Yeah. It's one thing to spoil something accidentally in casual conversation, but it's another thing to spamspoil like that.
Of course, spoilers are the danger of engaging in communication of any kind, so it's hard to have a definite rule about it. Still, punk kids, don't spamspoil.
I'm sorry for helping to ironically propagate the three most memetic "spoilers" on the internet.
I started watching Transformers 2 and was about 2/3rds the way through when I was compelled to shut it off and delete the file.
Why did you torture yourself like that? Even Mike Nelson who was doing the RiffTrak for that said (paraphrase btw) it wasn't enough to save this abortion of filmmaking.
Well, I didn't know if it was bad or not, but some point around when the construction equipment combined to form a megasaur, I suddenly didn't want to watch it anymore. Maybe it was my brain acting in self preservation.
The end was the best part though! Devastator (the megasaur you described) was super cool (except for his balls, which was a completely unneeded image) and you missed Optimus ripping parts off of a freshly dead Jetfire and attaching them to his body!
Finished watching The Empire Strikes Back courtesy of Spike. I'd forgotten just how many admirals Vader goes through in the span of two and a half hours.
We saw Nine for Christmas. It was handled in an incredibly similar way to the film version of Chicago, which makes sense cuz I think they have the same director. Anyway it was fun and full of sexy ladies... being sexy. I liked.
We saw Nine for Christmas. It was handled in an incredibly similar way to the film version of Chicago, which makes sense cuz I think they have the same director. Anyway it was fun and full of sexy ladies... being sexy. I liked.
Yes, Rob Marshall did indeed direct both Nine and Chicago. I'm a big fan of Chicago, so maybe I'll mosey on down to the theatre-house and see Nine. Other than sexiful ladies, is there anything else noteworthy enough to mention loltsundere?
We saw Nine for Christmas. It was handled in an incredibly similar way to the film version of Chicago, which makes sense cuz I think they have the same director. Anyway it was fun and full of sexy ladies... being sexy. I liked.
Yes, Rob Marshall did indeed direct bothNineandChicago. I'm a big fan of Chicago, so maybe I'll mosey on down to the theatre-house and see Nine. Other than sexiful ladies, is there anything else noteworthy enough to mention loltsundere?
Well if you liked Chicago then you must've liked the way the musical scenes were executed. Like I said, these were very similar. They were integrated with the story as hallucinations or things going on in the main character's imagination, often in a rather creative way. They were performed well; appropriately fun, emotional, or powerful. The song "Be Italian" in particular was really well done. Also, the cast was pretty damn phenomenal. I was excited about a lot of the choices and they didn't disappoint me. And I found the ending to be very satisfying, artistically culminating all the events prior in a way that gave me a sense of peaceful closure for the story.
Sorry I didn't go into depth earlier. Didn't feel like rambling.
I've not seen the new film yet -- I want to -- but it's my understanding that it's actually much more true to the source material than the popularized version of Holmes and Watson. Wasn't Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock all about boxing and such? And wasn't he much more of a rogue than the stodgy Holmes the BBC has conjured up? And wasn't the original Watson and tall, muscular ladies man rather than the pudgy knucklehead of recent depictions? That's my understanding, at least.
Yesterday, for Christmas, I treated myself to taking some time off from my make-work projects to watch two movies. The first was Coraline. It was okay. It looked great, but the plot was a bit dull. The second movie was Hancock. It started good, but took a bad turn two thirds of the way through.
Cue mini-rant about superhero movies:
Please can we have a different kind of antagonist than the "bad guy with the same but slightly more powerful powers of the hero"? It's like the hero has become so powerful that the script writers can think of nothing he can fight. Iron Man: someone else turns bad and builds a similar but more powerful suit. Hulk: someone turns bad and makes themselves into a similar but more powerful beast. Come on! This was done in Superman years ago, and in many movies since. If you're going to do it, at least wait until the second movie, like Wolverine's double in X-Men 2. I remember watching Unbreakable, and Sam Jackson talks about how the nemesis should be the opposite of the hero. I agree. That's what the recent Batman movies got right.
Wasn't Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock all about boxing and such?
He's described as being an excellent Bareknuckle fighter, quite skilled in bartitsu, and an expert in Singlestick and with a sword.
And wasn't he much more of a rogue than the stodgy Holmes the BBC has conjured up?
Well, he took a shitload of drugs, and wasn't afraid to bend the law if it was morally justifiable.
And wasn't the original Watson and tall, muscular ladies man rather than the pudgy knucklehead of recent depictions?
Yes, He was a skilled surgeon, an expert marksman, and as being a bloke of strong build, and average height. Don't know about the ladies man part, but he's far more personable and charming than Holmes, at least.
And wasn't the original Watson and tall, muscular ladies man rather than the pudgy knucklehead of recent depictions?
Yes, He was a skilled surgeon, an expert marksman, and as being a bloke of strong build, and average height. Don't know about the ladies man part, but he's far more personable and charming than Holmes, at least.To be fair, it's not hard to be more personable and charming than Sherlock Holmes.
Just watched the director's cut of Watchmen. I really do feel that that film, especially in the extended form, captures the brilliance of the comic. Given all the circumstances, I don't think this effort could ever be improved upon.
I have a few things I have to say about the Watchmen movie. Here is my review from Flixster on Facebook.
Quote "A disappointing, but entertaining venture. It is extremely upsetting to see a source that I so love, put on the screen so faithfully, in a way that I find to be so inadequate. Zach Snyder was not ready for this movie. There were moments of genius, but in between those moments were scenes that were immature, flashy, and stupid... things that do not belong in a story of this magnitude. This film was so desperate to include nearly every frame of the comic that it forgot to add feeling and depth to most of the characters and situations. It is a mediocre carbon copy, which lacks much of the intellect and soul of the brilliant source material. I would still recommend seeing it, simply because it features some great performances and several scenes that are very well done. However, on the whole, the film is an underwhelming effort. " unquote.
Just watched the director's cut of Watchmen. I really do feel that that film, especially in the extended form, captures the brilliance of the comic. Given all the circumstances, I don't think this effort could ever be improved upon.
Personally I only had two issues with the Watchmen movie. The music cues/soundtracks and the acting performances. Haley/Crudup/Morgan = Great. Ã…kerman/Wilson/Goode = Ranged from passable to bad.
We saw two great, but very different movies this weekend. The first film was Hamlet 2. It is a very well done "stupid" comedy. It relied more on silliness, slapstick, and idiocy than gross out humor which was highly welcome in this kind of comedy. The second was Up in the Air. This film is well worth seeing in the theatre. The cast was incredibly good (except Jason Bateman surprisingly, though he wasn't terrible), the plot (though predictable in some moments) was handled so delicately that it never felt false or staged. The direction was tight and true and the dialogue never felt forced. All-in-all one of the best films I saw all year.
Comments
Question for anyone who has seen Nine: does it really have anything to do with 8 1/2 apart from Guido Contini's name?
I made a thread. Faithful adaptations be damned. I liked it.
Sorry I didn't go into depth earlier. Didn't feel like rambling.
Cue mini-rant about superhero movies:
Please can we have a different kind of antagonist than the "bad guy with the same but slightly more powerful powers of the hero"? It's like the hero has become so powerful that the script writers can think of nothing he can fight. Iron Man: someone else turns bad and builds a similar but more powerful suit. Hulk: someone turns bad and makes themselves into a similar but more powerful beast. Come on! This was done in Superman years ago, and in many movies since. If you're going to do it, at least wait until the second movie, like Wolverine's double in X-Men 2. I remember watching Unbreakable, and Sam Jackson talks about how the nemesis should be the opposite of the hero. I agree. That's what the recent Batman movies got right.
Quote "A disappointing, but entertaining venture. It is extremely upsetting to see a source that I so love, put on the screen so faithfully, in a way that I find to be so inadequate. Zach Snyder was not ready for this movie. There were moments of genius, but in between those moments were scenes that were immature, flashy, and stupid... things that do not belong in a story of this magnitude. This film was so desperate to include nearly every frame of the comic that it forgot to add feeling and depth to most of the characters and situations. It is a mediocre carbon copy, which lacks much of the intellect and soul of the brilliant source material. I would still recommend seeing it, simply because it features some great performances and several scenes that are very well done. However, on the whole, the film is an underwhelming effort. " unquote.
The first film was Hamlet 2. It is a very well done "stupid" comedy. It relied more on silliness, slapstick, and idiocy than gross out humor which was highly welcome in this kind of comedy.
The second was Up in the Air. This film is well worth seeing in the theatre. The cast was incredibly good (except Jason Bateman surprisingly, though he wasn't terrible), the plot (though predictable in some moments) was handled so delicately that it never felt false or staged. The direction was tight and true and the dialogue never felt forced. All-in-all one of the best films I saw all year.