Recent comments in /f/movies

DrRexMorman t1_jdufrp5 wrote

Julia Roberts did study acting.

Jimmy Stewart, Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, Tilda Swinton, Humphrey Bogart, Jack Nicholson, Jean Gabin, Sidney Poitier, Anthony Quinn, Amy Adams, and Tommy Jones all had apprenticeships as repertory players in theater companies.

Most of the rest were child stars or had family connections to industry.

Renee Zellweger (who acted in college) and Jonny Depp found their way to it.

2

Waste-Replacement232 t1_jduer3l wrote

I liked the movie but thought it petered out at the end. Then I read the book and got angry that the movie changed so much about the ending.

The ending in the book felt satisfying regarding who died and what did or didn’t get wrapped up. The movie was less predictable but also less satisfying

1

drunk_me t1_jdueh8v wrote

I have to thoroughly disagree with you on this one. You just described camp! The movie is intentionally and unapologetically ridiculous. It’s both a parody and a love letter to old B roll genre films. I genuinely love it even outside of the shadow cast screenings. It always makes me sad when people show up to those screenings to make fun of the film rather than enhance the experience of watching something we all love.

3

donsanedrin t1_jducau0 wrote

Well, I'm sure he was working around the limitation that it was his first movie and it was going to have almost no budget.

According to IMDB trivia, they didn't even have a wardrobe budget. All scenes before they wear black suits, the actors were asked to bring their own clothes. And the black suits were provided for free.

That was actually Michael Madsen's own car.

They kinda had to do some gorilla filmmaking. Buscemi's scene where he takes the car was done when there were no cars at that intersection. And I believe I had heard that Buscemi and the cops chasing after him on that sidewalk, they simply ran around real people that were on that sidewalk.

Seeing as though he was going to film it originally without any professional actors, Tarantino already had to make the script be as budget-friendly as possible. Once the script got in the hands of Harvey Keitel, he helped raise a little money and brought in actual actors.

I remember finally watching the movie on DVD about 20 years ago, that the audio in the movie appeared to be of higher quality than the visual aspect of the film. Seems like they wisely spent what small budget they had on that.

I'm always fascinated with movies that you can tell the premise and setting of the movie is based entirely on the fact that its low budget and they're trying to shoot in as few locations as possible. I remember watching a trailer recently for a movie in which everything takes place in a warehouse because its a photo shoot. And the photographer, assistants, make-up artists, and models are all having conversations with one another in the same area. The more I forgot that the movie is filmed in one area, the more impressive it is.

5

terrance_vo t1_jdu8xlg wrote

I believe it is what they were fated to do based on their visions, and they could not deviate from their plans. They wanted to save the world. If the horsemen just walked away, they believed that humanity would die. >!Each of them (except for maybe Redmond) had loved ones they were trying to get back to or at least save)!<. It's alluded to (and assumed) that the disasters were on a set schedule and were not going to be stopped without a sacrifice. Their deaths were symbolic and to push the choice that Andrew and Eric were required to make. If the couple had made the choice to sacrifice at the beginning, or before >!Leonard's death!<, then one or more horsemen would have survived.

3

SharksFan4Lifee t1_jdu4syd wrote

Saw it today too. It was OK. Needed to cut about 30 mins out of it. No business being 2 hrs, 14 mins. Also, most of the jokes fell very flat.

At about the 30 min mark, I decided I didn't like the movie. But the rest of the movie grew on me. That first 30 mins should have been cut down to 5-10. It takes a LONG time to get the whole gang together.

And minus points for Regé-Jean Page barely being in the movie.

1

NoSpoon3621 t1_jdu454u wrote

I even liked those straight to dvd DnD movies from the early 2000's, the nerd in me will always be apologetic to any attempt of a DnD flick even if it's suck. So, good to know.

1

dirtymoney t1_jdu44og wrote

I hate what they did to D&D movies. How they are kind of like a comedy.

It is like it is the only way to make it appeal to a wider audience. I wish they were serious like the D&D books I used to read

Hollywood always has to mess with things (change it).

3

twotailedwolf t1_jdu3fkq wrote

> jiggling on my couch

That means you didn't watch it at midnight with a live cast. So you remain a rocky virgin. That's sad because the movie itself, is actually terrible. Like, its not a good movie by any measure. The plot is nonsensical and the performances, with the exception of Tim Curry, are awful. That's why going at midnight with the live audience is fun. The true experience is being part of the audience call backs and being beyond offensive. Example:

>Upon Doctor Scott's (sex tutor, ex Nazi) entrance into Frank's lab, he rolls down the ramp in his wheelchair. Brad, like the asshole he is, exclaims "Great Scott!" To which the audience would typically reply "No, its just mediocre Scott. If he was great Scott, he'd be walking down that ramp."

It is one hell of a wonderfully queer movie though whether you see it in person or masturbate at home to rocky, which what watching it at home is called. I recommend you see it live and lose your virginity as soon as possible.

−5

Tubie123 t1_jdu2v61 wrote

Yeah it was ok.

Thing is M Night is so known for twists that expecting a twist almost becomes a distraction. This was all pretty straight forward even though I think we were supposed to questioning if it was really happening or not.

4