Spandau Belly wrote:I was really disappointed in the quality of lying in this movie. I expected better lying from CEOs and politicians.
caruso_stalker217 wrote:That fuckin' Clinton, now, that guy knew how to lie with conviction. And he didn't have to pay for the pussy.
The Vicar wrote:Haven't you ever picked up a girl at a bowling alley before.......?
Oh wait........
minstrel wrote:caruso_stalker217 wrote:That fuckin' Clinton, now, that guy knew how to lie with conviction. And he didn't have to pay for the pussy.
To be fair, though, look at the quality of the pussy.
What?
The Vicar wrote:Finally broke down and rented Dead Snow.
Wish I hadn't.
It's a thoroughly boring, Shaun of the Dead/Evil Dead wannabe, and at that it's a miserable failure.
Fail. That is all.
TonyWilson wrote:I don't get it either but this girl I know looks fucking awesome dressed up as Magenta.
I don't think you need another reason.
Bloo wrote:TonyWilson wrote:I know this would never happen and if it did there would be hell to pay, but RHPS could actually do for a remake.
Bloo wrote:I know this would never happen and if it did there would be hell to pay, but RHPS could actually do for a remake.
DennisMM wrote:Rocky Horror is not a good movie. I realize it was not meant to be a good movie, in any conventional sense, but it fails as a bad movie. The plot is only an excuse for the songs and a couple of big laugh lines. The acting is horrendous, even when it's supposed to be either flat or over the top. I've seen it on video a few times with my ex, who enjoys it and loves Tim Curry, once in a theater with audience participation and a stage performance during some songs, and once at university with a drunk woman who screamed the audience lines at the wrong times. In the worst and the best circumstances, I didn't find it entertaining. It's a cult film with good reason.
If they want to do a remake, they should cast the parts with the surviving actors, nearly 40 years older. It couldn't be any worse than a standard remake.
TheBaxter wrote:DennisMM wrote:Rocky Horror is not a good movie. I realize it was not meant to be a good movie, in any conventional sense, but it fails as a bad movie. The plot is only an excuse for the songs and a couple of big laugh lines. The acting is horrendous, even when it's supposed to be either flat or over the top. I've seen it on video a few times with my ex, who enjoys it and loves Tim Curry, once in a theater with audience participation and a stage performance during some songs, and once at university with a drunk woman who screamed the audience lines at the wrong times. In the worst and the best circumstances, I didn't find it entertaining. It's a cult film with good reason.
If they want to do a remake, they should cast the parts with the surviving actors, nearly 40 years older. It couldn't be any worse than a standard remake.
even the songs i don't particularly care for. i guess they're ok, but nothing near good enough to justify the mess that surrounds them.
the only redeeming quality of this movie is susan sarandon running around in her undies.
Bloo wrote:TheBaxter wrote:DennisMM wrote:Rocky Horror is not a good movie. I realize it was not meant to be a good movie, in any conventional sense, but it fails as a bad movie. The plot is only an excuse for the songs and a couple of big laugh lines. The acting is horrendous, even when it's supposed to be either flat or over the top. I've seen it on video a few times with my ex, who enjoys it and loves Tim Curry, once in a theater with audience participation and a stage performance during some songs, and once at university with a drunk woman who screamed the audience lines at the wrong times. In the worst and the best circumstances, I didn't find it entertaining. It's a cult film with good reason.
If they want to do a remake, they should cast the parts with the surviving actors, nearly 40 years older. It couldn't be any worse than a standard remake.
even the songs i don't particularly care for. i guess they're ok, but nothing near good enough to justify the mess that surrounds them.
the only redeeming quality of this movie is susan sarandon running around in her undies.
I'll be honest, she did nothing for me, at least in this. Her face is too narrow, too harsh (?) for the character she is supposed to be playing. Now give me Susan Sarandon in Bull Durham...
minstrel wrote:U-571 is on right now. I've seen this movie several times, and every time, it seems better than it should be. In spite of Bon Jovi. In spite of Matthew McWhathisname. It's actually good, even though it has that cliche submarine movie scene in which they have to go TOO DEEP, and everybody is whispering "two hundred meters ... two hundred ten meters ..." as they all sweat at each other for an hour or so. So dramatic.
But it's cool, anyway, and I kinda like it.
Hermanator X wrote:minstrel wrote:U-571 is on right now. I've seen this movie several times, and every time, it seems better than it should be. In spite of Bon Jovi. In spite of Matthew McWhathisname. It's actually good, even though it has that cliche submarine movie scene in which they have to go TOO DEEP, and everybody is whispering "two hundred meters ... two hundred ten meters ..." as they all sweat at each other for an hour or so. So dramatic.
But it's cool, anyway, and I kinda like it.
I know that this one crops up a lot in regards to discussion of historical accuracy, but im very suspicious of anyone that takes anything that hollywood churns out as an "educational" piece. These days you even need to take a fair swathe of documentaries with a pinch of salt, so to me any feature film is a guide in the roughest sense of the word to the story they portray.
However, I havent seen U571, but I do strangely remember the poster on a a certain bus stop in newcastle I had to go by whenever I went to study.
minstrel wrote:Hermanator X wrote:minstrel wrote:U-571 is on right now. I've seen this movie several times, and every time, it seems better than it should be. In spite of Bon Jovi. In spite of Matthew McWhathisname. It's actually good, even though it has that cliche submarine movie scene in which they have to go TOO DEEP, and everybody is whispering "two hundred meters ... two hundred ten meters ..." as they all sweat at each other for an hour or so. So dramatic.
But it's cool, anyway, and I kinda like it.
I know that this one crops up a lot in regards to discussion of historical accuracy, but im very suspicious of anyone that takes anything that hollywood churns out as an "educational" piece. These days you even need to take a fair swathe of documentaries with a pinch of salt, so to me any feature film is a guide in the roughest sense of the word to the story they portray.
However, I havent seen U571, but I do strangely remember the poster on a a certain bus stop in newcastle I had to go by whenever I went to study.
I can't vouch for its historical accuracy. I'm pretty sure it's laughable in that department. I think the British submariners did far more to recover the Enigma machines and so on than the Americans did, but, hey, this is one of those American movies that glorifies Americans. But there you go - whoever makes the movies puffs out their chest, justifiably or not.
The Vicar wrote:Regarding that particular sub, U-571, it is total fiction.
Hermanator X wrote:The Vicar wrote:Regarding that particular sub, U-571, it is total fiction.
Next you will be saying the Oirish didnt stick there erses in the air for archery target practice as portrayed in the movie braveheart!!! Down that road madness lies!
Hermanator X wrote:The Vicar wrote:Regarding that particular sub, U-571, it is total fiction.
Next you will be saying the Oirish didnt stick there erses in the air for archery target practice as portrayed in the movie braveheart!!! Down that road madness lies!
Spandau Belly wrote: Wolfgang Petersen is the director and he calls in lots of his buddies from Germany to do everything else in the credits,
DerLanghaarige wrote:Spandau Belly wrote: Wolfgang Petersen is the director and he calls in lots of his buddies from Germany to do everything else in the credits,
Well, in fact it's a German movie, made with German money, shot in German studios and made with a German crew, but in English and with international actors, to get all the money easier back on the international market. [/late answer]
DerLanghaarige wrote:So I spent the last four days (mostly re-)watching the HARRY POTTER movies. I hadn't seen the final two, but here is a quick overview of my thoughts.1.) Philosopher's Stone
Got no idea why this gets so much hate. Okay, it lacks lots of the magic of the book and while Chris Columbus is a competent director, he is far away from being innovative, so the movie is a little bit on the run-of-the-mill side. Also the kids are a little bit wooden, the FX are downright shitty and look only slightly better than an episode of XENA, but come on, it's a very entertaining movie and most of all fun to watch! So why da hate, bitches?2.) Chamber Of Secrets
Everybody feels a little bit more comfortable here. The kids come across more natural, the FX are much better (although the quidditch scenes still look like shit) and the script is willing to take a few more risks in terms of willingness to scare the shit not just out of the kids in the audience, but also out of their parents. (Fucking Aragog and his kids, man.)Looking back, I really would have been okay with Columbus staying in the director's chair, but I respect his decision to leave.3.) Prisoner Of Azkaban
You can say that this movie has "ruined" the series, by taking a less fairy tale-ish and more contemporary teenie approach to the material. And don't forget that this is the moment in the movie series, when the magic slowly disappeared. It's the last time we see any ghosts for a while and even here it's mostly some nameless alibi ghosts instead of Sir Nicolas.This been said, it's more mature approach works very well, especially because Cuaron didn't forget the fun.4.) Goblet Of Fire
It's a very competent movie. Mike Newell somehow found a middle way between Columbus's and Cuaron's version of the story. The only thing that really takes the enjoyment of the movie down a notch, is that by now I just don't see a reason, why we should waste so much time on a silly magic tournament, instead of something like an exciting investigation or some shit like that. Sure, it all leads to a great finale, but when the credits start to roll, the movie feels like a wasted opportunity. But an entertaining one.5.) Order Of The Phoenix
I remember that I didn't like it the first time around, but on 2nd viewing it's one of the better movies of the series. A nice mix between child friendly fun and PG darkness. And David Yates proves himself to be a worthy choice for the director's chair...for now!6.) Half-Blood Prince
Ugh, I hated the movie the first time and hated it even more the 2nd time. A two hour long snorefest. Stunningly photographed, but neither the comedy moments (love potion) or the dramatic ones work. Okay, I liked the bathroom duel, but the whole movie is so bleak and boring and doesn't make any sense at all. What's so special about Snape being the half-blood prince? I haven't read the book. Is there more behind it, except that he had the habit to write stuff into his books when he was a kid?7.) Deathly Hallows
The first half was seriously good. I never expected to see a highway chase in a POTTER movie! But as soon as the trio landed in the woods, it all fell apart. After they left out so many stuff from the books, they now insisted on showing us a full hour of Harry, Ron and Hermi on an involuntary camping trip? Really? They could have just trimmed the whole camping section down to something like 15 minutes and put the one hour that was left on the beginning of the next movie.8.) Cashgrab Of The Warners
I would call it a worthy finale, with some awesome action scenes, some really surprising story twists and a satisfying conclusion for many characters. (Technically it was Neville, who defeated Voldemort.) Plus: Herminone in Belatrix's dress.I don't get the Oscar buzz for Rickman, though. Yeah, he was great. He always is, but nobody deserves an Oscar for 10 minutes of screen time, IMO.
So all in all it is a very good series. It could have been a great one, if there weren't 1 1/2 completely awful movies within and the rushed production shedule would have been less obvious. I get that you can't have a 3 years break between each movie, when your kids actors are supposed to only age one year in each part, but man, they should have hired a bigger team of screenwriters and directors, so that they could easier coordinate the whole project and maybe work on two movies at the same time, without rushing everything.
Most of the fun came from seeing all those supporting characters return, especially the Hogwarts students. Some of those kids where extras from the very first movie and you can see them grow up. And it's interesting to see how the series evolved stylewise. They started out as sweet kids movie and ended up as a dark and brooding war story. And this change was most obvious in its visual style. Just compare the lush colors of the first movie, with the dirty, washed out style of the last few ones.
Oh well. It could have been much better, but come on, they made 8 movies in 10 years, had only one movie that was seriously bad, one that was just half bad, remained a certain level of quality most of the time and only had to re-cast one main character, because the actor died. I hope in 15-20 years they try it again and turn every book into an animated mini series with each 3-4 parts, but what we have until then is seriously good.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest