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

[publicist 4,643]

The Visit was a good, mean little thriller. A bit more macabre and witty than Split, but probably as demented.

[A24 4,331]

People should also watch The Invitation.

 

[filmmusic 1,826]

Just finished The Post (2017).

 

Didn't care for it at all and it was a bit of a chore to sit through it.

Also, aesthetically speaking it felt like a TV movie to me.

 

I remember I very much enjoyed the similar themed All the president's men.

[Sweeping Strings 2,357]

14 hours ago, nightscape94 said:

Split (2016)

 

 

The thing I truly missed about Shyamalan before he went off the deep was his ability to create tension out of thin air and sustain it; his ability to hold your attention and make you uncomfortable though silence, pacing, or through subtle camera movements, he really was a gifted filmmaker who became a stupid storyteller.

 

Well, this is the first film of his that I've seen since The Last Airbender (and that was mostly because I was an extra).  Now, I have not seen The Visit, do not plan on seeing After Earth, and with an utterly perplexing salaam but sarcastic bow to the puzzling The Happening, I suppose I can declare this most recent movie a return to form.  It's a bit longer than it needs to be, but it's an effective thriller with a terrific performance by McAvoy, that keeps you glued.

Interesting that you were an extra on The Last Airbender ... have never seen it myself, but I once read somewhere that in some of the fight sequences some of the extras can actually be seen waiting for their 'cue' to start fighting. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

29 minutes ago, filmmusic said:

Just finished The Post (2017).

 

Didn't care for it at all and it was a bit of a chore to sit through it.

Also, aesthetically speaking it felt like a TV movie to me.

 

I remember I very much enjoyed the similar themed All the president's men.

 

ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN is one of the finest films in the last 40 years.

I doubt that, in 2057, THE POST will be held that regard.

[A24 4,331]

 

Robert Redford didn't really resemble Bob Woodward though!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The real Bonnie and Clyde looked nothing like Dunaway and Beatty.

 

Movie magic, folks!

[nightscape94 965]

7 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Interesting that you were an extra on The Last Airbender ... have never seen it myself, but I once read somewhere that in some of the fight sequences some of the extras can actually be seen waiting for their 'cue' to start fighting. 

 

This was my only experience, so I can't compare it to anything else, but I can definitely say that things didn't seem all that coordinated.  I had the feeling that M. Night was making up shots as he went along, which is totally normal, if you ever hear Spielberg talk, but as a result the extras were jostled around quite a bit and we had quick takes.  We were constantly starting, stopping, resetting, etc. 

 

The assistants also didn't appear to be around much either because there was one scene where I was fighting this guy, and we were specifically put in a certain spot.  After one take, the other guy wanted to move somewhere else because we weren't in the shot.  So, against my wishes, he just walked away to another location and I was forced to follow him.  No one noticed and we stayed the there rest of the scene.

 

It wasn't all like that, though.  Most of the time we were just waiting around.  The action takes were brief, we were given a task to do, run from point A to point B, and that was basically it.  The problem you mention could be an editing thing.

 

 

[nightscape94 965]

Arrival (2016)

 

 

This was on my radar for a while.  I love alien encounter movies that aren't all about shoot 'em up baddies.  Movies like Contact or District 9 are a breath of fresh air and Arrival is cut from the same cloth.  It has a clever twist built inside its storytelling, and provides an emotional core that is vital to the movie's success. I have to admit, however, that the technology that we were provided in the end is ultimately unhelpful, but it still works within the world of the movie and the way the plot is structured.

[A24 4,331]

Mother

 

 

Most tedious movie I've seen in a long time. First half is okay though. 2/10

[King Mark 3,631]

Maze Runner :Death Cure

 

I had seen the first 2 movies so I had to see it. Lots of action and epic scope so it was entertaining

 

I wonder why there's a maze (like the first film) around the city on the movie poster when there's no such thing in the film. and I think I hard a line in the trailer that's not in the film

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Dark Paradise

 

I seem to gravitate to these midday tele movies from the Lifetime channel a lot. Comfort food I guess.

 

February

 

Borrowing a word from Alex, tedious. Long, droll and not scary, even though it's trying to counter the mainstream jump scare horror. Best avoided. Probably more of a Quintus movie since he loved The Baladuk and The Witch so much.

[Quintus 5,399]

Excellent movies, yes. 

[KK 3,307]

 

The Florida Project

 

Sumptuously shot, well-cast and yet delicately unassertive with its intentions. How did this charming portrait of a very real slice of American life get almost entirely overlooked by the awards season? It has all the ingredients of a proper sleeper hit. And it's better than most of the Best Picture nominees anyway. Good stuff.

[Will 2,215]

Darkest Hour - Very stirring and entertaining. Very nice companion to Dunkirk. 

[KK 3,307]

 

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

 

It asks for some patience at first, but is immensely rewarding, like a good novel. Affleck was great, though Pitt's the one who really draws your eyes. He's absolutely magnetic. Deakins also boasts some of his best work here.

 

Anyone seen Dominik's other feature? Was this a fluke?

[A24 4,331]

31 minutes ago, KK said:

 

It asks for some patience at first ...

 

I disagree. I was immediately sold, as if the movie was made for me especially.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Remember Alex. KK loves Sicario.

[A24 4,331]

Rob Ager: "I lost all my respect for Villeneuve".

[KK 3,307]

Granted, I had a long day, so I wasn't sure if I was in the mood for a heavy psychodrama. But I did enjoy it very much.

 

And yes, I did enjoy Sicario!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Just now, KK said:

And yes, I did enjoy Sicario!

 

*Hisses* at KK!

[KK 3,307]

Begone foul hater! Go back whence you came!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

4 hours ago, KK said:

 

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

 

It asks for some patience at first, but is immensely rewarding, like a good novel. Affleck was great, though Pitt's the one who really draws your eyes. He's absolutely magnetic. Deakins also boasts some of his best work here.

 

Anyone seen Dominik's other feature? Was this a fluke?

One of my favorite films. Killing Them Softly is an entirely different kind of movie though. It’s a clean 90 minutes and is a very heavy American dream/political satire. I enjoyed it but thought it was too heavy handed at times. 

Unless you’re talking about Chopper, he has 3 features. 

[Fancyarcher 350]

Jim & Andy - Really interesting look into how an actor can get absorbed into a certain role. I'm not sure I'll ever look at Carrey the same way again. 8.5 / 10

[Glóin the Dark 1,220]

22 hours ago, KK said:

Anyone seen Dominik's other feature?

 

Yeah. It seems to be more divisive than The [SPOILER!] of Jesse James by [SPOILER!], but I liked it a lot. Took a second viewing to get my head around it properly, though.

[A24 4,331]

Chopper is great. The Brad Pitt one is a disappointment. Only say it once though, but to me it felt like a pilot for a crime TV series on HBO.

[Sweeping Strings 2,357]

The Post - Spielberg, Streep and Hanks bring their usual sure-footedness to this solid telling of the Washington Post's decision to publish the findings of the 'Pentagon Papers', and the resultant fury of the Nixon administration.  

[Glóin the Dark 1,220]

I just saw around 80% of Phantom Thread. During the final ad before the film, the screen masking came down as it should for a widescreen film. But Phantom Thread has a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, so a significant portion of the top of the screen was cut off (distorting the distinctive look which is evident in the clips and trailers). I spoke to the staff afterwards and got a refund and a complimentary ticket for a later screening.

[filmmusic 1,826]

 

I don't know how I feel about the most part of the film but in the end I cried my eyes out and had a mini panic attack..

Such films remind me how lonely I feel and am...

[Glóin the Dark 1,220]

Just out of a screening of Phantom Thread using the free ticket that the cinema manager gave me in compensation for the butchered version they showed earlier in the week. To my dismay, just as it was about to begin, the mechanical screen-masking came down and the film played in a ~2.35:1 ratio as before. This time I went out to speak to the staff straight away. Someone came down from the projection room to find out what the problem was. She offered to put the film back to  the beginning and show it properly (which I gratefully accepted). So it played okay in the end, but they've clearly been screening the masked version for a week now, and might revert to that again for all I know.

 

Is anyone here familiar enough with the workings of modern multiplexes to know how this problem is likely to have arisen? I.e., would it be a one-off issue due to an initial set-up error or incorrect information from the distributor? Or is it a more worrying commonplace phenomenon resulting from ignorance, carelessness, or even a deliberate choice with some bizarre motive behind it?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

Most modern-day multiplexes have one, or two at the most, people who operate the lights, screens, etc. Virtually no cinemas, these days have a projectionist, in the accepted sense of the word. Yes, its just down to laziness, inexperience, and incompetence.

Problems I've had at cinemas, include:

- projecting a 1.85 film, in 2.35 (I shit you not!)

- projecting a 2.35 film in 1.85 

- not turning house lights down

- picture, but no sound (not sure how that happens, but still)

- sound, but no picture.

 

 

[Sweeping Strings 2,357]

After a screening of the Denzel Washington flick 'Flight' I was at ground to a halt about an hour in (followed by around 10 minutes of deeply annoying attempts to get it re-started), I angrily walked out and got a refund. Fucking HATE shit like that ... the 'flow' of the film was completely lost for me, there was no point in staying.   

[King Mark 3,631]

The Commuter

 

It's funny now you know exactly what to expect in a Liam Neeson film

[Fancyarcher 350]

Phantom Thread - Finally glad I got to see it, because it's SO good. Such a simple story in many respects, but PTA does such an outstanding job of telling it. DDL is superb as ever, but Krieps is the real revelation. She's great, and brings a lot of "humanity" to the film. Greenwood's score is also excellent, and works wonderfully in the film as well. - 8.5 / 10

[Koray Savas 2,251]

11 hours ago, Glóin the Dark said:

Just out of a screening of Phantom Thread using the free ticket that the cinema manager gave me in compensation for the butchered version they showed earlier in the week. To my dismay, just as it was about to begin, the mechanical screen-masking came down and the film played in a ~2.35:1 ratio as before. This time I went out to speak to the staff straight away. Someone came down from the projection room to find out what the problem was. She offered to put the film back to  the beginning and show it properly (which I gratefully accepted). So it played okay in the end, but they've clearly been screening the masked version for a week now, and might revert to that again for all I know.

 

Is anyone here familiar enough with the workings of modern multiplexes to know how this problem is likely to have arisen? I.e., would it be a one-off issue due to an initial set-up error or incorrect information from the distributor? Or is it a more worrying commonplace phenomenon resulting from ignorance, carelessness, or even a deliberate choice with some bizarre motive behind it?

When I was a booth operator, the digital projectors we had at the time worked essentially like a PowerPoint presentation. If a cue wasn’t placed or entered properly, it would just go as is because once we press start we often have to be somewhere else in 5 minutes. So my guess is that whatever cue in the presentation timeline for the masking was input incorrectly. 

[Glóin the Dark 1,220]

18 hours ago, Richard said:

Problems I've had at cinemas, include:

- projecting a 1.85 film, in 2.35 (I shit you not!)

- projecting a 2.35 film in 1.85 

 

By chopping off a strip of the picture (as in my case) or by stretching/squeezing the full picture along one dimension?

 

9 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

So my guess is that whatever cue in the presentation timeline for the masking was input incorrectly. 

 

Cheers; that sounds about right. The worrying thing is that my first complaint didn't prompt them to check (and fix) that setting. And when I explained the issue to the booth operator yesterday, her response didn't suggest a realisation that something had gone wrong so much as an acknowledgment that I had my own peculiar preferences for how to watch the film! I think she changed the setting for me only because there was nobody else in the theatre..

[Simon McBride 113]

I don't even think my local theater has screen masking...

[Brundlefly 2,385]

What is screen masking?

[Glóin the Dark 1,220]

A sort of dark horizontal "curtain" at the top of the screen that can be lowered to cover part of the screen if needed. It won't be able to conceal any genuine image that's being projected onto that part of the screen, but if there's only a black bar there, due to the film's aspect ratio, the masking can render it invisible (in a dark auditorium).

 

The film I saw was also being "electronically masked"; i.e., the projector was set to amputate the top 20% of the image and replace it with a black bar to make the film look widescreen.

[filmmusic 1,826]

Coco (2017)

 

This must be the most overestimated animation film ever?

8.6 at imdb and #49 at top 250 imdb.

 

it was OOOOK. A bit moving in the end and that's it.

There are many anime films far better than this, not to mention other Pixar films.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

I agree with every letter of this post.  Mediocre musical score too.  

[filmmusic 1,826]

8 minutes ago, Not Mr. Big said:

 Mediocre musical score too.  

Yeah, i was thinking about the score,  that I didn't even notice it.

Of course many would say "that's successful film music", but i didn't mean it that way.

 

edit: hmmm.. I should have written "overrated", not "overestimated"!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The Post

 

Gripping historical drama that doesn't mince it's many many words and launches an all out assault on the Trump Presidency.
Spielberg's direction is tight and focused as he balances his film between the Pentagon papers and how it's content shows a blatant
distortion of facts by several consecutive American administrations regarding the Vietnam war and the woman why will eventually make the final call to have the contents printed in her news paper.
Meryl Streep is superb as Kay Graham, a socialite who must decide between the finacial security of her family business or doing what a news paper should be doing. 
Tom Hanks is also superb in the typical om Hanks role, but the film belongs to Streep. Who plays a woman who, while incredibly well connected, seems to be in over her head. 
It's important to make a strong female characters who are fearless and full of resolve, it's even more important to create strong female characters who waver, who are scared, who are used to relying on the advise of others, even if thats not really what their heart tells them. The female empowerment angle in The Post isnt subtle. But it is powerful.

The cinefotagraphy and editing are superb, without even distracting from the story Spielberg is trying to tell. And he manages to serve a large amount of complicated dialogue without it dragging the film down.

A superb and deeply gratifying film.

 

So I'm sure most of JWFan utterly hates it.

 

Best Spielberg film in ages.

[Fancyarcher 350]

Darkest Hour - I enjoyed it. Oldman was great, as were some of the supporting performances. I do think the film looked a little drab though, and you could have called it "Big Speeches: The Movie". Still it was effective. - 7.5 / 10

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

How does a film set in the 70s launch an assault on the Trump presidency when Trump himself was just in the early years of his development business during the Nixon Administration?

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

The Post (2017)

There's a scene in The Post where Spielberg is channeling himself....when a hippie protestor takes the Pentagon Papers into the WaPo newsroom and delivers them to a reporter I was immediately reminded of a similar scene in SPR, when the clerk at the War Department takes the typed letter regarding the Ryan brother's death to one of the officers. The camera tracks the same way, follows the actress the same way, and the scene has the same dramatic feel and purpose (a document that's going to be crucial to the events that follow delivered by an otherwise unimportant character). I can't recall if Williams scored both scenes the same way, but they felt the same to me. Of course, Spielberg has his own distinct style that we all recognise, but this bit in particular stood out to me.

 

Anyway, quite a surprisingly good film, and I was engaged throughout. Probably the best Spielberg "process film" yet and one of his best films since...well, perhaps since SPR. I fully expected to dislike it, but came away wanting to see it again. I think part of the reason I was so receptive to it, aside form the superb performances and tight screenplay, was that, unlike Steef, I didn't feel like Spielberg was too transparent in his drawing an allegory to current events, nor did I feel he was knocking me over the head with preachiness. Yes, its a little bit over the top in its exaltation of journalists, but not so much that I thought it distracted from the film.  

 

Williams score serves what's on the screen competently, but not more. It really only comes alive towards the end. And Kaminsky's distracting style is mercifully less noticeable than on previous works.  The best thing I can say about it is, while The Post may be a film for its time, it transcends simply being a "political" film aimed solely at the issue of the day. I think this one will stand the test of time.

 

Minor historical inaccuracies and the unfortunate Watergate post script aside, it's one of the best films I've seen this year, and a nice return to form for Spielberg.

 

 

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Man, after both of your reviews I really wish I saw what you guys did. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

1 hour ago, Nick1066 said:

 

Minor historical inaccuracies and the unfortunate Watergate post script aside, it's one of the best films I've seen this year, and a nice return to form for Spielberg.

 

Actually I think Spielberg is on something of a roll. Bridge Of Spies was really well done and The BFG is a wonderful children's film. 

 

Spielberg makes warm, humanist films which are idealistic in nature, and that's something people seem to have lost interest in.

 

He remains a superb film maker.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

Molly's Game (2017)

Sorkin proves he's a competent directer as well as compelling writer. Given that he successfully manages to intercut three different timelines, that's no small compliment for a first time filmmaker.  Well scripted, well acted and a lot of fun to watch. You can't take your eyes off Chastain, who radiates charisma as the title character. Idris Elba as Molly's attorney is likeable and holds his own with Sorkin's verbosity, and Michael Cera is positively slimy playing Toby Maguire.  

 

Recommended.

 

Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

I didn't like this one as much as I was expecting to, especially given I'm both a Branagh fan and Christie admirer. The cast is mostly very good, and even if it is difficult for me to imagine anyone ever surpassing what David Suchet did with the character, Branagh does a splendid job of making the Belgium detective his own. He successfully captures Poirot's idiosyncrasies without mimicking Suchet.

 

Still, the script probably could have been better...it starts slowly, which is nice, but then barrels along at such a pace to rival the eponymous train. As a result it's hard to keep track (no pun intended) of what's going on even for someone familiar with the book. There's so many characters that just as we're getting to know one we're immediately on to the next, and there's little time to breathe. This is partially a function of the source material, but frankly I've seen this story done better.  

 

That said, the film is beautifully shot and the train interior is well realised, though the set design is let down by CGI that's sloppy and inconsistent. It was nice to see the gorgeous alpine scenery (Branagh shot the whole film in 70mm), and when it's real scenery it works, but when the CGI mountains and snow come in it look amateurish and unnecessary (by contrast, the CGI recreating old Istanbul is pretty good). In one way, all the exterior shots and the spectacular setting give the film a sense of place...but on the other hand, the story is specifically designed to feel claustrophobic. I'm not sure the travelogue aspect of the movie really works all that well in this case.

 

Still, I'm glad this film was successful, and that they're planning on making more, as I liked Branagh's Poirot and look forward to seeing what he does with Death on the Nile.

 

 

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Branagh is solid in the role. But Suchet became Poirot. Branagh plays him.

 

Like Ustinov.