Films Thread

[Balta1701]

Some talk in the ether about a possible Arrested Development movie. If the strike ever ends.

[NorthSideSox72]

I would disagree (though I've not seen No Country), mostly because HW chooses to reject his father, and I think that is affirmative. I do see your point though, in many ways, I think the journey that HW makes should mirror the journey of the viewer (or at least that's how I felt).

You know, that's very interesting. As I mentioned earlier, those two characters are like observers/journalists in the literary sense. So they do work as a lens for the viewer - and that makes sense with their roles being that of the viewer's perspective. Nice connection you made there.

 

[Kalapse]

Some talk in the ether about a possible Arrested Development movie. If the strike ever ends.

 

The fact that they had to cut the third season almost in half still pisses me off. A show as good as AD deserves a proper send off, (after say the 12th season or so) hopefully they can get this thing into production and end the story on their terms.

[BigSqwert]

 

The fact that they had to cut the third season almost in half still pisses me off. A show as good as AD deserves a proper send off, (after say the 12th season or so) hopefully they can get this thing into production and end the story on their terms.

Amen

[YASNY]

"Rambo" sucks. Not much more than a lot of graphic violence.

[Jimbo's Drinker]

"Rambo" sucks. Not much more than a lot of graphic violence.

 

thats what she said.

[sox4lifeinPA]

"Rambo" sucks. Not much more than a lot of graphic violence.

 

 

Pfft.

 

Stalone backwards is "enolats."

 

those of you with 3 years of Latin under your belt know that means: "graphic violence".

 

Were you really looking for a story?

[sox4lifeinPA]

thats what she said.

 

 

[3E8]

Read it again.

 

He said that he liked Grandma's Boy.

Yeah but in the context he used it, he made it seem like he's the only one who likes it. It's hilarious though.

[BobDylan]

Alright. I saw Cloverfield. If it's not the worst movie I've ever seen, it's in the top 5 of the worst. It was basically a remake of The Blair Witch Project and Godzilla smacked together in one film. The decisions the characters made were ridiculous and downright idiotic. Why they thought it was a good idea to string on a love story, the only backstory being that they made love once, is beyond me. Why they didn't ditch the camera after 10 minutes of seeing what was going on, again, beyond me.

Why at the very end of the movie, the initial camera man was chewed up and spit out by the beast, yet the two other characters thought it was a good idea to go back and see if he was okay, and all the while, the beast just lets them do it, as well, beyond me.

Why I made a spoiler alert for such a terrible movie is beyond me as well.

 

If you haven't seen this movie yet, do yourself a favor and wait until you can catch it on TBS in 5-10 years.

Edited February 7, 2008 by BobDylan

[BobDylan]

It seemed that Daniel was the protagonist. It also made sense that Upton Sinclair, of The Jungle fame, wrote the book Oil that this mnovie was based on. The evil person was a pro business millionaire who harmed his employees and the Minister renounced Jesus at the end and said he was a false prophet etc. Much like the evil businesses and Socialism in The Jungle

 

The book and the film are so drastically different it's not even funny. P.T. Anderson just took themes from the book and parts of Sinclair's plot skeleton and did what he wanted to do. The same basic theme is there for both film and book, but it's as if the two stories had never met each other.

[santo=dorf]

Alright. I saw Cloverfield. If it's not the worst movie I've ever seen, it's in the top 5 of the worst. It was basically a remake of The Blair Witch Project and Godzilla smacked together in one film. The decisions the characters made were ridiculous and downright idiotic. Why they thought it was a good idea to string on a love story, the only backstory being that they made love once, is beyond me. Why they didn't ditch the camera after 10 minutes of seeing what was going on, again, beyond me.

Why at the very end of the movie, the initial camera man was chewed up and spit out by the beast, yet the two other characters thought it was a good idea to go back and see if he was okay, and all the while, the beast just lets them do it, as well, beyond me.

Why I made a spoiler alert for such a terrible movie is beyond me as well.

 

If you haven't seen this movie yet, do yourself a favor and wait until you can catch it on TBS in 5-10 years.

Wow, and this is AFTER you slammed "There Will Be Blood."

 

Just what are your movies interests?

[bmags]

Saw "There Will Be Blood" last night. Having read the book as well, "Oil!," the two stories aren't even remotely close. There Will Be Blood has very little substance compared to the book. P.T. Anderson seemed to have more interest in Daniel Plainfield than what actually made the story work for Upton Sinclair's novel--the oil business is corrupt and thereforre it makes the businessman corrupt. The movie made it seem as Daniel Plainfield is corrupt, therefore the business is corrupt.

 

The movie also gave very little attention to the religious aspects of the novel. Only in the ending scene do we get even a glimpse of what the church is, but Sinclair follows Eli and his brother Paul quite closely throughout the novel. P.T. Anderson also gives us a very different take of the father/son relationship than Sinclair did. H.W. isn't necissarily a tool for Daniel by Sinclair's storytelling.

 

I'm a big P.T. Anderson fan, but he screwed this one up. There was a lot of good stuff in the novel that Anderson left out and he took good characters and made them into his own, essentially 1D characters. Daniel Day Lewis gave a great acting performance, but Anderson put together a limiting story and one that didn't have much to say.

 

I can't say how much I disagree with this. For one, any director with any brain should not ever feel an obligation to his source of inspiration, if he wanted to recreate the novel he would've named it Oil. This wasn't meant to be made in the same way as atonement. There's really little point to a movie about the corrupt oil industry of the turn of the 20th century, but this movie about humanity isolation and greed is forever potent. The dinner scene where he says 'I'm finished' was one of the best scenes I've seen in a long time.

[BobDylan]

Wow, and this is AFTER you slammed "There Will Be Blood."

 

Just what are your movies interests?

 

I loved P.T. Anderson's first four movies. (Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love.) There Will Be Blood wasn't terrible, but it's just another display that movies should stop adapting books. They're different forms of storytelling and you can get away with things in prose that you can't with a camera, and vice versa. I've found that most of my favorite movies, with only the exception of two (No Country for Old Men, The Shining), are all original screenplays. And those two exceptions are by some of the greatest American film directors of all-time.

[BobDylan]

I can't say how much I disagree with this. For one, any director with any brain should not ever feel an obligation to his source of inspiration, if he wanted to recreate the novel he would've named it Oil. This wasn't meant to be made in the same way as atonement. There's really little point to a movie about the corrupt oil industry of the turn of the 20th century, but this movie about humanity isolation and greed is forever potent. The dinner scene where he says 'I'm finished' was one of the best scenes I've seen in a long time.

 

Have you read the book? It's easy to say that without reading the book.

 

If there's no obligation to the source of inspiration, why credit the book at all? It's obvious Anderson pulled moments from the book and smacked them on screen. He did a poor job of it.

Edited February 7, 2008 by BobDylan

[StrangeSox]

I didn't watch the movie, but with the tv spots and trailers....how can Meet the Spartans take in tops at the box office? Horrible waste of film and talent

 

Movies like this just make me sad. They're not even spoofs in the same vein that Neilson and Brooks films are. They just recreate a scene from a movie or make a pop-culture reference, add in a fart/ gay joke, and call it a day. I don't understand how these writers keep getting paid.

Edited February 7, 2008 by StrangeSox

[DrunkBomber]

I just watched Superbad and aside from the part about the kid with the addiction to drawing dicks it was pretty terrible.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I just watched Superbad and aside from the part about the kid with the addiction to drawing dicks it was pretty terrible.

 

 

Pretty much, but I loved that part. And the compilation of drawings for the closing credits had be rolling.

 

The McLovin was kinda funny too.

[The Bones]

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

 

This movie was amazing! Watch it!

[bmags]

Have you read the book? It's easy to say that without reading the book.

 

If there's no obligation to the source of inspiration, why credit the book at all? It's obvious Anderson pulled moments from the book and smacked them on screen. He did a poor job of it.

 

because then it's plagiarism. I'm saying he has no obligation to stick to the book. Hitchcock's average work, Rebecca, he was forced to stick to the book too much. His fantastic works were inspired by not-well known novels he didn't have to pander to the hysterical fanbases of "BUT THAT WASN'T IN THE BOOK"

[CWSGuy406]

 

The fact that they had to cut the third season almost in half still pisses me off. A show as good as AD deserves a proper send off, (after say the 12th season or so) hopefully they can get this thing into production and end the story on their terms.

 

The thing is, them only having 3 seasons sorts of make you appreciate it all the more.

 

Plus, I have this (untested and rather random, if I may say so) theory about most TV series... a majority of them reach a point where they just run out of 'funny'. This is all completely subjective, but I've seen it happen with two of the series' I used to cling to -- The Office and Entourage*. The Simpsons, IMO, is the longest standing one -- perhaps Seinfeld is close or better? -- that maintained its 'funny'. Otherwise, Curb Your Enthusiasm is still decent but (IMO) not as good as the earlier seasons.

 

I'm walking a very fine line of subjectivity here, too, that's why I added a couple IMOs up there. I'm fairly certain Arrested Development could've maintained some good 'funny' for at least another season or two, but -- just like the new Strokes album that will probably come out sometime in 2009 -- I'm fearful that for a crappy A.D. movie.

 

That being said... I have to say I'm very excited to see them doing this as I would definitely see that movie the day it came out in theatres. And I should probably have more faith in the guys who made (what I consider) the best comedy series ever.

 

*I've always considered Entourage more of a 'drama' than a comedy, but I still say that the show has gotten progressively worse.

Edited February 8, 2008 by CWSGuy406

[BobDylan]

because then it's plagiarism. I'm saying he has no obligation to stick to the book. Hitchcock's average work, Rebecca, he was forced to stick to the book too much. His fantastic works were inspired by not-well known novels he didn't have to pander to the hysterical fanbases of "BUT THAT WASN'T IN THE BOOK"

 

His work was probably average because the book was unfilmable. Look at what Kubrick said about Lolita. They're different arts, both can do certain things the other can't. We're not talking about music covers here. And generally, if a musician covers a song, they keep the lyrics in tact one way or another. That's not usually the case with film. Anderson has no obligation to stick to the book, no, but if he's going to take scenes from the book and paint them into his own "vision," then I'm going to scrutinize him for tearing apart a good story because I know what the story is. It's easy to say the film is good if you haven't read the book. It always is. There's nothing to compare it to. But if you're going to adapt a book, then the book has already set the bar for what the quality is. That's not my fault, and every director knows that when he's adapting a book, he has that certain challenge of at least matching the storytelling of the novelist regardless of if he changes the story around or not. It's the same with song covers. P.T. Anderson didn't do it in this case. In fact, he fell quite short.

 

The shame with "There Will Be Blood" is that a lot of people now want to read the book. They're going to get something entirely different (albeit better). It's a tragedy that it takes a movie to get somebody to read a book. It's not like nobody has heard of Upton Sinclair.

 

And I've seen films adapt books that didn't stay true and turn out well. The Shining, for instance. It's not impossible, but I challenge you, and everyone, to show me five examples where the film was better than the book.

Edited February 8, 2008 by BobDylan

[shipps]

Finally seen Juno last night.Am I wierd for having the expectations of having pure silence out of all the movie goers?There was like a family of 15 that were there and most of the kids were under the age of 8 and they could give a s**t about Juno.They talked through the whole damn thing!And shouldnt there be like a popcorn fetching etiquette?Why do I have to listen to your fingers touch every god damn piece of popcorn in the bag until you decide that you you have picked a superior handful!?

[santo=dorf]

Finally seen Juno last night.Am I wierd for having the expectations of having pure silence out of all the movie goers?There was like a family of 15 that were there and most of the kids were under the age of 8 and they could give a s**t about Juno.They talked through the whole damn thing!And shouldnt there be like a popcorn fetching etiquette?Why do I have to listen to your fingers touch every god damn piece of popcorn in the bag until you decide that you you have picked a superior handful!?

That's how it was when I went on a friday night except it was completely packed in a huge theatre with that s***. "Look he has a racecar bed!"

 

 

Just got an e-mail from Netflix today saying they're going with Blu-Ray.

[BobDylan]

Finally seen Juno last night.Am I wierd for having the expectations of having pure silence out of all the movie goers?There was like a family of 15 that were there and most of the kids were under the age of 8 and they could give a s**t about Juno.They talked through the whole damn thing!And shouldnt there be like a popcorn fetching etiquette?Why do I have to listen to your fingers touch every god damn piece of popcorn in the bag until you decide that you you have picked a superior handful!?

 

Depending on where you live, there are theatres to avoid that. They don't usually show mainstream movies, but Juno would be at one of these places.

 

Anyone have any word on the independant movie theatre that was opening up in the loop? Maybe it's already open and I missed it?