Rate The Last Movie You Saw

It's called technology. It's obvious that there is an enormous difference in the film technology from 1950 to 2016. This makes a major difference in the way the movies are experienced.

The Nun's Story - 6/10

I don't have much to say about this film. It was alright, it takes a while to get going, and even then, it was constantly redundant - breaking spiritual rules by being human, constantly facing the same dilemma even though the entire convent was hypocritical and coercive.

OMG i just LOVE this!
In my heart and mind you will forever be known as: Citizen Rules Bee Petting.
SERIOUS rep for that!




(REWATCH) Operation Petticoat (1959) I remember loving this as a kid, not so much now. Still amusing lil story, just not as amusing as I remember it.




End of the Tour + I'm very so-so when it comes to both of these actors but I thoroughly enjoyed them in this. A very enjoyable movie about, basically, an interview that kept me involved from the get go to the very end. BRAVO

First of all, you weren't referencing technology in your original post at all, just an "eyeball" test. Secondly, color correcting is a common practice now and has been for the past decade or so. But, besides color correcting (which doesn't make it necessarily better!) the technology for recording color in film has not increased in quality. Perhaps in cost-effectiveness (it's now markedly cheaper to shoot in color than in b&w, partially due to fewer labs developing b&w, but this is a reversal from the 30s & 40s), but there has been no leaps in recording color to film. Watch more movies and this will be entirely evident. What is different is the ability to preserve film stock, which can lead to the deterioration of prints over time, which can lead to a lack of crispness in the prints (or digital transfers of prints) that we can see today.


She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949)

__________________
Mubi

Glad to see some End Of Tour love. I feel the same way about the actots and gave it the same score. Great movie.

__________________
Letterboxd

I saw it a few years ago. Didn't like it.

Battleship (2012)

Having one of those lazy Sunday evenings watching bad movies on TV. Still doesn't forgive for how cliche everything on this movie is!

Witness for the Prosecution (Billy Wilder, 1957) -

Pale Rider (Clint Eastwood, 1985) - +

__________________
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."

Maybe I am mistaking the deterioration of old film for lack of technology. Its indeed very apparent the difference in the quality of the images from Bridge on River Kwai 1957 and Lora 2012. And I watched both movies on the same day. Modern directing techniques also improved the perception of the film as well. Today the camera is much more aggressive than it was 60 years ago, giving a more "immersive" feel: in Lora I felt like I was in there, while in Bridge of River Kwai it felt more like watching theater.

However, I wouldn't say I haven't watched many "old" movies, movies from >50 years ago plus I watched hundreds already. You should be more careful before you accuse someone of ignorance. And these old movies all feel kinda "old", perhaps because the film has deteriorated I guess but also the color and direction has changed a lot as well. Well, with the accumulation of knowledge of direction techniques plus the technological advances allows for greater image quality combined with more immersive direction in modern movies compared to movies from 70 years ago. And in additional old film degrade, making it ever harder for the old film. So there is indeed a difference that is partly but not completely due to deterioration of film.

I haven't been following your guys discussion about old film quality. But I will say it's amazing to me when I watch a restored version of a classic (1930s-60s) color film on DVD then watch it's unrestored trailer. OMG the color is almost faded out to only reds and browns, the print dirty with lots of snow and unsharp too.

6.5/10

I don't get why people want this ultra realism, photo realistic images, realistic acting, fast paced editing to keep you hooked etc. in modern day things. Why do we need 3D when a "2D" picture shows depth/levels anyway? Give me older Hollywood films anyday. As touched on in another disussion, it's frustrating to see technological advancements and accomplishments being praised when the actual skill of cinematography is declining. I don't want to feel like it's real, or I'm there, I'm watching a movie

__________________

Preach on Brother Daniel.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Indeed. And the difference between restored black and white films is also enormous. Rashomon restored was also very different from the unrestored version.

Still another difference is that technicolor films have a way less rich and realistic color palette than modern films though. I think that's pretty obvious.

I see. So I appears to me that old Hollywood fans are like anime fans in that they appreciate a certain kind of stylization in the movies they watch. Although in the former case the degree of stylization is obviously much more subtle.

I actually enjoyed Battleship alot more than i thought i would. It is very cliched, and it is so damn cheesy, but i actually enjoyed it.

__________________

^ This, a lot of fun.

Quoted for truth...

Night Moves -



This was surprisingly very good, i had never heard of the film or the director until a few days ago and i'm now looking forward to her Western Meeks Cutoff. I thought there was a great use of silence and a subtle soundtrack that helped create a tense atmosphere that went perfectly with the characters paranoia. Jesse Eisenberg is starting to become one of my favourite modern actors, i even like him in films i didn't like Adventureland and 30 Minutes Or Less, this i'd say was my second favourite from him after the social network. The big surprise was Dakota Fanning though i never usually like her too much but i thought she was very good here. Glad i stumbled onto this, i'll be looking out for more from the director.