Last movie you watched

[Kirby101]

Any Which Way You Can was a fun Clint movie.

But are we talking about ones he directed or any he starred in?

Just starred in I'd go with Kelly's Heroes as the most fun.

[The Whovian]

Any Which Way You Can was a fun Clint movie.

But are we talking about ones he directed or any he starred in?

Just starred in I'd go with Kelly's Heroes as the most fun.

Yeah, both of those movies were fun. Clint is one of my all time favorite actors. He was great in Heartbreak Ridge too.

[wonderlad]

Agreed. His movies are almost always very serious. Josey Wales, Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, etc. are all fantastic movies.

LOL As a kid my first exposure to Eastwood was also those Orangutan movies Every Which Way but Loose / Every Which Way You can. So I thought he was a comedian ;P

[Soubhagya]

Spartacus: I liked it very much. But i don't think it is going to reward repeat viewings as most Kubrick films do. Its a more straightforward film compared to most Kubrick films.

[JBatmanFan05]

Spartacus: I liked it very much. But i don't think it is going to reward repeat viewings as most Kubrick films do. Its a more straightforward film compared to most Kubrick films.

What I love about Kubrick is that he ran the spectrum, did so many types of films. He did a black and white film noir heist film in The Killing, which is also wonderfully unlike his 2001s and Clockworks and etc. Even his war films are pretty different from each other.

That's part of what I love about him the most...he did great amazing acclaimed entries in various genres of film, and did more straightforward and conventional to more experimental and auteur.

I love Hitchcock, but he hardly stepped out of his comfort zones and did a long historical epic or war film (about battles) or sci-fi or etc. For me, Kubrick felt like he challenged himself more than many directors who often find a kind of film they do well and just mostly stick to that. Kubrick was genius and brave and bold.

[Soubhagya]

What I love about Kubrick is that he ran the spectrum, did so many types of films. He did a black and white film noir heist film in The Killing, which is also wonderfully unlike his 2001s and Clockworks and etc. Even his war films are pretty different from each other.

That's part of what I love about him the most...he did great amazing acclaimed entries in various genres of film, and did more straightforward and conventional to more experimental and auteur.

I love Hitchcock, but he hardly stepped out of his comfort zones and did a long historical epic or war film (about battles) or sci-fi or etc. For me, Kubrick felt like he challenged himself more than many directors who often find a kind of film they do well and just mostly stick to that. Kubrick was genius and brave and bold.

I agree. Each of the film i have watched till now is so unlike the other. That kind of variety and excellence is really rare. One for our times would be Spielberg. He made The Post. And is coming up with Ready Player One in a few months. Both are so different from each other. That kind of variety speaks of Kubrick's boldness. And excellence. He has a great film in almost all major genres.

Reading a bit on the internet i think Spartacus was something like making an MCU film now. I find words like 'the one film where he was like a director for hire'. I imagine an MCU Kubrick film. Now that would have been something. I talk like a spoiled child. Most directors would kill to have a film like Spartacus in their resume. Yet for Kubrick it might have been the most average film. I must admit i felt a tad disappointed with it. Just a bit. Yet i can't deny that it is an excellent film. What is your opinion about the film itself?

And speaking of Hitchcock, man i have so much to watch. The only one i have watched till now is Psycho. And i loved it. What in your opinion are the must watch Hitchcock films? I ask this to everyone. Its not possible to watch a lot of Hitchcock to begin. But a few essentials would be great to watch in the coming months.



Edit: I looked up at the wiki page and Tony Curtis was here as Antonious! I was thinking that i have seen him somewhere but could not place him. I love 'Some Like It Hot'.

[JBatmanFan05]

What is your opinion about the film itself?

Excellent film and I differ with you on its rewatchability. It's a film you can examine in relation to other Kubrick films like Paths of Glory which also explore power dynamics and corruption of power, institutions working against the people.

And speaking of Hitchcock, man i have so much to watch. The only one i have watched till now is Psycho. And i loved it. What in your opinion are the must watch Hitchcock films? I ask this to everyone. Its not possible to watch a lot of Hitchcock to begin. But a few essentials would be great to watch in the coming months.

Excluding Psycho, since you saw it...my essentials might be: (but remember, he did so many films and so many like films of his that emphasize different things like comedy or love or horror or etc....you'll never get Hitch fans to exactly agree on what is essential)
The 39 Steps (1935) - from Hitch's British first part of his amazing career before moving to the US
Rebecca (1940)
Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
North by Northwest (1959)
Rear Window (1954)
Dial M For Murder (1953) (I might sub in Rope instead, it's tough, I love both films)
Vertigo (1958)

But beyond this, I recommend so many more too. The Birds, Rope, Lifeboat, Foreign Correspondent, Strangers on a Train, Notorious, etc.

Hitch was deliciously subversive for his time with characters overly fascinated with murder and Hitch's explorations of voyeurism and sociopathy and etc. Hitchcock IMHO did a lot to revolutionize villains in fiction and on screen.

[Soubhagya]

Excellent film and I differ with you on its rewatchability. It's film you can examine in relation to other Kubrick films like Paths of Glory which also explore power dynamics and corruption of power, institutions working against the people.



Excluding Psycho, since you saw it...my essentials might be: (but remember, he did so many films and so many like films of his that emphasize different things like comedy or love or horror or etc....you'll never get Hitch fans to exactly agree on what is essential)
The 39 Steps (1935) - from Hitch's British first part of his amazing career before moving to the US
Rebecca (1940)
Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
North by Northwest (1959)
Rear Window (1954)
Dial M For Murder (1953) (I might sub in Rope instead, it's tough, I love both films)
Vertigo (1958)

But beyond this, I recommend so many more too. The Birds, Rope, Lifeboat, Foreign Correspondent, Strangers on a Train, Notorious, etc.

Hitch was deliciously subversive for his time with characters overly fascinated with murder and Hitch's explorations of voyeurism and sociopathy and etc. Hitchcock IMHO did a lot to revolutionize villains in fiction and on screen.

Thanks for your Hitchcock recommendations. I can start with them and go further.

I may be wrong about Spartacus' rewatchability. I was wrong about Shining. It changed from 'just fine' to 'love' within one viewing after your post. I might have loved it anyway. But a prod in the right direction is appreciated. And i may never have rewatched that film in years. Paths of Glory is for some time in the near future. Such themes are better appreciated on subsequent viewings. First time one is more concerned with the narrative. What is going to happen next.

[JBatmanFan05]

Paths of Glory is for some time in the near future.

It's so great you need to go watch it yesterday.

[FluffySheep]

The Dark Knight Rises.

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

I loved it. I don't know how anything led you to suspect it might be a "fun" movie. Clint directed it and tends to do serious drama-y films.

Harry Callahan movies are fun in my book, same goes for Gran Torino and Escape From Alcatraz. I also tend to like Punisher kind of movies, which was the impression I got from the opening act.

[Soubhagya]

Godfather Part 2: I was simply thinking of watching half an hour or so before going to sleep. These films are really huge. Better space them out. But i ended up watching all of it. Ending at sometime near two thirty a.m. in the morning. I can't say that for most films if i have watched it already. I would rather stop watching a three hour film and sleep. Especially something like this which to put in simpler terms feels slow. Its still enthralling. I do no enjoy it as the first part but its excellent on its own. At times it feels like a character driven piece compared to a narrative driven first film. That seems wrong though. Character work and narration has been wonderful in both films.

My only complaint is that Michael's character arc was complete by the end of the first film. The reluctant son who wanted nothing with the ways of his family ends up leading it. He was not as ruthless as the other sons of Vito Corleone yet ends up being more vicious then even his father who feels tame in comparison. From the words of Ebert in his Godfather's review, the genius of Coppola is that Vito feels like a great man, a giant among men even if the most that can be said about him was that he was not as bad as other members of the mafia. That was achieved by a sole focus on the mafia. The ordinary people aren't shown. So, Michael already was cruel to begin with. And he ended up at an even darker place. It felt a bit redundant due to the first film.

There's a second complaint is not a complaint. Its something i could not catch clearly. The film is framed so that father and son's stories have parallels. I think it shows Vito's rise to power. And Michael's fall. While Vito ended up making the family, Michael ended up loosing them, making him all alone through his rise to power. Both become powerful. Michael ends up being far more powerful then his father could ever have been. But is he really? He cuts a tragic figure in that last shot. How far has he gone? I would love it if someone puts some more light in Vito's story. His story felt very straightforward. The rise of a crime lord from his humble beginnings.

Its also noticeable that Vito is a more likable character then his son. Even if both are killers and head criminal empires and families. (Or at least Vito used to be. In Godfather he said that to Tom that they are not killers. Even if the undertaker thinks of them to be).

One thing which i disliked in my first viewing has changed in my second. The first film was amidst a war. And there was so much danger. Lives were in danger. There's lot of excitement. Second one did not feel like the Corleones were in danger. Rather Michael was on the hunt. But then the danger is made clearer by that conversation between Michael and his mother. In being the head of his family just like his father was, he is in real danger of loosing his family. Or rather his father's family. This time danger isn't really from the mafia war rather from Michael himself.

I love the first one more. That was like scene after scene of awesomeness. This one is more meditative in comparison. At least it feels like that to me. Excellent film. Love it! Not as i wanted it to be: explosive as the first. But its powerful on its own.

[Arfguy]

Godfather Part 2:

My friend recently watched the first two and thinks I really need to take the time to watch them. Between a ton of hockey and a remarkable number of really great TV shows, I haven't found the time. I think I will soon.

I watched the Ritual last night on Netflix. I liked it, quite a lot.

[Starter Set]

Your Name, 2016.

Pretty decent. Cool story and characters. An impressive eye candy too.

[Jackalope89]

Blue Hawaii, starring Elvis Presley.

Hey, I'm a sucker for old musicals. And it's a decent film. The only jarring things are Angela Lansbury plays a Southern airhead and the family butler is an Asian named "Ping Pong" (sign of the times, really). This is also the film that premiered the song "Can't Help Falling in Love With You." A simple rom-com that has its moments.