Jump to content

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


Mr. Breathmask

Recommended Posts

Evil Dead 2 - retains the original's manic energy while considerably upping the comedy element. Really must see Army Of Darkness someday.

The Wicker Man (remake with Rifftrax commentary) - oh dear Lord, it's every bit as gloriously terrible as I'd heard. The original had Edward Woodward, Christopher Lee and an otherworldly, eroticised eerieness ... this has Nic Cage drop-kicking and punching women, telling another at gunpoint to 'STEP AWAY FROM THE BIKE!', 'NOT THE BEES!!!!' etc.

And to chip in on 'Ash Vs. Evil Dead', I'm having a blast with it ... middle-aged Ash is older but little wiser, the gore is hilariously OTT and Dana DeLorenzo and Lucy Lawless are obviously smokin' hot. Plus the second season has Lee Majors as Ash's father.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bridge Of Spies

 

Interesting to see how Spielberg has developed from Hollywood's wunderkind to a director who's now become like an old master of the craft. Weary of the newfangled notions that permeate modern film making today. Like The BFG Spielberg has all the tools of modern film making at his command, but always uses them as story telling devices. He's now as reliable as a wood burning stove.

 

Tom Hanks is just perfect for this. Playing, as he often has, the smartest, most morally forthright person in the room. And does so without the audience hating his guts for it. Like only Nixon could go to China, only Hanks could get away playing a lawyer who defends a Russian spy....because it's the right thing to do.

 

The first part of the film is exactly that. Russian spy Rudolf Abel gets caught and is put on trail for espionage. In an America in the great of fear for the Russians many want Abel hung, or shot, or electrocuted. Hank's James Donovan is the lawyer asked to represent him. To show that ever a spy will get his fair day in court in America. But counters resistance from the Judge, the CIA, the man on the street and even his own wife when he actually does his best to represents his clients interest. Because this is Tom Hanks you never once doubt that his intentions are indeed honourable. And Spielberg does a good job showing the rampant Cold War paranoia that existed back then (Complete with the educational films on how to survive a nuke holocaust).

 

Donovan's good intentions are strengthened when  we meet his client. The Russian spy Abel. Played to stunning, but quiet perfection by Mark Rylance. It's actually very hard to pin down what Rylance does with the role. His line readings are very exact, but avoid dramatics. Every word Abel says is sincere, even though it's carefully measured and weight before uttering it. As a long term spy must weight every single thought and decision he makes.

While the other two in the films prisoner exchange (Gary Powers and Frederic Pryors) are depicted mostly as helpless pawns in this spying game, Abel, even when in prison seems like a man in some control of his actions. Really a remarkable performance. 

 

The films action moves to Europe after the famous Gary Powers trail plays out. Interesting that Spielberg chose to make a film about this very important chapter in US Cold War history, but treats the whole Gary Powers angle as almost perfunctory. They are the most mechanical parts of the film.

 

The second half has Donovan traversing the murky mires of Cold War politics as he tries to convince both the Russians, and the East Germans that trading one prisoner for two isnt actually a rip-off. There are good character scenes where as men negotiate even though they are uncertain what the mandate of the other person is. The Russians want Abel for Powers. But East Germany is trying to establish itself as a valid political force and wants to be seen trading Pryors for Abel. Acting as an honest broker between the two Cold War nations. In the end it's all about instinct. And after a few days of being jerked around it's Donovan who uses his insurance lawyer's horse sense and does indeed get two for one.

 

At almost 2,5 hours the film is long but never dull. There's little in the way of action or spectacle. But Spielberg is well able to create drama and tension with just a decent script and a good cast. It's handsome looking film too. More natural then most of Kaminski's work. Like Spielberg's direction it has a sort of old fashioned reliability to it. Williams is replaced gracefully by Thomas Newman. (slightly weird to hear those familiar Newman piano and string stylings in a Spielberg film)

 

Though as usual Spielberg does go a bit over board with the ending. Not only having Donovan's wife beaming with pride over her husband's heroics, but even getting a lady on the train give him a patriotic look.

 

This is a strong film though. Which will probably remain quite underrated in Spielberg's filmography.

 

*** out of ****

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it was a tame, forgettable and by-the-numbers patriotic movie made by a sleepwalking Spielberg. Of course, a sleepwalking Spielberg still is skillful moviemaking but it's nothing more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was an outstanding portrait of "true" patriotism.  Meaning a story of someone who understands our institutions are run by generally well-meaning but real people, with all the faults and foibles that implies, and does what he is able to be a force of principle/sanity within that system, and how for people like Hanks, balancing public service and family life/personal ambition can be a tricky proposition.

 

A favorite recurring story motif is how the movie loves to show Hanks piercing bureaucratic/institutional shields to get to humans at the centers of situations.  No idea if that makes sense outside of my head.  All the stuff about how absurd bureaucracies can be has to be the contribution of the Coen brothers.  Seems like them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

All the stuff about how absurd bureaucracies can be has to be the contribution of the Coen brothers.  Seems like them.

 

Sounds like the whole useless bureaucracy plot in Shin Godzilla. Seems to be the trend these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schindlers List

 

The 4th time i've seen it since a school trip to the movies in 1993 and the first time I tried to watch it as a film, which was directed, acted and shot a certain way.

 

this is of course a truly great film. And contains one of the truly great performances of the decade. Liam Neeson was a rather unknown and insignificant actor before this film and became an incredibly valued one straight after. His performance of Oskar Schindler is simply electrifying. From the very first moment when he dresses for the nightclub scene, first sizing up the room before making his move on prominent Nazi officials Neeson captures your attention. Throughout the first part of the film Schindler is little more than an bussinesman, a profiteer or war. Possessing an enormous amount of charisma, human insight and the knack of being at the right place at the right time. He starts a factory that makes potts and pans, even know he doesnt know the first thing about such things. He does know about marketing, presentation, panache.

It is actually Itzhak Stern, hired by Schindler to run the factory who begins the process of moving Jews who have no value for the Reich (teachers, musicians, rabbi's etc) into the factory, Falsifying documents etc. In the first part of the film Oskar is completely oblivious of all of this.

But slowly the horror's of the Nazi treatment of Jews becomes less subtle. There a breathtaking scene depicting the razzia that essentially ended the 600 year Jewish presence in Krakow that simple a harrowing piece of film making. And even though Spielberg highlights the girl in the red coat, this is still not the trigger that changes things for Oskar.

Much later in the film he actually protests when his factory is named a haven. But slowly begins to assist Stern into safeguarding more people. First indirectly. Later at great personal risk and expense.

Neeson's performance works because we are never quite sure what makes his Oskar Schindler tick. What makes a war profiteer into a great man? No one can know, and Neeson doesnt attempt to explain it. The real Schindler was a mediocre business man before the war, and all his ventures failed after. But he was a great salesman of himself. And Neeson uses that aspect to it's full advantage.

 

The other important performance goes to Falph Fiennes as Amon Goethe. Like Neeson largely unknown before this film, and a valued actor after it.  Fiennes Goethe is a venal monster. A psychopath who's given the room to run riot and totally lacks any of the humanity Oskar Schindler must have had. He does admire Schindler though, and on his advise even tries to spare peoples lives till he figures out it isnt working for him. Like Schindler he's corrupt and inadvertently complicit in Schindlers plan to save about 1200 years. Schindler buys them from Goethe, and even though he suspects Schindler must be running another one of his scams, the thought that he might actually care about these Jews seems inconceivable to him. Even though he is hopelessly attracted to his own Jewish maid. Who must suffer beatings because of that fact.

 

Itzhak Stern is played by Ben Kinglsey. In the most subdued of the three main performances. In the first part of the film he almost forms a comic due with Neeson as the clever Jewish secretary dealing with his buffoon of a boss. But like Schindler Stern is more than he seems and actually the person who gets the ball rolling. Kingsley, who is not a Jewish actor, but has proven to be able to play almost every ethnicity delivers the most relatable performance. .

 

The film alternates between the daily goings on of these 3 characters and the larger canvas of the Holocaust. In the course of 3 hours we see Jews being set out of their homes (one gleefully accepted by Schindler) rounded up into ghetto's. then camps. Going from bad to worse, to even worse. But much like Empire Of The Sun Spielberg attempts to find little flickers of hope. A marriage ceremony is performed in the baraks. A factory worker is taken outside to be shot by Goethe (in a harrowing scene that actually had people flinching in the cinema in 1993) only for the guns to jam. Schindlers List as a film contains scenes of unspeakable brutality, made worse by the fact that they are based on actual events. Yet Spielberg, the eternal humanist does his best to find moments of humour and lightness when he can.

 

The Auschwitz scene, where a train is accidentally routed the wrong way and the female Schindler jews and led into the showers is another nerve wrecking scene. With suspense worthy of Hitchcock. The scenes in the night club, introducing Schindler pay homage to Dr. No. Some of the crowd scenes recalls the works of David Lean. Because of it's subject matter it's hard to see that this is indeed a film. With it's own influences.

 

Many say Spielberg shoots himself in the foot with the "I could have done more" scene.

Perhaps. I personally would have preferred if the scene could have been done smaller. A private moment between Schindler and Stern before they come out and Schindler leaves the camp. A private admonishment between these two men. As it is it's a little bit too big.  But personally what works less for me is the scene right after. Schindler Jew survivors and their film counterparts laying a stone on the grave of Oskar Schindler. It feels too disconnected for me. And rather pointless. Though I do enjoy the final shot of Neeson's Schindler standing before the grave of the real one.

 

Small niggles aside this is a truly breathtaking film. Harrowing at times, but never more than it needs to be. And at other times surprisingly funny and sweet. Beautifully photographed and with a truly great score.

Spielberg would never truly make another great film, though he made loads of very good ones. But this is his last great film.

 

**** out of ****

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nerve

 

Not that good. The whole premise of the film made no sense. When would a game like that ever exist. Also they underplayed every character's personality. Vee was not show as artistic except for the first and last 5 minutes. Hacker friend made no sense. No self respecting person goes on the dark web. Vee's mom was shown as a control freak, but did nothing whenever anything remotely bad happened. Most of the dares made no sense. The whole movie was so improbable it was ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It definitely has some of the best fight choreographies in any superhero movie (sure, it's CG characters, but whatever!). The bank robbery and train fight scenes make for great, very fluid action sequences. Love them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just haven't cared for any of the Marvel characters I've seen in any of the movies since Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man. His struggles are all our struggles when you subtract the super powers. And yes, the action sequences are awesome. I don't think it's overrated. In fact, I think it not only holds up, it's gotten better with age. Elfman's music helps, unoriginal as it may be at points. It's a superhero movie with real orchestral music. Holy shit. They were still making those as late as 2004?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It manages to generate a fair amount of suspense, despite the outcome obviously being known. Unfortunately, it was the assholian behaviour of other audience members when I went to see it that made me swear off going to the cinema on Saturday afternoons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There'd been a couple of occasions before that that had me pondering whether maybe Sundays would be a more 'civilised' day to go (for example, a screening of Iron Man during which someone a few seats down from mine answered their mobile and had a full conversation, seemingly oblivious to me furiously staring at them).  

 

But at Valkyrie, the chatting and snack consumption noise were at a level I just hadn't experienced before. The final straw was someone who had left something behind them at the previous screening being allowed to come in and look for it WHILE OUR SCREENING WAS STILL GOING ON (accompanied by a staff member *helpfully* shining their fucking torch everywhere).   

GAH. 

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's awesome customer service! Seriously, if you left your wallet in a theater but were okay waiting for the next movie to run its course before looking for it, it means that you have no life. Don't expect the rest of the world to have the same low expectations as you. It's just a movie.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stefancos said:

Didnt he go to the USA? They probably arrested him because he looks foreign.

 

They don't do that or we'd have the ethnic looking president in jail.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

The police isnt there to decide if the law has been broken. That is up to the law courts!

 

Flawed logic. Police arrest based on probable cause of broken laws. If police couldn't assume that much, how would perps get to the courts? 

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.