 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
84.169.248.225
Star Wars....Part two was real dark and ...the best.
Follow Ups:
Just kidding.
I'm certainly glad they went with the cut version of Star Trek the motion picture, the uncut is an unwatchable lesson in boredom.
Frankenstein was very good, Bride is brilliant, Babe 1 is very good, Babe 2 is different and even better, as for Quatermass ..."Its...brown...the sky is...BROWN!"
Frankenstein the first was much more poetic!
Elsa was a highlight no doubt, but I never had the scare with number two as I had with number one.
Part two taste like a dish that has been warmed up again...
... which I am guessing is taken for granted as no-one has mentioned yet !
;^D he he he he....
seriously though, although not a sequel, more of a prequel.... Batman Begins was very good indeed
I prefer the more dark and gothic Batmanīs on the first batch...
I would say the earlier ones (Tim Burton?)fall somewhere between the classic TV series of the sixties with Burt Ward and the unquestionably darker recent release.
I just find the modern take on the comic book genre (The Hulk) more involving.
Yes, of course, Tim.
Now I am waiting for Tintin & Milou....
He-he..
I'm just having fun.
c
.. but a work of art. The difficulty I have convincing people of it's worth, you would not believe. Bruce Campbell is a legend in the role. Just plain great !
z
Easy now, just throwing a humorous jab... : )
Baba-Booey to you all!
.
Day Watch! Good call, its biggest flaw was the requirement of watching Night Watch to fully appreciate it. Not that the latter wasn't a hoot too.
Day Watch! Good call, its biggest flaw was the requirement of watching Night Watch to fully appreciate it. Not that the latter wasn't a hoot too.
.
If it counts as a "sequel" to The Evil Dead.
Other than that, I'd have to say...Bring It On Again.
:-P
This time, I'm being serious. One of the great pure and simple thrill rides in cinematic history.
Aliens is better than Alien in my estimation. It helped cement James Cameron's place among the great action Directors and holds up very well when seen today. The story is solid and well paced, the acting for the most part believable and the special effects serve the film rather than the other way around. BTW, that last battle scene with the Alien mother in the cargo bay is an all time classic.The first one was excellent as well, and very scary, but as good as it was, Ridley Scott had to work around several cheesy effects (like the full body Alien costume) that don't hold up too well on repeated viewings.
AuPh
I knew somebody was gonna post this ;-)
I think Alien is a masterpiece of its type. I like the pacing, build-up, the characterization...most things about it.
Aliens was more of a straight up actioner using elements from the original. It's a thrill ride, I guess, for those that like this sort of thing. Personally, I got absolutely sick of the marines and all that schtick. Just not my cuppa at all. It was on cable the other night and I tried again and switched it off finally for Animal Planet.
I liked them both for their own reasons. Aliens was high paced action pretty much all the way through. That's fine and entertaining. But I think Alien was not only a better film (Jazz Inmate covers my thoughts better than I could), but it is also more involving IMO. One of my all time fave sci-fi flicks.
Alien was actually a brilliant movie. The symbolism used in its exploration of "other" was absolutely incredible, just on the visuals alone. The structure on the planet where the warning becon is eminating is shaped like fallopian tubes. The way the alien was juxtaposed with the furry cat...the "birth" of a phallic creature from a man...the arthropodic features next to the human features...the android...the ship called "mother". Alien had much food for thought if you wish to watch it as something deeper than a horror film.
-------------Call it, friendo.
What was the difference between Aliens and Animal Planet...
I thought it was the kind of same...
I'm not sure on whether it was a better film though. Alien was a great horror story...very scary and suspenseful. Aliens was also quite good, but I don't think it was markedly better.
Baba-Booey to you all!
.
I'll take the atmosphere and suspense of Alien over the shoot 'em up action of Aliens any day. Visually it's a treat too, beautifully rendered, and a great cast. Wonderful music too.
But then, I'm not a James Cameron fan.
"Alien" breaking new ground in an era of the "Star Wars" space serial, made it a very important and satisfying film for me. Ripley is a terrific woman character and hero.
"Aliens" ramped it up to blockbuster movie speed, and as such it seems more like entertainment with the message "...at least they don't #%$* their own kind."
Love both for different reasons, but feel "Alien" is a better work for its deft and subtle control of time and environment.
Hold your fire! Just kiddin'!
I never liked 2001, and when I resaw it shortly I knew even more why I did not.
I also saw 2012 ( Roy Schneider, was it not?) one hundred years ago, at least it did not have that intellectual pretension the first had....
Wow, patrickU! That is certainly an unconventional opinion! But hey, didn't T.S. Eliot call HAMLET a "stupid play"? He was no intellectual slouch.
But 2001, at least in my mind, is one of the finest films ever made. There is no other film that so eloquently explores the mystery of existence, the nature of life and consciousness, and the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos.
A machine, HAL, a paranoic psychopath, that blurs the distinction between the living and the inanimate and calls into question the very nature of consciuosness?
The whole history of mankind's ascent summed up in a spinning bone that "turns into" a space ship, equating all of our technological advancement as nothing more than logical extension of this ancient insight, and insinuating at the same time, that nothing signficant in the whole history of humanity has happened since?
A dizzying procession of spinning and gyrating sets that remind us that there really is no up, no down, and no reliable points of reference?
A journey across the chasm of space and time that brings us back to where we came from, that shows us that there is neither a here or a there, and that the great embarkation, birth, and the great arrival, death, are one in the same.
There is not a single frame, a single word of dialogue, a note of music [think of spinning Viennese waltzers to the "Blue Danube" and the spinning space station] in this film that is not deeply imagined and thematically consistent with the whole.
But it was not only an artistic landmark, but a technical and production landmark as well, raising film-making to heroic new heights that, I would argue, have yet to be eclipsed.
What other films have been so ambitious? What films in the history of cinema have had such an impact? "Birth of a Nation," "Potemkin," "Citizen Kane"? Only the greatest of the great.
The words you lay down to that electronical paper has almost convince me that the film is good...
And yet words are only words and that wonīt be enough.
We have discussed this film here and I more that once, so i do not feel the energy to start THAT again, BUT here a link with most I feel and felt back then.
Among my friends I was the only one not to like it. And it was not because I was 16....
I admire Wil...
The " Entrance of the film aka monoliths " is one of the most beautiful in cinema ever.
PS: No one should left out " Napoleon "...
patrickU, I totally understand your relecutance to revisit this much discussed topic.
I remember, even though I was a mere youth when the picture was released, the great controversy over it. I remember seeing it and being baffled, yet mesmerized. It is a forbidding film to this day, and its rather radical cinematic approach still puts people off. It has a way of asking the audience to look for meaning in places that most films don't, to turn cinemea itself into a form of experience, rather than a means of story-telling.
I thank you for the link, and I respect your point of view here. The reference to Eliot was meant in earnest.
Well I try to evaluate also a film withing the puzzle of an artist work, And Kubrick was one per excellence, remember a few years ago visiting the Film Museum in Frankfurt with all that stuff his German wife was willing to lend.
All his films are in a way deranging and asking, thirsting for reflexion.
But in his work there is something " unclean " to my taste, something ugly, the most kind of his film and my favourit is also the one he always made perfect.
Barry Lyndon.
Lolita was also an excellent film to my taste.
I just resaw Dr. Strangelove and even If I could without problem seat through all the film, I could see how that one was made " sur mesure " on its own time, a great mistake for sure.
In one word too intellectual with a rigid goal to follow, that do not make always good films.
Like his last one.
A disaster.
I never thought that it was not! T.S reflexion..I mean. But how do you come to think that way?
PS: A pleasure to discuss with you...
Hmmm, not sure exactly what you are asking me to respond to.
But I concur that there is something people might term "unclean" in his films, which others have characterized as detachment, cold and unfeeling objectivity, even cynicism. Isn't is funny how often people seem small and venal in his films? Where are his heroes? The Captain in Paths of Glory? Dave in 2001? Joker in Jacket? There is a certain misanthropic strain in his films, I would agree. And, often, the hero is make a mockery, as is Lady Lyndon's son, or Commander Kong.
As you may have guessed, I am a big Kubrick fan. And there are many people who do not hold his films in the highest esteem. But i find them all to be deeply engrossing, intellectually challenging, and exaquisitely made.
I can remember being unimpressed with a few of them upon first viewing: Jacket and Lyndon in particular. But today, I revere them.
I am still "stewing" Eyes Wide Shut, and though there are scenes that seem flawed, and the plot seems contrived at times, my appreciation for it, too, is growing. I still can't get over Kubrick's decision to replace Harvey Keitel with Sidney Pollack. I am nagged constantly by how unconvincing Pollack is in so many of his scenes, and much better Keitel would have been.
Did I ask something?
No I did not, just like running water one thought and or the other...
I thin Kubrick was an angry man, defying any kind of authority, save is oneself.
But does it matter?
His work does.
Some is justt a bit revolting for the sake of being so.
Taken at any degree, so
EWS is flawed and if you are by it the biggest is Tom Cruise.
For his ex wife she try so hard that you get the strain as a viewer.
Anyway he is one of the very best, and what I feel is a certain kind of deception with passing time looking at his works.
That may be MY problem...
There's a muscle on her arm
With a red and blue tatoo
That says
Fort Worth I love you
We'll have to agree to disagree about human caused global warming until the next global cooling scare comes along.
Aliens and Superman II
equally strong and sometimes I feel one or the other may have been better.
It cam out a year after Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance.
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance- 2002
Oldboy-2003
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance-2005
Jack
.
.
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
makes up that "lie" about being in a terrorist group to gett out being killed...(in Vengeance)
I love that movie. If you have a sister about your own age that movie will go right to your bones.
.
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
Dr. No was the first Bond film.
a
N/T
"...You're all welcome to stay for the next set...we're going to play all the same tunes, but in different keys..." -Count Basie
but Star Trek II Wrath of Kahn was MUCH better than the 1st.
Baba-Booey to you all!
Mad Max was very good, but a slight nod goes to the #2 IMHO.
Baba-Booey to you all!
There's a muscle on her arm
With a red and blue tatoo
That says
Fort Worth I love you
a
Mr ear, I hope that this is not an implication that childish means poor. 'From the mouths of babes...' and all that !
Besides, Beavis and Butthead are childish, magnificent and possibly the greatest observational commentary on American youth (or any western youth culture for that matter).
Just my tuppenceworth.
nt
better of the original.
Of course they are! But what a pleasure they sometimes have been, back then.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]