If anything was a travesty, it was the godawful, piece of crap, insult to all life in general...an absolute joke of a film that should have never have happened.
Hmm. You seem slightly ambivalent about it...time to get off the fence )
Personally, I rather like Gene Wilder...he's never done me any harm...?
Nope. I am certain. It is a piece of crap, and usually I like to mock the intelligence of those who do like it. Gene Wilder's Wonka, was a druggie, who looked high through the whole movie. Didn't seem like those filmmakers cared about the book at all. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is one of the worst movies I've ever seen....
"A dry martini, in a deep champagne goblet. Three measures of Gordons, one of Vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until its ice cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon peel. Got it?" - Ian Fleming's 'Casino Royale'
"We're just too different... I mean, you're dead...." - Tim Burton's 'Corpse Bride'
Mock away, pal. I was a kid when Willy Wonka came out, and I loved it. Of course, it doesn't appeal to me as much now that I'm in my 40s, but I can still appreciate it. I don't know where you get this notion that Wilder came across as a "druggie." The genius of his casting is that, in the novel, Wonka is basically a child in an adult's body--therefore, he can get away with saying and doing the kinds of things kids only wish they can do--and Wilder conveys that child-like quality. Depp's Wonka, however, is a germophobe, dislikes children, and is a psychological mess because his father wouldn't let him eat candy. That character is FAR removed from Roald Dahl's creation, and is completely lacking a sense of subversive fun. I'll take Wilder any day.
Oh, by the way, I hold a PhD from a major university, I'm a professor, and a published writer. If you'd like to compare IQs, bring it on.
Vox clamantis in deserto
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
...usually I like to mock the intelligence of those who do like it.
Oh, dear! Sadly, most of us don't possess the credentials of my friend Hardyboy, so I imagine we're at your mercy. Please use your powers for good, rather than ill!
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Also, 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' was not warped to his style. He stayed to the book for the most part. If anything was warped, it was the terrible 1970s adaptation that Roald Dahl hated....
It was incredibly warped. Johnny Depp's portayal of Wonka was nothing like the novel. The 70's adaptation, which IMO was fantastic, wasn't overly faithful but was much more faithful than the travesty that was Burton's version.
No. The Burton film was a great adaptation of the novel, and Depp actually performs this character as a quirky character, rather than simply a man who was high like the useless Gene Wilder did. If anything was a travesty, it was the godawful, piece of crap, insult to all life in general that was the 1970s film. Even Roald Dahl was justifiably appaled with the movie. The 70s film was an absolute joke of a film that should have never have happened. Burton's film actually seemed like they had did their research, and read the book before making the movie, where the 70s film was warped to their vision of how the factory should be, how Wonka should be, how the tone of the story should be, and overall was made of complete fail....
I don't agree in the slightest. I honestly don't see how you can say thet the Burton film did its research, when Depp's Wonka was as far removed from the novel as you can get. If you truly believe that his Wonka was 'quirky' then we obviously disagree about what conctitutes 'quirky.' If anything however was a 'travesty or a godawful, piece of crap, insult to all life in general,' it was the Burton film. For one thing, Burton completely forgot about the magic that made the novel so great. The 70's film, which I love, did not.
Nope. I am certain. It is a piece of crap, and usually I like to mock the intelligence of those who do like it. Gene Wilder's Wonka, was a druggie, who looked high through the whole movie. Didn't seem like those filmmakers cared about the book at all. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is one of the worst movies I've ever seen....
You should be careful before you make statements like this. It may come back to haunt you. 8-) As for refering to Wilder's Wonka as a druggie who looked high through the whole movie, that is as far removed from my perception oif him as you can get.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
It was incredibly warped. Johnny Depp's portayal of Wonka was nothing like the novel. The 70's adaptation, which IMO was fantastic, wasn't overly faithful but was much more faithful than the travesty that was Burton's version.
No. The Burton film was a great adaptation of the novel, and Depp actually performs this character as a quirky character, rather than simply a man who was high like the useless Gene Wilder did. If anything was a travesty, it was the godawful, piece of crap, insult to all life in general that was the 1970s film. Even Roald Dahl was justifiably appaled with the movie. The 70s film was an absolute joke of a film that should have never have happened. Burton's film actually seemed like they had did their research, and read the book before making the movie, where the 70s film was warped to their vision of how the factory should be, how Wonka should be, how the tone of the story should be, and overall was made of complete fail....
I don't agree in the slightest. I honestly don't see how you can say thet the Burton film did its research, when Depp's Wonka was as far removed from the novel as you can get. If you truly believe that his Wonka was 'quirky' then we obviously disagree about what conctitutes 'quirky.' If anything however was a 'travesty or a godawful, piece of crap, insult to all life in general,' it was the Burton film. For one thing, Burton completely forgot about the magic that made the novel so great. The 70's film, which I love, did not.
Nope. I am certain. It is a piece of crap, and usually I like to mock the intelligence of those who do like it. Gene Wilder's Wonka, was a druggie, who looked high through the whole movie. Didn't seem like those filmmakers cared about the book at all. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is one of the worst movies I've ever seen....
You should be careful before you make statements like this. It may come back to haunt you. 8-) As for refering to Wilder's Wonka as a druggie who looked high through the whole movie, that is as far removed from my perception oif him as you can get.
When you make a statement like, Wonka was not quirky, then you admit that you have no idea about the book. Wonka was completely nuts in the book, and was not at all, the ideal father figure, that they try to play him out to be in the stupid 70s movies. If you believe that being a complete nut, isn't being quirky, than you have no idea was being quirky is. Also, the 1970s film is an insult to all life, and general all the people who try to support it are the same as that. I've never met one person, who had read the book and liked the 1970s movie. I have never met one person who had read the book, seen both movies, and said the 1970s one was closer. Why? Because the 1970s one wasn't close at all. It was as far away as you can get. Roald Dahl himself, new this and stopped them from doing anymore damage. Burton's film had what made the novel great. It had the style, and it had the characters and story that the novel was. The 70s film was typical filmmaking garbage, altering the story to tell the one you want to tell. Also, Roald Dahl clearly did not thing that the 70s film captured the magic of his book at all, unless you're trying to say Roald Dahl has no idea what the Chocolate Factory story is all about.
Also, my statement that I usually mock the intelligence of people who do, is a clear sign that I am being really nice, not only with the people here, but with this film. I usually go harsher on the 1970s movie....
Also, the remark about your perception of Wilder's Wonka. Well then, its a problem with your perception....
"A dry martini, in a deep champagne goblet. Three measures of Gordons, one of Vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until its ice cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon peel. Got it?" - Ian Fleming's 'Casino Royale'
"We're just too different... I mean, you're dead...." - Tim Burton's 'Corpse Bride'
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,703MI6 Agent
Thinking about seeing 2012 when it comes out. Of course, we're only days away from Public Enemies.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
...my statement that I usually mock the intelligence of people who do, is a clear sign that I am being really nice
Oookay!
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
When you make a statement like, Wonka was not quirky, then you admit that you have no idea about the book.
I was referring to the Burton film. It might help if you read people's comments instead of misquoting them. I should also note that, if you want to be combative, well then none of your comments have indicated that you have even read the novel.
Wonka was completely nuts in the book, and was not at all, the ideal father figure, that they try to play him out to be in the stupid 70s movies. If you believe that being a complete nut, isn't being quirky, than you have no idea was being quirky is.
Or maybe I have a different definition to you? Of course, if I don't agree with you that Depp's Wonka was quirky, it must be that I have 'no idea was being quirky is.' It must be great to believe that you are the fount of all knowledge. 8-)
Anyway, again, I said Depp's Wonka wasn't quirky, which I stand by.
I've never met one person, who had read the book and liked the 1970s movie. I have never met one person who had read the book, seen both movies, and said the 1970s one was closer. Why? Because the 1970s one wasn't close at all. It was as far away as you can get.
I disagree. Oh, and guess what? I have read the book, seen both films and I do think the 70's version is closer, so maybe you should widen your circle. For one thing, the novel's Wonka actually likes children, which he clearly doesn't in the Burton film.
Roald Dahl himself, new this and stopped them from doing anymore damage. Burton's film had what made the novel great. It had the style, and it had the characters and story that the novel was. The 70s film was typical filmmaking garbage, altering the story to tell the one you want to tell. Also, Roald Dahl clearly did not thing that the 70s film captured the magic of his book at all, unless you're trying to say Roald Dahl has no idea what the Chocolate Factory story is all about.
It doesn't concern me what Dahl thinks since I have this absurd idea that I can make up my own mind regarding the novel, although if you believe that he would have liked the Burton version better, then we clearly have nothing to talk about. 'Typical filmmaking garbage'? Right. Whatever you say. 8-) I guess I have a different view of what constitutes filmmaking garbage to you.
Also, my statement that I usually mock the intelligence of people who do, is a clear sign that I am being really nice, not only with the people here, but with this film. I usually go harsher on the 1970s movie....
) As I said, you really should be careful about making comments like this. Unless you're the most intelligent person in the world, I would hesitate about making such comments if I were you. 8-)
Also, the remark about your perception of Wilder's Wonka. Well then, its a problem with your perception....
Or perhaps, I simply have a perception to you. It is permissable for me to disagree with you, you do know that? 8-)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Novelists detesting cinematic adaptions of their heart, sweat and toil is hardly new. Fleming initially disliked Connery, and we all know how history judged that.
I grew up reading Dahl's books but I also loved the movie. Seperate vehicles. I don't care if Dahl hated it or if he didn't. I'll make my own decision regarding the entertainment quality of a movie targeted for children.
Gene Wilder in that film was the epitome of madness, mystery, and fun. His Wonka was anything but a druggie. As a kid reading Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, 'Glass Elevator, Danny, Champion of the World, Jame and the Giant Peach, etc. I can honestly say that YES, I prefer the magical charm of that crime against nature, (shiver), "70's movie!"
Wonka rocks! Gene Wilder's version is hilarious - true to Dahl, be damned! Anyway if so (brace yourselves for a smart comment) it only serves Roald Dahl back for his travesty of Ian Fleming's You Only Live Twice, which he wrote the screenplay for!
I am a published writer too you know. I once sent a death threat to a female newsreader - most of the newspapers picked it up and ran it... not quite the same I know.
Let's not forget that Dahl himself had a hand in the screenplay of Willy Wonka--so maybe he only had himself to blame? Also, Richard Maibaum moaned and groaned about nearly ALL the Bond films for which he wrote a script--the screenplays were rewritten by others, the directors went off in other directions, the casting was wrong, etc., etc.--so I guess that means FRWL, Goldfinger, and OHMSS are all duds.
This is some kind of weird joke, right? The great Werner Herzog is remaking one of the once great Abel Ferrara's most acclaimed films, though personally I thought the original wasn't much cop, or bad cop in this case. Here's the trailer for Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans. It has to be a wind up. This looks awful.
I love Nicolas Cage (one of the best actors of his generation IMO, and I'll never understand the hatred directed towards him) but he's made some pretty poor decisions during his career. This looks like one of them. It does look terrible; the music is so incredibly inappropriate and the film is lighted like a bad episode of Miami Vice or another show set in LA. (If the film is indeed set in New Orleans, then I would be insulted if I was a resident.) It looks really bad, although it's good to see Val Kilmer back on the big screen again. Plus, although he's no longer the visionary he once was, Herzog is a great director.
The great Werner Herzog is remaking one of the once great Abel Ferrara's most acclaimed films, though personally I thought the original wasn't much cop, or bad cop in this case.
Ferrara was IMO quite overrated, although I did love King of New York.Bad Lieutenant was a film which I enjoyed, although I don't think it was quite as great as many make it out to be (Keitel was fantastic however.) I'm guessing that you either didn't love it or you thought that he was a boy scout?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I didn't care for Kietel's gurning performance at all. Ferrara's made some great films though. The Funeral is a masterpiece, and Fear City is highly entertaining.
Gurning. I had never heard of that word until now. ) I actually remember a childhood book about a boy who's warned that if he doesn't stop making weird facial expressions, his face would permanently remain in place. I guess that book was about gurning.
I liked Keitel alot; it wasn't one of his best perfromances, but I do think he was great. I actually haven't seen either Fear City or The Funeral; I might however see The Funeral some time soon.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I love Nicolas Cage (one of the best actors of his generation IMO, and I'll never understand the hatred directed towards him) but he's made some pretty poor decisions during his career. This looks like one of them. It does look terrible; the music is so incredibly inappropriate and the film is lighted like a bad episode of Miami Vice or another show set in LA. (If the film is indeed set in New Orleans, then I would be insulted if I was a resident.) It looks really bad, although it's good to see Val Kilmer back on the big screen again. Plus, although he's no longer the visionary he once was, Herzog is a great director.
The great Werner Herzog is remaking one of the once great Abel Ferrara's most acclaimed films, though personally I thought the original wasn't much cop, or bad cop in this case.
Ferrara was IMO quite overrated, although I did love King of New York.Bad Lieutenant was a film which I enjoyed, although I don't think it was quite as great as many make it out to be (Keitel was fantastic however.) I'm guessing that you either didn't love it or you thought that he was a boy scout?
theres a new film next year about a deranged family starring rik mayall, chris walken, robin askwith and NORMAN WISDOM!
"You're in the wrong business... leave it to the professionals!"
James Bond- Licence To Kill
The trailer for Tim Burton's Alice is up on AOL. Wonderland looks a bit more like Creepyland, and it appears Depp's Mad Hatter has been made the main character. What's really surprising, though, is that when Alice shrinks, her clothes don't shrink with her and she runs around in a state of deshabille. Disney films ain't what they were when I was a kid. . .
The trailer for Alice left me completely cold. It seems Burton has gone all out on CGI and the film looks like a computer game. Maybe it's just a crap trailer, but after Johnny Depp's outstanding, subtle performance in Michael Mann's Public Enemies, it appears he's going back to prancing about like a massive Jack Sparrow type tool.
It doesn't look great. Not because of the CGI, but because it is so twisted. I can't say that I'm a huge fan of Burton. He's very talented, and has a fantastic visual style, but his style is extremely limited and often doesn't fit the film. Depp looks okay, although I think he's a little inconsistent. JD, you mentioned Jack Sparrow; I loved his performance in the first film, but his performances in the next two films were simply a rehash of his performance in the first film. I also didn't think he was all that great in Sweeney Todd. I am delighted however to see the great Alan Rickman and the equally great Christopher Lee in the cast. I will see the film, but it's not one that I'll be counting the days until its release.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
The trailer for Alice left me completely cold. It seems Burton has gone all out on CGI and the film looks like a computer game. Maybe it's just a crap trailer, but after Johnny Depp's outstanding, subtle performance in Michael Mann's Public Enemies, it appears he's going back to prancing about like a massive Jack Sparrow type tool.
I kind of have the same sentiments.
As for me, I really don't anticipate any new films. So many great old ones on TCM I have yet to see and thankfully, I got DVR.
I just saw a trailer for The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus and.... it looks fantastic! It's interesting as I have a love/hate relationship with Terry Gilliam. I loved The Fisher Kind and Twelve Monkeys, but I hated Brazil (IMO one of the most overrated and most indulgent films ever made), so I don't exactly mark my calender by the release of the latest Gilliam film, but nor do I ignore his latest film. Unless it looks like another Brazil. Nonetheless, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus does look wonderful.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Saw a Hi-Def trailer for James Cameron's Avatar. Meh! It's Apocalypto in Space, with blue people.
I'm keeping an open mind about it. I think it looks good, although not extraordinary, however I expect that the finished product will, at the very least, look amazing. The one thing that can be counted on when it comes to Cameron is that his films look awesome, and I'm sure this film will be no exception. Whether it will be a good film, and based on his back-catalogue, I'm confident it will be, will nonetheless be determined at a later date.
I think all of his films (some more so than others) are great, along with the first season of Dark Angel.
Here's a quick summary of what I think of each of his films:
The Terminator- an abolute masterpiece, and IMO one of his two best films.
Aliens- one of the all-time great sequels.
The Abyss- amazing visual effects, but a narrative mess.
Terminator 2- his other great masterpiece, and one of the best action films of all time.
True Lies- incredibly flawed, but still has enough brilliance to make me wonder what could have been if they had gotten rid of the needless racism and misogyny, and made a few other minor changes; it could have been one of tye greatest action films ever made.
Titanic- not one of my favourite films, but a wonderful film which I don't think receives the respect it deserves.
Dark Angel TV show- the first season was extraordinary action/sci-fi television and remains among the greatest individual televsion seasons (of any show) that I've ever seen.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
The trailer to Avatar struck me as a blend of Aliens and The Abyss, combining the hardware of the former with the wide-eyedness of the latter. There were some intriguing bits but I'm not holding my breath just yet as I've never cared much for Cameron as a storyteller and his films are just too long-winded for me (yes Dan, even T2, especially T2).
In spite of my lack of adoration for Cameron, I've read that Avatar is going to be shown in 3D and as a fan of that medium, I'll probably be checking it out if only to experience the visuals. Hollywood seems keen on 3D these days and if they want the technology to succeed, they need to apply it to A-list films made by recognizable directors, not the low budget slasher of the week.
I've also read that Avatar's budget is a staggering $350 million; don't know if that's true or not but even if it's half that amount, it'll be a major task to recoup its costs.
There were some intriguing bits but I'm not holding my breath just yet as I've never cared much for Cameron as a storyteller and his films are just too long-winded for me (yes Dan, even T2, especially T2).
Is that entirely accurate though? I mean, you are a fan of The Terminator, or do you like that film because it isn't as long and (and to use your phrase) as long-winded as most of his other films?
Nonetheless as much as I revere T2, the fact that you love the first Terminator film (which I also revere) is exactly why you have not received a visit from a T-1000. :v YET. :v )
I've read that Avatar is going to be shown in 3D and as a fan of that medium, I'll probably be checking it out if only to experience the visuals. Hollywood seems keen on 3D these days and if they want the technology to succeed, they need to apply it to A-list films made by recognizable directors, not the low budget slasher of the week.
I recently saw Coraline in 3D. While I didn't love the film (the story was rather too thin for my liking), I was impressed by the 3D animation, and it made me marvel at the possibilities. Putting aside your problems with Cameron's storytelling, I think you will agree that Cameron's use of technology is consistently astounding. If he is able to pull if off, at the very least, Avatar will look incredible.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Comments
Nope. I am certain. It is a piece of crap, and usually I like to mock the intelligence of those who do like it. Gene Wilder's Wonka, was a druggie, who looked high through the whole movie. Didn't seem like those filmmakers cared about the book at all. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is one of the worst movies I've ever seen....
"We're just too different... I mean, you're dead...." - Tim Burton's 'Corpse Bride'
Oh, by the way, I hold a PhD from a major university, I'm a professor, and a published writer. If you'd like to compare IQs, bring it on.
Oh, dear!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
You should be careful before you make statements like this. It may come back to haunt you. 8-) As for refering to Wilder's Wonka as a druggie who looked high through the whole movie, that is as far removed from my perception oif him as you can get.
When you make a statement like, Wonka was not quirky, then you admit that you have no idea about the book. Wonka was completely nuts in the book, and was not at all, the ideal father figure, that they try to play him out to be in the stupid 70s movies. If you believe that being a complete nut, isn't being quirky, than you have no idea was being quirky is. Also, the 1970s film is an insult to all life, and general all the people who try to support it are the same as that. I've never met one person, who had read the book and liked the 1970s movie. I have never met one person who had read the book, seen both movies, and said the 1970s one was closer. Why? Because the 1970s one wasn't close at all. It was as far away as you can get. Roald Dahl himself, new this and stopped them from doing anymore damage. Burton's film had what made the novel great. It had the style, and it had the characters and story that the novel was. The 70s film was typical filmmaking garbage, altering the story to tell the one you want to tell. Also, Roald Dahl clearly did not thing that the 70s film captured the magic of his book at all, unless you're trying to say Roald Dahl has no idea what the Chocolate Factory story is all about.
Also, my statement that I usually mock the intelligence of people who do, is a clear sign that I am being really nice, not only with the people here, but with this film. I usually go harsher on the 1970s movie....
Also, the remark about your perception of Wilder's Wonka. Well then, its a problem with your perception....
"We're just too different... I mean, you're dead...." - Tim Burton's 'Corpse Bride'
Oookay!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Or maybe I have a different definition to you? Of course, if I don't agree with you that Depp's Wonka was quirky, it must be that I have 'no idea was being quirky is.'
Anyway, again, I said Depp's Wonka wasn't quirky, which I stand by.
You're kidding, right? 8-)
I disagree. Oh, and guess what? I have read the book, seen both films and I do think the 70's version is closer, so maybe you should widen your circle. For one thing, the novel's Wonka actually likes children, which he clearly doesn't in the Burton film.
It doesn't concern me what Dahl thinks since I have this absurd idea that I can make up my own mind regarding the novel, although if you believe that he would have liked the Burton version better, then we clearly have nothing to talk about. 'Typical filmmaking garbage'? Right. Whatever you say. 8-) I guess I have a different view of what constitutes filmmaking garbage to you.
Or perhaps, I simply have a perception to you. It is permissable for me to disagree with you, you do know that? 8-)
I grew up reading Dahl's books but I also loved the movie. Seperate vehicles. I don't care if Dahl hated it or if he didn't. I'll make my own decision regarding the entertainment quality of a movie targeted for children.
Gene Wilder in that film was the epitome of madness, mystery, and fun. His Wonka was anything but a druggie. As a kid reading Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, 'Glass Elevator, Danny, Champion of the World, Jame and the Giant Peach, etc. I can honestly say that YES, I prefer the magical charm of that crime against nature, (shiver), "70's movie!"
I am a published writer too you know. I once sent a death threat to a female newsreader - most of the newspapers picked it up and ran it... not quite the same I know.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Good lord, he's playing Vivienne Westwood!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s043quEQ9FY
Ferrara was IMO quite overrated, although I did love King of New York. Bad Lieutenant was a film which I enjoyed, although I don't think it was quite as great as many make it out to be (Keitel was fantastic however.) I'm guessing that you either didn't love it or you thought that he was a boy scout?
I liked Keitel alot; it wasn't one of his best perfromances, but I do think he was great. I actually haven't seen either Fear City or The Funeral; I might however see The Funeral some time soon.
theres a new film next year about a deranged family starring rik mayall, chris walken, robin askwith and NORMAN WISDOM!
James Bond- Licence To Kill
What's it called? Because any film that has Chris Walken and Robin Askwith in it has my money straight away.
I kind of have the same sentiments.
As for me, I really don't anticipate any new films. So many great old ones on TCM I have yet to see and thankfully, I got DVR.
Cameron hasn't made a great film since ALIENS.
I think all of his films (some more so than others) are great, along with the first season of Dark Angel.
Here's a quick summary of what I think of each of his films:
The Terminator- an abolute masterpiece, and IMO one of his two best films.
Aliens- one of the all-time great sequels.
The Abyss- amazing visual effects, but a narrative mess.
Terminator 2- his other great masterpiece, and one of the best action films of all time.
True Lies- incredibly flawed, but still has enough brilliance to make me wonder what could have been if they had gotten rid of the needless racism and misogyny, and made a few other minor changes; it could have been one of tye greatest action films ever made.
Titanic- not one of my favourite films, but a wonderful film which I don't think receives the respect it deserves.
Dark Angel TV show- the first season was extraordinary action/sci-fi television and remains among the greatest individual televsion seasons (of any show) that I've ever seen.
In spite of my lack of adoration for Cameron, I've read that Avatar is going to be shown in 3D and as a fan of that medium, I'll probably be checking it out if only to experience the visuals. Hollywood seems keen on 3D these days and if they want the technology to succeed, they need to apply it to A-list films made by recognizable directors, not the low budget slasher of the week.
I've also read that Avatar's budget is a staggering $350 million; don't know if that's true or not but even if it's half that amount, it'll be a major task to recoup its costs.
Is that entirely accurate though? I mean, you are a fan of The Terminator, or do you like that film because it isn't as long and (and to use your phrase) as long-winded as most of his other films?
Nonetheless as much as I revere T2, the fact that you love the first Terminator film (which I also revere) is exactly why you have not received a visit from a T-1000. :v YET. :v
I recently saw Coraline in 3D. While I didn't love the film (the story was rather too thin for my liking), I was impressed by the 3D animation, and it made me marvel at the possibilities. Putting aside your problems with Cameron's storytelling, I think you will agree that Cameron's use of technology is consistently astounding. If he is able to pull if off, at the very least, Avatar will look incredible.