Jump to content

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


Mr. Breathmask

Recommended Posts

Courage under fire.

 

I don’t really know how to review it. Long war movies generally don’t appeal to me, so that’s probably why I wanted to turn it off after 20 minutes. Nevertheless, I persevered. It’s probably good if you like the genre and Meg Ryan never disappoints, but I won’t watch it again… because it’s just tension and it don’t mean shit!

The main reason why I decided to watch it is because James Horner wrote the score. My eagerness to hear another of his scores was ultimately stronger than my dislike of Denzel Washington. I had a lot of fun predicting ow Horner might tackle every scene and am getting pretty good at it too. That doesn’t mean I would call it a dull score. On the contrary, the tender piano cues and the end titles were excellent. It’s just a bit amusing to hear how much Horner re-uses his ideas.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image?locale=en-us&mode=crop&purposes=Bo

 

A young soldier from Virginia refuses to kill for religious reasons, but is sent to the front in World War II as a paramedic. Here he goes through hard military drill and is sidelined by his conscience decision, but can finally prove himself in the battle of Okinawa. A true exemplary story of salvation through pacifist heroism, which in Mel Gibson's expert hands can only mean a gloriously paradox movie that pretends to be about the idea of pacifism but twists and turns it till all that's left is a visual orgy of violence and christian hero worship (read: loathsome pathos). 

 

The moral questions contained in the story are undermined in an almost grotesque way by sadistic voyeurism. Gibson is still a top visualist (the gore is impressive) but it's all in aid of showing us either shredded limbs or christian iconography in slow motion. Why he wanted to tell this story remains a secret, as he never seems to find a spiritual connection to the motivation of his hero - whom he sends to a final victorious battle, as if to make sure that we're still in the Mel Gibson business where gory self-sacrifice still is a chief virtue. Detestable.

 

affiche-l-impasse-aux-violences-1217.jpg

 

To wash away the unpleasant taste i turned to a wicked old british horror melodrama with Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance loosely based on the Burke & Hare case, the two former grave-diggers who murdered at least 16 people in 1828 Edinburgh, Scotland and sold their bodies for anatomical research. With Cushing as unscupulous doctor pushing them to commit more and more grisly murders. Though not a Hammer film it feels similar, with british thespians having a great time (Pleasance in particular) though its denouement feels wildly out of place today: while Burke & Hare are punished with dead for their bloody deeds, Cushing is rehabilitated with his renewed swear upon the Hippocratic oath. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, publicist said:

The moral questions contained in the story are undermined in an almost grotesque way by sadistic voyeurism. Gibson is still a top visualist (the gore is impressive) but it's all in aid of showing us either shredded limbs or christian iconography in slow motion. Why he wanted to tell this story remains a secret, as he never seems to find a spiritual connection to the motivation of his hero - whom he sends to a final victorious battle, as if to make sure that we're still in the Mel Gibson business where gory self-sacrifice still is a chief virtue. Detestable.

 

I've often heard this criticism, that the film is glorifying violence while its main character abhorrs it. I really don't think that's the case, I think the gore is there to portray the battles as horrific and gruesome, which is narratively apt. Another apt device is that half the film takes place outside of combat.

 

There are several seperate battles over the course of the film, and if they were all the same, I'd get pretty boring. So while the first battle aims to shock and horrify its audiences, some of the others do also function as action setpieces and have a sense of elation to them. Horrible as it is, people do find elation in the act of fighting, so its a perfectly reasonable choice, and it helps the movie flow in much the same way that the battles of Stirling and Falkirk are differentiated.

 

I also think Gibson films often deal with conviction, and its that element that usually draws me in to the world of his characters. His characters stick to their beliefs and they are passionate about them, and it never fails to make me feel that same passion. I felt it with Sir William Wallace, and I felt it with Desmond. The difference being that, with Desmond, the screenwriters also mounted a counter-argument that felt just as sympathetic: You can fully understand why Doss' commanding officers would be wary to send a man unarmed into the battlefield.

 

And, beyond theme and narrative, there's no denying how impressive Hacksaw Ridge is: its a properly low-budget movie, and look at what they managed to pull off. Performances are great all-around,  too. Doesn't have the lyricism of Braveheart, though, nor the explosive vision of Apocalypto. Its mostly some of the melodrama and that damn epilogue that weighs it down. Still, damn fine filmmaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deepwater Horizon - account of the events that led to one of the US's worst environmental disasters. Peter Berg's staging of the shit hitting the fan on the titular drilling rig is hard-hitting, terrifying and thrilling, with a justified underlying anger at BP's cost/corner cutting ways.

Very good film. With Mark Wahlberg, Kurt Russell, John Malkovich and Kate Hudson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, publicist said:

image?locale=en-us&mode=crop&purposes=Bo

 

A young soldier from Virginia refuses to kill for religious reasons, but is sent to the front in World War II as a paramedic. Here he goes through hard military drill and is sidelined by his conscience decision, but can finally prove himself in the battle of Okinawa. A true exemplary story of salvation through pacifist heroism, which in Mel Gibson's expert hands can only mean a gloriously paradox movie that pretends to be about the idea of pacifism but twists and turns it till all that's left is a visual orgy of violence and christian hero worship (read: loathsome pathos). 

 

The moral questions contained in the story are undermined in an almost grotesque way by sadistic voyeurism. Gibson is still a top visualist (the gore is impressive) but it's all in aid of showing us either shredded limbs or christian iconography in slow motion. Why he wanted to tell this story remains a secret, as he never seems to find a spiritual connection to the motivation of his hero - whom he sends to a final victorious battle, as if to make sure that we're still in the Mel Gibson business where gory self-sacrifice still is a chief virtue. Detestable.

 

 

 

I fully expected this so I avoid this movie like the plague. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been watching a film, on YouTube call - yes, YouTube! - called SPECIAL BULLETIN. Does anyone remember this? Did anyone see it, when it first aired, in 1983?

It's reminiscent of THE DAY AFTER, in that it explores the issue of nuclear warfare, and the impact of this, on America. This time, however, the threat is homegrown...

It's a tidy film, with good performances, all round, including David Clennon, and Roxanne Hart. It's still relevant, today. Watch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Richard said:

I've been watching a film, on YouTube call - yes, YouTube! - called SPECIAL BULLETIN. Does anyone remember this? Did anyone see it, when it first aired, in 1983?

It's reminiscent of THE DAY AFTER, in that it explores the issue of nuclear warfare, and the impact of this, on America. This time, however, the threat is homegrown...

It's a tidy film, with good performances, all round, including David Clennon, and Roxanne Hart. It's still relevant, today. Watch it.

I watched it and wrote a few lines on it a couple of months back.  Pretty impressively done.  It is set up to look and feel like a news broadcast happening in real time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I've often heard this criticism, that the film is glorifying violence while its main character abhorrs it. I really don't think that's the case, I think the gore is there to portray the battles as horrific and gruesome, which is narratively apt. Another apt device is that half the film takes place outside of combat.

 

You really come from another planet or are a close relative of the Gibson tribe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Pub.

While the main character's Christian stance is admirable, the film itself is not an anti-war film, like, say ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, CROSS OF IRON, or even CATCH-22.

The violence is there to (hopefully) illustrate what happened in that battle, but there doesn't seem any kind of moralistic tone to the film (except for Garfield to say "No, I'm not doing this; I won't kill"), and, as such, there's nothing for his character to truly react against. Not doing something because of one's beliefs can be a great starting point for a story (think CHARIOTS OF FIRE) but, in this case, and, especially amidst all the carnage, I found it all a little too preachy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should a World War II film be an anti-war film?! One of the officers in the film says to Doss: "This is Satan himself we're fighting", and yeah, the Axis fit that bill well enough. World War II was a justified war, and there's no place to treat it (as a whole) here with condemnation any more than in, say, Saving Private Ryan.

 

Appropriately, the film doesn't show that the war is wrong: its shows that its horrible, and that's enough.

 

Anyway, there are ways to discuss these things. I'm sorry, but Pub's snark isn't one of those ways.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/13/2019 at 9:32 PM, Chen G. said:

 its shows that its horrible, and that's enough.

 

 

Isn't that the same? As far as I know, war movies that show war isn't exciting and heroic are anti-war movies. I can't imagine someone making a pro-war movie these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2019 at 1:02 AM, The Illustrious Jerry said:

I thought it worked wonderfully, chugging in musical power to an already million mile a minute movie. Don't think I'll ever listen to the album though. In fact, my biggest music-related takeaway was seeing Tom Hardy take down a couple of people with a flamethrower guitar. :lol:

 

I actually like it surprisingly well on album, when I'm in the mood for that kind of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Air Force One - Russian terrorists (led by Gary Oldman) hijack the Presidential plane, but Medal Of Honor-decorated President Marshall (Harrison Ford) isn't gonna stand for that shit and fights back. Entertaining (if faintly ridiculous) action-thriller, with the likes of Glenn Close, Dean Stockwell, William H Macy and Xander Berkeley in the supporting cast and an stirring Jerry Goldsmith score. 

22 years on from when I last saw it, the 'flag-waving' stuff now came across as borderline parodic ... unsure if that was intentional or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shadow of the Vampire (2000)

 

This wasn’t as good as I remembered.  Dafoe is great and it’s really cool to see recreations of iconic scenes from Nosferatu, but the whole thing feels undercooked.  Could’ve used a better script and better director.  Scorsese would’ve had a field day making it and I bet he would’ve gone all in crazy on portraying the mania of a director who will do anything to get his vision onscreen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Lies Beneath

 

what-3.png

 

Probably been a while since you've seen this one. Me too. 

 

Right from the start, I'm concerned by the fact that it's centered around an upper class couple with a gigantic elaborate house and property in Vermont. Harrison Ford AKA Norman is a scientist (??) and Michelle Pfeiffer AKA Claire is an ex-musician from Boston. They do stuffy things like drink white wine at white people parties, take their boat out on a lake, discuss antiquing and driving to look at the leaves change colors, and take baths. Yawn.

 

But it starts to get good when Michelle is being disturbed by an apparent haunting in their house. She's depressed and appears to be losing her mind but remains entirely sympathetic because Michelle is just so damn good. Even Ford becomes utterly believable and good when he's frustrated by her wacky behavior. The movie has some good ideas, but they don't really go anywhere.

 

The script is muddled with pointless scenes involving the neighbor and his wife, brief therapy sessions with the late Miles Bennett Dyson and supporting characters of little to no importance. There's no payoff here and it just pads out the running time while Michelle does her thing and holds the movie together.

 

The plot twist is sort of effective but not entirely shocking. Maybe that wasn't the point. Maybe the script failed once again. In any case, Ford becomes the bad guy rather well, the only time I can remember that ever happening. There is a clumsy ill-conceived chase scene and finally we come in for a landing on this one.

 

I like it mainly for Michelle Pfeiffer, who always gives a good performance. Most of the movie is focused on her, which helps a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call Me By Your Name. I almost forgot to mention but I watched this over the weekend. I only know the director Luca Guadagnino from the new version of Suspiria. I liked that one so decided to give this a go as well. Really good film. It manages to avoid the shallows of both soapy melodrama as well as the preachy social commentary - both major sins of most LGBTQ-themed films. It somehow felt more natural and less "constructed" than the majority of those. Loved the cinematography and the relaxed pace - both of which successfully evoked the summery northern Italy. Good stuff and a properly made film for once.

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Quick and the Dead (1997)

Harmless but lacking family Western boasting Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman and a youthful Leonardo DI Caprio can't seem to outgrow the comfy shootout niche. Great title. 2.5 / 5

 

Man of Steel (2013)

*considerable retching* Completely defecates on everything that makes Superman great. Overlong, tiresome and shot with so many quick zooms that one has to question who let this pass as a final product. 1 / 5

 

Manhattan (1979)

I really do enjoy Woody Allen's movies, what with all the witty dialogue and heartfelt odes to New York living and life in general. This one really takes the cake, with some bold takes as far as b/w films go. Immensely enjoyable to watch. 5 / 5

 

Paterson (2016)

Jim Jarmusch warms up to blue collar life, and maintains an impressive amount of interest for something as routine as a simple and relatable "week in the life of..." story. 4 / 5

 

Hail, Caesar! (2016)

A guilty pleasure second viewing for me. One of my favourite films in the last while, simply because I know the Coens had as much fun making it as I did watching it. For me that's the greatest joy of filmmaking, and you can tell they love what they do. Naturally I've written far more about this, but I'll post that some other time in Reviews. 5 / 5

 

The Aviator (2004)

Scorsese dives head first into 20th century film and aeronautics, with the aid of an extraordinary ensemble. Cheers to Cate Blanchett. Can't say I was with it all the way, but it had its moments, and a fair number too. 4 / 5

 

Kansas City Confidential (1952)

Overlooked, and if not then underrated, crime noir revolving 'round a somewhat overstated "perfect crime" that sees an unsuspecting delivery man framed to the point of vengeance. A side note, what awesome faces people used to have in movies. What ever happened to those? 4 / 5

 

Not a bad week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, crocodile said:

Call Me By Your Name. I almost forgot to mention but I watched this over the weekend. I only know the director Luca Guadagnino from the new version of Suspiria. I liked that one so decided to give this a go as well. Really good film. It manages to avoid the shallows of both soapy melodrama as well as the preachy social commentary - both major sins of most LGBTQ-themed films. It somehow felt more natural and less "constructed" than the majority of those. Loved the cinematography and the relaxed pace - both of which successfully evoked the summery northern Italy. Good stuff and a properly made film for once.

 

 

I only saw an adult man constantly lusting after a teen boy. There was something unattractive about it. Was this the intention? Anyway, after a while (an hour or so), it started to bother me, so I stopped watching. Save for the music, there was nothing else in the movie that made me want to watch it till the very end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

I only saw an adult man constantly lusting after a teen boy. There was something unattractive about it. Was this the intention? Anyway, after a while (an hour or so), it started to bother me, so I stopped watching. Save for the music, there was nothing else in the movie that made me want to watch it till the very end.

 

No original score, i presume?

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.