What Was the Last Movie You Watched?

ChiroDoc said:
View attachment 365593

Oh boy. Despite mediocre reviews I was expecting Trap (2024) to be an entertaining picture based chiefly on the reputation of director M. Night Shyamalan (Split; Glass). But als it was a real turkey. It gradually became poor enough that I began to wonder if it was a spoof. But it wasn't.

A man named Cooper (Josh Hartnett) and his daughter attend an arena rock concert. We soon learn that the entire venue has become surrounded by police, having heard that the contemporary serial killer, "The Butcher" is in the building. They let the viewer know pretty quick that it is Cooper who is The Butcher, so the rest of the film features how they try to catch him, his evasion, and a hint at a sequel.

Right off the bat one of the problems is that we are not shown why or how Cooper has become The Butcher. There are no flashbacks of his evil deeds. Hitchcock once said that whatever is not shown to the audience is completely lost on them. That's the case here.

Of course the other problem is that the story is utterly unbelievable. Add to that the poor dialogue, and one finds oneself sitting there wondering why one is watching the movie. There is some decent acting, but with the silly dialogue, the actors have tall orders to sound convincing.

If you're a big Shyamalan fan then you might get something out of this one. But if not, you were warned...

Doc's rating: 3/10
Click to expand...
I've been seeing this advertised on TV, wondering what it was all about....thx.
 

The last movie I watched is Cloverfield. I'm actually watching it for the second time. I'm not a fan of the shaky camera method, but it makes sense in this movie. I'm watching it in segments, like I usually do. Hopefully I'll finish it in a day or two.


The last movie I finished was A Quiet Place: Day One. I didn't like the original movie...thought it was dumb, but this one kept me engaged.

 
dilettante said:
"Jexi" (2019).

Hilarious take on phone culture, wacky comedy.

Caution: very crude language.
Click to expand...
I liked this one too. The guy having a relationship with his computer or phone has been done enough times that there's not much more to be done with the premise. Yes it's over the top wacky, and very crude, but Jexi is creative in a way that manages to squeeze one more interesting film out of the genre.
 

Last edited:
Pepper said:
Read it has cannibals. No sir, ma'am, not for me. Hate cannibals. For the record, hate zombies, kind of cannibals, aren't they? Don't they eat brains?
Click to expand...
I actually had a nightmare about this film. I think I want to watch it again, but every time I think about watching it, I chicken out because I don't really need the ordeal.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
The last movie I watched is Cloverfield. I'm actually watching it for the second time. I'm not a fan of the shaky camera method, but it makes sense in this movie. I'm watching it in segments, like I usually do. Hopefully I'll finish it in a day or two.
...
Click to expand...
I enjoyed Cloverfield (2008) even though it's not generally my type of film. It was an innovative and unusual "found footage" monster film. I don't like the "shaky" camera either. Coincidentally the writer, Drew Goddard, wrote and directed a film I'm about to mention, Bad Times at the El Royale, which is a better film than Cloverfield.
 
1725578308061.jpeg
Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)

Re-watched this the other night. It's a complex neo-noir "hidden money" movie told in the "deconstructed" fashion, with all the action taking place at the El Roayle-- a 1960s motel sitting squarely on the Calif./Nev. line. Good acting all around, especially from Jeff Bridges, John Hamm and Lewis Pullman. Chris Hemsworth was too good looking for the part, and seemed more like a motivational speaker than a Manson type character. Cynthia Erivo did a nice job, but her character made her seem like someone hired for their singing abilities who also had to act.

In a film in the vein of Wes Anderson or even Tarantino (without the gore fetish) there's no compelling reason to expect logic or reality, but several of the scenes or situations felt incongruous. How can a perfectly operational hotel/motel on Lake Tahoe have only the characters in the plot as guests? And later, how can such large fires in the hotel lounge not quickly spread to the entire interior? Also the Mansonesque character was not necessary, and seemed over the top. The guy could have just been a dominating criminal type.

Ironically the hotel was modeled on the Cal-Neva Lodge which is in Crystal Bay on Lake Tahoe, sitting squarely on the state line. But in the late '60s when the story took place, the hotel was very popular, especially with the Hollywood and Sinatra crowd.

However the movie provided an attention holding story, along with some interesting twists and a gratifying ending. We'll be on the lookout for some more Drew Goddard films.

Doc's rating: 7/10
 
ChiroDoc said:
I enjoyed Cloverfield (2008) even though it's not generally my type of film. It was an innovative and unusual "found footage" monster film. I don't like the "shaky" camera either. Coincidentally the writer, Drew Goddard, wrote and directed a film I'm about to mention, Bad Times at the El Royale, which is a better film than Cloverfield.
Click to expand...
Just checked out the trailer and it looks interesting. I'm a Jeff Bridges fan, so that adds to the interest. I can watch it on Prime. Thank you for mentioning it.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
The last movie I finished was A Quiet Place: Day One. I didn't like the original movie...thought it was dumb, but this one kept me engaged.
Click to expand...
I want to see this (like you I didn't like the orig. or Part 2 enough to even watch them lol, but want to see this one. Unfortunately, I can only watch it on Paramount + which we don't have. (We have Paramount+ with Showtime but it's a cut-rate version we're getting free through Xfinity so it doesn't include this movie or Evil, darn it all.)

ChiroDoc said:
View attachment 365791
Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)

Re-watched this the other night. It's a complex neo-noir "hidden money" movie told in the "deconstructed" fashion, with all the action taking place at the El Roayle-- a 1960s motel sitting squarely on the Calif./Nev. line. Good acting all around, especially from Jeff Bridges, John Hamm and Lewis Pullman. Chris Hemsworth was too good looking for the part, and seemed more like a motivational speaker than a Manson type character. Cynthia Erivo did a nice job, but her character made her seem like someone hired for their singing abilities who also had to act.

In a film in the vein of Wes Anderson or even Tarantino (without the gore fetish) there's no compelling reason to expect logic or reality, but several of the scenes or situations felt incongruous. How can a perfectly operational hotel/motel on Lake Tahoe have only the characters in the plot as guests? And later, how can such large fires in the hotel lounge not quickly spread to the entire interior? Also the Mansonesque character was not necessary, and seemed over the top. The guy could have just been a dominating criminal type.

Ironically the hotel was modeled on the Cal-Neva Lodge which is in Crystal Bay on Lake Tahoe, sitting squarely on the state line. But in the late '60s when the story took place, the hotel was very popular, especially with the Hollywood and Sinatra crowd.

However the movie provided an attention holding story, along with some interesting twists and a gratifying ending. We'll be on the lookout for some more Drew Goddard films.

Doc's rating: 7/10
Click to expand...
I liked this movie so much I bought it on dvd; I think I'll watch it again. Thanks for reminding me about it.
 
Before Midnight is a 2013 American romantic drama film directed by Richard Linklater, who co-wrote the screenplay with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. The sequel to Before Sunrise (1995) and Before Sunset (2004), it is the third installment in the Before trilogy. The film follows Jesse (Hawke) and Céline (Delpy), now a couple, as they spend a summer vacation in Greece with their children.

I watched the first two movies in this trilogy and it helps to get to know the couple when they met and how they developed their relationship.
The first two movies establish their connection and the optimism that draws them together.

This movie examines the realities of life that strain the relationship and how they deal with it.
The film makes some interesting, astute observations about marriage and children.

Screenshot 2024-09-09 015709.jpg
 
Last edited:
1725924392200.jpeg
Reagan (2024)

Writing an entertaining but accurate screenplay for a biographical film is a tricky proposition. The facts of the subject’s life are generally well known, so the challenge is to patch together many of the individual’s career highlights while making the presentation interesting and entertaining. The Aviator (2024) is one such successful picture that comes to mind.

Once the framework and highlights are selected, it is then up to the screenwriter, the director, and the production designer to come up with the makings of an appealing film. In addition, if the actors are keenly selected for their pertinent talents, then that is a winning combination.

In the case of Reagan the casting was first rate: Dennis Quaid was the perfect choice to portray Ronald Reagan. Quaid avoided attempting a direct impersonation, but his voice, reasonably similar looks to Reagan, and his ability to capture Reagan’s mannerisms made the character come alive. So too was Penelope Ann Miller well chosen to portray Nancy Reagan. At times she perfectly evoked her real life character. Even Dan Lauria as Reagan’s combatant and friend, feisty Speaker of the House Tip O’neill, was perfectly summoned up. One of the acting highlights is veteran Jon Voight in his portrayal of fictional retired KGB agent Viktor Petrovich. Voight’s is a nuanced performance, and his role provides the skeleton upon which the story is told.

The Petrovich character is a compendium of various KGB agents who had been assigned to study Reagan’s activities and policies from the time Reagan was president of the Screen Actors Guild, on through his terms as President. The screenplay by Howard Kausner is based upon Paul Kengor’s 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. Not having read the book, it presumably fully lays out Reagan’s rise as a serious ideologue and anti-communist following World War II.

The film takes us from Reagan’s childhood, his acting career, marriages, SAG presidency (1947-1952 & 1959-1960), California Governor (1967-1975), two terms as U.S. President (1981-1989), and his remaining days at the Reagan Ranch in Santa Barbara, California stricken with Alzheimer’s disease which led to his death in 2004. It covers famous highlights from his speeches, such as his winning debate comment regarding Walter Mondale, “I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience", to his demand to the Soviet Union General Secretary while speaking at the Berlin Wall, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” The movie opens with the assassination attempt of 1981, not long after taking office.

So while Reagan’s true history provides more than enough material for a compelling film, it is the choice of screen writer and director that somewhat diminishes the finished project. Director Sean McNamara and screen writer Howard Kausner are both undistinguished talents. McNamara has worked chiefly in the pre-teen market, whereas Kausner has few highlights in his career.

By comparison the aforementioned The Aviator had the writer & director team of Martin Scorsese and John Logan-- both seasoned film makers with many credits to their names.

It’s fair to say that Reagan has a built in fan base of individuals in their mid-fifties and up, who fondly recall President Reagan’s terms in office. He enjoyed a wide popularity irrespective of political affiliation due to his affability, traditional heartland values, and strength of character. Still, with an audience approval rating of 98% the movie has likely charmed many of a younger audience.|

So if you are not familiar with Ronald Reagan, or even if you are, the picture relates a fair recounting of his actions, and also of an era that was much simpler than our modern times.

Doc’s rating: 7/10
 
officerripley said:
I want to see this (like you I didn't like the orig. or Part 2 enough to even watch them lol, but want to see this one. Unfortunately, I can only watch it on Paramount + which we don't have. (We have Paramount+ with Showtime but it's a cut-rate version we're getting free through Xfinity so it doesn't include this movie or Evil, darn it all.)


I liked this movie so much I bought it on dvd; I think I'll watch it again. Thanks for reminding me about it.
Click to expand...
At some point, it will probably hit Netflix. Maybe a couple of years down the road, other (free) streaming services. I can't keep track Officer, what streaming services do you have again (besides what you mentioned above)?
 
The Whale on :prime, made me lose my mind and all my tears.

Well, that is weird, I did not place that smiley face in my comment. Must be a kick back for the site, that is fine.
 
Last night, I was 'channel surfing, stopped at cable channel, TNT, movie was' Field Of Dreams' which wasn't on the schedule. I figured it was being shown due to Mon's passing of actor James Earl Jones who played' Terance Mann'. At the end while the credits rolled a picture of Jones saying' In Memory'
It's one of my favorite movies, never get tired of watching it
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top