What was the last film you watched?

[darkshadows38]

Stir of Echos (1999) is Brilliant but stay away from that really awful sequel that one is really really bad anyways i watched Ziegfeld Girl (1941) and while it had really good acting in it some good music it was honestly overlong and wasn't that great of a movie to be honest i really doubt i'll ever watch it again it was Jimmy Stewart's last film he made before he went off to War in (1941) he made this and Pot O' Gold (1941) at the same time he was the star of that one but in this one he got top billing for some reason? and was in only 26 minutes of it! he was really an unlikable guy in the film in the start and he end he seemed to have mellowed out but he was a prick in the vast majority of the films. honestly he was a character that really didn't even need to even be there.

 

[Seaviewer]

Btw, was CHARIOT really inspired by actual events? I had never heard of a plane that went missing for 10 years.

I was thinking the reverse. Was the Manifest TV series inspired by this movie?

 

[Seaviewer]

The Hunger Games (2012)
My first visit to this world.
"The Hunger Games" is essentially a TV reality show like Survivor or I'm a Celebrity taken to its logical extreme with the contestants literally having to kill each other to win the competition.
It's all fairly predictable but Katniss is an engaging heroine and there are just enough threads left dangling to make me want to see what happens next.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

A Quiet Place (2018)

Based on the imagery and name, I was getting this film muddled with a couple of others. From the name I was quite convinced this was a remake of an older film, but it turns out I was thinking of A Summer Place... a film I've never seen. And from a "blonde woman with hand over mouth" poster I saw I got this confused with Don't Breathe... another film I've never seen.

Something at the back of my mind told me this film was nerve-janglingly terrifying, and I hoped I could cope with that. I needn't have worried because it turns out I was wrong about that as well. I wouldn't even describe it as a horror, though I'm sure many would.

To me this is an absorbing thriller, but I simply wasn't prepared for how beautiful it was. It looks absolutely stunning (and I chose the perfect time to watch since it's sumptuously autumnal), and has characters that the audience feels rather than watches. The storytelling is incredible, as is the sound design, which is a key part of the film. For much of the film, the lack of dialogue gives it a universal appeal and also makes it feel less tied to a particular place. In fact I found it a little surprising to hear the rhotic American accents because it's not how I'd "heard" the characters up to that point.

The cast is small but perfectly formed. Everyone is seriously good, but particularly Millicent Simmonds who is wonderful and has the most expressive face it's impossible not to feel a connection. Knowing nothing about it meant I could enjoy it on its own merits. I must confess that upon reading about the film this morning the perverse part of me leapt to the fore upon reading that the lead actor also directed, had a hand in the screenplay, and casting (there's a good degree of self-promotion and nepotism involved - including his own wife being handed the lead role after telling him "I need to do this". Good as they are in the film, I'm glad I didn't know this last night because I'd have enjoyed it less).

There is a Part II, and I'm not sure how to feel about this. Even though the the first film does allow for a potential sequel, it's such a great standalone story that I like the idea of it existing alone and fear that further instalments might dilute it somehow. All the same, I'll probably end up watching it at some point.
​

They're quite inconsistent regarding "year of release" versus "year of added to prime catalogue".
And sometimes they even get their thumbnails wrong i.e. image of the original when it's the remake, or vice versa.

And, as I found out last night, they also mess up the running times. The main reason I chose A Quiet Place last night was because Prime listed it as being just 75 minutes long which fitted perfectly into my evening's plans. Turns out it was 20 minutes longer than they'd promised.

 

[Willie Oleson]

HOWL (2015)



A squeaky-clean but somewhat hopeless and joyless young man (a "Hugh Grant" for the depressing 2020s) is forced to work a double shift as conductor on a train.
All the passengers are equally joyless and some of them downright rude, and I just love these stories about people not really wanting to be where they are, let alone together with other people.
The first 20 or 30 minutes before anything significant happens are quite suspenseful, but I was also feeling a bit anxious and agitated myself so perhaps that exaggerated the feeling of doom in the film.
The train rudely-unexpectedly stops and everybody complains about the inconvenience.
One guy says to the conductor that it made him drop his book just when the story "was getting very exciting" and now he doesn't remember the page he was reading.
I thought it was the loveliest complaint I've ever heard.

The first moments of horror are good but as with DARK WAS THE NIGHT, once the horror shows itself it kills a lot of the suspense.

There are of course the moments of howling and the group of people screaming and running for their lives - which looks unintentionally funny - and at some point it becomes so over-the-top that I stopped caring altogether, but it was still stupid fun to watch.
The phones don't work (that's a rule, of course) and the outside world doesn't seem to care about the train that has vanished into thin air.

It's a mix of good and rubbish but it's never boring. I hope that helps.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Last year I watched a film about two young brothers and a mother whose face was completely covered with bandages after (asesthetic) plastic surgery.
The story had a feeling of dread and helplessness that really worked - for a while anyway because I don't remember how it ended.

The opening scene in You Are Not My Mother is quite disturbing and I feel that the film struggles to live up to it. There are no surprises to speak of and since the protagonist constantly signals that she is in a nightmarish situation - and yet does nothing to escape it - the dramatic aspect of the story is practically non-existent.
There is one little scene about another girl and her mother that was both surprising and touching.

The father of that other girl made a comment that seemed significant to me, or actually the fact that he made that comment, but overall there's no sense of community and this isolates the story of the main characters even further.
It's almost as if someone is watching a film in a film.
There are some things in it that reminded me of THE GUARDIAN (1990) starring Jenny "A Woman Of Substance" Seagrove.

I wouldn't say that You Are Not My Mother is a bad film, it's just not intriguing or satisfying enough.
Perhaps it was meant to be watched as an exaggerated version of dealing with depression, or perhaps the hidden message was that the girl was Not My Daughter.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

 

[Willie Oleson]

DUMB AND DUMBER meets OFFICE SPACE.

The story isn't funny (let alone original) the characters aren't funny (and often frustratingly stupid) but it's got lots of funny details that made me laugh out loud.
Like this National Lampoon-esque "leaving the parking lot" scene.

Or the Bond villain-esque "button to shut the door electronically" in Jennifer Aniston's office.

But because there's so much going on, dialogue and action-wise, I felt a numbness kicking in after the first half hour - and I checked out 30 minutes later.
Of the main characters I only know Jason Bateman and he can play this kind of role in his sleep. Kevin Spacey is the other actor who looks a bit typecast as the super-villainous boss.

It's OK but also very much a comedy for the heck of it. There's a thread about films that "you want to fix" and I think this film could have been better - without changing anything - by keeping some stuff in the background and putting other stuff in the spotlight.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The story isn't funny (let alone original) the characters aren't funny (and often frustratingly stupid) but it's got lots of funny details that made me laugh out loud.

I watched this and the sequel a few months ago, and this probably sums up how I felt. It possibly surpassed expectations, but I was pretty much expecting something lowbrow and one-dimensional.

Usually I'd go back and look, but I'm currently restricted to a touchscreen device and such a search would probably be hell* on the blood pressure.


(Oh - I just discovered that "hell" isn't a recognised word in the predictive typing feature on the Kindle thingy I've borrowed. I've just had a fun few minutes typing in several other words I thought might be banned. As expected, I got only censored suggestions like Danny, badger, sit, chuck, wink, arsenal, treat, chock and count... but no sign of the words I'd attempted to write. I've entered the Land Of The Twee).

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Last night I attempted to watch...

Most Horrible Things (2022)

I abandoned it after around 7 minutes. So far as I can tell there's no plot. Just annoying young people coming to a strange house for no reason and a drag queen performing badly then running to the nearest mirror to watch themselves having a nervous breakdown. It's not even as entertainingly bonkers as it sounds. It's just awkward and painful to watch.



Instead I watched...

The Wicker Man (2006)

I'd heard good things about The Wicker Man, but unwittingly stumbled into watching the American remake without realising it was a remake.

Fortunately I didn't find it as terrible as reviews would seem to indicate. Nicholas Cage's latter scenes are served up with thickly-sliced ham, but he's perfectly adequate for most of it. Leelee Sobieski is present and I always find her extremely watchable (not that I've seen her in many films).

The theme of

Spoiler: Spoiler-ish re. plot development

women attaining "strength" by keeping men and boys in their rightful place (mostly killing them at birth, with a few submissive specimens kept for breeding purposes, or lured in from outside by young women who pretend to need them)

was... interesting.

 

[Willie Oleson]

a touchscreen device

What a very unpleasant situation.

or lured in from outside by young women who pretend to need them) was... interesting.

Yes, I thought the bee theme was nicely done. The big difference is that the original depends a lot on the personality of the main character whereas Nicholas Cage gave me nothing to care for. It really puts the "Mac" in MacWicker Man but overall the film is nasty enough to enjoy it. And to be honest, I did watch it twice.

Now that I'm hooked on one of those trashy reality shows "starring" tiktokkers and influencers from hell, I figured that THE INFLUENCER would be an interesting or at least perfectly bad choice.

I guess many people would interpret the title as a social media caricature but in reality it only serves as a set-up that allows things to happen, and with a motive that is flimsy at best and non-existent at worst.
The stereotypical moment of "villain having a moment with his/her trophies or whiteboard" explains that it is happening for a reason, but there's not much behind it to fuel the story. Considering the story's canvas you'd think there would be plenty to troll.
The upside of the unknown is that it inadvertently - or very cleverly? - makes the film more mysterious than it should be, and combined with the pleasant cinematography and surprisingly good performances INFLUENCER left a good aftertaste, with a whiff of TALENTED MR. RIPLEY.

 

[Seaviewer]

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2012)
I said I was looking forward to seeing what happened next but unfortunately not much does. This second film falls into the trap of being more like a remake than a continuation and also suffers from being the middle installment of a trilogy. And yes, I know that the finale is split into two so it will be a while before I might see some resolution.

 

[Seaviewer]

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part One (2014)
An improvement over the last one. You can feel the stakes rising. One more to go.

 

[Willie Oleson]

THE DEVIL CONSPIRACY (2022)



Watched it for the totally bollocks premise, and that's exactly what I got.
ROSEMARY'S BABY meets THE DA VINCI CODE featuring a super-hero angel. But also a great villainess who reminded me of Darlene Snell from OZARK.
It is stupid but never dull, and I'd happily watch a sequel.

 

[Willie Oleson]

MAGNOLIA (1999)



The narrated intro informs the viewer what kind of story this is going to be. But was it? I'm not sure.
What I did get, however, was a very anxious three hours build-up to a very bizarre and exciting climax.
To quote Philip Seymour Hoffman "this is that film".
It also made me revise my opinion of Tom Cruise who gives a knockout performance as the unhinged sex guru.

 

[darkshadows38]

i watched a few one i watched was 2 Judy Garland films i hadn't seen (1944)'s Meet Me in St. Louis which was a decent film i don't think it's as good as people say it is but i didn't hate it either it was a decent film. i also watched The Harvey Girls (1946) which i thought was just plain terrible and the music was pretty much forgettable in it as well. though it had some laughs that i did get out of it and that's a plus i don't think it's among the worst i've ever seen either but than i watched The Hoodlum Saint (1946) that one i thought was worse that one was awful. my rating's for the 3 are 1. Meet Me in St. Louis (1944) i'd say 7/10. The Harvey Girls (1946) 5/10 and The Hoodlum Saint also (1946) 4/10.

 

[darkshadows38]

i watched On The Town (1949) it started pretty subpar and it took forever for it to get good but i did end up really liking it i bought it yesterday at good will on dvd i thought what the hell? i also bought on bluray Star Trek- into Darkness (2013) Which is a really awful title for a film but than what the hell do i know?

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Gambit (2012)

​

I'd... unwittingly stumbled into watching the American remake without realising it was a remake.​

This is becoming a habit. Fortunately, having no awareness that this was a remake meant that I could watch it with good degree of neutrality. Seeing the Coen Brothers' names at the beginning made me a little nervous, though I didn't know why, apart from a vague notion from somewhere that they were associated with "zany" stuff and weirdness. Looking at their filmography, I see they were also responsible for that ill-advised remake of The Ladykillers, so perhaps that was a factor.

The opening titles are probably the best part of the film. They're great, and very Pink Panther-esque. And, as you'll see, there's quite a decent cast here:

Colin Firth looks rather like he's in a dry run for Kingsman. He is someone I associate with being very proper and terribly British, so it sounded quite jarring to hear him use the Americanism "snuck" at one point. Since the film had American writers and director, I'm assuming he just read what was written to the letter without questioning it. Fortunately, he spent a good part of the film trouser-less, and he does have very nice legs so all was quickly forgiven.

In theory, I feel like I shouldn't like Cameron Diaz as much as I do. She's remarkably good at these "blonde who appears ditzy but most probably isn't" roles, and very endearing indeed, with good comic timing (a few times last night I found myself reflecting she's kind of a latter day Marilyn Monroe). Bizarrely, she didn't utter a single word in her first few scenes. It was most distracting, and meant I didn't take my eyes off her. I thought I knew the reason for her initial silence (so that her broad Texan accent could be more of a shock to Firth's character) but it turned out this wasn't the only reason and I thought it a nice little reveal.

Alan Rickman, Stanley Tucci and Tom Courtenay are also present and each as reliable as ever.

It's a very watchable film, though I couldn't shake the feeling that it wasn't quite as quirkily clever as the creators would like the audience to think. Most twists can be seen coming from a little way ahead but, to the credit of the engaging cast, they still satisfied.​

 

[Seaviewer]

i watched On The Town (1949) it started pretty subpar and it took forever for it to get good but i did end up really liking it

IMO the best of the three that Sinatra and Kelly did together, but you might try Anchors Aweigh and Take Me Out to the Ballgame as well.

 

[darkshadows38]

they didn't have that or else i would have gotten them i watched Holiday Inn (1942) last night i had never seen it and honestly it was different to have Astaire as the Villain of sorts in the film. honestly it's called a x-mas film but in my opinion it isn't a x-mas movie even though yes it has 2 or 3 x-mas songs in it the film isn't based entirely around X-mas like i thought it was going to be. now White Christmas (1954) which i have not seen yet is prolly more a x-mas movie than Holiday Inn (1942)

9/10 i'd give it

 

[Biggie]

Planet Of The Apes 196?

Man's and that fall out of sky onto a planet in a galaxy far, far way... and the jam rolls only expected to be welcomed as if they were the second coming of Jah. Much like when James Cook et al "discovered" new lands, new worlds, that were inhabited by people who had discovered them 20,000 years earlier, but teetering down the gang plank on cleft hoofs speaking with forked tongues was all they knew, and as for the ignorant savages....they ain't right!

Our man's that fell out of the sky brought that same BS with them. This film was awful beginning, middle and end. Passing a stool the size of Jupiter through a sphincter the diameter of this --->0<--- would have made for better viewing and a lot less painful.

The star of the show.... me for staying with pish.