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

[Quintus 5,399]

I luckily watched that at home. Amazing soundtrack on it.

[Bespin 8,480]

I am Michael.

 

Don't watch that.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

On 7/27/2017 at 5:58 PM, Quintus said:

I like personal stories, or "small stories on a big backdrop", but they're hard to pull off, to get the balance right. Spielberg tried something similar with War Horse. Again, I didn't think that was too successful either. 

 

But Zimmer crossed a line I didn't entirely realise I had in place with this one. I don't like overbearing sound, I don't appreciate being bashed around the head by incessant and relentless scoring which is the experiment of an audio designer who has no care for the sensibility thresholds of others (what makes this latest "churning propeller" Zimmerism any less obnoxious than his Superman "drum circles", really?). Mad Max is another recent audiovisual assault which I detested for very similar reasons. I won't be beaten down into somehow respecting a film by its dictorial audio signature just because that was what they hoped for, just because they were trying something different or new.

I'm honestly surprised by this overt reaction because I didn't find the score overwhelming at all. On album even less so. As you've already mentioned, he's done other scores that are much more "obnoxious."

On 7/27/2017 at 5:58 PM, Quintus said:

I like personal stories, or "small stories on a big backdrop", but they're hard to pull off, to get the balance right. Spielberg tried something similar with War Horse. Again, I didn't think that was too successful either. 

 

But Zimmer crossed a line I didn't entirely realise I had in place with this one. I don't like overbearing sound, I don't appreciate being bashed around the head by incessant and relentless scoring which is the experiment of an audio designer who has no care for the sensibility thresholds of others (what makes this latest "churning propeller" Zimmerism any less obnoxious than his Superman "drum circles", really?). Mad Max is another recent audiovisual assault which I detested for very similar reasons. I won't be beaten down into somehow respecting a film by its dictorial audio signature just because that was what they hoped for, just because they were trying something different or new.

I'm honestly surprised by this overt reaction because I didn't find the score overwhelming at all. On album even less so. As you've already mentioned, he's done other scores that are much more "obnoxious."

[KK 3,307]

On 2017-07-28 at 2:55 AM, publicist said:

 

After i've seen it i beg to to mildly disagree. It's really not about Dunkirk and not really a war movie (any siege movie, even 'The Thing' can be told this way). It is more a try at a film purely based on affects - the loud Zimmer pulse is its heart and the movie would be nothing without it - and to ground it in a famous WW2 retreat situation imho only came about because Nolan needed a blockbuster theme big enough to exploit these situational affects, most obviously the unbearable tension of waiting for the strike to happen and the fear of being the one killed (the enemy is never shown till the end, the soldiers only run away).

 

In that i found it an interesting experiment, though ironically in case of 'Dunkirk', it's the big blockbuster spectacle - all the stuff you don't need Nolan's heady concoctions for, the big beach scenes, the aerial and sea battles - that keeps you awake while the more artsy construction, the concept what usually distinguishes Nolan from the chaff, drag like a Merchant-Ivory movie. 

 

In the end i respect it more than i found it engrossing but one thing is clear: if a prize is given, it should go to Zimmer & crew because frankly, i do not remember the last time when the contribution of the sound/music department (it isn't strictly music) made such a striking difference. The movie would be unbearably boring without the score, though some might say it's unbearable because of it.

 

Agree on all accounts here save for the last. The score does serves the film's most basic needs, and in a rather monotonous fashion. I expected more from the duo.

[publicist 4,643]

Seeing it in IMAX i think it was carefully designed that way. They probably tried more traditional approaches - but in the end they decided for the most visceral effect. And apart from a few film music fans, who's to complain?

[Quintus 5,399]

The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/jul/26/bloodless-boring-empty-christopher-nolan-dunkirk-left-me-cold

 

I'm glad it mentions the weirdly pedestrian air combat scenes. Nolan's direction of the action in the skies was impossibly plodding, and this is where I have problems with his visual storytelling. There's something wrong, too, when the most exciting sequence featuring a spitfire was when it wasn't in the air (the sinking).

[publicist 4,643]

Well...sort of. I guess that Nolan's self-imposed limitations trigger reactions like that but i think it still is a potent cinemagoing experience, warts and all. It's a try at total immersion by technological means, real-time, and might become better with a few tries more. I think reviews like this kind of know this and want their old narrative cinema back. Will be interesting to see if other filmmakers will follow suit.

[Hurmm 91]

Hah. Glad I wasn't the only one who found the dogfights dull. A total lack of sensory experience. 

 

I also agree with the review. And 100% with this part:

The restrictions Nolan places on himself have been cited to demonstrate his brilliance as a director. Not for him the humdrum apparatus of lesser directors. His film must be pared back so it can home in on its true subject. Which is what, exactly? Don’t be silly, the reviewers groan: it is the horror of war as never before. OK, got that, another stab at war-is-hell. Except that Dunkirk is no such thing. It is a 12A effort that avoids blood and guts as thoroughly as it avoids so much else. 

 

His self-imposed restrictions in the view that the result would be untainted and pure is unfortunately utterly misguided. Of course no amount of explaining will make sense to his fan base. In a way, although most are in favour of him, Nolan is one of the more divisive filmmakers of our time. 

[publicist 4,643]

Again, that's rationalizations people make for themselves (the complaint it has nothing to tell is a limiting viewpoint as well) but that are hardly a universal 'truth', either. I stand by what i said: Give this a few tries more and it will probably work a lot better.

[crocodile 8,010]

Well, at least he he filmed those scenes in the actual planes, up in the air, with IMAX cameras attached to them. If you actually realise what he was trying to achieve, and forget for a second about the impossibly choreographed CGI battles that other films feed you with, then it is actually really impressive.

 

Karol

[A24 4,331]

If you imagine that you never saw a movie before then it's actually really impressive!

[crocodile 8,010]

2 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

If you imagine that you never saw a movie before then it's actually really impressive!

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

The movie's big hoorah moment at the end, as it is assumed Hardy shoots down the incoming Messerschmitt (I think there was one, approaching the Mole, but there might have been another bearing down on the tugboat, or it could have just been the same one, before at least one of them was intercepted, presumably by Hardy) was shockingly bad direction from Nolan. Thank god Ken Brannagh's intercut face was worth staring at instead, that at least helped a little with the storytelling there.

[A24 4,331]

I just translated what you said, reverend crocs.

[publicist 4,643]

There were a lot of expert brit actors making the best of the situation. 

[Hurmm 91]

14 minutes ago, crocodile said:

Well, at least he he filmed those scenes in the actual planes, up in the air, with IMAX cameras attached to them. If you actually realise what he was trying to achieve, and forget for a second about the impossibly choreographed CGI battles that other films feed you with, then it is actually really impressive.

 

Karol

 

I admire the technical setup and no one is doubting it is impressive. I believe I mentioned it in one of my posts earlier too. But a technically marvellous setup by no means translates to a cinematically entertaining or engrossing moment. It is in this critical transformation that Nolan falters all too often. I've seen techical wizardry applied to this film a few times now, but I'd contend the more appropriate phrase would be misuse of techical wizardry. Michael Bay is generous with his use of CGI which is technically impressive too, but he too fails to coherently tell a story with the technology. It's just that people are now jaded with CG and see right through it, whereas the relatively "groundbreaking" practical wizardry of Nolan is still cherished. Opposite sides of the same coin, to me.  

 

 

[Quintus 5,399]

44 minutes ago, crocodile said:

Well, at least he he filmed those scenes in the actual planes, up in the air, with IMAX cameras attached to them. If you actually realise what he was trying to achieve, and forget for a second about the impossibly choreographed CGI battles that other films feed you with, then it is actually really impressive.

 

Karol

 

I appreciate what you're saying, but I thought it was a pity you felt the need to qualify your angle by adding the adverb "impossibly" before you typed the word "choreographed". But I think you knew you had to add it otherwise your argument would have lost much of its persuasive power.

 

Let's look at the same post again but with the problematic word removed:

 

Quote

Well, at least he he filmed those scenes in the actual planes, up in the air, with IMAX cameras attached to them. If you actually realise what he was trying to achieve, and forget for a second about the choreographed CGI battles that other films feed you with, then it is actually really impressive.

 

Karol

 

Now, we all know it's quite possible to design such "battles" in a way which doesn't feel "impossible", and we know there are other directors out there who embrace tools like CGI with restraint and care, using it alongside live props on real sets or in real locations; hardly "feeding" any thing to anyone. Knowing this to be the case, I think it makes Nolan's direction of air combat all the more unremarkable and a missed opportunity.

 

22 minutes ago, Hurmm said:

 

I admire the technical setup and no one is doubting it is impressive. I believe I mentioned it in one of my posts earlier too. But a technically marvellous setup by no means translates to a cinematically entertaining or engrossing moment. 

 

Exactly this. Although I expect fans to give Nolan a pass just because he did something new or differently, as if that's merit in itself (it actually isn't, but never mind).

[crocodile 8,010]

I do see what you guys are saying as well. I really do. But I think you're both missing a point. Nolan isn't interested in lean spectacle. He tries to create a certain sense of verisimilitude in his films, for better or worse. It's less about impressing you with action setpieces and more about selling the idea you're actually there. If you were to suddenly have elegant shots of dogfights you'd break that illusion because it's all about what the pilots and how they're seeing this. That is what he understands as "visceral" and it's all about an almost guerrilla-like documentarian style. But I guess that won't work for everyone.

 

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

I appreciate his approach, or his aim, too, honestly. I simply think it lacked the necessary skill required to execute those sequences in a way which felt interesting and satisfying. And there are actually some very "elegant" shots in there. That's not the problem. I look for visual panache and for me that was missing in key scenes. Endlessly repeated shots of a crosshair lining up a target may well be realistic, but I don't find them particularly interesting.

[publicist 4,643]

Neither were parts of the stories (score taken out would destroy them). But the gulf between some viewers and Nolan seems to be that he didn't do certain things people expect of a moviegoing experience and it's simply a transitional period now (first 3D, come virtual reality) and what you've seen here is a first bumpy attempt at acknowledging that.

[crocodile 8,010]

To be honest, I haven't decided yet what I think of this film. I admire it for many reasons but it all felt bit... don't know... But the fact I feel like this doesn't necessarily mean the film is bad.

 

Seeing it in IMAX tomorrow. We'll see how I feel then. Can go either way.

 

Karol

[publicist 4,643]

Was OK. Tbh, it's not a movie i would want to watch a second time.

[crocodile 8,010]

I was supposed to watch it only once (tomorrow, that is). So booked the ticket way in advance (there are only 3 IMAX screens in the UK so they go quick). It just so happened that the day it came out was very rainy and my original plans were ruined. So me and my mum went to see it at the normal cinema.

 

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

26 minutes ago, publicist said:

the gulf between some viewers and Nolan seems to be that he didn't do certain things people expect of a moviegoing experience and it's simply a transitional period now (first 3D, come virtual reality) and what you've seen here is a first bumpy attempt at acknowledging that.

 

I suppose that's one way of explaining it away. I'm more inclined to suspect that this trailblazing visionary new way of filmmaking which your intent on painting it as being is another anomaly we get occasionally.

[publicist 4,643]

Limited viewpoint. In the big scheme of 'Transformers' et al it's a trend that's not so easy to explain away. Nolan seems to be more reacting than acting in this regard, anyway.

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

Baby Driver.

 

I liked it, but not as much as say Shaun of the Dead. The cast was great but by the end I felt like something was missing, maybe something related to the love story. I never was able to get quite into their thing, they had great chemistry and all (and she looked JUST like Shelly from Twin Peaks) but theor romance didn't add up for me.

[A24 4,331]

I saw the trailer, no way I'm watching that.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Hurmm 91]

So is it better than The World's End, which I recall to be shit? 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I'm glad JWFan is in agreement with me on Baby Driver.

 

It's a very cool, well-made, admirable effort that seems to be missing something essential that I can't quite put my finger on.

[crocodile 8,010]

I wouldn't be putting my finger on babies, mate. Drivers or not.

 

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Is Operation Yewtree ongoing?

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

8 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Pretty much agree with this. I expected to be blown away by it, given the (almost) unanimous glowing reviews, yet I just ended up thinking it was OK. One thing in particular I found a tad disappointing was the use of music: all the reviews mentioned how Wright selected all the songs before even shooting the film, so that when he shot it and edited it, he knew exactly the pace he wanted to give to each scene, and he could also create a lot of cool sync points, etc. But as I was watching the film, it rarely felt like each song fit each scene perfectly, and that the editing made both the visual and music sync greatly ,etc. If anything, I found the music to be overbearing at times (it rarely stops. Of course, there's an in-story explanation for it, but still, doesn't make it less obnoxious at times) and the editing a bit confusing too in some chase sequences. Nothing as spectacular as reviews claimed it was.

 

 

The gun-firing synced with the rhythm was cool, though. I don't think I've ever seen that before.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Dunkirk.

 

It's ok, hugely overrated.

 

**1/2 out of ****

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Maglorfin 196]

The Martian, finally. Good stuff, maybe somewhat overlong and occassionally predictable, but overall, a good achievement. Solid performance by Damon.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

The climactic rescue sequence is up there with the best Ridley's ever done.

[A24 4,331]

No, that part destroyed the movie.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Meh

[A24 4,331]

A Gravity wannabee part.  I fell asleep. First hour, when it was just Matt Damon alone on Mars, was okay. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Did Thor like it?

[Quintus 5,399]

Yes, he enjoyed a profound feeling of deliverance as the credits rolled.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

It's an entertaining movie

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

1 hour ago, Alexcremers said:

No, that part destroyed the movie.

 

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.

[crocodile 8,010]

I didn't like this one. At. All.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

12 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

It's an entertaining movie

 

I quite enjoyed it, yes. Strikes a good cheesy tone - which I wasn't expecting at first, but I got into once I recalibrated.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

1 hour ago, crocodile said:

I didn't like this one. At. All.

Karol

 

Agreed.  Too much millennial "look how trendy and hip science is" nonsense.  

[Disco Stu 15,495]

1 minute ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

Too much millennial "look how trendy and hip science is" nonsense.  

 

What?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It was alright.