Jump to content

What Is The Last Film You Watched?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In fact, this movie made me realize how genius Zack Snyder is at what he does.

Alex

:blink:

Yeah, Alex seems to have gone all Bella from Twilight on Zack Snyder's Edward. Pretty soon we'll have Koray turning on Zimmer and Morricone and KM saying he never wants the complete prequel scores, all this and more on bizarro.jwfan.com.

THE PIXAR STORY, it's a feature-length documentary which they put on the WALL-E DVD. Pretty good, standard docu, but with a lot of good info on the history and lots of good behind the scenes footage. Lots of good interviewees and clips, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you not consider Ebert a box-office populist?

I do, but his review(s) on Watchmen are spot on! BTW, my appreciation for Ebert has grown ever since he admitted he was wrong about Blade Runner. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right, the only person who raves even more about Snyder is Roger Ebert. What an insightful critic!

I do, but his review(s) on Watchmen are spot on!

He thinks it's crap too?

There's no logic in the third quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I always appriciated about Ebert is his ability to judge a film acoording to it's type.

So he judges a special effects blockbuster on how good it is in being that. How good a chick-flick is at being chick flick etc... etc...

He reviews te film according to what he thinks they could be, and gives them two thumbs up when they are more then just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When he's on form, he's able to brilliantly illustrate just how good (and bad) film can be. But I think he's just gone off the boil in the last few years, although his New Moon review was genius.

I used to love Microsoft Cinemania, just because it had a shitload of his reviews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mongol: A big disappointment after a good start. The filmmakers must have thought, "Let's take a bit of Lords Of The Ring and mix it with some graphic fights a la 300. Success guaranteed!"

Not!

In fact, this movie made me realize how genius Zack Snyder is at what he does.

Inane as that film was, it looked fantastic, and it's images were organic and cinematic, as opposed the plastic and video game images of 300.

Like Ebert, I've admitted I was wrong about Blade Runner. I hope the day will come when you see how Snyder is cheapening cinema, and anathema to the qualities of Blade Runner. Scott may be cold, but Snyder is entirely unfamiliar with human emotion that is not machismo based. I can see people take him on as a pet project, but his disconnected-ness with so much that is good in cinema and the world places him pretty high on my shit-list.

@Ebert: Few people in history have caused more people to see more good films than him. I have my share of disagreements with him, but I have a huge reserve of thanks for person responsible for so much of my love of and enthusiam for film. Even now, when I'm finding his reviews less and less interesting, he manages to inspire with his blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where Eagles Dare - a really fun ride, and Eastwood gets outbadassed by Burton. I love these subgenre of WWII films, can someone recommend more of them? I've seen the two Navarone films, The Great Escape and The Dirty Dozen

You might like The Cockleshell Heroes, directed by José Ferrer.

Lovin' Giacchino's score more than I initially did.

Hm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lovin' Giacchino's score more than I initially did.

Hm?

Hmmm?

When the score first came out, I liked it, but vastly preferred a lot of his older scores, and even Up. After watching the film again, I have a new found love for the score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tonight I had a George Clooney double feature.

First off... The Men Who Stare At Goats

Glad I was able to catch this one, we're losing it this week. Enjoyable, and pretty funny at some parts, but overall it feels mediocre. I'm starting to despise trailers more and more these days. Every time I see one and/or several for a film, I feel like I'm seeing too much. I'm starting to become like Datameister with LOST, go in with a blank slate. Rofle Kent's score was fine, nothing special really, but I can find myself listening to it occasionally.

Then... Fantastic Mr. Fox

Boy was this an unexpected surprise, not in the sense that you would think though. I went to the movies expecting to just see the previous film above, to find out no one was screening this at my theater. So I decided to stick around afterwards and get paid to see it early. What a superb film (trying not to fall into the "fantastic" pun). There was so much that I loved about this, so many great scenes, so much to talk about. Alas, it's 2:30 AM and I really don't feel like going into all of it. :) Insanely good animation, score, voice acting, etc. I'm having trouble keeping myself from automatically calling it my favorite of the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inane as that film was, it looked fantastic, and it's images were organic and cinematic, as opposed the plastic and video game images of 300.

It looks nothing special. It's beautiful scenery combined with trendy color grading. Aesthetically, it's miles behind the work of Snyder. But my point was that the fights of Mongol are dull. It mimicks 300 but fails to capture the art. I forgive it, cinema has always been mimicking from other established cinematic achievements. It's the age-old search for a quick buck. And no, 300 doesn't look like video games at all, it looks like an arty graphic novel that has come to live. Really, if there's anything that looks like a video game, it's Cameron's Avatar.

The only thing good about Mongol was when Dzjengis Khan was a kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first introduction to Mongol was seeing the score for sale in a brick and mortar shop, and wondering why I'd never heard of it. I won't go out of my way to see it.

The only similarity I would see between 300 and a video game is the massive size of the Persian army. In that sense, it would be like a game in the Total War franchise, which gives you command of massive armies. Otherwise, the style is much in vogue with the graphic novel, and unlike any video game I've ever played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, if there's anything that looks like a video game, it's Cameron's Avatar.

The only thing good about Mongol was when Dzjengis Khan was a kid.

Its funny how with CGI, advances in visuals are never appreciated fully until you look back over the years. THEN it will become immediately apparent how far things have come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inane as that film was, it looked fantastic, and it's images were organic and cinematic, as opposed the plastic and video game images of 300.

It looks nothing special. It's beautiful scenery combined with trendy color grading. Aesthetically, it's miles behind the work of Snyder. But my point was that the fights of Mongol are dull. It mimicks 300 but fails to capture the art. I forgive it, cinema has always been mimicking from other established cinematic achievements. It's the age-old search for a quick buck. And no, 300 doesn't look like video games at all, it looks like an arty graphic novel that has come to live. Really, if there's anything that looks like a video game, it's Cameron's Avatar.

The only thing good about Mongol was when Dzjengis Khan was a kid.

It was fine in the first post, but I am forced to note, at this point, that Mongol was made before 300. Nothing to add about the rest, I simply disagree (Maybe not about Avatar...I have been utterly disinterested in this project since its inception, and haven't even seen the trailer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the trailer of Avatar looks like a Cameron film. It almost feels like the trailer for a new Alien movie directed by Cameron himself, that is, until the trailer shows the aliens of THIS story. Suddenly everything turns into Disney's Pocahontas.

In regard to Mongol, the director only knows how to shoot a beautiful mountain range. Big deal, the mountain range is already beautiful.

And no, 300 was made and released before Mongol. The trailer of 300 existed when Bodrov was shooting his film.

Coincidence or not, Snyder was working on a movie (The Last Photograph) which now will be directed by Sergei Bodrov and Snyder will be producing it.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no, 300 was made and released before Mongol. The trailer of 300 existed when Bodrov was shooting his film.

Released before, yes. Not made before. The trailer for 300 was released long after Mongol went into production. It is absurd to imply that the film changed its tone and style a year into production because of 300's teaser, espacially seeing that nothing I've read lead me to believe that the film is different esthetically than Bodrov's earlier films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no, 300 was made and released before Mongol. The trailer of 300 existed when Bodrov was shooting his film.

Released before, yes. Not made before. The trailer for 300 was released long after Mongol went into production. It is absurd to imply that the film changed its tone and style a year into production because of 300's teaser, espacially seeing that nothing I've read lead me to believe that the film is different esthetically than Bodrov's earlier films.

Sorry, but you first said and I quote "Mongol was made before 300". That was a blatant lie. Then you looked it up and now you're trying to save your face. Snyder was already animating his footage and releasing trailers when Bodrov's movie was still in shooting stage!!! Please!

Watch the trailer of Nomad, Bodrov's earlier film. No 300 fights, no 300 color scheme. Please, Morlock, don't try to suggest that Bodrov's aesthetics have always been like that (like Mongol). BTW, while Mongol might contain nice landscapes, Snyder's images are much more expressive, but that of course is a matter of personal taste.

This is the old Morlock rising up again. You can't stand the notion that someone thinks highly of Snyder and you will say and use everything (even defending a dull copycat like Bodrov) to tear him down. I remember you once said Blade Runner didn't influence any movie either. You just couldn't have it. The same thing is happening right now.

I see why a lot of people don't like Zack Znyder. They say aesthetics are more important to him than story and characterization. Well, as I already said a few weeks ago, you have to remember that critics once said the same about Ridley Scott. They said the same about Alien and they certainly have said the same about Blade Runner. His films look good but looks is all he seems to care about. It's all style over substance. Personally, I take Scott's first movies over his later period. In his later period, the focus tends to be less on looks but more on characters and conventional storytelling. However, I think there are a lot of directors who do a better job at that. Really, Scott shouldn't forsake his greatest talent, which is, 'mise-en-scène'.

I look at Scott's first films (The Duellists included) as pieces of cinematic art. The visuals of these movies enchant me, engage me. His images sing to me, they inspire me. I miss that about the later Scott. When I saw Watchmen, the feelings I once had when I first saw Alien or Blade Runner sorta came back to me. That's why I call Znyder the new Ridley Scott. Like Scott, he creates aesthetic adventures and he does it with Hollywood money. He says, screw it all, I'm going to tell my movies with visuals! I treasure people like these and so should anyone who has a passion for Cinema.

Hooray!

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it was obvious he was hyping it up by calling it a masterpiece before he saw it (or something similar). He did the same thing with Moon, but I don't think he's seen that yet.

But since Alex has never been afraid to admit dissapointment with a film he's been dying to see, (Pan's Labyrinth) I really don't think he's just truying to save face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

300 wasn't anything special, both in terms of direction and visual style, but it was very entertaining (in a brawny brainless way) and I enjoyed it a lot. A big dumb battle flick with a touch of harmless homoerotic imagery is anything but dull, but it ain't anything more than that either. Those who jumped all over it were never it's target audience in the first place and its brash tone was always gonna make it an easy target, especially to the so-called highbrow crowd who just can't help themselves.

I've not seen Watchmen yet, but Dawn of the Dead is the Snyder movie I've enjoyed most, so far.

I think he's a good director, but he ain't the saviour of cinema or anything.

The fact that Alex defends it, means something too me.

If I hadn't already seen it, Alex's 'seal of approval' would actually be enough to put me off, but that's just me. Say what you want, but at least I'm honest!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it was obvious he was hyping it up by calling it a masterpiece before he saw it (or something similar). He did the same thing with Moon, but I don't think he's seen that yet.

It's simple-minded (or very Koray) to think that I merely love them (or fake my love) just because I had invested some enthusiasm in them. Jeez! Some projects, depending on who's doing them, make me enthusiastic. I never called Watchmen a masterpiece at beforehand, but based on trailers and background info, I knew it was going to be different. Yes, I had high hopes for Watchmen and it sure as hell didn't let me down. Does that mean I'm always right about movies before I've seen them? By god, no! Remember Batman Begins, Danny Boyle's Sunshine, Werner Herzog's Rescue Dawn, just to name a few recent ones. Oh yeah, Pan's Labyrinth too (thanks, Steef). And what about the movies I didn't expect to be good but ended up loving anyway? What is your explanation for that, Koray?

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no, 300 was made and released before Mongol. The trailer of 300 existed when Bodrov was shooting his film.

Released before, yes. Not made before. The trailer for 300 was released long after Mongol went into production. It is absurd to imply that the film changed its tone and style a year into production because of 300's teaser, espacially seeing that nothing I've read lead me to believe that the film is different esthetically than Bodrov's earlier films.

Sorry, but you first said and I quote "Mongol was made before 300". That was a blatant lie. Then you looked it up and now you're trying to save your face. Snyder was already animating his footage and releasing trailers when Bodrov's movie was still in shooting stage!!! Please!

A blatant lie?! It went into production first!

Watch the trailer of Nomad, Bodrov's earlier film. No 300 fights, no 300 color scheme. Please, Morlock, don't try to suggest that Bodrov's aesthetics have always been like that (like Mongol). BTW, while Mongol might contain nice landscapes, Snyder's images are much more expressive, but that of course is a matter of personal taste.

This is the old Morlock rising up again. You can't stand the notion that someone thinks highly of Snyder and you will say and use everything (even defending a dull copycat like Bodrov) to tear him down. I remember you once said Blade Runner didn't influence any movie either. You just couldn't have it. The same thing is happening right now.

My tastes and insights regarding movies are constantly changing, and I acknowledge it. You have always and still do infuriate me with the way you make your cases, with a coldly analytical approach to discussing film. Everything is definite. Nothing can be wrong. If I explain myself in my second sentence, you'll cling to the first, as that is the easy one to argue with (In this case, one place said Mongol completed shooting before 300, the later one pointed to the overlap). The crux of my point is that I think it is absurd to say that 300's trailer affected Mongol despite the fact that Mongol was conceived and was well on its way before 300 appeared. And I will certainly defend a dull copycat like Bodrov over a filmmaker I believe is dumb, immoral, and uncinematic. I have said many stupid things in my time here. But my words against Snyder have very little to do with my front against Blade Runner.

I see why a lot of people don't like Zack Znyder. They say aesthetics are more important to him than story and characterization. Well, as I already said a few weeks ago, you have to remember that critics once said the same about Ridley Scott. They said the same about Alien and they certainly have said the same about Blade Runner. His films look good but looks is all he seems to care about. It's all style over substance. Personally, I take Scott's first movies over his later period. In his later period, the focus tends to be less on looks but more on characters and conventional storytelling. However, I think there are a lot of directors who do a better job at that. Really, Scott shouldn't forsake his greatest talent, which is, 'mise-en-scène'.

I think that, although esthetics are certainly more important to Snyder than story and character, that is not the problem. I'm not willing to say that I could say the same for early Scott, but even if I could, it is in the nature of the esthetics. I find Scott's esthetics, particularly in his early films, to be inspiring. Film is visual. Even if you don't seem to care about your characters, warmth and beauty and intelligence and wit and morality can come through in purely visual (or largert esthetic) terms. I find Snyder's esthetics to be unimaginative, un-emotional, immoral (in the way they are the same no matter the context), entirely lacking human emotion (again, aside from machoism). The morality of esthetics. I have come to strongly believe in it. Snyder almost consistantly fails to compel me, and offends me by his lack of interest in anything other than cool.

I look at Scott's first films (The Duellists included) as pieces of cinematic art. The visuals of these movies enchant me, engage me. His images sing to me, they inspire me. I miss that about the later Scott. When I saw Watchmen, the feelings I once had when I first saw Alien or Blade Runner sorta came back to me. That's why I call Znyder the new Ridley Scott. Like Scott, he creates aesthetic adventures and he does it with Hollywood money. He says, screw it all, I'm going to tell my movies with visuals! I treasure people like these and so should anyone who has a passion for Cinema.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think Snyder is being adventurous for the wrong reasons, preaching a view of film and of the world I resent.

The Informant!: Liked it. One of the more interesting of Soderbergh's experiments...I love how, on one level, this movie had no business being a comedy, while, on another level, it absolutely had to be in order to be bearable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A blatant lie?! It went into production first!

You clearly said Mongol was MADE before 300. And that, Morlock, just isn't the case. In fact, it falsely implies Mongol came before 300. It further implies, since it came first, that 300 copied from Mongol, which is absurd given the concept of both movies. With 300, the design IS the concept! The design is the film! Mongol, just like Bodrov's Nomad, is a normal film, shot in normal conditions, with normal equipment and requiring very little post-production (some serious color grading and just a little animation). 300 is entirely about post-production and Zack was doing his post-production a long time before Bodrov started with his color grading and animation (because he was still in the middle (!) of shooting his mountain ranges). You can bet your life that during this period some producer, either from Germany or Russia, has seen the already notorious trailer of 300 and that this had an influence on the end result of Bodrov's film. Look at it this way, if Bodrov didn't see the aesthetics of 300, Mongol would've looked much more like Nomad and a little less like 300. If Snyder, on the other hand, based himself on the concept of Mongol, he wouldn't have a film.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think Snyder is being adventurous for the wrong reasons, preaching a view of film and of the world I resent.

I don't believe there are wrong reasons for trying to be adventurous in art. At least his idea that film must be, above all, a visual medium is a view that I can only admire. I actually resent the ones who, out of fear of the public, don't dare to be adventurous and who make movies for the Korays and the Quints. Snyder's approach seems to divide the public into avid supporters and angry objectors. In my book, that's a very good sign.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find Snyder is very close to Ridley Scott in aesthetic and overall presentation of a film.

I thought 300 was amazing, exactly what cinema is supposed to be about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You clearly said Mongol was MADE before 300. And that, Morlock, just isn't the case. In fact, it falsely implies Mongol came before 300. It further implies, since it came first, that 300 copied from Mongol, which is absurd given the concept of both movies.

Of course it is absurd, which is why I'm glad I said nothing of the sort. It is fruitless and pointless to get into the meaning of the word MADE in this context. At the time I wrote it, I was certain that Mongol was made (i.e. production was finished) first. I was mistaken. It merely began sooner. That does not change my feeling that neither 300 nor its trailer had any significant impact on the film. You disagree. Hooray!

I don't believe there are wrong reasons for trying to be adventurous in art. At least his idea that film must be, above all, a visual medium is a view that I can only admire. I actually resent the ones who, out of fear of the public, don't dare to be adventurous and who make movies for the Korays and the Quints. Snyder's approach seems to divide the public into avid supporters and angry objectors. In my book, that's a very good sign.

I think that it is this approach that makes me resent Snyder. He's not untalented. But the nature of his adventurousness is so limited and infantile, intellectually and morally deficient, that it far outweighs the good. Yet, because he has some of the trappings of a great cinematic artist like a Scott, he's lumped in with him. Adventurousness IS so rare, that I think it's a terrible thing that someone is doing it for the sake of cool, and being praised as a visionary. Zack Snyder becoming someone to look up to depresses me to high heavens...he's got his foot in the door, and is being praised for just the foot, even when the rest is missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That does not change my feeling that neither 300 nor its trailer had any significant impact on the film. You disagree. Hooray!

Well, as history proves, not everyone is able to see such things, but I think most people will think '300' when they will see certain elements of Mongol.

I think that it is this approach that makes me resent Snyder. He's not untalented. But the nature of his adventurousness is so limited and infantile, intellectually and morally deficient, that it far outweighs the good. Yet, because he has some of the trappings of a great cinematic artist like a Scott, he's lumped in with him. Adventurousness IS so rare, that I think it's a terrible thing that someone is doing it for the sake of cool, and being praised as a visionary. Zack Snyder becoming someone to look up to depresses me to high heavens...he's got his foot in the door, and is being praised for just the foot, even when the rest is missing.

Or.. you don't get from it what others are able to take away from it. I think art should be about expression, not about morals or anything else that imposes rules.

Alex - who thinks it's all the other comic book adaptations that are infantile (except for Ang Lee's Hulk and TDK).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone made a movie for myself and Koray?! What's it called? I shall track it down and watch.

Lee - who hopes it's The Rock 2. Also finds it hilarious that Alex clearly believes in his own heft so much that he considers anyone who disagrees with his taste in movies to be a Mongol themselves. Bless him, the harmless twit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also finds it hilarious that Alex clearly believes in his own heft so much that he considers anyone who disagrees with his taste in movies to be a Mongol themselves. Bless him, the harmless twit.

I never said that. But based on your posts, this harmless twit seems to bother you a great deal. Instead of getting personal all the time, why don't you keep the discussion on topic?

The same goes for you Koray. You accused me of faking my liking towards Watchmen and then you ran away like a coward. And now you're laughing and hiding behind Quint? Pffft!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In honor of the recent release for the complete score for Back To The Future, I watched the first the other day. Great film from start to finish.

Oh and after we had Thanksgiving dinner last night we watched Star Trek (09) as my mom had not seen it yet. She liked it which I was glad for. The lense flare didn't bother me this time around....even though we were watching it on a very small TV but still...wasn't quite as distracting like it was when I saw it in theaters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, serious minded folk like yourself always are. It's nothing unusual.

Anyway, I now have in my possession:

dawn-of-the-dead-2004-movie-poster12.jpg

;)

Prognose: Not sure about this one. I don't expect too much because I'm not too keen on zombies and it doesn't have extraordinary visuals. But I do love 28 Days Later! I bought it because I just wanted to know what Snyder is like without his usual focus on visuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst it isn't a patch on the Romero original, I still enjoy it. Parts of it bug me, but it makes for a good Saturday night after the pub movie, being supremely watchable and with little commitment required. It does have one wonderful little addition over the orginal actually - that being the rather touching plot device of the poor bloke on the other roof. It'll make sense when you see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex - who thinks it's all the other comic book adaptations that are infantile (except for Ang Lee's Hulk and TDK).

Although my views on Snyder are much closer to Morlock's than yours (but I'm far from a cinephile and I'm quite unable to analyze properly most films), I do agree fully with your sentence, and those two scores still are pinacles of the genre, in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm not sure "infantile" is the right word, is the issue with the films or the source material? TDK, for example, is based on books that are a bit challenging and mature than your average comic, and HULK does away with any recognition to the source material to create Lee's mature themes. A lot of the other comic book movies are terrible, but stuff like the first SPIDER-MAN and X-MEN 2, this is bright and bold four-colour theatre in the flesh, and while they both have some educational and aspirational value, their main job is to entertain you, like the comics. Is this a bad thing?

It's often thought that there are two schools of comic readers - those who call them "comic books" and those who say "graphic novels". Is this a similar thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a interesting point, Charlie, and I did not want to come across as some elitist that wants to see the comic book medium stray away too far from its pulpy origins. While I do agree that some of the X-Men movies balance quite well some of the qualities of comic books and graphic novels (and even Iron Man, to an extent, although all of these movies have verious flaws that prevent me from consider them good movies)), I still think most of comic book movies are excessively infantile, emphatize only the lighter aspects of the source material and contain often totally ridiculous plots. It's a shame Ang Lee's Hulk was as bad received as it was, because I feel it actually elevated the source material to new heights, a thing only TDK also did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same goes for you Koray. You accused me of faking my liking towards Watchmen and then you ran away like a coward. And now you're laughing and hiding behind Quint? Pffft!

I never really meant that your like/love for it was fake. You just built it up too much in your mind that you were going to like it, that when you finally saw it you had a pretty strong predisposition to like it. Nothing wrong with it really, since I do it every now and then. And I was laughing at The Rock 2 bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.