Jump to content

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


Mr. Breathmask
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

What an oddly pointless exercise that was, especially with the shot-for-shot recreation. 

On the bonus features somebody has the nerve to say that because the original was monochrome , young people won't watch.

Implying, they were performing some kind of artistic preservation.by remaking it in colour!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bruce marshall said:

On the bonus features somebody has the nerve to say that because the original was monochrome , young people won't watch.

Implying, they were performing some kind of artistic preservation.by remaking it in colour!

Somehow a comparable exercise like Tom Savini's remake of "Night of the Living Dead".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colorization is evil. 

 

It should be pointed out that black and white movies are colored movies.

 

The last two Christmas' I have purged most of my movies. I have no trouble finding takers for my colored films but no one wants b&w except older folks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I did watch 3 b&w Basil Rathbone  Sherlock Holmes films, one 20th Century Fox, and two Universals yesterday.  Adventures, Voice of Terror and SH Faces Death.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like the Rathbone/Bruce HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES.

There's another one - which I can't remember the name of - which ends with Holmes and Watson having a talk about some kind of oncoming storm over England. Something to do with the Nazis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 Bridges - cop thriller with the gone-too-soon Chadwick Boseman, Sienna Miller and JK Simmons in which the titular Manhattan river crossings are locked down in order to prevent the escape of cop killers. A reasonably entertaining 90 minutes or so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I really like the Rathbone/Bruce HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES.

There's another one - which I can't remember the name of - which ends with Holmes and Watson having a talk about some kind of oncoming storm over England. Something to do with the Nazis.

Voice of Terror.

Very patriotic film.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

London has fallen. 

 

Utterly ridiculous, but also hugely entertaining. Hadn’t recognised Eckhart at all at first and Charlotte Riley is so good.

The score starts (and ends) with a stupid D minor cue, complete with (softly) wailing man. Then it changes direction completely and its more intimate cues sound like improved In Her Shoes material while the action stuff isn’t bad at all either. One wonders why they bothered with the stupid opening and ending if that was the direction they wanted to take. God bless you all, and God bless… Oh, no, wait.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/06/2022 at 6:37 AM, JoeinAR said:

Voice of Terror.

Very patriotic film.

 

I remember watching these modern day Holmes films with my father.

We always got a chuckle out of the tacked on patriotic pronouncements!😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crazy rich Asians.

 

Wow, I’m having a real racist weekend, aren’t I? The first half was definitely the best and I also didn’t need that corny ending. Awkwafina wasn’t that bad this time, though, and Michelle Yeoh is as good as ever.

This might be the best Brian Tyler score I’ve heard so far too. Never imagined he could write such emotional cues. Fun music and great use of ride of the Valkyries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bollemanneke said:

Crazy rich Asians.

Wow, I’m having a real racist weekend, aren’t I?

Watch what you want, and screw everyone else.

 

(edit) the film may be racist (I wouldn't know, not having seen it), but that doesn't make you one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Watch what you want, and screw everyone else.

 

(edit) the film may be racist (I wouldn't know, not having seen it), but that doesn't make you one!

Tell that to The Birth of a Nation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen BIRTH OF A NATION, @Edmilson (I assume you mean the D.W. Griffith film?), many times. I appreciate it for what it is, and the time period in which it was made.

This does not make me a racist.

In point of fact, it's one of the most important films ever made, and it deserves to be studied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Watch what you want, and screw everyone else.

 

(edit) the film may be racist (I wouldn't know, not having seen it), but that doesn't make you one!

I'm sure some woke do-gooders would say the movie is racist, but I was just being tongue-in-cheek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

I'm sure some woke do-gooders would say the movie is racist, but I was just being tongue-in-cheek.

 

As opposed to do-badders to are unaware and inattentive to injustice in society, especially racism?

 

I haven't seen the film and know nothing about it. I expect you're taking your nomenclature to the extreme (not in your initial post, but with your use of "woke" and "do-gooder" as supposedly derogatory terms), which is what I'm replying to here. But if the only way of not interpreting a film as racist were to be a bad person who isn't bothered by racism, then I'd say that speaks for itself (which, generally, is why we need woke do-gooders).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just saying that some people seem to think Hollywood is, or needs to be, more than cheap entertainment (London Has Fallen was apparently insensitive to 7/7 victims). I don't watch movies hoping for commentary on society, I watch them to forget about society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, @bollemanneke. It's a movie, it's just a movie. It's a trick of light. How could it be intrinsically racist?

What makes it "racist" is the interpretation.

 

6 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

 (London Has Fallen was apparently insensitive to 7/7 victims)

LONDON HAS FALLEN is insensitive to good taste :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The film portrays blacks (many of whom are played by white actors in blackface) as unintelligent and sexually aggressive toward white women. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is portrayed as a heroic force, necessary to preserve American values, protect white women, and maintain white supremacy.[14][15]

I don't dispute that it's an impressive landmark feature, but that's just racist. It can be both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

It's a movie, it's just a movie. It's a trick of light. How could it be intrinsically racist?

 

Well, The Birth of a Nation is explicitly racist, isn't it?

 

As for Crazy Rich Asians, I'm not sure what the grounds for accusations of racism would be there. (I see that were some race-oriented complaints regarding the casting, but not, to my knowledge, the content of the film itself.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

Well, The Birth of a Nation is explicitly racist, isn't it?


It is: it’s also a a pioneering piece of cinema, and a masterpiece, outdone only by Griffiths’ next film, the astounding Intolerance.

 

Racist, too, are The Merchant of Venice, Oliver Twist and The Brothers Karamazov. One learns to live with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

 

Well, The Birth of a Nation is explicitly racist, isn't it?

 

As for Crazy Rich Asians, I'm not sure what the grounds for accusations of racism would be there. (I see that were some race-oriented complaints regarding the casting, but not, to my knowledge, the content of the film itself.)

Again, I was being tongue-in-cheek as no movie made today seems to be immune to either race-related casting controversies or people being offended by it. The more Roger Ebert and co I read, the more I think: Dude, can you never just sit back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

...Griffiths’ next film, the astounding Intolerance.

 

Which (being motivated by the hostility Griffith felt directed towards him due to the racism of The Birth of a Nation) would probably be Woke Do-gooders! if he were making it today.

 

36 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Again, I was being tongue-in-cheek...

 

Yeah, I understood that your comment was tongue-in-cheek; I just wasn't sure whose cheek, so to speak. In any case, the genie (meaning the "is Crazy Rich Asians racist" genie) was already out of the bottle by that stage.

 

I saw it a few years ago. Not my cup of tea.

 

46 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

...no movie made today seems to be immune to either race-related casting controversies or people being offended by it. The more Roger Ebert and co I read, the more I think: Dude, can you never just sit back?

 

It's a complicated issue. Certainly there are people with unreasonably prescriptive and censorious attitudes to what can or should be shown, and ridiculously simple-minded interpretations of what they see. On the other hand, films can convey and promote attitudes, beliefs and prejudices, and shouldn't be considered to be immune from criticism of these. Unfortunately, the line between the two is now outside what it is permitted to discuss here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I completely agree that some movies can promote/perpetuate messages, but lots of critics don't seem to understand time and place anymore. Take Suffragette: criticised because it failed to mention US or black women had to wait longer for the vote. BECAUSE IT WAS ABOUT THE UK. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

Which (being motivated by the hostility Griffith felt directed towards him due to the racism of The Birth of a Nation) would probably be Woke Do-gooders! if he were making it today.


It’s more of a whiny piece: it’s Griffiths’ cry for tolerance towards his own racism. Now, I’m all for being tolerant towards the intolerant, but it’s one of those cases where it’s “boo-hoo, cry me a River, W Griffiths.”

 

But the cinema of it is undeniable. A masterwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Glóin the Dark said:
8 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

...no movie made today seems to be immune to either race-related casting controversies or people being offended by it. The more Roger Ebert and co I read, the more I think: Dude, can you never just sit back?

 

It's a complicated issue. Certainly there are people with unreasonably prescriptive and censorious attitudes to what can or should be shown, and ridiculously simple-minded interpretations of what they see. On the other hand, films can convey and promote attitudes, beliefs and prejudices, and shouldn't be considered to be immune from criticism of these. Unfortunately, the line between the two is now outside what it is permitted to discuss here...

 

I think Hollywood is, and should be, about both kinds. And it makes a difference *how* some things are portrayed. There's a hilarious Danish black action comedy I Kina spiser de hunde (In China They Eat Dogs) that's horribly insensitive/politically incorrect, but it never gave me the feeling that it *means* these things in the slightest, or that the things it mocks (or rather, often, the characters, which the film usually doesn't portray as its "own" philosophy) are directed against anything but the characters/situations in the film in their respective context. On the opposite side of the spectrum, I have little tolerance for blunt Hollywood "popcorn" fare that more or less plays as a patriotic commercial of (in Hollywood's case) American superiority and seems more sincere in that ideology than the blackest comedy is in its mockery.

 

The masterpiece in that regard may be Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, which brilliantly manages to play both extremes simultaneously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WINNING

1968

 

NEWMAN, WOODWARD, WAGNER...

Vintage Sixties race cars

Dave Grusin

Score!

 

Looks like a " winner" to me.

 

 

 

Not!

 

Another in a series of dreadful late Sixties early Senenties Paul Newman films ( WUSA, ...HARRY FRIGG).

 

Wagner apparently thought he was making an episode if IT TAKES A.THIEF- he wears the same clothes and utters the same catchphrase " Beautiful".

 

Fart might like this😜

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

I think Hollywood is, and should be, about both kinds...

 

I agree, though I was referring to critics' and commentators' reactions rather than to the films and filmmakers themselves. That is to say, I don't agree that commentators should just keep quiet about a film, or a work in whatever medium, which advances (intentionally or unintentionally) objectionable attitudes, views or representations. But one often finds such criticism meted out on unfair grounds. There's the depiction versus endorsement fallacy whose perpetrators require the creators to spell out in flashing neon lights that they disapprove of a certain belief or act depicted, failing which they (and their work) are to be denounced as complicit. And then there's the generalisation fallacy, in which some aspect of a story is automatically interpreted as an attempt to assert a universal truth regarding a certain state of affairs. That's not to say that endorsement and generalisation can never be inferred from a work, of course, just that they're often assumed too quickly and without proper scrutiny.

 

17 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

I have little tolerance for blunt Hollywood "popcorn" fare that more or less plays as a patriotic commercial of (in Hollywood's case) American superiority...

 

Same here. I'm also wary of stories which uncritically portray characters in law enforcement roles as heroes and criminals as villains, and of revenge stories in which the revenge aspect feels uncritically endorsed. I say "wary" because, obviously, there's always a risk of falling foul of the sort of fallacies I mentioned above if one is not careful.

 

17 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

The masterpiece in that regard may be Verhoeven's Starship Troopers...

 

I really need to get round to seeing that film. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

On the opposite side of the spectrum, I have little tolerance for blunt Hollywood "popcorn" fare that more or less plays as a patriotic commercial of (in Hollywood's case) American superiority and seems more sincere in that ideology than the blackest comedy is in its mockery.

 

pearl-harbor-2001-filmplakat.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Ben Affleck movie, that's not for the faint of heart!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Glóin the Dark said:

 

I agree, though I was referring to critics' and commentators' reactions rather than to the films and filmmakers themselves. That is to say, I don't agree that commentators should just keep quiet about a film, or a work in whatever medium, which advances (intentionally or unintentionally) objectionable attitudes, views or representations. But one often finds such criticism meted out on unfair grounds. There's the depiction versus endorsement fallacy whose perpetrators require the creators to spell out in flashing neon lights that they disapprove of a certain belief or act depicted, failing which they (and their work) are to be denounced as complicit. And then there's the generalisation fallacy, in which some aspect of a story is automatically interpreted as an attempt to assert a universal truth regarding a certain state of affairs. That's not to say that endorsement and generalisation can never be inferred from a work, of course, just that they're often assumed too quickly and without proper scrutiny.

 

 

Same here. I'm also wary of stories which uncritically portray characters in law enforcement roles as heroes and criminals as villains, and of revenge stories in which the revenge aspect feels uncritically endorsed. I say "wary" because, obviously, there's always a risk of falling foul of the sort of fallacies I mentioned above if one is not careful.

 

 

I really need to get round to seeing that film. 

Didn't care for it.

The ' message' was delivered in such a blunt way it failed to be convincing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, bruce marshall said:

Thor thinks he's an " auteur".

 

I mean, strictly speaking, if you can tell from the way a movie is shot and put together who its director was, said director is an auteur: he had stamped the film with his unique style.

 

That a style is unique doesn't mean its good, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect Thor's opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

😅😜😛😄😙

40 minutes ago, AC1 said:

Well, I guess his taste in music corresponds with his taste in movies. ;)

Well, except for his hatred of Gia, his taste is decent.😁

It's certainly better than Snark' s!

7 minutes ago, AC1 said:

 

 

Bay doesn't even make films. He makes movies. ;) ;)

Neither.

They're adverts for the endless products placed conspicuously in every scene!😁😠

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.