Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spoilers What Movie Are You Watching?
- Thread starter Huntn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is nothing wrong with watching a movie twice if you really liked it; however, a movie has to be outstanding for me to want to watch it a third time.
The original movie many times. I think I'll pass on the 2016 remake.
No original ideas in Hollywood?
I know; this stupefying lack of originality - plus the confusion of sound, noise, violence and special effects with a proper narrative, or basic plot (not to mention credible characters) never ceases to astound me.
The ancients knew the secret, and it is not rocket science: Tell people stories - and tell them well - and you will manage to grab - and hold - their attention and interest.
Super hero films are the worst. Two or three reboots of the same movie franchise within a few years. Just doesn't make sense.
But then if they keep making $$$ then it's going to keep happening.
Well, with such movies, plot and character - not to mention nuance and context - are largely missing.
My colleague and I sent some time this evening discussing 'The Third Man' - what a superb, haunting, brilliantly made and acted movie. Plot, narrative arc, cast, script, soundtrack, setting, - all close to flawless.
You shouldn't, it's pretty outstanding. There's a reason it pulled 95% on RT, and had reviews with observations like this from Pat Travers:
Just because it's a technical marvel doesn't mean it lacks heart, or gives a new perspective on the original material (in fact, some of the film is way closer to the original source material than the '67 Disney animated film)
Oh yeah, damn i forgot to mention in my previous massive post that I watched "The Third Man" also lol. Anyway, that was a great movie, the only problem i had with it was that score. the movie is kind of dark but every time I heard that acoustic guitar it sounded like I was in a hawaii resort.
Of course you could make the argument that the score is used to highlight the ridiculous of the situation (forgive me I don't precisely remember it; all those movies I saw are somewhat of a blur with the exception of Barry Lyndon I think), but I didn't like that aspect. Good movie otherwise
Also, I watched The Jungle Book live action remake and it was pretty good. I thought it was better than the older cartoon movie. This was a perfect example of CGI, when supplemented with good writing, can really enhance the film. Hollywood movies are getting stale and old because they are all reboots and comic book movies, but there are still great movies from distributions companies like A24 which are well-written, original, and thought-provoking. See last years "Ex Machina" or "The End of the Tour", both I think you might enjoy.
As for comic book movies, if the scripts were written the same way but with no-name characters, we'd all be saying these movies suck. Indeed I say they suck either way. However as a film fan, and as a fan of hanging out with my wonderful friends, I still watch them anyway. I guess, in that sense, I am part of the problem.
There is nothing wrong with a blockbuster, but special effects have REPLACED the well written scripts. Take for example one of my favorite movies of all time "Back to the Future". You could consider this a "popcorn flick", but the script is one of the best. It's tight, cleverly written, and really makes you empathize with the characters. It's not necessarily Citizen Kane in terms of artistic merit (although there definitely is artistry), but it still has really really good writing that everyone can appreciate consciously or subconsciously. That is my main gripe with the comic book movies. Poor writing because most of the people who watch don't don't care about that. I don't need comic book movies to be like Casablanca, screenplay wise, or anything.
As for the remakes, there is a reason the movies that are classified as "remake material" have survived. The remakes won't capture that magic again.
Last edited:
Nothing to add other than my recommendation for both of these really outstanding films as well.
I could politely argue in defense of John Carpenter's The Thing in that this was a superior film to the Howard Hawkes' original. Carpenter and his screenwriter went back to the very scary source material and did a bang up job in interpreting this on the big screen, but I understand what you mean.
I am one of the scant few that couldn't stand Ex Machina but I get why people enjoyed it. And it was certainly more thoughtful than most films which come out of Hollyweird now. It's funny, when I was attempting school earlier this year my paper that I thought saved my university booty was on why Horror Films could be beneficial, and it was either Siskel or Ebert who said the 1980s special fx technologies (make ups, animatronic fx etc.) were utterly ruining movies back then. To a point it was true, for every Robocop or The Thing you had at least five crappy slasher films with no script other than to eradicate their pretty young things in horrible ways.
A similar lack of disregard for character is far more evident now with 3D, CGI etc. becoming a crutch that stands in for strong and engaging characters and fun stories. I quoted a Disney animation executive when discussing the current spectacle over story preference in Hollywood and it's really just a shame many of these characters (some of which I read for decades) come across as superficial gloss.
Unfortunately, the big two's comic books are as empty and vapid now as many of the films with those characters. I still love a couple superheroes though and will see them on the big screen (and hope that Moon Knight never gets a green light in any medium so they cannot do even more damage). I combat this situation by renting a select few new titles and buying older films.
Hopefully the bubble will burst and the creative talent in front of and behind the screens, will demand more story over spectacle.
Personally, I think the score was brilliant, haunting and unsettling, backlit by a touch of melancholy with the minor keys; anyway, the musical instrument in question was a zither, not a guitar, and the actual composer (Anton Karas) was heard playing that music in a cellar bar in (bombed out, war torn) Vienna and was consequently contracted to both compose and play the music for the soundtrack of the movie.
Going to see this was bound to happen at some point. I went in with pretty low expectations, but it wasn't as bad as everyone says. It wasn't great, and a bunch of the jokes fell flat, but some of them were pretty good.
I liked the lines the tour guide had, but no one else did: "...and here's where PT Barnum dreamed up enslaving elephants..." At some point, I decided to go ahead and laugh if I thought things were funny.
Watching for cameos, the only one that disappointed was Dan Aykroyd. He had a sort of New York accent, but not a good one.
Terminator Genisys (2015)- Ehh, how many ways can you bake a story and not over cook it? Mix and match while making explanations why it's all jumbled up, felt old and tired like old and obsolete Arnold not new and fresh. Actually the 4th film, Salvation I thought was pretty good cause for one thing it followed a consistent timeline. I was not paying close attention, so when they went to 2017, I was completely lost.
not new and fresh. Actually the 4th film, Salvation I thought was pretty good cause for one thing it followed a consistent timeline. I was not paying close attention, so when they went to 2017, I was completely lost.
Last edited:
I don't think you'd even have to argue that point
This particular example is also a case (like you pointed out) of another take on the same source material, that did it better, and honestly, the original is _way_ off base with regards the original concept (the Campbell novella, 'Who Goes There?')
There are also instances of a remake that totally re-envisions the previous film into something new, and better than the original source (The Fly comes to mind).
So the question is: did you still like it the second time?
i really did.
[doublepost=1473120809][/doublepost]
yeah. i bought it on iTunes. prolly watch it again at bedtime.
ah yes. i knew it didn't sound like a guitar but i didn't know what it was. thanks for the correction. and haunting? hm. i recall trying to think (after the movie was over) what the directors purpose of that score could be, but i couldn't think of anything. i guess i should rewatch.
To my ear, that music is more reminiscent of the sort of bitter sweet music you find in gypsy music and Hungarian music, with its melancholy minor keys and abrupt key shifts. And, I think it was meant to strike a slightly incongruous note.
However, given that they came across Anton Karas actually playing his own compositions on his zither in a cellar bar in Vienna - they shot the movie on location - the bombed ruins also serving to give the movie its compelling atmosphere - I think they thought that this added a slightly sinister, surreal - and authentic - touch to the movie.
That music shot to No 1 in the early music charts in Europe the year the movie was released, and certainly, most Europeans - who had been bombed, or occupied, in the war thought the music entirely appropriate and quite excellent.
Last edited:
yeah i agree with that assessment.
also i figured it was shot on location, and the bombed ruins definitely added a lot for the movie's atmosphere.
thats interesting about the music being popular in europe at the time. do you happen to have a source (i know this isnt prsi lol) for that? i'd like to read more about it.
My mother's memory, - she saw it when the movie was first shown around 1950 - and look up Anton Karas (the composer of the music). There are articles online - or, there were, when I last checked.
Around 15 years ago - when decent music shops still existed - I managed to have some music specialists order the CD of the soundtrack for me, and the sleeve notes, or small booklet gave some of this story.
I agree with your assessment of The Thing, but I thought Ex Machina was brilliant. What was your issue with the latter, or have we already had this discussion?
I agree with your assessment of The Thing, but I thought Ex Machina was brilliant. What was your issue with the latter, or have we already had this discussion?
I have seen plenty of machines turning against their creator (and the reinterpretation of the whole Frankenstein thing) and though this was particularly mean spirited on both sides (naturally, I understand why the creation went in the direction it did); just not entertaining or very thought provoking to me.
Acting was pretty good, but ultimately the film left me and coworker rather cold and unimpressed as we walked out of the theatre. Different strokes and that.
and...
The Flying Guillotine (1975). I'd seen this many many years ago and wasn't a fan, and while I like Chen Kuan Tai, the obviously z-movie love of constantly using the title weapon took away from its horrible purpose. With a movie like this (and some other lackluster roles in 1975), I can see why CKT got fed up with Shaw Brothers and fought to get out of his contract (he eventually came back as a better actor and was rewarded with vastly superior roles.)
I admit I don't like the title weapon and was surprised this spawned two sequels (and one awful unofficial one made through independent channels.) That said, I feel that the Shaw Brothers sequels (Flying Guillotine 2 and The Vengeful Beauty) have much better stories and acting (some great characters in the rebellious Shih Szu and Chen Ping respectively.)
Last edited: