Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[Cusser]

Babel (2006).  Ambitious, a little confusing.  Rate 5/10

[T.H.]

Even without having seen Top Gun Maverick, that was some stereotypically snobby and flat out shallow criticism from you guys.

Top Gun is phenomenal from a technical standpoint, certainly worlds better than The Departed in every way.

[noodles_leone]

Even without having seen Top Gun Maverick, that was some stereotypically snobby and flat out shallow criticism from you guys.

Top Gun is phenomenal from a technical standpoint, certainly worlds better than The Departed in every way.

From a technical standpoint Top Gun was "clean", maybe in a way blockbusters (which were still being invented) weren't at the time. But nothing that impresses me today, nothing THAT out of reach for your regular Martin Campbell. Nothing to do with The Departed which, whatever you think of the movie, pushed the art of filmmaking (not just the art of the blockbuster) forward. Hey, don't take anything from it if you don't want to. I'll for sure take things from Top Gun, which, of course, had a more difficult topic at hand on a technical standpoint: filming planes and huge boats in an exciting and clear way presents big challenges that I'm not downplaying at all. But it's a very dumb, corny movie filled with dumb, corny characters who have dumb, corny relationships and dumb, corny arcs and they (the characters, their relationships and arcs) are filmed in a professional, pretty, but also dumb and corny way. The film has the right to go for the dumb and corny and try to do it right, but there is nothing snob at all at thinking this is ridiculous. Anyway, I do love my share of dumb, corny movies, just not this one, this one makes me laugh when I shouldn't laugh and it feels like a high end commercial (a commercial for Tom Cruise, for the army, for planes, for motorcycles...) and almost never like a movie.

That being said, yes, it is very stereotypical from us... but you didn't comment on the interesting and not stereotypical part: people criticizing Top Gun like we just did are an endangered specie. A huge chunck of those who laughed at that movie or just didn't care at all back in the days are nowadays convinced that they always loved it.

[dave jenkins]

Never seen the original. Never want to. Saw TG: M twice in the theater in IMAX. 10/10 both times.

[cigar joe]

Chair de Poule aka Highway Pick-Up (1963) French "Spaghetti" Western Noir

Directed by Julien Duvivier (P?p? le Moko, Panique).  Written by Julien Duvivier and Ren? Barjavel (screenplay), adapting a James Hadley Chase novel  "Come Easy--Go Easy."

A little dash of Bad Day At Black Rock, The Postman Always Rings Twice, and Detour. The "good" guy is an escaped falsely convicted murderer who took the rap for his best friend. He becomes an employee and fast friends with a truck stops owner. The Femme Fatale is the owner's wife, supposedly and ex hotel waitress of some sort, wink, wink. Who got off a bus and stayed because it was convenient and there was a wad of cash to keep her there until she figures out a way to get it. It works.

The film just changes the original California / Death Valley-ish local to France but uses the same aesthetics and story. The truck stop, a last chance gas, called the  "Relay de Col" is an Avia station with lunch counter "Chez Thomas," on the arid Col de Vence, a mountain pass through the 10,000 foot high peaks of the Maritime Alps between the Mediterranean coast and the interior. The next gas is 96 kilometers (60 miles) The film also blends in a some nods to the Noir Western Rawhide (about a stage relay station) and enforces this with what sounds like a prescient Spaghetti Western like score.

This is a great Film Noir, the general story is a wonderful riff on other familiar noir storylines and yet they are tossed enough to keep you guessing. Robert Hossein and Georges Wilson are believable as  friends and are both very compelling.

Julien Duvivier and Ren? Barjavel stick pretty much to the Chase novel with some minor changes. Ferisnstance, in the novel Daniel's safecracking partner Paul just randomly drives into the Relay de Col Avia station and meets up with Daniel in a true twist of fate. The locksmith company they worked for suspected that Paul may have been involved with the heist. The company thought it would be better for the company's image if Paul was out selling safes on the road rather near any temptation. Out of site out of mind. In the film Daniel actually sends for Paul to help him get a forged passport and papers so he could get out of the country. It's the least he could do as a favor.

Catherine Rouvel shines. She elevates herself into one of the great Femme Fatales of Noir. Her character portrayal in excellent. She is sexy, gorgeous, devious, and dangerous. She is alluring and it helps that all of her outfits are tight or quite revealing, most notably is what looks like a gold lame halter that becomes sticky and clingy after working in the hot kitchen and serving tables. The halter leaves almost nothing to the imagination.

Jean Sorel always reminds me of a French Robert Wagner, while Lucien Raimbourg and Jacques Bertrand are great as the French hillbillies. As far as the Spaghetti Western angle, besides the soundtrack there's also a scene between Daniel and Maria reminiscent of the Tuco / Blondie scene at the mission in Sergio Leone's The Good The Bad And The Ugly)8-9/10.

[noodles_leone]

Never seen the original. Never want to. Saw TG: M twice in the theater in IMAX. 10/10 both times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji6Yeve_lwY
10/10
And the part between 0'38 and 3'20 is actually 12/10 in IMAX, with the steamy sex scene made of rotating cameras and cross dissolves (I blushed) and the following dialogue that feels so guenuine, so not forced, so not "let's explain that highly complex screenplays" and is so totally enjoyable I challenge you to find a single person who didn't check out during that scene. It's pretty obvious the two talents fully checked out during the filming as well as the writers during the writing.

[Cusser]

Life of Crime 5/10  First-time kidnappers see opportunity and kidnap wealthy wife.
Tim Robbins, Jennifer Aniston, Isla Fisher

[T.H.]

From a technical standpoint Top Gun was "clean", maybe in a way blockbusters (which were still being invented) weren't at the time. But nothing that impresses me today, nothing THAT out of reach for your regular Martin Campbell. Nothing to do with The Departed which, whatever you think of the movie, pushed the art of filmmaking (not just the art of the blockbuster) forward. Hey, don't take anything from it if you don't want to. I'll for sure take things from Top Gun, which, of course, had a more difficult topic at hand on a technical standpoint: filming planes and huge boats in an exciting and clear way presents big challenges that I'm not downplaying at all. But it's a very dumb, corny movie filled with dumb, corny characters who have dumb, corny relationships and dumb, corny arcs and they (the characters, their relationships and arcs) are filmed in a professional, pretty, but also dumb and corny way. The film has the right to go for the dumb and corny and try to do it right, but there is nothing snob at all at thinking this is ridiculous. Anyway, I do love my share of dumb, corny movies, just not this one, this one makes me laugh when I shouldn't laugh and it feels like a high end commercial (a commercial for Tom Cruise, for the army, for planes, for motorcycles...) and almost never like a movie.

That being said, yes, it is very stereotypical from us... but you didn't comment on the interesting and not stereotypical part: people criticizing Top Gun like we just did are an endangered specie. A huge chunck of those who laughed at that movie or just didn't care at all back in the days are nowadays convinced that they always loved it.

I meant stereotypical in terms of general online snobbery, it wasn't a shot at you and Stanton. I just found your criticisms meritless.

Of course Top Gun (1986) is campy and silly, but it's way better directed than a 90's Bond film, especially when it comes to action. In spite of its cheese, camp, or anything else, it's a well executed film with solid characters, a good enough story (at worst) that's very well shot and edited. Do you think All That Heaven Allows doesn't have value because it's campy as well?

No, The Departed did not advance anything in film and you've never been able to specifically explain why you think the editing is so great. How on earth can you compare the competent editing in The Departed to the masterful editing in Raging Bull, it's an insane take. We all have weak spots or flaws as movie people, and your biggest flaw is that you definitely greatly overrate later or weaker works of director's that you love. You're like a diehard sports fan when it comes to certain directors and they can do no wrong in your eyes.

[noodles_leone]

I fully agree that Top Gun is much more watchable than the Bond films around it. I more or less said so I?m the previous comment. But once again you?re missing out on the true chore of what Stanton and I were really saying about it, had you not missed that you?d have seen how not stereotypical our comments actually were (the subtext was stereotypical I?ll give you that).

I don?t think I overate mediocre movies of directors I like. Not really. They are of course more watchable to me than a comparable movie by a director I don?t like because I?m more sensible to their style. But if you think I overate them I?m quite convinced you aren?t reading me well. I?ll be passionate, for sure, and both ways: I?ll get way more angry at Marty failing me than when it happens to Tony Scott. I will never say the departed is a masterpiece for instance. You won?t find me defending War Horse even though I?m one of those who think Spielberg is literally a genius. You won?t find me ever saying anything good about colossus of Rhodes. No, I don?t think you pint-pointed the right  blind spot I have, on the contrary i have noticed I?m better than most at identifying things of interest in an overall bad or mediocre movie. I do know I?m better than you are at it because you tend to have big ?I hate this?/?I love this? reactions that semi blind you for a while. So I?d say you are more prejudiced against late Marty than I am ?for? him.

I can be semi blinded by cool cinematography or pure ?technicism? which will lead me to overate a whole movie (mostly because I?ll be angry at people not seeing the good stuff in it so I?ll overstate some points). But that?s what I will do in these case: overstate some points that are usually true. Also there is one thing I will never doubt: if I say the technical side of a scene or a movie is great, it is great. I see these things and I try to steal them when I can (basically every day). So I know, especially when it comes to editing. There aren?t a lot of good editors in this world and really not a lot more people who can spot good editing. I can. But good editing is hard to explain, I could do it better if we were watching the movie together and talking about the cuts as they happen. On the other hand I?m pretty bad at analyzing a movie so I?m not a god after all.

[cigar joe]

The Fabelmans (2022) -7/10. The fable man's very own coming-of-age story, as told by Spielberg himself. I wasn't planning on seeing this, but the wife wanted to go to Women Talking. Now, there's no way in hell I'm going to watch something called Women Talking, so I had to find something else at the cineplex to occupy my time while Mrs. J did her thing. The film with the most compatible showtime was The Fabelmans. Hey, I actually enjoyed it a lot. I'm not much of a Spielberg fan--there are maybe 3 of his films I like--but I'll certainly be getting this on blu. Not the best film of last year, by any means (and a bit too close to Wildlife in places), but I found it very entertaining. And it sure smells like an Oscar winner.

When I asked the wife about her film she told me she no longer identifies as a pacifist. WTF?

The best part was the end with John Ford (David Lynch) that gets a 10/10 the rest yea I'd go with a 7/10.

[stanton]

I meant stereotypical in terms of general online snobbery, it wasn't a shot at you and Stanton. I just found your criticisms meritless.

Of course Top Gun (1986) is campy and silly, but it's way better directed than a 90's Bond film, especially when it comes to action. In spite of its cheese, camp, or anything else, it's a well executed film with solid characters, a good enough story (at worst) that's very well shot and edited. Do you think All That Heaven Allows doesn't have value because it's campy as well?

Yes, TG is a competently directed film, and the actions scenes are well made, actually the action was the only thing I could enjoy in both TGs. And Tony Scott was a good director, but not a good filmmaker. He had directorial skills, maybe more than his brother, but he did not too much with them. And at that time he made with TG and 48 Hours II his worst films, his only boring films.

And the technical qualities of TGM did not impress me, not even the often praised action scenes, they were ok but not fascinating. And even in the original TG the action was not good enough to save an empty film.

I also think that of the 90s bonds Golden Exe is well directed, and has some exiting action, but it is Tomorrow Never Dies which is well comparable to TG, cause it is in itself well made, but it is as a whole so sterile and not inspired that is is a quite boring film. And The World Is not Enough is another 90s Bond which is much better than TG. Actually even the worst 80s Bond, which is A View to a Kill is a little bit better.

And I don't care much for The Departed, it is a good film, but far away from my expectations of a Scorsese gangster flic. It is a 6/10 film, and the last re-watch did not improve that.

Well, I can enjoy films for their pure directorial skills, otherwise forget Leone, but in TG this is all so unimaginative that it does not work. Actually the entertainment value of films comes more from the style of films than its plot or its content. It is less important how a film ends for example, as normally the ending of genre films are predictable, but how the ending is directed.

[dave jenkins]

The best part was the end with John Ford (David Lynch) that gets a 10/10 the rest yea I'd go with a 7/10.

Dude, major SPOILER!!!

That was something I was glad I didn't know about before I saw it. Just sayin'.

[noodles_leone]

Dude, major SPOILER!!!

That was something I was glad I didn't know about before I saw it. Just sayin'.

Unfortunately that scene (and the following extended shot) is all over the internet already

[dave jenkins]

La ragazza di Bebo (1963) - 8/10.

Cardinale, 84, was in Rome last month for the Italian presentation of a newly restored version of Luigi Comencini?s 1963 film "La ragazza di Bube" (?Bebo?s Girl?), about a small-town girl who stands by her man, even after he is convicted of a crime and goes to jail.

?Bebo?s Girl,? which earned Cardinale her first prestigious acting award, Italy?s Nastro d?Argento for best actress, will be shown on Friday at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the first in a 23-film retrospective honoring the Tunisian-born Italian actress that runs through Feb. 21. It is one of a handful of times that the museum has presented a tribute to a living actor in its more than 90-year history.

NYT/2 Feb. 23

At MoMA last night, I saw this with Mrs. J. She wasn't keen: a little too old timey for her. I liked it a lot (first-time viewing): Claudia plays a tough, sexy woman, and she's in every scene. And she got to use her own voice! The restoration, to my eyes, was flawless. I hope there's a blu coming.

[noodles_leone]

Lawrence of Arabia - 8/10
Hadn't seen it in a while. WAY TOO LONG, WAY TOO MUCH MUSIC, WAY TOO MUCH PRE-BRANDO OVERACTING. The rest of it is still as great as they say it is. I swear to the gods of cinema that one day I'll make an epic movie one day that will have as much materiality/physicality/howeveryoucallit as this.