publicist 4,647 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 No love for Police Academy 3?Those were the days. SUMMER RENTAL, SPIES LIKE US, PLANES, TRAINS & AUTOMOBILES, MY FAVOURITE YEAR, TRADING PLACES, DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS. Against those, E. T. can suck it. The only thing that i really love about it is the whole forest prologue with Williams in full Herrmann mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,953 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 No love for Police Academy 3?Those were the days. SUMMER RENTAL, SPIES LIKE US, PLANES, TRAINS & AUTOMOBILES, MY FAVOURITE YEAR, TRADING PLACES, DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS. Against those, E. T. can suck it. The only thing that i really love about it is the whole forest prologue with Williams in full Herrmann mode.You're as WRONG AS ALEX. NO credibility from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
publicist 4,647 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 You're as WRONG AS ALEX. NO credibility from you.I can live without it if that means i can skip E. T. on telly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,415 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Publicist is the new Morlock, credibility wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,953 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Add Evil Dead to that list.I watched it tonight. I much prefer it over Evil Dead 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 468 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 A Sound of ThunderI never get tired of this. The movie flounders between plot-riddled B-movie territory and absurdly bad SyFy movie cheapness. 99% of the CGI in this movie is hilariously bad -- especially the baboon dinosaurs and giant mutant fish. Edward Burns is plainly miscast (seriously he feels really out of place here!), Ben Kingsley phones in his performance, and poor Jemima Rooper and Catherine McCormack are left holding the pieces. Still, even with its mile-long plotholes, hilarious CGI, illogical ending and awful dialogue -- there's something endearing about the film.I don't know what it is, but it's fun revisiting it. This is long overdue for a good MST3K/Rifftrax treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,953 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 A Sound of ThunderI never get tired of this. The movie flounders between plot-riddled B-movie territory and absurdly bad SyFy movie cheapness. 99% of the CGI in this movie is hilariously bad -- especially the baboon dinosaurs and giant mutant fish. Edward Burns is plainly miscast (seriously he feels really out of place here!), Ben Kingsley phones in his performance, and poor Jemima Rooper and Catherine McCormack are left holding the pieces. Still, even with its mile-long plotholes, hilarious CGI, illogical ending and awful dialogue -- there's something endearing about the film.I don't know what it is, but it's fun revisiting it. This is long overdue for a good MST3K/Rifftrax treatment.yes there is. Its more than a guilty pleasureits also long overdue a good remake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,564 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Its more than a guilty pleasureIt's a great movie, Joey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,254 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I like Nick Glennie-Smith's score. That's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,953 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Its more than a guilty pleasureIt's a great movie, Joey?no it's anything but, yet it is a Matt says there is something appealing about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,415 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Trash can be appealing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,564 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Of course, we all know it's not the quality of the scripts or the performance of the actors that makes it easy to watch. No matter how bad it gets, something still makes it intriguing ... but what? The Star Wars universe? John Williams? What?!Trash can be appealingI think we finally found it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,415 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Skyfall!Its' something different from Bourne indeed Alex. And something different from Bond...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,564 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 But you're not sure if it's great or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,953 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 But you're not sure if it's great or not?let it sink in, does it need a snap judgement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,516 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Skyfall!Its' something different from Bourne indeed Alex. And something different from Bond......Now is the question of whether it's good or not, isn't it?I can't decide.Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,564 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 But you're not sure if it's great or not?let it sink in, does it need a snap judgement?Sink in? It's Bond, for Pete's sake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,415 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 But you're not sure if it's great or not?I thought it was great! On par with Casino Royale. Much better then QoS.My Skyfall review is up on the reviews site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,953 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 But you're not sure if it's great or not?let it sink in, does it need a snap judgement?Sink in? It's Bond, for Pete's sake!how nebbish of you.with your idiotic way of thinking all Bonds are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,415 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 This one isn't.For you Alex! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,953 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I sure was worried that you might have found your way out of paying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 468 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I like Nick Glennie-Smith's score. That's about it.It is nice. Shame it wasn't for a better movie, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,564 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 But you're not sure if it's great or not?let it sink in, does it need a snap judgement?Sink in? It's Bond, for Pete's sake!how nebbish of you.with your idiotic way of thinking all Bonds are the same.Calm down, Joey. Except for this one, I probably have seen all Bonds and I never had to let them sink in. What idiotic way of thinking? Based on this experience, I'd say that's pretty rational reasoning of me. Even if this one if like the Tarkovsky of Bonds, it would be very unique and unusual, not really warranting your response.So yes, Joey, they are the same in this regard. Bond movies are not movies one needs to let sink in for days before one can understand them. I think they all have that in common. Maybe your brain works a bit slower? Could it be that?But you're not sure if it's great or not?I thought it was great! On par with Casino Royale. Much better then QoS.That's to be expected. QOS was terrible, IMO. The name of the movie is terrible too.Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,415 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 It's a decent film, marred by shaky cam and sifting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,564 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 That didn't bother me (doesn't bother me in Bourne either). What did bother me was how bland everything was. So bland that it failed to be engaging. No matter how hard I tried to find something stimulating, I got nothing in return. A shame, because Casino Royale was decent.Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,448 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Yay, I'm not alone in my indifference to shaky cam! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,953 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 But you're not sure if it's great or not?let it sink in, does it need a snap judgement?Sink in? It's Bond, for Pete's sake!how nebbish of you.with your idiotic way of thinking all Bonds are the same.Calm down, Joey. Except for this one, I probably have seen all Bonds and I never had to let them sink in. What idiotic way of thinking? Based on this experience, I'd say that's pretty rational reasoning of me. Even if this one if like the Tarkovsky of Bonds, it would be very unique and unusual, not really warranting your response.So yes, Joey, they are the same in this regard. Bond movies are not movies one needs to let sink in for days before one can understand them. I think they all have that in common. Maybe your brain works a bit slower? Could it be that?But you're not sure if it's great or not?I thought it was great! On par with Casino Royale. Much better then QoS.That's to be expected. QOS was terrible, IMO. The name of the movie is terrible too.AlexAlex I'm not at all worried that you might be smarter to me, your need for superiority is your undoing.. we agree Quantum of Solice was a terrible name, it was not a good movie. More Bourne than BondWatched Robert Wise's great horror film The Body Snatcher. Among Karloff's finest performances. Beautiful camera work, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,516 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The name of the movie is terrible too.AlexIt's an interesting title. I love it.Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 468 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Yay, I'm not alone in my indifference to shaky cam!You and he aren't the only ones. I'm fine with a handheld approach done sparingly, and when it fits the subject matter. I really don't like how Paul Greengrass, Michael Bay and J.J. Abrams made it 'fashionable.' The numerous handheld shots in Abrams' Star Trek, as well as the lens flares, were very distracting. And it was particularly glaring in Quantum of Solace, which wasn't helped by the rapid-cut editing too.I did watch the original Friday the 13th, Friday the 13th Part 2 and the 2009 remake last night. They're not the epitome of great horror films, but they're fun for an annual October viewing. The original film copies the Halloween formula and suffers for it. The low budget does lend some natural atmosphere, particularly later on in the film. But the final 20 minutes are very campy and hilarious, and Betsy Palmer's acting is hilariously awful.Part II boasts a bit more atmosphere, and the final girl has some working brain cells. While he doesn't have the hockey mask, this Jason is actually more menacing and frightening. He's not supernatural or absurdly quick, and some of the attack scenes still shock. It's a mostly bloodless affair. As for the 2009 remake, I'm honestly scratching my heads at why a lot of die-hard fans prefer the original films. This film follows the original films' formula to a T (token characters, nudity, gore, stupid plotting) and Jason Mears is quite intimidating as the leading role.But the 2009 remake is also plagued with handheld shots... ugh. It's quite aggravating in the kill scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,564 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The name of the movie is terrible too.AlexIt's an interesting title. I love it.KarolIt's a little overreaching, especially for a Bond flick. It wants to sound too intelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,254 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The name of the movie is terrible too.AlexIt's an interesting title. I love it.KarolIt's a little overreaching, especially for a Bond flick. It wants to sound too intelligent.Did people have trouble understanding it? It's the one thing about the film I don't have a problem with. crocodile 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,564 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The name of the movie is terrible too.AlexIt's an interesting title. I love it.KarolIt's a little overreaching, especially for a Bond flick. It wants to sound too intelligent.Did people have trouble understanding it? It's the one thing about the film I don't have a problem with.Funny. Even Paul Haggis didn't know what it meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,516 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The name of the movie is terrible too.AlexIt's an interesting title. I love it.KarolIt's a little overreaching, especially for a Bond flick. It wants to sound too intelligent.Did people have trouble understanding it? It's the one thing about the film I don't have a problem with.Funny. Even Paul Haggis didn't know what it meant.Well, I do. Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,564 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Well, I do. Paul Haggis doesn't so it seems I do have a point. I'm glad it's not my favorite movie otherwise I always had to say "Quaaaantum Of Sooooolaaaace is my favorite movie, man". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,516 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Well, I do. Paul Haggis doesn't so it seems I do have a point. I'm glad it's not my favorite movie otherwise I always had to say "Quaaaantum Of Sooooolaaaace is my favorite movie, man".If you're familiar with the Ian Fleming's stories it's pretty clear what it stands for. And also it fits into the subtext of this story, quite well.What I think Paul Haggis means (and Marc Forster probably too) is that they didn't get to pick the title and this is an insulting way of saying that.I didn't like the film very much, but I liked the title. It's so strange for a film like that.Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,516 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Blade RunnerIt's still alright.Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,254 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 PrometheusDidn't enjoy it as much as I did in theaters, a lot of the tension was gone, but loved the score more than I initially did. I still withhold that it's a good movie, and after watching the deleted scenes, I put more blame on Scalia than Spaihts and Lindelof this time around. A lot of poor editing decisions that would have cleared up a lot of the ambiguity in the final cut. I can see why they cut a lot of it though. Most have terrible acting, and it tightens the pace a lot. I still haven't watched the making of feature, so I don't know what other insight there is to gain on the production; much more I predict.The GameStill as engrossing as ever. A time when Fincher and Shore dominated the thriller. The score is brilliant in this movie; and Criterion's transfer is gorgeous. It's slightly dated in its pay phones, car phones, giant cell phones, giant computers and small tube TVs, but it all still works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,448 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Scott is to blame, no one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,564 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Yes, because he is the supreme supervisor and he went along with it. He let it happen.We now know that sci-fi does not bring out the best in him.Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 39,409 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I'm curious to see those deleted scenes.Wasn't there also supposed to be a version of the film released with deleted scenes integrated back in? Did that get canceled or is it coming out later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,254 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I don't know about that, but the deleted scenes explain why the biologist went all touchy feely for the alien snake, what was going on in the first hologram with the Engineers running, what was happening to Fifield to a certain extent, more insight as to what happened on that planet, etc.Good changes were the final confrontation with the Enginner, and the sex scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 39,409 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Damn now I really want to see those! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,254 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 It was all about 40 minutes in total, and the missing information is why I turned the blame over to Scalia. Yes Scott shares a big portion of whoever I'm talking about specifically, but I also think the studio put a lot of pressure on this one. Wasn't this originally supposed to be PG-13? I imagine they had to do a lot of reshoots and editing to keep it a certain length and rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 39,409 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I think it was always R. But you can't blame the editor what what is or isn't in the film. He's cutting the scenes the director is telling him to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,953 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Fincher never dominated anything theatrically. has he ever actually even had a blockbuster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,254 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I think it was always R. But you can't blame the editor what what is or isn't in the film. He's cutting the scenes the director is telling him to.Depends on the collaboration. Some editors are given a lot more breathing room, and like I said I include Scott as well whenever discussing a particular person. He's been working with Scalia since at least Gladiator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,564 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Fincher never dominated anything theatrically. has he ever actually even had a blockbuster.Benjamin Button made quite a few bucks worldwide but few will say it's his best film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,516 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 It's worse than Alien 3Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,254 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Fight Club may not have been financially successful, but it certainly is critically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,564 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 It's worse than Alien 3KarolIt was too Spielberg for Fincher. I like the score though.Seven is his most commercially succesful film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now