What Was the Last Movie You Watched?

Doubt on Paramount+ starring Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Viola Davis. This is a near-perfect movie. I'd seen it before, but it was even better this time (possibly because we had subtitles this time).

Spoiler alert! Viola Davis makes snot come out of her nose! (That's what kept it from a "perfect" rating.)

 

HermitHogan said:
Doubt on Paramount+ starring Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Viola Davis. This is a near-perfect movie. I'd seen it before, but it was even better this time (possibly because we had subtitles this time).

Spoiler alert! Viola Davis makes snot come out of her nose! (That's what kept it from a "perfect" rating.)

Click to expand...
Thanks! I just put a hold on one of my library's DVDs.
 
Tish said:
Absolutely, it packs such a huge punch.
I think people are not watching it, due to the controversy between the two lead actors.
It really is a shame.
Click to expand...
What a lot of people miss (and I did until someone in my book club pointed it out to me, and I watched it a second time), is how much the lead female's actions played into the abuse dance.

She constantly apologized for words/actions that needed no apology and was frequently on her back foot. During a lot of their early (apparently innocent) interaction, I thought to myself, "When I was dating I dumped guys for less than that." or "Why is she apologizing, why is she not calling him out on XYZ, why is she letting that go?"
 
Last edited:
1740522275155.jpeg

The Last Showgirl (2024)

This is a small movie about a deep subject: a woman’s defiant struggle to face the realities of both her age and loss of the steady job she has had as a showgirl in a long running Las Vegas extravagant stage production that is suddenly slated for closure. It’s fundamentally a women’s picture that showcases some first rate acting, chiefly by it’s star, Pamela Anderson, and co-star Jamie Lee Curtis.

Shelly Gardner (Anderson) is an aging showgirl who has fervently performed her part for 3 decades in a lavish revue at a major Vegas casino. She loves and completely inhabits her role as a performance artist, so much so that as the years go by it never occurs to her that it would eventually come to an end. But in fact the extravaganza has gradually become passe and out of fashion in comparison to the newer style of shows at other venues.

So when the cast is notified by its producer that the show will finally be canceled in two week’s time, Shelly is presented with the reality of what she can do with her life-- of what employment choices could be open to her. Her fading beauty and loss of dancing skills combine to severely limit the chances of getting hired for other stage shows. The story is predominantly about her quandary, and her relationship with her daughter, an old friend, and a previous lover.

If there ever was a part written that was filled by the perfect choice, it was the role of Shelly Gardner for Pamela Anderson. In fact playwright and eventual screenwriter Kate Gersten, on whose play Body of Work was developed into The Last Showgirl, stated that the project had earlier been shelved because they simply could not find the right actress for the crucial key role. When Anderson eventually was given the script to read, she was immediately struck by how much she related to the character. She had not done many serious dramatic roles over the course of her career, having begun as a regular in Playboy magazine, making her soon rather typecast as a sex symbol ala Jayne Mansfield or Marilyn Monroe.

But here she let out all the stops in delivering an obviously heartfelt range of emotions, while subtly portraying Shelly’s childlike naivete that she would stay in her bubble forever-- that her well familiar life in the show would never end. When her long term employment abruptly came to a close, its as if she had to wake up to a new reality, and to try in desperation to stay in the business that she had entered as a young woman 30 years before, whereas now as an older woman she found herself no longer equipped for its demands.

Her friend Annette (Curtis) had earlier been released as a showgirl owing to her age. She had found employment as a casino cocktail waitress, having faced the fact that she had few options. But even in that job she had been reduced to unpopular shifts in favor of younger more attractive girls. It took courage for Curtis to take on a role that accentuated the character’s unattractiveness, much like Bette Davis did in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?. Curtis as Annette was so natural that she was completely believable in the part.

Mention must be made of the part of Eddie, the producer of the long running revue, played with a soft understated demeanor by Dave Bautista-- a hulk of a man who had been for years in real life a world wrestling champion and tough guy. His masterful portrayal of a sympathetic but realistic stage producer will guarantee him future complex roles.

The only slight deficit in the picture was in its last act writing. After all the activity and emotional ups and downs in the story the viewer would have benefited from a more definitive, a more explanatory ending. We know what happens, and it’s gratifying enough, but a more spelled out finish would have perfected the film.

It’s remarkable that with a slim budget of less than $2 million that the producer Robert Schwartzman and director Gia Coppola were able to lay out a film about a large casino revue (based upon the historic long running show Jubilee! at Bally’s Las Vegas). Upon reflection we realize that we never actually saw any production numbers or expansive representation of the stage show itself. Yet the viewers see that in their minds. The filming confines itself mostly to interiors and tight exterior shots, which enabled the budget to be kept at a minimum.

But it is the award caliber of acting that is the big draw to this thoroughly enjoyable movie. Dropped into a slate of big budgeted splashy films, this little but poignant story is gratifying to experience.

Doc’s rating: 9/10
 
jujube said:
I watched a vampire movie last night, darned if I can remember the name.

All I can say is that the special effects department must have gone to quite the sale on blood and body parts because there was one hell of a lot splashed around. I'm not sure I've seen quite that much gore before.
Click to expand...
Was it Last Voyage of the Demeter ?

It was on yesterday .
 
ChiroDoc said:
View attachment 406234

The Last Showgirl (2024)

This is a small movie about a deep subject: a woman’s defiant struggle to face the realities of both her age and loss of the steady job she has had as a showgirl in a long running Las Vegas extravagant stage production that is suddenly slated for closure. It’s fundamentally a women’s picture that showcases some first rate acting, chiefly by it’s star, Pamela Anderson, and co-star Jamie Lee Curtis.

Shelly Gardner (Anderson) is an aging showgirl who has fervently performed her part for 3 decades in a lavish revue at a major Vegas casino. She loves and completely inhabits her role as a performance artist, so much so that as the years go by it never occurs to her that it would eventually come to an end. But in fact the extravaganza has gradually become passe and out of fashion in comparison to the newer style of shows at other venues.

So when the cast is notified by its producer that the show will finally be canceled in two week’s time, Shelly is presented with the reality of what she can do with her life-- of what employment choices could be open to her. Her fading beauty and loss of dancing skills combine to severely limit the chances of getting hired for other stage shows. The story is predominantly about her quandary, and her relationship with her daughter, an old friend, and a previous lover.

If there ever was a part written that was filled by the perfect choice, it was the role of Shelly Gardner for Pamela Anderson. In fact playwright and eventual screenwriter Kate Gersten, on whose play Body of Work was developed into The Last Showgirl, stated that the project had earlier been shelved because they simply could not find the right actress for the crucial key role. When Anderson eventually was given the script to read, she was immediately struck by how much she related to the character. She had not done many serious dramatic roles over the course of her career, having begun as a regular in Playboy magazine, making her soon rather typecast as a sex symbol ala Jayne Mansfield or Marilyn Monroe.

But here she let out all the stops in delivering an obviously heartfelt range of emotions, while subtly portraying Shelly’s childlike naivete that she would stay in her bubble forever-- that her well familiar life in the show would never end. When her long term employment abruptly came to a close, its as if she had to wake up to a new reality, and to try in desperation to stay in the business that she had entered as a young woman 30 years before, whereas now as an older woman she found herself no longer equipped for its demands.

Her friend Annette (Curtis) had earlier been released as a showgirl owing to her age. She had found employment as a casino cocktail waitress, having faced the fact that she had few options. But even in that job she had been reduced to unpopular shifts in favor of younger more attractive girls. It took courage for Curtis to take on a role that accentuated the character’s unattractiveness, much like Bette Davis did in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?. Curtis as Annette was so natural that she was completely believable in the part.

Mention must be made of the part of Eddie, the producer of the long running revue, played with a soft understated demeanor by Dave Bautista-- a hulk of a man who had been for years in real life a world wrestling champion and tough guy. His masterful portrayal of a sympathetic but realistic stage producer will guarantee him future complex roles.

The only slight deficit in the picture was in its last act writing. After all the activity and emotional ups and downs in the story the viewer would have benefited from a more definitive, a more explanatory ending. We know what happens, and it’s gratifying enough, but a more spelled out finish would have perfected the film.

It’s remarkable that with a slim budget of less than $2 million that the producer Robert Schwartzman and director Gia Coppola were able to lay out a film about a large casino revue (based upon the historic long running show Jubilee! at Bally’s Las Vegas). Upon reflection we realize that we never actually saw any production numbers or expansive representation of the stage show itself. Yet the viewers see that in their minds. The filming confines itself mostly to interiors and tight exterior shots, which enabled the budget to be kept at a minimum.

But it is the award caliber of acting that is the big draw to this thoroughly enjoyable movie. Dropped into a slate of big budgeted splashy films, this little but poignant story is gratifying to experience.

Doc’s rating: 9/10
Click to expand...
I really wanted to see this movie, but it came and went so quickly in theaters near me that I missed it. Maybe it will stream someday.
 
1740786583277.jpeg
A Complete Unknown (2024)

Entertainer biopics are tough to pull off because they often end up being caricatures of caricatures, the subjects themselves being larger than life in their fame. Although A Complete Unknown encapsulates only 4 years of Bob Dylan’s early rise to stardom (from 1961 to 1965), which should have been an easier task than trying to highlight events over Dylan’s 50+ year career, the writers nevertheless broke no new ground in the method of telling the story. The screenplay had a formulaic feel to it, even though director James Mangold had previously directed and co-wrote the excellent biopic of Johnny Cash, Walk the Line (2005). So Mangold’s reputation, along with the obvious attraction of Dylan’s star power, likely were the major factors in securing the $50-$70 million funding for the project.

The chief draw in this film is the superb acting of its star and co-stars: Timothee Chalamet as Bob Dylan, Edward Norton as Pete Seeger, and Elle Fanning as Sylvie Russo. Honorable mention goes to Boyd Holbrook as Johnny Cash.

But it is Chalamet who is stunning with his near perfect impersonation of Dylan, and his ability to express moods and thoughts with the use of his eyes and facial expressions. His impression of Dylan’s singing and speaking voices, along with his not dissimilar facial resemblance to his character, combined to present an uncanny likeness of the famous musician. His portrayal is certainly the equal of Austin Butler’s in Elvis (2022), Sissy Spacek’s Loretta Lynn in Coal Miner’s Daughter (1980), or Dennis Quaid as Jerry Lee Lewis in Great Balls of Fire! (1989).

It’s remarkable that Chalamet, Norton, Holbrook, and Monica Barbaro (as Joan Baez) did their own singing and instrument playing, all the while recording their songs live during filming.

For those who were present during those early ‘60s years, and were fans of the principals, the movie is a poignant revisiting of that era. Reportedly the main driver of the project was Dylan’s then heretical use of electric instruments in opposition to the orthodoxy of the established folk music scene, and what a strong negative reaction that it caused among the seasoned folk movement. It was if Dylan had betrayed them and their collectivist philosophy. Their resentment was profound.

Many viewers in contemporary audiences will not be troubled by that distinction, since it appears in hindsight as a natural progression. Dylan was chiefly driven by his desire to express his art rather than be a representative of an established subculture. He would go on to compose and perform in many music styles in his famously eclectic career.

Though the screenplay itself is not remarkable enough to garner high awards, the high quality of the performances alone make A Complete Unknown a fascinating picture.

Doc’s rating; 7/10
 
ChiroDoc said:
A Complete Unknown (2024)

Entertainer biopics are tough to pull off because they often end up being caricatures of caricatures, the subjects themselves being larger than life in their fame. Although A Complete Unknown encapsulates only 4 years of Bob Dylan’s early rise to stardom (from 1961 to 1965), which should have been an easier task than trying to highlight events over Dylan’s 50+ year career, the writers nevertheless broke no new ground in the method of telling the story. The screenplay had a formulaic feel to it, even though director James Mangold had previously directed and co-wrote the excellent biopic of Johnny Cash, Walk the Line (2005). So Mangold’s reputation, along with the obvious attraction of Dylan’s star power, likely were the major factors in securing the $50-$70 million funding for the project.

The chief draw in this film is the superb acting of its star and co-stars: Timothee Chalamet as Bob Dylan, Edward Norton as Pete Seeger, and Elle Fanning as Sylvie Russo. Honorable mention goes to Boyd Holbrook as Johnny Cash.

But it is Chalamet who is stunning with his near perfect impersonation of Dylan, and his ability to express moods and thoughts with the use of his eyes and facial expressions. His impression of Dylan’s singing and speaking voices, along with his not dissimilar facial resemblance to his character, combined to present an uncanny likeness of the famous musician. His portrayal is certainly the equal of Austin Butler’s in Elvis (2022), Sissy Spacek’s Loretta Lynn in Coal Miner’s Daughter (1980), or Dennis Quaid as Jerry Lee Lewis in Great Balls of Fire! (1989).

It’s remarkable that Chalamet, Norton, Holbrook, and Monica Barbaro (as Joan Baez) did their own singing and instrument playing, all the while recording their songs live during filming.

For those who were present during those early ‘60s years, and were fans of the principals, the movie is a poignant revisiting of that era. Reportedly the main driver of the project was Dylan’s then heretical use of electric instruments in opposition to the orthodoxy of the established folk music scene, and what a strong negative reaction that it caused among the seasoned folk movement. It was if Dylan had betrayed them and their collectivist philosophy. Their resentment was profound.

Many viewers in contemporary audiences will not be troubled by that distinction, since it appears in hindsight as a natural progression. Dylan was chiefly driven by his desire to express his art rather than be a representative of an established subculture. He would go on to compose and perform in many music styles in his famously eclectic career.

Though the screenplay itself is not remarkable enough to garner high awards, the high quality of the performances alone make A Complete Unknown a fascinating picture.

Doc’s rating; 7/10
Click to expand...
I liked it because it gave the viewer a feel for what life was like back then in the NY folk music scene. That was the main attraction for me. The story itself is a big meh, though. I got halfway through the book the movie was based on, and that was also a big meh. Neither the book nor the movie really give you much insight into who exactly Bob Dylan was back then. It's all kind of superficial.

That's how it differs from Coal Miner's Daughter and the Johnny Cash biopic. Both Loretta Lynn and Johnny Cash were complex characters who battled adversity in various ways. That's not the impression I get with Bob Dylan. It seems more like everything just kind of fell on his lap, which makes for an uninteresting story.

Maybe they should have focused on one of his more controversial songs like Masters of War and explored how that came into existence... where and how the idea was conceived and developed... that kind of thing. Of course, I'm interested in that kind of thing because I'm an aspiring songwriter. Perhaps that wouldn't be of interest to the mainstream viewing audience.
 
I go to actual movies about once every 4 years. My son, dil, and I saw Captain America, brave new world, at the theater on Thursday.
 
ChiroDoc said:
View attachment 406777
A Complete Unknown (2024)

Entertainer biopics are tough to pull off because they often end up being caricatures of caricatures, the subjects themselves being larger than life in their fame. Although A Complete Unknown encapsulates only 4 years of Bob Dylan’s early rise to stardom (from 1961 to 1965), which should have been an easier task than trying to highlight events over Dylan’s 50+ year career, the writers nevertheless broke no new ground in the method of telling the story. The screenplay had a formulaic feel to it, even though director James Mangold had previously directed and co-wrote the excellent biopic of Johnny Cash, Walk the Line (2005). So Mangold’s reputation, along with the obvious attraction of Dylan’s star power, likely were the major factors in securing the $50-$70 million funding for the project.

The chief draw in this film is the superb acting of its star and co-stars: Timothee Chalamet as Bob Dylan, Edward Norton as Pete Seeger, and Elle Fanning as Sylvie Russo. Honorable mention goes to Boyd Holbrook as Johnny Cash.

But it is Chalamet who is stunning with his near perfect impersonation of Dylan, and his ability to express moods and thoughts with the use of his eyes and facial expressions. His impression of Dylan’s singing and speaking voices, along with his not dissimilar facial resemblance to his character, combined to present an uncanny likeness of the famous musician. His portrayal is certainly the equal of Austin Butler’s in Elvis (2022), Sissy Spacek’s Loretta Lynn in Coal Miner’s Daughter (1980), or Dennis Quaid as Jerry Lee Lewis in Great Balls of Fire! (1989).

It’s remarkable that Chalamet, Norton, Holbrook, and Monica Barbaro (as Joan Baez) did their own singing and instrument playing, all the while recording their songs live during filming.

For those who were present during those early ‘60s years, and were fans of the principals, the movie is a poignant revisiting of that era. Reportedly the main driver of the project was Dylan’s then heretical use of electric instruments in opposition to the orthodoxy of the established folk music scene, and what a strong negative reaction that it caused among the seasoned folk movement. It was if Dylan had betrayed them and their collectivist philosophy. Their resentment was profound.

Many viewers in contemporary audiences will not be troubled by that distinction, since it appears in hindsight as a natural progression. Dylan was chiefly driven by his desire to express his art rather than be a representative of an established subculture. He would go on to compose and perform in many music styles in his famously eclectic career.

Though the screenplay itself is not remarkable enough to garner high awards, the high quality of the performances alone make A Complete Unknown a fascinating picture.

Doc’s rating; 7/10
Click to expand...
Totally agree, esp. about the superb acting. TC pretty much embodied Dylan beautifully, and Norton was fantastic as Pete Seeger. James Mangold consulted with Bob on the movie.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top