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

[Groovygoth666 670]

Just finished The Searchers (1956). Never seen it before besides the finale shot and the burning homestead. Not seen many Westerns from this period of cinema as from a modern perspective these films appear to glorify cowboys and aren't so kind to Native Americans which can ultimately be a touchy subject. 

 

But for the film itself it is gorgeous, just such incredible cinematography. And Wayne's performance as a gruff ex confederate hell bent on saving his neice was gripping right up to the bittersweet ending. Jeffrey Hunter as the younger man desperate to prove himself worked great against Wayne. Something that I really liked that was incredibly minor was the use of time. While only being briefly mentioned in dialogue the film seems to be set over 5 or 6 years, really emphasising on how long traveling on horseback really took and how far both were willing to go. The biggest let down for me was the death of scar, Ethan rides right up and scalps him while he was maybe still asleep? Did I miss something and was Scar already dead? This is only the second film I've seen scored by Max Steiner (the first being Casablanca of course) and it was that quintessential western music that you expect from a film like this, might have to look into more of his work. But this is often lauded as one of the greatest Westerns and overall it's not hard to see why. 

[Bespin 8,483]

I know what to watch tonight!

 

[Faleel 5,355]

6 minutes ago, Bespin said:

I know what to watch tonight!

 

[Bespin 8,483]

@Presto I'm glad you found a new hobby, that's cute!

[bollemanneke 3,349]

Bombshell. Lithgow is so good that I want him to win. Charlize and Nicole are miscast, or I just don't like Charlize in anything. Film is disjointed. Vocals in score are... weird?

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Planet Of The Apes (original) - my first time watching this, believe it or not. Chuck Heston in possibly his most famous 'sci-fi action man' part, Jerry Goldsmith cutting loose on the score, a very neat 'evolution the other way round' scenario, a lovely 'See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil' visual gag, pioneering make-up and of course that kicker of an ending were the highlights for me.    

[Matt C 454]

Transformers: Rise of the Beasts

 

It’s generic and cliched, but it’s well shot and coherently edited— and goes down a lot better than four out of the five Michael Bay ones. Anthony Ramos and Dominique Fishback are such an upgrade over Bay’s cast, they’re actually charismatic and likeable. Steven Caple Jr. does a good job with what he inherited, but he should’ve spotted the music better instead of obnoxious needle drops in the middle of action sequences. And Pete Davidson as the voice of a Transformer… no thanks.

 

Bumblebee is still better overall, but this movie didn’t deserve the flack like the Bay directed ones do.

[Schilkeman 964]

The Sound of Music. I haven’t seen it since I was a kid. I didn’t appreciate it then. Sometimes we find things when we need them.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

So you like it better now?

[Schilkeman 964]

Quite

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Saturday night schlocky double-bill with beer again. 

Legend Of The Seven Golden Vampires - it wasn't only Bond that martial arts infiltrated in '74 ... in this Hammer production, here we have Dracula and chop-socky together at last! Peter Cushing appears once more as Van Helsing, but it seems Christopher Lee couldn't be persuaded to reprise Drac ... he's played by a different actor in this. It has the good sense to keep the action, blood-spilling and gratuitous tit-flashes coming fairly regularly and at a trim 90 minutes doesn't outstay its welcome. Also starring Julie Ege.

Piranha (2010) - remake of the Joe Dante comedy-horror original that has gore, guffaws and titties in abundance as shoals of the titular carnivorous fishies attack Lake Victoria in Arizona during Spring Break. With Elizabeth Shue, Jerry O'Connell, Adam Scott, Ving Rhames, Kelly Brook (  ) and featuring cameos from Richard Dreyfus and Christopher Lloyd.

[Jay 37,369]

8 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Kelly Brook (  )

 

Where's the other one?

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Oops, it was meant to be . 

[Schilkeman 964]

Braveheart. My God. I've never seen a film try so hard to convince me it's good. It was not successful. Mel Gibson is a cartoon. Actually, everyone is a cartoon. The editing is baffling at times. The score, while great on its own, is distractingly spotted. The dialog that exists is not worth listening to.

 

I'm fine with slow movies, but there's a difference between slow and turgid. I watched Apocalypse Now next. That's a slow movie, but it has counterpoint and depth. Even the nothing means something. They are not in the same universe of quality. I haven't been this mad at a movie since I last saw the third Pirate's of the Caribbean. I took it out of the player and immediately threw it in the trash. Never again.

 

Ok, I'm better now. Thank you.

[Jay 37,369]

6 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Oops, it was meant to be . 

 

I never heard of her before she was on this American sitcom that I liked a lot.  And now I've never seen her since!  I guess she's more popular over there?

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

I'd say so ... broadly, I'd say her modelling and presenting has gone down better than the acting.  

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

1 hour ago, Schilkeman said:

Braveheart. My God. I've never seen a film try so hard to convince me it's good. It was not successful. Mel Gibson is a cartoon. Actually, everyone is a cartoon. The editing is baffling at times. The score, while great on its own, is distractingly spotted. The dialog that exists is not worth listening to.

 

I'm fine with slow movies, but there's a difference between slow and turgid. I watched Apocalypse Now next. That's a slow movie, but it has counterpoint and depth. Even the nothing means something. They are not in the same universe of quality. I haven't been this mad at a movie since I last saw the third Pirate's of the Caribbean. I took it out of the player and immediately threw it in the trash. Never again.

 

Ok, I'm better now. Thank you.

 

Paging @Chen G..

[Naïve Old Fart 9,539]

2 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

Braveheart. My God. I've never seen a film try so hard to convince me it's good. It was not successful. Mel Gibson is a cartoon. Actually, everyone is a cartoon. The editing is baffling at times. The score, while great on its own, is distractingly spotted. The dialog that exists is not worth listening to.

 

I'm fine with slow movies, but there's a difference between slow and turgid. I watched Apocalypse Now next. That's a slow movie, but it has counterpoint and depth. Even the nothing means something. They are not in the same universe of quality. I haven't been this mad at a movie since I last saw the third Pirate's of the Caribbean. I took it out of the player and immediately threw it in the trash. Never again.

 

Ok, I'm better now. Thank you.

 

Now you know what most Scots think of it 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

Actually most of the Scots I know have complicated feelings about Braveheart. Yes, they know it's rubbish as history. And yes, they love to take the p*ss out of the fact that a movie about the national hero of Scotland was financed by Americans, starred an Australian, was filmed in Ireland and featured the Battle of Stirling Bridge with no bridge.

 

But...but...after a pint or two they'll usually admit that a big part of them f*cking LOVES IT. As they should, because the movie is f*cking AWESOME.

[Chen G. 3,949]

It helps that its "The greatest achievement of any artist in any form of human endeavour whatsoever."

 

Yes, its slow. But its deliberate. It is assured. And, for a film so unrelentingly grim and intense, there's no other film in the whole world that leave me feeling uplifted in quite the same way.

[A24 4,338]

13 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

Braveheart. My God. I've never seen a film try so hard to convince me it's good. It was not successful. Mel Gibson is a cartoon. Actually, everyone is a cartoon. The editing is baffling at times. The score, while great on its own, is distractingly spotted. The dialog that exists is not worth listening to.

 

Never again.

 

 

Agreed! It annoyed me too. Then again, I simply don't like how Gibson handles characters in all of his movies. There's something about the way he 'forces' you to sympathize with them that rubs me the wrong way. OTOH, I think he is sometimes a very impressive 'visual director'. I will never forget the 'apocalyptic' sacrifize scene in Apocalypto. That is without question one of the most nightmarish scenes I've ever seen. 

[Schilkeman 964]

14 minutes ago, A24 said:

 

Agreed! It annoyed me too. Then again, I simply don't like how Gibson handles characters in all of his movies. There's something about the way he 'forces' you to sympathize with them that rubs me the wrong way. OTOH, I think he is sometimes a very impressive 'visual director'. I will never forget the 'apocalyptic' sacrifize scene in Apocalypto. That is without question one of the most nightmarish scenes I've ever seen. 

I had the misfortune of seeing Passion of the Christ many years ago, but I haven't seen any of his other directorial efforts, and probably won't seek them out at this point. I liked him in Mad Max and the first Lethal Weapon, but those are good movies he happens to be in. 

[bollemanneke 3,349]

Fear and loathing in Las Vegas. I can't even begin to try and decide how I feel about it.

[Matt C 454]

West Side Story (2021)

 

I haven’t seen the original so give me a bit of a pass on this. Spielberg’s reverence for the source material is palpable and this is one film he’s done in years where his enthusiasm translates on screen. I wish the casting of the two leads had been better— Rachel Ziegler is luminous as Maria but Ansel Elgort doesn’t fit as Tony. I wish the focus had been on Ariana DeBose’s Anita and David Alvarez’s Bernardo because they absolutely sizzle together. (“America” is my favorite number in the movie.)

 

The staging and choreography of the musical sequences are absolutely top notch—anyone who’s seen that Busby Berkeley style opening number in Temple of Doom knows that Spielberg always wanted to do this for decades. I wish WST was a home run but Elgort’s miscasting drags down an otherwise energetic and fun movie.

[Groovygoth666 670]

Always (1989)

 

One of my absolute favourite Spielberg films. The chemistry between Richard Dreyfuss, Holly Hunter and John Goodman is outstanding and incredibly infectious in believing why these characters get along. Not only are they bringing their A Game for their performance but the script they're drawing from is solid. The humour is pure Spielberg with that dryness that is often found in his films. The cinematography is possibly the most unique in Spielbergs catalogue with the vibrant greens of the forest and fires leaping out of the screen, Dorindas white dress against the muted colours of the bar and various ash/oil covered patrons really make it stand out in Spielbergs oeuvre. 

 

It also tackles a subject that many films avoid, what happens after death. With Pete not only having to deal with his own death but having to help inspire someone, someone that is romantically interested in the girl he left behind is gripping dramatically. 

 

But the film has its problems, Brad Johnson is horribly miscast, and just isn't up to the task of matching the chemistry of the leads. The film can sometimes be disjointed, particularly some scenes just happen, no setup just this is what's happening now. The scene of Ted suddenly being in a storm and landing at a random airstrip that has a crazy guy that Pete can simi communicate through just comes out of no where and feels so disconnected from everything else. With the ending also feeling rushed, like the writers weren't sure how to end and so kind of quickly wrap things up and don't allow it to breath. 

 

But Williams score is perfectly executed, reserved and emotional, Follow Me being just an incredibly fun cue amongst all the drama and otherworldly nature of dealing with death, love and loss. I was so happy with it getting a LaLaLand release and frequently revisit it. 

 

Not to add to the special effects, I love it when I watch a film and have to wonder "how did they do that". The obvious answer being a blend of miniatures, blue screen and shot for real but the blending of all these elements and not knowing where one begins and the other ends just elevates a film for me. 

 

Overall a solid film but flawed and I really hope that it one day gets the attention it deserves. 

[Brónach 1,302]

On 04/12/2023 at 8:10 PM, Nick1Ø66 said:

Actually most of the Scots I know have complicated feelings about Braveheart. Yes, they know it's rubbish as history. And yes, they love to take the p*ss out of the fact that a movie about the national hero of Scotland was financed by Americans, starred an Australian, was filmed in Ireland and featured the Battle of Stirling Bridge with no bridge.

 

But...but...after a pint or two they'll usually admit that a big part of them f*cking LOVES IT. As they should, because the movie is f*cking AWESOME.

 

you're not selling me on this movie

[JTN 2,030]

Yesterday’s rewatches.

Next up: A Taste of Honey & The 400 Blows.

 

 

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

18 minutes ago, Brónach said:

you're not selling me on this movie

 

Did you watch it?

[JTN 2,030]

On 4/12/2023 at 9:10 PM, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

 

But...but...after a pint or two they'll usually admit that a big part of them f*cking LOVES IT. As they should, because the movie is f*cking AWESOME.

Agreed.

I adore BRAVEHEART. And I respectfully suggest to any Scottish filmmaker who dislikes it, to try and make a better film about William Wallace. I wish them good luck. BRAVEHEART was a milestone. It inspired many filmmakers such as Peter Jackson who made his crew watch it before shooting LOTR. But look at GLADIATOR and the battle in Germania. BRAVEHEART is a masterpiece that can only be imitated, but never surpassed. And James Horner’s score is sublime.

[Chen G. 3,949]

11 minutes ago, JTW said:

. It inspired many filmmakers such as Peter Jackson who made his crew watch it before shooting LOTR. But look at GLADIATOR and the battle in Germania. BRAVEHEART is a masterpiece that can only be imitated, but never surpassed.

 

Quite. Given that Mel Gibson had directed one - just one - movie before Braveheart, it would have been a small miracle that, in taking on this gigantic movie and unwieldy screenplay, it would have turned out just half-competent and vaguely comprehensible. That it was in fact to be so great that even Sir Ridley Scott couldn't better it (in spite of making a superb and sublime film in its own right) takes it out of the realm of a "small miracle" and into the cinematic equivalent of the parting of the red sea.

 

I mean, imagine yourself back in 1995. There's another Scottish movie, Rob Roy, by a director with a good deal more experience, a seemingly much better cast (I mean, John Hurt, Liam Neeson AND Jessica Lange? Beside Gibson, the only person one might have recognised in Braveheart's cast was Patrick McGoohan), a script that was considered far stronger in the casting circles, was much more wieldy story-wise AND it was going to release first...anyone in their right mind would bet on Rob Roy winning that race. But Braveheart, through sheer force of its greatness, wiped the floor with Rob Roy, itself a perfectly respectable movie.

 

And yes, it was very much a model to so much of what we know  and love today in film and television: The influence of Braveheart is just about in every frame of The Lord of the Rings. Films like Gladiator are obviously modelled on it, and so are television series like Game of Thrones and Vikings.

[Brónach 1,302]

17 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Did you watch it?

 

nope

[Chen G. 3,949]

Just now, Brónach said:

nope

 

In a thread like this, there's only one piece of advise to be given: "Braveheart - if you didn't watch it, go ahead. If you did watch it...just watch it yet again."

 

Contrary to what the naysayers are saying, its absolutely, positivelly one of the greatest of all motion pictures.

[A24 4,338]

19 minutes ago, JTW said:

Agreed.

I adore BRAVEHEART. And I respectfully suggest to any Scottish filmmaker who dislikes it, to try and make a better film about William Wallace. I wish them good luck. BRAVEHEART was a milestone. It inspired many filmmakers such as Peter Jackson who made his crew watch it before shooting LOTR. But look at GLADIATOR and the battle in Germania. BRAVEHEART is a masterpiece that can only be imitated, but never surpassed. And James Horner’s score is sublime.

 

Cats or dogs, which do you prefer?

[Brónach 1,302]

it's lame that it's in english

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

 

In a thread like this, there's only one piece of advise to be given: "Braveheart - if you didn't watch it, go ahead. If you did watch it...just watch it yet again."

 

Contrary to what the naysayers are saying, its absolutely, positivelly one of the greatest of all motion pictures.

 

i suppose i'll watch it wether to laugh at it or love it

[Chen G. 3,949]

Jus think of it as "Game of Thrones from the 1990s", as I once heard it described.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

39 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Jus think of it as "Game of Thrones from the 1990s", as I once heard it described.

 

While we agree on Braveheart's brilliance, I'm not sure this is an apt descriptor. Other than sharing a quasi-medieval setting, I see very little resemblance between the two beyond the superficial. I'm a huge fan of both, and in fact this is the first time I've ever even thought of them together.

 

I think GOT probably has more in common with something like, I don't know, The Sopranos, than Braveheart.

[Brónach 1,302]

because it's a soap opera

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

10 hours ago, Brónach said:

 

you're not selling me on this movie

 

Well there go my plans to open a cinema revival house featuring mid-90's historical epics in your neighbourhood. 

[Schilkeman 964]

Scott did best Braveheart. It's called Kingdom of Heaven. And just as Lucas was inspired to make a better Flash Gordon, Jackson endeavored, with the help of much stronger source material, to make a better Braveheart. I think they were both successful. Braveheart seems to appeal to a Certain Kind of Dude^tm. I, apparently, am not one.

[Chen G. 3,949]

21 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

It's called Kingdom of Heaven.

 

You know, I like Kingdom of Heaven, but I feel like it really doesn't compare - in any version - to either Gladiator or to Braveheart, mostly thanks to its subpar screenplay.

 

Also, while Juaquim Phoenix and Patrick McGoohan made absolutely blood-curdling antagonists, Marton Csokas in Kingdom of Heaven is absolutely godawful, I always thought.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

I love Kingdom of Heaven. It's one of my favourites. It's been said many times before, but I don't think there's been a film in history that was as improved in the Director's Cut. Improved is almost the wrong word, it's a wholly different film.

 

That said, I agree it's a tier below Braveheart & Gladiator. Though I'd still put it way above Scott's other historical epics, and most others of the time (Troy, Alexander, etc.)

 

As an aside, for those who complain about historical accuracy in these kind of films, there's probably no bigger offender than KoH.

[Schilkeman 964]

You have the audacity, the shear-faced gall, to call the repository of bland Hollywoodisms and bad action film-making that is Gladiator better than Kingdom of Heaven? Pardon me, are you Aaron Burr, sir? You continue to stupefy and astound me. Never change.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

Marton Csokas in Kingdom of Heaven is absolutely godawful, I always thought.

 

Funny, I always liked him that role. I thought he was a pretty good villain.

 

The bit of casting I thought totally baffling in that film was Ed Norton...thoroughly miscast in the role. Well, what you could see of him. I found just knowing it was Norton under that mask and hearing his voice to be a distraction.

[Chen G. 3,949]

41 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

for those who complain about historical accuracy in these kind of films, there's probably no bigger offender than KoH.

 

Oh yeah! That's part of what I don't like about it. Not so much the historical inaccuracy in and of itself - although as someone who lives within 90 minutes' drive of both Hattin, Jerusalem and Ibelin, its pretty funny to see them look NOTHING like themselves - but just the lack of potential conflict. I find the King's "safeguard in particular the Jews and the Muslims. All are welcome in Jerusalem, not only because it is expedient but because it is right" hard to swallow, and likewise that the Muslim populace of Jerusalem, hearing Balian's rallying speech on the battlements, would find it at all compelling is baffling to me.

 

They're just missed opportunities to have more conflict: the film just needed a bastard like Proximo, or at least a real-politik figure like Robert the Bruce Senior, to generate more conflict. As it is, the only conflict is with Guy and then later on with Saladin. They should have been more tension WITHIN the kingdom.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

2 hours ago, JTW said:

And I respectfully suggest to any Scottish filmmaker who dislikes it, to try and make a better film about William Wallace. I wish them good luck.

 

Indeed. And anyone who watches either of the quasi-sequels to Braveheart (i.e. Outlaw King and Robert the Bruce) can attest to how effective Gibson's film is by contrast.

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

I've heard of people sitting down to watch Braveheart - which a 172 minute affair sans credits - thinking they had only been sitting down for twenty minutes. Can't say its like that for me, but I get it...

[Brónach 1,302]

51 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Oh yeah! That's part of what I don't like about it. Not so much the historical inaccuracy in and of itself - although as someone who lives within 90 minutes' drive of both Hattin, Jerusalem and Ibelin, its pretty funny to see them look NOTHING like themselves

 

don't they make balian be from somewhere else on purpose, so they get to shoot some hours from here (like half of westeros at this point), and then call it "france", meaning unclear. we wouldn't want to alienate the british audience after all.

[Chen G. 3,949]

2 minutes ago, Brónach said:

don't they make balian be from somewhere else on purpose, so they get to shoot some hours from here (like half of westeros at this point), and then call it "france"

 

Balian is from France, yes. And an inordinate and far too long part of the film takes place still in France and in Italy, before Balian gets to the Holy Land. Another one of the my issues with the film.

 

But yes, the film takes place in the Crusader kingdom, with Morrocco standing-in for it. So Hattin is a desert plain, when in actuality THIS is Hattin: 

[Brónach 1,302]

it was a cool set to visit but yeah dumb. and it's not like the movie is getting any shorter!

 

at least maximus arrives magically to mérida while still bleeding, now that's a way to speed it up

[Chen G. 3,949]

8 minutes ago, Brónach said:

at least maximus arrives magically to mérida while still bleeding, now that's a way to speed it up

 

Yeah, Gladiator on the page has its fair share of clumsiness, too. But I feel like the raw power of the story and the strength of the performances (excellent across the board) push it to a point where those things just...don't matter anymore.

 

There was an interview with Russel Crowe recently that I found strangely moving: "We made Gladiator over 20 years ago, and I guarentee you somewhere right now, its playing on primetime television. It has the longest legs."