Jump to content

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


Mr. Breathmask

Recommended Posts

MV5BMTQ3NjU2ODk5N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjYx

 

Prague, 1951: A reputable politician (Yves Montand) finds himself suddenly prosecuted by an intelligence service, then arrested, and finally interrogated with ever more brutal methods - he is said to have spied for the class enemy. His tormentors leave unmentioned on whose behalf they work, no formal indictment is levied; it is the time of the show trials. The story is based on the life of communist jew Artur London, what political filmmaker Costa-Gavras made of it, however, goes far beyond the portrayal of a single injustice: the film is the ultimate statement on political state terrorism - the details may change, the principles and the applied psychology are the same (as is the gross disregard of human rights). Piquant detail: cast and filmmakers were all disillusioned communist sympathizers - Montand/London quite rightly confronts his own opportunism when he was on the other side of the fence. The movie was partly responsible for the de-romanticization of the soviet system. It's still a pretty blunt, powerful experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Quintus said:

Watched another one of those bleak arsed American wilderness murder mystery films, Wind River, this one starring Jeremy Renner and someone who I could have sworn was one of those Olsen twins. Two very good performances and a decent story with a genuinely affecting tragi-catharsis by the end. Good film which doesn't ever take the piss, 3.5 out of 5.

 

Nj4o18N.jpg

How bout that Nick Cave score, though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Stefancos said:

I had no idea till Elizabeth Olsen started to become a well known actress. Younger sister of the Full House twins, apparently. And a more talented actress, I wager.

But I doubt she has the twins business acumen.

As an answer to the question is Conan Destroyer better than less the same, it's far worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King Kong (1976)

 

PSX_20181209_193505.jpg

 

It's one of my favorite movies to come out of the 1970s. While remakes (or what Tim Burton may refer to as 'reimaginings') of classic films have been commonplace for a long time now, this one might have been a big deal in the 70s. I wasn't there. I watched it on video as a kid and loved it. I preferred it to the original. I still do.

 

A rather glorious opening title sequence showing the Petrox Explorer at sea to the tune of John Barry sets the stage and the adventure begins. It's the 70s; There's a national energy crisis that demands we all rise above our private self interests and this time around, the island may contain oil in addition to an oversized ape and snake.

 

Jeff Bridges is alright. I don't want to say he's an actor that phones it in, but I feel he tends to give samey performances. With his long locks and revolting facial hair, he appears more ape-like than Kong. Making him a primate expert (or whatever) seemed a bit unnecessary. It's not like he ever uses any skills or knowledge.

 

Jack is supposed to be the good guy and clashes with Charles Grodin's superbly hammy Fred Wilson. He steals every scene ("It's some nutty religion--a priest gets dressed up like an ape and gets laid"), even when co-starring with a 50 foot gorilla and an absolutely fabulous Jessica Lange. She is so damn hot in this flick. Kong fulfills the hetero male fantasy, carrying Dwan around like a doll and eventually taking her clothes off for the boys in the audience.

 

This one doesn't have any of the other giant monsters that threaten the expeditions in alternate versions, but I don't mind. Kong is mainly a guy in a suit and briefly a very obvious nearly static towering robot that looks like it's about to fall apart. I don't mind this either. It's campy and charming.

 

It was given a then-contemporary setting, so Kong gallivants around a 70s graffiti-covered New York City and climbs a pair of buildings even taller than the Empire State Building that no longer exist. A standout scene is when he trashes an elevated train. He then snatches the wrong girl, tossing her away as she screams hysterically. In the background, obviously phoney stick people can be seen in the windows of the buildings. It's incredibly charming.

 

The finale at the original World Trade Center is what makes this version legendary in its own way. Beauty attempts to save the beast and those final moments are fairly shocking, upping the gore and making the audience sympathetic to the big guy. In the end, everyone we've taken this journey with loses. This Kong feels more cynical and depressing than the others. Maybe that's why I enjoy it so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a total piece of crap film save for Barry's score. Lange is mesmerizing but awful. 

 

Its far too bloody 

Yesterday we watched a movie just as bloody as King King 76 and even worse yet far more fun. Maximum Overdrive is one on the most entertaining bad films of all time. Its a cocaine fueled trainwreck that you can't  turn your head away from.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Die Hard

 

This 30 year old movie was playing in my local cinema. Great to finally see it on the big screen, where Jan De Bonts tight and tense anamorphic camerawork really shines. 

 

Willis became a star on the back of this, Alan Rickman gives a delicious performance as the perfectly cut and tailored villain, and Bonnie Bedelia makes what would otherwise be a standard "wive in danger" role into something more meaty.

 

Good supporting cast too!

 

Interesting that for a very well known action movie it actually only has a few scenes of sustained action. There's a lot of suspence in between, and moments of solid character building. There's moments of genuine subtle humour thoughout (and lots of not so subtle humour)

 

McTiernan directed the hell out of this! A talky script with a LOT of characters, but he keeps everything tense, and streamlined and on course.

 

The score, despite being tracked and edited to bits in the film really works.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Die Hard

 

This 30 year old movie was playing in my local cinema. Great to finally see it on the big screen, where Jan De Bonts tight and tense anamorphic camerawork really shines. 

 

Willis became a star on the back of this, Alan Rickman gives a delicious performance as the perfectly cut and tailored villain, and Bonnie Bedelia makes what would otherwise be a standard "wive in danger" role into something more meaty.

 

Good supporting cast too!

 

Interesting that for a very well known action movie it actually only has a few scenes of sustained action. There's a lot of suspence in between, and moments of solid character building. There's moments of genuine subtle humour thoughout (and lots of not so subtle humour)

 

McTiernan directed the hell out of this! A talky script with a LOT of characters, but he keeps everything tense, and streamlined and on course.

 

The score, despite being tracked and edited to bits in the film really works.

 

 

Especially Horner's Aliens bit.

 

Again in our discussion elsewhere we discussed the BRILLIANCE  of Rickman's performance. Kevin Kline, the Winner for A Fish..., was marvelous though his performance really was a best Actor role. Still Alan Rickman gave an iconic villainous performance as Hans Grueber. Truly one of the great villains of all time, Memorable and remarkable 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Star Trek: Generations

 

PSX_20181211_162353.jpg

 

The trailers made this appear to be possibly the greatest movie ever. Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation joining forces. Kirk and Picard meeting. I guess I need to take you back to 1994. It was the best time to be a Trekkie.

 

Next Generation was constantly on the tube, there was a new series with another on the way, the original series crew movies on video and merchandise up the wazoo. We'd worn out our videotape of The Best of Both Worlds (It had both parts so no waiting after "To be continued")--All Good Things was alright as it was still relatively recent. Now there's this movie combining the generations. Like Bruce Wayne in Vicki Vale's apartment, it was fucking nuts.

 

That dreary November evening, the chirping of electronic Trek gizmos filled the theater like crickets as we waited for the lights to go down. This movie could do no wrong for this audience. I remember gripping the arm rests on the seat as the Enterprise crashed, like I was on the Star Wars ride at Disneyland, only better.

 

All these years later, it's become trendy to hate on the Next Gen movies. Some criticisms are valid. Maybe people were expecting more of a teamup movie than they got. Kirk and Picard in starships, not clumsily fistfighting with a guy in a canyon like in so many shitty action flicks. Maybe they wanted something far bigger--it turned out more like a feature length episode of the show.

 

I don't know. I can scratch my head when Picard returns to the timeline and prevents the events that caused him to go back in the first place, but it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the movie. I guess I'm just too old for that shit. Who am I kidding? It's better than most movies I've seen since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Related image

BRIDGE OF SPIES

A quite captivating historical drama set during the tense Cold War era. Lawyer James Donovan (Tom Hanks) must defend an alleged Russian spy, and eventually gets whisked into a task far bigger than he ever imagined. On the other side of the world Soviet forces capture spy pilot Francis Powers and hold him captive. German soldiers apprehend Frederic Pryor at the Berlin Wall. Two Americans held captive in Communist Europe and a Soviet in the States. Donovan must negotiate an exchange. 

 

It's a pretty well done film. Spielberg takes on a bit of a different directive voice in his historical dramas, but the sense of his handiwork is still faintly present, just not as much as his more fantastical films. Thomas Newman's score is not too prevalent, but when a cue does emerge it does it's job and suits the part. Good stuff is the consensus.

 

RATING: **** out of *****

CONSENSUAL STATEMENT: "Stellar." -Jerry

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Demolition.

 

I was quite invested in the characters during the first half, although Naomi Watts' 'entrance' didn't really work for me, and I loved how some dialogue was accompanied by unrelated actions, but found much of the second half pointlesss. Well, no, pointless is not the right word, but I can't come up with another one right now. Especially the backstory with the teen felt forced (what the fuck does 'go fuck yourself' mean at the end of that letter?) and there's no closure regarding Karen.

Some of the music was nice, but there was some distortion during the early letter-writing and I hate extremely dynamic range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Related image

DARKEST HOUR

This Winston Churchill biopic is another excellent historical drama that has come out in recent years. The film follows Churchill, played by an unrecognizable and fully captivating Gary Oldman, in about a one month's span of time. In that time he made three of his most important speeches. Facing contrasting opinions from former Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, Lord Halifax. and the King himself (played by a mellow Ben Mendelssohn), Winston finds himself making rash and unconventional decisions. Oldman embraces the character of a wizened old man, reminding you of the time period by almost always having a thick cigar in his mouth, and occasionally sipping ale between sentences. The cinematography is quite good, as many shots utilize keen lighting techniques, such as the hazy glow in the picture above, surrounding by dull shade. During a radio broadcast, a red light flips on to signal Winston to begin, covering his face luminously with crimson.

 

The defining factor in this film is no doubt the believability of Oldman as Churchill, as well as some stellar supporting roles in characters already mentioned. The focus is not on the task per se, but the man who undertakes it. It captures the politics of war, and although there are one or two brief shots of the battle itself, the focus is once again on the behind-the-scenes events.

 

RATING: **** out of *****

CONSENSUAL STATEMENT: "Marvelous. Oldman is superb." -Jerry

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good film, but historically misleading and flawed in many respects. The script is definitely the weak point here. Oldman absolutely carries the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, John said:

Good film, but historically misleading and flawed in many respects. The script is definitely the weak point here. Oldman absolutely carries the film.

Agreed.

Yes, that was the biggest issue.

I didn't have too many problems with the script. There was some quite witty humour actually.

YES, YES, YES!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Is it a documentary? If it isn't, it can f*ck about with history all it wants, for all I care.

 

I disagree. If a film is going to peddle itself as a historical biopic, it should remain true to and accurately portray the real-life events it is based off of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always

 

PSX_20181214_195415.jpg

 

There's a scene in Steven Spielberg's Always that, as with Gotham City and the Joker, always brings a smile to my face. Pete Sandich turns to the spirit of a bus driver who has been revived and returned to his body after suffering a heart attack. "Hey! You made it!" It's a classic Spielbergian/Williams or Goldsmith moment for me, right up there with E.T. reviving the flower, Indiana Jones entering the map room and the opening titles of Poltergeist.

 

This is one of the few movies that brings me out of my cynical shell. I first watched it on television as a boy and my appreciation for it increased with the advancement of years. So here and now in my old age, Always has a place among my favorite things in life.

 

Spielberg makes sure you're swept up in the story of these firefighting pilots and in the span of a half hour or so, he seems to put everything on the table--romance, friendship, airplanes. This is all interesting enough before the supernatural element. Pete returns from a shocking fiery death as a ghost to guide rookie pilot Ted Baker.

 

What if your spirit lingered on Earth and you had to watch loved ones move on? That's the real story. The exhilarating flying scenes are secondary. There's something to this movie that is deeper than any other Spielberg. Mikael Salomon photographs. John Williams scores. A spookily frail Audrey Hepburn is like the God that looks over all the characters and oversees everything. The result is just magic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, John said:

 

I disagree. If a film is going to peddle itself as a historical biopic, it should remain true to and accurately portray the real-life events it is based off of.

 

Or as close to truth as possible but with a poetic licence to fill in some of the blanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

It's historical inaccuracies do not prevent it from being a good film. They simply disillusion the informed viewer from fully appreciating it.

 

I think I count as an informed viewer: I am applying for post-grad in History, after all.

 

But narrative cinema just isn't the medium for an intellectual exploration of historical fact. It is the medium with which to leverage historical facts - some rearranged and some manipulated - into elliciting an emotional reaction from the audience; and if the bare bones of the plot line-up with the course of history - than it did its job well enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

But narrative cinema just isn't the medium for an intellectual exploration of historical fact. It is the medium with which to leverage historical facts - some rearranged and some manipulated - into elliciting an emotional reaction from the audience; and if the bare bones of the plot line-up with the course of history - than it did its job well enough.

In that being the case, the entire cinematic concept of the historical drama is something to be considered. Every one of these recounts in one way or another is going to have to be embellished or reconsidered in order to create the most effective film as possible, some more than others. Unfortunately, history does not always play out in a way that it can be cut and pasted onto the big screen, but the creative minds of the production staff attempt to arrange a film that acknowledges and incorporates pivotal historical accuracies around a looser and flexible plot that serves as a mechanism for allowing that which we know to be true to be presented amongst supporting falsehoods or half-truths, in a sense, that move the story along and hold the equilibrium between fact and fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MV5BMDhiOTM2OTctODk3Ny00NWI4LThhZDgtNGQ4

 

Hadn't seen this in 20 or so years. It was a stroke of genius to set this in the contrasting worlds of L. A., ca. Chinatown, and Toontown (thank god more Tex Avery than Walt Disney). And while Zemeckis and Spielberg enjoy cartoon anarchy, they enjoy stringent stories even more, so the focus is a classic noir story about the Bogart-ian private eye who drinks too much and is wearily getting involved with a great conspiracy (á la Chinatown and the water, it's about land grabbing here, loosely based on the infamous tram scandals that ran form the 30's to the 60's, in which various large car companies bought up tram companies and shut down to promote the car sales)

 

It's happily uninhibited by airs and the many sight gags might be the best parade of such ever put on film (I personally loved the singing sword and the weasels). Bob Hoskins is the kind of inspired dream cast you wish such big budget movies would have more often (though all the actors shine). Silvestri's score is pure gold. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

Unfortunately, history does not always play out in a way that it can be cut and pasted onto the big screen.

 

It never does, and its not unfortunate. It only means that screenwriters need to do their job: they need to adapt material to the screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

It never does, and its not unfortunate. It only means that screenwriters need to do their job: they need to adapt material to the screen.

Right. The material does need to be adapted, but some recent decisions and omissions have been interesting talking points, namely the flag controversy with First Man.

 

Regarding that, the film itself was not about the moon as much as it was about the man, therefore it would have been in a way out of place. The film does not neglect the fact that it was a huge moment for the world, primarily for America in their space exploration back-and-forth with the Russians. I feel that the negative backlash is driven by misguided movie goers who came in with their own idea of what the film would be like, expecting it to focus on the historical points which they found most important. That was not the case and it was unfortunate to see that so many were unhappy with it. It was a great film. Knocked my socks off.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

I feel that the negative backlash is driven by misguided movie goers who came in with their own idea of what the film would be like

 

That's very often the case with film: people's expectations get in the way of their enjoyment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People expect other people to think and feel like them and get put-off when they don't.  It is why so much modern commercial and non-commercial art is so sterile.

People don't want to be challenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thor 3.

 

Um, okay, wow, that was unexpected. I really didn't like it that much, especially not the first half. Jeff Goldblum's character is rather weird, I'm still not a fan of Cate Blanchett and the Hulk was rather annoying.

The score was much better, though. The blend of orchestra and electronics was quite interesting, only the song during the final fight didn't work for me and the reprise of Patrick Doyle's theme from the first film during the credits was both forced and ridiculous: either reference Doyle throughout the entire score or don't do it at all. Oh, and certainly don't use Armstrong's Hulk material...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

Jeff Goldblum's character is rather weird

 

But the Grandmaster is Jeff Goldblum's most Jeff Goldblum-y role yet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

I think I count as an informed viewer: I am applying for post-grad in History, after all.

 

But narrative cinema just isn't the medium for an intellectual exploration of historical fact. It is the medium with which to leverage historical facts - some rearranged and some manipulated - into elliciting an emotional reaction from the audience; and if the bare bones of the plot line-up with the course of history - than it did its job well enough.

You do understand that historical truth happens only in the moment and all perceptions are the interpretations of those in the moment and subject to vast differences. If you go into film expecting the absolute truth then you are bound to be disappointed or dissatisfied. There is no medium available to acheive an intellectual exploration of historical fact. To suggest there is a fools folly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Die Hard 2 - 'How can the same shit happen to the same guy twice?!?'

Presumably because sequels are often very profitable, Bruce. lol. Not quite the flick its predecessor was, but still a decent follow-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JoeinAR said:

You do understand that historical truth happens only in the moment and all perceptions are the interpretations of those in the moment and subject to vast differences. If you go into film expecting the absolute truth then you are bound to be disappointed or dissatisfied. There is no medium available to acheive an intellectual exploration of historical fact. To suggest there is a fools folly. 

 

Absolutely. Its also an unfair requirement from filmmakers, even in a documentary: they don't need three degrees in history to make a historical film.

 

The point of making a historical film is to provide your impression - more the visceral one than the intellectual one - of the piece of history you're adapting.

 

If you want something factual, intellectual and nuanced - than the avenue to explore isn't film - its books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Die Hard 2 - 'How can the same shit happen to the same guy twice?!?'

Presumably because sequels are often very profitable, Bruce. lol. Not quite the flick its predecessor was, but still a decent follow-up.

As a sequel, I far prefer DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE. It's packed with great lines, good action, and a great McClaine/Carver double-act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Die Hard 2 is underrated. It's got a good bunch of villains, superb special effects and a couple of really good setpieces.

 

Not here at JWFan, where everything Die Hard is seen as a gift of god. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MV5BZGRjZjQ0NzAtYmZlNS00Zjc1LTk1YWItMDY5

 

Instead watching the remake i stuck to a sunday matinee of the original. And it's still definitive. Though discreetly heroized, this elliptical tale is still pretty downbeat (note the cautionary coda that shows the decaying ruins of the French-Guyana set to Jerry Goldsmith's dissonant march of doom). Ironically this movie was panned as tedious blockbuster in its time - critics were just spoiled back then. Based on the autobiographical novel by Henri Charriére, its about the experiences of its eponymous protagonist in a prison in a forbidding french convict colony in South America in the first half of the 20th century and of his indomitable desire for freedom, surviving even the greatest strains emotionally unbroken (the scenes of his 2 years spent in solitary confinement are quite chilling) - until he managed to escape after many years, under extremely adverse conditions.

 

Superlative performances by Steve McQueen as stoic Papillon - he of monster courage and determination, its pretty harrowing when you see him losing his grips during the long stay in a darkened cell - and Dustin Hoffmann - he plays Degas, the fuzzy, witty, bespectacled forger who is chained to Papillon, his only protector in the hostile environment. In lieu of villains we get an array of dispassionately cruel french officers and the dank, mosquito-ridden surroundings. Death seems to loom everywhere. 

 

The only real misstep the movie does is a goofy 'paradise' sequence that has McQueen bonding with a tribe on a south seas dream beach. After that's over there's luckily real poetry and poignancy in the last quarter, where Goldsmith's melancholy musette waltz earns its pay: finally stranded on Death Island, a last resort for convicts too old to do the gruelling work, Papillon plans his final escape. After a long separation, he there meets Degas again, who lives a hermit's life as self-supporting peasant, growing increasingly peculiar. Their last scenes together accentuate the love between the fundamentally different men, with Goldsmith's music getting underneath the surface: Degas stays, Papillon takes the dangerous escape on the ocean via a sack of cocoanuts. The swelling minor strings read the story not as a heroic escape but a lament of wasted lives, as a sad reminder of their life in France they once had. With the right material, Schaffner was a great director and 'Papillon' ranks as some of the 70's best in 'male' cinema.

 

71da0n3Jn8L._SY445_.jpg

 

Disappointing. After a good start as slightly off-beat space romantic drama the movie loses itself in silly, overwrought story beats with dizzying action sequences meant to dazzle the audience away from the lack of interesting dramatic development. It seems as if they made the second half up as they went along, but it never gets anywhere meaningful. Tommy Newman's score is familiar but pleasantly whizzing in the background. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, publicist said:

(note the cautionary coda that shows the decaying ruins of the French-Guyana set to Jerry Goldsmith's dissonant march of doom)

Well put into words. The best end credits music of all. No feel-good-conclusion or theme repetition.

 

Although in general, I have to say that the movie is not as reflective and bringing the humanistic message across as the novel and the score. To a certain degree, I agree with the blockbuster aspect (in comparison to the novel of course), but those critics had no idea how blessed they where with that "blockbuster score" back then.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, publicist said:

With the right material, Schaffner was a great director

Indeed.  Patton is a testament to that.  Too bad Nicholas and Alexandra turned out a bit halfhearted.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brundlefly said:

Although in general, I have to say that the movie is not as reflective and bringing the humanistic message across as the novel and the score. To a certain degree, I agree with the blockbuster aspect (in comparison to the novel of course), but those critics had no idea how blessed they where with that "blockbuster score" back then.;)

 

It's reflective enough. Given the fact that it was made for a large audience and had to function as a big expensive action picture it turned out remarkably well.

27 minutes ago, Steve McQueen said:

Indeed.  Patton is a testament to that.  Too bad Nicholas and Alexandra turned out a bit halfhearted.    

 

All of Schaffner's pictures after 'Islands in the Stream' 8and with some reservations, 'Boys from Brazil') are dogshit. Thank god Goldsmith only did Lionheart. 

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.