TV/Movies Megathread

[Ed Anger]

Speaking of movies..

Iron Man 2. Just about unwatchable. Mickey Rourke looked so greasy. Blah.

Rating:

[The Brain]

Mulholland Drive.

The chick was hott.

[Eddie Teach]

Mulholland Drive.

The chick was hott.

There were two of them.

[The Brain]

Mulholland Drive.

The chick was hott.

There were two of them.

Only one worth mentioning.

[DontSayBanana]

Speaking of movies..

Iron Man 2. Just about unwatchable. Mickey Rourke looked so greasy. Blah.

Rating:

*cringe* Yeah, that was definitely the weak point in the flagship Marvel titles.  Hammer and Whiplash (Frick and Frack?) were just so ridiculous that it was hard to believe they'd give Iron Man trouble, let alone need War Machine to step in.

[Ideologue]

I thought it was better than the last, lifeless half of Captain America, and hence ultimately a more satisfying flick.  Also, better than The Incredible Hulk, which has Tim Roth in an enjoyable cartoon performance going for it and not much else.

[Eddie Teach]

Only one worth mentioning.

[Syt]

Cloud Atlas

I read the book in 2012 (and have written about my impressions at length elsewhere on these forums), but didn't get around to watch the movie.

Having read the book, the movie was easy to follow for me, but I imagine if you come into this unknowing it can appear to be a completely disjointed mess, kind of like channel hopping between six or so different shows. Remembering most of the major plot elements made it rater interesting to see the plots happening in parallel, and I think it works much better from a movie pacing point of view than the original book structure would, IMHO.

That said, I didn't like all changes/omissions to the plot and story (I noticed some, but missed others, because it's been a while since I read the book - I found this article to be a helpful overview of the changes.

Three major changes stand out to me:

[spoiler]The removal of Eva from the Frobisher story. It turns it from a Young Werther story of self ruin to a (weak) criminal on the run story. I think it was weaker for it.

Not mentioning that Sonmi-451 was a pawn of the government to create a public enemy. Again, I think it weakens her story, as seeing through the plot and going along with it, anyways, makes for better drama. A shame the college scenes were cut, but I think the movie can do without them.

The post-apocalyptic future's ending gets changed from mankind descending into ignorant darkness into mankind living happily among the stars. Changes the whole tone of the story from depressing "we're doomed" to "things will be hunky-dory".[/spoiler]

There's other smaller changes I like (moving a chapter to Edinburgh instead of Belgium) or dislike (the epilogue of the Pacific Journal), and some that I find regretful, but understandable (removing some hilarious scenes from Cavendish's Ordeal) but none as major as the ones above IMHO.

That said, I think it's as good an adaptation you could hope for from Hollywood. Some scenes were rather close to how they played out in my head during reading (most of Timothy Cavendish, for example, including the beautiful scene in the Scottish pub).

Overall, I'll give it a B-.

[Ideologue]

I've still got that sitting on my shelf.

I tried to watch it once, and realized that putting in a 3 hour movie at 1 a.m. when I had to work to next day was a bad idea.

[Josquius]

Speaking of movies..

Iron Man 2. Just about unwatchable. Mickey Rourke looked so greasy. Blah.

Rating:
lty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/123images/honorius.JPG[/img]

It wasn't at all the worst superhero film I've seen, but considering the first film was the best thing ever...I felt cheated.

[Eddie Teach]

considering the first film was the best thing ever..

[Syt]

I've still got that sitting on my shelf.

So did I, but I've seen that Oancitizen's latest episode of Brows Held High reviews this, so I wanted to watch the movie before I watch his review some time next week.

Regarding my score of B-: bear in mind that I would give the book an A+. The book is the much more accomplished work, and while the movie works in my opinion, I find it "dumbed down" and more low brow compared to the book. This is largely, I think, due to the very good mimicking of six distinct narrative styles in the novel (19th century diary, early 20th century letter novel similar to Goethe's Werther, 1970s thriller, modern farce, cyberpunk in the veins of Huxley and Dick, and post-apocalyptic oral narrative), and the space that it has for its themes.

If anything, the movie made me want to re-read the book.

[Ideologue]

I like that guy, but then he pronounced "Shakespeare," and then I realized he was doing it as a running gag that would never end, and then I threw up a piece of my heart.

[Admiral Yi]

The Colony.

In the future weather changing technology has gone terribly wrong and created a new ice age.  A few remaining humans huddle in underground...what?  Parking garages?  Restored Nazi weapons factories?

I think this is a Canadian production, and it shows in the crummy CGI and the nonsensical plot.  However the film stars Laurence Fishburne and Bill Paxton, neither of whom come cheap.  I understand that Canada has some weird law which forces Canadian actors to perform in a certain number of Canadian films each year, but what I don't get is spending precious film subsidy dollars on name Hollywood actors.

[viper37]

The Colony.

In the future weather changing technology has gone terribly wrong and created a new ice age.  A few remaining humans huddle in underground...what?  Parking garages?  Restored Nazi weapons factories?

I think this is a Canadian production, and it shows in the crummy CGI and the nonsensical plot.  However the film stars Laurence Fishburne and Bill Paxton, neither of whom come cheap.  I understand that Canada has some weird law which forces Canadian actors to perform in a certain number of Canadian films each year, but what I don't get is spending precious film subsidy dollars on name Hollywood actors.

American movie.  Maybe shot in Canada, that is entirely possible, but definately American financed and American directed.

And I've no idea what you're talking about with this law...?  AFAIK, there is no such law.  American producers have to hire Canadian actors in exchange for the generous subsidies and tax credits they receive when they shoot over here, that we have (same goes for Canadian producers.  There are strict laws on what can be aired on tv, they all require a certain % of Canadian content and they must air Canadian ads.  It effectively means that shows are sub-feeded to a Canadian channel wich add its advertising, then re-feed it to Fox/NBC/ABC/etc resulting in degradation of the signal.

Even for the Superbowl we got Canadian ads.  Regulard Canadian ads.  Anyway, with HD videos on the internet, it's no longer a problem now