What are you watching?

--

What can be said about this flick that wasn't already been said.
The year was 1980 (the film was made in 1982, and released in 1983); the year is now 2013 (soon 2014).
Cocaine is still a drug, Cuba has a new president (Raoul Castro), Miami has beautiful sandy beaches and gorgeous looking women, Brian De Palma is still alive, so is Oliver Stone and Al Pacino. And I love these three guys.

Film making is more CGI nowadays, and in America the dream is still well alive.

I first saw that flick on its first released date at the theater (in Vancouver - Granville and Broadway).
And I remember it just like it was yesterday.
At the end of the movie I was feeling numb, and walked out of the theater in a slow-motion kind of way.
It was slightly raining outside and you could see the red lights behind the cars reflecting on the wide wet Granville street.
...An eerie feeling, inside and out.
The red was like shining blood, and it was like an hallucinating trip, but without having taken any acid.
 
--I watched this one last night ::

--

* Not to the same caliber as the first one, unfortunately. :(

It's a shame; Hollywood directors are only doing sequels and series! ...More and more that is what's going on and I just don't like it at all.
It means that money is the only game in town and that cinematic creativity and artistic imagination is no more; or very little, to the point of getting non-existent (extinction), of no more value to the true cineastes. I'm very saddened by this because music and movie making are true art forms, like painting, sculpture, etc.

But then, it is my fault; I don't have to subscribe, I'm free to choose the true talent, the art, the emotional impact, the vibrating chords inside my soul. I guess I'm influenceable like most people; I got to get back on track with my true innards.
 
This is another bad movie with a good intent. And the ending defies the movie. First off, the Moneyball team, Oakland has not won anything in ten years! But a the end, Money ball shows a card saying that the Boston Red Sox won the world series adapting the principals of Moneyball. This ridiculous because Bosto had the second highest payroll in the League in 2004 and still has a high one. What Moneyball? The Boston Payroll was over $125 million.
 
Lefisc said:
This is another bad movie with a good intent. And the ending defies the movie. First off, the Moneyball team, Oakland has not won anything in ten years! But a the end, Money ball shows a card saying that the Boston Red Sox won the world series adapting the principals of Moneyball. This ridiculous because Bosto had the second highest payroll in the League in 2004 and still has a high one. What Moneyball? The Boston Payroll was over $125 million.
Click to expand...
Agreed I like the movie but they made Oakland out to be some kinda powerhouse when I believe that year the yanks whooped em in the playoffs. And they were out in the first round .
Boston was a super high payroll but I think the premise was they started bringing in high on base percentage guys. But that's still not really "money ball"
I think the Tampa bay rays are a better example of a money ball team and do a better job of it than Oakland does. And they actually been to a World Series this century. Think Oakland won one and lost one back in late 80's early 90's but haven't been back since.
 
I started to switch gear last night ::

84943_front.jpg
 
I meet Mr. Scorsese once.

At the New York Film festival a decade ago he introduced a new, remastered and extended print of "the Good, The Bad and the Ugly." He is a great filmmaker and boy does he know a lot about old movies. he was just fun to listen. I'd love to havehim over to the house and just watch a movie with him and listen to what he would have to say.
 
Lefisc said:
I meet Mr. Scorsese once.

At the New York Film festival a decade ago he introduced a new, remastered and extended print of "the Good, The Bad and the Ugly." He is a great filmmaker and boy does he know a lot about old movies. he was just fun to listen. I'd love to havehim over to the house and just watch a movie with him and listen to what he would have to say.
Click to expand...

Marty is a true cinema aficionado, like so many more movie directors also are.
...Not perfect though (we all made mistakes), but very passionate indeed, just like a kid opening a Christmas present.

I never met him, but read a lot about him, and watched several videos on his life, ambitions, passions, passed accomplishments, and all that cinema jazz.

Me too I would love to spend a week or a month with him and talked mainly about movies (& all that cinema 'obscura', & stuff that has never been released, but viewed by very few).
Because through films (moving pictures, documentaries, live music concerts, ...) we have all the world's eyes, vision, evolution ...
 
I saw the Wolverine movie last night, the extended version, which was not in 3D.

A common lament about these movies from comic book fans is that people judge the character and the comic not by reading the actual stories, but only by watching the movie. I likied the first hour but was not thrilled with the second. I think Jackman gets the character right, but the writing has let me done in his two Wolverine movies.

Hugh Jackman is a fine actor and will have played the Wolverine in four X-men movie and three Wolverine movies (with a cameo in X-Men first class) Both Sean Connery and Roger Moore played Bond seven times, so he is tyied with them. (Radcliff played Harry Potter in eight movies, he may be the record holder for recent “A” movie). But is Jackman the Sean Connery fo the Wolverine movies? That is there will be several Wolverines after him, will be the standard like Connery is?

wolverrine.jpg
 
Barry, I haven't watched the Wolverine movies but the main reason I like the X-Men series is because of Jackman. He does a great job as Wolverine. I think that it's time to pass the torch to someone else now just like in the Bond series. As much as we might enjoy a particular actor, I think changing things up keeps the series fresh. Another example for me would be the Bourne movies.
 
Yeah, same here, I get bored seeing the same actors performing the same routine over and over, all in the name of Hollywood bank machine.
Hollywood is obsessed with what everyone wants on this planet, money; and sequels and series and trilogies+++ and remakes abound like a bad virus spreading fast and deadly.
...Fast & Furious (#7).

One of the best aspects in life (what's fun about it) is the diversification; new faces, new talents, new energy, imagination, creativity, ...
...In movies like in everything else. But the reality is not like that; values are monetary, financial profits. ...Very unfortunately, and the true art (cinema) is dying (CGI computer recreations, ka-da-boom sounds, etc.).
They don't make no more Lawrence of Arabia, or The Bridge on the River Kwai.

By the way, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint & Emma Watson were in seven Harry Potter movies; the seventh one was in two parts. ;)
* The Harry Potter's writer is a nice young lady, just like you and me. :)

________________

Here's just another example of a remake among a multitude more (2013 American remake & 2003 Korean original) ::

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top