What Movie Have You Seen Today?

General General Movie Discussion
2482

On The Waterfront (1954). I can relate to this movie right now so much. Working in the media and education industries makes me feel like Terry. While the wrong people are in Johnny Friendly’s role. It shows how listening to the wrong people and being in the wrong place at the wrong time can be a lifelong regret. And that there are people who can care about us, and will help us. With a bit of confidence and love in ourselves and others, an individual can conquer great challenges, physically and mentally. Viewing this with more adult experience compared to my teenage self, makes me love the movie more.

The acting around some of the best screen acting of all time. Pretty much everyone’s best movie role. It was the start of some great acting careers as well (Pat Hingle, Fred Gwynne and the Oscar Winning Eva Marie Saint). She was beautiful and talented in the movie. She deserved her Oscar (although she realistically was a lead actress over a supporting one, she appears quite often in the movie). She’s still with us at the age of 100! Lee J. Cobb as Johnny Friendly is really one of the great movie villains that gets overlooked. Rod Steiger doesn’t overact like usual, and his subtle performance is one of his best. Karl Malden as Father Barry could get his own spin off story and still own the part. Ironically, the film’s novelization has the story told from his vision. I don’t know much about acting, but I know that there’s phenomenal acting in On the Waterfront, all around.

From a crew standpoint, Budd Schulberg wrote a flawless script. Elia Kazan was brave to make a movie about his controversial viewpoints. I would say that we are lucky that he took that risk with other great people. The messages are still relatable in today’s world, 70+ years later. Who hasn’t felt like Terry during his “I coulda been a contender” speech. That line is truly great because everyone has a life moment that they could have gone greater with, in terms of achievement. Marlon Brando truly made that line feel so natural. Leonard Bernstein’s musical score is one of the greatest film scores of all time. Music is truly a character in this movie. Epic in feeling is how I would describe it. It’s a shame that he didn’t write more movie scores that were original. The AFI was wrong in sending this movie from 8 to 19 in their best American movie list. This is one of the greatest movies ever made, simply because of its realism, messages and reliability. This is one not to miss, folks. It is the perfect movie for me now, in my current life.

3 Likes
2483

I am not sure that Kazan was so much brave as groveling. Having named names (as did Schulberg), going on to make a movie in praise of being an informer at the height of the McCarthy era was not courageous–it was complacent and ingratiating.

I find Kazan’s recalling the finale of ON THE WATERFRONT at the conclusion of THE LAST TYCOON to be fascinating–a rewriting of the former film through Pinter’s script and De Niro’s performance.

5 Likes
2484

We live in time

A love story told in moments, jumping back and forth and yet absolutely stunningly coherent in making us understand and feel these characters, absolutely wonderfully played by Florence Pugh and Andrew Garfield.

I was scared at first when I read that this romance is overshadowed by the cancer diagnosis of the female character who is first in remission but then years later gets diagnosed again with that horrible disease. But the film deals with this in such an interesting, realistic and subtle manner that it does not drag it down into the usual sub-genre of “getting sick is a way to feel life again”.

Instead this film is about people carrying around all the baggage and the scars they collect going through life, and how these two people at first are attracted to each other, then fall in love and manage to stay in love despite everything fate throws into their way. The structure of cutting from one moment to another time and yet to another is so well thought out that it all makes sense and reminds us that our memories are not linear but emotionally driven.

Early on, there is a moment in which both characters have to deal with a possibility that will change everything. And the way Garfield reacts here, just with his eyes, is so powerful. This is the highest form of screen acting. No screaming, no nervous hand gestures, no mumbling or any other crutch actors rely on and are often applauded for. Just staying true to the character´s emotions and letting the audience see what you’re thinking and feeling.

What a marvelous movie. Romantic, intelligent, sad, yet also extremely funny. Life itself.

3 Likes
2485

Theatre of Blood

For a variety of reasons, one’s favourite film. It never disappoints.

6 Likes
2486

Never

3 Likes
2487

How could it?

2 Likes
2488

Ofcourse not, it’s with world’s greatest actor and when you have a different opinion, your last hour has come! What a great satire!

1 Like
2489
3 Likes
2490

Field of Dreams (1989).

I kind of find it ironic that I watched this at the start of the baseball season. I really enjoyed it, and I’m not really much of a sports fan in general. Let me start by saying what most people agree with me: James Earl Jones makes EVERYTHING better. Here is no different. One of his better roles. My dad says that Kevin Costner is rather one note as an actor. He is right, to a degree. But here, he has a lot of great material to work with. He’s not boring, and this is one of his best roles. It shows that we have said things that we regret, and never get to properly fix them. Just maybe in our dreams (pun intended) or the afterlife. Ray Liotta is a scene-stealer and unpredictable in a unique way. A great supporting role, same with Burt Lancaster. A great duo part for his character. Amy Madigan and Gaby Hoffman are a great supporting family, (mom and daughter, respectively), who believe in Ray. They prove that Ray will always have a loving family in his life. Ray is unique in many ways, but they will always help him, in more ways than one. Timothy Busfield is great as Mark, a reluctant bad guy. He wants to help his family out, and actually isn’t truly greedy or evil. He knows that Ray is different, but will help him, in a realistic way. It saddens me that FOD’s screenplay writer and director Phil Alden Robinson wasn’t more prolific with movie-making. This proves that he was a talent who could have gone farther in a media career. What is interesting is that in the book (Shoeless Joe) Ray has a twin brother. It would have been interesting to have him and his girlfriend in the movie, but the movie is fine without them. All in all, most sports movies have a general formula. This one does spice up the formula, in more ways than one. It ranks at 88 on the Writers Guild of America’s 101 best screenplays. It does deserve its place, as the game of baseball is won by the protagonists, but not by playing in a game. It feels different, and not as cliche as other sports movies. Premiere Magazine named it as one of the 20 most overrated movies of all time in 2005. I disagree wholeheartedly, there are many more overrated sports movies than this (The Blind Side is everything that I hate about sports movies). So, with baseball season underway, excitement will be built for sports movies. Plus, families and friends are seemingly drifting apart, more and more these days. Now is the time for this movie to rise, and be seen by families with hope and sports fans in general. To paraphrase the movie itself: “If you build it, they will come.” Field of Dreams legacy has been built and assured that people will be coming to it, for a long time to come. For me personally, pun intended, it’s a home-run movie. More facts on the movie: Ironically, Phil Alden Robinson thought that Costner won’t want to do another baseball movie. He was wrong more than once, it seems! A few years ago, a TV series was being made based on the movie, namely for Peacock. They declined and so did several other networks. Chris Pratt was going to star as Ray apparently. I’m happy it wasn’t made, particularly with Chris Pratt (who I personally find one note as an actor and overused right now). Field of Dreams is fine as it is. The story was told fully. Let the audience make their own theories and opinions. Also, our own Dennis Gassner was the production designer! I didn’t know that until my recent re-watch. He’s shown much range, from a small scale farm in the American Midwest, to MI6 Headquarters in London, to the world beyond!

4 Likes
2491

Debbie Reynolds day on TCM today. Singin’ in the Rain on right now. My favorite movie musical about my favorite era: the 1920s.

3 Likes
2492

The Brutalist

Another one I thought would be magnificent. But I really was left restless, disappointed and massively bored by these 3 1/2 hours.

It´s making the same point over and over again: this architect was underappreciated, mistreated, yet persevering, despite his own personal weaknesses.

Cut two hours and you would have the same story but much more effective.

Yes, Adrian Brody is a great actor and he really throws himself into the role.

But… a few moments into the film, after being introduced as a starving immigrant, arriving at Ellis Island, he visits a prostitute - and we see her caressing his upper and lower body… and man, is that guy perfectly ripped, seemingly arriving with a personal trainer and nutritioner. Took me right out of the picture. Why? Why showing Brody’s perfect body in that scene at all?

I should really be more careful about films which are hyped during festivals.

4 Likes
2493

HUSTLE (1975) on restored Blu-ray.

Robert Aldrich’s career has four segments for me: 1) his apprenticeship; 2) 1950’s genre films; 3) 1960’s big budget/star films; 4) 1970’s revisioning/rethinking of his 1950’s genre works.

I think you all can guess where my favorite films lie, and HUSTLE is my favorite Aldrich film–a movie set in the society that remained/arose after KISS ME DEADLY’s explosive conclusion.

In his contribution to “The Last Great American Picture Show: New Hollywood Cinema in the 1970s”, Thomas Elsaesser writes about the films of another Robert–Altman in this case–that “[i]n the absence of positive motivation of either hero or plot, the fabric of narrative shows through, and the pathos of failure becomes the zero-degree of the moralised emotions, which the dynamics of affect, eros and violence once supplied to the classical narrative.”

The same be said of HUSTLE, a film where Aldrich (to quote Elsaesser again, this time on THE LONGEST YARD) “twists the genre out of shape.” Aldrich is clearly in noir/police procedural territory, but there has never been a noir/procedural like HUSTLE. The narrative has not only been twisted, but broken apart–different strands of story weave in and out, scenes follow one another, but not in a tight, compact, or sometimes even logical, way.

Another noir of the 70s–Arthur Penn’s NIGHT MOVES–was clearly influenced by the Nouvelle Vague. You can feel Penn consciously channeling Godard, Truffaut, and the gang as he tells his tale. By contrast, Aldrich, whose films were idolized by the Cahiers group, adopts their methods without a trace of self-consciousness. Neither homage, parody, nor pastiche, HUSTLE is a direct infusion of Nouvelle Vague aesthetics into a Hollywood film made by a Hollywood master. Take the opening sequence, where the movement from one location to another is linked by the Rams football game everyone is listening to on the radio (much like Godard included whatever song happened to be playing on the radio when he shot a scene).

HUSTLE is not only a shaggy dog noir, it is an unmotivated shaggy dog noir. Phil Gaines keeps searching for motivation, even as he goes about his daily routine as a cop. Burt Reynolds is superb in the role, exposing fissures and limning nuances in Gaines’ character with a depth and facility the actor had never demonstrated before.

HUSTLE is an ugly, disjointed, beautiful, rapturous, difficult, off-kilter 1970s movie, and Aldrich’s masterpiece.

Here is an open access link to the book referred to above. It is a treasure for those interested in 1970s cinema.

https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/35116

5 Likes
2494

Fantastic. Thank you very much!

1 Like
2495

The Last of Sheila (1973)

I would say they wouldn’t make this today but Rian Johnson lent on this and acknowledged it so hard that it’s writer is in Glass Onion and the film finally got a blu ray release in the UK.

It’s a puzzle that knows it’s a puzzle. The performances are fun, even if all but the murderer are factually awful people. I enjoyed watching it but I don’t know if I would say I liked it.

I noticed afterwards that Richard Benjamin made this the same year he did Westworld, both have the theme of people are awful. Probably should watch them back to back someday.

4 Likes
2496

I had the same experience.

Seems like people fall in love with movies due to a distinct combination of mood, timing, biography, interest and pure coincidence.

I would always prefer Knives Out and Glass Onion to this one.

4 Likes
2497

They couldn’t. TLOS is a glorious example of 1970s cinema, and very queer–written by Stephen Sondheim and Anthony Perkins, and directed by Herbert Ross.

I remember the first time I saw this movie on television. When James Coburn announces through the bullhorn that night’s game is to find the homosexual, the way he said it–loudly, luxuriantly, rolling it off his tongue–sent a chill through this teen queer boy’s body.

As Orion notes:

I think to like TLOS, a viewer has to get into its queer 1970s vibe. It is the sort of edgy, boundary-pushing film Hollywood produced for a brief time as it floundered for its next act after the fall of the studio system (HUSTLE which I recently wrote about is two years later). JAWS (1975) and STAR WARS (1977) signal the end, though a handful of similar films are made for a few more years–SORCERER (1977) and ALL THAT JAZZ (1979).

A very 1970s conceit. Thanks for the insight.

See above LOL.

Rian Johnson’s films are polite, respectable, glossy versions of the more subversive, nasty original.

2498

It’s not subtle with its queer identity - it actually states it several times. The “hero” being totally justified in his crimes but still had to play his behind the scenes part because the child abuser said so was a heartbreaking end.

2499

To me they are also much funnier, more gripping and satirical, and I am sure many who he attacks find them very nasty :wink:

2500

Exactly. TLOS is queer on its surface–subtext is suddenly allowed to be text for a hot minute. TLOS could only be made in the early 1970s–along with THE FRENCH CONNECTION, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, STRAW DOGS, THE GRISSOM GANG–all raw, nasty films.

I would add THE STING as well to your 1973 film festival. Not as raw, but a male-male love story. Interesting to compare it to Redford/Newman’s previous outing.

With credits accompanied by Bette Midler singing “FRIENDS.” Sang froid was never froid-ier.

I do not get heartbreak at the end, so much as an assertion that cynical self-preservation and advancement will carry the day in the world as it. Another very 1970s trope. (“Friends” would have been a great end credit song for HUSTLE as well).

1 Like
2501

Agreed. I don’t think Ross, Sondheim, and Perkins were aiming for funny.

I find them equally gripping.

Definitely. In the chapter I quoted in my HUSTLE post, the author makes the point that following the rawness of a filmmaker like Aldrich, the next cohort–Ashby, Altman, Penn, etc.–addressed the same reality, but embraced parody, pastiche, and satire as a distancing technique. Johnson follows in this tradition.

3 Likes