Random movie thoughts...

[Klaudandus]

I've said it before but I'll say it again. Terrence Malick movies are pseudo-intellectual masturbatory pieces of shit. I have no idea why A-listers trip over themselves to be in his movies.

Also, Lars von Trier sucks ball as a director and his movies suck overall.

[Kelaan]

I watched Dune today. I want my two hours and six minutes back so hard. It's like somebody signed a movie deal, casted the film, paid for it in full, then read the book and went "well shit, how am I going to make a movie out of this?"

Amazing book, though. Blew anything I'd ever read before out of the water.

Patrick Stewart as Gurney Halleck. Unless you mean the newer one, which didn't seem as good.
Your comment almost made me spit out my drink, though, as it's spot on.

[Brutalicus]

I watched Dune today. I want my two hours and six minutes back so hard. It's like somebody signed a movie deal, casted the film, paid for it in full, then read the book and went "well shit, how am I going to make a movie out of this?"

Amazing book, though. Blew anything I'd ever read before out of the water.

Patrick Stewart as Gurney Halleck. Unless you mean the newer one, which didn't seem as good.
Your comment almost made me spit out my drink, though, as it's spot on.

Yep, not even Professor X could save it. I about shit a brick when it rained at the end.

[Kelaan]

Ah, so you WERE talking about the 1984 Dune, not the 2000 SciFi remake of it. The one with Sting and Patrick Stewart. I actually liked that one. The pacing is slow as hell, as are many movies from a few decades ago, but it seemed like they were in many ways more faithful to the story than the 2000 one, which was the one I recall people hating.

[Brutalicus]

It was... I could tell it was Dune. I can't single it out, because most book-to-movie films are guilty of this, but it glazed over, montaged, or flat-out omitted most of what made the book good. I had seen lots of good reviews on Netflix, so I figured it would be a slam dunk seeing as I adored the book, but I don't count myself in to that cult following. If the 2000 remake was even worse... just wow.

[Brand]

Watched Red State after work yesterday. Enjoyed the hell out of it because it was kind of a nicely weird mishmash of a few different genres piled into a Kevin Smith movie.

[Aubade]

Excited for the new underworld, taking the girlfriend out on a date to see it tomorrow =3

[Lightbeard]

Scarface is a great movie but it drags on for way too long, they could've shaved a bunch of time off

[Kelaan]

It was... I could tell it was Dune. I can't single it out, because most book-to-movie films are guilty of this, but it glazed over, montaged, or flat-out omitted most of what made the book good. I had seen lots of good reviews on Netflix, so I figured it would be a slam dunk seeing as I adored the book, but I don't count myself in to that cult following. If the 2000 remake was even worse... just wow.

I think it's mainly that many people (me included) saw it before reading the book. The 2000 movie was faithful about a a good number of other things, I liked parts of it too. I liked that it covered more of Paul's life, even if done badly. I seem to recall their treatment of Paul's introduction to the Fremen differently, and the stillsuits looked different. I also can't remember much about the book -- much of what I recall making it good were the Things In Paul's Head, which is very very hard to make into a movie. The social/nomadic/warrior culture of the Fremen was much better developed in the book, obviously, but I still liked the way the old movie handled most of it.

Shit, now I have to read it again.

[Arjuna]

Dune is such an 80s movie...

Though in other news: "The Abyss" is awesome! I can't really explain why I think that way...I just do...

[alayire]

almost all film based on a book will be good/awesome if you haven't read the book(this is because they start out from a solid story, the book and generally a solid story plays a huge part in making a film good). then if you read the book, it will be slightly less awesome, still good though and the book will be good but it won't stop the movie playing in your head, so it won't be that good/awesome.
however if you read the book first it depends the movie most certainly won't be as good, but (unfortunately) generally the movie will be mostly shit. very very few exceptions to this because the book will almost always tell the story better then movie. Some movies might do the book a little bit of justice, for example I personally liked the Lord of the Rings even though they hacked allot of story, still the movies were great because they got it right and they made it about the journey/story and even though it was allot less then in the book, it was still epic. I also think what was so great about the movies is that the actors, most of them almost unknown, really did a great job and the fact that were mostly unknown played a huge part into making the movie good.


I think .. the key to making a good movie based on a book is to focus on telling the story and making it good. anything that detracks from that just makes it fail badly and most movie directors make the mistake of trying too much instead of just doing it well. well anyhow, that's just me. Maybe I like the story too much and can't stand movies that try to dazzle your eye by blowing allot of shit up. take Avatar, I liked how it started, I loved the forest scenes, thought wow this is good, then he goes Rambo and went and crapped all over the movie.

[Skye1013]

I agree mostly, and not to take this into too much of a tangent, but I wouldn't say the actors/actresses of LotR were "mostly unknown."

Sir Ian McKellan - Gandalf
Elijah Woods - Frodo
Orlando Bloom - Legolas
Sean Astin - Samwise
Cate Blanchett - Galadriel
Christopher Lee - Saruman
Viggo Mortensen - Aragorn
Hugo Weaving - Elrond
Liv Tyler - Arwen

I wouldn't consider any of those unknown (there may be more amongst the "major" players, but those ones for sure.) When you start getting into bit parts, well yes, a lot of those are "unknowns," but that holds true for almost any movie.

[Arjuna]

Don't forget:

Bret McKenzie - Figwit

[alayire]

I agree mostly, and not to take this into too much of a tangent, but I wouldn't say the actors/actresses of LotR were "mostly unknown."

Sir Ian McKellan - Gandalf
Elijah Woods - Frodo
Orlando Bloom - Legolas
Sean Astin - Samwise
Cate Blanchett - Galadriel
Christopher Lee - Saruman
Viggo Mortensen - Aragorn
Hugo Weaving - Elrond
Liv Tyler - Arwen

I wouldn't consider any of those unknown (there may be more amongst the "major" players, but those ones for sure.) When you start getting into bit parts, well yes, a lot of those are "unknowns," but that holds true for almost any movie.

erm .. I'm sorry but your opinion differs from mine.

I didn't say unknown as in never seen before, because unless they are starting out (as in never acted in a movie before) an actor has played in a numbers of films before and as suck can't be "unknown". I said mostly unknown, as in yes they have played yet none of the films they played had such such a success they made a name for them or didn't play allot of first hand roles. Most of them were actors that could fit into any crowd, they were most certainly not "big" names then.
I most certainly seen Hugo Weaving(lol Matrix?), Elijah Woods, Cate Blanchett and Sir Ian McKellan before LOTR but they weren't certainly well known actors like say Morgan Freeman or Tom Hanks. Liv Tyler was more famous because of her father and the music videos she was in, rather then her part in Armagedon.

I find it surprising your mention of Viggo Mortensen which btw is the prime example for me. I think the majority of people will be hard pressed to name a film he starred in before LOTR. try it out, you'd be shocked. Look i'm not saying that they weren't good, I'm saying they weren't all that recognizable which was a good thing. Try to imagine a Brad Pitt Aragorn and see it doesn't work so well mostly because you immediately associate the actor with the parts he's played before. You couldn't do that with Mortensen because well none of his roles before made an impact before. Do it now and you'll see people will immediately say Aragorn. I find it surprising that you mentioned him but not Sean Bean(Boromir). He certainly was better know at that time then Mortensen and he had allot more roles then him, that's for sure. But again even with Sean, there really isn't a character you can associate him with.

also name me one Orlando Bloom movie before LOTR. for allot of them, LOTR made them known.

[Skye1013]

Viggo Mortensen - Psycho (1998), G.I. Jane (1997)
Orlando Bloom - I'll give you him, because I was confusing timelines and thought Pirates of the Carribean started before LotR, though Black Hawk Down came out the same year as FotR.
Sean Astin - Goonies (1985), Rudy (1993)
Christopher Lee - 55 years worth of stuff (a lot of TV series/voice acting, but I still wouldn't consider LotR his "I'm famous!" movie)
Liv Tyler - Armageddon (1998), That Thing You Do! (1996), and of course by way of her dad

I find it surprising that you mentioned him but not Sean Bean(Boromir).

For one, I wasn't making a complete list, and for two, I mostly listed the ones I recognized prior to LotR (I don't consider myself a movie guru, for what it's worth, so I figured if I recognized them, surely a lot of others would, but that also causes me to leave out some people.) I didn't realize he was Alec Trevelyan from Goldeneye, and even he has 17 years worth of stuff before LotR.