What is the Last Film You Watched? - Part II

[SturgisPodmore 0]

The film did well at the box office, and recieved pretty much rave reviews allround.  So I'm sure her career is safe and secure.

If critics praised it, they did it mostly for its visuals. Her career is in severe jeopardy, my friend. Don't forget, she a woman working in Hollywood. Her decline has already started. You should trust me more often. I know about these things.

Are you a professional movie reviewer yourself? Have you ever even read a review of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow? Obviously not, since you said "if critics praised it. . . ." Please don't give us crap about how we should trust you if you aren't even going to validate why.

~Sturgis

[mahler3 478]

Man on Fire - not bad but Tony Scott seemed to be trying to do an Oliver Stone with his incessant mix of film stocks and jump-cuts, style over content doesn't always work Tony!

and Spartan - another David Mamet film that sunk theatrically, a shame but it's too clever for the multiplex folks! It's no State & Main or Heist but it was good - surprising as i'm not a huge Val Kilmer fan.

- Tim.

[A24 4,331]

The film did well at the box office, and recieved pretty much rave reviews allround.  So I'm sure her career is safe and secure.

If critics praised it, they did it mostly for its visuals. Her career is in severe jeopardy, my friend. Don't forget, she a woman working in Hollywood. Her decline has already started. You should trust me more often. I know about these things.

Are you a professional movie reviewer yourself? Have you ever even read a review of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow? Obviously not, since you said "if critics praised it. . . ." Please don't give us crap about how we should trust you if you aren't even going to validate why.

~Sturgis

I'm not a "professional" reviewer but I somehow think like one. I know it sounds crap, but it's true. I cannot help myself. I don't have to look up reviews to know what they are saying. I'm sure that most (not all) reviewers critique the Law/Gwyneth chemistry in that film. But despair not, sometimes I'm wrong.

I did not choose for this. It's a gift that has been given to me. Don't hate me for it.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[MrScratch 294]

I'm not a "professional" reviewer but I somehow think like one. I know it sounds crap, but it's true. I cannot help myself. I don't have to look up reviews to know what they are saying.

This is one of the most pompous things I've ever read. So, you think like a film critic and you have ESP, too? Gee, here I am having to read a review in order to know what it says.

If you think like a "professional reviewer" then why don't your posts read like reviews. Have you ever written more than three sentances about a movie in a single post? Throwing out a comment about chemistry between two actors does not make you a reviewer nor does it make your opinion demand the respect you feel you deserve.

If you want anyone to respect what you say or think about anything, demonstrate your knowledge or your "gift" (:roll:). Aside from stating facts and your outright opinion, you never give any insight as to why you might be right and anyone else might be wrong. Consider some of your recent posts from the 2001 vs Close Encounters thread:

2001, because it's one of a kind and larger than life.

How so?

While there are "technically" more films like Close Encounters, 2001 manages to set itself apart from all the others in that it is a "different kind" of movie experience.

In what way?

There's no secret! 2001 just uses a more complex film language in that it demands more from its viewer.

For example... What kind of film language?

But many are waiting for the typical standard ingredients, the stuff most movies are made of.

What kind of ingredients?

I'm sure the internet is jam-packed with analyses about 2001. If you really want to investigate the matter, why don't you look them up and read them?

Wait, your telling someone they're wrong and for them to go do research for themselves on why they are wrong?? What is your analysis??

I only meant that 2001 is not set up like the average Goonies film. Nothing more, nothing less.

More than what? Less than what?

BTW, this thread made me rewatch it. What a unique film.

How so?

Maybe the problem many have with this movie is that it gives no answers. It leaves you with questions.

What kinds of questions?

I don't understand why you don't like the incredible combinations Kubrick came up with. It's part of what makes 2001 so special.

What kind of combinations? Why is it special?

From that whole entire thread Alex, you managed to convey to us that (a) you like 2001 better than Close Encounters and (B) because it's a different/unique/complex film experience (which I think everyone already knew anyway). Why you feel this way or how you drew these conclusions is still a complete mystery.

Care to put some of that film reviewer psychic gift to work and explain some of those remarks?

Jeff

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Hmmm....very good points, I aprove.

Well Alex?

[A24 4,331]

Thanks! I did my best to sound as pompous as I could.

MaestroJW, I'm not a born critic when it comes to putting my thoughts into words and, you're right, most of the time I do not go to great lengths to explain myself. However, I really feel I could do a better job if I felt it would somehow pay off, but I'm afraid that writing lengthy analyses would be falling on deaf ears. It would simply be a waste of energy, for the reply would be nothing more than, "Your taste sucks!", or "I disagree! and "You're wrong!"

But to be completely honest, I like short posts and I usually make them sound pompous. This time you seemed to have been provoked. What has triggered you to respond in the way you did? Is it something personal? Don't you like 2001? Is that it?

----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I'm not a "professional" reviewer but I somehow think like one

this is something I would never want to admit too.

[SturgisPodmore 0]

I'm not a "professional" reviewer but I somehow think like one. I know it sounds crap, but it's true. I cannot help myself.

Try.

It would simply be a waste of energy, for the reply would be nothing more than, "Your taste sucks!", or "I disagree! and "You're wrong!"

And that is different from what you say to everyone whose opinions differ from yours . . . how?

What has triggered you to respond in the way you did? Is it something personal? Don't you like 2001? Is that it?

Please, just answer the question, stop trying to work around it.

But despair not, sometimes I'm wrong.

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!

~Sturgis

[A24 4,331]

I'm not a "professional" reviewer but I somehow think like one. I know it sounds crap, but it's true. I cannot help myself.

Try.

It would simply be a waste of energy, for the reply would be nothing more than, "Your taste sucks!", or "I disagree! and "You're wrong!"

And that is different from what you say to everyone whose opinions differ from yours . . . how?

What has triggered you to respond in the way you did? Is it something personal? Don't you like 2001? Is that it?

Please, just answer the question, stop trying to work around it.

But despair not, sometimes I'm wrong.

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!

~Sturgis

1. Try? Mmm, I don't feel like it.

2. Except for our personal styles, there's no difference. You spout, I spout ...

3. I already did. And then I wanted to know what aggravated him, since after all, it's the same old scenario.

4. Sometimes, but not often.

[A24 4,331]

Wow! This thread has moved to General Discussion!

[MrScratch 294]

Thanks! I did my best to sound as pompous as I could.

If pompous is what you're going for, it helps to come across as intelligent as well. And, since you don't back up anything you say, well...

However, I really feel I could do a better job if I felt it would somehow pay off, but I'm afraid that writing lengthy analyses would be falling on deaf ears.

Hi, I'm the internet, have we met?

It would simply be a waste of energy, for the reply would be nothing more than, "Your taste sucks!", or "I disagree! and "You're wrong!"

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em? By not explaining yourself AND also claiming that you know so much at the same time, how are your posts any different? How are they any better?

Did I not engage you in our Harry Potter discussion? Do you not see a payoff in the exchange of ideas and opinions?

I don't see the payoff and in not explaining myself, in not writing more than 1 or 2 sentance remarks. I also don't see the payoff in reading short replies. ("It sucks" "I love it!!!1")Granted, most threads don't call for lengthy replies, but then again, some do. (The 2001 discussion was ripe for lengthy analysis, for example, since you seem so passionate about the movie).

You feel it is a waste of energy to explain yourself but, at the same time, you don't feel it's a waste of energy to post here as often as you do. How many times did you reply in the 2001/Close Encounters thread? And, in none of them, did you give any insight as to how you came to your conclusion. THAT, is a waste of "energy."

But to be completely honest, I like short posts and I usually make them sound pompous.

Well, to be completely honest, I find that idiotic. You make a remark but then have no desire to really engage anyone in conversation. I don't see a "payoff" in that.

This time you seemed to have been provoked. What has triggered you to respond in the way you did? Is it something personal?

Hey, I take every idiotic comment personally?

NO, it's not personal. You made a ridiculous statement and I called you on it. You said that you "know about these things" and I say that I don't think you do, prove it. And you say to "trust you" and I say why should we?

Now, do you consider me a 'deaf ear'? You and I talked about Harry Potter some time ago. I thought I addressed each of your criticisms. Sure, I didn't sway you and you didn't sway me. But would the results have been any different if you and I were sitting in a cafe somewhere arguing over a cup of coffee? Or do you consider communication in general to be a waste of energy?

I have a friend who loves movies (but not film scores unfortunately) and he hates LOTR. I can't tell you how many times we argue about it. And it will come up randomly, over dinner, over the phone, over an email. In the end, he still hates the movies, I still love them and we will continue to argue until one of us dies. But you know what, we sure have fun doing it. I call that a payoff and I don't see how a group of JW fans should be all that different.

Don't you like 2001? Is that it?

I don't really care about 2001, that recent discussion just came to mind as I was responding.

Alex, I'm not criticizing your posts in general or your opinions. You seem to have a pretty decent taste when it comes to movies. But your comments about trusting you and you think like a reviewer and your gift were downright laughable. So, I'm having a laugh!

LOL

Jeff

[fommes 153]

I still love them and we will continue to argue until one of us dies.

"Please understand before one of us dies!"

[pat_burke 0]

on DVD: 'The Chronicles of Riddick' followed by 'Pitch Black' (which I'd seen before).

on TV: 'The Story on Page One' because I ave the CD and I wanted to see what the film was aboot.

[TheTennisBallKid 17]

Fiddler On The Roof. The CD has been on my wish list for some time....

ttbk, Faking The Code

[A24 4,331]

You have style, Maestro. It's OK that you find my posts unintelligent because ... usually they are. They are nothing more than overall impressions. Perhaps you like to analyse everything that you hear or see and expect others to do the same. I never done that. It's not how I "live" things. I think I have a fear for analysing, Maestro. I fear that if I dig in too deep, the magic will disappear. I can't really write a lengthy paragraph that explains in detail why I think the casting of Gwyneth in Sky Captain was wrong. I only establish emotionally that there's no chemistry between her and Law. It has nothing to do with her acting. It's her persona that doesn't click with Jude's. Remember that I said that I think like a critic? Well, you can be dead certain that many critics feel the same way about Gwyneth. Go ahead and laugh. Sure, a verbally critic might explain further how she misses a certain spark, lacks sex appeal, or how she walks and talks like a genderless, cold fish. To tell you the truth, the next day I wouldn't even remember these details (I would 've to write them down during the experience). All I'm left with is an impression, a flavor in my mouth. A reminder of a certain aspect that only lets itself translate in simple short posts. To back them up, as you call it, would be seriously hard labour for me.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[SturgisPodmore 0]

Hmmmm. Hmmmm indeed.

~Sturgis

[A24 4,331]

But that doesn't mean I can't answer a question about 2001.

2001, because it's one of a kind and larger than life.

Most movies tell a story that is clearly laid out on the table using a rather familiar story structure. The storyteller does its best to give the audience a well-defined interpretation of a story with enough information about the plot (problem, conflict, events, actions) and characters (introduction, who's the main character? What are the motives?). The storyteller guides his audience through the story by sketching the events and the players in such way that they recognize the problem/conflict and relate to the characters with ease (usually by black and white interpretations of good and evil). If the storyteller succeeds, we want to know the resolution. And in the end the problem/conflict will be resolved.

2001 doesn't do "main characters" and jumps forward in time via different acts, each time with different characters, which already makes for a non-traditional story structure. The star of the movie is the movie itself. And the movie is about mystery and symbolism (what is the monolith, the different stages where man always uses "tools" to evolve"), space and the unknown (Where's our place in the universe? Can we master space? Should we conquer space?), religion and science (What causes us to evolve?), humanity and computers (Are we losing our humanity? Is there a difference between man and the technology he creates? Who is more human?), and in the end it's just about ... humanity.

2001 doesn't resolve problems. The themes are presented to us in such an ambiguous way that we simply have to start to asking questions. There is no explanation for the occurences. There's no typical resolution. We have to puzzle it out for ourselves. We have to form our own interpretations. My explanation of certain events might be different than yours. My own interpretations might differ through various stages of my life.

All this, plus, the message, the photography, the pacing, the incredible effects, Kubrick's style, make this movie an unique experience and a jewel to be cherished. This is recognized by U.S. National Film Registry where 2001 is on the relatively short list of culturally, historically, or esthetically important American movies.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Hitch 57]

Last night, I watched the last 2 episodes of Season 3 from the DVD box set of VOYAGER.

Sunday night I watched John Adams' excellent opera THE DEATH OF KLINGHOFFER on DVD. A few choruses were cut but I wasn't complaining. Not your usual blockbuster material but essential viewing nonetheless....if you like that kinda stuff.

Hitch, who recently won 2 cd soundtracks (The Merchant of Venice by Jocklyn Bock and Vanity Fair by Mychael Danna) as well as a "Miss Congeniality 2" t-shirt. Won't fit me I'm afraid.

[A24 4,331]

Year Of The Dragon. Despite all its flaws (bad acting by Ariane and sometimes preachy Oliver stone dialogue), this is one hell of an entertaining movie. Mickey Rourke is incredibly fun to watch (he almost radiates energy). I also like John Lone of The Last Emperor fame. Why he suddenly disappeared from the Hollywood stage is a mystery to me. Maybe he had enough of it. I'm going to google the matter.

Anyway, the image on DVD looks fantastic. I saw the film in the 80s and feared the worst. The film feels hardly dated.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

just a suggestion, but wouldn't this thread work better if it were a sticky?

then when it gets to big you can unstick it, and start anew.

[Lurker 5]

This is a thread that always hovers towards the top, so I don't see the point in making it a sticky thread. In the General Discussion area I'm trying to keep the page as clean as possible. I like the 2 sticky topics we have now, the rules and profiles.

Neil - who hasn't watched any movies lately

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

It's so popular it's usually at the top anyway. And when it gets to big you can lock it, and it'll drop away eventually.

- Marc, who has watched hardly any films lately.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

the next film I plan to watch at the theatre is Revenge of the Sith.

who will be the first to tell me its not a film? Neil, someone else perhaps

[Elmo Lewis 6]

In the General Discussion area I'm trying to keep the page as clean as possible.

Speaking of which, why is this thread now in the General Discussion area? Did you explain and I missed it?

[Lurker 5]

Yep.

Neil

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Shaft (2000)

A very enjoyable film starring Samuel L. Jackson at his coolest.

Decent script, tightly directed by John Singleton.

A good thing about the film is that it does not spend all it time on the character of Shaft, the supporting roles have more depth and detail then is usual in this kind of film.

Christian Bale is very good as the arrogant and dangerous Wade and Jeffrey Wright as the phychotic Peoples Hernandez turns the usually cliched role of latino-drugdealer into something you just don't see every day.

David Arnold rounds it all off with a funky score and make good use of Isaac Hayes famous theme.

The only real beef I have is that the film is pretty much lacking any sex or nudity, even though the credit sequence tantalizingly suggest (promises) some...

[QMM 4]

Wimbledon

Enjoyable flick that I picked up purely for Paul Bettany and Sam Neil. Didn't care much for some of the camera angles during the matches, couldn't tell where the hell the ball was going or whether it was in or out but it was enjoyable nonetheless. Jon Favreau also deserves a shout out, great role

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

The Goonies. It's hyperactive, utterly rediculous and from time to time pretty annoying, but for some reason I had to keep watching.

The movie seems to have been severely edited down, though. Looking at the film, one would guess the rough cut must've been an hour longer or so. There are large jump cuts and plot holes, making the film even more rushed than it already is and ends up very sloppy in terms of storytelling. Several cut sequences are referred to in dialogue, but are never actually seen, leaving the audience confused. The young cast is very enthousiastic, but probably a bit too much. Some nice movie references, though.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's a fun film, typical 80's Spielberg production.

Love the Superman reference, I hope you caught that, Marc?

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Hope could you miss that?

I liked the Gremlins gag too.

[A24 4,331]

The Goonies. It's hyperactive, utterly rediculous and from time to time pretty annoying

So true!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The Goonies. It's hyperactive, utterly rediculous and from time to time pretty annoying, but for some reason I had to keep watching.

For some reason i'm reminded of Mirko......

[Morlock 11]

I love The Goonies, one of the films I grew up on. Grusin wrote a good score for that one.

Now, for some disorganized thoughts that'll make people remember all over again why they find my taste in film questionable......

Saw Hook on the big screen. I maintain that it is an excellent children's film. The theater was full, I had a wonderful time reverting to childhood.

One of the greatest scores ever. The score is so well written, that it actually makes the movie significantly better. Many scores will make a movie more watchable, but the score smooths over a lot of really painful bits of the movie. The movie, of course, has many, many, terrible corny moments, and many cheesy ones, but it does have a few things going for it. The score for one. And Dustin Hoffman for another. And Bob Hoskins for yet another. Hoffman gives a performance here. IMO, he deserved the oscar that year. There are scenes with him that are genuinly great, and the way he and Hoskins interact is priceless. They both realized what they got themselves into, and just went all out with it, going wildely over the top at times, to create this wonderful chemistry between them. I cannot say enough good things about their performances here.

The kid playing Jack was fine. The girl playing Maggie was horribly miscast, and is probably the worst thing about the movie. Caroline Goodall is surprisingly good as Moira. She has a sincerity about her.

The score, again, is one of the greatest ever. It is just the richest piece of music I've ever heard. So many wonderful melodies, not an ounce of filler material, works brilliantly in and out of the film. As always, my favorite musical moment is Presenting the Hook, the best piece of pirate music I've ever heard. But one theme that I'm always impressed by is the Lost Boys theme (or the banquet theme). It is a great piece, and I can't get enough of the moment in the food fight when you get the shot of the whole table fighting, and it has it fullest presentation. Marvelous. Every single one of the themes in the movie is great.

I can't for the life of me figure out why Spielberg left out JW's great piece for the entrance of Rufio. I can't get enough of that train motif.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Nice to read an alternative take on Hook. I pretty much agree - I saw it in the theatre as a seven-year-old and loved it. I've never really had any problem with it since, though it's not among my favorites (the film, that is - the score is wondrous).

Ray Barnsbury

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I loved it as a kid. I still find most of it enjoyable, in a guilty pleasure kind of way, although there's a few cringe-inducing schmaltz moments (the haha-hoho merry ending being one of them). Still, the score is enough to keep me coming back.

- Marc

Dave Grusin - The Fratelli Car Chase from The Goonies

[SturgisPodmore 0]

The score is really great. The Pirate theme, the Flying theme, the Childhood theme, the Banquet theme, the Presenting the Hook theme, the "When You're All Alone" theme, the Tinkerbell theme, the "You Are The Pan" theme, and the Granny Wendy theme ()are all really great.

The movie is pretty good. The one part that always has me in stitches is at the end when Peter is flying away and you hear his voice say "Thank you for believing!"

~Sturgis

[HPFAN_2 0]

The Village

I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Nice to read an alternative take on The Village.

Ray Barnsbury - who liked it too, but better the subsequent times than the first

[John Crichton 4]

Regarding Hook, I do enjoy Hoffman and Hoskins. Both are very funny and give great performances. Unfortunately there's not much good I can say about the rest of the movie. But the score is one of my absolute, all time favorites as I'm sure I've mentioned a time or two.

John- who hasn't watched any movies lately, but just finished up Season 3 of Angel on DVD for the first time.

[QMM 4]

Unbreakable

Very good "comic-book" movie

Only watched it once before a few years ago but then I bought it the other day out of curiosity. Really enjoyed it more this time around, one of a few films I liked Bruce Willis in, and Jackson was great as Elijah. Shyamalan's camera angles were really good most of the time except for some moments where he insisted on using handheld. Favorite parts were the pre-train derailing sequence and the train station sequence. Howard's score I really liked, a lot of great underscore and the hero theme has really grown on me with the great solemn trumpet solo.

[A24 4,331]

Cast Away (2000). Zemeckis is a pretty good director with lots of visual power (Spielberg school). Too bad his output is a little low. Not counting The Polar Express, this is still his last film. His next film due in 2007 is another animation flick! Damn!

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Morlock 11]

Not counting The Polar Express, this is still his last film. His next film due in 2007 is another animation flick! Damn!

But concidering how good that movie was, I'm eagerly looking forward to the next one. Though, you're right, he needs to make more films. I wish he'd get around to making a sequel to Used Cars. I love that movie.

[MrScratch 294]

Arsenic and Old Lace, still one of the best comedies of all time.

Jeff

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Castaway has some of the best CGI, in places I never thought to look.

Signs is the last movie I saw.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

I watched Akira Kurosawa's Akahige (Red Beard). Wonderful movie of course - but I noticed how this, like The Searchers, inspired Lucas in the making of the OT trilogy: Toshiro Mifune's speech clearly sounds like a Jedi's, and so does the relationship between Niide and Yamamoto. Only this is good cinema.

Speaking of this and Star Wars - can anyone imagine Anakin in the Prequels being like that Otoyo girl?

[RuBen_Kenobi 19]

I have seen "A.I." this afternoon (I think it is the 4th time that I have seen it). I really like this film, I think it is beautiful. Great story, good perfonmances, amazing visual effects and what I can say about the score! Very underrated movie. I don´t have a problem with the end (the alien thing).

Last Sunday I saw "Always", I think it is one of my less favorites Spielberg films (and one of his worst) but... I cry a little! and Dreyfuss is a great actor.

[Lurker 5]

Very underrated movie. I don´t have a problem with the end (the alien thing).

Except they aren't aliens at all. They are super-mecha.

Neil

[krosstj 0]

INDIANA JONES and the LAST CRUSADE. Last night, before bed! Good flick, I wish I would have kept count...gotta be over the 300th time I've watched it now.

[Morlock 11]

The Interpreter. What an odd movie.

[SturgisPodmore 0]

Gonna see that tomorrow. Didn't you like it?

~Sturgis, anticipating loving it