Jump to content

Home

Why don't we speak about cinema?


mapixx
 Share

Recommended Posts

I though Big Fish was pretty good - sort of like a Burton version of Forrest Gump. As for Kill Bill, it's currently Tarantino's second best to my mind - nothing beats Pulp Fiction. Rerservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown are both excellent, though. ;-

 

I still have most of my Dahl library, and I think Willy Wonka was the best adaption of the bunch - if only for the musical numbers. I liked The Witches too, but the ending totallly ruined it for me. Of course, in both cases the books are infinitely better.

 

It's interesting that apparently, Dahl hated all the film adaptions of his books. He should be glad that God struck him down before "Matilda" hit cinemas.

 

Still, I think Burton can pull off a good Chocolate Factory, and maybe even a Great Glass Elevator if all goes well.

 

Oh, and Shaun of the Dead is excellent. Go see it. If you're a fan of 'Spaced', I shouldn't have to tell you this. ;-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by scabb

It's interesting that apparently, Dahl hated all the film adaptions of his books. He should be glad that God struck him down before "Matilda" hit cinemas.

 

Interesting. I'm not surprised he hated them. There's lots of hidden black humor(humour?) in his books that the movies edited out.

 

For a good time, get the "Ronald Dahl's Revoting Rhymes" book. Its a thin little book but its gushing with dark humor.

 

Speaking of poetry and while we're still riding the Tim Burton wave, anyone ever read "The Meloncholy (sp?) Death of Oyster Boy"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that he just didn't like how "hollywood" it was. The screenplay was rewritten at one point, too.

 

The IMBD has this:

 

"Roald Dahl was reportedly so angry with the treatment of his book (mainly stemming from the massive rewrite by David Seltzer) that he refused permission for the book's sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, to be filmed. Seltzer had an idea for a new sequel, but legal issues meant that it never got off the ground."

 

 

I also came up with this:

 

"Roald Dahl wasn't the only person to dislike 1971's "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," based on the author's children's book, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." Tim Burton, who announced last May that he is directing a new version of the film, isn't a fan of the original either.

 

"Have you seen it lately? Personally, I don't want to crush people's childhood dreams but, um, I'd rate 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang' [also based on a Dahl book] much higher than that one."

 

Dahl's dissatisfaction with the 1971 film led his estate to resist Warner Bros.' attempts to obtain the rights for a remake, until they learned that Burton was on board to direct."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, yes, i did like it, as a movie of it's time, but against the book, it's just not that good. But I 'm not sure if I agree with scabb in saying it's the best Dahl adaptation to film, not that i've seen it in a while, but I'd have to compare it with the movie adaptation of 'Danny, Champion of the World'. Then again, I haven't seen it in a while, so I could be wrong.

 

I think we're living in a time now where we can handle movies with all of the dark undertones in Dahls book being inherent in a movie adaptation so this may actually be a good thing.

 

I do agree with the whole matilda thing though, that girl was blatently not Matilda, she seemed to enjoy life too much, whereas the one in the book was just trying to live life. All of the 'mischievouse' things she did to her father were in dark retaliation, not just for fun as the movie would have you believe, and in the end Matilda lost her power because she'd been moved up in the school. And the Trunchbol (sp?) was a lot darker than the basic brute in the movies. The history of the teacher was a lot better to.

 

You know what, I think we now have the technology on our hands to adapt my favorite Dahl book, 'Fantastic Mr Fox.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Breakfast at Tiffany's, I don't know if it is a stupid thing but there's a scene in which the actress says "Bill is arrived" (or something like that, I don't know how it sounds in English) and Bill actually is a hand with a ring in the same position as Bill's hand in volume 1 :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Have you seen it lately? Personally, I don't want to crush people's childhood dreams but, um, I'd rate 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang' [also based on a Dahl book] much higher than that one."

 

I know you didn't type that, but Ian Fleming wrote Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola: is it really a good movie?

I don't like it at all, except for the charachter of Van Helsing and maybe one or two scenes, directing was awful and Dracula more ridicolous than creepy...IMHO :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's an OK movie. Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing is certainly great. I don't like Keanu Reeves and can't stand Gary Oldman.

 

Things I do love about the movie is Wojciech Kilar's score and the opening scenes where you see the battle as a silhouette (also: cool language!). There are some other beautiful scenes, too.

 

Dracula @ imdb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

What about Darren Aronofsky?

I liked Requiem for a dream-Delusion Over Addiction, Ellen Burstyn is perfect, Jared Leto and Jennifer Connelly are good too

beautifully directed and splendid photograph, the story is intense and moving and not banal

now I'm going to watch Pi...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes and Pi makes you want to hug your maths teacher :D

It's even better than Requiem IMHO, the theme is less moving and that gives all the merits to Aronofsky (ad to a splendid Sean Gullette) for this deeply emotional film

I liked it very much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...