Jump to content

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


Mr. Breathmask
 Share

Recommended Posts

Spartacus might have a few good one-liners (Ustinov) but dramatically and on the whole it's not very engaging like Cleopatra, which literally thrives on dialog the entire film (there is almost no action) against the most impressive and gorgeous backgrounds. Manckiewicz himself believed it contained some of the best writing he ever did. I love that Cleopatra is not a love story but an ordeal of a woman who wants to stay alive.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spartacus might have a few good one-liners (Ustinov)

Most of the great bon mots are delivered by Laughton and Olivier, though Ustinov gets a few as well. I'll still argue that SPARTACUS is still much more dramatically compelling, thanks to the ever enclosing conflict between Spartacus and Crassus. CLEOPATRA is a just an overlong, beautiful but turgid mess. As far as writers go, Joseph L. Mankiewicz had got nothing on Dalton Trumbo. Harrisson and Taylor do their best with the limited material, but Burton's bewildered and lacking direction. The performance that truly stands out is Roddy McDowall's, though unfortunately Octavius is given very little screentime.

I love that Cleopatra is not a love story but an ordeal of a woman who wants to stay alive.

Neither is SPARTACUS essentially a love story. It's about a slave who fights for freedom two thousand years before the death of slavery, even till his own crucifixion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some day.

Well, instead of watching some recent film of questionable quality, i would suggest to fill your time with some of those..

Yeah Jay, come on! New movies suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some day.

Well, instead of watching some recent film of questionable quality, i would suggest to fill your time with some of those..

Yeah Jay, come on! New movies suck.

Say that to one of my friends who refuses to watch black and white movies because they feel "too old fashioned". :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you celebrate Easter in USA?

It's a good chance for watching those biblical films..

Here we have 2 weeks without school, and generally it's a big holiday.

TV plays at that time biblical films (and roman epics) every year..

And Jesus of Nazareth every day for 5 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the past is good! All hope is lost! :stick:

You should add a few "harrumphs" and "preposterous" "ridiculous" to the litany as well. Adds authenticity and good conservative effect. Also mention something about the good old days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some day.

Well, instead of watching some recent film of questionable quality, i would suggest to fill your time with some of those..

Yeah Jay, come on! New movies suck.

Say that to one of my friends who refuses to watch black and white movies because they feel "too old fashioned". :P

well, a young man has an excuse more or less..

It's funny when old people, who have grown up with B&W films, have this notion.

My parents:

"How do you watch this thing? It's black and white!" :biglaugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither is SPARTACUS essentially a love story. It's about a slave who fights for freedom two thousand years before the death of slavery, even till his own crucifixion.

That it's about slaves is kinda obvious, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget SPARTACUS, watch DEMETRIUS AND THE GLADIATORS. It is considerably shorter and has Jay Robinson as Caligula, who is clearly the precursor to LIFE OF BRIAN's Pontius Pilatus. He even has a slight speech impendiment! (and it has Victor Mature about whom Groucho Marx once quipped that he was the only actor who had bigger tits than his leading ladies AND Ernest Borgnine...what more can men want?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither is SPARTACUS essentially a love story. It's about a slave who fights for freedom two thousand years before the death of slavery, even till his own crucifixion.

That it's about slaves is kinda obvious, no?

Yeah, his post is more or less the opening narration of the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither is SPARTACUS essentially a love story. It's about a slave who fights for freedom two thousand years before the death of slavery, even till his own crucifixion.

That it's about slaves is kinda obvious, no?

Neither is SPARTACUS essentially a love story. It's about a slave who fights for freedom two thousand years before the death of slavery, even till his own crucifixion.

That it's about slaves is kinda obvious, no?
No more obvious than your statement about Cleo. Two can play at that game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No more obvious than your statement about Cleo. Two can play at that game.

No, what I said isn't obvious and requires a deeper reading (beyond the obvious story of Cleopatra's so-called romantic affairs). Furthermore, I don 't believe you knew or realized that at all. OTOH, what you said about Spartacus (that it's a story about slaves) actually belongs to the superficial text of the movie and requires no thinking. It's something every child knows. It could've been the tagline on the poster. I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings and I'm not playing a game. Really, I don't know why you feel the need to be so defensive en rebound everything I say (almost literally) but it is getting pretty tiresome. By all means, love Spartacus as much I you want. Personally, I find more pleasure and fulfillment in watching Cleopatra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point taken. SPARTACUS's civil rights subtext is more comparable to the deeper meaning you find in CLEOPATTA. You could say both require more than a cursory look at the film to understand and appreciate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American Hustle

I loved it! A very entertaining film that was well directed and performed. It's set in late 1970's New York, and involves a con-artist couple (Christian Bale and Amy Adams) who get caught by an FBI agent (Bradley Cooper) and forced to lure a New Jersey mayor (Jeremy Renner) into a bribery scandal to lessen their own sentence. The set design, make-up and hair were all great - The film fully and gleefully embraces the most ridiculous aspects of 1970's America.. The plot truly plays a back seat to everything else going on. I get why many might not like it, but for me all the other elements I mentioned overcome the weak-ish plot.

The film earned 4 nominations for acting - In addition to Bale, Adams, and Cooper mentioned above, Jennery Lawrence also earned one for her role as Bale's ex (ish) wife. I definitely agreed that all 4 performances were nomination worthy, I can definitely see why all were nominated. Bale really gives his all to the character, adding 40 pounds of fat to his gut and effecting a schlubby dialect and posture - not to mention a RIDICULOUS hair piece that really pulls it all together. Adams goes through a whole range of emotions throughout the film - she's quite a talent! Lawrence also gets a bunch of different emotions to play, including a random scene where she sings Live and Let Die while cleaning at home. And Cooper gives perhaps the funniest performance of his career. Only Renner is miscast, he was WAY too young for his role (some of his children in the film couldn't have been more than 5 years younger than Renner is!)

Two alums from Boardwalk Empire show up in small roles - Eli Tompson and Richard Harrow - and both were really good as well. Plus there's a cameo by a big A-lister that I thought was fantastic! It definitely brought gravitas to that angle of the storyline.

The film is more of a comedy than anything else, and I thought it was funny while telling an interesting story in an interesting way. I wouldn't pick it as the Best Picture of the year, but the acting, set design, make-up, hair, and directing were definitely all award caliber!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and I totally forgot to mention Louis C.K.! He had a great small part. I kept wanting to hear the end of his ice fishing story! :lol:

BTW, the line dancing scene seen in this trailer was not in the film

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL

Easily the most entertaining Wes Anderson film i've seen yet - perhaps because he found the perfect outlet for his cutesy doll's house style in the plushy surroundings of a splendorous hotel located in a Habsburgian dreamland somewhere between the Austria-Hungarian alps. Highly stylized as usual, but the sights of fin de siècle decadence, miles of pink-boxed confectionary, Dracula castles and snowy mountain peaks with the most absurd-yet-beautiful observation platform never built are a sight to behold - it is a visual feast.

But as usual, Anderson's foible for his aesthetics cuts his characters a bit short, so GBH is a bit slight in content (it is a simple crime farce) and features too many unimportant cameos of stars that have hardly anything to do in their two minutes worth of screentime (though Edward Norton, Jeff Goldblum and Tilda Swinton manage) - and i honestly didn't understand Ralph Fiennes. As perfumed concierge well-versed in the ways of the world, a gigolo and snob though always with an air of wistfulness about him he still gets to swear a lot, which seems totally out of character.

Going along in style is Alexandre Desplat whose winking score perfectly complements Anderson's quirky house-style. It's light as a feather and with an assemblage of plucked east-european instruments (duelling with singing capuchin monks in the wonderful 'Canto at Gabelmeister's Peak') it's his second notable surprise after the Bernsteinesque MONUMENTS MEN.

The delirious set-design makes this a cinema must-see: like GRAVITY there is no point to watch this one at home since the whole atmosphere would suffer from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL

Easily the most entertaining Wes Anderson film i've seen yet - perhaps because he found the perfect outlet for his cutesy doll's house style in the plushy surroundings of a splendorous hotel located in a Habsburgian dreamland somewhere between the Austria-Hungarian alps. Highly stylized as usual, but the sights of fin de siècle decadence, miles of pink-boxed confectionary, Dracula castles and snowy mountain peaks with the most absurd-yet-beautiful observation platform never built are a sight to behold - it is a visual feast.

But as usual, Anderson's foible for his aesthetics cuts his characters a bit short, so GBH is a bit slight in content (it is a simple crime farce) and features too many unimportant cameos of stars that have hardly anything to do in their two minutes worth of screentime (though Edward Norton, Jeff Goldblum and Tilda Swinton manage) - and i honestly didn't understand Ralph Fiennes. As perfumed concierge well-versed in the ways of the world, a gigolo and snob though always with an air of wistfulness about him he still gets to swear a lot, which seems totally out of character.

Going along in style is Alexandre Desplat whose winking score perfectly complements Anderson's quirky house-style. It's light as a feather and with an assemblage of plucked east-european instruments (duelling with singing capuchin monks in the wonderful 'Canto at Gabelmeister's Peak') it's his second notable surprise after the Bernsteinesque MONUMENTS MEN.

The delirious set-design makes this a cinema must-see: like GRAVITY there is no point to watch this one at home since the whole atmosphere would suffer from it.

Nice write up. I said from the first trailer that it looked like it could be his best film yet. So far that's been confirmed by two people. Can't wait, it opens up here this weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The delirious set-design makes this a cinema must-see: like GRAVITY there is no point to watch this one at home since the whole atmosphere would suffer from it.

I am sure our two resident pseudo-movie fans AlexCremers and Quint will disagree with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut

Even though it's very rough around the edges (like the reused ending from Superman: The Movie and test footage used), I still greatly prefer this over the 1980 Lester version. It eliminates a lot of the goofiness and feels more coherent, and Michael Thau takes great pains to maintain the editorial rhythm established by Stuart Baird. And for lost footage found in the UK, the new scenes look very clean and crisp.

The differences between the two cuts are night and day. I wasn't a fan of the cut-and-pasting of Williams' score throughout, but I understand they worked with a tight budget. They wouldn't have been able to afford JW, let alone record new cues, for the new cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished watching The Towering Inferno and it's pretty underwhelming. There are far too many characters too become attached to anybody and it runs way too long for a disaster film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The delirious set-design makes this a cinema must-see: like GRAVITY there is no point to watch this one at home since the whole atmosphere would suffer from it.

I am sure our two resident pseudo-movie fans AlexCremers and Quint will disagree with this.

Yes, I do. Nothing beats a cinema screen (if the projection is up to scratch, of course, otherwise 'bigger' doesn't matter at all) but it only takes what is already great on a small screen and makes it even better.

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut

Even though it's very rough around the edges (like the reused ending from Superman: The Movie and test footage used), I still greatly prefer this over the 1980 Lester version. It eliminates a lot of the goofiness and feels more coherent, and Michael Thau takes great pains to maintain the editorial rhythm established by Stuart Baird. And for lost footage found in the UK, the new scenes look very clean and crisp.

The differences between the two cuts are night and day. I wasn't a fan of the cut-and-pasting of Williams' score throughout, but I understand they worked with a tight budget. They wouldn't have been able to afford JW, let alone record new cues, for the new cut.

When I saw Superman II it in the theater, I remember liking it almost as much as the first one, but I think that Christopher's perfect embodiment of the Superman/Kent character was primary responsible for that. I even liked the third one with Richard Pryor but to a lesser extent. I only had a problem with the fourth installment. That said, I never saw 'The Donner Cut' of which you speak of.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I do. Nothing beats a cinema screen (if the projection is up to scratch, of course, otherwise 'bigger' doesn't matter at all) but it only takes what is already great on a small screen and makes it even better.

To go with Justice Potter's famous muttering about pornography, i know it when i see it. And GRAVITY i saw in Imax 3D and peeked at the Bluray at a friends home and the difference was more than a few inches in size. On the other hand, if my next IMAX would be 80 miles away, i wouldn't bother either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, it's a matter of aesthetics (and how you relate to it), not size.

Gravity, no matter how impressive it might be, it didn't really speak to me (it's not stylized enough). The whole world loves Avatar for its visuals too but, alas, it's not for me (I don't like its stylization).

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Size" got nothing to do with it. In GRAVITY, i felt immersed, even dizzy in the atmosphere within 2 or 3 minutes and i was hooked for at least 40 before i got used to the outer space setting. No living room with barely dimmed lights can replicate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Size" got nothing to do with it. In GRAVITY, i felt immersed, even dizzy in the atmosphere within 2 or 3 minutes and i was hooked for at least 40 before i got used to the outer space setting. No living room with barely dimmed lights can replicate that.

You love your experience and so naturally you hold on to it but please realize there's a whole generation out there that love their 'experience' just as much and they are watching movies from a laptop (or is that a tablet by now?). The mind is a powerful thing.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL

Easily the most entertaining Wes Anderson film i've seen yet - perhaps because he found the perfect outlet for his cutesy doll's house style in the plushy surroundings of a splendorous hotel located in a Habsburgian dreamland somewhere between the Austria-Hungarian alps. Highly stylized as usual, but the sights of fin de siècle decadence, miles of pink-boxed confectionary, Dracula castles and snowy mountain peaks with the most absurd-yet-beautiful observation platform never built are a sight to behold - it is a visual feast.

But as usual, Anderson's foible for his aesthetics cuts his characters a bit short, so GBH is a bit slight in content (it is a simple crime farce) and features too many unimportant cameos of stars that have hardly anything to do in their two minutes worth of screentime (though Edward Norton, Jeff Goldblum and Tilda Swinton manage) - and i honestly didn't understand Ralph Fiennes. As perfumed concierge well-versed in the ways of the world, a gigolo and snob though always with an air of wistfulness about him he still gets to swear a lot, which seems totally out of character.

Going along in style is Alexandre Desplat whose winking score perfectly complements Anderson's quirky house-style. It's light as a feather and with an assemblage of plucked east-european instruments (duelling with singing capuchin monks in the wonderful 'Canto at Gabelmeister's Peak') it's his second notable surprise after the Bernsteinesque MONUMENTS MEN.

The delirious set-design makes this a cinema must-see: like GRAVITY there is no point to watch this one at home since the whole atmosphere would suffer from it.

Nice write up. I said from the first trailer that it looked like it could be his best film yet. So far that's been confirmed by two people. Can't wait, it opens up here this weekend.

I was about to see it this week but something else came up. Strong reviews are very encouraging.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You love your experience and so naturally you hold on to it but please realize there's a whole generation out there that love their 'experience' just as much and they are watching movies from a laptop (or is that a tablet by now?). The mind is a powerful thing.

What happens after i have realized that teenagers may watch movies on their wristwatch? Am i supposed to shut up about my cinema experience because somebody could feel offended by my POV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TODAY'S NEWS HEADLINES: IT'S LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ENJOY CERTAIN MOVIES ON A TV AT HOME -- JWFans

Sure they can, but watching a film like Gravity on a TV doesnt compare to the full-fat IMAX 3D experience.

I watched Avatar and Tintin both at cinema in 3D and in my home!

The films are exactly the same. They didn't get better in my eyes with the 3d.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as always, we can't have a civilized conversation.

I think that 3D is a creation that tries to convince the viewers (and give them the illusion) that a film is better when you view it in 3D.

But let's think about this:

Does the story change when you view a film in 3D? NO

Does the script change? NO

Do the actors and their acting change? NO

Does the music change? NO.

So, if for someone "films= visual effects", then yes, i guess they have a better experience viewing in 3D.(although from a moment and on you get used to it, and it loses its initial impact)

If for someone else "films= story+ script + actors + music + whatever else except visual effects", then the film is the same in 3D, as it is at home.

it depends I guess on the priorities someone has when he/she is viewing films.

Also, the weakness of 3D shows in this too:

Did the old 3D (which admittedly offered something different from the regular viewing) stay when it first appeared?

NO.

Films kept being released as always despite some of them being released in 3D, until it vanished.

I think that we will have the same with the new 3D too.

It's just a quick-cash-in fashion that will go away in a few years..

Which shows again that the power of a film is in STORY, STORY, STORY + SCRIPT, SCRIPT, SCRIPT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You misunderstand the nature of teh discussion if you think I am talking about 3D.

What this is about is the difference between watching a film with a certain epic score on a small screen like a laptop, TV or portable device versus watching it on a big screen in the theatre.



It's just a quick-cash-in fashion that will go away in a few years..

Which shows again that the power of a film is in STORY, STORY, STORY + SCRIPT, SCRIPT, SCRIPT!

The story is of importance, but isnt the WAY it's told even more important?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You misunderstand the nature of teh discussion if you think I am talking about 3D.

What this is about is the difference between watching a film with a certain epic score on a small screen like a laptop, TV or portable device versus watching it on a big screen in the theatre.

Ok then. I partly agree..

It's just a quick-cash-in fashion that will go away in a few years..

Which shows again that the power of a film is in STORY, STORY, STORY + SCRIPT, SCRIPT, SCRIPT!

The story is of importance, but isnt the WAY it's told even more important?

It's like you're telling me that when you get a present, the wrapping and package is more important than the present itself.

So for me, no..

You may be impressed at first (I use "you" rhetorically) but the thing that stays afterwards (and that matters) is the essence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if a story or script is all that matters, Why did Scorcese have a gigantic of old New York built for The Gangs Of New York? Who do film makers go out of their way to shoot in exotic locations where working conditions are hard?

Because they want their film to LOOK good. They want the audience to be transported to a different time or place. And shooting on the Hollywood backlot with cheapo effects and unconvincing locations doesnt do that.

A great script is one thing, but it needs to be translated to the screen.

It's like being read a great novel. If it's read to you in a boring monotone by someone who's just slogging through the pages, it's not a very nice experience. But being read to by someone who puts his imagination to use, makes the story come to live....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.