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

[Tom Guernsey 2,286]

No Time To Die (contains spoilers)- Man, Daniel Craig looks bored. Almost as bored as I looked after almost 3 hours and I didn't even get paid millions for the privilege. I randomly saw about the last 2 hours of it while in a hotel room recovering from passing out and a trip to A&E a few months ago but finally saw the full thing in HD. I don't think the first hour adds much plus I didn't have to sit through Billie Eilish's musical void of a song - I mean, it's Ok if you like that kind of thing (I don't), but if she was trying to outdo Sam Smith for dreariest Bond song, then it's a clear win. Then again, not as actively awful as Quantum of Solace (which is basically two entirely different songs badly jammed together without Paul McCartney's genius which made Live and Let Die work which is also essentially two different songs jammed together) and, much though I hate to admit it, but Madge's Die Another Die has grown on me, partly due to surprisingly effective orchestral version which was originally on one of Silva's fine Bond compilations. I mean, I'd rather David Arnold had written something but there you go...

 

Hans' score isn't too bad, although surprisingly understated (I know, who'd have thought?!) but the most memorable bits are the reprises of We Have All The Time in the World. Compared to David Arnold's exciting, brassy, swaggering action music, the NTTD action is pretty muted and the suspense music sounds like the theme from the Crown (I guess he's OHer/HisMSS so maybe that's fine...). Although on balance I think I enjoy it more than Thomas Newman's efforts, but really Arnold should be brought back toot sweet.

 

When they re-boot Bond (again) they should cast Lashana Lynch (who played the "new" 007 in NTTD) as the first female, black Bond. She appeared to be having far more fun than Craig and brought plenty of charisma to the role. I mean, it'll never happen and it's not like Dr Who where the character being an alien gives you a lot more flexibility on such things. Still, a spin-off could be fun. I think I'd rather watch that than another gritty Bond film. I'm sure Bond films used to be fun. Like old Indiana Jones films and at least Indy didn't die in his last/latest outing...

[Chen G. 3,949]

27 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

Almost as bored as I looked after almost 3 hours

 

Pet peeve here, but why do people feel the need to round a movie runtime upwards so hyperbolically? The movie is over at the 156 minute mark. Nowhere even near three hours.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

If you're in the cinema, don't forget the half-hour with commercials at the start.

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Lord alone knows where Bond goes from here, but the signs ain't great IMO. Producers currently seeming to care more about the Amazon gameshow than getting the ball rolling on the next movie in any significant way speaks volumes.   

[JTN 2,030]

On 16/02/2024 at 9:23 AM, filmmusic said:

I don't understand the hate for this film.

It's marvelous! Great production values and a great Dustin Hoffman (I don't know who was nominated for an Oscar that year, but I would nominate him).

Ok, Julia Roberts is indeed miscasted I think, but I got used to her..

One of my favorite movies, and the score... second favorite Williams score ever (after E.T.). (it was sacrilege that it wasn't nominated for an Oscar)

 

EXACTLY.

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

If you're in the cinema, don't forget the half-hour with commercials at the start.

 

which would make a movie that's actually three hours be three-and-a-half...

 

Its just funny to me see people take two-and-a-half hour movies and somehow round them up a whole half hour.

 

[Edmilson 7,466]

NTTD is a two and a half hour movie that feels like a three hour movie.

[Tom Guernsey 2,286]

1 hour ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Lord alone knows where Bond goes from here, but the signs ain't great IMO. Producers currently seeming to care more about the Amazon gameshow than getting the ball rolling on the next movie in any significant way speaks volumes.   

Agreed, it feels like they've got to an end point, which kinda isn't how Bond films are meant to work. Then again, I suppose it provides the opportunity for a hard reset. If you just assume that it's not actually a continuing story and is just random, vaguely implausible adventures of a spy that approximately reflect the era each particular film is set then you can just start again and forget the prior ones beyond the basic premise and recurring characters. Continuity isn't really a crucial issue.

 

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Pet peeve here, but why do people feel the need to round a movie runtime upwards so hyperbolically? The movie is over at the 156 minute mark. Nowhere even near three hours.

At the risk of getting into a pointless argument (but I don't see why I shouldn't defend myself...), the official run time is 2 hours 43 minutes, which is 163 minutes. I concede that this includes the credits, but since we diligently watched the credits to the end, it's not unreasonable to say we watched a 2 hours 43 minute movie and that's a length that feels close enough to 3 hours to say it's "nearly" 3 hours long. However you cut it, it's still the longest Bond film to date (I checked) and it felt like it went on too long and felt much more protracted than, say, Avatar 2, which is almost half an hour longer. Then again, my first viewing of the last 2/3 (ish) of NTTD on ITV+1 lasted about 97 hours long (approx) due to the adverts. My mother literally told me a million times not to exaggerate. Literally.

Just now, Edmilson said:

NTTD is a two and a half hour movie that feels like a three hour movie.

Agreed!

[Bespin 8,483]

I watched two "recent" movies in the last few days: 'The Exorcist: Believer' and 'Oppenheimer'.

 

One is a movie made by a pretentious director... and so is the other.

 

That's okay; you don't make movies if you're not a bit pretentious. I'm not a fan of Nolan, whose movies generally need more than one viewing to be fully appreciated. I rarely give him that pleasure. As for Gordon Green, you'll probably never want to watch his movies more than once, except if you want to point out exactly what doesn't work in them.

 

A 21st-century sequel to The Exorcist could have gone in any direction. But everyone would expect it to be really shocking, like the original movie was in 1973. I won't make a list of all the shocking elements of the original movie; watch it. I think the mistake of that sequel was trying not to be as shocking as the first movie. Is American Cinema in 2024 more frivolous about religion than it was in 1973? Maybe. The final edit of 111 minutes of Believer and the way it looks so butchered and uneven (some scenes are too long, some are not enough, and the end is doubtful and rushed) made us think that the original cut would have been too shocking for some eyes and ears. The treatment given to the Actress from the first film, Ellen Burstyn, is disappointing. She enters the Adventure a bit too easily, and her exit is rather rushed. It remains a film that is okay but doesn't deliver what we would have expected. At the end, it's a big disappointment.

 

Now regarding Oppenheimer, I almost wanted to stop the movie in the first 30 minutes, as the editing was schizophrenic. Then the witch hunt began, and it was interesting. It's really an actor-performance movie, and both Murphy and Downey Jr. are fantastic. I was happily surprised to see Josh Hartnett, less so to see Matt Damon (a miscast?). Anyway, on the whole, it was a good movie, but as I said, maybe better on the 2nd and 3rd viewing, but in my case, that will never happen. Boom!

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

1 hour ago, Tom Guernsey said:

Agreed, it feels like they've got to an end point, which kinda isn't how Bond films are meant to work. Then again, I suppose it provides the opportunity for a hard reset. If you just assume that it's not actually a continuing story and is just random, vaguely implausible adventures of a spy that approximately reflect the era each particular film is set then you can just start again and forget the prior ones beyond the basic premise and recurring characters. Continuity isn't really a crucial issue.

 

At the risk of getting into a pointless argument (but I don't see why I shouldn't defend myself...), the official run time is 2 hours 43 minutes, which is 163 minutes. I concede that this includes the credits, but since we diligently watched the credits to the end, it's not unreasonable to say we watched a 2 hours 43 minute movie and that's a length that feels close enough to 3 hours to say it's "nearly" 3 hours long. However you cut it, it's still the longest Bond film to date (I checked) and it felt like it went on too long and felt much more protracted than, say, Avatar 2, which is almost half an hour longer. Then again, my first viewing of the last 2/3 (ish) of NTTD on ITV+1 lasted about 97 hours long (approx) due to the adverts. My mother literally told me a million times not to exaggerate. Literally.

Agreed!

Wonder did NTTD's length stem purely from the notion that the film that finally 'kills' Bond should feel 'epic' or whatever? 

[Tom Guernsey 2,286]

12 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Wonder did NTTD's length stem purely from the notion that the film that finally 'kills' Bond should feel 'epic' or whatever? 

(Spoilers) I mean it might have done. They did stuff it with quite a lot of plot. I mean the main villain doesn't properly appear (aside from being a masked figure in the pre-credits sequence) until about an hour into the film so there's a significant buildup to that. I'm not sure Bond films need that much plot or interconnectivity but they did build a lot of plot strands into it. I mean I thought they converged quite effectively for the most part (some inevitable contrivance notwithstanding) but it still felt like it was sagging by the end. Bond's final moments were done quite effectively even though it wouldn't have been that implausible for him to stay with the nanobots in him on the basis that, if they are basically machines, they could be reprogrammed or otherwise destroyed. I guess it was an effective conceit as a way to lead him to sacrifice himself if he couldn't be with his daughter and her mother, giving it more meaning, but it wasn't really necessary.

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Back to fun, escapist action-adventures 2 hours or so in length. Globe-trotting, glamour, thrilling stunts and action sequences, gadgetry and humour. 

Modern sensibilities be damned ... no more 'this time it's personal', no more 'MI6/field agents/the 00 section is irrelevant', angst and self-reflection to be kept to a minimum (stuff along the lines of the scene on the beach in Goldeneye is absolutely fine). Unapologetically have Bond be a straight, white, patriotic hero who takes pleasure in eating and drinking well and in casual sex. Make clear that the reason he enjoys these things is because (for all he knows) he could be dead tomorrow. And yes, he kills in the line of his work when necessary. If the 'yoof' find any of this 'problematic' ... they don't have to watch them. Simple. 

Hire artists who are actually worth a damn to write and record the theme songs again. 

I realise I'm probably dreaming, but this is what I would do if it was up to me. Seemed to work pretty well from 1962 - 2002.     

[A24 4,338]

47 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Back to fun, escapist action-adventures 2 hours or so in length. Globe-trotting, glamour, thrilling stunts and action sequences, gadgetry and humour. 

 

 

Or ... you could visit a theme park.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

5 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Pet peeve here, but why do people feel the need to round a movie runtime upwards so hyperbolically? The movie is over at the 156 minute mark. Nowhere even near three hours.

 

There should be a "feels like" run time for movies, kind of like with the weather. 

 

No Time to Die (2021)

Run time: 163 minutes

Feels Like: 4.5 hours

[Tom Guernsey 2,286]

3 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

There should be a "feels like" run time for movies alongside the actual runtime, kind of like with the weather. 

 

No Time to Die (2021)

Runtime: 163 minutes

Feels Like: 4.5 hours

Hah... They should remake it as No Time to Diet. 163 minutes of Daniel Craig eating donuts.

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Occasionally through gobfuls of dough he can be heard to mutter 'This is revenge for that bloody steamed chicken diet I was on during the training regime!'.  
 

No Mercy - Tough Chicago cop Eddie Jillette (Richard Gere) goes down New Orleans way after the crime lord (Jeroen Krabbe) who killed his partner, with his 'moll' (Kim Basinger) in tow. Decent enough mid-80s thriller, with a quite exciting stalk-and-shootout climax in a burning hotel.       

[filmmusic 1,836]

4 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

No Mercy - Tough Chicago cop Eddie Jillette (Richard Gere) goes down New Orleans way after the crime lord (Jeroen Krabbe) who killed his partner, with his 'moll' (Kim Basinger) in tow. Decent enough mid-80s thriller, with a quite exciting stalk-and-shootout climax in a burning hotel.       

I love this film, and most of all the music theme by Silvestri! It's a guilty pleasure!

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Solid supporting cast too, with the likes of George Dzundza and William Atherton. 

[JTN 2,030]

I have seen this many many times. I used to be Finn, only not a painter, but a poet/writer. And I loved a girl who was like Estella, who broke my heart many years ago. Sadly our story didn’t have a happy ending like this film, but that makes me love it even more because I can see what my story could have been like.

Patrick Doyle’s score is phenomenal. 

[filmmusic 1,836]

23 minutes ago, JTW said:

Patrick Doyle’s score is phenomenal. 

I agree!

I like this film also (although I'm not a Paltrow fan), and I'm eagerly waiting for a blu-ray release to buy!

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Backdraft - squabbling brothers, a serial arsonist and political skullduggery are all in the mix in this Ron Howard number set in the Chicago Fire Department. Kurt Russell, William Baldwin, Scott Glenn, Robert De Niro and Donald Sutherland all do fine but the real stars of the show are the pre-CGI pyrotechnic effects which are spectacular, terrifying and utterly convincing.

[filmmusic 1,836]

A score-masterpiece, that elevates the film very much! Love Arnold  so I won't be objective in my opinion about the film, but I think it's a cult classic. Watched the International cut.

 

 

A somewhat silly sequel, with not so good effects of the creature (I wonder how better it would be if Rick Baker had done the special effects) but enjoyable again nonetheless. The score is mostly a rehash of the first movie's score, but it features a new equally good main theme.

 

Watched both films from my newly purchased spectacular Arrow 4k release!

[Edmilson 7,466]

3 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Backdraft - squabbling brothers, a serial arsonist and political skullduggery are all in the mix in this Ron Howard number set in the Chicago Fire Department. Kurt Russell, William Baldwin, Scott Glenn, Robert De Niro and Donald Sutherland all do fine but the real stars of the show are the pre-CGI pyrotechnic effects which are spectacular, terrifying and utterly convincing.

How was Zimmer's score?

[Bespin 8,483]

I loved that movie, it was very moving by moments: All the Light We Cannot See.

 

And great score too!

 

[karelm 2,914]

I really enjoyed 2014's The Equalizer.  Great bad ass kicking some Russian mafia ass.  Made me wonder, how does one become a master assassin?  Are there masterclasses in assassinry?  How do you find gigs and ascend to master level in that career?  

 

[Tallguy 3,398]

Just now, karelm said:

I really enjoyed 2014's The Equalizer.  Great bad ass kicking some Russian mafia ass.  Made me wonder, how does one become a master assassin?  Are there masterclasses in assassinry?  How do you find gigs and ascend to master level in that career?  

 

 

I keep meaning to watch this.

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

18 hours ago, Edmilson said:

How was Zimmer's score?

I recognised bits of it ... after seeing the movie 'back in the day' the first time round, I rented the soundtrack CD from a place that used to rent CDs as well as VHS cassettes and taped it (the tape's long gone). Some nicely stirring stuff in it, in the days long before he became a score 'factory' just churning 'em out. 

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Dune Part 1 - I have decided to go and see part 2 on my day off tomorrow, so I thought I'd better see part 1 first. Like Blade Runner 2049, this is a lengthy, mostly stately-paced and visually stunning sci-fi flick directed by Denis Villeneuve. Unlike that movie, I wasn't bored ... again, the visuals are stunning but the narrative kept me interested as well (and I was able to follow it OK, which is always a bonus. lol).  

[JTN 2,030]

Another excellent courtroom drama from master filmmaker Sidney Lumet. And Vin Diesel not only has hair, but he can act. Maybe his acting abilities are in his hair, like Samson’s strength. I really enjoyed this film, it’s a great companion piece to 12 ANGRY MEN.

[Tallguy 3,398]

I've known he could act for, what, 20 years now? And I've been waiting for him to do it more. I might need to check this out.

[JTN 2,030]

I only saw him in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, but he is killed off almost right away. Since then I only saw him in the first Fast and Furious and probably Riddick, and I wasn't impressed by them. I know he is the voice of The Iron Giant and Groot in the Guardians films, but that's not acting in the traditional way. But in this film he's great.

[bollemanneke 3,349]

Serena, 2014. How is this a bad movie? People have no taste.

[JTN 2,030]

Great cast, great score. 

[filmmusic 1,836]

 

Just finished this. I broke my no-recent-films principle (), because it is Gibson!

Well, some pretty impressive realistic battle scenes, but other than that I don't get the high rating at imdb and the Oscar nominations..

[bollemanneke 3,349]

Abduction, 2011. Are you f*cking kidding me, no score release?

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

1 hour ago, filmmusic said:

 

Just finished this. I broke my no-recent-films principle (), because it is Gibson!

Well, some pretty impressive realistic battle scenes, but other than that I don't get the high rating at imdb and the Oscar nominations..

 

For me personally, it's the most visceral war film I've ever seen.  I don't think I could watch it again.

[Edmilson 7,466]

It would've been an even better movie if James Horner didn't enter that plane in June 2015.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

It would've been an even better movie world if James Horner didn't enter that plane in June 2015.

 

Fixed.

[karelm 2,914]

3 hours ago, filmmusic said:

 

Just finished this. I broke my no-recent-films principle (), because it is Gibson!

Well, some pretty impressive realistic battle scenes, but other than that I don't get the high rating at imdb and the Oscar nominations..

Oh, come on.  You think the biopic of the first conscientious objector who refused to fire a weapon and would receive a Medal of Honor when there was no such thing after saving 72 men in the battle of Okinawa isn't a worthwhile story?  It's a very well told story of a side of war never heard.  Those who refuse to bear arms but are still willing to die for their cause.  

[Tallguy 3,398]

 

Cowboys and Aliens.

 

You know, I saw this in the theater. I liked it. Didn't love it. But I have to say that it has aged really well, IMHO. No one else in my family had seen it and they all loved it.

 

What a cast!

[JTN 2,030]

Gandhi is a driving instructor/New York cab driver. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

I thought he was dead. 

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Save Yourselves! - a New York hipster couple head to a friend's pad in the country to 'disconnect', but unfortunately the Earth is invaded by cute (they bear a resemblance to the Tribbles from Star Trek) but deadly aliens at the same time. Enjoyable sci-fi comedy with some wry satirical commentary on the way we live now.

Werewolves Within - this horror comedy takes the template of classic whodunnits (strand a group of disparate individuals in a country house, hotel etc and have them try to figure out which one of them is bumping them off), but it replaces the standard killer with a lycanthrope. Based on a videogame, but way better than how that type of movie usually pans out.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,542]

You just know that a film is in trouble, when you care more about computer animated animals, than real, live human beings.

Such was the curious case, last night,  of me vs. JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM.

It started off ok, with people getting some bones from a dead dinosaur, and then being eaten by a (very much) alive one.

Turns out, some old geezer (an American with a very bad English accent - go figure) wants to get a bunch of Dinos from Isla Nubar to the mainland to put them in some park or other. Meanwhile a young, and well dodgy geezer (an Englishman with a very bad American accent - go figure) wants to get his mitts on some Dino DNA so he can create the ultimate fighting machine.

Sound familiar?

Enter the two leads from JURASSIC WORLD, to thwart said young geezer's plans. Throw in a "fuck off" mansion, a cute little cloned kid (no, I'm not making this up!) and a couple of nondescript intern types, plus the guy from JURASSIC PARK who's named after a Steely Dan song,  and you've got yourself a cracking movie.

You think..?

As usual, the dinosaurs are up to ILM's best. It's the actual people who let the side down.

Howard is very pretty (especially in her white cashmere sweater), but she's so stiff that you'd be afraid to look at her the wrong way, lest she falls over, and smashes into a million pieces. Pratt is handsome, and buff, and all that, but he has all the charm and charisma of a two-day-old egg salad that has just been put into the "reduced" section of your local supermarket.

Added to this, the interns are forgettable, with the male intern doing his darnedest to out-scream Chris Tucker, and the (usually) great talents of Jones, Cromwell, and Spall, are completely wasted.

The cinematography is serviceable, and the sound design is adequate, but there's absolutely no sense of wonder. There is not one original shot, or visual (or intellectual, for that matter) idea, in this film. All it really did is to make me want to watch the first one, again. Please note, all further directors of the Jurassic Worldiverse: there's a damn good reason why Spielberg shot JURASSIC PARK in 1.85:1. Watch it, and realize!

I've not seen #6 on the list, but it can't be any worse than this... can it..? 

[Tom Guernsey 2,286]

55 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

You just know that a film is in trouble, when you care more about computer animated animals, than real, live human beings.

Such was the curious case, last night,  of me vs. JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM.

It started off ok, with people getting some bones from a dead dinosaur, and then being eaten by a (very much) alive one.

Turns out, some old geezer (an American with a very bad English accent - go figure) wants to get a bunch of Dinos from Isla Nubar to the mainland to put them in some park or other. Meanwhile a young, and well dodgy geezer (an Englishman with a very bad American accent - go figure) wants to get his mitts on some Dino DNA so he can create the ultimate fighting machine.

Sound familiar?

Enter the two leads from JURASSIC WORLD, to thwart said young geezer's plans. Throw in a "fuck off" mansion, a cute little cloned kid (no, I'm not making this up!) and a couple of nondescript intern types, plus the guy from JURASSIC PARK who's named after a Steely Dan song,  and you've got yourself a cracking movie.

You think..?

As usual, the dinosaurs are up to ILM's best. It's the actual people who let the side down.

Howard is very pretty (especially in her white cashmere sweater), but she's so stiff that you'd be afraid to look at her the wrong way, lest she falls over, and smashes into a million pieces. Pratt is handsome, and buff, and all that, but he has all the charm and charisma of a two-day-old egg salad that has just been put into the "reduced" section of your local supermarket.

Added to this, the interns are forgettable, with the male intern doing his darnedest to out-scream Chris Tucker, and the (usually) great talents of Jones, Cromwell, and Spall, are completely wasted.

The cinematography is serviceable, and the sound design is adequate, but there's absolutely no sense of wonder. There is not one original shot, or visual (or intellectual, for that matter) idea, in this film. All it really did is to make me want to watch the first one, again. Please note, all further directors of the Jurassic Worldiverse: there's a damn good reason why Spielberg shot JURASSIC PARK in 1.85:1. Watch it, and realize!

I've not seen #6 on the list, but it can't be any worse than this... can it..? 

Yeah but did you enjoy it? 😜

[Naïve Old Fart 9,542]

52 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

Yeah but did you enjoy it? 😜

 

I felt both a sense of sadness, and a curious schadenfreude in watching all that talent go to waste.

The Jurassic Worldiverse was past its sell by date, even before the first one was planned. That being said, I refuse to believe that Neill, Goldblum, and Dern can't save #6. I shall frequent my local thrift store with interest.

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

6 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I refuse to believe that Neill, Goldblum, and Dern can't save #6.

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,542]

That bad, huh?

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

17 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

That bad, huh?

 

 

[crocodile 8,017]

Actually... 6 is more fun. Dumb as fuck, yes, but fun. And no, I will never watch it again.

 

Karol