True MIB2 didn't have the charm of the original. I'm always baffled how Hollywood tries repeatedly to get away with just more of the same... minus the good stuff. I'm starting to think they have lobotomized crews lined up to simply use original movies and make bad sequels out of them.
I just got through watching another weird and quite incomprehensible film. It's called [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/]Stalker[/url] and came out in 1979. The movie (or book) is supposed to have served as the inspiration of the Stalker series of PC games. I have no idea what I just saw even after reading the complete synopsis on IMDb I still don't get what the movie was about. The film drags along and is 163 minutes long. I can't explain the high rating either, not quite sure what people see in it or what I'm missing. The games are certainly more interesting and entertaining than the original material.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
The film was probably rated by people who are huge fans of the game.
Who knows, 24000+ votes give it an 8.1 which is a lot for this film. The angsty Stalker featured here bares no resemblance with anyone featured in the game. I liked the game for what it tried to do. I never finished it though because it's just too depressing. Didn't get any of the sequels yet... mostly because they were released in too buggy a state, so I'm waiting to give them time to fix them before I drop the cash.
I checked and [I]Stalker[/I] was directed by the same guy (Andrei Tarkovsky) who directed the original [I]Solaris[/I]. That explains a lot. I didn't get that one either.
It doesn't help when you are watching a philosophical art film when you don't understand the language (Russian) and have to read the sub-titles instead of looking at what is being shown to you.
I also bought the [I]Stalker[/I] book, which is called "Roadside Picnic", I wonder if that'll make more sense. :D
Usually I watch a movie and then when I get the chance I check out the behind-the-scenes footage. I like to see what is actually involved in making movie magic happen. With [I][URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457400/"]Land of the Lost[/URL][/I], the opposite happened, there was a special on how they created the digital T-Rex and it all looked very interesting and mighty impressive.
The finished product is supposed to deliver adventure, comedy and sci-fi. I should have known what kind of humor and flavor the movie was going to have with Will Ferrell being the lead.
The problem with Hollywood has been the same one for years. Virtually all movies that make it to international distribution need to reach a certain level of production quality. And they almost all do. Technically there is nothing to complain about.
The problem I have with[I] Land of the Lost[/I] is that it's neither adventurous, nor funny nor futuristic in any shape or form... but wow what another fine example of perfect production values. I mean they actually hired some paleontologist-biologist to figure out the proper posture and motion of a T-Rex model for something that ends up being a lot less than say Jurassic Park with Will Ferrel in it. The movie feels like a tech demo of a better film. They picked a ready-made script out of a box and just added water.
It's certainly not worth fighting your way to a movie theater for to see it, even for the few laughs it does trigger.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
I heard about that movie... and didn't go anywhere near it. It sounded terrible. It's such a shame the high production values were wasted on it.
Finally got around to watching [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724/"]The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.[/URL] For some reason people didn't like this adaptation to this classic novel (or novels, IIRC). Either way, I enjoyed the movie a lot more than the book with the same title. I never understood what people saw in Douglas Adams and what was so hilarious about his work.
I think the film works quite well and even with all the nonsense that is going on, those 109 minutes go by so quickly, you just don't have time to get bored.
I guess those ratings truly don't really mean much, all things considered. :D
Every incarnation of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is different.
The books are different from the radio dramas (my personal favourite), which are different from the tv series and the game and the movie etc.
It's just a matter of taste as to which you prefer.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
It's also worth noting that the radio play came first.
Each version is different because he adapted the humour to the medium. The books are full of language jokes, for example, while the movie relies in particular on visual humour. Douglas Adams always recognised that when shifting a story between mediums, it has to be modified to fit the new medium. This is something all those people who hate the Lord of the Rings movies because they're just not the same as the novels need to realise.
Sequels aren't exactly new and having enjoyed [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070909/"]Westworld[/URL] quite a bit I was very surprised when I stumbled over [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074559/"]Futureworld[/URL] by accident.
While I'm sure we'll get to see more reboots in the years to come, I wouldn't mind seeing these two getting a make-over.
Finally got a chance to see [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/"]Cloverfield.[/URL]
I wasn't expecting the movie to be quite as gripping. I knew it was going to be some sort of Godzilla knock-off, but thankfully they left out the cheese, so I enjoyed it quite a bit. The effects were well executed and believable for the most part. The "flesh wounds" of the main cast were fairly fatal and yet they (who didn't die) went on like nothing happened. So suspension of disbelief was necessary to make it 'til the end.
The whole shaky-cam business wasn't too annoying, but I'm not too crazy about watching entire movies filmed that way. I've seen many lengthy Youtube handy-cam videos and none were as shaky as this one was. So please, cut it out. We've been past the novelty for some time now. :D (I haven't even seen the Blair Witch Project (1999) which is notorious for having caused people to get sick inside the theaters.)
Back to Cloverfield, the movie is just begging for a sequel and judging by[URL="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0009190/"] J.J. Abrams' todo-list[/URL], we might get it in 2012.
If there is one thing that I find special about this movie is the overall look and feel of the action. It all seems very much like a documentary and not as staged as in other movies of the same genre. The shots are not perfect and yet they were not taken by the actor pretending to be holding the cam. :)
It's been a while since I last saw [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/"]28 Days Later[/URL] and after just seeing Cloverfield I was just in the right mood for [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0463854/"]28 Weeks Later.[/URL] I remember the first movie to be quite a mindless mess for the most part. So I wasn't exactly expecting much from the sequel, with the exception of Robert "Rush" Carlyle playing the lead character (in his native Scottish accent no less :D). I was expecting O'Neill to step inside the shot at every corner.
I was pleasantly surprised to see Jeremy Renner in it as well who I first saw in Hurt Locker in which he played that bomb squad specialist with an attitude. And wouldn't you know, Harold Perrineau (yeah, I only remembered him as Walt's dad on Lost too) is in it as well!
All I can say is that the sequel is no less a bloody mess than the original, at least the prologue is quite shocking. It won't prepare you for the last part which includes but is not limited to minced zombies and crunchy corpses. In fact I don't remember the first one to be entirely as gory, it's child's play by comparison. While 28 Days Later is listed on IMDb as a Sci-Fi film you'll notice that the sequel has lost the Sci-Fi part. I really don't see why.
If anything Sci-Fi asks the one important question, what if? It's food for thought.
Anyway, this is another of the few examples where the sequel surpasses the original. Highly recommended.
I rather liked 28 days later, but 28 weeks was just drivel, CLoverfield i really enjoyed, but the movie gave me an awful headache. thank G-D it wasn't in 3D!
I suppose the sequel has a bit more Hollywood flavor whereas the original comes off as an indie production. Because the movie was fresh the story carried more punch. I prefer the execution of the second and I cared a bit more about the fate of the characters. No happy ending though.
[QUOTE=Stingray;189146]Sequels aren't exactly new and having enjoyed [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070909/"]Westworld[/URL] quite a bit I was very surprised when I stumbled over [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074559/"]Futureworld[/URL] by accident.
While I'm sure we'll get to see more reboots in the years to come, I wouldn't mind seeing these two getting a make-over.[/QUOTE]
I can't believe it, there's a remake in the works for [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475784/"]Westworld and Russell Crowe[/URL] is rumored to play in it. :D
Comments
I checked and [I]Stalker[/I] was directed by the same guy (Andrei Tarkovsky) who directed the original [I]Solaris[/I]. That explains a lot. I didn't get that one either.
It doesn't help when you are watching a philosophical art film when you don't understand the language (Russian) and have to read the sub-titles instead of looking at what is being shown to you.
I also bought the [I]Stalker[/I] book, which is called "Roadside Picnic", I wonder if that'll make more sense. :D
The finished product is supposed to deliver adventure, comedy and sci-fi. I should have known what kind of humor and flavor the movie was going to have with Will Ferrell being the lead.
The problem with Hollywood has been the same one for years. Virtually all movies that make it to international distribution need to reach a certain level of production quality. And they almost all do. Technically there is nothing to complain about.
The problem I have with[I] Land of the Lost[/I] is that it's neither adventurous, nor funny nor futuristic in any shape or form... but wow what another fine example of perfect production values. I mean they actually hired some paleontologist-biologist to figure out the proper posture and motion of a T-Rex model for something that ends up being a lot less than say Jurassic Park with Will Ferrel in it. The movie feels like a tech demo of a better film. They picked a ready-made script out of a box and just added water.
It's certainly not worth fighting your way to a movie theater for to see it, even for the few laughs it does trigger.
I think the film works quite well and even with all the nonsense that is going on, those 109 minutes go by so quickly, you just don't have time to get bored.
I guess those ratings truly don't really mean much, all things considered. :D
The books are different from the radio dramas (my personal favourite), which are different from the tv series and the game and the movie etc.
It's just a matter of taste as to which you prefer.
Each version is different because he adapted the humour to the medium. The books are full of language jokes, for example, while the movie relies in particular on visual humour. Douglas Adams always recognised that when shifting a story between mediums, it has to be modified to fit the new medium. This is something all those people who hate the Lord of the Rings movies because they're just not the same as the novels need to realise.
While I'm sure we'll get to see more reboots in the years to come, I wouldn't mind seeing these two getting a make-over.
I wasn't expecting the movie to be quite as gripping. I knew it was going to be some sort of Godzilla knock-off, but thankfully they left out the cheese, so I enjoyed it quite a bit. The effects were well executed and believable for the most part. The "flesh wounds" of the main cast were fairly fatal and yet they (who didn't die) went on like nothing happened. So suspension of disbelief was necessary to make it 'til the end.
The whole shaky-cam business wasn't too annoying, but I'm not too crazy about watching entire movies filmed that way. I've seen many lengthy Youtube handy-cam videos and none were as shaky as this one was. So please, cut it out. We've been past the novelty for some time now. :D (I haven't even seen the Blair Witch Project (1999) which is notorious for having caused people to get sick inside the theaters.)
Back to Cloverfield, the movie is just begging for a sequel and judging by[URL="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0009190/"] J.J. Abrams' todo-list[/URL], we might get it in 2012.
If there is one thing that I find special about this movie is the overall look and feel of the action. It all seems very much like a documentary and not as staged as in other movies of the same genre. The shots are not perfect and yet they were not taken by the actor pretending to be holding the cam. :)
I was pleasantly surprised to see Jeremy Renner in it as well who I first saw in Hurt Locker in which he played that bomb squad specialist with an attitude. And wouldn't you know, Harold Perrineau (yeah, I only remembered him as Walt's dad on Lost too) is in it as well!
All I can say is that the sequel is no less a bloody mess than the original, at least the prologue is quite shocking. It won't prepare you for the last part which includes but is not limited to minced zombies and crunchy corpses. In fact I don't remember the first one to be entirely as gory, it's child's play by comparison. While 28 Days Later is listed on IMDb as a Sci-Fi film you'll notice that the sequel has lost the Sci-Fi part. I really don't see why.
If anything Sci-Fi asks the one important question, what if? It's food for thought.
Anyway, this is another of the few examples where the sequel surpasses the original. Highly recommended.
I'd put it on the same level as [i]I am Legend[/i] with Will Smith (not Chuck Heston) and [i]Doomsday[/i].
While I'm sure we'll get to see more reboots in the years to come, I wouldn't mind seeing these two getting a make-over.[/QUOTE]
I can't believe it, there's a remake in the works for [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475784/"]Westworld and Russell Crowe[/URL] is rumored to play in it. :D