03-10-2005, 03:55 PM
03-10-2005, 04:35 PM
Rosemary's Baby, Double Indemnity, and The Postman Always Rings Twice are all highly reccommended.
03-11-2005, 04:11 AM
The Hustler was on Wed morning. Great flik.
03-11-2005, 04:15 AM
Thumbs down on To Have and To Have Not. Granted, I was watching it while distracted by something else, but the acting was over-the-top, and I just didn't get into the movie. At least I know where the "you know how to whistle, don't you?" line came from.
03-11-2005, 05:13 AM
Quote:May 16 11:30 PM 12 Angry Men!!!
I saw this about 8 years ago...or at least tried to. I couldn't get into it, it just seemed so tedious.
So tonight I gave it another shot (<3 bittorrent). And HO-LEE-SHIT this movie is incredible! Whoever wrote the script is a fucking genius. This must've cost peanuts to make, but everything was just fucking perfect in every way. Instantly one of my favoritest movies ever.
And I'm beginning to think Galt is a lost cause. Rosemary's Baby tomorrow - if you can't dig that, there's no hope at all.
03-11-2005, 05:18 AM
totally. 12 angry men is easily one of my top 10 favorite films ever. I don't think I can ever bring myself to watch the tony danza version.
03-11-2005, 05:26 AM
Please tell me Danza doesn't play Henry Fonda's role.
03-11-2005, 05:27 AM
according to imdb he's juror #7. the rest of the cast is actually pretty good (james gandolfini, jack lemmon). I guess I'd watch it if it was on TV
03-11-2005, 05:41 AM
Ok, #7 was the Yankee tickets having guy with the hat, at the right of Fonda (#8).
Gotta check that IMDB page out of curiosity now...
Gotta check that IMDB page out of curiosity now...
03-11-2005, 05:56 AM
I saw 12 Angry Men (the original) in Philosophy class in college, and it was a really good movie. I'm really surprised that there hasn't been another (major) movie that's tried the whole movie in real time with all one scene. Nick of Time was kinda like that, but had multiple cameras. It was a really good idea and great movie.
No Jack Lemmon was Fonda's character in the remake. Danza was the one that had tickets to the Mets game. George Scott was the guy who broke down last, had the kid, he cried, something.
I've got the other movies tivo'd up for this weekend.
Keanu Reeves is a better actor than Humphy Bogart. The guy's fucking horrible. I don't see how I'm the only one who thinks this. He's so over the top, it's ridiculous. His dialogue is forced and unnaturally quick. He's so amateur.
But that's what I've seen from most of the old movies. That type of "Clerks-ish" acting that I can't ever get past.
No Jack Lemmon was Fonda's character in the remake. Danza was the one that had tickets to the Mets game. George Scott was the guy who broke down last, had the kid, he cried, something.
I've got the other movies tivo'd up for this weekend.
Keanu Reeves is a better actor than Humphy Bogart. The guy's fucking horrible. I don't see how I'm the only one who thinks this. He's so over the top, it's ridiculous. His dialogue is forced and unnaturally quick. He's so amateur.
But that's what I've seen from most of the old movies. That type of "Clerks-ish" acting that I can't ever get past.
03-11-2005, 06:01 AM
Quote:I'm really surprised that there hasn't been another (major) movie that's tried the whole movie in real time with all one scene.
the hitchcock movie "rope" takes place in real time in one setting. also the movie "tape" with ethan hawke and uma thurman.
03-11-2005, 06:02 AM
Quote:Keanu Reeves is a better actor than Humphy Bogart.
You're seriously just trolling. We get it, you want some recommendations for classic movies. So just say it.
03-11-2005, 06:06 AM
I already said it in the other thread, which is why this came about.
I stand by my contention that Bogart, in that movie, and what I've seen of Casablanca speaks unnaturally. No one talks like that, nor do they respond as quickly. And they didn't in 1945 either.
Bad actor.
I stand by my contention that Bogart, in that movie, and what I've seen of Casablanca speaks unnaturally. No one talks like that, nor do they respond as quickly. And they didn't in 1945 either.
Bad actor.
03-11-2005, 06:13 AM
So is Kids a good movie because they talk naturally?
03-11-2005, 06:18 AM
No. But Clerks is a bad movie becuase they don't.
03-11-2005, 06:23 AM
Movies back then were much more about escapism than realism, so that's probably why the acting was "unnatural". it's really just a different type of acting, not better or worse than any other type. The rapid-fire dialogue actually makes some movies funnier than they normally would be. For example, the marx brothers or thin man movies were as much about line delivery as content. What you are saying is the same thing as saying "musical actors are bad cause people don't sing all the time in real life".
03-11-2005, 06:30 AM
that's a fair point. Maybe that's why I'm not a fan of sci-fi movies. and I did painfully hate Moulin Rouge
03-11-2005, 06:30 AM
That's fair, I hate most sci-fi too but I'm not gonna call George Lucas a bad director.
03-11-2005, 06:32 AM
So then we agree to disagree!
03-11-2005, 06:35 AM
Well, if you want to draw a line between "unnatural" and "natural" acting, it'd be when marlon brando started acting in the early 50s. It's not like everyone suddenly decided in 1972 that we should act for real. It evolved and developed so there's still plenty of movies in the 50s and 60s that have more "natural" acting.