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
Have not seen them all!
Don't remember the original (1972). Maybe netflix has it?
Netflix? What's that?!
Definitely watch it then! Guess Tarkovskiy is pretty much love it or hate it like Kubrick, but there is little to lose and much to gain. It's based on Stanislav Lem's masterpiece (in case you worry about the plot
). But I'm curious now, do you know Stalker then? Saw I Am Love with Tilda Swinton yesterday, mixed critiques on imdb, but I thought it was astonishing. Loved the Milanese (baroque) panorama.
I just watched Fargo. I would give it a 7.5 out of 10. Mainly cause Ben Affleck is in it
You mean Argo? If memory serves, I don't think Affleck was in Fargo.
Netflix? What's that?!
Definitely watch it then! Guess Tarkovskiy is pretty much love it or hate it like Kubrick, but there is little to lose and much to gain. It's based on Stanislav Lem's masterpiece (in case you worry about the plot
Saw I Am Love with Tilda Swinton yesterday, mixed critiques on imdb, but I thought it was astonishing. Loved the Milanese (baroque) panorama.
Stalker? If that is a movie reference, no I am not.
Yes. Since you like 2001, I think it's save to recommend it to you. Great movie! I asked because it was made by the same director as Solaris, one of a kind.
Moderator note:
I've noticed that folks who are pulling images from the IMDB website and embedding them here are making posts with images that tend to not work. The images look like broken links. I've tested that if you take the URL used here and paste in into a new tab/window, that the image appears and then the browser caches it. Once that's done and you return to this page the images appear.
I strongly urge everyone to find your images elsewhere to embed or take screenshots and embed or upload them directly to your MacRumors post so that we all may see and enjoy them.
/Moderator note
I've noticed that folks who are pulling images from the IMDB website and embedding them here are making posts with images that tend to not work. The images look like broken links. I've tested that if you take the URL used here and paste in into a new tab/window, that the image appears and then the browser caches it. Once that's done and you return to this page the images appear.
I strongly urge everyone to find your images elsewhere to embed or take screenshots and embed or upload them directly to your MacRumors post so that we all may see and enjoy them.
/Moderator note
Just finished Mulholland Drive. My reaction as the credits started: "What the hell did I just watch?!?"
It seemed to make sense up til the last third of the movie, and then it was all so random.
It seemed to make sense up til the last third of the movie, and then it was all so random.
Just finished Mulholland Drive. My reaction as the credits started: "What the hell did I just watch?!?"
It seemed to make sense up til the last third of the movie, and then it was all so random.
Wait, you expect coherence from David Lynch??
Wait, you expect coherence from David Lynch??
Haha, I guess not. But that ending just threw me for a loop. I spent the last half hour online reading other people's interpretations/guesses as to what the heck happened.
That's like asking a film noir fan to explain the plot of 1946 film "The Big Sleep"...no one had a clue, including the actors and the screenwriters (including William Faulkner). There's a story about the plot of the film...Faulkner and his co-screenwriter couldn't figure out who killed one of the characters. So they called the author of the book, Raymond Chandler, who angrily told them to read the book. The next day Chandler called them back and said he re-read his own book and HE couldn't figure out the question, and told them to do whatever the hell they wanted.
So Lynch didn't invent enigmatic plots which no one can figure out!
Ah, wonderful Soviet era cinema. Tarkovskiy made some amazing movies.
[url=http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv310/happybunny2_photos/ScreenShot2013-05-14at124807PM_zpsc166c178.png]Image[/URL]
I found this film to be both funny and poignant.
I did too, although friends from that part of the world informed me that they didn't like it, as they thought it was somewhat patronising. They preferred 'The Lives Of Others', saying it was a more accurate portrayal of life in the old DDR. I liked both, and I thought 'Goodbye Lenin' was bittersweet, not patronising, and, as you say, both funny and poignant. And Yann Tiersen's soundtrack was sublime.
That's like asking a film noir fan to explain the plot of 1946 film "The Big Sleep"...no one had a clue, including the actors and the screenwriters (including William Faulkner). There's a story about the plot of the film...Faulkner and his co-screenwriter couldn't figure out who killed one of the characters. So they called the author of the book, Raymond Chandler, who angrily told them to read the book. The next day Chandler called them back and said he re-read his own book and HE couldn't figure out the question, and told them to do whatever the hell they wanted.
So Lynch didn't invent enigmatic plots which no one can figure out!
Lovely post - that is a very funny story.
That's like asking a film noir fan to explain the plot of 1946 film "The Big Sleep"...no one had a clue, including the actors and the screenwriters (including William Faulkner). There's a story about the plot of the film...Faulkner and his co-screenwriter couldn't figure out who killed one of the characters. So they called the author of the book, Raymond Chandler, who angrily told them to read the book. The next day Chandler called them back and said he re-read his own book and HE couldn't figure out the question, and told them to do whatever the hell they wanted.
So Lynch didn't invent enigmatic plots which no one can figure out!
That's hilarious! I kind of want to read that book now
And - a question that always occurs to me, as most (not all) movie adaptations of what are considered literary classics are an utter travesty; some have no connection whatsoever with the book except perhaps for the filched shared ancestry accorded by a common title; some bear a fleeting, or passing, resemblance to the books they claim to be based on.
Still others pay homage to what the book was about, without a slavish adherence by trying to accommodate the author's every comma. And, finally, others manage what is regarded as a work of homage, a movie that tells the tale the book intended using cinematography as language and managing to retain the sense, sound, and scent of such, remaining faithful to plot and character and setting without a slavish cloning.
So, to my question then. To those who have seen this movie, how closely does it follow the book? Is it a faithful adaptation, or is it merely another attempt to bring The Great Gatsby to the screen that yet fails to capture the inner core of the book?
The best film adaptation of a book, which quite literally was a word for word translation to film, was "The Maltese Falcon". I read the book after having seen the film a number of times, so I knew it scene for scene, and much of the dialogue by memory. John Huston could simply have handed copies of the book to the cast, and not bothered to have it transcribed into script format (which, I'm sure, he did). He left out one chapter, and I later read a review of the book and apparently there was a consensus among reviewers that none understood why the chapter was in the book, and all felt it should have been edited out...which Huston did in the film.
As I love the film (which had been made in 1931...poorly), it represents the most amazing and successful word for word transition to a film I've ever seen.
Agreed - a superb, flawless film - sheer, unadulterated class, great acting, amazing cinematography, incredible light (yes, I know, the original 'film noir' but so, so brilliantly done), fabulous cast, lovely ambiguous and morally murky plot.......
Now, for once, you have me, as I have usually read the books movies come from; in this case, I haven't......maybe a treat is in store for me?
I must admit to having read the book a very long time ago, but I do recall it to be an enjoyable example of the "hard boiled detective" novels of the time. Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, and their ilk, wrote....fun stuff!
I'm sure you know this, but this was John Huston's very first directorial effort...not bad for the first crack out of the box!
Ah, yes, the 'hard-boiled detective' genre - I really should take a look at some of them, as it is not a genre I am very familiar with.
For a first directorial effort, 'The Maltese Falcon' is just flawless, and simply superb. Was Humphrey Bogart the first choice to play Sam Spade? Something is giving a twinge in the back of my mind suggesting that he might not have been.
Of course, the irrepressible Orson Welles also had an outstanding (and yes, flawless, too) directorial debut with the superlative 'Citizen Kane'. I remember the first time I saw it - I had feared that it would not live up to all I had read about it. But it did. It is a spellbindingly brilliant, complex, clever, fast, nuanced, highly intelligent movie, with fantastic cinematography, lighting, pacing, and is a stunning example of excellent ensemble acting and using the medium of film to tell a richly layered morality tale. I was awestruck, and could watch it again and again.
Well, "Citizen Kane" is the absolute ultimate first directorial triumph. And both Welles and Huston went on to make some pretty good films. Definitely not one shot wonders!
As for who was first choice for the Marlowe role in the Falcon...get this... it was George Raft! And actor who makes wooden Indians look over animated. A man with the acting talent of a chair. And he turned it down because he knew this would be Huston's first directorial assignment, and he didn't want to put his career in the hands of a novice. Please note, even as an actor, Huston could act Raft off the screen, but Raft didn't trust him as a director. Imagine Raft rather than Bogart!
I love Film Noir. They don't make movies like that any more although there have been some attempts like LA Confidential.
Thank you for that. Yes, I had a vague recollection that Humphrey Bogart (who was absolutely perfect in that role - in fact, so good was he that you simply cannot conceive of anyone else, ever, playing it instead) had not been the first choice and that someone who enjoyed a considerable profile at the time, (but who has since become quite forgettable) had been offered it.
Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, ah.....what a wonderfully atmospheric film. And I love that the characters are all so flawed, and that hardly any of them conform to some notional standard of what it is to be good looking. (One of my pet gripes about modern US movies is that everyone is so impossibly, implausibly, and blandly, almost identikit good looking - there is hardly any character visible anywhere, because Botox has taken care of the etching of life's lessons on the human face, leaving this sterile and superficially flawless facade behind, devoid of laugh lines, crinkles, and any expression which owes anything to the experience of living).
Yes, I do too - well, the classics, at any rate. And yes, I did enjoy LA Confidential; terrific acting, a great cast, an excellent and brooding atmosphere and a rich and complex narrative.