Movies you've seen recently... (10 Viewers)
- Thread starter vitoria_Ally
- Start date
- Status
I too thought it was wretched. 
Meanwhile, last night I watched the 1979 Clint Eastwood flick, Escape from Alcatraz, for the first time. Definitely a good movie. Good directing. Clint plays a clever badassss. Patrick McGoohan plays the prison warden, which is thick with irony if you ever followed The Prisoner TV series.
Meanwhile, last night I watched the 1979 Clint Eastwood flick, Escape from Alcatraz, for the first time. Definitely a good movie. Good directing. Clint plays a clever badassss. Patrick McGoohan plays the prison warden, which is thick with irony if you ever followed The Prisoner TV series.
++ [ originally posted by swag ] ++
I too thought it was wretched.
Meanwhile, last night I watched the 1979 Clint Eastwood flick, Escape from Alcatraz, for the first time. Definitely a good movie. Good directing. Clint plays a clever badassss. Patrick McGoohan plays the prison warden, which is thick with irony if you ever followed The Prisoner TV series.
I too thought it was wretched.
Meanwhile, last night I watched the 1979 Clint Eastwood flick, Escape from Alcatraz, for the first time. Definitely a good movie. Good directing. Clint plays a clever badassss. Patrick McGoohan plays the prison warden, which is thick with irony if you ever followed The Prisoner TV series.
I saw it last night. Actually, as corny as this movie couldn't have been (it seems that every movie out now is either a remake of an old movie or old, bad TV show), I think it was executed rather well. There's no real character development in the flick -- so the character actors tire rather quickly. (As if Jurassic Park had actors to play a role other than dinosaur food.)
I had a different experience from you re: the ending, however. If you haven't seen the original movie from the 50s, that's probably part of it -- as the endings (well, and the main storyline) are identical. So it wasn't killed for me.
It stays rather true to the original movie, but updated in a way that is visually engaging and modernized. That's not easy to pull off, as most remakes are half-baked, crappy recycling jobs. But essentially, I think the movie succeeds because it kept to the core story of what was a good flick in the 1950s and updated the parts with visuals that made the new perspective still engaging.
But someone must kill Tom Cruise to put him out of my misery.
I had a different experience from you re: the ending, however. If you haven't seen the original movie from the 50s, that's probably part of it -- as the endings (well, and the main storyline) are identical. So it wasn't killed for me.
It stays rather true to the original movie, but updated in a way that is visually engaging and modernized. That's not easy to pull off, as most remakes are half-baked, crappy recycling jobs. But essentially, I think the movie succeeds because it kept to the core story of what was a good flick in the 1950s and updated the parts with visuals that made the new perspective still engaging.
But someone must kill Tom Cruise to put him out of my misery.
++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++
At least it's not what Gus van Sant did with Psycho
At least it's not what Gus van Sant did with Psycho
Oh, yeah. It was as if van Sant played the role of Norman Bates himself and was out to make a bloody mess in the shower out of any redeeming artistic merit of the original.
Vince Vaughn should have stuck to his later formula of Anchorman, Old School, and Dodgeball.
Why it took me this long to see it, I don't know.
Watched 1969's Easy Rider last night as a strangely sort of U.S. Independence Day-themed flick. After watching it, I don't quite get what all the fuss was about.
Sure, it's got Jimi Hendrix' "If 6 Was 9" on the soundtrack and some other good tunes of the era. It's got a great, first feature performance by Jack Nicholson. But the AFI listed it as #88 of the top 100 American movies of the 20th century.
In the end, the movie makes some really potent statements about society. But otherwise, the storyline was pretty weak. Maybe you had to be there in the 60s...
Still, recommended to see once before you die.
Watched 1969's Easy Rider last night as a strangely sort of U.S. Independence Day-themed flick. After watching it, I don't quite get what all the fuss was about.
Sure, it's got Jimi Hendrix' "If 6 Was 9" on the soundtrack and some other good tunes of the era. It's got a great, first feature performance by Jack Nicholson. But the AFI listed it as #88 of the top 100 American movies of the 20th century.
In the end, the movie makes some really potent statements about society. But otherwise, the storyline was pretty weak. Maybe you had to be there in the 60s...
Still, recommended to see once before you die.
Great movie with some amazing acting. But the one thing that annoys me about it? Cinemanausea. And lots of it in a pointless way.
When movies like Man Bites Dog came out and cheap directors got out the jitter-cam to feign a certain realism based on unprofessional-looking camera work, that was one thing. I can take that in an occasional art house flick from Belgium.
But when every cop drama on TV also suddenly hands over their camerawork to some chimpanzee on 8 cups of coffee?
<rant=on/>
Why is it that the directors of so many movies today cop out by resorting to this old, tired gimmick to try to impress a sense of raw realism? I'm sick of having to watch million-dollar actors through some handicam strapped to a monkey with Parkinsons disease. I pay $10 in the theater so you could hire some friggin' professionals for once who learned how to hold a camera steady. Leave the home movies at home, alright?
<rant=off/>
When movies like Man Bites Dog came out and cheap directors got out the jitter-cam to feign a certain realism based on unprofessional-looking camera work, that was one thing. I can take that in an occasional art house flick from Belgium.
But when every cop drama on TV also suddenly hands over their camerawork to some chimpanzee on 8 cups of coffee?
<rant=on/>
Why is it that the directors of so many movies today cop out by resorting to this old, tired gimmick to try to impress a sense of raw realism? I'm sick of having to watch million-dollar actors through some handicam strapped to a monkey with Parkinsons disease. I pay $10 in the theater so you could hire some friggin' professionals for once who learned how to hold a camera steady. Leave the home movies at home, alright?
<rant=off/>
- Status