Upcoming DVD releases: Indy & Crystal Skull, Incredible Hulk

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, October 20, 2008 21:28
VIEWED: 7370
PAGE 3 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

SHINYGOODGUY

Thursday, October 9, 2008 9:38 PM

Thanks Singate, Slowhand for the heads up about HB2,
I've been trying to convince my son to go see it (we both loved the first one). I think it's still playing in one of the multiplexes in the city.

I hope that I didn't give the wrong impression about Indy 4. I wasn't bashing. The reason I said it was "kinda fun" was there were parts I wasn't happy with, but overall it was a good fun "popcorn" movie. What made it fun for me was there were several "winks" at the audience throughout the movie and I really like when a director does that.

But normally I go to see something because of a certain actor or director, or if its sci-fi and seems interesting. I judge for myself once I've seen the movie. I went to see The History of Violence because of Viggo Mortensen and Mario Bello. The Cooler, because of Alec Baldwin, William H. Macy and Maria Bello (what a woman!).
So I too don't particularly care for saying a movie sucks unless a trusted friend tells me otherwise or I've seen it.

Once again, thanks for the heads up guys. Shiny.

Towabawho?

SLOWHAND

Thursday, October 9, 2008 11:26 PM

I know people prepare themselves for a let down with sequels and remakes, but I'm really easy on movies. Mainly because....well....they're movies. Heh.

I think people use harsh descriptions of movies way too often. People say a movie is crap or worthless or terrible all the time. I've heard people say that about a movie that I like. I'll mention a few parts that I like and they'll be like, "Yeah. That part was pretty cool." And I'll mention another scene and they respond, "That was pretty funny I guess. Or what about..." then they mention a scene they liked. For a movie they said was crap, they sure do like a lot of things about it!

Yes, there are movies that, to me, are almost unwatchable they're so bad....but not many.

I wasn't a big fan of the new Indy movie. Will I buy it? Yes. I have the others.

I think that the reason many people don't like sequels or remakes is because they're automatically compare it to the original instead of just looking at the movie as 2 hours of entertainment. The reason the new Indy movie didn't look so good was because it's competition was freak'n Raiders! Sometimes people expect too much I think. I went in KNOWING that there was NO WAY it would be as good as Raiders. So, I enjoyed it for what it was. Not my favorite movie. But any movie that a stay in the theater for couldn't have been that bad. If it's total crap and unwatchable....leave. Don't watch it.

I'm totally not directing this at anyone here or to any post that was made. I'm just talking about people in general that absolutly trash a movie. My first response to them is, "Did you finish watching it?" When they say yes, I say, "Then it couldn't have been as bad as you say." I know a guy that walked out of Superman Returns. He can honestly say he hated that movie. I know a guy that rented Batman and Robin. He took it back without finishing it. That movie, to him, was truly unwatchable.

There's lot's of movies I don't really like. But I don't pick apart movies. I wasn't one of the guys complaining that the Transformers didn't look like the toys. I didn't care that Spider-Man didn't build web shooters. If they keep my interest and entertain me, they've done their job. I try not to compare them. I don't get into the "which was better....Tombstone or Wyatt Earp" discussion. I saw them both and enjoyed them both.

Guess I'm just really easy to please...but that's a good thing. I'm pretty much gauranteed to have a good time at the movies! LOL!

SINGATE

Friday, October 10, 2008 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
The Cooler, because of Alec Baldwin, William H. Macy and Maria Bello (what a woman!).

A very good and woefully underappreciated movie. She was absolutely stunning in that role.

_________________________________________________

We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 10, 2008 10:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:

I probably am being to hard on it because I really hate Rambo 2 and 3 after such a great film with First Blood.

I hate 'serious' action flicks where tons of virtually bloodless squeeky-clean violence ensues. My rule: if the action is FUN, it had better be a superhero movie or something, because violence, real violence, is NOT fun to watch. And that's why I liked Rambo- it was NOT fun to see the blood, but it served it's dramatic purpose IMO. I didn't think Stallone had it in him.

Chrisisbloodyall

LWAVES

Sunday, October 12, 2008 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I hate 'serious' action flicks where tons of virtually bloodless squeeky-clean violence ensues.

Chrisisbloodyall

Talking generally now and not about Rambo, I can agree with that statement about serious action movies. I don't like it when they tone down the blood and gore just so they can get a lower rating and attract a younger audience. I can understand why they do, but I wish they wouldn't.
On the other hand I also don't like it when there's blood and guts just for the sake of it. Like when someone shoots a pistol with normal bullets and the targets body part blows away. Or in horror movies when the makers feel gore can replace real shocks and scares.
Violence, blood and gore SHOULD be shocking, and can be under the right circumstances.

Bringing it back to the point of Rambo I felt that it was a too close to the latter area IMO. That it was violence for the sake of it and it detracted from what I felt was intended to be a more serious movie, and closer to the original. I just don't think it made it.
I guess we'll just have to differ on that one.

"I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it it might cheer me up to watch."

THESOMNAMBULIST

Sunday, October 12, 2008 12:00 PM

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:
I hate 'serious' action flicks where tons of virtually bloodless squeeky-clean violence ensues. My rule: if the action is FUN, it had better be a superhero movie or something, because violence, real violence, is NOT fun to watch. And that's why I liked Rambo- it was NOT fun to see the blood, but it served it's dramatic purpose IMO. I didn't think Stallone had it in him.

Hmmm. Interesting how this topic has developed.

I'm much like you Chris. I find it difficult to sit through 'realistic style' violence. What is realistic style violence?
Well I guess things like "The Deer Hunter" or "Saving Private Ryan" and even "Black Hawk Down".

That said there is also an obligation to make cinema goers realise that violence when it happens shouldn't be easy to take and there's an argument for violence on screen not to be tempered or else it does become like a cartoon (The Rambo sequels, The A-Team)

However I am partial to ludicrous violence because I find that much easier to sit through. Films like Predator and Total Recall even Alien (but in a slightly different way). There's a point where it has to go overboard or else it just jars the audience. Total Recall was good for that because right from the off, when you see the news footage, you realise this is going to be violent but so much so that the reality is significantly removed and therefore easier to digest.

Still there are methods to presenting violence and I think the better filmakers know what they are doing and don't use it as a tool for exploitation. Time often filters these kinds of films out, like Dirty Harry. On later viewing Dirty Harry really has little more going for it with the violence other than just plain exploitation and the excuse to fire that magnum off. It's pretty daft in places.

When violence holds up as being inherent to the plot it is often difficult to sit through repeated viewings as with Schindler's List or A Clockwork Orange, and I think that is the point of those films.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 12, 2008 2:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

However I am partial to ludicrous violence

The original definition of ludicrous violence is Robocop, I believe.

Chrisisall

SINGATE

Monday, October 13, 2008 7:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

However I am partial to ludicrous violence

The original definition of ludicrous violence is Robocop, I believe.

If I'm not mistaken Planet Terror is the current title holder. Takes ludicrous to a whole new level.

_________________________________________________

We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, October 13, 2008 1:06 PM

Your right, The Cooler was an underappreciated movie. And Mario Bello (I'll say it again, what a woman!) is one of the most underapprecaited actors in recent times. She is soooo good. She is so effortless in almost every role I see her in.

I'm ready for my closeup Mr. DeMille

CHRISISALL

Thursday, October 16, 2008 6:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Well I enoyed Indy 4.

Frankly there was little that was going to stop me enjoying this film as it's original was perhaps the single greatest reason why I love cinema, and I was certainly not going to let 21st century 'cool' or cynism as I like to call it, ruin the experience of going to see it at the flicks with my girlfriend.

Finally saw it & I'm on the 'liked it' side of the fence. I had no problem with the Close Encounter, or hardly anything else..just three things bugged me- that fridge hit the ground a little hard for ANYONE not to be dead or unconscious, the cinematography wasn't as rich and luscious as the previous entries, and CGI was a little pervasive. Other than that, it was a solid Indy flick, and Karen Allen's stuff made it a KEEPER!!!!!

Marionisall

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE