Topic: Movies in the Theater (Read 106641 times)

Friday · « **Reply #840 on:** August 05, 2011, 06:29:51 PM »

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree that leaving Wormtail on the floor alive was a minus and could/should have been done better. (using your example, for instance.) I was just putting forth a possible reason why they bothered to change it at all.

Interesting thing I read: According to wiki, when they first started filming the HP movies (before JK was done writing the books) JK told Rickman about Snape's true motivations, which may have been one of the reasons Rickman was such a scene stealer; you got the impression something more was going on there, because, well, something more WAS going on there. Rickman knew Snape's ultimate loyalties far before everyone else, and added that into his performance.

Mongrel · « **Reply #841 on:** August 06, 2011, 08:48:31 AM »

Read from bottom left to top right.

Niku · « **Reply #842 on:** August 06, 2011, 10:32:44 AM »

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is actually a movie worth watching despite some hugely cliche missteps (OH NO A BIG PHARMA BOSS MORE INTERESTED IN MONEY THAN ETC ETC) and wooden acting. Color me surprised

Mothra · « **Reply #843 on:** August 07, 2011, 12:47:31 PM »

Cowboys and Aliens was a good time

Disposable Ninja · « **Reply #844 on:** August 07, 2011, 02:56:37 PM »

It could have been better. It wasn't goofy enough to excuse the stupid, and it wasn't smart enough to suspend belief.

Mothra · « **Reply #845 on:** August 07, 2011, 05:07:02 PM »

Granted, yes.

Still, I would watch it again if it was on TV and largely enjoy it.

Thad · « **Reply #846 on:** August 14, 2011, 09:02:24 PM »

Green Lantern: about what I expected; maybe slightly better. The origin, the Oa bits, and the ring constructs were great; the cast was great except for Blake Lively. The villains sucked and they spent too much time on Earth. Really the major problems are:

1. Green Lantern does not have a lot of good villains;
2. this is part of the unfortunate trend of movies that are more focused on setting up sequels than laying everything out in case they don't get them (seriously, imagine if Darth Vader didn't show up until the middle of the end credits in Star Wars);
3. Hal Jordan, Green Lantern of Earth is not nearly as goddamn interesting as The Green Lantern Corps. Or even as much as any of the OTHER Green Lanterns of Earth.

...maybe Kyle.

Fortunately, they seem at least cognizant of these problems and it sounds like they're planning on fixing them in the sequel. Sinestro front and center, and a spacebound story.

Büge · « **Reply #847 on:** August 19, 2011, 06:54:01 PM »

If you happen to be at the movie theatre and you missed the movie you were going to see, or maybe if you're at the mall and there's a theatre attached and you just want to sit down for a while, it wouldn't kill you to watch Conan the Barbarian.

...And that's the most positive thing I can say about the film.

Burrito Al Pastor · « **Reply #848 on:** August 19, 2011, 07:53:00 PM »

The most positive thing I can say about the film is that they make an explicit allusion to "The Tower of the Elephant." That made me really happy.

It's a mixed bag, overall. The acting really runs the gamut; the only consistently good (well, fun) actors are Stephen Lang and Bob Sapp. Ron Perlman was probably good, but honestly I kept being distracted by how much he looks like Will Ferrell. The costumes are pretty cool; the sets are phenomenal (with the exception of a few that take some hits in design for the sake of having more props for fighting).

The other big issue I had with the movie, which is related to but not explicitly covered by the acting, is that there's an awful lot of points where the script must have read something like "Conan: <inarticulate war-scream>" and honestly it hadn't occured to me that you could have shitty inarticulate war-screams, but it turns out you really can!

Disposable Ninja · « **Reply #849 on:** August 20, 2011, 08:35:00 AM »

Honestly I lost interest in the new Conan movie the second the trailer brought up that fucking Frank Miller 300 Spartan bullshit philosophy bullshit. You know the bullshit I'm talking about.

Friday · « **Reply #850 on:** August 20, 2011, 10:02:09 AM »

Quote

Honestly I lost interest in the new Conan movie the second I realized Arnold wasn't going to play an older, aging Conan who struggles with a class full of little barbarians in training

Kindergarten Barbarian

Friday · « **Reply #851 on:** August 20, 2011, 10:04:22 AM »

"What's the matter?"

"Oh I have a headache."

"It might be Cthulhu."

"It's not Cthulhu! It's not Cthulhu. At all."

Büge · « **Reply #852 on:** August 23, 2011, 12:05:33 PM »

Reb Brown feels left out.

Lottel · « **Reply #853 on:** August 23, 2011, 12:26:20 PM »

The thing was the Hulk TV show was popular. And was embedded into pop culture enough that everyone new about it even if they hadn't seen it. How many people know about the Captain America stuff?
I didn't until AFTER the movie came out.

Mongrel · « **Reply #854 on:** August 23, 2011, 03:17:32 PM »

I didn't until I clicked that link.

Beat Bandit · « **Reply #855 on:** August 23, 2011, 07:53:59 PM »

Though I do agree it's a damn shame Adam West hasn't shown up in the new Batman movies.

Lottel · « **Reply #856 on:** August 23, 2011, 08:01:13 PM »

I kind of want him to be Alfred.

Thad · « **Reply #857 on:** August 23, 2011, 08:34:44 PM »

He played Thomas Wayne on TB&TB.

(Also Robot Batman.)

Burrito Al Pastor · « **Reply #858 on:** August 23, 2011, 08:53:28 PM »

Fright Night is a lot of fun. David Tennant is in it, of course, as a Vegas stage magician (who wears leather pants and sometimes no shirt, for those of you who like that sort of thing.)

There are specific elements of the film which, I believe, would convince many people to go see the movie if I divulged them, but honestly I think that knowing they would happen would take some of the fun out of it, so I'm not even going to mention them in spoiler tags.

But it's a lot of fun.

Burrito Al Pastor · « **Reply #859 on:** September 28, 2011, 09:57:14 PM »

There's a few obvious elements that make The Social Network and Moneyball seem similar. They're adaptations of controversial nonfiction books, each with an Aaron Sorkin writing credit and a traditionally comic actor cast in a serious lead role. The chief difference, I think, is that The Social Network wasn't just of interest to software developers - but Moneyball, I think, is almost certainly of interest only to people who care about baseball.

There's an XKCD about sports narratives that I've always felt was somewhat dismissive and somewhat unjustified. This is fundamentally because I like baseball; I love going to baseball games, and I love baseball narratives. And if you do not love the complex narrative of a baseball season, or even the fundamental narrative of a single baseball game - this movie holds nothing for you. There are scenes which are blatant, unsubtle appeals to emotion - but they worked on me, because they were deployed through the medium of baseball, and like many Americans, baseball holds a deep-seated primal power over me.

News:

Author Topic: Movies in the Theater (Read 106641 times)