So, you finally saw it, huh? Do you think that you will give the sequels a try? Well, at least the second one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lily Adams
Printable View
So, you finally saw it, huh? Do you think that you will give the sequels a try? Well, at least the second one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lily Adams
I did see the second one this afternoon because the DVD I rented has both of them on it. It certainly is watchable, but not nearly as awesome/funny as the first one. I watched it becauseQuote:
Originally Posted by LadyWentworth
1. It was there
2. It has Mark Mothersbaugh and DEVO music in it
3. I wanted to see more of...Lewis :blush:
Went to see Alien V's Preditor 2 last night with the BF. :sick: :sick: :sick: Dont know how many times i wanted to throw up! The BF thought it was excellent and loved how they ended it so they could make another one. Told him if another one does come out, he's going with his friends.:sick:
I owed it to him anyway seeing as he did go to see Enchanted with me the day before!:p (when we got to the cinema we only had a choice between Enchanted and PS i Love you ehich there was no way i was ever going to see.) Thats actually really enjoyable. The chipmonk rules!:p
I am legend
9.5/10
That movie rocks! Have you played the game Final Fantasy VII for playstation? That might clear things up. If you haven't I believe there's some sort of feature on the DVD that will take you through the video game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurtugal
The last movie I watched was Forrest Gump. Rating: 9/10
watch the dvds of Goodbye Lenin and Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain today.
I rate them 8 and 9 respectively.
Well, we saw th movie and it was outstanding. It was as good as the book, which was also outstanding. Now be aware, there was a lot of violence, so if that bothers you, you won't care for this. It's a modern western, meaning that it's set in the south west in the 1980s, a world where the values of the cowboy (honor, self reliance) meet up with the world of drug dealers and big money. Tommy Lee Jones as Sheriff Ed Bell, Javier Bardem as Aton Chigurh, Josh Brolin as Llewelen Moss are outstanding. They personify the characters perfectly. I have never heard of Javier Bardem but he is perfect for the personification of evil ("the ultimate bad-***," as he's once referred). Wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Now I would say you should read the book first and see the movie after, but in this case I don't think it matters. The movie follows the novel reliably as far as i remember, and by seeing the movie first you avoid the point of view shifts in the novel, which took a little getting used to. But by all means read the novel eventually. McCarthy writes the best prose of any living American novelist, and it's really a very intense read.
Oh we hadn't been to the movies in a long time. Boy, did it get expensive. $11 per ticket, and then two small sodas and a medium popcorn was $15.
But I'm sure that has nothing to do with why nobody goes to the cinema anymore :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
The last movie that I saw was Sweeney Todd, and I loved, loved, LOVED it!
It was so dark and twisted but funny! Depp did a GREAT job!:thumbs_up
Can't wait til it comes out on DVD!
Reno 911! Miami - It was the usual cast of characters but I must say I prefer the TV series to the movie. It seemed like nudity was thrown in just to throw it in, perhaps if they would have thrown in more of the quirkiness from the series instead it would have been better.
6.5/10.
Bug
7/10
This movie starred Ashley Judd and I have always liked her. She was convincing here in her role here as Agnes, the vulnerable, abused, substance-using and easily led woman who gets involved with a mysterious stranger who ends up being more dangerous than her wife-beating ex-husband.
I loved Ashley Judd's wardrobe/costume in the movie. It's not a style I would like to wear myself, but whoever picked the clothes and styled her hair (or didn't style it) really knew the character type. They really nailed the white trash look - I've seen dozens of women just like this character in greasy bars and gas stations all my life.
Anyway, Agnes and her new friend Peter are infested with aphids, which are small bugs that feed off of their blood.
This movie kind of reminded me of another movie I wrote about in this thread, In A Dark Place, which is based on a Henry James story. Both stories leave the viewer to wonder if the characters are battling sinister forces, or if they're just plain nuts. However, by the end of Bug I was thoroughly convinced that these two people were crazy, whereas the Henry James story wasn't as clear cut. The constant shots of the crack pipe amid their aphid defense system made it pretty clear that poor Agnes was completely delusional.
Well, I went and saw Sweeney Todd. Depp plays a convincing madman barber all righty. His singing is not too bad, either. Alan Rickman could use some voice lessons (sorry to say to the Snape fans out there), however... ;)
There is quite a lot of really good action in this movie, moments to smile about, moments to shake your head at, and plenty of gore. Don't want to spoil it for anyone else, but some of the gore scenes didn't have to be repeated again and again. Oh well. What an ending, too! Wow.
I guess I'll rate it about 7/10 -- it was certainly not the most refined movie I've seen, but it kept my interest, and hey, Depp was in it... what can I say... ;)
House of flying daggershad bought it,
Got to say it was pretty amazing watching wise... lovley scenery and the plot was pretty good too. The most amizingthing though is how quiet the filmis in comparison to western films... it makeseverything more significant somehow.
Icould have done without the cliched ending though..actuall ditch the wholelove thing IMO would have made itan even better film, still 8 and a half cookies.
john tucker must die 0/10
Yikes! We pay the same in Euro over here as you do in dollers! But $11 is only about €7.60 so we are getting ripped off more than you guys!Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I liked her in Where the Heart is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalot
You know what? If you ever would've seen the stage show, or know enough about it, the blood is repeated over and over again in that. This film, I felt, was a pretty good version of the original show from Broadway (the revival is horrendous - they have Mrs. Lovett playing a tuba!!! Why?!? Maybe I am just stupid but I don't get it). Pretty much how it is done on film, that is how it is done on stage. There is blood. Just not as much, of course. That is the difference between the two. Which I suppose less blood is a good thing, right? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kiz_paws
I just remember that when I saw it, on stage, a couple never returned after the intermission. When I think about that now, it is so funny to me because the stage show would be G-rated compared to the movie! :p
I was actually really disappointed in this movie. There were some lines that were OK, but it just doesn't compare to the series. I agree with the point about nudity. It just wasn't the same as the series. I would probably give it a 5/10. I was disappointed.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
Virgil, that movie sounds interesting. I like Tommy-Lee Jones in somethings - a few I could have done without, but basically I do think he is a good actor. If the violence is not there for shock sake and really has a purpose I usually don't mind it. I usually wait to watch the really bloody films on DVD - not as bad on a small screen to deal with. I like the actor Javier Bordem emensely. I have never seen him play anything but a gentle, nice type role so, it will be something to see him as the 'personification of evil.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
And yes, I can't believe the price of movies either. My son told me he and his wife went out the other night and the movie cost them $30! I said - what??? But when he broke it down like you did sure enough it totaled that amount. Yikes, I don't think I will be going to the big screen anytime soon.
Shalot, I like Ashley Judd also and just saw her in a romantic comedy, "Someone Like You", which I thoroughly enjoyed. Apparently from reading up on Amazon and the reviews I found out it is based on the book: "Animal Husbandry". It also, stars Gregg Kinnear and Hugh Jackman; Jackman is adorable as the womanizing Eddie. It was funny and cute and entertaining, with a serious side, as well. Funny, I liked the clothes that were chosen for her in this film; she always wears things well. These were more 'officy' and 'casual', not 'trashy', and she looked great in ever scene. I am curious now to see this other film, but to tell you the truth, reading your comments made me itch - ick :sick: aphids...how horrible! I didn't know they even attacked humans. I thought it was just plant life.
LadyWentworth, when reading your post about "Sweeny Todd" to Kiz, I was a little confused, if you meant the stage play had less blood. I read over this line and it seemed to indicate the opposite but then you go onto say "... I suppose less blood is a good thing,....
I don't know, after reading so much about this film and the blood I don't know if I can go and see it. I have one question, do they actually show the killing? My friend told me she could not go see it, knowing it showed the actual throat slitting. I don't think I could stomach that, either. So are we talking about gore as an aftermath, or implied, or downright realism? I saw "From Hell" with Johnny Depp and I could deal with that - about Jack the Ripper, but the thing is they never showed anyone being actually murdered, only the aftermath or murder scene. I hope you don't mind my questioning, but the thing is, everyone seems to keep talking on here about this 'blood' factor and I don't get a clear picture of just how bad it is. I think I could deal with the rats but not sure about the blood, if it is really excessive.Quote:
You know what? If you ever would've seen the stage show, or know enough about it, the blood is repeated over and over again in that.
"The 39 Steps"
The 1979 production with the extra-amazing, extra-talented Robert Powell
10/10, naturally!
No, the stage show is "bloody" and the film is. The difference between the 2 is that there is less blood on stage than on film because they aren't capable of doing on stage what they can do on film. So, well, how do I say this? OK. Say one murder is committed on stage. That same murder takes place on film, but now they use more blood when he gets killed (as opposed to the smaller amount on stage). That is how the stage show has less blood. Do I make sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Here is a case where I think it would be bettter to explain if you'd already seen the film. I highly recommended the movie to people, BUT I also DID say that it isn't for EVERYONE. So, yes, you see the murders take place (you see it happen on stage!). I normally don't care for really bloody scenes, but I knew what this whole thing was before I saw it. So I was "prepared". Then when I saw it, it really didn't bother me at all because I think it looks so cartoonish. I think it even has an orange hue to it. It looks like paint! I even heard some critics say how cartoonish it looks (there are a lot of Sondheim fans who have problems with that - I don't know why THAT would bother them!). It doesn't bother me at all. Like I said, if you think it MIGHT bother you or your friend, then don't see it. If nothing else, wait until it comes on DVD and borrow it from the library. Then you can fast forward that part! :p
I saw "From Hell" on TV. It was all edited, though. So, I really don't know what the bodies looked like after the murders. Were they pretty graphic? If they were, THAT I CAN'T watch! Especially the last murder! I've seen the photo. I don't think I could handle looking at that!
Did you ever see the original version from 1935 with Robert Donat? It was directed by Hitchcock.Quote:
Originally Posted by amalia1985
Lady W, thanks for straightening that out, I was a little confused, too. :)
But how you worded the murders as "cartoonish" -- yeah, thats it! Thank you for putting words to something I couldn't describe.... After the first one or two (gruesome), it DID get cartoonish. (but Depp is sooooo cute.... yeah, I already mentioned that...) :p So, I don't know, Janine, you will have to decide about seeing this cartoonish act going on and on.... If you go, do let us know what your thoughts were. :)
Perfect sense. Also, I would imagine on stage one it is taken out of the realm of 'reality' and also you are further away from the action and killing. I think it would be very suspenseful, knowing after-awhile, just was was coming for the victim.Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyWentworth
I understand this paragraph completely, too. Thanks. I think I will wait till it comes to DVD. I think I do know what you mean about being 'cartoonish' and therefore not so real looking. It is not like I can't see gore. I have seen many a gory, brutal battle scene and gotten through it, ok. I might find some parts distasteful and disturbing, but I can deal with it; just not sure I can on a huge movie screen; so thanks for the good explanation. I knew you said that before - that the film was not for everyone. Sorry to ask again but I just needed specifics.Quote:
Here is a case where I think it would be bettter to explain if you'd already seen the film. I highly recommended the movie to people, BUT I also DID say that it isn't for EVERYONE. So, yes, you see the murders take place (you see it happen on stage!). I normally don't care for really bloody scenes, but I knew what this whole thing was before I saw it. So I was "prepared". Then when I saw it, it really didn't bother me at all because I think it looks so cartoonish. I think it even has an orange hue to it. It looks like paint! I even heard some critics say how cartoonish it looks (there are a lot of Sondheim fans who have problems with that - I don't know why THAT would bother them!). It doesn't bother me at all. Like I said, if you think it MIGHT bother you or your friend, then don't see it. If nothing else, wait until it comes on DVD and borrow it from the library. Then you can fast forward that part! :p
Yes, pretty graphic, but somehow knowing they are already dead and just lifeless bodies, did not bother me as much as seeing a body with life still vital in it, being slaughtered. The film and JD's role intrigued me. I later read about the strangler and found out tons on him and other more plausible theories. Actually, the theory presented in this film, has been pretty much disregarded now, for more legitimate ones. Interesting case it is and still unsolved. The investigation is still ongoing, too -amazing!Quote:
I saw "From Hell" on TV. It was all edited, though. So, I really don't know what the bodies looked like after the murders. Were they pretty graphic? If they were, THAT I CAN'T watch! Especially the last murder! I've seen the photo. I don't think I could handle looking at that!
LW,I wondered about that Hitchcock version from 1935 with Robert Donat? I saw it and liked it. I think I actually own it in a set. So, then it was remade, and do you know who directed that one? Was it Hitch again?
Kiz and Janine, I apologize for confusing you guys. :) I am known to speak in my own language. I read what I'd posted a couple of times, but it made perfect sense to me. Then I realized that maybe I was speaking in my own LadyWentworth language! I say things that would make sense in my mind and my mind only because I am taking it for granted that everyone will know what I am talking about! They will automatically know what I mean! :p So, sorry! :D
I will tell you something. The blood on stage looked VERY realistic. At least it did with the production that I saw. Another thing is that it really looked like he slit the person's throat everytime he did it. It actually looked more realistic on stage than it does in the film. To not give anything away, there is a time when it does look realistic in the film, but I think Tim Burton did that purposely. I think he went over-the-top with every murder deliberately until that point. Anyway, Janine, it might bother you more to see the stage version rather than the film! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I have no idea who the director was for the remake. I know it was remade in the 1950's. But I haven't a clue as to who directed it or who stars in it. I really liked the original, though. Have you ever read the book?Quote:
LW,I wondered about that Hitchcock version from 1935 with Robert Donat? I saw it and liked it. I think I actually own it in a set. So, then it was remade, and do you know who directed that one? Was it Hitch again?
That's a Hitchcock! I like that film. It's one of the best of his early films.Quote:
Originally Posted by amalia1985
Oops. I didn't see your mention of the date. The Hitchcock version was a number of years earlier.
:thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up Yes, of course I have seen it, and it remains one my all-time favorite films!! However, I love Robert Powell, and he did an excellent job- as always- in the remake, which was equally good, in my opinion.:) :)Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyWentworth
Tommy Lee jones was good, but Bordem was great. I've never seen him before, and now i can't picture him as a nice type. ;) Actualy Josh Brolin was great too as Lluwellen Moss. He seemed like the character right out of the novel. I see this movie got eight academy award nominations. I hope they win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Check out the trailers: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809701422/trailer
Hi,*Classic*Charm* Sometimes Hitchcock did remake his early films. I wonder if this is the case. I will try looking it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
Quote:
Tommy Lee jones was good, but Bordem was great. I've never seen him before, and now i can't picture him as a nice type. Actualy Josh Brolin was great too as Lluwellen Moss. He seemed like the character right out of the novel. I see this movie got eight academy award nominations. I hope they win.
Hi Virgil, Yes, I agree about Bordem; he is an amazing actor. I have only seen him in about 3 films, so far and he plays the good guy (basically) in each. I guess his time has finally arrived to play a villan; well that is cool, shows his versitility. I am anxious now, to see this film, although you said it has a lot of violence. I am not sure of the other actors you mentioned. I will probably recognise them, when I see them on the trailer. Thanks for providing the link. I will go and watch it now.
Wow - that many nominations; interesting.
Janine,
what other movies did Bordem do ?
:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: Juno...:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: lOVED IT
Virgil,I just saw one film - "The Sea Inside." It was kind of depressing, about a man who had been a parapelegic all his life practically, and felt he had the right to an assisted suicide. The law kept denying him. It takes place in Spain or Portugal and is a true story. He was very good in this film, but the film is subtitled and quite slow-paced. I have only seen him in foreign films, so far. The other was "The Dancer Upstairs". This was set in Mexico and he played an officer or a detective. That one might appeal to you more. It had more intrigue in it, but also subtitled, or so I think, but I may be wrong about that. He has an accent normally. I noticed in the trailer he dropped that, or rather is speaking in an American accent. His face always shows a lot of emotion and subtle nuances of expression. This film you just saw, looks more like a thriller, am I right? Interesting. I like 'thrillers' very much. The violence did look a bit disturbing though. It seemed to me Tommy-Lee Jones looked to be really flat in his performance, but I can't truly judge from a trailer. I will wait till it comes to DVD, most likely. I notice this film is a Cohen Brother's film...interesting.
pussnboots, sorry, I had not seen you there, asking the same question. Didn't mean to skip over you. You have to get an avatar, so you are more noticable. Only now on checking the progress on the page did I see your entry.
Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail
HYSTERICAL!
One of my all time favorites! I second that "HYSTERICAL!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Anza
My favorite scenes are the 'holy hand-granade' and the 'killer bunny'! Also, the '3 questions' and the opening scenes in the stable....in other words, the whole movie! :lol:
Last Sunday I went to see We Own the Night. It was quite good, worth watching. It's got Joaquin Phoenix and Mark Wahlberg in it and the girl is Eva Mendes.
"The Simple Life of Noah Dearborn" -- Sydney Poitier, inspiring film, good message
"The tin drum" A beautiful movie 8/10 ;)
agh... i just watch star wars III.
100/10! they did an awsome job on the ending!
Death Sentence
Rating: 6/10; the beginning was great, but then it just went downhill from there.
So far today i have watched
Persuasion (for about the tenth time. More i watch it, the more i hate what they did to the ending)
The Da Vinci Code
Kingdom of Heaven
The Fountain
Yeah i know. Strange combo....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurtugal
Oh yeah!! I just love it when Darth Vader speaks for the first time. And the part where he is named Darth Vader. :banana: :banana: :banana: