General movie chitchat

[Glóin the Dark 1,222]

1 hour ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

...truth to tell, he was, probably, aware of these, anyway...

 

He's always talking about how The Red Shoes was one of his early favourites.

 

Quote

 in 2009, I wouldn't have had one of the greatest cinematic experiences of my entire life: watching the restored THE RED SHOES.

 

I saw it in the cinema in 2009 too. (Pretty small auditorium, but beggars can't be choosers...)

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

I saw it at my local art house (whatever the hell that means) cinema.

After it had finished, I sat there, numbed at the artistic and technical achievement of the film. I simply couldn't move from my seat, for a few minutes.

[Glóin the Dark 1,222]

3 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I simply couldn't move from my seat, for a few minutes.

 

I had no choice - I had to run like the hammers to catch my train. A bit like the end of the film.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

6 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

 A bit like the end of the film.

 

SPOILERS!!! 

[JTN 2,037]

44 minutes ago, A24 said:

 

Some here don't like Scorsese because he attacked Marvel superhero movies. 

And some like him even more for it.

[Mr. Hooper 1,794]

50 minutes ago, A24 said:

 

You sound happy that all the money goes to superhero movies. Ah, well ...

Not at all, just saying that might be a reason for his criticism.

[A24 4,345]

2 hours ago, JTW said:

The thing with Scorsese is the same as with Spielberg.

 

Don't write Spielberg off just yet. The Fabelmans is his best movie since CMIYC. 

[JTN 2,037]

40 minutes ago, A24 said:

 

Don't write Spielberg off just yet. The Fabelmans is his best movie since CMIYC. 

Yeah, he made a movie about himself and his family. (So did Bergman and Truffaut, I know.)

Didn’t like it. His last truly great film imho was Saving Private Ryan. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

His last truly truly great film, was EMPIRE OF THE SUN.

[A24 4,345]

 

 

1 minute ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

His last truly truly great film, was EMPIRE OF THE SUN.

 

Perhaps his only true great film.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

JAWS,

CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND,

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK,

E.T.

There's four to be going on with.

 

[A24 4,345]

20 minutes ago, JTW said:

Yeah, he made a movie about himself and his family. (So did Bergman and Truffaut, I know.)

Didn’t like it. His last truly great film imho was Saving Private Ryan. 

 

I never said it's great but his best since CMIYC.

 

3 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

JAWS,

CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND,

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK,

E.T.

There's four to be going on with.

 

 

But those are just shallow entertainment, right? Entertainment to please large audiences. Empire Of The Sun is on a different plane.

[Mr. Hooper 1,794]

Strange that Schindler's List isn't being mentioned, if the criteria for a truly great movie is that it needs a weighty, serious subject.

[Schilkeman 964]

I think Spielberg is less interested in making the Grand Gesture these days, and choses projects that interest him in smaller and more specific ways. Maybe its an American thing, but I think Lincoln is one of his finest films, and I'm a big defender of Tintin, War Horse, West Side Story, Munich, and The Terminal, but I think some people mistake scale for greatness, and since he merely makes historical films, not historical epics, these days, with the occasional flight of fancy, they get thought less of. His craft is as high as it's ever been, even if he lets a few more lumps in the potatoes for texture.

[A24 4,345]

5 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Strange that Schindler's List isn't being mentioned 

 

Brought down by the 'I could have done more' scene. It could have been a contender though.

 

[Faleel 5,359]

19 minutes ago, A24 said:

 

Brought down by the 'I could have done more' scene. It could have been a contender though.

 

So....

 

...it could have been more? (Or, I guess in this case, less...)

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

It's not that "I could have done more" is bad. It's just that it simply didn't happen.

I know that all films are made up - lies, if you like - but Mrs. S. said that it wasn't like that, and she should know; she was there.

Spielberg has said that the scene represented "all of us", and our desire to help. In this case, he should have been a bit more oblique.

 

 

 

12 hours ago, A24 said:

... those are just shallow entertainment, right? Entertainment to please large audiences.

 

Of course they are. It's not called the "film industry" for no reason.

That doesn't mean that someone can't find something profound in any of those four films.

"Deep and meaningful" isn't always a shot of a man standing in a quarry, staring into space.

[Schilkeman 964]

34 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Of course they are. It's not called the "film industry" for no reason.

That doesn't mean that someone can't find something profound in any of those four films.

"Deep and meaningful" isn't always a shot of a man standing in a quarry, staring into space

I’ve often found deep truths hiding out in supposedly shallow entertainment.

Roger Ebert reviewed There Will Be Blood as, “a film that is easy to call great, but I’m not convinced of its greatness.” A sentiment I agree with for that particular film, and one I carry with me into any film I watch. 
 

He also said the job of the critic is simple, it is to ask, “Why?” Well, I think that’s shorthand for “engaging in good faith.” I give any art the benefit of the doubt, and have been duly rewarded with an appreciation for things a large number of people seem to write off. Great art can come from anywhere. Their loss.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

Make no mistake: THERE WILL BE BLOOD is a great film.

That it lost to NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is a crying shame.

[A24 4,345]

42 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

 

Of course they are. It's not called the "film industry" for no reason.

That doesn't mean that someone can't find something profound in any of those four films.

"Deep and meaningful" isn't always a shot of a man standing in a quarry, staring into space.

 

It probably depends on the person. Personally I don't see or feel that there is much going on underneath the surface of Raiders Of The Lost Ark, and if there is, then I don't think it's something that speaks to me. Feel free to enlighten me, folks!

 

 

23 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

Roger Ebert reviewed There Will Be Blood as, “a film that is easy to call great, but I’m not convinced of its greatness.” A sentiment I agree with for that particular film, and one I carry with me into any film I watch. 

 

In 1982 Siskel and Ebert called Blade Runner a waste of time, so what do they know?

[Schilkeman 964]

9 minutes ago, A24 said:

In 1982 Siskel and Ebert called Blade Runner a waste of time, so what do they know?

In 1982 they would have been right.

 

11 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Make no mistake: THERE WILL BE BLOOD is a great film.

That it lost to NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is a crying shame.

The Coens should win for every film they make.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

You're right, @Schilkeman.

BLADE RUNNER had to wait for the cinema world to latch onto its greatness. The film waited, patiently, for the world to catch up.

There were a few critics who appreciated it, but they were drowned out by the noise of the unenlightened and the uneducated.

I saw it on its first weekend in London in September, 1982, and I was left breathless by it. It jumped straight to #2 on my all-time favourite films list, and it has stayed there, and, after 41 years, it shows no sign of dropping.

[Jurassic Shark 12,083]

#1 is the Barbie movie?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

(sigh) Fecking eejit.

[Schilkeman 964]

9 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

You're right, @Schilkeman.

BLADE RUNNER had to wait for the cinema world to latch onto its greatness. The film waited, patiently, for the world to catch up.

There were a few critics who appreciated it, but they were drowned out by the noise of the unenlightened and the uneducated.

I saw it on its first weekend in London in September, 1982, and I was left breathless by it. It jumped straight to #2 on my all-time favourite films list, and it has stayed there, and, after 41 years, it shows no sign of dropping.

Not quite what I was going for, but you flatter me with what I assume to be a purposeful misreading of my comment. Admittingly, I saw the director's cut first, and got around to the theatrical later, and found it somewhat off-putting. I'm sure it had its fans in its day, or it never would have been re-cut. It's definitely up there on my list as well. Probably top 10.

 

And my original point wasn't to agree with everything Ebert said about every movie, just that he had a way of thinking about them that I appreciate.

[A24 4,345]

 

7 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

 

BLADE RUNNER had to wait for the cinema world to latch onto its greatness. The film waited, patiently, for the world to catch up.

There were a few critics who appreciated it, but they were drowned out by the noise of the unenlightened and the uneducated.

 

 

That was mostly in the US, where they didn't understand it. Americans!

 

To be honest, I needed a second viewing as well, but luckily that second viewing occured only 3 days later. It was like watching a different movie, which goes to show that going into a movie with the wrong expectations can make a huge difference.

 

Same thing happened to me with 2001: ASO. The poster linked it to Star Wars and so that was exactly what I expected. However, it did not give me Star Wars and so I didn't really like it. Latere viewings changed my mind completely.

 

Movies do not change, but their viewers do. - Roger Ebert

[JTN 2,037]

15 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

His last truly truly great film, was EMPIRE OF THE SUN.

This was.

[JNHFan2000 2,967]

I've actually seen Empire Of The Sun yesterday for the first time ever.

 

I thought there were moments that were part of a masterpiece, but others that were not. It wasn't a perfect film imo but very solid one

 

[A24 4,345]

52 minutes ago, JNHFan2000 said:

I've actually seen Empire Of The Sun yesterday for the first time ever.

 

I thought there were moments that were part of a masterpiece, but others that were not. It wasn't a perfect film imo but very solid one

 

 

That's quite positive for a first-time viewing. Much more positive than when I first saw it in 1987. However, you can't fully grasp heavily layered movies like Blade Runner or Empire Of The Sun (where no image can be trusted) on a first-time viewing. It's only after multiple viewing that you can look past story and characters.

[Mr. Hooper 1,794]

11 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

I think Spielberg is less interested in making the Grand Gesture these days, and choses projects that interest him in smaller and more specific ways. Maybe its an American thing, but I think Lincoln is one of his finest films, and I'm a big defender of Tintin, War Horse, West Side Story, Munich, and The Terminal, but I think some people mistake scale for greatness, and since he merely makes historical films, not historical epics, these days, with the occasional flight of fancy, they get thought less of. His craft is as high as it's ever been, even if he lets a few more lumps in the potatoes for texture.

He doesn't have anything to prove anymore. Schindler's List finally got him the recognition he wanted as a "serious filmmaker", and got the monkey off his back of just being seen as a maker of populist entertainment. To add to your mashed potatoes metaphor, the rest was just gravy.

 

In recent Spielberg, I love West Side Story. It's technically brilliant. But he could've coaxed a little more emotion out of Maria when Tony dies.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

Tony dies???!!!!

Thanks a lot, dude (!) 

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

On 19/10/2023 at 2:53 PM, JTW said:

I'm not too interested in seeing a 3-hour long film about the creation of the atomic bomb.

 

Spoiler alert: It's not.

[JTN 2,037]

2 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

Spoiler alert: It's not.

Spoiler alert: 

Spoiler

“the film chronicles the career of Oppenheimer, with the story predominantly focusing on his studies, his direction of the Manhattan Project during World War II, and his eventual fall from grace due to his 1954 security hearing.”

 

[Schilkeman 964]

8 minutes ago, JTW said:

Spoiler alert: 

  Hide contents

“the film chronicles the career of Oppenheimer, with the story predominantly focusing on his studies, his direction of the Manhattan Project during World War II, and his eventual fall from grace due to his 1954 security hearing.”

 

Just watch Doctor Atomic.

[Mr. Hooper 1,794]

4 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Tony dies???!!!!

Not actually, it was a dream sequence...

Just a dream...

All is well...

 

 

 

[JTN 2,037]

1 minute ago, Schilkeman said:

Just watch Doctor Atomic.

So Oppenheimer is about creating the atomic bomb.

1 minute ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Not actually, it was a dream sequence...

Just a dream...

All is well...

 

 

 

a dream within a dream…

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

14 minutes ago, JTW said:

Spoiler alert: 

  Hide contents

“the film chronicles the career of Oppenheimer, with the story predominantly focusing on his studies, his direction of the Manhattan Project during World War II, and his eventual fall from grace due to his 1954 security hearing.”

 

Exactly. That's much more content than just the creation of the atomic bomb. That's just one driving force and one (major) stepping stone in a rather long film that I'd say has several more important key topics than the bomb (and even those relating to the bomb are just partly about its creation).

 

What I'm saying is that there's way too much interesting stuff in the film to justify reducing it to "the atomic bomb film". Just like The Social Network isn't "that film about Facebook".

[Jay 37,372]

It's really more about what happened after the bomb went off than what led up to it, though obviously covers both

[JTN 2,037]

26 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

Just like The Social Network isn't "that film about Facebook".

But it is.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I caught the ending of Lost World last night. As flawed as that film is the ending is just amazing. 

[Mr. Hooper 1,794]

6 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

I caught the ending of Lost World last night. As flawed as that film is the ending is just amazing. 

I enjoyed the original, and remember first watching the T-Rex scene with my mouth hanging open, so I'm not sure why I passed on this one. I guess I was just single-mindedly into Star Wars in 1997.

 

Is the third worth seeing at all?

[Ollie 1,059]

@Mr. Hooper if you like dinosaurs, yes. 

[Mr. Hooper 1,794]

I'll take that as a "no". 😄 But I guess it can't be much worse than sitting through Jurassic World: Dominion.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

1 hour ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Is the third worth seeing at all?

 

It's got Sam Neill and William H. Macy, so... yes.

 

Spoiler

"Alan!"

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

 😄I guess it can't be much worse than sitting through Jurassic World: Dominion.

 

It's not.

[Edmilson 7,469]

1 hour ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Is the third worth seeing at all?

Not really, no. It is way too short, unsatisfying and easy to forget. Good Don Davis score though.

[Mr. Hooper 1,794]

Speaking of forgettable...

 

 

I literally can only remember bits of the auction scene at the end.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

Is that the one with Toby Jones, and James Cromwell?

[Jay 37,372]

Yeah

[Edmilson 7,469]

26 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Speaking of forgettable...

 

 

I literally can only remember bits of the auction scene at the end.

That one is memorable to me... For all the wrong reasons.

 

Back in July of 2018, a few days after the Russia World Cup ended, I invited some friends to go to the theater with me. I offered them three choices: Ant-Man and the Wasp, Fallen Kingdom or Incredibles 2 (which I had seen before, but since I enjoyed it I wouldn't mind seeing it again in their company).

 

I wanted to see JWFK but the other two chose Ant-Man and the Wasp, so that's the one we decided. I wasn't too sad because FK had some rather crappy showtimes. Still, AM&TW was fun but a little too underwhelming, so I was left with the impression that Fallen Kingdom would've been a better choice.

 

Oh boy I was wrong... I saw finally saw it on my own a few days later and I was like: "Wow! What a shitty movie! How is it possible for a big budget movie be so incompetently written! Was this movie written by a toddler? I doubt there'll be a movie as awful as this released in 2018!".

 

Spoiler alert: I was wrong again, because Crimes of Grindelwald makes Fallen Kingdom look like The Godfather (despite the great JNH score).

[Mr. Hooper 1,794]

@Edmilson Sorry to have dredged up bad memories!

 

Did the nostalgia baiting work and get you into the theatre for JP: Dominion anyway?