NOW WATCHING
- Thread starter Onhell
- Start date
A
Anonymous
Guest
A Nightmare in Elm Street 2 was on last night (I think channel 5 is showing a series of them this week or something). It went through the usual rigmarole of cliches generally taken for granted in horror films. Quite funny at parts for the over the top acting but the main actor was quite good, I'm not sure what he is called but he was only about 18 or 19. Not recommended unless you are a huge fan of horror movies or a fan of that series at least.
I enjoyed Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire more than the other three movies so far. I felt the special effects to be better and the actors, specifically the three primary ones, are actually learning to deliver their lines properly. The direction was a bit choppy at times, and like all Potter movies, this one felt rushed. I didn't care for the dragon scene - I thought it was too drawn out. There was some good comedy - Fred and George were a riot, just like they should be. But the final bit, especially with Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort...absolutely utterly scary.
Now, if you're looking for a "movie of the season", I highly recommend Chronicles of Narnia. It was, for lack of a better word, perfect. The effects were brilliant, the casting was golden. Tilda Swinson was a perfect Ice Queen. She made me shiver, and however they did her eyes was just perfect. Jim Broadbent as the professor was pretty damn amazing too, but the voice of Liam Neeson as the voice of Aslan was striking. You can't ask for a better voice than Neeson, except for perhaps Sean Connery.
It was near-perfect to the book, and the movie unfolded exactly as Lewis told in the novel. The animation was beautiful - there are points where you cannot tell that Aslan was rendered. And it's lacking in bloodshed, so you can bring a child to see it. One of the greatest stories of the 20th Century has been vividly brought to life.
Now, if you're looking for a "movie of the season", I highly recommend Chronicles of Narnia. It was, for lack of a better word, perfect. The effects were brilliant, the casting was golden. Tilda Swinson was a perfect Ice Queen. She made me shiver, and however they did her eyes was just perfect. Jim Broadbent as the professor was pretty damn amazing too, but the voice of Liam Neeson as the voice of Aslan was striking. You can't ask for a better voice than Neeson, except for perhaps Sean Connery.
It was near-perfect to the book, and the movie unfolded exactly as Lewis told in the novel. The animation was beautiful - there are points where you cannot tell that Aslan was rendered. And it's lacking in bloodshed, so you can bring a child to see it. One of the greatest stories of the 20th Century has been vividly brought to life.
Black Ace
Trooper
I saw "Moartea Domnului Lazarescu" or translated "The Deat of Mr. Lazarescu". It's a Romanian award winning movie (you hardly see that combination nowadays) about a 62 year old dude who one night just feels very sick and calls the ambulance. It's a very indiscriminate, very objective image of Romania, and especially the health care system. If you want a first clue about this place, I strongly recommend this movie. As far as I know, it's been nominated for Best Foregin Film at the Oscars in 2006...
Wicker Man
Trooper
I watched the Exorcism of Emily Rose a few nights ago. It had a few jumpy parts, but I think the scariest thing about it is it's based on a true story.
Wicker Man
Trooper
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Dec 29 2005, 02:40 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Dec 29 2005, 02:40 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Look up the "real" story behind it, it is more amusing than the movie. It's about a German girl back in 1976 that died after a failed exorcism, the priest and her parents were put in jail for "neglect"....
You mean it was just another movie "based" on a true story full of half facts? The ending of the movie doesn't match what you said.
[snapback]126018[/snapback]
[/quote]You mean it was just another movie "based" on a true story full of half facts? The ending of the movie doesn't match what you said.
A
Anonymous
Guest
[!--QuoteBegin-Wicker Man+Dec 31 2005, 04:41 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Wicker Man @ Dec 31 2005, 04:41 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]You mean it was just another movie "based" on a true story full of half facts? The ending of the movie doesn't match what you said.
Yes, the film was based on a true story. The true story -and this is what the producers said too- was the excorcism of Annelise Michel (this was also the working title of the film), a German girl who died during the process in 1976.
The ending of the film is completely fictional, and it is what spoils it for me. It would have been a good film, full of creepy and suspenseful moments, but the end was awful.
As for myself, Under Siege was on last night. It is a surprisingly good and enjoyable action flick with a great villain (Tommy Lee Jones). The plot is rudimentary and there are not as many (good) cool lines as one would want, but it is worth watching.
[snapback]126093[/snapback]
[/quote]Yes, the film was based on a true story. The true story -and this is what the producers said too- was the excorcism of Annelise Michel (this was also the working title of the film), a German girl who died during the process in 1976.
The ending of the film is completely fictional, and it is what spoils it for me. It would have been a good film, full of creepy and suspenseful moments, but the end was awful.
As for myself, Under Siege was on last night. It is a surprisingly good and enjoyable action flick with a great villain (Tommy Lee Jones). The plot is rudimentary and there are not as many (good) cool lines as one would want, but it is worth watching.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
I saw King Kong a couple of nights ago. You know you are an emotional, depressed wreck when you identify with a lonely, misunderstood 25-foot gorilla.... Great movie goes beyond the special effects, reminded me of Jurrasic Park, great story, great special effects both used very effectively. It was so good even Jack Black's cheesy line at the end didn't bother me.
A
Anonymous
Guest
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Jan 4 2006, 06:19 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Jan 4 2006, 06:19 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I saw King Kong a couple of nights ago. You know you are an emotional, depressed wreck when you identify with a lonely, misunderstood 25-foot gorilla....[/quote]
How bizarrely true [!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/blink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'blink.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
I saw it today. It was a great film, but I think it is most enjoyable for those of us who have seen the 1933 original. There are so many puns and references you wouldn't get otherwise. For example, somewhere at the beginning, Jack Black and his assistant are discussing actresses for the film:
"What about Fay?"
"She's filming with Cooper."
Fay Wray was the actress who played Ann Darrow in the '33 original, Merian C. Cooper was the director.
Apart from that, the music the orchestra is playing when Kong is revealed to the public and the "natives" are dancing around him is in fact the score of the original film when the expedition entered Skull Island and found the natives in a Kong ritual.
Some scenes are directly adapted from the original. The scene where Kong fights the people on the fallen tree trunk was an almost exact copy of a scene from the original.
Last but not least, Jack Black's final line "It wasn't the aeroplanes. It was beauty who killed the beast" (which is terribly translated into German), is exactly the same line the character spoke at the end of the original.
There are many other references, but I'd have to watch the original again to verify. Of course, some scenes are similar or have the same dramatic core, for example Ann stealing the apple or the whole final battle of Kong vs the aeroplanes. On the other hand, some things are significantly different. For example, in the original, on the boat, all the sailors have the hots for Ann (and I think some harassed her), while they don't seem to in the remake. And, one very significant difference is that in the original, Carl and Jack knew of Kong, and they had a vague idea of what awaits them on Skull Island, but would not tell Ann; instead they left her in the belief that they're just making another film on a romantic island, while in fact they wanted to do a dramatic documentary.
How bizarrely true [!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/blink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'blink.gif\' /][!--endemo--] I saw it today. It was a great film, but I think it is most enjoyable for those of us who have seen the 1933 original. There are so many puns and references you wouldn't get otherwise. For example, somewhere at the beginning, Jack Black and his assistant are discussing actresses for the film:
"What about Fay?"
"She's filming with Cooper."
Fay Wray was the actress who played Ann Darrow in the '33 original, Merian C. Cooper was the director.
Apart from that, the music the orchestra is playing when Kong is revealed to the public and the "natives" are dancing around him is in fact the score of the original film when the expedition entered Skull Island and found the natives in a Kong ritual.
Some scenes are directly adapted from the original. The scene where Kong fights the people on the fallen tree trunk was an almost exact copy of a scene from the original.
Last but not least, Jack Black's final line "It wasn't the aeroplanes. It was beauty who killed the beast" (which is terribly translated into German), is exactly the same line the character spoke at the end of the original.
There are many other references, but I'd have to watch the original again to verify. Of course, some scenes are similar or have the same dramatic core, for example Ann stealing the apple or the whole final battle of Kong vs the aeroplanes. On the other hand, some things are significantly different. For example, in the original, on the boat, all the sailors have the hots for Ann (and I think some harassed her), while they don't seem to in the remake. And, one very significant difference is that in the original, Carl and Jack knew of Kong, and they had a vague idea of what awaits them on Skull Island, but would not tell Ann; instead they left her in the belief that they're just making another film on a romantic island, while in fact they wanted to do a dramatic documentary.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Here's one for you. The Da Vinci Code. An obvious way of selling out, I mean really if you've read the books you would have noticed:
A. The Da Vinci Code is a sequel to Angels and Demons which is imo a much better book. Why making part two first and later on come with part one, this isn't Star Wars.
B. Robert Langdon is played by Tom Hanks. No offence meant but the picture that I had of Langdon was.. well, whatever it was, not Tom Hanks definately.
They are only setting up a movie of it because it was a best seller (I don't know how people would call it better than Angels and Demons again). But this is selling out in a very bad way.
A. The Da Vinci Code is a sequel to Angels and Demons which is imo a much better book. Why making part two first and later on come with part one, this isn't Star Wars.
B. Robert Langdon is played by Tom Hanks. No offence meant but the picture that I had of Langdon was.. well, whatever it was, not Tom Hanks definately.
They are only setting up a movie of it because it was a best seller (I don't know how people would call it better than Angels and Demons again). But this is selling out in a very bad way.
A
Anonymous
Guest
[!--QuoteBegin-Bunkle+Jan 6 2006, 12:53 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Bunkle @ Jan 6 2006, 12:53 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]B. Robert Langdon is played by Tom Hanks. No offence meant but the picture that I had of Langdon was.. well, whatever it was, not Tom Hanks definately.
You're right there, I would have pictured Tom Cruise or somebody instead.
I have read Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci code and I found both of the books very disappointing. A lot of shady fiction is used and presented as fact and the books seem very patronising to me. If an event has happened and it is even in the slightest bit complicated Dan Brown continues to describe over and over again the implications of the situation. I also find the books cheesy, as though they are trying to be the next James Bond. I won't even bother watching the movie(s).
To avoid a double post, I will tell you that last night I watched Jaws, the Original Speilberg Classic™
It was a decent enough watch but very slow to get started and when it did get going, the special effects were unrealistic and dull. I'm sure that when this was watched back when it was released these effects like the mechanical shark would have been amazing to look at. I seem to have been institutionalised and I can't appreciate this as a pioneering movie.
[snapback]126432[/snapback]
[/quote]You're right there, I would have pictured Tom Cruise or somebody instead.
I have read Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci code and I found both of the books very disappointing. A lot of shady fiction is used and presented as fact and the books seem very patronising to me. If an event has happened and it is even in the slightest bit complicated Dan Brown continues to describe over and over again the implications of the situation. I also find the books cheesy, as though they are trying to be the next James Bond. I won't even bother watching the movie(s).
To avoid a double post, I will tell you that last night I watched Jaws, the Original Speilberg Classic™
It was a decent enough watch but very slow to get started and when it did get going, the special effects were unrealistic and dull. I'm sure that when this was watched back when it was released these effects like the mechanical shark would have been amazing to look at. I seem to have been institutionalised and I can't appreciate this as a pioneering movie.
King Kong: great movie. Gotta love the dinosaur scenes!
Walk The Line: fucking amazing. Phoenix and Witherspoon both deserve Oscars.
Da Vinci Code: I didn't agree with the choice of Hanks either, but he's a thousand times better than Cruise. Then again, Cruise is a dumbshit asswipe who needs to fucking die. My turds are a thousand times better than Cruise. And regarding the books, Angels & Demons is better for most of the book but has a terrible ending. The Da Vinci Code has a much better ending, so it tends to leave a better impression.
Walk The Line: fucking amazing. Phoenix and Witherspoon both deserve Oscars.
Da Vinci Code: I didn't agree with the choice of Hanks either, but he's a thousand times better than Cruise. Then again, Cruise is a dumbshit asswipe who needs to fucking die. My turds are a thousand times better than Cruise. And regarding the books, Angels & Demons is better for most of the book but has a terrible ending. The Da Vinci Code has a much better ending, so it tends to leave a better impression.
national acrobat
Ancient Mariner
[!--QuoteBegin-Bunkle+Jan 6 2006, 01:53 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Bunkle @ Jan 6 2006, 01:53 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]B. Robert Langdon is played by Tom Hanks. No offence meant but the picture that I had of Langdon was.. well, whatever it was, not Tom Hanks definately.
My picture of him was something like Harrison Ford (maybe in his younger days).
I also agree that Angels and Demons is a much better book.
[snapback]126432[/snapback]
[/quote]My picture of him was something like Harrison Ford (maybe in his younger days).
I also agree that Angels and Demons is a much better book.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Finally saw The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Obviously great movie, Loved every second of it. My only complaint was you could tell the dead Aslam was a giant teddy bear lion.
On monday I might see Hostel. I was supposed to see it last night but the buddy i was going with decided not to go and I'm not going alone. So I might convince another friend to go on monday. pom POM POM
Now as it has become tradition in all previous posts here goes: Tom Hanks as the famed symbologist.... I haven't read the books nor intend to, I don't intend to watch the movie either HOWEVER, from what I've heard (my bro LOVED the Da Vinci Code) Hanks definately is NOT fit for such a character, niether is Cruise. One of you mentioned Harrson Ford, I agree that a younger Ford might do it, but I can't think of any up and coming stars or established ones for that matter that might cut it....
On monday I might see Hostel. I was supposed to see it last night but the buddy i was going with decided not to go and I'm not going alone. So I might convince another friend to go on monday. pom POM POM
Now as it has become tradition in all previous posts here goes: Tom Hanks as the famed symbologist.... I haven't read the books nor intend to, I don't intend to watch the movie either HOWEVER, from what I've heard (my bro LOVED the Da Vinci Code) Hanks definately is NOT fit for such a character, niether is Cruise. One of you mentioned Harrson Ford, I agree that a younger Ford might do it, but I can't think of any up and coming stars or established ones for that matter that might cut it....
A
Anonymous
Guest
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Jan 8 2006, 12:18 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Jan 8 2006, 12:18 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Finally saw The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Obviously great movie, Loved every second of it. My only complaint was you could tell the dead Aslam was a giant teddy bear lion.
I read that book in grade 5 [!--emo&--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/blink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'blink.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
[snapback]126561[/snapback]
[/quote]I read that book in grade 5 [!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/blink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'blink.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
A
Anonymous
Guest
The last film I watched was Blade II and I have to say, I rather enjoyed it.
Before that, I think it was Life Of Brian.
You know, that film is, according to Channel 4, the most loved comedy in Britain. Fact.
Well, it was Channel 4, so maybe not.
Before that, I think it was Life Of Brian.
You know, that film is, according to Channel 4, the most loved comedy in Britain. Fact.
Well, it was Channel 4, so maybe not.
More Da Vinci Code debate:
[!--QuoteBegin-national acrobat+Jan 6 2006, 09:27 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(national acrobat @ Jan 6 2006, 09:27 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]My picture of him was something like Harrison Ford (maybe in his younger days).
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Jan 7 2006, 04:18 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Jan 7 2006, 04:18 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]One of you mentioned Harrson Ford, I agree that a younger Ford might do it....
In the book, Langdon is actually described as looking like Harrison Ford.
(But I suspect Dan Brown threw that in with an eye to the movie rights.)
[!--QuoteBegin-national acrobat+Jan 6 2006, 09:27 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(national acrobat @ Jan 6 2006, 09:27 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]My picture of him was something like Harrison Ford (maybe in his younger days).
[snapback]126445[/snapback]
[/quote][!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Jan 7 2006, 04:18 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Jan 7 2006, 04:18 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]One of you mentioned Harrson Ford, I agree that a younger Ford might do it....
[snapback]126561[/snapback]
[/quote]In the book, Langdon is actually described as looking like Harrison Ford.
(But I suspect Dan Brown threw that in with an eye to the movie rights.)