Watch, Watched, Watching: Strange Times

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, ithanos said:

Of those listed, if I had to pick one, I'd probably take Scorsese

Fair enough.  Was thinking about this, would like to make the case for Kubrick just out of boredom.  Let's go over his CV:

1. One of the first truly great war movies - Paths of Glory.
2. One of the first truly great historical epics - Spartacus.
3. A great romantic comedy - Lolita.
4. Probably the first, and still one of the greatest, political satires - Dr. Strangelove.
5. THE first great sci-fi film (and in my book one of the greatest films ever), that's responsible for the success of Star Wars and pretty much any movie with star or space in its title - 2001.
6. One of, if not the, best adaptations of a dystopian novel - Clockwork Orange.
7. A historical epic that, while admittedly plodding/boring, still was an adventure in the vein that everybody reading this probably is inclined to like - Barry Lyndon.
8. One of, if not the, best horror films ever - The Shining.
9. The second best Vietnam film, after Apocalypse Now - Full Metal Jacket.

...And then he did the weird socialite orgy movie with Cruise and Kidman, and then he died.  That list kicks Spielberg's ass.

[RumHam]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Fair enough.  Was thinking about this, would like to make the case for Kubrick just out of boredom.  Let's go over his CV:

1. One of the first truly great war move - Paths of Glory.
2. One of the first truly great historical epic - Spartacus.
3. A great romantic comedy - Lolita.
4. Probably the first, and still one of the greatest, political satires - Dr. Strangelove.
5. THE first great sci-fi film (and in my book one of the greatest films ever), that's responsible for the success of Star Wars and pretty much any movie with star or space in its title - 2001.
6. One of, if not the, best adaptations of a dystopian novel - Clockwork Orange.
7. A historical epic that, while admittedly plodding/boring, still was an adventure in the vein that everybody reading this probably is inclined to like - Barry Lyndon.
8. One of, if not the, best horror films ever - The Shining.
9. The second best Vietnam film, after Apocalypse Now - Full Metal Jacket.

...And then he did the weird socialite orgy movie with Cruise and Kidman, and then he died.  That list kicks Spielberg's ass.

Don't forget the moon landing.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, RumHam said:

Don't forget the moon landing.

Always figured CIA had him and Spielberg do that together, just to be safe.

[ithanos]

14 minutes ago, RumHam said:

Don't forget the moon landing.

 

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

Always figured CIA had him and Spielberg do that together, just to be safe.

Nolan would've insisted on booming sound.

Tarantino would've added Sam Jackson commentary.

 

[Nictarion]

34 minutes ago, ithanos said:

Quality over quantity is fine, but variety is the spice of life. Of those listed, if I had to pick one, I'd probably take Scorsese - simply because he's delved into scopes outside of his signature gangster movies.  I particularly like his psychological thrillers like the Cape Fear remake and Shutter Island. From Mean Streets to Kundun to Bringing Out the Dead to Hugo, its a wide range of work.

He’s even done comedy well, too. I just mentioned After Hours in this thread recently. And Wolf of Wall Street makes me laugh as much as any movie of the last decade or so. The lemons scene is just pure gold. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

No. It's not fair. A Knight's Tale is what Netflix is now pitching. 

Ah fuck it, maybe give it another chance....

ETA: I specifically didn't want to watch Star Wars. JFC!!!!

ETA2: I forgot how goofy this movie is. And Joker is really one charming dude. What a shame he died so young.

[dbunting]

3 hours ago, ithanos said:

Tarantino would've added Sam Jackson commentary.

One small leap for muthafukin man, one giant ass leap for muthafukin mankind

[dbunting]

Just watched Munich after seeing it on here so much lately. Good movie, not something I will watch again but a good movie.

[polishgenius]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

THE first great sci-fi film (and in my book one of the greatest films ever), that's responsible for the success of Star Wars and pretty much any movie with star or space in its title - 2001.

 

Is 2001 really responsible for the success of Star Wars? They could not possibly be more different, I'm not convinced, especially since commercially speaking Star Wars was far more successful so I doubt most of that came from people who'd seen 2001 and were gagging for more of the same.

5 hours ago, DMC said:

I'd suggest Kubrick or even Nolan.  Quality over quantity.  ETA:  Oh, and Scorsese, duh.  Probably Tarantino too.

Kubrick fair, but Nolan over Spielberg? Not in a million years. And quality is exactly the reason: Nolan's never made a film as good as Jaws, Jurassic Park, ET, , I assume Schindler's List even though shamefully I've not seen it myself. Other people would add Indiana Jones, Close Encounters and SPR to that list though I rate them a little lower so a Memento or TDK could be above them.. Yes, he does have his share of fluff and straight out badness, but even films that aren't considered his classics like Minority Report, Munich or War of the Worlds with its stupid ending are on par with most of Nolan's work.

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

JP has deep flaws all over it

 

JP doesn't have flaws it has convenient logic necessary for the awesomeness to happen.

 

18 hours ago, Teng Ai Hui said:

Recently, I have been watching a British panel show / game show called Taskmasters.  I find it to be hilarious.  I just wish American comedies could make me laugh like this.

 

 

I've been binging Taskmaster myself recently, good of them to upload entire seasons to youtube. It's hilarious.

[Isis]

20 hours ago, Teng Ai Hui said:

Recently, I have been watching a British panel show / game show called Taskmasters.  I find it to be hilarious.  I just wish American comedies could make me laugh like this.

I read recently that this was pulled in the US after a single episode aired. It was replaced with re-runs of some other show. 

[red snow]

3 hours ago, dbunting said:

Just watched Munich after seeing it on here so much lately. Good movie, not something I will watch again but a good movie.

It's probably a film i should watch again. It had an air of "this might be even better on second viewing"

I'm on holiday so tv viewing has been out the window mostly. I've been enjoying "toast of London" a lot. It took me a while to get into it but it's utterly mad and Matt Berry just needs to speak to get some laughs.

Then there's the new transformers cartoon that is very, very serious. It's the kind of transformers show I've always wanted (no humans, no dog sex, minimal explosions, epic in scope) but when i finally get it i realise i may have been wrong. It's worth me keeping this in mind when i keep wanting dr who not to be a toy selling early evening family affair.

[Veltigar]

Oh, I see the thread is ripe for some more controversial opinions. I'm willing to take up the challenge  

Yesterday, I had the distinct displeasure of watching Big Trouble in Little China for the first time. It had been on my radar for some years and one of my mates and I organized a long-distance streaming party to see it. I thought that sort of cult classic would fit right up our alley, but we both didn't like it. He's more of a completionist than I am, because damn it I would not have finished it if I had watched it by myself.

I understand why this failed at the box-office, but I don't understand its cult status. Unlike The Room, it is not a type of terrible film you can savor the badness off. The plot is non-existent, lore is not explained properly, the sets suck, the fights suck, the acting is bad and the highlight of the film's comedy is the fact that they named the Asian lead "Wang". Definitely one film I would advice anyone to steer clear off.

Next up, I'm going to thrash Bridesmaids. Never watched it before, but when @Tywin et al. talked about it, I decided to give it a chance as I'm always looking for good comedies to watch (there is a dearth of those unfortunately). I cannot fathom how this was so popular back in the day. The dramatic elements of the plot were mildly interesting (Wiig's tapered fall to rock bottom was quite well done), but the comedy was just dreadful. I think I chuckled once or twice during the whole movie. 

I read Ebert's review and he saw it as a cross-over between raunch comedy and the chick flick. I can definitely see the first part, not the second. Instead this film was imbued with this type of, for lack of a better descriptor, cringe comedy that is so typically American. Will Ferrel also does it a lot and I find superbly unpleasant to watch.  So yeah, I hated it and would not recommend it.

Luckily I also rewatched Starship Troopers (my buddy had never seen it) and even on a second rewatch within the week it delivered. It was also great to hear my friend repeatedly asking whether this was a serious movie or a satire. He couldn't quite pin it down while watching it, which is what really makes this film so great.

EDIT: Oh and to add one other controversial opinion. Spielberg is way overrated. Apart from Indiana Jones (except for Kingdom then), Hook and Saving Private Ryan, I have never really understood the worship nor the success this guy gets outside the realm of his technical achievements (which I will gladly admit are tremendous). 

Jaws is a snooze fest, Duel is a waste of time,  ET is dumb, War of the World is bad (and so are Tintin, Catch Me if You Can and War Horse), Minority Report and AI are just okay, Jurassic Parc is pretty good (but if I ignore the technical leaps I have to admit that I find the movie itself only so-so), Schindler's also pretty good but nothing special (seen much better films about the subject matter and the book is also better) and I can keep going.

He's playing in the second table of the league in my book. Despite my misgivings with Nolan and Kubrick (to a lesser extent) I'd much rather watch their films again. 

[Ramsay B.]

^^^^^ One of the worst posts I’ve ever seen here. Veltigar brings the heat.

I watched Yes, God, Yes with Natalia Dyer. It’s an ok coming-of-age story about a sexually repressed, religious teen. Nothing mind-blowing though.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Them there is fighting words, but thank you for agreeing that ET is trash. Well, maybe not trash, but it is so overrated. 

Also, Hook is what you're gonna go with? 

 

[john]

Yeah, use of Hook as one of Spielberg’s best just rendered the rest of that post utterly meaningless.  

I would go for Kubrick over Spielberg because I slightly prefer a visionary over a crowd pleaser. Nolan I don’t think is even in contention. He’s mastered the art of making blockbusters out of more niche subject matter, which is no small thing, but he doesn’t seem to have the depth of meaning in his films that Kubrick or Spielberg manage.

How about Hitchcock though? Obvious pick but nobody straddles the ground between auteur and by-the-numbers like he does.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Is 2001 really responsible for the success of Star Wars? They could not possibly be more different, I'm not convinced, especially since commercially speaking Star Wars was far more successful so I doubt most of that came from people who'd seen 2001 and were gagging for more of the same.

I was not referring to commercial success.  Hell, people were, like, literally fuming at 2001's premiere and walked out and/or booed.  I meant in terms of filmmaking.  Explained here:

Quote

Since Lucas is fond of revisiting ideas to create visual poetry inside his films, it should come as no shock that this moment from 2001 also found its way into another installment of the trilogy. According to the DVD commentary — and apparent to anyone who remembers the shot — the shot of Polis Massa overlooking the station where Luke and Leia are born is virtually identical to the shot of Moonbase Alpha. What’s more than that, both of those shots come at the beginning of a rebirth of humanity in a galaxy that end in babies. [...]

Beyond the audio and visual inspirations, Kubrick helped set a standard that George Lucas would perfect for years. In the days after 2001’s New York premiere, Kubrick decided changes needed to be made to the film. Ultimately, he streamlined the pacing and cut almost 20 minutes from the film’s total running time before expanding it with a wider release. George Lucas was equally uncompromising on his vision of what Star Wars should look like in its finished form with changes made almost regularly to the film starting in June 1977. Virtually every release has given Lucas the opportunity to hone his vision of the Star Wars, and it was a precedent set by Stanley Kubrick.

 

4 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Kubrick fair, but Nolan over Spielberg? Not in a million years. And quality is exactly the reason: Nolan's never made a film as good as Jaws, Jurassic Park, ET, , I assume Schindler's List even though shamefully I've not seen it myself. Other people would add Indiana Jones, Close Encounters and SPR to that list though I rate them a little lower so a Memento or TDK could be above them.. Yes, he does have his share of fluff and straight out badness, but even films that aren't considered his classics like Minority Report, Munich or War of the Worlds with its stupid ending are on par with most of Nolan's work.

Heh...alright, let's do this.  @Veltigar has inspired me.  I find it hilarious that Jaws, Jurassic Park, ET are being referred to as "great" films.  It's generous to call them good films.  Great blockbusters?  Undoubtedly.  But the story of each can be summed up as "sharks and dinosaurs and aliens oh my!"  And Jaws is fucking boring as hell.  If I see it on TV I change the channel.  Indiana Jones also seems insanely overrated around here.  Nolan has never done a film as outrageously hokey as Temple of Doom, and let's not even mention the fourth one.  Even Raiders and Crusade, which are watchable, are mostly just watching Harrison Ford show off and be full of himself. 

If anything, Spielberg did his best work in the turn of the century period when he made Amistad, SPR, Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, and Munich.  Other than Schindler's List - which yes is of course outstanding - and Close Encounters, those are the only Spielberg movies I'd put as good as (almost - I really don't like Insomnia) any of Nolan's. 

Nolan's trilogy brings a grenade launcher to Indy's gun fight.  Spielberg could never make a mindfuck of a movie like Memento.  Prestige is incredibly underrated and probably in my top 10 favorite movies of all time.  The ending - the prestige - makes me cry every time.  Inception obviously is controversial but I love it.  Interstellar was kinda meh, but still one of the better imitations of 2001.   Dunkirk is vastly superior to SPR as a war film.

[Cas Stark]

11 hours ago, ithanos said:

If you could only watch movies from one director then Spielberg would probably be close to the top of the list of candidates, if not the top of the list. His quality, range and productivity over the last 50 years is probably unmatched - though I'd be intrigued if there are other suggestions.  

 

 

Hitchcock wants a word. Or two. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

43 minutes ago, DMC said:

I find it hilarious that Jaws, Jurassic Park,

This is exactly how I feel about you right now:
 

 

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

This is exactly how I feel about you right now:

It's SO hard to find attractive sheep in Pittsburgh!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Just now, DMC said:

It's SO hard to find attractive sheep in Pittsburgh!

Fun fact, my 9th grade science teacher, when giving his beginning of the year introduction, joked about that his wife was Seann Williams Scott's high school sweetheart.