Boondock Saints 1 & 2 are good films. I'm not a fan of religion, but I just love their style and executions.
It definitely was different from other movies. A bit too chaotic for my liking, but Willem Dafoe was ****ing hilariously disturbing. The scene where he enters the one criminal's house as a woman had me yelling WTFFFFF the whole way through.
list of great oldish movies: forrest gump the shining all of those hitchcock films full metal jacket pulp fiction war of the worlds the day the earth stood still clockwork orange bruce lee films e.g. enter the dragon
I just wanna see some good movies (The Expendables was awful) and start catching the references. "Cool forum guy" is an oxymoron.
I really hope you're just being hyperbolic in that statement and don't actually believe that to be interested in movies, there is a set of movies you must first see before you're 'qualified', as it were. I agree there are classics you should see, but it's not imperative to your enjoyment of film to see them, especially not specific movies. If you're interested in the development, history, progress of film, sure, watching a good portion of landmark movies is recommended, but not every film buff is interested in film for those reason.
Sounds like I ruffled some feathers. I'm not the one that brought up "classics", I was just after more clarification. Depending on how you look at it, something as recent as The Dark Knight could be considered a classic, given it's popularity and the fact it's pretty likely to end up topping peoples "must-see" lists for years to come. On the other hand if he was talking about classics as in "staple films throughout the history of the medium", then the two I listed are must-see movies. If you're really into that side of being a film buff, you probably own those two.
It was more the phrasing of your reply that irked me somewhat, that you don't know anything about film if you haven't seen your two examples. It just made you come across as more of a film snob than a buff. I probably interpreted it too literally and you were in fact being hyperbolic?
Yes I was. I do own both of those films though, but there's a ton of old classics I haven't seen so I'm not even that much of a buff despite having a slight interest in it.
great movie - the book kills it - but the movie is perfect as far as movies go. Other movies similar and (equally as great in my eyes) - Factotum & Naked Lunch. Factotum is based on the book of the same name by Charles Bukowski, Naked Lunch is much more loose with its subject matter seamlessly combining both scenes from the book and from the authors (William S. Burroughs) life into a semi-biographical picture about the writing of Naked Lunch. Naked Lunch is not for the faint of heart. As far as movies not based on books - Southland Tales, Slipstream, Beetle Juice, The Last Waltz, and Being John Malkovich are all regular favorites for me.
The book and the movie are almost identical, you can read along to the movie as you watch. I started with the book, got confused, watched the movie then went and read the book again, it totally worked the second time and now I rate them both equally... and highly.
did any of you seen "requiem for a dream" this one is also a little bit weird and can be put in the same category as fear and loathing.
I'm with Midian on this, the movie was a great adaptation of a great book, I personally preferred the book, but then I love the writing of Hunter S Thompson.
The book has a far more real (despite being fiction based on fact) desperate biting tone compared to the relatively light comedic tone of the movie*. That being said - the movie is frame for frame cinematic genius and a movie I have watched at least 15 times in my life. *I realize that there are people out there that would not characterize the movie Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas as light comedy it is just that in contrast to the book you are seeing it acted out third person and it is (for me at least) more comical and losing of the desperation that permeates most of Hunter S. Thompson's work.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there, compared to the novel, the movie does feel lighter and more comical, whereas the novel tends to have it's gritty, scrambling areas, something that was either lost or purposefully weakened in the transition to film. I'd like to think it was an intentional decision, to increase the appeal of the film to a wider audience perhaps.
