April 30, 2011

Last Chance To See Atlas Shrugged!
— Ace

Okay, it's probably not the last chance, but the movie is struggling, and will soon be exiting theaters.

I delayed seeing it myself -- I kept meaning to, but didn't -- but I'm seeing it tomorrow.

Find the nearest theater here.

The critics lashed the movie scornfully, but what did anyone expect?

“Critics, you won,” said John Aglialoro, the businessman who spent 18 years and more than $20 million of his own money to make, distribute and market “Atlas Shrugged: Part 1,” which covers the first third of Rand’s dystopian novel. “I’m having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2.”…

...

“Why should I put up all of that money if the critics are coming in like lemmings?” Aglialoro said. “I’ll make my money back and I’ll make a profit, but do I wanna go and do two? Maybe I just wanna see my grandkids and go on strike.”

Now, the producer has changed his mind since that peeved reaction to the critics' peevish reaction, and says he'll go ahead with Parts 2 and 3.

And he defended his film Wednesday by accusing professional film reviewers of political bias. How else, he asks, to explain their distaste for a film that is liked by the audience? At Rottentomatoes.com, 7,400 people gave it an average 85% score.

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, though, gave the movie zero stars, and Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave it one. A dozen others were equally dismissive.

"It was a nihilistic craze," Aglialoro said. "Not in the history of Hollywood has 16 reviewers said the same low things about a movie.

"They're lemmings," he said. "What's their fear of Ayn Rand? They hate this woman. They hate individualism.

"I'm going to get a picture of Ebert and Travers and the rest of them so I can wake up in the morning and they'll be right there. They're revitalizing me with their outrageousness."

Aglialoro said he had to scale down his ambition for the film to be in 1,000 theaters this weekend, so it will likely be closer to 400. During its opening weekend, the movie took in $5,640 per screen but then only $1,890 in its second. Through Wednesday, the film had grossed $3.3 million since opening April 15.

This whole situation frustrates the hell out of conservative filmmaker Ladd Ehlinger, Jr.

Before I say this, please don't take this as carping at you -- it's carping at myself. Well, it's carping at all of us, including myself. I could have seen this April 15th and should have but I didn't. Because, in the end, I just said, "Eh, I'll wait."

On the one hand, Ladd wants to make conservatively-themed movies.

On the other hand, conservatives say they want to see conservatively-themed movies.

But on the other other hand, conservatives tend to not actually see the movies they say they want to see, and wind up instead only weakly supporting video rebuttals to Michael Moore -- that is, conservatives aren't seizing the initiative and supporting movies which can actually positively, proactively inject ideas into the public market, but tend instead to watch attack-videos on the liberal media, which is well and good -- but that's a negative, reactive posture. A pushback against a meme that's already been positively established by the media, not an actual pushing forward of the conservative idea in the first instance.

Over the course of many years I have tried to explain to you that you need to stop feeding Michael Moore.

I understand the need to drive up hits. And writing a blog about the Fat One's latest outrageously stupid comments or shenanigans is always a sure-fire way to get the faithful whipped up into a frothy frenzy.

But this is a short-sighted and harmful strategy in the cause of Liberty. It's even counter productive. Sort of like tinkering with the books to make your stock look better to investors.

When you feed the Fat One, you only make him stronger.

Meanwhile, filmmakers who are concerned with Liberty are left to die on the vine. Take, for instance, Andy Garcia.

He made a wonderful indie film called The Lost City back in 2005. Ever hear of it? No, because you were too busy carping about Michael Moore.

Congratulations, you screwed the cause of Liberty.

The Lost City was about the Cuban revolution, and more specifically, its effects on the musicians, dancers, and other artists in Havana. It deserved far more press than it got, and deserved far more air than Michael Moore's jockstrap got that year.

Ayn Rand is not, of course, what most of us would recognize as some sort of mainstream conservative. She's not.

But her main message of individualism, achievement, drive, and the natural rewards for such accruing to those who actually create things -- and her dire warning about the well-meaning slavery imposed by a state determined to coerce people into its conception of perfection -- is as conservative as it gets.

The dystopia depicted is claimed to be in 2016, after a hypothetical second term of Barack Obama, for crying out loud. It is essentially blaming Obama's policies for the dystopia.

And we're gonna pass on that?

Ultimately, Hollywood is, as John Landis said in an excellent documentary on grindhouse/exploitation movies called American Grindhouse, pretty reactionary. If something is proven to stoke audience interest and make money, there will be movies about that, whether it's nudie cutie exploitation films, or excessively gory exploitation films, or black-power pimp exploitation films, subversive/punk/biker exploitation films, or... or even conservative-ideology promoting films.

On the other hand, if topic is proven to be a box office loser, they won't make such movies.

Yes, I know, this is not an iron-clad rule because Landis didn't seem to know (or want to admit) that Hollywood has a strong liberal bias and will tend to make movies it knows (or should know) will lose money, as long as they can be proud of the message (Stop Loss, Lions for Lambs, and on and on and on), and will not make movies they know (or should know) will make money, if they disagree with the message (Passion of the Christ, which everyone passed on, and wouldn't even agree to exhibit in theaters).

Still, the bottom line is always important. There are in fact film-makers who want to make conservative movies. Furthermore, there are plenty of wealthy conservatives who would love to invest in a conservative movie... as long as they think there's a reasonable chance of getting at least most of their money back, and, who knows, maybe even turning a profit.

Like I said, I'm not scolding you. I'm writing this mostly to myself, because I've had the opportunity now two weekends running to support a conservative film and I just haven't. I've put up links and stuff but a link isn't a review. A link is just a Do as I say, not as I do.

I think many conservatives have just tuned out of a hostile culture to such an extent that they've fallen out of the simple habit of supporting arts and entertainment, the habit of just going to a theater to see a movie. If almost everything in the theaters is either politically hostile, or simply stupid and made for 14 year olds, why not just drop that habit entirely?

But there's a drawback to that, as is the case here, when a smart, well-intentioned conservative movie comes along, but still no one's really animated to go to the theaters and support it. Sure, we support it with good feelings, but good feelings don't pay production and distribution costs. Cash-money, which does.

Actually, the arrangement the producers of the film currently have with most exhibitors is that the producers are paying them a flat fee to show it, and then collecting the ticket receipts for it. Which means if each screening isn't reasonably well-attended, they're losing money, and not just on the film itself, but each time they show it to a mostly-empty theater.

Anyway, I really should have seen this two weeks ago. I'll see it tomorrow, promise. And I'll probably write an overly-long review that spills out into irrelevant tangents.

Still in theaters, for now.

Reviews From the Comments: Andrew Breitbart has probably read these. rickl--

Condensed version: Everybody go see it!

Ayn Rand had a few things to say about critics in her earlier novel The Fountainhead and they were not complimentary. It doesn't surprise me in the least that left-leaning critics would have an axe to grind. Zero stars? Seriously? I mean, come on.

I read the book years ago and I think the producers made the right decision by ruthlessly stripping out the subplots, minor characters, and speeches and concentrating on the main plot, which is fast-moving and quite entertaining. It's more important that the movie be seen by people who have never read the book than be loved by Rand fans.

Yes, it's a low-budget movie. There are no awe-inspiring sets or special effects. I'm glad there are no major stars. They would have drawn attention away from the story, and most of them are moonbats anyway.

It actually doesn't surprise me that the movie had a good opening weekend, then fell off sharply in the second week. Rand fans had been looking forward to it for over 50 years, so they all went to see it as soon as it opened. I guess the filmmakers are counting on word of mouth to bring in the non-Rand fans. I've been doing my part to recommend it. I don't know how influential my opinions are, though.

Mike the Moose:

I couldn't get to see it the weekend it opened. But come Thursday, I drug my 8.5 mo pregnant wife to a Theater miles away from home. I was not disappointed. Not in the least; the movie makes no apologies for conservatism and the success which is the lifeblood of industrialized society, nor affords any quarter for the destructiveness of liberalism. And being an industry (Engineer) man myself, it felt like a shout-out to the real work that goes on that keeps this country moving. It is so going in my DVD collection. I'm trying to figure out how to drag other members of my family to it before it disappears.

If y'all are looking for other conservative titles to support. I suggest you purchase 2081 the short movie. Despite being only 25 min it is spectacular. The most moving 25 minutes of film I can remember watching. You can rent it from youtube too.

Re: the special effects, I was actually surprised that the futuristic train shot looked pretty good in the trailer. It's not cutting edge at this point or anything, but it looked good.

Posted by: Ace at 06:45 AM | Comments (472)
Post contains 1808 words, total size 11 kb.

1
Blaming critics for a flop = sour grapes.


Posted by: Soothsayer 6 of 8 at April 30, 2011 06:48 AM (uFokq)

2 But... Roger Ebert __________________!

Posted by: Dag Hgehammer at April 30, 2011 06:53 AM (A+5SL)

3 Damn it Ace, quit running your jaw!

Posted by: Roger Ebert at April 30, 2011 06:53 AM (SKcL8)

4 I'll catch it on DVD.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 06:54 AM (GTbGH)

5
I just checked boxofficemojo. The film is getting excellent grades from regular viewers.

Maybe his marketing campaign is more to blame than the critics?

Posted by: Soothsayer 6 of 8 at April 30, 2011 06:55 AM (uFokq)

6 If you don't spend a lot of money on marketing, this happens. It seems like Aglialoro made the assumption that there would be a groundswell of support for the movie due to all the paper who read the books, so no reason to do traditional marketing campaigns.

It just doesn't work like that.

Posted by: Paper at April 30, 2011 06:55 AM (VoSja)

7 >>>Blaming critics for a flop = sour grapes. Surely you're not saying he doesn't have a point. Did you think the critics went to this movie without an agenda? I have to tell you, of all the media, the people I have the least respect for, and the ones who know their jobs the poorest, are movie critics. I have no idea who these people are or how they got their jobs. I think they are selected for being bland, tasteless personality types, because I guess the idea the media has is that the public is, on AVERAGE, a bland, tasteless personality type (that is, when you average out everyone's idiosyncracies into one bland indistinct pudding representing everyone's blended tastes), so critics are chosen specifically for being uninteresting and passionless and incapable of responding to interesting art.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 06:55 AM (nj1bB)

8 I didn't go see it for several reasons: [1] It's only the beginning of a series which probably will never be finished [2] Theaters don't have subtitles, which I find more and more necessary [3] Theaters are uncomfortable, stinky and all-around inconvenient - MUCH better watching on my nice wide-screen monitor, with my adult beverage of choice and snack of choice (that DIDN'T cost a fortune) and comfortable chair.
If it's ever completed, I will seriously consider buying the DVD.

Posted by: Moses Lambert at April 30, 2011 06:57 AM (89ueZ)

9 We the Living has been made into a movie twice, 1942 and 1986 according to IMDB.  I'll have to go look for those.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 06:58 AM (GTbGH)

10 Blaming critics for a flop = sour grapes.

I wouldn't call it sour grapes. Compare critics reviews to viewer reviews. That coupled with networks refusing to air a 15 second commercial for the movie. The talent agencies wouldn't send actors to the casting calls for it. The movie is being Blacklisted by the left, and it's not because it sucks, but because it sends a message.

Posted by: TC at April 30, 2011 06:58 AM (BAtLQ)

11 I'm a libertarian/conservative of many years but I must tell you honestly, as a writer, Ayn Rand was a hack. A complete hack. She sucks. Her novelette, Anthem, was her only good work and it's plot device was, I believe, stolen from a Steven Vincent Benet short story entitled "By the Waters of Babylon." Her personal life was vomitously vomitous. Her belief in Ego as some kind of grand ultimate manifestation of all things good is as hokey and stupid as anything I've ever read. Rand was a hack. She did apply some ballast to the communist/socialist fervor of her day,, but ballast can be nothing more than hack slobber. Which hers was.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at April 30, 2011 06:58 AM (6SIms)

12 It's a great story, It's no so great filmmaking.  I expected something better, but I'd see it again, and I will see parts 2 and 3.  Some of what they did was genius (bringing it into the 21st century).  It was just too choppy to be considered good filmmaking.

Posted by: Dastardly Dan at April 30, 2011 06:59 AM (DfiuZ)

13 5 If you don't spend a lot of money on marketing, this happens. It seems like Aglialoro made the assumption that there would be a groundswell of support for the movie due to all the paper who read the books, so no reason to do traditional marketing campaigns.

Did this movie have any major studio support at all?  It costs a LOT of money just to distribute a movie, and the article mentions the producer spent $20 million of his own money on it.

$20 million barely covers the cost of a bare-bones marketing campaign for the average movie these days.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at April 30, 2011 07:00 AM (SKcL8)

14

Ayn Rand opposed altruism as she (self) defined it as sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice.

Based on that premise, no one should do that. Christianity does not support that. All you have to do is read the Gospel with regards to Jesus encounter with the money-changers in the Temple.

She did support personal benevolence, which is a contribution or donation, for a purpose.

She would support donating money to relief of the tornado victims of this last week.  This is benevolence to those in need due to a natural disaster.

She would not support "mid-night" basketball because there is no evidence that this does any good, and looks more like a bribe to keep kids off the street.

But she was an atheist and did absolutely support abortion.  There is not doubt about either of those.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at April 30, 2011 07:00 AM (sJTmU)

15 Oh, and the ending of Anthem was an absolute cartoon.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at April 30, 2011 07:01 AM (6SIms)

16 Looking over the numbers now. Plenty of other problems.

The movie opened with about 300 screens and is now at around 500. Good, but it still has to be accompanied with a marketing strategy. Even great reviews acting as free press aren't going to alone push a movie unless it is a really good movie. Even then, there are less than even odds it will catch fire. With such a limited release, you need to run a good marketing campaign in the places where it opens.

There is a movie still running (Insidious) that only had a 1.5 million budget (less than 1/10th of Atlas) but opened in over 2,000 theaters and had a semblance of a marketing campaign. Again, no guarantee for success, but you have to at least try to be reasonable.

Posted by: Paper at April 30, 2011 07:03 AM (VoSja)

17
I have nothing but contempt for movie critics.

They reside at the bottom rung of society's contributors, below art and food critics.



Posted by: Soothsayer 6 of 8 at April 30, 2011 07:04 AM (uFokq)

18 I believe in critics and I use them for a yardstick. I do it the same way I do the Academy Awards.

If the critics hate a movie it means I will like it. If a movie wins an Oscar it means I will avoid it like the bubonic plague.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 07:05 AM (M9Ie6)

19 #13

Not that I can see, but that still doesn't mean that you ignore this and try to make up your own rules. The producer had pitched his ideas for years to studios and then put in most of the funding himself.

If you are going to make that kind of financial commitment, you should be sure that you have a strategy to distribute and promote the product.

Posted by: Paper at April 30, 2011 07:06 AM (VoSja)

20 Conservatives don't go to the movies. Like me, they will wait for it to come out on video.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 07:06 AM (M9Ie6)

21 Hey, Ace, love you to death but ... Don't hector us about visiting liberal web sites. Don't hector us about seeing some damn didactic hack piece movie. I remember years ago, when I was a young dreamer, I read Mother Earth News religiously. I read it because I wanted to be free of The Man, living the good life on the soil. I actually bought 15 acres and tried out a bunch of that b.s. Anyway, I recall with great clarity the day the partition got pulled over on that whole scam. John Shuttleworth, the dumb-ass know-it-all founder of Mother Earth News wrote a vile, spit-flecked, hectoring diatribe against all of us because we were phonies and only played the natural thing while keeping our precious stereos and gas engines. The ephipany: this whole thing is a giant religion full of assholes. We must ever guard against whatever we believe in from becoming that. So ... don't watch the damn Ayn Rand movie if you don't want to. It's a piece of crap anyway.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at April 30, 2011 07:07 AM (6SIms)

22
Has anyone pinpointed the reason behind the success of those SAW movies?

I never saw any of the Saw movies, so all I know about them is that they were low-budget and high-profit movies. But how, exactly?

Posted by: Soothsayer 6 of 8 at April 30, 2011 07:08 AM (uFokq)

23 20 Conservatives don't go to the movies.

Hell, adults don't go to the movies, not anymore.  No reason to, when nearly all of them are made for teenagers.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at April 30, 2011 07:10 AM (SKcL8)

24 But how, exactly?

Unless you blow millions on special effects, slash movies always make a profit.  Ditto the old 'B' titty movies:  Cheerleaders, Valley of the Cheerleaders, Beneath the Valley of the Cheerleaders ...

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 07:11 AM (GTbGH)

25 I have nothing but contempt for movie critics.

They reside at the bottom rung of society's contributors, below art and food critics.

Posted by: Soothsayer

They have certainly become more politicized as the years have passed.  The Left has realized how powerful a message movies can be with regards to a cultural agenda.

Rex Reed reviewed "The Fountainhead" years after it was made, and was certainly aware of the underlying premise of the movie.  He liked it. I can recall some movie critics who perfectly understood "die Kultur Kampf" with respect to movies and took a traditional-American viewpoint with respect to reviewing  movies.

But these sort of reviewers are few and far between now.  Pretty rare. Newpapers, magazines, etc.  like the "edgy" sameness that trashes anything short of full-tilt boogey- lets's tear it down, and where's my paycheck?- sort of attitude.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at April 30, 2011 07:11 AM (sJTmU)

26 And one more thing ... Who needs "conservative" movies? Any movie or book that is born out of a need to proseltyze is a piece of shit. Same for liberal movies/books. Ever read Poisonwood Bible? A great story ... for awhile. Then it devolves into a liberal sermon. Same thing happens to Native Son, the last several chapters of which are unreadable. If a conservative wants to write a great movie/book with a conservative theme, it should spring from a great story with great characters. If the story doesn't flesh out the values the author wants, then the author is a phony.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at April 30, 2011 07:12 AM (6SIms)

27 Yes, I know, this is not an iron-clad rule because Landis didn't seem to know (or want to admit) that Hollywood has a strong liberal bias and will tend to make movies it knows (or should know) will lose money, as long as they can be proud of the message (Stop Loss, Lions for Lambs, and on and on and on),

I think that's an important point...politically explicit movies like those and including Moore's crap almost never make money either. How much money would a movie about Marx and Marxism make? Hell, even movies about pop lefty heroes like Che bomb at the box office. It's not a liberal/conservative thing, it's an entertainment thing.

The real difference is that explicitly liberal movies will get critical acclaim, news coverage and tut-tutting from critics and commentators about how "this movie is important and serious!"

I think conservatives should focus on making popular entertainment with underlying themes that are conservative. It's the insidious nature of a lot of Hollywood crap that it is popular while advancing the liberal worldview through subtext and repetition, not obvious polemics.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2011 07:13 AM (2f1Rs)

28 Hell, adults don't go to the movies, not anymore.  No reason to, when nearly all of them are made for teenagers.

And said teenagers ruin the movie-going experience for the few adults that do go to the movies anymore.

Maybe AS would have been a better HBO, Showtime, or even Skinemax mini-series? 

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at April 30, 2011 07:14 AM (9hSKh)

29
...conservatives aren't seizing the initiative and supporting movies which can actually positively, proactively inject ideas into the public market...

Probably because they're usually second-rate productions. For instance the parody of Michael Moore. Is that the best we can do?


Posted by: Soothsayer 6 of 8 at April 30, 2011 07:14 AM (uFokq)

30 >>>Did this movie have any major studio support at all? It costs a LOT of money just to distribute a movie, and the article mentions the producer spent $20 million of his own money on it. No, it's completely independent and blacklisted by the studios. Although big-name actresses have expressed interest in the project in the past (it was a dream of Agelina Jolie's to make it, and Charlize Theron or whatever her name is was attached to a possible project for a while), no one wanted to make it or invest in it. Leaving this guy and his small budget to do it. There's a Don Quixote aspect to this. He did it because he thought it should be made and no one else would make it. And he put up his own money to do it, because no one else would. And now, having done that, the establishment is trying to make sure he suffers for that.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 07:14 AM (nj1bB)

31 If people really want to see a great, conservative film, watch 2081, a half-hour indy film based on Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron." Great libertarian stoy and film. Ironically, Vonnegut was a lib whose story was honest ... and it resulted in a theme his ideology opposed.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at April 30, 2011 07:15 AM (6SIms)

32 It will make a tidy profit, but not in theaters.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at April 30, 2011 07:16 AM (C0Z3w)

33 >>>...politically explicit movies like those and including Moore's crap almost never make money either. UNTRUE! Michael Moore's movies are profitable. They don't make nearly as much money as a "real movie," but their production costs are a pittance. Liberals line up to see them some Michael Moore. Michael Moore will always be able to make his stupid piece of shit movies because liberals will always guarantee they will turn a profit.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 07:16 AM (nj1bB)

34 Well if someone is counting on word of mouth to spread the news, they better open up in enough theaters so you don't have to drive 90 miles to see it. Especially with 4.17 gal gasoline.
Personally I have a bad back and there aren't enough meds for me to sit in ta heater for a couple of hours. Last movie I saw in the theater was "The Santa Clause".
I did get the book and read it for the first time in anticipation of the movie.
Even without the bad back I wouldn't go to this one. There's nothing I hate more than seeing "to be continued....". WHen they get all 3 done and out on DVD, then I'll watch it.

Posted by: lurker at April 30, 2011 07:16 AM (lI99B)

35 LA Weekly called Che "movie of the year". Meanwhile the critics hated Red Dawn which they labeled as "A Republican's wet dream".

I consider it one of the best movies ever made.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 07:19 AM (M9Ie6)

36 I did my undergraduate degree at a place with an excellent film program. I'm no expert, but I learned some things from friends who were film majors.

First, Saw (and low budget movies) often do well because they are really low budget. The combined production budget for the first three Saw movies was less than $20 million. $20 million is quite a bit to spend on a movie with no real studio support and structure.

Second, there is a method to drumming up support and talk for a movie. You go to film festivals and show the movie, and there you talk to people and make connections. There are plenty of tiers of people in the film industry who distribute and market movies who are outside of California or the 'establishment'. Many people make good money working with film makers in distribution (for example) without being a part of the California/New York studios.

The original Saw movie didn't get positive critical reviews in the larger market, but they got positive reviews moving around the festival circuit. This primes local distributors to look upon your movie favorably because they have seen audience reaction. The filmmaker also gets an idea of what markets seem to make most sense for the film. Getting your film accepted by festivals can be very political though, and this is marketing that is reasonably more difficult for conservatives.

Finally, genre matters. What genre is Atlas Shrugged? Political treatise movie? What exactly do you show on the screen to make it a 'movie'? Horror movies are a particular successful low-budget product. A movie like Atlas Shrugged? Not so much.

Posted by: Paper at April 30, 2011 07:19 AM (VoSja)

37

With money as hard to come by as it is for me (3 years of funemployment and counting!), I simply can't afford to go. B'Gal and I have to pinch pennies like you wouldn't believe, so when we can afford anything in the realm of entertainment beyond the TV and this interwebs thingy, it's (increasingly rarely) a book.

It's good for us since we both like to read. I haven't read AS, although I'd like to. Books beat movies any day of the week. I like being my own set designer.

Anywho, aren't attendance and receipts down in general? And I haven't heard about any DVD release dates for AS. These days, as someone noted upthread, the allure of a cold Guinness, my favorite munchies and the comfort of my own couch outweigh any theatre experience.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at April 30, 2011 07:20 AM (d0Tfm)

38 Liberals line up to see them some Michael Moore. Michael Moore will always be able to make his stupid piece of shit movies because liberals will always guarantee they will turn a profit.

Not only US liberals, but overseas liberals as well - the people making turds such as Green Zone and Lions for Lambs are relying more and more on the international market to recoup their domestic losses.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at April 30, 2011 07:20 AM (9hSKh)

39 >>>Don't hector us about visiting liberal web sites. What? When did I do that? Wait, let me guess: I said you should read some information debunking the birther conspiracy instead of self-selecting only the sites and email chains that tell you stuff that isn't true, and from that you get "Ace is telling us to read liberal websites." Whatever. Let it go already. I can't believe "knowing the facts" or "knowing both sides of a claim" is now some kind of liberal thing, with conservatives righteously committed to not knowing the facts and never having familiarized themselves with contrary information.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 07:21 AM (nj1bB)

40 Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 12:16 PM (nj1bB)

Ok, so I was wrong about Moore but take those out. The non-"documentary" stuff bombs.

The problem with Atlas Shrugged as a movie (besides the adaptability of the source material) is that the target audience is people who agree with the message. Thing is, we've all read the book. Why do I need to see it? I know the story. I know the message. I don't need to commit to a couple of hours and 3 parts.

It's a movie designed to preach to the choir. If you want to help 'the cause' make a movie that people who aren't already converts might be interested in. Explicit message movies never entice a wider audience.


Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2011 07:24 AM (2f1Rs)

41 >>>Finally, genre matters. What genre is Atlas Shrugged? Political treatise movie? What exactly do you show on the screen to make it a 'movie'? You're way wrong. Its genre is "Thriller." It has a defined genre. The cleverness of the book -- to the extent people find it clever; I do -- is that it dressed up a philosphical argument in the popular, fun genre of thriller. A thriller is a light mystery with lots of implied danger. Michael Crichton used the same thriller genre template for his own polemic about global warming nonsense, State of Fear. It's a natural genre choice for this sort of material. So yes, it has a real genre. To the extent its political message are a problem, it's because it often goes way too heavily on the ideological/political stuff to the expense of convincing the reader he's reading a normal, danger-at-every-turn secrets-waiting-to-be-uncovered thriller. But it is that kind of book, it's totally a thriller.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 07:24 AM (nj1bB)

42 If it were playing here and I had a free afternoon I'd probably go.  I couldn't get through the book.  I tried but twelve pages describing a guy looking at a valley from a mountaintop or whatever the hell it was made me give the book back to the friend I borrowed it from.

Posted by: Annabelle at April 30, 2011 07:25 AM (3+mHn)

43
Drew, boat-loads of people who read Lord of the Rings went to see the movies when they were made.

It's been known to happen, is my point.

Posted by: Soothsayer 6 of 8 at April 30, 2011 07:26 AM (uFokq)

44 ...it's just a thriller where people have the unfortunate tendency to talk for four or five pages at a time about Objectivism.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 07:26 AM (nj1bB)

45 Michael Crichton used the same thriller genre template for his own polemic about global warming nonsense, State of Fear.

LOL, that is one MC book that will NEVER see the light in a theater. I have the book and loved it. 

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 07:27 AM (M9Ie6)

46 That Moore thing struck a chord. I just shuttered Moorewatch this month. Hadn't seen that argument before, but it certainly summarizes a big part of why I let the site die over the last 2 years.

Posted by: JimK at April 30, 2011 07:27 AM (cKcbR)

47 Personally, any movie that is split into 3 parts will not get me into a theater.  I remember the sitcoms back in the day with the "To be cont'd" just when it gets good.  I would get very PO'd even at an early age.  This carried forward into adulthood

Posted by: Mitch the _itch at April 30, 2011 07:27 AM (HSwo1)

48

And I'll probably write an overly-long review that spills out into irrelevant tangents.

it's not like briebart will even notice...but he'll love the comments

Posted by: navycopjoe aka peroni beer czar at April 30, 2011 07:27 AM (EOu3d)

49
again: LotR trilogy

Posted by: Soothsayer 6 of 8 at April 30, 2011 07:28 AM (uFokq)

50 Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 12:05 PM (M9Ie6)

In general there is an inverse relationship between the number of fluffers from the media who like a movie and its quality.

But Vic, go see The King's Speech. Great movie that happened to win an Academy Award.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 30, 2011 07:28 AM (LH6ir)

51 Multi-part movies are rarely good, IMO.  LotR excepted.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 07:28 AM (GTbGH)

52 Somewhat off topic but what I'd really like to see is a conservative themed humor website. Not explicitly political but poking fun at current events and Dems from a conservative perspective.

If you can get people laughing at a politician or an idea you can go a long way to discrediting it (see Tina Fey as "Sarah Palin" and "I can see Russia from my house.").

If you just do funny professionally and not simply pandering to the base, people can pass it around to their non-conservative friends. I think that would help convert people away from default liberalism.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2011 07:29 AM (2f1Rs)

53 I tried but twelve pages describing a guy looking at a valley from a mountaintop

LOL, you must learn how to read a Russian author. It is called "skimming". Tolkien was the same way which was why I always thought he was a Russian until the internet came along and edumucated me.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 07:29 AM (M9Ie6)

54 Folks, how many times is too much when you are watching "JOE DIRT?" Between that, Kelley's Heros, and Je Dirt I find I can never turn them off. Same for the Dirty Dozen. Am I a Goober or what? BTW - favorite series was Harry O.

Posted by: Goober at April 30, 2011 07:30 AM (fy8R6)

55 The Matrix Tri was the biggest disappointment ever.  Part 2 sucked so hard and yet I wasted my bucks and  went to part3 hoping they could pull a good ending out.

They should have stopped after the first one.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 07:30 AM (GTbGH)

56 >>I can't believe "knowing the facts" or "knowing both sides of a claim" is now some kind of liberal thing, with conservatives righteously committed to not knowing the facts and never having familiarized themselves with contrary information.


You do this quite a bit. Someone makes a comment you don't like and you attack the entire conservative movement. Please stop.

Posted by: Dr Spank at April 30, 2011 07:31 AM (1fB+3)

57 Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 12:24 PM (nj1bB)

But Michael Crichton didn't have the overt political baggage of Rand.

You simply can't put Rand's name on something and think people's expectations are set for 'thriller'. Her brand means something and you can't get around it.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2011 07:31 AM (2f1Rs)

58 I can only speak for myself but I just couldn't get worked up to see Atlas. I could use distance as an excuse because I'd have to go 75 miles to see it but in all honesty, if it playing locally I probably wouldn't have gone. The trailer just didn't get me all that excited, I know the villains/heroes and none of them really excited me. Besides I know the story and by going on just what I saw, the translation from page to screen didn't offer anything different or reason to plunk down twenty bucks.
Sorry, just the way it is.

Posted by: lowandslow at April 30, 2011 07:31 AM (GZitp)

59 Posted by: toby928™ at April 30, 2011 12:30 PM (GTbGH)

Alien...Aliens...Shit On a Stick...Shit On a Stick-Part 2.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 30, 2011 07:32 AM (LH6ir)

60 They should have stopped after the first one.

Famous last words.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at April 30, 2011 07:32 AM (9hSKh)

61 A mini-series on Fox would have had more viewers, perhaps. Sometimes movies don't kick in until after their initial run, same with TV shows. Star Trek, for example. Throw it on the Internet.

Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 30, 2011 07:32 AM (nLQvb)

62
For a while, every time I passed the movie channel on my cable box I saw the naked-orgy-dance scene from Matrix 2.

I can tell it was a stupid movie from just that scene.

Posted by: Soothsayer 6 of 8 at April 30, 2011 07:33 AM (uFokq)

63 >>>It's a movie designed to preach to the choir. If you want to help 'the cause' make a movie that people who aren't already converts might be interested in. Explicit message movies never entice a wider audience. Granted that light/disguised/implied/themed movies reach more people and are probably more effective at pushing the needle. But explicit polemic has its place too. Furthermore, a failure of an explicit polemic will also be taken as a sign that a themed/suggested conservative message film will ALSO fail. I agree that the way to go is the way Hollywood usually does it-- with its political messaging more subliminal, symblolic, embedded into characters, and less in your face. (And yes, when Hollywood stops being insidiously liberal and instead turns explicitly liberal, people usually don't see the film.) But just because that's the best way to go doesn't mean a lesser way to go shouldn't be supported. As of right now there are practically zero conservative movies made. Zero. So if you want more, you have to support what little output there is.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 07:33 AM (nj1bB)

64 Her brand means something and you can't get around it.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2011 12:31 PM (2f1Rs)

Drew is correct (shit!).

When I think Ayn Rand I think romantic comedy.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at April 30, 2011 07:34 AM (LH6ir)

65 Alien...Aliens...Shit On a Stick...Shit On a Stick-Part 2.

So true.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 07:34 AM (GTbGH)

66 It was a bad movie. Don't believe every self selecting Internet poll you see on RT. Rand would have hated a shitty product getting boosted just because her name is on it. Intentions are fine, but it's still a crapfest. Sorry.

Posted by: Supercore at April 30, 2011 07:35 AM (ZUFNn)

67 When I think Ayn Rand I think romantic comedy.


En Fuego!  I did, in fact, laugh out loud.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 07:35 AM (GTbGH)

68 And we're gonna pass on that?

Speak for yourself. I couldn't get to see it the weekend it opened. But come Thursday, I drug my 8.5 mo pregnant wife to a Theater miles away from home. I was not disappointed. Not in the least; the movie makes no apologies for conservatism and the success which is the lifeblood of industrialized society, nor affords any quarter for the destructiveness of liberalism. And being an industry (Engineer) man myself, it felt like a shout-out to the real work that goes on that keeps this country moving. It is so going in my DVD collection. I'm trying to figure out how to drag other members of my family to it before it disappears.

If y'all are looking for other conservative titles to support. I suggest you purchase 2081 the short movie. Despite being only 25 min it is spectacular. The most moving 25 minutes of film I can remember watching. You can rent it from youtube too.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 30, 2011 07:36 AM (vULTR)

69
So...

there'll be no Atlas Shrugged: The Musical, no Atlas Shrugged on Ice, no Atlas Shrugged action figures, no Atlas Shrugged lunch box, and no Atlas Shrugged cartoon?

Posted by: Soothsayer 6 of 8 at April 30, 2011 07:36 AM (uFokq)

70 Posted by: Soothsayer 6 of 8 at April 30, 2011 12:26 PM (uFokq)

True.

Still, I think there are differences. People wanted to see the world of LoTR (or Narnia) brought to life. I don't need to see the people or scenes in AS, it adds nothing in terms of information or interest.

I bet if Tolkien had set his stories in 1940's-1950's England they wouldn't have been as popular as movies.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2011 07:36 AM (2f1Rs)

71 Of all the lame reasons to go to a movie, I put "supporting ideological kin" somewhere in the middle.

Sorry, but I won't go back to a movie theater and pay their outrageous prices for admission and refreshments to sit in the chair and position they prescribe and be disturbed by rude assholes with cell phones and poor manners. 

Posted by: Adjoran at April 30, 2011 07:36 AM (VfmLu)

72 I've decided instead to film my magnus opus, "Ace Apologized"

Posted by: John Aglialoro at April 30, 2011 07:37 AM (FcR7P)

73 I'd like to see Atlas Shrugged I, but really not so much that I'm willing to drive the 1.5 hours each way I'd need to do so!

#22 on Saw, I've seen all of them but the most recent one.

IMO, the first one was actually sort of interesting, and worth watching if you like horror type films.  But every succeeding one was worse than the previous one.

Why they made money?  Low budget, core audience, and lots of video sales, in a nutshell.



Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2011 07:37 AM (6Q9g2)

74 low and slow, others, You really don't have to explain why you're not seeing it. I know this post is sort of hectoring, but it's not intended to be PERSONALLY hectoring. Like, for example: We should all donate time to charitable causes but a lot of us don't. (I definitely don't.) Just saying "We should do x" shouldn't create a guilt-trip where you have to explain. Or at least I didn't intend it to be that way. But, I am saying, if you're marginally inclined to see the movie, if you sort of like movies anyway, and if there is no strong reason (kids at home, etc.) NOT to see the movie -- then see the movie. I'm just saying there is a plus-factor here. Seeing this movie not only gives you the ordinary stuff a movie gives you (hopefully, entertainment and distraction), but there's the added bonus that this movie, if at least break-even on profit, will tend to encourage more of what we want. We can remove ourselves from the culture, and that will change the culture, but not in the way we like; the culture will simply stop completely attempting to attract us. I know they barely bother now, but complete self-exclusion from the culture basically cedes the field to the liberals. Engaging it has a chance to change the culture. A small one, to be sure, but a chance nonetheless.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 07:38 AM (nj1bB)

75

#44

Beat me to it ace. I've never seen a thriller with a hundred page monologue.

Posted by: Paper at April 30, 2011 07:38 AM (VoSja)

76 I would have to say the biggest conservative movie success was Forrest Gump.

Posted by: Goober at April 30, 2011 07:39 AM (fy8R6)

77 >>>Sorry, but I won't go back to a movie theater and pay their outrageous prices for admission and refreshments to sit in the chair and position they prescribe and be disturbed by rude assholes with cell phones and poor manners. No one's going to be doing that here. For one thing, teenagers aren't going to this film. It doesn't have giant robots or Eminem. It's going to be an entirely conservatve audience. You can't guarantee that means polite and respectful but if we believe that conservatives tend to be that way, then the odds are good. Plus, the theaters aren't really jammed at this point so it's not as if you'll be dealing wtih crowds.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 07:40 AM (nj1bB)

78

#52

I really like this idea. A well-done conservative 'Onion' with good conservative writers (e.g. Iowahawk, ace) would be entertaining and could even have some political use.

Posted by: Paper at April 30, 2011 07:40 AM (VoSja)

79 On the one hand, Ladd wants to make conservatively-themed movies.

Well then he could make a film about bombing the shit out of Afghanistan, except well um, that's the new liberal thing to do. damn.

Posted by: sTevo at April 30, 2011 07:40 AM (VMcEw)

80 #27

The most recent "Batman" had a conservative tone on the War on Terror (with the Heath Ledger "Joker" being the terrorist), or at least it expressed the conservative viewpoint, leaving it up to the audience to decide what was "right".

This was both a great movie in its own right as well as a huge money maker.

It grossed over half a billion dollars domestically.



.


Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2011 07:40 AM (6Q9g2)

81

Yeah, Politics aside... 

The problem with movies is that they are a waste of fucking time. 

 

Posted by: garrett at April 30, 2011 07:41 AM (6+RxA)

82 Whoo hoo! It's playing in our town now. I wanted to see it, but driving 100 miles wasn't going to happen.

Posted by: Scott P at April 30, 2011 07:41 AM (60Nhd)

83 This movie will do well on DVD.
Moore can have a string of box office flops and yet never has a problem getting financing for his next flop.

Posted by: real joe at April 30, 2011 07:41 AM (w7Lv+)

84 (sigh) Am I gonna have to post my review here for a fourth time? Condensed version: Everybody go see it! Ayn Rand had a few things to say about critics in her earlier novel The Fountainhead and they were not complimentary. It doesn't surprise me in the least that left-leaning critics would have an axe to grind. Zero stars? Seriously? I mean, come on. I read the book years ago and I think the producers made the right decision by ruthlessly stripping out the subplots, minor characters, and speeches and concentrating on the main plot, which is fast-moving and quite entertaining. It's more important that the movie be seen by people who have never read the book than be loved by Rand fans. Yes, it's a low-budget movie. There are no awe-inspiring sets or special effects. I'm glad there are no major stars. They would have drawn attention away from the story, and most of them are moonbats anyway. It actually doesn't surprise me that the movie had a good opening weekend, then fell off sharply in the second week. Rand fans had been looking forward to it for over 50 years, so they all went to see it as soon as it opened. I guess the filmmakers are counting on word of mouth to bring in the non-Rand fans. I've been doing my part to recommend it. I don't know how influential my opinions are, though.

Posted by: rickl at April 30, 2011 07:42 AM (hZFhS)

85 Explicit message movies never entice a wider audience.

Maybe so. But having the major releases out there at least "normalizes" the point of view. Lefties inject polemic crap all day long. Do they fall on their face? Almost always. (Except for maybe the Dances with Wolves, Dances with Ninjas, Dances with Smurfs trilogy against American Imperialism.)

But they still make them anyway. It helps normalize the POV and move the Overton window there direction. Even if they aren't hugely popular. And liberals do their duty and at least make sure the movies get enough money not to be a financial crater.

And we should be doing the same. Trust me it's worth the watch. It gave me all sorts of warm fuzzies.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 30, 2011 07:42 AM (vULTR)

86 >>>IMO, the first one was actually sort of interesting, and worth watching if you like horror type films. But every succeeding one was worse than the previous one. Every single Saw WAS worse than the one that came before, but until the fourth one, they were still worth seeing. Parts one to three, I mean. Even though quality and interest declined, for me, it declined slowly enough that it was still sort of good. Or at least decent. The third wasn't great at all, but still in the "average or slightly above average" category. At least for me.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 07:42 AM (nj1bB)

87 Yeah I sat here and read moron after moron tell me how bad it was.

Posted by: USS Diversity at April 30, 2011 07:44 AM (7zt2W)

88 I haven't seen any of the Saw movies.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 07:44 AM (GTbGH)

89 Has there ever been a sequel that topped the first show?

Posted by: sTevo at April 30, 2011 07:45 AM (VMcEw)

90 As of right now there are practically zero conservative movies made. Zero. So if you want more, you have to support what little output there is.

Not to be needlessly nitpicky (which is a sign I'm about to be) but as you pointed out earlier Rand isn't "conservative". She's a divisive figure within conservative circles so the fact that conservatives as a whole aren't flocking to it really isn't surprising.

Granted, that's a distinction studio execs won't get so yeah, its failure might do harm.

Gibson's movie worked because they had a built in network to tap (churches). I think the marketing strategy for this movie was a FAIL. Were you or any other bloggers approached before hand? Given any sort of carrots to promote it? I don't mean bribes or money (though that would be nice) but content is king. Have the filmmakers released bonus footage to blogs? Made themselves or stars available to bloggers?

Yeah, they did a screening in DC but that was too little too late. The audience should have been brought along from the start. Build anticipation, interest and eventually demand.

The real world isn't based on, "if you release it, they will come" . If you're targeting a niche audience (at least as your foundation) you need to reach out to it.

They don't seem to have done that but instead are trying to guilt them into going.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2011 07:45 AM (2f1Rs)

91 I'm just not going to plonk down ten bucks to see any movie.  Ill get it at the Redbox kiosk if I absolutely have to watch it.  Like, if I need to see it for a class or for work, or my wife makes me.

Posted by: Truman North at April 30, 2011 07:47 AM (8ay4x)

92 Blaming critics for a flop = sour grapes.

Well yes and no. Had this been a low budget indy polemic from the opposite point of view, the critics would have likely overlooked much of the technical flaws they seem to be focused on and praise it for its brave message. They gush routinely over rough around the edges indy flicks for this very reason. But because they are so adverse to the message they rate this movie as if the plot doesn't even exist and they are simply rating technical expertise. So is it a fair bitch yes. But also in fairness, the producer should have expected that, and marketed this movie much better.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 30, 2011 07:47 AM (vULTR)

93

Blaming critics for a flop = sour grapes.

Posted by: The Descendents at April 30, 2011 07:48 AM (6+RxA)

94 I went to it on the first weekend sunday. I had to actually go back a second time because seats were sold out. I pretty much never go to the theater any more. Me and my wife won 2 free passes to the movie theater here in Phoenix about 8 months ago, we still have them. I did not use them for this movie, as the movie was considered special or something. But i went out and supported the movie, I even posted my thoughts on it.

Basically, the only bad thing I saw about the movie at all was the cheating husband as hero and when they went to the motor factory, they skipped the description of how the motor company destroyed itself. adding ten minutes to the movie would have added the strongest condemnation possible of communism and socialism.

Posted by: astonerii at April 30, 2011 07:48 AM (rSa7F)

95 I'm just not going to plonk down ten bucks to see any movie.

Think of it as a political contribution to conservatism where you get to see a movie.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 30, 2011 07:48 AM (vULTR)

96 I didn't go to see it because I very rarely go to theaters anymore, usually only for the biggest of the special effects movies.  In part that's age (I'm not taking some girl to the movies with the probably vain hope of getting laid), in part because my house is far more comfortable than any theater.  Why bother when the media experience is almost as good with my big screen, and everything else is better? 

It's really like newspapers.  I canceled the WaPo and subscribed to the WaTimes for a bit, but ultimately couldn't justify it because the internet sources are better than either.  Newspapers are obsolete, and so are movie theaters. 

Posted by: pep at April 30, 2011 07:48 AM (gmlb7)

97 89 Has there ever been a sequel that topped the first show?

Superman II, Wrath of Khan, The Dark Knight, Aliens...

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at April 30, 2011 07:48 AM (9hSKh)

98 hey skipped the description of how the motor company destroyed itself.

Dude, did you not pay attention? Sure they didn't do a play by play, but I think Dagny does describe what happened.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 30, 2011 07:49 AM (vULTR)

99 The most recent "Batman" had a conservative tone on the War on Terror (with the Heath Ledger "Joker" being the terrorist), or at least it expressed the conservative viewpoint, leaving it up to the audience to decide what was "right".

I've wondered about that, "300" was being praised by conservatives for it's pro-freedom themes but is that why it did well? Did it do well because of that or because of the comic book genre? The comic book genre translate well onto the screen, good visuals and there's always well defined heroes and villains. I don't think "300" or Batman's message was the reason they're successful, just that they're better done them most in the genre.

Posted by: lowandslow at April 30, 2011 07:49 AM (GZitp)

100 Has there ever been a sequel that topped the first show?

Xmen 2


Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 30, 2011 07:50 AM (vULTR)

101
...leaving it up to the audience to decide what was "right".

Speaking of which: Boondock Saints & Boondock Saints II

I liked both of these movies a lot. At the end of BS II there was a scene of people on the street expressing their opinion of the saints -- murderers or heroes.


Posted by: Soothsayer 6 of 8 at April 30, 2011 07:50 AM (uFokq)

102 The reason I haven't watched it is that Ayn Rand sucks as a writer.  I'm all for making Conservative movies, but I refuse to support any craptastic art just *because* it's Conservative.  No, the job of ANY artist is to do a good job FIRST, and THEN worry about your message.

Rand sucks for the same reason Cameron sucks in Avatar (which was only saved because it had nifty effects that hadn't been seen before).  If your message is more important than the story, your movie sucks.  Period.

So until someone can show me that they radically improved upon Rand's lame storytelling and made something worthwhile (which is pretty much shown to be impossible in this case since they're making a freaking TRILOGY out of this book), then I'm not gonna waste money to watch it.

Posted by: some1 at April 30, 2011 07:50 AM (0F7Xm)

103 With the narrow opening, I never believed that part II or III would be made, so I said to myself "why watch 1/3 of a movie?"  I had the same attitude with TLotR, I KNEW the series would be made, but I didn't trust that all of the main characters would still be around.

Ask any fan of "The Song of Ice and Fire" about jumping into a book that doesn't seem like it will ever be finished.  I was FURIOUS at Robert Jordan when he died, because the final book of of TWoT wasn't finished.  Then I was pleasantly surprised.    I will see the movies when they are re released after the third one is made.     Atlas Shrugged without "The Speech" is just about two smug crazy people, and one enigmatic philosopher that is himself contradictory.

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 07:51 AM (YKOnu)

104 89 Has there ever been a sequel that topped the first show?

Godfather II? At least as good as the first.

Posted by: real joe at April 30, 2011 07:51 AM (w7Lv+)

105 Yeah I sat here and read moron after moron tell me how bad it was.

I loved it.
I want to add it to my movie collection.
I want to take conservatives in my family to see it.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 30, 2011 07:52 AM (vULTR)

106 $20 million is not small/low budget for a film made outside of traditional studios. That is actually a reasonable budget for many Hollywood movies, depending on genre.

Posted by: Paper at April 30, 2011 07:53 AM (VoSja)

107 real joe....harry potter!!!!!! didn't it?

Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 30, 2011 07:53 AM (eOXTH)

108

At least as good as the first.

Didn't like it.

Posted by: Peter Griffin at April 30, 2011 07:53 AM (6+RxA)

109 89 Has there ever been a sequel that topped the first show?

Yes.

Posted by: Grover Fucking Cleveland at April 30, 2011 07:53 AM (SKcL8)

110 CJ, Okay, well, I got an anti-altruism vibe, but on your say-so, I'll edit that out. I admit to not being up on Rand's nuances. I read this stuff in college, years -- um, decades -- ago.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 07:53 AM (nj1bB)

111 South Park Stone/Parkers "Team America World Police" was reasonably conservative in theme, though it didn't make all that much money.

Responding to some of the other comments here, I watch a LOT of movies and I also read a lot of reviews, and based on my experience, most of the time the critics get it right.

Movies that most of the critics slag are usually pretty bad, and ones that most of the critics like are usually worth seeing.

But there are lots of exceptions.  One of them is that critics usually have a bias towards liberal, "activist", or intellectual movies and those are often rated higher than they merit as pieces of art/entertainment.

There are also plenty of movies that, for whatever reason, audiences love and make tons of money, even though critics don't care for them (and vice versa).

On this particular production, I haven't seen it, but its certainly plausible that we have a vicious cycle situation where the movie wasn't advertised properly, nobody has heard of it, generating no word of mouth, and therefore limiting distribution.

Still, a poor theatrical showing doesn't necessarily doom the movie.  If the movie is really good, and especially given its subject matter, it could become a "cult" movie and do disproportionately well in video sales, TV exhibition, later re-exhibition, etc.  Some movies do grow this way over time.

Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2011 07:54 AM (PwGfd)

112 So until someone can show me that they radically improved upon Rand's lame storytelling and made something worthwhile

Can you get through the first third of AS the book in 2 hours? There's your improvement.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 30, 2011 07:54 AM (vULTR)

113 CJ, Okay, I edited that all out, which, now that I look back -- what the hell was that doing in a post urging people to see it, anyway?

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 07:55 AM (nj1bB)

114

Someone made a good point about adults not going to theaters anymore. I haven't gone to one since I took my mother to see Titanic when it first came out. I don't remember the last one before that.

I'm really not that old, but I just don't do things like that anymore. When I did, it was more as a social thing. I don't go to big sports stadiums either (I do like watching HS games though). I'd rather watch them on my big screen at home in my big comfy chair. I have better views of the sporting events..and replay.

When watching movies at home, I can control the volume. There is no one to block my view or annoy the hell out of me by talking or crunching cany wrappers. And I can put it on pause to get a beer or take a leak. I can also rewind.

which is especially great for prOn.

It's much, much cheaper at home too. I can get movies at Redbox down to the Piggly Wiggly for a buck. Movies are out on DVD in no time any more to take advantage of the lazy-ass, anti-social, cheap demo, which I am a proud member of.

Hell, i don't even buy books anymore, with a few exceptions.

Posted by: beedubya at April 30, 2011 07:55 AM (AnTyA)

115 Also, don't these movies nearly always disappoint fans? The endless chants of 'the book is better' and extremely high expectations are very tough to deal with. 

Posted by: Paper at April 30, 2011 07:56 AM (VoSja)

116 I wonder if they tried to serialized it. It might have worked as a premium cable tv series (like The Tudors or The Borgias on Showtime). Tone down the political edges, there's plenty of Soap Operaish elements that could have been played up.

Might not have pleased the purists but it might have had a better chance of success.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2011 07:57 AM (2f1Rs)

117 The only time I am in a movie theater is when the wife drags me out to see Johnny Depp's latest.
With the exception of LoTR trilogy, which was my choice.

Posted by: real joe at April 30, 2011 07:57 AM (w7Lv+)

118 Isn't "Atlas Shrugged" about an industrialist who keeps pushing her project on despite all the forces arrayed against her? It's pretty pathetic to think this guy's dream project was derailed (pun intended) after only a couple of weeks by a small group of wimpy critics nobody reads anyway.

Posted by: JEA at April 30, 2011 07:57 AM (qflOl)

119 My guess is that they'll make a shitload from the DVD release.

Posted by: beedubya at April 30, 2011 07:58 AM (AnTyA)

120 I have only seen Alien and Alien 3, I will check out the others.

Posted by: sTevo at April 30, 2011 07:58 AM (VMcEw)

121 It needed a dragon and a Japanese schoolgirl robot. And a spaceship and a few dinosaurs. Rand's original draft had them; why she took them out I'll never know.

Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 30, 2011 07:59 AM (nLQvb)

122 >>>Has there ever been a sequel that topped the first show? Superman II, Wrath of Khan, The Dark Knight, Aliens... That's an interesting question. I used to answer "Superman II" but I don't know anymore. Superman was a better-crafted movie, less slapstick, more feeling, more "real" despite the fantasy nature. Superman II, on the other hand, did have the first superhero vs. superhero fight in movie history, and man, at the time (and even still), was that a CORKER. Everything you could want, including people getting KNOCKED THROUGH BUILDINGS. But looking back, I think Superman really is better in almost all ways. Superman's failure, if you can term it that, is that the real villain is an earthquake/disaster, and that's just not as much fun as a live-person villain (like the Kryptonians). While Luthor is the villain, he's not the one superman fights at the end; Superman fights the environment, which is neat, but not as neat as him punching Non through a building. Having seen this less-interesting Act III unfold once, Brian Singer decided to duplicate it and make Superman fight the environment again in Superman Returns.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 08:01 AM (nj1bB)

123 120 I have only seen Alien and Alien 3, I will check out the others.

DO NOT SEE ALIEN RESURRECTION!!! FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR SOUL AND SANITY. 

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at April 30, 2011 08:02 AM (9hSKh)

124 This is all very simple, the damn movie isn't playing anywhere !!   I live on long Island, and the flick is not playing in ANY Theatres in Nassau or Suffolk county. As in " none" ...its playing at a grand total of ONE theatre in queens and one in manhattan. I support the cause and all that, but I also have kids and a job and cant be taking a vacation day and a road trip to go see a damn movie. This was a huge missed opportunity, but its to be laid right at the feet of the distributor.  

Posted by: john aita at April 30, 2011 08:02 AM (kK7c+)

125 The Toy Story sequels both did a lot better than the first. I think no. 3 made a billion dollars.

Posted by: JEA at April 30, 2011 08:03 AM (qflOl)

126 >>>I have only seen Alien and Alien 3, I will check out the others What? You haven't seen Aliens? Like, one of the top three films of the 80s? One of the best action/sci-fi movies ever made? Maybe THE best? With some of the most convincing production design ever? (Excluding the untoppable Blade Runner and Star Wars.) But you saw... Alien 3? Well, I envy you. You get to see Aliens for the first time.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 08:04 AM (nj1bB)

127 Has there ever been a sequel that topped the first show?

Anal Intruder II
whoa, sorry, wrong website.

Posted by: real joe at April 30, 2011 08:04 AM (w7Lv+)

128 Oof, the idea of Michael Moore's jockstrap getting air makes me feel nauseous.  That kind of ammonia cloud could take out an entire city.

Posted by: Kensington at April 30, 2011 08:05 AM (mEyVv)

129 Posted by: beedubya at April 30, 2011 12:55 PM (AnTyA)

This, exactly.  Moviegoing is primarily an activity of the young now.  That trend's been going on for many years, but has accelerated greatly over the last decade as nearly everything made now is targeted to 18-29's.  Literally, almost everything.  This has skewed the average age of theater audiences even more dramatically younger, to the point that, unless you're going to see something like "True Grit", you're going to be surrounded by kids and college students every time you go to see a movie, and who wants to put up with that?

I hardly go to the movies at all anymore, and not too long ago I was going at least once a week.  There is almost nothing worth seeing anymore.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at April 30, 2011 08:06 AM (SKcL8)

130 Has there ever been a sequel that topped the first show?

The Empire Strikes Back > Star Wars.

Discuss.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2011 08:06 AM (2f1Rs)

131 Well, I envy you. You get to see Aliens for the first time. Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 01:04 PM (nj1bB) I don't. A-III ruined A-II. I say don't watch it. Keep it a legend.

Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 30, 2011 08:06 AM (nLQvb)

132 I forgot to point out in my earlier comment that I largely quit going to movies a few years ago because I didn't want to support the leftist entertainment industry any more. The last movie I saw in a theater was Team America and that was a few years ago. I don't even remember the last one before that. Yet I eagerly sought out this movie, and no one guilted me into seeing it. I went because I wanted to, and I'm glad I did.

Posted by: rickl at April 30, 2011 08:06 AM (hZFhS)

133 Rand's original draft had them; why she took them out I'll never know.
Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 30, 2011 12:59 PM (nLQvb)

Is there any evidence Rand ever took ANYTHING out of her books? Did anyone edit them?

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2011 08:07 AM (2f1Rs)

134 Poliwood over at PJTV panned it as well. I'll catch it on ppv in a few months

Posted by: Zakn at April 30, 2011 08:07 AM (zyaZ1)

135 Sequels that do better box-office than the original films aren't that uncommon, since the first movie builds a core audience.  You see this in particular with animated movies, but it also happens with summer "blockbuster" type films.

Sequels that are actually better quality films than the originals are much rarer, but they're not unheard of either.

On blaming critics for poor box office, I largely agree that its misplaced.  Plenty of movies get bad reviews but still make tons of money.   If a movie is entertaining, people will go and see it.   Where critics can hurt a movie is if its a small movie with limited release and advertising (which probably applies here).  In that case, if the only exposure the public has to the movie is bad reviews, then fewer people will seek it out.

#101

Didn't see the relatively recent sequel, but I'm not sure I could categorize "Boondock Saints" as conservative.

Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2011 08:08 AM (6Q9g2)

136

Regrettably the next two weeks are full up, and I'd have to drive 40 miles to see it.

 

But that won't keep me from buying a couple tickets online.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 30, 2011 08:08 AM (Wh0W+)

137 >>>The Empire Strikes Back > Star Wars. I've never bought this. Everyone else seems to. Empire was good, don't get me wrong. And I suppose people give it points for the dark-ish ending and the big revelation. But does this really trump Luke blowing up the death star, or Han Solo's eleventh hour return, or Obi-Wan's sacrifice, or the bickering between Han and Leia? Or that opening shot? Is Empire better just because a dark-ish ending is always better than a triumphant one?

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 08:09 AM (nj1bB)

138 If I have to drive more than 30 miles to see it, why wouldn't I just go to a book store and buy the book?

Simple economics.

Posted by: Fritz at April 30, 2011 08:09 AM (AN8d5)

139 The Empire Strikes Back > Star Wars. Discuss. Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2011 01:06 PM (2f1Rs) True, it is a better movie, but it is not Star Wars. Know what I mean?

Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 30, 2011 08:09 AM (nLQvb)

140 The most terrible movie on God's Green Earth.

Have I mentioned my Israel tour yet?

Please sign up now for my extended tour to the wonderful country of Israel...the package includes...

Posted by: Michael Medved at April 30, 2011 08:09 AM (EL+OC)

141 eman, Alien 3 never happened. Nor 4.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 08:10 AM (nj1bB)

142 124 This is all very simple, the damn movie isn't playing anywhere !!

Yeah, I was starting to warm to the "support the cause with a few bucks and get to see a movie besides" argument, but I just looked it up and it isn't playing anywhere near me.

Oh well, guess I'll just have to spend the weekend with pron instead.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at April 30, 2011 08:10 AM (SKcL8)

143 DO NOT SEE ALIEN RESURRECTION!!! FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR SOUL AND SANITY.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at April 30, 2011 01:02 PM (9hSKh)

This.

Well, I envy you. You get to see Aliens for the first time.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 01:04 PM (nj1bB)

And this.  As incredibly awesome as Aliens is, it's ultimately made meaningless by the first few minutes of Alien3.  This is why I would just assume pretend that Aliens was the last movie made.

Posted by: Herr Blcher at April 30, 2011 08:10 AM (ZQdZe)

144 South Park Stone/Parkers "Team America World Police" was reasonably conservative in theme, though it didn't make all that much money.

Team America was interesting because it seemed balanced, but if you actually pay attention the attacks on the right were primarily on a strawman version of the right, whereas the attacks on the left were largely on their actual principles.  To this day there's no better justification of the Bush Doctrine than the "dicks f**k assholes" speech.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 30, 2011 08:10 AM (cd11S)

145 In this same vein, how about prequel sequels?

Episode II > Episode I.

Discuss.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at April 30, 2011 08:10 AM (9hSKh)

146 I have never seen Aliens either. Does Ripley run around in her skimpy panties in that one too?

Posted by: beedubya at April 30, 2011 08:10 AM (AnTyA)

147
Empire was better because of Lando and his city in the clouds.

It was called Cloud City, too, which was clever.


Posted by: Rinse Prewash, RNC at April 30, 2011 08:11 AM (uFokq)

148 rickl, Mike the Moose, I added your reviews to the main post. john, Well, if it's not playing, that's a good reason! I don't mean to hector so much that people feel compelled to explain. I just mean, if you can, and wouldn't mind, why not?

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 08:11 AM (nj1bB)

149 eman, Alien 3 never happened. Nor 4. Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 01:10 PM (nj1bB) I see Spock erased your memories. Very kind of him.

Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 30, 2011 08:12 AM (nLQvb)

150 Poliwood over at PJTV panned it as well. I'll catch it on ppv in a few months

Posted by: Zakn

Don't hold your breath. Whatever happened to "The Path to 9/11" ?

It has disappeared down the memory hole.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at April 30, 2011 08:12 AM (sJTmU)

151 (The Empire Strikes Back = Star Wars)  >  Return of the Jedi.

That's better.....

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at April 30, 2011 08:13 AM (SKcL8)

152 >>>I have never seen Aliens either. Does Ripley run around in her skimpy panties in that one too? Are you kidding? Seriously, guys, this is a seminal movie. Many people think it's better than the original. (I do.) It's really up there in the top five sci-fi movies of all time, and there's a plausible case for putting it number one. I doubt it's number one (how do you put it ahead of star wars), but few people would NOT include it in the top five.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 08:14 AM (nj1bB)

153
Seriously, though, Empire had hoths.


Posted by: Soothsayer at April 30, 2011 08:14 AM (uFokq)

154 IMO Toy Story 3 was better than TS 2 and that one was better than TS1 (and I've seen each one multiple times).
 
So that might be a situation where EACH sequel was better than the prior one!

Terminator 2 was arguably better than the original one.

I agree with Drew that ESB was better than Star Wars.

Star Trek II Wrath of Khan was a gazillion times better than the first one, and I dont think anyone whose seen both would disagree with that.

And there are others.

While not a "sequel' the recent Coen bros remake of True Grit is superior to the original film, a rare case where the remake exceeds the original.

.


Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2011 08:14 AM (6Q9g2)

155 Is there any evidence Rand ever took ANYTHING out of her books? Did anyone edit them?

Heh. During the big Galt speech I had to keep checking to see if I was reading the same page over and over again. After three pages I finally started flipping looking for the ending. Never did read the rest of it.

Posted by: lowandslow at April 30, 2011 08:14 AM (GZitp)

156 Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 01:09 PM (nj1bB)

I think Empire is a better film but Star Wars is a better movie, if you know what I mean.

I give the overall nod to Star Wars because it was first and set the template. Personally, it's pretty much the first movie I saw or at least really remember. The opening shot, even the opening fight on the ship...I was 8 and had never seen anything like it. I've also never seen anything like it again, at least not with fresh eyes like that.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2011 08:14 AM (2f1Rs)

157

The last movie I saw in a theater was Team America

Best sex scene in a movie evah!!

Posted by: beedubya at April 30, 2011 08:15 AM (AnTyA)

158

"Atlas Shrugged" is too political for most people in general to be really popular, conservative filmmakers don't really need to change the whole movie industry, all the different types of movies Hollywood pumps out now are generally the types of movies people want to see, the problem is that all the heroes are progressive heroes, they just need to change the perspective so that the heroes are conservative (with a dash of small "L" liberatarianism).

Iron Man was a good example, more like that but push the main character's persona a little more towards being outspoken about individual liberty and free markets, don't be heavy-handed about it, just include it in an otherwise fun and entertaining flick.

Posted by: Shoey at April 30, 2011 08:15 AM (m6OUa)

159 Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at April 30, 2011 01:10 PM (9hSKh)

No. I simply do not acknowledge their existence.

The fact that you do make you suspect.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2011 08:16 AM (2f1Rs)

160 I think Empire is a better film but Star Wars is a better movie, if you know what I mean.

Right.  Empire appeals to the wannabe film nerds who go strictly by "dark = better".  But Star Wars is much more enjoyable.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 30, 2011 08:16 AM (cd11S)

161 Caddyshack II

Posted by: USS Diversity at April 30, 2011 08:17 AM (7zt2W)

162 Godfather II was probably better than the original.

Mad Max 2 Beyond the Thunderdome was a better movie than the original.

And lets not forget Gandhi 2.

Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2011 08:18 AM (PwGfd)

163 Isn't it true that the makers of A-III are on the run from bounty hunters? They're not? There is no justice in this world.

Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 30, 2011 08:19 AM (nLQvb)

164

Barely Legal 47 > Barely Legal 32

Discuss.

Posted by: garrett at April 30, 2011 08:19 AM (6+RxA)

165
Caddyshack II was also about discrimination.

But the first Caddyshack made discrimination funny. The sequel was ugly to watch.
Jackie Mason was awful, too.

Posted by: Soothsayer at April 30, 2011 08:19 AM (uFokq)

166 Terminator 2 was arguably better than the original one.

Most people seem to believe this but I've always believed the original is by far the best.  It has the best performance of the whole series in Michael Biehn, a more uncompromising take on the nature of fate, a gazillion times less narrative bloat, and none of the numbing Cameron self-indulgence that characterized the second.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at April 30, 2011 08:19 AM (SKcL8)

167 It's pretty pathetic to think this guy's dream project was derailed

The technical quality is clearly 2.5 stars minimum. They were giving him 0 stars? Yeah he was hoping for a semi fair shake he didn't get to boost attendance. Rather than the savaging he got. He got a little emotional. But he got over it and has committed to making 2 and 3.

RT viewers rank it at 85% after 7000 ratings audience. Critics 9%

in contrast.

Academy award winning Hurt Locker audience scores 83% Critics 97%

Academy award winning Titanic audience scores 68% Critics 83%

Academy award winning No Country for Old Men audience scores 84% Critics 95% (WTF happened to the ending of this film? Did they lose it and run out of money to re-shoot it?)

Academy award winning Ben Hur audience scores 80%  Critics 91%

Army of Darkness. COMMON ARMY OF DARKNESS. Production value? Rigid acting? WTF? audience scores 85%, Critics 71%!!!!!

And then Atlas Shrugged, Audience 85% Critics 9%!!!!!!????

Nope no ideological axe to grind here. Not trying to keep a good movie down. Nothing to see here. We recommend you watch a re-run of Crash until you hate your own skin. But whatever you do don't see this movie.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 30, 2011 08:20 AM (vULTR)

168

Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo > Breakin'

Discuss.

Posted by: garrett at April 30, 2011 08:20 AM (6+RxA)

169

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 01:14 PM (nj1bB)

Haven't seen any of the Alien series other than the first.

The weather is supposed to turn crappy here soon (which gives me another excuse not to do the fucking mulching in the yard) so I'll hit the RedBox down to the Piggly Wiggly. Maybe Ill do an Alien marathon. It's been years since I'd seen the original.

 

Posted by: beedubya at April 30, 2011 08:20 AM (AnTyA)

170 Has there ever been a sequel that topped the first show?

"MILFs Take Manhattan II" was superior to the original in every way.

Just sayin'.

Don't judge me!

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2011 08:21 AM (2f1Rs)

171 Terminator 2 was arguably better than the original one. Most people seem to believe this but I've always believed the original is by far the best. It has the best performance of the whole series in Michael Biehn, a more uncompromising take on the nature of fate, a gazillion times less narrative bloat, and none of the numbing Cameron self-indulgence that characterized the second. Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at April 30, 2011 01:19 PM (SKcL Fully agree. Just yank out that 80's synth music.

Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 30, 2011 08:21 AM (nLQvb)

172 At least I agree with Ace about Aliens :-D  It's by far the best thing James Cameron has ever done.  If he could have made Avatar like that....

Posted by: some1 at April 30, 2011 08:21 AM (0F7Xm)

173 I don't know if it counts as a sequel, but Dawn of the Dead was better than Night of the Living Dead. Day of the Dead wasn't bad either.

Posted by: USS Diversity at April 30, 2011 08:22 AM (7zt2W)

174 Objectively, Ayn would have said to follow the bottom line - not the crap from critics or popular sediment to make parts 2 and 3.

Posted by: Jean at April 30, 2011 08:23 AM (7P7Ij)

175
incidentally, I just DL'd a movie made in 1998 that I have not watched called Thursday. Thomas Jane and Mickey Rourke are in it. Will be watching it tonight.

Posted by: Soothsayer at April 30, 2011 08:23 AM (uFokq)

176

The observation that going to the movies is a habit we conservatives eventually grow out of is spot on...........unless one is a masochist, why go to a movie and see your values riduculed, and have to pay good money for the pain?  Not WINNING for sure.

The moonbat left makes enough money without us, they see no reason to modify their hatred of us long enough to get us into a theater.  It will take time to develop the center-right arts market. 

In my local weekly paper, I automatically flip through the "arts" section without even looking at it.  I don't care what local plays are being performed, they're all about looney leftists and their transgendered problems caused by evil conservatives so why bother? 

Posted by: Boots at April 30, 2011 08:23 AM (neKzn)

177 173 I don't know if it counts as a sequel, but Dawn of the Dead was better than Night of the Living Dead. Day of the Dead wasn't bad either.

Agree.  I also liked the Zac Synder remake of Dawn of the Dead.  

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at April 30, 2011 08:23 AM (9hSKh)

178 I might seem like a real douche for admitting this, but I liked Scream. I heard #4 was pretty good. Anyone care to admit if they had seen it or not?

Posted by: beedubya at April 30, 2011 08:23 AM (AnTyA)

179 You know what was great conservative propaganda?  An American Carol.  Hilarious, a little preachy, and a lot of fun.

How well did it do in the theaters?

I think part of the problem is that conservatives want a movie to be good, first and foremost.  If it aligns with/argues for a conservative agenda, that's fine, but not essential.

Liberals, well, they're liberals.  They'll watch almost anything.

Posted by: Lance McCormick at April 30, 2011 08:25 AM (xC+kV)

180 #166

That's why I said "arguably".

I agree the first one is more cerebral, but as a pure theatrical experience its hard to argue with over-the top motorcycle chases, GNR soundtrack, liquid metal robots, etc.
 
What's indisputable is that the second one was FAR more popular and made a poo-load more money.


Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2011 08:25 AM (PwGfd)

181 Parodies have really taken off in porn. Must be the fantasy element of banging Joanie and Mrs. Cunningham.

Posted by: lowandslow at April 30, 2011 08:25 AM (GZitp)

182 163 Isn't it true that the makers of A-III are on the run from bounty hunters?

They're not?

There is no justice in this world.

Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 30, 2011 01:19 PM (nLQvb)

Well, Fincher did go on to direct Fight Club so I'm glad at least he wasn't rounded up.

Posted by: Herr Blcher at April 30, 2011 08:26 AM (ZQdZe)

183

Seriously, guys, this is a seminal movie

Did you have to go there? I mean c'mon seriously. That's gross

Posted by: beedubya at April 30, 2011 08:26 AM (AnTyA)

184 #178

Saw the first Scream and did like it.  But didn't see any of the sequels.

#179

Saw "American Carol" and thought it was absolutely lousy.
I so much wanted to like it. . .but no, I couldn't recommend it to any of my conservative or liberal friends!


Posted by: looking closely at April 30, 2011 08:27 AM (PwGfd)

185 Perhaps conservative are out doing constructive and productive things in society and don't have the time to get out and sit on our asses eating $20 popcorn to "support the team."

I stopped going to theaters when they started gouging me with a 2000% markup on concessions.  Yes, my fat ass needs the chronic popcorn. I'll support the team by buying a DVD, where my money is more directed at benefiting the creators.  And if it is worthy, I will buy it as gifts for other conservatives or potential targets of the conversion process. 


Posted by: Flounder at April 30, 2011 08:27 AM (Kkt/i)

186 Parodies have really taken off in porn. Must be the fantasy element of banging Joanie and Mrs. Cunningham. Posted by: lowandslow at April 30, 2011 01:25 PM (GZitp) A TNG one is due soon. They say the makers spent plenty of cash on sets and props. The Picard actor is just a spectator though.

Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 30, 2011 08:28 AM (nLQvb)

187 And a little further datapoints on ratings.

Sicko Critics 93%
Fahrenheit 9/11 Critics 84%
Bowling for Columbine Critics 96%
Capitalism: A Love Story Critics 75%

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 30, 2011 08:29 AM (vULTR)

188 Don't forget that you can also buy official movie merchandise from zazzle.com.   I saw the movie once opening weekend, and then ordered three T-shirts.

I'm also interested in a DVD version.  I'm hoping the "extras" details the order in which the scenes were filmed.  It seemed to me that the actors didn't really start bringing their characters to life until later the in film, I wonder if those scenes were  filmed later.  I'd also like to hear the director and writer explain their reasons for their changes from the book (which I liked).

Posted by: Siergen at April 30, 2011 08:29 AM (6c1Mp)

189 What's indisputable is that the second one was FAR more popular and made a poo-load more money.

Far more popular, maybe.... but it would never have been made in the first place, on the gigantic budget it was given (the largest of any movie up to that time, I think), if the original (budgeted at $6 to 10 million) hadn't been a huge success in its own right.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at April 30, 2011 08:30 AM (SKcL8)

190 I added your reviews to the main post.
Hey thanks.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 30, 2011 08:30 AM (vULTR)

191 Now, the producer has changed his mind since that peeved reaction to the critics' peevish reaction, and says he'll go ahead with Parts 2 and 3.

That's 'cause Zombie Ayn Rand called him a pussy.

Posted by: Fartnoise at April 30, 2011 08:31 AM (bCxgV)

192 Rent "The Way Back".  Anti-communism the entire time.  Beautifully photographed.

Posted by: Bean Blossom at April 30, 2011 08:32 AM (MGmET)

193

Breitbart is a stand in during the Anniversary Party scene.  There's also another gentleman in his 'group' that I recognize but couldn't grab the name.  A black conservative columnist I believe.

Breitbart only appears for about a second and the scene is 3-5 minutes long so you have to be on your toes to catch it.

Posted by: East Bay Jay at April 30, 2011 08:32 AM (svwGR)

194 @ 11 I'm a libertarian/conservative of many years but I must tell you honestly, as a writer, Ayn Rand was a hack. A complete hack. She sucks....

Your entire post adequately sums up my exact feelings on the whole Rand phenomenon. Thank you.

Posted by: Fartnoise at April 30, 2011 08:33 AM (bCxgV)

195 And as for being "more cerebral", I don't think that's really true....  T1 was a great action movie, while T2 had a definite and very thoughtful point of view of its own -- just not one that I felt fit the tone of the original movie, and that was much more ponderous and didactic than necessary.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at April 30, 2011 08:34 AM (SKcL8)

196 Breitbart is a stand in during the Anniversary Party scene.

So the movie version of a commenter then?

Posted by: Ian S. at April 30, 2011 08:36 AM (cd11S)

197 writer explain their reasons for their changes from the book (which I liked).

Transform Rand prose into entertaining cinema.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 30, 2011 08:38 AM (vULTR)

198

 I also liked the Zac Synder remake of Dawn of the Dead.  

Yeah. Didn't think I would but I did.

Posted by: USS Diversity at April 30, 2011 08:38 AM (7zt2W)

199 Don't liberals also enjoy being lectured to and lecturing others more than conservatives? They love the hierarchy and the smug satisfaction of being 'more informed' (read: less capable of critical thought because you accept so many non-truths as true) more than conservatives.

Maybe liberals are just more easily captured in the type of movies that Moore makes.

Posted by: Paper at April 30, 2011 08:39 AM (VoSja)

200 "He made a wonderful indie film called The Lost City back in 2005. Ever hear of it? No, because you were too busy carping about Michael Moore." I didn't see it in the theater but I bought the DVD. Bite me.

Posted by: Any Topic But the Huckster, Please! at April 30, 2011 08:39 AM (dDbkT)

201 So the movie version of a commenter then?

Movie - Blogging
Leads - Head Bloggers
Supporting cast - Commenters
Stand ins and extras - Lurkers

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 30, 2011 08:41 AM (vULTR)

202 @ 41: Michael Crichton used the same thriller genre template for his own polemic about global warming nonsense, State of Fear.

Like Rand, Crichton was a hack writer too. Yeah, I said it.

Once on a vacation I bought State of Fear to have something fairly quick and entertaining to read (so I surmised). I'd never read any Crichton before, but seeing as how so many of his books were cinema-tized, I figured it couldn't be too bad. Wow, was I wrong. Not that I had anything against the overriding ideological point (that AGW is a pant-load), but when it came to writing techinique I wanted to throw that book against the wall countless times. Utter drudgery -- like those fucking Steven King books. Maybe if you like reading screenplays they're okay, but for my taste they're complete doggerel.

Posted by: Fartnoise at April 30, 2011 08:41 AM (bCxgV)

203

Blaming critics for a flop = sour grapes.

False premise. He isn't blaming the bad reviews for mediocre ticket sales. He's acknowledging that the critics were enemies of this film and that they have won.

(That's my take, anyway.)

Posted by: FireHorse at April 30, 2011 08:43 AM (uUo97)

204 Just one more week, Atlas! Stay in theaters one more week and I should be able to fit seeing you into my schedule.

Posted by: William at April 30, 2011 08:45 AM (+zM6M)

205 I agree with Ace that we Conservatives can't opt out of the culture war. Unless we plan to become the political equivalent of the Amish. And look how much influence they have on the course of the nation. Liberals indoctrinate your children every moment of their lives because libs have made the culture their own. I saw "Atlas Shrugged" within the first week, but yeah, the first weekend would've made a lot more sense. If AS is #1 for the weekend then critic's opinions have less effect. Here is my quick review of AS: (contains spoilers) 1) Movie Quality - about the same as a good "movie of the week" on TV or About the same quality as that movie from the 80's "The Formula", which is a kind of anti-AS, ie. evil oil executives ruin everyone's lives. Expect a remake soon to support Obama. 2) Acting quality - Very good. Again "The Formula" is a good standard of comparison and it had Brando and George C Scott. Are AS actors as charismatic as Brando/Scott? No. Do they act their parts as well? Yes. Though I have to admit "John Galt" was a bit of a fail. Which I'll address below. 3) Plot Line/Script/Presentation/Directing - Here is AS main weakness as a movie that could spread into the mainstream. Movies work best when the plotline is fairly linear. Movies work best when they engage the emotions. Because I'm intellectually comfortable with the ideology of the story, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and was thoroughly engaged at that level. But I was never emotionally engaged. The problems: 1) Wyatt Story Arc - the actor is fine, but we don't see him enough to make his departure the kick in the gut that the movie wants us to feel. He is meant to be the third leg of support along with Dagny and Reardon fighting the good fight to save their businesses and keep their personal freedom against the encroachments of corrupt gov't (Hello, Obama!). Wyatt's disappearance at the cusp of his, Dagny's and Reardon's victory should be a punch in the face. It's not. 2) John Galt - Okay, I haven't read the book, so this may fly in the face of true believers but... At this point in the story, John Galt should be a vaguely, if not outright, sinister figure. Good grief, the secondary storyline is a frikking mystery, which the script/director keep wanting to spoil or undermine at almost every point. The decision to keep his face dark was a good one. But the producers really needed to find someone who could throw off a huge amounts of charisma and menace at this point. We don't want to see "John Galt" as a force of good at this point in the story. And we certainly, don't want to see guys like the character who left Dagny's business because of John Galt as beatifically grinning morons. The step that the missing are taking is a seriously moral one with real world complications. Their demeanor should reflect that. And that would add to the mystery. The Mexican guy and the fry cook played that part of the mystery better. One of our fellow morons, Ben(?) maybe, hated Dagny's scream at the end but I thought it was appropriate as Wyatt's disappearance pretty much meant the complete personal, financial, destruction of Dagny and her business. And that point, her and Reardon destruction, needed to be hammered much harder than it was. What was not forgivable is the John Galt's message at the end. That was plain incompetence. It's a mystery, dumbasses!!! Don't solve the mystery in the last few seconds. Use it to carry our interest over to Part 2. 3) We needed at least one scene of direct, up close and personal, conflict between Dagny and the government scumbags. And probably Wyatt. As a plus, Reardon had a pretty good one. **** Bottom line: It's a good but not great movie. You won't be bored at all. But it won't leave you panting to see the next installment like say, "The Empire Strikes Back" did. Honestly, I wish I had the inside track as a script fixer in Hollywood. Stupid mistakes cripple so many movies. For those who say bad reviews can't cripple a movie, just look at "Battle Los Angeles" That movie should've been a powerhouse but wasn't due to maliciously crappy reviews.

Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 08:50 AM (I49Jm)

206 Yikes. Just saw how long my above review-thingy is. Sorry Ace, had a lot to say I guess. Still...

Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 08:51 AM (I49Jm)

207 @ 179 You know what was great conservative propaganda?  An American Carol. Hilarious, a little preachy, and a lot of fun.

Of course, it's all subjective, but I heard from just about everyone who saw it that American Carol sucked balls. I never saw it, personally, because of all the negative feedback I heard.

Posted by: Fartnoise at April 30, 2011 08:53 AM (bCxgV)

208 I'm waiting to see it when they build a 150 story movie theater.

Posted by: WilliamDavisTerry at April 30, 2011 08:53 AM (CtdBs)

209 >>208 I'm waiting to see it when they build a 150 story movie theater.


We hear ya.

Posted by: Al Qaeda at April 30, 2011 08:56 AM (1fB+3)

210 I have only seen Alien and Alien 3, I will check out the others


So many memes here must go by you.

I say we take off and nuke it from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.

Posted by: Game Over, man! at April 30, 2011 08:58 AM (GTbGH)

211 I saw AS the first Sunday it was out and it was good. Don't miss it. I hope it comes out in DVD, so I can help drag it over the finish line.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at April 30, 2011 08:58 AM (qIHlG)

212 Um.  Why are you sheeple wasting time on a stupid movie when Obama's REAL birth certificate is still out there somewhere?

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2011 08:58 AM (1fanL)

213 Conservatives are more mature/patient/frugal as a whole and more often wait for the home-viewing experience. I assume I'm not projecting.

Posted by: The King Is Naked at April 30, 2011 08:58 AM (xs5wK)

214 The reason I don't see Conservative political movies is the same reason I don't see liberal political movies:  neither seem to me to really open to the debate over a position, they just want to push a viewpoint.  Yes, I am more in tune with Conservative ideas, but that just makes me not need to see these same ideas portrayed on screen.  A tract is a tract is a tract.  If I disagree, I'm not going to be persuaded, and if I agree, well, what am I doing there in the first place?  That said, I hope Atlas Shrugged finds a good audience.

What I really want to see on screen are interesting ideas woven into compelling stories using well-drawn characters...something that seems very, very Conservative to me, in outlook, and also something Hollywood has been loathe to do for several decades now.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at April 30, 2011 08:58 AM (tBDs3)

215 The purpose of movies is to entertain. The purpose of films is to try and learn you somethin. Movies are generally profitable. Films are generally not. This guy wanted to make a film, because the subject matter is "important.". Wrong motivation, if he's going to bitch about crotics and revenue. He could have made an entertaining RETELLING of the book, but nononoNO! Can't edit the holy word of Ayn Rand. So he filmed a boring, shitastic book and got a boring, shitastic movie. This is what happens when you start marketing to yourself. I have no pity on this guy for willingly destroying his wealth when this was entirely foreseeable. EoJ OUT.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 30, 2011 09:00 AM (FI38b)

216 Mad Max 2 Beyond the Thunderdome was a better movie than the original.

The original?  Or better than The Road Warrior?  I agree that it's better than Mad Max, but the Road Warrior kicked ass.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 09:01 AM (GTbGH)

217 Movies work best when they engage the emotions.
Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 01:50 PM (I49Jm)

Well, given the source material....

I haven't seen the movie. Was the movie to faithful to the book? Maybe too faithful?

The book didn't have separate characters as much as parts of Rand's philosophies given different names. They all sounded alike and had the same motivations.

One thing I don't remember about the book is whether or not characters gave hints they were going before they did or if they just disappeared. I think they just gave a speech and were gone.

If you don't build some tension, hint something is coming and make me care about the person before they go poof...well not only do I not care about them, where they went or why the left, you might not even notice.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2011 09:02 AM (2f1Rs)

218

We had a dinner and movie meet up in Seattle and it was an enjoyable evening. Good food, good booze, good movie and good people.

If you like the idea of an America that builds things instead of one that trades stocks and writes computer code you will like it. It has many parrallels regarding government intervention on what is going on today in Obama's America. Crisp sharp parrallels from the GM takeover to the government telling Boeing where they can build factories.

The theater was almost full except for the seats next to the screen and the audience liked the film, applause at the end.

I would reccomend getting some morons together for a fun evening.

Posted by: robtr at April 30, 2011 09:02 AM (MtwBb)

219 @207 @ 179 You know what was great conservative propaganda? An American Carol. Hilarious, a little preachy, and a lot of fun. Of course, it's all subjective, but I heard from just about everyone who saw it that American Carol sucked balls. I never saw it, personally, because of all the negative feedback I heard. Posted by: Fartnoise at April 30, 2011 01:53 PM (bCxgV) "An American Carol" totally sucked balls. In fact, I look on it as one of the reasons "Atlas Shrugged" is having a hard time. Because guys like "Big Hollywood" were absolutely pimping that movie as great and it really really stunk. That's what made me stay away from AS until I saw the viewer ratings were so high. (shakes fist at sky) ZUCKKKKKKKKKKKEEEEEEERRRRRRRR!!!!!!1111!!!

Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 09:03 AM (I49Jm)

220 Aliens was so good, that Cameron reused the sets in Avatar. The base, the ships, the comm gear for the soldiers, etc. Yeah, it was a defining film, even for Cameron, who has made a lot of high grossing movies. Go out and rent it, now.

Posted by: Jay in Ames at April 30, 2011 09:06 AM (p76FT)

221 I don't think it's fair to compare ALIEN and ALIENS.  They're different genres.  The former is a horror movie, and the latter is an action adventure shoot-em-up.  Between the two of them, I'm only ever inclined to rewatch the first one.  Maybe that's because ALIENS looks more dated (mainly because the fashions are so obviously 1986).

As for taking some of the air out of Empire Strikes Back, all I can say is "thank you!"  It's not as good as the original film, and I've felt that way since sitting through it six times in a row on a Saturday in late May 1980.

Posted by: Kensington at April 30, 2011 09:06 AM (mEyVv)

222 An American Carol wasn't great, but it was better than I expected it to be.

Posted by: Kensington at April 30, 2011 09:07 AM (mEyVv)

223 Conservatives are more mature/patient/frugal as a whole and more often wait for the home-viewing experience. I assume I'm not projecting.

No you are not.

I loves me my couch, beer, 50 cent bowl of popcorn, and my Blu-Ray.

I made an exception to the

"The theater viewing experience must have something that makes it expectedly much better than home viewing" rule

Because that is where we are. Where just going to see a movie (I'm in California) is an act of political bravery. Again I loved the movie. And would like to take others to it. But the bottom line is that seeing it in the theater, even if it was just me and my expecting wife, even though only a small gesture, is still symbolic. It was one of the few cases I didn't even flinch at the price at the box office.

If you are a DVD guy; I would ask that you consider breaking your normal rules and go see this in theaters AND then if you like it buy the DVD.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 30, 2011 09:09 AM (vULTR)

224

Drew,

The first 30 minutes were pretty true to the book, it takes place in todays America though so after that it's the theme of the book and several events in the book but not the book.

The characters leave in different stages. In the beginning a few just appear and leave as the movie progresses some of the main characters start leaving. They don't give speeches before they leave but as the movie goes on you know more about why they are leaving.

Posted by: robtr at April 30, 2011 09:10 AM (MtwBb)

225 From Ace: "Wait, let me guess: I said you should read some information debunking the birther conspiracy instead of self-selecting only the sites and email chains that tell you stuff that isn't true, and from that you get "Ace is telling us to read liberal websites." " Uh, I think you missed my point. No, I wasn't saying you hector us TO visit liberal web sites. Just the opposite. It seems I recall you telling us not to give traffic to them. That was my point. As for the birther thing, I'm no birther. I have read all sides on this. My position is that I never trusted Obama on this one ... a gut feeling. If the not-born-in-the-USA thing had proven true, it would have been delicious ... but not because it would have been the technicality that brought him down. Oh no. I would hate that. It would have been delicious because it would have shown what levels he and others would go to to protect the man.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at April 30, 2011 09:11 AM (6SIms)

226 >>>Most people seem to believe this but I've always believed the original is by far the best. It has the best performance of the whole series in Michael Biehn, a more uncompromising take on the nature of fate, a gazillion times less narrative bloat, and none of the numbing Cameron self-indulgence that characterized the second. Story far more emotional too. The plot in Terminator 2 was largely just an abstract "avoid the fantasy apocalypse" thing. The plot in the first one was a desperate romance on the run, with the fun chicken-and-egg time paradox twist. Just a better movie in every way. With the partial exception of special effects, but story > effects. Plus, the effects in the first one were plenty good enough if you were buying into the story, which I know I was. The metal terminator at the end of the first one > the liquid terminator. The liquid terminator was a better effect, but not a cooler effect. Just showier. Give me the stop-motion steel skeleton.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 09:11 AM (nj1bB)

227 Ugh, and I know I'm being a contrarian douche, but I liked ALIEN 3.  What I've always appreciated about the ALIEN films (not having seen the 4th one) is the way each was a different genre.  ALIEN was a horror movie, ALIENS was an action adventure shoot-em-up, and ALIEN 3 was a prison movie.  Plus, ALIEN 3 featured future Dr Who Paul McGann.  That's worth some points to me.

Although it was asinine for Sigourney Weaver to insist that Ripley die at the end of ALIEN 3.  I hate when actors do that, primarily because it ignores the fact that a studio can always find a way to bring a character back if they want to badly enough.  For more asininity like this, see Jamie Lee Curtis in "Halloween Resurrection."

Posted by: Kensington at April 30, 2011 09:12 AM (mEyVv)

228 We the Living has been made into a movie twice, 1942 and 1986 according to IMDB.  I'll have to go look for those.

Posted by: toby928™ at April 30, 2011 11:58 AM (GTbGH)

That book planted a seed in my early teens before I knew who Rand was and while I was still a little commie. It stayed with me when I went to a communist country. Always in the back of my mind.

Posted by: jcjimi at April 30, 2011 09:13 AM (LZTNd)

229 >>>Uh, I think you missed my point. No, I wasn't saying you hector us TO visit liberal web sites. Just the opposite. It seems I recall you telling us not to give traffic to them. That was my point. >>>As for the birther thing, I'm no birther Ah okay that makes sense. Well, okay, maybe that hectoring is unwanted but a lot of people believe in the power of boycotts. How else do you do a boycott without people encouraging each other to boycott? And how do you do a reverse boycott without encouraging it? If you don't believe in boycotts, fine, but many do. I do (sort of).

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 09:13 AM (nj1bB)

230 I mean sort of because I believe in them in the abstract. In the real world, most people do not make purchase decisions based on politics, or if they do, they do so only briefly. I should be boycotting NBC because it's leftwing propaganda but I like The Office, 30 Rock, and Community. So I boycott them except for those shows.* * Except I don't want to watch any other NBC shows so it's not even a boycott.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 09:14 AM (nj1bB)

231 What are we boycotting? Theaters?

Posted by: USS Diversity at April 30, 2011 09:15 AM (7zt2W)

232 Why not just go see a good movie that has some conservative themes? They are being made, ya know.  Dragging yourself out to see a conservative movie just because it's conservative sounds about as much fun as taking medicine.  This can be fun, Ace!

Mainstream critics will suppress such movies, so you have to go to websites that review them fairly or you have to check rottentomatoes to see what the audience response rate is.

How many of you say Mao's Last Dancer? Good Lord, I adore that movie. Best chick flick in a decade, plus lots of anti-Commie stuff too.

http://tinyurl.com/45399l7

Posted by: PJ at April 30, 2011 09:17 AM (XUYpl)

233 My version of boycotting involves a young man of legal consenting age, a cot, and no strings attached.

Posted by: Andrew Sullivan at April 30, 2011 09:18 AM (mEyVv)

234 We the Living has been made into a movie twice, 1942 and 1986 according to IMDB.  I'll have to go look for those.
Posted by: toby928™ at April 30, 2011 11:58 AM (GTbGH)

Most. Depressing. Book. Ever.
Gotta find the movie.

Posted by: The King Is Naked at April 30, 2011 09:18 AM (xs5wK)

235 >>>"The theater viewing experience must have something that makes it expectedly much better than home viewing" rule I know we've discussed this before but with current television technology there really is no more reason to see films in the theater. Not even "Big Movies," really. Movies with lots of scenery and big special effects used to be an exception but not anymore. I saw Tron Legacy at home; I doubt it would have looked any better on the big screen. The TV has a big advantage: Whatever flaws you have in your picture you get used to them and excuse them. I do, because I don't want to admit I lost out in buying a cheap TV. So while my picture isn't AWESOME (merely good), I make excuses. On the other hand, 50% of the time there is something wrong with the projection at the theater. It's either too dimly illuminated, or there's a stain on the screen, or it's slightly out of focus, or whatever. Plus, not as comfortable. So while the theater may promise a better *ideal* picture, in reality, about half the time, it will give you a worse picture, and you'll notice that a lot more. Nevermind the talking, the smelly seats, etc.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 09:19 AM (nj1bB)

236 Well I ain't seeing Atlas because there isn't a screen within a hundred miles.  Got a six screen cineplex a half hour away, nada.  Got a fourteen screen and a ten screen an hour away, nope.  BluRay it is then.

Oh, to the commenters above about Team America, good film but suffers from the same problem as South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut.  When Matt & Trey slip the censors to do a movie they just don't know where the line of good taste is.  Both went way over that line and are thus very flawed even though the point they were trying to make in both are good ones.

Posted by: John Morris at April 30, 2011 09:19 AM (41hR3)

237 Wait a second....People see conservative themed movies quite often in large numbers WHEN said movie is in alot of theaters, advertised, and with some well known actors/actresses in it. This movie was in a handful of theaters and most conservatives had no idea it was even made since there was no advertising. Also, most people could not recognize one actor or actress in the thing.

Posted by: Dan at April 30, 2011 09:20 AM (mXBxH)

238

I mean sort of because I believe in them in the abstract.

In the real world, most people do not make purchase decisions based on politics, or if they do, they do so only briefly.

I must not be most people, I don't see a lot of movies because of the left wing preachers that star in them. I don't buy J & J products or progressive insurance because of the left wingers that run them.

I don't go out of my way to seek out products not to buy, movies not to see or companies not to do business with but when they get in my face I quit supporting them.


Posted by: robtr at April 30, 2011 09:20 AM (MtwBb)

239 >>>Mad Max 2 Beyond the Thunderdome was a better movie than the original. The original? Or better than The Road Warrior? I agree that it's better than Mad Max, but the Road Warrior kicked ass. I think he means Mad Max 2: the Road Warrior, which is apparently what it's called sometimes. To say Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (mad Max 3) was better than the Road Warrior is simply insane.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 09:21 AM (nj1bB)

240

On break from tree pruning and jumping in w/out reading the comments.

Movies need car chases, 'splodey things, and boobehs.  Like FastFive appearing this weekend on the local drive-in screen.

Joe Bob Briggs was the best damn movie critic 'till he went all Hollywood and overexposed himself.  

Posted by: Count de Monet at April 30, 2011 09:21 AM (XBM1t)

241 Speaking of South Park, the season premiere this week was very funny, combining the Human Centipede with iPad mania.

I LOL'ed quite a bit.

Posted by: Kensington at April 30, 2011 09:21 AM (mEyVv)

242 Wife and I took our 12 year old granddaughter to see Atlas Shrugged last weekend. Granddaughter gets the point. She does not see any reason for her to give up any of her grade points for other kids who are too lazy or otherwise not up to achieving.

Posted by: rick at April 30, 2011 09:22 AM (jJRcf)

243 Roger Ebert always was very partisan. Very liberal. But, for years he kept it under wraps. His reviews were pretty good. Since getting cancer and having several near death experiences, the gloves came off. He never reviews the few conservative themed movies that come out well. But every shitty liberal movie gets a minimum of 3 stars.

Posted by: jeff at April 30, 2011 09:24 AM (V59pD)

244

Joe Bob Briggs was the best damn movie critic 'till he went all Hollywood and overexposed himself.  

Posted by: Count de Monet at April 30, 2011 02:21 PM (XBM1t)

I overexposed myself in a theater once!

Posted by: Paul Rubens at April 30, 2011 09:25 AM (u+wq4)

245 212 Um. Why are you sheeple wasting time on a stupid movie when Obama's REAL birth certificate is still out there somewhere?
_______

I heard OJ stumbled across it while he was searching for the real killer.

Posted by: Anachronda at April 30, 2011 09:28 AM (6fER6)

246

I overexposed myself in a theater once!

Posted by: Paul Rubens at April 30, 2011 02:25 PM (u+wq4)

The common taters here never disappoint.  Anything up and over the plate gets a long ride.

Posted by: Count de Monet at April 30, 2011 09:28 AM (XBM1t)

247 I'm sorry, the movie just isn't very good. I went to see it to support it, and the ideas behind it, but left feeling as if I had paid $30 for a bad Movie of the Week. I saw it with a female accomplice who hadn't read the book, but would normally be favorable to the message, and she was completely and totally lost throughout the entire movie. It's kind of like a Cliffnotes version of the book, with really bad acting. Characters scramble in and out at lightning speed, shout a few lines, and then disappear. Motivations and actions, which are detailed and mostly believable in the book, just kind of happen in the movie because they're supposed to, I guess. There's no real time spent on who's doing what and why. The whole subplot of people disappearing has no emotional impact because you've got no idea who these people are or what they stood for. Often they've said two words and have been swept away by some mysterious force. Some acting is good. The fellow playing Reardon I thought was good. Dagny was decent. Some of the other actors are going to make you cringe, like watching your child at a grade-school play, and the lines they deliver feel like they've crushed a page of dialog down to two or three sentences. It feels rushed, from beginning to end. Complex ideas are smushed down to nothing. Important philosophies are hurried over. Of course, the answer is that there's not enough time in 120 minutes or whatever to include all of this, but what you end up with is some muddled soft serve mess of the original book which not only doesn't do the book justice, it doesn't make those possibly interested want to seek it out.

Posted by: 12thMonkey at April 30, 2011 09:30 AM (fZzaW)

248 I won't go see the film in the theatre for a couple reasons.  1) it's not playing anywhere close to me and I don't like to travel very far to see movies.  2) I strongly dislike movie theatres in general - sitting in one just to support a conservative film that doesn't even have an end does not appeal to me.

Unfortunately, this would have been better as a miniseries.  Something I could get behind and watch at home.

Posted by: soulpile is...expendable at April 30, 2011 09:31 AM (afWhQ)

249 >>>Godfather II was probably better than the original I have never, ever, ever believed this and want to slap people who say so. And a lot of people say so. Godfather II is... a grind. There, I said it. It's got flashbacks and flash-sideways and a bunch of characters I simply do not give a shit about and it's shoehorning in historically-interesting parts (the fall of Havana) which are a strain on an already weak and episodic plot. Compare Godfather II with I. The brothers, the betrayal, the hospital vigil, The Restaurant, Sicily, Sonny gets wacked, Sonny beats the hell out of Rizzo, sister screams at Michael, the Don dies, "Make my son presentable for his mother," Fredo banging two waitresses at a time, and the Baptism/Vengeance sequence... To say the Godfather II is better than the first is so stupid only someone who really, really, REALLY wants to offer a strange and counterintuitive and therefore learned-sounding opinion would say.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 09:31 AM (nj1bB)

250

I saw it and put up my reviews on that friday night.

It was a bad movie plan and simple ace. Not everyone here agreed with me, but that's the reason it "fell off a cliff".

There is no other explanation. It literally dropped 50% in viewers.

Had it been good I intended on seeing it 3-4 times in theaters, but instead i found myself walking out of the theater as fast as I possibly could.

I have been re-reading the book since I saw it and it has made me hate the film ever more.

What pisses me off so much is that it could have been done write. As I watched it, I didn't think it was awful because a 1200 page book can't be brought to the big screen, simply that these people were not capable of it.

That said, do see it, Ace's right, support conservative movies, but this was bad.

I hope they don't make parts 2 and 3, or at the very least, they don't let the person who directed this do it.

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2011 09:31 AM (DKV43)

251

I saw Atlas Shrugged last night. It was one of the few times I have felt my movie ticket money was well-spent. The movie was fast paced and held my attention from beginning to end. The message isn't preached, it just happens.

The no-name actors were good, particularly the ones who played Hank Rearden and his wife Lillian. The special effects were excellent. I was afraid I'd see props dangling by wires, but the shots of the trains and the Rearden Metal bridge blended seamlessly with the rest of the movie.

The theater was 3/4 full even though the movie had not been advertised at all. And I plan to go back and see it again, just to pick up details I might have missed the first time. I was amazed at how well they managed to put the book into visual form. If anybody here is looking for a good way to spend an evening, this is it.

Posted by: Avogadra at April 30, 2011 09:31 AM (dtIOD)

252 Alien was the superior movie.  Aliens is a Must see because of all of the brilliant quotes, particularly Bill Paxton, and the action, but in terms of eerieness Alien wins by a long shot.

Alien was a suspense thriller.
Aliens was an actioner.  Though "They mostly come out at night, mostly" is one of the greatest lines ever.  as is "GET SOME GET SOME!" and a few minutes later "FUCK ME FUCK ME"  Just genius.

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 09:32 AM (YKOnu)

253 I bet you I could gather 100 people who say Godfather II is better, and put them on a couch, and put two dvds in front of them -- godfather I and godfather II -- and secretly film them, and I guarantee you 98% of them will put in Godfather I, so long as they don't know I'm taping them to see what they REALLY think.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 09:33 AM (nj1bB)

254 >>>I saw it and put up my reviews on that friday night. Here? Oh I missed that, or I forgot. I may have begun reading and stopped because I didn't want to read a bad review.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 09:34 AM (nj1bB)

255

jesus, what's with all the spelling and typing errors.

write=right

and i didn't leave before it was over but as soon as the credits hit i sped out of there.

The last scene of Part 1 in the book is so powerful and they put in this stupid f'ing gimmick that ruined it.

Ellis Wyatt's sign was enough, but they had to add a freaking gimmich.

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2011 09:34 AM (DKV43)

256

you I could gather 100 people who say Godfather II is better, and put them on a couch, and put two dvds in front of them -- godfather I and godfather II -- and secretly film them, and I guarantee you 98% of them will put in Godfather I, so long as they don't know I'm taping them to see what they REALLY think.

I like the Godfather 2, but I only liked the flashback sequences. It could have been done entirely in the past and it would have been better. I also love the beginning of the film as it gives me something to reference when debating how immigration should work in America. You know the scene when Vito comes to Ellis Island and is put in quaranteen for 3 months because he has TB

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2011 09:36 AM (DKV43)

257

The Godfather series sucks. 

Most all mob films suck equally...Goodfellas being the exception to this rule.

...don't even get me started on the Sopranos crap.

Posted by: garrett at April 30, 2011 09:37 AM (6+RxA)

258

>>>I saw it and put up my reviews on that friday night.

Here? Oh I missed that, or I forgot. I may have begun reading and stopped because I didn't want to read a bad review.

yeah, it actually wasn't a formal review. It was more a litany of complains over several posts.

Ace, I think you have good taste in movies, and I don't see any possibility that you will like this.

It is of low productions quality, the dialogue is bad, the acting is mediocre(with a few notable exceptions) and the wasted frames drove me nuts. There is literally 4 minutes of screen time of nothing but shots of the Colorado countryside.

 

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2011 09:38 AM (DKV43)

259

quarantine, dear lord i give up on spelling, i am typing faster than i am thinking

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2011 09:38 AM (DKV43)

260 I like the Godfathers back to back. That's the way we have always watched them Just as long as ya don't waste my time with #3.

Posted by: lurker at April 30, 2011 09:39 AM (lI99B)

261 The bracelets made of Rearden Metal have sold out.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at April 30, 2011 09:39 AM (qIHlG)

262 There is literally 4 minutes of screen time of nothing but shots of the Colorado countryside.


Now I remember that whining about establishment shots. They did have a purpose BTW you just missed them.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 30, 2011 09:40 AM (vULTR)

263 Pretty amazing movie. The dearth of car chases and fart jokes doomed it though.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at April 30, 2011 09:42 AM (qIHlG)

264 Well, I don't plan to see it, but I'm not big on going to movies anyway.  I don't have an interest in this particular movie (Mr Y-not assures me Rand was a hack) and am mildly irritated that the producers apparently expected conservatives to just go see it out of some sort of sense of duty or obligation.  I'm thinking the conservative movement will live on irrespective of whether or not these particular movie makers make money (or another movie). 

Posted by: Y-not at April 30, 2011 09:42 AM (pW2o8)

265 Flyers / Bruins Game 1 on in 15min. or so...

Posted by: garrett at April 30, 2011 09:43 AM (6+RxA)

266 A quick reading of some of the comments shows a pattern....maybe... I enjoyed the movie (intellectually and at a good movie of the week level) but I've never read the book. People who've read the book, don't seem to like it very much if at all. Is this simply another case of the movie in your head is simply much better than the one on the screen? Ben, if you're talking about the voiceover, I agree. But that scene reflects the two main weaknesses of the movie.(see comment #205)

Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 09:43 AM (I49Jm)

267

quarantine, dear lord i give up on spelling, i am typing faster than i am thinking

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2011 02:38 PM (DKV43)

And capitalization and punctuation too, evidently.

 

 

 

 

i keed!

Posted by: ErikW at April 30, 2011 09:44 AM (u+wq4)

268
Contrary to a widely held belief, The Godfather does not insist upon itself.

Godfather II?...that's another story.

Posted by: Soothsayer at April 30, 2011 09:44 AM (uFokq)

269 266 I hate soccer.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at April 30, 2011 09:45 AM (qIHlG)

270

The only upsides to the film?

The cinamatography of the Rearden's Anniversary party. It was a well done scene.

The actress who played Lilian Rearden was exactly as I imagined here in the book. She was spot on.

I thought Grant Bowler did an able job as Hank Rearden and  Bob Beckel's brother did a good job as Ellis Wyatt.

As for the actress who played Dagny, I am torn. She wasn't bad, but the way she played the scene at the end stuck in my craw. I couldn't help but think of the ending to star wars III. 

And then we come to john galt. oh god. I think PJ Rourke said it best, "as far as i could tell John Galt was played by a trenchcoat and a fedora".

 

I understand that much of Rand's dialogue cannot be put into the movie because it is meant to be read and not heard, and for the most part it isn't how people talk.

However they left out some of the most important dialogue. The coversation between Rearden and D'Anconia at the Anniversary party. 

The significance of D'Anconia's mines being nationalized by the people's state of Mexico.

None of this would have added significant time to the film, and with creative editing they could have gotten rid of the 10-15 minutes of filler of shots of random trains and scenic helicopter shots of the Colorado countryside.

 

 

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2011 09:46 AM (DKV43)

271 soothsayer, that is a good way to put it: The Godfather II insists upon itself. Unlike the Godfather.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 09:46 AM (nj1bB)

272 As for Critics MOSTLY getting it right, well, yeah, of course they do, they are critical of one of the most pre-marketed industries in the world and pre-marketed at a high cost.  They come into most films already having most of the information about the nature of the production before they view it.   Just because they are often involved in the updates that comes with post-production.

And if the critics, and the market testing,  and the pre-market polling testing doesn't work out, then they don't spend money on ad's, and send the crap straight to DVD eff it all, write it off as a loss, to offset the net proffits of more proffitible flic's.

All that advantage, doesn't mean that Critics are useless, but in controversial choices Critics are almost always wrong.   I have two examples and I get into arguments with people all the time about these two movies I'm gonna mention, and it turns out that most people never saw the movie, or never actually watched it.    There is a group of people, most of them, who want to see a movie just because they have to, so they are present for a movie, but they don't actually WATCH it.

Hudson Hawk, Was HIGH-EFFING-LARIOUS!  I don't care how poorly reviewed it was, I don't care that it was "considered" the worst film of the year, though it was the best comedy of that year. (I think) and if it wasn't, it was pretty damn close.

And I forgot the other second movie.  DAMN  I will remember it later, but there are a lot of movies that critics pan or love that are great or suck.  I think that all things apatow are overrated, in the commentary they basically admit that apatow goes "here's the arc, now improv"  That's not great filmmaking, that's improv theater.  All things moore are overrated, though even though it's largely false, it is largely entertaining, which is rare for a docu, however how "An Inconvenient Truth" can win an oscar and "The King of Kong" (a 100% pure documentary) isn't even nominated is beyond me.

The list is endless, I have a gamer friend who works in the bizness, we don't talk about what he does, but he LOVES LOVES LOVES movies, and we talk about it all the time.  and a lot of the stuff he recommends to me, I never even heard of, and that stuff I can find to rent and see are excellent, and I doubt many have seen some of them.

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 09:46 AM (YKOnu)

273

Is this simply another case of the movie in your head is simply much better than the one on the screen?

I thought that was it, but it isn't. 

The best way I could describe this movie is that this film was "based on" the book Atlas Shrugged in the same way the Mothman Prophecies was "based on" real events surrounding the collapse of the Point Pleasant bridge.

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2011 09:48 AM (DKV43)

274

I saw it on opening weekend. Perfectly good movie provided one knows the background. You sort of wait for each stage of the book to be reached, and when it is, you move on to the next. Very linear, and for once a movie that should have been longer instead of shorter. I liked all the unknown actoers, but the Dagny character really grew on me.

Anyone still watching the Draft? Mark Herzlich still waiting.

Posted by: Lincolntf at April 30, 2011 09:48 AM (xMT+4)

275

Ace,

everytime I click on your site i get a blocked pop up telling me your site wants to add some sort of microsoft add on.

Is that something you added or a virus or something?

 

Posted by: robtr at April 30, 2011 09:49 AM (MtwBb)

276

Contrary to a widely held belief, The Godfather does not insist upon itself.

No it just sucks.

It's a self-applied handjob in front of a fantastical mirror.  It doesn't insist on itself, it moans in pleasure at the reflection of itself...and that reflection is contrary to reality.  

It contains some fantastic acting, but it lacks any groundbreaking cinematic devices. 

Goodfellas has it all over The Godfather.

...and the wedding scene in 'Easy Money' puts the wedding scene in The Godfather to shame. 

Posted by: garrett at April 30, 2011 09:49 AM (6+RxA)

277
I believe Peter Griffin was in a hot tub when he said it, though. It takes away some of the profundity of the assessment of the movie.

Posted by: Soothsayer at April 30, 2011 09:50 AM (uFokq)

278 >>>everytime I click on your site i get a blocked pop up telling me your site wants to add some sort of microsoft add on. >>>Is that something you added or a virus or something? Nope! Why would I add a virus? Sometimes those scanny-things don't like the ads.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 09:51 AM (nj1bB)

279

naturalflake.

Dagny's scream at the end is in the book, but I just thought it was poorly done in the movie.

I don't advocate getting rid of the scream, but please tell me you didn't think of Darth Vader at the end of SWIII. It felt so fake and forced.

Also in the book Rearden has no stated reaction, but remembers later in the book that he laughed when Ellis did what he did.

Somethign that isn't in the movie and won't be developed over the next two(if they are made) is his slow learning of what the "sanction of the victim" is and why he'd been unable to understand it for so long on an intellectual level, but had always felt it on a visceral level.

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2011 09:52 AM (DKV43)

280 I think the Godfather II really does insist upon itself. All these years, I finally realize that's why I don't like it. Peter Griffith's criticism applies to GFII. (They seem to actually be talking about the combined Godfather Parts 1 and 2 (as Chris mentions DeNiro) so maybe this is sort of what they mean.)

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 09:52 AM (nj1bB)

281 276 Not seeing that here. Beware. Sounds fishy.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at April 30, 2011 09:52 AM (qIHlG)

282
I don't know a single person who doesn't like The Godfather. Until now.

The book was great and the movie was great. You know what your problem is, garrett?

You're a racist anti-Italian-American.




Posted by: Soothsayer at April 30, 2011 09:52 AM (uFokq)

283

Posted by: Soothsayer at April 30, 2011 02:50 PM (uFokq)

 

Flooded 'Safe Room'...and the best part of that scene is the end, "I liked 'The Money Pit'.

Posted by: garrett at April 30, 2011 09:53 AM (6+RxA)

284 Well crap. The closest place to me is in Illinois. I would like to see it but I don't care to be disarmed while in Chicagoland. I do that enough for my freakin job in Illinois, dang it. All the Indiana locations are much further away.

Posted by: Mark at April 30, 2011 09:53 AM (5ESFQ)

285 276 I Adblocked all of the ads, and it loads fine.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at April 30, 2011 09:54 AM (qIHlG)

286

You're a racist anti-Italian-American.

 

actually it's 180 degrees from that. 

My Father's family is Italian and I grew up in the construction industry in Northern Jersey and New York City.  It is a false reflection of organized crime.

Posted by: garrett at April 30, 2011 09:54 AM (6+RxA)

287 @267 Natural Fake

People who've read the book, don't seem to like it very much if at all.

I think part of it is because even people who have read and appreciated the book know that it was really a shitty book.  Ayn did great on philosophy, and she had a good plot, but LOUSY delivery.  Pedantic, lecturing, overbearing, vociferous offensive, deliberately seperatist from any connection to basic humanity, robotic, soulless.  Even the love quadrangle had only a MILD impact on the reader because the only person with an actual sense of emotion had to debase himself and his passions for someone elses ideal.  An ideal that he took as his own, but an ideal that punished him every day.   It's also hypocritical fore exactly that reason.  D'anconia was an ALTRUIST! surrendering the only thing he cared about as much as his ideal to serve his ideal.

The flaws in the book can't be missed, I think the depictions of the philosophy are outstanding, but in reality it would have been just as good as a plot outline, as a book, cuz really the book, as a form of engaging entertainment SUCKED!

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 09:54 AM (YKOnu)

288 The scream was absurd. I chuckled and looked sidelong at my wife, hoping she wouldn't burst out laughing. She ended up enjoying the story end of the movie, and couldn't care less about the philosophical/political angles. She was ticked off when I told her the sequels were tenuous.

Posted by: Lincolntf at April 30, 2011 09:55 AM (xMT+4)

289 The Godfather is THE mafia movie. Godfather 2 is the arthouse version of that same movie directed by Ang Lee. @273 Douglas, Yeah, I too love "Hudson Hawk" but it's got a HUGE problem. It's the same problem as Spielberg's "1941". Everyone in the movie is trying to out-zany everyone else. Movie's need a center to play the zany off of and none exists in HH. If you're into the movie's vibe, it works. If not, man, you are in for one lo-o-o-o-ong grind of a movie.

Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 09:55 AM (I49Jm)

290

Flooded 'Safe Room'...and the best part of that scene is the end, "I liked 'The Money Pit'.


ahhh, right. My memory is failing me. Th point is that Peter was naked and wet and floating when he said it.

Posted by: Soothsayer at April 30, 2011 09:56 AM (uFokq)

291 282 276 Not seeing that here. Beware. Sounds fishy.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at April 30, 2011 02:52 PM (qIHlG)

I'm getting it too. I'm running Webroot, if that makes a difference.

Posted by: ErikW at April 30, 2011 09:56 AM (u+wq4)

292 276 I Adblocked all of the ads, and it loads fine.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at April 30, 2011 02:54 PM (qIHlG)

The site works the same for me, I just get that annoying sound and message when I click on this site. I have been getting it for a couple of days but just here. I am not going to allow it, just wondered what it was.

Posted by: robtr at April 30, 2011 09:56 AM (MtwBb)

293 >>>Hudson Hawk, Was HIGH-EFFING-LARIOUS! I don't care how poorly reviewed it was, I don't care that it was "considered" the worst film of the year, though it was the best comedy of that year. (I think) and if it wasn't, it was pretty damn close. I confess to liking that movie and having seen it about five times. But it's not a good movie. It is self-indulgent to a fault. It tries to be funny and lands on its face a lot. (The dolphin noises the girl makes? The guys named after candy bars? The general tone of stupidity?) But there are good parts. The basic premise is good. The DaVinci McGuffin is good (and now so commonplace it's not even worth noting, but Hudson Hawk did that years ago). Some of the self-indulgence is fun, like timing heists to crooner songs. The Vatican Heist is good for a comedy caper type movie. This is the funny thing: Hollywood insists on remaking good, successful, well-received movies, which usually results in an inferior product. They SHOULD be remaking bad movies that actually could have been good with a few changes, crap like Hudson Hawk.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 09:57 AM (nj1bB)

294

everytime I click on your site i get a blocked pop up telling me your site wants to add some sort of microsoft add on.

Is that something you added or a virus or something?

 

Posted by: robtr at April 30, 2011 02:49 PM (MtwBb)

No, it's Adobe Flash or some other common plug-in.  It was doing it to me too.  I think it's the new free virus protection software from Microsoft that's responsible.

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2011 09:57 AM (1fanL)

295

All 3 Godfather movies suck.

There. I said it. And I know that deep inside, y'all agree.

Posted by: Jack M. at April 30, 2011 09:58 AM (nF4Jh)

296

Th point is that Peter was naked and wet and floating when he said it.

 

It was a mock deathbed confession.  A Taboo that wouldn't be uttered if the character was not facing his untimely death.  Really, it's a brilliant line.

Posted by: garrett at April 30, 2011 09:58 AM (6+RxA)

297 Might want to add a spoiler alert to the top for some of the comments.  I like to go in fresh!

Posted by: Frank Costanza at April 30, 2011 09:58 AM (Kkt/i)

298 I haven't read the book so maybe that's why I thought the movie was OK. Two hours versus how many pages again?

I also thought it was a great way to introduce these ideas to people of the left who will Never Read That Book.

The sets were low budget, yeah, but not offensive. Like a made for TV movie. The only thing I really hated was Dagny's scream at the end. WTF! Weird shot.

Posted by: PJ at April 30, 2011 09:59 AM (XUYpl)

299 285 Well crap. The closest place to me is in Illinois. I would like to see it but I don't care to be disarmed while in Chicagoland. I do that enough for my freakin job in Illinois, dang it. All the Indiana locations are much further away.

Yeahp, That is one of the problems, they opened in major markets where they only get the niche and have to pay high per theatre rents.  Smalltown markets would have been more consistent and made them less susceptible to "first week" fall off.  Just slog it out in small markets with cheap theater rents.

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 09:59 AM (YKOnu)

300 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S9WyYaO7mQ Peter Griffin's "insists upon itself" pan of the Godfather.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 09:59 AM (nj1bB)

301

Hudson Hawk now?

It's an alright film, but Sandra Bernhardt's speeches were cringe inducing.

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2011 09:59 AM (DKV43)

302

 I haven't read the book so maybe that's why I thought the movie was OK. Two hours versus how many pages again?

depending on the copy it is abour 1100 pages, but part one of the book is only 300 or so pages.

 

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2011 10:00 AM (DKV43)

303 They SHOULD be remaking bad movies that actually could have been good with a few changes, crap like Hudson Hawk.


That is a fucking trenchant observation.  So many movies just miss, when a tweak in the plot, or a different cast would have made them a winner.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 10:01 AM (GTbGH)

304
Actually, I quoted another great line in my above comment.

"Widely held belief" was from Futurama. Fry said a lot of funny stuff with really good subtle delivery.

Posted by: Soothsayer at April 30, 2011 10:01 AM (uFokq)

305 The audiobook is available on YouTube. Use the title and the word disc to ferret it out.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at April 30, 2011 10:02 AM (qIHlG)

306 276/
I get that on my work comp. It has an old version of IE. My laptop runs foxfire so I don't ever see it at home.

Posted by: lurker at April 30, 2011 10:02 AM (lI99B)

307 The basic premise is good.
I think the big punchline of the whole movie, and I laughed my ass off at the end, was that all he wanted was a cup of capuccino.

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 10:02 AM (YKOnu)

308 There have been a lot of updates recently.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at April 30, 2011 10:03 AM (qIHlG)

309 >>>That is a fucking trenchant observation. Well, it's been said a thousand times. It's also, unfortunately, not true: No one should remake Hudson Hawk because, financially you're tying yourself to a poorly-received bomb and gaining nothing from the remake. But, in theory, if all you care about is making a good movie, then this would be the right kind of movie to remake, the interesting failure, the movie that had something but missed. In 15 years they'll be remaking Raiders of the Lost Ark. They will not just reboot the series with a new, younger indy. Instead, they will remake a movie that should not be remade, period.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 10:03 AM (nj1bB)

310

 Futurama.

 

Great show.  The episode where Bender gets shot into deep space and becomes a defacto God is one of the best TV shows I have ever seen. I love it when I dumb into that one getting replayed.

Posted by: garrett at April 30, 2011 10:04 AM (6+RxA)

311 @ 280 Ben, Yeah, I'll give you that Star Wars has pretty much poisoned the "NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!" well. While I didn't hate it as much as you did, a long horrified, hoarse animal-level scream would've been much more effective. And the voice-over.....well.....pop goes the mystery!

Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 10:05 AM (I49Jm)

312 All right, I can take being told I'm a liar or an idiot for preferring Godfather II.  But I'm not going to take it from someone who in their next breath is going to say that a pile of utter horseshit like Hudson Hawk is a good movie.

Bruce Willis should have a hot spike pounded up his ass in Hell for that utter masturbatory turd of a movie.  Danny Aiello should be ashamed of himself, too.

Now, as to Godfather II, I probably would put that into the DVD player first, but only because (a) I already know the first film inside and out and (b) I keep telling myself that this time the modern day plot of Godfather II will finally make sense.  This time I'll be able to make sense of how Michael knows that Hyman Roth is the bad guy.

Posted by: Kensington at April 30, 2011 10:05 AM (mEyVv)

313 Instead, they will remake a movie that should not be remade, period.


I said that about True Grit, and I was wrong.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 10:05 AM (GTbGH)

314

And the voice-over.....well.....pop goes the mystery!

yeah. the scene could have been done well.

the voiceover. I can't even put to words how bad it was.

The sign Ellis left was powerfule enough.

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2011 10:07 AM (DKV43)

315 Tron:  Legacy sucked maximum.

Just throwing that out there.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 10:07 AM (GTbGH)

316 But I'm not going to take it from someone who in their next breath is going to say that a pile of utter horseshit like Hudson Hawk is a good movie.

every man has his breaking point.

Posted by: Ben at April 30, 2011 10:07 AM (DKV43)

317 It's also, unfortunately, not true: No one should remake Hudson Hawk because, financially you're tying yourself to a poorly-received bomb and gaining nothing from the remake.

Well it's not true and it's true.  If you make a well known bad movie then you are automatically camp.  But if you take an unknown bad movie and do it right, then you have gold, camp and cult.

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 10:08 AM (YKOnu)

318

Hyman Roth

 

I must break you.

Posted by: Ivan Drago at April 30, 2011 10:09 AM (6+RxA)

319 Been banging this drum a while,  conservatives who rush to throw money at "Recycled Leftists Trope #712 in 3d!"  but never get around to finding conservative film makers or actors have no right to endlessly complain about leftist control over media.  Like pigs to a trough.

Leftists constantly talk about "important" movies etc.. and will make a point to watch or talk up a show just because it supports their agenda.  Sure its annoying but it does work.

Guess we find ourselves at that point where you ask yourself do I want to win or do I just want to bitch and moan?

Posted by: Shiggz at April 30, 2011 10:10 AM (mLAWK)

Posted by: The Beastie Boys at April 30, 2011 10:11 AM (6+RxA)

321 "I must break you."

Eh, I haven't really spoiled anything because it won't make any sense anyway.  When the moment happens, you won't be going "ah-HAH!"  Instead you'll say "huh?  But how does he know this?" 

Also, it's almost FORTY FREAKING YEARS OLD!

Posted by: Kensington at April 30, 2011 10:12 AM (mEyVv)

322 >>>Tron: Legacy sucked maximum. I have a half-finished review. It's not a sequel to Tron; it's a secret to The Matrix: Reloaded. Or a partial remake of The Matrix: Reloaded with a small amount of Tron branding. It's also horrible in almost every way. The one exception is the special effects. I usually don't care about special effects but here the shots were gorgeous and also sensible (no quick cutting; they let your eyes figure out all that was happening). Parts of it were so nice to look at I wished I was a pot-smoker so I could just get high and watch the pretty color-trails on the screen. But yeah, apart from that, awful. And the Young Jeff Bridges?! It looked so fake, it was distracting. They should have abandoned that idea when they saw the tecnology wasn't quite there yet.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 10:12 AM (nj1bB)

323 Peter Griffin's "insists upon itself" pan of the Godfather.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 02:59 PM (nj1bB)

Know what insists upon itself?  Family Guy.  "HEY!  I'm edgy, I'm funny, I beat jokes into the dirt, I push the boundaries, I lick the envelope!"

Or maybe it's just that I don't like that douchebag who runs it.

Posted by: FUBAR at April 30, 2011 10:12 AM (1fanL)

324 @313 Jiminy Cricket! You know I'm the bad guy cause I'm the JOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Posted by: Hyman Roth at April 30, 2011 10:12 AM (I49Jm)

325
In 1977 they made The Godfather Saga.

NBC aired it as a mini-series. They edited the two films to run in chronological order. Later it was packaged and sold on VHS.

I watched it on VHS in the '90's and I liked it.

Posted by: Soothsayer at April 30, 2011 10:13 AM (uFokq)

326 >>> But if you take an unknown bad movie and do it right, then you have gold, camp and cult. Or an unknown/forgotten movie, just use a different title. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels was simply a very, very close remake of an old David Niven/Marlon Brando comedy. Yes, you heard me. I met the guy who wrote it, and tried to congratulate him, and he said, 'I didn't add anything, that was almost all just the original script." I said, "Oh, well, but of course you added Ruprecht--" "No, that was straight from the original too." What? Yup. Look it up on Wikipedia. virtually the same script with only small changes.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 10:14 AM (nj1bB)

327 Ironically, the only actor who doesn't come off as a smirking, self-indulgent ham bone in "Hudson Hawk" is, get this, David Caruso.

Caruso is the subtle performer in "Hudson Hawk."  Think about that the next time you try and sell this piece of crap as a good movie!1!

Posted by: Kensington at April 30, 2011 10:14 AM (mEyVv)

328 It's also horrible in almost every way.

What was the point of the Free Radicals or Isomers or whatever they were called?  The ones that got genocided.  Is the chick supposed to save our world or what?  Incoherent it was.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 10:16 AM (GTbGH)

329 326/
Yeah, that's what we've got, too.

Posted by: lurker at April 30, 2011 10:16 AM (lI99B)

330 Yeah, my first exposure to the Godfather was via "The Godfather Saga."  It was a well done re-edit.

Posted by: Kensington at April 30, 2011 10:16 AM (mEyVv)

331 I said it wasn't good -- but it has *something* amidst the badness. There is a good movie in there that wants to get out, but it's smothered in Bruce Willis' conceit of making a self-aware rat pack/crosby & hope road movie with lots of f-bombs and graphic violence (and an amateurish rejection of any sort of consistent tone).

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 10:17 AM (nj1bB)

332 The 13th Floor > The Matrix.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 10:17 AM (GTbGH)

333 I kind of think "The Godfather Saga" deserves its own DVD treatment.

Posted by: Kensington at April 30, 2011 10:17 AM (mEyVv)

334 Dark City > The 13th Floor > The Matrix.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 10:18 AM (GTbGH)

335 >>>What was the point of the Free Radicals or Isomers or whatever they were called? Nothing, except they were a spontaneous evolving Aritifical Intelligence (like life evolving in the soup of the primeval world) and thus a new "life" form in the machine. That idea is actually not bad. But their importance? None, except I guess you don't want a species killed minutes after it arises. And supposedly the AI is going to change the world for the better, probably by building robots and killing us all.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 10:20 AM (nj1bB)

336 actually that is a pretty decent sci-fi idea, which they probably should have developed some more.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 10:21 AM (nj1bB)

337 I can only suggest two good things about "Hudson Hawk":

(a) If not for its failure, Bruce Willis might not have been embarrassed into choosing much better films like "Pulp Fiction."

(b) Andie McDowell was pretty sexy.

Posted by: Kensington at April 30, 2011 10:23 AM (mEyVv)

338

Futurama.

How many times have you typed your password into a login screen and seen the option "Remember me" and had the giant Bender pharaoh statue's voice in your head?

Posted by: FireHorse at April 30, 2011 10:24 AM (uUo97)

339

 

Hudson is both good and stupid.

It's goofy and entertaining. The key to enjoying movies such as Hudson Hawk, Johnny Dangerously, and Wise Guys is to set your expectaions low and just roll with the nonsense.

Posted by: sooth at April 30, 2011 10:25 AM (uFokq)

340 ...unununugggggh! Huh? I just spontaneously generated out of the AOSHQ comment section. So-o-o-o-o, which one of you do I get to bang up the squeakhole? Oh, and bring me a gallon of Val-U-Rite and fried hobo sammich......extra Miracle Whip.

Posted by: Isomoron at April 30, 2011 10:28 AM (I49Jm)

341 Ace asked: "And we're gonna pass on that?"

Indeed.

Just as I passed on The Passion of the Christ, because I knew Mel Gibson was a jackass. Just as I'll pass on anything derived from the idiot ramblings of a vile adulterous psychological torture-freak and shrill cultwhore who scrambled people's brains for a cheap thrill between her legs.

Ayn Rand was a vicious, nasty, disgusting, and extraordinarily stupid excuse for a woman. I'm no less of a Republican or a conservative for not worshipping at her invidiously blood- and cum-stained altar.

Oh, and I wouldn't spit on Newt if he were on fire either.

Next please.

Posted by: Megan at April 30, 2011 10:28 AM (BNv9H)

342 actually that is a pretty decent sci-fi idea, which they probably should have developed some more.

They did.
"I Robot"

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 10:29 AM (YKOnu)

343

Blasphemer!  Johnny Dangerously is teh awesome. 

How you could include it with those two pieces of shit, I could never begin to understand.

Posted by: FireHorse at April 30, 2011 03:24 PM (uUo97)

The saddest thing I have ever seen is the episode of Futurama that features Fry's dog.  It's like old yeller on a three days dose of cyclobenzaprine.

Posted by: garrett at April 30, 2011 10:30 AM (6+RxA)

344 yeah, it's old, right. but still, you need a plot discovery at the heart of a tron movie, and it's a good enough one, and fits in. And it was in Tron: Legacy, they just sort of... I don't know. They didn't really underscore it or try to explain Why This Is Neat And Important.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 10:31 AM (nj1bB)

345

 

yeah, Fry's dog waiting for him outside the pizza joint was a tear-jerker

the music helped

Posted by: sooth at April 30, 2011 10:31 AM (uFokq)

346 Cheer up conservatives. You can make "Atlas Shrugged" DVD sales hit a new record when it comes out.

Posted by: JEA at April 30, 2011 10:32 AM (qflOl)

347

 

"Roman Ramoni never forget a fargin face."

That running gag was stupid. And it was funny.

Posted by: sooth at April 30, 2011 10:33 AM (uFokq)

348 Hey, less with the talky-talky and more with the squeakhole pushy-pushy. And the sammich, of course.

Posted by: Isomoron at April 30, 2011 10:33 AM (I49Jm)

349 Hey, ace. Seems to me like you're advocating supporting this movie based not on its merits, but on altruism, which according to the book, is the root of all evil. Ferchrissakes, why don't you just dig up Ayn Rand's grave and donkey-punch her skeleton. At least then, you'd be doing something she'd actually approve of. BTW, Godfather III rocked the fucking house.* *When Sofia Coppola's no-talent ass got murdered.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 30, 2011 10:35 AM (h8pRl)

350 340

 

Hudson is both good and stupid.

It's goofy and entertaining. The key to enjoying movies such as Hudson Hawk, Johnny Dangerously, and Wise Guys is to set your expectaions low and just roll with the nonsense.



Isn't that what Movies are SUPPOSED to be about?  If you want to depict film as realistic intentions then pretty much every movie should be expunged from the compendium.   You SUSPEND the reality you understand, and accept the reality of the artist.  People who walk into Hudson Hawk expecting haute comedy are in for a surprise, but if you take the few seconds it takes to just sit back relax and enjoy Hudson is effing hillarious.  Is it flawed?  HELL YEAH, but is it funny?  HELL YEAH, and it's even soothing, offsetting most of the simple camp with the songsmithing, and the vulgarity offsets the slapstic.  I think that people who hate it, are people who chose to judge it before watching it.   You have to accept a thing as a thing.  You don't get into Landrover and go "PFFFT this thing's a piece of shit, it only gets 8 miles per gallon!" or into a Geo Metro (do they still make those) and go "PFFFT  This thing SUCKS on desert trails!"

You have to acknowledge a thing for the thing that it is, not for what you fantasize about a nonexistent thing that you will never have.   If you dump your expectations Hudson is HIGH Effing LARIOUS!   And Ace put up a good example with "dirty rotten scoundrels" (one of my brothers favorite movies)  It's ridiculous, but it's hilarious.

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 10:36 AM (YKOnu)

351 >>>Seems to me like you're advocating supporting this movie based not on its merits, but on altruism, which according to the book, is the root of all evil. I get that irony. But then I don't believe that.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 10:38 AM (nj1bB)

352 @350: so much.

Posted by: Megan at April 30, 2011 10:38 AM (BNv9H)

353 Futurama Vs Family guy.   Groening has a soul.  McFarlane has an outsized ego.

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 10:39 AM (YKOnu)

354 I am surprised that nobody mentioned the South Park Episode that panned the latest 'Indiana Jones' vehicle.  That was one of the better ones in the past few years.

Posted by: garrett at April 30, 2011 10:41 AM (6+RxA)

355 I get that irony. But then I don't believe that. You've been Objectivizzled, playa!

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 30, 2011 10:41 AM (h8pRl)

356 Just got "Blow Out" on Blu Ray. Awesome job on the transfer and excellent movie. Too bad Brian dePalma gets some cash outta me....ah well...he's gone from a very hit or miss director to being a consistent leftard-douchebag who'll be lucky if he's directing porn two years from now.

Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 10:43 AM (I49Jm)

357

Nobody liked that fan vid for the BBoys 'High Plains Drifer'?

I thought that would be right up your alley, Ace.

Posted by: garrett at April 30, 2011 10:44 AM (6+RxA)

358 Like George "Lucas Raped Our Childhood"  Garrett?

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 10:45 AM (YKOnu)

359 I know you're not an Objectivist, ace. You have a sense of humor and a better than even chance of not dying alone.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 30, 2011 10:45 AM (h8pRl)

360

...never seen it. 

Checking it out as soon as my lame ass connection loads it.

Posted by: garrett at April 30, 2011 10:47 AM (6+RxA)

361 @ 357 Natural Fake,

I think blow out is one of the great thrillers from my childhood, it's on demand for free from comcast quite often, and I can't help but watch it.  Depalma's biggest failure is casting his wife in damn near every movie he made.  Nancy Allen was in so many fantastic movies as a whoreable (not a typo) actress that I have dubbed her the greatest (sarcastic) actress of all time.

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 10:48 AM (YKOnu)

362 High Plains Drifter, IIRC is basically a western version of rashoman.

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 10:49 AM (YKOnu)

363

Futurama vs. Family Guy

That's like George Foreman vs. Boom Boom Mancini. No contest, different weight classes. But if you want to do a head-to-head comparison, both dedicated an episode to spoofing Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

Posted by: FireHorse at April 30, 2011 10:50 AM (uUo97)

364 "The Dancer Upstairs" is one of the best anti-Leftist, hence conservative, movies, ever made.

Directed by John Malkovich, starring Javier Bardim. A brilliant and very powerful movie.

Hell, it's not a movie--it's a real film.

I must be one of about 30 people in the U.S. to have seen it.

Posted by: A Rogue Wave Named Bruce at April 30, 2011 10:51 AM (GnJGn)

365 Landau on the Flying V!

Posted by: garrett at April 30, 2011 10:51 AM (6+RxA)

366 Find an episode of family guy that tugged at your heart strings?  It is low and base sketch comedy.  OH, some of it's funny, but it's really just a half hour sketch comedy show.

But In Futurama, when Fry battles the duplicitous alien trying to seduce lela pretending to be a one eyed freak, that's touching.  Or when They had the gravitron, and Fry realigned the stars to show how much he cares about lela?  that is touching.   When the afterwards, as already mentioned, of fry leaving his dog outside to freeze and be preserved?  That is touching, as that little fella sat there waiting for his master to return.   There is a heart in groening.  His characters are flawed, but they are human.

Peter is a selfish fat, useless idiot, with a ditzy wife unwilling to make a choice, a son who is retarded and screws everything up but art, a daughter who is frightened by the world because her parents denigrate her, and thinks she's fat, another child who wants to kill everyone just like hitler, and the only "human" in the show is a dog.   Seth is a consummate liberal JUST by looking at the cast layout.

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 10:55 AM (YKOnu)

367

Contrary to one of the propositions stated above, I have read the book several times and I enjoyed the movie just fine. Repeating some of the comments I've made on this in previous threads: I think one of the reasons that some people don't like it is because they think the book is much better than it really is. I really enjoy the book, but realize that it is deeply flawed and would have been much better at half the length. And the dialogue at times is laughably bad. For all that, I still think it worth the time and enjoy seeing the dramatization of politics that looks so plausible today.

So my take has been that the book does a very good job with the original material within the limitations of the budget and the medium that the producers are working in. Some choices I might have made differently, but I don't see any of them that are fatal to the movie or make the movie substantially worse than the book, just different (while being faithful to the message). The Ellis Wyatt voiceover at the end I found to be distracting and probably unnecessary - but maybe the producer/director thought it neccessary to solidify the concept of a "strike of the productive" in the mind of those not familiar with the source material to carry the idea over to the next part. A slight annoyance to me, but nothing fatal.

And, Ben, if they hadn't edited down the conversation between Francisco and Hank at the anniversary party the audience would have howled with laughter at the stilted dialogue until they got bored with the repitition and length and walked out. As it is on screen, Francisco made his key point to Hank: think of the weapon they use against you. If you want to see what a truly awful movie would be, produce Atlas Shrugged exactly as written.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at April 30, 2011 10:57 AM (7EV/g)

368 Since the discussion turned to "conservative" movies, Ace should re-link his review (long winded but quite funny)  of "17 again."

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 10:57 AM (YKOnu)

369

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 03:45 PM (YKOnu)

 

Methinks that dude is a D.Boone fan.

Posted by: garrett at April 30, 2011 10:58 AM (6+RxA)

370 I know you're not an Objectivist, ace. You have a sense of humor and a better than even chance of not dying alone.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 30, 2011 03:45 PM (h8pRl)

Every objectivist I've known was laboring under the impression that he is John Galt (or that she is Dagney Taggert).

Posted by: somebody else, not me at April 30, 2011 10:59 AM (7EV/g)

371 @362 Douglas, The weird thing about DePalma casting Nancy Allen, his wife, in so many movies is that in pretty much every one of them she was nude for an extended (heh!) period of time. What's up with that? Makes me think DePalma was a virgin until he met her and he can't get over the fact that he gets to sex her up. Hey, hey guys look! Yeah, that's my wife. She's got nice titties an everything. An best of all I get to have sex with her!!!! No really. Sex! Not yanking it in a gym sock sex but REAL HONEST TO GOODNESS VAGINA SEX!!!! And titties! Did you notice she has titties?

Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 10:59 AM (I49Jm)

372 The plot in Terminator 2 was largely just an abstract "avoid the fantasy apocalypse" thing. The plot in the first one was a desperate romance on the run, with the fun chicken-and-egg time paradox twist.

Watched both T1 and T2 today, T1 in high def on Epix. I thought they were both pretty good.

As for The Godfather you have to watch I and II both back to back. And III sucked balls.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 11:00 AM (M9Ie6)

373 Ayn Rand is like me (only smarter) when I was Wicked.  She could have said the exact same thing, probably more, with a lot fewer words.

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 11:00 AM (YKOnu)

374

No really. Sex! Not yanking it in a gym sock sex but REAL HONEST TO GOODNESS VAGINA SEX!!!!

 

I just threw up in my mouth.

Posted by: Andrew Sullivan at April 30, 2011 11:00 AM (6+RxA)

375 @371 I am naturalfake.

Posted by: John Galt at April 30, 2011 11:00 AM (I49Jm)

376 Natural Fake, I think they MET on the set of Blowout.  She wasn't mrs Depalma until . .  Christine? or was it Dressed to Kill?

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 11:01 AM (YKOnu)

377 The weird thing about DePalma casting Nancy Allen, his wife, in so many movies is that in pretty much every one of them she was nude for an extended (heh!) period of time.

Yeah, I have no problem with people CATCHING my girl nekkid, or even admiring her as she's dressed, but to deliberately put her in a position where she is lusted after?   That's odd.   Maybe Depalma knew that Nancy wasn't all that hotshit to begin with so he didn't care (was that callous, that was callous wasn't it? Should I call my mother and apologize?)

And the "whoreable" thing isn't mine, I stole it from my brother when he talkes about Heather Graham.  "Is there any movie she has been in when she wasn't a bad actress and a whore?  I can't think of one."  I said "Drugstore Cowboy, she wasn't a whore." "But she Fucked for drugs, so whore, she's a horrible actress "W" "H" "O" "R" "E" Whore, whorible actress."

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 11:08 AM (YKOnu)

378 I thought Nancy Allen was in "Carrie". Back in a second. yep, she was. Still, i think the point still holds. He was showing off his girlfriend.

Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 11:08 AM (I49Jm)

379

I'm not seeing the movie because:

A) I rarely go to movies in general.

B) I honestly thought the book was over rated. The main characters are morally corrupt. I couldn't identify with any of them and that makes it hard to care about the outcome of the story.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at April 30, 2011 11:10 AM (C6OjH)

380 Like the whoreable thang. But yeah, that's just odd.

Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 11:11 AM (I49Jm)

381 >>> Just got "Blow Out" on Blu Ray. When I was a kid I was obsessed with Blow Out and, of course, Body Double, a movie I have literally seen like 20 times, and I watch, even now, if it's on late-night. I don't really know why Body Double appeals to me. It's not really a good movie. It's not very well acted. The script is... meh, just a stitch-up of Hitchcock and some other thrillers. I used to like DePalma because, I think, he was the first director I watched with an identifiable (flashy, look-at-me, Hitchcock-derived) style, but he was also a director doing that who made movies apparently with the intent of appealing to a 13 year old boy. So everything's illicit sex and crazed lust and then graphic violence. And a kind of knowing cynicism in tone, the sort of tone that of course hits 13 year old boys right in their sweet spot, because he want to feel like we "know" how the world works and shit. I look down on him now but I still like Blow Out. I guess Body Double too.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 11:12 AM (nj1bB)

382

Well said, Douglas @ #367. And you didn't even touch on the secondary characters like Quagmire or Herbert.

When I want cheap chuckles, Family Guy is my go-to show -- but that's really all it is.

Posted by: FireHorse at April 30, 2011 11:14 AM (uUo97)

383 Its not the professional left reviews that tanked this film. What do we care about that? It's the oh so cool bloggers who and commenters who said that it sucked.  Everybody is a bipolar critic. If it is not the best movie of the year, than it's the worst to those people. 
Saw it April 15th in the afternoon. Theater was 3/4s full. We all clapped at the end. It was a fine film. Everyone who reads a book already made the film inside their heads and when someone actually makes the film and it doesn't meet the film inside their heads, than the movie sucked right? 
Go See  the movie and appreciate someones hard work. Thank you.

Posted by: jobojam at April 30, 2011 11:15 AM (5d5ys)

384 Slightly OT but I've been trialing the Netflix movies on demand and I'm pretty disappointed.  The selection seems thin and it doesn't seem to have an HD option, which since I'm running it through the big screen, makes it less than optimal.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 11:15 AM (GTbGH)

385 Did we ever have a thread about movies that you remember as being so great, but when you see them again you say, Meh.  Body Heat, for instance.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 11:16 AM (GTbGH)

386 I second the praise for "Blow Out."  It's one of my favorite 80s thrillers, John Travolta is really good, and Nancy Allen has never been more appealing.

And Nancy Allen, whilst not a great actress, and not that hot, remains, in my estimation, one of the sexiest girls of her time.  I hate to think of douchebag Brian DePalma sweating all over her like some kind of hairy-backed bear.  She was way out of his league.

Posted by: Kensington at April 30, 2011 11:17 AM (mEyVv)

387 The selection seems thin and it doesn't seem to have an HD option, which since I'm running it through the big screen, makes it less than optimal.

It has HD but you have to pay extra for it.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 11:18 AM (M9Ie6)

388 Also, anyone who likes Brian DePalma movies might want to check out his early film "Sisters."  I haven't seen it in probably twenty years but remember it as being very creepy and disturbing.

It's streaming on Netflix, too!

Posted by: Kensington at April 30, 2011 11:19 AM (mEyVv)

389 >>>lightly OT but I've been trialing the Netflix movies on demand and I'm pretty disappointed. The selection seems thin and it doesn't seem to have an HD option, which since I'm running it through the big screen, makes it less than optimal. The selection is not that good, it tends to be lesser films, and sometimes bigger films, but only a few at a time. As for picture: Actually it will give you "HD" or at least as HD as it is capable of. There is no specific HD setting. It attempts to give you the best picture considering your tv's capabilities and your cable connection. I will say this: I am actually shocked at how good the streaming signal is. Is it perfect? No. Is it true HD? No. Do I notice it's different than a nicely-upscaled DVD or HD TV show? Not really, but I guess I can notice, if I look hard. However, honestly, I never notice, except to sometimes think, "Wow, I can't believe I can now get this level of image quality streaming."

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 11:20 AM (nj1bB)

390 As for Netflix's streaming library, it's true that there's always something I'd like to see that's unavailable, but the sheer volume of stuff that is available is outstanding, especially the huge library of TV shows.

Posted by: Kensington at April 30, 2011 11:21 AM (mEyVv)

391 I just watched the James Bond Thunderball on Netflix streaming and I was thoroughly impressed. While it was merely streaming, I've never seen it in this high quality before. I had seen it before on broadcast tv, standard-defintion, years ago. So while the picture wasn't super-HD, it was nonetheless the sharpest I've ever seen Thunderball.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 11:21 AM (nj1bB)

392 Oh you have to pay for the HD? I know you have to pay for Blu-Ray movies; but for HD streaming? Are you sure? I have the blu-ray option so I just assumed the hd streaming was standard.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 11:22 AM (nj1bB)

393 I don't care to see AS, and never cared to read the book either.

Posted by: KG at April 30, 2011 11:24 AM (4L0zr)

394 Another good thing to look for on Netflix streaming is documentaries, old Novas, history stuff, etc. Stuff you would never think about paying for, and stuff you don't really search the dial looking for, but usually interesting if you have an hour to kill.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 11:24 AM (nj1bB)

395 Are you sure?

I have the blu-ray option so I just assumed the hd streaming was standard.

Not real sure but I was looking into it because our Blockbuster went out of business here. In order to get the "movie" once a month you had to pay extra and to get Blu-Rays you had to pay even more. So I assumed the streaming HD would be extra as well.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 11:28 AM (M9Ie6)

396 @382 ... and, of course, Body Double, a movie I have literally seen like 20 times, and I watch, even now, if it's on late-night. I don't really know why Body Double appeals to me. It's not really a good movie. It's not very well acted. The script is... meh, just a stitch-up of Hitchcock and some other thrillers. Ace, I know what you mean. "Body Double" is truly one of my guilty pleasures. You were talking early about movies being poor because of one or two elements. Here's the case of a movie where everything is either off or just meh, especially the blando-deluxe lead, craig or Greg Soemthingorother, and yet somehow it all comes together into a very fun, watchable movie. So, there you go. Movie magic, movie voodoo.

Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 11:31 AM (I49Jm)

397 >>>. In order to get the "movie" once a month you had to pay extra and to get Blu-Rays you had to pay even more. So I assumed the streaming HD would be extra as well. I know you have to pay extra for the BluRay but i think the streaming is standard. When I do it there is no "HD Option" to pick. It buffers, and based on how much it can buffer (signal strength and all), it gives you HD. I think it almost always gives you HD. If you can't get HD, you have a buffering problem and it will be unwatchable for an hour. Their "HD" isn't true HD but I think it's damned fine, when you consider this is just being piped over the cable line. Incidentally, anyone noticing Blu-ray is bullshit? Let me give you my gripe: I have a widescreen tv. Now we all have widescreen tvs. Good. We can watch movies widescreen. Except when you get Blu-Ray, it insists on piping in the picture in its theatrical aspect ration, which almost never agrees with your tv's picture. So you always have those dumb black bars again. This is annoying as HELL. Yes, I am willing to lose the 5% of either side of the frame, the stuff the director didn't care so much about anyway (in as much as most movies are filmed with 5% extra around the edges, because theater screens also vary in size), to see the FULL PICTURE on the FULL SCREEN. This is ridiculous. Even with a widescreen tube I am now still only viewing 70% size of the picture because the other 30% is black bars. With regular DVDs, this doesn't happen -- the upscaler makes the picture look almost as good as Blu-Ray, but no black bars. I am getting to the point where I am actively choosing regular DVD over Blu-Ray. I used to pick Blu-Ray, and if it wasn't available, go with DVD. Now I'm going for DVD first. I am sick of this nonsense.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 11:35 AM (nj1bB)

398 Oh, and of course no Blu-Ray disc ever gives you the option of full screen or black bars. I think this is actually deliberate: Because they know Blu-Ray makes theatrical viewing all but obsolete, they are deliberately cock-blocking you on picture size.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 11:37 AM (nj1bB)

399
Incidentally, anyone noticing Blu-ray is bullshit?

It was a tremendous flop, from what I've seen and heard.

Posted by: Soothsayer at April 30, 2011 11:38 AM (uFokq)

400 And the difference in quality between Blu-Ray and upscaled DVD is pretty small. When you add in the fact that 90% of Blu-Ray titles will give you a 70% sized picture -- DVD wins. No option. They just won't give you the option of widescreen or full screen.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 11:39 AM (nj1bB)

401 As for 'conservative' TV shows, I'd love to see a 'follow you around' show based on a real CEO in his/her day-to-day job.  Let's show the grind, the weight of the decisions, all the crap they have to wade through to make a company work.  I'm so sick of high earners being bashed as 'useless' by the rank and file when they have no clue what goes on at those levels.  Done right, it could be educational.

Posted by: ToddW at April 30, 2011 11:41 AM (9TcI8)

402 >>It was a tremendous flop, from what I've seen and heard. When I used to go to blockbuster it seemed like it hadn't caught on because the Blu-ray section was small. And I was a late adopter. But it appears most are even later. Given this bullshit with the black bars, turning big tvs into small tvs (and defeating the attempt at a true Home theater experience), I can understand why.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 11:41 AM (nj1bB)

403 I am getting to the point where I am actively choosing regular DVD over Blu-Ray.

I haven't noticed a problem with the Blu-Rays but I have 6 different screen sizes to choose from. My problem is getting the damn satellite feed right. It cuts off part of the screen no matter what size I pick.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 11:41 AM (M9Ie6)

404
honestly I'm satisfied with 720p


Posted by: Soothsayer at April 30, 2011 11:42 AM (uFokq)

405 It was a tremendous flop, from what I've seen and heard.

Not so from what I have seen.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 11:42 AM (M9Ie6)

406 >>>I haven't noticed a problem with the Blu-Rays but I have 6 different screen sizes to choose from. What do you mean? You have six tvs or your tv allows you to ignore the Blu-Ray dimensions and choose your own aspect ratio?

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 11:43 AM (nj1bB)

407

Usually I agree with Ace, but in this thread I've been agreeing with him way too much. Not to be totally contrarian, I'll go a different way.

>> But her main message of individualism, achievement, drive, and the natural rewards for such accruing to those who actually create things -- and her dire warning about the well-meaning slavery imposed by a state determined to coerce people into its conception of perfection -- is as conservative as it gets.

Maybe that's the problem: It's too conservative. I mean, it's the whole message, it's conservatism practically in its entirety. If conservatism is a meal, then a handful of social issues might be the pasta side dish that's not included in this particular meal but everything else is, from appetizers to desert. That's a lot to chow down.

There are a lot of smaller servings of conservatism out there. Gattaca is a good-sized lunch, while Legally Blonde provides a plateful. From the kids menu, there's Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.

(Disclaimer: I read the book but didn't see the movie, so my comments are directed at the story, not the movie.)

Posted by: FireHorse at April 30, 2011 11:43 AM (uUo97)

408 >>>honestly I'm satisfied with 720p Yeah there's not a big bump-up to 1080. I guess, in theory, you'd notice... if you could watch a blu-ray 1080 movie on the full size of the tv, but of course you can't. I think I've seen like three blu-ray movies that actually fit my tv's very very standard aspect ratio.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 11:44 AM (nj1bB)

409 honestly I'm satisfied with 720p

720p is indistinguishable from 1080i which was considered the "top" when I got my TV. I checked in to a few things and wound up getting a 720p plasma because ESPN does their sports in 720p because the response time was quicker, plasma because the experts said that it had the best picture.

Besides WalMart had it on sale cheap.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 11:45 AM (M9Ie6)

410 Bought a crappy used DVD the other day from the era where they put full screen(4:3) or one side of the disc and "enhanced" (16:9) on the other. Is it possible to do the equivalent on Blu Ray(16:9 and true movie scale) or technically not feasible? Anyway, that's right Blu Ray is failing. Probably because of the economy and prices. So, FU Hollywood for backing a jackass who's piloting the economy like a kamikazi his zero. My Blu Ray purchases have been limited to "movies I can watch any time" like "Big Trouble in Little China".

Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 11:46 AM (I49Jm)

411 All TV HD is in 720 p so the only way you'd even see 1080 is with a Blu-Ray disc. But then... well I guess I shouldn't repeat it for the tenth time.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 11:47 AM (nj1bB)

412 You have six tvs or your tv allows you to ignore the Blu-Ray dimensions and choose your own aspect ratio?

I have variable screen size/shape choices. I think all HD TVs have that option.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 11:47 AM (M9Ie6)

413 >>>Is it possible to do the equivalent on Blu Ray(16:9 and true movie scale) or technically not feasible? I think that's what they say, and to my mind it's a crippling limitation. Either these movies should be put out in standard 16:9 aspect (and I don't care if the film was really shot in 17.5:9 -- do I care? No, I don't care. Ask me. I don't care), or they need to fix this technical limitation to allow a choice. This is the thing-- movies are shot in a variety of similar but not identical aspects. 18.1-9, 17.5-9, whatever. Some in good old 16:9. It's basically 16:9. Not quite 16:9. But very close. Rather than saying 16:9 is close enough, they assume I want a very, very small picture in the original 18.2:9 ratio they shot it in. Because... I'm such a hardcore cineaste I really need to literally see every single inch of film shot. I'm not. I'm a cineaste, actually, but for once, ONCE, I would like to watch a big movie with Blu Ray on my full tv. It's as if I bought a TV that was ten inches smaller.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 11:51 AM (nj1bB)

414 >>>I have variable screen size/shape choices. I think all HD TVs have that option. I don't think I do, not with Blu-Ray. Do I? I thought I specifically called Samsung about this and they told me that is the limitation of the thing.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 11:52 AM (nj1bB)

415 I think there's a limitation with Blu-Ray because it's an exact copy of what's on the disc -- it bypasses your ability to "edit" the picture by choosing aspect ratio.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 11:53 AM (nj1bB)

416 OK, I checked to make sure because I had never noticed a problem with the screen. Yes, all the screen shape selections were usable with a BluRay playing.

I used The DaVinci Code for the test. It is 1080p with a stated aspect ratio of 2.40:1. I don't notice any missing video. It does have bars at the top and bottom on the "widescreen" selection.

What would be nice would be labels on the screen for selecting by aspect ratio.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 12:01 PM (M9Ie6)

417 What I'm talking about, CNET says, is native aspect ratio: Understand native/dot-by-dot mode. Some HDTVs, most commonly 1080p displays, also have an aspect ratio mode that doesn't scale the incoming signal at all. Often called dot-by-dot or native, this mode simply takes the signal, whatever resolution it is, and displays it regardless of the display's native resolution. Depending on the signal, this can either fill the screen perfectly, leave black bars on the top or bottom, or leave black bars on all sides. For example, if you have an HDTV with 1080p native resolution and you're watching a 720p HDTV show, a true dot-by-dot mode will be window-boxed--the 1280x720 program will appear as a rectangle within the 1920x1080 display, surrounded by bars on all sides. (Many dot-by-dot modes only apply to 1080i and 1080p sources, however, so lower-resolution sources like 720p and DVD are still automatically scaled to fill the screen.) Regardless, the true advantage of dot-by-dot is that, with 1080p displays, every pixel of 1080i and 1080p sources is shown on the screen with no overscan and all of the detail promised by the source. The only real disadvantage is that some sources don't completely fill the screen, so you might see a solid line or interference along the extreme edges of the display. But in general, if you have a 1080p display and are watching 1080i or 1080p sources, dot-by-dot will give you the best picture quality. ... Right, so the general trade-off here is that 90% of blu-rays are in their theatrical aspect ratio (not 16:9) so if you want that 1080 picture you paid for you'll have to watch a smaller picture on your big tv. Annoying. Just record movies in 16:9 and offer the exact theatrical ratio version online for true collectors or hardcore "I want to see it as it was meant to be seen" types.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 12:04 PM (nj1bB)

418 Dude, did you not pay attention? Sure they didn't do a play by play, but I think Dagny does describe what happened.

Yeah, she did give the basic most generic version of it.So watered down that no one who did not already read the book would understand how gut wrenchingly sick and wrong that type of system really is.

The movie makers most certainly could have cut the 5 minute anti conservative "woman seduces and beds married man" scene and added the bums rendition of what took place adding a total of 5 minutes to the length of the movie as well as making a far better product. I wonder just how many Christians skipped the movie just simply because of that one scene.

Posted by: astonerii at April 30, 2011 12:05 PM (rSa7F)

419 That said, thanks, Vic... I didn't even know I could play with it at all. I know one tv I had only gave you cinema quality in this native aspect. Maybe the one I have now allows some monkeying around. But, still: I will have to give up blu-ray quality for this, which means that there really is no point to blu-ray or 1080 tvs. Currently you can't really watch movies that way. You can either watch 720 or you can watch a shrunk-down picture 1080.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 12:09 PM (nj1bB)

420 I wonder if me having a 720p TV makes a difference for that?

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 12:11 PM (M9Ie6)

421 One other "funny" thing is my last TV was a 4:3 big screen HD projection TV. Watching widescreen movies placed bars at the top and bottom. However, these were not BluRay and I used the old analog outputs from the satellite receiver (component cables).

It didn't look half as good as the plasma does so I wonder how HD it truly was. 

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 12:15 PM (M9Ie6)

422 One other thing I have noted is that BluRay's look a whole lot better than HD from the Satellite HD channels. In fact, the upconverted DVDs look just as good as the HD on the HD channels.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 12:30 PM (M9Ie6)

423 @422 Vic, The sequence there could've been digital to analog back to digital back to to analog maybe, so the picture's not going to be as good as D to D even if you started with the same signal. Depends on the TV/sat etc. I just checked on my Samsung TV and I can expand the picture till it fills the screen. I have to admit the black bars don't bother me usually unless it's one of those old Cinemascope movies. Then it's more black bar than movie.

Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 12:31 PM (I49Jm)

424 The black bars don't bother me.

What is funny though is while I was down in GA this past week I was over at my Uncle's house and he had just got a new LCD TV and he was running his DVD player into it using the old standard video connection (RCA plug). I went down to Walmart and got an HDMI cable and hooked it up so he could get the upconvert. He was amazed. But sister in law who was there at the time wanted to know why it had the bars at the top and bottom in the widescreen mode.  She also wanted to know why when fed from the satellite box (non-HD) I had set the screen to 4:3 and it had bars on the side.

When I told her that the native resolution from the box was 4:3 and if you put it on 16:9 it made everything stretched she said she would rather have it stretched than have the bars. Unlce plans on upgrading his satellite to HD though as soon as he can get them out there.

And yes, I over-paid for that HDMI cable at WalMArt.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 12:40 PM (M9Ie6)

425 And yes, I over-paid for that HDMI cable at WalMArt.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 05:40 PM (M9Ie6)

Biggest item o' profit margin in the whole HD scam.

Posted by: Count de Monet at April 30, 2011 12:43 PM (XBM1t)

426 Liberals produce money-losing barely-watched bombs like W, JFK, Sicko, Green Zone, Syriana, Lions For Lambs, Redacted, Rendition, In The Valley Of Elah and many, many others because they know it's how you move the culture leftward. Not through books. Through movies. Their most valuable tool of indoctrination is, "Based on a true story...." Put that on the screen and you control history, even if you flat out invent 90% of the story. Movies will be watched for generations. They become our historical record long after books covering actual events are forgotten, even if they failed at the box office. Atlas Shrugged is important because it's a shot fired back at Fortress Hollywood. The critics know it. They fear it. The last thing they want to see is a successful conservative film. Did you see the invective thrown at Batman Begins when someone pointed out it contained conservative values? It had to be belittled after they realized something had been slipped past them. Now even America's Man of Steel and Wonder Woman are being co-opted to serve the anti-American left. And remember, comics are a major source for story lines and characters these days. It's as obvious as can be that the Hollywood left cannot countenance American heroes in red white and blue anymore. We on the Right expect a single movie to push the culture back. Isn't going to happen. It will take dozens of Atlas Shruggeds to make a dent. So I say, keep it up guys. Keep making the movies that take it to the left. They will be seen. They become part of the Resistance. Atlas Shrugged Part 2 is scheduled to open April 15, 2012. By then Obama's policies will have driven us to the very edge of disaster. The public will be ready for a different explanation for why everything has turned to crap. The battlefield will have been prepped by Part 1, which will be readily available on DVD for those who missed it the first time. I. Loved. The. Film. My wife and I saw it twice and I liked it better the second time. It will have an impact. Have faith. We can't beat the left waving our hands in the air. Atlas Shrugged is a concrete example of a product that gets under the skin of the left. Keep it coming.

Posted by: Koblog at April 30, 2011 12:49 PM (YFkCk)

427 I just watched Aliens on NF. That was good and scary.

Not as scary as the first one though, to me.

Speaking of TV's, I am waiting till the tube goes out on the 28 inch Phillips.
The whole aspect ratio and native resolution is really an issue. I think the 1080 thing is just like another specification.

I find that after I am engaged in the content, I am more concerned with character development than how crisp the image is. This evening I will watch the second half of Seven Samari. To me, this is where it's at, enjoying the art and not the technology.

Posted by: sTevo at April 30, 2011 12:54 PM (VMcEw)

428 Biggest item o' profit margin in the whole HD scam.

At WalMart their cables ran $39 to $22 for the cheapest one. You can get them for $2.99 from Amazon. (Actually had one listed for .01 but I didn't trust that one)

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 12:55 PM (M9Ie6)

429 To me, this is where it's at, enjoying the art and not the technology.

Posted by: sTevo at April 30, 2011 05:54 PM (VMcEw)

I was impressed with the first BluRay I watched. But one movie which I had never seen in its original glory was the 1938 version of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn. It was truly a work of art to see in HD.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 12:58 PM (M9Ie6)

430 I hope you bought Monster HDMI cables because if you didn't you'll never see real 1080p TV cause Monster cables are the best. MONSTER!!!!!!!!111111!!!!! /Best Buy employee

Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 01:00 PM (I49Jm)

431 The Monster cables were the $39 ones. I laugh my ass off at their overpriced "speaker wire".

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 01:01 PM (M9Ie6)

432 All TV HD is in 720 p so the only way you'd even see 1080 is with a Blu-Ray disc.

I think DirecTVHD is 1080p.  I had Direct for years and then switched back to cable, so I could get the high-speed internet package.  (which is good btw, 25mbps download).  That was before I had the 55" in the man cave so I never actually saw the DirecTV-HD.  The downside is that MediacomHD tops out at 720p because they have not upgraded their equipment in my area yet. 

Though really, my understanding is that you cannot see the difference between 720 and 1080 if you sit more than six feet away.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2011 01:05 PM (GTbGH)

433 From CNET

Expensive cables aren't worth it

If you walk into your typical electronics store to buy an HDMI cable, you're likely to see prices upward of $50 with promises of better performance and faster speeds. Do you really need to spend that much money on a single HDMI cable?

Absolutely not--those cables are a rip-off. You should never pay more than $10 for a standard six-foot HDMI cable. And despite what salesmen and manufacturers might tell you, there's no meaningful difference between the $10 cable and the $50 cable.


Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 01:07 PM (M9Ie6)

434 Ace, sorry about the use of the word "hector." You don't. Period. But I am highly sensitive to group-think. Anyway, I'll probably what Atlas just to see if I've been an asshole about it. Which is likely.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at April 30, 2011 01:08 PM (6SIms)

435 I want conservative moviemakers to make films, but they have to make films I want to see and this one isn't it. Look I'm happy for Ayn Rand fans and all but I'm not a huge fan and this kind of movie doesn't interest me. Make an action spy movie that shows the real bad guys, make movies like Taken and 300. They're interesting and fun to watch and have a good conservative message, just don't expect people to go see right-leaning movies just because they're right leaning.

I mean, Christians keep making dull crap I don't want to see and I'm a Christian. Make em good and people will go, no matter what your political leaning.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 30, 2011 01:10 PM (61b7k)

436 I mean, Christians keep making dull crap I don't want to see and I'm a Christian.

I am eagerly awaiting that series by Joel C. Rosenberg to be made into a film.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 01:12 PM (M9Ie6)

437 Christopher, a friend recommends Salt for a good spy movie. We are supposedly the good guys!

Posted by: PJ at April 30, 2011 01:27 PM (XUYpl)

438 Hey, what about video games?  Can any of you HDTV adopters opine about what's good for running a PlayStation 3 or an Xbox 360?  Is 720p going to be good enough?  Also, which is better for video games:  plasma or LCD?

I'm getting sick of running my PS3 on my old Sony standard and not being able to read the onscreen text.

Posted by: Kensington at April 30, 2011 01:41 PM (mEyVv)

439 720p is better for games because it has a faster response time. Plasma looks better than the LCD.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 01:44 PM (M9Ie6)

440 I haven't gone to see it yet because I'm not much of a movie theater goer in general.  But I'll go see this one by myself if I have to.

Posted by: NC Ref at April 30, 2011 01:47 PM (/izg2)

441 Woah, thanks, Vic!  I'm surprised to hear that, but I'm glad I did before spending more on a 1080 set.

Posted by: Kensington at April 30, 2011 01:52 PM (mEyVv)

442 The movie is not showing in the People's Republic of Chapel Hill.  Go figure.

Posted by: NC Ref at April 30, 2011 01:54 PM (/izg2)

443 @442 Most TVs have a game mode these days. It cuts out some of the processing to allow faster reaction times. If you're going for a big screen,more than 32 in, you might like a 1080p with game mode.

Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 02:02 PM (I49Jm)

444 Any lacrosse fans out there? Notre Dame vs Syracuse should be excellent. And it's in HD! 16:9.......just sayin, Ace.

Posted by: naturalfake at April 30, 2011 02:09 PM (I49Jm)

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 02:10 PM (M9Ie6)

446 What do you mean? You have six tvs or your tv allows you to ignore the Blu-Ray dimensions and choose your own aspect ratio?

You can change the images pixelation horizontaly and verticially ACE, they are all preset, based on production standards, I have 4 myself, and you pic exactly HOW the image is spread across the screen.   I think that is what he meant.

At least on most Televeisions, if you get a blackbar it's because you don't have a true widescreen, but a broadscreen, and the bars are basically the same as a leterbox to satisfy input, THOUGH! I think my bro's does this, some screens compress incoming images to give you a "full screen" which actually makes the vid look cartoony.

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2011 02:17 PM (YKOnu)

447 Plasma is supposedly better for games as far as smoothness of motion and lack of blur, BUT... Plasma has that burn-in issue which isn't as much of an issue as you might think *except* when it comes to videogames -- if you have a static image like a score or healthmeter, that's going to burn in. Most of the time burn in isn't permanent, and sets have various fixes to reduce it and clear it when it happens, but I will tell you when I had a plasma I could barely enjoy it because I was always worried about the damn burn in.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 02:23 PM (nj1bB)

448 The "burn in" issue is only an issue with older plasma TVs. It has been eliminated in the newer ones.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 02:25 PM (M9Ie6)

449 Yeah, yeah. Get out there and support your knucklehead movie, knuckleheads.

Heh. You'll always have your superhero comic book movies.

Posted by: Charles Fourier at April 30, 2011 02:35 PM (5PiVP)

450 >>>The "burn in" issue is only an issue with older plasma TVs. It has been eliminated in the newer ones. Not eliminated, reduced. Your plasma warranty still says it won't cover burn in. that's there for a reason, I'm thinking. The various things they do to reduce the risk of permanent burn-in are useful. I never got it. I had temporary burn in but that's a nothing thing, barely worth a mention. However, I was always paranoid about it and it reduced my enjoyment of it.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 02:40 PM (nj1bB)

451 steve in hb agrees with you and he's had one and used it a lot for years. With videogames. Maybe you're right. But... for me, I was always changing channels just to avoid static channel icons in the bottom of the screen. Maybe I was just too tightly wound for plasma. Hell of a picture though. Clearly better than LCD in every way. Except for weight, power consumption, heat, and burn-in.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 02:42 PM (nj1bB)

452 I have had mine for two years and had no burn in problems. My old projection TV got a burn in from that damn weather channel logo they put in the bottom corner.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 02:43 PM (M9Ie6)

453 Yeah, they are damn heavy compared to an LCD.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2011 02:44 PM (M9Ie6)

454 oh: Also cheaper in addition to giving you a better picture with better light and better blacks and more true color and smoother motion and no blurring or hitching. Just better in every way, and cheaper. Except... I just worried about burn in.

Posted by: ace at April 30, 2011 02:44 PM (nj1bB)

455 Me & the better half just came back from seeing it. Theater was about 1/3 full, all most all patrons were 45+ by our guess (we fit in that category). Looking forwards to part II & III and gonna read the book to boot!

Posted by: Clutch at April 30, 2011 03:02 PM (X67eL)

456 Ok  Ace - you talked me into it.

My wife and I went to see it this afternoon and were pleasantly surprised.  It's a decent film! 

I'd give it 7 stars out of 10 (which I did on IMDB).  I do hope they make the 2nd part - I think this is one of the rare cases where a sequel would be better than the original (e.g. "Empire Strikes Back" and "Aliens").

It's filmed quite well actually;  much of the Colorado scenery shots are breathtaking. Also, the musical score is quite good.

The cast isn't absolutely unknown - Bob Beckle's brother (who is a conservative) plays Ellis Wyatt and Mathew Marsden who plays James Taggert was in various movies like "Black Hawk Down" and the recent Rambo remake.

Anyway, it's definitely worth a matinee price.



Posted by: raypat at April 30, 2011 03:12 PM (Gim9y)

457 Get hit!!! no chance at all!

Posted by: pacman vs margarito at April 30, 2011 05:20 PM (SNLC/)

458 well, comment #460. Bound to be lost/ignored in all of the insanity. It's not about who will support this movie even in the face of all of the critical (non)acclaim. Those who support the ideals of Ms. Rand's books continue to do so regardless of some stupid flick , and seeing the movie will do nothing more than put a few dollars in the pocket of the producers, who simply made the movie (AT THIS TIME!) to capitalize on the current fervor. To see this movie now (and pay them for doing so) only supports those who think the lemming Rand-ian faithful will see the movie because it is Atlas Shrugged, Part 1. Would Howard Roark or Hank Reardon see this movie? NFW. I am a Rand devotee (even have the t-shirt!), always will be, and have zero intent to see the movie.

Posted by: squid at April 30, 2011 05:36 PM (FlK/O)

459 Ref Plasma burn in on games. Yes, it's a problem. I played Puzzle Quest on my plasma tv and got a (temporary) burn in of the main puzzle board after just 2 or 3 hours. And that's a game that you can play 12-13 hours at a time. Worry about burn in.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at April 30, 2011 05:41 PM (zpByr)

460 If you want to support the movie, go buy tickets, go back home and watch something remotely entertaining.

I mean, the book is seriously BORING.  Cliff's Notes is boring.  This is not entertainment materiel, folks.  Not in the day of Short Attention Span Thearte.  The only russian author I recall writing short stories was Gogol.

I mean, The Brothers Karamazov?  Good, but how long do you spend on one drunken evening trying to puzzle out philosoply?  Single chapters are torture....
Why is it War and Peace is swo well known in our country?  Because it's so farging long, we compare anything that drones on forever to..... wait for it..... maybe I can drag this out for a few mnore months..... War and Peace!

Bingo! we have a winnah!  Russian authors take far too many words for even 19th centhry folk.  Ayn Rand is no different.

Movies need action.  Even Twelve Angry Men had some action. Didn't the bailiff enter the room more than once?

Maybe just mail the filmmaker some money and say - can't you find something the has a chance in hell of being viewed by the other side?

Posted by: Bill Johnson at April 30, 2011 05:43 PM (9X1+H)

461 The movie cost so little to make that surely it will at least break even?

Posted by: steevy at April 30, 2011 05:44 PM (HEjjS)

462 Ref first Terminator movie. One thing that a lot of people don't realize is how much tension there was in that movie the first time you saw it. I saw it opening night. Nobody knew much about the movie except that Arnie was the bad guy and much ass was kicked. So ever time Termie got in a fight you didn't know that it was going to be one-sided. "oh, he got stabbed in the side... Wow - shook it off!" or, "hey, the girls boyfriend is putting up a good fight... Ohhhh, that didn't end well!". It wasn't until the end, when the fleshy body was burnt off that you realized how hopeless every fight before that was. That's movie that's exceptional the first time you see it and it doesn't get enough respect because so many people have seen it more than once.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at April 30, 2011 05:46 PM (zpByr)

463 My favorite conservative movie of all time is "Knocked Up."

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at April 30, 2011 08:08 PM (2AfqM)

464 Yeah people want to see conservative movies. So lets make a real cerebral
"film" and treat it like a blockbuster. Obviously the BBC-style, low-budget mystery type shows (low compared to American blockbusters) are a perfect vehicle for the subject. Selling ads would be something perfectly in line with Ayn Rand's philosophy. But no, let's make it a blockbuster.

And then after making that blockbuster, sit around wondering where it all went wrong.

Or we could make John Wayne type "movies" that people just like, for some reason.

Posted by: K~Bob at April 30, 2011 08:53 PM (9b6FB)

465 Since this movie isn't "exploitation/sexploitation/nazisploitation, why SHOULD I see it in the damn liberal theater? The film makers won't get the money from my popcorn. I'll wait for the dvd. Oh, and if they release it on "blue-ray", I'll NEVER watch it.

Posted by: Eric at May 01, 2011 02:34 AM (PqsRq)

466

Movies need action.  Even Twelve Angry Men had some action. Didn't the bailiff enter the room more than once?

Well, if Part 2 gets made and released, there should be some riot scenes, a bunch of people dying in a train accident, and a plane crash finish.

If Part 3 gets made and released there will be couple of shoot-outs and a whole bunch of people getting killed by Project X.

 

Posted by: somebody else, not me at May 01, 2011 03:32 AM (7EV/g)

467 I went to go see this last night with my wife - per the realization that it wouldn't be there forever and that it had been showing for 2 weeks or so. I anticipated that my wife and I would be the only ones in the theater that night, but to my surprise, there were, at last count, 34 people in the theater. There might have been more but i'm not sure (i think i counted everyone in the last two rows behind us). I give the movie a solid B - there were a few things I think i would have done differently had I directed the film. Anyways, maybe those 34+ other people read this blog and decided to go?

Posted by: ClevelandMike at May 01, 2011 05:35 AM (v6xxO)

468

My favorite conservative movie of all time is "Knocked Up."

Good call. It's funny how Katherine Heigl plays a character who doesn't have an abortion, and all of a sudden she's deemed to be not that gorgeous any more.

Posted by: FireHorse at May 01, 2011 05:53 AM (uUo97)

469 Sorry, I decided to more or less skip it when I heard the jackass producer wanted to make the third part a musical.  That is the second dumbest fucking thing I ever heard. The first dumbest was making the movie a trilogy.

Posted by: doug at May 01, 2011 06:05 AM (dDxif)

470 Umm...he was joking. But I'm sure he would love to hear your plan for converting a 1200 page novel into a single movie rather than take advantage of the three-part structure built into the novel. Yeah, he's the dumb one.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at May 01, 2011 07:14 AM (7EV/g)

471 Took my 15 y/o daughter to see it Saturday afternoon as part of her political education.  She was bored but later I got to link scenes from the movie with real events in the news.

Might take her on an Amtrak ride to see some government in action.

Decent-enough movie although they did not build love for the producing people - just took it on assumption - and didn't make the bad guys emotionally bad.

There was some really ARCH scenes with bitchy and bitching dialog.  Like "I was going to give it the maid" - "it" being the bracelet her husband gave her.  And the first bed scene where the wife says "All finished?" or somesuch.


It would have been better as a much longer movie - like "Gone with the Wind."

Speaking of GWTW, let's hope Politically Correct Hollywood doesn't try a remake of that one!  Just imagine Lindsey Lohan as Scarlett, some metrosexual pacifist as Rhett, and the blacks really running the plantation and being all Magic Negros all the time.  They'd have to cast Whoopee somewhere too.

Posted by: Whitehall at May 01, 2011 11:33 AM (BuDga)

472 Dude, conservatives won't pay  $14 each for a single night's sopoforic.  beer is cheaper.

Posted by: Bill Johnson at May 02, 2011 03:19 PM (9X1+H)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
361kb generated in CPU 0.67, elapsed 2.0698 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.5165 seconds, 708 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.