GreasyKidsStuffMOMMM!ROAST BEEF WANTS TO KISS GIRLS ON THE TITTIES!Registered Userregular
I'm inclined to agree. Watched Videodrome and The Fly on netflix a few months back and the way he so viscerally brings that horror pertaining to the body into the foreground... it's uncomfortable but incredibly satisfying. I also remember thinking Crash was a real trip, and I'm thinking of watching it again after A Dangerous Method. Eastern Promises and History of Violence are next on my list as well.
Also what's wrong with you people? All the Avengers movies have been fun and competent. Certainly not the best but come on.
To be fair, I haven't seen Captain America yet, so I'll concede that maybe it's a fun time
Thor was okay. Iron Man 2 and The Incredible Hulk were pretty bad, only having one noteworthy scene each (the Iron Man/War Machine party fight, Tim Roth on the super soldier serum).
Iron Man 1 I still consider to be the best superhero film yet, but then they went and blew all that goodwill with Iron Man 2, and The Avengers looks like it will be a terrible alien invasion flick with superheroes. I like Joss Whedon but my biggest fear with The Avengers is that it's going to be all-action, all the time, with so many characters strewn about that there will be no time for actual plot or character development. Which is why you'd bring Joss Whedon in, so he can do his action-scene one-liners. Some people probably think this is okay to do because these characters all had their back stories already done in previous films, but those are the types of films I like to see when seeing a superhero film, and I think that the majority of those in this case (outside of Iron Man 1) were poorly done.
Actually Whedon's talent is writing excellent ensemble casts, not action scenes. He's a good enough writer to make very character unique, everyone gets a time to shine, comedy & tragedy come from the conflicts from interaction.
That and he's excellent directing talent rivaling that of any previous Marvel director.
Read his interviews about Avengers. They'll show why you have nothing to worry about.
Iron Man 2 and Incredible Hulk are inferior to Iron Man 1, Thor and Captain America but they're not bad movies, they're mediocre at best. Sure IM 2 was hurt by setting up Avengers, it were still enjoyable IMO.
It is my theory that IM2 also suffered from a late script change erasing Stark's drinking problem.
When I saw Videodrome I loved the scenes where the crazy trippy nightmare meter was set to maximum, but was pretty bored by the scenes in between, and I was like "hurry up and get to the good stuff." So then I watched Naked Lunch and it was basically Videodrome with all the boring non-trippy stuff removed and I was like yessss
I have no real clue about anything Hunger Games-related other than what I've seen in the trailers, but the gist I'm getting is this: Impoverished people are divided into "zones," every once in a while they hold something called the Hunger Games, a kid from each zone is selected, the winning kid's zone gets more food? Is that it?
Is that it? There has to be more to it than that, right? Some bigger hook? I can't tell if it's just really that straightforward or if this film just has the absolute worst marketing in the world.
The Hunger Games is basically Battle Royale. Last one to survive wins. That's all I know, and I don't particularly care.
It's funny how much attention it's getting when the basic plot has already been done several times over. Battle Royale and The Condemned come to mind, and I'm sure there's more.
Also what's wrong with you people? All the Avengers movies have been fun and competent. Certainly not the best but come on.
To be fair, I haven't seen Captain America yet, so I'll concede that maybe it's a fun time
Thor was okay. Iron Man 2 and The Incredible Hulk were pretty bad, only having one noteworthy scene each (the Iron Man/War Machine party fight, Tim Roth on the super soldier serum).
Iron Man 1 I still consider to be the best superhero film yet, but then they went and blew all that goodwill with Iron Man 2, and The Avengers looks like it will be a terrible alien invasion flick with superheroes. I like Joss Whedon but my biggest fear with The Avengers is that it's going to be all-action, all the time, with so many characters strewn about that there will be no time for actual plot or character development. Which is why you'd bring Joss Whedon in, so he can do his action-scene one-liners. Some people probably think this is okay to do because these characters all had their back stories already done in previous films, but those are the types of films I like to see when seeing a superhero film, and I think that the majority of those in this case (outside of Iron Man 1) were poorly done.
Actually Whedon's talent is writing excellent ensemble casts, not action scenes. He's a good enough writer to make very character unique, everyone gets a time to shine, comedy & tragedy come from the conflicts from interaction.
That and he's excellent directing talent rivaling that of any previous Marvel director.
Read his interviews about Avengers. They'll show why you have nothing to worry about.
Iron Man 2 and Incredible Hulk are inferior to Iron Man 1, Thor and Captain America but they're not bad movies, they're mediocre at best. Sure IM 2 was hurt by setting up Avengers, it were still enjoyable IMO.
It is my theory that IM2 also suffered from a late script change erasing Stark's drinking problem.
Was that the original premise before the Avengers replaced it?
Also what's wrong with you people? All the Avengers movies have been fun and competent. Certainly not the best but come on.
To be fair, I haven't seen Captain America yet, so I'll concede that maybe it's a fun time
Thor was okay. Iron Man 2 and The Incredible Hulk were pretty bad, only having one noteworthy scene each (the Iron Man/War Machine party fight, Tim Roth on the super soldier serum).
Iron Man 1 I still consider to be the best superhero film yet, but then they went and blew all that goodwill with Iron Man 2, and The Avengers looks like it will be a terrible alien invasion flick with superheroes. I like Joss Whedon but my biggest fear with The Avengers is that it's going to be all-action, all the time, with so many characters strewn about that there will be no time for actual plot or character development. Which is why you'd bring Joss Whedon in, so he can do his action-scene one-liners. Some people probably think this is okay to do because these characters all had their back stories already done in previous films, but those are the types of films I like to see when seeing a superhero film, and I think that the majority of those in this case (outside of Iron Man 1) were poorly done.
Actually Whedon's talent is writing excellent ensemble casts, not action scenes. He's a good enough writer to make very character unique, everyone gets a time to shine, comedy & tragedy come from the conflicts from interaction.
That and he's excellent directing talent rivaling that of any previous Marvel director.
Read his interviews about Avengers. They'll show why you have nothing to worry about.
Iron Man 2 and Incredible Hulk are inferior to Iron Man 1, Thor and Captain America but they're not bad movies, they're mediocre at best. Sure IM 2 was hurt by setting up Avengers, it were still enjoyable IMO.
It is my theory that IM2 also suffered from a late script change erasing Stark's drinking problem.
Was that the original premise before the Avengers replaced it?
It was the original premise before sudden radiation poisoning replaced it.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
"Mr. Stark, why are you being an even bigger and more reckless asshole than usual?"
"Oh, it's probably all the power and attention and drama I get from being a well-known superhero exacerbating my alcoholism actually I'm dying for no good reason. It's okay, though, I'll just solve a puzzle and be okay."
'swhy he goes around drinking that green sludge every time he should be drinking booze. It's a shame, too, because the first movie sets it up beautifully by having him drink all the damn time but never making a point of commenting on it.
I have no real clue about anything Hunger Games-related other than what I've seen in the trailers, but the gist I'm getting is this: Impoverished people are divided into "zones," every once in a while they hold something called the Hunger Games, a kid from each zone is selected, the winning kid's zone gets more food? Is that it?
Is that it? There has to be more to it than that, right? Some bigger hook? I can't tell if it's just really that straightforward or if this film just has the absolute worst marketing in the world.
The Hunger Games is basically Battle Royale. Last one to survive wins. That's all I know, and I don't particularly care.
It's funny how much attention it's getting when the basic plot has already been done several times over. Battle Royale and The Condemned come to mind, and I'm sure there's more.
1) Huge budget
2) Huge, built in audience of teenagers
3) Existing sequels to franchise
4) Jennifer Lawrence
5) They're actually pretty good. Suzanne Collins is not the best writer, but she writes a damn fine action scene, and writes a very cinematic action scene. And Katniss is a far more interesting role model than a lot of girls in supposedly YA novels (hi Bella Swan!).
Book spoiler goes here:
She's a girl who rejects marriage and children as a goal entirely. And I say interesting because it's not entirely clear she's a *good* person. She's more a Veronica Mars type of person, which I appreciate.
6) They are really, really funny the way I read them. It is some dark fucking satire on American coverage of the Iraq War in particular. The best description of the Hunger Games is not Battle Royale or anything like that but someone who was watching a LOT of television in the summer of 2003, and decided to merge the war coverage with reality TV because they weren't that dissimilar to begin with. The second one is (intentionally, I think) particularly hilarious.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Also what's wrong with you people? All the Avengers movies have been fun and competent. Certainly not the best but come on.
To be fair, I haven't seen Captain America yet, so I'll concede that maybe it's a fun time
Thor was okay. Iron Man 2 and The Incredible Hulk were pretty bad, only having one noteworthy scene each (the Iron Man/War Machine party fight, Tim Roth on the super soldier serum).
Iron Man 1 I still consider to be the best superhero film yet, but then they went and blew all that goodwill with Iron Man 2, and The Avengers looks like it will be a terrible alien invasion flick with superheroes. I like Joss Whedon but my biggest fear with The Avengers is that it's going to be all-action, all the time, with so many characters strewn about that there will be no time for actual plot or character development. Which is why you'd bring Joss Whedon in, so he can do his action-scene one-liners. Some people probably think this is okay to do because these characters all had their back stories already done in previous films, but those are the types of films I like to see when seeing a superhero film, and I think that the majority of those in this case (outside of Iron Man 1) were poorly done.
Actually Whedon's talent is writing excellent ensemble casts, not action scenes. He's a good enough writer to make very character unique, everyone gets a time to shine, comedy & tragedy come from the conflicts from interaction.
That and he's excellent directing talent rivaling that of any previous Marvel director.
Read his interviews about Avengers. They'll show why you have nothing to worry about.
Iron Man 2 and Incredible Hulk are inferior to Iron Man 1, Thor and Captain America but they're not bad movies, they're mediocre at best. Sure IM 2 was hurt by setting up Avengers, it were still enjoyable IMO.
It is my theory that IM2 also suffered from a late script change erasing Stark's drinking problem.
Was that the original premise before the Avengers replaced it?
It was the original premise before sudden radiation poisoning replaced it.
The radiation poisoning was an interesting angle to go in IMO. Making Tony a potential dead man from his semi-cure with the
mini-tesseract
isn't a bad choice. That said, I'd hope we eventually get to see Tony dealing with his alcoholism.
The drunken fight between Tony and Rhodey practically sets it up for a future movie. Guess they kept that scene from the previous draft with the alcoholism.
Am I the only one who thought Rhodey was being a dick when he effectively stole the War Machine suit at the end with the implication to share that technology with the U.S. military?
Also what's wrong with you people? All the Avengers movies have been fun and competent. Certainly not the best but come on.
To be fair, I haven't seen Captain America yet, so I'll concede that maybe it's a fun time
Thor was okay. Iron Man 2 and The Incredible Hulk were pretty bad, only having one noteworthy scene each (the Iron Man/War Machine party fight, Tim Roth on the super soldier serum).
Iron Man 1 I still consider to be the best superhero film yet, but then they went and blew all that goodwill with Iron Man 2, and The Avengers looks like it will be a terrible alien invasion flick with superheroes. I like Joss Whedon but my biggest fear with The Avengers is that it's going to be all-action, all the time, with so many characters strewn about that there will be no time for actual plot or character development. Which is why you'd bring Joss Whedon in, so he can do his action-scene one-liners. Some people probably think this is okay to do because these characters all had their back stories already done in previous films, but those are the types of films I like to see when seeing a superhero film, and I think that the majority of those in this case (outside of Iron Man 1) were poorly done.
Actually Whedon's talent is writing excellent ensemble casts, not action scenes. He's a good enough writer to make very character unique, everyone gets a time to shine, comedy & tragedy come from the conflicts from interaction.
That and he's excellent directing talent rivaling that of any previous Marvel director.
Read his interviews about Avengers. They'll show why you have nothing to worry about.
Iron Man 2 and Incredible Hulk are inferior to Iron Man 1, Thor and Captain America but they're not bad movies, they're mediocre at best. Sure IM 2 was hurt by setting up Avengers, it were still enjoyable IMO.
It is my theory that IM2 also suffered from a late script change erasing Stark's drinking problem.
Was that the original premise before the Avengers replaced it?
It was the original premise before sudden radiation poisoning replaced it.
The radiation poisoning was an interesting angle to go in IMO. Making Tony a potential dead man from his semi-cure with the
mini-tesseract
isn't a bad choice. That said, I'd hope we eventually get to see Tony dealing with his alcoholism.
The drunken fight between Tony and Rhodey practically sets it up for a future movie. Guess they kept that scene from the previous draft with the alcoholism.
Am I the only one who thought Rhodey was being a dick when he effectively stole the War Machine suit at the end with the implication to share that technology with the U.S. military?
The problem is that none of the things that happen feel organic to his plight. They didn't just keep the Drunken fight. If you watch closely like 75% of the movie would make as much if not more sense if the driving plot was his decent into alcoholism,
The problem isn't necessarily that they changed but that they seem to have changed it at the last minute.
I also have a rant about how they really undercut Whiplash's perceived effectiveness as a villain and how a small rearranging of scenes could have made the movie much better.
Frankly I don't think the part of the movie where Stark hangs with Shield hurt the movie. The aimlessness of the rest of it hurt it.
5) They're actually pretty good. Suzanne Collins is not the best writer, but she writes a damn fine action scene, and writes a very cinematic action scene. And Katniss is a far more interesting role model than a lot of girls in supposedly YA novels (hi Bella Swan!).
What are you talking about? A girl who tries to kill herself when her boyfriends brakes up with her, wants desperately to become something that feeds primarily on blood, and allows her child to be entered into a childbride deal with her best friend is the perfect female role model.
Also what's wrong with you people? All the Avengers movies have been fun and competent. Certainly not the best but come on.
To be fair, I haven't seen Captain America yet, so I'll concede that maybe it's a fun time
Thor was okay. Iron Man 2 and The Incredible Hulk were pretty bad, only having one noteworthy scene each (the Iron Man/War Machine party fight, Tim Roth on the super soldier serum).
Iron Man 1 I still consider to be the best superhero film yet, but then they went and blew all that goodwill with Iron Man 2, and The Avengers looks like it will be a terrible alien invasion flick with superheroes. I like Joss Whedon but my biggest fear with The Avengers is that it's going to be all-action, all the time, with so many characters strewn about that there will be no time for actual plot or character development. Which is why you'd bring Joss Whedon in, so he can do his action-scene one-liners. Some people probably think this is okay to do because these characters all had their back stories already done in previous films, but those are the types of films I like to see when seeing a superhero film, and I think that the majority of those in this case (outside of Iron Man 1) were poorly done.
Actually Whedon's talent is writing excellent ensemble casts, not action scenes. He's a good enough writer to make very character unique, everyone gets a time to shine, comedy & tragedy come from the conflicts from interaction.
That and he's excellent directing talent rivaling that of any previous Marvel director.
Read his interviews about Avengers. They'll show why you have nothing to worry about.
Iron Man 2 and Incredible Hulk are inferior to Iron Man 1, Thor and Captain America but they're not bad movies, they're mediocre at best. Sure IM 2 was hurt by setting up Avengers, it were still enjoyable IMO.
It is my theory that IM2 also suffered from a late script change erasing Stark's drinking problem.
Was that the original premise before the Avengers replaced it?
It was the original premise before sudden radiation poisoning replaced it.
The radiation poisoning was an interesting angle to go in IMO. Making Tony a potential dead man from his semi-cure with the
mini-tesseract
isn't a bad choice. That said, I'd hope we eventually get to see Tony dealing with his alcoholism.
The drunken fight between Tony and Rhodey practically sets it up for a future movie. Guess they kept that scene from the previous draft with the alcoholism.
Am I the only one who thought Rhodey was being a dick when he effectively stole the War Machine suit at the end with the implication to share that technology with the U.S. military?
The problem is that none of the things that happen feel organic to his plight. They didn't just keep the Drunken fight. If you watch closely like 75% of the movie would make as much if not more sense if the driving plot was his decent into alcoholism,
The problem isn't necessarily that they changed but that they seem to have changed it at the last minute.
I also have a rant about how they really undercut Whiplash's perceived effectiveness as a villain and how a small rearranging of scenes could have made the movie much better.
Frankly I don't think the part of the movie where Stark hangs with Shield hurt the movie. The aimlessness of the rest of it hurt it.
Agreed. Hammer was a much more effective villain. Whiplash had occasional scenes where he shined but he wasn't around enough to make a good impression. The final fight was an anti-climax, as well. Stane and Tony's fight in the first film was vastly superior in execution. I loved the drone fights, though.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I don't think The Hunger Games is for me.
The very concept looks patently absurd, and then throw in the tweeny romance angle, the po-faced melodrama, and the ridiculous costumes and you have my anathema.
My cousin loves the book. He's also a Randroid, and did poorly in school.
0
Options
EshTending bar. FFXIV. Motorcycles.Portland, ORRegistered Userregular
I thought there was another movie thread, but I could be wrong. I was looking to post THIS LINK somewhere.
They are showing Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America on Thursday, May 3rd starting at 11:30am before the midnight release of The Avengers. $40 tickets and you get one of four special 3D glasses I believe.
40 bucks for one good movie? What a ripoff.
Strange that they're sticking The Hulk in there since whichever of the two it is, it's out of canon with the other films.
Is it really? I mean aside from a different actor, isn't the latest Hulk still canon? Tony Stark shows up at the end, right?
I actually skipped that one, I just figured since they made such a big deal about switching out the lead actor. Not that's exactly a telling sign or anything.
The very concept looks patently absurd, and then throw in the tweeny romance angle, the po-faced melodrama, and the ridiculous costumes and you have my anathema.
Absurd concepts are normal for Hollywood. The Marvel movies are all absurd yet they're well executed, excluding a few.
'bum's post sold it perfectly. This isn't Twilight. Romance will be there, but it hopefully won't dominate the plot too much.
That said, tastes vary.
My cousin loves the book. He's also a Randroid, and did poorly in school.
I'm starting to get interested in the property and I'm not Randroid or did poorly in school. :twisted:
I mean, I have no interest in it by any means, but I'm getting the sense that this movie isn't going to be nearly as big as the people behind it would expect it to be.
Hell just by it being discussed here by people who have no interest in going to see it lets you know It's going to be a massive opening. When did anyone discuss that John Carter movie a week in advance around here? It was "Oh that opened last week? Hmm looks decent I guess".
Frankly the Hunger Games is huge with the 4th-8th grade set, my 11 year old daughter and all her little cronies have read it about 3 times already. My wife is a 5th grade teacher and has like 20 copies of the book in her room for students to borrow and they're perpetually loaned out, they all just go apeshit for it. Like someone mentioned there's entire schools going to the premiere on field trips and that's happening around here too (but not at my wife/kid's school).
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Has anyone seen Casa De Mi Padre? I've got the day off tomorrow and I'm thinking of seeing it, but at the same time people are saying 21 Jump Street is actually very funny and not as dumb as the trailers made it out to be.
The very concept looks patently absurd, and then throw in the tweeny romance angle, the po-faced melodrama, and the ridiculous costumes and you have my anathema.
My cousin loves the book. He's also a Randroid, and did poorly in school.
The romantic plot is much less than most people are making it out to be.
Katniss doesn't want a romantic relationship with either of the two leads and is constantly annoyed with the fact that they want to be more than friends.
She does have a crisis of feelings late in the 2nd book that carries over into the 3rd, but it's not a big deal.
The books are much more about the politics and rebellion, than they are about a love triangle.
I thought there was another movie thread, but I could be wrong. I was looking to post THIS LINK somewhere.
They are showing Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America on Thursday, May 3rd starting at 11:30am before the midnight release of The Avengers. $40 tickets and you get one of four special 3D glasses I believe.
40 bucks for one good movie? What a ripoff.
Strange that they're sticking The Hulk in there since whichever of the two it is, it's out of canon with the other films.
Is it really? I mean aside from a different actor, isn't the latest Hulk still canon? Tony Stark shows up at the end, right?
I actually skipped that one, I just figured since they made such a big deal about switching out the lead actor. Not that's exactly a telling sign or anything.
The Edward Norton Hulk was pretty fun and it had a great villain.
You can tell that Norton was having a good time and wasn't just looking for a paycheck.
I'd give it a watch.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I mean, I have no interest in it by any means, but I'm getting the sense that this movie isn't going to be nearly as big as the people behind it would expect it to be.
My little brother's 7th grade class is going to it on opening day. Where were these things when I was going to school?
Whoa, what?
I have never heard of a public school class going to see a movie for a field trip
Theaters have to love that kind of guaranteed business though, I guess. Reminds me of when local churches were buying out entire theaters for The Passion of the Christ and handing out tickets to churchgoers, telling them to bring friends.
7th grade we got taken to Fellowship of the Ring, it was a solid field trip
In 10th grade we went to a screening of Schindler's List.
21 Jump Street is impossibly funny. It is delightfully irreverent at the least expected times and so completely self-aware that it just destroys the tropes that are usually expected from such a film.
There was a definite divide in the theater between the people who were expecting something scatological and simplistic though so I'm sure the reviews will be polarized.
Really fantastic movie. I actually start laughing again just reading about scenes.
I also have to say the movie is nothing like the trailers.
The very concept looks patently absurd, and then throw in the tweeny romance angle, the po-faced melodrama, and the ridiculous costumes and you have my anathema.
My cousin loves the book. He's also a Randroid, and did poorly in school.
The romantic plot is much less than most people are making it out to be.
Katniss doesn't want a romantic relationship with either of the two leads and is constantly annoyed with the fact that they want to be more than friends.
She does have a crisis of feelings late in the 2nd book that carries over into the 3rd, but it's not a big deal.
The books are much more about the politics and rebellion, than they are about a love triangle.
That might be changed in the film to appeal to the Twilight crowd.
The very concept looks patently absurd, and then throw in the tweeny romance angle, the po-faced melodrama, and the ridiculous costumes and you have my anathema.
My cousin loves the book. He's also a Randroid, and did poorly in school.
The romantic plot is much less than most people are making it out to be.
Katniss doesn't want a romantic relationship with either of the two leads and is constantly annoyed with the fact that they want to be more than friends.
She does have a crisis of feelings late in the 2nd book that carries over into the 3rd, but it's not a big deal.
The books are much more about the politics and rebellion, than they are about a love triangle.
That might be changed in the film to appeal to the Twilight crowd.
I'm not so sure.
Gary Ross campaigned heavily to get this directing gig as he was a big fan of the books and I think between him and the built-in audience, there is enough hype that it wouldn't need to pander.
The very concept looks patently absurd, and then throw in the tweeny romance angle, the po-faced melodrama, and the ridiculous costumes and you have my anathema.
My cousin loves the book. He's also a Randroid, and did poorly in school.
The romantic plot is much less than most people are making it out to be.
Katniss doesn't want a romantic relationship with either of the two leads and is constantly annoyed with the fact that they want to be more than friends.
She does have a crisis of feelings late in the 2nd book that carries over into the 3rd, but it's not a big deal.
The books are much more about the politics and rebellion, than they are about a love triangle.
That might be changed in the film to appeal to the Twilight crowd.
I'm not so sure.
Gary Ross campaigned heavily to get this directing gig as he was a big fan of the books and I think between him and the built-in audience, there is enough hype that it wouldn't need to pander.
That only matters if he has the power to do it. Does he?
For anyone that's interested in The Hunger Games, I'd suggest just reading the book. It's short, easily digestible in an afternoon, and should completely rid you of any interest in the movie.
I assume that he carries some decent clout in Hollywood. Has he made a poorly received movie yet?
That's not always enough. Riami had some power, Sony still fucked him in the end. The only directors with definite power over studio's are Nolan, Speilberg and Cameron. There are probably others but they're the obvious ones. I'd include Bay only (with the Transformers franchise anyway) I doubt Speilberg gives a fuck what he does.
Hunger Games is currently 100% at rottentomatoes (with some top critics chiming in, so it's not just pre-screening nerds who usually boost ratings early). I'm looking forward to it. It is absurd sure, but much of the pre-release internet bile aimed at it thus far seems to be of the "Sure it's nerd stuff, but it's nerd stuff for girls." variety, which isn't really fair.
So there's this movie I saw a trailer for a while ago, and it looks awesome but I can't remember the name. It's this dude right? And he hunts down cyborgs and he's like, a TOTAL BADASS despite being an ordinary human. No big name actors, 80s or 90s I think. I read a review once that said it was a pretty good B-movie.
You give Joss Whedon $220 million, near-total creative control, and 135 minutes of running time to work with and I guarantee you it will be awesome. I don't care if it's about a dude reading a phone book.
I haven't read The Hunger Games but I've heard it's a shitload better than Twilight, so I will go see the film with my wife.
Prometheus is probably my most-anticipated movie this year, behind maybe The Hobbit.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Yeah, I'm sorry but if anything the Hunger Games is almost an anti-romance novel(s). At least, from the point of view of the main character.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Also, and sorry for double posting, for some reason my edit button is blocked, the books remind me more of Stephen King's the Long Walk then anything, which may be why I have a soft spot for them, since that's my favorite King novel... although I haven't read Battle Royale.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
The very concept looks patently absurd, and then throw in the tweeny romance angle, the po-faced melodrama, and the ridiculous costumes and you have my anathema.
My cousin loves the book. He's also a Randroid, and did poorly in school.
The romantic plot is much less than most people are making it out to be.
Katniss doesn't want a romantic relationship with either of the two leads and is constantly annoyed with the fact that they want to be more than friends.
She does have a crisis of feelings late in the 2nd book that carries over into the 3rd, but it's not a big deal.
The books are much more about the politics and rebellion, than they are about a love triangle.
That might be changed in the film to appeal to the Twilight crowd.
I'm not so sure.
Gary Ross campaigned heavily to get this directing gig as he was a big fan of the books and I think between him and the built-in audience, there is enough hype that it wouldn't need to pander.
Why is it that I get chills every time I read those words coming from a director?
They never seem to lead to anything good.
21 Jump Street is impossibly funny. It is delightfully irreverent at the least expected times and so completely self-aware that it just destroys the tropes that are usually expected from such a film.
There was a definite divide in the theater between the people who were expecting something scatological and simplistic though so I'm sure the reviews will be polarized.
Really fantastic movie. I actually start laughing again just reading about scenes.
I also have to say the movie is nothing like the trailers.
Reviews were actually very positive.
This was a movie that I figured would be kinda funny but completely blew away every expectation I had. There were more than a couple scenes that kept the jokes coming so quickly that I couldn't breathe.
Posts
It is my theory that IM2 also suffered from a late script change erasing Stark's drinking problem.
edit: also also also
It's funny how much attention it's getting when the basic plot has already been done several times over. Battle Royale and The Condemned come to mind, and I'm sure there's more.
Was that the original premise before the Avengers replaced it?
It was the original premise before sudden radiation poisoning replaced it.
"Oh, it's probably all the power and attention and drama I get from being a well-known superhero exacerbating my alcoholism actually I'm dying for no good reason. It's okay, though, I'll just solve a puzzle and be okay."
'swhy he goes around drinking that green sludge every time he should be drinking booze. It's a shame, too, because the first movie sets it up beautifully by having him drink all the damn time but never making a point of commenting on it.
1) Huge budget
2) Huge, built in audience of teenagers
3) Existing sequels to franchise
4) Jennifer Lawrence
5) They're actually pretty good. Suzanne Collins is not the best writer, but she writes a damn fine action scene, and writes a very cinematic action scene. And Katniss is a far more interesting role model than a lot of girls in supposedly YA novels (hi Bella Swan!).
Book spoiler goes here:
6) They are really, really funny the way I read them. It is some dark fucking satire on American coverage of the Iraq War in particular. The best description of the Hunger Games is not Battle Royale or anything like that but someone who was watching a LOT of television in the summer of 2003, and decided to merge the war coverage with reality TV because they weren't that dissimilar to begin with. The second one is (intentionally, I think) particularly hilarious.
The radiation poisoning was an interesting angle to go in IMO. Making Tony a potential dead man from his semi-cure with the
Am I the only one who thought Rhodey was being a dick when he effectively stole the War Machine suit at the end with the implication to share that technology with the U.S. military?
The problem is that none of the things that happen feel organic to his plight. They didn't just keep the Drunken fight. If you watch closely like 75% of the movie would make as much if not more sense if the driving plot was his decent into alcoholism,
The problem isn't necessarily that they changed but that they seem to have changed it at the last minute.
I also have a rant about how they really undercut Whiplash's perceived effectiveness as a villain and how a small rearranging of scenes could have made the movie much better.
Frankly I don't think the part of the movie where Stark hangs with Shield hurt the movie. The aimlessness of the rest of it hurt it.
What are you talking about? A girl who tries to kill herself when her boyfriends brakes up with her, wants desperately to become something that feeds primarily on blood, and allows her child to be entered into a childbride deal with her best friend is the perfect female role model.
Agreed. Hammer was a much more effective villain. Whiplash had occasional scenes where he shined but he wasn't around enough to make a good impression. The final fight was an anti-climax, as well. Stane and Tony's fight in the first film was vastly superior in execution. I loved the drone fights, though.
The very concept looks patently absurd, and then throw in the tweeny romance angle, the po-faced melodrama, and the ridiculous costumes and you have my anathema.
My cousin loves the book. He's also a Randroid, and did poorly in school.
I actually skipped that one, I just figured since they made such a big deal about switching out the lead actor. Not that's exactly a telling sign or anything.
Absurd concepts are normal for Hollywood. The Marvel movies are all absurd yet they're well executed, excluding a few.
'bum's post sold it perfectly. This isn't Twilight. Romance will be there, but it hopefully won't dominate the plot too much.
That said, tastes vary.
I'm starting to get interested in the property and I'm not Randroid or did poorly in school. :twisted:
Hell just by it being discussed here by people who have no interest in going to see it lets you know It's going to be a massive opening. When did anyone discuss that John Carter movie a week in advance around here? It was "Oh that opened last week? Hmm looks decent I guess".
Frankly the Hunger Games is huge with the 4th-8th grade set, my 11 year old daughter and all her little cronies have read it about 3 times already. My wife is a 5th grade teacher and has like 20 copies of the book in her room for students to borrow and they're perpetually loaned out, they all just go apeshit for it. Like someone mentioned there's entire schools going to the premiere on field trips and that's happening around here too (but not at my wife/kid's school).
I felt like the hunger games gave it a much more "reasonable" plot/backstory to the set up.
She does have a crisis of feelings late in the 2nd book that carries over into the 3rd, but it's not a big deal.
The books are much more about the politics and rebellion, than they are about a love triangle.
You can tell that Norton was having a good time and wasn't just looking for a paycheck.
I'd give it a watch.
In 10th grade we went to a screening of Schindler's List.
There was a definite divide in the theater between the people who were expecting something scatological and simplistic though so I'm sure the reviews will be polarized.
Really fantastic movie. I actually start laughing again just reading about scenes.
I also have to say the movie is nothing like the trailers.
That might be changed in the film to appeal to the Twilight crowd.
Gary Ross campaigned heavily to get this directing gig as he was a big fan of the books and I think between him and the built-in audience, there is enough hype that it wouldn't need to pander.
That only matters if he has the power to do it. Does he?
That's not always enough. Riami had some power, Sony still fucked him in the end. The only directors with definite power over studio's are Nolan, Speilberg and Cameron. There are probably others but they're the obvious ones. I'd include Bay only (with the Transformers franchise anyway) I doubt Speilberg gives a fuck what he does.
I haven't read The Hunger Games but I've heard it's a shitload better than Twilight, so I will go see the film with my wife.
Prometheus is probably my most-anticipated movie this year, behind maybe The Hobbit.
Why is it that I get chills every time I read those words coming from a director?
They never seem to lead to anything good.
Reviews were actually very positive.
This was a movie that I figured would be kinda funny but completely blew away every expectation I had. There were more than a couple scenes that kept the jokes coming so quickly that I couldn't breathe.