Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Books, Music, TV & Movies' started by Valwin, Feb 14, 2012.
Fuck yea Lincoln
I... want it.
The whole premise of this movie is too absurd not to give it a look sometime.
Don't be thrown off by Tim Burton's name on it, he's only "producing", which is a huge difference from "directing" since most anything he directs nowadays is utter shit.
The director didn't do anything too spectacular in recent memory, although Wanted is probably what stands out the most. Can't vouch for it though, I never saw it. Still, it's Abraham Lincoln hunting vampires, sign me up.
could be another letdown like cowboy vs aliens
Cowboys and Aliens was great, it was just advertised poorly. While it's certainly an action movie, with a name like that, it makes it feel like some B-movie type of over-the-top action flick.
Although I don't see how people expected something like that. Iron Man was paced in much of the same way and arguably wasn't even that action intensive. There's perhaps 3 major action scenes (the escape from the cave, the fight in the village, and the end fight against Obadiah) while most of it is given to character development. Both had the same director. It's a great film that was enjoyable and had plenty of arcs that came together and paid out in the end.
What the fuck... am I even watching?
THIS LOOKS AWESOME.
WHAT THE FUCK.
it felt kind of slow to me
Because it decided to have plot and characters instead of a lot of modern action movies. It's something you have to see knowing it's not gonna be some instant gratification movie like Sucker Punch. People loved Drive for almost the same exact reasons and its much slower than Cowboys and Aliens. Different directors and techniques, yes, but it's still a movie that seems appropriately action but instead focuses on characterization and drama. Not that Cowboys and Aliens was a huge film on characterization, it just had a moderate enough of it to differ it from your typical summer movie schlock.
History, you've just been beaten.
I found C vs A's plot to be unengaging; shame. It had actual potential too; and nice action scenes. It was moderately enjoyable for what it was though; just not interesting enough.
Tim Burton not making good films? I certainly think that if you overlook some flaws, Alice was a fairly good film. Sure, the third act was kind of limping, but the first two were good. And it's gorgeous as hell. It's not so much Burton, more of the script assigned to him. And then there's Sweeny Todd, which may be one of his best films yet. Directing is strong, acting is strong, and visual style is strong. Charlie was weaker story-wise, yet utterly delightful.
As for this movie, it looks interesting. Personally though, I'm a lot more interested for the other Lincoln film coming out this year, the Spielberg directed "Lincoln", a historical drama with Daniel Day-Lewis, which is probably the complete opposite of this film. This one seems like brainless fun; hopefully it doesn't end up disappointing. It's the director of Wanted, so I'm hoping that this will surprise me, much like, say, Pirahna or something.
Uhm what the duck?
What does Tim Burton do here? He's neither writer nor director on this. I guess I'll pass.
And then this unnecessary tree chopping at the end?
Tim Burton is just one of the producers. So how much does he actually influence this movie compared to directors and writers?
I know who Abraham Lincoln is. I don't think a vampire story about him holds a lot of value besides the inherent absurdity.
Yeah, maybe it's light hollywood popcorn fun.
Merged threads for GREAT JUSTICE
Good acting? It's just Johnny Depp being wacky Johnny Depp. He often falls into trends like many other actors. Take Robin Williams for example. He either plays "goofy" Robin Williams (Mrs. Doubtfire, Jumanji or however it's spelled) or "inspirational" Robin Williams (Patch Adams, Dead Poets' Society). Johnny Depp is much the same. He either plays "goofy" Johnny Depp (all his Tim Burton rolls, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc) or "serious" Johnny Depp (most recently I think he was in The Tourist?). In the end he's just told to act goofy.
Gorgeous as hell? Strong visual style? It's the same art style. Trying to be dark enough to appeal to his demographics with a lot of white facepaint. This was the worst with Alice. You can either go for children's appeal (the Disney one) or you can go with the mature appeal (American McGee's Alice). In between is just really shitty.
Also if you thought Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was good then that's a slap in the face to a classic. That's like praising a Michael Bay remake of the Godfather.
When he's not busy making same-story movies, he's busy ripping material from others. Then he slaps a coat of white face paint on it, merchandises the crap out of it, and makes big bucks.
People complain about Michael Bay movies for "appealing to the lowest common denominator" of retarded movie-goers with little care for anything outside of special effects and broken dubstep tunes but Tim Burton is exactly the same, just for a different crowd. He knows anything with his name on it will attract an emo crowd who will covet the movie for its "fantastic art style" and "wonderful interpretation of a classic tale".
To some extent I'll enjoy a Michael Bay film over a Tim Burton one. And I saw Nightmare Before Christmas and I did not like it.
Every director has individual merits, and each has his/her hits and misses. For Burton's misses, there's Beetlejuice (XD), Planet of the Apes (2001), Alice (Sorta), Mars Attacks! (Bad. Just bad.), and Sleepy Hollow was a half miss. Burton's old work (those without enormous budgets and had original scripts) is by far his best. Try a couple, maybe you might like them. Even Bay had good films, there's The Rock (which I would regard as an excellent action film, perhaps one of that decade) and Transformers (I mean 1.)
Nightmare Before Christmas, well, I saw it when I was a kid so I loved it. And when I watched it now, I still love it. It's either nostalgia or it's genuinely good. I'm going with both.
Comparing Marilyn Monroe and a modern male actor is like comparing apples and oranges. Marilyn Monroe played a "dumb blonde" because that's what people wanted at the times. She pioneered Playboy and was by far their most iconic model, do you really think she would be like Erin Brokovich on screen? People wanted a ditsy and attractive girl. It was the 50's after all.
We're at a point where special effects have become level. I saw Last Airbender in theaters and yeah, it's an utterly shit movie, one of the worst I've seen, but the special effects are good. "Good", mind you. Not mindblowing, not spectacular, but "good". Almost everything nowadays with a decent budget has "good" effects or looks "pretty". Also Sucker Punch was a great movie. It was completely ridiculous but that's what made it work. I saw it twice and theaters and loved it twice. If I were to judge films as decent for being "pretty" then I guess Transformers 3 is a pretty alright film. Yeah, sure.
Charlie was just a mockery of a movie that should have never been touched. It's a classic that Tim Burton got his grimy fat hands on and ruined with his terrible art direction and predictable cliches. If you think Johnny Depp is a suitable successor to Gene Wilder then you shouldn't even be thinking about films.
It's been years since I've seen Edward Scissorhands and I haven't seen Ed Wood or Big Fish.