The Last Movie I Watched

i just watched Drive

the 2011 one with gosling/perlman and cranston


loved it....never seen it when it was new this was a first watch

 

I last watched THE ABYSS (1989) on VHS (Recorded from analogue cable in 1994 i believe)

 

The Age of Adeline

I saw it last May in theater and recently saw it again last month several times on a cruise ship and now watched the DVD.

It is a captivating tale. (I think it is a chick flick - but I seem to have been taken by it)

http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/467498-the-age-of-adaline/

 

I last watched the movie "WHERE THE BUFFALO ROAM" (1980) on VHS

I love the music in this!! (Purple haze,etc)

 

The Reverent.

A bit long, acting is good and the scenery made the movie. How much was CGI and Green screen, I don't know but it was visually stunning.

Going to watch Pan tonight with my son.

 

RAMBO 2008

Nothing but gratuitous violence. The origional Rambo from the 80's was much better, in my opinion.

 

My wife loved it.
Quite possibly more than I did.

Did I mention she's awesome?

 

Wait...

...

... you thought Interview was good?
Did you read the book?
Because, I saw he movie first... then read the book.

Literally, about 3 pages in, I was like "That movie is bullshit. It's drastically different from just a few pages in!"

 

I read the book later too. Perhaps if I did read the book first, like with for example Lord of the rings, I would be more anal about some details yeah. And react kind of the same as you. But I saw the movie at least twice before I got to the book. What's bullshit about it? Is a movie like Trainspotting for example bullshit because it messed with the storyline of the book its based on? I think that movie adaption is better than the book. So that it is drastically different does not always make it bad or bullshit by default (although I understand that stance from a fan of the book very well)

The movie Interview with a vampire is not better than the book, but the movie is better than most other vampire movies. Unless a person is mostly about over the top action scenes or really digs some fictional gang rivalry between werewolves and vampires I don't see how a van Helsing or Underworld is a better movie than that classic.

 

I watch a lot of movie

I watch a lot of movies and read very little of the source material that they come from. I often stress that movies and books are two different media and should not be compared and ppl should be expected to be disappointed.

I loved Interview With the Vampire, it was a good movie. I never read the book so have nothing else to compare it to. Ppl should expect that rarely does a movie based on a book follow it completely or even resemble it so it is futile to make comparisons.

While reading the words in a book you create the images, the setting, the characters features. When you see a movie, even if the script follows the words in the book (Which seldom happens because they are two different mediums) all the setting, character features and other images are those of other ppl and will seldom coincide with your own. I think this is why so many ppl get upset when the movie they created in their head is not the same as the one onscreen.

Here would be a good example of play to movie. There are two movies that use the exact same words in the script. Romeo & Juliet by Franco Zeffirelli (1968 the definitive classic) and Romeo & Juliet by Baz Luhrmann (1997 modern adaptation).

 

Well, first of all, Tom Cruise was an incredibly disappointing casting choice.
But, I digress...

While some movies can turn out good, even if they don't hold exactly to the source material, I don't think this was one of those times.
I think there were way too many points that the movie changed from the book.
It wasn't like the movie adjusted a few things, it was practically an entirely different story from the very beginning.

It was certainly better than Twilight, but (at least some of) Underworld is just as good in my opinion.
And Dracula (with Oldman and Reeves) was pretty damn good.

 

I'm cool with certain changes from books to movies.
For instance, in Interview, Claudia is about 4 or 5 years old in the book... but I get why they went with a 12 year old to play the role in the movie.
Or in the Marvel comics, Nick Fury is white... but Samuel L. Jackson is awesome playing the role.
Those types of differences I can be cool with.

But when plot points are changed for no good reason, it just messes up the whole thing.
Like Lestat being able to fly in the movies, but not the book.
Or... well, there's an insane amount of differences like that and worse.
Suffice it to say, I wasn't happy with the differences.

But hey, y'all enjoyed it and who am I to sully a smile?

 

Sunday, Bloody Sunday.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067805/

This film really pushed the envelope as it had two grown men having a wet sloppy kiss on screen when released om 1971. It is what a would call well scripted.

 

Children of the Corn

Stephen King hit the nail on the head with that disturbing book and movie

 

Yeps, really did it for me too when I watched it in my teens... Not big on horrors at all, but this one I could appreciate. Creepy atmosphere, good build up, a great scary movie.

 

eastbound and down fucking hilarious and the hand that rocks the cradle what a creepy movie

 

American Hustle.

Good movie

 

World War Z

Typical over the top Zombie movie. Not bad but definitely no different.

Still, hands down, 28 days later is the best.

 

I last watched the movie ONE MANS JUSTICE (1995) on VHS