Last Movie you Watched?

1557558560562563979

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    chrisisall wrote: »


    Gaff's origami symbolism always comments on Deckard: the chicken, the aroused man, the unicorn. The third and final of the three revealing what's inside Deckard's mind, what no one else could know. To attempt to write this out of the story and have Gaff provide Deckard a unicorn for giggles, purely "by chance," because Gaff just likes unicorns or whatever, would be the most absurd development of all.
    In the narrated version you hear Gaff saying "It's too bad she won't live- but then again who does?" in that scene. Back in '82 the unicorn made perfect sense to me. A unicorn is a fantasy creature. That was Gaff saying that a happy life with Rachel was just a fantasy since she was going to die soon. That's how I took it then, and how I see it these days. FWIW.

    Big points there, @chrisisall. Treating the origami as direct confirmation of the replicant theory is a bit too easy and uninteresting.
    I don't care either way what happens with the sequel or series, just thinking about the weak storytelling of a supposed classic and what it leaves to be desired. It's clear that only Ridley had that vision to seem intellectual and interesting, whereas his whole team hate the final cut addition, including the man who acted the part. It's up to him to do what he wants, as he's in the hot seat, but Deckard was never intended to be that one thing, and wasn't written to serve that idea. When Ridely came back ten years later to drop in a random piece of footage from another film to inject a stirring revelation, it's only natural that things wouldn't feel like they added up.

    It's not a case of deriding a movie, just amusing myself at how serious it is treated as a piece of deep storytelling when the clear emphasis was on mood and atmosphere and little else, given that the movie seems to be frightened to do anything with the characters or say anything interesting with the themes at its disposal. With Ridely out, the sequel may have a story worth watching unfold, but I don't think it's erroneous to wonder just how well the story of the first can be tied up in a bow and explained in a way that isn't pretentious, convenient or sloppy. I'd like to be optimistic, but I know who's involved.

    You're trying a little too hard to hate on these films, one of which doesn't even fully exist yet, especially when most (all?) of your issues stem not from the film but from your own misunderstandings.

    For my own part, it's tedious repeatedly cleaning up misinformation like the bolded, so I'll leave you here.
    chrisisall wrote: »


    Gaff's origami symbolism always comments on Deckard: the chicken, the aroused man, the unicorn. The third and final of the three revealing what's inside Deckard's mind, what no one else could know. To attempt to write this out of the story and have Gaff provide Deckard a unicorn for giggles, purely "by chance," because Gaff just likes unicorns or whatever, would be the most absurd development of all.
    In the narrated version you hear Gaff saying "It's too bad she won't live- but then again who does?" in that scene. Back in '82 the unicorn made perfect sense to me. A unicorn is a fantasy creature. That was Gaff saying that a happy life with Rachel was just a fantasy since she was going to die soon. That's how I took it then, and how I see it these days. FWIW.

    That's actually a fascinating interpretation and one I hadn't read before. It also leaves open the possibility of an ambiguous reading of whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant, which I'm all for.

    Wouldn't say it's misinformation, @Some_Kind_Of_Hero, just what I've learned from watching docs about the film and listening to those that made the film. Many working on set found the unicorn to be laughably bad, and Ridley did indeed use other footage and threw it in the middle of a scene it originally wasn't meant for. To drop such a bomb 10 years later and in such a pretentious way is amusing, and the writers even agree with that and Ridley's idea for Deckard.

    Don't know how much I have to state that this isn't about hating to hate, it just is. I did a comprehensive review on the film a month back, where I rated and disliked the film separate from any production concerns, down to its poor writing, world building, acting, use of theme and more; it's not about misunderstanding, but how the movie failed to meet my very basic criteria for what makes interesting cinema. It's just that every discussion about the ending inevitably lies at Ridley's feet and the ret-cons he has made that impact the film in major ways, so we end up here again and again. It fits a sorry patten for him as an artist, where he continually comes back to projects to muddle with them. The next Blade Runner could be in danger of being another Covenant for that reason, and I don't think it's ridiculous to worry about that happening considering the state of play and who Ridley is now.
  • Night of the Living Dead (1990)

    By pure coincidence, I ordered this on Blu-ray the day of Romero's passing. I'd seen it once before and recalled being more than impressed with it. I wondered afterwards whether the experience was simply a case of lowered expectations. Having watched it a second time just now, I can say the film absolutely holds up. I wouldn't dare suggest the remake in any way nears the original in quality, but it's a damn fine fourth "Romero" zombie flick, much better than Land, and it actually improves on a couple small areas from the original.

    Tom Savini directs, with Romero producing, and the zombie effects are indeed top-notch as you would expect. The cinematography shines in places as well. The opening cemetery scene with Johnny and Barbara is especially well filmed. A young Tony Todd leads the cast with a fierce, grounded performance as Ben, and Laura Dern's stunt double from Jurassic Park provides a refreshingly capable Barbara. The film captures all the same broad strokes of the original, but wisely deviates in the details, providing the fans plenty of fun. The ending in particular is, surprisingly, a satisfying alternative to the original's legendary conclusion. In short, it's a zombie flick worth watching when you're in the mood for one. It's better that this remake is in the world than that it isn't. I will have to check out Savini's feature-length commentary next.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Colossal (2016)

    Seen some good reviews for this offbeat offering and was glad I checked it out.

    Anne Hathaway is a party girl, who unemployed and thrown out by her boyfriend returns to her small home town to stay in her empty parents house. While there she believes there is a connection to herself and a giant Monster that has suddenly appeared in Seoul.

    Funny, hip and bizarre with a good performance from Hathaway. The beginning is a little off putting but stick with it and its a very rewarding film.
  • Posts: 7,200
    Tuulia wrote: »
    MPW-38687

    Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961)
    A re-watch. Not a fan, but it's pretty good, Hepburn is lovely, and it's more positive than the book.


    49667bbd95ca6361db26e888280737b6.jpg

    West Side Story (1961)
    The story slightly re-written Shakespeare. The use of colours is plentiful and quite interesting in itself. On the whole, though, I had a hard time trying to get into it.


    mockingbird.jpg

    To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)
    I thought this would be mainly a courtroom drama, but it turned out to be mainly a family story, and very much concentrated on the kids. Anyway, a good movie.

    The Great Escape (1963)
    In my memories this was much better, and more exciting.

    Cleopatra (1963)
    Boring.

    Khartoum (1966)
    My goodness, this was bloody awful.


    whos-afraid-of-virginia-woolf-blu-ray-movie-title.jpg

    Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
    Directed by Mike Nichols, starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal and Sandy Dennis, all of whom got nominated for Oscar (the ladies winning, too).
    This was good. Possibly the best I've ever seen Elizabeth Taylor.

    Once Upon A Time In The West (1968)
    It's been ages since I last saw this. A classic, obviously. With some classic music, too. (Deceptively simple, but absolutely brilliant and so memorable.) Good performances by the cast. Excellent all around.

    My favourite character... Jason Robards was so good in this.
    Cheyenne_Robards.jpg


    The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)
    I hadn't seen this version before. Found it pretty boring.

    Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969)
    I didn't really remember this, but thought it might have been good. It wasn't.

    Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid for a long time was my all time favourite movie.
    I still love it but i have many others now!
    To Kill a Mocking Bird is a classic and Gregory Pecks portrayal is one of THE greatest character performances!
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,524
    Deja Vu.

    Interesting time travel film with a good performance by Denzel. I highly enjoyed it.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited August 2017 Posts: 13,978
    A Cary Grant double-bill of To Catch A Thief (1955) & Charade (1963). There comes a point in every mans life where you realise that no matter how expensive the suit, or how big your ego is, you simply will never wear a suit like Cary Grant could. It's a fact of life, really.

    The Score (2001)
    Enjoyable heist caper, with a really satisfying ending. Edward Norton has one of the best "I think i'm going to vomit" expressions. "Ok bye bye."

    Wishmaster (1997)
    My favourite 90's horror film, and it turns 20 this year.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,856
    @MajorDSmythe, excellent double bill right there, and spot on regarding Grant. I could use a rewatch of 'To Catch A Thief,' it's been quite a while.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    PHogZiCCL6oHso_1_l.jpg

    Stephanie Sigman is in this.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    A Cary Grant double-bill of To Catch A Thief (1955) & Charade (1963). There comes a point in every mans life where you realise that no matter how expensive the suit, or how big your ego is, you simply will never wear a suit like Cary Grant could. It's a fact of life, really.
    Great films and I too completely agree on Grant. They'll never be another quite so suave. Even in his 50s and 60s (as he was in those two films) he was just in a different league.
    Tuulia wrote: »
    whos-afraid-of-virginia-woolf-blu-ray-movie-title.jpg

    Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
    Directed by Mike Nichols, starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal and Sandy Dennis, all of whom got nominated for Oscar (the ladies winning, too).
    This was good. Possibly the best I've ever seen Elizabeth Taylor.
    I've been meaning to see this one. I have it on dvd and should get to it soon.
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Cleopatra (1963)
    Boring.
    True, but the set design and production values are just so impeccable.
    Tuulia wrote: »
    The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)
    I hadn't seen this version before. Found it pretty boring.
    I can't disagree, but I quite liked this one. Worth it to see McQueen and Dunaway in their prime.
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969)
    I didn't really remember this, but thought it might have been good. It wasn't.
    I saw this with my parents when I was a kid. I just remember that silly song.
  • Posts: 2,081
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    MPW-38687

    Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961)
    A re-watch. Not a fan, but it's pretty good, Hepburn is lovely, and it's more positive than the book.


    49667bbd95ca6361db26e888280737b6.jpg

    West Side Story (1961)
    The story slightly re-written Shakespeare. The use of colours is plentiful and quite interesting in itself. On the whole, though, I had a hard time trying to get into it.


    mockingbird.jpg

    To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)
    I thought this would be mainly a courtroom drama, but it turned out to be mainly a family story, and very much concentrated on the kids. Anyway, a good movie.

    The Great Escape (1963)
    In my memories this was much better, and more exciting.

    Cleopatra (1963)
    Boring.

    Khartoum (1966)
    My goodness, this was bloody awful.


    whos-afraid-of-virginia-woolf-blu-ray-movie-title.jpg

    Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
    Directed by Mike Nichols, starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal and Sandy Dennis, all of whom got nominated for Oscar (the ladies winning, too).
    This was good. Possibly the best I've ever seen Elizabeth Taylor.

    Once Upon A Time In The West (1968)
    It's been ages since I last saw this. A classic, obviously. With some classic music, too. (Deceptively simple, but absolutely brilliant and so memorable.) Good performances by the cast. Excellent all around.

    My favourite character... Jason Robards was so good in this.
    Cheyenne_Robards.jpg


    The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)
    I hadn't seen this version before. Found it pretty boring.

    Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969)
    I didn't really remember this, but thought it might have been good. It wasn't.

    Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid for a long time was my all time favourite movie.
    I still love it but i have many others now!
    To Kill a Mocking Bird is a classic and Gregory Pecks portrayal is one of THE greatest character performances!

    I think I may have liked Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid more way back when I first saw that movie (when I was young, that is), I've tried it a couple of times since and, it just doesn't work that well for me me now. I also think the Newman&Redford duo was much better in The Sting.

    Gregory Peck was indeed excellent in To Kill a Mockingbird, and it was very much his movie.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 24,773
    Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me Missing Pieces the deeper we get into Twin Peaks The Return the more FWWM becomes more relevant The Missing Pieces has some great scenes that add alot to the universe.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 2,081
    bondjames wrote: »
    A Cary Grant double-bill of To Catch A Thief (1955) & Charade (1963). There comes a point in every mans life where you realise that no matter how expensive the suit, or how big your ego is, you simply will never wear a suit like Cary Grant could. It's a fact of life, really.
    Great films and I too completely agree on Grant. They'll never be another quite so suave. Even in his 50s and 60s (as he was in those two films) he was just in a different league.

    Yes, he was fantastic. It was funny to realize years ago that most of my faves had always been Brits - including those I had previously assumed to be Americans to begin with. :)

    And @MajorDSmythe, I'm sure that's true about the suit. It's ultimately not about the suit (and even less about ego... in fact, ego might get in the way here big time...). He was just in his own class of extremely effortless cool suaveness.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    whos-afraid-of-virginia-woolf-blu-ray-movie-title.jpg

    Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
    Directed by Mike Nichols, starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal and Sandy Dennis, all of whom got nominated for Oscar (the ladies winning, too).
    This was good. Possibly the best I've ever seen Elizabeth Taylor.
    I've been meaning to see this one. I have it on dvd and should get to it soon.
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Cleopatra (1963)
    Boring.
    True, but the set design and production values are just so impeccable.

    Gotta say I was too bored by the characters and the pomposity to be impressed. ;)
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)
    I hadn't seen this version before. Found it pretty boring.
    I can't disagree, but I quite liked this one. Worth it to see McQueen and Dunaway in their prime.

    Yes, well, McQueen and Dunaway were my main reasons for watching it. I didn't particularly like McQueen in that role, actually, but Dunaway was good.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969)
    I didn't really remember this, but thought it might have been good. It wasn't.
    I saw this with my parents when I was a kid. I just remember that silly song.

    Oh yes, the song... ugh.
  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    John Wick (2014)
    Good fun and action.

    falloutvaultboythumbsup.jpg
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,524
    If vault boy approves then it must be good.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Just finished full metal jacket. Talk about a weird tonal shift. Anyway I thought the first half was excellent and the second half, after getting used to it, was enjoyable too. Definitly gonna buy this one on blu ray. Great vietnam film. Better in my opinion than apocalypse now, extremely more watchable , however Im gonna rewatch that one some day for a reevaluation
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 12,415
    Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed (2004) and Spy Kids 3: Game-Over (2003) - two of my ultimate guilty pleasure films. Both pretty bad films - especially the latter - but they make me laugh so much because of how ridiculous they are. Good times.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    MPW-38687

    Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961)
    A re-watch. Not a fan, but it's pretty good, Hepburn is lovely, and it's more positive than the book.


    49667bbd95ca6361db26e888280737b6.jpg

    West Side Story (1961)
    The story slightly re-written Shakespeare. The use of colours is plentiful and quite interesting in itself. On the whole, though, I had a hard time trying to get into it.


    mockingbird.jpg

    To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)
    I thought this would be mainly a courtroom drama, but it turned out to be mainly a family story, and very much concentrated on the kids. Anyway, a good movie.

    The Great Escape (1963)
    In my memories this was much better, and more exciting.

    Cleopatra (1963)
    Boring.

    Khartoum (1966)
    My goodness, this was bloody awful.


    whos-afraid-of-virginia-woolf-blu-ray-movie-title.jpg

    Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
    Directed by Mike Nichols, starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal and Sandy Dennis, all of whom got nominated for Oscar (the ladies winning, too).
    This was good. Possibly the best I've ever seen Elizabeth Taylor.

    Once Upon A Time In The West (1968)
    It's been ages since I last saw this. A classic, obviously. With some classic music, too. (Deceptively simple, but absolutely brilliant and so memorable.) Good performances by the cast. Excellent all around.

    My favourite character... Jason Robards was so good in this.
    Cheyenne_Robards.jpg


    The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)
    I hadn't seen this version before. Found it pretty boring.

    Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969)
    I didn't really remember this, but thought it might have been good. It wasn't.

    Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid for a long time was my all time favourite movie.
    I still love it but i have many others now!
    To Kill a Mocking Bird is a classic and Gregory Pecks portrayal is one of THE greatest character performances!

    I think I may have liked Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid more way back when I first saw that movie (when I was young, that is), I've tried it a couple of times since and, it just doesn't work that well for me me now. I also think the Newman&Redford duo was much better in The Sting.

    Gregory Peck was indeed excellent in To Kill a Mockingbird, and it was very much his movie.

    I think Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid is a very overrated film. (glad I'm not the only one here who thinks that), remember seeing it as a kid and thought it was great, caught it a few years back on the telly box and couldn't watch it all the way through, really didn't like it, and what's with that bloody awful interlude with the totally out of place song? What were they thinking?
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Yasuharu Hasabe's Massacre Gun (1967), another great Nikkatsu Noir starring Jo Shishido, in beautiful monochrome widescreen. As with Suzuki's Branded to Kill, this has a jazzy score (not into jazz, but it really suits these two films), and again the effortless 60s cool that oozes out of these films.
    A great Yakuza film with escalating violence that would have an effect on the coming new breed Yakuza films, noticeably the Battles Without Honour And Humanity series.
    Love seeing these widescreen black-and-white films, there is a certain classiness about them (makes me wonder what an early Bond would have looked like monochrome!).
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    LES YEUX SANS VISAGE/EYES WITHOUT A FACE (1960)
    maxresdefault.jpg
    Now, this was something else. I really liked this one. Sound, vision and story come together perfectly to create a really eerie and bizarre mood. This is a work of art.
  • mattjoesmattjoes has three men to kill
    Posts: 6,998
    chrisisall wrote: »


    Gaff's origami symbolism always comments on Deckard: the chicken, the aroused man, the unicorn. The third and final of the three revealing what's inside Deckard's mind, what no one else could know. To attempt to write this out of the story and have Gaff provide Deckard a unicorn for giggles, purely "by chance," because Gaff just likes unicorns or whatever, would be the most absurd development of all.
    In the narrated version you hear Gaff saying "It's too bad she won't live- but then again who does?" in that scene. Back in '82 the unicorn made perfect sense to me. A unicorn is a fantasy creature. That was Gaff saying that a happy life with Rachel was just a fantasy since she was going to die soon. That's how I took it then, and how I see it these days. FWIW.
    I'd read something like this before, and I like this explanation. Furthermore, I'd say many films include correlated images, symbols and objects, whose presence within the world of the film is left unexplained and appears to constitute an unlikely coincidence, but which are perfectly meaningful to the viewer outside the film. No one goes around trying to explain the presence of these elements, because it's clear they are part of the "language" of the film. Why can't the unicorn fall into that category?

    chrisisall wrote: »


    Gaff's origami symbolism always comments on Deckard: the chicken, the aroused man, the unicorn. The third and final of the three revealing what's inside Deckard's mind, what no one else could know. To attempt to write this out of the story and have Gaff provide Deckard a unicorn for giggles, purely "by chance," because Gaff just likes unicorns or whatever, would be the most absurd development of all.
    In the narrated version you hear Gaff saying "It's too bad she won't live- but then again who does?" in that scene. Back in '82 the unicorn made perfect sense to me. A unicorn is a fantasy creature. That was Gaff saying that a happy life with Rachel was just a fantasy since she was going to die soon. That's how I took it then, and how I see it these days. FWIW.

    Big points there, @chrisisall. Treating the origami as direct confirmation of the replicant theory is a bit too easy and uninteresting.
    I don't care either way what happens with the sequel or series, just thinking about the weak storytelling of a supposed classic and what it leaves to be desired. It's clear that only Ridley had that vision to seem intellectual and interesting, whereas his whole team hate the final cut addition, including the man who acted the part. It's up to him to do what he wants, as he's in the hot seat, but Deckard was never intended to be that one thing, and wasn't written to serve that idea. When Ridely came back ten years later to drop in a random piece of footage from another film to inject a stirring revelation, it's only natural that things wouldn't feel like they added up.

    It's not a case of deriding a movie, just amusing myself at how serious it is treated as a piece of deep storytelling when the clear emphasis was on mood and atmosphere and little else, given that the movie seems to be frightened to do anything with the characters or say anything interesting with the themes at its disposal. With Ridely out, the sequel may have a story worth watching unfold, but I don't think it's erroneous to wonder just how well the story of the first can be tied up in a bow and explained in a way that isn't pretentious, convenient or sloppy. I'd like to be optimistic, but I know who's involved.

    You're trying a little too hard to hate on these films, one of which doesn't even fully exist yet, especially when most (all?) of your issues stem not from the film but from your own misunderstandings.

    For my own part, it's tedious repeatedly cleaning up misinformation like the bolded, so I'll leave you here.
    chrisisall wrote: »


    Gaff's origami symbolism always comments on Deckard: the chicken, the aroused man, the unicorn. The third and final of the three revealing what's inside Deckard's mind, what no one else could know. To attempt to write this out of the story and have Gaff provide Deckard a unicorn for giggles, purely "by chance," because Gaff just likes unicorns or whatever, would be the most absurd development of all.
    In the narrated version you hear Gaff saying "It's too bad she won't live- but then again who does?" in that scene. Back in '82 the unicorn made perfect sense to me. A unicorn is a fantasy creature. That was Gaff saying that a happy life with Rachel was just a fantasy since she was going to die soon. That's how I took it then, and how I see it these days. FWIW.

    That's actually a fascinating interpretation and one I hadn't read before. It also leaves open the possibility of an ambiguous reading of whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant, which I'm all for.
    It's just that every discussion about the ending inevitably lies at Ridley's feet and the ret-cons he has made that impact the film in major ways, so we end up here again and again. It fits a sorry patten for him as an artist, where he continually comes back to projects to muddle with them.
    On a related note, I can't help but be reminded of the Robin Hood debacle.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,856
    LES YEUX SANS VISAGE/EYES WITHOUT A FACE (1960)
    maxresdefault.jpg
    Now, this was something else. I really liked this one. Sound, vision and story come together perfectly to create a really eerie and bizarre mood. This is a work of art.

    Glad you enjoyed it, it's "something else" indeed. Eerie film with great atmosphere.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    LES YEUX SANS VISAGE/EYES WITHOUT A FACE (1960)
    maxresdefault.jpg
    Now, this was something else. I really liked this one. Sound, vision and story come together perfectly to create a really eerie and bizarre mood. This is a work of art.

    Glad you enjoyed it, it's "something else" indeed. Eerie film with great atmosphere.

    I found myself humming that theme tune afterwards.
  • Posts: 2,081
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    MPW-38687

    Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961)
    A re-watch. Not a fan, but it's pretty good, Hepburn is lovely, and it's more positive than the book.


    49667bbd95ca6361db26e888280737b6.jpg

    West Side Story (1961)
    The story slightly re-written Shakespeare. The use of colours is plentiful and quite interesting in itself. On the whole, though, I had a hard time trying to get into it.


    mockingbird.jpg

    To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)
    I thought this would be mainly a courtroom drama, but it turned out to be mainly a family story, and very much concentrated on the kids. Anyway, a good movie.

    The Great Escape (1963)
    In my memories this was much better, and more exciting.

    Cleopatra (1963)
    Boring.

    Khartoum (1966)
    My goodness, this was bloody awful.


    whos-afraid-of-virginia-woolf-blu-ray-movie-title.jpg

    Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
    Directed by Mike Nichols, starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal and Sandy Dennis, all of whom got nominated for Oscar (the ladies winning, too).
    This was good. Possibly the best I've ever seen Elizabeth Taylor.

    Once Upon A Time In The West (1968)
    It's been ages since I last saw this. A classic, obviously. With some classic music, too. (Deceptively simple, but absolutely brilliant and so memorable.) Good performances by the cast. Excellent all around.

    My favourite character... Jason Robards was so good in this.
    Cheyenne_Robards.jpg


    The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)
    I hadn't seen this version before. Found it pretty boring.

    Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969)
    I didn't really remember this, but thought it might have been good. It wasn't.

    Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid for a long time was my all time favourite movie.
    I still love it but i have many others now!
    To Kill a Mocking Bird is a classic and Gregory Pecks portrayal is one of THE greatest character performances!

    I think I may have liked Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid more way back when I first saw that movie (when I was young, that is), I've tried it a couple of times since and, it just doesn't work that well for me me now. I also think the Newman&Redford duo was much better in The Sting.

    Gregory Peck was indeed excellent in To Kill a Mockingbird, and it was very much his movie.

    I think Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid is a very overrated film. (glad I'm not the only one here who thinks that), remember seeing it as a kid and thought it was great, caught it a few years back on the telly box and couldn't watch it all the way through, really didn't like it, and what's with that bloody awful interlude with the totally out of place song? What were they thinking?

    I may have rolled my eyes at that scene with that song...
  • Creasy47 wrote: »
    LES YEUX SANS VISAGE/EYES WITHOUT A FACE (1960)
    maxresdefault.jpg
    Now, this was something else. I really liked this one. Sound, vision and story come together perfectly to create a really eerie and bizarre mood. This is a work of art.

    Glad you enjoyed it, it's "something else" indeed. Eerie film with great atmosphere.

    Yes, a great, haunting film with tremendous atmosphere and memorable music by Jarre.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited August 2017 Posts: 24,773
    Batman and Harley Quinn was not sure what to expect, this was a fun caper good humour and plenty of references for DC fans. Great voice acting Conroy plays it's straight whilst going from one situation to the next led by Harleys crazy antics.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 24,773
    A:I this film evokes far more profound connotations since it release, way ahead of its time in many respects.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 1,469
    Das Boot. The original uncut version (almost 5 hours long), in the original German, with English subtitles. Loved it again! Got the itch to watch it after seeing Run Silent, Run Deep (Clark Gable and Burt Lancaster) on TV. And it may be almost time to watch The Hunt for Red October again.
  • Posts: 2,081
    I find it kinda funny that the miniseries version of Das Boot is called "the original uncut version" - I had to check that, but apparently it really is. I haven't seen that (nor the original theatrical cut), but loved the Director's Cut. A great movie.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Tuulia wrote: »
    I find it kinda funny that the miniseries version of Das Boot is called "the original uncut version" - I had to check that, but apparently it really is. I haven't seen that (nor the original theatrical cut), but loved the Director's Cut. A great movie.

    It was a TV series that proved so popular that it was re-cut and given a theatrical release, much like Spielberg's Duel.
  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    Jupiter Ascending (2015)

    Pretty Rubbish.

    La%2BChiesa%2B-%2BIl%2Btradimento%2Bdell%2527Anti-Natalismo%2B-%2B2.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.