What is the last movie you saw? and rate it.

[Mark F.]

300 looks like one of the most stupid films to have been produced over the last few decades, a friend who's opinion I trust also said it was incredibly racist and imperialistic. From all of the bits I've seen on TV the directing looks abysmal which is surprising since the only Zack Snyder film I've seen is the Dawn of the Dead remake which was pretty good, although it came nowhere close to the original Romero flick. The IMDB rating is incredibly high but that's something I've become used to on that site (so are the LOTR films' ratings).

Apocalypse Now is a masterpiece, the screenplay, directing, cinematography and acting are all perfect. It's not weird, just a very interesting adaptation of a great novel that raises many existential questions. It doesn't give answers to all of them, that's what you're supposed to do, not the film. You like cinema? See this.

[B-Mental]

Mark F. you should check out the movie called Heart of Darkness about the making of apocalypse now. Its almost as good as the movie. Very interesting.

[Janine]

300 looks like one of the most stupid films to have been produced over the last few decades, a friend who's opinion I trust also said it was incredibly racist and imperialistic. From all of the bits I've seen on TV the directing looks abysmal which is surprising since the only Zack Snyder film I've seen is the Dawn of the Dead remake which was pretty good, although it came nowhere close to the original Romero flick. The IMDB rating is incredibly high but that's something I've become used to on that site (so are the LOTR films' ratings).

Apocalypse Now is a masterpiece, the screenplay, directing, cinematography and acting are all perfect. It's not weird, just a very interesting adaptation of a great novel that raises many existential questions. It doesn't give answers to all of them, that's what you're supposed to do, not the film. You like cinema? See this.

Mark F, thanks for the scoop on the 300. I know what you mean, I sometimes think these hyped up films are awful and overly done with the special effects. A friend told me about the ones in this film and it seemed his high opinion of it relied heavily on that fact alone. So does the film lack substance?
Apocalypse Now is suppose to be a masterpiece - I knew that and it always comes highly recommended by all, but I just personally have put off watching it. I have watched other very violent films before, so I will have to bare that in mind and next time it comes in my library take it out and watch it. I nearly took it out several times before.
B-Mental, sometimes I like the making of film better than the film itself. I will keep that one in mind, too. Thanks!

[andave_ya]

The IMDB rating is incredibly high but that's something I've become used to on that site (so are the LOTR films' ratings).

Hoi, what's that supposed to mean? You don't think LOTR is incredible?

[Janine]

Kangaroo ~ stars Judy Davis and Colin Friel ~

Film adaptation of the D.H. Lawrence novel "Kangaroo"
I have seen it twice now and like it very much. Strong performances by Davis and Friel. Beautiful seaside scenery. Interesting and intriguing plot.
I would like to read the book now.

[Schokokeks]

The poshies on the southside of Dublin say Mum though(but they are wannabe brits anyway!)

Oh boy, Niamh, you're so adorably Irish
I hope you are doing better .

[Mark F.]

Hoi, what's that supposed to mean? You don't think LOTR is incredible?

Apart from some neat digital effects, the films are pretty boring, and lack substance compared to the novel. I like Peter Jackson's other films but those three (well, expecially The Two Towers and Return of the King) I can do without. His directing is submerged by the visual extravaganza.

[Janine]

Apart from some neat digital effects, the films are pretty boring, and lack substance compared to the novel. I like Peter Jackson's other films but those three (well, expecially The Two Towers and Return of the King) I can do without. His directing is submerged by the visual extravaganza.

I liked them to an limited extend, but I tend to agree with you on this one Mark F,

"His directing is submerged by the visual extravaganza"

I felt this same way. I recall reading two of the books and thought when I saw the films - wow I did not know it was this dark and violent, etc. I thought the books much more charming than the films. The films were much more cruel and evil and overdone, way overdone with the effects....absolutely. I lost interest after the second film and forced myself to see the third just to round it all out. I think in the end, I did like the third best, but I don't have any desire to re-watch them at all. My library owns them and I don't care to waste the time. I know by saying this I will ruffle a lot of feathers...sorry. I felt it a shame that the characters seemed to be so Hollywood and they really lost the nice suble performances and sensitivity the film could have portrayed. Sometimes computer graphics can take over the show.

Oh boy, Niamh, you're so adorably Irish
I hope you are doing better .

Schokokeks ~ Yes, she is!

I second that - hope you are better today.

[Idril]

Apart from some neat digital effects, the films are pretty boring, and lack substance compared to the novel. I like Peter Jackson's other films but those three (well, expecially The Two Towers and Return of the King) I can do without. His directing is submerged by the visual extravaganza.

I agree. Visually they were stunning but they were a mess when it came to story adaptation. Fellowship of the Ring was the best because while there were still some significant changes, it retained the heart of the story, the others contained little to no heart at all.

I recall reading two of the books and thought when I saw the films - wow I did not know it was this dark and violent, etc. I thought the books much more charming than the films.

The books were really dark and violent, people were always getting limbs and heads cut off but there was also a lot of charm in them as well. I think because Jackson took the easy way out and focused on all the big moments which is natural I suppose, instead of the more quiet, smaller and charming moments it seemed darker because there wasn't a lot of balance. The battles in the books were absolutely brutal, I don't think he really enhanced that violence at all but he went from battle to battle without the relief that Tolkien put in there to lighten things up so it seems harsher than the book even though that darkness and violence was certainly there.

[Janine]

I agree. Visually they were stunning but they were a mess when it came to story adaptation. Fellowship of the Ring was the best because while there were still some significant changes, it retained the heart of the story, the others contained little to no heart at all.



The books were really dark and violent, people were always getting limbs and heads cut off but there was also a lot of charm in them as well. I think because Jackson took the easy way out and focused on all the big moments which is natural I suppose, instead of the more quiet, smaller and charming moments it seemed darker because there wasn't a lot of balance. The battles in the books were absolutely brutal, I don't think he really enhanced that violence at all but he went from battle to battle without the relief that Tolkien put in there to lighten things up so it seems harsher than the book even though that darkness and violence was certainly there.

Idril, some very good points here - you expressed it much better than I could. I did not read all the novels so I can't really truly compare. Good point though - any good author will give the reader a break and a pause now and then in the action. The film versions did not do that and I felt it was too much, too much to take all at once. It overwhelmed me visually and mentally.
I don't know if they lacked all heart, but heart certainly was obliterated by the special effects.

[manolia]

Apart from some neat digital effects, the films are pretty boring, and lack substance compared to the novel. I like Peter Jackson's other films but those three (well, expecially The Two Towers and Return of the King) I can do without. His directing is submerged by the visual extravaganza.

Apocalypse Now is a masterpiece, the screenplay, directing, cinematography and acting are all perfect. It's not weird, just a very interesting adaptation of a great novel that raises many existential questions. It doesn't give answers to all of them, that's what you're supposed to do, not the film. You like cinema? See this.

I whole heartedly agree that the LOTR trilogy lacks substance compared to the novel! I also agree with what you say about Apocalypse now. Definately one of the best movies i've ever seen.
I don't want to be misunderstood, i enjoyed the Lotr trilogy (well so many visual effects, incredibly nice depictions of places like Gondor etc, some wonderfull actors like Christopher Lee and Sean Bean) and i've seen the said trilogy plenty of times, i even bought the dvd (the battles are amazing) but...there is always a "but" in these cases..there are so many negative things in this adaptation. You have mentioned some, i'll go a step further and say two or three things that annoyed me gravely. First the complete destruction of the characters of Faramir (my favourite character in the book) and Denethor and in general the diminution of most of the male characters in order to promote the Aragorn - character. That was quite annoying first because Aragorn doesn't need promotion and second because the wonderfull part of the book is the plethora of its strong characters.
I also disliked the silly lines said by many characters and some really bad choice of actors.
And as much as i like Liv Tyler, why was a lovestory needed?? Arwen in the book is only mentioned in some parts in the book, she is insinuated in others and in no way has an active part.


Last movie i watched is "Le dernier metro" by Truffaut 9/10 (Excellent movie!)

[Idril]

I don't know if they lacked all heart, but heart certainly was obliterated by the special effects.

Whatever heart there was in the last two movies felt forced and manipulated to me but I'm not a good person to talk about these movies because a few years later I'm still so bitter about what Jackson did to Tolkien's story. I try very hard to separate the two things, to think of them as two completely different entities but I have failed miserably so I'm just going to shut up about it now.

I just watched Jesus Christ Superstar with my sunday school class and you know, it's cheesy and overwraught in places and horribly dated in others but there are some incredibly powerful scenes in that movie. Carl Anderson and Ted Neeley as Judas and Jesus have such an intense chemistry, my favorite scenes are when they're on together. And I love the look of the film, the natural setting, using the natural ruins and landscapes of Israel as the only 'sets' and I love the modern flashes, the tanks, airplanes, machine guns in an otherwise striped down and ancient backdrop. Even for non-christians, I think this is a great film to watch if only for the beautiful images...except for the extreme close up on Simon the Zealot's face.

[Janine]

I just watched Jesus Christ Superstar with my sunday school class and you know, it's cheesy and overwraught in places and horribly dated in others but there are some incredibly powerful scenes in that movie. Carl Anderson and Ted Neeley as Judas and Jesus have such an intense chemistry, my favorite scenes are when they're on together. And I love the look of the film, the natural setting, using the natural ruins and landscapes of Israel as the only 'sets' and I love the modern flashes, the tanks, airplanes, machine guns in an otherwise striped down and ancient backdrop. Even for non-christians, I think this is a great film to watch if only for the beautiful images...except for the extreme close up on Simon the Zealot's face.

Idril, You know years ago I saw this at a theater. I loved it. That was back when it was new and not out of date yet. I will try to see the film. You have me curious now - I like the idea of the sets as you described them. It sounds beautiful. Thanks Idril. I think my library has the DVD. How cool I will get it out soon. I know the music is highly entertaining. I do recall the scenes in the play were quite powerful. Something different, right?

Don Juan DeMarco ~ Johnny Depp, Marlon Brando, Faye Dunaway

Definitely different ~ fun and enjoyable. Cute film, especially the ending. I needed a Rom Com tonight. Light and full of fantasy. Besides, Johnny Depp is definitely nice "eye-candy". Great soundtrack, too. I have it on CD. Love those Spanish guitars!....and the Brian Adams song "Have You Ever Really Loved a Woman" ~ DVD included a Brian Adams video, too ~ that was fun!

[kiz_paws]

Well last night I popped the dvd "V for Vendetta" in the ol' machine again. I have seen this movie more times than I want to admit here, lol.

I like this movie so much because each time I see it, I see something new that I never really noticed before. The film draws parallels to actual events, which I found/find creative, and I love the ending.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Grace, sorry, I did not mean to skip over you. You know, I have never been able to get myself to watch "Apocalypse" for some strange reason - too violent and bloody, I imagine. I did not know it was also, weird.

I had to watch Apocalypse Now in english ;ast semester, after reading heart of Darkness. I too found it difficult to watch, which is wierd because I can watch pretty much anything. Actually, it was the part with the cow that really got to me. Interesting way to shoot the scene, having it paralelled ith the killing of Kurtz, but still aweful to watch.