Last film you watched
- Thread starter Marc
- Start date
Ellen Easton
Was Ellen E. on Wet Canvas
- Messages
- 194
I'm not much on movies as a rule but my youngest son put his entire movie collection onto a hard drive of some kind and he donated all the actual dvd's to me since our internet isn't real reliable up here in the woods. Counting the children's movies as well as the adult ones, I now have 500 and more movies on cd's.
The very most recent movie I've watched is Cold Mountain, which I enjoyed very much. But the next to most recent is one called "Bug" starring Ashley Judd. She's always in movies I've liked, so I watched that one and what a movie! I won't give anything away about it but if you like movies and want to watch one that's quite powerful, I recommend that one.
The very most recent movie I've watched is Cold Mountain, which I enjoyed very much. But the next to most recent is one called "Bug" starring Ashley Judd. She's always in movies I've liked, so I watched that one and what a movie! I won't give anything away about it but if you like movies and want to watch one that's quite powerful, I recommend that one.
Artyczar
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,317
What was it?Back to YouTube documentaries. This one was fun:
Charles is not half bad with a brush, and some of his relatives were really talented...
brianvds
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,163
Documentary featuring Charles talking about ancestors and other members of his family who were also artists. Some of them were pretty good.
brianvds
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,163
House of Flying Daggers, a Chinese film from quite a few years back. It deals with love and war in Medieval China. I enjoyed it for the cinematography, which is among the most breathtaking I have ever seen in any film. A few stills cannot do it justice:
It is to be seen for its sheer beauty, if not for the rather over-the-top story and gravity-defying action sequences. It's one thing about being an artist: who the heck cares about the story if the visuals take your breath away?
It is to be seen for its sheer beauty, if not for the rather over-the-top story and gravity-defying action sequences. It's one thing about being an artist: who the heck cares about the story if the visuals take your breath away?
Artyczar
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,317
Yes, this is one of the most beautiful films out there.House of Flying Daggers, a Chinese film from quite a few years back. It deals with love and war in Medieval China. I enjoyed it for the cinematography, which is among the most breathtaking I have ever seen in any film. A few stills cannot do it justice:
View attachment 36343
View attachment 36344
View attachment 36345
It is to be seen for its sheer beauty, if not for the rather over-the-top story and gravity-defying action sequences. It's one thing about being an artist: who the heck cares about the story if the visuals take your breath away?
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. It was..... okay I suppose. The de-aged Indiana in the beginning fighting Nazis was quite well done I thought. Flip forward to the late 1960's and our Indi has lost his house, his job, his son, his wife, and banging on his neighbour's door to turn the Rolling stones down. ....."Yay!"
Evil Dr Voller should have been killed on the train roof. No way someone gets hit by an over hanging fixed iron bar in the skull at that speed and still has much of a face, if a head at all. But there he goes thirty years later with barely a scratch.
Archimedes apparently has a trick death trap tomb, complete with trapped dead Roman legionaries in it. However, he was (To much annoyance of Rome) actually killed by an angry legionary in the siege who wouldn't take no for an answer. So why would the newly ruling Romans put him in that tomb with their soldiers?
Don't ask silly questions. Just watch the movie.
Evil Dr Voller should have been killed on the train roof. No way someone gets hit by an over hanging fixed iron bar in the skull at that speed and still has much of a face, if a head at all. But there he goes thirty years later with barely a scratch.
Archimedes apparently has a trick death trap tomb, complete with trapped dead Roman legionaries in it. However, he was (To much annoyance of Rome) actually killed by an angry legionary in the siege who wouldn't take no for an answer. So why would the newly ruling Romans put him in that tomb with their soldiers?
Don't ask silly questions. Just watch the movie.
Oh I forgot. Indiana has to stop Dr Voller from going back in time to kill Hitler. No honest, really, he IS the bad guy, as he wants to correct all of Hitler's mad choices by taking over the Third Reich himself.
Well, that not going to work. Even if you do kill him, they'll just shoot you for it.
Well, that not going to work. Even if you do kill him, they'll just shoot you for it.
OliveOyl
Well-known member
- Messages
- 301
I just watched an “art house” movie (as it was dubbed) called TRACKS. It’s based on a true story of a 27yo woman named Robyn Davidson who in 1977, set off on a 1700 mile solo journey. (Lots of 7’s there!) She started in a small town in Australia called Alice Springs, then trekked cross the western deserts of the outback, with the intention of reaching the Indian Ocean. It took her 9 months.
Before taking off though, she worked for free for two years, helping to train/understand camels. (I think the movie said Australia has one of the biggest feral camel populations in the world). At the end of this job, she was “paid” with four camels: Dookie, Bub, Zeleika and Goliath. Still needing money, she secured a sponsorship with National Geographic with the help of a photographer named Rick Smolan. The agreement was that she (reluctantly) would allow him to take photographs at certain designated points along the way.
Once those things were in place, she packed up her camels with gear, and she and her black dog, Diggety, headed out. The National Geographic story gained a lot of attention and she and Rick eventually developed a true friendship. She met and stayed with Aboriginal people along the way who escorted her through sacred land. (Otherwise, she would have to reroute and walk another 1600 miles.) She had her share of adventures like shooting two feral male camels (bulls) that began to charge her. Sadly, she also had to shoot her dog when he accidentally ingested poison. As she slowly (and tediously) walked through large swaths of uninhabited land without water and under the blistering sun, it became even harder without her canine buddy.
It was pretty good. Interesting. Nice cinematography, too.
IMO, this is a particularly beautiful shot, taken by the real life photographer of the real life adventurer.
Before taking off though, she worked for free for two years, helping to train/understand camels. (I think the movie said Australia has one of the biggest feral camel populations in the world). At the end of this job, she was “paid” with four camels: Dookie, Bub, Zeleika and Goliath. Still needing money, she secured a sponsorship with National Geographic with the help of a photographer named Rick Smolan. The agreement was that she (reluctantly) would allow him to take photographs at certain designated points along the way.
Once those things were in place, she packed up her camels with gear, and she and her black dog, Diggety, headed out. The National Geographic story gained a lot of attention and she and Rick eventually developed a true friendship. She met and stayed with Aboriginal people along the way who escorted her through sacred land. (Otherwise, she would have to reroute and walk another 1600 miles.) She had her share of adventures like shooting two feral male camels (bulls) that began to charge her. Sadly, she also had to shoot her dog when he accidentally ingested poison. As she slowly (and tediously) walked through large swaths of uninhabited land without water and under the blistering sun, it became even harder without her canine buddy.
It was pretty good. Interesting. Nice cinematography, too.
IMO, this is a particularly beautiful shot, taken by the real life photographer of the real life adventurer.
Attachments
Iain Fenwick
Active member
- Messages
- 16
A Rather Entertaining Australian Sci-Fi film titled "41" which involved elements of Time Travel & Parallel Universes ... somewhat thoughtful & intelligent (which makes a change) ... found it on YT which was unexpected ... pity about the ad breaks but it didn't detract too much from the overall enjoyment .
brianvds
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,163
I tell ya, they spy on you on the web. A day or two ago I looked online to find the source of the quote "The past is a foreign country...", and learned that it is from a novel by L P Hartley. That same day, YouTube suggests a film version of the novel. Now how did YouTube know what I have been doing online, I ask you? Anyway, it's not a half bad film. They made some interesting movies in the 1970s, of a kind you don't often see anymore in this era of franchises and remakes.
But I'm going through a vampire phase, so I re-watched the 1992 film version of Dracula. Not bad either; it remains reasonably faithful to the novel (which, as much as I struggle with that period's literature, I managed to battle through). Keanu Reeves' acting is so wooden I thought they might use his left arm to fashion into a stake with which to kill the evil count, but even so, a fun film, that manages to capture the over-the-top gothic romanticism of the story.
And then I discovered this YouTube channel:
Very simple formula: soothing music with slide shows of the work of famous artists. I download the videos, which eliminates the ads, and watch them on my phone before sleep - they are wonderfully relaxing.
But I'm going through a vampire phase, so I re-watched the 1992 film version of Dracula. Not bad either; it remains reasonably faithful to the novel (which, as much as I struggle with that period's literature, I managed to battle through). Keanu Reeves' acting is so wooden I thought they might use his left arm to fashion into a stake with which to kill the evil count, but even so, a fun film, that manages to capture the over-the-top gothic romanticism of the story.
And then I discovered this YouTube channel:
Very simple formula: soothing music with slide shows of the work of famous artists. I download the videos, which eliminates the ads, and watch them on my phone before sleep - they are wonderfully relaxing.
brianvds
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,163
Still in vampiric mood, I watched the classic 1922 silent film, Nosferatu, which I have never actually seen before. Like most films from that era, it struck me as kind of goofy and unintentionally funny, but not without atmosphere. Ah, I see it is on YouTube:
So this is what scared moviegoers a century ago. They'd probably not survive any of today's horror films.
So this is what scared moviegoers a century ago. They'd probably not survive any of today's horror films.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,763
The last film we saw in the theater was Ridley Scott's Napoleon. Admittedly, it played a bit loose with historical accuracy... but I don't look to films for historical fact any more than I would expect as much from novels or paintings. I quite liked it and thought there were some truly well-shot scenes.
I quite liked the original Nosferatu... but I love German Expressionism. You might want to check out The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari from the same period or Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre from 1979.
I quite liked the original Nosferatu... but I love German Expressionism. You might want to check out The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari from the same period or Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre from 1979.
brianvds
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,163
A friend of mine who is well versed in history tells me he found the film pretty much unwatchable.
I haven't seen it yet, so I can't comment on this specific film, but I have long had ambivalent feelings about biopics and historical films. Not always sure what their point really is. If the director isn't sure either, the film may well fall completely flat. There is also the ever-present danger of basically mythologizing history; I tend to prefer the facts, which tend to be more interesting than anything Hollywood can come up with.
It's of course not just history and biopic. The best way to enjoy a film is not to know anything about the subject matter being depicted.
I have seen the 1979 film, though it was many years ago. As I recall I rather liked it, and particularly liked the portrayal of the vampire as a deeply disgusting, bestial, rat-like thing rather than a suave gentleman. I should perhaps give it another go.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,763
Shakespeare's plays Julius Ceasar, Antony & Cleopatra, King John, Henry VI, Richard III are all "histories"... and all flawed as histories. Fact and Art (as in "artifice") are not one and the same. I recall that War & Peace and Les Miserables... two epic novels filled with depictions of the Napoleonic Wars... offer two very different views of the topic. (Not unlike J.L. David's vs Goya's views on the same subject.
brianvds
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,163
That is precisely why I'm so ambivalent about it. But I notice that some such films somehow work, while others do not, and it has nothing to do with the level of accuracy.
Now I ask myself whether, if the plays and novels you mention were set in completely fictional worlds, they would have had the same impact. Fiction is one way in which we collectively "deal" with history, trying to find, perhaps, its direction or some sense of meaning in it all. To some extent they perhaps also help us to deal with the present - one can see this at work in the current vogue for "diverse" casts to play in historical films, or otherwise tweaking history to reflect current values and interests.
This is both a noble endeavor, and complete folly, at the same time.
Now if a director has "something to say" he can get away with inaccuracy - Amadeus is a great film, inaccuracy or not, because straightforward biopic was not the point to begin with, any more than Shakespeare was trying to accurately portray history. Of course, the whole thing is still fraught with danger: some points are more valid than others, and where is the line really between interesting social commentary and mere propaganda?
Seems to me that if a director just wants to portray history, he should be as accurate as possible, while if he has some point to make, he should take care about which points he makes and how. One can of course combine it too: Master and Commander is a great film for its drama, but apparently also superbly accurate. Dances with Wolves is a great film story-wise, but utter nonsense historically, and indeed perhaps the first outpost of today's vogue for wokester-style revisionism.
But film history is littered with propaganda films. Indeed, in a sense, any movie is propaganda. Perhaps the trick is for the viewer to try not to fall for the propaganda, but this can be difficult in media which are specifically designed to work up one's emotions.
As I noted, I don't really have clear answers here and my feelings about the whole thing are ambivalent. I have greatly enjoyed some historical films and biopics, and been downright offended by some others, and I cannot always explain even my own reactions, let alone make sweeping general statements.
Nowadays I try not to judge, and instead to simply observe history - including film history - unfold before my eyes. In a century, people will have a different perspective. I shake my head at the thought that in 1922 people thought Nosferatu terrifying, and no doubt, in another century, people will be equally bemused about my opinions on current films. I find I actually enjoy films more, and notice all manner of interesting things, when I am less emotionally involved than when I allow myself to get all worked up.
Here's an example: above I mentioned the phenomenon of wokesterism in movies. What I find interesting is that the level of public outrage or irritation differs quite a bit depending on the exact genre. Nobody really bats an eyelid when a black actor plays Macbeth (as Denzel Washington did in a recent filmed version of the play) or when black singers portray roles in traditionally very white operas. Virtually everyone somehow intuitively understands that those productions are hugely stylized to begin with.
But compare this with the public irritation at seeing black mermaids or black dwarves and elves, etc. Or Snow White as, say, an overweight red-head. Or consider my own (surely thoroughly irrational) reaction to two TV series with "strong female characters": Blue Eye Samurai acclaimed, The Equalizer panned as wokester nonsense.
I don't really know why "diversifying" the cast will somehow work in some cases but not others, but I find it interesting to watch the story unfold.
Artyczar
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,317
Movies are never books, and books that are historical, about people anyway, are separated between autobiography and biography. There is a big difference. Most movies (I've never seen a dramatic movie that was an autobiography) are typically documentaries. An autobiography is usually a chronological account of a person's life with checked, cited facts. A biography is much looser and can be a little more fictional or dramatic like a memoir, though a memoir should be accurate (in my opinion), or you could possibly be sued. But it's based on one person's memory, so there's that.
I don't expect a dramatic historical movie to be too accurate. It doesn't matter what kind of actor is playing the parts. I think, because people of color or a certain look of person have not been playing these parts for the last decades, we are just not used to seeing them. However, we just need to see them around for a while and get used to it. They are actors. Men used to play women on the stage in plays and operas, and people accepted that as perfectly normal at one time. It was probably "different" when women began to play their own parts. It's just a matter of time for others to be seen. These are just actors playing parts, and yeah, maybe there wouldn't be black people, women, or native American doctors in the 1600s or whatever timeline. Does it matter if they are playing the part well?
What about white people playing the part of native people or white people in blackface? How did that fly? Not well or accurate.
I don't expect a dramatic historical movie to be too accurate. It doesn't matter what kind of actor is playing the parts. I think, because people of color or a certain look of person have not been playing these parts for the last decades, we are just not used to seeing them. However, we just need to see them around for a while and get used to it. They are actors. Men used to play women on the stage in plays and operas, and people accepted that as perfectly normal at one time. It was probably "different" when women began to play their own parts. It's just a matter of time for others to be seen. These are just actors playing parts, and yeah, maybe there wouldn't be black people, women, or native American doctors in the 1600s or whatever timeline. Does it matter if they are playing the part well?
What about white people playing the part of native people or white people in blackface? How did that fly? Not well or accurate.
Similar threads
