Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Lefter than left.

__________________
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)

Carl(a) (2011) Directed by Eli Hershko and starring Joslyn DeFreece, Gregg Bello, Laverne Cox, and Mark Margolis. A drama about a trans woman, about to finish her transition, who falls in love with a man who isn't supportive of her completing the transition. I rate it a 7/10.

Is it?

Eh, I'm not good at taking on-the-fly recs from otger people, as I tend to only be in the mood to watch new movies occasionally at most, and even then, I'm only ever in the mood for one specific movie at a time (meaning I can't just do something like pick any random movie off of Netflix to watch daily), so I'm sorry, but not interested in that right now. That being said though, keep on keeping it up from your end of things, Pops!

Spellbound (1945, Alfred Hitchcock)

First, let me get this out of the way: Ingrid Bergman is absolutely gorgeous here, her sheer presence in the frame automatically makes me want to give a higher rating to any film she's in but... in this case I wasn't particularly grabbed by the story, the suspense was lacking, and the film just didn't flow so well for me. Some interesting moments here and there (it's a Hitchcock film, after all) but some scenes didn't work, like the fake skiing scene - I get it, technical limitations of the era and all that, but there you have it, it took me right out of the movie where it should've been a tense climactic nail-biter. Same with the gun hand scene at the end - should've been a lot more tense than it was. As for the famous dream sequence (designed by Salvador Dali), it had some cool imagery but I felt the impact of it was irrevocably diminished by the fact that it was narrated after the fact and overly explained rather than just shown (imo).
A lesser Hitchcock for me.


Frenzy (1972, Alfred Hitchcock)

A later-era work by the master, darker, more viscerally violent and sexually explicit than I'm used to, but it still has all the ingredients of the Hitchcock world - mystery, suspense, witty dialogue, macabre humor, excellent cinematography (check out the symmetrical shots like the one above), and a well constructed, interesting plot. Where Spellbound came short in getting me fully invested in the story, Frenzy drew me in right away. Contrasting with the grisly subject matter, the scenes with the police inspector and his gourmet-cook wife provided comedic relief without feeling annoying or out of place - that's how you develop secondary characters. Definitely in the mid-upper echelon of Hitchcock's ouvre, afaic.

The Furies, 1950

An old rancher named TC (Walter Huston) owns a huge property in New Mexico knows as the Furies. He manages the property in part with his daughter, Vance (Barbara Stanwyck), who loves the land deeply. TC is constantly annoyed with the presence of squatters on the property, especially the Herrera family. Vance has a deep friendship with the eldest Herrera son, Juan (Gilbert Roland). But when TC begins to take action that will cut Vance out of her place on the ranch, he and Vance get into a serious conflict that only deepens as each of them digs their heels in deeper.

It is rare that I can truly identify a moment where a movie lost me, but in this case it is crystal clear. The first half of this film is amazing and I was totally in love with it aside from one element. But around the halfway point something happens and from there I watched the rest of the film with a mix of bafflement and slight disgust.

The first half of the movie is mostly a delight. Stanwyck and Huston have solid chemistry together as two people who are just as stubborn as each other and clearly love sparring with each other. I also really enjoyed the sequences between Vance and Juan--a great portrayal of a loving and respectful relationship between two people. Juan is in love with Vance, and she knows it, but he respects that she doesn't return his romantic feelings and the two are able to continue their friendship.

The one sour note for me in the first half was Vance's romantic pursuit of another main character, Rip Darrow (Wendell Corey). Rip believes that part of the Furies rightfully belongs to him and his family, and romancing Vance is a good way to get back at TC. It is easy to understand that Vance would need a strong man, and that in the mold of her father she might even prefer one who is slightly domineering. But there is a scene between Rip and Vance that really put me off. When he stands her up for dinner she goes to his home. And angry at her he grabs her by the hair, hits her, pushes her down, submerges her face in a basin of water, and calls her names. This really crossed a line for me, and watching Vance run after him like a kicked puppy was gross. There could have been a well-observed theme here about why Vance continues to like Rip, but the film never bothers to even attempt to explain. She just loves him, ya'll. And for a character who has been so strong, this sudden meekness is kind of confusing.

But the film picks up again nicely as TC brings home a new wife, Flo (Judith Anderson), and blatantly begins to push Vance out. TC also offers Rip a bribe to break things off with Vance. Fed up at his interference, Vance attacks Flo and then runs away to join the Herreras. TC and a crew of ranch hands get into a standoff with the Herrera family, as Vance frets.

It is the conclusion of this standoff that leads to the moment in which the movie "broke" from my point of view. I'll put the rest of this review in spoiler tags.



If the second half had matched the first in intensity and character work, this would have been an instant classic.

I'll miss ya, but that's fair.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Day of the Jackal, 1973

Unhappy at different political maneuvers by President Charles DeGaulle, an underground group hires a British assassin named the Jackal (Edward Fox) to kill DeGaulle. A French investigator named Lebel (Michael Lonsdale) pursues the Jackal.

I placed a request for this film from my library yesterday, and so imagine my surprise when I found it on my own DVD shelf!

I really, really enjoy this film. It's the kind of movie that's fun to bust out every year or so and watch from beginning to end.

The joy in the film comes from watching two "machines" working to opposite purposes: the Jackal working to carry out the assassination, Lebel working to stop it. Both men (and their various helpers) must be rigorous in their preparations and the slightest slip up can mean a huge setback.

From the Jackal's point of view, this means procuring a weapon, creating various aliases/disguises to travel without detection, and taking advantage of the lonely and needy along the way to stay off the radar. From Lebel's side of things, it is about combing the data available to them and working to discover a pattern. This is the kind of film that pulls you in two directions because while you are ultimately on the side of the police, it is fascinating to see the clever ways in which the Jackal carries out the various elements of his plan.

Something that the film captures brilliantly is the way that it all comes down to humans being humans. Lebel understands the way that human weakness can be exploited. The Jackal himself is adept at knowing just how to play on the sympathies, loneliness, or lust of the people he uses. As the Jackal makes his various escapes (and as bodies pile up behind him), the film maintains a dual momentum as the Jackal moves closer to executing his plan and Lebel learns more about his adversary with each incident.

I have also always loved getting glimpses of how crime fighting worked in the past from a procedural/forensic point of view. A lot of it is just brutal dedication of man-hours, as officers pour over lists of names in hotel registrations or passport entries.

The character of the Jackal is pretty aloof, as is fitting. This is a cold-blooded person who doesn't hesitate to kill and old woman to provide a momentary distraction and the performance from Fox fits this well. He turns charm on and off as needed (and he is handsome and fit enough to appeal to those he meets along the way), but we aren't going to get to know him. Lonsdale's performance as the intelligent and determined Lebel provides a nice counter-balance, including a few moments of much-needed humor. I had also forgotten that Derek Jacobi is in this film as Lebel's right-hand man.

In terms of criticisms, I would say that the film is highly procedural. I always feel a little let down in the last 5 minutes, as the film resolves very quickly and it's like "Okay, people. That was the story. You can show yourselves out.". The film doesn't spend much time on the many victims of the Jackal along the way, offering them some sympathy, but not much else.

It's also very of the time, but the film's gender and sexuality biases come off a bit silly. There are multiple instances of nudity from the female characters, but very little from the men. And when the Jackal becomes romantically involved with a man later in the film, there's never so much as an embrace or a kiss between the two. We can watch murders and we can hear the screams of a man being tortured, but heaven forbid the lips of two male characters touch!

These are relatively minor complaints. I really enjoy this film, and even after many viewings I still find it thrilling.

Never seen this, but have put it in my Netflix Q.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

Re-watch. Once it got going, it was quite the romp. Enjoyed it.

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

The book that this is based on is amazing (and it's a short, page-turner that I read almost in one sitting). I am happy that the adaptation seems to be getting a positive reception.

It goes right into my Top 10 of 2020.

Ordet, 1955

Morten Borgen (Henrik Malberg) lives with his three adult sons, as well as the wife and children of his eldest. Mikkel (Emil Hass Christensen) is agnostic, though his wife, Inger (Birgitte Federspiel) is incredibly devout. Johannes (Preben Lordorff Rye) has had a psychological break and now believes himself to be Jesus Christ. Anders (Cay Kristensen) is in love with the daughter of a family with different religious beliefs from the Borgens. The conflict about whether the two young people can marry causes a feud between Morten and the young woman's father, Peter. Things get further complicated when Inger's pregnancy takes a bad turn.

This movie will give you shivers, though it does take a little while for the narrative momentum to build to that point.

The film begins by laying out the different belief systems of the family members. It's interesting, and I appreciated that it did a good job of conveying what it is like when others try to dictate your response to situations based on their beliefs. In one scene, Inger advises someone to pray. When they respond that they are praying and it isn't helping, she's like "Well, maybe you just need to pray some more!". This conflict is given more depth later when Morten and Peter explicitly get into a debate about religious belief--Morten claiming that religion should be about joy and Peter expressing that it is actually about suffering.

In a turn of events that is both powerful and frustrating, Inger's horrific childbirth experience becomes a litmus test for the "truth" of the different characters' beliefs. And things kick off in a horrible fashion with Peter basically saying that he hopes Inger dies so that it will teach Morten a lesson about suffering. As Inger languishes, characters not only have different outlooks on how to regard her situation (including the town doctor, who at one point bluntly asks something to the effect of, "What do you think helps more: your praying or my medicine?" But characters also imply that their belief is not just about handling Inger's dire situation, but even influencing it. It is implied that the right kind of belief will save her life.

And just to talk about Inger's childbirth scene: GOOD GRIEF! It's maybe one of the worst things I've ever seen. Inger lays on a table, surrounded by the midwife, Mikkel, and the doctor. And no one talks to her or tells her what is happening. No one asks her what she is feeling or explains what they are doing. At one point the doctor, without warning, just starts cutting her open to facilitate the birth. And even the framing seems designed to put the focus of the scene on the other characters and specifically the male characters. Inger's face is almost always excluded from the frame.

It's hard to talk about the final act without giving away really key plot elements. But the last 20 minutes or so are pretty amazing. The characters really hash out their different beliefs and especially when it comes to Mikkel you can sense the internal turmoil of choosing between having no faith and having faith that might not be rewarded. While on a personal level I don't agree with the view that I think the film is ultimately espousing about faith and belief, I do think that the ideas are powerfully presented. I would imagine that for people whose beliefs do align with the film's conclusions, this would be a real jolt.

Lastly, I want to mention the look of the film which is absolutely gorgeous. This is the second Dreyer film I've watched this month, and darn if the man doesn't know how to use light, shadow, and space to the best possible impact.

I would highly recommend this film, and I would also warn anyone who hasn't seen it that it took me about 40 minutes to really warm up to it. There is a lot of talk and little action for the first third or so, but do not let that deter you. Once the pieces are all in place, the whole film comes together beautifully.

I was so nervous when I heard they were adapting it. Now I'm excited to see it.

BREAKIN' 2: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO



An absurd romp of loosely strung together sequences of camp, surrealism and shockingly poor dancing. It's what I wanted the first one to be and is among the most exquisitely entertaining Cannon Group Films.

THE BLUE ANGEL



This was my first Sternberg/Dietrich collaboration and it's a fine film. Like many made under the Weimar Republic, it's dark, cynical and carries with it the foreboding psychology of the social/economic anxieties and traumas that would pave the way for the Nazis rise to power. Unfortunately, I recently watched PANDORA'S BOX from Pabst, starting Louise Brooks, which tells a similar story albeit shifting the focus to the seductress rather than the led astray suitor. I find that perspective far more engaging than this one, as I didn't find Janning's character much to root for (unlike his turn in THE LAST LAUGH, another recent watch).

Still quality stuff but it wasn't quite BREAKIN' 2 ELECTRIC BOOGALOO either.

Paranormal Activity 4, 2012, 2nd watch (F)

This is really the point at which these movies get extremely grating. The beats are the same, the rhythm is the same, the endings are the exact same since the first one. The jump scares are stale and irritating, Characters being digitally-enhancedly quiet and only making a sound when the person they're stalking turns around, half a planck from them, people punching doors as they open them after being completely and entirely silent, despite holding keys.

The worst thing here is the hateable douche of a kid though. He acts like a douchebag, isn't played by a good actor and does eveyrthing to make you hate him. The previous child actors were bad, but they didn't play insufferable brats.

Footlight Parade (1933)