Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:19 pm  

The Penguin wrote:

This.

Gomorrah is the only Mafia picture that truly has an air of authenticity. Don't get me wrong, I love a good gangster film - The Godfather is my all time favourite film - but for a true reflection of the misery and destruction these organisations wreak upon politics and civic life, Gomorrah (and the book is essential) is the only one that matters. It is absolutely brilliant. A rare example of a film that exhibits a genuine social purpose - like La Haine or the Battle of Algiers.

Agree totally.

I do love a gangster film too, but Gomorrah is the most realistic and believable film this genre has probably ever produced. Like you say, the book is genius too, but it's had its effects on Italian society - hasn't Saviano (the author) been living in police protection since publishing it?

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:37 pm  

AaronBull wrote:

Agree totally.

I do love a gangster film too, but Gomorrah is the most realistic and believable film this genre has probably ever produced. Like you say, the book is genius too, but it's had its effects on Italian society - hasn't Saviano (the author) been living in police protection since publishing it?

He has. 24 hour bodyguard cover - he has received numerous threats to his life since publishing the book. There is an excellent interview with him on the BBC2 Culture Show (available via certain video sharing sites) where he talks about his life post-publication and how in many ways it has ruined his life. It's an incredibly daring, brave piece of work and I can't praise him enough.

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:19 pm  

Find myself increasingly baffled by the whole 'John Carter' cock-up. Wouldn't normally comment but this smacks of irresponsibility and incompetence. Firstly - what sort of studio puts a quarter of a billion dollars into a film in the current climate? I read somewhere recently studios were (wisely) avoiding major gambles and taking safe, relatively inexpensive options rather than huge blockbusters - especially on what is a gamble. Secondly - why a film based on these books? I read A LOT and love sci-fi novels, and I've never heard of them. I doubt most people have, and if they have I doubt they have any special affinity to them. Someone's done a belting sales job on the studio there. Even the formula is flawed - as the chap at the BBC stated, period dramas very rarely do well, and films involving Mars rarely do well. Of course, there are exceptions, but put the two together and the result isn't hard to predict. Thirdly - given Disney spent an astounding $100 million on marketing, I'd never heard of it until very recently. Caught the back end of an interview with Willem Dafoe a week or two ago and that was the first I'd ever heard of it. Some marketing genius needs a major slap on the wrist. A few others issues I have with it - the blend of CGI and real-life action, just doesn't work unless in small doses either way. CGI is increasingly fantastic but still stands starkly out as animation out against real-life. And even the trailer soundtrack - a horrible remash of Led Zeppelin's Kashmir, immediately gives me the impression it's a cheap effort and does it no favours. I find the whole thing simply astonishing. But I'll probably still watch it at my first (free) opportunity.

Find myself increasingly baffled by the whole 'John Carter' cock-up. Wouldn't normally comment but this smacks of irresponsibility and incompetence. Firstly - what sort of studio puts a quarter of a billion dollars into a film in the current climate? I read somewhere recently studios were (wisely) avoiding major gambles and taking safe, relatively inexpensive options rather than huge blockbusters - especially on what is a gamble. Secondly - why a film based on these books? I read A LOT and love sci-fi novels, and I've never heard of them. I doubt most people have, and if they have I doubt they have any special affinity to them. Someone's done a belting sales job on the studio there. Even the formula is flawed - as the chap at the BBC stated, period dramas very rarely do well, and films involving Mars rarely do well. Of course, there are exceptions, but put the two together and the result isn't hard to predict. Thirdly - given Disney spent an astounding $100 million on marketing, I'd never heard of it until very recently. Caught the back end of an interview with Willem Dafoe a week or two ago and that was the first I'd ever heard of it. Some marketing genius needs a major slap on the wrist. A few others issues I have with it - the blend of CGI and real-life action, just doesn't work unless in small doses either way. CGI is increasingly fantastic but still stands starkly out as animation out against real-life. And even the trailer soundtrack - a horrible remash of Led Zeppelin's Kashmir, immediately gives me the impression it's a cheap effort and does it no favours. I find the whole thing simply astonishing. But I'll probably still watch it at my first (free) opportunity.

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:31 pm  

Cronus wrote:

snip

Perhaps you're not their target market. Maybe they're going for the "I'll watch anything with guns, explosions and special effects in" crowd.

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:41 pm  

The market known as 'people who watch Transformers'

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:52 pm  

McClennan wrote:

Perhaps you're not their target market. Maybe they're going for the "I'll watch anything with guns, explosions and special effects in" crowd.

I don't think they really knew who their target market was, and that was part of the problem.

I'm not even sure the guns & explosions crowd would find it attractive.

Or the Transformers crowd for that matter. No 30-foot robots, you see. I watched Transformers simply because I loved them as a kid and I'll be a sucker for them for that reason only.

Seems to me their market is the sort of person who enjoyed 'Final Fantasy'. Which also bombed.

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:30 am  

I read a couple of John Carter books as a kid and don't remember them being much cop - the whole Mars thing being completely irrelevant (could easily have been Journey to the Centre of the Earth). Mind you, I also read several Tarzan books and wouldn't have banked on them being successful if I hadn't known anything about them.

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:31 pm  

Cheers for the Mafia suggestions all. On my list!

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:48 pm  

I went to see Act of Valor over the weekend.

Firstly it was really refreshing to see to a modern American War film that isn't packed full of the over top jingoism that you seem to see nowadays. It made the film so much the better for it, you could connect with the characters instead of almost wanting them to get shot or blown up.

Considering all the main characters involved were all real US Navy SEALS in effect playing themselves, it was rather well acted. I loved the first person shooter camera angles that were used, at times it was like watching a more realistic version of Call Of Duty.

If you like war films it's definitely worth a watch.

[TimperleySaint]

Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:27 pm  

Anyone seen The Hunger Games yet? Have read all three books, just wondering if anyone has read the first book and then seen the film has any views on how it translates on the screen?