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

[Simon McBride 113]

North By Northwest

 

I've been watching a lot of Hitchcock lately, and I really like his films. This movie was pretty good, but not my favorite movie ever. 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

It's fun. A bit too long, I've always felt. After the alphabet soup guy, it drags for me. There are various other moments where I felt the running time could have been cut down. But then it comes to a sudden end! Fantastic visuals and music. All those guys walking around in suits. Can we bring the fashion and aesthetics of the 1950s back? I still rank it as one of my favorite Hitchcock films, along with Psycho and The Birds. Cliche as those choices may be.

[Quintus 5,399]

Even at the end of the film as Grant sneaks around the base of the house exterior, after everything he's been through, he still has his shirt smartly tucked into his trousers. Class! 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,531]

It's a helluva classy movie, no doubt about that!

[Quintus 5,399]

It's all rather sporting isn't it. Well, it is right up until the very end, that is. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's a Bond film before they ever made one!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,531]

Yes it is, but I like the way that Hitch dispenses with all that "aftermath" stuff. It's just not important to him. He keeps the action on the leads, while making us guess if St. Eva Marie is going to make it.

Yeah, it's rushed, but no more rushed than T-Rex rocking up at the end of you-know-what.

[Sweeping Strings 2,360]

Yes, I saw it for the first time a few years back and thought it very reminiscent of Bond.

 

Apparently Cary Grant was under serious consideration in the original 007 casting search, but was only interested in doing one film.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Grant undiably has the suave (more than almost any other actor), but lacks the danger. Of you see Connery in Dr. No or From Russia, you see a man you don't want to get onto the wrong side off. Same for Craig.

 

Grant was a far more Roger Moore sort of actor. 

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

John Cleese has quite a bit in common with Cary Grant. Perhaps Grant would have been a good Q?

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Q would certainly have been a more age-appropriate role. In the early 60s, Grant would've been around the age Moore was for A View to a Kill.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

Yet still with more charisma than Moore ever had.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Moore did have considerable charisma though. Far more than actual acting talent.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,531]

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

John Cleese has quite a bit in common with Cary Grant. Perhaps Grant would have been a good Q?

 

They were born about fifteen miles away from each other.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Just now, Richard said:

 

They were born about fifteen miles away from each other.

 

Yeah but that's like half the diameter of England right?  Everyone was born close to everyone else!

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

41 minutes ago, Richard said:

 

They were born about fifteen miles away from each other.

 

Cleese also named his Fish Called Wanda character after Grant.

[Simon McBride 113]

UHF 

 

This might be my favorite movie ever. Just the sheer ridiculousness of everything is great. I tried to watch it with my friends, but they didn't get it. Also, some of them hadn't even heard of Weird Al. It confused me.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's ok.

[A24 4,333]

What are the favorite movies of your friends, Hawmy?

 

 

You can tell me, I'm sitting down.

 

 

[Quintus 5,399]

See this is what Alexcremers doesn't understand about open discussion and never has done during his long tenure at JWFan. Why would anybody want to humour or indeed engage in conversation with someone who asks a fair question but immediately follows it up with snotty and dismissive overtones in the next breath? It's a waste of time for both parties before a response has even been considered. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,531]

Alex, 

YOU USED TO BE A NORMAL PERSON, YOU BIG SILLY!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Alex was never normal...

[A24 4,333]

Indeed! What's wrong with Richard?!

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

What's normal?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Normal is what everyone else is, but you are not.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

Different?

[Simon McBride 113]

10 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

What are the favorite movies of your friends, Hawmy?

 

 

You can tell me, I'm sitting down.

 

 

 

Is this supposed to be some passive aggressive jab at me based on my movie taste? 

Uhhh, I like Napoleon Dynamite. Star Wars is pretty good (I'm talking about the whole series in general, not one specific movie). The Sixth Sense is good. Rear Window is up there. I'm having a really hard time thinking of movies that I like more than others. 

[Quintus 5,399]

In reply Alex will pretend he doesn't have any such notion. 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Erin Brockovich

 

I liked it.

[bollemanneke 3,348]

Yesterday I watched The Hunger Games 3, Mockingjay part 1. It's blatantly obvious that they made this film for one reason: money. And I think that's just shameless. If you make two good films, there's no need for such a violent decline. I felt like I'd seen everything before: Katniss crying, Katniss upset, the Capitol destroying buildings, Snow being angry, and the way they treated Katniss like a kind of Pavlov experiment was quite cheap, to say the least. Score had good moments.

[Quintus 5,399]

7 hours ago, Selina Kyle said:

Erin Brockovich

 

I liked it.

 

Saw it the once, years ago. Good film. 

[Sweeping Strings 2,360]

On 17/11/2016 at 8:20 PM, Disco Stu said:

Q would certainly have been a more age-appropriate role. In the early 60s, Grant would've been around the age Moore was for A View to a Kill.

Yep. I think this was the main reason that Grant was only interested in doing one Bond.  

[A24 4,333]

2 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

Yesterday I watched The Hunger Games 3, Mockingjay part 1. It's blatantly obvious that they made this film for one reason: money. And I think that's just shameless. If you make two good films, there's no need for such a violent decline. I felt like I'd seen everything before: Katniss crying, Katniss upset, the Capitol destroying buildings, Snow being angry, and the way they treated Katniss like a kind of Pavlov experiment was quite cheap, to say the least. Score had good moments.

 

True that!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

10 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

Yesterday I watched The Hunger Games 3, Mockingjay part 1. It's blatantly obvious that they made this film for one reason: money. And I think that's just shameless. If you make two good films, there's no need for such a violent decline. I felt like I'd seen everything before: Katniss crying, Katniss upset, the Capitol destroying buildings, Snow being angry, and the way they treated Katniss like a kind of Pavlov experiment was quite cheap, to say the least. Score had good moments.

Um, there are three books, y'know?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Three fairly short young adult books turned into 4 huge films. Like The Hobbit they were just milking it for that extra 1 billion

[bollemanneke 3,348]

Mona Lisa smile. Liked the source music and rather good score. So all men are bastards and all women want to be housewives?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Mankind in a nutshell.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

41 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Three fairly short young adult books turned into 4 huge films. Like The Hobbit they were just milking it for that extra 1 billion

The books aren't that short and the films aren't huge at all.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You are the eternal apologist for Hollywood, arent you?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Don't know why you would say that, I'm not the one that saw Skyfall 6 times in the theaters. I just don't understand the sentiment of being offended by the existence of a movie, the existence of which is completely valid due to the fact that it's based on a novel. The Hunger Games franchise isn't comparable to what Peter Jackson did to The Hobbit in any respect.

 

Fun fact: All movies are made to make money.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

7 times!

 

And I've never tried to justify it rationally to anyone.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

Three fairly short young adult books turned into 4 huge films. Like The Hobbit they were just milking it for that extra 1 billion

 

I haven't read the books, and I don't know how short the are. However, the fact that they're young adult books isn't significant in this matter. And of course they would make more than two movies for three books. Totally unrelated to The Hobbit up to this point.

 

Also, books are generally better than the movies that are made out of them (of course, there are a few exceptions). Likewise, movies generally leave out a lot that was in the books, and often, though not always, suffer from that. In some cases, it may therefore be perfectly justified to turn a single book into more than one film (or a mini series, for example). I still think that turning The Hobbit into TWO films was probably not a bad idea. Not because the book was so complex, but because it was so episodic, and some of the episodes were not all that fleshed out in the book and would be longer if probably turned into a film. You could just drop some of the episodes, without much impact on the storyline. You could, but you don't have to - Tolkien could have dropped them from the book, but he didn't. I suppose he liked all the bits and pieces, so it stands to reason that you can make good film stuff out of all the bits and pieces. So, if you don't drop them, and the film gets too long, and you find a reasonable way to split the story, you can make more than one film out of it. It probably wasn't enough for three long films though, and certainly not with PJ leaving out various bits anyway, and putting tons of crap in. Most of that may have come from the late split into three films instead of two. As a result, you have two uneven films and one dreadful one.

 

For The Hunger Games, I don't know, as I haven't read the books. The first film was alright. The second one I thought was better. The third one was worse, and the last one was crap. It didn't seem a problem of length though; the resolution of the various storylines was what bothered me most, and I don't see how that would have been better with just three films, or even two for that matter.

[Quintus 5,399]

2 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

 

Fun fact: All movies are made to make money.

 

I don't believe this at all. In some cases money facilitates artistic vision and artistic success facilitates further funding. In some cases money only becomes the goal once commercial value is established and a revenue stream then drives creativity. 

 

It'd be a shit time indeed if all we saw in theatres were money making franchises - oh wait...

 

Well, at least there's still some trying to break through. There alway will be as long as artists toil to see their vision come to life. 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Paddington - wonderfully silly and warm. Like a cup of hot chocolate.

 

The quick Temple of Doom hat grabbing reference late in the film was especially appreciated.

[Simon McBride 113]

The Shining

 

Pretty good, I guess. Not something I'd ever want to watch again, but it was worth watching once. I wasn't expecting to like this after my experience with 2001, but I was pleasantly surprised. 

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Black Hawk Down

Loud, noisy, chaotic and ultimately empty. The movie fails at telling a compelling story with interesting characters, nor does it have anything to say about its subject matter. It's just pyrotechnics and emotionless robots shooting guns. Pass.

 

Ali G In da house

About as silly and dumb as you'd expect. Mostly watched it to see Martin Freeman and Charles Dance in silly roles, but I found them slightly underused.

[publicist 4,643]

7 hours ago, Quintus said:

It'd be a shit time indeed if all we saw in theatres were money making franchises - oh wait...

 

My constant sigh when crossing cinema displays these days.

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

6 hours ago, Hawmy said:

The Shining

 

Pretty good, I guess. Not something I'd ever want to watch again, but it was worth watching once. I wasn't expecting to like this after my experience with 2001, but I was pleasantly surprised. 

 

I'd say eventually you give both films a chance again. Kubrick keeps on rewarding you the more you watch his films.

[publicist 4,643]

That much is certain. A third of them still haven't worked me over, though (i.e. 'Clockwork Orange', 'Eyes Wide Shut').

[Jay 37,364]

15 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

For The Hunger Games, I don't know, as I haven't read the books. The first film was alright. The second one I thought was better. The third one was worse, and the last one was crap. It didn't seem a problem of length though; the resolution of the various storylines was what bothered me most, and I don't see how that would have been better with just three films, or even two for that matter.

 

Exactly how I feel. 

 

 

 

 

15 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

Fun fact: All movies are made to make money.

 

Unfamiliar with documentaries are you?