Zow
Footballguy
I hope not - we need to hear the rain!Blade Runner is my favorite sci-fi movie of all time. That is all.
Checking to see if there's a silent version from 1926
I hope not - we need to hear the rain!Blade Runner is my favorite sci-fi movie of all time. That is all.
Checking to see if there's a silent version from 1926
I hope not - we need to hear the rain!
Only if you think Scott knows what he's talking about...which is dubious.I thought he was when I was a kid but then I saw the director's cut as an adult and it's pretty evident...I hope you're in the "Deckard is human" camp.Blade Runner is my favorite sci-fi movie of all time. That is all.
I'd prefer him to be human, but he's a replicant.
Did **** ever say?Only if you think Scott knows what he's talking about...which is dubious.I thought he was when I was a kid but then I saw the director's cut as an adult and it's pretty evident...I hope you're in the "Deckard is human" camp.Blade Runner is my favorite sci-fi movie of all time. That is all.
I'd prefer him to be human, but he's a replicant.
.Did **** ever say?Only if you think Scott knows what he's talking about...which is dubious.I thought he was when I was a kid but then I saw the director's cut as an adult and it's pretty evident...I hope you're in the "Deckard is human" camp.Blade Runner is my favorite sci-fi movie of all time. That is all.
I'd prefer him to be human, but he's a replicant.
By that, I mean the story author?
Yeah, I just spent some time on the googles as well, and it sounds like both **** and Ford intended for Deckard to be human and Scott was the only one who intended for Deckard to be a replicant..Did **** ever say?Only if you think Scott knows what he's talking about...which is dubious.I thought he was when I was a kid but then I saw the director's cut as an adult and it's pretty evident...I hope you're in the "Deckard is human" camp.Blade Runner is my favorite sci-fi movie of all time. That is all.
I'd prefer him to be human, but he's a replicant.
By that, I mean the story author?
"The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?"
-Philip K. ****, author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
The bit with the unicorn has been long misunderstood IMO.Yeah, I just spent some time on the googles as well, and it sounds like both **** and Ford intended for Deckard to be human and Scott was the only one who intended for Deckard to be a replicant..Did **** ever say?Only if you think Scott knows what he's talking about...which is dubious.I thought he was when I was a kid but then I saw the director's cut as an adult and it's pretty evident...I hope you're in the "Deckard is human" camp.Blade Runner is my favorite sci-fi movie of all time. That is all.
I'd prefer him to be human, but he's a replicant.
By that, I mean the story author?
"The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?"
-Philip K. ****, author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
I think it's way better from a philosophical perspective if Deckard is human. The Deckard is a replicant (made to take over for Gaff with Gaff's memories) is a fun twist I suppose, but I think it takes away from ultimate theme and motifs of the story.
Deckard isn't dreaming of Rachel as a unicorn - he's daydreaming. It's not a memory, it's a visual representation of a feeling.The unicorn spirit animal encourages us to maintain a pure and open heart, free from the cynicism and jadedness that can sometimes cloud our perception. It reminds us to approach life with a sense of awe and appreciation, seeing the beauty in even the smallest of details.
Furthermore, the unicorn is a symbol of healing and protection. Its presence is said to ward off negative energies and create a safe haven for those in need of emotional or physical restoration. Those who embrace the unicorn spirit animal may find themselves drawn to holistic practices or possessing natural healing abilities
True as well.BR2049 really only "works" if he's human.
Please report back with how to use the seashells.Damn internet is out, so my plan to watch American Gangster was out. I had to stick to the blurays I had at home of mine and the library. Blade Runner and Demolition Man double feature it is!
Looks like they're desperately in search of "that catchphrase" but in general my trepidations are mildly assuaged.Gladiator 2 trailer just dropped https://youtu.be/4rgYUipGJNo?si=485o8IX5tMhoD5OS![]()
Freaky. I also watched this last night, and had a similar reaction. I am rounding more and more to what seems the popular opinion about Scott, which is about what the bolded is too. He likes to stay in the past, everything looks great, but for me the acting and actor choices hold me back a bit.Body of Lies
Nothing new here and it felt very 00s. Just very of its time and place but Leo is always great. Crowe isn’t at his best here but he’s got a presence of course. Scott’s direction ensures everything looks good and the action scenes rip. While it’s nothing special, I liked it more than its reputation would have led me to believe. It’s just dated.
Yeah I was between this and AG but it was already 10:30 so the shorter run time got me. I thought Leo was fantastic in this. Does he ever give anything less? He’s just so magnetic. It was cool seeing a young Oscar Isaac. Crowe was a little disappointing and I can’t put my finger on why.Freaky. I also watched this last night, and had a similar reaction. I am rounding more and more to what seems the popular opinion about Scott, which is about what the bolded is too. He likes to stay in the past, everything looks great, but for me the acting and actor choices hold me back a bit.Body of Lies
Nothing new here and it felt very 00s. Just very of its time and place but Leo is always great. Crowe isn’t at his best here but he’s got a presence of course. Scott’s direction ensures everything looks good and the action scenes rip. While it’s nothing special, I liked it more than its reputation would have led me to believe. It’s just dated.
Body of Lies won out because I saw the run times on a few others that were on my list. I think Napolean and American Gangster are coming in closer to 2hrs 40mins.
Freaky. I also watched this last night, and had a similar reaction. I am rounding more and more to what seems the popular opinion about Scott, which is about what the bolded is too. He likes to stay in the past, everything looks great, but for me the acting and actor choices hold me back a bit.Body of Lies
Nothing new here and it felt very 00s. Just very of its time and place but Leo is always great. Crowe isn’t at his best here but he’s got a presence of course. Scott’s direction ensures everything looks good and the action scenes rip. While it’s nothing special, I liked it more than its reputation would have led me to believe. It’s just dated.
Body of Lies won out because I saw the run times on a few others that were on my list. I think Napolean and American Gangster are coming in closer to 2hrs 40mins.
Yeah that’s the biggest drawback. My appetite for movies about modern Middle East conflict is pretty low.Freaky. I also watched this last night, and had a similar reaction. I am rounding more and more to what seems the popular opinion about Scott, which is about what the bolded is too. He likes to stay in the past, everything looks great, but for me the acting and actor choices hold me back a bit.Body of Lies
Nothing new here and it felt very 00s. Just very of its time and place but Leo is always great. Crowe isn’t at his best here but he’s got a presence of course. Scott’s direction ensures everything looks good and the action scenes rip. While it’s nothing special, I liked it more than its reputation would have led me to believe. It’s just dated.
Body of Lies won out because I saw the run times on a few others that were on my list. I think Napolean and American Gangster are coming in closer to 2hrs 40mins.
It's funny because I faced a similar decision last night after Mrs. Eephus went to bed
I knew nothing about Body of Lies so I watched the trailer. I totally wasn't in the mood to relive the war on terror so I started American Gangster instead in spite of its longer runtime.
Can't say I have much more or anything different to say about it. I liked it. Solid entry into the gangster genre. Good performances by the leads and the bust scene was really well done.American Gangster (2007)
It's mid-month already and I've watched as many Robin Hood movies as ones directed by the DotM. This one was definitely better than Robin Hood. Gangster movies have been done in a lot of different ways but this ambitious movie combines a gangster story and a cop story in a single epic. I'd be curious whether Denzel's gangster or Crowe's cop gets more screentime and dialog but both seemed pretty equally divided while I was watching it. It's an interesting narrative device that can be used to cover gaps in time and mask some continuity issues for the off-screen character. I did feel a bit let down by the scene when Frank and Richie finally meet. I was waiting for this because the characters were on a collision course for over two hours but I thought the dialog between the two lacked the expected spark. I also though Richie's transition to a prosecutor was abrupt but I guess it was "based on a true story".
By Ridley's standards, it's a relatively restrained outing visually. Most NYC scenes are shot in an almost documentary style with desaturated colors and a lot of shadow and darkness. It's a good decision that suits the late 60s-early 70s time period. The scenes in Bangkok and Frank's country home are vivid in contrast. Scott generally goes for a gritty, realistic tone with little of the operatic operatic quality of the Godfathers, Miller's Crossing or Once Upon a Time in America. A notable exception is the "Amazing Grace" montage that was very familiar for the genre.
It's a solid movie aided by fine performances all around. I'm still not sold on Scott as a great action director but have to admit the raid of the heroin factory was very well done.
I absolutely need to rent Kingdom of Heaven. That’s been on my watchlist for too long.I'm still plugging away, but I don't really have much else to add so far but to echo most of the sentiments above, as I've watched similar films.
I did finish the book about Thelma & Louise and found that much more enjoyable than the movie itself. I am about 1/3 of the way through On the Beach. This one more of a slow burn and not at all what I was expecting, but I have really liked it so far. I have the movie at home and plan to get that in before the month is over as well.
I also watch Body of Lies, American Gangster, and Napoleon. I liked them all, but while watching I had the feeling that I had already seen the best Ridley had to offer and I am not sure I will find any gems that I think are great after the core movies we have already talked about. I went a different route with my reading, so I didn't end up diving into Matchstick Men, but I did also get that from the library and plan on getting to that before the month is over. Besides that, maybe a rewatch of The Martian, or an edible + Legend. I couldn't convince myself to watch Prometheus or Covenant.
I am glad others found Napoleon funny too. Part of it is that I naturally find that setting and the stuffy aristocracy funny in general. But a few of those sex scenes and the interactions between him and his wife had me laughing a lot.
this your baby, just switch it up when you feel its appropriate. for example Oct = Horror Dec= XmasStill a week left, so anybody interested in voting please do so. 80s and I have a plan for Nov/Dec, but how we roll it out does depend on the outcome of the poll.![]()
I appreciate the feedback.this your baby, just switch it up when you feel its appropriate. for example Oct = Horror Dec= XmasStill a week left, so anybody interested in voting please do so. 80s and I have a plan for Nov/Dec, but how we roll it out does depend on the outcome of the poll.![]()
Actor of the month instead of Director of the month
films based on a location or theme
that's my 2 cents
hard disagree. I think River made an excellent zombie.but then again, who wouldn't be an improvement over River Phoenix.
I blame Scott and these threads for landing on Hulk tonight.
Hmm. Good ideas here. I bet there is one streaming channel that curates lists of movies in that way....I would say November should spotlight a key grip and December should spotlight a best boy.
I'm not sure I was prepared to go that far, but I certainly was fascinated by it. I've seen both, but had little memory of either - just a vague feeling that I liked the story and idea of Ang Lee's version, but liked Norton more than Bana, and the f/x were better in the newer one. I had forgotten how stylistic it was and how much Lee tried to make it feel like reading a comic with the odd framing and side by side types of shots that mimicked panels in a comic. Of course Connelly was great in it, as were a couple others. I just thought Bana was off as Banner - it's like he was playing a goofy High Schooler at times, I just found it odd.I blame Scott and these threads for landing on Hulk tonight.
I watched the Ang Lee Hulk last year and thought it was quite good.
i don't know which one is technically "better", but I definitely like Tony's movies more. Would rather watch man on fire, crimson tide, true romance, Cop 2, and even maybe unstoppable and last boy scout over anything by Ridley.Man on Fire (2004)
I briefly considered watching and commenting on movies by Ridley's younger brother Tony this month but decided against the schtick. I can honestly say I find Tony's work more interesting even though Ridley is regarded by some as a cinematic genius while Tony was considered more of a hack during his career. While Ridley has succeeded as a modern auteur able to choose projects that he's passionate about, Tony was more like an old school studio system hired gun who was able to insert his personal aestethic and themes into genre pictures.
Brother teams in film go back to the very beginning with the Lumieres. The Scotts began working together doing commercials in their native Britain but went their separate ways. They had a joint production company (Scott Free) but only shared credit for production of some television series. I haven't done a comprehensive viewing but my sense is that the brothers' directing styles started off relatively similar in the 80s but diverged over the course of their careers. By the time he directed Man on Fire in 2004, Tony's films had a hyperkinetic energy with lots of strange camera movements and rapid fire cutting. I don't think Tony was the first director to do this but few took it to the extremes like he did with multiple exposures, flashes of color and overlapping sounds. His style has been imitated a lot since so it doesn't look quite as fresh as it did in the early 2000s. It can be exhausting to watch but when it works, I find his movies exhilarating in a way that Ridley's rarely are.
Man on Fire is a hardboiled revenge plot with Denzel Washington as an ex-CIA assassin taking on a Mexican kidnapping ring. It starts out rather slowly introducing the characters and building up the relationship between Denzel and the victim. The kidnapping scene happens around 50 minutes in and the film ramps up the intensity and brutality to the max. The final hour where Creasy becomes an avenging force is so over the top that it's sometimes hard to watch. I've seen an equal number of Tony and Ridley Scott movies and would rank Man on Fire near the top of the joint rankings. I think Ridley is more consistent but even Tony's bad movies like Domino and The Fan are a lot of fun.
This is a great movie, and scores high on re-watchability.Man on Fire (2004)
I briefly considered watching and commenting on movies by Ridley's younger brother Tony this month but decided against the schtick. I can honestly say I find Tony's work more interesting even though Ridley is regarded by some as a cinematic genius while Tony was considered more of a hack during his career. While Ridley has succeeded as a modern auteur able to choose projects that he's passionate about, Tony was more like an old school studio system hired gun who was able to insert his personal aestethic and themes into genre pictures.
Brother teams in film go back to the very beginning with the Lumieres. The Scotts began working together doing commercials in their native Britain but went their separate ways. They had a joint production company (Scott Free) but only shared credit for production of some television series. I haven't done a comprehensive viewing but my sense is that the brothers' directing styles started off relatively similar in the 80s but diverged over the course of their careers. By the time he directed Man on Fire in 2004, Tony's films had a hyperkinetic energy with lots of strange camera movements and rapid fire cutting. I don't think Tony was the first director to do this but few took it to the extremes like he did with multiple exposures, flashes of color and overlapping sounds. His style has been imitated a lot since so it doesn't look quite as fresh as it did in the early 2000s. It can be exhausting to watch but when it works, I find his movies exhilarating in a way that Ridley's rarely are.
Man on Fire is a hardboiled revenge plot with Denzel Washington as an ex-CIA assassin taking on a Mexican kidnapping ring. It starts out rather slowly introducing the characters and building up the relationship between Denzel and the victim. The kidnapping scene happens around 50 minutes in and the film ramps up the intensity and brutality to the max. The final hour where Creasy becomes an avenging force is so over the top that it's sometimes hard to watch. I've seen an equal number of Tony and Ridley Scott movies and would rank Man on Fire near the top of the joint rankings. I think Ridley is more consistent but even Tony's bad movies like Domino and The Fan are a lot of fun.
I did find the ending a little ambiguous. When I first watched it I was under the impression he dies in the car. But 10 years later they came out with the sequel (The Equalizer).Man on Fire (2004)
I briefly considered watching and commenting on movies by Ridley's younger brother Tony this month but decided against the schtick. I can honestly say I find Tony's work more interesting even though Ridley is regarded by some as a cinematic genius while Tony was considered more of a hack during his career. While Ridley has succeeded as a modern auteur able to choose projects that he's passionate about, Tony was more like an old school studio system hired gun who was able to insert his personal aestethic and themes into genre pictures.
Brother teams in film go back to the very beginning with the Lumieres. The Scotts began working together doing commercials in their native Britain but went their separate ways. They had a joint production company (Scott Free) but only shared credit for production of some television series. I haven't done a comprehensive viewing but my sense is that the brothers' directing styles started off relatively similar in the 80s but diverged over the course of their careers. By the time he directed Man on Fire in 2004, Tony's films had a hyperkinetic energy with lots of strange camera movements and rapid fire cutting. I don't think Tony was the first director to do this but few took it to the extremes like he did with multiple exposures, flashes of color and overlapping sounds. His style has been imitated a lot since so it doesn't look quite as fresh as it did in the early 2000s. It can be exhausting to watch but when it works, I find his movies exhilarating in a way that Ridley's rarely are.
Man on Fire is a hardboiled revenge plot with Denzel Washington as an ex-CIA assassin taking on a Mexican kidnapping ring. It starts out rather slowly introducing the characters and building up the relationship between Denzel and the victim. The kidnapping scene happens around 50 minutes in and the film ramps up the intensity and brutality to the max. The final hour where Creasy becomes an avenging force is so over the top that it's sometimes hard to watch. I've seen an equal number of Tony and Ridley Scott movies and would rank Man on Fire near the top of the joint rankings. I think Ridley is more consistent but even Tony's bad movies like Domino and The Fan are a lot of fun.
I did find the ending a little ambiguous. When I first watched it I was under the impression he dies in the car. But 10 years later they came out with the sequel (The Equalizer).
Yeah, we still dont really know what mccall’s background is supposed to be in the equalizer, but it seems like he had a life that wasn’t really the same as creasy’s, even though they certainly have similarities. I would still say that the ending of man on fire is ambiguous and it’s not 100% that he diedI did find the ending a little ambiguous. When I first watched it I was under the impression he dies in the car. But 10 years later they came out with the sequel (The Equalizer).
They're ostensibly different characters in The Equalizer but the re-pairing of Denzel and Dakota Fanning in a similar story is kind of confusing. Director Antoine Fuqua also uses similar technique to Tony Scott.
Man on Fire is a remake of a 1987 film by French director Élie Chouraqui. I started watching it last night and am curious about how it handles the ending. Tony Scott's remake is over an hour longer than the original.
Man on Fire is a remake of a 1987 film by French director Élie Chouraqui. I started watching it last night and am curious about how it handles the ending. Tony Scott's remake is over an hour longer than the original.