You mean something like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTrC8tY-mto&feature=player_embedded
Wait, Lee's doing METAL? YES!
Finally saw LET ME IN.. I could write my thoughts but AIC pretty much has it covered.. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/48348
It's not the original, but close enough for folks that just can't deal with subtitles.. Long live Hammer.
It's not the original, but close enough for folks that just can't deal with subtitles.. Long live Hammer.
I've been afraid of the remake since day one. I hear that its solid (and it was critically applauded) so I'll check it out. If it sucks, I'll pop the original in the DVD player to wash out the bad taste in my mouth...
My only real beef is the girl actor, who is a bit too "cute" for the role. Loved her in Kick Arse but she's not quite right for this. Honestly, the boy actor should have played the girl character. I believe he would have been convincing as a questionable little girl. Richard Jenkins' "Zodiac" take on the caretaker/father character is well done. Wish he would have been in the movie more. CGI (in both flicks) is way out of place and not necessary. Not many movies filmed in Los Alamos, which is a town my family is rooted in and I wish they had shown more of the surrounding area..
I've held off on seeing Let Me In, just because I LOVED the original so much. Too soon. Too, too soon.
You know what movie is getting a lot of hype that I just don't understand?
The King's Speech.
Guy has a stutter, guy conquers stutter thanks to mentor. We've seen this story play out QUITE a few times.
The King's Speech.
Guy has a stutter, guy conquers stutter thanks to mentor. We've seen this story play out QUITE a few times.
Same here. I feel the same way about that Tale of Two Sisters remake. I may catch them on TV one day if I'm bored enough. But I'm not gonna actively seek them out.
Well.
I watched True Grit.
And that's all I can really say about it. Other than... my god, how overrated can the Coen Brothers possibly be? They could fart on film and people would praise it.
The acting was ok. You had Jeff Bridges playing... Jeff Bridges, the young girl was good, Matt Damon was solid as usual, but that was really it. (There was enough bad acting where they clearly just threw in guys that looked/talked the part also) The dialogue was boring, not a memorable line in the script, and the characters did nothing to make you feel for/with/against them. It seemed very... impersonal. The bad guy didn't strike me as bad. The heroes weren't heroic. The victims drove you to no sympathy... just no emotion. Throughout. No substance.
When a horse is the character you feel most for... something's wrong.
Average film. Very forgettable. I looked at more than "Coen" though.
I watched True Grit.
And that's all I can really say about it. Other than... my god, how overrated can the Coen Brothers possibly be? They could fart on film and people would praise it.
The acting was ok. You had Jeff Bridges playing... Jeff Bridges, the young girl was good, Matt Damon was solid as usual, but that was really it. (There was enough bad acting where they clearly just threw in guys that looked/talked the part also) The dialogue was boring, not a memorable line in the script, and the characters did nothing to make you feel for/with/against them. It seemed very... impersonal. The bad guy didn't strike me as bad. The heroes weren't heroic. The victims drove you to no sympathy... just no emotion. Throughout. No substance.
When a horse is the character you feel most for... something's wrong.
Average film. Very forgettable. I looked at more than "Coen" though.
SANCTUM 3D (in the Big D Theater)
Take The Descent, remove the cave crawlers, all the great tension and the killer score and you have Sanctum.
The Big D theater is nice though...
Take The Descent, remove the cave crawlers, all the great tension and the killer score and you have Sanctum.
The Big D theater is nice though...
Black Swan...
Hmm. I'm undecided, really. I liked it... enjoyed it. I was engaged through the entire film, and overall I can say many good things about it. I do have a beef with lazy plot development though, and this is another one that falls in to that category. Once again we're teased by a wonderful idea... that never really blossoms. It's sort of like being in a room full of people with great ideas, but them being unable to form one brilliant piece.
This "let them develop their own interpretation" or "hey, that's the beauty of it... it's up to you" direction is just... pretentious. To an extent, it's great. But once we've already caught on to what's really happening midway through the film... stop digging at it and smooth things out. You know?
It's becoming annoying that every movie hyped is either A) Really boring with nice cinematography. Or B) A pretentious film that tries too hard to be deep, and leaves people hanging to connect dots.
Sounds like I hated it now that I think of it- BUT I didn't.
I'd watch it again, and that's a rare thing. Great film that I think could have been far better with a bit more effort in to the script... or less someone trying to be a bit too artsy. Either or.
8/10
I feel if I didn't act I may think less of this film also. It registered on a personal level to a minimal extent.
Hmm. I'm undecided, really. I liked it... enjoyed it. I was engaged through the entire film, and overall I can say many good things about it. I do have a beef with lazy plot development though, and this is another one that falls in to that category. Once again we're teased by a wonderful idea... that never really blossoms. It's sort of like being in a room full of people with great ideas, but them being unable to form one brilliant piece.
This "let them develop their own interpretation" or "hey, that's the beauty of it... it's up to you" direction is just... pretentious. To an extent, it's great. But once we've already caught on to what's really happening midway through the film... stop digging at it and smooth things out. You know?
It's becoming annoying that every movie hyped is either A) Really boring with nice cinematography. Or B) A pretentious film that tries too hard to be deep, and leaves people hanging to connect dots.
Sounds like I hated it now that I think of it- BUT I didn't.
I'd watch it again, and that's a rare thing. Great film that I think could have been far better with a bit more effort in to the script... or less someone trying to be a bit too artsy. Either or.
8/10
I feel if I didn't act I may think less of this film also. It registered on a personal level to a minimal extent.
What was pretentious about this film? Seriously, what? Just because a films makes you ask questions about what you're seeing, especially this film with the visuals, doesn't make it pretentious. This isn't an inherently "trying to be deep film". Some of the themes are, but I don't think the film had any pretensions.
Also, anyone who describes a film as being "artsy" probably shouldn't be commenting on any aspect of the film's direction. I drew constant parallels to Polanski's "Repulsion" and to Michael Powell's "The Red Shoes". The man is paying homage to not only a ballet film but one of the greatest psychological/cerebral films ever made. I think its absurd to write off a film for being pretentious when you can't cite ANY reasoning whatsoever.
The definition of pretentious lies in an object attempting to be more important, rather than accepting the intrinsic nature of itself. To put it more simply, it's something trying to make claims and ideas that are different what is literally being said. It wasn't always a bad word - just one that described an idea or argument.
Lady GaGa describing her music and presentation as anything other than pure pop music is pretentious. Michael Bay attempting to make pointed political commentaries in a movie about giant robots turning into cars is pretentious.
In Black Swan, what I saw is what I got. It was about a young woman who fell into paranoia and insanity through the pursuit of her art. I didn't interpret anything else - no grandiose commentaries or intellectual messages really.
Lady GaGa describing her music and presentation as anything other than pure pop music is pretentious. Michael Bay attempting to make pointed political commentaries in a movie about giant robots turning into cars is pretentious.
In Black Swan, what I saw is what I got. It was about a young woman who fell into paranoia and insanity through the pursuit of her art. I didn't interpret anything else - no grandiose commentaries or intellectual messages really.
I was speaking generally for the most part. Yes, this film was clearly pretentious- but being a fan of any and every film that's pretentious (KamikaZ), you'd probably not see it. In fact to you, due to liking anything that seems to try too hard, or just survives on hype alone, probably saw it as watered down in that sense.
When a plot is fairly simple, and characters are figured out with 2 scenes... yet we still have images with no explanation basically saying "ah, but are you sure yet?"... yes, that's pretentious. When a film thinks it's deeper than it is? Yes. Sorry.
Again... I liked the movie. More so than I thought the more I thought about it. Tops of the year? I'd hope not, but still... It's a good movie.
When a plot is fairly simple, and characters are figured out with 2 scenes... yet we still have images with no explanation basically saying "ah, but are you sure yet?"... yes, that's pretentious. When a film thinks it's deeper than it is? Yes. Sorry.
Again... I liked the movie. More so than I thought the more I thought about it. Tops of the year? I'd hope not, but still... It's a good movie.
Yes, because being a fan of STORY TELLING = Big Mama's House 3.
Get over yourself.
This is the problem. Directors these days have no clue how to simply tell a story. You know... what most people want out of a movie. To be entertained, to feel for characters in one way or another, and to get a story. Today it's all about 'Let's try to make them think, so I don't have to.... and of course, make it pretty. That's priority #1.'
And I cited 'reason' as to why it's pretentious. If you fell for the gimmick, don't be pissy toward me because of it.
Dammit, now I have to go watch Big Mama's House 3? (which means I also have to see 1 and 2?)
Stone.
A perfect example of a great trailer, bad movie. I wanted to see the movie for one reason: Edward Norton playing a thug. My first thought was "American History X... He's gonna kill this role."
Anyway, half of this movie is Edward Norton and Robert De Niro sitting across each other in a office, and when you have a "courtroom" movie, tension is what's gonna drive it, and there was absolutely no tension throughout the entire movie. I felt like I was watching a compilation of deleted scenes. Waste of talent.
A perfect example of a great trailer, bad movie. I wanted to see the movie for one reason: Edward Norton playing a thug. My first thought was "American History X... He's gonna kill this role."
Anyway, half of this movie is Edward Norton and Robert De Niro sitting across each other in a office, and when you have a "courtroom" movie, tension is what's gonna drive it, and there was absolutely no tension throughout the entire movie. I felt like I was watching a compilation of deleted scenes. Waste of talent.
The real problem here is that the trailer was intentionally misleading to get more people to see it. This movie never intended to be AHX or Fight Club..
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
