Spoilers What Movie Are You Watching?

[mscriv]

How would you compare them to the two that came before?

I haven't seen the earlier versions in quite a long time, but I remember enjoying them as well. I thought they did a good job with the "who can we trust" tension and the scene where they start trying to figure it out by checking each other's dental work was brilliant.

 

[Huntn]

I haven't seen the earlier versions in quite a long time, but I remember enjoying them as well. I thought they did a good job with the "who can we trust" tension and the scene where they start trying to figure it out by checking each other's dental work was brilliant.

I like the dental work idea. In the 1982 movie, they exposed blood to heat thinking infected blood would react to protect itself. In that case it did, jumping out of its petri dish.

Watching "The Hunger Games".
A somewhat visually engaging piece of junk.

Did you read the books? Based on my read, I all ready know I'll rent the next episode which was disappointing. The 3rd book was kind of a let down too.

 

[sk1wbw]

I'm very interested in this one too. Haven't seen the Sly 'mindless violence' original, but will get this Urban 'mindless violence' remake for sure.



There was a remake? I was referring to the 80s version then. I found it quite hard to stay awake tbh (and think it was even splitted into two episodes...tzzzz...).
Re The Thing, read a funny comment mentioning that it was one of the first (mainstream) movies of that era where 'the black guy' wasn't supposed to die right at the beginning.

Bones is awesome in Red, as well. I had to look that up to make sure it was the same guy. He is a great actor.

 

[twietee]

Bones is awesome in Red, as well.

Took me quite some time to figure out what that means. Haven't seen R.E.D. though. As well as Star Trek.
But really am looking forward to watch Dredd...comicbook adaptations from comics I haven't read are by far the best until now in my experience (Ironman + Watchmen).

Saw My Neighbor Totoro yesterday. Beautiful movie - especially if you have some younger kids at home, I haven't, but loved it none the less. If you liked Spirited Away this will be a keeper.

 

[Shrink]

Did you read the books? Based on my read, I all ready know I'll rent the next episode which was disappointing. The 3rd book was kind of a let down too.

As I mentioned in my post, I did not read the books.

But I'm not sure that's relevant. Someone above suggested that if one liked the books, one would like the movie...and if one had not read the books, or didn't like them, one would not like the movie.

While I would not disagree that reading the books might fill in plot holes, give better character background, and provide other information...that does not explain why it would make, IMO, a bad film good - or acceptable.

A film stands (or falls) on it's own merits (or lack of them). Reading the books, understanding the characters better, etc. would not improve the bad script, bad acting, and so on. Reading "Hamlet" did not make Mel Gibson's film of the play any better...it still sucked!!

Reading the book from which a film is adapted make provide some advantages in understanding the plot and characters...but it doesn't make a bad movie good.

 

[86nji]

Some gr8's

Big Lebowski
Fargo
Trees Lounge
Road to Perdition
Forest Gump
Cast Away
Sleepers
No Country For Old Men
Sunrise Express (I liked)
Goodfelllas
TRON
True Grit
Fistfull of Dollars
Gran Torino (it IS good)
Super 8
Superbad
I am Legand
MIB I (II) III
Sexy Beast
The Departed
Scarface
Scent of a Woman
Jeff Who Lives at Home
BLOW
Iron Man I II III
LA Confidential
Blade Runner
Saturday Night Fever
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

 

[Huntn]

As I mentioned in my post, I did not read the books.

But I'm not sure that's relevant. Someone above suggested that if one liked the books, one would like the movie...and if one had not read the books, or didn't like them, one not like the movie.

While I would not disagree that reading the books might fill in plot holes, give better character background, and provide other information...that does not explain why it would make, IMO, a bad film good - or acceptable.

A film stands (or falls) on it's own merits (or lack of them). Reading the books, understanding the characters better, etc. would not improve the bad script, bad acting, and so on. Reading "Hamlet" did not make Mel Gibson's film of the play any better...it still sucked!!

Reading the book from which a film is adapted make provide some advantages in understanding the plot and characters...but it doesn't make a bad movie good.

I only asked for perspective. I agree that a film stands on its own merits. I believe the Hunger Games movie was a hit because it was supported by a large number of book readers who liked the story. I thought the first book was readable with an interesting concept, however from there it is downhill IMO. I got through the books, but I really did not like where the second book took me. To some degree, a been-there-done-that if you will. Maybe it's a hit because there were a bunch of young adults starving for content after Harry Potter, or they are not as critical as I am.

Although splitting books into multiple movies seems to be the current rage, I'm waiting for the day they screw up the first movie part of a book and then don't finish the series. Is that possible, lol? My suggestion for this story is to combine and second and third books into one movie, but I know that is not happening. I believe certain movie franchises insulated themselves from this possibility by securing funds and filming all of the parts at one time. I'm thinking of Lord of the Rings. However I still wonder what would of happened if the first film had tanked?

Some gr8's

Some I've not seen. While acknowledging we all have different likes and dislikes, out of your list, my "good" picks are:
Fargo
Forest Gump
MIB I
The Departed
Iron Man I, II
LA Confidential
Saturday Night Fever

 

[Shrink]

I only asked for perspective. I agree that a film stands on its own merits. I believe the Hunger Games movie was a hit because it was supported by a large number of book readers who liked the story. I thought the first book was readable with an interesting concept, however from there it is downhill IMO. I got through the books, but I really did not like where the second book took me. To some degree, a been-there-done-that if you will. Maybe it's a hit because there were a bunch of young adults starving for content after Harry Potter, or they are not as critical as I am.

Although splitting books into multiple movies seems to be the current rage, I'm waiting for the day they screw up the first movie part of a book and then don't finish the series. Is that possible, lol? My suggestion for this story is to combine and second and third books into one movie, but I know that is not happening. I believe certain movie franchises insulated themselves from this possibility by securing funds and filming all of the parts at one time. I'm thinking of Lord of the Rings. However I still wonder what would of happened if the first film had tanked?

I'm sure that you are right that the movie drew a huge audience, many (if not most) were folks who had read the books. Perfectly understandable...I had read all of James Ellroy's books, so I was drawn to "LA Confidential" and "The Black Dahlia". "LA Confidential" was, IMO, pretty good, although it deviated from the book quite a bit, and having just read the book I was confused at points because I knew what was supposed to happen, and it was changed in the movie. I thought "The Black Dahlia" was not successful...Josh Hartnet was pretty poor, and the script was weak.

Apparently the first "Hunger Games" not only didn't tank (my opinion notwithstanding! ), but made a fortune. I'm sure if they make a sequel it, too, will do great...even if it's as bad as the first one.

Once again, my evaluation of the film is mine own...and clearly in the vast minority!

 

[Huntn]

I'm sure that you are right that the movie drew a huge audience, many (if not most) were folks who had read the books. Perfectly understandable...I had read all of James Ellroy's books, so I was drawn to "LA Confidential" and "The Black Dahlia". "LA Confidential" was, IMO, pretty good, although it deviated from the book quite a bit, and having just read the book I was confused at points because I knew what was supposed to happen, and it was changed in the movie. I thought "The Black Dahlia" was not successful...Josh Hartnet was pretty poor, and the script was weak.

Apparently the first "Hunger Games" not only didn't tank (my opinion notwithstanding! ), but made a fortune. I'm sure if they make a sequel it, too, will do great...even if it's as bad as the first one.

Once again, my evaluation of the film is mine own...and clearly in the vast minority!

An accurate description of Josh Hartnet's general acting ability. I equate him to pretty face status.

 

[sk1wbw]

Uh, the remake of The Thing. I couldn't take more than 10 or 15 minutes of that one. It looked like a Sci-Fi channel movie. Cheap and pathetic.

 

[86nji]

Some I've not seen. While acknowledging we all have different likes and dislikes, out of your list, my "good" picks are:
Fargo
Forest Gump
MIB I
The Departed
Iron Man I, II
LA Confidential
Saturday Night Fever

My mind always goes blank when I try to think of great films, just remembered a few more

Hot Rod
Falling Down
Love Honour and Obey
Saving Private Ryan
Godfather II
War of the Roses
The Untouchables
A Perfect World

 

[Huntn]

Just watched Loopers... some interesting encounters, but mostly blah. I usually have a decent handle on time travel movies, but I had this problem with story details:

spoiler> they show Levit encountering his old self twice to execute him. The first time Bruce Willis gets away. The second time, he kills Willis. I figured when they showed the years roll by it was when he failed to kill his old self, got away, and somehow lived his life, got caught, killed his captors and voluntarily elected to go back in time to kill the future big boss, to change the future outcome. This was when he was not wearing his hood and got away. <end spoiler. Or something like that. I did not get it.

 

[ritmomundo]

Just watched Loopers... some interesting encounters, but mostly blah. I usually have a decent handle on time travel movies, but I had this problem with story details:

snip

I think it's because spoiler>the second scene is where they showed when his future self had executed HIS future self (meaning, the scene was in the past, if that makes it any clearer, lol). This makes no sense to me because aside from some external force working outside of their time-loop-thing, each future self should have had the same thought process/series of events (escaping, going back in time without the hood, etc). Also, something didn't make sense at all with the little kid and the ending. I dont remember the specifics right now, but JGL killing himself shouldnt have made a difference with that kid becoming evil or something. If BW kills the mother to make the kid evil, then someone would have had to kill the mother to make the kid evil in BW's future (because BW had killed his future self in his younger life). Or otherwise, the kid wasn't the evil guy from the future in the first place, and BW was wrong all along. <end spoiler. It just didn't fit right, which makes me think that this was more of a sit-back-and-enjoy-what-they're-doing-and-don't-pick-it-apart-because-the-plot's-full-of-holes type of movie.

 

[Huntn]

I think it's because spoiler>the second scene is where they showed when his future self had executed HIS future self (meaning, the scene was in the past, if that makes it any clearer, lol). This makes no sense to me because aside from some external force working outside of their time-loop-thing, each future self should have had the same thought process/series of events (escaping, going back in time without the hood, etc). Also, something didn't make sense at all with the little kid and the ending. I dont remember the specifics right now, but JGL killing himself shouldnt have made a difference with that kid becoming evil or something. If BW kills the mother to make the kid evil, then someone would have had to kill the mother to make the kid evil in BW's future (because BW had killed his future self in his younger life). Or otherwise, the kid wasn't the evil guy from the future in the first place, and BW was wrong all along. <end spoiler. It just didn't fit right, which makes me think that this was more of a sit-back-and-enjoy-what-they're-doing-and-don't-pick-it-apart-because-the-plot's-full-of-holes type of movie.

Thanks for your perspective on Loopers!

spoiler> If you remove the scene where they show young Joe encounter old Joe just as he comes back in time and kills him, then the story makes more sense. <end spoiler.

...because, then in essence, the story becomes about future Joe coming back in time to change the past to change his future. I found this Screenrant.com link. A well written article that discusses time travel paradoxes and pigeon holes Loopers with this statement:

The biggest issue, as always, is the multiverse factor: if a guy from the future comes to the past and starts mucking with history, it either A) creates a separate timeline that runs parallel to the original one (allowing for two versions of history), or B) The actions in the past forever alter the flow of a single timeline, allowing for just one version of events. Looper plays fast and loose with this time travel mechanic, at times relying on both single timeline and multiverse timeline approaches to push the story forward.

Also I can accept the plot point spoiler> to keep the Rainmaker's Mom in the picture so the Rainmaker would not turn into the crime lord, Joe decided to kill himself, erasing his future, so that old Joe does not kill the Rainmaker's Mom. The question is why? The only possibilities are- he is compelled to change the future for the better and/or he is attracted to either the Mom, the child or both and wants them to live a good life by sacrificing his own. <end spoiler.

The end result was that I was not thrilled by the execution of the premise, did not care for the atmosphere, and consequently did not like the movie.

IMO, single timeline time travel movies are much easier to fathom. It is easy to accept that if you change the past, you will have changed the future, although it becomes much more messy when unintended consequences are factored in. The best examples of movies like these are Planet of the Apes, the Terminator Series, and The Time Machine. When multiple time lines are introduced, it becomes so complicated that it's easier to just go with the flow, accept what you are seeing, and not worry about if it makes sense or not, lol.

 

[JohnLT13]

Just finished watching Pulp Fiction again. Next up is Reservoir Dogs.
Ive seen both theses movies countless times, but still enjoy them as
much as i did the first time.

 

[Huntn]

Just finished watching Pulp Fiction again. Next up is Reservoir Dogs.
Ive seen both theses movies countless times, but still enjoy them as
much as i did the first time.

Pulp Fiction is an interesting movie.

 

[ReanimationN]

Uh, the remake of The Thing. I couldn't take more than 10 or 15 minutes of that one. It looked like a Sci-Fi channel movie. Cheap and pathetic.

The 2011 "The Thing" is actually supposed to be a prequel, but I agree with you, the 1982 original is so much better. The original maintains a sense of mystery and tension, whereas the remake goes for the mysterious vibe for all of 15-20 minutes, then it degenerates into "LOOK HOW SCARY IT IS, LOOK LOOK LOOK!!!".

 

[Huntn]

The 2011 "The Thing" is actually supposed to be a prequel, but I agree with you, the 1982 original is so much better. The original maintains a sense of mystery and tension, whereas the remake goes for the mysterious vibe for all of 15-20 minutes, then it degenerates into "LOOK HOW SCARY IT IS, LOOK LOOK LOOK!!!".

Not to be nitpickn, but the 1982 The Thing was a remake of the 1951 The Thing From Another World.

 

[chordate68]

Finally rented the new Dredd movie from iTunes. All I can say is that is a future BluRay purchase. This movie was bad ass.

Saw it in theaters. The Slow-Mo scenes were awesome in 3D. And I think 3D is garbage.

 

[Huntn]

Rise of the Planet of the Apes- eh, another variation of a story all ready told, several times.

 

[sk1wbw]

Should be called The Demise Of The Planet Of The Apes.

 

[sk1wbw]

I'm watching Drive on Netflix. Only heard about it briefly but after the rave reviews, decided to start it. I'll finish it later tonight when I get home from work.

So far, very well made, very beautifully filmed.

 

[leekohler]

Just watched Loopers... some interesting encounters, but mostly blah. I usually have a decent handle on time travel movies, but I had this problem with story details:

spoiler> they show Levit encountering his old self twice to execute him. The first time Bruce Willis gets away. The second time, he kills Willis. I figured when they showed the years roll by it was when he failed to kill his old self, got away, and somehow lived his life, got caught, killed his captors and voluntarily elected to go back in time to kill the future big boss, to change the future outcome. This was when he was not wearing his hood and got away. <end spoiler. Or something like that. I did not get it.

The film was called "Looper", not "Loopers". This annoys me as much as when people spell "loser" "looser". Sorry, but it drives me nuts.

 

[Shrink]

Watched "The Iron Lady" last night. Please note that I will not be discussing the politics of the title character (with much effort and self control), only the movie qua movie.

I enjoyed it very much. I always have a problem with biopics in terms of accuracy. The public portions of the main character's life are a matter of public record, but the private portions always give me pause in terms of accuracy. In this film, it is so stylized that the absolute accuracy of Thatcher's descent into dementia is not really the issue.

I know it's become cliché to gush over Meryl Streep, But gush I will! She so amazingly disappears into her character, so completely submerges herself in the role, it is breath taking. This movie is eminently worth watching just to see her craft.

I am also a big fan of Jim Broadbent. I saw him first (or at least was first taken with him) in a film called "Langford", a truly superior film which I recommend most highly. In it is an actress whom I would compare, in her amazing ability to inhabit her roles comparable to Streep's, named Samantha Morton. Very few actors, IMO, compare to Streep in their skills and range of parts played, but Samantha Morton is also able to inhabit her characters, and to play an amazing range of roles...also like Streep.

BTW: kudos to make up and prosthetics. A great job!

I would recommend "The Iron Lady"...not 100% successful, but very much worth a look.

 

[rctlr]

My Saturday watching is consisting of

Les Miserables
Django Unchained
Hotel Transylvania