What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[Morlock 11]

Saw big parts of Angels and Demons again (someone else was watching it, I phased in and out). I cannot atone for my enjoyment of this film. I'm told I shouldn't, but I think it's one fun yarn, even with bad dialogue and haircuts (I feel bad for Tom Hanks, having to utter some of the lines he's forced to). Speaking of Howard and Zimmer...I also saw Capitalism: A Love Story. I wish I could trust Michael Moore, but, of course, I can't. Still enjoyed it, and I'm sure some of its misleading information will linger. I was surprised that he used some recent film music in there- Frost/Nixon is in there, as are Atonement and what I'm pretty sure is The Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford.

[John Crichton 4]

Been watching some of SyeFiye's Alice in Wonderland "sci-fi reimagining" Alice. It's a lot like the Wizard of Oz one Tin Man from a couple of years ago (both are apparently by the same director): some decent ideas, some decent imagery, some good thesps pounding out their lines with ablomb, but in the end feeling rather empty and less than the sum of its parts. Interesting enough that I'm still watching, though.

Oh, and any of my fellow Galactia fans will recognize the woods of the Vancouver area.

[Datameister 2,044]

Two blasts from the past - Flight of the Navigator and Star Kid. Interesting to look at some of the similarities...no wonder I'd gotten the two confused in one or two parts.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The Warriors

I really liked this one. It's unbelievably dated, but I thought it was fantastic. Loved the opening sequence, and the film had some of the best use of slow motion I have ever seen. Acting wasn't very good, and neither was the score, but there really are no known names (at least to me) behind this film. I also really loved how they incorporated the comic book feel into the film.

Apparently Tony Scott is going to remake this, but it's been in pre-production for like 10 years. So who knows if and when that will actually happen. I think he could do a pretty good job at a remake. My only fear is that it gets a complete modernization, with the stupid "gansta" gangs we have now. I'd prefer the story be kept in the 70s.

[A24 4,338]

The Warriors

I really liked this one. It's unbelievably dated, but I thought it was fantastic. Loved the opening sequence, and the film had some of the best use of slow motion I have ever seen. Acting wasn't very good, and neither was the score, but there really are no known names (at least to me) behind this film. I also really loved how they incorporated the comic book feel into the film.

Apparently Tony Scott is going to remake this, but it's been in pre-production for like 10 years. So who knows if and when that will actually happen. I think he could do a pretty good job at a remake. My only fear is that it gets a complete modernization, with the stupid "gansta" gangs we have now. I'd prefer the story be kept in the 70s.

I thought it was really bad at the time, especially its production values, but today that might be part of the fun. I did love it when the baddies were provoking The Warriors with: "Warriors, come out to plaahaay!"

Alex

[Quintus 5,399]

Saw big parts of Angels and Demons again (someone else was watching it, I phased in and out). I cannot atone for my enjoyment of this film. I'm told I shouldn't, but I think it's one fun yarn

I thought it was absolutely terrible. As soon as Ewan McGregor turned up (didn't know he was even in it) I thought CELEBRITY BAD GUY ALERT! It was like Scooby Doo! Can Ron Howard sink any lower? If he does another Dan Brown book, that would be a resounding YES.

[A24 4,338]

Sometimes I think you're merely repeating yourself, Quint.

Damnit, you already edited it!

[Quintus 5,399]

Ah, that is the only problem I have with using an iPod Touch to post here. As quick and surprisingly easy as it is to use, the interface can be a little unwieldy at times and mistakes can easily be made, unless it has one's full attention whilst typing.

Another thing I've noticed is it makes me type in short sentences, so as a result there are way too many full stops all over my posts. It's difficult to notice on a small screen and I only tend to realise once I've submitted a post and by then I can't be bothered editing. Often I will look at a finished post and be appalled at the terrible construction of it all, but I can put up with that for the amazing convienience the iPod provides. It must do something right otherwise I wouldn't be using the device to reply to you.

[Morlock 11]

Blue Velvet (1986). I liked it, but I still don't get Lynch.

[mahler3 478]

Blue Velvet (1986). I liked it, but I still don't get Lynch.

Dean Stockwell is great in that movie, I love that night club scene when he starts singing.

Best of all though is the chicken walk!

[Morlock 11]

Loved the score to it, I should have mentioned. The film on one level felt extremely obvious and relatively shallow, on another level almost primal (not quite, though).

[mahler3 478]

Left you cold then? It's not as good as Wild At Heart, Twin Peaks FWWM or Mulholland Drive perhaps, there are moments of brilliance though - visually especially with the macabre suburban tracking shots etc and the car ride / kidnapping scene.

You're right, the score is tremendous.

[A24 4,338]

It's not as good as Wild At Heart, Twin Peaks FWWM or Mulholland Drive perhaps, there are moments of brilliance though - visually especially with the macabre suburban tracking shots etc and the car ride / kidnapping scene.

Hmm, a lot of Lynch fans call Blue Velvet one of his best and Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me one of his 'worst' movies.

Alex

[Maglorfin 196]

FINALLY, I've managed to see Angels and Demons. A mediocre film with a mediocre score, it suffers too badly with many a simplification in the script as compared to the original novel. Hanks seems somewhat more interested than he did in TDVC, but for me, the highlights were Armin Mueller-Stahl, Nikolaj Lie Kaas and Pierfrancesco Favino who all did a great job with their roles. I also found the film somewhat more interesting due to the fact that I coincidentally visited Rome a week or so after seeing the film.

[Morlock 11]

I've seen four Lynch films, and the only one I loved was The Straight Story (which, try as he might downplay it, is certainly anomalus). I have Elephant Man on a shelf, should get to it one of these days. BV did make me feel like I should finally get to both that and, in a different direction, Last Tango in Paris (among 25 or so other DVDs that Iv'e had forever but never got to watching).

[Marian Schedenig 8,195]

FINALLY, I've managed to see Angels and Demons. A mediocre film with a mediocre score, it suffers too badly with many a simplification in the script as compared to the original novel. Hanks seems somewhat more interested than he did in TDVC, but for me, the highlights were Armin Mueller-Stahl, Nikolaj Lie Kaas and Pierfrancesco Favino who all did a great job with their roles. I also found the film somewhat more interesting due to the fact that I coincidentally visited Rome a week or so after seeing the film.

Armin Mueller-Stahl is cool, but I'm beginning to find his accent (in English language films) hard to bear. Especially when he's actually playing, as far as I recall, an Italian...

I thought McGregor was fine. But he usually is.

I was in Rome a few weeks ago and re-read A&D in time... but I still only managed to include perhaps half of the story's locations in my tour.

[John Crichton 4]

On to part 2 of the Alice mini. I've got just one word running through my head over and over: rewrite!

[Morlock 11]

Re Angels & Demons: I was impressed by how much the film felt like it was actually taking place in Rome. It got Werner Herzog's 'Voodoo of location' down, without having access to most of the locations. Production design/digital work as convincing as that is rare.

Funny People: I liked it.

[Quintus 5,399]

Re Angels & Demons: I was impressed by how much the film felt like it was actually taking place in Rome. It got Werner Herzog's 'Voodoo of location' down, without having access to most of the locations. Production design/digital work as convincing as that is rare.

Ah, I had no idea it was not filmed on location

Very good 'location' work indeed, in that case.

Either that or the bull was fired so fast it was next to impossible to discern between the odd similarities of McGregor's accent and the perceived site of the ancient Italian City.

Regardless, I still thought it was crap. And lets face it - it is.

[Datameister 2,044]

Yeah, I'm sitting half a mile from one of the shooting locations in Los Angeles right now.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Fantastic Mr. Fox

My second viewing. Still fantastic.

[Morlock 11]

Re Angels & Demons: I was impressed by how much the film felt like it was actually taking place in Rome. It got Werner Herzog's 'Voodoo of location' down, without having access to most of the locations. Production design/digital work as convincing as that is rare.

Ah, I had no idea it was not filmed on location

Very good 'location' work indeed, in that case.

Either that or the bull was fired so fast it was next to impossible to discern between the odd similarities of McGregor's accent and the perceived site of the ancient Italian City.

Regardless, I still thought it was crap. And lets face it - it is.

I'd put it in the trash/junk pile. I enjoyed it as an airplane thriller.

[A24 4,338]

Broadway Danny Rose: Watchable Woody Allen movie. I was slightly annoyed by Mia Farrow's character. Maybe that's because she hides her eyes behind enormous sunglasses. I don't know, I thought she just wasn't interesting. Allen usually writes better female roles.

Alex

[crocodile 8,017]

Nearly finished the first season of Battlestar Galactica. It's quite good. It reminds me of Space Above and Beyond in a way that it is pretty much the extension of that show. For now, I'm entertained and I hope it will get even better. It is some potential.

Karol

[Datameister 2,044]

I'm trying to finally finish 2001...still a very slow film, obviously, but I must say that I'm utterly in love with all the shots involving actors moving around in the centrifuge. Such a delightful visual puzzle, even when you know how it was done. Also, the design of the ships in general is quite cool - after hearing for so long about how the wonderful designs in Star Wars were largely a backlash against that clean white aesthetic, I expected to find it rather dull, but I like the designs they came up with.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's a groundbreaking design that has been copied/ripped of in countless films.

Kubrick was there first, ladies and gents!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I still need to watch 2001 in Blu. Haven't gotten around to it yet.

[A24 4,338]

Nearly finished the first season of Battlestar Galactica. It's quite good. It reminds me of Space Above and Beyond in a way that it is pretty much the extension of that show. For now, I'm entertained and I hope it will get even better. It is some potential.

Karol

It only gets worse so enjoy it while it lasts. The second season is still decent though.

I'm trying to finally finish 2001...still a very slow film, obviously, but I must say that I'm utterly in love with all the shots involving actors moving around in the centrifuge. Such a delightful visual puzzle, even when you know how it was done. Also, the design of the ships in general is quite cool - after hearing for so long about how the wonderful designs in Star Wars were largely a backlash against that clean white aesthetic, I expected to find it rather dull, but I like the designs they came up with.

Different pace + different narrative + different expression = different experience.

Alex - who's watching Mad Men Season 2 on Blu-ray and finds the sharpness almost distracting.

[Datameister 2,044]

Different pace + different narrative + different expression = different experience.

For sure. To be honest, I think I find 2001's approach to slow VFX-ladenness more interesting and enjoyable than TMP's, though the quality of many of the effects are rather inferior.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

2001 predates TMP by more then a decade.

I personally think it's effects are still stunning.

[Datameister 2,044]

I'm well aware of that, Steef. And I'm pleasantly surprised by the effects in general - most of the 60s sci-fi I've seen has been Star Trek, which was obviously working on a much lower budget and shorter deadlines, being a television series and all. The effects aren't half bad in 2001. As I said, I particularly like the stuff involving the centrifugal nature of the ship's interior, but the exterior shots are great, too. If it were my movie, I definitely would have picked up the pace a bit - there's slow, and then there's SLOW - but it works just fine.

Now I just have to finish the film.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The matte paintings in The Dawn Of Man sequence are fantastic. Hard to believe it was all shot in a studio.

[Datameister 2,044]

You're right - I fail to see the point of having that scene be twenty freaking minutes long, but it's nevertheless quite amazing that they pulled it off in a studio so convincingly.

[Quintus 5,399]

I fail to see the point of having that scene be twenty freaking minutes long

I agree. Although I appreciate the tone of the scene and find it fascinating how Kubrick sucks the viewer in, I can't help but find it (and other parts) terribly self indulgent.

I dunno, I think after ten minutes or so the slow pace could've been broken by an exploding car or machine gun fire.

[Datameister 2,044]

[A24 4,338]

You're right - I fail to see the point of having that scene be twenty freaking minutes long, but it's nevertheless quite amazing that they pulled it off in a studio so convincingly.

I don't find it slow anymore. The pace in the beginning sets the tone of a film which creates its own vacuum. It gets slow when you're only paying attention to story and events.

[Quintus 5,399]

I don't find it slow anymore. The pace in the beginning sets the tone of a film which creates its own vacuum.

A bit like your posts then.

I'M JOKING

[Datameister 2,044]

The problem is, I perfectly understand the tone after, y'know, ten minutes or so. Even five. I'm positively saturated with it at that point. I don't need the filmmakers to insult my intelligence by hammering it into me any further. And I do care about "story and events", even though they're not the only important element. I think the film would be better off with sequences like that one whittled down, sped up. But again, I do find the film's excruciatingly slow pace less aggravating than I thought I would. It's actually nice in a way. I just wouldn't go quite as extreme as they did, personally.

[A24 4,338]

The problem is, I perfectly understand the tone after, y'know, ten minutes or so. Even five. I'm positively saturated with it at that point. I don't need the filmmakers to insult my intelligence by hammering it into me any further.

Hmm, how is he insulting you? 2001 has a slow pace throughout its entire running time. Kubrick is merely being consequent and staying true to his own concept. It wouldn't make any sense if the pace stopped being slow after 5 or 10 minutes. Then the carefully set tone would've been all for nothing. You're asking him to betray his own concept for the sake of tradition and conventionalism, something this film is trying to break with. I wonder who is insulting who here? Also, the slow pace is interlinked to the film's major theme.

[Morlock 11]

Heartbeat Detector (2007). More telling is its original French title, Le Question Humane. A weird but compelling film. Starts out as a kind of Michael Clayton -Mathieu Amalric plays a company's special advisor whose asked to look into the mental state of the CEO. It then goes in a radically different direction, by equating the current corporate world and the corruption of language....with the Nazis. Sounds insane, and plays a bit insane, but its a surprisingly forceful film, particularly given that although I was pretty bored for the first hour, I was quite taken with the last half hour. Has this early 60's vibe to its politics, reminded me of Godard and Resnais (not in its style or quality, though).

I finished with the penultimate episode of The Wire. Just the finale left. I understand that the fifth season was somewhat devisive amongst fans, but I really enjoyed it. The last couple of episodes I saw -the 8th and 9th- were two of the very best episodes in the series.

[Henry B 50]

Caught some of Elizabeth on TV. What boring garbage. Cate Blanchett does a great job and many of the supporting cast are impressive but the pretentious cinematography and music kill it for me.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace back to back. CR was enjoyable as ever, though the pacing problems in the final third still annoy a little. The revelation here was QoS. I must admit I went into QoS the first time without a fresh memory of CR. My biggest impression of CR at that point was that Bond had finally become Bond and that we would be getting Craig in a more traditional role. However, watched as soon as possible after CR, and taken more as an extension than a standalone film, QoS improves immeasurably. Everything about it definitely makes more sense. I still maintain it was an unnecessary direct sequel, but it is a cracking film in the right context.

[Datameister 2,044]

The problem is, I perfectly understand the tone after, y'know, ten minutes or so. Even five. I'm positively saturated with it at that point. I don't need the filmmakers to insult my intelligence by hammering it into me any further.

Hmm, how is he insulting you? 2001 has a slow pace throughout its entire running time. Kubrick is merely being consequent and staying true to his own concept. It wouldn't make any sense if the pace stopped being slow after 5 or 10 minutes. Then the carefully set tone would've been all for nothing. You're asking him to betray his own concept for the sake of tradition and conventionalism, something this film is trying to break with. I wonder who is insulting who here? Also, the slow pace is interlinked to the film's major theme.

I think I worded my previous post poorly - I wasn't trying to say that the first five minutes should be slow, and then the rest shouldn't be. I'm just saying that I'd specifically like to see that first sequence significantly shorter, while still keeping its pacing reasonably slow, and keeping much of the rest of the film the way it is. But yes, I am saying that I'd like the film to be a little closer to that "tradition and conventionalism", which exists in the first place because it sometimes works. Like I said, there's slow, and then there's SLOW. I find that first scene to be too self-indulgent...a distraction from the rest of the film, which is actually slightly faster-paced and has a very different tone and subject matter.

[A24 4,338]

Nope, same tone, same subject, only a different time period. For you see, act 2 and 3 (and 4, depending on your interpretation of the structure) are mirrors of act 1. The pace might be slightly faster at times (which I doubt) but then there's is also a slight difference between the era of the homo erectus and the age of modern man. The pace is calculated and deliberate. A comment like "too self-indulgent" is a typical perspective from the spectator who demands that artists should always indulge the public first. I think it should be the other way around. The success of 2001: A Space Odyssey as a movie is almost entirely based on artistical self-indulgence.

Lola Rennt: This gets an 8/10 on IMDb?! That's a lot for something that feels like a shallow student movie (probably a big Luc Besson fan)! I give a 5/10 for its ambition.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Hey, Luc Besson is awesome!

[A24 4,338]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

He's made a sequel.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Wasn't that a Blade Runner rip-of, stylistically?

[A24 4,338]

He's made a sequel.

Right now he's finishing his third Arthur film. Yes, the third one! Marc!!! Where's the crazy smiley?!!!

Wasn't that a Blade Runner rip-of, stylistically?

Marc, the crazy smiley, ASAP!!