Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[dave jenkins]

Witness for the Prosecution (1957) - 8.5-9/10
The first 35 minutes in the apartment drag a bit but after that it goes smooth as a train. The last minutes are 10/10.

Still, once you know the ending, there isn't much repeat viewing value in the film, dontcha think?

[dave jenkins]

Zulu   - 8\10

I had missed this all these years and found it very interesting in the puntilicstic depiction of a war episode not in racist terms. What I didn't like is:

1) little blood in the fight scenes
2) the unnecessary characters of the preacher and his daughter
3) the usual unheroic heroes-to-be.

Come, come, these are hardly the film's most egregious failings. What about the very convenient cattle stampede in the middle? Suddenly, the film defaults to a Western: war in South Africa isn't an interesting enough subject, it's necessary to import genre conventions from afar. Good grief!

[moviesceleton]

Still, once you know the ending, there isn't much repeat viewing value in the film, dontcha think?

Yeah, probably so.

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * (1972)
This is a tough one to rate. I can't decide whether this is very clever or just school boy type humor. I guess there's a bit both..anyway, I had a few good laughs. Lets say 7/10

EDIT: No, lets make it more like 7.5-8/10. Best episodes were the last two.

*But Were Afraid to Ask

[Groggy]

I agree with you on Zulu Titoli, although I'd give it a 9. Hawkins and Jacobson were excrutiatingly annoying, and they only get more and more tiresome with each viewing. Still, the rest of the film is solid enough that it isn't a big deal to me.

[Groggy]

Come, come, these are hardly the film's most egregious failings. What about the very convenient cattle stampede in the middle? Suddenly, the film defaults to a Western: war in South Africa isn't an interesting enough subject, it's necessary to import genre conventions from afar. Good grief!

Actually, Jenkins, if you've read, oh, ANYTHING about the film, you'd know it was intended to be, more or less, a Western with Zulus instead of Indians. Have I called you a clown recently?

[Groggy]

Madeleine - 7/10 - Finally returned to the David Lean quest after weeks of absence. Based on the story of Madeleine Smith, who allegedly poisoned her French lover in 19th Century Glasgow, it starts off interesting but after the death occurs it becomes pretty formulaic and dry. Ann Todd is beautiful and gives a pretty good performance, but she's much, much too old at 40 to be playing a love-struck, romantic 21-year old girl. The rest of the cast is rather unremarkable, and the conclusion is rather unsatisfying, perhaps even laughable, reminding me of one of those old Centron shorts they liked to mock on MST3K. Still, the technical aspects, as one would expect from a Lean film, are without peer - of particular note is Guy Green's startling, almost noir-like cinematography, with extensive use of shadows and deep focus, create an oppressive, foreboding atmosphere. In my bottom three Leans, which means it's still pretty good, but could be much better.

Now only two left - The Sound Barrier and Hobson's Choice. Will see them ASAP.

[dave jenkins]

Actually, Jenkins, if you've read, oh, ANYTHING about the film, you'd know it was intended to be, more or less, a Western with Zulus instead of Indians. Have I called you a clown recently?

Ah, I see, the mere intention to do something hideous somehow renders the act innocuous. That's brilliant. Have I called you a dickfor recently?

[titoli]

Come, come, these are hardly the film's most egregious failings. What about the very convenient cattle stampede in the middle? Suddenly, the film defaults to a Western: war in South Africa isn't an interesting enough subject, it's necessary to import genre conventions from afar. Good grief!

It is a better policy to give substance to a movie with an improbable but  played-on-the-visual scene than with stock characters reciting stock dialogues. And it is quite a short one, so you don't mind it at all.   

[Groggy]

Ah, I see, the mere intention to do something hideous somehow renders the act innocuous. That's brilliant. Have I called you a dickfor recently?

Do explain what's inherently "hideous" about such a concept.

[Tucumcari Bound]

Michael Clayton (2007)

Great film.

[T.H.]

Come, come, these are hardly the film's most egregious failings. What about the very convenient cattle stampede in the middle? Suddenly, the film defaults to a Western: war in South Africa isn't an interesting enough subject, it's necessary to import genre conventions from afar. Good grief!

Good point.

I normally refrain from using such vague adjectives to describe movies, but "boring" certainly suffices when describing Zulu.

[moviesceleton]

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) - 7.5/10
After that music hall scene the supposed climax isn't so powerful. And the very ending was stupid. But other wise I enjoyed it

[Groggy]

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) - 7.5/10
After that music hall scene the supposed climax isn't so powerful. And the very ending was stupid. But other wise I enjoyed it

Really, I didn't think there was a whole lot aside from the music hall scene that was worth watching. Easily in my bottom five Hitchcocks, though it's not outright bad like, oh, Torn Curtain.

[dave jenkins]

Really, I didn't think there was a whole lot aside from the music hall scene that was worth watching. Easily in my bottom five Hitchcocks, though it's not outright bad like, oh, Torn Curtain.

I think you mean the Albert Hall scene. I agree, it's not Hitchcock at his best, but the film does have other things of merit. The opening 30 minutes, which set up all that is to follow, is a good example. I especially like the way matters build until the scene where Stewart has to give Doris Day the bad news. That scene itself is especially well written (thank you, John Michael Hayes), and the conceit of drugging Day before she has the chance to play the hysterical mom is positively inspired. Not only does it convincingly alibi Ms. Day's character, it prevents Day from overacting, or at least, giving a less-than-satisfactory performance. In the event, she brings it off, and the drugging actually works to elicit added empathy from the viewer. Masterfully written, acted, and directed.

Unfortunately, after that and until the Albert Hall sequence, there is little of interest.

[moviesceleton]

I think you mean the Albert Hall scene. I agree, it's not Hitchcock at his best, but the film does have other things of merit. The opening 30 minutes, which set up all that is to follow, is a good example. I especially like the way matters build until the scene where Stewart has to give Doris Day the bad news. That scene itself is especially well written (thank you, John Michael Hayes), and the conceit of drugging Day before she has the chance to play the hysterical mom is positively inspired. Not only does it convincingly alibi Ms. Day's character, it prevents Day from overacting, or at least, giving a less-than-satisfactory performance. In the event, she brings it off, and the drugging actually works to elicit added empathy from the viewer. Masterfully written, acted, and directed.

Unfortunately, after that and until the Albert Hall sequence, there is little of interest.

100% supported