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

[A24 4,331]

1 minute ago, Thekthithm said:

Good ASMR flick

 

There's a difference between ASMR or getting high on art. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Just now, Alexcremers said:

 

There's a difference between ASMR or getting high on art. 

 

Relaxing art.

[Romão 2,274]

I like 2001 for the most part, but the spaceship scenes, in act 2, apart from the shutting down Hal sequence, I find far too slow. I can't pretend to enjoy the middle act. I don't

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Zzzzzz...

[Quintus 5,399]

6 hours ago, publicist said:

 

I'm not even a real cinephile myself but going by a fairly large circle of acquaintances, many of them working in media & culture, the general taste encompasses everything from Douglas Sirk to Nouvelle Vague movies, D. A. Pennebaker documentaries to, surely, certain blockbusters or Kubrick movies etc. I probably saw more dvd's of 'City of God' covers on dvd racks than '2001', that's for sure.

 

You can talk yourself down if you want, but I trust a pub evaluation over anyone else's here, even if I only agree with you half of the time (actually it's probably a bit more than that).

[A24 4,331]

Over the years, 2001 has become one of my 5 favorite movies, but there was a time when I preferred Star Wars. You guys would have loved me back then!

[Jurassic Shark 12,073]

2001 is one of my 2000 favourite films.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It was the real start to the 21st century.

[A24 4,331]

3 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

2001 is one of my 2000 favourite films.

 

You've seen 2000 movies in total?

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,073]

I don't count.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

1 hour ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

Rise's human lead is James Franco, who isn't an actor I'd follow into anything.

127 Hours!

[John 2,032]

[Chen G. 3,949]

8 hours ago, John said:

Hmm, that reminds me of another film you may have heard of...

 

An Unexpected Journey was a poorly-paced theatrical presentation, no doubts there. Although that film’s story actually begins in earnest within less than 50 minutes, so it’s actually not a good comparison to 2001. That it stalls almost immediately afterwards is a different matter altogether.

 

You could actually cite Lawrence of Arabia (the first part, at least) as a better comparison. It, too, revels in drawn-out montages of its setting and subsequently takes over an hour for the main story (the quest of Aqaba) to get underway. And yet, it works - for me, at least - better than 2001.

 

I think the difference is that Lawrence of Arabia sets up a very clear plot and contains a promise of conflict: from the word to, we know Lawrence is heading out to find and aid Faisal and we know this will eventually result in war against the Turks (even if one lived under a rock, the framing device sets this up), so that when Sir David Lean essentially says: “alright, while Lawrence is heading to Faisal, please enjoy seven minutes of desert vistas” we feel like we can afford it.

 

2001’s narrative, certainly up the Jupiter Mission portion (which is the main story of the film) is too nebulous to maintain my attention over these montages, impressive though they may be.

 

And, again, 2001 was originally twenty minutes longer still. Surely, that was too much, right?

 

 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

LOTR 1 put me to sleep in the theater. First time that ever happened and the only time until Solo.

[A24 4,331]

6 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

I think the difference is that Lawrence of Arabia sets up a very clear plot and contains a promise of conflict

 

 

2001: ASO has a clear plot and contains the promise of mystery. An extraterrestrial object shows up, which leads to mankind taking action, which leads to a certain result. 2001: ASO basically tells the same mystery-driven plot three times over, albeit in different places and at different times. 

[publicist 4,643]

 

Despite being gobby, populist trash, 'Year of the Dragon' still is tons of fun to watch (Cimino at least knows how to shoot a movie). It's a prototypical mission-movie (a cop takes an impossible stand against the hellhole of organized crime, NYC's Chinatown). It's the kind of movie where every time a patron enters a restaurant, a band of marauders enters with machine guns and kills approximately 100 people for no discernible reason, so it's either prophetic or part of the problem. Take your pick.

[A24 4,331]

Love it! Pulp as pulp should be. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

3 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

2001: ASO has a clear plot and contains the promise of mystery. An extraterrestrial object shows up, which leads to mankind taking action, which leads to a certain result. 2001: ASO basically tells the same mystery-driven plot three times over, albeit in different places and at different times. 

 

No, the Floyd section isn’t a repeat of the same story (even though it does feature a Monolith), it’s just setup for the Jupiter Mission. To Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite is the climax of the Jupiter Mission story, rather than some sort of repeat. The Dawn of Man, together with the Floyd section, form a sort of prologue.

 

The plot of 2001 is hardly clear without being previously informed as to what the Monolith is; and until Dave appears, it’s not particularly character driven, either. And while I suppose the lack of a central character gives the story a sense of expanse, it also makes it too impersonal for my liking.

[A24 4,331]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

The plot of 2001 is hardly clear without being previously informed as to what the Monolith is

 

It wouldn't be mystery driven movie if we knew from the start what the monolith is. We don't have to know who the murderer is to understand there has been a murder and that he needs to be found. A very simple and clear plot of any murder mystery.

 

- First act: Apes fight other tribe to survive - monolith appears - monolith apes find a new way to defeat other tribe

- Middle act: Man is at height of abilities - monolith appears - man undertakes mission to Jupiter and fight AI to survive. Man finds way to defeat AI

- Last act: Man at Jupiter - monolith appears - man travels beyond time and space - man defeats itself to become something else

 

 

Ordeal - action - reward x 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,073]

Just like Braveheart.

[A24 4,331]

Or Star Wars or The Matrix

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The big rectangle thing in 2001 looks like a big choccy bar.

[Jurassic Shark 12,073]

What else could it be?

[Chen G. 3,949]

37 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

- First act: Apes fight other tribe to survive - monolith appears - monolith apes find a new way to defeat other tribe

 - Middle act: Man is at height of abilities - monolith appears - man undertakes mission to Jupiter and fight AI to survive. Man finds way to defeat AI

 - Last act: Man at Jupiter - monolith appears - man travels beyond time and space - man defeats itself to become something else

 

Its more like: Alien Monolith helps hominids evolve to the point of developing tools. Millions of years later, mankind's tools have evolved to the point of breaking away from earth. They discover a second Monolith on the moon, which doesn't make them evolve but is rather placed there as a milestone for mankind, and points towards another Monolith, deep in space, near Jupiter.

 

Speaking about the Jupiter mission, 2001 is often credited as being adapted from Sir Arthur's short story The Sentinel, but its actually a mish-mash of several of his short stories: The Sentinel is largely analogous to the Floyd section. HAL emerged from another short story, and his inclusion is a setpiece all on its own, rather than something that necessarily ties to the central theme of glorifying human space exploration. Its very much like the actual Odyssey in that regard, or like the individual setpieces on an adventure film.

 

So, after HAL is vanquished, the Monolith takes man on a trip around the universe, before he's placed in a room (constructed in his imagination) as the aliens who sent the Monolith examine him: Time passes very rapidly for him, before the Monolith allows him to evolve into the Übermensch .

[publicist 4,643]

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

What else could it be?

 

 

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

 

Its more like: Alien Monolith helps hominids evolve to the point of developing tools. Millions of years later, mankind's tools have evolved to the point of breaking away from earth. They discover a second Monolith on the moon, which doesn't make them evolve but is rather placed there as a milestone for mankind, and points towards another Monolith, deep in space, near Jupiter.

 

Speaking about the Jupiter mission, 2001 is often credited as being adapted from Sir Arthur's short story The Sentinel, but its actually a mish-mash of several of his short stories: The Sentinel is largely analogous to the Floyd section. HAL emerged from another short story, and his inclusion is a setpiece all on its own, rather than something that necessarily ties to the central theme of glorifying human space exploration. Its very much like the actual Odyssey in that regard, or like the individual setpieces on an adventure film.

 

So, after HAL is vanquished, the Monolith takes man on a trip around the universe, before he's placed in a room (constructed in his imagination) as the aliens who sent the Monolith examine him: Time passes very rapidly for him, before the Monolith allows him to evolve into the Übermensch .

 

Ohh now I get it.

[Quintus 5,399]

Succinct as always.

[A24 4,331]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Its more like: Alien Monolith helps hominids evolve to the point of developing tools. Millions of years later, mankind's tools have evolved to the point of breaking away from earth. They discover a second Monolith on the moon, which doesn't make them evolve but is rather placed there as a milestone for mankind, and points towards another Monolith, deep in space, near Jupiter.

 

Speaking about the Jupiter mission, 2001 is often credited as being adapted from Sir Arthur's short story The Sentinel, but its actually a mish-mash of several of his short stories: The Sentinel is largely analogous to the Floyd section. HAL emerged from another short story, and his inclusion is a setpiece all on its own, rather than something that necessarily ties to the central theme of glorifying human space exploration. Its very much like the actual Odyssey in that regard, or like the individual setpieces on an adventure film.

 

So, after HAL is vanquished, the Monolith takes man on a trip around the universe, before he's placed in a room (constructed in his imagination) as the aliens who sent the Monolith examine him: Time passes very rapidly for him, before the Monolith allows him to evolve into the Übermensch .

 

That sounds more like an explanation or interpretation of the film (and one I happen to agree with).

 

Without really explaining the thoughts behind it, I was merely trying to show that the three acts basically repeat the same thing.

[Chen G. 3,949]

There’s certainly a cyclical nature to the film - with some of recurring elements - but I don’t see it as an anthology with three stories that repeat the same trajectory. It’s clearly one narrative, just with a lot of backstory to wade through first.

 

Plus, going by that approach, it’s not three stories: it’s four or five. The Dawn of Man, the Floyd section, the Moon landing, the Jupiter Mission, and Beyond the Infinite

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Now could someone--anyone, really, don't have anybody specific in mind, anyone at all--explain to me how 2001 and 2010 create an overarching cinematic narrative? Are they two films loosely tied by thematic threads? How is the continuity between them?

[publicist 4,643]

 

Nicholas Roeg's only latently fantastic thriller is the movie M. Night Shymalayan wishes to own - here all the red (red in the literal sense of the word) supernatural herrings, set in a decaying Venice, are part of the movie's DNA and its philosophy (not a stunt to sell the story): Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie, after a devastating loss of their little daughter, move to Venice where from Sutherland's point of view we see things (supernatural visions and premonitions, a blind woman who is a seer) of foreboding mischief. A murderer is on the loose, but the signs point to messages from the dead girl. The fateful gloom is relied by art-obsessed, sinister images, be it a restored church, the moody canals or dark bridges. There is a long famous love scene between Sutherland and Christie that is conveyed very naturally but of course enraged many patrons, who felt incensed by how real it all seemed. Only in the end by way of a rather cruel joke a resolution is offered - i saw that first as a teen and i still feel uneasy about red raincoats. It's a real 70's movie, in the best sense. Thriller fans should love it, be prepared for the measured pace, though.

[Quintus 5,399]

Excellent film and a proper clammy drama/thriller. The soundtrack during the breathless climax as Sutherland closes down his ghostly vision is unbearably brilliant.

[crocodile 8,012]

No way. I just finished watching it myself. 😆

 

Great mood-building, use of colour, performances. I wasn't really scared but it's haunting. I like that it doesn't entirely reveal itself and leaves plenty room for interpretation. Good stuff.

 

Karol

[Chen G. 3,949]

3 hours ago, Nick Parker said:

Now could someone--anyone, really, don't have anybody specific in mind, anyone at all--explain to me how 2001 and 2010 create an overarching cinematic narrative? Are they two films loosely tied by thematic threads? How is the continuity between them?

 

Pfff, that’s a low hanging fruit if ever there was one!

 

Obviously the omniscient aliens sent a Monolith to Clarke and Kubrick to inspire them to tell the story. But clearly they did so by going backwards in time through the Stargate, after having first inspired Peter Hymas. It was all planned in advance, I tell you! By the aliens!! Which would make Sir Arthur C. Clarke the Star-child!

 

Really, you should know this by now. Keep up with the conversation, instead of asking that which is readily appear at.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Crazy Rich Asians. Sitting in my hotel room awaiting 6pm to arrive and we'll go eat some italian and onion rings as an app.

[publicist 4,643]

6 hours ago, crocodile said:

 

I like that it doesn't entirely reveal itself and leaves plenty room for interpretation. Good stuff.

 

I only found one interpretation (Sutherland has visions of his approaching doom). And he can't escape it. 

[Holko 9,526]

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

 

Well, that's what a masterpiece is. Everyone's great in it, keeps your attention, and it looks so unbelievably jawdroppingly eye-poppingly unreally great! One of the best-looking films and best restorations I have ever seen. Ever. Nowhere can you find phony model shots, obvious matte paintings, front or back projection, messy color grade and stock quality change at optical crosfades, everything and everyone is there, mindbogglingly in focus and framed masterfully. O'Toole is fantastically conflicted, Omar Sharif and Anthony Quinn are likeable, Alec Guiness, Jack Hawkins, Claude Rains and José Ferrer leave lasting impressions even if featured less. Wow. Definitely the peak of the buttnumbathon so far.

 

Oh, and I ordered the Tadlow rerecording during my Intermission lunchbreak.

[A24 4,331]

Avengers: Endgame

 

 

This record-breaking blockbuster felt like just another comic book. It didn't jump out above the one before or the one that's coming out next. In fact, it might be one of the weaker ones. When a movie fails to grab you, nothing it shows makes really impact. And isn't that why we watch movies? To feel something? 5/10

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Am I the only one in the world who hasn't seen Endgame? I got the impression recently that only true connoisseurs of cinema can truthfully make such a claim. 

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I haven’t seen a Marvel film since the first Avengers. 

[A24 4,331]

16 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

Am I the only one in the world who hasn't seen Endgame? I got the impression recently that only true connoisseurs of cinema can truthfully make such a claim. 

 

 

You will see it. You WILL see it!

[Nick Parker 3,040]

I'd have to watch like 21 or 22 or however many Marvel movies there are beforehand, so a solid no thanks on that! 

 

Are you projecting? 

[A24 4,331]

It is inevitable. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,073]

Just take a week off work!

[Quintus 5,399]

Ah so Alexcremers has kept up with all of the Marvel instalments has he? Lol always the big phony.

[Jurassic Shark 12,073]

My little phony.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I'm sure he just watches them along with his kid!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I can't stand these people who can't name a favourite movie of their own, instead they just namr whatever their kids watch. "I love it because my daughter loves it." Ugh.

[Sweeping Strings 2,358]

10 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

Avengers: Endgame

 

 

This record-breaking blockbuster felt like just another comic book. It didn't jump out above the one before or the one that's coming out next. In fact, it might be one of the weaker ones. When a movie fails to grab you, nothing it shows makes really impact. And isn't that why we watch movies? To feel something? 5/10

Yeah ... for something so long it's surprisingly light on action and out of the 3 characters that 'go', I knew about the contracts of 2 of the actors ending with this film so no surprises there (and the remaining one failed to move me). 

It's not terrible, by any means. But Infinity War was better.     

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I enjoyed it a lot, although it lacked the breakneck urgency of Infinity War.