MTJ Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Escape from Alcatraz 10/10. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CK Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Click - 6/10 Accepted - 8/10 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Just back from watching the Devil And Daniel Johnston in pokey wee cinema in Shibuya. Absolutely riveting portrayal of a genuinely deeply troubled guy, who produces some of the finest lyrics I have ever heard. He suffers from extreme manic depression, and after one concert flying home in his father's plane, he turned the engine off and threw the key to the ignition out the window. 10 out 10 just for that story. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Went to see The Departed last night. Absolutely loved it. I haven't seen Infernal Affairs that it's based on, but this film was great. All the lead actors are excellent, Jack Nicholson turns in the kind of performance that only he really can, Di Caprio continues to impress, and Mark Wahlberg stole the show for me. The snappy dialogue is fantastic at times and Scorsese creates a real sense of drama throughout. One of the best films of the year by far. 9/10 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundermonkey Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 My Summer of Love - 7/10 Nude, rude and rather...err...good. It's always nice to see Emily Blunt with her kit off, even/especially if she's getting off with a strange looking ginger bird. Paddy Considine is, as ever, phenomenal. His turns in this, 24 Hour Party People and especially Dead Man's Shoes confirm he's just about the best actor we have in this country. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Went to see The Departed last night. Absolutely loved it. I haven't seen Infernal Affairs that it's based on, but this film was great. All the lead actors are excellent, Jack Nicholson turns in the kind of performance that only he really can, Di Caprio continues to impress, and Mark Wahlberg stole the show for me. The snappy dialogue is fantastic at times and Scorsese creates a real sense of drama throughout. One of the best films of the year by far. 9/10 I too went to see it last night. It was absolutely brilliant! I might even go so far as to give it a perfect 10. Jack Nicholson was simply astounding in it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I concur with my learned friends about the Departed, brilliant film with superb performances forom all in it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Charlie and the Chocolate factory This had the potential to be a great working of Dahls classic. Burton got the mood right and Depp gave an interpretation of Wonka that only Depp could. Why then did they decide to change the story line and, more importantly, schmooz up the ending?? Every film based on a book takes a bit of poetic licence from the original story but the truely awful Americanising of this story really spoiled the film. We're "treated" to flash backs of Wonkas childhood where he and his dad (a dentist ... oooooh, how ironic ) dont get on. These simply set the scene for the most god-awful ending ever! Charlie turns down the factory cause his family cant come too, until he takes Wonka to see his Dad. The two make up and everyone lives happily ever after I cant quite make my mind up about Depp's Wonka either. Sometimes the childishness and innocence seem very Wonka-esque, but I cant help feeling that the confidence and mischeviousness of Wilder was better. A mix of the two may well be perfect. Am I just taking all of this too seriously? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Charlie and the Chocolate factory This had the potential to be a great working of Dahls classic. Burton got the mood right and Depp gave an interpretation of Wonka that only Depp could. Why then did they decide to change the story line and, more importantly, schmooz up the ending?? Every film based on a book takes a bit of poetic licence from the original story but the truely awful Americanising of this story really spoiled the film. We're "treated" to flash backs of Wonkas childhood where he and his dad (a dentist ... oooooh, how ironic ) dont get on. These simply set the scene for the most god-awful ending ever! Charlie turns down the factory cause his family cant come too, until he takes Wonka to see his Dad. The two make up and everyone lives happily ever after I cant quite make my mind up about Depp's Wonka either. Sometimes the childishness and innocence seem very Wonka-esque, but I cant help feeling that the confidence and mischeviousness of Wilder was better. A mix of the two may well be perfect. Am I just taking all of this too seriously? I agree with all of that. I thought Depp's Wonka was far removed from Wilder's and was a tad too detached from "reality" for my liking. Whether that was his fault or Burton's it's hard to say. The relationship with his father was complete nonsense and the sentimentality surprising for someone like Burton. Didn't quite match the ending of A.I. for sheer cringe factor, but not far off it! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundermonkey Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Burton's Charlie is far more faithful to the source material than the Gene Wilder movie. It also uses Dahl's Oompa Loompa lyrics. Dahl's widow has said that he hated the first movie, wanted his name taken off it. You've got to love the squirrels in the new one Also, Depp is tremendous in it. It's hard to think that it's Donny Brasco/Jack Sparrow/Edward Scissorhands on screen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 (edited) Burton's Charlie is far more faithful to the source material than the Gene Wilder movie. It also uses Dahl's Oompa Loompa lyrics. Dahl's widow has said that he hated the first movie, wanted his name taken off it. You've got to love the squirrels in the new one Also, Depp is tremendous in it. It's hard to think that it's Donny Brasco/Jack Sparrow/Edward Scissorhands on screen. Burtons film is no more, and no less, faithful to the book than the 1971 version, IMO. Both made changes to the story, as is common with all book adaptations. However, the Slugworth/fizzy lifting drinks thread is a lot closer to the book than the creation of Wonka's father and the nonsense that is the ending. I've read several opinions that have said that Burtons version is more faithful in terms of details, which is true but overall I wouldnt say either could claim to be more faithful. I never said Depp wasnt very good in it, he was. However, Im just not convinced that he played Wonka the best way he could. It was just too weird and wacky for me, just strange rather than eccentric. Edited October 9, 2006 by andycqos 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundermonkey Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Burtons film is no more, and no less, faithful to the book than the 1971 version, IMO. Both made changes to the story, as is common with all book adaptations. However, the Slugworth/fizzy lifting drinks thread is a lot closer to the book than the creation of Wonka's father and the nonsense that is the ending. I've read several opinions that have said that Burtons version is more faithful in terms of details, which is true but overall I wouldnt say either could claim to be more faithful. I never said Depp wasnt very good in it, he was. However, Im just not convinced that he played Wonka the best way he could. It was just too weird and wacky for me, just strange rather than eccentric. I never said you slagged off Depp chill man Slugworth etc is purely your opinion. I don't think it works as well. I think that Dahl would have loved the fact that they made Wonka's father a dentist. It's a twist that is pure Dahl in my opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I never said you slagged off Depp chill man Slugworth etc is purely your opinion. I don't think it works as well. I think that Dahl would have loved the fact that they made Wonka's father a dentist. It's a twist that is pure Dahl in my opinion. Slugworth is in the book, Wonka's Dad isnt. Thats not opinion. You said Burtons version was closer to the book, I simpy used that as an example to suggest otherwise. Im sorry, but making Wonka's dad a dentist isnt even close to being clever enough for Dahl. But if you're happy with the flashbacks and the re-written Americanisation of the ending, then good for you, that is your opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundermonkey Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Slugworth is in the book, Wonka's Dad isnt. Thats not opinion. You said Burtons version was closer to the book, I simpy used that as an example to suggest otherwise. Im sorry, but making Wonka's dad a dentist isnt even close to being clever enough for Dahl. But if you're happy with the flashbacks and the re-written Americanisation of the ending, then good for you, that is your opinion. Hey, what's your problem? There is no need to come across so snidey just because your opinion differs. I think saccharine sweet songs sung by Wonka etc in the first film are as un-Dahl as you can get and he never intended Wonka to be as mean, angry and nasty as he was portrayed by Wilder at times but I suppose some folk don't like updates to movies that infringe on thier childhood memories. I bet you hated the new Star Wars films? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Hey, what's your problem? There is no need to come across so snidey just because your opinion differs. I think saccharine sweet songs sung by Wonka etc in the first film are as un-Dahl as you can get and he never intended Wonka to be as mean, angry and nasty as he was portrayed by Wilder at times but I suppose some folk don't like updates to movies that infringe on thier childhood memories. I bet you hated the new Star Wars films? Whos being snidey? You're entitled to your opinion and thats what I was saying. Are you denying that the ending was re-written with an American audience in mind? Actually, thats reminded me of something else that bugged me during the film - characters with British accents referring to "candy" Anyhoo, I agree about Wilders meaner moments. But while Wilder was at times too mean Im merely saying that Depp, at times, is too weird. As for the songs, I didnt like the new ones but as you say the first film ones are very un-Dahl. None of this gets away from the fact that neither film can claim to be an accurate working of the novel, neither are perfect and IMO the ending of Burtons, along with some other minor annoyances, utterly ruined what could have been a good film. Oh, and I really liked the new Star Wars films, thanks for asking (except for Jar-Jar ) Not sure what my childhood memories have to do with anything though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I think the ending was unnecessary, even taking the flashbacks into account. I agree with Andy that it fits with a Hollywood obsession with happy endings, saccharine sentimentality and a seemingly general idea in mainstream cinema that people don't have their own imaginations, or can't cope if everything isn't tied up in a nice little package for them. And while I hate the "it's not as good as the book" brigade that accompany films based on literature, I think in this case it's practically impossible to look at this film without considering "the original", ie The Wilder version, which it clearly draws from. I also thought that Depp's Wonka did come across as nasty in the film - it was just buried under offputting kookiness for the most part. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Sky One, right now - Top Gun. Goose dies. Here to help. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluetooner Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Sky One, right now - Top Gun. Goose dies. Here to help. You spoiled it for me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 You spoiled it for me Bruce Willis was a ghost. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raith Against The Machine Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Bruce Willis was a ghost. FFS Keith, you've just ruined Die Hard for me! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.