|
X-Ray Pecs posted:I believe this is Crank. No, that sounds like Crank.
|
#
¿
May 20, 2010 11:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:This thread about an art heist in Paris got me thinking about something that's always bugged me - in The Thomas Crown Affair w. Brosnan, the scene where he takes the painting off the wall and puts it in some special folding case.. I never seem to keep up with what that folding case does. IT looks like he's putting the painting into a case that's smaller than the painting and then folding it up like a Trapper Keeper.. I've watched it a couple times and always see the same thing. Is he actually folding the painting? Doesn't it break? Yeah that part bothered me when I first saw the movie too. It doesn't help that he doesn't remove it from it's frame either. They just kind of handwave it away as a necessary evil to get the movie finished.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
Finally got around to watching The Road and was wondering is there supposed to be a reason that Guy Pierce and the dude who stole their cart both didn't have thumbs?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I love it when the text does this: It's something that comic books do quite often and is much more noticeable and so more annoying.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2010 04:01
|
|
|
How was Freddy vs Jason a prequel? Other than the fact that it had to take place before Jason X. I do have my own question though, what's the dealeo with Ben Affleck and Matt Damon not really writing any movies other than Good Will Hunting? I mean, you win an Oscar for best screenplay and then proceed to write nothing for the next six years for Damon and ten years for Affleck.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2010 03:27
|
|
|
There are still plenty of "megastar" actors. Clooney is still definitely up there and Brad Pitt seems untouchable with regards to any personal life issues he has in that it never really seems to effect his movies. Edit: Gibson hasn't really acted in five years. He took quite a long break from acting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2010 02:55
|
|
|
Yeah, he had a real sweetheart deal with profits toward The Passion (since he funded the production and distribution with his own companies.) Not to mention that the movie was merchandised out the rear end. muscles like this! fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Jun 30, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2010 03:13
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Haha, no problem. I never saw the film myself but I remember that part of the trailer. It got pretty middling reviews. When it first was released there was some to do about how the studio took the film away from the director and supposedly brought in the Wachowskis to redo the ending. It's kind of obvious that something happened as the movie's two halves don't really fit together and it suffers from the mega-happy ending.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2010 17:32
|
|
|
The scene makes much more sense in the book for Fight Club as the Narrator isn't talking to Tyler but instead to a random member of Project Mayhem who has become so indoctrinated that he can hold conversations for Tyler.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2010 19:11
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Calling huge bullshit Yeah, I thought people looked funny on film if they aren't wearing make up.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2010 00:33
|
|
|
Co-sine posted:Yeah, pretty much. The book is actually really good and creepily prophetic. I thought the movie was overly goofy even before I had read the novel.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 23:17
|
|
|
kapalama posted:WHat is the general take on Gamer (2009)? Negative just with the only good performance being Michael C Hall's villain. Personally I mostly liked it although it was pretty wishy washy with the whole idea of people being taken over.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 21:36
|
|
|
Synnr posted:As I understand it, during election seasons all the candidates must have equal time on the air. This is one of the reasons that old guy playing the DA in Law and Order never ran for office when he wanted to. So basically The Expendables wouldn't be able to be aired on TV in California during election season.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Wow I am thinking we are seriously on the verge of a loving Batman ban in this forum. Maybe if people would stop spazzing out every time it's brought up it wouldn't be a big deal.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2010 02:03
|
|
|
On my cable box's descriptions the ratings and the descriptions don't always match. Sometimes a movie will be rated one star but it'll claim that the movie is a laugh riot or something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2010 04:33
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:In District 9, what was the deal at the beginning about prawns derailing trains and wreaking other havok? I got the impression that a lot of myths about the prawns (like they would kill your pets or whatever) were just racial ignorance and a lot of the prawn's criminal behavior was just them acting out like any abused minority would. The movie goes to great lengths to show that the prawns are very much human on the inside, so why this barbaric, sociopathic behavior like derailing trains? Were they really doing this stuff or was it just the media blaming them out of ignorance? Christopher and his son aren't really the best example of what Prawns are actually supposed to be like. They kind of point out that the regular Prawn is actually slightly developmentally challenged (compared to a human) and doesn't understand the consequences of actions. So since they like to break stuff they'd derail trains not really thinking that they'd be hurting anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
qntm posted:What instances are there of a movie being made with the intention of retconning it in the sequel? The only time I can think of something like that happening is the whole Gandalf thing from Fellowship of the Ring where you think he's dead but discover what really happens to him in The Two Towers. I don't think this happens too often because it requires actually having the sequel planned out when the first movie is written which just doesn't happen too often.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2010 12:54
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. Vader was old and busted while Luke was the new hotness. Also having a Jedi run around the galaxy isn't a good idea, considering how he ends up bringing down the Emperor and Vader.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2010 23:04
|
|
|
Ularg posted:In the 2007 movie of "I Am Legend" I'm wondering what was one of the major complaints about the movie. It sort of created an atmosphere to sympathize with the main character, though I never read the book I can't really comment on how it doesn't stay true to the book. I'm trying to suss out a question here, but my problems with the movie stem mostly from the (theatrical) second half where all of a sudden the infected go from learning and building tools to mindless monsters. The "original" ending wasn't that much better but it at least made sense thematically with the rest of the movie. The ending as is is obviously tacked on.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2010 07:44
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:Rene Clement's Purple Noon (same as Talented Mr. Ripley but Clement changed the ending) What was different about the ending?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2010 11:51
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:A few months ago they announced they found a shitload of footage that was cut from the movie and was assumed lost forever, and that they were working on a new release that would incorporate it. Maybe that will help clear it up a little. I'm pretty sure they've been saying that for a couple of years at least. Although looking up that for this post I do see that they actually have finished it and screened the new version in April. Although why it hasn't been released on DVD yet is strange. As for the story being a little weird, well... that's just Clive Barker for you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2010 03:46
|
|
|
Watching the first Mission Impossible movie and I never understood how exactly Cruise figures out the whole scheme from seeing that the bible was from the hotel from Chicago.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2010 23:28
|
|
|
I guess you could say its biggest crime is the wasted potential of that cast with that director.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2010 23:27
|
|
|
Because his last name is "Webb."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2010 07:12
|
|
|
Nah, the bit at the end was because Carla Jean's grandma accidentally told the Mexicans where they were going. The Mexicans were following Carla Jean because they had the VIN plate from Llewelyn's truck. As for Sheriff Bell and Chigurh going to the motel they went there after the report of the attack that killed Llewelyn.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2010 00:29
|
|
|
Rusty Shackelford posted:That new movie Case 39 isn't really that new. It looks like it was a finished product about 4 year ago, but is just being released now. What's the longest between a movie's completion and its release? The movie The Dead Talk Back (featured in an episode of MST3K) was completed in 1957 but wasn't released until 1993.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2010 21:58
|
|
|
Even though its another MST3K fodder, The Wild World of Batwoman has an extremely bizarre and out of left field racist scene. Some characters are having a seance and they contact a "Chinese spirit" who literally talks all in CHING CHONG BING WONG. Which the characters treat as actual Chinese.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2010 19:35
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:Yeah, Funny Games actually hosed with me more than most movies do. The main antagonist keeps telling the audience that he's going to win if you keep watching and it's almost like he is daring you to just stop watching, to change channels, to turn off the DVD player. Because thats the only way to stop him...but you keep watching and in the knowing look he gives the audience in the last shot of the movie basically tells us how bad we should feel for being there. I guess I beat him then since I started watching it on cable, got too creeped out by it and stopped.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2010 04:08
|
|
|
therattle posted:It's a general chat thread in which movies are, on occasion, talked about. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
Brad Pitt was a little too charismatic. By the end of the book Tyler was more of a crazy gently caress up while Pitt was still Pitt. Which is probably why so many people took the wrong conclusions from the movie (a fight club and Project Mayhem style antics would be COOL!)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2010 21:26
|
|
|
Okay, I just watched Saw IV (after having my interest in the series revived by the videogame) and I wanted to make sure I have this right. Saw IV took place roughly the same time as III, except the very beginning which took place afterward?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2010 04:06
|
|
|
Watching Avatar for the first time tonight and wondering where exactly all this water is coming from on these flying mountains.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2010 02:11
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Rain and condensation. Except there's way too much water for that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:So when I was putting out the Sorcerer's Apprentice Dvds out Monday night I noticed the cover Its funny to compare and contrast the original trailers for this and the commercials that Disney is putting out now for it. The trailers made it look like a kind of dark mostly serious action movie while the commercials are all playing up this peppy family fun vibe. Of course this was a problem within the movie itself as it had wild mood swings from serious to goofy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 12:33
|
|
|
It doesn't really matter either way since the movie makes sure that the "original" Angiers is dead no matter what. If it teleports the original then the copy shot him the first time he used it but if the original stays in the same spot he died the first performance.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 14:06
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I knew about Brazil (considering its one of my favorite films), but I didn't know about Dawn of the Dead or even Payback. I always felt that the movie seemed to warble between trying to be dark and then funny. Even though I didn't know the history behind I always knew that there was something wrong with Payback as there is a pretty clear demarcation between "Revenge Drama" and "Action Comedy." The most obvious bit of studio fudging in it has to be how part way through the movie the dog gets shot and is pretty obviously dead but then comes back later just with a bandage around its middle and they act like it was no big deal. Another set of movies that got focused grouped to death are both Men in Black films. Although as far as I know there isn't any way to see the original versions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2010 12:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Do you have any information on the original versions? I thought the first was a pretty good film, I'd love to know what it was meant to be like. Here's what IMDB has to say which I've mostly heard about from a different source (news stuff from when the movie originally came out) "The climax was going to be a humorous existential dialogue between agents J and K and the Bug, but the studio called for a more action-packed climax, so it was changed to the Bug getting blown up. Originally there were going to be two huge alien spaceships looming over Earth: an Arquillian ship and a Baltian ship, with representatives of both species staking claim of the galaxy. Mr. Rosenberg (the "little dude in the big dude's head") was a Baltian (confirmed by the novelization of the film), while the tall alien (Carel Struycken) he met at the restaurant was an Arquillian (and is so listed in the end credits). After some choice editing and rewriting, Rosenberg became an Arquillian. During the shoot, there was a script revision which changed the role of the 'Universe' in the movie. Fortunately, some creative tricks could be used to avoid having to re-shoot several scenes. For instance, the dialogue between Rosenberg and the tall man in the diner was originally in English (and they were adversaries), but their lines were simply dubbed in an alien language that could be subtitled with the desired explanation. New lines were also written for Frank the Pug, whose scenes had to go through post-production anyway. Director Barry Sonnenfeld could be heard on the DVD bonus material jokingly advising fellow directors to include a talking dog into every movie, which makes it easy to change the plot while filming." I was misremembering with 2 though as they made changes because the original ending involved the World Trade Center so they had to completely scrap that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2010 20:55
|
|