Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Do you believe that today's movies are being made for the laptop audience? Well, sadly enough, there could be some truth to that. It would certainly explain why so many people only care for the story or for 'what happens next'.

BTW, where is Steef? Is he banned? Did he go skiing?

Alex

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 49.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • #SnowyVernalSpringsEternal

    6534

  • AC1

    5125

  • Quintus

    3845

  • The Big Man

    3821

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi.   I love how character based this is. All of our main characters experience an emotional journey and growth in this movie. And do so often by, screwi

I don't know about you freaks but personally I've always been disappointed Schindler's List doesn't end with Oskar going on the Eastern Front and turning on the nazis, killing all of them with oneline

You can just imagine the outrage if this sophisticated ping pong of rape drama, societal satire and character study would have been made in Hollywood today. But Paul Verhoeven has always been the mast

Whilst I'm in heaven when watching a good movie alone on the plasma with the lights dimmed, I must admit I was very surprised by how much I became engrossed watching Argo on my phone with headphones. It was really a lot more enjoyable a method than it really had any right to be. Saying that, I also watched the entire last series of The Sopranos on my old LG phone and that was great too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with it. It's nice enjoying a film or two in my room without people around.

At home there's a CRT TV. Here there's one with a big screen but not HD, sometimes I see things there although I have problems with subtitles. If I were restricted to see things only in that TV, I wouldn't see films at home, and here only in the weekend mornings and some evenings/nights.

Many films are basically the same in a bigger or smaller screen. This is a disappointing realization I've come over time. Still, I prefer the theater experience, but not for every film.

I think I've never seen a blu-ray in a proper screen in a domestic set up.

that is totally false/incorrect/bullshit...

the theatre experience is not duplicated at home.

I've seen many new movies that I missed on the big screen and wished I'd seen it on the big screen. I've yet to see a film in the theatre and wished I'd see it on tv first.

First of all, Chaac is just stating an opinion, so it's not "false/incorrect/bullshit". It's just how he sees the movie experience.

But you're correct, of course, that the theatre experience is not "duplicated" at home....including the lines, the over-priced tickets and "food", the 20+ minutes of commercials, the people chomping on popcorn behind you, the screaming babies, the chattering teenagers, the freakishly tall person in front of you with the hat, the guy who keeps shuffling down the aisle with his ass or crotch in your face to use the toilet (or having to miss part of the movie because you have to use the toilet), the late-comers, the girl who forgot to (or won't) turn off her phone, etc, etc, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not discounting the cinema experience, obviously there's a lot of magic to seeing a movie in a proper theatre. But just because you can't "duplicate" it at home doesn't mean seeing it at home can't be an outstanding experience. I've discovered a lot of older films at home...Casablanca and Lawrence of Arabia, for example, that I later saw in the theatre, which was a great, "different' experience but couldn't replicate the feelings I had for those films seeing them at home for the first time. And entire generation grew up seeing Star Wars at home, and fell in love with it that way.

As far as watching on a laptop goes, I'm not big on it either, but I've done it and enjoyed films that way as well. And since you're very close to the screen, perceptually it's not as small as you might think, and can be a decent, private experience with the right headphones (a cell phone, on the other hand, is probably a bridge too far for me).

And there are many films I paid to see in the theatre I wish I'd just skipped and saved for BD rental. Basically, my criteria for seeing a film in the theatre these days is that it should be a movie that really benefits from being on the big screen...The Hobbit, or Skyfall, are recent examples. And that I'm confident enough that the film will be worth the time, money and hassle of going to the theatre. But Lincoln, or most dramas and comedies, no matter how good they may be, I can just as easily wait for the BD, and I don't believe the experience is any less for it. And of course seeing a bad film on the big screen doesn't make it good, anymore than seeing a good film on the small screen makes it bad.

So yeah, why should I deal with all of the things I mentioned about going to the cinema when I can see a perfect quality, HD film with outstanding picture and sound right in my own home? Despite Hollywood's attempts at justifying the outrageous prices they charge for tickets by tugging at nostalgic heart stings about about the "cinema experience", I'm perfectly happy to watch most films at home, and save my "cinema experience" for a select number of films per year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I'm in heaven when watching a good movie alone on the plasma with the lights dimmed, I must admit I was very surprised by how much I became engrossed watching Argo on my phone with headphones. It was really a lot more enjoyable a method than it really had any right to be. Saying that, I also watched the entire last series of The Sopranos on my old LG phone and that was great too.

A laptop is my limit, I don't think I would go there.

I've had great experiences seeing films on my laptop. I still remember crying my eyes out seeing Paths of Glory or The Iron Giant. I don't need a lot of fancy hardware to simply get into a film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with it. It's nice enjoying a film or two in my room without people around.

At home there's a CRT TV. Here there's one with a big screen but not HD, sometimes I see things there although I have problems with subtitles. If I were restricted to see things only in that TV, I wouldn't see films at home, and here only in the weekend mornings and some evenings/nights.

Many films are basically the same in a bigger or smaller screen. This is a disappointing realization I've come over time. Still, I prefer the theater experience, but not for every film.

I think I've never seen a blu-ray in a proper screen in a domestic set up.

that is totally false/incorrect/bullshit...

the theatre experience is not duplicated at home.

I've seen many new movies that I missed on the big screen and wished I'd seen it on the big screen. I've yet to see a film in the theatre and wished I'd see it on tv first.

First of all, Chaac is just stating an opinion, so it's not "false/incorrect/bullshit". It's just how he sees the movie experience.

But you're correct, of course, that the theatre experience is not "duplicated" at home....including the lines, the over-priced tickets and "food", the 20+ minutes of commercials, the people chomping on popcorn behind you, the screaming babies, the chattering teenagers, the freakishly tall person in front of you with the hat, the guy who keeps shuffling down the aisle with his ass or crotch in your face to use the toilet (or having to miss part of the movie because you have to use the toilet), the late-comers, the girl who forgot to (or won't) turn off her phone, etc, etc, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not discounting the cinema experience, obviously there's a lot of magic to seeing a movie in a proper theatre. But just because you can't "duplicate" it at home doesn't mean seeing it at home can't be an outstanding experience. I've discovered a lot of older films at home...Casablanca and Lawrence of Arabia, for example, that I later saw in the theatre, which was a great, "different' experience but couldn't replicate the feelings I had for those films seeing them at home for the first time. And entire generation grew up seeing Star Wars at home, and fell in love with it that way.

As far as watching on a laptop goes, I'm not big on it either, but I've done it and enjoyed films that way as well. And since you're very close to the screen, perceptually it's not as small as you might think, and can be a decent, private experience with the right headphones (a cell phone, on the other hand, is probably a bridge too far for me).

And there are many films I paid to see in the theatre I wish I'd just skipped and saved for BD rental. Basically, my criteria for seeing a film in the theatre these days is that it should be a movie that really benefits from being on the big screen...The Hobbit, or Skyfall, are recent examples. And that I'm confident enough that the film will be worth the time, money and hassle of going to the theatre. But Lincoln, or most dramas and comedies, no matter how good they may be, I can just as easily wait for the BD, and I don't believe the experience is any less for it. And of course seeing a bad film on the big screen doesn't make it good, anymore than seeing a good film on the small screen makes it bad.

So yeah, why should I deal with all of the things I mentioned about going to the cinema when I can see a perfect quality, HD film with outstanding picture and sound right in my own home? Despite Hollywood's attempts at justifying the outrageous prices they charge for tickets by tugging at nostalgic heart stings about about the "cinema experience", I'm perfectly happy to watch most films at home, and save my "cinema experience" for a select number of films per year.

please don't lecture me newguy, I'm not interested in your pathetic defense of Chaac, cat chokes on furball, save it for yourself. I can't help it if your society is a bunch of assholes who don't know how to behave themselves in a movie theatre, I have no sympathy for fools who sit behind freakishly tall people. If there are lines go early to avoid them. If your sensory system isn't keen enough to block out someone eating popcorn, well cry me a river. If a person is on a cell phone have the balls to tell them to take it outside or turn the damn thing off, no one in here paid to listen to your drama.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut

It's been a while since I've seen it, but even in it's rough state... it's a more tonally consistent and enjoyable film than the Lester version. The Lester version of Superman II was badly done, from the Eiffel Tower sequence to the way Lois finds out Superman's secret identity. Even though the ending basically reuses the first film's and one scene is culled from two screen tests.... it still works. Even though the continuity in that scene is all over the place, it's one of the most enjoyable new additions.

I know the budget was too tight to allow Williams or a new composer to rescore the new cut, but the music editing was terrible. At least most of it was from Williams' Superman and not too much from Ken Thorne's Superman II.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I'm in heaven when watching a good movie alone on the plasma with the lights dimmed, I must admit I was very surprised by how much I became engrossed watching Argo on my phone with headphones. It was really a lot more enjoyable a method than it really had any right to be. Saying that, I also watched the entire last series of The Sopranos on my old LG phone and that was great too.

A laptop is my limit, I don't think I would go there.

I've had great experiences seeing films on my laptop. I still remember crying my eyes out seeing Paths of Glory or The Iron Giant. I don't need a lot of fancy hardware to simply get into a film.

Whilst I'm in heaven when watching a good movie alone on the plasma with the lights dimmed, I must admit I was very surprised by how much I became engrossed watching Argo on my phone with headphones. It was really a lot more enjoyable a method than it really had any right to be. Saying that, I also watched the entire last series of The Sopranos on my old LG phone and that was great too.

A laptop is my limit, I don't think I would go there.

I've had great experiences seeing films on my laptop. I still remember crying my eyes out seeing Paths of Glory or The Iron Giant. I don't need a lot of fancy hardware to simply get into a film.

Same. While I cannot disregard the great cinema experience, I've had great moments with my laptop. But as you said, laptops are the limit for me. No iPods, iPads, phones, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't lecture me newguy

"newguy"

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! "newguy" Is that old canard the best you have? What an original forum insult you've come up with there!

Look, everything that you mention only proves my point..why should I go through the trouble of getting to the cinema super early to avoid lines, or find a place to park? And what, confronting rude people talking on their phone or eating popcorn is supposed to make for a more enjoyable evening? Is that supposed to make me want to go? You're not making a very good argument there. And not everyplace is like Arizona....in the country I live there is assigned seating in the cinema, so you don't have a choice on who you sit behind. But that didn't occur to you when you spat out "your society" did it? So yeah, for all the reasons I mentioned...and the ones you just did, I'm fine doing a lot of my movie viewing on my 60" plasma and 7.1 surround at home, thanks. Your mileage may vary.

And damn, what is wrong with you? No one was lecturing you...Did I somehow insult you with my post? If I did, please point it out. I challenge you to find a single part of that post where I personally insult you at all. All I did was talk about what I don't like about going to the cinema, and the advantages of home cinema, and you respond by going on...what, some kind of rant? What is it around here that some people take differing opinions from their own so damn personally? Are you capable of having a rational discussion without getting completely defensive? Did it ever occur to you to just respond rationally to what I said?

Good grief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"newguy"

Good grief.

new guy was a nice safe not to be taken as an insult statement. I never said you insulted me. One doesn't necessarily get insulted when lectured too, and you did lecture Nick. Now I didn't know your society was so strict that you're assigned seating. Here we have to pay for that level of service at specialty theatres. I can't tell you much about Arizona, I've been there a few times. Seen the grand canyon, it's a big ditch btw. but never saw a movie there (Arizona) at the theatre, did watch one on tv in Flagstaff.

I'm sorry that you attend theatres full of rude people. I rarely do but I have on a few occasions told people to turn their phones off. They didn't like it to be sure, but the other folks around them applauded.

Feel free to refer to me as old-timer, old fart, curmudgeon, none of those offend me. dying is for the dead, aging is for the living.

The only new movie this weekend that looks even a bit interesting is Snitch. Looks okay and has gotten some solid reviews

Stefan is not banned Alex

He is fine, he just hasn't posted in a period of days.

We were discussing you yesterday.

It was complimentary and all good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"newguy"

Good grief.

new guy was a nice safe not to be taken as an insult statement. I never said you insulted me. One doesn't necessarily get insulted when lectured too, and you did lecture Nick. Now I didn't know your society was so strict that you're assigned seating. Here we have to pay for that level of service at specialty theatres. I can't tell you much about Arizona, I've been there a few times. Seen the grand canyon, it's a big ditch btw. but never saw a movie there (Arizona) at the theatre, did watch one on tv in Flagstaff.

I'm sorry that you attend theatres full of rude people. I rarely do but I have on a few occasions told people to turn their phones off. They didn't like it to be sure, but the other folks around them applauded.

Feel free to refer to me as old-timer, old fart, curmudgeon, none of those offend me. dying is for the dead, aging is for the living.

The only new movie this weekend that looks even a bit interesting is Snitch. Looks okay and has gotten some solid reviews

Stefan is not banned Alex

He is fine, he just hasn't posted in a period of days.

We were discussing you yesterday.

It was complimentary and all good.

Well, look, I would have been perfectly happy to have a discussion with you on the merits of cinema vs. home cinema, but you had to start out your response with words like "lecture" and "pathetic" and my society being a bunch of assholes and being a fool for sitting behind tall people. I mean, WTF is that? I'd invite you to re-read your post and then tell me what I wrote called for that kind of response.

Crikey, just posting on a soundtrack forum like this shouldn't be so hard, it's not hand to hand combat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you believe that today's movies are being made for the laptop audience? Well, sadly enough, there could be some truth to that. It would certainly explain why so many people only care for the story or for 'what happens next'.

Yeah, I think there's certainly a TV influence in a lot of the commercial films being made. Visually, it seems compositions have become more "crowded" these days, with a majority of shots never daring to move back further than the waist up.

That aside, I think there's something to be said for imagination. There's nothing like experiencing 2001: A Space Odyssey in 70mm, but I don't think it's impossible for someone (with the right frame of mind) to be blown away by it on an iPod screen. I truly believe Kubrick's sheer technical ability to create the illusion of limitless space transcends the size of the box that the imagery is placed in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hunger Games: 9/10

I thought it was a damn fine film with some serious emotional content. On top of that, it was a strong condemnation of violence and the absolute garbage that we watch as entertainment.

I had a good 7/10 experience with that one. Looking at the slow pace and perhaps even the production design, it felt like the film was made in the '70s. I wouldn't be surprised that some people would find the story meandering at times. It wasn't all based on effects either. They could've gone further, the premise still felt like 'disaster tourism' to me, not that I am fanatically against that, but I didn't really feel some kind of aversion to violence during the movie. The idea that only one can survive is still an entertaining one.

Do you believe that today's movies are being made for the laptop audience? Well, sadly enough, there could be some truth to that. It would certainly explain why so many people only care for the story or for 'what happens next'.

Yeah, I think there's certainly a TV influence in a lot of the commercial films being made. Visually, it seems compositions have become more "crowded" these days, with a majority of shots never daring to move back further than the waist up.

That aside, I think there's something to be said for imagination. There's nothing like experiencing 2001: A Space Odyssey in 70mm, but I don't think it's impossible for someone (with the right frame of mind) to be blown away by it on an iPod screen. I truly believe Kubrick's sheer technical ability to create the illusion of limitless space transcends the size of the box that the imagery is placed in.

I don't think it's very likely though. That would be almost like introducing color film on a B&W monitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"newguy"

Good grief.

new guy was a nice safe not to be taken as an insult statement. I never said you insulted me. One doesn't necessarily get insulted when lectured too, and you did lecture Nick. Now I didn't know your society was so strict that you're assigned seating. Here we have to pay for that level of service at specialty theatres. I can't tell you much about Arizona, I've been there a few times. Seen the grand canyon, it's a big ditch btw. but never saw a movie there (Arizona) at the theatre, did watch one on tv in Flagstaff.

I'm sorry that you attend theatres full of rude people. I rarely do but I have on a few occasions told people to turn their phones off. They didn't like it to be sure, but the other folks around them applauded.

Feel free to refer to me as old-timer, old fart, curmudgeon, none of those offend me. dying is for the dead, aging is for the living.

The only new movie this weekend that looks even a bit interesting is Snitch. Looks okay and has gotten some solid reviews

Stefan is not banned Alex

He is fine, he just hasn't posted in a period of days.

We were discussing you yesterday.

It was complimentary and all good.

Well, look, I would have been perfectly happy to have a discussion with you on the merits of cinema vs. home cinema, but you had to start out your response with words like "lecture" and "pathetic" and my society being a bunch of assholes and being a fool for sitting behind tall people. I mean, WTF is that? I'd invite you to re-read your post and then tell me what I wrote called for that kind of response.

Crikey, just posting on a soundtrack forum like this shouldn't be so hard, it's not hand to hand combat.

the smell of fear permeates your posts. your jugular is exposed. ;) Friend gooood. fire bad.

today watched Frank Capra's beautiful comedy You Can't Take it With You. A film Wes Anderson fancies himself making these days, but doesn't even come close to realizing.

finally watched Bride of Frankenstein on blu.

this film is just amazing on every level. a true masterpiece. and it is so rewatchable.

The blu transfer is so good. Those who wonder how black and white can be even better on blu need to watch this on blu.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

The acting is spotty at times, the budget shows noticeably, but the film's other draw (other than the titular Freddy Kruger) is the whole concept of dreaming and reality -- which still holds up even close to 30 years after the fact. Wes Craven really excels at conjuring up a spooky atmosphere for the most part, even if he isn't a great screenwriter. But man, give him a good script (or good concept) and he can make it into a good movie. Robert Englund doesn't really say much, let alone wisecrack in his signature role, but he is creepy and iconic here. Heather Langenkamp is mostly effective as Nancy, even if her acting wasn't up to par here.

There's some aspects of the 2010 remake with Jackie Earle Haley and Rooney Mara that excel the original movie, but not the writing. Had Rooney's Nancy been written like Emily Taylor in Side Effects (rather than a clingy semi-Goth chick with a boyfriend), she probably would've been just good as Langenkamp. Ah, what could've been.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

The acting is spotty at times, the budget shows noticeably, but the film's other draw (other than the titular Freddy Kruger) is the whole concept of dreaming and reality -- which still holds up even close to 30 years after the fact. Wes Craven really excels at conjuring up a spooky atmosphere for the most part, even if he isn't a great screenwriter. But man, give him a good script (or good concept) and he can make it into a good movie. Robert Englund doesn't really say much, let alone wisecrack in his signature role, but he is creepy and iconic here. Heather Langenkamp is mostly effective as Nancy, even if her acting wasn't up to par here.

There's some aspects of the 2010 remake with Jackie Earle Haley and Rooney Mara that excel the original movie, but not the writing. Had Rooney's Nancy been written like Emily Taylor in Side Effects (rather than a clingy semi-Goth chick with a boyfriend), she probably would've been just good as Langenkamp. Ah, what could've been.

How can you speak of this movie without pointing out Johnny Depp's terrific death sequence??? Nothing in the remake was up to par with the original, it was a film that really has no reason to exist. The big three got remade around the same time, Michael, Jason, and Freddy, and none of them will likely stand the test of time like the originals even if the originals were nothing but low budget B horror films.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

The acting is spotty at times, the budget shows noticeably, but the film's other draw (other than the titular Freddy Kruger) is the whole concept of dreaming and reality -- which still holds up even close to 30 years after the fact. Wes Craven really excels at conjuring up a spooky atmosphere for the most part, even if he isn't a great screenwriter. But man, give him a good script (or good concept) and he can make it into a good movie. Robert Englund doesn't really say much, let alone wisecrack in his signature role, but he is creepy and iconic here. Heather Langenkamp is mostly effective as Nancy, even if her acting wasn't up to par here.

There's some aspects of the 2010 remake with Jackie Earle Haley and Rooney Mara that excel the original movie, but not the writing. Had Rooney's Nancy been written like Emily Taylor in Side Effects (rather than a clingy semi-Goth chick with a boyfriend), she probably would've been just good as Langenkamp. Ah, what could've been.

How can you speak of this movie without pointing out Johnny Depp's terrific death sequence??? Nothing in the remake was up to par with the original, it was a film that really has no reason to exist. The big three got remade around the same time, Michael, Jason, and Freddy, and none of them will likely stand the test of time like the originals even if the originals were nothing but low budget B horror films.

The death sequence is great and a marvelous exercise in in-house camera trickery (a geyser of blood erupting from the bed and splashing over the ceiling), but Johnny Depp didn't have much presence in the film. The spotlight was on Freddy and Nancy, which is what it should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

House (1977)

I saw this again, and it's still quite the trip. I can't describe it, it has to be seen in order to get the 'story' (or what little of it is there). For some reason, the synthesized boogie music and the constant piano theme by Asei Kobayashi and Mickie Yoshimo feel at home in the psychedelic film. It's violent, cartoonish, repetitive, beautiful... and you notice more touches in repeat viewings. If you want to see Japanese cinema take a 180 turn from the more subtle and majestic Kurosawa, this is worth a look.

Link to post
Share on other sites

american-beauty-944x566.jpg

American Beauty: Sam Mendes and Alan Ball need to work together again. 9/10

Yes, they're sensibilites were perfectly married in this film. I haven't seen it in quite a while. But if there is a quintessential American drama film in recent years (or decade) it would be this one. And Thomas Newman's score is quite good as well.

Karol

Link to post
Share on other sites

american-beauty-944x566.jpg

American Beauty: Sam Mendes and Alan Ball need to work together again. 9/10

Yes, they're sensibilites were perfectly married in this film. I haven't seen it in quite a while. But if there is a quintessential American drama film in recent years (or decade) it would be this one. And Thomas Newman's score is quite good as well.

Karol

American Beauty is more something like a dark comedy, but yes, based on drama, I guess. Score is perfect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lion in Winter (1968)

An underrated classic. It's a beautifully-shot and staged film (kudos to the pre-Indy work by Douglas Slocombe), where the younger actors (including Anthony Hopkins and Timothy Dalton) easily keep toe-to-toe with screen legends Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn. She totally deserved that Oscar for that role, as well as John Barry's score. That really stood out to me, was that how well spotted the film was and how un-Barry-esque the score was.

It pains me to see that MGM has never really given the film its proper due on home video. They should lease it to Criterion, or put together a restored version for DVD and Blu-ray.

Link to post
Share on other sites

214456-dredd-1280x720-b.jpg

Last night we decided to stream Dredd and what a surprise it was. It's a nice, violent B-movie with good visuals, but best of all, it's all very un-Marvel-like. The helmet and mouth of Judge Dredd (was he mimicking Stallone?) are the big downsides. 7/10

Alex

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lion in Winter (1968)

An underrated classic. It's a beautifully-shot and staged film (kudos to the pre-Indy work by Douglas Slocombe), where the younger actors (including Anthony Hopkins and Timothy Dalton) easily keep toe-to-toe with screen legends Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn. She totally deserved that Oscar for that role, as well as John Barry's score. That really stood out to me, was that how well spotted the film was and how un-Barry-esque the score was.

It pains me to see that MGM has never really given the film its proper due on home video. They should lease it to Criterion, or put together a restored version for DVD and Blu-ray.

One of my all time favorite films. Everything is absolutely spot one and it contains some of the best dialogue ever written. It's endelessly compeling

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lion in Winter (1968)

An underrated classic. It's a beautifully-shot and staged film (kudos to the pre-Indy work by Douglas Slocombe), where the younger actors (including Anthony Hopkins and Timothy Dalton) easily keep toe-to-toe with screen legends Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn. She totally deserved that Oscar for that role, as well as John Barry's score. That really stood out to me, was that how well spotted the film was and how un-Barry-esque the score was.

It pains me to see that MGM has never really given the film its proper due on home video. They should lease it to Criterion, or put together a restored version for DVD and Blu-ray.

One of my all time favorite films. Everything is absolutely spot one and it contains some of the best dialogue ever written. It's endelessly compeling

Ditto. Very few films have such a brilliant cast and excellent writing, which is really endlessly compelling and revealing after several viewings. And just about every other element comes together perfectly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw Men in Black III. Better than the weak second movie, it was a decent bit of easy to watch fun. But I can't figure out why the 1969 mission to the Moon was so important when it turns out that the MiB agents were already in existence and that alien contact as well as their intergration into Earth life was already well established at that point. So why did humans apparently still consider space travel beyond their means?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard similar comments about Dredd. I'd like to see it sometime

Also heard MIB3 was better than 2, but it'd be hard not to be

Link to post
Share on other sites

I plan to watch The Avengers on BluRay tomorrow. Let's see what the bloody hype was about.

I think many people like how it was written, the humor/action combination and the contact/interaction bits between all the many different hero personalities. When it's got that Whedon vibe, that's when the movie is at its best. Mark Ruffalo (Banner) was some kind of revelation. The fans thought he was so good that they demand a new Hulk solo movie with him as Banner/Hulk. Will Disney yield to the wishes of the public? Well, now that he have Nolan and Snyder at the head of DC, who cares? ;)

Alex

Link to post
Share on other sites

When it's got that Whedon vibe, that's when the movie is at its best.

Would anyone say the same of, say, Alien Resurrection?

I've never seen that film, but I just read the small synopsis in Imdb and cracked up at "It's up to Ripley and a band of space pirates to stop the ship before it reaches earth."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hated Resurrection back in the day but now I kinda enjoy the overdrive comic book feel of it. In a way, it's still very Heavy Metal, but in a very different way than Scott's Heavy Metal. It's more ... caricatured. I still hate Alien3 though. It's in my top 20 worst movies ever. It's hard for me to believe that Fincher turned out an okay director after that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said in some other thread Jack the Giant Slayer gets a thumbs up from me. The critics have underrated it I think.

I only noticed Bryan Singer directed it when the End Credits poped up and I haven't been a fan of his movies up to date

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard similar comments about Dredd. I'd like to see it sometime

Also heard MIB3 was better than 2, but it'd be hard not to be

It really helps that Alex Garland (28 Days Later) wrote the basic but muscular screenplay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Empire of Passion

Much more understated film than Nagisa Oshima's previous film In the Realm of the Senses, but certainly more evocative and suggestive. Kazuko Yoshiyuki and Takuzo Kawatani's acting is over-the-top on occasion, but overall the film weaves quite an intoxicating spell. Yoshio Miyajima's beautiful camerawork and Toru Takemitsu's haunting score really stand out.

Link to post
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...