|
|
Post by Bartwald on Nov 17, 2005 6:43:51 GMT -5
Anyone else seen Brother's Brimm? As a Gilliam fan,I loved it,and it certainly didn't look too meddled with. It seemed like a return to the style of earlier stuff like Jabberwocky and Time Bandits,with the addition of some {variable} CGI. Loved the references to various fairytales. I don't why this has flopped,I think it's an extremely entertaining movie. I'm going to see it this weekend. Fingers crossed I like it as much as you did, Dr! |
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Nov 19, 2005 21:43:58 GMT -5
Saw The Brothers Grimm. It was oookay. Which means: yes, I was a bit disappointed. It had several great scenes but all in all wasn't as visionary or crazy as I expected. Especially since I was watching it in a double bill with Monty Python's Life Of Brian... Gotta love Gilliam for putting Monica Bellucci and Lena Headey in the same movie. The guy's surely reading some minds! >>> bartboard.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=cultfilms&action=display&n=1&thread=957 |
|
|
|
Post by DrLenera on Nov 21, 2005 16:45:43 GMT -5
A shame you found it a little disappointing,I thought it was better than I expected considering Gillaim didn't have final cut and lost a lot of control over the film. There did seem to be some stuff missing towards the end-director's cut on DVD anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Nov 24, 2005 9:16:36 GMT -5
Yes, I'd love to see the director's cut of it - should be much smoother than this. But still - I just don't think this film can be compared to Gilliam's best works as fas as we use "visionary" as the key word.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Oct 16, 2006 12:05:43 GMT -5
Lost In La Mancha is awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on Oct 16, 2006 13:29:23 GMT -5
Brazil. Brilliant film in every sense of the word.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Oct 17, 2006 13:33:11 GMT -5
What about Gilliam's latest - Tideland? Anyone saw this? Anyone read the book?
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Oct 17, 2006 13:52:25 GMT -5
I haven't seen it, but Richard Roeper & guest critic, A.O. Scott (Filling in for the still recovering Roger Ebert) absolutely hated it and gave it two BIG thumbs down! Roeper went so far as to say that he came very close on walking out on the screening.  |
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on Oct 17, 2006 14:44:08 GMT -5
Critics are dead to me anyway.
IMDb users seem to have enjoyed it much more. But I haven't seen it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Oct 17, 2006 14:50:22 GMT -5
The reviews I have read so far are terrible - and these are from mags I usually trust. Still - I need to see the movie myself to believe they're right, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Oct 17, 2006 16:50:08 GMT -5
Critics are dead to me anyway. IMDb users seem to have enjoyed it much more. But I haven't seen it. I only mentioned Roeper & Scott's reviews because they just reviewed it this past weekend and it was the only opinion I'd heard on the film so far. Obviously, anyone who's interested in seeing it should make that decision for themselves, but frankly, and no offense, I think I'd put a little more weight in the opinions of respected film critics than a bunch of kids on IMDB. |
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on Oct 17, 2006 17:20:43 GMT -5
Critics are dead to me anyway. IMDb users seem to have enjoyed it much more. But I haven't seen it. I only mentioned Roeper & Scott's reviews because they just reviewed it this past weekend and it was the only opinion I'd heard on the film so far. Obviously, anyone who's interested in seeing it should make that decision for themselves, but frankly, and no offense, I think I'd put a little more weight in the opinions of respected film critics than a bunch of kids on IMDB. On the contrary. As opposed to film critics, IMDb is comprised of people who actually like movies. Trust me, if it WERE a bunch of kids on IMDb, The Fast and the Furious would have a much higher score than it has now. Hell, we're talking about film geeks here. They live for movies. Critics just seem to have lost their love for what they do. See: all the good movies they gave negative reviews to within the last 5 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Oct 19, 2006 11:33:26 GMT -5
On the contrary. As opposed to film critics, IMDb is comprised of people who actually like movies. Trust me, if it WERE a bunch of kids on IMDb, The Fast and the Furious would have a much higher score than it has now. Hell, we're talking about film geeks here. They live for movies. Critics just seem to have lost their love for what they do. See: all the good movies they gave negative reviews to within the last 5 years. We're gonna have to agree to disagree. Granted, there are a lot of film lovers/geeks voting at IMDB, but there are also a lot of kids voting who wouldn't know a good film if it snuck up and bit them on the ass. They routinely hand out scores of 10 like they're Halloween candy, but they're just as quick to score a film a 1 the second they're slightly bored or the material is not to their taste. Case in point. The number 1 and 2 movies based on the highest scores are THE GODFATHER & SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, respectively. Both are fantastic and arguably worthy of their positions there. Take a look at the voting and you'll see that THE GODFATHER has received over 11,000 votes of 1 and SHAWSHANK has received almost 6,000 votes of 1. Now, I've pointed out in the past how seldom I rate a film a 10/10. A film, in my eyes, has to be perfection in order to rate that high. The same goes for rating a film a 1/10. It has to have absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever. In other words, just a worthless piece of crap. So, by your opinion of professional critics versus the "real film fans" on IMDB, you're saying that those people who voted either SHAWSHANK or GODFATHER a score of 1, really know what they're talking about? I'd be hard-pressed to go along with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix on Oct 19, 2006 12:51:28 GMT -5
Just to throw in my two cents on IMDB:
It's extremely biased based on sex and age. Most of the voters tend to be male, most in the younger demographic.
Lets just examine the Godfather for example.
121910 Male voters (89%)
15366 Female voters (11%!!!)
And most voters are between the ages of 18-29 (again, mostly male).
Most of IMDBs "top films" are the stuff of alpha males.
It's not exactly a real slice outta our population.
I don't like critics either.
And to get back on topic, Tideland doesn't really interest me.
It sounds...very very weird.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on Oct 19, 2006 13:18:21 GMT -5
On the contrary. As opposed to film critics, IMDb is comprised of people who actually like movies. Trust me, if it WERE a bunch of kids on IMDb, The Fast and the Furious would have a much higher score than it has now. Hell, we're talking about film geeks here. They live for movies. Critics just seem to have lost their love for what they do. See: all the good movies they gave negative reviews to within the last 5 years. We're gonna have to agree to disagree. Granted, there are a lot of film lovers/geeks voting at IMDB, but there are also a lot of kids voting who wouldn't know a good film if it snuck up and bit them on the ass. They routinely hand out scores of 10 like they're Halloween candy, but they're just as quick to score a film a 1 the second they're slightly bored or the material is not to their taste. Case in point. The number 1 and 2 movies based on the highest scores are THE GODFATHER & SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, respectively. Both are fantastic and arguably worthy of their positions there. Take a look at the voting and you'll see that THE GODFATHER has received over 11,000 votes of 1 and SHAWSHANK has received almost 6,000 votes of 1. Now, I've pointed out in the past how seldom I rate a film a 10/10. A film, in my eyes, has to be perfection in order to rate that high. The same goes for rating a film a 1/10. It has to have absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever. In other words, just a worthless piece of crap. So, by your opinion of professional critics versus the "real film fans" on IMDB, you're saying that those people who voted either SHAWSHANK or GODFATHER a score of 1, really know what they're talking about? I'd be hard-pressed to go along with that. Well, that's an unfortunate flaw for IMDb, that any idiot is allowed to vote on films. But overall scores are usually spot on, and that's what I look at. The Notebook, which scored poorly with the critics flies an 8.0 IMDb rating. 8.0. It could be on the Top 250. And I wouldn't mind that, because I thought it was excellent. Open Water, on the other hand, which the critics fell in love with, takes a 6.0 rating, which is borderline mediocre (which isn't exactly spot on, because I thought it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen, but at least it's not being praised). IMDb represents my opinion much better than critics, because most IMDb voters are people like myself. Sure, there are stupid people who give a "1" vote to the Godfather, but as far as I know, I believe IMDb's rating system is built to combat the idiotic voters who vote multiple times and don't represent the opinions of the majority. Which is why 11,000 "1" votes is doing nothing to hinder the Godfather's ranking. |
|
