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

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Pretty good.

[A24 4,326]

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

Agreed. The book was pretty cool, not because it was well written (it wasn't), but because it spent a ridiculous amount of time to get the details as right as possible. The film reflected that reasonably well at times, but then made the strange choice to leave out the complications of the rover trip (the most tense part of the book) and instead substitute the completely over the top rocket man climax.

 

Agreed (not that I have read the book though), the Robinson Crusoe part was enjoyable. It was the "Let's bring him home" rescue mission part that was not only boring but also incredibly tedious. I bet that Scott wanted to have Tom Hanks as the NASA ground commander but he probably wasn't available.

 

My gift to Disco Stu:

 

 

"Let's bring him home, boys!"

 

 

 

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Great film!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I love Apollo 13.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

Apollo 13 is great.  And it's Horner's best score.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Me too. Great score !

[Quintus 5,399]

Apollo 13 was the Saving Private Ryan of space rescue movies. I think I enjoyed The Martian more, because it was ooh-rah daft patriotic instead of revered nobility patriotic (Horner's horns!). I digested it easier than Howard's American history lesson and celebration of the human spirit. Ridley Scott made being marooned in outer-space (and then rescued) quite fun, he wasn't especially interested in depicting the powerful human resolve to overcome unimaginable adversity, but rather just showing what dudes do in bad situations to make it through one day to the next. It's a simple boys own adventure movie.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I liked the Chinese patriotism in the film. We must bow to our new overlords.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Sounds boring! 

 

Apollo 13 isnt boring. It's quite inspirational actually.

[Quintus 5,399]

Apollo 13 is a good film, but it's stodgy.

 

10 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Sounds boring! 

 

Oh you would definitely enjoy it. But never mind.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Stodgy? I thought it moves along quite briskly.

[Quintus 5,399]

A bit stuffy. About as earnestly told as The Lord of the Rings. A good film no doubt, but I've seen it once and that's plenty.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well it is very 90's. After the Gulf War American cinema was quite gushing about it's patriotism. 

[A24 4,326]

You all missed the point of my gift. Sigh ...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Oh, there was a point?

 

[Fancyarcher 350]

Cars 3 - 6.5 / 10

[publicist 4,643]

On 31.7.2017 at 8:20 PM, TheGreyPilgrim said:

And it's Horner's best score.

 

Buhhhh!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Certainly one of his top 90's efforts. But too sentimental for you to enjoy, Pub.

[crocodile 7,984]

@publicist you certainly can recognise in your cold German heart that it is in fact a fine score in Horner's repertoire.

 

Karol

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Quintus 5,399]

You just don't understand what Lynch, I mean Nolan, is doing with Twin Peaks 3, I mean Dunkirk, because you're clearly a filthy normie.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Did you use normal spoiler tags? Cause there's nothing there for me. 

[Hurmm 91]

The white space is the spoiler for the movie, it represents the eternal blandness of it all. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Hehehe...

 

There is no white space. The spoilers are there.

[A24 4,326]

Critics over at RT don't experience any flaws at all:

 

93%

 

Quote

The movie works. Time and again, the action swells and dips, like a wave, then suddenly delivers a salty slap in the face. 

 

Quote

It isn't a standard war movie, but it sure is some beautiful, difficult thing.

 

Quote

With few action sequences, the film is intended to portray a feeling, not to present endearing characters, resulting in a very interesting exercise.

 

Alex

[BloodBoal 7,538]

I give RT critics a 2/10.

[Quintus 5,399]

Lol, like clockwork. I really need to set my watch to Cremerstime.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

3 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan (2017)

 

Well, this was a rather dull and monotonous experience. The fact that the whole film feels like one long action sequence, with no real build-up, no moments of respite or anything is a big problem in my opinion. "But that was the whole point, you idiot! To have the tension at a maximum level throughout the entire film! It's brilliant!" Well, it simply didn't work me. It just end up being repetitive after a while. If everything is played with the same tone, the same pace, the same obnoxious music, treated on the same level, as if no moment is more important than another, then no moment actually feels important. By the end of the film, I ended up with these weird contradictory feelings, thinking both: "That's already the end?" (because I was wondering if that was all the film had to offer) and "Thank God it's over!" (because I was getting tired of it all).

 

There are individual moments that work for sure (particularly liked the sequence where (spoiler) the soldiers are hiding in the fishing boat, happening concurrently with the spitfire sinking) (end spoiler) and I appreciated the fact there wasn't that much dialogue (didn't have much of a problem with the fact we don't learn an awful lot about the characters), but all in all the film feels a bit pointless. Not sure why there had to be three different storylines with three different timespans (especially if it's not to make full use of it. I mean, the spitfires storyline is supposed to take place over just an hour, but it feels longer than that, the storyline with Rylance's character is supposed to be one day long, but ultimately probably takes place over about 5 hours tops, and the mole storyline which is supposed to be one week long feels like it happens over the course of 2-3 days tops). Was Nolan trying to make his film appear more complex, because he was afraid people would call it too simplistic otherwise? Who knows. Maybe he's right...

 

Technically, the film is fine of course (Nolan has to be commended for trying to use as much as possible practical effects), though not particularly visually spectacular (I totally understand people criticizing the film for not making you feel like it was a massive operation. It all feels and looks rather small-scale). The score, on the other hand, is absolutely horrendous. Really grating. Didn't like it one bit. "But that's the point, you idiot! To have relentless, overbearing music, keeping the tension at a maximum level! It's brilliant!" Well, no. There are ways to create tension with music without playing endless synth loops and a ticking sound to make you understand this is a race against the clock. Again, if you have music constantly playing, it loses its impact after a while, and thus fails at creating tension. Bah!

 

Not a particularly bad film ("flawed" would be more appropriate), but not a particularly engaging one either...

 

5/10

 

 

BloodBoal - expecting JWFANers who liked the film to now say: "You simply didn't get what Nolan was trying to achieve" or "Your arguments are not valid, because I disagree with them".

 

Brother!

1 hour ago, Quintus said:

Lol, like clockwork. I really need to set my watch to Cremerstime.

 

Set it to about 6 months fron now when Alex finally sees it on home video and dislikes it.

 

"Really? Everyone thought this was the best film of 2017? Typical JWfan"

[publicist 4,643]

4 hours ago, crocodile said:

@publicist you certainly can recognise in your cold German heart that it is in fact a fine score in Horner's repertoire.

 

It's so slick it's slippery. Just like the movie which i found excruciatingly boring - but still well-made. Taking into account that Horner, back to back, worked on 'Casper', 'Braveheart' and then 'Apollo 13' i think it's a herculean act, for sure. It still wouldn't enter my Top 10.

[A24 4,326]

43 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

Set it to about 6 months fron now when Alex finally sees it on home video and dislikes it.

 

"Really? Everyone thought this was the best film of 2017? Typical JWfan"

 

I think I'm going to say: "No wonder you all hated it, it's Nolan's best movie!"

[Matt C 452]

The Little Hours

 

 

It's a bit Monty Python-esque, but I was chuckling throughout this movie. The writer-director takes some dig at organized religion (specifically Roman Catholicism), and it's gleefully R-rated. The cast, mainly comprised of folks from "Community", "Scrubs" and "Parks & Recreation", is hilarious. Nick Offerman and Aubrey Plaza are the standouts here, but everyone is up to form.

[crocodile 7,984]

8 hours ago, publicist said:

 

It's so slick it's slippery. Just like the movie which i found excruciatingly boring - but still well-made. Taking into account that Horner, back to back, worked on 'Casper', 'Braveheart' and then 'Apollo 13' i think it's a herculean act, for sure. It still wouldn't enter my Top 10.

It is in mine. But then, that was my first Horn(y)er. You never forget your first.

 

Karol

[publicist 4,643]

'Willow'! 

[Fancyarcher 350]

War For The Planet of The Apes - Wonderful. An excellent way to end a solid trilogy. Incredibly cinematic and downright dark (I can see why audiences are turned off). Harrelson is terrifying too. - 9.5 / 10

[crocodile 7,984]

Best summer movie this year. Even though it doesn't feel very blockbuster-y. "Cinematic" is a good way to describe it.

 

Karol

[Brundlefly 2,385]

On Wednesday, August 02, 2017 at 2:18 PM, BloodBoal said:

To have relentless, overbearing music, keeping the tension at a maximum level! It's brilliant!" Well, no. There are ways to create tension with music without playing endless synth loops and a ticking sound to make you understand this is a race against the clock. Again, if you have music constantly playing, it loses its impact after a while, and thus fails at creating tension. Bah!

Isn't that a general problem with Zimmer's music? I mean it has basically been his invention to score almost the whole movie. In The Dark Knight Rises he's endlessly repeating the same compositionally weak stuff, so that one of the few scenes which remain unscored stands out (Alfred tells Bruce about Rachel's letter). The total opposite of this is Goldsmith who sometimes uses less than 40 minutes for a 2-3 hour movie (Patton, Magic, Chinatown, L.A. Confidential).

[Fancyarcher 350]

A Monster Calls - 8 / 10

[Fancyarcher 350]

Kong Skull Island - 7.5 / 10

[publicist 4,643]

On 4.8.2017 at 0:49 AM, Brundlefly said:

Isn't that a general problem with Zimmer's music? I mean it has basically been his invention to score almost the whole movie. In The Dark Knight Rises he's endlessly repeating the same compositionally weak stuff, so that one of the few scenes which remain unscored stands out (Alfred tells Bruce about Rachel's letter). The total opposite of this is Goldsmith who sometimes uses less than 40 minutes for a 2-3 hour movie (Patton, Magic, Chinatown, L.A. Confidential).

 

Let's stay honest here: Zimmer did shorter scores when given the chance, Goldsmith often provided between 70 and 90 minutes of music for potboilers like 'Chain Reaction'. This reflects more on a changing movie landscape than any personal preference. 99% of composers would probably prefer to write more concise scores, if just because it spares them sleepless nights. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Agreed!

[Brundlefly 2,385]

11 minutes ago, publicist said:

Let's stay honest here: Zimmer did shorter scores when given the chance, Goldsmith often provided between 70 and 90 minutes of music for potboilers like 'Chain Reaction'. This reflects more on a changing movie landscape than any personal preference. 99% of composers would probably prefer to write more concise scores, if just because it spares them sleepless nights. 

Zimmer is known for having invented a method where nearly the whole movie is underscored. Williams has always had a usual score running time of 70 to 120 minutes. Goldsmith has always had a usual score running time of 30 to 80 minutes.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Invented a method... of simply writing more music? What are you talking about?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Brundlefly is a fairly new member right? Only just noticing him now.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

4 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

Invented a method... of simply writing more music? What are you talking about?

 

"Refined", "developed", maybe?

[Wojo 2,453]

He's also giving credit to the composer for whatever length of movie the director and editor feel should be scored with music. That's nice. 

[publicist 4,643]

10 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

Zimmer is known for having invented a method where nearly the whole movie is underscored. Williams has always had a usual score running time of 70 to 120 minutes. Goldsmith has always had a usual score running time of 30 to 80 minutes.

 

Did you, by any chance, spend your spare time counting presidential inauguration visitors recently? 

[Brundlefly 2,385]

26 minutes ago, publicist said:

Did you, by any chance, spend your spare time counting presidential inauguration visitors recently? 

No, just looking at what media player displays.

[publicist 4,643]

Your numbers are rubbish. Neither did Hans Zimmer 'invent' a method for scoring films whole (it just happened that some of the blockbusters did just that) nor did any of the other gentlemen ever had an average independent of genre or other filmic requirements. Since the 90's, scores became longer but for small dramas, Williams seldom cracked the 50 minute mark, Goldsmith suddenly provided 80-90 minute scores for action movies that had hardly 30 in the 70's. CD running times are really misleading. A score like 'Ghost and the Darkness' or 'The Shadow' had 30 minute releases of 60 to 80 minutes of score.

 

[Johnnyecks 33]

20 hours ago, Fancyarcher said:

A Monster Calls - 8 / 10

 

 

This movie absolutely destroyed me. Great great great film, but damnit it ruined a whole weekend. Everytime I think about it, I get all emotional.

 

 

Damnit... here I go.....