Rate The Last Movie You Saw

I love Doctor Detroit.

LOVED this movie

Heh. Thanks man.
There is something about that movie that is just so cool to me that pretty much no other movie has. I think it dragged a bit before the climax but then it finishes super-strong so I forgive that (though I will admit that the last time I watched it, which I have at least 20 times, I fast-forwarded over the train-ride section of the movie). The music, the set-design, the lighting, the setting, the Bombers, "Tom Cody, pleased to meet ya", yes, the arch acting, all that. Just too fun.

Yet, to me (and Toto, Scorsese, Peter Gabriel), Rosanna was on a different level than her sister, frankly a different level than almost anyone.

I can see that. But then I watched Bringing Out the Dead and ... oof. Something about Patricia Arquette in that particular role. Nicolas Cage felt it too obviously.

Sounds like you and Wooley should go on a double date. ☺

We should totally make this happen. I'll call Rosanna. Though I worry about that shark eating a dude's dick on the wall there by the mirror.

Scandal - Filling in some gaps in my Akira Kurosawa films. From 1950 and made right before his big breakout Rashomon. It's not exactly upper tier Kurosawa and I didn't find it quite as compelling as two of his previous films Stray Dog and Drunken Angel. But that maybe had more to do with the story which might have leaned a little too hard on it's melodramatic elements.

Toshirô Mifune stars as Ichirô Aoye, an artist of some notoriety in his country. He stops at a scenic overlook to paint a landscape of a nearby mountain and while there he meets popular young classical singer Miyako Saijo (Shirley Yamaguchi). She's missed her bus and, since they're both heading to the same place, he offers her a ride on his motorcycle. On the way there they pass the bus and onboard are two paparazzi who tail them to their hotel. After Saijo refuses their request for an interview they surreptitiously take a picture of the pair standing on the balcony of her room. It's all innocent enough but Asai (Shin'ichi Himori), their disreputable boss and editor of the scandal sheet Amour, fabricates a story to go along with the photo.

He is somewhat surprised to find that Aoye is suing the magazine for libel. One stormy night the desperately shysterish lawyer Otokichi Hiruta (Takashi Shimura) shows up at Aoye's art studio and offers his services free of charge. Aoye's no nonsense and pragmatic model, Sumie (Noriko Sengoku), warns him not to trust the guy. Aoye being the free spirited guy that he is decides to let providence take it's course. He goes to see Hiruta's family to get a more rounded picture of the guy and meets Hiruta's young daughter, Masako (Yôko Katsuragi). She's bedridden with tuberculosis but her gentle nature and unswerving belief in her father convinces Aoye to hire him on as his attorney. Aside from the sentimentality though the movie does address the so-called "kasutori culture" which sprang up in post-WWII Japan. Many blamed the open sexuality and decadence and the proliferation of sleazy magazines and cheap alcohol on Western influences.

Shimura, a Kurosawa regular, is given the lion's share of the storyline and he makes the most of it. I'd compare him to Willy Loman except that Hiruta doesn't even have fantasy to fall back on. The debased, besotted attorney character has been revisted countless times in other films and his Hiruta has reached rock bottom. There's a scene at a dive bar called The Red Cat where the drunken patrons sing along to "Auld Lang Syne". It's clear that Hiruta is mean to be the embodiment of Japan's postwar troubles. The rest of the cast deliver skillful performances but this is propelled forward on the strength of the two lead actors.

As it turns out, Mifune himself was a stone cold matinee idol. His Aoye exudes an unassuming masculinity and straightforward decency without making it cloying. One can't help but wonder what he could have done if he had been given a chance against some American leading men of the period. I think he could have easily held his own (maybe eclipsed them?) in late 40's to early 50's Hollywood and beyond.

This makes 12 of Kurosawa's films I've seen so far. Next up is another one of his films costarring Mifune and Shimura, I Live In Fear.

75/100

No, I meant you guys go with each other. I will go with both Patricia and Rosanna, and run between opposite ends of the restaurant Doctor Detroit style.

Don't bother to look, he's not in a book...

By Moviegoods, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9765773

Reds - (1981)

At times Reds really seems to be a companion to Lawrence of Arabia - both are not only sizeable epics, but they both take place around the same time period (World War I) and they both involve an outsider travelling to a foreign land with ideals and dreams for change, only to come up against human nature to find their utopia an unattainable dream. I've always been afraid that this 3 hour+ film might be a tad boring, but the film itself seems to evolve as the story progresses - at first you could call it a love story with writer/journalist John Reed (Warren Beatty) meeting writer/artist Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton), both somewhat bohemian and believing in free love. That invites poet Eugene O'Neill (Jack Nicholson) into the picture. Much of the film takes place in Russia, which is convulsing with World War I and revolutions providing a dramatic backdrop to this true story. Personally, I found it all fascinating - but I have had a certain interest in all things Russian for a long time now. I spent some time in the country myself. There's just the right balance between Reed's personal life, the historical situation and the work Reed and Bryant do as journalists and writers as far as the story goes - and the film itself is exceedingly well constructed and filmed. All the actors give what seem to be career-best performances from what I saw, and Reds left me secure in the knowledge that I'd seen an intelligent, important and great epic film - one of the last of it's type. Many people have a very varying range of how they feel about Reds, but I'll back it all the way.

9/10

__________________

I saw that recently and also enjoyed it quite a bit.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Billy Budd (1962)

Cutthroat Island
5/10.
Biggest bomb in movie history and 40% on Rotten Tomatoes.
The only thing I liked about it was Geena Davis's smile.

__________________
Boldly going.

Bruno (2019)

Homeless man with his beloved dog get separated and he spends the next day searching for his hound followed by a precocious youngster. This film has a lot of predictability in it but is also heartfelt and beautifully nuanced. Diarmaid Murtagh does a fantastic turn as the man who has gone off the radar.

A Matter of Life and Death, 1946

A RAF pilot, Peter (David Niven), is stuck in a plummeting airplane with no parachute. He has an emotional final conversation with an American woman named June (Kim Hunter) who is working the radio at an air force base. However due to a miscommunication up in heaven, Peter survives bailing out of the plane and quickly strikes up a romance with June who happens to be stationed near where he lands. But when the error is discovered, Peter must fight to be allowed to remain on Earth.

While I felt that the story faltered a bit in its last act, this film's creative story and sumptuous visuals made it a real treat.

The visuals are actually what would make me most recommend this film. It's directed by Powell and Pressburger, who also directed The Red Shoes, and their visual stamp is all over this one. While it's not quite as deep and saturated as that other movie, A Matter of Life and Death uses color to tremendous effect. To begin with, the scenes in heaven are all portrayed in black and white, while the scenes on Earth are in color. But this goes a step further when characters move between the two planes and we watch the color fade from or fade into their faces. There's also the use of background color to amp up emotion, such as the vivid red glow behind June in the opening sequence.

The film also makes good use of a recurring visual where the agents of heaven are able to freeze time on Earth. This makes for some neat tableau moments as certain characters move around others who are frozen.

The performances are also pretty winning. Niven and Hunter are good in their roles. June herself is kind of thinly developed---her one defining trait is that she's in love with Peter. But Hunter gives enough passion to the role that you can go along with it. Roger Livesey gives a really strong supporting performance as Doctor Reeves, a friend of June's who tries to help Peter get to the bottom of what is happening to him.

The film did lose me for about 15 minutes toward the end. Things come to a head as there is a trial in heaven to decide Peter's fate. For reasons I don't understand AT ALL, a huge chunk of this trial is given over to the two sides arguing about whether Britain or America is better. Like, I'm sorry, but this has NOTHING to do with the story! During this time, Peter and June are basically sidelined. It's bizarre and a momentum killer. I kept thinking there would be a point to all this runtime being given to Britain vs America, and there wasn't. It might be forgivable if the humor in this section were stronger, but it isn't.

The film also shows its age in some sad ways when it comes to its portrayal of heaven. Heaven, my friends, is racially segregated, despite a declaration at the beginning that all people once they enter are equal. Everyone in power in heaven is white. Women are allowed to partake in administrative work, but are allowed nowhere near the legal process, either as judge, lawyer, or jury. The stairway to heaven is lined with the best minds that have made it to heaven and I'm sure you can guess what they all have in common! It's definitely a vision of heaven that comes from a very specific point of view.

Overall this is a fun and surprisingly moving film. It was a lot more intense than I expected from what I thought was mainly going to be a slightly goofy comedy. Definitely recommended.

Visitor of a Museum (1989, Konstantin Lopushansky)

Made in the twilight of the USSR in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, this grim post-apocalyptic existential horror definitely reflects the angst of that era, stemming from the uncertainty about things to come and the effects of technological progress and the rise of consumerism on societal changes. Devastating in its complete and utter repudiation of humanity, the film takes no prisoners as it delivers a chilling warning of the dire consequences of nuclear confrontation and reckless pursuit of materialistic pleasures at the expense of the environment. Though not drenched in shocking gore, violence or depravity, it's still a difficult film to go through due to its incredibly oppressive, nightmarish atmosphere. The ending is one of the most soul-crushingly bleak I've ever seen—it really stayed with me for a while after watching.

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

Venom, 2018

Eddie (Tom Hardy) is an investigative reporter who get wrapped up in an otherworldly nightmare when he is infected with an alien parasite, Venom, who was brought to Earth by megalomaniac tech entrepreneur Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed). With the help of his ex-girlfriend, Anne (Michelle Williams) and a scientist at Drake's company, Dora (Jenny Slate), Eddie tries to take down Drake.

I went into this film looking for some dumb fun. Unfortunately, it only really delivered on the first part of that equation.

I like to start reviews with positives and then give my criticisms, but I find that I have very little to say that's actually about the film itself. It is stacked with actors I love or really like. I will follow Jenny Slate ANYWHERE, I would watch her regrout a bathroom for 90 minutes. I think Michelle Williams is one of the most talented actresses of her generation. I really like Riz Ahmed. Tom Hardy is into helping rescue animals. For me this cast is a slam dunk.

And yet I feel like down to the last one they were all wasted with thin writing and even thinner characterization. If pressed to describe the characters themselves, I guess I would say that Slate's doctor is the best developed, because she is at least grounded in an understandable conflict and we understand the different stakes for her. She wants to do world-changing science, she has already somewhat compromised her personal and professional ethics, she has children who are threatened by Drake if she doesn't comply, etc.

Williams easily gets the worst of things as Anne. She's just sort of this weird trophy object, getting mad at Eddie or going out of her way to help him depending on which way the wind is blowing. A sequence where Venom takes over her body (and of course gives her this weird porn-y catsuit form because why not?!) leading to little entendres about Venom "being inside her" just felt gross. The one note I enjoyed from her character was when she and her new boyfriend, Dan (Reid Scott) agree to help Eddie. Usually the "jerky new boyfriend" trope is a strong one, and I appreciate its subversion here.

I also cannot overstate just how stupid a lot of this movie is. And I don't mean the crash-bang car chases or fight scenes. I mean basic logic problems. In one scene, Venom says he knows everything about Eddie because he's in Eddie's head. Two scenes later the phone rings and Venom asks "Who's Anne?". You're in this guy's head and know his deepest darkest secrets but not the part about the woman he's in love with? Let's not even talk about Dora sneaking Eddie into her workplace. And by "sneaking" I mean openly leading him around in full sight of the cameras without even trying to costume or disguise who he is.

The fight scenes themselves wring a few fun moments out of Eddie's amazement at what his body is now able to do, but they all devolve into the kind of chaotic CGI slugfests that have come to characterize comic book action. I'll admit that I didn't even fully watch the final fight scene. I half-listened to it while watching a YouTube video about cleaning my refrigerator's metal coils. This kind of action--so often totally lacking in any consequences--completely fails to engage me at this point.

Weak stuff, barely buoyed for me by a cast I like.

I have avoided this film, because it looked to me like it would be... well, pretty much exactly what you describe.
I shall continue to avoid it.