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

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

There's a very strong visual element to the film that Bolleke is missing.

 

As for those unanswered questions. Close Encounters doesn't seem interested in answering them. Should it?

[Quintus 5,399]

Well I got a couple of thousand goddamn questions, you know. I want to speak to someone in charge. I want to lodge a complaint. You have no right to make people crazy! You think I investigate every Walter Cronkite story there is? Huh? If this is just nerve gas, how come I know everything in such detail? I've never been here before. How come I know so much? What the hell is going on around here? Who the hell are you people?! 

[A24 4,331]

36 minutes ago, publicist said:

Germany is a rather secular country, CEOTK never really took off here (the movie seems to appeal to religious people more). 

 

Really? How old were you in 1977? Back then, I know that, in Belgium, everything Sci-Fi and Spielberg was reason enough to go the theatre. Because Jaws was such a phenomenon, a Spielberg movie used to be an event around here. 

[publicist 4,643]

People probably did go to the theatre in 1977 but that's not what i was saying. The film has not a big following and is not even that well-known or cited (or shown on tv).

[A24 4,331]

30 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

There's a very strong visual element to the film that Bolleke is missing.

 

 

That is absolutely true. It's undeniable that Bolle watches movies in a different way. 

[Holko 9,517]

Which Germany?

It was never too big here, either, I never heard anyone even mention it, just vaguely recognising the title.

[publicist 4,643]

It miraculously ran in east and west Germany.

[A24 4,331]

12 minutes ago, publicist said:

People probably did go to the theatre in 1977 but that's not what i was saying. The film has not a big following and is not even that well-known or cited (or shown on tv).

 

True. It was a big success here but its effect wasn't everlasting. Those who have seen Close Encounters in theaters will not forget it but somehow later generations were less impressed or intrigued. Not every movie is a Jaws or Raiders. Perhaps it's not a movie classic? (Oh my, the wrath of Joe will be fierce)

 

Maybe it needs a sequel. 

[Quintus 5,399]

Close Encounters is regarded as a classic sci-fi movie here, but it isn't ever shown on regular TV anymore. At one time it would have been a Saturday tea time or evening stalwart on one of the main channels, but nowadays I think its rather unfashionable sensibilities are no longer considered a match for those audiences.

[publicist 4,643]

It's one of those movies of which relevance i only learned here. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

52 minutes ago, Quintus said:

Close Encounters is regarded as a classic sci-fi movie here, but it isn't ever shown on regular TV anymore. At one time it would have been a Saturday tea time or evening stalwart on one of the main channels, but nowadays I think its rather unfashionable sensibilities are no longer considered a match for those audiences.

 

That's just your own opinion of the film based on your last viewing of it.

 

Close Encounters has never been a film thats broadcast often. Not in the 90's, not now 

 

 

[Quintus 5,399]

Before the era of X-Factor and Strictly Come Dancing (both shows which use up many hours of Saturday evening TV schedules), it was instead common to find the "Saturday night movie" on the telly, preceded by Michael Barrymore's Strike it Lucky or Jim Davidson's Big Break snooker gameshow. They'd play all the Spielberg movies, and the edited/dubbed Die Hards, RoboCop, Ghostbusters etc etc. 

 

That's just British TV though. I have no idea whatsoever about what got aired in The Netherlands thirty years ago I'm afraid. 

[bollemanneke 3,342]

3 hours ago, Stefancos said:

There's a very strong visual element to the film that Bolleke is missing.

 

As for those unanswered questions. Close Encounters doesn't seem interested in answering them. Should it?

Well, yes, I think it should. And another thing, Roy just abandons his entire family! One minute he's trying to talk to his wife on the phone to set things right, the other he just joins unknown aliens. Ridiculous.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Because he was DRAWN to them. It wasn't a voluntarily action. Roy and Gillian are drawn to the mountain.

 

Also, his family abandoned him. The movie actually shows this.

 

 

[Sweeping Strings 2,352]

47 minutes ago, Quintus said:

Before the era of X-Factor and Strictly Come Dancing (both shows which use up many hours of Saturday evening TV schedules), it was instead common to find the "Saturday night movie" on the telly, preceded by Michael Barrymore's Strike it Lucky or Jim Davidson's Big Break snooker gameshow. They'd play all the Spielberg movies, and the edited/dubbed Die Hards, RoboCop, Ghostbusters etc etc. 

 

That's just British TV though. I have no idea whatsoever about what got aired in The Netherlands at that time I'm afraid. 

Ah yes ... how the heart would sink at the words 'TV version' next to a movie in a listings mag. 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

9 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Mid-life crisis, Stu?

 

 

Well, hopefully it's a quarter-life one!

 

[Nick Parker 3,040]

2 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

Well, yes, I think it should. And another thing, Roy just abandons his entire family! One minute he's trying to talk to his wife on the phone to set things right, the other he just joins unknown aliens. Ridiculous.

 

That scene when he's on the phone with his wife and gets super frustrated is a scene that always got to me, even when I first saw it in high school.

 

Have you never had something you felt so compelled to do, something you make sacrifices and risks for, things that make life painful, but in the end, as easier as it make life to ignore, you just _had_ to keep pressing forward with it?

 

 

 

 

Also, am I fabulin', is Close Encounters now considered a not very good film that's primarily recommended for its craft, now? Say what?

[bollemanneke 3,342]

55 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

 

That scene when he's on the phone with his wife and gets super frustrated is a scene that always got to me, even when I first saw it in high school.

 

Have you never had something you felt so compelled to do, something you make sacrifices and risks for, things that make life painful, but in the end, as easier as it make life to ignore, you just _had_ to keep pressing forward with it?

 

 

 

 

Also, am I fabulin', is Close Encounters now considered a not very good film that's primarily recommended for its craft, now? Say what?

No, I can't say I ever had that feeling, no.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

 

 

Well, hopefully it's a quarter-life one!

 

 

Probably not.

[Quintus 5,399]

1 hour ago, Nick Parker said:

 

That scene when he's on the phone with his wife and gets super frustrated is a scene that always got to me, even when I first saw it in high school.

 

 

Spielberg's older domestic scenes were some of the most honest work he's done. I always lament his losing his naturalistic touch there in his later movies; compare it to similar content in the likes of War of the Worlds, and well its just so phony to me I can't actually stand it. Those old domestic exchanges and rows in Close Encounters though, they border on Mike Leigh material in their mundane believability. I think it's a rather remarkable facet of a director who went on to be the iconic brand filmmaker he is now. 

[SteveMc 2,674]

1 hour ago, Nick Parker said:

Have you never had something you felt so compelled to do, something you make sacrifices and risks for, things that make life painful, but in the end, as easier as it make life to ignore, you just _had_ to keep pressing forward with it?

Spielberg does seem to be commenting on the dilemma of the artist.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

1 hour ago, Quintus said:

Spielberg's older domestic scenes were some of the most honest work he's done. I always lament his losing his naturalistic touch there in his later movies;

I agree on that.

 

1 hour ago, Quintus said:

[C]ompare it to similar content in the likes of War of the Worlds, and well its just so phony to me I can't actually stand it.

I absolutely disagree with you on the idea to use WotW as a negative example of Spielberg's naturalistic family depiction.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

 

 

1 minute ago, Brundlefly said:

I absolutely disagree with you on the idea to use WotW as a negative example of Spielberg's naturalistic family depiction.

 

Say what? Some of it's Koepp of course, but scenes like the sandwich blackjack make me groan in how much it feels like it came from the mind of some mid-life schlub. I'd be curious to know how you think the family in War of the Worlds is naturalistic. 

[A24 4,331]

Me too. It felt as forced as the family scenes in Shyamalan's Unbreakable*, with way too much emphasis on gravitas to be anything close to naturalistic. 

 

 

 

* I do like the rest of Unbreakable but the gloomy tone didn't transfer well to the family scenes.

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Some of it is Koepp, some of it is Cruise.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Probably, but I do remember liking the scene where he and his son were playing catch at the beginning. 

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

The family in WotW is fairly, how do you say, imperfect and unconventional. That's the overarching similarity in Spielberg's films, and there are reasons for that.

[Quintus 5,399]

Having had The Greatest Showman CD forced onto me these past few weeks by the kids, I finally sat down with them and watched it today. Another one of those unexpected movie phenomena despite the critics, it's certainly no great movie by any stretch of the imagination and the story's themes and relationships are handled with all the subtlety of a clown with a snare drum, but goddamn it if I still quite enjoyed it in spite of myself. Because the songs are great, when seen and heard within the context of the film. The big numbers and heavily stylised routines here... they just work. This is why the movie was embraced and why it became a smash - it's just incredibly rare to have a modern musical film come out and its songs be as instantly memorable and gratifying as they are here. It's pure trash but with a big heart. It should not work. 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

11 hours ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

The family in WotW is fairly, how do you say, imperfect and unconventional. That's the overarching similarity in Spielberg's films, and there are reasons for that.

Actually his families are very conventional by current standards. 

 

Watched 3 films today. 

 

The Town that Dreaded Sundown. What can I say, I find this to be a terrific B horror film. I love how it incorprates the original Pierce film, the actual events, and the folklore surrounding those slayings in Arkansas and Texas after WWII. Its quite brutal at times.

Pet Sematary was next. Its a near masterpiece in novel form, quite possibly the scariest thing Stephen King has written. Sadly the film fails to live up. Still it is not all bad. There are genuine moments of terror and horror. Fred Gwynn is phenomenal but most of the cast is not. I am glad I watched again as I anticipate the new adaption coming in April.

Final we watched Trading Places. My memories of this film were vague. I remember liking it so much and thinking how great Eddie Murphy was and my memories turned out to be true. Eddie is amazing on the screen. He just lights up the film. One thing I forgot is how loose it was with outright racism and bigotry. Dan Aykroyd is in fine form as well. 

[A24 4,331]

13 hours ago, Nick Parker said:

Probably, but I do remember liking the scene where he and his son were playing catch at the beginning. 

 

 The beginning is the only part I liked.

 

 

 

 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,514]

On 12/3/2018 at 5:27 AM, JoeinAR said:

...Tradng Places. My memories of this film were vague. I remember liking it so much and thinking how great Eddie Murphy was and my memories turned out to be true. Eddie is amazing on the screen. He just lights up the film. One thing I forgot is how loose it was with outright racism and bigotry. Dan Aykroyd is in fine form as well. 

Hmm. Pork bellies.

Jacuzzi, sir?

There's n'owt wrong with "outright racism and bigotry", in the right context.

 

 

 

 

Me and my friends' dog watched FIRST BLOOD, last night. The dog enjoyed it.

[publicist 4,643]

Especially as it is used, pointedly, to single out the phoniness of the (then and probably now) ruling class. It's still pure Hollywood (and starts to grate once the film moves to the NYE train) but remarkably socially aware for its time.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,514]

They maybe "phoney", Pub, but the ruling class are the ones standing the other side of the Help desk.

[Quintus 5,399]

I love the train third act, it's great. 

[publicist 4,643]

It's very...broad.

 

 

A rather unpleasant one, i had to. Apologetic cinema about one of the more controversial political figures of the 20th century. At one point, Streep's Thatcher says 'D’you know, one of the great problems of our age is that we are governed by people who care more about feelings than thoughts and ideas' which unwittingly describes the film's main problem. Hardly any screen time is used to debate the considerable social relevance of Thatcher's politics and their implications for the time to come, instead the movie at best can be understood as look into the political and psychological mechanisms that allowed this woman to be a flagpole in one of the most important periods of upheaval in british contemporary history - and her pioneering role for other Western leaders (US: Albright, Rice, Germany: Angela Merkel) that mark a unpredictable changing political culture, which is an interesting point.

 

The ruthless neglect of the social system, the en passant enabling of a new form of Manchester capitalism and the sole right of the strong, the warm friendship with bloody chilean dictator Pinochet - sadly those are just a few of the things the movie then either completely ignores or sweeps under the carpet. Eye-rolling proposition #321: the Falkland war was a scheme to drive a cruel military regime out of Argentine...really? Even ignoring that obvious falsehood (especially with the Pinochet angle in plain view), it doesn't mention that she uses the new-found leverage to further deprive unions of power and helps strengthening corporate greed.

 

Be that as it may, Streep is superb here, even under tons of latex, and it's not a bad movie, technically. But it's a rather annoying one, saying 'hey, if woman want, they can rise to the top, even against all odds'...but at what cost? It's a question worth asking, especially in the 2010's after so many neo-liberal dogmas began to crumble, or in case of Trump, its grotesque consequences start to rear their heads.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

At least she's dead, right!

[publicist 4,643]

The Mummy Returns!

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Make Way for Tomorrow (1937; Leo McCarey)

 

A great, nearly forgotten Hollywood film about aging, marriage, and the responsibilities (or lack thereof) of children to care for their parents.  A poignant, sad story with incredibly well-drawn characters and situations.  It really goes for something approaching social realism in a way that’s pretty unique for Golden Age Hollywood.  Recommended.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

It is a sad state of affairs that Close Encounters of the Third Kind receives this kind of disrespect while a film like Interstellar gets revered. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

I think even most of the film's biggest fans will agree that it isn't quite top-tier Spielberg - which is basically all that's been said about it in this thread.

 

I don't think anyone's here saying its bad.

 

Interstellar is...fine.

 

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

The only thing to be revered about Christopher Nolan's films is that they are absolutely crazy, in a good way. I've rewatched Interstellar and Inception in the last year and I would by no means call them instant likes, but they're so mind blowing and engaging that that effect is given off anyway. Nolan's films can be confusing, so it's only appropriate that explaining what we think about them is no less difficult.

 

Close Encounters was a great sci-fi Spielberg flick, but not at the top of either of those lists. I think what threw me off with it was the idea that I was missing something trivial. How the rest of the plot plays out is very Spielbergian, but that doesn't always mean that it's complete. I think it gets by mostly on those unforgettable scenes, the great incorporation of music, and just how truly "out of this world" it is. I like it, but it's not my favourite.

[Quintus 5,399]

30 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I think even most of the film's biggest fans will agree that it isn't quite top-tier Spielberg - which is basically all that's been said about it in this thread.

 

 

Hmm, I don't think that's true. CE3K is very much a classic and quintessential Spielberg film. 

 

Interstellar was nowhere near as impactful or as good, either. For a couple of decades, Close Encounters was quite the iconic sci-fi movie. Interstellar, a good but frustratingly flawed movie, was merely hip for a year or so. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

5 minutes ago, Quintus said:

Interstellar was nowhere near as impactful or as good, either.

 

No disagreement there.

 

17 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

I've rewatched Interstellar and Inception in the last year and I would by no means call them instant likes, but they're so mind blowing and engaging that that effect is given off anyway.

 

The former is much too wordy (in its third act especially) and the latter is just a heist film.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Interstellar is a great movie that gets often bashed by wannabe critics.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

I think even most of the film's biggest fans will agree that it isn't quite top-tier Spielberg - which is basically all that's been said about it in this thread.

 

I don't think anyone's here saying its bad.

 

Interstellar is...fine.

 

Only Jaws, E.T., and Raiders are superior. Its a better film than SL with a better score. 

Interstellar is not a great movie in any form or fashion and doesn't hold a candle to CE3K. It is a seriously flawed film that might have been better had Spielberg directed.  

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

41 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

...and the latter is just a heist film.

That's putting it rather simply.

[Chen G. 3,949]

What I mean is that the characters arent' as engaging as in other Nolan films. Its a movie I enjoy for its spectacle rather than its (attempts at) drama.

 

16 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

Interstellar is a great movie that gets often bashed by wannabe critics.

 

I don't presume to bash it: I like it fine.

 

Just fine, though.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

At least no one is as brazen to say Interstellar had the better score.   

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

It does.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Madness!