Jump to content

What is the Last Film You Watched? - Part II


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK, first I have to say that I enjoy watching "Batman Forever" more than "Batman Returns." The colors bring us back to the comic origins after being steeped in darkness for the first two movies. It did turn worse in "Batman & Robin."

Now, to my movies ...

The Indiana Jones trilogy. They are all great for their own reasons, but they are so different in tone and personality that it's hard to compare them. Harrison Ford is great in all three, though he seems to be phoning it in a couple of times in "Last Crusade." Musically, I love "Last Crusade" most, I think, because of the opening. The music we don't get on the CD is awesome, especially the first strains of Indy's theme when he gets to the whip and the early moments of the Grail theme. And then "No Ticket." How fun! I have a better appreciation of the "Raiders" music, mostly because I finally can fully identify the Ark theme. It seemed so subtle after Indy's and Marion's themes.

"Sugarland Express." A nice feature-film debut for Spielberg ("Duel" was made for TV). Too bad he was trying to make a slightly tamer "Bonnie & Clyde." I couldn't decide if this was supposed to be a comedy or action/drama. Ultimately, neither stood out. And there are 20 boring minutes in there that make the ending a little tiring. This definitely fits in with all the pre-"Jaws" scores, sonically muted but containing some very good moments, though there are only about 20 minutes of music in a 110-minute film. Nice themes all around.

I watched the first 20 minutes of "Conrack." Nothing outstanding about the music. But Jon Voight was good. I would have watched it all if I wasn't busy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I unfortunately have seen it but not the original Planet of the Apes (which I do not want to see because I have an aversion against Charlton Heston).

Watch it. It's a brilliant satire, and IMHO stands for pretty much the opposite of what Heston stands for in real life. Everytime I watch it, I'm surprised Heston took the lead.

Marian - who doesn't like Heston, but does enjoy some of his movies.

:) Sleepy Hollow (Danny Elfman)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ark theme is subtle? :) It have always loved it and never thought it was subtle or hard to notice or identify. It is equal to the Raider's march and Marion's theme in every respect. Especially combined with the Medallion theme he Ark theme is a brilliant and powerful motif full of wonder and at the same time dread. But I would not call it hard to notice or subtle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll explain myself, Incanus.

I haven't watched "Raiders" a lot, so the only music I often hear from "Raiders" is the march, which includes Marion's theme. So my conscious knows those two themes readily. Given that I don't listen to the "Raiders" CD much and don't often watch the film, my recollection of the Ark theme until now never caught my attention as well as the two themes I knew instantly.

In the film, I did recognize it pretty well, and enjoy it more than Marion's theme, for the reasons you mention.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, all his films were shot full frame, except for The Shining (I think) and 2001. If the others were shown widescreen, then the cinemas were wrong.

Well, The Shining is also 4:3 on DVD...

That's because Kubrick preferred it in 4:3 for the video release, but it's shot in 1.85:1.

Weird, isn't?

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's because Kubrick preferred it in 4:3 for the video release, but it's shot in 1.85:1.

Which is what I've been complaining all along. Either the theatrical version was crippled, or, if it really was shot in 1.85:1, then the DVD probably gives the viewer quite a wrong impression. For one thing, I consider the choice of aspect ratio to be important to the sense of scale a scene conveys.

Marian - who will watch The Others tonight, and perhaps The Shining afterwards as well.

:) The Frighteners (Danny Elfman)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw only the last 10 minutes of this on TV, and BASED ON WHAT I SAW, the main guy's acting was very wierd and unrealistic; the end was uber-abrupt, and I didn't enjoy it very much.

But I haven't seen the whole movie. :)  

~Sturgis

I thought Dennis Weaver was very good in that role. And I'm proud to say that Steven got the idea of using him from my little film, Touch of Evil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this on the internet:

"2001," was Super Panavision and should be shown in 2.20:1 in a 70mm print. "Spartacus" was Super Technirama, which was 2.35:1 in the 35mm prints, but might have been cropped to 2.20:1 in the 70mm prints.  

"Barry Lyndon," was released theatrically in 1.66:1, even in the U.S. since Kubrick insisted on 1.66 hard mattes being sent to the various theatres showing the film (1.85 is the common "flat" widescreen ratio in the U.S.).

"Dr. Strangelove," was released in home video in Kubrick's preferred "multiple aspect ratio" but there is no way it could have been shown that way theatrically since you cannot change projector mattes in mid-screening (although it could be shown in Academy 1.37 and various hard mattes could appear in the image, cropping it to 1.66 at times -- however, Academy 1.37 had pretty much become obsolete as a projection format in most theatres by the 1960's.) I saw it projected to 1.85 at the Cinerama Dome and the framing looked fine; it was a little "tight" so I suspect that 1.66 would look perfect.

"Clockwork Orange," probably should only be shown in 1.66.

"The Shining," Steadicam operator Garrett Brown has claimed that he was asked to frame for 1.85, but Kubrick since then has preferred that the home video versions be full-frame TV (basically Academy 1.37).

I think that "The Shining" and "Full Metal Jacket" would all look fine if projected at 1.66, even though I suspect that the original U.S. releases of both shown in the 1.85 format.

So 2001 and Spartacus were the only films shot in widesceen...

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites
the end was uber-abrupt, and I didn't enjoy it very much.

Uber-abrubt?! Strange, it's definitely one of Spielberg's best endings.

Hey Alex, I typed in ALL CAPS to try and cover my butt here; I said that based on the 10 minutes I saw, and I'm not judging the whole film. I even used a smiley. Maybe you should read the entire post before you respond like an asshole. :)

Oh, it's SturgiswantsmorePotter: That figures!

The old fallback, huh? :P

Can't say I missed you in your recent time away.

Thank you Marc for at least being mature about it, but I said twice that I'm not judging this film, only the 10 minutes I saw. Perhaps I'll watch the whole thing sometime, then make a judgement about it.

~Sturgis

Link to post
Share on other sites
What a jerk, Alex.  No wonder no one cared you were gone.

Watch the language, fellas!

Oh, and Weaver was really overdramatic and irritating in that role.  Kinda like some people here...

Hey, that means Weaver IS realistic. So you don't agree with Pottermore?! Ray! I'm surprised! How "unsheepish" of you!

Really, I've been here every day, but sometimes the dullness of the topics prohibits me from posting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the end was uber-abrupt, and I didn't enjoy it very much.

Uber-abrubt?! Strange, it's definitely one of Spielberg's best endings.

Hey Alex, I typed in ALL CAPS to try and cover my butt here; I said that based on the 10 minutes I saw, and I'm not judging the whole film. I even used a smiley. Maybe you should read the entire post before you respond like an asshole. :wave:

By just watching the last 10 minutes, you never gave the movie a chance, something you would have done if you were interested in the first place. But noooo, why would you? It's not Potter. It's just Spielberg's legendary debut. Why bother?

And even though you appear to realize that you can't judge a movie just based on 10 minutes, you say that Duel's ending is uber-abrubt anyway, thus attacking what is perhaps Spielberg's best ending yet. Alrighty then, tell me how this movie should end? Please, no magic wands or other trickery.

Let's see if the Potters have something else to say besides "jerk" and "asshole".

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes is quite enough to see what this movie is all about . . . Plus, it seems my gut feeling, although based on 15 minutes, is right.

No doubt you'll say that since you were talking about National Treasure, it's a wholly different matter. Which is malarchy.

. . .you say that Duel's ending is uber-abrubt anyway, thus attacking what is perhaps Spielberg's best ending yet.

Merely a matter of opinion. And "yet" makes it sound like you mean "up to that point," which would mean absolutely nothing.

Alrighty then, tell me how this movie should end?

Since when is this necessary when criticizing a film or score? Are we directors? I guess we all have several years worth of post-editing to do now!

Please, no magic wands or other trickery.

I sincerely hope you're at least amusing yourself. :wave:

Ray Barnsbury

Link to post
Share on other sites
Watch the language, fellas!

Oh believe me, that post has been edited.

Good. We can't have too many swear words around here, Ray. If I don't use them, I really don't see why you should. Besides, it doesn't fit your nice guy character.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and Weaver was really overdramatic and irritating in that role. Kinda like some people here...
Hey, that means Weaver IS realistic. So you don't agree with Pottermore?! Ray! I'm surprised! How "unsheepish" of you!
Er, no.  Overdramatic actually means unrealistic.

You missed the point. "Overdramatic and irritating. Kinda like some people here" means that it exists and therefore should be considered realistic. According to you, I am living proof that there are irritating people behaving overdramatically. So Dennis Weaver is based on real people like me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes is quite enough to see what this movie is all about . . . Plus, it seems my gut feeling, although based on 15 minutes, is right.
No doubt you'll say that since you were talking about National Treasure, it's a wholly different matter.

Yes, it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't judge a movie just based on 10 minutes.
15 minutes is quite enough to see what this movie is all about . . . my gut feeling, although based on 15 minutes, is right.

You quoted only a part of my sentence. I said HE realizes that HE can't judge a film in 10 minutes! And yet, HE did! He specifically attacked certain elements, even though he knew 10 minutes isn't enough to judge it. He knew and yet he did.

Absolutely, I said 15 min. is enough to see National Treasure is crap. And guess what? It IS crap! The movie has been universally crushed by practically everyone in the business. Heck, even 1 minute is enough because crap is crap. How can one not see it? And I was knew it from the start. Just like I did with Van Helsing. These films are meaningless and are solely made to piss on.

On the other hand, Pottermore attacks a classic and he does it in a rather ignorant way by targeting a famous and great ending. It's like saying Star Wars (1977) stinks because the villain didn't work. It's crazy talk! The difference is that crap makes itself known immediately. But if you're going to critique a classic, then you better do some homework first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the end was uber-abrupt, and I didn't enjoy it very much.

Uber-abrubt?! Strange, it's definitely one of Spielberg's best endings.

Hey Alex, I typed in ALL CAPS to try and cover my butt here; I said that based on the 10 minutes I saw, and I'm not judging the whole film. I even used a smiley. Maybe you should read the entire post before you respond like an asshole. 8O

By just watching the last 10 minutes, you never gave the movie a chance, something you would have done if you were interested in the first place. But noooo, why would you? It's not Potter. It's just Spielberg's legendary debut. Why bother?

I

AM

NOT

JUDGING

THIS

FILM!!

Does this make it clearer for you? I can't think of any other way to say it so it will penetrate your skull.

I am just talking about the ending as is seemed in the context. I don't particularly care if it's a classic or not. You have always been able to make your own opinions about a film, so why does it matter if it's a classic? If you agree with the general public, then obviously you're entitiled to your opinion, but it's status among films in general does not matter. I've never seen anyone twitch, grunt, wheeze, and moan in my life like Weaver did in those last 10 minutes.

You have also failed many times to inform us why you must drag Potter into everything when there is no relevence at all. Neil, since Alex seems intent upon not having an intelligent conversation and instead resporting to persistent name-calling, perhaps you could ask him to adress everyone by their username. Thanks! :)

And Alex, if you could please respond to so much in less posts; five in a row is more than one usually sees.

~Sturgis, who will not stop posting his opinions just because Alex is trying making him feel like he can't, which is against the rules :mrgreen:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Star Wars Episoe III Revenge of the Sith.

After seeing it a few times in the theater and last night on DVD, I think I'm ready to make an attempt at my final review.

I absolutely love the opening shot. I would put this behind the original (what could be better than that) as my second favorite of the episodes. The space battle as an entity by itself was done quite well I thought. George did a good job of making it feel bigger in scope than either of the ones in the originals without trying to outdo them. The friendly banter between Obi-Wan and Anakin was nice to see, but what I didn't like was the buzz driod sequence. Considering what takes place aboard Grievious's ship, I really don't see the need for this. There was already enough tension not knowing what they were going to encounter and I think Lucas could have made much better use of that time. Ultimately it slowed down the beginning too much where it should have been kept as a fast paced intro. The rescue of the Chancellor was good for the most part and the use of R2 to establish some humor before the film's more serious turn was perfect. I may be nitpicking here, but one thing I didn't like was Obi-Wan getting pinned down and staying unconscious for so long when later in the film he takes far harder hits from Grievous and is seemingly unfazed, but I digress. All in all the opening sequence was good, but I thought at 23 minutes or so, it was a bit too long considering how much more had to be covered.

The scenes involving Anakin and Padme were improved and more believable than the last time we saw them. How much is open to interpretation I suppose... The only one that really bothered me was the balcony sequence where they say how much in love with each other they are. I probably could have handled that alone, but what was so distracting is how thin Natalie was. Since it was shot at the last minute, Nat had already lost weight for V for Vendetta and she certainly didn't look anything like a pregnant woman. Considering how short and insignificant the scene really is, I'm not sure why Lucas felt the need to go to the trouble to do it under the circumstances.

Now one of the real strengths of the film for me was Palpatine's relationship with Anakin. The opera scene was fantastic and Anakin's overall seduction was handled well. For me the film reaches the highest point when Anakin has told Mace about Palpatine being Sidious. The duality of Padme watching from her veranda as young Skywalker waits in the Jedi tower is believe it or not one of my favorites of the film. The tension that is created knowing he will turn to the dark side truly shows the calm before the storm. After that, I thought Anakin pledging himself was a bit weak. This scene was the first time I really did a double take to myself. So Palpatine knew how to stop her from certain death, yet he suddenly tells Anakin that they can learn it together. Now I understand why he lied about that, but why didn't Anakin even question that at all?? I understand his obsession with saving Padme, but that makes him look a bit foolish. Especially since later he tells Padme that only his new powers can save her. Did I miss the part where he did indeed learn to stop her from dying? At any rate, I liked the Temple invasion shots at the beginning, but I thought it was a huge mistake to cut from him entering, right to the younglings. I'm not saying he shouldn't have necessarily shown that, but there should have been something in between.

On to the Duel. This is where the film loses me for a bit. I don't feel it was a let down because it wasn't the "biggest, baddest" of all time... I just think it was poorly executed. Let me say that the dialogue before it starts is great and was a perfect lead in. Now I had no problems with it up until the point where they climb on the broken off section and jump down to whatever those floating things were. I was completely distracted by the complete disregard for basic physics. There are metal floating devices on a lava river? I think I could have handled that, but what really bothered me was them stopping all of a sudden. The river is flowing fast and furious... Obi-Wan jumps and all of a sudden it stops as Anakin taunts Obi-Wan? Maybe I'm being picky, but that sequence seemed to contain no real consistency at all and frankly I am shocked those are the shots Spielberg worked on. What would have been ten times better is if the initial piece that broke off would have been what they stayed on. They could have fought on that as it floated down river and as it began to sink, Obi-Wan could have still jumped off before Vader with same result. Having said that, I think the end montage was excellent and at least finished it off strong. I'm not too sure I can buy that Vader all of a sudden becomes a loyal servant of the Emperor after he finds out Padme is gone, but what else is he going to do?

All in all I feel about it the way I feel about the other prequels... there are parts of it I love and parts of it I really hate so I guess I find myself stuck somewhere in between.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoosiers. I saw it again for the first time in like a decade, from start to finish (the film, not the decade). It's a clutch film, but I honestly didn't remember there being so much basketball it in. Now, you might thing that a stupid comment since it's a sports flick, but what I meant is, almost the entire movie is just basketball action, and there was very little exposition once things got rolling. Even in the grand scheme of sports films, this has a lot of basketball. 8O

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched The Sixth Sense on Saturday . . home alone! 8O

But it's really not that scary.

I enjoyed it overall, and Osment was exceptional as always. But the big twist, which I already knew after seeing it a long time ago, posed this question: Did Malcolm talk to no one after he was shot for a year? Did he not find it weird that no one responded? I don't understand. :?

~Sturgis

Link to post
Share on other sites
Frailty. This could've been one of the better creepy films if it were not for the disappointing ending. Bill Paxton, who stars and also directed this movie, is a guy to be reckoned with.

I liked the movie a lot, thought it was fantastic. The ending was....not compelling, to say the least, but it didn't take away too much from my enjoyment of the movie.

I'm so tired of that. He has become a caricature of himself. Donnie Brasco is one of his few "recent" movies where he demonstrates that doesn't need it.

I don't know, I love Pacino in most things I see him in. But you're right that Donnie Brasco is one of his best performances. I've got to see that again. (Although also in Insomnia he gave a relatively subdued performance)

"Sugarland Express." A nice feature-film debut for Spielberg ("Duel" was made for TV). Too bad he was trying to make a slightly tamer "Bonnie & Clyde." I couldn't decide if this was supposed to be a comedy or action/drama. Ultimately, neither stood out. And there are 20 boring minutes in there that make the ending a little tiring. This definitely fits in with all the pre-"Jaws" scores, sonically muted but containing some very good moments, though there are only about 20 minutes of music in a 110-minute film. Nice themes all around.

I love the movie. I don't think it's trying to be Bonnie & Clyde at all. I think both the comedy and the drama worked very well. It's a lovely score, the main titles are wonderful, and I love all those snippets of JW source music.

I watched the first 20 minutes of "Conrack." Nothing outstanding about the music. But Jon Voight was good. I would have watched it all if I wasn't busy.

I've heard it's a good movie. I only have to judge the score by the FSM release, but judging by that, I think it's a wonderful, wonderful little gem. Those 6+ minutes are some of my favorite JW pre-Jaws stuff. A warm, life affirming, wonderful piece of Americana.

Hoosiers.  I saw it again for the first time in like a decade, from start to finish (the film, not the decade).  It's a clutch film, but I honestly didn't remember there being so much basketball it in.  Now, you might thing that a stupid comment since it's a sports flick, but what I meant is, almost the entire movie is just basketball action, and there was very little exposition once things got rolling.  Even in the grand scheme of sports films, this has a lot of basketball.  :|

As I said in my review a few weeks ago, I was not very impressed with the movie. You're right that there was a lot of basketball, IMO there was far too much basketball.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lolita. This must've been quite a controversial comedy in 1962. Superb performance by James Mason.

It still has some potent material now. I like the film a lot, must see it again. I love James Mason everywhere, and this is my favorite performance of his. And I like Sellers a great deal here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It still has some potent material now. I like the film a lot, must see it again. I love James Mason everywhere, and this is my favorite performance of his. And I like Sellers a great deal here.

You're right! Sellers was magical in it.

Hey, I thought you didn't care for 60s movies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lolita. This must've been quite a controversial comedy in 1962. Superb performance by James Mason. For some reason, I think that Kubrick and Orson Welles would have gotten along very well.

Don't forget a likewise superb Peter Sellers. He's so slimy that it's a delight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lolita. This must've been quite a controversial comedy in 1962. Superb performance by James Mason. For some reason, I think that Kubrick and Orson Welles would have gotten along very well.

Don't forget a likewise superb Peter Sellers. He's so slimy that it's a delight.

I know, I wouldn't be surprised if most of his bits were purely improvised. I mean, it doesn't feel like he memorized the lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It still has some potent material now. I like the film a lot, must see it again. I love James Mason everywhere, and this is my favorite performance of his. And I like Sellers a great deal here.

You're right! Sellers was magical in it.

Hey, I thought you didn't care for 60s movies.

Probably because I don't see a new 60s film very often. But many of my favorite films are from the 60s. I saw Lolita beacuse I was catching up on my Kubrick. That's probably the most 60s film I've seen. Most of the others I love are not stamped with a big '60s' seal, unlike most of my faovrite 70s films, which are undoubtably 70s films (heck, 3 of my favorite 60s films- Bonnie and Clyde, Easy Rider and Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid are really 70s films).

EDIT: Correction, there's this one 60s film I caught once, called Yours, Mine and Ours, a comedy with Henry Fonda and Lucille Ball, that is quite distinctly a 60s film (A funny, innocent comedy, which I quite like).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a great movie. Dirk Bogarde, James Fox, Harold Pinter and Douglas Slocombe? I'll definately be on the lookout for it.

Morlock- who's current Amazon wishlist consists of, as far as 60s films are concerned, Fail Safe, The Hustler, Judgement at Nuremberg, The Leopard, The Manchurian Candidate and now The Servant (Along with a wholle bunch of Fellini, Godard and Truffaut)

Morlock 2- who has a birthday coming up in 10 days......(hint, hint)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Morlock- who's current Amazon wishlist consists of, as far as 60s films are concerned, Fail Safe, The Hustler, Judgement at Nuremberg, The Leopard, The Manchurian Candidate and now The Servant (Along with a wholle bunch of Fellini, Godard and Truffaut)

For me, it's a race between The Hustler and The Leopard.

Fail Safe: a bit drawn out, 'Dr. Strangelove' without the laughs

Nuremberg: i don't remember if it was this film where Pauline Kael remarked that Tracy's so full of the milk of human kindness that he's short of mooing. Dietrich and Schell are great, Lancaster looks as fake as nazi as Peck looks as Josef Mengele.

Manchurian Candidate: after reading all the hosannas, i found it a bit on the comic side, although Lansbury gives a ravishing performance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw Red Eye. It's a good Wes Craven film, I guess. Very effective while it's going, mostly erases itself from memory as soon as it's done. Cillian Murphy does a solid job as the villain, Brian Cox is wasted on his role. Beltrami offers a good score, with one kick-ass cue during the climax.

Very well directed, works very well while it's going on, nothing more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just came back from the theater, saw Good Night, and Good Luck. For those of you in America (and anyone overseas that's familiar with our recent news broadcasting style), it's surprisingly relevant for what's going on today, and the method of instilling fear and terror/anxiety in the viewer. This is about the McCarthy Hearings, when that senator charged himself with outing supposed "Communist" idealists that he felt posed a threat to the US Government and way-of-life. A CBS (TV Station) journalist named Edward Murrow took charge and hit back against these wild accusations and claims, which Sen. Joe McCarthy used to intimidate members of the media and various other officials without supporting evidence (and most of the time, just making things up).

I highly recommend the film to anyone who appreciates this 'documentary' style setting. It's shot in glorious black and white, with cigarette smoke filling the corners of the screen. Great acting and fantastic directing by Clooney (this is his second film after "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind"). It's not a kinetic movie, and is deliberately slow. But it's still an intense study of the period, and of newscasting in general. If you hate what's going on today, like when TV scares you by saying:

"Coming up next, 10 things you don't know that can kill you right now!!!"

or

"You can be attacked at any second!! You are not safe!! Tune in to see how you can prevent your own death!!"

Then you'll enjoy this movie.

Well done Mr. Clooney.

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...