THE BORE

General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 03:24:07 PM

Title: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 03:24:07 PM: Okay, I figured this would be as good a place as any to mark down which films I am viewing for the first/close to the first time, and rate them. Then you snobs can come in here and argue with me, and then we can roast marshmellows by the campfire. Good times.

The Descent - B+
Children of Men - A+
Crank - B
Joint Security Area - A-
Battle Royale (tbw)
Alfred Hitchcock's Notorious (tbw)

:punch :punch :punch
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Solo on January 17, 2007, 03:27:42 PM: I agree with CoM and JSA. Notorious is farking awesome, one of my favorite Hitch films. Not big on Battle Royale, and I have no interest in The Descent (had the whole thing spoiled ages ago).
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 03:29:31 PM: (http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0000687FL.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)

Joint Security Area (J.S.A.) Directed by Chan-wook Park

Everybody needs to watch this. NOW. One of Chan-wook's best films that's not named OldBoy, and a great look at the forces which divide modern-day Korea.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Solo on January 17, 2007, 03:30:49 PM: Park needs to do another film like this. He handled the material exceptionally.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 03:33:31 PM: I'm not afraid to admit that I got choked up at the final shot of the film...

spoiler (click to show/hide)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/AzNRocky/JSA.jpg)
[close]

:'( :'( :'(
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: TVC15 on January 17, 2007, 03:45:57 PM: Have to say it: Don't get the Children of Men love. It's good, but I didn't find it to be particularly amazing or thought-provoking.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 03:47:43 PM: Quote from: TVC 15 on January 17, 2007, 03:45:57 PM
Have to say it: Don't get the Children of Men love. It's good, but I didn't find it to be particularly amazing or thought-provoking.

SUCH A REBUUUUL
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: TVC15 on January 17, 2007, 03:52:43 PM: Quote from: The Dark Shake on January 17, 2007, 03:47:43 PM
Quote from: TVC 15 on January 17, 2007, 03:45:57 PM
Have to say it: Don't get the Children of Men love. It's good, but I didn't find it to be particularly amazing or thought-provoking.

SUCH A REBUUUUL

There will be a respectable backlash. Maybe it is the best movie of last year, but I think that says more about the shitty quality of movies in general last year than anything. I found Pan's Labyrinth to be more satisfying, for the most part.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Mupepe on January 17, 2007, 03:55:14 PM: Hey guys, Kill Bill Volume 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kill Bill Volume 1

kthxbai
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: TVC15 on January 17, 2007, 03:56:08 PM: Quote from: Mupepe on January 17, 2007, 03:55:14 PM
Hey guys, Kill Bill Volume 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kill Bill Volume 1

kthxbai

I never bothered to sit through 2.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: CajoleJuice on January 17, 2007, 03:57:03 PM: Quote from: TVC 15 on January 17, 2007, 03:56:08 PM
Quote from: Mupepe on January 17, 2007, 03:55:14 PM
Hey guys, Kill Bill Volume 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kill Bill Volume 1

kthxbai

I never bothered to sit through 2.

Good choice.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Mupepe on January 17, 2007, 03:57:12 PM: Quote from: TVC 15 on January 17, 2007, 03:56:08 PM
Quote from: Mupepe on January 17, 2007, 03:55:14 PM
Hey guys, Kill Bill Volume 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kill Bill Volume 1

kthxbai

I never bothered to sit through 2.
Would you sit through it for me though? For me.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: TVC15 on January 17, 2007, 03:59:31 PM: Quote from: Mupepe on January 17, 2007, 03:57:12 PM
Quote from: TVC 15 on January 17, 2007, 03:56:08 PM
Quote from: Mupepe on January 17, 2007, 03:55:14 PM
Hey guys, Kill Bill Volume 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kill Bill Volume 1

kthxbai

I never bothered to sit through 2.
Would you sit through it for me though? For me.

That would mean rewatching the first one :(
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: captainbiotch on January 17, 2007, 04:00:10 PM: Quote from: TVC 15 on January 17, 2007, 03:45:57 PM
Have to say it: Don't get the Children of Men love. It's good, but I didn't find it to be particularly amazing or thought-provoking.

Same here.

People can't have kids so they kill each other... what the fuck, why?

Seemed to me like a half-assed take on totalitarianism and terrorism with pretty visuals. I'm getting V for Vendetta flashbacks...
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Mupepe on January 17, 2007, 04:00:36 PM: Quote from: TVC 15 on January 17, 2007, 03:59:31 PM
Quote from: Mupepe on January 17, 2007, 03:57:12 PM
Quote from: TVC 15 on January 17, 2007, 03:56:08 PM
Quote from: Mupepe on January 17, 2007, 03:55:14 PM
Hey guys, Kill Bill Volume 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kill Bill Volume 1

kthxbai

I never bothered to sit through 2.
Would you sit through it for me though? For me.

That would mean rewatching the first one :(
We could just fuck while the first one played.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Solo on January 17, 2007, 04:00:45 PM: Whitey always has to buck the popular trend. I still haven't seen Pan's, but I have seen everything else that was a contender in 2006, and CoM blows them away. And 2006 was a pretty goddamned good year for films, despite what some say.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 04:01:32 PM: Yet people who like RD>PF are bucking the tred. ::)
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: TVC15 on January 17, 2007, 04:08:26 PM: Quote from: Solo on January 17, 2007, 04:00:45 PM
Whitey always has to buck the popular trend. I still haven't seen Pan's, but I have seen everything else that was a contender in 2006, and CoM blows them away. And 2006 was a pretty goddamned good year for films, despite what some say.

Nah, Distantmantra mentioned he didn't really like CoM all that much yesterday, so I gave it a watch and I largely agree with his opinion.

Sorry, I don't know how I have this reputation for bucking popular trends. Did you miss me saying that Pulp Fiction is Tarantino's best movie?
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 04:09:43 PM: Well, what about CoM didn't you like? The movie is pretty fucking hard to dislike, imho.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: TVC15 on January 17, 2007, 04:20:42 PM: Quote from: The Dark Shake on January 17, 2007, 04:09:43 PM
Well, what about CoM didn't you like? The movie is pretty fucking hard to dislike, imho.

I didn't not like it. I just didn't think it was brilliant. For a similar situation, see the concurrent discussion on Event Horizon going on at GAF. It's a good movie, but I don't really get why people think it's so amazing, other than Cuaron's penchaqnt for shooting incredible looking movies.

I'll give it another shot maybe this weekend and see if something clicks.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 04:22:02 PM: Well I hardly think the concept is as brilliant as many seem to, but the film is just so entertaining and so well-done, I don't care.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Solo on January 17, 2007, 04:23:45 PM: Perhaps this was a classic case of the movie getting too much hype, leading you to form an opinion of what it should be, and then the actual film not being what you envisioned? Im hardly trying to say that you made some error in not liking it, just that I have fallen into this same situation several times with films given lots of hype, which ultimately left me cold.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 04:26:09 PM: Solo: any examples?
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Solo on January 17, 2007, 04:31:55 PM: Let me think. In recent memory:

Batman Begins (which I like, but its not the second coming)
A History Of Violence (which I also really liked, but again, I didnt think it was the masterpiece it was hyped as)
The Two Towers and The Return of the King (both of which have a ton of issues, and neither one of which is remotely as good as Fellowship)
Munich (Im not even sure what I expected from this one, but the film sure wasn't it. I loved Spielberg's direction and style, but the whole affair left me cold)

Im sure I could come up with tons more examples, but those are a few. Of course, then there is the opposite case, when a movie pleasantly surprises you.

EDIT: I forget the big one: King Kong (I kept hearing all this shit about it being a masterpiece, and PJ's best film, and when I saw it, I thought it was bar none the biggest turd I saw in 2005)
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: TVC15 on January 17, 2007, 04:34:08 PM: Quote from: Solo on January 17, 2007, 04:31:55 PM
Let me think. In recent memory:

Batman Begins (which I like, but its not the second coming)
A History Of Violence (which I also really liked, but again, I didnt think it was the masterpiece it was hyped as)
The Two Towers and The Return of the King (both of which have a ton of issues, and neither one of which is remotely as good as Fellowship)
Munich (Im not even sure what I expected from this one, but the film sure wasn't it. I loved Spielberg's direction and style, but the whole affair left me cold)

Im sure I could come up with tons more examples, but those are a few. Of course, then there is the opposite case, when a movie pleasantly surprises you.

Wow, aside from Munich (which I haven't, and probably won't see) and A History of Violence (I knew what to expect having read the comic), I agree with you on those.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 04:34:24 PM: I agree with you on A History of Violence and the LotR series. But Batman Begins and Munich? Those films rocked, man! >:(
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Solo on January 17, 2007, 04:36:04 PM: As I said, I really appreciate the talent on display in Munich, but the film failed to evoke any emotion whatsoever from me, be it good or bad. It felt kinda "dead". Whereas say, Schindler's List totally works for me.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 04:37:56 PM: Wow, wtf, Shindler's List is one of my biggest dissapointments. :(
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Solo on January 17, 2007, 04:41:22 PM: I think it's Spielberg's very best. I don't think he'll top it. Although, he seems to be almost improving with age, so who knows.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 04:42:32 PM: In other news, wtf?! Kevin Smith has a speaking role in the new Die Hard film? http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=8525 (http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=8525)

Yeah, this will probably be worse than any of us even imagined.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: CajoleJuice on January 17, 2007, 04:46:01 PM: Goddamn it.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Solo on January 17, 2007, 04:48:22 PM: Everything about DH4, from the cast to the director to bald Bruce to the trailer, looks like an abortion. Sorry, Juice :(
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: CajoleJuice on January 17, 2007, 04:53:17 PM: I know....

FUCK
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Phoenix Dark on January 17, 2007, 05:07:14 PM: LOTR rocks stop re-writing history >:(

If anything FOTR is much better paced than the other two. Because of that it's easier to watch over and over again.

I'd say ROTK is better overall though, slightly. TT is the "worse" and it's still not bad at all (it's amazing actually, like the others), although it features a scene that made me want to shit myself with anger - the whole Aragorn falling off the cliff and "dying" shit. I thought Jackson did a wonderful job with the books overall but this was totally un-needed. Even the most inassuming person knew Aragorn wasn't going to die there, so why add that to the movie? >:(
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 05:10:28 PM: Re-writing history? Having a mass of raving fanboys and oscar wins doesn't automatically mean that the LotR films are considered across the world as classics.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Phoenix Dark on January 17, 2007, 05:23:38 PM: Quote from: The Dark Shake on January 17, 2007, 05:10:28 PM
Re-writing history? Having a mass of raving fanboys and oscar wins doesn't automatically mean that the LotR films are considered across the world as classics.

Hm most people seem to think otherwise. If not classics then certainly great movies. Two Tower's rottenwatch is at like 98% :lol
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 05:26:28 PM: People who rely on RT ratings generally can't think of anything better by themselves.

TRY HARDER. ;)
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Phoenix Dark on January 17, 2007, 05:29:10 PM: I'm just saying that the consensus about the films is very positive, as RT and basically every review would tell you. And of course the amazing fans.

PETER JACKSON OMG YES
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: TVC15 on January 17, 2007, 06:27:32 PM: FotR is pretty good, but the other 2 movies are zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: MrAngryFace on January 17, 2007, 06:31:08 PM: I hope everyone here has seen this gem at least once. I own it, I love to watch it while drunk.

(http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/allposters/50/1808404450p.jpg)

Quote
Rudy: You did all this to become immortal. Why?
Castillo: To live forever!

Quote
Rudy: We finally got to the boat but it wasn't there.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Phoenix Dark on January 17, 2007, 06:31:28 PM: To casual views unfamiliar with the book, perhaps!
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Mupepe on January 17, 2007, 07:03:06 PM: Quote from: MrAngryFace on January 17, 2007, 06:31:08 PM
I hope everyone here has seen this gem at least once. I own it, I love to watch it while drunk.

(http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/allposters/50/1808404450p.jpg)

Quote
Rudy: You did all this to become immortal. Why?
Castillo: To live forever!

Quote
Rudy: We finally got to the boat but it wasn't there.

God I hate that movie. :(
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 09:30:43 PM: House of the Dead is an awesome party flick. :lol
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: TVC15 on January 17, 2007, 09:59:05 PM: Quote from: Mupepe on January 17, 2007, 07:03:06 PM
Quote from: MrAngryFace on January 17, 2007, 06:31:08 PM
I hope everyone here has seen this gem at least once. I own it, I love to watch it while drunk.

(http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/allposters/50/1808404450p.jpg)

Quote
Rudy: You did all this to become immortal. Why?
Castillo: To live forever!

Quote
Rudy: We finally got to the boat but it wasn't there.

God I hate that movie. :(

Dumped!
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Cheebs on January 17, 2007, 10:10:07 PM: I am a big time LOTR fanboy and LOVE the films but PD it is true, LOTR films aren't considered clasics by film buffs in the same way say star wars is regarded.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 10:16:48 PM: Quote from: Cheebs on January 17, 2007, 10:10:07 PM
I am a big time LOTR fanboy and LOVE the films but PD it is true, LOTR films aren't considered clasics by film buffs in the same way say star wars is regarded.

:hyper
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 17, 2007, 11:10:31 PM: Okay, just finished up Battle Royale --

(http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00006B16H.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)

Don't know wtf was with the copy I rented, but the subs on this baby were TERRIBLE. Basically, it was like having someone who speaks very limited English try to translate the film for you, with such gems as "They are to kill me" and "This is why hate ou" o_O

Anyway, from what I could gather this was a solid action film with a disturbing message, which got a little to bogged down in cheap effects and some shoddy storytelling. Overall, I'd give it a 7.5.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 21, 2007, 12:48:36 AM: Alfred Hithcock's Notorious -- 9.0

Wow, what an amazing film. A bit light on the action, but the compelling storyline and the sheer brilliance of Hitchcock's filmmaking prowess still managed to push this one all the way towards a 9.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Phoenix Dark on January 21, 2007, 12:50:47 AM: Quote from: Cheebs on January 17, 2007, 10:10:07 PM
I am a big time LOTR fanboy and LOVE the films but PD it is true, LOTR films aren't considered clasics by film buffs in the same way say star wars is regarded.

There are plenty of film buffs who don't like Star Wars either. Fuck em
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Fake Shemp on January 21, 2007, 01:44:30 AM: :-\
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 21, 2007, 01:55:01 AM: The original trilogy for Star Wars was pure fanboy shit. Honestly go back and watch it, it's fucking WORSE then the new trilogy. LOTR isn't a movie, it's a waste of time.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 21, 2007, 01:56:19 AM: Quote from: am nintenho on January 21, 2007, 01:55:01 AM
The original trilogy for Star Wars was pure fanboy shit. Honestly go back and watch it, it's fucking WORSE then the new trilogy. LOTR isn't a movie, it's a waste of time.

Coming from the guy who hated Departed without actually watching it?

Yeah, no thanks.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on January 21, 2007, 01:56:35 AM: WRONG, The original trology is fucking brilliant.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 21, 2007, 02:02:10 AM: Quote from: The Dark Shake on January 21, 2007, 01:56:19 AM
Coming from the guy who hated Departed without actually watching it?
Yeah, no thanks.
I saw it and it was by far one of the shittiest movies I've seen. Bunch of dumbshits try to do their jobs, not much comes out of it other then most of them dead.

That's the movie for you.

Let's kill dumbshits.

But not the viewer.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Phoenix Dark on January 21, 2007, 02:16:54 AM: Quote from: am nintenho on January 21, 2007, 01:55:01 AM
The original trilogy for Star Wars was pure fanboy shit. Honestly go back and watch it, it's fucking WORSE then the new trilogy. LOTR isn't a movie, it's a waste of time.
:lol No one takes you seriously dude

Willco: Please tell me you still like the original trilogy. :-\
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 21, 2007, 02:30:46 AM: Phoenix Dark, list every fantasy book (or even book) that you've read within the last five years other then LOTR or Harry Potter.

Star Wars is worthless because of the hype it gets, it's a nostalgic sci-fi movie which really takes a shit on it's self.

LOTR was the type of trash you spend 5 bucks on the popcorn to movie-hop into. I would honestly be ashamed to admit I watched that movie.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Sceneman on January 21, 2007, 02:32:51 AM: LOTR is some of the most appaling shit I have ever seen
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Phoenix Dark on January 21, 2007, 02:35:44 AM: Quote from: am nintenho on January 21, 2007, 02:30:46 AM
Phoenix Dark, list every fantasy book (or even book) that you've read within the last five years other then LOTR or Harry Potter.

Star Wars is worthless because of the hype it gets, it's a nostalgic sci-fi movie which really takes a shit on it's self.

LOTR was the type of trash you spend 5 bucks on the popcorn to movie-hop into. I would honestly be ashamed to admit I watched that movie.
:lol

Fantasy books eh? What have you read recently? Do you like Naria? What about The Giver?
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 21, 2007, 02:44:02 AM: Never heard of those two, what are they about?
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Phoenix Dark on January 21, 2007, 02:48:02 AM: You've heard of Naria dude come on

Check out the Giver though. It's probably more sci-fi than fantasy, but it's still very good. If you liked 1984 you'll like it
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 21, 2007, 03:31:31 AM: Do you mean Narnia?
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Phoenix Dark on January 21, 2007, 03:45:47 AM: :lol

FUCK I'm distinguished mentally-challenged. Narnia
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 21, 2007, 03:55:35 AM: Read Narnia in middle school, saw the movie last year and that's what I remember the story from, it was pretty good but cheesy.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Phoenix Dark on January 21, 2007, 03:56:13 AM: So you think the Narnia movie was cheesy yet good...but LOTR was shit? :lol
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 21, 2007, 04:07:16 AM: Parts with the lion were cheesy, the metaphors were good though. LOTR isn't about anything, I don't get why it even got published.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Phoenix Dark on January 21, 2007, 04:14:05 AM: The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is a brilliant metaphor. It's a perfect balance between not being too preachy and being religiously themed enough to notice if you look. This cannot be said of some of the later books, especially The Last Battle.

The Silver Chair was able to find a perfect balance as well. I can't freaking wait for the movie version of it; I prefer The Silver Chair over the more classic Lion, Witch and Wardrobe.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 21, 2007, 04:17:19 AM: You had to look for the religious theme?
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Phoenix Dark on January 21, 2007, 04:20:10 AM: Some of them, yeah. There's the obvious Aslan theme, but there's far more subtle references like the horse they chase shortly before leaving Narnia
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 21, 2007, 04:30:00 AM: which meant?
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Solo on January 21, 2007, 08:57:10 AM: Hey Shakie! This seems to be as good a place as any to say this. So I finally bought and watched the Miami Vice Unrated Director's Edition on DVD. And I have to say: it's a VASTLY superior version to the theatrical cut. I actually really love this now. This is the version they should have released in theatres. In fact, I don't know why they didn't. It's only 7 minutes longer, and such a more complete film. The only noticeable cut was the scene where Yero tells them to wait for his call (then they wait, get the call, go to meet him, he is not there, they go back to the hotel and get ambushed, and Isabella sets them up with Montoya). That scene was about 10 minutes long, and completely pointless. In the DC, we jump from Yero telling them to wait, to them getting the call, to them meeting Montoya. Much more efficient. As for additions, there were three big ones. The opening go-fast boat sequence is obviously back. This sequence shouldn't have been cut. Not because of the race, but because it sets up the pimp that Crockett and Tubbs were inexplicably tracking to start the theatrical cut. The next fairly big scene involved Trudy getting flowers from Yero (to let her and Tubbs know he can get to them), them both getting freaked out, and having a chat in a restaurant. Another scene that should never have been cut, as it foreshadows later events, and actually adds some depth to their relationship. The final big change is in the final shootout. As much as I dont like the cover on it's own, it works perfectly in the film and I must say: sorry, Shake, but you are wrong. Nonpoint's "In The Air Tonight" cover totally elevates the final shootout. Mann should have NEVER put another piece of music there in the first place (it's only THE quintessential Miami Vice song, after all). Anways, where the theatrical cut was decent but extremely flawed, I would say that the unrated director's cut transforms the film into a damn good film with signicantly less flaws.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: demi on January 21, 2007, 09:02:54 AM: (http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/coverv/11/228011_thumb.jpg)

8.7
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Cheebs on January 21, 2007, 09:35:33 AM: Quote from: am nintenho on January 21, 2007, 04:07:16 AM
LOTR isn't about anything, I don't get why it even got published.
It's considered one of the greatest novels of the 20th century and you are confused why it got published?

About nothing? It's a epic adventure story about destroying a ring to break it down bluntly.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Solo on January 21, 2007, 09:45:46 AM: It's also a nice little allegory for the World Wars.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Fake Shemp on January 21, 2007, 09:57:13 AM: I just watched the theatrical cut last night (Miami Vice) and I thought it was a pile of shit. It also had no dialogue.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Cheebs on January 21, 2007, 11:53:05 AM: Quote from: Solo on January 21, 2007, 09:45:46 AM
It's also a nice little allegory for the World Wars.
Tolkien would hate you. :lol

spoiler (click to show/hide)
though I agree
[close]
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Solo on January 21, 2007, 11:54:44 AM: ? Tolkein hated RELIGOUS allegory. I don't think he had a problem with this sort of allegory. If he did, then whoops, looks like he hates his own writing!
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Cheebs on January 21, 2007, 11:57:11 AM: Quote from: Solo on January 21, 2007, 11:54:44 AM
? Tolkein hated RELIGOUS allegory. I don't think he had a problem with this sort of allegory. If he did, then whoops, looks like he hates his own writing!
He said he hated all allegory and got all pissed off when someone mentioned that it was an allegory for WWII.

I love that Tolkien openly hated the Narnia books even though his best friend wrote them due to the religious allegory when Tolkien himself was the one who converted CS Lewis to Christianity. :lol
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 21, 2007, 02:03:23 PM: Where'd you get that LOTR has anything to do with WW2? And if a fantasy story doesn't try to have any symbolism, it's worthless.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Cheebs on January 21, 2007, 02:07:27 PM: Quote from: am nintenho on January 21, 2007, 02:03:23 PM
Where'd you get that LOTR has anything to do with WW2? And if a fantasy story doesn't try to have any symbolism, it's worthless.
Tolkien hated anything with overt symbolism and allegory lol.

There is WWII allegory if you look for it but Tolkien denied having any symbolism of any kind in his work till the day he died.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 21, 2007, 02:15:19 PM: And that's why I hate the books/movies.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Cheebs on January 21, 2007, 02:21:03 PM: Quote from: am nintenho on January 21, 2007, 02:15:19 PM
And that's why I hate the books/movies.
I guess you love star wars then. Star Wars is filled to the brim with symbolism.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 21, 2007, 02:38:35 PM: Do you really want to hear the message of somebody who took his very imaginative ideas and hid under the table with them instead of making them very obvious?
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Cheebs on January 21, 2007, 03:22:10 PM: Quote from: am nintenho on January 21, 2007, 02:38:35 PM
Do you really want to hear the message of somebody who took his very imaginative ideas and hid under the table with them instead of making them very obvious?
huh?
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 21, 2007, 04:34:46 PM: It was just a kiddy movie instead of a kiddy movie with messages adults can understand.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Cheebs on January 21, 2007, 05:39:06 PM: Star Wars is a kiddie movie?
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 21, 2007, 05:56:32 PM: Yes.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Cheebs on January 21, 2007, 06:01:43 PM: I had no idea family friendly means its kiddie
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 21, 2007, 07:26:58 PM: It was marketed as a kiddy movie by Fox, I believe they even delayed it further to match the timeline of a more mature movie that they released so you could drop your kids off in it.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 21, 2007, 08:05:48 PM: Solo, wtf?! Miami Vice UR > TC?! :o

I own both. :-[

IN OTHER NEWS: I finally picked up Shogun Assassin today.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Cheebs on January 21, 2007, 08:55:50 PM: Quote from: am nintenho on January 21, 2007, 07:26:58 PM
It was marketed as a kiddy movie by Fox, I believe they even delayed it further to match the timeline of a more mature movie that they released so you could drop your kids off in it.
Using ANH marketing as basing what the film was? Read what was going on during the production of ANH. Fox just plain didn't get the film at all. They had absolutely no clue what it is. The trailers and initial marketing material was so off it wasn't funny.

It was amazing the film was a success when Fox completely fucked up any sort of well done marketing campaign. Do not use Fox's horrid understanding of ANH before it became a hit to judge what kind of film it was made as.

Lucas did not think Fox "got" ANH and was very hesitant at first to go back to them for the sequels due his initial problems with them.

Fox's handling of star wars was what made him go to Paramount with Indiana Jones.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 21, 2007, 10:57:46 PM: I understand Fox was incompetent and Lucas hated them, but Star Wars didn't have mature themes so it's a kiddy movie.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Phoenix Dark on January 21, 2007, 11:07:33 PM: Quote from: am nintenho on January 21, 2007, 10:57:46 PM
I understand Fox was incompetent and Lucas hated them, but Star Wars didn't have mature themes so it's a kiddy movie.

Jesus Christ dude.

With respect to Tolkien and allegory he constantly denied the notion that his work was purposefully allegoric. Of course the book has many themes that many feel are definitely allegoric such as the "industry of war" and it's effect on nature to the WWII themes. Tolkien fought in WWI and actually was writing his works while his son was involved in WWII.

The Star Wars/FOX/Lucas story has always been interesting to me. Lucas basically had one ally in Fox's head office but when the movies blew up that changed (for a while). I'll always consider Lucas a genius for his foresight on the copyright issue with respect to merchandise. No one at Fox had a second thought about letting him have those rights before the movie came out; today people consider him a "sellout" for some of the merchandise, but it was a brilliant business decision at the time.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Solo on January 22, 2007, 08:07:37 AM: Quote from: The Dark Shake on January 21, 2007, 08:05:48 PM
Solo, wtf?! Miami Vice UR > TC?! :o

I own both. :-[

IN OTHER NEWS: I finally picked up Shogun Assassin today.

And you STILL prefer the TC? Ew. DC owns.

Quote from: am nintenho on January 21, 2007, 02:03:23 PM
Where'd you get that LOTR has anything to do with WW2? And if a fantasy story doesn't try to have any symbolism, it's worthless.

Are you kidding me? Tolkien fought in WW1, and wrote through WW2. LOTR absolutely encompasses Tolkien's war experiences and views. The most simple connection is that Mordor and the evil "east" is Germany.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 22, 2007, 01:40:52 PM: Very, very little to do with the war.

Absolutely meaningless as a fantasy because it doesn't try to have any major symbolism.

It's just good guys against bad, with some bunch of midgets with rings.

I'd be glad if I'm wrong though.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: Solo on January 22, 2007, 02:40:31 PM: Youll lead a very happy life then, based on many of your posts.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: APF on January 22, 2007, 03:16:40 PM: I thought LOTR was more about the burden of doing good, but that may be my interpretation from watching the movies more recently than I've read the books. There's a difference between zOMG TEH SYMBOLISM and dealing with universal and powerful themes; on this I agree with what folks are suggesting was Tolkien's position here--allegory is more often than not a cheap rhetorical device, even when employed well.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 22, 2007, 03:55:04 PM: APF basically agreed! There's nearly no symbolism that has to do with the real world and the good-guy and bad-guy theme is weak and basically worthless.

At the end, it's basically a fantasy that you watch because you want to see big battles and monsters and whatever the fuck "meaning" you could get out of it.
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment on January 22, 2007, 06:40:10 PM: lolz, check the tag
Title: Re: Dark Shake's January Movie Thread 2007
Post by: brawndolicious on January 22, 2007, 06:42:11 PM: what, you're gay for me? Awesome but I don't swing that way.