Spoilers What Movie Are You Watching?

[kazmac]

Hi Shrink...

I am a devotee of classic films...especially the films of the 30's and 40's. I feel that the early films established the language of film (not only the written language, but the cinema language in general...for example "Citizen Kane" with it's incredibly creative, original, and ground breaking cinema techniques.) Since you are taking a screenwriting class, I'm very curious if your prof has you watching some of the classic films, as well as more current stuff.

So far, nothing yet. It depends on the professor. This particular professor is posting specific screenplay fragments to help us with the many facets of screenwriting. The Gran Torino opener was posted to show a very immediate and clear picture of the lead character.

In previous course iterations, some professors listed: Casablanca, Sunset Blvd. - if anything from this era is posted, I'll let you know.

 

[ritmomundo]

This past weekend, I watched The Shining for the first time. It wasn't as scary as I expected it to be as a ghost story, but I can understand that at the time it was released in 1980, it would have had a much bigger effect on the audience. But as a psychological journey into madness, it was absolutely chilling.

Overall, it was very good, except for Shelley Duvall. I was sure she was going to accidentally stab herself, with the way she was running and flailing her arms around. I enjoyed seeing the iconic scenes, like "Heeeere's Johnny!" and "All work and no play...."

I was a little confused about the "shining" ability itself. It wasn't really used advantageously by any of the characters in the movie, so other than a gimmick to put more scary scenes in the story, I didn't really see much point to "the shine."

I also watched Eyes Wide Shut, which I had seen before, long ago. Yeah, Kubrick marathon on TV. 🙂 Not one of my favorites, but it's still an... interesting ride. To me, it just seems less Kubrick and more David Lynch.

Next up on my DVR - A Clockwork Orange. 🙂

Also saw What's Your Number (Anna Faris, Chris Evans). Pointless and dumb. Hardly funny, not really worthy of anything except a mention here.

 

[maflynn]

While camping this weekend, I downloaded a couple of movies on to my iPad. One of them, 1984 was pretty good.

If you liked the book, its a faithful interpretation, keeping much of the book intact in moving it to the silver screen. That being the case its a rather dark movie, i.e., the hero does not ride off into the sunset with the girl.

I did think the main actor John Hurt was miscast in the movie, He was not as believable as Winston Smith as I had hoped. Richard Burton was superb, I think this was his last role before he died.

 

[Shrink]

So far, nothing yet. It depends on the professor. This particular professor is posting specific screenplay fragments to help us with the many facets of screenwriting. The Gran Torino opener was posted to show a very immediate and clear picture of the lead character.

In previous course iterations, some professors listed: Casablanca, Sunset Blvd. - if anything from this era is posted, I'll let you know.

I look forward to your future posting.

As a film buff...I think much is missed by ignoring the older films. But, of course, the course is for writing scripts for today's films...😀

 

[Huntn]

The Shining Spoilers​

This past weekend, I watched The Shining for the first time. It wasn't as scary as I expected it to be as a ghost story, but I can understand that at the time it was released in 1980, it would have had a much bigger effect on the audience. But as a psychological journey into madness, it was absolutely chilling.

Overall, it was very good, except for Shelley Duvall. I was sure she was going to accidentally stab herself, with the way she was running and flailing her arms around. I enjoyed seeing the iconic scenes, like "Heeeere's Johnny!" and "All work and no play...."

I was a little confused about the "shining" ability itself. It wasn't really used advantageously by any of the characters in the movie, so other than a gimmick to put more scary scenes in the story, I didn't really see much point to "the shine."

I also watched Eyes Wide Shut, which I had seen before, long ago. Yeah, Kubrick marathon on TV. 🙂 Not one of my favorites, but it's still an... interesting ride. To me, it just seems less Kubrick and more David Lynch.

Next up on my DVR - A Clockwork Orange. 🙂

Also saw What's Your Number (Anna Faris, Chris Evans). Pointless and dumb. Hardly funny, not really worthy of anything except a mention here.

The Shining

The shining was a psychic ability that allowed characters to see events from the past and ghosts. It's like being able to see with your eyes. It resulted in a level of awareness, which could be called the advantage. However, I've never really understood if Jack Torrance (the father) was technically psychic. Danny (his son) and Dick Halloran definitely had the ability, but I believe that in the case of Jack it wasn't so much that he sensed them or events, but that the ghosts showed themselves to him.

Anyone read the book recently?

In the book Dick Halloran is attacked, but not killed. He drives the wife and son to safety in the end. In the movie as soon as he steps into the hotel, he is killed. Why? I think it has to do with other changes in the screen play that deviated from the book. But in essence the movie made Halloran's trip to the overlook a waste of time, where in the book, he actually accomplished something. Although many consider it a brilliant film, including myself, it is reported that Steven King hated the adaption due to its deviations and got them to make a mini-series that stuck to the original story but was not nearly as good as Kubrick's version.

In the book, Jack Torrance allows his wife and son to escape before the boiler in the hotel blows up killing him. In the movie, he tries his best to kill them off. Honestly I don't remember this point in the book, read it somewhere online. It show some drastic changes in the story from the author's original intent.

 

[kazmac]

🙂

I look forward to your future posting.

As a film buff...I think much is missed by ignoring the older films. But, of course, the course is for writing scripts for today's films...😀

And twice in this week's lectures our Professor mentioned Casablanca: Paul H's character revealing his heroism in the bar and how the screenplay was tweaked during filming to work in the love story. Considering how Gran Torino showed up on cable only days after the except was posted, I won't be surprised if Casablanca is shown sometime soon too. Then I will think my Professor has some hand in film scheduling on cable. 😀

More as it comes.

 

[kazmac]

A Fistful of Dollars

I haven't seen AFOD in years (my taste in spaghetti westerns expanded past Leone some 14 years ago and I never looked back.)

It was a delight to catch A Fistful of Dollars on TCM last night: so much fun.

 

[ritmomundo]

The Shining Spoilers​

The Shining

The shining was a psychic ability that allowed characters to see events from the past and ghosts. It's like being able to see with your eyes. It resulted in a level of awareness, which could be called the advantage. However, I've never really understood if Jack Torrance (the father) was technically psychic. Danny (his son) and Dick Halloran definitely had the ability, but I believe that in the case of Jack it wasn't so much that he sensed them or events, but that the ghosts showed themselves to him.

Anyone read the book recently?

In the book Dick Halloran is attacked, but not killed. He drives the wife and son to safety in the end. In the movie as soon as he steps into the hotel, he is killed. Why? I think it has to do with other changes in the screen play that deviated from the book. But in essence the movie made Halloran's trip to the overlook a waste of time, where in the book, he actually accomplished something. Although many consider it a brilliant film, including myself, it is reported that Steven King hated the adaption due to its deviations and got them to make a mini-series that stuck to the original story but was not nearly as good as Kubrick's version.

In the book, Jack Torrance allows his wife and son to escape before the boiler in the hotel blows up killing him. In the movie, he tries his best to kill them off. Honestly I don't remember this point in the book, read it somewhere online. It show some drastic changes in the story from the author's original intent.

THE SHINING SPOILERS
I haven't read the book, but the shining ability seems more relevant if Dick Halloran stays alive to save them. I guess Kubrick threw that in there as a wtf moment.

I still don't quite get the ending (the very last scene with the ballroom photo). Jack was able to see the dead, and was a ghost himself the whole time? But he had no memory of anything before returning to the hotel? And somehow he was able to have a child... 😕

 

[Huntn]

THE SHINING SPOILERS
I haven't read the book, but the shining ability seems more relevant if Dick Halloran stays alive to save them. I guess Kubrick threw that in there as a wtf moment.

I still don't quite get the ending (the very last scene with the ballroom photo). Jack was able to see the dead, and was a ghost himself the whole time? But he had no memory of anything before returning to the hotel? And somehow he was able to have a child... 😕

It's just there to make you say "what?" in a confused tone. I don't get that either unless it's some kind of reincarnation where JT has an identical appearance to his former self. Best not to dwell on it, unless someone has an official explanation... 😛

 

[S.B.G]

Stephen King's Children of the Corn (1984)

Linda Hamilton was quite the looker in 1984 and also in the Terminator movies.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Just seen White House Down.

Did somebody write this or just watch a butch of die hard movies. So many similarities. Not a real bad movie though. I wonder how it compares with Olympus has fallen that came out last year.

 

[twietee]

The Shining

The Shining

Oh, yes, The Shining. I love to think about this movie! I'm not much into supernatural stuff, not at all actually, so I always struggle a bit with this piece of art. But in the end there is actually only one scene that I can't wrap my head around and I would have preferred to be solved slightly different by Kubrick 🙂eek: 😀):

SPOILER

When Jack gets helped out of his prison-cell by a 'ghost'.

I'm fine with all the imagined, psychic horrors, crazy monologues at the Golden Bar in front of a mirror or even some sort of hindsight, let's call it gut-feeling; but that escape is tough to swollow for me. As for the last picture: since in my opinion the basic plot is about some bordeline madness seeking refuge in its own isolation by contemplating / concentrating only on ones own existence, which ultimately doesn't bring out the (expected?) best in you but that what's inherent - in this case it's clear from the very beginning that he's unhappy with his family.
As for the picture at the end of the movie: in my opinion it is a nod that this isn't the first and won't be the last case and thus some device for abstraction while also being a nod to the classic haunted house theme of horror flics - so very clever. But there won't be a definite explanation either.

 

[Shrink]

I saw "Lincoln" a couple of days ago. Unfortunately, the usual Spielberg mediocrity...a mile wide and an inch deep. It's visual quality and production values are good...but as I have said before (ad nauseam), when you have a bazillion dollars to spend, putting good visuals on the screen is really not much of an accomplishment.

The script was tedious and pedestrian. The acting was crippled by Spielberg's unimaginative and cheaply sentimental direction. He never earns the audience's emotional responses, he uses bad scripting and cheap camera work to push easy emotional buttons in the audience.

There are some good actors in this...David Strathairn and Daniel Day Lewis, to mention two. As mentioned, their performances were hindered by poor direction. I think Daniel Day Lewis is one of a very few truly great current actors...a man of incredible range and intensity. I would watch him read the phone book, which is pretty much what I did watching this movie.

And then for contrast...

... today...for the umpteenth time, I once again saw "The Maltese Falcon". Such a brilliant film...amazing casting, brilliant script, and masterful direction...all the more remarkable as it was John Huston's first directorial assignment.

Before anyone points out the my preference is often for old, classic films (which is true), I have enjoyed some more recent films (e.g. "There Will Be Blood"). It is not the age of the film...it is the quality of the film to which I respond.

After seeing "the Falcon"...I couldn't resist the below. It was made from a mold produced from a casting made in the Original falcon statue mold.

 

[Huntn]

Watched Pacific Rim- decent premise, decent action, great CGI, terrible music, I watched but was never emotionally involved. Will not buy the DVD.

Oh, yes, The Shining. I love to think about this movie! I'm not much into supernatural stuff, not at all actually, so I always struggle a bit with this piece of art. But in the end there is actually only one scene that I can't wrap my head around and I would have preferred to be solved slightly different by Kubrick 🙂eek: 😀):

SPOILER

When Jack gets helped out of his prison-cell by a 'ghost'.

I'm fine with all the imagined, psychic horrors, crazy monologues at the Golden Bar in front of a mirror or even some sort of hindsight, let's call it gut-feeling; but that escape is tough to swollow for me. As for the last picture: since in my opinion the basic plot is about some bordeline madness seeking refuge in its own isolation by contemplating / concentrating only on ones own existence, which ultimately doesn't bring out the (expected?) best in you but that what's inherent - in this case it's clear from the very beginning that he's unhappy with his family.
As for the picture at the end of the movie: in my opinion it is a nod that this isn't the first and won't be the last case and thus some device for abstraction while also being a nod to the classic haunted house theme of horror flics - so very clever. But there won't be a definite explanation either.

Ghosts have been reported to be able to manage physicality. 🙂

 

[kazmac]

...

Tomb of Legia- the film was as confusing as Poe's story. From what I remember anyway. I got a good laugh from the obviously fake cat being thrown all over the place during the climax. Still, Vince Price is always fun.

----------

I saw "Lincoln" a couple of days ago. Unfortunately, the usual Spielberg mediocrity...a mile wide and an inch deep. It's visual quality and production values are good...but as I have said before (ad nauseam), when you have a bazillion dollars to spend, putting good visuals on the screen is really not much of an accomplishment.

The script was tedious and pedestrian. The acting was crippled by Spielberg's unimaginative and cheaply sentimental direction. He never earns the audience's emotional responses, he uses bad scripting and cheap camera work to push easy emotional buttons in the audience.

There are some good actors in this...David Strathairn and Daniel Day Lewis, to mention two. As mentioned, their performances were hindered by poor direction. I think Daniel Day Lewis is one of a very few truly great current actors...a man of incredible range and intensity. I would watch him read the phone book, which is pretty much what I did watching this movie.

And then for contrast...

... today...for the umpteenth time, I once again saw "The Maltese Falcon". Such a brilliant film...amazing casting, brilliant script, and masterful direction...all the more remarkable as it was John Huston's first directorial assignment.

Before anyone points out the my preference is often for old, classic films (which is true), I have enjoyed some more recent films (e.g. "There Will Be Blood"). It is not the age of the film...it is the quality of the film to which I respond.

After seeing "the Falcon"...I couldn't resist the below. It was made from a mold produced from a casting made in the Original falcon statue mold.

Nice Falcon, Shrink!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I haven't seen AFOD in years (my taste in spaghetti westerns expanded past Leone some 14 years ago and I never looked back.)

It was a delight to catch A Fistful of Dollars on TCM last night: so much fun.

Everyone should be allowed one or two lapses in taste, or secret vices. One of mine happens to be spaghetti westerns - I love the sunbaked arid landscapes (as opposed to studio bound westerns), the cinematography, the music, the choreographed baroque operatic violence (yes, yes, I know, I know, I occasionally blush myself at such a confession), Lee van Cleef, plots that make little pretence at adhering to classical norms of morality.......satisfying baddies.....

Anyway, I can well understand that you enjoyed it; my personal favourite of the first three by Leone is 'For a Few Dollars More'; did I mention that I loved Lee van Cleef? (And yes, 'Sabata' is another of my favourites in that genre....)

I saw "Lincoln" a couple of days ago. Unfortunately, the usual Spielberg mediocrity...a mile wide and an inch deep. It's visual quality and production values are good...but as I have said before (ad nauseam), when you have a bazillion dollars to spend, putting good visuals on the screen is really not much of an accomplishment.

The script was tedious and pedestrian. The acting was crippled by Spielberg's unimaginative and cheaply sentimental direction. He never earns the audience's emotional responses, he uses bad scripting and cheap camera work to push easy emotional buttons in the audience.

There are some good actors in this...David Strathairn and Daniel Day Lewis, to mention two. As mentioned, their performances were hindered by poor direction. I think Daniel Day Lewis is one of a very few truly great current actors...a man of incredible range and intensity. I would watch him read the phone book, which is pretty much what I did watching this movie.

And then for contrast...

... today...for the umpteenth time, I once again saw "The Maltese Falcon". Such a brilliant film...amazing casting, brilliant script, and masterful direction...all the more remarkable as it was John Huston's first directorial assignment.

Before anyone points out the my preference is often for old, classic films (which is true), I have enjoyed some more recent films (e.g. "There Will Be Blood"). It is not the age of the film...it is the quality of the film to which I respond.

After seeing "the Falcon"...I couldn't resist the below. It was made from a mold produced from a casting made in the Original falcon statue mold.

Great post. Ouch. Re 'Lincoln', too. As it happens, broadly speaking I agree with you on both Spielberg and Daniel Day Lewis. None of his movies have transported me - not even the worthy but dull 'Schindler's List'.

As a child, my hero was Lincoln, and I devoured the considerable library my father had on the American Civil War which was augmented (after I developed an interest in the topic) by several biographies of Lincoln which my poor father scoured the country to obtain for me.

For a variety of reasons, most of which you already know, I have not had the opportunity of seeing this movie yet, and I had been looking forward to watching it, hoping that the movie would deliver a well rounded, intelligent, nuanced portrait of a complex yet extraordinary man.

I have been told that the movie is very well made, with a close attention to period detail and a serious attempt to achieve historical accuracy (two things I am extraordinarily intolerant about in movies that purport to be about history; get the history right - and I am one of those who spots careless mistakes - or else call it fiction); however, from your review, sad to relate, the old 'worthy but dull' epithet seems to apply yet again.

Actually, I'd love to see an intelligent, thoughtful, well acted, well scripted movie about Lincoln. I have a horrid suspicion that the myth transcends the man, and that US movie makers are unable to make a distinction between the two or face their own history with the sort of exquisite - and sometimes pained - note of nuance that the best of European movies manage so well.

 

[kazmac]

...

Everyone should be allowed one or two lapses in taste, or secret vices. One of mine happens to be spaghetti westerns - I love the sunbaked arid landscapes (as opposed to studio bound westerns), the cinematography, the music, the choreographed baroque operatic violence (yes, yes, I know, I know, I occasionally blush myself at such a confession), Lee van Cleef, plots that make little pretence at adhering to classical norms of morality.......satisfying baddies.....

Anyway, I can well understand that you enjoyed it; my personal favourite of te first three by Leone is 'For a Few Dollars More'; did I mention that I loved Lee van Cleef? (And yes, 'Sabata' is another of my favourites in that genre....)

Spaghetti westerns are not secret vices (that would be some ratty U.S. exploitation fodder), they are a very public love of mine 😀 (along with giallos and some Italian horror.)

Lee Van Cleef was so awesome. I remember when I first saw Fistful, For a Few Dollars More, The Good the Bad the Ugly, High Plains Drifter, and then Escape from New York. My mind was blown. I squealed holy crap, Carpenter got Van Cleef to do Mortimer and Russell did Eastwood - brilliant.

It was so cool to revisit the original template for all of the spaghetti westerns. I'd forgotten how good A Fistful of Dollars was.

---

Right now I am happy as hell that Criterion are finally releasing Elio Petri's Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion in early December. It has my favorite Gian Maria Volente performance (second is Ramone from Fistful) - such a great film.

---

TCM showed Tomb of Legia last night. Not the best Corman/Price/Poe, in fact it was utterly confusing. I think TCM's September programming of Science Fiction was vastly superior to their October Horror output.

Still, I probably will catch what I can of Eye of the Devil on Monday evening. I love David Hemmings, Sharon Tate and Donald Pleasance in that.

 

[Shrink]

Everyone should be allowed one or two lapses in taste, or secret vices. One of mine happens to be spaghetti westerns - I love the sunbaked arid landscapes (as opposed to studio bound westerns), the cinematography, the music, the choreographed baroque operatic violence (yes, yes, I know, I know, I occasionally blush myself at such a confession), Lee van Cleef, plots that make little pretence at adhering to classical norms of morality.......satisfying baddies.....

Anyway, I can well understand that you enjoyed it; my personal favourite of te first three by Leone is 'For a Few Dollars More'; did I mention that I loved Lee van Cleef? (And yes, 'Sabata' is another of my favourites in that genre....)



Great post. Ouch. Re 'Lincoln', too. As it happens, broadly speaking I agree with you on both Spielberg and Daniel Day Lewis. None of his movies have transported me - not even the worthy but dull 'Schindler's List'.

As a child, my hero was Lincoln, and I devoured the considerable library my father had on the American Civil War which was augmented (after I developed an interest in the topic) by several biographies of Lincoln which my poor father scoured the country to obtain for me.

For a variety of reasons, most of which you already know, I have not had the opportunity of seeing this movie yet, and I had been looking forward to watching it, hoping that the movie would deliver a well rounded, intelligent, nuanced portrait of a complex yet extraordinary man.

I have been told that the movie is very well made, with a close attention to period detail and a serious attempt to achieve historical accuracy (two things I am extraordinarily intolerant about in movies that purport to be about history; get the history right - and I am one of those who spots careless mistakes - or else call it fiction); however, from your review, sad to relate, the old 'worthy but dull' epithet seems to apply yet again.

Actually, I'd love to see an intelligent, thoughtful, well acted, well scripted movie about Lincoln. I have a horrid suspicion that the myth transcends the man, and that US movie makers are unable to make a distinction between the two or face their own history with the sort of exquisite - and sometimes pained - note of nuance that the best of European movies manage so well.

First, my opinion notwithstanding, I am more than interested in your take on the film...both cinemagraphically, and from the perspective of historical accuracy. My dislike of Spielberg's films is in no way a comment on the historical accuracy of the film, about which I am unqualified to comment (as you, most definitely, are). However, I do suspect that his desire to cheaply manipulate audience emotions does put into question, for me, his willingness to manipulate facts for effect.

Isn't it always the case that the myth transcends the man? There's a great line in the 1962 John Ford film "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", spoken by a journalist in reference to the story of the title character..."When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

BTW: I, too, am nuts for Lee van Cleef!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

To Shrink, and kazmac, you have both made my day.

When watching spaghetti westerns, I must concede that Clint Eastwood never did it for me, he was never my hero (though he matured into an extraordinarily impressive director of intelligent, thoughtful and well made westerns), but Lee van Cleef was.

I just loved that guy; it didn't matter what role he played, I wanted him to win, and rooted for him. In 'Sabata' when 'Banjo' shot Sabata (van Cleef's character) I was almost devastated, no, I lie, I was devastated and almost turned off the TV in disgust; well, given what followed, I'm very glad I didn't......

Anyway, I am sitting here, quietly chuckling to myself at the thought that two fellow fans of Lee van Cleef have openly declared themselves as such.

Re Lincoln: when I finally manage to see it, I'll post a review.

 

[Shrink]

To Shrink, and kazmac, you have both made my day.

When watching spaghetti westerns, I must concede that Clint Eastwood never did it for me, he was never my hero (though he matured into an extraordinarily impressive director of intelligent, thoughtful and well made westerns), but Lee van Cleef was.

I just loved that guy; it didn't matter what role he played, I wanted him to win, and rooted for him. In 'Sabata' when 'Banjo' shot Sabata (van Cleef's character) I was almost devastated, no, I lie, I was devastated and almost turned off the TV in disgust; well, given what followed, I'm very glad I didn't......

Anyway, I am sitting here, quietly chuckling to myself at the thought that two fellow fans of Lee van Cleef have openly declared themselves as such.

Re Lincoln: when I finally manage to see it, I'll post a review.

Oh, that's nothing. If I want to totally embarrass myself, and reveal my guilty, secret, I-never-admit-it pleasure...I can't take my eyes off Mickey Rourke when he is onscreen. He is so amazingly...ahhh...stylized, I can't see anyone else in the scene.

Oh...I'm so embarrassed!😱

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Apart from agreeing on the merits & screen presence of Lee van Cleef (this is the first time I have made such an admission openly, though my brother may have long suspected it, realising that my reaction to Clint Eastwood's travails was lukewarm at best - that final scene in 'For a Few Dollars More' was electrifying), I also meant to add my voice in agreement on the merits of 'The Maltese Falcon'.

That is a first rate film from start to finish, which features a terrific cast, stunning acting, wonderful characters, a wonderfully murky plot, great pacing and narrative, (based on first rate source material, an excellent story), incredibly atmospheric, terrific cinematography, the whole adding up to an outstanding movie which is an excellent example of how to use the art form of film to tell such a tale.

 

[ritmomundo]

Oh, yes, The Shining. I love to think about this movie! I'm not much into supernatural stuff, not at all actually, so I always struggle a bit with this piece of art. But in the end there is actually only one scene that I can't wrap my head around and I would have preferred to be solved slightly different by Kubrick 🙂eek: 😀):

SPOILER

When Jack gets helped out of his prison-cell by a 'ghost'.

I'm fine with all the imagined, psychic horrors, crazy monologues at the Golden Bar in front of a mirror or even some sort of hindsight, let's call it gut-feeling; but that escape is tough to swollow for me. As for the last picture: since in my opinion the basic plot is about some bordeline madness seeking refuge in its own isolation by contemplating / concentrating only on ones own existence, which ultimately doesn't bring out the (expected?) best in you but that what's inherent - in this case it's clear from the very beginning that he's unhappy with his family.
As for the picture at the end of the movie: in my opinion it is a nod that this isn't the first and won't be the last case and thus some device for abstraction while also being a nod to the classic haunted house theme of horror flics - so very clever. But there won't be a definite explanation either.

I hated that part of the movie. I was really hoping the storeroom door wouldn't open. Without that part and the photo at the end, it would have been a fantastic psychological thriller instead of a supernatural ghost story.

 

[kazmac]

...

Boomerang - Grace Jones is so much fun. Every time I see that woman I remember this...Straanng'ea indeed.

I think this could have been even funnier without so much raunchy dialog (I am used to pervy stuff and talk), but considering how funny many in this cast already are, I thought for sure they'd allow for some great ad libs without only resorting to the usual cursing and slang. Ah well. It had its moments.

---

 

[Huntn]

I saw "Lincoln" a couple of days ago. Unfortunately, the usual Spielberg mediocrity...a mile wide and an inch deep. It's visual quality and production values are good...but as I have said before (ad nauseam), when you have a bazillion dollars to spend, putting good visuals on the screen is really not much of an accomplishment.

I might watch this on cable... Surprisingly, Daniel Day-Lewis strikes me as a great actor, but how come I don't like any of the movies he is in? A mystery...

Some of Spielberg's stuff is pretty good. ex: Shindler's List, War of the Worlds, ET, Poltergeist. Admittedly some is eh.... like Super Eight.

 

[twietee]

Just finished Cruising, a dark 80s thriller with Al Pacino by William Friedkin. Really liked it: very unique, good acting, direction is brilliant but sublime - Friedkin started with documentaries and it shows, and the music is on par with all that. Really glad I found this piece by chance!

-

Good I didn't see Lincoln. Was afraid of Spielberg and rightly so it seems. Not going to watch it for an amazing actor.