MovieChat Forums > spurtle467 > Replies
spurtle467's Replies
I agree, that was the funniest part of the movie for me.
I assume you're being sarcastic?
This is so true. It must be a lot less fun for actors these days working on big films like this. Imagine they're doing a scene in a desert - Actor: "Wow! Does this mean we'll be flying off to Africa somewhere?" Director: "No. We'll be filming right here in the studio in front of this green wall." Actor: "Oh....great."
The good and bad thing about CGI is you can make anything happen with it. Good that it gives you that option, and then bad if it's in the wrong hands, and those directors will very often want to use it to do anything, to the point it's used too much and far too unbelievably i.e. the barrel chase in the second of these Hobbit films. You lose the physicality of action scenes and real life stunts. Something like Mad Max: FR has a good amount of real, practical effects, when you know if Jackson was doing a film like that it would be CGI'd all over the place.
I thought it perfectly captured the brutality and horror of war by showing the shocking death of the young George by falling over and banging his head. I almost had to look away at that point.
I am coming around to that idea.
It's funny, at the time I first saw this in the cinema I foolishly thought it was even better than the original. I was young back then and my thinking as a kid was probably that more action and more CGI dinosaur/T-rex equals better film. I've since realised it's not all it's cracked up to be and is no match for the original. Some of the writing and scenes are very silly, but it's still entertaining and to me is more rewatchable than the other sequels as it has better characters and with Spielberg at the helm you've still got that similar tone and quality of special effects to the first.
You could see that she was incredibly stupid in one of her first scenes, when in unsettling the baby steg after her camera goes off, instead of running out of the danger area back to Ian and co. despite having ample time and space to do so, she actually runs the other way into the pack of the angry stegs. That unintentionally already suggested she wasn't quite all there in the head.
But yes, it's down to the writing. There are plenty of moments littered in this film that make characters look dumb e.g. the guy who decides to walk as far as possible to go take a pee and then gets lost, the guy who screams his lungs out when he sees the T-Rex at their camp, people not instantly running away when they see a large ship approach their dock at speed etc.
I liked it. I thought a remake was in order, as I went back to the original sometime ago to see if it was as scary as I remembered, and it was extremely dated and consequently not very scary. It needed darkening up and I felt this remake managed that fairly well. Could it have been scarier? Sure, but I found it entertaining enough and enjoyed the nostalgia trip that this evoked in me.
I reckon you make a decent point about the Georgie scene though, insofar as they could have done without showing Pennywise bite his arm off and reveal too much about his fate. That also set a precedent for how evil and malicious Pennywise was willing to go to hurt his victims, and had me wondering on countless other occasions why he was happy enough creeping the rest of the kids out as opposed to maiming them like he did Georgie.
I think McAvoy can be or is a good actor, but I just find so many of his character portrayals unlikeable, like they have a smug arrogance to them, whether he plays an asshole i.e. in this or The Last King of Scotland, or a good person i.e. Charles Xavier or the guy from Atonement. I'm pleased to say that I didn't see that in his performance in Split though.
Yes. The less you know the more scary it is I find. To go into detail about why he's the way he is takes away the illusion and the imagination we attribute to it.
I understand if they wanted to make the remake different to the original so as not to be a scene by scene retread, but they should have found something else to do differently. To try and explain Michael Myers and give us an insight into his background is sacrilege in my opinion.
I must have missed the conversation they had. Even so, that sort of thing would make me quite tentative for the rest of the day, even if it is Halloween. It's not like she's reacting to it like it's a friend playing a prank.
The remake is bloody awful. I thought the point was that we're not meant to know why Michael Myers is this way inclined. It's supposed to be a mystery to us and that's the way I prefer it. I have no care for knowing what his upbringing was like when he was a child.
You're right, the story was weak. It could have been a lot more epic for a supposed war movie that is the final one of the trilogy. It was quite anti-climatic, and they went for emotion more than anything else. They must have realised how dark emotionally it was, hence the reason for throwing this bizarre clothes-wearing ape into it for comic relief. It was definitely gorgeous to look at though.
I don't know what's more unbelievable, that he decided to do it, or that the apes anticipated that he'd do it to help with their escape plan.
The way I see it, Matthew McConaughey wouldn't have starred in it if it were anti-Christian since he, judging by his Oscar acceptance speech, is pretty religious himself. In fact thinking about that helped me work out the twist before it happened. I figured that these visions that Adam and his father were having were probably true and these really were sinful people, because MM would want to be in something with a pro-Christian angle, and therefore was probably the Adam character all along who was the one having these visions, rather than the brother.
I agree with all this. I don't find Hot Fuzz particularly funny, but it is entertaining.
I think the funniest joke that I've seen from all 3 of these Cornetto trilogy movies is from Shaun of the Dead, when Shaun insults his girlfriend's friend calling him"four eyes" not realising he's actually taken his glasses off.
For the most part there are too many visual gags, and not enough clever lines.
I don't interpret the ending in any way other than Jack, after being successfully consumed by the hotel into attempting to kill his family, in death now belongs to it and has become part of its history, and that is the hotel's way of showing it in the photo. As Grady said, he's always been the caretaker.
I suppose it's hard for movies to get the diversity balance right these days in order to please people. With films like this it's "too diverse". Cast all white actors and actresses and "there's not enough". A few but not that many and it's "the token black guy".
It's funny that someone would even bother to claim DC is superior given the obvious difference in commercial and critical success of the two sets of films. It's like a dwarf claiming to be superior in height to a giant. Nobody can take you seriously.
Is there some law not allowing you to enjoy both films from the DC and Marvel universes?
Not a big follower of the comics and have seen only a handful of these MU films, so this was the first time I'd seen this character before. He seemed pretty powerful which makes it kind of disappointing if he was killed off by that. From his reactions and his handling of these 3 superheroes earlier in the film, it's like he should have been able to escape that fate.