Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Suspended Smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    3,959

    October Movie Previews

    Couple of good ones this month.

    Ranked by release date:

    Oct. 7th

    Real Steel : A gritty, white-knuckle, action ride set in the near-future, where the sport of boxing has gone hi-tech.


    The Ides of March: The Ides of March takes place during the frantic last days before a heavily contested Ohio presidential primary, when an up-and-coming campaign press secretary (Ryan Gosling) finds himself involved in a political scandal.


    Blackthorn: Itís been said that Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were killed in a standoff with the Bolivian military in 1908. In Blackthorn, Cassidy (Shepard) survived, and is quietly living out his years under the name James Blackthorn in a secluded Bolivian village.


    Oct 14th..................

    The Three Musketeers :The hot-headed young D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman) joins forces with three rogue Musketeers in this reboot of Alexandre Dumas' story.


    The Thing: Antarctica is home to an isolated outpost where a discovery full of scientific possibility becomes a mission of survival when an alien is unearthed by a crew of international scientists.


    Father of Invention: Millionaire infomercial guru, Robert Axle (Kevin Spacey) loses everything when one of his inventions has a design flaw that accidentally chops off the fingers of thousands of customers.


    The Big Year : Steve Martin, Jack Black and Owen Wilson are at a crossroads -- one is experiencing a mid-life crisis, another a late-life crisis, and the third, a far from ordinary no-life crisis.


    Oct 21st...................

    Johnny English Reborn : Rowan Atkinson returns to the role of the accidental secret agent who doesn't know fear or danger in the comedy spy-thriller Johnny English Reborn.


    Oct 28th.............

    Puss in Boots:Way before Puss ever met Shrek, our suave and furry feline hero goes on a swashbuckling ride, as he teams with mastermind Humpty Dumpty and the street-savvy Kitty to steal the famed Goose that lays the Golden Eggs.


    The Double :The mysterious murder of a US senator bearing the distinctive trademark of the legendary Soviet assassin Cassius, forces Paul Shepherdson (Richard Gere), a retired CIA operative, to team with rookie FBI agent to solve the crime.

  2. #2
    Forum Regular Jack in Wilmington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,483
    I can't believe that Real Steel beat out Ides of March last weekend at the box office. There must be alot of kids going to the movies, that's all I can think. Hey Smoke do we really need another Three Musketeers and The Thing.
    2 Channel System
    Dynaudio Contour 1.8 Mk II
    Pass Labs X150.5 (Amp)
    Cary SLP-03 (Preamp)
    Music Hall MMF 5.1 (TT)
    Goldring 1012GX (Cart.)
    Pro-ject SE II (Phono Box)
    Rotel RCD-1072 (CD Player)
    Bryston BDA-1 ( DAC )
    Sennheiser HD-600 (Headphones)
    Musical Fidelity Xcan V3 (Headphone Amp) _

    HT System
    Usher X-719 (Mains)
    Usher X-616 (Center)
    Usher S-520 (Surrounds)
    Rel T2 (Subwoofer)
    Anthem MCA20 (Amp)
    Yamaha RX-A830 (Receiver)
    Panasonic TH-46PZ85U (Plasma TV)
    Denon DBT-1713UD (BluRay/SACD)

  3. #3
    Kam
    Kam is offline
    filet - o - fish Kam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,770
    mini rant.
    John Carpenter took an old sci-fi classic and updated it, changed it, made it his own, and, i'd argue to say, made a better movie than the original. it brought up new themes and new scary ideas that weren't in the original.

    now i hate judging a movie that i haven't seen, but given the latest trend of showing everything in the trailer, what exactly is this new 'the thing' doing to the carpenter remake of the thing from another world? oh... new cgi effects? wonderful. a girl playing the kurt russell role? fascinating change. and...........? what? what is the actual "new" take on the material?

    with what they've shown, and maybe MAYBE it's unfair to the filmmakers who, perhaps, have actually brought a new take on the carpenter material that they are deliberately NOT showing the new stuff in order to get people in the theaters by showing them the familiar, since apparently that is what brings people in to the theaters - show them what they know, show them everything, show them what they want to see -and they'll pay money to see what they already knew, what they've already seen, and only what they wanted to see.

    ok, given, that was harsh, but rant over. all smile!
    /create

  4. #4
    Sgt. At Arms Worf101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Troy, New York
    Posts
    4,288

    I beg to differe...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kam View Post
    mini rant.
    John Carpenter took an old sci-fi classic and updated it, changed it, made it his own, and, i'd argue to say, made a better movie than the original. it brought up new themes and new scary ideas that weren't in the original.
    Hold on there Babba Looie (see Quickdraw Mcgraw for a reference) but you just lost me with that statement. The original 1951 "The Thing (From Another World) is one of the finest films much less Sci/Fi films ever made. Even a cursory examination of the movie tomes will bear that out. Just last week Stephen King stated as much in his TCM documentary.

    Later that week on TCM John Carpenter, you know the guy that directed the version you love, was guest programer for the night... Which movie do you think he selected to show first? That's right you guessed it, Howard Hawks' masterpiece. I like and respect Carpenter's version, it's different, he made the thing his own, but superior to the original? Hardly! EVEN CARPENTER DOESN'T THINK SO! So much as I love and respect you my film making friend I have to call you on this one.

    Worf

  5. #5
    Kam
    Kam is offline
    filet - o - fish Kam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Worf101 View Post
    Hold on there Babb Looie (see Quickdraw Mcgraw for a reference) but you just lost me with that. The original 1951 "The Thing (From Another World) is one of the finest films much less Sci/Fi films ever made. Even a cursory examination of the movie tomes will bear that out. Just last week Stephen King stated as much in his TCM documentary.

    Later that week on TCM John Carpenter, you know the guy that directed the version you love, was guest programer for the night... Which movie do you think he selected to show first? That's right you guessed it. I like and respect Carpenters version, it's different, he made the thing his own, but superior? Hardly, EVEN HE DOESN'T THINK SO! So much as I love and respect you my film making friend I have to call you on this one.

    Worf
    aw yeah, let's fire up them guns! (this is gonna be long)

    I love the original, don't get me wrong, I think it's a fantastic movie. I also love John Carpenter's remake. I caught the tail end of Carpenter's programming and saw how much he respects the original. And thankfully (I would hope this much as well) he doesn't think his version is better. I would have less respect for him if he did make an arrogant gesture as to think his version is superior to the original that inspired it. "I" (and maybe just me) make the arguments that it is better (in some ways, ok i'll retract slightly my rant-filled blanket statement).

    He did what I think is generally an idiotic thing to do and made something great on its own. Here's my problems with remakes. Successful films are like lightning in a bottle. It's such a dynamic thing of all these creatives coming together at the right time at the right place with the right combination of things to make something genuinely fantastic that sometimes results in a 'phenomon' of its time (and in some cases timeless i.e. godfather 1/2). So to take something that was successful, and not just successful but considered to be timeless (in this case by the sci-fi community), and remake it, is like trying to capture lightning in a bottle twice. And by the number of successfull remakes out there, you can see how difficult it is to try and replicate lightning in a bottle. BUT, that's not what carpenter did. He wasn't trying to replicate what the original did, he truly did have a new take on that similar material.

    (Granted, again, I'm going by a trailer, which by design is their version of what will "sell" this movie to me. and by the trailer, the New Thing is exactly the same as Carpenter's Thing.)

    Carpenter did something that by itself is very difficult, capturing lightning in a bottle, let alone replicating those conditions to capture it again as a remake. I love 'em both, and will Carpenter's Thing have a 60 year legacy like the origina? We'll see. So far it's half way there and I still love it!

    If you want to argue that the original is better, I can't really disagree with you, it's shades of grey here. I do think the original is a fantastic movie. I think this is a very very very rare instance of a remake finding a new theme, a new idea, a new version of what's scary in the material that, arguably for me, makes it better than the original. Who knows, maybe if i watched them again next year I'll be happy to recant and say the original is better than the remake.

    And I'd be happy to recant everything about the New Thing if it really does explore something new that wasn't in either earlier version, but not the way they're selling it at least. They've lost me with their own selling tactics. Show me something different, otherwise I'll wait for it to stream on Netflix in 2 months with the way they're shortening release windows. (don't get me started on THAT rant!)
    /create

  6. #6
    3LB
    3LB is offline
    cunning linguist 3LB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    hiding out in treetops, shouting out rude names
    Posts
    1,737
    I liked the first remake of the Thing

    called, Alien


    As far as the rest, they can all wait for DVD, if I see them at all. I have no intentions of seeing the Rock'em Sock'em Robots movie. Nor have I ever cared for the any of the 3-Muskiteers movies. None. It'd be different if it were a string of movies, but each one is a remake of another and I don't get the draw. I didn't know these movies were that lucrative. I have yet to meet anyone who has actually spent money on renting one of the numerouos 3-Muskiteer movies, much less go to see it in theaters.
    Last edited by 3LB; 10-11-2011 at 02:33 PM.
    Repost this on your wall if you love Jesus.

  7. #7
    Suspended Smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    3,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack in Wilmington View Post
    Hey Smoke do we really need another Three Musketeers and The Thing.
    Don't know about Three Musketeers, but we probably don't need another remake of The Thing as it will be hard to top the previous two.

    I have to side with Kam (sorry Worf) and say liked the Carpenter version better than the original. Some of the special effects are really horrific, and casting Kurt Russel as the lead made the movie so much better.

    Quote Originally Posted by 3LB
    I didn't know these movies were that lucrative. I have yet to meet anyone who has actually spent money on renting one of the numerouos 3-Muskiteer movies, much less go to see it in theaters.
    These type of movies are more likely cater to international than domestic audience as oversea market is more lucrative for these type of 'action" American films. They seem to love action movies with alot of especial effects.

  8. #8
    Party People Registered Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    U.S. Canaway
    Posts
    1
    Reel Steel is the best movie for me my all family members are really likes watching this kind of movie.
    The Party Boutique : Fancy Party Supplies for the elegant Party, including disposable dishes: Plates, Glasses and bowls.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator Site Moderator JohnMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Central Ohio
    Posts
    6,307
    I am looking forward to seeing "Anonymous". Was the Bard illiterate and if so who wrote the plays, poems and sonnets?
    JohnMichael
    Vinyl Rega Planar 2, Incognito rewire, Deepgroove subplatter, ceramic bearing, Michell Technoweight, Rega 24V motor, TTPSU, FunkFirm Achroplat platter, Michael Lim top and bottom braces, 2 Rega feet and one RDC cones. Grado Sonata, Moon 110 LP phono.
    Digital
    Sony SCD-XA5400ES SACD/cd SID mat, Marantz SA 8001
    Int. Amp Krell S-300i
    Speaker
    Monitor Audio RS6
    Cables
    AQ SPKR and AQ XLR and IC

  10. #10
    Sgt. At Arms Worf101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Troy, New York
    Posts
    4,288

    Truth be told

    Quote Originally Posted by Kam View Post
    aw yeah, let's fire up them guns! (this is gonna be long)

    I love the original, don't get me wrong, I think it's a fantastic movie. I also love John Carpenter's remake. I caught the tail end of Carpenter's programming and saw how much he respects the original. And thankfully (I would hope this much as well) he doesn't think his version is better. I would have less respect for him if he did make an arrogant gesture as to think his version is superior to the original that inspired it. "I" (and maybe just me) make the arguments that it is better (in some ways, ok i'll retract slightly my rant-filled blanket statement).

    He did what I think is generally an idiotic thing to do and made something great on its own. Here's my problems with remakes. Successful films are like lightning in a bottle. It's such a dynamic thing of all these creatives coming together at the right time at the right place with the right combination of things to make something genuinely fantastic that sometimes results in a 'phenomon' of its time (and in some cases timeless i.e. godfather 1/2). So to take something that was successful, and not just successful but considered to be timeless (in this case by the sci-fi community), and remake it, is like trying to capture lightning in a bottle twice. And by the number of successfull remakes out there, you can see how difficult it is to try and replicate lightning in a bottle. BUT, that's not what carpenter did. He wasn't trying to replicate what the original did, he truly did have a new take on that similar material.

    (Granted, again, I'm going by a trailer, which by design is their version of what will "sell" this movie to me. and by the trailer, the New Thing is exactly the same as Carpenter's Thing.)

    Carpenter did something that by itself is very difficult, capturing lightning in a bottle, let alone replicating those conditions to capture it again as a remake. I love 'em both, and will Carpenter's Thing have a 60 year legacy like the origina? We'll see. So far it's half way there and I still love it!

    If you want to argue that the original is better, I can't really disagree with you, it's shades of grey here. I do think the original is a fantastic movie. I think this is a very very very rare instance of a remake finding a new theme, a new idea, a new version of what's scary in the material that, arguably for me, makes it better than the original. Who knows, maybe if i watched them again next year I'll be happy to recant and say the original is better than the remake.

    And I'd be happy to recant everything about the New Thing if it really does explore something new that wasn't in either earlier version, but not the way they're selling it at least. They've lost me with their own selling tactics. Show me something different, otherwise I'll wait for it to stream on Netflix in 2 months with the way they're shortening release windows. (don't get me started on THAT rant!)
    Truth be old, Carpenter's version is closer to the tenor of the original short story that inspired both films, John W. Cambell's 1938 Novella "Who Goes There?" What Hawks could only hint at lacking CGI and a big budget, Carpenter could do in all its gory glory. Still I find the tow films share little save a common liniage, physical setting and title. Hawks' movie is a Sci/fi-monster movie. Carpenters film is a horror film. The images used had never been seen before and are so horrific in nature that critics and filmakers at the time, panned the flick violently. Only in later years did Carpenters horror classic recieve the respect it desereved. Much like "Saving Private Ryan" changed war movies forever,

    As for the "remake", according to Wikipedia this film isn't a remake of Carpenters but a "prequel" to the events he depicted. For that reason we should give it a fair hearing/viewing.

    Worf

  11. #11
    Kam
    Kam is offline
    filet - o - fish Kam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Worf101 View Post
    Truth be old, Carpenter's version is closer to the tenor of the original short story that inspired both films, John W. Cambell's 1938 Novella "Who Goes There?" What Hawks could only hint at lacking CGI and a big budget, Carpenter could do in all its gory glory. Still I find the tow films share little save a common liniage, physical setting and title. Hawks' movie is a Sci/fi-monster movie. Carpenters film is a horror film. The images used had never been seen before and are so horrific in nature that critics and filmakers at the time, panned the flick violently. Only in later years did Carpenters horror classic recieve the respect it desereved. Much like "Saving Private Ryan" changed war movies forever,

    As for the "remake", according to Wikipedia this film isn't a remake of Carpenters but a "prequel" to the events he depicted. For that reason we should give it a fair hearing/viewing.

    Worf
    What I liked about the original as well (and here I go heaping more praise on the 'inferior' of the two movies) is I remember when I first saw it (I think i was 12 at the time) that I was conflicted about the scientist/doctor character and that upon a more recent viewing, I found myself siding with him a lot more. Although he was portrayed/directed/acted as a 'badguy', what he was saying was actually pretty spot-on. I'll have to see it again, but i'm pretty sure the scientist wasn't really trying to do anything bad, he was just disguised as the 'badguy'.

    And FINE fine fine... I won't condemn the New Thing into the pit with The Day Keanu Stood Still and Planet of The Apes and Mark Wahlberg just yet.... but I will condemn their marketing department and vote the only way I know how, with my hard earned dollars. It's not as bad as the Quarantine or Paranormal Activity trailers, but I'll stand by my original statement that they did nothing to entice me to see what I've seen.


    Now on a positive note, and to help promote something I do think is original, daring, and looks amazing, check out The Artist

    The Artist Trailer 2011 HD - YouTube

    With Jean DuJardin, who I think was absolutely fantastic in the OSS Series, which I'd also recommend checking out, both available on Netflix streaming too. That's something I will vote for and support.
    /create

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •