What he said.
The Stand had a cast that was a perfect fit for every single character they used in the mini-series. It wasn’t very good though. I think only someone like George Romero can put King’s actual vision on the screen.
Cat’s Eye at the very least had King’s sense of humor. And the cat was cute.
Frank Darabont’s adaptations were very faithful to the novels and the character dynamics. That’s why I think the best adaptation was The Mist.
Agreed.
I think The Mist is the best pure adaptation of his story.
But Shawshank Redemption has to be the best movie “based” off a King story.
I never saw The Shining and I never really intend to. I like the book too much.
[quote=“Yogi1, post:579, topic:210398, full:true”]
that’s a brilliant book.[/quote]
I know right?
It has everything that made King amazing to me. I like King because his characters and the situation he creates actually feels alive.
And then he throws the most god-awful things at those people.
I think Pet Semetary was the first time I genuinely felt bad for the people within a work of fiction, and so it has a special place in my heart.
IMO that would be Carrie. It’s interesting that people rarely even think of King when they think of that movie even though it was one of the most faithful adaptations of his books cos it’s so filled with De Palma’s style.
Another one of the films that I’ve never seen.
I think I just dislike watching books I’ve read put on film. For example, I think I disliked virtually all of the Harry Potter movies.
yeah dude I know that. I like to think of it more as just a standalone movie for that reason.
Finally saw Spiderman Homecoming. It was, mehhhh. I thought Keaton ended up being a great choice for Vulture and I thought the plot was really good, but I guess the pace of the movie was just too slow for me. I thought it was kinda boring and there was too much uninteresting emphasis on the classmates.
Free movies on Crackle. Not familiar with this service because I watch very little TV.
The Raid: Redemption
I’ve seen it once, but holy fuck. This movie is something else. It had to be made with what, somewhere around a million. How does Hollywood fuck up movies with 100 times the budget? There’s nothing beyond pure action, yet totally interweaved with personal stories that are not told on screen but played out in the subtle edges. This is a very well made movie.
I actually hated annabelle creations, most boring horror movie I’ve ever seen. Not scary whatsoever and i was yawning throughout the movie bored.
Id rate it 3/10
What Happened to Monday - Holy shit this one came out of nowhere. It’s a dystopian future with severe overpopulation. The government imposes a one child policy, where they forcibly abduct all siblings and cryogenically freeze them until the population drops sufficiently.
The story revolves around a group of identical septuplets that have been living together and sharing one identity for 30-something years.
Hard to say much more than that. I loved this movie. Streaming now on Netflix, so just watch it.
9.5/10
Can you imagine how much just the insurance for all the extras is going to cost for all the bone crunching fight scenes lol. Watch the old Jackie Chan movies like Project A and see what kind of physical abuse all the stuntmen took with minimal pay. We aren’t going to get movies like these anymore, not even from Hong Kong, unless they’re filmed in a country like Indonesia or Thailand by a local production company that’s only subject to local liability laws.
This is why I continually check this thread. I’d noticed this movie on streaming sites but hadn’t heard anything about it. After this recommendation I watched it and thoroughly enjoyed it. Great action and awesome story.
I feel like this doesn’t really add up economically. Say you need 100 guys to get beat up in a movie (almost no movie has a count that is really that high for guys that actually get beat up in the shot in detail, but lets be generous). Now how much do you think you have to offer to get people to be willing to actually get beat up (not just pretend to get beat up and maybe suffer some bruises). I bet if you offer $100k each you could get enough takers. That’s only $10 million. For a hollywood blockbuster movie budget, that really isn’t that much money. And realistically you don’t really need that many guys to beat up, and you can probably reduce the cost per person.
In addition, these are fighting stunts which can be dangerous, but not nearly as dangerous as some Hollywood stunts that are pretty pointless. For example, the scene when Tom Cruise hangs from a plane in Rogue Nation. I swear I saw more hype on this than for the actual movie - and it added very little value. I’ll give Tom Cruise some balls for doing this, but did it make the movie any better? It’s reported that this scene took 8 takes. I bet that one, 30 second scene cost more than The Raid
Didn’t he almost die on the Mummy set? I thought I heard that.
Blockquote
You mean, wasn’t he almost automatically reincarnated, right?
Well, first, I’m not just talking about the cost of people taking a beating. I gave it as an example so people can imagine what the rest of the production costs will look like. Look at the ridiculously cheap sets like the “apartment” the lead actor was given and his boss’s “office”. That being said, if you choreograph fight scenes like in The Raid 2 without experienced stuntmen with at least months of training, someone is going to get killed or fucked up real bad. Hong Kong actors like Jackie Chan and Samo Hung each had their own stunt teams that were specially trained for these kinds of scenes.
Second, I highly doubt Hollywood is going to spend 100 million on a movie with a cast of unknowns with just a couple of fights. A lot of shit is going to be blown up and there are going to be elaborate car stunts and stuff. A movie like Fury Road cost 150 million to make. And it was filmed in a location where it was ok to blow shit up. Doing all these with minimal CGI is going to cost more than using actual CGI nowadays.
This recent Hong Kong movie was made with 23 million. 10 years ago, it would have cost under 2 million and funded by a couple of companies partly owned by triad members. You could get away with a lot of things without much interference from studio executives. Something like this will probably cost less than 1 million in Indonesia and under 5 million in Thailand now.
Look at the difference in the intensity of the fight scenes compared to The Raid 2 when there’s more investor money from large China companies and increased liability involved. And the director of this movie is not some random commercial filmmaker. IMO, he is one of Hong Kong’s best directors. See Dog Bite Dog (2006).
I agree - big budget movies certainly have their place. But love me some realativly cheap, well made movies - Snatch, 28 Days Later, Bronson, The Descent, Memento, Resevoir Dogs, etc…
The Belko Experiment - If you saw the trailer, you know the premise. Nothing really ground-breaking or creative about it. There’s a YUGE problem with the climax that the writers had to have seen so I can only believe they’re lazy, cynical or both. And the ending leaves us open for at least 2 more movies if this one does any good.
Edit: I thought about it some more and the YUGE problem I thought was there, actually isn’t, it was my oversight.
5/10.
That’s still a fair chunk of money and doesn’t include all the crap above paying the punching bags.
Plus TBH, our violence on the screen is served up in such a stylised way that I reckon the audience for this would be small - I watched a Korean horror movie about 5 years ago and it took about half the movie to adjust haha
The otherside of it is if these guys are taking real punches to the head then there is a risk of death and even taking that risk is probably enough to doom the movie, the producers and perhaps the entire studio - maybe if you got a director approved by the twitter hypocrites it may scrape by.
