Last Movie you Watched?

1708709711713714983

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 2018 Posts: 8,395
    It's incredible how Speilberg and Lucas basically reinvented popcorn cinema. By bringing a added level of dynamism which Bond onto glimpsed at. (I thinking of Goldfinger)

    Is there any more Iconic films than Goldfinger, Raiders and STAR WARS?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    It's incredible how Speilberg and Lucas basically reinvented popcorn cinema. By bringing a added level of dynamism which Bond onto glimpsed at. (I thinking of Goldfinger)

    Is there any more Iconic films than Goldfinger, Raiders and STAR WARS?

    No, but The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Snow White and Gone With the Wind are in the same category.
  • Posts: 17,753
    It's incredible how Speilberg and Lucas basically reinvented popcorn cinema. By bringing a added level of dynamism which Bond onto glimpsed at. (I thinking of Goldfinger)

    Is there any more Iconic films than Goldfinger, Raiders and STAR WARS?

    No, but The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Snow White and Gone With the Wind are in the same category.

    Very true.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    bondjames wrote: »
    Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
    rzjbBOV.jpg
    A rather prolonged discussion of the merits of this film vis-à-vis For Your Eyes Only on another thread compelled me to take in a viewing yesterday. As I mentioned there, this is a film and series I came late to. As such and perhaps as a consequence, I’ve never seen what the big deal was with this lauded entry. Sure, it was entertaining enough upon first viewing, but I felt as though I’d seen better. I hoped that last night would change my impressions. Sadly, while there has been some improvement, mainly in the context of appreciating it for when it was made, I’m still not entirely sold. I find it a bit slow and plodding to be honest. The best action sequence here is the truck chase near the end. Apart from that, at least from an action perspective, I think FYEO blows it out of the water.

    Where this film wins is with Harrison Ford. Unlike Roger Moore, who was probably past his sell by date as Bond in 1981, Harrison is (relatively) young, strong and full of energy. Like Moore, he has significant screen presence and charisma, and uses it to good effect here. His wry humour also helps to alleviate the tension from time to time. It also benefits from Spielberg’s assured direction. He balances the tension with the lighter moments beautifully and handles whatever action there is with aplomb. One can tell that a master is at work here, while Glen still seems to be getting his feet wet with the Bond outing. The tone is better balanced throughout as well, whereas the Bond film seems to be scattered.

    Watching it, I can see its influence in several Bond films from the 80’s, including OP, TLD, LTK & NSNA in particular. I have no doubt that it benefited at the time from having Spielberg and Lucas involved, and from Ford’s fame and brand power. I checked the box office figures and they were phenomenal. So it obviously was an immensely successful and game changing film. I just can’t seem to enjoy it as much as most, although it's certainly not bad.

    Oh, and Williams's score is amazing. It truly lifts the film.

    Raiders is one of the few films i consider perfect. Everything works. Story, pace, action and performances all top notch. Seeing it in 1981 at the cinema was a breath of fresh air and it kicked Bond's arse into gear. Sorry, but it's FAR superior and more entertaining than FYEO. And I do like that film....
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited August 2018 Posts: 17,789
    bondjames wrote: »
    Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
    rzjbBOV.jpg
    A rather prolonged discussion of the merits of this film vis-à-vis For Your Eyes Only on another thread compelled me to take in a viewing yesterday. As I mentioned there, this is a film and series I came late to. As such and perhaps as a consequence, I’ve never seen what the big deal was with this lauded entry. Sure, it was entertaining enough upon first viewing, but I felt as though I’d seen better. I hoped that last night would change my impressions. Sadly, while there has been some improvement, mainly in the context of appreciating it for when it was made, I’m still not entirely sold. I find it a bit slow and plodding to be honest. The best action sequence here is the truck chase near the end. Apart from that, at least from an action perspective, I think FYEO blows it out of the water.

    Where this film wins is with Harrison Ford. Unlike Roger Moore, who was probably past his sell by date as Bond in 1981, Harrison is (relatively) young, strong and full of energy. Like Moore, he has significant screen presence and charisma, and uses it to good effect here. His wry humour also helps to alleviate the tension from time to time. It also benefits from Spielberg’s assured direction. He balances the tension with the lighter moments beautifully and handles whatever action there is with aplomb. One can tell that a master is at work here, while Glen still seems to be getting his feet wet with the Bond outing. The tone is better balanced throughout as well, whereas the Bond film seems to be scattered.

    Watching it, I can see its influence in several Bond films from the 80’s, including OP, TLD, LTK & NSNA in particular. I have no doubt that it benefited at the time from having Spielberg and Lucas involved, and from Ford’s fame and brand power. I checked the box office figures and they were phenomenal. So it obviously was an immensely successful and game changing film. I just can’t seem to enjoy it as much as most, although it's certainly not bad.

    Oh, and Williams's score is amazing. It truly lifts the film.

    Raiders is one of the few films i consider perfect. Everything works. Story, pace, action and performances all top notch. Seeing it in 1981 at the cinema was a breath of fresh air and it kicked Bond's arse into gear. Sorry, but it's FAR superior and more entertaining than FYEO. And I do like that film....
    Raiders is too far above FYEO for this to even be any kind of discussion IMO. Wanna compare Goldfinger to it? There's a discussion...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
    rzjbBOV.jpg
    A rather prolonged discussion of the merits of this film vis-à-vis For Your Eyes Only on another thread compelled me to take in a viewing yesterday. As I mentioned there, this is a film and series I came late to. As such and perhaps as a consequence, I’ve never seen what the big deal was with this lauded entry. Sure, it was entertaining enough upon first viewing, but I felt as though I’d seen better. I hoped that last night would change my impressions. Sadly, while there has been some improvement, mainly in the context of appreciating it for when it was made, I’m still not entirely sold. I find it a bit slow and plodding to be honest. The best action sequence here is the truck chase near the end. Apart from that, at least from an action perspective, I think FYEO blows it out of the water.

    Where this film wins is with Harrison Ford. Unlike Roger Moore, who was probably past his sell by date as Bond in 1981, Harrison is (relatively) young, strong and full of energy. Like Moore, he has significant screen presence and charisma, and uses it to good effect here. His wry humour also helps to alleviate the tension from time to time. It also benefits from Spielberg’s assured direction. He balances the tension with the lighter moments beautifully and handles whatever action there is with aplomb. One can tell that a master is at work here, while Glen still seems to be getting his feet wet with the Bond outing. The tone is better balanced throughout as well, whereas the Bond film seems to be scattered.

    Watching it, I can see its influence in several Bond films from the 80’s, including OP, TLD, LTK & NSNA in particular. I have no doubt that it benefited at the time from having Spielberg and Lucas involved, and from Ford’s fame and brand power. I checked the box office figures and they were phenomenal. So it obviously was an immensely successful and game changing film. I just can’t seem to enjoy it as much as most, although it's certainly not bad.

    Oh, and Williams's score is amazing. It truly lifts the film.

    Raiders is one of the few films i consider perfect. Everything works. Story, pace, action and performances all top notch. Seeing it in 1981 at the cinema was a breath of fresh air and it kicked Bond's arse into gear. Sorry, but it's FAR superior and more entertaining than FYEO. And I do like that film....
    It seems to be the conventional opinion. GF has been mentioned above in a similar vein in terms of its landmark status, and it too is a film I don't like as much as the majority of viewers. I tried though.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,581
    I enjoy Raiders but find it slightly overrated.
  • Posts: 17,753
    I thought Raiders was alright, but more controversially, I've never really enjoyed the Indiana Jones films that much. Not for me, I guess.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited August 2018 Posts: 17,789
    I enjoy Raiders but find it slightly overrated.

    In actuality, I enjoy the second and third films just a bit more, myself.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I enjoy Raiders but find it slightly overrated.

    In actuality, I enjoy the second and third films just a bit more, myself.

    It's like DN, for some people-- FRWL got better, and, to some GF was gold...

    But, like DN, ROTLA was the template to build from.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    peter wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I enjoy Raiders but find it slightly overrated.

    In actuality, I enjoy the second and third films just a bit more, myself.

    It's like DN, for some people-- FRWL got better, and, to some GF was gold...

    But, like DN, ROTLA was the template to build from.

    I concur!
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 12,466
    I always have loved The Last Crusade the most. Raiders is excellent, Temple is pretty good, and Crusade is just phenominal. I don’t think there can ever be a more purely fun, epic, balanced adventure film than Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Raiders is the most original and all-around greatest objectively, but I do find myself enjoying Crusade a tad more. The action is much stronger in the former, though.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Hereditary

    Really good horror film with echoes of Rosemary's Baby, this has some really effective scares and the ever reliable Toni Collette gives an excellent performance.

    Glad i finally caught up with it.

    Caught it the other night, probably Top 100 in the horror genre for me, absolutely mesmerized by it all. Can't wait to see it again, such a chilling, haunting film (and the fact that it's a directorial debut makes it even more impressive).

    @bondsum @Creasy47

    Glad you liked it was much as i did. A proper adult horror film. Rare indeed.
    Absolutely @LeonardPine. Both Hereditary and Upgrade are my two favourite movies of the year, so far. The thing I liked most about Hereditary was that it didn’t resort to the trashy jump-scares of the Blumhouse output. As you rightly put it, a proper adult horror film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
    phY5xeA.jpg
    So tonight I continued my viewing of the Indy films with the 2nd entry. I've seen this a couple of times in the past when younger, and again as with Raiders wasn't all that impressed. So I didn't expect much with this viewing either. Strangely, I think I enjoy this one more than Raiders, even though it's far less well balanced. I can imagine this film must have been very controversial back in the day, because tonally it's quite different from the first film, and dare I say, a bit 'adult'. Weren't these early Indy films aimed at kids? What's with the kid torture, mind control and scare tactics? Also, how about the dinner scene? Whereas the one in the prior year's OP is amusing to me and subtle, this one is borderline insulting to people from the Indian subcontinent imho. Did they really eat live snakes and monkey ice cream? I can't see something like this passing today.

    The humour in this film doesn't quite work so well either, and seems a bit slapstick. Apart from the aforementioned dinner scene which goes on and on, there's also that bit when Willie is running around like an idiot stepping all over animals at the camp site. It's just downright silly. Did Spielberg/Lucas really think it was amusing, or was Steven so infatuated with his future spouse that he thought anything could work? Also, what's with all the screaming?! Bloody annoying. Still, she's easy on the eyes, and I can understand what Spielberg saw in her. I didn't like the kid too. Some of it does work though. I thought the stop start foreplay seduction scene at the Pankot Palace (interspersed with the fight) was really well done.

    So why do I perhaps prefer this to the first one? I'm not sure. It certainly has far more highs and lows and isn't as balanced. However, I think when it hits the right notes, it's truly excellent. The opening club scene for example. Nobody wears a white dinner jacket like Sean Connery or Roger Moore, but Harrison surely comes close. It's a great sequence. The same goes for the rollercoaster mine chase and finale on the bridge. Spielberg's direction is top notch and all of that is really superbly done. I also liked the bit when Willie is being dropped into the fire pit. How did they get those special effects in 1984? It looks better than half the crap churned out by the CGI freaks today imho.

    It's just a pity that the film sags in the middle and the tone is a bit disjointed and disturbing.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 4,813
    Raiders of the Lost Ark remains not only my favorite Indy movie, but my favorite MOVIE, period. They just got everything right with this one!

    I very often knock todays movies for cramming humor down our throats-- my biggest recent examples include Terminator Genisys, Crystal Skull, most Marvel movies.... I'm sure you know what I mean.

    But even here, Raiders has exactly the type of humor I like in my action movies: it's not drawn out and eye-rolling, and it's situational humor

    One of my favorite examples is during the truck chase, and it's blink-and-miss-it: Indy and the un-named Nazi are fighting for control of the wheel, the truck crashes into all those workers, knocking them all down, and one lands on the windshield with a dopey look on his face. Indy & the Nazi take a brief second to laugh at him, then right back to fighting!
    I find stuff like that hilarious!

    4PkdGWY.jpg

    It's SO simple- I wish todays movies could just get back on that.

    But of course besides the humor, the action, mystery and plot are all top shelf for me.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @Master_Dahark I certainly agree on the humour in the film. Frankly I think that's something Cruise has been doing really well in the last 3 MI films as well. I'm pretty sure he has been as inspired by Spielberg's efforts on Indy as much as he has by Bond.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited September 2018 Posts: 8,216
    RAIDERS is absolutely timeless and deserves its place amongst film royalty.

    Though, I must admit to enjoying THE LAST CRUSADE equally as much. They're both wonderful films, laced with great humour and action. Of course, it helps that the villains in both films are the nastiest bastards to walk the Earth.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'll be seeing The Last Crusade tonight hopefully. To date it's my favourite by far, but let's see how it goes tonight.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,581
    Last Crusade is always my favorite
  • Posts: 12,466
    Glad to see I’m not alone in that here. I think The Last Crusade is just the most fun and well balanced of the 3.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    The trouble with Last Crusade is that they turned Marcus (Denholm Elliot) into a complete buffoon for cheap laughs.

    In Raiders he's a well repected intelligent colleague of Indy who in a line of dialogue suggests he was once like Indy himself in his younger days.

    Temple of Doom is full of childish humour and has a pretty crap simplistic script.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2018 Posts: 15,715
    In terms of entertainment and fun in ther purest form, I'd but The Last Crusade, TSWLM and Die Hard: With a Vengeance at the very top, even if I don't consider them the best outings of their respective franchises.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I love all the Jones movies, but If I should pick a favourite, it s TEMPLE OF DOOM.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216

    Temple of Doom is full of childish humour and has a pretty crap simplistic script.

    True, but it also has a cracking opening, superb special effects and score, and a pretty awesome finale. Doesn't really negate any of your valid criticisms of course, but it certainly helps alleviate them for me.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    I just love the Anything Goes opening of Temple of Doom.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I just love the Anything Goes opening of Temple of Doom.

    It is like a Bond pts.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996

    Temple of Doom is full of childish humour and has a pretty crap simplistic script.

    True, but it also has a cracking opening, superb special effects and score, and a pretty awesome finale. Doesn't really negate any of your valid criticisms of course, but it certainly helps alleviate them for me.

    The opening scene is indeed awesome. Really Bondian. But it's all downhill from when they 'land' in the taxi...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Raiders of the Lost Ark remains not only my favorite Indy movie, but my favorite MOVIE, period. They just got everything right with this one!
    The three Indy movies are much like Dalton's two Bonds... any one can be my favourite depending on which I'm watching at the moment.
    Raiders set the bar, Temple sidetracked with something different, and Crusade gave us Connery in addition to everything else. I basically consider the three movies as one entity, like Nolan's Batman or Back To The Future, or (to a lesser degree) Raimi's Spider-Man.
    A shame Crystal Skull missed the mark by so much- but there's a bit of fun to be had with it. In a way.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Jones went darker with the second entry, just like Star Wars.
Sign In or Register to comment.