Top film list

Radoteur · Post by **Radoteur** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 10:52 am

Has anyone seen American Psycho?
I was thinking about watching it, but I hear it's pretty sick, which is ok, too. It's mainly because the star actor is going to be in Batman.

OMGOMGOMG and maybe this next Batman won't suck. I can't wait!

iohkus · Post by **iohkus** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 10:58 am

i remember that movie, there was a lot of controversy about it here in canada i think when it was first announced

if i'm remembering right, the movie was based on a couple who kidnapped, raped, butchered 2 quebec chicks

i had a camp counsellor who said he went to highschool with the guy who did the killings, paul bernardo

my camp counsellor was a hippy but even for a hippy it was believable

and i haven't seen it so everything you've just read is irrelevant olawl.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 11:02 am

iohkus wrote:i had a camp counsellor who said he went to highschool with the guy who did the killings, paul bernardo

Did he... you know, touch you?

iohkus · Post by **iohkus** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 11:03 am

yea, but only because i let him

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 11:09 am

I just read your title. I actually laughed out loud

iohkus · Post by **iohkus** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 11:12 am

yeah, you can blame lark

BlackDog · Post by **BlackDog** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 3:29 pm

Kharn fails for not having any Star Wars movie AT ALL on his list.

an F for FUCKING PATHETIC!

:badgrin:

Hell you can critique my DVD\VHS collection if you like - I could care less. But I at least have Star Wars on Tape.

Brother None · Post by **Brother None** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 3:40 pm

BlackDog wrote:Kharn fails for not having any Star Wars movie AT ALL on his list.

Star Wars, yeah...

The Lord of the Rings of its day, i.e. fucking overrated, which again, doesn't matter to me, but I do hold true to the opinion that those films aren't nearly as good as people are saying they are.

Good films, but not nearly good enough to make it on the lest.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 3:56 pm

I agree that they are overrated a bit, but keep in mind how revered the trilogy is in our culture. You knew going into it that people were either going to love it or hate it passionately. Due to the fact that Jackson managed to make a decidedly-better-than-decent movie, people hail it as great. Even I myself could call it great, since it has a great story, the costumes and makeup were great, the set design was great, the effects were great, the directing and screenplay were spectacular IMO, although some of the acting wasn't great.

Brother None · Post by **Brother None** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 4:01 pm

Franz_Schubert wrote:Are you referring to the shitty old LotR movies made way back in the day? Those *things* have never seen a good review in their life, let alone being "overrated".

You mean that one movie, by Ralph Bakshi? Man, that film is confusing.

No, I said "the Lord of the Rings of its day", as in Star Wars' history can be compaired to the situation of Jackson's LotR trilogy now.

Both of these are good, sturdy trilogies, though Star Wars is obviously a lot better than LotR. But to me, personally, they both lack imagination, creativity and shine. They're fun, both of them, but nothing more.

That's just me, though, I can stand Star Wars fandom, though the whole hype around Lord of the Rings is beyond me (not as far beyond me as the whole hype around the Matrix trilogy, though)

My personal opinion aside, I do believe it as a fact that both the old Star Wars trilogy and Lord of the Rings trilogy are overrated beyond belief. My personal opinion, which has nothing to do with these hypes or it being overrated, is that both trilogies are extremely good, but not great.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 4:12 pm

Yes, that was my bad :oops: Though to my credit, I did realize my mistake and edited my post before you posted yours.

I wonder how you can say Star Wars doesn't "shine"? It's been a shining icon of our culture since it came out and you can damn well bet it's going to continue to be one. With LotR, on the other hand, who can say for certain without the aid of posterity? Though I suspect it will be hailed as a classic for generations to come.

If nothing else, you must admit that Jackson did a very admirable job at effectively adapting the story to a cinematic form.

Brother None · Post by **Brother None** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 4:26 pm

Franz_Schubert wrote:I wonder how you can say Star Wars doesn't "shine"? It's been a shining icon of our culture since it came out and you can damn well bet it's going to continue to be one. With LotR, on the other hand, who can say for certain without the aid of posterity? Though I suspect it will be hailed as a classic for generations to come.

Personal opinion.

Star Wars is one of the most important trilogies ever made. It reshaped the way people looked at both trilogies and the SF-genre. It's still a bit overrated in that aspect, though

But I, personally, simply don't care for it. The movies were fun, but little more.

Also, Star Wars was important, as a cinematic milepost. Not on the same level as, say, Battleship Potyemkin or Citizen Kane or 2001, but pretty damned important anyway.

Lord of the Rings is not. It's uncreative and just regurgetates old movie clichÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©s. It's less original or reforming than, say, the Matrix, which had a major impact on cinematic works (even though it was ripping from Chinese customs). All it did was sell a lot of copies, it's simply not important, and will prolly be forgotten soon enough.

NOTE: I'm not saying that's important for how much someone enjoys the movie, I'm simply stating it to relativize LotR's position in cinematic history. How important or great it is should have no effect on how much you appreciate it, though.

Franz_Schubert wrote:If nothing else, you must admit that Jackson did a very admirable job at effectively adapting the story to a cinematic form.

Sadly, the art of film-making does not consist of literally translating a story onto cinema. Yes, I know a lot of hardcore fans always whine for this. They're morons, seriously.

If someone makes a painting based on a book, or a song based on a story (I name Gluck's famous Orfeo ed Euridice, for one), nobody gives a shit if the interpretation is wildly different from what's actually said in the book, but somehow, for film, it has to be different, the film has to be exactly the same as the book.

That's such bullshit. Ever hear of "an artist's interpretation"? And I'm not even saying you have to wildly change the storyline or the main characters, but be a *bit* creative in your setting, in the acting, in whatever. Jackson's movies are so uninspired it's not even funny.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:07 pm

A bit late for an answer, but iokhus, American Psycho isn't based on Paul Bernardo's story, but on a book, written by Bret Easton Ellis, who was asked to write a porno/violent book by some rich fuck, but the book was so psycho the guy who asked for it refused it.

That Paul Bernardo thingy, someone wrote a book about it last year too, quite a scandal it made.

PS : American Psycho was a good movie, but nowhere near as psycho as the book.

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:13 pm

Kharn wrote:Sadly, the art of film-making does not consist of literally translating a story onto cinema. Yes, I know a lot of hardcore fans always whine for this. They're morons, seriously.

I agree. That brings me back to my old point that Hollywood should steer clear of cashing in on name brand recognition by adapting books to the screen and keeping the title.

Granted, this would be hard to avoid w/something like LotR, but then again if it wasn't for Tolkein's son Chris we wouldn't have this situation today, considering how much J.R.R.T. fucking hated Hollywood. LotR was essentially a linguist's wet dream. Most of that is completely lost in the x-lation from book to screen. Therefore I'm left to say, "Why did they even bother?" Oh yeah, there's money to be made off of all of the people that fell in love w/the books even though they missed the main point of them.

Kharn wrote:Jackson's movies are so uninspired it's not even funny.

I take it you're not expecting to be terribly impressed by his up-coming King Kong?

OTB

Brother None · Post by **Brother None** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:21 pm

OnTheBounce wrote:I agree. That brings me back to my old point that Hollywood should steer clear of cashing in on name brand recognition by adapting books to the screen and keeping the title.

Hear hear.

That's really unavoidable, though.

OnTheBounce wrote:Granted, this would be hard to avoid w/something like LotR, but then again if it wasn't for Tolkein's son Chris we wouldn't have this situation today, considering how much J.R.R.T. fucking hated Hollywood. LotR was essentially a linguist's wet dream. Most of that is completely lost in the x-lation from book to screen. Therefore I'm left to say, "Why did they even bother?" Oh yeah, there's money to be made off of all of the people that fell in love w/the books even though they missed the main point of them.

Ehehehe, y'know, the author of the Devil's Verses...y'know...that fatwah'd guy...uhm...Ah! Salman Rushdie! He calls the movies better than the books. Heh, jealousy, prolly

The Lord of the Rings books are bit overrated, though. The writing is rather strained and can give you a headache. Still a linguist's wet dream, though, heh.

And as I mentioned, the LotR trilogy is just mass sales, little more, little less. *shrugs* What do you do?

OTB wrote:I take it you're not expecting to be terribly impressed by his up-coming King Kong?

Eeesh, don't remind me. That's so gonna suck.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:23 pm

Kharn wrote:It's less original or reforming than, say, the Matrix, which had a major impact on cinematic works (even though it was ripping from Chinese customs). All it did was sell a lot of copies, it's simply not important, and will prolly be forgotten soon enough.

I think not. The Matrix's effects are going to be felt forever. For instance, we will never have another movie that includes a trench coat or tight leather and not have people screaming "MATRIX RIPOFF WTOGMF!"

Kharn wrote:NOTE: I'm not saying that's important for how much someone enjoys the movie, I'm simply stating it to relativize LotR's position in cinematic history. How important or great it is should have no effect on how much you appreciate it, though.

Agreed on all counts.

Kharn wrote:
Franz_Schubert wrote:If nothing else, you must admit that Jackson did a very admirable job at effectively adapting the story to a cinematic form.
Sadly, the art of film-making does not consist of literally translating a story onto cinema. Yes, I know a lot of hardcore fans always whine for this. They're morons, seriously.

If someone makes a painting based on a book, or a song based on a story (I name Gluck's famous Orfeo ed Euridice, for one), nobody gives a shit if the interpretation is wildly different from what's actually said in the book, but somehow, for film, it has to be different, the film has to be exactly the same as the book.

That's such bullshit. Ever hear of "an artist's interpretation"? And I'm not even saying you have to wildly change the storyline or the main characters, but be a *bit* creative in your setting, in the acting, in whatever. Jackson's movies are so uninspired it's not even funny.

Wow Kharn, but I was just referring to the script changes he made. It would have been horrible if he had directed it "straight" from the books.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:23 pm

Why do people keep remaking King Kong? STOP IT, HOLLYWOOD. GET OVER IT. It's not going to happen. You made a classic, now leave it alone!

Brother None · Post by **Brother None** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:29 pm

Franz_Schubert wrote:
Kharn wrote:It's less original or reforming than, say, the Matrix, which had a major impact on cinematic works (even though it was ripping from Chinese customs). All it did was sell a lot of copies, it's simply not important, and will prolly be forgotten soon enough.
I think not. The Matrix's effects are going to be felt forever. For instance, we will never have another movie that includes a trench coat or tight leather and not have people screaming "MATRIX RIPOFF WTOGMF!"

I was saying all LotR did was sell a lot of copies, I wasn't attacked the Matrix.

Franz_Schubert wrote:Wow Kharn, but I was just referring to the script changes he made. It would have been horrible if he had directed it "straight" from the books.

He did for the most part direct it straight from the book. All adaptations he made were simlpy there to insert some Hollywood cliche or another (like that uber-scary Aragorn-falls-off-cliff-and-has-flashbacks-to-hot-woman-stuff).

Originality count = 0
Creativity count = 0

I can picture all that happens in the book better while reading it, so seriously, what's the point of making a film that's exactly the same as the book and doesn't really add anything to it?

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:31 pm

OTB the Wise wrote:Therefore I'm left to say, "Why did they even bother?" Oh yeah, there's money to be made off of all of the people that fell in love w/the books even though they missed the main point of them.

Main point of the theme? So tell me what is your take on it? World War II? The Russian Revolution? Something new? On second thought don't bother telling me, I've heard them all. So many theories, too bad Tolkien was just trying to write a story based in the new world he was thinking up.

Brother None · Post by **Brother None** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:33 pm

Franz_Schubert wrote:
OTB the Wise wrote:Therefore I'm left to say, "Why did they even bother?" Oh yeah, there's money to be made off of all of the people that fell in love w/the books even though they missed the main point of them.
Main point of the theme? So tell me what is your take on it? World War II? The Russian Revolution? Something new? On second thought don't bother telling me, I've heard them all. So many theories, too bad Tolkien was just trying to write a story based in the new world he was thinking up.

I don't think LotR had one theme

Like Leone's masterpiece "Once upon a time in America" you can interpret it any way you want to. Leone said, literally, that the movie is about what you want it to be about. More directors and authors attempt this, but most fail.

I dunno if Tolkien had any intentions of a deeper meaning, but the fact is the books are open to any number of interpretations and deeper meanings.

The films, in contrast, are open to none.