Films you've rewatched often...

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 18 Apr 2009, 13:13

Well they are both superb so it dont matter much

No substance to Aliens hahahahahahaha you do talk 100% Balls.

Look

bradavon wrote: overrated

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBLMSX09ZME
There's a song for you which everyone should post every time you say it

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 18 Apr 2009, 15:01

bradavon wrote:I've always preferred Alien and think while Aliens is good it's also overrated too. There's no substance to Aliens at all.

It's a fucking superbly made action film, one of the best that Hollywood has ever produced. Truly an example of great cinematic art.

Also no substance? Were you asleep during Special Edition cut? The Newt character engages Ripley's maternal instincts, where there was a void that needed quenching after she learned that her daughter had aged into old women during her long cryo-sleep.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 18 Apr 2009, 15:15

For me AVTAK is middle-tier Bond.

Far from the best but not quite the worst either.

I'd rate it over Live and Let Die and The Man with the Golden Gun.

Aliens I'd say has more going on in its head than the original Alien. Seems that it doesn't matter how many times Cameron impresses with his ideas many are quick to dismiss him as a just an action director. But nothing bad can be said about Ridley Scott. Double standards. It's like when Alien 3 came out and everyone ripped into David Fincher (even though his film is more interesting by far than Scott's). Only when Fincher gained "cred" has there been any kind of reevaluation.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 18 Apr 2009, 16:03

EvaUnit02 wrote:Were you asleep during Special Edition cut?.

To use one of your favourite quotes "you know" I've not seen the special edition.

Seems that it doesn't matter how many times Cameron impresses with his ideas many are quick to dismiss him as a just an action director.

I certainly wasn't saying that. My comments were in direct comparison to Aliens, although I do think Aliens has little substance. Maybe no substance was a little harsh.

It's like when Alien 3 came out and everyone ripped into David Fincher

I wasn't one of those. I've always liked Alien 3 and I've only seen the theatrical cut.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 18 Apr 2009, 16:22

Markgway wrote:

Aliens I'd say has more going on in its head than the original Alien. Seems that it doesn't matter how many times Cameron impresses with his ideas many are quick to dismiss him as a just an action director. But nothing bad can be said about Ridley Scott. Double standards.

I Always get the impression Cameron is revered as a director? Heck his bloated epic Titanic won multiple oscars! Scott has made some crap (G.I.Jane,White Squall) but is a good director..Alien is a classic,Black Rain and Gladiator are pretty good, Blade Runner is pretty meh though!Don't know where you get the idea nothing bad can be said against Scott?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 18 Apr 2009, 16:45

His recent output has gone down to well with the critics.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 18 Apr 2009, 18:18

I don't know what is about Black Rain. It has a cliched and hackeyed script and Michael Douglas, it should be rubbish but it's not - it's fucking awesome.

A superbly executed action film, with great cinematography; the Japanese character actors were all top notch.

It's really out-of-place amongst Ridley Scott's filmography. It's the type of film that you'd expect from Tony Scott rather than Ridley.

Like Manhunter, it totally oozes the 1980's but I just love the synth scores, the awful clothing and soundtrack full of cheesy power ballads; not forgetting that the technical aspects of the film are great.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 19 Apr 2009, 00:26

saltysam wrote:I Always get the impression Cameron is revered as a director? Heck his bloated epic Titanic won multiple oscars!

I got the impression that with TITANIC the Academy was of the thinking "great, now he's made a proper movie let's award him". How many major Oscars did his best films get nominated for?

Scott has made some crap (G.I.Jane,White Squall) but is a good director..Alien is a classic,Black Rain and Gladiator are pretty good, Blade Runner is pretty meh though!Don't know where you get the idea nothing bad can be said against Scott?

Just seems these days that I read nothing but good on his output. He's back in fashion whereas in the 90s he was way uncool. I'm not a fan at all but some of his films are quite good. I prefer Tony Scott overall though.

EvaUnit02 wrote:I don't know what is about Black Rain. It has a cliched and hackeyed script and Michael Douglas, it should be rubbish but it's not - it's fucking awesome.

Douglas is one of the more interesting Hollywood stars and an underrated actor IMO. Films like Basic Instinct, Fatal Attraction, and the masterpiece Falling Down were at the time controversial choices.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Apr 2009, 09:25

Ridley Scott is a much, much better director than his brother. All Tony Scott mostly does is action, good action but that's all he still does.

Ridley Scott's last two films had luke warm critical reception Mark.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 19 Apr 2009, 09:25

He (Douglas) is very good in Falling Down

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 19 Apr 2009, 19:43

bradavon wrote:Ridley Scott is a much, much better director than his brother. All Tony Scott mostly does is action, good action but that's all he still does.

That's exactly my point. You say "action" like that's less important than the proper movies Ridley Scott makes. Action movies can be great movies. The only reason Gladiator got Oscars is because they pretended it wasn't an action movie but rather a historical drama. Bah! And when Ridley does something as entertaining as True Romance or The Last Boy Scout wake me up.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 19 Apr 2009, 19:58

Markgway wrote: And when Ridley does something as entertaining as True Romance or The Last Boy Scout wake me up.

Black Rain was a very entertaining actioner,very solid movie.

luckystars · Post by **luckystars** » 19 Apr 2009, 20:07

Hey

On the subject of stuff I'll aways did into if it's on tv..

Burbs, Money Pit and Big. Ghost Busters, Groundhog Day and...

Twins!

Love em all but not to own. Just for old times sake

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Apr 2009, 20:49

Markgway wrote:You say "action" like that's less important than the proper movies Ridley Scott makes.

Comparatively speaking IMO they are.

Markgway wrote:Action movies can be great movies.

Definitely. I love many of them.

Markgway wrote:The only reason Gladiator got Oscars is because they pretended it wasn't an action movie but rather a historical drama. Bah!

Fair point. We both know the Oscars is incredibly biased. If Ledger wasn't dead, there's no way The Dark Knight would've got a look in.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Apr 2009, 20:52

bradavon wrote: Definitely. I love man

You said it

luckystars · Post by **luckystars** » 19 Apr 2009, 20:56

Hey

Surely Heath Ledgers Oscar for best supporting role was deserved?

There were better films in 2008 but better supporting male performances?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Apr 2009, 22:08

romerojpg wrote:You said it

Ha ha classic freudian slip, not that I shall deny it 8)

luckystars wrote:Surely Heath Ledgers Oscar for best supporting role was deserved?

Of course. I still cannot see it having won otherwise.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 19 Apr 2009, 22:15

Heath Ledger did an amazing job in that movie, and I was one of the very sceptic ones before I had actually watched it. He really surprised me and he made a ridiculous far-fetched comic-book villain into a very REAL menacing unpredictable psychopath, the only way it should ever be played.

I can't say I've seen all the other performances that were nominated, and I'm sure they were very good as well, but Heath's performance was absolutely extra-ordinary, and the award was well-deserved.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Apr 2009, 22:39

Yet you still reckon he'd have won if he was still alive? The Oscars are more about politics than talent.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 19 Apr 2009, 22:43

He annoys me in the interrogation scene, I find that bit to be overacted.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 19 Apr 2009, 23:12

bradavon wrote:Yet you still reckon he'd have won if he was still alive? The Oscars are more about politics than talent.

Well... that's why I said I was one of the biggest skeptics going in to the movie, cause I thought all of those rave reviews about his performance were OTT cause the guy died...

However, I found that I had been too cynical, cause it was an absolutely perfect performance for a very well-known but difficult character.

I don't know if he would have WON it if he wouldn't have died, but I do feel he would have deserved it if he had won it.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 20 Apr 2009, 07:59

It was really an excellent performance by Ledger in TDK, but I don't know if he won it totally BECAUSE he died, maybe he would of won if he hadn't have died.. I dunno - but he has given other very good performances (eg Brokeback Mountain).

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 20 Apr 2009, 13:30

saltysam wrote:
Markgway wrote: And when Ridley does something as entertaining as True Romance or The Last Boy Scout wake me up.
Black Rain was a very entertaining actioner,very solid movie.

I liked it... but wouldn't say it was as good as the Tony Scott films I mentioned.