The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Simple this.
I'll start the ball rolling by saying David Fincher. He's done 3 films (that count), and all of them have rocked.
I'll start the ball rolling by saying David Fincher. He's done 3 films (that count), and all of them have rocked.
Page:
Mr. Happy wrote:
I
> thought Manhunter was a better film than Hannibal... Admittedly Hannibal Lecter
> is played by the wrong man,
I think Brian Cox is still good as Hannibal but Hopkins just defined that role really. You say Anthony Hopkins to anyone (who knows anything about films that is) and they think of Hannibal Lecter. Unless they're a retard in which case they say "Oh yeah! Zorro! That film was well good. He had a sword! And a cape!" :-D
but then I'm saying that having seen Hopkins in the
> role first and hindsight is a wonderful thing. I think the new version will
> probably be very different from the old one. They're almost certain to give
> Lecter a larger role than he's meant to have. Should be interesting...
Yeah I think I saw Lambs before Manhunter. I say 'think' because after I'd seen Lambs and I was watching Manhunter, I knew I'd seen Manhunter before. Whether or not I'd seen it before or after I'd seen Silence iof the Lambs though, is a mystery.
and Ed
> Norton is exactly the way I pictured Will Graham to be when I read the book..
> well almost.. my vision of Will Graham is a sort of Graham Coxon (the guitarist
> from Blur)... don't know why but there we go.
I'm hoping Ed Norton will do a better job than the original guy (Will something) and I'm sure he will. The original guy I didn't really like.
"You watched them......you watched them and then you killed them. Didn't ya? Didn't ya, ya son of a b***h!"
He just annoyed me.
I
> thought Manhunter was a better film than Hannibal... Admittedly Hannibal Lecter
> is played by the wrong man,
I think Brian Cox is still good as Hannibal but Hopkins just defined that role really. You say Anthony Hopkins to anyone (who knows anything about films that is) and they think of Hannibal Lecter. Unless they're a retard in which case they say "Oh yeah! Zorro! That film was well good. He had a sword! And a cape!" :-D
but then I'm saying that having seen Hopkins in the
> role first and hindsight is a wonderful thing. I think the new version will
> probably be very different from the old one. They're almost certain to give
> Lecter a larger role than he's meant to have. Should be interesting...
Yeah I think I saw Lambs before Manhunter. I say 'think' because after I'd seen Lambs and I was watching Manhunter, I knew I'd seen Manhunter before. Whether or not I'd seen it before or after I'd seen Silence iof the Lambs though, is a mystery.
and Ed
> Norton is exactly the way I pictured Will Graham to be when I read the book..
> well almost.. my vision of Will Graham is a sort of Graham Coxon (the guitarist
> from Blur)... don't know why but there we go.
I'm hoping Ed Norton will do a better job than the original guy (Will something) and I'm sure he will. The original guy I didn't really like.
"You watched them......you watched them and then you killed them. Didn't ya? Didn't ya, ya son of a b***h!"
He just annoyed me.
The_Vottanator wrote:
>Manhunter - admittedly the worst in the series but
> still really good. It's being remade with Hopkins and Ed Norton now. Sounds good
> until you hear who the director is. Brett Ratner! Yes, Rush Hour Brett Ratner!
> And Family Man! He is comedy and they get him for a Hannibal Lecter film. He
> better prove me wrong or I'll.....be upset.
I thought Manhunter was a better film than Hannibal... Admittedly Hannibal Lecter is played by the wrong man, but then I'm saying that having seen Hopkins in the role first and hindsight is a wonderful thing. I think the new version will probably be very different from the old one. They're almost certain to give Lecter a larger role than he's meant to have. Should be interesting...
and Ed Norton is exactly the way I pictured Will Graham to be when I read the book.. well almost.. my vision of Will Graham is a sort of Graham Coxon (the guitarist from Blur)... don't know why but there we go.
>Manhunter - admittedly the worst in the series but
> still really good. It's being remade with Hopkins and Ed Norton now. Sounds good
> until you hear who the director is. Brett Ratner! Yes, Rush Hour Brett Ratner!
> And Family Man! He is comedy and they get him for a Hannibal Lecter film. He
> better prove me wrong or I'll.....be upset.
I thought Manhunter was a better film than Hannibal... Admittedly Hannibal Lecter is played by the wrong man, but then I'm saying that having seen Hopkins in the role first and hindsight is a wonderful thing. I think the new version will probably be very different from the old one. They're almost certain to give Lecter a larger role than he's meant to have. Should be interesting...
and Ed Norton is exactly the way I pictured Will Graham to be when I read the book.. well almost.. my vision of Will Graham is a sort of Graham Coxon (the guitarist from Blur)... don't know why but there we go.
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> Am I the only one who doesn't like what he's seen of Scorsese?
Nah, Scorsese isn't to everyone's tastes. In my opinion the guy is a genius, but he's made a fair few shockers in his time as well as classics.
Besides being
> unable to pronounce his name properly,
Score-say-zee
I didn't especially like Goodfellas or
> Raging Bull. They seemed a bit slow and undramatic - I suppose that could be
> expected as both are based on real life events though.
"Raging Bull" is one of my favourite films, mainly because it's one of the few innovative biopics of a famous person. The boxing scenes take a back seat and he uses the film to analyse masculinity instead of the boxer. I think it's brilliant, but I can see that not everyone would like it.
Same with Coens - only seen O
> Brother.
Yeah, I'm a big Coens fan as you might have spotted :-) There first film was "Blood Simple" that you can get quite cheaply now. That was basically a critics' film, and they got some stick about it because some people thought they had made it just to establish themselvs as quickly as possible. It's a great film though. Then there was "Raising Arizona", which was their most commercially successful film, bar "O Brother". After that they made the superb "Miller's Crossing", which has a labrythine plot and rules considerably. Then there was Barton Fink, which should have been a smash but wasn't, despite cleaning up at the Cannes awards ceremony. "The Hudsucker Proxy" is a good film but it bombed in all senses of the word, being pretty much universally underliked. "Fargo" won oscars but wasn't that big a success, given that it was an oscar-winner, "Big Lebowski" was moderate hit and "O Brother" is probably their most commercial film. The things people dislike about the Coens are the lack of closure in many of their films (lots of questions remain unanswered and for some the films just end abruptly) and others think their films are too technical and lack heart. In my opinion they are the best film *makers* in America, if not the world, at the present time. I mean that in the sense that you could give them an awful script and they would still produce a technical masterpiece, whether they make the best films or not is still debatable.
Lynch...Mulholland was great, Blue Velvet was poor. I think I must
> have missed something somewhere in the middle...there is an insert in the DVD
> case that talks about catchphrases and character contrasts, neither of which I
> noticed.
"Blue Velvet" is a bad film noir, because it's mystery elements are poor and under-developed. But that's because Lynch isn't trying to make a film noir; he's trying to show the dark side of suburbia. If you look at the opening shot of the perfect utopia with red rose gardens and a fireman waving to the camera then you would think that everything was perfect. Lynch shows you that underneath the perfect grass there's a far darker world where the insects fight and it's under this grass that Kyle Macwhatever finds a dismembered ear. From that ear Lynch piece by piece brings darkness into the previously perfect world. And Frank is the darkest of them all. For me he is the best bad guy in any film I've ever seen. Hopper makes him so scary in ways that other bad guys aren't scary. If anything then Frank is sinister; other movie villains may have scared you but they weren't as sinister as Frank in "Blue Velvet". The point of the film is to juxtapose the so-called perfect suburbia with its own dark underbelly. Everything in that opening scene is contradicted and exposed as a lie. Lynch basically shows you the underbelly of American suburbia.
Aronofsky rocks, Requiem ruled so much that I'm afraid to watch it
> again, and Pi was pretty good for the budget they had.
The commentary on Pi's really funny because you realise how tight the budget was. All the props belong to Aronofsky's Dad, who ended up playing a tough guy himself after one of the extras didn't turn up. Aronofsky shot most of it guerilla style without permits on the subway, meaning that they had to film at 3:00am when no-one was around to catch them. And it was all made on $40,000 dollars, money well-spent if you ask me. And Requiem is oustandingly good. How Ellen Burstyn did not win best actress is beyond me. If I remember correctly then Julia Roberts pipped her to the Oscar for her oustanding talent in wearing push-up bras. Oh yes, now Erin Brokovich was an acting masterclass.
Mendes only had
> one decent film to my knowledge. It did rule though.
Yeah, Sam Mendes' first film was "American Beauty", before that he produced theatre plays.
Oliver Stone anyone? JFK
> and Natural Born Killers are all that I've seen, but from the looks of them he
> is a damn fine director.
Stone's a legend. I think he directed "Any Given Sunday". And that's the best shot American football movie I've seen, which is ironic because the football plays a minor role in relation to everything else that goes on around it.
Speilburg has a few great films, but he slips into
> the realm of cheese to often.
Jaws!! Jaws rocked and then cheesy music took over and the days of Jaws were forgotten.
> Am I the only one who doesn't like what he's seen of Scorsese?
Nah, Scorsese isn't to everyone's tastes. In my opinion the guy is a genius, but he's made a fair few shockers in his time as well as classics.
Besides being
> unable to pronounce his name properly,
Score-say-zee
I didn't especially like Goodfellas or
> Raging Bull. They seemed a bit slow and undramatic - I suppose that could be
> expected as both are based on real life events though.
"Raging Bull" is one of my favourite films, mainly because it's one of the few innovative biopics of a famous person. The boxing scenes take a back seat and he uses the film to analyse masculinity instead of the boxer. I think it's brilliant, but I can see that not everyone would like it.
Same with Coens - only seen O
> Brother.
Yeah, I'm a big Coens fan as you might have spotted :-) There first film was "Blood Simple" that you can get quite cheaply now. That was basically a critics' film, and they got some stick about it because some people thought they had made it just to establish themselvs as quickly as possible. It's a great film though. Then there was "Raising Arizona", which was their most commercially successful film, bar "O Brother". After that they made the superb "Miller's Crossing", which has a labrythine plot and rules considerably. Then there was Barton Fink, which should have been a smash but wasn't, despite cleaning up at the Cannes awards ceremony. "The Hudsucker Proxy" is a good film but it bombed in all senses of the word, being pretty much universally underliked. "Fargo" won oscars but wasn't that big a success, given that it was an oscar-winner, "Big Lebowski" was moderate hit and "O Brother" is probably their most commercial film. The things people dislike about the Coens are the lack of closure in many of their films (lots of questions remain unanswered and for some the films just end abruptly) and others think their films are too technical and lack heart. In my opinion they are the best film *makers* in America, if not the world, at the present time. I mean that in the sense that you could give them an awful script and they would still produce a technical masterpiece, whether they make the best films or not is still debatable.
Lynch...Mulholland was great, Blue Velvet was poor. I think I must
> have missed something somewhere in the middle...there is an insert in the DVD
> case that talks about catchphrases and character contrasts, neither of which I
> noticed.
"Blue Velvet" is a bad film noir, because it's mystery elements are poor and under-developed. But that's because Lynch isn't trying to make a film noir; he's trying to show the dark side of suburbia. If you look at the opening shot of the perfect utopia with red rose gardens and a fireman waving to the camera then you would think that everything was perfect. Lynch shows you that underneath the perfect grass there's a far darker world where the insects fight and it's under this grass that Kyle Macwhatever finds a dismembered ear. From that ear Lynch piece by piece brings darkness into the previously perfect world. And Frank is the darkest of them all. For me he is the best bad guy in any film I've ever seen. Hopper makes him so scary in ways that other bad guys aren't scary. If anything then Frank is sinister; other movie villains may have scared you but they weren't as sinister as Frank in "Blue Velvet". The point of the film is to juxtapose the so-called perfect suburbia with its own dark underbelly. Everything in that opening scene is contradicted and exposed as a lie. Lynch basically shows you the underbelly of American suburbia.
Aronofsky rocks, Requiem ruled so much that I'm afraid to watch it
> again, and Pi was pretty good for the budget they had.
The commentary on Pi's really funny because you realise how tight the budget was. All the props belong to Aronofsky's Dad, who ended up playing a tough guy himself after one of the extras didn't turn up. Aronofsky shot most of it guerilla style without permits on the subway, meaning that they had to film at 3:00am when no-one was around to catch them. And it was all made on $40,000 dollars, money well-spent if you ask me. And Requiem is oustandingly good. How Ellen Burstyn did not win best actress is beyond me. If I remember correctly then Julia Roberts pipped her to the Oscar for her oustanding talent in wearing push-up bras. Oh yes, now Erin Brokovich was an acting masterclass.
Mendes only had
> one decent film to my knowledge. It did rule though.
Yeah, Sam Mendes' first film was "American Beauty", before that he produced theatre plays.
Oliver Stone anyone? JFK
> and Natural Born Killers are all that I've seen, but from the looks of them he
> is a damn fine director.
Stone's a legend. I think he directed "Any Given Sunday". And that's the best shot American football movie I've seen, which is ironic because the football plays a minor role in relation to everything else that goes on around it.
Speilburg has a few great films, but he slips into
> the realm of cheese to often.
Jaws!! Jaws rocked and then cheesy music took over and the days of Jaws were forgotten.
John Carpenter!!
Oh and how could I forget Michael Mann?!
Heat - the greatest film ever made!
LA Takedown - first attempt at Heat. Not bad. Low budget. :-D
Last of the Mohicans (which I recently got on DVD) - great film. Brilliant battle scenes.
Thief - excellent debut film. Let's say it was a lot better than Spielberg's first attempt anyway. :-D
The Insider - another great film.
Ali - Not seen it myself. I never had any plan to either until I heard it was Michael Mann.
Manhunter - admittedly the worst in the series but still really good. It's being remade with Hopkins and Ed Norton now. Sounds good until you hear who the director is. Brett Ratner! Yes, Rush Hour Brett Ratner! And Family Man! He is comedy and they get him for a Hannibal Lecter film. He better prove me wrong or I'll.....be upset.
Heat - the greatest film ever made!
LA Takedown - first attempt at Heat. Not bad. Low budget. :-D
Last of the Mohicans (which I recently got on DVD) - great film. Brilliant battle scenes.
Thief - excellent debut film. Let's say it was a lot better than Spielberg's first attempt anyway. :-D
The Insider - another great film.
Ali - Not seen it myself. I never had any plan to either until I heard it was Michael Mann.
Manhunter - admittedly the worst in the series but still really good. It's being remade with Hopkins and Ed Norton now. Sounds good until you hear who the director is. Brett Ratner! Yes, Rush Hour Brett Ratner! And Family Man! He is comedy and they get him for a Hannibal Lecter film. He better prove me wrong or I'll.....be upset.
Oh and before anyone asks why I have all these Lynch videos if I don't like him, it's because they're my dads. He is a big Lynch fan. And if Mulholland Drive is released before 6th May in the UK (uwhich is unlikely) then I'll get him that for his Birthday.
It's the 16th of April in the US so there is chance at least.
It's the 16th of April in the US so there is chance at least.
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> Am I the only one who doesn't like what he's seen of Scorsese? Besides being
> unable to pronounce his name properly, I didn't especially like Goodfellas or
> Raging Bull. They seemed a bit slow and undramatic - I suppose that could be
> expected as both are based on real life events though.
I must admit Raging
> Bull didn't get a fair shot with me...I watched it in about 4 sittings, having
> to stop every time a family member walked in the room.
I think Scorsese is great. I love Casino and Goodfellas although I was a bit disappointed with Raging Bull. I never thought much of that except for when De Niro and Pesci were arguing. :-D Mean Streets was good too actually. And I seem to remember Bringing Out the Dead was donw by Scorsese. That was one of the funniest films I had ever seen the first time. All the jokes were unexpected and there was not one bad performance. However, watching it again I only laughed once! None of the jokes were a surprise anymore so it just wasn't funny. So....I swapped the DVD permanently for Perfect Storm. Worst mistake I ever made! And of course Tax Driver was brilliant. Didn't think too much of it the first time but I was pretty young. Saw it again last year and thought it was great.
I couldn't say
> Hitchcock because I have only seen The Birds - I think I'm going to order Psycho
> when I get paid though.
I don't mind Hitchcock but I don't think he is that good. I remember seeing The Birds when I was really young and it scared the hell out of me despite having no music. I suppose that means he WAS the master of suspense but I was only about 4 so it wasn't too difficult to scare me. :-D Psycho wasn't bad. It wasn't anything special but since I only saw it a few years ago, that's understandable. I can see how it was so good at the time. I must admit though, I really enjoyed Strangers on a Train.
Same with Coens - only seen O
> Brother.
That's their worst one I think. I wasn't impressed with it at all. Fargo is their best in my opinion. It's just such a brilliant film, and Frances McDormund and William H Macy are excellent in it. In fact, everyone is good in it. Everybody seems not to like The Big Lebowski but I love it! John Turturro may only have a tiny role but I'm in hysterics whenever he's on screen. Millerws Crossing is pretty serious and I love that too. Gabriel Byrne is great. I think their darkest film though, without a doubt is Blood Simple. I bought that on VHS a few years back and seriously regret it. It is good, don't get me wrong. But it is far TOO dark and depressing that I'd never want to watch it again. I was waiting for The Man who wasn't There to be released near me but it never was. I'll have to wait for it on DVD now. 22nd of April I think.
Lynch...Mulholland was great, Blue Velvet was poor. I think I must
> have missed something somewhere in the middle...there is an insert in the DVD
> case that talks about catchphrases and character contrasts, neither of which I
> noticed.
I think Lynch is just too wierd. Eraserhead was the first film I saw of his (knowing it was him anyway. I saw Dune before that) and it was, and still is, the strangest thing I've ever seen. I hated it! Blue Velvet I thought was actually quite good. Dennis Hopper was brilliant in it, although I don't like Kyle Mchlaghin (how the hell do you spell his name?!). I've been wanting to see Wild at Heart for quite some time now too. I have it on video somewhere but I can't find it. I have seen bits and pieces and it looks great. Lost Highway is another I've got and never watched as well. All that switching identities though, doesn't appeal to me at all. Straight Story has got to be the only U rated film he has done though. It was still strange but nothing by comaprison to his other films. It wasn't bad actually. I didn't have too high expectations for it but I was pleasantly surprised. Based on a true story wasn't it?
Never seen any of
> Coppella or Altman. No, not even The Godfather or Short Cuts.
Godfather films are good. Got them on DVD ages ago and I've still not watched number 3. But 1 and 2 are good. I saw Gosford Park a week or so ago as well. I was really impressed by that. Going into the cinema, I knew nothing about it except it was a Robert Altman film. So I was quite surprised when I saw a really old car driving and then 1931 appeared on the screen. But it was really good. Had me thinking the whole way through. I don't think Helen Mirren should have been nominated for an oscar though. Maggie Smith, definitely, and even though I haven't seen a Beautiful Mind yet, I wish she had won. I've not seen Shortcuts though. When it was on TV, I started watching it, but since it started at about midnight and was 3 hours long, I fell asleep. :-D
Oliver Stone anyone? JFK
> and Natural Born Killers are all that I've seen, but from the looks of them he
> is a damn fine director.
I like Oliver Stone. Platoon is a great film in my opinion. And I absolutely love the music! I saw NBK quite recently and liked it. I'm hoping to get the DVD for Easter now. A bit annoying since the region 1 DVD is the director's cut and the UK version isn't! Grrrr....But anyway, do you think it's a bit inappropriate getting it for Easter. I mean, doesn't Easter represent new life when Jesus rose again or something. And here I am getting a film all about killing people. :-D Any Given Sunday wasn't too bad either. Not great but not bad. And did Stone not do Wall Street? That was pretty good. Though I must admit I'm much more a fan of Martin sheen than Charlie Sheen. They were both in it, but Martin was in much less. In fact, they did actually play father and son, didn't they?
Speilburg has a few great films, but he slips into
> the realm of cheese to often.
I think Spielberg is great! A.I, Jaws, Jurassic Park, Close Encounters, Saving Private Ryan. All great films. I admit, he has made some dismal ones too. The Lost World and Duel for example. Mind you, the latter was his debut I bnelieve. But Jaws. That IS brilliant!!!
I think thats about it....
What about Ridley Scott!? He has got to rank quite highly. Blade Runner, Alien, Gladiator, Hannibal. And Hannibal WAS better than Lambs! :-D
And James Cameron. Aliens, Terminator 1 and 2, True Lies (great comedy at least), The Abyss and (no one's gonna like this) Titanic. He has got to be one of the best sci-fi directors anyway. And him teaming up with Ridley Scott for Alien 5 should be quite interesting.
> Am I the only one who doesn't like what he's seen of Scorsese? Besides being
> unable to pronounce his name properly, I didn't especially like Goodfellas or
> Raging Bull. They seemed a bit slow and undramatic - I suppose that could be
> expected as both are based on real life events though.
I must admit Raging
> Bull didn't get a fair shot with me...I watched it in about 4 sittings, having
> to stop every time a family member walked in the room.
I think Scorsese is great. I love Casino and Goodfellas although I was a bit disappointed with Raging Bull. I never thought much of that except for when De Niro and Pesci were arguing. :-D Mean Streets was good too actually. And I seem to remember Bringing Out the Dead was donw by Scorsese. That was one of the funniest films I had ever seen the first time. All the jokes were unexpected and there was not one bad performance. However, watching it again I only laughed once! None of the jokes were a surprise anymore so it just wasn't funny. So....I swapped the DVD permanently for Perfect Storm. Worst mistake I ever made! And of course Tax Driver was brilliant. Didn't think too much of it the first time but I was pretty young. Saw it again last year and thought it was great.
I couldn't say
> Hitchcock because I have only seen The Birds - I think I'm going to order Psycho
> when I get paid though.
I don't mind Hitchcock but I don't think he is that good. I remember seeing The Birds when I was really young and it scared the hell out of me despite having no music. I suppose that means he WAS the master of suspense but I was only about 4 so it wasn't too difficult to scare me. :-D Psycho wasn't bad. It wasn't anything special but since I only saw it a few years ago, that's understandable. I can see how it was so good at the time. I must admit though, I really enjoyed Strangers on a Train.
Same with Coens - only seen O
> Brother.
That's their worst one I think. I wasn't impressed with it at all. Fargo is their best in my opinion. It's just such a brilliant film, and Frances McDormund and William H Macy are excellent in it. In fact, everyone is good in it. Everybody seems not to like The Big Lebowski but I love it! John Turturro may only have a tiny role but I'm in hysterics whenever he's on screen. Millerws Crossing is pretty serious and I love that too. Gabriel Byrne is great. I think their darkest film though, without a doubt is Blood Simple. I bought that on VHS a few years back and seriously regret it. It is good, don't get me wrong. But it is far TOO dark and depressing that I'd never want to watch it again. I was waiting for The Man who wasn't There to be released near me but it never was. I'll have to wait for it on DVD now. 22nd of April I think.
Lynch...Mulholland was great, Blue Velvet was poor. I think I must
> have missed something somewhere in the middle...there is an insert in the DVD
> case that talks about catchphrases and character contrasts, neither of which I
> noticed.
I think Lynch is just too wierd. Eraserhead was the first film I saw of his (knowing it was him anyway. I saw Dune before that) and it was, and still is, the strangest thing I've ever seen. I hated it! Blue Velvet I thought was actually quite good. Dennis Hopper was brilliant in it, although I don't like Kyle Mchlaghin (how the hell do you spell his name?!). I've been wanting to see Wild at Heart for quite some time now too. I have it on video somewhere but I can't find it. I have seen bits and pieces and it looks great. Lost Highway is another I've got and never watched as well. All that switching identities though, doesn't appeal to me at all. Straight Story has got to be the only U rated film he has done though. It was still strange but nothing by comaprison to his other films. It wasn't bad actually. I didn't have too high expectations for it but I was pleasantly surprised. Based on a true story wasn't it?
Never seen any of
> Coppella or Altman. No, not even The Godfather or Short Cuts.
Godfather films are good. Got them on DVD ages ago and I've still not watched number 3. But 1 and 2 are good. I saw Gosford Park a week or so ago as well. I was really impressed by that. Going into the cinema, I knew nothing about it except it was a Robert Altman film. So I was quite surprised when I saw a really old car driving and then 1931 appeared on the screen. But it was really good. Had me thinking the whole way through. I don't think Helen Mirren should have been nominated for an oscar though. Maggie Smith, definitely, and even though I haven't seen a Beautiful Mind yet, I wish she had won. I've not seen Shortcuts though. When it was on TV, I started watching it, but since it started at about midnight and was 3 hours long, I fell asleep. :-D
Oliver Stone anyone? JFK
> and Natural Born Killers are all that I've seen, but from the looks of them he
> is a damn fine director.
I like Oliver Stone. Platoon is a great film in my opinion. And I absolutely love the music! I saw NBK quite recently and liked it. I'm hoping to get the DVD for Easter now. A bit annoying since the region 1 DVD is the director's cut and the UK version isn't! Grrrr....But anyway, do you think it's a bit inappropriate getting it for Easter. I mean, doesn't Easter represent new life when Jesus rose again or something. And here I am getting a film all about killing people. :-D Any Given Sunday wasn't too bad either. Not great but not bad. And did Stone not do Wall Street? That was pretty good. Though I must admit I'm much more a fan of Martin sheen than Charlie Sheen. They were both in it, but Martin was in much less. In fact, they did actually play father and son, didn't they?
Speilburg has a few great films, but he slips into
> the realm of cheese to often.
I think Spielberg is great! A.I, Jaws, Jurassic Park, Close Encounters, Saving Private Ryan. All great films. I admit, he has made some dismal ones too. The Lost World and Duel for example. Mind you, the latter was his debut I bnelieve. But Jaws. That IS brilliant!!!
I think thats about it....
What about Ridley Scott!? He has got to rank quite highly. Blade Runner, Alien, Gladiator, Hannibal. And Hannibal WAS better than Lambs! :-D
And James Cameron. Aliens, Terminator 1 and 2, True Lies (great comedy at least), The Abyss and (no one's gonna like this) Titanic. He has got to be one of the best sci-fi directors anyway. And him teaming up with Ridley Scott for Alien 5 should be quite interesting.
Am I the only one who doesn't like what he's seen of Scorsese?
Besides being unable to pronounce his name properly, I didn't especially like Goodfellas or Raging Bull. They seemed a bit slow and undramatic - I suppose that could be expected as both are based on real life events though.
I must admit Raging Bull didn't get a fair shot with me...I watched it in about 4 sittings, having to stop every time a family member walked in the room.
I couldn't say Hitchcock because I have only seen The Birds - I think I'm going to order Psycho when I get paid though.
Same with Coens - only seen O Brother.
Lynch...Mulholland was great, Blue Velvet was poor. I think I must have missed something somewhere in the middle...there is an insert in the DVD case that talks about catchphrases and character contrasts, neither of which I noticed.
Aronofsky rocks, Requiem ruled so much that I'm afraid to watch it again, and Pi was pretty good for the budget they had.
Never seen any of Coppella or Altman. No, not even The Godfather or Short Cuts.
Mendes only had one decent film to my knowledge. It did rule though.
Oliver Stone anyone? JFK and Natural Born Killers are all that I've seen, but from the looks of them he is a damn fine director.
Speilburg has a few great films, but he slips into the realm of cheese to often.
I think thats about it....
Besides being unable to pronounce his name properly, I didn't especially like Goodfellas or Raging Bull. They seemed a bit slow and undramatic - I suppose that could be expected as both are based on real life events though.
I must admit Raging Bull didn't get a fair shot with me...I watched it in about 4 sittings, having to stop every time a family member walked in the room.
I couldn't say Hitchcock because I have only seen The Birds - I think I'm going to order Psycho when I get paid though.
Same with Coens - only seen O Brother.
Lynch...Mulholland was great, Blue Velvet was poor. I think I must have missed something somewhere in the middle...there is an insert in the DVD case that talks about catchphrases and character contrasts, neither of which I noticed.
Aronofsky rocks, Requiem ruled so much that I'm afraid to watch it again, and Pi was pretty good for the budget they had.
Never seen any of Coppella or Altman. No, not even The Godfather or Short Cuts.
Mendes only had one decent film to my knowledge. It did rule though.
Oliver Stone anyone? JFK and Natural Born Killers are all that I've seen, but from the looks of them he is a damn fine director.
Speilburg has a few great films, but he slips into the realm of cheese to often.
I think thats about it....
Nah, the spoilers were for other films, well actually only Fight CLub really, and the Usual Suspects.
I just said enigmatic ending for the French connection which is true, and widely publicised. There are no Barton Fink spoilers... well, there's a half spolier but other reviews have mentioned it too so I thought I'd get away with it.
I just said enigmatic ending for the French connection which is true, and widely publicised. There are no Barton Fink spoilers... well, there's a half spolier but other reviews have mentioned it too so I thought I'd get away with it.
Mr. Happy wrote:
>Yes! A coens fan! Go read my Barton Fink post down the list... please!
I read most of it, but then I read some of the replies saying it was full of spoilers. And I haven't seen The French Connection, so I had to stop. You're right, though, it is great.
>Yes! A coens fan! Go read my Barton Fink post down the list... please!
I read most of it, but then I read some of the replies saying it was full of spoilers. And I haven't seen The French Connection, so I had to stop. You're right, though, it is great.
Page: