Jump to content
Mr. Breathmask

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

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, SteveMc said:

Yes.  But also part of the James Bond mystique was being a bit, if not cartoonish, a little unrealistic, elegant even about the violence. 

 

Not originally, not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the action in the Connery Bonds is much grittier than say the Moore ones, but the intensity that we see in Casino Royale is not present.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service strikes a nice balance in this department.  Lazenby was a presence, if nothing else. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ýou're ignoring 40 years of dfference in movie violence with that conclusion. I'd dare say in the 60's From Russia With Love or Thunderball would have been seen as more violent then Casino Royale was considered in the 2000's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep I was bored by it too.  An interesting and bold experiment, that just didn't work for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the kind of film that needs to be seen on a very, very big screen.Take that from it, and there's really not that much to be had.

 

And even if that won't be quite true for those who did see it in the cinema, and went on to revisit it in their living-room, it will certainly be true-and-then-some for those who never saw it on the big-screen. I just don't think it'll have the longevity that other Nolan films will (or do) have.

 

Still a good movie, though. The lack of wordliness (which plagues every other Nolan film) is very refreshing for this director.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Its the kind of film that needs to be seen on a very, very big screen.Take that from it, and there's really not that much to be had.

 

I saw it in the theaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about the technical skill of a film if I'm not involved in the plot, story, characters somehow.

 

Dunkirk was one of Britain's finest hours in WWII, and Nolan managed to make it uninteresting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Its the kind of film that needs to be seen on a very, very big screen.Take that from it, and there's really not that much to be had.

 

Big screen and loud audio system. Easily half of the immersion was due to the constant assault of sound effects and score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Its the kind of film that needs to be seen on a very, very big screen.Take that from it, and there's really not that much to be had.

 

If yoy sit very close to your computer screen, it seems just as large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, John said:

Dunkirk (2017)

 

Not sure I'll ever understand why this got such a mixed reaction among the Nolan fanbase, when it’s arguably the director's most critically well-received film. Visually it looks great; the color palate is (like most Nolan films) very monochromatic and grey, but the framing and composition is very striking; plenty of beautiful shots. Very bare-bones narrative structure, and the dialogue is sparse and mostly limited to exposition. Zimmer's score may not be the most pleasant listening experience on its own, but it is absolutely brilliant in the film. It may be more sound design than music, perhaps, but it creates a remarkable layer of tension and atmosphere that is present throughout. Overall a satisfying and often experimental effort from Mr. Nolan.

 

**** and 1/2 out of *****

That is what serious critics say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember my mom getting me a Seiko hand held tv while I was in college. It was in color. No bigger than my phone but hell on batteries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

The best films work on any screen, based on the power of their story.

 

Most best films. And even then they don't necessarily have the same impact, or people wouldn't still (sometimes) go the cinema. Ben-Hur on a small TV isn't the same as on a reasonably big screen.

 

Anyway, that doesn't mean it's entirely impossible, for some films, to work mainly because of the experience. I thought both Gravity and Dunkirk worked were very for what they are, but they depend on their viewing conditions. Gravity, even on a rather big screen, doesn't work half as well without 3D (one of a select number of films where that's actually a major factor). And the recent Mad Max certainly didn't work primarily because of its story - although it had all the story it needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

That is what serious critics say.

 

There is such a thing as a film coming out in just the right timing for critics to get raging hard-ons for it, and blow the film's reputation out of any reasonable proportion.

 

Case in point: Into the Spider-verse. I think it was Chris Hartwell who said: "its an entertaining family film, not the second coming."

 

Much the same can be said about Dunkirk, at the time of its release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Indeed.

 

The best films work on any screen, based on the power of their story.

This is another example of you not knowing 

Some movies do not work on all mediums 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

Some movies do not work on all mediums 

 

Than they're just not that good, I'm afraid.

 

I'm certainly not against making a film into a theatrical experience, an event. But to do so at the expense of the film's ability to endure on the small-screen is, to my mind, a shame.

 

Many (most?) of my defining film-viewing experiences were in my living-room. I'm sure many others were, too. There had been films that I watched in the theater and found myself engaging with more when I got down to watching them at home; and even when I get to rewatch such a film on a big-screen, I still think back on watching it at home as more affecting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Than they're just not that good, I'm afraid.

 

I'm not against making a film into a theatrical experience, an event. But to do so at the expense of the film's ability to endure on the small-screen is, to my mind, a shame.

 

Many (most?) of my defining film-viewing experiences were in my living-room. I'm sure many others were, too.

How extremely sad.

 

Also you do realize that there are more than 3 decades worth of film that were designed without the knowledge of television and some tv movies which are great tv movies but not great theatrical experiences. That doesn't lessen the film because the mediun is wrong. Some things are not shot to he shown on a big screen. Speilberg's Duel for example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Jay and Stefan on Dunkirk.

Certainly well-made, definitely a singular statement, but too cold. 

It did not really engage me, emotionally or intellectually.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeinAR said:

Some things are not shot to he shown on a big screen. Speilberg's Duel for example. 

 

And therefore I'd hesitate to call such a film "best".

 

Simple.

 

1 hour ago, JoeinAR said:

How extremely sad.

 

I don't think so. There's something about the intimacy of the small-screen (and watching either alone or just with family and/or mates) that allows films to work, in certain ways (mostly on a dramatic level), better than in a theater.

 

Besides, there are so many classics, for wont of a better word, that you'll naturally catch on TV first. I wasn't around to see The Godfather in its theatrical run, you know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Than they're just not that good, I'm afraid.

 

I'm certainly not against making a film into a theatrical experience, an event. But to do so at the expense of the film's ability to endure on the small-screen is, to my mind, a shame.

 

Many (most?) of my defining film-viewing experiences were in my living-room. I'm sure many others were, too. There had been films that I watched in the theater and found myself engaging with more when I got down to watching them at home; and even when I get to rewatch such a film on a big-screen, I still think back on watching it at home as more affecting.

I must say that I agree with you on a number of fronts.

 

Some films are better to watch at home while others are almost like they were made to be viewed specifically in the cinema, even though all films hit theatres at some point or another. For example, I am very glad I saw First Man this year in theatres. That was one film I can instantly think of as being a great theatre experience, and I'm hesitant to rewatch it at home so as not to, in my mind, lose it's purity. 

 

On the other hand, some films are better at home, and not just because you didn't want to pay 15 dollars admission to get into the cinema. I know that with Darkest Hour I quite enjoyed it on my comfy little couch in my basement, for whatever reason. When it comes to watching the classics, ones which I never would have gotten to see in theatres (unless there was some special showing of some kind) they have always been viewed at home, so they are predestined that title every time I watch them after the first. These include a lot of the classic Spielberg films and childhood classics.

 

I can not, however, think of a time in my own life specifically where I felt that the film was more effective at home than in theatres. Perhaps if that were the case it may have something to do with the context of a second viewing which, by happenstance, occurs in the home. If the film has already been seen in theatres and it is watched at home for the second time, the understanding acquired during the first viewing may give the viewer a better experience because they can look back and piece together plot points, for example. For myself this is not the case, but I can understand a few ways where it could be for someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I truly feel pity.

 

You are okay with it Chen and thats okay but strip all my theatrical experiences from my life and my life is not even remotely the same. My experiences all relate to family and friends. In some cases it was just me. But my childhood, my teenage years, my adulthood and as I approached my 60's all have one commonality, I still continue to measure my life by going to the movies. It is escape, Adventure, and more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SteveMc said:

I agree with Jay and Stefan on Dunkirk.

Certainly well-made, definitely a singular statement, but too cold. 

It did not really engage me, emotionally or intellectually.  

 

It is perhaps cold when seen from a character perspective, but it's not a cold movie in terms of filmmaking. With other words, Dunkirk should be watched as a director's movie. Instead of being cold, I thought it was surprisingly low on sentimentally and emotional manipulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

I recall almost throwing up when the Enigma Variations variation kicked in.

I suppose that, along with "The Lark Ascending", "Enigma Variations" is the most "English" of all classical pieces. Personally, I prefer "...Lark...", but that's just me.

Wasn't "Nimrod" used in GREYSTOKE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Glóin the Dark said:

Maybe - I haven't seen Greystoke in decades! It's not that I find the Nimrod variation inherently nauseating; just the change in tone to which it contributed at that point in the film.

 

It's just Nolan thinking I'm going to use classical music just like my heroes Kubrick and Malick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Richard said:

I suppose that, along with "The Lark Ascending", "Enigma Variations" is the most "English" of all classical pieces.

 

In addition to Pomp & Circumstance March No. 1 and Greensleves - at least for a Norwegian these sound extremely English. :) And let's not forget Holst's Jupiter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Glóin the Dark said:

I recall almost throwing up when the Enigma Variations variation kicked in.

That's what Nolan wanted. He said:

NOLAN: "Hans my man! How about leeching off another composer again? Don't worry, it's a bit easier this time with licensing- Elgar's long passed!".

ZIMMER: "Sure, can I borrow your stopwatch?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...