oh for fuck's sake people - it's a BOOK. A FICTIONAL book. And yeah, it's not the greatest piece of literature out there, but you know what? It was a damn fun story, and I think it's gonna be a good summer popcorn movie. step down, please.
if we extrapolate this line of thought into music, we should all be listening to Phil Collins, and we are not.
Who's going to see this? I'm thinking it's going to be no where near as good as the book.
i am. even though the writing was shlock, i thought it was a very exciting and unique plot, and it will translate to film very well. i predict this will be good action/thriller movie.
tom's new weave screams "i'm a molestor" though. trust me, i'd know
Man, am I the only one sick of seeing Tom Hanks' mug on billboards?
dude is garbage. Big, Bachelor Party, Splash were all good. Basically 1994 marks his downfall (Forrest Gump). Private Ryan was alright, but it had nothing to do with him.
Man, am I the only one sick of seeing Tom Hanks' mug on billboards?
dude is garbage. Big, Bachelor Party, Splash were all good. Basically 1994 marks his downfall (Forrest Gump). Private Ryan was alright, but it had nothing to do with him.
Man, am I the only one sick of seeing Tom Hanks' mug on billboards?
dude is garbage. Big, Bachelor Party, Splash were all good. Basically 1994 marks his downfall (Forrest Gump). Private Ryan was alright, but it had nothing to do with him.
I don't understand how anyone was able to make it through that god-awful book. I literally flung it across the room in disgust midway through the second chapter. And I can stomach Stephen King!
If you like the subject matter so much, read this:
Eco's a bit stuffy and writes more at the pompous end of the spectrum, but he makes up for it by producing a damn good book.
I don't understand how anyone was able to make it through that god-awful book. I literally flung it across the room in disgust midway through the second chapter. And I can stomach Stephen King!
If you like the subject matter so much, read this:
Eco's a bit stuffy and writes more at the pompous end of the spectrum, but he makes up for it by producing a damn good book.
Man, am I the only one sick of seeing Tom Hanks' mug on billboards?
dude is garbage. Big, Bachelor Party, Splash were all good. Basically 1994 marks his downfall (Forrest Gump). Private Ryan was alright, but it had nothing to do with him.
The long rumored remake of Kurosawa's 'Ikiru' w/ Hanks in the Takashi Shimura role - most definitely
The stupidity of the characters should be fun to see on film.
The world famous symbologist saying "Oh I forgot the cross on the Swiss flag is symbolic of the Crucifixion". And the worlds greatest code breaker asking "Is that a code?". "Yes, you see A is represented as 1, B is represented as 2..." "Of course, one of the first codes I learned, can't believe I forgot."
oh for fuck's sake people - it's a BOOK. A FICTIONAL book. And yeah, it's not the greatest piece of literature out there, but you know what? It was a damn fun story, and I think it's gonna be a good summer popcorn movie. step down, please.
if we extrapolate this line of thought into music, we should all be listening to Phil Collins, and we are not.
I don't understand how anyone was able to make it through that god-awful book. I literally flung it across the room in disgust midway through the second chapter. And I can stomach Stephen King!
Eco's a bit stuffy and writes more at the pompous end of the spectrum, but he makes up for it by producing a damn good book.
I got as far as the part where, after meeting the beautiful but intelligent Italian girl, he meets the uber smart mad scientist who.. imagine this.. rolls around in a mechanized wheel chair. I had to spike it right there.
I'd probably see the movie though.. I can't stay away from movies good or bad. On the plus side you have Amelie and Jean Reno (who honestly, hasn't done anything too thrilling in a while but I still have hope). Tom Hanks posters - 'Da Vinci Mullet'
MI3 + Directed by JJ Abrams + Philip Seymour Hoffman - Tom Cruise - MI2 was worst movie of all time.
dollar_binI heartily endorse this product and/or event 2,326 Posts
On a vaguely related topic, as someone who's gotten tired of Tom Cruise since, well, always, I'm happy to see that MI:3 is underperforming and everyone in Hollywood is running around like chicken little over it.
Tom Crus aside, I'm glad to see MI:3 is underperforming because MI and MI:2 were fucking horrible movies[/b], each one the respective nail in the coffin of the sometimes promising but ultimately hindibergian careers of DePalma and Wu.
I haven't seen a good movie in like 5 years. one of the last movies I saw that I thought was decent was "million dollar baby". that, and i don't see movies at all anymore.
On a vaguely related topic, as someone who's gotten tired of Tom Cruise since, well, always, I'm happy to see that MI:3 is underperforming and everyone in Hollywood is running around like chicken little over it.
Tom Crus aside, I'm glad to see MI:3 is underperforming because MI and MI:2 were fucking horrible movies[/b], each one the respective nail in the coffin of the sometimes promising but ultimately hindibergian careers of DePalma and Wu.
True that. The general suckitude of both films makes me appreciate Michael Bay that much better. I mean, he's way, way, way over the top but it's so ridiculous, it's entertaining. The MI series has been silly in a way that feels like you have to be lobotomized to find it that much fun.
About MI:3... with so many names attached and detached during the production, yet the outcome is so generic-summer-blockbuster-like, I could not help but wondering JJ Abrams is just a token name on the credit when most of the work have already put in place and motion by Cruise/Wagner production by the time Abrams signed on the project. Heck, it could be an Alan Smithee movie, but they decided to settle with JJ Abrams anyways.
On a vaguely related topic, as someone who's gotten tired of Tom Cruise since, well, always, I'm happy to see that MI:3 is underperforming and everyone in Hollywood is running around like chicken little over it.
Tom Crus aside, I'm glad to see MI:3 is underperforming because MI and MI:2 were fucking horrible movies[/b], each one the respective nail in the coffin of the sometimes promising but ultimately hindibergian careers of DePalma and Wu.
True that. The general suckitude of both films makes me appreciate Michael Bay that much better. I mean, he's way, way, way over the top but it's so ridiculous, it's entertaining. The MI series has been silly in a way that feels like you have to be lobotomized to find it that much fun.
You know, the funny thing is that while I greatly enjoy a large proportion of John Woo's HK catalogue I find pretty much all of his American movies to be nigh on unwatchable, MI2 and Face Off in particular.
I was wondering about this the other day and while it no doubt has a lot to do with the sheer terdlike nature of these films it seems that while the overblown symbolic images, slowmo romantic shots etc are present in both the KH and US movies I find it enjoyably over the top in the HK movies and unacceptably crass in the American ones.
I mean, the ending to A Better Tomorrow is hilariously over sentimental but I don't find it half as grating as the whole thandi newton slowmotion gazes/startled doves etc. leading me to believe that maybe it's more acceptable when you read the dialogue rather than hearing it.
Also, on a side note, Burbs is one of the most underrated comedies in existence.
I mean, the ending to A Better Tomorrow is hilariously over sentimental but I don't find it half as grating as the whole thandi newton slowmotion gazes/startled doves etc. leading me to believe that maybe it's more acceptable when you read the dialogue rather than hearing it.
I don't think it's just the subtitles. I think John Woo (and Ringo Lam and Tsui Hark, etc.) got away with a lot of cliches and sappy sentimentality and whatnot because the films were so low budget, occasionally bordering on neorealism. For example when you see the symbolism of the doves in The Killer, it's not overly offensive because it's not ridiculously larger-than-life. Likewise, the stunt work in Woo's HK films is much more gritty and real, compared to the watered down stunts over here (mainly because of the lack of union restrictions overseas).
Also, on a side note, Burbs is one of the most underrated comedies in existence.
I just watched Rear Window for the first time since I was a kid a few nights ago and I was surprised to see just how much The 'Burbs took from it. Not just an homage here and there, but entire plot points.
Seriously, that's the worst thing about the whole mess. I've had nightmares less terrifying than the feathering on display there.
Also, Hanks one of the most oft-miscast actors of recent times. I thought he ruined the otherwise passable Road to Perdition - utterly unconvincing. Wrong choice for ladykillers too, but I could be biased as I loved the original version of that.
I don't think it's just the subtitles. I think John Woo (and Ringo Lam and Tsui Hark, etc.) got away with a lot of cliches and sappy sentimentality and whatnot because the films were so low budget, occasionally bordering on neorealism. For example when you see the symbolism of the doves in The Killer, it's not overly offensive because it's not ridiculously lager-than-life. Likewise, the stunt work in Woo's HK films is much more gritty and real, compared to the watered down stunts over here (mainly because of the lack of union restrictions overseas).
That's true. Back in the days you can get away with a little settlement to the family if any stunt work goes awry.
I thought I'm the only person in the world who thinks all the doves and soft-lens work in the Killer is overblown and pretentious. Obviously most critics in Hong Kong, as well as the audience at large thinks it's masterstorke of violence-roomanticism in Hong Kong cinema. But I still beg to differ. Give me "A Better Tommmorrow" anytime of the day.
I mean, the ending to A Better Tomorrow is hilariously over sentimental but I don't find it half as grating as the whole thandi newton slowmotion gazes/startled doves etc. leading me to believe that maybe it's more acceptable when you read the dialogue rather than hearing it.
I don't think it's just the subtitles. I think John Woo (and Ringo Lam and Tsui Hark, etc.) got away with a lot of cliches and sappy sentimentality and whatnot because the films were so low budget, occasionally bordering on neorealism. For example when you see the symbolism of the doves in The Killer, it's not overly offensive because it's not ridiculously lager-than-life. Likewise, the stunt work in Woo's HK films is much more gritty and real, compared to the watered down stunts over here (mainly because of the lack of union restrictions overseas).
Yeah I think you may have hit the nail on the head, i automatically add a layer of forgiveness and tolerance to a film when it's obvious that the makers had little money to work with while an overpolished film with three consective chase endings (Hey Face Off) is never going to get that kind of sentimentality from me.
Also, on a side note, Burbs is one of the most underrated comedies in existence.
I just watched Rear Window for the first time since I was a kid a few nights ago and I was surprised to see just how much The 'Burbs took from it. Not just an homage here and there, but entire plot points.
Yeah I think the Burbs kind of came along at the wrong time, everybody was expecting another whacky Hanks picture which it undoubtedly is but there???s a lot of more subtle stuff going on than most of these films (the Hitchcock references, the commentary on suburban america???s fears and prejudices etc etc), it???s also hell of a dark comedy when you pause and think about it.
I miss the days when Hanks would freak out in a movie, I basically stopped following his career and soon as he stopped crushing beer cans on his head.
I don't understand how anyone was able to make it through that god-awful book. I literally flung it across the room in disgust midway through the second chapter. And I can stomach Stephen King!
If you like the subject matter so much, read this:
Eco's a bit stuffy and writes more at the pompous end of the spectrum, but he makes up for it by producing a damn good book.
that's definatly a dope read.. though it went off the rails near the end
Comments
if we extrapolate this line of thought into music, we should all be listening to Phil Collins, and we are not.
i am. even though the writing was shlock, i thought it was a very exciting and unique plot, and it will translate to film very well. i predict this will be good action/thriller movie.
tom's new weave screams "i'm a molestor" though. trust me, i'd know
dude is garbage. Big, Bachelor Party, Splash were all good. Basically 1994 marks his downfall (Forrest Gump). Private Ryan was alright, but it had nothing to do with him.
just fanying
HAHAHA
If you like the subject matter so much, read this:
Eco's a bit stuffy and writes more at the pompous end of the spectrum, but he makes up for it by producing a damn good book.
The long rumored remake of Kurosawa's 'Ikiru' w/ Hanks in the Takashi Shimura role - most definitely
The world famous symbologist saying "Oh I forgot the cross on the Swiss flag is symbolic of the Crucifixion". And the worlds greatest code breaker asking "Is that a code?". "Yes, you see A is represented as 1, B is represented as 2..." "Of course, one of the first codes I learned, can't believe I forgot."
Do you think he might, ya know, escape?
Oh! Your're right, how philistine of me.
they definitely should have cast...
instead of...
I got as far as the part where, after meeting the beautiful but intelligent Italian girl, he meets the uber smart mad scientist who.. imagine this.. rolls around in a mechanized wheel chair. I had to spike it right there.
I'd probably see the movie though.. I can't stay away from movies good or bad. On the plus side you have Amelie and Jean Reno (who honestly, hasn't done anything too thrilling in a while but I still have hope). Tom Hanks posters - 'Da Vinci Mullet'
MI3 + Directed by JJ Abrams
+ Philip Seymour Hoffman
- Tom Cruise
- MI2 was worst movie of all time.
Tom Crus aside, I'm glad to see MI:3 is underperforming because MI and MI:2 were fucking horrible movies[/b], each one the respective nail in the coffin of the sometimes promising but ultimately hindibergian careers of DePalma and Wu.
True that. The general suckitude of both films makes me appreciate Michael Bay that much better. I mean, he's way, way, way over the top but it's so ridiculous, it's entertaining. The MI series has been silly in a way that feels like you have to be lobotomized to find it that much fun.
As for Maggie Q in the movie...yikes, just yikes.
You know, the funny thing is that while I greatly enjoy a large proportion of John Woo's HK catalogue I find pretty much all of his American movies to be nigh on unwatchable, MI2 and Face Off in particular.
I was wondering about this the other day and while it no doubt has a lot to do with the sheer terdlike nature of these films it seems that while the overblown symbolic images, slowmo romantic shots etc are present in both the KH and US movies I find it enjoyably over the top in the HK movies and unacceptably crass in the American ones.
I mean, the ending to A Better Tomorrow is hilariously over sentimental but I don't find it half as grating as the whole thandi newton slowmotion gazes/startled doves etc. leading me to believe that maybe it's more acceptable when you read the dialogue rather than hearing it.
Also, on a side note, Burbs is one of the most underrated comedies in existence.
I don't think it's just the subtitles. I think John Woo (and Ringo Lam and Tsui Hark, etc.) got away with a lot of cliches and sappy sentimentality and whatnot because the films were so low budget, occasionally bordering on neorealism. For example when you see the symbolism of the doves in The Killer, it's not overly offensive because it's not ridiculously larger-than-life. Likewise, the stunt work in Woo's HK films is much more gritty and real, compared to the watered down stunts over here (mainly because of the lack of union restrictions overseas).
I just watched Rear Window for the first time since I was a kid a few nights ago and I was surprised to see just how much The 'Burbs took from it. Not just an homage here and there, but entire plot points.
Seriously, that's the worst thing about the whole mess. I've had nightmares less terrifying than the feathering on display there.
Also, Hanks one of the most oft-miscast actors of recent times. I thought he ruined the otherwise passable Road to Perdition - utterly unconvincing. Wrong choice for ladykillers too, but I could be biased as I loved the original version of that.
That's true. Back in the days you can get away with a little settlement to the family if any stunt work goes awry.
I thought I'm the only person in the world who thinks all the doves and soft-lens work in the Killer is overblown and pretentious. Obviously most critics in Hong Kong, as well as the audience at large thinks it's masterstorke of violence-roomanticism in Hong Kong cinema. But I still beg to differ. Give me "A Better Tommmorrow" anytime of the day.
I don't think it's just the subtitles. I think John Woo (and Ringo Lam and Tsui Hark, etc.) got away with a lot of cliches and sappy sentimentality and whatnot because the films were so low budget, occasionally bordering on neorealism. For example when you see the symbolism of the doves in The Killer, it's not overly offensive because it's not ridiculously lager-than-life. Likewise, the stunt work in Woo's HK films is much more gritty and real, compared to the watered down stunts over here (mainly because of the lack of union restrictions overseas).
Yeah I think you may have hit the nail on the head, i automatically add a layer of forgiveness and tolerance to a film when it's obvious that the makers had little money to work with while an overpolished film with three consective chase endings (Hey Face Off) is never going to get that kind of sentimentality from me.
Yeah I think the Burbs kind of came along at the wrong time, everybody was expecting another whacky Hanks picture which it undoubtedly is but there???s a lot of more subtle stuff going on than most of these films (the Hitchcock references, the commentary on suburban america???s fears and prejudices etc etc), it???s also hell of a dark comedy when you pause and think about it.
I miss the days when Hanks would freak out in a movie, I basically stopped following his career and soon as he stopped crushing beer cans on his head.
that's definatly a dope read.. though it went off the rails near the end