|
Zwille posted:Are there any other movies like The Big Lebowski that follow the rules of a certain genre to a T but other than that are completely different in mood and tone? "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is essentially "Chinatown".
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
DevilOnYourShoulder posted:"Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is essentially "Chinatown". I know it directly spoofs Chinatown, but isn't it based off an unmade third J.J. Gittes story?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Strangelove, The Shining, and FMJ also made bank.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
Basically there's no way he could've done what he did if he wasn't able to bring Scrooge McDuck amounts of money to the backers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
SubG posted:Yeah, Kubrick was actually pretty consistently commercially successful (with a few notable exceptions---e.g. Eyes Wide Shut (1999) and Barry Lyndon (1975)). I just didn't want to have to get into parsing exactly what a `box office hit' is and figured being one of the top ten earners for the year was an easy measure. Eyes Wide Shut was a commercial success. The only film he made that did disastrously at the box office was Paths of Glory and that was mostly because some countries in Europe refused to show it due to its subject matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 22:58
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:I know it directly spoofs Chinatown, but isn't it based off an unmade third J.J. Gittes story? It's based on a book called Who Censored Roger Rabbit? by Gary K. Wolf.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
EvilTobaccoExec posted:His praise was something along the lines of Gump being a brilliant black comedy satirizing the American dream. Tarantino tells the story of him saying this to Robert Zemeckis who replied "Finally someone got it!". And yes, 'Spartan' is great. Val Kilmer is totally badass in that flick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
DevilOnYourShoulder posted:"Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is essentially "Chinatown".  I can see similarities between the two stories, and I really want to believe you... Thinking about remakes and reboots and homages and the like, have we seen the last live action Star Wars movie, or is George Lucas going to give us the un-asked for Origin to The Emperor?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 03:49
|
|
|
Considering how long it takes for him to do anything I think we're fine as he's busy with the 3D conversions and the TV show(s.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 03:53
|
|
|
I know the movie is loosely based on the book, but I read the whole plot about the freeway and the trolley cars was specifically adapted from from an unproduced Chinatown sequel. Also, the scene where Eddie shows Roger the pictures of Jessica "cheating" is a direct spoof of Chinatown.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
Zwille posted:Are there any other movies like The Big Lebowski that follow the rules of a certain genre to a T but other than that are completely different in mood and tone?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 07:33
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:A superficial description of Chungking Express would make it difficult to differentiate from the plot of a rom-com, but the feel is completely different. A similar thing can be said about at least the beginning of Nacho Vigalondo's fantastic short 7:35 In the Morning (7:35 de la mañana), which everyone should watch here if you haven't seen it yet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivlrMdgwnfk Riptor fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Feb 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
Okay, here's a question, since it's been bothering me and it's been so long since I saw the movie: What was the turning point in the movie "Weekend at Bernie's?" Like, in the terms of the break from act 1 into act 2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 05:44
|
|
|
Unexpected EOF posted:Okay, here's a question, since it's been bothering me and it's been so long since I saw the movie: Haven't seen it in years, but it's probably when they find him and decide to stay at his house anyways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 06:49
|
|
|
Is Sidney Lumet done with film-making?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 07:12
|
|
|
DannoMack posted:Is Sidney Lumet done with film-making? Don't think so. We received a submission written by him to direct just a month or two ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 12:07
|
|
|
I really hope not. Before The Devil Knows You're Dead is one of my favorite movies ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
So I just saw Robocop 3 and I was wondering - the bad guy hitman is a mute, never has a line in the movie. What is the SAG policy on people with major roles in films who still never speak (for instance, playing the lead in The Miracle Worker)? I know that "one line = SAG card", but what if they don't have a line, but are clearly above-the-line talent?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
tendrilsfor20 posted:So I just saw Robocop 3 and I was wondering - the bad guy hitman is a mute, never has a line in the movie. I don't know about SAG, but in Canada I'm pretty sure ACTRA has a clause for non-speaking roles based on screentime that adjusts wage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
I am sure that the massive SAG basic agreement deals with this. To my knowledge, anyone who appears onscreen and is credited (including eg stuntmen) receive SAG residuals, pension health and welfare, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
DannoMack posted:Is Sidney Lumet done with film-making? He's mucked up with some documentary that Clint Eastwood is doing last I heard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
It's sort of hard to believe that the same person who made a dumbbell like The Morning After could have also made Long Day's Journey Into Night. It's weird, too, because reading his Making Movies both made me respect him a lot more and a little less. He's a terrific craftsman but far too often he's not much more than that. I find it hard to put a finger on what bugs me about his work. It's not that he's prolific, I don't hold it to him for wanting to get a lot done, and certainly every filmmaker who's turned out a wealth of movies has stumbled a lot. Maybe it's my addiction to pomp and theatricality. I like a film to go pow! right off the screen at you, visually. I adore Peter Greenaway because even though he's an rear end in a top hat to the viewer nearly every frame he and Sacha Vierny produced was deliciously frameable. And I get his attention to drama -Lumet's, not Greenaway's- and the psychological aspects, and all that stuff about how great he is with actors is really obvious on the screen. He's produced some of the finest performances on celluloid, and I can see that much, but for some reason I have to force myself to watch, keep telling myself that it's all really brilliant because I don't naturally perceive it if it's not done in screaming colors. So I guess it's a fault of my own that I can't fully recognize the genius in Sidney Lumet most of the time. And that's what drives me to drink.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 01:14
|
|
|
I guess this is the place for this: Does anyone else really hate David Lynch and think his movies are complete pretentious poo poo? I've heard that Twin Peaks is really good and still plan to watch it, but Mullholland Drive pretty much put me off David Lynch forever. I'm not too stupid to "get" him, i just think he sucks. Am I alone? And also, people who are fans of him, can you tell me what you like about him? This post may come off as a little confrontational, but I really just don't get it and need either confirmation or enlightenment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
Mulholland Drive is a masterpiece to me not just because of its marvelous dreamy atmosphere but because it's such a fun puzzle. You see the first two thirds, which are her dream, and it sort of makes sense but not really, and then you see her real life, which is like an answer key, and then you can put the pieces together. I think it's important that you're able to get into the "mood", or the rest of the film won't work because it would just be too "what the hell is this", and if you can't get the mood then you can't get David Lynch. Some people can't get the mood, and boy, some people get really upset about it. Try another one of his films; Blue Velvet is usually regarded as a good starting place, and Twin Peaks might give you a boost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
Just watching 'The Happening'... Is Mark Wahlberg just that bad an actor?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 06:12
|
|
EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT JAPAN OR LIVING IN JAPAN IS COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL 
ABOUT IT.
|
kapalama posted:Just watching 'The Happening'... Sometimes, good actors just put in lovely performances in lovely movies. See also George Clooney in "Batman & Robin." I'd recommend Boogie Nights or The Departed if you wanna see Mark Wahlberg act well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 06:15
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Just watching 'The Happening'... No, but holy poo poo, I know, right? It's like Shyamalan had them talking to tennis balls, thereby removing any chance of actual actor interaction. Zooey Deschanel spends the movie looking like a blow-up doll.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 06:19
|
|
|
Same thing happened in the prequels with Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 06:24
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:No, but holy poo poo, I know, right? It's like Shyamalan had them talking to tennis balls, thereby removing any chance of actual actor interaction. Zooey Deschanel spends the movie looking like a blow-up doll. I keep expecting him to break into that impression that Andy Samberg does imitating him: "Hey, goat, how you doing? Say hi to your mother for me." EDIT: Wow, just after I typed that, the scene with him talking to the plant came on! kapalama fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Feb 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 06:30
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Same thing happened in the prequels with Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson At least the cast of The Happening had actual sets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 06:31
|
|
|
The acting in The Happening is terrible, but it's not one of those movies that you can chalk entirely up bad delivery or directing. If you actually listen to the dialogue, you'll see it doesn't even make sense on paper. It's seriously like Tommy Wiseau tried to imitate Hitchcock. I mean, look at lines like, "You should be more interested in science, Jake. You know why? Because your face is perfect." How the gently caress was Mark Wahlberg supposed to deliver that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 07:30
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:The acting in The Happening is terrible, but it's not one of those movies that you can chalk entirely up bad delivery or directing. If you actually listen to the dialogue, you'll see it doesn't even make sense on paper. It's seriously like Tommy Wiseau tried to imitate Hitchcock. I mean, look at lines like, "You should be more interested in science, Jake. You know why? Because your face is perfect." How the gently caress was Mark Wahlberg supposed to deliver that? Just barely under his breath with a hint of lust so we could at least imply that as a potential pedophile his character has something more to him that what we're just outright told.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 07:31
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Just watching 'The Happening'... I have no idea why Wahlberg in particular takes such poo poo for this movie when nothing emerges from it unscathed. It is probably the worst major studio film in years and years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 07:40
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Ever since I heard this I've wondered: was it actually his favorite film or was it just some OCD reason he picked it? Is it actually a good movie? While he was living in Nevada, Hughes was pretty well insane, so I don't know if there's a specific reason behind him picking that movie. Hughes rarely slept (he was addicted to painkillers and uppers), so the Las Vegas TV station he owned ran a block of old movies at bizarre hours of the night so Hughes would have something to watch when he couldn't sleep. Howard Hughes also came incredibly close to buying ABC, but backed out at the last minute because he hated black people. Hughes had decided to buy ABC and was very near closing the deal, but he happened to see an episode of The Dating Game that featured a white woman and a black man, which offended Hughes to the point where he called the entire $200 million deal off immediately. Ironically, the "white woman" on the show was actually a light skinned black.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 07:40
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:While he was living in Nevada, Hughes was pretty well insane, so I don't know if there's a specific reason behind him picking that movie. Hughes rarely slept (he was addicted to painkillers and uppers), so the Las Vegas TV station he owned ran a block of old movies at bizarre hours of the night so Hughes would have something to watch when he couldn't sleep.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 07:51
|
|
|
Unexpected EOF posted:Just barely under his breath with a hint of lust so we could at least imply that as a potential pedophile his character has something more to him that what we're just outright told. "Old black water, keep on rollin', Mississippi moon won't you keep on shinin' on MEEE. See? We're totally normal!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 07:51
|
|
|
The "Cinema Paradiso" DVD that I rented includes both the 123-minute international cut and the 173-minute "New Version" director's cut. Is there a consensus on which version is better (for a first-time viewing, at least)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 08:16
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I have no idea why Wahlberg in particular takes such poo poo for this movie when nothing emerges from it unscathed. It is probably the worst major studio film in years and years. Because John Leguziamo has been terrible in some really terrible roles (and good in others for sure), and Zooey Daschanel seems to have gotten famous for being some casting director's crush (I love her eyes, let's cast her!) Yes the dialogue in that movie, the plot logic, and the emotional interaction was about as disconnected as it is in a David Lynch movie (Wahlberg's 'Black Water' rendition brought immediately to mind Kyle MacLachlan's chicken walk in Blue Velvet for pure cringeworthiness and lack of connection) , but if Lynch can do it then M. Night Shyamalan can to.... Part of the reason Wahlberg comes off so badly is because, just like Kevin Pollak did with William Shatner, Andy Samberg's Mark Wahlberg impression has pretty much defined the idiot/limited side of Wahlberg's acting approach. Because of that, Wahlberg's lack of range is really highlighted because you recognize the consistent idiot tone behind his performance. So, when, for whatever reason, the screenwriter/director chooses to present deadpan, stupid, illogical, unnatural dialogue, all you end up with is is the lead doing Andy Samberg's version of himself because he does not have the range to do anything else with it. The crazy woman in the house had the same illogical dialogue and she brought some menace to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 10:13
|
|
|
For those who haven't seen The Happening, this clip is basically a condensation of Wahlberg's performance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 10:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
Snak posted:I guess this is the place for this:
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 11:42
|
|
