clear on what was and wasn't a Screwball Comedy (a very clearly defined genre in the USC Film School's opinion), Film Noir has boundaries and they are fairly defined. It's not just every black and white crime film with good using of shadow and light.
But I couldn't resists putting Bava and Tourneur in the Slasher genre, even as I was rattling my saber that I have RULES for Slashers, dammit!



I think it's relevant to bring up something that was said a couple of pages ago... since the term "film noir" was coined in the mid 1940s, essentially well after what is now argued to be the "start" of the era and the release of several films that are now considered film noir, the labeling of such films and when the "era" started is going to be inherently shaky and blurry. Scholars, cinephiles, and regular viewers can look back at many films from the late 1930s and see them as "film noir", or precursors of it. However, it's a fact that most literature and sources I've read on the topic like to point out The Maltese Falcon as the "first film noir". As far as I'm concerned, I'm OK with it cause I don't think it's done to dismiss previous films, but rather serves the purpose of highlighting when the "style" came to full form so to speak, while establishing some "boundaries" for the sake of discussion with what can be seen as a perfect example of the "noir aesthetics". Beyond that, of course they're going to be previous films that could be labeled as "film noir", and of course they're going to be films with *some* elements of "film noir". That's how it eventually came to be and like I said, it's inevitable that some people will look at pre-1940s films and see them as "noir".

Another important thing to bring up is that not even scholars agree on *what* exactly is "film noir". Is it an era (1940-1959)? is it a style (lowkey lights, angled shots)? is it a genre (crime, betrayal, etc.)? And this inability to properly define it further complicates the labeling of what films are/aren't "film noir". At the end of the day, I don't think it's that relevant to argue what film was the "first one". Like so many things in life, it was something that was born and grown progressively over several years, not in an instant.
I agree; as far as genres go, I don't know if any of them have ever been birthed fully formed with one "first film". Instead, as far as I'm concerned, they evolve gradually step-by-step over time from what came before, until they reach a point where critics and fans can look back at in retrospect, and decide upon an invisible line drawn in time and characteristics that defines that particular style of film (even then, there's always debate over where the line should be drawn).



You talkin' about that '79 version?
And yeah, Never Cry Wolf was pretty cool.
No, the '96 version with Jeff Daniels and Anna Paquin. It's not on a par with Black Stallion or Never Cry Wolf but it's still pretty good.



Right you are, John. It's a charming but off-beat film, eccentricity that was unusual for 1960, and VERY touching. My favorite Truffaut, and one of the best films of the 1960s.
Same here, not many would agree but I like it more than The 400 Blows.



the samoan lawyer's Avatar
Unregistered User

The Pumpkin Eater (1964)


Had never even heard of this before but it was showing on TV and what stood out for me was the director Jack Clayton and the cast of Anne Bancroft, Peter Finch and James Mason. The Pumpkin Eater is a kitchen-sink style film of a bad marriage and in not to dissimilar events from AWUTI, the wife experiences a breakdown as a result. Here, Bancroft is the star, although Finch is very good too. James Mason, although plays a crucial part in the film, isn't used as much as was expected but this is not a criticism. Its a devastating film at times, just watching poor Bancroft and how she is treated throughout the film by almost every single character and you impossible to not feel empathetic for the loneliness she is feeling.
Highly recommend this film to anyone. Superb.


+
__________________
Too weird to live, and too rare to die.



Becoming

Flicking through a list of 2020 horror films I came across this and a picture of Toby Kebbell standing in front of a bathroom mirror with his face totally covered in shaving foam and wearing a creepy ass grin..

A young woman learns her fiancé has been possessed by an entity during a road trip..

It was... alright, I really like Kebbell and good to see him in a main role and he did a good job in what is a double roll, also really like Jason Patrick as the crazy trailer park guy who knows all about what’s going on, kind of got irritated towards the end when the young woman just makes ridiculous decisions (or rather doesn’t make sensible decisions based on everything she see’s) but overall it wasn’t a bad watch, it was okay

I wanted to post a picture but I still cannot do that which is why I hardly ever post on this forum anymore.

3/5
__________________
Do you know what a roller pigeon is, Barney? They climb high and fast, then roll over and fall just as fast toward the earth. There are shallow rollers and deep rollers. You can’t breed two deep rollers, or their young will roll all the way down, hit, and die. Officer Starling is a deep roller, Barney. We should hope one of her parents was not.



Victim of The Night
But The Maltese Falcon suits me as the first noir. I love that film, and have seen it a dozen times. As far as the style, I personally favor detective noirs as the best examples. I must have watched The Big Sleep 20 times. Never get tired of it.
Ya know, my only gripe with The Big Sleep (which obviously is great) is that I read the book first and they changed SO much of what the film was about, not the plot beats mind you, those were fairly similar, but the content, what crime was actually going on and the up-front sexuality of it, that it was like watching a castrated version. I understand the Hays Code wasn't gonna let ANY of that content get through but it still just takes some of the edge off for me.