Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave


Promising Young Woman
(2020, d. Emerald Fennell)

-

Now here's a tough one to pigeonhole when it comes to genre. Promising Young Woman, a debut feature for Emerald Fennell, is a thriller. And a revenge movie. And a pitch black comedy. And a dramatic meditation on grief. And even a full-on romcom for a time. And.....well let's just say it's a film that wears many hats. Very much a production of the #MeToo movement that gives toxic masculinity a real kicking this is a slick and stylish piece of work.

With so many genres and tones competing for attention the film really needs a strong centre to keep it from flying off into the atmosphere. Thankfully it has such a centre in the excellent Carey Mulligan. She delivers a fearless, uncompromising performance that results in a compelling and unpredictable character in the form of Cassie Thomas. She's a character I feel had the potential to stray into camp territory, taking the film along with her, but Mulligan ensures this isn't the case.

Mulligan proves a perfect piece of casting. She has that sweet, innocent, girl-next-door allure to present herself as a target and lure in those who feel they can prey upon her; and the strength to surprise and potentially destroy them. She burns up the screen with a fury and intensity that prove impossible to avert your gaze from. Her Cassie is a damaged individual, prone to behaviour that is destructive to both herself and to others. Anger and resentment bubble perpetually under the surface in a life that is aimless but for her dangerous venture of targeting predatory men. I found myself judging her. I found myself chilled by her. I found myself completely unsure what she would do next. But all in all I found myself caring for her, drawn into her perilous exploits and fearing for her safety.

While it is undoubtedly Mulligan's film (she appears in almost every scene) the film is populated with a number of familiar faces throughout its supporting cast who make an impression and lend personality, even in the most minimal of roles. Alison Brie, Alfred Molina, Molly Shannon and Connie Britton are just some of those to cross paths with Cassie. The only performance that felt off for me was Jennifer Coolidge as her mother.

The film certainly isn't perfect. All the aforementioned genre-jumping does make for an occasionally messy, scatterbrained movie that takes a clumsy step or two along the way. Then there's the ending which I'm really not sure of. It's one that I'll need to sit with for a while. Overall I feel I'm perhaps being a tad generous with my rating but I really liked this. It's a bit scrappy but it's a bold and ballsy and vibrant venture from a debut filmmaker that I'll certainly keep an eye on in future




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, 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.
I liked Spellbound a bit more than you, and Frenzy a bit less, but I agree with some of your assessments. In the former, I didn't find the murder plot that interesting or, more importantly, necessary. The focus is the interactions between J.B. and Dr. Petersen and how their relationship unfolds. In the latter, I think I was a bit put off by the fact that I thought Richard was a borderline ******* Regardless, they're both solid Hitchcock thrillers, IMO.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



Victim of The Night
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.
I agree it is the better of the two Breakin' films, but I'm not sure I saw shockingly poor dancing.



I agree it is the better of the two Breakin' films, but I'm not sure I saw shockingly poor dancing.
The dancing from the background and supportingcharacters is generally pretty strong, at the least impressively athletic, but the dancing of O-Zone and Turbo is often comically simplistic with pop n' lock moves that would look more at home at a homecoming dance than front and center of a motion picture.

It's part of what amused me so much about the film. Outside of the Astair-esque rotating house, virtually all of their dance numbers seems impromptu and thus regularly felt half assed and silly.

I'm a terrible dancer and admire break dancers. At no point should I, with my busted knees and motion resistant hips, ever have the thought "well, I could do that" cross my mind during a movie like this.

But it did. More than once.

And that's hilarious to me.



The King of Staten Island - This is a Judd Apatow film so you know it'll probably be long, shambling, shaggy and, most importantly, funny. And it is for the most part. The surprise, at least for me, is Pete Davidson's likable lead performance as Scott Carlin, a pot smoking slacker living in his mother's basement with a nebulous dream of being a professional tattoo artist. He hasn't done much with his life which he attributes to his firefighter father dying when he was seven years old. When his mother (Marisa Tomei) starts dating another guy who also happens to be a firefighter it leads to a meltdown of sorts which sets him on a path to either redemption or catastrophe. It's a hoary chestnut of a storyline and if you're expecting anything decidedly different you're S.O.L. But like I said, the script by Apatow and Davidson isn't bad, the supporting cast with Tomei, Bel Powley and Bill Burr is capable and Davidson makes for an amiable protagonist. 80/100



I agree it is the better of the two Breakin' films, but I'm not sure I saw shockingly poor dancing.




/obligatory



I think I was a bit put off by the fact that I thought Richard was a borderline *******
He definitely was.
WARNING: spoilers below
You'd think you'd show some emotion upon learning your ex-wife's been brutally raped and murdered - and that guy barely raised an eyelash. Sheesh
My favorite character was the inspector by far, he was cool.



'Together' (2000)
Dir.: Lukas Moodysson


Low key, almost dogme like film about a commune of friends all living under one roof. Doesn't quite match the heights of Moodysson's 'F****g Amal' or 'Lilya-4-ever' but it does have lots to say about social commentary, the will of people to change and sexuality. In that way, it almost serves as a microcosm of what a society needs to do to function properly.




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 Stroheim/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.
its sad that one of the actors from breakin' movie passed away recently D=



THE BLUE ANGEL



This was my first Stroheim/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).
Just a heads up you put Stroheim not Sternberg, but I watched this last year and thought it was a great film. I'm yet to see any Pabst or many Louise Brooks who I have heard great things about so, unfortunately, can't comment on your references here.

Have you seen any other Sternberg films? I was blown away by Underworld which along with Scarface seems to me to very much be an early template that would inspire much of the crime films people love today.
__________________



Victim of The Night
The dancing from the background and supportingcharacters is generally pretty strong, at the least impressively athletic, but the dancing of O-Zone and Turbo is often comically simplistic with pop n' lock moves that would look more at home at a homecoming dance than front and center of a motion picture.

It's part of what amused me so much about the film. Outside of the Astair-esque rotating house, virtually all of their dance numbers seems impromptu and thus regularly felt half assed and silly.

I'm a terrible dancer and admire break dancers. At no point should I, with my busted knees and motion resistant hips, ever have the thought "well, I could do that" cross my mind during a movie like this.

But it did. More than once.

And that's hilarious to me.
Well, I wonder if there isn't some bias of time involved as I remember when we saw it in the theater back in '84 we were all really, really impressed. Of course, I was 11. But nobody I knew could do that.



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.

It's been a while since I saw this film. I watched it years ago when I did some free online course in Scandinavian Film and TV. I think I had to do a small essay regarding the themes of faith, but what I really noticed about the film was similar to you - Dreyer's visual presentation of the story. Some of the cinematography and how he captures certain scenes and sequences is amazing. Your enthusiastic review makes me want to revisit the film. There was a member on here @bluedeed who was a big fan of the film and I know he also loved Dreyer's Gertrud which I am yet to get to.

So far the only others from him I've seen are The Passion of Joan of Arc and Vampyr which I know we talked about recently, a superb director.




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.

Agree with both assessments





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 thought I'd seen this, but maybe I haven't. Clearly I should since Dreyer might be a top 5 director for me. Definitely top 10.



Victim of The Night

First things first, that poster in no way reflects the movie and was obviously just an attention-grabber. It's not a "sexy" film at all and Joanne Woodward is never in her underwear, on the contrary, she's as buttoned-up as one could be.

I happened on this, as I often do, on Sunday morning on TCM. I frequently just watch whatever they have on and I am rewarded more often than not.
This was not grabbing me.
I have never really connected with Henry Fonda. His brand of aw-shucks earnestness works less than Jimmy Stewart at his aw-shucksiest, for me. He's fine when he's not doing that, like in 12 Angry Men or certainly OUaTitW, but even in a movie like The Lady Eve, which I really enjoy for Stanwyck, he annoys me.
I hung around for Jason Robards, who is always worth hanging around for.
The story here is that a a family is passing through Laredo on their way to buy a farm at the same time that an annual high-stakes poker-game is in play. The husband (Fonda) is a recovering gambler and gets the itch and buys in. He eventually bets their life-savings on a hand but with no more money to put in the pot, he is required by house rules to retire from the game, forfeiting all of his chips and leaving his family destitute. Under the strain he has a heart attack and his prim and proper wife, Mary (Joanne Woodward), who's never played a game of poker in her life is forced to find a way to finish his hand or end up in the poor-house.
The movie actually becomes quite amusing and clever once Fonda mercifully suffers his coronary and gets off my screen and I found myself genuinely sucked into the proceedings by the combination of some clever writing, Robards, Paul Ford as the bellicose bank-owner Mary tries to convince to stake her, and Woodward herself, who can't keep her accent straight but is quite good otherwise.
There is more to this film than meets the eye and if anyone decides to watch it I highly suggest you do not know anything about it going in. It has its surprises and I suspect the movie would be a lot less entertaining if one knows what they are going in.
Overall, a delightful little film.