Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:27 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?" 
Author Message
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Helioglyph wrote:
God, the reviews of The Lovely Bones broke my heart. It was like JB's reaction to seeing The Fountain in Toronto.

As for this year:

Inception is getting more and more intresting for me, which is proportionate to how much it is beginning to seem like it is going to be more and more of a mental mind-fuck sort of a film.

Shutter Island worries me because of the release date juggling but it has solid credentials with also having been based off of a novel by a reputable author (which I haven't read fortunately)

Kick-Ass has two things going for it... The web comic orgins and the fact that so far Matthew Vaughn has yet to disappoint me.

Clash of the Titans has a high nostalgia factor but I think it is going to be this years Terminator: Salvation... and not just because it has Sam in it as well. I just think it is not going to live up to its (though of dubious real quality) origins but will entertain more than most of its ilk at least.

Iron-Man 2 is a total wildcard for me though. I love the glimpses of Mickey Rourke I have gotten so far at least.


The reviews for Shutter Island have been positive so far so that gives me hope and I enjoyed the book immensely (I may need to read it again before school starts next week...)


Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:26 pm
Director

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:28 pm
Posts: 1537
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Helioglyph wrote:
God, the reviews of The Lovely Bones broke my heart. It was like JB's reaction to seeing The Fountain in Toronto.

As for this year:

Inception is getting more and more intresting for me, which is proportionate to how much it is beginning to seem like it is going to be more and more of a mental mind-fuck sort of a film.

Shutter Island worries me because of the release date juggling but it has solid credentials with also having been based off of a novel by a reputable author (which I haven't read fortunately)

Kick-Ass has two things going for it... The web comic orgins and the fact that so far Matthew Vaughn has yet to disappoint me.

Clash of the Titans has a high nostalgia factor but I think it is going to be this years Terminator: Salvation... and not just because it has Sam in it as well. I just think it is not going to live up to its (though of dubious real quality) origins but will entertain more than most of its ilk at least.

Iron-Man 2 is a total wildcard for me though. I love the glimpses of Mickey Rourke I have gotten so far at least.



shutter Island will be a very good film, the reason why it was pushed back was that Paramont cliamed that they didn't have the money to promote the film. They're the same studio who promoted the living Hell out of Transformers 2 and GI Joe.


Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:35 pm
Profile YIM
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Wait a second...Watchmen was a dissapointment? Please do tell me what dissapointed you exactly... am very curious!


Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:21 pm
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:52 pm
Posts: 274
Location: North Carolina
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
In addition to JB's list, I'm curious to see what Tim Burton does with Alice.


Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:45 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3167
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Vexer wrote:
I'm not the least bit excited about Shutter Island, in fact I think it looks just plain awful, and I couldn't care less aobut the new Tron film really, but i'm defiitely excited about the rest of the films ont h elst, espeiclaly Kick Ass and Expendables. But one thing I have to correct though, Deathly Hallows is NOT being bifurcated to "maximize revenue" as you put it, it's being split up because Deathly Hallows has far less fat(I.E. subplots) to trim in a film then any other book in the series, pretty much everything that happens in the book is extremely important nad can't just be left out. There's no way all of that stuff could be crammed into one film without it running longer then 4 hours, and a Potter film that long just plain would not work period. So this is one instance when splitting a film into multiple parts is a good thing.


You're hopeless naive if you believe that generating additional revenue was not the PRIMARY reason for splitting this into two parts. Yes, you can cite tertiary reasons, but the bottom line is that WB can make double the money with two DEATHLY HALLOWS than they can with one. And, considering that each film will bring in >$1B worldwide (including BR/DVD sales), that's a helluva compelling reason to make two movies instead of one. Just don't try telling me that it makes sense based on content. I've read the book. This could have been done as one movie with a running length of less than three hours.


Mon Jan 11, 2010 11:32 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Speaking of breaking movies up, this is an article from Devin on CHUD earlier:


http://chud.com/articles/articles/22109/1/DAWN-COULD-BREAK-THIS-FALL/Page1.html
Quote:
Producer Wyck Godfrey (he always sounds like a character from a 1940s screwball comedy to me) tells the LA Times that all three leads are signed for a fourth film, and that Melissa Rosenberg, who has written the first three films, is working on Breaking Dawn right now. They're waiting to look at the script before deciding whether to make it two films or not - supposedly. I think they're waiting for the Eclipse numbers to see if the series has the juice to go to five installments.


With the amount of money New Moon made, and the fact that Eclipse has a better than average chance to top The Dark Knight's opening weekend record, I don't think they have to worry.


Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:12 am
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
I think Breaking Dawn can get away with one installment since half of the book or any of the Twilight books can be sum up as this:

Bella about Edward: He's so pretty.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Bella about herself after becoming a vampire: I'm so pretty


Jacob about himself: I'm so emo and alone! Hey, guess I'm falling in love with this baby.


Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:18 am
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
I once read a really involved article online about how Deathly Hallows could have been done in one film. I wish I could remember where it was.

Funny sidebar: Had they gone with one film, they'd have needed a new title, as producer David Heyman said that the Hallows themselves probably would have been cut.


Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:21 am
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
James Berardinelli wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I'm not the least bit excited about Shutter Island, in fact I think it looks just plain awful, and I couldn't care less aobut the new Tron film really, but i'm defiitely excited about the rest of the films ont h elst, espeiclaly Kick Ass and Expendables. But one thing I have to correct though, Deathly Hallows is NOT being bifurcated to "maximize revenue" as you put it, it's being split up because Deathly Hallows has far less fat(I.E. subplots) to trim in a film then any other book in the series, pretty much everything that happens in the book is extremely important nad can't just be left out. There's no way all of that stuff could be crammed into one film without it running longer then 4 hours, and a Potter film that long just plain would not work period. So this is one instance when splitting a film into multiple parts is a good thing.


You're hopeless naive if you believe that generating additional revenue was not the PRIMARY reason for splitting this into two parts. Yes, you can cite tertiary reasons, but the bottom line is that WB can make double the money with two DEATHLY HALLOWS than they can with one. And, considering that each film will bring in >$1B worldwide (including BR/DVD sales), that's a helluva compelling reason to make two movies instead of one. Just don't try telling me that it makes sense based on content. I've read the book. This could have been done as one movie with a running length of less than three hours.


I disagree based on the fact that they have left so much out of the last 2 movies that they need 2 movies to get all the information in or else they will confused anyone who hasn't read the books (still a sizeable portion of the audience for these movies). Sure the economical reason was probably the deciding factor, but you have to think that the cast & crew felt like doing 2 instead of 1 would help the storyline.


Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:23 am
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Blace wrote:

I disagree based on the fact that they have left so much out of the last 2 movies that they need 2 movies to get all the information in or else they will confused anyone who hasn't read the books (still a sizeable portion of the audience for these movies). Sure the economical reason was probably the deciding factor, but you have to think that the cast & crew felt like doing 2 instead of 1 would help the storyline.


They have been leaving out more and more as time goes on. At this point, I don't think they care about those that haven't read the books.


Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:35 am
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
timgoens wrote:
Blace wrote:

I disagree based on the fact that they have left so much out of the last 2 movies that they need 2 movies to get all the information in or else they will confused anyone who hasn't read the books (still a sizeable portion of the audience for these movies). Sure the economical reason was probably the deciding factor, but you have to think that the cast & crew felt like doing 2 instead of 1 would help the storyline.


They have been leaving out more and more as time goes on. At this point, I don't think they care about those that haven't read the books.


Are you serious? I mean come on...


Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:55 am
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
James Berardinelli wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I'm not the least bit excited about Shutter Island, in fact I think it looks just plain awful, and I couldn't care less aobut the new Tron film really, but i'm defiitely excited about the rest of the films ont h elst, espeiclaly Kick Ass and Expendables. But one thing I have to correct though, Deathly Hallows is NOT being bifurcated to "maximize revenue" as you put it, it's being split up because Deathly Hallows has far less fat(I.E. subplots) to trim in a film then any other book in the series, pretty much everything that happens in the book is extremely important nad can't just be left out. There's no way all of that stuff could be crammed into one film without it running longer then 4 hours, and a Potter film that long just plain would not work period. So this is one instance when splitting a film into multiple parts is a good thing.


You're hopeless naive if you believe that generating additional revenue was not the PRIMARY reason for splitting this into two parts. Yes, you can cite tertiary reasons, but the bottom line is that WB can make double the money with two DEATHLY HALLOWS than they can with one. And, considering that each film will bring in >$1B worldwide (including BR/DVD sales), that's a helluva compelling reason to make two movies instead of one. Just don't try telling me that it makes sense based on content. I've read the book. This could have been done as one movie with a running length of less than three hours.


I'm sure I've heard that Rowling herself was behind this idea but I'm afraid I dont remember my source!

The problem is that all previous movies were written prior to the release of the final story and as a consequence, much of what is MANDATORY knowledge has been lost on those who have not read the books.

Honestly, the movies are diabolical adaptations however as stand alone movies I really do enjoy them.


Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:38 am
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:51 pm
Posts: 101
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Blace wrote:
I disagree based on the fact that they have left so much out of the last 2 movies that they need 2 movies to get all the information in or else they will confused anyone who hasn't read the books (still a sizeable portion of the audience for these movies). Sure the economical reason was probably the deciding factor, but you have to think that the cast & crew felt like doing 2 instead of 1 would help the storyline.


All the information? If their intention was to "get all the information in," they would have split up the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth books into two movies as well, as those were just as long, or longer. They contained a ton of "information" as well. They managed to truncate the longest of the books into the shortest of the films and still got across the information they needed to in order to form a somewhat coherent plot for the film's universe. If they can cut out the entire Quidditch World Cup, they can cut out pieces of the final book to make it one movie. The ONLY reason to split the last book into two movies is to milk the franchise for all the money they possibly can.

And frankly, I'm worried about two movies with that book. I remember half the book being just them wandering from random place to random place looking for the damn Horcrux and finding nothing. I don't know how entertaining that would be to watch, as fine as it was to read. But books and movies are two totally different mediums, so what works in a book doesn't necessarily work in a movie.

_________________
Read my reviews and thoughts on movies on my blog, Cineviews.


Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:16 am
Profile WWW
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:51 pm
Posts: 101
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
BrianB wrote:
The only glaring omission I see as of now is THE WOLFMAN.

The minute they pushed that back into a Feb. 10th release was the moment I lost hope in that movie. Once the trailer was released, I lost interest completely. Hopefully it'll surprise me, but I wouldn't bet on it.

_________________
Read my reviews and thoughts on movies on my blog, Cineviews.


Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:18 am
Profile WWW
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Deathly Hallows... Opening fight with Broomsticks at Harry's step-parents, 30 minutes mucking about in tents and creeping round villages finding a Horcrux or two... extended tense scene at the Malfoys with a fight and a touching death scene... more exposition... 40 minute CGI-sodden assault on Hogwarts with spiders and giants and centaurs that wasn't ever written with the movie in mind oh no siree honestly... dealing with Snape... climactic showdown... kissy-kiss... end credits. I think it'd be a struggle to get all that into 3 hours and do it justice, especially if there's extra exposition required for those who haven't read the books. It's possible to include some kick-ass action scenes that extend the running time to 4 hours (hence 2 movies) and stilll appeal to the core demographic.

I'm very much looking forward to Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. If there is one thing that Mr Burton does well it's eye candy. Has he ever made a movie that didn't look good? It's not as if there's a convoluted plot, sparkling dialogue and character development to worry about. This is going to be top-notch light entertainment.

I liked Tron so I'm looking forward to the sequel, albeit with a faint twitch in my sphincter.

Expendables... what's not to like? Guns, wisecracks, explosions.

Toy Story... meh. Pixar simply don't do crap, so I think this will be another good movie that will make good use of 3D, but I don't really see any need to visit these characters again.


Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:51 pm
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Complaining about movies adapted from comics is kind of ridiculous. Does anybody complain when movies are adapted from novels? If anything, it's absurd that the film industry has taken this long to recognize comics as a viable storytelling medium. Never mind the fact that they're basically in ready-to-pitch form.

Now, if only we could stem the flow of all these damned superhero movies...


Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:32 pm
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Ken wrote:
Complaining about movies adapted from comics is kind of ridiculous. Does anybody complain when movies are adapted from novels? If anything, it's absurd that the film industry has taken this long to recognize comics as a viable storytelling medium. Never mind the fact that they're basically in ready-to-pitch form.

Now, if only we could stem the flow of all these damned superhero movies...


Fair point. I'm not a huge comic guy, so I'm referring to superhero movies when I complain about comics. It's typical Hollywood to capitalize and run into the ground anything that sells, but I'm sick of being inundated with superhero movie after superhero movie. I even enjoy quite a few, but the genre as a whole feels kind of tired to me.


Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:06 pm
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
PeachyPete wrote:
Ken wrote:
Complaining about movies adapted from comics is kind of ridiculous. Does anybody complain when movies are adapted from novels? If anything, it's absurd that the film industry has taken this long to recognize comics as a viable storytelling medium. Never mind the fact that they're basically in ready-to-pitch form.

Now, if only we could stem the flow of all these damned superhero movies...


Fair point. I'm not a huge comic guy, so I'm referring to superhero movies when I complain about comics. It's typical Hollywood to capitalize and run into the ground anything that sells, but I'm sick of being inundated with superhero movie after superhero movie. I even enjoy quite a few, but the genre as a whole feels kind of tired to me.
Well the main reaosn why so many superhero films are being made is because they're one of the few things that Hollywood can count on to make a huge profit at the box-office, and Hollywood is ALWAYS going to favor money over integrity and originality no matter what, i'm not all that big on superhero films myself, but I can't say I hate the wave superhero films NEARLY as much as I hated the wave of foreign remakes.


Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:20 pm
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Vexer wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
Ken wrote:
Complaining about movies adapted from comics is kind of ridiculous. Does anybody complain when movies are adapted from novels? If anything, it's absurd that the film industry has taken this long to recognize comics as a viable storytelling medium. Never mind the fact that they're basically in ready-to-pitch form.

Now, if only we could stem the flow of all these damned superhero movies...


Fair point. I'm not a huge comic guy, so I'm referring to superhero movies when I complain about comics. It's typical Hollywood to capitalize and run into the ground anything that sells, but I'm sick of being inundated with superhero movie after superhero movie. I even enjoy quite a few, but the genre as a whole feels kind of tired to me.
Well the main reaosn why so many superhero films are being made is because they're one of the few things that Hollywood can count on to make a huge profit at the box-office, and Hollywood is ALWAYS going to favor money over integrity and originality no matter what, i'm not all that big on superhero films myself, but I can't say I hate the wave superhero films NEARLY as much as I hated the wave of foreign remakes.


I have read my fair share of comics. I like the genre, it has provided some really good movies over the years. But, as it is with all genres, you will get more turkeys than great ones. The reason they are so abundant now is that they are almost all spectacles. Bright colors, special effects, good vs. evil. The thing I like about comics is that opposed to adapting a novel, is that your playground is bigger.

The Harry Potter series has a pretty fantastic mythology surrounding it, but each movie has to tell that specific story. Comics on the other hand, can be molded into whatever shape you want. There are inspirations, such as Peter Parker calling it quits, was ripped straight from the comics, including the imagery. Spider-Man 2 is still my all time favorite superhero movie. It took what was familiar and built on it.

Since there are a wealth of characters to pull from, there doesn't appear to be an end in site. But, if they keep focusing on quality, I will not complain. I mean come on, Kenneth Branagh directing Thor? How crazy is that? Years ago, I had the idea(being a DC guy), that they should do one of each, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc and then get them all together for a Justice League movie. Marvel is really doing it now with their stable of heroes and I hope they can pull it off. I am a sucker for crossovers though.

Don't get me started on rebooting Spider-Man though...ugh.


Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:12 pm
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
I dig homages and all, but is anyone else bothered by the first shot in the Shutter Island trailer? You know, the one with Leo hugging the specter. Straight from Sunrise, no?

I wish I had everyone else's enthusiasm for this film, but this is easily the least excited I've ever been for a Scorsese film.


Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:37 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr