How about "Last Movie Watched (that was made before you were born)"? It would certainly be more interesting than all this contemporary crap people keep watching...
I hate to be this way... but we do have a thread dedicated to The Avengers so all discussion of it can be seen in one place. Lord, give me strength...
Well that's a bit of a weird limitation. You seem to imply that: 1. No worthwhile movies can be made today 2. Older movies are better as a rule Neither of which is true.
Riverplate certainly doesn't need me to speak on his behalf, but I'm guessing that he would say that watching some older movie may actually take a little imagination, show some thought, and, in posting, an older movie may reveal a little more about the poster. And if that happens, we might get some more interesting discussion than talking about the Avengers. Which I am going to see, but we're not going to have as an enlightening conversation. However, having said that, Riverplate did find Cowboys vs Aliens to have some merit. And I thought most of the merit it deserved was derived from the movie not sucking as bad as it could have....
Worthwhile movies are still made today. But I make it a habit to cull through the film reviews every week and easily dismiss 95% of the movies released as things I'll never go near. And most of the other 5% won't get a viewing from me, either. It's not a case of agreeing or disagreeing with a critic on a specific film. I try to look over several notices to basically find out storylines, get a sense of how material was handled, and who was involved with the films. It more often than not sends me running to my home vid collection or the DVD store for something from the past to enjoy instead. On point #2, I'm reminded of a line from Leonard Maltin... "Old movies are better than ever!" Boy, he isn't kidding. Thanks to the miracle of DVDs and stations like TCM, we can actually see so many old pictures -- in beautiful, clear, complete versions -- that we never could years ago and actually compare them to what's put out nowadays. Remember, this wasn't always the case. So let's get real, okay? The entertainment value is through the roof with the older stuff. Even the Grade-B and lesser pictures from way-back-when steamroll over the mass of boring and lame dreck put out on the market today. I firmly believe, as much as you may think I avoid or disrespect new films, that there are many more people around here that actively stay away from old movies for whatever dumb reasons they may not care to openly admit (such as black-and-white bias, "outdated" acting styles, much slower pacing, too talky or stagey, "inferior" special effects -- and on and on). We both know the huge majority of movies posted here are from the last decade or so. Why is that?
It's always nice when someone occassionally posts about an old movie. Unfortunately, it's a rarity around here. It shows me that person made an effort, instead of just downloading or slapping into a video machine any piece of recent junk. People need to remember that a movie is "new" if you've never seen it, no matter how "old" it is. Re: The Avengers... I have never knocked The Avengers. I have seen all the Marvel Superhero movies and own most of them on DVD. They're some of the best stuff around, by far. I intend on seeing it in a few days and am very excited about it. My earlier post about The Avengers was to wonder why anyone was commenting on it here when it has it's own thread. Why hold discussions about it in two different places? (Of course, a moderator could/should move the post over there.) Re: Cowboys & Aliens... I realize the blending of science fiction and western genres wasn't everyone's cup of tea. Apparently I found the combination more interesting than most. I look forward to checking out the extended version -- yes, there is one! -- at some point.
I enjoy old film. Most of my favorites come from the 40's - early 60's. I also enjoy silent film from Chaplin's comedies through the timeless Metropolis. I also used to share your opinion that older was better. However, I was comparing great older film with current mainstream film which isn't fair. There are plenty of great movies created now, you just have to search for it. Most of the great stuff created now is not backed by Hollywood money, thus they don't receive a huge release. Off the top of my head here are some notable recent films that I believe are quality: The Skin I Live In: 2011 Shame: 2011 Melancholia: 2011 A Separation: 2011 Sarah's Key: 2010 Take Shelter: 2011 Martha Marcy May Marlene: 2011 In a Better World: 2010 That's a list of some of the films I've viewed in the last few months. I wouldn't list them as all-time greats but they're definitely not garbage. I tend to not post on this thread that much because I rarely get a response from others. I usually stay in the Arsenal off topic thread and get conversations going with people. I also rarely post foreign or older film because it's less likely to receive any comments. I watch mainstream film because my friends watch it, and I usually let them pick what to watch. It's also the greatest chance to have something to talk about with others.
I'd say 'Long Kiss Goodnight' is one of my all-time favorite movies. And other than the 'woman operative done badly' aspect, I don't think of many similarities at all. Plus, Samuel L. Jackson had some truly great lines.
We've been doing that for years. It's because (for me) I want to be able to post that I saw 'Movie X' and say a little bit about why I did or didn't like it without having to discuss it in great length with the serious fans. And I like scanning what other regulars think about such movies, since I know and respect their personal tastes.
I agree, it does. I tried to post a small image (usually do, in fact) but thissy here new set up blowed it up real big. People have commented about this to Huss in the Customer Service thread.
Were there a discussion about it here, you might have a point. There is not, nor was my post an effort to start one. I simply did what the other users in this thread have been doing for years and noted the movie I saw last night. Then I moved over to the Avengers-specific thread and joined that discussion--more than 2 hours before you came in here and made your comments, I might add.
Yep - any movie watched merits inclusion here, along with a brief reaction. Extensive discusison of a film almost always merits its own thread.
I saw the 65 Red Roses movie mentioned upthread a bit as well, on OWN. I have a personal connection to that one: I knew Kina. She has a deviantART account, as do I, and I bought some artwork from her. We exchanged IM addresses, because it was a custom photoset. She introduced me into her world with CF, and introduced me to Eva's site. Eva and I had exchanged some LiveJournal posts, when I had one, but I never knew her in person like her friend Kina. So it was kind of odd to see this. Kina's still alive, but we fell out a while ago. Her site is here . So, before I hijack this thread too badly, I saw Hunger Games (2012) today in the theater. I was a bit fatigued, and fell asleep for a few minutes, but it truly was a good movie. Such pretty scenery, and good actors. Weird premise, but really a rather fascinating wardrobeand set job. It was very long, but didn't seem it at all! I look forward to seeing it again.
Error message: The time limit to edit this message (0 minutes) has expired. Zero minutes, huh? So duplicate posts it is!
Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones (2002) I don't understand the position of the Jedi in the government. They are in a place of power in the Senate's executive branch, yet they have completely separate rules and organization. They are sent out as negotiators, but as their training is seemingly solely in combat (even the younglings are only seen in lightsaber training), they always end up fighting. And the Jedi Council is wrong about everything. Absolutely everything. How could they be in their position of trust with such independence? They aren't even that good at combat - they allowed a sizable chunk of their forces to be killed in an obvious trap in the arena. In interviews Lucas has claimed a preference for benign dictatorships. Such a leader need to have powerful means of prediction and manipulation, so it's natural for Lucas to put this into the movies. But here they are at unbelievable levels. To start the Clone War, Palpatine needed the Jedi to find the clone army. To do this, he got the Federation to get Fett to send out an assassin, but one that would fail in such a way that Fett had to kill her. And Palpatine then completely hid the trail of the dart and the planet from the Jedi database, but still expected them to find the planet. And for the pattern for the clones he chose someone who Palpatine would 10 years later allow to be connected to the Separatists, someone that he knew would escape whatever Jedi found the planet but still lead the Jedi to the Separatist planet to create the precipitating cause for the clone army to attack and thus start the war. Oh, and no one asks why there is a 200,000 man fully equipped army before the first vote to allow an army in the first place. Even the most brazen conspiracy nut would find this hard to swallow.
You don't actually think they spend 20,000 Galactic credits on a dynamic hammer, 30,000 on a refresher unit, do you?
l'Autre Monde (2010) Dir. Gilles Marchand An interesting idea, poorly executed. That's the best way to describe this movie. We follow a series of events experienced through the eyes of Gaspard, a young man living in the South of France. Finding a cell phone leads to a chance (and quite dramatic) encounter with a beautiful, mysterious woman. The drama surrounding their initial meeting as well as the girl's peachy brand of sexiness turn Gaspard's initial attraction into something more closely resembling an obsession, as he stalks the girl both in the real world as well as her avatar in a MMORPG they both play. This feature reminded me a lot of François Ozon's "Swimming Pool". It shares a similar dreamy/feverish atmosphere, a female protagonist who appears more nymph-like than truly human and a twist at the end that makes you re-evaluate a lot of what came before. Unfortunately for Marchand, his movie isn't nearly as good or memorable as Ozon's. In the end, the screenplay just lacks maturity and subtlety, and the twist at the end makes a lot of the drama seem unintentionally comical in retrospect. It was adequately acted. Grégoire Leprince-Ringuet is like a poor man's Jérémy Renier. Louise Bourgoin wows in her role, but more for her smoldering sexuality than her acting ability.
Star Wars III: The Revenge of the Sith (2005) "Only the Sith deal in absolutes." Well, that seems pretty absolute. And the Jedi deal in lots of absolutes themselves. The motive for Anakin's downfall seems to be his love for his mother and wife. But they showed no sympathy for his visions and troubles, and in fact acted to make things worse and drive Anakin to the Dark Side due to their anti-human monastic/bushido code. I think the impression was supposed to be that the Jedi are a moral force, but we never see them act in that way. They did nothing to free Anakin's own mother from slavery. The location of General Grevious was found by intercepting a diplomatic message. The Jedi used this information without the slightest objection. The Jedi's only goals are to support the Galactic Senate and the higher one of never allowing the Sith to take power. I have big questions about Anakin's visions themselves. We are frequently told that the Force has a will of its own. But Anakin's visions weren't just predictions of the future - they were self-fulfilling prophesies that would never have come about if they were not shown to Anakin. Either the Force wanted all this to happen, or they were created by Palpatine. And if Palpatine made them, he would need an unbelievable knowledge of the future to make them work - if Shmi had died hours before or not at all, then there would be no fury to drive Anakin to kill. If the confrontation with Amidala went a little to either side, the death in childbirth wouldn't have happened. It would be a series of remarkable coincidences that were planned for. We see a continuation of the myopic view created by centering only on Great People. The movie opens on a monumental space battle, whose reason for being was the capture of the Senate Chancellor. The fate of the fight solely rests on whether this action succeeded, and the destruction of dozens of ships and the deaths of thousands upon thousands pass without the slightest comment - we never see what happens to them. And this is reenforced twice - in both after-battle briefs, the Republic and Separatist leaders only comment on the generals, not the positions or losses of the military forces. Soldiers and citizens are far, far below the status of pawn.
Star Wars IV: A New Hope (1977, Special Edition) This benefits a lot from being the first. Whenever you hear some new far-out explanatory theory, it seems reasonable at the beginning and only starts to fall apart when you start working out the details (unless it is a good idea - then more details make it even better). But this movie is the beginning and it doesn't delve too deep into the ideas so you get a ripping adventure yarn as long as you don't think too much. I only now realize that the "New Hope" in the title was Luke Skywalker, not the power of the rebellion or the destruction of the Death Star, so the Romantic element of the overmanly individual still exists here (although not as strongly as the other movies). Ok, the subtitle was added a little later, but Lucas' Romantic bent really was there from the beginning. There is a reason why the story took place "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away" (and this is the first movie to use that temporally, so I'll talk about it here) - to a romantic, truths come from the past, and man's greatest heroes were in the past. Lucas' generation was strongly influenced by the Lord of the Rings books, just as the next generation was strongly influenced by Star Wars. It seems a little ironic that a lot of the influence of Star Wars was the opposite of what was meant. The groundbreaking special effects created a technical fascination with the robots and machines, but at heart the movie, like Lord of the Rings, is anti-technological. Technology is seen as a sort of magic (nothing is ever explained or detailed or quantified), just one that isn't as good as real magic. There is massive use of beasts of burden. Weapons are human controlled at, to us, archaic levels. Luke has to turn off the machine to destroy the Death Star. Han Solo is notable as being the only skeptic in the entire movie series, and of course he has to be shown up (and later converted). But at least they had a skeptic. The two most important technological items in the story are R2-D2 and C3PO, and their defining characteristics are their highly emotional humanity, which happens to make them unreliable and imperfect for their actual roles.
Family Guy: It's A Trap! (2010) I liked this more than the Empire one, mostly because I liked the cameos (often American Dad characters) better. The in-universe ripping of Seth Green was great, as was the related coda. There's a lot of rotoscoping and rehashing of action scenes in the series, so what they did with the speeder bike scene was clever.
La Fille de Monaco (2008) Dir. Anne Fontaine What starts out as a light comedy eventually turns into a dark comedy and then turns into something more resembling a drama near the end. And unfortunately, each switch of tone took my liking of the film down a peg. Fabrice Luchine is terrific as the star trial lawyer who goes to Monaco to defend a rich widow in a murder trial. His confident court persona is diametrically opposed to his personality in more private moments (where he goes through phases where he shuns and fears physical intimacy). We see him befriend his bodyguard - assigned to him because there is a fear of retribution from the family of the victim - and eventually meet the mother of all distractions: Audrey, a young and attractive weather girl. The story was never less than entertaining, but the screenplay did make me feel sort of cheated. The culmination of the plot changes the tone of the movie so completely that it makes some of the lighter moments early on in the movie appear grotesque. In true Adaptation-style, it was as if a Gallic Donald Kauffman had written the first hour and then a very depressed-feeling Charlie took over for the final 15 minutes.