Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[dave jenkins]

Apocalypse Now: the Final Cut 453/10
(the French scenes are overlong and need a much better music)

The big problem is there's no voice over. Coppola needs to hire a voice actor who can do late-70s Martin Sheen and then write some material for him. I love the French plantation scene, but as it stands now it seems like it was shoe-horned in from some other film.

[noodles_leone]

The big problem is there's no voice over. Coppola needs to hire a voice actor who can do late-70s Martin Sheen and then write some material for him. I love the French plantation scene, but as it stands now it seems like it was shoe-horned in from some other film.

Good point. It wouldn't fix everything but it would help a lot.

[stanton]

The big problem is there's no voice over.

Why should there be a voice over?
The scene works as it is, and I think it works better in the shorter FC version.

Actually the FC is (so far) the best version. Only the sufboard scene still sucks, but after rewatching the 2nd playmate scene, I think now FFC was right to cut it out, so it seems this is the nearly perfect version ...

... well, let's wait for Coppola's Ultimate Cut.

[noodles_leone]

Why should there be a voice over?
The scene works as it is, and I think it works better in the shorter FC version.

For a French it seriously doesn't (the whole theater was laughing in an embarrassed way).

Actually the FC is (so far) the best version.

It is.

Only the sufboard scene still sucks, but after rewatching the 2nd playmate scene, I think now FFC was right to cut it out, so it seems this is the nearly perfect version ...

I now like the surfboard scenes. It took a while to get used to them but I think the film works better with them. And they show some acting range from Martin Sheen, or another side of his character, that make everything else work better.
I've always liked the 2nd playmate scene but I have to say it just slows redux down at a moment when it doesn't need to be slowed down. Also, it will always be a cross of iron rip off for me, and good old Sam went further and did it better so let's cut it out.

... well, let's wait for Coppola's Ultimate Cut.

For the 50th anniversary!

[drinkanddestroy]

... well, let's wait for Coppola's Ultimate Cut.

No stanton cut?

[T.H.]

Those are great filmmakers but their films to me feel a bit cold - specifically Fuller and Peckinpah. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - Shock Corridor for example is one of my favorite movies.

And I don't now, man. I've watched a lot of film school garbage and none of it reminds me of Malick. All of the guy's movies are pretty damn effective for me. I mostly don't find his movies or the narration pretentious - aside from quite a bit of the narration in To the Wonder and Voyage of Time. I think he's simplifying movies more than anything - stripping away the exposition, plot and dialogue and diving straight into the emotional reactions. For me, it works.

He's testing a new way to build narrative, instead of with plot, with a stream-of-conscious montage of emotions. I can see why it alienates most people but to me it's a totally interesting and effective way to push cinema to different levels. Imagine you've never seen a movie when watching one of the newer Malick films - they're a new take on how movies can be experienced. In that sense, I don't find his work pretentious at all - especially because by all accounts, anyone who has worked with him paints him as a very non-pretentious person. He's just doing things differently than the fairly linear way narratives have been built in the past 100 years.

I'll just say - if there is anyone here who doesn't hate Malick with a fiery passion - then try A Hidden Life when it comes out wide release. It's much more accessible, and better, than most of his work.

I don't hate Malick, I just find his movies of the last couple decades to be sort of silly, amateurish exercises in eastern philosophy. I'd argue that Kubrick accomplished (something close enough to) the bolded with 2001 50 years ago, and while I don't care for Tarkovsky, stuff like The Mirror is much better than Malick's current work.

[stanton]

I now like the surfboard scenes. It took a while to get used to them but I think the film works better with them. And they show some acting range from Martin Sheen, or another side of his character,

That's why the scene is so totally wrong ...

[noodles_leone]

That's why the scene is so totally wrong ...

Turns out that it actually makes the movie better and you're so totally wrong.

At least it did it for me this time: it made the film denser, deeper and richer. It also makes Sheen's body language and actions at the french plantation work so much better, and the scene where he kills the Vietnamese girl much more powerful. Probably because for once I was more invested in the character's (internal) journey than I ever was watching the film. I could have a different opinion next time, but it still does a hell of a lot for the film. So you are very wrong to dismiss them so easily.

[stanton]

Another point is that it destroys the fragile balance of the Kilgore character between seriousness and caricature, and turns him into a clown. Apo Now does not need a comedy interlude.

And there is a perfect cut in the theatrical version shortly after the "Napalm Smell" dialogue.

No stanton cut?

Of course, there should be one and there is one, and the new Ultimate Stanton Cut is ... tataaa ... (surprise, surprise): the Final Cut without the surfboard scene. It can't get better ...

[cigar joe]

Trapped (1949), WOW what a pristine restoration on Noir Alley! I'll be buying this one if it comes available. Upping my 7/10 to 8/10.

[dave jenkins]

I don't hate Malick, I just find his movies of the last couple decades to be sort of silly, amateurish exercises in eastern philosophy. I'd argue that Kubrick accomplished (something close enough to) the bolded with 2001 50 years ago, and while I don't care for Tarkovsky, stuff like The Mirror is much better than Malick's current work.

Word.

[PowerRR]

I don't hate Malick, I just find his movies of the last couple decades to be sort of silly, amateurish exercises in eastern philosophy. I'd argue that Kubrick accomplished (something close enough to) the bolded with 2001 50 years ago, and while I don't care for Tarkovsky, stuff like The Mirror is much better than Malick's current work.

Well I'd say that A Hidden Life is probably his least philosophical movie since the 70's. The narrative here is almost completely literal as to what's happening with the story. The shooting and cutting style is closer to his newer work, maybe like a middle ground between The New World and The Tree of Life, but not aggressive as the "Love Trilogy".

I hear a lot of comparisons between The Mirror and Malick, particularly Tree of Life. They might kind of be trying to do the same thing but I don't see a ton in common, really. I've watched Mirror a few times - it's certainly a bit of a reflection on memories and childhood - but much duller in my opinion. Or maybe I just don't personally connect with it.

[noodles_leone]

Who’s the subtle and nuanced filmgoer who hacked Powerrr’s account?

[cigar joe]

 

Who’s the subtle and nuanced filmgoer who hacked Powerrr’s account?

 

[cigar joe]

I just watched a Neo Noir Drama from 1973 today that would be labeled "soft core." Back then it was labeled Sexploitation. The version I saw was 78 minutes long the original was 87 minutes so its in your "classic noir" length range. The 87 minute length probably shows, oh my god real "sex."

It would make a good double bill with Midnight Cowboy. Or in a triple bill with Taxi Driver as the other book end. It's about a young woman who is a hustler, con artist, user/shack-up artist, petty thief, hooker, who is scratching for survival around Times Square. A lot is shot on location. It's Fleshpot on 42nd Street (1973).

It's in color but is stylistically visually noir and just when you just think our heroine sees a light at the end of the tunnel when she gets there it's a road flare. The actress playing the hustler Laura Cannon is amazingly good amazingly believable.

Most Sexploitation are really low budget.

It was written, directed, filmed and edited by the same guy who was unabashedly homosexual and an avowed misogynist.
This film is a masterpiece and I just don't mean of Sexploitation. The version I watched would be labeled NC-17 or a hard "R"

Anyway it's a film that should be more known by a director Andy Milligan, who got stuck in Grindhouse oblivion.

I urge any of you who think all Grindhouse/Sexploitation films are crap with lousy acting, direction, cinematography, story, etc., etc., go to Amazon Prime pay with your credit card the $1.99 fee, and watch the R/NC-17 streaming version of his film that is available. You may not like or approve the subject matter of it but it will be an eye opener to the amount of quality that was achieved on a low budget. Bravo Andy Milligan.

Laura Cannon who played Dusty Cole (in the film credited as Diana Lewis) can act, she is amazingly believable in her role.  Make no mistake though she was a porno actress with 30 films credited on IMDb. Her co-stars were Harry Reems (famous for Deep Throat) and Neil Flanagan who I've never heard of before. They both can also act BTW.

It's a sort of gritty, Noir, Pretty Woman.