Jump to content

Rate the Last Movie You've Seen


Farin
 Share

Recommended Posts

For my part, I tried to (finally) watch "Time Traveler's Wife" last night. It was so bad I couldn't even make it to the end. And since I have the book waiting to be read, and Shannon said it's sooo much better than the movie, I figured instead of watching that awful movie, I'd wait and find out the end when I read the book.

The film is awful. The book is wonderful. You have to stay on top of it & pay attention with the time travel stuff but it's worth it.

Up next for me is The Lovely Bones.

Again, not as good as the book, but this time the movie is good. It rearranges the happenings a bit, but for the most part stays fairly true to the book (of course they have to leave a lot out). The effects are absolutely beautiful and mesmerizing though.

For me tonight ..... The Blind Side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How does one make an apt comparison between two different mediums of communication (i.e., written words versus moving pictures)?

War And Peace was 8 hours long and cost $700 million to make. Would that be considered good and faithful to the book?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_Peace_(1965_film)

:beatnik:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up In The Air - George Clooney plays a man who travels all over the country as a "hired gun" for corporations, firing people. He loves living out of a suitcase and going from place to place, having no connections. Then, two events, a proposed technological update at work (firing people over the internet), and starting an affair with a fellow traveler, make him re-evaluate his life.

Original, well-acted, funny and just plain good! 9/10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This afternoon I watched The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Great movie. I never thought I'd watch a 2 1/2 hour movie in Swedish with English sub-titles...but I'm glad that I did.

The story line was excellent with just enough twists. The acting was also superb. You'll fall in love with Noomi Rapace.

Anyway, if you have yet to see it I highly recommend this one. 9/10.

Here's the IMDB on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Pirate Radio" (aka "The Boat That Rocked")

Awesome soundtrack (10 points)!! Average story (6 points). Philip Seymour Hoffman (2 points).

Overall 6 out of 10 stars. I'd watch it again, but mainly for the soundtrack.

:afro: :afro: :afro: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I agree with that rating. Especially the Hoffman part :thumbdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently was a first timer with the Tap. You'll love it Shawna. And remember "you can't really dust for vomit."

I agreed with the assessments of The Lovely Bones. Much of the story was cut out, including a rather important plot line. I was bored and fast forwarded through a lot of the movie :thumbsdown:

Next for me - 500 Days of Summer, and thanks Sammy for reminding me to put Pirate Radio on my que ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

500 Days of Summer is fantastic.

Agreed, a bright spot in the usually dark abyss that is the romantic comedy genre. Funny, bittersweet and believably-acted.

Last movie I saw: The Killers (1946, not the 2010, probably substandard, comedy of the same name)

A classic film noir starring Burt Lancaster and Ava Gardner. Told largely in flashbacks detailing the events around a payroll heist involving an ex-prize fighter, now gas station attendent, known as the Swede who was recently killed by hitmen. An insurance investigator is called in, comes across the old robbery case and begins looking for the truth behind both the heist and the Swede's murder. With first-rate performances all around, an excellent opening sequence and interesting narrative structure I'd give it an 8.7/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does one make an apt comparison between two different mediums of communication (i.e., written words versus moving pictures)?

I wasn't really aiming for apt, just an honest assesment of my enjoyment level. I enjoyed one, did not enjoy the other as much. Simple as that.

Pirate Radio was fair, I'd agree with the 6/10 rating. Great soundtrack though. I also agree with the rating Jenny gave Up In The Air. Good film.

We've got The Blind Side for tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't read as simple considering the fact that very few people ever compare music to books (example: "I prefer the story of Layla over Eric Clapton's song" or the book Wuthering Heights over Kate Bush's song), photography with music, painting with dancing ("the Bolshoi Ballet is way better than a Degas painting"), but the books and movies comparisons get by. Not only that, but in order for a movie to be considered as good, it has to be faithful to the book; so, then, a movie would be best if one could see a recording of the author reading their book, since that is the most faithful adaptation without awful changes and edits.

I saw Bela Tarr's "Family Nest" (1978): a film about the hardships of a family whose adult children cannot find work and their own place to live in communist Hungary. The themes were amazingly relevant in today's Western/American society. I don't recall hearing a score other than the Hungarian Pop music here and there. The film is black and white, and it was shot with what looked like a hand-held camera, which gave it a "realistic" effect as it swerved from person to person in the cramped apartment, as if we were a part of the family. It's not a traditionally entertaining movie in the sense that there isn't comedy relief, slapstick, attractive actors, elaborate sets and costumes, but it's an interesting flick from a low-budget and Cinema Verite way. If you've seen John Cassavetes films, then this plays like one of those :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well... but consider, BA, that many movies are based on the book.

And while a movie doesn't have to remain "faithful to the book" to be a good movie, it seems that it's the movies that fall short of being good movies that are the ones that are compared unfavorably. If a movie is good, whether or not it is based on a book, I find that I don't mind if it's not wholly "faithful."

With regard to "The Lovely Bones," I have not read the book, so I had no clue that there was a plotline missing. I think I'm glad about that. :crazy: But now I will have to read the book, because the curiosity is eating me alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while a movie doesn't have to remain "faithful to the book" to be a good movie, it seems that it's the movies that fall short of being good movies that are the ones that are compared unfavorably. If a movie is good, whether or not it is based on a book, I find that I don't mind if it's not wholly "faithful."

That last bit is what I was trying to get at. A movie should be seen as good or bad based on its own characteristics (i.e., costumes, actors, scenery, music and sound, etc.). Comparisons with other movies make sense, but comparisons with books make no sense - even if the movie is based on a book. A movie that is auxiliary to a book is probably not a good movie to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to put my 2 cents in about the book-movie thing:

1. books take alot of time and effort and much imagination from one person who gets very little credit for their art

2. movies are slapped together in 6 months by over-paid actors, directors, etc. who gouge the artists work to make way too much money for very little entertainment and way too much praise (there are only about 94 movie award ceremonies a year compared to the 1 that writers get)

The 2 mediums are too different to compare anymore. I don't think most kids under 17 know how to read! They'll never know if the movie missed details that are in the book! In a few years books will be ancient history... the written word hasn't got a place with the new generation who prefer fast-action, cussing and much nudity wrapped up in an hour and 1/2. :sad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a whole other discussion altogether - if something is good based upon an individual's or audience's perception that it is complex (either in constructing it or the idea itself). Is one thing better than another thing because it took more time and effort to make it? What if the Sistine Chapel's ceiling took less time and effort to paint than an Andy Warhol painting? To people with real/innate talent, stuff that would be hard for other people comes natural.

There are literally tons of romance, erotic, thriller, fantasy, science fiction, et cetera novels that are complete and utter trash. It probably took little to no effort in conjuring up the ideas and plot devices, and most of the work went into the actual typing and publishing process. I wouldn't fault new generations for being illiterate in an age when Paris Hilton and sarah palin get to publish their own books (both, admittedly and ironically, are illiterate themselves).

Whereas in the making of a movie, no matter how trite, contrived, and banal it may be, takes a lot of work that goes unseen (and unrecognised by all those award ceremonies): casting, publicity, music scoring and sound track, filming and editing, building and construction, legal and financial matters, writing... the least of which is acting (that I could see how it takes no work... like nicolas cage's entire "career"). The director has to be an effective manager of sorts to be able to efficiently compile all of the available talent and resources from the undirected chaos into something that is coherent and that will please producers, fans and audiences, family and workers, critics and haters, and even themselves. Hell, I couldn't organise a piss match at a brewery, let alone record a few minutes of footage that makes sense; it's hard work that mostly goes by unnoticed in the finished result: a whole day's worth of shooting could really be a few seconds edited into a scene... and now one has 90 more minutes to go. For every million-dollar-per-movie director, there are hundreds who do it for considerably less and maybe even for regular working wages (self-promotion is an art in itself when you're really "independent") :beatnik:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: 7/10

I loved it when I first saw it, but since then I have read the book, and sorry to sound cliche but the movie really doesn't compare to the book. The great thing about the book is Thompson's writing style and the way he describes things, and the only time we get that in the film is with the narration and dialogue. The action is kinda boring onscreen, it's basically just Duke and Gonzo doing drugs and pulling knives on people for 2 hours. On the page though, it's great. Plus Johnny Depp is just too silly for me most of the time. In films like this one he reminds me of a high school drama teacher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love both, but yeah the book is a better experience. It's more like a drug trip, whereas the movie is Terry Gilliam's warped imagination, which is awesome and drug trip-like, but not quite as exciting.

And I think I can compare books and movies, because I want to so there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...