Fun Your Favourite Films?

TheSowIsMine

What an excellent day for an exorcism
VIP
The film that came to my mind immediately was Battle Royale 2. The original was a fresh, push-the-envelope, movie that I rated 5 stars. It easily makes my various "top movies" lists. However, the sequel was not just bad, but excruciatingly bad. Completely unwatchable. I think the director died a third of the way into making it, and whoever took over the reins created an abomination. One of the few films I've rated 0 stars.
I agree with this. The first one was awesome, but the sequel, what were they thinking.
 

chainsaw_metal1

Member: Rank 8
My issue with Rogue One is that they have absolutely no character development for anyone. You get snippets, but between not spending enough time setting them up and the first act of the movie being a muddled story, it doesn't rank nearly as high on my Star Wars list. The last half of that movie, though? Perfect. Especially that last scene
with Darth Vader.{/spoiler]
 

croft_alice

Member: Rank 4
My issue with Rogue One is that they have absolutely no character development for anyone. You get snippets, but between not spending enough time setting them up and the first act of the movie being a muddled story, it doesn't rank nearly as high on my Star Wars list. The last half of that movie, though? Perfect. Especially that last scene
with Darth Vader.{/spoiler]
That scene with darth vader,i recognized it from an old star wars movie,i don't remember wich one
 

Janine The Barefoot

Wacky Norwegian Woman
I gotta go with any and all of the 187 "sequels" of Friday the 13th. Dear god, how many hockey masks do we have to go through before someone finally comes to their senses and says enough!?

:emoji_kiss: :emoji_dancer: Bad Jason! Bad boy!!! :emoji_smiling_imp:
 

Salzmank

Member: Rank 2
What are your favorite Charlie Chan films? (I based the choices on a poll of the top choices of Charlie Chan buffs at another forum, but you can pick a different choice, using the "Other" category.) Please post comments, thoughts, observations, analyses, questions, complaints, concerns, rants, etc., below!

Note also: you are allowed to pick up to three movies.
 

duzit

Member: Rank 6
The Maze Runner 2014.
I liked it well enough. Made me read all four books.
I just finished watching it. At first it seemed like another story of fighting off unbelievable beasts to survive. However, the twist at the end has really piqued my interest enough to follow the series...
 

Doctor Omega

Administrator
Staff member
VIP
KEY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MULTIPLE VERSIONS (SPOILERS AHEAD):
In the Theatrical Cut, Roy finds himself inexplicably drawn to Devil’s Tower where he risks his life several times just for the chance to witness the mothership landing. Sensing that he has been summoned there by the aliens, the lead UFO scientist Dr. Lacombe (Francois Truffaut) invites Roy to join the astronauts who’ve volunteered to enter the aliens’ ship. The E.T.s select Roy to accompany with them, he walks up into their ship. In the Special Edition, against Spielberg’s better judgment, we get a glimpse of what Roy finds inside the mothership.






I don’t know whether Spielberg’s heart wasn’t in the sequence or this was simply the best he could do with the budget he was given, but it’s pretty anticlimactic. Roy stands around, does nothing, and sees not much of anything in particular. No wonder Spielberg left the whole thing out of the Director’s Cut years later.

Though Spielberg never wanted to show the inside of that ship. He saw it as a means to an end. Here is an example of a scene he wanted badly enough to acquiesce on the mothership stuff. Note that Truffaut’s character doesn’t appear even though his interpreter (Bob Balaban) does. That’s because Truffaut was busy shooting another movie and couldn’t participate in the Special Edition reshoots.



The Special Edition includes almost ten minutes of new footage, but its runtime is three minutes shorter than the Theatrical Cut because Spielberg also trimmed and completely cut scenes that had previously appeared in the film. Some changes are so small, you’d need you watch two versions side-by-side to notice them. If you’ll watch the Special Edition closely, for example, you’ll see an insert shot of a McDonald’s billboard in the sequence where Roy and the alien hunters stand on that hilly road and watch the UFOs fly overhead. The addition of the insert gives the scene a punchline: instead of just flying over the onlookers and zooming around a corner, it looks like the aliens fly over the onlookers, pause, read the billboard, and then zoom off to McDonald’s. It’s a cute gag, and it only appears in the Special Edition.

Maybe the biggest but least commented upon difference between the various versions of “Close Encounters” is the portrayal of Roy’s wife Ronnie. Though the ending of “Close Encounters” is superficially uplifting — man and alien make a peaceful connection — it also carries a dark undercurrent: by joining the aliens on their journey to who knows where, Roy ignores his responsibilities as a wife and father. Yes, he’s a brave guy. But he’s also a deadbeat dad. I think many of the changes in the Special Edition (and to a lesser extent the Director’s Cut) are made to try to justify, or at least explain, Roy’s irresponsible actions.

The Special Edition inserts two scenes that weren’t in the Theatrical Cut that involve Ronnie yelling at Roy. One scene is particularly harsh: after Roy loses his job and then ruins a family dinner by turning his pile of mashed potatoes into a miniature Devil’s Tower, Ronnie finds him sitting in the shower, crying and moaning “I don’t know what’s happening to me.” But instead of comforting him, she screams that his “bullshit is “turning this house upside down!” From there, the Special Edition immediately cuts to Ronnie leaving with the kids the next morning, as if the argument was the last straw.

That fight is missing from the Theatrical Cut. The morning after the mashed potatoes scene, Ronnie wakes up and tries to apologize to Roy (apparently for the mashed potatoes thing, but really for the fight that wasn’t even in that version of the film!). Then she watches him spaz out in a fit of alien-fueled inspiration, stealing the neighbor’s chicken wire and plants. Out of fear instead of anger, she finally packs up the kids and leaves. In the Theatrical Cut, Ronnie is a frustrated, confused woman. She doesn’t know what’s happening to her husband, and she’s frightened for the safety of her kids. In the Special Edition, she’s a mean, shrewish wife. I don’t think Spielberg blames her for Roy getting into that spaceship — he was going to do that no matter how she behaved — but I do think he’s trying to explain why he doesn’t even give his family a second thought.

The Director’s Cut synthesizes the two versions of the sequence. It includes the shower scene and the fight and it also includes Roy freaking out the following morning. It’s a more believable representation of the ups and downs of a marriage. As a result the tone is a little more uneven — the shower scene is incredibly dark and the morning after freakout is borderline slapstick comedy — but it does also give you a good sense of the roller coaster of emotions that Ronnie is on. One minute her husbands bawling, the next he’s throwing ferns through their kitchen window. What else could she do with this nutjob but leave him?


IF YOU ONLY WATCH ONE VERSION OF “CLOSE ENCOUNTERS,” WATCH:
The Director’s Cut. This was actually a tough call, because there are things I like about both the Theatrical Cut and the Director’s Cut. It was not a tough call to say you should definitely avoid the Special Edition, which has the pointless mothership scene and the demonizing portrait of Ronnie. The Special Edition is also the only version of “Close Encounters” without my favorite scene in the film: an army press conference designed to debunk the Indiana sightings. I love that sequence for the attitude of military officers (who claim they want to believe Roy because they’ve spent years looking for concrete evidence of aliens) and for the way it transitions brilliantly from the officials reassuring the public that UFOs pose no threat to a secret military installation where Lacombe and his team are inventing a phony threat in order to evacuate the area around Devil’s Tower.

The Theatrical Cut and Director’s Cut are very similar, but each has good scenes missing from the other. I like how Roy is introduced in the original version of the film: playing with his model train set alone while a music box plays a twinkly version of “When You Wish Upon a Star” (the song is later echoed by John Williams’ score as Roy walks into the mothership). The Theatrical Cut also has one of the cooler WTF moments, when Roy lays down on his bed after getting fired and becomes entranced by the shape of one of the pillows.

Neither of those beats are in the Director’s Cut, but that version does retain the great Special Edition scene with the boat in the Gobi Desert and it has the most heartbreaking version of Roy and Ronnie’s breakup. And while it’s also the longest cut of the film, the Director’s Cut is actually the best paced. As we do more installments of this column, we’re going to find instances where a director’s instincts about his own film were proven incorrect. But that’s not the case here. The third time was the charm for Spielberg. I don’t know if he got it “right” with the Director’s Cut of “Close Encounters.” But he definitely got it “best” with that one.
 

Doctor Omega

Administrator
Staff member
VIP
A “Close Encounters” 40th Anniversary Re-Release?


a-close-encounters-anniversary-re-release-696x464.jpg


Sony Pictures has posted a new video to its official YouTube account that seems to hint at a re-release of Steven Spielberg’s iconic classic “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”.

The title with the video, “This Means Something,” is from a quote by Richard Dreyfuss’ character in the original which can be seen in static-glazed glimpses between newly created 3D graphics representing air traffic radar.

If it is a re-release, it comes in time for the film’s 40th anniversary in November. The 1977 original was a massive critical and commercial success and has been a home video staple with a high-profile re-release on practically every anniversary the film has had to date.

Further details when they arrive, in the meantime check out the clip:



 

Nick91

Member: Rank 2
I've only seen two Charlie Chan films so far, and only one of them is among the poll options. Rather than voting at the moment, I'll just give my thoughts on each of them. Although, it was a while ago that I saw them.

Charlie Chan in Egypt
To be honest, I was a bit worried in the beginning because I couldn't understand what Stepin Fetchit was saying. There have been numerous instances where the whole viewing experience has been ruined for me due to a lack of subtitles, and I'm left wondering what the plot is.

Luckily, I soon realized that the other characters were more comprehensible. What I thought of the film itself? Well, it was alright, a straight-forward mystery that follows a fairly linear course of events. Since we don't really get to know enough about most suspects in-depth due to lack of time, there wasn't any "wow, so X was the guilty one all along" reaction.

On a positive note, it was cool to see Rita Hayworth in a minor role pre-Hollywood sex symbol days. Who could've predicted that back in '36? Also, it's not only because he was from my country, but Warner Oland is a really good actor and damn likeable too.

Charlie Chan at the Circus
It was kinda interesting to see his entire family on the screen. I like how they included the oldest son as sort of Charlie's apprentice. Plot-wise, it wasn't anything spectacular either. I suppose these types of films are entertaining for the moment, and probably not always rewatchable, since the resolution (finding out who did it?) to some extent removes whatever incentive one has to watch it again. I think this could apply to any whodunits.

At least in my opinion. One thing that struck me about this one, as I recall, was that Charlie often speaks in riddles and Souteastern proverbs. I think most of them are profound and astute, but at times, he can come across as slightly unrealistic as he almost becomes a caricature character. Too much of something good, in other words. But other than that, it was fine and well-spent 72 minutes.

Disclaimer (25 September 2017): Neither are among my all-time favourite films. For some reason, the Charlie Chan poll thread was deleted and my post has been moved here.
 
Last edited:

Doctor Omega

Administrator
Staff member
VIP
Trailer & Poster: “Close Encounters” Re-Release


trailer-poster-close-encounters-re-release-696x464.jpg


Following its announcement three weeks ago, a poster and trailer for the upcoming 40th anniversary re-release of Steven Spielberg’s “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” have arrived.

The re-release will be the director’s cut of the film and runs for one week starting September 1st in the U.S. and Canada. This latest restoration has been digitally remastered for 4K and will have its world premiere in the Venezia Classici section of the Venice Film Festival.

Richard Dreyfuss starred in the film as a line worker who has a close encounter with an alien intelligence. He soon feels drawn to a wilderness area where something big will soon happen.
 

ant-mac

Administrator
Staff member
VIP
Two of the films that had the most influence on me - both as a child and later as an adult - were made in 1977.

This is one of them.
 

Doctor Omega

Administrator
Staff member
VIP
Yes, it was a great film.

I remember leaving the cinema at night, and looking up at the sky in the dreary suburban town I was living in.... and wondering! :emoji_alien:

Ahh! The power of cinema! :emoji_alien:
 
Top