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

[KK 3,307]

Yea, I find its pacing is a little rough around the edges by the second half. I know some here might disagree, but I think Magnolia essentially takes the same structure and imbues it with so much more feeling and intensity that you end up glued to the screen. And that's a good half hour longer than Boogie Nights.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

That bloke in the movie had a big doodle

[A24 4,326]

2 minutes ago, KK said:

I know some here might disagree, but I think Magnolia essentially takes the same structure and imbues it with so much more feeling and intensity that you end up glued to the screen. And that's a good half hour longer than Boogie Nights.

 

That's surprising. It didn't feel like it was a half hour longer. 

[Quintus 5,399]

Second half was plain boring, I thought. I saw it at the cinema and it was a riot, at least for the opening hour or so. But then it went on a major downer, which marred the overall experience for me a fair bit. 

 

Magnolia I did not enjoy. I remember I swapped my copy with a mate, for his DVD of Fight Club. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,500]

4 hours ago, The Big Man said:

That bloke in the movie had a big doodle

Really good doodles.

 

 

2 hours ago, Quintus said:

...swapped my copy with a mate, for his DVD of Fight Club. 

What is the first rule of FIGHT CLUB?!

[Quintus 5,399]

We do not talk about Fight Club (anymore). 

[Sweeping Strings 2,345]

Universal Soldier - entertaining sci-fi action nonsense with Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren, from a time when they actually got cast to headline movies that saw the inside of cinemas.

[Edmilson 7,393]

Last night I was re-watching on TNT a movie scored by William Ross: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Some cringe moments and poor early 2000s CGI aside, it's good to see that the movie aged well.

 

It got me thinking: what if the Harry Potter novels were adapted in the 2020s? Well, they would be a Netflix adaptation, each season covering one book, and they'd have a bland, boring and forgettable score by Jeff Russo, Lorne Balfe or whatever trendy composer. Also, people would criticize it on social media why Hermione doesn't have a girlfriend or something.

[Chen G. 3,943]

49 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Some cringe moments and poor early 2000s CGI aside, it's good to see that the movie aged well.

 

That movie's a huge bore.

 

Its a bit faster-paced and higher-stakes than the first one, but nowhere nearly enough.

 

Under Chris Columbus' "speak-louder-and-open-your-mouth-more-or-so-help-me" style of acting, at least Jason Issacs brings a quietness, even if he is only doing his "I'm-deliciously-evil-and-british" schtick.

[Holko 9,499]

Turns out I had a spontaneous mini-Waititithon.

 

What We Do In The Shadows - well, it was funny and clever and had a lot of good stuff but something about the form and/or tone just wasn't for me.

 

Hunt for the Wilderpeople - loved it.

 

Jojo Rabbit - rewatch, still loved it.

[Jay 37,287]

The What We Do In The Shadows show is better than the movie

[bollemanneke 3,337]

The witch.

 

All the actors were mostly great. I found the archaic language rather distracting, but really need to watch more movies about and read up on witches. Wish I could meet some people in the 1630s and ask them to explain why their endless praying got them absolutely nowhere too. Caleb is a horrible name and Thomasin is a weird name. Overall, it was okay, except for the Christian crap and horror will never be my favourite genre. Wash me with thy blood, what the heck? No, scratch that, we have a talking goat!

The first cue was in D minor, but then it became really interesting. I love scores that extensively use choir. This one certainly did and pushed both it and the strings to their limits.
 

[Chen G. 3,943]

3 hours ago, Holko said:

Jojo Rabbit - rewatch, still loved it.

 

Its not a very good comedy, in the sense that one is laughing maybe 30% of the time.

 

As opposed to drama, comedy should be consistently funny.

[Marian Schedenig 8,174]

26 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

I found the archaic language rather distracting, but really need to watch more movies about and read up on witches. Wish I could meet some people in the 1630s and ask them

 

You'd find their archaic language distracting.

 

26 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

The first cue was in D minor

 

It's an apt key for the subject matter. You must really hate Mozart's [i]Requiem[/i]. (Or Beethoven's 9th symphony. Come to think of it, it's an interesting key for that work, at least considering the finale)

[bollemanneke 3,337]

Oh I love both REquiem and the ninth sympohony! I'm just tired of D minor scores.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I watched two obscure movies most people here have never heard of. Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi in 4K version on the Disney Channel. I enjoyed them. I liked the newly enhanced visual effects although everyone says they hate them these days. I was baffled because the newly enhanced Cloud City sequences were amazing, as well as the Little Shop of Horrors thing in the sand pit and the galactic celebration at the end. Looked great!

[Holko 9,499]

6 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Its not a very good comedy, in the sense that one is laughing maybe 30% of the time.

 

As opposed to drama, comedy should be consistently funny.

...k. It's a comedy-drama. Not sure why you'd decide to judge the whole thing on only one of those aspects. Thank fuck it didn't restrain and lessen itself by just trying to force everything to be funny!

[Chen G. 3,943]

I should say I quite like the dramatic aspects of the film: they’re tender, quiet and wonderful...and they have no place in a film where a kid has a Kiwi Hitler for an imaginary friend.

[Holko 9,499]

Why not? It's mostly a nice gradual change from one to the other as the kid's worldview changes.

[Chen G. 3,943]

I didn't experience it as a smooth transition from the one to the other: to me it was funny at fits and starts.

 

Probably about 70% of the film was a period drama. Had it been 90% it would have been better; or had it been 30%, with the rest being an outrageous comedy, would have been better, too.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

15 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Its not a very good comedy, in the sense that one is laughing maybe 30% of the time.

 

As opposed to drama, comedy should be consistently funny.

That is not the reason. The reason is, because it's hamfisted and childish.

 

It's not the first time that I disagree with your way of categorizing movies and forcing strict genre rules on them.

[Chen G. 3,943]

1 hour ago, Brundlefly said:

because it's hamfisted and childish.

 

For what its worth, everything that was intended as a joke did make me laugh, and laugh a lot. I didn't mind the "jouvenile" aspect of some of the humour, but tastes in humour vary wildly.

 

I would have enjoyed the dramatic beats - which on their own were uniformally wonderful - too, had they been in a different film.

[Sweeping Strings 2,345]

Spooky double-bill for Hallowe'en.

Stir Of Echoes - when sceptical Chicago telephone engineer Kevin Bacon is hypnotised by his sister-in-law Illeana Douglas at a party, Weird Shit begins happening to him. He becomes obsessed with finding out why.

This '99 supernatural thriller was somewhat overshadowed by The Sixth Sense, but this remains a decent spookfest with some good 'jolts' and nicely surreal moments.

The Haunting (1963) - wow, talk about underwhelmed ... I guess they scared easier back then. What attempts at creepiness there are are few and far between, separated by lots of waffly dialogue and the irritating 'wet-blanket' central character's inner monologue. 

 

[A24 4,326]

 

Marrowbone puts classic Gothic horror right in the midst of the rural America of the '60s. Stylish and pretty good atmospherics. It's only 30% horror so Haunted House amusement park ride fans better avoid this one. Only 6/10 because I thought the resolution was a bit disappointing. 

 

 

A nod to The Shining?!

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Looks awful.

[publicist 4,643]

 

CONNERY TRIBUTE PART ONE: The Hill (1965), one of his six collaborations with Sidney Lumet, one of the directors Connery favored. In a British Army military prison in the Libyan desert, prisoners convicted of service offences such as insubordination, being drunk while on duty, going AWOL or petty theft are subjected to repetitive drill routines as a punishment in the blazing desert heat.

 

It's a gripping, tough, rousing film (for men) that denounces inhuman sadism and stubborn militarism. Lumet describes these reprisals very intensely and with excellent actors, denouncing the army machinery and its unconditional obedience and power vs. submission that come with it.

 

 

 

 

CONNERY TRIBUTE PART TWO: The Offence, Connery's third Lumet movie, sees him in his most intense performance as a beleaguered policeman on the verge of a major breakdown. With Ian Bannen as his equally sick foil, and Trevor Howard, this is an uncomfortable english thriller, which immediately plunges into darkness via flashbacks. Some of the drawn-out scenes where Connery roughs up Bannen can make you feel physically sick.

 

The disturbing (and career-killing) proposition beyond its physical outbursts of violence is that Connery himself is aroused by the young rape victims of his most recent case. When he finds the first victim we witness him calming the child down for several minutes until his colleagues arrive. But Johnson's way of dealing with the victim is unsettling. When a flashlight beam falls on him, he looks as if he's been caught.

 

With its flashback technique, the low-angle shots and the dreariness inside and outside of the police station (in a drab english town) where much of the film takes place, it's a hard slog but probably Connery's best performance.

[Chen G. 3,943]

I take it you skipped Zardoz, then?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,500]

Shame. ZARDOZ is a very peculiar film, but it's worth watching.

[Marian Schedenig 8,174]

6 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

The Haunting (1963) - wow, talk about underwhelmed ... I guess they scared easier back then. What attempts at creepiness there are are few and far between, separated by lots of waffly dialogue and the irritating 'wet-blanket' central character's inner monologue. 

 

I don't think we who've been exposed to decades of films can really expect to be be actually scared by (most) old films. And the framing story is definitely corny. But for me the film still succeeds in building a supremely eerie atmosphere, and the main character drama is palpable. Pair it with the truly outstanding cinematography and the sound design (probably also outstanding for its time, but still positively serviceable today) and you get something that I think still has a lot of rewatch value (or perhaps even more value on a rewatch when you know what to expect and what not to). And its M.O. (modus operandi) of showing the terror rather than the ghosts themselves certainly remains more effective today than the 1999 version's effects extravaganza was even at the time that was made.

 

My own Halloween double feature was a John Carpenter double: Halloween for the first time in at least more than a decade, and The Fog for the first time ever. Both well made, although (as I said above) I wouldn't call them scary anymore (The Haunting remains much more unsettling for me). Seeing it again after such a long time, it's amazing to notice just how many later films have taken how much from Halloween. Films like Poltergeist, Donnie Darko, and countless other could basically be taking place right next door. And Jamie Lee Curtis is excellent.

[publicist 4,643]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I take it you skipped Zardoz, then?

 

It's not available atm. But even Karl Marx is in it, how could i miss it?

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

Communist!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,500]

ZARDOZ is a very silly film, but it has some great Geoffrey Unsworth cinematography.

[Chen G. 3,943]

As is the case with Excalibur, the soft-focus gets a little old. The “look, it’s fantastical so we’re doing it dream-like and soft” approach had become cliche a hundred times over; and it hadn’t proven itself as terribly effective, either. At any rate, when it’s THIS soft and when it’s like that for the whole movie, it wears you down.

 

I heard it was so soft that theatrical dupe prints were bordering on the unintelligible. Even in HD not all the shots are as intelligible as one would like, and the more we go into UHD the more it is that films which were going for a diffused look like this will show their age.

[Sweeping Strings 2,345]

16 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

I don't think we who've been exposed to decades of films can really expect to be be actually scared by (most) old films. And the framing story is definitely corny. But for me the film still succeeds in building a supremely eerie atmosphere, and the main character drama is palpable. Pair it with the truly outstanding cinematography and the sound design (probably also outstanding for its time, but still positively serviceable today) and you get something that I think still has a lot of rewatch value (or perhaps even more value on a rewatch when you know what to expect and what not to). And its M.O. (modus operandi) of showing the terror rather than the ghosts themselves certainly remains more effective today than the 1999 version's effects extravaganza was even at the time that was made.

 

My own Halloween double feature was a John Carpenter double: Halloween for the first time in at least more than a decade, and The Fog for the first time ever. Both well made, although (as I said above) I wouldn't call them scary anymore (The Haunting remains much more unsettling for me). Seeing it again after such a long time, it's amazing to notice just how many later films have taken how much from Halloween. Films like Poltergeist, Donnie Darko, and countless other could basically be taking place right next door. And Jamie Lee Curtis is excellent.

I saw Hallowe'en '78 again a few years ago, and the only scare that still worked was the 'rock through the window' one. Michael being somehow able to get away from the psychiatric hospital by driving despite having been incarcerated in it since he was 6 bugged the hell out of me, too.  

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

14 hours ago, Chen G. said:

As is the case with Excalibur, the soft-focus gets a little old. The “look, it’s fantastical so we’re doing it dream-like and soft” approach had become cliche a hundred times over; and it hadn’t proven itself as terribly effective, either. At any rate, when it’s THIS soft and when it’s like that for the whole movie, it wears you down.

 

I heard it was so soft that theatrical dupe prints were bordering on the unintelligible. Even in HD not all the shots are as intelligible as one would like, and the more we go into UHD the more it is that films which were going for a diffused look like this will show their age.

 

They must have been using this...

 

 

[Chen G. 3,943]

I’ve heard Boorman explain how they did it in Zardoz, but I can’t recall it.

 

In Excalibur, there are some shots where one wants to go in front of the camera and clean the smudge that’s clearly on the lens.

[publicist 4,643]

Reminds me of every old studio chief fired Robert Altman for having all the actors talking over each other. M. A. S. H. then escaped by accident.

[A24 4,326]

2 hours ago, The Big Man said:

 

They must have been using this...

 

 

 

When I was little, I didn't understand why in old Hollywood movies, close-ups of woman were often fuzzy. Later it became clear they used special lenses to make the women beautiful and soft. This trick was even used in classic Star Trek.  

[Marian Schedenig 8,174]

7 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

I saw Hallowe'en '78 again a few years ago, and the only scare that still worked was the 'rock through the window' one. Michael being somehow able to get away from the psychiatric hospital by driving despite having been incarcerated in it since he was 6 bugged the hell out of me, too.  

 

Maybe someone gave him lessons.

[A24 4,326]

 

Give Ridley Scott a good script (which he rarely gets) and he proves he can make a good movie. In fact, it's his best movie in a very long time. 7/10

 

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I agree. When I was chatting to mum recently about Ridley Scott movies we liked, we pointed to this ATMITW as one that stuck out as a really good one.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

4 hours ago, AC1 said:

Give Ridley Scott a good script (which he rarely gets) and he proves he can make a good movie. In fact, it's his best movie in a very long time. 7/10

I agree, but where the heck is that cover from?

[Sweeping Strings 2,345]

16 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

Maybe someone gave him lessons.

If so, that's one helluva liberal late-70s psychiatric facility  .

Seems more 'plot hole' than 'potholes (in the road)' to me, tbh.   

[Marian Schedenig 8,174]

1 hour ago, Sweeping Strings said:

If so, that's one helluva liberal late-70s psychiatric facility  .

 

Well, it's a quote of Donald Pleasence's character.  

 

1 hour ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Seems more 'plot hole' than 'potholes (in the road)' to me, tbh.   

 

Rather nice lampshading I thought. But apparently they also retconned it in one of the sequels.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,500]

6 hours ago, AC1 said:

 

Give Ridley Scott a good script (which he rarely gets) and he proves he can make a good movie. In fact, it's his best movie in a very long time. 7/10

 

 

Is this the bit where they blow up the train? 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,500]

Keep up, Alex; it looks like LAWRENCE OF ARABIA.

[A24 4,326]

Ah, yes, David Lean is one of Ridley Scott's gods.  

[Chen G. 3,943]

One of every big director's gods.

 

The kind of director that directors love.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,500]

1 hour ago, AC1 said:

Ah, yes, David Lean is one of Ridley Scott's gods.  

...and so he jolly-well should be.

[Sweeping Strings 2,345]

22 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

Well, it's a quote of Donald Pleasence's character.  

 

 

Rather nice lampshading I thought. But apparently they also retconned it in one of the sequels.

Admittedly I haven't seen any of those since the, um, 'experimental' Hallowe'en 3.