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

[publicist 4,643]

Francis Ford very much considers The Godfather (and I believe part 2) as a story about America.

Not every American is of italian decent, some of us were here long before Ellis Island or the Statue of Liberty.

The Story of America is a individualistic tale, unique to so many. Not all of us are greasy mobsters with murder as part of our family legacy.

Coppola may have meant that in the broader sense which also entails pisspoor russian scrap collectors who eventually built Hollywood and became the most powerful moguls shaping the world of entertainment. Only in America...anything goes and so on.

[A24 4,377]

Speak: Celebrated and revered but what I saw what not much more than a TV movie of the week. 5/10

Alex

[Naïve Old Fart 9,803]

Francis Ford very much considers The Godfather (and I believe part 2) as a story about America.

Not every American is of italian decent, some of us were here long before Ellis Island or the Statue of Liberty.

The Story of America is a individualistic tale, unique to so many. Not all of us are greasy mobsters with murder as part of our family legacy.

Coppola may have meant that in the broader sense which also entails pisspoor russian scrap collectors who eventually built Hollywood and became the most powerful moguls shaping the world of entertainment. Only in America...anything goes and so on.

It's about an aspect of Italian America, to be sure. For a slightly bigger picture, try Elia Kazan's "America, America".

[BloodBoal 7,538]

No. New York, New York.

[JoeinAR 1,950]

Stefan, I watched the extended version of The Wolverine. it's as Marc said about 12 minutes longer, there is more blood, but it appears painted in. SIDE NOTE, Jaws is being played in the Ole Piss/Jawja Tech game at I type.

Of the new footage, most is seemlessly added. Not all was necessary but I think the extended arrow sequence just before the Silver Samurai worked best, it really added to the nobility of the Wolverine.

Richard, the blu of Psycho II is quite good. Not a stunning transfer but still an enjoyable film, don't forget to look for the Hitchcock cameo.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Inside Llewyn Davis

*slight spoilers, but coded nonetheless*

Okay, so I'm sure most people won't actually like this film, but I really loved it. Very latter years Coen, felt like a blend of A Serious Man and Burn After Reading. There are some utterly fantastic moments, one of my favorites being the dinner scene where Llewyn loses control. Such classic Coen that scene. "Where's the scrotum, Llewyn? Where's the scrotum??" It's one of their few films without Roger Deakins, but the cinematography is equally brilliant. Great color palette of browns and grays, and the soft focus and lighting does wonders to the aesthetic. It gives the whole mood a washed out feeling, much like Llewyn's character. Speaking of which, his character is one I was able to connect with very well. I recall someone else mentioning that he was a horrible person, but I didn't really see that at all. I saw him as a broken man struggling to fulfill his passion for music. The continuing symbolism of the cat in junction with this overarching 60s folk underground scene in Greenwich Village really paired well to create a film about something more than just a few days in the life.

Particularly with the nod to Dylan at the end, sealing my presumption that Llewyn was an exercise in showing how tough and lucky one had to be at that time to make a living off of their passion. Llewyn, like the cat, had to endure hardships and abandonment and homelessness to survive and keep pushing on; and despite that drive within him, he still didn't make it.

Really well done film, but certainly not for everyone, much like A Serious Man.

[JoeinAR 1,950]

I've never warmed up to any Coen film, but I keep watching them, one day I tell myself. However I love parodies of their films. The quarter parody of No Country is hysterical.

[A24 4,377]

Inside Llewyn Davis

Okay, so I'm sure most people won't actually like this film, but I really loved it. Very latter years Coen, felt like a blend of A Serious Man and Burn After Reading. Really well done film, but certainly not for everyone, much like A Serious Man.

Damn, I was hoping it wasn't going to be like A Serious Man or Burn After Reading ...for these are two of my least favorite Coen brothers movies.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

My comparisons are tonal. All Coen films have some degree of dark comedy, but I felt that the mood and style of comedy here was most comparable to the two films I mentioned.

[Quintus 5,400]

I watched Blood Simple recently. I had to turn it off with about 30mins to go though because I needed my bed. I probably won't bother finishing it.

[publicist 4,643]

DAVIS imho is the most drab Coen movie next to A SERIOUS MAN. BURN AFTER READING is shallow but at least moves along at a brisk pace.

[Quintus 5,400]

Yeah I didn't mind Burn After Reading. The humour carried that one for me.

[A24 4,377]

Maybe it's just me but I think they made better ones. In fact, BAR is the best or the least worse of the latter ones (besides ILD, which I haven't seen). I mean, I didn't hate like I hated their remake of True Grit with Jeff Bridges. That one was as run-of-the-mill as Intolerable Cruelty. Maybe I would like them more if they were made by some random director and not the Coens.

Alex

[publicist 4,643]

TRUE GRIT is a great movie (even Carter Burwell was allowed to make a huge impression there). No comparison to the would-be philosophical stuff.

[A24 4,377]

Clichéd like you wouldn't believe! And apparently, I can't stand Rebecca Hall.

4/10 (For West and the nice setting/photography)

Alex

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,278]

Except one.

[Quintus 5,400]

God I was disappointed by their True Grit. And Jeff Bridges voice was just too much.

I've not seen Intolerable Cruelty but I've heard it's very funny. I saw about fifteen minutes of it at an ex's house years ago and it did look witty. Must think on to watch it properly.

My favourite Coens movie is either Raising Arizona or No Country For Old Men. They hit the artistic jackpot with the latter.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Glóin the Dark 1,238]

Heaven's Gate (three-and-a-half hour version). I don't see how this came to be the extreme critical disaster it was on its initial release.

[A24 4,377]

After that movie, artists were no longer free.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,278]

The film appears to be held in higher regard today then it was during it's release. But it's still the film that ended the experiment in Hollywood of letting the new wave of directors have a free reign.

That didn't stop Hollywood of spending loads of money on ill-conceived projects though (John Carter, The Lone Ranger)

[publicist 4,643]

Incidentially, THE LONE RANGER, a movie whose one-sheet you will find in a lexicon under 'excessive' and 'bloated'. The misbegotten trend to blow modest adventure yarns into 3 hour spectacles may have started with Cecil B. DeMille, but that doesn't make Verbinski's leaden would-be-hip update any better.

A script that smells of a dozen rewrites to accomodate a certain star and god knows who else pushes the movie from a feasable 105 minutes over the unbearable line in the 150 neighborhood containing all you never wanted to know about supporting character Tonto from cradle to present, looney CGI impressions of Bugs-Bunny cartoons and Monty-Python, the obligatory (and yawn-inducing) tips-to-the-hat to Sergio Leone westerns and an insufferable number of drawn out set pieces that could feed 30 italian westerns.

The tone shifts are expected - Bruckheimer may have wanted an epic, but Verbinski never clued him in that he really wanted to make another MOUSE HUNT, so we get solemn americana at one minute and silly killer rabbits the next, not even counting the lunatic Tex-Avery finale aboard two railroads (which at least features the most ribald scoring a movie like this got since the heydays of CUTTHROAT ISLAND, though at this point the perplexed spectator may be long past the caring point).

What really irks about this project is that there are talented people aboard this train wreck - though in desperate need of a firm director who knows what he's doing.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,278]

After the failure of this pic and John Carter, Disney must have thanked God for their deal with Marvel, and that they bought Star Wars!

[Jay 37,606]

That didn't stop Hollywood of spending loads of money on ill-conceived projects though (John Carter, The Lone Ranger)

How do you figure John Carter was ill conceived? It was made with care by a talented creative team, adapting a popular and beloved book, and the final product was completely satisfying. It just didn't find an audience, which happens sometimes.

[JoeinAR 1,950]

John Carter was poorly marketed. It was released at the wrong time of year. The movie could have succeeded better had better arrangement's been made.

[Jay 37,606]

Yup, it was marketed all wrong and released at an odd time. Though I don't think anything could have made it a hit, it definitely could have been more successful.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I watched Blood Simple recently. I had to turn it off with about 30mins to go though because I needed my bed. I probably won't bother finishing it.

I was surprised by how much I loved Blood Simple. It felt very much in the same vein as No Country For Old Men.

Maybe it's just me but I think they made better ones. In fact, BAR is the best or the least worse of the latter ones (besides ILD, which I haven't seen). I mean, I didn't hate like I hated their remake of True Grit with Jeff Bridges. That one was as run-of-the-mill as Intolerable Cruelty. Maybe I would like them more if they were made by some random director and not the Coens.

Alex

God I was disappointed by their True Grit. And Jeff Bridges voice was just too much.

I've not seen Intolerable Cruelty but I've heard it's very funny. I saw about fifteen minutes of it at an ex's house years ago and it did look witty. Must think on to watch it properly.

My favourite Coens movie is either Raising Arizona or No Country For Old Men. They hit the artistic jackpot with the latter.

I enjoyed True Grit much more upon my second viewing. Deakins' cinematography is breathtaking in this one, and kudos to sticking Barry Pepper in a western. He was born to be in that genre. I haven't seen Intolerable Cruelty in awhile, but it has its classic Coen moments. Definitely one of their lesser films though. I just realized that I've never seen Barton Fink. Hopefully a blu is in the works.

My favorite Coen film, and one of my favorite films period, is No Country For Old Men. As you said, they hit the jackpot. Such a tour-de-force of filmmaking (forgive the trailer quote). Never thought they would top Fargo until I saw this one in theaters. Glued to my seat is an understatement. Raising Arizona is also brilliant.

Incidentially, THE LONE RANGER, a movie whose one-sheet you will find in a lexicon under 'excessive' and 'bloated'. The misbegotten trend to blow modest adventure yarns into 3 hour spectacles may have started with Cecil B. DeMille, but that doesn't make Verbinski's leaden would-be-hip update any better.

A script that smells of a dozen rewrites to accomodate a certain star and god knows who else pushes the movie from a feasable 105 minutes over the unbearable line in the 150 neighborhood containing all you never wanted to know about supporting character Tonto from cradle to present, looney CGI impressions of Bugs-Bunny cartoons and Monty-Python, the obligatory (and yawn-inducing) tips-to-the-hat to Sergio Leone westerns and an insufferable number of drawn out set pieces that could feed 30 italian westerns.

The tone shifts are expected - Bruckheimer may have wanted an epic, but Verbinski never clued him in that he really wanted to make another MOUSE HUNT, so we get solemn americana at one minute and silly killer rabbits the next, not even counting the lunatic Tex-Avery finale aboard two railroads (which at least features the most ribald scoring a movie like this got since the heydays of CUTTHROAT ISLAND, though at this point the perplexed spectator may be long past the caring point).

What really irks about this project is that there are talented people aboard this train wreck - though in desperate need of a firm director who knows what he's doing.

The only glaring issue I had with The Lone Ranger were the tone shifts and those random Bunnies of Doom™. I'd hardly blame Verbinski for its most prevalent problems. *cough*Bruckheimer*cough*

The train finale is one of the best action set pieces in years.

[A24 4,377]

After the failure of this pic and John Carter, Disney must have thanked God for their deal with Marvel, and that they bought Star Wars!

Safe bets, for sure!

That didn't stop Hollywood of spending loads of money on ill-conceived projects though (John Carter, The Lone Ranger)

How do you figure John Carter was ill conceived? It was made with care by a talented creative team, adapting a popular and beloved book, and the final product was completely satisfying. It just didn't find an audience, which happens sometimes.

That's hard to believe when so many find it bad.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,278]

Yup, it was marketed all wrong and released at an odd time. Though I don't think anything could have made it a hit, it definitely could have been more successful.

The marketing was very poor indeed. That combined with the frankly huge budget!

Thats what was ill concieved about it.

Did Disney really expect to make a profit this way?

Same for The Lone Ranger. 250 million for a western? Based upon a character with zero appeal to todays main movie going audience?

Both may have done OK on half those budgets.

[Jay 37,606]

After the failure of this pic and John Carter, Disney must have thanked God for their deal with Marvel, and that they bought Star Wars!

Safe bets, for sure!

That didn't stop Hollywood of spending loads of money on ill-conceived projects though (John Carter, The Lone Ranger)

How do you figure John Carter was ill conceived? It was made with care by a talented creative team, adapting a popular and beloved book, and the final product was completely satisfying. It just didn't find an audience, which happens sometimes.

That's hard to believe

How so?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yup, it was marketed all wrong and released at an odd time. Though I don't think anything could have made it a hit, it definitely could have been more successful.

The marketing was very poor indeed. That combined with the frankly huge budget!

Thats what was ill concieved about it.

Did Disney really expect to make a profit this way?

Same for The Lone Ranger. 250 million for a western? Based upon a character with zero appeal to todays main movie going audience?

Both may have done OK on half those budgets.

In The Lone Ranger's defense, they constructed miles of train track just for the finale. Plus Johnny Depp's salary. That's where most of that budget went. Not saying it was smart investing on Disney's part, but with the huge success of Pirates, I assumed they figured the same director-actor-composer-producer-writer team would be enough to do the same box office.

[Brónach 1,303]

That didn't stop Hollywood of spending loads of money on ill-conceived projects though (John Carter, The Lone Ranger)

How do you figure John Carter was ill conceived? It was made with care by a talented creative team, adapting a popular and beloved book, and the final product was completely satisfying. It just didn't find an audience, which happens sometimes.

Andrew Stanton did what he wanted to do originally for Nemo (show the backstory in little flashbacks through the film until the reveal), causing exactly what they told him at Pixar would happen if he did that in Nemo.

Just for a start. Some aspects of structure are all over the place. Important information is revealed right before we have to care killing all the drama through the film. It feels that there are chunks missing, with stuff for characters like Tars Tarkas and Kantos Kan and Sola (seriously), while a lot of what the bad guys do seems overly unncesarily complicated and lacking in real storytelling impact.

He probably drew a bit too much from different books at once and made a mistake dropping the atmosphere factory concept.

On the bright side, the score is fun and these are the best looking Tharks ever.

[Jay 37,606]

I generally dislike the structure that starts with a character after the main events of the movie, then basically the whole movie is shown as a flashback, then it returns to the guy at the very end for little to no pay off. Come to think of it, Lone Ranger had the same structure!

[Wojo 2,453]

The Usual Suspects and Forrest Gump used that basic structure very well.

[Jay 37,606]

Well, that structure is required for The Usual Suspects, for obvious reasons.

Haven't seen Forrest Gump in over a decade. Sometimes the structure works, but a lot of times it doesn't. I don't think it was needed in John Carter.

And I remember thinking Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind would have been much better if they just showed everything in chronological order.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Forrest Gump is quintessential cinema.

[Brónach 1,303]

Boring.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Stupid is as stupid does.

[Brónach 1,303]

I don't know if the film is stupid, I just feel bored with it. That's all. No relevance.

[A24 4,377]

Well, that structure is required for The Usual Suspects, for obvious reasons.

Haven't seen Forrest Gump in over a decade. Sometimes the structure works, but a lot of times it doesn't. I don't think it was needed in John Carter.

And I remember thinking Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind would have been much better if they just showed everything in chronological order.

Would the same apply to Memento?

[Jay 37,606]

Nope, Memento is perfect.

Though, the chronological edit presented on disc 2 of the 2DVD set is an interesting watch in it's own right.

[Marian Schedenig 8,318]

And I remember thinking Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind would have been much better if they just showed everything in chronological order.

I don't think that would make sense.

[Jay 37,606]

Well, I saw the film one time almost 10 years ago, and my memory of it is a bit fuzzy. I need to see it again.

[A24 4,377]

I've seen the film 3 times but I always forget what it's about ... maybe that's one of its fortes?

[Glóin the Dark 1,238]

I thought I was watching it for the first time until I found out about the brain surgery Charlie Kaufman had persuaded me to undergo.

[JoeinAR 1,950]

Eternal is unwatchable. Jim Carrey ugh.

Thank goodness it was on Netflix and cost virtually nothing.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,278]

The Hunger Games

Actually very good!

The actual story is quite an obvious pastiche of ideas previously seen in books or movies (The Running Man especially), but that's OK, so was Star Wars.

The whole film has a 1970's vibe to it, in the way it was shot, even some of the set design and costumes. The contrast between the "real" world Katniss inhabits and the Bourgeois upper class from Capitol, with their grotesque hairstyles, beards and make up, with a nice nod to France before the Revolution. All if this is done with fairly broad strokes, but it works.

The supporting cast boasts some impressive names, at this point doing merely more then cameo's. Stanley Tucci is one of the most measured, subtle actors of our times, so it's interesting that in this film he gives his character no debt at all. As the host he exists to ask the most obvious of questions, to get the viewer caring. Woody Harrelson gets do do a little bit more as a former victor turned drunk. My take on that was that his drunkenness comes more out of survivor's guilt then wealth. And Donald Sutherland can of-course be quietly menacing by just staring in a camera.

All of these actors need to do little more then depend on their charisma, but it works.....

The star of the film is of course Jennifer Lawrence. Her casting is key to the success of the film. Given us the exact mix of toughness versus vulnerability that the role requires. She plays the game, even plays the audience (the one in the film and us perhaps) but feels detached enough from it that we feel we can invest in her emotionally.

She carries the film without seemingly even trying. It's not often you see an actress of that young age acting so calmly and restraint.

Restraint is also a word one might use for the direction.

Gary Ross' knows he is making a film that satirizes reality TV, the audiences lust for bigger, REALLER, MORE!!! And therefore holds back on all the big moments you would expect in a major Hollywood blockbuster.

CGI is kept at a minimum, I'm sure there is more there then you think, but it's wonderfully understated. I like the fact that even though the game takes place in a very artificial environment, it's treated as real. So a real forest instead of a fake one. Big moments of death, sorrow and love are treated with restraint instead of milked for all they are worth. Often depending on the actors rather then gaudy trickery.

There is quite a lot of shaky cam in the film. But at key moments it represents the disorientation of Kattnis. The film has surprisingly few special effects porn shots. You know the ones. CGI camera towering over everything, showing us the splendorous CGI environments. Even the "beautiful landscape" shots are kept to a minimum. The film is very much focused on it's characters. The world of Panem is one they inhabit, rather then a world designed to show off to the audience. I really liked this.

Despite it's PG13 rating, there are a few moments of pretty severe violence. Particular when the game begins and some of the tributes begin what is nothing short of a bloodbath.

I didnt get the score when I listened to samples of it last year. But it makes sense with the film. Scenes involving Katniss, her district etc are scores with a almost folk like sensibility, while everything related to The Capitol and the Hunger games gets a gaudy, RCP treatment. Still nothing I'd listen to outside the film, but it works.....

Weak points? Nothing serious. But once Katniss becomes part of the game the real world seems very detached. So the few scenes of people rioting seem to come out of no where. It would have been more daring if we didn't see any scenes from the outside world at all maybe.

I didnt feel anything for Peeta, positive or negative. But again, it's the first of a franchise.

Impressed.

[A24 4,377]

Indeed, Steef, the film has an odd '70s vibe, which results in a feeling that it's not being pushed forward by the story or FX, but rather by atmosphere, wonder and curiosity. Like a '70s film, it folds out more naturally, which is a very rare quality for a modern blockbuster. I liked it too.

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,278]

Its a pity Ross didnt do the sequel, which i will check out.