Page 3 of 5

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:40 pm
by so sorry
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
HollywoodBabylon wrote:Not having seen Star Wars


Image


IPAMP!

I think the Dino Sith Lord would have been a more appropriate scolding...

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:55 pm
by HollywoodBabylon
It's mad, I know, but I've just never gotten round to seeing Star Wars. Can anyone tell me what's it about and why I should see it?


:wink:


Seriously, my (albeit feeble) case for the defence. I can't give any logical explanation as to why I haven't seen it yet. Maybe it's because there's so many films I want to watch and catch up on. And I haven't reached Star Wars yet. I know that's tantamount to pleading cinematic insanity in the Zone but there you have it. I can add no more............except to say I promise by the end of the year to loose my Obi-Wan Kenobi virginity and give it a go.
And, like they say, you always remember the first time, no? :wink:

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:01 pm
by minstrel
HollywoodBabylon wrote:It's mad, I know, but I've just never gotten round to seeing Star Wars.


OMG, Zoners! Do you know what this means? We've found the guy who hasn't seen Star Wars!

Quick! Shoot him, stuff him, put him in a museum! This is the most spectacular find since King Tut's tomb!

Now listen carefully, HollywoodBabylon: Don't watch Star Wars! We have plans for you ...

:wink:

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:06 pm
by Seppuku
Well the only bit of advice I can give you, is do not, under any circumstances, decide to watch them from Episode 1 onwards. It's an easy mistake to make, but I can guarantee you'll never get around to Episode 2 if you make it.

I actually genuinely think it's quite enviable that you've skipped the whole Star Wars saga, at least considering the movies you have seen. I've seen the original trilogy at least 10 times myself since I was a kid, but I'm willing to bet that's just a drop in the ocean compared to some of the freaks around here. :wink: Don't think I don't love them, it's just there are at least two hundred other non-Star Wars related movies out there in the Universe, and sometimes it's good to try and hunt them down as if they were Mandalorian Giants, because just like with a Madalorian giant, whose fleeces are worth a pretty penny if you know the right people, you might find the effort rewarding.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:20 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Chairman Kaga wrote:How does Kirk rate Jurassic Park 2 above Jurassic Park? That's just lunacy.


JP2 has a better story, a better visual style, is more dark, doesn't have as many annoying characters - and not only does it seem to have more action set pieces but overall I enjoyed them more than I did JP1 which only really had 2 action scenes that I really got into, albeit these 2 were more scary than what I got in JP2.

But JP2 had it's highlights of action scenes as well. The first T Rex attack on the trucks hanging over the cliff, the Rap attacks as they were escaping the island, all those split second near misses when they were trying to get Jeff Goldblum was trying to get away from them, hiding in the car and stuff, plus the genius touch of the overhead shot in the grass. But mostly I loved it when the film actually had a real climax with the T Rex going rampage on actual US soil in San Diego. I thought that was just plain monster movie classic mental stuff.

Other than this, all the other action scenes big or small that are littered throughout the film I found to be more riveting and exhilerating than those in JP1. Also JP2 is just scattered throuout with ingenius little director touches and moments. The T-Rex with the Dog Kennel hanging out of it's mouth, the T-Rex stomping on a flattenened human whilst it chases everyone, the race against each other as the Raptors scrape the earth to get under the door to get to the humans - as the humans do the same to get out the other door, Julianne Moore laying on the glass cracking on the window of the truck. All sorts of little moments where you know there's a master of suspense and magic directing the shit out of this.


JP1, I farking HATED Laura Dern and I thought Sam Neill was a bit too bland at times too. JP1 was too light for me. I cared none for the characters therefore the horror wasn't there. Again, the action wasn't as consistently as great as JP2. The Gallamimuses or whatever they were in the field didn't do much for me, just a show off running scene to show what the FX department could create. JP1 I thought had too much downtime and was resultantly slow because of this.

The only thing that JP1 has over the second at the end of the day, is the feeling of magic and delight. That it treats the dinasoaurs also with a sense of wonder and sparkle. The scene in the tree with the Brontosaurases for example. But then it's followed by that farking pathetic piece of acting with Laura Dern trying to get all emotional with pathetic dialogue as she sits down to eat jelly with Richard Attenborough. Really made me wanna kick something, stuff like that.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:30 pm
by Nordling
There's no way I can rank a movie that has a little girl take out a dinosaur with gymnastics over its predecessor that gave you genuine shock and awe when the dinosaurs show up on screen. I tremble when the T Rex roars at the end and the sign comes falling down. Nothing in THE LOST WORLD even approaches that. The only serviceable bit in that film is the San Diego sequence.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:33 pm
by so sorry
Nordling wrote:... T Rex roars at the end and the sign comes falling down.


That hair-raising scene alone puts JPI over JPII. Not sure what Kirks is smoking...

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:34 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Yeah I hated the gymnastics in JP2, but I also thought the bit with the sign falling in front of the T Rex at the end was a bit crappy and forced, too. So that's a bit of a draw there.

I don't think much human presence in the first approaches the coolness of Pete Posthelwaite and his crew in The Lost World though. He not only had a Quintness to him and clearly got his teeth stuck right into his role, but he also showed a nice guyish side to him as well. Of all the films, this is the only character that was worth making further adventures about.

Plus The Lost World wasn't overall as boring as JP1 was.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:39 pm
by Nordling
JURASSIC PARK, as a film, is a perfect thrill ride of a movie. It's designed to excite the audience. And gimme Robert Muldoon over Posthelwaite. "Clever girl."

There's one perfect scene in THE LOST WORLD - the two T Rex attack on the mobile unit. Other than that, THE LOST WORLD completely felt like a cash in. JURASSIC PARK felt much more complete a film. There's a sense of wonder in it and I'll take wonder every time over cool setpieces.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:46 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Well I think for me, what sorta decides one film over the other is that whenever JP1 is on TV I try to watch it, but after a while now, I just can't be bothered, or I don't feel I'm missing out if I DO miss the film. The Lost World I'll have time and time again. Even when I did catch JP1 on repeats, that terror that I first felt in the movie theatre with the T-Rex and the Rap attacks just wasn't there.

True, this is the same with the 2nd film, but it still overall maintains more entertainment for me. It's more consistent. I know there's another highlight coming real quickly in that film, but the first film, these bookend moments of exhileration are a long time coming and I have to put up with some pretty uninvolving drama in the meantime. Trying to get the computers working or any scene with Laura Dern, etc.

I think that Spielberg was working his craft more in the 2nd. He had gotten used to the craft and FX of the dinos, now he had turned his hand to making a better movie. A little bit more manipulation going on, again, more little moments of devillish glee or humour, it feels like he's having more fun making this movie (even though he said that he didn't!).

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:02 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Nordling wrote:There's no way I can rank a movie that has a little girl take out a dinosaur with gymnastics over its predecessor that gave you genuine shock and awe when the dinosaurs show up on screen. I tremble when the T Rex roars at the end and the sign comes falling down. Nothing in THE LOST WORLD even approaches that. The only serviceable bit in that film is the San Diego sequence.

Zactly.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:07 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Well I think the San Diego sequence alone kicked the ass off of sooo much of Jurassic Park itself. Plus JP1 cheated us terribly out of any genuine terror for the characters.

SPOILERS.


All the main characters surived - and you knew that they were gonna. That sense of safety and innocence really betrayed the drama of the film. As someone else said 'It fails the Jaws test miserably'. At least in The Lost World you actually did get a bigger body count onscreen and you felt that these reptilian fuckers were more dangerous.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:11 pm
by Fawst
Both movies have their ups and their downs. JP, the T-Rex attack outside the pen is incredible. Er, but it's also a little weird now that I think about it... I have to watch it again, but the part that really made me scratch my head and go "huh?" was how they raise the goat in the cage for the T-Rex to eat, and that is ground level to the car on the opposite side of the fence. Ok, great, so then why when the jeep goes over the side IS THERE A GIANT FUCKING CLIFF?! I never could understand that.

Lost World has two things going for it: Goldblum rules, and the cliff sequence ruled. I'm pretty sure that it was almost spot on from the novel for that one scene. Beyond that, the two things that kill the movie for me are 1) the book is a thousand times better, and 2) as kinda-cool as the whole San Fran attack was, did anyone else think that the level of carnage on the boat was over the top and ... stupid? How did the T-Rex kill people in those really tiny, hard to reach places without destroying them? I mean, people are dead in closet-sized areas, come on now.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:14 pm
by Nordling
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Well I think the San Diego sequence alone kicked the ass off of sooo much of Jurassic Park itself. Plus JP1 cheated us terribly out of any genuine terror for the characters.

SPOILERS.


All the main characters surived - and you knew that they were gonna. That sense of safety and innocence really betrayed the drama of the film. As someone else said 'It fails the Jaws test miserably'. At least in The Lost World you actually did get a bigger body count onscreen and you felt that these reptilian fuckers were more dangerous.


What are you talking about? Anyone that's seen a Spielberg film knows that no one's really safe. I never felt that anyone was completely safe in JURASSIC PARK. Spielberg's killed kids before in movies. On the contrary, I knew exactly who was going to live and die in LOST WORLD.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:15 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
I knew it had to come up about the boat. I agree whole heartedly. It is shit really. There is not possible way he could have specifically killed the entire crew in all those nooks and crannies.

I also think that the carnage in JP1 is missing too though. 'People are dieing!' Attenborough says.

Well who and how? He's referring to all those scientists? What DID happen to them then?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:18 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Nordling wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Well I think the San Diego sequence alone kicked the ass off of sooo much of Jurassic Park itself. Plus JP1 cheated us terribly out of any genuine terror for the characters.

SPOILERS.


All the main characters surived - and you knew that they were gonna. That sense of safety and innocence really betrayed the drama of the film. As someone else said 'It fails the Jaws test miserably'. At least in The Lost World you actually did get a bigger body count onscreen and you felt that these reptilian fuckers were more dangerous.


What are you talking about? Anyone that's seen a Spielberg film knows that no one's really safe. I never felt that anyone was completely safe in JURASSIC PARK. Spielberg's killed kids before in movies. On the contrary, I knew exactly who was going to live and die in LOST WORLD.



Well I was pretty confident that the main cast were gonna make it out alive in JP1. I had little doubts about them and did overall feel that they were gonna be safe.


SPOILERS






I did think that Pete Posthelwaite was gonna get it in part 2 though. Sorta suprised me that he didn't.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:21 pm
by Ribbons
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:I also think that the carnage in JP1 is missing too though. 'People are dieing!' Attenborough says.

Well who and how?


As far as he knew at that point, I guess Genero (the lawyer) was the only stiff, although Nedry had also been killed, Malcolm had almost been killed, and Dr. Grant and his grandkids were both M.I.A.

It's not a huge body count, but in real life it'd probably be enough to give one pause.

Anyway, all of you are crazy. Jurassic Park III is better than them both!

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:22 pm
by DinoDeLaurentiis
Nordling wrote:Spielberg's killed kids before in movies.


Bah! He killed a the one kid onna the raft inna Jaws pre-E.T. (when a he became alla kid-friendly anna such) anna that was inna the book, anna the only kids he's a killed post-E.T. was a the little Jewish children inna the Schindler's List, anna only then a 'cos he wanted to win a the Osc.... er I mean, a 'cos he was a trying to make a the statement about a the Nazi brutality, no?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:27 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
You gotta admit for his so called kid friendly days or movies - they were actually different levels of dark.

The beginning chilliness of ET, it's spookiness, the cathedral like music in the woods at night. In Jaws, Spielberg showed no mercy for whom he was gonna kill, whilst other directors might chicken out. He killed the kid, but he also killed the dog. Raiders had untold moments of horror and this horror was depicting what is told to truly exist from the Bible.

Let us not get into Temple of Doom which was a delvement into Hell, that was the movie to really get censors on edge and to start thinking about introducing the PG13 rating which finally came about in Gremlins.

That guy knew what his audience could handle, especially kids. Heh, I was one when I saw all of these films, so I should know.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:29 pm
by Nordling
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
Nordling wrote:Spielberg's killed kids before in movies.


Bah! He killed a the one kid onna the raft inna Jaws pre-E.T. (when a he became alla kid-friendly anna such) anna that was inna the book, anna the only kids he's a killed post-E.T. was a the little Jewish children inna the Schindler's List, anna only then a 'cos he wanted to win a the Osc.... er I mean, a 'cos he was a trying to make a the statement about a the Nazi brutality, no?


Wrong. He killed a kid in HOOK.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:31 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Nordling wrote:
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
Nordling wrote:Spielberg's killed kids before in movies.


Bah! He killed a the one kid onna the raft inna Jaws pre-E.T. (when a he became alla kid-friendly anna such) anna that was inna the book, anna the only kids he's a killed post-E.T. was a the little Jewish children inna the Schindler's List, anna only then a 'cos he wanted to win a the Osc.... er I mean, a 'cos he was a trying to make a the statement about a the Nazi brutality, no?


Wrong. He killed a kid in HOOK.


AAAAAHHH YEAH!!! How could I not respond to that one to Dino.

That little farking shit who thought he was well hard - Ruufio!!! I fucking hated that gentleman - 'cos he also looked like me!!! I gave up trying after I saw where it would get me by watching that annoying little gentleman!

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:33 pm
by Fawst
Hang on, Dino... he killed the little robot kid in A.I. :D He certainly didn't have to die! (The movie should have ended underwater at the Blue Fairy in the first place...)

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:35 pm
by HollywoodBabylon
Nordling wrote:
Wrong. He killed a kid in HOOK.


He should've killed all the brats in that movie - along with the picture itself. A real stinker.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:39 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Have you guys ever read those Spielber on Spielber style interviews? He did one for Empire Magazine at the time of Saving Private Ryan's release I think it was. Even HE said that he wasn't happy with Hook, except the London scenes. Then again, he also said he was bored filming The Lost World too!

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:40 pm
by DinoDeLaurentiis
Nordling wrote:Wrong. He killed a kid in HOOK.


Meh... you're right, eh? Holy crappa that film, she was a so bad I must have a blocked it alla completely from a my memory. Anna now it's alla come a back a to me. BANGARANG! FOOD FIGHT!! GODDAMN ALLA YOU PUTZES. YOU LEWD, CRUDE, ANNA RUDE BAG OF A THE PRECHEWED FOOD PUTZES!!

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:43 pm
by minstrel
Why are people impressed with the San Diego bit in JP2? I only saw the film once, but it left me totally cold.

Here's the thing: JP kept us with the same group of characters all the way through, so we got emotionally involved with them and cared about them. That's where the thrills and chills came from - our CARING about these people.

In JP2, you have different, new people all the time. You get a dinosaur wandering around in some family's back yard, and I don't know who the people are! I don't care about them, because this is the first time I've seen them. So the thrill just wasn't there.

I think that was the biggest mistake Spielberg made in JP2. He forgot that it was about the human characters, not the special-effects dinosaurs.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:43 pm
by Nordling
You can always tell when the Beard's really engaged in a film. Both HOOK and THE LOST WORLD are paint-by-numbers filmmaking, and it's obvious Spielberg didn't really care about either one of those films.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:46 pm
by DinoDeLaurentiis
Nordling wrote:it's obvious Spielberg didn't really care about either one of those films.


Anna it's a exactly a 'cos of a that bad attitude is a why the Spielberg, he's a never gonna to work for a the Dino, eh?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:50 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
I can't remember what happened with Spielberg on Hook. Dig up some interviews with him about the film if you can, Nordling or anyone else. I remember him saying something like he felt he was being pulled in all sorts of directions and that it was the only time where he felt like he didn't have enough or any control over making that film.

Plus it's the age in one's life that is a MAJOR issue here whilst making that. Spielberg was now a father, no longer a Peter Pan style person anymore. Then he goes to make a film about being Peter Pan - AND being a father. Somewhere in the midst there are sensibilities about all of this that seem to have gotten muddled up and ended up with a huge mess and with all members or the audience being unhappy with this. I mean, what is the overall message? Is it about being a grown up? Or being young? Both? How can you say it's about both, without one cancelling or detracting from the other and not fully realising the beauty of each sense of being.

Plus I farking hated Ruufio by making me not wanting to grow up to be like him - even if he was slightly younger than me I think.

Thank God for Ellen.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:53 pm
by HollywoodBabylon
The only distinguishable thing about Hook is that Spielberg managed to coax one of the very worst performances I've seen Dustin Hoffman give. It was frankly embarrassing. Pantomime stuff.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:56 pm
by Seppuku
HollywoodBabylon wrote:The only distinguishable thing about Hook is that Spielberg managed to coax one of the very worst performances I've seen Dustin Hoffman give. It was frankly embarrassing. Pantomime stuff.


"It's behind you!"

"Oh no it isn't!"

"It's behind you!"

"Oh no it isn't"

"It's behind you!"

"Oh no...wait, what's behind me?"

"Your career!"

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:03 pm
by HollywoodBabylon
seppukudkurosawa wrote:
HollywoodBabylon wrote:The only distinguishable thing about Hook is that Spielberg managed to coax one of the very worst performances I've seen Dustin Hoffman give. It was frankly embarrassing. Pantomime stuff.


"It's behind you!"

"Oh no it isn't!"

"It's behind you!"

"Oh no it isn't"

"It's behind you!"

"Oh no...wait, what's behind me?"

"Your career!"



That's what Tom Sizemore hears as well, every time he takes a shower in whatever jail he's currently residing in..............

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:15 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Nordling wrote:You can always tell when the Beard's really engaged in a film. Both HOOK and THE LOST WORLD are paint-by-numbers filmmaking, and it's obvious Spielberg didn't really care about either one of those films.

'Zactly again......Though I love the San Diego sequence because it gave me the opportunity to forget all the crap that came before it. The T-Rex in the back yard after it ate the dog, the japanese tourists etc. It makes no sense in or out of the context of the film but it's something I love none-the-less.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:02 am
by Keepcoolbutcare
question for the folks who voted for E.T. - do you believe in God? Forgive my impertinence, just curious...

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:03 am
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Yeah I do. But me and him have trouble getting along.

For starters he told me that the Zone was his gift to me as long as I created it, but so far I just can't sell this damn website off to any Japanese corporation who wants to evolve the domain into a porn site.


'Build it and they will come, build it and they will come' he said, but nothing!!

Some deciples you lot turned out to be! Huh!

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:06 am
by ThisIsTheGirl
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:question for the folks who voted for E.T. - do you believe in God? Forgive my impertinence, just curious...


Nope.

I believe in the oldskool Hollywood feel-good factor :grin:

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:06 am
by tapehead
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:question for the folks who voted for E.T. - do you believe in God? Forgive my impertinence, just curious...


It was Baudrillard who made the comparisons between ET and Jesus Christ, yes?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:07 am
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
tapehead wrote:
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:question for the folks who voted for E.T. - do you believe in God? Forgive my impertinence, just curious...


It was Baudrillard who made the comparisons between ET and Jesus Christ, yes?


Oh. All I thought is that it was some dodgy Empire reviewer who did this when he was doing an analysis of Spielberg's career back when I was younger.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:29 am
by Keepcoolbutcare
Chairman Kaga wrote:
unikrunk wrote:Movies like Jaws and even AI are awesome, but fall into pop-corn cinema for me. Love them, just don’t think of them as in the same league as his serious stuff.

I disagree though Jaws ushered in the summer blockbuster it's much more than just a popcorn flick. Brody's journey from bump on a log chief of police to hero is great. I still have yet to see AI so I can't agree or Ddisagree.


there's also the political subtext of the morally bankrupt, corrupt capitalistic government angle, which coming on the heels of Watergate was no accident. Plus, one can always have fun reading into the man vs. nature, the death of the rugged individualist resulting in the ascent of a more scientifical society (I can't word that to my satisfaction, but I hope it got the point across)...

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:48 am
by DinoDeLaurentiis
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:there's also the political subtext of the morally bankrupt, corrupt capitalistic government angle, which coming on the heels of Watergate was no accident.


You bring uppa the good point, eh paisan? You gotta to wonder about a how many pictures there are outta there where a the context, she has a become totally lost onna the modern audiences, eh?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:49 am
by havocSchultz
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
Keepcoolbutca re wrote:there's also the political subtext of the morally bankrupt, corrupt capitalistic government angle, which coming on the heels of Watergate was no accident.


You bring uppa the good point, eh paisan? You gotta to wonder about a how many pictures there are outta there where a the context, she has a become totally lost onna the modern audiences, eh?


Like your Kong remake...

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:03 am
by DinoDeLaurentiis
havocSchultz wrote:
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:You bring uppa the good point, eh paisan? You gotta to wonder about a how many pictures there are outta there where a the context, she has a become totally lost onna the modern audiences, eh?


Like your Kong remake...


EXACTLY, no?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:05 am
by havocSchultz
Exactly...

It was so much more than Big Ape Rapes Blond Chick...

No matter what Winslow tries to tell you...

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:07 am
by Fawst
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
Keepcoolbutca re wrote:there's also the political subtext of the morally bankrupt, corrupt capitalistic government angle, which coming on the heels of Watergate was no accident.


You bring uppa the good point, eh paisan? You gotta to wonder about a how many pictures there are outta there where a the context, she has a become totally lost onna the modern audiences, eh?


Not so much lost as taken at face value. And considering nothing much has changed in the "morally bankrupt, corrupt capitalistic" department... it just doesn't have the "Ah-HAH! I see what Spielberg's saying here!" factor anymore. Or whatever movie you're watching that has the same sort of subject matter just below the surface.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:13 am
by Nordling
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:question for the folks who voted for E.T. - do you believe in God? Forgive my impertinence, just curious...


Not really.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:58 am
by HollywoodBabylon
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:question for the folks who voted for E.T. - do you believe in God? Forgive my impertinence, just curious...


Hedging my bets I'll give Bunuel's classic quote: "Thank God I'm an aetheist."

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:30 am
by Seppuku
HollywoodBabylon wrote:
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:question for the folks who voted for E.T. - do you believe in God? Forgive my impertinence, just curious...


Hedging my bets I'll give Bunuel's classic quote: "Thank God I'm an atheist."


Have you ever read Bunuel's "My Last Breath", HB? A film geek friend of mine who's considerably more knowledgable than me swears by it, but I've not heard much about it. I do know it supposedly dishes up a lot of dirt about Hollywood, crazy surrealists and the like, so it sounds like just my kind of read.

Sorry for the off-topic post.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:48 pm
by HollywoodBabylon
seppukudkurosawa wrote:
HollywoodBabylon wrote:
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:question for the folks who voted for E.T. - do you believe in God? Forgive my impertinence, just curious...


Hedging my bets I'll give Bunuel's classic quote: "Thank God I'm an atheist."


Have you ever read Bunuel's "My Last Breath", HB? A film geek friend of mine who's considerably more knowledgable than me swears by it, but I've not heard much about it. I do know it supposedly dishes up a lot of dirt about Hollywood, crazy surrealists and the like, so it sounds like just my kind of read.

Sorry for the off-topic post.


Sepp, yes, I've read it a couple of times - it's pretty short for an autobiography (only about 250 pages) and split into easy chapters. It's the kind of book you can read in one go; a concise and intelligent overview not only of him and his work but also over the surrealist movement itself and his place in it. And, yes, it's sprinkled throughout with an impressive array of 20th Century art and film luminaries who Bunuel's known or encountered along the way. It's also quite an honest and opinionated book as you'd expect, but highly entertaining all the same and I'd definitely recommend it.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:17 pm
by Seppuku
HollywoodBabylon wrote:Sepp, yes, I've read it a couple of times - it's pretty short for an autobiography (only about 250 pages) and split into easy chapters. It's the kind of book you can read in one go; a concise and intelligent overview not only of him and his work but also over the surrealist movement itself and his place in it. And, yes, it's sprinkled throughout with an impressive array of 20th Century art and film luminaries who Bunuel's known or encountered along the way. It's also quite an honest and opinionated book as you'd expect, but highly entertaining all the same and I'd definitely recommend it.


I don't know why, but I knew you must have read it, or at least come across it. Thanks for the rundown and recommendation- I'll definitely try and get a hold of it now. Bunuel rarely held back, and I'm glad he stuck to that ethos in every medium.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:23 pm
by Nordling
Tonight, Turner Classic Movies:

8:00 PM Eastern. SPIELBERG ON SPIELBERG. The Beard talks about his life and films. Followed by letterbox showings of JAWS and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, without commercial interruption.

Yes.