@Ferros: I don't even watch wrestling anymore so I was watching youtube clips several weeks ago came across this. You really have to watch clips to see how bad TnA really is. Honestly, its horrible. Also, yes...Sting basically is copying Ledger's Joker.
This wasn't my attempt to shit on Alex and Rorie as I enjoy them both and love the site, but just a general attitude I notice among them. Yes, Tin Tin is a good example as well and that movie looks amazing. Technically there is nothing new under the sun, so every story that can be told already has been. This isn't like seeing Transformers 4 or something similar...John Carter of Mars is a great story that goes beyond the cliche of "white guy has intervention and becomes savior of non white people" and actually presents a rich look. We really don't have many quality movies in the vein of John Carter.
In movies like Enemy At the Gates and others the actors in the film use their natural accents even though they are playing Germans, Russians, and more (Jude Law played a rural Russian hunter turned sniper yet retained his posh British accent, Ed Harris used his American accent when he was playing a German, etc). I was wondering if this is an actual film making style or technique that is recognized or if it was just a decision by the director? Personally it draws me out of the experience of the movie at times, so I am not sure what this accomplishes unless the director was confident in their acting but not their dialect/accent work. Then again I feel like I've heard interviews and reports that in other movies directors have made similar decisions because of the fact they really wanted a particular actor but either didn't have the time to work with a language coach or the actor couldn't pull it off.
Love the site and the podcast. Keep up the good work.
Thanks
In movies like Enemy At the Gates and others the actors in the film use their natural accents even though they are playing Germans, Russians, and more (Jude Law played a rural Russian hunter turned sniper yet retained his posh British accent, Ed Harris used his American accent when he was playing a German, etc). I was wondering if this is an actual film making style or technique that is recognized or if it was just a decision by the director? Personally it draws me out of the experience of the movie at times, so I am not sure what this accomplishes unless the director was confident in their acting but not their dialect/accent work.
Do you think the next James Bond film will retain their Bourne-reactionary style (more focus on fisticuffs than gun play). While I think Craig has a lot of potential as Bond I am more excited for their choice of villain.
Love the site and the podcast. Keep up the good work.
Thanks
@Delta_Assault: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_and_planet
@Moviemaniac: James Cameron has cited John Carter as an influence to Avatar as have many things. Hell BATMAN's first appearance was admittedly a rip off a story from The Shadow and people called The Shadow a Batman rip off. People don't care they are wrong.
@FinalDasa: I think its a bit of a stretch to say that before the movie Iron Man had fans in the millions. If you said do you know who Iron Man is they would probably say "that one song".
The John Carter series, once you read it, can't really be done either way. The set pieces are huge and varied and unless you do some stripped down version of it there really isn't another way from what I've seen. Again, Lord of the Rings wasn't known by as many people and they did well. I remember being pretty much one of the only couple of people in my entire school who had all of the books...let alone knew they were books before a movie trailer told you.
Is the film risky? Yeah, sure. Is Taylor Kitsch unproven? Mostly, but so was Chris Evans at one point. I remember I didn't care about him at all until I saw Cellular. I think it could pay off, but I think people giving it a generally negative attitude not because of quality but because of "why so much money" will doom it into a self fulfilling prophecy.
So after listening to the latest Behind the Screened Door (12/05/11) I came out a little baffled after hearing Rorie and Alex's small discussion on the newest John Carter (of Mars) trailer. I could have just taken it the wrong way or misunderstood but it seemed that both of their arguments (before Taylor Kitsch was even brought up) were that since no one has probably read the books now that they don't understand why it's going to be a movie or should. I am a 26 years old man and I grew up loving pulp from the first time I listened my father's cassette's of The Shadow radio programs as a kid. This was further fueled by things like comic books, Indiana Jones, The Rocketeer, and my further spiral into vintage pulp and noir material. John Carter basically started this and even started the whole "sword and planet" genre. I would argue that before the Lord of the Rings movies that the vast majority of viewers (some nerds included) had never read the books or AT THE MOST read only The Hobbit (or seen the animation) and they would never have correlated the two. In fact unless a movie trailer specifically points it out I would say many movies based on books (outside of something like the Twilight series or Harry Potter) are unknown to the majority of viewers as having come from a book or series. I don't know, I just felt it was a weird conversation to be having let alone listening to on a podcast dedicated to film and television. This is the equivalent of "Iron Man isn't an A list character, so why is there a MARVEL comic book movie coming out for him" or hell how many people knew Blade was a comic book character before the cool movies?
I don't juvenile movies like Hostile enjoyable as I find they are the equivalent of an adolescent pulling off a living insects wings just to see what happens or what reaction he receives from the bug. While I enjoy movies like Paranormal Activity or any other supernatural styled film, I think modern cinema relies too much on exposition and jump scares than true dread or suspense. An example: look at the adaptation of Silent Hill. There is basically a 10 minute exposition in that where the narrator basically says "good job...you made it this far...I'm going to tell you EVERYTHING"...why? The unknown is what makes something scary. When you are presented with something that shouldn't exist or shouldn't be there once you find out the ins and outs of why the mystery goes away.
I think Paranormal Activity does a decent job of this, for the most part. They only explain what they need to for the sake of continuing the story opposed to telling you stuff just to tell it. Most Japanese cinema accomplishes horror better than Western, in my opinion. I say this after seeing something like Audition where if you didn't know before hand you wouldn't know as a "horror" movie at all until that one scene then it's a downward spiral. The Thing institutes dread better than almost any other movie (and I would argue so does The Game).
I think horror works when you see a situation that you see no positive outcome but it happens slowly and surely, as I said about The Game. You can try and explain things away as the narrative trucks along but as it goes further you have the option to continue to believe it's all fake or that this guy really is walking closer and closer to the metaphorical cliff and is about to jump off.
Lastly, as I have already said, I think the gorier the movie the less scary it becomes. Typically, the more exposition and explanation the less scary it becomes. I really, really, really wish we could get a director to successfully make a Lovecraftian movie that isn't a comedic bastardization, a narrative mess, or that isn't SyFy channel quality garbage as there is true horror potential there. You don't even need a big budget At the Mountains of Madness movie to pull this off. Just the horror that a small person really is insignificant to the workings of the universe.
That's my rant at least.
I don't know really...I enjoy reading all of the reviews, but it seems wildly inconsistent. I remember after seeing Sucker Punch I really didn't care what people thought...it was just a fun action movie. Seeing them give the thing a 1 and talk about it like it was a zero blew my mind. In the end, I trust ALL of the reviews. I think at all times they are being honest and giving their true opinions, and they don't try to church anything up to please anybody. This is why Screened is the first and last website I check for movie stuff as I also like most of the community (most).
@Buckwatters: its definitely worth tracking down in my opinion. Not sure where my friend bought it from, but I'm very excited to have it in my collection.
Wow, really? No one has seen this or cared? OK then, I guess this post wasn't cliche enough.
As a random present, a friend gave me the movie payback on blu-ray. I like this movie enough, though I am more a fan of the source material than the actual movie. I didn't think much of the "straight up" subtitle and figured this was just what the blu-ray version of the movie was called. No, this is a 100% different version as its a director's cut. I love it and it is so much better than the original. Has anyone else had a chance to see this version yet? They even take away the crappy blue filter that they used the whole movie.
He didn't. He did a great job, as did most everyone in the movie. I hope it ends up making money so they can do the sequel they wanted to do.
