|
The Long Kiss Goodnight is a better Die Hard than Die Hard.
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:27 |
|
spaceships posted:The Long Kiss Goodnight is a better Die Hard than Die Hard. Well let's not go crazy here. It's certainly a better Die Hard than Die Hard 2 though, and definitely Renny Harlin's high point.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Vargo posted:He's gotta be talking about the Matthew Lillard joke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
I'm in the early stages of trying to figure out how much I should purely focus on the text of the finished film [Chechik's Avengers] and how much I should talk about, say, the fact that it has 30 minutes missing, the critical response, WB generally dumping the picture, etc. It won't be pure formalism anyway since I probably will at least mention the TV series and compare and contrast the two, but I'm trying to decide how much I want it to be a rigorous defense of the film's aesthetic qualities vs. a purer scholarly thematic reading.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
CaptainHollywood posted:Can someone better than me do Dreamcatcher? For the record I think the book is probably better. It's really overlong and is basically the greatest hits of King but it doesn't go with the crazy Duddits stuff at the end either. It gets a lot more weird and metaphysical.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 11:08
|
|
|
What format do you want these in?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:What format do you want these in?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 07:18
|
|
|
I wanted to ask how formal it should be? How much like an academic paper vs a snarky blogpost?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
So far I'm trying to sound kinda scholarly, but still making it as much a spirited defense of the film as a thematic analysis. (Of course if you hate the movie you can make it a spirited takedown- so far the Lucky Number Slevin thread on this forum is a good example of how to do that and still be reasonably professional-sounding about it.) 500 words in and I haven't even really gotten to the plot. I'm trying to decide whether this is a good sign or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
I plan on making mine similar to what I post on my blog, if that helps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:So far I'm trying to sound kinda scholarly, but still making it as much a spirited defense of the film as a thematic analysis. (Of course if you hate the movie you can make it a spirited takedown- so far the Lucky Number Slevin thread on this forum is a good example of how to do that and still be reasonably professional-sounding about it.) If you're a brutal editor it's fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
Hey, CloseFriend! Is there a standardized way you would like our essays to format film titles? I generally use italics but for you, I can change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Hey, CloseFriend! Is there a standardized way you would like our essays to format film titles? I generally use italics but for you, I can change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
I was just reminded last night that there are only two weeks left. So, I am passing that knowledge onto the rest of you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Almost done with the first draft. Organizing my thoughts is the big issue thusfar, I've got a lot of things that could probably be moved around or dropped.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
So I'll probably not have time to get my own submissions done before the bell, so I'm passing that savings onto you: the new due date is November 1. Enjoy!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
CloseFriend posted:So I'll probably not have time to get my own submissions done before the bell, so I'm passing that savings onto you: the new due date is November 1. Enjoy! Thanks! I've already done a close rewatch and took a ton of notes and screenshots but I only just started doing the actual writing today. This gives me more time to polish it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
CloseFriend posted:So I'll probably not have time to get my own submissions done before the bell, so I'm passing that savings onto you: the new due date is November 1. Enjoy! You're my new best friend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
CloseFriend posted:So I'll probably not have time to get my own submissions done before the bell, so I'm passing that savings onto you: the new due date is November 1. Enjoy! Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
CloseFriend posted:So I'll probably not have time to get my own submissions done before the bell, so I'm passing that savings onto you: the new due date is November 1. Enjoy! Wonderful. I've actually done my first draft but this gives me time to let it stew properly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Oh thank god, thanks CloseFriend! I'm on vacation, so I'll have plenty of time to watch my film and take plenty of notes, so I can spend some time when I get back writing/polishing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Just hit the 1000 word mark and man, I am having a boatload of fun writing this. It's making me want to attempt blogging again, though I have a very spotty history with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
I'm surprised nobody pitched Cats don't dance, its a perfect Animated movie that failed spectacularly because of marketing whoes and a merger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:My favorite part is to watch the entirety of the cast act circles around Keanu Reeves. Constantine always weirded me out because I love love love the movie but Keanu is definitely still Keanu in it. I'd always attributed that to the directing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:Constantine always weirded me out because I love love love the movie but Keanu is definitely still Keanu in it. I'd always attributed that to the directing. Nothing will ever top Keanu dropping a steaming pile on the 1993 adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing. The movie is completely fantastic except for Keanu.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Nothing will ever top Keanu dropping a steaming pile on the 1993 adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing. The movie is completely fantastic except for Keanu. Coppola's Dracula has other issues but Keanu is probably the worst thing about that film too, living up to every "watching Keanu Reeves is like watching a block of wood" cliche.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:Coppola's Dracula has other issues but Keanu is probably the worst thing about that film too, living up to every "watching Keanu Reeves is like watching a block of wood" cliche. Ah now, I have to defend his performance in that. That accent is absolutely hilarious and Reeves isn't chewing the scenery any more that anyone else in that movie. If that performance is like a block of wood, it's one with "YE OLDE ENGLISH FOPPE" beautifully lacquered across it, which is entirely in keeping with the character in the original book.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
I have a fairly well-researched and compelling case that Deep Rising was completely a victim of bad timing and studio fuckery, but very little to say about the film itself - it's a pretty-good monster flick, that should've done generic $80-100m summer popcorn numbers. I don't think it's a particularly great film, but would an article about how sometimes even perfectly servicable films are tanked be acceptable?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Nothing will ever top Keanu dropping a steaming pile on the 1993 adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing. The movie is completely fantastic except for Keanu. "Roger Lewis of the Sunday Times posted:"He quite embodied the innocence, the splendid fury, the animal grace of the leaps and bounds, the emotional violence, that form the Prince of Denmark... He is one of the top three Hamlets I have seen, for a simple reason: he is Hamlet." He is pretty poo poo in Much Ado though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
Constantine was on TV last night. Keanu was not very good indeed. He particularly stood out in any scene with Tilda Swinton. They should make a Constantine TV series, it lends itself well to the current trends, but use a proper knackered looking blonde Liverpudlian as the lead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 11:05
|
|
|
I'm quoting from memory of a review I vaguely recall, but the great thing about Keanu Reeves is that he is so incredibly bland that in Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies, where all these incredible, unbelievable things are happening, his blandness acts as a grounding force. All the hullabaloo surrounding the Son of Satan and the Spear of Destiny in Constantine is instantly more believable, because Keanu Reeves is so perfectly ordinary. As cliche as it to say it'd be better as an HBO series, an HBO series would be awesome, I always thought James Marsters would have been perfect, but he might be too old by now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:As cliche as it to say it'd be better as an HBO series, an HBO series would be awesome, I always thought James Marsters would have been perfect, but he might be too old by now. Conversely, isn't Constantine supposed to age in relatively close to real-time (or at the very least, acknowledges his own past in the 70s-80s-90s) compared to the rest of the DCU? It might make him too young.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Conversely, isn't Constantine supposed to age in relatively close to real-time (or at the very least, acknowledges his own past in the 70s-80s-90s) compared to the rest of the DCU? It might make him too young.  As a guy who's made multiple deals with various devils from many pantheons, he *might* have gotten eternal youth thrown in at some point. Shame he didn't get a lifetime supply of Silk Cuts though
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Conversely, isn't Constantine supposed to age in relatively close to real-time (or at the very least, acknowledges his own past in the 70s-80s-90s) compared to the rest of the DCU? It might make him too young. Before the reboot, yes, but I figured tv show would want a relatively young Constantine. Mid 30's at the latest, I looked him up, James Marsters is 51.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I'm quoting from memory of a review I vaguely recall, but the great thing about Keanu Reeves is that he is so incredibly bland that in Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies, where all these incredible, unbelievable things are happening, his blandness acts as a grounding force. All the hullabaloo surrounding the Son of Satan and the Spear of Destiny in Constantine is instantly more believable, because Keanu Reeves is so perfectly ordinary. Pretty much. He's an empty vessel, like a JRPG character. When Keanu acts it's easier to see yourself in the same position. It makes it easier to experience than casting someone charismatic or unique. That's why people who hate Reeves will still hear how they were gonna cast Will Smith as Neo and go, "Oh god that would suck" because they know it'd just turn into a Will Smith movie instead of being "The Matrix".
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Pretty much. He's an empty vessel, like a JRPG character. When Keanu acts it's easier to see yourself in the same position. It makes it easier to experience than casting someone charismatic or unique. That's why people who hate Reeves will still hear how they were gonna cast Will Smith as Neo and go, "Oh god that would suck" because they know it'd just turn into a Will Smith movie instead of being "The Matrix". The advantage of Reeves in The Matrix is that he had zero star power at the time and the movie needed a cast that could be forced to put up with the training regiment and be unable to push for major script or direction changes. Look at all the psuedo-Matrix movies that followed it; besides being the photocopy of a photocopy of Honk Kong style action, the action scenes are all chaotic jumbles partially because the stars can't handle doing action more complicated than two seconds long (and of course they can't just have the stuntmen do the entire scene for them). Also, I've heard that the on again, off again talks for a Hellblazer series are currently on again (with the title Hellblazer to avoid the connection to the film). As with any nerd project, though, I'd hold off until they're actually shooting before getting excited about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Just to double check, submissions are text-only, right? Still need to crank out my Punisher: War Zone piece.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:The advantage of Reeves in The Matrix is that he had zero star power at the time Are you kidding? Speed was a huge hit in 94. Devil's Advocate was a talked about movie only two years prior to Matrix. We're not talking about casting Brandon Routh here (or Hugh Jackman for the first X-Men).
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
Eh, Reeves hit it big with Speed he kind of made a bunch of movies that just didn't take off and he seemed like he was doomed to fade until The Matrix came around. I mean Devil's Advocate did well, but it was also the most notable movie he made between Speed and The Matrix and it wasn't exactly a movie that said "this man is a star that should be opening movies".
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
axleblaze posted:Eh, Reeves hit it big with Speed he kind of made a bunch of movies that just didn't take off and he seemed like he was doomed to fade until The Matrix came around. I mean Devil's Advocate did well, but it was also the most notable movie he made between Speed and The Matrix and it wasn't exactly a movie that said "this man is a star that should be opening movies". I remember when critics said that Keanu was torpedoing his career for not agreeing to be in Speed 2. This was before Speed 2 came out, of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 04:14
|
|
