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

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

Hell of a score though!

[Jay 37,351]

I like Veep, too, but something about Stalin just didn't work for me

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

There are no bad films in Soviet Union

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Dark Water

 

No good. What was it with 2005 and all these horrendously vague scripts?

[A24 4,331]

 

Bought the Blu-ray blind (since apparently I'm a fan of the genre) but ended up somewhat disappointed. Not that it's bad but I was hoping for something else.

[publicist 4,643]

9 hours ago, Jay said:

I like Veep, too, but something about Stalin just didn't work for me

 

I guess it's either due to the fact that the obviously british cast swirls around heavily historical/folkloristic russian settings, and/or the lack of surprise - we know about soviet atrocities, so the only edge it has is to portray those in gruesome detail.

 

Be that as it may, the actors outshine any of these concerns and were a constant source of pleasure for me.

[Jay 37,351]

Yes, the actors were all good for sure

 

 

And it was smart to not have them attempt Russian accents, it would have only gotten in the way of their comedic performances

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Pretty decent overall.  It has an enjoyable sense of humor and good colors.  It lacks heart though. 

Peter Parker is just some annoying kid with annoying kid problems.  The inner turmoil over Uncle Ben's death has been replaced with generic aspirations to please The Avengers.  It's as if Uncle Ben never existed.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

1 hour ago, Not Mr. Big said:

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Pretty decent overall.  It has an enjoyable sense of humor and good colors.  It lacks heart though. 

Peter Parker is just some annoying kid with annoying kid problems.  The inner turmoil over Uncle Ben's death has been replaced with generic aspirations to please The Avengers.  It's as if Uncle Ben never existed.

Its not an origin story so that doesn't matter and in the case of this Spiderman its the Death of "Uncle Tony" that comes to bat.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Sounds awful.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

Soldier in the Rain

Overlooked 1963 comedy is moderately fun, boasting a loveable buddy pair in Jackie Gleason and Steve McQueen. It's a breezy hour and twenty minutes long, and is quite refreshing in pace and easiness without being stretched on for too long. Many aspects of it would probably never fly today- Maxwell (Gleason) and Eustis (McQueen), whose characters are probably at least in their mid-forties, if not more, go out with a pair of high school girls. Plus, women are generally kind of objectified here, at least by some of the characters. 

 

Maxwell and Eustis are enlisted in the military, but they have dreams of something bigger. While they never quite get their big chance in the real world, their optimism and general frolicking nature is a pleasure to watch. For those who've seen the film, that general who soaks his feet in sauerkraut was quite comedic. Plus, the bar fight was ridiculous (and not in a bad way!). 

 

*** out of ****

 

IN A NUTSHELL: Does it's job and entertains for it's time without being particularly engrossing. It needn't be anyways.

[bollemanneke 3,342]

The juror.

 

To turn it off or not to turn it off… Demi Moore and her character is terrible, that wailing kid at the start is bad, Alec Baldwin’s character is stupid, the judge is stupid… Okay, that’s it, I’m turning it off.

The score is way too good for this crap fest. It’s been a while since I’ve heard such interesting music.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

On 7/11/2019 at 9:17 AM, The Illustrious Jerry said:

Soldier in the Rain

Overlooked 1963 comedy is moderately fun, boasting a loveable buddy pair in Jackie Gleason and Steve McQueen. It's a breezy hour and twenty minutes long, and is quite refreshing in pace and easiness without being stretched on for too long. Many aspects of it would probably never fly today- Maxwell (Gleason) and Eustis (McQueen), whose characters are probably at least in their mid-forties, if not more, go out with a pair of high school girls. Plus, women are generally kind of objectified here, at least by some of the characters. 

 

Maxwell and Eustis are enlisted in the military, but they have dreams of something bigger. While they never quite get their big chance in the real world, their optimism and general frolicking nature is a pleasure to watch. For those who've seen the film, that general who soaks his feet in sauerkraut was quite comedic. Plus, the bar fight was ridiculous (and not in a bad way!). 

 

*** out of ****

 

IN A NUTSHELL: Does it's job and entertains for it's time without being particularly engrossing. It needn't be anyways.

 

Mancini did that one, yeah?

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

Yep, and it was a pretty groovy score! I really dig the main titles!

 

 

[Nick Parker 3,040]

8 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

Yep, and it was a pretty groovy score! I really dig the main titles

 

Oh does this have the scene where one of them is in an empty room sitting on a suitcase or something? 

[A24 4,331]

 

I bought the Blu-ray for a fiver and that's exactly my score: 5/10. The film tries so desperately to be sympathetic (or likeable) that it actually works counter productive. Nothing feels genuine any more, but rather simple-minded. 8 Oscar nominations? Baffling!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

Agreed, Alex, in every aspect. Spot on.

[Quintus 5,399]

I got around to watching The Hateful Eight last night. It took me ages to get to sleep after it had finished, because I kept thinking about it. The scenes were swimming around in my mind for so long that I don't think I managed to go off till gone 2am ffs.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

That's interesting, Lee. How did it affect you?

[Sweeping Strings 2,357]

What I remember about The Hateful Eight is thinking the story is way too slight for the arse-numbing runtime, why you would make such a big deal about shooting in 70mm when most of it is set in a fucking cabin and why the now supposedly 'mature' Tarantino couldn't resist including exploding-head gore. Ah well, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood looks promising. 

Casino Royale (2006) - felt much the same after this rewatch as previously ... Craig is great, Green and Murino are gorgeous, Mikkelsen is suitably reptilian and the action is mostly A1. But there's too much 'meandering' in the second half, 15 minutes or so could go without being any great loss. After all, aren't the Bonds supposed to be taut action-adventure-thrillers? 

 

 

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

"Taut" isn't an adjective I'd ascribe to a lot of Bond films.

3 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

I bought the Blu-ray for a fiver and that's exactly my score: 5/10. The film tries so desperately to be sympathetic (or likeable) that it actually works counter productive. Nothing feels genuine any more, but rather simple-minded. 8 Oscar nominations? Baffling!

 

I thought it worked well enough on an entertainment level. It's certainly well made, well acted, well scored, etc. But the Over-Hollywoodisation of the story is extremely grating. There were several cringe moments when I saw it in the theatre and knew they'd just needlessly changed historical facts just to make it even more of a hero story (and often making the plot very hard to believe). More than that, all the bits and pieces where I thought, at least that's something I didn't know before, turned out to be fabrications as well.

 

And I'm not complaining about small changes to make the story tighter or character motivations clearer, but massive distortions of major historical/logical plot points that are entirely unnecessary.

 

The much maligned The Theory of Everything was the much better science biopic of that year. There's plenty of stuff I like about The Imitation Game despite its shortcomings. But its Best Writing Oscar is ridiculous.

[A24 4,331]

21 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

 why you would make such a big deal about shooting in 70mm when most of it is set in a fucking cabin

 

 I agree, it doesn't makes any sense. Shooting in 70mm would have been better suited for a Western like The Assassination of Jesse James. 

 

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yeah well Tarantino and Nolan are pretty much the only ones keeping film alive at this point. 

[Quintus 5,399]

5 hours ago, Richard said:

That's interesting, Lee. How did it affect you?

 

Well, I just thought it was terrifically entertaining. For a long film that barely has any moments of action and really takes its time with the dialogue, it felt like a breeze to sit through. This is particularly impressive to me, because I genuinely hate having to commit to 3hr movies these days, especially when I haven't even pressed the play button till almost 9:30pm. So it must a a bloody good film if I wasn't struggling to stay awake during its final hour.

 

I think they should adapt this pressure cooker farce into a stage play and go on tour with it, because it would be a top night out to see a good ensemble cast up close and intimate, with this dialogue in this log cabin setting. 

 

The extreme wide-screen does feel at odds with the interior heavy staging, but I dunno... it's not as if this is the first time Tarantino has indulged himself with the use of gimmicks just because he can - the self spoken narration for example is surely the apex of this director's ego so far, and it only served to take me out of the experience (even though that was probably precisely what it was meant to do - reinforcing the idea that he designed the whole thing as a stage play). So I'm hesitant to criticise the film for aspects which didn't really negatively impact the whole experience for me personally, I don't believe Tarantino's quirks detracted all that seriously from what is a fresh feeling and very worthwhile few hours. Besides, I'd be willing to bet that there's a legion of this film's fans who adore it for the exact same eccentric quirks others were put off by.

 

When this meandering yet effortlessly watchable story eventually kicks off in the final thirty minutes, it was unlike anything I can remember seeing before: a farcical bloodbath with a closing exchange between the last survivors which for me is up there with the greatest in movies. In a way this reminded me of The Thing's concluding denouncement; only Hateful Eight turns it into one of the most pristinely funny moments I've had at the very end of a film in a long time.

 

That's how I'd describe The Hateful Eight to anyone: it's a western take on The Thing as made by Ealing Studios when they hired Quentin Tarantino that one time. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, Koray Savas said:

Yeah well Tarantino and Nolan are pretty much the only ones keeping film alive at this point. 

 

But Nolan at least prominently uses IMAX, which is a considerably bigger negative to the 65mm stock Tarantino used on The Hateful Eight, and remains unmatched by any digital camera.

 

When films are being photographed by 8K digital cameras, there's really no sensible reason to use any filmstock smaller than IMAX. If its an aesthetic choice (a filmic look) you wouldn't use 65mm to begin with, given how finely grained it is.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I use IDRAX

[Jurassic Shark 12,066]

I bet Apple has patented that.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Stalked By My Doctor III: Patient's Revenge

 

This might be the worst movie I've ever seen, and I loved every second of it! It's the most surreal schlock I've witnessed from Lifetime so far, it just has to be seen to be believed! As shit-pit level these movies are quality-wise, they're wildly fucking entertaining. It was actually nice to see the mad doctor get an actual girlfriend who reciprocates - or does she?

[Quintus 5,399]

Tarantino wanted to capture the feel of an old western so he shot it in 70mm film, but what is the point when for most people (viewing it on home release) it's so immaculately clean and flawlessly sharp, on modern high definition TV panels - thus undermining the desired visual effect? 

 

Growing up we all watched those old American westerns in pan and scan on little CRT sets. The resolution was low and films appeared grainy and lived in; a western print on the old telly would feel well worn but quite cosy. Like old boots.

 

For me the [mild] issue with Hateful Eight wasn't the fact that the extra peripheral real estate was wasted during the interior scenes (the sprinkling of complimentary vistas did look very nice, mind), but rather that they just ended up looking like regular Netflix digital photography as seen in countless other high end TV productions nowadays. The 70mm didn't end up looking exceptionally cinematic, not by today's excellent standards. So it's basically wasted on anyone who didn't bother to see the picture at the cinema.

 

I really enjoyed this movie, but no way is it what I'd call "visually authentic".

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I had to squint to see that one in between the thick black bars on my Sony Trinitron.

[Chen G. 3,949]

5 hours ago, Quintus said:

Tarantino wanted to capture the feel of an old western so he shot it in 70mm film, but what is the point when for most people (viewing it on home release) it's so immaculately clean and flawlessly sharp, on modern high definition TV panels - thus undermining the desired visual effect? 

 

Growing up we all watched those old American westerns in pan and scan on little CRT sets. The resolution was low and films appeared grainy and lived in; [...but the Hateful Eight] just ended up looking like regular Netflix digital photography as seen in countless other high end TV productions nowadays. The 70mm didn't end up looking exceptionally cinematic.

 

Eh? How does 65mm evoke old westerns? How many old westerns, if any, were shot in 65mm anamorphic? That format was mostly reserved to large-scale historical epics. The biggest format I recall being used on an old western (outside of the use of Three-strip Cinerama for How the West Was Won) was 35mm VistaVision for The Searchers. I'm sure it was blown-up to 70mm for certain venues, but that's another matter entirely.

And the whole point of 65mm and other large formats is that they are so very clean and sharp. In fact, filmmakers like Tarantino and Nolan would claim its sharper than movies which were shot digitally (which, by the standards of contemporary digital cameras, is mostly rubbish, by the way, but never mind).

 

If you want grainy (which has naught to do with "lived-in" or "cinematic", I'm afraid) you'd sooner go for Super-16mm, instead. Large format is used for image quality and (especially with this specific, ultra-wide format) to suggest a sense of grandeur to the film (and, recently, as a statement for the viability of film in the future), neither of which came together too spectacularly for The Hateful Eight.

 

I guess it doesn’t help that I’m not a fan of the format: 2.76:1 is really too wide. Doesn’t quite have the elegance of 2.20:1 or even 2.35:1.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

On July 12, 2019 at 4:33 PM, Nick Parker said:

Oh does this have the scene where one of them is in an empty room sitting on a suitcase or something? 

Hmm...I can't recall seeing that, no. Could be wrong though.

[Quintus 5,399]

 

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Eh? How does 65mm evoke old westerns? How many old westerns, if any, were shot in 65mm anamorphic? That format was mostly reserved to large-scale historical epics. The biggest format I recall being used on an old western (outside of the use of three-strip Cinerama for How the West Was Won) was 35mm VistaVision for The Searchers. I'm sure it was blown-up to 70mm for certain venues, but that's another matter entirely.

And the whole point of 65mm and other large formats is that they are so very clean and sharp. In fact, filmmakers like Tarantino and Nolan would claim its sharper than movies which were shot digitally (which, by the standards of contemporary digital cameras, is mostly rubbish, by the way, but never mind).

 

If you want grainy (which has naught to do with "lived-in" or "cinematic", I'm afraid) you'd sooner go for Super-16mm, instead. Large format is used for image quality and (especially with this specific, ultra-wide format) to suggest a sense of grandeur to the film (and, recently, as a statement for the viability of film in the future), neither of which came together too spectacularly for The Hateful Eight.

 

I guess it doesn’t help that I’m not a fan of the format: 2.76:1 is really too wide. Doesn’t quite have the elegance of 2.20:1 or even 2.35:1.

 

 

I'm sorry, I'm not an expert about the various different film stock used in the production of older movies (I had to search the web to find out the presentation of The Hateful Eight). You shouldn't concentrate on the technical specifics of my post too much though - otherwise my point will be missed.

 

The point being that old westerns did not look this clean and perfect when I used to watch 'em on a Sunday afternoon on the telly as beamed down by way of old RF aerial broadcasts. You can't my drift?

[Chen G. 3,949]

I understand your point. Its just not applicable to the 70mm presentation of The Hateful Eight any more than it is to a hi-def broadcast or home release of that film. Seeing a 65mm contact print in the theater is like watching a film in 4K digital projection: its very clean and sharp, as well it should. No one really wants standard-definition quality on a large theater screen.

 

As for RF broadcast, well, any film would look grainy in that. While I completely get the nostalgic feel for that look, surely we aren't lamenting the absence of standard definition, right?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Lol

[A24 4,331]

Which theatre is equipped for 70mm projections? I know that in my country it's all digital. Maybe we have never seen Tarantino's film the way he intended it?

 

 

Hear PTA preach about how it all doesn't matter in the end (something I've been preaching too).

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

It seems to me that Tarantino shot THE HATEFUL 8 in 70mm because he wanted to, and he could. Many, many westerns have been shot in 2.35:1, and they have looked beautiful. Conversely, many films were filmed in 1.85, and still look fabulous. RED RIVER was shot in b+w, and it's still fantastic! Width is no guarantee of quality, although, happily, and in the case of THE HATEFUL 8, this doesn't apply.

While it's arguable that he didn't need to shoot in 70mm, I don't think that 70mm does the film any intrinsic harm. Besides, when you work with Robert Richardson, you want to get the very best out of him. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

2 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

Which theatre is equipped for 70mm projections? I know that in my country it's all digital. Maybe we have never seen Tarantino's film the way he intended it?

 

The idea of shooting it on 70mm is that it could be shown on curved Cinerama screens, after the manner of a roadshow.

[Quintus 5,399]

8 hours ago, Chen G. said:

As for RF broadcast, well, any film would look grainy in that. While I completely get the nostalgic feel for that look, surely we aren't lamenting the absence of standard definition, right?

 

Nope. And I wasn't talking about nostalgia either. Forget it.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Anyone else miss the black specks in movies?

[A24 4,331]

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

The idea of shooting it on 70mm is that it could be shown on curved Cinerama screens, after the manner of a roadshow.

 

That doesn't not exist here.

[Chen G. 3,949]

There was a cinerama screen in Israel, but I believe it was closed down/repurposed before The Hateful Eight came around.

 

I do recall hearing that quite a few people were disappointed with the sharpness of the presentation (not unlike Nolan's presentation of 2001). 65mm with older lenses really isn't all that sharp.

[A24 4,331]

 

Sadly, the film did not take me along on its journey through the desert. A pity because I would have liked to be there, so to speak. I think Carroll Ballard could have made this a little nicer, or at least ensured a better connection with the story's environment. Now I have the impression that the director didn't really care about nature (or maybe it's because the main character doesn't care?). The not-so-sentimental approach was a plus though. 6/10

 

 

[Quintus 5,399]

Watched Baby Driver last night. Wasn't this raved about when it came out? It was alright, but the soundtrack and the main character's animated responses to it were mildly irritating to me, among other things. I suppose it might have helped if I were more into 60s soul music, but I don't think a more agreeable tracklist would have helped disguise how overly cutesy everything else was. I suppose I'm just too old for this style of filmmaking these days (I'm guessing it was all the teens who sang the movie's praises). Fair enough. Not a bad movie, but I was disappointed.

 

I still think John Hamm should be in more big movies.

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

6 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

Which theatre is equipped for 70mm projections? I know that in my country it's all digital. Maybe we have never seen Tarantino's film the way he intended it?

 

I saw the 70mm Roadshow version in Vienna on this sceen:

 

 

Looked very good as far as I recall. What annoys me is that Tarantino apparently refuses to show that cut in any other format than 70mm, so all the home video releases are also the shortened cut.

[Jurassic Shark 12,066]

He certainly could have shown it more.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

59 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

I saw the 70mm Roadshow version in Vienna on this sceen:

 

 

Looked very good as far as I recall. What annoys me is that Tarantino apparently refuses to show that cut in any other format than 70mm, so all the home video releases are also the shortened cut.

Isn’t there an extended cut on Netflix?

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

2 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

Isn’t there an extended cut on Netflix?

 

Isn't that a miniseries reedit?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

7 hours ago, Quintus said:

I still think John Hamm should be in more big movies.

He is big! It's the movies that got small!

 

Lee, just watch THE DRIVER instead. It's much better.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

7 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

Isn't that a miniseries reedit?

Technically, I suppose. It's listed in an episodic nature on Netflix, but Tarantino structures his films in chapters a lot of the time, so I think it's just broken up like that. Not sure if that was Tarantino's decision, or Netflix's. Either way, it's longer than the theatrical.