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
Brilliant love it. Did he do the original Exorcist? Can't remember who's in it, I did watch it once though and did find some bits funny lol. Daft film but enjoyable. Well worth a watch.
The Road (2009)
A very good film, however rather depressing being all too close to that alternative reality we thankfully never realised. One that I'll watch once or twice in a decade. In this case the media server (2011 15" MBP) made the choice so I just let it be...
Q-6
A very good film, however rather depressing being all too close to that alternative reality we thankfully never realised. One that I'll watch once or twice in a decade. In this case the media server (2011 15" MBP) made the choice so I just let it be...
Q-6
Yes, Friedkin directed The Exorcist, based on a novel by William Peter Blatty. The movie starred Linda Blair as the possessed child, Ellen Burstyn as her at-wits-end mother, and Max von Sydow and Jason Miller as the priests.
The movie was the scariest film of its time. (So was Jaws, a couple of years later.)
The Exorcist's cast had other notable accomplishments. Blair founded an animal rescue organization. Burstyn won an Oscar, an Emmy, and a Tony. von Sydow, a very well-known actor, played Blofeld in one James Bond film. Miller won a Pulitzer for writing a play.
I love the Boris "Frankenstein" Karloff. He was still new then, I guess.
These days "Jaws" makes people laugh too. But when it was first released a lot of people were afraid to go in the ocean. As it turns out, there was a news report just yesterday about a shark attack on a human at a New York City beach, the first there since 1953.
Sure. I remember when it came out. "Don't go in the water!" I'm not a fan of the "jump out of the dark" thrillers so I never saw it.
The Exorcist was obviously based on Christian folklore and belief. So it can look different for a non-Christian. Not as serious.
Although it’s a rubber robot shark, like The Exorcist I sure do appreciate the fact they used actual physical props and make up and sets, not CGI on every single thing with actors looking at nothing but green and blue screens everywhere. To me the acting can be better then as they actually have something physical to work off. But I guess then the original Jurassic Park had some alright acting in it too.
I think when I watched Jaws first all those years ago it scared me, now I watch it as it’s a cult classic and a time when films were perhaps a lot better? Jaws 2 is good also, rest are not very good though.
I think that’s why I really like the James Bond and Mission Impossible franchises, they all do real stunts, see something blow up it’s actually something blowing up etc. Adds more the impact and on screen presence.
Using CGI as filler can work. I watched Star Wars New Hope for the first time in a long while and was surprised (and I hate myself for saying it) how how "fake" it looked. The later ones seemed more natural.
If only they had CGI back when the 1939 MGM Wizard of Oz movie was made.
Margaret Hamilton and her stunt double Betty Danko both suffered serious burns playing the Wicked Witch of the West, who was supposed to disappear in a ball of fire.
Buddy Ebsen, the original actor playing the Tin Woodman, was covered with aluminum dust makeup, which put him in the hospital. He lost the job to actor Jack Haley, who got a serious eye infection even though they changed the aluminum dust to aluminum paste.
Judy Garland, playing Dorothy, was "snowed on" in the poppy field scene with asbestos.
Two actors playing winged monkeys were hurt in falls when the wires holding them up broke during their "flying" scene.
CGI could have handled all of those special effects. But it wouldn't have helped Terry the terrier, who got a sprained foot while playing Toto.
I still prefer the originals.
That’s a good memory you have! Crazy what they used to do. Aluminium dust! That’s mad.
CGI would have made it look fake though I think. But obviously these days they do it a lot better if they use practical effects.
Could anyone imagine if they remade Aliens and used CGI everywhere? That’s ironic as it’s director now uses it and pushes its boundaries in all his films.
Sometimes the digital effects look pretty good, and couldn't be done another way. The techniques that produced the big-eyed Na'vi people in Avatar, that enlarged Helena Bonham Carter's head in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, and that digitally de-aged Harrison Ford in the latest Indiana Jones movie were impressive. Then again, once in while special effects aren't good enough, digital or not, such as when you can tell that an explosion was done with miniatures.
I saw "The Irishman" a few months ago. They must have burned out a few CGI systems with that one.
It was far from perfect but they had a lot of time traveling to do. Part of it was the unavoidable physical stiffness of the actors. I still had fun.
The Bruce Lee classic - Enter the dragon
Yes, I agree they look good, if done well, but I feel when actors have real sets with real props they act better. In Oblivion the house Tom Cruise live in was a real set, and they had giant screens surrounding it with the backdrop projected onto it, no green screen so the actors had something to use as a reference. If they mix it up with real sets and props and green screen it can work.
But then Star Wars for me is my point, and I think suffered for it, Ewan McGregor said he was in a giant room with nothing but green screens no props, he sat on a literal box covered in green screen and he had to pretend he was riding some animal whilst gazing up to some star or planet. To me that just doesn’t work as well or come across as well on screen?
Anyway I watched Jaws last night as it was put in my head lol, I appreciated it. I find it enjoyable really now.
I may put Back To The Future on later, another classic and amongst my most favourite film trilogy ever.
Lifeforce (1985)
y
Not remotely for the kids. Not offensive by any means, just aimed at the mature audience of the day. Those that like my commentary will be in for a treat, those that dont best to steer clear. Those that do, watch the DC as is well worthwhile...
Q-6
Not remotely for the kids. Not offensive by any means, just aimed at the mature audience of the day. Those that like my commentary will be in for a treat, those that dont best to steer clear. Those that do, watch the DC as is well worthwhile...
Q-6
A legend in his time, living just a few miles from the action...The Bruce Lee classic - Enter the dragon
Q-6