Movies you're watching

Page 6 - Love gaming? Join the PC Gamer community to share that passion with gamers all around the world!
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.
 
Feb 4, 2023
2
4
15
Visit site
Now I'm rewatching the first part of Avatar, it's a very cool movie. I remember when he first came out and I really wanted to go. But I didn't have money. My friend suggested me soap2day.to , where I could find this movie. I waited and when it came out I was ecstatic! It really is a new world! No wonder the movie ran for so long!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Brian Boru
Now I'm rewatching the first part of Avatar, it's a very cool movie. I remember when he first came out and I really wanted to go. But I didn't have money. My friend suggested me a site, where I could find this movie. I waited and when it came out I was ecstatic! It really is a new world! No wonder the movie ran for so long!
Yes probably a good one for the big screen. Anyone seen the sequel?
 
The Presidio 1988 1h 37m
Sean Connery
Mark Harmon
Meg Ryan
Jack Warden
Standard military detective mystery, but this ain't The General's Daughter. NCIS guy Mark is weak here, in an early Tom Cruise way. Connery is his usual, but needed someone of his caliber to spar with—Jack comes closest to supplying that.

Meg's in it, so there's gotta be romance—but it's tacked on, not relevant to the movie, and awkwardly done at times. I like all 4 players, and with Sean I'll bump it up a point.

55/100
 
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 briefly touched on this in the book thread, wondering how a movie producer could make three movies over 2 hours long each out of a short novella that's only 255 pages. The first movie wasn't bad, and it mostly followed the story, but it should have ended there as a single movie. The next 2 movies were, as you said, almost completely fabricated, and relied heavily on special effects rather than the original story. They weren't inherently bad movies, and I found them fun to watch, but I truthfully think those movies were just a "cash grab" by the producers hoping to emulate the success of the Lord of the Rings movies (which I did think were excellent and stayed mostly true to the source).

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.
All Quentin Tarantino Movies Ranked << Rotten Tomatoes – Movie and TV News
I love Quentin Tarantino movies! In addition to the Tarantino qualities you mentioned, he's also able to weave in humor, and knows instinctively how to apply tension and moments of ultra violence. I think of all his films and my two favorite would be:
Pulp Fiction
View: https://youtu.be/tGpTpVyI_OQ


Inglorious Basterds

View: https://youtu.be/KnrRy6kSFF0


Getting back to @Brian Boru 's original topic, my most recently watched movie was Sicario (free with Amazon Prime):
View: https://youtu.be/sR0SDT2GeFg


Staring Emily Blunt, Benicio del Toro, & Josh Brolin. This movie is tense and uber violent at various points, and the acting from all characters is excellent, especially from Emily Blunt and Benicio del Toro. It deals with the drug cartels, drug smuggling from Mexico to Texas, and assassin's quest to avenge his family's murder. On a rating system of 10, I'd have to give it a 9.5 or even 10.
 
I briefly touched on this in the book thread, wondering how a movie producer could make three movies over 2 hours long each out of a short novella that's only 255 pages. The first movie wasn't bad, and it mostly followed the story, but it should have ended there as a single movie. The next 2 movies were, as you said, almost completely fabricated, and relied heavily on special effects rather than the original story. They weren't inherently bad movies, and I found them fun to watch, but I truthfully think those movies were just a "cash grab" by the producers hoping to emulate the success of the Lord of the Rings movies (which I did think were excellent and stayed mostly true to the source).
They were absolutely cash grabs. I think if they would have named them something other than The Hobbit, they would have been ok movies. But they also relied on the name to draw people in, so I'm not sure I would think they're that great, even with a different name.

I think we're finally going to get around to watching the last one tonight. I'm not real hyped.
 
They were absolutely cash grabs. I think if they would have named them something other than The Hobbit, they would have been ok movies. But they also relied on the name to draw people in, so I'm not sure I would think they're that great, even with a different name.

I think we're finally going to get around to watching the last one tonight. I'm not real hyped.
Oh no. Right that's it, I'll get Peter Jackson to contact you directly and explain his process.:)

Mainstream films are about making money. Tolkien's estate made $500M.
 
Staring Emily Blunt, Benicio del Toro, & Josh Brolin. This movie is tense and uber violent at various points, and the acting from all characters is excellent, especially from Emily Blunt and Benicio del Toro. It deals with the drug cartels, drug smuggling from Mexico to Texas, and assassin's quest to avenge his family's murder. On a rating system of 10, I'd have to give it a 9.5 or even 10.
Tarantino is probably the best living auteur, and his films do merit repeateded viewings. I can just as much enjoy listening to him talk about films in general, as well as his own films. He has that level of excitement about a medium that is still a great art form, as well as being hugely entertaining.

Yes Sicario is excellent and very relevant of course. It's strange isn't it, there are some issues that are disturbing but we as viewers are fascinated by them. I like how they used Emily Blunt's character to show a sort of liberal naivety to the issue and contrasted that with Benicio del Torro's character's jaded but realistic approach.

Of course No Country for Old Men also showed how these issues can play out. (ie: Western users and cartel suppliers).
 
I watch movies occasionally! Sometimes I even like them..

Everything, Everywhere, All at Once

Michelle Yeoh, Ke Huy Quan, Jamie Lee Curtis, Stephanie Hsu, James Hong.

Is madness. I laughed, I cried a little, it made me think.

It is weird though. Multi universe comedy sci-fi nonsense with a philosophy, Michel Gondry and the Wachowskis with a bit of extra silliness on top. Maybe a little too much silliness here and there, but I went with it anyway.

It also had the kid from Temple of Doom and Goonies in it. Made me want to check out Daniels other film Swiss Army Man which looks like it might be even more mental.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian Boru
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.

I agree with you to a degree. I have both the Hunger Games on Blu-ray and the books (electronically). However reading the books almost felt like watching the film( I bought the books after watching all 4 films) though without the visual & auditory inputs. If my memories are correct then the films followed the themes of the books closely.

The problem with your principle is that many good movies would not be produced. An example is "I Am Legend" staring Will Smith. The DVD sits on a shelf behind me and gets watched every 3 years or so. The book it is based on was written in the 1954, but set in 1976. In science fiction (and fantasy) films you need to suspend your disbelief - you need to believe that it could happen - at least while you are watching. So a film made in 2008 which portrays what the writer thinks may happen in 1976 - not really going to happen.

With "The Hunger Games" the books were written in 2008 to 2010. Everything is much more believable in the books so it becomes easier to translate it to our current perceptions of the future.

The other thing is money but lets not go down that rabbit hole.
 
Haha. I wish he would consult with me next time he wants to make something based on Tolkien's works. :LOL:

At least now you know I'm not the only one who feels that way. Mainer has my back on this one!
It doesn't matter how many people agree with you. Books, films and games are all in different mediums.

Actually what I'd recommend is, if you really like a book, then don't watch the film. But also many enjoy Tolkien's works as portrayed in the films.

This gives more detail, by Andrew Davies, novelist and screen writer.

https://d2buyft38glmwk.cloudfront.net/media/cms_page_media/11/FITC_Adaptation_1.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SleepingDog
The problem with your principle is that many good movies would not be produced. An example is "I Am Legend" staring Will Smith. The DVD sits on a shelf behind me and gets watched every 3 years or so. The book it is based on was written in the 1954, but set in 1976. In science fiction (and fantasy) films you need to suspend your disbelief - you need to believe that it could happen - at least while you are watching. So a film made in 2008 which portrays what the writer thinks may happen in 1976 - not really going to happen.
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I don't really have a problem with changes like that, unless the book was meant to be a period piece in an alternate history, or something. But seeing that 1976 was the future when it was written, that's impossible. So I prefer to look at it as the book was set 22 years into the future, rather than that it was set specifically in 1976. It's easy to set a time that seems way off, but then it doesn't age well. 1984 and 2001: A Space Odyssey are other examples of that.

It doesn't matter how many people agree with you. Books, films and games are all in different mediums.

Actually what I'd recommend is, if you really like a book, then don't watch the film. But also many enjoy Tolkien's works as portrayed in the films.

This gives more detail, by Andrew Davies, novelist and screen writer.

https://d2buyft38glmwk.cloudfront.net/media/cms_page_media/11/FITC_Adaptation_1.pdf
ipman, I feel like you think I'm severely stressed over this, and I'm having some kind of mental breakdown, or something. Haha. Dude, I'm just making conversation; it's not really ruining my life as much as it may seem from my exaggerated story-telling post style sometimes. But I'll say this, if you don't care if a movie goes down a completely different path than the book it's based on, that's fine for you to feel that way. But I don't really see anything wrong with me being upset that a movie completely destroys certain aspects of a book or character that I've been a major fan of for many, many years. You're really trying to correct me hard on something that really doesn't need correcting.

I don't think there's any way to get you to understand where I'm coming from. But what if you were really into the history of Harriet Tubman, and you spent a lot of time studying her life, and how she committed her life to being an activist against slavery and for women's suffrage? You know her inside out and feel an emotional connection because she's a hero to you. And then someone makes a movie about her (I've never seen Harriet from 2019), and they completely screw it up? They paint her in as negative of a light as they can, and leave out important details that show what a hero she was? If you were in that position, it wouldn't disappoint you at all? You'd be able to just separate a movie from the real life of Harriet Tubman because it's a different media?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian Boru
ipman, I feel like you think I'm severely stressed over this, and I'm having some kind of mental breakdown, or something. Haha. Dude, I'm just making conversation; it's not really ruining my life as much as it may seem from my exaggerated story-telling post style sometimes. But I'll say this, if you don't care if a movie goes down a completely different path than the book it's based on, that's fine for you to feel that way. But I don't really see anything wrong with me being upset that a movie completely destroys certain aspects of a book or character that I've been a major fan of for many, many years. You're really trying to correct me hard on something that really doesn't need correcting.

As a student of culture, I just find this common misunderstanding that films should be exact remakes of books, or that films ruin the books for some people, needs some clarification.

I don't think you're stressed about it, although the eight posts show you still don't really get it.

I did speak to Peter Jackson, and he said the restraining order still stands and you are not allowed to enter the country of New Zealand or the Southern hemisphere again.

I'm only joking with you, I think you should remake the whole triology, scene by scene and word for word, show that fool Jackson up!:)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: WoodenSaucer
Moving on:

Anyone else got a movie they watched recently?
Ok how about Passengers, headed by Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt, from 2016? I have watched it a few times and still enjoy it though at the time of it's release there was controversy about Jim Preston's decision to wake one of the other passengers.

Let's take a step back, Earth is a mess (surprise surprise) and new worlds have been found for those willing to take the 120 year journey. The space ship hits problems resulting in Jim Preston being awaken with 80 years to go. He tries to repair his sleep pod which fails then enjoys the high life, attempts suicide ( only an Englishman would think that being alone on a desert island is a good thing) and after a period (6 months?) wakes Aurora Lane (JL). Then the adventure truly begins.

For me the film had three strands. The action adventure which I will leave alone - no spoilers. The second is about how we see ourselves. Jim doesn't want to wake Aurora (though crew members are ok). He sees himself as a good man but knows that waking some-one means they will probably never see the "promised land". The man in me says "suck it up and be a Holy Warrior" - do what is in the greater good. The reality is that I am not that man. [I remember talking to my wife about the story line - her reaction was "Why did Jim wait 6 months? I would not."] The third is about the fact that the vast majority of us are social animals and we need other people to survive and to live a full life. Try telling yourself a joke and then do it with a group of friends. Assuming it was a decent joke which gives the best feeling. It's easy to preach when you are not actually in that situation - put yourself in Jim's shoes then tell me it's a bad film.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian Boru
Moving on:

Anyone else got a movie they watched recently?
This is most definitely not the answer you are looking for, but we just watched the final Hobbit movie a couple of nights ago. :LOL:

I'll say this, they did majorly screw a couple of things up, but it's not the worst of the three. After watching them all again, the second one is the worst one, but the other two aren't too bad.

Now that I have that out of my system...

I'd love to watch the new Avatar movie, but I have no idea when I'll get a chance. My oldest son gave us an AMC movie theater gift card I'm going to have to use sometime, but I'll bet Avatar will be out of the theaters by the time we get to use it.
 
Watched Menu (2022) directed by Mark Mylo(r)d.
Stars: Ralph Fiennes, Anya Taylor-Joy, Nicholas Hoult and some other stuff.

The movie is about a chef that invites some rich people (and one not) to a small island where he cooks for them different courses. The place and meals take a bitter turn and one female protagonist desperately tries to cook something up. There are some good scenes in the movie, but I wished for a more varied palette, a bit more craziness. Just a slice of something from the movie The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989) in this one would have broadened my appetite. Because Menu tries to be both dark and witty at times, but unfortunately, it does not really land on its feet and that is a real shame considering the potential. 6/10
 
Last edited:
So some weeks ago i watched JoJo Rabbit - a sort of comedy/satire/coming of age drama set in the final years of the second world war.

overall i found it pretty good and recommend a watch. It was funny and had some good moments (the grenade scene at bootcamp being a stand out highlight). I think they could have pushed a bit harder on some of the points it was trying to push but the message is there. I think the criticism's about having it set in Germany and having a funny hitler or sympathetic /kind **** or sanitized **** germany was a bit unfounded as honestly it was suppose to be satire and it was jojo's imaginative creation of Hitler (i mean Hitler at one point is seen eating a unicorn FFS.) and was his support mechanism of his insecurities and desire to fit in. As well as being a bounce tool to show his development as a person and the inner workings of jojo's head. it does have some serious tragic moments (i won't spoil it) that highlight the inhumanity of the nazis (to jojo) and the madness of a cult like fervor of the Nazis ending in apocalyptic results for all those who couldn't escape it (like jojo did).

Some top acting from all involved. Scarlett Johannsson's portrayal of Rosie was especially good (got her a nomination for best supporting actress). Rosie having a hard time trying to be the loving mother to jojo, protecting/caring for him, raising him to be an adult, feeding into his **** ideology as well as maintaining loyalty to the Nazis when in fact she hated them. The stress of it all and the culmination of the dinner scene when Rosie tries to act like jojo's father and using that persona to finally snap from the stress of it all, portray her inner vulnerabilities and asking/pleading to Jojo to understand and help her. It was brilliant. props also to Taika Waititi as Hitler.
 
Soooooo, Cocaine Bear. Directed by Elizabeth Banks and with stars like Keri Russell, Aldan Ehrenreich, Kristofer Hivju, Margo Martindale, and most importantly: Ray Liotta's last performance before his death. Wonderful actor and if you have not seen him before, go watch Goodfellas ASAP!

The movie had a lot of potential, but unfortunately, it was waaaaaaaaay overhyped and I fell for it because come on, it's about a BEAR on Cocaine! and that is quite rare to see at the cinemas. What I enjoyed about the movie was the scenes with the bear. The bear was the best actor by a long shot and the way it reacted to drugs and maimed the people around was a work of art. Too bad there were not that many scenes with it.

Instead of focusing on more cool bear scenes, they made the movie quite unbearable at times by having so damn many different side stories to fill. There is one about the kids, one about the different bad guys, one about the Scandinavians and one about some love between park rangers, and then one about a cop and his new dog, and.....get the picture? It is so stupid, so mindbogglingly poorly written, that I almost got angry at times. Thankfully the bear saved the day and helped me keep my sanity intact. 6/10 and that is ONLY because of the bear and for Ray Liotta, may he rest in peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian Boru

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts