I Just Watched...

[cigarjoe]

On 8/19/2022 at 9:05 AM, Det Jim McLeod said:

Nomadland (2020) On Demand-8/10

A widow (Frances McDormand) decides to live out of her van and live in nomadic communities.

The Best Picture Oscar winner of 2020. I thought this was an excellent slice of life film. It reminded me of 1970s films like Five Easy Pieces or Scarecrow. I recommend this to anyone who likes those kind of films.The story is about as real as a movie can get. We see the main character Fern taking seasonal jobs, making friends with fellow nomads (played by actual nomads), meeting up with family members. I was fascinated the whole way. McDormand won an Oscar for her subtle and all too real performance. Nothing much happens, we just take the journey along with Fern. We see a side of Americana few of us ever see. 

I enjoyed it also.

[cigarjoe]

On 8/19/2022 at 3:39 PM, Grumpytoad said:

Watched another movie a while ago showing Angels Flight. I like those old funiculars. Surprised to find out it still exists, but moved from its original location. 

Yea it's about a half a block South of where it was. You'd think that with all the "Hollywood Magic" creative studios just a couple of miles away they could have built a small magic reality set on both sides of it re-creating the façade of  the Elks Club at top left, the Sunshine Apartments on right, Clay street in middle, fake third Street Tunnel etc., etc. That way it could even still be used for filming, lol. It just doesn't quite look right with trees alongside it.

[cigarjoe]

1 hour ago, cigarjoe said:

Yea it's about a half a block South of where it was. You'd think that with all the "Hollywood Magic" creative studios just a couple of miles away they could have built a small magic reality set on both sides of it re-creating the façade of  the Elks Club at top left, the Sunshine Apartments on right, Clay street in middle, fake third Street Tunnel etc., etc. That way it could even still be used for filming, lol. It just doesn't quite look right with trees alongside it.

Notice the various changes, Concrete ties, a catwalk on rt side, and plexiglass doors on the end of the two cars. 

[Janet0312]

On 8/19/2022 at 5:00 PM, Fedya said:

What the...

[LornaHansonForbes]

WE GOT TO TALKING ABOUT 1990'S FILMS IN ANOTHER THREAD AND SO...

I checked out GROUNDHOG DAY (1993) on TUBI.

 

In the 1990's thread, I mentioned how (as with the 1970s) many of the films of the 1990s that i remember with fondness were PERIOD MOVIES, and it seems as if a lot of BEST OF THE 90S lists are comprised of films made in the 1990s. but set in pretty much any other time period.

GROUNDHOG DAY is a rare exception- and as with a lot of 1990's comedies, it presents us with our last images of life in 20th Century America- it's one of those TOWN SQUARE FILMS, which still manages to be more or less idealistic in its outlook of who we are and where we're at.

[that's all over now, of course. life in these United States is a perpetual science fiction film noir. ]

in reading up on the MAKING-OF process on the movie, I discovered that it was supposed to begin at a point long after the hero is stuck in the time loop, and we are supposed to be as beguiled as everyone else at his uncanny abilities to connect with people and predict the future until a flashback explains everything to us.

I really, really wish they had done with movie this way, and even played around with the progression of the story (which is absolutely linear in the final version) to incorporate flashbacks and even disorient the viewer as to exactly where the Hell in the story we're supposed to be so that he shares a lack of sense of time with the Hero.

it's a brilliant concept, and I'm sure HOLLYWOOD is aching to remake it very badly as a 10-part Amazon series with RYAN REYNOLDS.

oh well.

BILL MURRAY is fine, I've always distanced myself from fully admiring him as an actor, because i think he is a terrible person in real life, which translates really well to some of his characters- but again, I'm not sure the behaviours they exhibit should be presented as something to be  emulated. Nonetheless, it's his movie, he can take a line like "oui" and make it classic.

although I think the BEST PERFORMANCE is given by his brother BRIAN DOYLE-MURRAY (pictured above)- he instantly brings forth memories of CHARLES COBURN and EUGENE PALETTE and WILLIAM DEMAREST with his work- as do STEPHEN TOBOLOWSKI and the late RICK DUCOMMUN

Damn though, ANDIE MACDOWELL is the crappiest crap actress. I'm sorry. she's from South Carolina, I'm from North Carolina, and she's lovely and has presence and even manages to be likeable (mostly) but damn she is ALI MAGRAW levels of BAD.

The making of this film was apparently a NIGHTMARE, but it doesn't show at all in the final product. 

"What a day this has been...what a rare mood I'm in/ Why, it's almost like being in love..."

 

[Fading Fast]

58 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

Damn though, ANDIE MACDOWELL is the crappiest crap actress. I'm sorry. she's from South Carolina, I'm from North Carolina, and she's lovely and has presence and even manages to be likeable (mostly) but damn she is ALI MAGRAW levels of BAD.

...

 

But without MacGraw's good hair.

[LornaHansonForbes]

20 minutes ago, Fading Fast said:

But without MacGraw's good hair.

I like ANDIE MACDOWELL'S hair, it seems like it's working overtime to compensate for the lack of anything interesting coming from her performance(s)

...because she also sucks in FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL.

ps- and it's not the accent. if you people could hear me talk in real life, you would be blown away by how prominent my NORTH CAROLINA ACCENT Is- i sound like i oughtta be pumpin gas in Mayberry- so I'm used to it...it's just how awful her line reads are.

i still don't dislike her, the way I really dislike some other bad actors.

[SansFin]

1 hour ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

in reading up on the MAKING-OF process on the movie, I discovered that it was supposed to begin at a point long after the hero is stuck in the time loop, and we are supposed to be as beguiled as everyone else at his uncanny abilities to connect with people and predict the future until a flashback explains everything to us.

I really, really wish they had done with movie this way, and even played around with the progression of the story (which is absolutely linear in the final version) to incorporate flashbacks and even disorient the viewer as to exactly where the Hell in the story we're supposed to be so that he shares a lack of sense of time with the Hero.

it's a brilliant concept, and I'm sure HOLLYWOOD is aching to remake it very badly as a 10-part Amazon series with RYAN REYNOLDS.

oh well.

 

 

The Map of Tiny Perfect Things (2021) is reputed to be a different take on the same theme. A boy is reliving the same day over and over again when he meets a girl who is similarly trapped. Perhaps it would be more to your liking.

I have watched neither movie and am wondering which order to watch them if I ever do.

[LornaHansonForbes]

6 minutes ago, SansFin said:

 

The Map of Tiny Perfect Things (2021) is reputed to be a different take on the same theme. A boy is reliving the same day over and over again when he meets a girl who is similarly trapped. Perhaps it would be more to your liking.

I have watched neither movie and am wondering which order to watch them if I ever do.

oh, i liked GROUNDHOG DAY!

I'm just always thinking of ways to re-do stories

[CinemaInternational]

Vanilla Sky (2001) -- 3/10

I have spent most of July and August wandering around with TV shows, finishing up two series, looking at some others, and generally having a good go of it. But I feel like I needed to get back to films. It got off to a rocky start last week with The Loved One (1965) , and this one here is worse. It reminds me why I really dislike investigating many post-2000 films.

Vanilla Sky is a remake of a surrealist Spanish film from 1997, and this Americanization still has the same leading lady, Penelope Cruz. The original was well reviewed I gather, so something must have been lost in translation. Tom Cruise is the lead as a spoiled playboy whose life has come undone, and the film shifts between reality and his nightmares, haunted especially by a former girlfriend (Cameron Diaz) and fears of facial deformity.

The leads are definitely glamorous looking, but the film itself is very lacking. Its very self-absorbed, very portentous, clammy, and ultimately has the triviality (and the visual flash) of a perfume advertisement. It is meant to have many jarring plot shifts, and there are big twists here, but they are meaningless because the characters are paper cutouts. Only one very abrupt and horrifying murder scene has any real emotional charge.

It's a pity that this whole thing is about as heavy and nutty as a Christmas fruitcake, because if it wasn't, this film would fly... albeit not for the way any filmmaker would want it to. The film has so much unintentionally laughable dialogue and situations that with less claustrophobic claptrap, this had the opportunity to become the Valley of the Dolls of the new century, ripe with so many ludicrous howlers that it would have been worth catching. The heaviness prevents it, but this is still worth a few good laughs.

[Shank Asu]

18 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

Vanilla Sky (2001) -- 3/10

I have spent most of July and August wandering around with TV shows, finishing up two series, looking at some others, and generally having a good go of it. But I feel like I needed to get back to films. It got off to a rocky start last week with The Loved One (1965) , and this one here is worse. It reminds me why I really dislike investigating many post-2000 films.

Vanilla Sky is a remake of a surrealist Spanish film from 1997, and this Americanization still has the same leading lady, Penelope Cruz. The original was well reviewed I gather, so something must have been lost in translation. Tom Cruise is the lead as a spoiled playboy whose life has come undone, and the film shifts between reality and his nightmares, haunted especially by a former girlfriend (Cameron Diaz) and fears of facial deformity.

The leads are definitely glamorous looking, but the film itself is very lacking. Its very self-absorbed, very portentous, clammy, and ultimately has the triviality (and the visual flash) of a perfume advertisement. It is meant to have many jarring plot shifts, and there are big twists here, but they are meaningless because the characters are paper cutouts. Only one very abrupt and horrifying murder scene has any real emotional charge.

It's a pity that this whole thing is about as heavy and nutty as a Christmas fruitcake, because if it wasn't, this film would fly... albeit not for the way any filmmaker would want it to. The film has so much unintentionally laughable dialogue and situations that with less claustrophobic claptrap, this had the opportunity to become the Valley of the Dolls of the new century, ripe with so many ludicrous howlers that it would have been worth catching. The heaviness prevents it, but this is still worth a few good laughs.

HAve never seen the film this is based on, but i might be one of the few people to like this film.  Far from perfect but i was entertained.  It borrows some things from Jules et Jim.

[LornaHansonForbes]

15 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:

Vanilla Sky (2001) -- 3/10

I have spent most of July and August wandering around with TV shows, finishing up two series, looking at some others, and generally having a good go of it. But I feel like I needed to get back to films. It got off to a rocky start last week with The Loved One (1965) , and this one here is worse. It reminds me why I really dislike investigating many post-2000 films.

Vanilla Sky is a remake of a surrealist Spanish film from 1997, and this Americanization still has the same leading lady, Penelope Cruz. The original was well reviewed I gather, so something must have been lost in translation. Tom Cruise is the lead as a spoiled playboy whose life has come undone, and the film shifts between reality and his nightmares, haunted especially by a former girlfriend (Cameron Diaz) and fears of facial deformity.

The leads are definitely glamorous looking, but the film itself is very lacking. Its very self-absorbed, very portentous, clammy, and ultimately has the triviality (and the visual flash) of a perfume advertisement. It is meant to have many jarring plot shifts, and there are big twists here, but they are meaningless because the characters are paper cutouts. Only one very abrupt and horrifying murder scene has any real emotional charge.

It's a pity that this whole thing is about as heavy and nutty as a Christmas fruitcake, because if it wasn't, this film would fly... albeit not for the way any filmmaker would want it to. The film has so much unintentionally laughable dialogue and situations that with less claustrophobic claptrap, this had the opportunity to become the Valley of the Dolls of the new century, ripe with so many ludicrous howlers that it would have been worth catching. The heaviness prevents it, but this is still worth a few good laughs.

Time was, with SAY ANYTHING, JERRY MAGUIRE and ALMOST FAMOUS under his belt, that CAMERON CROWE was considered To be someone who is going to have a career on a par with Spielberg and Scorsese, and then……

pfffffffffffffffffbbbbbbblt. 

He’s made a very small handful of films in the 2000s, most of which have gone over like a burp in church.

[Tikisoo]

21 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

The making of this film was apparently a NIGHTMARE, but it doesn't show at all in the final product. 

Re GROUNDHOG DAY. 

I watched this several years ago with someone in the film industry who had worked on it which is always a spoiler.

He jotted down "notes" as the story went along. At the end he counted how many scenes were filmed on each set and then how many actual set-ups were used.

He said it was absolutely the cheapest, easiest movie he ever worked on because once all the lighting, props & actors were "set" ready to go, multiple takes/versions could be filmed at once. 

I would imagine the EDITING room being the nightmare, trying to put nearly identical "takes" in the right order.

[Fading Fast]

21 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

Time was, with SAY ANYTHING, JERRY MAGUIRE and ALMOST FAMOUS under his belt, that CAMERON CROWE was considered To be someone who is going to have a career on a par with Spielberg and Scorsese, and then……

pfffffffffffffffffbbbbbbblt. 

He’s made a very small handful of films in the 2000s, most of which have gone over like a burp in church.

I remember that period of Cameron Crowe high expectations and, to be honest, right after the outstanding "Almost Famous," I believed it. 

[Mr. Gorman]

More SPY STUFF! 

I stuffed the 1995 Warner Home Video VHS release of "The Naked Runner" (1967-UK) in to my VCR late last night.  It opens in W/S and closes in W/S with all the credits.  The rest of the movie is 'Fullscreen'.  The Warner box says "Digitally Processed" and what you see looks like an unrestored film print that was brightened up a lil' bit with the 'digi-processing'.  Otherwise you see all the scratches you'd see on a film print that's been run many times. 

Frank Sinatra is lured, bit-by-bit, into an assassination plot to kill a treasonous scumbag.  Then his son is kidnapped to make sure he follows through.  But will he?  Or will be more inclined to kill someone else instead of the actual target?   And will his son be safely returned . . . or returned in a body bag?  Hmm . . . Cold War deception abounds in "The Naked Runner".  I'd watch it again, but I would say this:  If you're not already a fan of "spy stuff" this movie may be too slow for you.

I actually had a bit of a hard time finding a nice copy of this tape.  I thought it would be easy enough to find a nice tape of "The Naked Runner" given that it was released in 1995 and there should still be a fair number of them around.  I was wrong.  But I was able to locate a 'New-Old Stock' tape on eBay after looking for a while so that was nice.  📼

[LornaHansonForbes]

1 hour ago, Mr. Gorman said:

More SPY STUFF! 

I stuffed the 1995 Warner Home Video VHS release of "The Naked Runner" (1967-UK) in to my VCR late last night.  It opens in W/S and closes in W/S with all the credits.  The rest of the movie is 'Fullscreen'.  The Warner box says "Digitally Processed" and what you see looks like an unrestored film print that was brightened up a lil' bit with the 'digi-processing'.  Otherwise you see all the scratches you'd see on a film print that's been run many times. 

Frank Sinatra is lured, bit-by-bit, into an assassination plot to kill a treasonous scumbag.  Then his son is kidnapped to make sure he follows through.  But will he?  Or will be more inclined to kill someone else instead of the actual target?   And will his son be safely returned . . . or returned in a body bag?  Hmm . . . Cold War deception abounds in "The Naked Runner".  I'd watch it again, but I would say this:  If you're not already a fan of "spy stuff" this movie may be too slow for you.

I actually had a bit of a hard time finding a nice copy of this tape.  I thought it would be easy enough to find a nice tape of "The Naked Runner" given that it was released in 1995 and there should still be a fair number of them around.  I was wrong.  But I was able to locate a 'New-Old Stock' tape on eBay after looking for a while so that was nice.  📼

DID THEY FILM THIS MOVIE BEFORE OR AFTER SINATRAS SON WAS KIDNAPPED IN REAL LIFE???????

(I've never heard of it!!!)

[LornaHansonForbes]

1 hour ago, Tikisoo said:

Re GROUNDHOG DAY. 

I watched this several years ago with someone in the film industry who had worked on it which is always a spoiler.

He jotted down "notes" as the story went along. At the end he counted how many scenes were filmed on each set and then how many actual set-ups were used.

He said it was absolutely the cheapest, easiest movie he ever worked on because once all the lighting, props & actors were "set" ready to go, multiple takes/versions could be filmed at once. 

I would imagine the EDITING room being the nightmare, trying to put nearly identical "takes" in the right order.

the [alleged] NIGHTMARE ON THE GROUNDHOG DAY set that I was referring to was more about the battle between BILL MURRAY and HAROLD RAMIS (who was directing and had a small part in the film)

apparently, MURRAY wanted the film to be darker in tone and also for it to begin halfway through the action (thus making the viewer as confused as ANDIE MACDOWELL as to why Murray knows everything about everyone.) RAMIS wanted it funny and more conventionally structured.

they had a brutal falling out and did not speak again until shortly before RAMIS died.

 

[LornaHansonForbes]

2 hours ago, Fading Fast said:

I remember that period of Cameron Crowe high expectations and, to be honest, right after the outstanding "Almost Famous," I believed it. 

ALMOST FAMOUS is an excellent film, I’m genuinely surprised it did not get a best picture nomination. 

[Fading Fast]

6 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

ALMOST FAMOUS is an excellent film, I’m genuinely surprised it did not get a best picture nomination. 

It is my favorites "rock" movie of them all.  Having grown up in the 1970s, I recognized all the characters - the obsessed-with-rock-and-rockstars kids, the worried parents, the hippies, the rock stars themselves - as Crowe captured them and that period's zeitgeist perfectly.  

[LornaHansonForbes]

21 minutes ago, Fading Fast said:

It is my favorites "rock" movie of them all.  Having grown up in the 1970s, I recognized all the characters - the obsessed-with-rock-and-rockstars kids, the worried parents, the hippies, the rock stars themselves - as Crowe captured them and that period's zeitgeist perfectly.  

i saw it in the theater and the minute THE CHIPMUNKS CHRISTMAS SONG played over the credits, the audience fell in love.

[LornaHansonForbes]

16 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

i saw it in the theater and the minute THE CHIPMUNKS CHRISTMAS SONG played over the credits, the audience fell in love.

(you could literally feel THE AUDIENCE REACTION  in the air, I miss that kind of stuff now that we pretty much don't have movie theaters anymore)

[Mr. Gorman]

@LORNA:  I believe Sinatra's son was kidnapped right around the time ROBIN AND THE 7 HOODS (1964) was nearing the completion of filming in late 1963 so it was some 3 years before "The Naked Runner" went in to production.  

As best as I can recall, THE NAKED RUNNER was Frank's only "spy movie". 

More SPY STUFF coming soon . . . 

[Det Jim McLeod]

After Office Hours (1935) TCM On Demand-6/10

A newspaper editor (Clark Gable) fires his music critic (Constance Bennett) but rehires her so she can dish some dirt on her society friends.

An entertaining short (75 min) film. It has some of that great rapid fire wisecracks so often used in newspaper themed films of the time, expertly delivered by Gable. There is a murder plot twist in the middle to keep you involved. Many familiar faces appear here- Stuart Erwin the comic relief photographer, Binnie Barnes as Bennett's dizzy mother, Henry Travers as a reporter and William Demarest as a cop.

[Shank Asu]

5 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

Time was, with SAY ANYTHING, JERRY MAGUIRE and ALMOST FAMOUS under his belt, that CAMERON CROWE was considered To be someone who is going to have a career on a par with Spielberg and Scorsese, and then……

pfffffffffffffffffbbbbbbblt. 

He’s made a very small handful of films in the 2000s, most of which have gone over like a burp in church.

Crowe is a writer though and Spielberg isn't.  Crowe wrote the novel and the script for Fast Times- so he'll always be considered a great in my book.  I know it's sacrilegious to knock on Spielberg, but i felt he chased the blockbusters too much-  but i can't knock him too much because he did direct Schindler's List, Raiders, the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan and came up with the story for The Goonies.

Crowe was best when he was writing about adolescents or lost 20 somethings.  Say Anything is a classic.  Singles is a classic.

[Fading Fast]

52 minutes ago, Shank Asu said:

Crowe is a writer though and Spielberg isn't.  Crowe wrote the novel and the script for Fast Times- so he'll always be considered a great in my book.  I know it's sacrilegious to knock on Spielberg, but i felt he chased the blockbusters too much-  but i can't knock him too much because he did direct Schindler's List, Raiders, the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan and came up with the story for The Goonies.

Crowe was best when he was writing about adolescents or lost 20 somethings.  Say Anything is a classic.  Singles is a classic.

I bet you some fans of the movie "Singles" didn't even know, until your post, Crowe wrote and directed it (said as I nonchalantly look around and whistle). Kidding aside, I really like the movie as, like he did later in "Almost Famous," Crowe captured the people and feel of that era perfectly. I was 28 in 1992 when that movie came out and those people, transplanted to NYC (so less hippie-like), were like the single in-their-twenties kids I knew.