rate the last movie you saw

[mkaroly]

AN AUTUMN AFTERNOON (1962). I have had this film on my shelf since it was first released by Criterion in 2008. Over the years I have not been able to bring myself to watch it because it is Ozu's final film, and I did not want to have that moment of "closure," if that makes any sense. Well, I finally watched it yesterday. The story is very similar to other Ozu dramas in that it focuses on a widowed parent who pushes the "of marriage age" daughter in the house to get married. The end result is that the widowed parent will be alone. Such is the life cycle that all parents and children must go through.

Ozu's movie is devoid of action (as usual) as it focuses on character development/inter-relationships and the changes that occur within them as Japanese society "modernizes." The gap between traditional and modern post-war ways and influences is always there; Ozu and Noda write some humorous moments into the film, and unlike other films this one focuses much more on the men. In addition (and to its credit), AN AUTUMN AFTERNOON does not hold back on the emotional depths of a parent's choice to marry off their only daughter. This film reminded me a great deal of LATE SPRING (my favorite Ozu film); both film star Chishu Ryu as the widowed father, and in both films he absolutely nails the emotional sense of loss that comes with his decision to push his daughter out of the house in order to get married. Ryu's expressions and his acting in the final moments of this film are absolutely heartbreaking, and Ozu's camera and directing style deliver on the emotional moments, especially at the end. Overall the film will remind you of his previous films here and there as well.

I realize that Ozu was working on another project before he died, so AN AUTUMN AFTERNOON was not purposefully his last film. But as it turns out, it was a heck of a film to go out on. And, as it turns out, because it was Ozu's last film, his long-time collaborator Chishu Ryu is the last person we see in the last Ozu film ever made...for me at least it made the final moments of the film more poignant and moving. There are two shots there at the end that will indelibly stick in my mind whenever I think of this film (and will probably make me cry once again upon additional viewings) - Ozu was one of the great directors of Japanese cinema, and AN AUTUMN AFTERNOON is a solid entry into his filmography. He and Kurosawa are Japan's two greatest directors to me - both so stylistically different, but both so adept and expert at telling their stories in memorable ways through film.

[AndyDursin]

GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS
5/10

A leaden bust that manages to be somehow even less appealing than Roland Emmerich’s ill-fated 1998 rendition, GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS gives you more of all the things you never wanted in a Godzilla movie – namely, an anonymous roster of who-cares human characters – and not enough of the things you do.

Sure, this follow-up to Gareth Edwards’ imperfect but vastly more satisfying 2014 “Godzilla” trots out a series of Toho staples beyond the Big G – there’s the empathetic Mothra, villainous Ghidorah (aka Monster Zero), and high-flying Rodan all on-hand for support – but the bland, and badly-shot, monster action is mostly just a running series of peripheral encounters that frame the boring human story.

That end of things proves to be a total wipeout, no thanks to director/co-writer Michael Dougherty. Managing to waste a good cast capable of delivering more, Dougherty and Zach Shields’ script makes the central mistake of following around not just one but two groups of uninteresting characters: there’s slightly crazed scientist Vera Farmiga and daughter Millie Bobby Brown (“Stranger Things”), reluctantly working with eco-terrorist Charles Dance, who thinks the only way to purge the flawed human world is to hand it back to the monsters who once populated it by way of Farmiga’s communication device. Out to stop them (I think) is the Monarch team of Farmiga’s ex, Kyle Chandler, paired up with a returning Ken Watanabe and (briefly) Sally Hawkins, who try and tell their near-worthless leading man that Godzilla is the only salvation the Earth has left.

Just one section of these characters would be sufficient – framing the entire story through Brown’s perspective would’ve made the most sense – but to populate the movie with both of them, not to mention the likes of Zhang Ziyi (playing twins for no discernable reason), David Straithairn (who disappears after having a couple of lines of dialogue), Aisha Hinds (TV’s “9-1-1”), and Thomas Middleditch (TV’s “Silicon Valley”) leads to a overly muddled collage of protagonists where only Bradley Whitford manages to make an impression as one of Monarch’s daffier scientists.

There comes a point about a third of the way through when you realize “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” isn’t ever going to get on-track, and that Dougherty’s clumsy direction and inartful staging of the creature sequences – all of them inexplicably in rain and/or dark – will make viewers pine for Edwards’ frustrating “pulling back” of the monster action in the film’s predecessor. The difference though is that when the previous movie did eventually deliver the goods, it did so in an impressive and rousing fashion; “King of the Monsters” ultimately provides no such emotional release.

In fact, it’s missing a whole lot – charm, humor, a sense of wonder and playfulness – all the things that even a group of guys in rubber suits once managed to convey.

[Monterey Jack]

...not to mention the likes of Zhang Ziyi (playing twins for no discernable reason)...

Uhhhh…



I'd give the movie a 7.5/10. It's frustrating for different reasons than the 2014 movie (bland, stock human characters take up too much screentime again, and Sally Hawkins receives the Rinko Kikuchi Pacific Rim: Uprising award for most thankless role reprisal in a sequel), but I found the monster stuff to be exciting and rousing (if, of course, shrouded in "atmospheric" darkness and rain, which is always annoying), and I enjoyed Bear McCreary's clever appropriation of the some of the classic Toho monster themes. Hopefully King Kong vs. Godzilla will finally crack the perfect mix of monster-to-human plotting, but I was more than happy with this current installment.

[AndyDursin]

I thought that initially -- and I saw them in the photo -- but wouldn't they be a hell of a lot older than that? Not to mention shorter? So it's just a silly Easter Egg that doesn't make any sense?

Beyond that, any time you give a movie under an 8/10, I usually detract another 2-3 points off what I would give it, so we're pretty much right in line.

[Monterey Jack]

Beyond that, any time you give a movie under an 8/10, I usually detract another 2-3 points off what I would give it, so we're pretty much right in line.

Conversely, whenever you give a movie a 5/10 brush-off, I know it's really closer to a 7.

[sprocket]

Beyond that, any time you give a movie under an 8/10, I usually detract another 2-3 points off what I would give it, so we're pretty much right in line.

Conversely, whenever you give a movie a 5/10 brush-off, I know it's really closer to a 7.

[Eric Paddon]

The Andromeda Strain (1971) 7 of 10
=Got the new Blu-Ray. The transfer is great. As I said in another thread, AVOID the commentary track at all costs. As for the film itself, it manages to hold interest despite the fact the plot can sound very muddled at times. I attribute that mostly to the extravagance of the underground scientific setting which makes it interesting to look at even if it is taking forever to really advance the action. Thankfully this is not the age when actors were mumbling yet. The one thing we could have done without is the unnecessary sidebar of anti-government ranting about biological warfare which adds nothing and just seems like a piece of obligatory late 60s, early 70s cynicism about the government.


Fantastic Voyage (1966) 8 of 10
=Andromeda Strain might be the "grittier" kind of sci-fi lab thriller of this era but this film remains more fun as great entertainment. Jeff Bond's commentary avoids being offensive, but he amazingly gets a few details wrong. He has Raquel Welch already a sex symbol and says she did this after "One Million Years B.C." and that her casting caused a buzz. In fact, she did this film *before* "One Million Years B.C." and when she was cast she had yet to break out among the pack of Fox contract starlets at the time. When recapping Arthur Kennedy, he fails to mention that Kennedy had been in Richard Fleischer's last film before this "Barabbas." This is just lazy work on his part.

=One detail I noticed this time that I've only seen one other blog mention. There is one moment when Arthur O'Connell is getting reports from other doctors on video screens and checks in with a "Dr. Sawyer." The voice I am convinced is James Doohan but its hard to make out the person on the tiny B/W video screen. Doohan at the time was doing stuff for Fox with a semi-regular role on "Peyton Place" before he gave that up for Trek, and was also in a "Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea" so he would certainly have been available for this.

[AndyDursin]

Spending Joanne's vacation watching the original STAR WARS trilogy in unmolested versions (two of them from 4K scans -- first time through for Theo on the sequels!

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
"That is not a good ending!"

RETURN OF THE JEDI
"I loved the Ewoks!"

Taking after his dad already...

[Monterey Jack]

-Toy Story 4 (2019): 10/10

[Edmund Kattak]

Spending Joanne's vacation watching the original STAR WARS trilogy in unmolested versions (two of them from 4K scans -- first time through for Theo on the sequels!

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
"That is not a good ending!"

RETURN OF THE JEDI
"I loved the Ewoks!"

Taking after his dad already...

Those two 4K wouldn't happen to be from that 4K77 and 4K83 project, would those? Fascinating read.

[Monterey Jack]

I STILL want the unmolested versions of the Star Wars OT, and will pay money for them. Can't someone just give me a link where I can make this happen?

[Paul MacLean]

North By Northwest (8/10)

"What?" you're thinking. "Only eight out of ten for this uncontested classic from one of the greatest directors of all time? A film which is required viewing in all film theory classes?"

North By Northwest is a classic, Cary Grant is at the height of his charm, and has a perfect chemistry with Eva Marie Saint (who may not be Grace Kelly but is nevertheless fine in the role). James Mason is the perfect villain -- black-hearted and opportunistic, yet utterly charming and elegant. The film boasts some of Hitchcock's best-designed sequences (in particular the cropduster and Mt. Rushmore scenes).

But dash-it-all, this movie is riddled with implausibilities. I hate to sound like that "Everything wrong with" guy (who I despise) but this movie just doesn't hold-up to scrutiny...

Roger Thornhill is mistaken for "George Kaplan", and once it's made clear that "Kaplan" is not going to talk, VanDamm arranges to do away with him. Ok, but why steal a car from one of VanDamm's swanky party guests, when they could simply shoot "Kaplan" and dump his body in the Hudson river? Why invite attention to Lester Townsend's mansion by stealing Doris' Mercedes and placing a drunk Roger behind the wheel?

Roger offers to show VanDamm his driver's license as proof of who is is, to which Leonard points-out than an agent would be carrying a fake ID to pass himself off as someone else. But if George Kaplan is trying to impersonate Roger Thornhill, why would he check-in to the hotel under the name of George Kaplan?

How can VanDamm occupy Lester Townsend's mansion without attracting the attention of the neighbors? Surely some of those neighbors would be aware Townsend was in Manhattan, so who are these people throwing a party in his home? And who are the guests? Not friends of Townsend obviously.

Maybe there wasn't a party at all. But if there was not, the police would ascertain this after talking to Doris about her stolen Mercedes.

Why maintain the charade by having "Mrs. Townsend" greet Roger and the police at Townsend's mansion, instead of just abandoning the mansion altogether? Roger would look just as foolish if he brought the police to an empty, locked mansion (perhaps even more so).

Roger asks his mother to accompany him to the hotel in Manhattan. But once VanDamm's goons -- who are still under the impression that Roger is George Kaplan -- see that Roger is accompanied by his mother, they would naturally assume his mother is an agent as well. So would that not put her life in mortal danger?

Roger makes the front page for "murdering" Lester Townsend. So wouldn't VanDamm finally realize that his goons did indeed abduct the wrong man -- seeing as the newspaper story clearly identifies the "killer" as advertising executive Roger Thornhill?

Roger hastily boards a train bound for Chicago, so how does VanDamm know which train Roger was going choose -- in advance -- so that he and Leonard and Eve Kendall could book tickets? Why does VanDamm send his own girlfriend to seduce Roger, instead of a call girl or another woman he could pay to do the job? If VanDamm wants Roger dead, why doesn't he have him killed on the train?

Thanks to Eve, VanDamm knows Roger was on the train, and where he is intending to go, so why arrange an elaborate murder out in the middle of nowhere involving a cropduster, instead of cornering Roger somewhere in Chicago? Yes, I know, because there would be no witnesses out in the cornfields (except there are a bunch of witnesses out in the cornfields -- the truck drivers, and several other motorists).

How can the cropduster pilot be so stupid as to intentionally fly into an oil tanker on the ground -- killing himself, but not Roger?

Roger's attempt to get himself arrested at the auction still doesn't convince VanDamm that Roger is not George Kaplan? VanDamm must be one of the most clueless villains in movie history.

The Professor is convinced that Roger has "forgotten about her already" only hours after Roger's impassioned attempt to convince Eve to stay with him?

Why does the Professor bring clothes for Roger? He's not expecting Roger to go anywhere, and doesn't want him leaving the hospital (which would be much harder to do with no clothes). Why is Roger being held in a hospital instead of sitting on a first-class flight back to New York?

The moment the Professor discovered Roger had escaped, he would have alerted the police and had them intercept any taxis heading in the direction of VanDamm's estate.

How could VanDamm have an estate -- complete with airstrip -- on the summit of Mt.Rushmore?



Oh well, the Mt. Rushmore sequence is still a lot of fun.

But Charade is a better movie.

[Eric Paddon]

I agree that if you analyze the plot too closely it makes no sense. Ordinarily this is the kind of thing I can find infuriating but Hitchcock was probably the only director who could really get away with doing this kind of thing. With him, he wanted you to get on the ride and enjoy it and if you didn't start thinking about these implausibilities until the second viewing, then he'd say he succeeded.

To me the biggest implausibility was why when posing as Townsend does he have his sister impersonate "Mrs. Townsend" if the real Mrs. Townsend is dead? If the neighbors don't know that, then I'd say its clear that the neighbors at the party were not true personal acquaintances but the kind of people who were getting invited to a big shindig at the Townsend estate and none of them had probably ever met the real Townsend. Of course the greatest risk taken was that the police chose not to contact the real Mr. Townsend, UN or no UN to ask him to explain what had happened. Van Damm certainly couldn't have anticipated that the police wouldn't go through the formality of that.

One plot hole that I think is explainable is what happened to Robert Ellenstein? Answer, he was the cropdusting pilot.

[AndyDursin]

Great review Paul.

I was eviscerated on the FSM board because I only "liked" VERTIGO. Some of the nastiest comments I ever got there were over that.

[Eric Paddon]

Yesterday I saw a "Streets Of San Francisco" episode that did a riff on "Vertigo" only the protagonist was a disturbed psycho who first kills a woman he was trying to makeover into a woman he had an affair with in the past and then killed, and then finds *another* lookalike he tries to do the same thing with. Even filmed a scene at Fort Point and a had a tower in the plot as well! And all that served to remind me is how "Vertigo" has far too many disturbing things in it to make me appreciate it on the same level of other Hitchcock movies.