Apes with Guns
Footballguy
about to ask the question, but it's not a judgement...really curious. Did you read the book?I thought it was outstanding
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
Recently viewed movie thread - Rental Edition (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sigmund
- Start date
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
No, and to defend your post, my son likes the books and he didn't like the way the movie changed the book.about to ask the question, but it's not a judgement...really curious. Did you read the book?I thought it was outstanding
The more book-to-film adaptations I watched, the more I'm convinced that lovers of any given books should just avoid the movies altogether. Never seems to make the more more enjoyable, and always seems to disappoint.
Apes with Guns
Footballguy
I can't avoid sci-fi movies, because I want to share the genre movie with everyone around me. It's usually a fail.No, and to defend your post, my son likes the books and he didn't like the way the movie changed the book.about to ask the question, but it's not a judgement...really curious. Did you read the book?I thought it was outstanding
The more book-to-film adaptations I watched, the more I'm convinced that lovers of any given books should just avoid the movies altogether. Never seems to make the more more enjoyable, and always seems to disappoint.
But I am heartened to see that the movie has fans, and if it gets more people go dip their toe into science fiction, then i'll shout my praise of the film from the rooftops.
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
Now that you mention it, given how bad many action/sci fi films there are, Hollywood would do well to mine the depths of sci fi literature. Tons of great material there.I can't avoid sci-fi movies, because I want to share the genre movie with everyone around me. It's usually a fail.No, and to defend your post, my son likes the books and he didn't like the way the movie changed the book.about to ask the question, but it's not a judgement...really curious. Did you read the book?I thought it was outstanding
The more book-to-film adaptations I watched, the more I'm convinced that lovers of any given books should just avoid the movies altogether. Never seems to make the more more enjoyable, and always seems to disappoint.
But I am heartened to see that the movie has fans, and if it gets more people go dip their toe into science fiction, then i'll shout my praise of the film from the rooftops.
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
3rd Rock From The Sun
Probably the funniest sit-com no one's ever seen. I'll continue to plug it here as I watch more episodes. Hilarious.
Probably the funniest sit-com no one's ever seen. I'll continue to plug it here as I watch more episodes. Hilarious.
snogger
Footballguy
Normally I agree with you, but the exception, IMO is the Dragon tattoo trilogy.No, and to defend your post, my son likes the books and he didn't like the way the movie changed the book.about to ask the question, but it's not a judgement...really curious. Did you read the book?I thought it was outstanding
The more book-to-film adaptations I watched, the more I'm convinced that lovers of any given books should just avoid the movies altogether. Never seems to make the more more enjoyable, and always seems to disappoint.
I watched that version on Netflix and thought they did a GREAT job translating the books to video.
The American first one was pretty good except they slipped a bit near the end as they changed it with no real reason.
And of course the next 2 parts are "still, maybe in the works" so can't compare the whole Trilogy to the Swedish version.
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
Right. I didn't mean that adaptations never work. No Country For Old Men comes to mind.Normally I agree with you, but the exception, IMO is the Dragon tattoo trilogy.No, and to defend your post, my son likes the books and he didn't like the way the movie changed the book.about to ask the question, but it's not a judgement...really curious. Did you read the book?I thought it was outstanding
The more book-to-film adaptations I watched, the more I'm convinced that lovers of any given books should just avoid the movies altogether. Never seems to make the more more enjoyable, and always seems to disappoint.
I watched that version on Netflix and thought they did a GREAT job translating the books to video.
The American first one was pretty good except they slipped a bit near the end as they changed it with no real reason.
And of course the next 2 parts are "still, maybe in the works" so can't compare the whole Trilogy to the Swedish version.
I liked the American version of Dragon a lot, so I really want to see the original trilogy.
Chaka
Footballguy
I didn't watch it regularly during it's first run but I did catch quite a bit of it during early syndication and I agree that it is a pretty darn hilarious show.
snogger
Footballguy
Never read No country.. But overall I do agree on book translation to video sucking..Right. I didn't mean that adaptations never work. No Country For Old Men comes to mind.Normally I agree with you, but the exception, IMO is the Dragon tattoo trilogy.No, and to defend your post, my son likes the books and he didn't like the way the movie changed the book.about to ask the question, but it's not a judgement...really curious. Did you read the book?I thought it was outstanding
The more book-to-film adaptations I watched, the more I'm convinced that lovers of any given books should just avoid the movies altogether. Never seems to make the more more enjoyable, and always seems to disappoint.
I watched that version on Netflix and thought they did a GREAT job translating the books to video.
The American first one was pretty good except they slipped a bit near the end as they changed it with no real reason.
And of course the next 2 parts are "still, maybe in the works" so can't compare the whole Trilogy to the Swedish version.
I liked the American version of Dragon a lot, so I really want to see the original trilogy.
I have read every Dean Koontz book, some like Phantoms 2 or 3 times, and have yet to see any of his books, IMO, get translated correctly.. :(
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
John Lithgow just cracks me up. Brilliant.Chaka said:
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
I think pedigree is often the problem. For example, my favorite Stephen King adaptations were directed by David Cronenberg (The Dead Zone), Rob Reiner (Misery) and Stanley Kubrick (The Shining). So the process of adaptation isn't inherently flawed, it's that hack directors make terrible films.snogger said:Never read No country.. But overall I do agree on book translation to video sucking..jdoggydogg said:Right. I didn't mean that adaptations never work. No Country For Old Men comes to mind.snogger said:Normally I agree with you, but the exception, IMO is the Dragon tattoo trilogy.jdoggydogg said:No, and to defend your post, my son likes the books and he didn't like the way the movie changed the book.Apes with Guns said:about to ask the question, but it's not a judgement...really curious. Did you read the book?jdoggydogg said:I thought it was outstandingcstu said:Apes with Guns said:
The more book-to-film adaptations I watched, the more I'm convinced that lovers of any given books should just avoid the movies altogether. Never seems to make the more more enjoyable, and always seems to disappoint.
I watched that version on Netflix and thought they did a GREAT job translating the books to video.
The American first one was pretty good except they slipped a bit near the end as they changed it with no real reason.
And of course the next 2 parts are "still, maybe in the works" so can't compare the whole Trilogy to the Swedish version.
I liked the American version of Dragon a lot, so I really want to see the original trilogy.
I have read every Dean Koontz book, some like Phantoms 2 or 3 times, and have yet to see any of his books, IMO, get translated correctly.. :(
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
evidently you haven't seen the amazingness that is Watchers !snogger said:Never read No country.. But overall I do agree on book translation to video sucking..I have read every Dean Koontz book, some like Phantoms 2 or 3 times, and have yet to see any of his books, IMO, get translated correctly.. :(jdoggydogg said:Right. I didn't mean that adaptations never work. No Country For Old Men comes to mind.snogger said:Normally I agree with you, but the exception, IMO is the Dragon tattoo trilogy. I watched that version on Netflix and thought they did a GREAT job translating the books to video.jdoggydogg said:No, and to defend your post, my son likes the books and he didn't like the way the movie changed the book.Apes with Guns said:about to ask the question, but it's not a judgement...really curious. Did you read the book?jdoggydogg said:I thought it was outstandingcstu said:Apes with Guns said:
The more book-to-film adaptations I watched, the more I'm convinced that lovers of any given books should just avoid the movies altogether. Never seems to make the more more enjoyable, and always seems to disappoint.
The American first one was pretty good except they slipped a bit near the end as they changed it with no real reason.
And of course the next 2 parts are "still, maybe in the works" so can't compare the whole Trilogy to the Swedish version.
I liked the American version of Dragon a lot, so I really want to see the original trilogy.
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
I did, however, see the brilliant miniseries The Stand. That was amazing and totally non-cheesy.evidently you haven't seen the amazingness that is Watchers !snogger said:Never read No country.. But overall I do agree on book translation to video sucking..I have read every Dean Koontz book, some like Phantoms 2 or 3 times, and have yet to see any of his books, IMO, get translated correctly.. :(jdoggydogg said:Right. I didn't mean that adaptations never work. No Country For Old Men comes to mind.snogger said:Normally I agree with you, but the exception, IMO is the Dragon tattoo trilogy. I watched that version on Netflix and thought they did a GREAT job translating the books to video.jdoggydogg said:No, and to defend your post, my son likes the books and he didn't like the way the movie changed the book.Apes with Guns said:about to ask the question, but it's not a judgement...really curious. Did you read the book?jdoggydogg said:I thought it was outstandingcstu said:Apes with Guns said:
The more book-to-film adaptations I watched, the more I'm convinced that lovers of any given books should just avoid the movies altogether. Never seems to make the more more enjoyable, and always seems to disappoint.
The American first one was pretty good except they slipped a bit near the end as they changed it with no real reason.
And of course the next 2 parts are "still, maybe in the works" so can't compare the whole Trilogy to the Swedish version.
I liked the American version of Dragon a lot, so I really want to see the original trilogy.
Tee hee.
Chaka
Footballguy
Contrast that with his role in Dexter, it's stunning. I think he is often overlooked in conversations about great actors of our time...then again he has done a lot of bad films too (Ricochet anyone?).
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
I don't think I've seen enough Lithgow dramas to attest to his versatility. But I sure like his comic timing.
snogger
Footballguy
Ugggh. If someones first dean koontz experience was that "movie" or phantoms they wouldevidently you haven't seen the amazingness that is Watchers !snogger said:Never read No country.. But overall I do agree on book translation to video sucking..I have read every Dean Koontz book, some like Phantoms 2 or 3 times, and have yet to see any of his books, IMO, get translated correctly.. :(jdoggydogg said:Right. I didn't mean that adaptations never work. No Country For Old Men comes to mind.snogger said:Normally I agree with you, but the exception, IMO is the Dragon tattoo trilogy. I watched that version on Netflix and thought they did a GREAT job translating the books to video.jdoggydogg said:No, and to defend your post, my son likes the books and he didn't like the way the movie changed the book.Apes with Guns said:about to ask the question, but it's not a judgement...really curious. Did you read the book?jdoggydogg said:I thought it was outstandingcstu said:Apes with Guns said:
The more book-to-film adaptations I watched, the more I'm convinced that lovers of any given books should just avoid the movies altogether. Never seems to make the more more enjoyable, and always seems to disappoint.
The American first one was pretty good except they slipped a bit near the end as they changed it with no real reason.
And of course the next 2 parts are "still, maybe in the works" so can't compare the whole Trilogy to the Swedish version.
I liked the American version of Dragon a lot, so I really want to see the original trilogy.
and never consider reading the books. Watchers and Phantoms are two of my all time favorite books of his. Could be the style of writing which is mainly from the mind of the main characters rather then dialog which seems to be difficult to translate to film 
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Lithgow was great in that. I didn't watch it a lot, but still remember the episode where they discovered sneezing.
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
Lithgow was great in that. I didn't watch it a lot, but still remember the episode where they discovered sneezing.
James Daulton
Footballguy
Kenny Powers
Footballguy
Id say plenty have seen it, IIRC it was one of NBC's most popular comedies during its run.jdoggydogg said:
El Floppo
Footballguy
It seems like a lot of writers are writing movie-plots more than novels... that's right, Michael Crichton,I'm looking your way.snogger said:Never read No country.. But overall I do agree on book translation to video sucking..jdoggydogg said:Right. I didn't mean that adaptations never work. No Country For Old Men comes to mind.snogger said:Normally I agree with you, but the exception, IMO is the Dragon tattoo trilogy.jdoggydogg said:No, and to defend your post, my son likes the books and he didn't like the way the movie changed the book.Apes with Guns said:about to ask the question, but it's not a judgement...really curious. Did you read the book?jdoggydogg said:I thought it was outstandingcstu said:Apes with Guns said:
The more book-to-film adaptations I watched, the more I'm convinced that lovers of any given books should just avoid the movies altogether. Never seems to make the more more enjoyable, and always seems to disappoint.
I watched that version on Netflix and thought they did a GREAT job translating the books to video.
The American first one was pretty good except they slipped a bit near the end as they changed it with no real reason.
And of course the next 2 parts are "still, maybe in the works" so can't compare the whole Trilogy to the Swedish version.
I liked the American version of Dragon a lot, so I really want to see the original trilogy.
I have read every Dean Koontz book, some like Phantoms 2 or 3 times, and have yet to see any of his books, IMO, get translated correctly.. :(
But I'll agree that it's really hard for all of the nuance of the written word (with the blanks getting filled in by our imagination) to be beaten by a 90 minute visual representation.
I have to say... LOR did a decent job translating the books into movies for me.
El Floppo
Footballguy
Saw Dallas Buyers' Club.
Felt like Wooderson played an emaciated version of himself/all-his-previous-roles. I bought the character, but didn't think this was a real acting stretch for him, outside of losing 900 lbs. Leto was great, IMO and did get more out of his character than the lead.
Thought the movie was solid- really brought me back to those days with all the uncertainties and death. I think it worked more as a bio-pic/history than anything else- which is fine. Incredible watching the search for treatment on an individual level. Made me think about a lot of people I hadn't thought about in a while... made me miss them a ton. If a movie can make me feel and think- it's succeeded.
Felt like Wooderson played an emaciated version of himself/all-his-previous-roles. I bought the character, but didn't think this was a real acting stretch for him, outside of losing 900 lbs. Leto was great, IMO and did get more out of his character than the lead.
Thought the movie was solid- really brought me back to those days with all the uncertainties and death. I think it worked more as a bio-pic/history than anything else- which is fine. Incredible watching the search for treatment on an individual level. Made me think about a lot of people I hadn't thought about in a while... made me miss them a ton. If a movie can make me feel and think- it's succeeded.
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
That's fair. But it doesn't seem to appear on many top 100 all-time lists, and I think it deserves that consideration.
Brownsfan
Footballguy
Watched these on free movies on demand. Enjoyed them all. A little hard to follow, maybe subtitles are a good idea. Glad to see at least one other person has watched them.
igbomb
Footballguy
I don't think Crichton is writing much of anything these days.It seems like a lot of writers are writing movie-plots more than novels... that's right, Michael Crichton,I'm looking your way.snogger said:Never read No country.. But overall I do agree on book translation to video sucking..jdoggydogg said:Right. I didn't mean that adaptations never work. No Country For Old Men comes to mind.snogger said:Normally I agree with you, but the exception, IMO is the Dragon tattoo trilogy.jdoggydogg said:No, and to defend your post, my son likes the books and he didn't like the way the movie changed the book.Apes with Guns said:about to ask the question, but it's not a judgement...really curious. Did you read the book?jdoggydogg said:I thought it was outstandingcstu said:Apes with Guns said:
The more book-to-film adaptations I watched, the more I'm convinced that lovers of any given books should just avoid the movies altogether. Never seems to make the more more enjoyable, and always seems to disappoint.
I watched that version on Netflix and thought they did a GREAT job translating the books to video.
The American first one was pretty good except they slipped a bit near the end as they changed it with no real reason.
And of course the next 2 parts are "still, maybe in the works" so can't compare the whole Trilogy to the Swedish version.
I liked the American version of Dragon a lot, so I really want to see the original trilogy.
I have read every Dean Koontz book, some like Phantoms 2 or 3 times, and have yet to see any of his books, IMO, get translated correctly.. :(
But I'll agree that it's really hard for all of the nuance of the written word (with the blanks getting filled in by our imagination) to be beaten by a 90 minute visual representation.
I have to say... LOR did a decent job translating the books into movies for me.
Apes with Guns
Footballguy
ok, what was jon lithgow not great in?Lithgow was great in that. I didn't watch it a lot, but still remember the episode where they discovered sneezing.
pre-emptive arguments:
1. Harry and the Hendersons - don't go there. he was the movie. otherwise it would have been a stupid movie.
2. Buckaroo Banzai - if you say he was bad in this movie, you were picked on as a child.
3. Terms of Endearment - while he didn't have a big role in this movie, just thinking about his relationship with his wife and his back makes me misty.
alright, go, if you can.
El Floppo
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka
Footballguy
He's been in plenty of bad movies but he has seldom delivered a bad performance.ok, what was jon lithgow not great in?Lithgow was great in that. I didn't watch it a lot, but still remember the episode where they discovered sneezing.
pre-emptive arguments:
1. Harry and the Hendersons - don't go there. he was the movie. otherwise it would have been a stupid movie.
2. Buckaroo Banzai - if you say he was bad in this movie, you were picked on as a child.
3. Terms of Endearment - while he didn't have a big role in this movie, just thinking about his relationship with his wife and his back makes me misty.
alright, go, if you can.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
He helped make "Raising Cain" one of the creepiest movies I've ever seen.He's been in plenty of bad movies but he has seldom delivered a bad performance.ok, what was jon lithgow not great in?Lithgow was great in that. I didn't watch it a lot, but still remember the episode where they discovered sneezing.
pre-emptive arguments:
1. Harry and the Hendersons - don't go there. he was the movie. otherwise it would have been a stupid movie.
2. Buckaroo Banzai - if you say he was bad in this movie, you were picked on as a child.
3. Terms of Endearment - while he didn't have a big role in this movie, just thinking about his relationship with his wife and his back makes me misty.
alright, go, if you can.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apes with Guns
Footballguy
safe answer and true. One has but to watch Manhattan Project to see your statement in action.He's been in plenty of bad movies but he has seldom delivered a bad performance.ok, what was jon lithgow not great in?Lithgow was great in that. I didn't watch it a lot, but still remember the episode where they discovered sneezing.
pre-emptive arguments:
1. Harry and the Hendersons - don't go there. he was the movie. otherwise it would have been a stupid movie.
2. Buckaroo Banzai - if you say he was bad in this movie, you were picked on as a child.
3. Terms of Endearment - while he didn't have a big role in this movie, just thinking about his relationship with his wife and his back makes me misty.
alright, go, if you can.
Chaka
Footballguy
Yeah, I guess film wasn't very good but it has always been a guilty pleasure of mine. Probably came out at just the right time for my age demographic to appreciate.safe answer and true. One has but to watch Manhattan Project to see your statement in action.He's been in plenty of bad movies but he has seldom delivered a bad performance.ok, what was jon lithgow not great in?Lithgow was great in that. I didn't watch it a lot, but still remember the episode where they discovered sneezing.
pre-emptive arguments:
1. Harry and the Hendersons - don't go there. he was the movie. otherwise it would have been a stupid movie.
2. Buckaroo Banzai - if you say he was bad in this movie, you were picked on as a child.
3. Terms of Endearment - while he didn't have a big role in this movie, just thinking about his relationship with his wife and his back makes me misty.
alright, go, if you can.
Last edited by a moderator:
snogger
Footballguy
Yeah, I guess film wasn't very good but it has always been a guilty pleasure of mine. Probably came out at just the right time for my age demographic to appreciate.safe answer and true. One has but to watch Manhattan Project to see your statement in action.He's been in plenty of bad movies but he has seldom delivered a bad performance.ok, what was jon lithgow not great in?pre-emptive arguments:Lithgow was great in that. I didn't watch it a lot, but still remember the episode where they discovered sneezing.
1. Harry and the Hendersons - don't go there. he was the movie. otherwise it would have been a stupid movie.
2. Buckaroo Banzai - if you say he was bad in this movie, you were picked on as a child.
3. Terms of Endearment - while he didn't have a big role in this movie, just thinking about his relationship with his wife and his back makes me misty.
alright, go, if you can.
one if those movies I've seen numerous times and yet if I am channel surfing and I run into it I'll stop and watch it.
Last edited by a moderator:
sdp1226
Footballguy
Agreed. I have enjoyed every time that King has paired up with Frank Darabont. Shawshank, The Green Mile and The Mist were all awesome movies and great reads.I think pedigree is often the problem. For example, my favorite Stephen King adaptations were directed by David Cronenberg (The Dead Zone), Rob Reiner (Misery) and Stanley Kubrick (The Shining). So the process of adaptation isn't inherently flawed, it's that hack directors make terrible films.Never read No country.. But overall I do agree on book translation to video sucking..Right. I didn't mean that adaptations never work. No Country For Old Men comes to mind.Normally I agree with you, but the exception, IMO is the Dragon tattoo trilogy.No, and to defend your post, my son likes the books and he didn't like the way the movie changed the book.about to ask the question, but it's not a judgement...really curious. Did you read the book?I thought it was outstanding
The more book-to-film adaptations I watched, the more I'm convinced that lovers of any given books should just avoid the movies altogether. Never seems to make the more more enjoyable, and always seems to disappoint.
I watched that version on Netflix and thought they did a GREAT job translating the books to video.
The American first one was pretty good except they slipped a bit near the end as they changed it with no real reason.
And of course the next 2 parts are "still, maybe in the works" so can't compare the whole Trilogy to the Swedish version.
I liked the American version of Dragon a lot, so I really want to see the original trilogy.
I have read every Dean Koontz book, some like Phantoms 2 or 3 times, and have yet to see any of his books, IMO, get translated correctly.. :(
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Since season 2 is starting Friday on NBC, allow me to officially recommend Hannibal. It does the Lecter character far more justice than any of the followups to Silence of the Lambs ever did. It's dark and twisted and trippy and deliciously macabre. In other words, it's awesome.
It's available via Amazon Prime and (I'm pretty sure) OnDemand, but sadly not Netflix. Give it a shot if you have access.
It's available via Amazon Prime and (I'm pretty sure) OnDemand, but sadly not Netflix. Give it a shot if you have access.
Apes with Guns
Footballguy
Oh, I saw Captain Phillips the other day. Damn fine movie, especially in getting me to feel bad for the pirates. Kind of bad, anyway. They really brought how little choice the guy at the end of the line has.
sdp1226
Footballguy
Awesome flick. Best to into this movie knowing very little about it.
Full movie available in HD on youtube.
http://youtu.be/hX_yRbpCNVo
Kenny Powers
Footballguy
Trying to see all the Best Picture nominees before Sunday. If I cant squeeze all 6 I still need to see in, Philomena's going to be waiting as I dont have much interest in it and dont expect it to end up better than the bottom third for me anyway. Last night went with:
Captain Phillips...I was surprised this actually got nominated for both a GG and AA, and while I still dont think its quite on that level, for the type of film it is it came close and was better than I expected. It really came down to a few things that made it better than your average biodrama/thriller for me. One was the realism via simplistic things. All the antagonists are not actual actors - at least prior to this - yet were very convincing, and the use of no subtitles despite despite plenty of foreign dialogue was something that surprisingly didnt bother me because it still gave the viewer the feel/idea of what they were discussing, while also adding to the tension, and mixing in english helped make the no subtitles easily tolerable if not a wise decision. Second, its because the suspense never lets up either once it gets rolling, which considering the pirates were already off the boat with hostage 60 minutes into it made me wonder how they could keep that tension ramped up for another 75 minutes, but for me it did. Finally, the biggest takeaway and reason to watch though is for the spellbinding performance from the Somali "captain" played by Barkhad Abdi. There's been a few times in films Ive seen where a no name foreign actor really strengthens a film (one I recall is the middle eastern colonel Al Ghazi in The Kingdom, others I cant think of at the moment), but none as impressive as Abdi here. In reality, he is probably the biggest reason why the tension never sags in this, and what elevated it to being considered for Best Picture (as he is nominated for Best Supporting Actor as well). On a side note, Im not one to complain about historical inaccuracies in films like this, and actually this wasnt even inaccurate, but I found it laughable for any sort of commercial/cargo/etc ship like this to not have some sort of hired guns/military background types added to the crew for protection, or at least some sort of freakin' firearms on board so you aren't fighting auto weapon armed pirates with water hoses....3.8/5
Captain Phillips...I was surprised this actually got nominated for both a GG and AA, and while I still dont think its quite on that level, for the type of film it is it came close and was better than I expected. It really came down to a few things that made it better than your average biodrama/thriller for me. One was the realism via simplistic things. All the antagonists are not actual actors - at least prior to this - yet were very convincing, and the use of no subtitles despite despite plenty of foreign dialogue was something that surprisingly didnt bother me because it still gave the viewer the feel/idea of what they were discussing, while also adding to the tension, and mixing in english helped make the no subtitles easily tolerable if not a wise decision. Second, its because the suspense never lets up either once it gets rolling, which considering the pirates were already off the boat with hostage 60 minutes into it made me wonder how they could keep that tension ramped up for another 75 minutes, but for me it did. Finally, the biggest takeaway and reason to watch though is for the spellbinding performance from the Somali "captain" played by Barkhad Abdi. There's been a few times in films Ive seen where a no name foreign actor really strengthens a film (one I recall is the middle eastern colonel Al Ghazi in The Kingdom, others I cant think of at the moment), but none as impressive as Abdi here. In reality, he is probably the biggest reason why the tension never sags in this, and what elevated it to being considered for Best Picture (as he is nominated for Best Supporting Actor as well). On a side note, Im not one to complain about historical inaccuracies in films like this, and actually this wasnt even inaccurate, but I found it laughable for any sort of commercial/cargo/etc ship like this to not have some sort of hired guns/military background types added to the crew for protection, or at least some sort of freakin' firearms on board so you aren't fighting auto weapon armed pirates with water hoses....3.8/5
Last edited by a moderator:
Kenny Powers
Footballguy
Rush....not nominated for the AA for Best Picture, but was for the GG. Based on the 70's rivalry of F1 drivers James Hunt and Niki Lauda. While I was enjoying it from the start, it seemed like they were developing each individual character primarily, so once it still felt that way about 40 minutes in I began to wonder, but over the latter 2/3rds they primarily focused on their rivalry/relationship. Although its not saying much, Chris Hemsworth has his best performance so far as the wild living Hunt, and Daniel Bruhl was excellent as his innovative, methodical counterpart Lauda (again not nominated for AA BSA, but was for GG BSA). Ron Howard is solid from the directing side as I was especially impressed with the cinematography and other technical aspects of things considering this film had only a $30M+ budget. This is another one I found surprisingly good, and its much more than sports movie. The fact that these guys' personalities were so disparate yet there was true mutual respect was something very interesting and displayed at best during the excellent final 5 minutes of the film...4/5
Papa Georgio
Footballguy
I really had no desire to see this. However like you I found it surprisingly good. I looked up the real guys and what their relationship was like in real life and found out they were even roommates at one point. I thought at 1st that the ending was a bit "Hollywood" in how each driver ended up but it was pretty accurate best I can tell. Also agree that Hemsworth was pretty good in this. The part just seemed to fit him. Even if you don't like car/racing/sports type movies I think most people would like this.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Good call. I can see how they recycled a lot of the jokes in the movies later.You always wonder where they're testing these shows. Bingo games?Police Squad was awesome, I remember when it aired that it bombed because people didn't get it. I guess a lot of people need the laugh track to tell them when the jokes happen and the dead pan delivery in PS without the laugh track left too many people confused. They pretty much recycled all the jokes from PS in Naked Gun.Speaking of which, Police Squad. One of the funniest series ever made.Been working my way through some of their other movies. Naked Gun 2.5 was funnier than I remembered, similar formula with seemingly a few sight gags or word play jokes a minute.
Typical examples.
George Kennedy asks Leslie Nielsen if there is a sexual angle to the case, and says "Sex, Frank?" "Not right now."
At a speech/gathering, Kennedy says they have identified the criminal and points into the crowd. About a half dozen men simultaneously grab a female hostage and hold a gun to them.
I liked the beginning, where they would always have the same scene of Lincoln shooting back at Booth in the Ford theatre, and also where the "guest of the week" is killed off in the intro. Shatner was shot at in a restaurant but not hit, but than he is poisoned!
A lot of the humor was word play... narrator - "She said she needed to meet me at the club right away, but I told her I didn't know where the Club Rightaway is."
Also taking things literally. When matchbook from the club is a clue Drebin throws it down and said... "Explain this!" "Well, you take the wood stick with the sulphur tip on it out of the pack and strike it against the strip and it makes fire."
After a rock is thrown through a window he hands it to the perv lab tech and asks where the rock came from? The scientist goes into a lengthy history of the formation of the Earth.
Moved onto the Naked Gun series, hadn't seen in a while (Hot Shots wasn't as funny).
After meeting Priscilla Presley for the first time, Drebin says I know a great little place where they serve Viking food. She says how about a rain check. "We better stick with dinner."
From Airplane.
Doctor (Leslie Nielsen) - "We need to land right away, this passenger needs to get to a hospital."
Stewardess - "What is it?"
Doctor - "A big building where they put sick people."
Doctor - "How soon can we land."
Pilot - "I don't know?" (bad weather)
Doctor - "Can you guess?"
Pilot - "In two hours?"
Doctor - "You mean you can't guess for two hours?"
Last edited by a moderator:
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Chaka
Footballguy
Exactly.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Rear Window is a classic but it is somewhat slow building. Vertigo, North by Northwest, Spellbound, Notorious and the Man Who Knew Too Much, among others, are more varied as too locale and/or more intricately plotted.Finished Rear Window, and agree you almost feel suffocated by the environment at times. I think what's funny is that as I am watching it I saw bits and pieces in the concept that have been used and copied since. I got a bit distracted right when things started to heat up but I enjoyed the movie but wouldn't say I was blown away. I think the thing I came away with the most was just how amazingly influential Hitchcock has been after only having seen 2 of his movies.For years, I thought Hitchcock's Notorious (Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman and Claud Rains) was the critical darling that made the prestigious Sight and Sound once-a-decade international top 10 poll*, but it was Vertigo. They are my two favorites (I'd put Vertigo in my top 5-10 movies period, with movies like Blade Runner and Seven Samurai), but he had so many great ones. Rear Window (shot claustrophobically from broken legged Jimmy Stewart's apartment) and Rope (also with Stewart, shot like a live play, as if it was a continuous, unbroken take, only about seven cuts, and those just to account for the necessary camera reel changes, cleverly done in a way it was hard to tell) were masterpieces as exercises in style. Same with Lifeboat (he appeared in cameo every movie, so here had to be in a newspaper ad!
I envy you, being able to see so many Hitchcock movies for the first time.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sight_%26_Sound
Hitchcock was hugely influential. Perhaps the director where this was most obviously felt was in the work of Brian De Palma (notably Dressed to Kill and Body Double, but suspense homages in others, like the Untouchables). Blow Out is a kind of mash up of the Teddy Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident, Watergate and the JFK assassination, IMO his best, most mature work in the Hitchcock vein and highly recommended. The theme of voyeurism in Rear Window is a recurring one and further "explored" in Blow Out (the French thriller Blow Up another obvious influence) and Body Double.
After you see a few titles, Hitchcock spoof/parody homage High Anxiety by Mel Brooks is funnier.
Last edited by a moderator:
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
I liked Now You See Me, but I did watch it with my 10 year old. So I'm influenced by his enjoyment.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Gravity:
I have sooo many conflicting emotions about this movie. First of all, I will fully admit that I whiffed on this one and it really needs to be seen on the biggest screen with the best sound possible. You need to immerse yourself in this one. Why I didn't trust my gut and go see this in 3D when it came out I don't know.
My conflicts:
1. The camera work was great - there was a fantastic 12-15min opening shot that had amazing movement/switching POVs. However, it is mostly CGI, so I battle with comparing that to this other great long takes in Children of Men. It doesn't stack up because you have so many more variables when you have to coordinate actors, cameras, etc.. it increases the difficulty a bit more.
2. I fully expected to be annoyed by Bullock and I usually like Clooney, but the opposite happened for me.
3. I was very ballsy in it's choice of hardly any sound besides the soundtrack. Impressive to stick with your guns an design it so it would mimic what it might sound like in that situation. However, sometimes that put the focus on the soundtrack more than normal and does give you extended periods of just listening to Sandra breathing heavily.
4. Sometimes it really trusted the audience and their intelligence - the choice of sound, sometimes the way they expertly showed something in a different way that might have meaning vs. sometimes they beat you over the head with some dialogue or symbolism and made it seem amateurish.
5. Does a visual spectacle alone make it a great movie that should be praised so heavily, or did it lack too many things in the plot, dialogue, etc to make it a great movie?
In the end, I think the overall experience definitely outweighed my nitpicks. I was watching it on a pretty crappy setup and was still at the edge of my seat. I would put this in the realm of Avatar - IMO more of a movie experience and less a great movie. However, I think the technical talent of this movie >>> Avatar. Camera work, sound design, etc.. were amazing. In the end, no matter what I think of them, these are the kind of movies that I would love to see make a ton of money in the theater. I have had enough of fighting robots and superheroes and would like movies like Gravity and Inception make money and start seeping into the summer blockbuster season. 7.5/10
I have sooo many conflicting emotions about this movie. First of all, I will fully admit that I whiffed on this one and it really needs to be seen on the biggest screen with the best sound possible. You need to immerse yourself in this one. Why I didn't trust my gut and go see this in 3D when it came out I don't know.
My conflicts:
1. The camera work was great - there was a fantastic 12-15min opening shot that had amazing movement/switching POVs. However, it is mostly CGI, so I battle with comparing that to this other great long takes in Children of Men. It doesn't stack up because you have so many more variables when you have to coordinate actors, cameras, etc.. it increases the difficulty a bit more.
2. I fully expected to be annoyed by Bullock and I usually like Clooney, but the opposite happened for me.
3. I was very ballsy in it's choice of hardly any sound besides the soundtrack. Impressive to stick with your guns an design it so it would mimic what it might sound like in that situation. However, sometimes that put the focus on the soundtrack more than normal and does give you extended periods of just listening to Sandra breathing heavily.
4. Sometimes it really trusted the audience and their intelligence - the choice of sound, sometimes the way they expertly showed something in a different way that might have meaning vs. sometimes they beat you over the head with some dialogue or symbolism and made it seem amateurish.
5. Does a visual spectacle alone make it a great movie that should be praised so heavily, or did it lack too many things in the plot, dialogue, etc to make it a great movie?
In the end, I think the overall experience definitely outweighed my nitpicks. I was watching it on a pretty crappy setup and was still at the edge of my seat. I would put this in the realm of Avatar - IMO more of a movie experience and less a great movie. However, I think the technical talent of this movie >>> Avatar. Camera work, sound design, etc.. were amazing. In the end, no matter what I think of them, these are the kind of movies that I would love to see make a ton of money in the theater. I have had enough of fighting robots and superheroes and would like movies like Gravity and Inception make money and start seeping into the summer blockbuster season. 7.5/10
