well, cat, 'll just say i thought the show itself huffed ass, so i wouldn't expect greatness from a movie based on it, let alone from a sequel. ok, i got a bunch to get caught up on here. The Hobbit - watched the 3rd installment. this series' only problem, imo, is that they made 3 movies for what should have been a single film, and as a result of needing to pad it out for length, jackson presumed to make a few rewrites to the story. if you've never read the book, that wouldn't matter. aside from that, i give these thumbs up. i really dislike jackson rewriting the story line, but aside from that, i've got nothing bad to say about these films, and plenty of good. the LOOK of them is first rate. Secret Window - i'm a big fan of both johnny depp and stephen king. that being said, this movie sucked. Non-Stop - a plane flight thriller with Liam Neeson. i liked it. Frantic - not the 70s hitchcock one, but the 80s harrison ford one. aside from one (imo) huge plot flaw at the beginning Spoiler why didn't his wife take a second to go to him while he showered and tell him what was up? - i thought it was worth watching. Run B(itch) Run - lol, what can i say? imagine a very low budget version of the original I Spit on your Grave, complete with a bad porn soundtrack. and when i say bad, i mean not only was the music bad, it was (perhaps intentionally?) poorly recorded. The Island (2005) - in spite of a couple of criticisms, i'll endorse this one bigtime - because its basis is as solid a sci-fi premise as there is. i'd have liked to have seen some changes to it, but the underlying story is the kind of story that makes sci-fi (not space opera, i'm not talking about star wars here) compelling to me.
never liked the first hobbit movies. not going to sit through anymore of them. i liked non-stop. lulz-ever see one of hitchcock's last films called frenzy? really solid. love the ending. loved all of it. netflix actually has run, bitch, run. i may have to get it. haha.
ah, ty, frenzy is what i was thinking of when i referred to hitchcock's frantic. yes, very good film.
well ive seen a lot via netflix. i like many of them. can't remember titles of many of them etc. the one with the hot girl who thinks her fav uncle is a killer is a great one. i think rope with jimmy stewart is a good one too. rear window etc. i didn't think north by northwest was all that great. maybe i need to watch it again. was expecting more out of it. the one i didn't like is a very old one. its called 39 steps. hated the birds bc it scared me half to death. heard they're remaking strangers on a train with affleck and d. fincher who made gone girl.
funny u should diss north by northwest - i agree completely. and it's odd, because i love the cast. i'm a huge cary grant fan, love james mason and landau - but that movie does nothing for me. not a huge fan of psycho either. i had to look up the one u were referring to, because it didn't ring any bells. turns out to be one i haven't seen yet - shadow of a doubt. i'll make a point of watching it now. my favorites are vertigo and spellbound. rebecca is a good film, but it's a great story which isn't his. there's a more recent version i'm a fan of - diana rigg deservedly won an emmy for her performance as mrs. danvers, who, to me, is an all time great literary/movie character. [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4_uqLAsGlM[/video] [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1MVdjnttow[/video] have u ever seen The Trouble with Charlie ? it's about a body discovered on a new england hillside - but it's definitely not your normal hitchcock fare.
yes i saw charlie. my sister loves rebecca. it won best picture. i didn't see all the hoopla about it? and again if most of these movies were made today they wouldn't be hits as his "ah ha moment" is silly compared to the time now. for 1930-60 it's good. not now.
that's a mindset i disagree with completely. for example, while some of the details are problematic, the elements that make rebecca a great story are timeless, and are completely independent of the trappings of the age they take place in. to think that a film must reflect contemporary times to be great is, in my opinion, nothing short of idiotic. something is a hit because of popularity. the day i start thinking most popular and best are equivalent concepts, someone please shoot me. i can't believe i took time away from watching american idol and big brother 17 to discuss this
i have a gun handy! lulz - i can list about 100 movies if made today would not be classics or hits. not the reflection of time lulz - the story made in 1940 is great for 1940. today with technology and bigger, better and louder the SAME movies would be boring as hell. hell even movies 20 yrs ago, 10 yrs ago would not be great today. great for their time. not great for today. even movies i love are on that list. hell you didn't some of them- high noon when they came out, so why would they be good now ? hmm. and some movies are true classics regardless of time and period made. some IMHO are not. to each their own idiotic man! casablanca african queen citizen kane high noon gone with the wind midnight cowboy my fair lady even some of hitch's movies i didn't like for the story - regardless of setting. to me movies back then were simpler in plot and concept. today they would be torn to shreds as boring and not enough. same with movies today. Gone Girl should've been better! It wasn't. Not enough. Needed more oomph! The old movies got by on very little oomph and it worked for many of them.
yes, because viewers today are far more likely to accept a crap story as long as there are cool special effects. i find it funny that "louder" equates to better.
not better but different. another old movie that is considered great - mr. smith goes to washington. holy crap was it bad and silly. so he speaks for 48 hrs straight. you know what he needed? a straight jacket! haha rebecca - i didn't see the hype in it. it wasn't that special to me or shocking or surprising. it's dull. some of hitch's movies have a great twist or shock factor. i didn't think rebecca had it. my 2 cents.
yeah she's a tough old broad. hard to kill in those bond movies too. ahha. i gotta check it out. i saw birdman 2 months ago and cannot believe it's now favored as Best Picture. I know people on here hate the Academy but wow. Best Picture? It's a silly quirky movie that has no business being best picture. Keaton being nominated was one thing but best picture? wow. my cousin, who saw it twice said to give it another look. i may have too. maybe i feel asleep the first time? haha. i cant believe emma stone got an oscar nom for it too. she does nothing in the movie but bitch and pout. at this rate maybe i can get an oscar nom...
run bitch run. wow. can't believe this wasn't a roger corman movie. it may go down as the worst movie i have ever seen. bad on so many levels. actually not bad - insane on so many levels that it's bad all around. wow. it may take me a very long to see a movie as bad as this. thank God for some nice tits in the movie or else i would've turned it off.
i found the loophole i was looking for... i saw the scene last night. tom has dickie's rings that he swore to paltrow he would never take off. his reasoning of "he gave them to me" is really lame. but this is what i was looking for - philip baker hall tells ripley that "we checked in princeton and we did find a thomas ripley who worked in the music department." to me that's the whole proof that ripley lied about going to princeton. he said he knew dickie from there and had classes with him. what baker finds out is proof ripley never went there. to me that is reason enough to assume he's lying about his past. the father basically knew of his son's violent past and believes the fake note that he committed suicide to cover up his misdeeds. to me ripley lying about being a princeton student is a sign he never knew dickie at all and never went to princeton.
That's not a loophole - that was a given from the very beginning of the movie. The Princeton jacket when he was playing piano at the beginning of the movie was borrowed; you saw him give it back later. Of course he never knew Dickie, never went to Princeton...
right axe but why is philip baker hall now knowing the sAme info dismissing it. to me ok you're whole thing first time meeting him and paltrow on the beach was a lie. you never knew him! no detective would let that slide. not a good one anyways. hahah
Philip Baker Hall DIDN'T know that Ripley never went to Princeton. He checked into Dickie's past, not Ripley's.
