Re: Good (or bad) Movies PART 2

[philo43]

My wife and I just finished watching the 6th installment of the Thin Man series.  Holy Crap, Dean Stockwell was their 7-8 year old son in this one, I had forgotten. To me, one of the great things about watching old movies / shows - is seeing actors of the modern era, before they were names. Rowdy Yates anyone?

[philo43]

I read Jim V's post about the "president" movies , led me and my wife to watching, Guarding Tess.  Then we went to Dave, Charles Grodin inspired a few others.  Taking Care of Business and Midnight Run.  Haven't seen them in years but enjoy the heck out of them.

edit to add: De Niro looks like a fireplace chimney in Midnight Run as many cigarettes as he smokes!

[philo43]

The past 2 weeks or so got us digging into our DVD collection (used to buy at Walmart from their $5 bin). 

Some of the ones we watched that we haven't seen in 5 or 10 years.

Silverado
My Fellow Americans
Last Boy Scout
Space Cowboys
Wild Hogs
Necessary Roughness
The Replacements
Both the whole 9/10 yards movies
Striking Distance
Mr Destiny
Hunt for Red October
and as Lenn mentioned all 3 Major League - I like 3 better than 2.


and a newer one on Amazon Prime - Going in Style - has Michael Caine, Alan Arkin, Morgan Freeman and Ann Margret (can't go wrong there IMO). 

[Sem]

My wife and I finally watched Rocketman a couple weeks ago. We both really liked it, although the chronology of events and songs seemed out of place to me.

[eilasidogruoy]

Has anyone seen After Hours (1985)? It's a comedy directed by Martin Scorsese starring Griffin Dunne with supporting roles and cameos by a bunch of well known actors and comedians. While Scorsese is not known for comedies this movie isnt terrible and it has its moments. Just curious if anyone has seen it and would like to share their opinion. 

[LennG]

 We have Optimum as our cable provider. We don't pay for any of the pay channels, but every soi often Optimum opens one or more for the weekend, or even longer and fails to tell anyone. I usually scan thru channels and see what's there and I was amazed that this weekend they have HBO and Cinemax for free. So, I went thru their lineup of movies and other things and set the DVR to copy several movies that I have never seen but wanted to, or some that just looked good.

So last night, I watched "The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford" (lucky they didn't have to put this title on a billboard), starring Brad Pitt as Jesse James, Casey Affleck as Bob Ford and Sam Sheppard as Frank James, with several other names thrown in for good measure.  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443680/

First I have to say I am a sucker for a western. I should have loved out west and I just love films filmed on location with all that magnificent scenery and action. I have copied about 6 movies so far to watch but my first choice was the western. Second, this movie is long also, a bit over 2 1/2 hours. I read the reviews and I figured any movie about Jesse James and all that, well how bad can it be. This is just my opinion and it sure seems as if it differs from many others, but I hated this movie. If I didn't DVR it and was able to fast forward to see some other parts, I would have left after the first hour. I found that the movie moved at less than a snails pace and scenes seemed like they were forever early on,

Early on, director Andrew Dominik battled Warner Brothers over-editing. Warner didn't like the movie's length, and wanted more action. Dominik wanted to examine the relationship between the famous outlaw and his eventual assassin. In the end, Warner went with Dominik's version, partly because Brad Pitt, who produced the film, backed Dominik, even though Dominik didn't have final cut as part of his contract.

(from the write up of the movie)
I read the reviews afterward and people seemed to love this slow pace and the relationship formed between James and Ford, but not me. Maybe I have been Hollywoodized by normal westerns but I do not require shoot-em-ups every 15 minutes or chases every once in a while. What I would like is something that makes me want to stick around for the end of the movie and because we do know what happens, I was able to fast forward to the shooting of James in the back by Ford and be done with this once and for all.

Again, some may like this movie, supposedly to be very accurate to what was suppose to have transpired, I did not. I cannot say I wouldn't recommend this movie as others may find it well worht their time. Myself, I did not.

[jimv]

I never heard of this movie, Lenny.  But, I just don't know how you can beat John Carradine shooting Tyrone Power in the back & then having Henry Fonda going after him in the next movie.

IMO, here are some classy Westerns:

The Magnificent Seven
The Searchers
The Westerner
The Big Country
High Noon
Red River
The Bravados
Stagecoach
The Hanging Tree
(not necessarily in that order - just as I thought of them))

[eilasidogruoy]

Was always partial to True Grit and the spaghetti stuff with Clint Eastwood

[LennG]

So Saturday afternoon and not much to do since we don't go anywhere, so what better time to watch another movie I have seen advertised a year or so ago and never got the chance to see it. So today we watched 'Bad Times At The El Royale'.  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6628394/

It stars Jeff Bridges, John Hamm, and Chris Hemsworth. This movie, like the last one I saw got pretty good reviews and the plot interested me so when I saw it on this weekend, I had to copy it and watch it. SO, what did I think--that is hard to say. While I didn't enjoy the movie that much, I didn't hate it either. A brief synopsis, 5 people check into the El Royale hotel. It has seen better days but at one time was as elegant as any place on the Vegas Strip. The off thing about the hotel is it sits right on the border of California and Nevada. In fact the state line runs right thru the middle so you have a choice as to which state you would like to room in.
The movie has many subplots and it moves back and forth in time that I found a bit confusing. Overall, the main storyline wasn't that great. I read reviews that said the end makes it all worthwhile, but not for me. It was an OK watch, but nothing I would pay to see in a movie theater. The actors were good and a great performance by a Black actress (sorry I don't remember her name) as a singer who sings many Motown songs thru out the movie. Probably the best part--the music and soundtrack.
Another pretty long movie at 2 1/2 hours, which probably could have easily been cut to 2 hours.
Movie not for kids as there are shootings, killings, and cursing. If I would rate it 2 stars.

[Sem]

I never heard of this movie, Lenny.  But, I just don't know how you can beat John Carradine shooting Tyrone Power in the back & then having Henry Fonda going after him in the next movie.

IMO, here are some classy Westerns:

The Magnificent Seven
The Searchers
The Westerner
The Big Country
High Noon
Red River
The Bravados
Stagecoach
The Hanging Tree
(not necessarily in that order - just as I thought of them))

I've always been partial to Rio Bravo, starring John Wayne Dean Martin, Ricky Nelson, and Angie Dickenson. One of my favorite movies.

[LennG]

So let's move on in our quest to find and watch a decent movie, from all that I DVRed over this weekend. So, last nite we sat down to watch another movie, that I heard good things about and wanted to see it very badly when it came out. The movie is 'First Man' and it is the story of Neil Armstrong and his quest or struggle to become the first man to walk on the moon.  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213641/  LIke westerns, SciFi is next on my favorite list and a good SciFi movie is, well, a blessing.

The movie stars Ryan Gosling as Neil Armstrong and most of the others I really don't know, but they did an adequate job with the acting, etc. So, story-wise, we start with Neil as a sort of test pilot, getting accepted into the space program and his trials, hits and misses in his year's of training, and then his selection to head the first mission to Mars.
What did I think, myself, I felt it missed on so many marks in what could have been an outstanding movie. I didn't dislike it, but there were so many things I would have done differently (and I am surely not a director, but as a movie fan, this missed many times). The movie wanted to show you, Armstrong, not just as an astronaut, but as a human, so they spent a lot of time with him at home, through family tragedies, BBQ's and interactions with his wife. Overall, I felt too much time to take away from the main theme of the movie, his mission to Mars. Also, whenever Armstrong was in a space capsule they used a handheld camera, I would assume to give you the feeling of how it might feel inside one of these things, but the action was so terribly jerky, dark and you just could not see anything. It almost made me sick with all the jerkiness. I understand the point that was trying to be made, but again, for me anyway, it was useless.
I would say the movie did get a bit better once they took off towards the moon, landing and doing whatever they had to do there. Just a point, that was NOT made in the movie, and we rewatched it and it still wasn't there. When Armstrong made his first steps on the moon and then both astronauts were doing whatever they were supposed to do there, I know from watching it live, the first thing they did was plant the flag there, not in this movie. There was NO flag planted and even when they departed, looking down on where they were, NO FLAG.
So, to wrap this up, for me it was another movie I was longing to see, finally did, and was disappointed again. This one was the best out of the three I recently watched, but nowhere near really good. Sorry folks. Another 2 rating.


.

[jimv]

Don't be sorry, Lenny.  A lot of crap is being made today.

[LennG]

Don't be sorry, Lenny.  A lot of crap is being made today.

With these big budgets and stars making zillions, you would think that they might want to make some decent movies. Again, in my reviews, all three movies got pretty good reviews so maybe it's just me (and you) who seem to favor movies that are understandable and try to tell a story so people can understand it, not just for special effects and new wave film making. I fully understand we are the dinosaurs and usually prefer good acting, good storylines, and that are understandable. Again, maybe it's me, as these movies got good grades from critics and fans, but just not my type of movie. I just can't put my finger on it exactly, but each, in their own way disappointed me tremendously, especially when I read the reviews. I still wonder why?

[jimv]

I fully agree, Lenny.  I still remember 81 years ago when the "Stars Fell." 

Just today, I watched "Red River" & "Random Harvest."  They had actors & directors back then.  "Red River" has one of the greatest scenes I can remember:  It's dawn & thousands of cattle are peacefully lolling over the prairie with cowboys sitting on their horses waiting expectantly.  It's breathtaking!  Then John Wayne rides up to Montgomery Clift & says, "Take them to Missouri, Matt."  Matt let out a "Yee-Hah!" which every cowboy repeats & the cattle begin moving!  Directors today don't have the imagination to do a scene like that.  And, even if they could, we don't have the actors to pull it off.

"Random Harvest: is nothing but pure schmaltz.  But, MGM did it with such class That it's beautiful love story.  You'll never again see a movie with actors like Coleman & Garson.  When it came out in 1942, Bosley Crowther said, "Never before has the English language been spoken more beautifully than in this film."

We might be dinosaurs, Lenny, but we know good acting, directors & movies when we see them!

[LennG]

Over the weekend, my darling wife and I decided to watch a movie we had on the DVR for a couple of weeks. Since she doesn't always enjoy the type of movies I seem more to enjoy, I try to copy certain types of movies that are more 'family' orientated, you might say. Like she doesn't mind adult-type movies, she just won't watch all the killings, all the profane language and so many other things that seem to be what movie companies put out for the multitudes that do enjoy these type of movies.
So, moving off my soapbox, we watch a movie entitled. 'Blinded By The Light'
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8266310/

I won't even venture into a cst because it was a cast of unknowns unless you are Pakistani. Overall, I think the movie got average reviews. So a brief synopsis -- a Pakistani family is living outside London, in a neighborhood that still has a lot of bias and racial profiling against them. The main character, a teen boy who wants to be a writer, but he is from a sort of old school family with traditional Pakistani values, including a very domineering father who follows the 'old' ways to the hilt, so there is a lot of conflicts between the son and father. One of the boy's friends has similar problems and introduces our star to Bruce Springsteen and his music and it is love at first sight. The teen is smitten with Springsteen music and his life starts living around the music and the words that Springsteen puts forth in his songs. Myself, I have always been a decent enough fan of Springsteen, not huge, but enjoy some of it. Really makes no difference if you do or you don't, but this music helps the boy with future decisions and to sort of straighten out his life.
So, I went into this movie, thinking I wasn't going to like it, but surprise, surprise, I did. Again, not because of the great soundtrack, but it was a decent enough feel-good movie and I did enjoy it. I would recommend this movie, especially to families who might be shut in as most will enjoy it. There is some fighting, some racially motivated scenes but overall, a good movie to talk with teens and young adults about life and dreams.
I would rate this movie 3 out of 5 stars and if you like Bruce Springsteen up that star total to 3 1/2 or even 4. 
On a quick side note, the movie is set mid 80's and when our star was talking to some others about Springsteen, they reply that he is so out of it now--passe as they would say. And it is 1987.