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

[JoeinAR 1,949]

He had zero control over anything. I'm sure you know all about its production.

he had more control that you think, he was the director and his direction is shit. but that's par for him

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.

omg Alex and I agreeing

[Koray Savas 2,251]

He's like the third director brought onto the film. He shot the movie on a scene by scene basis without having the whole script. He left the production once filming was done and had no part in the editing process or anything else post-production.

That's a pure Fincher film right there.

[A24 4,326]

I would've have used the name Alan Smithee.

[Incanus 5,713]

The Ghost Writer: A rather enjoyable thriller/mystery I thought. Great atmosphere and Desplat's score are major highlights.

[Marian Schedenig 8,172]

I watched The Star Wars Holiday Special.

[Incanus 5,713]

I watched The Star Wars Holiday Special.

And you are not half mad with confusion and disgust???!!! You obviously have nerves of steel and strong mental discipline.

[A24 4,326]

It's a Marian Schedenig movie.

[Marian Schedenig 8,172]

I watched The Star Wars Holiday Special.

And you are not half mad with confusion and disgust???!!! You obviously have nerves of steel and strong mental discipline.

It was educational.

Seriously, it was of course worse than I could have imagined. But with a couple of beers and friends who also hadn't seen it before, it was entertaining. Our amazement that someone would actually make something like this easily helped us over the boring parts (as opposed to the bits that were too bad/absurd to be boring).

Anyway:

[JoeinAR 1,949]

wreck it ralph was quite fun

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Schindler's List was incredible. It's been about 15 years since I last saw the film. It's a beautiful looking film. One very powerful experience. It's both terrible and uplifiting at the same time. It will be a long time before I'm ready to watch this film again.

[A24 4,326]

Schindler's List was incredible. It's been about 15 years since I last saw the film. It's a beautiful looking film. One very powerful experience. It's both terrible and uplifiting at the same time. It will be a long time before I'm ready to watch this film again.

To think it took you such a long time to see that.

[Quintus 5,399]

Iron Man 2, because I'll possibly want to see the third film. It's a weird mess of a movie with absolutely no sense of direction whatsoever. I'm frankly surprised the producers let it through.

[Wojo 2,453]

The only part of 2 that I liked was the Iron Man suitcase packaging because it reminded me the most of the cartoon series that I liked to watch. The rest of the movie was a forgettable mess.

[Quintus 5,399]

Mickey Rourke was unfathomablely wasted in it as well. Gotta be the most pointless cameo bad guy ever actually. Also, am I the only one who finds Downey Junior to be enjoying the vanity role play a bit too much? He's just irritating in this movie.

[Wojo 2,453]

I lost it when he created a new element in his home based on some old map his dad made.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Schindler's List was incredible. It's been about 15 years since I last saw the film. It's a beautiful looking film. One very powerful experience. It's both terrible and uplifiting at the same time. It will be a long time before I'm ready to watch this film again.

To think it took you such a long time to see that.

I'm not sure what you mean, I've always said it was well filmed, one of the few Kamiski films I liked the look of. I probably should have been more specific, the black and white on the blu ray is stunning. it's crisp, vibrant. Spielberg's restoration is glorious.

[Quintus 5,399]

I'm gonna rebuy it after giving it some consideration. The dvd is after all a perfectly satisfactory rendition already.

I lost it when he created a new element in his home based on some old map his dad made.

That was bollocks.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I never had it on DVD.

I must say the recent Spielberg releases on blu have exceeded all expectations on their presentation.

after consideration I take back my statements against the crying scene at the end of Schindler's List, Spielberg's right as a filmmaker, and even as a Jew, gives him licence for that scene which isn't nearly as egregious as I remember. What I thought was a scene filled with smaltz is nothing but a heart wrenching scene as the totality of what has impacted each and every one of them finally pierces Schindler's understanding.

[Quintus 5,399]

I never had a problem with the scene personally. Something I've touched on here before, probably in this thread. It's an important and even vital moment in Oskar Schindler's characterisation arc. It's Williams who gets closer to smaltz than Spielberg in the scene, but even he just about keeps it classy when all is said and done, aided in no small part by the sound editor.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

as for Ironman 2, Mickey Rourke is hard to watch, he's turned himself into such a freakish thing. He's simply unpleasant to the eye.

And yes Lee RD Jr is irritating but it's part of the whole Downey/Stark character arc/real personality that transcends from the screen. Clark Kent could lend him bags of humility, apprently something he's about to get in 8 weeks or so.

[Jay 37,285]

wreck it ralph was quite fun

yea! We watched it the other weekend and enjoyed it quite a bit! I thought it was fun, funny, pretty original/unique, and had great animation and voice acting.

My group of friends and I were discussing afterward if it was the best non-Pixar CGI movie we've seen....

Schindler's List was incredible. It's been about 15 years since I last saw the film. It's a beautiful looking film. One very powerful experience. It's both terrible and uplifiting at the same time. It will be a long time before I'm ready to watch this film again.

Nice, we plan to watch the new blu soon

[Brónach 1,301]

Beowulf (2007)

This film is enough of a mixed bag that it ends up going down.

There are some nice discoveries on Zemeckis' part, and some interesting reinterpretations. But the film could be a lot better. It loses momentum in the later part of the story becoming boring. The visual design of the film is at odds with the idea of making it an animated feature. Just the same thing could be done in live-action and it would look cooler. Silvestri's score doesn't connect with me at all although there's a good theme in there or two. The characterizations are missing something. And Grendel's mother has stupid stiletto heels.

Grendel might be the more interesting element of the film. On one side, his noises, movements and expressions of his face are completely spot on, it's brilliant. On the other hand, the filmmakers go very overboard with the body horror (there's a scene where Grendel is in pain and causes himself to bleed for no reason). One wonders how that thing is even living, and it makes him look less menacing, because it doesn't look like an actual creature and comes out as too artificial.

The scene where Grendel attacks the hall is really cool.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Watchmen: The Directors Edition.

Comic book hero movies with superheroes are now very common, every year two or 3 big budget ones come out at the very least. All of them basically the same, because the comic books they are based on are basically the same. The mythos of the hero or heroes, an interesting couple of villains. Some personal agenda, and a plot which often involves world domination/destruction.....often New York is laid waste.

Watchmen has all of these elements, yet it never feels like one of the herd. It knows every cliché of the genre and plays with them, exposes them.

The film starts strong with a dramatic fight scene that ends badly for Superhero The Comedian. From they it segues into a series of vignettes underscored by a Bob Dylan song. Famous scenes from the 20th century. Familiar, yet different.

The investigation to find out who killed The Comedian and why is the main plot of the film, but it's only the spine. Much of the film takes place in flashbacks. Exposing our heroes. Explaining their origins, their motivations.

The director, Zach Snyder constantly shifts to different times, different viewpoints back to the present, or in this case 1985, under Dick Nixon, on the verge if all out war with Russia. This world is less stylised then how Snyder painted his scenes in 300. It looks deliberately very familiar to our world, but with cinematic touches. Blimps with advertising circle New York, like the circled L.A. in Blade Runner (Snyder also uses a famous advertisement from Ridley Scott), the war room as shown in this film looks identical to the one shown in Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, filmed in grey tones.

This is far more of a character movie then the average Superhero fare. It also gives some of the actors a chance to really stretch.

Jackey Earle Haley spends much of the movie wearing a mask, but does amazing things with his voice and posting. Gravely tones that would make Clint Eastwood sound like a tenor. His Rorschach inhabits the same kind of uncompromising vision that Dirty Harry had, but much for savage and terrifying. And when he finally does take of his mark, or is unmasked actually, we see the face matches the voice perfectly.

Billy Crudup also does a lot with his voice. most of the character he plays is CGI, and even though his face can be reconized as his own, the eyes are empty and white. His Dr. Manhattan talk in a flat, dry, often bored tone. Him being so powerfull and omnipotent that the questions, opinions and lives of everyone around him seem remote and insignificant. Crudup's character constantly talk to people like one would talk to a 4 year old child.

These two stellar performances are supported by a strong cast. Especially Jeffrey Dean organ is impressive as The Comedian, making a raping, pregnant-woman shooting psychopath into someone you actually feel some compassion for.

The joy of Watchmen is that it is about so much more then it's basic plot. Even though the world the movie portrays if fictional. It feels expansive. The "present time" in Watchmen film like an end of an era. It has an epic quality that most Comic book movies lack. An epic quality not achieved by budget, or effects, but by the years. This movie feels like it's telling a story of decades. The rise and fall of the Superheroes.

In it's 3 hours it achieves this more then the last string of Marvel film did that led up too The Avengers.

Snyder's direction is detailed and confident. His love for slo-mo feels natural and well-used. And it's a beautiful looking film, far more appealing then the murky and garish look of the comic it's based on.

The score by Tyler Burden is effective, but essentially anonymous. Musically this movie belongs to the many songs. From 3 Bob Dylan songs, the Nena's 99 Luftballons, to Hallelujah by Leonard Cohen. Orchestral music-wise the highlights are the tracks composed by Philip Glass.

In my opinion this is the best comic-book/Superhero movie ever made. Many will still point at Superman: The Movie instead and that is OK. Essentially these two movies are polar opposites.

Superman The Movie is a celebration of the genre's most enduring hero. Watchmen is a dissection of the genre as a whole. A commentary on the Superhero rather then perhaps an actual superhero film.

Most commentary films are meaningless without the subject they are riffing upon, Watchmen however can stand alone.

**** out of ****

[A24 4,326]

(Snyder also uses a famous advertisement from Ridley Scott)

Believe it or not, there are two old Ridley Scott commercials in Watchmen.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I also forgot to mention the very obvious reference to Apocalypse now (Ride Of The Valkyre).

Also, never watch Batman Begins right after viewing Watchmen. It doesn't hold up well....

[A24 4,326]

I haven't read the comic book but the reference to Apocalypse Now and Dr. Strangelove might come from there as those are Dave Gibbons' favorite movies.

Was this the second time that you watched the movie, Steef?

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I have tried to read the comic, but put it down. I ultimately dont like the way it looks.

I dont seem to remember "Valkyre" being in there though.

This is my fourth viewing overall. My third of the Directors Edition, which is the superior version (i have no interest in the longer Ultimate Edition)

[A24 4,326]

1) I don't like the graphic design of the comic book either.

2) I also have no interest in the UE. I have The Tale Of The Black Freighter on blu-ray, BTW.

3) I've only seen it twice. First I bought the Theatrical Cut on Blu-ray. It blew me away so I ordered the DC from the UK or the US, I don't remember.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I wasnt planning on watching it again, but after seeing The Avengers again a few weeks ago for some reason Watchmen creeped into my mind and i ended up going for it again.

I still maintain that the films resolution of blaming Dr. Manhattan is better then the weird squid monster.

The only real weak points of the film are the old age make up on the Comedian and the Silk Spectre I.

[crocodile 7,984]

I think you two are blowing this film's importance a little bit too out of proportion. It's bold yeah andnothing like and ambitious in an adolescent kind of way.

As for the graphic novel art, a pin up art of modern comic books would give many people a hardon, sure. But that's not the point at all. It's the mundane disciplined meticulous design with a purpose. The film misses that and makes it look too much like a commercial and something the book was originally ridiculing (in a way).

Karol

[A24 4,326]

I never said anything about "importance".

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I think you two are blowing this film's importance a little bit too out of proportion. It's bold yeah andnothing like and ambitious in an adolescent kind of way.

That sentence doesn't make sense to me....

But how do you mean important?

As for the graphic novel art, sure a pin up art of modern comic books would give many people a hardon, sure. But that's not the point at all. It's the mundane disciplined meticulous design with a purpose. The film misses that and makes it look too much like a commercial and something the book was originally ridiculing (in a way).

Karol

Like a commercial? What version of Watchmen have you seen? Maybe you need to adjust the color setting son your TV screen.

Watchmen the comic looks flat and mundane, apart from the colours which are garish and ugly. Those pinks and purples really belong to the 80's. Like murky greys and brown denote the 70's.

Watchmen the movie looks vibrant without being too eye popping. Much of it takes place in the dark, but you can actually see what's going on (pay attention to this Nolan!!)

It's a handsome looking movie.

[Quintus 5,399]

I think you two are blowing this film's importance a little bit too out of proportion. It's bold yeah andnothing like and ambitious in an adolescent kind of way.

As for the graphic novel art, a pin up art of modern comic books would give many people a hardon, sure. But that's not the point at all. It's the mundane disciplined meticulous design with a purpose. The film misses that and makes it look too much like a commercial and something the book was originally ridiculing (in a way).

Karol

It's only ever on here that we're constantly taught about the film's proposed magnificence. It's just another great movie among many outside of JWfan.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I never said anything about "importance".

The comic is considered important, so I am guessing the film must be seen as important too by some.

For a film to be really important, it must catch the attention of the whole public. Be part of the zeitgeist. Watchmen was never that. I don't think it even really made a profit.

Nolan's Batman movies were far more "important" for the genre. And in some ways they de-construct the Superhero myth very much like watchmen does. But in a far safer, PG13 way.

[crocodile 7,984]

Yeah I am referring to you guys, specifically. Not the general public.

The whole films looks to flashy to me. Hence, the commercial reference. Like the recent Watchmen prequels for that matter. I'm sure those would appeal more to you.

The comic book was made in the 80's and is about the 80's. Why should it look like 2009? Why should it?

But what really bothers me is that people are introduced to this world through this film and can't be asked to read anymore. That's sad.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

something.. something... inane babbling that's supposed to make it look like this particular poster has more insight then the rest of us...

I see you have gone back to your old monniker. I can't say I blame you.

[crocodile 7,984]

Oh and by important I mean worthwhile and having meaningful message.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yeah I am referring to you guys, specifically. Not the general public.

The whole films looks to flashy to me. Hence, the commercial reference. Like the recent Watchmen prequels for that matter. I'm sure those would appeal more to you.

I have no interest in those either. They looks like just another assembly line product...

The comic book was made in the 80's and is about the 80's. Why should it look like 2009? Why should it?

That is a silly bit of reasoning.

So all films taking place in the 80's should look like they were actually shot in the 80's?

I usually don't like it when film makers pretend their films were shot in the time they take place. Spielberg kinds started that trend with Schindlers List and SPR.

L.A. Confidential was shot in the 90's even though it takes place in the 50's. It looks beautiful like that.

It feels right.

But the real sad thing for me is that people are introduced to this world through this film and can't be asked to read anymore. That's sad.

Karol

I tried reading the comic, it did not appeal to me.

And fuck man, I am reading your words aren't i?

Oh and by important I mean worthwhile and having meaningful message.

Karol

Well I do believe Watchmen has that, but it doesn't scream about it. This isn't Crash, Saving Private Ryan or 2010: The Year We Came Back were the films central message are S.P.E.L.L.E.D out for the viewer.

Watchmen never makes it clear if Veidt's plan was successful, and if peace was worth all that sacrifice. Or places no judgement upon either Rorschach for wanting to reveal the truth or the others from wanting to conceal it.

[crocodile 7,984]

I'm just saying it is an 80's comic book and that's how it looks. Many films look their time. And yet it doesn't put you off watching them. Besides, I don't understand the comment about ugly colours. It's a very innovative and unorthodox use of it in a book like that. Far from the typical.

As for the Before Watchmen is was referring to the art.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

it doesnt look very innovative. the 9 panel grid is actually something of a (deliberate) throw back to an earlier style. and the colorscheme, with emphasis on pastel rather then primary colours is quite typical for the decade. (Miami Vice).

i am sure a lot of thought went into it. but i just dont like it. it did not inspire me to read it.

[crocodile 7,984]

OK fair enough.

I am really attached to it. Been reading Watchmen for years the same way people are reading Tolkien. And I just didn't quite get it from the film. I appreciate the effort, though.

And I also start to think comics is just more pure of an artform. Very low-tech and basically limitless. Film is bugged down with too much money and corporate interest.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

i am of the reverse opinion. the film does for me what the the comic will never do.

the After Watchmen art looks generic too. i am no comic book fan anyway.

[Quintus 5,399]

I agree with Karol. Watchmen's strengths lay not in its visual but, I'd argue, its script, characterisation and exceptional savvy in how to apply precision execution of unwieldy content in order to convey its ideas in an easily digestible form where the end result is deeply satisfying and resonates long after the movie has finished. The visual makeup here, for me, merely supports all that, like a good score does.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes, I agree.

The visuals in the comic ruin the experience. In the film they enhance it.

[A24 4,326]

It's a handsome looking movie.

It looks spectacular, of course, but so does The Fall. The difference is that Watchmen is filmed in such way that it visually maximizes everything that takes places on the screen. It's not the naturalism of a low-key documentary. The aesthetic style and the direction of Snyder are very operatic (like Burton, Kubrick, Spielberg, young Scott, Shyamalan). It's probably my favorite aspect of Watchmen, namely, the way how it is done. The story is fine but the visuals and visual storytelling enhance the story and turn the movie into a mind-blowing trip for me. It makes me 'feel'. If the film looked like the comic book, or like an average episode of Macgyver, then I probably wouldn't be talking about it.

Alex

[Quintus 5,399]

Yes, I agree.

The visuals in the comic ruin the experience. In the film they enhance it.

Yes, perfectly well-wrought that the photography and direction is. But it's not the imagery itself that I take away from the movie, there is no sense that I've absorbed memorable, iconic shots or mise en scène in the film's better sequences. I can't at this moment recall what I call a 'silhouette' shot which might have been a visual signature for the movie. But it must also be stressed that none of that means to deride what Snyder and his collaborators achieved; since the film is on all other fronts a truly memorable experience.

I need to see it again.

[Brónach 1,301]

I am really attached to it. Been reading Watchmen for years the same way people are reading Tolkien. And I just didn't quite get it from the film. I appreciate the effort, though.

And I also start to think comics is just more pure of an artform. Very low-tech and basically limitless. Film is bugged down with too much money and corporate interest.

I had a similar experience.

I found the book exhilarating and emotive. The film felt like a rushed, shortened, simplified repetition of stuff from a book. And I'm not convinced by how Snyder handled some settings, visually. His Ozymandias' base is kind of boring, for example.

My favourite scene in the film are the opening credits, because it's where the film touched what it could have been. I was like "oh, that is that, and that is that, this is great", and I was even moved by the song choice. The film never got up there again. And it becomes less interesting as it progresses, which is the opposite as in the book.Basically, the film looses a lot of impact in the simplications of the story, but still gets bogged down by detail. Maybe it should have been simplified differently. And Snyder still has to include some stuff that's completely unncesary. Things like Dan and Laurie fighting the people in the prison might come from an exec requesting action somewhere. Otherwise I don't get it.

Man of Steel could be a better film. It might be better tailored to the cinematic possibilities in terms of structure.

[Quintus 5,399]

That's the downside to knowing the fiction beforehand unfortunately. Affects most adaptations, in fairness to Snyder.

[Brónach 1,301]

Yeah.

There are occasions where a good enough director gets over that problem, somehow. For example, the third Harry Potter felt genuinely fresh and fun even if I knew the story beforehand. And most of the changes didn't bother me.

[Quintus 5,399]

Yeah, a rare occurrence. Jackson's LotR is surely the most accomplished example.