What was the last film you watched?

[Mel O'Drama]

I've no desire to rewatch Ghostbusters.

And the hypocrisy keeps on coming. Last night I attempted to cleanse the oestrogen-infused remake from my mind with the original...

Ghostbusters (1984)

This is one of those films that goes a long way on nostalgia. It's among the first films I remember recording and rewatching heavily, and I just think there's something particularly special about this era - and this year - on film.

It's a little shocking after all this time to see how vintage the film looks - the grainy picture has a certain retro charm. But New York is photographed beautifully here, the actors are charismatic and watchable (though Rick Moranis is a bit of an irritant). This was the first film in which I saw any of the featured actors, including Bill Murray and Sigourney Weaver.

And the writing is just scientific enough and with a nice dollop of quirk. I've always been fond of the slightly bizarre early scene at Columbia University where it seriously feels as though Ghostbusters is secretly a musical, about to burst into its first showstopper, and the score cheekily plays along with the fake-out:

The first hour or so whizzed by far more quickly than the remake, but I'd forgotten how that last act reeeeeally drags. It feels around twenty minutes too long and I couldn't wait for it to be over.

 

[Seaviewer]

not the Ghostbusters, but the 2016 gender-reversed reboot

Well, as I posted earlier, I liked it. I can see why fans of the original objected, but taken as its own thing I found it very entertaining.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Please Turn Over (1959)

Watched as a tribute to Leslie Phillips, this film could be alternatively known as Carry On Up Peyton Place. Or perhaps Carry On Being Capricorn Crude.

The plot - dreamy young girl writes a salacious and controversial best-selling "tell-all" book blowing the lid off respectability using her friends and family as a basis - seems heavily "inspired" by Grace Metalious's Return To Peyton Place, published earlier the same year (and it pipped the book's official cinematic adaption to the post by some eighteen months). The difference here is that the young girl in question here has exaggerated everything to the Nth degree as only a teenager could.

It's as enjoyable as I remembered, with most of the cast playing dual roles showing them in "real life" and drastically different versions of themselves as seen in the pages of the book. And it was a treat to watch it in glorious high definition.​

 

[Angela Channing]

Weird: The Al Yankovic Story (2022)

I don't normally like Daniel Radcliffe, I used to think he is a very average child actor who hung around for too long, however, I take that all back now. Here he stars as pop star Weird Al Yankovic and is surprisingly good. I thought the film was just another biopic and it starts conventionally and then the plot goes weird and tells of outlandish tales of events in Yankovic's life which was when I realised it wasn't meant to be a standard biopic but a parody of the genre, in the same way that Yankovic wrote parody songs. It's not a laugh a minute but it has funny moments.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I don't normally like Daniel Radcliffe, I used to think he is a very average child actor who hung around for too long

I do like Daniel Radcliffe but I thought Al Yankovic was that unfunny pop parodist that just wouldn't go away.

it wasn't meant to be a standard biopic but a parody of the genre

However, this may be the only genre I haven't seen being parodied and that makes it intriguing enough for me.

 

[Angela Channing]

Amsterdam (2022)

I can imagine this is the type of film that will split opinions: some will enthusiastically love it and others will hate it, sadly I fall in the latter camp.

It's set in the 1930s and is about a group of 3 friends who inadvertently get involved in a mystery surrounding the death of a retired American general. It's quirky and has elements of comedy which are odd and unfunny but it is beautifully shot and there are some really strong performances from the cast. Robert de Niro has a small supporting role near the end of the film and he shows why he is such a great film star. He has such a compelling screen presence that even when he is surrounded by other high profile actors, and is in a pretty poor film, you can't help but be drawn in by his performance. He was the one highlight in the film which, because of the rambling way the story unfolds, was very long, too long, and could easily have been edited down by 30 mins. I didn't like it but I think it would appeal to some people who get on better with its eccentric style.

 

[darkshadows38]

Daniel Radcliff is a guy that's with each Harry Potter film he's become a better actor i think if my memory is right there's one Harry potter film i forget which one i want to say it was Half-blood Prince that his performance is off in that because he was always drinking and drunk on set i think he said? that does explain a lot lol. anyways one of the funniest things he ever did was in (2007) when he did that play where he was nekid in it and you had the press wanting to take pictures of him so to get him to leave him alone he wore the same outfit to work everyday, hence therefore confusing the press and they couldn't do anything since their editor would no doubt think they had taken pictures the first night of the show. his -plan worked they left him alone.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

It: Chapter One (2017)

Since my DVD of the 1990 mini-series (purchased a decade or so ago) is still sealed I don't think I've watched it since it's original airing. My collective memory, however, is of a compelling story with an ending the daftness of which - certainly with the limitations of the screen compared with the page - made me figuratively throw up my hands and literally roll my eyes at my wasted investment.

With this being a new adaption of the better half, I was looking forward to seeing what we'd get, and found it surprising in a number of ways.

I'd expected it to be dark and grim and terrifying and, while it entered the territory of the first two, I found myself a little disappointed that it wasn't terrifying. There were no effective jump scares, and any creepy psychological horror was undermined by seeing too much (and most of that was very clearly computer generated). I also found this version of Pennywise to be too obviously evil and less-than-human from the very beginning, whereas (as I remember it) Tim Curry's ordinary man in a clown suit felt much more prosaic, making it feel more tangible and real and (in turn) scary. So as a horror film, this didn't scare me as much as I'd anticipated. Not that I particularly wanted to be terrified out of my wits. What with the posters and the premise I was just geared up for some big scares or to feel creeped-out afterwards and it felt slightly anti-climactic when it didn't happen.

There is more good news than bad, though, because some of the surprises were very pleasant.

Oh, how my stomach turned with some anticipatory antipathy when the 1988 date flashed up on screen and we were first introduced to the kids. I was expecting a barrage of contemporary speech patterns (vocal fry; uptalk; starting sentences with "kay?"; weird affected pauses, etc.) and my concern only grew during the earliest outdoor group scene with several of the boys where they spoke so quickly I couldn't understand what was said and consequently had no idea what the scene was even about.

As it turns out, though, the casting was mostly satisfyingly good. I never spotted any 21st Century speech patterns from the kids and they felt era appropriate to me. Ironically, the biggest offender on this front was one of the adults: as Kevin's AMC Pacer Wagon driving mother, Molly Atkinson's contemporary vocal fry grated like a gratey thing.

The attention to detail was also good. From set dressings to Airwolf t-shirts to references such as Molly Ringwald to films like Batman and Nightmare On Elm Street 5 being shown in the cinema. It all worked for me.

Most of all, the actors all felt like those on-screen in the Eighties. There's the one who evokes Elliot from E.T. or Kevin from The Wonder Years (or indeed, a younger Kevin from Sons And Daughters). And the one who's a bit like the overweight kid from The Goonies. One kid looks like a mini Tom Hanks. Sophia Lillis looks very much like Kirsten Dunst which may not be the right era but is certainly no bad thing. All the performances were solid. Rather than child actors, they all felt like really good actors who happen to be young. Some of them were what my mother would have described as "little old men" or" old heads on young shoulders".

The feeling of being young and isolated and then finding connection with others was one of this film's strongest elements. There was a youthful warmth to the film that really came across. I haven't watched Stand By Me or The Breakfast Club, but this is how I imagine those films to feel (and enjoying this aspect of It has given me an urge to rectify that soon by watching those two films). There's a fair bit of The Goonies in there as well.

And it's all mixed in with Twin Peaks small town weirdness and secrecy. The small town thing is something this got really right. It didn't feel like the manicured, autumnal Maine one sees so often on-screen, but a more earthy feeling place. (I've never been to or anywhere near Maine, so I don't know how accurate either of these portrayals are. Somehow, though, It's version feels less cinematically polished and a little more truthful. This version of Derry feels very real, lived in and accessible.

The other area where the series worked well was Benjamin Wallfisch's score. The simplest way to describe my enjoyment of the music is to say that I've ordered the soundtrack this morning.​

 

[Willie Oleson]

Not so long ago I mentioned on this very website that I couldn't think of one, great 1980s blockbuster movie. Maybe one of the ALIEN sequels?
So how about cult classic BLADE RUNNER? The reason I've never watched it is because I've always thought I had watched it - turns out I had confused it with that awful martial arts/vampire slayer movie BLADE.
After my bold statement this seemed the perfect opportunity to rectify the situation.
The opening sequence with the futuristic skyline and flying cars, subtlety scored by Vangelis, looks very promising indeed, but then even before the story really begins they tell me who is who and what needs to happen - and that happens. And that's it.

Good Lordie, what a massive disappointment.
I can't fault them for not knowing what the 21st century looks like, but the actual locations don't match the futuristic skyline at all. It's a bit of a fantasy/cyberpunk/film noir hodgepodge and therefore it doesn't have a particular atmosphere. The predominant Chinese setting doesn't seem to serve a purpose except for the link with Chinese/Japanese computer games and all the flash that goes with it.
But it's definitely not what I imagine a future Los Angeles would look like.

I also find it difficult to have any opinion on the characters, I've been told who they are and why, which makes it pretty one-dimensional.
After 60 minutes I still hadn't figured out what was at stake here, what needed to be saved or destroyed.
The performances are strong enough, or maybe even exceptional considering what they had to work with.
Anyway, I figured it would be wise to remove BLADE RUNNER 2049 from my watch list as I'd hate to make the same mistake twice.

 

[Crimson]

The first hour or so whizzed by far more quickly than the remake, but I'd forgotten how that last act reeeeeally drags. It feels around twenty minutes too long and I couldn't wait for it to be over.

GHOSTBUSTERS doesn't rank high among my favorites, not even by virtue of nostalgia, but I enjoy watching it every few years. Very much agreed that the first half is zippier than the back half. I'll add an even more niche complaint: it's a movie about ghost hunters that spends its second half with them battling not-a-ghost. I guess GODBUSTER wasn't as catchy.

 

[Crimson]

Last night, an 80s fantasy double-feature: DRAGONSLAYER and CLASH OF THE TITANS (both 1981). These were both pillars of my childhood, and I'm happy that they both hold up reasonably well to my adult scrutiny.

DRAGONSLAYER has always had one major flaw for me: Peter MacNicol. Even as a kid, I disliked him in this movie without being able to articulate why. Now, I can: he's too American and too contemporary. (Matthew Broderick in LADYHAWKE is even more vexxing.) It's a testament to how good the movie is that it manages to overcome its lead actor. The rest of the film is superb; the screen's best fantasy for my money. Far better than, say, those bloated, interminable LOTR movies.

Harry Hamlin was also too contemporary American for CLASH, but the role didn't require as much from him; he just had to look handsome and heroic. The movie is given a dose of class with its prestigious cast (Olivier, Claire Bloom, Maggie Smith); they all had the good taste to approach their parts with bemused dignity. As a kid, I greatly favored CLASH (it was probably one of my top 5 favorite movies), but my adult appreciation of them has now flipped.

Both films special effects are now charmingly antiquated, although DRAGONSLAYER's has aged better. I suspect Ray Harryhausen's stop motion techniques were old fashioned already by 1981, whereas Industrial Light & Magic was breaking new ground.

 

[Crimson]

Good Lordie, what a massive disappointment.

Through the years, I've made a few attempts at watching BLADE RUNNER; I've never made it more than 30 to 40 minutes in before losing interest.

I think I lasted 10 minutes into the sequel.

 

[Crimson]

Continuing my re-visit of 80s fantasies; I never realized how many great fantasy films had been released in 1981!

TIME BANDITS (1981). I liked this one well enough as a kid, but didn't really get it all that well. Even as an adult, I'm not sure I fully get its very British sensibility, but it's a chaotic, quirky romp.

EXCALIBUR (1981). The most adult of the '81 fantasy quartet, but also the least fun. Director John Boorman didn't bother here with trivialities like nuances of characterization or narrative; this is all broad and mythic. Without the soundtrack (alternately bombastic and eerie), the wit of Nicol Williamson as Merlin and the slyness of Helen Mirren as Morganna, I think this film would have been a stylish bore.

 

[Willie Oleson]

As a kid I watched the Pinocchio animated TV series (Japanese, probably) but apart from the Disney version I had never watched a full length Pinocchio movie.
I was a little disappointed to find out that Prime only offered the dubbed version but luckily it didn't have a negative impact on the viewing experience. It was very well done, actually.
Visually it looks a little unusual for a children's movie and it's a pity that they've opted for that fashionable "doesn't it look realistic?" bleak colour palette.
It appears that this version is closer to the original story and the Pinocchio world looks much more Alice In Wonderland. The only human/animal characters in the Disney movie are Jiminy, Honest John and Gideon (ironically, in this movie Mr. Fox and Mr. Cat aren't the human/animal hybrid).
Despite the eerie make-up I found the wooden boy surprisingly adorable, also because he's very nasty and selfish, which makes the character development all the more satisfying.
There's one minor character who acts annoyingly contemporary (e.g. using hands to emphasize speech) and the Stromboli plot drags a little bit - he isn't even a villain - but overall I think this is an entertaining movie. And also very funny, that was the biggest surprise.

I thought this was a rewatch but there wasn't anything in it that looked familiar, which is not a bad thing at all.
It's mesmerizing, simultaneously relatable and disturbing, and as with so many of these great seventies movies it looks kinda effortless which allows me to be completely absorbed in it.
The concept is timeless but Travis Bickle's point of view seems to be anchored in this particular zeitgeist and American culture, which makes it more than just a time capsule. Not that I have a problem with time capsule movies.
I was a little taken aback by the final twist because....because....I don't know, I had not expected it. Is it because I no longer expect a twist to be an actual surprising twist?
Robert De Niro looks quite attractive in that dark and brooding, Italian kind of way. Cybill Shepherd, I'm sure she was born glamorous.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I'm going to copy @Crimson's double-feature trend.

As with the disaster movies and TV mini-series of that time, the all-star cast of the Agatha Christie stories has always been a big part of its appeal (or at least it was supposed to be).
In the case of Death On The Nile the ensemble cast works very well, I think. It doesn't matter who's playing opposite who, there's always something interesting going on.
Obviously, Agatha Christie had a taste for glamour and boy, does it show in this film. I'm sure she would have been a big fan of the 80s prime time soaps.

Apart from Angela Lansbury's most eccentric character the quirks are relatively mild and yet it could be truly funny sometimes.
Maggie Smith, of course, is a fantastic comedy actress and here she plays sort of a pre-Dorothy Zbornak.

This scene is so absurd it made me laugh out loud.

The prettiest, happiest. lonest couple on top of a pyramid (of sorts) and guess who pops up like a ginger jack-in-the-box-from-hell: Mia Farrow!
And what makes it work is that it doesn't acknowledge the absurdity of it all but instead plays it as a drama with accusations and insults.
Linnet Ridgeway played by Lois Chiles (and I kind of want DALLAS' Holly Harwood and KNOTS' Anne Matheson to be cousins) is a perfectly dislikable monster, someone who has it all and still doesn't hesitate to take more at the expense of less fortunate people.
Of course later it turns out that her victims are far from innocent.
The story is not without contrivances, for example, Andrew Pennington (George Kennedy) not being in his cabin when Jackie needed to steal his gun.and I'm sure there are other anticipations regarding characters actions and, consequently, whereabouts.
Poirot's extremely detailed explanation of the who-and-what prevents the viewer from having a "ah yes, of course" reaction. There is very little that happens right under our very noses.
Not that these mysteries have to be an interactive experience, but I feel it often adds a bit of fun to the puzzle-solving quality of these stories.
Nevertheless, the dramatic conclusion is very satisfying.

Let's get the pretty-shiny stuff out of the way first: apart from the dazzling sets inside the sumpteous hotel this looks a bit bargain bin avant garde compared to the previous movie.
It's not entirely without reason: the characters are what they wear.

Subtlety has been completely disgarded and in many instances it plays out as a straight comedy stage play with all the stereotypes required for this setting.
Not surprisingly, Maggie Smith's performance is pretty solid and she's much funnier than Diana Rigg in the role of the bitch-diva-turns-murder-victim.
I couldn't help rolling my eyes when I saw Roddy McDowall in the part of high society Gay Friend but the character improved as the story went on. I had never noticed before how dark his eyes are.

The big reveal, albeit terribly convoluted, is a little more interesting than the one in Death On The Nile because it explains most of what happened on screen.
Even though I already sort of knew who dunnit, the marital rows between the Referns - conveniently to be "overheard" by the other guests - already hinted at the possibility that it might be staged.
The body swapping scheme was a nice surprise but not without a whiff of the folly as one will often witness in those comedy stage plays. Maybe it depends on your personal angle.

Gee, accidentally screenshot the wrong angle.

The tie-in with the seemingly irrelevant opening scene is also very well done and it adds to the kill count in a rather unsettling way.
All this evens out the pros and cons of the previous movie and therefore there is no winner.

 

[Crimson]

I was a big fan of the Agatha Christie films of the 70s and 80s although, as the years have gone by, that's become limited to just MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS (1974) and DEATH ON THE NILE (1978). Those are both topnotch productions with stellar casts. I think MURDER is the overall better film, but I prefer Ustinov as Poirot over Finney. Albert Finney's performance in MURDER is very ... actory. Peter Ustinov seemed more comfortable in the role.

All of the others feel like TV-movies. And I think some of them were.

 

[Willie Oleson]

This is a very, very good film, but as a theatrical release it seems less accessible and entertaining than Death On The Nile.
The non-stop motion of the train in The Cassandra Crossing underlined the feeling of heading for disaster, running out of time and - most importantly - a very claustrophobic astmosphere.
The Orient Express merely serves as a meeting place and the sets look a bit crammed in that knees-and-elbows kind of way. It's only in Poirot's big reveal that we learn why that meeting was so important.

I didn't remember much of this film except that David Niven was in it, and he wasn't. I have watched the remake a few years (?) ago but apparently it hasn't made much of an impression.
Nevertheless, it isn't very difficult to connect the future murder victim with the Armstrong tragedy, and because it's an execution rather than a wicked murder - regardless of who killed Ratchett - the who-are-these-characters becomes more intriguing than the whodunnit itself.
And indeed, instead of lying about their whereabouts at this or that particular time, they're all trying very hard not to be connected with the Armstrongs.
It's such a brilliant story and watching the film almost feels like reading a book. Therefore I agree with @Crimson that it's probably the best of the Big Four (including The Mirror Crack'd ).

Personally I think Albert Finney's Poirot worked better for this particular setting. If it had been Peter Ustinov then I had expected him to leave the train at some point.
Finney's uncomfortable pose, waddling like Batman's Penguin, tells me that the character doesn't want a lot of exercise.
His voice does get a bit raspy sometimes, I wonder if it had anything to do with faking a continental European accent.
Jacqueline Bisset doesn't get an awful lot to speak and yet her fake accent is the most glaring. She's very watchable but I think Romy Schneider would have been a more suitable casting choice.
Most of the actors get their moment to shine and Ingrid Bergman and Anthony Perkins shone the best. Only Vanessa Redgrave seems a little bit underused but that also puts the stunt in stunt casting.
Wendy Hiller as Princess Dragomiroff is fabulous horror show.

The ending is a bit ambiguous but in the best way possible. On the one hand there's a group of people successfully dealing with their craving for justice, on the other hand - if the situation had been slightly different - they come across as a murderous cult, champagne toasts and benign smiles included.

 

[Seaviewer]

Dr. No (1962)
James Bond's first big screen outing. Haven't seen it in years. It's a little slow by modern standards and definitely not PC, but it still holds up pretty well. It's hard to realise that all those set pieces which have become cliches were fresh once.

 

[Willie Oleson]

A proper whodunnit with a very satisfying ending, although I suspect it was supposed to be dramatic rather than clap-clap-cheer satisfying.
Glenn Close and Gillian Anderson got the best parts, I like the voice of Terence Stamp (it's very similar to Richard Thomas' voice) and the role of Las Vegas-bride "Brenda" seemed so tailor-made for Christina Hendricks that I almost couldn't believe that she was played by Christina Hendricks.
A few characters (and their performers) are a little wasted and it's only in one particular scene that they all get something interesting to say.

Oddly enough, it took me almost an hour to realise that the story was set in the 1950s. I simply assumed they all liked the classic cars and retro-outfits, but I thought it was peculiar that a multi-billionaire would watch his movies on a crappy old TV set.

 

[Willie Oleson]

To be fair, I only chose this movie because I was in the mood for some serious hate-watching.
Perhaps justifiable, that callous plan totally backfired when I got so, so, so much more than I had bargained for.
In order to qualify as "so-bad-it's-good" or "train wreck" entertainment I think there has to be - to whichever degree - an attempt to be successful, and because this sequel film is downright pathetic from start to finish it doesn't leave any room for schadenfreude.

Whereas the survivors of the first POSEIDON film are desperately clawing their way out of their monstrous, sinking grave, the protagonists in BEYOND are going in.
And not in a "mission to locate a legendary ghost ship", no, it's decided on the spot, unequipped and without making any preparations.
Terrifying explosions coming from underwater are being shrugged off and this immediately takes the "disaster" out of the disaster movie.

The scenery becomes ridiculously crowded when another boat shows up, with Telly Savalas in a welcome to Fantasy Island pose.

The dialogue is piss-poor (even by 70s Family TV standards) and often inappropriately used for or completely disconnected from the Disaster Theme.
I guarantee you will not stop shaking your head in utter bebafflement, and it that regard it's almost enjoyable.
The sets are bland and uninspired and worst of all equally lit. Apparently a disaster of this magnitude has no impact on the ship's electricity.

Michael Caine's crew need to find the captain's suite in order to plunder the riches from the characters who had died so tragically in the original story.
How I'm supposed to root for these characters is beyond me.
They discover the suite without any effort but then the safe with all the goodies crashes through the floor, well ceiling. But lookee, because of that crash the safe has opened - note to future burglar: just drop the damn thing - and because they got what they came for in the first place, the story now creates the challenge to get the stuff out of the Poseidon, preferably alive and unscathed, and from this point on it becomes more of a remake.
Shirley Knight reprises the role previously played by Shelley Winters, and they aren't even coy about it.

The other part of the plot is the retcon that the Poseidon was harbouring warfare plutonium, but at the same time I feel it would have been a more interesting angle to set up the story e.g. forcing Michael Caine's crew to enter the ship in order to retrieve the plutonium for villain Stefan Svevo.

I seldom blame the actors for a bad production, however in this case I think the Big Names out to hang their head in shame for becoming involved with this horrible sequel.
I think the movie could have been a little bit more fun if the part of Captain Turner was played by Adrienne Barbeau. Maybe it sounds like strange compliment but she's the actress who knows how to handle seriously bad scripts in her trademark ballsy and unapologetic fashion.
I've always had a dysfunctional relationship with Sally Field: a part of me finds her adorable but another part of me wants to slap her for no particular reason.
The film doesn't have a single redeeming feature at all, except for the link with DALLAS because Svevo's henchwoman looks as sexy and glamorous as JR Ewing's mistress, played by the same Veronica Hamel.

Watching BEYOND has caused me nothing but misery, but at least that provides some schadenfreude for my fellow tellytalkers.
To quote Jack McFarland: "Go on, laugh! Laugh at the sad old clown!"