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

[A24 4,338]

When everything is said and done, I only like the first half of the first Hunger Games movie. That part is like Alien: It takes its time, it breaths, we really experience a new world together with Katniss, it's less about plot development and more about world-building, seen through the eyes of the main character. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that those who prefer Aliens will opt for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. It's faster, bigger, and therefore somehow 'better'. Right?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Ive only seen the first one. I liked it a lot, but i didnt feel like i should see another one.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

You should definitely watch the sequel. It's faster, bigger and better.

[A24 4,338]

The first Hunger Games movie is more like the first Bourne movie, Steef.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Ok, thanks Alex. Thats all I need to know.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

My point still stands!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Alex pretty much confirms that. The second Bourne is bigger and faster, though not better.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

14 hours ago, Quintus said:

 

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. 

Artists don't want to work for free. You can still have a vision and a passion but at the end of the day you want to be paid for it. Certainly you can make cases. I could argue that Malick makes films for himself and no one else, but movies don't get made without producers and investors and they want to make their money back.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

13 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Alex pretty much confirms that. The second Bourne is bigger and faster, though not better.

 

It's bigger and it's faster: how could it not be better?

[A24 4,338]

That's your '

23 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

I could argue that Malick makes films for himself and no one else ...

 

All artist should should do that. Directors who want to please everyone generally make sh!t.

[Marian Schedenig 8,194]

1 hour ago, Alexcremers said:

When everything is said and done, I only like the first half of the first Hunger Games movie. That part is like Alien: It takes its time, it breaths, we really experience a new world together with Katniss, it's less about plot development and more about world-building, seen through the eyes of the main character. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that those who prefer Aliens will opt for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. It's faster, bigger, and therefore somehow 'better'. Right?

 

I've only seen each of the Hunger Games films once. I liked the second better than the first; it seemed to work better as a film.

 

I like Alien more than Aliens, though the second one is a great action thriller in its own right and different enough from the first one to withstand the need of being compared too directly to it.

[Quintus 5,399]

I've seen the second Hunger Games movie, it isn't on the same level as Aliens. 

[publicist 4,643]

I saw one of these on a flight (Mockingjay, probably) and it was 'Twilight' level. Not really the pits but not that far above.

[Simon McBride 113]

6 hours ago, Muad'Dib said:

 

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

 

Maybe. The shining was pretty good, but I don't really feel a need to watch it again. I never want to watch 2001 again though. I was just needlessly slow.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That's part of why it's so good though. It gives you time to think, time to look at the visuals.

[A24 4,338]

If you experience it as boring and slow then it's only because you look at it from a typical or conventional narrative perspective. Most people are merely interested in story, sympathetic characters that take the viewer along for the ride, and how realistic SFX looks. I think 2001: ASO requires a different viewing approach. You cannot simply watch it in the same 'passive' way that you watch most movies. Throw away your prejudices and open up your mind. Accept the slow pacing. Surrender to it! This movie doesn't follow the viewer. You need to follow the director. Especially start to observe 'how' it is told. Submerge yourself in the surroundings and let yourself be entranced by its beauty. Ask yourself why is the director showing me this? What is the music in this scene telling me? If you succeed then the reward will be much greater than you can imagine. 

 

Alex

[publicist 4,643]

Some LSD helps, too.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

7 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

If you experience it as boring and slow then it's only because you look at it from a typical or conventional narrative perspective. Most people are merely interested in story, sympathetic characters that take the viewer along for the ride, and how realistic SFX looks. I think 2001: ASO requires a different viewing approach. You cannot simply watch it in the same 'passive' way that you watch most movies. Throw away your prejudices and open up your mind. Accept the slow pacing. Surrender to it! This movie doesn't follow the viewer. You need to follow the director. Especially start to observe 'how' it is told. Submerge yourself in the surroundings and let yourself be entranced by its beauty. Ask yourself why is the director showing me this? What is the music in this scene telling me? If you succeed then the reward will be much greater than you can imagine. 

 

Alex

 

Most films seems eager to get to the next scene, or to the next part of the story. 2001: ASO is a films that focuses very much on the moment. It has a narrative progression in mind, but also the confidence to not rush towards it.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

5 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

That's your '

 

All artist should should do that. Directors who want to please everyone generally make sh!t.

While that's just a general opinion, if that's what the artist wants to do who says they shouldn't? Obviously there's a mass market for easily digestible crowd pleasers. 

[A24 4,338]

And I've seen a very interesting documentary that claims that it's the industry itself that responsible for that.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

So you're saying that the desire to watch a light and breezy flick is falsely generated by Hollywood moguls and that we all truly just want to watch Kubrick and Haneke?

 

 

[Matt C 454]

Just Go With It

 

For an Adam Sandler flick, this is actually pretty tolerable. Sandler and Jennifer Aniston have a nice rapport with each other, and Brooklyn Decker is pretty easy on the eyes (as is the Hawaii scenery). The plot is forgettable, but it's not terribly offensive either. 

[Will 2,215]

23 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

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.

That was a good, enjoyable film, I think (I saw it in theaters so it's been a while) but the book was better, I seem to recall. The movie made things way darker than they needed to be, and added the contrived taxidermist plot. 

18 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. 

 

Oh man. I may be a scaredy cat but I watched that for the first time recently and it was by far the most terrifying movie I've ever seen. Holy crap. I was kind of scared walking around the house alone at night after seeing it for a few days. 

 

Not something I want to watch again only because it's too scary. Particularly the "murder" door scene almost made me jump out of my seat. 

 

I actually saw it at school (as part of a "fun" class that meets every other Wednesday in which we just watch Kubrick films together -- that's it!) and the teacher showed us a documentary as well. It was interesting too, although it started to sound like the people talking were on drugs or something when they started talking about connections to moon landing conspiracies, etc. 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Revenge of the Sith

 

I love it.

[publicist 4,643]

9 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

While that's just a general opinion, if that's what the artist wants to do who says they shouldn't? 

 

He's not an artist but a traffic controller, then (as far as directors go).

[A24 4,338]

 

8 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

So you're saying that the desire to watch a light and breezy flick is falsely generated by Hollywood moguls and that we all truly just want to watch Kubrick and Haneke?

 

 

 

Not entirely. Go to your local multiplex. Look at the movies they are playing. Where are the Kubricks and the Hanekes? Or just movies for an adult, mature publick in general? The audience has been unlearned to watch anything other than easy flicks. And they have been unlearned because it's not in the entertainment companies' best interest to breed a difficult, critical audience that exists of strong individuals, all with a highly personal taste. If I find the title of the documentary film then you really should watch it. It's a very interesting and enlightening watch. I once saw it on TV but I'm sure it can be found on youtube these days.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Multiplex cinemas are essentially glorified youth centers which also sell popcorn.

[publicist 4,643]

1 hour ago, Alexcremers said:

And they have been unlearned because it's not in the entertainment companies' best interest to breed a difficult, critical audience that exists of strong individuals, all with a highly personal taste..

 

It's actually not in the best interest of anyone (into power).

[A24 4,338]

True ... 

[Koray Savas 2,251]

10 hours ago, publicist said:

 

He's not an artist but a traffic controller, then (as far as directors go).

Why? Because they aren't striving to challenge the medium or industry? You can still inject personality and style into these types of films. Look at James L. Brooks or Nancy Myers. 

 

10 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

 

 

Not entirely. Go to your local multiplex. Look at the movies they are playing. Where are the Kubricks and the Hanekes? Or just movies for an adult, mature publick in general? The audience has been unlearned to watch anything other than easy flicks. And they have been unlearned because it's not in the entertainment companies' best interest to breed a difficult, critical audience that exists of strong individuals, all with a highly personal taste. If I find the title of the documentary film then you really should watch it. It's a very interesting and enlightening watch. I once saw it on TV but I'm sure it can be found on youtube these days.

I may be lucky in that I have two theaters nearby that play independent and off kilter films. I don't necessarily disagree with you on this sentiment though, but I doubt that if you played Malick and other challenging filmmakers in more theaters, that audiences will magically start seeing them more. 

[publicist 4,643]

1 hour ago, Koray Savas said:

Why? Because they aren't striving to challenge the medium or industry? You can still inject personality and style into these types of films. Look at James L. Brooks or Nancy Myers.

 

I rather look at all the guys putting out Adam Sandler comedies ore 'Taken VII' or 'Beverly Hills Chihuahua'. Huge lobby.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

The Poseidon Adventure

 

It's been a while since I've watched this one. It totally holds up. It's so great at building suspense. I'd have to say Williams' score for this one is pretty underrated. I've always enjoyed it. Gosh, there are so many gratuitous shots of legs and asses.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Gene Hackman has a nice tushy!

[Jay 37,367]

I really oughta see that flick some day

 

Actually, which order should I watch the Irwin disaster films in?

 

Poseidon, Towering Inferno, and Earthquake I mean

 

EDIT: Oh, I see Earthquake wasn't by the same guy as the other two now

[publicist 4,643]

Earthquake isn't Irwin but pure Universal.

[Jay 37,367]

Yea, I already edited my post to mention that.  thought it seemed wrong when I typed it.

[publicist 4,643]

All of them are watchable. The cheese improves them. By any serious standard, the 'Poseidon Adventure' is the least ridiculous.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Earthquake is very poor

[Jay 37,367]

It does seem the most silly

[publicist 4,643]

But it's comparably short.

[Simon McBride 113]

That scene where the boat flips upside down is intense.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

The Towering Inferno is way too long, although there are some cool moments with Steve McQueen and some memorable grisly deaths. It's just that in between all that stuff, it's a snooze-fest. There are so many scenes of people talking in rooms and firefighters battling the fire. Apparently, there was a TV version that's even longer.

 

Earthquake is kind of horrible, but the effects are awesome. So just watch the actual Earthquake scene.

The Poseidon Adventure is clearly the best one. I might go as far as to say it's the only one that's really good.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial

Batman (1989)

Batman Returns

 

The holy trilogy.

[Wojo 2,453]

Nope. 

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

Yes, everyone always associates ET with Batman...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Peas in a pod!

[Quintus 5,399]

ET is the spiritual prequel to Batman. 

[Simon McBride 113]

The Iron Giant. Good, but not the best thing I've ever seen.

[Wojo 2,453]

15 minutes ago, Hawmy said:

The Iron Giant. Good, but bot the best thing I've ever seen.

Not the best bot thing either? 

[Simon McBride 113]

I'm on my phone