Seen any good films lately? [3]

Is that the one with Tom Hardy sitting in a car for two hours? I've loved Hardy in everything I've seen him in so far so it seems intriguing to me; glad you're enjoying it.

Id like to watch that film "Locke", I like Tom Hardy. He's played some varied characters. Im still amazed at his portrayal of Charles Bronson.
I watched "Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil" the other day. Starred Kevin Spacey, John Cusack & a bit part by Jude law. It was very good

Have you seen Warrior, Eldo? That was the first movie I saw Hardy in, and he gives a great performance there as well. Many people don't like it because of the violence (it's about MMA), but I liked it alot, and the soundtrack is excellent.

I first saw him in Bronson (which was also quite violent and had a great soundtrack ), but I haven't seen Warrior yet.

I first saw him in Wuthering Heights. It was quite enjoyable.

Yes, that is the car film. It's 90 minutes though, not two hours. He has this wonderful accent in the film. I'm not familiar with all the different types of accents in the UK, but it sounds like some kind of cross between Welsh and South African. So far it is mostly him speaking in the movie, so his adopting a different cadence and inflection for the film was a brilliant move.

The Muppet Christmas Carol. Essential viewing during the holiday season.

I've never seen that, but it seems quite nice!
Perhaps I stopped watching before Miss Piggy showed up or whatever...

(Sorry, I didn't grow up with Sesame Street and never became a fan.)

I dont like Sesame Street but I do love the Muppet Christmas movie !! I think Michael Caine is just right for this film also !

Bungo's Cocaine is in that?

@ "Bungo's cocaine"

{{{}}}

oh the irony of this thread title on 17th December.

I always think most film versions of Scrooge get the character wrong.They always present him as a bad guy, almost evil at the start. But he never was that- he is a miser thats all.
The most telling line about him comes from his own lips near the start- "I don't make merry myself."
He his a millionare who sits in a mansion in one room in the freezing cold eating gruel, because he is a miser. He hurts himself and is own spirit more than he does anyone else.
The damage he causes others, like Cratchett and his family is just a side effect of his own meanness to himself. He isnt even aware of the effect his own miserliness has on himself let alone others, which s why the revelations by the ghosts have such an effect on him.

But if I had to pick a favourite version it would be the 1951 Alistair Simm version.

You do seem to tend towards the originals Petty!

In fact, I can't think of a single remake you enjoyed more than the original now that it comes to it. Even Bakshi's Lord of the Rings  (*shudder) cannot escape this trend.

I haven't been able to find one I fully enjoyed yet. I'm most used to the George C. Scott version, and that one has various flaws. When I first saw that Patrick Stewart filmed one recently (well, post-2000) I had a knee-jerk reaction of avoiding it because I wasn't familiar with the actor (and associated him with some of his villain roles) but perhaps it is good?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptations_of_A_Christmas_Carol#Film
Yikes! That's a lot to choose from (scroll down through television as well for the full list).

Also I was wrong, Patrick Stewart starred in the television production in 1999. It has some good actors in it. Richard E. Grant, Dominic West, and also Laura Fraser (of Breaking Bad!) stand out to me among the cast. But I'm kind of put off by the cover image of a scowling Scrooge who is threatening with a walking stick.
Then again, it can't be much worse than the digitalized Jim Carrey molesting industrial steel moulds over the city of London.

Ive never seen the Carrey version.
The Stewart version is good but for me it was a bit too Shakesearean and theatrical in its delivery. Scrooge needs a slightly lighter touch in my book- but its a consumate performance having said that as Stewart did a long running one man version of it in which he played all the parts.



As to preferring the originals- I think its because often they are the simply the best versions, and the reason there are later versions is an attempt to recreate the success of the original, which usually fails.
In the case of the Simms version its down to the performance, Simm is one of the greatest character actors the UK ever produced, and he shows why in his version of the story. And his Scrooge is never a figure to hate or despise, but to pity and then to cheer for as his transformation is ongoing, you want him to see the error of his ways for his own good and thats how it should be. You should be rooting for Scrooge by the end.

I think some of Scrooges meanness is, his own lost soul that hurts him every day. He was abandoned in a boarding school, only allowed home when 'daddy' said so, lost his sister, & thru his own tunnel vision, lost his fiance. Even tho he thought he was planing for the future with him & her, he forgot to show her any consideration. He was haunted to begin with, before the ghosts turned up. Hurt leads to hate sometimes. If you hate yourself you project it on others, you want people to feel as you feel & in a way, its a cry, a cry that says "get me out of this misery !"

Yeah thats exactly how I read his character Azriel. I think it starts as a need to exert control over life- in the conversation with his fiancee when they break up he talks about his fear of poverty and how harsh and cruel the world can be- he sees money at this point as a means to avoid and control that and over time it becomes obsessive and then declines into miserliness and a meanness of spirit, even to himself.
He never enjoys anything, not the luxuries of wealth or even the security it brings him.
By the time we meet him at the start of the book its all curdled inside and he has repressed all his formers feelings and wishes and desires. The first ghost even comments how odd it is that he should have forgotten so much that when reacquainted with comes back as fresh as the day it happened. He had chosen to bury and forget it all because of the pain it caused him and the path it set him down. Its a refusal to confront it which the ghosts force him to do and in so doing he isnt reborn but renewed to the hopes and feelings of his former younger self.

Oh yes, His feelings have become very numb as time plods by. As you say, even the spirits find it odd how cold his feelings are & when he says about 'reducing the surplus population', he bloody means it. How the story ends by saying Scrooge was the kindest man etc there ever was.... well, it was there all the time, just buried deep. As you say, Ebenezer wasnt evil, he was just blinded & deeply sad, couldnt see the woods for the trees. Today, if he'd gone to the Doctors, he would have been given help But, hes just a character. Dickens was just giving us a shake, a moral shake, to be nicer to each other. He could see how ugly the world can be & its still the same relentless struggle today.

azriel wrote: He could see how ugly the world can be & its still the same relentless struggle today.

Which is why the story is as popular today as it was 170 years ago. It's timeless. Sometimes I think we humans are just a bunch of hamsters running around and around in our wheels, solving the same problems over and over again....

I suppose the Industrial Revolution and money grubbing materialism had a profound effect on the Victorians. The idea of Charity as a social good was pretty important with the millions of starving in the cities.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Ive never seen the Carrey version.
The Stewart version is good but for me it was a bit too Shakesearean and theatrical in its delivery. Scrooge needs a slightly lighter touch in my book- but its a consumate performance having said that as Stewart did a long running one man version of it in which he played all the parts.

As to preferring the originals- I think its because often they are the simply the best versions, and the reason there are later versions is an attempt to recreate the success of the original, which usually fails.

For original screenplays this can certainly be true, but adaptations of books are a completely different story ( ). Following the logic above, we would argue that all the productions of A Christmas Carol over the years have been attempting to recreate the success of the original 1901 film.


I do very much enjoy the acting of George C. Scott in the role, as he undergoes the transformation of which you speak in fine form. It is the rest of the cast's performances (excepting those of the nephew, Fred, and perhaps Bob Cratchett, and some other minor figures) that are difficult to enjoy.

Watched Pacific Rim the other night, clunky and cliched, with some very overblown CGI and archetype 'mad scientist, gumpy soldier' characters than annoy as much as they amuse (contrary to most reviews I found Idris Elba miscast as the General...he looked rather bored) but does exactly what you'd expect in a entertaining way, Del Torro shoots the film really well, and gets good enough performances out of most of the key cast to make up for shortcomings in the screenplay, but most importantly its fun it's a film about gaint robots fighting gaint monsters and never pretends other wise, very cheesy and silly to be sure, but entertaining (though I don't see the need for 2 sequels).

6/10 (As is good and fun, not average and disappointing)

(Rob Kanzinsky was pretty good in this, and probably had more dialogue than Fili did in the Hobbit trilogy)

Glad you found Pacific Rim enjoyable, bungo.  I fucking loved it and was lucky enough to be able to see it on a real, full-sized IMAX screen.  Seeing Pacific Rim for the first time was also the first time I had ever asked "how was that even possible?" when watching a movie.  I grew up in the age of CGI, so I was taught early on that anything can be done onscreen, but I never dreamed before PacRim that I'd ever see a giant robot movie with so much passion for the subject and not a drop of cynicism or pandering.  I still have no idea how del Toro managed to get the budget for that thing approved, but I am immensely grateful. The Battle of Hong Kong alone makes it worth it; it's one of my all-time favorite action scenes.

Holy crap, I need to see this film now.


Well.. First a fail-safe test.
Eldo, did the PotC films get progressively better, or progressively worse in your opinion?

sorry cant find future release thread.

this looks freaking awesome!     out May 2015. and to answer George's question. Yes I do!  

edit. although I hope it isn't a rebranding marketing thing for Disneyworld as I heard one reviewer state. hmm not sure about this now.