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

[Brónach 1,302]

18 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

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: 

 

at this point just stay in spain for the shoot and don't go to morocco

 

however, ideally, even if you aren't using modern city structures or showing modern land use, wouldn't it be good to know where things are and reconstruct a recognizable landscape and where things would have been. i like vfx, isn't this what vfx is for?

[Edmilson 7,466]

4 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

Netflix did made a sequel to Braveheart of some sorts, telling the story of Robert the Bruce. But apparently the only thing memorable about it was that it featured the first appearance on screen of Chris Pine's dick 

[A24 4,338]

I think it would be easy to make better movie about William Wallace, just drop the Mel Gibson-ness and you have already succeeded, but do I want to see it? That's another question. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

21 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Netflix did made a sequel to Braveheart of some sorts, telling the story of Robert the Bruce. But apparently the only thing memorable about it was that it featured the first appearance on screen of Chris Pine's dick 

 

 

[Bespin 8,483]

Jane Eyre.

 

Free on Tubi.

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

Take it some place else @Bespin. This is the Braveheart thread.

[GerateWohl 4,370]

51 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Netflix did made a sequel to Braveheart of some sorts, telling the story of Robert the Bruce. But apparently the only thing memorable about it was that it featured the first appearance on screen of Chris Pine's dick 

That's something. 

 

A remarkable thing about Braveheart was the archaic and cruel battle scenes. Lord of the Rings followed that then. But Braveheart was first and aged very well in that regard. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

1 hour ago, Bespin said:

Jane Eyre.

 

Free on Tubi.

 

Nice socks.

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, GerateWohl said:

But Braveheart was first and aged very well in that regard. 

 

Like fine wine!

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

@Chen G., is there anything you'd change about Braveheart? Anything you didn't particularly care for? Or do you regard the film as perfect?

[Chen G. 3,949]

Hmm, I'd probably make the prince less foppish. There was a deleted scene between him and Isabella that, at least off of the page, sounds pretty good, although it would have probably slowed the film's pace somewhat.

 

There was also a deleted scene - it had appeared on a cut of the film that appeared on US television - where Wallace orders that, when York falls: "We will spare the women, the children and the priests. To all else - no mercy." I think that little line would have brought a lot of complexity into the film.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

44 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Hmm, I'd probably make the prince less foppish. There was a deleted scene between him and Isabella that, at least off of the page, sounds pretty good, although it would have probably slowed the film's pace somewhat.

 

There was also a deleted scene - it had appeared on a cut of the film that appeared on US television - where Wallace orders that, when York falls: "We will spare the women, the children and the priests. To all else - no mercy." I think that little line would have brought a lot of complexity into the film.

 

I'm fine with the foppish prince, but wow, that's an interesting line about sparing "the women, the children and the priests". I sort of wish that would have stayed in there. That single line would have given us a deeper insight into Wallace, and added a bit of nuance.

 

On the other hand, I can sort of see both sides of it. Conventional wisdom is that audiences don't want their heroes killing women and children, and the line might have come across as typical Hollywood in that regard, which I'm sure Gibson was trying to avoid. I mean, he wanted to show Wallace as brutal and uncompromising. Gibson probably showed some deftness by simply not showing that and letting audiences decide for themselves.

 

As for me, I always felt there could have been a scene between Murron’s murder and Wallace’s attack on the compound, showing his reaction to her death. While it works as it is, and there's a certain power the way Gibson edits this sequence, I do think it's a bit of missed opportunity, not witnessing his initial grief and shock, especially given how much time the film spends on their courtship and demonstrating his deep love for her. One moment he's a man who just wants to "raise crops, and God willing, a family" and live in peace, and the next he's well on his way to becoming a revolutionary and killing English soldiers. Yes, there's the funeral, but that scene serves a different purpose, and I think we missed a beat in what is otherwise one of the great character arcs in cinema.

 

Perhaps there's such a scene in the fabled four-hour version.

 

 

 

 

[JTN 2,030]

3 hours ago, Edmilson said:

the only thing memorable about it was that it featured the first appearance on screen of Chris Pine's dick 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

Well, pine is wood after all.

[JTN 2,030]

2 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

Lord of the Rings followed that then.

Gladiator, the first follower of the realistic battles of Braveheart was made earlier than LotR, in 2000. Fellowship of the Ring was released in 2001. And probably even before Gladiator, Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan benefited a lot from Braveheart as well. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

47 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Conventional wisdom is that audiences don't want their heroes killing women and children

 

But Wallace is already so brutal as it is.

 

I mean, look at Gladiator: even though Maximus sets out to kill Commodus, ultimately the way its staged Maximus holds a knife to Commodus, and then Commodus makes a lunge at him and clearly impales himself on Maximus' blade.

 

Whereas, when Wallace captures the English captain... I mean, he's disarmed and captured, and Wallace puts him to a pole and slits his neck. Not saying he's wrong: I'm just saying a traditional Hollywood movie wouldn't do it like that - in most movies, Wallace would have killed him in the heat of the battle, not after he disarmed him. Ditto the way he cracks Mornay open. And then there's that bunch of assasinations he burns alive...

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

But Wallace is already so brutal as it is.

 

I mean, look at Gladiator: even though Maximus sets out to kill Commodus, ultimately the way its staged Maximus holds a knife to Commodus, and then Commodus makes a lunge at him and clearly impales himself on Maximus' blade.

 

Whereas, when Wallace captures the English captain... I mean, he's disarmed and captured, and Wallace puts him to a pole and slits his neck. Not saying he's wrong: I'm just saying a traditional Hollywood movie wouldn't do it like that - in most movies, Wallace would have killed him in the heat of the battle, not after he disarmed him. Ditto the way he cracks Mornay open. And then there's that bunch of assasinations he burns alive...

 

Well, I know, that's my point...in this case, Gibson (wisely) ignored the conventional wisdom. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

Yeah, it gives the film an edge.

[Bespin 8,483]

Trying to make my temporary one-month Disney+ resubscription profitable.

 

[Brónach 1,302]

sold on that movie, someone's revival cinema in my neighbourhood will do fine

[crocodile 8,017]

Watched Hook last weekend on 4K. Looks gorgeous. The film itself, well... The core idea is really cool, actually, and many things are perfectly done. But then, there's a large chunk that annoys the hell out of me as well. Very schizophrenic experience watching this.

 

I also watched the Japanese Ring (Ringu) for the very first time. It was really good actually. I liked the simplicity of it.

 

Karol

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Die Hard + Die Hard 2 - 'tis the season. Bruce Willis in his action hero pomp as wisecracking, fish-out-of-water, takes-a-licking-but-keeps-on-ticking NYPD cop John McClane.

[GerateWohl 4,370]

2 hours ago, crocodile said:

Watched Hook last weekend on 4K. Looks gorgeous. The film itself, well... The core idea is really cool, actually, and many things are perfectly done. But then, there's a large chunk that annoys the hell out of me as well. Very schizophrenic experience watching this.

 

I also watched the Japanese Ring (Ringu) for the very first time. It was really good actually. I liked the simplicity of it.

 

Karol

What annoyed me most was the type casting with Holywood stars, first of all Robin Williams himself, then the americanization of the lost boys, which cost it the British charme of the original, Hook permanantly holding his hook into the camera for no reason and the permanent exclamation mark staging. 

 

[JTN 2,030]

Welcome to the (doesn’t) suck.

 

Now this is how you make a great anti-war movie.

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

16 hours ago, Bespin said:

Trying to make my temporary one-month Disney+ resubscription profitable.

 

 

Unabashedly love this version.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

2 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Die Hard + Die Hard 2 - 'tis the season. Bruce Willis in his action hero pomp as wisecracking, fish-out-of-water, takes-a-licking-but-keeps-on-ticking NYPD cop John McClane.

 

DIE HARD is on my to-watch list, for the 24th. Well, it's Christmas! 

 

@JTW, if memory serves, JARHEAD is a war film, with no actual war, and, of course, that's the whole point. It's been a long while since I've seen it. I'll give it a spin over the Crimbo season.

 

 

@crocodile, and @GerateWohl, you are in good company. Even Spielberg doesn't like HOOK. That should tell you a lot.

[filmmusic 1,834]

 

I liked the first part with the Santa Claus origins story, but not the 2nd part.

3 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Even Spielberg doesn't like HOOK. That should tell you a lot.

I LOVE Hook! I cannot understand why people don't like it.

[Edmilson 7,466]

8 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

@crocodile, and @GerateWohl, you are in good company. Even Spielberg doesn't like HOOK. That should tell you a lot.

I guess the only way one can actually love Hook and cherish it is if you actually saw it as a child and liked it. It's a beloved movie for early 90s kids.

 

But don't worry: us early 2000s kids also have plenty of movies that we love that may be intolerable if you didn't see it as a child back then 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

Hook is one of those movies I think is better than its detractors make it out to be, but not as good as those who love it do.

 

And I agree nostalgia plays a big role in how people regard mid-quality films like this, the extent to which greatly depends on how good the film is generally regarded. For example, no doubt there's a lot of nostalgia for E.T., but because that film is universally regarded as a classic, love for it can't be dismissed a mere nostalgia (e.g. the way it could for Hook).

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

1 hour ago, filmmusic said:

 

 

 

Geez Louise!!! That poster is amazing!!!

I've never seen it. It has to be Bob Peak.

[JTN 2,030]

I loved HOOK in 1991 and I love it now. I think Spielberg does, too, but it being a critical failure and the many criticism towards it made him resent it publically. Too bad, because imho it’s a genuine classic.

[A24 4,338]

Nostalgia! The Wizard Of Oz was my favorite movie when I was little and therefore I still think it is a genuine classic today. I don't care what critics say!

[Faleel 5,354]

I just watched it (Hook) too, I liked it, but I can see the flaws as well.

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

Does anyone feel Hook would've worked better as a musical, as originally intended?

I could never get into it, unfortunately. I was 16 at the time, and into the dark stylings of Tim Burton. After the success of 'Batman', Spielberg said something like "if that's what audiences want now, I can't give it to them," in reference to the dark tone. Said the guy who made 'Temple of Doom'...

[Schilkeman 964]

2 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Does anyone feel Hook would've worked better as a musical, as originally intended?

I could never get into it, unfortunately. I was 16 at the time, and into the dark stylings of Tim Burton. After the success of 'Batman', Spielberg said something like "if that's what audiences want now, I can't give it to them," in reference to the dark tone. Said the guy who made 'Temple of Doom'...

A film he famously dislikes. But yeah, I think Hook would have worked better as a musical. Most of that film, after the first 20 minutes or so, is all production and little plot. That could work great with musical numbers interspersed, especially if written by JW.

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

36 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

A film he famously dislikes.

Yeah, it's not that he can't do dark, it's that it's not personally appealing to him.

 

Anyway, it's funny now that he commented on the '89 Batman that way, cuz by today's standards it looks like a lighthearted romp.

[Schilkeman 964]

1 hour ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Yeah, it's not that he can't do dark, it's that it's not personally appealing to him.

 

Anyway, it's funny now that he commented on the '89 Batman that way, cuz by today's standards it looks like a lighthearted romp.

He can do real dark very well, but cartoon dark, like Burton, isn't really in his wheelhouse. I love the first Batman, but Returns is Full Burton, and I've never been a fan.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

In 1978, JW was interviewed, and said that Spielberg wanted to direct a musical based on Peter Pan.

Strange to think that, in 1990, Spielberg was still contemplating Peter Pan as a musical, with none other than Michael Jackson.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

12 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

In 1978, JW was interviewed, and said that Spielberg wanted to direct a musical based on Peter Pan.

Strange to think that, in 1990, Spielberg was still contemplating Peter Pan as a musical, with none other than Michael Jackson.

 

A prospect only slightly less terrifying (albeit for different reasons) than the Beatles aborted Lord of the Rings. Which, no kidding, would have featured Paul as Frodo, Ringo would have (naturally) played Sam, George as Gandalf. And John Lennon would be, well...John would have played Gollum. 

[Tallguy 3,398]

I wonder what I would have thought of Hook if it didn't feel like it was all on really big but obvious sets? I'd like to think I would still hate it on the substance. But I kind of don't know.

[Chen G. 3,949]

51 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

A prospect only slightly less terrifying (albeit for different reasons) than the Beatles aborted Lord of the Rings. Which, no kidding, would have featured Paul as Frodo, Ringo would have (naturally) played Sam, George as Gandalf. And John Lennon would be, well...John would have played Gollum. 

 

There's conflicting evidence on the who would have played who, and obviously the minutiae of the casting was tentative at best. The very first idea was the four band members would star as the four Hobbits. They started carving certain roles for themselves, and even arguing on who gets to play Frodo. When Boorman entered center stage, the idea was still that the Beatles would star, now again as the four hobbits.

 

A funny corner of history, but ultimately (like Jodorowski's Dune) one that was never actually going to get made: just a flight of fancy.

[Edmilson 7,466]

5 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Yeah, it's not that he can't do dark, it's that it's not personally appealing to him.

 

Didn't his movies got pretty dark post-Schindler's List? All of his blockbusters in the early-to-mid 2000s were of the dark and disturbing™ variety: A.I., Minority Report, War of the Worlds...

[Brónach 1,302]

1 hour ago, Tallguy said:

I wonder what I would have thought of Hook if it didn't feel like it was all on really big but obvious sets?

 

i actually really like that

[Holko 9,527]

It looks so fun!

[Brónach 1,302]

like many things in cinema it's partially an accident. but in this case and to me, that neverland seems made up is fundamental to the vibe of the movie, like (in a more widely succesful example) making a mess trying to shoot at sea was for Jaws, and probably you can find other such examples across spielberg's filmography.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

Of course Neverland is a set. It makes sense that it's a set. The whole thing takes place in Banning's mind.

[Jay 37,369]

2 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Strange to think that, in 1990, Spielberg was still contemplating Peter Pan as a musical, with none other than Michael Jackson.

 

Michael Jackson was never in consideration. This is completely debunked in the liner notes of the Ultimate Edition.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

There's conflicting evidence on the who would have played who, and obviously the minutiae of the casting was tentative at best.

 

52 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

Michael Jackson was never in consideration. This is completely debunked in the liner notes of the Ultimate Edition.

 
You guys seem fun. 

[Goldfingers 126]

4 hours ago, Tallguy said:

I wonder what I would have thought of Hook if it didn't feel like it was all on really big but obvious sets? I'd like to think I would still hate it on the substance. But I kind of don't know.

 

The intention was for the sets to be big and obvious.  The film's opening scene announces this from the beginning, placing the focus on the theatrical aspect, just as Spielberg presents his version of the Peter Pan play. The set-up resembles a cinema (Spot in the middle of the audience as a projector) except that the screen is a theater stage.
 

Hook is the sequel to Peter Pan, which was originally a play. The first scene in Neverland is literally a curtain opening when Peter rips open the parachute.
Spielberg didn't randomly choose a Broadway and London theater concept designer. Critics and the audience criticized him for the cardboard-cutout sets in Neverland, but that was clearly the intention.

The issue was that Spielberg had a very limited amount of time to prepare for the film. When he agreed to direct Hook, the release date was already set, and the sets were under construction before the script was finalized. The film was rushed and had ambitious goals that couldn't realistically be achieved within the given timeframe. Additionally, Spielberg didn't have the level of control that he would have preferred (about the casting I mean). Ultimately, he had to compromise and focus on delivering what was expected of him for the film to meet its scheduled release date.

 

2 hours ago, Jay said:

 

Michael Jackson was never in consideration. This is completely debunked in the liner notes of the Ultimate Edition.

 

One of the most enduring pieces of misinformation concerning Hook. It's incredible that some people actually believed this, even though Spielberg denied it during the film's promotion.

[Tallguy 3,398]

25 minutes ago, Goldfingers said:

The intention was for the sets to be big and obvious.  The film's opening scene announces this from the beginning, placing the focus on the theatrical aspect, just as Spielberg presents his version of the Peter Pan play. The set-up resembles a cinema (Spot in the middle of the audience as a projector) except that the screen is a theater stage.

 

Maybe this is absolutely true. Maybe Spielberg was very candid about his goals and I missed it.

 

But I don't believe it. If this is the intent then Spielberg undersold it. It feels like "All the Hollywood money can buy" like many other Big Movies of the day. It doesn't feel like a stage play or a set in terms of "Oh ho, I see what he's doing". If he WASN'T trying to make it look like a set I don't see it looking a lot different. It's kind of what big movies looked like in that era. Just not usually Spielberg movies.