girl with the red dragon tattoo
who has seen it?
Printable View
girl with the red dragon tattoo
who has seen it?
Are you talking about the "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"? If so, I've seen the original per the advice of the wife and actually enjoyed it. The second and particularly the third installment were not near as good. Now with the American remake, I plan on taking the wife on Monday. There was a lot of violence in the original and it is said that Craig had trouble with the violence in this version so on that note I'm looking forward to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Movie Comments: Was a pretty good movie but I understood the European version better than the American version. Kind of slow at the beginning. Followed the book well but the new version wrapped things up very quickly unlike the older version. Emphasis more on Daniel Craigs character than Rooney Mara's character, which is basically opposite the older version. Violence was about the same between the versions (actually the original was a little more intense than the new version IMO).
The new Lliam Neeson film "the Grey" Is gonna be awesome!
i know i'm dragging up an old thread, but i just saw this for the first time. the review above does not do it justice. it was the worst movie i've seen since twilight. the original was not exactly my favorite john wayne movie, but it certainly deserved better than this.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
i disagree with pretty much every word of this^. it was nothing like the best of the coens. every actor sounded like they were reciting shakespeare (bridges with circus peanuts in his mouth). with just a few changes (including the ending) it was scene-for-scene the same as the original, but cut out some of the best lines. sometimes it looked like they might be trying to be funny, but the comic timing was thrown off by the actors' forced delivery. the only improvement over the original was that the landscape actually almost looked like oklahoma, but that was ruined by the fact that nobody sounded like they were from arkansas or texas.Quote:
Originally Posted by CChandler
terrible, terrible movie.
Blade Runner 2049
Two major complaints:
1) It doesn't tell a coherent or cognizant story. Doesn't really tell a story at all. It has many threads of many stories and doesn't complete any of them.
2) The sound was overbearing and worse in the very obvious parts added for padding. (There is a LOT of padding.) Painfully overbearing a couple of times.
The visuals were great, though.
Went to South Dade High School for 1 1/2 years. She was Misss Miami Beach. I used to mow her lawn and she would sun bath. Her little sister was better looking. Bobby Ewing never saw the best of her. Her dad smoked these huge Brazilian cigars. He gave me one once.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoppinmad
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...082929e6d6.jpg
Midway is pretty terrible. Has no idea what story it wants to tell. Barely even hits the basic facts of the Battle of Midway.
I knew it would suck when I saw the actors. Can't expect Hollywood to tell a true story now days. Remember beating the Russians to the moon was not important either.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
For the most part, the actors did fine with the very obvious crap script and direction they had. Really, this movie wasted most of the talent it had.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Also, this movie was co-produced with a Shanghai (read: Chinese) production company. You can tell where they and Emmerich butted heads in portraying the Japanese. The biggest instance that some may miss...
-//- spoilers -//-
...was a Japanese captain or whatever he was having the Jonas Brother character thrown overboard tied to an anchor for not revealing what ship was from; and a freeze frame mentions the Japanese killing 250,000 Chinese. But then, the film mostly try's to portray the Japanese as noble in their mission and there's a "this film is dedicated to the American and Japanese fighters" type of statement at the end.
The actor reference was about the actors usually taking an anti-America stance in historical events in interviews.
How could they beat the original ~1976? It had Henry Fonda (Nimitz), Charleton Heston, Glenn Ford (Spruance), James Coburn, Hal Holbrook (Rochefort), Robert Mitchum (Halsey) and others. My only complaint was they added human interest stories, but otherwise it was well done.
Birds of Prey
Waited a day to think of what I thought. It was bad and way more boring than it should have been. Think Batman vs Superman and Justice League boring, but worse. It also decided to some of the worst elements about those movies and Suicide Squad and amplify them.
There were some bright spots where you could tell there was a potentially great movie that could have been told. McGregor was great and chewed scenery the best I've seen in a few years, though. It is hard to say how Robbie did because she was superb when she to actually act, but her action scenes were terrible and unbelievable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
The thing that PO'd me severely was a credit at the end of the movie stating (somewhat paraphrased), "Many thanks to the brave fighting men of the American and Japanese forces during this air and navel battle." :furious3::bomb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Houston Techsan
Space Jam 2 was bad and kids might like it, but I doubt they would get most of the references. They might get the Looney Tunes characters, of course. And the Harry Potter reference. That's probably it. It's a giant ad for HBO Max that does nothing. The first Space Jam had heart and knew what it was. This one didn't.
Snake Eyes was disappointing. It's not bad, just bland and unnecessarily bloated.
The Green Knight is terrible. The worst movie I've seen since True Grit. I considered walking out, but just couldn't bring myself to do it since I was so bored I was too tired to get up. Absolutely nothing happens or is understandable. The movie is entirely atmosphere and bad visuals with minimal dialogue (feels like I have put more words in this post than there is in the whole movie) and no action. Apparently this is a book or poem or something. That must suck, too. Reading it is likely the only way to know who and what is going on. But apparently the director changed most of that so the movie loses all meaning, too. This is the type of movie that gets made and proves why everything else is sequels, spin-offs, etc.
It's kind of a big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Ga...e_Green_Knight
Movie looks good to me, but I also liked both versions of True Grit (and the book I liked very much).
Space Jam 2 is solely a continuation of the baby boomers love of the Looney Tunes.
Jam 1 was the first renewal.
My 2nd grade granddaughter, wants to be a cheerleader and golfer . . . no hoops hope -- laughed throughout the movie.
Bugs Bunny? Always a favorite.
The binary story line a little wild. But no harm done with our afternoon at the movies.
The previews we saw for fall kids movies was very intriguing.
Dune is hard to really place. It is disappointing to me, but that only really comes down to Villeneuve being so full of himself. But, if you can ignore Villeneuve being Villeneuve, it is somewhat faithful to the story. But the changes took me out of the immersion because I couldn't understand why the change was made. Maybe that's more on me than the movie for being a fan of the book. If you haven't read the book, your biggest gripe might be how unnecessarily long it is and boring it can be (both points that also take a person out of the immersion).
The cast is absolutely amazing and did amazing work on their characters, though. I will probably never like Chalamet, but he did okay. The weakest performance, which was still stellar a few times.
I don't get why Villeneuve is so popular. I knew going in it was going to be a very beautiful movie, and it was visually stunning. But he's not a good story teller. Or editor. And Zimmerman didn't help. And I'm probably also mad because the cover to my digital version of the book was changed to a movie poster.
Still, I hope Part II gets made. I didn't have a problem with the "weak" ending, though it leaving us hanging I'm sure is going to be one of the parts most don't like. And it might have been better served to end the story at the "real" halfway point. But I get why it needs to get to the point it does.
So, again, it's hard to place (also to explain without going into "spoilers"). It's not amazing but not terrible. It has problems it shouldn't have but it's still (mostly) faithful to the story. The cast is amazing but Villeneuve made some questionable changes.
The most sure thing that can be said is it's stunningly beautiful, the cast is amazing, and the music is bad (I think I did hear at least one callback to the Lynch version, but that could have been more wishful thinking than an actual thing).
I remembered enough of the book to stay engaged and not enough to make me upset at plot changes. The visuals were wonderful. I enjoyed watching and was disappointed that Part 2 hasn't even been greenlit.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
Matrix Resurrections is not good.
The King's Man was okay. Still, had too much exposition, nothing going on and dragging some dumb aspects out for far too much of the film, and talent was absolutely wasted. Come to think of it, this all could apply to Matrix 4, too.
Looking forward to Sing 2 with the kids. Then I want to see the show about Kurt Warner.
The Northman
Terrible movie for such a promising (if old) premise.
The Old Man on FX
I have watched three episodes and I was hooked with the first episode. They don't tell you a lot. You get it as it goes and it goes to places you didn't expect from the first episode.
Jeff Bridges, John Lithgow, Amy Brenneman. This is on a level with Breaking Bad. You can thank me later for this tip.