What movie did you last watch?

[ExistentialDisorder]

Okay. I didn't know there was a japanese sequel to the ring. i knew the ring was originally japanese tho. Course that doesn't mean holywood won't try making a 3rd part anyway. that does happen sometimes. but since i'm thinking about it, what the hell is it with all the japanese remakes? for that matter, all the american remakes too?? Have they all run out of new ideas for movies?

Oh, and just to note, The Grudge fucking sucked. HARD. I didn't even buy it and I still wanted a refund. That's nearly 2 hours of my life that I'll never get back... Was the original that bad? wait... I probably don't even want to know the answer to that

[AlKilyu]

The original Grudges were indeed better, but since you liked the American Ring sequel, I don't think there is any need for me to expound on why.

[ExistentialDisorder]

Go ahead and expound. I have not seen them. Its just been my experience that if a remake is horrible, the original is even worse. but there are exceptions to every rule. as for the ring 1 and 2, i thought they were both good films. that doesn't mean i would think the originals are better or worse, until i've seen them.

[Loy]

ExDis-if the remake is horrible, the original is worse? Have you ever seen movies? I'm just curious, because if you hhave, then you'd realise the complete idiocy of this statement.

[AlKilyu]

Yeah I didn't understand that ALTHOUGH Ringu was a great movie, but even other Asians remade it. You can say The Ring was made for Americans who don't want to "read movies" and want blonde hair blue eyed heros, but there is a movie called The Ring Virus made in...Korea!

Speaking of The Ring/Ringu, I am going out on a limb and say that there is a rare case where the American remake is better. The original, as well as the movie released at the exact same time as Ringu, Rasen, was the official sequel in the book series and explains everything. The American remake took all the science out of it and just left you with a fucked up ghost story. Much better that way.

Why would they remake a movie if the original sucked? Ever hear of the Ishtar remake coming out later this year? No? Wanna know why?

[ExistentialDisorder]

It's all a matter of personal opinion. If you'll read, I said that it has been my experience... meaning that my experience in watching remakes that I thought sucked results in the original film sucking even harder. How does that not make sense? Unless you're the type that believes everything, or most everything, that comes from the American film industry is crap. Which in that case it's pointless to even discuss anything about it. There are films out there that really are a waste of good film. Add to that time and money. I can appreciate films that are made with the intention of being horrible, as it shows a sense of humor and sarcasm on the part of those who made it. Orgasmo would be a perfect example of that, just off the top of my head. And there's countless others.

But when I see people saying that the original was better - lets take King Kong for example - I just wonder what the fuck these people are smoking. I've actually heard people say the original Kong was so much better than the remake. Now, I'll just assume they mean the story line and not the actual visuals. Its been too long since I've seen the original kong films but just from memory they were embarrassingly horrible. I have not seen the remake, (nor do I really care to as I can't stand Jack Black). But I've seen enough previews to know it has to be better visually, than the originals. It also seems to expand more on the backstory. But maybe not. A remake is suppose to improve on something, whether its the story line or the acting, visuals, all of the above, etc. So if the remake STILL sucks shit? That doesn't say much for the original.

As for foreign films - no offense to anybody, honest - but as a rule I will not watch subtitled films. If I want to read I'll pick up a book. I don't mind if there's a few scenes here and there with subtitles, but when the entire film is subtitled, then nope. Very very rare that I'll have the patience for it. Unless its a subtitled film that is done in a way that you really dont need to know what is being said in order to understand what's going on. Passion of the Christ is a good example of that. Not that I'm a Gibson fan of any kind, but that's irrelevant.

I've always been very visual, so I like films that are visually appealing to me. I pay close attention to camera angles and movement, lighting effects, color filtering, tint, out of focus objects, scenery, etc. The more creative and abstract, for lack of a better word, they get with those sort of things, the more interested I am. So when I have to read what is being said, it distracts from being able to enjoy the visuals. And they usually flash it too fast to read the entire line anyway. Remember the old detective show Homicide? I loved the way they filmed that. show.

[Loy]

ExDis-As far as "King Long" is concerned....as far as visuals are concerned, the new one TOTALLY kicks all over the original one. However, the original is a very important part of both film history (one of the earliest sound films, and also the one with the best special effects for its time.....not to mention the whole "Saturday Post-Cartoon Movie" thing, which is how most people saw the original in the first place). Storywise.....well, let's face it. As much as I love Peter Jackson rocks, the one thing he forgot about was compactness, as in "the original told the same story in a leaner, more economical way". (plus, one fuck-up on Jackson's part-making the "Beauty And The Beast" basis of the story more explicit.)

As for remakes.....well, the problem with most modern remakes is that they're done for the quick buck. I've made a quick list of remakes, and the films they remade, and you can tell me which one is better-

"Payback" (remake of "Point Blank")
"Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (remake of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre")
"Dawn Of The Dead" (remake of "Dawn Of The Dead")
"Meet Joe Black" (remake of "Death Takes A Holiday")
"City Of Angels" (remake of "Wings Of Desire")
"Reservoir Dogs" (remake of "City On Fire")
"Titanic" (remake of "A Night To Remember")
"Last Man Standing" (remake of "Fistfull Of Dollars", which was a remake of "Yojimbo")
"Cheaper By The Dozen" (remake of "Cheaper By The Dozen")
any Woody Allen film post-"Xelig" (remake of films by Bergman and/or Fellini)
"The Producers" (remake of "The Producers")
"The Talented Mr. Ripley" (remake of "Purple Noon")
"Taxi" (remake of "Taxi")
"You've Got Mail" (remake of "Shop Around The Corner")
"Sleepless In Seattle" (remake/reworking of "An Affair To Remember")
"Shaft" (remake of "Shaft")
"Star Wars" (reworking of "The Hidden Fortress")
"The Ladykillers" (remake of "The Ladykillers")
"Bedazzled" (remake of "Bedazzled")
"War Of The Worlds" (remake of "War Of The Worlds")
"Ocean's 11" (remake of "Ocean's 11")

I could pull up a more complete list if you'd like

As far as shutting out foreign films because you don't wanna read....well, here's my standby response whenever I hear this remark-"god forbid that a film make you...well, gosh, think." Take that as you may.

Al-whilst there is a a perfectly logical explanation in "Ringu", the explanation isn't complete....thus the "BOO!" scenes. I do prefer "Ringu" over "Ring", but that's probably because I saw "Ringu" first (LOOOOONG ago)

[ExistentialDisorder]

Okay Loy. I'll go through your list.

"Payback" (remake of "Point Blank") Not sure if I ever saw this. Mel Gibson or Harrison Ford? I might be confusing it with something else.

"Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (remake of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre") Remake was extremely graphic and much more believable. I've only seen clips and pieces of the original but that was enough to wonder who the fuck ever gave that moron a camera. Honestly. Elementary school students could do better. And probably have.

"Dawn Of The Dead" (remake of "Dawn Of The Dead") Remake was nothing spectacular. The make-up was better. The story itself is pointless because there's no explanation of what caused the zombies to wake up. I never saw the original, that I can remember. But its from roughly the same time period as Night of the Living Dead, isn't it?

"Meet Joe Black" (remake of "Death Takes A Holiday") Never saw either one.

"City Of Angels" (remake of "Wings Of Desire") City of Angels pissed me off because she died. But made for a really good "moral of the story". Never saw the original.

"Reservoir Dogs" (remake of "City On Fire") Never saw either one. I really don't like Quentin Tarentino. However you spell that... If its even his film...

"Titanic" (remake of "A Night To Remember") Titanic sucked. Sorry. my opinion. Never saw the original. How is that even the original, considering how many other takes on the titanic that there are? Was just another bleeding heart sob story imo.

"Last Man Standing" (remake of "Fistfull Of Dollars", which was a remake of "Yojimbo") Never saw any of them.

"Cheaper By The Dozen" (remake of "Cheaper By The Dozen") Never saw either one.

any Woody Allen film post-"Xelig" (remake of films by Bergman and/or Fellini) Can't stand Woody Allen. Just looking at him makes me gag.

"The Producers" (remake of "The Producers") Never saw either one. If this is that new film, with the guy from Bird Cage and the other one, Parker's husband.. damn why can't i remember names at the moment... then no. I hate musicals. So no appeal.

"The Talented Mr. Ripley" (remake of "Purple Noon") Never saw either one. I really don't like Matt Damon so I ignore most of his films. Except that I did enjoy Dogma, for its sarcasm and humor.

"Taxi" (remake of "Taxi") Was this based on the tv show? The remake with Latifa looked stupid, so no. And if it was the tv show, I hated that when I was a kid too. Parents loved it.

"You've Got Mail" (remake of "Shop Around The Corner") Another corny-ass "romantic comedy" that doesn't appeal to me.

"Sleepless In Seattle" (remake/reworking of "An Affair To Remember") See above.

"Shaft" (remake of "Shaft") Never saw either.

"Star Wars" (reworking of "The Hidden Fortress") Where do you get this from? Lucas borrowed bits of several classic fantasy tales to create the story.

"The Ladykillers" (remake of "The Ladykillers") I thought it was entertaining. Nothing spectacular. Never saw the original.

"Bedazzled" (remake of "Bedazzled") Never saw either.

"War Of The Worlds" (remake of "War Of The Worlds") Read the book and watched the original in HS, but honestly I can't remember if the film was good or bad. I'd probably remember if I thought it was horrible. Still, I thought the remake was good, at least visually. I don't remember the book or the movie focusing so much on one family tho.

"Ocean's 11" (remake of "Ocean's 11") Nothing spectacular. I like Julia Roberts in most of her work. Never saw the original.

Let me guess. You're going to tell me that the original Amittyville Horror was much more a work of art than the remake too, aren't you?(Reference above with chainsaw masacre) The piggybank with glowing eyes, all the way man! ;-)

A film that makes you think does not have to be one that makes you read. In fact, there are times when visuals can tell a much more compelling story than dialogue ever could, especially in the hands of the right director. As I said, if I want to read I'll pick up a book. Let me think on some examples for you, of films that really make you think.

Just off the top of my head, I loved The Village. I don't know of anyone else I've ever spoken to that liked it. Everybody hated it. Think about the story behind it though. Too many people want to take a movie for what it is on the surface without digging into the deeper meaning or message.

[ExistentialDisorder]

One thing I don't get with the Ring films is the title. What about the originals caused the title to be The Ring? What does Ringu mean? And is this explained in the other parts that were not remade for mindless, shallow americans?

[AlKilyu]

The author was halfway thru the story when she decided it was time to title her book. She thumbed through a Japanese/American Dictionary and came across the word "ring" and thought it fit well (the spiral, the dna double helix, the loop) and the Japanese, don't ask me the rules I don't know, add u's to the end of some English words, like pants are "pantsu". I had thought it was in regards to the circular light from within the well also.


Heh you went through Loy's list...and I don't know why. Wouldn't it have been easier just to say that you never saw those movies?

As for subtitles and that line about reading movies and "If I wanted to read I'd grab a book" schtick: bullshit. I don't know how long it takes, but you do get to a point where you can quick dart your eyes down, get the dialog, then look back at the visuals. And it isn't like the text is seperate from the movie, it's right there at the bottom! I am not trying to be a movie snob, but the reading movie line always irked me.


"City On Fire", that was Chow Yun Fat. I had a copy of that movie just cause I was a fan of him but that is without a doubt where he got the idea for "Reservoir Dogs". Remember in "Dogs" where they talked about the heist and you never really saw what happened? "City On Fire" is more of an actual movie complete with those scenes. Both "Ring" and "Reservoir Dogs" leave something to the imagination, which works better IMO. For a culture accussed of requiring happy endings (hush pervs) and stories that spell out everything, I think it's great that sometimes we are the better of the two.

[Empty_Purple_Stars]

Plus when you watch any type of Asian movie with English dubbing instead 0f English subtitles, you totally lose the thread of the actual story.

Their English voice translations are funny but terrible.

Subtitles all the way Babe-ee.

[Metatron]

I just got finished watching Schindler's List in History. Sad, sad movie.

[Empty_Purple_Stars]

Originally Posted by Metatron

I just got finished watching Schindler's List in History. Sad, sad movie.

Now go get Hotel Rwanda..

Go..

You're still sitting there..

What's seems to be the problem?

Or is it Porblem?

*Drool*

[WolfMoon]

I have a porblem with Godzirra!!!

Damn rizard keep srallaring my rerative!!!

[ExistentialDisorder]

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

The author was halfway thru the story when she decided it was time to title her book. She thumbed through a Japanese/American Dictionary and came across the word "ring" and thought it fit well (the spiral, the dna double helix, the loop) and the Japanese, don't ask me the rules I don't know, add u's to the end of some English words, like pants are "pantsu". I had thought it was in regards to the circular light from within the well also.

That's cool. I gathered from it pretty much the same as what Stone said. I just figured there might be something a bit more profound to it in the original japanese versions, than what was included in the mindless american remakes. Especially the way those around here seem to be hyping up the originals. Anyway. I wonder how much of the story has been altered or left out for the remakes.

Heh you went through Loy's list...and I don't know why. Wouldn't it have been easier just to say that you never saw those movies?

I figured he wanted my opinions on the films. So I gave those that I've seen from his list. I don't watch a ton of tv. I rarely ever go to the theater. I've probably been to the theater more in the last 2 years than I have my entire life. Primarily because I rarely ever go out anywhere other than work, and because it has to be a movie I really want to see for me to sit through a bunch of ignorant ass teenagers or some fucktard and his/her screaming toddler that has no business being there in the first place. So I wait for video releases, or for it to come on one of the cable channels - hbo, showtime, etc. I hate watching movies on network that have been edited and chopped up for commercials.

As for subtitles and that line about reading movies and "If I wanted to read I'd grab a book" schtick: bullshit. I don't know how long it takes, but you do get to a point where you can quick dart your eyes down, get the dialog, then look back at the visuals. And it isn't like the text is seperate from the movie, it's right there at the bottom! I am not trying to be a movie snob, but the reading movie line always irked me.

Irk all you want. That's my primary reason. I can't pay attention to the film and read the subtitles. I don't read that fast, never have been able to. They flash it too quick for me to read every word and I don't gather anything but confusion from speed reading. I'm mildly dyslexic, which requires me to look at each word on a screen or page and process it. It's not quite as retarded as it sounds here, but that's the best way I can explain it. My older sister has the same problem, only a bit more severe for her. It use to be a lot worse when I was younger though, and I was never allowed to read out loud in school because my slowness irritated my teachers. Heh. anway...

"City On Fire", that was Chow Yun Fat. I had a copy of that movie just cause I was a fan of him but that is without a doubt where he got the idea for "Reservoir Dogs". Remember in "Dogs" where they talked about the heist and you never really saw what happened? "City On Fire" is more of an actual movie complete with those scenes. Both "Ring" and "Reservoir Dogs" leave something to the imagination, which works better IMO. For a culture accussed of requiring happy endings (hush pervs) and stories that spell out everything, I think it's great that sometimes we are the better of the two.

Never saw City on Fire, so I wouldn't know.

For some reason I was reminded of the movie Lost Souls, with Winona Ryder and Ben Chapin. from 2002 I think. That is a movie that leaves you guessing and thinking, especially at the end.

[ExistentialDisorder]

LOL wolfmoon

[Blushing Heliophobe]

Transporter 2 just came out yesterday and I saw it. Gorgeous f'ing beautiful car, extremely outlandish and predictable plot. Ho hum...

[TeapotScar]

Transporter 2, eh? I saw the first one, and I definitely was not watching for the plot... that star was hot. And I'm pretty sure that was the point of the movie.

I saw "And Justice For All" with Al Pacino. Amazing, amazing. His acting is amazing, I have no words. It's a movie from the 70's, so the soundtrack sucked like no other, but Al Pacino is mesmirizing, and I was not bored for one second. I highly recommend it.

[Vorsuc]

Also just watched Transporter 2 .. rented out the first one to re-cap. Glad I did, there's a couple of bits that are a nod to the first (identical beginings, couple of lines of dialogue).

Sadly though it suffers for higher budget and US setting. While Miami is nice, after CSI I'm kind of thinking I know it as well as a local now.

The first movie relied on solid special effects (guns and explosions mainly) mixed in with a couple of nicely done fight scenes (the container, the bus station, kicking in the door a the mansion, etc). The second only really has one cool fight sequence (the garage) a whole bunch of dodgy CGI that just doesn't work and throws in so many cheap 2-d character that it makes the first look like Shakespeare

A kidnapping you say? Lets see, we need the over emotional mom, the distant and cold father, the hard-nosed cop who is an expert in these situations and knows precisely how the bad guys will react, etc...

As a big fan of the BMW short movies about "the driver", I loved transporter for almost being a big screen translation. Ok, they ruined it a little by giving him a name and a past, but in the second they stomp all over the "mysterious lone driver" figure by having him be a better father to his charge that his biological one as well as the "I promise I won't let anyone hurt you and I always keep my promises" line. Urgh, action hero sentimentality, someone bathe me, I feel unclean. Just look rugged, shoot and kick people in the face. If I want dialogue, I'll rent Four Weddings.

It was an enjoyable waste of an hour and a half, though if only for the one fight scene and the continued trend of the movies to show car chases don't HAVE to just be about close ups of the driver changing gear[1].


[1] See: Gone in Sixty Seconds, in which Cage is apparently driving a 7+ gear car.

[Beowulf]

Bride of Frankenstein (1933)

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

My friend and I watched Ravenous last night. It was the first time he'd seen it. He thought it was rather strange, and nothing like what he expected. I, on the other hand, loved it. Ravenous is one of my favorite films simply because it IS different. I also really like the fact that it is set shortly after the Mexican-American war. There aren't many movies set in this period, and hardly any horror/drama at that. The story was very interesting to me. Cannibalism generally isn't utilized in films as anything other than tacked on gross-out fare, while in Ravenous it was central to the plot. I was glad that there werent any CGI beasts running about and that the antagonist of the movie was a man, not a demon or monster. This made him more unsettling, in my eyes, than any horde of zombies that the hackneyed Hollywood blue screen crews could animate. The costumes are also very well done. I don't know if they're historically accurate, but I think that they looked great. I'd recommend this movie to anyone looking for something a bit off the beaten path. While not truly groundbreaking, it was interesting enough to warrant me shelling out the $9.99 to buy it on DVD.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by TStone

I’ll disagree that cannibalism generally isn’t utilized in films as anything other than tacked on gross-out fare because generally it isn’t a topic you can just tack onto a film, meaning, if it is in a film, then its role is one of predominance, owing to the fact it has such a shock and awe effect.

Point taken. Still, to those not very well versed in horror movies -to be honest I should probably include myself in that roll call- the most famous "cannibal movie" would probably be Silence Of The Lambs. Everyone remembers the immortal line "A census taker tried to test me once. I ate his liver, with some fava beans and a nice chianti", but that was the extent of the cannibal aspect of that movie. In the sequel, Hannibal, we get to see a man's brain cut into little pieces and fried in a pan. In both cases cannibalism itself was not integral to the plot of the film. It was thrown in, especially so in the case of the skillet-frying bit, purely to agitate the audience. Yet, "Hannibal The Cannibal" has been indelibly etched into popular culture as THE example of cannibalism in cinema. Again, I probably just haven't seen the bulk of movies in which cannibalism plays some role, but I'd say my experience is typical of the general moviegoing public. If anyone has any suggestions as to how I can broaden my horizons a bit, please let me know. I'm all ears. Or eyes, as it were.

I liked how Guy Pearce degenerated into a gibbering coward in the second half of Ravenous, and I also liked the ending. This is only my opinion, however, and you're surely entitled to your's as well. After all, if everyone had the same tastes we'd just be seeing the same old regurgitated drivel on the big screen hour after hour. Given the last few movies I've seen in the theater, however, I fear that's what things are coming to.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by TStone

Actually, the facet of cannibalism was integral to his character thought-out the first movie, and on into the sequels. The audience doesn’t need a constant reminder of who he’s eaten, why, where, because it’s part of his character. He seethes depravity, and you know that with Hannibal, you’re only one stupid thought away from winding up in his tummy.

To say cannibalism was tacked on to his character as an aside is a bit of a slap in the face to the writer, and the actor who brought the character to life. I mean, if he was huffing helium ala Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet, I’d concede the tacking on of a minor character trait to try and give the whole more definition, but in Hannibal’s case…it’s the driving force of who he is.

I still disagree. The fact that he, as you put it, "seethes depravity" and would kill you for appearing ignortant or tactless doesn't have anything to do with cannibalism. I say that were the story to be changed you could remove "cannibalism" and replace it with "forcibly perform unneccesary surgery" quite seamlessly. He wont eat you for being stupid, he'll just lobotomize you without anesthetic. In my mind the switch really wouldn't change the fabric of the story whatsoever. Aside from the liver-and-beans remark, the only other reference to cannibalism I can remember was in the ending when Hannibal quips "I'm having an old friend for dinner." Granted, coming up with a spiffy nickname like "Hannibal The Cannibal would be a bit tougher, as "Hannibal The Sadistic Neurosurgeon" just doesn't have the same ring, but I'm convinced that cannibalism was not an important part of the story. It was mentioned very few times and the bulk of the movie was spent dealing with the crimes of Buffalo Bill, not Hannibal Lechter.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by TStone

and Buffalo Bill…did I miss some part of the movie, but wasn’t he an extension of Hannibal’s personality, didn’t Dr. Lechter create him?

Literally, by fucking with his mind?

The fact he was a doctor of psychology, that he was well versed in the arts and had a deep appreciation of abstract thinking were all by-products of his predatory superiority. Cannibalism, then, is a by-product of that sadism motivating him. It was the most inhumane thing he could do to someone, even beyond mentally screwing with their minds, and the worst debasement he could inflict. I wouldn’t say that was trivial, not in the least.

Lechter never treated directly with Buffalo Bill. He dealt with Bill's gay lover, who ended up decapitated with his head pickled in a jar at Bill's hand. Hester Mofet; an anagram for "The Rest Of Me". Therefore, Lechter's influence on Bill would have been indirect at best. Lechter didn't create him.

Still, I never felt that Starling was in danger of becoming the monster that she hunted. That, I suppose, is a matter of interpreation. In any event, I've not the will to battle this out. I still say that cannibalism was not an integral part of the film. You probably won't be able to change my views, nor will I be able to dislodge you from your standpoint. I propose that we agree to disagree.

But you're wrong about Lechter creating Bill. He never dealt directly with Bill, just his gay lover, if I'm not mistaken. I may be wrong, and if I am I hope that someone will point it out in detail.

[Beowulf]

Lord of the Rings (animated version)