-
Welcome to the discussion forums. To get posting, register an account.
Last movie you saw
- Thread starter molloch!
- Start date
Yes, it is interesting no doubt. And such events are portrayed in the film.
Just that in the film, I feel Victoria is overshadowed by Prince Albert. I'd like to know the reclusive Victoria. The one debilitated by grief.
G
Goldenberry
Guest
Sorry! Can't go that far. Diana rulz ok.
Superman 2: The Richard Donner Cut
Been keen to watch this for some time. It's been sitting there in the superman boxset waiting for me to, just haven't got around to it.
I do quite enjoy superman 1 and 2. I think overall i prefer 2. I also really liked Superman Returns. However superman 3 and 4... yeah... Three i only saw for the first time in living memory earlier this year.. majorly bad... like what were they thinking? It was a bad richard prior movie that happened to have superman in it. Superman 4 i always had found memories as a kid of Atomic man, or whatever the lex luther created superman guy.. but yeah the films pretty crappy and pretty light on content these days. Although apparently that's another film there was lots of stuff not in the final film, like multible atomic men?? or something.. i don't know...
For those unaware of what the Richard Donner Cut of superman 2 is, here's a quick catch up. When superman the movie was being filmed, they also were filming the sequel. It wasn't a case of back to back, it was a case of writing two films that are two parts of the same story of superman. However Pretty soon into the filming those at the studio and richard donner who was directing had a bit of a falling out. With about 75% of superman 2 done, they told him to focus on finishing superman 1 and they'd complete 2 after it was released. Donner knew that if the first film was a success he'd be fired from completing number two. And that was the case. So they hired some guy Richard Lester to finish the film which involved a bit of a rewrite and filming a bunch of new scenes. A lot of the same elements of the same story are in both cuts. The lester cut does seem more like a more complete version, because.. well it is a complete version.
Generally while Superman 2is considered a good film, it is considered Lester ruined the franchise. When he was left to do a film soley by himself, it resulted in Superman 3. Most of superman 2 still was what was intended. As Donner says in the bonus features, Lester just didn't understand the approach and that there was anything more than the superficial comic book character. Honestly watching the donner cut, it seems like a weaker version of the lester version. It's missing the opening sequence in Paris which is quite fine, and various other bits. One problem with the donner cut is, they made an effort to remove as much of the Lester filmed scenes as possible which over all hurts the flow. So all in all it doesn't stand up as well as a movie, but there's a bit of alternative stuff and some nice character moments.
It was interesting to hear Donner explain how the scenes with Zod and his followers arriving on earth were totally the wrong tone and feel than what he intended. Unfortunately these scenes weren't filmed by donner so he had to do with the lester ones.
While I got some what of a sense of the bitterness, I do fully believe if donner could have completed the film himself it would have been better than what we saw. At least it wouldn't have had the horrible lester additions such as the supid scene of superman ripping the S of his chest to stop a bad guy, and zod having extra powers.
If anything it's a fascinating case of the politics in hollwood. It's just a shame there still wasn't enough left for the donner cut to make a complete new film. You can tell little bits were missing. It is amazing how much of the Lester film were from Donner. Things such as Gene Hackman and many other actors in the film never shot a scene with lester. Also the donner cut has Marlon Brando's role restored which was filmed but cut so the studio didn't have to pay him. It is also interesting how the whole story arc of both the films was ruined, and there wasn't enough filmed by donner to have it in this cut. The whole story arc of the father giving up his son, his son to save humanity and then superman turning his back on his father and his duties, to only then turn back to redeem himself but destroy his father and go against his wishes by altering earth history. The flying back in time was actually intended for superman 2 but was moved to one as part of the rushing to finish the film and the pressure from the studio. It is back in the donner cut although various scenes around it aren't there.
It's yeah and interesting film to watch if you like the superman films, but if you don't give a shit, just watch superman 2 and enjoy. Just avoid 3 like the plague.
Been keen to watch this for some time. It's been sitting there in the superman boxset waiting for me to, just haven't got around to it.
I do quite enjoy superman 1 and 2. I think overall i prefer 2. I also really liked Superman Returns. However superman 3 and 4... yeah... Three i only saw for the first time in living memory earlier this year.. majorly bad... like what were they thinking? It was a bad richard prior movie that happened to have superman in it. Superman 4 i always had found memories as a kid of Atomic man, or whatever the lex luther created superman guy.. but yeah the films pretty crappy and pretty light on content these days. Although apparently that's another film there was lots of stuff not in the final film, like multible atomic men?? or something.. i don't know...
For those unaware of what the Richard Donner Cut of superman 2 is, here's a quick catch up. When superman the movie was being filmed, they also were filming the sequel. It wasn't a case of back to back, it was a case of writing two films that are two parts of the same story of superman. However Pretty soon into the filming those at the studio and richard donner who was directing had a bit of a falling out. With about 75% of superman 2 done, they told him to focus on finishing superman 1 and they'd complete 2 after it was released. Donner knew that if the first film was a success he'd be fired from completing number two. And that was the case. So they hired some guy Richard Lester to finish the film which involved a bit of a rewrite and filming a bunch of new scenes. A lot of the same elements of the same story are in both cuts. The lester cut does seem more like a more complete version, because.. well it is a complete version.
Generally while Superman 2is considered a good film, it is considered Lester ruined the franchise. When he was left to do a film soley by himself, it resulted in Superman 3. Most of superman 2 still was what was intended. As Donner says in the bonus features, Lester just didn't understand the approach and that there was anything more than the superficial comic book character. Honestly watching the donner cut, it seems like a weaker version of the lester version. It's missing the opening sequence in Paris which is quite fine, and various other bits. One problem with the donner cut is, they made an effort to remove as much of the Lester filmed scenes as possible which over all hurts the flow. So all in all it doesn't stand up as well as a movie, but there's a bit of alternative stuff and some nice character moments.
It was interesting to hear Donner explain how the scenes with Zod and his followers arriving on earth were totally the wrong tone and feel than what he intended. Unfortunately these scenes weren't filmed by donner so he had to do with the lester ones.
While I got some what of a sense of the bitterness, I do fully believe if donner could have completed the film himself it would have been better than what we saw. At least it wouldn't have had the horrible lester additions such as the supid scene of superman ripping the S of his chest to stop a bad guy, and zod having extra powers.
If anything it's a fascinating case of the politics in hollwood. It's just a shame there still wasn't enough left for the donner cut to make a complete new film. You can tell little bits were missing. It is amazing how much of the Lester film were from Donner. Things such as Gene Hackman and many other actors in the film never shot a scene with lester. Also the donner cut has Marlon Brando's role restored which was filmed but cut so the studio didn't have to pay him. It is also interesting how the whole story arc of both the films was ruined, and there wasn't enough filmed by donner to have it in this cut. The whole story arc of the father giving up his son, his son to save humanity and then superman turning his back on his father and his duties, to only then turn back to redeem himself but destroy his father and go against his wishes by altering earth history. The flying back in time was actually intended for superman 2 but was moved to one as part of the rushing to finish the film and the pressure from the studio. It is back in the donner cut although various scenes around it aren't there.
It's yeah and interesting film to watch if you like the superman films, but if you don't give a shit, just watch superman 2 and enjoy. Just avoid 3 like the plague.
Karaoke
New Member
I didn't realise that Superman 2 had such a complex history. The things you learn...
I watched Cronenberg's "The Fly".
"Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid". One of the great taglines of movie history.
Good ol' Jeff Goldblum in his first Mad Scientist role, which he does very well indeed. And Geena Davis, with whom Jeff hooked up with for a few years. A good match, IMHO.
This is Cronenberg bringing his organic ickiness schtick to the mainstream. Looking at it one way, it's not a very bloodthristy movie. Only one dead person, who is obvious and kind of inevitable. And an ape. But lots of pus and limb melting regurgitation. All in the name of examining the Nature of Humanity.
And in the end, despite the quirky and downright creepiness of some of the characters, everyone is redeemed. Everyone shows their honourable side.
A good smart horror movie.
The sequel, The Fly 2, dumps most of the intelligence of the first movie and goes for the simpler "Fly monster on the Rampage" storyline. Which is fun too.
I watched Cronenberg's "The Fly".
"Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid". One of the great taglines of movie history.
Good ol' Jeff Goldblum in his first Mad Scientist role, which he does very well indeed. And Geena Davis, with whom Jeff hooked up with for a few years. A good match, IMHO.
This is Cronenberg bringing his organic ickiness schtick to the mainstream. Looking at it one way, it's not a very bloodthristy movie. Only one dead person, who is obvious and kind of inevitable. And an ape. But lots of pus and limb melting regurgitation. All in the name of examining the Nature of Humanity.
And in the end, despite the quirky and downright creepiness of some of the characters, everyone is redeemed. Everyone shows their honourable side.
A good smart horror movie.
The sequel, The Fly 2, dumps most of the intelligence of the first movie and goes for the simpler "Fly monster on the Rampage" storyline. Which is fun too.
B
Bluerose
Guest
I just felt they didn't 'get it'. They didn't understand Diana's popularity...they didn't know how to grieve...business as usual, stiff-upper lip and all that stuff...bit sad really.
I was surprised at how the Queen Mum was portrayed...I was always led to believe that she was an old 'sweetie' ...I guess she was from a different era...again, business as usual.
I'd liked to thank all that contribute to this thread...I value all your opinions and base my dvd hirings on what is said here...I can't contribute much because I don't know much about film making etc and I don't watch that many either...but I find your critiques invaluable...so thanks, again!
Last edited by a moderator:
B
Bluerose
Guest
Shows how really removed from the public they are...
Why did SHE make a fool of him?
I thought it was the other way around?
Believe me, I've been in those circumstances...only worse...
But this is a movie thread...so I won't go into it.
Why did SHE make a fool of him?
I thought it was the other way around?
Believe me, I've been in those circumstances...only worse...
But this is a movie thread...so I won't go into it.
Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
Matthew McConaughey is a womaniser and at his little brothers wedding he learns the true meaning of life and love through his deceased Uncle appearing as a ghost, and 3 ghosts of girlfriends, past, present, future. So yeah a rom com variation on a christmas carol.
The film is watchable, and just fairly light sort of fluff. I quite like Matthew McConaughey in most things he does, but this film was him just going through the motions. The film is light entertainment, and obviously is looking to play of woman's fantasy of the womanising, sleazy, hot bad boy, really having a soft side and a heart of gold when they find the right woman. Here in lies the main problem with the film, while the concept is ridiculous, that a side, the transition just isn't realisitic. It's pretty evidence from early on he already is in love and has that side, and it's more, yeah it's there he just ignores it and has sex with hundreds of woman to ignore it. Also the way everyone else not privvy to his travels of girlfriends past, present, future seem to easily go along with his changed nature. It's all too easy and the film hits predictable notes and moments a long the way.
It was all just too easy and simplistic. Although what do you expect? To me the humour was very soft, and there's so much more you can do with this concept and it all felt really superficial and showed it was just a staring vehicle to get Matthew McConaughey and Jennifer Garner in a romantic comedy. Nothing necesarily wrong with that, i just would prefer they actually try and come up with a good film, then see about making it, instead of just another rom com cranked off the factory line.
Matthew McConaughey is a womaniser and at his little brothers wedding he learns the true meaning of life and love through his deceased Uncle appearing as a ghost, and 3 ghosts of girlfriends, past, present, future. So yeah a rom com variation on a christmas carol.
The film is watchable, and just fairly light sort of fluff. I quite like Matthew McConaughey in most things he does, but this film was him just going through the motions. The film is light entertainment, and obviously is looking to play of woman's fantasy of the womanising, sleazy, hot bad boy, really having a soft side and a heart of gold when they find the right woman. Here in lies the main problem with the film, while the concept is ridiculous, that a side, the transition just isn't realisitic. It's pretty evidence from early on he already is in love and has that side, and it's more, yeah it's there he just ignores it and has sex with hundreds of woman to ignore it. Also the way everyone else not privvy to his travels of girlfriends past, present, future seem to easily go along with his changed nature. It's all too easy and the film hits predictable notes and moments a long the way.
It was all just too easy and simplistic. Although what do you expect? To me the humour was very soft, and there's so much more you can do with this concept and it all felt really superficial and showed it was just a staring vehicle to get Matthew McConaughey and Jennifer Garner in a romantic comedy. Nothing necesarily wrong with that, i just would prefer they actually try and come up with a good film, then see about making it, instead of just another rom com cranked off the factory line.
G
Goldenberry
Guest
The Diana / Charles thing is difficult. I don't really blame either of them, because Charles has been brought up to be a pillock with a sheltered existence, and that's how he turned out.
It's a sad situation, but I refuse to see the royal family as villains because of it.
I actually think the Queen is a groovy old tart who means well, and at least the Queen Mum likes her G and T. As for the royal males, well, I'm less convinced in their value, but maybe because I don't know them.
But of course, no-one's perfect. Diana was great, but I think deep down they know that too.
It's a sad situation, but I refuse to see the royal family as villains because of it.
I actually think the Queen is a groovy old tart who means well, and at least the Queen Mum likes her G and T. As for the royal males, well, I'm less convinced in their value, but maybe because I don't know them.
But of course, no-one's perfect. Diana was great, but I think deep down they know that too.
G
Goldenberry
Guest
He just needs to disrobe his upper half to stay interesting. Clearly he understands this too.
Doublethink
Aesthete & Curmudgeon
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deCi_8GsGGw[/ame]
B
Bluerose
Guest
I totally agree. The way they are is a reflection of the cosseted way they have been brought up...all generations. It is not their fault per se...they are who they are because of their upbringing and relative isolation from the 'real' world.
I think things should change in that area...and hopefully it does...they have taken 'baby-steps' in that regard but it needs to go a lot further...
Back to the movies...
Mud Cake
God
He was OK ish in Sahara, the only movie I have seen of his. Though there probably are others in my collection that he has been in, but I really have never noticed.
He isn't the most memorable actor. and even in that role in Sahara I forgot who the lead actor was. On the whole it wasn't a bad movie actually. I loved the fight on top of the giant solar collector.
I think Sahara is a really under rated movie. I thought he was good in it, and would love to have seen sequels to that film, which will never happen due to the lawsuits. I still think he should do more leads in action.
Mud Cake
God
B
Bluerose
Guest
I didn't like City of Embers...I think it could have been good...but it just was lame imo...
Mud Cake
God
Well I will find ou for myself when I see this.
I can't say why or explain why but the trailer made me think of The Golden Compass which is another movie I really do enjoy, and can watch again and again.
B
Bluerose
Guest
Of course...I would be interested to hear your thoughts...
btw I liked The Golden Compass...
btw I liked The Golden Compass...