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

[publicist 4,643]

5 hours ago, Quintus said:

The old Tim Curry version was arguably more competent in that regard. 

 

God knows why user Joey gets a hard-on for this remake, though. It's a clearcut 3 starrer.

 

I didn't find Curry overly scary (given his reputation on the effectivo-meter) which, i think, had to do with the less-than-classy staging (it all looks kind of drab). The new version has more gorgeous photography and some very frightening scenes, but you have to turn down the volume to experience them. I swear overloud and too-elaborate sfx ruin horror movies nowadays because every scare sounds like Disney's Haunted Mansion. A modicum of quiet goes a long way and IT never shut up (i had to turn the volume down several times when i saw it on Netflix).

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Will never understand why some people complain about a 2-3 hour runtime for a film, but then will binge 6 episodes of an hour long series. 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

TV shows are just more entertaining I guess.

[Sweeping Strings 2,342]

4 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

Will never understand why some people complain about a 2-3 hour runtime for a film, but then will binge 6 episodes of an hour long series. 

Indeed. Must say I don't do that either, though.

[Quintus 5,399]

It's quite simple really, at least to me: a TV episode is generally a conveniently digestible 30min - 1hr compact viewing session. A film though, designed to been seen in one viewing, and for my own preference, best experienced that way, can be anything upwards of 90mins all the way up to 3hrs+. Thus, not "conveniently digestible". 

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I've never done a 6hr binge for anything. 

[Chen G. 3,940]

Very true.

 

Plus, unless its a TV cut of the film, movies are meant for - first and foremost - a theatrical release. The pace in a theater, where the experience is more immersive and overbearing, has to be quicker.

 

On TV, especially in your own living room or bed, you can digest much longer and more leisurely-paced pieces.

[Arpy 4,145]

Yes, I'll never understand the people who can watch films, let alone TV series on their phone!

 

Cinemas, however, are a mixed bag - sometimes it's great to feel the energy and buzz in a room when the film can sway an audience, the rest of the time it's people who like to talk during the film, texting, on social media, kicking your seat, rustling loud packaging - it's disgusting.  

[Chen G. 3,940]

While I don't watch films on my phone, I do think that a truly good film works regardless of viewing conditions. It'll just suck you in.

[Arpy 4,145]

39 minutes ago, Quintus said:

I don't know about anyone else, but I've never done a 6hr binge for anything. 

My brother's friend binges anime for that long and watches it at 2x speed. Not really watching at that point.

Just now, Chen G. said:

While I don't watch films on my phone, I do think that a truly good film works regardless of viewing conditions. It'll just suck you in.

I'm with Spielberg on this one, the theatre is where one should experience a film, and most of that experience is a visual one. You lose so much detail on a small phone screen.

[Jurassic Shark 12,008]

14 minutes ago, Arpy said:

I'm with Spielberg on this one, the theatre is where one should experience a film, and most of that experience is a visual one. You lose so much detail on a small phone screen.

 

Not on a HD screen.

[Chen G. 3,940]

17 minutes ago, Arpy said:

I'm with Spielberg on this one, the theatre is where one should experience a film, and most of that experience is a visual one. You lose so much detail on a small phone screen.

 

My stance on the subject is more complicated. I agree that films should first and foremost function as a theatrical release. I often see a film at home where I enjoy the pace, but fully acknowledge it'd be all wrong in a theater, which is a fault with the movie even though it doesn't really influence my experience of watching it on my TV screen.

 

However, when a film is designed to be such a "big screen experience" that it simply cannot maintain its impact on a smaller screen, I think that's equally a fault with the film. Good films needn't require pre-requisites to be enjoyed, and that extends to the format in which a film is viewed. Plus, there's no end to this line of thought. Soon, watching in a theater won't be enough for certain movies, and people will say "well, you have to watch it in IMAX to really 'get' it."

 

After all, beyond a film's theatrical lifespan, its true staying power is going to stem from TV and streaming. I'm sure everyone here had their fair share of TV film-viewing experiences (certainly in the case of older classics) which were among their most powerful and formative.

 

And lastly, there is something to be said for the intimacy of watching a film in the comfort of your own home, either alone or with familiar company of friends and/or family. Some movies really benefit from that treatment. I don't think the glory of The Return of the King sunk into my mind until after its theatrical run, when I saw it on TV.

[Deacon Blues 65]

Trying to get through the MCU before they get removed off Netflix and put on Disney+, currently up to Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

[Arpy 4,145]

I have a 72'' screen and I can't really appreciate Interstellar the same as I did when I saw it in theatres. It loses something when it's reduced in scale.

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

My stance on the subject is more complicated. I agree that films should first and foremost function as a theatrical release. I often see a film at home where I enjoy the pace, but fully acknowledge it'd be all wrong in a theater, which is a fault with the movie even though it doesn't really influence my experience of watching it on my TV screen.

 

However, when a film is designed to be such a "big screen experience" that it simply cannot maintain its impact on a smaller screen, I think that's equally a fault with the film. Good films needn't require pre-requisites to be enjoyed, and that extends to the format in which a film is viewed. Plus, there's no end to this line of thought. Soon, watching in a theater won't be enough for certain movies, and people will say "well, you have to watch it in IMAX to really 'get' it."

 

After all, beyond a film's theatrical lifespan, its true staying power is going to stem from TV and streaming. I'm sure everyone here had their fair share of TV film-viewing experiences (certainly in the case of older classics) which were among their most powerful and formative.

 

And lastly, there is something to be said for the intimacy of watching a film in the comfort of your own home, either alone or with familiar company of friends and/or family. Some movies really benefit from that treatment. I don't think the glory of The Return of the King sunk into my mind until after its theatrical run, when I saw it on TV.

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

10 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

My stance on the subject is more complicated. I agree that films should first and foremost function as a theatrical release. I often see a film at home where I enjoy the pace, but fully acknowledge it'd be all wrong in a theater, which is a fault with the movie even though it doesn't really influence my experience of watching it on my TV screen.

 

However, when a film is designed to be such a "big screen experience" that it simply cannot maintain its impact on a smaller screen, I think that's equally a fault with the film. Good films needn't require pre-requisites to be enjoyed, and that extends to the format in which a film is viewed. Plus, there's no end to this line of thought. Soon, watching in a theater won't be enough for certain movies, and people will say "well, you have to watch it in IMAX to really 'get' it."

 

After all, beyond a film's theatrical lifespan, its true staying power is going to stem from TV and streaming. I'm sure everyone here had their fair share of TV film-viewing experiences (certainly in the case of older classics) which were among their most powerful and formative.

 

And lastly, there is something to be said for the intimacy of watching a film in the comfort of your own home, either alone or with familiar company of friends and/or family. Some movies really benefit from that treatment. I don't think the glory of The Return of the King sunk into my mind until after its theatrical run, when I saw it on TV.

 

There's some really dumb things in this mess of a text!

[Jurassic Shark 12,008]

 

6 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

There's some really dumb things in this mess of a text!

 

Are you referring to this part?

 

6 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

I often see a film at home where I enjoy the pace, but fully acknowledge it'd be all wrong in a theater, which is a fault with the movie even though it doesn't really influence my experience of watching it on my TV screen.

17 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I don't think the glory of The Return of the King sunk into my mind until after its theatrical run, when I saw it on TV.

 

That's probably because the bad special effects are less obvious on TV.

[A24 4,324]

Movies (how they are shot) are no longer designed for the cinema. 

[Arpy 4,145]

5 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

Movies (how they are shot) are no longer designed for the cinema. 

What? Since when?

[Jurassic Shark 12,008]

Since LotR.

[Quintus 5,399]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

when a film is designed to be such a "big screen experience" that it simply cannot maintain its impact on a smaller screen-

 

Special effects heavy blockbusters are exceptions because the literal size of the image can be profoundly impactful, simply by virtue of the visuals being displayed on a great frickin' big screen. But I see what you're saying in regards to dramas or whatever else. A good horror or thriller for example, is really best when it feels intimate, and seen in isolation. 

[A24 4,324]

43 minutes ago, Arpy said:

What? Since when?

 

Ever since the theater represents only a fraction in the life cycle of movies.

[Alex 2,833]

I saw It: Chapter 2 today, or as it should be known: “Jump Scare: The Movie”.

 

It’s more or less the same movie as the first one, except the kids are adults now, and they introduce some convoluted ritual nonsense.

 

It was almost 3 hours long and it felt it. I thought it was never going to end.

 

Bill Hader was great.

[Faleel 5,326]

Consulted?

[Alex 2,833]

5 minutes ago, Fal J. M. Skywalker said:

Consulted?

 

Convoluted, whoops.

[Fancyarcher 350]

Saw It: Chapter Two last weekend. Enjoyed a lot about it, but just like the book it's based off, it fell a bit short of the first. My review.

 

https://herecast.us/profile/2232/983339

[KK 3,307]

-

 

Managed to catch a couple of films at TIFF this last week. Some good, some not so good...

 

 

Ford v Ferrari

 

Not quite the thriller that the trailer promised. It's your average, sentimental sports flick, just with fancy cars and Christian Bale. It's perfectly watchable and handsomely produced but pretty vanilla. Bale's quirky performance and some fun race sequences make it a decent ride.

 

 

 

Honey Boy

 

Shia LaBeouf's semi-autobiographical screenplay brought to life with director Alma Har'el's restrained, slightly impressionistic touch. It's a little unfocused but it casts a sympathetic light to LaBeouf's public meltdowns by dramatizing his childhood trauma. And it works, largely because of the brilliant kid who plays a young LaBeouf (he also stars in Ford v Ferrari). That kid is going to be a star. LaBeouf is also quite excellent as his father. I'm not sure if it works as a way to validate his past behaviour, but hopefully it allows him to do more good work.
 

 

 

Uncut Gems

 

Every now and then, the industry comes up with an excuse  to remind us why Adam Sandler is a brilliant actor. The Safdie brothers live up the task with their follow-up to their smash indie-darling Good Times, following a wickedly funny series of mishaps by an all-too ambitious jewellery vendor. It's dark, anxiety-inducing and laugh-out funny. Hope Sandler gets some well-deserved Oscar buzz with this.

 

 

Lucy in the Sky

 

What a strange strange film. Noah Hawley, whose gift for witty visual storytelling (re: Fargo), seems to stumble awkwardly around putting together a feature film based on what's essentially a tabloid piece. Somewhere in this mess of overcooked visuals (drawing on what he played with in Legion, but with less logic - Sam Esmail was way better at this stuff in Homecoming), kitschy dialogue and half-assed metaphors (prepare for lots of eye rolling at the butterfly stuff) is a good Portman performance. But it's hard to tell when the film can't quite make up its mind between being an absurdist, over-the-top satire and earnest psycho-drama. Jeff Russo's score is basically First Man-lite. Part of me still likes some of the more ridiculous parts (like the ending), but it's a half-hearted mess with an identity crisis.

 

 

A Hidden Life

 

Hallelujah! This film is proof that Malick and his mythos thrives best in nature, as his last few duds can attest. Returning to a coherent narrative structure, and a more grounded setting, Malick returns to form with this moving portrait of a man facing a crisis of faith. This is what he's best at. All his familiar questions and lines of inquiry return, but is made all the more potent by August Diehl and Valerie Pachner as the leads. This might be the first romance that Malick has successfully sold to me.

 

A Hidden Life is not as obviously flashy as Tree of Life and other Lubezki-driven works with its visual beauty. It aims for a far more pensive quality, and plays with darkness and light in wonderful ways, especially for a film where the protagonist is essentially locked up in a chamber for half of its duration. But don't let that fool you, there are some gobsmacking gorgeous shots.

 

Of course, Malick cynics will not have their minds changed here. Expect plenty of montages of airy, swooning shots galore. He’s not really doing anything new. But A Hidden Life just validates for me, that the more expansive, "non-linear" quality to Malick's storytelling cultivates an extraordinarily emotional experience in the right room. The powerful scenes and ruminations near the film's end were accompanied by much sniffling and man-tears in the cinema. A Hidden Life is Malick's Silence, just with a more humanist lens. If he only had the guts to cut about 30-40 min from the anemic first act, this could have been a truly brilliant film. But as it is, it's very good stuff.

 

Oh and James Newton Howard's score is rather lovely, and from what I could tell, largely preserved in the film. It's led by his familiar Village-esque violin writing and a lovely motif that sounds like something out of Kung Fu Panda. The rest of the film was scored with Pärt, Gorecki and some choral hymns I couldn't recognize. I look forward to hearing it on album. 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

3 hours ago, KK said:

Ford v Ferrari

 

Not quite the thriller that the trailer promised. It's your average, sentimental sports flick, just with fancy cars and Christian Bale. It's perfectly watchable and handsomely produced but pretty vanilla. Bale's quirky performance and some fun race sequences make it a decent ride.

 

I saw some good buzz about Beltrami’s score.  Anything you remember about it?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Besides seeing Godzilla 2 on blu-ray last week, I haven't watched a movie in ages. Just been binging on TV shows.

[KK 3,307]

3 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

 

I saw some good buzz about Beltrami’s score.  Anything you remember about it?

 

It was fun. Light rock with Beltrami’s usual Midwest twang. Didn’t think it was particularly memorable though.

[Sweeping Strings 2,342]

Extra Ordinary - Irish supernatural comedy about a driving instructor who used to help out her paranormal investigator father but when a blunder of hers got him killed, she abandoned the spooky stuff ... but it's not long before she's drawn back into it. For the most part, a very funny film.     

[Jay 37,250]

Wow @KK impressive array of films you saw at TIFF!  Do you go every year?  How much does it cost to see all these?

[KK 3,307]

Since I work in the city, it's almost impossible not to run into TIFF buzz and crowds. I try to catch a couple of films or get in a few lines every year. It's a great way to meet new folks too. Some people take the week off and try to top TIFF-hopping records. A friend of mine managed to hit 27 films this year!

 

Since I'm under 25, I can grab tickets as low as $15, but for the bigger premieres, it's usually around $40. 

[Jay 37,250]

Interesting!  We've visited Vancouver, Montreal, and Quebec City, but not Toronto yet; I'd love to visit someday and if we do, hopefully we can meet up!

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

I've been meaning to go for a few years now. Still haven't.

 

41 minutes ago, Jay said:

Interesting!  We've visited Vancouver, Montreal, and Quebec City, but not Toronto yet; I'd love to visit someday and if we do, hopefully we can meet up!

Let me know too! I'm just down the road.

[Jurassic Shark 12,008]

Just watch out for Bespin!

[KK 3,307]

55 minutes ago, Jay said:

Interesting!  We've visited Vancouver, Montreal, and Quebec City, but not Toronto yet; I'd love to visit someday and if we do, hopefully we can meet up!

 

Make it happen friend! We're the closest to you guys anyway!

 

Maybe try making a trip for TIFF next year!

[Jay 37,250]

What?  Montreal and Quebec City are significantly closer to us than Toronto!

[KK 3,307]

Really? Remind me where you're based again?

 

I just assume because Toronto the Southernmost of the big cities, that we're closer to most people in the US.

[Jay 37,250]

I live in Massachusetts

 

It's an 8 hour drive to Toronto, 7 hour drive to Quebec City, or 5 1/2 hour drive to Montreal

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

6 minutes ago, Jay said:

I live in Massachusetts

 

It's an 8 hour drive to Toronto, 7 hour drive to Quebec City, or 5 1/2 hour drive to Montreal

 

I keep forgetting Americans measure distance in car hours.

[Marian Schedenig 8,153]

27 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

I keep forgetting Americans measure distance in car hours.

 

Still easier to understand than miles.

[A24 4,324]

Smart of Jay to live so close to Canadian borders. You never know when the U.S will turn Gilead on him.

[Jay 37,250]

You're an odd man

[A24 4,324]

Thanks!

 

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Downton Abbey

 

Deeply silly, clumsily written, but good fun.  My parents loved it!

[crocodile 7,973]

Hustlers. Surprisingly solid if unremarkable.

 

Downton Abbey. Never watched the show. Only tried this because I liked Gosford Park. It is twee and silly. Glorified Emmerdale at most.

 

Ad Astra. I'm not sure what to think of this film. I don't want to be too negative because there are quite a few things that I liked about it. It was bit different and understated which is a good thing. Sort of cast in the sane mould as First Man with Ryan Gosling from last year. The main characters in these two films almost feel like the same person and both their stories serve as introspective journey inwards. Brad Pitt is really good in this - his acting is so subdued but through it he manages to reveal quite a lot about his character. I liked the general concept and how it's put together but the film as a whole doesn't quite work. There are a couple of action sequences in there and I wasn't quite sure why they're even in the film. They felt like some producer wanted to have them in there because the rest is so depressing and they need to sell it to the large audience somehow. A lot of beats and characters that don't seem to add all that much to the story. They serve to set up the world and sometimes deliver exposition but don't do much beyond that (Donald Sutherland, anyone?). I also wish they managed to find a more subtle way of portraying the themes other than a voiceovers. It always feels bit lazy to me. Still, I'm glad real s-f films like this are being made. There were quite a few in the past decade and that is a good thing. This genre is a perfect vehicle for almost anything, no matter how big or small, and "daddy issues" is a subject as good as any. I get all of that...but it sure isn't Tarkovsky in its introspective philosophical contemplation. For all its emotional baggage, it felt oddly hollow.

 

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

8 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

Downton Abbey

 

Deeply silly, clumsily written, but good fun.  My parents loved it!

 

That's the main thing.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

It is.  The older generation needs to be comforted by fantasies about the importance of traditions and social order.

[publicist 4,643]

7 hours ago, crocodile said:

Ad Astra. I'm not sure what to think of this film. I don't want to be too negative because there are quite a few things that I liked about it. It was bit different and understated which is a good thing. Sort of cast in the sane mould as First Man with Ryan Gosling from last year. The main characters in these two films almost feel like the same person and both their stories serve as introspective journey inwards. Brad Pitt is really good in this - his acting is so subdued but through it he manages to reveal quite a lot about his character. I liked the general concept and how it's put together but the film as a whole doesn't quite work. There are a couple of action sequences in there and I wasn't quite sure why they're even in the film. They felt like some producer wanted to have them in there because the rest is so depressing and they need to sell it to the large audience somehow. A lot of beats and characters that don't seem to add all that much to the story. They serve to set up the world and sometimes deliver exposition but don't do much beyond that (Donald Sutherland, anyone?). I also wish they managed to find a more subtle way of portraying the themes other than a voiceovers. It always feels bit lazy to me. Still, I'm glad real s-f films like this are being made. There were quite a few in the past decade and that is a good thing. This genre is a perfect vehicle for almost anything, no matter how big or small, and "daddy issues" is a subject as good as any. I get all of that...but it sure isn't Tarkovsky in its introspective philosophical contemplation. For all its emotional baggage, it felt oddly hollow.

 

Score?

[crocodile 7,973]

14 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

Score?

Honestly, I can't recall. It was probably droning morbidly to morbid story.

 

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

2 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

It is.  The older generation needs to be comforted by fantasies about the importance of traditions and social order.

 

How patronising they must find you!