Jump to content
Issues with GMAIL - UPDATED ×
Issues with GMAIL - UPDATED

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

Mr. Breathmask

By Mr. Breathmask
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • #SnowyVernalSpringsEternal

    6534

  • A24

    5701

  • Unlucky Bastard

    4094

  • Quintus

    3928

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi.   I love how character based this is. All of our main characters experience an emotional journey and growth in this movie. And do so often by, screwi

bollemanneke
bollemanneke

In Bruges.   Let’s go up the bell tower. That was one of the fucking random bits and pieces I remembered from this fucking film when we watched it fucking ages ago. Brendan Gleeson is amazin

ThePenitentMan1
ThePenitentMan1

Titanic (1997)   Last night was my very first viewing of this film; and all I knew about it, was that it was a (apparently overrated?) love story, and that it stayed at the top of the box of

Jay

Jay 37,373

Posted
Posted

But like the previous one this film really isnt about the characters. This time even the hitmen were played be unknown actors.

Clive Owen and Karl Urban weren't exactly known when the first two films came out either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A24

A24 4,346

Posted
Posted

Good Bourne reviews, Steef, but I noticed that the one about Identity was the shortest? Anyway, I'm impressed that you came to the right conclusion after only one viewing. The first time I watched them, I thought the second movie was a little bit better, moving tensely forward from beginning to end, and less 'roaming about' like The Bourne Identity does (which of course makes sense since Bourne doesn't know who is is or what the deal is). However, the second time I watched them, the first movie remained completely 'new' (as if I had never seen it before) while Supremacy already felt kinda old. I knew the story. That's when I realized the first one doesn't rely on plot.

Anyway, up to the fourth one, Steef: The Bourne Legacy!

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal

#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265

Posted
Posted

The Bourne Legacy

Starts out well, but about 15 minutes in Jeremy Renner suddenly transform into a unicorn with machine guns on his wings and starts flying into a sky made of liquid winegums!

The rainbow effects were cool though and JNH's use of Tibethan throat singing while Lisbeth Scott reads out parts of Hitlers Mein Kampf in a high pitched girls voice to the slow beats of Moby is superb!

7 3/6th out of 5 pineapples

The Bourne Legacy

Starts out well, but about 15 minutes in Jeremy Renner suddenly transform into a unicorn with machine guns on his wings and starts flying into a sky made of liquid winegums!

The rainbow effects were cool though and JNH's use of Tibethan throat singing while Lisbeth Scott reads out parts of Hitlers Mein Kampf in a high pitched girls voice to the slow beats of Moby is superb!

7 3/6th out of 5 pineapples

Link to comment
Share on other sites
crocodile

crocodile 8,018

Posted
Posted

I didn't bother to see it. As for the trilogy... The first film is largely great, the second and third sort of blur into one for me. Thye're mostly one long action sequence. Well made and exciting but there's only so much it can do to excite me. One the other hand, John Powell managed to find a way to make his subsequent scores develop and mature. Not an easy task in this type of cinema.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KK

KK 3,307

Posted
Posted

Yeah, Powell stepped up with each score. And while the third one suffers most from that nonstop action syndrome, it's still entertaining stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal

#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265

Posted
Posted

The Bourne Legacy.

Like Alex said I liked the first hour or so a lot. How it was a sort of sidequel to the event of The Bourne Ultimatum. Dealing with the clean up operations after Treadborne, Blackbrair etc had been exposed.

Jerremy Renner is a very solid replacement for Matt Damon. And I liked that they went a different way with his character. (unlike Bourne in the last 2 films, Aaron Cross actually smiles, tries to converse with people, etc.) And they got him a ldy friend. Rachel Weizs with an excellent american accent.

Also liked the small detail that Cross needs his chems because without them, he's basically an idiot with an IQ thats even too low that allow him to join the army.

Ed Norton plays the guy trying to catch Cross. He does well, I guess. Like Cox, like Cooper. But there's really nothing much there for him.

Straithairn and Joen Allen show up for minor cameo's for some reason. No Julia Stiles this time.

Tony Gilroy wrote the previous films and gets to direct this, and follows the patterns laid out by Liman and Greengrass. Lots of switching between the agent on location and even "evil" US governments people tracking him from darkened rooms illuminated only by many, many monitors (why dont they ever switch on the lights?)

As usual in spy thrillers locations are announced by an aerial shot, with text appearing with that weird sound effect you always hear.

Interesting for a part 4 is that it has quite a lot less action then the previous 2. In some ways it resembles the original film. So a bit less action heave, with a bit more attention paid to characters, and thats good.

The problem is that this movie feels like a very long set-up. Like the first hour of an action movie, and then it justs stops. There's no sense of pay-off, a conclusion anything.

Why the action that there is is quite professionally done. It didn't have the crispness of Liman's, or the incredible adrenaline surge of Greeengrass' two entries.

JNH replaces John Powell and does a serviceable, but 100% unremarkable job. I can't recall a single thing about the score other then that it was fastpaced.

It's the least of the Bourne films, which is odd, because I did like, I was entertained, and I liked Renner. But the film just stopped dead....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
publicist

publicist 4,643

Posted
Posted

JNH replaces John Powell and does a serviceable, but 100% unremarkable job. I can't recall a single thing about the score other then that it was fastpaced.

I tried the score several times on Spotify and it is an achievement in unremarkableness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Faleel

Faleel 5,359

Posted
Posted

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

I'm not a huge Star Trek fan but I found this movie to be really enjoyable. I didn't like Leonard Rosenmann's score though.

#1 Yay!

#2 Awww... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DreamTheater

DreamTheater 131

Posted
Posted

I think ST IV has a real family film feel to it. It's the only Trek film that you can watch with people that are not into sci-fi.

The laugh out loud humor, the mission on earth, the whales, the chemistry between actors, they all work in favor to make The Voyage Home the most feel-good film of the bunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A24

A24 4,346

Posted
Posted

John Carter: I'm glad this movie was a huge disaster at the box-office. It's just a terribly bland, childish, bad movie, made for all the wrong reasons. Again, if you must make these type of summer spectacle movie, make sure it has characters that you can relate to. Get the characters right, everything else will follow. Also, from a visual point of view, it felt like watching a Star Wars prequel (think the planet Geonosis in Attack Of The Clones). Talking about the latter, I suppose Disney couldn't be more happy with their Lucas and Marvel purchases because, judging by this movie, they really were lost. 2 or 3/10

john-carter-vs-monster_zps17a24c1e.jpg

And how odd was it to see these guys from HBO's Rome playing side by side again, basically reprising the same characters?!

JCM-Rome_zps6be9796c.jpg

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A24

A24 4,346

Posted
Posted

Not boring? Maybe not, if you are a kid. Like I said, it's all very childish. Other than that, it was bad, especially its characters. Story was old too. I kept fighting falling asleep. This movie could've been better with a much harder tone and style (more Metal Hurlant and less Attack Of The Clones). It already screams for a makeover, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal

#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265

Posted
Posted

Not boring? Maybe not, if you are a kid. Like I said, it's all very childish. Other than that, it was bad, especially its characters. Story was old too. I kept fighting falling asleep. This movie could've been better with a much harder tone and style (more Metal Hurlant and less Attack Of The Clones). It already screams for a makeover, IMO.

Does it cater to the same sort of audience that I Am Legend does?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DreamTheater

DreamTheater 131

Posted
Posted

I thought it was better than Avatar. At least it was the source material that Cameron borrowed from.

Avatar is awesome looking, ground-breaking in the technical department ! A big spectacle, I love it.

John Carter has nothing going for it, zilch ! It felt like a bog-standard animated film, devoid of Pixar-magic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DreamTheater

DreamTheater 131

Posted
Posted

Well at least the viewing public wasn't blind to appreciate a terrific looking film. :rolleyes:

To me it's all about the execution. Cameron cares about his films, he wanted to blow peoples' minds and he succeeded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A24

A24 4,346

Posted
Posted

Not boring? Maybe not, if you are a kid. Like I said, it's all very childish. Other than that, it was bad, especially its characters. Story was old too. I kept fighting falling asleep. This movie could've been better with a much harder tone and style (more Metal Hurlant and less Attack Of The Clones). It already screams for a makeover, IMO.

Does it cater to the same sort of audience that I Am Legend does?

Sorta. It tries to cater to the widest audience possible (which is a compromise in itself) by wanting to be a big movie, offering lots of action and characters, but most importantly, showing as much as CGI scenes as possible. In the end, it does nothing particularly well, except for maybe the quality of the CGI, which I didn't care but I suppose it was decent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KK

KK 3,307

Posted
Posted

It was just so boring. Because we'd seen all of it before, and with far better execution too. The only interesting part was seeing cameos from the case of Rome, but they aren't there for long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KK

KK 3,307

Posted
Posted

It was also boring because you didn't buy into what you were given. It wasn't good enough to make you go along for the ride. It underestimates the audience.

Yeah. It really is a film that treats its audience as kids. I guess that was the audience it was geared towards, but I'm sure they must have of thought of adult appeal with a classic sci-fi character like that.

Regardless, in the end, it just felt a bit...pointless.

I dimly recall the movie and never really being convinced by the concept of an Earth where no more children are being born.

It's an great sci-fi idea, but in that film i just didnt buy it.

Well unlike most mainstream sci-fi films, COM is less about the concept and more about the people and the world. Which is particularly noteworthy, in how Cuaron exceptionally crafts this decadent world in a realistic fashion but with tons of detail. It's beautiful.

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
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.

  I accept