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

[Matt C 453]

The Pillow Book

 

It's pretentious and too concerned with its artiness. Peter Greenaway seems more concerned about calligraphy on beautifully lit naked bodies (particularly Ewan McGregor) rather than a focused narrative or character piece. You could fast-forward through much of this movie and not miss a thing.

 

Vivian Wu was nice to look at though.

[publicist 4,643]

 

Effective 'Wicker Man' update that's less concerned with story beats than building atmosphere (sun-drenched instead of dark). The movie suggests that during the collision of a pagan swedish cult with a group of young american materialists, all dysfunctional in one way or another, that it's the weirdo sect that is able to overcome the deep trauma in a young american girl, while her selfish friends turn out to be a bunch of losers (in more way than one).

 

'At least it's an ethos', Walter Sobchack might have said about the swedish hillbillys, but the horror movie setup dilutes that message. It has a wonderful color palette, though, and feels fresh, if overlong. I'm not sure it works as a horror movie, but it's a movie you will remember, and for that alone it gets a a recommendation.

 

 

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Really surprised about your review.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The director’s cut is nearly 3 hours, I think, but really digs in deep with the tone and mood and placing you in the setting. I enjoyed the build-up more than the climax. 

[KK 3,307]

I've heard the director's cut is better than the theatrical as well. But haven't gotten the chance to check it out. The whole thing is more of a mood-piece than you standard horror anyway, and a pretty devastating one when operating at its peak.

[blondheim 1,157]

7 hours ago, publicist said:

 

Effective 'Wicker Man' update that's less concerned with story beats than building atmosphere (sun-drenched instead of dark). The movie suggests that during the collision of a pagan swedish cult with a group of young american materialists, all dysfunctional in one way or another, that it's the weirdo sect that is able to overcome the deep trauma in a young american girl, while her selfish friends turn out to be a bunch of losers (in more way than one).

 

I agree completely. Wicker Man is a better film, practically perfect, but this was very similar in many regards. I like Aster's films, but they seem to lack a point. (Not including The Strange Thing about the Johnsons, which is his best and most original work imo.) He spent a movie trying to 'make a girl smile?' I am unsure how I feel about that. Incredibly well-made though. There are a quite a few images that will stick with you, but I question if it is style over substance. Maybe I expected too much? I will definitely be watching it again, so it isn't a waste of time by any means.

[publicist 4,643]

To me, the horror movie setup demands the penultimate image of the burning barn, as a way of breaking up with the past, but imho a drama without the horror stuff maybe would have communicated it better. The beginning is too earnest for the gaudy finale, so to speak.

[blondheim 1,157]

1 hour ago, publicist said:

To me, the horror movie setup demands the penultimate image of the burning barn, as a way of breaking up with the past, but imho a drama without the horror stuff maybe would have communicated it better. The beginning is too earnest for the gaudy finale, so to speak.

 I actually thought the opening scene was the strongest in the entire picture. My problem is that his films want to be frustrating. Like watching someone walk into a trap and yelling at them not to. Rather than fearing for them (since you are always clued into the danger as an objective bystander), you are only frustrated that they can't discern what's up. Nothing wrong with frustration. I just think you can rarely float a movie on it unless you build it into the premise. The movie Child's Play does this very well, although it is not that scary. But watching the child protest and protest while no one believes him is far more effective in context than what Aster tries to maintain for 2+ hours, which is have an entire film function as one long gaslight.

[publicist 4,643]

I don't think 'Midsommar' wants to be frustrating, it's just part and parcel of the genre trappings that things play out like they do - or you wouldn't have a horror movie. I also don't think you are *always* clued in, things begin pretty cozy, it's only halfway through the movie we get the first signs of irritation.

[A24 4,331]

The problem for me was motivation and characterisation. I like my cult groups to be a little more than just a bunch of anonymous, faceless fruitcakes. A good example of a cult are The Sparrows in GOT.

 

[blondheim 1,157]

From the beginning it is pretty evident that there is something going on. The first scene is meant to make us feel on unsteady ground, it's the entire point of it really. The whole movie is about trauma. She doesn't feel safe, so neither do we. Like I said, nothing wrong with that, but the whole time they are there, they ask questions and receive cryptic answers or lies, thus my description of the movie as one long gaslight. Having been gaslit myself a lot in my life, maybe that is why it frustrated me so much. I don't deny anybody else their pleasure. It is a movie I will watch again, I definitely didn't hate it. But I question its reason for existing. The most interesting thing about it is the amount of sunlight. Otherwise, it is about making a trauma victim find something that is not really bliss, and also not really peace. Instead, we are left with an ambiguous smile that is conveniently pat with that sun mural at the beginning. That is sort of my problem with it. I hope that explains it a little better.

[publicist 4,643]

The best interpretation to the cryptic answers or lies (are there any?) the sect offers i have is that the movie aims at a symbolization of something that is alien to western society mores, and thus, feels alienating. As it is not necessary for that symbol (that could have been anything, really) to be explained beyond its cathartic role for the main character, they didn't do any explaining, but use it as a sick joke to get rid of her *old* ties. Which explains why I find it too long, because for that, 90 or 100 minutes should have been more than enough.

[KK 3,307]

Yea, the cult stuff, as fun as it can be, is mostly window dressing for the core story anyway, which is about trauma. And Aster can be pretty surgical with how he hits those beats in the head.

[publicist 4,643]

In final analysis, the movie prompted me to go to Hungary again, Orban or not.

[Quintus 5,399]

The Sparrows were where GoT started to go downhill lol

 

[Sweeping Strings 2,358]

What About Bob? - in which the titular lovable-but-uber-neurotic character (Bill Murray) follows his stuffy new therapist (Richard Dreyfuss) when he goes to his holiday home with his family (in order to plug his new book via a Good Morning America interview) and proceeds to unwittingly ruin his life.

This consistently funny delight is a nice reminder of what PG-rated live-action comedies used to be like, as opposed to the kiddie fodder they tend to be nowadays.

[Jurassic Shark 12,071]

5 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

What About Bob?

 

What about him?

[publicist 4,643]

He reminds me of my favorite poem, which is, 'Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic... and so am I'

[blondheim 1,157]

10 hours ago, publicist said:

Which explains why I find it too long, because for that, 90 or 100 minutes should have been more than enough.

 

Movies need to go back to being 90 minutes long.

[bollemanneke 3,344]

Ratatouille.

 

I still don’t like Parisians speaking English with French accents, but then Ian Holm (and Peter O’Toole) started talking. Great story, humour and good voice cast, but the ending was rather hasty and clumsy.

The score is quite nice too and the lack of reverb wasn’t too distracting. The lack of emotion in the sad cues was, though. Truly impressive sound mix, however. Time for some desert.

 

[Edmilson 7,436]

Drive

 

Direction, cinematography, score and acting are all pretty excellent on the film. The only things that aren't that great are the songs, too on the nose.

[bruce marshall 1,315]

MASK OF THE PHANTASM

WOTW

 

Rewatch

[Naïve Old Fart 9,520]

7 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

Time for some desert.

You're in England, now; it's "pudding".

[bollemanneke 3,344]

Haha, I'm not there yet.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

6 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

You're in England, now; it's "pudding".

 

Not if you don't eat your meat it isn't.

[bollemanneke 3,344]

The magnificent seven, 2016.

 

Haley Bennett is terrible and Peter Sarsgaard only became good in his final scene. The story is entertaining enough and the humour is great, as is Chris Pratt and Vincent D’Onofrio. Now, why did they have to die? I still like Denzel Washington too, even loved him at the end. There are too many main characters to get invested in, though the pacing is just perfect. I need to watch more Westerns.

I don’t like ambient scores that are rooted in D minor, but I do like Hornerisms. Knowing James Horner is no longer around made those familiar vocals sound really sad and the second half is definitely more interesting.

[bruce marshall 1,315]

EXORCIST II

in honor of Ennio I finally got around to this, the only individuals score in my Morricone collection of which I had not seen the movie.

I endured the pain for Ennio.

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,520]

Like the film, it's trashy, but fun.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Whenever John Boorman does genre (sci-fi with Zardoz, fantasy with Excalibur, horror with Exorcist II) it sucks. His thrillers and dramas are generally better.

[Quintus 5,399]

Pity we didn't get his Lord of the Rings.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Between reading the script and comparing with Excalibur (being his surrogate project) I dread the notion.

 

You read the script, you watch Excalibur and you know he would’ve stuck that ridiculous plate-armour on the Rohirrim. No thank you. I’ll take Bakshi’s animated film.

[A24 4,331]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Whenever John Boorman does genre (sci-fi with Zardoz, fantasy with Excalibur, horror with Exorcist II) it sucks. 

 

 

IMDb scores: 

 

Excalibur: 7.4/10

Zardoz: 5.9/10

Exorcist II: 3.8/10

 

Looking at people's appreciation levels, Excalibur seems to find itself on a different plane than Exorcist II. At least it wasn't a generic Hollywood job.

 

I definitely prefer it over King Arthur (2004). 

 

 

 

[Glóin the Dark 1,220]

Do you prefer it over The Spaceman and King Arthur (1979)?

 

[A24 4,331]

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, Alexcremers said:

Looking at people's appreciation levels, Excalibur seems to find itself on a different plane than Exorcist II. At least it wasn't a generic Hollywood job.

 

I definitely prefer it over King Arthur (2004). 

 

 

Excalibur had carved out a unique niche for itself, which is beyond me. Reportedly, its even an "absolute favourite" of Jackson himself.

 

I mean, sure, it looks pretty, although to my mind when the entire film is in soft focus, it dilutes the effect; and while he has an impressive cast, the performances are really over-the-top and hokey; characterization is all over the place due to the erratic time jumps required to tell the entire Arthurian story; the style of art design is ridiculous; the concept of "the dragon" is a blatant ripoff of "The Force", etc...

 

Not for me.

 

I've since seen some of Boorman's other works - Point Blank, Deliverance and Queen and Country - I recognise he's a good filmmaker. I also finds interviews with his rather insightful and appearantly he's a very gracious filmmaker: unlike Bakshi, he was unstinting in his praise for Jackson's Rings, saying he was glad he hadn't made his, for fear it would have robbed Jackson of the opportunity. But his forays into genre do his a disservice.

[A24 4,331]

On 7/19/2020 at 2:08 PM, Chen G. said:

 Reportedly, its even an "absolute favourite" of Jackson himself.

 

I don't know why, but somehow I suspected that.

 

 

I remember that 'looks wise' it was a bit of a game changer. 

 

Excalibur:

 

 

 

Before Excalibur:

 

 

 

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

Sure, its not a prettified movie, but its also (not unlike Exorcist II) way too stylized. Its hard to take that armour seriously, and it gets even worse when we get to Camelot and they swap for this ridiculously-shiny armour that's impossible to take seriously. Dragonslayer, released the same year, had a more believable aesthetic.

 

And the performances! Some of the actors whose characters populate the early parts of the film like Corin Redgrave, Gabriel Byrne and Keith Buckley are clearly directed to scream their lines at the absolute top of their lungs. Its clearly an intentional attempt to make the early part of the film feel more primal by going for hightened, "theatrical" performances, but just because its intentional, that doesn't mean it works.

 

Other parts of Excalibur do look quite ravishing (although, like I said, the soft focus gets to be a bit much). Boorman always had an eye for pictorialism.

[A24 4,331]

I do agree with your soft focus point. It gives the film a special look, but yeah, if Boorman was after 'gritty, muddy and dark', a less glamorous lens choice would have been more 'compatible' with that feeling.

[Chen G. 3,949]

That and the shiny armour kind of undermine the aesthetic, yeah; and sometimes its just plain hard to see what's going on due to just how soft the focus is!

 

I believe Exorcist II and Zardoz also use soft focus, because for Boorman if the subject matter is at all fantastical, the only way to approach it is to make it very dream-like and surreal. I hear that for Zardoz, the softness was so much that prints made by IN/IP process were almost unintelligble.

 

In Excalibur, Boorman also uses green lighting, which instead of making the lush Irish scenery pop-out only drowns the natural green in the landscape.

[A24 4,331]

On 7/19/2020 at 2:49 PM, Chen G. said:

 way too stylized.

 

It's why Excalibur is one of Zack Snyder's favorites. 

 

On 7/19/2020 at 2:59 PM, Chen G. said:

That and the shiny armour kind of undermine the aesthetic, yeah; and sometimes its just plain hard to see what's going on due to just how soft the focus is!

 

Boorman also uses green lighting, which instead of making the lush Irish scenery pop-out only drowns the natural green in the landscape.

 

Wasn't the green lighting used whenever Excalibur was involved, to make it appear magical?

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

It seems that its used to denote magic, in general; which means that either Excalibur is there, or Merlin with his shiny skullcap, and so rather than a wash of diffused light, you get this clear reflection of the actual light source on these spotless surfaces.

[Quintus 5,399]

As hues of luminous green go, it isn't as bad as the dead army at Pelennor.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,520]

Alex Thompson did an Absolutely bang up job, on EXCALIBUR.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Whenever John Boorman does genre (...Zardoz...) it sucks.

ZARDOZ does not suck!

[Chen G. 3,949]

A few exerpts of Boormans Rings script, using Excalibur to see how it could have looked:

 

Quote

[Theoden] is on horseback, galloping at the head of the RIDERS of Rohan, armed, and armoured, helms flowing, favours flying.

 

 

Quote

[Merry] begins to undress her [Eowyn's] cold, stiff body, removing the thick leather armour.

 

 

Quote

ORCS are human-like creatures, with reptile and bird-like features. A kind of armour grows spontaneously from their bodies. [...when the Ring is destryed] The ORCS, rather like snakes, shed their scaled skins of armour, revealing themselves to have disgusting white slug-like skin, but rather human.

 

MEN AND ORCS
Hail Frodo! Lord of the Ring!
Hail Frodo! Lord of the Nine Fingers!

 

 

Then there's a funny one about the colours in the rainbow when the Last Ship departs:

 

Quote

rainbow arcs up from the water beyond the little craft.

LEGOLAS
Look! Only seven colors. Indeed
the world is failing ...

 

 

Wheras in an early draft of Excalibur, the titular sword is said to have been wrought...

 

Quote

when the world was young, and there were more than seven colors in the rainbow.

 

[bruce marshall 1,315]

12 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Like the film, it's trashy, but fun.

Fun?

Not!

I remember when EXCALIBUR came out. Some idiot reviewer for CFX panned the film. His main complaints being the armor wasn't " period accurate"!

Hmmmm.... I wonder if....?

 

It's a terrific film!

[Chen G. 3,949]

It really isn't.

 

The issue with the armour isn't whether its historically accurate or not: its that its just plain ridiculous. The armour in the early parts of the film is kind of okay, but much too bulky and even pieces which real armour does contain like the besagews and pauldrons end up looking absurd.

 

Then, when Camelot is created, everyone starts wearing this ridiculously-shiny armour, which (along with Camelot itself) goes 100% against the otherwise believable, grungy aesthetic. Between that and the style of acting, its a film that's incredibly difficult to take with any seriousness, and as a result the more disturbing overtures of the film come across as macabre.

[Sweeping Strings 2,358]

Funeral In Berlin - for its first half, the second Harry Palmer flick is breezy-ish fun even for a 'serious' spy thriller. Unfortunately, for me the plot became a tricky-to-follow welter of double-crosses in the second half and I found I lost interest somewhat. Still, fascinating to see the divided Berlin smack-bang in the middle of the period between the end of WW2 and the Wall coming down, the 'Colonel Stok' character is a hoot and Caine is on fine sardonic form throughout.

[A24 4,331]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Then, when Camelot is created, everyone starts wearing this ridiculously-shiny armour ... 

 

Which was actually realistic for royalty and high nobility. In the movie, it probably stands for illumination, peace and prosperity (instead of darkness, poverty and decay).

[Tom 4,654]

On 7/15/2020 at 5:47 AM, Sweeping Strings said:

This consistently funny delight is a nice reminder of what PG-rated live-action comedies used to be like, as opposed to the kiddie fodder they tend to be nowadays.

What else do you expect of a Yoda-directed movie?  

[Romão 2,274]

At least Excalibur tries to be its own thing on all levels. A bit like Dune, actually. They are flawed and sometimes very inconsistent. But no one can say they play it safe.

 

Of Boorman's more recent fare, I was actually quite fond of The Tailor of Panama