What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[Quintus 5,399]

Good. Maybe either of you two might be bothered to indulge Alex as to why. But then again, probably not, and for good reason.

Just watching a bit of Eyes Wide Shut on telly before bed. Hey this ain't bad at all. Cruise is superb and the style is unmistakably Kubrick. It's got that ace lost in the endless night feeling - similar to Scorsese's After Hours, but much darker and sinister. Claustrophobic and nightmarish.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Alex can figure it out on his own. He doesn't strike me as a person who is comfortable with feelings. My impression of him is he feels emotions are an intellectual failing. That's why he likes cold films. I could be reading him wrong, who knows.

[Quintus 5,399]

I could go further, but I won't. It wouldn't be right.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I think that much is obvious. Every post of Alex screams "molested by a Belgian Catholic Priest as a boy" But lets not talk about that.

[Demondm810 399]

Good. Maybe either of you two might be bothered to indulge Alex as to why. But then again, probably not, and for good reason.

Just watching a bit of Eyes Wide Shut on telly before bed. Hey this ain't bad at all. Cruise is superb and the style is unmistakably Kubrick. It's got that ace lost in the endless night feeling - similar to Scorsese's After Hours, but much darker and sinister. Claustrophobic and nightmarish.

Easily one of my favorite films. I remember "sneaking in" to see it because I was under 17. Lots of people walked out during the house party scene. Too bad, really. The movie is a fascinating look into the minds of a married couple. Which is why I suspect so many were "offended".

[A24 4,331]

The rest of your post is really subjective, so I won't argue with it, as neither of us will probably get anywhere

Indeed, bailing out won't get us anywhere. Sorry, but it's your rape and sexual undertones that are subjective. It's an interpretation and it's not even your interpretation (and mainly based on the work of Giger). And don't you think the religious undertones in Signs aren't really undertones because they are pretty much on the foreground?

Your loss, really.

Why do you say that? What is my loss? It's easy to say, "I only love deep and meaningful films but I won't discuss it with you."

Good. Maybe either of you two might be bothered to indulge Alex as to why.

You couldn't answer it even though I asked you twice. Where are these reviews calling Jaws "deep and meaningful"? Where?! This is what you've said, Quint, and I really don't think the reviewers are saying, "Actually, it's deeply personal and I won't discuss it with you". If you can't talk about what art does to you then you really shouldn't engage in discussions like these. I told you why I like 300. I still don't know what you see in Jaws other than it's deeply personal.

Actually, I agree with that. Makes complete sense. It is the symbiosis of the film and viewers own personal feeling that make it click. The film itself is just a half-product, in a way. If what I'm typing here even makes sense...

Karol

Yes, you make sense. We give it value and this "value" is based on who we are and where we stand in life (that's why our opinion on art can change over the years). But I'm more and more convinced that the style, the vision, the way it is presented, the way that it's told are more important than anything else. Why do people love Spielberg? Because of his style, it's in the way he does it. Why do people have problems with Spielberg's more recent films? Because he changed his style. He's a person, an artist who changes. It's also the reason why some other people like Spielberg's later movies better than his Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, E.T. period. They simply prefer his new style.

Of course, other elements like the subject are important too. But the subject is not what defines an artist or what makes art special. Most painters have painted flowers but it's the flower paintings of Van Gogh and Monet that speak to me to most. Did they pick more beautiful flowers for their painting? No, it's their style that appeals to me more.

Hey Quint, I completely understand you about Jaws. It's been under my skin for 36 years. Both the film and the music, I cannot separate them. Everything about the film is dear to me.

Hey Joey! Very deep, man. No, really, thank you for sharing your deep insights about a deep and meaningful film. I understand it now.

That's why he likes cold films.

Maybe they are merely "cold" because you can't relate to them?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

This thread is jumping the shark.

[Quintus 5,399]

I'm done with it. I learned a long time ago that you can go around in circles with Alex whilst he endlessly misses the wood for the trees. The way in which he ignores parts of people's posts can get right up your nose if you let it, but then you realise he has some sort of agenda in doing so. I find it odd. He is disconnected. His latest avatar is very, very apt.

[A24 4,331]

I'm done with it.

And yet, you always come back.

[Quintus 5,399]

Done with the conversation, not the thread.

I fully intend on returning and talking about Watchmen later.

[King Mark 3,630]

The attack is psychological, Quint. You can discuss what is well, but anything beyond that is dangerous

[A24 4,331]

Do you think Quint feels attacked?

[King Mark 3,630]

Probably not. You 2 are fun to read though

[A24 4,331]

We aim to please.

[Quintus 5,399]

Ha ha ha, "attacked".

Pull the other one! Classic.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,511]

"Local Hero" the other day, on Film 4.

If you have not seen it, it's about the effect of big money, and big industry, on a small fishing village in the Highlands of Scotland (well, "Big money goes around the World"!). It also happens to be one of the best films of the 80s, and harks back to films such as "Whisky Galore!", "Passport To Pimlico", and "The Titfield Thunderbolt", all of which deal with the little man squaring up to forces almost beyond his comprehension.

This film is peppered with brilliant performances including Wedge Antilles himself; Dennis lawson, Peter Reigert, Fulton McKay, and Burt lancaster. It is beautifully shot, scripted, and scored (by Mark Knopfler) and has been under my skin ever since I saw it in 1983, as much as the village got under the main character's skin in the film. To me, it represents all that I want to do, but am afraid to do - to leave the rat-race, and never return; to find my own part of the World that looks not dissimilar to the locations in the film, and never bother society again.

The final shot says it all - a ringing, yet unanswered telephone, which speaks of the divide between societies, and communities, between big and small, between those that have, and those that have even more because they choose to go without what the rest of the world says they should have.

Has anyone else seen this wonderful film? What do you think?

[Ollie 1,059]

Scy-fy was showing KOTCS Saturday night, I was exhausted after a busy day of working around the house, finishing unpacking and assembling. Decided to watch it and see if 3 years made any difference.

Nope, even worse.

HDTV doesn't do any favors to John Hurt, Ford and Karen Allen. Nor does it do any favors to the overall look of the film. Just a plain, dull story that doesn't offer any excitement or thrills the first two films did.

[Quintus 5,399]

I made my peace with it. It's bad. But it ain't no Attack of the Clones kind of bad.

My childhood got away with just a bit of a feel-up and a grope. Nothing permanent, boom boom boom.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

The rest of your post is really subjective, so I won't argue with it, as neither of us will probably get anywhere

Indeed, bailing out won't get us anywhere. Sorry, but it's your rape and sexual undertones that are subjective. It's an interpretation and it's not even your interpretation (and mainly based on the work of Giger). And don't you think the religious undertones in Signs aren't really undertones because they are pretty much on the foreground?

Your loss, really.

Why do you say that? What is my loss? It's easy to say, "I only love deep and meaningful films but I won't discuss it with you."

Good. Maybe either of you two might be bothered to indulge Alex as to why.

You couldn't answer it even though I asked you twice. Where are these reviews calling Jaws "deep and meaningful"? Where?! This is what you've said, Quint, and I really don't think the reviewers are saying, "Actually, it's deeply personal and I won't discuss it with you". If you can't talk about what art does to you then you really shouldn't engage in discussions like these. I told you why I like 300. I still don't know what you see in Jaws other than it's deeply personal.

Actually, I agree with that. Makes complete sense. It is the symbiosis of the film and viewers own personal feeling that make it click. The film itself is just a half-product, in a way. If what I'm typing here even makes sense...

Karol

Yes, you make sense. We give it value and this "value" is based on who we are and where we stand in life (that's why our opinion on art can change over the years). But I'm more and more convinced that the style, the vision, the way it is presented, the way that it's told are more important than anything else. Why do people love Spielberg? Because of his style, it's in the way he does it. Why do people have problems with Spielberg's more recent films? Because he changed his style. He's a person, an artist who changes. It's also the reason why some other people like Spielberg's later movies better than his Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, E.T. period. They simply prefer his new style.

Of course, other elements like the subject are important too. But the subject is not what defines an artist or what makes art special. Most painters have painted flowers but it's the flower paintings of Van Gogh and Monet that speak to me to most. Did they pick more beautiful flowers for their painting? No, it's their style that appeals to me more.

Hey Quint, I completely understand you about Jaws. It's been under my skin for 36 years. Both the film and the music, I cannot separate them. Everything about the film is dear to me.

Hey Joey! Very deep, man. No, really, thank you for sharing your deep insights about a deep and meaningful film. I understand it now.

That's why he likes cold films.

Maybe they are merely "cold" because you can't relate to them?

I never said I didn't relate to them you idiot. I said you related to them because they are cold.

You don't like my explanation about Jaws, too bad. I have no more desire to explain myself than does Quint.

Have you ever emotionally clicked with a film, have you ever emotionally clicked with anything?

JAWS>blade runner.

[crocodile 7,999]

Oh you're talking photography and special effect? Well in that case I agree.

Sorry man - I tend to notice other qualities which make me forget those films are thirty years old.

Yes, we are talking about film only in terms of photography and editing now (judging from reading discussions from the last few pages). This is no time and place for personal feelings, sorry. We should rename the thread to "What Is The Last Sequence-Of-Moving-Photograph-That-Has-Sometimes-Music-To-Accompany-It-For-Some-Reason(-And-Some-Other-Random-Noises-Too) You Watched?"

Anyway, what about this Watchmen review you promised last night?

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

That would be too convoluted, as thread titles go; we might lose track of what the thread is supposed to be about.

A far more suitable title would be: "How do you define God?"

Oh and here's the Watchmen review I promised:

The rubbish cartoon tiger towards the end wrecked it a bit.

[crocodile 7,999]

Come on! You can do better than that.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

But it looked like a Disney creation! Seriously man, as a result of that jarringly bad cg special effect; that movie will in twenty years time look the equivalent of 80s vhs.

[crocodile 7,999]

But it looked like a Disney creation! Seriously man, as a result of that jarringly bad cg special effect; that movie will in twenty years time look the equivalent of 80s vhs.

I mean the whole film, silly.

Karol - who doesn't see the point of including the cat either (she's just in the book, I guess)

[A24 4,331]

None of the CGI is photo-realistic. Didn't really bother me. Like in 300, the whole world, or perhaps I should say, the whole look of Watchmen is not realistic.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Was it supposed to be realistic?

[Quintus 5,399]

The cgi is pretty high-end throughout the movie. Very realistic, very believable, as are the superb special effects in general.

And then they threw in that Flintstones cat for some reason.

Well after that I saw no other alternative but to deduct a star.

[crocodile 7,999]

The cat is in the book, that's it. There is no other reason. As simple as that. I actually haven't thought of it at all.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

Well, if someone ever asks me about the Watchmen movie I'll probably say something like this: "Yeah it's a good movie, well... it should have been. If it wasn't for that darn cat."

[A24 4,331]

Was it supposed to be realistic?

The CGI? I can't say. All I remember is that all of the CGI looks like animation. The city from a far with its blimps, Mars, the lynx, ... The lynx only makes it more obvious because it's not an object.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Well, if someone ever asks me about the Watchmen movie I'll probably say something like this: "Yeah it's a good movie, well... it should have been. If it wasn't for that darn cat."

What's happening here ? The Englishman moaning about a cat ? The optimist is no more !

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Are the blimps another Blade Runner reference, or are they in the comic?

[crocodile 7,999]

Can't remember to be honest.

Karol

[A24 4,331]

I don't know, but hey, I was thinking, maybe the animation look would've corresponded with Tales Of The Black Freighter?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

So all we can determine is that once again Quint has entirely missed the point.

[crocodile 7,999]

I don't know, but hey, I was thinking, maybe the animation look would've corresponded with Tales Of The Black Freighter?

I don't think so. It was directed by somebody else entirely. Looks kinda anime.

The cat is in the comic book to establish that Veidt is a genius and he's created his own genetically modified cat. Which is kind of important to the comic book finale. In the film it doesn't make much sense.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

So all we can determine is that once again Quint has entirely missed the point.

Heh heh

[A24 4,331]

In truth, I think it's another indirect Blade Runner reference made by the comic book. Tyrell has his owl. Veidt has a lynx. And both are geniuses living in pyramids. In Blade Runner, it's a sign of wisdom and wealth. In Watchmen, it's a sign of power, wisdom (to engineer a beast like that), or at least someone with a god complex.

Alex

[crocodile 7,999]

Moore never said anything directly about Blade Runner (I think), but from a few quotes that I could gather he's rather fond of the picture. So that's entirely possible.

Karol

[A24 4,331]

I think so. The timing would be right. Watchmen came only 4 years after Blade Runner, a film which influenced many, especially artists.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

So, what's up with the new avatar, Englishman ? Time for you to watch Firefly ?

[Quintus 5,399]

So, what's up with the new avatar, Englishman ? Time for you to watch Firefly ?

Nah, we watched it again recently and finished the series last night. Boxing it off with the movie later. Such an amazing, witty show, feels like an extended family on a little old spaceship. One of the best things made for tv, very sadly missed.

And I don't usually do tv sci-fi.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I just saw Michael Bay's Transformers for the first time.

Good God.

Now there's a tailormade redneck movie. What a fucking trainwreck.

Shiny trainwreck, though.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Apparently it's the best one of the trilogy....

[Quintus 5,399]

The first one's good entertaining fun. Not a bad movie by a long stretch. Not seen the others, don't intend to.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

That's not saying much.

[Quintus 5,399]

Well, it's saying it isn't as bad as say, the PT.

Ah the good old Prequel Trilogy: destined for all eternity to be the ultimate point of reference to which all other shit shall be judged against.

[crocodile 7,999]

Watched the second one. It has a final battle sequence that literally lasts for an hour (feels longer though). But at that point there was nothing left to stop caring about (I'm not sure if this sentence makes sense). And there was a scene in which Shia dies and goes to Transformers heaven where he talks to spirits of Autobots and learns his destiny. Or some shit like that. Seriously.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That's not saying much.

Why not review Sterrenoorlog: Deel V- Het Keizerrijk Slaat Terug?

[Quintus 5,399]

Watched the second one. It has a final battle sequence that literally lasts for an hour (feels longer though). But at that point there was nothing left to stop caring about (I'm not sure if this sentence makes sense). And there was a scene in which Shia dies and goes to Transformers heaven where he talks to spirits of Autobots and learns his destiny. Or some shit like that. Seriously.

I always knew my intuition was sound.