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

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Hellraiser.

Flawed but interesting horror film.

Writer/Director Clive Barker adapts his own short story into a fim oozing with style, but doesnt have a lot in the way of plot logic or characters.

The acting ranges from bad (Ashley Lawrence as the stereotypical Final Girl) to excellent (Claire Higgins as Julia is a fantastic 80's diva).

Some strong effects and horror scenes and an interesting concept makes Hellraiser stand out from the usual horror fare of the decade. But the film would have been a lot stronger if Barker applied some clarity to both the plot, and the rules of the universe he created.

[nightscape94 965]

Barker just isn't much of a director.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Perhaps, though visually the film has a lot of interesting moments.

Editing is clumsy at times though.

[publicist 4,643]

THE BOOK THIEF

Following the old showbusiness axiom that there is always something uplifting even (or especially) in the most dire of times, this shallow nazi wartime drama does it all: presenting aesthetically pleasing children in Once-Upon-a-Time-like fairy tale villages saying prudent things like eloquent adults, showing clumsy barbarian nazi hordes right out of 60's war movies, ennobling middle-class intellectual activities like reading and finally letting us weep for the morally upright and their suffering. The whole political dimension of nazi ideology is gone - we just must accept that bad men with grimy faces did bad things and there were good people that stood firm even in those dark times and that was that.

It is a Disney-sanitized version of Markus Zusak's book of the same name that had the distinction that the cynical Grim reaper tells the story of a little girl, Lisel, he gets fond of, following her through her life at her foster parents involving learning to read and finding the world of books as a vigil, the hiding of Jews and her learning process about humanity and inhumanity with the Holocaust looming large - taking someone out of the story from time to time because his time has come. The movie pretends to portray these things too, only that it forgets the voiceover of the reaper - it is reduced to some connective tissue that is cleared of all mischief or character(it's basically an old grandfather narrating), it forgets to actually show us the wonders of reading - an old trick, just state things instead of making the effort to actually filmically transform them, the next worst crime to expository dialogue - and generally wastes time with tasteful and expensive lightning (even a book burning is done like a photoshopped advert).

The actors do their best to give their parts some depths (kudos must go especially to Emily Watson), but the terrible idea to 'conjure' time and place with Allo Allo accents, sprinkled with german JA's and Ve have Vays to make You Toak! pronunciations lets all those efforts go in vain.

In light of this severe lack of ambition to do more than a lame counting rhyme of tired WW2 drama clichés (minus any 'distasteful' things, of course!), it does surprise no one that JW's generally tasteful but too plushy and glossy score has turned out as it is (it is mainly called upon to give the up-scale production values even more sheen). A movie the family can watch on a rainy sunday afternoon...if there weren't a million better things to do. Like reading Zusak's book...or even The Love Bug, for that matter.

[crocodile 8,017]

So is it a good Disney-like Holocaust movie?

Karol

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[publicist 4,643]

So is it a good Disney-like Holocaust movie?

Karol

Let's say you might enjoy it on the same level as you have enjoyed the Robin-Williams-version of JACOB THE LIAR...if you had the dubious pleasure.

[Marian Schedenig 8,194]

The acting ranges from bad (Ashley Lawrence as the stereotypical Final Girl) to excellent (Claire Higgins as Julia is a fantastic 80's diva).

But what about Garak?

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

The acting ranges from bad (Ashley Lawrence as the stereotypical Final Girl) to excellent (Claire Higgins as Julia is a fantastic 80's diva).

But what about Garak?

You mean Scorpio?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

He's quite weird in this movie. Effective though.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Paths Of Glory

The first film where I feel like Kubrick's style is really starting to come together, if only because of the magnificent tracking shot through the trenches. I think this is the only war film I've seen where you never see the enemy. Not a single opposing soldier. It instead focuses on the enemy within and corruption pertaining to the chain of command. I don't like the term 'antiwar film' since I don't think any film about war is glorifying or supporting it, but this is up near the best of them. Acting was really top notch; loved Kirk Douglas here. First time with Kubrick where Gerald Fried's score keeps a low profile, the subtle percussion music really nailed the mood of the respective scenes.

Spartacus

I was going to watch this last night to unwind after a long day, but then I saw it was 3 hours and 16 minutes and quickly turned it off. It's your traditional Hollywood epic, in a bad way. I'm sure the production values and budget for this film were huge back in 1960, but it just translates to poor production design and tons of extras to me. Really couldn't get into its pacing and didn't care about the characters. It doesn't even have any signature Kubrick photography. There were maybe 2 or 3 really great standout shots but not much else to latch on to visually. Also thought Alex North's score was immensely obnoxious. Funny, since I love it on album.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Paths Of Glory

The first film where I feel like Kubrick's style is really starting to come together, if only because of the magnificent tracking shot through the trenches. I think this is the only war film I've seen where you never see the enemy. Not a single opposing soldier. It instead focuses on the enemy within and corruption pertaining to the chain of command. I don't like the term 'antiwar film' since I don't think any film about war is glorifying or supporting it, but this is up near the best of them. Acting was really top notch; loved Kirk Douglas here. First time with Kubrick where Gerald Fried's score keeps a low profile, the subtle percussion music really nailed the mood of the respective scenes.

Kubrick supposedly said that there were aspects of war that could be "beautiful" and worth portraying as such in cinema. In a way, I think by acknowledging that, his films involving war are more genuine and meaningful than any others that are overtly "antiwar." The lack of an agenda to push allowed him to simply tell worthwhile stories and draw powerful conclusions.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

There was an interview with one of Kubrick's collaborators on the Criterion blu (can't recall which) who said that Kubrick always made films for himself and nobody else. He didn't care about anything else but ensuring he was proud and satisfied with his own work. I think that fits into what you said nicely.

[Incanus 5,715]

THE BOOK THIEF

Following the old showbusiness axiom that there is always something uplifting even (or especially) in the most dire of times, this shallow nazi wartime drama does it all: presenting aesthetically pleasing children in Once-Upon-a-Time-like fairy tale villages saying prudent things like eloquent adults, showing clumsy barbarian nazi hordes right out of 60's war movies, ennobling middle-class intellectual activities like reading and finally letting us weep for the morally upright and their suffering. The whole political dimension of nazi ideology is gone - we just must accept that bad men with grimy faces did bad things and there were good people that stood firm even in those dark times and that was that.

It is a Disney-sanitized version of Markus Zusak's book of the same name that had the distinction that the cynical Grim reaper tells the story of a little girl, Lisel, he gets fond of, following her through her life at her foster parents involving learning to read and finding the world of books as a vigil, the hiding of Jews and her learning process about humanity and inhumanity with the Holocaust looming large - taking someone out of the story from time to time because his time has come. The movie pretends to portray these things too, only that it forgets the voiceover of the reaper - it is reduced to some connective tissue that is cleared of all mischief or character(it's basically an old grandfather narrating), it forgets to actually show us the wonders of reading - an old trick, just state things instead of making the effort to actually filmically transform them, the next worst crime to expository dialogue - and generally wastes time with tasteful and expensive lightning (even a book burning is done like a photoshopped advert).

The actors do their best to give their parts some depths (kudos must go especially to Emily Watson), but the terrible idea to 'conjure' time and place with Allo Allo accents, sprinkled with german JA's and Ve have Vays to make You Toak! pronunciations lets all those efforts go in vain.

In light of this severe lack of ambition to do more than a lame counting rhyme of tired WW2 drama clichés (minus any 'distasteful' things, of course!), it does surprise no one that JW's generally tasteful but too plushy and glossy score has turned out as it is (it is mainly called upon to give the up-scale production values even more sheen). A movie the family can watch on a rainy sunday afternoon...if there weren't a million better things to do. Like reading Zusak's book...or even The Love Bug, for that matter.

Did they get anything right in this film?

[publicist 4,643]

By whose standards?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yours

[A24 4,337]

There was an interview with one of Kubrick's collaborators on the Criterion blu (can't recall which) who said that Kubrick always made films for himself and nobody else. He didn't care about anything else but ensuring he was proud and satisfied with his own work. I think that fits into what you said nicely.

Except Spartacus, of course.

[Quintus 5,399]

Spartacus

I'm sure the production values and budget for this film were huge back in 1960, but it just translates to poor production design and tons of extras to me.

Explain.

[Incanus 5,715]

By whose standards?

Yours

Yes yours.

[A24 4,337]

Disappointing. The film has nothing on Scorsese (or PTA's Boogie Nights, for that matter). IMO, the root of the problem is that everything feels so contrived and artificial (everyone is an empty caricature) that you end up with a very fleeting, paper-thin experience, which is surprising because I really bought into Russell's Silver Lining Playbook. Bale's performance, Bob De Niro's cameo and the music are the best thing about it. 6/10

Alex

[crocodile 8,017]

By whose standards?

Yours

Yes yours.

The end credits roll is well done - both the speed and font.

Karol

[publicist 4,643]

By whose standards?

Yours

Yes yours.

So what exactly should i elaborate upon? That an overly simple and politically dubious WW2-as-a-fairy-tale movie has nice set design?

[crocodile 8,017]

Is John Williams embarrassing himself with this project? Or is he more of a saving grace?

Karol

[Incanus 5,715]

By whose standards?

Yours

Yes yours.

So what exactly should i elaborate upon? That an overly simple and politically dubious WW2-as-a-fairy-tale movie has nice set design?

So Emily Watson and set design were good. That's good enough for me. Thank you!

[publicist 4,643]

I am sure that Slick Willies Stepmom-leftovers will find your approval...

[Incanus 5,715]

I am sure that Slick Willies Stepmom-leftovers will find your approval...

Horner-lover! Prison barber! Near-sighted orchestrator!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Captain Haddock?

[Quintus 5,399]

Disappointing. The film has nothing on Scorsese (or PTA's Boogie Nights, for that matter). IMO, the root of the problem is that everything feels so contrived and artificial (everyone is an empty caricature) that you end up with a very fleeting, paper-thin experience, which is surprising because I really bought into Russell's Silver Lining Playbook. Bale's performance, Bob De Niro's cameo and the music are the best thing about it. 6/10

Alex

After the trailer I said it looked full of try-hard. More Casino than Goodfellas.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Spartacus

I was going to watch this last night to unwind after a long day, but then I saw it was 3 hours and 16 minutes and quickly turned it off. It's your traditional Hollywood epic, in a bad way. I'm sure the production values and budget for this film were huge back in 1960, but it just translates to poor production design and tons of extras to me. Really couldn't get into its pacing and didn't care about the characters. It doesn't even have any signature Kubrick photography. There were maybe 2 or 3 really great standout shots but not much else to latch on to visually. Also thought Alex North's score was immensely obnoxious. Funny, since I love it on album.

You can't approach SPARTACUS expecting a Kubrick film, it's not. He was hired by Douglas as a talented workman and that's the direction he delivered.

What elevates the film for me is the triumvirate of Trumbo's screenplay (a prescient Civil Rights allegory that is never preachy, and always contains a curdle of wit - there's so many firecrackers of quotes, I'd be here all day I tried to name them); Olivier, Laughton and Ustinov's performance's; and Alex North's career best of a score. It only seems obnoxious because you're conditioned by contemporary dogma to believe that artistically timid, restrained underscore is the only way. Music can be the foreground.

It's the best of any of the Hollywood sword-and-sandals epics, 20th or 21st Century. And that's because at its core, it's not about the 1st Century AD. It's a subversive take on the genre's formula, used to destruct McCarthyism, Segregation, the American Slave Trade and imperialism.

It also contains one of Douglas's bravest and most vulnerable performances to date (along with THE LONELY ARE THE BRAVE). As Gene Simmons/Varinia says:

"You're strong enough to be weak."

That single line is more adult and bares more understanding of the complexities of the human condition, than any of the teenage posturing of GLADIATOR or KINGDOM HEAVEN, despite their pseudo-art house veneers and more naturalistic performances. All surface, no substance-- Ridley Scott's speciality.

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

You missed the best part of Spartacus, the third act has a more Kubrickian influence than anyhting else in the film, particularly the final battle. The shots, the compostions are all undeniably Kubrick.

And I absolutely adore Olivier's character, it's curious how he seems much more sympathetic than Douglas.

[Incanus 5,715]

What elevates the film for me is the triumvirate of Trumbo's screenplay (a prescient Civil Rights allegory that is never preachy, and always contains a curdle of wit - there's so many firecrackers of quotes, I'd be here all day I tried to name them); Olivier, Laughton and Ustinov's performance's; and Alex North's career best of a score. It only seems obnoxious because you're conditioned by contemporary dogma to believe that artistically timid, restrained underscore is the only way. Music can be the foreground.

I have to go on record to say I still to this day can't bring myself to like the music beyond Varinia's theme, obnoxiously out of place or not it might be in the film itself. North is definitely hit and miss for me.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

What elevates the film for me is the triumvirate of Trumbo's screenplay (a prescient Civil Rights allegory that is never preachy, and always contains a curdle of wit - there's so many firecrackers of quotes, I'd be here all day I tried to name them); Olivier, Laughton and Ustinov's performance's; and Alex North's career best of a score. It only seems obnoxious because you're conditioned by contemporary dogma to believe that artistically timid, restrained underscore is the only way. Music can be the foreground.

I have to go on record to say I still to this day can't bring myself to like the music beyond Varinia's theme, obnoxiously out of place or not it might be in the film itself. North is definitely hit and miss for me.

Not even the Main Title?

[Incanus 5,715]

What elevates the film for me is the triumvirate of Trumbo's screenplay (a prescient Civil Rights allegory that is never preachy, and always contains a curdle of wit - there's so many firecrackers of quotes, I'd be here all day I tried to name them); Olivier, Laughton and Ustinov's performance's; and Alex North's career best of a score. It only seems obnoxious because you're conditioned by contemporary dogma to believe that artistically timid, restrained underscore is the only way. Music can be the foreground.

I have to go on record to say I still to this day can't bring myself to like the music beyond Varinia's theme, obnoxiously out of place or not it might be in the film itself. North is definitely hit and miss for me.

Not even the Main Title?

Especially not the Main Title.

I know, I know there is no hope for me.

But this reminds me I should revisit the film. It has been quite a while since I last saw it.

[A24 4,337]

After the trailer I said it looked full of try-hard. More Casino than Goodfellas.

I guess I've underestimated your trailer-reading skills.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Spartacus

I'm sure the production values and budget for this film were huge back in 1960, but it just translates to poor production design and tons of extras to me.

Explain.

I didn't feel the gravitas of it all. It all just screamed sets and extras. In other words, I wasn't pulled into the film's world, I very much felt like someone watching a movie.

Spartacus

I was going to watch this last night to unwind after a long day, but then I saw it was 3 hours and 16 minutes and quickly turned it off. It's your traditional Hollywood epic, in a bad way. I'm sure the production values and budget for this film were huge back in 1960, but it just translates to poor production design and tons of extras to me. Really couldn't get into its pacing and didn't care about the characters. It doesn't even have any signature Kubrick photography. There were maybe 2 or 3 really great standout shots but not much else to latch on to visually. Also thought Alex North's score was immensely obnoxious. Funny, since I love it on album.

You can't approach SPARTACUS expecting a Kubrick film, it's not. He was hired by Douglas as a talented workman and that's the direction he delivered.

What elevates the film for me is the triumvirate of Trumbo's screenplay (a prescient Civil Rights allegory that is never preachy, and always contains a curdle of wit - there's so many firecrackers of quotes, I'd be here all day I tried to name them); Olivier, Laughton and Ustinov's performance's; and Alex North's career best of a score. It only seems obnoxious because you're conditioned by contemporary dogma to believe that artistically timid, restrained underscore is the only way. Music can be the foreground.

It's the best of any of the Hollywood sword-and-sandals epics, 20th or 21st Century. And that's because at its core, it's not about the 1st Century AD. It's a subversive take on the genre's formula, used to destruct McCarthyism, Segregation, the American Slave Trade and imperialism.

It also contains one of Douglas's bravest and most vulnerable performances to date (along with THE LONELY ARE THE BRAVE). As Gene Simmons/Varinia says:

"You're strong enough to be weak."

That single line is more adult and bares more understanding of the complexities of the human condition, than any of the teenage posturing of GLADIATOR or KINGDOM HEAVEN, despite their pseudo-art house veneers and more naturalistic performances. All surface, no substance-- Ridley Scott's speciality.

Yes, but that overt in-your-face liberalism is part of what turned me off of it. I guess it's more a product of its time in that sense. I had no issue with the performances, I thought the acting was very good. There was just something about its structure and the development of scenes that left me cold in terms of building the action and drama. There was no rising action.

You missed the best part of Spartacus, the third act has a more Kubrickian influence than anyhting else in the film, particularly the final battle. The shots, the compostions are all undeniably Kubrick.

And I absolutely adore Olivier's character, it's curious how he seems much more sympathetic than Douglas.

Yes, the third act was by far the best. What do you mean by Olivier's character being more sympathetic? The man's a power-hungry idiot that tries to force a woman to love him.

[Romão 2,274]

What elevates the film for me is the triumvirate of Trumbo's screenplay (a prescient Civil Rights allegory that is never preachy, and always contains a curdle of wit - there's so many firecrackers of quotes, I'd be here all day I tried to name them); Olivier, Laughton and Ustinov's performance's; and Alex North's career best of a score. It only seems obnoxious because you're conditioned by contemporary dogma to believe that artistically timid, restrained underscore is the only way. Music can be the foreground.

I have to go on record to say I still to this day can't bring myself to like the music beyond Varinia's theme, obnoxiously out of place or not it might be in the film itself. North is definitely hit and miss for me.

I love everything about the score except Varinia's theme Go figure

Those shots of the Roman army marching and doing battle formations in plain of sight of the slave army are alone worth watching the movie

[Quintus 5,399]

Koray, do you feel that way way about all the old biblical epics, or is it just Spartacus?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I don't recall having any issues with Ben-Hur but I can't remember the last time I watched it. I'll get back to you when I revisit it.

[A24 4,337]

I'm sure the production values and budget for this film were huge back in 1960, but it just translates to poor production design and tons of extras to me.

I didn't feel the gravitas of it all. It all just screamed sets and extras. In other words, I wasn't pulled into the film's world, I very much felt like someone watching a movie.

A have a similar viewpoint ... although my favorite part was the training part, the 'Gladiator' part. The most boring part for me to watch was when slaves all over the country had joined Spartacus' gang. Spartacus' Eden was extremely dull (the way he just walked around smiling with his wife). I was relieved the film was finally over.

His next film, Lolita, is a lot more interesting.

Alex

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

The old biblical epics are fine for a lazy Sunday afternoon, but SPARTACUS is so much more.

[Romão 2,274]

I'm sure the production values and budget for this film were huge back in 1960, but it just translates to poor production design and tons of extras to me.

I didn't feel the gravitas of it all. It all just screamed sets and extras. In other words, I wasn't pulled into the film's world, I very much felt like someone watching a movie.

A have a similar viewpoint ... although my favorite part was the training part, the 'Gladiator' part. The most boring part for me to watch was when slaves all over the country had joined Spartacus' gang. Spartacus' Eden was extremely dull (the way he just walked around smiling with his wife). I was relieved the film was finally over.

His next film, Lolita, is a lot more interesting.

Alex

The painted backdrops do hurt those scenes quite a bit.

But everytime Laughton, Olivier or Ustinov are on screen, the movie is a joy to watch

[A24 4,337]

Most have terrible mushy moments. The only one that I like is the restored version of Cleopatra. Best dialogue, best acting and by far the best sets.

[Romão 2,274]

I agree the mushy moments. All those ancient epics have those. At least, for the most part, we had terrific scores to counter it

[crocodile 8,017]

I like both Alex North scores, but the films themselves are hard to swallow.

Karol

[Jay 37,367]

I've never seen any of these movies (Spartacus, Cleopatra, Ben Hur). Heck, I've never seen The Ten Commandments, The Sound of Music, Gone With The Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, or Citizen Kane either.

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

Yes, the third act was by far the best. What do you mean by Olivier's character being more sympathetic? The man's a power-hungry idiot that tries to force a woman to love him.

Well, Spartacus himself is very one-dimensional, he's perfect, he's practically Jesus. Olivier, on the other hand, is a complex character, a villain with dimensions, or at least Olivier's performance makes it seem so. He's an idiot, yes, but he's scared and covers it with his excessive power. I feel he gives what could have been a very phoned-in performance a dimension that makes him more likeable than mister goody-tooshies Spartacus.

But everytime Laughton, Olivier or Ustinov are on screen, the movie is a joy to watch

Yes! Ustinov steals the whole show.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I'm sure the production values and budget for this film were huge back in 1960, but it just translates to poor production design and tons of extras to me.

I didn't feel the gravitas of it all. It all just screamed sets and extras. In other words, I wasn't pulled into the film's world, I very much felt like someone watching a movie.

A have a similar viewpoint ... although my favorite part was the training part, the 'Gladiator' part. The most boring part for me to watch was when slaves all over the country had joined Spartacus' gang. Spartacus' Eden was extremely dull (the way he just walked around smiling with his wife). I was relieved the film was finally over.

His next film, Lolita, is a lot more interesting.

Alex

The painted backdrops do hurt those scenes quite a bit.

But everytime Laughton, Olivier or Ustinov are on screen, the movie is a joy to watch

Yes that's what I had in mind when I first mentioned poor production design. All the paintings that are supposed to be vast landscapes and desert.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Most have terrible mushy moments. The only one that I like is the restored version of Cleopatra. Best dialogue, best acting and by far the best sets.

You prefer the humourless fashion show that is CLEOPATRA to SPARTACUS? No wonder.

Honestly, no lines in CLEOPTRA (which are mostly second rate, watered down derivatives of the Shakespeare text) come to close to the best in SPARTACUS.

'You and I have a tendency towards corpulence. Corpulence makes a man reasonable, pleasant and phlegmatic. Have you noticed the nastiest of tyrants are invariably thin?'

'This republic of ours is something like a rich widow. Most Romans love her as their mother but Crassus dreams of marrying the old girl to put it politely.'

'One of the disadvantages of being a Patrician is that occasionally you are obliged to act like one.'

'“I only want the most beautiful. I'll take the big black one.”

The performances are a no brainer, but I'll grant CLEOPATRA's sets, costumes and makeup. Clearly that's what Fox spent most of their $s, since it nearly bankrupted them.

I'm sure the production values and budget for this film were huge back in 1960, but it just translates to poor production design and tons of extras to me.

I didn't feel the gravitas of it all. It all just screamed sets and extras. In other words, I wasn't pulled into the film's world, I very much felt like someone watching a movie.

A have a similar viewpoint ... although my favorite part was the training part, the 'Gladiator' part. The most boring part for me to watch was when slaves all over the country had joined Spartacus' gang. Spartacus' Eden was extremely dull (the way he just walked around smiling with his wife). I was relieved the film was finally over.

His next film, Lolita, is a lot more interesting.

Alex

The painted backdrops do hurt those scenes quite a bit.

But everytime Laughton, Olivier or Ustinov are on screen, the movie is a joy to watch

Yes that's what I had in mind when I first mentioned poor production design. All the paintings that are supposed to be vast landscapes and desert.

Ever heard of matte paintings? i.e. the Cloud City landing pad before Lucas CG'd it.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yes.

[filmmusic 1,829]

I've never seen any of these movies (Spartacus, Cleopatra, Ben Hur). Heck, I've never seen The Ten Commandments, The Sound of Music, Gone With The Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, or Citizen Kane either.

Start watching!