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

[John 2,032]

 

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

 

Wrong. In sheer structural terms, Return of the King is better.

 

Fellowship's first act is 45 minutes long; Return of the King's 35-minute long even though its a longer film.

 

Return of the King isn’t a 3 act film though. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

39 minutes ago, Holko said:

45 minutes is still less than a third of Fellowship's runtime and it has a whole 12 hour trilogy to set up.

 

Oh, I'm not saying this as a criticism. Its not even a very long first act: hell, the original Star Wars at two-hours long, takes 47 minutes or so. Generally speaking, films set in places, times or realities removed from our own, tend to have long first acts.

 

But to say that its a "perfect three-act film" compared to the other two is factually inaccurate.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Time to move this thread to Tolkein central where the discussion belongs. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

4 minutes ago, John said:

Return of the King isn’t a 3 act film though. 

 

Untrue. Each film has its own three-act structure.

 

There is, however, a very discernable three-act structure to the whole trilogy, as well, and its not hard to get the two mixed up.

[John 2,032]

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

 

But to say that its a "perfect three-act film" compared to the other two is factually inaccurate.

 

I don’t think so. It’s a more classically structured film than the other two. 

[Holko 9,526]

Its linearity helps with that a lot.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Eh? Its the most nonlinear of the three.

[Holko 9,526]

Fellowship? The one about a single group with expanding numbers going from A to B with henchmen trying to stop them?

[Chen G. 3,949]

That's not entirely true because Fellowship has two distinct halves: in the first half, there most definitely is a Gandalf sideplot.

 

Besides, nonlinear storytelling isn't so much defined by crosscutting of parallel storylines. Its defined primarily by the nonlinearity of the timeline (or the relationship between the fabula and sujet). Think Tarantino or Nolan. 

 

Return of the King has very little in the way of flashbacks/flashforwards, and is therefore the most linear. I think its inherent to its nature as the concluding piece: the same thing happens with The Battle of the Five Armies.

 

In The Fellowship of the Ring, Isildur's story is revealed in a nonlinear manner: first at the top of the film, but we later find out more of it when Gandalf uncovers the account of Isildur and later again we learn more still, when Elrond recalls the course of events: each time we learn another piece of information which is important going forward. 

 

Gollum's capture in Barad Dur (teased by his cries earlier) is revealed in flashback, as is Gandalf's escape from Isengard, etcetra. There's even nonlinear cutting within individual sequences: look at the depature from Lorien.
 

The Two Towers is also fairly nonlinear. Gandalf turning into Gandalf the white is told with two consecutive flashbacks: one at the top of the film, and another after his reappearance. The entire romantic angle with Arwen is told ina series of flashbacks, going back to the day of the Fellowship leaving Rivendell (flashbacks without which Arwen's concerned exchange of looks with Aragorn in Fellowship is unexplained), there's a flashback to explain Boromir and Faramir's motivations, and a flashforward to what - in terms of the fabula - would be the last event in the course of the narrative. That being, the death of Aragorn.

 

43 minutes ago, John said:

I don’t think so. It’s a more classically structured film than the other two. 

 

Which, by the way, doesn't mean much. There are a lot of great films which don't have a three-act structure. The Good, the Bad and The Ugly, at under three hours, takes over an hour before you have any semblence of plot; ditto Braveheart. Even District 9 doesn't have a reasonably proportional first act. In all three cases, it doesn't detract from the experience one bit.

 

But all six films are what you call "classically structured", as is each trilogy, and the piece as a whole.

[Fabulin 3,511]

.

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

23 minutes ago, Fabulin said:

N-act structures which are designed to be such are actually quite rare, because they are constrained writing. A trilogy of movies also =/= a 3-Act Structure.

 

No.

 

The three-act structure isn't some highly intellectualized concept. It basically means that the story is built around some sort of conflict (as all stories are) which gradually escalates, reaching its most dire before being resolved and dying down. Its an exercise in constract, essentially: the triumph is all the more glorious for coming right at the heels of the darkest hour.

 

The two act breaks are simply the point at which the conflict begins in earnst (end of act I), and the aforementioned point in which the conflict reaches its lowest point, just before the solution is introduced (end of act II). There's a midpoint twist, which is little more than a major turn in the course of the conflict.

 

Its all very intuitive, and very inherent to the way in which humans tell stories. You don't, for instance, write a screenplay with the three acts prefigured. You just write and in the end, you'd normally find that you'd constructed something that amounts to a three-act structure. The main question is one of proportions. Its only natural that you would want the story to set off quickly, so the first act tends to be shorter than the second. The resolution, by its nature, isn't something that one can draw out too much, and is therefore also quite brief.

 

That being said, some stories can work even when these proportions are wildly off-base; and that's because the underlying principles (escalation, contrast, variety) are maintained. Again, its a case where something like a long first act would go down as a mere technicality.

 

As for trilogies comprising of three-acts, I don't mean that the individual films parallel the different acts. If we examine The Lord of the Rings as a three-act narrative, than the end of Act I is at the halfway point of The Fellowship of the Ring, when the Fellowship is formed; the end of act II is the destruction of Barad Dur, a good twenty minutes before the end of the film. Its not that each film is one act of three.

[Fabulin 3,511]

.

[bollemanneke 3,348]

Cloud atlas.

 

Okay, um, wow. I'm a bit confused. Perhaps today wasn't the best time to watch this movie because my brain has been grappling with the Brexit mess most of the week. Nevertheless, I quite enjoyed it. Although I lost some interest after 2 hours, the story was quite original. Halle Berry, Tom Hanks and Jim Broadbent were all fantastic, but Doona Bae was even more captivating. I'm definitely watching this one again, but will have to memorise who's who first because that will undoubtedly contribute to my understanding of this story. It's a little bit too much to take in after trying to understand a government forcing its members to vote against their own motion.

The score is equally good. I especially loved the creepy, futuristic music in Somni's story. They could have written better pieces for the scenes in the 1800s, though.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

1 hour ago, bollemanneke said:

Cloud atlas.

 

Okay, um, wow. I'm a bit confused. Perhaps today wasn't the best time to watch this movie because my brain has been grappling with the Brexit mess most of the week. Nevertheless, I quite enjoyed it. Although I lost some interest after 2 hours, the story was quite original. Halle Berry, Tom Hanks and Jim Broadbent were all fantastic, but Doona Bae was even more captivating. I'm definitely watching this one again, but will have to memorise who's who first because that will undoubtedly contribute to my understanding of this story. It's a little bit too much to take in after trying to understand a government forcing its members to vote against their own motion.

The score is equally good. I especially loved the creepy, futuristic music in Somni's story. They could have written better pieces for the scenes in the 1800s, though.

I really like this one. It’s too bad the Wachowskis will never get a big budget again. 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Nor should they. 

[bollemanneke 3,348]

Why, what happened to them?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,527]

JUPITER ASCENDING happened.

[Chen G. 3,949]

2 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

Why, what happened to them?

 

 

[bollemanneke 3,348]

12 minutes ago, Richard said:

JUPITER ASCENDING happened.

Ah, now it makes sense.

[A24 4,333]

Cloud Atlas, Jupiter Ascending ... The difference is only two points. 

[crocodile 8,012]

Space Cinderella was still quite entertaining. It was incomprehensible and preposterous...but at least I had a good laugh.

 

Karol 

[Fabulin 3,511]

.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The Razor's Edge

 

Bit of a slow start but a good film. Strong performances from Gene Tierney and especially Anne Baxter, who often looks like she belongs in a different movie, maybe a more modern movie. I'm not sure what Tyrone Power's inherent saintly "goodness" is meant to be all about, but it contrasts well with Tierney's calculating bitchy cruelness.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

13 minutes ago, Fabulin said:

but I found the characters rather unsympathetic

 

Isnt that the point though?

[Jay 37,359]

How weird is it that between Cloud Atlas and Jupiter Ascending, the Wachowskis made two movies featuring people getting turned into liquid to feed to others?

[crocodile 8,012]

44 minutes ago, Jay said:

How weird is it that between Cloud Atlas and Jupiter Ascending, the Wachowskis made two movies featuring people getting turned into liquid to feed to others?

And there's also the one with Keanu Reeves...

 

Karol

[Jay 37,359]

Oh my god you're right!

 

They've directed 7 movies and 5 out of the 7 feature this concept - only BOUND and SPEED RACER do not!

How weird is that?

[crocodile 8,012]

Braveheart. I've only watched it once before on a VHS tape in the mid-1990's. It's very competent and enjoyable if somewhat silly. The UHD Blu-ray looks rather good too.

 

Oh it's extremely well scored film. Horner really nailed this one. It's a long score bit doesn't seem like there's a single wasted note. The spotting and mix are both great too. 

 

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

48 minutes ago, crocodile said:

It's very competent and enjoyable if somewhat silly.

 

It's a fucking bloodcurling masterpiece, mate!

 

Makes me wanna kill some fuckin' English!

[John 2,032]

Racist!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Two years of BREXIT will do that to a man!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The word "brexit" makes me crave biscuits.

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

2 hours ago, crocodile said:

It's very competent and enjoyable if somewhat silly.

It's a fucking bloodcurling masterpiece, mate!

 

Brother!

 

To speak to the supposed "silliness" of the film, I think its extremly humourous when it needs to be, and deadly serious for the rest of the time. Trying to watch it with my family ended with them running away from the living room after Murron's execution. Too grim.

 

For me personally, Its not a film I can rewatch too often: its much too weighty for that; I've seen it maybe three times. But man, when its trying to be funny, it is hillarious! When I first saw the Irish and Scots meet on the battlefield, I almost rolled over laughing: it was like something out of Monty Python! and of course moments later the film goes extremly sombre.

 

I hear the UHD is the stuff of legend; which - when a film is shot by the inimitable John Toll and transfered to 4K under his supervision - is to be expected, I suppose. It was always a gorgeous looking movie.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I think I watch it every seven years or so. Masterful stuff.

[Chen G. 3,949]

I often revisit moments from it: mostly to remind myself what great directing/editing/photography/scoring is. I've also read the script: there's so much to be learned from how it differs to the final edit.

 

Whenever I just need a boost, there's this moment:

 

 

Transcendent!

[crocodile 8,012]

Oh it's very well made. But history bit is bit fishy to me.

 

Karol

[Romão 2,274]

It's great in many departments. Not in screenwriting, though

[publicist 4,643]

I find it too comic book-ish in its many cardboard stereotypes (both characters and situations). It's a boy's movie.

[Chen G. 3,949]

If I had to choose a weaker link in the piece, I would agree that it is the screenplay. But there is greatness in the script, nonetheless. A lot of the humor I reacted so well to is Randall Wallace's own; and I do like that his script doesn't treat The Bruce Senior's point of view as a mere strawman: he makes a lot of good arguments, and some of the dialogue is extremly clever: "Uncompromising men are easy to admire. He has courage, so does a dog. But it is exactly the ability to compromise that makes a man noble." That's not untrue.

 

Its just that all the other departments are firing at 11, so the script firing at a 9 can feel much worst than it actually is. Even "comic book-ish" bad guys like Longshanks aren't really too far removed from historical figures of the 20th century, for instance, or from Turkic Khagans such as Atilla or Tamerlane.

 

And, of course, its the treatment of the screenplay that counts. By not sanitizing the violence enacted by our heroes, the film does have some complexity. In fact, its the deeds of the Scots which are depicted in all their gory detail, while the deeds of the English are mostly hinted at.

 

Added to that, whole pages of dialogue were torn out for this film (there are stretches of 10-15 minutes at a time with nary a word of dialogue!) and it helps to iron out some of the more histrionic aspects of the script. For instance, there's this scene:

 

 

which on the page not only happened on the battlefield (with Wallace being unmoved from his shock, even by arrows hitting him!) but also featured some rather cheesy dialogue:

          
               Bruce is horrified at the sight of Wallace this way. He 
               batters at Wallace's sword, as if its use would give him 
               absolution.

                                     ROBERT
                         Fight me! Fight me!

               But Wallace can only stagger back. Bruce's voice grows ragged 
               as he screams.

                                     ROBERT
                         FIGHT ME!

I think the scene works much better without those lines! Its like the inverse of a Christopher Nolan film.

 

1 hour ago, crocodile said:

But history bit is bit fishy to me.

 

Not the country whose history I research for a living, but as I understand it, William Wallace's life isn't particularly well documented. Its more a piece of myth than history, and large parts of the film have an appropriate air of myth and legend. William and Murron's secret wedding wouldn't look out of place in an Arthurian movie, as the wedding of King Arthur and Guinevere. The way its shot and scored just gives it that feeling, and its that much more charming for it.

 

Besides, this isn't a documentary: its a narrative film. Its intention isn't to stimulate your intellect with fact, but to stir your emotion. That's the sort of thing that cinema does best. If I wanted facts and a cerebral examination of Scottish history, I'd sooner turn to books, instead.

[Jurassic Shark 12,074]

13 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I often revisit moments from it: mostly to remind myself what great directing/editing/photography/scoring is. 

 

A great score, but it could have had more accordion.

[Fabulin 3,511]

.

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

18 minutes ago, Fabulin said:

A sluggish, self-indulgent shot leading to a 1960s Tarzan scream

 

I think its visceral.

 

You don't typically see films playing so blatantly for their audience's bloodlust, but its an impulse that we all have buried somewhere. The better to experience it from the safe distance of the screen, methinks.

 

As for being "sluggish", I think the greatest trap this film could have fallen into (given how green its director was at the time) was to be cut short into a choppy two-and-a-half hours. Its not sluggish: its patient. It takes the time to establish an atmosphere, to let you drink in the fantastic visuals, to let the low-points fester, to milk the suspense out of the build-up to the action.

 

That mode of storytelling is so rarely seen nowadays (and was already quite hard to come by at the time) that it makes this film all the more special. Takes a helluva lot of confidence to cut one's film like that!

[Fabulin 3,511]

.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Sometimes, its a real shame English isn't my native language. I had just the right word in my mind  to reply to this, but now I have to look it up in the dictionary.

 

Ah, there it is! under N.

 

no [noh]

---

adverb

1. (a negative used to express dissent, denial, or refusal, as in response to a question or request)

[Jurassic Shark 12,074]

It's a greatly entertaining film.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

A great score, but it could have had more accordion.

Hey I use to play the accordion. It can get you beaten up.

[Jurassic Shark 12,074]

Just now, JoeinAR said:

Hey I use to play the accordion. It can get you beaten up.

 

You should start scoring French films!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Just now, Jurassic Shark said:

 

You should start scoring French films!

I had to play Polish  polkas for my dad

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,074]

You should play them on the discord channel!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Do you want me to get beaten up. Beside I sold it. It has value in that it gave me skills to play the piano