The Zone

DennisMM wrote:I first saw Uma Thurman in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, when she emerges from the surf in a clam, nude, and her bountiful breasts come spilling out. Been a fan ever since, even if I don't like the movies she's in.

that's a scene that SHOULD be right up there with Phoebe Cates in FAST TIMES

Just finished BATMAN FOREVER for the first time in a while and I gotta say I think this one gets shat on too often. It's got a bit of the cartoony shit like the stupid fucking sound effects and shit like in BATMAN & ROBIN and Riddler and Two-Face are so fucking far over the top... but then you have these really well-acted scenes with Val Kilmer and Chris O'Donnell and all this talk about choices and how Bruce is trying to keep Dick from going down the same road as he did. These scenes serve as a reminder of what BATMAN FOREVER could have been, which is a serious fucking movie about some real goddamn shit. It's a great looking movie, too, and I believe it got an Oscar nod for cinematography. It deserved it. I love the look of Bruce's dreams and there's a lot of cool camera moves like that shot of Kilmer that starts way up high like on a fuckin' crane and then it swoops down real fast into a close-up on his face.

For the longest time this was the only movie I knew Nicole Kidman from. And I gotta tell you the sight of Nicole Kidman wrapped up in a sheet did my nine year-old self a lot of good. I'm not sure I buy her as a doctor, but I do buy her as a Batman groupie. I also thought she was very convincing as someone I would have sex with. But her character actually serves a purpose in that she helps Bruce come to terms with his Batman-ness. I'd like to see the deleted scenes one of these days with more flashbacks that better show Bruce's transformation from a dude who dresses up like a bat because he needs to beat the fuck out of people to try to make himself feel better to a guy who does the same thing except now it's a choice which apparently is less crazy.

I sorta think of this as two movies. On the one hand you've got this well-acted drama about two guys with dead parents and on the other you've got this over-the-top cartoon about dudes in suits punching each other. I like both movies, it's just a shame they had to be mashed together like this. I mean I love the Riddler/Two-Face stuff. Tommy Lee Jones just makes me laugh. I wouldn't think he and Carrey would have much chemistry but it's like these guys were born to do this shit. Then there's the more low-key shit with Kilmer and O'Donnell, who actually gives a decent performance. I don't understand the hate for that dude. He's pretty capable most of the time and he held his fucking own with Pacino in SCENT OF A WOMAN. That's no easy task. He's a cocky little shit in this, but he still gets across the pain well like in that scene with Don "The Dragon" Wilson and he's crying like a little bitch and feebly punching Batman's hands.

Bruce Wayne was never used enough in these Batman movies. It was usually more about Jack Nicholson or somebody, so it's cool to see him get some development and shit here. This film actually does a pretty good job of bookending the series, with Bruce coming to terms with his dead parents and being Batman, shit that he struggled with at times in the previous movies. And I've always thought Kilmer owned this role. Keaton was badass and everything and looked intense and had a likable goofball quality, but I think Kilmer brought a certain something to the role, a little more humanity perhaps, and managed to make the Bruce Wayne character a little more interesting this time around. Maybe it was the glasses.

Iceman also gets points for being the first Batman to pop off his shirt. That's some bold shit right there, considering he wasn't exactly ripped in this thing.

So I'm glad to see these Schumacher pictures are more enjoyable and at times better than I remember them being. Schumacher really did gay this shit up, though. Edward Nygma was practically slobbering on Bruce's cock in that first scene.

you know once upon a time Bill Murrary was considered (maybe even hired?) to play the Riddler and then they pussied out when Jim Carrey hit big in the mid 90s and they wanted him to do this

in an alternate world somewhere there is a version of Batman Forever with Billy Dee Williams and Bill Murrary as Two-Face and Riddler

to my way of thinking it's bet to consider Batman/Batman Returns as one set of films and Batman Forever/Batman and Robin as a 2nd set of films they have so little in common with each other with the first set being closer to the seriels of the 40s and the 2nd set closer to the series of the 60s

Bloo wrote:you know once upon a time Bill Murrary was considered (maybe even hired?) to play the Riddler and then they pussied out when Jim Carrey hit big in the mid 90s and they wanted him to do this

Tim Burton was originally going to cast Robin Williams as The Riddler in BATMAN RETURNS. I'm pleased he didn't - but I'd have preferred that to Jim Carrey. Bleh!

Bloo wrote:to my way of thinking it's bet to consider Batman/Batman Returns as one set of films and Batman Forever/Batman and Robin as a 2nd set of films they have so little in common with each other with the first set being closer to the seriels of the 40s and the 2nd set closer to the series of the 60s

FOREVER seems a bit like a transitional film to me. Like they've got the Batsuit with the yellow Batsymbol like in Burton's movies only with nipples and Elliot Goldenthal's score is fairly Elfman-esque at times (I think his score is better in some ways, actually). But there's also a lot of really goofy shit that you could only find in a Schumacher Batman film, like the Batman ass shot. And again there are some genuine dramatic moments like when Dick sees his family all fuckin' dead and so on, which you also would not find in a Burton movie. Aside from BIG FISH I can't think of a Tim Burton movie that has a lot of real human moments and stuff. Except maybe SWEENEY TODD, because Depp is doing some good work in that movie. I thought he deserved the Oscar over John Huston.

Just watched Der Baader Meinhof Komplex, excellent stuff. It's a "Must See". It's too complex (excuse the pun) to explain in depth but for those totally unfamiliar it's about a Left-Wing Terrorist movement in 60's & 70's West Germany. I don't know how much was made up for the purposes of characterisation & plot but it really worked for me (apart from the occasional use of a Bourne-esque score which was almost literally the Bourne score).

Feel like going to Wikipedia and reading a lot more about this group but I'll probably get lost in the details and just feel like watching the film again soon instead.

I've got to say that Germany has been making a great contribution to cinema in recent years.

A while back I watched the Pusher trilogy. I wasn't planning on watching all 3 in a row but I got completely hooked. I'm really glad actually I watched it all in one sitting because it made it more like one epic crime story that just happened to be divided into 3 vignettes. Each story is distinct in its own way but they all fit perfectly together as a whole, ongoing saga. I really can't say enough about these movies. It just completely blew me away. In all honesty (and it's been a good three weeks since I watched it so I'm not just getting caught up in a momentary fervor)...in all honesty I think taken together these might be the best movies I've ever seen. Sergio Leone Clint trilogy kind of good.

I can't even wrap my mind around how lucky it is that Refn is teaming up again with Mads Mikkelson for Valhalla Rising. I feel like I don't deserve something so good. I'm not worthy!

So yes...Pusher trilogy gets 10/10.

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Iceman also gets points for being the first Batman to pop off his shirt. That's some bold shit right there, considering he wasn't exactly ripped in this thing.

Michael Keaton was shirtless in a scene in the first movie.

Batman Forever isn't as bad as Batman and Robin, but a lot of the wrongness of the latter film has its seeds sewn in the former, so I really can't watch BF without thinking about where it's headed. The villains were ridiculous and I thought we treaded over old territory with all that origin stuff. And while I will admit that Kilmer's Batman was more athletic than Keaton's, his Bruce Wayne was half as charismatic and interesting. Also there were bits of gratuitous action in the movie, probably because the suits felt Burton's films didn't have enough.

RogueScribner wrote:Michael Keaton was shirtless in a scene in the first movie.

Ah fuck.

On a Batmanless note, I finally got around to watching APPALOOSA which I apparently bought a few weeks ago. I thought this was a good low-key western with some unnecessary book-end narration and a questionable end credit song choice. Good cinematography, solid direction from Harris who also turns in a good-as-usual performance as the likable doofus Virgil Cole who also happens to be a bad motherfucker. Viggo plays it cool as Cole's buddy Everett and mostly just stands around holding a big gun, not saying much aside from a few smart-ass remarks. Also, he slaps Jeremy Irons which is pretty fucking bold in my opinion. Lance Hendricksen makes an unexpected but unsurprising appearance. Renée Zellweger looks terrible. I don't know what happened. I never thought she was some kind of "hottie" before but she was attractive enough and completely bangable in ME, MYSELF & IRENE among other titles. Here she looks like she was burned in a chemical fire, or magically aged fifteen years overnight. It doesn't help that her character is completely unlikable and a total ho-bag.

Overall, an enjoyable if slow-moving picture. There are a few shoot-outs, but only a few. The talking stuff in-between is engaging, however, and I wasn't bothered too much by a noticeable lack of nudity. I mean there's a shot of Zellweger's nude bare ass but it's an extreme wide shot which means it's a body double. At this point I'm not sure I'd like to see what she's got under her clothes anyway. All I'm saying is this is an R-rated picture so there should be some naked tits somewhere.

8/10

And apparently Ed Harris sings a song on the soundtrack.

John-Locke wrote:I've got to say that Germany has been making a great contribution to cinema in recent years.

Absolutely, it's just a shame that only the "history lessons" win awards and get noticed in other countries.

So I watched THE HIDDEN recently.

I remembered seeing it years ago as a young un, and thought it was ace.
It had fast cars, gun fights, a stripper with a machine gun (80s style), a gross alien jumping from mouth to mouth of its hosts, and a weird agent hunting it down played by Kyle Mclachlan (sp?). As a kid it was a superb romp, and having only seen it once, it left quite an indelible mark on my mind.

Getting the chance to watch it again recently, I was a bit worried about the nostalgia factor being destroyed and consigning it to the "you had to be there" bin in my mind.
Gladly I was very very wrong. Now its not going to win any awards, but its a cracking little b-movie. The car chases using high end sports cars, and their cringe inducing destruction were pretty damn good, and the movie seemed to play like an alien infused Grand Theft Auto game, with the random destruction of people and property. The mechanism of having a rock music loving psychopathic alien as the big bad and simply following him/her/it as it went on its merry way seemed to me to be a perfect way to just let the carnage unfold without you asking to many questions about motivation etc.

Apart from that, the cop and his quirky "fbi" partner on the trail of the killer was played brilliantly by the 2 leads. Lots of nice otherworldly gags and musings, that elevate the movie from being simply cheesy. The alka seltzer and paracetamol gag was pretty funny, and played just right. Im not trying to spoil to much, as im recommending it to be sought out and watched if possible by other zoners (I think the oleg'ers who haven't seen it will take a viewing simply for a Danny Trejo cameo (spoiler: he plays a rough Mexican in a jail cell for about 2 seconds, but he gets a bizarre line)).

The opening of the movie is a simple CCTV shot, but its done extremely well, very eery and made me sit up and take notice of the film and pushed the nostalgia doubt from my mind.

Of course there is a whole lot of cheese on display, but its in the best b-movie spirit and makes you chuckle.
The main offender is early on, having brought the first iteration of the symbiote to a halt on his speeding bank robbing spree, his car a write off, he gets out of the vehicle, unarmed, and a whole phalanx of police officers open fire on him, with shotguns, pistols etc. The car blows up, he burns etc.
Cut to: The burnt dude in a hospital bed on life support. Surely the means of putting him down were a little ott, and the police brutality on display is shockingly hilarious.
It was a cool explosion though, and in the 80's that's all you really needed.

And the music: some is terribly bad, of the time punk, or rock tunes, that vary wildly in quality, but the score is pretty good, and has a proto-industrial sound to it.

So if anyone's after a sly, slightly cheesy, sci-fi carnage-em-up then I would strongly recommend it.

Anyone else seen it recently and have any thoughts? Would love to hear them.

Trailer

I remember watching it while Babylon 5 was on and never being able to look at Ivanova in the same light again!

CeeBeeUK wrote:I remember watching it while Babylon 5 was on and never being able to look at Ivanova in the same light again!

After watching it I had to do the IMDB check on a few faces, and she certainly suprised me. Dirty minx. I wasnt a big B5 fan, I watched a bit of it, so I had the niggling "I know that face" thing. Everyones gotta start somehere!!

John-Locke wrote:Just watched Der Baader Meinhof Komplex, excellent stuff. It's a "Must See". It's too complex (excuse the pun) to explain in depth but for those totally unfamiliar it's about a Left-Wing Terrorist movement in 60's & 70's West Germany. I don't know how much was made up for the purposes of characterisation & plot but it really worked for me (apart from the occasional use of a Bourne-esque score which was almost literally the Bourne score).

Feel like going to Wikipedia and reading a lot more about this group but I'll probably get lost in the details and just feel like watching the film again soon instead.

I've got to say that Germany has been making a great contribution to cinema in recent years.

Based on a well respected book it's supposed to be pretty close to reality, altough I seem to remember there beeing major complaints about one of the assasinations.

Things to learn from this movie, when Brits and Germans talk about the R.A.F they mean different things.

DerLanghaarige wrote:

John-Locke wrote:I've got to say that Germany has been making a great contribution to cinema in recent years.

Absolutely, it's just a shame that only the "history lessons" win awards and get noticed in other countries.

To my shame, I cannot recall the title - but what was that film about the mum who wakes up from a coma and her son tries to pretend the wall never came down? One of the most intelligent, enjoyable comedies I've seen in a long time.

Goodbye, Lenin!

Hermanator X wrote:Goodbye, Lenin!

That's it! That's the one - great film.

I finally saw Werzog's GRIZZLY MAN the other week. I found it to be a really intriguing film - it affected me much more than I expected it to. A part of me wanted to hear the audio of him being killed, I guess out of some morbid, sick fascination. The way Werzog actually handled it, I thought, was much more effective than playing it could ever have been. And it made me feel very, very ashamed of myself. I ended the film still unclear over whether I admired Treadwell, or resented him interfering in the way he did. An ambiguous man, caught between somewhere between failed actor and genuine animal-lover. The way Werzog put the film together was excellent - the perfect anti-(Michael) Moore, impartial, almost neutral commentary - but every frame filled with meaning.

Doc Holliday wrote:

Hermanator X wrote:Goodbye, Lenin!

That's it! That's the one - great film.

I finally saw Werzog's GRIZZLY MAN the other week. I found it to be a really intriguing film - it affected me much more than I expected it to. A part of me wanted to hear the audio of him being killed, I guess out of some morbid, sick fascination. The way Werzog actually handled it, I thought, was much more effective than playing it could ever have been. And it made me feel very, very ashamed of myself. I ended the film still unclear over whether I admired Treadwell, or resented him interfering in the way he did. An ambiguous man, caught between somewhere between failed actor and genuine animal-lover. The way Werzog put the film together was excellent - the perfect anti-(Michael) Moore, impartial, almost neutral commentary - but every frame filled with meaning.

Oh don't gimme all that animal appreciating crap, Doc. What with all the things you said about what you wanted to do to Mij and everything you cold blooded bastard.

Anywya, I had to go back over this movie a few times, well certain scenes anyway, just to figure out what this guy was all about. I mean, he says that he will die for these animals and that they need him. Er, it don't look like they DO! They're not endangered it seemed, and they're not being hunted. What little killing of them is a tiny exception and %. It's not like there's no Bears left, like they are extinct Otters these days.

So yeah, the dood was a bit of a crackpot.

In the Oleg Movie Club we're doing Oscar winners this round, and I went with ROCKY as my pick because I figured I'd toss out a crowdpleaser for a change, but my second choice was LOST IN TRANSLATION which I watched again last night anyway. Not as part of any club or because anybody told me to. Just free will at its finest.

I find this film instantly engaging and restful everytime I watch it. I think it is a work of genius in that it breaks prettymuch all the rules of conventional moviemaking in terms of how it builds its story and the relationship between its leads. It goes between sad and funny scenes so quickly and never loses its footing. The thing just rolls right along, it's like a song that works by defying rhythym or something. The part where they spend that long evening out is just so perfect. It feels so authentic, Coppola really captures one of those night where everybody is in a good mood and you just keep having fun and forget yourself and then turn around one moment and realize it's dawn and you're exhausted.

I'll also say that having been to Japan, I have experienced most of the cultural confusions depicted in this film first hand and find it very accurate.

And I've also got to give the actors a lot of respect. I know ScarJo has proven after this film that she has incredibly narrow range, but she gives the perfect performance here (it just happens to be the only performance she can give). And Murray is great, sometimes funny, mostly too tired to be funny.

Strangely, even though I love this movie I haven't felt the least bit motivated to rent either of Coppola's other movies. Probably because they star that lady who's face I find really unappealing.

Spandau Belly wrote:The part where they spend that long evening out is just so perfect. It feels so authentic, Coppola really captures one of those night where everybody is in a good mood and you just keep having fun and forget yourself and then turn around one moment and realize it's dawn and you're exhausted.

I'll be humming 'More Than This' for the rest of the day now - thanks!

To this day, I still can't decide if those machine guns were supposed to be real or not. You know, where Murray et al end up having to leg it out of some bar.

Spandau Belly wrote:Strangely, even though I love this movie I haven't felt the least bit motivated to rent either of Coppola's other movies. Probably because they star that lady who's face I find really unappealing.

You're missing out though. Don't let Dunst scare you off! In Virgin Suicides she still looks more like the tiny little vampire than the funny-looking redhead in Spiderman. And honestly I thought she was perfect in Marie Antoinette. She's good at languishing. She's a languisher.

DaleTremont wrote:

Spandau Belly wrote:Strangely, even though I love this movie I haven't felt the least bit motivated to rent either of Coppola's other movies. Probably because they star that lady who's face I find really unappealing.

You're missing out though. Don't let Dunst scare you off! In Virgin Suicides she still looks more like the tiny little vampire than the funny-looking redhead in Spiderman. And honestly I thought she was perfect in Marie Antoinette. She's good at languishing. She's a languisher.

Honestlty I dont think Coppolas done anything close to Virgin suicides. Maybe because I had no expectations going in but it just blew me away perfect mix of comedy pathos and drama.

Sleepflower gave me a copy of Virgin Suicides and said it was his favourite film. But try as I might, I gave up on it half way through. I dunno, I just couldn't sympathise with any of the characters.

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Sleepflower gave me a copy of Virgin Suicides and said it was his favourite film. But try as I might, I gave up on it half way through. I dunno, I just couldn't sympathise with any of the characters.

You could empathise with them though...

Just come home to find my copy of BURN AFTER READING has arrived. I hold high hopes for this film.

Doc Holliday wrote:

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Sleepflower gave me a copy of Virgin Suicides and said it was his favourite film. But try as I might, I gave up on it half way through. I dunno, I just couldn't sympathise with any of the characters.

You could empathise with them though...

Sonofabitch!

Doc Holliday wrote:Just come home to find my copy of BURN AFTER READING has arrived. I hold high hopes for this film.

Dees is good. Brad Pitt is brilliant in this. Nod him at Oscar for this more likely, not for Benjanumb Buttox crap.

I had a brief interest in seeing Marie Antoinette when I heard really negetive reviews based on some cut shown at some artsy festival in which apparently Marie Antoinette rocks out to Human League and dances around in hightop basketball shoes and all sorts of wonky experimental stuff like that. But then I heard that they either cut all that stuff or that it was just a fake rumor in the first place and I lost interest.

I've heard a lot of people echo Krks's feelings on Virg Suicides. Everybody I know just kinda said they felt there was nothing to it or not enough to be satisfying. Maybe I'll rent it one of these lonely nights (I hate The Eagles).

TVS had an awesome soundtrack. The movie was good too. It's probably the one Sofia Coppola film I like.

stereosforgeeks wrote:

DaleTremont wrote:

Spandau Belly wrote:Strangely, even though I love this movie I haven't felt the least bit motivated to rent either of Coppola's other movies. Probably because they star that lady who's face I find really unappealing.

You're missing out though. Don't let Dunst scare you off! In Virgin Suicides she still looks more like the tiny little vampire than the funny-looking redhead in Spiderman. And honestly I thought she was perfect in Marie Antoinette. She's good at languishing. She's a languisher.

Honestlty I dont think Coppolas done anything close to Virgin suicides. Maybe because I had no expectations going in but it just blew me away perfect mix of comedy pathos and drama.

I'm with Stereos - Lost in Translations might actually be a better movie, but it seems due to Murray's performance, Francis' script ideas, Kevin Shield's soundtrack work and their collaborative process with Sophia's not inconsiderable directing powers - Marie Antoinette is by my estimation a pretty, vapid film. Virgin Suicides is something rarified and lovely that Coppola hasn't mamged to do twice - and Air's score fits so perfectly

Im watching TMNT 2 The Secret of the Ooze!

Fuck me man, this movie holds up extremely well! Yeah, its a kids movie, and it has kid moments, but this is a really well made movie. The Jim Henson FX department went above and fucking BEYOND with the suites and puppets and for a TMNT story, its aces.

I havent seen this in a dogs age, and the news of a new film got me inching for a re watch. Im really glad I did.

And Go Ninja Go will live forever!

tapehead wrote:

stereosforgeeks wrote:

DaleTremont wrote:

Spandau Belly wrote:Strangely, even though I love this movie I haven't felt the least bit motivated to rent either of Coppola's other movies. Probably because they star that lady who's face I find really unappealing.

You're missing out though. Don't let Dunst scare you off! In Virgin Suicides she still looks more like the tiny little vampire than the funny-looking redhead in Spiderman. And honestly I thought she was perfect in Marie Antoinette. She's good at languishing. She's a languisher.

Honestlty I dont think Coppolas done anything close to Virgin suicides. Maybe because I had no expectations going in but it just blew me away perfect mix of comedy pathos and drama.

I'm with Stereos - Lost in Translations might actually be a better movie, but it seems due to Murray's performance, Francis' script ideas, Kevin Shield's soundtrack work and their collaborative process with Sophia's not inconsiderable directing powers - Marie Antoinette is by my estimation a pretty, vapid film. Virgin Suicides is something rarified and lovely that Coppola hasn't mamged to do twice - and Air's score fits so perfectly

In Virgin Suicides, Coppola really captured the tone of the book, which actually gels quite nicely with her natural style anyway. Lost in Translation was pretty close to her own heart, I think, because it was partially auto-biographical. I still love Marie Antoinette because I think thematically it was also semi-autobiographical, just transposed to the court of Louis XVI and filled with some of the most beautifully cinematic work Coppola has done. She chose to focus on the very fact that life in court was very pretty and very vapid and that was that, but that being said, I don't think Marie Antoinette is essentially much different from either of her two previous films because it all comes down to the "little girl lost" thing that Coppola does so well.

Plus it was just such a goddamn relief to finally see a period film that wasn't stuffy. I think Coppola might have even kicked off a mini trend because I feel like after Marie Antoinette period films started to rely a lot more on an organic, hand-held kind of look. None has come close to the O.C. (Original Coppola) though

Francis?

I think Marie Antoinette is about as profound as Paris Hilton (who Sophia has talked about in interviews in intimate relation to this film), and as for Sophia Coppola having an influence on the tenor of historical dramas? Making a notoriously detached and vain member of what was an oppressive monarchy your 'little girl lost' muse isn't 'historical', it's revisionism, and frankly pretty stupid - unless of course you take none of it seriously, in which case it's fairy floss.It kind of pisses me off the way she appropriates all that 70's punk and 80's new wave music and design aesthetic without any real connection between that and the film's subject matter. It was a serious mis-step for Coppola, and personally I think she has to suffer for her art a bit now and prove she has stories to tell that an audience can relate to.

I'm watching Rollerball. Bloody Jap bastards just beat up Flash Gordon and took away his brain.

I'm watching Rollerball too, I've never watched the whole film before, it's a little odd and the world it's set in doesn't really make sense.

tapehead wrote:Francis?

I think Marie Antoinette is about as profound as Paris Hilton (who Sophia has talked about in interviews in intimate relation to this film), and as for Sophia Coppola having an influence on the tenor of historical dramas? Making a notoriously detached and vain member of what was an oppressive monarchy your 'little girl lost' muse isn't 'historical', it's revisionism, and frankly pretty stupid - unless of course you take none of it seriously, in which case it's fairy floss.It kind of pisses me off the way she appropriates all that 70's punk and 80's new wave music and design aesthetic without any real connection between that and the film's subject matter. It was a serious mis-step for Coppola, and personally I think she has to suffer for her art a bit now and prove she has stories to tell that an audience can relate to.

Francis was the O.O.C (Original Original Coppola).

And I never said it was 'historical' so I don't know why you're wearing yourself out with the quotes. Obviously she took a lot of liberties with the facts but I don't go to the movies for a history lesson. Anyway I don't see anything wrong with taking a revisionist approach to a subject matter that's been done before so many times. In fact, that's precisely why I thought Marie Antoinette was good. Well, that and all the 70s punk and 80s new wave

Just watched the credits to Rollerball. Bloody Princess Ardala from Buck Rogers was in this!!!! Where? I luv her and missed her!!!!!!!

DaleTremont wrote:[Lost in Translation was pretty close to her own heart, I think, because it was partially auto-biographical.

As far as I know the film was almost completely auto-biographical. I think Coppola just split herself into two characters: ScarJo: the little lost girl married to dude she doesn't relate to and Murray: Hollywood aristocrat out of water, and then Coppola had them make friends with each other and help each other out. So I guess in real life everything depicted in LIT was an internal struggle.

But that's what I love about LIT. That it is a movie about friendship. Just two people who bond and help each other through a troubling time. It's not about big things. They're just friends, it's not a big romance. And their problems aren't tragicl, they're just life stuff.

DaleTremont wrote:

tapehead wrote:Francis?

I think Marie Antoinette is about as profound as Paris Hilton (who Sophia has talked about in interviews in intimate relation to this film), and as for Sophia Coppola having an influence on the tenor of historical dramas? Making a notoriously detached and vain member of what was an oppressive monarchy your 'little girl lost' muse isn't 'historical', it's revisionism, and frankly pretty stupid - unless of course you take none of it seriously, in which case it's fairy floss.It kind of pisses me off the way she appropriates all that 70's punk and 80's new wave music and design aesthetic without any real connection between that and the film's subject matter. It was a serious mis-step for Coppola, and personally I think she has to suffer for her art a bit now and prove she has stories to tell that an audience can relate to.

Francis was the O.O.C (Original Original Coppola).

And I never said it was 'historical' so I don't know why you're wearing yourself out with the quotes. Obviously she took a lot of liberties with the facts but I don't go to the movies for a history lesson. Anyway I don't see anything wrong with taking a revisionist approach to a subject matter that's been done before so many times. In fact, that's precisely why I thought Marie Antoinette was good. Well, that and all the 70s punk and 80s new wave

The ST is excellent, but, as I've said before with relation to last year's The Wackness, it all just adds up to a good mixtape - hearing those songs again I can't place them in the movie, none of them were pivotal or used like score (that I can recall, it has been a couple of years), it ends up being just more window-dressing upon a film already full of it.

Wearing myself out? I assure you my pulse never went above fifty - the main fault of MA, whether you see it as 'autobiographical' or as 'contemporising history', is that there just isn't a story worth a damn to be told in there. it is very pretty, and it didn't bore me; the first hour or so is fun, but even a thinnest genre flick or teen movie (which this is), has got to grab me with some tell as well as show if it wants to be a movie; the costumes, the music and the aesthetics have been done better before (Sophia Coppola should have to pay royalties for the amount of times she visually 'quotes' Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, for one thing), merely combining them together in a fairly artless fashion dosn't quite get there, for me.

a few zoners liked it when it came out back in '06 - but, as Brock said at the time, 'three BOW WOW WOW songs??'

Marie Antoinette had a scene with Adam & the Ants "kings of the wild frontier" playing in the background.
That'll boost any movie by about 3.5 points on the 10 scale.



I've just re-watched Predator & Predator 2.

Predator is kinda weird. It starts off like First Blood part 2: Rambo & switches to First Blood about half way through.
I love the scenes with the guys making traps out of trees & shit. His accent wasn't bad at the beginning, when Apollo Creed tells him the mission & that he's gonna come along & spar with some generic South Americans.
Once they're in the jungle, it's back to the thick accent that he's known for.
Maybe the studio said "We appreciate that you've taken some classes, but we hired you because you're foreign & strong & Dolph is busy being He-Man."
Jesse Ventura spends most of his time in the movie sporting a look on his face like the Hulkster just knife-edge-chopped the shit outta him.

At it's heart, it's a film about modern warfare. The unknown enemy that's wise to their techniques & all that.
The Predator almost could've been some mofo in a camouflage suit with infra-red goggles on.
But then, they went & shat all over that with the sequel.

Predator 2 is fucking awful.
It takes place in 97, right before judgment day was supposed to take place or some such shit, so Ahnold is busy in some other part of LA that we never get to see.
Danny Glover bursts into the movie during a shoot out between the cops & a gang of people who some Jamaican stereotypes are mad at.
So he's walking about, then he goes back to his car (cause he's gonna drive it forward) & it's at that point that you should realize that this film has a Mel Gibson shaped hole.

We don't get to see glover's home life in this one because of gang wars, there seems to be no time for condom plants & Joe Pesci.
Instead, Glover is a man with no private life at all.
He may be the father of the unborn child that the female police officer (who disappears half way through the film, never to be seen or heard from again) is carrying, but probably not, cause he doesn't spent one minute of the film doing anything except working.
Danny Glover cant carry a film. He can't really act either, combine that with Gary "Gingerbreadman" Busey & this movie should've been made for TV.
Busey was in Lethal Weapon too, so this just adds to the whole "where the fuck is Mel?" vibe the film has going on.
Danny also goes flying through the air due to a big 'splosion like ball of fire shooting towards him.
Maybe Mel turned down the role of that yuppie gentleman.

P2 also raises a lot of questions.
In the original Predator, it was like a young Predator going out & becoming a man or some shit. Then Ahnold "pwns the noob" & it blows it's self.
In P2, we learn that the young Predators get here via a space ship filled with their peers, so when Ahnold was walking about in the jungle, how the fuck did he not stumble across a ship? Those things are huge & don't seem to have a chameleon chip.
Why didn't the wounded Predator in P1 run back to it's ship & get it's peers to take it back to predator land's hospital?
Was it because the young Predator has to prove it's self on it's own? Does that make the Predator from P2 a pussy in the eyes of the other predators?
When Danny finds the ship in P2, it's underneath apartments & still manages to fly away into the sky, how the fuck is that possible?
The trains aren't working, there's a spaceship sized hole in the city center, gang members are dropping like flies & the Mayor still doesn't think he should cut his vacation short?
If Lethal Predator had been made, would the Predator go flying out of the apartment's bathroom via 'splosions?


Predator still stands up because it has that whole "fear the unknown" thing going on & Ahnold does a half decent Rambo.
Predator 2 just doesn't need to exist.

Actually, King Of Nowhere, the first Predator starts with a shot of a spaceship flying to Earth. So it's not something new that they whipped up for P2. You're right that in P1 it seems like he came alone, but maybe that one was just a solitary hunter and this pack in P2 are more a group of predators who all work together at the steel mill and are going on a hunting trip together to celebrate one of them getting married and to have one last bonding experience before they ship out to war against the Aliens.

so the Predator that Danny Glover kills is that the Chris Walken Predator or the John Savage Predator

obviously the one that hands Danny Glover the pistol at the end is the Robert DeNiro Predator

The scene where they all play Russian roulette with a facehugger was brutal. That's the kind of stuff that stays with you.

In the first two Predator movies, nobody talks or mentions something about the Predators doing their first "hunt".
Paul W.S. Anderson came up with that for AvP 1.

travis-dane wrote:In the first two Predator movies, nobody talks or mentions something about the Predators doing their first "hunt".
Paul W.S. Anderson came up with that for AvP 1.

Paul WS Anderson didn't come up with that... the comic books did.

still, it wasn't part of the story that the movies gave, and therefore is out of play. what happens in the comic world is separate from what happens in the movie world, two different dimensions entirely, man.......

Spandau Belly wrote:Actually, King Of Nowhere, the first Predator starts with a shot of a spaceship flying to Earth. So it's not something new that they whipped up for P2. You're right that in P1 it seems like he came alone, but maybe that one was just a solitary hunter and this pack in P2 are more a group of predators who all work together at the steel mill and are going on a hunting trip together to celebrate one of them getting married and to have one last bonding experience before they ship out to war against the Aliens.

Yeah, but we don't see the peers or anything inside the ship.
It would've been safe to say he came alone.
It would've also been safe to say that the ship had camouflage tech. They don't in P2 though, so now i'm wondering why the fuck Ahnold & co. didn't stumble across it.
Busey & his team of agents should've found it. Especially if they knew the case, knew about all it's tech & shit, but no.
So somewhere in South America, there's a fucking huge space ship just sitting gathering dust.

If the pack in P2 were a group of hunters, why didn't they hunt?
The Predator who was doing all the work, was it also bringing meat from the slaughter house back to the ship?
Cause we learn that it eats the meat, the old mofos still on the ship must be starving.

Maybe we're supposed to believe that they've been there since the 1700's or even before then, hibernating or whatever.

travis-dane wrote:In the first two Predator movies, nobody talks or mentions something about the Predators doing their first "hunt".
Paul W.S. Anderson came up with that for AvP 1.

I didn't say they did, it just plays like that in the film.
I figured it was a take on the whole African tribe thing*
I had no idea W.S. decided to make it cannon. I fell asleep during the last half of AVP & there wasn't a whole lot of plot in AVP2.

*other tribes are available

so sorry wrote:

travis-dane wrote:In the first two Predator movies, nobody talks or mentions something about the Predators doing their first "hunt".
Paul W.S. Anderson came up with that for AvP 1.

Paul WS Anderson didn't come up with that... the comic books did.

Haven't read the comics, or the novels or anything.
Did play the AVP arcade game quite a lot though. It had two types of Predator if i remember correctly.
I had no idea there was an "expanded universe" type thing until i looked at the wiki to find out how to spell Gary Busey's name.
I could've checked the DVD cover i guess, but i was at the pc at the time & busy wondering why the fuck Mel wasn't in the film.

Peven wrote:still, it wasn't part of the story that the movies gave, and therefore is out of play. what happens in the comic world is separate from what happens in the movie world, two different dimensions entirely, man.......

Wasn't aware that you were guardian of the Predator cannon.
Maybe this means we can blame you for AVP & AVP2.

i am not the guardian of "Predator", i am the guardian of interdimensional flow of content.....

Its a while since I have seen it, but I was under the impression that the craft seen at the beginning of the first movie was a small solitary pod (or shuttle), not the great hulking ship of the second, with cabin boy predators and the like.

Its hazy, but im sure thats how it is. Its not unfeasible for a spacefaring alien race to have more than 1 type of craft.

as someone who hunts and fishes, sometimes you go out by yourself and sometimes you go in a group

sometimes you have a 4-wheeler and sometimes you have a pickup truck loaded with rednecks

Predator 1, the lone wolf hunter on his intergaltic 4 wheeler Predator 2 is redneck Predators drunk in their intergalatic pickup truck, laughing at their idiot buddy who is taunting the prey

Hermanator X wrote:Its a while since I have seen it, but I was under the impression that the craft seen at the beginning of the first movie was a small solitary pod (or shuttle), not the great hulking ship of the second, with cabin boy predators and the like.

Its hazy, but im sure thats how it is. Its not unfeasible for a spacefaring alien race to have more than 1 type of craft.

From memory, the beginning of the film shows a small craft separating from the main 'great hulking' ship and dropping in to the atmosphere. Presumably the Predator expected to get back to his ship in orbit and it's still there. Let's hope it doesn't hit the ISS!

CeeBeeUK wrote:

Hermanator X wrote:Its a while since I have seen it, but I was under the impression that the craft seen at the beginning of the first movie was a small solitary pod (or shuttle), not the great hulking ship of the second, with cabin boy predators and the like.

Its hazy, but im sure thats how it is. Its not unfeasible for a spacefaring alien race to have more than 1 type of craft.

From memory, the beginning of the film shows a small craft separating from the main 'great hulking' ship and dropping in to the atmosphere. Presumably the Predator expected to get back to his ship in orbit and it's still there. Let's hope it doesn't hit the ISS!

I thought I remembered the smaller one breaking off, thats why I called it a "pod." cheers CeeBee. I was worried that I was mixing it up with something else, as its a while since I saw it last.