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

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Spectre

We've had the all-out extravaganza of Die Another Day, the hard reboot of Casino Royale, the James Bond goes Jason Bourne Quantum of Solace and the heavy and dramatic anti-Bond movie Skyfall. They all have their own quirks and identity, but you might have been wondering when they were going to do an old-fashioned James Bond adventure, featuring a villainous organisation, impressive villain lairs and a man stroking a white cat.

Well, wait no longer. Because that movie is here and it's called Spectre!

This is how you do old-fashioned Bond in the 21st century. It has that long running time and serious plotting that we've seen in so many blockbusters post-The Dark Knight (which I actually sort of like), but it also has plenty of action, lovely locations, gorgeous women and - dagnammit - the most fun a Daniel Craig James Bond movie has ever been.

Spectre is a modern-day overhaul of the old Bond formula and simultaneously pays homage to so many iconic pieces of Bond mythology. It's great fun and I had a fantastic time with this movie. I hope to see it again very soon. An excellent time at the cinema! James Bond has returned indeed.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I agree!

[A24 4,326]

It Follows.

I'd just about given up hope for a new horror classic to come along and knock my socks off, but this might be the one.

After going through the motions by watching a raft of run of the mill supernatural horror flicks, I thought the genre had peaked and I was becoming immune to it.

But this film, with its novel concept and appropriation of old techniques, brought back the suspense I thought had been lost.

I was surprised to see this received a 96% rating on Rotten Tomatoes because it seemed like the sort of film critics would trash based on soley on its genre as well as the illogical actions some of the characters take.

But what I loved most was that "It" is never explained. We only know the rules of It based on what happens to the characters and their own understanding of it. I would've hated this film if It was explained away as another clichéd demon. It's more of an STDemon and that's all you need to know.

My only complaint is that the dialogue is dry and the entire film is painfully humourless. A quip here or there wouldn't have hurt.

Highly recommended.

I told you it was good! It's a bit art housy too.

[Sweeping Strings 2,345]

It Follows was my Hallowe'en night horror flick of choice, too.

Certainly unsettling (aided in no small part by the brilliant soundtrack) ... but I'm not sure it's QUITE so deserving of all the praise heaped upon it.

[Quintus 5,399]

I thought it only really went wrong at the swimming pool part. It was actually a good sequence in itself, but ultimately the mystery was lessened quite a lot by what basically seemed like an invisible monster. An invisible Kevin Bacon could just have easily been in that scene.

For me, the most successful think about It Follows is its expertly treated subtext.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

And its lead actress, while nice to look at, seemed like an empty shell with no personality. Dull as she was, she managed to carry the film without any hindrance. There have been final girls in slasher movies with more screen presence.

The pool scene was one of those world-building moments where characters are still learning the rules of the supernatural force. Sometimes they do seemingly dumb things at times of desperation.

The It has limitations because it has to walk a long way to reach its target, so it is a physical being that shape-shifts depending on its intended victim. Like a sex-themed, boggart from Harry Potter.

The score sounded like it was heavily influenced by John Carpenter's Halloween and Charles Bernstein's The Entity.

[A24 4,326]

Certainly unsettling (aided in no small part by the brilliant soundtrack) ... but I'm not sure it's QUITE so deserving of all the praise heaped upon it.

Probably the reason why It Follows gets to people is because it's actually a variation of a well-tried concept. You can also find it in the Coen brother's No Country For Old Men, Spielberg's Duel, Cameron's The Terminator I & II, ... Then there was the execution which made you feel you weren't watching some crappy umpteenth horror flick.

Alex

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Assuming money and resources are no object, could you potentially capture and contain the It and launch It into space and land It on Pluto where It would wander the ice planet for eternity? Or would It realise it's game over and reset itself by teleporting back to earth?

[Quintus 5,399]

That's your Star Trek nerd talking. Why must their always be a reason and solution for a problem?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

That's your Star Trek nerd talking. Why must their always be a reason and solution for a problem?

Because a. it's fun to speculate, even if it seems daft and ridiculous, because discussing things at the theoretical level requires some outlandish modes of thought, and b. the film establishes that It is a physical shape-shifter that is visible only to those who have passed it along to one another via sexual intercourse. And its only mode of transportation seems to be that it walks. A long way if necessary. But if you had the means to trap it and launch it to another planet, that's uncharted territory in the It Follows universe. I can't wait to see if any of this is explored in potential sequels!

[Sweeping Strings 2,345]

Certainly unsettling (aided in no small part by the brilliant soundtrack) ... but I'm not sure it's QUITE so deserving of all the praise heaped upon it.

Probably the reason why It Follows gets to people is because it's actually a variation of a well-tried concept. You can also find it in the Coen brother's No Country For Old Men, Spielberg's Duel, Cameron's The Terminator I & II, ... Then there was the execution which made you feel you weren't watching some crappy umpteenth horror flick.

Alex

That's true, it certainly didn't feel like Insidious/Sinister/Paranormal Activity 14 or whatever.

I dunno ... one the one hand, any horror that manages to creep you out in daylight scenes must be doing something right. On the other, I doubt I was meant to find the 'hair-pulling' scene on the beach amusing but I did nonetheless.

[A24 4,326]

... any horror that manages to creep you out in daylight scenes must be doing something right.

I was constantly looking at the background to see if saw someone who looked or walked a bit strange and often I thought I spotted someone but it turned be false alarm. The movie cleverly played with that.

[Drawgoon 100]

Caught Inside Out the other day for the first time. I thought it was alright but it wasn't until the final act where it really started to work for me. Boy when these guys want to get my tears dropping they sure know where and when to strike. A solid concept and dare I say the best movie they've made in the 2010's so far, imo.

[Marian Schedenig 8,174]

The Martian

Quite good. Not as good as the book, which was far from perfect (and only slightly better written than a Dan Brown novel), but had one thing going for it: It was extremely convincing and believable. I guess it's not really surprising that quite a bit of that got dumbed down or, luckily more often, just glossed over or left out. The real surprise is still that this has become a big Hollywood movie in the first place (this xkcd nicely reflects that).

There were three things that bothered me mostly:

1) I understand that they simplified things or left them out, but sometimes it was handled rather poorly (e.g. when they first explicitly mention the communications delay between Earth and Mars and then proceed to show conversations between NASA and Watney as if they were instantaneous).

2) The American obsession with the word "fuck" is ridiculous and made Watney's interaction with NASA seriously unbelievable/fake. If it's really such a problem to say the word in the movie, find another way to avoid it than having a guy surviving on Mars on his own for over a year censor himself by saying "f-word".

3) I was surprised to see them drop not only one, but two of the biggest obstacles from the book. First Watney accidentally frying Pathfinder, ruining his only direct communication channel to Earth. This in turn prevents NASA from warning him that his trip to the Ares 4 MAV leads through a sand storm, nearly causing his trip to fail. Several people have complained that the film never convinced them that Watney was in serious danger. The book rarely did that, but after all it was largely told after the fact by Watney himself. The emphasis on the science side still conveyed how complicated and dangerous the situation was, and the two incidents I mentioned were also instrumental in making the finale feel tense. Dropping them made that whole portion of the film feel unnecessarily easy going - and then they apparently felt they had to up the tension by having Watney execute his absurd Iron Man trick. For a film that tries to do its best to adapt a book that was widely lauded for being scientifically believable, that was the one moment where it seriously betrayed its own intentions.

Those things aside, I enjoyed it. It didn't remotely feel like a Michael Bay movie to me (except perhaps for the Iron Man bit). Good cast, and the score wasn't bad (although the big finale seemed a bit overdone - but then, that matched how the film went (unnecessarily) fully Hollywood there).

[Marian Schedenig 8,174]

Spectre

Loved it. Yes, it's a more "classic" Bond than Craig's previous entries. The first two thirds or so were extremely entertaining, though the finale seemed to lag behind a bit, trying to come up with a conclusion to all that came before. Several exciting set pieces. The fact that I expected a ski chase and "only" got an airplane chasing a group of cars is a minor is a minor quibble.

There's a lot more tongue in cheek humour, but it works, and Craig's delivery helps a lot. He might actually be the best Bond actor in my opinion after all. Waltz was a bit borderline goofy at times, but mostly worked. I'm beginning to have the same problem with him that I do with Armin Müller Stahl though: At first I found his accent funny, then likeable, but I'm beginning to realize that it severely limits the non-comical roles he can pull off.

The song was... odd. Atmospheric though, and it accompanies a cool classic main titles sequence. It worked.

The score was much more prominent than in Skyfall. All I remember from there (and all I remember noticing when actually watching it) was the tracked Arnold/Dodd version of the Bond theme. Spectre is filled with prominent music. Most of it minimalistic in its use of ostinatos, beats and base, but noticeable and fun. And a slightly saccharine, Barry-style theme, too. I missed Arnold in Skyfall. I didn't miss him here. I'll get the CD for this one.

I'll reserve final judgement until I've seen it again (on Blu-ray), but I think this might be Craig's second best Bond for me, after Casino Royale but before Skyfall.

[KK 3,307]

Steve Jobs

I saw this last weekend, but only got time to post it now. This is ridiculous fun. Plenty of Sorkin-isms further enhanced by Boyle's flashy direction. So if you can't stand either of those people, this film is probably not for you. But I think its hard not to be swept away by the energy of it all. It's a tight, efficient chamber-piece that's constantly rolling, and really brought to life by a brilliant cast. Every actor really breathes their role, especially the brilliant Kate Winslet. Fassbender, as expected, was great of course as well. Some have claimed that there is no character development, but I disagree, I think there is definitely growth. But ultimately it's less a film about "ideas", and more about selling a story. It's like a really fun play really.

Shame that the film flopped at the box office. I enjoyed this a lot more than The Martian.

[A24 4,326]

Is it as good as The Social Network? Or is it another by-the-numbers biopic?

[KK 3,307]

Tough question. Its definitely not by-the-numbers though! TSN was a more "meditative", moody work if you will. This is a different kind of beast, but definitely worth checking out! TSN might have a bit more of an edge to this film though.

Pemberton's score was pretty good by the way.

[mrbellamy 6,272]

Is it as good as The Social Network? Or is it another by-the-numbers biopic?

I agree with KK, it's neither. Though I would say it does finally become a little by-the-numbers almost literally at the last minute. It's surprisingly tough on Jobs throughout but then it can't resist a bit of the warm fuzzies and a cute iPod reference which don't quite fit for this film.

Until then it all feels rather different and unconventional, or at least very entertaining with how it plays with those conventions, much like how Social Network used the familiar "flashback" structure to its own ends. It's pretty ballsy at times, just leaves you with a little less bite than Fincher's movie.

[KK 3,307]

Spot on bellamy. Though I didn't entirely mind the somewhat conventional ending.

[mrbellamy 6,272]

Yeah, it's definitely not a deal-breaker at all, it just feels like a different movie. Overall I thought its attitude towards Jobs was critical but compassionate, which was interesting. Similar to Sorkin's approach to Zuckerberg.

And yeah, the biggest surprise is just how much fun it is to watch! I mentioned earlier in the thread that even though it's 2 hours, it felt like 45 minutes to me. Typical Sorkin, everything is fast fast fast, and Boyle's direction just adds to it. But it's not hyper. And I agree with you that Fassbender and especially Kate Winslet were fantastic in this. As good he was, I think she was actually even better. And Jeff Daniels!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I need to see that and Spectre ASAP.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes! SPECTRE has the best space lazer battle since ROTJ!

[KK 3,307]

Yeah, it's definitely not a deal-breaker at all, it just feels like a different movie. Overall I thought its attitude towards Jobs was critical but compassionate, which was interesting. Similar to Sorkin's approach to Zuckerberg.

And yeah, the biggest surprise is just how much fun it is to watch! I mentioned earlier in the thread that even though it's 2 hours, it felt like 45 minutes to me. Typical Sorkin, everything is fast fast fast, and Boyle's direction just adds to it. But it's not hyper. And I agree with you that Fassbender and especially Kate Winslet were fantastic in this. As good he was, I think she was actually even better. And Jeff Daniels!

Agreed! I think Winslet kind of stole the show. And yes, the film feels short, but never too lightweight. Just a lot of energy to the whole thing.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Is it like The West Wing?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

It's like The Newsroom meets Jobs!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That doesn't sound very good.

[bollemanneke 3,337]

The Martian. Loved it. Score started out rather unremarkable but got better as the story progressed. Good acting too.

[Bilbo 3,709]

Kill Your Friends.

Not great. Hoult is good but his character is completely unredeemable and unlikeable. A poor man's American Psycho. Soundtrack is good though, if you like Britpop etc.

Junkie XL did the forgettable score.

[Marian Schedenig 8,174]

Macbeth

Lots of toil, but not worth the trouble. Or so it seemed to me - it looks like nearly everyone loves it. Perhaps it would have helped if I had been less tired, but my overwhelming impression was one of bleak emptiness. With Shakespeare's original text so mumbled that it was hard to follow: Apparently, Cotillard kept her French accent, but I never noticed; I thought she was actually playing a Scottish one. There was some powerful cinematography, and Cotillard's final scene was very good, but overall, it was all very static, depressing and unchanging. It certainly all fit together (including the score, which was mostly a droning cello sounding like a didgeridoo), but it just didn't grab, move or otherwise impress me in any way.

[KK 3,307]

By the trailers, that movie looked really promising!bi was looking forward to it very much.

Hopefully it's just you

[Marian Schedenig 8,174]

Would be interesting to read comments here by someone who enjoyed it, and why. I wouldn't recommend it, but the IMDb reviews say don't let me keep you from it.

[Matt C 452]

The Peanuts Movie

It's a warm homage to the animated 1960s specials and the comic strip itself. The story is pretty simple, and 35% of the story is devoted to the boring Snoopy vs. Red Baron B-plot (which make the film feel longer than its 89 minute length). But there's a genuine warmth and sincerity to it, which is a refreshing change from the Pixar, WDAS, DWA and even other Blue Sky productions.

Pan

Yup, this deserved to bomb at the box office. Not just the boring 'chosen one' cliched plot, but the tonal shifts in the story are just jarring. Rooney Mara and Hugh Jackman are shamefully wasted here, and the former is given mostly exposition to spout. The CGI is excellent, but John Powell's score is really annoying. It gives the movie some energy it wouldn't have otherwise, but Powell overplays his hand in a lot of scenes.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Hollywood just can't adapt Peter Pan.

[Matt C 452]

Hollywood just can't adapt Peter Pan.

Some come close, but no perfection. In Disney's Peter Pan Tinker Bell is a jealous bitch, and Wendy was a doormat. Hook had a neat concept and soared in a few places, but it didn't come together. 2003's Peter Pan came close, but was overproduced and suffered from Matrix syndrome.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I would not presume to debate you.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

The 2003 Pan rules!

[Wojo 2,453]

Hollywood just can't adapt Peter Pan.

Some come close, but no perfection. In Disney's Peter Pan Tinker Bell is a jealous bitch, and Wendy was a doormat. Hook had a neat concept and soared in a few places, but it didn't come together. 2003's Peter Pan came close, but was overproduced and suffered from Matrix syndrome.

You left out the musical with Mary Martin. You tried to watch that as an adult? It's weird as hell.

[nightscape94 965]

Haven't seen it since the 80s and I intend to keep it that way.

[KK 3,307]

2003's Pan film remains the best adaptation so far. Though I haven't seen the new one, nor do I intend to.

[Matt C 452]

Hollywood just can't adapt Peter Pan.

Some come close, but no perfection. In Disney's Peter Pan Tinker Bell is a jealous bitch, and Wendy was a doormat. Hook had a neat concept and soared in a few places, but it didn't come together. 2003's Peter Pan came close, but was overproduced and suffered from Matrix syndrome.

You left out the musical with Mary Martin. You tried to watch that as an adult? It's weird as hell.

That doesn't count. It was a taped performance of a stage play.

[Jay 37,287]

Matrix syndrome in the 2003 Peter Pan?

[Sweeping Strings 2,345]

Is it as good as The Social Network? Or is it another by-the-numbers biopic?

I agree with KK, it's neither. Though I would say it does finally become a little by-the-numbers almost literally at the last minute. It's surprisingly tough on Jobs throughout but then it can't resist a bit of the warm fuzzies and a cute iPod reference which don't quite fit for this film.

Until then it all feels rather different and unconventional, or at least very entertaining with how it plays with those conventions, much like how Social Network used the familiar "flashback" structure to its own ends. It's pretty ballsy at times, just leaves you with a little less bite than Fincher's movie.

Saw it yesterday, this pretty much sums up my feelings.

As for how tough on Jobs it is ... well. the dead can't sue.

[Matt C 452]

Matrix syndrome in the 2003 Peter Pan?

The fight between Peter and Hook in the cave gave me deja vu. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I did remember enjoying it though. The movie was spot on script-wise and casting but visually overwhelming.

--

Bridge of Spies

I don't get the fuss about this, honestly. There's a handful of suspenseful scenes, but the subject matter and the story itself doesn't engage me. Tom Hanks is okay, but now he's one of those actors that can't disappear into their roles like George Clooney. Amy Ryan is woefully underused, while Mark Rylance is very good.

I personally think Spielberg was on autopilot here. He needs to work with new actors and give Janusz Kaminski a break. (I'm pretty sure Dean Cundey would like to work with the Beard again.) Thomas Newman's score doesn't call attention to itself, and I doubt a Williams score would've elevated this snoozefest.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Jay 37,287]

Ant-man

Well, this was super fun! A nice, light, fun and funny action comedy. This was just what the summer needed after some dour films. Not to mention, it was a nice counterbalance within the MCU to the big huge, and bloated Avengers 2, telling a story on a much smaller (no pun intended) scale.

While technically a superhero/comic movie, it isn't written or directed like one; This is more a heist movie with sci-fi elements. There is a traditional comic book villain though, and the world is at stake again of course, but all of that is a very minor element of the film. In fact, that's one of the things I don't like about a lot of superhero movies, when they introduce a villain and then

kill him off in the same movie, leading them to do another villain origin story in the next movie, etc. Why is Magneto the only recurring villain in all these movies?

The cast is really great - Rudd was funny as Scott Lang, yet also believable enough as the thief-cum-superhero. Michael Douglas and Evangeline Lilly were good as the Pyms, Corey Stoll was a good villain, and Lang's team of co-conspirators were all funny. I hope they all return for the sequel!

I love the recurring gag where Pena was telling Scott how he heard info. I liked the cameo from The Falcon, and then his additional 2 cameos after that, too! I really loved when Scott said "The first thing we should do is call The Avengers", that was good stuff. The two main heists were good, the prolonged training montage in the middle was especially good. The only weak spot was probably the ending fight, but even that I kinda liked more, the more I think about it.

Oh! And I really liked both flashbacks too, first to the 1989 meeting with young Hank Pym (great CGi work there on de-aging Michael Douglas!), old Peggy Carter (who let's be honest, didn't look right - she'd be 75 years-old-ish in 1989!), old Howard Stark (funny to see John Slattery reprising the role from Iron Man 2 again, after Dominic Cooper's been playing him in Captain America and Agent Carter. It's actually interesting to see Carter and Stark reunited again after the history we've seen them have throughout Season 1 of Agent Carter), and that Hydra guy. And then the 1987 flashback to Hank and his wife on an adventure as the original Ant-man and the Wasp. That'd be a cool MCU tv show - Ant-Man and the Wasp in the 80s!

I also liked the score! I'd tried listening to it a few times on Spotify and liked the theme but not the whole album. Now that I've seen the movie I might just like it more. The theme is simply but fun, and I noticed there's at least one other theme too. Quite enjoyed the Avengers Theme cameo in context, too. Marvel is really smart to keep using Silvestri's theme in other movies, no doubt.

Good film, the most enjoyable MCU film in quite some time.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

Ant-Man was standard Marvel fare in a slightly different wrapper. Not even Paul Rudd could save it.

[Jay 37,287]

Aw, it was better than the standard fare!

Rudd wasn't even the best performance here. Pena, Stoll, and Douglas were all fun

Almost forgot my girl Judy Greer got another thankless role. It was the summer of Greer in thankless roles!

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

There are more Marvel films at this point than shuttlecraft and photon torpedoes on the USS Voyager. I can't watch any of them. I even recently tried Guardians of the Galaxy. I figured, what the hell? It's in fucking space, it has nothing to do with the other superheroes and people seemed to like it. I fell asleep.

[Jay 37,287]

There are no modern films you will like, Justin. You're too set in your ways.