- Awards
- 7
that would be (1968) a great Film and has one of the best all time endings of all time
-
There's plenty of time to choose your spooky October username
Click here for more details
What was the last film you watched?
- Thread starter Mel O'Drama
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
- Awards
- 44
The Rewrite (2014)
This came up as a suggestion after I watched Gambit. Never having heard of this, all I knew was that Hugh Grant starred and (from glimpsing the unavoidable blurb) it was about a disillusioned screenwriter who moved from Hollywood to the East Coast.
It's a perfectly competent with some nice performances (I believe this is the first time I've seen J.K. Simmons playing someone other than J. Jonah Jameson). Marisa Tomei is fine, and the young actors playing the students are engaging enough (I especially liked Steven Kaplan, whose character emerged from a one-note hypochondriac character to one I found myself rooting for as his talent was discovered).
But it's also underwhelming in most regards, particularly for someone who doesn't have much of an appetite for romcoms. The casting carries the film, but the writing isn't the best.
With the main character teaching a screenwriting class, there are plenty of film references. Unfortunately, most are rather clunky (the Star Wars obsessed character became particularly irritating with each reference. Once or twice would have been plenty). Still, it does yield some nice moments, such as Grant's character, Keith Michaels, trying to get round the Jane Austen loving feminist teacher by presenting her with a set of DVDs of films based on Austen's work... including Clueless.
Grant's character is nicely flawed. Keith slept with a student; selected his class based on how pretty they were (with the exception of two token male geeks); and spoke openly to the feminist teacher about how weary he was with the vogue for kick-arse heroines (tellingly, the entire faculty came to a shocked silence when he asked why women kicking men's arses couldn't be reversed for a refreshing change).
Considering the genre of film, it very much felt we were being set up for a feminist film via the mean, old-fashioned misogynist learning a valuable lesson and winning the approval of the other characters and the audience. There is that arc to be found, but I was pleased to find it wasn't as sledgehammer as expected.
Considering the film was released shortly before the resurgence of the MeToo movement, I found myself questioning if the film could even be made today. Could the character even be allowed to express his unfashionable views in order to have them challenged, or would he have to be somewhat on the same page to begin with in order not to be cancelled?
I thought it interesting that this character is played by Hugh Grant who has had his own moments of controversy when it comes to objectifying women. There's even a rather meta moment where Keith Michaels watches old footage of himself winning an award for screenwriting, and it appears to be real footage of a much younger Hugh Grant winning an award. Something about it felt rather exposing and brave on his part.
This came up as a suggestion after I watched Gambit. Never having heard of this, all I knew was that Hugh Grant starred and (from glimpsing the unavoidable blurb) it was about a disillusioned screenwriter who moved from Hollywood to the East Coast.
It's a perfectly competent with some nice performances (I believe this is the first time I've seen J.K. Simmons playing someone other than J. Jonah Jameson). Marisa Tomei is fine, and the young actors playing the students are engaging enough (I especially liked Steven Kaplan, whose character emerged from a one-note hypochondriac character to one I found myself rooting for as his talent was discovered).
But it's also underwhelming in most regards, particularly for someone who doesn't have much of an appetite for romcoms. The casting carries the film, but the writing isn't the best.
With the main character teaching a screenwriting class, there are plenty of film references. Unfortunately, most are rather clunky (the Star Wars obsessed character became particularly irritating with each reference. Once or twice would have been plenty). Still, it does yield some nice moments, such as Grant's character, Keith Michaels, trying to get round the Jane Austen loving feminist teacher by presenting her with a set of DVDs of films based on Austen's work... including Clueless.
Grant's character is nicely flawed. Keith slept with a student; selected his class based on how pretty they were (with the exception of two token male geeks); and spoke openly to the feminist teacher about how weary he was with the vogue for kick-arse heroines (tellingly, the entire faculty came to a shocked silence when he asked why women kicking men's arses couldn't be reversed for a refreshing change).
Considering the genre of film, it very much felt we were being set up for a feminist film via the mean, old-fashioned misogynist learning a valuable lesson and winning the approval of the other characters and the audience. There is that arc to be found, but I was pleased to find it wasn't as sledgehammer as expected.
Considering the film was released shortly before the resurgence of the MeToo movement, I found myself questioning if the film could even be made today. Could the character even be allowed to express his unfashionable views in order to have them challenged, or would he have to be somewhat on the same page to begin with in order not to be cancelled?
I thought it interesting that this character is played by Hugh Grant who has had his own moments of controversy when it comes to objectifying women. There's even a rather meta moment where Keith Michaels watches old footage of himself winning an award for screenwriting, and it appears to be real footage of a much younger Hugh Grant winning an award. Something about it felt rather exposing and brave on his part.
- Awards
- 27
Hmm....intriguing!
- Awards
- 20
You're right. Holiday Inn introduced the song White Chistmas which was then used as the title for the later film.
- Awards
- 7
i enjoy the hunger games films and i'm 45 they are fun films i think i did start the 1st book but i have yet to finish it though
- Awards
- 27
I'm not entirely sure what I've watched, but I suspect it messages the problem of a dictatorial institution that operates under a veneer of imaginary freedom - in other words: the democratic society itself.
The thing is, there is no such thing as total freedom, and Jack Nicholson's character of the cocky "moviestar" patient simply isn't identifiable enough to make it work from a human interest point of view.
Then there's Nurse Ratched, one of the most iconic movie villains. What I see is a woman who's doing a job that not many people would want to do.
She also looks sexier than I expected her to be, but that's beside the point.
Any feelings of personal revenge she may have had were obviously triggered by McMurphy's heavy-handed shenanigans. He's the one who made it personal.
If some of the methods were disproportionately cruel then I think it says more about the mental health care of that time than Nurse Ratched specifically, and in that regard the film - in what (I suspect) it tries to convey - hasn't aged very well.
I could as well mention the many objects inside the ward that could create very dangerous situations for the patients.
The film looks well-made (no surprise since it's from 1975) but there were moments in which I came dangerously close to zoning out.
I'd love to know more about the situation between Billy Bibbit and his off-screen mother. I got the feeling that she was the real villain in this story.
I honestly believe that this film looked great at the time of release and that Jack Nicholson was still considered "fresh" enough to enjoy what would become sort of a trademark performance, but from a 2023 standpoint I found OFOTCN an underwhelming experience.
I didn't recognize the dark-haired Danny DeVito until I accidentally caused the mouse to mouse over the screen, which then revealed the cast in the current scene.
- Awards
- 27
THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE (1974)
A fast-paced and effective crime thriller with a little bit of "disaster movie" in it.
We only get to know the characters for what they do so there's not a worn out, cynical cop who's going through a difficult divorce or subplots like that.
It's all about the moment and the unexpected and the race against the clock (I'm not sure if that last part is proper English but you know what I mean).
A fast-paced and effective crime thriller with a little bit of "disaster movie" in it.
We only get to know the characters for what they do so there's not a worn out, cynical cop who's going through a difficult divorce or subplots like that.
It's all about the moment and the unexpected and the race against the clock (I'm not sure if that last part is proper English but you know what I mean).
- Awards
- 7
i love that film what's really funny is i forget where i heard this and this was online where they said that in their eyes Jack was the Villain and than you had Nurse Ratchet as the hero. i think it's damn good film but i've always hated the ending but that's me. i knew that was Danny Devito even if he did have hair back than. he was and still is damn good friends with Michael Douglass it's producer. i guess the film just isn't for everyone and that's fine i've seen it a bunch of times but i haven't watched it in years.
- Awards
- 27
There is a lot of good stuff in it and I wouldn't hate to rewatch it some time in the future, but it wasn't as great as I hoped it would be.
I honestly can't say if it was good or bad. There was too much information missing to make that decision.
And what was the deal with the chauffeured limousine (well, sort of). Not the kind of transport I'd expect from a working farm.
I kinda imagined that McMurphy was from a wealthy family and that his devious "JR Ewing" type of brother shipped him off to the loony bin.
Whatever.
- Awards
- 7
THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE (1974)
well this is another great film and the remake is Actually pretty damn good i think too i dunno how well that was Received or not but i enjoyed the hell of it
well this is another great film and the remake is Actually pretty damn good i think too i dunno how well that was Received or not but i enjoyed the hell of it
- Awards
- 27
LITTLE ACCIDENTS (2014)
A small-town drama with two characters going through parallel storylines. Even though the accidents are really not that "little", the story plays out in a rather restraint fashion which in itself is not a bad thing, but somehow it never reaches the depth it was going for. This is not another THE ICE STORM.
I think I would have liked it better if it had been a French film since those film makers have a knack for understated atmosphere - or perhaps it just works better for those French villages.
Some reviewers find it too soapy, but I (the soap opera fan) think it's not soapy enough because there was so much more to explore.
Maybe that also describes how LITTLE ACCIDENTS kinda falls between two stools.
Regardless, I enjoyed it and there wasn't anything in it that I disliked, but it's not a terribly rewarding experience.
A small-town drama with two characters going through parallel storylines. Even though the accidents are really not that "little", the story plays out in a rather restraint fashion which in itself is not a bad thing, but somehow it never reaches the depth it was going for. This is not another THE ICE STORM.
I think I would have liked it better if it had been a French film since those film makers have a knack for understated atmosphere - or perhaps it just works better for those French villages.
Some reviewers find it too soapy, but I (the soap opera fan) think it's not soapy enough because there was so much more to explore.
Maybe that also describes how LITTLE ACCIDENTS kinda falls between two stools.
Regardless, I enjoyed it and there wasn't anything in it that I disliked, but it's not a terribly rewarding experience.
- Awards
- 27
PHANTOM THREAD (2017)
It looks as delicate as its subject, but with a strong, gothic-tragic undertone.
The dialogue alone makes this film a must-watch, but it's also beautifully shot and very well acted.
It looks as delicate as its subject, but with a strong, gothic-tragic undertone.
The dialogue alone makes this film a must-watch, but it's also beautifully shot and very well acted.
- Awards
- 27
INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE (1994)
Didn't remember anything about it so I thought it would be fun to rewatch it. Well.
The first 15 minutes or so are actually pretty good - thanks to Tom Cruise who made an interesting transformation. Lestat kinda looks like Jennifer Saunders, I think.
But then the story becomes one big long complaint mixed with misplaced elements of parody, and it certainly wasn't Brad Pitt's inexpressive face and voice (and cringy 1990s Chippendales hairdo) that would make this film slightly more watchable.
I guess I should be grateful that I've never tried to read the novel. This is dreck.
Didn't remember anything about it so I thought it would be fun to rewatch it. Well.
The first 15 minutes or so are actually pretty good - thanks to Tom Cruise who made an interesting transformation. Lestat kinda looks like Jennifer Saunders, I think.
But then the story becomes one big long complaint mixed with misplaced elements of parody, and it certainly wasn't Brad Pitt's inexpressive face and voice (and cringy 1990s Chippendales hairdo) that would make this film slightly more watchable.
I guess I should be grateful that I've never tried to read the novel. This is dreck.
- Awards
- 5
The Major and the Minor. Ginger didn't always need blonde hair and Fred to help her shine.
- Awards
- 27
MISSISSIPPI BURNING (1988)
As one would expect from a real life human vs. human story this film is often frustrating to watch, and mostly brings about feelings of revenge. When that revenge finally happens it's not as satisfying as it should be, and at the same time I don't want it to be.
It's perfectly OK in a completely dreamed up scenario like, say, a soap opera, but generally speaking I don't enjoy feeling that way about other people.
However, I find this film incredibly interesting when the story is placed in the bigger picture of American history, rather than an isolated case in "The South".
The cultural shifts in the 1960s, the oh-so-typical American conspiracy theories and the elusive power of the FBI and how it operates adds to the film's grandeur.
The physical action in Mississippi Burning - no matter how difficult to watch - is extremely well done.
Willem Dafoe is almost cast against type and even though it's just Willem Dafoe with specs I often had to remind myself that it was Willem Dafoe.
I'm not a big fan of Gene Hackman and perhaps that's why this film sat in my watchlist for such a long time, but here he doesn't disappoint (or at least doesn't do any damage).
Frances McDormand is reliable as usual but the one who ended up on my radar is actor Brad Dourif whose performance I enjoyed previously in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST, and now I feel I need to see more of him (a glance at IMDB informs me that he was Piter De Vries in David Lynch's infamous DUNE).
Like I said it's very disturbing but there are many great things about this film that make it enjoyable and fascinating to watch.
As one would expect from a real life human vs. human story this film is often frustrating to watch, and mostly brings about feelings of revenge. When that revenge finally happens it's not as satisfying as it should be, and at the same time I don't want it to be.
It's perfectly OK in a completely dreamed up scenario like, say, a soap opera, but generally speaking I don't enjoy feeling that way about other people.
However, I find this film incredibly interesting when the story is placed in the bigger picture of American history, rather than an isolated case in "The South".
The cultural shifts in the 1960s, the oh-so-typical American conspiracy theories and the elusive power of the FBI and how it operates adds to the film's grandeur.
The physical action in Mississippi Burning - no matter how difficult to watch - is extremely well done.
Willem Dafoe is almost cast against type and even though it's just Willem Dafoe with specs I often had to remind myself that it was Willem Dafoe.
I'm not a big fan of Gene Hackman and perhaps that's why this film sat in my watchlist for such a long time, but here he doesn't disappoint (or at least doesn't do any damage).
Frances McDormand is reliable as usual but the one who ended up on my radar is actor Brad Dourif whose performance I enjoyed previously in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST, and now I feel I need to see more of him (a glance at IMDB informs me that he was Piter De Vries in David Lynch's infamous DUNE).
Like I said it's very disturbing but there are many great things about this film that make it enjoyable and fascinating to watch.
- Awards
- 27
QUEEN BEE (1955)
A young woman named Jennifer (Lucy Marlow) visits her cousin Eva (Joan Crawford) although I think Eva was meant to be her aunt.
Eva terrorizes her family - husband Avery, sister-in-law Carol and Carol's love interest Jud - but there's no legitimacy behind it since Eva herself is the outsider who married into the wealthy Phillips family. It's not explained where her authority comes from and the fact that everybody reacts so inexplicably passive to her shenanigans makes them even more unlikeable than Eva herself.
I assume they were going for the angle that Eva is simply irresistibly attractive, especially in the romance department, but only on the basis of "because we say so".
This viewer needs a more convincing argument.
Carol's decision to kill herself because of something relatively trivial (an affair that happened a long time ago and really shouldn't affect the here and now) is downright laughable and completely devoid of tragedy.
Not that anyone cared, blink and you'll miss it.
The timelines are shoddily done. What appears to be "the next morning" is two weeks later which makes it even more plodding and idiotic.
Then the narrative starts to change. Weak and alcoholic husband Avery takes control by seducing his wife and then it turns out that that's what she wanted all along.
Reading between the lines - and I can't believe I bothered to make the effort - it was his marital neglect based on guilt for standing up his former fiancée that made her lash out the way she did.
Which still doesn't explain why everyone would put up with it. It's not like she could play the inheritance card or something like that.
Besides, Eva even considered herself to be the villain and enjoyed every minute of it, which kinda removes any dimension this character could have had.
"Aren't I wicked?" she says.
It kinda works as a set up for a Murder She Wrote episode but as a feature film this is just a waste of celluloid.
A lazy star-vehicle with uninspired dialogue and mostly soulless performances (except for Fay Wray as Avery's former fiancée Sue), I can't even call it a guilty pleasure.
A young woman named Jennifer (Lucy Marlow) visits her cousin Eva (Joan Crawford) although I think Eva was meant to be her aunt.
Eva terrorizes her family - husband Avery, sister-in-law Carol and Carol's love interest Jud - but there's no legitimacy behind it since Eva herself is the outsider who married into the wealthy Phillips family. It's not explained where her authority comes from and the fact that everybody reacts so inexplicably passive to her shenanigans makes them even more unlikeable than Eva herself.
I assume they were going for the angle that Eva is simply irresistibly attractive, especially in the romance department, but only on the basis of "because we say so".
This viewer needs a more convincing argument.
Carol's decision to kill herself because of something relatively trivial (an affair that happened a long time ago and really shouldn't affect the here and now) is downright laughable and completely devoid of tragedy.
Not that anyone cared, blink and you'll miss it.
The timelines are shoddily done. What appears to be "the next morning" is two weeks later which makes it even more plodding and idiotic.
Then the narrative starts to change. Weak and alcoholic husband Avery takes control by seducing his wife and then it turns out that that's what she wanted all along.
Reading between the lines - and I can't believe I bothered to make the effort - it was his marital neglect based on guilt for standing up his former fiancée that made her lash out the way she did.
Which still doesn't explain why everyone would put up with it. It's not like she could play the inheritance card or something like that.
Besides, Eva even considered herself to be the villain and enjoyed every minute of it, which kinda removes any dimension this character could have had.
"Aren't I wicked?" she says.
It kinda works as a set up for a Murder She Wrote episode but as a feature film this is just a waste of celluloid.
A lazy star-vehicle with uninspired dialogue and mostly soulless performances (except for Fay Wray as Avery's former fiancée Sue), I can't even call it a guilty pleasure.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 20
The Mule (2018)
When I sat down to watch this I was expecting to see a Western about an actual mule.
Instead, it's about a grumpy old man, estranged from his family, who becomes a drugrunner to solve his impending financial woes.
As star & director, Clint Eastwood balances the action and emotion well, and even throws in some humour here and there.
When I sat down to watch this I was expecting to see a Western about an actual mule.
Instead, it's about a grumpy old man, estranged from his family, who becomes a drugrunner to solve his impending financial woes.
As star & director, Clint Eastwood balances the action and emotion well, and even throws in some humour here and there.