MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
Dracula the novel was published in 1897. Nosferatu took the story, changed a couple of names, and did indeed plagiarize Bram Stoker's work. Made a superb movie, certainly! But it used another's work without acknowledging it or paying for it.
I have to agree. Helen Slater was wonderfully convincing & likable as Supergirl, having charm & appeal to burn. But the movie didn't give her a chance to do anything with it. A solid script with better villains, better FX, and better direction, might have created a successful franchise. Another "might have been, if only ..."
This is one of the very few TV-shows-to-movies adaptation that really works & can stand on its own, while still being true in spirit to the original.
A fine dramatic role in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, and wonderful in a quirky independent film called The Projectionist, to name just two films. And I remember him well from the 21960s in the Tri-State area, hosting the children's show Let's Have Fun on Sunday mornings. You can find clips on YouTube.
Buster Keaton spoofed Sherlock Holmes in a silent short film by playing a detective named Coke Ennyday.
Never any need to remake a movie that was perfect the first time.
Thanks for posting that update; much appreciated.
I think the point is that Cameron has no charisma or presence, because for his entire life, he had been an outsider, almost a blank slate, unable to fit in with other people. There's almost no one there, which is clearly how Cronenberg wanted the character to be. And notice that toward the end, Cameron does become more proactive & start displaying glimpses of real emotion. Up until then, he'd been surviving in the world almost on animal instinct at best. Now he's taking his initial, long-delayed steps towards becoming human ... or at least approaching it.
I couldn't believe my luck, especially as the film went on, just getting better & better. :)
Can't hold a candle to 2001.
Agreed. All I ask of FX from any film, from any decade, is whether the filmmakers did the best they could with what was available & feasible then. If so, then I have no complaints. For instance, the FX from <i>Jason and The Argonauts</i> still work for me today, because they were imaginative & well-integrated into the story. As do the FX from the original <i>King Kong</i>. And the same for the 1984 <i>Dune</i>.
Excellent & accurate analysis! Such thoughtful & judicious details all serve to reinforce Aragorn's worthiness to be King.
It's a sensitive, thoughtful story about the power of imagination to bring people together, as well as being a means of helping one get through loss & grief. But showing Terabithia onscreen was a huge mistake—and deliberately marketing it as a Narnia-like film a cynically commercial choice. By doing so, the film negated its message by <b>not</b> trusting the imagination of the viewers to see Terabithia in their own mind's eye.
If you can find the PBS production of the story from 1985, starring Annette O/Toole as the teacher, check it out. Although filmed on a low budget, it presents the story as it should have been presented.
The core of the movie is the question: How wise is it to outsource human autonomy to machines? And that question is even more relevant & timely today.
That could well be the case, but it could also be something more than that. Sex isn't always just for pleasure (though of course it's very pleasurable), but often for closeness & comfort, to stave off loneliness, fear & grief. Gene is about to see his father again & reveal that he's moving across the country to start a new life. All the memories & pain of his childhood are hitting him with full force, because he already knows how his father will react. Yet he's still hoping against hope to connect with his father, perhaps even find the love from & for his father that's been lacking for all of his life.
We don't find out much about Norma, the woman he sleeps with at the beginning of the film. Maybe she is just a pickup to scratch that itch you mention. Or maybe they know each other from the past. Or maybe it's a mutual moment of staving off loneliness. We just don't know. For me, sleeping with Norma reveals the depth of his dread & uncertainty, and his need for reassurance before facing his barren relationship with his father for what may well be the last time.
Thal's the real issue. What I fear they're going to do is give viewers a lot of bad fan-fiction that uses Tolkien's own deeply personal vision solely for generic fantasy that they hope will be popular & profitable. In which case, they ought to try creating their own fantasy world from scratch. Except (1) they don't have the imagination & creativity for that, and (2) they don't want to risk something new in the first place.
As for the diversity issue, I welcome it in material that's open for it, and applaud representation for under-represented groups in contemporary entertainment. There are many wonderful fantasy writers today who do create organically diverse worlds, and I'd love to see some of them brought to life onscreen. But Tolkien's work just doesn't fall into that category. And I'm saying this from a liberal/progressive point of view that goes back to my boyhood in the early 1960s. It's simply a matter of respecting the original work & personal vision of the creative artist.
Thanks for posting that, Carol. James Franciscus was always an underrated actor & deserves to be better known.
Another gifted musician gone, leaving a lot of good memories behind.
Well said!
Thanks for posting this! I prefer tangible media like DVDs whenever possible, but of course it's not always possible. After all, you never know when something will be taken down from YouTube or any other streaming service.