Source Code
It started out confusing but once they explained a few things it turned out to be a pretty good movie.
It started out confusing but once they explained a few things it turned out to be a pretty good movie.
Yeah I liked that. It was different.
Sherlock Holmes, the Robert Downey Jr. version.
Not bad. Not exactly great, either. I'm glad I waited to watch it on HBO.
It reminded me a lot of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which was a better movie, imho)
I guess it was the Victorian setting.
Not bad. Not exactly great, either. I'm glad I waited to watch it on HBO.
It reminded me a lot of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which was a better movie, imho)
I guess it was the Victorian setting.
DukeofNuke wrote:Sherlock Holmes, the Robert Downey Jr. version.
Not bad. Not exactly great, either. I'm glad I waited to watch it on HBO.
It reminded me a lot of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which was a better movie, imho)
I guess it was the Victorian setting.
It's awesome! and they're making a second one
I liked that movie, but boy have I had enough steam punk.
Alexander Supertramp wrote:I liked that movie, but boy have I had enough steam punk.
Well it didn't have steam punk Iron Man. I wanted to see that
Red Riding Hood
No daddy issues there.
And if you like steampunk I suggest you check out Murdoch Mysteries.
No daddy issues there.
And if you like steampunk I suggest you check out Murdoch Mysteries.
DukeofNuke wrote:Sherlock Holmes, the Robert Downey Jr. version.
Not bad. Not exactly great, either. I'm glad I waited to watch it on HBO.
It reminded me a lot of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which was a better movie, imho)
I guess it was the Victorian setting.
I enjoyed the movie on its face, but I have a huge problem with re-booting a character who has already been written, written about, studied, picked apart, re-studied and analyzed as much as Holmes.
And I've had it with steam punk, too.
Pithecanthropus wrote:DukeofNuke wrote:Sherlock Holmes, the Robert Downey Jr. version.
Not bad. Not exactly great, either. I'm glad I waited to watch it on HBO.
It reminded me a lot of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which was a better movie, imho)
I guess it was the Victorian setting.
I enjoyed the movie on its face, but I have a huge problem with re-booting a character who has already been written, written about, studied, picked apart, re-studied and analyzed as much as Holmes.
Well, Steven Moffat's version was the besterest. ANd more episodes are coming next year.
While Basil Rathbone set up much of the modern iconography for Sherlock Holmes--the deer-stalker cap, the Harris tweed clothing, the calabash pipe--most of his movies were set in WWII Britain and had little to do with the original Arthur Conan Doyle stories. The most regrettable aspect of Rathbone's movies was the buffoonery of Watson which was such that most more recent versions of Holmes retained this mischaracterization. Many people were surprised when Watson was shown to be an intelligent and capable character--just not quite so much as Holmes--such as he was in the Robert Downey, Jr., version and in those below.
The most faithful Holmes to the Doyle stories was and mostly likely will forever be Jeremy Brett's that was shown in the US on PBS' Mystery series starting in 1984. Regrettably Brett died before they were able to complete the full canon of the Doyle stories.
I do give a considerable nod to Sherlock which uki mentioned. While it is set in current day London, it is remarkably faithful to the spirit in the Doyle stories with clever and intelligent modifications appropriate to today's world: Holmes' analysis of Watson's cell phone in the first episode was quite remarkable and made me grin while watching it. Anyone who is a Holmesian should watch this series and celebrate when new parts air.
The most faithful Holmes to the Doyle stories was and mostly likely will forever be Jeremy Brett's that was shown in the US on PBS' Mystery series starting in 1984. Regrettably Brett died before they were able to complete the full canon of the Doyle stories.
I do give a considerable nod to Sherlock which uki mentioned. While it is set in current day London, it is remarkably faithful to the spirit in the Doyle stories with clever and intelligent modifications appropriate to today's world: Holmes' analysis of Watson's cell phone in the first episode was quite remarkable and made me grin while watching it. Anyone who is a Holmesian should watch this series and celebrate when new parts air.
Quote:The most regrettable aspect of Rathbone's movies was the buffoonery of Watson
I wholeheartedly agree
DukeofNuke wrote:Sherlock Holmes, the Robert Downey Jr. version.
Not bad. Not exactly great, either. I'm glad I waited to watch it on HBO.
It reminded me a lot of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which was a better movie, imho)
I guess it was the Victorian setting.
what Sherlock Holmes was awesome !! The league sucked so much, its one of the worse moves ever made !! even van helsing was better !!
Evil Dead
About what I expected from a low budget 1981 horror flick.
I guess the musical will appeal to those with a certain sense of humour, hipsters and the like.
About what I expected from a low budget 1981 horror flick.
I guess the musical will appeal to those with a certain sense of humour, hipsters and the like.
rjprice wrote:Evil Dead
About what I expected from a low budget 1981 horror flick.
I guess the musical will appeal to those with a certain sense of humour, hipsters and the like.
Hmmm.
I' no big horror movie fan, but I found Evil Dead to be MUCH more than I'd expect from a cheaply made early 80s horror movie. I thought the mood was genuinely disturbing and well rendered.
rjprice wrote:Evil Dead
About what I expected from a low budget 1981 horror flick.
I guess the musical will appeal to those with a certain sense of humour, hipsters and the like.
The play is actually based on elements of all three Evil Dead movies, especially Evil Dead 2 which brought a whole lot more humor and money to the Franchise and essentially ensured Sam Raimi's directorial fame.
Anyway, try comparing Evil Dead to a genuinely typical low budget '80s horror movie like Humongous or Prom Night and I think you'll appreciate the difference.
Evil Dead was OK. I've seen a lot worse. It beat the hell out of Megapython vs Gatoroid, which I gave up on after less than 10 minutes.
I think with more money and at least someone in charge of continuity Evil Dead could have been a legitimately good movie. The story wasn't terribly original but the fact the same basic story had been done to death by 1981 and keeps getting done over and over again only serves to point out how compelling it is. An extra 10-20 minutes to allow for some character development might have made them seem at least 2-dimensional, which also would have helped make it scary rather than just funny.
Of course, it is the "so bad it is good" factor, coupled with Sam Raimi's later success that makes Evil Dead a cult classic, much like John Carpenter's Dark Star. If either movie had been done better they could have been good to very good movies but never would have developed the kind of following they have now due to the sentimental "look how far he has come" sort of perspective we get when we look at both directors' later works.
I enjoyed Evil Dead but it isn't a great movie, not even an especially good movie. It isn't a bad movie though and I plan to watch the two sequels.
I think with more money and at least someone in charge of continuity Evil Dead could have been a legitimately good movie. The story wasn't terribly original but the fact the same basic story had been done to death by 1981 and keeps getting done over and over again only serves to point out how compelling it is. An extra 10-20 minutes to allow for some character development might have made them seem at least 2-dimensional, which also would have helped make it scary rather than just funny.
Of course, it is the "so bad it is good" factor, coupled with Sam Raimi's later success that makes Evil Dead a cult classic, much like John Carpenter's Dark Star. If either movie had been done better they could have been good to very good movies but never would have developed the kind of following they have now due to the sentimental "look how far he has come" sort of perspective we get when we look at both directors' later works.
I enjoyed Evil Dead but it isn't a great movie, not even an especially good movie. It isn't a bad movie though and I plan to watch the two sequels.
rjprice wrote:Evil Dead was OK. I've seen a lot worse. It beat the hell out of Megapython vs Gatoroid, which I gave up on after less than 10 minutes.
I think with more money and at least someone in charge of continuity Evil Dead could have been a legitimately good movie. The story wasn't terribly original but the fact the same basic story had been done to death by 1981 and keeps getting done over and over again only serves to point out how compelling it is. An extra 10-20 minutes to allow for some character development might have made them seem at least 2-dimensional, which also would have helped make it scary rather than just funny.
Of course, it is the "so bad it is good" factor, coupled with Sam Raimi's later success that makes Evil Dead a cult classic, much like John Carpenter's Dark Star. If either movie had been done better they could have been good to very good movies but never would have developed the kind of following they have now due to the sentimental "look how far he has come" sort of perspective we get when we look at both directors' later works.
I enjoyed Evil Dead but it isn't a great movie, not even an especially good movie. It isn't a bad movie though and I plan to watch the two sequels.
A fair enough observance, but just so you know, Evil Dead 2 is basically a remake of the first movie done as if they'd had a whole lot more time and money than with the first one.
Sounds good. I look forward to checking it out. I'll have a couple of hours to kill tomorrow between chemo and the mammogram and ultrasound so maybe I'll load it up on the Zune and watch it at the hospital.
whats a zune ?
Freakout Jackson wrote:Once.
Decidedly in the chick flick category but I freakin loved it.
The singer/songwriter in thrall aspect of it kept it going. It's also a musician's flick - and how many chick flicks have a guy desperately asking a gal to stay over on the first date and totally bombing?
NoExit wrote:whats a zune ?
It is like an iPod Touch but with a better UI and no apps.
It's like Roxio Winamp.
user wrote:Freakout Jackson wrote:Once.
Decidedly in the chick flick category but I freakin loved it.
The singer/songwriter in thrall aspect of it kept it going. It's also a musician's flick - and how many chick flicks have a guy desperately asking a gal to stay over on the first date and totally bombing?
I wouldn't call it desperate. Just disarmingly honest for a movie. I just loved how ambiguous it was. Everything about it just hung there leaving you wondering which way it would go or even where it just went. That scene in the music store was exquisite.
Arthur - the 2011 remake with Russell Brand
tt1334512.jpg
I liked it. Russell played a very believable and charming drunk.
tt1334512.jpg
I liked it. Russell played a very believable and charming drunk.
TechnoBill wrote:Arthur - the 2011 remake with Russell Brand
tt1334512.jpg
I liked it. Russell played a very believable and charming drunk.
I liked it, but i like the original a whole lot better.
Saw Dreamcatcher last night. Surprisingly good, Bren's review in the fart thread pretty much covers it.
Over the previous couple of days I got to see the second and third Evil Dead movies. Meh. I just don't get why there is such a cult about these films. They aren't the worst movies I've ever seen but as entertainment I'd rate them between a breast biopsy and a mammogram.
Over the previous couple of days I got to see the second and third Evil Dead movies. Meh. I just don't get why there is such a cult about these films. They aren't the worst movies I've ever seen but as entertainment I'd rate them between a breast biopsy and a mammogram.
Well, I finally saw Pulp Fiction.
It better be in honor of our bebe!
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part I