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

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

What is the function of the arc reactor in Stark's chest? It was places there to stop the shrapnel from getting to his heart. But does it also power the Iron Man suit?

The films are not consistent regarding this. Some lines of dialogue clearly state this, while other things don't support that. (If the suit is powered by the arc reactor, how does Rhodes use it?)

[Jay 37,456]

Wait till you see the 3rd film, it gets even more muddled!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I have seen it.

Script wise it's an improvement over the second film. But it has some of the same issues.

The third film has too many Iron Man suits, most of them dont have Stark in them.

[Jay 37,456]

Right, and apparently

he doesn't need the arc reactor to keep him alive anymore, he can have the shrapnel bits removed with surgery? That came out of nowhere. And I guess he built 42 arc reactors to power all the other suits? Its all unclear

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Indeed! There is nothing in the first 2 films or The Avengers that state he could get the shrapnel removed. In The Avengers he calls it a "terrible privilege" suggesting it is something he had to live with, like Banner had to live with The Hulk

The Ironman film lack really great villains to compete with Tony Stark.

They certainly hired great actors for them, (you can't get better then Bridges, Rourke etc etc) but didn't really give then characters with great motivations, ingenious plans etc etc. Just the usual greed or revenge.

Loki is the best one so far. Actually I think I enjoy Iron Man the most in The Avengers. (it also has the best looking suit)

[Brónach 1,302]

What is the function of the arc reactor in Stark's chest? It was places there to stop the shrapnel from getting to his heart. But does it also power the Iron Man suit?

The films are not consistent regarding this. Some lines of dialogue clearly state this, while other things don't support that. (If the suit is powered by the arc reactor, how does Rhodes use it?)

The suits initially used the arc reactor in his chest. Later they use their own independent arc reactor.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I don't think this is stated in any of the films.

In the first one Stane steals the reactor from Stark's chest and Tony has to use the one he build in Afghanistan. Jarvis tell him that it's not designed for sustained flight and will only last 15 minutes.

[Brónach 1,302]

It's not stated per se, but it's obvious.

[Jay 37,456]

Yes. All 3 Iron Man films feature a villain seeking revenge for something that happened in Tony or his family's past. It's getting tiresome, they need a villain with a MUCH better motivation for IM4.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's not stated per se, but it's obvious.

Not to me.

[ZackR 95]

Star Trek Into Darkness

4. For some reason, Chris Hemsworth and Jennifer Morrison are listed in the end credits as playing Kirk's parents, but they didn't appear in the film that I saw, unless it was when I was changing seats. Weird.

Kirk heard their voices as he was waking up.

[Ollie 1,064]

Coughcough

It could have been anything from

a picture in Kirk's bedroom at the begining or perhaps the moment he awakens in the hospital, I heard dialogue from the first film in his thoughts as he awoke.

[ZackR 95]

Oops. Missed your post!

[Jay 37,456]

Star Trek Into Darkness

I went and saw it again in the theater. I enjoyed it MUCH more the second time!

This time since I already knew all the story beats, I could focus more on the music (confirmed for myself that there are many GREAT unreleased cues), the background details, the performances, etc.

Anyway, I think because this time I was able to ignore the plot holes and just enjoy the movie, I enjoyed it for the fun summer action romp it is. They did some good stuff here.

Should have had a better ending though.

[Marian Schedenig 8,239]

Just saw it and loved it. There were a few moments that were a bit too clicheed and obvious, but they couldn't at all hurt what I thought was a wonderfully twisted take on the old formula.

Watched it with a friend who had never seen and of the series or the old movies. I'll have to show her

The Wrath of Khan now.

[Uni 306]

I can't wait to see this film--if only to get to read all these spoilers. . . .

- Uni

[Matt C 456]

Serenity

Even if one hadn't seen the short-lived TV series that preceded it, Joss Whedon's directorial debut still remains an impressive and engaging sci-fi film. Whedon takes care to establish the multiple characters, but doesn't fill in the blanks for those who hadn't seen the show. The strength of the actors and the story structure keep the characters recognizable... especially the dramatic scenes with Sean Maher and Summer Glau. Nathan Fillion is confident leading man material, and he and Glau firmly anchor the film. Virtually none of the actors are wasted, except maybe David Krumholtz's Mr. Universe.

Looking back on it, Serenity is Whedon's more stronger efforts. As much as I enjoy The Avengers, Serenity is a more well-rounded movie overall. And now that I think about it, Wally Pfister was right about the camerawork for the latter... The Avengers doesn't come close to the dynamic work Jack Green attained for Serenity.

[Quintus 5,399]

If only all cancelled tv shows were wrapped up so satisfyingly. Serenity was an elegant resolution, filled with spirit and just the right amount of bittersweet loss.

[crocodile 8,033]

Nixon.

Know idea what to make of it, but nevertheless kept me interested all the time. Not sure why. A strange film - filled with too much contradicting elements and weird stylistic choices. Stone's collage editing doesn't work as well as it did for JFK. Hopkins is good in a role, and bad as well at the same time. Good, because he created (or recreated) a fascinating character. Bad, because he looks and sounds almost nothing like Nixon. Can't say Williams' score is any good in context, though. Schizophrenic, appropriately. But at any given moment either too noble, too suspensful, too emotional, or too cerebral. Never spot on. A rare misfire, unfortunately. Ultimately, the film is a curiosity.

Karol

[publicist 4,643]

No score could improve on Williams' take - just as u rigthly said, the paranoid Stone style makes it positively impossible to score it straight, so you are either left with a Tarantino needle drop approach or simply droning away in the background (as a, say, Armstrong score would supply today).

[crocodile 8,033]

Good point. That is the case in JFK as well, but in that film he used Williams' music as collection of pieces rather than traditional film music, as you would do in a documentary. So that worked well with his editing. What makes Nixon so jarring for me is that it has a "proper" score. The film would have been better without it.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

Still haven't seen that one.

[publicist 4,643]

Good point. That is the case in JFK as well, but in that film he used Williams' music as collection of pieces rather than traditional film music, as you would do in a documentary. So that worked well with his editing. What makes Nixon so jarring for me is that it has a "proper" score. The film would have been better without it.

Karol

The final speech at the JFK portrait gained a good deal of poignancy by Williams' score. There are piece like MEETING WITH MAO which come off as too showy and operatic, though. But it doesn't matter all that much, the film would not have been better without the JW score.

[crocodile 8,033]

I'd rather have Zimmer's drum circle of doom.

Karol

[A24 4,362]

I remember Nixon was excessively scored, excessively acted ... a little too much of everything, really. I believe 'heavy-handed' is the right term.

Alex

[publicist 4,643]

I'd rather have Zimmer's drum circle of doom.

Karol

You'll get in due time. And twice in a row!

[crocodile 8,033]

Actually, and I'm being serious, Zimmer did a pretty good job on Frost/Nixon. That's as intelligent as one could get with this kind of a sounscape modern approach.

Karol

[Incanus 5,723]

I remember Nixon was excessively scored, excessively acted ... a little too much of everything, really. I believe 'heavy-handed' is the right term.

Alex

Nixon is big and brooding and hyperdramatic but I sort of like it as it plays more as a Shakespearean tragedy than trying to be a documentary. Hopkins may not look or sound like Nixon but he does a good job portraying an incredibly tormented and complex character. I have also always seen this as sort of a love letter to Citizen Kane right from the opening scene with the White House gate. Williams' score addresses this melodramatic approach brilliantly.

[Quintus 5,399]

Actually, your Shakespearean analogy just sold it to me. I quite fancy it now.

[crocodile 8,033]

No, no Quinto. There are words in it.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

There are wordy screenplays, and then there are Christopher Nolan script sermons on the mount.

[Matt C 456]

If only all cancelled tv shows were wrapped up so satisfyingly. Serenity was an elegant resolution, filled with spirit and just the right amount of bittersweet loss.

Indeed it was. And Whedon structured it so it could function as a standalone film, or had it done financially well, a sequel could pick off from the plot threads of the film and/or series.

[crocodile 8,033]

The Duellists

Not sure if it's a great film or not. It shows a young director just learning his craft. The use of music is quite overbearing and the writing seems a bit clunky at times, but Ridley Scott's visual talent is nevertheless at full display here. And this is the element which elevates it to another level. I kind of find it unfortunate never got to explore further this kind of a territory (as his next film was Alien). A lot of it looks like a tribute to Barry Lyndon. Interesting film, if not entirely successful.

Karol

[Matt C 456]

Fast & Furious 6

This is the epitome of cinematic stupidity. Action scenes are over-edited, running time is a punishing 130 minutes, and the action scenes violate physics a dozen times. There's a plane sequence and its payoff strongly reminded me of that 'nuke the fridge' moment from Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull (and it took me out of the film completely). I couldn't give a rat's ass about the main characters or whether they lived or not. And the mid-credits scene had me shaking my head, while the other audience members ate it up.

This is what's wrong with summer blockbusters these days.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

No I'd say that's the one Summer franchise that knows what it's doing. You think people want to see realistic driving? They want to see insanely stupid over-the-top hilarity. The audience eats it up because it's mindless and fun. Nothing wrong with that franchise because it doesn't take itself seriously.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Fast & Furious 6

This is the epitome of cinematic stupidity. Action scenes are over-edited, running time is a punishing 130 minutes, and the action scenes violate physics a dozen times. There's a plane sequence and its payoff strongly reminded me of that 'nuke the fridge' moment from Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull (and it took me out of the film completely). I couldn't give a rat's ass about the main characters or whether they lived or not. And the mid-credits scene had me shaking my head, while the other audience members ate it up.

This is what's wrong with summer blockbusters these days.

you sound like a stick in the mud. Five and Six are fun as hell.

[Hurmm 91]

It's completely dumb and the movie knows it. There's no point seeing it if you can't accept deliberate stupidity in cinema.

Decent enough but Fast 5 was better. The new one is bogged down by the seriousness of the Letty character/family stuff. I would have preferred a consistently lighter tone ala Fast 5's Ocean's Eleven style.

[Quintus 5,399]

Fast & Furious 6

This is the epitome of cinematic stupidity. Action scenes are over-edited, running time is a punishing 130 minutes, and the action scenes violate physics a dozen times. There's a plane sequence and its payoff strongly reminded me of that 'nuke the fridge' moment from Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull (and it took me out of the film completely). I couldn't give a rat's ass about the main characters or whether they lived or not. And the mid-credits scene had me shaking my head, while the other audience members ate it

I haven't seen any of those movies and have no intention to. They look terrible.

[A24 4,362]

The Duellists

Not sure if it's a great film or not. It shows a young director just learning his craft. The use of music is quite overbearing and the writing seems a bit clunky at times, but Ridley Scott's visual talent is nevertheless at full display here. And this is the element which elevates it to another level. I kind of find it unfortunate never got to explore further this kind of a territory (as his next film was Alien). A lot of it looks like a tribute to Barry Lyndon. Interesting film, if not entirely successful.

Karol

I love the music in the film and how it is used. Perhaps it's because it doesn't sound like a typical film score, which is what I noticed the last time I watched The Duellists. I remember it made me wanted to hear more of Howard Blake.

While technically true, I find the remark about Scott (that he's still in a learning phase as a moviemaker) quite odd. I see so much similarities between this and Alien and Blade Runner. His first films all have simple yet complex stories but it's the visuals that do most of the talking. They are all sensory experiences. It's the visuals, the aesthetics that give birth to emotion. Heck, if what you are saying is true, then I wish he was still in his learning stages.

I am, however, surprised that a story guy like yourself got through it, crocs. How did you see it? I hope it was on a big screen and not on a laptop.

Alex

[publicist 4,643]

Last week i saw DAYS OF HEAVEN on a big screen for the first time. 'Gorgeous' doesn't begin to describe it - here Malick's contemplative style with a reduced dose of Hollywood dramatics are a perfect blend (i wish he would get this kind of studio interference on stuff like TREE OF LIFE, just to take some of the air out off the pretentiousness balloon).

[A24 4,362]

I only saw it once on DVD, a long time ago, and it was a really bad transfer. Is Days Of Heaven a studio movie? Was Malick only the director (copyright Jason)?


Alex

[Koray Savas 2,251]

No it's all Malick.

[publicist 4,643]

Under tight studio control, though. Malick wanted to film and cut forever but Paramount got antsy and accelerated the process.

[Matt C 456]

No I'd say that's the one Summer franchise that knows what it's doing. You think people want to see realistic driving? They want to see insanely stupid over-the-top hilarity. The audience eats it up because it's mindless and fun. Nothing wrong with that franchise because it doesn't take itself seriously.

I'm all for mindless fun, but the Fast franchise just takes it to an unbearable level. The franchise didn't interest me to begin with, and I've tried giving it a fair shake. It's not my thing, and I liked Transformers: Dark of the Moon for crying out loud!

I only saw it once on DVD, a long time ago, and it was a really bad transfer. Is Days Of Heaven a studio movie? Was Malick only the director (copyright Jason)?

Alex

Criterion released a restored version of the film here in the U.S. a few years ago. I don't know if it'll impact your enjoyment or not, but if you liked it... a better DVD is out there.

[A24 4,362]

Criterion is no option for me.

Salt: It was on TV but I gave up after 30 minutes. One of the worst things I've seen in a very long time.

000000,1/10

[Ollie 1,064]

I've never seen a Fast and Furious film and more than likely never will.

Finally saw Iron Man 3.

Fun, it was fun and entertaining. I may end up getting Tyler's score.

[MSM 126]

Liked it also, more than average. Tyler's score was good and worked well in the film. Will there be Iron Man 4?

[Jay 37,456]

Of course! What a silly question

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Fun, it was fun and entertaining.

Yes. Still a bit hard to believe this film will pull over a billion. I mean not much in the way of hype.

[crocodile 8,033]

The Duellists

Not sure if it's a great film or not. It shows a young director just learning his craft. The use of music is quite overbearing and the writing seems a bit clunky at times, but Ridley Scott's visual talent is nevertheless at full display here. And this is the element which elevates it to another level. I kind of find it unfortunate never got to explore further this kind of a territory (as his next film was Alien). A lot of it looks like a tribute to Barry Lyndon. Interesting film, if not entirely successful.

Karol

I love the music in the film and how it is used. Perhaps it's because it doesn't sound like a typical film score, which is what I noticed the last time I watched The Duellists. I remember it made me wanted to hear more of Howard Blake.

While technically true, I find the remark about Scott (that he's still in a learning phase as a moviemaker) quite odd. I see so much similarities between this and Alien and Blade Runner. His first films all have simple yet complex stories but it's the visuals that do most of the talking. They are all sensory experiences. It's the visuals, the aesthetics that give birth to emotion. Heck, if what you are saying is true, then I wish he was still in his learning stages.

I am, however, surprised that a story guy like yourself got through it, crocs. How did you see it? I hope it was on a big screen and not on a laptop.

Alex

Technically, the film is great. And from a visual standpoint I have no complaints. But there is something really awkward about the story itself. I do recognize, however, that this film is not about that at all. It's really good, especially the final showdown.

Karol