What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[Bryant Burnette 654]

I'm a definite fan of the Western, though nowhere near an expert. But of the Westerns I've seen, I'd put that one in the upper echelon, alongside The Searchers and Unforgiven and Dances With Wolves and Lonesome Dove.

Damn ... I should buy that DVD.

[Hitch 57]

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I'm a definite fan of the Western, though nowhere near an expert. But of the Westerns I've seen, I'd put that one in the upper echelon, alongside The Searchers and Unforgiven and Dances With Wolves and Lonesome Dove.

Damn ... I should buy that DVD.

Watch some Sergio Leone.

[Trent B 337]

Stargate: Continuum in high def. I "rented" it last night via the Playstation store. I plan to get it on Blu-Ray eventually but I wanted to watch it last night. Damn it looks so much better in high def.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That's the whole point of high-def.

[Hitch 57]

I'm a definite fan of the Western, though nowhere near an expert. But of the Westerns I've seen, I'd put that one in the upper echelon, alongside The Searchers and Unforgiven and Dances With Wolves and Lonesome Dove.

Damn ... I should buy that DVD.

Watch some Sergio Leone.

Watch some John Ford and John Sturges

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Do not forget Henry Fonda!

[Hitch 57]

He wasn't a Western director

[Nick Parker 3,040]

He was an awesome Western actor, though....

[Koray Savas 2,251]

He was an awesome Western actor, though....

Exactly, so watch some Sergio Leone.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I'd rather watch American westerns, not a big fan of Leone, plus his movies sound horrible

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I love Leone, but I can't accept him as the be-all, end-all of Western directors. Ford is still the master on that one, with Peckinpah following. Hell, Eastwood isn't bad, and I think UNFORGIVEN is better than any of Leone's westerns, except maybe OUATITW, dependent on what mood I'm in.

Just watched ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES. Hadn't seen it in a decade. Pretty fun. Costner is dull, Rickman is brilliant, and Michael Wincott needed more screentime. Great score, too.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Speaking of Clint Eastwood, is anyone going to see "Gran Turino", or whatever it is called? I think it looks kind of funny, with Clint Eastwood portraying the stereotypical grumpy old man. "Get off my lawn." Comedic gold! Oh, wait, this is not a Comedy film, is it?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I didn't want to see it, but after seeing the long trailer with Valkarie the other night, I might. I will probably see Valkarie again, its the only release from last week I'd consider worth seeing more than once.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

I'm a definite fan of the Western, though nowhere near an expert. But of the Westerns I've seen, I'd put that one in the upper echelon, alongside The Searchers and Unforgiven and Dances With Wolves and Lonesome Dove.

Damn ... I should buy that DVD.

Watch some Sergio Leone.

I have. They're good, but I don't get the love that some people have for them. Maybe someday I will.

I'll take Ford/Wayne any day of the week.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I guess my favorite old western is Dodge City.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

I just finished watching "The Poseidon Adventure" on Fox Movie Channel. Wow. John Williams was the reason I turned it on, and I am glad I did. I did not expect much from the film, but I got "sucked in" about half an hour into it. John Williams' score was sparse, but highly effective. Everyone gave wonderful performances, especially Gene Hackman as a preacher not afraid to get "down and dirty". Never once did I feel bored, and I genuinely cared for the characters. Also, did anyone ever notice that it was always the

wives that died

? Not a complaint, but I thought that was amusing. I kind of wish they still made Disaster films today....

[indy4 155]

Like this?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

NO, THEY ARE GOING TO DESTROY ANOTHER GENRE! I HATE THOSE CHEAP EXCUSES THAT MORONS CALL "FILMS"! I HATE THEM! Sorry. I think those films should be destroyed, save for a few copies for interrogation purposes regarding international security.

Oh, and I checked for "The Poseidon Adventure" album. Another John Williams classic forever out of my grasp....

[Morlock 11]

@Leone. One of the greatest filmmakers ever. He doesn't pussy-foot around. He wants to make epic cinema. And he succeeds. As epic go, it's him and David Lean up on top (and with Lean, it's based entirely on one movie, with Leone, it's just about every one).

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The Day the Earth Stood Still.

Mediocre remake. Gort the size of Godzilla? Let the Kaiju comparisons begin.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

@Leone. One of the greatest filmmakers ever. He doesn't pussy-foot around. He wants to make epic cinema. And he succeeds. As epic go, it's him and David Lean up on top (and with Lean, it's based entirely on one movie, with Leone, it's just about every one).

Amen to that!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I just finished watching "The Poseidon Adventure" on Fox Movie Channel. Wow. John Williams was the reason I turned it on, and I am glad I did. I did not expect much from the film, but I got "sucked in" about half an hour into it. John Williams' score was sparse, but highly effective. Everyone gave wonderful performances, especially Gene Hackman as a preacher not afraid to get "down and dirty". Never once did I feel bored, and I genuinely cared for the characters. Also, did anyone ever notice that it was always the

wives that died

? Not a complaint, but I thought that was amusing. I kind of wish they still made Disaster films today....

you don't need to put spoilers on a nearly 40 years old film

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Probably not, but some members here can be a bit fussy when it comes to those things. So, did you like it?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Probably not, but some members here can be a bit fussy when it comes to those things.

You mean member: indy4.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Actually, that was exactly who I had in mind when I placed those spoiler tags.

[indy4 155]

And I thank you deeply, Nick.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

People die in a disaster movie. Not that big of a spoiler.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Probably not, but some members here can be a bit fussy when it comes to those things. So, did you like it?

I've been a Poseidon Adventure fan for nearly 40 years.

[John Crichton 4]

Just watched ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES. Hadn't seen it in a decade. Pretty fun. Costner is dull, Rickman is brilliant, and Michael Wincott needed more screentime. Great score, too.

It's too...American. A bit like watching paint dry, but a color paint you really like. It's a good thing you went a decade between viewings, any more often and not even Rickman's performance and Kamen's wonderful score can save it.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Probably not, but some members here can be a bit fussy when it comes to those things. So, did you like it?

I've been a Poseidon Adventure fan for nearly 40 years.

It really is an awesome film, huh? Say, how is "Towering Inferno"? Is it better or worse than "The Poseidon Adventure"?

[Delorean90 42]

Probably not, but some members here can be a bit fussy when it comes to those things.

You mean member: indy4.

Nope, members.

Really, guys, do we hafta go through this again? When the film was made or came out has absolutely no impact on whether or not an a person that is interested in a movie has seen it. If I haven't seen a movie and I want to get to it, I don't want to be spoiled, and I don't care if it's sixty years old or two weeks old.

Yeah, people die in disaster movies, that's a given. The question of which people die, though...that's another story.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Yeah, who would have guessed that

Leslie Nielsen is one of the first to die

, or that

he managed to land a role outside of a Comedy film

? Full of suspense, I tell you.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

I think it's pretty damned ridiculous to expect people who've been fans of a particular movie for, oh, let's say practically their whole lives to not talk about its specifics simply because other people might not have -- due to whatever reason -- found the time to see it yet. Spoilers with a new movie are one thing; with older movies, there is no such thing as a spoiler, as far as I'm concerned, and if that bothers you, then maybe you ought to not spend time on a film-centric message board.

Norman Bates is Mother, by the way.

[indy4 155]

Delorean speaks the truth. That, combined with the fact that it takes an almost nonexistent effort it takes to save a caution one of spoilers, makes it insane to not warn one.

Bryant, you dissapoint me. Of course you can discuss specifics--just tag them for God's sake! It's a matter of considering others, really.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Norman Bates is Mother, by the way.

WHAT?

EDIT: I am being serious here. I was watching "Psycho" for the first time in years, and I barely remembered anything about the film. Thanks for spoiling it, Bryant. Have a Happy New Year's....

[indy4 155]

I think it's pretty damned ridiculous to expect people who've been fans of a particular movie for, oh, let's say practically their whole lives to not talk about its specifics simply because other people might not have

Why is that ridiculous?

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Norman Bates is Mother, by the way.

WHAT?

EDIT: I am being serious here. I was watching "Psycho" for the first time in years, and I barely remembered anything about the film. Thanks for spoiling it, Bryant. Have a Happy New Year's....

Okay, let me break down what you're saying here, Nick.

"I was watching"... Was, implying that you began watching it and stopped for some reason. If that's the case, well, you deserve what you got, especially if your reason for stopping was to get on JWfan.com to see how the discussion about spoilers was going.

"I was watching Psycho for the first time in years"... So you'd seen the movie before, and didn't remember that Norman is Mother? If that's the case, you weren't paying much attention the first time around, dude.

None of this makes me have any sympathy for you.

[indy4 155]

Does it really matter if one individual case of being spoiled is proved to be "invalid"? Nick's point remains, that spoilers should not be thrown out there without any tags or warnings, and you have yet to argue anything of substance against said point.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

I think it's pretty damned ridiculous to expect people who've been fans of a particular movie for, oh, let's say practically their whole lives to not talk about its specifics simply because other people might not have

Why is that ridiculous?

Are you kidding me? Are you so egotistical as to actually think that I should, in order to discuss old movies with other people who have seen them, have to shroud my words in a veil of annoying blackness that other people will then have to spend time highlighting in order to make my words readable? (And I use the word "readable" only lossely, since reading things with an annoying blue background is not exactly fun for the eye. This is the part I care about, by the way, not the negligible time it takes to put the spoiler in black and then decode it.)

And I should do all of this just to keep people like yourself from being spoiled as to the plot of a movie that is older than you are?

If you really think that, then your problems with being spoiled don't end with people ruining the plots to movies for you.

[A24 4,348]

@Leone. One of the greatest filmmakers ever. He doesn't pussy-foot around. He wants to make epic cinema. And he succeeds. As epic go, it's him and David Lean up on top (and with Lean, it's based entirely on one movie, with Leone, it's just about every one).

And let's not forget, he changed the face of the Western film.

Heck, even the young Ridley Scott reminds me of Sergio Leone (and Stanley Kubrick). Today, Scott reminds me of ... eh, Scott (and not necessarily Ridley)!

Alex

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Does it really matter if one individual case of being spoiled is proved to be "invalid"? Nick's point remains, that spoilers should not be thrown out there without any tags or warnings, and you have yet to argue anything of substance against said point.

What I'm saying is that, like milk, spoilers expire. And I'd say that once a film has been in theatres, on home video, and on any form of cable or network television, there's no such thing as a spoiler for it. Why? Because you've had plenty of chances to see it.

I wouldn't just walk up to somebody on the street and say to that person, "hey, did you know that Bruce Willis was dead the whole movie?" After all, I don't know this person. Maybe he hasn't seen The Sixth Sense, but will some day; why not let him have that fun?

But on a message board like this one, where people are fairly rabid about movies, it's just silly to expect me to inconvenience myself on your behalf when talking about a movie that has been available for you to see for years and years and years. If I were on a Shakespeare board, would you expect me to try and keep it a secret that Ophelia kills herself in Hamlet? Because there's no difference. None whatsoever.

[indy4 155]

I think it's pretty damned ridiculous to expect people who've been fans of a particular movie for, oh, let's say practically their whole lives to not talk about its specifics simply because other people might not have

Why is that ridiculous?

Are you kidding me? Are you so egotistical as to actually think that I should, in order to discuss old movies with other people who have seen them, have to shroud my words in a veil of annoying blackness that other people will then have to spend time highlighting in order to make my words readable? (And I use the word "readable" only lossely, since reading things with an annoying blue background is not exactly fun for the eye. This is the part I care about, by the way, not the negligible time it takes to put the spoiler in black and then decode it.)

And I should do all of this just to keep people like yourself from being spoiled as to the plot of a movie that is older than you are?

If you really think that, then your problems with being spoiled don't end with people ruining the plots to movies for you.

Egotistical? The guy who is willing to risk destroying an entire film going experience for multiple people so he can avoid a reading inconvenience is calling me egotistical????

But fine, have it your way. When I say "tag" something, that includes just writing "SPOILERS BELOW" before you review a film. It's not a preferable way of tagging IMO, but I'd still be happy if this board were to adopt it. If the only part you care about is reading it with the black bars, then this method should suit you perfectly.

Does it really matter if one individual case of being spoiled is proved to be "invalid"? Nick's point remains, that spoilers should not be thrown out there without any tags or warnings, and you have yet to argue anything of substance against said point.

What I'm saying is that, like milk, spoilers expire. And I'd say that once a film has been in theatres, on home video, and on any form of cable or network television, there's no such thing as a spoiler for it. Why? Because you've had plenty of chances to see it.

I wouldn't just walk up to somebody on the street and say to that person, "hey, did you know that Bruce Willis was dead the whole movie?" After all, I don't know this person. Maybe he hasn't seen The Sixth Sense, but will some day; why not let him have that fun?

But on a message board like this one, where people are fairly rabid about movies, it's just silly to expect me to inconvenience myself on your behalf when talking about a movie that has been available for you to see for years and years and years. If I were on a Shakespeare board, would you expect me to try and keep it a secret that Ophelia kills herself in Hamlet? Because there's no difference. None whatsoever.

Yes, this is a MB that is film centric. And as one, you would expect that the people on it would have more respect towards the delicate experience of watching a film, and how easily it can be ruined with a spoiler. People on this MB love film, sometimes more than the actual film scores. That makes the impact of having a naked spoiler even more devestating.

The difference with a Shakespeare board--yes, there is a difference--is that it is a board that centers around one group of texts--those written by Shakespeare. In the example you gave, it was a spoiler that applied only to a Shakesperian work. No, I wouldn't expect everybody to tag Shakesperian spoilers (though I probably would anyways), but I would expect them to tag spoilers pertaining to Fahrenheit 451. Because the amount of films that have been made are limitless (even the amount of popular films), it is impossible to have seen them all. The two spoilers that you have just fired out randomly spoil films (Sixth Sense Psycho) that have absolutely NO relation to John Williams whatsoever, so it is clear that you believe that NO films (save those recently released) should be tagged?

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Yes, this is a MB that is film centric. And as one, you would expect that the people on it would have more respect towards the delicate experience of watching a film, and how easily it can be ruined with a spoiler.

The delicate experience of watching a movie they've had the opportunity to watch their entire lives, but just haven't found the time to watch yet because there's so many other things they'd rather watch instead...? That delicate experience, indy?

Sorry, but this is a ridiculous conversation, as far as I'm concerned. I'll never -- unless it's to illustrate a point, I suppose (hence my Psycho and Sixth Sense "spoilers") -- go out of my way to spoil a movie, no matter how old it is.

On the other hand, if you read a post about a forty-year-old movie -- let's say The Poseidon Adventure, since that's where this all started -- that you haven't seen yet, you ought to expect the people discussing it to be discussing the specifics of the plot. And if you really don't want to know what happened, don't read the post! Nobody is making you read it; you're reading it because you want to know what people who've seen it are saying about it, and then you want to complain when they "ruin" something for you. That is senseless. And, yes, egotistical.

I'm not prescribing medicine I wouldn't want to take, by the way. Let's say I was planning on watching Casablanca, which I've never seen. Well, in that case, I'd steer clear of any conversations about Casablanca. And if I was unsuccessful, and ended up finding out how it ends, then I'd just shrug and say to myself that I'd had about thirty years to watch the movie, and it was my own damn fault for not watching it sooner.

And I'd be right.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Just suffered through MAMMA MIA. Excrutiating.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I remember years ago (circa 2000), someone on the Episode II (Non-Spoilers Forum) at the Jedi Council Forums went into a mad hyperventilating panic attack because they accidentally read the names of some inconsequential background characters that were on the cast list. He or she was complaining that because of this "revelation", the whole movie experience was ruined.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

The JCF are hilarious. Those guys make me not want to like Star Wars.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The JCF are hilarious. Those guys make me not want to like Star Wars.

I survived.

[Neimoidian 14]

I remember years ago (circa 2000), someone on the Episode II (Non-Spoilers Forum) at the Jedi Council Forums went into a mad hyperventilating panic attack because they accidentally read the names of some inconsequential background characters that were on the cast list. He or she was complaining that because of this "revelation", the whole movie experience was ruined.

Now I know why the movie sucked - I knew these names too.

[Jacob 0]

If you really think that, then your problems with being spoiled don't end with people ruining the plots to movies for you.