Movies you've seen recently (Part 1)

The Bostonians, from 1984. Takes place in 1876. A terrific cast - Vanessa Redgrave is a patron of a feminist group, takes an interest in a gifted young woman, is very much distressed when Christopher Reeve shows up to pry her away from the cause (and herself). With Linda Hunt, Wallace Shawn, Jessica Tandy, Nancy Marchand, and I was very impressed by Nancy New as Vanessa’s sister, who has only three IMdB credits: another Merchant-Ivory film and a soap opera; must have had a stage career but I wish I could see more.

As a Bostonian myself I appreciated the settings, but also for a period drama it really seemed to evoke its time and place quite well. And it ends dramatically - will the young lass throw away her ideals (and her Boston marriage to Vanessa) for the suave Superman? Recommended.

Final Girls-a young woman whose actress mother is killed in a car accident is transported into her departed mom’s best-known role:a cheesy slasher film. No real boobs or blood, but entertaining enough.

Check out Notorious, if you haven’t already. A great post-WWII spy thriller with Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman. My favorite Hitchcock, hands down.

Watched “Lost in America” again. Julie Hagerty and Albert Brooks dropping out of society.

My wife had never seen Singin’ In the Rain; she loved it.

We started watching An American in Paris and just couldn’t get past the first twenty minutes. It won the Best Picture award? Really? It’s a borefest…

We also watched Dirty Dancing (I had gotten it confused with Footloose). It’s a product of its time, and of a time, but with that final leap how can you hate it? Jennifer Grey has a new book coming out, so it was worth watching it again to see what made it special.

Love that one. About the only time I’ve liked Ingrid Bergman.

I put off watching it for a long time, but I really liked once I finally watched it. I can’t think of an Albert Brooks’s movie I haven’t liked. Mom is a sentimental favorite. So many of Debbie Reynolds’s quirks were the same as my mom’s. I watched it with both my sisters, and when we got to the part about keeping the “protective layer” of ice on the ice cream, we were howling. I also have a sneaking suspicion my mom would have been happier staying a “career girl” than a SAHM.

I don’t know, I just do.

METAL LORDS. NETFLIX. I liked it a lot. Funny, sweet and METAL.

I don’t hate it. Like other such substandard movies, like Love Actually, it has become loved among people who don’t like good movies and held up as a classic. I hate that.

Rewatched Love and Monsters, since we have a free weekend trial with EPIX. it’s a sweet little movie, and it surely deserves more than a 6.9 IMDb rating.

Ben watching some old movies – The Thief of Bagdad (1924 and the 1961 versions)

I also pulled out a Russian fantasy film from 1956 – Ilya Mouromets. I have much more to say about the film below, but something about this film blew me away. It’s incredinly topical.

Ilya Mouromets is a Russian culture hero, probably based on some historiucal figures from the 12th century. His name indicates that he’s from the town of Murom, not that far from present-day Kyiv.

In the film, he fights against the Tugars (obviously Mongols) who are lead by Tsar Kalin. The Tugars are Invaders from the East who are threatening to conquer the city of Kyiv.

It’s impossible to watch this right now and not think of the current conflict, with the Tsar Putin, um, I mean Tsar Kalin sending warnings to Kyiv to surrender, being obnoxious jerks about it, and expecting the Kyivans to simply knuckle under. Eventually the Tugars use their air superiority, sending in a three-headed fire breathing dragon (obviously named MIRV), who the Kyivans defeat handily.

The film might be popular in Ukraine right now, except, a a Mosfilm production it makes much of Kyiv as the seat of the Kievan Rus, abd the origin of Russia. That’s a bit of Russian history that Putin is making much of now to “prove” that the Ukraine is an inevitable and historic part of Russia, which the Ukrainians understandably don’t want to have anything to do with. But they’d love the images of Boris Andreyev as Ilya beating the snot out of the invading Tugars, and stuffing Tsar Kalin into a sack at the end.

The film fell into the hands of noted movie hack Roger Corman, who re-cut it and added voice ovcerdubs, including Mike Wallace (!) as narrator and perpetual and ubiquitous voice actor Paul Frees doing several of the voices, including Tsar Kalin, who he makes sound exactly like Boris Badenov from Rocky and Bullwinkle (Frees was the voice of Boris Bademov, too).

I actually paid money to see this film at a matinee at our local movie theater under the new title The Sword and the Dragon. There was a Dell comic book adaptation, too. Within a year or so it was on TV, playing on a practically endless loop on WOR, channel 9 out of Secaucus NJ. I’ve seen the Corman-dubbed version countless times in my life. I didn’t see director Ptushko’s other Russian fantasies, but three of them ended up on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I suspect that’s where most people on this Board saw the film.

I finally decided to see the original uncut and un-dubbed version, and bought it on DVD several years ago. It’s better in the original, although several scenes are still cringe-worthy. But at least I don’t get the sense than Tsar Kalin want’s to get Moose and Squirrel as well as Ilya Mouromets.

Agree. It was fairly limp. I think it mostly appealed to women who think Patrick Swayze is hot. I find him mildly repulsvie, so there’s not even any eye candy for me.

HATED Love Actually. Watched Bridget Jones’s Diary within the last few weeks for the first time, and it was such a nothing movie. A soggy kleenex of a movie.

Really good documentary.

Another good one. Mrs. L followed this one more closely than I did (I was puttering around the house). She had to stop and rewind a couple times, was really amazed by it.

Last night I watched A Scanner Darkly based on the Philip K. Dick book. Having read it before I saw the movie was useful. The PKD movie staying closest to the novel of any I’ve seen. The animation was less disturbing than I expected.

The Batman

Wow, I was disappointed. Some things do work and this movie is not complete trash, but this movie contains some very long boring sections and it is painfully clear to me that this movie need at least 20 minutes cut out of it. We did NOT need Catwoman or Falcone in this movie. The Riddler storyline was enough.

Yeah, so not totally bad. I do see what they were going for and a lot of great stuff made it in. Paul Dano is directed so badly, he ends up being way over the top and not in a good way. Robert Pattinson, a good actor, was clearly directed to just stare and be silent most of the time.

It was OK. I will not re-watch it. I might check out a sequel if the reviews are through the roof or if I just hear it is much better than this one.

Yeah, kind of shocked. I thought it would be great. Nope.

Olympus Has Fallen on A&E with Gerard Butler. Melissa Leo did a nice job in a small part. She takes a beating from the N Koreans and stays defiant.

It works as a thrill a minute action movie. Seeing the White House demolished was difficult to watch. There’s a gut punch scene where the Flag is taken done and hurled off the roof.

Don’t overthink this movie. The North Koreans somehow have a fully loaded AC-130 gunship and a mercenary army with truck outfitted with multiple machine guns. Yeah, that’s massive firepower.

It’s worth watching at least once. Diehard is much better.

Movies like this are a reminder of our vulnerability. Washington isn’t ready for a Special Forces style assault.

Den of Thieves on A&E with Gerard Butler

Super cops try to stop a ex soldiers from robbing used bills from The Treasury.

I had trouble getting interested in the plot. None of the characters was interesting. I had trouble distinguishing between the bad guy leader and the snarling Gerard Butler as the main cop.

Gave up and went to bed 2/3 into the movie.

I won’t watch it again.

Gerard Butler is apparently todays action star. He’s a very poor substitute for Bruce Willis, Stallone, or Schwarzenegger. I know they’re old and its time for new talent.

Maybe it’s the material. Gerard may eventually find a breakout role.

This thread frequently reminds me that opinions of art are so subjective :slight_smile:

I enjoyed The Batman more than I expected. I liked it’s remix of the Wayne family story and the very “down to earth” - almost non-comic book-y - take on Batman and The Riddler. No penguins with missiles or billion-dollar bespoke batjets in this movie. The cinematography was excellent and I liked the direction overall. I completely disagree about Paul Dano - he was excellent, veering from understated to over the top in a very unpredictable way. And the threat he posed and the form it took - which I won’t reveal anything about here - was extremely believable in our current moment.

That said, you are correct that it is overlong and I agree it could easily have cut 20 minutes. You’re also right that Pattinson is not given enough to do in terms of acting. You could plug pretty much anyone in there and get a similar result, which is not his fault.

PS. Colin Farrell - holy fuck, talk about losing yourself in a role. He was amazing - I had no idea that was him until the credits rolled.

Jigsaw, a British 1962 murder mystery - a woman turns up dead in a rented house, but who she is and who rented it is unknown. It’s viewable on Kanopy.

I’m of two minds about it. Shot in black and white Cinemascope, it has a great visual style, with some startling camera tricks like a passing car suddenly changing from black to white, and judicious use of zooms (those fell out of fashion, but I like them when they’re not too obvious). One the other hand, it is extremely talky, about half the dialogue should have been cut. And focusing entirely on the police investigation, with a fair number of dead ends, gets tiresome.

The chief detective is a fussy guy who galumphs around like a penguin, the sort of character Monty Python would make fun of, and and there are a number of annoying side characters, like the guy who keeps saying “I 'ave a photographic memory, I 'ave!” No Swinging London in this one, mate; (and this was the same year innovative films like Morgan were coming out of the UK). So, has some interest but could have been so much better.

Everything Everywhere All At Once is worth seeing in a theater if only because it is fun having the crowd reaction around you.

It totally lives up to the hype. The most original movie I have seen in ages and the most fun I have had at the theater in many years. Definitely will be on the Oscar short-list for several awards when that time comes.

It kinda defies description in that anything I would say would sound ridiculous. Indeed, the movie thrives and embraces the ridiculous.

Just go see it.

You might even laugh harder at parts than you did at Jackass 4.