The Godfather - ugh!

jawooga

On the subject of under statement, De Niro, not known for his under stated acting plays a blinding support role in Goodfellas. My favourite is when Pesci is trying to describe a horse's foot, paw, claw. De Niro, mouth full of meat balls chimes in with "...hoof!"

RDW

pinarello001 wrote:

Heavymental wrote:

My god, Scarlett Johansson is excellent, and beautiful, in Lost in Translation.

She was. ...and in The Girl with the Pearl Earring. Now that she has become Hollywoodised, she looks like a Barbie doll.

Doesn't look very Hollywood in this deeply strange trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGDnbcq0BkU

Daz555

jawooga wrote:

I thought Quantum of Solace was brilliant. But then I watched it the day after Casino R.

Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy. There's a book that Joe Public knows of, but I've not met a single person who watched the film and understood it.

Different strokes.

QoS is the only Bond film that I failed to watch all the way through - left the cinema half way through.

mrfpb

Pretty much any film by Woody Allen since the mid eighties. I walked out of "Alice" midway through. I've seen a few on telly, but don't think I'd pay for any of them.

I saw a BBC doc about him recently and he gave me the distinct impression he doesn't care that much for the process of film making. He doesn't watch his films either, so at least he has something in common with the viewing public.

simonhead

Regarding Tinker Tailor If I have enjoyed a book I wont watch the film version. Generally disappointment. You end up picking holes in the film or thinking they got the characterisation completely wrong.

mrfpb

Re Tinker Tailor, even without reading the book, the film cast an excellent set of actors as the four suspects, but gave them very little screen time to explore their history and their relationship to Smiley, on which the whole story hangs. It's a character driven whodunnit, but we never get to engage with the main characters ( with the possible exception of Toby Esterhaus).

Pross

Not as arty / high brow etc. as many others mentioned on here but for me Bridesmaids is the most over-rated pile of crap I've seen in years. Everyone seemed to rave on about how funny it was, me and the wife (who have different sense of humour) sat down to watch it and both agreed to turn it off after about 40 minutes and having not laughed once. I think it's one of the few times we have both hated a film enough to switch it off.

Deer Hunter gets mentioned on here, it was on recently and I meant to watch it as I previously watched it as a teenager and was underwhelmed but I suspect that was because all I wanted from a 'war' film then was fights and body count and probably didn't understand it.

I haven't watched many of the films that regularly feature in the Top 10 Best Ever lists as I'm worried that they will be a disappointment

mrfpb

On the subject of Comedies That Aren't Funny: Withnail and I

crispybug2

The Men Who Stare At Goats

I never have, nor never will, walk out of a cinema before the credits start rolling but By Christ!!! this one pushed me close, in total I watched thirty two walk out of that film, the most I've ever seen.

And it was summed up best at the end of the film when one guy stood up and said loud enough for everyone to hear " Can anyone explain what the f*cking f*ck that was f*cking about?"

meursault

mrfpb wrote:

jawooga wrote:

Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy. There's a book that Joe Public knows of, but I've not met a single person who watched the film and understood it.

I watched the TV series (1979) about two years ago on BBC4, then read the book. I saw the movie last week. I thought the TV series (7 hours) was great, and delivered the twists and turns really well. It had an astonishing cast. Alec Guiness is the best actor at disappearing into a role, it's impossible to see any trace of Obi Wan Kenobi (from the same period) or the colenel from Bridge on the River Kwai in George Smiley. He is the expert at acting while seeming to do nothing (though Patrick Stewart tries to outdo him in his brief cameo). There is a scene at the end of episode one of TTSS where the mild mannered retired spy takes off his glasses and cleans them. When he puts them back on he is clearly no longer retired and ready for the interogation. Superb.

The movie makes a good effort but simply can't compare in the time available. The book is fantastic btw.

Nice one, will have to try and pick up the box set ty.

meursault

crispybug2 wrote:

The Men Who Stare At Goats

I never have, nor never will, walk out of a cinema before the credits start rolling but By Christ!!! this one pushed me close, in total I watched thirty two walk out of that film, the most I've ever seen.

And it was summed up best at the end of the film when one guy stood up and said loud enough for everyone to hear " Can anyone explain what the f*cking f*ck that was f*cking about?"

I liked it as well as the book. The main thrust being the incredulousness of the US army setting up a paranormal unit, which is a true story.

rolf_f

jawooga wrote:

Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy. There's a book that Joe Public knows of, but I've not met a single person who watched the film and understood it.

Funny thing that. The film is actually ludicrously straightforward but the fact that people don't realise this probably does mean they did as good a job as they could have with the running time available.

Thing is, the book and TV series are very complicated. It's pretty hard keeping track of everything over several days reading the book what with all the interlinking of the various plot devices. The film on the other hand is actually very simple but includes quite a lot of the book stuff - but not in a way that they really impact on the basic plot which is this:

1) Control realise that there is a mole and the mole is one of four people.
2) Smiley is given the task of discovering who the mole is
3) The suspects are running an operation with a Russian double agent who is in fact not a double agent at all.
4) Smiley sets a trap by suggesting that someone else knows the identity of the mole.
5) The mole arranges to meet the Russian to discuss what to do about this.
6) The mole is caught.

The film does a great job of suggesting that the plot is very complex without it really being so. It helps a lot to have read the book before having watched the film!

mrfpb

You could just say that TTSS is the bog standard agatha christie plot of many suspects each with a motive. Simple premise, but the skill is in the telling and in exploring the suspects' motives. The movie never does that so there's no emotional investment in the "big reveal" at the end.

meursault

meursault wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

jawooga wrote:

Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy. There's a book that Joe Public knows of, but I've not met a single person who watched the film and understood it.

I watched the TV series (1979) about two years ago on BBC4, then read the book. I saw the movie last week. I thought the TV series (7 hours) was great, and delivered the twists and turns really well. It had an astonishing cast. Alec Guiness is the best actor at disappearing into a role, it's impossible to see any trace of Obi Wan Kenobi (from the same period) or the colenel from Bridge on the River Kwai in George Smiley. He is the expert at acting while seeming to do nothing (though Patrick Stewart tries to outdo him in his brief cameo). There is a scene at the end of episode one of TTSS where the mild mannered retired spy takes off his glasses and cleans them. When he puts them back on he is clearly no longer retired and ready for the interogation. Superb.

The movie makes a good effort but simply can't compare in the time available. The book is fantastic btw.

Nice one, will have to try and pick up the box set ty.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tinker-Tailor-Soldier-Spy-Complete/dp/B000092WCG/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1379368582&sr=8-4&keywords=tinker+tailor+soldier+spy

£4.75 how can you go wrong?

meursault

Rolf F wrote:

jawooga wrote:

Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy. There's a book that Joe Public knows of, but I've not met a single person who watched the film and understood it.

Funny thing that. The film is actually ludicrously straightforward but the fact that people don't realise this probably does mean they did as good a job as they could have with the running time available.

Thing is, the book and TV series are very complicated. It's pretty hard keeping track of everything over several days reading the book what with all the interlinking of the various plot devices. The film on the other hand is actually very simple but includes quite a lot of the book stuff - but not in a way that they really impact on the basic plot which is this:

1) Control realise that there is a mole and the mole is one of four people.
2) Smiley is given the task of discovering who the mole is
3) The suspects are running an operation with a Russian double agent who is in fact not a double agent at all.
4) Smiley sets a trap by suggesting that someone else knows the identity of the mole.
5) The mole arranges to meet the Russian to discuss what to do about this.
6) The mole is caught.

The film does a great job of suggesting that the plot is very complex without it really being so. It helps a lot to have read the book before having watched the film!

Another quick point to think about. This kind of cold war shenanigans was not based in fantasy land. The head of MI6 anti soviet section was, at one time, Kim Philby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby a KGB double agent. Still makes me chuckle today, that not some clerk or secretary, but THE HEAD of SIS anti soviet section.

Rigga

I've tried 3 or 4 times now but cannot get to the end of any of the Lord of the rings films

afx237vi

Pross wrote:

I haven't watched many of the films that regularly feature in the Top 10 Best Ever lists as I'm worried that they will be a disappointment

Citizen Kane is on BBC 4 on Sunday - that is a good place to start!

"Classic" films are all subjective, though. Some you'll like, others you won't.

meursault

afx237vi wrote:

Pross wrote:

I haven't watched many of the films that regularly feature in the Top 10 Best Ever lists as I'm worried that they will be a disappointment

Citizen Kane is on BBC 4 on Sunday - that is a good place to start!

"Classic" films are all subjective, though. Some you'll like, others you won't.

Film institute lists are better than say, IMDB like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years...100_Movies

Usually because most of them have stood the test of time, rather than what a 13yr old latest fad is.

Disclaimer: Nothing against young people, except their taste in movies.

rolf_f

meursault wrote:

Disclaimer: Nothing against young people, except their taste in movies.

Nothing wrong with that!

Above list though no good as US films only. A bit of a pointless scope narrowing and it makes the list look a lot more repetitive than it should do.

Pross

Rigga wrote:

I've tried 3 or 4 times now but cannot get to the end of any of the Lord of the rings films

Think yourself lucky - I had to endure the whole length of all three. They are sh*te.

Pross

afx237vi wrote:

Pross wrote:

I haven't watched many of the films that regularly feature in the Top 10 Best Ever lists as I'm worried that they will be a disappointment

Citizen Kane is on BBC 4 on Sunday - that is a good place to start!

"Classic" films are all subjective, though. Some you'll like, others you won't.

Citizen Kane and Dr Strangelove are two of the cases in point. They regularly occupy top slots in the 'best film ever' lists but I'm worried they won't live up to expectation. Then again, I felt the same about Brighton Rock especially having read the book. I thought it would be a big let down by comparison but is a superb film and really captures the atmosphere in the same way the book does. Contrast it with something like Clockwork Orange which I think got a cult following due to being banned for so long and yet it is a shadow of the book.

Has anyone ever watched Catch 22? Now if ever a book was impossible to turn into a film it must be that, surely the film can't be watchable?

On the subject of TTSS, I have read The Tailor of Panama which I found quite a confusing read and yet that got decent reviews when it was turned into a film.

edhornby

you will not be disappointed by Dr Strangelove

daviesee

Three pages in and it hasn't dawned on some people that they may have different tastes?
Plus, popular does not = good, just as art does not = good. What you like = good, for you.

Get a recommendation, read the brief plot on imdb and decide for yourself if it sounds like it is for you. Ignore the rest.

Pross

Surely the point is that there are many films / books / TV shows that large amounts of people rave about (often supposed expert critics) and which you almost feel duty bound to also enjoy or feel like you are missing something if you don't like them?

mrfpb

Pross wrote:

Surely the point is that there are many films / books / TV shows that large amounts of people rave about (often supposed expert critics) and which you almost feel duty bound to also enjoy or feel like you are missing something if you don't like them?

Like "The Godfather" which came near the top of the AFI poll alongside Star Wars. Just to bring us full circle.

Lord of the Rings was a bit of a cult classic as a book, the mainstream success of the movies was a bit of a shock at the time. I loved the book and movies, my wife hated the book and refused to watch the movies. As said earlier it's a matter of taste, and lifes too short to watch ten hours of movies you don't expect to enjoy.

daviesee

Pross wrote:

Surely the point is that there are many films / books / TV shows that large amounts of people rave about (often supposed expert critics) and which you almost feel duty bound to also enjoy or feel like you are missing something if you don't like them?

That is the point of the thread.
My point is not to bow down to peer pressure.

jordan_217

There are several films that are usually afforded the 'a masterpiece of cinema' acclaim. Let's face it people, there's one film that trumps all others.

meursault

daviesee wrote:

Three pages in and it hasn't dawned on some people that they may have different tastes?
Plus, popular does not = good, just as art does not = good. What you like = good, for you.

Get a recommendation, read the brief plot on imdb and decide for yourself if it sounds like it is for you. Ignore the rest.

Yeah sure, it's all subjective.

But the tricky thing is quality, we all know what quality is but how do you define it? The Godfather has more quality than Spiderman 3 whether you like either one or not.

Credit to Pirzig for an essay on quality.

jawooga

Perhaps some films lose something between big screen and dvd. I loved all the Lord of Rings, but then watched them all at the cinema - amazing cinematography, sound and visual effects made 3 hours fly by. On the other hand, I haven't been able to sit through one at home.

daviesee

meursault wrote:

Yeah sure, it's all subjective.

But the tricky thing is quality, we all know what quality is but how do you define it? The Godfather has more quality than Spiderman 3 whether you like either one or not.

Credit to Pirzig for an essay on quality.

"Quality" counts for nowt if you switch off through boredom.

I agree with your examples but I get the feeling that others would disagree.