list http://www.spout.com/ The Film Library recent group discussions Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Film_Library/Who_Watches_the_Watchmen/512/24198/1/ShowPost.aspx Post Subject: Who Watches the Watchmen?
Group Name: The Film Library
Last Post By: Risselada
Post Date: 1/22/2008 9:38:50 AM
Body: Occassionally there comes a book that I never, never, NEVER want to see turned into a movie. Watchmen is one of those books. It's something I've tried, to little success, to explain to friends who always assume that, as a comic book fan and Alan Moore fan, I'd naturally be really excited about the prospect of a Watchmen film. However, instead of just pointing to the horrible track record of Moore adaptations, I try to explain how wrong the entire idea of a movie is.Watchmen is, even more so than Spiderman or Batman or Superman, a comic book. That of course goes without saying, but it's worth stating because Watchmen is a comic book to it's core. There has never been, and possibly never will be, a subject more suited to it's medium. Watchmen NEEDS to be experienced as a comic book. The format is as important and integral to the story as any other characters. Removing that format removes a lot of the story's import.Last night I watched the comic-con panel from 2007 where director Zack Snyder came out and answered a few questions. It did little to assay my fears, even if Snyder came off as a generally well-intentioned person. I don't mean that as an insult, I mean to say that Snyder seems to really want to make this movie, and not just for monetary reasons. However he also doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, exactly. However, I have to give it up for a cast that includes Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan and Jackie Earle Haley as Rorshach, which is just awesome(a lot of the cast is younger than their characters in the comic, but Snyder says they were cast at an age where they could age them up or down depending on the flashback instead of hiring several actors per part).Now, I'm not saying Watchmen can't be a good movie, and certainly I have as much faith in Zack Snyder as I would in any other person(politics aside, 300 was a perfect adaptation of that comic work), I'm just not sure a movie could ever do such an epic story any form of justice. Either way, we'll have a bit of a wait to find out; the movie isn't scheduled for release until 2009.
]]>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:38:50 GMTWho Watches the Watchmen?The Film LibraryOccassionally there comes a book that I never, never, NEVER want to see turned into a movie. Watchmen is one of those books. It's something I've tried, to little success, to explain to friends who always assume that, as a comic book fan and Alan Moore fan, I'd naturally be really excited about the prospect of a Watchmen film. However, instead of just pointing to the horrible track record of Moore adaptations, I try to explain how wrong the entire idea of a movie is.Watchmen is, even more so than Spiderman or Batman or Superman, a comic book. That of course goes without saying, but it's worth stating because Watchmen is a comic book to it's core. There has never been, and possibly never will be, a subject more suited to it's medium. Watchmen NEEDS to be experienced as a comic book. The format is as important and integral to the story as any other characters. Removing that format removes a lot of the story's import.Last night I watched the comic-con panel from 2007 where director Zack Snyder came out and answered a few questions. It did little to assay my fears, even if Snyder came off as a generally well-intentioned person. I don't mean that as an insult, I mean to say that Snyder seems to really want to make this movie, and not just for monetary reasons. However he also doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, exactly. However, I have to give it up for a cast that includes Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan and Jackie Earle Haley as Rorshach, which is just awesome(a lot of the cast is younger than their characters in the comic, but Snyder says they were cast at an age where they could age them up or down depending on the flashback instead of hiring several actors per part).Now, I'm not saying Watchmen can't be a good movie, and certainly I have as much faith in Zack Snyder as I would in any other person(politics aside, 300 was a perfect adaptation of that comic work), I'm just not sure a movie could ever do such an epic story any form of justice. Either way, we'll have a bit of a wait to find out; the movie isn't scheduled for release until 2009.1/22/2008 9:38:50 AMOccassionally there comes a book that I never, never, NEVER want to see turned into a movie. Watchmen is one of those books. It's something I've tried, to little success, to explain to friends who always assume that, as a comic book fan and Alan Moore fan, I'd naturally be really excited about the prospect of a Watchmen film. However, instead of just pointing to the horrible track record of Moore adaptations, I try to explain how wrong the entire idea of a movie is.Watchmen is, even more so than Spiderman or Batman or Superman, a comic book. That of course goes without saying, but it's worth stating because Watchmen is a comic book to it's core. There has never been, and possibly never will be, a subject more suited to it's medium. Watchmen NEEDS to be experienced as a comic book. The format is as important and integral to the story as any other characters. Removing that format removes a lot of the story's import.Last night I watched the comic-con panel from 2007 where director Zack Snyder came out and answered a few questions. It did little to assay my fears, even if Snyder came off as a generally well-intentioned person. I don't mean that as an insult, I mean to say that Snyder seems to really want to make this movie, and not just for monetary reasons. However he also doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, exactly. However, I have to give it up for a cast that includes Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan and Jackie Earle Haley as Rorshach, which is just awesome(a lot of the cast is younger than their characters in the comic, but Snyder says they were cast at an age where they could age them up or down depending on the flashback instead of hiring several actors per part).Now, I'm not saying Watchmen can't be a good movie, and certainly I have as much faith in Zack Snyder as I would in any other person(politics aside, 300 was a perfect adaptation of that comic work), I'm just not sure a movie could ever do such an epic story any form of justice. Either way, we'll have a bit of a wait to find out; the movie isn't scheduled for release until 2009. http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Film_Library/Lord_of_the_Rings_Better_without_the_lame_Elvish/512/38306/1/ShowPost.aspxPost Subject: Lord of the Rings: Better without the lame Elvish 'songs'?
Group Name: The Film Library
Last Post By: seely
Post Date: 12/12/2008 2:04:19 PM
Body: I have to be honest. I was rather relieved that Peter Jackson and the screen writers decided to skip over the many 'elvish' songs recorded in the original books. I've read the books 3 or 4 times each now and every single time I try to commit to read those lame songs, and can never bring myself to do it. I don't feel like they add anything to the story, and didn't miss them in the movie adaptations. I know, however, a lot of purists were pretty upset by this decision and claimed that the songs were integral to the story. I frankly can't begin to imagine how they are 'integral'... can anyone elaborate on this and defend those sonnets?
]]>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:04:19 GMTLord of the Rings: Better without the lame Elvish 'songs'?The Film LibraryI have to be honest. I was rather relieved that Peter Jackson and the screen writers decided to skip over the many 'elvish' songs recorded in the original books. I've read the books 3 or 4 times each now and every single time I try to commit to read those lame songs, and can never bring myself to do it. I don't feel like they add anything to the story, and didn't miss them in the movie adaptations. I know, however, a lot of purists were pretty upset by this decision and claimed that the songs were integral to the story. I frankly can't begin to imagine how they are 'integral'... can anyone elaborate on this and defend those sonnets?12/12/2008 2:04:19 PMI have to be honest. I was rather relieved that Peter Jackson and the screen writers decided to skip over the many 'elvish' songs recorded in the original books. I've read the books 3 or 4 times each now and every single time I try to commit to read those lame songs, and can never bring myself to do it. I don't feel like they add anything to the story, and didn't miss them in the movie adaptations. I know, however, a lot of purists were pretty upset by this decision and claimed that the songs were integral to the story. I frankly can't begin to imagine how they are 'integral'... can anyone elaborate on this and defend those sonnets? http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Film_Library/This_SHOULD_be_a_movie/512/35482/1/ShowPost.aspxPost Subject: This SHOULD be a movie...
Group Name: The Film Library
Last Post By: seely
Post Date: 9/24/2008 10:25:11 AM
Body: As lovers of literature and film, I am certain that many of you have done as I routinely do and imagine a short story or novel coming to the big screen. It amazes me that more directors are not turning to classic literature for inspiration with all the tripe that is pouring out of Hollywood studios today. There is a wealth of short stories that are easily relevant to today's audiences that would be so much better than the remake-of-a-remake-of-a-remake-of-a-film that we are getting now! Some of my top picks would include: Post Office, Women, Ham on Rye -Charles Bukowski Ask the Dust (or any of the Arturro Bandini series) -John Fante The Cask of Amantillado, Fall of the House of Usher, A Descent into the Maelstrom, The Gold Bug, The Masque of the Red Death -Edgar Allen Poe Young Goodman Brown -Nathaniel Hawthorne The Annunciation, any number of her short stories -Ellen Gilchrist A Good Man is Hard to Find, Good Country People, The Life You Save May Be Your Own, Parker's Back, and a few others -Flannery O'Connor Thats my starter list... I'm curious to see what else everyone would like to see on the big screen, and maybe get a few recommended reads out of the list too. Post your thoughts!
]]>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:25:11 GMTThis SHOULD be a movie...The Film LibraryAs lovers of literature and film, I am certain that many of you have done as I routinely do and imagine a short story or novel coming to the big screen. It amazes me that more directors are not turning to classic literature for inspiration with all the tripe that is pouring out of Hollywood studios today. There is a wealth of short stories that are easily relevant to today's audiences that would be so much better than the remake-of-a-remake-of-a-remake-of-a-film that we are getting now! Some of my top picks would include: Post Office, Women, Ham on Rye -Charles Bukowski Ask the Dust (or any of the Arturro Bandini series) -John Fante The Cask of Amantillado, Fall of the House of Usher, A Descent into the Maelstrom, The Gold Bug, The Masque of the Red Death -Edgar Allen Poe Young Goodman Brown -Nathaniel Hawthorne The Annunciation, any number of her short stories -Ellen Gilchrist A Good Man is Hard to Find, Good Country People, The Life You Save May Be Your Own, Parker's Back, and a few others -Flannery O'Connor Thats my starter list... I'm curious to see what else everyone would like to see on the big screen, and maybe get a few recommended reads out of the list too. Post your thoughts! 9/24/2008 10:25:11 AMAs lovers of literature and film, I am certain that many of you have done as I routinely do and imagine a short story or novel coming to the big screen. It amazes me that more directors are not turning to classic literature for inspiration with all the tripe that is pouring out of Hollywood studios today. There is a wealth of short stories that are easily relevant to today's audiences that would be so much better than the remake-of-a-remake-of-a-remake-of-a-film that we are getting now! Some of my top picks would include: Post Office, Women, Ham on Rye -Charles Bukowski Ask the Dust (or any of the Arturro Bandini series) -John Fante The Cask of Amantillado, Fall of the House of Usher, A Descent into the Maelstrom, The Gold Bug, The Masque of the Red Death -Edgar Allen Poe Young Goodman Brown -Nathaniel Hawthorne The Annunciation, any number of her short stories -Ellen Gilchrist A Good Man is Hard to Find, Good Country People, The Life You Save May Be Your Own, Parker's Back, and a few others -Flannery O'Connor Thats my starter list... I'm curious to see what else everyone would like to see on the big screen, and maybe get a few recommended reads out of the list too. Post your thoughts! http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Film_Library/Stephen_King_s_N_Is_Here/512/36073/1/ShowPost.aspxPost Subject: Stephen King's "N" Is Here
Group Name: The Film Library
Last Post By: TheWorkingDead
Post Date: 10/8/2008 11:40:55 PM
Body: Well, technically, N is over here, if you want to follow the link(Nishere.com). Stephen King is an author I've had a kinda tangled relationship with over the years. I used to deny my love of his books, even though I would read every single one, because as an author he's not very subtle or insightful, and he has trouble writing an ending. Usually he just stops writing and throws in some ridiculous Deus Ex Machina. But then, Stephen King is what I grew up reading. I first read It when I was about the age of the characters in that story(the school-age versions, I'm not aging backwards, like Benjamin Button, or Mork). Nowadays I admit it. Stephen King may not be the best author in the world, but he is the author that I feel the closest connection with. Reading a King novel, even a bad one, is comforting. So, N. If you haven't heard of it, it's an original web-series(based on a short story that will be published in his new collection next month), made up of 25 episodes. Originally released weekly in episodes that were usually a minute and a half long. The series is animated, and I use that term loosely. It's basically a bunch of paintings and drawings that are shown in motion, and it works fantastically. The images are much more haunting when seen in slight motion, with idealized sunsets and creepy shadows. There isn't much in the way of horrific monsters, but the feel of this short would have been impossible to recreate with live action. The story is about a psychiatrist and his obsessive compulsive patient, and the reasons behind the man's mental ill health. Some of the elements of "N" will be very familiar to fans of Lovecraft, and King himself admits as much in an interview on the official site, saying he wanted to play the effects of the Cthulhu mythos on an obsessive compulsive. Anyway, the shorts are great, and can be streamed for free on the official site. You can also find some places to pay and buy the entire series, but I'm not going to advertise for anyone(else) here. I'd love to hear what you guys think.
]]>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:40:55 GMTStephen King's "N" Is HereThe Film LibraryWell, technically, N is over here, if you want to follow the link(Nishere.com). Stephen King is an author I've had a kinda tangled relationship with over the years. I used to deny my love of his books, even though I would read every single one, because as an author he's not very subtle or insightful, and he has trouble writing an ending. Usually he just stops writing and throws in some ridiculous Deus Ex Machina. But then, Stephen King is what I grew up reading. I first read It when I was about the age of the characters in that story(the school-age versions, I'm not aging backwards, like Benjamin Button, or Mork). Nowadays I admit it. Stephen King may not be the best author in the world, but he is the author that I feel the closest connection with. Reading a King novel, even a bad one, is comforting. So, N. If you haven't heard of it, it's an original web-series(based on a short story that will be published in his new collection next month), made up of 25 episodes. Originally released weekly in episodes that were usually a minute and a half long. The series is animated, and I use that term loosely. It's basically a bunch of paintings and drawings that are shown in motion, and it works fantastically. The images are much more haunting when seen in slight motion, with idealized sunsets and creepy shadows. There isn't much in the way of horrific monsters, but the feel of this short would have been impossible to recreate with live action. The story is about a psychiatrist and his obsessive compulsive patient, and the reasons behind the man's mental ill health. Some of the elements of "N" will be very familiar to fans of Lovecraft, and King himself admits as much in an interview on the official site, saying he wanted to play the effects of the Cthulhu mythos on an obsessive compulsive. Anyway, the shorts are great, and can be streamed for free on the official site. You can also find some places to pay and buy the entire series, but I'm not going to advertise for anyone(else) here. I'd love to hear what you guys think.10/8/2008 11:40:55 PMWell, technically, N is over here, if you want to follow the link(Nishere.com). Stephen King is an author I've had a kinda tangled relationship with over the years. I used to deny my love of his books, even though I would read every single one, because as an author he's not very subtle or insightful, and he has trouble writing an ending. Usually he just stops writing and throws in some ridiculous Deus Ex Machina. But then, Stephen King is what I grew up reading. I first read It when I was about the age of the characters in that story(the school-age versions, I'm not aging backwards, like Benjamin Button, or Mork). Nowadays I admit it. Stephen King may not be the best author in the world, but he is the author that I feel the closest connection with. Reading a King novel, even a bad one, is comforting. So, N. If you haven't heard of it, it's an original web-series(based on a short story that will be published in his new collection next month), made up of 25 episodes. Originally released weekly in episodes that were usually a minute and a half long. The series is animated, and I use that term loosely. It's basically a bunch of paintings and drawings that are shown in motion, and it works fantastically. The images are much more haunting when seen in slight motion, with idealized sunsets and creepy shadows. There isn't much in the way of horrific monsters, but the feel of this short would have been impossible to recreate with live action. The story is about a psychiatrist and his obsessive compulsive patient, and the reasons behind the man's mental ill health. Some of the elements of "N" will be very familiar to fans of Lovecraft, and King himself admits as much in an interview on the official site, saying he wanted to play the effects of the Cthulhu mythos on an obsessive compulsive. Anyway, the shorts are great, and can be streamed for free on the official site. You can also find some places to pay and buy the entire series, but I'm not going to advertise for anyone(else) here. I'd love to hear what you guys think. http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Film_Library/Anime_niacs/512/35884/1/ShowPost.aspx Post Subject: Anime-niacs
Group Name: The Film Library
Last Post By: TheWorkingDead
Post Date: 10/3/2008 11:36:11 PM
Body: So, I know there's already a few anime groups, and I don't want to step on their toes, but it just occured to me that Anime and other Manga-inspired films have been completely ignored by me in this group. I'm not the world's largest anime fan, but I've probably seen more than most. I've also read my share of manga, due to working at a store where I got a 40% discount, and a second night job where I was encouraged to read books all night. So let's say I have a fairly decent grounding in both forms. Right now I'm reintroducing myself to anime, after a few years of not really following the genre. I'm watching Azumanga Daioh, based on the manga of the same name. I've read a couple volumes of the manga, and so far it seems almost word for word accurate to the source material. That's a good thing, actually. The manga(and anime) is a bit unlike what most casual watchers would expect, if they're mostly familiar with the ever popular giant robots, big eyed scantily clad girls, or wacky sci-fi shenanigans. Azumanga Daioh reads like a newspaper comic strip, with basic 3-4 panel strips that add up to a larger, loosely connected story(basically a series of strips will involve the same setting, even if there isn't a plot per se). It's funny, although even when it isn't laugh out loud funny it's warm and enjoyable. The anime carries that feeling of low key, laid back fun, but due to some great timing and voice acting has more than it's share of laugh out loud moments. Anyone else have any favorites?
]]>Sat, 04 Oct 2008 03:36:11 GMTAnime-niacsThe Film LibrarySo, I know there's already a few anime groups, and I don't want to step on their toes, but it just occured to me that Anime and other Manga-inspired films have been completely ignored by me in this group. I'm not the world's largest anime fan, but I've probably seen more than most. I've also read my share of manga, due to working at a store where I got a 40% discount, and a second night job where I was encouraged to read books all night. So let's say I have a fairly decent grounding in both forms. Right now I'm reintroducing myself to anime, after a few years of not really following the genre. I'm watching Azumanga Daioh, based on the manga of the same name. I've read a couple volumes of the manga, and so far it seems almost word for word accurate to the source material. That's a good thing, actually. The manga(and anime) is a bit unlike what most casual watchers would expect, if they're mostly familiar with the ever popular giant robots, big eyed scantily clad girls, or wacky sci-fi shenanigans. Azumanga Daioh reads like a newspaper comic strip, with basic 3-4 panel strips that add up to a larger, loosely connected story(basically a series of strips will involve the same setting, even if there isn't a plot per se). It's funny, although even when it isn't laugh out loud funny it's warm and enjoyable. The anime carries that feeling of low key, laid back fun, but due to some great timing and voice acting has more than it's share of laugh out loud moments. Anyone else have any favorites?10/3/2008 11:36:11 PMSo, I know there's already a few anime groups, and I don't want to step on their toes, but it just occured to me that Anime and other Manga-inspired films have been completely ignored by me in this group. I'm not the world's largest anime fan, but I've probably seen more than most. I've also read my share of manga, due to working at a store where I got a 40% discount, and a second night job where I was encouraged to read books all night. So let's say I have a fairly decent grounding in both forms. Right now I'm reintroducing myself to anime, after a few years of not really following the genre. I'm watching Azumanga Daioh, based on the manga of the same name. I've read a couple volumes of the manga, and so far it seems almost word for word accurate to the source material. That's a good thing, actually. The manga(and anime) is a bit unlike what most casual watchers would expect, if they're mostly familiar with the ever popular giant robots, big eyed scantily clad girls, or wacky sci-fi shenanigans. Azumanga Daioh reads like a newspaper comic strip, with basic 3-4 panel strips that add up to a larger, loosely connected story(basically a series of strips will involve the same setting, even if there isn't a plot per se). It's funny, although even when it isn't laugh out loud funny it's warm and enjoyable. The anime carries that feeling of low key, laid back fun, but due to some great timing and voice acting has more than it's share of laugh out loud moments. Anyone else have any favorites? http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Film_Library/3_10_to_Yuma_Best_adaptation_ever/512/35142/1/ShowPost.aspx Post Subject: 3:10 to Yuma: Best adaptation ever?
Group Name: The Film Library
Last Post By: SkyPilot
Post Date: 9/15/2008 10:42:15 AM
Body: I was a little surprised not to see a thread on this here, but I have to say, I think the latest adaptation of 3:10 to Yuma could be one of the best paper-to-film adaptations, ever. Every role seemed flawlessly cast (and I don't even really like Russell Crowe), and the dialogue was delivered beautifully and accurately. Now, granted 3:10 is a short story, so therefore I think it naturally works better for a 2hrs adaptation than say, 400 pages of Lord of the Rings , which I feel were excellent given their constraints--but definately strayed from the original story in more places than one and sometimes lacked what I felt when I read the original books. I'm not sure quite what it was about 3:10, but it just seemed flawless. I felt as though I were re-reading the story and picturing the scenes in my mind, and not sitting in a theatre watching it on a big screen. Brilliant. Anyone care to agree/disagree? Curious to see what others have to say...
]]>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:42:15 GMT3:10 to Yuma: Best adaptation ever?The Film LibraryI was a little surprised not to see a thread on this here, but I have to say, I think the latest adaptation of 3:10 to Yuma could be one of the best paper-to-film adaptations, ever. Every role seemed flawlessly cast (and I don't even really like Russell Crowe), and the dialogue was delivered beautifully and accurately. Now, granted 3:10 is a short story, so therefore I think it naturally works better for a 2hrs adaptation than say, 400 pages of Lord of the Rings , which I feel were excellent given their constraints--but definately strayed from the original story in more places than one and sometimes lacked what I felt when I read the original books. I'm not sure quite what it was about 3:10, but it just seemed flawless. I felt as though I were re-reading the story and picturing the scenes in my mind, and not sitting in a theatre watching it on a big screen. Brilliant. Anyone care to agree/disagree? Curious to see what others have to say...9/15/2008 10:42:15 AMI was a little surprised not to see a thread on this here, but I have to say, I think the latest adaptation of 3:10 to Yuma could be one of the best paper-to-film adaptations, ever. Every role seemed flawlessly cast (and I don't even really like Russell Crowe), and the dialogue was delivered beautifully and accurately. Now, granted 3:10 is a short story, so therefore I think it naturally works better for a 2hrs adaptation than say, 400 pages of Lord of the Rings , which I feel were excellent given their constraints--but definately strayed from the original story in more places than one and sometimes lacked what I felt when I read the original books. I'm not sure quite what it was about 3:10, but it just seemed flawless. I felt as though I were re-reading the story and picturing the scenes in my mind, and not sitting in a theatre watching it on a big screen. Brilliant. Anyone care to agree/disagree? Curious to see what others have to say... http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Film_Library/Wanted/512/32115/1/ShowPost.aspxPost Subject: Wanted
Group Name: The Film Library
Last Post By: TheWorkingDead
Post Date: 7/4/2008 3:41:43 AM
Body: First off, no, this isn't becoming the comic book film club. I have some none comic related stuff in the works, but I just saw Wanted this past weekend and had a few thoughts. Also, it's the summer movie season, so this is the type of film we're getting. In the fall it'll be different. I haven't read all of Wanted, but I've read enough of the issues to know that the movie is drastically different, while fundamentally similar. In the comic, the main character learns his recently deceased father was part of the Fraternity, not a league of assassins, but a league of honest to god supervillains. Seems awhile back, the supervillains won the war with the heroes, and rewrote history so that everyone believes superheroes are only the stuff of comic books, leaving the villains to comfortably rule the world from behind the scenes. In movie form, directed by Timur Bakmembatov(director of the similarly insane Nightwatch over in Russia), Wesley Gibson(James McAvoy) isn't invited into a club of supervillains, but assassins who believe they are saving the world by killing more dangerous victims whose identities are chosen by fate, quite literally. Kill one, save a thousand is their motto. Now, Wanted is a vile, disgusting, obscene and hateful movie, but it's also awesome as hell. It distills the blockbuster formula down to it's basic equation; stuff blowing up, people getting shot, car chases, and then amps it all up to 11, reveling in the ridiculous unbelievability of it all. McAvoy, Freeman, Jolie, Terrence Stamp, they all do fine work, but this is Bakmembatov's film through and through. If he hadn't pushed those excesses, and embraced every physically impossible stunt while ignoring every logical question(how is it that Freeman knows exactly where to find the names on that huge ass loom? How did the Fraternity miss Hitler?), then the movie would not have worked at all. In the hands of Michael Bay this movie would have been garbage of the highest order, a repellant film pushing repellant ideals. And yet, because everything is so damn stylish it becomes pointless to worry about anything else. The film retains the big 'F-You, common-folk' attitude from the comic, but it's still fun, and great to see such a visual director get his way in America.
]]>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:41:43 GMTWantedThe Film LibraryFirst off, no, this isn't becoming the comic book film club. I have some none comic related stuff in the works, but I just saw Wanted this past weekend and had a few thoughts. Also, it's the summer movie season, so this is the type of film we're getting. In the fall it'll be different. I haven't read all of Wanted, but I've read enough of the issues to know that the movie is drastically different, while fundamentally similar. In the comic, the main character learns his recently deceased father was part of the Fraternity, not a league of assassins, but a league of honest to god supervillains. Seems awhile back, the supervillains won the war with the heroes, and rewrote history so that everyone believes superheroes are only the stuff of comic books, leaving the villains to comfortably rule the world from behind the scenes. In movie form, directed by Timur Bakmembatov(director of the similarly insane Nightwatch over in Russia), Wesley Gibson(James McAvoy) isn't invited into a club of supervillains, but assassins who believe they are saving the world by killing more dangerous victims whose identities are chosen by fate, quite literally. Kill one, save a thousand is their motto. Now, Wanted is a vile, disgusting, obscene and hateful movie, but it's also awesome as hell. It distills the blockbuster formula down to it's basic equation; stuff blowing up, people getting shot, car chases, and then amps it all up to 11, reveling in the ridiculous unbelievability of it all. McAvoy, Freeman, Jolie, Terrence Stamp, they all do fine work, but this is Bakmembatov's film through and through. If he hadn't pushed those excesses, and embraced every physically impossible stunt while ignoring every logical question(how is it that Freeman knows exactly where to find the names on that huge ass loom? How did the Fraternity miss Hitler?), then the movie would not have worked at all. In the hands of Michael Bay this movie would have been garbage of the highest order, a repellant film pushing repellant ideals. And yet, because everything is so damn stylish it becomes pointless to worry about anything else. The film retains the big 'F-You, common-folk' attitude from the comic, but it's still fun, and great to see such a visual director get his way in America.7/4/2008 3:41:43 AMFirst off, no, this isn't becoming the comic book film club. I have some none comic related stuff in the works, but I just saw Wanted this past weekend and had a few thoughts. Also, it's the summer movie season, so this is the type of film we're getting. In the fall it'll be different. I haven't read all of Wanted, but I've read enough of the issues to know that the movie is drastically different, while fundamentally similar. In the comic, the main character learns his recently deceased father was part of the Fraternity, not a league of assassins, but a league of honest to god supervillains. Seems awhile back, the supervillains won the war with the heroes, and rewrote history so that everyone believes superheroes are only the stuff of comic books, leaving the villains to comfortably rule the world from behind the scenes. In movie form, directed by Timur Bakmembatov(director of the similarly insane Nightwatch over in Russia), Wesley Gibson(James McAvoy) isn't invited into a club of supervillains, but assassins who believe they are saving the world by killing more dangerous victims whose identities are chosen by fate, quite literally. Kill one, save a thousand is their motto. Now, Wanted is a vile, disgusting, obscene and hateful movie, but it's also awesome as hell. It distills the blockbuster formula down to it's basic equation; stuff blowing up, people getting shot, car chases, and then amps it all up to 11, reveling in the ridiculous unbelievability of it all. McAvoy, Freeman, Jolie, Terrence Stamp, they all do fine work, but this is Bakmembatov's film through and through. If he hadn't pushed those excesses, and embraced every physically impossible stunt while ignoring every logical question(how is it that Freeman knows exactly where to find the names on that huge ass loom? How did the Fraternity miss Hitler?), then the movie would not have worked at all. In the hands of Michael Bay this movie would have been garbage of the highest order, a repellant film pushing repellant ideals. And yet, because everything is so damn stylish it becomes pointless to worry about anything else. The film retains the big 'F-You, common-folk' attitude from the comic, but it's still fun, and great to see such a visual director get his way in America. http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Film_Library/The_Incredible_Hulk/512/23659/1/ShowPost.aspx Post Subject: The Incredible Hulk
Group Name: The Film Library
Last Post By: TheWorkingDead
Post Date: 1/9/2008 9:23:38 AM
Body: Ang Lee's 2003 version of the Hulk ranks as one of the most underrated movies of the past decade. Too arty and cerbral for most fans wanting a 'hulk smash!' film, and too rooted in comic book imagery to appeal to the arthouse crowd that would follow Lee anywhere, the movie tried to straddle two worlds and only ended up impaling itself. But to me, it's one of the best comic book movies out there, and i find it much more enriching than even the superb Spiderman, Batman or Superman movies. The film was not what I initially wanted, but by the end I was saying 'I never knew I wanted this in a Hulk movie'.And so I'm a bit disappointed to see them doing The Incredible Hulk, completely disregarding everything set up in the first film for a more standard reboot, albeit with some pretty good talent involved. I enjoy Edward Norton's work as an actor and I'm sure he won't be able to keep some hefty emotional weight out of the film, but Liv Tyler is one of the worst actresses we have. She's no Jennifer Connelly. And I'm a bit worried about director Louis Leterrier. The Transporter movies are fun, but really goofy and dumb. Unleashed was a bit better, but was still pretty sordid pulp material. But then, we do have William Hurt, Tim Blake Nelson & Tim Roth to look forward to.I have to admit this has stayed off my radar a bit. I've been aware of it for about a year, but I haven't gone out and looked up any info on it, aside from the bare-bones IMDB page. Anyone got any info that makes this one worth looking forward to?
]]>Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:23:38 GMTThe Incredible HulkThe Film LibraryAng Lee's 2003 version of the Hulk ranks as one of the most underrated movies of the past decade. Too arty and cerbral for most fans wanting a 'hulk smash!' film, and too rooted in comic book imagery to appeal to the arthouse crowd that would follow Lee anywhere, the movie tried to straddle two worlds and only ended up impaling itself. But to me, it's one of the best comic book movies out there, and i find it much more enriching than even the superb Spiderman, Batman or Superman movies. The film was not what I initially wanted, but by the end I was saying 'I never knew I wanted this in a Hulk movie'.And so I'm a bit disappointed to see them doing The Incredible Hulk, completely disregarding everything set up in the first film for a more standard reboot, albeit with some pretty good talent involved. I enjoy Edward Norton's work as an actor and I'm sure he won't be able to keep some hefty emotional weight out of the film, but Liv Tyler is one of the worst actresses we have. She's no Jennifer Connelly. And I'm a bit worried about director Louis Leterrier. The Transporter movies are fun, but really goofy and dumb. Unleashed was a bit better, but was still pretty sordid pulp material. But then, we do have William Hurt, Tim Blake Nelson & Tim Roth to look forward to.I have to admit this has stayed off my radar a bit. I've been aware of it for about a year, but I haven't gone out and looked up any info on it, aside from the bare-bones IMDB page. Anyone got any info that makes this one worth looking forward to?1/9/2008 9:23:38 AMAng Lee's 2003 version of the Hulk ranks as one of the most underrated movies of the past decade. Too arty and cerbral for most fans wanting a 'hulk smash!' film, and too rooted in comic book imagery to appeal to the arthouse crowd that would follow Lee anywhere, the movie tried to straddle two worlds and only ended up impaling itself. But to me, it's one of the best comic book movies out there, and i find it much more enriching than even the superb Spiderman, Batman or Superman movies. The film was not what I initially wanted, but by the end I was saying 'I never knew I wanted this in a Hulk movie'.And so I'm a bit disappointed to see them doing The Incredible Hulk, completely disregarding everything set up in the first film for a more standard reboot, albeit with some pretty good talent involved. I enjoy Edward Norton's work as an actor and I'm sure he won't be able to keep some hefty emotional weight out of the film, but Liv Tyler is one of the worst actresses we have. She's no Jennifer Connelly. And I'm a bit worried about director Louis Leterrier. The Transporter movies are fun, but really goofy and dumb. Unleashed was a bit better, but was still pretty sordid pulp material. But then, we do have William Hurt, Tim Blake Nelson & Tim Roth to look forward to.I have to admit this has stayed off my radar a bit. I've been aware of it for about a year, but I haven't gone out and looked up any info on it, aside from the bare-bones IMDB page. Anyone got any info that makes this one worth looking forward to?