Talk about the last movie you saw
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
S
Steven Soderburgin
Yessssssssss that movie is so good. Great, great performances and writing.ZenMonkey said:
fade
Staff member
Yeah, I'm one of those people who tends to get annoyed by what seem like pointless changes from the book. It is fun to watch a derived movie without knowing the source. For instance, I never read Constantine, but one of my best friends loved it. She HATED the movie. I actually thought it was entertaining. When I read about the differences on Wikipedia, I could see her point, but I still enjoyed the movie for what it was.
Cajungal
Staff member
One thing I'm very grateful for is that I don't see Ian McKellan and Elijah Wood's faces as I'm reading LOTR right now. 
I can certainly see why fans of the book would have liked to have Tom Bombadil in there now.
I used to let differences between the book and movie get to me. I still get a little peeved sometimes depending on how much I love the book, I suppose, but it's just impossible to fit everything into a film.
I can certainly see why fans of the book would have liked to have Tom Bombadil in there now. I used to let differences between the book and movie get to me. I still get a little peeved sometimes depending on how much I love the book, I suppose, but it's just impossible to fit everything into a film.
fade
Staff member
I can deal with the Bombadil thing. There are two major points that I didn't like about the the movies (well three if you count the constantly crying hobbits). One was Faramir (like everyone else). What the hell? The whole point of that scene was removed. Might as well have cut it. And 2: the treatment of Sam. He should've been a stronger character. Like others, I've always felt Sam was the hidden protagonist, and Frodo was the foil. They stripped him down, especially in his big scene: the passage into Mordor. I hated that. Had Frodo kick him out. He was tempted by the ring--his exploits with the orcs reduced to dumb luck... that really really weakened that scene. Oh yeah, did I mention the crying hobbits? Because the hobbits cry a lot in the movies.
Very strange. I enjoyed both the Constantine books AND the movie. They were just different takes on the character I thought. They never touted it as a "comic book" movie either.fade said:
When I first saw the LOTR movies at the theatre I was wowed with how almost dead-on to the novels they were, I enjoyed the films throughly but was left with "they could have added a few more things"...... then I bought the extended edition DVDs.Cajungal said:One thing I'm very grateful for is that I don't see Ian McKellan and Elijah Wood's faces as I'm reading LOTR right now.
I used to let differences between the book and movie get to me. I still get a little peeved sometimes depending on how much I love the book, I suppose, but it's just impossible to fit everything into a film.
I would recommend the extended edition DVDs, they really bring out Sam alot more than he was represented in theatres. The Faramir thing though, can't help ya.fade said:
I don't know what it says about the movies, but I saw the LOTR's in theater. Then bought the nice book-looking DVDs that are all extended, and then never watched them again. The most I've done is joke about trying to watch them all in a row without going to the bathroom.Cajungal said:
Maybe if you hadn't drunk anything in 2 days.Did you enjoy them in theatres? Did you wish, at the end of them, that there had been more? Do you have a 12hr period of time to set aside? If so, I'd say yes. They're the defenitive way to watch the trilogy, no question. It makes an epic film series, a grande epic.Cajungal said:
I won't even start the first one if my intention isn't to sit through all 3 in one go. Suffice to say, I've seen the trilogy extended about 4x since I purchased.Charlie Dont Surf said:
fade
Staff member
That's funny. I did the same thing. I have never watched the DVDs I bought. And I never even bought Return. My interest had totally petered out by then. And this is from a total JRRT nerd, too. I take that back. I've watched the openings on both again. On sheer beauty, the first five minutes (flashing back to the first war and the battle between Gandalf and the balrog) of both are the best parts of both movies. I like the way Sauron was just ... powerful in an undefined way. No lightning bolts or fireballs. Just power and presence. That grokked with the book well.
I've watched the added features of the Lord of the Rings each twice. I think the first one is probably the best due to a feeling of being overwhelmed by the time you get to the second and third movie. There is a lot on the other two that is interesting to see, but the first is the true gem.
Honestly, when you see what they did to make just the chainmail, you'll be impressed.
Honestly, when you see what they did to make just the chainmail, you'll be impressed.
fade
Staff member
Oh, I forgot the other thing I didn't like about the movies. The total wussification of Frodo. He's been turned into a simpering crybaby wimp. Where's the rally against the wraiths at Weathertop? Though ineffective, Frodo stabs at the wraiths who appear to fear the Barrow blades. Where is Frodo, alone on the far side of the Ford screaming defiance at the wraiths? Etc., etc.
I think Bombadil was sufficiently different from the that his removal was warranted. I'm also okay with the removal of the scouring. It's not even really mentioned until the end, and is effectively a coda in the book, too. I'm even okay with substituting Arwen for Glorfindel. But changing core character traits bugs me.
I think Bombadil was sufficiently different from the that his removal was warranted. I'm also okay with the removal of the scouring. It's not even really mentioned until the end, and is effectively a coda in the book, too. I'm even okay with substituting Arwen for Glorfindel. But changing core character traits bugs me.
The only change I didn't like was Legolas killing Grima Wormtongue. Motherfuckers.
We were playing LOTR Trivial Pursuit. I had all my pieces (to everyone else's 2) answering the last question, which was "Who killed Grima Wormtongue?" This was before the extended came out, so I was like "... a couple of hobbits?" They answered "Um.. lets give it to him." I then said "What the hell does that card say?" "Uh, it says... Legolas."
No one died, except for me, a little, inside.
-- Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:24 am --
We were playing LOTR Trivial Pursuit. I had all my pieces (to everyone else's 2) answering the last question, which was "Who killed Grima Wormtongue?" This was before the extended came out, so I was like "... a couple of hobbits?" They answered "Um.. lets give it to him." I then said "What the hell does that card say?" "Uh, it says... Legolas."
No one died, except for me, a little, inside.
-- Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:24 am --
They did that with the hobbits and Gimli. It seemed like Peter Jackson was a little worried that if the movies were too serious, he'd lose his audience. I think the second and third movie suffered for it.Cajungal said:
J
JCM
Are the LOTR extended editions avaliable in Blu-Ray? I´ve only got Wall-E and Sin City, and man I´d love to see all that detail in HD.
Watchmen
Yeah, I finally broke down and watched it, since I could rent it for free. Got my money's worth, too.
Here's just a bunch of quickie thoughts that I was putting down as I was watching it.
-Each of the issues adapted feels entirely separate from each other in the movie. That the movie goes from issue to issue from the comic, but it doesn't feel natural. It's just snippets from each of the characters and barely any relation with each of them. Which is why Watchmen may have worked better as a TV show, ala a set up like Lost. Hell, in a lot of ways, Lost's set up for flashbacks works very similar to Watchmen (the comic).
-The acting and the directing feels stiff, almost wooden. It's like they're trying TOO hard to be just like the comic and it winds up being almost as stiff as the Gibbons' art. Much like the scenes going from one moment to the next, there's no flow to it. The dialogue is copied straight from the comic, but there's no attempt to make it WORK for the movie medium. For example, when Dan and Laurie are making out and he says "Oh, hell", he doesn't sound despondant or disappointed or anything. He just says the line and that's it.
-The special effects are, admittedly, spectacular. Though some of the CGI was a little wonky, like Bubastis and the Mars...thing. Whatever you call it.
-It's easy for Rorschach to be the MVP of the movie. Most of his work is just voice over. For the parts he had without the mask, he did a pretty damn good job, though. I do like Dr. Manhattan's appearance and how alien he looks. In fact, I don't think I ever saw him blink, which I thought was a nice touch.
-If Zach Snyder hadn't used so much slow motion, maybe he could've fit more into the movie.
-The guy playing Rorschach? Now that I've seen him in action? He's going to be a GREAT Freddy Kruger in the upcoming remake of Nightmare on Elm St.
-Laurie doesn't smoke in the movie. She looks like an idiot instead of just trying to find a lighter. It also misses out on the great moment where she shares a cigarette with the Comedian.
-It LOOKS great and looks cool, but much like comics in the 80s, they learned the wrong thing from Watchmen and focused on the cool, not the literary aspects of it.
-The sex scene: Cripes, it just went on and on. No subtlety. You know how the comic played the sex? Two pages. It showed them briefly and then showed the ship, with the flame going and everything. This was just excessive and felt like bad, softcore porn.
-Wow. Lawerence's arms getting cut off? You know, the guy in the prison. That wasn't excessive at all, now was it? And what was the point of electrocuting the other thug if he'd already taken him down hard?
-The prison fight with Nite Owl and Silk Spectre against the prisoners felt more like a video game.
-I did like the swinging door bit with Rorschach and the midget, even if it went on a bit too long. We got the point, already.
-The ending: The thing about using Dr. Manhattan instead of the giant squid is that Dr. Manhattan was an American creation, more or less. He's human and still something that people could see themselves in. By using an alien, it's something literally otherworldy, meaning that the only target for the whole world to aim at is something not on Earth, something we can't relate with and something that we can all, as a world, unquestionably fear and hate. It's much like the Native culture in the 16th century, but even then, there was still a human element to see. It's taking the nuclear threat that the world fights over already and turning it into a BIGGER threat that's not only uncomprehensible, but bigger than any of us on the planet.
-That said, the framing of Jon did kind of work within the confines of the movie and the effects for the city were...well, they were okay. But again, it's the whole fact that he was an American construct, already.
-Laurie is shown to be not only an idiot but nowhere near the capable woman she was in the comic. Jon is the one that tells her to go on to dinner with Dan, rather than it being something she decides. And her big, pivotal moment of realization about her father was thanks to Jon and the stupid plot device where he "allows her to see as he sees". She's constantly shown as incapable and an idiot, rather than the curious woman who smokes to further renegade against her mother and fights for her own independence.
So, overall, it was an okay movie. Not great and barely even good. The effects were great for the most part, the acting was wooden as all hell and the movie cramped because they tried to get so much into such a long, epic story. I don't regret watching it, but I'm glad I didn't pay money for it and likely won't be seeing it again unless I hear the giant squid is in the big directors cut that we keep hearing about.
As an adaptation, it stunk.
Yeah, I finally broke down and watched it, since I could rent it for free. Got my money's worth, too.
Here's just a bunch of quickie thoughts that I was putting down as I was watching it.
-Each of the issues adapted feels entirely separate from each other in the movie. That the movie goes from issue to issue from the comic, but it doesn't feel natural. It's just snippets from each of the characters and barely any relation with each of them. Which is why Watchmen may have worked better as a TV show, ala a set up like Lost. Hell, in a lot of ways, Lost's set up for flashbacks works very similar to Watchmen (the comic).
-The acting and the directing feels stiff, almost wooden. It's like they're trying TOO hard to be just like the comic and it winds up being almost as stiff as the Gibbons' art. Much like the scenes going from one moment to the next, there's no flow to it. The dialogue is copied straight from the comic, but there's no attempt to make it WORK for the movie medium. For example, when Dan and Laurie are making out and he says "Oh, hell", he doesn't sound despondant or disappointed or anything. He just says the line and that's it.
-The special effects are, admittedly, spectacular. Though some of the CGI was a little wonky, like Bubastis and the Mars...thing. Whatever you call it.
-It's easy for Rorschach to be the MVP of the movie. Most of his work is just voice over. For the parts he had without the mask, he did a pretty damn good job, though. I do like Dr. Manhattan's appearance and how alien he looks. In fact, I don't think I ever saw him blink, which I thought was a nice touch.
-If Zach Snyder hadn't used so much slow motion, maybe he could've fit more into the movie.
-The guy playing Rorschach? Now that I've seen him in action? He's going to be a GREAT Freddy Kruger in the upcoming remake of Nightmare on Elm St.
-Laurie doesn't smoke in the movie. She looks like an idiot instead of just trying to find a lighter. It also misses out on the great moment where she shares a cigarette with the Comedian.
-It LOOKS great and looks cool, but much like comics in the 80s, they learned the wrong thing from Watchmen and focused on the cool, not the literary aspects of it.
-The sex scene: Cripes, it just went on and on. No subtlety. You know how the comic played the sex? Two pages. It showed them briefly and then showed the ship, with the flame going and everything. This was just excessive and felt like bad, softcore porn.
-Wow. Lawerence's arms getting cut off? You know, the guy in the prison. That wasn't excessive at all, now was it? And what was the point of electrocuting the other thug if he'd already taken him down hard?
-The prison fight with Nite Owl and Silk Spectre against the prisoners felt more like a video game.
-I did like the swinging door bit with Rorschach and the midget, even if it went on a bit too long. We got the point, already.
-The ending: The thing about using Dr. Manhattan instead of the giant squid is that Dr. Manhattan was an American creation, more or less. He's human and still something that people could see themselves in. By using an alien, it's something literally otherworldy, meaning that the only target for the whole world to aim at is something not on Earth, something we can't relate with and something that we can all, as a world, unquestionably fear and hate. It's much like the Native culture in the 16th century, but even then, there was still a human element to see. It's taking the nuclear threat that the world fights over already and turning it into a BIGGER threat that's not only uncomprehensible, but bigger than any of us on the planet.
-That said, the framing of Jon did kind of work within the confines of the movie and the effects for the city were...well, they were okay. But again, it's the whole fact that he was an American construct, already.
-Laurie is shown to be not only an idiot but nowhere near the capable woman she was in the comic. Jon is the one that tells her to go on to dinner with Dan, rather than it being something she decides. And her big, pivotal moment of realization about her father was thanks to Jon and the stupid plot device where he "allows her to see as he sees". She's constantly shown as incapable and an idiot, rather than the curious woman who smokes to further renegade against her mother and fights for her own independence.
So, overall, it was an okay movie. Not great and barely even good. The effects were great for the most part, the acting was wooden as all hell and the movie cramped because they tried to get so much into such a long, epic story. I don't regret watching it, but I'm glad I didn't pay money for it and likely won't be seeing it again unless I hear the giant squid is in the big directors cut that we keep hearing about.
As an adaptation, it stunk.
P
Philosopher B.
The Shawshank Redemption
Magnificent. I really liked how it gave the sense of the decades eroding away, and [spoiler:2iclrxbm]Andy's escape totally took me by surprise. I never suspected the posters represented anything beyond the passing of time as shown through the changing of sex symbols.[/spoiler:2iclrxbm] I loved the latter half of the movie, though I expected it to end when [spoiler:2iclrxbm]Red was on the bus to see his friend, having got his hope back. Of course, I then read that the studio wanted the bit after. Whatever, the last pull-out shot was coo'.[/spoiler:2iclrxbm] I was also fascinated and disturbed to find that someone [spoiler:2iclrxbm]actually escaped Shawshank-style.[/spoiler:2iclrxbm]
I'd really like to read the original story.
Persepolis
Brilliant sense of atmosphere. Very stark. Not much else to say, other than they did a damn fine job of bringing the comic to life, albeit in the slightly abridged manner necessary to translate the story into a shorter movie.
First Blood
I'd have let him get something to eat.
Lethal Weapon
Fucking awesome, except for the fact the soundtrack could've been farted out for all its variance. I mean, it was like someone would randomly slap a sleeping Clapton awake and say 'Play some guitar for this bit!' and when he fell asleep after about three minutes playing they'd have a go at the sax-player ...
Aaaaaand now I'm going to be mobbed by Clapton fans.
Magnificent. I really liked how it gave the sense of the decades eroding away, and [spoiler:2iclrxbm]Andy's escape totally took me by surprise. I never suspected the posters represented anything beyond the passing of time as shown through the changing of sex symbols.[/spoiler:2iclrxbm] I loved the latter half of the movie, though I expected it to end when [spoiler:2iclrxbm]Red was on the bus to see his friend, having got his hope back. Of course, I then read that the studio wanted the bit after. Whatever, the last pull-out shot was coo'.[/spoiler:2iclrxbm] I was also fascinated and disturbed to find that someone [spoiler:2iclrxbm]actually escaped Shawshank-style.[/spoiler:2iclrxbm]
I'd really like to read the original story.
Persepolis
Brilliant sense of atmosphere. Very stark. Not much else to say, other than they did a damn fine job of bringing the comic to life, albeit in the slightly abridged manner necessary to translate the story into a shorter movie.
First Blood
I'd have let him get something to eat.
Lethal Weapon
Fucking awesome, except for the fact the soundtrack could've been farted out for all its variance. I mean, it was like someone would randomly slap a sleeping Clapton awake and say 'Play some guitar for this bit!' and when he fell asleep after about three minutes playing they'd have a go at the sax-player ...
Aaaaaand now I'm going to be mobbed by Clapton fans.
I thought they were going to go with a sympathetic edge for Dilinger. I didn't care for him at all. Why did the crowd/people like him? Cause he was stickin' it to the man? I just can't root for a cop-killer. Even when the cop was smacking his gf, I saw it more from the cop's POV. This lady was protecting a cop-killer. A dude that probably killed some of his friends. I'd probably want to smack her around too.Vagabond said:
Michael Mann has disappointed me for the first time.
C
Chazwozel
drawn_inward said:
I do believe that the reason why people liked him was because the film is set during the great depression and people in the midwest had a bone to pick with banks screwing them over.
That's exactly why Dillinger was a folk hero, yes.Chazwozel said:
Really? I understand ragging on the 2nd and 3rd ones (didn't see the latest), but I would whole heartedly disagree with that assessment. I would argue that it's a movie about a veteran who is unable to cope in a society that not only doesn't appreciate what he had done in their service, but is outright shunned. How this man is pushed to his breaking point after losing the last of his friends who can really understand what they went through. The movie was never about the violence.Cajungal said:NO SHIT, huh? One of my professors was talking about the movie and said that it was about "a veteran who just wanders into town and starts killing people." :bush:Philosopher B. said:First Blood
I'd have let him get something to eat.
First Blood stands as one of my favorite moves for precisely these reasons.
Oh, and don't for get pre-shades, baby-faced Caruso playing the only decent man in the film.
Cajungal
Staff member
Yeah, at first I thought she might be talking about one of the others, but she said "First Blood." I don't think she watched the whole thing.Krisken said:Really? I understand ragging on the 2nd and 3rd ones (didn't see the latest), but I would whole heartedly disagree with that assessment. I would argue that it's a movie about a veteran who is unable to cope in a society that not only doesn't appreciate what he had done in their service, but is outright shunned. How this man is pushed to his breaking point after losing the last of his friends who can really understand what they went through. The movie was never about the violence.Cajungal said:NO SHIT, huh? One of my professors was talking about the movie and said that it was about "a veteran who just wanders into town and starts killing people." :bush:Philosopher B. said:First Blood
I'd have let him get something to eat.
First Blood stands as one of my favorite moves for precisely these reasons.
This was not conveyed in the movie. He has one line where he tells a guy in the bank to keep his money. It's not like Ned Kelly or Robin Hood. Those movies has a sympathetic lead, who was also a criminal.Chazwozel said:
The acting and action was great. The sound was pretty great. The gunshots in the alley sounded awesome, and the bullets hitting a tree just sounded cool.
P
Philosopher B.
Since I didn't really make it clear, I thought First Blood was awesome.
- Status