Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Nov 23, 2009 18:50:34 GMT
Can't wait. I won't even care if I don't like it. I'm just glad I finally get to see it.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Nov 23, 2009 23:59:41 GMT
That trailer was laughable, and sad that the distributor thinks only a MAD MAX-type marketing campaign could draw people in.
I have a sneaking gut feeling the movie might be good. And no, not just because the book was too. I won't go all bookfundamentalist on you like King fans tend to be.
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Nov 24, 2009 5:29:14 GMT
It's going to be just as vacuous and dull and as The Proposition
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Nov 24, 2009 8:34:36 GMT
It's going to be just as vacuous and dull and as The Proposition, and nothing with that. Fixed.
|
|
|
Post by jarmic6 on Nov 24, 2009 18:26:09 GMT
It wasn't bad but I felt that Hillcoat missed the opportunity of doing something really important. I haven't read the book, but even if it's in the same vein I don't really see why the movie has to follow. Very obvious and really pointless by the end. It was just too academic and uninteresting as cinema and while it has some good moments, it was a really "safe" film. Plus, I was really annoyed by the use of music. Why the hell should 99% of the film have some kind of music playing on the background?
Again, it pretty far from being bad, it's just a damn pity it wasn't better.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Nov 24, 2009 23:52:03 GMT
What you mean important? Politically or thematically, or what exactly?
|
|
|
Post by jarmic6 on Nov 25, 2009 12:54:00 GMT
What I mean is that if someone told what the movie is about before I saw it, I would think that it has the potential to deal with lots of subjects such as the end of civilization, the inability to trust anyone, father-son stuff, survival, etc. While Hillcoat deals with all these, he does it in a superficial way, showing the viewer the obvious. I wanted it to go further and have some guts. I don't mean I wanted a more cynical or nihilistic film, I just think that setting of the story is in itself rich enough for a director to work on. I don't want to spoil anything for you or anyone here who might be interested, but when you see the film I'd love to talk about it in detail.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Nov 25, 2009 23:58:57 GMT
You dont have to worry mate. I read the book. But yeah that's fine for everyone else that didn't.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Dec 1, 2009 16:42:17 GMT
Kino, RRA, Jenson, Omar, any of you guys watched it?
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 1, 2009 16:48:23 GMT
Not yet.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Dec 1, 2009 19:34:36 GMT
No, but I will before the month is through.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Dec 6, 2009 4:05:03 GMT
Waiting til my brother gets back from the Air Force - late December. Then I'll see it with him. Along with Fantastic Mr. Fox.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Dec 24, 2009 19:34:14 GMT
It felt great to finally see it. With that said, overall it's between mediocre and bad. There were a few great moments though. It felt like Ron Howard directed it only with less cutting and camera movement. Music was pretty meh. Disappointing.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 31, 2009 3:21:31 GMT
I just saw the UK trailer before Sherlock Holmes and it looked really good.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 31, 2009 6:50:55 GMT
It felt great to finally see it. With that said, overall it's between mediocre and bad. There were a few great moments though. It felt like Ron Howard directed it only with less cutting and camera movement. Music was pretty meh. Disappointing. Ouch.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 31, 2009 6:52:14 GMT
I just saw the UK trailer before Sherlock Holmes and it looked really good. How was the movie?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 24, 2010 18:30:09 GMT
I dunno. I thought it was naff. I mean it held my attention, but most films do...
It seems a wasted opportunity to me; here we've got a sort of cautionary horror tale of a very possible post-capitalism scenario, and yet the film - or the story itself - apparently finds mysticism more appealing and convenient than the opportunity to tackle more serious concerns. It might strike more powerfully in lush prose, but the film seems to obliterate any potential substance by stylistic miserablism. Some shots were nice in themselves, but if felt very, very pedestrian. Throughout I was thinking to myself, "What if somebody like Haneke had directed this? It'd be very cold, but the direction would be far superior"; and even, at other times, "Compared to the tension of the similarly post-apocalyptic Children of Men, this is extremely tame."
Is this the return of the old "filmed novel" debate?
I thought the kid was pretty bad. His psychology was questionable, the acting was poor and the script was vacant. Viggo was good.
Music was good, though there was no particular reason for it. Felt oddly distancing to me; "commercial", if you like. And yet the whole concept is a bit "artsy fartsy".
I had to stop myself from ripping its narrative logic to shreds, too. Nice of that family at the end to follow Papa and Son all that way but not help Papa remove a fucking arrow from his leg. Also nice of New Saviour Family to send the ever-so-intimidating father, alone, along the beach, to fetch the now-orphaned son; bullet belt, thumblessness and crooked teeth and all. WTF?
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Jan 25, 2010 9:59:43 GMT
This is taken exactly from the novel and I had the same problem. Also hilarious how every time things look bleak they stumble upon canned food.
|
|