Last Movie You Watched Part II, Electric Bugaloo

[wonderlad]

Wife and I watched Batman Returns last night.

one of my faves. Over the past week I watched:

1. Blackkklansman - great
2. Blinded by the Light - very cool
3. Jumanji - The Next Level - fun
4. Wonder Woman - Bloodlines - good

[Surf]

I finally caught The Revenant midway through the pandemic. ****, that movie was crazy good. Sure the plot was a little more basic than what I initially was assuming but the look and feel of it and the acting put that **** waay over. Forget even the fact that Leo should have been DEAD 48 hours into that wilderness trek, post that FANTASTIC bear attack. Let alone have the strength to engage in any combat at the end. That's was just Hollywood **** everything else was stellar. I would buy a physical of it.

Got into Parasite last night on Hulu, I'll finish it tonight. In the couple of reviews I've seen of it, nobody mentioned how hilarious that family was. They were efficient with their **** too, not like the Superman villain of the same name, he's a wasteful oaf compared to the family in this movie. It's also one of those movies where the actual house is kind of a character, House of Sand and Fog and The Glass House as a couple other examples a beautiful house.

[Kieran_Frost]

LOL...oh yeah, real controversial

Apologies, I meant the final choice of Inception (2010) might be controversial, compared to some of his more lauded roles (and his other Oscar nominations). I will add I've not seen What's Eating Gilbert Grape? (1993) and I hear he's brilliant in that.

I don't know if I can argue with that list. Seems solid.

Cheers, buddy

As far as Kubrick on A.I. ? Not sure. I don't think I've ever watched a Kubrick movie. Not a Clockwork Orange, not 2001: A Space Odyssey (which I have queued up, but haven't found the time to watch it), not the Shining. None of it.
I don't know when I'll get a chance, but I think I need to change that.

You really do, he's truly one of the greatest film makers. Purely just as a film fan, you should seek out the work of Kurosawa, Kubrick, Fellini, Hitchcock, Welles, Sir David Lean, Bergman. Even if it's just one or two, just to have a bases of knowledge. Are you sure you've not seen Kubrick? What about Full Metal Jacket (1987) or Spartacus (1960)

You need to watch EVERY Kubrick film.

THIS! Well... maybe not Lolita (1962), it was awful. But every other Kubrick film I've seen (and I've seen nearly all of them) is very worthy. Even if I don't love every single one, I find appreciation in them, and what they strive to do.

[Jim Kelly]

I don't recall ever seeing A.I.--but that wasn't a Kubrick movie in the end was it? Otherwise, I've probably seen every movie he made. Back in the day, there was a Kubrick retrospective series where I had the chance to see all his movies (up to that point) in a theatre. There are a couple of Kubrick movies that I truly love; however--don't shoot me--there are those I hate and others that are just meh for me.

[Kirby101]

I don't recall ever seeing A.I.--but that wasn't a Kubrick movie in the end was it? Otherwise, I've probably seen every movie he made. Back in the day, there was a Kubrick retrospective series where I had the chance to see all his movies (up to that point) in a theatre. There are a couple of Kubrick movies that I truly love; however--don't shoot me--there are those I hate and others that are just meh for me.

Which do you hate? No judgements, I am just curious.

[Soubhagya]

Knives Out: This was a really good movie. In general i like detective stories and whodunnits. And i have heard great stuff about this. It didn't disappoint me one bit. I have actually watched it twice already. Within a space of 4 days. I do that when i love a movie. Last time, i did that with Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind.

The actress Ana de Armas turned out to play the main character. I didn't guess that its her movie from the trailers. I haven't watched her anywhere before and this is pretty much her movie. She practically runs away with the movie. Loved the character of Marta.

The other standout was Daniel Craig. I was amused by his accent in the trailers. His performance was so much fun to watch. After Bond, he ought to play this character for years. Sherlock Holmes is more my jam. But when Sherlock is like a superhero at times its fresh to find someone who is competent but not superhuman. Unlike Cumberbatch. Or be funny effortlessly. Unlike Robert Downey Jr. Perhaps he could play a good Roger Moore like Bond. Less serious but still entertaining to watch.

Chris Evans entertains again by his 'against type' performance. Its probably due to his role of Captain America that i find him funnier in roles like here and Scott Pilgrim.

I don't think there was a weak performance here. Loved the story. The mystery was so satisfying. A couple of scenes were surprisingly emotional. You don't expect that in detective stories. All in all i loved it.

[Soubhagya]

I lived there about 8 years later, and it did feel right. As I said it was very watchable. Yes, except for the climax, it was much more a slice of life of that period. Not great Tarantino, but that's not meant to be derogatory. Very good Tarantino is still very good.
I

I know that Tarantino wanted to film this 'slice of life' movie. This period and place is too far for me. But somehow i ended up liking it a lot. There are a number of great scenes here. And the film is very good even if it goes nowhere. If you don't have the climax its quite unlike a Tarantino movie. Its far better then Hateful Eight. That was not a pleasant experience. For me its like a return to form for Tarantino.

[Soubhagya]

Jude Law is FANTASTIC! While I applaud Spielberg for getting very dark with it; I keep thinking about the fact Kubrick original had the rights and was going to make the film. IMAGINE what he would have done.

I haven't watched the movie yet. If Kubrick had made it, i would have watched it by now. A Kubrick movie is always worth watching. Maybe it could have been another masterpiece.

Yet, i 'know' the film by internet. Its not the same as experiencing the movie. From what i have heard most people have problem with the ending. Oddly, that was the ending that Kubrick wanted. Which is uncharacteristic with his bleak endings. Have you heard about that?

[Soubhagya]

Is that you Christopher Nolan?

Apparently that's how you match Kubrick in IMDB 250. I think Kubrick had 9. By far the most by any director, till Nolan caught up with him.

That list as a whole isn't very credible. Dark Knight Rises is there and also is above Citizen Kane. But name any film which is considered an all time classic and chances are its in there. Or had been there at some point of time.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I don't recall ever seeing A.I.--but that wasn't a Kubrick movie in the end was it? Otherwise, I've probably seen every movie he made. Back in the day, there was a Kubrick retrospective series where I had the chance to see all his movies (up to that point) in a theatre. There are a couple of Kubrick movies that I truly love; however--don't shoot me--there are those I hate and others that are just meh for me.

It was originally a Kubrick project, which eventually Spielberg took over. Spielberg's movies as ok, if overrated, but I'd have liked to see what Kubrick did with the concept.

[Kieran_Frost]

I don't recall ever seeing A.I.--but that wasn't a Kubrick movie in the end was it? Otherwise, I've probably seen every movie he made. Back in the day, there was a Kubrick retrospective series where I had the chance to see all his movies (up to that point) in a theatre. There are a couple of Kubrick movies that I truly love; however--don't shoot me--there are those I hate and others that are just meh for me.

Funnily enough, in trying to find my Lolita review in my "100 Greatest Films" thread, I stumbled across my A.I. review... so thought I'd post both.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...lms-quot/page3

LOLITA (1962)
dir. Stanley Kubrick
writer. adapted by Vladimir Nabokov from his novel of the same name [nom.]
Starring: James Mason, Shelley Winters, Sue Lyons and Peter Sellers

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: British Prof. Humbert Humbert (Mason) has found summer lodging with an overbearing widow Charlotte Haze (Winters) before his job starts in the Fall; and is going to decline the offer until he spies her teenager daughter, Dolores (Lyons) sunbathing in the garden... and agrees to rent the room.

THOUGHTS: the film starts incredibly strong. A fantastic showdown between James Mason and Peter Sellers, in the trashed eccentric's house; where the viewer has absolutely no idea why they are at odds; both dramatic and comedic in equal parts. Everything after that is just... wrong. Oh, where to begin? Well, first of all I wish to emphatically highlight the moment where Quilty (Sellers) shows up "disguised" as Dr. Zempf is when I knew this was pretty much a worthless script. So much was 'on-the-nose': Lolita is sent to "Camp Climax", Quilty's silent female companion is "Miss Darkbloom", the hospital receptionist is "Miss Fromkiss". UGH! I just don't know what I'm supposed to take from this film??? Humbert (partially due to James Mason) is probably the most likeable character in the film. Is that intentional? Didn't Kubrick realise he'd crafted the performances that way? And what kind of messages does that send? From the pathetically loathsome Shelley Winters (a woman willing to cast aside her daughter in seconds for a man who shows her nothing but indifference), to the bizarre neighbour both flirting shamelessly with Humbert while ALSO telling him some neighbours think his relationship with his "daughter" is scandalous. REALLY, love? So... he's possibly a pedo, but you'd still shag him??? Honestly, I just don't know what I was expecting. I knew the rough idea of the story, but assumed it was much more about his psychological lusting and how that affects someone rather than actual achievement of his goals. Are we meant to like Lolita? Feel sorry for her mother? I mean you can make the point that not all predators are the clearly socially creepy outsiders like in M (1931); that they can be charming, can be "normal" in their outward demeanour but still be predators nonetheless. But why is everyone so horrible? What message does that send? At times during Humbert's arguments with Lolita it feels the 'concept' is "relationships with under-age people don't work because they are unreasonable and childish" when obviously far more pressing issues should be explored. We never really know what Lolita thinks of it all. We never even know how Humbert feels about his new found feelings. Has this happened before? Does he not find his sudden attraction for a minor concerning (beyond his "oh how deliciously mischievous this makes me feel")? I just... ugh! Horrible, horrible film. Mason and Sellers are both "good" in what the script gives, and James Bond's Lois Maxwell is very good in her minor role. But ultimately I think this is a worthless film; not worth anyone's time. Horrible, horrible, horrible!!!

OVERALL
Unlikeable characters, bizarre plot shifts and a confusing "message"; this just is not for me. My least favourite Kubrick film by a long way; absent of his usual flare and surprisingly lacking in underlying psychology. A huge disappointment; and just horribly unsettling to boot.
~ rating: 1 out of 5 [grade: D]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AI: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (2001)
dir . Steven Spielberg
writer[/I]. based on Ian Watson’s 1969 short story Super Toys Last All Summer
Starring: Haley Joel Osment, Jude Law, Frances O’Connor, Brendan Gleeson, William Hurt and the voice of Meryl Streep

ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS: In the 21st Century, man has learnt to make a new race of robots called Mecha, capable of emulating thoughts and emotions (but not love); David (Joel Osment) a prototype model is entrusted to Henry and Monica Swinton (O’Connor), grieving parents desperate to fill the void left by their comatose son…

THOUGHTS: originally Stanley Kubrick sort to make this film, and despite it being a good effort by Spielberg… damn, I wish I could have seen what Kubrick would do with it. That is not to take away from one of Spielberg’s darkest feature films. The usual childlike sugar-coating is gone, and he embraces the bleak and monstrous. The Flesh Farm felt like something out of Mad Max, and was genuinely sickening (so kudos, Spielberg, I didn’t know you had it in you). Add to Spielberg’s brave adult approach and some truly gorgeous visual is the film’s secret weapon: Jude Law, who is FANTASTIC! This is when he was at his peak, flying high off Wilde (1997), Gattaca (1997) and the Talented Mister Ripley (1999). It’s one of his best performances, and treads the difficult line between grandiose and truthful. Very impressive (and yes, very sexy). As for the rest, yeah Frances O’Connor’s good, and Haley Joel Osment is serviceable, but only Law shines in terms of performance. And that really sums up how I feel, there was a lot to enjoy, a lot to admire, but outside of Law it was always hitting a wall it couldn’t surpass. The parable of Pinocchio, while a strong idea that could have led to some very clever plot deviations, was too heavy handed: it was clear enough without David having to repeatedly be reading the bloody story for the slower audience members. Spirited Away (2001) is a gorgeously clever retelling of Alice in Wonderland, without Chihiro having to reference the source material periodically. What I mean to say is there was a lack of genuine depth to nearly everything, despite having the tools to say something truly profound. The complex emotional issues only go ‘so far’, the ethical debate and responsibility of man only goes ‘so far.’ Likewise the use of mirrors and reflections, while a cool concept (possibly making a comment on how we look at ourselves as a society) never really comes together. Much like the film’s problematic climax, it was a nice idea that never really blossomed into something tangible. Ironically that makes the movie the anti-Pinocchio

OVERALL
A very slow burner; that gets REALLY good then jumps the shark hard (think: Interstellar (2014)). Jude Law is incredibly good, and the film does draw you in, but too much of the plot feels convenient (and at times, even contrived). A noble effort, shy of something truly special. Pity.
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: B]

[Arfguy]

You need to watch EVERY Kubrick film.

Is that you Christopher Nolan?

LOL...while I find a lot of Christopher Nolan's movies to be pretty cold, there is no denying the man's integrity and vision as a filmmaker. I think it makes sense to me that I find Interstellar to be his most fascinating movie, not just because it deals with space, time, science fiction, but especially the frailties and fascinations of the human spirit.

one of my faves. Over the past week I watched:

1. Blackkklansman - great
2. Blinded by the Light - very cool
3. Jumanji - The Next Level - fun
4. Wonder Woman - Bloodlines - good

Blakkklansman is one of those movies that I keep meaning to watch, but I haven't found time for. Seems very relevant and worth seeing in today's climate.

[Starter Set]

The nun.

Well, i knew it was going to be bad but it did still manage to surprise me with how poorly some scenes were made.

If you can predict that a jump scare is coming, it doesn't work guys. And in this movie you can see ALL of them coming a freaking kilometer away.

Even the jokes are predictable, like that one about a shotgun and emergency? like 30 seconds before the dude says it i was like "oh, he's going to say that it was an emergency situation" lol.

And the story, i don't know, i'm not for corporal punishment but the ones responsible for that deserve a public spanking. That's star wars sequels level of bad writing.

[Arfguy]

Apologies, I meant the final choice of Inception (2010) might be controversial, compared to some of his more lauded roles (and his other Oscar nominations). I will add I've not seen What's Eating Gilbert Grape? (1993) and I hear he's brilliant in that.

Ah, gotcha. I see what you mean. Leo is actually pretty good in so many things, but I guess I never really thought of him as an action movie star. He was pretty bad ass in Inception.

You really do, he's truly one of the greatest film makers. Purely just as a film fan, you should seek out the work of Kurosawa, Kubrick, Fellini, Hitchcock, Welles, Sir David Lean, Bergman. Even if it's just one or two, just to have a bases of knowledge. Are you sure you've not seen Kubrick? What about Full Metal Jacket (1987) or Spartacus (1960)

THIS! Well... maybe not Lolita (1962), it was awful. But every other Kubrick film I've seen (and I've seen nearly all of them) is very worthy. Even if I don't love every single one, I find appreciation in them, and what they strive to do.

Yeah, I'm almost certain I have not seen any of Kubrick's work. I do recall watching Spartacus a long, long time ago. Maybe when I was like 6 or 7, but I don't really count it since I cannot remember anything about that movie except for the fight with the one slave who got killed for trying to fight fair. I think I am the most interested in 2001: A Space Odyssey, because it just feels like the type of movie that I'd gravitate towards. I have very little interest in things like Eyes Wide Shut or Full Metal Jacket, I fully admit that I have not given an honest shot to Kubrick.

I don't recall ever seeing A.I.--but that wasn't a Kubrick movie in the end was it? Otherwise, I've probably seen every movie he made. Back in the day, there was a Kubrick retrospective series where I had the chance to see all his movies (up to that point) in a theatre. There are a couple of Kubrick movies that I truly love; however--don't shoot me--there are those I hate and others that are just meh for me.

It was a Spielberg movie. While I think Spielberg makes a strong effort in trying to make a movie unlike a lot of his other work, I get the feeling Spielberg picked up a bad habit of not being able to close out his movies as strongly as he used to after directing A.I. I have not watched "Catch Me If You Can", but I felt Minority Report, The Terminal and War of the Worlds suffered the worst because of whatever he got out of making A.I.

[Jim Kelly]

I've also never seen SCHINDLER'S LIST (don't tell Jerry's parents).

Yesterday I watched HELLZAPOPPIN' (1941), directed by H.C. Potter. HELLZAPOPPIN' began as a musical revue and had a long run on Broadway, being a sensation of the time. Created by the comedy duo Ole Olsen and Chic Johnson, the stage version was a frenetic parade of sketches and sight gags, with music and dance, that changed with each performance and stayed topical through its run. You get a taste of that in the first fifteen minutes of the movie, which is constantly making references to the fourth wall--and to Shemp Howard who plays Larry the projectionist who is showing the film we are seeing.

But after this torrent of comedy gold, the director within the movie tells Ole and Chic that they can't make a movie like their stage show and they have to have a story about two, young rich people in love. So the remainder of the movie is about that--and while there's still some great schtick, it's a lot slower moving than that first part. However, toward the end, there's a five minute scene with the Lindy Hoppers performing a dance number that is the movie's main claim to fame--the Lindy Hoppers were also part of the stage production.



After that we go back to our rich couple and their friends putting on a show in hopes it will get to Broadway--even though none of the rich folks need the money and they already have their own theatre on their estate. But for reasons of plot, Ole and Chic sabotage the production, which just makes it better than the boring rich people's pageant--that includes a number with the elites dressed up as Confederate soldiers and ante-bellum dames singing "Waiting for the Robert. E. Lee." Martha Raye thankfully torpedos that number.