- Awards
- 27
What was the last film you watched?
- Thread starter Mel O'Drama
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
- Awards
- 27
- Awards
- 7
happy time murders (2018) and i'm not much of a Melissa McCarthy fan but i love the muppets and it was made by Jim Henson's company in fact. and directed by Brian Henson which is Jim Henson's son too. check it out folks but here's a warning it's NOT for kids at all it's rated R and it has no human nudity though it does have muppets screwing in it and
one jizzing all over the place. it's not a film kids should watch at all. but if you can laugh at stuff like that like i can you will like it, also watch the deleted scenes if you rent it from Drug Mart like we did. i loved it and in fact i intend to buy it at some point, just thought i'd give ya a warning that's all and like i said Jim Henson's company made this film i wonder what gave them the idea? and i hope there's more of them but i really highly doubt it
one jizzing all over the place. it's not a film kids should watch at all. but if you can laugh at stuff like that like i can you will like it, also watch the deleted scenes if you rent it from Drug Mart like we did. i loved it and in fact i intend to buy it at some point, just thought i'd give ya a warning that's all and like i said Jim Henson's company made this film i wonder what gave them the idea? and i hope there's more of them but i really highly doubt it
K
Karin Schill
Guest
Okay so I watched "Fail Safe" (1964) today with Larry. The first part of the movie was going a bit slow and by the time he finally arrived on the screen I was just about to fall asleep on the movie. Then it quickly picked up in pacing and it was actually better than I had expected. I didn't expect the ending that we got and it left me with a creepy feeling since the storyline still seems current today, except for the part that the cold war is long over. Yet it is scary with all the nuclear weapons in the world and how they could be used to wipe out a whole civilization. 
Also on the extra material someone talked about what a talented actor Larry was since it was a difficult role and looking at the talent info it seems like all the other major names on the movie had won Oscars so that once again reminds me how underrated Larry was as an actor. I mean he didn't even win an Emmy and he certainly deserved one!
Also on the extra material someone talked about what a talented actor Larry was since it was a difficult role and looking at the talent info it seems like all the other major names on the movie had won Oscars so that once again reminds me how underrated Larry was as an actor. I mean he didn't even win an Emmy and he certainly deserved one!
- Awards
- 14
The Greatest Showman.
I'm a bit late to this one, but I finally watched the DVD tonight. I loved it. It's a great musical, and the songs sound great because the vocals weren't recorded live on set. This is more in line with how I wanted Les Miserables to be, only ya know, less perky, more miserables. That film was ruined for me by recorded live vocals that sounded strained and pained. Showman is as the title suggests, a big sparkly bombastic musical. Perhaps overly sentimental and maybe too inspirational, but I'm fine with that in a musical. The songs are really great as are all the cast. It just made me want to belt out all the songs at the top of my voice. The choruses and hooks are such earworms. Totally loved this film and I'm going to buy the soundtrack right now along with the soundtrack reimagined.
I need to have the songwriters who worked on this submit about 5 songs to Celine Dion for her up and coming album. I could imagine her singing almost every song featured in the film. Yea, I need this to happen now.
I'm a bit late to this one, but I finally watched the DVD tonight. I loved it. It's a great musical, and the songs sound great because the vocals weren't recorded live on set. This is more in line with how I wanted Les Miserables to be, only ya know, less perky, more miserables. That film was ruined for me by recorded live vocals that sounded strained and pained. Showman is as the title suggests, a big sparkly bombastic musical. Perhaps overly sentimental and maybe too inspirational, but I'm fine with that in a musical. The songs are really great as are all the cast. It just made me want to belt out all the songs at the top of my voice. The choruses and hooks are such earworms. Totally loved this film and I'm going to buy the soundtrack right now along with the soundtrack reimagined.
I need to have the songwriters who worked on this submit about 5 songs to Celine Dion for her up and coming album. I could imagine her singing almost every song featured in the film. Yea, I need this to happen now.
- Awards
- 7
i haven't seen this one yet to be honest, i'm glad you like Celine Dion but i have never liked her music so to each their own. my mom likes her though but she doesn't go out and by her albums though. i haven't seen Le Miz yet though we do own it on blu-ray i just haven't gotten around to watch it though. i don't mind if it's done live. also wouldn't you prefer to have her write her own material that someone else?
anyways i was watching American Horror's which is a channel/app on Rooku and they played one called "Creepy Classic's from (1987) and the host was Vincent Price and it was about horror films ranging from (1957 i think to about (1968) it was only 30 minutes long so it wasn't that long. it was one of those things that were Originally put on VHS back in the day so i was needing to see it as i will watch anything with Price. i'd say it was 8/10
anyways i was watching American Horror's which is a channel/app on Rooku and they played one called "Creepy Classic's from (1987) and the host was Vincent Price and it was about horror films ranging from (1957 i think to about (1968) it was only 30 minutes long so it wasn't that long. it was one of those things that were Originally put on VHS back in the day so i was needing to see it as i will watch anything with Price. i'd say it was 8/10
- Awards
- 18
I watched both film adaptations of Thomas Hardy's Far from the Madding Crowd over the weekend. Both depict a very potent world - a place of wild, wide-open spaces and dark forests with clifftops overlooking a raging ocean, yet it's also a place where the smallest things -- mishearing the name of a church, sending a Valentine card as a prank, an over-excitable sheepdog -- can have terrible, life-destroying consequences.
The 1967 version is directed by John Schlesinger (Midnight Cowboy, Marathon Man) and stars Julie Christie, Terence Stamp (the same Terry and Julie who meet "every Friday night" in the Kinks song 'Waterloo Sunset'), Peter Finch and Alan Bates. It's about an hour longer than the more recent version (there's even an intermission!) and is filmed in a similarly sweeping, epic style to other big films of the period (Dr Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.) Yet there are also a few moments of wonderfully freaky camera work that feel quintessentially '60s (Terry and Julie's fantastically weird sword scene, for instance.) It's lush and romantic, but also dirty (dirty as in "muddy" rather than "naughty") in a way that the 2015 film isn't. You get more of a sense of the wider community as well.
The 2015 version (Carey Mulligan, Michael Sheen, two other fellas whose names I didn't recognise) is leaner, tauter, more concentrated on the main characters. I found myself rooting more for the characters in this version whereas I was happy to just let the "bigness" of the earlier film wash over me.
Story-wise, I think the biggest difference is the portrayal of the heroine, Bathsheba Evadine. Julie Christie makes Bathsheba's (initial) reluctance to be tied down to a man seem like the result of a kind of dreamy idealism ('60s idealism, perhaps?). There's also something of Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music about her (she even runs up a hill, a big smile on her face, at one point.) The actions of Carey Mulligan's version of the character spring more from an innately independent, proto-feminist nature. She refuses to be defined by a man because -- well, why should she be? If that sounds like it's bolted on in order to appease a modern audience (the old "she was a woman ahead of her time" cliche), it doesn't feel that way. Her defiance is all in Hardy's original text apparently, and watching the newer version you can see why The Hunger Games might have named its own tough heroine, Katniss Evadine, after her in a way than you don't when you watch the '67 one. A line from the novel that leaps out of the newer version, "It is difficult for a woman to define her feelings in a language chiefly made by men to express theirs," doesn't appear at all in the earlier one.
The 1967 version is directed by John Schlesinger (Midnight Cowboy, Marathon Man) and stars Julie Christie, Terence Stamp (the same Terry and Julie who meet "every Friday night" in the Kinks song 'Waterloo Sunset'), Peter Finch and Alan Bates. It's about an hour longer than the more recent version (there's even an intermission!) and is filmed in a similarly sweeping, epic style to other big films of the period (Dr Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.) Yet there are also a few moments of wonderfully freaky camera work that feel quintessentially '60s (Terry and Julie's fantastically weird sword scene, for instance.) It's lush and romantic, but also dirty (dirty as in "muddy" rather than "naughty") in a way that the 2015 film isn't. You get more of a sense of the wider community as well.
The 2015 version (Carey Mulligan, Michael Sheen, two other fellas whose names I didn't recognise) is leaner, tauter, more concentrated on the main characters. I found myself rooting more for the characters in this version whereas I was happy to just let the "bigness" of the earlier film wash over me.
Story-wise, I think the biggest difference is the portrayal of the heroine, Bathsheba Evadine. Julie Christie makes Bathsheba's (initial) reluctance to be tied down to a man seem like the result of a kind of dreamy idealism ('60s idealism, perhaps?). There's also something of Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music about her (she even runs up a hill, a big smile on her face, at one point.) The actions of Carey Mulligan's version of the character spring more from an innately independent, proto-feminist nature. She refuses to be defined by a man because -- well, why should she be? If that sounds like it's bolted on in order to appease a modern audience (the old "she was a woman ahead of her time" cliche), it doesn't feel that way. Her defiance is all in Hardy's original text apparently, and watching the newer version you can see why The Hunger Games might have named its own tough heroine, Katniss Evadine, after her in a way than you don't when you watch the '67 one. A line from the novel that leaps out of the newer version, "It is difficult for a woman to define her feelings in a language chiefly made by men to express theirs," doesn't appear at all in the earlier one.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 44
Another one I’ve not yet watched. Your description makes both versions sound appealing James.
Every time I see or hear the title my first thought is of the spoof announcement on Round The Horne for their very thinly disguised version: Far From The Maddening Julie Christie.
After reading the paragraph above it becomes clear why.
Every time I see or hear the title my first thought is of the spoof announcement on Round The Horne for their very thinly disguised version: Far From The Maddening Julie Christie.
After reading the paragraph above it becomes clear why.
- Awards
- 14
Not really... I don't see why because someone has a natural ability to sing very well that they should also possess the same ability to write music and lyrics. I'm happy for her to leave it in the hands of professional songwriters.
- Awards
- 27
Yeah, and you wouldn't expect every actor to write and direct his own play.
But if someone can sing, compose the music, write (good) lyrics and play the instrument...well, I think that's very talented!
But if someone can sing, compose the music, write (good) lyrics and play the instrument...well, I think that's very talented!
- Awards
- 7
i prefer an artist at least try to see if they can write a good song, some can or can't. but if you can i think you should always write your own material. movie stars are a bit different as it's no doubt easier to write a song than a screenplay. hell The Doors during the making "The Soft Parade' ran out of material and so they went to Jim's Poems and they had their songs.
kinda like i love Eric Clapton and he's written a lot of good songs but i wish he had more songs he wrote on his albums than him just doing covers.
kinda like i love Eric Clapton and he's written a lot of good songs but i wish he had more songs he wrote on his albums than him just doing covers.
- Awards
- 14
That really makes no sense. To really think an artist writing a song, any song, would be better than them recording a well written and produced song. It's silly. There are many amazing singers who don't write their own material, because they know, it's just not in them. The same way there are many, many amazing song writers who don't record their own songs because they know they don't have the voice, or the desire to be the centre of attention. They studied music, they make a lot of money they are happy.
I mean Elvis didn't write his own material. Diana Ross, Whitney Houston, Marvin Gaye and so many more amazing, well respected and talented singers didn't or don't write their own songs.
But... This is a movie thread.
- Awards
- 18
Marvin Gaye did write for himself, mostly from the 70s onwards, but yeah, I agree, what difference does it make?
- Awards
- 52
I watched Roma (2018) yesterday. Technically it's a stunning film. The production design is outstanding, the cinematography is exceptional, the direction is great and the performances are all very good but overall I found the film to be a bit underwhelming.
- Awards
- 27
Oh my God, what a stupid movie. I hate it I hate it I HATE IT!!
- Awards
- 52
Today, I finally got around to seeing A Star Is Born (2018). It's a very good remake and of the 4 versions of the film, it's one of the best but not quite as good as the original with Janet Gaynor. Bradley Cooper in particular is outstanding. My main disappointment was that they omitted the famous line near the end of the film when Lady Gaga's character is at the tribute concert and introduces herself as "Ally Maine". I would have preferred if she had said "This is Mrs Jackson Maine" like they did in the first 2 versions of the film.
- Awards
- 18
Philomena
Interesting how the poster promises you a fun comedy when the subject matter is anything but. In fact, it works as an unofficial sequel to Peter Mullen's 2003 powerfully grim film The Magdalene Sisters, which was based on the true stories of girls in Ireland who were sent to homes for "fallen" women where they suffered horrific abuse at the hands of the nuns and priests who were supposed to be protecting them.
This film is lighter in tone to that, but still packs an emotional punch. It's become kind of boring to talk about how good Judi Dench is and of course, she's excellent, but not in a predictable way. Her character's combination of modesty and steeliness means she constantly surprises you. But it's as much Steve Coogan's film as hers. He's known as a comic actor but seeing his character caught between self-interest, intellectual snobbishness, moral outrage and basic human compassion provides the film with some of its most powerful moments. At its heart, it's a story of faith and forgiveness, but shown from two very different perspectives, which stops it being either too sappy or too self-righteous.
Interesting how the poster promises you a fun comedy when the subject matter is anything but. In fact, it works as an unofficial sequel to Peter Mullen's 2003 powerfully grim film The Magdalene Sisters, which was based on the true stories of girls in Ireland who were sent to homes for "fallen" women where they suffered horrific abuse at the hands of the nuns and priests who were supposed to be protecting them.
This film is lighter in tone to that, but still packs an emotional punch. It's become kind of boring to talk about how good Judi Dench is and of course, she's excellent, but not in a predictable way. Her character's combination of modesty and steeliness means she constantly surprises you. But it's as much Steve Coogan's film as hers. He's known as a comic actor but seeing his character caught between self-interest, intellectual snobbishness, moral outrage and basic human compassion provides the film with some of its most powerful moments. At its heart, it's a story of faith and forgiveness, but shown from two very different perspectives, which stops it being either too sappy or too self-righteous.
- Awards
- 27
4 versions?
- Awards
- 52
The original was made in 1937 starring Janet Gaynor and Fredric March and is my favourite version. It was remade in 1954 starring Judy Garland and James Mason and then again in 1976 with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristopherson and finally last year with Lady Gaga and James Mason.
- Awards
- 27
It's a decent horror movie, but the theme of the cult is wasted on this story as it focuses too much on gore and action and supernatural stuff.
Why is it so difficult to create an eerie vibe that lingers?
The end credits music was the biggest surprise