Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

[Precious Doll]

Ghost Catchers (1944) Edward F Cline 2/10

Precious, how did you see Ghost Catchers? It was one of my favorities as a kid and I saw it numerous times on Saturday afternoon TV, but haven't seen it in at least 40 years.

Movie unlimited have it for sale. The print quality is not the best though. VCI have released it, maybe from an old T.V. print.

[rudeboy]

I blind bought For a Lost Soldier on ebay a few years ago, eventually watched it and absolutely hated it. I found it ugly and dull and it left a very bad taste... all of this love has convinced me to give it a second shot...

On a more positive note, a very satisfying Saturday for me:

A Man Escaped (1956) - 8
The Times of Harvey Milk (1984) - 8



Edited By rudeboy on 1248548440

[Damien]

Ghost Catchers (1944) Edward F Cline 2/10

Precious, how did you see Ghost Catchers? It was one of my favorities as a kid and I saw it numerous times on Saturday afternoon TV, but haven't seen it in at least 40 years.

[Eric]

The Limits of Control (2009) Jim Jarmusch 1/10

I've always been indifferent to Jarmusch but this is a career low for him and I found it torturous to sit through. Such a shame too to see the likes of Tilda Swinton, Bill Murray, John Hurt and in particular Hiam Abbass wasted.

I like some Jarmusch, but I agree, this was fairly brutal (the sort of movie that garners interesting and thought-provoking defenses but still can't dissuade me my antipathy).

Caveat: didn't find Tilda Swinton wasted, rather found she was fighting valiantly against the odds.

[Hustler]

Tell me more of 'Secret of the Grain'. I do hear it's something of a gem and that Hafsia Herzi was incredibly good.

Everyone is great. I don´t know if you had the chance to see any other Kechiche´s movies.
He has a direct style with long scenes (the movie lasts 2 hours and a half) in which every detail is exposed with instensity. The performances rich the level of excellence.

[anonymous1980]

Public Enemies (Michael Mann) - 8/10
Rachel Getting Married (Jonathan Demme) - 8/10

[Precious Doll]

The Limits of Control (2009) Jim Jarmusch 1/10

I've always been indifferent to Jarmusch but this is a career low for him and I found it torturous to sit through. Such a shame too to see the likes of Tilda Swinton, Bill Murray, John Hurt and in particular Hiam Abbass wasted.

Cheri (2009) Stephen Fears 4/10

Something of a mess but thankfully very short and easy to watch. The film is widely uneven jumping from drama to comedy in the flash of any eye. Pfeiffer and Bates give performances to match the material, though it's hardly their fault. However Rupert Friend is simply terrible. A sullen presence who gives a one note performance.

Ghost Catchers (1944) Edward F Cline 2/10

Anchoress (1993) Chris Newby 7/10

Incendiary (2008) Sharon Maguire 4/10

The Bear and the Doll (1969) Michel Deville 2/10

For the record you can count me as another fan of For a Lost Soldier. Wish someone would pit out a decent DVD of it though.

[Uri]

The best actor lineup of '67 is indeed one of the best ever. (Personally, while I think that acting wise Newman was probably the best, I'd go with Hoffman for a performance which not only is a career defining one, but a perfect emblem of the particular time and generation it represented). And they got that lineup right because they were aware (I use this term liberally, I know) it was the Oscars and not the Noble prizes. Let's face it, while being a reasonably fine actor, Poitier's acting, certainly in he's 3 outing that year, was not particularly interesting or intriguing. I don't blame him, since as oppose to his self proclaimed successor, Mr. Washington, the restrictive dignified aura he had about him was a product of the certain era he was operating in and not, I think, that of a personal over worth or vanity, but it did limited him artisticaly.

[Damien]

For a Lost Soldier (1992; Roeland Kerbosch) 8/10

As usual, I'm probably being too generous; after all, the cinematography is kinda gauzy and the framing device--choreographer has a creative block--is a bit silly in presentation; additionally, I've heard that the book the film is based on (an autobiographical novel) has a different take on the subject matter. Oh, what it's about: a 13 year old boy in WWII Amsterdam is sent to the seaside to have a more stable existence; Canadian soldiers liberate the village and the young boy, already beginning to realize his homosexuality, has an affair with a 20-something soldier.

The film treats the love between them in a tender way, which is where I hear the difference between the book and the film lie: the book reportedly has the soldier be more predatory, though still developing feelings for the boy. Nevertheless, the film is affecting and though it handles the material with a slight distance, one can't help but feel that this was a great love, at least for the boy, a formative experience that has a very bittersweet climax.

I love that movie. It is so humane and has such a generosity of spirit.

Mason always referred to it as "The Chicken and the Soldier."

[Zahveed]

Ed Wood - 9/10

My first time seeing this movie in ten years and also first time in widescreen. There's a lot of subtlety in this film that you don't see in more recent Burton films and the performances are excellent. I never hear anything mentioned about Murray when this movie is brought up, but he's one of the highlights even if it's a fairly minor character.

[Sabin]

Tell me more of 'Secret of the Grain'. I do hear it's something of a gem and that Hafsia Herzi was incredibly good.

[Hustler]

Le Graine et le Mulet by Abdelatif Kechiche (2007) 10/10. A Gem.

[Penelope]

For a Lost Soldier (1992; Roeland Kerbosch) 8/10

As usual, I'm probably being too generous; after all, the cinematography is kinda gauzy and the framing device--choreographer has a creative block--is a bit silly in presentation; additionally, I've heard that the book the film is based on (an autobiographical novel) has a different take on the subject matter. Oh, what it's about: a 13 year old boy in WWII Amsterdam is sent to the seaside to have a more stable existence; Canadian soldiers liberate the village and the young boy, already beginning to realize his homosexuality, has an affair with a 20-something soldier.

The film treats the love between them in a tender way, which is where I hear the difference between the book and the film lie: the book reportedly has the soldier be more predatory, though still developing feelings for the boy. Nevertheless, the film is affecting and though it handles the material with a slight distance, one can't help but feel that this was a great love, at least for the boy, a formative experience that has a very bittersweet climax.

[Damien]

The Green Mile (Frank Darabont, 1999)

9/10

Say it isn't so. Please. You're jokng, right?

[Big Magilla]

I've addressed this issue before as relates to the question in general, but not specifically to the 1960s.

The short answer is no, it wasn't done in the 60s. The long answer is it's an issue that goes back to the beginning of the supporting awards.

In the very first year of the supporting awards, 1936, Spencer Tracy, who was already a major star, but who was billed below the title in San Francisco, which starred Clark Gable and Jeanette MacDonald, was nominated for Best Actor while Stuart Erwin, a popular radio actor, but not a "movie star" was nominated in support for Pigskin Parade for which he was the clear lead.

By 1939, however, Olivia de Havilland, who was very much a star and whose role in the nearly four hour Gone With the Wind was larger than some of that year's best actress nominees (Greer Garson in Goodbye, Mr. Chips in particular) was relegated to the supporting actress category so as not to take votes away from Vivien Leigh.

Paulette Goddard in So Proudly We Hail! and Jennifer Jones in Since You Went Away (the year after she won a Best Actress award) were early examples of co-leads being nominated in support.

Category confusion was so prevalent by 1944 that Barry Fitzgerald was famously (infamously?) nominated in both lead and supporting categories for the same performance in Going My Way after which the rules changed.

For many years the Academy looked to the studios for category classification.

Four famous examples of this:

1950 - Fox wanted to list Anne Baxter in support for All About Eve so as to not have her competing with Bette Davis in lead. Baxter howled, Fox caved in.

1955 - Columbia wanted to campaign Rosalind Russell in Picnic in support. Russell howled and was not nominated in either category.

1963 - Fox inadvertently listed all cast members in Cleopatra as lead thus shutting out Roddy McDowall's chances at a supporting actor nomination.

1970 - Trevor Howard, though obviously a supporting player in Ryan's Daughter, was listed as lead by MGM to the consternation of many leading to the eventual reinstatement of the right of the membership to determine the category with the restrictions in place that prevent a double nomination like Fitzgerald's from recurring.

In 1967 it would have been unthinkable for a star of Sidney Potiier's calibre to have been nominated in support even though a case could be made for that in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner which is dominated by Spencer Tracy in his last role.

Today, perhaps, Poitier would be campaigned as lead in In the Heat of the Night and Steiger would be campaigned in support but I somehow can't see Steiger sitting still for that.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1248487158