Movie/film thread: resurrected

watched Ironman2 the other day. quite liked it, but i will wait for a good copy so reserve judgment until then, i had a cam copy which wasn't so good.
Extraordinary measures i thought was a great movie. Ford did a great display of an eccentric scientist and i thought the storyline although predictable was worthy of my time and enjoyable.

totally agree with ericthered about titans. i'm a bit of a fan of the greek myths and i'm not a purist by any means but that story just didn't make sense...well there wasn't really a story they just introduced each CGI monster then moved on to the next one...

i don't understand how they sink hundreds of millions into a movie and don't write a script....

i don't understand how they sink hundreds of millions into a movie and don't write a script....

Because it makes money.  The bigger the budget, the bigger the required audience.  Therefore they have to dig deeper into the IQ bell curve.  Quality and budget size are in direct opposition...most of the time.

Just finished season three of the Tudors.  More shows of this caliber and history classes will be replaced.  History, with sex and violence.

Chuck is a lot of fun.

Extras is really funny, particularly the celebrity cameos. 

Father Ted is occasionally funny.  The IT crowd, by thye same makers, is funnier.

Quote from: kitano on May 11, 2010, 10:24:32 PM

i don't understand how they sink hundreds of millions into a movie and don't write a script....

Because it makes money.  The bigger the budget, the bigger the required audience.  Therefore they have to dig deeper into the IQ bell curve.  Quality and budget size are in direct opposition...most of the time.

i disagree

if you look at james cameron's movies, ok they are dumb, but they always have a plot and so on. of course they are not deep, but they always have a narrative and characters and some sort of message etc and this means they make more money than things like clash of the titans where they just throw loads of effects at you

spielberg is an even better example, his films actually became more popular when he focused on the plot and characters and used special effects to the benefit of the characters

these movies do make money of course, but the real blockbusters always have some sort of story and message etc.  it is usually pretty shallow, but never obscenely so...

Some recently watched product:

Shutter Island
Very well executed psychological thriller.  In style, a throwback to Hitchcock kinda stuff, and very good for it.

The Men Who Stare at Goats
Meh.  Clooney is almost always good to watch, but this movie doesn't hit the right note.

Up In The Air
Much better Clooney vehicle.  An enjoyable comedy drama.

True Legend
A very familiar kind of Chinese action hero story, but with some really odd propaganda notions... there's some kind of "sick man of Asia but still kicking ass" foundation.

Pandorum
Dumb title, but very decent action/psycho-thriller sci-fi.

Mao's Last Dancer
Such an accurate throwback to 70's midday movies it's almost uncomfortable to watch.  Depends how you felt about the 70's I guess.

Elmer Gantry
Always good.

JCVD
This is a very cool movie.  The JCVD of the title is Jean Claude Van Damme and in this movie he plays "himself".  It's not a documentary at all, though.  The "himself" role is a heightened artistic conceit.  However, the monologue to camera about 3/4 of the way through is exceptional viewing, not just because it's unusual but because it's himself.  I suppose one could call this movie Portrait of JCVD as the Artist.

Kick-Ass
Now this movie is something new too.  It combines several Hollywood movements--the gross out nerd comedy, the superhero story, and something not quite seen exactly before which I think I'll claim is an emerging anime influence.  That third factor is actually more like a Kill Bill influence, but it's transgressive because it consciously aims at a lower age group.  Mainstream murder porn for 12-year-olds!  I didn't know this when I started watching.  I thought I was in for a fairly standard teen drama acceptable to boomers.  And so it is for the first fifteen minutes or so until Nick Cage shows up.



Too much free time.

Have to disagree with the JCVD. I found it, kind of ridiculous. Different strokes for different folk I guess.

Re JCVD... yep, different strokes.  I found it compelling for a few reasons.  I like meaningful surreality, and Jean Claude Van Damme acting as "Jean Claude Van Damme" is... cool.  It's got layers.  And the themes and characters in the movie actually fit really well with the kind of movie Jean Claude has made in the past--there's a continuity of art there, like taking it to the next level.  Plus, Jean Claude Van Damme actually is a bit of a nut.  All that "Aware" stuff and the out of context interview snippets scattered throughout the movie were actual real-life JCVD interviews, and that bit where he "ascends"... that's all him.  He's a nut, but all that stuff is connected.  I'm finding it a bit hard to express, but it's the whole concept, man, the concept!  I'm a fan of seeing the conceptual be realised and in that movie the concept actively reached out from the screen.  The man is bigger for having been fictionalised into reality.

 

Ok you win    You used way more words than I did, plus your head exploded at the end.... i dont want to be responsible for that. 

and... back on topic.


 

Finished three seasons of The Tudors.  At this rate, history won't be taught in classes much longer, not if Showcase and HBO can just dramatize key periods in our history, replete with steamy sex scenes.

That is a very bad  scenario indeed. The Tudors is a smashing show but it is still a show...it is riddled with historical inaccuracies...Wolsey´s death for instance and others.

I just watched Solomon Kane...what a momentous work of  that was. James Purefoy must have been seriously strapped for cash to make that.

I disagree, Eric.  All that's needed is a companion article outlining the inaccuracies, and Bob's your uncle.

Yeeesss...that might work...unfortunately, people don´t watch TV to read, they do so to avoid doing so. I am not saying one cannot learn something from historical shows, but I have always been puzzled as to why they have to change history, invent characters, change events and such.

...That is a very bad  scenario indeed. The Tudors is a smashing show but it is still a show...it is riddled with historical inaccuracies...

Riddled?  Really?  The Wolsey part for sure, but hasn't it been surprisingly and in the great majority, accurate?  My history on this era isn't great but I was far more impressed with its accuracy than its falsehoods.  I would say the same thing about "Deadwood".  And, in its own way, "The Wire".

All historical shows have inaccurasies. The Tudors is a good one, as they are few but noticeable.