Escape to the Movies: A Look Ahead

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Gah soo many Rated Rs coming out, it just will make my job soo much fun. Cool info on the thing though im glad its not being remde for the 3rd time, although if its about the Norweigian facility that means Mary Elizabeth Winstead dies /cry.

Ever since X-Men: First Class, I've been patiently anticipating the release of A Dangerous Method (due to Michael Fassbender doing so well in First Class); so, I'm a little disappointed that Bob made no mention of it. Though, I did enjoy Bob's summary of "Coming Attractions" =P and I'll probably watch it a couple more times over the next few weeks to further ingrain ideas for what I should be more excited about.

(Here's a trailer for A Dangerous Method: )

Aw, I was kinda looking forward to a Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark review, but this works fine.

As much as I'm pissed at them remaking The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, I'm glad Bob mentioned who the director was. I had already dismissed it as an unnecessary, word for word copy of the brilliant Swedish film. But now I'm interested.

Other than that, there really isn't much worth seeing this year. Rum Diary, Immortals and Sherlock Holmes 2 are ones I might consider checking out.

However, 2012 can't come soon enough. Why?
-The Woman In Black
-The Avengers*
-Men In Black 3 (maybe)
-The Amazing Spiderman (could be good)
-The Dark Knight Rises*
-Resident Evil Retribution (I actually like this series)
-The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey*
-World War Z* (A large part filmed in Scotland, so I'm very interested in this one)
-Tintin 2 (I think both the Tintin films will be amazing)

* -means I'm really f*cking excited about this movie!!!

Isn't John Carpenter of Mars in '12 too?

No, Bob, not Rad... you mean GLEAMING THE CUBE.

On the one hand, however good/bad M:I/4 is, if it does anything for Brad Bird that it did for J.J. Abrams (and I suppose Orci and Kurtzman), he'll be fine. And for the rest of us it will be a good thing (or depending on your view of their post-M:I work, maybe not so much, I dunno). The one thing that gives me pause is that Bird is directing a script from a team of writers. In all of his animated features, he was the head writer, which is where a lot of the magic of his movies originates.

But for God's sake, Brad, one way or the other, finish this up and make a zillion dollars on it so you can get back to work on 1906... or The Incredibles 2.

I stopped caring about movies for a while now, i don't know why. Maybe Internet comedy, television and video games are just better in my eyes.

Isn't John Carpenter of Mars in '12 too?

Oh yeah, I missed that one. Thanks. Add it to the list!!!

I'm watching Mission Impossible based solely on the fact that Bird is attached to it - his movies are just /so/ good! I want to see him achieve great things in the live-action setting.

The Thing is a remake of a 1958 movie called The Thing from Another World. I really don't think you want people to go see the first one.

I do wish he'd said a tiny bit more about some of the other films, especially Straw Dogs, because I always get antsy when something like that, especially something starring one of my favorite actors, gets remade... Does he have some insight I don't? I don't know... he wouldn't tell me :P We'll see.

He made a blog post about it a few months back. I'm too lazy to go back and find it, so I'll just try to reiterate what I can remember.

Here's the trailer:

Looks pretty shit when compared to the original.

It's being directed by Rod Lurie. I've never seen any of his films, but Bob says he tends to lack subtlety. Case in point with this film, as the setting and premise have changed from changed from an American Mathematician moving to the English countryside and fighting some locals to a liberal, atheist Hollywood screenwriter moving to the Southern American countryside and fighting some religious, conservative country bumpkins. I believe Bob also complained how it's got that flashy Hollywood look to it and seems to have things dumbed things down a lot. For example, with the original, the reasons for the locals attacking in the first place were some what justified, or at the very least, understandable and they were also really drunk, whereas with the remake it looks (and mind you, trailers can be decieving) as though the locals attack for shits and giggles, because Hollywood believes that moral ambiguity of any nature confuses and upsets audiences.

Just gotta say it. I've really enjoyed all the Underworld flicks. They certainly aren't sophisticated viewing, but for fun comic book stylized violence with a strong "creatures" vibe, I don't see how they could make them much better.

Plus Kate Beckensail in a cat suit. I mean c'mon! I am a mere human male after all.

Even if it's David Fincher it's still silly to remake a movie after only a couple of years.

Well, I'm excited for the "The Thing" prequel, I'm a huge fan of the 1982 movie, it's one of my top 10 movies. And so far the trailer and the few interviews I read didn't changed my opinion on the prequel.

And for the rest of the year, I was kinda disappointed by the summer-blockbusters so far, I have higher hopes for the fall and winter season.

Now now, MI1 was a pretty fun agent thriller! ^^

Also, am I the only one who's super stoked for Dredd? Oh. Ok then.

Not exactly the most thrilling lineup but at least David Fincher. Then again the only movie I'm looking forward to wasn't even mentioned -- Saving Private Perez.

So many remakes recently... actually, maybe that's just a normal thing, but I sort of shut it out because I never see any of them.

Ben Hur 1907, 1925, 1959, 2003, 2010 miniseries.

Cleopatra 1934, 1963, 1999, 2003, 2005.

I could go on, but the point is that remakes are as old as hollywood itself, but you only seem to care now because its is somehow affecting your childhood.

Sooooo um total nerd moment but when he mentioned Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy who else totally thought of Rip van Winkle?

Not that great of a fall, unfortunately. And as a Swede, I will argue that the original Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was awesome, and that a new one is completely unnecessary. However, the director is awesome and it will almost certainly do better than the original in the US, giving more people a chance to see it.
Also, I would have loved to hear you rage on Conan.

Iron Lady? About Margret Thatcher?

Hmmm... If it's a positive portrayal, a good portion of the country would rather burn down their cinema than have it on there.

I however will wait and see.

Hooray the Muppets! And otherwise... well kind of a disappointing end of the movie year... I mean a few things sound kind of okish and maybe they are kind of good afterall... but nothing much I see myself wasting so much money on somehow...

Looks like remake hell to me, I like fincher but girl with the dragon tattoo seems like a waste of his time and everybody elses. I WANT THE GOON MOVIE DAMMITT!!!

If gwtdt being a success guarentees that then i'll go see it.

Yeah, very, very, very much looking forward to the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

When I first heard that there'd be ANOTHER Hollywood remake of a supposedly good foreign film I was kinda annoyed, but I had not read the books or seen the movie at that point.

Then I read the books and absolutely fell in love with them, they're fantastic.

Then I watched the movies ..... and was not impressed. I know everyone says how awesome the original movies are but personally I didn't fall in love with them. They're ok, some aspects are good but ... they're just way too rushed, way too much, even important stuff, gets dropped and personally I don't think Noomi Rapace is all that great as Lisbeth Salander. Good, definitely, great, maybe sometimes, but not overall imo.

And as stupid as this will sound concerning a beautiful attractive woman - she's too .... solid to be Salander. Lisbeth is constantly described as having a very small chest, being rather small, thin, kinda boyish. Rapace is just too attractive, too big, too ... well fed?

Yeah, translating a book into a movie will always be rushed, but few adaptions made me feel it as much as these movies.

Some stuff that bothered me:
- the whole Mikael/Erika 20 year "relationship" completeley dropped
- much of the plot about Harriet Vanger, the resolution, Australia etc. - dropped
- the whole plot about ... crap, forgot the names, the journalist looking into the sex trade in book 2 and his girlfriend - completely dropped. Even though book 2 and 3 revolve very heavily around them and their murders and Salander being blamed for them
- much of the secret police stuff in book 2 and 3, the conspiracy, the cover-up, the secret investigation into the traitors etc. also dropped
- other subtle stuff, e.g. Lisbeth appearing as super-punk to the trial, which was meant to be ... ironic? a slap in the face of all the negative press about her etc. In the movies she does appear dressed this way but all context is completely missing, it just doesn't mean anything.

And Michael Nyqvist isn't that impressive as Mikael Bloomkvist.

The movies are serviceable but definitely not perfect.

Going simply by optics so far I'm impressed at the casting, many of the actors fit their characters really well, especially Stellan Skarsgård and Rooney Mara. Mara looks great as Salander, she fits the description way better imo. Other than the stupid eyebrows, I'll never get used to that, why the hell did they do that?
Only a few actors I'm not sure about, e.g. Goran Visnjic, he's just not how I imagined Dragan but we'll see how it plays out.

And like MovieBob I trust in David Fincher. The theme of the books really fits him I think and if anyone can make this into an awesome movie it's probably him.

Apart from Fincher being the most overrate director of our times(he's good, just not THAT good), what a completely unnecessary remake. They even filmed the damn thing in Sweden, although I guess that means we shouldn't have any CGI breath in this.

I think I'm going to have to go see Girl With a Dragon Tattoo (although I really should see the original and/or read the books first). Meh. But I must know if I show up on screen or not! Here's hoping NOT.

Please PLEASE NOT. >.<

Apart from Fincher being the most overrate director of our times(he's good, just not THAT good), what a completely unnecessary remake. They even filmed the damn thing in Sweden, although I guess that means we shouldn't have any CGI breath in this.

The person that made Fight Club can not be overrated.

Well, Bob shouldn't want to kill himself for too long after the vampire movie since the new Zelda also comes out literally two days after it. I'm most looking forward to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Tintin.


-World War Z


*ahem* Thank you very much for pointing this out. My life is complete.

There looks like enough passable movies there to keep me entertained. However, the fact that 'Anonymous' even exists offends me. Didn't we all get over conspiracy theories about Shakespeare's work about a decade ago? I saw some stuff on this movie a few days ago and the "evidence" it's based on is without doubt an absolute fucking pile of steaming dog shit! DO NOT SEE THAT MOVIE! At best it's terrible, at worst it's poisonous. Don't even give it a chance.


none of these actually look interesting except for Paranormal Activity 3, am I a terrible person for it? Whatever. I just love horror, and there are next to zero good horror movies being made.

Honestly I'm just waiting till The Hobbit comes out.

Do not want to sound like a jackass, but when you talk about thee movies you will be reviewing till next year, kind makes the magic of your show run out.

You people get tintin in December?

Europe get it in October

Am I just thick or why is Zodiac placed there as a good movie? I was bored silly with it, unlike the rest of the films mentioned. Could someone please explain to me the film's good attributes that I may have missed? I'm serious, please someone enlighten me why Bob keeps placing it up in good light.

Dude, I've been holding this back for a while now, but Green Lantern was NOT THAT BAD.
As a Green Lantern movie, it was pretty servicable, a lot of the characters are there and pretty close to how they're suposed to be, the whole explaination of what the rings are and how they do what they do is strait out of the comics and the only thing I can think of as to why this movie is ooohhhh so bad is that they changed Paralax.

Everything else is fine, Ryan Reynolds is a good actor, the discussions Hector Hammond has about the supposed "First alien on earth" is well presented, and it has just the right kind of humour in it so that it's not boring. Plus, we finally have a female love interest who isn't a dumbass, "You thought I couldn't recognise you because I can't see your cheek bones?" has to be one of the funniest things I've seen in a superhero movie for a long time.

OK, I'll admit that sometimes the CG looks a little off, but other times it's quite a visual marvel as well (Pun intended). Plus, if your problem is because of the CG looking bad, then that's a pretty shallow argument, it's pretty much the same thing that the transformers movie fans say when they look at the action scenes and go "Woooah, that looks totally awsome!!!" but in reverse. Focus on the story and characters, everything else is a bonus.


They're remaking Straw Dogs? Why?

I mean, wasn't Peckinpah's original version gritty and harsh enough, that's it worth ruining it down with fameless B-movie actors? At least put good character actors in this.


"Uh-huh, mhmm, yep. Panic Room was kewl, yep, yeahso, never saw any of- CASE CLOSED. FINE."

Point, Bob. Point. >_>

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.