Jump to content

What Is The Last Film You Watched?


Ollie
 Share

Recommended Posts

So then there's Legend footage in Blade Runner?

No, the unicorn footage in Blade Runner is originally shot for Blade Runner. It was one of the last things they shot. The original sequence (cut from the original movie) is restored for The Final Cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then there's Legend footage in Blade Runner?

No, the unicorn footage in Blade Runner is originally shot for Blade Runner. It was one of the last things they shot. The original sequence (cut from the original movie) is restored for The Final Cut.

Wow, googling has just told me that the long-standing rumor that it was a out-take from Legend is indeed just a rumor.

I really need to watch the docs on my blu ray set :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex. Is the eye in the opening of the film (your avatar) supposed to signify one of the characters in the film?

'Eyes' are indeed a recurring theme in the film. In the opening scene, it could be just the eye of Holden (the first blade runner agent we during Leon's VK-test - blade runners must be constant on the lookout for replicants posing as humans on Earth) but some think it's the 'the eye in the pyramid', the Masonic symbol (the Tyrell buildings are modern pyramids), while again others see the eye of Big Brother is watching you: The power of the big corporations that control everything. Notice how rooms are constantly being scanned by police search lights. It also could be that eyes are the key to our soul. Replicants are seperated from humans through the use of an iris response test. The fun is that things like these are not explained so you can bring something of your own to the film.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then there's Legend footage in Blade Runner?

No, the unicorn footage in Blade Runner is originally shot for Blade Runner. It was one of the last things they shot. The original sequence (cut from the original movie) is restored for The Final Cut.

Wow, googling has just told me that the long-standing rumor that it was a out-take from Legend is indeed just a rumor.

I really need to watch the docs on my blu ray set :)

Source? I strongly remember watching the Final Cut features and Scott saying himself it was the same shot.

An interesting note, according to quotes compiled on Wikipedia, Ridley Scott is the only person who thinks Deckard is a replicant. Philip K. Dick, the screenwriter, and Ford have all expressed that he is human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.mybladeru...t-no-it-is-not/

And

The persistent rumour that this footage came from "Legend" is hard to understand since any side-by-side comparison between the animals and settings in "Legend" and BRDC clearly reveals they are not the same.

from http://www.faqs.org/...laderunner-faq/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear it's in the special features.

Interesting ... and exactly the same shot as in Legend, no less? And Ridley Scott says this in the docu? I really don't recall that. What else do you remember? I mean, wouldn't there be a youtube film proving that the unicorn shot from Blade Runner is actually from Legend? You know, just to prove that the age old rumor is true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shit, why don't yall just make a blade runner thread all to itself.

that way people who like the film can geek out on it. Others who think it's a waste of time won't be bothered in other threads.

thats why the Potterdom thread was created so Alex wouldn't be bothered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear it's in the special features.

Interesting ... and exactly the same shot as in Legend, no less? And Ridley Scott says this in the docu? I really don't recall that. What else do you remember? I mean, wouldn't there be a youtube film proving that the unicorn shot from Blade Runner is actually from Legend? You know, just to prove that the age old rumor is true?

I could be wrong, but for some reason I clearly remember watching Scott talk about it. Now I have to buy the set myself and figure this out! I did a brief search and couldn't find anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blow Out (Criterion Collection)

Pretty decent flick by De Palma, who I'm not a huge fan of. The opening scene is way too long for it's own good. Travolta is good, and Nancy Allen played her character well. Some interesting camerawork and fantastic shots, which is what really made the film worthwhile for me. Pino Donaggio's score was also really damn good. I'll be looking to pick up that one. In terms of release, pretty bad picture quality, especially for Criterion. Lots of noise, but who knows how good the condition of the print is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twin Peaks; Fire Walk With Me

Clarifies somea few thing from the show, but is ultimately redundant and pointless. Kind of like BSG: The Plan.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the only Lynch I didn't see.

Well, that's not true. I saw half of Inland Empire but couldn't finish it. I'm afraid Lynch has gone crazy.

au_poster.jpg

7/10

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think about him?

Well, he's David Lynch, isn't he? Maker of crazy, surreal movies full of unforgettable dreamy and nightmarish scenes. He's also good at making 'normal' movies like The Elephant Man and The Straight Story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was more asking whether you like his movies or not.

I, for one, was never sure. I agree his films are hard to forget and that he sustain your interest for long without relying on plot and simple chain of causes and effects. He surely knows how to interest viewer, visually. But then I also tend to think his movies are gimmicky and childish, like a moderately budgeted student films. I can't decide.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynch is not the type of director who's particularly intersted in script or plot. A lot of the sequences are improvised. As a someone raised largely by western culture it can't be sometimes hard to accept. I want my film to be imaginative but balanced at the same time. Coherent is a better word perhaps. Inland Empire, his last movie, seems to be the point when the director has completely lost it. It's just a mess and not very watchable at that. It reminds me of the time when I was wandering with my friends and were filming random stuff.

But I like Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet very much.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a someone raised largely by western culture it can't be sometimes hard to accept. I want my film to be imaginative but balanced at the same time. Coherent is a better word perhaps.

That was the problem I had with the second and third Pirates Of The Caribbean films!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think nobody will question that. But is he a good storyteller?

Karol

He is an extremely good storyteller, if he needs to be. Of course, one shouldn't look for conventional story in his more surrealistic films. Those are mindfucks and have a different focus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Box: Found it on Blu-ray for 4.99 Euro. The questions and moral dilemmas at the beginning and ending of the film are quite good but everything between that is an uninteresting jumble. A spun out episode of The Twilight Zone. I still have the impression that director Richard Kelly (Donnie Darko) is a one-hit wonder. This could've and should've been much better.

box.jpg

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meteor

The 1979 disaster (in more ways then one) movie is playing on TV now.

Uninspired, talky script, flat and dull direction, uninterestingly acted and with special effects that seems to ignore the progress made in this field since 2001, Star Wars and Close Encounters.

Also I constantly need to grab the remote and adjust the volume when a disaster scene or any scene in out space in on. They are far...far louder then the dialogue scenes. (maybe a leftover from the Sensuround days).

Laurence Rosenthal does a decent enough job with his none to subtle score, and Brian Keith is rather good speaking only in Russian.

* out of ****

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of which... Is it just me or was there supposed to be some kind of "end of the world" event earlier today?

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been seeing a bunch of good old movies recently.

Rebecca (1940). I know it's not considered to be a great Hitckcock picture in the strictest sense...but I was mesmerized by it. Terrific plot, marvelously realized, excellent central performance. To go on at length would just be an exercise in hyperbole.

The Heiress (1947). A few years back, Alex mentioned this as a film he loved, and it was in the back of my mind ever since. I don't know if he still feels this way, but it is one of the finest dramas I've ever seen. I almost couldn't believe how nuanced it was, and how heartbreaking. Every time I thought I knew where it was going, it revealed a depth I couldn't imagine. Ralph Richardson in particular amazed me, by portraying one of the best screen parents I've ever seen, then becoming one of the cruellest. Magnificent.

Winchester 73 (1950). The second Anthony Mann/Jimmy Stewart western I've seen (after The Naked Spur), and the weaker of the two. I just didn't find it particularly interesting, and the visual splendor I associate with Mann didn't really come ot the fore here.

Man of the West (1958). Now that's more like it. Mann's final western, with Gary Cooper playing a good man with a dark past. A bit too stagey (written by 12 Angry Men's Reginald Rose), but Mann's incorporation of nature into the film is wonderful. No western I've seen has more realistic looking outdoors- it never feels like a studio's outdoors set (a convention I often can't stand from the period, one of the reasons I hate the film of Oklahoma). Mann's frames are unlike anyone else's.

My Darling Clementine (1946). I'd realised I'd only seen 4 John Ford films (How Green was My Valley, The Searchers, Stagecoach, and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance- still my favorite of his films), so I caught up and saw a couple of his most famous ones. This one frankly felt a bit undercooked- it's stuck a bit between the focused narrative westerns Ford is known for and the easy-going, slow-paced conversational western that Hawks famously perfected with Rion Bravo. Didn't really work as a straight narrative, but it has a whole of wonderful scenes and moments. Fonda's good, but for me Victor Mature stole the picture as Doc Holliday. And this is probably my favorite Walter Brennan role- hard-edged and serious, not the comic side-show he often plays.

Young Mr. Lincoln (1939). It starts out rather painfully, pure kitch. But after about 10 minutes, it settles into a lovely pace, and goes on to present a low-key and convincing portrait fo Lincoln. It takes pleasure in showing Lincoln as a shrewd and manipulative man, not just a saint sent down to embiggen America. I could have done without the opening and the closing frames of the Lincoln memorial set to 'Battle Hymn of the Republic', but, all-in-all, far more pleasant and bearable a film than it initially seems.

Citizen Kane (1942). Seen it several times before, but the cinematheque was showing it, and I couldn't pass up the chance to see it on the big screen. The movie was great as ever, a thrilling, entertaining and thoroughly michievious film that is about as excitingly constructed as any film has been, but it was a particular delight to find that the screening, in the big theater, was practically sold out. For all those times I've thought about how film as a great communal experience is over, this gave me hope. I can't tell you how great it was to hear audience member's who've never seen the film before gasp as 'Rosebud' was revealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Heiress (1947). A few years back, Alex mentioned this as a film he loved, and it was in the back of my mind ever since. I don't know if he still feels this way, but it is one of the finest dramas I've ever seen. I almost couldn't believe how nuanced it was, and how heartbreaking. Every time I thought I knew where it was going, it revealed a depth I couldn't imagine. Ralph Richardson in particular amazed me, by portraying one of the best screen parents I've ever seen, then becoming one of the cruellest. Magnificent.

What a coincidence! I just recently rewatched it for the first time. Indeed, Ralph Richardson is quite something. The way he contemptuously looked at his daughter when she and Montgomery Clift had a little chat (on Richardson's insistence to find out if Montgomery is really and truly in love with his daughter) is of such shocking harshness that it's unseen in today's cinema. And he's standing in the background by the door. There are no close-ups bending our attention towards it.

BTW, the movie is from 1949.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey where you been?

I was in the process of moving, and had very limited computer access. Also limited access to movies, which is why after I moved I saw about 10 of them within a couple of weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw Pirates 4, not a good film, not a bad film. Just average.

The score is absolutely wretched. It's loud when it shouldn't be, it's over the top and just sounds awful.

One thing I can't blame Zimmer is something that is wrong with all big budget movies in general.

The credits are seemingly endless. and you had to figure there is an obligatory extra scene after the credits roll.

we knew that so we watched the credits.

they credit all the drug dealers, the ass wipers, the spooge lickers, it's just ridiculous.

How many damn drivers has a movie got. this one had about 100.

I know with a CGI film that each and every computer graphic artist gets his or her 5 seconds of fame, but jeez enough is enough.

Dirty Mary Crazy Larry, starring Peter Fonda. one of the best low budget car chase movie ever, and what a terrific ending. You simply do not see it coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw Pirates 4, not a good film, not a bad film. Just average.

The score is absolutely wretched. It's loud when it shouldn't be, it's over the top and just sounds awful.

One thing I can't blame Zimmer is something that is wrong with all big budget movies in general.

The credits are seemingly endless. and you had to figure there is an obligatory extra scene after the credits roll.

we knew that so we watched the credits.

Ha, I always figured you were into pain. Didn't have you down as complete sadist, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw Pirates 4, not a good film, not a bad film. Just average.

The score is absolutely wretched. It's loud when it shouldn't be, it's over the top and just sounds awful.

One thing I can't blame Zimmer is something that is wrong with all big budget movies in general.

The credits are seemingly endless. and you had to figure there is an obligatory extra scene after the credits roll.

we knew that so we watched the credits.

Ha, I always figured you were into pain. Didn't have you down as complete sadist, though.

you know us homo's are into some wicked and sadistic kinky stuff. Still 17 minutes of credits is excessive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thor

I was pleasantly surprised by this movie - I generally don't love the superhero genre, but this one was unique and refreshing. It didn't take itself too seriously, but they didn't hold back in making the movie look impressive, especially the Asgard scenes.

I've been surprised lately at Natalie Portman's choices for projects to work on. I have really enjoyed her in some of her more serious roles (The Other Boleyn Girl, Brothers, Black Swan - which I haven't seen, but she has obviously received a lot of praise for it). I also like her in some of her less serious, but still well done movies, like No Strings Attached. But then she has accepted some roles that have been less than flattering; the prequels (Episode 1 is the worst performance of her career, IMO), Your Highness, and now Thor - which she played extremely well, but it was a popcorn blockbuster that an Oscar winner does not need. I'm just curious why she decides to take these roles.

Spiderman 3

I liked this movie the first time I saw it in theaters. I hadn't revisited it until it came on TV the other night. I was appalled on so many levels. The acting was melodramatic and in some parts just plain bad. The effects were cartoony, which may have been what they were going for but I found it cheap and distracting. The plot was ridiculous, though I'll admit there were some good ideas in there had they been developed better. Topher Grace was annoying (and I generally like him), and his fake teeth made him look childish rather than menacing. Harry's butler was awful - is there some reason they put that actor in there? Was he like the original Spiderman or something? Did he have a union contract? If so, it would have been kinder to leave him out. It was akin to having Kirk Douglas present at the Oscars.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to this summer's crop of movies. Especially Deathly Hallows. Keep 'em coming!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.