What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Older Films)

[Quintus 5,399]

Surely it's The Shining. Or even Spartacus? Overall, I mean.

[mrbellamy 6,340]

I actually think "I'm Spartacus!" may be the most famous individual scene in Kubrick's career, weirdly enough, but I also feel like the IMDb ratings are probably accurate that The Shining and/or Dr. Strangelove are his most popular with general audiences. Depends on the definition, though....Spartacus is his most accessible (not sure that's the same as "beloved"), A Clockwork Orange is definitely his most notorious and, along with 2001, probably gets name-dropped the most. As Alex said, it's difficult to determine, but in any case, I don't think Full Metal Jacket is really in that conversation (except with males of a certain age, for whom pretty much everything from Strangelove on is a candidate.)

[Quintus 5,399]

Yep, Full Metal Jacket is definitely not his most popular movie, even with younger viewers.

[A24 4,368]

Young generation:

Spartacus is Kubrick?! Cool, bro!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I see it as being divided into two parts. How would you break it down into three?

?

Why would you think it's 2 acts? Location?

Partially, yes. It's also nearly an even split in terms of running time. How would you break it down into the three-act structure? The only way I can see is boot camp for the first act, down time in Nam for the second, and then the sniper battle for the third. But those last two on their own are so short, they don't have any build in the narrative cut off from each other.

[Jay 37,516]

I've often heard Full Metal Jacket described as being 2 movies in one. Never really heard anyone argue for it being 3 films/acts before, only 2.

[nightscape94 965]

Surely one of either The Shining (having a Stephen King fanbase behind you doesn't hurt), A Clockwork Orange or Dr. Strangelove is his most popular with overall viewers.

[A24 4,368]

At first, I divided the film into two parts as well but a few years ago I started to see Full Metal Jacket as a 3-act movie. In the first act (boot camp), ordinary men are being indoctrinated to become killing machines. In the second act (the marine base), the war is seen only in the distance, it's almost abstract, and very John Wayne - Hollywood like. The third act (The sniper) we finally get the payoff of the first act. Suddenly everything (even the movie) comes together. We're right in the middle of the war now and this time it's very real and very lethal. In fact, it is the trigger that makes the men become killing machines. This is what they were trained for.

Alex

[Sweeping Strings 2,403]

Locke - on the eve of the biggest job of his life construction manager Ivan Locke (Tom Hardy) leaves the site at the end of the day's work and instead of going home to his wife and kids, it transpires that he has decided to 'do the right thing' and drive through the night to be with a woman who fell pregnant after a one-night stand with him; the baby is due that night. Through taking and making phone calls as he drives, Locke tries to stop his personal and professional lives from falling apart.

The only other film like this I've seen is Buried, I think ... Locke never gets out of the car, and the drama plays out within that small space via the aforementioned calls. Hardy is terrific (well, he needs to be what with being the only 'onscreen' character for 85 minutes), and the excellent 'voices on the phone' supporting cast include Olivia Colman, Andrew Scott and Ben Daniels. I was riveted throughout ... a small gem, this film.

[Sir Hilary Bray 235]

Bourne Ultimatum- decent enough film but the camera work was both nauseating and irritating for much of it. I think I spied a plot at some point.

Die Another Day- oh the world is hollow...drawing the Bondathon to a near close (Casino Royale next) and like View to a Kill, a less than impressive Bond film somehow fun and the rest on this latest viewing. The maddening thing is, there seems to be the semblance of a decent Bond film (nothing earthshattering though) from the start up through to Bond's return to Britain. It tries to hold on at the sword fight and then it slides downwards in a blur of CGI, awkwardly delivered lines, bad lines period

Going against tradition I find myself liking Brosnan. Not my favourite Bond but he does his best with what he can I suppose. Bond seems weary enough at times having been betrayed. He's left behind by all the CGI though, the laser fight for example and then all that happens after on Iceland. Personally, it would've been interesting to see him return for one more and maybe even Casino Royale. My opinion on CR sadly has diminished.

Aside from some of the lines, weak spots tend to revolve around Jinx, Graves and Falco. Pike I'm neither here nor there about, never warmed to her.

But there's some good parts, Bond's walk into the hotel and even to a point the climax on the Antonov.

[Jay 37,516]

Empire of the Sun

My first time ever seeing this movie. Not really sure why it took so long for me to finally see it. I liked it, it was certainly well made (Well acted, scored, and shot) - but in the end, what did it all mean?

This is a film clearly divided into 3 acts. In the first we meet the Graham family, a wealthy British family living in Shanghai at the onset of WW2. Their 12 year old son, James (Christian Bale's first film role) loves planes and flying and is also spoiled rotten, with little parental discipline shown as well as a penchant for telling the house staff they have to do whatever he says. When the Japanese armed forces invade Shanghai, James is separate from his family as they flee to escape ships, and James ends up living at home alone, waiting for his parents to return to him. With the water and electricity shut off, all the refrigerated food has spoiled and there is no clean water to drink, forcing him to live off canned foods and whatever else he can scavenge from the neighboorhood houses. These early scenes made me wonder if they were what inspired John Hughes to write Home Alone Eventually he flees his home neighborhood and desperately tries to surrender to the Japanese forces so he will at least be fed and cared for, but even that doesn't work out for him as he struggles for them to pay the soliders he finds any mind. Finally he meets Basie (John Malkovich, who has apparently always been bald) who I think James sees as a bit of a father figure (he uncannily resembles a pilot on the cover of a comic book he has on him when he leaves the neighborhood). However, Basie is shown to always look out for himself above all others, letting James eat before his partner (Joe Pantoliano) when he thinks he is more useful, and ignoring him completely when he gets a chance to go an internment camp and Jamie doesn't. Jamie finds a way to be brought to the internment camp however, and we transition to act 2.

The second act of the film opens with a beautiful sequence where a young japanese boy is flying a toy plane (as Jim repeatedly did in the first act) that lands in the camp, and James (now going by Jim, a nickname given to him by Basie) returns it to him. The rest of the second act establishes what life is like in the camp for Jim, starting with a fun sequence where he travels to and fro collecting various fruits and other items from one person to trade with another, and so on. He lives with a british couple in the British barracks and frequently visits the camp's doctor, as well as Basie in the American barracks. There is a nice suspenseful sequence where Jim presumably is setting up traps outside the perimeter for Thranksgiving pheasant, but it is really another instance of Basie looking out for himself (he wanted to know if there were landmines there).

The third act involves what happens when our characters time in the internment camp ends, and where they go from there.

All three acts contain beautiful imagery and some iconic scenes (Jim finding the Japanese troops over the hill outside the costume party, Jim singing Suo Gan as the kamikaze pilot gets ready to take off, the Nagasaki atom bomb detonating, etc). But what I felt the film was missing was a resolution to everything. The film shows you in many different ways the loss of innocence Jim suffers, and the horrors of war, and what it does to the development of this young boy. This thread seems to be going somewhere when he breaks down and cries during the Cadillac of the Skies moment (when he says he cannot remember what his parents look like)... but then a short while later, he is reunited with them, and the film just ends.

In other words, we how the war affected Jim in the moment, but not how it altered his return to life after. The film needed a 4th act to show how he is changed from everything he went through before, during, and right after his time in the internment camp.

As it stands, it was a well made film for sure, but not something I will watch over and over again like so many of Spielberg's films. I can see why it isn't discussed as most of his other films. Maybe the film will improve for me with time and subsequent viewings, but that remains to be seen.

[Quintus 5,399]

Empire of the Sun

what I felt the film was missing was a resolution to everything.

I strongly disagree - especially assuming that the requirement for 'resolution' is an important thing.

In other words, we how the war affected Jim in the moment, but not how it altered his return to life after. The film needed a 4th act to show how he is changed from everything he went through before, during, and right after his time in the internment camp.

Absolutely not. That would be like that other Bale film, Rescue Dawn, having a whole extra sequence, or 'act' inserted, which depicts the escapee's life after his imprisonment - just for the sake of cheesy Hallmark tv viewer "closure"

Not everything in cinema needs to be Spelled. Out. The implication of the life of a prisoner is already there. So then, is life after.

For me EotS ends on a hopeful, but forever broken note, and that is enough.

[Jay 37,516]

Well, I felt the film told three fourths of a story. We saw how the war broke Jim, but not how his life was affected by that break afterwards. it just stops.

[crocodile 8,065]

I've not watched this film in quite a while. I don't know if I can agree that's a great piece of cinema, but several sequences stayed with me, certainly.

Karol

[Jay 37,516]

Yea, there are several amazing sequences, no doubt about it.

The cinematography was top notch

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well, I felt the film told three fourths of a story. We saw how the war broke Jim, but not how his life was affected by that break afterwards. it just stops.

That is actually what I liked about it. It's the polar opposite of Saving Private Ryan, with it's totally forced epilogue.

It's a deeply beautiful film, that still resonates with me even though its been well over a week. I plan to revisit it next year.

Yea, there are several amazing sequences, no doubt about it.

The cinematography was top notch

I actually got goosebumps during the scene where Jim touches the Zero, or Cadillac of the skies. The music helped too.

Jason, did you make anything of the fact that much of the film is seen through the eyes of an unreliable narrator?

[Wojo 2,453]

Well, I felt the film told three fourths of a story. We saw how the war broke Jim, but not how his life was affected by that break afterwards. it just stops.

I believe that's also where the book stops. EotS is based on a book.

[Jay 37,516]

Jason, did you make anything of the fact that much of the film is seen through the eyes of an unreliable narrator?

I actually disagree with you about that. There is no evidence in the movie to support your claim. I get that the film is based on a book written by the real life Jim, and that he might have put stuff in the book that didn't really happen, and that the screenwriter might have additionally added stuff that wasn't in the book. However, within the film itself there's no reason to think everything that was shown didn't really happen to these characters.

To have an unreliable narrator, you'd need Jim to literally be narrating, and have his narration contradict what we are being shown; Or you'd need to have some events shown, and then later have characters discuss these events, and their description doesn't match what we had previously seen. This film features none of that.

I think everything shown was meant to have really happened to these characters, sorry.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Expect a rebuttal from Mr. A.Cremers in the morning.

Jason. The fact that the character in Jim's comic looked just like Basie is already a very strong indicator.

[Jay 37,516]

You really need to start fixing your typos / autocorrects before submitting, or at least observing them and fixing them after you submit. They are getting really bad, man.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I just checked. I'm not getting typo's.

Never use auto correct. It's not a very useful feature on a phone if you write in two languages.

[Wojo 2,453]

morbing off

Heavy masturbation, usually done 3-4 hours a day. One can even say someone who morbs off is addicted to masturbating, and even comes up with excuses as to why he must leave, when in reality he is masturbating.

Derived from MorBSouL on battle.net.

Now excuse me while I go finish my morbing.

[Quintus 5,399]

This is where I agree with Jason. I reject the notion that some of the events depicted were just abstract imaginations or machinations conjured up for the viewer to interpret as they choose.

Why? Because the central and literal narrative just doesn't support it and because Spielberg is absolutely not that kind of filmmaker. Had it been any other director then I would not be so sure. But Steven Spielberg's Empire of the Sun, the film, is a linear storyline.

I know this because abstract meaning in film, or Art™, is an obsessive preoccupation of mine which often pisses me off that it distracts me so much from what is actually occurring, visually, on screen.

Expect a rebuttal from Mr. A.Cremers in the morning.

I'm sure Jason is quaking in his boots.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

morbing off

Heavy masturbation, usually done 3-4 hours a day. One can even say someone who morbs off is addicted to masturbating, and even comes up with excuses as to why he must leave, when in reality he is masturbating.

Derived from MorBSouL on battle.net.

Now excuse me while I go finish my morbing.

Huh?

I guess I am missing something?

[Jay 37,516]

You know what he's talking about. You typed morbing in your post, I brought up your typos, then you edited your post to say morning.

[Matt C 456]

Stardust

I can't really see comparisons to The Princess Bride (other than the pirates, the Greek chorus ghosts and Ricky Gervais' ad-libbing), but more of Matthew Vaughn's homage to 1980s fantasy films. Still find it immensely enjoyable from start to finish, Michelle Pfeiffer is remarkably game as lead witch Lamia, and Claire Danes and Charlie Cox have a nice chemistry. Ilan Eshkeri's music is over-the-top, but it works in the film and even better on CD.

A fun summer popcorn film with heart to spare.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

At first, I divided the film into two parts as well but a few years ago I started to see Full Metal Jacket as a 3-act movie. In the first act (boot camp), ordinary men are being indoctrinated to become killing machines. In the second act (the marine base), the war is seen only in the distance, it's almost abstract, and very John Wayne - Hollywood like. The third act (The sniper) we finally get the payoff of the first act. Suddenly everything (even the movie) comes together. We're right in the middle of the war now and this time it's very real and very lethal. In fact, it is the trigger that makes the men become killing machines. This is what they were trained for.

I actually find your third act to be a sort of comedic irony to the whole situation. These killing machines who were put through hell and stagnation finally get to itch that trigger finger, and they get themselves stupidly killed and unload thousands of rounds at nothing but a lone sniper.

[Wojo 2,453]

You know what he's talking about. You typed morbing in your post, I brought up your typos, then you edited your post to say morning.

I didn't correct his typo for the sake of being a spelling Nazi. I did it because the word he mistakenly typed was one I'd never heard of and found amusing. Never mind the fact a word coined from Battle.net has its origins in that hobby Steef cares not for.

[Jay 37,516]

I reject the notion that some of the events depicted were just abstract imaginations or machinations conjured up for the viewer to interpret as they choose.

Why? Because the central and literal narrative just doesn't support it and because Spielberg is absolutely not that kind of filmmaker. Had it been any other director then I would not be so sure. But Steven Spielberg's Empire of the Sun, the film, is a linear storyline.

Yea, I agree. Spielberg really isn't that guy. And even if he was capable of doing that, he didn't do it in this film. Some films don't need to be analyzed so deeply.

[Romão 2,276]

It's not so much that the events didn't really happen, but they are seen through the lens of memory and childhood remembrance. Kinda like a book you looked at constantly in your childhood up to when you were 6, and when you revisit the book in your adulthood, after years of absence, it's familiar and wonderfully nostalgic, but it's not 100% how you pictured it in your memories.

Summing it up, I agree that what the movie shows actually happened and is not ambiguous at all. However, it is heavily filtered and distorted, mostly visually, by the constraints of memory, childhood ingenuity and trauma. Everthing's seen from Jamie's distorted and idealized perspective. That's why the music and cinematography are so crucial in depicting this "childhood lens" through all the events in the movie are presented.

[publicist 4,643]

I said it a week before, i gladly repeat it: the film's narrative gains nothing by pulling broad stunts on its audience. The comic book resembles Basie, and? It's just a nice touch but if you take all these vignettes (i. e. the pictures of the japanese guy etc.) and construct some metaphoric half-world out of it where nothing really IS, what is the point?

Spielberg, like his idol David Lean, knows very well that you have to have a base to hang your 2,5 hours epics onto and that an unreliable narrator all the way through just will weaken the plot. To connect certain dots by little visual allegories etc. is OK but this is not MULHOLLAND DRIVE or LOST HIGHWAY.

[A24 4,368]

The film needed a 4th act to show how he is changed from everything he went through before, during, and right after his time in the internment camp.

As it stands, it was a well made film for sure, but not something I will watch over and over again like so many of Spielberg's films. I can see why it isn't discussed as most of his other films. Maybe the film will improve for me with time and subsequent viewings, but that remains to be seen.

The film ends so beautifully and you think it just stops and that there is no point to the movie? All I can say is: Spielberg's most misunderstood movie? Focusing solely on the story, I think you missed a lot, Jason, but then again, many did when they first saw the film, including me. You question if you ever want to see EOTS again, while to me, it's the only Spielberg movie that I keep enjoying during reviewing. So it actually makes perfect sense.

[A24 4,368]

But Steven Spielberg's Empire of the Sun, the film, is a linear storyline.

It's linear, but not straightforward, since the narrator is a child.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

They have eyes, yet they cannot see. Unable to get past their preconceptions about what a Spielberg film should be....

Is there hope for them, Alex? Can they be brought into the light?

[A24 4,368]

There's always hope, Steef, even though statements like "Spielberg is not that kind of director" do baffle me. It's an indication that to them Spielberg cannot be anything 'more' than the director of Jaws and Indiana Jones. The thing is, the Spielberg of EOTS is not the same Spielberg of Jaws, Raiders or even The Color Of Money. The Ridley Scott of The Duellists and Blade Runner is not the same director of Robin Hood or 'take your pick' either.


Alex

[Quintus 5,399]

Spielberg doesn't do ambiguity, never has. That is a fact. That's just who he is as a filmmaker, and first and foremost, as a storyteller. This isn't an artistic limitation in the eyes of his fans and critics, as you imply it to be - in order to add credence to your own argument in regards to Empire of the Sun.

It's not so much that the events didn't really happen, but they are seen through the lens of memory and childhood remembrance. Kinda like a book you looked at constantly in your childhood up to when you were 6, and when you revisit the book in your adulthood, after years of absence, it's familiar and wonderfully nostalgic, but it's not 100% how you pictured it in your memories.

Summing it up, I agree that what the movie shows actually happened and is not ambiguous at all. However, it is heavily filtered and distorted, mostly visually, by the constraints of memory, childhood ingenuity and trauma. Everthing's seen from Jamie's distorted and idealized perspective. That's why the music and cinematography are so crucial in depicting this "childhood lens" through all the events in the movie are presented.

I agree.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That is pretty close to what Alex and I are talking about, Guest2.

[Quintus 5,399]

Yes, but don't you and he doubt that certain parts of the film actually happened and that what we see is a sort of dream state? Because that's where I disagree. I'm not arguing that events aren't 'enhanced', either. There's a distinction.

[A24 4,368]

The fact that Empire Of The Sun is told primarily through visuals, and through the eyes of the child, means Spielberg heavily relies upon the audience to interpret it. Since we not all interpret in the same way, it becomes ambiguous.

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Lee, what I am really stating is that Jim's experiences are seen through rose tinted glasses. I don't really doubt that the events in the film never really happened to him (the hallucination or dream state stuff is more in reference to Ballards own memories of the War, some of he he wasnt sure really happened), but the film does provide plenty of clues that Jim was romanticizing, embellishing etc. Which is what many kids do in bad experiences. I know I did.

I also think it's that aspect that drew Spielberg to the project. Which does have some of his signature themes. Abandonment in childhood, a distant father figure etc etc.

[Quintus 5,399]

Lee, what I am really stating is that Jim's experiences are seen through rose tinted glasses. I don't really doubt that the events in the film never really happened to him (the hallucination or dream state stuff is more in reference to Ballards own memories of the War, some of he he wasnt sure really happened), but the film does provide plenty of clues that Jim was romanticizing, embellishing etc

This is closer to my own view.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Then we pretty much have the same view *opens arms for bromance embrace*

But does Jason agree?

[Quintus 5,399]

Since we not all interpret in the same way, it becomes ambiguous.

That's certainly one way of putting it, I concede.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Inception.

I found that i actually owned the Blu-ray, but hadn't pulled the shrinkwrap yet. So decided to give it a second view.

This is an incredible slick, densely plotted and often very clever movie. A triumph of style and concept over actual content. While i enjoy and actually admired many aspects of the film. It feels quite hollow and empty.

Nolan spent 8 years on this script and it shows, some very interesting and detailed concepts about dreams, inception, getting lost in a fantasy etc. But thats part of what brings the film down for me. It's filled with so many complex ideas that the movie never stops explaining things to the viewer. There is tons and tons of exposition all over the place. Most of them dry rehearsal of the next pivotal thing the audience needs to know. (

Like my first viewing, I found myself lost on the precise details of what was going on and just concentrated on the eye candy. If which this rather impressively shot film has a lot.

The cast is great, though they all play the rather typical detached Nolan characters.

Most successful were Tom Hardy, who plays his Eames like a scoundrel. A gambler and con artist who should be living in the 1930's in on of Her Majesties colonies, playing high stakes poker while drinking gin and tonics all day. I actually think he would make a very interesting 007.

The most complex role is probably reserved for Marion Cottilard, cast to perfection as the "French and difficult" Mal. She is used very effectively as both a wildcard in the "heist" plot of the movie and as a tormentor for Cobb. The kind of woman who you can't imagine ever living without, even if she is pretty fucking impossible to deal with.

But the point that Mal is the most complex and in depth character is one of the films issues, considering she isn't actually real. I would love to have a drunken night with either her of Eames. It would be memorable, even though i'd end up injured or broke. The rest of the characters, including Cobb are all such cyphers.

[A24 4,368]

I think you have to be a Bond fan to enjoy it. Don't find the film particularly attractive, I'm more impressed with the production design of The Prestige.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Why do you say that?

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Most of the Bond fans I know didn't enjoy it, and I'm like their ringleader.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Apart from the OHMSS bit in the show, it doesnt feel Bondian.

[A24 4,368]

I heard Nolan put his love for Bond in this movie. So I thought maybe I don't like Inception because I'm not a Bond fan. In fact, the whole 'Bond-esque' operation at the end puts me asleep.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Bond-esque operation?