|
morestuff posted:The Apatow movies suffer from this. The 40-Year-Old Virgin gets a little long on DVD. I don't think the inserted scenes in the Superbad DVD really do anything aside from break up the flow of the surrounding scenes.
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2008 06:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
Encryptic posted:I'm in the middle of watching Unforgiven and I was thinking - what are some other "must-see" Westerns out there? I've seen a number of the well-known ones and enjoyed them (Tombstone, Dances With Wolves, Leone's Man With No Name trilogy, The Magnificent Seven, etc.) but I know there's others out there that are well-regarded. I'm certainly not an expert on classic Westerns, but I really like the modern, gritty Westerns like The Proposition and the series Deadwood.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2008 19:27
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:Exactly which Republic serials inspired Indiana Jones? I would check out Secret Service in Darkest Africa if I were you. It's definitely the closest inspiration I've seen. It's got an American Secret Service agent fighting Nazis in Casablanca trying to recover the Dagger of Solomon, the handle of which is a key to open an ancient leader's tomb, that gives the wielder (political) control over Muslims. The first scene starts out with Agent Rex Bennett in Nazi disguise (with absolutely no German accent, of course) infiltrating a German operation, getting found out, and having to punch his way out of a hidden room inside of a large castle. He soon teams up with a French officer and a female agent to try to stop the Nazis from taking control of the region. The other film with Rex Bennett, G-Men vs. The Black Dragon is fun, too, and feels a bit like the beginning of Temple of Doom in spots. Aside from that most serials have bits and pieces that resemble the Indiana Jones movies. I'd recommend Captain Midnight and other similar aviator serials. The serial with the best action I've ever seen, though, is King of the Royal Mounted, though it doesn't resemble Indiana Jones too much. Unfortunately due to the nature of serials, we never really get much personality from any of the characters. They're more or less stock characters used to drive action. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Jul 9, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2010 15:47
|
|
|
loosenukes posted:This is going to sound dumb, but why all the love for Solaris? I thought it was mediocre at best, but got a kick out of seeing Daniel Farraday in space. I can't stand the Sodoberg version for precisely this reason. I thought Jeremy Davies brought the movie down hard. Granted, this was before I fell for him on LOST, but it doesn't take away from the fact that his character was awful and awkward in Solaris. The original is by far the more entertaining film IMO.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2010 07:27
|
|
|
Ein Bear posted:In Return of the Jedi, why exactly does the Emperor want Luke to turn to the dark side and be his apprentice? He already rules the Galaxy, what does he have to gain by turning Luke? If anything, it seems that having a super-powerful evil apprentice is a liability, the guy's just going to stab you in the back. I always figured it was because he needed to train an apprentice to take over for him after he's gone. Now that he know's his current apprentice, who is extremely powerful in the force but crippled physically, has an able-bodied young, impressionable son (who, you can retcon in post-prequels, was the same age as when Palpatine corrupted his father), why not have Luke take his father's place at his side?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2010 22:48
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Well it might help if the thread actually had a descriptive title so newbies/people who don't regularly read the forum know what the hell is going on. I'm a regular reader of CineD but I subconsciously ignore all sticked threads. When I finally noticed the general discussion I had no idea what it was supposed to be, and when I ventured in I still couldn't figure it out, thinking that I missed a reference or it was a continuation from an older thread which had lost its context.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2010 20:37
|
|
|
the Bunt posted:There Will Be Blood: I think it's a bit of both. I take it as "I've accomplished everything that I wanted and now have nothing left to live for".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2010 16:14
|
|
|
Hm, okay so this may not be the place to put this since it's a request, but does anyone happen to have a screenshot of (or just the source of) the Coen Brothers giant bookshelf full of unfilmed scripts? I remember seeing it in some documentary or behind-the-scenes footage of them and being blown away, but can't recall where I saw it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2010 02:54
|
|
|
Could 70mm prints of, say, Lawrence of Arabia, be modified to play on modern IMAX screens? If no, why not?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2010 18:03
|
|
|
Not sure if this should go in the "Recommend Me" thread or here, but what's the best Sherlock Holmes movie out there? I've only ever seen the Robert Downey Jr. version and the new BBC version, but want to see a more classic version of the character. I read a few of the short stories a few years back and really enjoyed them, but don't have a definitive screen Holmes yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2011 04:10
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Fair warning, though - the Rathbone movies update them to a then-current setting. You're not getting OG Holmes, but it's close. What if I do want victorian-era? What's the best film in that case? And if I do go with Rathbone, what's the definitive film?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2011 04:24
|
|
|
Cavenagh posted:Not films, but the TV series with Jeremy Brett is closest to what you're after. Thanks! And it's on Netflix Instant. Perfect 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
1. I can't be sure, but I'm guessing it's one of the actors from the first film, made-up to look older for continuity between films. 2. I think he's just bewildered in general and is taken aback when someone yells at him. I don't have my copy of BTTFII around to confirm these, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
Affi posted:Help me find a good movie disguised as a horrible lovely movie she would like! Are you sure you don't just want to get a new girlfriend? Otherwise, Down with Love. Maybe About a Boy? Possibly Eternal Sunshine? e: If you start 15 minutes into Gross Point Blank you might be able to trick her long enough for her to get involved. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Jan 25, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
Lando2 posted:Do you guys feel that we give certain movies more praise and credit than they deserve simply because they came out during "our" generation. For instance, the Star Wars trilogy was groundbreaking and an amazing set of movies that tapped into what people wanted at the time. Indiana Jones was also successful but since that time what has Lucas made that proved to be praise worthy? Same goes for a guy like Kevin Smith who made a good movie that was exactly what his generation wanted, propelling him to the status of average director. No. Liking these films isn't generational or nostalgia-specific. When kids watch the Star Wars original trilogy today, they love the films because there's action and adventure and robots and laser swords and good characters and a fun story. When I first saw Clerks in high school in 2002 I liked it because it spoke to my insecurities and brought up interesting thoughts on the world and on friendship and relationships and had pop culture references that I enjoyed. I wasn't of Kevin Smith's generation, I didn't long for the early 90s, I just liked the movie for being fun and funny and well written.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2011 03:50
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:He sort of invented Netflix On Demand too by buying his own Las Vegas TV station and then calling them up and making them play Ice Station Zebra whenever he felt like watching it again, which was quite often. 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?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
kapalama posted:When did the "Shaky Camera= Real" idea appear and why won't it go away? Well the Bourne films shot it into mainstream action films. The form has been around for ages, really, but rarely utilized. I think it's something that works wonderfully if it's handled well, but 70% of the time it isn't. When it adds to the intensity it's great, but when you look at the fight scenes in the newer Batman films it's just boring because you can't see anything. My question is: people complain that shaky-cam gives them nausea. Are they literally getting nauseous or are they just whining because they find the action hard to follow? I just can't fathom how you'd get headaches or nausea from that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2011 06:58
|
|
|
Is the Alexander director's cut worth watching?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 05:58
|
|
|
So I've had to watch Twilight for work, and I'm halfway through New Moon. Are these films just incredibly incompetently written, or is it all the fault of the source material? It seems to me like there is a very interesting mythology behind the story, and perhaps even interesting characters, but the incredibly poor writing, scenework, dialogue, pacing, etc keeps getting in the way. Is this entirely Stephanie Meyers' fault, or is it also partially to blame on the screenwriters? I'm certainly not one to disparage the Twilight series for what it is; in fact, I think it's better conceived than a great number of comic books that cover similar entitlement themes, but the fact that it just doesn't come across on screen is so unforgivable given the possible interest of the source.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2011 07:36
|
|
|
This is maybe more of a music question than a movie question, but in Back to the Future, exactly how unrealistic is the impromptu Johnny B. Goode performance? With the instructions Marty gives to the band, could they have actually pulled off something like that in real life?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2011 06:57
|
|
|
Jack Bandit posted:"Hey Greg, why don't you go piss your pants again?" I love that part so much, since Rogan and Goldberg wrote it in high school about themselves, so that plus the "People don't forget!" probably referred to an actual guy they went to school with who pissed his pants 20+ years ago who is getting poo poo for it in a major Hollywood film.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 05:23
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Japanese women find him repulsive. Since those are most of the women I know, believe me when I say my jaw dropped, (and I still cannot find it) when I heard people say he was attractive. He'll always have Kimiko
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
Really doubtful, but is there any way that an early draft of Superbad is out there? I know a lot of early drafts of scripts exist out there, and I love the idea that the first draft of Superbad was written when Seth and Evan were 15. I want to see how it compares to the final movie. If not, is there a good interview or anything that talks about the early drafts?
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2011 04:36
|
|
|
oceanside posted:I've been trying to find this out without exposing myself to spoilers through sifting through Wikipedia and some reviews but I couldn't find a conclusive answer: should I watch Apocalypse Now first and then Apocalypse Now Redux or vice versa? Or will Apocalypse Now Redux on its own cover all of the bases? I believe the popular consensus is that Redux is terrible beyond the level of being an interesting curiosity to fans of the original.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
I really like Peter Dinklage, but I've only ever seen him in The Station Agent, Death at a Funeral, and now Game of Thrones - what else has he had a decent role in that isn't just playing "the dwarf"?
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2011 05:47
|
|
|
Quantify! posted:He always plays a dwarf, at least in every role I've seen him in. Oh sure, I don't mean where it isn't referenced at all or doesn't inform his character, I just mean roles where he wasn't simply cast because the script called for a short guy but something where he really gets to act beyond that. Though I'd love for him to get more work outside of roles that were written for a little person.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2011 06:53
|
|
|
Was Ridley Scott involved in the Gladiator 2 project at all (the one with Nick Cave's script) or was that conceptualized completely without him?
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:BUT I NEED ANSWERS, MAN!!! That didn't look like a stab wound to me. She was shot! 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
What, exactly, in Total Recall was meant to make me think that it was real? Just the 2 or 3 weird looks that his wife/co-worker/Rekall salesman give before he goes under? Because it seems pretty definitive to me that it wasn't. Especially the fact that he saw Melina on the screen in the doctor's office before he went under, saw photos of the reactor, the doctor's comment of "blue sky on mars? that's a new one," the spelling out of the plot by Edgemar, etc - just too much evidence stacked on the side of it being his Rekall vacation/vacation gone wrong. People seem to talk about it like it's ambiguous, but it really doesn't seem like that to me. Which is a shame, because I think it would be a better film it it as.
feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Aug 2, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:There's a pretty strong hint that it may be real (or not real?) - during the Rekall scene, McClane (the sales guy) gets paged back to the implantation room where Quaid is freaking the gently caress out after Dr. Lull supposedly hit a memory cap. McClane claims he's just acting out the secret agent portion of the Ego Trip - only to be told by Dr. Lull that that isn't possible since they haven't even implanted it yet. Zogo posted:The one guy was sweating. He wouldn't have been nervous if he was imaginary. Those make a certain amount of sense, but I think that the "I haven't implanted it yet" could definitely be part of the simulation to further make him think that it's real (hell, from his point of view that's what would convince me the most, so it would naturally be part of the simulation). Good point with the dreams about Melina before he went in, but I think the Edgemar sweating situation could be another thing that's put into the simulation to further convince Quaid it's all real as the simulation nears its end. It's not like there's a real answer here, I was just wondering if I missed something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2011 05:50
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:Yeah - I've seen it 500 times and it still just rings as ambiguous to me. There's compelling arguments for both sides and I'm of the mind it was intended to be that way. I believe Verhoeven mentions the possibility explicitly in the Making Of. I think if they just hadn't shown the actual photograph of Melina as his ideal woman in Rekall I'd find it a lot easier to swallow. But then again I can't wave away his dream at the beginning, so it can't be definitive either way.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2011 06:06
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:Yeah...it's interesting. I'm still trying to puzzle out the Edgemar being real versus a simulation thing since you mentioned it. I think that after re-watching it this time I've come away with an opinion that not a lot of people have. I don't think it's real, I don't think it's Quaid having a bad reaction to the implants, and I don't think he gets lobotomized at the end. I think the entire thing is the vacation, exactly how Rekall wanted it. I think the white screen at the end is him waking up from a successful vacation - or rather, his secret agent character is having a lobotomy, turning him back into the original Quaid. Him having to question the reality of it at the end with Edgemar could have been him getting used to the idea of the simulation again before he wakes up. Keep in mind that the movie ends right after "blue skies" comes true - which is pretty much the only thing we know about what Quaid's vacation is going to contain. Certainly this could be argued to death but this explanation makes as much or more sense to me than any of the other options I've heard. Noxville posted:He only sees Melina on screen when he's starting to lose consciousness so it could be a symptom of his memories returning. True, as she is a 3D model before that. He could be filling the reality of his simulation with the woman from his dreams. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Aug 2, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2011 07:32
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:In thinking about this more - it occurs to me that another issue that muddies the "real versus reel" waters is that we see bits of the movie where Quaid could not possibly be present at all (e.g. Cohaagen talking to Richter in his office, etc.). It seems to imply that Richter and Cohaagen at least could theoretically exist outside of Quaid's mind. In another scene where Quaid is not present, Richter is clearly shown as having an outside motivation for wanting to kill Quaid instead of just being a scripted bad guy intended to make Quaid/Hauser's defection look real. Yeah, this is something I wanted to comment on but couldn't figure out how to phrase it properly. It really only makes sense as a narrative device for the audience as a representation of the simulation's processing or real events in a non-simulation. I wish the remake was sticking to the idea but fixing some of these problems (ambiguity, point-of-view, etc) rather than starting from scratch - however good or bad their new idea may be. Ultimately I'm able to sit back and enjoy the film as an Arnold Movie, but I know there's also a Good Movie in there somewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2011 16:22
|
|
<--- I need a Total Recall psypop emote here.
|
FishBulb posted:The thing about Total Recall is that the whole 'is it real or a simulation' thing could be pretty interesting but since they cast Arnie nobody really cares because OF COURSE Arnie is a super hero secret agent that can kill a million dudes and save Mars. Of loving course he can, we expect no less from him. Yeah, someone in the Making Of said that he fit the part because the audience wants it all to be real because of this. I don't buy it, because then they wouldn't have made him into a construction worker when he was originally an accountant.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
You should probably edit that, there's a rule against drunk posting.Zogo posted:I agree with your ideas too. My personality tends to latch onto the aspects that could make it be perceived as real. Yeah, I think ultimately the film's interpretation comes down to what each viewer wants to be true. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Aug 3, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2011 06:47
|
|
|
Organic metal, duh.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
Polaron posted:It's becoming more and more common nowadays. I'm not sure of an actual percentage, but any scene where there's any use of heavy machinery (cranes, giant fans, etc) are likely ADRed, and a great deal more besides. Man, the first time I successfully did ADR in school it was like magic.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
Sobatchja Morda posted:Hell no, if we're going with a film about a dystopian future, I demand my loving Ziggy Stardust! I've been saying for a while now, Duncan Jones should really film a $100 million sci-fi Ziggy Stardust rock musical film produced by Bowie. e: Ideally with Tilda Swinton as Ziggy. 
feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Aug 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2011 06:47
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Do they even make full screen versions of movies anymore? Seems like that battle was won. I just had to watch a Video On Demand fullscreen version of Hannah the other night. There were options to switch to letterbox/stretch/etc but the default was fullscreen, but unfortunately either it wasn't working on my dad's particular box, or the options were only available for the HD broadcasts.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
I saw a movie at a bar on an HDTV that I assumed was optimized for sports, but the movie made it seem way more "real" than normal, but it looked really cheap, basically bad TV quality. I assume it's a hertz thing, but is this anything what the 48fps Hobbit would look like?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2011 06:12
|
|