› ›

Last Movie you Watched?

1…660661663665666…989

Comments

  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    This :

    latest?cb=20150613015430

    After waiting so long to watch this,i was very disappointed in it.
    It had the feel more of a TV movie than an actual film.

    Pierce was excellent in it,and proves he could have played Bond 2-3 more films,but overall i'm glad I never took the plunge and bought this before watching it.

    Shame.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,224
    barryt007 wrote: »
    This :

    latest?cb=20150613015430

    After waiting so long to watch this,i was very disappointed in it.
    It had the feel more of a TV movie than an actual film.

    Pierce was excellent in it,and proves he could have played Bond 2-3 more films,but overall i'm glad I never took the plunge and bought this before watching it.

    Shame.

    Pierce is one of the film's few saving graces. A pretty chaotic plot doesn't help matters either.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Regarding the 'peach' scene, I just found it gratuitous & a bit odd. I'm not a prude by any means (after all, I quite enjoyed the pie shenanigans in American Pie and wasn't uncomfortable with that), so your question led me to consider what it was in particular about the scene which made me feel this way.
    Perhaps I just can't relate to the intimacy that they were trying to portray via the scene. I just see it as a guy getting it on with a fruit. One which another guy decides to eat afterwards.
    The emotional subtext of the scene (which I have since read about) was just lost on me. As mentioned, I found the father's speech towards the end far more intimate and poignant, as I did the final scene by the fireplace (quite moving) and the last conversation between Elio and Oliver. I just think that the film could have done without defiling a piece of produce and still been as satisfactorily meaningful. Perhaps more so.

    I see. Even though Guadagnino initially considered leaving the peach out altogether, since he wasn't sure it would work in film (and clearly for you it didn't work, and I'm sure you're not alone), there would have been riots had he left it out altogether.
    Oliver doesn't eat the peach in the movie - just tastes a bit - but seems to be planning to eat it when Elio's reaction interrupts him. Oliver did eat it in the book, though.
    Some people were even pretty upset by the change made in the movie, since they saw it as very important and meaningful the way it was depicted in the book. I see their point, but love that scene too much to care. At least so far. I might at some later date be persuaded that it should have been like in the book and that something vital was lost since it isn't, but I don't know... The scene is very different in other aspects, too, and may be better in the movie as it is. - They did shoot a more faithful-to-the-book version of the scene, and I'd be curious to hear Guadagnino's views on the take he chose. For me the version he chose really, really works though, so I'm happy.
    I think the scene would have resonated much more with me had I read the book. Without the background, I just found it to be an odd insertion and
    almost a bit perverse. I think part of that is because I wasn't really feeling the intimacy, as mentioned before, and therefore focused on the scene more observationally rather than embracing the meaning behind it.
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Btw, I don't remember anything about American Pie, except that I didn't enjoy it and didn't find it funny at all.
    There was a kid in the film who was discovering his sexuality and
    decided to masturbate with a pie.
    I think that's where the name of the film may have come from.
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    In terms of other scenes being uncomfortable
    I suppose it was difficult to see two men get so close to one another in this way.
    Perhaps that's the point, and the film succeeded on account of how well such intimacy was conveyed.

    That's interesting, since
    there was nothing particularly graphic shown or anything.
    I mean a hell of a lot of movies with hetero couples show tons more... but usually fail with the intimacy. Too much trying, too much "seen-this-all-before", too much "more" resulting in being less. But I guess we agree that the intimacy worked in this movie - even if we ultimately felt differently about it. What it achieved - for me at least, and I know countless others - was to convey love. Which - no matter if every other movie has a love story of some kind - is actually very rare.
    Or is that what you meant all along? - I'm not sure if you meant physical or emotional intimacy.
    I meant the emotional intimacy. It was a bit difficult for me to watch
    between two men.
    This is the part that was foreign in a way and perhaps that's why I didn't connect so well with it. I don't have a brother (two sisters instead), so maybe this has something to do with it. Not sure.

    The 'intimacy' which I could really connect to came at the end, after Oliver had left. The loss suffered by Elio
    (as shown when he calls his mother to pick him up, in his conversation with his father & Oliver on the phone, and in the final scene by the fireplace)
    was quite poignant, and I could relate to that. I've thought about why that is, and perhaps it's because Oliver himself was no longer physically present in the film, and so subconsciously I was relating to the universal 'loss' and 'love' concepts as opposed to the actual relationship that was depicted itself, and that was easier for me to personally internalize and absorb.
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    In terms of 'distant': I mean that I wasn't able to relate to the romance in the same way that I was in Phantom Thread for instance. While there was very little nudity or overt sexual references in the DDL film, I found I could connect with both Woodcock and Alma, and in particular the tenderness, tension, emotions, passions & love games between them. I couldn't quite do the same with Elio and Oliver. It was foreign to me in a way, as though I was observing it from afar rather than wholeheartedly absorbing and embracing it. It's difficult to explain. I'm not sure if that's on account of the direction or not. Visually Call Me By Your Name is the stronger film.

    I don't want you to think I didn't like it. I thought it was very well done.

    That's an interesting comparison. I liked Phantom Thread a lot, but... I can't even compare, really, the movies were so different and the relationships were so different (the Phantom Thread relationship was pretty unpleasant in many ways), but if I may steal your words I was observing it from afar rather than wholeheartedly embracing it.

    I know it's difficult to explain, don't worry about that. I couldn't begin to explain why exactly CMBYN worked so perfectly for me, it just did. Obviously I could try... talk about it for days, for instance, but if the other person didn't see it the same way, they'd still be just "so?" We experience movies the way we experience them, because of who we are and what we see and feel in them.
    Yes, I agree. The relationship in Phantom Thread was unpleasant for sure. It's just that I've encountered that kind of manipulation myself (although not to such a degree) and have also observed it among family members. So I could relate.

    I completely agree on your last point as well: How we experience film is very dependent on our own point of view, our own personal experiences, and who we are.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Master_Dahark wrote: »
    What did you think of Batman V Superman? So many people called for his public execution

    Wasn t it just two or three guys here who ranted about it for months?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I loved BvS myself. Still watch it from time to time, as it portrays a Batman in live action I can relate to. Sadly, they made Batman useless in Justice League.
  • RevelatorRevelator
    Posts: 2,922
    It's pretty late, but here's my top ten list for 2017, in no real order:

    A Quiet Passion (Terence Davies)
    Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan)
    After the Storm (Hirokazu Kore-eda)
    Ladybird (Greta Gerwig)
    Nocturama (Bertrand Bonello)
    Phantom Thread (Paul Thomas Anderson)
    Good Time (Ben and Josh Safdie)
    Call Me By Your Name (Luca Guadagnino)
    The Death of Louis XIV (Albert Serra)
    King of Jazz (John Murray Anderson; actually released in 1930 but restored and re-released in 2017)
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,224
    Nice to see some variety in there @Revelator
  • RevelatorRevelator
    edited March 2018 Posts: 2,922
    Thanks GoldenGun! For anyone curious about King of Jazz, here's an excerpt from the "Rhapsody in Blue" sequence (technically "Rhapsody in Teal" due to the limitations of two-strip Technicolor!):

  • RevelatorRevelator
    edited March 2018 Posts: 2,922
    Birdleson wrote: »
    You're the only other person that I know with GOOD TIME on their list. Pretty good movie.

    Indeed! And probably the best thing that Twilight guy has done. His Noo Yawk accent was excellent and he must have had fun playing such an utter scumbag.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    Revelator wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    You're the only other person that I know with GOOD TIME on their list. Pretty good movie.

    Indeed! And probably the best thing that Twilight guy has done. His Noo Yawk accent was excellent and he must have had fun playing such an utter scumbag.

    I saw Good Time on the big screen last September - really good film. Very, very intense and Robert Pattinson delivered a career defining performance.
  • TuuliaTuulia
    Posts: 2,081
    Tirez sur le pianiste - Shoot The Piano Player AKA Shoot The Pianist (1960)
    Truffaut. Charles Aznavour as the pianist. I didn't care for this much myself, a classic though it may be.

    The Diary Of A Teenager Girl (2015)
    I wonder if people were freaking out about the age difference between characters in this movie. Probably not much - hey, only 20 years, and the girl was 15 (played by an actress into her 20s. (I've been rolling my eyes pretty hard over all the wringing of hands over the age difference of several years in Call Me By Your Name, which some people somehow find "shocking.")
    The movie was... okay.

    A Matter of Life and Death (1946)
    And speaking of ages, did a roughly mid-30s David Niven really pass for a 27 year-old when this movie came out? Would pass for a 50 year old nowadays. He plays a guy who was supposed to die, but somehow doesn't, and then falls in love in record time and refuses to go with a heavenly escort, appeals, and gets a heavenly trial to decide if he is to die as planned or gets to live. Sort of silly, but for a lot of it quite nice and fun, though at worst moments also somewhat boring and pompous.

    Teorema (1968)
    Pier Paolo Pasolini's peculiar film in which Terence Stamp's mysterious Visitor seduces the whole household, then leaves them, and everyone goes off the rails. Sort of interesting in a way, but I can't say I enjoyed watching it.

    Stalker (1979)
    Andrei Tarkovsky's film is contemplative, melancholy, and kinda fascinating in its strangeness. Requires patience, but I liked it.

    Felony (2013)
    Written, directed and stars Joel Edgerton. Also Tom Wilkinson. I like both, so that was enough to get me to watch. Interestingly presented moral dilemmas and conflicts and how lies influence people who go along with them.

    The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (1962)
    Not bad, but I was a bit bored.

    Il Deserto Rosso - Red Desert (1964)
    Michelangelo Antonioni's film starring the lovely Monica Vitti. His first colour film, and I loved how he used colour here. Fascinating visually and sound-wise.

    James White (2015)
    The cast, which I wasn't familiar with, apart from Cynthia Nixon who played the title character's mother, was good. The movie was depressing, yet didn't touch me (despite having lost my mother to cancer). I would, however, be interested to see whatever else Josh Mond might direct.

    Roma città aperta - Rome, Open City (1945)
    Roberto Rossellini's drama, set in Rome under the Nazi occupation. I liked this.
  • TuuliaTuulia
    edited March 2018 Posts: 2,081
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Regarding the 'peach' scene, I just found it gratuitous & a bit odd. I'm not a prude by any means (after all, I quite enjoyed the pie shenanigans in American Pie and wasn't uncomfortable with that), so your question led me to consider what it was in particular about the scene which made me feel this way.
    Perhaps I just can't relate to the intimacy that they were trying to portray via the scene. I just see it as a guy getting it on with a fruit. One which another guy decides to eat afterwards.
    The emotional subtext of the scene (which I have since read about) was just lost on me. As mentioned, I found the father's speech towards the end far more intimate and poignant, as I did the final scene by the fireplace (quite moving) and the last conversation between Elio and Oliver. I just think that the film could have done without defiling a piece of produce and still been as satisfactorily meaningful. Perhaps more so.

    I see. Even though Guadagnino initially considered leaving the peach out altogether, since he wasn't sure it would work in film (and clearly for you it didn't work, and I'm sure you're not alone), there would have been riots had he left it out altogether.
    Oliver doesn't eat the peach in the movie - just tastes a bit - but seems to be planning to eat it when Elio's reaction interrupts him. Oliver did eat it in the book, though.
    Some people were even pretty upset by the change made in the movie, since they saw it as very important and meaningful the way it was depicted in the book. I see their point, but love that scene too much to care. At least so far. I might at some later date be persuaded that it should have been like in the book and that something vital was lost since it isn't, but I don't know... The scene is very different in other aspects, too, and may be better in the movie as it is. - They did shoot a more faithful-to-the-book version of the scene, and I'd be curious to hear Guadagnino's views on the take he chose. For me the version he chose really, really works though, so I'm happy.
    I think the scene would have resonated much more with me had I read the book. Without the background, I just found it to be an odd insertion and
    almost a bit perverse. I think part of that is because I wasn't really feeling the intimacy, as mentioned before, and therefore focused on the scene more observationally rather than embracing the meaning behind it.

    I hadn't read the book beforehand, and think most viewers hadn't, and a lot of them still enjoyed the scene. Reading the book after seeing the movie didn't change my opinion of the scene in the movie at all, and it might not have changed yours, either - even if you had read the book beforehand. (Listening to the audio book changed my view of the book in general, but that's another issue.) I thought the movie itself provides all the information one needs for the scene (as it should). I think it's simply just that you weren't that invested, like you said. And I get that part. (Whatever the movie or the scene, everyone isn't.)
    But I'm still confused what's perverse about it to you, or why it made you uncomfortable.
    Not trying to discredit how you felt, just trying to understand. I get, for instance, why some people may have a negative reaction watching violence in general, or of certain kinds - like I have a male friend who refuses to watch for instance Fight Club, and he says it's because he has enough experience of fights in his own life... watching westerns with gun fights he's fine with, though, nothing too close to home. And I can't imagine how domestic abuse victims would feel watching films depicting domestic abuse, rape victims watching rape scenes, etc. But when I see something I consider beautiful,
    then seeing it described as uncomfortable and perverse feels really weird. I hope you understand what I mean, I don't of course mean you should see it the same way I do, not at all. Your take just confuses me. But it is also interesting which is why I asked. If the question is too intrusive, feel free to ignore it.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Btw, I don't remember anything about American Pie, except that I didn't enjoy it and didn't find it funny at all.
    There was a kid in the film who was discovering his sexuality and
    decided to masturbate with a pie.
    I think that's where the name of the film may have come from.

    Yes, I know, I just don't actually remember it.
    So... you're okay with young guys exploring their sexuality by masturbating with pies, but peaches are too much? The logic being...? --- This might call for an emoticon to clarify the tone in which I mean that question, but I seem to remember you dislike them, so...
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    In terms of other scenes being uncomfortable
    I suppose it was difficult to see two men get so close to one another in this way.
    Perhaps that's the point, and the film succeeded on account of how well such intimacy was conveyed.

    That's interesting, since
    there was nothing particularly graphic shown or anything.
    I mean a hell of a lot of movies with hetero couples show tons more... but usually fail with the intimacy. Too much trying, too much "seen-this-all-before", too much "more" resulting in being less. But I guess we agree that the intimacy worked in this movie - even if we ultimately felt differently about it. What it achieved - for me at least, and I know countless others - was to convey love. Which - no matter if every other movie has a love story of some kind - is actually very rare.
    Or is that what you meant all along? - I'm not sure if you meant physical or emotional intimacy.
    I meant the emotional intimacy. It was a bit difficult for me to watch
    between two men.
    This is the part that was foreign in a way and perhaps that's why I didn't connect so well with it. I don't have a brother (two sisters instead), so maybe this has something to do with it. Not sure.

    The 'intimacy' which I could really connect to came at the end, after Oliver had left. The loss suffered by Elio
    (as shown when he calls his mother to pick him up, in his conversation with his father & Oliver on the phone, and in the final scene by the fireplace)
    was quite poignant, and I could relate to that. I've thought about why that is, and perhaps it's because Oliver himself was no longer physically present in the film, and so subconsciously I was relating to the universal 'loss' and 'love' concepts as opposed to the actual relationship that was depicted itself, and that was easier for me to personally internalize and absorb.

    Thank you, that was beautifully explained, and I think I get what you mean.
    To me it made no major difference - on either emotional or physical side - that they were two men. (That should be "foreign" to me, too, but didn't feel that way.) If anything, that made it just more interesting, partly because of the rarity factor of stories like this in movies. Probably the first time I've even seen a movie that is simply a love story, which just happens to be between two men. It was presented as a love story between two humans, not specifically between two men. That's how I saw it, and I know many others - both men and women - have.

    What really made the story pull me in was that it felt so real and genuine, and every touch and kiss thoroughly earned, unlike most love stories of any kind, where everything seems too easy, too quick, too choreographed, and therefore fake. What I saw was an exceptionally good love story, which I absolutely bought as real. (No, I don't mean like that, just that it was exceptionally well done - regarding writing, directing and acting - plus the chemistry between the actors worked wonders.)

    Btw, regarding loss, I felt worse for Oliver, because
    his situation was more difficult to begin with, and then after going home he lacked the support and acceptance and unconditional love that Elio got. After resisting and running away, Oliver finally allowed himself to be vulnerable, which freed him up, and then afterwards he just had to keep hiding again behind the confident guy veneer he had built as protection, and to be what his parents expected of him. A tragic fate.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    In terms of 'distant': I mean that I wasn't able to relate to the romance in the same way that I was in Phantom Thread for instance. While there was very little nudity or overt sexual references in the DDL film, I found I could connect with both Woodcock and Alma, and in particular the tenderness, tension, emotions, passions & love games between them. I couldn't quite do the same with Elio and Oliver. It was foreign to me in a way, as though I was observing it from afar rather than wholeheartedly absorbing and embracing it. It's difficult to explain. I'm not sure if that's on account of the direction or not. Visually Call Me By Your Name is the stronger film.

    I don't want you to think I didn't like it. I thought it was very well done.

    That's an interesting comparison. I liked Phantom Thread a lot, but... I can't even compare, really, the movies were so different and the relationships were so different (the Phantom Thread relationship was pretty unpleasant in many ways), but if I may steal your words I was observing it from afar rather than wholeheartedly embracing it.

    I know it's difficult to explain, don't worry about that. I couldn't begin to explain why exactly CMBYN worked so perfectly for me, it just did. Obviously I could try... talk about it for days, for instance, but if the other person didn't see it the same way, they'd still be just "so?" We experience movies the way we experience them, because of who we are and what we see and feel in them.
    Yes, I agree. The relationship in Phantom Thread was unpleasant for sure. It's just that I've encountered that kind of manipulation myself (although not to such a degree) and have also observed it among family members. So I could relate.

    I completely agree on your last point as well: How we experience film is very dependent on our own point of view, our own personal experiences, and who we are.

    Yes, there's just no getting around that. Discussion is good, and different opinions are interesting, but I never get why people fight over different experiences and views over any piece of art. It's like being upset that everyone isn't the same person and that people actually have different life experiences.
  • TuuliaTuulia
    Posts: 2,081
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »

    A Matter of Life and Death (1946)
    And speaking of ages, did a roughly mid-30s David Niven really pass for a 27 year-old when this movie came out? Would pass for a 50 year old nowadays. He plays a guy who was supposed to die, but somehow doesn't, and then falls in love in record time and refuses to go with a heavenly escort, appeals, and gets a heavenly trial to decide if he is to die as planned or gets to live. Sort of silly, but for a lot of it quite nice and fun, though at worst moments also somewhat boring and pompous.

    Stalker (1979)
    Andrei Tarkovsky's film is contemplative, melancholy, and kinda fascinating in its strangeness. Requires patience, but I liked it.

    Roma città aperta - Rome, Open City (1945)
    Roberto Rossellini's drama, set in Rome under the Nazi occupation. I liked this.

    Three great ones, right there. STALKER is my favorite Tarkovsky film; and he is truly one of the finest directors to have ever inhabited Earth.

    I think the only other film of his I've seen is Solaris, ages ago. I need a re-watch of that at some point, and also to see more of his work.

    But I also have like a few hundred films that I need to watch or re-watch. A loooong list that just keeps getting longer instead of shorter the more I watch. I've accepted it's sort of hopeless (similar situation with music), but it's also fun, I just watch as much as I can, of different kinds of stuff.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited March 2018 Posts: 7,224
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »

    A Matter of Life and Death (1946)
    And speaking of ages, did a roughly mid-30s David Niven really pass for a 27 year-old when this movie came out? Would pass for a 50 year old nowadays. He plays a guy who was supposed to die, but somehow doesn't, and then falls in love in record time and refuses to go with a heavenly escort, appeals, and gets a heavenly trial to decide if he is to die as planned or gets to live. Sort of silly, but for a lot of it quite nice and fun, though at worst moments also somewhat boring and pompous.

    Stalker (1979)
    Andrei Tarkovsky's film is contemplative, melancholy, and kinda fascinating in its strangeness. Requires patience, but I liked it.

    Roma città aperta - Rome, Open City (1945)
    Roberto Rossellini's drama, set in Rome under the Nazi occupation. I liked this.

    Three great ones, right there. STALKER is my favorite Tarkovsky film; and he is truly one of the finest directors to have ever inhabited Earth.

    Agreed. Stalker is also one of my absolute favourite films. Visually unmatched, thematically challenging.

    As for A Matter of Life and Death, I always like David Niven, possibly one of my favourite actors. Though I like him better in less serious roles like The Pink Panther or Le cerveau. This one is good, though it can drag at certain points.

    Roma, città aperta is not only an excellent film but a benchmark in Italian cinema. Coming out just after WW2, it was the first neorealist film giving birth to a string of the world’s finest films, like Ladri di biciclette and Rocco e i suoi fratelli.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,460
    Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

    Basically just an Oscar bait version of a Richard Curtis film. Decent enough.

    6/10
  • CraterGunsCraterGuns
    Posts: 618
    white-zombie-bela-lugosi.jpg
    Lugosi at his most satanic!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Regarding the 'peach' scene, I just found it gratuitous & a bit odd. I'm not a prude by any means (after all, I quite enjoyed the pie shenanigans in American Pie and wasn't uncomfortable with that), so your question led me to consider what it was in particular about the scene which made me feel this way.
    Perhaps I just can't relate to the intimacy that they were trying to portray via the scene. I just see it as a guy getting it on with a fruit. One which another guy decides to eat afterwards.
    The emotional subtext of the scene (which I have since read about) was just lost on me. As mentioned, I found the father's speech towards the end far more intimate and poignant, as I did the final scene by the fireplace (quite moving) and the last conversation between Elio and Oliver. I just think that the film could have done without defiling a piece of produce and still been as satisfactorily meaningful. Perhaps more so.

    I see. Even though Guadagnino initially considered leaving the peach out altogether, since he wasn't sure it would work in film (and clearly for you it didn't work, and I'm sure you're not alone), there would have been riots had he left it out altogether.
    Oliver doesn't eat the peach in the movie - just tastes a bit - but seems to be planning to eat it when Elio's reaction interrupts him. Oliver did eat it in the book, though.
    Some people were even pretty upset by the change made in the movie, since they saw it as very important and meaningful the way it was depicted in the book. I see their point, but love that scene too much to care. At least so far. I might at some later date be persuaded that it should have been like in the book and that something vital was lost since it isn't, but I don't know... The scene is very different in other aspects, too, and may be better in the movie as it is. - They did shoot a more faithful-to-the-book version of the scene, and I'd be curious to hear Guadagnino's views on the take he chose. For me the version he chose really, really works though, so I'm happy.
    I think the scene would have resonated much more with me had I read the book. Without the background, I just found it to be an odd insertion and
    almost a bit perverse. I think part of that is because I wasn't really feeling the intimacy, as mentioned before, and therefore focused on the scene more observationally rather than embracing the meaning behind it.

    I hadn't read the book beforehand, and think most viewers hadn't, and a lot of them still enjoyed the scene. Reading the book after seeing the movie didn't change my opinion of the scene in the movie at all, and it might not have changed yours, either - even if you had read the book beforehand. (Listening to the audio book changed my view of the book in general, but that's another issue.) I thought the movie itself provides all the information one needs for the scene (as it should). I think it's simply just that you weren't that invested, like you said. And I get that part. (Whatever the movie or the scene, everyone isn't.)
    But I'm still confused what's perverse about it to you, or why it made you uncomfortable.
    Not trying to discredit how you felt, just trying to understand. I get, for instance, why some people may have a negative reaction watching violence in general, or of certain kinds - like I have a male friend who refuses to watch for instance Fight Club, and he says it's because he has enough experience of fights in his own life... watching westerns with gun fights he's fine with, though, nothing too close to home. And I can't imagine how domestic abuse victims would feel watching films depicting domestic abuse, rape victims watching rape scenes, etc. But when I see something I consider beautiful,
    then seeing it described as uncomfortable and perverse feels really weird. I hope you understand what I mean, I don't of course mean you should see it the same way I do, not at all. Your take just confuses me. But it is also interesting which is why I asked. If the question is too intrusive, feel free to ignore it.
    It's a fair question, especially given how the scene and the film has resonated with you. I'm really not sure why I feel this way, so all I can do is speculate. I think maybe some of it comes down to a shame perhaps?
    After all self gratification is something we all perhaps engage in from time to time, and I'll admit to it myself
    Seeing it portrayed on screen isn't something I'm normally partial to unless it's done in a humorous manner, like in American Pie, where the idea is to solicit a laugh or two. I suppose it's the opposite of how some women don't like when female nudity is shown in gratuitous fashion onscreen, but have no problem when it's done in a less overt and more romantic manner. Context is important. Then again, it might be because
    I've never had the desire or need to experiment with a fruit. As an example, I think they showed him pleasuring himself earlier in the film (just before Oliver comes into the room and asks him to go swimming with him), and I didn't have any problem with that scene at all.
    So ultimately I can't really explain it, although I suppose perverse was the wrong term to use. Uncomfortable & gratuitous is more a correct reflection of my thinking and that's purely on account of how private it was. Perhaps there is a bit of a prude in me after all, depending on how something is portrayed.
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    Btw, I don't remember anything about American Pie, except that I didn't enjoy it and didn't find it funny at all.
    There was a kid in the film who was discovering his sexuality and
    decided to masturbate with a pie.
    I think that's where the name of the film may have come from.

    Yes, I know, I just don't actually remember it.
    So... you're okay with young guys exploring their sexuality by masturbating with pies, but peaches are too much? The logic being...? --- This might call for an emoticon to clarify the tone in which I mean that question, but I seem to remember you dislike them, so...
    No, not at all. On the contrary. As explained above, it's the context of the scene in combination with the graphic use of fruits. The type of fruit didn't bother me really.
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    In terms of other scenes being uncomfortable
    I suppose it was difficult to see two men get so close to one another in this way.
    Perhaps that's the point, and the film succeeded on account of how well such intimacy was conveyed.

    That's interesting, since
    there was nothing particularly graphic shown or anything.
    I mean a hell of a lot of movies with hetero couples show tons more... but usually fail with the intimacy. Too much trying, too much "seen-this-all-before", too much "more" resulting in being less. But I guess we agree that the intimacy worked in this movie - even if we ultimately felt differently about it. What it achieved - for me at least, and I know countless others - was to convey love. Which - no matter if every other movie has a love story of some kind - is actually very rare.
    Or is that what you meant all along? - I'm not sure if you meant physical or emotional intimacy.
    I meant the emotional intimacy. It was a bit difficult for me to watch
    between two men.
    This is the part that was foreign in a way and perhaps that's why I didn't connect so well with it. I don't have a brother (two sisters instead), so maybe this has something to do with it. Not sure.

    The 'intimacy' which I could really connect to came at the end, after Oliver had left. The loss suffered by Elio
    (as shown when he calls his mother to pick him up, in his conversation with his father & Oliver on the phone, and in the final scene by the fireplace)
    was quite poignant, and I could relate to that. I've thought about why that is, and perhaps it's because Oliver himself was no longer physically present in the film, and so subconsciously I was relating to the universal 'loss' and 'love' concepts as opposed to the actual relationship that was depicted itself, and that was easier for me to personally internalize and absorb.

    Thank you, that was beautifully explained, and I think I get what you mean.
    To me it made no major difference - on either emotional or physical side - that they were two men. (That should be "foreign" to me, too, but didn't feel that way.) If anything, that made it just more interesting, partly because of the rarity factor of stories like this in movies. Probably the first time I've even seen a movie that is simply a love story, which just happens to be between two men. It was presented as a love story between two humans, not specifically between two men. That's how I saw it, and I know many others - both men and women - have.

    What really made the story pull me in was that it felt so real and genuine, and every touch and kiss thoroughly earned, unlike most love stories of any kind, where everything seems too easy, too quick, too choreographed, and therefore fake. What I saw was an exceptionally good love story, which I absolutely bought as real. (No, I don't mean like that, just that it was exceptionally well done - regarding writing, directing and acting - plus the chemistry between the actors worked wonders.)

    Btw, regarding loss, I felt worse for Oliver, because
    his situation was more difficult to begin with, and then after going home he lacked the support and acceptance and unconditional love that Elio got. After resisting and running away, Oliver finally allowed himself to be vulnerable, which freed him up, and then afterwards he just had to keep hiding again behind the confident guy veneer he had built as protection, and to be what his parents expected of him. A tragic fate.
    It's a good point you make about Oliver. I had never thought about that. Your comment made me realize that, of the two characters, I related more to Elio than Oliver. I saw the film from Elio's perspective primarily, with Oliver as an outside catalyst. Looking at it from his perspective gives a whole new light to it.

    Ultimately I can't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that it was a very well done love story and I can appreciate how it could resonate with many. Bold film making certainly. Perhaps that's what it is? Maybe it was too bold for me? Irrespective, this discussion has helped me to understand and question my views on the film, and has been quite 'fruit'ful (pun intended). Cathartic even. I may actually revisit it again and see if I can view it in a more wholesome light.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    The Numbers station (2013) with Malin Akkerman and John Cusack, when a government assassin fails to clean up a murder scene he gets a babysit job for a code operator in the countryside of England. When they come under attack Cusack has to protect her and his sanity and professional code. A fairly decent spy story that does not overstay his welcome

    John Wick - Man loses his wife and the dog she gave him after his death (pretty convenient timing by her after she fell into a coma) and he then loses his mind and goes on a revenge spree. A bit much over the top in my humble opinion. To much of the same flipping roll in all hand to hand combat scenes. Poor movie.

    November man - Pierce Brosnan back in job he is bets suited for government hitman no 00 this time but just as lethal. A nice and decent spy/assassin movie that entertains, it even has a former Bond woman in the lead. The chemistry between Brosnan and her is good. I would not mind a sequel or two.

    Annihilation - a nice scifi movie that is far more cerebral than actioner, I must read the original books by Jeff Vandemeer perhaps to get insight what they tried to deliver. Not a bad movie and looking at Mrs Portman is never a waste of time.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 14,007
    SaintMark wrote: »
    The Numbers station (2013) with Malin Akkerman and John Cusack, when a government assassin fails to clean up a murder scene he gets a babysit job for a code operator in the countryside of England. When they come under attack Cusack has to protect her and his sanity and professional code. A fairly decent spy story that does not overstay his welcome

    That was a surprisingly good film. A small scale spy thriller, set almost entirely in one location. I'm not saying that would work for Bond, but The Numbers Station pulled it off.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    The Numbers station (2013) with Malin Akkerman and John Cusack, when a government assassin fails to clean up a murder scene he gets a babysit job for a code operator in the countryside of England. When they come under attack Cusack has to protect her and his sanity and professional code. A fairly decent spy story that does not overstay his welcome

    That was a surprisingly good film. A small scale spy thriller, set almost entirely in one location. I'm not saying that would work for Bond, but The Numbers Station pulled it off.

    True would not work for 007 but was nonetheless a good littel movie, for me RONIN is always the 007 movie that got away, that would have made a great 007 actioner.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 14,007
    SaintMark wrote: »
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    The Numbers station (2013) with Malin Akkerman and John Cusack, when a government assassin fails to clean up a murder scene he gets a babysit job for a code operator in the countryside of England. When they come under attack Cusack has to protect her and his sanity and professional code. A fairly decent spy story that does not overstay his welcome

    That was a surprisingly good film. A small scale spy thriller, set almost entirely in one location. I'm not saying that would work for Bond, but The Numbers Station pulled it off.

    True would not work for 007 but was nonetheless a good littel movie, for me RONIN is always the 007 movie that got away, that would have made a great 007 actioner.

    Ronin is even better. EON have been influenced by a number of different films over the years, but why couldn't they have taken influence from Ronin?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,012
    While I've never seen The Numbers Station, DN does take place almost entirely in Jamaica.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited March 2018 Posts: 17,829
    The Numbers Station is a good spy film, really. Better than the IMDB score might suggest.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited March 2018 Posts: 7,224
    Because I was so engaged by The Man Who Haunted Himself i decided to write down my thoughts. A short review if you will.
    THE MAN WHO HAUNTED HIMSELF
    UK 1970, Basil Dearden

    Right between being effortlessly charming as Simon Templar and being effortlessly charming as James Bond Roger Moore was the protagonist of this unfairly forgotten British mystery thriller.

    My interest in cinema goes back to the days I was an early teenager discovering the Bond films and Roger Moore was obviously a big part of that journey. Nevertheless, I always find it regrettable Moore's Bond films descend into silliness at least on a few occasions in each one of those outings. For heaven's sake, even in his most serious Bond flick a parrot asks Margaret Thatcher for a kiss right before the credits roll.

    In the whopping 886 minutes Sir Rog got to be Agent 007 I think he only got the chance to prove his acting skills in four or five scenes. For those of you who, like me, really like Sir Rog that is infuriating. But thanks to Matt (letterboxd.com/matthewnoble/film/the-man-who-haunted-himself/) I discovered this little gem of a film.

    "The Man Who Haunted Himself" is an excellent example of efficient filmmaking. Made on a shoestring budget director Basil Dearden never relies on cheap tricks or fat-fetched red herrings but keeps the viewer engaged with excellent camerawork, effective music and a patiently unfolding mystery.

    Above all however, this film explores Roger Moore's acting chops like no other film ever did. Moore plays a tormented business man who is not entirely sure if someone is playing a trick on him or if he's going completely bonkers. A premise that gives Moore the chance to give a genuinely haunting performance for once.

    This film is the ultimate proof of the contrary of Moore's presumed limits as an actor. It is arguably also the best film of his career and I think he knew that too as he apparently gave the producers a considerable discount for his appearance in it.

    All I can say is: Well done Rog, by doing that you gave the world incontestable evidence that you truly were a fine actor.

    Just my two cents of course.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,829
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Because I was so engaged by The Man Who Haunted Himself i decided to write down my thoughts. A short review if you will.
    THE MAN WHO HAUNTED HIMSELF
    UK 1970, Basil Dearden

    Right between being effortlessly charming as Simon Templar and being effortlessly charming as James Bond Roger Moore was the protagonist of this unfairly forgotten British mystery thriller.

    My interest in cinema goes back to the days I was an early teenager discovering the Bond films and Roger Moore was obviously a big part of that journey. Nevertheless, I always find it regrettable Moore's Bond films descend into silliness at least on a few occasions in each one of those outings. For heaven's sake, even in his most serious Bond flick a parrot asks Margaret Thatcher for a kiss right before the credits roll.

    In the whopping 886 minutes Sir Rog got to be Agent 007 I think he only got the chance to prove his acting skills in four or five scenes. For those of you who, like me, really like Sir Rog that is infuriating. But thanks to Matt (letterboxd.com/matthewnoble/film/the-man-who-haunted-himself/) I discovered this little gem of a film.

    "The Man Who Haunted Himself" is an excellent example of efficient filmmaking. Made on a shoestring budget director Basil Dearden never relies on cheap tricks or fat-fetched red herrings but keeps the viewer engaged with excellent camerawork, effective music and a patiently unfolding mystery.

    Above all however, this film explores Roger Moore's acting chops like no other film ever did. Moore plays a tormented business man who is not entirely sure if someone is playing a trick on him or if he's going completely bonkers. A premise that gives Moore the chance to give a genuinely haunting performance for once.

    This film is the ultimate proof of the contrary of Moore's presumed limits as an actor. It is arguably also the best film of his career and I think he knew that too as he apparently gave the producers a considerable discount for his appearance in it.

    All I can say is: Well done Rog, by doing that you gave the world incontestable evidence that you truly were a fine actor.

    Just my two cents of course.

    Nice review! I'm planning on buying The Man Who Haunted Himself the next time I'm doing a bit of Amazon shopping. Do hope I'll have a similar experience watching this one!
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,224
    Thanks @Torgeirtrap! Highly recommended.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited March 2018 Posts: 17,838
    Just watched Justice League on Blu Ray (purchased today). I thought it was cool when I saw it theatrically, but I enjoyed it twice as much just now. My Son initially had no real interest in watching it with me, but once I put it on he actually stayed with it to the end. His comment on it: "It was a CGI funhouse, but at least it was fun." I guess that's a weak recommendation, but not a slam on the film. For MY part, I actually loved it. Again.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,276
    Glad to see some real praise for JL.
    One of the things I really admire about the film is the Tunnel Fight. Shows them all working together very well.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    SharkBait wrote: »
    Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult
    Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid
    Cruising
    Psycho (1998)
    Trainspotting
    T2: Trainspotting

    A fave - would love a blu-ray of this film. Awesome.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,629
    Lancaster007 wrote: »
    SharkBait wrote: »
    Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult
    Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid
    Cruising
    Psycho (1998)
    Trainspotting
    T2: Trainspotting

    A fave - would love a blu-ray of this film. Awesome.

    Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, classic Peckinpah. Have it on DVD, but I must get it in blu ray. James Coburn is terrific in it!
    I believe there are several cuts of the film?
Sign In or Register to comment.