|
|
Post by Splash on Dec 14, 2003 9:50:11 GMT 10
Don't know about everyone else but I'm the type of person who reads more than one book at a time. Yeah I do that sometimes too. My problem is I buy heaps more books than I could possibly ever get around to reading, so I've got huge, swaying stacks of them in my room looming over me as I sleep. I fear one day they will fall and crush me. Kafka, huh? I keep hearing great things... where do you recommend I start? |
|
|
|
Post by echolalia on Dec 14, 2003 13:02:41 GMT 10
Kafka, huh? I keep hearing great things... where do you recommend I start? Well, the very first book of his I read was "The Metamorphosis", which is considered a classic. I got hooked so instead of buying his stories individually, I went the whole hog and purchased "The Complete Stories" which contains all of his short and long stories. The book t'was a bit pricey but considering how many stories he wrote, I reckon I saved some moolah. |
|
|
|
Post by JCriquet on Dec 14, 2003 13:51:43 GMT 10
Ok. That's it. It's go time. You didn't like the movie?! Step out to the carpark. You guys have been warned about this sort of behaviour: dissing stunningly good movies will not be tolerated. Oh, please... it so wasn't stunning. I admit there was a lot of cool stuff in it - the look of the film was indeed very cool - but everything that happened was... God, I dunno. It just didnt sit right with me. On the whole, i'm not really all that down with "Director's Cut" versions of films. If the original intention was to imply that Deckard is a replicant, then why the fuck not go with that in the first place? Have some fucken balls, Scott! The game is cool because it has heaps of the same scenes and camera angles from the movie. The look of the film is painstakingly recreated, and it's fantastic. So atmospheric, it's a real achievement. The only Director's Cut-type film that I've really liked was Apocalypse Now Redux, and that's not strictly a director's cut; rather than just lob the scenes back into the movie, they actually went through all the old dailies and cut what was in essence an entirely new film. Very cool. [thinks for a moment] Should I see it again? Do you think that seeing it again would help? Everyone but me loves this movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Splash on Dec 14, 2003 16:53:22 GMT 10
Well, the very first book of his I read was "The Metamorphosis", which is considered a classic. Yeah I'm kinda embarrassed I've never read any of his stuff. Thanks for the advice! |
|
|
|
Post by Splash on Dec 14, 2003 16:55:24 GMT 10
Everyone but me loves this movie. Good. I hope it's only you. |
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Dec 14, 2003 18:06:13 GMT 10
yeah thats an awesome essay...havent read Flow my tears.
Bladerunner is one of all time top5 movies.
im still waiting for the Directors Directors Cut.
the original cut wasnt Ridleys....he virtually gave up on the movie after the studio were being cunts.
apparently his "directors cut" version in 1993 also had alot of studio interference.
i keep hearing rumours about a 3disc DVD set of Bladerunner with the 1993 Dir Cut, and a new cut plus a disc of special features being released sometime soon. It was sposed to be out in mid 2002!!!
i think the 1993 cut is pretty damned awesome...the ONLY fault i can find in the movie is when Rutger Hauer releases the dove after his terribly moving speech. If you look at the shot of the dove its shot durign the day with a clear blue sky and it really jars cause its so out of place ontop of the building at night with rain pissing down.
maybe they can shoot a new bit for that so its not so Ed Woodish.
other than that i think its a perfect movie. amazing, moving.
the name "Bladerunner" always confused me...its not in the book or anythng...apparently it comes from a Willim gibson script that the studio had lying around.
As for Apocalypse Now Redux....i thought it was good but i had some problems with it. that added scene with the French people is confusing, annoying, boring and unnecessary, and cheesy too.
and Marlon Brando....well he just plain stinks this movie up. WHy did they put up with all his fucking shit when there are a billion other more well behaved (but not necessarily as famous) character actors who could of done a better job. i guess a famous name is worth alot.
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Dec 14, 2003 18:10:21 GMT 10
yeah me too.
ive got a pile of unread books on my bedside table...i think theres at least 30 there and its growing all the time. i just cant read fast enough to make the pile go down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Splash on Dec 15, 2003 9:31:13 GMT 10
Harvey, you should read Flow My Tears... On Redux, I thought the added scenes with Brando were good. I think people make too much of a big deal about him in that movie. The French plantation certainly makes it a much different movie. Overall I liked the new cut - can never have too much Apocalype Now! On BR, yeah I've been waiting for the third cut for years now too - maybe next year  |
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Dec 15, 2003 11:53:42 GMT 10
my problem with Brando is that he caused so much trouble for the production...why did they put up with it? hes not irreplaceable....there are plenty of great actors who could of done his part...its so unnecessary.
personally i thought he didnt do a great job with such an important part.
|
|
|
|
Post by Splash on Dec 15, 2003 18:32:17 GMT 10
my problem with Brando is that he caused so much trouble for the production...why did they put up with it? hes not irreplaceable....there are plenty of great actors who could of done his part...its so unnecessary. personally i thought he didnt do a great job with such an important part. Yeah but all the controversy is part of movie-making history! All the stories about what went on during the production is half of why it's such a famous (and great) film. You had Sheen's heart attack and Brando's insanity not to mention Coppola's self-indulgences... A great cast, a great film and a legendary production! It's a movie that's got everything!  |
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Dec 16, 2003 8:54:08 GMT 10
i guess after The Thin Red Line every other war movie seems bland.
Ive only seen the Redux version which my dad says is not as good.
Making a movie longer doesnt necessarily mean better and there were parts of this movie that REALLY dragged and could of been cut down or out to make it tighter.
THin Red Line is long, but never feels long to me, it always leaves me wanting more (ive seen it at least 7 times), apparently the original cut was about 9 hours long.
it had Viggo Mortenson and Bill Pullman in it, all that bruahaha about George Clooney getting top credit but only being in it for 2 minutes....well he would of had a bigger part if the cut had gone different cause in the book his character is quite important. Adrian Brody originally was the main focus of the movie (as his character is in the book) but got cut down to barely 10 minutes of screen time.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Horrible Brian on Dec 18, 2003 15:33:00 GMT 10
i guess after The Thin Red Line every other war movie seems bland. Every other war movie is bland. And so was the Thin Red Line. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Dec 18, 2003 17:32:06 GMT 10
I didn't do the superstud thing btw.
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Dec 18, 2003 19:23:34 GMT 10
Every other war movie is bland. And so was the Thin Red Line. you suck. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Dec 23, 2003 14:25:08 GMT 10
Sorry I missed the post from the DVD trader but I meant to tell you that I loved the reactions you guys had, it was soooooo cute.
|
|
