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

[crocodile 7,984]

Speaking of Nolan, I've watched The Dark Knight Rises last night. What becomes more and more obvious now that all the hype has died down, is that those three films are much breezier than most people say. Not as grim. Especially in the light of recent Man of Steel release, Batman character is always selfless and heroic, something that was never really portrayed on screen before, if you think about it. None of the Schumacher/Burton films ever really adressed that. Ironically, it is only in the Nolan trilogy that Batman is truly willing to give away everything to give people hope. He's a real hero.

The film itself is not perfect. Not becuase of plot holes (which are not as important as some people say), but because some occasional lines of dialogue or staging of scenes seems a bit strange. But I enjoy it a great deal overall and it strikes me as much more hopeful than I remember. I really like the idea behind the trilogy: A story of man who turns his fears against his enemies, then gets lost in his obsessions and stops to fear altogether. And then finally he has to discover the fear again to become human again. It's a really classic storytelling and on this level the trilogy is one of the most satisfying sagas of all time. The Dark Knight RIses also seems to be less interesting as a standalone entry and more like a conclusion. Especially if you watch the three films in one go, you see how rewarding it is with is repeating motifs, images and so on.

Nolan seems to have influenced how blockbusters are made these days. And yet I feel most of the people miss the point. It reminds me of when Alan Moore was disappointed with how his Watchmen inspired decades of bloody and grim superhero comics with no substance whatsoever. In a same way other filmmakers and producers take something like The Dark Knight and drain it of all its meaning and power, taking only colourless shots, grim faces and thundering musical power-ostinatos. It's not what Nolan films are for me. They tend to be a bit more somber, but at no point I get the feeling this is cynical grim and humourless take on blockbusters. What I treasure about this filmmaker is how he manages to translate his essentially indie mentality into a big playground. I love how physical and real they feel. Again, not because of the realistic subject matter (they are not realistic), but because how visceral the filmmaking is - minimal CGI, no animatics or crazy camera shotws, mostly location shoot, everything done with one man behind the camera and no second units. In terms of logistics and approach, this film is the biggest indie movie ever made. You know these are real locations, stunts. That's where it differs so much from a typical tentpole. Nobody does the filmmaking on this sort of scale the way Nolan does it. Not at the moment.

So why does the film feel so grim, you ask? It's mostly good ol' Hans, really. Some of his ideas work, especially in the thriller-like second film. But he can do no subtlety and that's what ultimately bogs an otherwise compelling story down. It feels heavier than it actually is, Nolan needs to back away with his opressive sound design a bit.

Karol - looking forward to Interstellar.

[Brónach 1,301]

Fanboy!

I'm not a fan of the trilogy but I agree with you on several points, actually. The films could stand perfectly some different music, and would be better for it.

[Quintus 5,399]

Still haven't seen Batman 3.

[crocodile 7,984]

Given the fact I enjoy it, you probably won't.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

Nah, I have it here to watch, just haven't gotten around to it, mainly because I've got to really be in the mood for really long Nolan movies. I know it doesn't seem it, but I do highly rate the first two Batman movies by him.

[crocodile 7,984]

Looking forward to your review then.

However long it takes.

Karol

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Nah, I have it here to watch, just haven't gotten around to it, mainly because I've got to really be in the mood for really long Nolan movies. I know it doesn't seem it, but I do highly rate the first two Batman movies by him.

it's far superior to the film Snyder presented a few weeks back.

I chose to have some comfort films this past weekend.

The Thing from Another World

When Worlds Collide

and

It Came from Outer Space.

three terrific B films from the 50's.

I'd love to see When Worlds Collide remade. I can see Bradley Cooper in the main role.

[Delorean90 42]

Speaking of Nolan, I've watched The Dark Knight Rises last night. What becomes more and more obvious now that all the hype has died down, is that those three films are much breezier than most people say. Not as grim. Especially in the light of recent Man of Steel release, Batman character is always selfless and heroic, something that was never really portrayed on screen before, if you think about it. None of the Schumacher/Burton films ever really adressed that. Ironically, it is only in the Nolan trilogy that Batman is truly willing to give away everything to give people hope. He's a real hero.

The film itself is not perfect. Not becuase of plot holes (which are not as important as some people say), but because some occasional lines of dialogue or staging of scenes seems a bit strange. But I enjoy it a great deal overall and it strikes me as much more hopeful than I remember. I really like the idea behind the trilogy: A story of man who turns his fears against his enemies, then gets lost in his obsessions and stops to fear altogether. And then finally he has to discover the fear again to become human again. It's a really classic storytelling and on this level the trilogy is one of the most satisfying sagas of all time. The Dark Knight RIses also seems to be less interesting as a standalone entry and more like a conclusion. Especially if you watch the three films in one go, you see how rewarding it is with is repeating motifs, images and so on.

Nolan seems to have influenced how blockbusters are made these days. And yet I feel most of the people miss the point. It reminds me of when Alan Moore was disapponted with how his Watchmen inspired decades of bloody and grim superhero comics with no substance whatsoever. In a same way other filmmakers and producers take something like The Dark Knight and drain it of all its meaning and power, taking only colourless shots, grim faces and thundering musical power-ostinatos. It's not what Nolan films are for me. They tend to be a bit more someber, but at no point I get the feeling this is cynical grim and humourless take on blockbusters. What I trasure about this filmmaker is how he manages to translate his essentially indie mentality into a big playground. I love how physical and real they feel. Again, not because of the realistic subject matter (they are not realistic), but because how visceral the filmmaking is - minimal CGI, no animatics or crazy cameras, mostly locaion shoot, everything done with one man behind the camera and no second units. You know these are real locations, stunts. That's where it differes so much from a typical tentpole. Nobody does the filmmaking on this sort of scale the way Nolan does it. Not at the moment.

So why does the film feel so grim, you ask? It's mostly good ol' Hans, really. Some of his ideas work, especially in the thriller-like second film. But he can do no subtlety and that's what ultimately bogs an otherwise compelling story down. It feels heavier than it actually is, Nolan needs to back away with his opressive sound design a bit.

Karol - looking forward to Interstellar.

Spot on. Agreed 100%.

[Jay 37,287]

I'm wondering if Man of Steel has enough Amy Adams in it to justify seeing it.

I definitely assumed based on the fact that Amy Adams was barely in any of the commercials/trailers for the film, that she wasn't going to be in it much. However I was pleasantly surprised to see she plays a huge role in the film, her character and her actions are vital to the entire plot. So she's in it a lot

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[crocodile 7,984]

She wrote an article about Superman, so that makes the first expert on Krypton, I guess.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

My god your dense.

[Jay 37,287]

I'm wondering if Man of Steel has enough Amy Adams in it to justify seeing it.

I definitely assumed based on the fact that Amy Adams was barely in any of the commercials/trailers for the film, that she wasn't going to be in it much. However I was pleasantly surprised to see she plays a huge role in the film, her character and her actions are vital to the entire plot. So she's in it a lot

Yeah, even though not all of her appearances are justified. What was she doing in that military plane again? You know, during the final action sequence: why did they need her?

Who cares, some movies you just gotta enjoy the ride man! No need to analyze the fuck out of every thing you watch!

[crocodile 7,984]

You tend to do that too Jason. On Mission Impossible 4, Batman 3, Iron Man 3...

But then, don't we all?

Karol

[Jay 37,287]

Man of Steel is the kind of quality summer blockbuster you can enjoy easily because it's well made and has a good story. I don't really care about why Lois Lane was on a plane. I just enjoyed the movie!

Iron Man 3, Batman 3, and Star Trek Into Darkness all have MAJORLY frustrating story elements that are just hard to ignore. And the action scenes in them weren't as good as Man of Steel's.

I don't really have a strong opinion either way on Mission Impossible 4... it was just kinda there. In the end I really think only the first MI film was anything super special. Though the scores to 3 and 4 are fantastic! (As is the score to the first, of course!)

[Quintus 5,399]

BloodBoal enjoying a late night rerun of Predator 2:

BloodBoal just chillin' analysing the Man of Steel town battle in his purpose built Augmented Film Dissection Booth:

[Ren 75]

My god your dense.

You're. Lol

[Quintus 5,399]

Were did I go wrong, Ren?

[Jay 37,287]

You spelled "your" instead of "you're"

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Man of Steel is the kind of quality summer blockbuster you can enjoy easily because it's well made and has a good story. I don't really care about why Lois Lane was on a plane. I just enjoyed the movie!

Iron Man 3, Batman 3, and Star Trek Into Darkness all have MAJORLY frustrating story elements that are just hard to ignore. And the action scenes in them weren't as good as Man of Steel's.

I don't really have a strong opinion either way on Mission Impossible 4... it was just kinda there. In the end I really think only the first MI film was anything super special. Though the scores to 3 and 4 are fantastic! (As is the score to the first, of course!)

Man of Steel has just as many majorly frustrating story elements that are hard to ignore. And the action scenes in them were as good if not better than Man of Steel's except it's were more plentiful, very plentiful, too plentiful, JFC another skyscraper just collaped, but as the consensus of the MOS fansboys around here believe no one died, because skysrapers down town never have people in them.

[Quintus 5,399]

Were did I go wrong, Ren?

You spelled "your" instead of "you're"

Hahaha! Classic LeBlanc

[Uni 306]

Especially in the light of recent Man of Steel release, Batman character is always selfless and heroic, something that was never really portrayed on screen before, if you think about it. None of the Schumacher/Burton films ever really adressed that. Ironically, it is only in the Nolan trilogy that Batman is truly willing to give away everything to give people hope. He's a real hero.

. . . I really like the idea behind the trilogy: A story of man who turns his fears against his enemies, then gets lost in his obsessions and stops to fear altogether. And then finally he has to discover the fear again to become human again. It's a really classic storytelling and on this level the trilogy is one of the most satisfying sagas of all time. . . .

Nolan seems to have influenced how blockbusters are made these days. And yet I feel most of the people miss the point. It reminds me of when Alan Moore was disapponted with how his Watchmen inspired decades of bloody and grim superhero comics with no substance whatsoever. In a same way other filmmakers and producers take something like The Dark Knight and drain it of all its meaning and power, taking only colourless shots, grim faces and thundering musical power-ostinatos. It's not what Nolan films are for me. They tend to be a bit more someber, but at no point I get the feeling this is cynical grim and humourless take on blockbusters. What I trasure about this filmmaker is how he manages to translate his essentially indie mentality into a big playground. I love how physical and real they feel. Again, not because of the realistic subject matter (they are not realistic), but because how visceral the filmmaking is - minimal CGI, no animatics or crazy cameras, mostly locaion shoot, everything done with one man behind the camera and no second units. You know these are real locations, stunts. That's where it differes so much from a typical tentpole. Nobody does the filmmaking on this sort of scale the way Nolan does it. Not at the moment.

So why does the film feel so grim, you ask? It's mostly good ol' Hans, really. Some of his ideas work, especially in the thriller-like second film. But he can do no subtlety and that's what ultimately bogs an otherwise compelling story down. It feels heavier than it actually is, Nolan needs to back away with his opressive sound design a bit.

Spot on. Agreed 100%.

I'm with both of you—and Karol pointed out a couple of elements that I hadn't really thought on before, but really resonate now that they're in front of me. Nolan really did tell this story in a classic, mythologically-framed style. Burton drew Batman as a gothic, comic-y, anti-hero sort; Schumacher made him a cartoon; but Nolan was just about the only one who really presented him as a hero. I believed his struggles throughout, because he was wrestling with very human dilemmas. They're just great films, and now I've got a couple more reasons to think so.

And your point on Nolan as a filmmaker in general is well-taken, too, and makes perfect sense when you think about it like that.

Man of Steel is the kind of quality summer blockbuster you can enjoy easily because it's well made and has a good story. I don't really care about why Lois Lane was on a plane. I just enjoyed the movie!

Iron Man 3, Batman 3, and Star Trek Into Darkness all have MAJORLY frustrating story elements that are just hard to ignore. And the action scenes in them weren't as good as Man of Steel's.

There it is again! I just find it fascinating that everyone has such diametrically opposed viewpoints about this one movie. It's no secret that my views on movies and books often line up with Jason's . . . but not in these cases. Aside from Iron Man 3 (which I haven't seen yet, and so can't offer a perspective), I could easily switch the movie titles in the first two paragraphs above and it would completely and accurately reflect my feelings about them—i.e., TDK and Into Darkness were high-quality summer blockbusters because they were well-made with good stories and superb action sequences, whereas I found it impossible to ignore the frustrating story elements and over-the-top action in MOS.

Again—just so we don't stray off into ridiculous arguments once more—I'm glad you guys liked the new Superman film. It's just really rare, almost bizarre, to find such a wide range of reactions to a movie like this.

I mean, what the hell, people. . . ?

- Uni

[Jay 37,287]

Wait - are you talking about The Dark Knight or The Dark Knight Rises?

Cause I think The Dark Knight is brilliant, it's The Dark Knight Rises that I did not like.

if you meant The Dark Knight Rises, what made it highly enjoyable for you?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Man of Steel is the kind of quality summer blockbuster you can enjoy easily because it's well made and has a good story. I don't really care about why Lois Lane was on a plane. I just enjoyed the movie!

Iron Man 3, Batman 3, and Star Trek Into Darkness all have MAJORLY frustrating story elements that are just hard to ignore. And the action scenes in them weren't as good as Man of Steel's.

I don't really have a strong opinion either way on Mission Impossible 4... it was just kinda there. In the end I really think only the first MI film was anything super special. Though the scores to 3 and 4 are fantastic! (As is the score to the first, of course!)

Man of Steel has just as many majorly frustrating story elements that are hard to ignore. And the action scenes in them were as good if not better than Man of Steel's except it's were more plentiful, very plentiful, too plentiful, JFC another skyscraper just collaped, but as the consensus of the MOS fansboys around here believe no one died, because skysrapers down town never have people in them.

Man Of Steel doesn't just have as many, but they are more blatanly obvious. I enjoyed Star Trek Into Darkness in theaters but the minute I tried to think about it things began to fall apart. Lois Lane really has no purpose in Man Of Steel and it's quite obvious. Why did Zod even want her on his ship? Just so Russell Crowe could appear to give her the answer to killing him and thus giving her a reason to be in the rest of the movie?

[Quintus 5,399]

What made The Dark Knight high quality for you?

It's the second best origins movie ever made, for starters.

[Jay 37,287]

What is?

[Quintus 5,399]

Free Willy

[Brónach 1,301]

Free Willy

I had even forgotten that film existed.

Flashbacks. I've got flashbacks here.

[crocodile 7,984]

I prefer Free Willy Rises.

That came out wrong...

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

The next one is called Willy Sinks Deep.

[Brónach 1,301]

Revisiting the score now, it sounds so typically Poledouris that it's funny.

[KK 3,307]

Man of Steel is the kind of quality summer blockbuster you can enjoy easily because it's well made and has a good story. I don't really care about why Lois Lane was on a plane. I just enjoyed the movie!

Iron Man 3, Batman 3, and Star Trek Into Darkness all have MAJORLY frustrating story elements that are just hard to ignore. And the action scenes in them weren't as good as Man of Steel's.

I don't really have a strong opinion either way on Mission Impossible 4... it was just kinda there. In the end I really think only the first MI film was anything super special. Though the scores to 3 and 4 are fantastic! (As is the score to the first, of course!)

Man of Steel has just as many majorly frustrating story elements that are hard to ignore. And the action scenes in them were as good if not better than Man of Steel's except it's were more plentiful, very plentiful, too plentiful, JFC another skyscraper just collaped, but as the consensus of the MOS fansboys around here believe no one died, because skysrapers down town never have people in them.

Man Of Steel doesn't just have as many, but they are more blatanly obvious. I enjoyed Star Trek Into Darkness in theaters but the minute I tried to think about it things began to fall apart. Lois Lane really has no purpose in Man Of Steel and it's quite obvious. Why did Zod even want her on his ship? Just so Russell Crowe could appear to give her the answer to killing him and thus giving her a reason to be in the rest of the movie?

What was more frustrating wqs how little charm Lois had, and the lack of chemistry with Superman.

[Quintus 5,399]

This guy reckons Zemekis' Contact is a misunderstood work of brilliance: http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/contact/26157/looking-back-at-robert-zemeckis-contact

Some interesting arguments, even if I disagree overall.

[Jay 37,287]

Love that movie

[Brónach 1,301]

I need to read the book.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Zemeckis was a very consistent filmmaker before the 00s. I really like Contact but I wouldn't hail it as the best blockbuster of the past 20 years.

[Delorean90 42]

I haven't seen Flight yet. Do you find it to be a return to form beyond just the live action aspect?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I haven't seen it yet either. I bought it a couple weeks ago for $12, will watch once my home theater is set up (which I'm frankly not doing very much to expedite).

[Delorean90 42]

I'm looking forward to it, as it's supposed to be good; at the same time, I'd love to see Zemeckis do another live action family adventure type film. Back to the Future and Who Framed Roger Rabbit are two excellent and insanely satisfying films, and it would be great to see him bring back that magic, at least to a certain extent.

[Quintus 5,399]

Flight was a decent movie, but really fucking heavy with it. Dour at times. It was definitely a new side to Zemeckis.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Flight was a decent movie, but really fucking heavy with it. Dour at times. It was definitely a new side to Zemeckis.

Flight was a decent movie, but really fucking heavy with it. Dour at times. It was definitely a new side to Zemeckis.

You can say that again.

[Quintus 5,399]

I prefer his older stuff.

[crocodile 7,984]

I rememeber really enjoying Contact when it first came out. But that was a long time ago and it might spark a different reaction now.

Of his more recent works, I'm a fan of Beowulf, unlike most people on this planet. The underwhelming animation aside, it struck me as a very mature film. Not a typical action/adventure, more of an interesting mythical family drama. Interesting take.

I also enjoyed A Christmas Carol, mostly for its reverence to the original text.

Karol

[Jay 37,287]

I need to read the book.

Fantastic book!

Zemeckis was a very consistent filmmaker before the 00s. I really like Contact but I wouldn't hail it as the best blockbuster of the past 20 years.

I wouldn't put it in the blockbuster category, it's a more intimate film.

[publicist 4,643]

I haven't seen Flight yet. Do you find it to be a return to form beyond just the live action aspect?

FLIGHT suffers from stapling a wholesome Frank-Capra-end on a much more ambiguous story. You can practically see the movie explode when Denzel decides to do THE RIGHT THING after watching him 2 hours tumble in a world of complicated questions and even more complicated answers.

[Uni 306]

Wait - are you talking about The Dark Knight or The Dark Knight Rises?

Cause I think The Dark Knight is brilliant, it's The Dark Knight Rises that I did not like.

if you meant The Dark Knight Rises, what made it highly enjoyable for you?

My bad, Jason—you were talking about Batman 3, and so was I. I should've said DKR instead of TDK. (Hate it when I screw up those acronyms. . . .)

Doesn't matter, though. I loved them both. I'd probably have to give the edge to the second film, but not by much.

As for why, I'd point back to what Karol said about it. He's right in that it wouldn't make a great stand-alone film . . . but then, neither would Return of the Jedi. It's a satisfying conclusion to a magnificent series. It has plenty of its own chops, of course—the theme of rising out of fear and failure rings powerfully, and this one more than the other films is a true tale of redemption. I also loved that it had a sufficient amount of story that it didn't need wall-to-wall action. The drama between the characters—and within themselves—was enough to carry the film. (Guess that's where Karol's "big indie film" idea comes into play.)

It's just a great series and a great movie.

- Uni

[Marian Schedenig 8,173]

Nah, I have it here to watch, just haven't gotten around to it, mainly because I've got to really be in the mood for really long Nolan movies. I know it doesn't seem it, but I do highly rate the first two Batman movies by him.

The thirds has more problems than the first two put together.

[crocodile 7,984]

I had issues with it when the film was released. But, strangely enough, those things don't bother me anymore. Must have been high expectations.

Karol

[Jay 37,287]

Maybe I should give it a second chance someday.

[nightscape94 965]

I rememeber really enjoying Contact when it first came out. But that was a long time ago and it might spark a different reaction now.

My favorite Zemeckis film.