In fairness though, a lot of movies based on books do suck a lot, but probably not at a higher percentage that movies NOT based on books suck. I doubt there's much difference between book-movies sucking and original movies sucking, given that the screenplays have to go through similar approval processes no matter what they're based on. Producers might be in a hurry to get their hands on a screenplay adapted from a book by a popular author, but then they would probably feel the same about a screenplay by a popular screenwriter.

Hollywood tends to make a "few changes" when making a movie off of a book. In some movies, it turns out great (E.g. Harry Potter, The Warriors). In other movies, it ruins it (e.g. Diary of a Wimpy Kid, Peter Jackson & the Olympians).

Did no one actually pick up on why I asked this question in the first place?

@failsafe: Tru dat. U ryte. *rasta snap*

It's almost 2013. Darkeningday, talk about a movie. I'm ready to CLASH GLORIOUSLY

The Hobbit was fucking brilliant. Easily a 9/10.

I....I can't disprove that cause I haven't seen it (nor want to) but you're joking, right?

Actually, no. I honestly much preferred it to the overblown LotR films... will write more later when sober.

Why do people say "overblown" as if it's a bad thing? When did being grandiose become a flaw?

(The answer is never.)

LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, REMADE BY MICHEAL BAY! SHIA LEBOEUF AS FRODO! WITH A SOUNDTRACK BY NIGHTWISH! YEAH!

Michael Bay isn't grandiose, though. Neither is Shia LeBouf. Jingling shiny keys != grand. Stuttering and stammering != sweeping.

A more accurate analogy would be "Directed by Hiroyuki Imaishi, Christopher Lloyd as Frodo".

Michael Bay is the deathcore of movie directors.

"What can we do in the end? We've got the Shire."

let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor....

"The fires of Isengard will spread, and the forests of Tuckborough and Buckland will burn. And all that was once green and good in this world will be gone.........There won't be a Shire, Pippin"

let the bodies hit tha....FLOOOORRRRRR

And of course he'd re-write the end so Sauron manages to become corporeal and is even bigger and badder than before, then there's a 1-hour action sequence filled with explosions where Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragorn team up to defeat him. Also Legolas is recast as a woman for tons of slow-mo shots of boobs, butts, etc. Sam is ALSO recast as a woman, i.e. Samantha, and ends up boning Frodo because teenage boys don't like things that even begin to resemble homoeroticism but demand sexy ass wiminz.

However, both Legolas and Sam would have even fewer lines than before.

Very much looking forward to October. Can't wait for the third movie in the Blood and Ice Cream trilogy, The World's End.

Absolon: A low-budget Canadian sci-fi flick. Really cheap writing and acting as well as wardrobe. The budget really shows here.

There Will Be Blood: Seen it before and everyone's probably seen it already, but it was more effective the second time around really. I didn't remember Daniel being so violent even though it's a strong point in the film. I'm not sure what I was doing the first time around since I didn't really like it that much.

Marianne: A low-budget Swedish horror film about sleep paralysis and what it is attributed to in Swedish folklore - a vengeful woman back from the dead. Even if it's low on the budget, it only really shows in the daylight outdoors shots which are pretty shoddy. It's a very effective film about domestic troubles that is actually scary a few times. At times it really effectively drives the horror home, even though the background crew have watched their Jap-horrors with the way the presence of the horror is always announced with aural and visual effects. Very reminiscent of F.E.A.R. actually so might've been that.

Well I saw Life of Pi yesterday since it only came out here on new years day, and I was pleasantly surprised. For a movie about a guy sitting on a raft with a tiger it somehow manages to be visually incredible. It is rather fantastical, which I kind of rolled my eyes at when some of it was happening, but the conclusion kinda made me feel like a dick for doing it, and made me reflect on the film with a major change of heart. While as an argument for believing in God it is an extremely weak argument from adverse consequences, and glorifies self delusion, but it is very touching nonetheless, but it did make me feel a certainly affection towards to more imaginative side of things. Well acted, well directed, wonderfully shot and charming, one of the best movies I've seen at the cinema for quite a while. 8.5/10

I watched Pootie Tang because The_Beast_In_Black told me it was terrible and it was directed by Louis C.K. I honestly don't know what to say. That movie was STUPID. Have no doubt about that. Some call it one of the worse movies ever. But it was so enjoyable and I actually laughed out loud a few times. The writing really throws all kinds of ridiculousness in there and I'm pretty sure it makes up a few stereotypes of it's own. There's pretty much five jokes in the entire thing, played up or down in various ways. The gibberish, ''cool'' talking of the main character gets less funny after a while but the movie just delights in it's own weirdness. Funnily enough, it follows all the steps of the hero's journey and could be seen as a hero movie. Anyways, all of you Bridesmaids and MacGruber lovers, you have this against me now

Halfway through Looper and it's utterly abysmal. I usually don't drop movies halfway through, but I'm seriously considering it...

EDIT: finished it, unfortunately. Being generous, 1/10. If you like pretentious paradox time travel movies with decent directing and below terrible writing, you'll probably love Looper.

Haha Pootie Tang rules and is genuinely funny. Haters gonna hate.

Wadatah my daimie, wadatah.

Highlander: It was a good movie and all, quite epic in scope, with Sean Connery being badass, cool swordfights, music by Queen (!!!!!), a stereotypical bad guy with no motivation beyond being evil (and there can be only Huan) but what was with the main guy's voice? Not only did he sound like a huuuuuugggeeee puss, but his accent was most definitely not Scottish. It was this weird kind of half French/half what the fuck ever thing that just made me laugh.

This has been a classic among my friends and I since childhood. Of course it's stupid, but it's awesome.

All I really remember from it is the passionate silent recording.

Hahaha, that part was amazing.

I actually liked that movie, didnt think it was that bad lol.

Anyways, I saw Reacher. I liked the books so I didn't expect to much from the movie. Was quite wrong. Pretty awesome movie, and even though I think Tom Cruise was completely wrong for the movie, he did an awesome job. 8/10

That's possibly because the glorious Christopher Lambert - one of my first childhood crushes - lives and works mostly in France, though he was born in the US. I grew up with his fantasy movies (the Highlander series and Mortal Kombat) because my mother's a huge fan; I think I saw the first Highlander about half a dozen times before I turned 5. So, yeah, I'm incapable of objectivity here - the series is uproariously cheesy, the effects beyond bad, but, damn, I love it.

Highlander would have been sooooo much better with a different actor in the main role, but the villain was FANTASTIC.

HAPPY HALLOWEEN LADIES

Highlander is so terrible, but so funny. My friends and I had a ball watching that early last year...so gloriously cheesy and ridiculous, with so many great scenes. I remember this one scene where Christopher Lambert goes over to the main girl's house while they're getting ready for a "date" and it was just full of so much silly acting, ridiculous facial expressions, etc. A real hoot. And yeah the villain was great - that scene where he goes for a joy ride with this old lady is one of the best in the movie. And the one where he's in church...

That explains the ridiculousness of his accent then He looks so much like a young Thomas Jane in that movie, I kept wondering if it was him.

Last night I saw the new Tarantino movie Django. Great movie, though a slight step down from his other recent films (I'd give it a 8/10, whereas I would give Inglourious Basterds and Kill Bill 9/10, Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction 10/10, Jackie Brown 7/10, and Deathproof 5/10). Great acting on part by Christophe Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio especially. Christophe Waltz was awesome as Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds, and essentially reprised the same type of fun charismatic badass killer. Leonardo DiCaprio as a sadistic villain was interesting to see as well. One thing that stood out to me was a very subtle reference they made. Some backstory: My grandfather was a director in the 1940's through the 70's or thereabouts. He wasn't hugely noteworthy, but directed some second tier spaghetti westerns and horror/B movies from the time, and a lot of TV episodes (Bonanza, Flipper, Daktari, Lone Ranger, and The Cisco Kid are the most notable shows he worked on). Well, in Django's credits, a character is billed as "Son of a Gunfighter" and another as "Daughter of Son of a Gunfighter." This piqued my interest because Son of a Gunfighter was one of my grandfather's movies. So when I looked into it further, I found that the actor billed in that role was Russ Tamlyn, the lead actor in my grandfather's movie. Subtle reference since I'm sure many people have never heard of, let alone seen, Son of a Gunfighter, but I thought it was cool that Tarantino included that little reference/cameo role in there.

^ I don't have much interest in that style of movie, but that is a nice allusion there. Props to Tarantino for that one.

Yeah, my interest is mostly based on the family connection. My grandfather was by no means a unique or amazing director. He didn't push boundaries or reinvent genres, hell, he never even wrote his own screenplay for his own pet project film. He was more or less the working stiff type of director who took projects as they were available to him, and made good money to support his family on, but by no means enough to buy a ranch and summer home in every corner of the world.

With that in mind, I thought it was pretty cool to see Tarantino reference a movie I really don't think many people would know of or care about, especially nowadays since it's probably not a film that ever even got the DVD treatment (my parents own a VHS copy from god knows when).

So I watched a whole lot of Joseph Gordon Levitt movies. It was completely unplanned in beginning as I started off with 'Looper' about two weeks ago, then I moved on to 'Premium Rush' and a while back I watched '50/50'. What strikes me about his acting is that he's not protagonist material and that in a way, let's the actual story come to the fore rather than let the movie be more character driven. Does it work? Meh, it depends I suppose. I think he's a good actor, not very versatile though. Here's what I thought about the aforementioned movies.

Looper: I had heard that people (not on MA) were having difficulty understanding the movie. Jeez, the moment I caught wind of the plot, I let out an internal laugh. The movie was mediocre at best. Apart from Joseph Gordon Levitt (with his put-on forehead wrinkles) and Bruce Willis sort of resembling each other, there was nothing striking about the movie. I wasn't even convinced about all that telekinesis mumbojumbo featured in the movie. I remember watching the trailer last year and it really made me have high hopes about the movie.
Rating: 4/10

Premium Rush: I won't really delve into the details because the movie is a pretty standard hero saves the day kinda story except that there are some pretty cool bicycle chase scenes.
Rating: 6.5/10

50/50: I enjoyed this movie to be honest and I think Joseph is best suited in such movies. His character comes to terms with being diagnosed with cancer and the story weaves around that. The movie felt real to me because it wasn't dominated by a strong lead actor. The movie flowed along with ease and it was a good watch. For those wanting to know the genre, it's a drama with some comedic moments. Anna Kendric plays her part well. Absolutely adore her but that has nothing to do with why I enjoyed it (I think). And Seth Rogen, who is usually annoying, plays a supporting role which is only mildly annoying. All in all, it's not a great movie but it's a good casual watch.
Rating: 8/10

http://www.youtube.com/evildeadmovie

Thoughts on the Evil Dead remake's red band trailer: infinitely better than the previous one. The last trailer made the movie look extremely generic and like they just watched The Cabin in the Woods and not realized that was a satire. This one however looks fucking FREAKY.

For Joseph Gordon-Levitt, watch Brick and Mysterious Skin. I think 50/50 is his best, but those two are very close behind. After 50/50 he started doing some really lame roles like TDKR and Looper though...though Looper wasn't too bad really. Not as weak as TDKR at any rate for an action movie.

Looper was awesome, y'all are nuts. Easily one of the best sci-fi films to come out in the last decade. Rian Johnson's earlier film with Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Brick, is even better however. The premise is a wacky (neo-noir crime thriller set in high school) but it's played totally straight rather than for laughs, and the plotting, characterization, and dialog are very tight. It's not a 'high school movie' by any means, rather the setting serves to cast the noir archetypes in a new light.

Also JGL is good in The Lookout, where he plays a guy who in high school got into a car accident through reckless driving, resulting in serious brain damage - years afterward he barely holds down a job as a janitor at a local bank and still feels serious guilt and depression over the whole incident. However, he gets taken under the wing of a charismatic criminal, who of course wants him to help with a planned robbery of the bank where JGL's character is employed (hence the title). It's a fairly simple plot, but the real interest comes from the strong and realistic characterization of the brain-damaged character as well as a surprising role from Jeff Daniels as his blind roommate, whom he has been placed with by the state. It's a rather depressing movie with no easy answers, with solid performances from JGL and Daniels especially.

Brick is fucking dope. But, yeah I'm with FsM, Looper was loads of fun.

Haven't seen Looper or Premium Rush yet. Looper I've heard nothing but good things about.

I liked Looper actually, was a fun flick. It's just that it wasn't as good as I expected. I mean I was fucking hyped when I saw the trailer - this was the one I was waiting for all year basically, which is a big part of why I was let down; expectations are the big killer in the end. I thought Looper was too long, kinda melodramatic and pretty disjointed, though on the plus side it had a great atmosphere, great settings and an interesting premise to it. JGL's performance in it didn't particularly wow me though; felt restrained. And a lot of the time he just felt like a little kid on Halloween dressing up as Bruce Willis. Which was kind of entertaining at times but also distracting at others.

As for Brick, FSM hit the nail on the head, outstanding movie. It manages to be both hilarious (in how silly it is due to the whole noir thing being set in high school) and doubly intense and riveting because of that also - a really bizarre combination of something being offbeat and quirky but also very captivating and dramatic at the same time. I think knowing that Rian Johnson was capable of something like this movie also factored into why Looper underwhelmed me, as Looper just didn't have the same subtlety or grace to it, and sort of clunked along like a big clumsy thing instead.

Yeah, the high school setting is played so straight that after a while it just fades into the background. It's not played up for laughs except for a very few understated jokes, such as when the protagonist and a certain villain are in tense negotiations that could easily result in the former's untimely demise - except the negotiations can't start until the villain's mom has offered them all cookies, juice, milk, etc. Then she makes up some excuse to leave them alone - it's very funny until you realize from her actions (and lack of reaction when things get violent later) that she absolutely knows about her son's drug dealing and at least tacitly condones it, maybe even lives off of it herself. It's a very clever movie, but not one that gets obnoxious with its cleverness.