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

[Jurassic Shark 12,076]

9 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

how to draw a performance from an actor

 

Easy - jusy make the actor think he's gonna drown.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

But then, if there's one thing James Cameron how to do inhumanely well its how to sequel.

But he’s only ever done one sequel. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

Its not to his own film, but Aliens...

[Koray Savas 2,251]

25 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

A great filmmaker doesn't stop being a great filmmaker. The kind of innate feel that a person like Cameron has for where to place the camera, how to draw a performance from an actor and ESPECIALLY how to cut a sequence together, how long to dwell on a shot, etc - that doesn't go away.

Zemeckis stopped being great, in my opinion.

[Jay 37,364]

5 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

But he’s only ever done one sequel. 

 

Piranha II: The Spawning

 

Aliens

 

Terminator 2

 

Avatar 2

 

Avatar 3

 

Avatar 4

 

Avatar 5

[LSH 968]

1 minute ago, Koray Savas said:

Zemeckis stopped being great, in my opinion.

 

This.

[Jay 37,364]

 

 

After Avatar 4 comes out he will have made more sequel movies than original movies.

 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

55 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

He stole everything from Roger Dean. Visionary my a$$!

Right Richard? 

Right, Alex! 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, LSH said:

Why's that?

Because I have absolutely no intention of watching any of them.

 

 

37 minutes ago, LSH said:

The Terminator is the best horror film ever made.

THE EXORCIST

ALIEN

 

 

38 minutes ago, LSH said:

Terminator 2 is the best action film ever made.

DIE HARD

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

[Chen G. 3,949]

3 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

DIE HARD

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

 

Those are very different types of action movies, though. Die Hard being much smaller in scale, and Raiders being an action-adventure movie, with emphasis on the adventure.

 

Anyway, Terminator 2 is definitely up there in the action movie pantheon.

 

Goddamit, I believe, James! I BELIEVE!

[Quintus 5,399]

5 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

Zemeckis stopped being great, in my opinion.

 

A long time ago. 

 

The one thing I'd say about James Cameron is this: never, ever bet against him.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

12 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

Piranha II: The Spawning

 

Aliens

 

Terminator 2

 

Avatar 2

 

Avatar 3

 

Avatar 4

 

Avatar 5

Let's not forget that Cameron co-wrote RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PT. II.

 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

But he’s only ever done one sequel. 

...and two remakes: TRUE LIES and TITANIC.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Those are very different types of action movies, though. Die Hard being much smaller in scale, and Raiders being an action-adventure movie, with emphasis on the adventure.

 

Anyway, Terminator 2 is definitely up there in the action movie pantheon.

 

Goddamit, I believe, James! I BELIEVE!

Say what you like, Chen; they're both better than T2.

[LSH 968]

6 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

THE EXORCIST

ALIEN

 

I wasn't being entirely serious, however if you strip away the sci-fi element from The Terminator, it's essentially a slasher movie. And a fucking efficient one at that.

 

Every one of them is essentially a cat-and-mouse scenario, but the first one felt terrifyingly claustrophobic and raw. It's horror. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

I'll give you that. It's his best film, by far.

[Chen G. 3,949]

The feels of Titanic, though...

[Edmilson 7,455]

1. Aliens

2. T2

3. T1

4. Titanic/Avatar

 

I haven't seen Piranha 2, and caught just the end of True Lies on TV. 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

The feels of Titanic, though...

Er...I'm sorry, could you translate that last post into something approaching English?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Would you mind repeating it? In English, perhaps. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

You people are made of stone!

[Quintus 5,399]

Anyway, my nomination for action movie (and Die Hard is a f*ckin' awesome movie), would be Predator.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

1 hour ago, Koray Savas said:

Zemeckis stopped being great, in my opinion.

So Forrest Gump, Contact and Cast Away are better than Flight, The Walk and Allied?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

5 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

So Forrest Gump, Contact and Cast Away are better than Flight, The Walk and Allied?

I stopped watching his films after his terrible decade-long obsession with animation and the Lifetime TV drama that is Flight. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Allied was okay.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

6 hours ago, Quintus said:

Anyway, my nomination for action movie (and Die Hard is a f*ckin' awesome movie), would be Predator.

 

Watching clips of it a few weeks ago after having not seen it in about 15 years, I forgot just how well-crafted and intriguing the movie is. It's like an Indiana Jones movie where the opening (30-45 min in this case) is jam packed enough to be the climax of so many other movies.

 

Plus, holy crap is it badass. I felt like a sexual tyrannosaur, watching it.

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Fragile mathculinity

[LSH 968]

53 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

I stopped watching his films after his terrible decade-long obsession with animation and the Lifetime TV drama that is Flight. 

 

Flight had promise within the first few minutes (I remember boobs). However, as an aircraft engineer, the crash scene annoyed me to no end with its absurdity.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

HBO puts out so much violence and smut, yet they've taken down a movie from the 1930s?

[Jurassic Shark 12,076]

4 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

the Lifetime TV drama that is Flight. 

 

Sounds like a good match for a guy that loves Lost.

[Chen G. 3,949]

24 minutes ago, PuhgreÞiviÞm said:

HBO puts out so much violence and smut, yet they've taken down a movie from the 1930s?

As I understand it, they’re putting it back, unedited, with a disclaimer in front. Not an issue.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

As I understand it, they’re putting it back, unedited, with a disclaimer in front. Not an issue.

 

What do they think people are, kindergartners who need reassurance? How did society become such a bunch of infants?

[Chen G. 3,949]

I get it. But compared with taking the movie down or censoring/editing it, it’s really not an issue.

[Sweeping Strings 2,360]

14 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

Easy - jusy make the actor think he's gonna drown.

See also The Abyss. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I get it. But compared with taking the movie down or censoring/editing it, it’s really not an issue.

 

Nah they just wanna slap a retarded trigger warning at the front. "U ben vewy bad gonn wid da wind!"

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

As I understand it, they’re putting it back, unedited, with a disclaimer in front. Not an issue.

 

I don't know what this is about, but:

 

18 minutes ago, PuhgreÞiviÞm said:

What do they think people are, kindergartners who need reassurance? How did society become such a bunch of infants?

 

Not a bunch of infants. Rather infested by people who keep ridiculing others for not wanting to be constantly disadvantaged and harassed for being a minority, or different, or both. Usually the only ones who can't bear when these things are pointed out and always make a fuzz about it are those who are not themselves affected by these issues and don't seem to be too bothered by the fact that many others are (yet are curiously delight in calling those who are actually inconvenienced (and worse) by it "snowflakes").

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

19 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

Not a bunch of infants. Rather infested by people who keep ridiculing others for not wanting to be constantly disadvantaged and harassed for being a minority, or different, or both. Usually the only ones who can't bear when these things are pointed out and always make a fuzz about it are those who are not themselves affected by these issues and don't seem to be too bothered by the fact that many others are (yet are curiously delight in calling those who are actually inconvenienced (and worse) by it "snowflakes").

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

12 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

Usually the only ones who can't bear when these things are pointed out and always make a fuzz about it are those who are not themselves affected by these issues

 

I'm Jewish and I have no desire to see Lean's Oliver Twist or even Griffith's Birth of a Nation censored/removed, nor am I pleased with the decision to not play Wagner in my country.

 

There is no human right to not have one’s sensibilities offended: that's just an inevitability of living in a society that comprises of innumerable individuals with differing sensibilities.

 

A disclaimer would be quite harmless, though.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

5 hours ago, Chen G. said:

As I understand it, they’re putting it, unedited, with a disclaimer in front. Not an issue.

They pulled it to crop it to 16:9 like the rest of their catalogue

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

57 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I'm Jewish and I have no desire to see Lean's Oliver Twist or even Griffith's Birth of a Nation censored/removed, nor am I pleased with the decision to not play Wagner in my country.

 

There is no civil right that forbids people from offending other people's sensibilities: that's just an inevitability of living in a society that comprises of innumerable individuals with differing sensibilities.

 

There have been cases of children's books that have been "changed" in their German translations, e.g. changing the word "nigger" in Pippi Longstocking stories to something else. I don't agree with that, and partly because it doesn't change the characters' intentions (it doesn't really make a difference if Pippi's Swedish father is a "jungle king" rather than a "nigger king"). And while these things are undoubtedly and clearly racist from today's point of view, and correspondingly also were racist when they were written, they were not perceived as such (by their authors and "their" readers) at the time they were written, and I would imagine (and hope) that Lindgren would not write those passages them same way nowadays. As such, I accept them as a product of their time, albeit with problematic implications that readers should be aware of - especially children. An added disclaimer can point these out, and I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that (unless they disagree with the premise that these implications are negative, and if we want to debate that, then we're basically starting a debate pro/contra racism).

 

Personally, if I were a publisher (in any capacity) of such works, I wouldn't feel comfortable releasing such things without making a note.

6 minutes ago, Not Mr. Big said:

They pulled it to crop it to 16:9 like the rest of their catalogue

 

*That* I object to.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

4 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

See also The Abyss. 

My favourite Cameron film, by far.

18 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Easy - jusy make the actor think he's gonna drown.

"It's a whiteout".

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Oh my god, did you just say "problematic" unironically? Pfft

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

3 minutes ago, PuhgreÞiviÞm said:

Oh my god, did you just say "problematic" unironically? Pfft

 

Yes.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It's such a lazy word. What are the problems, why are they problems, and what are your solutions?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

It's an irony that those getting so angry over current "racist" issues, have never seen GONE WITH THE WIND, nor BIRTH OF A NATION, nor OLIVER TWIST, nor have read PIPPI LONGSTOCKING, nor have ever listened to Wagner, and, therefore, have absolutely no interest in examining these works, in any attempt to understand them, because they are too busy playing GRAND THEFT AUTO, and getting off on modern rap and urban soul, all of which portray black people as either sex obsessed, or gangsters.

[Edmilson 7,455]

In the future you won't be able to watch old movies and listen to classical music, because those will be deemed as "problematic". Your only options for entertainment will be Black Panther, Captain Marvel and, for the kids, the 2019 remake of The Lion King.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

1 hour ago, PuhgreÞiviÞm said:

It's such a lazy word. What are the problems, why are they problems, and what are your solutions?

 

To clarify:

 

1) Yes, I recognise that racism, sexism, etc. exist

2) Yes, I do consider them a problem

 

The solution would be simple: Don't be racist, sexist, etc. That includes not spreading it. The requirement for that is being aware of it. And the requirement for that is not complaining when people point it out.

 

55 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

It's an irony that those getting so angry over current "racist" issues, have never seen GONE WITH THE WIND, nor BIRTH OF A NATION, nor OLIVER TWIST, nor have read PIPPI LONGSTOCKING, nor have ever listened to Wagner, and, therefore, have absolutely no interest in examining these works, in any attempt to understand them, because they are too busy playing GRAND THEFT AUTO, and getting off on modern rap and urban soul, all of which portray black people as either sex obsessed, or gangsters.

 

I've seen Gone With the Wind (a bad film, and not because of racism), I've read and watched Pippi Longstocking over and over again as a kid, I'm a Wagner fan and frequently go to see his operas live. That's never prevented me from speaking out against racism, or from recognising the racist aspects of the film, the books, or Wagner - who, unlike (presumably) the previous two, was actively racist and even made explicit allusions to it at the very least in the closing lyrics of Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg. Examining these works and NOT recognising their racist allusions (or supporting or deliberately negating them) is what I would have issues with.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

5 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

To clarify:

 

1) Yes, I recognise that racism, sexism, etc. exist

2) Yes, I do consider them a problem

 

The solution would be simple: Don't be racist, sexist, etc. That includes not spreading it. The requirement for that is being aware of it. And the requirement for that is not complaining when people point it out.

 

You're pretty much preaching to the choir. There's no way you'll be able to convince KKK whackjobs and BLM rioters to kiss and make up. And picking fights with old movies and statues ain't gonna eradicate deeply ingrained societal divisions – that's just too much of a lip service gesture from an armchair.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

 

43 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

In the future you won't be able to watch old movies and listen to classical music, because those will be deemed as "problematic".

 

There's no reason not to listen watch old movies or listen to classical music, just as there's no reason to talk about the fact that, for example, slavery was a common aspect of "Western" society. What *is* problematic and fortunately not allowed anymore is actually owning slaves. And what's also problematic is speaking out in favour of slavery, or trying to silence those that try to point out when something presents it as a non-issue.

 

And before this gets blocked/moved for being a political discussion, I want to point out that it's mainly a *moral* discussion. That doesn't mean it's what this board is for, and it also doesn't mean that I want to start it over and over again when we're here to discuss completely different things. But if the recent outbreaks of racism have made me aware of something I haven't been doing right, it's not speaking out when people keep condemning and ridiculing any attempt (e.g. by recording companies, film studios) to raise awareness of it.

 

Just now, PuhgreÞiviÞm said:

You're pretty much preaching to the choir. There's no way you'll be able to convince KKK whackjobs and BLM rioters to kiss and make up. And picking fights with old movies and statues ain't gonna eradicate deeply ingrained societal divisions – that's just too much of a lip service gesture from an armchair.

 

There are people here who speak out against racism. And there are those who make a mockery of any attempts to point it out. And as long as that keeps happening, "KKK whackjobs" (who are in a totally different league than "BLM rioters") will feel justified and their kids will see their views as perfectly normal, because every attempt to make them aware that it isn't keeps getting undermined by people who can't stand others pointing out racism when they see it.

[Glóin the Dark 1,221]

1 hour ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

It's an irony that those getting so angry over current "racist" issues, have never seen GONE WITH THE WIND...

 

Lucky them!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Of course we're going to ridicule lunatics who think it's okay to pick on an old movie, as if that's going to eradicate people's age old tribal dislike of each other. Good luck with that!

[SteveMc 2,674]

 

The Terminator (1984)

By chance, I decided to watch this yesterday.  I really think this is cinema stripped down to the essentials.  Cameron had an idea, and the passion and confidence to make it work.  He wasn't going for lofty blockbuster or human goals, but the pieces managed to fall into place in a movie that is a blockbuster and is remarkably human.  The movie does look and feel like the low-budget affair that it is, but Cameron's direction is so to the point that it definitely rises beyond that.  As appropriate for the plot, the film feels both a product of its time and existing in its own time.  There's the usual 80s trappings: action, sci-fi, dry character humor, slasher/horror tropes, and big hair.  But the treatment of these elements is unique.  The action punctuates and adds to grittier human moments.  The setting is ordinary, everyday, with the sci-fi elements completely antagonistic or dystopian.  The horror tropes (and the flat photography) bring to mind the way Spielberg treated similar things in Jaws.  The humor integrates seamlessly with the darker overall texture.  And the 80s cultural trappings are not primary in the movie.  The main characters are literally or at least somewhat removed from the setting.  Sarah is not as over the top as her roommate, for example.  Cameron marks her as different, and thus we identify with her.

But the movie also feels distinctly modern, a (superior) progenitor of the darker toned films that have cropped up in the past 20 or so years.  The resolution of the movie's themes and character arcs are rather bleak.  Reese is not exactly a broken man, because he was never quite whole.  He lives in a constant PTSD state.  Only Sarah keeps him going and in his desperation he travels back in time, both for her and for him.  And, of course, when he becomes whole and happy he summarily dies. 

And Sarah herself is quite a modern protagonist, but one who is done well.  At the outset, she's a more grounded version of a damsel in distress.   She has to be forced to safety by the call to action that is Reese.   She's attractive, but not some unrealistically radiant princess.  She is not sexualized, which actually makes the romantic and sexual subplot feel more real.  When her sexuality is revealed, it is shown to be a strength that gives her power over Reeses's vulnerability.  And, at the end, she's literally forcing him to go on, and it is she who finally defeats the Terminator.  But, the ending is not neat.  The call to action sounds on, leaving Sarah in an isolated and lonely existence.  The denouement sets up Cameron's sequel very well in content and tone.

The movie has weaknesses, but they are mostly forgivable.  The time travel circular consequences are best not given too much thought.  The set up of the climax is a bit clumsy (that motel ends up being much closer to the city than previous scenes suggested).  And maybe it is because Schwarzenegger performance and presence is so titanic (no pun originally intended), but Biehn's performance as Reese is a tad on the "just there" side.  I mean, he sells the average guy element very well, but I can't help but feeling someone like Mel Gibson could have given the part more flair.  But maybe too much flair, taking some of the limelight off of Linda Hamilton, so the casting choice may have been the right one after all, financial considerations or no.     

They don't make them like this anymore.

4/4

 

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

45 minutes ago, PuhgreÞiviÞm said:

Of course we're going to ridicule lunatics who think it's okay to pick on an old movie, as if that's going to eradicate people's age old tribal dislike of each other. Good luck with that!

 

It *is* ok to pick on an old movie. It's *not* ok to pick on people for speaking out against racism.

 

Re "speaking to the choir", which I let slide earlier when I shouldn't have: To what choir am I preaching when I say the solution for racism begins with being aware of it to someone who, as far as I remember, has never spoken out against it on this board, but keeps speaking out against those who do?

 

The "KKK whackjobs" aren't the problem. They're the tip of the iceberg, and the worst, and there's very little chance that even one of them will change because people speak out against racism. There's a small chance that wannabe KKKs might reconsider. But none of them are the real problem. The problem is majorities of the population (in many countries) electing racists and white supremacists not because they themselves are actively racist (or even consider themselves racist), but because they don't consider it a problem, or aren't aware of how frequently it still happens, because they refuse to listen when others speak out. There is no neutral stance on Racism - you're either against it, or you're for it or at the very least not bothered by the fact that it happens. And if you consider yourself not racist but can't bring yourself to speak out against it, at the very least stop fighting those who do.