|
morestuff posted:These are probably more entertaining than educational, but Easy Riders, Raging Bulls and The Kid Stays In The Picture are good reads. The documentary version of The Kid Stays In The Picture is fascinating to watch as well. It's basically selections from the audiobook read by Evans himself with relevant video clips. I put it on one day for background noise and within a few minutes I was sucked in.
|
| # ? May 7, 2013 20:31 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 01:38 |
|
|
I've always like this take on Robert Evans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bcj14h3jco
|
| # ? May 9, 2013 20:09 |
|
|
So, I somehow never got into the Harry Potter books - I think they came along right when I was old enough to see it as obvious wish fulfillment bullshit but not old enough to realize I love obvious wish fulfillment bullshit. I have however seen a few of the movies, mostly dragged along by friends. I thought one was loving awful. I was shocked how much I enjoyed four, and I was kinda bored by five but it was more or less worth my time. Anyway, here's my question: I loving love Alfonso Cuaron, and I recorded the third one off of HBO. Is it worth watching? Does any of Cuaron's genius shine through, or is he more or less just moving the franchise along?
|
| # ? May 10, 2013 02:07 |
|
|
Digital Osmosis posted:Anyway, here's my question: I loving love Alfonso Cuaron, and I recorded the third one off of HBO. Is it worth watching? Does any of Cuaron's genius shine through, or is he more or less just moving the franchise along? It's the most playful and lively of the Harry Potter films and the one I enjoyed the most. It's not his best work, but if you're okay with Harry Potter, really enjoy Alfonso Cuaron, and already have it recorded then it's worth checking out.
|
| # ? May 10, 2013 02:20 |
|
|
Digital Osmosis posted:So, I somehow never got into the Harry Potter books - I think they came along right when I was old enough to see it as obvious wish fulfillment bullshit but not old enough to realize I love obvious wish fulfillment bullshit. I have however seen a few of the movies, mostly dragged along by friends. I thought one was loving awful. I was shocked how much I enjoyed four, and I was kinda bored by five but it was more or less worth my time. Anyway, here's my question: I loving love Alfonso Cuaron, and I recorded the third one off of HBO. Is it worth watching? Does any of Cuaron's genius shine through, or is he more or less just moving the franchise along? It's absolutely worth watching, and one of the best of the series. It's very, very distinctly Cuaron, and the visuals are completely stunning. Gorgeous production design, some nice long takes, and the practical effects hold up pretty impressively nine years later. It's also one of the most enjoyable tonally because of how it mirrors the books. Despite the fantastical threats of the first two stories (giant snakes! trolls! three-headed dogs!), this is the first one in which you realize that the world of magic is seriously dangerous, frightening and filled with lasting, gruesome consequence. The movie has a real sense of creeping dread, and by the time it reaches its climax, goes almost into full-on horror movie mode. It's intentionally unsettling but immensely satisfying.
|
| # ? May 10, 2013 04:14 |
|
|
Yeah it's definitely the best of the series, I wish Cuaron had made more of them.
|
| # ? May 10, 2013 06:22 |
|
|
This is a longshot question, but I know there are inside people and rumor followers here. Have there been any whispers about a Venom trilogy by the studio that owns the movie rights to Spider-Man at the moment?
|
| # ? May 10, 2013 09:32 |
|
|
Trilogy? Not as far as I've heard, but there has definitely been talk over the past couple of years about doing a Venom standalone film.
|
| # ? May 11, 2013 15:16 |
|
|
Has Ridley Scott ever explained why they cast Guy Pierce as Peter Weyland in Prometheus? Mostly I'm wondering why they just didn't hire an older actor for the part instead of having to put a younger guy through all that makeup.
|
| # ? May 11, 2013 23:12 |
|
|
Guy Pearce thinks he's Lon Chaney, Jr.
|
| # ? May 11, 2013 23:40 |
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Has Ridley Scott ever explained why they cast Guy Pierce as Peter Weyland in Prometheus? Mostly I'm wondering why they just didn't hire an older actor for the part instead of having to put a younger guy through all that makeup. I assumed it was so they could do that TED talk promo/video Also he can spend as much money as he wants on silly things like they because he's Ridley Scott and it was an 'Alien' movie.
|
| # ? May 12, 2013 03:38 |
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Has Ridley Scott ever explained why they cast Guy Pierce as Peter Weyland in Prometheus? Mostly I'm wondering why they just didn't hire an older actor for the part instead of having to put a younger guy through all that makeup. quote:Let's talk briefly about Prometheus. You put on a lot of makeup to play an old man in that, Peter Weyland, but Ridley Scott cast you because, originally, there was one scene when Weyland was supposed to appear as a young man. Did you actually shoot that? http://www.vulture.com/2012/08/guy-...s-and-camp.html
|
| # ? May 12, 2013 13:31 |
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Has Ridley Scott ever explained why they cast Guy Pierce as Peter Weyland in Prometheus? Mostly I'm wondering why they just didn't hire an older actor for the part instead of having to put a younger guy through all that makeup. Yes, unequivocally, as stated above. Weyland originally had a lot of flashbacks in the shooting script. By the time they started filming, all those scenes had been cut or movified but Pierce had already been locked in. This made for him being in a very mediocre role. HOWEVER! I believe it worked out perfectly, because the entire time I was waiting for a scene when the engineers made him younger, because I knew it was a guy in makeup. When they all talk to the engineer for the first time and he kills the poo poo out of Weyland, my mind was legitimately blown, since I was just waiting for him to become Young Guy Pierce.
|
| # ? May 12, 2013 14:26 |
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Yes, unequivocally, as stated above. Weyland originally had a lot of flashbacks in the shooting script. By the time they started filming, all those scenes had been cut or movified but Pierce had already been locked in. It was a pretty anti-climactic as well, as there wasn't even any buildup to the reveal that Weyland was on the ship. Rapace basically gets an inkling that maybe he's aboard, she runs around for about 10 seconds, turns a corner and then he's just there. I mean, I've seen better-paced episodes of Three's Company than that "stunning" reveal.
|
| # ? May 12, 2013 16:09 |
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:It was a pretty anti-climactic as well, as there wasn't even any buildup to the reveal that Weyland was on the ship. Rapace basically gets an inkling that maybe he's aboard, she runs around for about 10 seconds, turns a corner and then he's just there. I mean, I've seen better-paced episodes of Three's Company than that "stunning" reveal. Isn't it revealed that Weyland is on the ship when Vickers and David have a discussion about his orders? They don't use his name, but I thought it was apparent who they were talking about. It's only a reveal to Shaw, not the audience, so they don't bother wasting a lot of time on it.
|
| # ? May 12, 2013 16:27 |
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:It was a pretty anti-climactic as well, as there wasn't even any buildup to the reveal that Weyland was on the ship. Rapace basically gets an inkling that maybe he's aboard, she runs around for about 10 seconds, turns a corner and then he's just there. I mean, I've seen better-paced episodes of Three's Company than that "stunning" reveal. It wasn't supposed to be a reveal though. We see David communicate with a stasis pod and we infer from his meeting with Vickers in the hallway afterwards that it was Weyland.
|
| # ? May 12, 2013 17:16 |
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:It wasn't supposed to be a reveal though. We see David communicate with a stasis pod and we infer from his meeting with Vickers in the hallway afterwards that it was Weyland. Yeah, the viewer gets it, but you still need to reveal it to the characters, and that was done pretty poorly.
|
| # ? May 12, 2013 18:10 |
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Yeah, the viewer gets it, but you still need to reveal it to the characters, and that was done pretty poorly. I don't know about poorly, but it was certainly an anti-climax. Shaw fights her way through the crazy alien abortion and is barely upright and then it's just oh by the way, I'm here too, I did this to you, everything was a lie, no one ever gave a poo poo about you or your dead husband. Weyland literally doesn't care that she knows he's there or that she nearly died or what she thinks about what he's doing. She's a complete non-factor now that he knows he's found what he came for. Shaw is just an annoyance in his machinations now. Caught between would-be gods, barely surviving.
|
| # ? May 13, 2013 07:42 |
|
|
Are there any good no-bullshit sites where I can find information and reviews about upcoming movies covering both indie/European and Hollywood titles?
|
| # ? May 13, 2013 23:38 |
|
|
I don't read it often enough to say this with certainty, but maybe Indiewire? http://www.indiewire.com/
|
| # ? May 14, 2013 07:21 |
|
|
Friedpundit posted:I don't read it often enough to say this with certainty, but maybe Indiewire? http://www.indiewire.com/ Thanks mate, that looks alright.
|
| # ? May 14, 2013 10:06 |
|
|
Shanty posted:I don't know about poorly, but it was certainly an anti-climax. Shaw fights her way through the crazy alien abortion and is barely upright and then it's just oh by the way, I'm here too, I did this to you, everything was a lie, no one ever gave a poo poo about you or your dead husband. Weyland literally doesn't care that she knows he's there or that she nearly died or what she thinks about what he's doing. She's a complete non-factor now that he knows he's found what he came for. Shaw is just an annoyance in his machinations now. Caught between would-be gods, barely surviving. David is the only one that really cares about Shaw.
|
| # ? May 14, 2013 12:58 |
|
|
foodfight posted:David is the only one that really cares about Shaw. And vice versa, sort of! Ah, well I guess Vickers resents him a bunch, but Weyland certainly doesn't care beyond being smug as gently caress about creating him. Shaw is the only one to interact with him as a sentient being.
|
| # ? May 14, 2013 13:04 |
|
|
SubG had a good post a few months back about the Shaw Brothers and named off a bunch of notable works. I could have sworn it was in this thread or general chat, but I can't find the drat thing an I don't have plat. After cross-referencing with some stuff on my youtube account and netflix history, all I can say that the post was definitely made between Feb. 26th and Mar. 2nd.
|
| # ? May 16, 2013 07:50 |
|
|
Friedpundit posted:SubG had a good post a few months back about the Shaw Brothers and named off a bunch of notable works. I could have sworn it was in this thread or general chat, but I can't find the drat thing an I don't have plat. After cross-referencing with some stuff on my youtube account and netflix history, all I can say that the post was definitely made between Feb. 26th and Mar. 2nd. SubG posted:Liu Chia Liang made a bunch of classic action films at Shaw. Here's some that should probably be considered `essential' or whatever:
|
| # ? May 16, 2013 15:22 |
|
|
quote:Shao Lin San Shi Liu Fang/Shaolin Master Killer/36th Chamber of Shaolin (1978). One of the most iconic kung fu films; the devotion of a large part of the narrative to the protagonists' training was hugely influential on later martial arts films. There are sequels-in-name, but don't bother unless you're a completionist. The official sequel to 36 Chambers is jokey garbage, but the spiritual sequel directed by Gordon Liu, Shaolin vs. Wu-Tang, is loving great. I actually prefer it to 36 Chambers.
|
| # ? May 16, 2013 15:25 |
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:The official sequel to 36 Chambers is jokey garbage, but the spiritual sequel directed by Gordon Liu, Shaolin vs. Wu-Tang, is loving great. I actually prefer it to 36 Chambers. Oh, hell yeah. Shaolin vs. Wu-Tang is truly amazing. I'm also a big fan of the unrelated - apart from starring Gordon Liu and occasionally titled Shaolin vs. Ninja - 1978 film Heroes of the East.
|
| # ? May 16, 2013 17:50 |
|
|
That's not the exact post, but it's close enough and probably covers all the same ground. Thanks!
|
| # ? May 16, 2013 18:54 |
|
|
There's a short horror film called Oculus that I have been wanting to see for a very long time. Can't find it anywhere, anyone got any ideas? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0791134/
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 07:50 |
|
|
Pyrion Flax posted:There's a short horror film called Oculus that I have been wanting to see for a very long time. Can't find it anywhere, anyone got any ideas? Here's the director's twitter you might try asking him directly . Edit: you can buy it here. https://www.createspace.com/Store/S...e.jsp?id=225219
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 09:39 |
|
|
Skwirl posted:Here's the director's twitter you might try asking him directly . Great, thanks!
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 10:47 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 01:38 |
|
|
I really like reading short pieces about movies and the facts/personalities behind them. I'm looking for a website with stuff like the Cracked "8 mind-blowing screwups behind classic movies!" except without the obnoxious writing style. The only other resources that come to mind are unsourced crap on TVtropes, and (ugh) celebrity gossip sites. Does what I'm looking for exist? Edit: I mean mostly classic/older movies, since it takes years sometimes for people to tell stories and for rumors to be confirmed.
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 00:57 |
|
