What is The Last Movie You Watched?

[runningdownthatdream]

Two quite different directors, one whose work will not stand the test of time because of its superficial, inconsequential pretence that is about everyday reality, and Malick, whose films are crafted in a personal way that often seems to be indifferent to the viewing public -but whose films, to me, are visually stunning and profound. I think there are a lot of loose ends in his films, thats the way he films, but there aren't many Americans who make films like that. The Tree of Life is also quite a religious film so if you don't have an understanding of the way of nature and the way of grace a lot will pass you by. I guess its just not the kind of film you like.

On a different level, this evening I watched Sidney Lumet's Because the Devil Knows You're Dead -excellent acting from Marisa Tomei, Ethan Hawke and Philip Seymour Hoffman -two guys decide to rob a small jewelery store and it goes wrong and everything spirals out of control. Great story, great acting but it just didn't have an emotional core, it was not overwhelming.

Stavros Stavros Stavros

Woody is indeed limited in his outlook but at least he's entertaining and somewhat amusing in his elitist New York fashion and he knows how to deliver his message without too much deep thinking involved. He's an entertainer after all. Terence Malick on the other hand does make visually beautiful films.........but I would argue he's far more overbearing and pretentious than Woody Allen and without the benefit of humour to boot. I guess he's Jackson Pollack to Woody Allen's Jacques Louis David IMHO.

Singling out Before the Devil Knows You're Dead for mention is somewhat like when you singled out Gerry and The (fucking) Pacemakers as musical influence peddlers from the 60s! Totally surprising but definitely shows your propensity for whimsical thought

[GrimFusion]

I just watched "God Bless America".
Written and directed by Bobcat Goldthwait... the guy from Police Academy. It's definitely worth a rental, but some of the character dialogue gets really preachy (and that's putting it kindly). It's about a guy who lives in a shitty apartment and can't stand his neighbors. He gets fired, realizes his kid is nothing like him, and gets completely fed up... then he decides to do something about it. There's a lot more to the plot, but I don't want to spoil it.

[Nivek]

The Collector.. This movie is insane!!

[Stavros]

Stavros Stavros Stavros

Woody is indeed limited in his outlook but at least he's entertaining and somewhat amusing in his elitist New York fashion and he knows how to deliver his message without too much deep thinking involved. He's an entertainer after all. Terence Malick on the other hand does make visually beautiful films.........but I would argue he's far more overbearing and pretentious than Woody Allen and without the benefit of humour to boot. I guess he's Jackson Pollack to Woody Allen's Jacques Louis David IMHO.

Singling out Before the Devil Knows You're Dead for mention is somewhat like when you singled out Gerry and The (fucking) Pacemakers as musical influence peddlers from the 60s! Totally surprising but definitely shows your propensity for whimsical thought

Gerry and the Pacemakers were part of the 'Mersey Sound', they were not influential like the Beatles I am not sure if that was what I intended to say -Cilla Black was also part of the 'Mersey Sound' but had no musical influence on the 60s in spite of being part of it. Yet the song You'll Never Walk Alone is in effect the anthem of Liverpool Football Club, one of the most successful English clubs and supported all over the world -the Beatles never had a hit like that. As for Allen and Malick -the comparison is bizarre, maybe Allen's Doonesbury to Malick's Caravaggio would be closer (David was ideological on behalf of the Revolution in a way that Malick is not in the context of America). Allen's films are not funny to me, what he has to say about modern America or NYC is partisan, superficial, and uninteresting; Malick's films about America are often about people on the margins whose only rules are the ones they make for themselves, bringing them into a confrontation with the law/authority: Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line. Few film-makers have tried to tell a story (not THE story) of colonisation and the impact of European Christian culture on the first nations, The New World, for all its faults, does have a go and is better if less brutal than the 'classic westerns' like The Searchers which present the first nations as a 'problem' that has to be 'dealt with' -the moral economy replaced by a market economy, for example. And when did you see a black cowboy, even though most cowboys were black slaves?

Malick's films have the beauty and depth that Allen does not aspire to, but couldn't make anyway. I have seen so many gay and and black people in the real NYC, but not in an Allen film, which is one reason to dismiss him as phoney. BUT its a matter of taste and I can be whimsical -which must be a good thing as we should always be able to 'lighten up' at times. Because the Devil Knows You're Dead is not a great film, but I have seen worse.

[buttslinger]

Here's one I saw yesterday about WWIII, but this one is real. Robert McNamara spills.

[Prospero]

Stavros - isn't humour one of the most subjective of things? Recently while in the US I saw a comedian called Lewis Black. I found him to be dismal - shouting insults and making obvious right-on remarks. The people I went with had promised me he was one of the funniest men in the US today. Most of the audience loved it. Was i right or wrong to not find him funny?

The same is surely true of your distaste for Woody Allen. It's a subjective thing. Comparing Malick to Allen is comparing apples and cod fillets. Wen it comes to serious film making - ie Interiors by Allen - then Malick has him beat. But I've yet to see a comedy by Terence Malick.

[Nicole Dupre]

I saw "Legends of the Fall" a few nights ago and really enjoyed it.

[irvin66]

I saw an old classic the other day, Deliverance from 1972!

[Stavros]

Stavros - isn't humour one of the most subjective of things? Recently while in the US I saw a comedian called Lewis Black. I found him to be dismal - shouting insults and making obvious right-on remarks. The people I went with had promised me he was one of the funniest men in the US today. Most of the audience loved it. Was i right or wrong to not find him funny?

The same is surely true of your distaste for Woody Allen. It's a subjective thing. Comparing Malick to Allen is comparing apples and cod fillets. Wen it comes to serious film making - ie Interiors by Allen - then Malick has him beat. But I've yet to see a comedy by Terence Malick.

Yes reactions to humour vary greatly, I find Jackie Mason hilarious, for example; I have watched Morecombe and Wise waiting for something to make me laugh but its impossible yet they are treated like gods in British comedy. Woody Allen doesn't make me laugh, but more than that I have already described his films as I see them. Malick hasn't yet made a comedy, neither did Tarkovsky, does that diminish Tarkovsky's reputation? But Malick makes films about the American experience, mostly -what does Allen make films about? Himself? I don't know what it is his reputation rests on.

[runningdownthatdream]

Yes reactions to humour vary greatly, I find Jackie Mason hilarious, for example; I have watched Morecombe and Wise waiting for something to make me laugh but its impossible yet they are treated like gods in British comedy. Woody Allen doesn't make me laugh, but more than that I have already described his films as I see them. Malick hasn't yet made a comedy, neither did Tarkovsky, does that diminish Tarkovsky's reputation? But Malick makes films about the American experience, mostly -what does Allen make films about? Himself? I don't know what it is his reputation rests on.

But does Malick have to be so ponderous and pompous!? Occasionally Woody could be more thoughtful but generally his films aren't to be taken seriously.

My bizarre comparison earlier was just based on my gut feeling - Woody's films are like David's art (at least from my perspective) because both aspire to be deep although both (again for me) are just simply nice to look at and makes you feel good after viewing. With Malick and Pollack the vision is complicated, requires deep thought, and might leave you confused afterwards wondering what the hell you spent hours looking at!

Anyways........................sometimes you need to lighten up Stavros. Look at a thing for exactly how it is presented to you and not try to read anything more into it!