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

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Inspired by the underwhelming Least Crusade I want to give kudos to the underwhelming films of 2018. 

 

The  Predator.... what a dumpster fire of a film. Fools actually greenlit this film. 

The First Man...a film that makes the first moon landing a dull and boring bit of history

Halloween... the reboot was despite critical success a horrible horror film. Its one redeeming quality was it reminded us just how great the Carpenter Halloween  was.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

 

9 hours ago, Richard said:

Don't believe them! Don't trust them!

 

There is an old Vulcan proverb. Only Lucas could do a prequel trilogy.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

On 12/29/2018 at 6:46 PM, Bespin said:

I just watched Earthquake for the first time, on BR.

 

Not bad!

 

Not much music though! But, well used and effective!

 

And it was fun to see Geneviève Bujold, I did'nt know she played in this movie!

 

 

Told you it was hokey! 

There was a fair bit if music, but it was mixed so low, as to be almost inaudible (e.g. the climatic flood scene).

 

Fun fact #427: the script seen in Heston's hand, in the scene in which he and Bujold rehearse her scene in a forthcoming film, is the script from that particular scene. How meta is that?! 

[Bespin 8,481]

Just now, Richard said:

Fun fact #427: the script seen in Heston's hand, in the scene in which he and Bujold rehearse her scene in a forthcoming film, is the script from that particular scene. How meta is that?! 

 

Hehe, I don't know that, what it is? 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

The City Sleeps is a great piece

[Brundlefly 2,385]

6 hours ago, JoeinAR said:

Inspired by the underwhelming Least Crusade I want to give kudos to the underwhelming films of 2018. 

 

The  Predator.... what a dumpster fire of a film. Fools actually greenlit this film. 

The First Man...a film that makes the first moon landing a dull and boring bit of history

Halloween... the reboot was despite critical success a horrible horror film. Its one redeeming quality was it reminded us just how great the Carpenter Halloween  was.

Last Crusade and First Man are underwhelming? That's interesting news.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

1 hour ago, Brundlefly said:

Least Crusade and First Man are underwhelming? That's interesting news.

After the great TOD Least Crusade felt much less and First Man was just not exceptional. The moon landing was an exceptional moment in history bit First Man made it bland.

[A24 4,333]

TOD was made by a Spielberg in 1941 mode: More! MORE! MORE!!!

 

 

Then again, I don't have ADHD, so perhaps I'm biased.

 

 

BTW, after all these years, Spielberg still thinks TOD is the worst Indiana Jones movie:

 

https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/08/02/steven-spielberg-thinks-temple-of-doom-is-the-worst-indiana-jones-movie

[publicist 4,643]

And how we all hope he does that kind of worst-movie again.

[A24 4,333]

Heck, I would rather see him doing another President movie ...

 

 

... or a TV series about all the forgotten Presidents ...

 

 

 

 

[publicist 4,643]

😦

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Both, the second and the third, Indiana Jones movies are great. They have very different qualities and the tone couldn't be more diverse. That's exactly what I like about the Indiana Jones trilogy.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

This is true.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

6 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

TOD was made by a Spielberg in 1941 mode: More! MORE! MORE!!!

 

 

Then again, I don't have ADHD, so perhaps I'm biased.

 

 

BTW, after all these years, Spielberg still thinks TOD is the worst Indiana Jones movie:

 

https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/08/02/steven-spielberg-thinks-temple-of-doom-is-the-worst-indiana-jones-movie

He is wrong.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Indeed he is.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Indiana Jones and the Least Crusade appeals to those people that must have everything spelled out for them. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Incorrect! 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

No Stefan in that I am absolutely correct. It is why the film is so...Least.

Fan bois eat that part of the movie up. The mythos of Indiana gets destroyed and fan bois go oooooohhhhhh.

[A24 4,333]

44 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

He is wrong.

 

Well, I agree with him 100%, but it's true that the rest of the world happens to think Spielberg is wrong.

 

 

At least, with the Spielster, I'm in good company.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

That just makes you wrong too Alex. 

 

It is better than the Hogan Heroes version of Indy 

[John 2,032]

The Godfather Part II (1974)

 

IMO, this is the rare sequel that improves upon its already outstanding predecessor. It’s the sheer scope of the storytelling and the thematic richness of Part II that ultimately outshines the original film in my mind. Part I portrays a more romanticized version of organized crime, whereas in the sequel, we get to see the real side of it, where is it a cold, merciless line of work and that it comes with a terrible price.

 

The brilliant “parallel storylines” narrative contrasts the rise to power of both father and son, and how Vito always remained within his personal code of ethics, how he always retained a moral compass; while Michael ultimately becomes a ruthless, hollow shell of the man he once was.

 

While Part III is a decent film in its own right, for me, the saga concludes with Part II, with a pensive, empty, and perhaps regretful Michael Corleone, in silent contemplation. 

 

Absolutely tremendous, immortal filmmaking. 

 

***** out of *****

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

Strange to think that a PART IV was in the planning.

[A24 4,333]

49 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

That just makes you wrong too Alex. 

 

It is better than the Hogan Heroes version of Indy 

 

There is no wrong or right in these matters, Joe. We just have a different a different opinion. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You are Joe are wrong!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

8 minutes ago, Richard said:

Strange to think that a PART IV was in the planning.

Strange to think Alex would believe TOD is worse than either 3 or 4. But he doesn't find anything to like in 1941 either. 

[SteveMc 2,674]

Witness (1985)
Solid.  Perhaps a bit schizophrenic in the contrast between pastoral simplicity and razor edge violence, but that is probably the point anyway.  Cast performs well.  Harrison
Ford in his prime is always a pleasure to watch.  The film itself feels a little dated in spots, but no more than can be reasonably expected.  Overall, it holds up.  The same can be said of Jarre's score, a few rather obviously 80s action cues notwithstanding.  

4/4    

 

As for the Indy debate going on, I like The Last Crusade.  I view it as throwback filmmaking.  It does not try to be overly serious, and yet is serious when it needs to be.  The father-son dynamic speaks to me, and ford and Connery bring their A games.  Score is great too.

 

TOD, I have never been able to get into.
 

[Chen G. 3,949]

 

6 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

Strange to think Alex would believe TOD is worse than either 3 or 4. But he doesn't find anything to like in 1941 either. 

 

It is worst than The Last Crusade.

 

I'm not the biggest fan of it, but "worst than 4"? Come on....

 

Besides, how can it be worst than 4 when no such film exists? 😉

 

4 minutes ago, Steve McQueen said:

I view it as throwback filmmaking.

 

That's the entirety of Indiana Jones, in a nutshell.

[A24 4,333]

 

Just now, Steve McQueen said:

 

As for the Indy debate going on, I like The Last Crusade.  I view it as throwback filmmaking.  It does not try to be overly serious, and yet is serious when it needs to be.  The father-son dynamic speaks to me, and ford and Connery bring their A games.  Score is great too.
 

 

I once introduced all three movies to the kid and to my surprise I liked the father/son dynamic of Last Crusade more than I did before. 

 

 

Just now, Steve McQueen said:

 

 

TOD, I have never been able to get into.
 

 

That's the spirit!

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

5 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

Strange to think Alex would believe TOD is worse than either 3 or 4. But he doesn't find anything to like in 1941 either. 

 

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

It is worst than The Last Crusade.

 

I'm not the biggest fan, but "worst than 4"? Come on....

 

For me:

1. Raiders

2. Last Crusade

3. Temple of Doom

4. Crystal Skull

 

Simply put.

[A24 4,333]

Just now, Chen G. said:

 

 

Besides, how can it be worst than 4 when no such film exists? 😉

 

 

 

Indeed, it doesn't exist. 

[John 2,032]

2 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

For me:

1. Raiders

2. Last Crusade

3. Temple of Doom

4. Crystal Skull

 

Simply put.

 

Same for me. More often than not, that seems to be the typical ranking for those films. 

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

I really was not a big fan of Temple of Doom, but it is not worse than Crystal Skull.

[SteveMc 2,674]

6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I view it as throwback filmmaking.

TLC especially so.  In Raiders, spielberg was actively trying to put his singular mark, as it were, on the style.  The third movie has him relying more on formula, and focusing more on character.  

[JoeinAR 1,949]

2 minutes ago, John said:

 

Same for me. More often than not, that seems to be the typical ranking for those films. 

Actually in previous polls here it was 1 2 and 3 in that order before there was a number 4.  But millennials and gen-Xers came along

 

As for score ranking Raiders and TOD definitely over 3 in the 2003 and 2013 score rankings

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

I think I've said before that the main villain has a lot to do with how I enjoy the films.

With Temple of Doom, it's an East Indian cult- we don't know what's the threat really, Indy stumbles upon the crisis by happenstance, and the villains, while concerningly obsessed, are more strange to me then scary.

With Raiders and The Last Crusade, Indy feels at home with Nazis at his heels because they are pre-disposed villains- they are already developed to the audience before they even step in the theatre or flip on the TV. 

[Nick Parker 3,040]

20 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

With Temple of Doom, it's an East Indian cult- we don't know what's the threat really

 

Uhhh, they're a cult that kidnapped children and forced into slave labor, while using their occult powers to graphically murder innocents and aim to embark on a radical religious crusade across the world to indoctrinate and propagate their beliefs by means of mind control.

 

Bombastic, sure--I always say Temple of Doom is the one Indy movie I feel I could watch on a late night oldies program-- but it's not like the movie doesn't give you a lot to work with. Is watching films without that historical or social pre-gaming (ie Nazis in Indy) difficult for you? 

[Chen G. 3,949]

47 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

For me:

1. Raiders

2. Last Crusade

3. Temple of Doom

4. Crystal Skull

 

I like The Last Crusade more than Raiders. The father-son relationship is much more effective than the romance in Raiders, and like @Steve McQueen says "It does not try to be overly serious, and yet is serious when it needs to be." There was something about the way the roles are performed in Raiders that took some time to get into, when I first saw it, which didn't happen with the subsequent films.

 

I don't particularly care for Temple of Doom. Something about the violence and the staggered nature of the plot doesn't really work for this type of film, in my eyes.  I'm not going to be sensationalistic about it saying "its terrible" or whatever - I like it just fine,  but still significantly less than the other two. However, I agree with @Brundlefly that the different tone and style of the films forms a nice variety within the set. Its certainly admirable on the level of trying something "different".

 

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull isn't a terrible movie on the face of it, but I find the premise itself distasteful. Indiana Jones is the kind of hero that's served best by riding off into the sunset. There's no point revisiting him as an old man: its just disheartening and kind of lame, honestly. The same obviously holds true for the supposed fifth film.

[Wojo 2,453]

On 12/29/2018 at 8:12 PM, Horner's Dynamic Range said:

I used to confuse the knight with the old guy with the shovel from Home Alone. I think one of them was also in Always and the Amazing Stories with the train.

 

I always thought he was the late Richard Jordan, from Gettysburg, Dune, and The Hunt for Red October. Nope. 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

The villains in Least Crusade are weak ineffective and not particularly chilling. I understand why some find this more appealing. Its definitely paint by number for the unimaginative. Everything is spelled out. No thinking needed. 

 

The Nazis in Raiders are quite different than those in Crusade. More threatening more villainous. Crusades are bumbling idiots like in Hogans Hero's. They know nothing. The production values suffer in Crusade, very sloppy inspite of the simple nature of the effects themselves.

How can these two be mistaken for one another? 

Robert Blossom was in Close Encounters, Amazing Stories Ghost Train, and Home Alone, Robert Jordan was the movies  1st Dirk Pitt in Raise the Titanic.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

57 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

Is watching films without that historical or social pre-gaming (ie Nazis in Indy) difficult for you? 

No, but it is easier, and certainly a lot more fun and romp-ish, when Indy is up against the Nazis.

 

57 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

Uhhh, they're a cult that kidnapped children and forced into slave labor, while using their occult powers to graphically murder innocents and aim to embark on a radical religious crusade across the world to indoctrinate and propagate their beliefs by means of mind control.

Well yeah, I put that too simply, yes.

 

On ‎12‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 1:29 PM, JoeinAR said:

The First Man...a film that makes the first moon landing a dull and boring bit of history

Are you one of those "I didn't get to see them plant the American flag" people? The film is more about the man than the moon, the person rather than the accomplishment, although it does include that.

 

That was not at all a dull and boring film, but certainly not the best of the year (even though it was one of my favourites). 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

2 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

 

Well yeah, I put that too simply, yes.

 

Thats putting it mildy!

[Chen G. 3,949]

38 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

Everything is spelled out. No thinking needed. 

 

Oh, for crying out loud, it's an Indiana Jones film!

 

Indiana Jones films are many things: thought-inducing is not one of them.

 

They're basically cartoons with images superimposed unto them - and that's what people like about 'em.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Joe just needs to find another reason to hate TLC, thats all 

[SteveMc 2,674]

There is some profundity to be had.  Spielberg is too good, he can't help it.

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Indiana Jones films are many things: thought-inducing is not one of them.

 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Just now, Chen G. said:

 

Oh, for crying out loud, it's an Indiana Jones film!

 

Indiana Jones films are many things: thought-inducing is not one of them.

 

They're basically cartoons with images superimposed unto them - and that's what people like about 'em.

You sure as hall don't know what you are talking about which is strange since you said you like TLC best. It clearly destroys all the mystery of why Indiana Jones is the way he is. It explains the hat, the name, the whip, the scarn and the snakes. It does so very simply for the very simple

 

[John 2,032]

It's not like Indy was a terribly interesting character in Raiders or Temple of Doom. I don't see how explaining his origins/traits does any harm to the character.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Was there ever really a mystery about Indy though? Its not what the character is about really.

 

Try again Josie!

[SteveMc 2,674]

So, Solo before Solo?

2 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

It explains the hat, the name, the whip, the scarn and the snakes. It does so very simply for the very simple

 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

8 minutes ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

No, but it is easier, and certainly a lot more fun and romp-ish, when Indy is up against the Nazis.

 

Well yeah, I put that too simply, yes.

 

Are you one of those "I didn't get to see them plant the American flag" people? The film is more about the man than the moon, the person rather than the accomplishment, although it does include that.

 

That was not at all a dull and boring film, but certainly not the best of the year (even though it was one of my favourites). 

No I just found the film a bore. I didn't want to. It is a seminal moment as an 8 year old. It just did a poor job. 

3 minutes ago, John said:

It's not like Indy was a terribly interesting character in Raiders or Temple of Doom. I don't see how explaining his origins/traits does any harm to the character.

I am sorry John but statement is ..... 

4 movies grossing nearly 2 billion dollars about an uninteresting character? Really?

[Chen G. 3,949]

Its not the character that's interesting so much as the concept of the films.

 

Its the adventure serial of the 21st century, and people watch it as a vehicle for the adventurous setpieces and action, rather than for engaging with the characters. I'm not saying that to the detriment of the films, necessarily.

 

Really, the Last Crusade is to closest to working on a dramatic level of relating to the characters, due to the father-son relationship.