Jump to content
Mr. Breathmask

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

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Better than Rogue One?

 

 

Oh, no. Most non-Americans like it. It's a fun film with a really silly/stupid and over-the-top premise (which is what makes it enjoyable in the first place). What's less to like is the fact that probably a lot of Americans think it could happen in real life ("The President kicking the terrorists' asses? Of course it could happen! Because he's American!"). The fact that you used the word "stirring" to describe it is proof of that! We non-American see it as a dumb but fun action movie, you guys probably see it as an inspiring, uplifting piece of filmmaking that should be shown in schools!

 

Well, it is uplifting IMO. I mean, I'll be honest, watching America scramble a dozen F-15s and send them soaring into the sky to go protect the altruistic President is pretty stirring. 

 

Actually, it did make me think too - these days, it's hard for me to confront anything political without going philosophical.

 

Particularly the very standard but timeless terrorist accusation that America has been killing innocent people the same way they are. It brought back the debate for me over the tricky balance the U.S. faces between helping its own citizens and helping those of other nations (and whether U.S. methods of helping other nations are effective, given the comment about "gangs taking over"). But that has already been discussed at ample length in the America thread. 

 

I absolutely realize that certain elements couldn't happen in real life -- i.e. the most amazing ones, such as the President nearly single-handedly defeating all the terrorists (although a Medal of Honor winner who was lauded for extensive wartime service could probably do at least somewhat well in that situation, so at least the basic premise there isn't too far-fetched, even if it starts to get a little out of hand).

 

Actually, the hijacker storyline is apparently plausible (or once would have been before they enhanced security), I read. Obviously that bit doesn't make America look great but apparently that premise wasn't too far-fetched, interestingly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Will said:

 

What? 

 

President in the movie - seemingly a principled man who loves America and has faught heroically in Vietnam. Is very smart and skilled. 

 

Trump - Has never faught in the military and shows contempt for various American principles

 

I'm not seeing the comparison, other then perhaps them both being tough on terror in policy, and I doubt anyone would have brought it up if Trump hadn't used the theme for his rallies. 

 

It's the general ideology that a president must be a heroic figure (and, vice versa, that a hero makes a great president because he's a hero), and that a hero killing terrorists is a glorious and patriotic thing, often paired with the idea that if you don't agree you're unpatriotic, and furthermore that not being patriotic is bad.

 

It's one thing to make a dumb action film, but AFO so directly and cheerfully ties it to the idea of the American president as a hero (as propaganda also likes to do) that I've always found it worrisome, and have brought it up before, way before Trump. He's just the latest face to fit the concept (and let's all be glad that he doesn't appear to be particularly smart and skilled).

 

I still don't see how anyone could have had the idea to let Randy Newman, of all people, score this, and then be disappointed that his score mocked the film's concept (according to what I've read; I've never actually heard it myself).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

It's the general ideology that a president must be a heroic figure (and, vice versa, that a hero makes a great president because he's a hero), and that a hero killing terrorists is a glorious and patriotic thing, often paired with the idea that if you don't agree you're unpatriotic, and furthermore that not being patriotic is bad.

 

It's one thing to make a dumb action film, but AFO so directly and cheerfully ties it to the idea of the American president as a hero (as propaganda also likes to do) that I've always found it worrisome, and have brought it up before, way before Trump. He's just the latest face to fit the concept (and let's all be glad that he doesn't appear to be particularly smart and skilled).

 

Hmm, I kind of see where you're coming from, but I can't say I really agree that there is anything whatsoever worrisome about this film (aside from, perhaps, the music's use in stroking Trump's ego and emboldening his fans, but that's not really the filmmakers' fault!) 

 

And while I indeed found the film ultimately cheerful, I felt conflicting emotions throughout (for instance, should the President have simply left the plane and ordered jets to fire on it? - it might have been a public relations mess and certainly would have weighed very heavily on his conscience and heart - and of course would have made for a boring movie, but in terms of general foreign policy it might have been the most foolproof option)

 

I've also just been thinking about whether Presidents (if they don't already?) need to make it an announced policy to destroy places with hostages (even if they include family members) if what is being demanded is too steep a price and a rescue mission would be difficult. I was just thinking about how much of a mess it would be to have, in real life, something along these lines happen. 

 

Anyway, I am rambling off into other topics.

 

That "mood" argument was rather silly since I doubt most people think as much about movies as I do, but my general point still stands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schindler's list.

 

I am deeply moved and touched and utterly disgusted at the same time. Don't need to hear German (spoken or yelled) for at least twelve months, sorry. (Don't take it too personal, I hate it anyway.) I'm also not sure whether the 'I could have saved more' scene is realistic, but oh well. Amazing that Spielberg made Hook the same year.

 

And the score... I already knew the theme, but was impressed all the same. Can't help wondering why the recording sessions are so big, though. Here's hoping JWfan has a guide explaining how all those takes differ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I really just read through 2 pages of analysis of Air Force One?

 

16 minutes ago, Quintus said:

You mean Jurassic Park. 

 

The "I could have saved more" scene is a bit of a shame, but it's also nowhere near as universe collapsing as some here make it out to be. It's okay, it fits. I've always thought that plenty probably used it to have a bit of an emotional clear-out. Some though... they act like the film is rendered an unwatchable disaster because of it, which is so internet hipster it makes me want to indiscriminately punch stuff. 

 

In-fucking-deed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, I watched it. I was in my bedroom and it was on my little 14" portable, it was probably a Sunday evening. I watched Dreyfuss in The Goodbye Girl immediately after it, a much better movie. 

 

It's odd though, I can remember, even at that age, that John's score was really a sugar fest utterly bereft of any sort of subtlety. But I can't remember anything at all about Grusin's Goodbye Girl music. 

7 minutes ago, publicist said:

#fakecritics and #fakewatchers are the enemy of romantically tangled dead pilots. Like a phoenix from the ashes, 'Always' will rise again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be old news but Spielberg was remaking an old MGM WW2 weepie with Spencer Tracy and Irene Dunne called 'A Guy Named Joe'. IMDB says 'Dead World War II bomber pilot, Maj. Pete Sandidge, becomes guardian angel to another pilot, Capt. Ted Randall, guiding Ted through battle and helping him to romance his old girlfriend, despite her excessive devotion to Sandidge's memory.'

 

The framing in WW2 air combat might give the hokey idea at least some kind of credence while Montana firefighters in 1989 somehow do not lend themselves quite as smoothly to such harebrained concept. 

 

Williams was riddled with this square peg in round holes-mess and reacted with a somewhat schizophrenic combination (polished americana schmaltz vs. rather nondescript underscoring for the afterlife and action scenes) and it all is awfully irrelevant as a movie - if not as fair warning that rosy nostalgia is a bad reason to remake old movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very cornball but not nearly as painful as the Spielberg one. The idea that all the boys flying into dangerous war missions have a guardian angel at their side probably had resonance in 1943 (it's full of patriotic scenes) but even then, the idea that Tracy goes to heaven and it turns out to be a kind of army outfit where obviously only dead soldiers roam is a bit on the cuckoo side. Still, the Williams score for the final 12 minutes of 'Always' (which is fine) is the only thing i will ever gain from the whole enterprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Will said:

 

What? 

 

President in the movie - seemingly a principled man who loves America and has faught heroically in Vietnam. Is very smart and skilled. 

 

Trump - Has never faught in the military and shows contempt for various American principles

 

I'm not seeing the comparison, other then perhaps them both being tough on terror in policy, and I doubt anyone would have brought it up if Trump hadn't used the theme for his rallies. 

 

What's this absurd requirement that a president have military combat experience in order to qualify for office? I would have dodged Vietnam too, as should everyone have.

 

The other ridiculous requirement is that they must have sent their kids to war if there was one going on, like Romney coming under scrutint for not sending his kids to Iraq. How does that work? You don't just yank your adult kids out of their lives to go and fight. And they didn't even have the draft for Iraq anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Daniel Clamp said:

 

What's this absurd requirement that a president have military combat experience in order to qualify for office? I would have dodged Vietnam too, as should everyone have.

 

The other ridiculous requirement is that they must have sent their kids to war if there was one going on, like Romney coming under scrutint for not sending his kids to Iraq. How does that work? You don't just yank your adult kids out of their lives to go and fight. And they didn't even have the draft for Iraq anyway.

 

I certainly never stated there was any such requirement. There are many great Presidents who never fought. 

 

I simply wanted to illustrate the major differences between Ford's character and Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Will said:

 

I certainly never stated there was any such requirement. There are many great Presidents who never fought. 

 

I simply wanted to illustrate the major differences between Ford's character and Trump. 

 

Not directing it at you per se, but I've seen a lot of flack directed at presidents or presidential candidates over the years because they might not have served in the military or never experienced combat. And the other thing I hear people say on TV or read online is if a president has no military experience, or they managed to avoid Vietnam, they have no right to order troops into combat. I'm like "huh?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Quintus said:

It's his pirouetting strings in his love theme which make me beg for the aspartame. 

 

This is one of the few tolerable moments. Whenever Spielberg does real people in this movie it becomes a mess (John Goodman notwithstanding). Williams just had to ice that double choc custard cake even more.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Richard said:

Ok, guys, enough time had passed, and I think I can safely offer my thoughts on MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA, without breaking out in hives.

It's very...wait...oh, no...excuse me (runs to bathroom, and retches). Sorry, peeps, can't do this, right now.

 

I like the bad girl geisha who isn't in the movie nearly enough. What kind of ruins it for me is how the story is ultimately of a young woman hooking up with an older man she met when she was a little squirt. It's just too creepy. Now, if it's the other way around, it's alright. Which brings me to my last-watched film:

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

 

I loved it. This movie is almost as bashed as President Trump. It's really an odd thing because it was fairly well-received at the time it was released, which wasn't that long ago. People were saying it was the best one since Empire and that Star Wars had been redeemed. These fools have been saying the same thing since Disney started releasing their fan service cash grabs. I can understand some of the criticism. It's a very odd film, to say the least. Performances are all over the place, I admit, but I think that adds to its charm. It really is like a B movie. It cannot be denied that's what Lucas was going for. I especially enjoy the scenes on Tatooine. It's a brief but poignant diversion from the main story with neat visuals and music. Actually, it's one of the few times where the score is able to really come alive. I also really love the arena scene.

 

One thing about this movie is that it's mostly what Quentin Tarantino would call a hangout movie. It picks up about an hour in, then becomes a hangout movie again, then picks up again. In the last half hour, it becomes exciting with all the characters uniting in a a climactic battle. You want it to keep going, but it suddenly ends. I always have fun with it, so I won't criticize it much. It is a damn shame what happened to the music. The original stuff that made it in there is not only mixed extremely low, it's constantly chopped to bits with no apparent good reason. This thing must have been edited to hell and back. My only other real complaint is the editing of the ending in the Blu-ray version. It's extremely sloppy and I don't understand it since the original cut was better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...