Confessions About Movies

[Alex]

I may be the exectpion here, but found the EXORCIST and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE to be exceptional films.

The Exorcist quite literally put me to sleep, but I enjoyed A Clockwork Orange.

[bob]

I may be the exectpion here, but found the EXORCIST and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE to be exceptional films.

[Cult_Moody_Movies]

Batman: TAS has far more mature performances over Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy (outside of Heath Ledger).

Kevin Conroy (voice actor of Batman: TAS) performing the final scene of The Dark Knight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8y1qyiSvR4

[Allhallowsday]

I may be the exectpion here, but found the EXORCIST and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE to be exceptional films.

You're not an exception, they are both exceptional.  I think THE EXORCIST is a masterpiece.  I've never liked A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. 

Glad to see you back!

[chainsaw midget]

Batman: TAS has far more mature performances over Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy (outside of Heath Ledger).

Ledger was a decent villain, but as the Joker he completely sucked.

Frankly, Nolan's entire Batman series felt to me like it was ashamed to be a superhero movie.  It was unnecessarily bleak, dull, and full of plot holes and lapses in logic. 

[M.10rda]

The film of AMERICAN PSYCHO could not be any more different from the book, imo. In terms of tone. I found the book intensely downbeat, claustrophobic, and extremely dark… the film was more like a borderline parody?

Oh don't get me started. Okay, you got me started. The novel is one of my favorite books - yes, extremely dark, downbeat, claustrophobic, far more graphic and sadistic than the movie, and yet also much, much, much funnier....... perhaps apropos to the recent conversation about Kubrick's use of humor in CLOCKWORK ORANGE. (Kubrick would've been an ideal director for AMERICAN PSYCHO, actually...)

The element that permits levity amidst the horrific violence is one I suspect even Mary Harron (oy) might've overlooked: in the novel (SPOILER), Patrick Bateman is not a prolific serial killer and in fact has likely harmed exactly no one, at least physically. (He does say some unkind things to his girlfriend, but she's no peach herself.) Rather the novel is a pretty comprehensive and profound illustration of a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote which accompanies the early editions iirc: "...Our own rejected thoughts... they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty." Patrick Bateman is a sad, desperate, lonely, frustrated man, but only a threat to himself. Maybe that explains why women (or I, a male reader) could feel sympathy or even affinity for Bateman. I don't have much in common w/ him but I have felt sad, desperate, lonely, and frustrated, and have been a threat only to myself. Sometimes ladies actually go for that! Bateman's  girl next door assistant Jean in the novel (Chloe Sevigny onscreen) still likes him at the end.

Also he's Christian Bale in the movie! That never hurts w/ the ladies. I would alter nearly every aspect of the film to closer resemble the book - except Bale. Bale is perfect - or close enough - and since he's onscreen nearly 100% of the time, his virtuoso work carries the project. It's every other element surrounding him that could use a complete rethinking or (minimally) a tonal adjustment.

(There's a confession of a sort for y'all!)

[Cult_Moody_Movies]

Batman: TAS has far more mature performances over Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy (outside of Heath Ledger).

Ledger was a decent villain, but as the Joker he completely sucked.

Frankly, Nolan's entire Batman series felt to me like it was ashamed to be a superhero movie.  It was unnecessarily bleak, dull, and full of plot holes and lapses in logic.  

Ditto. This has been a long term problem with comic adaptations or superhero media in general. Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns were the worst things to happen to comics/superheroes: Deconstruction and subversion. Not saying they are bad books (classics) but the impact has made every current creator thinking they need to do "MY OWN WATCHMEN". Every creator has taken these classic heroes and has tried to make them realistic, dark or completely mock the material. Guardians of the Galaxy was one of the few films I felt embraced the grand absurdity but remembered what makes them great: The characters.

On top of that we have TOO many of these bringing superheroes to "real world" or bringing "subversive" elements. Kick Ass, Invincible, The Boys, and even The Incredibles do this. I am just burnt out.

[Cult_Moody_Movies]

Starship Troopers is a great Paul Verhoeven film but a terrible adaptation of Starship Troopers.

[FatFreddysCat]

I have never seen E.T., any of the Karate Kid movies, or Better Off Dead, which I've been told is utterly bizarre for a child of the 80s.

[M.10rda]

I have never seen E.T., any of the Karate Kid movies, or Better Off Dead, which I've been told is utterly bizarre for a child of the 80s.

I thought E.T. was total crap when I saw it in the theater at age 5 and I've had no reason to ever want to reconsider that opinion. (Spielberg's made even worse films since...) So good for you for skippin' it.

You could likewise safely skip the KARATE KIDS - I only saw the first one, which was entertaining enough. The current COBRA KAI series, however, is actually pretty good fun, and you can enjoy it even if you never watched the movies.

BETTER OFF DEAD is indeed peculiar for its irreverent attitude to teen suicidal ideation. It's entertaining... though I would'nt call it great cinema or a must-watch.

[bob]

I have never seen E.T., any of the Karate Kid movies, or Better Off Dead, which I've been told is utterly bizarre for a child of the 80s.

I know I saw ET as a kid, but don't remember it

I know I didn't see Better Off Dead or any of the Karate Kid movies or the remake with Jackie Chan

[RCMerchant]

I have never seen E.T., any of the Karate Kid movies, or Better Off Dead, which I've been told is utterly bizarre for a child of the 80s.

I'm with you do this. Niether have I, or any desire to do so.

[Zapranoth]

This thread is kinda fun.

1.   Haven't watched any Fast and Furious / Furioser / Furiosest movies, and you couldn't make me if you used the getup from A Clockwork Orange.  Every time I see that podgy Vin Diesel all tryin to act tough I wanna beat him with a shovel.   Inane CG car races?   Aaaah.

2.     Adam Sandler is instantly and consistently irritating to me.  I could clean off the shovel and re-use it for most any Adam Sandler movie, with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions?  I can think of only one right ATM.

3.    Trauma laughter is a thing, agree.  When I was third year in med school we all watched a video of a manic patient as part of a psych lecture, and the guy was saying outrageous things (of course).  As an audience we had that kind of laughter ER is talking about, and we were scolded for it.  The lecturer actually took time to upbraid all 96 of us.  "You shouldn't laugh at this!"     Goes to show how much such people understand about human motivation sometimes.   We didn't think it was funny... we were shocked.         90% of Pulp Fiction's laughs are this kind.        "I didn't *mean* to shoot the son of a b***h!"

4.   Yeah, ET doesn't age well.     We've been on an 80's movie kick in the house (kids are mostly  late teens / early 20's) so we've watched The Goonies again, and Dragonslayer, and Krull (with RiffTrax -- have watched that one many times).     Labyrinth.    Dark Crystal.      The pacing of 80's movies is just a lot slower, and for some movies that works really well.   And for some, it's just really draggy pacing.   Going back and watching Poltergeist, it underwhelms now and feels more like just watching the 70's turning into the 80's, more than watching much of anything happen on film.     Dragonslayer still holds up well.    Krull is just great riffing fodder.    The Dark Crystal is still incredible looking, kids like that one.          But I really don't enjoy toiler humor-max stupid 80's movies.  I think that's my thing with Adam Sandler.

[Gabriel Knight]

I mean, if you're going to watch ET, you may as well go for STARMAN instead, which is like its "adult" version. I think it's a way better movie overall, especially because of Jeff Bridges' performance. Check out this trivia:

This script was being developed at "Columbia" at the same time as another script about an alien visitation. The studio did not want to make both, so the head of the studio had to choose which film to make; he decided to make this one and let the other script go to a rival studio. The other script was for "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)." After 'E.T.' became such a huge hit, apparently 'Starman' sat on the shelf for almost three years before the Columbia Pictures studio agreed to release it.

Actor Jeff Bridges studied ornithology and the behavior of birds to prepare for his role as an alien in human form for this movie. Bridges particularly used the sudden jerky head movements, amongst other nuances and mannerisms, of birds for his Starman character. Bridges figured that the alien would not have human characteristics and, being encased in a human body, would act with base primitive animal instincts.

[zombie no.one]

The film of AMERICAN PSYCHO could not be any more different from the book, imo. In terms of tone. I found the book intensely downbeat, claustrophobic, and extremely dark… the film was more like a borderline parody?

Oh don't get me started. Okay, you got me started. The novel is one of my favorite books - yes, extremely dark, downbeat, claustrophobic, far more graphic and sadistic than the movie, and yet also much, much, much funnier....... perhaps apropos to the recent conversation about Kubrick's use of humor in CLOCKWORK ORANGE. (Kubrick would've been an ideal director for AMERICAN PSYCHO, actually...)

The element that permits levity amidst the horrific violence is one I suspect even Mary Harron (oy) might've overlooked: in the novel (SPOILER), Patrick Bateman is not a prolific serial killer and in fact has likely harmed exactly no one, at least physically. (He does say some unkind things to his girlfriend, but she's no peach herself.) Rather the novel is a pretty comprehensive and profound illustration of a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote which accompanies the early editions iirc: "...Our own rejected thoughts... they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty." Patrick Bateman is a sad, desperate, lonely, frustrated man, but only a threat to himself. Maybe that explains why women (or I, a male reader) could feel sympathy or even affinity for Bateman. I don't have much in common w/ him but I have felt sad, desperate, lonely, and frustrated, and have been a threat only to myself. Sometimes ladies actually go for that! Bateman's  girl next door assistant Jean in the novel (Chloe Sevigny onscreen) still likes him at the end.

Also he's Christian Bale in the movie! That never hurts w/ the ladies. I would alter nearly every aspect of the film to closer resemble the book - except Bale. Bale is perfect - or close enough - and since he's onscreen nearly 100% of the time, his virtuoso work carries the project. It's every other element surrounding him that could use a complete rethinking or (minimally) a tonal adjustment.

(There's a confession of a sort for y'all!)

might sound weird but I think early-mid 90s Scorcese could've got AMERICAN PSYCHO right... the "you think I'm funny, like I'm a clown?" scene from GOODFELLAS. that's the kind of uncomfortably intense vibe I got from the book... although in some ways I think it's unfilmable. interesting to hear your thoughts on it though