Jump to content

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


Mr. Breathmask

Recommended Posts

Terminator Salvation is on. This is much worse than Prometheus, fellas.

No, it's not. As much as I agree it is a bad film, at least I was marginally entertained by it.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes... That would explain it all... Something must have happened to Mr. Cremers between 1980 and 1983... Something that changed him forever... 1982...

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to hear it from other people. I'm no longer a Star Wars fan. Return Of The Jedi ended that in 1983.

Hah!. Why can't you just admit, It's just as bad/good as the two others in the trilogy. You just grew up six years.

Naah, it's worse than the other two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's clearly the weakest of the trilogy and this is coming from someone who saw it before the others when I was 5 and frequently considered it the best one as a kid. There's no way it's in the same league as Star Wars or especially Empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's clearly the weakest of the trilogy and this is coming from someone who saw it before the others when I was 5 and frequently considered it the best one as a kid. There's no way it's in the same league as Star Wars or especially Empire.

THIS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a fan of Jaws the movie. It's my favorite movie of all time. The existence of the sequel franchise does nothing to diminish the greatness of the original film because I don't let it, and I'm really only worried about my own thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to hear it from other people. I'm no longer a Star Wars fan. Return Of The Jedi ended that in 1983.

Hah!. Why can't you just admit, It's just as bad/good as the two others in the trilogy. You just grew up six years.

Sorry, maybe to you or the uninitiated, but not to me. You might just as well say, all films are just as good or bad as the first movie. I see many important differences between the first two and the third Star Wars movie (mostly to do with becoming more silly and childish). If ROTJ was released first, then I would never have taken the trouble to see the other ones. It's the same with the Indiana Jones movies. I liked Raiders Of The Lost Ark but I hated Temple of Doom. The difference is Lucas never appologized for Return Of The Jedi. The critique that The Crystal Skull is getting from Indiana Jones fans is exactly the critique I gave to ROTJ.

Terminator Salvation is on. This is much worse than Prometheus, fellas.

No, it's not. As much as I agree it is a bad film, at least I was marginally entertained by it.

I stopped watching. It's very bad. Prometheus is not that bad, unless your expectations were too high. No really, it made me yearn for a time when science fiction movies were quiet, atmospheric and left unexplained. In THX 1138, for example, you had to explore and learn as you go. The characters didn't talk science fiction-ish, nor did they explain every action or plotline that goes on or that is about to happen. You just had to dive in, pull out your antennas, and try to attune with the things that appeared on the screen.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree, Prometheus is better than Terminator 4. 4 had no reason to exist. ZERO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to agree with Alex, but I love Temple of Doom, probably even more than Raiders. Jedi also doesn't ruin Star Wars for me.

I put on the ESB Blu-ray yesterday. Technically, the Blu-ray isn't that impressive. It looks like something mastered for the previous generation of technology and it clearly should have gotten a new 4k scan or whatever. Jaws, E.T., Indiana Jones and the other movies of that era look far better.

Anyway, as a film, it's still completely phenomenal. There's little to nothing outside the alterations I can criticize. It's a movie that gets better and better as you and it get older. To this day there are things captured on that film that I don't even notice until another viewing, whether it be the cockpit view of the AT-AT gunning a guy down or Han stopping work on the Millennium Falcon to listen to Leia briefing rogue group. For quick comparison, I don't care about all the CGI buffoonery going on in the background of the prequels...had to be said.

Music is frickin' amazing. Man, I really wish we had the film mix of the entire score. I guess it's what you call "wet" or bright sound. It sounds better than on CD.

The actors have never been more at home in their roles. Any bad performances it seems were excised. Just watch the cut scenes on Blu-ray. This is clearly the tightest Star Wars ever. The effects hold up and thankfully you can still see through a great deal of them in the Blu-ray version. There are still matte blobs, transparency, rod tipping the AT-AT, strings on the big asteroid, Vader's lightsaber not pointed at the camera before he turns it on, etc.

There's just something extra special about this one. It's the bold one. It had the perfect combination of people working their balls off on it. It's a sequel that distances itself from the original to become something truly worthy, not just a cash-in. In fact, it's elevated beyond the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be blunt and to the point about one thing, a person is being idiotic if they let a sequel ruin the original film for them.

Return of the Jedi's faults are all it's own, the do not affect Star Wars or ESB.

Terminator 4 in no way detracts from Terminator or T2

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in no way lessens the previous 3 films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy the OT movies all the same but SW rises above both sequels by a smidgen. It's the one masterpiece in the trilogy for me, unburdened by all the depth and soul searching of TESB. Return of the Jedi is the rousing finale which wraps the story up beautifully, flaws and all. I give the third film 4 stars, down from the 5 I used to consider it to be.

I only ever refer to the theatricals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, the whole desert section of STAR WARS bores me and since 1997, i felt no obligation to watch the old movies again. I like selected memories of all 3 films (the tie fighter attack and the trenches flight in the first, most of the second and Jabba, the emperor scenes and final destruction of the Death Star in the third), but i have no desire to watch them again.

Sometimes, i feel the irresistible urge to watch ATTACK OF THE CLONES, to see if it really was as offensive as my memories suggest, but i could handle it till now. So tonight it's either a new episode of BOARDWALK EMPIRE, Peter O`Toole in MY FAVOURITE YEAR...or AOTC:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If i re-watch movies from my youth, it's either stuff like CADDYSHACK or TRADING PLACES, or older movies like european comedies or AFRICAN QUEEN, HATARI! etc. I don't know, neither STAR TREK nor STAR WARS ever really could engage me, even if i sat through TMP for Goldsmith twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lengthy desert sequences with the droids and the sand crawler are a trilogy highlight for me. The score in particular is just peerless magic from John there. Absolutely magical yet surprisingly subtle and delicate. Some of my all time favourite Williams music, in that desert. And George directs those scenes, the one inside the crawler, with a quiet intimacy and toddler-like playfulness he would never again demonstrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the same for me.

On Tatooine, the anticipation of things to come is amazingly tangible. A whole universe is waiting to be discovered. It's when they are on the Death Star that I feel that I'm Star Warsed out, especially during that garbage compartment scene.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Tatooine, the anticipation of things to come is amazingly tangible. A whole universe is waiting to be discovered.

I really love that. In my time of Star Wars fandom, I wanted to go there.

Ironically, it's one of the things that drove me away from filmmaking to try to be a scientist instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes... That would explain it all... Something must have happened to Mr. Cremers between 1980 and 1983... Something that changed him forever... 1982...

Sorry to ruin your funniest post ever BloobyBoat but it's is possible. I saw Star Wars when I was 11 and when Jedi came out 17, almost an adult. My attitude about SW

was different. Jedi was not worse, I had been changed. Now I can see they are all bad films(still entertaining) with great music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally picked up Masters of the Universe on Blu-ray. What an awesome flick. I think it holds up really well. It has this reputation for being a bad movie and I can remember in my early days of the internet finding a website that just tore it apart. Interestingly, director Gary Goddard ended up defending the movie in the comments, noting that they didn't have much of a budget to work with and that he felt the movie turned out pretty good. I agree. The sets, costumes, creatures and technology that they did get in there were pretty cool. Just a booming powerhouse score by Conti. Langella gives absolutely one of the best villainous performances ever. It's just pure bliss when he takes complete control of the universe and the movie in those last 15 minutes or so. In fact, all the performances are pretty good. The cast just give it their all and don't treat it like a joke. And it isn't.

Shit, it looks pretty damn good on Blu-ray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cloud Atlas

I liked it a lot, despite being heavily flawed. I've seen some saying it could be the best film of the decade. I don't think so. Maybe one of the best of the year, but who knows. What the film wanted to be and what it is are very different things. There seem to be two camps evolving - the "amazing masterpiece" and the "misguided folly" camps. I am closer to the masterpiece camp, but I don't think it's a masterpiece. I think this film will require perspective to appreciate.

The score was pretty good, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Avengers

I needed a average, but exciting movie to pick up my mood and this was availeble on my Apple TV.

Thge film benefits from Whedon's ability to handle an ensemble cast, but suffers from the fact that his visual experience lies mostly in the world of TV.

This is a big "event" film, but visually, despite the many convincing special effects it looks a bit....narrow. visually. I understand the film was not even shot with an anamorphic lens?

It does have a TV look to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that movie was a spin of from a TV show right? So it kinda makes sense.

But The Avengers was Marvels big tent pole picture. You'd expect them to go epic.

The DP of TDKR criticised the look of The Avengers, and I can kinda see why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The action scenes are a bit too much of the Sam Raimi/Spiderman type, to long, to much happening at once and with the camera moving too fast.

Atleast Bourne style shaky cam is avoided.

Cast is good though, everyone does exactly what they need to do. Downy JR is irresistibly arrogant, and Chris Evans is earnest and forthright, Sam Jackson is mothofucking badass, Hoddesdon is nice and sneering, Johanssen is alluring and Ruffolo manages to make his Bruce Banner far more interesting in a supporting role then Ed Norton did as a lead actor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the film was not even shot with an anamorphic lens?

This is on purpose. There's a lot of vertical action, and the 1.85.1 helps the framing of the film evoke a comic book panel look. For example: Thor and Iron Man fighting as seen from the ground. Thor hitting Hulk with the hammer. Iron Man flying towards the opened wormhole or the circular shot of the whole group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's face it, the general audience hates black bars.

Alex - who loves them.

I don't care about them.

What I like is a screen of the size and shape appropiate when the film is 2.35:1, so the size of the image isn't reduced because it doesn't fit (undermining the scope effect). Like a good cinema screen. The bars themselves are irrelevant, given that they're not part of the film and they're only the result of a screen that isn't of the appropiate shape or size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I mean that they aren't part of the film.

If you give me a film, it's irrelevant that there are bars on then sides, as much as it's irrelevant that there are the border of a TV, or a wall, or anything (as long as it isn't distracting). I'm not looking at the sides. I'm looking at the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.