What was the last movie you saw?

[Cathbad]

I really did not understand some of the critics on this version I thought it was good .

I find that, usually, what the "critics" hate, I'll love!

 

[Scookey]

Aren't a lot of critics just commercially failed writers and the like? Pilot friends used to say: if you can fly, you fly; if you can't fly you teach; if you can't teach you exam/criticise. Obviously not true in every case but in all too many it does seem to be.

 

[Al Jackson]

I find that, usually, what the "critics" hate, I'll love!

Well now, I do like critics who don't just give me an opinion but a judgment by arguments well put usually have me agreeing with them. I follow critics who give a good analysis.

 

[Cathbad]

Well now, I do like critics who don't just give me an opinion but a judgment by arguments well put usually have me agreeing with them. I follow critics who give a good analysis.

"
The problem seems to be that most critics think their job is to "criticize", when it's supposed to be to "critique".

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

So a couple of days ago I decided I was curious to compare the two versions of Murder on the Orient Express, since I had recently watched the Albert Finney one, and I noticed we could watch the Kenneth Branagh (which was under discussion here, part of the reason I was curious) for free on demand through our cable company.

I had read reviews that said the 2017 Kenneth Branagh version was a bit of a bore, but I did not find this to be the case. It was significantly better than I had been led to believe. It still wasn't as good as the older one, though, I thought, and that may be why the critics were harsh in their appraisals, because why remake a movie when you don't measure up to the previous version, much less improve on it? As far as I could tell, they each deviated from the book in different ways, were more faithful in others, but on the whole the Finney version was much more faithful to the characters. I felt in the Branagh version that all the secondary characters—of which of course there were many—were given short-shrift in order to expand on Poirot's character without (I suppose) expanding the running time too much. Of course it is supposed to be Poirot's story, but for the resolution of this particular mystery to be entirely satisfying the ensemble should not be neglected, and I thought most of them were.

Still, it held my attention, which is greatly to its credit, considering that I had just watched much the same story about a week before.

 

[Cathbad]

American Made (2017)

I um... I tried. I tried twice to watch this movie! I just can't finish it. I can't even tell you what it's about, other than drugs, an arrogant pilot (suitably cast), and a rising drug cartel.

A rare Tom Cruise bomb.

Ugh.

 

[Scookey]

"
The problem seems to be that most critics think their job is to "criticize", when it's supposed to be to "critique".

Absolutely. They can't critique because they are failures so can only criticise, as their only remaining option.

If the critics had any talent, they would write a story themselves.

Expect a big critic silence for this post.

 

[Al Jackson]

If the critics had any talent, they would write a story themselves.

If the critics had any talent, they would write a story themselves.

Actually some critics have become directors and writers. François Truffaut went from being a film reviewer to being an award winning director.
One of my favorite critics of all time was Jay Cocks at Time magazine he gave very incisive analysis of movies , I always agreed with him. He because a screenplay writer and was nominated for an Oscar twice.
I thought Roger Ebert was a fine movie critic , he would not like a film , but then as much as 10 years later change his mind and say he was wrong. I know he did not like Blade Runner in 1982 but then wrote a favorable review years later.
Right now I think A O Scott at the New York times writes fine reviews.

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

Crucible of Horror AKA The Corpse (1971)

Michael Gough stars in this strange British variation on Diabolique. He's a sadistic martinet of a husband and father. He gets along well enough, in a cold way, with his son, but is abusive toward his wife and daughter. (Odd bit of casting trivia: The son is played by his real-life son, and his daughter is played by the son's real-life wife.) The film starts off as an uneasy domestic drama, sort of like something by Edward Albee or Harold Pinter. Soon we see Gough savagely beat his daughter for stealing. Apparently this has been going on for a while, because wife and daughter agree to kill him. Halfway through the film they do it. (Like a lot of things in this movie, the murder is ambiguous and deliberately confusing. They shoot him, but also seem to poison him.) After a while his corpse moves from one place to another, apparently on its own. At this point you remember Diabolique, and figure somebody is messing with the women's minds; probably the son. However, the climax of the film pulls the rug out from under the viewer, leaving her to wonder what the heck she just watched. Besides the ending, there's a lot of other weird stuff. Solarized dream sequences, extreme close-ups of people (and a cat), jumpy flashbacks to something bad, not quite clear, happening to the daughter. It's a slow, moody, small-scale little chiller with a conclusion you may find haunting.

 

[J Riff]

There's nothing like the corpse of a sadistic martinet, moving round independently, to pique interest in this sort of thing.. Watching it now, good intro music by John Hotchkiss who I notice also did the music for The Satanic Files of Dracula.

 

[Scookey]

Actually some critics have become directors and writers. François Truffaut went from being a film reviewer to being an award winning director.
One of my favorite critics of all time was Jay Cocks at Time magazine he gave very incisive analysis of movies , I always agreed with him. He because a screenplay writer and was nominated for an Oscar twice.
I thought Roger Ebert was a fine movie critic , he would not like a film , but then as much as 10 years later change his mind and say he was wrong. I know he did not like Blade Runner in 1982 but then wrote a favorable review years later.
Right now I think A O Scott at the New York times writes fine reviews.

But not very often do film critics become good film makers. Wonder what the stats are for them being failed film makers or failed writers or just general failures. Why choose to become a critic when you can actually create something good yourself?

 

[J Riff]

Lots of 'film makers' are simply wealthy, not particularly talented. The crew cleans up most mistakes for them. Not naming any names, but.... )

 

[Graymalkin]

Congratulations, you're stupid in three languages.

You do not think much of me, do you, Cogburn?"
"I do not think about you at all when your mouth is closed.”

Mint. Is there a 'memorable film script' thread anywhere?
Edit: Who Said That?

 

[Vince W]

Avengers: Infinity War. Good-ish. Not bad for trying to cram every Marvel superhero into a single film. Still, it was 20-30 minutes too long and the outcome never seemed in any doubt. Now it's just a matter of bringing them all back the way comic books generally do. The plot of the next Avengers film I guess.

 

[J Riff]

The Mule is Eastwood at 88, delivery-driving for the bad guys, with family problems, not much action,
and a mini-spoiler is- Clint doesn't ride arf into the sunset at the end while Ennio Morricone tunes play.

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

The Snake Woman (1961)

Old-fashioned, low-budget, black-and-white British chiller. In 1890, a herpetologist cures his wife's insanity with regular injections of snake venom. She dies after giving birth to a baby girl with cold skin and no eyelids. The local midwife curses it as evil. She also manages to get the local villagers to burn down the father's home/laboratory. The local doctor takes the baby to a shepherd for the night, thinking the father is still alive, then runs off to Africa. Twenty years later, the baby is now a Snake Woman. The villagers put up with the fact that, every once in a while, somebody gets killed by a poisonous snake. They don't have any illusions about who's responsible, particularly the midwife, who also has witch-like powers. An old army officer, apparently new to the area, witnesses a guy dying from the bite of a cobra. (The Snake Woman has the ability to change into different venomous serpents, by the way.) He writes to Scotland Yard, they send our hero out to investigate. Midwife tells him to shoot three bullets into the equivalent of a voodoo doll, which means that he will be fated to kill the Snake Woman in the same way. He eventually does, of course, although he remains skeptical about the whole thing until the end. Just slightly over an hour long, the movie has no surprises in its simple plot. The weirdest scene comes when the hero finds the human-shaped skin that the Snake Woman has shed. Special effects are minimal. The transformation from Woman to Snake is done in the easiest way possible. Scene of Woman, cut to scene of victim, cut to scene of Snake. The very last scene, with the mandatory ending of dead Snake turning into dead Woman, is done with a poorly done dissolve. It's all silly and predictable stuff, but the cast takes it seriously and does the best they can. The midwife really chews up the scenery.

 

[J Riff]

There is a distant memory of that one as forgettable.

 

[Av Demeisen]

Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers in 4K. Looked fabulous!

 

[Happy Joe]

The Predator; not as good as Predator 1 or 3 (Predators), IMO but somewhat better than the critics said it would be, IMO.
It will likely migrate into the movie library... joining its antecedents on the shelf, because I have the predecessors.
Rent/stream this one.
Good production values, effects and action but I increasingly feel that disabled/challenged characters in, especially action, movies often tend to detract from my enjoyment.
There was too much detail and little left to the imagination and little to no mystery; the original Predator and Predators kept the audience in suspense over much of the movies this one started explaining things right at the beginning.. turning basically into a chase movie.
I would rate The Predator as a bit better than average; a watchable actioner/popcorn movie.... very slightly better than fair/average but not a 4 star.

Enjoy

 

[Parson]

Took the middle 3 granddaughters (5,5, and 7) to see the new Mary Poppens. Certainly not my style, but the kids loved it and I thought it was tolerable. --- (Have never seen the original.)