This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I always thought of this as a kids movie. Good for like 10-14 age group.Just look at this one scene. It's a microcosm for the movie: the ghosts of dead baseball players are showing up on Costner's property, and he comments, "This is interesting." Really? That's the way the script wants to convey a sense of awe and wonder? Terrible.
Ok... this movie is sacrosanct as far as I'm concerned.I always thought of this as a kids movie. Good for like 10-14 age group.Just look at this one scene. It's a microcosm for the movie: the ghosts of dead baseball players are showing up on Costner's property, and he comments, "This is interesting." Really? That's the way the script wants to convey a sense of awe and wonder? Terrible.
I could totally imagine loving this had I seen it as a kid.Ok... this movie is sacrosanct as far as I'm concerned.I always thought of this as a kids movie. Good for like 10-14 age group.Just look at this one scene. It's a microcosm for the movie: the ghosts of dead baseball players are showing up on Costner's property, and he comments, "This is interesting." Really? That's the way the script wants to convey a sense of awe and wonder? Terrible.
Watched it for the first time with my dad whenever it first came out on video (not dvd). My dad's dad disappeared when he was two (rubbed out by Murder Incorporated is the commonly accepted story) and he always had a pretty obviously defined soft-spot/neurosis about fathers who come home after mysterious and/or lengthy absences. I didn't know what this movie was about, but enjoyed it well enough in spite of the hackery. But by the time the "do you want to have a catch" scene happens, I look over and he's just bawling- and he's not a guy to cry. It was obvious what was going on with him, but I lost it too. We both sat there crying into our barca-loungers until the tape ran out. As a newish dad now, I can't even make it more than a few seconds into that movie without losing it- missing my dad and wishing we had a better movie to have bonded over. ####### Costner.
fwiw- I was an "adult" when we watched it. IIRC, in between college and grad-school. I think being older in that situation made it stick more for meI could totally imagine loving this had I seen it as a kid.Ok... this movie is sacrosanct as far as I'm concerned.I always thought of this as a kids movie. Good for like 10-14 age group.Just look at this one scene. It's a microcosm for the movie: the ghosts of dead baseball players are showing up on Costner's property, and he comments, "This is interesting." Really? That's the way the script wants to convey a sense of awe and wonder? Terrible.
Watched it for the first time with my dad whenever it first came out on video (not dvd). My dad's dad disappeared when he was two (rubbed out by Murder Incorporated is the commonly accepted story) and he always had a pretty obviously defined soft-spot/neurosis about fathers who come home after mysterious and/or lengthy absences. I didn't know what this movie was about, but enjoyed it well enough in spite of the hackery. But by the time the "do you want to have a catch" scene happens, I look over and he's just bawling- and he's not a guy to cry. It was obvious what was going on with him, but I lost it too. We both sat there crying into our barca-loungers until the tape ran out. As a newish dad now, I can't even make it more than a few seconds into that movie without losing it- missing my dad and wishing we had a better movie to have bonded over. ####### Costner.
I had a hard time as well so I had to get it through some not so approved of ways by this board.
Dammit.I had a hard time as well so I had to get it through some not so approved of ways by this board.
It's on Youtube if you're cool with thatDammit.I had a hard time as well so I had to get it through some not so approved of ways by this board.
Good list. Havent seen Fandango or American Flyers, but really enjoy the rest. Id also add to your enjoyable list A Perfect World, Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, Tin Cup, and Mr. Brooks. I also enjoyed The New Daughter, The Guardian, Waterworld, and The Postman but could see how some might see all of those as bad as well. Still gotta see Open Range which everyone raves about and JFK which is rated highly. Another recent one that I thought was enjoyable but also really well done overall, Costner had a smaller role and it surprisingly starred Ben Affleck, was The Company Men.
Thanks, this was entertaining. He's definitely still sharp but on occasion showed a little wear on those tires.
Seemed pretty obvious from the trailers (and the PG-13 rating) that Robocop was going to totally miss the point. Pretty sure the same thing will happen with Starship Troopers.
Fandango is one of his first films and one of my favorite "Road" movies of all time. It is one of the few other instances where Costner brings his irreverent self to the screen but unlike Silverado, where he is constantly irreverent and pretty much one note (it's a good note), he blends in some of the seriousness that defines the majority of his career. He doesn't have much range but with the way he blended his limited talents Fandango may be his best all around acting performance.
One of the coolest guys I've listened too is a bit hyperbole but was just so amazed how sharp he was at 82. Being able to write All the President's men as well as The Princess Bride is impressive.
SuiteIt's on Youtube if you're cool with thatDammit.I had a hard time as well so I had to get it through some not so approved of ways by this board.
I don't reject remakes automatically. But these Verhoeven remakes should have been shelved for something original.
I was actually surprised at how much I liked it. I'd say 3.5/5. Might have been better if they had switched lead roles though, as Arnold seemed to really enjoy being in the movie, while Stallone seemed there for a paycheck.
Thanks for the link, will have to check out, definitely one of my favorite writers. Marathon Man was a great movie and better novel (sequel novel Brothers not as good but still entertaining). Butch Cassady might have generated the first bidding war for a script, not sure if it fetched a million, a lot for a script then.Daywalker said:
Yeah I liked this as well. It was what I expected. And yeah Arnold was chewing up the scenery as only he can.
I loved this movie. Loved it. I had very low expectations - as you can imagine. But someone had more integrity than to churn out pointless drivel with the LEGO name on it. This movie has a lot of laughs. And there are a lot of funny inside jokes.
Yes, big time gut punch. I watched 2 this past week that had me all tangled up.Instructions not Included -
Holy Crap, what a gut punch
Neither do I, but TK brought it up and I thought Moon was much better and certainly stuck with me much more after viewing.
They're both recent atmospheric sci-fi films set in outer space. The amount of films that fit that criteria is pretty miniscule as far as I know.
One is a brainless popcorn flick about space and the other is a thoughtful drama that happens to take place in space.
Straw man.
And that seems like a really thin rationale to make a comparison between the two.
Perhaps. But atmospheric sci-fi films aren't exactly very common, and I was basically attempting to allude to how I don't get how Gravity is getting so much love in the major award circuit whereas a superior (imo) and somewhat similar film like Moon got next to none.
You keep saying "atmospheric sci-fi" and I honestly have no idea what you mean by that if it allows for any comparison between the two films.
An atmospheric film as in a film whose visuals/aesthetics/tone are essential elements of the film. Unlike say the Chronicles of Riddick which is nothing more than a standard action flick set in outer space.
Were there sci-fi elements in Cast Away that I missed? If not, then no I wouldn't compare it to a atmospheric sci-fi film like Moon.Chaka said:
Yeah I am still not even remotely getting your point.
His ability to live without fresh water for 3 years? Pretty sci-fi...
... similar to Bullock's ability to get to safety repeatedly.
Seems rather pointless to continue discussing this, so I'll leave it after this post.
I agree with this. I don't see Gravity as a Sci-fi movie at all. It is a present-day survival movie that just happens to take place in space. I think most people would agree that science fiction movies are based on either (1) an alternative past; (2) a technologically different future, or (3) an alternative world/universe. Gravity has none of those things.
