What's new
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, Streaming, Theater etc (14 Viewers)

I think the confusion it causes is funny, but also am fine if the title changes if that's what people want. I thought we all pretty much knew it was a general movie thread now.
 
I think the confusion it causes is funny, but also am fine if the title changes if that's what people want. I thought we all pretty much knew it was a general movie thread now.
l still see people post in threads sometimes asking if there is a new movie thread sometimes but fair enough it might be a pointless change
 
What do the regular posters in this thread think about changing the title to just a general movie thread? It’s kind of been that in practice just not in name?
don't we already kinda use it for that? I use this thread to post (most of my) movie reviews) and you guys make new threads for other movies. I sort of just like having one movie review thread but I could see some value in one thread combined. I'm mostly a no.
 
What do the regular posters in this thread think about changing the title to just a general movie thread? It’s kind of been that in practice just not in name?
don't we already kinda use it for that? I use this thread to post (most of my) movie reviews) and you guys make new threads for other movies. I sort of just like having one movie review thread but I could see some value in one thread combined. I'm mostly a no.
Yeah it is how it's used, just thought it would make sense for the thread title to match what's really in going on here. I think some people don't post about movies at the theater for example because of the rented part in the thread title.
 
What do the regular posters in this thread think about changing the title to just a general movie thread? It’s kind of been that in practice just not in name?
don't we already kinda use it for that? I use this thread to post (most of my) movie reviews) and you guys make new threads for other movies. I sort of just like having one movie review thread but I could see some value in one thread combined. I'm mostly a no.
Yeah it is how it's used, just thought it would make sense for the thread title to match what's really in going on here. I think some people don't post about movies at the theater for example because of the rented part in the thread title.

Welcome to my world :lmao:

Any change has objections.
 
I watched four movies starring Diane Keaton (RIP), one each from the 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s.

Harry and Walter Go to New York (1976) seems like a project greenlighted after the massive success of The Sting. It's a gilded age period piece about two small time vaudevillians played by Elliott Gould and James Caan trying to rob a bank before a master thief played by Michael Caine beats them to it. Keaton has a thankless role as a crusading journalist who becomes their love interest. The heist scene becomes almost an afterthought because it takes place concurrently with a slapstick musical number by Caan and Gould. It has a great cast and is beautifully filmed but the movie is kind of a mess.

Shoot the Moon (1982) is a domestic drama about the end of a marriage between Keaton and Albert Finney and its impact on their family of four daughters. I thought the breakup itself was handled better than the contrived ending. Keaton is excellent as she navigates her new life and blossoms along the way. There's a wonderful authenticity to her acting; there's a scene where she sits alone in the tub smoking a joint and singing a Beatles song to herself and the enormity of her situation registers on her face. She's not an actor like DDL or Streep who seemingly gets consumed in their characters but rather her characters become a part of her if that makes any sense.

Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993) is Keaton's seventh and final collaboration with Woody Allen. It's a rom-com pretending it's a murder mystery. The mystery element is kind of silly but it moves the romantic plot along. Say what you will about Allen but he and Keaton always had tremendous on-screen chemistry. Their characters are like older versions of the ones the played in Annie Hall. It's definitely the best film of the four I watched.

Something's Gotta Give (2003) was a big commercial hit for writer/director Nancy Meyers. This one is another rom-com with an unlikely relationship between Keaton as a successful playwright paired with Jack Nicholson playing a caricature of himself. Meyers can write good dialogue and the scenes with just Keaton and Nicholson really sing at times. Everything else about the story was too cutesy for me but I'm an old grump. Keaton is adorable as she was in all four films ranging from her mid-twenties to her late fifties. That's hard to do for a woman in Hollywood.
 
So...I don't really think that The Thin Red Line was that good. It's just an anti war film that's not as good as the other more popular ones, and with good reason. This movie was a slog and the last 50 minutes were especially brutal and (mostly) unnecessary, IMO.

The triva states

Most of Adrien Brody's scenes were cut from the film and he wasn't aware of these changes until he saw the film at the premiere. Brody came to the premiere expecting to see himself as the lead character and was shocked when he saw that he was barely featured in the film, especially since Cpl. Fife was the central character in the novel on which the movie was based.

How much of the movie, if at all, deviated from the authors original intent?

Nick Nolte's cartoonish villain was ok and serves its purpose. There were some decent scenes and it LOOKS good but this isn't really for me.
 
So...I don't really think that The Thin Red Line was that good. It's just an anti war film that's not as good as the other more popular ones, and with good reason. This movie was a slog and the last 50 minutes were especially brutal and (mostly) unnecessary, IMO.

The triva states

Most of Adrien Brody's scenes were cut from the film and he wasn't aware of these changes until he saw the film at the premiere. Brody came to the premiere expecting to see himself as the lead character and was shocked when he saw that he was barely featured in the film, especially since Cpl. Fife was the central character in the novel on which the movie was based.

How much of the movie, if at all, deviated from the authors original intent?

Nick Nolte's cartoonish villain was ok and serves its purpose. There were some decent scenes and it LOOKS good but this isn't really for me.
Malick has a very unique movie making style. He films a ton of stuff and the movie really comes together in the edit. I don’t think he cares much what the script was or anything like that, he’s more capturing what interests him at the moment and then figures out the movie later. He’s the anti-Hitchcock in that way. It produces widely varying results and a lot of people are allergic to his movie style.
 
Last edited:
Malick has a very unique movie making style. He films a ton of stuff and the movie really comes together in the edit. I don’t think he cares much what the script was or anything like that, he’s more capturing what interests him at the moment and then figures out the movie later. He’s the anti-Hitchcock in that way. It produces widely varying results and a lot of people are allergic to his movie style.
He's hit or miss for me but I'm glad he exists and I've never felt watching his films are a waste, if that makes any sense.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top