Movies you're watching

[Brian Boru]

Pacific Warriors 2015 1h 33m
Documentary about the rugby-playing island nations in the Pacific—Fiji, Samoa, Tonga. Unlike the above effort, this is a genuinely feel-good story of gifted athletes from tiny nations punching well above their weight against the elite nations.

Populations respectively of 1m, 200K, 100K—it truly is remarkable they can compete and sometimes win a game at the World Cup.

If you're a rugby fan, watch this. If you're interested in the islands, there is a fair amount of social and economic background info.

8/10

 

[neenastock]

I watched Elvis this weekend

Wow, so, uh…that was a thing. Look, I know Baz Luhrmann makes movies that are complete messes, that’s what he does, but Jesus Christ what the hell is this movie? Is Col. Tom Parker supposed to be remembering the story? He’s not in half the scenes, so that can’t be the case. We open with Parker being hospitalized, for some reason, and he talks about buncha bullshit regarding Elvis. This is before the movie gets interesting. However, when the movie does get interesting, it’s because of Austin Butler, who gives a tremendous performance as Elvis in an absolute dogshit movie that wastes everything he does and can’t stand still long enough for the things he’s doing to actually land and matter. ****, this movie makes Everything, Everywhere, All at Once seem calm, but in comparison it really is. It takes a breath, it understands that we need to be able to care about what’s happening. In this movie we don’t even get the chance, it’s just thrown all at us and we’re expected to care.
I grew up a huge Elvis fan, I’m still a huge Elvis fan with SSSniperwolf Sweatshirts. This movie is not for me. Too often, Austin Butler is saddled with the task of just recreating iconic Elvis moments we all know or times in Elvis’s life that we know of. Despite Butler’s terrific performance, he is let down by the movie around him to the point that nothing in it feels real yet also doesn’t feel like a recreation, really. It’s all kids playing at being people. Even the people I don’t know or have a pre-existing relationship with don’t feel real.
I put the blame for all of this squarely on Luhrmann. He’s just a dogshit filmmaker, there’s no getting around it at this point. Honestly, I feel like I might have judged Moulin Rouge too harshly oh so many years ago because Luhrmann’s whole career should be in my all-time bottom ten movies, not just that movie.

 

[ZedClampet]

I haven't seen a movie in years. Last one I watched was No Country for Old Men, and I decided that I would never find another movie that well done, so I retired from movie watching.

However, I did watch a few minutes of Viva Las Vegas (Elvis movie) yesterday because I like the dance number at the end.

View: https://youtu.be/ui0EgRsFVN8


I think I'm going to start watching movies again. This time I'm going to be more careful what I watch. I used to watch a lot of terrible movies, mostly horror. If I find something I like, I'll post it.

View: https://youtu.be/ZY0DG8rUnCA

 

[ipman]

Yes I felt the same. I think I really get into something like reading, then consume so many I feel like my mind is overloaded. Same with films and the Cohen brothers made some classics.

I also go back and watch an Elvis film sometimes. King Creole is a really good film. There's a YT of Elvis singing with Ann Margret, 'The Lady loves me', from Viva Las Vegas which I always enjoy.

Maybe that's the answer, once you've read world classic books and watched world classic films it's hard to come down from those heights

So the last two films I actively sought out were; The Hateful Eight and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Tarantino is a director who has a comprehensive knowledge of cinema, but also weaves in real life events in fictional ways like the Manson murders, or Bruce Lee in Hollywood, plus a homage to American culture in general.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELeMaP8EPAA&ab_channel=SonyPicturesEntertainment

 

[WoodenSaucer]

My youngest son just finished reading The Hobbit for the first time, and he loved it. So we're starting to watch the Hobbit trilogy of movies, just so I can show him how bad they are. I wanted him to see them while the book is still fresh in his mind. So far we've watched the first one. I told him the first one is the least offensive of the three, and even with that one, he couldn't believe how badly they screwed some things up. I told him to wait until the next two, where about 75% of them is completely fabricated storylines, major characters, and romances that weren't even in any of Tolkien's writings at all.

 

[ipman]

My youngest son just finished reading The Hobbit for the first time, and he loved it. So we're starting to watch the Hobbit trilogy of movies, just so I can show him how bad they are. I wanted him to see them while the book is still fresh in his mind. So far we've watched the first one. I told him the first one is the least offensive of the three, and even with that one, he couldn't believe how badly they screwed some things up. I told him to wait until the next two, where about 75% of them is completely fabricated storylines, major characters, and romances that weren't even in any of Tolkien's writings at all.

I heard a parent talking on the radio the other day. He said he would read The Hobbit to his children so that they could still appreciate books and then afterwards would treat them to the film.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

I heard a parent talking on the radio the other day. He said he would read The Hobbit to his children so that they could still appreciate books and then afterwards would treat them to the film.

The films are an abomination if you're a fan of the book. The LotR films are, too, but less so than The Hobbit trilogy.

 

[ipman]

The films are an abomination if you're a fan of the book. The LotR films are, too, but less so than The Hobbit trilogy.

TBH I haven't read any of Tolkein's works or seen any of the films. I was never a fan of fantasy(even though most of my friends were) and also didn't read Sci Fi. I enjoy the spectacle of the films and my father started me on films like Forbidden Planet and The Day the Earth stood Still(original). They imprinted on my young mind.

I was drawn to books that would be called 'Realism' or reflected reality in some way. So was off in Russian, German, American and S. American(Borges being a particular favourite) literature.

I've only played the Shadow of War game, which I'm sure has virtually no relation to Tolkein, but having grown up in the Midlands area with it's industry and accents, they seem to be heavily reflected in game.

I was thinking I did read to my son when he was young, but he then was part of the gaming generation. Halo and similar on his Xbox. So I introduced him to what I considered to be good films to widen his interest.

He was in the army cadets and had this quite naive view of war. Running around in the woods with his friends, good guys vs bad. He decided he wanted to join the army after school, so I showed him Apocalypse Now and Saving Private Ryan and some others. He stuck to virtual combat.

 

[Zloth]

The films are an abomination if you're a fan of the book. The LotR films are, too, but less so than The Hobbit trilogy.

Oh whatever! The movies are great fun!

(Oh wow... channeling the 80's there, wasn't I?)

 

[WoodenSaucer]

Oh whatever! The movies are great fun!

(Oh wow... channeling the 80's there, wasn't I?)

You probably hate the books. I'll bet you club baby seals, too.

 

[Zloth]

I loved the books! When I read them - which was probably why I started channeling the 80's. Or... actually, I think it was the late 70's.

I can go for some Seal from time to time, but I don't know if I would want to go to a club where he's playing - even at the very start of his career.

 

[Brian Boru]

Seabiscuit 2003 2h 20m
Tobey Maguire
Jeff Bridges
Elizabeth Banks
A decent movie about one of the great racehorse romance stories from the 1930s USA. I was into racing for a couple of decades, a beautiful spectacular sport, so ready to be generous to the movie. But it's too long, by at least 30-45 minutes.

The backstory is interesting, but when it's ~45 minutes before the horse first appears, you know it's just too much. I was a bit sour by then and quit soon after to finish next night. Second half is much more interesting when the star of the show is front and center.

Cast and general execution are very good, apart from way too much in-your-face sentimentality. The racing scenes are great, and brought me back to those distant days.

7/10

 

[WoodenSaucer]

I loved the books! When I read them - which was probably why I started channeling the 80's. Or... actually, I think it was the late 70's.

I can go for some Seal from time to time, but I don't know if I would want to go to a club where he's playing - even at the very start of his career.

Well, that's your problem. You read the books back in the 70s, and you don't remember anything about them!

For real, though, I've read the books several times over the years, and there are too many glaring things that got messed up in the movies. I thought the movies were very well-made from a quality perspective. But it was like Peter Jackson read the books one time in the late 70s, and he was going off of that memory when he made the movies. Faramir was one of my favorite people, and he completely destroyed his character in The Two Towers movie. That didn't settle well with me. As for the Hobbit movies, the 2nd and 3rd movies barely even resembled the book, and they should have just named it something else, and it would have been great.

About the seal thing, I'm surprised you didn't link to Kiss From a Rose. Haha. My wife recently took a business trip to Canada, and the people took her to a really nice restaurant that actually served baby seal as a seasonal item.

 

[ipman]

The films are an abomination if you're a fan of the book. The LotR films are, too, but less so than The Hobbit trilogy.

Usually when people say this, I just say that the books and the films are in two different mediums and no one should expect them to be the same.
But think of it this way. An author writes a book; sets the scenes, describes the landscape and the characters and relationship between the characters, and then reveals the plot and stories. The reader each as an individual with their own life experiences and cultural reference points absorbs the book and imagines their version in their mind.

A director reads the book and imagines it in their way. The director then employs a team of screen writers, and numerous visual and audio technicians to make their film vision of the book . Depending on when the film is made there are also; stylistic, technical and locational constrictions.

The actors bring their craft and also their input. Then it's usually shown to audiences in test screenings and their feedback is considered. Sometimes producers and studios also take executive decisions because profit is important to them.

How did seals get in on this

 

[WoodenSaucer]

Usually when people say this, I just say that the books and the films are in two different mediums and no one should expect them to be the same.
But think of it this way. An author writes a book; sets the scenes, describes the landscape and the characters and relationship between the characters, and then reveals the plot and stories. The reader each as an individual with their own life experiences and cultural reference points absorbs the book and imagines their version in their mind.

A director reads the book and imagines it in their way. The director then employs a team of screen writers, and numerous visual and audio technicians to make their film vision of the book . Depending on when the film is made there are also; stylistic, technical and locational constrictions.

The actors bring their craft and also their input. Then it's usually shown to audiences in test screenings and their feedback is considered. Sometimes producers and studios also take executive decisions because profit is important to them.

Yeah, in most cases, I agree with what you're saying. But there are times when it's not just subjective. Like I mentioned above, Faramir (Boromir's brother) was one of my favorite people in the LotR books. Boromir was part of the company, and he was tempted by the power he could wield if he got his hands on the ring. To the point that he came close to assaulting Frodo, but Frodo escaped. Boromir was weak-willed when it came to the temptation of the ring. But then much later on, Frodo finds himself alone with Faramir. There is some fear that Faramir would be like his brother and try to overpower Frodo for the ring. But Faramir has a lot more integrity and is much stronger-willed than Boromir. He's not even tempted to harm Frodo or take the ring. Frodo is completely safe with Faramir. But then in the movie, Jackson turned Faramir into another Boromir. Faramir is weak-willed and very tempted by the ring. Frodo seems to be in danger for a little bit. Then Faramir finally overcomes the temptation, and everything is ok. So Jackson completely destroyed his integrity and strength in the movie. Tolkien later on in his personal writings said, "As far as any character is 'like me' it is Faramir." So Jackson basically even destroyed Tolkien's own character by making Faramir be a piece of crap.

About The Hobbit movies, the majority of the content was made-up garbage that wasn't in the book at all, because they thought the book wasn't action-packed or romantic enough. Then the parts that were actually in the book, they changed some details to make it less profound than they were in the book. I could write pages about it to explain what I'm talking about, but I don't think you really care that much.

How did seals get in on this

Lol. I was joking around with Zloth and told him he probably clubs baby seals because he hates the books. (He doesn't really hate the books, BTW. Judgment is still out on whether he clubs baby seals.)

 

[ipman]

Okay slight cheat, just been watching some favourite parts on YT.

Probably the best film for me, The Conversation. 10/10.

It brings together so many elements; audio recording and editing and the tech, surveillance, talk of industrial espionage, Gene Hackman and John Cazale's performances. Coppola's direction(and he used Harrison Ford in this and Apocalypse now). + a story about the morality of surveillance and corporations, and the paranoia if you think you are being watched or recorded. And it seems everyone is recording everything these days from cctv, door cameras to phones.

It lead me to look at the simple to sophisticated ways that the KGB, CIA and Mossad developed, plus the range of surveillance equipment available to citizens from surveillance microphones(bought one from a specialist), to secret recording devices audio and visual, key loggers, etc. Also in Watchdogs you could hack into internal cctv and watch and listen.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7IUJfUUWhk&ab_channel=LyallBush

 

[Zloth]

... and they should have just named it something else, and it would have been great.

Steve Jackson's
The Battle to Unfairly Gang Up on the Orcs
(Thank you Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor.)

Lol. I was joking around with Zloth and told him he probably clubs baby seals because he hates the books. (He doesn't really hate the books, BTW. Judgment is still out on whether he clubs baby seals.)

Dunno, never had a baby seal wander by while I had a club handy.

I remember the general story of the books, just not the details. (I also remember being mad that the Lord of the Rings books didn't have Bilbo as the main character. "Oh no no no, I'm not going to stick with the main character, or even a secondary character. No, I'm going to follow the main character's ring!" WTF Tolkien!?) I think the real crux, though, is that I'm not at all worried about sticking to the details, remembered or not. I remember the Wheel of Time pretty well and the TV series is missing most of the details and even some major points, but I'm still enjoying it.

 

[Brian Boru]

I could write pages about it

The Conversation

Oh hey, thanks for that reminder—queued for tonight! I saw it over 40 years ago and am a huge fan of Gene Hackman, and also of some of FF Coppola's work. So mini review later

 

[Brian Boru]

The Conversation 1974 1h 53m
Gene Hackman
John Cazale
Allen Garfield
Lop an hour off this and it wouldn't be too bad. It's painful, a real misstep from one of the sometimes great, but also sometimes awful, directors—Francis Ford Coppola.

There is no story beyond maybe 10 minutes worth, the script is really bad to the degree it turned into one of those unintentional comedies. Occasional tension is dissipated without reason, and there are scenes left in that should've been cut, and others which are 3-4 times longer than needed.

There is one reason to watch this, and that's Gene Hackman's performance as paranoid loner who belatedly is getting a bit of a conscience. Hackman is brilliant.

The rest of the cast we'll never know, cos none of 'em get anything decent to do and are only in scenes as human props. What a waste of Robert Duvall, He has maybe 3-4 lines as a central character!

I'm disappointed, for some reason I had this filed under 'excellent' in my mind. Now it's gone into 'poor' in my IMDb account category.

Giving 2 extra points for Gene:

5/10

ETA if the interesting premise intrigues you, try The Lives of Others—now that I remember much more clearly as a truly excellent movie.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

I think the real crux, though, is that I'm not at all worried about sticking to the details, remembered or not. I remember the Wheel of Time pretty well and the TV series is missing most of the details and even some major points, but I'm still enjoying it.

If you want to talk about movies that are really nothing like the books, that would be the Bourne movies, starting with The Bourne Identity. My wife read at least the first book, and she said pretty much the only thing that is the same is the name of characters and some of the locations. I've never read the books, so I think the movies are awesome. Sometime I might read the books so I can start hating the movies.

 

[ipman]

The Conversation 1974 1h 53m
Gene Hackman
John Cazale
Allen Garfield
Lop an hour off this and it wouldn't be too bad. It's painful, a real misstep from one of the sometimes great, but also sometimes awful, directors—Francis Ford Coppola.

There is no story beyond maybe 10 minutes worth, the script is really bad to the degree it turned into one of those unintentional comedies. Occasional tension is dissipated without reason, and there are scenes left in that should've been cut, and others which are 3-4 times longer than needed.

There is one reason to watch this, and that's Gene Hackman's performance as paranoid loner who belatedly is getting a bit of a conscience. Hackman is brilliant.

The rest of the cast we'll never know, cos none of 'em get anything decent to do and are only in scenes as human props. What a waste of Robert Duvall, He has maybe 3-4 lines as a central character!

I'm disappointed, for some reason I had this filed under 'excellent' in my mind. Now it's gone into 'poor' in my IMDb account category.

Giving 2 extra points for Gene:

5/10

ETA if the interesting premise intrigues you, try The Lives of Others—now that I remember much more clearly as a truly excellent movie.

Yes it is interesting going back and watching films from a different time. Usually much slower pace.

But in the light of recent revelations about the Pegasus project and Edward Snowdon's info on the extent of surveillance via smartphones, and also how we are being tracked through every purchase we buy and on every commute, it was a good moral tale with a twist or two.
I think The Lives of Others looks familiar, and there are few that were made regarding surveillance and the Stasi.

I don't subscribe to Netflix and the like so just watch my edited highlights on YT.

 

[Brian Boru]

nothing like the books, that would be the Bourne movies

I was a big Ludlum fan in my reading days, and read all the Bourne books, and a good few more of his. Your wife is right—but I never expect a 90m movie to match a book which took 10-15 hours to read, so I love the movies too. Best of both worlds

it was a good moral tale

Agreed, the premise was really good at the time. I may have mixed it up with another movie on a similar theme, not sure—all hazy after so long

much slower pace

I usually prefer that, get quickly bored with car chases and gun play—much prefer the Brit cop shows to our ones here.

 

[ipman]

If you want to talk about movies that are really nothing like the books, that would be the Bourne movies, starting with The Bourne Identity. My wife read at least the first book, and she said pretty much the only thing that is the same is the name of characters and some of the locations. I've never read the books, so I think the movies are awesome. Sometime I might read the books so I can start hating the movies.

Will you give it up
No one expects a book to be the same as a film, or a film to be the same as a game. Sometimes they do hire the author to oversee a film shoot, but can you imagine if they had to make a film; scene for scene, dialogue line for line, etc. It would be a nightmare.

To put it another way. Which films are an exact remake of a book, or which games are an exact remake of a film?

 

[ipman]

Agreed, the premise was really good at the time. I may have mixed it up with another movie on a similar theme, not sure—all hazy after so long

I usually prefer that, get quickly bored with car chases and gun play—much prefer the Brit cop shows to our ones here.

Yes the art of pacing has been replaced by full on action. I'm sure now I have seen that The Lives of Others.
I also saw another German one where activists used surveillance and monitored and recorded individuals from gov organisations, which is also played out in WD's series.

The sequel Enemy of the State although a much lighter , faster paced film, featured Gene Hackman playing the same role but as a different character. He helps Will Smith's character turn the tables on the NSA.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTzl0PzPiK0&ab_channel=HarryStottle

 

[WoodenSaucer]

To put it another way. Which films are an exact remake of a book, or which games are an exact remake of a film?

The best book to movie I've ever seen was probably the first The Hunger Games movie. They actually didn't screw anything up. That's one example of how it's possible to interpret a book into a movie without changing things in a stupid way. I don't remember if the other movies were faithful representations or not. I think at least the second movie was.

Edit: to be clear, I don't have a problem with them removing things from the books for the sake of time. That's understandable. What I have a problem with is adding things that shouldn't be added, and also changing things for the worse that really don't need to be changed.