Movies To Look Forward to

Oberi said:

The Jet Li movie could be Fearless or Rogue? they both indeed look cool.

Click to expand...

"Fearless" is the title I was looking for. Thanks! I haven't seen any previews for "Rogue," but if it's the standard Jet Li flick, I'll check it out for kicks and giggles.

Oberi said:

I don't care about Hostel 2 either or saw 3 which I hope somebody was kidding about when they said they couldn't wait.

Click to expand...

I actually enjoyed the first two "Saw" movies. I thought they were rather entertaining and I found the ending twists to be pretty interesting. Not great movies, but with a group of friends they can be fun.

Oberi said:

But the documentary This Film Is not Yet Rated looks great. I've seen tons of previews for it on IFC. Does anyone watch that channel. It's pretty much all I watch.

Click to expand...

Never heard of it, what's it about (if it's easier to post a link to a trailer, feel free)? What does IFC stand for? I rarely watch TV these days (I'm more into movies than television) so I'm a little behind the times.

Rhombaad said:

Never heard of it, what's it about (if it's easier to post a link to a trailer, feel free)?  What does IFC stand for?  I rarely watch TV these days (I'm more into movies than television) so I'm a little behind the times.

Click to expand...

Its a documentary about the MPAA, how they rate movies and how screwed up their system is a lot of times.

A Brief History of The Fountain (to the best of Green's Knowledge):

Does anyone remember Brad Pitt's Wooly Stage?
A reminder:

This monster was growing for The Fountain, a film that both I and Mr. Pitt were very much looking forward to. The new film from Aronofsky was said to be an epic sci-fi-fantasy film whose story was told through the course of (roughly) 1500 years. Cate Blanchette, I believe, was set to star opposite the (then) hairy Mr. Pitt.
Pitt wasn't the only great difference for Aronofsky this time around, the budget was much bigger than Requiem. The figure that pops into my head is, around, $100m. I wonder how much of that was attributed to the two stars?
Time goes on and suddenly Pitt is clean shaven. For some reason he backed out of the film, Blanchette was soon to follow.
But why?
Perhaps the reason lies in how long the developement was taking, or perhaps the new femme just didn't like his look.
Either way, he went for Troy, which WAS ready and both Pitt and Anniston were co-producing (if my memory serves me).
Needless to say, without stars, Aronofsky had no picture. Over the years, Aronofsky was attatched to SEVERAL pictures, including  Batman Year One, Lone Wolf and Cub and Watchmen.
Finally Jackman signs on and the film is a go. But with a much smaller budget. $36m, I think.
Aronofsky admits this is a good thing, too much money can go to one's head, you see, and then the film would be taken over by the budget. He had to come up with more economical ways of getting the effects he needed with less money. This is something that he's quite use to doing and the film will probably benefit overall.
Weisz joins, a wonderful picture appears on the interweb:

Excitement stirs.
More pictures appear, including:

MANY moons later, an announcement is made that a graphic novel based on Aronofsky's script will be developed. He promises it will be a different take than his film.

But why have a graphic novel of his film script? This was his backup. Apparently, if I do recall, frustrated that the film could not be made (this is before Jackman signed on), he wanted to at least get his story out there, and he chose this medium.
Thankfully we also get the version it was meant to be.

Rhombaad said:

I actually enjoyed the first two "Saw" movies. I thought they were rather entertaining and I found the ending twists to be pretty interesting. Not great movies, but with a group of friends they can be fun.

What does IFC stand for? I rarely watch TV these days (I'm more into movies than television) so I'm a little behind the times.

Click to expand...

YEa with a group of friends they can be alright but their really not worth more than one or two viewings. I rarely watch tv either, I'm definitely a movie guy also, but IFC stands for the Independent Film Channel. They play cult, pulp indie movies, uncut and uncensored. Plus every Saturday morning they play a samurai flick. They actually went through the whole Zatoichi series. And they play that anime Samurai 7 which is alright, but at least anime is getting some airtime.

Oberi said:

I rarely watch tv either, I'm definitely a movie guy also, but IFC stands for the Independent Film Channel.  They play cult, pulp indie movies, uncut and uncensored.  Plus every Saturday morning they play a samurai flick. They actually went through the whole Zatoichi series. And they play that anime Samurai 7 which is alright, but at least anime is getting some airtime.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, not sure I have that channel...wouldn't surprise me if Comcast didn't carry it. Goddamn you over-priced, rarely watched cable...

Slightly Green said:

Pitt wasn't the only great difference for Aronofsky this time around, the budget was much bigger than Requiem. The figure that pops into my head is, around, $100m. I wonder how much of that was attributed to the two stars?
Finally Jackman signs on and the film is a go. But with a much smaller budget. $36m, I think.
Aronofsky admits this is a good thing, too much money can go to one's head, you see, and then the film would be taken over by the budget.

Click to expand...

The original budget was 72 million, and now its 36 like you said. I remember hearing that Pitt and Aronofsky didnt get along too well, and that part of the reason he left was because of creative differences.

But i agree with the too much money getting to ones head, and how other members think that Jackman is a better replacement anyway.

I trust Aronofsky, he wont dissapoint.

Thanks for the correction.

And yeah, I like Jackman better anyway.

The original budget was 72 million, and now its 36

Click to expand...

That makes me sick. Movie people these days need to worry less about huge amounts of money and more about BRAIN POWA AND GOOD STORY. The problem is that everyone in hollywood is addicted to crack cocaine.

pippin22 said:

Movie people these days need to worry less about huge amounts of money and more about BRAIN POWA AND GOOD STORY.

Click to expand...

Aren't all movies adaptations of books, comic books, plays or musicals nowadays? Oh yeah, and remakes of older movies or TV series too.

Aazealh said:

Aren't all movies adaptations of books, comic books, plays or musicals nowadays? Oh yeah, and remakes of older movies or TV series too.

Click to expand...

That's true, it's hard to come across good originality in films these days. And yes the way the studios work today suck. High budget flicks lowering there standards to appeal to the lowest common denominator of audiences. Thats why so many people are starting take intrest in independent or foreign films. The whole "less is more" attitude. With smaller budgets fillmakers are forced to think of creative ways to get around problems, instead of just throwing money at it.
Here's a link to the IFC site where you can view This Film Is not Yet Rated trailer and also just check out the site.
http://www3.ifctv.com/thisfilm/about.php

I'll admit, the only thing that stirred any interest in me is "Pathfinder". While it smells of Hollywood, a historical movie that includes the Vikings is a breath of fresh air. The movie post looks awesome too, even if the Viking is a little larger than he should be.

• This actually reminds me of something else...
  
  

But, yet again, this is a remake. Veiviseren was the title of the original Norwegian movie, that was up for an Academy Award back in 1988. Anyway, check out the trailer at the Official Pathfinder Website. This movie is either going to be an enjoyable change from the shitty remakes that we are being bombarded with or just another dull Dances with Wolves/Last Samurai movie that has little ties to actual history.

There are a couple of Viking films coming out at some point. One, I believe is Russian and another is Norwegian.
I'm trying to find their names and trailers for you.

EDIT: Wolfhound is one of them I wish I could find the other. It has the biggest budget of a Russian film EVER.
It's a fantasy film, but they look like Vikings. =)

Just so you guys know, Path Finder is supposedly terrible, early reviews have come in and said its god awful and isnt even a decent action movie, let alone anything remotely good relating to vikings or indians.

HawaiianStallion said:

Just so you guys know, Path Finder is supposedly terrible, early reviews have come in and said its god awful and isn't even a decent action movie, let alone anything remotely good relating to vikings or indians.

Click to expand...

This does sound pretty dumb. Also the director is a guy who has been directing music video complitions of artists like Billy Joel, Janet Jackson, Cher and Bone Thugs & Harmony. He also did the remake Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and this movie too is a remake.
Trivia-Despite knowing that the Viking's helmets didn't historically have large animal horns on them, the film makers decided to add them in anyway. This would work with the modern audiences who have an ingrained stereotype of what a Viking should look like in their mind. Moreover, the horns make the Vikings look more terrifying.
IMDb.com
It's almost laughable.

Slightly Green said:

Thanks for the correction.

And yeah, I like Jackman better anyway.

Click to expand...

Thank Entertainment Weekly, my favorite magazine

Well i WAS looking foward to seeing Tony Jaa in action in The Protector, but now im definitely not seeing it since Weinstein cut out more than 20 minutes of it, and the plot is now incomprehensible i hear.

TheBeast43105 said:

Well i WAS looking foward to seeing Tony Jaa in action in The Protector, but now im definitely not seeing it since Weinstein cut out more than 20 minutes of it, and the plot is now incomprehensible i hear.

Click to expand...

Bad guys steal elephant, good guy wants it back. How hard is it to understand?

TheBeast43105 said:

Well i WAS looking foward to seeing Tony Jaa in action in The Protector, but now im definitely not seeing it since Weinstein cut out more than 20 minutes of it, and the plot is now incomprehensible ridiculous i hear.

Click to expand...

fixed it.

Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:

Bad guys steal elephant, good guy wants it back. How hard is it to understand?

Click to expand...

does it even really need a plot? if they took out 20 minutes of the movie but left the fight scenes I'm totally cool with it.

They also edited some fight sequences as well, and when i see a movie, i want to see the movie that i was originally intended to see.

TheBeast43105 said:

Well i WAS looking foward to seeing Tony Jaa in action in The Protector, but now im definitely not seeing it since Weinstein cut out more than 20 minutes of it, and the plot is now incomprehensible i hear.

Click to expand...

I saw Tom Yum Goong (the Protector) about a year ago, the plot is pretty weak, from what I understand most of the editing was to tighten the film itself. Best scene in the movie is the steady cam "tracking" shot (it's not a true tracking shot, do to the lack of a track). However the final fight scene becomes rather silly, even by martial arts movie standards.

[hide]The elephant toss, what the hell?[/hide]

Actually I thought this whole movie looked pretty lame. Even in the previews you see Jaa do these amazing backflips and come down and kick two guys, which was completely unnecessary and you can just tell it's a showy action movie. I'd rather watch Drunken Master for the hundredth time

Anyway I just saw Little Miss Sunshine and The Black Dahlia and they were both very well made. LMS had some silly parts though, but BD was really cool, confusing at some parts, but really awesome. I'd highly recommend it if you like L.A. Confidential or any of De Palma's other works. I also find it funny how in the previews for BD they said "From the director that brought you Scarface" like that's De Palmas one and only claim to fame (they should have used The Untouchables). I bet your going to get lots of ghetto scarface kids who are going to hurt themselves trying to figure this one out.

CnC said:

does it even really need a plot?  if they took out 20 minutes of the movie but left the fight scenes I'm totally cool with it.

Click to expand...

There realy isn't a plot. But totally sweet fights there is!

Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:

There realy isn't a plot. But totally sweet fights there is!

Click to expand...

good enough for me

Have any of you guys seen the trailer for Man Of The Year yet? It looks so funny and interesting. It has Robin Williams in it and he plays a comedian (similar to John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, etc) who decides to run for president for laughs but he unexpectedly wins the presidency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_the_Year_%282006_film%29