Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[XhcnoirX]

Ya don't say? Imagine ol' Kirk, going a bit over-the-top. Who'd a thunk it?

 

[dave jenkins]

Coffee and Cigarettes (2003) - 6/10. Vaguely amusing.

I'm upping my score on this. Yes, this is just a series of vignettes; there's no story. Some of the bits are better than others, but some are really, really good. The one where Cate Blanchet plays opposite herself is amazing, and I like the one with Alfred Molina and Steve Coogan. And of course, as everybody says, the last one with the old codgers is beyond phenomenal. I guess these started out as shorts (I remember seeing a couple of them in the 90s before features) and only gradually coalesced into a longer piece. The b&w photography is pretty and the songs are pretty great. 7/10.

[dave jenkins]

The Midnight Man (1974) – 6/10. Not to be confused with a recent horror film, this is something that used to show on late night TV in the 70s, which I think is where I saw it originally. Burt Lancaster plays an ex-con/ex-police officer who is working security at “Jordon University” (played by Clemson).  An on-campus break-in and then a murder starts him investigating and getting in the hair of the local sheriff (Harris Yulin). This picture features all your 70s faves: Susan Clark, Cam Mitchell, Ed Lauter, Robert Quarry, Catherine Bach. Burt’s son Bill has a small part (there’s an amusing moment when Lancaster fils tells his old man to F-off).

The South Carolina locations are plentiful and well-used, but, this being a Universal production, soundstages are also in play and the back lot makes an appearance.

IMDb has all the contemporary advertising slogans:
             “The major sport at Jordan College this year is MURDER”

             “The score is one dead, ten witnesses to go.”

             “The Ex-con. The Hippie. The Senator. The Pervert. The Lesbian. The Professor. The Sheriff. The Sadist. One of
              them is a murderer. All of them make the most fascinating murder mystery in years.”

This last is misleading, as there is in fact more than one murderer.

The film has a kind of TV feel, due to the cast and lighting. It also plays as something akin to a series pilot—if you ever wanted to know what a 70s Lancaster cop show would have been like, this is the place to check. Ultimately the plot doesn’t work: it tries one-twist-too-many, making so much of what has come before nonsense (for example, if everyone in town besides the sheriff is on the take, what is Lancaster’s character even doing there? He was invited in by one of the baddies. Why—so he could screw things up?) The new blu looks very good and the Dave Grusin music on it helps me achieve nostalgia nirvana.

[cigar joe]

The Midnight Man (1974) – 6/10. Not to be confused with a recent horror film, this is something that used to show on late night TV in the 70s, which I think is where I saw it originally. Burt Lancaster plays an ex-con/ex-police officer who is working security at “Jordon University” (played by Clemson).  An on-campus break-in and then a murder starts him investigating and getting in the hair of the local sheriff (Harris Yulin). This picture features all your 70s faves: Susan Clark, Cam Mitchell, Ed Lauter, Robert Quarry, Catherine Bach. Burt’s son Bill has a small part (there’s an amusing moment when Lancaster fils tells his old man to F-off).

The South Carolina locations are plentiful and well-used, but, this being a Universal production, soundstages are also in play and the back lot makes an appearance.

IMDb has all the contemporary advertising slogans:
             “The major sport at Jordan College this year is MURDER”

             “The score is one dead, ten witnesses to go.”

             “The Ex-con. The Hippie. The Senator. The Pervert. The Lesbian. The Professor. The Sheriff. The Sadist. One of
              them is a murderer. All of them make the most fascinating murder mystery in years.”

This last is misleading, as there is in fact more than one murderer.

The film has a kind of TV feel, due to the cast and lighting. It also plays as something akin to a series pilot—if you ever wanted to know what a 70s Lancaster cop show would have been like, this is the place to check. Ultimately the plot doesn’t work: it tries one-twist-too-many, making so much of what has come before nonsense (for example, if everyone in town besides the sheriff is on the take, what is Lancaster’s character even doing there? He was invited in by one of the baddies. Why—so he could screw things up?) The new blu looks very good and the Dave Grusin music on it helps me achieve nostalgia nirvana.

I started watching this on rarefilms but it didn't hold my interest.

[dave jenkins]

Did you see it in widescreen and with all the profanity in place?

[cigar joe]

Did you see it in widescreen and with all the profanity in place?

I believe it was widescreen and pretty grainy, but don't remember any profanity, but then I only got about 5-10 minutes into it. It wasn't a good copy.

[dave jenkins]

The reason I asked: apparently there was a version for TV that circulated without the profanity and probably wasn't in widescreen. The new blu is not in the least grainy, in fact, looks very impressive. I'm not saying this is a great film on par with, say, Night Moves (wink, wink), but I think it's pretty entertaining. You may enjoy the new release.

[cigar joe]

The reason I asked: apparently there was a version for TV that circulated without the profanity and probably wasn't in widescreen. The new blu is not in the least grainy, in fact, looks very impressive. I'm not saying this is a great film on par with, say, Night Moves (wink, wink), but I think it's pretty entertaining. You may enjoy the new release.

Thanks

[dave jenkins]

To Sleep With Anger (1990) - 5/10. A mysterious stranger (Danny Glover) insinuates himself into the lives of a black middle-class LA family. Bad things start happening. I didn't like the acting in this--too many graduates, apparently, from the Kirk Douglas School of Maximum Emoting. The plot isn't bad, though, and the central character remains intriguingly ambiguous throughout. The story takes a weird turn at the end and becomes The Trouble With Harry (literally: the main character's name is actually Harry.) Worth a watch, but repeat viewings maybe not so much.

[PowerRR]

To Sleep With Anger (1990) - 5/10. A mysterious stranger (Danny Glover) insinuates himself into the lives of a black middle-class LA family. Bad things start happening. I didn't like the acting in this--too many graduates, apparently, from the Kirk Douglas School of Maximum Emoting. The plot isn't bad, though, and the central character remains intriguingly ambiguous throughout. The story takes a weird turn at the end and becomes The Trouble With Harry (literally: the main character's name is actually Harry.) Worth a watch, but repeat viewings maybe not so much.

I was thinking of blind-buying the new Criterion release because I loved the artwork so much. Instead, I'm gonna watch it streaming on The Criterion Channel, because it's movie of the week for charter subscribers. I'll let you know how I like it.

[PowerRR]

To Sleep with Anger (1990) - 5/10
Yeah, this one is dull.

The Delinquents (1957) - 6.5/10
Altman's debut is well photographed and a bit raw and subversive for its time. His style obviously hasn't developed yet, and but it still has somewhat of an Altman stamp on it. The dialogue and acting are really bad, and the story can be a bit silly. But, it goes by quick at a brisk 72 minutes, and it kept me entertained.

[drinkanddestroy]

Shadows (1959)  This is hailed as the first American Indie film to receive success outside of the Hollywood System.  Directed by John Cassavetes and inspired by a acting class he was running in New York.  The project is basically a movie length improvisation filmed on location in New York without filming permits and no script.  Cassavetes would tell the actors what he wanted on the spot and they would improvise.  It was very low budget and the film flopped during initial screenings.  Cassavetes remade the film and critics who loved the original say the second was more commercial in nature and lost the appeal of the original.  I found the film to have great subject matter but found it tedious to watch.  I couldn't get past some of the acting.  I rate it a 6 out of 10...

I agree, I found Shadows to be crap.

[noodles_leone]

Amarcord - 7/10
Slowly but surely catching up with my "impossible to miss yet somehow missed until that point films". I liked it a lot, but it's clunky as hell. It works more as an inpiration for other filmmakers than as an actual film.

Paris est à nous - 5/10
A feature film that started with a director and actors filming guerrilla style in the street of Paris right  after the 2015 attacks, then became a Kickstarter campaign and is now on Netlfix. The writing isn't good, the voice over is mostly empty and pretentious and the whole thing is way too heavily inspired by Terrence Mallick (without the grace) and Gaspar Noe (without the raw sensual and violent power... but with the stupid characters) for its own good. Of course, given how it was done, the film had to be flawed. They could have managed to create interesting characters though. Yet, they caught something on camera, something from that period. This is how Paris was for 6 months. And from time to time, the voice over "gets it" for a few seconds. All in all, a bad film that would deserve a lesser note, but I like the story of the production (go guerilla!), and more importantly... it's a good thing it exists. Hence the rating.

Die Hard with a Vengeance - 8.5/10
Of course, the very best of the series. I like the French title better though: une Journée en Enfer (a Day in Hell).

Margin Call - 7/10
Very good dialogues, great performances.

[drinkanddestroy]

Die Hard with a Vengeance - 8.5/10
Of course, the very best of the series. I like the French title better thoug: une Journée en Enfer (a Day in Hell).

Ahhh, this brings back memories!

In my late teenaged years (early 2000's), I watched those 3 Die Hard movies a total of like a hundred times on VHS. And this one was my favorite of all - I watched it more than the first two combined. (If The Patriot was my favorite film, Die Hard with a Vengeance was not too far behind.)

BTW, I watched the fourth one once and did not like it. I have not bothered to see the fifth.

[noodles_leone]

Ahhh, this brings back memories!

In my late teenaged years (early 2000's), I watched those 3 Die Hard movies a total of like a hundred times on VHS. And this one was my favorite of all - I watched it more than the first two combined. (If The Patriot was my favorite film, Die Hard with a Vengeance was not too far behind.)

BTW, I watched the fourth one once and did not like it. I have not bothered to see the fifth.

I have watched the fourth. Its first 40 minutes are watchable. I haven't bothered with the 5th installment which is, by all accounts, an embarrassment for everyone involved.
Anyway, Die Hard 3 aged amazingly well. If you forget the over use of long focals and remove something like 30-60 seconds of discussion about race that feel outdated ("Have I ever oppressed you?"), it could be released tomorrow and be a huge success.