last movie you watched
Moderators: FECC-Moderator, Moderator5, Moderator3, Site Mechanic
-
- Posts: 13155
- Registered for: 12 years 6 months
- Has thanked: 2226 times
- Been thanked: 8410 times
Re: last movie you watched
Currently watching..
Yesterday i watched this movie.
Great chaotic yet hilarious movie, with Robin Williams, a great part for Jerry Reed And King Creole's Walter Matthau
Yesterday i watched this movie.
Great chaotic yet hilarious movie, with Robin Williams, a great part for Jerry Reed And King Creole's Walter Matthau
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
if you'll try a little kindness and you'll overlook the blindness
Of the narrow minded people on the narrow minded streets
Of the narrow minded people on the narrow minded streets
-
- Posts: 13155
- Registered for: 12 years 6 months
- Has thanked: 2226 times
- Been thanked: 8410 times
Re: last movie you watched
Watching this classic. Love this movie.
Fun fact theres actually more top and bottom image to see on this release vs later releases.
Fun fact theres actually more top and bottom image to see on this release vs later releases.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
if you'll try a little kindness and you'll overlook the blindness
Of the narrow minded people on the narrow minded streets
Of the narrow minded people on the narrow minded streets
-
- Posts: 5363
- Registered for: 21 years 9 months
- Has thanked: 660 times
- Been thanked: 3117 times
Re: last movie you watched
You think you are seeing more on the top and bottom because it is a pan and scan VHS copy. In reality, the film was shot in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, to fit that onto a 4 x 3 square TV image you have to shrink the film to allow the width to be displayed and have the black bars on the top and bottom. This does not cut off the top and bottom but does present you with the film as intended by the director.Johnny2523 wrote:Watching this classic. Love this movie.
Fun fact theres actually more top and bottom image to see on this release vs later releases.
Sometimes with a pen and scanned copy, they do remove what’s called the matte from the image, exposing the top and bottom that was never intended to be seen.
The only true way to see any film shot in something wider than a 1.37:1 aspect ratio is in a wide screen, letterbox format
Always Elvis
Anthony
Anthony
-
- Posts: 13155
- Registered for: 12 years 6 months
- Has thanked: 2226 times
- Been thanked: 8410 times
Re: last movie you watched
Well i mean technically i did see more bottom (and sometimes top) not just thinking it lol.ForeverElvis wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:32 amYou think you are seeing more on the top and bottom because it is a pan and scan VHS copy. In reality, the film was shot in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, to fit that onto a 4 x 3 square TV image you have to shrink the film to allow the width to be displayed and have the black bars on the top and bottom. This does not cut off the top and bottom but does present you with the film as intended by the director.Johnny2523 wrote:Watching this classic. Love this movie.
Fun fact theres actually more top and bottom image to see on this release vs later releases.
Sometimes with a pen and scanned copy, they do remove what’s called the matte from the image, exposing the top and bottom that was never intended to be seen.
The only true way to see any film shot in something wider than a 1.37:1 aspect ratio is in a wide screen, letterbox format
Perhaps parts that were not intended to be seen but still it was interesting to see some of the locations have just a bit more image on top and bottom. But thanks for the info
if you'll try a little kindness and you'll overlook the blindness
Of the narrow minded people on the narrow minded streets
Of the narrow minded people on the narrow minded streets
-
- Posts: 5363
- Registered for: 21 years 9 months
- Has thanked: 660 times
- Been thanked: 3117 times
Re: last movie you watched
Your welcome.Johnny2523 wrote:Well i mean technically i did see more bottom (and sometimes top) not just thinking it lol.ForeverElvis wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:32 amYou think you are seeing more on the top and bottom because it is a pan and scan VHS copy. In reality, the film was shot in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, to fit that onto a 4 x 3 square TV image you have to shrink the film to allow the width to be displayed and have the black bars on the top and bottom. This does not cut off the top and bottom but does present you with the film as intended by the director.Johnny2523 wrote:Watching this classic. Love this movie.
Fun fact theres actually more top and bottom image to see on this release vs later releases.
Sometimes with a pen and scanned copy, they do remove what’s called the matte from the image, exposing the top and bottom that was never intended to be seen.
The only true way to see any film shot in something wider than a 1.37:1 aspect ratio is in a wide screen, letterbox format
Perhaps parts that were not intended to be seen but still it was interesting to see some of the locations have just a bit more image on top and bottom. But thanks for the info
when a film like Love Me Tender, Flaming Star or Blue Hawaii (2.35:1 ratio) is seen in a pan and scan copy on a VHS that takes up the whole 4:3 square of an older TV Image the viewer is not seeing about 45% of the picture a person saw in the theater in its original run. In most cases the picture is zoomed in, there is no new image info on the top or bottom.
Always Elvis
Anthony
Anthony
-
- Posts: 13155
- Registered for: 12 years 6 months
- Has thanked: 2226 times
- Been thanked: 8410 times
Re: last movie you watched
Yeah i totally understand that, but some movies appear to have more image info (either top/bottom or both) it seems, i noticed it on this one and a version of back to the future and some other movies.ForeverElvis wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 8:37 pmYour welcome.Johnny2523 wrote:Well i mean technically i did see more bottom (and sometimes top) not just thinking it lol.ForeverElvis wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:32 amYou think you are seeing more on the top and bottom because it is a pan and scan VHS copy. In reality, the film was shot in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, to fit that onto a 4 x 3 square TV image you have to shrink the film to allow the width to be displayed and have the black bars on the top and bottom. This does not cut off the top and bottom but does present you with the film as intended by the director.Johnny2523 wrote:Watching this classic. Love this movie.
Fun fact theres actually more top and bottom image to see on this release vs later releases.
Sometimes with a pen and scanned copy, they do remove what’s called the matte from the image, exposing the top and bottom that was never intended to be seen.
The only true way to see any film shot in something wider than a 1.37:1 aspect ratio is in a wide screen, letterbox format
Perhaps parts that were not intended to be seen but still it was interesting to see some of the locations have just a bit more image on top and bottom. But thanks for the info
when a film like Love Me Tender, Flaming Star or Blue Hawaii (2.35:1 ratio) is seen in a pan and scan copy on a VHS that takes up the whole 4:3 square of an older TV Image the viewer is not seeing about 45% of the picture a person saw in the theater in its original run. In most cases the picture is zoomed in, there is no new image info on the top or bottom.
For instance here with vacation i had a 4k scene and the vhs running next to each other and the scene with John Candy in the rollercoaster for example would show part of his legs that have been cropped on the widescreen releases.
if you'll try a little kindness and you'll overlook the blindness
Of the narrow minded people on the narrow minded streets
Of the narrow minded people on the narrow minded streets
-
- Posts: 5363
- Registered for: 21 years 9 months
- Has thanked: 660 times
- Been thanked: 3117 times
Re: last movie you watched
“Vacation” aspect ratio is 1.85:1.Johnny2523 wrote:Yeah i totally understand that, but some movies appear to have more image info (either top/bottom or both) it seems, i noticed it on this one and a version of back to the future and some other movies.ForeverElvis wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 8:37 pmYour welcome.Johnny2523 wrote:Well i mean technically i did see more bottom (and sometimes top) not just thinking it lol.ForeverElvis wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:32 amYou think you are seeing more on the top and bottom because it is a pan and scan VHS copy. In reality, the film was shot in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, to fit that onto a 4 x 3 square TV image you have to shrink the film to allow the width to be displayed and have the black bars on the top and bottom. This does not cut off the top and bottom but does present you with the film as intended by the director.Johnny2523 wrote:Watching this classic. Love this movie.
Fun fact theres actually more top and bottom image to see on this release vs later releases.
Sometimes with a pen and scanned copy, they do remove what’s called the matte from the image, exposing the top and bottom that was never intended to be seen.
The only true way to see any film shot in something wider than a 1.37:1 aspect ratio is in a wide screen, letterbox format
Perhaps parts that were not intended to be seen but still it was interesting to see some of the locations have just a bit more image on top and bottom. But thanks for the info
when a film like Love Me Tender, Flaming Star or Blue Hawaii (2.35:1 ratio) is seen in a pan and scan copy on a VHS that takes up the whole 4:3 square of an older TV Image the viewer is not seeing about 45% of the picture a person saw in the theater in its original run. In most cases the picture is zoomed in, there is no new image info on the top or bottom.
For instance here with vacation i had a 4k scene and the vhs running next to each other and the scene with John Candy in the rollercoaster for example would show part of his legs that have been cropped on the widescreen releases.
This is the standard widescreen ratio used by most filmmakers today. It is only slightly wider than the aspect ratio of modern televisions (1.78:1) meaning only minimal letterboxing is required to see the entire image on tv.
Shot with Spherical lenses on a 1.37:1 negative, the film was matted for a 1:85.1 theatrical presentation. This meant that there is more image in the unmatted negative that was intentionally covered up by the filmmakers.
Why? It’s where you’ll find camera and sound equipment or the top of fake walls and more … hidden.
An example from “Vacation” is when Ellen comes out of the shower and lays down on the bed to talk to Clark. In the theatrical release, you can see just the top of her underwear waist band. On the VHS with the Mattes removed, showing the full 1:37:1 image exposed to the negative, you can see all her underwear and some of her leg. This was on the film, but intentionally covered up with the matte by the filmmaker.
My preference is to see a film as the director and cinematographer intended it to be seen. In the aspect ratio, they intended for me to see it in.
If a film is meant to be seen in the 1.37:1 ratio that’s how I want to see it. If a film is meant to be seen in 1.85:1, I want to see it letterboxed to that. If I were watching on an old 4:3 screen television, I don’t want the matts removed to fill the screen just to see stuff that the director didn’t want me to see.
Always Elvis
Anthony
Anthony
-
- Posts: 9473
- Registered for: 5 years 8 months
- Has thanked: 1589 times
- Been thanked: 9147 times
Re: last movie you watched
Tonight I watched Boneyard, a serial killer/crime movie starring Mel Gibson - although he's not in a much, and he's probably thankful. This is kicking around on Amazon Prime, and it's an AWFUL movie. The first problem is the appalling acting. Gibson is fine, sleepwalking through his role, but the rest of the cast put in some terrible performances. The second problem is that the film is so desparate to prove that it has some worth that it employs edgy "handheld" camerawork, and a structure that flits back and forth between the present and the past. Nothing wrong with either of those things if there is a point to it and/or it's done well. Neither is the case here. The third problem is that the movie has no ending. It goes along for ninety minutes and then, literally, it just stops. There is no conclusion, no culprit for the crimes. Some real life crime movies can get away with that, but that isn't the case here. It's literally like having the first episode of a TV series and it got cancelled before any others were made. Just avoid like hell.
Meanwhile, I've revisited Fracture (2007), Femme (2024) Five Nights at Freddy's (2023), The River King (2005) and The Devil's Backbone (2001) and enjoyed all of them thoroughly. I also took a look at The Comeback (1979), a horror movie of sorts starring Jack Jones. It's good for the most part, but falls to bits in the final fifteen minutes. But Jones does well, and this is a better-than-usual Pete Walker production.
Meanwhile, I've revisited Fracture (2007), Femme (2024) Five Nights at Freddy's (2023), The River King (2005) and The Devil's Backbone (2001) and enjoyed all of them thoroughly. I also took a look at The Comeback (1979), a horror movie of sorts starring Jack Jones. It's good for the most part, but falls to bits in the final fifteen minutes. But Jones does well, and this is a better-than-usual Pete Walker production.
Accused of being "a nerd in his 20s." I wish.


-
- Posts: 4067
- Registered for: 17 years 9 months
- Location: Somewhere in Frenchie Canada
- Has thanked: 1909 times
- Been thanked: 1836 times
Re: last movie you watched
Found these videos about "forgotten" movies (of the 70s) quite interesting (not sure that Hollywood "buried" them though):
Elvis fan. From Sun to Sundial.
-
- Posts: 19650
- Registered for: 18 years 10 months
- Has thanked: 5404 times
- Been thanked: 4814 times
Re: last movie you watched

Anyone here seen this highly enjoyable (but also long) movie before ?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Posts: 9473
- Registered for: 5 years 8 months
- Has thanked: 1589 times
- Been thanked: 9147 times
Re: last movie you watched
Odd video. Hollywood has hardly kept them hidden, and many (if not all) are on blu ray.Mister Mike wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 7:44 pmFound these videos about "forgotten" movies (of the 70s) quite interesting (not sure that Hollywood "buried" them though):
Accused of being "a nerd in his 20s." I wish.


-
- Posts: 9473
- Registered for: 5 years 8 months
- Has thanked: 1589 times
- Been thanked: 9147 times
Re: last movie you watched
I have the Warner Archive edition, but have yet to unwrap it. It's been a very long time since I've seen it.Walter Hale 4 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 1:33 amAs for me, I been able to squeeze "Some Came Running" in over the weekend whilst watching plently of tennis (Australian open 2025 is full on right now).
Anyone here seen this highly enjoyable (but also long) movie before ?
![]()
Accused of being "a nerd in his 20s." I wish.


-
- Posts: 9473
- Registered for: 5 years 8 months
- Has thanked: 1589 times
- Been thanked: 9147 times
Re: last movie you watched
This afternoon I saw Clint Eastwood's latest movie, Juror #2, which stars Nicholas Hoult as a juror for a murder trial, and finds out that he's got skin in the game. I'm not an Eastwood fan, although I have enjoyed some of his directorial efforts of the past. Juror #2 is a good film, which presents the viewer with a clear moral dilemma, but I still am not quite sure what the film was trying to say about it. What's more, there is a fair amount of the film relying on coincidences - not least Hoult being on that particular jury trial. What are the chances? Not very likely is the answer. What's more, he could have got himself out of jury service as soon as he realised he was in the bar on the same night that the murder happened. All he had to say was "I was there," and he would have been removed. That said, if you swallow these giant coincidences and plot holes, you have a very enjoyable movie that is well-made (although one could hardly say that Eastwood is a flamboyant director at this point in his career) and well-acted, particularly by Hoult, who seems to have had a very good run of films recently.
Yesterday I saw The Dead Zone, based on Stephen King's novel of the same name. I've seen it before, probably when I was a teenager, but the film is a bit of an empty affair. Christopher Walken is suitably sullen as the man who suddenly gains the "gift" of premonition, but each episode in the film feels under-developed, especially the one which is the film's climax. It's nowhere near the length of some of King's books, but the feeling of the film is that of a York Notes adaptation - all the various plot points told one after the other with no real sense of passion. A shame, as there's a good story here.
Yesterday I saw The Dead Zone, based on Stephen King's novel of the same name. I've seen it before, probably when I was a teenager, but the film is a bit of an empty affair. Christopher Walken is suitably sullen as the man who suddenly gains the "gift" of premonition, but each episode in the film feels under-developed, especially the one which is the film's climax. It's nowhere near the length of some of King's books, but the feeling of the film is that of a York Notes adaptation - all the various plot points told one after the other with no real sense of passion. A shame, as there's a good story here.
Accused of being "a nerd in his 20s." I wish.


-
- Posts: 4067
- Registered for: 17 years 9 months
- Location: Somewhere in Frenchie Canada
- Has thanked: 1909 times
- Been thanked: 1836 times
Re: last movie you watched
Another interesting video about some "forgotten" movies:
Elvis fan. From Sun to Sundial.
-
- Posts: 9473
- Registered for: 5 years 8 months
- Has thanked: 1589 times
- Been thanked: 9147 times
Re: last movie you watched
Tonight I revisited Silver Bullet, a 1984 film based on a short story by Stephen King. Despite nominally being a film about a werewolf, it's actually a film about small town life and, even more, the bonds within a family. In that regard, it actually captures some of the themes of King's work in general much better than many of the more well-known adaptations. His writing at its best (and its been a while since he's been at his best) is about character as much as suspense and thrillers, and we get that here in what is really quite a charming movie. Corey Haim plays the part of the young boy who believes a series of murders is the work of a werewolf, and Gary Busey plays his heavy-drinking Uncle who eventually agrees to help him. Cute film.
Accused of being "a nerd in his 20s." I wish.


-
- Posts: 4067
- Registered for: 17 years 9 months
- Location: Somewhere in Frenchie Canada
- Has thanked: 1909 times
- Been thanked: 1836 times
Re: last movie you watched
Another interesting video from our friends at OLD SCHOOL CiNEMA, this time about some forgotten war movies from the 60s:
Elvis fan. From Sun to Sundial.
-
- Posts: 9473
- Registered for: 5 years 8 months
- Has thanked: 1589 times
- Been thanked: 9147 times
Re: last movie you watched
This afternoon I had the pleasure of rewatching My Beautiful Laundrette - which I hadn't seen for a very long time. My loss. Stephen Frears's film is still relevant today, commenting as it does on tribalism in the UK, and the effects of racism. Thrown into the mix, of course, is the gay relationship between a young British Asian man and a former schoolfriend who had turned to the far right. Despite the heavy subject matter (particularly in Thatcher's Britain, when the film came out) it reads almost like a fairy tale, both dark and charming at the same time. Sadly the BFI's blu ray doesn't do the film justice, with some of the night scenes so grainy that it looks like the telly needs tuning in as in the old days of terrestrial TVs and aerials in the loft. This is an excellent film, though, and hopefully it won't be another ten or twenty years before I think of watching it again.
Yesterday, I revisited Juggernaut, 1970s nearly-disaster movie set on board an ocean liner which is carrying 6 bombs. It's pure entertainment, and it holds together just fine, and there are some intriguing sequences such as the party for passengers as they wait to find out if they're going to be blown up. Richard Harris, Omar Sharif and David Hemmings star, but in many ways it is Roy Kinnear's turn as the hapless head of entertainment that you remember when the credits roll.
On Friday I saw the 1963 version of The Old Dark House, which doesn't have much to do with the 1932 film it's supposedly a remake of, and is so Godawful that it's almost painful that it has that title. Comedy horrors are fine if they're funny or horrific (preferably both), but this is neither, and it's a good 20 minutes too long as well. The cast flounders with the dead-duck script, despite being made up of Mervyn Johns, Robert Morley, Fenella Fielding and Janette Scott. Not something I'm likely to endure again.
Yesterday, I revisited Juggernaut, 1970s nearly-disaster movie set on board an ocean liner which is carrying 6 bombs. It's pure entertainment, and it holds together just fine, and there are some intriguing sequences such as the party for passengers as they wait to find out if they're going to be blown up. Richard Harris, Omar Sharif and David Hemmings star, but in many ways it is Roy Kinnear's turn as the hapless head of entertainment that you remember when the credits roll.
On Friday I saw the 1963 version of The Old Dark House, which doesn't have much to do with the 1932 film it's supposedly a remake of, and is so Godawful that it's almost painful that it has that title. Comedy horrors are fine if they're funny or horrific (preferably both), but this is neither, and it's a good 20 minutes too long as well. The cast flounders with the dead-duck script, despite being made up of Mervyn Johns, Robert Morley, Fenella Fielding and Janette Scott. Not something I'm likely to endure again.
Accused of being "a nerd in his 20s." I wish.


-
- Posts: 9473
- Registered for: 5 years 8 months
- Has thanked: 1589 times
- Been thanked: 9147 times
Re: last movie you watched
Last night, I watched a rather ho-hum thriller from 2012 entitled Beyond, starring Jon Voigt and Julian Morris. Voight stars as a cop soon to retire whose speciality is finding kidnapped children. When his superior's own niece goes missing, Voigt is put on the case, but finds himself bothered by a young psychic (Morris) who believes he can help. It's OK, but it goes in exactly the directions you expect, up to and including the climax. It's only 90 minutes, but it's not great.
This afternoon, I revisited Quatermass 2 - apparently the first film sequel to use "2" in its title. As with the other Quatermass films, this is excellent, a dark and intelligent science fiction film, with tight pacing and some excellent direction - especially in the use of the facility where much of the action takes place. The scenes of Brian Donlevy running around trying to escape while being shot at are almost Hitchcockian - and remind me a bit of the famous plane sequence in North by Northwest. Sadly, the film is only in SD in the UK, but it's still worth a look, even if the night scenes are rather murky in the version on Amazon prime.
This afternoon, I revisited Quatermass 2 - apparently the first film sequel to use "2" in its title. As with the other Quatermass films, this is excellent, a dark and intelligent science fiction film, with tight pacing and some excellent direction - especially in the use of the facility where much of the action takes place. The scenes of Brian Donlevy running around trying to escape while being shot at are almost Hitchcockian - and remind me a bit of the famous plane sequence in North by Northwest. Sadly, the film is only in SD in the UK, but it's still worth a look, even if the night scenes are rather murky in the version on Amazon prime.
Accused of being "a nerd in his 20s." I wish.


-
- Posts: 9473
- Registered for: 5 years 8 months
- Has thanked: 1589 times
- Been thanked: 9147 times
Re: last movie you watched
Last night, I finished the Quatermass trilogy with Quatermass and the Pit, which I have talked about in the past. For me, this chilling, intelligent science fiction movie is on of the best in the genre from the 1960s. Nigel Kneale was a masterful screenwriter, and his imagination seemed to know no bounds. The film looks great on blu ray, and the cast are superb. The final shots are about as dark as it could possibly get. A wonderful movie.
Accused of being "a nerd in his 20s." I wish.


-
- Posts: 9473
- Registered for: 5 years 8 months
- Has thanked: 1589 times
- Been thanked: 9147 times
Re: last movie you watched
I watched Saltburn last night - about eighteen months after everyone else, it seems. It's an intriguing movie, which reminded me somewhat of Donna Tartt's wonderful book "The Secret History" and, to a lesser extent, Ruth Rendell/Barbara Vine's novel "A Fatal Inversion" (which had a great BBC adaptation many moons ago). Saltburn certainly lures the viewer in from the beginning, and the movie's central section is beguiling and, it has to be said, easy on the eye. But then it all unravels somewhat in the final act, which is clever but also doesn't ring true. Some elements just don't add up - although these are skipped over so quickly, you don't realise it at the time. The film also seems intent in shocking its audience, and gains nothing through this more extreme side of its grotesqueness (the grave scene is particularly OTT). It is well-written, though, and the two male leads are excellent. It's streaming on Amazon Prime.
Accused of being "a nerd in his 20s." I wish.


-
- Posts: 929
- Registered for: 7 years 3 months
- Has thanked: 1043 times
- Been thanked: 934 times
Re: last movie you watched
I don’t really post on this forum anymore, but I thought I’d give a mini review of the last movie I saw in a theater. The film, Michael Gracey’s Better Man, has been much-maligned on social media by Americans who haven’t seen it, but it’s really a great film. I agree that the idea of a biopic on British pop star Robbie Williams depicted as a chimp sounds ridiculous, but it works. Not surprisingly, the movie was a box office bomb but it was a hit with film critics.
The film is original, poignant, engaging, sad, funny, and wildly entertaining. Williams’ depiction as a chimp really hits home his feeling of alienation from “normal” people. As someone who was recently diagnosed as having ASD, I know the feeling quite well. Within 10 minutes of watching the film, you forget that he’s a chimp but you’re also very aware that he’s different than everyone else.
The film also has some of the most exhilarating musical numbers I’ve ever seen on film. It is definitely the best biopic I’ve seen. Far better than Baz Luhrmann’s historically inaccurate Elvis or Bryan Singer’s awful Bohemian Rhapsody.
The film is original, poignant, engaging, sad, funny, and wildly entertaining. Williams’ depiction as a chimp really hits home his feeling of alienation from “normal” people. As someone who was recently diagnosed as having ASD, I know the feeling quite well. Within 10 minutes of watching the film, you forget that he’s a chimp but you’re also very aware that he’s different than everyone else.
The film also has some of the most exhilarating musical numbers I’ve ever seen on film. It is definitely the best biopic I’ve seen. Far better than Baz Luhrmann’s historically inaccurate Elvis or Bryan Singer’s awful Bohemian Rhapsody.
-
- Posts: 1082
- Registered for: 13 years 8 months
- Has thanked: 61 times
- Been thanked: 139 times
Re: last movie you watched
BigBoss.part2......2/6
lousy......boring-plot&imitator-BruceLe-only-has-a-cameo-in-beginning......so-its-not-"bruceploitation"
it-stars-LoLieh,boring-fight-scenes&romance-subplot-which-goes-nowhere
only-positives-are-BB-mansion-seen-again&the-manager-from-original-Boss-is-now-the-new-boss....good-death-scene
Ivanhoe'82.....boring&tedious,not-for-me,much-as-I-tried......atleast-FallofRomanEmpire&ElCid-were-somewhat-entertaining
Also-watched-some-ColPotter-era-MASH-shows.....
Klinger-trying-to-eat-himself-out-of-army
Igor-the-cook-has-to-help-with-surgery-when-nurses-are-gone
Hawk&BJ-refuse-to-shower-cuz-Charles-annoying-french-horn
MASH-olympics
Rizzo-loans-Charles-money,at-100%-interest
good-times.......
lousy......boring-plot&imitator-BruceLe-only-has-a-cameo-in-beginning......so-its-not-"bruceploitation"
it-stars-LoLieh,boring-fight-scenes&romance-subplot-which-goes-nowhere
only-positives-are-BB-mansion-seen-again&the-manager-from-original-Boss-is-now-the-new-boss....good-death-scene
Ivanhoe'82.....boring&tedious,not-for-me,much-as-I-tried......atleast-FallofRomanEmpire&ElCid-were-somewhat-entertaining
Also-watched-some-ColPotter-era-MASH-shows.....
Klinger-trying-to-eat-himself-out-of-army
Igor-the-cook-has-to-help-with-surgery-when-nurses-are-gone
Hawk&BJ-refuse-to-shower-cuz-Charles-annoying-french-horn
MASH-olympics
Rizzo-loans-Charles-money,at-100%-interest
good-times.......
-
- Posts: 9473
- Registered for: 5 years 8 months
- Has thanked: 1589 times
- Been thanked: 9147 times
Re: last movie you watched
Mostly TV for me this week.
Disney+ have the second series of their Goosebumps reboot. These are season-long stories and, as far as I know, nothing to do with the kids books other than the name. The second season tells of a 17(ish) year old brother and sister who stay with their botanist dad during the summer holiday. 30 Years before, a group of children went missing, and now various things are happening that are deepening that mystery. This is surprisingly adult for much of the time, but then seems to get scared of its direction and lurches back towards younger teen viewing. This lack of focus on who the intended audience is the series biggest problem, but it's actually well worth a watch, and the mystery is certainly interesting enough to keep the attention over 8 episodes (although I could have done without the one largely given over to a flashback). The cast is good, including David Schwimmer as the dad.
I then watched Channel 4's rather bland drama about political interviewer Brian Walden's infamous interview with Margaret Thatcher, which quite likely helped bring about her downfall. Steve Coogan stars as Walden and Harriet Walter stars as Thatcher. It's OK, and got excellent reviews, but I confess I though it was a bit limp, and that there wasn't that much story to tell. A documentary would probably have been better, in all honesty. Frost/Nixon this ain't.
I'm currently in the middle of watching the 1969 "children's" drama The Owl Service on blu ray. How this was ever seen as fit for kids, I have no idea. It's not particularly scary for the most part, but the storyline is dark (to say the least), there are sexual elements, some possession-type thing, and the whole thing is rather "difficult" and confusing. Don't get me wrong, it's excellent TV, but stay alert or you'll have no idea what the hell is going on!
Tonight I saw the 1940 movie Island of Doomed Men, which is part of Indicator's blu ray boxed set of "Columbia Horror." There's no horror element here, but the story revolves around a sadistic Peter Lorre who gets prisoner's parole and have them signed over to his care to work on his island where he gets a rather perverse pleasure from seeing them whipped. I last saw this about fifteen years ago, when I wrote an essay on it for my MA degree. Reading that back last week, I assumed that I was blowing out of proportion just how lurid the film is, but no, it IS rather lurid. Lorre's character is sadistic in his treatment of the men and his wife, but he does a wonderful job of playing the character as he unravels and loses his grip during the second half of the film. A teen film made in 2008, Boot Camp, tells a very similar story, and is also worth a watch.
Disney+ have the second series of their Goosebumps reboot. These are season-long stories and, as far as I know, nothing to do with the kids books other than the name. The second season tells of a 17(ish) year old brother and sister who stay with their botanist dad during the summer holiday. 30 Years before, a group of children went missing, and now various things are happening that are deepening that mystery. This is surprisingly adult for much of the time, but then seems to get scared of its direction and lurches back towards younger teen viewing. This lack of focus on who the intended audience is the series biggest problem, but it's actually well worth a watch, and the mystery is certainly interesting enough to keep the attention over 8 episodes (although I could have done without the one largely given over to a flashback). The cast is good, including David Schwimmer as the dad.
I then watched Channel 4's rather bland drama about political interviewer Brian Walden's infamous interview with Margaret Thatcher, which quite likely helped bring about her downfall. Steve Coogan stars as Walden and Harriet Walter stars as Thatcher. It's OK, and got excellent reviews, but I confess I though it was a bit limp, and that there wasn't that much story to tell. A documentary would probably have been better, in all honesty. Frost/Nixon this ain't.
I'm currently in the middle of watching the 1969 "children's" drama The Owl Service on blu ray. How this was ever seen as fit for kids, I have no idea. It's not particularly scary for the most part, but the storyline is dark (to say the least), there are sexual elements, some possession-type thing, and the whole thing is rather "difficult" and confusing. Don't get me wrong, it's excellent TV, but stay alert or you'll have no idea what the hell is going on!
Tonight I saw the 1940 movie Island of Doomed Men, which is part of Indicator's blu ray boxed set of "Columbia Horror." There's no horror element here, but the story revolves around a sadistic Peter Lorre who gets prisoner's parole and have them signed over to his care to work on his island where he gets a rather perverse pleasure from seeing them whipped. I last saw this about fifteen years ago, when I wrote an essay on it for my MA degree. Reading that back last week, I assumed that I was blowing out of proportion just how lurid the film is, but no, it IS rather lurid. Lorre's character is sadistic in his treatment of the men and his wife, but he does a wonderful job of playing the character as he unravels and loses his grip during the second half of the film. A teen film made in 2008, Boot Camp, tells a very similar story, and is also worth a watch.
Accused of being "a nerd in his 20s." I wish.


-
- Posts: 9473
- Registered for: 5 years 8 months
- Has thanked: 1589 times
- Been thanked: 9147 times
Re: last movie you watched
Tonight's movie was Singin' in the Rain - a film that I was never fond of growing up, and never really understood why it was so acclaimed. I get it now I'm older, although I confess it's still not my favourite musical, but it's a joyful film, and there aren't many of those about, and Gene Kelly was at the zenith of his career in the early 1950s. But it's not just his film, as Donald o'Connor, Debbie Reynolds, and Jean Hagen are all superb here. Of course, the film has its roots in the truth with regards to what happened in Hollywood during the transition to sound, and it's a surprisingly honest film for Hollywood to make, too. My blu ray is in a set of four films issued in the US, where it's collected along with Calamity Jane, Kiss Me Kate, and The Band Wagon. It looks excellent in HD, and I'm assuming other issues are the same transfer.
Accused of being "a nerd in his 20s." I wish.


-
- Posts: 9473
- Registered for: 5 years 8 months
- Has thanked: 1589 times
- Been thanked: 9147 times
Re: last movie you watched
Tonight's movie (mostly because I didn't have time for a longer one) was The Thing That Couldn't Die, a horror movie from 1958 that is on the final volume of Scream Factory's series of Universal horror movies. It's a very silly movie with an equally silly title, but oddly it takes itself remarkably seriously. If it was campier, then it might be more fun, but, as it is, it's merely a bland time-filler about a cursed decapitated head supposedly buried by Sir Francis Drake, and dug up when a water diviner mistook it for a spring. Yeah, you did read that right.
Accused of being "a nerd in his 20s." I wish.

