What is The Last Movie You Watched?

[Stavros]

And don't forget the buckets of popcorn and soda...you can probably have a hot dog too, on account of your being in California...

[Dino Velvet]

And don't forget the buckets of popcorn and soda...you can probably have a hot dog too, on account of your being in California...

After stopping off at the concession stand I could've ditched my date and had a "date" instead. Shit's crazy expensive. Juju Beans like 8 bucks.

[Stavros]

Juju Beans? Sounds like something from a horror film...

[Dino Velvet]

Juju Beans? Sounds like something from a horror film...

Fred Sanford from Sanford & Son popped in my head. Always talking about Juju Beans getting stuck in his teeth. He's right.

I miss Redd Foxx.

[Stavros]

Purists indeed. I think Stavros already knows my view of this film. I confess it has haunted me a little since I saw it and i grasp his interpretation well. The analogy with Samuel Becket is a good one. But whereas Godot or most of Becket's other plays are engaging, or funny or if neither of these, short, this goes on.. and on.. and on.. and on... i found it among the most tedious I've ever watched.

Mind you I've not see Bela Tarr's even longer earlier efforts.

I don't see this as being any different from genre films which I don't watch, like teen flicks, Transformers, anything with Predator and stuff like that, there are enough types to go round. With Tarr that phrase, reality extended to the point of madness comes to mind. There is an occasional sense of the absurd or ridiculous in Tarr's films, and there is a theory that his films are as religious as Tarkovsky's, but without the explicit or implicit imagery this involves. Also, Tarr uses mostly original scripts -even when they are books he has tended to rely on Krasznahorkai- and original music by Mihaly Vag, The Man From London being an exception (a Simenon story); so he is closer to Bergman in this respect. I think where Tarr succeeds is in building a cumulative effect over time, but you have to endure it, there is no doubt about that, for a lot of people, life is too short to commit to films of his length.

[Prospero]

Every year there seems to be a new Spielberg movie. Last year it was the overly sentimental adaptation of "War Horse" But his latest "Lincoln" is terrific. Due out in the US and Uk very soon. An Oscar winning performance by Daniel Day Lewis in this new film about the President's fight to win a constittional amendment in the closing days of the Civil War. Ba one or two "god-bless-America" Spielbergisms at the beginning this is a powerful film built around the struggle by the Republicans to persuade their own militant wing and some Democrats to vioe for the amendment outlawing slavery. Two and a half hours long and largely a film full of speeches, discussion and debates, it is - nevertheless - rivetting. Spielberg's best serious film. And seeing it just a couple of days after Obama's victory is has a special resonance.

I also saw a very different and as yet unreleased film "Hitchcock" - with Anthony Hopkins as the director. it focuses on his battle to make Psycho - opposed by the studio who thought it uncommercial and finally funded from his own money. Terrific ensemble performances. An interesting study of this brilliant director and with some nice humour.

And a few days ago I caught "Skyfall" . First up the most remarkable thing was that, at the industry screening I attended, in the audience was none other than Sean Connery! Checking on the way the latest Bond handles things i guess. And M of course and the newest Q.

Anyway it is a great romp of a film - the opening chase one of the best ever and, though a little long, grips your attention all the way through. I think the Bond franchise is in great hands.

However Daniel Craig brings no personality to the role at all. He has steely eyes, perfect physique and is macho to the Nth degree. But every now and then you glimpse the notion of a mind of interest before it runs away and hides.

There is thankfully a little more wit than the first of the Craig Bonds - and I've never summoned the will to watch Quantum Of Solace.

All in all though - a good evening's entertainment. Nothing more, but nothing less.

[Stavros]

Leaving aside the inability of Daniel Day-Lewis to act, unless you consider that tortured grimacing acting, are you not bothered by the presentation of queers as evil, a common theme in Bond films, where a man after all, is a man? I haven't seen Skyfall and it might be escapist entertainment, but it is hardly innocent in the way that it has selected its victims over the years.

[Prospero]

Daniel Day-Lewis is actually an excellent actor. I see you disagree. So be it. Two Oscars for best actor already under his belt. Which of his films have you seen?

And he was NOT in Skyfall. I didn't say I approved of "queers" as being evil. There are many many things wrong with the Bond films - objectification of women, worship of macho values, celebration of violence etc etc etc. But accept these and suspend judgements about it over these and you have what it has always been - "escapist" cartoon-like entertainment.

[Jericho]

There is thankfully a little more wit than the first of the Craig Bonds - and I've never summoned the will to watch Quantum Of Solace.

Get an watch QOS you tart, it ties up the loose ends!

[Jericho]

Bugger, that's supposed to be fat tart!