Jump to content

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


Mr. Breathmask

Recommended Posts

Certainly underrated amongst his contemporary output.

 

 

Across The Universe

 

Fine enough in terms of story and visual direction, but The Beatles music felt shoehorned in most of the time. Not to mention it's way too long. I liked the characters and the actors that played them though. Some nicely done standalone sequences but overall nothing special.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

Blue Jasmine (2013)

 

9377_5_large.jpg

 

9377_8_large.jpg

 

"Woody Allen's best movie in decades." 

****/*****

Alexandre Cremers - JWFan

 

Great film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Koray Savas said:

Across The Universe

 

... nothing special.

 

 

After having seen it a second time now, I have to disagree.  Like Barry Lyndon, The Duellists,  2001: A Space Odyssey, 300, Titus and Alien, it's an sensory experience movie. That's really the only angle or approach in which this movie should be viewed and Taymor's aesthetic is pretty unique in Hollywood. Sadly there's no demand for her. 

 

 

42 minutes ago, KK said:

Great film.

 

After a few minutes into the movie, the initial feeling that I was listening to actors citing typical Woody Allen dialogue went away, and from then on, I fully bought into the characters. It's been a long time that I enjoyed a movie that much.

 

Oddly enough, the Blu-ray screenshots that I found have black bars but not so in the version that I saw yesterday on TV.

 

 

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

 

After having seen it a second time now, I have to disagree.  Like Barry Lyndon, The Duellists,  2001: A Space Odyssey, 300, Titus and Alien, it's an sensory experience movie. That's really the only angle or approach in which this movie should be viewed and Taymor's aesthetic is pretty unique in Hollywood. Sadly there's no demand for her. 

 

Alex

I was going to make a comment about how you could even remotely put Across The Universe on the same level as films like 2001 and Alien, but then put 300 up there too, so.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lawless (2012)

 

1353364665_4.jpg

 

This movie lives on brisk pacing and hard violence. It is 'entertainment' but of the kind that quickly evaporates once the film is finished. Violence sells but I'm looking for something else. 5/10

 

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guy Pearce? No, but he could very well be one. 

 

871e05558bce69ff2998ae14e557ef23.jpg

 

He removed his eyebrows for the role.

 

 

The film also features Shia LaBeouf. The average JWfanner might know him from the Transformers movies and The Crystal Skull:

 

tom-hardy-jason-clarke-shia-labeouf-lawl

 

 

 

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comic book movie fans might recognize the actor on the right but in Lawless he wears no mask so it might be a little bit confusing.

 

bane

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Stefancos said:

And Shinzon from Star Trek: Nemesis! A role he will never be forgiven for.

Tom Hardy did a great job with a poorly written, conceived, and motivated character. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revenge of the Sith

 

I don't know why everyone hates this movie. It's awesome! So many brutal kills. The highest number of on-screen deaths (planetary and Death Star explosions don't count because you don't see shit) in any Star Wars movie! I love it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The_Tree_of_Life_8.jpg

 

The Tree of Life

 

This movie was much smaller than I remembered it being. Much more intimate. Watching it for the second time, what may be Malick's most personal reflection on his own life, makes itself more clear to me. The first half hour, up to the creation sequence is just about the most beautiful piece of film of the new millennium (even with the grossly misplaced CG dinosaurs). And then the momentum dies down suddenly to the intimate childhood scenes, which take up the majority of the film from there. It's a bit of a jarring contrast, because you're left hungering for more of the opening sprawling imagery, but once that appetite dies down, you realize the true beauty of the film lies in these little vignettes of American suburbia and glimpses into what Malick's own childhood was probably like.

 

I've come to understand that Malick works when you choose to let it. When you allow yourself to buy into his rules. Once the cynic in you can stop scoffing at the barely-audible whispers, and the loosely-strung plot, he does lead you somewhere special. It may be an ephemeral high, but it's an incredibly potent one.

 

These last couple of days have been pretty hard for me, and for various reasons, have left me rather emotionally vulnerable. Perhaps that's why I've been revisiting these films. They seem to tackle such fundamental personal struggles, while painting a broad canvas that allows us, the audience to project our experiences onto his words and images. Nature and grace, mother and father, life and death, light and dark...Malick's contrasts reinforce a universal contention that is especially relevant to me at this time. It's a humbling film, in some respects, and as the opening and closing cards remind us, a reminder that we are part of something greater.

 

It's hardly perfect. It's missing the more fluent lyricism of The Thin Red Line or the narrative satisfaction of Days of Heaven and Badlands. It's messy. But the great films, the ones that truly aim higher, usually are.

 

 

-

 

 

Minor Quip: Following the creation sequence, Malick's music choices started to become overwhelming and poorly edited in. The emotional beats, cued in by Malick's countless classical selections, for the childhood montage was exhausting. And it was amusing to hear the seconds of Desplat's score fade in and out through the transitionary scenes. 

 

Oh and for the barely-audible whispers, I did have to turn the subtitles on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In The Heat Of The Night

 

The Norman Jewison police procedural which is actually a character study. About a redneck shall town sheriff being forced to deal with a murder case and a black police officer, passing through who reluctantly helps him solve it.

The case they work on is a fairly standard murder case, but it's really all about the character work between Rod Steiger. As Gillespie, a newly appointed Sheriff in a poor hick town who's got a big case of his hands and little to no capability of dealing with it. He's forced to swallow not really his own racial bias, but more his professional pride when Virgil Tibbs (a young and vibrant Sidney Poitier), a hot shot homicide detective who just happens to be in town begins working the case. Also reluctantly.

 

The difference between Gillespie and Tibbs is what drives the film. One is middle-aged, overweight, slovenly, probably a competent enough town sheriff, but no homicide investigator. Running a bunch of deputies who are simply incompetent to deal with anything like the murder of a hot-shot rich guy who was gonna build a factory.

Tibbs is affluent, looks impeccable in a suit and is making a whole lot more money then Gillespie. He's also a very keen investigator.

Neither of them wanna be in the situation they are put.

 

The film does a great job by not just making the tension between them based on race. Gillespie is a redneck, but probably not the type to hassle good black folk too much if they obey the law and know their place. But Tibbs has clearly got a beat in this case, and talks back to him. Rod Steiger does a fantastic job by never allowing the character become just another comic southern hick sheriff. And at several times in the film he's the one who's got the moral high ground. Reminding Tibbs that they have a murder on their hands.

 

Sidney Poitier finds exactly the right note in his performance. He's in a racist town he doesnt wanna be in, working with a bunch of cops who look down on him even though he's clearly a more competent officer. The first scene where he gets arrested for the murder, simply because he's there sets the tone. He doesnt resist arrest. And goes through the process with a resigned anger. Throughout the film he deals with the locals by being super professional at his job. But he has his limits. Tibbs isnt a noble character, like some of Poitiers other roles in that time. He slaps back a "modern" white slaver and does so with great relish. And tries to proof that person committed the murder because...well he's a modern white slaver.

Mostly he just wants to get out of that damn redneck town, but like Gillespie, it's professional pride that keeps him on the case.

 

That the two cops eventually find some respect for each other is inevitable, but never overstated. Both the script and the two actors strike the right balance perfectly.

 

Norman Jewison gets two outstanding lead performances out of them and finds little character touches in his supporting cast throughout. The superb camerawork by  Haskell Wexler gives the film a creepy ambiance at times. I have a soft spot for that very stylized 60's cinematography. It was apparently also the first big Hollywood film that actually lit the scenes in a way that it took the skin colour of a non-white actor into account. Which is, considering the film came out in 1967 actually insane f you think about it.

It's actually a superb racial drama, but without going overboard with it's message and violence. Which now often seems to be the case.

 

A great film simply because everyone involved seemed to be at the top of their game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cinema snobs! At least I watched ...

 

ATM (2012)

 

 

p9050120_p_v8_aa.jpg

 

You wouldn't believe how bad this horror movie is, and yet, I managed to watch the whole thing because I like the idea of people being trapped in small spaces. And I'm not a movie snob ...

 

2/10

 

 

Alex

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never even heard of that ATM movie.  What made you devote time out of your day to watch that?  You can't get that time back, you should be more careful.  Have more respect for yourself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sometimes like really bad movies. And at the same time, I can't sit through something like Jurassic World. I don't know how you movie snobs manage to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I like about low budget or B movies is that they are less likely to follow blockbuster formulas. With some of them you don't know what to expect.  ATM certainly wasn't anything new though. I did want to know if how they were gonna escape that ATM cabinet with that fella waiting for them outside.

 

b4dddf2dc4904eefb2cda39925e601ec.jpg

 

Alex 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

I sometimes like really bad movies. And at the same time, I can't sit through something like Jurassic World. I don't know how you movie snobs manage to do that.

 

We, snobs? Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have HBO, Steef.  There was nothing on TV so I ignited Netflix.

 

 

That's right, Netflix, which gave me B movie gold with :

 

Apollo_18_Poster.jpg

 

Much better than Europa Report!

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.