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

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Clueless!  Sense and Sensibility!  Babe!

[publicist 4,643]

Jeez, i saw all that stuff.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

24 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

1995 had Braveheart, Se7en, Toy Story, The Usual Suspects, Before Sunrise and GoldenEye.

So? Not a really good year?

[publicist 4,643]

It was. Tickets were around 5 Deutsche Mark back then.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

36 minutes ago, John said:

Don't forget 1994!

 

Pulp Fiction
Forrest Gump
The Shawshank Redemption

Léon the Professional

The Lion King

Hoop Dreams

Stop using things like Forrest Gump, Braveheart and Platoon to argue that it was a pretty damn good year for films!

[John 2,032]

But it was!

[Chen G. 3,949]

 

4 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

Stop including things like[...]Braveheart[...]to argue that it was a pretty damn good year for films!

 

Right you are!

 

Rather, It was an outstanding year for film, for Braveheart alone.😉

[publicist 4,643]

For 15 year olds.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Unpopular opinion: I find The Patriot better than Braveheart.

Fact: The Patriot is better than Braveheart.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Clueless is one of the great comedy films

[Chen G. 3,949]

6 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

The Patriot is better than Braveheart.

 

No.

[publicist 4,643]

'A Man for all Seasons' is a better film than Braveheart. And probably three dozen other historical epics from the 60's. 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Yeah I'd rather watch Becket

[Chen G. 3,949]

I'd say its the best of the genre.

 

I get that some people have an issue with the black-and-white nature of the conflict or the characters. But honestly, I don't think this kind of mythicism is so simplistic to the human condition: History has proven time and again that it isn't.

 

And while Wallace's motivations are never questioned by the film, at least his detractors are given sound reasoning rather than strawmen arguments. For instance, The Bruce senior: "Uncompromising men are easy to admire. He has courage, so does a dog; but it is exactly the ability to compromise that makes a man noble".

 

Certain aspects of the film - both in the script and the way its shot - read to me as attempts at unpacking the epic genre, with its archaic dialogue, romanticism and sanitized violence.

 

I came to the conclusion that great films are potentially-terrible films that aren't actually terrible. Just about every turn that Bravheart takes could have led downhil, right to the realm of cinematic excrement. And every time it sidesteps that traejectory and rises to new heights.

 

And because its themes are so simple, they can engage the audience not on an intellectual level, but on a visceral one. And ultimately, that's what cinema does best.

[publicist 4,643]

Haha. Get off your blockbuster diet once in a while, kiddo.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Speaking of historical films, I can't wait to see The Favourite.  Olivia Colman is better than everything!

[KK 3,307]

It looks like the Lanthimos film that'll finally fire on all cylinders. Looking forward to it!

[publicist 4,643]

The allusions to Trump are obvious.

[Chen G. 3,949]

12 minutes ago, publicist said:

Haha. Get off your blockbuster diet once in a while, kiddo.

 

Do you have that in a more condescending size?

 

There's a reason blockbusters are block-busters, y'know.

[publicist 4,643]

Just now, Chen G. said:

There's a reason blockbusters are block-busters, y'know.

 

Yeah, because it's overgrown boys like you who will always leap for the simplest stuff, like adolescent revenge fantasies presented to them as 'important' historical epics, leavened with good old violence and awful clichés about eternal love. Your taste in movies is just awful. IMHO, of course.

[Chen G. 3,949]

52 minutes ago, publicist said:

the simplest stuff, like adolescent revenge fantasies presented to them as 'important' historical epics

 

I have a saying about storytelling: The emotional impact of a film is the exact inverse of the intellectual complexity of its themes.

 

After all, cinema, more than any other artform, is the one that evokes the most emotion in us. Therefore, to me, its an artform that works best when it seeks to stimulate our emotion, rather than our intellect: for cerebral stuff, I'll read books and articles, thank you very much. That doesn't make film a lesser art, as some would contend: it just operates on a different level.

 

Therefore, the simplest themes - and yes, that includes revenge, romance, friendship and sacrifice - are the most inherently cinematic, and work best in that format. So much of contemporary cinema is emotionally sanitzed, either for cerebral aspirations or for fear of being labeled histrionic. So when a film has the courage to dial such simple themes to the max - as Braveheart does - it deserves commeding, if only for its earnestness.

[John 2,032]

6 minutes ago, publicist said:

Yeah, because it's overgrown boys like you who will always leap for the simplest stuff, like adolescent revenge fantasies presented to them as 'important' historical epics, leavened with good old violence and awful clichés about eternal love. Your taste in movies is just awful. IMHO, of course.

 

Just my two cents, but there are better ways of engaging in a debate than namecalling and insulting people's taste.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

1994 did have Star Trek: Generations...

[publicist 4,643]

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Cinema, more than any other artform, is the one that appeals the most to our emotion. Therefore, to me, its an artform that works best when it seeks to stimulate our emotion, rather than our intellect: for cerebral stuff, I'll read books and articles, thank you very much.

 

Therefore, the simplest themes - and yes, that includes revenge, romance, friendship and sacrifice - are the most inherently cinematic, and work best in that format; and when a film has the courage to dial them up to the max, as Braveheart does - I think it deserves commending, if only for its earnestness.

 

 

You always seem to look for rationalizations why stuff you like has to be some important landmark in movie history. That is not the case here, neither aesthetically nor in content. It's a rather shallow entertaining movie with good photography - i would choose Michael Collins or Rob Roy over it any day, but why should we again argue about these things...it's just not a very fertile field.

10 minutes ago, John said:

Just my two cents, but there are better ways of engaging in a debate than namecalling and insulting people's taste.

 

Gee John, how terribly sensitive we are!

[Chen G. 3,949]

41 minutes ago, publicist said:

You always seem to look for rationalizations why stuff you like has to be some important landmark in movie history. That is not the case here, neither aesthetically nor in content. It's a rather shallow entertaining movie

 

Imporant landmark? Hardly. Its been done before, and done since. It wasn't terribly influential, either, namly because it wasn't much of a blockbuster and turned out a relatively small profit. But it is one of the films that does this sort of thing best.

 

At any rate, I was raving about 1995 in jest, anyway.

 

And really, my enjoyment of film is rarely effected by how influential that film is. I distinguish between liking a film (on the basis of personal preference, sometimes in spite of its flaws), revering a film (on the basis of its more objective parameters), and appreciating a film (for its influence on the artform or the industry). Of the three criteria, appreciation is by far the least important.

 

And, again, it is this film's appearant shallowness that is the source of its effectiveness, as it is with so many archetypal stories.

 

Its by no means a run-by-the-mill film, either: its long, violent, grim, and very unusually structured - with a plot that doesn't kick-in until the one-hour mark, and - after the Battle of Falkirk - goes on-hold until Wallace goes to Edinborough. The subject-matter wasn't terribly appealing for 90s audiences, either, and the genre has been dead for three decades at the time. That it worked at all is a miracle. Need I remind you that I'm not a patriotic person, so that I like this film as much as I do speaks volumes for its quality.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

51 minutes ago, publicist said:

Gee John, how terribly sensitive we are!

 

JWFan Millennial.  Have we ever had such a high goody two shoes population before?  This is why Drax offed himself.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

2 hours ago, John said:

 

Don't forget 1994!

 

Pulp Fiction
Forrest Gump
The Shawshank Redemption

Léon the Professional

The Lion King

Hoop Dreams

 

The Hudsucker Proxy

[John 2,032]

16 minutes ago, TGP said:

JWFan Millennial.  Have we ever had such a high goody two shoes population before?  

 

Hardly. I'll admit I've been known to be a dick on occasion.

 

17 minutes ago, TGP said:

This is why Drax offed himself.

 

Not funny.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

3 minutes ago, John said:

Not funny.

 

It's always funnier when someone says it's not funny.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Law Abiding Citizen is a great movie! So complex, so multilayered! It's better than any Denis Villeneuve films! These are one-dimensional crap!

[Fabulin 3,513]

.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

6 minutes ago, Fabulin said:

The first time I heard about Braveheart, it was from a high school coursebook, where it served as an example for "critical failures in historical accuracy in modern culture". I watched it and additionally found it boring, dirty and sappy. The Patriot also has many problems, but at least the costumes, architecture and landscapes are prettier and the characters more relatable due to closer historical proximity.

That's what I meant.

[Fancyarcher 350]

The Conformist - Absolutely stunning. A thrilling unforgettable masterpiece with a fantastic lead performance by Jean-Louis Trintignant. Super mesmerizing as well. Also features truly fantastic cinematography and editing, a real 'trip". - 10 / 10

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

6 hours ago, John said:

 Hardly. I'll admit I've been known to be a dick on occasion.

 

A true dick isn't a dick just on special occasions!

[Chen G. 3,949]

5 hours ago, Fabulin said:

The first time I heard about Braveheart, it was from a high school coursebook, where it served as an example for "critical failures in historical accuracy in modern culture". I watched it and additionally found it boring, dirty and sappy.

 

I’m a historian. But when it comes to narrative films, I don’t need historical accuracy in the slightest: that’s what documentaries are for.

 

I can see how someone will find the film sappy, but in other times I think it sidesteps that style, especially compared to the pre-production script. Whether it’s through killing the dialogue (the betrayal of The Bruce, completely wordless in the film, is very melodramatic and talky on the page) or throwing in some irreverent humor and/or violence.

[A24 4,335]

8 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

 

There's a reason blockbusters are block-busters, y'know.

 

Is it because they are great? The more money a movie generates the better it is?

 

9 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

Clueless is one of the great comedy films

 

Sarcasm?

[Chen G. 3,949]

No.

 

But the fact that this form of entertainment is the dominant one for over four decades now - that says something.

 

Its all too easy to make an intelligent film on a small, arthouse scale. Its much harder to do the same on a blockbuster.

[A24 4,335]

6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

No.

 

But the fact that this form of entertainment is the dominant one for over four decades says something.

 

 

 

I'm sure it's saying something but what? That was kinda my question. 

[publicist 4,643]

8 hours ago, Chen G. said:

That it worked at all is a miracle. Need I remind you that I'm not a patriotic person, so that I like this film as much as I do speaks volumes for its quality.

 

It's basically a comic movie with british quality thespians in secondary roles (just that it's Scotland, not Asgard). It's not a miracle. And it's handsomely mounted. Either way, you can love it as much as you want (why shouldn't you) but i will always rail against Trumpian reasoning á la 'best historical movie ever' - it is, for an audience of teenage boys and since that time, it only got worse (i watch a marquee and want to vomit). Despite all other things you named (not wrong per se) this movie is also a symptom of a society dumbed down by simplistic entertainment, relegating more literate approaches to the fringes. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

7 minutes ago, publicist said:

i will always rail against Trumpian reasoning á la 'best historical movie ever'

 

Fair.

 

7 minutes ago, publicist said:

this movie is also a symptom of a society dumbed down by simplistic entertainment, relegating more literate approaches to the fringes. 

 

Simplistic isn't a bad thing when it comes to cinema.

 

Its an emotional medium first, and a cerebral one - second.

[publicist 4,643]

Chen, the current political climate should tell you how this kind of simplicity works over a longer period of time. Your thesis stinks not because a movie can't be simple but because the emotional manipulation you think so highly of can and will be abused and the more gullible the public becomes, the worse it gets. Goebbels could tell you a thing or two about it.

[Chen G. 3,949]

20 minutes ago, publicist said:

the emotional manipulation you think so highly of can and will be abused and the more gullible the public becomes, the worse it gets. Goebbels could tell you a thing or two about it.

 

Good grief, its entertainment! You grossly overstate the suggestive capabilities of narrative cinema, I'm afraid. To the best of my knowledge, its been proven to be entirely negligible: people don't see a violent film and go out looking for a brawl.

 

I find the comparison to Goebbels (whose efforts trafficed more in advertisment and mockumentaries, if I'm not mistaken) to be wildly demagogic. So the cinematic medium can be abused for nefarious purposes - what can't?

[A24 4,335]

36 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Its an emotional medium first, and a cerebral one - second.

 

Everything goes through the cerebrum, not the heart.

[publicist 4,643]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

Good grief, its entertainment! You grossly overstate the suggestive capabilities of narrative cinema, I'm afraid. To the best of my knowledge, its been proven to be entirely negligible: people don't see a violent film and go out looking for a brawl.

 

I find the comparison to Goebbels (whose efforts trafficed more in advertisment and mockumentaries, if I'm not mistaken) to be wildly demagogic. So the cinematic medium can be abused for nefarious purposes - what can't?

 

I don't think i do, i just look at the bigger *ahemm* picture. And no, people don't play video games and go out for a shooting but that was not what i was suggesting. I am critical of trends in products of culture, i. e. movies - and people hailing them - going for affects rather than thinking about or observing the machinations behind them - which are pretty much movies like Braveheart, The Patriot, a boatload of gross comedies that are mysogynist, racist and so on, and what else american cinema has unloaded on us in the last 30 years. With the added disadvantage they validated Braveheart showering it with prizes (at least they didn't do that with The Patriot). A movie like 'Bad Boys II' and its brethren thrive in a certain climate and from that to Trump & Co. (there comes the Goebbels analogy again) isn't too long a distance. And BH in its own little niche of 'history' paved the way.

[A24 4,335]

13 minutes ago, publicist said:

A movie like 'Bad Boys II' and its brethren thrive in a certain climate and from that to Trump & Co. (there comes the Goebbels analogy again) isn't too long a distance. And BH in its own little niche of 'history' paved the way.

 

Isn't Braveheart just another 'oppose the oppression' movie? I mean, if Braveheart was Star Wars, Mel and his clan would stand for the rebels and England would be The Empire. This theme is as old as time itself.

[publicist 4,643]

In keeping with Mel's favourite themes, i stand by 'revenge flick'.

[A24 4,335]

The rape merely stands for 'the evil of oppression', which Mel is fighting against. How else is the public going to relate to it? It's there to enhance the drama.

[publicist 4,643]

You marginalize this important point: the whole freedom angle is reduced to a bloody 'this time it's personal' revenge theme. Of course the might of the evil crown is the coathanger but still..

[A24 4,335]

19 minutes ago, publicist said:

You marginalize this important point: the whole freedom angle is reduced to a bloody 'this time it's personal' revenge theme. Of course the might of the evil crown is the coathanger but still..

 

If I am marginalising it, it's because 'fighting the oppression to preserve their freedom and identity (or Nationalism) is what I felt was the movie's core. You could say Star Wars (1977) is a revenge movie too (because the evil oppressor murdered Luke's foster parents), but it isn't. Murder or rape are just convenient symbols for what evil oppression stands for.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Whenever you dabble in nationalistic themes in western cinema (which Braveheart certainly does), you have to ground it in something more personal and immediate. In this case, a personal revenge story. I think it does that sort of thing very well. Well enough, that an un-nationalistic man such as myself, can still empathize with it.

 

You can almost look at the movie as a thematic anthology: the first twenty minutes are a domestic drama,  The next twenty minutes are a romance film. From there to the one hour mark it is a personal revenge flick, but afterwards it becomes an epic of nationalistic fight for freedom, until the two hour mark where it turns into a tragedy.

 

That's part of what I look for in epics: not just a scope of scenery, the setpieces or the cast, but of disparate genre elements.