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

[Chen G. 3,949]

5 minutes ago, A24 said:

A weird thing to say since figures show it was a success. \

 

In 1968?

[A24 4,338]

4 hours ago, JTN said:

 

Never listen to scores. I watch a film if I’m interested in the story or the director or the actor or the music.  I’m the judge if I like a film or

not.

 

I can't watch every movie to see if I will like it or not. Therefore sources like RT or IMDb can be very useful. I don't think I've ever loved a movie that only scored a 3/10 on IMDb or 25% on RT, so why shouldn't I rely on those tools? Of course, if it's a movie from a favorite director of mine then I will watch it no matter what RT or IMDb are saying. But some unknown movie on Prime or Netflix? You bet I'm gonna check the scores!

[bollemanneke 3,349]

The hangover 2. Some good jokes, but it's so cringeworthy how they desperately tried to redo it all. Just leave the first one alone.

[JTN 2,030]

1 hour ago, A24 said:

I can't watch every movie

I can't watch every movie, either, there are tens of thousands of them. I only watch movies that I'm interested in. And after I watch them, I decide whether I like them or not. 

[A24 4,338]

8 hours ago, JTN said:

I can't watch every movie, either, there are tens of thousands of them. 

 

Hundreds of thousands. Anyway, my tried-and-tested method seems to work for me. At least it spares me from the stinkers out there. I've learned over the years that it actually works better for me than a film recommendation from a friend. That doesn't mean that I rely on other people and critics to make up my mind about a certain movie, as you kinda keep on insinuating. It's just a selection method. If you can prove to me (by giving examples) that what I'm doing is wrong then I'm curious to hear it. I'm not talking about financial flops that are actually good or even great movies. I really don't see the correlation between that. No, I'm talking about scores! Ratings! BTW, it only works when the rating are low. 

[JTN 2,030]

11 hours ago, A24 said:

 

A weird thing to say since figures show it was a success. 

 

But, yeah, haters will be haters. 

 

 

 

 

Pointing out that they weren’t successes at the time of their release doesn’t mean that anyone hates those films.

 

Blade Runner is my favourite film of all time.

 

And 2001 is ONE of my favourites of all time. 
 

But that doesn’t make me question history.

[A24 4,338]

23 minutes ago, JTN said:

Pointing out that they weren’t successes at the time of their release doesn’t mean that anyone hates those films.

 

 

Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out to me. All kidding aside, the reason why I wrote "haters will be haters" is because Chen always expresses himself negatively when it comes to 2001: ASO. And now he thinks because 2001 wasn't a huge succes from the get-go that is wasn't a successful movie. And when you point out that is was the second biggest hit of the year, it still wasn't a success (to him) because it was an expensive movie. That doesn't make any sense, but what can I say, haters will be haters.

[JTN 2,030]

16 minutes ago, A24 said:

Chen always expresses himself negatively when it comes to 2001: ASO. 

Again, why is pointing out the truth being negative? I adore 2001 and I never felt that Chen was negative when he reassured my statement that in its initial run it flopped. That doesn’t make the film any worse whatsoever, nor does it make anyone who says the truth negative.

 

 

16 minutes ago, A24 said:

And when you point out that is was the second biggest hit of the year, it still wasn't a success (to him) because it was an expensive movie.

That does make sense, because a film isn’t considered a success compared to other films, but based on how much money it brings back compared to its budget. And if it can’t make its budget back and isn’t profitable, then it’s considered a financial failure. Like Avatar 2 needed to make at least a billion dollars in order to break even, but earning nearly 1 billion would have made it one of that year’s biggest successes, but that wouldn’t have mattered. 

Since movie theaters get half of what a film makes at the box office, a film has to earn twice its budget in order to just break even. And there’s also promotional costs. So if a film has a budget of $100 million, plus $25 million marketing, it has to make $250 million in order to just break even, then it still hasn’t made any profit yet. And it doesn’t matter that by making $250 million it’s one of the highest grossing films that year, all that matters for a film to be considered a financial success is to make a profit. 
 

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the film being good or bad. 

[A24 4,338]

20 minutes ago, JTN said:

Again, why is pointing out the truth being negative?

 

Sigh ... again, how is being the second biggest hit of 1968 not a success? See, when it comes to 2001: ASO, Chen will always try to find a way to look at it negatively. The glass is always half empty. Strange that you never noticed this. 

 

https://www.bookforum.com/print/2502/how-stanley-kubrick-and-arthur-c-clarke-reinvented-the-sci-fi-film-19687#:~:text=STANLEY KUBRICK'S 2001%3A A Space,highest-grossing film of 1968.

 

[JTN 2,030]

6 minutes ago, A24 said:

How is being the second biggest hit of 1968 not a success?

I just wrote it down. It is a success objectively, compared to other films that year, but not financially, if said film can’t make its money back and can’t make a profit. So in a way I get your point, and it can be viewed more than one way, but ultimately for a studio what matters is if their film can make its money back, and 2001:ASO didn’t in 1968. 

[A24 4,338]

7 minutes ago, JTN said:

I just wrote it down. It is a success objectively, but not financially, if said film can’t make its money back and can’t make a profit. So in a way I get your point, and it can be viewed more than one way, but ultimately for a studio what matters if their film can make its money back, and 2001:ASO didn’t in 1968. 

 

It made 58 million in 1968, which made it that year's second biggest hit. 

 

You and Chen: "What a flop!"

 

[JTN 2,030]

6 minutes ago, A24 said:

 

It made 58 million in 1968, which made it that year's second biggest hit. 

 

You and Chen: "What a flop!"

 

“In its first nine weeks from 22 locations, it grossed $2 million in the United States and Canada.

The film earned $8.5 million in theatrical gross rentals from roadshow engagements throughout 1968, contributing to North American rentals of $16.4 million and worldwide rentals of $21.9 million during its original release.

The film's high costs, of approximately $10.5 million, meant that the initial returns from the 1968 release left it $800,000 in the red.”

– Wikipedia

 

 

6 minutes ago, A24 said:

You and Chen: "What a flop!"

 

Funny, because it’s you who is being negative, since I initially brought up 2001 and BR as POSITIVE examples for films like All Is True, that although flopped during their theatrical release, are actually great.  

[A24 4,338]

Strange, box-office mojo says it made $58 million during its initial run.

 

 

16 minutes ago, JTN said:

Funny, because it’s you who is being negative, since I initially brought up 2001 and BR as POSITIVE examples for films like All Is True, that although flopped during their theatrical release, are actually great.  

 

Blade Runner was indeed a flop (both critically in the US and financially worldwide) even though some say it kinda broke even (if you look at it very positively).

[JTN 2,030]

21 minutes ago, A24 said:

Blade Runner was indeed a flop (both critically in the US and financially worldwide) even though some say it kinda broke even (if you look at it very positively).

I look at it very positively: I don’t care if it flopped, it’s a fricking classic. Just like 2001.

 

21 minutes ago, A24 said:

Strange, box-office mojo says it made $58 million during its initial run.

I think it’s adjusted for inflation. 
But here is what Wikipedia says:

“By June 1974, the film had rentals from the United States and Canada of $20.3 million (gross of $58 million).”

 

It was first re-released in 1971 and it made the film profitable. 

[A24 4,338]

One thing is certain, Chen 'The Glass Is Half Empty' G. will tell us box office mojo is wrong and wikipedia is right. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

Only @Edmilson can settle this.

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, A24 said:

One thing is certain, Chen 'The Glass Is Half Empty' G. will tell us box office mojo is wrong and wikipedia is right. 

 

The figures on Box Office Mojo seem to be an amalgamation of several theatrical reruns through the 1970s.

[JTN 2,030]

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Ghostbusters/Ghostbusters : Afterlife - spooky comedy double-bill, ahead of seeing Frozen Empire tomorrow. The original is a beloved movie from my early teens, and Afterlife nicely carries things on with Egon Spengler's daughter and grandkids moving to the dirt farm he left them. Naturally, it's not long before the supernatural shit starts hittin' the fan.

Warm-hearted tribute to the late Harold Ramis is paid, and the disastrous 2016 movie is wisely ignored.

[Edmilson 7,466]

3 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Only @Edmilson can settle this.

I mean, it wouldn't be the first nor the last time that a movie figuring out among the biggest of the year was still a flop. In 1995, Waterworld was the 10th biggest movie of its year and is still considered to be financially unsuccessful.

 

In 2016, Batman v Superman grossed $875 million and even generated some profit but the numbers still showed that most of the audience didn't care for the movie because 1- it failed to gross a billion dollars like the Avengers movies (which was what WB was trying to do) and 2- it made approx. a half of its final take on opening weekend alone, which showed that the movie fell spectacularly after its opening due to the lack of enthusiasm of fans and critics.

 

Either way, older movies from before the streaming era could still recoup their investment. Firstly due to re-releases over the years that would make it profitable (see The Wizard of Oz, Rocky Horror Picture Show, many Disney animations) and then, after the popularization of VHS, due to home video. From the 80s through the 2000s, a movie that wasn't a hit at the box office could still find its audience when it hit VHS and then DVD.

 

These days, it's doubtful that streaming services can have the same financial impact, even though it's not small the number of movies and shows from regular TV channels that become hits once they get to Netflix.

[Chen G. 3,949]

4 hours ago, Edmilson said:

I mean, it wouldn't be the first nor the last time that a movie figuring out among the biggest of the year was still a flop. In 1995, Waterworld was the 10th biggest movie of its year and is still considered to be financially unsuccessful.

 

An example much closer in time and in style to 2001 is Cleopatra: another runaway widescreen production (though for different reasons than Kubrick's), it pulled impressive numbers. But it cost so damn much to make...

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

SPECTRE - 'Brofeld', Sam Smith's dirge and the odd piece of illogical plotting aside (Madeline being left to wander off alone after her and 007 get back to London following the destruction of Blofeld's base, for example), fairly solid middle-tier Bond.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

Yeah, Sweep. I like SPECTRE far more than I like (shock horror, burn the heretic!) SKYFALL.

Yeah, I said it.

 

 

 

 

On 24/03/2024 at 11:00 AM, JTN said:

 

CAROUSEL?

ROLLERCOASTER?

FLYING?

FLOATING?

I give up.

 

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

For me it doesn't hit Skyfall's heights, but neither does it drop the ball anywhere near as badly as NTTD ends up doing.  

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

I wouldn't care if all traces of NTTD were erased from existence.

[Chen G. 3,949]

20 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Yeah, Sweep. I like SPECTRE far more than I like (shock horror, burn the heretic!) SKYFALL.

 

Unerhörtes Werk!

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

For Your Eyes Only - 007 firmly back on Earth after Moonraker, and we get a superior Moore Bond as a result. Good action sequences, the 'cheesy' humour is kept under control for the most part, silkily urbane villainy from Julian Glover, a great ally in Topol, a beautiful AND believable leading lady in Carole Bouquet and a truly Cold War 'McGuffin' (and speaking of which, the 'That's detente, comrade ... ' ending here is just about perfect).

Drop Dead Gorgeous - blackly funny Nineties mockumentary centred on a small-town teen beauty pageant in Minnesota. Starring Kirstie Alley, Kirsten Dunst, Denise Richards, Amy Adams, Ellen Barkin and Allison Janney.

Life Of Brian - annual Easter rewatch of the Pythons' peerless religious satire. He's not the Messiah ... 

[Brundlefly 2,385]

1 hour ago, Sweeping Strings said:

For Your Eyes Only - 007 firmly back on Earth after Moonraker, and we get a superior Moore Bond as a result. Good action sequences, the 'cheesy' humour is kept under control for the most part, silkily urbane villainy from Julian Glover, a great ally in Topol, a beautiful AND believable leading lady in Carole Bouquet and a truly Cold War 'McGuffin' (and speaking of which, the 'That's detente, comrade ... ' ending here is just about perfect).

This Bond movie surprised me, its kind of a hidden gem, cause it's actually very good, escpecially the action sequences and the tense final castle break-in, despite never being mentioned among the superior entries of the Moore era.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

FYEO would be a lot better if the ice skating subplot wasn't in it (I've never understood that), and the dreadful Janet Brown/John Wells shit, at the end.

Oh, yeah... the score is the most "out there" EON Bond score, ever, including GOLDENEYE.

[JNHFan2000 2,966]

Love FYEO. Both films and score!!!

[Jay 37,369]

5 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Drop Dead Gorgeous - blackly funny Nineties mockumentary centred on a small-town teen beauty pageant in Minnesota. Starring Kirstie Alley, Kirsten Dunst, Denise Richards, Amy Adams, Ellen Barkin and Allison Janney.

 

Funny movie!

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

18 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

FYEO would be a lot better if the ice skating subplot wasn't in it (I've never understood that), and the dreadful Janet Brown/John Wells shit, at the end.

Oh, yeah... the score is the most "out there" EON Bond score, ever, including GOLDENEYE.

Re the ice-skating ... I'm just glad they'd the good sense to avoid Bond and Bibi banging (although interestingly, Carole Bouquet is only a year older than Lynn-Holly Johnson).    

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP.

Humourless; talentless; mindless; soulless.

I cannot believe that someone spent almost two hundred million dollars on this absolute waste of everyone's time, money, and effort.

I pity the poor suckers who handed over $20 (plus a second mortgage for nachos, chilli dogs, popcorn, and a big gulp Mountain Dew), to be served this. It beggars belief that something like this can even be called "entertainment".

Utter, utter garbage.

I'm only glad I paid 20p for it, at my local thrift store.

Ah, well, on to CAPTAIN MARVEL, and the big push to ENDGAME 

 

[Tallguy 3,398]

46 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP.

Humourless; talentless; mindless; soulless.

I cannot believe that someone spent almost two hundred million dollars on this absolute waste of everyone's time, money, and effort.

I pity the poor suckers who handed over $20 (plus a second mortgage for nachos, chilli dogs, popcorn, and a big gulp Mountain Dew), to be served this. It beggars belief that something like this can even be called "entertainment".

Utter, utter garbage.

I'm only glad I paid 20p for it, at my local thrift store.

Ah, well, on to CAPTAIN MARVEL, and the big push to ENDGAME 

 

 

This is the sort of thing where I ask "What did you think of the first one?" IMHO if you didn't like the first one then the second is largely more of the same and so what did you expect? But then there were people who loved Batman Forever but found Batman and Robin a rubber nipple too far. I have never understood this, myself.

 

Whereas the third Ant-Man jettisons a bunch of the tone and the characters from the first two and strikes off to something else. You might like 1 and 2 (I did) and still hate 3. (Or at least find it almost entirely forgettable.)

 

But hey, Endgame is good! Can't imagine you're going to enjoy Captain Marvel. I did and I liked the second one even more.

[Edmilson 7,466]

1 hour ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP.

Humourless; talentless; mindless; soulless.

I cannot believe that someone spent almost two hundred million dollars on this absolute waste of everyone's time, money, and effort.

I pity the poor suckers who handed over $20 (plus a second mortgage for nachos, chilli dogs, popcorn, and a big gulp Mountain Dew), to be served this. It beggars belief that something like this can even be called "entertainment".

Utter, utter garbage.

I'm only glad I paid 20p for it, at my local thrift store.

Ah, well, on to CAPTAIN MARVEL, and the big push to ENDGAME 

 

The sequel is even worse.

 

But I do have a soft spot for AM&TW, precisely because I saw it in theaters with of my  best friends. It was their choice, they'd have to choose between Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, Incredibles 2 (which I had seen a few days before but wouldn't mind seeing again) and Ant-Man. In other words: an awful Jurassic sequel, a fine but otherwise non-essential Pixar sequel and an okay-ish MCU movie.

 

Oh, there was another movie about The Rock in a building on fire, but no one wanted to see that 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

23 hours ago, Edmilson said:

Oh, there was another movie about The Rock in a building on fire, but no one wanted to see that 

 

Oh, fuck, @Edmilson! I have seen that, and I wish I fucking hadn't! 

What bonehead ever thought that The (C)rock could come within ten million miles of ever being able to act.

 

@Tallguy, I actually quite liked AM. I thought that it was funny, and sassy. AM+TW, however, is just warmed-up more of the same. 

 

 

[Edmilson 7,466]

7 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

 

Oh, fuck, @Edmilson! I have seen that, and I wish I fucking hadn't! 

What bonehead ever thought that The (C)rock could come within ten million miles of ever being able to act.

The movie is crap but at least it has some nice cinematography by Robert Elswit, who worked with Paul Thomas Anderson in such movies as Boogie Nights, Magnolia, There Will Be Blood, plus Nightcrawler, Michael Clayton, Syriana, Mission: Impossible 4 and 5...

 

So, it's shit but at least it's a shit that looks good 

 

I wish it had a better score though. Steve Jablonsky's work was bland and forgettable.

[Tom Guernsey 2,286]

Superman Returns - Surprisingly decent follow up to the first two original Superman movies and one which feels charmingly old fashioned compared to Batman Begins (from the same year and which it apparently outperformed, the internet "reliably" informs me) and later DC/Marvel films. Having said that, the leads in the shape of Brandon Routh doesn't quite have the natural presence and charisma of Christopher Reeve or Henry Cavill, and Kate Bosworth isn't energetic enough as Lois (one review said Lois needs to have more manic energy, which I can go with). On the flip side, Kevin Spacey feels much more dangerously unhinged as Lex Luthor than Gene Hackman. His bonkers scheme makes only slightly more sense than in the original movie, but is well executed through a fine combination of CGI and model effects. Indeed, the effects are generally top notch and even when they aren't, it's done well enough not to matter. You really will believe a man can fly (and the effects in that regard aren't any better in Man of Steel). The airplane rescue near the start is especially terrific, you know it'll all be fine (Superman, duh) but it doesn't make it any less exciting or occasionally terrifying.

 

John Ottman's score is a fine homage/sequel to JW's original and, fortunately, the horrible re-harmonisation of the love theme doesn't actually appear too many times, and on a couple of occasions, it has a nice extra phrase added to the end of it which is quite lovely. One big mark in Ottman's favour is his menacing motif for Lex Luthor which I find much more convincing than the March of the Villains from the original, which kinda makes Lex Luthor sound like he was played by an Ewok. His other themes are somewhat on the basic side and simplistically orchestrated, but actually quite effective, especially the hymnal 5 note melody which seems to represent the more mythical side to Superman. Somewhat amused that in the opening credits, JW is credited for the Superman theme which somewhat forgets the numerous other themes that appear in the score...

[Tallguy 3,398]

I loved Spacey's Luthor and I REALLY loved Ottman's theme for him.

 

March of the Villains isn't that far off of The Imperial March. It's just got something that makes it kind of goofy. But parts of it (and some of it's statements) are really rather menacing.

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

21 hours ago, Tom Guernsey said:

Superman Returns - Surprisingly decent follow up to the first two original Superman movies and one which feels charmingly old fashioned compared to Batman Begins (from the same year and which it apparently outperformed, the internet "reliably" informs me) and later DC/Marvel films.

Wikipedia reckons SR had a budget of 223 million and took 391 million at the box-office, whereas BB's budget was 150 milion and it made 373 million.   

[Edmilson 7,466]

23 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Wikipedia reckons SR had a budget of 223 million and took 391 million at the box-office, whereas BB's budget was 150 milion and it made 373 million.   

None of these two was a monster hit, but BB's reception among critics and fans was much better than Superman's. Unlike Returns, it made people genuinely excited to see where the character would go next. Also, this was before streaming and apparently Batman Begins sold a lot of DVDs in the home video market. So Warners greenlit a sequel and they got a billion dollar megahit.

 

Would a sequel to SR where he'd fight General Zod (I remember reading that this were the plans for the sequel, which ended up becoming the plot of Man of Steel) be as successful as TDK? Even if it was a more acclaimed movie? Not sure.

 

Anyway IMHO Returns is part of those mid-2000s superhero movies that taught kid me an invaluable lesson about superhero blockbusters: they could really really suck.

 

2005's Fantastic Four showed 12-year-old me how bland a movie about a team of superheroes could be, then on the next year X-Men: The Last Stand showed how an allegedly "epic finale of a saga" could be so underwhelming and mediocre (that was three years after Return of the King). Finally, SR told me how a movie about friggin' Superman could be very very tedious, mind-numbingly dull and depressing in all the wrong ways.

 

It's why I have a special fondness for BB: it's a rare great movie in the sea of superhero crap that hit theaters between 2005 and 2007.

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

The Superman movie that made me realise one about him could be all the things you describe wasn't Returns, it was Man Of Steel. Hated that film, to the extent that I still haven't seen any subsequent movie with Cavill's Superman. 

To me, a certain amount of 'darkness' is fine and indeed makes sense when it comes to Batman. But not when it comes to ol' Supes. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

On 1/4/2024 at 10:17 PM, Naïve Old Fart said:

FYEO... the score is the most "out there" EON Bond score, ever, including GOLDENEYE.

TSWLM, Marvin Hamlisch & Bond ‘77 have entered the room.

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Disco 'bled into' the Spy, Moonraker and FYEO scores if memory serves. 

[Andy 4,138]

23 hours ago, Tom Guernsey said:

One big mark in Ottman's favour is his menacing motif for Lex Luthor which I find much more convincing than the March of the Villains from the original, which kinda makes Lex Luthor sound like he was played by an Ewok. 

I don’t know for sure, but I imagine March of the Villains evolved from the Otis scenes in Metropolis.  I think Williams saw Ned Beatty’s comedic bumbling footage and began there. 

[Tallguy 3,398]

1 hour ago, Andy said:

I don’t know for sure, but I imagine March of the Villains evolved from the Otis scenes in Metropolis.  I think Williams saw Ned Beatty’s comedic bumbling footage and began there. 

 

I don't know about Williams but it plays that way to the audience. I know there are people who just think it's Otis' theme. They just notice the goofy bouncy part with Beatty and don't notice the part where Lex pushes someone in front of a train by remote control. (That freaked me out SO bad when I was 11.)

[Faleel 5,354]

Prisoner of Azkaban.

 

If only fantasy movies got scores like this these days.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

3 hours ago, Faleel said:

Prisoner of Azkaban.

 

If only fantasy movies got scores like this these days.

 

They do. The sad thing is that they are like this, and not actually this 

[Faleel 5,354]

1 minute ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

 

They do. The sad thing is that they are like this, and not actually this 

I wouldn't  want that, I want an original score, not just POA tracked into an unrelated film.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

Indeed. What I meant was that most scores these days are a copy of a copy of a copy.

There is nothing truly "original".