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 like the first Terminator movie. I don't consider it a masterpiece of the sci-fi genre like 2001 or Forbidden Planet for example as the story it tells is hardly original in terms of sci-fi archetypes. In watching the movie now, many of the effects really don't hold up well (especially under the scrutiny of the new hi-def formats) but Cameron managed to do a lot with very little on that one I think having to work with a constrained budget and a cast of (then) unknowns forced him to be more creative and that's always a good thing. It is a very good B-movie that holds your attention, doesn't take itself too seriously and doesn't outwear its welcome.
And I can handle a T-1000, especially if it morphs into Kristanna Loken.
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.
I'll give him that. He's always been on the cutting edge in terms of recognizing the potential of technology to advance what can be done and seen in a movie and he has definitely helped to move the industry forward in that regard. Although strangely enough his fondness for the Super35 film format (essentially a 35mm matted letterbox film format that when blown up often leads to high amounts of visible film grain) and choice of cinematographers has led to many of his movies looking downright poor when released on home video. Even he was surprised at the amount of visible film grain when he supervised the mastering of the director's cut of the Aliens DVD.
Some would also say CGI has now essentially become a crutch in many movies to draw attention away from the fact that they're not telling very good stories, but you can hardly blame Cameron for that.
I just think that he tends to fall in love with the pictures he creates a little too much for his own good. For all the stuff he cut out of the theatrical releases of T2, The Abyss and even Aliens to some extent, I think all three movies could have benefitted greatly from a good editor.
I like the first Terminator movie. I don't consider it a masterpiece of the sci-fi genre like 2001 or Forbidden Planet for example as the story it tells is hardly original in terms of sci-fi archetypes. In watching the movie now, many of the effects really don't hold up well (especially under the scrutiny of the new hi-def formats) but Cameron managed to do a lot with very little on that one I think having to work with a constrained budget and a cast of (then) unknowns forced him to be more creative and that's always a good thing. It is a very good B-movie that holds your attention, doesn't take itself too seriously and doesn't outwear its welcome.
When you started saying that you don't consider it a masterpiece and then ended by calling it a B-movie, you really ruined my illusion that you shared my love for this film. Ah, well, at least you do like it. (BTW, I was also going to call you on the 'original' comment, however as much as I love the film, it wasn't completely original, and Cameron and co learned that the hard way. )
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.
I just think that he tends to fall in love with the pictures he creates a little too much for his own good. For all the stuff he cut out of the theatrical releases of T2, The Abyss and even Aliens to some extent, I think all three movies could have benefitted greatly from a good editor.
I agree with you about The Abyss. Great visual effects, however narratively, and in terms of editing, the film was a mess. I do find it interesting though how post-The Terminator, his films kept getting longer and longer, until it reached the 3 hour plus Titanic. I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, obviously people will form their own judgements, however I do find it interesting and I wonder whether Avatar will follow in that tradition. If it does, are people ready for a 2./3 hour film in 3D?
"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
There's another Halloween film? God, I really hope my girlfriend doesn't read this. She forced me to see the recent remake, which I absolutely detested, and I really don't want to see the sequel. Seeing the remake was particularly painful, as I loved the John Carpenter original, which I regard as a masterpiece, however the remake was IMO so horrible that I think Carpenter should have sued Rob Zombie for defamation.
"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
BTW, I was also going to call you on the 'original' comment, however as much as I love the film, it wasn't completely original, and Cameron and co learned that the hard way. )
James Cameron once publicly said that a couple of Harlan Ellison stories (including Soldier, which was filmed for the original Outer Limits) were among the inspirations behind Terminator. I've seen Soldier many times and frankly the only similarity was the notion of someone traveling back thru time (itself hardy an original idea and certainly not invented by Ellison). At any rate, Cameron was simply offering a little tribute to one of his literary heroes. But, proving the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished, Ellison quickly turned around sued Cameron for plagarism! While the exact terms of the settlement were never disclosed, every copy of the original Terminator now includes a credit that the film is inspired by events depicted in several Harlan Ellison stories.
are people ready for a 2./3 hour film in 3D?
3D movies generally aren't designed to be viewed for that long in one sitting as the current technology leads to eye-strain. Unless Cameron has come up with something new, anything longer than two hours and there are liable to be a lot of people leaving the theater with a splitting headache.
Yep there are it's coming out later this year . Halloween ( the original ) was a great film. The remake it just sucks . I want to see the direction they go with this time.
BTW, I was also going to call you on the 'original' comment, however as much as I love the film, it wasn't completely original, and Cameron and co learned that the hard way. )
James Cameron once publicly said that a couple of Harlan Ellison stories (including Soldier, which was filmed for the original Outer Limits) were among the inspirations behind Terminator. I've seen Soldier many times and frankly the only similarity was the notion of someone traveling back thru time (itself hardy an original idea and certainly not invented by Ellison). At any rate, Cameron was simply offering a little tribute to one of his literary heroes. But, proving the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished, Ellison quickly turned around sued Cameron for plagarism! While the exact terms of the settlement were never disclosed, every copy of the original Terminator now includes a credit that the film is inspired by events depicted in several Harlan Ellison stories.
3D movies generally aren't designed to be viewed for that long in one sitting as the current technology leads to eye-strain. Unless Cameron has come up with something new, anything longer than two hours and there are liable to be a lot of people leaving the theater with a splitting headache.
Okay, well in that case, Cameron will probably be breaking tradition with Avatar. I'm sure you wouldn't be disappointed. :v
Yep there are it's coming out later this year . Halloween ( the original ) was a great film. The remake it just sucks . I want to see the direction they go with this time.
Well, count me out. I don't have objections to seeing a new Halloween film, unless it follows in the style and spirit of the original series. The Zombie remake was IMO too ugly for words.
"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
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
I sincerely hope you enjoy it; IMO, Rob Zombie's an unimaginative hack who falls in the long line of others in Hollywood who can't come up with their own fresh ideas. I'll be so glad when torture porn is dead and no longer viable to produce for the masses of the horror genre. 8-)
Carpenter's will always remain the best. I & II
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Terminator 2- his other great masterpiece, and one of the best action films of all time.
I don't think it's a mastepiece by any means. A solid film and one of Cameron's better works but not great and unfortunately always placed ahead of it's predecessor.
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.
Not a great film but pretty solid. I am pretty much satisfied how it turned out.
Titanic- not one of my favourite films, but a wonderful film which I don't think receives the respect it deserves.
Tiantic dosen't have a single original idea. Poor boy, rich girl fed up with her life, snotty rich people, fiance who is an ass hole. Every character in that film was hollow. Why this film grosses so much ? Horny teenage girls who love Leonardo Di Caprio and cry when the ship sinks.
Terminator 2- his other great masterpiece, and one of the best action films of all time.
I don't think it's a mastepiece by any means. A solid film and one of Cameron's better works but not great and unfortunately always placed ahead of it's predecessor.
No, I do think it's a masterpiece, and IMO is every as good as the original. Whereas the original excelled as a horror/sci-fi suspense thriller, T2 IMO excelled as a sci-fi/ action film, with incredible action scenes and stunts, amazing visual effects, a great plot and screenplay, and fantastic performances. T2 is also a film which really gets to me emotionally, and was in fact the first film at which I shed tears; it still makes me teary. As I said I do think it's a masterpiece, and is one of the greatest sci-fi/action films ever made (when it comes to the best of the Terminator films, I think the first two films are level.)
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.
Not a great film but pretty solid. I am pretty much satisfied how it turned out.
Fair enough, I just think True Lies had the potential to be a truly great film.
Tiantic dosen't have a single original idea. Poor boy, rich girl fed up with her life, snotty rich people, fiance who is an ass hole. Every character in that film was hollow. Why this film grosses so much ? Horny teenage girls who love Leonardo Di Caprio and cry when the ship sinks.
It's only just about originality; one could argue that many great romantic films are not all that original, it's about the way it was constructed, both visually and emotionally. The scene in which the old couple hug each other as the ship goes down is IMO one of cinema's most emotionally wrenching moments. Plus the performances, especially by the gorgeous Kate Winslet (whose character was not hollow IMO), are wonderful, the screenplay is perfectly put together and the film is fabulously entertaining. I love the film, and I'm neither a horny teenage girl or a huge fan of Leonardo Di Caprio.
Also the hell with Avatar. The world has had enough of ugly CGI animation.
Well, you may have had enough of it, however I think the film looks really nice and I can't wait to see it.
"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
No, I do think it's a masterpiece, and IMO is every as good as the original. Whereas the original excelled as a horror/sci-fi suspense thriller, T2 IMO excelled as a sci-fi/ action film, with incredible action scenes and stunts, amazing visual effects, a great plot and screenplay, and fantastic performances. T2 is also a film which really gets to me emotionally, and was in fact the first film at which I shed tears; it still makes me teary. As I said I do think it's a masterpiece, and is one of the greatest sci-fi/action films ever made (when it comes to the best of the Terminator films, I think the first two films are level.)
I don't think it really was on the level of the first, not even close. Instead of being a great horror sci-fi, we just get alot of fancy gimmicks. THE TERMINATOR seemed something new while T2 was bordering on generic.
It's only just about originality; one could argue that many great romantic films are not all that original, it's about the way it was constructed, both visually and emotionally. The scene in which the old couple hug each other as the ship goes down is IMO one of cinema's most emotionally wrenching moments. Plus the performances, especially by the gorgeous Kate Winslet (whose character was not hollow IMO), are wonderful, the screenplay is perfectly put together and the film is fabulously entertaining.
It was all cookie cutter, this followed a bare bones story with bare bones characters. Nothing to warrant any sort of dinstniction or any status other then run of the will. Yes romantic films do generally follow a certain formula, as most films do, but this was purely formulaic. Also a few sad images doesn't elevate it classic status either.
I don't think it really was on the level of the first, not even close. Instead of being a great horror sci-fi, we just get alot of fancy gimmicks. THE TERMINATOR seemed something new while T2 was bordering on generic.
I've heard alot of criticisms of T2, including on this site, but never 'generic' before. I have the exact opposite reaction. I watch it now, and it's completely new; I don't think it's dated at all, unlike the first one. That isn't a criticism of the first one, as I love it equally; to me, I can't separate them. I also don't think that with T2 we simply got fancy gimmics, as (while it wasn't horror sci-fi which I don't think it was ever intended to be), the issue of human versus machines was explored even further. I think it was a very human film.
From a purely entertainment perspective, I would rank the Terminator films the following:
1)T2
2)The Terminator
3)Salvation
4)T3
Quality:
1)The Terminator & T2
2)Salvation
3)T3
I would also rank the TV show after the first two films in both categories.
It's only just about originality; one could argue that many great romantic films are not all that original, it's about the way it was constructed, both visually and emotionally. The scene in which the old couple hug each other as the ship goes down is IMO one of cinema's most emotionally wrenching moments. Plus the performances, especially by the gorgeous Kate Winslet (whose character was not hollow IMO), are wonderful, the screenplay is perfectly put together and the film is fabulously entertaining.
It was all cookie cutter, this followed a bare bones story with bare bones characters. Nothing to warrant any sort of dinstniction or any status other then run of the will. Yes romantic films do generally follow a certain formula, as most films do, but this was purely formulaic.
Again, I disagree. The performances, the screenplay, the look and feel of the film, I think it was anything but run of the mill. I mean, Titanic was arguably the Gone With The Wind for the late 20th century.
"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've heard alot of criticisms of T2, including on this site, but never 'generic' before. I have the exact opposite reaction. I watch it now, and it's completely new; I don't think it's dated at all, unlike the first one. That isn't a criticism of the first one, as I love it equally; to me, I can't separate them. I also don't think that with T2 we simply got fancy gimmics, as (while it wasn't horror sci-fi which I don't think it was ever intended to be), the issue of human versus machines was explored even further. I think it was a very human film.
T2 is a pretty dated film, you can't get anymore indication that is was from the early 90's. Yes it went further into the plot but from directorial stand point, it had nothing interesting to it. It felt neither suspenseful or entracing as that first film, which mixed horror and sci-fi beautifully.
Again, I disagree. The performances, the screenplay, the look and feel of the film, I think it was anything but run of the mill. I mean, Titanic was arguably the Gone With The Wind for the late 20th century.
Not even remotely close IMO. TITANTIC was over produced, formualic, and forgetable film.
T2 is a pretty dated film, you can't get anymore indication that is was from the early 90's.
I disagree. I think the visual effects are timeless; the T-1000 remains IMO among the most visually spectacular cinematic creations of all time. I don't think it's dated at all. But that said, even if it was dated (which I don't think it is), it wouldn't take away from its brilliiance. It's like the first film; dated, yes, but a masterpiece? ABSOLUTELY!
Yes it went further into the plot but from directorial stand point, it had nothing interesting to it.
I don't agree. From a directorial standpoint, I think it was extraordinary; Cameron IMO outdid himself on it. One of my favourite scenes, from a directorial standpoint, was when Arnie shot at the T-1000 for the first time, and pulled out his gun from a bunch of roses. I thought it was a beautiful scene, directorally, and I think the entire film, in fact, was wonderful from a directorial standpoint. The entire structure of the film (including Sarah's nightmares), not to mention the various shots, was IMO fasninating from a directorial standpoint. I regard Cameron as a great director and T2 is a major reason why.
It felt neither suspenseful or entracing as that first film, which mixed horror and sci-fi beautifully.
Again, I disagree. Although I don't think that T2 was as horrific as the first film, I don't think it was really intended to be. I regard it as more of a pure action film than the first film, so in terms of horror, it was never going to match the original; that said, the T-1000, the nightmares, the treatment of Sarah were all extremely horrific. As for entrancing, I think that T2 was as entrancing as the original.
Again, I disagree. The performances, the screenplay, the look and feel of the film, I think it was anything but run of the mill. I mean, Titanic was arguably the Gone With The Wind for the late 20th century.
Not even remotely close IMO. TITANTIC was over produced, formualic, and forgetable film.
) I would have said the exact same thing about GWTW; the only reason I brought it up was because of the cultural significance of both films. Anyway, we are unlikely to agree on the brilliance, or otherwise, of Titanic (and T2.)
"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 disagree. I think the visual effects are timeless; the T-1000 remains IMO among the most visually spectacular cinematic creations of all time. I don't think it's dated at all. But that said, even if it was dated (which I don't think it is), it wouldn't take away from its brilliiance. It's like the first film; dated, yes, but a masterpiece? ABSOLUTELY
I don't agree. They have become very dated but it's inevitable for that to happen, especially when it's wall to wall. Their have been very rare exceptions like 2001: A SPACE ODYESSY or MAROONED.
IOne of my favourite scenes, from a directorial standpoint, was when Arnie shot at the T-1000 for the first time, and pulled out his gun from a bunch of roses. I thought it was a beautiful scene, directorally, and I think the entire film, in fact, was wonderful from a directorial standpoint.
Why ? What does that symbolize or mean?
The entire structure of the film (including Sarah's nightmares), not to mention the various shots, was IMO fasninating from a directorial standpoint. I regard Cameron as a great director and T2 is a major reason why.
Cameron is very much a workman like director who had some shades of near brillance earlier in his career, not evident in anything after ALIENS.
IAgain, I disagree. Although I don't think that T2 was as horrific as the first film, I don't think it was really intended to be. I regard it as more of a pure action film than the first film, so in terms of horror, it was never going to match the original; that said, the T-1000, the nightmares, the treatment of Sarah were all extremely horrific. As for entrancing, I think that T2 was as entrancing as the original.
Yes pure action film so it made it less ieteresting, it felt more like some action park ride with the overblown chases from the T-1000. You can point out some good stuff but doesn't surpass the original in terms of innovation or pure suspense. THE TERMINATOR felt a like a bizarre future horror film with a woman running away from crazed and menacing robot. The situation felt hopeless and that's why it's far more gripping then the less than sequel.
) I would have said the exact same thing about GWTW; the only reason I brought it up was because of the cultural significance of both films. Anyway, we are unlikely to agree on the brilliance, or otherwise, of Titanic (and T2.)
GONE WITH THE WIND has anything but standard formulaic characters or an over production of special effects as the leads are anything but conventional because they don't fall in love at the end since the woman was a bee-yatch. The Jack and Rose from Titanic are as bare bones as characters can get, they are two destined for love because they are equally as bland. It's alot more three dimensonal in GWTW, unlike the insipid TITANTIC.
IOne of my favourite scenes, from a directorial standpoint, was when Arnie shot at the T-1000 for the first time, and pulled out his gun from a bunch of roses. I thought it was a beautiful scene, directorally, and I think the entire film, in fact, was wonderful from a directorial standpoint.
Why ? What does that symbolize or mean?l.
Not everything has to mean or symbolise something, but nonetheless, it was a nice contrast of beauty and brutality (it was also a great reference to arguably one of the greatest rock groups of all time. )
The entire structure of the film (including Sarah's nightmares), not to mention the various shots, was IMO fasninating from a directorial standpoint. I regard Cameron as a great director and T2 is a major reason why.
Cameron is very much a workman like director who had some shades of near brillance earlier in his career, not evident in anything after ALIENS.
Not evident to you. I myself don't agree. I think he is a great director, and IMO T2 was completely brilliant. I also think that True Lies featured moments of brilliance; I thought that Titanic was great, if not brilliant, and I thought the first season of Dark Angel was brilliant. I don't think he's workman like at all.
IAgain, I disagree. Although I don't think that T2 was as horrific as the first film, I don't think it was really intended to be. I regard it as more of a pure action film than the first film, so in terms of horror, it was never going to match the original; that said, the T-1000, the nightmares, the treatment of Sarah were all extremely horrific. As for entrancing, I think that T2 was as entrancing as the original.
Yes pure action film so it made it less ieteresting, it felt more like some action park ride with the overblown chases from the T-1000.
Less interesting to you. I don't agree with this description at all.
You can point out some good stuff but doesn't surpass the original in terms of innovation or pure suspense.
I think it does, or at least I think it equals the original in terms of innovation and suspence; in some ways (such as action scenes) I think it surpasses the original. I regard the two films on an equal footing.
THE TERMINATOR felt a like a bizarre future horror film with a woman running away from crazed and menacing robot. The situation felt hopeless and that's why it's far more gripping then the less than sequel.
I thought that T2 was incredibly gripping; the mental institute scene, for example, when the T-1000 ran after the Terminator, John and Sarah was IMO extraordinarily gripping.
) I would have said the exact same thing about GWTW; the only reason I brought it up was because of the cultural significance of both films. Anyway, we are unlikely to agree on the brilliance, or otherwise, of Titanic (and T2.)
GONE WITH THE WIND has anything but standard formulaic characters or an over production of special effects as the leads are anything but conventional because they don't fall in love at the end since the woman was a bee-yatch. The Jack and Rose from Titanic are as bare bones as characters can get, they are two destined for love because they are equally as bland. It's alot more three dimensonal in GWTW, unlike the insipid TITANTIC.
I love Titanic, unlike GWTW, however I get that you don't like it.
"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
Not everything has to mean or symbolise something, but nonetheless, it was a nice contrast of beauty and brutality (it was also a great reference to arguably one of the greatest rock groups of all time. )
Not evident to you. I myself don't agree. I think he is a great director, and IMO T2 was completely brilliant. I also think that True Lies featured moments of brilliance; I thought that Titanic was great, if not brilliant, and I thought the first season of Dark Angel was brilliant. I don't think he's workman like at all.
Dan, is their anything you don't think is brilliant or a masterpiece ? Christ almighty, you love everything. You even love inferior imitations of something better. )
Not everything has to mean or symbolise something, but nonetheless, it was a nice contrast of beauty and brutality (it was also a great reference to arguably one of the greatest rock groups of all time. )
Wow, hackneyed homage. Really Brilliant. 8-)
Well, maybe I do think it is brilliant. Are you so intolerant of other people's points of view that you would resort to sarcasm or mockery every time they express an opinion you don't like?
Dan, is their anything you don't think is brilliant or a masterpiece?
Plenty of things. Among films, I detest are Drop Dead Fred, Mikey, Anatomy of Hell, Hostel 2, the Halloween remake, Predator 2 and RoboCop 2, and I also hate the Saw films, Dancer in the Dark, Crash, The Passion of the Christ, Juno, Quantom of Solace and Batman and Robin.
Not quite. It's just that, these days, I don't really bother having huge on-line discussions on films I hate, as I don't like wallowing in negativity. I did in the past, and whilst I will do so again, I prefer talking about films which I don't hate. Don't get me wrong; I still talk about Dalton and QOS on this website, however you'll find that I usually respond to comments attacking Moore or Brosnan, rather than complimenting Dalton. As for QOS, I write the rare post mentioning my distaste for the film, but if you did a search for my name and QOS, you'll find less posts than from most other long-term members.
You even love inferior imitations of something better. )
Except I don't think it is inferior. You do, fine, but your stating it is inferior does not automatically make it so. Your statement that it is inferior is merely your opinion, and I do not agree.
Maybe we should call it a day on this discussion, as you obviously will never appreciate that other people are entitled to different opinions than you.
"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
Except I don't think it is inferior. You do, fine, but your stating it is inferior does not automatically make it so. Your statement that it is inferior is merely your opinion, and I do not agree.
No, you really do. You usually prefer some inferior like Titanic over GWTW. Pierce Brosnan films over Casino Royale. T2 over Terminator. Yeah, I think you do. You toss the world brilliant around like one throwing bread at pidgeons.
Except I don't think it is inferior. You do, fine, but your stating it is inferior does not automatically make it so. Your statement that it is inferior is merely your opinion, and I do not agree.
No, you really do. You usually prefer some inferior like Titanic over GWTW. Pierce Brosnan films over Casino Royale. T2 over Terminator. Yeah, I think you do.
According to YOU!!!! This may shock you, but I don't regard those films as inferior, and you're not the world's authority on what is superior and inferior!
"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
You toss the world brilliant around like one throwing bread at pidgeons.
Well, maybe I think those films deserve to be called brilliant. Anyway, didn't you read my post? I listed a dozen films I hate, so to say that I toss the word brilliant 'around like one throwing bread at pidgeons is ridiculous.'
"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
Except I don't think it is inferior. You do, fine, but your stating it is inferior does not automatically make it so. Your statement that it is inferior is merely your opinion, and I do not agree.
No, you really do. You usually prefer some inferior like Titanic over GWTW. Pierce Brosnan films over Casino Royale. T2 over Terminator. Yeah, I think you do.
According to YOU!!!! This may shock you, but I don't regard those films as inferior, and you're not the world's authority on what is superior and inferior!
You're in denial. You honestly think everything is brilliant. You have taste but you can't distiguish anything.
You toss the world brilliant around like one throwing bread at pidgeons.
Well, maybe I think those films deserve to be called brilliant. Anyway, didn't you read my post? I listed a dozen films I hate, so to say that I toss the word brilliant 'around like one throwing bread at pidgeons is ridiculous.'
Regardless of what films you claim you hate. You always toss brilliant around like their is no tomorrow. )
You're in denial. You honestly think everything is brilliant. You have taste but you can't distiguish anything.
) You are so arrogant it's not funny. Rick, who do you think you are? Do you think you are so intellectually superior that you can tell anyone that they are in denial or they can't distiguish anything? This may shock you, but 1)you are not the world's authority on taste, 2)I don't respect your 'intellect', and 3)I couldn't care less what you think of my taste.
"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
You toss the world brilliant around like one throwing bread at pidgeons.
Well, maybe I think those films deserve to be called brilliant. Anyway, didn't you read my post? I listed a dozen films I hate, so to say that I toss the word brilliant 'around like one throwing bread at pidgeons is ridiculous.'
Regardless of what films you claim you hate. You always toss brilliant around like their is no tomorrow. )
So what if I do? Is there a limit on how many films one can regard as brilliant?
Ever since you joined this website, you've been picking fights and attacking people constantly. Unless your reason for joining this site is to troll, pehaps you could accept that other people have the right to different opinions and you do NOT determine what is good and bad taste.
"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
Very impressive. Looks like Scorsese cutting loose and making schlock, which is a vast improvement on the stuff he's being doing recently, regardless of whether they won Oscars or not. Great cast too. Max Von Sydow, Michelle Williams, Mark Ruffalo and Jackie Earle Haley. I'm there.
Very impressive. Looks like Scorsese cutting loose and making schlock, which is a vast improvement on the stuff he's being doing recently, regardless of whether they won Oscars or not. Great cast too. Max Von Sydow, Michelle Williams, Mark Ruffalo and Jackie Earle Haley. I'm there.
As you probably know, Scorsese is (almost certainly) my all-time favourite director, and so I really can not wait to see this film. It's one of the films of the year for me. Watching the trailer for the first time, it actually reminds me of Bringing Out The Dead, a superb psychological drama with Nicolas Cage. Obviously this is a thriller, and that was more of a character study, but both seem to utilise nightmares and horror in a way that few other Scorsese films do.
I'll be honest and admitt that the trailer doesn't stun me other than the fact it's directed by Scorsese. No, that's not true. The film does look great, and it looks like it'll be terrifically entertaining, however I do have a major problem with the film and that is with the casting of DiCaprio, who has become Scorsese's new 'De Niro.' I don't dislike Dicaprio; on the contrary, I regard him as a very talented actor. However, he's a major drop off from previous Scorsese veterans like Harvey Keitel, Joe Pesci and (especially) Robert De Niro (who's probably my all-time favourite actor). The fact that Ben Kingsley (one of the all-time greats, whom for some reason you didn't mention :v) and of course people like Von Sydow is in the cast, and that the film has a terrific plot and is based on a novel by one of the world's best genre writers (Dennis Lehane) makes it a film to watch. Oh, and that it's directed by Scorsese ) (arguably the world's best director). Dicaprio could be great in this film, however I still wish that Scorsese could team up with De Niro again (for a ninth time) instead of sticking with an actor, who whilst very good, doesn't bring out the genius in Scorsese in the same way that a muse (and genius) like De Niro did.
Nonetheless, I'm going to reserve myself a seat on the Saturday night of the weekend it comes out in seat J-13 as soon as I'm able to do so.
"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
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,703MI6 Agent
Just stumbled upon this little thing. It's due out in 2010.
It's named Inception . Christopher Nolan directs and looks like a typical Nolan movie.
It looks terrific. With the sole exception of The Dark Knight, I'm highly impressed with the work of Nolan. As long as he doesn't pull off another TDK, I will definitely be seeing it. But then again, even if it is another TDK, I would still probably see it. I just won't be as excited.
"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'm not a huge fan of Larry David (Curbing my enthusiasm when it comes to his show is incredibly easy) and IMO Woody Allen hasn't made a great films in years, (although I did enjoy Vicky Cristina Barcelona); however this film looks really good. I don't know why, because as I said, I hate David's show and I'm not the world's biggest fan of Woody Allen, but this film looks like a terrific comedy.
"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
I like the first Terminator movie. I don't consider it a masterpiece of the sci-fi genre like 2001 or Forbidden Planet for example as the story it tells is hardly original in terms of sci-fi archetypes. In watching the movie now, many of the effects really don't hold up well (especially under the scrutiny of the new hi-def formats) but Cameron managed to do a lot with very little on that one I think having to work with a constrained budget and a cast of (then) unknowns forced him to be more creative and that's always a good thing. It is a very good B-movie that holds your attention, doesn't take itself too seriously and doesn't outwear its welcome.
And I can handle a T-1000, especially if it morphs into Kristanna Loken.
I'll give him that. He's always been on the cutting edge in terms of recognizing the potential of technology to advance what can be done and seen in a movie and he has definitely helped to move the industry forward in that regard. Although strangely enough his fondness for the Super35 film format (essentially a 35mm matted letterbox film format that when blown up often leads to high amounts of visible film grain) and choice of cinematographers has led to many of his movies looking downright poor when released on home video. Even he was surprised at the amount of visible film grain when he supervised the mastering of the director's cut of the Aliens DVD.
Some would also say CGI has now essentially become a crutch in many movies to draw attention away from the fact that they're not telling very good stories, but you can hardly blame Cameron for that.
I just think that he tends to fall in love with the pictures he creates a little too much for his own good. For all the stuff he cut out of the theatrical releases of T2, The Abyss and even Aliens to some extent, I think all three movies could have benefitted greatly from a good editor.
So could I.
On behalf of him, I say thankyou.
I agree with you about The Abyss. Great visual effects, however narratively, and in terms of editing, the film was a mess. I do find it interesting though how post-The Terminator, his films kept getting longer and longer, until it reached the 3 hour plus Titanic. I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, obviously people will form their own judgements, however I do find it interesting and I wonder whether Avatar will follow in that tradition. If it does, are people ready for a 2./3 hour film in 3D?
James Cameron once publicly said that a couple of Harlan Ellison stories (including Soldier, which was filmed for the original Outer Limits) were among the inspirations behind Terminator. I've seen Soldier many times and frankly the only similarity was the notion of someone traveling back thru time (itself hardy an original idea and certainly not invented by Ellison). At any rate, Cameron was simply offering a little tribute to one of his literary heroes. But, proving the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished, Ellison quickly turned around sued Cameron for plagarism! While the exact terms of the settlement were never disclosed, every copy of the original Terminator now includes a credit that the film is inspired by events depicted in several Harlan Ellison stories.
3D movies generally aren't designed to be viewed for that long in one sitting as the current technology leads to eye-strain. Unless Cameron has come up with something new, anything longer than two hours and there are liable to be a lot of people leaving the theater with a splitting headache.
Okay, well in that case, Cameron will probably be breaking tradition with Avatar. I'm sure you wouldn't be disappointed. :v
Well, count me out. I don't have objections to seeing a new Halloween film, unless it follows in the style and spirit of the original series. The Zombie remake was IMO too ugly for words.
I sincerely hope you enjoy it; IMO, Rob Zombie's an unimaginative hack who falls in the long line of others in Hollywood who can't come up with their own fresh ideas. I'll be so glad when torture porn is dead and no longer viable to produce for the masses of the horror genre. 8-)
Carpenter's will always remain the best. I & II
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I don't think it's a mastepiece by any means. A solid film and one of Cameron's better works but not great and unfortunately always placed ahead of it's predecessor.
Not a great film but pretty solid. I am pretty much satisfied how it turned out.
Tiantic dosen't have a single original idea. Poor boy, rich girl fed up with her life, snotty rich people, fiance who is an ass hole. Every character in that film was hollow. Why this film grosses so much ? Horny teenage girls who love Leonardo Di Caprio and cry when the ship sinks.
Fair enough, I just think True Lies had the potential to be a truly great film.
It's only just about originality; one could argue that many great romantic films are not all that original, it's about the way it was constructed, both visually and emotionally. The scene in which the old couple hug each other as the ship goes down is IMO one of cinema's most emotionally wrenching moments. Plus the performances, especially by the gorgeous Kate Winslet (whose character was not hollow IMO), are wonderful, the screenplay is perfectly put together and the film is fabulously entertaining. I love the film, and I'm neither a horny teenage girl or a huge fan of Leonardo Di Caprio.
Well, you may have had enough of it, however I think the film looks really nice and I can't wait to see it.
I don't think it really was on the level of the first, not even close. Instead of being a great horror sci-fi, we just get alot of fancy gimmicks. THE TERMINATOR seemed something new while T2 was bordering on generic.
It was all cookie cutter, this followed a bare bones story with bare bones characters. Nothing to warrant any sort of dinstniction or any status other then run of the will. Yes romantic films do generally follow a certain formula, as most films do, but this was purely formulaic. Also a few sad images doesn't elevate it classic status either.
From a purely entertainment perspective, I would rank the Terminator films the following:
1)T2
2)The Terminator
3)Salvation
4)T3
Quality:
1)The Terminator & T2
2)Salvation
3)T3
I would also rank the TV show after the first two films in both categories.
Again, I disagree. The performances, the screenplay, the look and feel of the film, I think it was anything but run of the mill. I mean, Titanic was arguably the Gone With The Wind for the late 20th century.
T2 is a pretty dated film, you can't get anymore indication that is was from the early 90's. Yes it went further into the plot but from directorial stand point, it had nothing interesting to it. It felt neither suspenseful or entracing as that first film, which mixed horror and sci-fi beautifully.
Not even remotely close IMO. TITANTIC was over produced, formualic, and forgetable film.
I don't agree. From a directorial standpoint, I think it was extraordinary; Cameron IMO outdid himself on it. One of my favourite scenes, from a directorial standpoint, was when Arnie shot at the T-1000 for the first time, and pulled out his gun from a bunch of roses. I thought it was a beautiful scene, directorally, and I think the entire film, in fact, was wonderful from a directorial standpoint. The entire structure of the film (including Sarah's nightmares), not to mention the various shots, was IMO fasninating from a directorial standpoint. I regard Cameron as a great director and T2 is a major reason why.
Again, I disagree. Although I don't think that T2 was as horrific as the first film, I don't think it was really intended to be. I regard it as more of a pure action film than the first film, so in terms of horror, it was never going to match the original; that said, the T-1000, the nightmares, the treatment of Sarah were all extremely horrific. As for entrancing, I think that T2 was as entrancing as the original.
I don't agree. They have become very dated but it's inevitable for that to happen, especially when it's wall to wall. Their have been very rare exceptions like 2001: A SPACE ODYESSY or MAROONED.
Why ? What does that symbolize or mean?
Cameron is very much a workman like director who had some shades of near brillance earlier in his career, not evident in anything after ALIENS.
Yes pure action film so it made it less ieteresting, it felt more like some action park ride with the overblown chases from the T-1000. You can point out some good stuff but doesn't surpass the original in terms of innovation or pure suspense. THE TERMINATOR felt a like a bizarre future horror film with a woman running away from crazed and menacing robot. The situation felt hopeless and that's why it's far more gripping then the less than sequel.
GONE WITH THE WIND has anything but standard formulaic characters or an over production of special effects as the leads are anything but conventional because they don't fall in love at the end since the woman was a bee-yatch. The Jack and Rose from Titanic are as bare bones as characters can get, they are two destined for love because they are equally as bland.
Not evident to you. I myself don't agree. I think he is a great director, and IMO T2 was completely brilliant. I also think that True Lies featured moments of brilliance; I thought that Titanic was great, if not brilliant, and I thought the first season of Dark Angel was brilliant. I don't think he's workman like at all.
Less interesting to you. I don't agree with this description at all.
I think it does, or at least I think it equals the original in terms of innovation and suspence; in some ways (such as action scenes) I think it surpasses the original. I regard the two films on an equal footing.
I thought that T2 was incredibly gripping; the mental institute scene, for example, when the T-1000 ran after the Terminator, John and Sarah was IMO extraordinarily gripping.
I love Titanic, unlike GWTW, however I get that you don't like it.
Wow, hackneyed homage. Really Brilliant. 8-)
Dan, is their anything you don't think is brilliant or a masterpiece ? Christ almighty, you love everything. You even love inferior imitations of something better.
Plenty of things. Among films, I detest are Drop Dead Fred, Mikey, Anatomy of Hell, Hostel 2, the Halloween remake, Predator 2 and RoboCop 2, and I also hate the Saw films, Dancer in the Dark, Crash, The Passion of the Christ, Juno, Quantom of Solace and Batman and Robin.
Not quite. It's just that, these days, I don't really bother having huge on-line discussions on films I hate, as I don't like wallowing in negativity. I did in the past, and whilst I will do so again, I prefer talking about films which I don't hate. Don't get me wrong; I still talk about Dalton and QOS on this website, however you'll find that I usually respond to comments attacking Moore or Brosnan, rather than complimenting Dalton. As for QOS, I write the rare post mentioning my distaste for the film, but if you did a search for my name and QOS, you'll find less posts than from most other long-term members.
Except I don't think it is inferior. You do, fine, but your stating it is inferior does not automatically make it so.
Maybe we should call it a day on this discussion, as you obviously will never appreciate that other people are entitled to different opinions than you.
No, you really do. You usually prefer some inferior like Titanic over GWTW. Pierce Brosnan films over Casino Royale. T2 over Terminator. Yeah, I think you do. You toss the world brilliant around like one throwing bread at pidgeons.
You're in denial. You honestly think everything is brilliant. You have taste but you can't distiguish anything.
Regardless of what films you claim you hate. You always toss brilliant around like their is no tomorrow.
Ever since you joined this website, you've been picking fights and attacking people constantly. Unless your reason for joining this site is to troll, pehaps you could accept that other people have the right to different opinions and you do NOT determine what is good and bad taste.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdumGs1qoXM
Very impressive. Looks like Scorsese cutting loose and making schlock, which is a vast improvement on the stuff he's being doing recently, regardless of whether they won Oscars or not. Great cast too. Max Von Sydow, Michelle Williams, Mark Ruffalo and Jackie Earle Haley. I'm there.
I'll be honest and admitt that the trailer doesn't stun me other than the fact it's directed by Scorsese. No, that's not true. The film does look great, and it looks like it'll be terrifically entertaining, however I do have a major problem with the film and that is with the casting of DiCaprio, who has become Scorsese's new 'De Niro.' I don't dislike Dicaprio; on the contrary, I regard him as a very talented actor. However, he's a major drop off from previous Scorsese veterans like Harvey Keitel, Joe Pesci and (especially) Robert De Niro (who's probably my all-time favourite actor). The fact that Ben Kingsley (one of the all-time greats, whom for some reason you didn't mention :v) and of course people like Von Sydow is in the cast, and that the film has a terrific plot and is based on a novel by one of the world's best genre writers (Dennis Lehane) makes it a film to watch. Oh, and that it's directed by Scorsese
Nonetheless, I'm going to reserve myself a seat on the Saturday night of the weekend it comes out in seat J-13 as soon as I'm able to do so.
http://grindhousebuzz.blogspot.com/2009/08/inception.html
It's named Inception . Christopher Nolan directs and looks like a typical Nolan movie.
I'm not a huge fan of Larry David (Curbing my enthusiasm when it comes to his show is incredibly easy) and IMO Woody Allen hasn't made a great films in years, (although I did enjoy Vicky Cristina Barcelona); however this film looks really good.