What Was the Last Movie You Watched?

Watercolor Postcards: Excellent movie about a family with a little girl. It's Drama, romance, Heavy and heartwarming. One hour and forty minutes. 5 stars and on Prime.
 
Watching The Wonder. Takes place in 19th century Ireland. An English nurse is called upon to investigate a young girl who has not eaten in 4 months. The girl claims she eats manna from heaven. A miracle or scam? I’m a third of the way through and loving it.

Netflix
 
Pepper said:
When I was in Berlin there was a nazi incarcerated as the Only prisoner in Spandau Prison. It was eerie. I thought I remembered the prisoner as being Rudolf Hess but had to google it to make sure. It was. So. He escaped death.

I crossed into East Berlin several times. After one visit I was detained with no explanation and released six hours later with no explanation. I think the Russians in charge were just phucking with me because they could.

I was delighted that the East German people were so miserable. I was miffed at how happy the West Berliners were, residing with newly constructed apartments.

Remember the movie Justice at Nuremberg? I think one of the stars was Montgomery Cliff? Want to see it again. I remember being impressed by it.

This Nuremberg was different. Feels wrong somehow to say it was very entertaining but it was.

Yes. Russell Crowe was very good. I’m not sure how I feel about Rami Malik or maybe it was the character he played. It bothered me how close he came to Goring’s wife and daughter. Disturbing.

The movie contained an important message. I will quote from Pogo
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Click to expand...
Quite an experience for you in Berlin! I was first there in 1968 playing a concert with the band I was in. The venue was the old Sportspalast, where Hitler and Goebbels gave some of their original Nazi rallies. It was creepy. And unfortunately there was a riot, which cut our show short. With the city still divided by the wall, there was a tremendous amount of tension because of travel restrictions. Went back on a vacation in 2022, and it had changed considerably...

Yeah, Malik was miscast, and the writing was weak. My comments about Nuremberg:

The film’s title is a bit of a misnomer. The lengthy Nuremberg trials --having taken place between November, 1945 and October, 1946-- served only as an underpinning backdrop to the chief story of the relationship between Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring and psychiatrist Douglas Kelley, who had been tasked by the U.S. Army to evaluate Göring and other top Nazi defendants about their ability to stand trial.

The chief reason to see this film is the convincing and nuanced portrayal of Göring by Russell Crowe. Crowe not only has the charisma and the look in his performance, but his expression of the subject’s peculiar appeal dominates every scene he’s in. In contrast, the combination of uneven and incongruous writing for the Kelley character contributes to the confusing performance by Rami Malek, which makes it seem that Malek was miscast in his role.

Further, the portrayal of the nature of the relationship between the two was possibly made up out of whole cloth. Not having read the book used for inspiration for the screenplay --The Nazi and the Psychiatrist by Jack El-Hai-- it’s hard to say whether there was any factual basis to the veracity of Göring’s and Kelley’s exchanges. One example: Kelley’s teaching of slight-of-hand to Göring likely serves only as a method to explain how Göring achieved possession of the well known cyanide capsule, which was to save him from hanging.

Of course the film’s purpose was not as a documentary, but rather as an “inspired by” dramatic story of a few

particular subjects during the arrest and trial of certain high Nazi officials at the end of WWII.

The supporting actors were effective, such as: Michael Shannon as lead prosecutor; John Slattery as the prison commandant; Mark O’Brien as chief interrogator; Colin Hanks as an associate psychologist; Lotte Verbeek as Göring’s wife, Emmy. Most were physically representative of the real life characters they played, however we had to smile at the young and attractive Verbeek in her role as Mrs. Göring who in reality at that time was tall, homely, and rather dowdy at aged 52.

Beyond the focus on the Göring/Kelley relationship, director James Vanderbilt’s screenplay didn’t get too deep. In fact one could not help noticing the apparent Oscar bait intention-- “camera ready” with quotable lines of dialogue, and certain scene constructions meant for clips. Vanderbilt is not an experienced director, with only one other directing credit, Truth (2015). It seems to me that more often than not, a writer should not direct his own screenplay. There are many obvious exceptions, but oftentimes a writer does not necessarily know what is going to work on screen.

Nuremberg is certainly watchable, and the story is interesting enough for the subject of a movie, but lackluster direction and a simplistic telling of a complicated subject keeps the picture from being better.

Doc’s rating: 6/10
 
jim_slim said:
“Maudie”. Good movie 👍thumbs up

Click to expand...
I liked it too. I was really drawn into the film even though I normally don’t enjoy pictures that are designed to tug at one’s heart strings, but this story about a poor, disabled folk artist painter was very absorbing.It was chiefly Sally Hawkins’ film, and no one plays waifs, sorrowful or pitiable women better than she. It’s impossible to view her performance and not feel sympathy for Maud Lewis’ situation, while at the same time admiring her outlook, stamina and art talent. Hawkins slightly overplayed her role, but the melodrama absorbed her portrayal.

One reason for my interest in the movie was that I had conflated Ethan Hawke with John Hawkes, so I was eager to see another master stroke by John Hawkes. Wrong guy. But Ethan Hawke did a creditable job in a part that was unevenly written.

This was basically a female production, so it’s going to focus more on feelings, emotion, and hardships. However I was curious about the actual Maud Lewis (nee Dowley) character, so I researched it a bit. Turns out that there was a large amount of “Hollywood license” taken to embellish the story.

Maud actually had polio as a child, which caused her deformities, and lack of dexterity with the paint brushes, although she did develop rheumatoid arthritis. She was taught as a child to paint Christmas cards, which she later created to sell alongside her husband as he peddled fresh fish. She gave birth out of wedlock to her daughter at aged 25. Maud gave her up to adoption, as she had no means to support her.

Later her daughter tried to locate Maud, but could not. After Maud answered Everett’s ad for live-in housekeeper, they were very shortly married. He was never brutal to her, and in fact it was he that encouraged her to paint, buying her a first set of oil paints. He did the house-keeping. She then started painting on larger media, the “canvas” size limited only by her ability to stretch her arm. Interest in her work grew naturally out of local interest and exhibiting.

In actuality there was no Sandra character from NYC who started buying Maud’s work. Maud’s paintings eventually brought her $7 to $10 apiece. She could not keep up with the orders. Later at auction, some brought as high as $22K. Maud died in 1970 at aged 67 of pneumonia. Everett was killed in 1979 at their tiny home by a robber.

One criticism is that the characters weren't aged enough during the span of the story. Even at the end, the actors barely looked over 50. Despite the liberties taken with the real story, and the uneven writing for Everett Lewis’ part, this is a film worth watching. Hawkins and the others received several awards in both Canada, Ireland and London.
 
While not a movie, we finished the Lonesome Dove TV series this evening. It was a great series due to Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Duvall in the staring roles as well as the talented supporting cast. Duvall's character, especially, was memorable. He said it was the favorite role of his career. He played a similar character in other films, but this series was probably the best. Maybe that's what he was like in real life.
 
The series based on the Ken Follet books - The Pillars of the Earth.
The story is set during the "Anarchy," a 12th-century civil war in England. Real events, such as the death of King Stephen's son and the murder of Thomas Becket.
The Anarchy - The brutal civil war in England and Normandy, caused by a succession crisis after King Henry l's only son died.
It resulted in a breakdown of law and order, widespread destruction, and famine during the struggle for the throne between Henry's daughter, Empress Matilda, and his nephew, King Stephen.
Great series depicting the trials and tribulations of life in medieval England.
9 episodes, 6 1/2 hours.
 
i made it up to a certain point and then i was no longer interested in ex-machina. i watched tracker and went to bed.
 
Bretrick said:
The series based on the Ken Follet books - The Pillars of the Earth.
The story is set during the "Anarchy," a 12th-century civil war in England. Real events, such as the death of King Stephen's son and the murder of Thomas Becket.
The Anarchy - The brutal civil war in England and Normandy, caused by a succession crisis after King Henry l's only son died.
It resulted in a breakdown of law and order, widespread destruction, and famine during the struggle for the throne between Henry's daughter, Empress Matilda, and his nephew, King Stephen.
Great series depicting the trials and tribulations of life in medieval England.
9 episodes, 6 1/2 hours.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, the Game of Thrones TV series was also based on the same period in English history.
 
MarciKS said:
i made it up to a certain point and then i was no longer interested in ex-machina. i watched tracker and went to bed.
Click to expand...

You have to watch it to the very end to see how it all pans out. I know it gets rather heavy to watch the longer it goes on, but the twist at the end was pretty good, and rather disturbing as well, given the way AI is progressing at the moment.
 
Medusa said:
I didn't love that one either. I understood the implications of the ending, but for whatever reason, it felt flat to me. I did enjoy the interplay between the main character and the AI, though.
Click to expand...
Probably felt flat because it was more of an intellectual piece than an action piece.
 
I watched, Predator, Badlands this afternoon with boyfriend and we both enjoyed it. He has seen all the Alien and Predator movies to this point and I have not, having only seen the very early ones, but this movie appealed to both of us, which I think speaks well for it.
 
Medusa said:
I didn't love that one either. I understood the implications of the ending, but for whatever reason, it felt flat to me. I did enjoy the interplay between the main character and the AI, though.
Click to expand...
I watched it from the perspective of what's possible with AI and how can it be exploited, so was more interested in the inventor's nefarious agenda than how things transpired between the main character and the robots.
 
StarSong said:
I watched it from the perspective of what's possible with AI and how can it be exploited, so was more interested in the inventor's nefarious agenda than how things transpired between the main character and the robots.
Click to expand...
I get that and I can see how the potential of AI's capacity for learning and "self expansion" for lack of a better term, might be chilling or disturbing. For some reason though, this portrayal just didn't do it for me. 🤷‍♀️
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top