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

[A24 4,337]

53 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Get Out

 

That said, I still think the violent third act is the weakest part of the movie.

 

I agree, easily the weakest part of the movie, which is sad, because before that it was really good.

[Holko 9,526]

So, while everyone's off watching SW9 and I can only do that on Monday:

Love (1970)

(No, that's Iván Darvas, not Colin Firth)

 

Wonderful character drama based on 2 combined short stories from the same author, both firmly roted in reality and real life stories.

We follow 2 women: one whose husband has been recently imprisoned for political reasons and is slowly becoming a social pariah, being ousted from a prestigious teaching job, losing sole ownership of her flat and so on, and the husband's dying 90 year old but still intelligent mother, who nevertheless lives in the belief (or does she?) that he is off making movies in America, having the time of his life, a lie the wife keeps up with forged letters to make the mother-in-law she doesn't even like that much happy and content. The best filmic adition is quick fleeting cutaways or more prolonged montages suggesting memories and thought processes, the history and life of the mother and everything.

Like most of our greatest work, it had political difficulties in being made, and can be easily viewed as a veiled criticism and stand against its current political system, while technically depicting the more openly radical earlier one.

Cannes winner, very often counted among our best classics, and I liked it very much.

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Star Wars : The Last Jedi - yes OK, this one divided the fandom and I agree some of the decisions are ... odd. But I mostly either don't mind, like, and sometimes really like what's in there *shrug*.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

How dare you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[A24 4,337]

3 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Star Wars : The Last Jedi - yes OK, this one divided the fandom ...

 

Only Star Wars and TESB  were able to unite the fandom.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Wasn't TESB a bit controversial at first? Fans had to warm to it.

[A24 4,337]

I only remember we liked it just as much or even more than the first one. The third one was another story ...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The third one was and has been incredibly beloved by fans, even though you never liked it.

 

I used to, kinda, when I was a teenager. Though I did wonder why we needed another Death Star, or teddy bears, and why was Vader no longer menacing?

 

Now I think it's a bad film. And a very damaging one to Star wars in general.

[A24 4,337]

10 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

The third one was and has been incredibly beloved by fans, even though you never liked it.

 

 

 

Stop trying to change history. It was generally seen a the least of the three, even by those who liked it, and I'm putting it mildly. You had fans who were severely disappointed. Han Solo was weak and The Ewoks gave it a kids movie vibe. It wasn't uniting the fans, neither did The Prequels. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It didn't need to. The fanbase wasn't broken.

 

ROTJ currently rates 81% on Rotten Tomatoes, btw.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Leonard maltin gave it 3½ stars out of 4

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Still very much beloved by fans.

[A24 4,337]

5 minutes ago, Þekþiþm said:

Leonard maltin gave it 3½ stars out of 4

 

Did he represent the fanbase of that time? He liked so every Star Wars fan liked it?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

1 minute ago, Alexcremers said:

 

Did he represent the fanbase of that time?

 

He gave Empire SB a 4!

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

17 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

why we needed another Death Star

 

Because the old one blew up, duh.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars, Alex. 

[A24 4,337]

11 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

The fanbase wasn't broken.

 

 

 

All my friends who loved Star Wars and TESB thought it was very bad, so what I'm telling you is first-hand information. You only know what JWFan tells you.

 

4 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars, Alex. 

 

Ebert likes kids movies, and ROTJ was geared at a much younger audience.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Roger Ebert is one of the least authentic critics ever.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

Why do you think that?

[A24 4,337]

A long, long time ago, Star Wars and TESB were firmly rooted in the top 10 of IMDb while ROTJ had to be satisfied with a #117 spot. This proves that, with ROTJ, a part of the fandom was beginning to disconnect from Star Wars. This was partly corrected or made good by a new and much younger audience to whom ROTJ was their first Star Wars experience. But ROTJ was never in the same league.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But now it is!

 

Even though it sucks, there are worse Star Wars films now.

[Edmilson 7,457]

I really like ROTJ, more than most people at least. For me, it's one of the best SW movies.

 

It seems that, for SW fanatics, the only two universally beloved and flawless movies are ANH and TESB, the other ones were in various degrees of shit. So, out of 11 movies, just 2 are good and the other 9 are trash (so, just 22% of good movies), well... It's not good for the saga.

 

At least the Middle Earth movies have three beloved movies and three shitty movies, so, a 50% score.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

There are 4 Star Wars films I think are really good and worthwhile. 

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

I'd rank ROTJ as the least good of the original trilogy. MOST of it is still rattlingly good fun, but oh God those bloody Ewoks ...       

[Romão 2,274]

1 hour ago, Alexcremers said:

 

Only Star Wars and TESB  were able to unite the fandom.

 

Most of the fans back then were kids. It's much harder nowadays to juggle 3 different generations of fans

[Edmilson 7,457]

13 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

MOST of it is still rattlingly good fun, but oh God those bloody Ewoks ...       

 

The Ewoks are indeed terrible, but for me the pros outweight the cons by a mile. I love how the Rebellion creates a carefully planned attack, but then it is revealed to be a trap by the Emperor, and they are in a much dire situation. The whole climax of ROTJ is one of my favorite action scenes of all time because of that! It was so good that they decided to copy it years later...

 

Spoiler

not only on TLJ but also on TROS.

 

For me, out of the 11 live action SW movies, there is:

 

4 good ones: ANH, TESB, ROTJ and TLJ

4 "meh, whatever" ones: ROTS, TFA, R1, Solo

2 bad ones: TPM, AOTC

1 REALLY BAD one: TROS

 

Haven't seen that Clone Wars movie released on theaters in 2008.

[Quintus 5,399]

37 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

I really like ROTJ, more than most people at least. For me, it's one of the best SW movies.

 

It seems that, for SW fanatics, the only two universally beloved and flawless movies are ANH and TESB, the other ones were in various degrees of shit. So, out of 11 movies, just 2 are good and the other 9 are trash (so, just 22% of good movies), well... It's not good for the saga.

 

Don't worry, the "RotJ is good/bad" conversation comes up here about fifteen times a year, you get used to it, boring as it is. 

 

But yeah, I think it's impossible to write it off - what with it having some of the best, most iconic and memorable scenes in the entire series within it. And it's still better than the new trilogy, for my own money.

[Romão 2,274]

10 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

 

 

4 good ones: ANH, TESB, ROTJ and TLJ

4 "meh, whatever" ones: ROTS, TFA, R1, Solo

2 bad ones: TPM, AOTC

1 REALLY BAD one: TROS

 

 

I agree completelely with your ranking

[Chen G. 3,949]

Return of the Jedi is...alright.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

11 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Return of the Jedi is...alright.

 

Its a bad film, and a damaging one!

People refuse to believe me on this!

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

It's only damaging to your reputation.

[Chen G. 3,949]

31 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Its a bad film, and a damaging one!

People refuse to believe me on this!

 

Oh, I see the damaging part, yeah. Its here that Star Wars became this soapy familial affair, with not just Vader being Luke's father but Leia being his sister.

 

Before you know it, Anakin's mother becomes a major character in the prequel trilogy, Boba Fett's father features prominently in Attack of the Clones, Palpatine was almost turned into Anakin's father, and now we have Ben Solo and Rey Palpatine.

 

Plus, it set a strong theme of redemption for the series which was fine for Vader (at least, before he was made a mass-murderer of children after the fact in the prequel trilogy) but reaches moral bankruptcy when it comes to Kylo.

 

But Return of the Jedi does have its saving graces. Namely, anything to do with Luke and Vader. That stuff really works, and it is an effective culmination of either the trilogy and/or the sextet.

[A24 4,337]

49 minutes ago, Romão said:

 

Most of the fans back then were kids.

 

Teens.

 

57 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

 but oh God those bloody Ewoks ...       

 

Don't forget Han Solo, Ford clearly didn't give a damn anymore. His part was badly written as well

[Romão 2,274]

3 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

Teens.

 

Or that. My point is, the movie didn't have to please simultaneously to people that were in their teens, their 30's and their 50's. Not many film franchises carry that load

[SteveMc 2,674]

I agree with Stefan.  ROTJ is a weak film that took Star Wars away from the kind of edge it had.  SW and TESB strode the line between popular entertainment and artistic filmmaking like nothing else before or since.  They were both films and events.  ROTJ firmly established Star Wars as a kind of franchise, and, despite George's kind of uncertain efforts to make things more "serious: with trade wars and child massacres, he could not escape the breakdown of that balance on ROTJ.  

Say what you will about the Disney Trilogy, they are the spiritual as well as chronological successors to ROTJ.

[A24 4,337]

Lucas wanted to sell more toys and therefore ROTJ was geared to the demographic that still played with toys. 

[Pellaeon 593]

I have long thought Return of the Jedi was weak. Vader doesn’t do anything evil, Han doesn’t do anything cool (never even got to fly the Falcon). Some factors have improved my appreciation of it:

• I used to always watch Empire and Jedi back to back, and the step down in quality from one to the next was hugely apparent. Now I always try to spread it out over three nights: ESB, RotJ (Tatooine adventure), and RotJ (the rest), which helps a lot (i.e., by quarantining the worst part).
   
• Reading The Thrawn Trilogy, which of course follows on RotJ and incorporates it, but returns to the fun format of ESB, makes RotJ seem like less of a problem.
   
• Watching The Ewok Adventure with my kids. And listening to Yub Nub with my kids. They LOVE the Ewoks!
   
• Watching over-busy movies which pass for grand finales these days really makes me appreciate RotJ’s pacing and intimate focus on a small group of friends, and of course the really solid Luke-Vader scenes.
   
• That moment the whole rebel fleet goes into Hyperspace. I will never not get a thrill from that feeling that this is the grand finale!

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

For Your Eyes Only

 

 

Welcome to the 1980s, 007.

 

This isn't one of the better Bonds, but still, not bad. Its running time certainly exceeds its content. This one's a prime example of a movie that you end up forgetting what it was even about at a certain point. I've been watching these movies for 30 years and I still don't really know what this one is about or why it opens with a ridiculous scene of a helicopter being remotely hijacked by that Inspector Gadget villain, this time unseen. Sadly, the rest of the movie never delivers that sort of over the top silliness.

 

Moore was getting up there in years but it still didn't seem to matter at this point. Supporting characters are alright in this one. The figure skating bimbo is hilarious. There does seem to be too much of a Winter Olympics theme going on here for my taste. While Bond seems to spend a lot of the flick getting his ass handed to him, there is one extremely effective kill where he kicks a villain's car off a cliff and looks particularly intimidating. There is also a ridiculous over-engineered robotic scuba diver suit at one point, which explodes.

 

Overall, definitely watchable, but kinda boring as far as Moore 007s go despite having skiing, car and dune buggy chases, rock climbing, scuba diving, revenge, buying lillies in advance for a guy Bond kills, lady getting hit by a dune buggy and an underage blonde who likes old men.

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

19 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

Don't forget Han Solo, Ford clearly didn't give a damn anymore. His part was badly written as well

Yeah, after being denied his wish that Han should die heroically (Lucas apparently thought it would hurt merch sales) Ford probably saw it as mere contract fulfilment. 

2 hours ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

For Your Eyes Only

 

 

Welcome to the 1980s, 007.

 

This isn't one of the better Bonds, but still, not bad. Its running time certainly exceeds its content. This one's a prime example of a movie that you end up forgetting what it was even about at a certain point. I've been watching these movies for 30 years and I still don't really know what this one is about or why it opens with a ridiculous scene of a helicopter being remotely hijacked by that Inspector Gadget villain, this time unseen. Sadly, the rest of the movie never delivers that sort of over the top silliness.

 

Moore was getting up there in years but it still didn't seem to matter at this point. Supporting characters are alright in this one. The figure skating bimbo is hilarious. There does seem to be too much of a Winter Olympics theme going on here for my taste. While Bond seems to spend a lot of the flick getting his ass handed to him, there is one extremely effective kill where he kicks a villain's car off a cliff and looks particularly intimidating. There is also a ridiculous over-engineered robotic scuba diver suit at one point, which explodes.

 

Overall, definitely watchable, but kinda boring as far as Moore 007s go despite having skiing, car and dune buggy chases, rock climbing, scuba diving, revenge, buying lillies in advance for a guy Bond kills, lady getting hit by a dune buggy and an underage blonde who likes old men.

FYEO is actually one of my favourite Moore Bonds, along with Live And Let Die and The Spy Who Loved Me. 

[SteveMc 2,674]

I've gone on record already that I kind of hate FYEO.  Just rubs me completely the wrong way.

[A24 4,337]

What about the song? I remember that I liked those piano stabs at the time.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Good 80's disco pop song. Maybe not a classic, but good.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

"A-TAC to St. Cyril's, A-TAC to St. Cyril's".

That bloody parrot is just about the only bit I remember, and then it turned up, again, this time in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

[A24 4,337]

55 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Good 80's disco pop song. Maybe not a classic, but good.

 

Is 'For Your Eyes Only' a Disco song? I thought it was just a ballad. 

[SteveMc 2,674]

I like the song, and it would have made a very fine sweeping theme in a better movie.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Lawrence of Arabia

I'm really glad for not only rewatching this, but having a read of Robert Bolt and Michael Wilson's screenplay. Since the last time I watched this film, it left we an impression of the character that I previously described here as:

 

Quote

Unlike other tragic figures who lose themselves during the course of the story, Robert Bolt’s screenplay subtly suggests that Lawrence is a narcissistic, sado-masochistic, thrill seeking piece of work from the very start. He doesn’t get developed - he gets revealed.

 

He speeds on his motorbike, he extinguishes a match with his bare fingers, he makes a mess of the poll table, he wants to go the desert and later conceives of the quest of Aqaba, both out of sheer vanity and thrill-seeking.

 

Now I realize I was overstating my case. Yes, Lawrence is presented from the very start as masochistic, a bit reckless and slightly contemptous of English mannerisms, but all of these traits are presented as latent and without derision on the part of Lean and his writers. They serve not so much as a showing of Lawrence's true colous, but rather as the basis of his tragic fall that is to come.

 

In reading the screenplay, its appearant that part of the issue is my under-estimation of Lawrence's sympathy for the Arabs and their culture: there was a bit more of it in the script than in the final edit. For the first part of the film, Lawrence is being genuinely heroic and sympathetic towards the Arabs.

 

Speaking of editing, many people don't know this but when Lean helped restore Lawrence he recut it, removing six minutes which were present in the film's premiere. Among these six minutes is an extended conversation between Lawrence and Allenby, in which the latter manipulates and convinces the former to rejoin the Arabs. I have no idea why Lean cut it - maybe the redubbing wasn't up to par? As it is, the scene is so short as to make Lawrence's change of heart seem too ubrupt. Still, I get what Lean was going for and I admire him for it.

 

Also, Lean does the kind of drawn-out landscape montages much, much more elegantly than Kubrick does them in 2001.

 

****1/2 out of *****

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

On Her Majesty's Secret Service - annual festive rewatch. In its 50th anniversary year this is still 'high-end' Bond, up there with the likes of From Russia With Love, The Living Daylights and Skyfall.  

[bollemanneke 3,349]

Charlie and the chocolate factory.

 

I watched this one 13 years ago at boarding school and still remember our warden reading the subtitles of the lyrics because we couldn’t understand them. Today, I immediately noticed glaring plot problems. Why did grandpa Jo never tell Charlie about having worked for Wonka until the moment this movie begins? Why can Wonka make ice cream that never melts while he is unable to build a palace that never melts? The narrator sounds rather drunk, but Johnny Depp is perfect, as is this version of his character. I love how all the children come from different countries, but the card finding sequence was a little rushed and the Gloops should have spoken some German. Also, isn’t this story set in England? Why does Charlie find $10 in the street, then? All the actors are amazing, although I did get tired of Charlie at the end, and why don’t any of the adults rebel in that factory? Also, was Wonka planning on giving Charlie any education at all? Wish they’d film the sequel, though.

Some of the music is exquisite, but why on earth do other parts sound like a creepy circus show or the prelude to the Vietnam war? The songs are amazing, though, and I just loved the use of also sprach Zarathustra. Time for a banana. Know why, know why? It will always be a mystery.

[SteveMc 2,674]

JFK (1991)

A few things about this one.  First, the editing is delicious.  Very unique indeed.  Second, the ensemble cast plays fantastically for the most part.  It may just be me, but I can't help but thinking Costner is a tad too light an actor for these things.  But, her serves Stone's purpose well.  Score works very well too, of course.

The problems that this movie has stem from Stone.  The idea of there being a conspiracy behind Kennedy's death is not really the issue, it may well be the truth.  The thing is, Stone does not leave you much room to really think about it.  He certainly believes there undoubtedly was such a conspiracy and will admit little room for dissent here.  The guy in the film who brings up doubts is part of the conspiracy. The villains are caricatures, very obviously the "bad guys."  Garrison is portrayed as a noble hero, but, in real life, he was not so clear cut.  Stone would have made a better more compelling movie to me, if Garrison was shown as a decent if hard fellow who peels back the impeccable facade of the seemingly solid "bad guys" but in doing so becomes so obsessed with the truth he consumes himself and obscures the concept of justice, with all this mixed stuff on display in the courtroom scene.

Still, it is rather compelling as it is.

3/4

 

Dr. No

This must have been quite a revelation when new.  Connery's cool, the stirring electric guitar and brass theme (though it is odd to hear 50s type scoring in spots), the quick, sharp pace.

Good stuff.  But, a couple of gripes  One, well, maybe I'm a snob or maybe I'm a product of my times, but I'm not big on these "male fantasy" Bond girls with their innuendo names, perfect bodies matched to kind of underdeveloped personalities but fully developed sexuality.  Ursuala Andress's character started this all, I suppose.   

Two, the finale is kind of laughable.  Bond causes a mini-Chernobyl, is inches away from the out of control reactor (which, of course, has a setting that allows it to go up to 11), and lives to tell about it.         

3/4

[A24 4,337]

21 hours ago, SteveMc said:

JFK (1991)

A few things about this one.  First, the editing is delicious.  Very unique indeed.  Second, the ensemble cast plays fantastically for the most part.  It may just be me, but I can't help but thinking Costner is a tad too light an actor for these things.  But, her serves Stone's purpose well.  Score works very well too, of course.

The problems that this movie has stem from Stone.  The idea of there being a conspiracy behind Kennedy's death is not really the issue, it may well be the truth.  The thing is, Stone does not leave you much room to really think about it.  He certainly believes there undoubtedly was such a conspiracy and will admit little room for dissent here.  The guy in the film who brings up doubts is part of the conspiracy. The villains are caricatures, very obviously the "bad guys."  Garrison is portrayed as a noble hero, but, in real life, he was not so clear cut.  Stone would have made a better more compelling movie to me, if Garrison was shown as a decent if hard fellow who peels back the impeccable facade of the seemingly solid "bad guys" but in doing so becomes so obsessed with the truth he consumes himself and obscures the concept of justice, with all this mixed stuff on display in the courtroom scene.

Still, it is rather compelling as it is.

3/4

 

 

 

True. Oliver Stone isn't the most subtle director around. He's a maker of statements, not suggestions.