Film_Fatale
-
Posts
15,982 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Film_Fatale
-
-
> {quote:title=CelluloidKid wrote:}{quote}
> I loved "The Dark Knight"! I "The Dark Knight" transcends the concept of a 'Super hero movie'.
> What makes this film truly gold is the amazing intense moments and the unpredictability. There are amazing action scenes, but the reason they shine so much is because of how well they are built up, and how all of a sudden they come. More frequently toward the last hour of the film, it takes a lot of deadly turns and places that not many films go too.
Most of the action scenes were rather dull, and poorly edited; and the movie becomes increasingly tedious as it goes for about 4-5 climaxes too many.
-
It might be a tough sell, but maybe they could offer it as a special offer - maybe like those where you send in a number of proofs-of-purchase from WHV box sets and get it in the mail
-
> {quote:title=visualfeast wrote:}{quote}
> The enormous amounts of cash being taken in for DARK KNIGHT is an excellent tell for how Hollywood has dumbed down the movie-going public. Not only does it lack the charm and fantasy that comic books afford, it offers nothing more than regurgitated CGI "effects" and an amazingly boring visual experience. Don't know about the rest of you, but I want a plot, character devolopment, creative visuals and I want it told in a reasonable length of time. This dud features boring characters (Maggie Gyllenhall appears to have taken time off from her cafeteria job to play her role, Morgan Freeman plays Morgan Freeman...somebody send him on a vacation...,Gary Oldman stumbles through his fake American accent, hitting the mark about one-third of the time and Michael Caine is great, as usual, but sems to be acting in a different film)
> The film plods along for two hours and one-half, offering for point and counterpoint, screen filling explosions, sleep inducing dialogue, and views of a city as exciting as Phoenix.
> Tell me the endless previews of much the same film that were shown to wet the apetite for multiple returns to the theater were just a bad dream
> I don't think anyone thought that the great fantasy experience of BATMAN 1 and 2 and DICK TRACY would devolve to this kind of dreck.
I'm actually quite disappointed in the movie myself - even though I love the Batman character!
I've watched pretty much every comic book movie since 1978 and this has to rate as one of the biggest disappointments. To me personally it seems the weakest of the summer's comic book adaptations. You've already pointed out many of the movie's weaknesses, so I won't go there now.
Also, box office figures are somewhat misleading because the latest film would have to make $450 million domestically _just to match_ what Burton's 1989 movie took in, once you adjust for inflation. Of course the difference is that Burton's movie only cost $35 million in 1989 dollars, compared to about $180 million for this one.
The only bright side I can see here is that it will give even more incentive to studios to continue making comic book movies - hopefully better ones.
Oh and btw there is an interesting DC title right now called Trinity, with DC's top three characters (I'm sure I don't have to tell you who they are). It's far more entertaining than the latest Batman movie.
-
> {quote:title=Meanie220 wrote:}{quote}
> Isn't White Dog about this canine that's owned by a racist bigot, and it's trained to attack black people? I remember when it originally came out. I think the special effects are rather gory in this...shudder. Don't know if I'm up to it.
Not exactly. An actress finds the white dog and adopts it without realizing it's been trained to attack African-Americans; she then takes it to a dog trainer to retrain him so he won't attack people because of the colour of their skin.
I don't remember the movie being all that gory, but in any event it's a hard movie to find because it has never been released in video in North America. I believe it showed at the NYC Film Forum a while back as part of an Ennio Morricone retrospective.
-
What a great topic
I wish they could show Ride the Pink Horse and Porgy and Bess and also the Edward G. Robinson film A Dispatch from Reuters which I think they've shown before.
Also I wish they'd show Gaby (1956) with Leslie Caron again, because I swear it's been at least 2 years since they last showed it, and although I watched it, I didn't record it then.
-
Tnx for the news, Donna. I must sheepishly admit I don't recall hearing about that show before, but if Henry Fonda's in it, I'm interested. For how many seasons did it run? Was it a big hit at the time?
Oh and in other news...
*MGM Makes a Date with 'Carrie' on Blu-ray*
In an early alert to retailers, MGM has set an early-October Blu-ray release for the 1976 horror classic 'Carrie.'
Launching the careers of Sissy Spacek, John Travolta, and Amy Irving (as well as snagging Oscar nominations for Spacek and co-star Piper Laurie), 'Carrie' will make its Blu-ray debut on October 7.
No tech specs or supplemental details have yet been announced. We'll keep you posted.
Suggested list price for the Blu-ray has been set at $39.98.
-
> {quote:title=scsu1975 wrote:}{quote}
> This begs the question, are there any Glorious Bastards?
Interesting question. I hope to have a better idea after I've watched the movie B-)
-
> {quote:title=mickeeteeze wrote:}{quote}
> Ahhh memories. I never could stand those stale peanuts, though!
>
Ah, the good ol' days before the age of artificial preservatives!
-
Happy B-Day, Joe E. Brown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(July 28, 1892 - July 6, 1973)
-
It's not exactly a classic movie, but since it's based on a pretty much timeless Dr. Seuss story... well, the animated *Horton Hears a Who* will be out Dec. 9th.
-
> {quote:title=iowahawkeye wrote:}{quote}
> edgecliff, in regards to BR, why would you go w/rentals? because of the price? eventually the price will be going down...
I can't speak for edgecliff, but personally I'm kind of in a similar situation. Seriously considering going mostly with rentals. It makes a lot more sense. For one thing, I have a stronger incentive to actually watch them promptly. When I buy it's much too easy to put off watching a box set until some "special day". Not to mention that with few exceptions, there aren't that many movies I'm likely to want to watch more than once. So in many cases, what's the point of paying $50 for a box set if the movies are available on Netflix and I can just rent them whenever I want to watch them?
The only ones really worth buying are limited editions of movies you really like, but those are few and far between. Of the time I have to watch movies, I'd really rather spend 80% or 90% watching things I've never seen before, and only 10% or 20% of the time for repeat viewings of the ones I really like.
Not to mention that there's more ways to get instant viewing at home and they continue to grow.
-
Well, I think the thread addresses an issue that is as relevant today as it was in 2004.
-
> {quote:title=richardny4me wrote:}{quote}
> I have been on a Western-film kick recently which lead me to see the relatively little-known film FOUR FACES WEST which I totally enjoyed. It had a great plot, fascinating characters, and the chemistry between Francis Dee and Joel McCrea (married in real life) was very apparent. I do not know why the film is not better known. Definitely see it if you get a chance.
Did you watch it on the Republic Pictures DVD? If so, how was the quality?
-
That's a great gallery of clips, thanks for the link! B-)
-
Not a Monty Python fan?
-
Yeah, I mean, WHV could probably give it away and it would just be free advertising for them because after you've watched it, you just want to dig into a good movie library and see so many of those old MGM movies.
-
> {quote:title=scsu1975 wrote:}{quote}
> >life is like a box of chocolates, you never know whatcha gonna get.
>
> If those chocolates are sweetened with sorbitol, I know what I'm gonna get
Sing with me now:
Always look on the bright side of life... da ta-ra ta-ra-ree-ra-ree-rah
-
Hopefully it won't attract women in droves, like *Sex and the City*.
-
> {quote:title=scsu1975 wrote:}{quote}
> And *Save The Tiger*, which starred *Jack Lemmon* and .... *Jack Gilford*, whose birthday was several days ago ... "candy-coated popcorn, peanuts and a prize, that's what you get in Crackerjacks."
Yes, that's what you get in crackerjacks. But, you know, life is like a box of chocolates, you never know whatcha gonna get.
-
CM,
As I was just telling mickey, having him on ignore is likely to result sooner or later on duplicated threads. Then people who don't realize I have him on ignore will be like, "why are there 2 threads about this stuff". It's not like I haven't tried it before. Ignore works great in most other cases, tho.
But, I've just offered him an olive branch and want to see what he can offer as a sign of good will. Let's see if he responds with kindness and a positive attitude.
-
I starred it out because I didn't know if that kind of word was allowed here.
-
Well, there are. And some of us have already started considering if it's the right time to start upgrading certain titles to BR.
-
> {quote:title=mickeeteeze wrote:}{quote}
> Cripes, FF.
> Put him on ignore.
You think I haven't tried that??
Last time I tried that it resulted in lots of duplicate threads. If nobody on the boards minds that happening again - I'll put him on ignore again. B-)
Mind you, I'm already waving a white flag and asking him to be considerate of others' feelings, so that we can, you know, reach some kind of amicable solution to all of this. Why would I be offering an olive branch here and now, if I wasn't perfectly calm about this?
-
> {quote:title=CineMaven wrote:}{quote}
> Uh oh...you certainly went way back to cite your case by bringing back a thread from 2007. I dunno, but I can't help feel this is a tad disingenuous, Film Fatale.
Actually, I just went back all the way to some threads from 2002.
Look, you and Kyle can question my motives all you want, but why aren't you asking how a person who claims to be 30-something can be told repeatedly for over 6-7 months that he's being a little annoying and *NOT* understand it?
Is it not more disingenuous that someone who claims to be in his 30's would still not understand it - and have the gall to say people are just "nasty" to him when they offer some constructive criticism - after we've tried to be patient for many months?
As I just told Kyle, if CK can at least show he understands why is it that so many folks on the TCM boards have felt his posting habits were a bit annoying, then we can definitely work towards a more satisfactory situation, and those of us who have felt he was being annoying (and wondered if he was doing it on purpose) will, no doubt, be quite friendly to him.
Wouldn't you like to see things work out for the best? I would.
Unreleased PARAMOUNT films on DVD
in Hot Topics
Posted
> {quote:title=CelluloidKid wrote:}{quote}
> I have "THE HEIRESS" on DVD...bought in a 2 pack! I myself don't like this film! The only reason I got it was because it came W./"No Man of Her Own" W./ Clark Gable and Carole Lombard!
>
> Bonus Features for "THE HEIRESS" (It was released through Universal!)
>
> Exclusive Intro by TCM host Robert Osborne
> Theatrical Trailer
>
> Since it's a classic it sits on my self! I'm not getting rid of it!
It sits on your self ?
Anyway, The Heiress is not an unreleased title. This thread is about Paramount movies that have not been released on DVD.