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

[chuck 154]

V For Vendetta is great for kids!

[A24 4,331]

Star Trek: Into Darkness: This film shows us precisely what we can expect from the next Star Wars installments. Well made action sequences, an attempt at spontaneous interaction between the characters, and lots of clichés. This movie or the new Star Wars films will never be anything more than shallow popcorn movies. They offers basic low-level entertainment. Here today, gone tomorrow. Random thoughts: The actor playing young Kirk does a good job at being Kirk,I give him that. OTOH, Spock feels like a Baby Muppet version of the real Spock. He lacks Leonard Nimoy's authority and 'coldness'. His weak voice has a lot to do with it. The red and yellow colors of the first scene were beautiful to look at (see photo). Even though the CGI is supposed to be state of the art, and even though everything looks spectacular, it doesn't grab me. Sherlock vs. Spock was clearly a scene to make the American Star Trek crowd sheer. "Go get him, Spock!" It was almost comedic. Occasionally it's a 7/10 movie but it ends up being a 6/10 movie.

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yep, i can agree with that.

I enjoyed the film, but Star Trek, as it once was...is dead.

[Quintus 5,399]

I'll see it because Claire likes Star Trek, but I imagine I'll probably connect more with Abrams' Star Wars movies than I did with Kirk and co. Was always more into that trilogy than that series.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Star Wars was also for the attention deficit, ADHD kinda fanboys.

Trek is where real geekiness lives!

[A24 4,331]

Yep, i can agree with that.

I enjoyed the film, but Star Trek, as it once was...is dead.

Where's the calmness in movies? The stillness, the contrast, the contemplation? There's more atmosphere and tangibility in the opening scene of Alien than in the whole of Star Trek: Into Darkness.

Even when the ride stops for one short moment to show a Spock crying, it felt so contrived.

Long live TV! (where not everything has to comply to the modern rules of a ride)

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That's modern films for you. No time! No time. Must go faster, must be louder.....faster pussycat, SCREAM SCREAM!

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

For Your Eyes Only

A welcome change of pace after the ridiculous Moonraker. Still, the movie sort of trundles about, moving from one exotic location to the next, from one excessive stunt to the next, all with little attention to the characters inhabiting this story. There's a conscious effort to ground the film more than its predecessors. Gone are the megalomaniac villains. Unfortunately, the villain in For Your Eyes Only ends up at the other end of the spectrum, being rather bland and doing very little.

I do like seeing Moore take a darker turn in the role here and there (his grim reservation to being dragged behind the baddie's boat, kicking a bad guy off a cliff with car and all) and I wish he would have done more of that. It's decent, not great. It just sort of sits there. Still, it's a step in the right direction for a franchise that was quickly becoming a parody of itself.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I like FYEO. It has a slight step back after the silly Moonraker. Some nice stunt work too.

The direction and camerawork is a bit flat though.

What did you think about the score Breath-dude?

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Yes, the directing and cinematography is pretty dull. If I recall correctly, John Glen will improve a bit over the next few films (this is his first effort directing a Bond film), but the camerawork will remain pretty straightforward up until the nineties.

I'm a bit torn on For Your Eyes Only vs. Moonraker. For Your Eyes Only isn't as outrageous and manages to ground Bond much more than the silly Moonraker did. Then again, for all its silliness, Moonraker does at least have a huge guilty pleasure factor, something For Your Eyes Only lacks. It just sort of sits there on the screen and unfolds without any spark or tongue in cheek fun. Hmm.

As for the score, I never really liked Bill Conti's For Your Eyes Only. I particularly dislike his funky synthesizer-driven tunes in the first half of the film. The score is also very present in the mix, so there's no getting around that dreadful music. It's like they tried to infuse a little fun into the film through the score, but it clashes with the film. It's also horribly dated (which can have it's charm, but I personally don't really like it that much). The lightness seems to lift as the movie nears its climax. I'll have a listen to the score away from the film for a final judgment. It seemed to improve as the film progressed.

Good song, though.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Marc did you ever finish that IMDb top 250 thing you were doing?

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I saw all the films (I was doing just the top 50, mind you), but I never really got around to writing reviews for all of them.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well, you dont seem to be busy now. And since Roger Ebert is dead.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Hmm. It'd require a lot of rewatching. And I've actually seen a lot of films from that list in the last half year or so. I don't think I'd be bothered to watch them all over again. I might be able to resurrect the thread, though. I'll think about it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Very good.

Carry on!

[Romão 2,274]

Yep, i can agree with that.

I enjoyed the film, but Star Trek, as it once was...is dead.

Where's the calmness in movies? The stillness, the contrast, the contemplation? There's more atmosphere and tangibility in the opening scene of Alien than in the whole of Star Trek: Into Darkness.

Even when the ride stops for one short moment to show a Spock crying, it felt so contrived.

Long live TV! (where not everything has to comply to the modern rules of a ride)

Alex

Spot on, that's one of my main beefs with this movie (and the current state of blockbusters for that matter). The Enterprise sequence in Star Trek: The Motion Picture seems like a huge excentricity these days

[Quintus 5,399]

Seems more like an indulgent geekgasm to me.

[Ollie 1,059]

Star Trek is best suited for the small screen, TV, in one shows.

[Matt C 452]

Getaway

Like most Labor Day releases, the movie is a dud. The script is nothing to write home about, and direction is shockingly flat. Considering the lackluster direction, there's no proper excitement or suspense whatsoever. Ethan Hawke needs to fire his agent... the man has been doing good indie work for decades, but constantly gets terrible studio pictures. It's mystifying... surely someone like Spielberg, Nolan or Fincher can give the guy a proper break.

It's even a waste of Selina Gomez. She could sure break the stigma of that Disney tween image, but this movie ain't it.

[crocodile 7,998]

Star Trek is best suited for the small screen, TV, in one shows.

I don't know much television Star Trek, to be honest. I used to watch some TNG when I was little. And yeah, they were definitely better than the corresponding films, definitely.

Karol

[Brónach 1,302]

I could do with a new, more modern sci-fi universe that isn't stuck in Star Trek's 60's conventions.

[Quintus 5,399]

Well you'll pleased to know that Solaris is being rebooted, by Renny Harlin and starring Dwayne Johnson.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

The World's End.

Loved it. Will have to see it again.

the new Star Wars films will never be anything more than shallow popcorn movies. They offers basic low-level entertainment

The old ones were?

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

the new Star Wars films will never be anything more than shallow popcorn movies. They offers basic low-level entertainment

The old ones were?

Exactly. Too many view the first three with rose-tinted glasses.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I'm just a bit shocked to see Alex in that camp. Bit like seeing a food snob praising a Big Mac for its nutritional value.

[Brónach 1,302]

Leaving aside irrelevant and absurd definitons of "low-brow, high brow" that add nothing to our understanding and enjoyment of art, I think the first one was rather good, and the second one was really good, and the last three ones don't even make it past a basic writing level because they fail there from the start. So it's not all the same. Not at all.

Well you'll pleased to know that Solaris is being rebooted, by Renny Harlin and starring Dwayne Johnson.

Nice one.

(On a side note, it's not like the other two guys, prestigious as they might be, got everything they could have out of the glaringly superior novel.)

[chuck 154]

the new Star Wars films will never be anything more than shallow popcorn movies. They offers basic low-level entertainment

The old ones were?

Exactly. Too many view the first three with rose-tinted glasses.

Mostly the Gen X-ers. Us Gen Y kids don't think the OT is all that its make out to be.

[Brónach 1,302]

Does the Gen Y thing include people born in the early 90's?

[chuck 154]

Yep. We're also called the Millenial Generation / Y2K Generation.

[Brónach 1,302]

I was born in 1992 and I think The Empire Strikes Back is outstanding cinema.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I am not interested in what you find to be outstanding drama.

Alex's statement implied that other Star Wars movies offer something other than "shallow" "popcorn" and "low-level" entertainment. I'm simply curious about what he considers deep, meaningful, and high level in other Star Wars movies.

[Muad'Dib 1,801]

The White Ribbon (2009)

What an absolutely fascinating film. I was enthralled by the very first shots all the way to the end, I don't think my attention dropped even for one second. I was really fascinated by how real it could become, how sincere it felt. My favorite moment probably was when the kid is talking to her sister about death, damn, this film in general made me think so much of when I was younger, my views of the adult world. Not that I experienced any abuse nearly as terrible as the kids on the movie -and at the time- had to go through, but how adults seemed to be so hypocrital. Of course, as you grow up you learn that nothing is black and white as you thought when you were a kid...

But back to the movie, I felt it was everything Days of Heaven should have been. Whereas Malick treated some of the same subjects in his more uninvolved way, here the film takes responsibilty for its topics. The cinematography was gorgeous -although some of the CGI generated stuff could put me off at times-, the acting was tremendous (those kids, damn!) and the lack of score gave the movie an eerie feeling, almost surreal. It's not a film for everyone, but if you go with an open mind you're in for a wonderful surprise. Can't wait to explore more of Haneke's philmography.

9/10

[indy4 155]

Finally saw Great Gatsby. It was great. Really creative cinematography, set design and use of music (the pop/jazz combo was really nicely balanced). Pacing was very fast and engaging, especially in the beginning. Parts of it felt more like a play. I expect it to at least get awards for art direction come Oscar season.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

That movie was absolute shit. An insult to the great novel.

[chuck 154]

Seeing as it's the director who made that gangsta Romeo & Juliet, big surprise.

[Quintus 5,399]

Women of a certain age loved his Romeo & Juliet.

[A24 4,331]

The World's End.

Loved it. Will have to see it again.

the new Star Wars films will never be anything more than shallow popcorn movies. They offers basic low-level entertainment

The old ones were?

You don't see the difference between Star Wars and Into Darkness? Of course, both are about escapism, but I think the virtues of the ride of the latter film are incredibly fleeting. Nothing makes any lasting impression. In fact, the most fascinating thing about Into Darkness is how instantly forgettable it really is. It's a flash in the pan. Star Wars had the power to stay in people's hearts and minds long after it was over. You had the feeling there was much more going on than what was shown. It made you ponder about certain things, making it anything but a shallow experience. And you certainly didn't feel like you were watching the umpteenth product coming out of the factories of Hollywood.

Even Dune, while not a good movie, made a deeper impression. There are different levels of shallowness. The rain of Star Trek: Into Darkness couldn't even form a puddle.

Alex

[Quintus 5,399]

Again, with Star Wars it is the notion of 'collectve memory' which ensured its almost universal appeal with audiences. It's mythological themes of good vs evil, romance, friendship and its clear retelling of The Hero's Journey crossed cultural boundaries and became a shared experience. Lucas, probably just out of sheer luck, tapped directly into our ancient tribal values.

The latest Star Trek movies do not attempt to instill any of that, they contain no sense of mythology and rather ironically, journey of the human soul. They're simply straightforward blockbusters, albeit specialist in nature. So I think it's a little unfair to compare them to Star Wars from an audience resonance perspective - particularly because Star Trek's own audience isn't anywhere near as broad.

[A24 4,331]

I never thought this day would come but I finally agree with Quint.

[Quintus 5,399]

Oh I think we quietly agree on different things on occasion. I just don't necessarily make posts about it

Also, it could just be that what I said is a load of cosy nonsense and it's really just a case that all Star Trek movies are simply lacking is a Force theme.

Maybe Star Wars was just another forgettable sci-fi flick until John Williams turned up and fired some mythological soul into it. That's certainly partly why I'm here talking about it right now.

[A24 4,331]

As to the nature of the surplus value of Star Wars, I deliberately left it open ... Whether it was the mythology, the Force, the sense of destiny or the vastness of the universe, I think we all know that Star Wars was more than: "Yeah, that was fun. Next!"

[A24 4,331]

Amazing. I just stumbled upon this very recent article and it talks about the things we were sorta discussing right now (the incredible shallowness of the modern science fiction movie):

Star Trek, Star Wars and Avatar: Putting Sci-Fi Into Darkness:

http://www.soundonsight.org/star-trek-star-wars-putting-sci-fi-into-darkness/


It even warns not to get your hopes up for Nolan's Interstellar, something I admit I was doing.

This is best personified with Into Darkness. The fact is you will not see another film this year that offers the same high-octane, restless and huge scale spectacle entertainment. Opening inside a volcano and somehow growing larger, faster and bolder from then on in, it is an acid trip of action and set piece. Even in critical terms, it is a commendable endeavor and a tribute to the boyish enthusiasm and cinematic nous of its director; rarely does a full so crowded, fast and at times incoherent result in such a fun experience. Few filmmakers would have avoided a mess in trying to harness so many elements at such high speed. You could go even further and praise Abrams for opening up Star Trek as an institution to a completely different corners of the market. All that had to be done to achieve this was removal of the franchise’s beating heart and soul.

These are semantics, however. The bigger cause for concern is that in loud, verbose and breakneck style Into Darkness doesn’t have a story to tell and instead acts as a catalyst for confrontations, mega-battles and punching on top of flying cars. At its core, Star Trek, even

with dwarfs and green women, was an ideas show. This element of the show was crystallized by The Next Generation, which replaced a womanizing, alpha male captain with a philosopher who was badass by dint of his morality and verbal put downs, not his fighting smarts or physical prowess. Setting it in space and in the future allowed for a number of circumstances and scenarios simply not possible on the Oregon Trail. This is the most basic and fundamental law of science-fiction as a genre of storytelling; only invoke it when there is no other way to express your idea or tell your story. By this law, Into Darkness isn’t sci-fi; it is Mission Impossible 5 with the gimmick of including starships and future-tech.

Yes, filmmaking is a business and yes, these three developments this year represent that business in blooming, prolific form. The future is bright for the industry. That success, however, is effectively killing off a genre for good and ensuring that the days of space setting by necessity and other worlds as a means to bigger questions are consigned to ancient history.

Of course, it has always been like that for science fiction but today it's more true than ever.

Alex

[chuck 154]

Score-wise, I find a lot of modern science fiction movies lacking. There's no creativity, no innovation in the way modern science fiction score sounds like. I surely would like to experience one day going to the movie theaters and hear a Capricorn One, an Alien, a Damnation Alley, or even The Swarm kind of score, something that will really blow my mind.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Music is no longer used to give the audience a unique experience. No matter how outlandish things are on screen, there's still the same musical soundscape found under every other hyped film to accompany it. That way, there is at least something familiar. Rather than transport the audience to new worlds, the music is now used to comfort them. Filmgoers seem to lap it up, but sadly, the world of film music is only getting duller for it.

[chuck 154]

Yeah, no longer do we hear an atmospheric, romantic type of score. Now its just plain blanket.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[chuck 154]

Atmospheric? Romantic? HAHAHAHAHA! Who in the world would want that? What's next? You're gonna ask for more woodwinds? Get the hell out of here! I want my scores to be ballsy, manly, with lots of drums, power anthems and noise! If you want music for pussies, go back to your classical shit!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Man Of Steel for the win!

[chuck 154]

[Naïve Old Fart 9,511]

Well you'll pleased to know that Solaris is being rebooted, by Renny Harlin and starring Dwayne Johnson.

LOL!!!!!!! (please say it isn't true...).