I thought you mentioned before that you live with your family so you have nothing to worry about!
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
As we all know the only acceptable musical for a man to publicly like is The Blues Brothers.
And that one just happens to be my favorite musical of all time so I'm somewhat vindicated.
Last edited by PanzerMeyer; 03/29/2201:44 PM.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
1) "Dune" 2021 version -- This one is hard to rate. On one hand as I have mentioned before I am particularly fond of Lynch's adaptation. On the other, this new film improves upon accuracy with the source material in some ways but simultaneously neglects some other nuances and even entire exchanges of dialogue in favor of "style over substance." I'm one of those peculiar sorts who favors "function over form." Yep. I'm the opposite. I don't like Apple products, either, so that makes sense enough. Duncan Idaho actually played a bigger role which was nice--in Lynch's movie he was the dude that turned on his shield, ran down a corridor and was wasted. Well, he was still killed in a corridor but he did a bit more before that, and this I liked. What I did not like were the casting choices. Many of them were quite poor with respect to Lynch's. I also did not like the Gom Jabbar scene. Seriously? What was Villeneuve thinking here? For one he altered the dialogue exchange--vastly, might I add. Secondly, the Reverend Mother was hardly ominous. In Lynch's adaptation she was a true, intimidating witch. The entirety of the scene was simply poor. I was hoping they would put this at the start of the film, too, as was in Herbert's original text, but alas, was not. Another element missing was the lack of Paul's internal monologue--which I find essential for Dune. How can one tell this story without Paul's thoughts? Insane. But Villeneuve made "Arrival" which was pure trash, so this was to be expected. This director often prefers style over substance and that shows here, many times throughout. I don't understand how folks think this movie was "dense." It wasn't dense in the least. The dialogue was rather thin and instead we got long shots of whatever.
Wait, Blastman hated this movie? That's probably what one is thinking. No. I didn't hate it. I liked it, actually, but I wish it were done differently because it could have been better. Like Lynch's adaptation, this one is also flawed, but in different ways. Here we have perfect editing and stitching together of scenes. We even have a better invasion. What we don't get is a vile, despicable, molesting Baron Harkonnen--which, if the film were true to the texts we would have this. Alas, we did not. He was a "silent figure" for the most part, almost suffering from Snoke syndrome. There was also no Feyd. None. Yes, he was largely absent from the first half of the book, but his appearance in the second film may come as a shock to some viewers who have lived in a box for the entirety of their lives and are oblivious to Dune as a whole. As others have pointed out, this film could have done a better job with world building--explaining the Universe, etc. But the film was cohesive, told a story, albeit differently, and was enjoyable, regardless the flaws, to watch. *** 1/2 out of **** stars. We'll have to see how the second edition pans out to truly tell if this picture is timeless or not. Mysterious, though, it wasn't, despite how hard the director tried. Lynch's film was incredibly mysterious--monolithic... some might say monumental.
2) "Blue Ruin" -- Ever watch a movie and about halfway through you realize, "Oh, I think I have seen this before!" Well, queue that thought. I must have watched it 6 or 7 years ago when I was bingeing films one a day, so it got lost in the thoughts. Great, no, excellent revenge film with an unexpectedly sly and secretly brilliant protagonist. *** 1/2 out of **** stars. Yep, I tie this with the former.
Worldbuilding: Advantage goes to Lynch Faithfulness to the book: Advantage goes to Villeneuve Casting with the exception of Duncan Idaho: Advantage goes to Lynch
There's no doubt in my mind that the Harkonnen/Saurdakar attack on Arakeen was better done in the Villeneuve film but the space folding scene when the Atreides depart Caladan and the "Box" scene with Helen Gaius Mohaim and Paul was much better done in the Lynch film.
So really, I think hardcore Dune fans should enjoy both films because they each have their own unique strengths.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
I am not a hard core Dune fan, and have never read any of the books, but I found the new Dune to be bland in comparison to the Lynch version. The acting and characters seemed subdued, almost bored, and it just didn't seem like there was any real urgency to anything. There was also just some level of grandeur that was in the Lynch version that's missing from the Villeneuve version.
Ken Cartwright
No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.
Yep, exactly. Villeneuve's works often come off as a bit pretentious--especially "Arrival."
I'm surprised you didn't like "Arrival" since it was definitely more a thinking man's science fiction story than a mindless shoot-em up science fiction story.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
Yep, exactly. Villeneuve's works often come off as a bit pretentious--especially "Arrival."
I'm surprised you didn't like "Arrival" since it was definitely more a thinking man's science fiction story than a mindless shoot-em up science fiction story.
Well, there's a big difference between "Arrival" and "Contact," where the latter was written and concepted by one of the most brilliant minds to walk the Earth in the 20th century, and the structure and message shows this. "Arrival" was a much lesser story with some ulterior motives that both "Contact" and even "2001" avoided, and instead focused on the science. From a post I made in 2018 when I first saw the film,
Quote
Total disappointment. Basically they took a short story and told it in a very, very, long and pointless way. Contact, written by Sagan, was far superior. They aren't even in the same ballpark.
I rated it a 3 out of 10 on IMDB.
I'm hard on sci-fi movies because this is my favorite genre and I've seen so many, but the thought that sticks in my head from "Arrival" is I kept wanting there to be more there--i.e. "something" to chew on, but instead I came away from my watching as if I had eaten a bowl of air.
Big Trouble in Little China. This movie is awesome. I've seen it a few times before and enjoy it every time I rewatch it. It's got a fun story, characters, action and cool effects.
They Live: Another one I've seen, but the last time was a couple decades ago now and I found I'd forgotten most of it. It's alright, but the premise is great.
Prince of Darkness: It's OK, but once again the premise is neat and done creatively. You got a dead priest who was guarding something, so they hire a ton of scientists in to study it. It's slow compared to most other horror movies, particularly the newer ones. I tend to like the slower build ups and tension you get from these older ones, so it works for me. I'd probably rate The Thing and In The Mouth of Madness as both being better than Prince of Darkness.
They Live: Another one I've seen, but the last time was a couple decades ago now and I found I'd forgotten most of it. It's alright, but the premise is great.
A great premise indeed and I was pleasantly surprised by the acting performance of Rowdy Piper. The only part of the movie that bugged me was the seemingly never-ending fight scene between Rowdy Piper and Keith David.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
"Starman" is my favorite John Carpenter movie by far. "Big Trouble" and "They Live" are awesome, and so is "The Thing."
My "holy trinity" of Carpenter films:
The Thing Escape from New York Halloween
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
Watching the second half of Ken Burns documentary about Ben Franklin..I like most of his stuff especially The Civil War ..Vietnam was just lousy to me.
Watching the second half of Ken Burns documentary about Ben Franklin..I like most of his stuff especially The Civil War ..Vietnam was just lousy to me.
His baseball doc is very good too. Unfortunately with his Vietnam doc he showed his true ideological colors.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
