What is The Last Movie You Watched?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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.

BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD Theatrical Trailer - YouTube

---

Stavros Stavros Stavros :smh

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 ;)

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.

The Collector.. This movie is insane!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

Stavros Stavros Stavros :smh

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.

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

Clips from the Fog of War - YouTube

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.

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

http://static6.businessinsider.com/i...lia-ormond.jpg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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!

Gamechange.

SARAH PALIN 2016 BITCHEZ!!!

~BB~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

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!

---

Indeed, I am working my way through the box set of Herge's Adventures of Tin-Tin when I am on my exercise bike: lightening more than just my intellect, I hope!

The last movie I saw in theaters was The Hunger Games. The last movie I watched for the first time in its entirety was Inception, which I caught on HBO. I know I am super late on that one, but I am not the biggest movie buff out there.

watched Open Range last night

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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.

---

Exactly. Your opening sentences prove my point perfectly. But the fact that Terence Malick or Tarkovsky have never made comedies doesn't in any way diminish their achievement. They make film which explore, in depth, issues of the human condition. In the case of Takovsky this has prouced some masterpieces. Woody Allen's comedies, by contrast, are funny (in the casse of the best - he had a 15 year period of making utterly dismal films) which are primarily about the Jewish New York experience. I don't try or expect to extrapolate something universal about the human condition from them. But at his best his films repay regular reviewing. Radio Days is my favourite and the magnificent opening to Manhattan.

I think one of the difficulties here is that "film" is a medium which embraces the most cynical pieces of profit making product - mass entertainment - and films which aspire to the condition of high art.

Blow-Up (Antonioni, 1966)

The English painter JMW Turner once remarked I paint what I see, not what is there. The philosophical ruminations on photography that have exercised minds has tended to focus precisely on whether or not photography is more truthful/realistic than painting, and nobody can decide conclusively, especially when it turns out famous photos may have been staged, others doctored, and so on. So the idea of what is real and important is central to Antonioni's film set in 'Swinging London'. A professional photographer idles into a park, takes some random shots then realises he has shot something he didn't at first see, and which he isn't sure is there. He confirms what he saw, loses the photographs, then the evidence: it is there, it isn't there. There is a record, there isn't a record. Antonioni's tedious, pseudo-Marxist critique of 'bourgeois society' that began with the trilogy of the 1960s (L'avventura, La Notte, L'eclisse) has by 1966 dissolved into nihilism. He cannot decide what is important, and seems to conclude that nothing is. I can't decide if this film is clever, artistic and subtle, or if it is just empty. The 1960s fashion doesn't look out of date, the colour is rich and vibrant, and it features one of the greatest ever guitarists, Jeff Beck who was instructed by Antonioni to smash his guitar (the director had wanted The Who but they were in the US I think). The broken guitar frame becomes instantly symbolic: the crowd fight over it as if it were precious: the photographer walks off with it, then throws it away on Oxford St. Another man picks it up, and also throws it away.
The more Antonioni I revisit over the years the less I think of his films -by contrast, Bergman, Ozu and Bresson improve with age.

Blow-Up Trailer (1966) - YouTube

Battleship that was off the chain!!!! I also saw Contraband, and Underworld.

Justice League: Doom
Thor
The Muppets

Beautiful Lies (De vrais mensonges), an inconsequential but genuinely funny light comedy which the French seem to do so well.

Stavros, a question, if I may: The Arts Cinema in Cambridge - one of the increasingly few civilised venues to see movies in - is about to show Bela Tarr's The Turin Horse. Is it worth my folding, plus fuel and the exorbitant parking costs in Lion Yard?

AVENGERS - won tickets to an advanced screening last Wednesday.

No spoilers I promise - but it will live up to the hype. It is an incredible movie - well done, not too many cliche moments and each character has the right amount of screen time for that balance of not too much/not too little. Also - they spend ALOT of time fighting each other at first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

Beautiful Lies (De vrais mensonges), an inconsequential but genuinely funny light comedy which the French seem to do so well.

Stavros, a question, if I may: The Arts Cinema in Cambridge - one of the increasingly few civilised venues to see movies in - is about to show Bela Tarr's The Turin Horse. Is it worth my folding, plus fuel and the exorbitant parking costs in Lion Yard?

---

It will help you sleep! I have a DVD of it that you are very welcome to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

Beautiful Lies (De vrais mensonges), an inconsequential but genuinely funny light comedy which the French seem to do so well.

Stavros, a question, if I may: The Arts Cinema in Cambridge - one of the increasingly few civilised venues to see movies in - is about to show Bela Tarr's The Turin Horse. Is it worth my folding, plus fuel and the exorbitant parking costs in Lion Yard?

---

You might want to take up Prospero's offer: I am a fan of Tarr so I am biased, but Nietszche's concept of the Eternal Return when used in film has been described as reality extended to the point of madness, and I would not want to play a role in your unexpected admission to the funny farm, although I am sure they will let you take your guitar..

I though that cinema had closed, pleased to hear its still open.

I love the Arts Cinema in Cambridge. I spent many, many happy evenings there during my time in the city.

Shame - and it was a big letdown.

I like Killer Chicks.

God Bless the Germans for this.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516Zs0VZOvL.jpg

'' Cannibal '' 2006 Trailer by Sickest Movies from the world - YouTube

Rammstein - Mein Teil HQ - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I like Killer Chicks.

---

I love "The Professional" movie!


Just Saw "Fast Five" mmmmmmmm

Safe

Yep....."Leon The Proffessional" is my favourite film of all time...PERIOD!

Might go and watch it now actually.

Oh, last film I watched........FREQUENCY with Jim Caviezal and Dennis Quaid :) Great film!

The Usual Suspects (1995)
The Usual Suspects (1995) - IMDb@@AMEPARAM@@http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMzI1MjI5MDQyOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzE4Mjg3NA@@._ V1._SX93_SY140_.jpg@@AMEPARAM@@BMzI1MjI5MDQyOV5BMl 5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzE4Mjg3NA@@@@AMEPARAM@@SX93@@AMEPAR AM@@SY140

The US movie remake of the BBC TV series "State of Play". Too compressed but decent enough thriller.

I watched a film called Anal Games III

Lots of spunk in it, not to mention bottoms

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

The US movie remake of the BBC TV series "State of Play". Too compressed but decent enough thriller.

---

It's ok, but Russell Crowe will never be as good as John Simm, and Helen Mirren doesn't get the opportunity to do with her role what Bill Nighy did in the BBC serial. It was one of the most gripping things on TV for a long time when it first appeared. Paul Abbott is quite a writer.

Contraband with Mark Wahlberg
It was
meh

Shame by Steve McQueen, starring Michael Fassbender:

Shame (2011): trailer - YouTube

Great job by Fassbender and a really good story but left me feeling a little uncomfortable. Should give many in a place like this something to think about.

George Harrison: Living in the Material World. It's an in-depth and very interesting documentary about the former Beatle, directed by Martin Scorsese. It doesn't just cover the Beatle years, but also his childhood and his post-Beatle career, as well as his lifelong spiritual quest. Aired on HBO last fall, and released on DVD here in the States on Tuesday. I definitely recommend it.


George Harrison: Living In The Material World - Official Trailer - YouTube

[QUOTE=maxpower;1134797]George Harrison: Living in the Material World. It's an in-depth and very interesting documentary about the former Beatle, directed by Martin Scorsese. It doesn't just cover the Beatle years, but also his childhood and his post-Beatle career, as well as his lifelong spiritual quest. Aired on HBO last fall, and released on DVD here in the States on Tuesday. I definitely recommend it.

I agree. it's interesting how Scorsese has got into music documentaries. He did a good film on Dylan a couple of years ago and a Stones in concert film. But this is the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

I agree. it's interesting how Scorsese has got into music documentaries. He did a good film on Dylan a couple of years ago and a Stones in concert film. But this is the best.

---

Yeah, he does seem to be into music subjects lately, but music has always been a part of his work. I think he's just a big fan. He made The Last Waltz 30+ years ago, and has used rock/pop music to great effect in a number of his movies (Mean Streets, Goodfellas). Shine A Light, the Rolling Stones concert film you mentioned, is the shit. That might be the best concert film I've ever seen. I'll have to check out the Dylan film.

Darn I forgot the Last Waltz. That was terrific too.

http://movies.inquirer.net/files/201...engers_All.jpg