The_Piper wrote:I couldn't get into 2001 and cut it off early.

Shrunk wrote:

NamelessFaceless wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

NamelessFaceless wrote:I just watched Reds. Three hours and fifteen minutes long. That's quite an investment. It took me four sittings to complete it. But what a great movie.

You have to wonder how difficult it was to get a major Hollywood studio to back a project with that subject matter. Really speaks to the clout Warren Beatty must have had at the time.

Why do you think so? Do you mean politics in general? Or communism?

Communism. Imagine trying to pitch that concept to a studio executive without including Beatty and Nicholson in the cast.

Animavore wrote:Watched the beginning of Fury in a friend's last night. It seemed like a second-rate, Saving Private Ryan rip-off without the heart and with shitty acting from Brad Pitt and Shia LaBeouf. They even had the lead sergent have a war-related problem which he conceals from his troops and a book-worm newbie join to the annoyance of the others.

Mazille wrote:

Animavore wrote:Watched the beginning of Fury in a friend's last night. It seemed like a second-rate, Saving Private Ryan rip-off without the heart and with shitty acting from Brad Pitt and Shia LaBeouf. They even had the lead sergent have a war-related problem which he conceals from his troops and a book-worm newbie join to the annoyance of the others.

It's not, though. I mean, it's obviously not going to be the classic SPR became, simply because it isn't technically as good. Both movies tell stories of dudes forming a group and thoughing it out with the slings and arrows of fortune. Fury is of a smaller scale, though and way, way darker. While the soldiers in SPR were basically nice guys fighting for a good cause and all, the cast of Fury is just a bunch of assholes doing a job and they really only do it for each other. There's no pathos, love of the fatherland, or political opposition to fascism in there. They're assholes and they're killing Nazis because those assholes are trying to kill your asshole friends.

Shrunk wrote:

The_Piper wrote:I couldn't get into 2001 and cut it off early.

My wife never liked it, either. Seeing it in 70mm changed her mind.

It began with the filming of the Great Trilogy. Three were given to the fans. And then the normal version, the extended and the special extended edition - which above else, had lots of extra content. For within these DVDs were bound hours of additional scenes and fun to enjoy at move nights.

But they were all of them deceived, for another trilogy was made.

In the land of Kiwis, in the studios of New Line Cinema and MGM, the greedy Lord Jackson forged in public 'The Hobbit', to be shown in three parts. Into this trilogy, he poured a lot of bullshit, his greed, and his will to dominate all JRR-Tolkien-related stuff. One trilogy to ruin them all.

One by one, the movies were released over a span of three years. But there were some who resisted. A last alliance of true LotR-fans didn't go to the theatre, and stayed at home and watched the original trilogy instead because it was a hundred bajillion times better than the hobbit-crap.

The_Piper wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

The_Piper wrote:I couldn't get into 2001 and cut it off early.

My wife never liked it, either. Seeing it in 70mm changed her mind.

I really liked the opening sequence, then I got lost in space.
I'm finally getting a large flat screen TV, I could try it again on that if I find the dvd for $2 or less. Which I probably will by next fall. (yard sales)