Jump to content

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


Mr. Breathmask
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, crocodile said:

He is simply incapable of being wrong. That is his only flaw.

Ooh, that's deep ;)

 

 

1 hour ago, rough cut said:

Isn’t Interstellar kind of long and a little boring?

The film, or the score? I'll admit: I like both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

It's a good movie experience, not a terribly good sci-fi film?

I would say so. Again, it's the difference between liking, and appreciating. As a SF film, it seems to rehash a lot of the original's ideas, but at least it reads like a logical extension of the BR narrative, and not a tagged-on, unnecessary sequel. I still don't think it works, but there is a lot to admire.

 

2 hours ago, crocodile said:

Must be that Deakins fella showing off!

For me, his best work is still 1984.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I'll admit: I like both.

 

What about Inception? Is it the stuff that dreams are made of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck that shit.

Sorry; bona fide heretic, here.

The man is a talented individual, who makes well-crafted pieces of entertainment.

He, also, has absolutely nothing to say about the human condition.

Every time I watch a Nolan film, I want to stand up, in the cinema, and shout: "...but he's naked!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that always puzzles me is people's perception that Nolan is (and supposedly also perceives himself) as some sort of auteur. That his films are supposed to be profound because they are so serious. I don't get that. They're mostly elaborate puzzle boxes meant to entertain you for a couple of hours. I mean Inception is a preposterous film and it's meant to be enjoyed as such. It's completely ridiculous concept with silly stuff happening left and right. There is no more meaning in it than there is an average Marvel or Pixar film. And I can't find a single quote from Nolan that it was designed as anything more than that. Why is it supposed to be that? Is it because of their earnest tone? I mean, sure, they tend to be more sombre than your average blockbusters but do we need a jokey Marvel humour ever five seconds to confirm you are in fact watching popcorn entertainment? Are people really that daft? 

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rough cut said:

Isn’t Interstellar kind of long and a little boring?

 

This describes practically all modern blockbusters tbh. Excessive runtimes for what are little more than slick overproduced popcorn movies are responsible for effectively killing off my interest in cinemagoing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Quintus said:

 

This describes practically all modern blockbusters tbh. Excessive runtimes for what are little more than slick overproduced popcorn movies are what effectively killed off my interest in cinemagoing.

What is the last time you genuinely enjoyed a blockbuster? Just curious.

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Quintus said:

This describes practically all modern blockbusters tbh. Excessive runtimes for what are little more than slick overproduced popcorn movies are responsible for effectively killing off my interest in cinemagoing.

 

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, crocodile said:

There is no more meaning in it than there is an average Marvel or Pixar film.

 

But the thing spins at the end and you don't know whether it will topple or not!

 

3 minutes ago, crocodile said:

What is the last time you genuinely enjoyed a blockbuster?

 

I watched Jaws a few weeks ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what would you guys consider the ideal runtime? Because I've rarely ever been bored by a modern blockbuster, but that's because I'm a youngster who's probably the target audience. What would be a good balance for getting just enough material in there before it gets excessive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HunterTech said:

So what would you guys consider the ideal runtime?

 

Variety is the spice of life, but I'd like there to be more really long films. Like four hours, or eight, or sixteen, or thirty-two...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, crocodile said:

What is the last time you genuinely enjoyed a blockbuster? Just curious.

 

Karol

 

Not exactly a blockbuster but the last time I went to the pictures was when I took my kids to see Call of the Wild, and the three of us loved it. That was 1hr 40mins. Sub 2hr popcorn movies are my optimal cinematic experiences. All those old 70s and 80s flicks I grew up with, scored by legendary composers and regarded as great movies today... almost all under 2hrs long.

 

Contemporary filmmakers lack discipline. All these spectacularly successful superhero movies which dominate cinema today, they are the definition of sloppy movie making IMO. Excess is a foreign concept to these guys.

 

I did sit down and watch Parasite at home the other day, which was quite a long film, but one that actually delivered for once. It was excellent. But I would never have used up an entire free evening just to go out and see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The perfect movie is 90 mins.

 

If it is longer than that it has already failed.

 

I’m not saying longer movies can’t be good, they just can’t be perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Quintus said:

Not exactly a blockbuster but the last time I went to the pictures was when I took my kids to see Call of the Wild, and the three of us loved it. That was 1hr 40mins. Sub 2hr popcorn movies are my optimal cinematic experiences. All those old 70s and 80s flicks I grew up with, scored by legendary composers and regarded as great movies today... almost all under 2hrs long.

It was ok actually. Nobody I know actually liked it though. I think people are genuinely disappointed these days if you watch something that simple and, as you say, this is a result of the Marvelisation and, yeah, Nolanisation of the modern films. There is that "weight" that people expect. 

 

As much as I hate to say this we probably need to partially blame James Cameron, Peter Jackson and whoever did the Harry Potter films for the running time problem because it's the late 1990's and early 00's when they showed 3-hour films can make tons of money and you can have serialised storytelling where audience comes back for more every year. Yes, I know they were adaptations of books but an average audience member probably wouldn't really care. I don't think we really had anything like that before... It's nothing to do with the quality of those films, I'm just pointing out what it looks like from the film business point of view.

 

2 minutes ago, Quintus said:

Contemporary filmmakers lack discipline. All these spectacularly successful superhero movies which dominate cinema today, they are the definition of sloppy movie making IMO. Excess is a foreign concept to these guys.

That's true. I like my Marvel movies but not so much for their filmmaking flair. I used to read comic books as a kid and it's a very nostalgic thing for me. I enjoy them because the concept is dear to me. As films, they're bit more of a guilty pleasure. But yeah, very difficult to tell the difference between those. People say James Gunn, Taika Waititi and Joss Whedon supposedly each have a distinct "brand" of humour. I don't have a fucking clue what the difference is and I know these films very well.

 

2 minutes ago, Quintus said:

I did sit down and watch Parasite at home the other day, which was quite a long film, but one that actually delivered for once. It was excellent. But I would never have used up an entire free evening just to go out and see it.

Parasite is awesome. I have this limitless cinema membership and they have mystery films thing where you don't know what you're going to see. It's a perfect way to watch this. I've not heard a thing about this beforehand (it was back in December, I think?). I loved it. It was a complete surprise.

 

I actually do recommend limitless membership because as long as you go to cinema two or three times a month is worth £18. Single tickets are really expensive already. And while out of 75 films (or so) that I watched in 2019 most were shite (probably 70%), it's good to know what is coming out. And if you like something you can watch it as many times as you like as well. It's sort of like having another streaming service. But I see it might be a problem if you have a bigger family for regular cinema trips.

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, crocodile said:

 

As much as I hate to say this we probably need to blame Peter Jackson 

 

Oh I think the enormous success of LotR and the first trio of Harry Potters are purely to blame. When producers noticed that not only was there suddenly a big appetite for longform high fantasy but that these kinds of films could even win academy awards and be thought of as mainstream in the broadest sense, the floodgates were well and truly opened. Anything could be a sprawling epic after that, at least in conception. Execution was another matter though. Beginning with Jackson's own King Kong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, crocodile said:

I actually do recommend limitless membership because as long as you go to cinema two or three times a month is worth £18. Single tickets are really expensive already. And while out of 75 films (or so) that I watched in 2019 most were shite (probably 70%), it's good to know what is coming out. And if you like something you can watch it as many times as you like as well. It's sort of like having another streaming service. But I see it might be a problem if you have a bigger family for regular cinema trips.

 

But how is that working out during Corona?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

But how is that working out during Corona?

Cinemas are closed and they don't charge.

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the movie length thing ... I had enjoyed IT Chapter 1 enough (although admittedly it was the 80s small-town America stuff more than the horror stuff) to initially have had an interest in seeing Chapter 2. That rapidly diminished when I heard it was nearly 3 hours long (I know the book is a hefty tome ... took me a long time to finish it back in the day but for God's sake horror doesn't need to be of 'epic' length, IMO) although I haven't ruled out recording it when it's on television and watching it over 2 nights.    

A Walk In The Woods - amiable comedy adventure with Robert Redford as travel writer Bill Bryson who decides to hike the 2000+ mile Appalachian Trail and Nick Nolte as his buddy along for the journey. Plenty of 'there's life in the old dogs yet' chuckles to be had, along with some spectacular landscapes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, crocodile said:

 it's the late 1990's and early 00's when they showed 3-hour films can make tons of money[...]I don't think we really had anything like that before

 

The 50s and 60s say hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, crocodile said:

I mean on a regular basis several times in one year. Surely that wasn't that regular back then.

 

Well, it was pre-blockbuster-era so I suppose the "blame" goes to Jaws rather than anything from the 2000s.

 

But in terms of movies being long? We've got nothing on the 50s/60s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biblical and historical epics weren't regular cinema entries though. Really long movies didn't dominate cinema practically all year around. Moreover, those sorts of films have a certain gravitas and heft about them which helps justify the long runtime. I mean, fuckin' Aquaman has no business being almost two and a half hours long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of my favorite filmmakers (Coens and Wes Anderson more recently, Lubitsch and Capra from way back) consistently make movies that are under 2 hours, often well under.  There's something to be said for brevity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quintus said:

Biblical and historical epics weren't regular cinema entries though. Really long movies didn't dominate cinema practically all year around.

 

They were quite frequent, but its important to remember they were distributed in a completely different manner to films nowadays, starting with a roadshow that toured different cities and showed the films for months on end (which is how films like Gone With the Wind or Doctor Zhivago made such obscene amounts of money: they were on for years!) with pricier tickets, before it started trickling down to standard theaters, where it was usually cut down a size.

 

Also, the films were usually structured in two parts which were relatively standalone, with an intermission that helped alleviate the length: you never actually sat down for longer than 140 minutes at a time, at the very most.

 

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

There's something to be said for brevity.

 

There absolutely is, but I personally rarely mind length in movies. Pacing is a different thing, though.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.