Case in point why Seven Samurai is near-perfect: In any other film this would be a throw away scene to establish character of the "perfectionist samurai". Here, Kurosawa uses scene composition and minimal dialogue to perfection. The simple natural background sounds heighten the tension and gives the viewer an awestruck feeling at what they're watching. It's a very Japanese aesthetic to deliver simplicity with perfection. Kurosawa does this in just about every scene in the film.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
Who said it was a documentary? Or needed to be? It’s just hilariously inaccurate.
More of a general comment; most movies are historically inaccurate. Braveheart especially touches a lot of nerves with people, for reasons that are perfectly legitimate.
But it’s just so damn good, so high quality, that all the arguments against it cause people to miss out on one of the best movies ever made, and that’s really a shame.
They don’t need to be able to describe that finale sequence beat for beat like I can, but they should see it at least once.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
Don't write this one off. As someone who's pretty cynical about Disney's recent contributions to film, this one is everything it should be. The jokes are fantastic and hit multiple ages, the themes are surprisingly mature and powerful for a family movie, and it just nails all of the buddy-cop detective movie references beautifully.
Yeah there's two kinds of people you never wanna see a movie with - people familiar with the actual historical events, or people who have read the book.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to OutOfTheCube For This Useful Post:
It didn't follow the source material with 100% accuracy, thus it's terrible - LOTR Fans
To go off on a tangent a little bit but this, to me, is what makes the MCU so remarkable.
Most previous Marvel movies borrowed heavily from the comics but ultimately did a piss poor job of properly adapting the storylines. DC has been an even worse offender and actually made movies so bad I think they tarnished the source material. For sure ruined it for any proper future adaptation, at least in the near future anyways. Even the Nolan trilogy was guilty of this and especially with the god awful TDKR debacle.
But the MCU has been masterful in adapting their source material in a way that changes it to suit their movie universe but in a way that also pays homage to the comics. It is a balancing act that I've been so impressed with, and there's already a lot to be impressed with when it comes ot the MCU. It's why I'm always excited to see what they have in store next, especially with Spider-Man.
It's also, sorry to bring this up, why the new SW trilogy was such a failure. You had people who didn't respect the source material. Same idea why Mandalorian was so awesome, the respect and understanding the creators have with SW.
Back to LOTR, it is undeniable that Jackson did exactly what Marvel is doing. He took the source material that he understood and loved and adapted it near pitch perfect. Honestly no fan could ask for more in an adaptation of such a beloved work.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
Yeah there's two kinds of people you never wanna see a movie with - people familiar with the actual historical events, or people who have read the book.
Also, people who have the same job as one of the characters in the movie.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
It didn't follow the source material with 100% accuracy, thus it's terrible - LOTR Fans
What a ridiculous post. Literally no one here has said that. I'm sure you can find someone with this opinion, but it would be pretty hard. There is a difference between demanding that something be 100% faithful to the source material and not liking the changes that were actually made.
Even there, most LOTR fans get a lot of it. Removing scouring of the shire, Bombadil, moving certain events around like Shelob coming in the third movie... all fine with most people. Makes sense. Movie pacing requires this. Skateboarding down stairs on a shield? This was not required.
The best example is really Liv Tyler, for me. I don't have a problem with Glorfindel being removed from the story. That's fine. I'm not even opposed in principle to Arwen taking on his role before Rivendell. But the unbelievably cringey way they did it and her laughably cheesy acting was just... bad. "If you want him, come and claim him" is one of my least favourite moments in the whole thing. Then she's so distraught over Frodo's health that she's crying? She doesn't even know him. They've never spoken a word to each other. It's just pure eye-roll stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
Honestly no fan could ask for more in an adaptation of such a beloved work.
Eh, you can still ask for more, even if you really enjoy the films for the most part. There are easy and obvious improvements that could have been made, in hindsight. That being true detract from their overall quality. And of course this doesn't apply to the Hobbit, which obviously has zero respect for the source material.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
What a ridiculous post. Literally no one here has said that. I'm sure you can find someone with this opinion, but it would be pretty hard. There is a difference between demanding that something be 100% faithful to the source material and not liking the changes that were actually made.
Even there, most LOTR fans get a lot of it. Removing scouring of the shire, Bombadil, moving certain events around like Shelob coming in the third movie... all fine with most people. Makes sense. Movie pacing requires this. Skateboarding down stairs on a shield? This was not required.
The best example is really Liv Tyler, for me. I don't have a problem with Glorfindel being removed from the story. That's fine. I'm not even opposed in principle to Arwen taking on his role before Rivendell. But the unbelievably cringey way they did it and her laughably cheesy acting was just... bad. "If you want him, come and claim him" is one of my least favourite moments in the whole thing. Then she's so distraught over Frodo's health that she's crying? She doesn't even know him. They've never spoken a word to each other. It's just pure eye-roll stuff.
Eh, you can still ask for more, even if you really enjoy the films for the most part. There are easy and obvious improvements that could have been made, in hindsight. That being true detract from their overall quality. And of course this doesn't apply to the Hobbit, which obviously has zero respect for the source material.
TBH, it was just a troll post.
I sometimes get annoyed when they change things in movies and TV from the source materials. Never enough to complain about it on the internet though.
I think how you view LOTR tends to depend on how you view most 'Hollywood' movies, I grew up on grey morally ambiguous British and European movies so the tendency of American films to play for laughs and (IMHO) cheap tricks such as the skateboarding down the stairs, dwarf tossing gags and making Merry and Pippen comedic buffoons probably ruins a movie quicker for me than it does for someone who grew up on blockbuster movies where these are just normal film making techniques
More of a general comment; most movies are historically inaccurate. Braveheart especially touches a lot of nerves with people, for reasons that are perfectly legitimate.
But it’s just so damn good, so high quality, that all the arguments against it cause people to miss out on one of the best movies ever made, and that’s really a shame.
They don’t need to be able to describe that finale sequence beat for beat like I can, but they should see it at least once.
I've seen the movie many times. When I was a teenager I thought it was one of the best movies ever made. As I get older, some of the plot points get harder to take. A lot of 90s era stuff going on there, that's really hard to take these days.
The constant bashing over your head about how evil the English are gets to be a bit much. Many parts of the movie are just a set up to make the enemy seem inhumane. That goes hand in hand, with a then 40 year old Gibson, playing a man just coming back from his education (he'd be in his early 20s), who can do no wrong and gets to dispatch of all his enemies in the most brutal ways possible while still seeming righteous. A large part of the movie is revenge porn disguised in a historical biopic.
Also, how do we make the English seem really weak and deceitful....let's make their heir super effeminate....then throw his partner out a window like he deserves it. That also sets up the perfect ending of....Gibson boning the English queen and siring their heir.
I am also influenced by Gibson's later actions when viewing this film now, unfortunately. The film strokes his ego so badly, that it's hard not to be. So watching a movie filled with bigotry (although most directed at the English....so for some reason people think that's not as bad), it's hard not to look at it and ignore Gibson's actual bigotry. The tone is just too consistent with his actual real life bigotry.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
I've seen the movie many times. When I was a teenager I thought it was one of the best movies ever made. As I get older, some of the plot points get harder to take. A lot of 90s era stuff going on there, that's really hard to take these days.
The constant bashing over your head about how evil the English are gets to be a bit much. Many parts of the movie are just a set up to make the enemy seem inhumane. That goes hand in hand, with a then 40 year old Gibson, playing a man just coming back from his education (he'd be in his early 20s), who can do no wrong and gets to dispatch of all his enemies in the most brutal ways possible while still seeming righteous. A large part of the movie is revenge porn disguised in a historical biopic.
Also, how do we make the English seem really weak and deceitful....let's make their heir super effeminate....then throw his partner out a window like he deserves it. That also sets up the perfect ending of....Gibson boning the English queen and siring their heir.
I am also influenced by Gibson's later actions when viewing this film now, unfortunately. The film strokes his ego so badly, that it's hard not to be. So watching a movie filled with bigotry (although most directed at the English....so for some reason people think that's not as bad), it's hard not to look at it and ignore Gibson's actual bigotry. The tone is just too consistent with his actual real life bigotry.
On this point specifically, Edward II was legendarily rumoured to have been murdered via red hot poker up the anus following his forced abdication.
While that may or may not be real, let's not pretend that the treatment of Phillip is out of step with the cultural moors of 12th century England.
But most of Braveheart, you empathize with Edward II because his dad is such a nasty SOB. I've never read him as anything but a sympathetic character, as trapped by his circumstances as anyone in the film.
As far as making the English inhumane... that's a trope of Hollywood movies going back decades - you make your enemy cartoonishly evil so the audience knows who to root for. It's a thing from Death Wish to Titanic.
And from the perspective of the English, they're trying to crush a rebellion. Longshanks is brutal, and he's playing the long game. It's all perfectly in character in the context of the story, regardless of whether or not it factually happened.
And lots of characters think Wallace can do wrong - that's why the other nobles *spoilers* do what they do.
Regarding bigotry, well, it's a movie about a revolution. You don't have a violent revolution if you have a good relationship with your overlords.
Revenge porn makes for the best movies, btw. And the more righteous, the better.
To conclude, Mel Gibson is not a nice man or a good person.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
Yeah there's two kinds of people you never wanna see a movie with - people familiar with the actual historical events, or people who have read the book.
"Oh man that was great fun, what did you think"?
"I mean I don't want to go too far into it but they left out a x obscure character, a personal favorite of mine, and at least three of my favorite moments from the book, and totally misinterpreted the underlying theme as far as I'm concerned. This was hardly an adaptation. But I mean, if you liked it...."
"OK cool Bob, well remind me to go to the movies with literally any one else next time."
