What was the last film you watched?

[Mel O'Drama]

High Spirits (1988)

The name was familiar, and I'm sure I was aware of the existence of this film back hone it first came out, but I've never watched it.

I did not love it. The first half an hour or so is just painfully dull as the premise is established with a bunch of people we don't know or care about fake haunting another bunch of people we don't know or care about.

Things get a little more interesting when (le gasp) the real hauntings begin and Steve Guttenberg falls for ectoplasmic Darryl Hannah over live-but-frigid shrew of a wife Beverly D'Angelo.

Guttenberg does his Guttenberg thing, which is cute enough at times but not enough to overcome the film's many weaknesses (not least of which is Hannah's attempt at a lilting Irish accent). In the cold light of day it's an unfunny comedy with characters we never really get to know randomly falling for one another. The supernatural element is the film's USP, but frankly I'd much rather watch Blithe Spirit. It might have been made over four decades before this film, but at least it had a good script and story. High Spirits is just too boisterous and busy and feels it's trying to be too many things and succeeding at none.

The cast is an interesting hodgepodge of actors who were no doubt considered "hot properties" at the time (Steve Guttenberg, Darryl Hannah, arguably D'Angelo), early appearances from those who would go on to much better things (Liam Neeson) , a familiar face or two from television (Fawlty Towers' Connie Booth) and a horde of British and Irish character actors (including Liz Smith). Plus Peter O'Toole himself, who appears equal parts bored and confused the entire time.

For me, this is one of those films I'll watch just once.



​

BURNT OFFERINGS (1976)

I think you enjoyed this a little more than I did.

An impressive cast in a rather less impressive film that feels like a test run for various better projects such as The Shining and The Amityville Horror.

Everything about it feels horribly dated. The production values give it a schlocky TV movie feel. Quiet dialogue scenes feel at times like a bit of a chore and endless in a daytime soap kind of way. These are broken up by dramatic sequences that are intense and loud and shrill as only films of this era can be. And it all leads to a "what the hell did I just watch" kind of non-ending.

I can't tell if good editing is improving bad performances or bad editing is spoiling great performances. Oliver Reed and Bette Davis seem really good at times while at others Davis in particular seems to be phoning her performance in. Karen Black is an actress that I frequently find unintentionally funny anyway. The mobile face emotes fear or concern or whatever, while the delivery and body language make her seem disinterested and insincere at all times, almost as though she doesn't understand English and is reciting her dialogue phonetically without giving it any meaning. She's given an awful lot to do in this one, taking top billing over Oliver Reed!

The title makes it sound like a comedy, and I'm still not sure it wasn't.

 

[tommie]

Nosferatu (2024) on Christmas Day (which unfortunately gave me a manflu, but that's another story).

'Tis was okay, very stylish. I'll admit that it starting off tense sort made them miss the build that I usually enjoy. Bill Skarsgård of course is great as the utterly disgusting Count Orlock, but I did like Lily Depp in it too. I think with it being so long (132 minutes) it sort of started revealing some logical gaps in the plot that aren't as noticeable in the original 1922 film.

 

[Willie Oleson]

GOSFORD PARK (2001)

Are you okay?

Am I what?

It's like Merchant Ivory meets Downton Abbey, but without a distinctive storyline. Perhaps you could say that it redefines the period drama genre.
It only took me a few minutes to realise that this was going to be a very good one and I'm happy to say that that feeling never changed.
One of the most extraordinary aspects is its cinematographic fluidity, it doesn't cut between scenes - it glides. This almost creates the illusion of being inside the film as an invisible spectator. Or the killer.

It starts with the hectic activity of guest arriving at the estate and the servants who need to take care of everything. Dozens of character names are dropped within less than 10 minutes which should make it very challenging to watch, but it doesn't.
Even after the film had ended I still didn't know all the characters and their connections - love, family, business or otherwise - but it doesn't matter, it's all about the chemistry and tension, something that you notice or "overhear" without the need for specific details.
This also explains why the murder mystery is merely an inconvenience rather than a mystery. All we know is that the horrible host deserved to be murdered, maybe more than twice.
The parentage mystery doesn't play out as a spectacular reveal, it only highlights the mundanity of that situation at that particular time. And nice to see you again, Clive Owen.

Obviously the servants have to do all the hard work but it's not much better "upstairs" where the guests are trying to make conversation with people they don't like, or trying not to get angry.
Ryan Phillipe plays an actor who pretends to a be servant as a way to do research for his new role, but it's also implied that he's sort of a casting couch whore.
The servants don't take kindly to his trickery and their petty revenge is very entertaining to watch, but again, nothing takes centre stage.
The police officer in charge of the investigation is an incompetent windbag who ignores the evidence discovered by his assistant which, yet again, puts the focus on hierarchy rather than serious detective work.

The DVD picture quality isn't the best I've seen. Initially I was horrified by the excessive grain but thankfully that turned out to be rain.
Oh it's all very watchable but still I consider tracking down a more recent (and hopefully upgraded) release. If it exists at all.

 

[Toni]

My last movie of the year watched in a theater was "Nosferatu", the umpteenth version of the vampire saga. Not that I expected too much, but the movie is a creep fest, with lots of gore and no suspense at all because it doesn´t deviate too much from the Dracula previous versions. Poor Dafoe is completely miscast here in a supporting role that comes across as totally farcical.

I´m not a fan of the most celebrated versions like Coppola´s or even the Lugosi one, but I did enjoy Langella´s at the time. Here the actors seem to be out of their element, and the script desperately needed another revision.
Two good things about it:
- Johnny Depp´s daughter seems to be born to play her role, and it will probably haunt her in the future.
- The camera work is quite fascinating, and the way Photography plays with shadows and sepia tones is mesmerizing.
All in all, I liked better the "making-of" movie "Shadow of the Vampire" starring Dafoe as the actor who played the title role in the first "Nosferatu". Anyway, I do prefer this new one over the director´s previous film "The North Man", just abhorrent.

 

[Toni]

I finally watched, two days ago, the first (I think) non-Dracula remake of "Nosferatu", a 1979 German movie written and directed by Werner Herzog, and starring Nastassia´s daddy Klaus Kinski, Bruno Ganz as Harker, and Isabelle Adjani as Lucy, all three quite good. I watched what I think is the German edition, dubbed into Spanish.

Three weeks after seeing the new "Nosferatu" in the theater, I found out that the latter is mostly a shot-by-shot remake, with a lot of special effects trying to elevate the scaremeter and more sex and "grotesquerie" to satisfy the younger generations, so hooked on this through the streaming services.

Herzog´s version is clearly an homage to the 1922 original in every sense: from the emphasis on shadows and silhouettes, to the replication of a few sinister shots, to the acting style, so close to the silent era... The score is mainly composed by a few original cues, and classic pieces, quite melancholic when not directly somber. I was surprised to hear the famous chorus that Kate Bush re-used for her song "Hello Earth" after watching this movie.

Once the film is over, you realize a second reviewing is necessary because of the amount of creativity present in it. The plot follows the past and future versions, so to say, and doesn´t slow down to focus on artistic shots or old horror tropes. In this movie, atmosphere is everything!

Below you can watch the trailer, but I dare to say... beware the trailer!!

 

[Willie Oleson]

written and directed by Werner Herzog

I always confuse him with the other critically acclaimed German film maker Wim Wenders. Especially because they both made a film I disliked (very much).
But Werner Herzog has a large filmography therefore it wouldn't be fair to dismiss all of it based on one bad experience (very bad).

 

[Toni]

I always confuse him with the other critically acclaimed German film maker Wim Wenders. Especially because they both made a film I disliked (very much).
But Werner Herzog has a large filmography therefore it wouldn't be fair to dismiss all of it based on one bad experience (very bad).

Me too, I had to check it out before writing the post...

 

[Seaviewer]

A Dog's Purpose (2017)
Not too sure what to make of this.
On the face of it, a kids' film about life as seen through the eyes of a dog, but it goes into some fairly heavy territory like family violence, alcoholism, tragic loss, so I don't know who the intended audience is supposed to be.

 

[Willie Oleson]

WALK HARD: THE DEWEY COX STORY (2007)



I had never heard of this one before but suddenly it popped up in my youtube suggestions. I watched the trailer and it was the scene with Patrick Duffy (as himself) that made me decide to check it out.
Compared to the many parodies that came out it the 1980s, 1990s and even the 2000s I'd say that Walk Hard is a slightly more sophisticated version. It's over-the-top (obviously) but at least not as awful as the more cartoonish parodies like The Naked Gun or the Not Another Whatever Movie franchise.
There's the cast, the production, but more importantly the music itself. Despite being intentionally generic versions of the classics, it still sounds kinda good.
I guess a parody works best when it shows a little love for its subject rather than "hating" it.

The film's biggest flaw (imo) is that it sometimes forget to parody the biopic genre, and instead focuses on roasting its subject. It should be about Joaquin Phoenix, not Johnny Cash.
Walk Hard is crammed with funny details but they're often upstaged by the more obvious histrionics.
The first half is the strongest part, especially when Dewey's parents are still alive. After that it starts to go through to the motions in order to reach the finish of the 90+ minutes running time.

Which brings me to the question: does parody (possibly the most extreme version of comedy) ever work in the relentless fashion of a full length feature film?
Overall, I found it amusing rather than laugh-out-loud funny, and when it isn't funny at least it's not irritating.

Some additional random thoughts:
-I like the reference to modern(ish) music using samples from classic hit songs. Dewey's hit "Walk Hard" is used for a booty-ho rap song.
-I'm not a fan of cheesy montage sequences, but when it uses the hit by Vicki Sue Robinson I no longer have a reason to complain.
-funniest scene: Dewey's brother, accidentally cut in half by Dewey, is declared dead (!!) by the doctor, which makes mother Cox burst into tears. Margo Martindale is definitely one of the film's highlights.

I wouldn't recommend it as a film worth checking out, but if you plan on watching a parody movie then Walk Hard, despite its shortcomings, might be one of the better options.

Incidentally, I didn't see the scene with Patrick Duffy. Did it end up as a deleted scene or was the youtube upload incomplete?

 

[Crimson]

SONG OF THE SOUTH (1946)

I practically felt guilty hitting "play" on this one, given its reputation. I would have sworn I saw this movie as a kid, but not a single memory was sparked.

I didn't like the movie at all, but not for any reason I might have suspected. The film's portrayal of race, far from ideal, was also less awful than I expected given that the film is hidden away. Mostly, I just found the movie to be dull treacle. One catchy tune isn't much to build a movie around. This is the fakest of Old Hollywood artifice -- nostalgia for a time that never existed. Everyone in the movie smiled to such excess, I found myself wondering how much their faces must have hurt at the end of filming. Even the animated sequences were more noisy than funny, but then Disney's cartoon shorts of the day were never as good as those made by Warner Brothers or MGM.

 

[Toni]

Here is a movie I´ve watched that I´d like to recommend before talking about its production details: "The Man From Rome". This is its official synopsis:

A computer hacker penetrates Vatican security and sends an urgent anonymous plea to the pope. Handsome Father Quart, of the church's Institute of External Affairs, an arm of the Vatican intelligence, is dispatched to investigate. The message of the hacker concerns a crumbling 17th century Baroque church in the heart of Seville that apparently "kills to defend itself".

Isn´t the poster cool and old-fashioned?​

Starring Richard Armitage (from "The Hobbit" and "Berlin Station" fame), "CSI´S" Paul Guilfoyle, "Falcon Crest´s" Paul Freeman, Fionnula Flanagan, Féodor Atkine, and a bunch of good Spanish actors like Alicia Borrachero, Unax Ugalde, Carlos Cuevas and Jorge Sanz. Oh and then there is also model-turned-actress Amaia Salamanca, who looks very much like Keri Russell. You might know her from streaming shows like "Velvet" and "Grand Hotel". Yes, it´s a co-production between US, Spain, Italy and Colombia, but don´t let that scare you away, because the movie is very entertaining, though sometimes predictable.

I also happen to like this one...​

I must say that I expected the worst, but got a nice surprise. It´s a 2-hour suspenseful action movie that takes a bit from the James Bond saga, the "Da Vinci" adaptations, and even the long series of Liam Neeson films a la "Taken", though it´s not a masterpiece, but good to see how everything revolves around the story instead of the stunt casting, the CG effects or the sex scenes.

Here Armitage is a priest who works as an investigator for the Vatican and is sent to Seville to find the truth about some murders related to a church. He meets all the players in the game: an aristocratic Sevillian family with a matriarch and an unhappily married heiress, her corrupt future ex-husband, ready to make the deal of the century, and the other priests linked to the mystery, including some of them who are hackers!

Seville photographs nicely but it´s wasted though.​

The whole movie is filmed in exteriors from Roma, Madrid and Seville, and the action sequences are well-directed. Of course, it works because Armitage is in his element after playing so many agents (he took the role because he wanted to become a James Bond who also was a priest...). The supporting cast has been meticulously chosen, and all the actors speak English in the original version, even the Spanish ones, who are oddly dubbed in the Spanish version because...they don´t know the technique...! Now for the trailer.

​

The Colombian director said that the movie was not addressed to the Spanish audiences, but the international market, which was one of the worst PR statements that you can do when promoting a movie...in Spain. The script adapts a novel by Spanish author Arturo Pérez-Reverte (whose novel "El Club Dumas" was filmed as "The Ninth Gate" starring Johnny Depp).

Voilà another of Armitage´s hardest scenes...
​

I knew nothing about this movie when I found it while looking for more Armitage vehicles, and I was sad to see that it actually didn´t recover its budget (lost 7 million!). However, since it´s a Prime production I hope it will attract more people. There are clichés and a few unlikely things, but it´s entertaining and tells a story. By the way, its Spanish title is "Skin of Drum", meaning that Catholic Church is like that, that resists all blows. Not an awful depiction of religion at the end, but its vision isn´t perfect at all either.

Richard´s vision MUST be perfect!​

Note for the "Falcon Crest" fans: Paul Freeman has a special role here playing one of the priests. To be honest I didn´t recognize him (he sports white long hair and beard), until one scene when "war treasures" afloat in a conversation... He was in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and, of course, as Riebmann / De Bercy on "Falcon Crest". Funny how I needed this subject to identify him... This movie complete his "Raiders" trilogy and, surprise again, . Have you watched this film, @TJP? In Germany its title includes the subtitle of "Der Vatikan Code"!

Last but not least, the inspired score is signed by Spanish musician Roque Baños, also author of remarkable works in movies like "Sexy Beast", "The Machinist", "Don´t Breathe", "The Oxford Crimes", and "The Kovak Box" (another good example of Spanish co-production, highly watchable).

 

[Willie Oleson]

Now for the trailer.

Modern trailers are absolutely the worst. Whenever I watch a "most anticipated films" compilation on youtube I can never remember what I've watched, or where the trailer of film ends and the new one begins (unless the uploader A.I. voice narrates it).
It's beat-for-beat all the same thing, especially the music. All you need to make it complete is a slow coverversion of an upbeat 1980s classic in a whiny-girlie voice.

 

[TJP]

Note for the "Falcon Crest" fans: Paul Freeman has a special role here playing one of the priests. To be honest I didn´t recognize him (he sports white long hair and beard), until one scene when "war treasures" afloat in a conversation... He was in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and, of course, as Riebmann / De Bercy on "Falcon Crest". Funny how I needed this subject to identify him... This movie complete his "Raiders" trilogy and, surprise again, . Have you watched this film, @TJP? In Germany its title includes the subtitle of "Der Vatikan Code"!

Not, I haven't, but thanks for the info. I'll have to look for it. I love Paul Freeman's acting. It's such a pity his stint on "Falcon Crest" was cut short and he apparently was pretty displeased about it.

 

[Seaviewer]

I would have sworn I saw this movie as a kid, but not a single memory was sparked.

I've seen surprisingly few of the Disney animated classics, myself. I just feel like I've seen them all because of the heavy rotation of the hit songs and selected scene clips.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The Reckoning (2014)

Combining the found-footage genre with the "burnt out alcoholic cop investigates the death of his collegue" trope, this film is everything you'd expect that pairing to be. In short, because it's neither one thing nor the other it doesn't work as well as it should on either level. And the more layers there are, the less it works (there's a heavily-implied soap operatic backstory with an affair between the cop and his female colleague that's further wrecked his home life).

Production-wise it feels very much like a TV movie, and it's fine on that level. The performances are decent and the writing, while not the most innovative, also has its moments with a couple of little twists and turns. It's also Australian, which is a plus in my book.

All in all, a perfectly serviceable gritty thriller. It doesn't complete me, but neither do I regret watching.​

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Death On The Nile (1978)

​

This gets off to a soap-tastic start: heiress Holly Harwood, whose servants include Tom Carrington and Miss Babs from Acorn Antiques, elopes with best friend Alison McKenzie's fiancee Greg Reardon, much to the disapproval of her crooked lawyer, Carter McKay -- and that's all in the first ten minutes!

Oh yes. It felt like every scene was never more than a few degrees away from a soapy connection.

Angela Lansbury is so horribly over the top, she makes Bette Davis and Maggie Smith seem like masters of minimalism in comparison.

Apart from Angela Lansbury's most eccentric character the quirks are relatively mild and yet it could be truly funny sometimes.

Her performance was so terribly hammy and unrestrained it was almost unpleasant to watch. At a certain point I found myself just seeing the Madame puppet in each of her scenes.

It did have the knock-on effect of making other performances seem more right-sized, despite the fact that Bette Davis seemed to be phoning in her performance while Maggie Smith acted for both of them. And their two tremulous voices talking over one another felt quite satirical.

There was an abundance of quite broad performances - from Jack Warden playing Geppetto to I.S. Johar's comic turn as Choudhury - that mostly seemed to work for this piece.

I supposed it was balanced by other characters fading more into the background, overshadowed by the broader turns. Like Jane Birkin's loved-up maid, or Jon Finch and Olivia Hussey', whom I barely noticed until the film was over halfway through.

Maggie Smith, of course, is a fantastic comedy actress and here she plays sort of a pre-Dorothy Zbornak.

Oh, I can (belatedly) see what you mean. There was certainly a barrage of put-downs.

The starriness of the cast sometimes threatens to overpower the story, but once the mechanics of Agatha Christie's plot kicks in (which takes about an hour), it's a very satisfying ride.

Yes. Watching the opening titles, seeing one big name after another was a little overwhelming and far too much to take in at first. There's one terrific early scene where almost the entire cast is in the ballroom watching Holly Harwood and Greg Reardon dance. The camera pans past Angela Lansbury, Bette Davis and Maggie Smith and David Niven, each striking a frozen pose with a monocle or a glass in hand or whatever , with a look of distaste or amusement on their immobile faces. Because they hadn't really interacted, it felt like a tableau or a wax museum. But by the time we get to the final assembly as the truth is revealed it's quite a different story and feels more natural.

Best of all, I guessed whodunnit!

Oh, well done. I was along the right lines with it being a couple, but I was leaning towards Olivia Hussey and Jon Finch... mainly on the basis that they seemed less visible for much of the film.

This scene is so absurd it made me laugh out loud.

The prettiest, happiest. lonest couple on top of a pyramid (of sorts) and guess who pops up like a ginger jack-in-the-box-from-hell: Mia Farrow!

As I watched last night, I remembered this comment and found myself smiling before she popped up, knowing it was about to happen.

Linnet Ridgeway played by Lois Chiles (and I kind of want DALLAS' Holly Harwood and KNOTS' Anne Matheson to be cousins) is a perfectly dislikable monster, someone who has it all and still doesn't hesitate to take more at the expense of less fortunate people.
Of course later it turns out that her victims are far from innocent.

I thought it a nice touch that her greed and selfishness were exploited and capitalised upon to become her downfall. This, too, would make a nice twist in a soap.

Nevertheless, the dramatic conclusion is very satisfying.

Yes indeed.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Death On The Nile (1978)

​

Oh yes. It felt like every scene was never more than a few degrees away from a soapy connection.









Her performance was terribly hammy and unrestrained it was almost unpleasant to watch. At a certain point I found myself just seeing the Madame puppet in each of her scenes.

It did have the knock-on effect of making other performances seem more right-sized, despite the fact that Bette Davis seemed to be phoning in her performance while Maggie Smith acted for both of them. And their two tremulous voices talking over one another felt quite satirical.

There was an abundance of quite broad performances - from Jack Warden playing Geppetto to I.S. Johar's comic turn as Choudhury - that mostly seemed to work for this piece.

I supposed it was balanced by other characters fading more into the background, overshadowed by the broader turns. Like Jane Birkin's loved-up maid, or Jon Finch and Olivia Hussey', whom I barely noticed until the film was over halfway through.








Oh, I can (belatedly) see what you mean. There was certainly a barrage of put-downs.






Yes. Watching the opening titles, seeing one big name after another was a little overwhelming and far too much to take in at first. There's one terrific early scene where almost the entire cast is in the ballroom watching Holly Harwood and Greg Reardon dance. The camera pans past Angela Lansbury, Bette Davis and Maggie Smith and David Niven, each striking a frozen pose with a monocle or a glass in hand or whatever , with a look of distaste or amusement on their immobile faces. Because they hadn't really interacted, it felt like a tableau or a wax museum. But by the time we get to the final assembly as the truth is revealed it's quite a different story and feels more natural.






Oh, well done. I was along the right lines with it being a couple, but I was leaning towards Olivia Hussey and Jon Finch... mainly on the basis that they seemed less visible for much of the film.








As I watched last night, I remembered this comment and found myself smiling before she popped up, knowing it was about to happen.







I thought it a nice touch that her greed and selfishness were exploited and capitalised upon to become her downfall. This, too, would make a nice twist in a soap.








Yes indeed.

Mia Farrow is playing herself.

She usually is.

 

[Crimson]

Death On The Nile (1978)

Although the cast is a bit more B-tier than ORIENT EXPRESS, I think NILE is my favorite of the 70s/80s Poirot adaptations. The film benefits enormously from its soapy vibe, whereas ORIENT EXPRESS feels kind of MASTERPIECE THEATER stuffy.

I'll go against the tide here and say that I like Lansbury's performance here. If a soused romance novelist isn't an opportunity for florid overacting I don't know what is.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The film benefits enormously from its soapy vibe, whereas ORIENT EXPRESS feels kind of MASTERPIECE THEATER stuffy.

Yes, they're apples and oranges, really. I think the darker, more claustrophobic and wintry setting of Orient Express feels more atmospheric and works really well for this genre. But Nile is sunnier and feels more expansive and grand which somehow makes the story feel more palatable and accessible.

Creating an even greater divide are the two quite different interpretations of Poirot, both of which I enjoy in different ways. Albert Finney is closer to the character on the page, but I'm quite fond of Ustinov's more avuncular and jolly take (unlike Agatha Christie who I believe liked Finney's reading of the character but didn't care for Peter Ustinov).

 

[Crimson]

(unlike Agatha Christie who I believe liked Finney's reading of the character but didn't care for Peter Ustinov).

I too recall reading that Agatha Christie expressed some reservations about Ustinov's performance, yet Christie died in '76 and NILE was filmed in '77 ...

I like both ORIENT EXPRESS and NILE so i don't want to knock one at the expense of the other too much. I think Christie's stories are clever but a bit pallid; they need some ham juice pumped into them to prevent them being too staid. Overall, that's why I slightly prefer NILE. I don't think Poirot as the character -- as in Finney's fussy and quirky performance -- works as well as letting some of the supporting suspects ham it up.

But, I love them both even if I slightly favor NILE.