The Last Movie You Watched? ver.2.0

For me it’s really more of a three-and-a-half but there isn’t a half-star symbol so I rounded up to four on this occasion because it is my favourite of the Carry Ons so, for what it is and compared to other movies of its ilk (ie other Carry Ons or bawdy farcical comedies from decades past), rounding up felt right. But no, it’s not a true four-star picture.

Of course, sometimes the power of familiarity with a much-beloved personal favourite which mightn’t necessarily be a classic by conventional definitions shouldn’t be discounted. I also gave Plan 9 From Outer Space four stars and I absolutely meant each and every star, even though obviously I would have to concede that, technically, it’s a big fat pile of shit. But I took to it for that very shitness when I first saw it and, over many years and many, many viewings, I’ve come to genuinely love it as much as any bona fide cinematic giant. So there’s sometimes some of that in play, if that makes any sense.


I notice all the recent releases are getting a 3 or less - sounds about right to me :point_right: plus, good on ya for showing some love to the Carry On series - Crap, yes, but very special crap … and I still laugh out loud at these flicks, because no one can do lechery better than Sid James :wink:

1 Like

I’ll give this Carry On adventure a try. As said, I like the silliness of these movies. To me Sid James is ‘the guy with the wrinkled face’, I used to call him like that before I knew his name. One of those faces that make you stop zapping when you notice it: you know something very silly and naughty is going to happen real soon when he’s around

1 Like

Yes, well I think that unless a movie is absolutely outstanding straight out of the traps (or bloody awful of course) then three or three-and-a-half is a decent start point. Sometimes you need to wear these films for a while don’t you, like a new pair of shoes. See how they fit. Like, say, The Duellists. For me, a five-star picture all the way. But I wouldn’t have thought so right from the off. I’d have found it undeniably good-looking straight away, and admired the craft behind it. But it would’ve taken me a few viewings to really appreciate it. So, take three films I’ve seen very recently for the first time: Macbeth, Suicide Squad: Hell to Pay and Roxanne, Roxanne. I gave them all three stars each (well, truthfully, I’d have rated all three three-and-a-half). Suicide Squad: Hell to Pay is a very decent example of its type but, as with the Carry Ons, its type isn’t particularly deep. So it’ll likely stay as a 3½ for me. I loved the subject matter of Roxanne, Roxanne - Roxanne Shanté was a big hero of mine in the mid-'80s - but, if I’m honest, the film was okay but far from great. So my initial joy at seeing it at all will recede and it’ll likely sink to a genuine three-star. Macbeth on the other hand was well made and I love the story but, in retaining the (abridged) original Shakespearian dialogue, it’s quite dense. But this will become easier for me to digest over repeat viewings and it’ll likely become a four-star pic (or more) for me over time.

It’s also all deeply inconsistent, of course, with other determining factors such as my changing attitudes towards this film or that with each additional viewing or simply my mood on the day. Sometimes a particular movie is perfect for the mood you’re in and the time and place in which you’re watching it, you know? Sometimes, it’s not. I could watch plenty of these pictures four months down the line and rate them entirely differently (Well, maybe not entirely, but somewhat). I seem to have a different experience every time I watch Django, for instance. It’s like that dress on the internet where nobody can agree what colour it is. Sometimes I’ll love every frame of it; other times, I’ll struggle to understand what the bloody fuss is with it. :slightly_smiling_face:

Yeah, I’ve always loved them. Harmless, silly fun. From an outstanding ensemble, too. @Phil_H is also a big fan.

1 Like

King of New York (1990) - 5/10 - Despite being ravishingly stylish and truly gritty, there is some missing element that would congeal the whole story. What we’re left with is an okay crime drama that rarely makes it clear what it’s trying to accomplish. Don’t get me wrong, I sort of get what Ferrara is trying capture through all this degeneracy and violence. Walken’s monologue about the futility of drug war, for one, is amazing, but other than that, the motion picture strays into exploitation territory way too often without sufficiently solidifying its core story. Lots of drugs, sex and violence and that’s about it.

No Man’s Land (1987) - 7/10 - A pleasant surprise, a pretty good one. In spite of having this made-for-TV look, it manages to surmount some of its inherent faults with a simple, yet very good story about the ambivalence of undercover police work and the ethics thereof. There is a strong undercurrent of the same themes that are apparent and more extensively explored in the third season of Miami Vice, whereof Dick Wolfe (the writer of No Man’s Land) served as the producer. There are no easy answers in this one and despite being relatively straightforward in its structure and narrative, I enjoyed brooding about the ramifications of the undercover police work which the screenplay put the emphasis on. For once, Ebert’s review is spot on.

Less Than Zero (1987) - 3/10 - It gets a special prize for being a movie that is almost completely bereft of any sort of likable characters. All characters practically spend most of their time getting coked out of their minds and moping about how tough their lives are, naturally all of this is happening within the confines of their gated communities. It is reportedly based on some novel that purportedly attempts to dispel all myths surrounding lives of spoiled rich kids, but within the context of this motion picture, all of this is done at the expense of a serviceable drama which could invest the protagonists with a modicum of likability. Regrettably, the subject is handled very crudely which particularly manifests itself through a sex scene during a Christmas party in the course of which the camera cuts back and forth between the party and the fucking. At this point, the flick almost feels like an exploitation movie, except that it is completely devoid of humor or kitsch which could technically juice it all up. Ultimately, it desperately struggles to be shocking and edgy and woah. This shock value is, however, completely lost on the viewer in this day and age, feels somewhat low-brow and unsophisticated. It hasn’t aged well, to say the least. To add insult to injury, it all leads up to this shocking revelation of an ending that is trite, predictable and bromidic. Robert Downey Jr.'s excellent performance and the quite stylish cinematography endeavor to conceal the inadequacies of the script, but to no avail.

White of the Eye (1987) - 6/10 - While not exactly original or all that unpredictable, the cinematography and the (deliberately) frenetic storytelling make this one stand out. It almost feels like an American giallo film with its jarring POV shots, extreme close-ups as well as tasteful tracking shots combined with this weird, slightly bleary at times and kind of dazzling lighting that endues the film with a psychedelic, almost feverish atmosphere. Most of the time, it looks as though the director endeavored to take a leaf out of Argento’s book and succeeded in most cases.

Stalker (1979) - 9/10 - A re-watch.

Some Takashi Ito shorts: Zone (1995) (9/10), Gi-Souchi ‘M’ (1997) (5/10), Monokurômu heddo (1997) (6/10), Memai (2001) (7/10), Shizuka na ichinichi (2003) (7/10).

Out of Bounds (1986) - 6/10 - I liked it. The story is admittedly far-fetched at times (the fingerprint check is done way too late), but if you treat it as a neat piece of pop-culture escapism, it will definitely fit your bill. The cinematography, the soundtrack and the overall atmosphere constitute its definitive upsides that technically define this film.

Wavelength (1983) - 7/10 - Surprisingly good. For a low-budget sci-fi entry, it kind of ticks all the boxes for me so to speak. It’s got the killer soundtrack by Tangerine Dream (the primary reason why I watched it) and a straightforward direction that kind of embraces the film’s low-budget status and tries to make good use of it rather than overstretching or striving to achieve goodness knows what kind of grandeur by resorting to cheesy special effects. Some special effects are here though, but they’re fortunately implemented sparingly. Some people may complain that it’s just a low-budgeted rip-off of Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), but the similarities appear to be merely coincidental and besides, I’ve never been a massive fan of that Spielberg’s flick to begin with, so it doesn’t matter to me all that much. If I were hard-pressed to choose between those two, I’d re-watch Wavelength, no doubt.

Good Evening, Mr. Wallenberg (1990) - 7/10 - An excruciating portrayal of the Jewish pogrom and the liquidation of the Budapest ghetto at the end of WW2. No fancy directing here, the director mostly relies on the performances of leading actors which are undeniably tremendous. Stellan Skarsgård is particularly amazing in the titular role of Mr. Wallenberg. Well-worth watching if only for Skarsgård.

The House (1983) - 4/10 - An Icelandic haunted house horror film that never really succeeds in achieving the status it aims for. It strives to conjure up the kind of creepy atmosphere that I like the most in horror films, but despite adequate photography, decent direction and acting, it also drags on for way too long and feels incredibly protracted even with its running time of mere 90 minutes. The pacing itself is not even that much of an issue, although the languid narrative may have a sleep-inducing effect on some viewers. The primary problem the movie exhibits is that it does not have all that much story to tell and heavily depends on the vague sense of dread that ranges from slightly unnerving to non-existent. The director has hard time building tension or gelling all scenes together, for that matter, to form some sort of structural coherency: the motion picture feels incredibly flaccid in its composition and some sequences feel as though they could be disposed of altogether. Additionally, the resolution features one of the most hilarious examples of the deus ex machina I’ve ever seen. It’s so ridiculous it has to be seen to be believed. The director doesn’t bother to tie up loose ends in the denouement, leaving everything to the audience’s imagination, you know, spooky scary skeletons. It’s supposed to be scary, but scary it ain’t. Overall, not that bad of a movie, but it’s not something I’d heartily recommend to anyone.

Wanted: Dead or Alive (1987) - 4/10 - A mediocre action vehicle. Even Rutger Hauer’s badassery can’t salvage this crap, whenever the movie can take a thematically more risky route, it does the opposite, becoming a platitudinous piece of reeking turd. Had some cider while watching it which might have alleviated the pain of sitting through this garbage. Again, nothing unusually terrible, but considering that Hauer was involved, it could have been something so much better.

1 Like

Fun fact: I met him a few weeks ago, at a screening of The Addiction in my hometown.

Any impressions?

He likes to talk that’s for sure :smile:

1 Like

310_to_Yuma_(1957_film) The last 2 movies I watched

Two horror movies with animals, a shark and a bear. In this case the bear wins:

Deep Blue Sea 2

A sequel to the enjoyable, if brainless shark terror flick of the same name (but with number 1). Virtually a remake, with a similar storyline and premise. A scientist is genetically engineering sharks for the sake of mankind: he’s trying to develop a serum to enhance human intelligence before we’re outsmarted by the artificial intelligence of our robotic friends. That’s probably the only neat idea of the entire movie. The actors and characters are less appealing than in the original movie. The sharks are okay but there aren’t too many attacks. Unless you’re a diehard shark fan, forget it.

This one was more like it:

1 Like

Finally! and yes its the best martial arts film I’ve seen yet. Not a dull moment, nor a scene out place, ( maybe a bit over the top, and had to shock audiences considering this was released in 1973) Any fan of martial arts or exploitation would certainly find Lady Snowblood worth their while.

1 Like
  1. Winterbottom: The Look of Love
  2. Jarmusch: Stranger Than Paradise
  3. Newmeyer & Taylor: Freshman
  4. Newmeyer & Taylor: Why Worry?
  5. Welles: The Stranger
  6. Corbucci: Django
  7. Wilde: Speedy
  8. Newmeyer & Taylor: Hot Water
  9. Newmeyer & Taylor: Dr. Jack
  10. Franco: Hot Nights of Linda

That has a ring to it. Do you know if there were any sequels or spin-offs to this movie? It seems quite obscure.

Is this about ANY movie you have just watched; or Spaghetti Westerns specifically?
I have two lined up to watch that I have not seen yet - The new Godzilla movie (The Japanese one) and Alien Covenant. Very much looking forward to them.
The last two Spaghetti Westerns I have watched are Once Upon A Time In The West and Texas, Adios.

1 Like

Hey J0zza! This thread’s mainly for any of your non-western movie-watching experiences. There’s another thread in the same vein dedicated to westerns (spaghetti or otherwise) here:


Personally, I liked both Shin Godzilla (I assume you mean that one and not the anime Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters from last year?) and Alien: Covenant although neither were perfect by any means.

1 Like

Hi Asa. Thank you for the response and the guidance on the forum :slight_smile:
I do mean Shin Godzilla and not the Netflix Anime. I really did not like that. And the two Hollywood Godzilla films were both awful. (Bryan Cranstons one was better, but only slightly. I did not buy the whole grieving husband plotline). But thats just me.
Once again, thank you for your Response.

1 Like

Yeah, I was a little disappointed by the anime Godzilla pic too. I love Godzilla and I love anime and I’m surprised they hadn’t cross-pollinated more often but there we are. I think there’s a second part to it due towards the end of the month anyway, maybe it’ll improve.

1 Like


1.The Tempest (1979) -7/10-- 2.Eye of the Cat (1969) -6/10
3. The Night Walker (1964) - 6/10-- 4.Hard Country (1981) -6/10
5.End of the Game (1975) -5.9/10 –6.Little Murders (1971) -5.5/10

Manhunt (John Woo). Damn it’s bad… I thought I’d give it the benefit of a doubt but… it’s really bad.

Last ten days (ish):
Jaws (Spielberg, 1975) :star::star::star::star::star:
Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (Rønning/Sandberg, 2017) :star::star::star:
The Exorcist (Friedkin, 1973) :star::star::star::star::star:
Magnum Force (Post, 1973) :star::star::star::star:
Dog Day Afternoon (Lumet, 1975) :star::star::star::star::star:
Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979) :star::star::star::star::star:
Alien (Scott, 1979) :star::star::star::star::star:
Deep Blue Sea 2 (Scott, 2018) :star:
Dead Calm (Noyce, 1989) :star::star::star::star:
Raging Bull (Scorsese, 1980) :star::star::star:
The Dead Zone (Cronenberg, 1983) :star::star::star:
Black Panther (Coogler, 2018) :star::star::star:
Hellbound: Hellraiser II (Randel, 1988) :star::star:
The Living Daylights (Glen, 1987) :star::star::star:
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (Meyer, 1982) :star::star::star:
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Edwards, 2016) :star::star::star::star:
The Empire Strikes Back (Kershner, 1980) :star::star::star::star::star:
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Johnson, 2017) :star::star::star:
Return of the Jedi (Marquand, 1983) :star::star::star:
Day of the Dead (Romero, 1985) :star::star::star:
Christine (Carpenter, 1983) :star::star::star:
Back to the Future (Zemeckis, 1985) :star::star::star::star:
Back to the Future part II (Zemeckis, 1989) :star::star::star:
Massacre Gun (Hasebe, 1967) :star::star::star:

My “Super Sights of the 70’s” April movie challenge has given way to my “80 From the 80’s” May challenge. With a quick reshuffle of the schedule I was able to incorporate a “Star Wars Day: May the 4th be With You” mini-marathon in there as well.