- Awards
- 27
With Christmas (movies) breathing down my neck I better hurry up and watch the last films-to-be-watched-in-2024 before I return to the TV series.
What was the last film you watched?
- Thread starter Mel O'Drama
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
- Awards
- 27
SINGLE WHITE FEMALE (1992)
Another rewatch, just to see how it holds up.
After the obsessive ex-lover in Fatal Attraction and the obsessive fan in Misery, Single White Female further explores the stalker genre with an obsessive roommate/BFF.
I don't remember if I experienced any surprises when I watched it back in the early 90s, but after having watched countless similar stories in both film and television I anticipated there weren't going to be any shockers this time.
I think the best part in these stories are the moments when things get a little bit uncomfortable before it all spirals out of control, and I think that's why Notes On A Scandal is the best in the genre because it never stops being uncomfortable.
Nevertheless, Jennifer Jason Leigh plays it convincingly deranged and even though I could predict almost every beat I was entertained from start to finish.
It's also more erotic than the other stalker films.
Moodswings featuring Chrissie Hynde's State Of Independence plays over the end credits, and since I didn't remember this cover version I guess there was a surprise after all.
Another rewatch, just to see how it holds up.
After the obsessive ex-lover in Fatal Attraction and the obsessive fan in Misery, Single White Female further explores the stalker genre with an obsessive roommate/BFF.
I don't remember if I experienced any surprises when I watched it back in the early 90s, but after having watched countless similar stories in both film and television I anticipated there weren't going to be any shockers this time.
I think the best part in these stories are the moments when things get a little bit uncomfortable before it all spirals out of control, and I think that's why Notes On A Scandal is the best in the genre because it never stops being uncomfortable.
Nevertheless, Jennifer Jason Leigh plays it convincingly deranged and even though I could predict almost every beat I was entertained from start to finish.
It's also more erotic than the other stalker films.
Moodswings featuring Chrissie Hynde's State Of Independence plays over the end credits, and since I didn't remember this cover version I guess there was a surprise after all.
- Awards
- 20
Ghostbusters (2016)
I don't care what anyone says, I like this.
It's not strictly a remake, although there are obvious parallels; mostly they just take the concept and run with it
I like the vibe of it; the banter, especially between Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy; the spaced-out performance of Kate McKinnon; and the way Leslie Jones's character seamlessly becomes the fourth wheel almost without the others realising.
The cameos by the original cast are well done but not really necessary.
The one thing I could do with less of is Chris Hemsworth who seems to be a combination of the Annie Potts, Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis characters from the first film. I think it might have been better to have had a Rick Moranis type as the dopey receptionist, and let Hemsworth play to his type as a hunky guy Wiig can crush on without any workplace harassment issues.
I can understand how the Ghostbuster aficionados (of which I am not one), after waiting years for Ghostbusters 3, were disappointed to get this instead (and a degree of mysogony cannot be ruled out either), but viewed as a standalone film - or even as an alternate dimension story within the franchise - I find it very entertaining.
I don't care what anyone says, I like this.
It's not strictly a remake, although there are obvious parallels; mostly they just take the concept and run with it
I like the vibe of it; the banter, especially between Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy; the spaced-out performance of Kate McKinnon; and the way Leslie Jones's character seamlessly becomes the fourth wheel almost without the others realising.
The cameos by the original cast are well done but not really necessary.
The one thing I could do with less of is Chris Hemsworth who seems to be a combination of the Annie Potts, Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis characters from the first film. I think it might have been better to have had a Rick Moranis type as the dopey receptionist, and let Hemsworth play to his type as a hunky guy Wiig can crush on without any workplace harassment issues.
I can understand how the Ghostbuster aficionados (of which I am not one), after waiting years for Ghostbusters 3, were disappointed to get this instead (and a degree of mysogony cannot be ruled out either), but viewed as a standalone film - or even as an alternate dimension story within the franchise - I find it very entertaining.
- Awards
- 14
As do I, an excellent movie.
Night At The Museum Battle for the Smithsonian
Third time of watching this, and can honestly say... it was a hoot! Beginning to end the cast delivered to goods.
Historical figures galore, woven into comedy, romance (played out before sun-up) and a hat tip to some pioneering aviators. Amelia Earhart and the Red Tails.
Very enjoyable viewing indeed.
The star of the show... Amy stealing every scene as Amelia.
- Awards
- 44
Song For Marion (2012)
Another random watch of a film I'd never heard of. Sadly, in summarising the plot, Prime did give away something that would have been better to discover organically (especially since, despite its inevitability, the element in question didn't really take off until the film was over halfway through).
In terms of cast members, I immediately saw that Terence Stamp was the lead and that attracted me. Shamefully, I only really know him for two of his roles - Zod and Bernadette - but they're so unrecognisable from each other that it's clear he's a very versatile and talented actor. His role as Arthur here makes it a hat trick.
Arthur is difficult to summarise, but I'd describe him as a combination of Alf Garnett and Colonel Von Trapp: a man who is seen by most - including his own family - as a grumpy old git, whose emotions are hermetically sealed preventing him from getting close to anyone, but whose wife understands him and puts up with his grousing, giving as good as she gets. It's a wonderful performance from Terence, who holds viewer empathy by clearly getting across how trapped he is behind his own walls. In the wrong hands this could have been an unlikeable or even ridiculous character is actually one of tragedy and pain... but played in a way that's not overdone and so palatable and even enjoyable to watch.
The trailer began to play (muted) when I hovered over the title whilst deciding whether or not to watch. Then I saw Ann Reid and it became a no-brainer since I've yet to watch a film in which she appears that I don't enjoy. Her role is fairly small here, but certainly memorable. Most of her scenes are with Veronica from Brush Strokes.
Better yet, once I began watching, Christopher Eccleston's name appeared, quite high up in the billing. This excited me, since I've watched a number of his films this year - mostly those penned by Jimmy McGovern - which have really opened my eyes to his talent. He does great work here, particularly since the story is less from his point of view and his character spends much of his screen time reacting to others. It goes to show that a good performance can make all the difference.
Gemma Aterton was the most underwhelming element for me. It's difficult to pinpoint, but there's something that to me seems a little self-conscious about her performance. Mind you, I had the same feeling the only other time I've seen her, and that was when she was herself on The Graham Norton Show (she was alongside Matthew Perry and Miriam Margolyes when the latter told the story about creaming in her knickers when she met Laurence Olivier). I couldn't say it's a bad performance, but there's nothing about it that makes me think she was the only person who could (or should) have played this role.
Vanessa Redgrave was a big surprise for me. I either missed her name in the opening or quickly forgot it as I started seeing other names I recognised. I couldn't place the actress playing the title character and it wasn't until the credits rolled that I realised I'd been watching Vanessa. It's different from the kind of role I usually think of when seeing her name, but then that's why she's an actress.
Of course there's the inevitable redemption arc, but it's beautifully played and written with such humanity it never feels quite as manipulative as it probably is. I'm quite perverse about films toying with my emotions. I know that's one of their basic functions, but I always become irritated if I sense it happening (and yes - I realise this is probably one of a number of reasons why I felt empathy for Arthur) . Old people singing falls into this category, but I found myself defenceless. This film not only got me in the tear ducts, it got me multiple times. Damn it.
Another random watch of a film I'd never heard of. Sadly, in summarising the plot, Prime did give away something that would have been better to discover organically (especially since, despite its inevitability, the element in question didn't really take off until the film was over halfway through).
In terms of cast members, I immediately saw that Terence Stamp was the lead and that attracted me. Shamefully, I only really know him for two of his roles - Zod and Bernadette - but they're so unrecognisable from each other that it's clear he's a very versatile and talented actor. His role as Arthur here makes it a hat trick.
Arthur is difficult to summarise, but I'd describe him as a combination of Alf Garnett and Colonel Von Trapp: a man who is seen by most - including his own family - as a grumpy old git, whose emotions are hermetically sealed preventing him from getting close to anyone, but whose wife understands him and puts up with his grousing, giving as good as she gets. It's a wonderful performance from Terence, who holds viewer empathy by clearly getting across how trapped he is behind his own walls. In the wrong hands this could have been an unlikeable or even ridiculous character is actually one of tragedy and pain... but played in a way that's not overdone and so palatable and even enjoyable to watch.
The trailer began to play (muted) when I hovered over the title whilst deciding whether or not to watch. Then I saw Ann Reid and it became a no-brainer since I've yet to watch a film in which she appears that I don't enjoy. Her role is fairly small here, but certainly memorable. Most of her scenes are with Veronica from Brush Strokes.
Better yet, once I began watching, Christopher Eccleston's name appeared, quite high up in the billing. This excited me, since I've watched a number of his films this year - mostly those penned by Jimmy McGovern - which have really opened my eyes to his talent. He does great work here, particularly since the story is less from his point of view and his character spends much of his screen time reacting to others. It goes to show that a good performance can make all the difference.
Gemma Aterton was the most underwhelming element for me. It's difficult to pinpoint, but there's something that to me seems a little self-conscious about her performance. Mind you, I had the same feeling the only other time I've seen her, and that was when she was herself on The Graham Norton Show (she was alongside Matthew Perry and Miriam Margolyes when the latter told the story about creaming in her knickers when she met Laurence Olivier). I couldn't say it's a bad performance, but there's nothing about it that makes me think she was the only person who could (or should) have played this role.
Vanessa Redgrave was a big surprise for me. I either missed her name in the opening or quickly forgot it as I started seeing other names I recognised. I couldn't place the actress playing the title character and it wasn't until the credits rolled that I realised I'd been watching Vanessa. It's different from the kind of role I usually think of when seeing her name, but then that's why she's an actress.
Of course there's the inevitable redemption arc, but it's beautifully played and written with such humanity it never feels quite as manipulative as it probably is. I'm quite perverse about films toying with my emotions. I know that's one of their basic functions, but I always become irritated if I sense it happening (and yes - I realise this is probably one of a number of reasons why I felt empathy for Arthur) . Old people singing falls into this category, but I found myself defenceless. This film not only got me in the tear ducts, it got me multiple times. Damn it.
- Awards
- 27
FLUX GOURMET (2022)
It's an arty-farty black comedy that (to me) looks like the memoirs of one man's bowels: taboo, indulgence, conflicts and catharsis.
The film also tackles various mundane subjects wrapped in sophisticatedly deranged dialogue and constantly pleases the viewer with all kinds of abstract and grotesque imagery.
With all this weird stuff going on it's amazing to see how likeable the characters are, and I think it helps to make the film as accessible as possible.
The characters are a sonic catering collective (and I still have no idea what that means), their patroness Jan Stevens and a Greek guy who documents the project.
Flux Gourment also gives us the word "dossierge" and it really made my day.
Every time the patroness shows up, one of the artists says her name "Jan Stevens", probably as a nod to unnecessarily addressing in film and TV.
And if the film didn't need Asa Butterfield then it would still need an actor with the name Asa Butterfield. It simply belongs here.
The dossierge doesn't think of himself as a serious writer and mentions that even medication instructions need to be written by someone.
This made me think that I want to see a film about someone who writes enclosures for a sleeping pill manufacturing company, and played by Jake Gyllenhaal.
If you're fan of In Fabric then you'll also love Flux Gourmet.
It's an arty-farty black comedy that (to me) looks like the memoirs of one man's bowels: taboo, indulgence, conflicts and catharsis.
The film also tackles various mundane subjects wrapped in sophisticatedly deranged dialogue and constantly pleases the viewer with all kinds of abstract and grotesque imagery.
With all this weird stuff going on it's amazing to see how likeable the characters are, and I think it helps to make the film as accessible as possible.
The characters are a sonic catering collective (and I still have no idea what that means), their patroness Jan Stevens and a Greek guy who documents the project.
Flux Gourment also gives us the word "dossierge" and it really made my day.
Every time the patroness shows up, one of the artists says her name "Jan Stevens", probably as a nod to unnecessarily addressing in film and TV.
And if the film didn't need Asa Butterfield then it would still need an actor with the name Asa Butterfield. It simply belongs here.
The dossierge doesn't think of himself as a serious writer and mentions that even medication instructions need to be written by someone.
This made me think that I want to see a film about someone who writes enclosures for a sleeping pill manufacturing company, and played by Jake Gyllenhaal.
If you're fan of In Fabric then you'll also love Flux Gourmet.
- Awards
- 27
THE GIFT (2015)
An impulsive rewatch because I didn't remember much of the story or how I felt about it, which is usually very telling but I decided to do it anyway.
Definitely a low budget genre piece - it's as if they've put The Cable Guy, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle and Cape Fear in a blender - but the characters are written in such way that it makes me wonder how much of the revenge and comeuppance are justified.
Interesting arguments are given from both sides and the story doesn't offer much closure for these characters, and this element of Greek tragedy puts it a notch above the standard crazy-revenge flicks.
Jason Bateman is great as the a**hole husband who wants to control the narrative in a benign-but-almost-exploding "I understand what you're saying" kind of way.
The sets look typically-modern boring and colourless (although that didn't stop them from bragging about the wife's terrific decoration job) and since all the action happens there it's not an awesome picture to look at.
An impulsive rewatch because I didn't remember much of the story or how I felt about it, which is usually very telling but I decided to do it anyway.
Definitely a low budget genre piece - it's as if they've put The Cable Guy, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle and Cape Fear in a blender - but the characters are written in such way that it makes me wonder how much of the revenge and comeuppance are justified.
Interesting arguments are given from both sides and the story doesn't offer much closure for these characters, and this element of Greek tragedy puts it a notch above the standard crazy-revenge flicks.
Jason Bateman is great as the a**hole husband who wants to control the narrative in a benign-but-almost-exploding "I understand what you're saying" kind of way.
The sets look typically-modern boring and colourless (although that didn't stop them from bragging about the wife's terrific decoration job) and since all the action happens there it's not an awesome picture to look at.
- Awards
- 27
CLEOPATRA JONES (1973)
I don't know what a quintessential and original blaxploitation movie looks like, is it the type of film made for a black audience or comes the "ploitation" part from the fact that it was made for a mainstream audience?
Either way, Cleopatra Jones already looks like a subgenre of whatever the original genre is supposed to be. Apart from the violence it's sort of an early Charlie's Angels and all the different scenes - comedy, action, dialogue - carry the same weight and this takes a lot of energy out of it.
On the other hand, some of the more mundane dialogues kinda foreshadow the exploitation thereof in films like Pulp Fiction and Twin Peaks.
Technically speaking the film is well shot (to my eyes anyway) and the physical scenes are very entertaining especially the bitch slaps.
Tamara Dobson clearly knows how to wear a flamboyant outfit but the most memorable characters are the scenery-chewing Disney villains "Mommy" (Shelley Winters) and "Doodlebug" played by Antonio Fargas.
All things considered there's too much in it that falls between two stools, it needed to be better or worse.
CLEOPATRA JONES AND THE CASINO OF GOLD (1975)
Might as well get it over with. I've watched it in the early eighties and my impressions were mostly positive.
Casino Of Gold is devoid of whatever blaxploitation the first film had, and mostly caters to the mid-seventies popularity of the Kung Fu genre.
The tone feels a little bit more sinister (probably enhanced by the fact that we're in unknown territory) and unlike the first film it shows some skin, including the bums of the Johnson brothers.
Tamara Dobson does a double act with a Chinese actress and Stella Stevens replaces Shelley Winters as the lesbian villainess.
None of it is exciting and the sass is pure cringe.
The real star of the film is the casino itself, I love the sets and it's great to see how it gets torn down in the shootout climax, almost like a remake of the Poseidon Adventure.
The most intriguing stars are the extras, not visually but audibly. Rather than commenting on the events they stay "in character" and say the most peculiar things.
But it's still not a great film and it's also got the most boring intro song I've ever heard (although it improved over the end credits).
I don't know what a quintessential and original blaxploitation movie looks like, is it the type of film made for a black audience or comes the "ploitation" part from the fact that it was made for a mainstream audience?
Either way, Cleopatra Jones already looks like a subgenre of whatever the original genre is supposed to be. Apart from the violence it's sort of an early Charlie's Angels and all the different scenes - comedy, action, dialogue - carry the same weight and this takes a lot of energy out of it.
On the other hand, some of the more mundane dialogues kinda foreshadow the exploitation thereof in films like Pulp Fiction and Twin Peaks.
Technically speaking the film is well shot (to my eyes anyway) and the physical scenes are very entertaining especially the bitch slaps.
Tamara Dobson clearly knows how to wear a flamboyant outfit but the most memorable characters are the scenery-chewing Disney villains "Mommy" (Shelley Winters) and "Doodlebug" played by Antonio Fargas.
All things considered there's too much in it that falls between two stools, it needed to be better or worse.
CLEOPATRA JONES AND THE CASINO OF GOLD (1975)
Might as well get it over with. I've watched it in the early eighties and my impressions were mostly positive.
Casino Of Gold is devoid of whatever blaxploitation the first film had, and mostly caters to the mid-seventies popularity of the Kung Fu genre.
The tone feels a little bit more sinister (probably enhanced by the fact that we're in unknown territory) and unlike the first film it shows some skin, including the bums of the Johnson brothers.
Tamara Dobson does a double act with a Chinese actress and Stella Stevens replaces Shelley Winters as the lesbian villainess.
None of it is exciting and the sass is pure cringe.
The real star of the film is the casino itself, I love the sets and it's great to see how it gets torn down in the shootout climax, almost like a remake of the Poseidon Adventure.
The most intriguing stars are the extras, not visually but audibly. Rather than commenting on the events they stay "in character" and say the most peculiar things.
But it's still not a great film and it's also got the most boring intro song I've ever heard (although it improved over the end credits).
- Awards
- 20
Miracle on 34th Street (1947)
On this year's rewatch I noticed how much of Doris and Fred's courtship takes place off screen.
Kris and Fred have an agreement that Kris will try to win over Susan while Fred works on her mother. Well, we see a deal of the former, with Kris singing to Susan and teaching her how to pretend, but not much of the latter. There's a moment that especially struck me where Fred tells Doris he's reserved their table at Luigi's - clearly they're a regular thing now, but the lead up to that point is more implied than shown. Their relationship becomes pivotal to Kris fulfilling Susan's wish so in that way it's odd that it is not developed more obviously.
On this year's rewatch I noticed how much of Doris and Fred's courtship takes place off screen.
Kris and Fred have an agreement that Kris will try to win over Susan while Fred works on her mother. Well, we see a deal of the former, with Kris singing to Susan and teaching her how to pretend, but not much of the latter. There's a moment that especially struck me where Fred tells Doris he's reserved their table at Luigi's - clearly they're a regular thing now, but the lead up to that point is more implied than shown. Their relationship becomes pivotal to Kris fulfilling Susan's wish so in that way it's odd that it is not developed more obviously.
- Awards
- 5
6/10
- Awards
- 44
Snow White & The Huntsman (2012)
It's a day and a half since I watched this, and I'm still not sure quite what to make of it. It's fine, I suppose. I didn't dislike it, but the film's look and tone also felt very of its time, with all the dark fairytale remakes and Game Of Thrones and even the MCU.
In fact, as I got halfway through the film, I decided it felt rather like a sub-par MCU origin film: watchable enough, and not an entire waste of time, but there's still a sense that it's not the best. It looks very early 21st Century, with an abundance of CGI that's not badly done but at the same time never feels quite real in the way that practical effects will. Feeling a little unreal isn't necessarily a bad thing, though, when it comes to fairytales, so I can live with it.
There are some familiar faces. I got mixed messages from seeing Ian McShane and Bob Hoskins since they were playing dwarves so I found myself convinced it was them, while simultaneously wondering if there could be small actors who happened to look and sounds like these familiar faces. But it was the real thing (through more computer-generated cleverness, of course). In fact this was Bob's last film il health forced his retirement. Ray Winstone was in the mix as well. Charlize Theron is fine for this role. Impressive performance in Monster aside, the only roles in which I've seen her are playing stunning icy cold blondes, and this runs true to type. Kristen Stewart is more impressive than I anticipated. I was surprised to find that she wasn't actually British. And I think she was the only character who attempted to speak properly, without any of the anachronistic T-glottalisation that was abundant everywhere else (in language terms, the contractions irritated me as well. Using "I am" instead of "I'm" or "she is" instead of "she's" would have made it sound more "proper"and traditional instead of Pret chatter).
My least favourite casting was Chris Hemsworth. The performance just feels too similar to Thor to me (early Thor, that is. Before he became the MCU's jester) and the film, too, has a similar tone, which makes him feel like a one-trick pony. I haven't really seen him in anything else, besides playing a himbo in that horrible Ghostbusters remake and adverts for aftershave, neither of which persuades me he's a great actor. His accent in this film is atrocious. It kept changing region from line to line. I looked it up afterwards and apparently it's supposed to be Scottish, but he also visited Wales, Ireland and Newcastle.
Funnily enough, I had no idea he was in this and he didn't appear for the best part of an hour, but when I heard the opening narration, I immediately thought it sounded like Hemsworth when he attempts to sound posh in Thor.
There are no big shocks or surprises. This one does what it says on the tin, so I can't really complain, apart from the 2+ hour running length which should only really be reserved for really good films (and even then, only when necessary). Despite myself, I fear the prequel might end up on the screen at some point in the next week or so. The little I've read tells me there's an even more offensive Scottish accent than Hemsworth's in the sequel which should at least add some unintended entertainment value.
It's a day and a half since I watched this, and I'm still not sure quite what to make of it. It's fine, I suppose. I didn't dislike it, but the film's look and tone also felt very of its time, with all the dark fairytale remakes and Game Of Thrones and even the MCU.
In fact, as I got halfway through the film, I decided it felt rather like a sub-par MCU origin film: watchable enough, and not an entire waste of time, but there's still a sense that it's not the best. It looks very early 21st Century, with an abundance of CGI that's not badly done but at the same time never feels quite real in the way that practical effects will. Feeling a little unreal isn't necessarily a bad thing, though, when it comes to fairytales, so I can live with it.
There are some familiar faces. I got mixed messages from seeing Ian McShane and Bob Hoskins since they were playing dwarves so I found myself convinced it was them, while simultaneously wondering if there could be small actors who happened to look and sounds like these familiar faces. But it was the real thing (through more computer-generated cleverness, of course). In fact this was Bob's last film il health forced his retirement. Ray Winstone was in the mix as well. Charlize Theron is fine for this role. Impressive performance in Monster aside, the only roles in which I've seen her are playing stunning icy cold blondes, and this runs true to type. Kristen Stewart is more impressive than I anticipated. I was surprised to find that she wasn't actually British. And I think she was the only character who attempted to speak properly, without any of the anachronistic T-glottalisation that was abundant everywhere else (in language terms, the contractions irritated me as well. Using "I am" instead of "I'm" or "she is" instead of "she's" would have made it sound more "proper"and traditional instead of Pret chatter).
My least favourite casting was Chris Hemsworth. The performance just feels too similar to Thor to me (early Thor, that is. Before he became the MCU's jester) and the film, too, has a similar tone, which makes him feel like a one-trick pony. I haven't really seen him in anything else, besides playing a himbo in that horrible Ghostbusters remake and adverts for aftershave, neither of which persuades me he's a great actor. His accent in this film is atrocious. It kept changing region from line to line. I looked it up afterwards and apparently it's supposed to be Scottish, but he also visited Wales, Ireland and Newcastle.
Funnily enough, I had no idea he was in this and he didn't appear for the best part of an hour, but when I heard the opening narration, I immediately thought it sounded like Hemsworth when he attempts to sound posh in Thor.
There are no big shocks or surprises. This one does what it says on the tin, so I can't really complain, apart from the 2+ hour running length which should only really be reserved for really good films (and even then, only when necessary). Despite myself, I fear the prequel might end up on the screen at some point in the next week or so. The little I've read tells me there's an even more offensive Scottish accent than Hemsworth's in the sequel which should at least add some unintended entertainment value.
- Awards
- 5
Funny you write about that. His name came up in discussion in our tea room today and I mentioned Chris Hemsworth is a one trick pony. A few agreed he is simply known for his role as Thor and his physique will pigeon hole him to certain roles...namely Thor.
- Awards
- 44
For me it doesn't help that he doesn't even seem to take that role seriously. The bombastic nature of the character was very quickly turned into a big joke, with the character an object of ridicule for the audience. It's difficult not to attribute at least a good part of this to Hemsworth.
- Awards
- 52
One of my all time favourite films. This is what I posted the last time I watched it:
- Awards
- 27
My to-watch list is empty and I this is a good opportunity to tackle a few mega-popular films I have not seen before.
First but not least...
GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)
I finished the film exactly one minute before the video rental expired - it was quite nerve-racking - and my first thoughts are a) this film is preposterous and b) why wasn't it shot in widescreen.
I didn't know anything about the story but I had an idea what it was going to be, but it wasn't that plantation drama that ended with the war.
And the plantation drama I got is probably the weakest part of the film. It looks irritatingly frivolous and musical-esque and I started to regret my ambitious mini-project.
There's a lot of effort to make her look like the "bad girl" while simultaneously signalling a more fierce and feminist tone. In other words it shouldn't be taken too seriously because "this is going to be our protagonist".
The film never completely loses its light-heartedness but what really surprised me is how seriously unlikeable she became towards the end of the film, those moments that are supposed to be about character redemption.
It is exactly like Clark Gable's last and very iconic line "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn".
And this brings me to Melanie who sort of acts like Scarlett's conscience and has manipulated the viewer from the very beginning that Scarlett's story deserved to be told, and when she dies that whole reason disappears. But then the film is almost over and it doesn't matter anymore.
Yes, soft-spoken Olivia DeHavilland with her scheming poker face.
The film becomes considerably more watchable when the war breaks out, obviously because the melodramatic acting seems more justified in this setting, and also because I hadn't expected this to happen so early on in the story. I became intrigued to see where the story would take me.
The sound is impressive and even startling sometimes.
Overall, it's nicely paced, but seriously, no film deserves to be this long. It completely ignores the standard human attention span. I've treated it like the mini-series it really is and watched it three parts (and almost didn't have enough time to finish it).
And so, eventually - blablabla - they end up in the house with THE staircase.
It looks gorgeous but I'd think twice before I'd climb that monster.
A little girl dies and you have the perfect set for a haunted house movie.
Scarlett as a ruthless business woman and Rhett Butler as the super-wealthy backup man (often a sheik in soap series) pre-echoes the sensibilities of the 1980s new wave feminism.
On the surface, Rhett's dilemma is about being in love with a woman he can't have, but I also sensed a little inferiority complex because he's not a true Southerner. It's almost as if Rhett represents America - "my dollars, my pony, my stained glass" - and the South (or the mystique thereof) represents Europe.
And there's always a hierarchy within a hierarcy as we hear Mammy calling everybody who doesn't belong to the upper class "white trash".
My favourite character is Prissy, she's funny and very untrustworthy (I'm not buying the "she's slow" comment).
For the most part I found it very enjoyable trash but I wouldn't brag about it in front of intellectual people. Reputation is everything.
First but not least...
GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)
I finished the film exactly one minute before the video rental expired - it was quite nerve-racking - and my first thoughts are a) this film is preposterous and b) why wasn't it shot in widescreen.
I didn't know anything about the story but I had an idea what it was going to be, but it wasn't that plantation drama that ended with the war.
And the plantation drama I got is probably the weakest part of the film. It looks irritatingly frivolous and musical-esque and I started to regret my ambitious mini-project.
There's a lot of effort to make her look like the "bad girl" while simultaneously signalling a more fierce and feminist tone. In other words it shouldn't be taken too seriously because "this is going to be our protagonist".
The film never completely loses its light-heartedness but what really surprised me is how seriously unlikeable she became towards the end of the film, those moments that are supposed to be about character redemption.
It is exactly like Clark Gable's last and very iconic line "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn".
And this brings me to Melanie who sort of acts like Scarlett's conscience and has manipulated the viewer from the very beginning that Scarlett's story deserved to be told, and when she dies that whole reason disappears. But then the film is almost over and it doesn't matter anymore.
Yes, soft-spoken Olivia DeHavilland with her scheming poker face.
The film becomes considerably more watchable when the war breaks out, obviously because the melodramatic acting seems more justified in this setting, and also because I hadn't expected this to happen so early on in the story. I became intrigued to see where the story would take me.
The sound is impressive and even startling sometimes.
Overall, it's nicely paced, but seriously, no film deserves to be this long. It completely ignores the standard human attention span. I've treated it like the mini-series it really is and watched it three parts (and almost didn't have enough time to finish it).
And so, eventually - blablabla - they end up in the house with THE staircase.
It looks gorgeous but I'd think twice before I'd climb that monster.
A little girl dies and you have the perfect set for a haunted house movie.
Scarlett as a ruthless business woman and Rhett Butler as the super-wealthy backup man (often a sheik in soap series) pre-echoes the sensibilities of the 1980s new wave feminism.
On the surface, Rhett's dilemma is about being in love with a woman he can't have, but I also sensed a little inferiority complex because he's not a true Southerner. It's almost as if Rhett represents America - "my dollars, my pony, my stained glass" - and the South (or the mystique thereof) represents Europe.
And there's always a hierarchy within a hierarcy as we hear Mammy calling everybody who doesn't belong to the upper class "white trash".
My favourite character is Prissy, she's funny and very untrustworthy (I'm not buying the "she's slow" comment).
For the most part I found it very enjoyable trash but I wouldn't brag about it in front of intellectual people. Reputation is everything.
- Awards
- 20
Aliens is an excellent sequel but even that is really only a disguised remake with the stakes upped.
- Awards
- 44
Meet Me In St. Louis (1944)
I've never watched this, and my main reason for wanting to view it now was to get the full context of the song Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas, which was written for this film. It's one of those songs that was long-established as a Christmas standard by the time I was born and to my mind it feels as though it simply always was. It's difficult for me to comprehend a world in which it wasn't heard in some variation each December (and it's a little depressing to consider that Gen Z and even younger Millennials probably feel this way about Mariah Carey's All I Want For Christmas Is You).
Anyway, I had no idea what the film would be about, other than it involves sisters who each find romance only to find they might have to up sticks and leave their home town. And it turns out that there's not a whole lot more to the main plot than this. There is plenty going on, though, with the focus on the two romances, plus the younger daughter trying to win friends and the house filled with characters such as the forceful cook and the wise old grandad. The little girl becomes borderline cloying at times, but it's all balanced by the ensemble.
There are lots of gorgeous people in this. The women are true Southern belles, corseted and with Vivienne Leigh hair and gorgeous white teeth (with the era in which the film was made, the Southern locale and the turn of the century period setting I thought of Gone With The Wind several times. How spooky considering Willie was watching that film at the same time). Tom Drake is pushed in some posters as the film's heartthrob discovery, and he is very dashing. Even the parents are most photogenic. Watching Leon Ames as the father was a slightly disturbing experience because he looks for all the world here like a good looking version of Arthur Brownlow from Crossroads. Incidentally, he's also the future big screen Leslie Harrington. Which is even odder since Garland's character kept making me think of a proto Allison Mackenzie.
Judy Garland herself is truly captivating to watch. It's easy to see why she's as big a leading lady as she was, since I found my eyes on her during any scene in which she appeared. I'm not really a musicals person, but the songs all have charm. The Boy Next Door won me over with a line that changed rhythm in order to squeeze in the characters' home address. The Trolley Song is one of those songs I've heard snippets from but have never really heard in full, and it's a nice moment.
Which brings me to Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas. I have seen a video of this scene out of context, but seeing it within the film deepens its meaning. I know the original lyrics were tweaked during production because they were viewed to be too depressing. I like them - they're an antidote for all the festive saccharine, but now I understand even those lyrics more deeply. I've always assumed the original intended line "next year we may all be living in New York" was just a randomly-chosen place to fit the rhyme, but no - it gets to the very heart of the story since that's exactly what they're all fearing. The final song may have pulled its punches a bit, but at least it still maintains that the present is a bit grim and "we'll have to muddle through somehow".
Yikes - it's Eighty years old:
I've never watched this, and my main reason for wanting to view it now was to get the full context of the song Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas, which was written for this film. It's one of those songs that was long-established as a Christmas standard by the time I was born and to my mind it feels as though it simply always was. It's difficult for me to comprehend a world in which it wasn't heard in some variation each December (and it's a little depressing to consider that Gen Z and even younger Millennials probably feel this way about Mariah Carey's All I Want For Christmas Is You).
Anyway, I had no idea what the film would be about, other than it involves sisters who each find romance only to find they might have to up sticks and leave their home town. And it turns out that there's not a whole lot more to the main plot than this. There is plenty going on, though, with the focus on the two romances, plus the younger daughter trying to win friends and the house filled with characters such as the forceful cook and the wise old grandad. The little girl becomes borderline cloying at times, but it's all balanced by the ensemble.
There are lots of gorgeous people in this. The women are true Southern belles, corseted and with Vivienne Leigh hair and gorgeous white teeth (with the era in which the film was made, the Southern locale and the turn of the century period setting I thought of Gone With The Wind several times. How spooky considering Willie was watching that film at the same time). Tom Drake is pushed in some posters as the film's heartthrob discovery, and he is very dashing. Even the parents are most photogenic. Watching Leon Ames as the father was a slightly disturbing experience because he looks for all the world here like a good looking version of Arthur Brownlow from Crossroads. Incidentally, he's also the future big screen Leslie Harrington. Which is even odder since Garland's character kept making me think of a proto Allison Mackenzie.
Judy Garland herself is truly captivating to watch. It's easy to see why she's as big a leading lady as she was, since I found my eyes on her during any scene in which she appeared. I'm not really a musicals person, but the songs all have charm. The Boy Next Door won me over with a line that changed rhythm in order to squeeze in the characters' home address. The Trolley Song is one of those songs I've heard snippets from but have never really heard in full, and it's a nice moment.
Which brings me to Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas. I have seen a video of this scene out of context, but seeing it within the film deepens its meaning. I know the original lyrics were tweaked during production because they were viewed to be too depressing. I like them - they're an antidote for all the festive saccharine, but now I understand even those lyrics more deeply. I've always assumed the original intended line "next year we may all be living in New York" was just a randomly-chosen place to fit the rhyme, but no - it gets to the very heart of the story since that's exactly what they're all fearing. The final song may have pulled its punches a bit, but at least it still maintains that the present is a bit grim and "we'll have to muddle through somehow".
Yikes - it's Eighty years old:
The first time I watched this was a TV airing for its 50th anniversary. It was shown over two consecutive nights at 6pm. This cemented the mini-series feeling in my mind.
- Awards
- 27
I have only recently "discovered" her in Judgment At Nuremberg and I had planned to check out her filmography - and then forgot to do so.
Ta for the reminder.
(At the risk of coming across as predictable, I have a campy dance remix of the Trolley Song, including Judy's original vocals)
- Awards
- 27
Continuing the "I no longer want say I haven't seen that film" project
STAR WARS (1977)
I may have been too young to notice the hype at the time of release (if there was a hype in the Netherlands) but I've had the opportunity to watch it on VHS or DVD 10 years later, or at least long before the year 2024.
I don't recall actively avoiding it, the desire simply wasn't there and still wasn't there when I clicked "play" today. From that point of view the film couldn't disappoint, and it didn't.
What I've seen is a film that wasn't made for me and therefore I have nothing to say about it, positively or negatively. During the first 45 minutes I tried very hard to focus on what was happening but eventually I gave up and watched the rest of the film staring at the screen with dead eyes.
Nobody's going to accuse me of not-watching Star Wars ever again. Mission accomplished.
STAR WARS (1977)
I may have been too young to notice the hype at the time of release (if there was a hype in the Netherlands) but I've had the opportunity to watch it on VHS or DVD 10 years later, or at least long before the year 2024.
I don't recall actively avoiding it, the desire simply wasn't there and still wasn't there when I clicked "play" today. From that point of view the film couldn't disappoint, and it didn't.
What I've seen is a film that wasn't made for me and therefore I have nothing to say about it, positively or negatively. During the first 45 minutes I tried very hard to focus on what was happening but eventually I gave up and watched the rest of the film staring at the screen with dead eyes.
Nobody's going to accuse me of not-watching Star Wars ever again. Mission accomplished.