Spoilers What Movie Are You Watching?

[Happybunny]

Can heavily recommend the German movie Oh Boy. Haven't had this before, but watching a terrific movie about ones own generation, playing in the city where you're born is, ahem, quite touching.

Thanks for the tip.

This was one of the films at the Rotterdam film festival in January, I did see it then as time was short.

But the local Art House Cinema is going to show it at the end of May.

 

[zachlegomaniac]

I just watched iSteve last night as it popped up on Hulu on the ATV. It was actually entertaining and funny, but not in a crass way.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

This is not a debate, all personal opinion, but what did you find unbelievable?
-that he did not side with the deviate son who murdered his father and escaped?
-that he ended up a slave and gladiator?
-that the emperor had difficulties deciding to get rid of him?
-that the emperor decided to fight the Gladiator after fixing the match?

While it could be argued that in real life the emperor would have simply ordered him killed, that is neither here nor there, when it comes to being entertained. I find this variation on the story within the realm of enjoyment and no problems at all with suspension of disbelief.

Em, may I respond by saying all of it, that is, that I find all of it simply unbelievable?

Now, there is no dispute historically that Marcus Aurelius ranks as one of the better (more enlightened, educated, philosophical, talented, etc.etc.) Roman Emperors, nor that his son was a capricious, dissolute, depraved, reprehensible individual with a curiously disagreeable capacity for cruelty, whose tenure as Emperor ended in outright megalomania (and, almost inevitably in a polity where such leaders can be difficult to overthrow, assassination). That is not in doubt.

Historically, yes, I have huge difficulty with numbers 2, 3, and four - they strike me as not really credible. Re No 1, the general in question could indeed have decided not to side with Commodus, but that would have led, most likely to his exile, and possibly murder.

While Commodus did indeed love public entertainments - and busily bankrupted the state treasury to pay for them, and also participated in rigged gladiatorial contests, this was an activity that scandalised Romans, especially the upper classes, rather than delighting them.

Moreover, while Commodus was indeed a thoroughly despicable creature, nothing I have read in a historical source (as opposed to movies, or fiction) suggests he murdered his father.....

However, each to his or her own. Here, I'll readily concede that I willingly suspend whatever disbelief I'd normally cultivate whenever a Star Trek movie (preferably the better ones, of course), or the TV series Star Trek TNG, or DSN, are broadcast, or even at a push, this tolerance and affection, and enjoyment will be extended to some of the better episodes of the original ST.

And, as for Downton Abbey, of course, I know full well it is utter tosh at times, but despite my background as an historian, I suspend every known critical faculty when watching it.......

"...Cabinet..." really displayed German cinematic expressionism to a larger audience than earlier efforts. And the 1922, F.W. Murnau "Nosferatu" was, imo, visually brilliant. Also the stories about the star, Max Schreck, never allowing anyone on the set ever to see him out of costume or character made it that much creepier. He was, apparently, a trifle strange!

Agreed. These are amazing movies for the era, a stunning example of the use of cinematography (lighting, atmosphere, and some very striking acting) to tell a multi-faceted and chilling story.

Scepticalscribe, I wasn't talking about Gladiator when I wrote "good movie all around". Words got mixed up a bit, since I referred to LA Confidental.

Vodoo Man, I've never heard about it. Is it wrth watching? I'm generally more into Karloff, but can appreciate a well made Lugosi 40s movie, of course. I really liked the Black Cat and especially Island of the Lost Souls (where he only played a minor role / cameo). And yeah, I was actually calculating the decades which must have accumulated into the 90s. But hard to tell how old he was back then when all you've seen are more or less lots of thick layers of make-up. I figured him minimum in his mid 30s in 1945 (thinking he must have been much older actually), that would have made him around 80 years old in the 90s...creepy stuff

About Nosferatu: I can heavily recommend the Eureka deluxe version with audio commentary. Very interesting (ok, admittedly for someone without any knowledge) stuff to learn about visual concepts or cinematography (i.e. the fast forward scene with the carriage when Hutton first enters into the realms of Nosferatu; and so forth).

Twietee: don't worry, I know perfectly well that you weren't talking about Gladiator, but about LA Confidential; instead, I was talking about Gladiator, (and still seem to be doing so....)

 

[Huntn]

Em, may I respond by saying all of it, that is, that I find all of it simply unbelievable?

Now, there is no dispute historically that Marcus Aurelius ranks as one of the better (more enlightened, educated, philosophical, talented, etc.etc.) Roman Emperors, nor that his son was a capricious, dissolute, depraved, reprehensible individual with a curiously disagreeable capacity for cruelty, whose tenure as Emperor ended in outright megalomania (and, almost inevitably in a polity where such leaders can be difficult to overthrow, assassination). That is not in doubt.

Historically, yes, I have huge difficulty with numbers 2, 3, and four - they strike me as not really credible. Re No 1, the general in question could indeed have decided not to side with Commodus, but that would have led, most likely to his exile, and possibly murder.

While Commodus did indeed love public entertainments - and busily bankrupted the state treasury to pay for them, and also participated in rigged gladiatorial contests, this was an activity that scandalised Romans, especially the upper classes, rather than delighting them.

Moreover, while Commodus was indeed a thoroughly despicable creature, nothing I have read in a historical source (as opposed to movies, or fiction) suggests he murdered his father.....

However, each to his or her own. Here, I'll readily concede that I willingly suspend whatever disbelief I'd normally cultivate whenever a Star Trek movie (preferably the better ones, of course), or the TV series Star Trek TNG, or DSN, are broadcast, or even at a push, this tolerance and affection, and enjoyment will be extended to some of the better episodes of the original ST.

And, as for Downton Abbey, of course, I know full well it is utter tosh at times, but despite my background as an historian, I suspend every known critical faculty when watching it.......

I was not planning on seeing an accurate historical drama, but the first thing I did after watching this movie was go check for historical accuracy. I found out there was not really any, but it did not matter to me in this circumstance. I found the story to flow and I was able to swallow it. I was entertained.

 

[Happybunny]

Yesterday was Remembrance day here in the Netherlands.

The Dutch TV sent the film, 'Elle s'appelait Sarah' or 'Her name was Sarah'.

This is a fantastic film with a truly great cast, and sums up the horrors of oppression, as seen through the eyes of ordinary people caught up it war.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Yesterday was Remembrance day here in the Netherlands.

The Dutch TV sent the film, 'Elle s'appelait Sarah' or 'Her name was Sarah'.

This is a fantastic film with a truly great cast, and sums up the horrors of oppression, as seen through the eyes of ordinary people caught up it war.

It sounds genuinely interesting - is it anything like 'The Assault' by Harry Mulisch, which I saw (and thought an exceptionally thoughtful and well made movie - I also read the book and thought it excellent), or does it deal with a different conflict?

On a separate topic, I have just noticed references to the death (this April) of the screen legend Deanna Durbin.......

 

[Happybunny]

It sounds genuinely interesting - is it anything like 'The Assault' by Harry Mulisch, which I saw (and thought an exceptionally thoughtful and well made movie - I also read the book and thought it excellent), or does it deal with a different conflict?

On a separate topic, I have just noticed references to the death (this April) of the screen legend Deanna Durbin.......

Not so much, it's more like a Anna Frank story, but then after she got caught.

I would point you to this article, which will do a far better work of explaining.

It's also interesting because only in the last few years has any light been shed on this period in France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah's_Key

I had no idea who Deanna Durbin was I had to look her up in Google.

 

[ritmomundo]

Iron Man 3. It was easily the worst of the 3 so far.

 

[Apple fanboy]

300. Seen it before of course but its one of my favourites. I like the filming style as well as the film.

 

[mscriv]

Ok, so I watched Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey today for the first time. I guess I wanted to see it because of hearing so much about the movie. I must say I was not impressed at all. It just seemed so disjointed as a unified piece of film. Some quick research revealed that the movie was adapted from multiple short stories written by Arthur C. Clarke. I liked the part of the story with HAL 9000 and the potential theme of man vs technology, but as a whole, the film wasn't the best in my opinion.

 

[ValtermcPires]

Epic Movie (2007) 4/10

Veer poor film, is cool because off others movies references but aside that it sucks!

 

[Macman45]

Babylon 5 "Starlight" from a "New" collection of classic sci-fi. A gift from a friend.

 

[S.B.G]

Ok, so I watched Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey today for the first time. I guess I wanted to see it because of hearing so much about the movie. I must say I was not impressed at all. It just seemed so disjointed as a unified piece of film. Some quick research revealed that the movie was adapted from multiple short stories written by Arthur C. Clarke. I liked the part of the story with HAL 9000 and the potential theme of man vs technology, but as a whole, the film wasn't the best in my opinion.

I felt the same way and was quite disappointed with it coming from such a renowned director.

 

[Huntn]

Iron Man 3. It was easily the worst of the 3 so far.

On my list to rent. I thought I heard something about some box office record? Probably marketing to try to get me see it at the theater.

Ok, so I watched Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey today for the first time. I guess I wanted to see it because of hearing so much about the movie. I must say I was not impressed at all. It just seemed so disjointed as a unified piece of film. Some quick research revealed that the movie was adapted from multiple short stories written by Arthur C. Clarke. I liked the part of the story with HAL 9000 and the potential theme of man vs technology, but as a whole, the film wasn't the best in my opinion.

I felt the same way and was quite disappointed with it coming from such a renowned director.

2001 A Space Odyssey Spoilers!​

I think part of it depends upon what you were expecting. When I went to see this movie at the theater as a kid, I was sorely disappointed because I went there to see a space adventure, maybe something like a Star Wars (far from release), not a piece of art. As an adult I grew to appreciate the movie, and with the benefit of reading the story, it makes much more sense. And from a visual standpoint, it is a work of art and a good story, with wonderful cinematography and atmosphere.

Soon after, I read a novel called 2001 A Space Odyssey by Author C. Clarke. The novel, explained the story better than the movie did and 2010 was a worthy sequel (IMO). According to the link provided, Clark collaborated with Kubrick while he was writing the book.

The conflict with HAL was awesome, because of it's realism, no tension building music, as if you were there watching HAL kill an astronaut and Dr. Bowman figuring out a way to get back into the ship and deactivate the computer as it tries to talk him out of doing so...brilliant IMO. And if you watch 2010, HAL gets a chance to redeem itself.

 

[twietee]

...When I went to see this movie at the theater as a kid, I was sorely disappointed because I went there to see a space adventure, maybe something like a Star Wars (far from release), not a piece of art. ...

Trying to figure out how I'd have felt as a kid expecting some kind of Star Wars popcorn and getting something that starts off with 7min. black screen + whale sounds... 'I want my money back!'

I for one love the movie and think it's pure perfection. One of the very rare occasions where I can just sit back and think. Even without the actual need to watch it. Not as accessible as Dr Strangelove but not one iota short of brilliance.

 

[ritmomundo]

On my list to rent. I thought I heard something about some box office record? Probably marketing to try to get me see it at the theater.

I wouldn't be surprised. It will make a killing just based on the success of the franchise. Unfortunately, while it has a few cool flashy action sequences, this was a poorly written superficial story with tons of glaring plot holes.

 

[Huntn]

Trying to figure out how I'd have felt as a kid expecting some kind of Star Wars popcorn and getting something that starts off with 7min. black screen + whale sounds... 'I want my money back!'

I for one love the movie and think it's pure perfection. One of the very rare occasions where I can just sit back and think. Even without the actual need to watch it. Not as accessible as Dr Strangelove but not one iota short of brilliance.

For atmosphere:

I still have to reconcile 2001 with Eyes Wide Shut... <- 2 tongues appropriate.

 

[Shrink]

Watched "The Magnificent Ambersons" this afternoon. although butchered by the studio after Welles finished the film, I still like it. I liked Tim Holt and Ray Collins performances, and I thought the cinematography, lighting, set design and art direction were terrific!

After Welles finished the film, the studio decided it was too long, and cut something like 40 minutes (if I remember correctly, could have been more). Welles was out of the country and couldn't get back to fight for the film, and the studio just butchered the film so there were huge plot holes that made some of the scene's laughable. Needless to say...Welles was beside himself with rage and didn't want the film released in it's chopped form, which made no impression on the studio.

As poorly edited as it is, I still enjoy the film.

 

[mscriv]

I still have to reconcile 2001 with Eyes Wide Shut... <- 2 tongues appropriate.

I think hands down, Eyes Wide Shut was a better film. At least the plot made some sense. In a way 2001 came across like a 60's stoner/tripping movie with the visuals, the music alternating with silence, and the full screen light show at the end.

 

[0dev]

Watched 21 Jump Street twice in the past month. That film just never gets old

 

[twietee]

Has been a long while since I saw Eyes Wide Shut (and am curious myself what I'd think of it nowadays), but it's more about me having to reconcile Kubrick with Cruise than anything else. Still a pity he had to get the role imho. Guess everything else is top notch as usual with Kubrick. And considering it's based on Arthur Schnitzler's Traumnovelle, the plot is indeed fantastic. As is the plot in 2001, but that's only my opinion of course.

 

[zachlegomaniac]

Just watched Cabin in the Woods. It was a pretty fun and original twist on the horror genre, as many critics said. I waited for it to arrive streaming on Netflix.

 

[Huntn]

I think hands down, Eyes Wide Shut was a better film. At least the plot made some sense. In a way 2001 came across like a 60's stoner/tripping movie with the visuals, the music alternating with silence, and the full screen light show at the end.

I acknowledge, two much different movies. Eyes Wide Shut did nothing for me. For 2001, reading the book helps immensely, which I realize is a critique of the movie if you have to read the book to understand it. As far as the light show, when Dr. Bowman lands on the slab he is whisked through the universe, seeing its wonders...

In Stanley Kubrick's own words:

When the surviving astronaut, Bowman, ultimately reaches Jupiter, this artifact sweeps him into a force field or star gate that hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he’s placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination. In a timeless state, his life passes from middle age to senescence to death. He is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man’s evolutionary destiny. That is what happens on the film’s simplest level. Since an encounter with an advanced interstellar intelligence would be incomprehensible within our present earthbound frames of reference, reactions to it will have elements of philosophy and metaphysics that have nothing to do with the bare plot outline itself.

 

[mscriv]

As far as the light show, when Dr. Bowman lands on the slab he is whisked through the universe, seeing its wonders...

In Stanley Kubrick's own words

When the surviving astronaut, Bowman, ultimately reaches Jupiter, this artifact sweeps him into a force field or star gate that hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he’s placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination. In a timeless state, his life passes from middle age to senescence to death. He is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man’s evolutionary destiny. That is what happens on the film’s simplest level. Since an encounter with an advanced interstellar intelligence would be incomprehensible within our present earthbound frames of reference, reactions to it will have elements of philosophy and metaphysics that have nothing to do with the bare plot outline itself.

Well DUH... I mean that part was so obvious...

Seriously, if not for the quote you posted I never would have come to that conclusion. Clearly, what Kubrick thinks is self explanatory is not the case when it comes to me.

 

[Shrink]

I just finished watching 1940 "Virginia City" (again).

Far from a great Western, but absolutely a must watch to see Humphrey Bogart play a Mexican with, hands down, never to be equalled, the worst accent ever committed to film! It's beyond hilarious. The only reason I can imagine Warners cast him in this is they couldn't figure out what to do with him...or they were punishing him for some transgression.

The whole casting in the film was goofy. Miriam Hopkins in a Western!? Doesn't fit. And although Errol Flynn made several Westerns, I never bought him in that genre. What i'm about to say is based on some terrible stereotypes, so I apologize in advance...but I never felt Flynn was butch enough for Westerns. As Robin Hood...perfect...iconic! In Elizabethan costume stuff...fine. Even in some costume swashbucklers...OK. But not Westerns, not rough enough.

Back to Bogart's accent in this film. Prior to seeing this, the top on my Horrendously Bad Accent Actors list was Rod Steiger. Somehow, early in his career, he got it into his head he could do accents, and then always did them...unbelievably badly. Always a tremendous
ham, who not only chewed the scenery, but chairs in the first three rows of the theater, was second only to Henry hull on the ham list. (Somehow it was forgivable in Hull. Although I saw him ham up looking at his watch, he was somehow lovably goofy he was so over the top.) But even Steiger's horrendous accents were nothing compared to Bogart's in this film.

It appears that Warners had these folks sitting around doing nothing, and paying them to do so, and felt they must work...so they miscast them in this film.

But, it is a must see, if not in it's entirety, just to see/hear Bogart!