So I just watched The Birds just now. Really good plot, even with the useless romance taking up 60% of it. It probably could have benefited from the original scripted ending, although it's pretty obvious that they didn't have the effects to pull it off, which was true of most of the film and the main drawback (and disbelief breaker). This is one film that could benefit from a line-by-line remake/invasive remastering. Put in some more convincing attack effects instead of moving around little cutout images and add some more serious injuries, and you've got a fantastic/perfect film.
I don't know if it would have the same weight, however. The Birds really was a summation of everything Hitchcock had done that came before it and then got followed by a lot of unsatisfactory films that meandered and waffled about.
Well, he only made 5 more movies after The Birds. And it's true, most of them were pretty bad (although I haven't seen Marnie). He did make Frenzy during that time, however, which is a really good movie, probably second-tier Hitchcock. Essentially it was his "The Departed"--an energetic return to the genre he was known for.
So I just watched The Birds just now. Really good plot, even with the useless romance taking up 60% of it. It probably could have benefited from the original scripted ending, although it's pretty obvious that they didn't have the effects to pull it off, which was true of most of the film and the main drawback (and disbelief breaker). This is one film that could benefit from a line-by-line remake/invasive remastering. Put in some more convincing attack effects instead of moving around little cutout images and add some more serious injuries, and you've got a fantastic/perfect film.
I don't know if it would have the same weight, however. The Birds really was a summation of everything Hitchcock had done that came before it and then got followed by a lot of unsatisfactory films that meandered and waffled about.
Well, he only made 5 more movies after The Birds. And it's true, most of them were pretty bad (although I haven't seen Marnie). He did make Frenzy during that time, however, which is a really good movie, probably second-tier Hitchcock. Essentially it was his "The Departed"--an energetic return to the genre he was known for.
Marnie's weird.
It's Tippy Hedrin and Sean Connery, and Connery is at his charmingest peak, but the movie really doesn't know what it's trying to do. It's thriller, then it's a romantic comedy, then it's a heist film, then it's a melodrama . . . all leading to a climax that wants to desperately be more profound than it really is.
Well, it's clear what Marniewants to be which is the ultimate deconstruction of Hitchcock's usage of ice queen blondes; it's just a mess, had already been done in every other movie he made, and it bears the stench of Hitchcock buying into auteur theory and making films in that vein.
Then it was followed by that one with Paul Newman and Julie Andrews which was bad considering things like The Quiller Memorandum coming out, and because, for every good scene, it has something totally bizarre like a rear-projected scene of them dining at a cafe. I want to ask him why he did that more than anything else.
He may have tried for auteur theory because he had spent such a long time under the popular opinion that he made vulgar-type films. To quote Wikipedia on Vertigo:
Variety said the film showed Hitchcock's "mastery", but was too long and slow for "what is basically only a psychological murder mystery".... In the 1950s, the French Cahiers du cinéma critics began re-evaluating Hitchcock as a serious artist rather than just a populist showman.
Basically, he'd been dealing with the same crap as the NYTimes Avengers review (which, to remind, was basically "sure, it has good acting, dialogue, and plot, but it's still an explosion movie.").
Battleship is brilliant because because it's a basic writing prompt that actually got made. The next movie will probably be "The Words X, Y, and Z in an Essay."
Tonight's movie was You Can't Take It With You, which is basically the archetype for every snooty-family-meets-cloudcookulanders-and-learns-what's-really-important story, and so has all the associated flaws.
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Tonight's movie was You Can't Take It With You, which is basically the archetype for every snooty-family-meets-cloudcookulanders-and-learns-what's-really-important story, and so has all the associated flaws.
I hated it when I saw the play, so I can't imagine a filmed version is any better.
I loathe films with that snob-vs-slobs BS. They so very rarely ever point out the realities of those conflicts. The one and only time I ever had someone seriously ask me, "Hey! You think you're better than me?", I really felt that I was. She was scumbag who kidnapped an old crippled man to steal his Social Security check and forced him to live in a van with herself and three dogs.
So I just watched The Birds just now. Really good plot, even with the useless romance taking up 60% of it. It probably could have benefited from the original scripted ending, although it's pretty obvious that they didn't have the effects to pull it off, which was true of most of the film and the main drawback (and disbelief breaker). This is one film that could benefit from a line-by-line remake/invasive remastering. Put in some more convincing attack effects instead of moving around little cutout images and add some more serious injuries, and you've got a fantastic/perfect film.
So I just watched The Birds just now. Really good plot, even with the useless romance taking up 60% of it. It probably could have benefited from the original scripted ending, although it's pretty obvious that they didn't have the effects to pull it off, which was true of most of the film and the main drawback (and disbelief breaker). This is one film that could benefit from a line-by-line remake/invasive remastering. Put in some more convincing attack effects instead of moving around little cutout images and add some more serious injuries, and you've got a fantastic/perfect film.
Tonight's movie was You Can't Take It With You, which is basically the archetype for every snooty-family-meets-cloudcookulanders-and-learns-what's-really-important story, and so has all the associated flaws.
I hated it when I saw the play, so I can't imagine a filmed version is any better.
I loathe films with that snob-vs-slobs BS. They so very rarely ever point out the realities of those conflicts. The one and only time I ever had someone seriously ask me, "Hey! You think you're better than me?", I really felt that I was. She was scumbag who kidnapped an old crippled man to steal his Social Security check and forced him to live in a van with herself and three dogs.
To be fair, the rich guy was basically the era bain capital, specializing in the demonstration of how profit =/= morality. On the other, the family didn't get in any trouble with the neighbors for almost burning down the neighborhood and making them homeless by selling the house on a whim.
So I just watched The Birds just now. Really good plot, even with the useless romance taking up 60% of it. It probably could have benefited from the original scripted ending, although it's pretty obvious that they didn't have the effects to pull it off, which was true of most of the film and the main drawback (and disbelief breaker). This is one film that could benefit from a line-by-line remake/invasive remastering. Put in some more convincing attack effects instead of moving around little cutout images and add some more serious injuries, and you've got a fantastic/perfect film.
I don't know if it would have the same weight, however. The Birds really was a summation of everything Hitchcock had done that came before it and then got followed by a lot of unsatisfactory films that meandered and waffled about.
Well, he only made 5 more movies after The Birds. And it's true, most of them were pretty bad (although I haven't seen Marnie). He did make Frenzy during that time, however, which is a really good movie, probably second-tier Hitchcock. Essentially it was his "The Departed"--an energetic return to the genre he was known for.
So I just watched The Birds just now. Really good plot, even with the useless romance taking up 60% of it. It probably could have benefited from the original scripted ending, although it's pretty obvious that they didn't have the effects to pull it off, which was true of most of the film and the main drawback (and disbelief breaker). This is one film that could benefit from a line-by-line remake/invasive remastering. Put in some more convincing attack effects instead of moving around little cutout images and add some more serious injuries, and you've got a fantastic/perfect film.
I don't know if it would have the same weight, however. The Birds really was a summation of everything Hitchcock had done that came before it and then got followed by a lot of unsatisfactory films that meandered and waffled about.
Well, he only made 5 more movies after The Birds. And it's true, most of them were pretty bad (although I haven't seen Marnie). He did make Frenzy during that time, however, which is a really good movie, probably second-tier Hitchcock. Essentially it was his "The Departed"--an energetic return to the genre he was known for.
Marnie's weird.
It's Tippy Hedrin and Sean Connery, and Connery is at his charmingest peak, but the movie really doesn't know what it's trying to do. It's thriller, then it's a romantic comedy, then it's a heist film, then it's a melodrama . . . all leading to a climax that wants to desperately be more profound than it really is.
Well, it's clear what Marniewants to be which is the ultimate deconstruction of Hitchcock's usage of ice queen blondes; it's just a mess, had already been done in every other movie he made, and it bears the stench of Hitchcock buying into auteur theory and making films in that vein.
Then it was followed by that one with Paul Newman and Julie Andrews which was bad considering things like The Quiller Memorandum coming out, and because, for every good scene, it has something totally bizarre like a rear-projected scene of them dining at a cafe. I want to ask him why he did that more than anything else.
He may have tried for auteur theory because he had spent such a long time under the popular opinion that he made vulgar-type films. To quote Wikipedia on Vertigo:
Variety said the film showed Hitchcock's "mastery", but was too long and slow for "what is basically only a psychological murder mystery".... In the 1950s, the French Cahiers du cinéma critics began re-evaluating Hitchcock as a serious artist rather than just a populist showman.
Basically, he'd been dealing with the same crap as the NYTimes Avengers review (which, to remind, was basically "sure, it has good acting, dialogue, and plot, but it's still an explosion movie.").
Battleship is brilliant because because it's a basic writing prompt that actually got made. The next movie will probably be "The Words X, Y, and Z in an Essay."
Tonight's movie was You Can't Take It With You, which is basically the archetype for every snooty-family-meets-cloudcookulanders-and-learns-what's-really-important story, and so has all the associated flaws.
So I just watched The Birds just now. Really good plot, even with the useless romance taking up 60% of it. It probably could have benefited from the original scripted ending, although it's pretty obvious that they didn't have the effects to pull it off, which was true of most of the film and the main drawback (and disbelief breaker). This is one film that could benefit from a line-by-line remake/invasive remastering. Put in some more convincing attack effects instead of moving around little cutout images and add some more serious injuries, and you've got a fantastic/perfect film.
This is the movie where Hitchcock completely screwed over that poor actress' career with his stalker tendencies, ya?
Don't worry. I bet her kids gave her some money. I hear they're doing alright. ;-)
I don't get this comment! Is it sarcasm? I am bad at detecting these things!
EDIT: For those not in-the-know, Hitchcock basically snuffed out the main actress' career after The Birds because she refused his advances. He got so pissed he basically sat on her contract until she was no longer relevant in movies anymore, basically killing her film career!
Godfather on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
So I just watched The Birds just now. Really good plot, even with the useless romance taking up 60% of it. It probably could have benefited from the original scripted ending, although it's pretty obvious that they didn't have the effects to pull it off, which was true of most of the film and the main drawback (and disbelief breaker). This is one film that could benefit from a line-by-line remake/invasive remastering. Put in some more convincing attack effects instead of moving around little cutout images and add some more serious injuries, and you've got a fantastic/perfect film.
This is the movie where Hitchcock completely screwed over that poor actress' career with his stalker tendencies, ya?
Don't worry. I bet her kids gave her some money. I hear they're doing alright. ;-)
I don't get this comment! Is it sarcasm? I am bad at detecting these things!
EDIT: For those not in-the-know, Hitchcock basically snuffed out the main actress' career after The Birds because she refused his advances. He got so pissed he basically sat on her contract until she was no longer relevant in movies anymore, basically killing her film career!
I don't have time to post a full review, but Prometheus - viewed either as an Alien prequel or a standalone sci-fi film - was a crushing disappointment. I drafted 4 other work buddies and we were all left wholly underwhelmed. I'll try and elaborate when I have the time.
this leads me on to another thing i've noticed.. anyone know why, this year, the uk seems to be getting stuff earlier than the us? i mean its usually either the other way around or on the same day?
i noticed it with john carter, avengers, battleship and now prometheus and i'm sure there were others too. feels like some sort of test bed marketing thing.
As far as I can tell, it's because those sorts of films tend to do well in the international market, and it gives them a big opening gross that they can use for marketing in North America.
Right-o: some unfocused rambling about Sir Ridley Scott's not-Alien prequel, Prometheus:
First, let me preface this with a quote from a review I scanned after seeing the film: "Prometheus suffers from a near-terminal inability to decide what story it wants to tell." Well, there's your problem.
Spoilers follow:
Right, it may not be immediately evident that the film does not take place on the same floating rock as Alien (LV-426) but instead the moon LV-22. Now, this did strike me as odd early on in the film, but I shrugged it away as something to be explained in-story; that doesn't happen. Regardless, this explains why the ending of the film does not tie neatly with the beginning of Alien; the crew of the Nostromo happened on a completely different starcraft, albeit piloted by another member of the Engineer/Space Jockey race. Fair enough, we were told many times that this was not a true prequel after all, but it will confuse and possibly alienate (heh) audiences due to the ambiguity.
Secondly, people are very, very stupid in this film; it would seem quarantine protocol and the ability to stay still in one place are not concepts widely adopted in our near future. And their characterisation is very thin on the ground - the Prometheus' pilots were practically eager to commit suicide on the orders of a woman they had known for less than a week.
The motivations of Fassbender's character, David, are, frankly, inscrutable. His infecting Dr. Holloway seems to have no basis other than kicks 'n' giggles. And quite contrary to the desires of his 'father', Weyland, as the only consequence is the endangerment of everyone aboard the Prometheus. He seems dissatisfied with humanity, and speaks of a desire to kill his creators, but surely there are easier ways? I like how his finger ridges form the Weyland logo, though.
Theron's character is pretty superfluous, though I suspect her character arc may have suffered the most in the editing room. Couldn't help but laugh at how she went out; she should have been saved for the sequel instead of the tension-deflating Looney Tunes death she was saddled with. Speaking of which, the sequel hook was a clumsy piece of work and a thoroughly unsatisfying note to end the film on. The proto-xenomorph born from the remains of the lone surviving Engineer was also pretty pathetic: it smacked of some executive kindly reminding Ridley Scott that the funding for this project came from an Alien franchise prequel pitch.
Bringing me back to the review I quoted, the film's greatest flaw is simply that it cannot decide on its focus or even genre. It fails as a meditation on man's origins, as the only communication between the humans and the Engineers is conducted in the universal (albeit imprecise) language of violence. It fails as an effective horror film due to the rehashing of concepts from the Alien films, but with less inspired monster designs (autonomous, squid-like vaginas aren't quite as unnerving as you would imagine from the description alone). It fails as a thriller due to the pacing, the plotting and lack of a conclusion that satisfies any of the questions it asks the audience.
All aspects of the piece suffer due to its association with the director's previous work in the genre. There's an interesting film here, somewhere, but it should have been allowed to be its own creature.
Jean Grey has nothing on Liz Lemon, Cyclops moved on up.
Bullshit Famke Jansen would probably be down for anal/blood play/everything, where as liz would get the vapors reading fifty shades of suck.
Famke Janssen's only kink is sex-crushing dudes to death with her thighs.
:^:
I don't care what anyone says, Goldeneye was the best Bond film.
I'm generally against tampering with complete films, but I would love for David Arnold to get a crack at re-scoring that film. That limp 90s minimalist techno nonsense is about the only aspect of it that hasn't aged well.
Right-o: some unfocused rambling about Sir Ridley Scott's not-Alien prequel, Prometheus:
First, let me preface this with a quote from a review I scanned after seeing the film: "Prometheus suffers from a near-terminal inability to decide what story it wants to tell." Well, there's your problem.
Spoilers follow:
Right, it may not be immediately evident that the film does not take place on the same floating rock as Alien (LV-426) but instead the moon LV-22. Now, this did strike me as odd early on in the film, but I shrugged it away as something to be explained in-story; that doesn't happen. Regardless, this explains why the ending of the film does not tie neatly with the beginning of Alien; the crew of the Nostromo happened on a completely different starcraft, albeit piloted by another member of the Engineer/Space Jockey race. Fair enough, we were told many times that this was not a true prequel after all, but it will confuse and possibly alienate (heh) audiences due to the ambiguity.
Secondly, people are very, very stupid in this film; it would seem quarantine protocol and the ability to stay still in one place are not concepts widely adopted in our near future. And their characterisation is very thin on the ground - the Prometheus' pilots were practically eager to commit suicide on the orders of a woman they had known for less than a week.
The motivations of Fassbender's character, David, are, frankly, inscrutable. His infecting Dr. Holloway seems to have no basis other than kicks 'n' giggles. And quite contrary to the desires of his 'father', Weyland, as the only consequence is the endangerment of everyone aboard the Prometheus. He seems dissatisfied with humanity, and speaks of a desire to kill his creators, but surely there are easier ways? I like how his finger ridges form the Weyland logo, though.
Theron's character is pretty superfluous, though I suspect her character arc may have suffered the most in the editing room. Couldn't help but laugh at how she went out; she should have been saved for the sequel instead of the tension-deflating Looney Tunes death she was saddled with. Speaking of which, the sequel hook was a clumsy piece of work and a thoroughly unsatisfying note to end the film on. The proto-xenomorph born from the remains of the lone surviving Engineer was also pretty pathetic: it smacked of some executive kindly reminding Ridley Scott that the funding for this project came from an Alien franchise prequel pitch.
Bringing me back to the review I quoted, the film's greatest flaw is simply that it cannot decide on its focus or even genre. It fails as a meditation on man's origins, as the only communication between the humans and the Engineers is conducted in the universal (albeit imprecise) language of violence. It fails as an effective horror film due to the rehashing of concepts from the Alien films, but with less inspired monster designs (autonomous, squid-like vaginas aren't quite as unnerving as you would imagine from the description alone). It fails as a thriller due to the pacing, the plotting and lack of a conclusion that satisfies any of the questions it asks the audience.
All aspects of the piece suffer due to its association with the director's previous work in the genre. There's an interesting film here, somewhere, but it should have been allowed to be its own creature.
AHHHH
goddamn it, lv_223.. i saw it and through eh its the same planet because all i could remember of the planets name at that point was "lv" and it had a 2 in it so it must be it, clears up a fuck ton right there. i didnt watch alien before seeing it now i remember its lv_426..
i pretty much agree with everything, and it reminded about the two co-pilots extremely fucking random "hey sucide? that sounds like fun!"
it sure was pretty to look at though but i felt it needed maybe a bit more giger. i enjoyed it nevertheless but the aftermath left a sort of sour taste and i can't decide if its their fault or my own for all hype i gave to it.
alot of choices make me think they were put there so there would be some kind of directors cut later to match with rest of series that all have them.
I'm really looking forward to Prometheus. If it's half as good as I want it to be, I'll be pleased. I already have my midnight (mini) Imax tickets purchased and ready to go.
0
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
Jean Grey has nothing on Liz Lemon, Cyclops moved on up.
Bullshit Famke Jansen would probably be down for anal/blood play/everything, where as liz would get the vapors reading fifty shades of suck.
Famke Janssen's only kink is sex-crushing dudes to death with her thighs.
:^:
I don't care what anyone says, Goldeneye was the best Bond film.
I'm generally against tampering with complete films, but I would love for David Arnold to get a crack at re-scoring that film. That limp 90s minimalist techno nonsense is about the only aspect of it that hasn't aged well.
It completely kills the film.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Agreed. 90s Techno is the hereditary music of my people, though.
It was a Serra score (he also did Fifth Element and Leon), and I liked how it worked with the film, a different soundtrack would ruin the flow of the movie. So no you heathen sons of bitches leave my jub jub song alone.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Well to be fair putting DUKE back in the movie sounds more like the studio fixing what the creators fucked up in the first place. As much as I don't care about either film, killing off the main guy that every fan of the cartoon grew up with sounds pretty ridiculous.
It's true Duke is a main character in all G.I. Joe rosters, only he won't be missed too much in the sequel IMO. Besides, he already had a movie being the star. Now should be The Rock's turn if they're not going to recast Tatum with someone with genuine acting talent.
But also Roadblock is apparently Snake Eye's ninja protege in this one so who knows what "respecting the property" really even means anymore.
Eh. Adaptions do small changes like that all the time and make it work, for example Bruce Wayne being trained by
Ra's al Ghul a.k.a Henry Ducard
in Batman Begins. All that matters is the execution.
Well to be fair putting DUKE back in the movie sounds more like the studio fixing what the creators fucked up in the first place. As much as I don't care about either film, killing off the main guy that every fan of the cartoon grew up with sounds pretty ridiculous.
But also Roadblock is apparently Snake Eye's ninja protege in this one so who knows what "respecting the property" really even means anymore.
Look when your duke sucks you kill him off. Its like offing Scott Summers because people got tired of his whiny ass.
1) Cyclops was poorly used in the X-men movies. He's a good character when written correctly. Unfortunately it was the Wolverine show. 2) He only got killed off because Fox was pissed Marsden was shooting Superman Returns. It had nothing to do with the character.
Agreed. Yes, it dates the film a bit, but it also works really well.
Plus as I sarcastically pointed out, the only person who goes back and changes soundtracks on movies is George Lucas, and it worked out awfully for the films.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Right-o: some unfocused rambling about Sir Ridley Scott's not-Alien prequel, Prometheus:
First, let me preface this with a quote from a review I scanned after seeing the film: "Prometheus suffers from a near-terminal inability to decide what story it wants to tell." Well, there's your problem.
Spoilers follow:
Right, it may not be immediately evident that the film does not take place on the same floating rock as Alien (LV-426) but instead the moon LV-22. Now, this did strike me as odd early on in the film, but I shrugged it away as something to be explained in-story; that doesn't happen. Regardless, this explains why the ending of the film does not tie neatly with the beginning of Alien; the crew of the Nostromo happened on a completely different starcraft, albeit piloted by another member of the Engineer/Space Jockey race. Fair enough, we were told many times that this was not a true prequel after all, but it will confuse and possibly alienate (heh) audiences due to the ambiguity.
Secondly, people are very, very stupid in this film; it would seem quarantine protocol and the ability to stay still in one place are not concepts widely adopted in our near future. And their characterisation is very thin on the ground - the Prometheus' pilots were practically eager to commit suicide on the orders of a woman they had known for less than a week.
The motivations of Fassbender's character, David, are, frankly, inscrutable. His infecting Dr. Holloway seems to have no basis other than kicks 'n' giggles. And quite contrary to the desires of his 'father', Weyland, as the only consequence is the endangerment of everyone aboard the Prometheus. He seems dissatisfied with humanity, and speaks of a desire to kill his creators, but surely there are easier ways? I like how his finger ridges form the Weyland logo, though.
Theron's character is pretty superfluous, though I suspect her character arc may have suffered the most in the editing room. Couldn't help but laugh at how she went out; she should have been saved for the sequel instead of the tension-deflating Looney Tunes death she was saddled with. Speaking of which, the sequel hook was a clumsy piece of work and a thoroughly unsatisfying note to end the film on. The proto-xenomorph born from the remains of the lone surviving Engineer was also pretty pathetic: it smacked of some executive kindly reminding Ridley Scott that the funding for this project came from an Alien franchise prequel pitch.
Bringing me back to the review I quoted, the film's greatest flaw is simply that it cannot decide on its focus or even genre. It fails as a meditation on man's origins, as the only communication between the humans and the Engineers is conducted in the universal (albeit imprecise) language of violence. It fails as an effective horror film due to the rehashing of concepts from the Alien films, but with less inspired monster designs (autonomous, squid-like vaginas aren't quite as unnerving as you would imagine from the description alone). It fails as a thriller due to the pacing, the plotting and lack of a conclusion that satisfies any of the questions it asks the audience.
All aspects of the piece suffer due to its association with the director's previous work in the genre. There's an interesting film here, somewhere, but it should have been allowed to be its own creature.
AHHHH
goddamn it, lv_223.. i saw it and through eh its the same planet because all i could remember of the planets name at that point was "lv" and it had a 2 in it so it must be it, clears up a fuck ton right there. i didnt watch alien before seeing it now i remember its lv_426..
i pretty much agree with everything, and it reminded about the two co-pilots extremely fucking random "hey sucide? that sounds like fun!"
it sure was pretty to look at though but i felt it needed maybe a bit more giger. i enjoyed it nevertheless but the aftermath left a sort of sour taste and i can't decide if its their fault or my own for all hype i gave to it.
alot of choices make me think they were put there so there would be some kind of directors cut later to match with rest of series that all have them.
I really enjoyed the film as a standalone but felt that
The part where the captain suddenly explains everything about how the planet was a military installation and the creators home planet is far away was so random and out of the blue
Posts
Not the worst way to go.
He may have tried for auteur theory because he had spent such a long time under the popular opinion that he made vulgar-type films. To quote Wikipedia on Vertigo:
Basically, he'd been dealing with the same crap as the NYTimes Avengers review (which, to remind, was basically "sure, it has good acting, dialogue, and plot, but it's still an explosion movie.").
Battleship is brilliant because because it's a basic writing prompt that actually got made. The next movie will probably be "The Words X, Y, and Z in an Essay."
Tonight's movie was You Can't Take It With You, which is basically the archetype for every snooty-family-meets-cloudcookulanders-and-learns-what's-really-important story, and so has all the associated flaws.
I hated it when I saw the play, so I can't imagine a filmed version is any better.
I loathe films with that snob-vs-slobs BS. They so very rarely ever point out the realities of those conflicts. The one and only time I ever had someone seriously ask me, "Hey! You think you're better than me?", I really felt that I was. She was scumbag who kidnapped an old crippled man to steal his Social Security check and forced him to live in a van with herself and three dogs.
This is the movie where Hitchcock completely screwed over that poor actress' career with his stalker tendencies, ya?
Don't worry. I bet her kids gave her some money. I hear they're doing alright. ;-)
To be fair, the rich guy was basically the era bain capital, specializing in the demonstration of how profit =/= morality. On the other, the family didn't get in any trouble with the neighbors for almost burning down the neighborhood and making them homeless by selling the house on a whim.
That doesn't make those movies of Hitch's better.
I mean, it was no Steel, but it was pretty good.
maybe for you colonials, it came out today in the uk and i saw it at midnight though my post got bottom of page'd
I just watched Men in Black 3. Maybe we could discuss that?
I don't get this comment! Is it sarcasm? I am bad at detecting these things!
EDIT: For those not in-the-know, Hitchcock basically snuffed out the main actress' career after The Birds because she refused his advances. He got so pissed he basically sat on her contract until she was no longer relevant in movies anymore, basically killing her film career!
Her son-in-law is Antonio Banderas.
He did use her again in Marnie.
pleasepaypreacher.net
i noticed it with john carter, avengers, battleship and now prometheus and i'm sure there were others too. feels like some sort of test bed marketing thing.
First, let me preface this with a quote from a review I scanned after seeing the film: "Prometheus suffers from a near-terminal inability to decide what story it wants to tell." Well, there's your problem.
Spoilers follow:
Secondly, people are very, very stupid in this film; it would seem quarantine protocol and the ability to stay still in one place are not concepts widely adopted in our near future. And their characterisation is very thin on the ground - the Prometheus' pilots were practically eager to commit suicide on the orders of a woman they had known for less than a week.
The motivations of Fassbender's character, David, are, frankly, inscrutable. His infecting Dr. Holloway seems to have no basis other than kicks 'n' giggles. And quite contrary to the desires of his 'father', Weyland, as the only consequence is the endangerment of everyone aboard the Prometheus. He seems dissatisfied with humanity, and speaks of a desire to kill his creators, but surely there are easier ways? I like how his finger ridges form the Weyland logo, though.
Theron's character is pretty superfluous, though I suspect her character arc may have suffered the most in the editing room. Couldn't help but laugh at how she went out; she should have been saved for the sequel instead of the tension-deflating Looney Tunes death she was saddled with. Speaking of which, the sequel hook was a clumsy piece of work and a thoroughly unsatisfying note to end the film on. The proto-xenomorph born from the remains of the lone surviving Engineer was also pretty pathetic: it smacked of some executive kindly reminding Ridley Scott that the funding for this project came from an Alien franchise prequel pitch.
Bringing me back to the review I quoted, the film's greatest flaw is simply that it cannot decide on its focus or even genre. It fails as a meditation on man's origins, as the only communication between the humans and the Engineers is conducted in the universal (albeit imprecise) language of violence. It fails as an effective horror film due to the rehashing of concepts from the Alien films, but with less inspired monster designs (autonomous, squid-like vaginas aren't quite as unnerving as you would imagine from the description alone). It fails as a thriller due to the pacing, the plotting and lack of a conclusion that satisfies any of the questions it asks the audience.
All aspects of the piece suffer due to its association with the director's previous work in the genre. There's an interesting film here, somewhere, but it should have been allowed to be its own creature.
And claiming that intelligent life has its origins in Scotland, well, I have no issue with that. Makes perfect sense to this Glaswegian.
I'm generally against tampering with complete films, but I would love for David Arnold to get a crack at re-scoring that film. That limp 90s minimalist techno nonsense is about the only aspect of it that hasn't aged well.
AHHHH
i pretty much agree with everything, and it reminded about the two co-pilots extremely fucking random "hey sucide? that sounds like fun!"
it sure was pretty to look at though but i felt it needed maybe a bit more giger. i enjoyed it nevertheless but the aftermath left a sort of sour taste and i can't decide if its their fault or my own for all hype i gave to it.
alot of choices make me think they were put there so there would be some kind of directors cut later to match with rest of series that all have them.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It completely kills the film.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Agreed. 90s Techno is the hereditary music of my people, though.
It was a Serra score (he also did Fifth Element and Leon), and I liked how it worked with the film, a different soundtrack would ruin the flow of the movie. So no you heathen sons of bitches leave my jub jub song alone.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's true Duke is a main character in all G.I. Joe rosters, only he won't be missed too much in the sequel IMO. Besides, he already had a movie being the star. Now should be The Rock's turn if they're not going to recast Tatum with someone with genuine acting talent.
Eh. Adaptions do small changes like that all the time and make it work, for example Bruce Wayne being trained by
1) Cyclops was poorly used in the X-men movies. He's a good character when written correctly. Unfortunately it was the Wolverine show. 2) He only got killed off because Fox was pissed Marsden was shooting Superman Returns. It had nothing to do with the character.
Agreed. Yes, it dates the film a bit, but it also works really well.
Plus as I sarcastically pointed out, the only person who goes back and changes soundtracks on movies is George Lucas, and it worked out awfully for the films.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I really enjoyed the film as a standalone but felt that
It might improve with the director's cut.