Jump to content

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


Mr. Breathmask

Recommended Posts

Nah, WOTW is Spielberg's response to Roland Emmerich. Lost World too.

I remember Stevie praising ID4 in the WOTW bonus features.

Also, the Crystal Shit interview where he says he didn't want to make it, he wanks off to ID4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, WOTW is Spielberg's response to Roland Emmerich. Lost World too.

I remember Stevie praising ID4 in the WOTW bonus features.

Also, the Crystal Shit interview where he says he didn't want to make it, he wanks off to ID4.

He probably sees ID4 as the kind of movie he would have loved as a kid. It has all the conventions of a 50s B-movie that he grew up with, only repackaged into a big budget 1990s extravaganza.

Spielberg wishes he made ID4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy lots of classic movies, Joe. Just not that one. I actually wouldn't call it a 'classic', because I don't think it's anywhere near good enough.Invaders From Mars on the other hand...

Is a piece of shit. Definitely not a classic. It's sole advantage is it's better than the remake.

It's the po-faced tone of it all and the fact that even with its incredibly earnest level of grimness... it still completely takes the piss out of the viewer.

Joey used to use the term "cheat" for describing movies which had surprise twists he didn't like at the end of movies he'd watched, but I think the better utilisation of that word would be when it's used to describe phonies like Spielberg's War of the Worlds.

please don't use your misunderstanding of my use of the word cheat. I use it correctly. I call something a cheat when the logic of the story does not support the situations. Why some of you can't begin to accept the sons survival in Spielberg's underrated Wow is some fanboi group mentality regarding you didn't see it so it couldn't happen. The truth is the kid is unlikable and none of you wanted him to live. He did so you all bitch and moan.

Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were all unlikeable (especially the creepy child star Dakota Fanning) , not that it matters. Dennis Weaver In Duel isn't particularly likeable either but I went along 'for the ride' with him anyway. We do get into his head and relate to his problems. Spielberg doesn't always do likeable characters. The characters of WOTW were simply uninteresting and underdeveloped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Jim in EotS for eg is essentially a spoilt brat for a large portion of the movie. But Spielberg uses it to develop his growth more meaningfully than than anything written for the kids in WotW. They're basic cliches, but then again it's a Koepp script isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cruel Intentions

A review called it a "naughty kiddie film that exists as a sort of NickTeen production... on ecstasy" and that's what sums it up. Sarah Michelle Gellar digs into her role with relish, but Kathryn has no subtlety or depth compared to Gellar's work on "Buffy." Ryan Phillippe isn't much better, and the movie is pretty but shallow and forgettable. Like a lot of other MTV Movie Award nominees.

I like it. A teenie take on Dangerous Liaisons that still works.

There's more drama and tension in an episode of "Degrassi: The Next Generation" than Cruel Intentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jurassic Park 3

This is the nadir of the franchise. I don't care if more people hate The Lost World than this, it's still stupid and cliched (Lost World has some great scenes and Williams' score). I still want Tea Leoni to be eaten by a velociraptor and you can tell from the finished product that the script wasn't finished... it keeps going through action beat and then the deux ex machina finale arrives. Awful.

Don Davis' score isn't bad, I liked the integration of Williams' themes. And all the scenes with Laura Dern and Sam Neill are undeniably the best parts of the film.

Save us Colin Trevorrow and Jurassic World, you're our only hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

I like the way it looks, the way it sounds, the story is classic 70s scifi, it's not talky and takes its time. The human adventure is just beginning!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, your Zimmer avatar says it all. You're the anti-me. ;)

Williams is in there too. I'm not the anti-you. I'm the next step in Alex evolution. My knowledge has reached the limits of this universe and I must evolve!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what makes it so evil! Zimmer is not Williams.


It tries to be too profound for it's own good, and therefore comes off as a bit hollow.

In a way, it's an interesting experiment. Robert Wise learned that 'slow' doesn't equal 2001: ASO.

Alex - who saw Star Trek: TMP in the theatre at the time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Alex. You must face the truth. I am you, without the shackles of ignorance.

And now for something that I'm sure will cause some degree of outrage.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Widely thought to be the best of the franchise. I'm sure many here would agree. But... why? I think it's a very good film. But is it not, like Abrams' films though to a lesser degree, rather un-Trekish? Nicholas Meyer, as in his later sixth installment, here transplants the characters we know into a story owing more to various "artsy" literary allusions than genuine sci-fi. Why? Is this what it takes to elevate the genre? The two films are the odd ones out in my mind, while 1, 3, 4, and 5 seem to carry on much more in the tradition of the original series, based around classic science-fiction yarns. Does that make them, perhaps, lesser films? I guess most people think so. Meyer "rescues" the franchise after TMP with a story that would make any high school English teacher proud. But where is the classic Trek spirit? It's there thanks only to Spock, really. Now don't think for a moment that I dislike either 2 or 6. I'm just pointing out something I think is interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TMP also seemed more like a Trek film to me, much more in line with the original series. Unlike the first film, the enemy in TWOK is not only tangible, but familiar. That's one of the reasons I love the first film so much. There is uncertainty, mystery, etc.

The second film is more of an action flick but with more at stake for the crew. You can't really compare the two. They're both terrific entries into the series for wildly different reasons. I know a lot of people didn't care for TMP, but I can't count myself among them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Widely thought to be the best of the franchise. I'm sure many here would agree. But... why? I think it's a very good film. But is it not, like Abrams' films though to a lesser degree, rather un-Trekish? Nicholas Meyer, as in his later sixth installment, here transplants the characters we know into a story owing more to various "artsy" literary allusions than genuine sci-fi. Why? Is this what it takes to elevate the genre? The two films are the odd ones out in my mind, while 1, 3, 4, and 5 seem to carry on much more in the tradition of the original series, based around classic science-fiction yarns. Does that make them, perhaps, lesser films? I guess most people think so. Meyer "rescues" the franchise after TMP with a story that would make any high school English teacher proud. But where is the classic Trek spirit? It's there thanks only to Spock, really. Now don't think for a moment that I dislike either 2 or 6. I'm just pointing out something I think is interesting.

It may not be the typical "classic scifi Star Trek" that TMP was - or it only is because it was so successful that it changed the perspective in hindsight. Yet TMP's flaws are that it's mostly just classic corny scifi Star Trek (with a great atmosphere thanks to the slow pacing and gorgeous music with matching visuals - but people who don't respond to the score probably don't get much from that overall package).

In fact, the corny scifi bits are perhaps also TWOK's weaker points. But as a script, and as a character drama, it's one of the strongest genre films I know, and unlike any other Trek film, it sets up its themes early on and then keeps referencing and varying them. Its emotional payoff is strongly based on that. It gives Kirk's character a lot of depth, and Shatner actually lives up to the task and delivers a great performance. His eulogy for Spock never fails to bring a lump to my throat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Captain-America_Hayley-Atwell-red-dress_

Captain America: The First Avenger

Threw this on while working today because I wanted a refresher before finally seeing Winter Soldier. It's amazing how little of this movie I had even remembered; like that Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, and Natalie Dormer are even in this (well, not that I would have known who Dormer was at the time), or that the source of Hydra's powers is basically that Tesseract thing from The Avengers.

Anyways, overall this is quite an enjoyable film. I enjoy the 1940's setting, the origin story of Steve, his various allies and companions, and their fight against Hugo Weaving's Red Skull that basically wins them World War 2. It's kinda neat to see WW2 battles infused with sci-fi weaponry, and Weaving always makes a good bad buy.

Hayley Atwell is awesome in this! Intelligent, witty, a crack shot with a pistol, able to hold her one against any one in the room.... Peggy Carter is clearly the best female character in the MCU; It's a shame that based on the way the film was made, she'll forever be limited to appearing in flashbacks to the 40s pretty much (I know she cameos as an old lady in Winter Soldier). It's great they gave her her own TV series, and hopefully they can get her another love interest since she barely ever knows Steve in this (they kiss once at the end, woop de doo)

I almost wish this film had ended with Steve still in the past, and World War 2 still not over, and there could be another Captain America set in the 40s before he finally gets frozen and ends up in modern day in the third Cap film. Because the biggest problem with the film is it's ending. Everything is paced fine through the death of the Red Skull. Then instead of Rogers parachuting out of the plane, or steering it to some place he could do a crash landing, or something, ANYTHING, he just dive bombs it into the ice, then 5 minutes later the movie is over. I did like the rest of the 40's scenes, showing Stark and Carter hunting for Rogers, the end of WW2, etc. And when Cap first wakes up in the room they've made to look like his timeline, and he runs into modern day Times Square is good.... but the way it cuts to the credits after just a few awkward words with Nick Fury is lame. Especially since Rogers mentions having a date with Agent Carter, something we know will never get to happen. Bah! Also, the bonus scenes after the end credits is the weakest of all the Marvel films - it's just Rogers punching a punching bag, then Fury coming in and telling him he needs him for a mission, and it immediately cuts to a literal trailer for The Avengers (which is scored with really awful music). Weak.

Watched the Honest Trailer for this after I watching the film. Calling Cap the 90 year old virgin cracked me up :)


Oh, I quite enjoyed Silvestri's score in the film, too! The main Captain America theme is good, and it's used in enough cues to stand out and be noticable. Unfortunately there was what seemed like a lot of generic action writing, but I'm sure you could make a really cracking 40 minute cut of this score. I think his theme should continue to come back in each of the films the Steve Rogers character is in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.