Last Movie You Watched

[Cato]

For those intrigued by the above, a site with much information and too much adoration:

http://fourfour.typepad.com/fourfour/2006/06/this_is_not_a_s.html

And..a remake?  Really?

http://gawker.com/285374/casting-the-remake-of-beyond-the-valley-of-the-dolls

[TheGSMoeller]

El Topo and The Holy Mountain?

Oh, hellz yes, snyprrr.
And don't stop there, add Fando y Lis and Santa Sangre to that list

Six degrees of this page...

Jodorowsky was tapped to direct a version of Dune before Lynch.

[DavidRoss]

El Topo and The Holy Mountain?

El Topo! Maybe you've a bit of cool goin' on after all!

[snyprrr]

For those intrigued by the above, a site with much information and too much adoration:

http://fourfour.typepad.com/fourfour/2006/06/this_is_not_a_s.html

And..a remake?  Really?

http://gawker.com/285374/casting-the-remake-of-beyond-the-valley-of-the-dolls

...mmm ...

uh... what?, oh,... I was just... dreaming ....



Anyone seen Putney Swope? I didn't like it.

How about Soul Vengeance, where brotha's penis becomes a snake 'an strangles whitey?

Black Lightning really was a perfect hommage,... I remember the scene in the graveyard with the day-for-night '70s style,... ahhh,...


Then there's the Monkees movie Head.

[SonicMan46]

John Carter (2012) - on my wish list to watch and streamed from Amazon last night - WELL, one of my ideal sci-fi type films, i.e. a Civil War vet discovering gold in the Southwest and then mysteriously transported to MARS and to a civilization that presumably existed on that planet (at whatever the time period?) - I love this kind of 'stuff'! - enjoyed - a purchase, not sure?  BUT, would be curious of the thoughts of others on this film -    

[eyeresist]

Just dreadful.

Hardly worse than Nolan's Batman movies 

[ibanezmonster]

I'm glad eyeresist recommended this to me, because it turned out to be one of the best films I've ever seen!

Yes, this is eerily similar to Lain. Not only in style, but the fact that Lain began airing July 6, 1998, while Pi was released July 10, 1998. This means that it's likely that the similar styles just happened to be coincidence. (Of course, there is the possibility that he had some contact with Ryutaro Nakamura, the director of Lain. Who knows).

Aronofsky is a important director for me to keep an eye on, for sure. I watched Black Swan because it was influenced by the movie Perfect Blue, and I also plan to watch Requiem for a Dream, since it's supposed to be an excellent, brutal film.

[TheGSMoeller]

I'm glad eyeresist recommended this to me, because it turned out to be one of the best films I've ever seen!

Yes, this is eerily similar to Lain. Not only in style, but the fact that Lain began airing July 6, 1998, while Pi was released July 10, 1998. This means that it's likely that the similar styles just happened to be coincidence. (Of course, there is the possibility that he had some contact with Ryutaro Nakamura, the director of Lain. Who knows).

Aronofsky is a important director for me to keep an eye on, for sure. I watched Black Swan because it was influenced by the movie Perfect Blue, and I also plan to watch Requiem for a Dream, since it's supposed to be an excellent, brutal film.

IMO, Aronoksky has yet to make a bad film. Requiem and The Fountain are two greats.

[eyeresist]

I'm glad eyeresist recommended this to me, because it turned out to be one of the best films I've ever seen!

Yes, this is eerily similar to Lain. Not only in style, but the fact that Lain began airing July 6, 1998, while Pi was released July 10, 1998. This means that it's likely that the similar styles just happened to be coincidence. (Of course, there is the possibility that he had some contact with Ryutaro Nakamura, the director of Lain. Who knows).

Aronofsky is a important director for me to keep an eye on, for sure. I watched Black Swan because it was influenced by the movie Perfect Blue, and I also plan to watch Requiem for a Dream, since it's supposed to be an excellent, brutal film.

"As soon as you discard scientific rigor, you're no longer a mathematician - you're a numerologist!"

Hey, glad you liked it! One thing I like about it is the charming anachronism of the tech - no one was still using those massive floppy discs in 1998. Also, the Ming Mecca chip 

The only other Aronofsky film I've seen is Requiem, which bored me (and the exploitation aspects of it I found pretty unrealistic). He also wrote and produced Below (haunted house in a WWII sub, directed by David "Chronicles of Riddick" Twohy), which for me was also a flop. Sorry to end on such a downer.

[Todd]

Hardly worse than Nolan's Batman movies

Only if you disregard the plots, screenplays, acting, cinematography, special effects, and literally everything else.  If the movies are in any way true to JK Rowling's books, she is a totally talentless hack who borrowed pretty much every idea in her stories from any and every source.  At least she's rich and popular, which I think you would agree are the ultimate gauges of artistic quality.

[eyeresist]

Only if you disregard the plots, screenplays, acting, cinematography, special effects, and literally everything else.  If the movies are in any way true to JK Rowling's books, she is a totally talentless hack who borrowed pretty much every idea in her stories from any and every source.  At least she's rich and popular, which I think you would agree are the ultimate gauges of artistic quality.

There's no arguing with a fanatic.

[Todd]

There's no arguing with a fanatic.

A lazy cop out.  Please, explain how Half Blood Prince is a good movie. 

[eyeresist]

A lazy cop out.  Please, explain how Half Blood Prince is a good movie.

Well, the production values, and the acting from the cream of the British rep, are first class. If you can't see that, you are simply blinded by emotion.

[kishnevi]

Well, the production values, and the acting from the cream of the British rep, are first class. If you can't see that, you are simply blinded by emotion.

The movies versions in fact did the books a severe disservice, since they hacked out much of the psychological and philosophical depths (plus a lot of the intricate background details Rowling put in to flesh out her world of wizardry) in the book.  And Half Blood Prince is in a way one of the weakest links in the series, which obviously doesn't help.   But Rowling told a consistent story, full of emotionally deep characters,  across seven novel length installments,  and obviously knew what she wanted to say from the very first book--which is why you'll find some of the most important elements in the series finale to be laid out and prefigured in the very first book.   The movie versions don't really give you the detailed picture of Harry at the end of the Order of the Phoenix,  grieving for Sirius, the one person in his life whom he could really call family,  angry and partly in denial,  breaking half of Dumbledore's office and yelling at Dumbledore while the latter quietly watches,  knowing the only thing that can work is letting Harry vent his grief and frustration--a very good depiction of adolescent anger and grief.  If you only went by the movie version, you wouldn't know that happened. And that's only one of many important psychological/emotional points found in the books but either handled superficially or completely left out in the movie versions. The movies cut some things and put in other things not in the books,  and some of it was obviously done because it had to be done to make a dramatically effective movie, and keep the movie to tolerable length,  but the books are far richer and rewarding

[Todd]

Well, the production values, and the acting from the cream of the British rep, are first class. If you can't see that, you are simply blinded by emotion.

Hogslop.  The movies have many great actors, and they are all woefully neglected.  I think it was Order of the Phoenix that had Brendan Gleeson but gave him almost no lines, for instance.  Seriously, what the hell was that about?  Gary Oldman got so few lines in Azkaban that I was shocked, and the ones he got were atrocious.  Maggie Smith is basically squandered in every film.  I can think no other series of movies that has such talent and nothing to show for it.  Far from being "blinded by emotion," I'm merely annoyed by the waste.  I'm hoping that Ralph Fiennes isn't wasted in the last two.  If you think these movies have good acting, you probably need to watch something like The Godfather or Taxi Driver or Becket or perhaps a few hundred other films.

As to production values, well, the movies obviously got big budgets, and big sets, but Alfonso Cuaron aside, they had second and third rate directors who couldn't do much with them.  When Chris Columbus delivers one of the best in the series (the first one only), you know there's a problem.  Apparently Steven Spielberg turned down directing one or more of the movies.  As clichéd and sentimental and corny as some of his work is, it is literally orders of magnitude better than all but Azkaban.  Every now and then I see people complain about how movies are made specifically to meet specific market demands, with artistic concerns secondary.  Well, the Harry Potter movies exemplify this perfectly.  The movies are crap.  Since I don't read much fiction, I do think I'll pass on Rowling's tomes and go for something more, well, adult.   

[The new erato]

Only if you disregard the plots, screenplays, acting, cinematography, special effects, and literally everything else.  If the movies are in any way true to JK Rowling's books, she is a totally talentless hack who borrowed pretty much every idea in her stories from any and every source.  At least she's rich and popular, which I think you would agree are the ultimate gauges of artistic quality.

I've seen the first four movies. I found the first one charming and full of quirky English eccentricities, after that they got progressively worse. The fourth (whatever it was called) was barely watchable. Plots and screenplay was mainly absent, replaced by special effects and noise - the whole story told in such a way that I found it plain impossible to get into.   

[listener]

I draw your attention to the films of Sisworo Gautama Putra for beginning-to-end wierdness.   Indonesian witchcraft, sword-and-sandals.  I found a French-dub of The Revenge of Samson (pictured), but have to make do with VCDs of Jaka Tuuak and Jaka Sembung

[Cato]

Hogslop.  The movies have many great actors, and they are all woefully neglected.  I think it was Order of the Phoenix that had Brendan Gleeson but gave him almost no lines, for instance. Seriously, what the hell was that about?  Gary Oldman got so few lines in Azkaban that I was shocked, and the ones he got were atrocious.  Maggie Smith is basically squandered in every film. 

As always it is about paying for the Mercedes!   

An anecdote: young unknown actor Christopher Reeve gets the role of Superman, and when he meets famous Oscar-winner Gene Hackman for the first time, who has the role of Lex Luthor, Reeve nervously and politely inquires: "Gee, Mr. Hackman, what attracted you to the character of Lex Luthor?"

Hackman chomps on a cigar and says: "Oh, I don't know, kid.  But I think the check for a million bucks had a lot to do with it!"   

(Related by Christopher Reeve on a talk show in the late 1970's.)

[Karl Henning]

If the movies are in any way true to JK Rowling's books, she is a totally talentless hack who borrowed pretty much every idea in her stories from any and every source.

This is a thesis worth entertaining.

[Cato]

This is a thesis worth entertaining.

And a worthy, entertaining thesis!   

We sat through some of the first movie, and I read through most of the first book and skimmed through a few of the others, when they came into my clutches via careless students!

It is hard to argue with a billion-dollar empire, yet Todd's comment is not unfair.  But the financial success and the popularity may have arisen because of the hackery.