Rate The Last Movie You Saw

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

Oh yeah! One of the great "B" noirs. And the lovely dangerous looking Marie Windsor couldn't have been better cast. The "Queen of the B's" was always a delight to watch. She was excellent in The Killing (1956) with Sterling Hayden and Elisha Cook, Jr.

Charles McGraw was good as the detective who was tasked with protecting the witness on the train to L.A. I sometimes confuse him with Lawrence Tierney-- a real life tough guy and brawler.

This was a tight, well written noir drama that could have been an "A" picture if it had bigger names. In fact director Richard Fleischer went on to direct some pretty big main stream films. I recently read that in "Margin" was the early use of a hand held camera. I did wonder how they got some of those shots in close confined quarters.

And I agree with you-- This is a must see for any noir fan.

This was pretty awful. Only watched it because it stars Michelle Johnson who impressed me with her performance in Blame it on Rio back in the 80's. I was slipping into darkness while watching this flick. There really isn't anything to talk about except for one scene of a topless, dead woman on a grave and how the DoP managed to keep her breasts centered for every shot in the scene. The framing was quite good, actually (GF even made a comment about it as she strolled through the room). There are a few unintentionally funny things that happen but not enough to recommend even as a so bad it's good movie. Ya know, if you grabbed some drinks and a group of friends this could be fun. Might recommend this for the next bad movie night get together. Co stars the guy from Seinfeld who ended up dating Elaine because he (Todd Gack that's his name!) lost a bet to her about Dustin Hoffman being in Star Wars



aka Vacanze per un Massacro. So after watching Darkness I wanted to see what people who watched Darkness also watched and this was one of them. Not as bad as Darkness but not good either. Home invasion movie about an escaped prisoner looking for his stashed loot in a remote house in the Italian countryside. It has a bit of The Ref meets Straw Dogs feel to it. The Ref in the sense that the outlaw brings some unhappy truths about the family (husband, wife and sister in law) he's holding hostage to light during his short stay and Straw Dogs in that...well, think of the most controversial thing about Straw Dogs and multiply it by two. This is a pretty ugly film, boring at times but not sleep inducing boredom (thank God for a short runtime).

I didn't see that sketch until like a year ago but jesus it is the funniest thing ever.

That's a shame. I've been in love with Michelle Johnson since I was about 13 years old. And it's such a good song to ruin.

While I don't remember being huge on GONY, it's been too long since I've seen it for me to be able to go into any sort of detail on it, but what about The Irishman? I felt it was the best thing I've seen from him since Goodfellas, after all.

Fish Tank (2009)

gosh san andreas os an good movie. excited for the 2nd of san andreas movie!

Joan of Arc (1948)

Ingrid Bergman plays the titular heroine here and with some gusto. It's a very interesting story and I'm not sure about the veracity of events but this ably holds the interest through to the conclusion. Some of the acting is quite hammy but never that of Bergman who is both stunning and committed. Kind of watching this as a warm up to viewing "The Passion of Joan of Arc" but don't know how I'll get my hands on that one.

for the film itself for Ingrid Bergman's performance.

It just didn't look interesting at all to me. It reeked of a redundant, self-indulgent victory-lap on everyone's part, to me. I've been wrong before but given that I haven't thought very highly of anything Marty's done since Casino (not to say I didn't think they were any good, just not great, including The Departed which I was only shocked that it won BP because Marty was "overdue" and there was so much Spielberg slobknobbery going around it kinda had to happen that they were going to fete Marty for maybe his 8th or so best film; I haven't see The Wolf Of Wall Street cuz I just don't care about Marty's movies anymore, and I especially feel like they tend to be overlong due to his self-indulgence).
The fact that I don't really like Goodfellas that much and never really did, probably contributes to that feeling though.
So I guess I can't say on The Irishman because I just don't tend to like Scorsese's movies that he's done in the last couple decades so I don't watch them anymore.
Shutter Island was pretty good, but again, just so overblown. Which is how I think of him now. He needs to go back to making 2-hour or less movies on a budget of $15M. Then we'll see something.

I hated GONY & The Irishman. Huge Scorsese fan though.

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

Had no idea what to expect from this movie, but I enjoyed it. (Don’t want to see it again though.)

Interesting story & very well-acted by kids & adults alike.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, 1986

Arriving in Chicago with a slew of bodies in his wake, Henry (Michael Rooker) moves in with his friend Otis (Tom Towles) and Otis's sister, Becky (Tracy Arnold). It takes very little time for Henry to turn Otis into his partner in crime. Meanwhile, Becky's relationship with both men becomes more complicated.

I had avoided this movie for a long time, both because of the reputation it has and because of the grunge, fatalistic vibe it gives off. And while the film is grungy and unpleasant, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked it. (Okay, "liked" doesn't feel quite right with this kind of movie, but you know what I mean).

What can be off-putting about films like this one is that they can come across as an excuse to put graphic, "edgy" content on screen. It is very easy for such films to slip into a mode that feels exploitative. This film definitely contains some hard to watch content, but there is never a sense of doing it in a cheap way. In fact, with the exception of the opening sequence which shows several women who have been killed by Henry, the movie almost seems to go out of its way to avoid giving the impression of cheap thrills. One of the first victims is an average-joe type. Another murder takes place in a way that we hear what is happening but do not see it. I ask you: how many films about a serial killer would portray .

The most disturbing sequence of the film involves Henry and Otis killing a family (and recording it on camera for posterity). This is the scene that, to me, showed the degree of thoughtfulness behind the movie. As we come into the scene, Otis

Perhaps the most quality choice made by the filmmakers is in the dynamic and contrast between Henry and Becky. In one of the very first scenes between the two, a long camera shot holds on Becky as she tells Henry about the horrific sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of her father for years. Henry doesn't say much in response, but later when Otis puts his hands on Becky inappropriately, Henry reacts swiftly to put a stop to it. Does Becky's story resonate with something that once happened to Henry? Does Henry for some reason become attached to Becky? We never find out. But Becky, with her string of abusive relationships and her endurance of even Otis's inappropriate intentions, is the beating heart of the film. Henry--the only character who doesn't seem to want to put his hands on her--intrigues her. We can see the danger she is in, but Becky cannot.

Giving Becky such depth is a very wise choice, because Henry himself remains an enigma. What motivates him? We never really learn much about this. The film never points to anything specific--aside from a poor relationship with his mother--and gives no real hint as to what drives his attacks. While there is a sexual component to many of the killings, the violence seems to drive him more than any attraction. And as Otis gets drawn into his crimes, the contrast between the men becomes interesting. Rooker is perfect in the role of Henry. Attractive and "normal" enough that you believe someone might let their guard down around him, and yet with an unnatural stillness. There is something empty in Henry, and that is what makes him so terrifying. You sort of get that sense that even as he enjoys killing, some large part of him just. . . . doesn't care.

The film has a low-budget look, but not an unintentional one. The people and locations all look and feel real. The dialogue feels natural. And the reality of the film is what makes it so hard to watch and frightening.

This probably isn't a movie that I would broadly recommend. But I was pleasantly surprised to find that the exploitative elements I had expected (based on certain things I knew happened in the film) were mostly absent. There is a lot more empathy and depth to the movie than I would have anticipated. I think that the very final shot says a lot.

The Color of Pomegranates, 1969

Armenian poet Sayat Nova (played by various actors) is portrayed in a surreal, loosely biographical film that is more a montage of images than a linear story.

After a very trying week, this visual poem was exactly the kind of movie that I needed.

I feel like this is the kind of film that deserves an elaborate write-up, but I can't think of a good way to describe what I liked about it. The use of color, composition, and movement is brilliant. It finds this amazing middle-ground between tableau and a living, moving artwork. In one sequence, a group of men in dark robes begin to remove their outer robes one at a time to reveal white robes underneath. It is a simple effect, and yet the staging on a roof and the brilliantly-timed cascade of action elevates it to something else.

I had one single critique of this film, probably predictable to anyone who knows me. I did not care for the animal cruelty. I'm not speaking about the slaughter of the goats (which I fast-forwarded, so I don't know how graphic it was), but things like leaving a fish out of water to suffocate, or the way that some of the birds were bound. It didn't help that the chickens in the film were leghorns, and so they looked much like my own birds. I was like "Take your hands off of my Bernard!!!".

I know that this film was based on a poet and his poetry, but I will fully admit that I didn't know what was happening. Fortunately, I really really didn't care. It was nice to sit back and be fully engaged with a film and just let the images wash over me. It was so hard to pick an image for this review. In fact, I think that the rest of this review will just be images.







Highly recommended and a thank you to @Iroquois for the recommendation.

MALCOLM & MARIE



Copied from my Letterboxd:

The film is a bit hard to assess because it’s both purposely restrained and small in scale, due to its pandemic origins, while also audaciously attempting to tackle philosophical and ideological conflicts inherent in cinematic art but lacks the courage to embody itself.*

Essentially, when the film makes the accusation that Washington’s character, a film director, lacks anything unique to say or when it drops into a diatribe about film criticism that name drops Barry Jenkins to Ida Lupino, I can’t help but sense Levinson tap dancing around this films that begot this film, which can sometimes feel like “Before Midnight, Who’s Afraid of the Woman Under the Influence.”

It also can’t help but escape how much more equipped Levinson is to write for his bombastic director character played by Washington than he is the actress muse of Zendaya. It’s hard not to feel the ease at which Washington pours out the pages of dialogue in a machine gun of passionate rants then feel the odd phrase and intonation forced upon Zendaya, that all at once feels too similar to Washington’s prose and alien to her tongue.*

That said, the film is very well shot and very well acted. Any time it flirted with losing my attention, the strength of the cinematography or acting prowess from the leads, especially Washington, who delivers perhaps his best performance yet, the film would pull me back in.*

I liked this film and at times wanted to love it. Perhaps, had it not been made under the constraints of the pandemic and had been giving more time to develop and breathe, it could’ve taken on a true life of its own.*

As is, it comes out a “good movie.” Great at times but it begs the question of what it could have been.*

As for Parajanov, you should check out Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors as well. It's one of my all-time favorites. It doesn't contain any animal cruelty, btw.

I've been meaning to revisit The Color of Pomegranates for a while. When I first watched it, I liked quite a bit about it, but felt most of it went over my head. However, I now suspect it's one of those films where it isn't necessary to understand everything that happens to enjoy it, so I'll have to give it another shot one of these days.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Five Millions Years to Earth (Quatermass and the Pit) - James Donald, Andrew Keir, Barbara Shelley and Julian Glover star for director Roy Ward Baker in this 1967 scifi/horror hybrid. This was like my fifth or sixth time watching this. It never gets old of course because it's one of my favorite Hammer/Seven Arts productions. Work on a new subway line in London is interrupted by the discovery of numerous skulls, bones and a mysterious apparatus. At first thought to be unexploded WWII ordinance, then a V2 rocket, it's true identity turns out to be much more far-reaching and potentially cataclysmic. I like how the story plays out and the actual threat methodically revealed. I don't think it's giving away too much to say that it's extraterrestrial in origin. But it's the prescient nature of it and the scientific underpinnings that I found particularly appealing. And hey, who doesn't like a valorous end to things? 90/100

Rocketman (2019)

Set in 33 AD, Life of Brian follows the, well, life of Brian (Graham Chapman), a young, regular Jewish guy that is somehow mistaken for the Messiah. Despite his reluctance, he ends up being followed both by people who want to praise him as well as soldiers that want to silence and imprison him.

As was expected, the film was condemned, censored, and banned by some religious groups and countries, while also becoming a critically acclaimed box-office hit that's often considered one of the best comedies made. So I suppose you can always look at the bright side of life.

Grade:


Full review on my Movie Loot

__________________

Snooze factor = 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