Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Media (https://www.musicbanter.com/media/)
-   -   What's The Latest Film You Have Seen? (https://www.musicbanter.com/media/26687-whats-latest-film-you-have-seen.html)

boo boo 04-07-2009 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack (Post 631572)
Overrated and trite yes but pretentious? How?

When indie music is involved.....

SydMM 04-08-2009 06:28 AM

The Shining. At some points, it was boring, then it picked up again. Overall it was a good film but they could have taken out all those long shots of the hotel. 2 hours and 23 minutes?

djchameleon 04-08-2009 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glutoro (Post 631473)
Saw that movie last night, I loved it. I can't wait to see if Marvel are going to make the origin movies for all the main characters.. so interesting.

In the movie for some reason they didn't stick to the original story line in the comic books. Wolverine was suppose to have gotten his blades when he was in the army not when he was a child. At least that's the way I remembered the comics.

Yeah that's how I remembered it also....he got his blades as part of the military experiment. Well that wasn't the finished cut so maybe they were going to take it out and leave it in the deleted scenes pile.


Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 632011)
When indie music is involved.....

couldn't have said it better myself

boo boo 04-08-2009 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SydMM (Post 632390)
The Shining. At some points, it was boring, then it picked up again. Overall it was a good film but they could have taken out all those long shots of the hotel. 2 hours and 23 minutes?

It's a Stanley Kubrick film, that kind of stuff is his trademark.

I liked the slow pace of the film actually, the slow moving zooming shots, the idea was to capture that feeling of isolation in this large deserted setting. And I think that's one of the films strong points, traditional horror fans will surely hate this film for it's pacing and the fact that only one person gets killed. But this was never ment to be that kind of horror movie, it's a sophisticated horror film, it's not so much about what Jack goes when he does insane as it is about how he goes insane. The cinematography, the music, the setting, all the weird random stuff that just comes out of nowhere, it all contributes that that feeling, that feeling of madness.

That's the magic of Kubrick.

jackhammer 04-08-2009 08:18 AM

Strangely Stephen King detests this version of The Shining.

Sodacake 04-08-2009 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glutoro (Post 631473)
Saw that movie last night, I loved it. I can't wait to see if Marvel are going to make the origin movies for all the main characters.. so interesting.

In the movie for some reason they didn't stick to the original story line in the comic books. Wolverine was suppose to have gotten his blades when he was in the army not when he was a child. At least that's the way I remembered the comics.

Wolverine always had bone claws.

boo boo 04-08-2009 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackhammer (Post 632447)
Strangely Stephen King detests this version of The Shining.

Stephen King? You mean the director of Maximum Overdrive and screenwriter for Rose Red, Silver Bullet, Cat's Eye and Sleepwalkers? He didn't like it?

And of course he did the made for TV version which was just a piece of crap.

He didn't like it because it wasn't faithful to his work, I understand his personal dislike of the film for that reason. But it's obviously clouded his judgement.

Kubrick was never one for faithful adaptations. A Clockwork Orange was the same way. He just knew how to make them more awesome.

Sodacake 04-08-2009 10:46 AM

Yeah. It's impossible to make a completely faithful adaptation of anything.

boo boo 04-08-2009 10:51 AM

It's pointless to faithfully adapt something anyway.

Lets take Stephen King as an example. Pet Semetary is one of his best horror books, it's a great read and one of my favorites of his, but then they based a movie on it which King did the screenplay for and it was just plain awful.

It was SO faithful to the book that it was completely pointless. Especially when you take the horrible directing, acting and cheap production into account.

I love King's books but god, so many crap movies have come out of that guy. Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile, Stand By Me, Misery, Dalores Claiborne, The Shining, Carrie, The Dead Zone and Cujo have been the sole exceptions to the rule. Well, Christine had it's moments.

I think a well made adaptation of IT would be awesome, if it were handled by a pro like say David Cronenberg or Guillermo del Toro.

jackhammer 04-08-2009 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 632526)
Stephen King? You mean the director of Maximum Overdrive and screenwriter for Rose Red, Silver Bullet, Cat's Eye and Sleepwalkers? He didn't like it?

And of course he did the made for TV version which was just a piece of crap.

He didn't like it because it wasn't faithful to his work, I understand his personal dislike of the film for that reason. But it's obviously clouded his judgement.

Kubrick was never one for faithful adaptations. A Clockwork Orange was the same way. He just knew how to make them more awesome.

I know. Unbelievable. I think he's completely overated anyhow (King).


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:38 AM.


© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.