there is some shitty acting in this film
[Movies] Talk about the last movie you saw 2: Electric Threadaloo
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
North_Ranger
Staff member
Not worse than any other sci-fi movies at the time. The whole bloody cast of Dune were chewing the scenery and hamming it up.
And that's not even close to the complete idiocy of the prequels.
Being better than other sci-fi movies and being better than movies made 30 years later doesn't magically make the acting good
The funny thing is, I don't think it needed to be. I don't disagree with you on the generally poor level of acting, but I'm honestly not sure that Star Wars would have been better with better acting. Especially if Jaws is allowed on the list, for the same reasons (and I love that movie).
I think we need an agreed upon definition of perfection here. Because otherwise the Godfather, the Godfather 2, and Shawshank are the only things on the list. Which might be as it should be.[DOUBLEPOST=1357334196][/DOUBLEPOST]And 12 Angry Men.
UNPOPULAR OPINION TIME
Shawshank Redemption is kind of overrated. I'm not gonna call it a bad movie, I really enjoy it and have watched it a billion times. But it's not like. In the same pantheon with "perfect" movies or "best of all time", etc.
also, Star Wars would definitely be a better movie if Luke wasn't unintentionally hilarious half the time he speaks
Shawshank Redemption is kind of overrated. I'm not gonna call it a bad movie, I really enjoy it and have watched it a billion times. But it's not like. In the same pantheon with "perfect" movies or "best of all time", etc.
also, Star Wars would definitely be a better movie if Luke wasn't unintentionally hilarious half the time he speaks
He spoke like a real teenage does far better than Juno did.
Actually, I like that about him. It sells "teenager" for me.
Necronic
Staff member
Of all the things you say on this board, THIS is the one you feel needs to be predeclared as an "UNPOPULAR OPINION"?
I kind of agree with your point though. If I'm being completely honest I think its all down to Tim Robbins. There is something about him that, well it isn't bad, but I don't think I could see him in a movie that's "great" either.
Charlie Don't Surf , you should consider putting UNPOPULAR OPINION TIME in your sig. 
Reverent-one
Crow: The symbolism of it. I don't get it, why a crow? Maybe a phoenix, or something to do with fire, but a crow just feels out of place. Of course I'm not sure now if that transformation was a different spell, or part of the pact. I'm not sure, it wasn't really explained and is just annoyingly confusing. Thats one annoying thing in this movie, they don't actually explain whats going on.
Sub-plots: Honestly I disagree, it was an interesting look at Michael. Also the sub-plot of the witch's familiar, and they could've explained properly what Calcifer was which they did in the book. Not to mention Michael just didn't feel as important in the film as he was in the book in my opinion. He was just Howl's cute side-kick who said a few lines, he didn't really have that much impact on me in the film. Not to mention we don't learn of Howl's origin at all which while wasn't necessarily important to the plot, I thought was a neat touch in the book.
And I guess I didn't put that many critiques of the movie on its own considering it was an extremely lack-luster adaptation I guess so here we go:
Sophie's transformation back to normal: This isn't really explained. It just...happens. And then her hair changes color or something, I don't know it is just really confusing to me. Not to mention her earlier transformation when she was talking to Sulliman, as I wasn't sure if it was an actual transformation or it was mere symbolism and she didn't actually transform. Also they took out the fact that she had magic powers herself, that annoyed me.
The star scene: They don't at all, what the fuck this scene meant. In the book it had actual meaning, in the movie it was useless filler. If they were going to keep this scene in they could've explained what if actually meant.
Iraq war symbolism: Apparently this was supposed to be symbolic for the Iraq war. Did anyone here catch that? B-Cos I sure as fuck didn't! I mean yeah there were bombers and an evil government, but it didn't really reflect any of the actual politics during the time. Maybe if one of the countries was attacking the other under false pretenses, or if their leader was elected by nepotism than sure, but as someone who grew up during this time period it doesn't translate. I'm glad Miyazaki wanted to put a political message in one of his films , but I don't think he did it properly.
Victory over the villain: Feels too Deus ex machina. I mean the scare-crow just HAPPENED to be the prince whose safe existence ended the war and beat the villain. And no, I'm not talking about the other country at war with Ignary, nor am I talking about the witch(who was supposed to be the villain), but Sulliman(who was a man in the book as well as the scare-crow who was not a prince, last complaint about the movie not being like the book I swear). After the prince morphs back from a scarecrow to his former self, its implied that the war is over. And the villain is...vanquished? She really just smiles and its over. It gives me a meh feeling. Also her being the villain in general was really forced in my opinion, the story all-ready HAD a villain in the witch of the waste, and they just replaced her with this scary old lady. It didn't really seem necessary.
And thats all I got. And I can see why people like it, but I still think its a bad adaptation and I honestly feel its Miyazaki's weakest film. And yes I admit a majority of my disdain for it is in how its not a good adaptation, but to me that is a strong factor.An adaptation shouldn't take things out, but put things in. It took too much out and completely changed the story to something else entirely. If Hiyao was going to do that he could've at least changed the name of the film, but he didn't. If you like it, thats your biz. I'll stick with his other stuff.
Crow: The symbolism of it. I don't get it, why a crow? Maybe a phoenix, or something to do with fire, but a crow just feels out of place. Of course I'm not sure now if that transformation was a different spell, or part of the pact. I'm not sure, it wasn't really explained and is just annoyingly confusing. Thats one annoying thing in this movie, they don't actually explain whats going on.
Sub-plots: Honestly I disagree, it was an interesting look at Michael. Also the sub-plot of the witch's familiar, and they could've explained properly what Calcifer was which they did in the book. Not to mention Michael just didn't feel as important in the film as he was in the book in my opinion. He was just Howl's cute side-kick who said a few lines, he didn't really have that much impact on me in the film. Not to mention we don't learn of Howl's origin at all which while wasn't necessarily important to the plot, I thought was a neat touch in the book.
And I guess I didn't put that many critiques of the movie on its own considering it was an extremely lack-luster adaptation I guess so here we go:
Sophie's transformation back to normal: This isn't really explained. It just...happens. And then her hair changes color or something, I don't know it is just really confusing to me. Not to mention her earlier transformation when she was talking to Sulliman, as I wasn't sure if it was an actual transformation or it was mere symbolism and she didn't actually transform. Also they took out the fact that she had magic powers herself, that annoyed me.
The star scene: They don't at all, what the fuck this scene meant. In the book it had actual meaning, in the movie it was useless filler. If they were going to keep this scene in they could've explained what if actually meant.
Iraq war symbolism: Apparently this was supposed to be symbolic for the Iraq war. Did anyone here catch that? B-Cos I sure as fuck didn't! I mean yeah there were bombers and an evil government, but it didn't really reflect any of the actual politics during the time. Maybe if one of the countries was attacking the other under false pretenses, or if their leader was elected by nepotism than sure, but as someone who grew up during this time period it doesn't translate. I'm glad Miyazaki wanted to put a political message in one of his films , but I don't think he did it properly.
Victory over the villain: Feels too Deus ex machina. I mean the scare-crow just HAPPENED to be the prince whose safe existence ended the war and beat the villain. And no, I'm not talking about the other country at war with Ignary, nor am I talking about the witch(who was supposed to be the villain), but Sulliman(who was a man in the book as well as the scare-crow who was not a prince, last complaint about the movie not being like the book I swear). After the prince morphs back from a scarecrow to his former self, its implied that the war is over. And the villain is...vanquished? She really just smiles and its over. It gives me a meh feeling. Also her being the villain in general was really forced in my opinion, the story all-ready HAD a villain in the witch of the waste, and they just replaced her with this scary old lady. It didn't really seem necessary.
And thats all I got. And I can see why people like it, but I still think its a bad adaptation and I honestly feel its Miyazaki's weakest film. And yes I admit a majority of my disdain for it is in how its not a good adaptation, but to me that is a strong factor.An adaptation shouldn't take things out, but put things in. It took too much out and completely changed the story to something else entirely. If Hiyao was going to do that he could've at least changed the name of the film, but he didn't. If you like it, thats your biz. I'll stick with his other stuff.
I actually liked Juno...but yeah she really didn't did she? Also that thing her friend said "Swear to blog", what the hell was that? Did they actually think that was modern slang? Because it wasn't, no-one said that!
Since there's a lot of stuff there Yoshi, I'll just restrict myself to a couple of points.
I think you're focused too specifically on the Iraq War, Miyazaki did say that it impacted his work, but that doesn't mean he's just going to set the Iraq war in a fantasy world. It is most definitely an anti-war movie though, with the war given far more importance that it had in the book to my understanding. Also, this is likely why Suliman became the primary antagonist, due to her connection with the war, something the Witch of the Waste didn't have.
And as for the star scene, even haven't not read the book, I had no problem understanding what was going on there. Miyazaki isn't one to make everything blatant in his movies (much to your distaste it seems), but I certainly don't think that scene is one of his more obscure ones.
I think you're focused too specifically on the Iraq War, Miyazaki did say that it impacted his work, but that doesn't mean he's just going to set the Iraq war in a fantasy world. It is most definitely an anti-war movie though, with the war given far more importance that it had in the book to my understanding. Also, this is likely why Suliman became the primary antagonist, due to her connection with the war, something the Witch of the Waste didn't have.
And as for the star scene, even haven't not read the book, I had no problem understanding what was going on there. Miyazaki isn't one to make everything blatant in his movies (much to your distaste it seems), but I certainly don't think that scene is one of his more obscure ones.
"What the blog" said by NO-ONE when I was in high school. Its a common symptom of thing trying to reflect a certain time period, they end up messing up the culture completely. The 50s had Happy Days, Greco-Roman times had those Greco-Roman movies, and it will continue unto eternity.
My problem with it is that it added nothing to the plot of this film. I just find it annoying that one of the scenes he kept from the original source material had almost no meaning to to the script. In the book, it had meaning later on, it delved deeper into one of the characters. In the film...OH! That...that was a thing that we saw! Yup, that definitely happened! It looked pretty sure, but in the book it had actual meaning which in the film it did not.
That's kind of my problem with Grave of the Fireflies. The whole movie was basically made in response to the growing youth crime rate in 80's Japan, with the entire message being "This stuff happened all the time to your parents/grandparents during the war and after. They lived through this and made our country better because of those hardships. Be thankful you don't have to live like they did and stop fucking things up, assholes." That was what the entire ending sequence was about. People rave about this movie and I can't get past the shallow job they did.
You mean other than explaining the bond between Howl and Calcifer? As well as forming a temporal loop that starts up at least some of this as Howl seeks out Sophie because she called for him to?
I agree, it didn't need the source material. I think it would have been a great thing by itself.
Actually in the film, they didn't explain what Calcifer's origin was in that of a fallen star which was an interesting piece of dialogue from the original story. I don't remember them explaining that at all.
If it makes you feel better, I've heard good things from other people. I just couldn't stand it.
The constant singing was stupid. They weren't all great singers and it just made it feel so fake. I knew it was a musical but I thought the songs would be separated by talking, just to give the songs any sort of meaning. Instead, the songs just became forgettable because it was going nonstop. I can't think of how any of the songs went, other than the one I knew going into it. I saw the movie 2 hours ago.
I didn't care about any of the characters. Anne Hathaway's life sucked but it didn't seem much worse than any other person in the movie. Her daughter had it rough but barely said (sung) a word before she fell in love with that guy. Russell Crowe not killing Hugh Jackman (the one good character in this movie) couldve been good, but it wasnt built up at all. I get that he spared his life, but there wasn't any sign that it effected him at all. It just came out of nowhere.
And of course, it was too long. Thats why this is possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. With most bad movies, they'd done in about 90 minutes. By the time this movie started to drag, it wasn't even halfway done. It is probably the only movie I've ever had to leave just to get a break from it. If I had my own ride I probably would've walked out entirely.
I didn't care about any of the characters. Anne Hathaway's life sucked but it didn't seem much worse than any other person in the movie. Her daughter had it rough but barely said (sung) a word before she fell in love with that guy. Russell Crowe not killing Hugh Jackman (the one good character in this movie) couldve been good, but it wasnt built up at all. I get that he spared his life, but there wasn't any sign that it effected him at all. It just came out of nowhere.
And of course, it was too long. Thats why this is possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. With most bad movies, they'd done in about 90 minutes. By the time this movie started to drag, it wasn't even halfway done. It is probably the only movie I've ever had to leave just to get a break from it. If I had my own ride I probably would've walked out entirely.
It was explained at the end of the movie.
Basically, all those critiques are ones that could be levelled at the musical itself, so I may still enjoy it. I think people aren't used to musicals that are completely sung. For broad appeal, they probably should have done what Rent did and made some of the sung dialogue spoken.
Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if a different version would be better. I went with someone who even loved the stage musical and didn't enjoy it. And yeah there were a few scenes that I thought were done well and its not a coincidence they were the same scenes that had either no dialogue or some spoken dialogue.
figmentPez
Staff member
Just finished Ruby Sparks, in short I really enjoyed it. (Go figure, Pez liked the movie about a nerdy guy with no social life suddenly getting his redhead dreamgirl. 
)
It's not a perfect movie, but it's got it's charm, and just enough dark moments to give it weight. I thought it pulled things off nicely.
)It's not a perfect movie, but it's got it's charm, and just enough dark moments to give it weight. I thought it pulled things off nicely.
I saw Butter over the weekend. I hate reviewing things like this, but it was more quirk than substance. The kid was kind of annoying. The comedy was just kind of smile-worthy once you got past the initial absurdity of butter-carving.
So I Married an Axe Murderer: A fun little movie that reminds me of good times in the 90's. I don't really see how this film is so lowly rated on RT. But most romantic comedies are poorly reviewed, even ones that deconstruct the genre.
We watched half of it last night. It's... well... we probably won't finish it.
You can pretty much guess the whole ending and nothing interesting happens
Kung Fu Hustle
Holy crap, why have I never seen this movie before? THAT! WAS! AWESOME! I haven't had so much fun watching a movie in a very long time!
Basically, what I'm trying to say is...
Holy crap, why have I never seen this movie before? THAT! WAS! AWESOME! I haven't had so much fun watching a movie in a very long time!
Basically, what I'm trying to say is...
im retarded today.Kung Fu Hustle
Holy crap, why have I never seen this movie before? THAT! WAS! AWESOME! I haven't had so much fun watching a movie in a very long time!
Basically, what I'm trying to say is...
most of his movies are awesome. Beijing 007 is also hilariouse.