F
ferdy
Guest
I saw Alexander on DVD last night. starring Colin Farrel.
It was crap. I can't believe Oliver stone made it. He has lost the plot.
It was crap. I can't believe Oliver stone made it. He has lost the plot.
-
Welcome to the discussion forums. To get posting, register an account.
Last movie you saw
- Thread starter molloch!
- Start date
Nah the popularity is that it really was a well crafted popcorn entertainment blockbuster. I didn't give a shit about transformers but I loved the film. It was lots of fun. You don't look at a film like this for great dialogue, but to me it all just fit with the fun tone.
I watched the Directors cut a while back, meant to be the worst version of the film. It was one of those films that just didn't quite work, or get it right. They also left out huge parts of the story of Alexander and jumped around a bit. Knowing a bit of the history, made it more infuriating as to how it just wasn't what it could have been.
Even as an action flick Transformers 1 was lame. The effects were incoherent (you'd have to watch them in slow motion to appreciate them), the villains were pathetic (Megatron getting himself frozen for thousands of years...
[writers should have stayed on strike permanently]), the hero was a dummy who would never pull Megan Fox in a million years.
The ONLY thing that made it worthwhile: MEGAN FOX.
Transformers 2 seems to have more coherent effects, judging from the preview - the robot coming down the highway smashing bridges looks awesome. It has Megan Fox too, so I'll go and see it.
[writers should have stayed on strike permanently]), the hero was a dummy who would never pull Megan Fox in a million years.The ONLY thing that made it worthwhile: MEGAN FOX.
Transformers 2 seems to have more coherent effects, judging from the preview - the robot coming down the highway smashing bridges looks awesome. It has Megan Fox too, so I'll go and see it.
Mud Cake
God
Even as an action flick Transformers 1 was lame. The effects were incoherent (you'd have to watch them in slow motion to appreciate them), the villains were pathetic (Megatron getting himself frozen for thousands of years...
The ONLY thing that made it worthwhile: MEGAN FOX.
Transformers 2 seems to have more coherent effects, judging from the preview - the robot coming down the highway smashing bridges looks awesome. It has Megan Fox too, so I'll go and see it.
Have you seen the last 3 pages of the "celebrity pictures" thread... Tons of Megan there
F
ferdy
Guest
Yeah i watched the directors cut. appalling.
The history of it all is fascinating, they managed to create some weird psycho-drama...
Didn't one of the early Russians (Potemkin dude? Eisenstein?) do a film about Alexander, or was it some Czar? Ivan the Terrible?
edit:
anyway, probably better to read a book about such a complex subject.
Deadgirl
How to describe the plot to this one. Here's a summary of the set up.
Two teenage boys who are fiarly much the typical outcast stereotypes. One is strange, the other is in love with the pretty girl who is going out with a dickhead stereotype jock. After school they decide to go exploring and trashing an old abandoned hospital while knocking back some beers. In the basement they discover a naked girl tied up, chained to a hospital bed. At first they think she's dead but she is moving. The boys get in an argument about what to do. One wants to keep her there for a while, the other thinks they should help her. The one that wants to do the right thing goes home. It is then revealed the boy that stayed killed the tied up girl while having sex with her. However she didn't die. She was still alive, even after he snapped her kneck and shot her. Another out cast teenager is brought in and those two keep on having sex with the dead girl...
This sets in motion the plot. The basic premis is, this girl is dead but still alive and these teenagers see it as the best they'll ever get as far as sex goes, so they repeatable rape the dead girl. Things go down hill when the jocks find out, and there's a hidden danger about this dead girl...
Yes it's a film about people having sex with a tied up naked girl they find who is actually dead, but still alive....
Comments, the film is not as interesting as it sounds. The reactions of the people aren't realistic, it's not particular well shot or well made, or well written, or well acted. The film is just wrong and what would always be a bizaar unsettling concept, it's not executed effectively enough to make the film worth watching. It ran for a too long, dragged out and yeah.. I wouldn't recommend this film. It's just a pointless exercise in low budget genre. The only thing going for it is the strange concept, of teenage boys raping a tied up dead girl who is still alive, and that's a concept for a film that most people would and should be wise enough to know is utterly retarded and not forge through with the script.
Just think, writing this, did the writers ever have doubts or question this idea for a film? What if it's worse, what if they did have doubts but worked through them. Believed in this film so much that they knew it was something they had to finish. And the writers and directors and whoever financed the low budget. Calling up casting agents to cast teenagers who find and repeatable rape a tied up dead girl... Just one of the many mind boggling aspects of this film. Who would sit there and make such a concept, and to execute it so poorly that it's almost as if this had to be the film they wanted to make...
But yeah, i wouldn't recommend people waste their time with this film. That's all it really is a big waste of time and a bit unsettling.
How to describe the plot to this one. Here's a summary of the set up.
Two teenage boys who are fiarly much the typical outcast stereotypes. One is strange, the other is in love with the pretty girl who is going out with a dickhead stereotype jock. After school they decide to go exploring and trashing an old abandoned hospital while knocking back some beers. In the basement they discover a naked girl tied up, chained to a hospital bed. At first they think she's dead but she is moving. The boys get in an argument about what to do. One wants to keep her there for a while, the other thinks they should help her. The one that wants to do the right thing goes home. It is then revealed the boy that stayed killed the tied up girl while having sex with her. However she didn't die. She was still alive, even after he snapped her kneck and shot her. Another out cast teenager is brought in and those two keep on having sex with the dead girl...
This sets in motion the plot. The basic premis is, this girl is dead but still alive and these teenagers see it as the best they'll ever get as far as sex goes, so they repeatable rape the dead girl. Things go down hill when the jocks find out, and there's a hidden danger about this dead girl...
Yes it's a film about people having sex with a tied up naked girl they find who is actually dead, but still alive....
Comments, the film is not as interesting as it sounds. The reactions of the people aren't realistic, it's not particular well shot or well made, or well written, or well acted. The film is just wrong and what would always be a bizaar unsettling concept, it's not executed effectively enough to make the film worth watching. It ran for a too long, dragged out and yeah.. I wouldn't recommend this film. It's just a pointless exercise in low budget genre. The only thing going for it is the strange concept, of teenage boys raping a tied up dead girl who is still alive, and that's a concept for a film that most people would and should be wise enough to know is utterly retarded and not forge through with the script.
Just think, writing this, did the writers ever have doubts or question this idea for a film? What if it's worse, what if they did have doubts but worked through them. Believed in this film so much that they knew it was something they had to finish. And the writers and directors and whoever financed the low budget. Calling up casting agents to cast teenagers who find and repeatable rape a tied up dead girl... Just one of the many mind boggling aspects of this film. Who would sit there and make such a concept, and to execute it so poorly that it's almost as if this had to be the film they wanted to make...
But yeah, i wouldn't recommend people waste their time with this film. That's all it really is a big waste of time and a bit unsettling.
Mud Cake
God
Frankly that sounds sick..... Amazing that that got he green light. No hint of a story by the sounds of it just some director's sick fantasy.
J
josephine
Guest
re Deadgirl - is that a foreign film, cos that is one fcuked up plot, who the hell would want to go and see that and how did they get the money to make it
Yeah the story i guess is meant to be some insight into people or something. I really expected there to be some sort of fight club like like twist where maybe the friend that stays with the girl is imaginary or some weird thing like that. But nopes.
Also on the sick fantasy, there's the whole, the girls a sex slave and no real questioning of it and the way the people just see a deadgirl moving, who is referred to as cold and other such dead aspects.. yet people are willing to want to get down to having sex with her. It almost does seem as if it's meant to be based on some sort of sick fantasy that teenager boys want nothing more than a woman tied up for sex. See woman as sex objects. It's just odd but the themes aren't explored and so its just messed up.
The jocks find out because one of them is bragging about how they have the "sweetest pussy in town." It's odd that people would write and basically show teenage boys as all going along and enjoying this sort of thing.
It's a film that if you are making you better as sure be a smart writer.. but they weren't.. it's just so odd. Although look at imdb and their official site apparently some people think there was more depth to this than i did.
nopes american
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0896534/
Deadgirl 2008
http://www.deadgirlmovie.com/
Mud Cake
God
Here's a movie review of this
http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/deadgirl-2008
I think I shall avoid this one because the whole idea makes me feel icky.
yeah that review actually seems pretty inline with my thoughts, just better written.
J
jase
Guest
Year One
Terrible. Absolutely terrible. Jack Black was unfunny, Michael Cera played the same character he always plays in a different setting and the plot didn't seem to really mean anything. It felt like they only set it in this era to make poor biblical references. Avoid avoid avoid.
Terrible. Absolutely terrible. Jack Black was unfunny, Michael Cera played the same character he always plays in a different setting and the plot didn't seem to really mean anything. It felt like they only set it in this era to make poor biblical references. Avoid avoid avoid.
I look at this movie as a basically crap movie that has a few ok chuckles that makes it an ok experience, not a complete waste of time to watch, while being far from a good or clever movie?
Hows that compare to it?
J
jase
Guest
I thought it was mostly a waste of time as it was surprisingly very boring. It wasn't even an enjoyable bad movie, it was just bad. The movie plods along so slowly with some "humour" here and there. There were a couple of laughs, but it's really not worth it.
It's funny tonight me and my mates were remanising about comedies. Started with Ace ventura which i haven't watched for years so couldn't comment but we went back to films like blazing saddles, the three amigos, the jerk, flying high(Airplane!), and really those are comedies that just can't be beat. So few modern comedies come close to these greatness.The hangover was consistently funny but i doubt it's a great. Tropic thunder i need to see again for judging. Anchorman is a great, Walk Hard is an under appreciated great, but there are so few great comedies these days. They style is just filled with in the moment crap.
J
jase
Guest
Yeah I definitely agree comedies aren't what they used to be. I watched Spaceballs the other night which was just so damn funny, and I'd never seen it before.
I didn't really care for Walk Hard at all. A lot of people loved it and I'm a big fan of Walk The Line but I dunno.. most of the jokes seemed so obvious and were repeated many times throughout the film. The sequence with The Beatles was outstanding though.
Apatow & crew have been making consistently great comedies. 40 Year Old Virgin & Superbad would have to be my top 2 comedies of the decade. But yeah, I miss the good old days
I didn't really care for Walk Hard at all. A lot of people loved it and I'm a big fan of Walk The Line but I dunno.. most of the jokes seemed so obvious and were repeated many times throughout the film. The sequence with The Beatles was outstanding though.
Apatow & crew have been making consistently great comedies. 40 Year Old Virgin & Superbad would have to be my top 2 comedies of the decade. But yeah, I miss the good old days
Interesting see the 40 year old virgin and super bad I enjoyed but would rate that high. Walk the line i love because it's a proper funny movie satire where it works as it's own film. The others though aren't satires just funny films. BTW one of the most underated satire movies ever is Galaxy Quest. That is a fine example of satire working best because the movie stands on its own. Much like spaceballs, walk hard. Satire had to be strong enough to work on it's own, which is the problem alot of comedies these days don't understand.
Superbad is great but it was over hyped for me. 40 year old virgin only saw once but enjoyed but once again over hyped. Then there's films like Forgetting Sarah Marshall. A funny film, but not great. It worked because it was funny and an appealing take on the romantic comedy genre that appealed beyond the typical demographic.
Superbad is great but it was over hyped for me. 40 year old virgin only saw once but enjoyed but once again over hyped. Then there's films like Forgetting Sarah Marshall. A funny film, but not great. It worked because it was funny and an appealing take on the romantic comedy genre that appealed beyond the typical demographic.
J
jase
Guest
Oh wow Galaxy Quest, that's a movie I haven't seen in a long time but I remember loving it. I have it on DVD and should definitely watch it again, especially since I've seen a lot of the films it satirises since I last saw it.
I respect Walk Hard for only satirising biopics and not throwing in tonnes of lame topical references that most of the others do, but it was just far too silly for me. Like, the bit with his brother being cut in half and still talking. Also with his wife having like.. 50 kids. It was so over the top and I prefer a bit more subtlety in comedies. Granted, neither 40 Year Old Virgin and Superbad really fit that bill either, but they just worked for me.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall was OK but very bland, IMO. It wasn't all that different from the other bazillion rom coms that are out there.
I respect Walk Hard for only satirising biopics and not throwing in tonnes of lame topical references that most of the others do, but it was just far too silly for me. Like, the bit with his brother being cut in half and still talking. Also with his wife having like.. 50 kids. It was so over the top and I prefer a bit more subtlety in comedies. Granted, neither 40 Year Old Virgin and Superbad really fit that bill either, but they just worked for me.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall was OK but very bland, IMO. It wasn't all that different from the other bazillion rom coms that are out there.