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

[kiz_paws]

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...) 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.

[Janine]

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?

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.

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!

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.

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!

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!


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?

[LadyWentworth]

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! So, sorry!

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.

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!

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?

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?

[*Classic*Charm*]

"The 39 Steps"
The 1979 production with the extra-amazing, extra-talented Robert Powell

10/10, naturally!

That's a Hitchcock! I like that film. It's one of the best of his early films.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Oops. I didn't see your mention of the date. The Hitchcock version was a number of years earlier.

[amalia1985]

Did you ever see the original version from 1935 with Robert Donat? It was directed by Hitchcock.

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.

[Virgil]

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.'

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.

Check out the trailers: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809701422/trailer

[Janine]

Oops. I didn't see your mention of the date. The Hitchcock version was a number of years earlier.

Hi,*Classic*Charm* Sometimes Hitchcock did remake his early films. I wonder if this is the case. I will try looking it up.

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.

[pussnboots]

Janine,

what other movies did Bordem do ?

[Domer121]

Juno... lOVED IT

[Janine]

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.

[Anza]

Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail
HYSTERICAL!

[Janine]

Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail
HYSTERICAL!

One of my all time favorites! I second that "HYSTERICAL!"


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!

[bouquin]

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.

[byquist]

"The Simple Life of Noah Dearborn" -- Sydney Poitier, inspiring film, good message