Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[Groggy]

The Lighthorsemen - 7/10 - The battle scenes are some of the best ever. The rest of the movie's... meh.

[Dust Devil]

Crumb (1994) - 8/10

[cigar joe]

Across 110th Street (1972) directed by  Barry Shear with Stars: Anthony Quinn, Yaphet Kotto, Anthony Franciosa.  $300,000 is taken from a mob drop house. Several mafiosi are killed and two policemen. Three small-time criminals are on the run with the loot. Lt. Pope (Kotto) and Mattelli (Quinn) are two New York City cops trying to break the case.  A forgotten gritty NYC crime/semi-blaxploitation flick 8/10. From Netflix

[Groggy]

Interstellar - 4/10 - Like 2001 if the giant space baby explained everything at the end. Long and angry review sure to come.

[PowerRR]

Interstellar - 8/10
At one point during watching it I thought it was a masterpiece. Overall, it gets far too convoluted and uneven. It's about 30 minutes too long of "last minute intense save-the-day astronaut space" situations that I've seen 1000 times before. It is fucking incredible visually, both effects and cinematography. Solid performances all around, and critics complaints about over sentimentality are bull shit - it's fairly tame, and the sentimental aspects work. I thought Hans Zimmer's score was both unique and incredible. Admittedly I'm a bit slow with sci-fi plots and the last half hour kind of lost me but I caught up with it more or less toward the end. Groggy's point of "it's like 2001 except explains everything at the end" is sort of pretentious bullshit - what's so wrong with explaining things at the end? Does it make a movie better to go unexplained? Although they're both ambitious, clearly Interstellar has different intentions than 2001. It's like comparing Boyhood and The Tree of Life, another horrid comparison I keep hearing. Not to mention I considered 2001 to be far and away one of Kubrick's most overrated works - Interstellar destroys it (yeah, I said it, fuck off). Matt Damon's uncredited inclusion was laughable and distracting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUa5oHgYV2k)

The first hour and a half or so is incredible film making - so good to the point that if noodles_leone really tries to say that fucking Gravity is actually better, then he's dead wrong. It's the kind of stuff Spielberg wishes he could be a good enough director to make. I'd like to see a movie other than Days of Heaven where corn is more beautifully photographed (Field of Dreams, The Informant and Signs have no chance). It's loss of focus and constant tonal shifts toward the end really hurt it. Regardless, this is one of Nolan's best movies. Probably only TDK and maybe The Prestige top it.

Lots of Nolan's scripts are flawed but I generally see self-proclaimed critics pretending to hate him as mental masturbation for themselves.

[drinkanddestroy]

The Wings of Eagles (1957) 7/10 (TCM)

I was dead tired when I started watching this; dozed on and off through the first 50 minutes (until Wayne gets injured), finally shut it off. Then, after I'd had plenty of sleep, I watched the last hour.

This movie is pretty lighthearted for this subject matter, but it's decent enough. The Metrocolor is very pretty, Maureen O'Hara is, of course, thrilling to look at (it's hilariously pathetic how, to show how a few years have passed, the hair/makeup dep't puts one very prominent strip of gray in her flaming red hair, and otherwise leaves her exactly the same as earlier in the movie – not a wrinkle, makeup the same, the rest of her hair the same besides that one gray strip, I got a great kick out of that ) I was waiting to see "John Dodge" chew on his handkerchief, but I guess that musta been one thing that Ford was too sensitive about to allow to be shown  

The TCM print is gorgeous. Some of the war footage is obviously real, of course that footage is noticeably different from the rest of the movie.

[Groggy]

Groggy's point of "it's like 2001 except explains everything at the end" is sort of pretentious bullshit - what's so wrong with explaining things at the end?

Explanation is fine. Beating the audience over the head with never-ending, pedantic monologues removing any nuance or chance for alternate interpretation is not.

[Groggy]

The Wings of Eagles (1957) 7/10 (TCM)

I was dead tired when I started watching this; dozed on and off through the first 50 minutes (until Wayne gets injured), finally shut it off. Then, after I'd had plenty of sleep, I watched the last hour.

This movie is pretty lighthearted for this subject matter, but it's decent enough. The Metrocolor is very pretty, Maureen O'Hara is, of course, thrilling to look at (it's hilariously pathetic how, to show how a few years have passed, the hair/makeup dep't puts one very prominent strip of gray in her flaming red hair, and otherwise leaves her exactly the same as earlier in the movie – not a wrinkle, makeup the same, the rest of her hair the same besides that one gray strip, I got a great kick out of that Grin) I was waiting to see "John Dofge" chew on his handkerchief, but I guess that musta been one thing that Ford was too sensitive about to allow to be shown  Wink

The TCM print is gorgeous. Some of the war footage is obviously real, of course that footage is noticeably different from the rest of the movie.

It's definitely a schizophrenic movie, starting as a broad comedy then going into straight drama later on. I still enjoy it; Wayne and O'Hara have great chemistry (and excellent characters to play), while Wayne's rehabilitation is a real tearjerker. Ward Bond's cameo is a hoot.

[stanton]

It's the only Wayne/Ford movie I never managed to watch.

Watched yesterday another Wayne film for the first time. Flying Leathernecks (1951) is a pretty boring flagwaver with all the usual war-film cliches. The only surprise was in retrospect the end of the credit sequence: directed by Nicholas Ray. Doesn't look so for a second. 2/10

[PowerRR]

Explanation is fine. Beating the audience over the head with never-ending, pedantic monologues removing any nuance or chance for alternate interpretation is not.

****SPOLERS****

We can blame that on my stupidity: I wasn't sure what was going on so much after the whole after Cooper enters the bookcase black hole thing. I wasn't really following the movie well enough to be able to be beaten over the head with anything (the same thing happened with the far inferior Inception when it came out... my poor brain just can't handle science). I put stuff together afterwards.

To state thing more clearly (and without singling out various SLWB members), I think that Interstellar is an excellent cinematic experience and a great film that's a bit overrated by fans and way, way, way underrated by critics. But the inability to retain a constant tone is what keeps it far away from being a masterpiece. One part is a great family drama, one part is great sci-fi action, and one part is a 2001-ish exploration of space... but none of them really blend well together. They feel like separate segments.

[dave jenkins]

Foxcatcher (2014) - 8/10. The story of wrestlers Dave and Mark Schulz and their relationship with John Eleuthère du Pont, a batshit crazy multimillionaire. The Schulz bros are played Mark Ruffulo and Channing Tatum, respectively. John du Pont is played by Steve Carell, a prosthetic nose, and a dental appliance. All the performances are rock solid. The director, Bennett Miller, builds steadily to a climax that most won't see coming (unless they read the reviews or know the almost-true story already). The film score is quietly effective.

[Groggy]

We can blame that on my stupidity: I wasn't sure what was going on so much after the whole after Cooper enters the bookcase black hole thing. I wasn't really following the movie well enough to be able to be beaten over the head with anything (the same thing happened with the far inferior Inception when it came out... my poor brain just can't handle science). I put stuff together afterwards.

Well I'm not, or don't mean to be, criticizing Interstellar for not being as opaque as 2001 or Under the Skin. Mostly, I've never liked Nolan's habit of making everything insipidly explicit. It's cool that you have these ideas, some of which are great on paper; can't you think of a better way to convey them than endless monologues? Can't you trust your audience to figure out some things on their own? There's a middle ground between explaining nothing and explaining everything.

[drinkanddestroy]

It's the only Wayne/Ford movie I never managed to watch.

Watched yesterday another Wayne film for the first time. Flying Leathernecks (1951) is a pretty boring flagwaver with all the usual war-film cliches. The only surprise was in retrospect the end of the credit sequence: directed by Nicholas Ray. Doesn't look so for a second. 2/10

I started watching Flying Leathernecks once when it played on TCM; I wasn't enjoying it and shut it off after a while

[stanton]

I started watching Flying Leathernecks once when it played on TCM; I wasn't enjoying it and shut it off after a while

Well, in that case you did right, as the film goes on like it begins. And the Wayne character's "we can't afford emotions" ideology wins over Ryan's humanity.

[cigar joe]

Sharky's Machine (1981) Director: Burt Reynolds with Burt Reynolds, Rachel Ward, Vittorio Gassman, Brian Kieth, Charles Durning, Earl Holliman, Bernie Casey, Henry Silva. Crime film that is a re-working of Laura set in Atlanta.    7/10