What was the last film you watched?

[Snarky Oracle!]

Ah! I should have known. But Pierce is funnier - and they had Prissy from Gone With The Wind.

Prissy's in Burnett's famous 'Went With The Wind' sketch from 1976, too, airing the very week that GONE WITH THE WIND was broadcast for the first time in America. The scene when Carol descends the stairs in her new "gown" became one of the most celebrated moments in all of TV comedy, causing the studio audience to collapse in several minutes of hysterical laughter such that most of those laughs had to be cut out in order to avoid the episode running too long -- in fact, nearly all the audience reaction is gone in the final edit:

BTW: Eve Arden's black-and-gold striped party outfit from MILDRED PIERCE was recycled nearly two decades later and worn by Bette Davis' dive lounge jazz keyboardist (Perry Blackwell) in DEAD RINGER. (Miss Blackwell was also manning the piano bar in PILLOW TALK with Rock & Doris).

That's what I liked the most about it, initially. It hasn't aged very well.

Even then. The ratings for FRESNO were great for its first night in 1986, but the numbers collapsed pretty quickly because people found it just really boring.

Frankly, that kind of comedy needs a live audience. Not only that, but FRESNO was played almost straight.

 

[Willie Oleson]

When she says "You're June. Your brother is....Richard" looks like one of those clairvoyant performances.

 

[Willie Oleson]

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)



Alain Delon's Ripley is colder and more entitled. It was almost a cruel joke that someone so perfect-looking didn't have the world at his feet, at least that's how interpreted his character in the 1960s version.
Matt Damon plays a longing kind of Ripley, still a psychopath but a little easier to identify with.
It doesn't hurt (or it doesn't help, depending on your point of view) that all the other characters in this adaptation are truly despicable.
Even the most charming character, Meredith Logue, "rebels against" her wealthy, privileged upbringing in haute couture and expensive hotel suites. It all comes across as irritatingly frivolous.
Dickie Greenleaf is a spoilt brat who has the talent to make people feel good, but anyone with a little bit of instinct should see that he has commitment issues. I think he'd be exactly the same person if he didn't have money.
Then there's the appalling Freddie Miles played by Philip Seymour Hoffman and I think he plays the part a little bit too convincingly haha.
However, the biggest hypocrite is the seemingly friendly and seemingly understanding Marge Sherwood. Her suspicion is understandable, of course, but in the last act of the film she sarcastically says to Tom - in his nicely redecorated apartment - "look at you now. To the manor born".
To me that sounds like "you are supposed to be poor and miserable". Tom Ripley never had a chance to become her equal, and like Susan Stewart in The Servant Marge hates the murderous fraud for the wrong reasons.

When Dickie puts on Tom's glasses just for the fun of it, Tom remarks that he looks like Clark Kent. Now this is interesting because there's something funny going on with the various Tom/Dickie transformations. Glasses on he looks like Matt Damon, glasses off he looks like Leonardo DiCaprio. The hair looks cleaner, the complexion looks better....I'm sure they did this on purpose.
This was my first rewatch and I think it holds up very well.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Superman (1978)



It may have been re-marketed as Superman: The Movie, but there cannot be a more official source than the film itself. Also, I believe that the image posted here is the original film poster. With that out of the way....

The story starts as a disaster movie in which the warnings of a sympathetic Kryptonian scientist are being ignored. I wonder if it was a collision with planet Gallifrey.
Only one alien survives and crashes into planet earth. Teenager Clark Kent looks weird and not particularly attractive but all that is fixed during a 12 years make-over in the Fortress of Solitude.

Easy, Miss. I got you.

You got me ? Who's got you ?

Lois: That's Clark, nice.

For such a spectacular film featuring such an iconic character I think it's interesting that all the best scenes are between Clark/Superman and Lois.
The (at that time) relatively unknown Christopher Reeve showed a comedic charm and leading man quality that could easily rival the likes of Cary Grant and Gregory Peck. I have liked Margot Kidder in everything I've seen of her and together they have terrific on-screen chemistry.
However, the villians are rather weak imo. The dialogue between these characters is unimaginative, it's not funny or deliciously evil. Miss Teschmacher is actually quite horrible as a Bad Superman Girl.
It improves a little towards the final act of the film when the situation becomes more urgent but I had expected better from Gene Hackman who knows how to play a good villain.
Incidentally, the absence of the Zod Trio (except for the opening scene) made me realise I had never actually seen this first Superman film.

Technically speaking the film holds up very well. The special effects are creative with only a few shoddy inserts here and there, and I really believed Christopher Reeve could fly. I do not believe that Lois Lane can fly therefore that romantic flying scene doesn't make sense. Gravity-wise her body could not be in a horizontal position like Superman's.
The story also ends as a disaster movie, based on an a nuclear attack similar to the villainous scheme in The Spy Who Loved Me. Lois Lane's demise looks surprisingly gruesome and I assumed that Superman's kiss would bring her back to the land of the living. Instead, we get a "never happened" solution which feels a bit like a cop-out although Superman's father had made it very clear to never ever change the history of planet Earth.
When the point has been made that something should never be done then you can expect that point to be challenged, so I guess in a way it's still related.
As for Jimmy Olsen, let's all pretend he's not gay despite the fact that he's the first man to fly in Superman's arms and also the person who prevented Lois and Superman's first kiss. I know drama when I see it.

It looks like the film has maintained the original superhero worshipping and I think it's precisely the simplicity of it all that gives this film such an enduring charm.
I mean, there's something liberating and perfectly uncomplicated about loving a character that much, even if Superman himself admits that being a superhero is not without a whiff of vanity.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Superman (1978)

View attachment 59511

It may have been re-marketed as Superman: The Movie, but there cannot be a more official source than the film itself. Also, I believe that the image posted here is the original film poster. With that out of the way....

The story starts as a disaster movie in which the warnings of a sympathetic Kryptonian scientist are being ignored. I wonder if it was a collision with planet Gallifrey.
Only one alien survives and crashes into planet earth. Teenager Clark Kent looks weird and not particularly attractive but all that is fixed during a 12 years make-over in the Fortress of Solitude.





For such a spectacular film featuring such an iconic character I think it's interesting that all the best scenes are between Clark/Superman and Lois.
The (at that time) relatively unknown Christopher Reeve showed a comedic charm and leading man quality that could easily rival the likes of Cary Grant and Gregory Peck. I have liked Margot Kidder in everything I've seen of her and together they have terrific on-screen chemistry.
However, the villians are rather weak imo. The dialogue between these characters is unimaginative, it's not funny or deliciously evil. Miss Teschmacher is actually quite horrible as a Bad Superman Girl.
It improves a little towards the final act of the film when the situation becomes more urgent but I had expected better from Gene Hackman who knows how to play a good villain.
Incidentally, the absence of the Zod Trio (except for the opening scene) made me realise I had never actually seen this first Superman film.

Technically speaking the film holds up very well. The special effects are creative with only a few shoddy inserts here and there, and I really believed Christopher Reeve could fly. I do not believe that Lois Lane can fly therefore that romantic flying scene doesn't make sense. Gravity-wise her body could not be in a horizontal position like Superman's.
The story also ends as a disaster movie, based on an a nuclear attack similar to the villainous scheme in The Spy Who Loved Me. Lois Lane's demise looks surprisingly gruesome and I assumed that Superman's kiss would bring her back to the land of the living. Instead, we get a "never happened" solution which feels a bit like a cop-out although Superman's father had made it very clear to never ever change the history of planet Earth.
When the point has been made that something should never be done then you can expect that point to be challenged, so I guess in a way it's still related.
As for Jimmy Olsen, let's all pretend he's not gay despite the fact that he's the first man to fly in Superman's arms and also the person who prevented Lois and Superman's first kiss. I know drama when I see it.

It looks like the film has maintained the original superhero worshipping and I think it's precisely the simplicity of it all that gives this film such an enduring charm.
I mean, there's something liberating and perfectly uncomplicated about loving a character that much, even if Superman himself admits that being a superhero is not without a whiff of vanity.

One pithy critic said in 1978 that SUPERMAN couldn't make up its mind whether it wanted to be The 10 Commandments or The Three Stooges.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Noises Off...(1992)



I can't remember the last time a film made me howl with laughter. I presume the only thing more entertaining than watching this film is to be in the film.
A group of American actors are doing a British sex farce stage play with the intent to show it on Broadway. Michael Caine plays the director who makes a fuss about everything, little does he know just how chaotic it's going to be.
This also gives us a detailed account of what the play is supposed to look like which is important when we watch the alternative versions.
Because no matter how crazy it gets it still has to make sense. If a scene in the play fails it has to fail for a reason and I think this film is great regardless of the humour because it's like an enormous complex puzzle and I cannot begin to imagine how they made it the way it is.
The slapstick comes with some serious stunt work like John Ritter's tumble down the stairs (if it wasn't him then it was the mightiest editing I've ever seen).

The cast is sublime both in the play and the story about the play, the humour is non-stop as in "crammed into every single second" and I don't think it's possible to notice everything on first viewing. Glad I bought the DVD so I have it ready for a rewatch.
When I was young these sex farce plays were very popular on TV but they never looked as good as this one. And it was always the same setup: middle-aged man tries to have a steamy afternoon with his sexy secretary but then another couple arrives and they all have to pretend that "nothing funny is going on here". Chaos ensues.
Noises Off...continues the farce based on various relationships backstage while the play itself continues as audio-only with some of the actors on stage but not on camera.
Impressive.


Birth (2004)



Good grief, this film was hard to get. I mean, just the idea that a Nicole Kidman film is not available to stream is insane, but on top of everything I had to buy the DVD three times before I could actually watch it today. First purchase: wrong item sent, second purchase: lost in the mail, third purchase: heavily scratched disc but, oh well, it works.
The whole situation smells like a conspiracy most foul but the film itself is everything I had hoped for, very Todd Haynes-esque in the way it combines elegance and disturbance.
It also might be Nicole's best performance I've seen although she was great in The Others. If this film had been made in the 1980s I could picture Mia Farrow in the role of "Anna".

The story made me think of David Cronenberg's The Brood and how the emotional trauma manifested itself as a physical antagonist.
I'm not saying this is happening in Birth because the film is rather ambiguous about who-instigates-what, but that also leaves room for interpretation.
There's also the theme of grief and the need to hear the proverbial "voice from beyond the grave" but in this particular story it's the haunting that learns something from the living. It's a clever script in a sober no-frills presentation (kinda necessary to make the Anna character pop) but the kid gets smacked and shoved around and that's often a joy to watch in film.

 

[Toni]

Noises Off...(1992)

View attachment 59538

I can't remember the last time a film made me howl with laughter. I presume the only thing more entertaining than watching this film is to be in the film.
A group of American actors are doing a British sex farce stage play with the intent to show it on Broadway. Michael Caine plays the director who makes a fuss about everything, little does he know just how chaotic it's going to be.
This also gives us a detailed account of what the play is supposed to look like which is important when we watch the alternative versions.
Because no matter how crazy it gets it still has to make sense. If a scene in the play fails it has to fail for a reason and I think this film is great regardless of the humour because it's like an enormous complex puzzle and I cannot begin to imagine how they made it the way it is.
The slapstick comes with some serious stunt work like John Ritter's tumble down the stairs (if it wasn't him then it was the mightiest editing I've ever seen).

The cast is sublime both in the play and the story about the play, the humour is non-stop as in "crammed into every single second" and I don't think it's possible to notice everything on first viewing. Glad I bought the DVD so I have it ready for a rewatch.
When I was young these sex farce plays were very popular on TV but they never looked as good as this one. And it was always the same setup: middle-aged man tries to have a steamy afternoon with his sexy secretary but then another couple arrives and they all have to pretend that "nothing funny is going on here". Chaos ensues.
Noises Off...continues the farce based on various relationships backstage while the play itself continues as audio-only with some of the actors on stage but not on camera.
Impressive.


Birth (2004)

View attachment 59539

Good grief, this film was hard to get. I mean, just the idea that a Nicole Kidman film is not available to stream is insane, but on top of everything I had to buy the DVD three times before I could actually watch it today. First purchase: wrong item sent, second purchase: lost in the mail, third purchase: heavily scratched disc but, oh well, it works.
The whole situation smells like a conspiracy most foul but the film itself is everything I had hoped for, very Todd Haynes-esque in the way it combines elegance and disturbance.
It also might be Nicole's best performance I've seen although she was great in The Others. If this film had been made in the 1980s I could picture Mia Farrow in the role of "Anna".

The story made me think of David Cronenberg's The Brood and how the emotional trauma manifested itself as a physical antagonist.
I'm not saying this is happening in Birth because the film is rather ambiguous about who-instigates-what, but that also leaves room for interpretation.
There's also the theme of grief and the need to hear the proverbial "voice from beyond the grave" but in this particular story it's the haunting that learns something from the living. It's a clever script in a sober no-frills presentation (kinda necessary to make the Anna character pop) but the kid gets smacked and shoved around and that's often a joy to watch in film.

About "Noises Off": I think this one would have been successful in whatever way it had been adapted, the concept is too good to fail and our Spanish stage version (and several iterations) was permanently in our biggest cities and tours. It was universal fun, and Nicollette proved not to be a prude, that´s for sure...

About "Birth": I watched this movie at the time and just loved it. Being a believer in reincarnation myself, there is a lot to love in the story and yes, it might be one of Nicole´s most memorable roles.

About "The Brood": I watched it last week by first time, and I´m still having my daily dose of salts! The "subject" has influenced the genre to this day, and seeing Christopher Ewing´s natural daddy (credited in third place!) being so protective of his kid shows what a great actor Art Hindle was.

To be honest, THAT shot with Samantha Eggar (you know which one) is the stuff my nightmares are made of, and was super-cringeworthy. Not sure if the twist was good or not for the story though. I did a double feature with this and "Possession" (Isabelle Adjani´s one). I´m still recovering, as I said before...

 

[Willie Oleson]

The Muppets (2011)



A Reunion Movie in every sense of the word, and it's not the kind of film I'd seek out to watch but when I noticed the thumbnail I knew it was what I needed: an overdose of wholesomeness and nostalgia. Just to make life a bit more simple for 90 minutes.
There's a lot of self-referential humour about both the Muppets fame and reunion/retro movies in general and I'm sure that was the only way to do it.
From a slightly more cynical point of view it comes across as a big marketing ploy and you could do a drinking game for every time someone mentions "how awesome the Muppets are".
If you can put that aside and if you like to indulge your inner-eighties kid then this film will feel like a warm blanket. Naturally this has a lot to do with the iconic characters especially Kermit and Miss Piggy.
The voice of Kermit is very soft-spoken and it's especially that kind of understatement that gives the film some heartfelt confidence. The songs are nice, mostly in a retro 70s Gilbert O'Sullivan style, and Jason Segel and Amy Adams are serviceable as the super-nice humans.
Actually the film starts with a naff human musical sequence and I almost instantly regretted my choice to watch this. It also ends with musical-humans dancing in the street and it's unfortunate that the film ends on a sucky note. But everything in between is great.
The Special Guest Stars are Jack Black (super un-funny as always) and Chris Cooper as the oil tycoon villain (nothing special but it works for the plot).

 

[Toni]

The Muppets (2011)

View attachment 59555

A Reunion Movie in every sense of the word, and it's not the kind of film I'd seek out to watch but when I noticed the thumbnail I knew it was what I needed: an overdose of wholesomeness and nostalgia. Just to make life a bit more simple for 90 minutes.
There's a lot of self-referential humour about both the Muppets fame and reunion/retro movies in general and I'm sure that was the only way to do it.
From a slightly more cynical point of view it comes across as a big marketing ploy and you could do a drinking game for every time someone mentions "how awesome the Muppets are".
If you can put that aside and if you like to indulge your inner-eighties kid then this film will feel like a warm blanket. Naturally this has a lot to do with the iconic characters especially Kermit and Miss Piggy.
The voice of Kermit is very soft-spoken and it's especially that kind of understatement that gives the film some heartfelt confidence. The songs are nice, mostly in a retro 70s Gilbert O'Sullivan style, and Jason Segel and Amy Adams are serviceable as the super-nice humans.
Actually the film starts with a naff human musical sequence and I almost instantly regretted my choice to watch this. It also ends with musical-humans dancing in the street and it's unfortunate that the film ends on a sucky note. But everything in between is great.
The Special Guest Stars are Jack Black (super un-funny as always) and Chris Cooper as the oil tycoon villain (nothing special but it works for the plot)

.

Moi!!

 

[Willie Oleson]

Superman II (1980)



It's called a sequel, but the situation seems rather similar to the Three & Four Musketeers films (incidentally, also directed by Richard Lester from "Beatles Movie" fame).
Still, there were enough scenes filmed a few years later that made some inconsistencies noticeable especially in physical appearance - but it's not significant enough to put a damper on the viewing experience.
But, sequel or not, "II" certainly ramps up the stunts and spectacle courtesy of the evil Zod Trio. I don't think there's a single set that doesn't get destroyed one way or another and sometimes it gave me James Bond vibes. And Non does remind me of Jaws.
The pace can be leasurely in some scenes i.e. carefully showing everything that needs to be shown while the characters react a bit slowly to the horrific new developments, and the script doesn't exactly shy away from chitchat.
On the other hand there are dozens of "little moments" especially in action-packed scenes that are wonderfully staged. It has more humour than the first film and even Luther & Co have become more watchable.

North, Miss Teschmacher! North! North! North!

I still think Gene Hackman could have chewed the scenery a little bit more but at least he explains "Superman" as a nom de voyage.

The best part of the '78 film, the Lois & Superman semi-romance, is developed into something more complicated, and not entirely for the best imho.
I don't care how repetitive it gets, I always love the scenes when Lois gets suspicious (which in itself is an hilarious understatement) while Clark pretends to know nothing about anything. "Act as if his nose bleeds", but apparently that expression doesn't exist in English language probably to avoid confusion with Christopher Reeve's nosebleeds in Noises Off.
So, while Lois' romantic feelings had a big impact on the story it was still part of the overall superhero worshipping.
Now that Clark's secret has been revealed it allows them to officially fall in love but it also suggests that Lois is only interested in superhero Clark, not the nice and good-looking Clark from the office who's always doing his very best to please her. It makes her come off as a person with extreme demands and expectations.
And when you think about it that doesn't even make sense because Superman is what he is and he doesn't have to make much effort to use those super powers.
His only challenge is to be everywhere he's needed, and to be there in time.
When the annoying kid not-so-accidentally tumbles into the Niagara Falls I screamed "let it drown!"

To watch Superman and Lois playing house in the Fortress of Solitude is kinda cringe but it also made me think how far they were going to take this.
I don't think a sexualised Superman would have worked in the grand scheme of marketing & merchandise but then the story comes up with an idea to dodge that corporate bullet: Superman decides to be un-supered in a The Little Mermaid sort of way and technically speaking that means that Lois never slept with a superhero.
I expected her to say something like "don't do it, the world needs you more than I do" but no, she's totally cool with it.
But then they find out about Zod's terror on earth - ironically instigated by human terrorists with completely different plans - and the only way to continue the story is to give back his super powers.
We don't find out how that works, the only clue is a piece of Kryptonite that didn't get destroyed in Superman's transformation process.
According to wiki, this may have had something to do with Marlon Brando not returning for the sequel - probably a money issue - therefore it's possible that the re-transformation was supposed to be more elaborate.
Never mind, the most important thing is that he's back and ready to kick Zod Ass.

The battle between the super powers is very entertaining and it's always nice to see that the money is properly spent (200 million dollars by today's standards) and even the semi off-screen fight between Superman and Non looks/sounds great.
Later, Superman relies on Lex Luthor to betray him and that made it possible to destroy the evil villains!
Lois and Clark talk about unfinished business which will remain unfinished because of Clark's amnesia kiss and this basically reboots the situation for a second sequel.
He was "a tough act to follow"...and then he wasn't. Oh Lois, you're so politically incorrect.
I think this second film is a case of gain some/lose some therefore I'd rate it the same as the first one, but as I said it's more like one big movie with a two year interlude.

At the heart of it all is that pitch-perfect casting in that amazingly eye-popping costume, it's almost too garish to make it work but somehow it always looks magnificent.
I'm undecided about watching "III", I'm aware of its reputation and I'd like to preserve the afterglow of the first two films.
Then there's the so-called Richard Donner cut of Superman II but I fear that a "what if" film is only going to be a frustrating experience.
Superman Returns from 2006, I don't think it's ever been on my radar, Men Of Steel could be interesting and now we also have Superman 2025 with a star-studded cast of actors I've never heard of. That shouldn't be a problem, it certainly wasn't for Christopher Reeve, but glancing at the cast on IMDB I only see pretty, thin faces and maybe that's going to look too "instagram" for my taste.
Any suggestions?

 

[Seaviewer]

Superman II is a textbook sequel in that it's "what happened next." The fact that the two films were shot (at least partially) concurrently is irrelevant.
I think you should just continue with Superman III. I won't argue that there isn't s drop in overall quality but the good bits are still good. It's just that there aren't as many of them.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Superman II is a textbook sequel in that it's "what happened next."

Perhaps I'd feel that way if the Zod Trio hadn't been introduced in the first film.

I won't argue that there isn't s drop in overall quality but the good bits are still good. It's just that there aren't as many of them.

Okay then I'll make it a "maybe" - if I can unsee that tacky film poster.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Any suggestions?

Superman Returns from 2006, I don't think it's ever been on my radar

Of all the reboots, Superman Returns is the one that feels like a spiritual successor to the first two films (and indeed, I believe that was the intent). I think it's a decent films - certainly better than the third and fourth Reeve films, and arguably better conceived than the second (due to Richard Donner's departure and the change of director/tone).

It may be worth considering.

Then there's the so-called Richard Donner cut of Superman II but I fear that a "what if" film is only going to be a frustrating experience.

I found it strange watching it when I'm so used to the Lester version, but thinking of it as a "what if" may actually help. It's good to get a vision of what was originally intended, even though the lack of it being fully shot means the final version isn't perfect (one scene even utilises footage from Reeve and Kidder's screen test, which I think is cute).



And since you wished for chewing the scenery, it would be remiss of me not to suggest 1984's Supergirl. It's pretty bad, but kind of fun on that level.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Here's an interesting comparing-the-cuts video: