Topic: Movies in the Theater (Read 100478 times)

Lottel · « **Reply #960 on:** July 07, 2012, 03:47:37 PM »

So, yeah. Prometheus was completely different than the old Kablam! shorts lead me to believe.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #961 on:** July 15, 2012, 05:30:46 AM »

The Amazing Spider-man goes to such great lengths to establish that Curt Connors transformation into the lizard (dubbed a "terrorist" by the end of the film) is fueled by his desire to end inequality that it may be the finest translation of Ditko's vision that I've ever seen.

Lottel · « **Reply #962 on:** September 16, 2012, 04:16:40 PM »

I went to Safety Not Guaranteed tonight without knowing anything about it other than the name.
I really enjoyed it. I'm not saying chase down a theatre to see it, but if it's around and you have the time, give it a view

Lottel · « **Reply #963 on:** September 30, 2012, 08:19:32 PM »

Go see Dredd. And if you can stomach 3D, see it in 3D.
It's a gorgeous movie.

Bal · « **Reply #964 on:** October 08, 2012, 05:02:59 PM »

what is this i don't even

Atlas Shrugged Part II Trailer

Mongrel · « **Reply #965 on:** October 08, 2012, 07:53:41 PM »

I guess someone gave them enough CHARITY NICKELS to make the second part?

Because, given the first movie's box office take, that sure ain't no investment.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #966 on:** October 08, 2012, 09:03:20 PM »

Maybe through a Herculean feat of self-determination they managed to get the film made because they are the brightest, most intelligent, most hardworking of societies creators? If they were to have not made this film, the rest of Hollywood would have ground to a halt, unable to cope with the loss of such talent.

Also the meager take of the first film was the result of everyone in America being jealous and petty of their success and talent.

Mongrel · « **Reply #967 on:** October 08, 2012, 09:05:23 PM »

If the turns out the Koch brothers funded this, somehow I will find a way to shit a brick of solid gold. Just for the laughs.

Friday · « **Reply #968 on:** October 15, 2012, 05:08:45 AM »

Looper manages to be both familiar and original at the same time, a feat that grounds the fantastic elements in the day to day that everyone knows.

Willis and Roger from Angels in the Outfield are brilliant, and the plot keeps you guessing, which is such a fucking rarity for me that I could recommend the movie even if it was a pile of shit.

It isn't. Go see Looper. And do yourself a favor and don't read anything about it first.

Cthulhu-chan · « **Reply #969 on:** October 15, 2012, 08:02:11 AM »

I also enjoyed Looper. Fine performances and a decent plot.

[spoiler]but those temporal mechanics, ye gods...[/spoiler]

Ted Belmont · « **Reply #970 on:** October 20, 2012, 08:23:49 PM »

Tai Chi Zero is ridiculous, dumb, and incredibly fun. Go see it.

Ted Belmont · « **Reply #971 on:** November 02, 2012, 04:51:20 PM »

The Man With The Iron Fists was... not very good. I can definitely see what they were going for, but it falls flat in a lot of places.

Joxam · « **Reply #972 on:** November 02, 2012, 05:45:52 PM »

Wreck-it Ralph and Flight come out today and you went to see that? Alright I guess...

Ted Belmont · « **Reply #973 on:** November 02, 2012, 05:47:52 PM »

I was told I was not allowed to see either of those movies without my friend who is spending the weekend in Palm Springs.

Catloaf · « **Reply #974 on:** November 02, 2012, 05:58:57 PM »

Wreck-it Ralph was decent. Although it had its share of weak moments. Specifically the moral of the story; they had ample opportunity to make it something like "be proud of who you are," but nope, it came off way more like "Never try to get a better lot in life because it will just end horribly." Yes, they did win in the end, but only when everyone went back to their assigned roles.

Also, since I was running on Jew-Time--worrying about being late and showing up 15 early--when I sat down in the theatre, and for most of the time between then and the movie starting, I was probably the only non-parent over the age of 12 and I felt like at any moment I would have to assure one of the children's parents that I wasn't a pedophile and the fact that the three rows of seats directly in front of mine were full of virtually nothing but little girls was a complete coincidence and I indeed got there a good few minutes before any of them sat down.

Mongrel · « **Reply #975 on:** November 05, 2012, 10:00:49 PM »

Ocksi · « **Reply #976 on:** November 05, 2012, 10:09:04 PM »

I question the validity of any chart claiming the highest grossing movie of any year is something that doesn't exist.

Off the top, On Golden Pond was a play and calling Hook an adaptation of... anything seems outlandish, at best. I guess I should thank you for bringing Facebook-style idiocy on over the the Brontoboards, though.

Thad · « **Reply #977 on:** November 05, 2012, 10:44:43 PM »

Quote from: Ocksi on November 05, 2012, 10:09:04 PM

I question the validity of any chart claiming the highest grossing movie of any year is something that doesn't exist.

I don't know what you're talking about. I liked Harry Potter 9 almost as much as Sleeping with the Emeny.

Quote from: Ocksi on November 05, 2012, 10:09:04 PM

Off the top, On Golden Pond was a play and calling Hook an adaptation of... anything seems outlandish, at best.

Also, remakes of previous movies are referred to as "sequels" (Father of the Bride, Ocean's Eleven, Planet of the Apes) when they quite clearly should be classified as "adaptations" -- they're just adaptations of other movies, not books.

And that's without getting into the conundrum of things that are sequels to adapations (Superman, Bond, Mummy, etc.). Or the gray area of adaptations of things that had already been made into previous films (Robin Hood, Captain America). Or the somewhat unique case of Silence of the Lambs, which, while technically not a sequel to Manhunter, is an adaptation of the sequel to the book Manhunter adapted.

Brentai · « **Reply #978 on:** November 05, 2012, 11:02:12 PM »

And Shrek is an adaptation apparently.

Amateur-hour data collection aside, nobody seems to be actually questioning the point of the thing or anything. Personally I see "30 years of media produces a lot of successful series" as not something to rail about, but whatever, keep on shining you crazy etc.

Thad · « **Reply #979 on:** November 05, 2012, 11:11:51 PM »

Quote from: Brentai on November 05, 2012, 11:02:12 PM

And Shrek is an adaptation apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrek!

News:

Author Topic: Movies in the Theater (Read 100478 times)