Author Topic: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)  (Read 83887 times)

Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1140 on: August 10, 2018, 12:26:53 PM »
The Sasquatch Gang - Listed in the "Your Favourite Films" thread by SteveDave, I enjoyed this a fair bit, it's a very endearing and silly comedy. It's a bit by the numbers and fairly predictable but the laughs are present and it's definitely worth checking out. 7.0/10.

I could watch Justin Long jumping off that speedboat whilst trying to prove he could run on water all day.

Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1141 on: August 11, 2018, 06:03:37 PM »
Just seen the excellent German film Victoria. Excellent thriller in itself made an even more impressive by being mostly improvised (12 page script) and filmed in a single continuous take. Good soundtrack too, that I spotted was done by Nihls Frahm.

Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1142 on: August 12, 2018, 03:55:36 PM »
After watching that I watched Eyes Wide Shut. It was alright. Seemed like a case of style over substance though really.

Shit Good Nose

  • Several bags of balls
Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1143 on: August 12, 2018, 04:36:32 PM »
After watching that I watched Eyes Wide Shut. It was alright. Seemed like a case of style over substance though really.

The only Kubrick film I saw when first released.  Absolute dogshit.  And I'm a huge Kubrick fan.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
    • St_Eddie's YouTube Channel
Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1144 on: August 12, 2018, 04:47:12 PM »
After watching that I watched Eyes Wide Shut. It was alright. Seemed like a case of style over substance though really.

There's a ton of subtext in Eyes Wide Shut.  That doesn't mean that it's a good film of course (though I think that it is) but it's most definitely not a case of style over substance.

Shit Good Nose

  • Several bags of balls
Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1145 on: August 12, 2018, 04:54:23 PM »
There's a ton of subtext in Eyes Wide Shut.  That doesn't mean that it's a good film of course (though I think that it is) but it's most definitely not a case of style over substance.

Absolutely - it's actually dogshit over everything else, including style.

Christ, I hate that fucking film.  I was so looking forward to it, but my heart sank within the first ten minutes.

Mind you, I know more than one person who doesn't like Kubrick that thinks it's his best film by far, so go figure.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
    • St_Eddie's YouTube Channel
Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1146 on: August 12, 2018, 07:18:05 PM »
...Mind you, I know more than one person who doesn't like Kubrick that thinks it's his best film by far, so go figure.

Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's my favourite Kubrick film but it's certainly up there.  A Clockwork Orange is probably my favourite but ask me next week and I might have changed my mind.  Fickle, dilly-dallying fucker that I am.

Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1147 on: August 12, 2018, 08:53:06 PM »
To me it almost felt a like a Lynch film that failed to convey sureallness and a sense of foreboding.

Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1148 on: August 12, 2018, 11:40:04 PM »
Some how I'v managed never to see it, I must admit Cruises presense did naturally make me think it had shifted towards safer blandness.

Watched Andrei Rublev for the first time last night, actually surprised at the scale of it relative to his more personal 70's work but I spose extra's were cheap in the USSR. It is quite a thing to see the same level of visual composition for scenes of that scale, the Tartar raid would I'd say give the volcanic castle siege in Ran a run for its money as the best looking battle scene ever filmed. That scene with the pagans earlier in the film as well is really unlike anything else I can remembers seeing in its dreamy atmosphere. Dramatically it also felt rather different to his latter work as well, I was expecting a similar personal focus of the lead character yet its really operating as much though giving a feeling of the era as a whole, still I think very effective even to someone without indepth knowledge of the era.

icehaven

  • Please don't hi five people in Tamworth
Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1149 on: August 13, 2018, 08:23:45 AM »
Watched the 1958 version of The Fly yesterday, found the fly with the man's head at the end way more disturbing than the man with the fly's head (and arm), which was actually quite cute.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
    • St_Eddie's YouTube Channel
Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1150 on: August 13, 2018, 12:20:55 PM »
Some how I'v managed never to see it, I must admit Cruises presense did naturally make me think it had shifted towards safer blandness...

I understand how one could assume that but I don't think that's it's true for Eyes Wide Shit.  Both that film and Magnolia are two films which have Tom Cruise giving a much more interesting performance than his usual fare.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
    • St_Eddie's YouTube Channel
Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1151 on: August 13, 2018, 12:26:49 PM »
Watched the 1958 version of The Fly yesterday, found the fly with the man's head at the end way more disturbing than the man with the fly's head (and arm), which was actually quite cute.

It's a great film and I agree, the fly with a man's head at the end is disturbing as all heck.  Don't bother with the sequel, it's shit.  Good for a laugh though, as there's a shot of a fly with a man's head in that too and it's hilarious...



His eyes are looking around like a confused Dougal from Father Ted, wondering why he's suddenly part fly.

thecuriousorange

  • WELCOME THRILLHOU
Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1152 on: August 13, 2018, 05:43:33 PM »
Yesterday's Netflix and chill.

Jackie: Nice to look at if Kubrick-esque symmetrical shots and Mad-Mad outfits are your thing. But overall empty and a bit forgettable.

Pride: Gay-rights tale told as a punch-the-air, feel-good Brit flick with a jukebox soundtrack. Regional accents and diluted Ken Loach. Taking nothing away from the ISSUES in the story, I found this incredibly cliched and at times indistinguishable from Billy Elliot/Full Monty etc.

Edge of Seventeen. Above-average teen movie with a great lead performance. Has more in common with Ghost World/Ladybird than the type of flick I was expecting.

How to Train Your Dragon: I wandered out of the room after about 20 minutes but it looked decent if you're in the right mood.

DukeDeMondo

  • Member
  • **
  • fuck sake
Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1153 on: August 13, 2018, 07:01:36 PM »
I found this incredibly cliched and at times indistinguishable from Billy Elliot/Full Monty etc

What's wrong with Billy Elliot or The Full Monty?


thecuriousorange

  • WELCOME THRILLHOU
Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1154 on: August 13, 2018, 07:16:22 PM »
I like The Full Monty. I'm just saying aspects of this new film followed a now-established formula.

Small Man Big Horse

  • Member
  • **
  • Writers wanted for comedy website, pls click below
Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1155 on: August 13, 2018, 07:17:46 PM »
I loved Pride to pieces, thought it was a joyously beautiful little thing.

Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1156 on: August 13, 2018, 09:17:52 PM »
I understand how one could assume that but I don't think that's it's true for Eyes Wide Shit.  Both that film and Magnolia are two films which have Tom Cruise giving a much more interesting performance than his usual fare.

Its been moreso I'd just ended up going with something else repeatedly over active avoidance of it.

Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1157 on: August 14, 2018, 01:43:22 AM »
Just seen Paris, Texas.
One of the most beautiful and heartening films I've seen in a while/ever.
The outdoor cinematography was so good it was almost distracting. The shots in twilight were breathtakingly gorgeous.
I would list my favourite moments but I'd probably end up writing out every scene.
Even squeezed a few tears out at the end.
Fucking marvelous!!

Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1158 on: August 14, 2018, 07:58:15 AM »
It's a fantastic film. Harry Dean Stanton was brilliant at looking forlorn in it.

Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1159 on: August 14, 2018, 09:05:54 AM »
Friday The 13th.

Pfft. Very mild peril from a stocky old woman.

Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1160 on: August 14, 2018, 03:20:29 PM »
Opinions on Cronenberg's Spider? I spose a lot depends how whether you like Fiennes performance or not, personally I do as I don't think the various ticks become showy or distracting as is often the case with mental illness shown on film and there is a very good subtle performance behind them.

You could call it a bit gimmicky I spose but the plot doesn't really feel like a Shyamalan rug pull, there's plenty to highlight whats actually going on before the end. Equally whilst it isn't really eye catchingly atmospheric that kind of crushing east end brick filled drabness suits it well.

Clownbaby

  • Toe to tip, this is a Bart
Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1161 on: August 14, 2018, 08:35:09 PM »
I enjoyed Drop Dead Gorgeous last night. Wasn't what I had expected.

Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1162 on: August 16, 2018, 11:37:23 AM »
I've got a dilemma lads, the cinema are showing restored versions of Mildred Pierce and Jaques Rivette's The Nun, but because I'm away at the weekend I can only manage one of them.

Large Noise

  • class at fighting
Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1163 on: August 16, 2018, 12:43:24 PM »
Just seen Paris, Texas.
One of the most beautiful and heartening films I've seen in a while/ever.
The outdoor cinematography was so good it was almost distracting. The shots in twilight were breathtakingly gorgeous.
I would list my favourite moments but I'd probably end up writing out every scene.
Even squeezed a few tears out at the end.
Fucking marvelous!!
He was too old for her. Creep.

Twit 2

  • Unutterable Anguish
Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1164 on: August 16, 2018, 02:17:29 PM »
Some how I'v managed never to see it, I must admit Cruises presense did naturally make me think it had shifted towards safer blandness.

Watched Andrei Rublev for the first time last night, actually surprised at the scale of it relative to his more personal 70's work but I spose extra's were cheap in the USSR. It is quite a thing to see the same level of visual composition for scenes of that scale, the Tartar raid would I'd say give the volcanic castle siege in Ran a run for its money as the best looking battle scene ever filmed. That scene with the pagans earlier in the film as well is really unlike anything else I can remembers seeing in its dreamy atmosphere. Dramatically it also felt rather different to his latter work as well, I was expecting a similar personal focus of the lead character yet its really operating as much though giving a feeling of the era as a whole, still I think very effective even to someone without indepth knowledge of the era.

I think this may be my favourite film of a time. There’s stuff he pulllef off on that film - aesthetically and technically - that only a handful of directors could even dream of attempting since.

Shit Good Nose

  • Several bags of balls
Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1165 on: August 16, 2018, 02:51:38 PM »
I've got a dilemma lads, the cinema are showing restored versions of Mildred Pierce and Jaques Rivette's The Nun, but because I'm away at the weekend I can only manage one of them.

Hmm, tough choice, but I would plump for The Nun, purely because the benefits of a restoration would be more obvious and beneficial.  I also think it's the better film, but that's merely a subjective opinion.


Watched Andrei Rublev for the first time last night, actually surprised at the scale of it relative to his more personal 70's work but I spose extra's were cheap in the USSR. It is quite a thing to see the same level of visual composition for scenes of that scale, the Tartar raid would I'd say give the volcanic castle siege in Ran a run for its money as the best looking battle scene ever filmed. That scene with the pagans earlier in the film as well is really unlike anything else I can remembers seeing in its dreamy atmosphere. Dramatically it also felt rather different to his latter work as well, I was expecting a similar personal focus of the lead character yet its really operating as much though giving a feeling of the era as a whole, still I think very effective even to someone without indepth knowledge of the era.

Absolutely stunning - my favourite Tarkovsky film.  I have the up-coming Criterion blu on order (I already have the old Criterion DVD, but the blu has a new hi-def restoration).  That ending...

For a similar sort of massively scoped historical epic, give Aszparuh (AKA Khan Asparuh, AKA Glory of the Khan) a go, IF you can track down the full version.  It used to be on YouTube with English subs, but I can only find the unsubbed one on there.


Opinions on Cronenberg's Spider? I spose a lot depends how whether you like Fiennes performance or not, personally I do as I don't think the various ticks become showy or distracting as is often the case with mental illness shown on film and there is a very good subtle performance behind them.

You could call it a bit gimmicky I spose but the plot doesn't really feel like a Shyamalan rug pull, there's plenty to highlight whats actually going on before the end. Equally whilst it isn't really eye catchingly atmospheric that kind of crushing east end brick filled drabness suits it well.

It's alright.  Almost atypical Cronenberg.  Miranda Richardson's great in it.  I would agree that Fiennes is pretty low-key, especially given the state of the character.  It so easily could have been played over the top with good reason, and Cronenberg's often not the most subtle when it comes to directing actors.  It's a lot better than eXistenz, in my opinion.



Worked through the Star Wars prequel trilogy (as shown by ITV2 over the last few Sundays) for the first time since they were originally released, both out of curiosity in the wake of the abysmal Last Jedi, but also to see if my original thoughts about them (every single one of them dogshit) has changed over the years.  In response to those:

Last Jedi belongs with the prequels;
They are still dogshit.

The Phantom Menace - I had forgotten that, in the same way Omen 2 spends more time worrying about the day to day running of Thorn Industries than it does the fact the antichrist is walking the earth, so Phantom Menace spends a lot of time on galaxy politics and trade embargoes.  Exactly the sort of thing 10 year olds are really interested in.  Portman's accent all over the place, of course.  And Jedi superspeed, which is never seen or referred to again in any of the films.  Most of the actors don't care - Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson clearly just doing it for the money.  Wall-to-wall bad racial stereotyping as well, even allowing for it being a film set in another galaxy at another time.  Just as well the podrace sequence is quite short...

Attack of the Clones - remember how everyone at the time said the chase at the beginning and Yoda letting loose were amazing?  Well, they weren't then and they're not now.  Pretty sure when they go into the bar/casino looking for the assassin, the race they're showing on the screens in the background features that same animals that they're racing on the casino planet in Last Jedi, so there's a direct link to the prequels there.  Still no one cares, and I don't thin Haydn Christensen even understands the words he's saying.  Just an emotional vacuum.  Some excruciatingly bad matte shots, even for back then - Christopher Lee escaping on his trike thing is especially bad.

Revenge of the Sith - for a film that a lot of people said was incredibly dark back then, there's a lot of shit slapstick and one liners.  None of them land.  Somehow Portman is even worse than Christensen in it.  Younglings, shit Yoda again, "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!" - all of it just fist chewingly bad. 

All in all, George Lucas should be ashamed of himself, and the general public should be even more ashamed of themselves for lapping that shit up.  Objectively bad films, I don't care what anyone says.  They've aged terribly thanks to CGI which didn't look particularly good back then and, taken with TFA and LJ, make you start to think that the original trilogy came out good more by luck than judgement (although I maintain Rogue One is excellent and Solo is not that bad).

Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1166 on: August 16, 2018, 02:52:55 PM »
I think this may be my favourite film of a time. There’s stuff he pulllef off on that film - aesthetically and technically - that only a handful of directors could even dream of attempting since.

Actually ended up watching it a second time last night and yes it would already rate very highly with me indeed. Its a strange experience as it feels like its both looking backwards to Hollywood historical epics in some respects but forwards in terms of both visual/acting/sound and indeed morals beyond standard dogma in others. Looking back the use of Hunters In The Snow in Solaris almost feels like a reference to Andrei given the similarity of some of the shots although I think my favourite might be that one with the rides in the background and the trees in the foreground early on.

Picked up Ivan's Childhood and The Sacrifice as well so hopefully get around to watching one of those tonight or tomorrow.

Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1167 on: August 16, 2018, 03:18:24 PM »
Absolutely stunning - my favourite Tarkovsky film.  I have the up-coming Criterion blu on order (I already have the old Criterion DVD, but the blu has a new hi-def restoration).  That ending...

In this case the Artificial Eye BR actually looks pretty good(and relatively cheap at £9 from amazon), much better than the Stalker DVD, looking online Stalker and Nostalgia seem to be viewed as the worst of their releases. The upcoming criterion version looks like it has both the preffered shorter cut and the 20 min longer one as well though, might be tempted by that.

Quote
It's alright.  Almost atypical Cronenberg.  Miranda Richardson's great in it.  I would agree that Fiennes is pretty low-key, especially given the state of the character.  It so easily could have been played over the top with good reason, and Cronenberg's often not the most subtle when it comes to directing actors.  It's a lot better than eXistenz, in my opinion.

I remember at the time thinking it might have gotten a better reception if it has been directed by someone else without the expectation that the gore would start flying at any moment. John Neville in Baron Munchausen mode is always good to watch as well.

Quote
Worked through the Star Wars prequel trilogy (as shown by ITV2 over the last few Sundays) for the first time since they were originally released, both out of curiosity in the wake of the abysmal Last Jedi, but also to see if my original thoughts about them (every single one of them dogshit) has changed over the years.  In response to those:

Last Jedi belongs with the prequels;
They are still dogshit.

The Phantom Menace - I had forgotten that, in the same way Omen 2 spends more time worrying about the day to day running of Thorn Industries than it does the fact the antichrist is walking the earth, so Phantom Menace spends a lot of time on galaxy politics and trade embargoes.  Exactly the sort of thing 10 year olds are really interested in.  Portman's accent all over the place, of course.  And Jedi superspeed, which is never seen or referred to again in any of the films.  Most of the actors don't care - Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson clearly just doing it for the money.  Wall-to-wall bad racial stereotyping as well, even allowing for it being a film set in another galaxy at another time.  Just as well the podrace sequence is quite short...

Attack of the Clones - remember how everyone at the time said the chase at the beginning and Yoda letting loose were amazing?  Well, they weren't then and they're not now.  Pretty sure when they go into the bar/casino looking for the assassin, the race they're showing on the screens in the background features that same animals that they're racing on the casino planet in Last Jedi, so there's a direct link to the prequels there.  Still no one cares, and I don't thin Haydn Christensen even understands the words he's saying.  Just an emotional vacuum.  Some excruciatingly bad matte shots, even for back then - Christopher Lee escaping on his trike thing is especially bad.

Revenge of the Sith - for a film that a lot of people said was incredibly dark back then, there's a lot of shit slapstick and one liners.  None of them land.  Somehow Portman is even worse than Christensen in it.  Younglings, shit Yoda again, "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!" - all of it just fist chewingly bad. 

All in all, George Lucas should be ashamed of himself, and the general public should be even more ashamed of themselves for lapping that shit up.  Objectively bad films, I don't care what anyone says.  They've aged terribly thanks to CGI which didn't look particularly good back then and, taken with TFA and LJ, make you start to think that the original trilogy came out good more by luck than judgement (although I maintain Rogue One is excellent and Solo is not that bad).

Honestly I think the simplest explanation is the best, Lucas was way way out of form as a director and writer after 20+ years. I mean I don't think their totally devoid of inspiration and I can imagine some ideas behind of Phantom Menace(the underwater city, darth maul, etc) working with someone like Spileberg to put them to use as with Indy but it all just ends up as a mess here.

Its strange really that after all the fuss about the sequels being a reaction to Lucas they do actually end up being rather similar in many respects, especially the infusion of childish nonsense which Rogue One mostly avoided. It seems almost the climate of the times though to me where most blockbusters can only exist with some inbuilt meta commentary, admittedly Marvel can actually pull this off but here it just comes across as woefully misjudged.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2018, 03:31:11 PM by greenman »

Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1168 on: August 16, 2018, 04:31:01 PM »


I think I'm leaning towards that. Do you know if the tarkovski br collection that's about 50 quid on amazon is any good?

Re: What Non-New Films Have You Seen? (2018 Edition)
« Reply #1169 on: August 16, 2018, 05:29:47 PM »
I think I'm leaning towards that. Do you know if the tarkovski br collection that's about 50 quid on amazon is any good?

The Artificial Eye one? again my experience(with the DVD but I can't imagine the BR is much better) is that Stalker was pretty poor, very grainy/damaged(although I spose it does have a certain appeal) as I remember seeing previously, the Criterion BR wasn't your videophile hair-splitting improvement it really was miles better.

Besides that Solaris and Mirror I picked up on DVD at the same time both looked fine and more recently the Andrei BR was very good as well, watching the very starts of the BR's just now Ivan's Childhood seems excellent and the Sacrifice seem good as well. Reviews online though tend to suggest Nostalgia isn't quite as good although not nearly as bad as Stalker.

That said the boxset is quite a bit saving over buying them separately isn't it? might be worth it even if you ended up getting the Criterion Stalker as well.