Jump to content

What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Older Films)


Mr. Breathmask

Recommended Posts

I don't think it's as good as critics say but it certainly didn't suck (6.5!!!). Yes, it's nothing new under the sun, but I loved the photography (those delicious impoverished streets!), the small fantastic role of  Peter Sarsgaard and the director's predilection for the cinema of the '70s. If you have never seen a film about gangsters and corruption (it's not only gangsters) before then the movie is probably a lot better. Sidney Lumet without the depth.

 

 

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

If you have never seen a film about gangsters and corruption (it's not only gangsters) before then the movie is probably a lot better

 

Indeed - I said the exact same thing in my review I linked to above :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

Impossible!

 

Why do you say that?

 

here you go:

 

On 1/11/2016 at 3:04 PM, Jay said:

 

tumblr_inline_nuoch6MkA21tty0i6_500.jpg (500×281)

 

Black Mass

 

Terrible film!  The problem with it is that it presents absolutely nothing new at all.  All it is is the same old gangster story told in a different setting.  The setting and cast (which is totally fine - Johnny Depp, Benedict Cumberbatch, Kevin Bacon, Meth Damon, Peter Sarsgaard, Dakota Johnson, Corey Stoll, Adam Scott) are fine, but there's just nothing compelling to watch here.  Not only is it the same ole same ole from a writing perspective, the directing is nothing to write home about either.


The boston accents are mostly horrible (especially when compared to Spotlight, where they were perfect) and I didn't actually like Johnny Depp's performance come to think of it.  He looked weird in his terrible makeup, and he just seemed to stretch all his scenes out for no real reason.

 

The entire film is predictable, cliched, tired, worn-out.  If no other gangster film ever existed, it would probably be a pretty damn awesome film.  But since so, so many ones do, most of which are better, this is a total skipper.

 

 

 

Oh, and the score:  Junkie XL's score was terrible, way too loud and overbearing when it never needed to be.  It was actively distracting throughout.

 

(bolding is new for highlighting)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

It's true Alex. You have fallen into dotage. Forget Cremeritus! It's now LeBlancus that you are suffering from!

 

Still, how can a movie suck while at the same time awesome if you never seen a film about gangsters before? It doesn't make sense!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

I don't believe it! You edited that post!

 

Wrong.  I linked to my old review after your first post, before your later post which said the same sentiment my old review had.

 

And nothing in that post has been edited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Koray Savas said:

The Great Gatsby was awful too.

We'll it had too pos Jay Z did the score (not music) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank9.jpg (1600×678)

 

 

 

Frank

 

I was expecting more from this movie.  It's I guess a dark comedy starring Domhall Gleeson (that guy is everywhere lately) as Jon, an aspiring musician (keyboard player and songwriter) in Scotland who gets a chance to fill in on keyboards for an up-and-coming band called the Soronprfbs when their keyboardist tries to kill himself during a stop in his hometown.

 

The leader singer of the band is Frank, who always wears a giant paper-mache head (completely with a battery powered fan and plug for his microphone) and is played by Michael Fassbender (another guy that's everywhere lately).  Jon ends up joining the band and accompianying them to Ireland to record their next album.  This Ireland sequence takes up the bulk of the film.  The other band members are a keyboard / theremin player played by Maggie Gyllenhaal (who is as terrific as always) and a French man and woman on guitar and drums and the relationships between all the characters as well as their manager Don is explored.  I expected it all to built up to a big climax, but I found the third act to be kind of a weird disappointment.

 

This might be the kind of film that grows on you, or that just isn't relateable to everyone, I'm not sure.  It explores some interesting themes such as mental illness, artistry, the public's perception of your art vs your own perception, putting your life experiences into your art, and lots more.  It's a fairly deep film that might not be the most relateable but its clear a lot of passion went into it.  I might check it out again some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/05/2016 at 7:38 PM, Jay said:

Frank9.jpg (1600×678)

 

 

 

Frank

 

I was expecting more from this movie.  It's I guess a dark comedy starring Domhall Gleeson (that guy is everywhere lately) as Jon, an aspiring musician (keyboard player and songwriter) in Scotland who gets a chance to fill in on keyboards for an up-and-coming band called the Soronprfbs when their keyboardist tries to kill himself during a stop in his hometown.

 

The leader singer of the band is Frank, who always wears a giant paper-mache head (completely with a battery powered fan and plug for his microphone) and is played by Michael Fassbender (another guy that's everywhere lately).  Jon ends up joining the band and accompianying them to Ireland to record their next album.  This Ireland sequence takes up the bulk of the film.  The other band members are a keyboard / theremin player played by Maggie Gyllenhaal (who is as terrific as always) and a French man and woman on guitar and drums and the relationships between all the characters as well as their manager Don is explored.  I expected it all to built up to a big climax, but I found the third act to be kind of a weird disappointment.

 

This might be the kind of film that grows on you, or that just isn't relateable to everyone, I'm not sure.  It explores some interesting themes such as mental illness, artistry, the public's perception of your art vs your own perception, putting your life experiences into your art, and lots more.  It's a fairly deep film that might not be the most relateable but its clear a lot of passion went into it.  I might check it out again some time.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Sievey#Frank_Sidebottom

History of the 'Frank' character, thought it might possibly be of interest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it was partially based on a real dude; Doesn't make the movie any better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maximus-commodus.jpg

 

Gladiator

 

I've only ever seen this film one other time, and it was years ago. I was not a fan as it rang pretty hollow for me. But a lot seems to have changed, and it's aged very well for me! I still don't buy it as some "profound" take on the genre, and some of the drained colours rub me the wrong way. But there's something strikingly old-fashioned about its sensibilities, at least when compared to the big budget flicks of today. It has a "refreshing" air of classic Hollywood epic that just works as an experience. You can't help but sit there and be taken away by the melodrama of it all. And a huge part of that owes itself to Zimmer's score, whose mix of Wagnerian, sturm-und-drang character and new-age elements essentially define the film. It's only ever let down by the blaring synth overdubs in the louder action moments (a prevailing weakness of early Zimmer scores of this kind...would love to see a live-to-projection performance someday). It's big, impressive, manipulative and very effective. Tie that in with great performances, and expertly choreographed action scenes and you have a rather fine picture indeed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With me it's the other way around. At first, I was "entertained" and I thought it was a good crowd pleaser, the Spartacus of its time. Today I think Spartacus can't hold a candle to Kubrick's other movies. My interest in it has diminished greatly. I admit, the last time I watched Gladiator, it was the long version and maybe that was the wrong thing to do. 

 

 

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russel Crowe trully carries the film in a way I've seen very few actors carry a project of this scale, but the script is often quite bad. But it's one hell of a performance, I don't think any actor at the time could have bested him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might have seen it twice in theaters too - I was in college in 2000 and everyone loved it. Haven't seen it once since then, so never seen that extended cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Ah, the good old days, right?

No. Not everyone loved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jay said:

I might have seen it twice in theaters too - I was in college in 2000 and everyone loved it. Haven't seen it once since then, so never seen that extended cut.

The extended cut is literally just the theatrical with the deleted scenes put back in. If I remember correctly, all of Ridley's theatrical cuts are his final cuts, outside of a couple obvious exceptions like Blade Runner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kingdom of Heaven is always cited as an exception to the rule of extended cuts; It's universally praised as a fair superior cut than the theatrical

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

With me it's the other way around. At first, I was "entertained" and I thought it was a good crowd pleaser, the Spartacus of its time. Today I think Spartacus can't hold a candle to Kubrick's other movies. My interest in it has diminished greatly. I admit, the last time I watched Gladiator, it was the long version and maybe that was the wrong thing to do. 

 

 

Alex

 

Maybe because it's been so long for me?

 

Like Romao said, the script doesn't really do it much good either, but the gusto with which Crowe, Phoenix and others deliver the product makes the entertainment. I just had a good time with it, which I was not expecting. Not sure if it's something I'll really revisit anytime soon though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the script is very good, actually. This is swords and sandals we're talking about here, and all the classic themes of the genre are present and correct, it's all satisfyingly melodramatic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, it was something you could overlook fairly easily because of the spirit of the whole affair. I'm not sure if the script was very good, but I didn't mind it. It falters when it tries to go the spiritual/philosophical route and tries to be something it's not (though the grain imagery was poignant and effective as well). The little gestures, the political scheming, the revenge story; felt more in line with an old-fashioned swords-and-sandals epic and in that sense was rather entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it was a really long time ago. It seemed drab, ponderous and just plain boring. Didn't really stick with me I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, crocodile said:

"Fixed"? Not quite. Improved? Vastly.

 

Karol

 

Yes, indeed, although there is still the problem of Orlando Bloom.

 

Gladiator does have some great scenes (I love the scene when Commodus commits patricide and his final scene with his sister), but the quality really is all over the place. The first scene between Maximus and Lucilla, and the first scene between the siblings really are cringe worthy. The opening battle still rocks (probably more the setting up than the battle itself, though)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen KOH in the theatre and I've seen the extended cut twice on Blu-ray. That must be some kind of record. For instance, I've seen G.I. Jane only once!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Hannibal for me

is that like catching Syphillis? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mean Girls

 

Tina Fey should write more comedies. The writing is crisp and funny without being crass, and Mark Waters directs it wonderfully. All the up-and-coming actors (including Rachel McAdams) take to Fey's dialogue like a fish in water, and the result is a fast-paced, engaging, and funny movie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oz: The Great & Powerful

 

This would've been so much better had Sam Raimi convinced Robert Downey Jr. to play the lead role. James Franco just doesn't feel right in the role. Even though his character supposedly goes through a character arc of a con man becoming a good man, he doesn't change though the script says otherwise. He doesn't have the fraction of the charisma and snark RDJ brings to the table, and it shows. And let's not forget the horribly miscast Mila Kunis, who is not a convincing witch who gets her heart broken. Every time she speaks, I hear Jackie from "That '70s Show" and it draws me out. And her evil laugh is cringe-inducing.

 

It's a deep shame because the rest of the cast is actually really good. Such a missed opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.