Recommend (or don't) a movie thread v2

[Sr. Mints]

89 Batman holds up really well, far better than I expected. The art design of that film was incredible, and Keaton was the best Batman

Batman Returns is as I remember, and very watchable if you haven't seen it in a while. But over what, three, four years we saw Beetlejuice, Batman, Edwards Scissorhands, Nightmare Before Christmas - and Returns suffers from the quintessential macabre motif of Tim Burton

[Harry Lime]

89 Batman will always have a special place. Returns had some worts, but it upped the entertainment value from 89, and it caught Michelle Pfeiffer in the exact minute when she was the most beautiful woman who ever lived. The set design was even more impressive in that one, it had it's own heartbeat.

[djsFlames]

As a follow up on the LOTR debate

Not liking jacksons trilogy because it was in your mind a looser adaptation of the novels and not an accurate portrayal or faithful to the source material is one thing but denying the delivery of the scope of those movies for the story they did present on a level that helped them about sweep the Oscar awards is another.

You can be an old school Tolkien fan and still appreciate what Jackson accomplished with his own vision of middle earth accepting that its not the easiest story to adapt and for the purposes of making it easier to follow and not become overly convoluted on screen for today's audiences some things need to be omitted and scaled back to help make a cohesive story arc over three 3 hour films.

The story the trilogy did present was executed extraordinarily well and the real testament to that is how well they hold up decades later. You can't tell me that Helm's Deep and Minas Turith were not thrilling sequences that to this day may still be head and shoulders above the rest in the history of film battles.

My dad was all about the whole middle earth series of books and was all about the Jackson films.

Hearing what they did to create the forced perspective that made ian McKellen appear to tower over the hobbit actors despite being in the same frame is crazy and impressive. Some of it i didn't know the details of until recently. Can't help but be in awe at what all those people put together in such a short time, from make up to sets to locations, to amazing portrayals of the characters we still love and refer back to today.

Needing source material accuracy to enjoy something must have robbed you of much of the joy the rest of us experienced taking in those masterpieces, and for that I don't envy you. But I guess you're entitled to your take on it.

Being a loose adaptation doesn't mean it wasn't really, really good. At least put your devout OG fandom aside enough to admit as much is what I'm saying.

[Wormius]

I think Jackson did a phenomenal job on Fellowship. It was just the rest with some of the sections that dragged on. I am not crazy about long, drawn out battle scenes either. It becomes boring after more than a few minutes of orcs getting slaughtered or slow motion Legolas doing some bullet-time bow and arrow shooting. It sounds like some people love that stuff, but it all seems to play out the same way and predictably.

Where the books excelled - not prattling on about battles. Getting the tone right - nobody was making Dwarf jokes or goofing around. There isn’t a need for levity. I think that was Jackson pandering to studios or he decided to go full George Lucas and make Gimli his Jar Jar Binks.

Where the books sucked - the chronology of the story telling. Jackson did a good job making it linear, instead of that “you just finished reading what group A did, now lets start back at the beginning and follow group B” style that Tolkien used.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Where the movies excelled is at being good movies. Where the books excelled is at being good books.

I like good movies and I like good books. Books involve reading and imagination. Movies involve watching and listening.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

As a follow up on the LOTR debate

Not liking jacksons trilogy because it was in your mind a looser adaptation of the novels and not an accurate portrayal or faithful to the source material is one thing but denying the delivery of the scope of those movies for the story they did present on a level that helped them about sweep the Oscar awards is another.

You can be an old school Tolkien fan and still appreciate what Jackson accomplished with his own vision of middle earth accepting that its not the easiest story to adapt and for the purposes of making it easier to follow and not become overly convoluted on screen for today's audiences some things need to be omitted and scaled back to help make a cohesive story arc over three 3 hour films.

The story the trilogy did present was executed extraordinarily well and the real testament to that is how well they hold up decades later. You can't tell me that Helm's Deep and Minas Turith were not thrilling sequences that to this day may still be head and shoulders above the rest in the history of film battles.

My dad was all about the whole middle earth series of books and was all about the Jackson films.

Hearing what they did to create the forced perspective that made ian McKellen appear to tower over the hobbit actors despite being in the same frame is crazy and impressive. Some of it i didn't know the details of until recently. Can't help but be in awe at what all those people put together in such a short time, from make up to sets to locations, to amazing portrayals of the characters we still love and refer back to today.

Needing source material accuracy to enjoy something must have robbed you of much of the joy the rest of us experienced taking in those masterpieces, and for that I don't envy you. But I guess you're entitled to your take on it.

Being a loose adaptation doesn't mean it wasn't really, really good. At least put your devout OG fandom aside enough to admit as much is what I'm saying.

As films they were technically adept I have no doubt, but in the end I wasnt able to suspend my sadness at how Jackson just went for the easy Hollywood choice whenever he could, and at times it made no sense, why the hell did he decide to have Arwen at the escape from the Black Riders at Bruinen and not Glorfindel? it's not just that it is inauthentic but the books version is imho more exciting, and I never liked the films humorous take on the various personalities, it was just all played for laughs to often for my taste, it reminded me of a Roger Moore Bond film mostly when the book was Sean Connery or even the Spy That Came in From the Cold

[djsFlames]

I do go back and forth between loving the grandiose conflicts of the latter two films and the more grounded, adventurous smaller scope of Fellowship.

The Hollywoodisms that add not much were bound to be in there but the world building aspects that capture your imagination were present throughout the trilogy.

Its underappreciated how incredibly hard it undoubtedly was to make those books as linear and cohesive as PJ did and they did a great job editing what was shot too, as many of the extended version scenes would've watered down the enjoyment of them in theater (imo). Most other directors in his place would not have been able to create something that worked on screen that well from such a complex mess of character plots, backstories, lore and appendices.

In film format, things have to be simplified, even dumbed down rather significantly to create a chronological plot that spans a reasonable amount of time.

They are two pretty different formats of storytelling that don't translate seamlessly.

[afc wimbledon]

I probably would have liked the films better if I had never read the books, of if they had just dumped any pretence of following the book at all, as it was for me it was just close enough to the books to really piss me off when the went full hollywood on the parts that Jackson clearly thought were to mature or dull for the viewer to enjoy

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Where the movies excelled is at being good movies. Where the books excelled is at being good books.

I like good movies and I like good books. Books involve reading and imagination. Movies involve watching and listening.

The complaints are mutually exclusive of each other.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I do go back and forth between loving the grandiose conflicts of the latter two films and the more grounded, adventurous smaller scope of Fellowship.

The Hollywoodisms that add not much were bound to be in there but the world building aspects that capture your imagination were present throughout the trilogy.

Its underappreciated how incredibly hard it undoubtedly was to make those books as linear and cohesive as PJ did and they did a great job editing what was shot too, as many of the extended version scenes would've watered down the enjoyment of them in theater (imo). Most other directors in his place would not have been able to create something that worked on screen that well from such a complex mess of character plots, backstories, lore and appendices.

In film format, things have to be simplified, even dumbed down rather significantly to create a chronological plot that spans a reasonable amount of time.

They are two pretty different formats of storytelling that don't translate seamlessly.

The maybe odd thing for me is I didnt care about the parts Jackson clearly cut out for cost and running time, I was ok with that, I could even have ignored the areas where he rewrote the story for effect, it was the constant dumbing down and playing for laughs that ruined it for me, of course that was just a forshadowing of the complete butchers he made of the hobbit, I cant even watch that it so bad.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I probably would have liked the films better if I had never read the books, of if they had just dumped any pretence of following the book at all, as it was for me it was just close enough to the books to really piss me off when the went full hollywood on the parts that Jackson clearly thought were to mature or dull for the viewer to enjoy

This is why I don't read books. I don't want no stinking book ruining my movie experience.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

and it caught Michelle Pfeiffer in the exact minute when she was the most beautiful woman who ever lived.

oh god yes.

[Jay's Beagle]

A recommendation for don't - Vacation Friends. John Cena is not a comedian and tries way to hard in this. For my wife and I it was a cringe fest.

[Huntingwhale]

14 years later, finally saw The Mist. Pretty good movie and great ending.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

14 years later, finally saw The Mist. Pretty good movie and great ending.

Yeah, such great feels from that ending.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

14 years later, finally saw The Mist. Pretty good movie and great ending.

Stephen King loved the ending.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Sr. Mints

Once upon a time in Hollywood had the most satisfying movie ending I've seen in ages

I thought that too until Parasite flamethrowered it out of the water!

But that is how you leave a theatre satisfied. I love the changing of history by Tarantino. It keeps you on edge.

[flames_fan_down_under]

Watched 'The Little Things' with Rami Malek, Denzel Washington and Jared Leto.

It was an OK movie. The relationship between Denzel's character and Rami's just never materialized to the point where I believed that they were sympathetic to each other's backstory, they just didn't feel especially close. There was a lot of time devoted to Denzel's tortured past, but not a lot of time to really indicate what made Malek tick, whose character felt a bit wooden. Malek is a terrifically gifted actor who I feel was miscast in this role.

Jared Leto stole the show as the main suspect, likely worth the watch just to see his performance.

2.8/5

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

I thought that too until Parasite flamethrowered it out of the water!

But that is how you leave a theatre satisfied. I love the changing of history by Tarantino. It keeps you on edge.

The Parasite ending felt like it had some inspiration from Tarantino.

[GreenLantern]

I read at least one book from the LOTR trilogy each yearish, and I loved the movies.

To me it is all about the artists interpretation of the source material. It's a unique view on it. if I wanted it word for word or scene for scene I would read the book instead..

Jackson did such a good job putting his unique vision on the world, its memorable, its immersive and it was such an amazing experience for the first time in the theatre, and each time afterwards.

I also really love the extended editions, found that it added a ton of great content, not always the case for extended editions..