Movies

[papajohnny]

Breaking Bad is fucking awesome.
I'm not a person who likes to jump on bandwagon of things, but after having that show recommended by so many people whose taste in films I appreciate, I started watching. I didn't regret one second of it.
It's not flawless, of course, nothing is, but it's miles ahead of any other show I've ever seen - but admittedly, I'm not really a TV series person, so that doesn't say much.

Nonetheless, BB is amazing, from the first to last episode.

Be sure not to mess around with some spoilers anywhere - it's one of those shows where each episode counts, and every bit of spoilerish info can ruin the experience.
Enjoy!

 

[Eurynome]

BB is amazing, from the first to last episode.

What is it about and how many episodes are there?

I tried to watch Under The Dome but gave up after a few episodes - the first looked promising but it was quickly downhill from there. :Smug:

Just finished Anna Karenina - borrowed the DVD from the library after finally reading the book. Interesting adaption, although it took me a while to get into it (helped by the fact that it became less of a stage drama and more of a "normal movie" after the first half hour or so). The latter half seemed a bit rushed, but the essence of the novel was preserved well enough.

 

[papajohnny]

What is it about and how many episodes are there?

It's about an midlife chemistry school teacher who finds out he has lung cancer and is going to die in a foreseeable future. Having a family to support, and already being in financial problems, he starts producing and selling drugs - methamphetamine - in order to secure the future of his family.
But that's putting it really shortly, as if I copied from Wikipedia. The story goes much beyond that, and it's exceptionally well written, directed and acted.

As for episodes, there are 62 divided into 5 seasons, if I'm not wrong. Each one is 45 minutes approx. except the pilot and the last one.
I know that sounds long, but the story is dynamic, progresses onward, keeps attention, doesn't have that filler crap, and has some incredible moments.

If you have time on your hands, and you're up for some TV show, look no further. I can't recommend it enough, really.
A warning though - once you start, you're getting hooked. I promise you that. So make sure you've got enough time etc.

 

[Eurynome]

Thanks! Sounds like something to go for after this spring's round of Game of Thrones.

 

[xptrinity]

I tried to watch Under The Dome but gave up after a few episodes - the first looked promising but it was quickly downhill from there. :Smug:

The novel is so much better. I don't know why, but Stephen King is hard to film, with a few exceptions.
I wish someone would film The Dark Tower epic. But preferably without Hollywood involvement. Maybe the guys who're doing Game of Thrones are a good choice, though I have some remarks.

 

[zombiestench]

Just started Game of Thrones - halfway through season 1. Waiting for the white walkers to appear!

 

[Eurynome]

Just started Game of Thrones - halfway through season 1.

Enjoy, you're in for plenty of good stuff. We're currently trying to manage watching the first three before season 4 starts in April (two of my friends haven't seen the series at all yet and one of them has a huge TV, whereas so far I've only watched them on my laptop ) but finding 30 hours of spare time is turning out more difficult than you'd think...

 

[koivusaari]

Hell no!
http://shortlist.com/entertainment/films/stephen-king-it-remake-imminent

The original one is average, they miss so much details from the book, but still Tim Curry was top!

 

[xptrinity]

Frankly, I was scared witless by the movie, though I had read the book earlier. I don't know what's with the Stephen King remakes. Can someone top Jack Nicholson in The Shining? Why did they have to do a remake? Why do they have to do a remake of It? Have they run of Stephen King novels?

 

[papajohnny]

There's an overall trend in remaking/rebooting films/franchises.
Basically every super-hero got made, and then remade, to movie screen. Now they're turning to 80s action. Total Recall. Robocop. Terminator.
Horror has been like that for a long time. If it's not a remake, it's an endless string of so-called sequels, where we see the same thing over and over.
Hollywood is running out of ideas, and given that its creativity was never on a top level, it's no wonder. You gotta make money some way.

I frankly don't care, just a reason more to not follow all that crap.

 

[tuonelan]

There's an overall trend in remaking/rebooting films/franchises.
Basically every super-hero got made, and then remade, to movie screen. Now they're turning to 80s action. Total Recall. Robocop. Terminator.
Horror has been like that for a long time. If it's not a remake, it's an endless string of so-called sequels, where we see the same thing over and over.
Hollywood is running out of ideas, and given that its creativity was never on a top level, it's no wonder. You gotta make money some way.

I frankly don't care, just a reason more to not follow all that crap.

It's not that Hollywood is running out of ideas. I know dozens of writers in the area that are bursting with fresh and interesting ideas. The sticking point, just like in the music business, is that there are so many 'industry' people looking for a big return on their money that have been brought on board for merchandising and distribution and the like. No studio is willing to take on a project that might not find a sure market. Remakes and adaptations have a built-in market and require less work to get name recognition. Smart films run the risk of not finding an audience right away...look at Blade Runner.

 

[xptrinity]

I don't get this whole remake affair. Robocop in the 1980's, for example, was a classic - watched it several times. Now - with all this technological advancement and bionics - it's just run-of-the-mill.
I wouldn't watch the modern version. Ditto for Total Recall, Blade Runner or the geriatric sequel, prequel, or whatever they choose to call it, of Star Wars. Call me crazy, but the classics are classics for a reason - be it ideas and script or purely technical achievements. (I dare not imagine what feats were performed to film the original Star Wars with the 1970s technology.)
Hell, one of my most favourite movies of all time - The Matrix - was groundbreaking in 1999. Not only on technological level, but because of the ideas - I will never forget how I sat in the theatre with my boyfriend with our mouths gaping, after we worked ourselves into a total frenzy in the preceding weeks. And it was not just because of the visuals, but because of the whole idea. And then there were the sequels, which were a total disappointment.
I do understand that the movie industry has long since moved away from the "I make a movie, because I have something to tell and show the people" into "I make a movie to spin off sequels, prequels, mugs, action figures, MacDonald's menus, Lego sets, comics, t-shirts, doormats, whatever-shit-people-will-buy". And I lament it.

 

[papajohnny]

It's not that Hollywood is running out of ideas. I know dozens of writers in the area that are bursting with fresh and interesting ideas. The sticking point, just like in the music business, is that there are so many 'industry' people looking for a big return on their money that have been brought on board for merchandising and distribution and the like. No studio is willing to take on a project that might not find a sure market. Remakes and adaptations have a built-in market and require less work to get name recognition. Smart films run the risk of not finding an audience right away...look at Blade Runner.

Like I said, money's gotta be made, and easy money is the best money there is.
Risking a multi-million dollar budget over something which might not sell? Nah.
Wasting millions on dollars on something seen xyz times before but will sell to mindless audience? Got yourself a deal.

Call me crazy, but the classics are classics for a reason - be it ideas and script or purely technical achievements. (I dare not imagine what feats were performed to film the original Star Wars with the 1970s technology.)

You're right, classics are classic.
I mean, I hate Star Wars franchise, but I like the old films. The sequels are desecration.

I do understand that the movie industry has long since moved away from the "I make a movie, because I have something to tell and show the people" into "I make a movie to spin off sequels, prequels, mugs, action figures, MacDonald's menus, Lego sets, comics, t-shirts, doormats, whatever-shit-people-will-buy". And I lament it.

Industry. That's the problem.
Industry and art don't go hand in hand. And Hollywood is industry. That's about all there is.

And then there were the sequels, which were a total disappointment.

This is offtopic, but why?
Sure, stand-alone they sucked hard compared to the original, but I actually like how the whole thing got wrapped...more or less. Besides, wasn't the whole thing planned as a trilogy from the beginning?
Also, seen Animatrix?

 

[tuonelan]

Sure, stand-alone they sucked hard compared to the original, but I actually like how the whole thing got wrapped...more or less. Besides, wasn't the whole thing planned as a trilogy from the beginning?
Also, seen Animatrix?

Nope. The Matrix was originally written as a stand-alone and the Wachowski's were sort of bribed into making it into a trilogy by the studio -- which was fine with them because they loved trilogies and extended worlds.

Of course once they agreed to the sequels things went a bit pear shaped.

As a writing team the Wachowskis usually divided up the work of the film. Larry was the conceptual/philosophical side of the duo and Andy was the action/pace/style guy. This worked great for them in The Matrix, but when it came time to put together the sequels Larry was in the midst of struggling with Gender Dysphoria and was beginning to transition from male to female and become Lana, rather than Larry. That left her pretty distracted and left Andy to take on a lot of the conceptual stuff and keep the ball rolling.

Which is why the second and third films are more action oriented and seem like they are not working on the same philosophical level as the first film.

 

[papajohnny]

Huh, didn't know that.

I personally liked the trilogy as a whole. Like I said, it was wrapped up finely, more or less. I liked the ending of the third, anyway.
But in general, I'm not really a fan of The Matrix. I consider it a fine SF film, nothing more, really.

 

[tuonelan]

Not *quite* a movie...went to see a live theater broadcast of Shakespeare's Coriolanus with Tom Hiddleston (you know, Loki) in the title role. The play was staged in London at the Donmar Warehouse Theater by the National Theater and broadcast live on a screen on stage at the university's theater. Other bonus geek points in the cast: Mark Gattis (Mycroft from Sherlock) and Mark Stanley (Grenn of the Night Watch from Game of Thrones).

It was a strange experience as far as "live" theater goes. The first several times that Hiddleston showed up on stage the Loki fangirls in the audience all Squee'd and clapped and all the older theatergoer types shushed them loudly in return. It would have felt a lot like Elizabethan theater if it weren't for the fact that the broadcast only went one way and Hiddleston could not hear the sound of his adoration.

Cool show, though. Great cast and staging (minimal sets, very intimate and fast moving) and nice makeup and blood.

 

[tuonelan]

Missed it during the week that it was in (a handful of indie) theaters, but just saw The Only Lovers Left Alive on DVD. Great vampire-as-drug-addict film with Tom Hiddleston and Tilda Swinton and directed by Jim Jarmusch (Dead Man, Ghost Dog). Soundtrack is all drone-y, fuzzed out post rock. Very trippy and dark.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

I absolutely hated this film. Still feel bad about wasting 90 minutes of my life watching it. The only good thing about it was the little girl in the lead role.




Daniel Craig is by far my favourite Bond. Not just because he looks oh so good, but because he's a rather human and realistic Bond, unlike the previous lot. Or at least Brosnan and his outlandish stuff. Towards the end of Skyfall I was seriously asking myself if Bond will survive the helicopter attack.
But I'd say Skyfall is the best in the series with Craig so far, though I thought that Casino Royale cannot be surpassed. I am glad they proved me wrong.

Casino Royale is my favorite Bond movie by far. It would also be a great movie on it's own, unrelated to the Bond series. Love that film. Skyfall was good but not great in my opinion.

Sadly, given my current location, I can't go to movies but I really wish I could.

 

[papajohnny]

I saw Interstellar. It was a solid film, had some dumb moments, mostly dialogue-related, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. Loved all the references to older SF films.
However, this is the last time I'm buying into the hype behind some big budget Hollywood film. Yes, I liked the film, but damn it, it's overhyped and overrated. One of Nolan's better films, sure, but come on...

 

[papajohnny]

http://www.erikwernquist.com/wanderers/