Chinatown = Greatest movie I have ever seen in my life.
It is now also on my top 10 of all time (the other nine being 2001: A Space Odyssey, There Will Be Blood, Only Yesterday, Seven Samurai, Fantasia, Back to the Future Part I, Stranger Than Fiction, Paper Moon, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest).
I just saw The Breakfast Club, which was not I was expecting going into it. I did realize, as I was watching it, that some of the styles in the 80's were back in my high school. Overall, I can see why the movie is regarded as a classic and has such a large fan-base.
Sometimes I purposely watch movies that look terrible on Netflix instant. Sometimes these movies surprise me. Warlock, with Julian Sands, was not one of those movies.
However, the sequel, Warlock: The Armageddon, was surprisingly better than I expected. That's not to say it was amazing or anything, but my expectations for a sequel to a terrible movie were surpassed.
La Cicatrice Intérieure is the worst film I have ever seen. It consists of one hour of people doing meaningless shit while Nico shrieks or cries into the camera; there is literally not a single redeeming quality about this film. An hour of my life is gone and I will never get it back.
Director Philippe Garrel is a celluloid terrorist.
Just watched Hunger Games at a midnight showing. Not bad. I do not want to comment more on it until I finish the book and then I will give my full opinion.
Just watched Hunger Games at a midnight showing. Not bad. I do not want to comment more on it until I finish the book and then I will give my full opinion.
I haven't finished the book yet either (I have like 100 pages left) but my neighbor is convinced that the movie was going to be way better than the book which I called bullshit on because very rarely if ever does a movie surpass its literary equivalent. Would you say that it (so far, I assume) seems better than the book?
I'm going to see the movie on either Saturday or Sunday but in the meantime I just want to rub it in her face.
La Cicatrice Intérieure is the worst film I have ever seen. It consists of one hour of people doing meaningless shit while Nico shrieks or cries into the camera; there is literally not a single redeeming quality about this film. An hour of my life is gone and I will never get it back.
Director Philippe Garrel is a celluloid terrorist.
As long as this move exists, your claim might be invalid.
Fun fact: Gary Daniels (AKA the dude who played Kenshiro in the American made, live-action FotNS movie) is in this...for no purpose at all.
Why why why do you have to remind me that Pocket Ninjas is a real thing?? I picked up a copy from Walmart for $3, and even that was far too much money. Now it sits on my shelf of largely unused DVDs next to Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter, which at least had some redeeming value.
Why why why do you have to remind me that Pocket Ninjas is a real thing?? I picked up a copy from Walmart for $3, and even that was far too much money. Now it sits on my shelf of largely unused DVDs next to Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter, which at least had some redeeming value.
If it was just a bad movie, I wouldn't think much of it; but this is 50 steps beyond. It is so astonishingly bad...I am in awe. It is the film school version of 3 Ninjas. Actually the next thing about it is not in the movie itself. On the IMDB page for it, there is a thread called "worst movie ever". The director popped in and said something to the effect of "You guys, you don't know how hard it is to make a movie!! We tried really, really hard!!!!"
Would you say that it (so far, I assume) seems better than the book?
I would say no, definitely not better than the book. Not sure how someone can believe such a thing really.
Easily. You just have to hate the shit out of Katniss and her angsty whiny teenage bullshit. Telling me a story exclusively from the perspective of a character I detest while giving no reprieve can work in some contexts, but I just found it irritating.
The movie also did a better job of telling the story and framing the situation, IMO. I know it took away part of the narrative impact by taking you out of Katniss' head, but I don't need to read 300 pages of teenage angst in order to understand teenage angst - I was 16 once too.
Instead, the movie showed me what I needed to see, allowed me to fill in the interstitial spaces with generic teenage angst, and got on with it. It also put the action in its greater context, giving you a feeling that everything that was happening was important, really important - for people other than just Katniss. It reinforced the scope of the story, in other words.
Also, watching Katniss shoot the apple was 400 times more awesome than reading it.
I wrote The Hunger Games film off when I heard the editing was overly frenetic. I can't stand movies with cuts every few seconds.
It is, but there is a point to it. The action in the arena is extremely frenetic shaky-cam stuff. The scenes in the Capitol are much more grand cinema sorts of shots. It's there to reinforce the duality that underpins the story.
I very much enjoyed the movie and am very interested in watching the sequels.
I thought the movie was "mediocre". I think that the best parts of the movie tended to be where they broke from the book and focused on the outside world. Seeing Haymitch attempt to broker a deal was interesting. Seeing district 11 riot was interesting. Seeing Snow and Seneca interacting was interesting. I liked the movie, but the best parts of it really felt like they were "anything without Katniss".
The problem is that some of the greatest developments in the book were internal monologue and slow simple things like hunger, thirst, and friendship. They make for poor movie content. And they tried to cut some of it or make up for it in various ways which was good, but I think they should have gone further.
In my imagination, the best choice would have been to lay out the movies as a supplement to the books instead of as a visual re-make of the books. The Hunger Games is a sort of reality television show/gladiatorial arena. I think they could have very validly written the movie as if it were largely some variant of the 3 hour recap Katniss watches after the games. Disagree with me here if I'm totally crazy, but I think that would have taken advantage of telling the same story in a different medium. It also would have allowed the movie to expand on who the different tributes were, and show content that the book just couldn't take on. I just wanted to see them take advantage of the medium rather than trying to recreate the books... but since most people complain when a movie adaption doesn't "follow the books" I guess they compensated in the other direction.
I saw the movie only having read the first book, but I've talked with people who read all three books first and those that have not read any of the books. The non-readers seemed to think the movie was "alright" but they were confused by a number of things that went unexplained in the movie, and they felt that it was at least a little bit boring. The person that read all the books seemed to like it more, especially the setup of Snow and Seneca, but also felt like the movie plot didn't really do justice (or could do justice) to Rue and that some elements like the mutant-monsters was glossed over superficially.
That is almost exactly how I felt about the movie. I thought most of it was crap. The biggest grinder for me was that the physical and mental torture of the contestants that you get a sense of in the book is almost non existent in the movie. Minor spoiler: The part where Rue gets shot in the movie was pathetic. The girl in the movie was just like oh no, I got hit. Well I'm out. There was no pain, no suffering in her face. While that sounds kinda gruesome considering she was like a 12 year old girl that is what made the scene in the book so heart wrenching. In the movie it was hollow and cheesy. I did like a lot of their exploration of what happened outside of the games like Creamsteak said. Their exploration on the technology and how it might have been orchestrated behind the scenes was kinda neat.
Honestly I thought most of the movie was terrible, it had some good scenes but I mean if I hadn't read the book I am quite positive that movie would have not made a whole lot of sense. That is what really gets me. There was other stuff but I could sit here for a while typing it all out so I'll just leave it at that.
but they were confused by a number of things that went unexplained in the movie
Alright, I'm seeing a fair number of comments to this effect. Just what vital things did the movie omit that confused people so much? The only unanswered question I had at the end of the movie was one of technological curiosity: "So are the arenas actually real places, or are they just advanced holo-decks." The question didn't matter for my understanding of the movies.
Now, the book did include some explanations of things that the movie didn't (District 13, the mutant animals that were used as biological weapons, the layout of the word), but those elements weren't actually essential to the story at this point. It's kind of like the way they glossed over Katniss' mom's role as a healer - it didn't really matter for the story. Superfluous detail.
Disagree with me here if I'm totally crazy, but I think that would have taken advantage of telling the same story in a different medium.
Um, they did. They didn't go with your idea for completely re-telling the story (which does sound kinda cool, I have to admit), but they fundamentally changed the telling of the story by moving it into a different perspective. Instead of getting into Katniss' head, you have to watch her and glean her motivations and character through her body language - which is a much more interesting exercise than having it told to you directly.
That is almost exactly how I felt about the movie. I thought most of it was crap. The biggest grinder for me was that the physical and mental torture of the contestants that you get a sense of in the book is almost non existent in the movie.
For starters, thinking that you could even get a sense of that hardship through any medium other than experience is ludicrous. It's a parallel situation at best - you understand it by comparison to your day-to-day trials and tribulations.
But the movie did a great job because it fucking showed you the struggle. They didn't have to tell you anything - a simple depiction is sufficiently horrific. How about Cato's face at the end? The timbre in his voice? That didn't tell you anything?
And the scene you mentioned was just as hollow in the book.
but I mean if I hadn't read the book I am quite positive that movie would have not made a whole lot of sense
And I can't empahsize this enough: the movie made perfect sense without having read the book. It made better sense in some regards.
Question, out of sheer curiosity: how old are you?
Since everyone is finally weighing in on the movie, I'll put in my 2 cents.
I thought it was great, and I am not ashamed to admit that. Overall I felt so happy and satisfied that they didn't fuck it all up like most movies from books. I thought they did a really great job piecing it together at a non-rushed pace, including almost every element that was important for the story. There was minimal leaving out of stuff, unless you get really picky. I think those of us here are smarter than that, since we know its impossible to make an exact copy of the book without it being 8 hrs long.
Even though I was thoroughly satisfied, I admit it wasn't perfect. There could have been some dialogue tweaking to have the story make more sense to non-readers. I'd like to see an even more grotesque version of the capital, although they did do a pretty good job. I think the movie missed just how much the involvement was with the capital people being obsessed with the star crossed lovers. Like they are the reason Seneca decides not to let Katniss and Peeta kill themselves.
Also, the bread scene was done pretty badly. I guess that's the biggest gripe I had. They kept showing the same flashback over and over, never really explaining anything. It didn't get across that she was starving and about to die, and that the well-off baker's son burned the bread on purpose to give to her, and this event changed her future (being alive, having hope, etc). They coulda portrayed that in one flashback and be done with it.
One thing I'm hearing from many people is that there wasn't enough violence and emphasis on how bad the child killing thing was. I think this was due to them not wanting an R rating, and that's that.
I admit it would be cool to do a more stylized version, maybe try to actually replicate the reality show itself, like what the show would look like from the perspective of a citizen. Maybe do a whole miniseries that would span the 2 weeks of the games (obviously sped up a bit to skip the boring sleeping parts and whatnot), which would allow really getting into each character and seeing each death/killing, survival stuff, clan forming, etc. Plus the commentary from the hosts and whatnot. I think that would be super neat.
but they were confused by a number of things that went unexplained in the movie
Alright, I'm seeing a fair number of comments to this effect. Just what vital things did the movie omit that confused people so much? The only unanswered question I had at the end of the movie was one of technological curiosity: "So are the arenas actually real places, or are they just advanced holo-decks." The question didn't matter for my understanding of the movies.
The holodeck issue was one thing someone mentioned. I was also asked how long they were in the arena (the implication being that it seemed like a very short time, but it seemed like it was intended to be a very long time). And some people seem to have intuited some strange things about the society or the games themselves that weren't really well portrayed in the movie. Things like her ability to "get help" and how the healing ointment was magic or the dogs magically appeared. Also one friend seems to have not picked up on how the districts filled different primary roles, or how the leaf-wraps worked. Also apparently there was confusion about how or why the group of "careers" were sticking together, but that's also muddy in the book. Of course, they were not critical to understanding the basic plot. The basic plot is only a part of the narrative though.
Now, the book did include some explanations of things that the movie didn't (District 13, the mutant animals that were used as biological weapons, the layout of the word), but those elements weren't actually essential to the story at this point. It's kind of like the way they glossed over Katniss' mom's role as a healer - it didn't really matter for the story. Superfluous detail.
I agree with you in that these were things the movie could cut and make for a better movie. A couple of seeming plot-holes could have maybe been avoided with a couple sentences of very carefully selected dialogue as well, obviously.
Um, they did. They didn't go with your idea for completely re-telling the story (which does sound kinda cool, I have to admit), but they fundamentally changed the telling of the story by moving it into a different perspective. Instead of getting into Katniss' head, you have to watch her and glean her motivations and character through her body language - which is a much more interesting exercise than having it told to you directly.
I agree with you here too, in that they did a good job of moving the story. A fully first or second-person movie would be rather awkward, and not a Hollywood movie. So I think they did an alright job of taking that on, but I think they could have taken it further. Of course, I'm not even sure when the last book came out, so part of their problem could have been that they were in production before the final book and they didn't know for certain what would or would not have been significant from the book... so filling in the blanks for some characters/events may have crippled the movie-to-book coexistence.
Some things I think the movie could have done is show more of the other districts reapings, or more of the reactions and attitudes of different districts including the capital. Showing how district 11 boy/foxface died could have made for interesting scenes. Peeta keeping watch under the wasp-tree could have been shown instead of just told later. Give the audience the information that Katniss might not have had at the moment, so the audience can experience the story a bit.
Also the "affection" in the movie is a bit odd because it's probably impossible to portray Katniss manipulativeness and second thoughts on everything... that would probably go over most peoples heads and such in the movie.
I find it kinda off-putting when people clamored for "more gore!" or "more graphic deaths!". I mean, the Capitol residents are portrayed as evil for glamorizing the killing of these children, yet some fans want the deaths to be more vivid and explicit.
I understand the desire for more detail, but I can't help but feel put-off by that idea.
Comments
It is now also on my top 10 of all time (the other nine being 2001: A Space Odyssey, There Will Be Blood, Only Yesterday, Seven Samurai, Fantasia, Back to the Future Part I, Stranger Than Fiction, Paper Moon, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest).
However, the sequel, Warlock: The Armageddon, was surprisingly better than I expected. That's not to say it was amazing or anything, but my expectations for a sequel to a terrible movie were surpassed.
Director Philippe Garrel is a celluloid terrorist.
I'm going to see the movie on either Saturday or Sunday but in the meantime I just want to rub it in her face.
She's pretty nice though.
Fun fact: Gary Daniels (AKA the dude who played Kenshiro in the American made, live-action FotNS movie) is in this...for no purpose at all.
The movie also did a better job of telling the story and framing the situation, IMO. I know it took away part of the narrative impact by taking you out of Katniss' head, but I don't need to read 300 pages of teenage angst in order to understand teenage angst - I was 16 once too.
Instead, the movie showed me what I needed to see, allowed me to fill in the interstitial spaces with generic teenage angst, and got on with it. It also put the action in its greater context, giving you a feeling that everything that was happening was important, really important - for people other than just Katniss. It reinforced the scope of the story, in other words.
Also, watching Katniss shoot the apple was 400 times more awesome than reading it. It is, but there is a point to it. The action in the arena is extremely frenetic shaky-cam stuff. The scenes in the Capitol are much more grand cinema sorts of shots. It's there to reinforce the duality that underpins the story.
I very much enjoyed the movie and am very interested in watching the sequels.
I thought the movie was "mediocre". I think that the best parts of the movie tended to be where they broke from the book and focused on the outside world. Seeing Haymitch attempt to broker a deal was interesting. Seeing district 11 riot was interesting. Seeing Snow and Seneca interacting was interesting. I liked the movie, but the best parts of it really felt like they were "anything without Katniss".
The problem is that some of the greatest developments in the book were internal monologue and slow simple things like hunger, thirst, and friendship. They make for poor movie content. And they tried to cut some of it or make up for it in various ways which was good, but I think they should have gone further.
In my imagination, the best choice would have been to lay out the movies as a supplement to the books instead of as a visual re-make of the books. The Hunger Games is a sort of reality television show/gladiatorial arena. I think they could have very validly written the movie as if it were largely some variant of the 3 hour recap Katniss watches after the games. Disagree with me here if I'm totally crazy, but I think that would have taken advantage of telling the same story in a different medium. It also would have allowed the movie to expand on who the different tributes were, and show content that the book just couldn't take on. I just wanted to see them take advantage of the medium rather than trying to recreate the books... but since most people complain when a movie adaption doesn't "follow the books" I guess they compensated in the other direction.
I saw the movie only having read the first book, but I've talked with people who read all three books first and those that have not read any of the books. The non-readers seemed to think the movie was "alright" but they were confused by a number of things that went unexplained in the movie, and they felt that it was at least a little bit boring. The person that read all the books seemed to like it more, especially the setup of Snow and Seneca, but also felt like the movie plot didn't really do justice (or could do justice) to Rue and that some elements like the mutant-monsters was glossed over superficially.
Honestly I thought most of the movie was terrible, it had some good scenes but I mean if I hadn't read the book I am quite positive that movie would have not made a whole lot of sense. That is what really gets me. There was other stuff but I could sit here for a while typing it all out so I'll just leave it at that.
Now, the book did include some explanations of things that the movie didn't (District 13, the mutant animals that were used as biological weapons, the layout of the word), but those elements weren't actually essential to the story at this point. It's kind of like the way they glossed over Katniss' mom's role as a healer - it didn't really matter for the story. Superfluous detail. Um, they did. They didn't go with your idea for completely re-telling the story (which does sound kinda cool, I have to admit), but they fundamentally changed the telling of the story by moving it into a different perspective. Instead of getting into Katniss' head, you have to watch her and glean her motivations and character through her body language - which is a much more interesting exercise than having it told to you directly. For starters, thinking that you could even get a sense of that hardship through any medium other than experience is ludicrous. It's a parallel situation at best - you understand it by comparison to your day-to-day trials and tribulations.
But the movie did a great job because it fucking showed you the struggle. They didn't have to tell you anything - a simple depiction is sufficiently horrific. How about Cato's face at the end? The timbre in his voice? That didn't tell you anything?
And the scene you mentioned was just as hollow in the book. And I can't empahsize this enough: the movie made perfect sense without having read the book. It made better sense in some regards.
Question, out of sheer curiosity: how old are you?
I shall now realy my impressions via the method of interpretative dance.
Were there any essential details that didn't have an adequate explanation? I can't really think of any important details that were missed.
I thought it was great, and I am not ashamed to admit that. Overall I felt so happy and satisfied that they didn't fuck it all up like most movies from books. I thought they did a really great job piecing it together at a non-rushed pace, including almost every element that was important for the story. There was minimal leaving out of stuff, unless you get really picky. I think those of us here are smarter than that, since we know its impossible to make an exact copy of the book without it being 8 hrs long.
Even though I was thoroughly satisfied, I admit it wasn't perfect. There could have been some dialogue tweaking to have the story make more sense to non-readers. I'd like to see an even more grotesque version of the capital, although they did do a pretty good job. I think the movie missed just how much the involvement was with the capital people being obsessed with the star crossed lovers. Like they are the reason Seneca decides not to let Katniss and Peeta kill themselves.
Also, the bread scene was done pretty badly. I guess that's the biggest gripe I had. They kept showing the same flashback over and over, never really explaining anything. It didn't get across that she was starving and about to die, and that the well-off baker's son burned the bread on purpose to give to her, and this event changed her future (being alive, having hope, etc). They coulda portrayed that in one flashback and be done with it.
One thing I'm hearing from many people is that there wasn't enough violence and emphasis on how bad the child killing thing was. I think this was due to them not wanting an R rating, and that's that.
I admit it would be cool to do a more stylized version, maybe try to actually replicate the reality show itself, like what the show would look like from the perspective of a citizen. Maybe do a whole miniseries that would span the 2 weeks of the games (obviously sped up a bit to skip the boring sleeping parts and whatnot), which would allow really getting into each character and seeing each death/killing, survival stuff, clan forming, etc. Plus the commentary from the hosts and whatnot. I think that would be super neat.
Some things I think the movie could have done is show more of the other districts reapings, or more of the reactions and attitudes of different districts including the capital. Showing how district 11 boy/foxface died could have made for interesting scenes. Peeta keeping watch under the wasp-tree could have been shown instead of just told later. Give the audience the information that Katniss might not have had at the moment, so the audience can experience the story a bit.
Also the "affection" in the movie is a bit odd because it's probably impossible to portray Katniss manipulativeness and second thoughts on everything... that would probably go over most peoples heads and such in the movie.
I understand the desire for more detail, but I can't help but feel put-off by that idea.