Random movie talky stuff.

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

I've heard it's more faithful, however I've never read the original book so I can't speak from experience. Frankly I enjoyed it more than the original, as did my father, and we both like old movies. ("Them" is still one of our favorites)

Rather long as its a miniseries, but I feel it works out quite well.

 

[Copper]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

Gotta say, that sometimes remakes turn out rather well. I rather enjoyed Zack Snyder's rendition of Dawn of the Dead, and 300 as well (considering the original Graphic Novel was originally based on the movie 'the 300 Spartans' its... kind of a remake).

...

But anyway... that's my whole point. A remake in and of itself is not a bad thing. It's just unfortunate that most of the time they are not handled with any care.

I'm not entirely opposed to every remake out there and I'm not saying that they're all bad, it's just that it seems like there are absolutely positively no original ideas. Movies based on "something" is one thing. It's seeing how the director interprets the book/game/comic etc (and in the case of Battleship, apparently, how they interpret it poorly...) Even the reboots I don't see as remakes because they're often different storylines. Yes, it's Batman *again* but it's a different *take* on Batman. Stuff like what Sandler's doing seems like it's just...rehashing the same story, making it "more modernized" or "more PC" or, eh, I dunno. Not that I see him making them a gay triad as trying to make the story more PC. I more see it as him going for the cheap gag of it. Because it's Adam Sandler. And it's David Spade, Rob Schnider, and Chris Rock. (Or, as my one friend I was ranting about this to goes "Oh, an SNL career revivial. Good luck with that...") Maybe I'm wrong. A lot of this is only rumored, but I can see him, or those three, going for the "nod and wink" rather than having the dynamic that existed in the original.

Also, something else to rant(?) about...Thirty Minutes or Less. So, basically, they took a tragedy that rocked my hometown and made us all sit there and go "How the FUCK could you do that to another person?" and turned it into an irreverent comedy full of sight gags and borderline stoner humor. Rumor has it, it will *not* be opening in any of the theaters around here.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

Tragic events are turned into comedic and light material in movies all the time. Hell even the Romans did it with their plays. It's an unfortunate part of what people want for entertainment: The tragic become comic.

 

[Copper]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

Yeah, I suppose. I mean, even I have a tendency to wisecrack when I'm upset about something, but just knowing that's the source material for what is, in my opinion, another "check your brain at the door" comedy sticks a little in my craw. Especially since it happened damn near literally within a stone's throw of where I worked, while I was working. Most of us got cleared out by the time disaster happened, but knowing that was going on... :/

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

Oh, I understand entirely how you feel. I guess I'm just trying to explain why it happens... partially to myself.

 

[Gatorbait]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

Also, something else to rant(?) about...Thirty Minutes or Less. So, basically, they took a tragedy that rocked my hometown and made us all sit there and go "How the FUCK could you do that to another person?" and turned it into an irreverent comedy full of sight gags and borderline stoner humor. Rumor has it, it will *not* be opening in any of the theaters around here.

I didn't realize that was based on a true story. It doesn't look to be that great of a movie anyway; the only person in it that I find remotely talented is Jessie Eisenberg, and that's only because of Zombieland.

Anyway I went and saw Cowboys and Aliens last night and it was a surprisingly good film. I was going in expecting to see a campy movie with ray guns and "Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulators" against six-shooters. While there was the required fight there at the end between the two, for most of the movie it really felt like a road western that just happened to have aliens instead of outlaws they were tracking. There seemed to be plenty of western cliches in it, but really, it IS Hollywood. I'd recommend it.

 

[Copper]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

Yeah. Look up references to the Pizza Bomber. I realize this is giving out my hometown, but, well, it's a decent enough sized place.

My mother wants to see C&A. Might wait until the dollar theater around here, but I think she actually wants to go see it. She likes cheezy sci-fi and I think this is right up her alley.

On another note, went and saw Pirates: On Stranger Tides with her yesterday. That was fun. Liked it better than the third movie. Fun, actiony, enough good looking men to go around, and let's face it, I want Penelope Cruz's clothes...(And the body to pull them off, but that's beside the point...) Will definitely be getting this one when it comes out.

 

[Kusanagi]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

So.

They're remaking Short Circuit.

HEY, hey, now, now calm down, calm down, just listen for a second.

I was pissed, too. "What, remake Short Circuit?"

But, hold on, here's something to look forward to.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

All of these people worked on the original Short Circuit, and have a decent list of other movies under their belt as well.

As for the Director, Tim Hill..... well, he's no John Badham, but he does have some decent credit to his name as far as writing goes, so I'm hopeful.

Did this need to be made? No. Are they obviously cashing in on the Nostalgia wave? Yes. Hopefully, though, with 4 people working on this who also worked on the original, it'll turn out alright.

 

[Nunu]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

is short circuit something that really needs to be remade? such a thing... it serves no purpose.

 

[Copper]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

I ask questions like that every time I see notice of a lot of remakes, though it usually comes out "Why? Why are they even--?"

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

Does any movie actually need to get made in the first place.

 

[Copper]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

Yes. Princess Bride. *nods sagely*

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

No movie really needs to get made. Even one as brilliant as Princess Bride. Now granted I shook my head at the trailer for the Footloose remake (but that's because they made all the dancing from the original into sexual gyrating that I see every weekend at work...), but I'm always one for giving a remake or reboot a fair chance.

I'm really looking forward to the prequel that is "The Thing". The new Conan looks good (and despite everyone else telling me it's gonna be crap, I think this is because they look at it as a remake of the Arnold movies, rather than a second attempt at adapting Howard's work). and there's been quite a few remakes in the past that I've rather enjoyed.

 

[Newbie]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

No movie really needs to get made.

Every movie needs to be made, so long as we intend on improving the medium. Successes are awesome, and every failure teaches us a new lesson or 2 about what not to do when making a film. If movie making is going to be a thing, they need to make every movie they can.

Of course, what you meant was that films are entertainment and therefore either replaceable or unnecessary, or both. Which is true. But I loves me my cinema.

 

[Rule 34]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

I liked Short Circuit as a kid. 2 was rather stupid though. I wonder if they'll make Number 5 look more menacing this time to get a starker contrast to his friendly personality, or if they keep the generally kids-friendly design.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

You must be registered to see the links

Stakeland trailer.

I just watched this today. Twice actually because I told a friend about it later and he really wanted to check it out. Still there were a few more things I picked up on the second time around (like the population number punched out from a city's sign), and I did quite enjoy it.

Put simply, it feels like a cross between The Road, and 28 Days Later. The vampires act like feral pack hunters more than the elegant and aristocratic type of Stoker mythos, and even further from the more romantic form that Anne Rice gives them, or how they are presented in True Blood. I don't want to say they act like zombies, they're too animalistic and savage to be lumped in with them. More like 30 Days of Night with less intelligence.

Regardless, I still think that The Road meets 28 Days Later comparison stands. Despite being a post-apocalyptic movie, its slow paced and focus of the villains shift from the lingering vampire menace to a more human enemy. The slow pace allows the situation and bleakness of the movie to settle in. Shots of scrawny and dirty children in ramshackle towns, of decaying old houses inhabited by forgotten corpses, the slow burn emphasizes the horror aspect of the film more so than the vampire attacks.

The action sequences are rather well done, if mostly fairly quick. There isn't anything too flashy, the gore isn't over the top though it is well placed, so if your looking for a blood and guts flick, there isn't anything special here. The dead baby scene at the start was surprising (vampire kills a baby, and drops it from the rafters of a garage. While the actual killing doesn't take place you do see the creature discard the infant on screen).

I also liked the characters. They all had a bit of mystery to them, and a air of desperation as they battled against hopelessness in a land where hope was a fading memory. Even the lone bad-ass is played and written well. A character that appears emotionally cold and aloof, but a few key scenes show that there's something beneath that. Something he pushes down not for appearances, but simply to stay alive.

All in all, I'd recommend this movie who likes a slow paced post-apocalyptic tale where the land itself is a character and the story all in its own. The startles are limited, the gore isn't thrown around the screen, and the characters are good. Check it out if you want something from horror that isn't a slasher film.

 

[Newbie]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

As has been mentioned, Conan the Barbarian is being remade. Any doubts I had about the lead actor were erased with

You must be registered to see the links

performance. I have no idea where I will lay the blame of a failure, but I have higher hopes than I had.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

Indeed. I've always been excited for the Conan movie. I'm not calling it a remake, because they keep talking about going closer to the books. So more like a second attempt at an adaptation. Kind of like the new True Grit movie.

 

[Tassadar]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

MovieBob of Escapist fame seems to think that the new Conan sucked, but he also said that the original Arnold Conan movie holds up really well and that his opinion wasn't based on nostalgia, both of which are patently false, given that the Arnold Conan movies were both boring and awful. My respect for said opinion only lessened when he mentioned the script, of all things, as one of the best things about the film. I haven't seen the new one yet, so I'll form my own opinion on it when I do. Which will hopefully be later today.

 

[ToxicShock]

Re: Random movie talky stuff.

Just saw fright night, that was fun.
However, everyone thinks I hate everything because I'm often critical of certain points, doesn't mean it's just bad, I point out both things I like and dislike, but people only focus on the fact I said anything negative. So here goes

Spoiler

When compared to the original, everything seems very rushed. Of course I was a big fan of the original, so maybe me coming in with that mentality biases things. You could smell the modern movie making methods reek off this though, I will say that. They both have the same run time, but this feel extremely rushed and seems to skip over a lot. Evil Ed is practically killed off the second the film starts, while getting a smaller part, and made more insignificant by the fact they're not actually friends at the start of the movie. Peter Vincents part was also cut down, but I'll explain why. It seems like everything was so rushed that I have no idea where it even went. They effectively skipped almost any and all parts that took convincing the family. Only 5 minutes after he suggests aloud that Jerry is a vampire, they're all attacked by him. The thing I found strangest was the fact they did it "moderned up" including a bit of a cgi upped fight scene between evil ed as a vampire and charlie armed with an axe. Despite the fact they were clearly going for more of a "stand up and fight" as opposed to frighteningly stumble upon success, they got rid of Jerry's roommate/servant Billy which would have helped in creating more fighting.

As for the characters themselves, there seemed to be a bit of repetition in a few of the lines made by Charlie, which just seemed like either bad writing or poor ability to think up anything convincing on the spot while portraying the character. Despite this, I think Anton did a good job with him. Evil Ed was effectively ruined. I do like McLovin, and he did recreate him in a unique way, but his parts were more cut down and instead provided with a backstory, so it's hard to know whether or not you really should feel that bad by the time he dies. And though I don't mind a bit of recreation (see: David Tennant as Peter Vincent) it's hard to have callbacks to the original if it's going to be so different. Sneaking in the quote "You're so cool, Brewster" didn't really help him out. Colin Farrel as Jerry was up and down, during his little ominous scenes, he was somewhat flat and unconvincing in a lot of departments, but he sometimes, when he lightened up, it was really fun. During a small cameo by the old Jerry (Chris Sarandon) he's killed by Farrell, after which, he wipes his chin of blood, his face goes back to normal, and he just turns and waves to Charlie like "..'sup!"

Pure entertainment value was David Tennant as Vincent Price though. It was quite a recreation, also cut a bit, and given some sad backstory himself which will explain his fear. Though he looks more like a failed magician/stage act, which kinda dims down the idea of his popularity as opposed to the original where he was on tv. When you first see him, he has a sort of Russel Brand with a hint of Johnny Depp about him. It doesn't take much persuasion after the first time Charlie talked to him before he joins, and his personality is quite changed once you see more of him. You get a sense that both him and Charlie and kinda dweeby in their own ways, but instantly (not unconvincingly) become badass for the climax.

I had to see it in 3D which just ruins things for me. It's like a wii or ds, it's a visual gimmick that simultaneous makes it look "cool" while actually being graphically inferior to me. It takes every step forward we've had in believable cgi work and goes in the opposite direction just so it pops out. Everything looks incredibly fake with most films, and you got that a lot in this. The only real redeeming parts were when vampires died and embers flew up in your face, one especially being when the neighbor girl blows up in sunlight. Another which was up and down was as Jerry was dying, and it takes the opportunity, (which I feel was specifically put in for 3D, which screws half the theater audience and almost all the home audience) by having his completely overanimated half burnt half fully changed vampire face pop up and take up the entire screen. I admit that it did look really cool, but like everything else 3d, was a one time gag that felt like it cheapened the climax a bit.