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

[Quintus 5,399]

I've not read the King original but the grim, GUTTED ending of the movie is brilliant!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Oi! SPOILERS!

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

He could mean happily gutted.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Grim happily gutted?

[Muad'Dib 1,801]

Oh, come on! You didn't like Prometheus but liked this?? I don't get it

The characters are all idiotic. Specially that janitor guy, Jim was he called? "Hey, the light attracts the bugs! Let's turn on all the freakin' lights!!" Bloody brilliant, mate!

Or "Hey, we just heard a guy getting killed out there! There's no freakin' way we'll believe you when you say there's something hitting on the back!" - There are too many of these idiotic moments

And why couldn't the monsters break through that huge glass? Sure, they break once but by accident and then they never try again... I'm seriously asking here, is it ever explained on King's story?

I get what they were going for with the fanatical catholic lady but they went too over the top with her. I know a lot of people like that and I appreciate the critisicism of that extremism but this became too much... She was so one-dimensional.

I do have to admit that when I saw the giant-mamooth-tentacle-thingy I screamed at the screen "Chtulhu!"

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I think you're looking too deeply into this. The people are supposed to be stupid.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

And Koray, later today I'll be starting with Lolita. When I do Kubrick/Nolan marathons I usually forego their early films and start where I really "feel" their mature style. Not to say their early ones aren't good.

I'm starting from the beginning. Perhaps we'll overlap at some point. Tonight I watched Fear And Desire and The Seafarers. Dated storytelling but some fantastic lighting and framing from Kubrick. Great use of shadows, close ups, and depth of field. Wonderful restoration by the Library Of Congress too.

[A24 4,331]

The Mist was ok, but it relied too much on showing the monsters (where the novella was focused on hardly "showing" anything). I've only seen it once though... should check out the colour version someday.

Well, seeing the monsters in all their glory seems to perfectly fit the B-movie theme to me. It's also a very different movie from Alien where the obscurity of the monster was a part of the story or the character of The Eight Passenger. The monsters in The Mist do not think, nor do they have any tactics. They are going to show themselves, they are big in numbers, and like the dinosaurs, they are going to conquer the world. Plus, in The Mist, it's not just one monster, there are many, and each monster is different, so the moment you think you've seen it, you actually have seen nothing yet. Also, as in Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later, the real monster is man itself. The danger doesn't come from outside but from within.

Oh, come on! You didn't like Prometheus but liked this?? I don't get it

Yes! I don't think you got it. When I first started to watch The Mist, I expected a very serious movie with typical storytelling. Within minutes (when everything was still peaceful) I was relieved to realize that was not the case. Darabont tells it in 'overdrive'.Just like in Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, everything is enlarged and 'amplified', which makes this movie so very entertaining to watch. And even though the film has a lot of delightful 'campy' aspects (the giant tentacle scene, for instance), a great deal is about exploring 'fear' and how people react to it. All caricatured to the point of satirizing itself, but always compelling, IMO.

On the other hand, I can't take away anything from Prometheus and I love Scott's other sci-fi movies. Heck, the two are incomparable.

If you ask me, I think you've watched this movie from the wrong angle, Michael.

Cheers!

PS: Koray, first you say that Kubrick's storytelling is dated but then you go on how "fantastic" it is. Are you aware of that?

Alex

[Quintus 5,399]

I don't ever think of the creatures in The Mist as being 'monsters'. They're indigenous wildlife.

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

Well, seeing the monsters in all their glory seems to perfectly fit the B-movie theme to me.

Perhaps that's what I'm criticising. The novella wasn't a "B story". Like so often with King, it had the monsters that were the central threat, but it focused on the people and their reaction to this threat, how society starts to break down and how people become a threat to each other. Even in the few moments when they go outside and actually encounter the monsters, he hardly describes them. Those passages are rather like written shaky cam sequences focused on the people and the situation instead of the monsters.

Mind you, I've seen the film only once, but I guess my impression is that it basically presented King's narrative pretty well and was only turned into a B movie by showing too much of the monsters.

Just like in Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, everything is enlarged and 'amplified', which makes this movie so very entertaining to watch.

But Starship Troopers is a (brilliant) satire. One that successfully makes a story entertaining that should in fact be deeply disturbing. It makes makes me feel entertained and ashamed to be entertained at the same time. I don't think Mist can be compared to that.

[Muad'Dib 1,801]

If you ask me, I think you've watched this movie from the wrong angle, Michael.

It is very possible; and you mention the B-movie aesthetics. Maybe that's in the script and the characters, but the way it's filmed didn't give me that feeling at all. Sometimes it was too polished, sometimes it was too hand-held camera... Mind you, I was expecting to have fun with this film, wasn't expecting an intellectual study on anything, and when it started I was so excited, but beggining with those awful expository dialogues on the house the film slowly started going downhill for me. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because our opinions regarding this film differ so much and I don't want to come across as disrespectful towars others people's opinions around here.

But I have to ask again: What was up with the monsters NOT entering through the giant glass entrance of the market? You can't tell me that was a caricature of society or a B-movie aesthetic.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

PS: Koray, first you say that Kubrick's storytelling is dated but then you go on how "fantastic" it is. Are you aware of that?

Alex

Read it again.

And Koray, later today I'll be starting with Lolita. When I do Kubrick/Nolan marathons I usually forego their early films and start where I really "feel" their mature style. Not to say their early ones aren't good.

I'm starting from the beginning. Perhaps we'll overlap at some point. Tonight I watched Fear And Desire and The Seafarers. Dated storytelling but some fantastic lighting and framing from Kubrick. Great use of shadows, close ups, and depth of field. Wonderful restoration by the Library Of Congress too.

[A24 4,331]

Like so often with King, it had the monsters that were the central threat, but it focused on the people and their reaction to this threat, how society starts to break down and how people become a threat to each other.

But Starship Troopers is a (brilliant) satire. One that successfully makes a story entertaining that should in fact be deeply disturbing. It makes makes me feel entertained and ashamed to be entertained at the same time. I don't think Mist can be compared to that.

Wow, you just summed up the qualities that make The Mist so good!

BTW, even though I said The Mist shows the monsters in all their glory, I wonder if that is entirely true ... for most of them remain unseen in the mist. We only see a few and when we do, I don't see what the problem is. It's cinema. It doesn't take words to describe a monster. Darabont's focus is how people react to the situation.

Read it again.

I did. My question still stands.

[Mr. Brown 91]

Clouzot's "Le Corbeau" -- I'm wishing Criterion would release this on Blu-Ray, although they did a fine job with the DVD. Clouzot had some balls, considering when and where he made the film.

Resnais's "Last Year at Marienbad" -- My second viewing of the film and I still don't know what to make of it.

Powell's "Peeping Tom" -- Pure creepiness mixed with the type of sets and cinematography you'd expect from a Powell production. Comparable to Hitchcock's PSYCHO, in quality and content.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Read it again.

I did. My question still stands.

No where did I say the storytelling was fantastic.

[A24 4,331]

But Koray, the things you called fantastic ("fantastic lighting and framing from Kubrick. Great use of shadows, close ups, and depth of field") are part of what make up storytelling.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I was referring to the script.

[A24 4,331]

Then say script or story. "Storytelling" in film always refers to the cinematic techniques used by the director.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Lol no it doesn't.

[KK 3,307]

With all this talk, I guess I should check The Mist out...movie for the weekend, perhaps.

[Quintus 5,399]

I tend to think of filmic storytelling as being the crafting and shaping of the movie at the hands of the director. The script is merely one element of that, one tool in the director's repertoire.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Well yeah, every aspect serves the story being told. But Alex is saying the word always refers to the director's cinematic techniques, which I assume means lighting and camera work.

[crocodile 7,999]

Obviously, all the elements have to work together. But it's impossible to make a good film out of a really bad script.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

True, but it's possible to make an enjoyable film out of a bad script.

I've seen loads.

But I have to ask again: What was up with the monsters NOT entering through the giant glass entrance of the market? You can't tell me that was a caricature of society or a B-movie aesthetic.

They're miniscule-brained pond life from another world and they decided that after bouncing off the glass a few times while foraging around instinctively for food it wasn't worth the headache. Literally.

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

With all this talk, I guess I should check The Mist out...movie for the weekend, perhaps.

I just watched it again (this time in colour), and my opinion on it still stands. It's quite good overall, but when it goes into B movie territory it leaves the novella concept behind and becomes too generic and thus less involving. I think at its core it's a pretty serious story, and showing too much of the monsters (especially outside POV shots) kills that.

The ending is cool. Though it's hard to call either version (book or film ending) "better".

But I have to ask again: What was up with the monsters NOT entering through the giant glass entrance of the market? You can't tell me that was a caricature of society or a B-movie aesthetic.

They're miniscule-brained pond life from another world and they decided that after bouncing off the glass a few times while foraging around instinctively for food it wasn't worth the headache. Literally.

True. There's no reason at all to assume they had any incentive to break into the market.

[Quintus 5,399]

At the end of the day I think it's about as serious as Half-Life.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

True, but it's possible to make an enjoyable film out of a bad script.

I've seen loads.

Yes.

The simple point I was trying to make is that Fear And Desire is a great visual experience that has very little else going for it. I mean, it's only 60 minutes after all, but the old school opening narration and expository dialogue just doesn't draw me in the action on screen, Kubrick's camera work does.

[Matt C 452]

His painting background is what makes him such a brilliant director. There's nothing pleasing about the suffering in his films.

The way he shoots it -- some credit has to go to DP Sean Bobbitt -- is beautiful in its bleak way. I'm honestly curious how McQueen would handle less grim subject matter... I'd like to see how he tackles that.

[mrbellamy 6,276]

He's said that he'd like to do a musical as one of his next films. Whether or not he means a lighthearted one, who knows?

[Matt C 452]

He's said that he'd like to do a musical as one of his next films. Whether or not he means a lighthearted one, who knows?

Les Miserables would've been perfect for McQueen, shame Tom Hooper already did that.

[A24 4,331]

Lol no it doesn't.

LOL, yes, it does.

Mise-en-scène, composition, framing, camera movement, lighting, editing, music, everything that makes up the image... This is the vocabulary of the director. It's how he/she tells a story and how he/she describes the action.

When we speak of the 'storytelling' of a film, it refers to the cinematique techniques and stylistic elements that tell the story in a particular visual way. When we speak of the 'storytelling' of a book, it refers to the way a writer uses words to conveys the action.

A script can be told and interpreted in many different ways. It's very unusual to refer to the script (especially without mentioning it) when you are talking about the storytelling of a film. One of the reasons is that scripts can be very concise or fairly elaborate. There's no way of knowing that from watching the film.

Alex

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yeah it's called visual storytelling, not storytelling.

[A24 4,331]

And what do you think film is?

[Quintus 5,399]

I see both points. Visual storytelling doesn't tell the whole story though, since it can't account for audio storytelling or sound design + musical score. But I do still think Koray is guilty of playing down the overwhelming importance of visual storytelling in the broader sense ie Alex's thinking.

[A24 4,331]

My point is that, when talking about film and storytelling, it pertains to the language of film, not the words of a script. Except for the dialogue, we don't know the words of a script. I rarely hear people refer to the dialogue of film as 'storytelling'. Usually they say "dialogue".

I just thought it was amusing that Koray said the storytelling was dated yet at the same time he praised the very things that make up storytelling in film. When I pointed that out, Koray didn't have a clue what I was talking about for about half a page. It's a pity such a light-hearted remark needs to be explained.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Christ you're sounding like your typical pretentious self. I was praising Kubrick's direction. All aspects of film tell a story. Film is not a visual story, it's audiovisual, as Lee pointed out, and that includes everything from art direction to production design to costume design and music and sound effects and editing. Are we really going into this? It is not logical to infer visual storytelling from the word storytelling. Perhaps screenplay doesn't come to mind too. Either way, I clarified what I meant. Perhaps you don't know how to write a script (and I mean that purely in a formatting and structural sense)? The words of a script are part of the language of film. Do you think the Best Screenplay Oscar goes to the one with the best dialogue?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

No! AssCremers is right. It's only about the visuals. The best way to enjoy ANY film is to turn the sound off.

[A24 4,331]

I never said that! Clearly, you've not been paying attention, Steef, but you know what, Cremers' master class is over for today, folks.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

No! Don't go. Do not leave us without your wisdom, oh Oracle of Truth!

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Cremers reminds me of how I used to be, before I grew up.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

When was that?

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

About 2-3ish years ago. I thought I knew everything, as one pretentious SOB.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Um....okaaay.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

You're still like that!

[A24 4,331]

Funny, that's how I think about 99¨% of you posts, Mr. Shark. Then again, you are 19, right?

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

No. Now I'm humble.

I was 19 two 2-3 years ago. Now I'm 21.

Funny, that's how I think about 99¨% of you posts, Mr. Shark.

Right back at ya.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I'm debating with children here!

[KK 3,307]

If you can't fight em', join 'em.

You must join us Steef. You must join with the cool kids.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I'll never join you!

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I'm debating with children here!

What's the Dutch age of consent? 35?