yeah...
like
FUCK YEAH

in that context - sean bean, fuck yeah.
peter dinklage, also, fuck yeah.
and beyond that still, good yeah etc. 

I really wanted that to be awesome. How many eps in is that? 

and it's only 2 episodes in

but the sheer idea of r-rated fantasy using castles as sets, and the plot of the books (christ, Stringer Bell or Tony Soprano would be fooled in this place)...
Its just (as they said in Braveheart) "a nestascheminbastads!" 

i remember sighing in relief when reading these.
i had just finished the WoT series (up to where RJ died, not sanderson's stuff) and i was so relieved that the asoiaf series didn't have so many contrived bullshit things or cheesy characters.

honestly, it would take the tv guys a lot of effort to fuck this up. the books provide an excellent story and doing it as a series instead of a one off movie will give enough time to properly tell the story. 

Seems nice enough so far, quite faithful to the books. The first episode might be pretty confusing to people who haven't read it though, I know alot of people who missed some key points to it (mostly the family relations of people, for instance who the queen is, and who her brother is, etc).
Good work HBOoobs. 

Okay watched For a few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad & The Ugly. You're right nitin they are even better than the first.

The Good I'd put in my top 10 greatest movies. It was lacking that good vs evil that the previous 2 films had (Tuco wasn't a classic villain and angel eyes wasn't in the movie enough), and it was disappointing that Tuco (The Ugly) was the lead character rather than Blondie (Eastwood), even if that wasn't intended. More character building for Blondie was needed, rather than Tuco. Or maybe ditch the pointless (storywise) bridge blowup scene to give some more life and backstory to Blondie.

The other big flaw were the similarities it shares with the previous films in particular Eastwood's character (I cringed when he put the poncho on), even though they're completely unrelated films and different characters.

I kept thinking is this SUPPOSED to be a prequel or not (since it takes place 30 yrs before the other 2), and that's why angel eyes is rich in the second film??? But surely blondie will remember him... As good as angel eyes was, they should have used a different characters.

Anyway, minor flaws aside it's brilliant.

I enjoyed For a few Dollars More just as much, but it doesn't make the top 10 because it wasn't really as epic and unique.

Look forward Once upon a time... 

Different actor for angel eyes, I mean.

It's like using Robert Patrick to play John Connor in T4. Just confusing. 

i've heard those three films are sometimes called an unofficial trilogy. in retrospect, it would have been really cool if they had been. still, all excellent on their own. 

thematically and stylistically with nods to the other films (like the poncho scene kona mentioned).

As for Blondie's character, IMHO the civil war sequence tells you all you need to know about the character. 

Hitchcock. Genius. Check it out.

About a couple of prep school grads who start the movie off by murdering a colleague in cold blood, stuff him into a chest and then host a dinner party on his corpse, under the unsuspecting noses of their guests. That's where Jimmy Stewart, their former professor, picks up on their mannerisms and notices something is amiss...

Yeah, it's pretty bloody good. One continuous shot (not really, but it's like one long scene), pretty ballsy and I think works wonderfully. 

but get onto Notorious zwiffle! 

It's in the queue! (I bumped it up to #1 on your recommendation.) 

The Kingdom (2007)
Utter rubbish. Watch it if you consider modern Call of Duty to be the pinnacle of gaming. 

Lynch has more leeway than most for self indulgence with me, but this was utter shit. Utter shit that looked terrible and also didnt feature his trademark eerie sound desing.

Hopefully if he's going to stay digital, he at least shoots with the Red One camera from now on. 

one mid movie action scene aside, I though this was terrible. The long action sequence at the end was edited to oblivion and most of it just sucked. 

Just rewatching this, it really is a wonderful show. Loving attention to the characters, great dialogue. How did Joss Whedon do it? Why isn't there more of it? Why does my heart beat faster when Captain Mal comes on screen? Am I in love?

What is love? 

yeah Nitin I totally agree. My expectations were realistic but completely undershot. It's hard to like it as a big dum shooter: every scene drags on, full of blabbering dialogue that flails and desperately clasps at something that conveys actual human interaction. The plot is dull, the actors show zero charisma, and the fight scenes suck.

Stallone claimed he wrote 100 drafts of the script. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he decided to film the last one. What a terrifying world we live in when there are 99 worse scripts out there. And how many more revisions would be needed before reading the script would be preferable to teabagging a blender? A thousand? Ten thousand? 

The narration and the slow beginning gave me a poor initial impression. Having the producer of the movie narrate just threw me out of the noir that I wanted to enjoy.

The movie does pick up near the end, and I did enjoy the hunt for Garza. It was interesting to see how he began making mistakes the tighter the noose around his neck got.

I probably ended up missing a lot of good scenes though, because I did get kind of bored with it and ended up working on some Quake mappery while the movie was on, just sort of glancing back every once in a while.

So while this review is kind of worthless, I will say that the beginning was kind of lame, but the end seemed to pick up the pace and set the tone better. 

Rubber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joI-uU86NXw

Sadly they put in another "level" with a group of people who watch the story as a movie (with binoculars in the field), comment it and become part of the story. Overall that made it artsy and stupid. Bad choice with the girl with eastern accent, she sounded retarted (no offense) until I realised it was an accent and even then it was just dumb. Such a shame, it could have been a cool horror persiflage. 

but it has kind of dated.

Try out some of Jules Dassin's other noirs, especially Night and the City and Brute Force. 

Not as hard boiled as I would have liked, just a story about Jimmy Stewart, a newspaper journalist, who's out to prove the innocence of a supposed cop killer who's been in jail for 11 years. Mostly just a mystery, but I thought it was pretty intriguing throughout. Needless to say, in the end he proves the guy's innocence and everyone lives happily ever after (no surprise) but the movie itself kept my attention. 

but I thought it started dragging a bit when they went through the procedural stuff in too much deatil at the end. 

A little too clever for its own good. Its a smartass movie. Not really very entertaining. Its like scanners meets herbie. 

I'd seen a few silents so far but was still a little hesitant in approaching 2.5 hr german silent from 1927.

Didnt matter, brilliant stuff from start to finish. Easily Fritz Lang's best and that's saying a lot when you consider Scarlet Street. 

i've never watched a silent before (come to think of it i can probably count the number of B&W films i've seen on one hand too) but been interested in checking metropolis out. premise looks interesting.

anyway, recent musings...:-


on kaufman...

adaptation (2002) - brilliant. such a warped idea, executed to perfection with so many clever touches. one of those films i immediately wanted to re-watch just to take everything in again. some laugh-out-loud moments too. probably my favourite nick cage film

also tried re-watching eternal sunshine of the spotless mind (2004) to see if i could appreciate it more but it's still kinda lost on me. well written & performed with some touching moments, but joel's erasing process (which takes up the majority of the film) was just too disorientating for me to enjoy. it reminded me of being smashed out of my face on ketamine on a comedown a few years ago, getting lost in multiple realities where nothing quite made any sense (not always a pleasant experience, fyi). i might have better appreciated such headfuckery in a darker, more horror-orientated film (1408 springs to mind) but it felt out of place in what is essentially a romance drama


on cronenberg:

videodrome (1983) - another film that traverses multiple realities without always making apparent sense, but this one i liked. had a similar feel to existenz, albeit not as clear (in terms of both what was actually happening and the underlying messages) and rather more dark. ending was pretty harrowing

the fly (1986) - rather more straightforward... and gruesome! but decent enough. goldblum is superb. but yeah not one i'm in a hurry to watch again =)

have scanners & naked lunch still to watch.


on shit films:

fast 5 (2011) - shit in a fun way. there was enough ridiculously OTT action and comically wooden acting to make it semi-worthwhile. the third act car chase is completely stupid but brilliant at the same time

the green hornet (2011) - this was just shit in a shit way. stupid, unfunny & terribly written with characters ranging from pointless to highly irritating, and even the action scenes are spoilt with silly effects. avoid!

sucker punch (2011)...... okay i actually really enjoyed this. i know i shouldn't have. looked fantastic. action scenes felt like epic FPS boss battles! some great music too (that where is my mind cover nearly brought a tear to my eye...) some shades of poignancy in the end too. no really! agh who am i kidding, it has a average of 33% on metacritic, make your own mind up. i was on a hot date so that *MAY* have been a contributing factor...