- #106
DennisN
Gold Member
2023 Award
- 1,991
- 8,404
Yespinball1970 said:Can you remember when the scarecrow recites a maths equation at the end? When he gets his diploma?
Yespinball1970 said:Can you remember when the scarecrow recites a maths equation at the end? When he gets his diploma?
:furiously Googling:Klystron said:Danny Kaye movie (the title escapes me) where he recites/sings the Pythagorean theorem
The aborted knife fight is between Judson and Maggio, surely?mathwonk said:For a classic scene of an interrupted duel, that I prefer to the one in Liberty Valance, there is the near - bar - fight in From Here to Eternity, wherein Sarge confronts Fatso Judson, about to knife fight with Prew, arguing something like: "He's in my company and if you kill him you just make extra paperwork for me".
Spoiler warning issued againDennisN said:I don't know if this role setup was in the original novel or not.
A movie that was, in my opinion, improved at least in some ways, over the book was Jurassic Park. I just think that Crichton got heavy-handed with the "everything that could go wrong, goes wrong" plot device in the book.DennisN said:Two other movies which I personally think is better than the book versions, debatable of course, is The Fellowship of the Ring (trailer), because I think it has a better "flow" than the novel (and this comes from a Tolkien fan!) and Contact (trailer), because I think it has more "life" in the characters.
I haven't read the book, but I liked the movie a lot.Janus said:A movie that was, in my opinion, improved at least in some ways, over the book was Jurassic Park. I just think that Crichton got heavy-handed with the "everything that could go wrong, goes wrong" plot device in the book.
The movie trimmed a lot of this down.
It was a long time ago I saw Casablanca, and today I happened to play the movie to have in the background while I was doing other stuff. But instead I was completely drawn into the movie and ended up watching it againDennisN said:Movie classics I do enjoy:
- Casablanca (1942, Michael Curtiz)
Cool story, cool setting. I was pleasantly surprised by the movie.
WW II?DaveC426913 said:First World War
What? Are you on the weed?Bystander said:WW II?
I went to see LOTR when it came out, we booked tickets to get decent seats read the guardian reviews (very close to the book apparently) and the release date was on my b/dayDennisN said:Spoiler warning issued again.
I did a bit of research and according to this clip (3:00) in a Wizard of Oz commentary, which is quite interesting and detailed in itself, the screen writer of the movie added quite a bit of glue between reality and fantasy. Very competently done, I think. I haven't read the book, and maybe this is one of the few movies which actually is better than the book, perhaps?
Two other movies which I personally think are better than the book versions, debatable of course, is The Fellowship of the Ring (trailer), because I think it has a better "flow" than the novel (and this comes from a Tolkien fan!) and Contact (trailer), because I think it has more "life" in the characters.
The Warriors 1978 is a great film so I read the book after.DennisN said:I haven't read the book, but I liked the movie a lot.
For me, it's just the Fellowship I like better as a movie. I think The Two Towers and The Return of the King are better as novels.pinball1970 said:Looking at it now as a film its great (acting casting effects) but nothing like the book in terms of pace story building and glaring omissions/additions
Are you not setting up impossible expectations?pinball1970 said:I hated it.
...
They should have done 6 films of each book and not rushed it, 9 hours just isn’t long enough , 18-20 would have done it more justice.
Yes it's a good film as a stand alone without the book but what upset me the most (and I was upset, I had been waiting for this since 1981) was it lacked the feel of the book.DaveC426913 said:Are you not setting up impossible expectations?
As just one example, you want them to get all the details in - and you want that in film anthology form - which means 2-3 hour story arcs. So, you'd have films climaxing where there are no climaxes in the story. One film might end somewhere in Lothlorien, a place of rest and respite, another might end in just as Frodo crosses into Mordor - no real climax there.
I know how you feel, but it's hardly fair to judge a film anthology of this size by how closely it follows the book. Surely, it must be judged on its own merits in its own medium.
A film isn't a book. A good film adaptation of any book of significant length has to omit details and characters. As mentioned above, a three-hour motion picture is a huge undertaking. And 9-10 hours for the whole thing was probably more than enough.pinball1970 said:Yes it's a good film as a stand alone without the book but what upset me the most (and I was upset, I had been waiting for this since 1981) was it lacked the feel of the book.
Jackson and the film makers should have trusted his discerning audience, we did not need action, soap opera (Arwen and Aragorn) and the obvious spelling out.
We wanted hints, clues, false climaxes, blind alleys, build up and final realization. Tolkien did that again and again even right to the end.
He did not just have an unbelievable imagination, he was a good old fashioned story teller of the highest calibre, possibly the greatest ever.
Anyway, eventually I got over it. Amazing what 18 years can do to heal a broken dream.
We did not need more females in the film, we needed the key characters from the book.DennisN said:For me, it's just the Fellowship I like better as a movie. I think The Two Towers and The Return of the King are better as novels.
Regarding omissions I think it is due to the reduced attention span of a film audience compared to a reader, along with the fact that only three movies were planned, which themselves were quite huge enterprises, financially and logistically. There was a lot of ground to cover in the first one including the background and mythology, which I think was excellently done in the very first part of the movie where Blanchett/Galadriel told the essential background. That intro is actually among my absolute favorite parts in all of the three movies.
Regarding additions my guess is they were made due to an increased need for speed and thus, a good flow, in the story building and perhaps the character arcs. Regarding the Arwen additions* maybe they did that to give the character of Aragorn some extra motivation in his participation, by establishing his romantic interest and close connection to the elves. Just a guess off the top of my hat.
Regarding the omission of Tom Bombadill, another guess of mine is that covering Bombadill could complicate the story with a character that, if I remember correctly, only appears in the first novel and has no impact after that. Including Bombadill might also have lessened the perceived threat of the one ring for an audience, as Bombadill is the only one in the story which the ring has no effect upon whatsoever.
* Edit:
On a second thought they might have added Arwen to have one more female with some story in the movie. Otherwise there would have been only one such female, Galadriel, in a story which is full of male characters, including all the males in the fellowship itself.
Too long!PeroK said:A film isn't a book. A good film adaptation of any book of significant length has to omit details and characters. As mentioned above, a three-hour motion picture is a huge undertaking. And 9-10 hours for the whole thing was probably more than enough.
There's also the issue regarding LOTR in particular that the fan base (like yourself) would probably want to film making to go for ever (like Coronation Street!). But this is not really practical.
I had not read LOTR until the film came out, although I have read all three books since. Neither the book nor the films are really my thing, but I enjoyed TFOTR book and film. I thought Peter Jackson did a great job.
For me, both the books and the films just go on for far too long!
Interestingly, there are fans of the books which are also fans of the movies.pinball1970 said:Yes it's a good film as a stand alone without the book but what upset me the most (and I was upset, I had been waiting for this since 1981) was it lacked the feel of the book.
Jackson and the film makers should have trusted his discerning audience, we did not need action, soap opera (Arwen and Aragorn) and the obvious spelling out.
We wanted hints, clues, false climaxes, blind alleys, build up and final realization. Tolkien did that again and again even right to the end.
He did not just have an unbelievable imagination, he was a good old fashioned story teller of the highest calibre, possibly the greatest ever.
Anyway, eventually I got over it. Amazing what 18 years can do to heal a broken dream.
People who think it was great and claim they read and understood the book did not get the book.Janus said:Interestingly, there are fans of the books which are also fans of the movies.
There is a saying that goes:
"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.
Replace "people" with "fans" and you'd probably have to rewrite it to :
"You can please some of the fans some of the time, but you cannot please some of the fans all of the time, or please all of the fans some of the time, and definitely not all the fans all of the time."
I enjoyed the familiar quotes, and the movie was entertainingDennisN said:Movie classics I do enjoy:
- Casablanca (1942, Michael Curtiz)
Cool story, cool setting. I was pleasantly surprised by the movie.
Another film not to watch drunk and blue, it is the epitome of romance and personal sacrifices for love.newbiegirl said:I enjoyed the familiar quotes, and the movie was entertaining![]()
I watched a 'director's cut' many years ago at a Bogie revival in SF. True, Bogie never says "Play it again, Sam.". Ilsa asks Sam to play "As Time Goes By" as in the old days not knowing Rick forbids it. Rick is flabbergasted to hear the song and to see Ilsa as if she materialized from the music Rick has forbidden Sam to play. In the revival version without sub-titles I thought Rick later says to Sam about Ilsa and "As Time Goes By",pinball1970 said:Another film not to watch drunk and blue, it is the epitome of romance and personal sacrifices for love.
Apparently he does not say, 'play it again Sam!'
I think he says, 'play it!' And 'if if she can hear it so can i.'
In my top 20
There are some great lines and scenes.Klystron said:I watched a 'director's cut' many years ago at a Bogie revival in SF. True, Bogie never says "Play it again, Sam.". Ilsa asks Sam to play "As Time Goes By" as in the old days not knowing Rick forbids it. Rick is flabbergasted to hear the song and to see Ilsa as if she materialized from the music Rick has forbidden Sam to play. In the revival version without sub-titles I thought Rick later says to Sam about Ilsa and "As Time Goes By",
"You played it for her. Now play it for me. Play it, Sam." Then the dialog you remember.
The idea is that 'all bets are off' at Rick's Casablanca Casino; standing rules no longer apply. Rick drinks with customers. French loyalists out sing the Waffen SS. Bulgarian refugees win big money on a gaffed (rigged) table. With Ilsa standing there in the flesh, a forbidden song is not going to remind Rick of happier days in pre-war Paris. He has found his "Object of Desire", or she has found him. What will he do with her?
pinball1970 said:I watched the big sleep twice and got bored/lost twice, it is 39 on rotten tomatoes.
The only thing I remember was how far apart Lauren Bacall ‘s eyes were, I could not decide whether she was unusually striking or just unusual.
You remember well.Klystron said:The idea is that 'all bets are off' at Rick's Casablanca Casino; standing rules no longer apply. Rick drinks with customers. French loyalists out sing the Waffen SS. Bulgarian refugees win big money on a gaffed (rigged) table. With Ilsa standing there in the flesh, a forbidden song is not going to remind Rick of happier days in pre-war Paris. He has found his "Object of Desire", or she has found him. What will he do with her?
I think that is also a good description of the movie itself for a person who has not seen it. There are quite many characters whose motivations, choices and destinies hang in the balance in the movie, and some until the very end. All this I think add to making it a very interesting and multifaceted story:Klystron said:"The idea is that 'all bets are off' at Rick's Casablanca Casino"
Brilliant, however.DennisN said:You remember well.I think that is also a good description of the movie itself for a person who has not seen it. There are quite many characters whose motivations, choices and destinies hang in the balance in the movie, and some until the very end. All this I think add to making it a very interesting and multifaceted story:
(Spoiler warning! Please do not read the spoilers below if you want to see the movie with a fresh, open mind!)
First of all, Rick Blaine, of course. He had been helping underdogs against fascists before, but became disillusioned and cynical after Paris, when the Germans arrived and he lost Ilsa. Now he appears selfish and coldhearted, but some characters in the movie do not believe he really is, and it turns out they are correct. And this is evident when he helps the Bulgarian refugees very selflessly.
But what he will do regarding his love interest is still uncertain. He knows how he felt after he lost Ilsa, and if he chooses to go between Victor Laszlo and Ilsa, he knows that he might make Laszlo disillusioned and thus severely injure one of the most important resistance leaders. What will he do? Choose selfish love or choose the greater good?
Ilsa Lund is also herself caught in a dilemma, between two love interests.
Captain Louis Renault is very much an opportunist with few scruples, and it is uncertain throughout the movie if he is a complete turncoat or not. This makes him a very interesting and important character in the movie, as there is no way of being sure of what he will do. Yet he seems to have some emotional connection to Rick. But it is not until the very end we get to know what Renault chooses. The very last scene of the movie is Rick and Renault walking away together, when both of them seem to have decided to join the fight again.
Signor Ferrari, who owns the Blue Parrot is Rick's competitor, and he also seems to be a shady character with unknown motivations except for that of making money.
The fate of Rick's Café Américain, which is part a gambling den, also hangs in the balance throughout the movie. Ferrari wants to buy Rick's cafe, and when he is turned down, he tries to get Sam, the piano player, to work at his place. The café is also the central place of various drama, and later, Rick's place finally gets shut down. Rick finally sells it, while making sure that his former employees stay employed there.
Last, but not least, there are many clever and fun dialogues in the movie, like when Renault asks Rick why he is in Casablanca:
Renault: "What in heaven’s name brought you to Casablanca?"
Rick: "My health, I came to Casablanca for the waters."
Renault: "The waters? What waters? We’re in the desert."
Rick: "I was misinformed."
All in all very enjoyable, in my opinion.
Thanks, the movie was quite fresh in my mind since I saw it just a couple of days ago, and my impression of it was a bit different and more detailed than the first time I saw it.DaveC426913 said:Thanks Dennis for that insight. I had never watched the film with an eye to the larger picture of the war and Rick's history with it. It sure puts a whole different spin on that last line by Renault.
I will do so toopinball1970 said:I am getting conscious this is starting to get a little Casablancacentric so..
The plot of the film of The Big Sleep is somewhat simplified from that of the book.pinball1970 said:I watched the big sleep twice and got bored/lost twice, it is 39 on rotten tomatoes.
The only thing I remember was how far apart Lauren Bacall ‘s eyes were, I could not decide whether she was unusually striking or just unusual.
I was somewhat distracted both times but yes I got lostPeroK said:The plot of the film of The Big Sleep is somewhat simplified from that of the book.