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

[Edmilson 7,473]

I saw it when I was 11 and I loved it! Years later, I re-watched it again, this time in the company of my then 9-year-old cousin, and he also loved it.

 

So yeah, it may be somewhat complex for a movie featuring classic cartoon characters but it's not completely "un-kid-friendly".

[filmmusic 1,842]

 

I really enjoy this film, although it has a lot of CGI (which I generally don't like), almost as much as the Indiana Jones original trilogy.

And what a wonderful score. It should have been nominated for an Oscar!

[Jay 37,373]

4 minutes ago, filmmusic said:

it has a lot of CGI (which I generally don't like), almost as much as the Indiana Jones original trilogy

 

What?

[Edmilson 7,473]

I think he meant the Star Wars prequels? Or the last two Indiana Jones movies?

[filmmusic 1,842]

7 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

What?

Oh, the "almost as much etc..." went with the "I really enjoy this film".

I should have written it like this I guess:

 

I really enjoy this film, almost as much as the Indiana Jones original trilogy, although it has a lot of CGI (which I generally don't like).

 

[Jay 37,373]

Ohhhhhhhhh

[Jurassic Shark 12,090]

MacGruber. Impressively bad.

[filmmusic 1,842]

 

Director's cut, with the Jerry Goldsmith score of course. (I don't like the Tangerine Dream one)

I don't understand the hate for this film. I like it a lot, but I don't know what went wrong with it.

I love the magical atmosphere, it has great production values and a sublime musical score (I think it's Goldsmith's masterpiece).

Also it's very hard to believe that they built all that forest in a studio! Wow!

[Brundlefly 2,385]

 

The Witches (1990)

 

Anyone else watched this, when he was way too young? There seems to be a whole generation of children that got traumatized by this. Now I just admire how ambitious and virtuoso the direction and the actors are. It's not just a great film for children, it is a great film overall!

[Chen G. 3,950]

To me, Legend is the quintessential Ridley Scott turkey: a film of such lustrous pictorial beauty as to dazzle the eye, but all in the service of a screenplay so stupid, that it was either written by guinea pig rather than a human, or it was written by a human and one just didn't use the right definition for what encompasses "human"...

[A24 4,346]

At least Scott knows he's not a writer, unlike our friend Zack Snyder. But yes, I wish he would realize when a script is good or bad. Robin Hood anyone? 

 

Anyway, I do know that after The Duellists, Alien and Blade Runner, Ridley wanted to make a warm and animation like (Disney in particular) movie, because he was tired of being accused as a 'director of cold movies'. To be honest, I think Ridley did a far better job with Thelma & Louise (which is indeed warm and human).

 

Yes, the script for Legend was terrible, the journey non-existent, and his studio forest burned down to the ground, but the film did gave us one good scene:

 

[Groovygoth666 672]

Dr. No (1962).

 

Me and a friend decided to watch through the Bond films together and of course this was the starting point. 

 

What an incredibly basic introduction to what the character would become in later films. 

 

Having grown up on the Brosnan and Craig entries this was really a bare bones film. 

 

But for its nearly 2 hour runtime Connerys Bond is captivating. The entire focus of the film is the mystery around Crab Key island, those who have investigated it and the price they've paid. But Bond is determined to get to the bottom of it and so much of the film is based around this investigation. Without Connerys charisma this could of been a slog. 

 

Connery really feels like a spy in this film. With so much focus being on his investigation and weeding out the players involved in a larger conspiracy. And the tactics/gadgets utilised feel like real spy tricks that could be used in the era. 

 

But for a film called Dr No he almost plays no direct part or is so absent from the film to have little impact. The scene with him and Bond is incredibly gripping though, their back and forth being a great exchange of different ideologies but also the name drop of SPECTRE and Bonds complete lack of knowledge on the organisation is such a great tease. 

 

While the spy work is the drive of the film the villain is left wanting. A man with mechinal hands should of given a great final fight but ultimately he was so quickly deposed that his hands had little to no impact. 

 

Overall this was a great refresher on what a spy film used to be. The focus being on the mystery rather than action. So I look forward to From Russia With Love and the evolution of Bond with the many entries to come. 

 

 

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

The Bond 'formula' really kicks in with Goldfinger. 

Bonnie And Clyde - first time for me with this depiction of the notorious Depression-era bank robbers. It was largely unpopular with critics, but was a box-office hit and a winner of 2 Oscars. Groundbreaking in its depiction of sexuality (found 'swordsman' Warren Beatty playing the largely impotent Clyde Barrow quite amusing) and violence (the blood flows pretty freely, and that ending still packs a punch).

Let The Wrong One In - Irish horror-comedy involving vampires (as you may have guessed from the title). Low-budget and consequently a little rough around the edges, but quite amusing (there's a fun turn from Anthony Head as Dublin's answer to Van Helsing).

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

Objectively speaking, The Spy Who Loved Me is the greatest Bond film.

[Tallguy 3,401]

5 hours ago, Groovygoth666 said:

Dr. No (1962).

 

Me and a friend decided to watch through the Bond films together and of course this was the starting point. 

 

What an incredibly basic introduction to what the character would become in later films. 

 

Having grown up on the Brosnan and Craig entries this was really a bare bones film. 

 

But for its nearly 2 hour runtime Connerys Bond is captivating. The entire focus of the film is the mystery around Crab Key island, those who have investigated it and the price they've paid. But Bond is determined to get to the bottom of it and so much of the film is based around this investigation. Without Connerys charisma this could of been a slog. 

 

Connery really feels like a spy in this film. With so much focus being on his investigation and weeding out the players involved in a larger conspiracy. And the tactics/gadgets utilised feel like real spy tricks that could be used in the era. 

 

But for a film called Dr No he almost plays no direct part or is so absent from the film to have little impact. The scene with him and Bond is incredibly gripping though, their back and forth being a great exchange of different ideologies but also the name drop of SPECTRE and Bonds complete lack of knowledge on the organisation is such a great tease. 

 

While the spy work is the drive of the film the villain is left wanting. A man with mechinal hands should of given a great final fight but ultimately he was so quickly deposed that his hands had little to no impact. 

 

Overall this was a great refresher on what a spy film used to be. The focus being on the mystery rather than action. So I look forward to From Russia With Love and the evolution of Bond with the many entries to come. 

 

 

 

Totally agree on the emphasis on the spying. No is actually one of my top five or six favorite Bonds. No spoilers but FRWL doubles down on this and then gives us a better script. But Connery is the indispensable ingredient. There have been many good Bonds in different ways but nobody else could have carried this film.

 

IIRC in the book No is dispatched by having Bond escape, commandeer a crane, and while No is directing operations Bond drops a truckload of bat guano on him.

 

One funny detail is the incident that M refers to that put Bond in hospital and caused M to insist that Bond change his gun is actually the end of From Russia With Love. (The movie is different.) This was an odd first choice of movie. OTOH, I don't see where it would have fit anyplace else. (Casino Royale was unavailable. Although they tease out several specific "I'm a spy" moments from the book anyway. The one I remember is him checking into his room.)

 

The most accurate book to screen Bond films are (in no order) the first four. There is a lot of Flemming in there. I mean, it's not The Martian or anything.

 

1 hour ago, Sweeping Strings said:

The Bond 'formula' really kicks in with Goldfinger. 

 

Sort of. Arguably, yes. But they stray away from it to a certain extent (unless the formula is "bigger and bigger") for the next three films in varying degrees. Then Guy Hamilton comes back for Diamonds are Forever and cements it permanently. I love Goldfinger but I find Hamilton's other Bonds nigh unwatchable.

 

6 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Objectively speaking, The Spy Who Loved Me is the greatest Bond film.

 

You misused "objectively". And I like Moonraker better. (Although there is nothing better than that Lotus.) TSWLM, MR, and For Your Eyes Only are the only Moore films I can bear.

 

What do I know? I love Goldeneye.

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

42 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

You misused "objectively".

 

True, I did. 

 

[Schilkeman 964]

I love the first three Bond films. I love how straightforward they are. They’ve been chasing the high of Goldfinger ever since, but I think Bond belongs in the 60s. Every other era has to make an excuse for Bond. 

[Tallguy 3,401]

35 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

I love the first three Bond films. I love how straightforward they are. They’ve been chasing the high of Goldfinger ever since, but I think Bond belongs in the 60s. Every other era has to make an excuse for Bond. 

 

My favorite quote from Michael G. Wilson is "We always set out to make From Russia With Love and we end up making Thunderball."

[Schilkeman 964]

23 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

 

My favorite quote from Michael G. Wilson is "We always set out to make From Russia With Love and we end up making Thunderball."

This is 100% my problem with the whole series. That’s a great quote, thanks. The films seem to take themselves too seriously, or not seriously enough.

[Jay 37,373]

 

Happy Death Day

 

This is a pretty fun time-loop movie, with this one being about a college student stuck repeating a day where she is continually murdered by an unknown assailant hidden by a mask of her school's sports mascot.  It's sort of Groundhog Day meets Scream, though without too much of the self-referential stuff Scream had.  Jessica Rothe as the main character is new to me, but she was really good!  The beginning of the movie is devoted to showing how bad of a person she is (she's an asshole!), which might make you want to turn it off, before you realize its all done so she can go through personal growth while repeating the day, just like Bill Murray did in Groundhog Day.  Another thing that sets this apart from other time loop movies is that it has a mystery to solve: Who is killing her and why?  And will killing him break the loop?  There's some good comedy along the way too, and it's a nice and lean 90 minutes before the credits are rolling.

 

 Recommended!

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,433]

I love this movie, it's simple, fun and Jessica Rothe is so great in it. The second is not as good as this one but it's still a lot of fun IMO.

[Jay 37,373]

 

Happy Death Day 2U

 

Damn, what a disappointing sequel!!!  It starts of well enough, with a minor character from the first seen to have a different perspective on some of the events from the first movie, then getting stuck in a timeloop of his own where he is murdered every day... they could have had a lot of fun with Jessica Rothe's character guiding and helping him instead of being the new main character again, and they also introduce something cool with there being two versions of the same person being around at once.... but then everything goes dumb when Rothe is stuck in the same loop as the first movie again, only with various differences and a different killer to unveil.  And to make matters worse, they explain the loop with dumb science.  The new side characters were totally uncharismatic and uninteresting, the whole plot was just a retread of the first.  The stuff about her having to choose between a life that isn't hers and her original life was genuinely interesting, but not explored enough.  Nothing was explored enough, which is the whole problem.

 

I was not surprised at all to learn after watching that they started filming this only SEVEN MONTHS after the first came out, and it was then in theaters seven months after that.  No wonder the script is so disappointing.  Rothe is still good, there's a decent amount of good and/or funny scenes, but overall this is a lame sequel that makes the first worse by existing.  I'd only watch a third if the script really makes everything that happened here worth it.  Oh well..

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

And the 'REALLY Bad Hair Day' award goes to ... 

[JTN 2,046]

16 hours ago, Jay said:

 

Happy Death Day

 

This is a pretty fun time-loop movie, with this one being about a college student stuck repeating a day where she is continually murdered by an unknown assailant hidden by a mask of her school's sports mascot.  It's sort of Groundhog Day meets Scream, though without too much of the self-referential stuff Scream had.  Jessica Rothe as the main character is new to me, but she was really good!  The beginning of the movie is devoted to showing how bad of a person she is (she's an asshole!), which might make you want to turn it off, before you realize its all done so she can go through personal growth of repeating the day, just like Bill Murray did in Groundhog Day.  What makes this fun is that it has a mystery to solve: Who is killing her and why?  And will killing him break the loop?  There's some good comedy along the way too, and it's a nice and lean 90 minutes before the credits are rolling too.  Recommended!

Never heard of this film, but you had me with Groundhog Day. It’s a fun concept that, if used skillfully, can work great in any genre. Will check it out one of these days, thanks

for recommending it!

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

On 07/01/2024 at 2:04 PM, Tallguy said:

 

My favorite quote from Michael G. Wilson is "We always set out to make From Russia With Love and we end up making Thunderball."

Yep ... the Bonds were, I think, the first movie series to spend more on each subsequent release instead of less and the policy was 'we've gotta outdo the last one in terms of spectacle ... bigger, better, faster, MORE!'. Although this would sometimes lead to a relatively lower-key entry following an 'excessive' one (OHMSS following YOLT and FYEO following MR, for example).     

[Tallguy 3,401]

1 hour ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Yep ... the Bonds were, I think, the first movie series to spend more on each subsequent release instead of less and the policy was 'we've gotta outdo the last one in terms of spectacle ... bigger, better, faster, MORE!'. Although this would sometimes lead to a relatively lower-key entry following an 'excessive' one (OHMSS following YOLT and FYEO following MR, for example).     

 

Terrance Young insisted in having a kitchen sink somewhere in Thunderball. As in "everything and the..." Thunderball is my favorite. It had all of the excesses of later Bond while still having the cool of Dr. No and FRWL. IIRC he does not say "Bond, James Bond" in either of Young's sequels. (Although I think in Thunderball someone else does.)

[bollemanneke 3,352]

Knocked Up. And they're arguing. Let's turn this off. WHY, WHY DO THEY ALSO HAVE TO ARGUE???

[A24 4,346]

Great movie!

[filmmusic 1,842]

 

I tried twice to watch it, but I slept both times. (I have reached the 1 hour mark).

I wonder if I should try a third time and finish it.

It didn't grab me at all. And  the music score didn't help.

[Tallguy 3,401]

58 minutes ago, filmmusic said:

 

I tried twice to watch it, but I slept both times. (I have reached the 1 hour mark).

I wonder if I should try a third time and finish it.

It didn't grab me at all. And  the music score didn't help.

 

I seem to remember that a) I liked it, 2) I wanted it to have WAY more Terrance Stamp and d) I didn't ever see the sequel.

[Groovygoth666 672]

From Russia With Love (1963)

 

A direct follow up to Dr No, with SPECTRE looking to draw out Bond and dispatch him for killing No while also ramping up tensions between Britain and Russia. 

 

Not really sure about this one yet. On the one hand Connery was great again and enjoyed his chemistry with Pedro Armendáriz as they investigate the validity of Daniela Bianchis Tatiana offer of a Lektor in exchange for her defection, but felt these scenes lacking overall. 

 

Because there's no mystery here. With the scene of SPECTRE spelling out their plan and the players they're going to use and how early in the film we the audience know Bond is mostly on a wild goose chase and that we're just seemingly going through the motions. Perhaps cutting the SPECTRE scene down and (this is probably sacrilege) removing the early Grant scenes we know as much as Bond and can keep us guessing where Tatianas loyalties lie and who Grant is and what his intentions are. 

 

Speaking of Grant, Robert Shaw gives a chilling performance with his laser focus on Bond as he stalks him through Istanbul. Loved the shot of Bond on the train platform with Grant moving along inside the carriage not taking his eyes off him, even using the reflection in a picture to keep watch. 

 

Q gets his introduction as well, but it was only a brief appearance. And the few gadgets once again feel like they could of been really in use by spies in the sixties.

 

Overall a solid continuation but after being pleasantly surprised by No and it's mystery and not knowing where it would lead having the mystery solved and answered up front really took out a lot of the suspense for me. 

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Gotta love that train fight, though. 

[Groovygoth666 672]

10 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Gotta love that train fight, though. 

Definitely, that was a great fight! 

[Schilkeman 964]

It's my favorite of the bunch. I always thought the sound design was exceptional for its era, and it has a quiet menace that none of the others seem to match.

[Tallguy 3,401]

15 hours ago, Groovygoth666 said:

A direct follow up to Dr No, with SPECTRE looking to draw out Bond and dispatch him for killing No while also ramping up tensions between Britain and Russia. 

 

Which is backwards. In the books he is sent to Jamaica on an "easy" assignment after being nearly killed by Rosa Klebb with her poison shoe. (The book leaves him for dead.)

 

It's also just the USSR plotting for revenge for the previous books. They invented SPECTRE (took it from Thunderball, actually) because they thought they might want to sell Bond films behind the Iron Curtain some day.

 

15 hours ago, Groovygoth666 said:

Because there's no mystery here.

 

It's kind of a Columbo thing. You want to see how clever Bond is after you already know the game. Especially when Bond starts taking them all off the script.

 

This really is arguably the best Bond film. As much as I love some of the later epics.

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

19 hours ago, Groovygoth666 said:

Definitely, that was a great fight! 

 

Those 'Bond and opponent slugging it out in a confined space' fights tend to have a more tense and brutal edge to them (the one in Goldeneye before him and Alec go down the dish ladder and the bathroom/stairwell ones in Casino Royale, for example).  

[Tallguy 3,401]

On 15/01/2024 at 2:27 AM, Sweeping Strings said:

the one in Goldeneye before him and Alec go down the dish ladder

 

Maybe I don't see the right movies, but in 1995 that one was especially savage. For a Bond film as well as just in general.

 

Otherwise there have been a few "Bond and opponent in small space" (Diamonds are Forever with the elevator fight) and they always get compared to From Russia.

[Groovygoth666 672]

On 14/01/2024 at 10:29 PM, Tallguy said:

 

Which is backwards. In the books he is sent to Jamaica on an "easy" assignment after being nearly killed by Rosa Klebb with her poison shoe. (The book leaves him for dead.)

 

It's also just the USSR plotting for revenge for the previous books. They invented SPECTRE (took it from Thunderball, actually) because they thought they might want to sell Bond films behind the Iron Curtain some day.

I've not read the books, so just coming from what the films are doing I think they did a good job of making it a cohesive story. 

 

That's funny to hear, with people complaining about how modern Hollywood films are sometimes made to cater to Chinese audiences, that a similar thing was also something on the filmmakers minds back in the 60's shows it's not a new practice (also why not make a film that appeals to the most people?) 

 

 

On 14/01/2024 at 10:29 PM, Tallguy said:

It's kind of a Columbo thing. You want to see how clever Bond is after you already know the game. Especially when Bond starts taking them all off the script.

Ah that's a good point, I've not watched Columbo but know that's part of the premise. I suppose to me the point of a mystery is that you're solving it along with the main character. Which they did in Dr No, while here they are maybe trying to switch things up so it's not just a repeat. But even with that mindset I still enjoyed the scenes with Bond and Bey as they worked together. And like you say Bond takes things off script so that certainly makes things interesting.

 

As mentioned that train fight is often held in high standard when compared with the other films. And for good reasons. I also enjoyed the build up to it, with Grant monologuing about how he's been there watching everything and how SPECTRE plans to use all of it to discredit Bond. 

 

On 14/01/2024 at 10:29 PM, Tallguy said:

This really is arguably the best Bond film. As much as I love some of the later epics.

Perhaps I need to revisit it soon with a more open mind, but like you I love Goldeneye. 

 

What do people think about Never Say Never Again? Is it worth including in the Bond canon or is it better watched more as a different take and separate it from the main films? 

 

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Even though the movie NSNA is a remake of (Thunderball) has its flaws, it's still better. NSNA's unofficial status means that the likes of the gunbarrel opening and the Bond theme are not included, giving it an 'unBondian' atmosphere from the start. Having Connery back is admittedly quite fun and Barbara Carrera is a hoot as Fatima Blush, and the scrap at the health clinic is pretty good, but somebody forgot to tell Klaus Maria Brandeur that he's in a tongue-in-cheek action-adventure ... his Largo is out-of-place chillingly intense, for the most part. Very bland title song, and a crappy score.

And to cap it all, even Connery's return didn't make this a bigger box-office hit than Octopussy.     
 

And speaking of Bond ...

Evil Under The Sun - four-time Bond director Guy Hamilton helms this Peter Ustinov Poirot as a veritable plethora of stalwart British character actors assemble on an Adriatic island, murder most foul occurs, and Poirot engages his 'leetle grey cells' to solve the crime. Pleasing escapism for this most cold and grey time of year, with Poirot presented as a slightly more comedic figure than in other versions of one of Christie's most famous creations. 

[wtraversinc@gmail.com 2]

"The Shawshank Redemption." It's like comfort food for movie buffs.

[Tallguy 3,401]

1 minute ago, wtraversinc@gmail.com said:

"The Shawshank Redemption." It's like comfort food for movie buffs.

 

Both Shawshank and The Hudsucker Proxy turn 30 this year.

[Marian Schedenig 8,210]

45 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

Both Shawshank and The Hudsucker Proxy turn 30 this year.

 

Two brilliant films with lots of Roger Deakins goodness. Hudsucker is my favourite Coens film. A horribly underrated masterpiece.

[Tallguy 3,401]

The only Coen Bros. film I can say I genuinely love.

[Schilkeman 964]

36 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

The only Coen Bros. film I can say I genuinely love.

 

[Tallguy 3,401]

46 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

 

 

Yup. That's what I said that's what I meant. (Great GIF btw.) Big Lebowski is up there. Oh Brother probably more so. No Country? Oof, what a FILM. For some reason I have a soft spot for The Man Who Wasn't There.

 

But Hudsucker is the one I LOVE.

[Groovygoth666 672]

Love the Coen Brothers, Miller's Crossing is my favourite of theirs. Big Lebowski is a close second. 

 

Did anyone see The Tragedy of Macbeth? Not seen it and was wondering what people think of Joels work on his own. 

[bollemanneke 3,352]

Johnny English 3. Such a fun score! Lacy is stupid.

[crocodile 8,019]

I watched Naked Lunch on the recent UHD release from Arrow last night. I've never seen it before but, as usually with Cronenberg's films, the unique grotesque vision of the world, coupled with dark humour, really appeals to me. It's a really fine line to ride - make you care despite all the strangeness on display. Peter Weller is absolutely fantastic and the score from Shore is cracking too. I don't watch Cronenberg often but whenever I do, it's a trip worth taking.

 

Karol

[Tallguy 3,401]

2 hours ago, crocodile said:

I watched Naked Lunch on the recent UHD release from Arrow last night. I've never seen it before but, as usually with Cronenberg's films, the unique grotesque vision of the world, coupled with dark humour, really appeals to me. It's a really fine line to ride - make you care despite all the strangeness on display. Peter Weller is absolutely fantastic and the score from Shore is cracking too. I don't watch Cronenberg often but whenever I do, it's a trip worth taking.

 

Karol

 

It's hard to remember that Peter Weller in the Naked Lunch isn't Cillian Murphy in Oppenheimer.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,553]

Come to think of it, I see the resemblance, @Tallguy