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

[Romão 2,274]

Stoker was well shot, but apart from that, it was one of the most god awful films I've seen in recent times

[filmmusic 1,829]

It's at least worth a watch. Not sure if it is a good film, but certainly a curious one.

At least in a big budget realm.

Karol

I want to see it too.

It looked very promising from the trailer, I thought it would be a serious Oscar contender, but all the reviews etc., have put me off seeing it.

[A24 4,333]

I hear its Koray factor is high.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[filmmusic 1,829]

and I honestly don't think any aspect of the movie is Oscar-worthy (Oscar nomination-worthy would be more like it)

not even in technical categories? (sound, sound FX, visual effects, editing, costumes, cinematography etc.)

It looked impressive from the trailer!

oh, now I understood. You said that it could be nominated for an Oscar.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[chuck 154]

It may be crap but history has shown that the Academy loves crap.

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[chuck 154]

Love the score.

[A24 4,333]

Another Earth: 4/10

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Is that the one where there are 2 Earths that are kinda like alternate universes to each other? I always found it interesting but never got around to seeing it. Care to elaborate?

[A24 4,333]

That's the one. Even though there's a planet visible in the sky (a copy of Earth), it has nothing to do with science fiction. It's a low-budget art house drama about guilt. Nothing special. If anything, I thought was pretty amateurish.

Alex

[Quintus 5,399]

Oh god that sounds like my worst sort of movie.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Sounds like my type of movie


The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Finally got around to watching this one. I'm very indifferent towards it. On the one hand the cinematography and acting are phenomenal, but on the other, the score and editing leave a lot and a little to be desired, respectively. Fincher is one of my favorite directors, and this is very clearly a continuation of the audiovisual aesthetic of The Social Network. Lots of great browns and grays, soft lighting, beautiful contrast. Craig and the rest of the cast play their roles well, but Rooney Mara was brilliant. I thought she lived and breathed that role. I recall her saying Fincher really pushed her during auditions, telling her she needed to step it up if she wanted the part and it shows. Just her physical demeanor and presence bled through every frame. Very commanding performance.

The score sucked. Reznor and Ross' soundscape didn't work for me this time. I'm an ardent fan of their score for The Social Network, but I don't think they nailed the tone of this film like that one. At times I found it appropriate and others not at all, but always never blending with the visuals. Their method of not scoring to picture at all and letting Fincher cut and paste to his liking didn't work this time out. Howard Shore would have killed this, hopefully Fincher will go back to him at some point. The editing was mostly fine but there were odd snippets that felt arbitrary to me. An example would be the overhead swing of Mara getting high or whatever she was doing. A 5-second shot placed in between another progressive set of shots just to show what she was doing at the time? It feels awkward.

Other than that I thought the film was quite good. It was certainly more entertaining than the novel, a nice abridged version of the story. However, the book drags on so much for the first half that once Blomkvist discovers the photograph of Harriet seeing something, it was a relevatory moment. Larsson did a good job of making you feel as boring and hopeless as the character, so when you ultimately discover that little bit of evidence, it was euphoric. That is sort of lost in the film but I didn't mind it.

[Jay 37,364]

I definitely liked the film more than you but agree that the score was really bad and no suited for the film either. Never noticed any problem with the editing. I've actually seen the movie twice - rare for any recent film - and enjoyed it even more the second than the first. The directing, cinematography, and acting are all top notch in my opinion, and the fact that the score sucks honestly doesn't ruin my enjoyment of the film much. It's not like you have to focus on it while watching the film.

I REALLY hope Fincher gets to make adaptation of the other two books with the same cast. The fact that there's been no announcement about it in 2 years makes me worry.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Another Earth: 4/10

Which movie was the Asylum release, this or After Earth?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I doubt it will happen. The film did quite well, but probably wasnt the big hit the makers wanted it to be.

I still need to check out the original Swedish version.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

A PG-13 edit and a score in major key would have guaranteed its success.

[Jay 37,364]

There's no way to tell that story in PG13 fashion. It's a hard R story.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I definitely liked the film more than you but agree that the score was really bad and no suited for the film either. Never noticed any problem with the editing. I've actually seen the movie twice - rare for any recent film - and enjoyed it even more the second than the first. The directing, cinematography, and acting are all top notch in my opinion, and the fact that the score sucks honestly doesn't ruin my enjoyment of the film much. It's not like you have to focus on it while watching the film.

I REALLY hope Fincher gets to make adaptation of the other two books with the same cast. The fact that there's been no announcement about it in 2 years makes me worry.

I really liked it too. It's top notch filmmaking when you compare it to other dramas/thrillers. But Fincher is such a master that the smallest stuff sets it back from his other work. My problems with the editing are very nitpicky. For a 2 hour 40 minute film, it's very well done. There was just some stuff that felt odd to me, but that could also be due to the nature of the story. You have 2 main characters that don't meet until halfway through, so naturally intercutting between their stories is a tricky situation to balance.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

There's no way to tell that story in PG13 fashion. It's a hard R story.

I agree. Some of the scenes are quite painful to watch. But give the story it's heart.

If you are gonna do a film featuring a vicious anal rape scene, and subsequent revenge, then R rated is the only way to even begin to do it justice.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

That scene was harrowing. I thought there was some news about the studio moving forward with the sequel, but whether Fincher would return had yet to be determined.

[Matt C 454]

That scene was harrowing. I thought there was some news about the studio moving forward with the sequel, but whether Fincher would return had yet to be determined.

I don't think we'll see the sequels, even if Fincher wanted to return. I don't get why Fincher's pics cost so much (other than his penchant for multiple takes and his relentless perfectionism). You can say Fincher, Daniel Craig and writer Steven Zaillian's fees added to the budget... but even though it's impressively made, it doesn't look its $90 million budget. Both the original and 2011 films were shot on location, and they have a similar aesthetic. But the original was made for a fraction of the price ($10 million) with no stars.

If someone other than Fincher directed the remake, with actors working on scale (with a back end deal)... with a budget of $40M-$60M, Sony would've put the next two films in production already.

It's a shame. I really liked both films... they each brought something different to the table.

[Quintus 5,399]

Interesting article from British critic Mark Kermode on the nature of modern critique and its effects:

http://gu.com/p/3j3jv

Well worth a read.

[chuck 154]

I only read Roger Ebert's & Leonard maltin's online reviews; that said Ebert was the greatest with savage critiques in a masterful prose.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Was...

[chuck 154]

Was...

[Quintus 5,399]

I don't read any movie reviews at all nowadays.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Ditto

[chuck 154]

Not since Ebert died...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I dont really care for any of his replacements.

[Matt C 454]

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

For a so-called horror masterpiece, I don't think it's all that. Tom Savini's gore effects is well-done three decades after the fact (especially the mall raid), but the direction and acting is terrible. A lot of the people who get eaten by zombies are plain stupid, or either move way too slowly. And the mall raid I mentioned, with Tom Savini as the motorcycle gang leader, is poorly edited to boot. And some of Goblin's underscore sounds like polka music.

Good gore scenes do not a great film make. Zombie, clearly a Dawn ripoff, had more going for it story-wise than this film.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The Hunger Games

Haven't been able to really formulate my thoughts on this one. It does a lot of things right, but it never feels like it reaches its full potential. I had no problem with the handheld camera, but the film looked so utterly digital. Reminded me of Mann's Public Enemies, where you can see all the noise and the contrast sucks. Blacks look like faded grays. It's the worst during night scenes where the poor artificial lighting bleeds through. Here it's forgivable to an extent because the entire fighting arena is a controlled environment, but still. It looks like crap. Thought Howard's score worked really well in the film, low key but with enough of a punch to make a mark. Violence was probably as much as they could do for PG-13. It really needs to be R, but no producer would deny the massive success this film had. A lot of backstory from the book is naturally missing, and that leaves some of the relationships hollow on screen, but I'm not sure if it's noticeable to non-readers. Pretty good cast. Sequel looks like it will take the good and make it better.

[Quintus 5,399]

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

For a so-called horror masterpiece, I don't think it's all that. Tom Savini's gore effects is well-done three decades after the fact (especially the mall raid), but the direction and acting is terrible. A lot of the people who get eaten by zombies are plain stupid, or either move way too slowly. And the mall raid I mentioned, with Tom Savini as the motorcycle gang leader, is poorly edited to boot. And some of Goblin's underscore sounds like polka music.

It's a movie of its time and it has dated badly, but that's still no excuse for your complete missing of the point!

[crocodile 8,013]

The only ones I've seen was the first one, the original B&W. An interesting excercise in low-budget (or virtually no-budget) filmmaking.

Karol

[A24 4,333]

You better watch Dawn Of The Dead (2004).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Snyder's admirable debut!

[crocodile 8,013]

From the director who ruined both Watchmen and Superman?

Karol

[A24 4,333]

The same way Ridley Scott ruined Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? As with any translation, some things are lost while others are gained.

Alex

[Brónach 1,302]

The same way Ridley Scott ruined Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?

A mediocre novel turned great film.

With Watchmen, it was the opposite!

[crocodile 8,013]

No, it is not the same. Ridley Scott did his own thing with the material and as such the film stands on its own. Snyder copied the original (his shots are mostly storyboarded directly from the book) and missed the point. He's mostly sliding on the surface. Not completely, but for the most part.

Karol

[A24 4,333]

The same way Ridley Scott ruined Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?

A mediocre novel turned great film.

Not according to many fans of PKD or Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep. To them, Scott missed the point and only scratches the surface. I gave up on both DADOES and the GN of Watchmen because I want to preserve the fantastic experiences I had with the movies.

Alex

[crocodile 8,013]

But the point is he didn't copy the book. If you're making an adaptation, you better make it special and unique (and different) from the source. Because if you don't, people will moan anyway (as we do right now) and your film will be artistically pointless on top of that. The problem with Watchmen film is that it doesn't offer me absolutely anything I cannot get from reading the book. In fact, it gives me less. And it draws a lot of its visual information and choices (like colours, for example) from it. Completely unlike Scott's film where chances are taken and it can stand on its own.

Karol

[Brónach 1,302]

I didn't give up on Dick's book because it was short and easy to read. It was also kind of boring and lacking in structure and punch. Half formed ideas. The film is still fantastic.

But the point is he didn't copy the book. If you're making an adaptation, you better make it special and unique (and different) from the source.

I always liked Jaws.

[A24 4,333]

The problem with Watchmen film is that it doesn't offer me absolutely anything I cannot get from reading the book. In fact, it gives me less.

Karol

The things I get from Watchmen and Blade Runner are inherently connected with the film medium and cannot be found in a book.

[Brónach 1,302]

I always said the same about the Watchmen book. Thisis way it was so enthralling to read for me while the film just feels cold and lacking in pace.

My favourite music choice in the film is the one that wasn't taken from the book.

[A24 4,333]

But the point is he didn't copy the book. If you're making an adaptation, you better make it special and unique (and different) from the source. Because if you don't, people will moan anyway (as we do right now) and your film will be artistically pointless on top of that.

Karol

People will moan ten times as hard if the film is different from the novel. Oh, the director forgot the best part of the book ... blah, blah.

[Brónach 1,302]

He actualy did anyways. I've seen the film four times, I always miss the giant squid.

I remember I was repeatedly told by other fans at the time that they couldn't do that because it would be too weird. That's why thaey had to turn the fire rescue into action sequence, insert that fight in the prison, and put a Hollywood "NOOO" and the end and so on, to make it "palatable" to the masses. And trim the weird stuff out.

The good thing is that Snyder picked the project because he was afraid someone else would make more of a disservice to the book. It's a really squiggly line to walk.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Aaahhh...the bi-monthly Watchmen debate!

[Brónach 1,302]

I saw Castle in the Sky by Hayao Miyazaki