|
|
|
| Author
|
Message |
 
|
|
Yvgar
|
I pity the remake that doesn't have Mr. T.
Foo' |
|
|
Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:30 am |
|
|
ich
|
HAH
 |
_________________
|
|
|
Sun Feb 07, 2010 1:47 pm |
|
|
jadin
|
Nicely done yvgar...
-----
Public Enemies: What a steaming pile of crap.
The acting was decent, the plot was decent, the writing was decent, but the camera, film, lighting, and audio quality were all so horrendous it was impossible to enjoy any of it. It was like watching a film by a youtube user with a sony handycam.
Completely wrecked any suspension of disbelief. |
_________________
This space intentionally left blank. |
|
|
Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:20 pm |
|
|
ich
|
I thought the Book of Eli was BAD.
I really like Gary Oldman though. |
_________________
|
|
|
Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:05 am |
|
|
Dr. Drake
|
| bad in a good way |
_________________
|
|
|
Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:23 pm |
|
|
ich
|
Bad in like it can't break 55 on metacritic bad. And Bad as in 'that 70s show girl can't act' and how the hell does she always all that makeup and perfect hair when they're using KFC wetnaps as currency? (I did like that part)
Tom Waits
is
cool, but...
Mostly I just got really sick of his slow motion walking scenes. |
_________________
|
|
|
Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:08 am |
|
|
Yvgar
|
|
|
Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:25 am |
|
|
ich
|
| Hell yeah. Moodle event for sure. I'll bring my wooden claymore. |
_________________
|
|
|
Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:47 pm |
|
|
jadin
|
I am Legend
** CONTANS SPOILERS **
I was pretty "mehed" by this movie, and now I know why...
quote:
I'm sick of all these adaptations where a cure is made and everything will be alright, then the producers turn around and say they used Matheson's work to make the movie. That is NOTHING what the book was like.
The book was amazing in the fact that spoilers it turns out that Neville is the bad guy, that he is a huge serial killer of the actual populace on earth. The vampires aren't just a blight on the planet, but rather the next step in the evolution of man; Robert was just a dying breed of the past life. That is why he was legend, not because he made a cure (which he didn't), but because he was the last living human on Earth, and his death signaled the switch of power and infrastructure of the life on the planet.
After viewing I am Legend last night, I am just disgusted that not one movie got the actual ending right. Matheson's version of the story is obviously the best, yet no one wants to do it. It makes me angry.
It all makes sense this way. They were intelligent, set out traps to catch him. They broke into his house not to kill him but to free his test subjects etc. He's the 'legend' in _their_ scary stories.
Apparently the original "controversial" ending is on the dvd at least. But really makes you wonder about hollywood execs. They make a movie based on a book with a specific plot, then decide to completely ruin it after test groups don't like it, as if reading the book couldn't help you decide on whether it was a movie worth making to begin with. It's cases like these that I'm hoping for the downfall of hollywood. |
_________________
This space intentionally left blank. |
|
|
Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:08 am |
|
|
Yvgar
|
|
|
Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:24 am |
|
|
Dr. Drake
|
| I totally agree, I never wanted to watch I Am Legend because I knew the original ending and that they changed it like it, it's ridiculous |
_________________
|
|
|
Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:21 pm |
|
|
lorisai
|
The last man on earth was awesome!
Free viewings on Hulu |
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 4:28 pm |
|
|
jadin
|
Thanks for the heads up on Last Man on Earth Yvgar and Lori. Just finished watching it on hulu.
That said, I have such a hard time watching old movies like that. The biggest problem is the pace. Today movies and tv have been "MTVized". Very frequent camera changes if for no other reason than to keep you focused on what's happening. Older stuff like this can stay painfully long on one camera. To go along with this, too many scenes that would be cut from a modern production. Quick example is Vincent Price checking the garlic on his back door, then taking just as long to check the garlic on the front door. Just wasted time in my eyes. I even have this problem watching stuff that is full of awesomeness, such as Dr. Strangelove.
Another problem is the horrendous action. We're spoiled these days by choreographed fight sequences I realize, but it is still almost laughable to watch.
And speaking of horrendous. The acting was atrocious. Acting styles have changed over the years I'm sure, but most of it was so over the top it really ruins your suspension of disbelief.
Vincent: *shakes woman* damn it woman pull yourself together!
Woman: I'm so emotionally unstable I think I'll feint!
Me: *Sighs* I really hope we didn't behave like that in the 50s.
And in regards to Will Smith... While I can't stand some of his in-yo-face mannerisms, he has the capability of being a really good actor. As proof I submit Pursuit of Happyness, and to a lesser degree Seven Pounds. It seems like a good director can really get him to break out of Will Smith as himself, instead of [character name] as portrayed by Will Smith. Of course the best actors can do this without having to push them to get there.
I guess my point is I'll take Will Smith & I Am Legend over Vincent Price & The Last Man on Earth any day of the week. Especially if we go with the "controversial original ending" if it's as good as I imagine it could be to complete the story properly. (Haven't had a chance to see that ending yet) |
_________________
This space intentionally left blank. |
|
|
Fri May 14, 2010 11:52 am |
|
|
Clove
Site Admin
|
I often wonder about dialog and speech when watching old movies.
Like that old-timey fast-talking 50's tone, or style... how much did people talk like that? I think they probably did, for the most part. As much as we talk like contemporary rated-G movies, anyway.
Old fashioned action is great. And terrible. Like when they get shot and there are no squibs and they just seize up, grunt, and fall over. Probably more realistic except for the lack of blood part.
As far as pacing goes, I think that the biggest tragedy of MTV-generation films. For action films and Guy Ritchie movies it makes some sense, but not everything should be so cut up. (And they aren't always.)
Some of the old-style movie pacing was that every scene was very contained. It starts with people entering, they stay things and things happen, they leave. or hang up the phone, or whatever. But it has a beginning middle and end for every scene, each one moving the larger plot along. Now days you jump halfway into a conversation and leave before anything is decided. Am I saying either way is better? No.
But there's a lot to be said for pacing and visuals, most especially in horror and suspense. [Many] New horror movies are just dark, cynical, and jump from one grizzly torture or death scene to the next. They are barely scary other than that they make you not want to ever be where the characters are. They jump out at you with "BOO" scares and loud noises.
Contrast with something like The Exorcist or Halloween or Psycho or Alien where tension is slowly piled on.
A year or two back I rented 2010 (the 2001 sequel with the dude from Jaws), and was pleasantly comforted by the older style (well, 1984) pacing. As far as the rest of the movie goes, I don't recall...
Can this be overdone, yes. 2001 drags out its impressive but now outdated effects scenes to a fault. The end 23 minute scene is hardly necessary. I recall also feeling parts of Dr. Strangelove drag me down. Bladerunner is a great movie but I have a hard time getting through without checking my watch. Though I saw it on the big screen last year and it was much more engaging.
Solaris (Some say boring, I think it's fantastically dreamlike)
There Will Be Blood (and other Paul Thomas Anderson flix)
No Country For Old Men
Anyway Haha my rant was longer than your rant!
-A |
_________________
"...But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won." |
|
|
Sat May 15, 2010 3:46 am |
|
|
jadin
|
I agree with most of what you're saying. But have a few things to reply to.
Old fashioned action - Starman from the 50s/60s, it's so bad it's great.
Pacing - I would say that abuse of fast camera changes is bad, but it's a useful tool if done right. There isn't many examples of older movies that change cameras often, but there are examples of 'slower' paced movies made today that are still enjoyable to watch. No Country for Old Men is a kind of ironic example IMO, since I never would've complained about that movies pacing, so perhaps that's an example of slower pacing done right? The plot moves slow yes, but do the cameras switch slowly also, can't remember.
I've wondered myself if a person from the 50s was to be shown a modern day paced film, what would their reaction be?
The "every scene was contained" thing I understand but don't necessarily agree it belongs in this debate. For example fast pacing doesn't require you to cut off the beginning and ending of a conversation as you describe. But those old movie scenes you describe, a modern day film might cut to different cameras, to record the same event from different angles, to keep the pace 'freshly updated'. I have a feeling most older movies didn't do this, not because they didn't want to, but perhaps because the idea wan't pioneered yet, or perhaps because it just wasn't possible, most films back then were recorded on what, 1 or 2 cameras total? Compared to todays films where we have 3 or 4 running at every moment the film is running? (making these numbers up, but I'm sure you'll agree with the concept)
Horror films - I agree with you here, I dislike the horror films that use the "BOO" moments like you said. However I think there's modern examples where this concept isn't relied on, and some of them wind up extremely frightening. The Ring scared the crap out of me, and some of the scenes that were most frightening were purely psychological, most of the movies build-up in fact. Blair Witch Project another one, heck this one was filmed on a what.. handycam? with no other camera in sight to even switch to. And again the scenes that got me the worst had nothing to do with jumping out and BOO!
In conclusion: I'd say fast pacing is a useful tool that can easily wind up abused, but was something that wasn't possible, or else wasn't pioneered to even try in older days. And for better or worse, my ADD riddled brain is addicted / prefers it.
Do you recall which version of Bladerunner it was? There's been so many different cuts and I'd be interested to see a better one. I believe I watched regular old "director's cut" from the 80s or something, but despite the slow pace at times, I still enjoyed it, perhaps because it was beautiful imagery, something to stare at and change my own focus, even if the camera didn't change it for me. |
_________________
This space intentionally left blank. |
|
|
Sat May 15, 2010 5:23 am |
|
|
Clove
Site Admin
|
Yes, those three were ones I felt were paced done well. No Country later has a pretty intense gun fight, so go figure.
I had Ring on that list but removed it in editing, not sure why since I agree. I'd say that might be the most genuinely scary american movie in recent history. (A broad statement I can't really back up since I haven't seen many. 28 Days Later? Anyone else have ideas?)
Re:
Blade Runner
, my guess is that it was the 1992 Director's Cut. Part of the joy of watching in a theater was that you could really see everything, even in the dark parts, and it's a pretty dark movie. The production design is so detailed it was really engaging to notice it all. Maybe Zinema will screen it. |
_________________
"...But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won." |
|
|
Sun May 16, 2010 2:03 am |
|
|
ich
|
28 Days Later is a british movie. (err well, i guess maybe it was filmed in America, I shouldn't just assume on the actors / setting.) It just felt british.
Never saw The Ring but did see the japanese original Ringu. (that still truly make it an american movie?)
Iron man 2 did not have the magic the first did.
Still want to see the new Nightmare on Elm Street, just 'cause I have to.
and maybe that How to Tame a Dragon or whatever it's called, in 3d.
and Highlander the movie is terribly horribly wonderful. And very hard to find these days. Only one old ma and pa video store in town here had it. (I'm getting old!) |
_________________
|
|
|
Sun May 16, 2010 9:44 am |
|
|
Monster Man ZERO
|
quote:
ich said,
(err well, i guess maybe it was filmed in America, I shouldn't just assume on the actors / setting.) It just felt british.
Your feelings were more than correct. 28 Days Later is a UK film. It was released first November 1st 2002 over in the UK, then not until June 27th 2003 was it released in the U.S.
Can't think of any
really
scary movies I've seen, though I have not seen it myself, I've heard that "Paranormal Activity" is truly scary.
And now, for your enjoyment:
Inappropriate Golden Books!
I know Clove will like #1. |
_________________
[ Monster Man ] .M.
|
|
|
Mon May 17, 2010 4:56 pm |
|
|
Yvgar
|
Iron Man 2 was a disappointment.
I'm hoping Robin Hood will prove more entertaining. |
|
|
|
Mon May 17, 2010 10:31 pm |
|
|
Monster Man ZERO
|
quote:
Yvgar said,
I'm hoping Robin Hood will prove more entertaining.
Already heard that was not as good as it looks apparently. |
_________________
[ Monster Man ] .M.
|
|
|
Tue May 18, 2010 5:02 am |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
< Contact Webmaster - MoodleWeb >
|
MoodleWeb Forum Index
> Social
