Which movie did you watch today and how would you rate it?

[TSwizzle]

The Night of The Hunter, 8/10; Stars Robert Mitchum, Shelly Winters and Billy Chapin. Mitchum plays the part of a serial killer, a self proclaimed preacher, who marries women for their money and kills them. While doing time in prison for a car theft, he is in a cell with man who killed two people during a bank robbery and the money stolen was never recovered because he hid the money. On his release, Mitchum tracks down the robber's family and ingratiates himself into the family in order to find the money. It's a well acted and beautifully filmed movie. The plot gets a bit hokey at times but the suspense holds up. A classic piece of art from its time.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Have you seen the Criterion 2-disc set of Night of the Hunter? If you are a fan of the movie, it's a must. it includes a generous helping of outtakes from the shoot, which Laughton stored in his garage. (I think his widow later donated them to UCLA.) You hear him coaching the actors with great feeling for the emotional effects he wants to emphasize -- and there's a moment where the little girl who plays Pearl gets sick of the retakes and complains that making a movie is too hard. Great stuff.

 

[James Brown]

Speaking of Robert Mitchum...

I just finished watching The Enemy Below. RM plays a destroyer escort captain playing a cat-and-mouse game in the South Pacific with a German U-Boat helmed by Curd Jurgens. Not as many submarine tropes as your typical sub movie.

The first ten minutes feels stiff as what feels like actual Navy seamen dutifully recite their lines. But then Mitchum comes on screen and suddenly everyone plays to him, and better for it. This was filmed in 1957, when Americans were more worried about the Russkies and the full horrors of the Holocaust weren't widely known. So it was possible to portray the Germans as sympathetic, and indeed, this movie spends roughly half the time aboard the U-boat. Sure, they speak English with German accents to each other, but it was either that or subtitle half the movie, and the American movie-goer has little patience for that.

Indeed, this movie portrays the crews of both sides as practically brothers-in-arms. There's almost no red-eyed hostility toward the enemy, and officers of one side even risk their lives to save the lives of the others once the battle is all but over. Picture two football players putting everything they have into trying to knock each other down, then the victor offers the other a hand up.

I was tickled by some lighter counter-trope moments, as well. In one scene, the crew are ordered into silent running to play the waiting game. An enlisted man reclines in his bunk with a book, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Next to him, a lieutenant amuses himself with a Little Orphan Annie comic book.

If you like Robert Mitchum, give this one a look.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course, by far the best Captain Kirk was William Shatner in the original series.

View attachment 23667

Well, as far I as I know, there have only been two "Captain Kirk" actors. And yeah, Shatner was the best of the two.

 

[ruby sparks]

8 out of 10. Well made, atmospheric, wonderful 'waking dream' flavour, gripping story, full of ideas, unconventional, thought-provoking, well-acted.

And finally, isn't Michelle Pfeiffer looking good for 62...

 

[prideandfall]

Bad Batch: 6/10 (8/10 for the first half, 4/10 for the second half)

what this movie has going for it:
great performances, an unusual and compelling presentation (almost no dialogue, great physical performances, amazing story-telling via "show"), great in-camera effects, the entire movie is filmed on location in a desert, effective brutality where it's warranted that isn't torture-porny or gratuitous or shying away from what it is, surprise performances from prominent actors in small roles

what brings the movie down:
surprise performances from prominent actors in small roles that don't go anywhere so are actually just really distracting, a story that somehow both falls into tired cliche and falls apart in the 2nd half, very muddled character motivations causing a lot of their actions to make no logical sense.

the story is simple - vaguely dystopian future, a large fenced off part of south texas has been turned into an exile/penal colony, a young woman is processed and tossed into this wasteland, drama ensues.
the presentation and performances are the most interesting part since the story is just a rehash of 20 other movies like this since the 70s. i was very disappointed it fell apart so hard in the 2nd half since the 1st half was so good, but still worth a look if you're into this sort of thing.

 

[Wiploc]

Of course, by far the best Captain Kirk was William Shatner in the original series.

View attachment 23667

Well, as far I as I know, there have only been two "Captain Kirk" actors. And yeah, Shatner was the best of the two.

I don't get it. I can't imagine why anyone would think that.

 

[KeepTalking]

Well, as far I as I know, there have only been two "Captain Kirk" actors. And yeah, Shatner was the best of the two.

I don't get it. I can't imagine why anyone would think that.

Nostalgia. With such an iconic role in pop history, Shatner's Capt. Kirk is held forward as a standard of perfection that he never really achieved. Chris Pine is a clearly better actor, and his Kirk was better written than most of the Shatner era Kirk was. But Shatner was the original, and some will never allow him to be overshadowed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, as far I as I know, there have only been two "Captain Kirk" actors. And yeah, Shatner was the best of the two.

I don't get it. I can't imagine why anyone would think that.

Nostalgia. With such an iconic role in pop history, Shatner's Capt. Kirk is held forward as a standard of perfection that he never really achieved. Chris Pine is a clearly better actor, and his Kirk was better written than most of the Shatner era Kirk was. But Shatner was the original, and some will never allow him to be overshadowed.

To be fair, I've never seen the series and am rating based on the films. Granted, it might also be difficult to do a proper comparison as Shatner never played young Kirk. But Pine's Kirk just felt like a dime a dozen prodigy bad ass kid.

It also doesn't help that the Star Trek trilogy was bubble gum pop material, not actually Star Trek. It was a well cast Cosplay written by amateurs.

And my favorite captains overall are Picard (Stewart can act) and Sisko (the only captain to mature and grow during the arc).

 

[Sarpedon]

First of all OS Kirk was young kirk. Kirk's whole schtick was that he was the youngest person to become captain of a starship. Being a wunderkind is baked into the character.

Second, Shatner's Kirk did grow and change: primarily in the movies. Both the motion picture and wrath of khan focused on his character confronting the fact that he was always kinda 'faking it until making it.' In the motion picture he had to cope with a young captain he couldn't compete with and in the Wrath of Khan, he had a decision of his from years ago come back to haunt him. Six had him confronting his own prejudices and obsolescence. It isn't fair to say that Shatner's Kirk never developed, or that his acting nailed it.

 

[angelo]

Well, as far I as I know, there have only been two "Captain Kirk" actors. And yeah, Shatner was the best of the two.

I don't get it. I can't imagine why anyone would think that.

Obviously you don't like Shatner.

 

[angelo]

View attachment 23769

8 out of 10. Well made, atmospheric, wonderful 'waking dream' flavour, gripping story, full of ideas, unconventional, thought-provoking, well-acted.

And finally, isn't Michelle Pfeiffer looking good for 62...

View attachment 23772

View attachment 23770

Krist! 62 you say!

 

[KeepTalking]

Nostalgia. With such an iconic role in pop history, Shatner's Capt. Kirk is held forward as a standard of perfection that he never really achieved. Chris Pine is a clearly better actor, and his Kirk was better written than most of the Shatner era Kirk was. But Shatner was the original, and some will never allow him to be overshadowed.

To be fair, I've never seen the series and am rating based on the films. Granted, it might also be difficult to do a proper comparison as Shatner never played young Kirk. But Pine's Kirk just felt like a dime a dozen prodigy bad ass kid.

It also doesn't help that the Star Trek trilogy was bubble gum pop material, not actually Star Trek. It was a well cast Cosplay written by amateurs.

And my favorite captains overall are Picard (Stewart can act) and Sisko (the only captain to mature and grow during the arc).

Picard is without a doubt the most well acted Enterprise captain.

First of all OS Kirk was young kirk. Kirk's whole schtick was that he was the youngest person to become captain of a starship. Being a wunderkind is baked into the character.

Second, Shatner's Kirk did grow and change: primarily in the movies. Both the motion picture and wrath of khan focused on his character confronting the fact that he was always kinda 'faking it until making it.' In the motion picture he had to cope with a young captain he couldn't compete with and in the Wrath of Khan, he had a decision of his from years ago come back to haunt him. Six had him confronting his own prejudices and obsolescence. It isn't fair to say that Shatner's Kirk never developed, or that his acting nailed it.

Agreed. The few Shatner era Trek movies you mention are exceptions to my comment regarding Pine being better written. Abrams changed the feel of Star Trek in his movies, and a lot of old Trek fans resent that. That does not change the fact that he had better actors to work with, and could be more consistent in writing the characters. I grew up watching TOS, so I understand the nostalgia, but I can also objectively take a step back and evaluate Shatner and Pine on their merits. Shatner's Kirk was a largely product of the times in which TOS aired. It feels like Rodenberry made Kirk the womanizing alpha male that studio execs demanded in order to slip in the more subversive elements of Starfleet in general. Abrams did not have the same problem with his run, his only problem was that he only knows how to make one kind of movie.

 

[ruby sparks]

Krist! 62 you say!

This is probably a more realistic image....



But still very beautiful, imo. And a very good actress, who arguably stole the show from Jennifer Lawrence, some say.

The choice (and acting) of Jennifer Lawrence has been criticized by some, but I thought she did an excellent job, and a very difficult one. something like 50% of the film was a close up of her face. She was the core of the film and imo she carried it very very well.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

First of all OS Kirk was young kirk. Kirk's whole schtick was that he was the youngest person to become captain of a starship. Being a wunderkind is baked into the character.

Second, Shatner's Kirk did grow and change: primarily in the movies. Both the motion picture and wrath of khan focused on his character confronting the fact that he was always kinda 'faking it until making it.' In the motion picture he had to cope with a young captain he couldn't compete with and in the Wrath of Khan, he had a decision of his from years ago come back to haunt him. Six had him confronting his own prejudices and obsolescence. It isn't fair to say that Shatner's Kirk never developed, or that his acting nailed it.

Okay, I’ll take that as it is. I ain’t dying on this hill.

 

[Wiploc]

Well, as far I as I know, there have only been two "Captain Kirk" actors. And yeah, Shatner was the best of the two.

I don't get it. I can't imagine why anyone would think that.

Obviously you don't like Shatner.

I liked him fine until I saw Stewart. Then I couldn't go back, never watched the first generation again.

 

[angelo]

Obviously you don't like Shatner.

I liked him fine until I saw Stewart. Then I couldn't go back, never watched the first generation again.

No doubt Stewart is a better actor than Shatner and he was brilliant as Captain Picard. But put simply, I preferred the original Star Trek series and movies with Shatner's Kirk as they weren't overblown like the later movies attempts to copy Star Wars.

 

[Ford]

Abrams changed the feel of Star Trek in his movies, and a lot of old Trek fans resent that.

I don't, and I started watching the original series reruns back in the 70s.

For me, Abrams returned to a "feel of Star Trek" that had been lost in The Next Generation. Original Trek was an action-adventure show with some progressive themes in the stories. Abrams made action-adventure movies.

Shatner's Kirk was a largely product of the times in which TOS aired. It feels like Rodenberry made Kirk the womanizing alpha male that studio execs demanded in order to slip in the more subversive elements of Starfleet in general. Abrams did not have the same problem with his run, his only problem was that he only knows how to make one kind of movie.

It is worth noting that there are really two Shatner Kirks. The movie Kirk was more thoughtful, less bellicose, and more nuanced than his younger self, and not just because of age. The times had changed. The original cast films (The Motion Picture excepted) were also action-adventure films...albeit with an older and wiser crew. Spock changed even more in the films, becoming a wise old sage rather than his old logical self.

And one thing I don't resent about Abrams' films? A billion dollars in box office receipts went a long way towards bringing back what had been a dead franchise.

 

[angelo]

Not a movie, but I stumbled on a series on Netflix titled Santa Clarits's Diet. About a guy married to a cannibal. Very gory, especially the scenes where she's eating someone. Stars Drew Barrymore. rate 6.5/10

Drew Barrymore and Timothy Olyphant star in this Netflix-original series as married realtors, Sheila and Joel, who are living a quiet life, raising their teenage daughter in Santa Clarita, Calif. Their world unexpectedly changes when Sheila goes through a dramatic transformation that sends her down a road of death and destruction -- but leaves her looking and feeling better than ever. Barrymore and Olyphant also serve as executive producers, alongside showrunner and creator Victor Fresco ("Better Off Ted")

 

[Tom Sawyer]

IT: Chapter Two - 3/10

Not much of a continuation from the first movie. Really just a three hour sequence of jump scares with a mild relation to a half done plot.

The main issue is there was absolutely no motivation for the clown or consistency to his actions. Sometimes, he killed people and sometimes he just scared them and then left and they sort of half had a plot point that he could only kill people when they’re scared, except when he can kill them at other tunes. Sometimes he’s chasing them and then stops, sometimes he knows everything they’re doing and other times he’s clueless. Just a bunch of disjointed scenes for the most part.