Jump to content

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


Mr. Breathmask

Recommended Posts

I'm not a fan of Harry Potter, but I'm going through the movies right now.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Kazakhstan (or something like that)

Similar set up to its two predecessors- The Philosopher's Rock and The Chamber of Stuff- in that it begins with a catastrophic use of magic amongst the Dursleys, Harry somehow gets to where he needs to be by means of an enchanted vehicle, he gets to school and whammo a new dark arts professor (bad history there), Quidditch matches, Christmas at Hogwarts, Snape acts like an ass but then turns out to have actually been helping people, Harry Potter faints so that they don't have to explain an extended period of time (speaking of which the time travelling was super confusing-why was Hermione allowed to be seen time travelling before but when she does it with Harry they have to stay out of sight?).John Williams (blessed be) is the saving fate of this movie and its otherwise a disappointing film. Fans may say what they will, but this is Jerry's honest opinion. Hoping for better things later in the series (I'm told they will come).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

Hoping for better things later in the series (I'm told they will come).

 

Were you also told by a homeless dude with a rag that you would attract all the ladies if you got your shoes shined by him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2018 at 6:34 AM, Richard said:

DOCTOR WHO: THE MOVIE.

I wish I hadn't. Why did I do it to myself?


McGann is great, though. And finally, the budget to do the Tardis interior justice! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Its the best of these Potter films.

No I find it the least enjoyable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are other films in the series that can claim to the title of the best entry. Namely, The Order of the Phoenix, and possibly even The Half-Blood Prince. But I'd say yes, The Prisoner of Azkaban is probably the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Artistically and objectively speaking, I'd say POA is the best. That's what you're supposed to say anyway, right? It's become sacrilege to say otherwise, and frankly, if you're a real student of cinema, you can see just how well made that film is, and on how many levels it manages to succeed. 

 

Truthfully speaking though, as a matter of pure enjoyment, from my perspective I enjoyed OOTP and probably a couple of the other Yates films more.  And that one definitely doesn't say in polite film society.

 

It's like my sister's insistence that Jaws 2 is better than Jaws. Wrong, perhaps, but de gustibus non eat disputandum, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

I enjoyed OOTP and probably a couple of the other Yates films more.

 

Its possible that upon rewatch I'll find that I like Order of the Phoenix more, as well.

 

Although that film, like The Half-Blood Prince, was a grower for me: I wasn't taken-in on first viewing. But upon rewatch? fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no problem in having a disagreement, but its worthwhile for both sides to present their arguments, in hope of an inteligible discussion.

 

I, for one, would be very much interested in the reasons as to why you didn't like the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never caught on to Harry Potter. I'm already an avid SW, Middle Earth fan so anything more would be too much fandom for me. Not my cup of tea although I do acknowledge that they were a cultural phenomena. I don't hate them, I kind of dislike them, and some parts are good. I hate arguing because a lot of times my reasons aren't tangible to others. I was merely commenting on the fact that John and I always seem to oppose, with all respect and good tidings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1972's Tales From The Crypt. Thoroughly entertaining B horror films with way to red blood and over the top fiendishness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

I never caught on to Harry Potter.

 

Same here. I gave up on the books very early on, and didn't continue following up the films shortly thereafter.

 

But having rewatched them (in fact in this time of year, which is a holidays' time here) I found a couple of them outright great, including the film you express dislike to; and as a series (Fantastic Beasts currently notwithstanding), it actually has a better overarching ebb-and-flow than, say, Star Wars ever did or would.

 

That isn't to say that I can't understand your dislike, if you only explain why you dislike this particular film. I'm genuinely interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Its possible that upon rewatch I'll find that I like Order of the Phoenix more, as well.

 

Although that film, like The Half-Blood Prince, was a grower for me: I wasn't taken-in on first viewing. But upon rewatch? fantastic.

 

It's really not that complicated. They're kids movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

It's really not that complicated. They're kids movies.

 

It’s not at all complicated. It’s just that I felt more affected by the film the second time around. I suppose some of it stems from knowing where the story ends, after having watched all eight films previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never finished Harry Potter and don't actually know how it all ends other than I know Hagrid dies. I think I got as far as Order of the Phoenix. Which was the one with the big camp site scene? That's the last movie I saw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Sirius' resurrection made up for it.

 

 

 

Indy trilogy

 

Raiders is the only one which can be called masterful filmmaking all the way through, but Temple of Doom is so much more interesting and fun on the whole! Every dial of every aspect is turned up to 15 out of 10, I'm at a loss how anyone could hate it. Everything in it is finetuned to make fun of itself and entertain you, except on the lowest point of its story arc where it genuinely succeeds in making you feel down, only to bring you back up with a nonstop action-adventure barrage. 

I didn't like Last Crusade that much this time around. Connery is the best part, but it's mostly a Raiders retread with writing, acting and effects probably the weakest in the whole trilogy. The temple is really underwhelming - oh, you need markers and maps and long-destroyed cities to find this hidden place where no one has set foot in a thousand years - oh, it's just Petra, my neighbor's been there on holiday. I don't know if it was that known in '89, but was it that much cheaper to get everyone down to Jordan than to make a few creative matte paintings with the lower facade of the made up building recreated in some Arizona or Nevada rocks, or even on a backlot? Seems insignificant to ramble on about, but it really takes the weight of the third act away, even if the pitch-perfectly staged gunshot reclaims it and then some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Holko said:

Temple of Doom is so much more interesting and fun on the whole! I'm at a loss how anyone could hate it. 

 

How are people who take themselves very seriously supposed to extract any sort of enjoyment out of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Holko said:

I didn't like Last Crusade that much this time around. Connery is the best part, but it's mostly a Raiders retread with writing, acting and effects probably the weakest in the whole trilogy. The temple is really underwhelming[...]Its just Petra.

 

Interesting perspective. I'd say its the best of three. Its plot retreads a lot of Raiders, granted, but the story is simultaneousy more funny and more weighty. It also balances a larger cast more effectivelly, with Salah, Brody, the Villain and the Femme Fatale all making their contributions to the plot, and the end notes are such a wonderful conclusion of this series, that they should have made anyone working on Kingdom of the Crystal Skull resign, if they ever saw them during pre-production.

 

I didn't have problem with the location of Petra, even though its probably a four or five hours from my home by car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, one more thing, Crusade has the only moment in the trilogy where I cannot suspend my disbelief: the Path of God. Inflating boats surviving jumps, hearts being ripped out with the subject surviving and the kind are perfectly consistent with the plot armor and "movie logic" the kind of movies Temple already proved itself to be usually have. Even only certain letters crumbling, when we see from underneath none of them have any support is acceptable. But forced perspective is a very fickle thing, and as it's shown, doesn't work when the viewer moves. It only works when the subject viewing it has one eye, doesn't breathe, and is exactly the height the trick was designed for. Indy already fails the first of these criteria: he has spatial vision, he should see the bloody bridge! If it was spotless, dustless, perfect glass or a mirror or something, I'd accept that more easily than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Holko said:

Oh, one more thing, Crusade has the only moment in the trilogy where I cannot suspend my disbelief: the Path of God.

 

It was the power of God...or something.

 

Didn't you go to Sunday school?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Didn't you go to Sunday school?

 

 

44 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

how different the character of Indy is in Temple of Doom

 

Well he is one year younger...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As any Biblical scholar will tell you, Moses did not put the broken pieces in the ark. He went back up Mt. Horeb, and had a second set made.

God would never tolerate something tainted or broken, in his home, which, to the Hebrews, was what the Ark was.

It's all there, in Exodus 34.

I've always wondered why they got that bit wrong. Was it deliberate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Quintus said:

I never finished Harry Potter and don't actually know how it all ends other than I know Hagrid dies. I think I got as far as Order of the Phoenix. Which was the one with the big camp site scene? That's the last movie I saw.

Hagrid doesn't die and the one with the big camp scene was Goblet of Fire which is before Order.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Quintus said:

I never finished Harry Potter and don't actually know how it all ends other than I know Hagrid dies. I think I got as far as Order of the Phoenix. Which was the one with the big camp site scene? That's the last movie I saw.

 

Hagrid doesn't die, and the camping scenes are in the 7th movie; there's only 8 movies so you only missed the last one.

 

 

3 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

What struck me most in my last rewatch of these movies is how different the character of Indy is in Temple of Doom and Last Crusade vs. Raiders. 

 

Can you elaborate on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Jay said:

Can you elaborate on that?

 

Well in Raiders, Indy always struck me as more of an academic first and an adventurer second. To this end, he was a little nerdish and awkward...I'm thinking of his "Am I in some kind of trouble" to Marcus, his shy and awkward moments with Marion on the freighter, and his generally disarming nature as an "everyman" who gets swept of into adventures for work.

 

In TOD, he's much more of straight up tough guy adventurer looking for his "fortune and glory". There's almost a James Bond vibe about him. I guess you could argue that since this is technically a prequel, he'd changed by the of Raiders, but I didn't see that character development on the screen. And in both TOD and Last Crusade he's much more of a ladies man than he is in Raiders (perhaps necessitated by GL's decision to have a different "Indy girl" for each film). He even exudes a kind of arrogance.  It also always bothered me a bit that in TOD he's regarded as some sort of famous archaeologist. It sort of reminds me of when in one of the lesser Moore films (can't remember which one) Bond was referred to as the "famous secret agent".

 

These are just minor observations, I love all three films, but I do think what the character fundamentally was in Raiders shifted a bit. 

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.