What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Olga was pretty, but a total snore. She made me miss Denise Richards.

[QMM 4]

QoS had great action scenes in concept but they were ruined by the editing and how they shot it. They established no sense of space, the scene on that spinning girder thing in a library(?) comes to mind, I had absolutely no idea what was happening. Amalric was also wasted. He had nothing to do and he got into a fistfight at the end with Bond which is the worst thing they could do with that character.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I do really want to see 1900.

It's good, but pretty graphic, and you really have to dedicate an entire day to watch it.

[A24 4,331]

I remember I had a problem with the obvious overdubbing.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

QoS had great action scenes in concept but they were ruined by the editing and how they shot it. They established no sense of space, the scene on that spinning girder thing in a library(?) comes to mind, I had absolutely no idea what was happening. Amalric was also wasted. He had nothing to do and he got into a fistfight at the end with Bond which is the worst thing they could do with that character.

I agree. I like QoS, but the action scenes are constantly exactly as you described. That entire ending scene in general is where the movie falls apart for me. It seems to be going somewhere and then shit just blows up, Bond finds whats-his-name and I guess that's it? I enjoy the rest of the movie though.

[Delorean90 42]

I just want to go on record saying the Richard Donner cut of Superman II is a worse film.

On one level, yes: Due to avoiding Lester footage as much as possible, certain gaps simply being unfillable (or barely, as when they used the screen test for the big reveal), and the cheap digital effects work, it's a very rough film. However, I think its essence is largely superior to Lester's film--certainly the powerful scenes between Jor-El and Kal-El are lightyears beyond the Lara scenes of the theatrical release (it's a shame the final scene with Jor-El is burdened with cheap effects shots and rough musical looping--in my dreams I'd pay for them to go back with a real effects budget and commission an original score by Williams). I think that with what we have, the best cut is ultimately going to be a hybrid (which ADigitalMan has attempted, and I'd like to see it).

2001: A Space Odyssey

I just got back from seeing a midnight showing of it at a local theater. It was my first time seeing the whole thing, and while the print ranged from good to nasty at times, I'm still glad I was able to see it on the big screen. I'm still kind of processing it, but I enjoyed it. One question I have is this: Why is it that 42 years later, our effects (read: copious CG) are actually WORSE? After seeing the images I saw in this film, it boggles my mind that people have such a dependency on CG.

The music was very effective, and while the last segment of the film is definitely the most subjective and undefined, I think the final cue really helped to make the ending satisfying, and actually made the preceding scenes (in the bedroom) all the more effective. It kind of lost me in the latter parts of the Stargate sequence and into the bedroom sequence, but it all somehow made some kind of sense in a dramatic way that I can't explain.

All in all, I was very impressed, and I will definitely be revisiting this film in the future.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Why is it that 42 years later, our effects (read: copious CG) are actually WORSE? After seeing the images I saw in this film, it boggles my mind that people have such a dependency on CG.

Well if Kubrick would have had access to CGI, I'm sure that's what he would have used. But like with the "analog" effects in 2001, I'm sure he would have insisted on absolute perfection.

[King Mark 3,631]

CG is worse , because you never believe anything that's happening on screen. That's most recent movies. And it's actually gone worse in the past 15 years, because the screen characters do things that defy the normal laws of physics so much that your brain can't suspend disbelief for even a second.

Add to this the shaky cam, close shot and ADD editing of action scenes in movies like QoS, Sherlock Holmes and The Dark Knight and you don't understand what the hell is happening anyways.

In films like Superman 2 ,Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom you still believed what was on the screen was really happening, at least during watching the movie.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

No, you are confusing CGI, with the way filmmakers choose to use it.

[Datameister 2,042]

No, you are confusing CGI, with the way filmmakers choose to use it.

Yep. It's not an inherently bad or ineffective thing; it's just that it tends to be overused these days, or used for things where practical models would have been more convincing. For example, I think a really well-made and well-photographed miniature spaceship almost always looks better than an equally excellent CG spaceship, but for that purpose, the cost and inconvenience and physical limitations often make practical models...impractical. But CG can also be used for things that no amount of prosthetics, models, matte paintings, and stop motion can ever achieve. For example, I thought Davy Jones and General Grievous were two extremely convincing mid-late-2000s CG characters. Probably the two best I've ever seen, with the Na'vi probably being equally well-executed but more prone to "uncanny valley" symptoms. Anyway, neither of these two characters could have been realized convincingly in any other way. Say what you will about the films they were placed in, but I found both to be very believable as actual physical entities.

[King Mark 3,631]

That's the thing , Avatar had flawless CG and was beautiful to look at ...I still couldn't believe anything that was happening on screen in terms of action .

[Charlie Brigden 7]

CG is worse , because you never believe anything that's happening on screen. That's most recent movies. And it's actually gone worse in the past 15 years, because the screen characters do things that defy the normal laws of physics so much that your brain can't suspend disbelief for even a second.

Add to this the shaky cam, close shot and ADD editing of action scenes in movies like QoS, Sherlock Holmes and The Dark Knight and you don't understand what the hell is happening anyways.

In films like Superman 2 ,Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom you still believed what was on the screen was really happening, at least during watching the movie.

That's cause we were five years old.

In all seriousness, Stefan is correct, CG is a brilliant tool that has simply gotten into the hands of people who think it's the be-all and end-all of effects, and just use it willy nilly without thinking about how it will work in the context of the film.

I agree and disagree on the shaky cam. The whole MTV-editing phenomena got annoying, although it can work in some films. I need to rewatch QOS again, but I thought the editing in TDK was much better in comparison to the first movie, where the fight scenes were not that effective.

On the whole SUPERMAN II thing, Donner's film has superior elements, but because of the lack of effort from WB, isn't really the superior film, and while the Lester film is fun as a throwaway comic book flick, some of it is ridiculous and lacks any of the dramatic weight established in the first movie. Donner's version certainly has that with the Brando scenes alone, I just wish they could have put more money towards it in the same way as they did with TMP. Although I'm always skeptical with revisionist filmmaking as anything but an experiment (take note, George).

Saying that, SUPERMAN II does have one of my favourite lines of all time: 'I want my Liberace record back tonight.'

[A24 4,331]

The best thing about Duncan Jones' Moon is that it showed old school effects can still work. And look at the extra scene of CE3K where Roy is inside the mothership ... how is that not utterly convincing?! Say what you will, but Avatar looks animated. The benifit of going all digital is that you can make your characters do the most impossible stunts ... so impossible that you start to wonder. IMO, the best usage of CGI is when you're suppose to know it's CGI, like in Sin City or 300.

[King Mark 3,631]

That's cause we were five years old.

I don't think so . Take sequences like the truck chase in Raiders of the Lost Ark or the bridge scene in Temple of Doom, where you came out of the theater completely stunned and in awe at what you just saw and wanting to see it again and again...does that happen often nowadays?

[Charlie Brigden 7]

That's cause we were five years old.

I don't think so . Take sequences like the truck chase in Raiders of the Lost Ark or the bridge scene in Temple of Doom, where you came out of the theater completely stunned and in awe at what you just saw and wanting to see it again and again...does that happen often nowadays?

It was a joke, man, hence the opening line of the following paragraph.

[King Mark 3,631]

Ok...I was just trying to explain my point.

IMO Kick Ass, which apparently nobody saw, had action scenes reminiscent of early Steven Spielberg movies. That's why I liked it so much.

[Datameister 2,042]

I saw it. I never thought the action scenes were very Spielberg-like, but they were well done.

[King Mark 3,631]

What I mean is that they had the same effect, which is extremely rare in movies nowadays

[Morlock 11]

I saw a lot of Guy Ritchie and The Matrix in Kick-Ass, but none of the hallmarks of a great Spielbergian set-piece.

[King Mark 3,631]

Guy Ritchie? But Sherlock Holmes is my main example for badly edited and incomprehensible action scenes ,so we are seeing things differently. Actually I didn't understand anything in that film , from Robert Downey Jr 's dialogue lines to any of the plot points. I literally had no idea of what the film was about after watching it.

[Morlock 11]

Sherlock Holmes in terms of tone. The action scenes in Kick-Ass are comprehensible enough, but very much in a post Matrix techno rythem kind of editing. Besides, the action is limited to very small spaces, it doesn't take particular care to make them coherent. To my eyes, they had little to do with the old-school class and wit of a Spielbergian action sequence. I see no connection between the two. I can't recall an action scene that struck me as being particularly spacially logical since perhaps Casino Royale. Though, The Hurt Locker is far more coherent than its editing technique might have suggested.

[King Mark 3,631]

I didn't see Kick Ass in a Matrix way at all, and I thought the stunts never strayed too far from the normal laws of physics even if a few shots were improbable like re-loading guns while running and clips falling perfectly into place. Everything seemed possible by someone trained in gymnastics or martial arts, using swords,guns and knives...ect... And I thought it was very much grounded in reality (characters actually get hurt when they get hit by hard or sharp object, as opposed to most other super hero movies). The scene that lands Kick Ass in the hospital after being stabbed and hit by a car pretty much set the tone of the film for me.

Added thoughts:

In Hit Girl's first scene with the drug dealers she dispatches the bad guys with very well choreographed martial arts moves and a double edge katana as a weapon, nothing too unrealistic if you trained to do that kind of thing. She doesn't spin around in mid-air in bullet time or anything like The Matrix. In the warehouse it was more of a James Bond kind of deal where she has night goggles and a strobe light on her gun to use to her advantage. The bad guys never get a clear shot at her. Later she pops out of an elevator with some kind of knife attached to a rope she uses like a whip ,which was as cool as anything Indiana Jones can pull off. Then her corridor killing spree was a bit over the top but still very cool to watch. Finally she ends up in a realistic looking fist fight with the main villain and is easily overpowered. That scene brings you back to reality and shows that unless she has a knife or a gun in her hands she's still a vulnerable kid. And as for Kick Ass himself, he spends most of the movie getting hurt or captured.

[Morlock 11]

That was, for me, the key scene of the film. But that's the writing, not the directing. The fact that violence actually stings -never more effectivly illustrated than in that scene- is one of the things that made the film unique. But I still didn't get anything special from the action scenes, directorially speaking ('Grounded in reality' is not what comes to mind when I think Spielberg). They worked fine. Though I hated that when Hit-Girl tries to save her father and Kick-Ass, it went litereally into video game mode, the screen literally becoming a first-person shooter screen.

[King Mark 3,631]

Yes, the scene started in video game mode (somewhat lame) , but evolved into something amazing when Hit Girl turned on her strobe light. There was something really gut wrenching about watching her desperately trying to save her dad . The scene that followed was also very touching.

[A24 4,331]

Where The Wild Things Are: I like the puppet FX and the arty Indie music but overall I must say that I find myself in the naysayer camp. It didn't work for me.

[King Mark 3,631]

Saw that. Didn't really work for me either. Felt somewhat like a pretentious and preachy movie

[Morlock 11]

Loved it. Didn't like the Karen-O songs, but that's about it. I can understand the film seeming hipster-ish, particularly with Dave Eggers involved...but to me it came off as a rather pure evocation of a certain mood of childhoos. The impreceptible shifts that turn a blissful afternoon sour. The desire to build a fort- the ambition that loses interest. And I loved the suits and the voices (Easily my favorite screen performance from Gandolfini to date). And Carter Burwell's score.

[Romão 2,274]

Master and Commander is great example how all sorts of special effects techniques, both old and new, can come together to create an absolutely convincing effect. It contains probably the best use of special effects I have ever seen

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes that is a great example Merkel. I have no idea when the model of when the CGI vessel was used.

[A24 4,331]

Yes that is a great example Merkel. I have no idea when the model of when the CGI vessel was used.

So with other words, Steef, you're saying it doesn't matter if they used models or CGI. There's no difference.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

No it depends on who is doing it, and how.

[Andy 4,123]

Saying that, SUPERMAN II does have one of my favourite lines of all time: 'I want my Liberace record back tonight.'

Don't forget the almost inaudible response, "There's a scratch on it"

[A24 4,331]

..but to me it came off as a rather pure evocation of a certain mood of childhoos. The impreceptible shifts that turn a blissful afternoon sour. The desire to build a fort- the ambition that loses interest.

Actually, it's about how a child learns how to get through the day by himself using only his imagination. It was a perfect afternoon.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The Fifth Element is another one that flawlessly uses CGI and models IMO. Not to mention the CGI is insanely good for its time, it's mind-boggling.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

The Fifth Element is another one that flawlessly uses CGI and models IMO. Not to mention the CGI is insanely good for its time, it's mind-boggling.

It's too bad the actual film is awful.

[A24 4,331]

Luc Besson must stop making movies!

[King Mark 3,631]

I caught The Lost World on TV in HD the other day .

Seems to me CG hasn't really improved that much in 13 years. (well it has, but not to the point to make you believe it's more real)

[John Crichton 4]

Battlestar Galactica's ship effects were done just as good with CG as they could have been with models for the most part. The new Star Trek also.

[Quintus 5,399]

Had nothing to do so we went to see Robin Hood, which I really didn't fancy. Not content with tearing up the English history books, the movie goes out of it's way to be really entertaining and downright fun, once it hits it's stride. Scene chewing performances and clichés galore, I was grinning widely by the time the truly rousing beach landings finale was in full swing and only a slightly downbeat (and fittingly ridiculous) "twist" ending took the edge off an otherwise worthwhile time at the cinema. Not at all what I expected - nothing like the stodgy dreariness as suggested by the trailer, pic gets a 4/5 from me.

The score wasn't too bad either, indeed I thought I heard some decent action cues in there which I shall have to sample again sometime.

[Datameister 2,042]

Battlestar Galactica's ship effects were done just as good with CG as they could have been with models for the most part. The new Star Trek also.

I can't offer any input on BSG, but as for Star Trek...well, I absolutely love the model work in TMP and TWOK, and I think that's pretty hard to beat in terms of realism, but I thought last year's Star Trek did a fine job with the CGI. It seemed slightly hyperrealistic, rather than photorealistic - like they aimed at making it a little more artistic than 100% real. As a result, there are a lot of absolutely gorgeous shots that may not feel totally real, but they're sure a pleasure to look at.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The Fifth Element is another one that flawlessly uses CGI and models IMO. Not to mention the CGI is insanely good for its time, it's mind-boggling.

It's too bad the actual film is awful.

The film is flawless as well!

I've easily seen it more than 100 times.

[Quintus 5,399]

I vaguely remember it being a bit of a mess.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

In what way? The movie never fails to make me laugh or just lose myself in entertainment; and I'd rank the police chase as one of the greatest chases on film. Gary Oldman does what he does best, Bruce Willis does what he does best, and Ian Holm is great as usual.

[Quintus 5,399]

Sorry man, I can't really elaborate. Like I said - my memory of it is vague, having only seen it the once, around it's release. The CGI and flying car sequences were very well done though, I know that much.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The CGI and flying car sequences were very well done though, I know that much.

Yep, it's a shame it was only nominated for Sound Effects Editing, and lost to Titanic. Visual Effects nominees were The Lost World, Starship Troopers, and Titanic.

[Jay 37,353]

The Fifth Element is one of my favorite films of all times. I love every minute of it every time I see it

[Koray Savas 2,251]

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I don't like Fifth Element either. It just irritates me.

[Datameister 2,042]

It's a pretty funky film. Can't decide whether I like it or not. If I saw it while I was feverish or having a bad day, it'd probably make me what to smash my head through a brick wall. On a good day...I dunno, I think I quite like it.

[Trent B 337]

Had nothing to do so we went to see Robin Hood, which I really didn't fancy. Not content with tearing up the English history books, the movie goes out of it's way to be really entertaining and downright fun, once it hits it's stride. Scene chewing performances and clichés galore, I was grinning widely by the time the truly rousing beach landings finale was in full swing and only a slightly downbeat (and fittingly ridiculous) "twist" ending took the edge off an otherwise worthwhile time at the cinema. Not at all what I expected - nothing like the stodgy dreariness as suggested by the trailer, pic gets a 4/5 from me.

The score wasn't too bad either, indeed I thought I heard some decent action cues in there which I shall have to sample again sometime.

I don't know if I'll see the new Robin Hood...but in comparison to Kostner's Robin Hood, which would you say was more enjoyable?