What was the last movie you saw?

[KGeo777]

Lack of stage training/experience and improved microphones.

Yes but I think since strong voices exist outside of theater it must be a choice of selection as well. Conscious or not.

I was listening to a Vincent Price interview about radio performance and he said in the heyday of Hollywood, most actors were afraid of radio because it requires all performance to come through voice alone.
You had to have energy in every spoken word--even if you were whispering. He was saying that the radio actor was very specialized--but even the standard movie actor who did poorly with radio had distinct voices. Someone like James Coburn probably did very little radio--he came on the scene after radio was fading but he had a very distinct voice. I am sure the reason Adam West was chosen for Batman was because his voice was so strong and he had to wear the mask all the time. Lyle Waggoner had a more athletic appearance but his voice was weaker.

I find it very hard to go from 1970s movies to ones today because the lack of intensity in speaking (and appearance) is very noticeable. You have to get used to the difference. Also the music and editing style is so different.

I know some would say that older styles of acting are over-acting but the whole point of it was to avoid being mundane or ordinary.
It's not supposed to be average or run of the mill.

Simon Pegg and James McAvoy have strong presence among younger actors I have heard. They could fit into the 1950s or 60s with their performance style.
I haven't seen her in a movie but I have seen her interviewed and Elle Fanning has a strong voice--but maybe she doesn't have the training.
Ironically, her sister had a strong presence as a child performer--but I saw her talking as an adult and she doesn't have the same verbal strength.
Not like Pamela Franklin who went from being a very good child performer to equally good adult actress.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

My Dinner With Andre - a New York actor/play-write and a theatre director meet for a meal and talk. The theatre director endlessly goes on about his existential crisis and search for the meaning of just 'being'.... and the Actor/play-write/audience substitute tries not to laugh/get angry/argue with the pompous prick as he prattles on and on and on like some condensed version of every self-obsessed artistic wa*ker you have ever had the unfortunate experience of meeting. It is strangely funny. Even strangely funnier is seeing the names Lloyd Kaufman (director of such delights as the Toxic Avenger movies and Class of Nuke 'Em High) as the Production Manager and a thanks to Troma Studios for use of facilities in the end credits.

I've always been curious to see it, being as its held in so high regard and because it was referenced in The Simpsons, Frasier and Community - but it seemed exactly like the kind of movie you described above...

 

[Mon0Zer0]

I find it very hard to go from 1970s movies to ones today because the lack of intensity in speaking (and appearance) is very noticeable. You have to get used to the difference. Also the music and editing style is so different.

This is something I've noticed but not really been fully aware of - if you get my drift.

Hamill has that vocal quality in spades. Compare his performance as Luke to Kylo, Rey, or even Ewan's Obi-wan - the older actors can deliver that hokey dialogue in a way that makes the lines sparkle - they really sell them - whereas the new school always reveal the deficiencies in the writing.

 

[KGeo777]

Hamill had a specialized vocal training course. Hamill did cartoons and other radio stuff. He did the Star Wars radio drama.

It's true that some actors are really good at making bad dialogue sound good.
Peter Cushing was very good at that.

My favorite quote on him from Freddie Francis:

"I think Peter is absolutely wonderful - there is not an actor in the world who can speak rubbish like Peter and make it sound real."

 

[JunkMonkey]

Simon Pegg and James McAvoy have strong presence among younger actors I have heard. They could fit into the 1950s or 60s with their performance style.

Simon Pegg started out in stand up comedy - where the ability to be heard over a room full of drunks is a plus - and McAvoy trained at the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Star Trek the Motion Picture - with number one son who devoured the original series and is liking TNG but has a strange aversion to watching full length movies (of any kind). So when he suggested we start to watch all the Star Trek films (in order) I jumped at the chance to get him watching 'real' movies at last. I did warn him beforehand that the first one was a ponderous bore.... and was proved right. See, dads DO know stuff. I've assured him they get the plot to long, slow, effects shot ratio sorted out for the next one.

 

[Parson]

The shot of him coming down the staircase at the end is just sublime:
Doing steps like a boss

The stairs were marvelous but the servants at the end made me cringe.

 

[Jeffbert]

THAT WAY WITH WOMEN (1947) Another with Sydney Greenstreet. This time he is a pampered father James P. Alden and owns an automobile manufacturing co., who wants to get away from his physician and others who dote on him, and become active again. So, he borrows the name of his gardener Herman Brinker (Alan Hale, Sr.), and buys a share in a gas station with co-owner Greg Wilson (Dane Clark), who has a very low opinion of Alden. Light comedy, etc.,




THE FACE OF ANOTHER (1966) A Japanese film about a man whose face is burned beyond recognition, who begins wearing a mask modeled on another man's face. He begins a double life, as a man wearing bandages over his face, and as a nobody, who thinks he can get away with anything. Eventually, he decides to seduce his own wife, to prove her infidelity.



Another surgery film, but this one, about a pair of hands:

MAD LOVE (1935) Stephen Orlac (Colin Clive best known for the line, "Its alive! Its alive!") is a concert pianist married to an actress (Frances Drake), whose on stage portrayal of a woman being tortured by her husband causes Dr. Gogol (Peter Lorre), to fall madly in love with her. But, oops, he loses both his hands in a train wreck. At the behest of Yvonne Orlac, Gogol performs surgery on Orlac. Yet, his hands were destroyed, and without telling his patient or anyone else, Gogol attaches the hands of recently beheaded knife-throwing murderer Rollo (Edward Brophy) to Orlac's wrists. After months of therapy, Orlac begins to play the piano, but, in a rage, he instinctively picks up a knife and throws it at the other guy. Now he is wondering how he learned how to throw knives.

Moreover, there is a wax museum figure of Orlac's wife, that was to have been melted after she retired from the theater. Gogol buys it, and treats it like a living person.


Lorre fell so far from the prominence he once had as horror biggies, to the sad characterization of him as Yetch in Mad Monster Party. Sad!

 

[KGeo777]

Star Trek the Motion Picture -

This had the biggest budget of all the Star Treks--each sequel got cheaper. It's too bad they had so much story troubles.
But the science fiction elements were pretty grand--the attack on the Klingons and also V'Ger---that is a cool sci-fi concept--the way it looked. For the time it was original and alien.
This is to me is why I stick to the theory that the true movie stars of the 70s and 80s were special effects innovations.
John Dykstra was the novelty. It wasn't enough-they really milked all the FX scenes for what they could get but it wasn't enough. The actors were smothered by it and for Star Trek that was fatal because characterization mattered a lot.

 

[Droflet]

Thank goodness that the next Star Trek movie got it right.

 

[KGeo777]

Thank goodness that the next Star Trek movie got it right.

I have two problems with it.
One is that Kirk acts so different from normal.
He acted funny at times in TMP but in ST 2 he is acting so worn out and indecisive...and Khan is just crazy. He was sharper in the original episode--I feel they could have given him more satisfying characterization.

This is the issue with all the movies--none of them really can capture the series in one single movie-they have to break it up and adjust character to suit the plot.
I wish they had more of the spirit of fan service that exists now--showing characters from the series in cameos.
I think Harry Mudd was supposed to be in one of the sequels but Roger C Carmel died before that could happen.

"Harcourt! Have you been drinking again?"

I have been watching Mission Impossible and got the idea that Spock's brother should have been Martin Landau instead of Luckinbill

 

[Rodders]

I agree with both of you regarding ST: TMP.

But my personal view is that it's quite an underrated movie. The Science fiction elements and the effects are great.

This design of the Enterprise was my favourite.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I agree with both of you regarding ST: TMP.

But my personal view is that it's quite an underrated movie. The Science fiction elements and the effects are great.

This design of the Enterprise was my favourite.

I really have to disagree - yes, the effects are great. We know they're great because Robert Wise shows us endless shots of the crew staring at them looking awed. From a technical point of view the pre-CGI effects work is very impressive. The SF elements are passable though they do require a lot of handwavium (Voyager fell into a black hole, emerged on the other side of the galaxy and the machine intelligences that found it could extrapolate its point of origin???) and Sponk's convenient long-distance 'sensing' abilities*.

But gods above is it tedious.! There was one shot in particular that made me want to throw things at the screen. It's a laborious slow tracking shot which wanders across the bridge (and back again) picking up members of the crew one by one, who each, in turn when centre screen, deliver a line of their particular special technobabble while doing awed staring out the window acting. It takes forever to deliver seven or eight lines of .... nothing. Pointless waste of screen time. It wasn't alone.

I did spend a while admiring the modular construction of the bridge set which allowed sections to be removed and replaced like segments of an orange, and an awful lot of time wondering why the crew changed their costumes so often and was totally baffled at the fuzziness of Kirks arm at one point. The DP was using a split focus diopter lens - Kirk screen right, further away and Decker screen left, nearer; both their faces are in focus. Kirk's arm reaching out and holding Decker's (unseen masked by his body) upper arm is a fuzzy, out of focus blob.




*A personal hate of mine. I loath it when people 'sense' stuff that's important to the plot because the author can't work out a convenient way to have a character discover something.

Pew! Pew!
"Thank the gods you arrived in time! How did you know I would be here surrounded by Orcs armed with nuclear torpedoes and needing 3.89 grams of Incredubulum to activate the anti-doodah generator?"
"I dunno I just sensed you were in trouble...."

 

[CupofJoe]

I really have to disagree - yes, the effects are great. We know they're great because Robert Wise shows us endless shots of the crew staring at them looking awed. From a technical point of view the pre-CGI effects work is very impressive. The SF elements are passable though they do require a lot of handwavium (Voyager fell into a black hole, emerged on the other side of the galaxy and the machine intelligences that found it could extrapolate its point of origin???) and Sponk's convenient long-distance 'sensing' abilities*.

But gods above is it tedious.! There was one shot in particular that made me want to throw things at the screen. It's a laborious slow tracking shot which wanders across the bridge (and back again) picking up members of the crew one by one, who each, in turn when centre screen, deliver a line of their particular special technobabble while doing awed staring out the window acting. It takes forever to deliver seven or eight lines of .... nothing. Pointless waste of screen time. It wasn't alone.

I did spend a while admiring the modular construction of the bridge set which allowed sections to be removed and replaced like segments of an orange, and an awful lot of time wondering why the crew changed their costumes so often and was totally baffled at the fuzziness of Kirks arm at one point. The DP was using a split focus diopter lens - Kirk screen right, further away and Decker screen left, nearer; both their faces are in focus. Kirk's arm reaching out and holding Decker's (unseen masked by his body) upper arm is a fuzzy, out of focus blob.




*A personal hate of mine. I loath it when people 'sense' stuff that's important to the plot because the author can't work out a convenient way to have a character discover something.

Pew! Pew!
"Thank the gods you arrived in time! How did you know I would be here surrounded by Orcs armed with nuclear torpedoes and needing 3.89 grams of Incredubulum to activate the anti-doodah generator?"
"I dunno I just sensed you were in trouble...."

While I love ST:TMP so don't agree with some of your points I do agree with the "just sensed it"... It is right up with a character stumbling up and picking up a random seeming object that you just know will be the missing/essential piece at the climax.

 

[CupofJoe]

Mean Machine [2001]
A loose remake of 1974's The Longest Yard [substituting Association football for American football].
It is violent and funny enough to keep me watching and really is just an excuse for Guy Richie and his mates to hang out again.
Vinnie Jones is more than adequate as hard-man footballer Danny, the fallen England captain who is sent to prison. The supporting cast do their jobs well. The one exception is David Kelly, who adds just the right amount of Pathos as the old timer that takes Danny under his wing and has a sad story to tell.
But the less said about Jason Statham's Scottish accent the better.
It is almost work watching for the Governor's eyebrows alone. Worthy of Gandalf.
There are no great twists or turns and the ending is never in doubt, even if you don't know the original. You just sit back and enjoy [or not] the ride.
Full disclosure... Many years ago I won £30 on a bet when Vinnie Jones scored the winner for Wimbledon against Arsenal. so I do have a bit of a soft spot for him.

 

[Jeffbert]

I really have to disagree - yes, the effects are great. We know they're great because Robert Wise shows us endless shots of the crew staring at them looking awed. From a technical point of view the pre-CGI effects work is very impressive. The SF elements are passable though they do require a lot of handwavium (Voyager fell into a black hole, emerged on the other side of the galaxy and the machine intelligences that found it could extrapolate its point of origin???) and Sponk's convenient long-distance 'sensing' abilities*.

But gods above is it tedious.! There was one shot in particular that made me want to throw things at the screen. It's a laborious slow tracking shot which wanders across the bridge (and back again) picking up members of the crew one by one, who each, in turn when centre screen, deliver a line of their particular special technobabble while doing awed staring out the window acting. It takes forever to deliver seven or eight lines of .... nothing. Pointless waste of screen time. It wasn't alone.

I did spend a while admiring the modular construction of the bridge set which allowed sections to be removed and replaced like segments of an orange, and an awful lot of time wondering why the crew changed their costumes so often and was totally baffled at the fuzziness of Kirks arm at one point. The DP was using a split focus diopter lens - Kirk screen right, further away and Decker screen left, nearer; both their faces are in focus. Kirk's arm reaching out and holding Decker's (unseen masked by his body) upper arm is a fuzzy, out of focus blob.




*A personal hate of mine. I loath it when people 'sense' stuff that's important to the plot because the author can't work out a convenient way to have a character discover something.

Pew! Pew!
"Thank the gods you arrived in time! How did you know I would be here surrounded by Orcs armed with nuclear torpedoes and needing 3.89 grams of Incredubulum to activate the anti-doodah generator?"
"I dunno I just sensed you were in trouble...."

The thing I most disliked about the 1st STAR TREK film was its antagonist was not a humanoid whose thoughts, intentions, etc., could be depicted. Klingons, Romulans, Uncle Remus, Khan, etc., could have their personalities depicted. But VGer could not. Human Vs. human conflict rules! This might have been better as a 2nd or 3rd film (not considering the excessive reliance on SFX), but as #1, it was a disappointment. The HISTORY CHANNEL ran a 4 part series called THE CENTER SEAT, & as I recall, pt. 3 was about this film. I will watch it again soon.

 

[Jeffbert]

Mean Machine [2001]

A loose remake of 1974's The Longest Yard [substituting Association football for American football].
It is violent and funny enough to keep me watching and really is just an excuse for Guy Richie and his mates to hang out again.
Vinnie Jones is more than adequate as hard-man footballer Danny, the fallen England captain who is sent to prison. The supporting cast do their jobs well. The one exception is David Kelly, who adds just the right amount of Pathos as the old timer that takes Danny under his wing and has a sad story to tell.
But the less said about Jason Statham's Scottish accent the better.
It is almost work watching for the Governor's eyebrows alone. Worthy of Gandalf.
There are no great twists or turns and the ending is never in doubt, even if you don't know the original. You just sit back and enjoy [or not] the ride.
Full disclosure... Many years ago I won £30 on a bet when Vinnie Jones scored the winner for Wimbledon against Arsenal. so I do have a bit of a soft spot for him.

Wasn't Mean Machine the name of Dick Dastardly's car?

 

[JunkMonkey]

Ma Loute (Slack Bay) - Odd. Very odd. It's summer 1910 in northern France and people are disappearing from a beach. Can the strange family of cannibal fisherfolk have anything to do with it? Will the horrible family of incestuous, inbred aristos survive to the end of the film? Will Billie decide if she is a boy or a girl? Why did the grotesquely huge police inspector suddenly start floating - and will they ever catch the rope dangling from his ankle? Will anyone ever top Juliette Binoche's fantastic masterclass in hyper-overacting? How utterly drop-dead gorgeous is Raph, the actress playing the androgynous Billie?

Not sure if I ever want to watch it again though. Apparently it was a comedy.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

The Book Thief
Terrific film.

 

[JunkMonkey]

While I love ST:TMP so don't agree with some of your points I do agree with the "just sensed it"... It is right up with a character stumbling up[on] and picking up a random seeming object that you just know will be the missing/essential piece at the climax.

The only time I remember this working was in Vonnegut's The Sirens of Titan when it was pretty much the whole point of the story.