Jump to content

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


Mr. Breathmask

Recommended Posts

Phantasm (1979)

 

I wasn't feelin' this one, the first in this month where I didn't care for any aspect and just skipped through the last half hour.

Suspiria it ain't, in any case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lethal Weapon 2 

Very good, but Riggs should have died at the end. 4/4

 

Lethal Weapon 3

Not so very good.  Does not have nearly as much emotional impact as the first two.  Direction is a bit half-hearted.  Cheesy at times.  I don't feel Riggs' romance here. 2/4

 

Lethal Weapon 4

Entertaining enough.  Some nice parts, but nothing to really go into at length.  2.5/4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the car chase after the Mercedes with a stop at the mobile home ain't that bad at all.  And, the scene where Riggs' car gets hit from behind onto the train tracks, that one quite effectively shatters a calm atmosphere, and yet, you kind of think back and realize you should have seen it coming.  Best kind of surprise.

Hmmm, I might try to watch 4 again completely on its own, maybe I'll come round to giving it a 3/4.

Just now, Richard said:

What's the LW where Joss Ackland keeps saying "deeplomatieec eeemuneeety"?

No. 2.  The best of the bunch, to me at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indecent Proposal.

 

The first half provided some interesting food for thought, but then I found myself putting all my principles aside, getting really tired of the husband (actor and character) and slowly starting to like Robert Redford, who I had never seen in anything before. Obviously, I didn't like the cheesy finale. This was my first Demi Moore movie after Hunchback of Notre Dame. She was mostly all right, but her arguments with Woody Harrelson were just terrible.

John Barry's score was extremely predictable and repetitive, but nice all the same. The sound mix was excellent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the fashion and hairstyles in that movie. Even Woody's receding hairline looked good, but Barry's score is ridiculous on top of ridiculousness as he clunkily apologises to Demi Moore in the rain.

 

The content is trashy trying to pass itself off as classy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barry Lyndon. 

 

Dont have time to write a full review of this but I absolutely loved it. Everything about it. 

 

Special mention to the cinematography though. Beautifully shot, it could have been made yesterday. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

So? Do you hate a movie because the lead is a serial killer?

 

 

It seems that Koray doesn't want to respond to my question so I'll have to discuss it with you, Steef. 

 

 

Does a lead role always have to be morally perfect? 

 

 

 

We’ve had the exact discussion before and Steef answered it perfectly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bilbo said:

Barry Lyndon. 

 

Beautifully shot, it could have been made yesterday. 

 

Minus perhaps the use of graduated filters, and the film's odd aspect ratio of 1.66:1, which now has been changed (cropped) to 1.78:1.

 

2 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

We’ve had the exact discussion before and Steef answered it perfectly. 

 

Well, I don't understand your motivation. Perhaps you could ask Steef to elaborate? Or give a link to an earlier discussion? Because I don't remember we talked about this before.

 

12 hours ago, publicist said:

The Lyne version wasn't better than the Kubrick (it was made in 1997 if i remember right). Making it a dark comedy is probably your best guess.

 

 

Never seen the Adrian Lyne version. Kubrick regretted that he couldn't emphasise Humbert's sexual obsession (like Nabokov did in his novel). I guess that wasn't a problem in 1997 when Lyne made his adaptation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bilbo said:

Barry Lyndon. 

 

Dont have time to write a full review of this but I absolutely loved it. Everything about it. 

 

Special mention to the cinematography though. Beautifully shot, it could have been made yesterday. 

 

Here you get a glimpse of how this was achieved. Kubrick worked like Sir David Lean, who was also a taskmaster and famously forced the Ireland shoot of 'Ryan's Daughter' to stretch well into a year because the weather changed within minutes. But he was right: without those images, this movie would have been a crushing bore.

 

 

45 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

Never seen the Adrian Lyne version. Kubrick regretted that he couldn't emphasise Humbert's sexual obsession (like Nabokov did in his novel). I guess that wasn't a problem in 1997 when Lyne made his adaptation.

 

The '62 film seemed to profit from its chasteness. These restrictions famously brought us some great masterpieces because writers and directors had to find compelling ways to smuggle the smut in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, publicist said:

The '62 film seemed to profit from its chasteness. These restrictions famously brought us some great masterpieces because writers and directors had to find compelling ways to smuggle the smut in.

 

One of my favorite examples of this is A Streetcar Named Desire: the original play features many things, such as prostitution and homosexuality, that were taboo at the time. As such, in the film they use euphemisms and very indirect language to describe all of these things. However, due to the psychological state of the main character, where she brushes away or shuts out the grittier aspects of her life in an attempt to live a "pure" fantasy, the "whitewashed" lines inadvertently reflect her character, and I actually prefer the censored dialogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched Tarkovsky's Solaris last night. I'm not entirely convinced it is exactly as clever as it thinks it is but it was interesting for the most part, mostly when Tarkovsky deviates from the novel.  But he's done better films than this. I can understand why Lem hated this one.

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Why do you think the movie or Tarkovsky wants to be clever?

 

 

To me, Solyaris is mainly a trance-inducing mood piece with some philosophical ramifications. Maybe I missed something ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 Why do you think the movie or Tarkovsky wants to be clever?

 

 

To me, Solyaris is mainly a trance-inducing mood piece with some philosophical ramifications. Maybe I missed something ...

Your answered your own question right there.

 

For some reason philosophical themes and s-f never quite works for me. The metaphors tend to be really heavy-handed and hokey. Unless you're doing a cute philosophy like Star Trek.

 

And yes, it also bothers me about Interestellar. ;)

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, crocodile said:

 

 

For some reason philosophical themes and s-f never quite works for me. The metaphors tend to be really heavy-handed and hokey. Unless you're doing a cute philosophy like Star Trek.

 

 

 

 

 

You mean Kubrick and Tarkovsky can't hold a candle to Star Trek? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

You mean Kubrick and Tarkovsky can't hold a candle to Star Trek? 

Haha not quite. I just don't like "big themes and questions" in s-f. I love 2001 as a film. But it doesn't really hold much water as philosophical discourse. I was disappointed how simple and banal it was. But it's marvellous technical feat to be sure and a terrific experience (especially on big screen). I also love it as a piece of filmmaking and how it takes full advantage of the visual. Here, I think, is where it earns its legendary status. But intellectual content? Nah. 

 

Same with Blade Runner actually. I don't find the nature Deckard a very interesting subject to spend 36 years of your time debating! It's simply not interesting to me. Too heavy-handed.

 

I brought up Star Trek as a contrast because it isn't as serious. It's cute.

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, crocodile said:

Haha not quite. I just don't like "big themes and questions" in s-f. I love 2001 as a film. But it doesn't really hold much water as philosophical discourse

 

But does 2001 actively ask you any questions? I never got that impression. It certainly doesnt provide any answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

But does 2001 actively ask you any questions? I never got that impression. It certainly doesnt provide any answers.

I didn't say it did. I was talking in general. But whatever it attempts to convey doesn't stimulate me. That was my point.

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. I don't there is much to be gleaned from 2001, intellectually. There's nothing in there that cannot be found in great piece of literature etc. It's nothing new.

 

But I also have to admit though here that my interest in film medium is mostly technical. I like to learn about technicalities and every aspect of the process. I generally buy Blu-rays for extras because this is what fascinates me. The films themselves and their content doesn't interest me that much.

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, crocodile said:

 

Same with Blade Runner actually. I don't find the nature Deckard a very interesting subject to spend 36 years of your time debating! It's simply not interesting to me. Too heavy-handed.

 

 

That's just a small aspect of what the content of Blade Runner is. As you should know, it wasn't even part of the plot before the release of the DC, which came 10 later.  It's merely a little jokey 'bonus' that Scott 'contributed' to the whole, but it's not what the movie is about.

 

It makes me wonder what it is that you actually have taken away from Solyaris and 2001, crocs. Most of what these movies offer (intellectually) is not literal (or part of the plot), but rather something you yourself have to bring to the table. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, publicist said:

The '62 film seemed to profit from its chasteness. These restrictions famously brought us some great masterpieces because writers and directors had to find compelling ways to smuggle the smut in.

And you consider Lolita one of these masterpieces? At least I do.

The 1997 version is just terrible, because of no restrictions. Why that awful death scene? It is as appropriate as ketchup on a chocolate bar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, crocodile said:

There's nothing in there that cannot be found in great piece of literature etc. It's nothing new.

 

But literature is a completely different genre. The visual matery is exactly the point of 2001; ASO. It tells a story cinematically in a way no sci-fi movie ever did before.

 

I guess all the visual effects extravaganza films that came after ruined 2001 for you.

 

1 minute ago, Alexcremers said:

It makes me wonder what it is that you actually have taken away from Solyaris and 2001, crocs. Most of what these movies offer not literal (or part of the plot), but rather something you yourself have to bring to the table.

 

Don't forget Alex, that Karol is one of the Nolan disciples here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

It makes me wonder what it is that you actually have taken away from Solyaris and 2001, crocs. Most of what these movies offer not literal (or part of the plot), but rather something you yourself have to bring to the table. 

Of course, because I have no means or brain capacity to grasp this concept, Alex. ;)

 

@Stefancos. Yes, it does convey it visually and that is where the film excels. But it's meaningless if you learn nothing new from it regardless.

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brundlefly said:

And you consider Lolita one of these masterpieces? At least I do.

 

'Masterpiece' is one of these stuffy words. Let's say it's one of those movies that stay with you, like it often happened with Kubrick. Even if you don't like it in toto there are scenes and ideas (or performances) you will remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

 

Don't forget Alex, that Karol is one of the Nolan desciples here.

 

Exactly my thoughts, Steef. Blade Runner and 2001 have simple plots and that could be a problem for Nolanites. 

 

I prefer complex movies with simple plots over simple movies with complex plots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, crocodile said:

@Stefancos. Yes, it does convey it visually and that is where the film excels. But it's meaningless if you learn nothing new from it regardless.

 

Who says one can't learn anything new from 2001? Really Karol, the problem seems to be within yourself, not these movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stefancos said:

 

Who says one can't learn anything new from 2001? Really Karol, the problem seems to be within yourself, not these movies.

What did you learn? What did I miss?

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, crocodile said:

What did you learn? What did I miss?

 

Karol

 

See, that would be telling! We each have to take our own lessons from movies like this. Right @Alexcremers

 

2 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

The question is already too rational. Do you like Lynch's movies? I'd guess no.

 

I would assume not. Karol is someone who needs to be told what a movie is about. The director has to instruct him in some way, so he can learn from it. It's very common, and there's nothing wrong with it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brundlefly said:

The question is already too rational. Do you like Lynch's movies? I'd guess no.

I like most of them.

 

No need to be condescending.

 

Karol

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.