"Now Showing"

[Will]

Not... really - a fairer comparison would be that Romeo & Juliet blends romance and tragedy as Alien does science fiction and horror; I might have missed something, but I don't remember a whole lot of comedy aboard the Nostromo. Unless we're talking about Resurrection. Which I, for one, am not.

Going back to the Shakespearean theme, I watched Looking for Richard yesterday after a recommendation from Neal, and really liked it. In a pretentious A-Level English student kind of way, I actually quite like Shakespeare, although I knew basically nothing about Richard III, save the fact that he wanted a horse for some reason, but, as was the premise of the documentary, the cast found a way of making the unfamiliar, occasionally complex plot as accessible as possible to the masses.

Plus, it was a chance to see the always amazing Al Pacino along with Winona Ryder and others treading unfamiliar ground, illustrating that neither American actors nor audiences need be as intimidated or 'turned off' as they are by Shakespearean material - hell, if the performance clips that interspersed the explanations (and the contrasts between Pacino as himself and in character, drawing parralels between Richard and his usual gangster characters were inevitably hilarious) were anything to go by, I'd love to see a lot more plays adapted in this style! Impressed

 

[nadroJ]

I'm confused... You say that the story of Romeo and Juliet is a crappy love story. Isn't that like saying Alien is a crappy comedy?

Because people always go on about what a beautiful, tragic love story it is, but when you look at it, actually it's not. Firstly you've got Romeo who's creaming his pants over some chick named Rosaline for the first half of the film, saying he loves her etc etc. THEN he sees Juliet through a fishtank and now he's all like oh I love you now. Then they kiss for......an hour, maybe two? Then they get married (the ****?). Then they ****. Then they kill themselves because they're stupid and their plan goes wrong. The end.

Same can be applied to Titanic, in which Leonardo looks equally dreamy. I guess it's because I don't believe you can love someone when you've only met them for a couple of days? Lust yes, but it's not tragic to keep lust apart is it? So they call it love, to heighten the drama and what not, and play some cheesy music to make you swoon and feel sad, when in actual fact this is the kind of thing that happens in school playgrounds. Tis sillyness.

 

[Gavin]

Re: "Now Showing"

^ The fishtank! The **** ING fishtank!!! They don't meet through a **** ING FISHTANK!

AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH!

 

[kimahri]

I'm still confused T-T

 

[furie]

Yeah Jordan, are you sure you're not thinking of Finding Nemo?

 

[nadroJ]

Re:

^ The fishtank! The **** ING fishtank!!! They don't meet through a **** ING FISHTANK!

AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH!

Lol XD I think some of the ways the films interprets the actual play is quite clever (the way the guna are all specifica guns named after specific kinds of sword, for instance), but the fishtank <//3

And Kim, I get what you're saying, that R+J is ultimately a tragedy, but people ALWAYS go on about how romantic it is, but when you look at it, Romeo is actually kind of a womanising asshole who changes his mind every 3 days from the looks of things, and Juliet is just all caught up because Leonardo is kind of a hot babe and her dad says she has to marry Paul Rudd </3. It's not really romantic at all in my opinion. Now The Notebook. THERE'S a romantic story ;]

 

[kimahri]

Were'nt Romeo and Juliet 13 and 8 years old original?

 

[Gavin]

^She would've been around 14, him 17.

 

[tomahawk]

American Reunion

Yep, just as great as the first three. Better in some parts, but just classic American Pie. Love it.

9/10

 

[Snoo]

Man on a Ledge

I liked it.

8.5/10

 

[peep]

So I was uber lucky and won two tickets to see a special fan screening of Avengers Assemble on Saturday. That's two weeks before the UK release and three weeks before US.

So obviously I was really excited about seeing this film, I mean, 5 films all leading up to this. The big question really was about if it was going to deliver and even match the hype surrounding the film. Well I can honestly say that although I found it started a bit slow it really started to gather pace and just got more epic as time went on. I knew Joss Whedeon would be good at handling so many epic characters because of how he handled Buffy and Firefly but it really shows how awesome he is at juggling so many major characters. He gives them all enough time to have their own stamp on the film and they all work so well and it's just full of humour. There's one scene which is really ridiculous yet works and is hilarious because it's very comic-book like and surely that's what a comic book adap should be like? The special effects are seamless and just stunning, doesn't look rushed (which some comic book blockbusters end up looking like) and it is just a fantastic film. I'm sure there are like a billion hidden nods in there to the comics that I just wouldn't get etc and I think it'd probably be good enough if you haven't even seen the rest of the films. Oh and the way it ties all the other films up I thought was really great. Can't wait to see it again and again now

Rating: 4.5/5

 

[furie]

Question is, "do you need to be a Wheedon/Marvel fanboy to enjoy the film"?

I love comic book hero films, but I've found that the Marvel ones recently have been so exceptionally formulaic. The ones I've not seen (that this is piggy-backed on - Thor, The Incredible Hulk and Captain America) have had underwhelming reviews. Okay, so Spiderman, X-Men (the originals, not origins, but even origins to a degree) and Fantastic Four aren't the same teams, but it still reflects on the series with "over-done forumlas". I've also never been an Avengers fan, finding all the characters to be Marvel's most wishy-washy and annoying.

I also never liked Buffy. So, will I be converted into a fan? Is it a film that I, as a critic of pretty much everything that has gone before, enjoy the film? I always walk into a cinema open minded (I love the experience too much to ruin it), so I wont go in expecting it to disappoint, but I also won't go in with any "positives" allowing me to forgive the film...

Guess I'd best hurry up and watch Thor and Captain America then (I'm just not watching Hulk, eugh).

In other news, I went to see Pirates - [size=small]In an Adventure with Scientists[/size]. Stupid little film that managed to somehow just about stride the rift between adult and child film. The puns, one liners and some conversations were aimed purely at adults. The film trotted along very rapidly though, with just enough detail and time for the kids to get the plot and for funny things to happen between the stuff only the adults would get. So the time passed very quickly for both MMF and me and we both came out feeling we'd seen a decent film. It'll never set the world alight, but it's well made, well paced, well acted and thoroughly enjoyable.

 

[peep]

Mark asked me a similar question on Facebook about not being a fan or not seeing the other films beforehand. I'd recommend seeing all of them because it probably gives you a better understanding of each character but even so I found that each character was given enough time to establish themselves within the ensemble and provide you with the info you need to be up to date with everyone else that has seen the other films.

So you can get away with not seeing all of them but I'd recommend at least Thor and Captain Amercia as they probably provide the most backstory for this one.

Oh and I had you down as a Buffy fan, I'm surprised.

 

[kimahri]

There's one scene which is really ridiculous yet works and is hilarious because it's very comic-book like and surely that's what a comic book adap should be like?

Something irked me about this. I don't think 'Comic Book' should be classed as a genre, more so as just another medium. I do think that the silly, quirky things that you usually see in blockbuster adaptations are ok though, probably just the uh, left over perception of the golden era stuff. Adam West Batman and the like. Marvel are really annoying with their overall tone even in X-Men alone. There's too many **** alternate universes in it. Actually all of marvel has too many **** alternate universes in it and makes it incredibly difficult to get into and track down what the source comics were (and then give up after finding it's another completely alternate universe)

Marvel suck (I lie, Beast <3) Image (OMFG, EBONY HIDE <3<3<3<3) are better. I leik comics.

 

[furie]

I was too old for Buffy when it came out. Early/mid twenties so the entire teenness about it completely missed me, I just couldn't understand why this twee little show was so popular :lol:

Not concerned about "back story" or "character", more - is the film actually, really, any good? Or is it the same old, same old "contention brings characters to 'find solution' (i.e. becoming the hero/bonding the group), split story with rise of 'bad guy/s', contention in group as characters conflict and try to learn to live with each other, bad guy rises and takes advantage of the weakness in the incoherent group, group works out it's differences and use their strengths together to fight the (shock/surprise we never saw it coming) bad guy, bad guy appears to win due to some clever plan laid out and by some form of sacrifice the group overcome the odds (tears all around). Sometimes the sacrifice is brought back" tale?

 

[peep]

There's one scene which is really ridiculous yet works and is hilarious because it's very comic-book like and surely that's what a comic book adap should be like?

Something irked me about this. I don't think 'Comic Book' should be classed as a genre, more so as just another medium. I do think that the silly, quirky things that you usually see in blockbuster adaptations are ok though, probably just the uh, left over perception of the golden era stuff. Adam West Batman and the like. Marvel are really annoying with their overall tone even in X-Men alone. There's too many **** alternate universes in it. Actually all of marvel has too many **** alternate universes in it and makes it incredibly difficult to get into and track down what the source comics were (and then give up after finding it's another completely alternate universe)

Marvel suck (I lie, Beast <3) Image (OMFG, EBONY HIDE <3<3<3<3) are better. I leik comics.

See I'm not a comic fan so therefore I actually don't care about the source material, these films are adapted from comics, therefore they are comic book adaptations. Just like a novel being used as the source of a film becomes a book adaptation. There might not always be a difference but I think because of the style of images in the comics it can usually influence the way the film looks. I realise that these films try to immerse these made up realms with reality but sometimes a character will do something in the comic which just wouldn't look right on film/in the real World and that's more what I'm on about. But it works so I don't really see the problem? I also don't class it as a genre, more of a sub-genre of the action genre, because it is.

I've enjoyed most of what has come out of the Marvel World, maybe I've changed my mind on some since originally seeing them (looking at you Spiderman) but I generally enjoy them. I also tend to enjoy them more than DC ones (apart from Batman, Batman is amazing).


Furie, I found the movie really enjoyable, just a fantastic bit of entertainment. That also seemed to be the general mood at the end of the screening, I think when there is so much hype surrounding a film it's hard for it to actually meet those absurd expectations yet this manages to do so. I'm not going to comment on the rest of what you said for fear of spoiling it even though you've kind of just pointed out the story arc of 90% of action films.

 

[furie]

Furie, I found the movie really enjoyable, just a fantastic bit of entertainment. That also seemed to be the general mood at the end of the screening, I think when there is so much hype surrounding a film it's hard for it to actually meet those absurd expectations yet this manages to do so. I'm not going to comment on the rest of what you said for fear of spoiling it even though you've kind of just pointed out the story arc of 90% of action films.

No problem with the action film thing, but every Marvel film is just the same. The characters feel the same, the story feels the same. It's just the same. The mood at the screening would be high because it's full of fans getting to see it early - so there will be a natural buzz

You don't need to follow the formula though, you can break free and even the Spiderman cartoons often strayed wildly from the path - so why are the films always the same. Batman is to a degree, but it hides it very well, it's just not so blatant.

Essentially, you've said "yes, this is identical to all the others with different characters"

 

[Ben]

I also never liked Buffy.

Get out.

 

[kimahri]

There's one scene which is really ridiculous yet works and is hilarious because it's very comic-book like and surely that's what a comic book adap should be like?

Something irked me about this. I don't think 'Comic Book' should be classed as a genre, more so as just another medium. I do think that the silly, quirky things that you usually see in blockbuster adaptations are ok though, probably just the uh, left over perception of the golden era stuff. Adam West Batman and the like. Marvel are really annoying with their overall tone even in X-Men alone. There's too many **** alternate universes in it. Actually all of marvel has too many **** alternate universes in it and makes it incredibly difficult to get into and track down what the source comics were (and then give up after finding it's another completely alternate universe)

Marvel suck (I lie, Beast <3) Image (OMFG, EBONY HIDE <3<3<3<3) are better. I leik comics.

See I'm not a comic fan so therefore I actually don't care about the source material, these films are adapted from comics, therefore they are comic book adaptations. Just like a novel being used as the source of a film becomes a book adaptation. There might not always be a difference but I think because of the style of images in the comics it can usually influence the way the film looks. I realise that these films try to immerse these made up realms with reality but sometimes a character will do something in the comic which just wouldn't look right on film/in the real World and that's more what I'm on about. But it works so I don't really see the problem? I also don't class it as a genre, more of a sub-genre of the action genre, because it is.

I've enjoyed most of what has come out of the Marvel World, maybe I've changed my mind on some since originally seeing them (looking at you Spiderman) but I generally enjoy them. I also tend to enjoy them more than DC ones (apart from Batman, Batman is amazing).


Furie, I found the movie really enjoyable, just a fantastic bit of entertainment. That also seemed to be the general mood at the end of the screening, I think when there is so much hype surrounding a film it's hard for it to actually meet those absurd expectations yet this manages to do so. I'm not going to comment on the rest of what you said for fear of spoiling it even though you've kind of just pointed out the story arc of 90% of action films.

I'm just ranting to my self. :3

If an Elephantmen adaptation actually goes ahead you'll probably see me jizzing over it and then facing the harsh reality.

 

[peep]

Essentially, you've said "yes, this is identical to all the others with different characters"

Did I?