|
I think he meant Dreamgirls, the movie Jennifer Hudson won an Academy Award for.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
morestuff posted:I remember hearing people laughing about him just being Ben Affleck's brother in the Ocean's movies. Wasn't he also a punchline in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
Klungar posted:I think he meant Dreamgirls, the movie Jennifer Hudson won an Academy Award for. I considered that, but honestly, Queen Latifah in Chicago fits the question too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 19:40
|
|
|
Fag Boy Jim posted:I remember Casey Affleck being sort of a punchline before The Assassination Of Jesse James came out, though I'm not sure if he was considered a lovely actor, or just unknown. I don't remember Casey Affleck ever being a punchline. But you know who was?  Frank Stallone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 19:56
|
|
|
NGL posted:I don't remember Casey Affleck ever being a punchline.  Well played.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 20:38
|
|
|
KasioDiscoRock posted:I considered that, but honestly, Queen Latifah in Chicago fits the question too. Ebert liked her in Set It Off
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 21:01
|
|
|
So is there a list anywhere of films that were shot mostly, if not entirely, in sequence? The only ones I know of are Deliverance, Casablanca, They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, The Breakfast Club, The Maltese Falcon, and The Warriors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
Klungar posted:I think he meant Dreamgirls, the movie Jennifer Hudson won an Academy Award for. yeah, I knew she won for some annoying musical and the caption under her photo on wikipedia has the word "Chicago" in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
Keanu Reeves, who is usually considered a terrible actor, is absolutely fantastic in The Gift. It's a surprisingly great job from him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 02:30
|
|
|
ClydeUmney posted:Keanu Reeves, who is usually considered a terrible actor, is absolutely fantastic in The Gift. It's a surprisingly great job from him. Yeah, this is a great pick. Don't know what the hell Sam Raimi did to get that performance out of him, but I'd love to see them work together again. Katie Holmes ain't half bad in that movie either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 03:31
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:Katie Holmes ain't half bad in that movie either. True. It's just a shame her boobs are as lopsided as her smile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 03:34
|
|
|
Sorry I'm late to respond to this comment but...regulargonzalez posted:We'll just have to agree to disagree. I doubt many people watching Big, as great a movie as it is, thought that Hanks would go on to win multiple Academy Awards. Hanks was nominated for an Oscar for Big, so I'd say it's definitely his breakthrough role, or at least the role that really showed he wouldn't be stuck doing mediocre comedies for his entire career.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 04:33
|
|
|
I've read a couple of tomes on bigfoot and there is definitely enough source material out there both frightening and humorous to make a decent film. The last one I watched was called Sasquatch Hunters and it was just a low budget cheap ape suit/ridiculous CGI mess. The more interesting things on Bigfoot for me have been the specials on Unsolved Mysteries, Ancient Mysteries and In Search Of... Ancient Mysteries In Search Of...
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 01:58
|
|
|
CloseFriend posted:So is there a list anywhere of films that were shot mostly, if not entirely, in sequence? The only ones I know of are Deliverance, Casablanca, They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, The Breakfast Club, The Maltese Falcon, and The Warriors. I know that Platoon was filmed in sequence, and that any time a character died, the actor was shipped off as well, in order to get a better performance out of the remaining actors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 02:28
|
|
|
Oh man, I loved those shows. Though the ones of today are all "END OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!" stuff based on the ancient mysteries. Twisting everything into the end of the world in 2012. It's not just "who built this?" or "where do they come from?". Anyways, I was watching Repo Men last night and is there a reason everyone seemed to have artiforges or was it just the perception of the film? I know now there are lots of people who need transplants, but it seemed like there were a huge number of people with them in the film. Though it would fit with the theme of the film that the Union would try to get as many people as possible to get them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 03:08
|
|
|
Serpico was filmed in reverse  Well not entirely but: imdb trivia posted:The film was shot in reverse order. Al Pacino began with long hair and a beard, then for each scene, his hair and beard were trimmed bit by bit until he became clean-cut.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 03:09
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Anyways, I was watching Repo Men last night and is there a reason everyone seemed to have artiforges or was it just the perception of the film? I know now there are lots of people who need transplants, but it seemed like there were a huge number of people with them in the film. There's that, the fact that there was also a large market for artiforg "enhancements" and from the book there's mention of the fact that due to pollution the world is just generally a crappier place to live with organ failure more likely. Also the book mentions how the Union and other artiforg companies really manipulated people into getting artiforgs for trivial medical reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 04:07
|
|
|
Akuma posted:The Saw films probably do this but I can't quite remember. I wouldn't be surprised if there were clues about Hoffman a movie or two before the reveal. I was going to say this. I'm not entirely sure, because I don't think the writers initially planned for any sequels, but there are several plot points in the first film that become fridge logic unless you accept that Amanda had been helping John. I haven't checked, but I've heard the figure who kidnaps Adam clearly has breasts, and of course we later find out it was Amanda. 3-6 definitely do this and really constitute one whole story. Hoffman's involvement, Det. Matthew's fate, and John's former life are all foreshadowed in Saw 3, but aren't expanded until the following entries. In fact, Saw is much easier to take if you think of it as a high budget TV series instead of a low budget film series.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 09:34
|
|
|
I have a simple(?) question here- I've never seen a Star Wars movie. I want to. Looking for straight information on where to start is more confusing than it should be, though. SO: How many main movies are there? What is the order that I should watch them? Is that also the order they were released? I just want to get in on the action!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 20:38
|
|
|
nWoCHRISnWo posted:I have a simple(?) question here- I've never seen a Star Wars movie. I want to. Looking for straight information on where to start is more confusing than it should be, though. Just watch 4,5,6 - New Hope, Empire Strikes back, and Return of the Jedi
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
nWoCHRISnWo posted:I have a simple(?) question here- I've never seen a Star Wars movie. I want to. Looking for straight information on where to start is more confusing than it should be, though. Star Wars was originally released starting in 1977 with Episodes 4: A New Hope, Episode 5: Empire Strikes Back and Episode 6: Return of the Jedi. Then in 1999 there was the release of the "Prequel Trilogy" which is Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, Episode 2: Attack of the Clones and Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith. If you want the best viewing order it's actually 4-6 then 1-3 since they are basically separate stories. Be prepared to be disappointed with 1-3 as there is a fairly large quality drop between the two trilogies. It's best not to watch the movies in number order as there are quite a few story elements from the "Original Trilogy" (aka 4-6) that wouldn't be quite as powerful if you watched 1-3 first. The Prequel Trilogy is actually designed for people who have seen the OT. muscles like this! fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Aug 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 21:25
|
|
|
Didn't somebody work out some mixed order where you'd watch 1, then 4, then 2, then 5, then 3, then 6 or something like that? It would also kinda work out dramatically as the stories sort of intersect and I think the order which that person had worked out was a bit more sophisticated than just intertwining the old and new episodes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 21:51
|
|
|
CloseFriend posted:So is there a list anywhere of films that were shot mostly, if not entirely, in sequence? The only ones I know of are Deliverance, Casablanca, They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, The Breakfast Club, The Maltese Falcon, and The Warriors. E.T was filmed in order because Spielberg thought it would get a better performance out of the child actors, as was Hitchcock's Rope , for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 21:56
|
|
|
I think I read the The Happening was shot entirely in sequence, though probably not for any good reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:I think I read the The Happening was shot entirely in sequence, though probably not for any good reason. Shyamalan shoots in sequence all the time. Shooting in sequence is tough on the budget, but it helps performances. The Duplass brothers did that for Cyrus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 22:27
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Shyamalan shoots in sequence all the time. Shooting in sequence is tough on the budget, but it helps performances. The Duplass brothers did that for Cyrus. Yeah, it sure helped the performances in The Happening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 22:40
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:Yeah, it sure helped the performances in The Happening. The performances in his first three are great, though :/
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 22:42
|
|
|
Zwille posted:Didn't somebody work out some mixed order where you'd watch 1, then 4, then 2, then 5, then 3, then 6 or something like that? It would also kinda work out dramatically as the stories sort of intersect and I think the order which that person had worked out was a bit more sophisticated than just intertwining the old and new episodes. I remember someone said 1,2, 4,5,6, 3. I'd watch 4,5,6,4,5,6  For reals, I'd do 4-6,1-3.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 22:47
|
|
|
Zwille posted:Didn't somebody work out some mixed order where you'd watch 1, then 4, then 2, then 5, then 3, then 6 or something like that? It would also kinda work out dramatically as the stories sort of intersect and I think the order which that person had worked out was a bit more sophisticated than just intertwining the old and new episodes. That just seems overly complicated for some pretty simple movies. Also I could see the stylistic changes being a little overwhelming if you mix and match the movies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 22:57
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:I remember someone said 1,2, 4,5,6, 3. Notsmug I'd do 4-5-6 and stop there. Read the wookiepedia summaries of 1-3 if you absolutely MUST know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 23:01
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:I remember someone said 1,2, 4,5,6, 3. I take it this is because Darth Vader proper isn't introduced until the third prequel, so you can still enjoy the shock of the "No, I am your father" reveal and yet still have some vestment in Luke's struggle against the man who  killed his father?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 23:06
|
|
|
CloseFriend posted:So is there a list anywhere of films that were shot mostly, if not entirely, in sequence? The only ones I know of are Deliverance, Casablanca, They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, The Breakfast Club, The Maltese Falcon, and The Warriors. The Shining and Aliens. The latter's only exception was the first scene, which was the last to be filmed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 23:20
|
|
|
Klungar posted:I take it this is because Darth Vader proper isn't introduced until the third prequel, so you can still enjoy the shock of the "No, I am your father" reveal and yet still have some vestment in Luke's struggle against the man who It makes a certain amount of sense to watch the original story to the point that all the pieces are on the board and the conflicts are coming to a head, then flash back to watch how it all began, then the final denouement and victory of good over evil. haveblue fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Aug 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 00:13
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:The Shining and Aliens. The latter's only exception was the first scene, which was the last to be filmed. The scene with the robot arm cutting torch/scanner deal? If I remember correctly, Cameron said he put up some of his own money for that scene in one of the DVD commentary tracks. It was quite a bit to spend on one quick ten second gag that doesn't really add a whole lot to the film, but looking back it is a great way to kick the film off - here's a high-tech, expensive looking gizmo that does absolutely mundane work and is entirely unremarkable to the point of never being discussed in dialogue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 01:05
|
|
|
haveblue posted:It makes a certain amount of sense to watch the original story to the point that all the pieces are on the board and the conflicts are coming to a head, then flash back to watch how it all began, then the final denouement and victory of good over evil. Yeah, I've heard people suggest 4,5 then 1,2,3 and top it off with 6, essentially making the prequel trilogy a sort of flashback. I'd stick with the original trilogy though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 01:11
|
|
|
Wild T posted:The scene with the robot arm cutting torch/scanner deal? If I remember correctly, Cameron said he put up some of his own money for that scene in one of the DVD commentary tracks. I think he's referring to the scene of all the Marines waking up, which was filmed last so that the actors had a more natural sense of camaraderie together. According to IMDb, the rest of the movie wasn't shot in sequence though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 01:13
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Also the book mentions how the Union and other artiforg companies really manipulated people into getting artiforgs for trivial medical reasons. Yea, I can see that. "Hey, why use your natural eyes? You some kind of human being? Get new Artiforg eyes, only 300 easy payments of 30k!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 01:15
|
|
|
CloseFriend posted:So is there a list anywhere of films that were shot mostly, if not entirely, in sequence? The only ones I know of are Deliverance, Casablanca, They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, The Breakfast Club, The Maltese Falcon, and The Warriors. Peter Weir shot Dead Poets' Society sequentially, in order to get the actors to bond like real schoolkids would.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 05:03
|
|
|
The Ghost Writer I assume that Ewan McGregor's character told the wife of the ex-Prime Minister at the very end he knew she was the CIA plant because they had already printed a bazillion copies of the book and the truth was written on every page and eventually everyone would find out? If not, he was an idiot. I assume he spent so much time running for his life, they just printed the dumb thing as is and he never got a real chance to edit/rewrite it?.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
ZenMaster posted:The Ghost Writer I don't think so. I'm pretty sure it's meant to be implied that no one would find out about it. He was the only one who knew and the truth died with him. And the reason he told her before going to the press or something is because it's a movie Schweinhund fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Aug 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 06:07
|
|