Jump to content

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


Mr. Breathmask
 Share

Recommended Posts

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?

Who said you need to shut up? But by saying "there is no point" you are underestimating either the film itself or the experience of others. For instance, Gravity is a highlight in Quint's life and yet he has only seen it at home. I'm sure The Grand Budapest Hotel will look great on my plasma screen.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..

So the music is irrelevant, too?

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?

Who said you need to shut up? But by saying "there is no point" you are underestimating either the film itself or the experience of others. For instance, Gravity is a highlight in Quint's life and yet he has only seen it at home. I'm sure The Grand Budapest Hotel will look great on my plasma screen.

Alex

Why? I actually saw those movies in either theatre and Imax 3D and taking that experience into account, i still say there's no point - what do i care if others see it on their iPhone and love it to death? Its not like people suddenly stop watching GRAVITY on whatever device but maybe there are people who would now watch GBH in the cinema because others recommend the experience.

I sure did see GRAVITY in this format because i was told it was the way to go - and i didn't hear that about CLASH OF THE TITANS or a million other 3-D movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I would say about Gravity on IMAX is normally fussy and discerning people were apparently so blown away by the spectacular visual ride that they were completely distracted from the far less than spectacular script - a benefit and advantage of seeing it at home, on the small screen. The whoooo and woooooah factor did a great job of covering up the flaws in the auditorium viewing, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE's much more satisfying.

Indeed, but I find Towering Inferno has enough of a hook. At least in the shape of McQueen.

It's got a certain campy appeal to it, I agree. Great seeing the dastardly Richard Chamberlain's comeuppance and McQueen and Newman competing for the spotlight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE's much more satisfying.

Indeed, but I find Towering Inferno has enough of a hook. At least in the shape of McQueen.

It's got a certain campy appeal to it, I agree. Great seeing the dastardly Richard Chamberlain's comeuppance and McQueen and Newman competing for the spotlight.

Think Newman said (words to the effect of) McQueen being crafty in that they got the same number of lines but McQueen's started mostly after Newman had done most of his. Sort of glad Towering Inferno 2 never happened. McQueen I think was contracted to do it or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE's much more satisfying.

Indeed, but I find Towering Inferno has enough of a hook. At least in the shape of McQueen.

It's got a certain campy appeal to it, I agree. Great seeing the dastardly Richard Chamberlain's comeuppance and McQueen and Newman competing for the spotlight.

Think Newman said (words to the effect of) McQueen being crafty in that they got the same number of lines but McQueen's started mostly after Newman had done most of his. Sort of glad Towering Inferno 2 never happened. McQueen I think was contracted to do it or something.

Also notice the equal height and text size for their billing in the opening credits. Insecure egos etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That film must've been fun to work on: McQueen/Newman, Holden, Wagner, Simpson, Astaire, Chamberlain.

Though yes, always Poseidon trumping it. Left such an impression as a kid. Haunting score to boot.

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?

Who said you need to shut up? But by saying "there is no point" you are underestimating either the film itself or the experience of others. For instance, Gravity is a highlight in Quint's life and yet he has only seen it at home. I'm sure The Grand Budapest Hotel will look great on my plasma screen.

Alex

Why? I actually saw those movies in either theatre and Imax 3D and taking that experience into account, i still say there's no point - what do i care if others see it on their iPhone and love it to death? Its not like people suddenly stop watching GRAVITY on whatever device but maybe there are people who would now watch GBH in the cinema because others recommend the experience.

I sure did see GRAVITY in this format because i was told it was the way to go - and i didn't hear that about CLASH OF THE TITANS or a million other 3-D movies.

This isn't so hard to understand, pubs. If you say "there is no point" in seeing movies on a home screen then you are selling short the experience of those who do. You might as well say, "Sorry guys, but there is no point of listening to music on anything less than B&W 800 series speakers". Yes, it would sound great but ultimately it's the music itself that is the most important, not the playback equipment. Also, and perhaps it's just a matter of phrasing but if "there's no point" in seeing a film on a home screen, then how good can it be?! Do you really believe it's pointless to watch The Grand Budapest Hotel on a small screen? And if you do, aren't you underestimating the film? Now if you said, "preferably to be watched in theaters, folks", then we would've this terrible discord between us. But if you say "there's no point", then you are only awakening the guardian of music and film in me. ;)

$$$

Yep!

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't so hard to understand, pubs. If you say "there is no point" in seeing movies on a home screen then you are selling short the experience of those who do. You might as well say, "Sorry guys, but there is no point of listening to music on anything less than B&W 800 series speakers". Yes, it would sound great but ultimately it's the music itself that is the most important, not the playback equipment. Also, and perhaps it's just a matter of phrasing but if "there's no point" in seeing a film on a home screen, then how good can it be?! Do you really believe it's pointless to watch The Grand Budapest Hotel on a small screen? And if you do, aren't you underestimating the film? Now if you said, "preferably to be watched in theaters, folks", then we would've this terrible discord between us. But if you say "there's no point", then you are only awakening the guardian of music and film in me.

I hear you, but it's largely a matter of semantics that doesn't really change the basic fact: IMHO there's no point in watching GRAVITY on a home screen (and to a lesser degree GBH, though i would make amends in that case). You must not agree with this but as Quint said, a movie that is a technical marvel but where the 'experience' outweighs the story to such a dramatic degree begs the question why one should watch it in an (for this movie) inferor format. Let's say you can lose yourself in the atmosphere watching it in the right format - and there's no sensible level of discussion to reach with someone who hasn't seen it in this format because we would talk about two different experiences. Of course anyone is totally free to watch it in whatever format, as i said...before you start hammering that point again. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, on the big screen Avatar was lauded as a technical marvel when it first came out. But that didn't stop the interweb from jumping down its throat and ripping its windpipe out over its "shitty", "awful" and "lame" script. The "but you only saw it at home on your little tv" argument was sneered at and mocked out of the room in 0.2 seconds flat. There's a double standard going on here, as per usual, and I just shrug my shoulders at it tbh.

Viewing format is not really dictating anything here where Gravity and viewer reaction to it is concerned, so knock it off and stop pretending. Boil it down and this is just another rudimentary debate based on subjective opinions just as it is when discussing and disagreeing over any other movie in the history of the world ever.

Gravity, unlike Avatar (both have script problems) has been deemed "cool" and acceptable to like by internet hipsters and so whenever anyone turns around and says they kinda disagree and that it was just an okay movie based on their blu-ray viewing, it's suddenly okay for said hipsters to be readily dismissive of such filthy heathen reaction - because after all these luddites foolishly dared to not see it in glorious IMAX master race viewing conditions! It's their own stupid fault the movie wasn't as good for them as it was for I! It's not the fault of the movie's mythical flaws at all, nope! I spit in your face for suggesting such lunacy!

Give it a rest, hypocrites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your head is further up your arse then usual Lee. It must mean spring is coming.

Like Alex, your claim of being a discerning movie viewer with highly evolved tastes is severely questionable.

Whats with the comparison between Avatar and Gravity anyway? The two dont have a lot in common IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anything at stake by simply admitting that the cinema experience might have helped to appreciate GRAVITY more than on home screen? And: Are we now seriously entering the kindergarten realm of 'it is all subjective, anyway' again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anything at stake by simply admitting that the cinema experience might have helped to appreciate GRAVITY more than on home screen?

Not all feel that way.

I didn't see Gravity at the cinema, but speaking for myself, watching other films in 3D at the cinema, didn't help me appreciate them more..

(I nearly slept in Avatar)

If we take 3D out of the conversation, I generally think the cinema experience isn't a decisive factor in your enjoynment and appreciation of a film.

When i first saw The Thin Red Line at the cinema, i didn't like it and was bored.

When i saw it in DVD at my home, I thought it was a masterpiece, and now it's among my favourite films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats with the comparison between Avatar and Gravity anyway? The two dont have a lot in common IMO.

Are you completely dense from all those years of arse liquid Star Trek plots or something, because you completely missed my point. In the context of this discussion they have plenty in common, but here let me spell it out again for your dimwit brain: both were lauded for pushing technological boundriaries in movies yet both have received similar criticism for their scripts. Is it clearer yet? I wasn't talking about the actual storylines and themes, duuuuuh. The double standard is that it became the norm and the hip thing to do to "hate on" Avatar for its dialogue; whereas drawing attention to the weak screenplay in Gravity is met by your throbbing hardon for the movie in word form, "nooooooo the script is fine it's just because you didn't see it at the cinema like you SHOULD have done."

Bullshit. You were so completely overwhelmed by the spectacular visuals that your drooling gob forgot to close and your dazzled mind failed to take any notice of the corny dialogue. That's what happened. And that's absolutely fine. But don't act all butt hurt whenever someone else says they were a little underwhelmed.

Gravity is a good film and a cinema visit still wouldn't have me it a great film for me personally. Is that Speak 'n' Spell easy enough for you to understand yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avatar and Gravity have one very important aspect in common: they are both event movies that reviewers and word of mouth demanded be seen on the biggest theater screen and best gimmick format (3D, IMAX) possible.

If home viewing of these movies is pointless, the studios should have withheld home video releases and decreed that a cinema in every neighborhood dedicate themselves to showing these films whenever the public wants.

I love Lawrence of Arabia, and I recognize that no home TV can recreate the theatrical experience, but I still own it on Blu-ray because I don't have my own personal movie theater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you even seen it?

Yeah. Very well made but forgettable.

Don't get me wrong - I did enjoy watching. But that mostly comes from technical mastery, the film itself (as written and acted) is quite unremarkable. No wit to speak of. Even Marvel movies have more personality in their character/plot department.

I'd enjoy it so much more if they didn't try so hard to make it poignant and human. Came off really flat. The pure raw survival cinema would be just fine.

It strikes me that Charon, who is a very fine director, didn't care much for this script and used it only as an excuse for his directorial exercise. Kind of what happened with that other s-f film he did.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anything at stake by simply admitting that the cinema experience might have helped to appreciate GRAVITY more than on home screen?

Not all feel that way.

I didn't see Gravity at the cinema, but speaking for myself, watching other films in 3D at the cinema, didn't help me appreciate them more..

(I nearly slept in Avatar)

"MIGHT" is the key word here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. Very well made but forgettable.

Don't get me wrong - I did enjoy watching. But that mostly comes from technical mastery, the film itself (as written and acted) is quite unremarkable. No wit to speak of. Even Marvel movies have more personality in their character/plot department.

I'd enjoy it so much more if they didn't try so hard to make it poignant and human. Came off really flat. The pure raw survival cinema would be just fine.

It strikes me that Charon, who is a very fine director, didn't care much for this script and used it only as an excuse for his directorial exercise. Kind of what happened with that other s-f film he did.

Cuarón! And i agree but didn't care (about the script limitations and bad RCP finale) because the 90 minutes more or less breezed by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd enjoy it so much more if they didn't try so hard to make it poignant and human. Came off really flat. The pure raw survival cinema would be just fine.

That's how I feel about it. I've mentioned it before but I'd have preferred it if they had gone down the docudrama route instead and kept the dialogue sparse and real. Technical terminology spoken with cold fear and anxiety in the vowels, that sort of thing. Methodical astronauts following rigid procedure and slowly losing grip of the situation and the sense that their rigorous training means little in space when the shit hits the fan. In that regard Europa Report is a far more satisfying film for me than Gravity is.

Gravity is a high concept disaster melodrama. In the seventies, before they had cutting edge realism in effects, they just made do with The Towering Inferno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krull

It's just... a big misfire. Smashing up the Star Wars-style alien villains with the Arthurian fantastical elements is one thing, but Stanford Sherman just doesn't bother with thinking up the mythology through. It shows in the final product, along with some really bad dialogue. It's certainly a beautiful film, even if some of the sets look... well, unfinished. James Horner's score is still quite magnificent, and gives urgency and awe the film lacks otherwise.

Wouldn't be opposed to Sony/Columbia doing a remake of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd enjoy it so much more if they didn't try so hard to make it poignant and human. Came off really flat. The pure raw survival cinema would be just fine.

That's how I feel about it. I've mentioned it before but I'd have preferred it if they had gone down the docudrama route instead and kept the dialogue sparse and real. Technical terminology spoken with cold fear and anxiety in the vowels, that sort of thing. Methodical astronauts following rigid procedure and slowly losing grip of the situation and the sense that their rigorous training means little in space when the shit hits the fan. In that regard Europa Report is a far more satisfying film for me than Gravity is.

Gravity is a high concept disaster melodrama. In the seventies, before they had cutting edge realism in effects, they just made do with The Towering Inferno.

Yeah, that's a good way of putting it.

I myself watched The Matrix trilogy last night. I've not seen the third one since 2003. Interesting experience to see it like that for all the wrongs and awkward shifts of tone become really obvious.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krull

It's just... a big misfire. Smashing up the Star Wars-style alien villains with the Arthurian fantastical elements is one thing, but Stanford Sherman just doesn't bother with thinking up the mythology through. It shows in the final product, along with some really bad dialogue. It's certainly a beautiful film, even if some of the sets look... well, unfinished. James Horner's score is still quite magnificent, and gives urgency and awe the film lacks otherwise.

Wouldn't be opposed to Sony/Columbia doing a remake of this.

Looking forward to a Bluray of this!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Review for Quint, to satisfy his persistent view of me

Rubbish and boring movie that didnt have any sci-fi elements in it. I guess it was sort of Fantasy like at time in the sense that some of the stunts and sets looks implausible, but no dragons or other monsters and no big epic fighting.

My actual review.

This is the first Wes Anderson film I've seen in the cinema and it doesn't disappoint there.

His usual faux nostalgic style and extreme deadpan characters are brought to a story taking place in pre-war Europe, though in countries with fake names, fake currencies etc.

In some ways it reminded me of the best of the Tintin comics in that regard..

The story is a young girl reading a book where an author reminisces about a man who reminisces about his apprenticeship by a great man (sort of), play by the great Ralph Fiennes.

Fiennes plays M. Gustave as a man who you never quite get a handle on. Who switches from being graceful and eloquent to foul mouth and uncouth and back again in mere seconds. He has always had a talent for underacting, hinting at the understated, which actually makes him perfect for Wes Anderson's usual acting company. This role, played any other way would be over the top, and would ultimately start to grate, ot get boring. Fiennes keeps you wondering about the man. Tony Revolori plays the other other significant role in a cast filled with familiar actors, many of them veterans of Wes Anderson films. All of them in small roles which they are able to fill in very nicely indeed. Willem Dafoe with a lower set of fangs resembling a dog's maw was my favorite.

The style of the film is the usual Wes Anderson simulated reality, full of eye-popping not quite real looking sets, cheesy looking effects etc.

Apart from Fiennes much of the cast is American, and even though the movie takes place in pre-WWII Europe (of a sort) none of the actors are asked to even remotely hide their accents, I'm actually pretty sure they were required to ham them up a notch. You don't often hear a Prussian nobleman swear like an American. (there is quite a lot of swearing in the film, often interspersed in quite civilized dialogue.)

Like all of Anderson's films it looks beautiful, and looks 100% like a Wes Anderson film. The movie switches aspect ratio's a few times, but the bulk of it is in 4:3.

Many directors strive for realism in both their sets or their effects work. I'm glad Anderson doesn't. The ski chase would not have been nearly as entertaining.

Desplat's score is filled with faux European stylings, with particular emphasis on a wide array of strumming instruments, percussion and organs. It helps wonderfully to enhance the unusual mood of the film.

If you arent a big fan of Anderson's style and you were hoping he would do something different, this is NOT the film for you.

But if you are a fan, and I am, then it's superb!

**** out of ****


and i honestly didn't understand Ralph Fiennes. As perfumed concierge well-versed in the ways of the world, a gigolo

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.

My own personal play on this, is that Fiennes' character, much like his apprentice comes from extreme poverty and has over the years worked his way to the position he has attained. Like Zero being taught elegance and refinement, but with elements of his life as a ruffian and scoundrel still seeping through. Unlike Zero he is deep down shallow and insecure, hence his success as a gigolo. The sophistication he presents is thinly disguised veneer that even he himself probably buys into, but which slips all to often after reaching a position of certain authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only like two Wes Anderson movies. I seem to remember they are A Life Aquatic and Rushmore. Meet the Tennenbaums was okay but didn't charm me like the others did.

The Life Aquatic and The Royal Tenenbaums. Must not have made a big impression ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krull

It's just... a big misfire. Smashing up the Star Wars-style alien villains with the Arthurian fantastical elements is one thing, but Stanford Sherman just doesn't bother with thinking up the mythology through. It shows in the final product, along with some really bad dialogue. It's certainly a beautiful film, even if some of the sets look... well, unfinished. James Horner's score is still quite magnificent, and gives urgency and awe the film lacks otherwise.

Wouldn't be opposed to Sony/Columbia doing a remake of this.

Looking forward to a Bluray of this!!!

It would indeed be a treat on high-def, but it probably won't get a Blu-ray until Sony remakes it. I'm actually surprised they haven't put one into development, what with WB remaking Clash of the Titans and Star Wars: Episode VII around the corner.

There's lot of room for improvement here. As long as they keep the awesome Glaive and Horner's theme, I'd be for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own personal play on this, is that Fiennes' character, much like his apprentice comes from extreme poverty and has over the years worked his way to the position he has attained. Like Zero being taught elegance and refinement, but with elements of his life as a ruffian and scoundrel still seeping through. Unlike Zero he is deep down shallow and insecure, hence his success as a gigolo. The sophistication he presents is thinly disguised veneer that even he himself probably buys into, but which slips all to often after reaching a position of certain authority.

I would go with that, only that it happens so frequently and at such odd places i have a hard time believing that he ever possessed the discipline or stamina to reach such an elevated position. But the paper-thin characters don't invite too much analysis - this isn't Lubitsch or Wilder, after all (though both would have made a great but wholly different movie in this general setting).

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.