Seen any good films lately? [3]

holy crap! pilot stage project. American Gods by Neil Gaiman. well that's something to look forward to.  

from wiki.
American Gods is an upcoming pilot for a proposed television series created by Bryan Fuller and Michael Green for the Starz Network, based on the novel of the same name by author Neil Gaiman. Fuller and Green will script the pilot episode and serve as showrunners should additional episodes be ordered. Gaiman will executive produce along with Fuller, Green, Craig Cegielski, Stefanie Berk and Thom Beers.

The series will focus on the mysterious Shadow, a man who is released from prison a few days early after serving a three year sentence for bank robbery when his beloved wife Laura is killed in a car accident. Flying home for the funeral, Shadow is seated next to a man who introduces himself only as Mr. Wednesday, and this man knows more about Shadow's life, both past and present, than is possible. Shadow comes to learn that Wednesday is, in fact, the god Odin of Norse mythology and that all of the gods that mankind has ever believed in are alive in human form and live among regular people. Shadow is soon thrust into a gathering conflict between the Old gods and the so-called "New gods", the gods of money and technology who believe there is no longer room on Earth for the old gods.

In 2011 Gaiman stated at the Edinburgh International Book Festival that HBO network had expressed an interest in adapting American Gods into a television series. In March 2013 Gaiman spoke of the project's progress at the Cambridge International Student Film Festival, and confirmed that the prospective series' opening episode would "contain new elements and details" while still remaining "a lot like the opening chapters of the book". He also commented that the book would only make up the first two seasons of the show and that he was still working on the pilot script, as his first script was not close enough to his book for HBO's satisfaction. However, in November 2013 Gaiman announced on Reddit that the TV series is still in the works but no longer at HBO.  

In 2014 HBO's president of programming Michael Lombardo revealed that the project had been abandoned because they could not get the script right: "We tried three different writers, we put a lot of effort into it. Some things just don't happen."

In February 2014, FremantleMedia acquired the rights to adapt the novel as a fantasy drama series. In July 2014, it was announced that Starz would be developing the series with Bryan Fuller and Michael Green.

Speaking of the series, Fuller stated that it would "[follow] the events of the books but expanding those events, and expanding the point of view to go above and beyond Shadow and Wednesday." Permission has been given for the series to incorporate elements from the book's companion, Anansi Boys. Fuller also confirmed that Gaiman is "very involved" with the production and expressed his hope that Gaiman would write an episode himself.

how cool is this. Those books are wonderful. One day I hope they do a decent version of Neverwhere.

I loved American Gods. It'll be interesting to see if they can do it justice onscreen. I'm heartened that the new fantasy TV boom is making possible shows like this and Outlander, and not just endless attempts to copy LOTR, HP, or GOT.

Forest Shepherd wrote:Eldo, did the PotC films get progressively better, or progressively worse in your opinion?

I missed this earlier. They got worse, but not as fast as some people day. The first film is a modem classic. The second is a capable successor and still quite entertaining despite its flaws. The third lost its way and tried (and failed) to be an epic war movie instead of an adventure film, but it's still worth seeing in order to get the end of the story if you liked the characters. The fourth is shameless and removes most of what made PotC great (including sea battles). They also bowed to audience pressure and made Jack Sparrow the main character even though he'd always worked best with a straight man (or woman) to play off of.

I thought The Imitation Game rather good.

Eldorion wrote:

Forest Shepherd wrote:Eldo, did the PotC films get progressively better, or progressively worse in your opinion?

I missed this earlier. They got worse, but not as fast as some people day. The first film is a modem classic. The second is a capable successor and still quite entertaining despite its flaws. The third lost its way and tried (and failed) to be an epic war movie instead of an adventure film, but it's still worth seeing in order to get the end of the story if you liked the characters. The fourth is shameless and removes most of what made PotC great (including sea battles). They also bowed to audience pressure and made Jack Sparrow the main character even though he'd always worked best with a straight man (or woman) to play off of.

I'll second that.  As throwaway adventure movies go, it's pretty great.

Bluebottle wrote:I thought The Imitation Game rather good.

I gotta be honest, my interest in seeing the film plummeted when I learned that they made Turing super-aspy and unable to read social situations (basically Sherlock in a computer lab), presumably because "that's what those genius types are all like, aren't they"?  I know that departures from reality are inevitable in a biopic, but you might at least tell the story of the person who actually existed, rather than the person you think should have existed.  It's probably a little unfair of me to write off the film as a whole because of this but I'm sick and tired of the romanticized aspy genius trope. There are enough characters like that out there without mangling a real person's life story to create another one.

Bluebottle wrote:I'll second that.  As throwaway adventure movies go, it's pretty great.

Hey now.  I rank POTC up there with Raiders of the Lost Ark, so don't be calling it throwaway here.

Eldorion wrote:I loved American Gods.

Wanted to read that book for a couple years now. Hopefully I can get to it once I finish the Dark Tower series.

I bought it a few years ago in an airport bookstore based on a staff recommendation and devoured it over the course of that vacation. Hope you enjoy it when you get to it, bungo.

Also, we watched The Interview tonight. I knew it was gonna be a pretty typical James Franco/Seth Rogen type movie, and on that front, it didn't disappoint. The jokes were more hit-or-miss than I had hoped, but the ones that worked tended to be genuinely funny. It was cringe-inducingly stupid, but I can't really fault the movie for that since that was its goal. The film was a bit more actiony and violent than I had expected; it reminded me of Tropic Thunder in that respect, but not as good. It was a fun way to spend two hours, though.

North Korea hasn't hacked your bank account yet?

bungobaggins wrote:

Eldorion wrote:I loved American Gods.

Wanted to read that book for a couple years now. Hopefully I can get to it once I finish the Dark Tower series.

I read Anansi Boys first, that seemed to work.  But yeah they are genius. I still cant look at a spider in the same way I used to, and sometimes I say hi. Its only polite.

Eldorion wrote:Also, we watched The Interview tonight.  I knew it was gonna be a pretty typical James Franco/Seth Rogen type movie, and on that front, it didn't disappoint.  The jokes were more hit-or-miss than I had hoped, but the ones that worked tended to be genuinely funny.  It was cringe-inducingly stupid, but I can't really fault the movie for that since that was its goal.  The film was a bit more actiony and violent than I had expected; it reminded me of Tropic Thunder in that respect, but not as good.  It was a fun way to spend two hours, though.

Sounds mostly fun then!
I know it makes me a bad person, but I enjoyed most of Your Highness. There are parts that are uncomfortably bad, of course, but James Franco and Danny McBride are charismatic enough in their roles that I can't help but love parts of it...

I don't generally watch mainstream films post 90's so I hope I don't come off as esoteric when I post here. I'll start by saying my favorite directors are Billy Wilder and Takashi Miike (from Japan). And that my favorite movie is Terry Gilliam's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Anyway, I saw Austrailia's 'The Babadook' literally 30 minutes after my screening of Bo5A. I was pretty happy with it. It's a small indie with vibes of The Shining but def had it's own voice.

I also saw Tomm Moore's The Song of the Sea. Lovely, melancholy hand drawn water colored Irish production.

I actually had (and still have) no interest in seeing the Interview. Seemed too gimmicky and samey-samey from it's stars. I'm really picky these days about what I give my time and money to. There's always so much out these days now that more people are able to make movies.

For those with a gruesome sense of humor I am interested in Astron-6's The Editor. I'm sure it's great, but it hasn't made it's way to NYC just yet. I'm itching to see it.

I also saw the ABCs of Death part 2, which many reviewers described as improving on the flaws of part 1, but other than the lack of toilet humor I thought it was hit-or-miss much in the same way as part 1. Both films had some outstanding segments though.

Stig wrote:I don't generally watch mainstream films post 90's so I hope I don't come off as esoteric when I post here. I'll start by saying my favorite directors are Billy Wilder and Takashi Miike (from Japan). And that my favorite movie is Terry Gilliam's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Anyway, I saw Austrailia's 'The Babadook' literally 30 minutes after my screening of Bo5A. I was pretty happy with it. It's a small indie with vibes of The Shining but def had it's own voice.

I also saw Tomm Moore's The Song of the Sea. Lovely, melancholy hand drawn water colored Irish production.

I watch all sorts of films (apart from Romantic Comedies and Sports) but I do tend to watch mainstream Hollywood films, probably because they are cheaper and easier to get hold of (There is an favourite films thread floating around somewhere) and my typically young male brain assumes Big Explosions=Big Entertainment (not the case I watched Battleship the other day, sober...even worse than I'd imagined (Though it was shot rather well) I always say to myself if I watch a film I have to watch it all the way through. The only real Japanese films I've seen are a few Studio Gibli productions (Eldorion is a big fan).

I hated Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

I watched 'Love in the Afternoon' recently and really liked it a lot. Gary Cooper was an odd choice but I think it worked.
and Ninotchka is lovely too.

malickfan wrote:

Stig wrote:I don't generally watch mainstream films post 90's so I hope I don't come off as esoteric when I post here. I'll start by saying my favorite directors are Billy Wilder and Takashi Miike (from Japan). And that my favorite movie is Terry Gilliam's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Anyway, I saw Austrailia's 'The Babadook' literally 30 minutes after my screening of Bo5A. I was pretty happy with it. It's a small indie with vibes of The Shining but def had it's own voice.

I also saw Tomm Moore's The Song of the Sea. Lovely, melancholy hand drawn water colored Irish production.

I watch all sorts of films (apart from Romantic Comedies and Sports) but I do tend to watch mainstream Hollywood films, probably because they are cheaper and easier to get hold of (There is an favourite films thread floating around somewhere) and my typically young male brain assumes Big Explosions=Big Entertainment (not the case I watched Battleship the other day, sober...even worse than I'd imagined (Though it was shot rather well) I always say to myself if I watch a film I have to watch it all the way through. The only real Japanese films I've seen are a few Studio Gibli productions (Eldorion is a big fan).

I hated Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

It's certainly not a film for everyone. Usually I would get into a discussion about a film, but that one is a tough sell and a genuinely ugly film. But it is meant to be so. I think visually it's genius, as is the audio. And the most amazing thing about it is that Gilliam, a non drug user is the one who finally made a drug film that represents the actual experience (not that I know ) rather than just some gimmicky, cornball SFX. (although, yes, there were some in the film). I think it's just an amazing piece of work, and a pretty good adaptation of the novel.

Mrs Figg wrote:I watched 'Love in the Afternoon' recently and really liked it a lot. Gary Cooper was an odd choice but I think it worked.
and Ninotchka is lovely too.

Yes. I hear that quite often about Cooper's role in the film. I felt the same way about his romance (if that's what you're referring to) in High Noon. But it remains an absolute favorite of mine. (If you don't like old Cooper, check out his very first role: a cameo in the 1927 silent film by William Wellman. First film to win an Oscar for best picture. Holds up unbelievably well. All the plane crashing stunts are real. Whoa.)

Smells like plaid in here...

Eldorion wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:I thought The Imitation Game rather good.

I gotta be honest, my interest in seeing the film plummeted when I learned that they made Turing super-aspy and unable to read social situations (basically Sherlock in a computer lab), presumably because "that's what those genius types are all like, aren't they"?  I know that departures from reality are inevitable in a biopic, but you might at least tell the story of the person who actually existed, rather than the person you think should have existed.  It's probably a little unfair of me to write off the film as a whole because of this but I'm sick and tired of the romanticized aspy genius trope.  There are enough characters like that out there without mangling a real person's life story to create another one.

You know, it's interesting you should say  that as that was kind of my impression upon viewing the trailer too. With the lisping, and seeming slight allsuions to autistism. It seemed a lot less jarring in the actual film. And while I've seen criticism of both the  autistic esque and Sherlock ish nature of Benedicts portrayal raised, I'm not sure how valid I would say all of it is.

Benedict Cumberbatch commented on this somewhere;

"Though Sherlock is an immediate comparison, they're so different. Sherlock is a sociopathic show-off, and Alan was anything but that," Cumberbatch tells Metro. "I don't think he was on the spectrum. I think a lot of people are very lazy with that."

"I think it's a really dangerous thing to toy with that," he says. "People talk about me doing that quite a lot and that being a good thing for people who are on the spectrum, which is great. But I don't go into a job going, 'Is this autism? Is this Asperger's? Is this some other form of slight learning difficulty or disability?' I'm very wary of that, because I've met people with those conditions. It's a real struggle all the time. Then these people pop up in my work and they're sort of brilliant, and they on some levels almost offer false hope for the people who are going through the reality of it."  

http://www.metro.us/entertainment/tiff-benedict-cumberbatch-is-sick-of-people-calling-his-characters-autistic/tmWnig---48TBOTRdxFl6k/


I'd say I can see why people see his performance going slightly in the autistic=genius direction. As, while I don't think his general performances necesarily does, and a lot of his actions could rather be put down to different influences, there are some moments in the writing that are difficult to see apart from that.

For instance there's a moment in a flashback to his schooldays where he is carefully seperating his peas and carrots. Now this is a moment not taken from t he biography the movie is based on, as in not from the actual Alan Turings life, but a complete invention of the scriptwriter.

Turing did not, as far as we know, have a compulsion to separate his peas and carrots. (In fact, given his generally unkempt appearance, it’s highly unlikely he gave attention to such details.)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/12/03/the_imitation_game_fact_vs_fiction_how_true_the_new_movie_is_to_alan_turing.html

And, yeah,  while I think the quote overstates the actual performanc in the movie, there are several small moments like that where the movie kind of balances on the edge of falling into such implications

Leaving aside Turing’s codebreaking achievements, The Imitation Game also somewhat alters Turing’s personality. The film strongly implies that Alan is somewhere on the autism spectrum: Cumberbatch’s character doesn’t understand jokes, takes common expressions literally, and seems indifferent to the suffering and annoyance he causes in others. This characterization is rooted in Hodge’s biography but is also largely exaggerated: Hodges never suggests that Turing was autistic, and though he refers to Turing’s tendency to take contracts and other bureaucratic red tape literally, he also describes Turing as a man with a keen sense of humor and close friends. To be sure, Hodges paints Turing as shy, eccentric, and impatient with irrationality, but Cumberbatch’s narcissistic, detached Alan has more in common with the actor’s title character in Sherlock than with the Turing of Hodges’ biography. One of Turing’s colleagues at Bletchley Park later recalled him as “a very easily approachable man” and said “we were very very fond of him”; none of this is reflected in the film

.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/12/03/the_imitation_game_fact_vs_fiction_how_true_the_new_movie_is_to_alan_turing.html

The equatiing Alan Turing with Sherlock though I think is a bit unfair. As Benedict says in the quote above, they are, while both highly intelligent, very different characters. While Sherlock uses his intelligence and, apparent, social ineptness pretty much as a weapon and an excuse to treat people pretty horribly, Alan Turing at best uses it as a defence mechanism. The moment closest to a Sherlock like performance is probably the one in the trailer, with the scene with Benedict Cumberbatch and Charles Dance. I don`t really see a great similarity there that goes much beyond the intelligence factor and it obviously being the same actor in both roles.

Generally, this article does a good job of summing up the changes to the narrative from what's historicaly accurate.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/12/03/the_imitation_game_fact_vs_fiction_how_true_the_new_movie_is_to_alan_turing.html

And, yeah, they are quite numerous. More so than I was aware. As historic movies and biopics go, it does cetainly lean to the entertainment rather than the historicaly accurate side.

So, it's obviously not a flawless masterpiece.  But. For what it is. I found it rather good.

Eldorion wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:I'll second that.  As throwaway adventure movies go, it's pretty great.

Hey now.  I rank POTC up there with Raiders of the Lost Ark, so don't be calling it throwaway here.

Hehe, well, by throwaway I mostly meant it doesn't take itself too seriously. Which is one of it's strenghts to my mind.

Benedict on the difference between Turing and Sherlock.

https://youtu.be/SS_-KHvHbE0?t=2m38s

I watched "Dredd" with Karl Urban today, just in the mood for a bit of senseless killing. The gore was just enough to make me giggle without making me gag

I really liked it- he gets Dredd spot on and the character of Anderson was done very well and the way the script worked regarding her meant there was no need to make Dredd more human or more typical of the blockbuster 'hero' like the terrible Stallone version. And good to see an actor not so vain that he needs his face shown and who is willing for the sake of the character as the faceless Law not to compromise that.

Agreed.