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

[A24 4,331]

You don't have kids?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Who'd want those?

[A24 4,331]

Spielberg, to name one.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Old fool.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

You don't have kids?

Yeah, but they have good taste!

[crocodile 8,006]

The Congress.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

Looks shit

[crocodile 8,006]

It's not good, it's not bad. It's typical and completely unusual.

Karol

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

Is it a prequel to House of Cards?

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

The Congress.

Karol

It's got a neat Max Richter score.

[Wojo 2,453]

There's that word again. Neat.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Need to put more neat on those bones!

[KK 3,307]

I like that word!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Its a neat word

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

The Three Caballeros

Well, there's no escaping the War, I guess. After the big and ambitious projects that got Disney on their way, the studio was forced to become economical. The Three Caballeros is a pastiche, a so-called "package film" that bundles what could easily be a series of shorts, using the device of Donald Duck receive presents from his South American cousins. You really get a feeling this movie was very much designed to be hacked into little pieces later so it could become a series of shorts distributed seperately.

Anyway, the whole thing starts off alright with a fun little story about a penguin heading for the equator. It's quite charming. But soon, the whole thing nosedives into a South American lovefest. Apparently, the film was part of a good-will campaign for South America at the time. As a piece of propaganda, I'm sure it does its job. But as a piece of cinema, it falls flat on its arse. The animation is decent, but coming almost straight off stuff like Fantasia and Bambi, it all feels a bit half-assed (note: I have not seen Saludos Amigos, the film Disney Studios produced between this one and Bambi).

The movie is also very loud and becomes increasingly so as it reaches its conclusion. The film feels much longer than it is as well. Oh, and Donald basically spends the entire film ogling women and lusting after them. Don't tell anyone at Disney, because they might kneejerk and pull the film from their lineup, but it consistently objectifies women and comes off as borderline sexist (or at the very least, offers a very one-sided approach on sexism). Not that I'm expecting a cartoon to have anything to say about sexism, but after the third sequence of a cartoon Duck lusting after live-action women, you can't help but notice this.

Avoid. Unless you're a die-hard Donald Duck fan, I guess.

The Patriot - Extended Edition

Something never sat quite right with me when watching The Patriot.

The story of The Patriot is that of Benjamin Martin, a man who has done terrible deeds in his (off-screen) past. Now, years later, war is again brewing. Concerned for his children, Martin is very reluctant to participate, even though the people around him seem to expect the opposite, based on his past. The horrible experience in his own past, the concern for his family and the expectations of those around him weighs on our hero.

But, as happens, the fight literally comes to Martin's door. And when the film's main villain (Jason Isaacs hamming it up) murders one of Martin's children and captures his eldest son (a young and very promising Heath Ledger), Martin goes off on a bloody rampage of revenge to free his child and fight for what's right.

From there on, Martin becomes a militia leader, bound by his own rules and honor, fighting outside the Continental Army against the Evil Brits (make no mistake, the English are evil, snivelling assholes in this film). Because of course, as it happens, the whole thing is set against the war for America's independence. Oh, and did I mention Martin is played by Mel Gibson?

Yes, it's basically Braveheart Goes America.

But the thing that keeps bothering me is that the script seems to go out of its way to portray Martin as a man haunted by his past. Every time the film slows down, Martin is pondering his past. When he goes on his first rampage, two of his children witness him murdering soldiers and running around covered in blood. There's a scene afterwards where one of them doesn't even want to talk to him. Martin uses violent measures, but seems to slowly give up part of himself (his children witness his bad side, he uses his son's tin soldiers to make bullets). He doesn't seem written as a clear-cut righteous hero. His actions seem to come at a cost.

And yet there's also stuff like a cut-away scene to a battle, where director Roland Emmerich gleefully decapitates a man by cannon ball. There's another scene where two men lose their legs, again by canonball. Yet when Heath Ledger shoots Jason Isaacs, the bullet impact happens off-screen. When Mel Gibson finally kills him (rather brutally, actually), the wound itself again happens off-screen. There's a disconnect between the film's theme and the film's images in places.

And then there's the score.

You know that pessimistic outlook on violence? How it eats away at our main character. How we could wonder how he is ever going to win a war if he doesn't want to resort to certain measures? I don't hear that in the score (yes, there's Remembering the Wilderness, but it's quite sparse). Instead, what I often hear is feelgood Americana or patriotic "Hurray for Independence" music. John Williams (quite possibly under the guidance of the director, mind you) scores an exciting adventure film chronicling the birth of America. You wonder at times whether Martin isn't spiralling out of control, but the music plays a heroic and exciting action piece at the same time. Basically, John Williams came in and scored Braveheart Goes America.

And I can see why you'd want to make Braveheart Goes America. Braveheart made a ton of money and won a Best Picture Oscar, for crying out loud. And America loves their freedom fighters. Cast Mel Gibson in it and this movie sells itself.

But why have this character haunted by his own actions? Why does he first kill unarmed men, then after two words from his son order everyone not to kill unarmed men and then chuckles when his French compatriot jokes about killing unarmed men behind his back? That's not funny. That's insubordination and a war crime.

In the end, I guess The Patriot is produced as a piece of entertainment. But its characters seem stuck in an entirely different story. It's weird and it makes you wonder whether the filmmakers really read the script carefully enough before making this film.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Despite its apparent script issues, I've always had a soft spot for The Patriot. And it marked the end of an era when Emmerich made movies I enjoyed. Everything from TDAT onwards was downhill.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

I mostly agree, though I did like Anonymous.

[Romão 2,274]

I think the cinematography was gorgeous, and I loved that trumpet ominous theme from Remembering the Wilderness

[crocodile 8,006]

Watchmen: The Ultimate Cut

I admit that it took me some years to find a reasonably priced copy of this version. Some of the prices tend to be outrageous. Finally got it and gave this film a careful rewatch (in previous years I would mostly skimmed through it).

I have a love/hate relationship with this film. From a perspective of a film fan, it's an unique and bold blockbuster that addresses a lot of preconceptions head-on and goes much farther than most adaptations would. In that sense, the hard R-rating is a good thing. The film is an exercise in how to achieve an absolutely massive scope while maintaining quite a moderate budget (Snyder's commentary track sheds some light on this). The director has definitely a lot of visual flair and knack for action sequences. The visuals are rich and detailed, certainly a cinematic orgy for many fans. It's a dense and impressive undertaking and, truth be told, I can't imagine a closer adaptation being made by anybody else.

A comic book fan in me, however, shakes head in disapproval. For all its boldness, Zack Snyder's Watchmen misses some of the more adult and grown-up aspects of its source material. Given that they amp-up pretty much everything and direct this towards a mature viewer, I see this is a massive failure. Some of the things don't make much sense, some are just plain dumb. The same style fight sequences that electrify audiences with their kinetic beauty, completely ruin a concept of something that was supposed to be taking place in a "realistic world", Which is to say, director misses his own point.

All in all, however, I still wanted to have the longest cut of this film, however. The pirate comic book narrative isn't necessarily needed to understand primary narrative. But it does enhance the scope of this story and mirrors journeys of several characters at once. What's interesting, the animated film-within-a-film is probably even darker and more brutal than live action footage. Some of the ins and outs could have been better handled. But, for what they trying to achieve, it does works. And this is the version of Watchmen to watch (yeah, all its 3 hours and 35 minutes). In all fairness, the film in any version has pacing issues and suffers from certain chunkiness that on other films would be resolved with rigouristic cutting.

So it's a frustrating experience. In some ways exhilarating, in some ways truly frustrating. I mostly treat is as an adolescent take on adult material. I guess that's all it could have ever been.

Karol

[A24 4,331]

It's a sad thing that its boldness is not appreciated. I immediately (from the very first scene) knew I was watching quite something out of the ordinary. I also realized what made it so special, namely, the art came first.

[crocodile 8,006]

It's a sad thing that its boldness is not appreciated. I immediately (from the very first scene) knew I was watching quite something out of the ordinary. I also realized what made it so special, namely, the art came first.

No, Alex. I do appreciate boldness. I just have a problem with it being inconsequential. And you also agree on it (somewhat) in your very first reaction to this film:

Watchmen: Interesting hybrid of mainly great things and sometimes not so good things. Yes, I loved it but it could've been better. Some snippets of the story, dialog and acting (the girl) weren't up to the film's own standards. But then again, I really expected a lot so I have to see it again sometime to form a better opinion. One thing is for sure, this is no DC or Marvel comic book. And the action scenes (the fighting scenes which are quite violent, btw) prove that Nolan's Batman choreography (with all its 'super close to the action' shots) aren't all that great. In the beginning, I kept thinking, OMG, Zack Snyder is the new Ridley Scott (the good Ridley Scott from his early period) and the funny thing is that there are at least 2 Ridley Scott commercials in Watchmen.

If I really hated Watchmen, we wouldn't be having so many discussions about it. And I certainly wouldn't bother to track down an out of print (still) overpriced rare edition of it.

Karol

[DreamTheater 131]

It's a sad thing that its boldness is not appreciated. I immediately (from the very first scene) knew I was watching quite something out of the ordinary. I also realized what made it so special, namely, the art came first.

Watchmen's an excellent flick... it took me 3 times to fully appreciate it (director's cut). It's definitely as far removed as possible from other superhero films I've seen. Audio-visually striking too.

If I compare this to the monstrosity of Man of Steel...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's the best superhero/comic book movie I've ever seen.

[crocodile 8,006]

Will you ever watch TUC version, Stefan?

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

I've only seen the Director's Cut, which is apparently the definitive version. Wouldn't see the point in tracking down and watching a version which is generally accepted as being inferior.

[crocodile 8,006]

It can't be definitive if they were developing all this additional footage (there are ins and outs that serve as transitions) and animation to be part of this narrative. Why would they even produce this if it wasn't to be in there in the first place? Zack Snyder always intended to have it in there. It's even called "ultimate".

Besides, why not make up your own mind?

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

Time.

The general consensus seems to be that the Director's Cut is the best version. I went with that when I made my purchase.

[crocodile 8,006]

So why not prefer the theatrical cut then? It's shortest and you don't really get that much more information from extra footage, if I'm to be honest. It's still R-rated story and TC doesn't really improve on anything. It's like Aliens, really.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

I hadn't seen the film before but was inspired to see it after reading the online debate surrounding it. I inquired as to which was the version to watch of the three available and bought the blu-ray based on the strong recommendations I received in relation to the Director's Cut. It's as simple as that.

Anything else?

Also, isn't the theatrical cut said to be the weakest of the three by some margin? Or are you saying you think it's better than that?

[crocodile 8,006]

No, I'm not saying that. Just wondering what all the fuss is about with the DC. It adds some fairly redundant footage and some other bits (often single shots) that make little sense without the animated feature included. It's all fan service, basically, nothing to do with good filmmaking. Seems like people just kind of decided it's the best version. Really not sure why.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

Seems like people just kind of decided it's the best version.

What a crazy world we live in, huh.

[crocodile 8,006]

But I've watched all three Quinto. Three times at the cinema, then a couple of times on DC. And this one. And I also know the book very well. And I don't rely on "democratic" system. Trying to make up my own mind about stuff.

And since you all are bigger fans of this film than me, it's so puzzling none of you would even check out TUC. Just out of curiosity, if not for any other reason. Then we could talk about it. Would be interesting.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

it's so puzzling none of you would even check out TUC.

It's just as puzzling to me that someone would watch 3 different versions of the same movie numerous times which they just can't seem to get into or enjoy. They obviously have plenty of spare time on their hands.

Is it because maybe they're bullshitting about it to everyone for purposes of vanity and in fact they are actually really fascinated and engrossed by it, perhaps?

I'm not sure nobody here hasn't seen the UC btw.

[crocodile 8,006]

Funny how you make a lot of assumptions about something you have no idea about. I just asked you a simple question? And you clearly weren't reading any of my posts over the years and/or comprehending the meaning. I was recommending the film to many people back in 2009. With reservations.

To answer the first half: I'm a Watchmen fan and Alan Moore fan. This film is an offshoot of that.

I like filmmaking and everything revolving around that. I like it more than actual films. So watching films closely is what I like to do, even those I don't like. I need to know why they don't work. That's how my brain works. Watchmen is a good study because it's both fascinating and frustrating -- it's both good and bad filmmaking.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

If I'm wrong about you and Watchmen I apologise. I just seem to be under the impression you've never liked it much and have been quite vocal about your dislike of the it at various intervals. I'd have sworn that was the case. Sorry if I am misremembering.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Only me and Alex truly understand the film and have appraised it properly!

Right Alex?

[crocodile 8,006]

I've been vocal about the things I don't like about it. That's where it all is coming from, I suppose.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

You have never slagged it off then? You've never chimed in to say how bad you thought it was?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Wasn't that Chaac?

[crocodile 8,006]

For me, it's more of an admiration/disappointment kind of schizophrenia. As a mainstream blockbuster done by large studio, it's an experience like no other. In its class, probably among the best. As an adaptation to one of my favourite pieces of comics/literature, it's half-baked and bit tame. I could never embrace it unconditionally but will always encourage people to see it. And yeah, all versions.

The bottom line is, Watchmen is Zack Snyder's best film. If only for the whole cheek of it.

Karol

[KK 3,307]

I can understand Karol's reservations about the film, but it's clear he still admires it in some aspects.

I think Watchmen is the best comic-book film I've seen so far, but I judge without knowledge of the source material its based on.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You don't need to have read the comic.

[crocodile 8,006]

Same as with Tolkien films for many people, I guess.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

True!

[KK 3,307]

Same as with Tolkien films for many people, I guess.

Karol

Yes, best analogy I think.

The LOTR films are great on their own, but do they really get into the subtextual richness of the original work? In that sense, it can be disappointing.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

There's no way that they can though

[KK 3,307]

There's no way to have done that while pleasing all crowds. I can imagine more impressionistic and artistic approaches to Tolkien, but not without alienating a good deal of the mainstream audience.

[Quintus 5,399]

Has Chaac left again?

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

There's no way to have done that while pleasing all crowds. I can imagine more impressionistic and artistic approaches to Tolkien, but not without alienating a good deal of the mainstream audience.

That's the only real way to do The Silmarillion I think.

[Quintus 5,399]

The only way they'll ever do the Silmarillion is if they choose a couple of its stories and ignore its broader narrative. Which sort of defeats the object.

But that didn't ever stop Peter Jackson before.