[quote=""Sedhal""]Well maybe it's best you don't find out what Bale did to get into character for the Fighter then... (LOL)[/quote]
That's a bit different for an adult who has some life under his belt. I was referring to a teenybopper getting over-hype media attention.

Drugs r bad at any age, mmmkay.

I've heard The Fighter was good...not my type of movie though.

[quote=""Fingolfin""]I've heard The Fighter was good...not my type of movie though.[/quote]

Not my type of movie either, but i enjoyed it none the less. You really should watch it =P

[quote=""Sedhal""]Drugs r bad at any age, mmmkay. [/quote]

Hmm, Ya Think?
I certainly wasn't saying Bale's idea of preparation was wise.

Actually it was pretty stupid considering the risk he took, more like a gamble.

Yeah... just shows how intense the guy is about his work.

While I don't mean to bash him in any way, I do have to give credit to those who stay as much out of method acting as possible, yet still churn out good performances. There's something about that which makes me think... "acting" rather than "I had to become a scumbag to pull this off". Anyone can play themselves on screen. Not sure if I've mentioned it here before, but I'm also a fan of Colin Farrell. Watching behind the scenes stuff, it's cool to note how readily he can snap in and out of his character. When the camera is off, he's himself. I like both methods, so I'm not knocking method acting, but something impresses me more about the ability to switch it on/off at will. Seems more like what they're paid to do.

Not to mention the complications of working with a crack-addicted Christian Bale on the set =P

[quote=""Sedhal""]Yeah... just shows how intense the guy is about his work.

While I don't mean to bash him in any way, I do have to give credit to those who stay as much out of method acting as possible, yet still churn out good performances. There's something about that which makes me think... "acting" rather than "I had to become a scumbag to pull this off". Anyone can play themselves on screen. Not sure if I've mentioned it here before, but I'm also a fan of Colin Farrell. Watching behind the scenes stuff, it's cool to note how readily he can snap in and out of his character. When the camera is off, he's himself. I like both methods, so I'm not knocking method acting, but something impresses me more about the ability to switch it on/off at will. Seems more like what they're paid to do.[/quote]
I personally think the turn it on and off actors are far better. I didn't do a lot of acting in school but when I did I was clearly a method actor. That said; method acting isn't meant to totally be your character to the point of this crack head. If that's method acting then Gangs of New York would never have gotten anywhere, Danial Day would have hacked everybody to pieces, you know what I mean?

Method acting: To play a crack head and act like one all the time without actually BEING a crack head. Again, do you know what I'm trying to say? That's not really acting, it's being. Not sure I'm e xp ressing this correctly; we'll see. You let me know with your feedback.

Bale actually got himself addicted to crack cocaine to prepare himself for the role? Tha'ts intense!

No, but the rumor is he went out and tried... something.


Thrand, I know exactly what you mean. And although Bale is considered a method actor, he'd probably tend to agree with us that the idea of it (to the extreme that we're discussing) isn't really a performance, or acting. Like you said, there's a difference between pretending and being. But if he really did... e xp eriment, that doesn't make him a crackhead, assuming it stops there. Just gives him some more research to use, that's all... although I still think he has the skill to accomplish the role without needing to do so.

[quote=""Thranduil""]I personally think the turn it on and off actors are far better. I didn't do a lot of acting in school but when I did I was clearly a method actor. That said; method acting isn't meant to totally be your character to the point of this crack head. If that's method acting then Gangs of New York would never have gotten anywhere, Danial Day would have hacked everybody to pieces, you know what I mean?

Method acting: To play a crack head and act like one all the time without actually BEING a crack head. Again, do you know what I'm trying to say? That's not really acting, it's being. Not sure I'm e xp ressing this correctly; we'll see. You let me know with your feedback.[/quote]

I'm with you, Thrandy. In method acting you still have to act. I'll never forget what Olivier said to D. Hoffman when they were filming Marathon Man. In order to act being sleep deprived Hoffman actually went without sleep so he could look sleep deprived. Olivier said to him, "My dear boy, why don't you just act?"

You want to know what method acting really is, check out Lee Strasberg, "the father of Method Acting" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Strasberg

Sounds like I managed to say what I meant successfully and you guys understood where I was coming from.

Watched The Kings Speech,
Loved it.
Timothy Spall played Churchill; outstanding. Always a treat to see an actor you're used to seeing in another role (Wormtail) play a part that shows off more talent.

Yep, KS is still on my "to do" list.
Was going to watch it last night but fell asleep.

Also read a few reviews of Thor....very well received .

I don't normally go to the theatre ---just wait for RedBox--- unless the flick demands a big screen.

I think Thor demands a big screen, so I'll be heading there in a week or two.

Yeah, I watched Kings Speech last night...good movie! Everybody was good, but Spall was really great as Churchill. It's good to see him play a good guy for a change. I've gotta say, those Harry Potter movies have been a godsend for him, getting him parts in other high-profile movies.

Supposedly the Queen enjoyed The King's Speech, and found it very moving. I was very curious what she'd think about it, considering it's about her father, and she herself is portrayed in it as a girl.

Speaking of Potter actors, Michael "Dumbeldore" Gambon played King George V in KS.

[quote=""Olorin""]Speaking of Potter actors, Michael "Dumbeldore" Gambon played King George V in KS.[/quote]

Yes, and Helena Bonham Carter plays Alberts wife.

With a few more in there they'd have the eighth book, Harry Potter and the Kings Stutter. Short lived as Hermione just waved her wand and said, "Octiva repaira"

Good one!

I really need to see KS. I would rent it but the damn movie store went out of business. Curse RedBox!

Well, get it from RedBox!

I refuse to support that stupid box.

Why, Fin? What's with the "curse redbox?"

It's a great way to very ine xp ensively check out new movies, and so not waste a bunch of money on a gamble; money better spent on polystone figures and environments, not to mention swords.

And you're the one with the "tiny budget"!

About four months after they started putting RedBoxes up around here (about a year ago, we're pretty behind on the tech), three of the five movie rental stores in the county went out of business because everyone started using RedBox. I went to Hollywood Video so often that I knew about half of the employees, and I knew the store like the back of my hand. Those guys all lost their jobs, and I lost my movie store(s). That's why I refuse to use the stupid RedBox. I either see them in theatres (very rarely) or just borrow them from friends or have someone else tell me about how they were. I don't have much time to watch movies this school year anyway, I'm busier than I've ever been.

Sadly, you can't fight this. Not sure what RedBox is specifically since I don't recognize the name north of the border, but if it's anything like Netflix, you can kiss all the brick and mortar video rental stores in your neighbourhood goodbye. Streaming is here to stay.

Yeah, I know. I won't use Netflix either. Besides, you have to pay a lot to get good movies on that stupid service.

RedBox is pretty much a movie vending machine. You find them outside of gorcery stores, pharmacies like Walgreens, etc.

[quote=""Thranduil""]Yes, and Helena Bonham Carter plays Alberts wife.[/quote]

D'oh, I forgot to mention that! Of course, she's nearly unrecognizable, since she's not wearing 18 pounds of eye shadow and doesn't have her hair frizzed up into a rat's nest.

Speaking of her... I was watching the episode of Miami Vice last night that she guest-stars on, "Theresa". If anyone wants to know what she looked like in 1987, check it out...


...and it isn't pretty. In fact, I've always been somewhat unsettled by her appearance, but this episode she looks 100x worse. It's so creepy. Pretty awkward. She's like a female Gollum in it. No joke.

http://sharetv.org/images/guide/291656.jpg

http://images.wikia.com/miamivice/image ... alyons.PNG


Granted, she plays a junkie. But still... the fact she's also Crockett's love interest (who he is about to propose to, by the way!) is totally nauseating.

[quote=""Fingolfin""]About four months after they started putting RedBoxes up around here (about a year ago, we're pretty behind on the tech), three of the five movie rental stores in the county went out of business because everyone started using RedBox. ....Those guys all lost their jobs, and I lost my movie store(s). That's why I refuse to use the stupid RedBox.... .[/quote]

I have to agree with you in part. RedBox contributed to the closing of brick-and-morter video stores, but not entirely.
Redbox only offers new, or relatively new, releases.

The end was in sight with the advent of NetFlix rentals and then streaming, because you can rent old as well as new flicks.

I like Redbox, as I said, to check out new movies cheaply.
But I too miss being able to rent any and all types (and ages ) of movies, like you could at Blockbuster or Hollywood video.

And not everyone can stream movies.

I didn't rent any movies for 2-3 years or more after the local video store went out of business and turned into a tamale place, then I basically just bought movies I wanted to see. I started using Netflix about a year ago, which I know they have to wait 28 days or whatever for new movies, but I have such a back log of movies I want to watch, I won't be getting to new releases anyway

Bah, who needs new movies! I like old ones anyway. I just watched Dead Poets Society today, I loved it. Such a sad death though.

[quote=""Sedhal""]Speaking of her... I was watching the episode of Miami Vice last night that she guest-stars on, "Theresa". If anyone wants to know what she looked like in 1987, check it out...


...and it isn't pretty. In fact, I've always been somewhat unsettled by her appearance, but this episode she looks 100x worse. It's so creepy. Pretty awkward. She's like a female Gollum in it. No joke.

http://sharetv.org/images/guide/291656.jpg

http://images.wikia.com/miamivice/image ... alyons.PNG


Granted, she plays a junkie. But still... the fact she's also Crockett's love interest (who he is about to propose to, by the way!) is totally nauseating.[/quote]

I like Helena Bonham Carter. She always seems like a very nice woman. She comes a cross completely insane but she stills seems like you could be friends with her and be close with her. She doesn't appear to be nasty or thinks shes better than other people.

And to be honest I think she is quite attractive in her own way

[quote=""Elvenguard13""]And to be honest I think she is quite attractive in her own way[/quote]

And you're absolutely right.

Uhm. Both of you CLEARLY haven't seen the episode I referenced.

Just watched The King's Speech.

I can't add any more praises to than what everyone has already said.

Don't know if Geoffrey Rush was nominated for Best Supporting Actor but he should have been.

Excellent movie all around...story, acting, costumes, soundtrack, casting, sets.

Going to watch it again, and I'll likely buy it as well.

[quote=""Sedhal""]Uhm. Both of you CLEARLY haven't seen the episode I referenced. [/quote]
What does THAT episode have to do with our opinions about her overall appearance?
She has a round face, and to those who find such a face attractive, she's a beauty.

It has everything to do with it, since she makes an appearance in it. She's downright disturbing in it. Roseanne Barr has a round face too, so I suppose she's automatically beautiful to those who like round faces (and are willing to ignore the billion other factors)

[quote=""Sedhal""]It has everything to do with it, since she makes an appearance in it. She's downright disturbing in it. Roseanne Barr has a round face too, so I suppose she's automatically beautiful to those who like round faces (and are willing to ignore the billion other factors) [/quote]

I'm sure that those who like a round face would agree that comparing Helena Bonham Carter to Roseanne Barr, in terms of beauty, is pointless; there's no comparison other than the round face.
Elvenguard made a simple statement about Helena being attractive, I agreed.
If you don't find her attractive in any way, that's fine, everyone has different tastes.
What is it you want Sed? Do you think that one episode determined everything about her?
Talk about ignoring a billion other factors.

Well the reasoning was the round face, was it not? That's my point, liking a round face doesn't mean you want to bang Gollum from 1987.

"Elvenguard made a simple statement about Helena being attractive, I agreed."


True! And I did not.

"If you don't find her attractive in any way, that's fine, everyone has different tastes."


I didn't say that, did I? I said she was unbelievably and unsettlingly hideous in 1987, and that definitely impacted my impression of her. Maybe if I were you two and knew her personally, I'd feel differently. But since I'm just part of the uninformed audience, I judge the people on my TV based on how they appear on the TV (which is, in this case: the body and stature of an 8-year old with the head of Louie Anderson, eyebrows of Colin Farrell, and Joker's yellow teeth, topped with an extremely over the top and annoying accent*)

(*alternatively, she could be described as an irradiated infant with rapid aging and an enlarged head due to a brain tumor... with Joker's yellow teeth)

"What is it you want Sed? Do you think that one episode determined everything about her?"


See above^ However, to elaborate, no. But when I see a fairly neutral actress (not ugly, not attractive in any way), she's got a clean slate until I see old footage of her from 1987 where she looks like a female Igor, or Dr Moreau's little decrepit flesh monkey, in which case, it's no longer a clean slate.

Sorry, was that first question serious?

"Talk about ignoring a billion other factors."

Actually, just a few: let's see, she's too old for my tastes now, too weird, too British, and resembles a pygmy Jack Skellington. Hmmm maybe it wasn't just 1987... but in her defense, she definitely got better with age. You know what they say, "nowhere to go but up!".

Hahahahahaha!

"pygmy Jack Skellington"

That was hilarious, Sed

Wow... slow days at UCF when we have to argue about this!!!

Just watched Limitless, great movie!

a movie that i'd never seen and caught on TV2... "Derailed" with that gal from Friends and Clive Owen. I like it, and was pleasantly surprised at the twists.

"Thor" was also good.

Crud, crap, junk, sh... uh...


Well the only movies on the horizon I care about are Malick's Tree of Life and Andrew Dominik's Cogan's Trade (both Brad Pitt movies, oddly enough-- he's certainly choosing great roles the past few years, he's become one of my favorites).

Dominik made one of my two favorite films of all time (Jesse James) and has only made one film before that (Chopper with Eric Bana) so I'm hyper-excited for Cogan's Trade.

And Terry Malick... what can I say? Not for everyone, but I adore The New World and recently watched The Thin Red Line after I finally bought the blu-ray. Man, I hadn't watched this movie since it came out (1998 roughly)!! I remembered I liked it as a 10-year old, but it sure does feel amazing to revisit things like this after so long, and with a new perspective. I think it's officially my favorite war film ever made, and I hate to limit it just to that genre. Highly underrated, moving, beautiful, existential (as all Malick's works seem to be), and incredibly interesting trivia behind it. If you guys want a kick, read its IMDB page. Out of all those A-listers, you'll get a kick out of who else filmed scenes that weren't even included (yep, even Viggo was on that list). Amazing stuff. I love rediscovering older movies, since they're generally better than new movies, but you still get that fix of freshness.

Sed will have to reach for the barf bag and lose whatever last shreds of faith that he might have had in me but... I watched Thor and it was surprisingly good.

Hearing horrible things about the Hangover 2 so might wait for video on that one. Also uneasy about X-Men: First Class, though early previews say it might surprise people. Still neutral on Green Lantern, but looking forward to Captain America. Will also go see the last Harry Potter, but after so many years of it, I feel kinda fatigued on the bespectacled wizard and just want the series to be over already.

I've heard some surprisingly good reviews for Thor, from some of my friends that were SUPER critical of it going into the movie, which gives me a lot of hope for the movie. I was a bit skeptical of it, just because the character is a God, not just a regular ol' Xmen mutant or a radioactive spider bitten super hero, and I didn't know how well Thor would mesh in the established Iron Man/Avengers movie continuity.

Hangover 2, I have heard from friends and online that it ranges from "the exact same movie, just in a different location" to "so much better than the first one" but I havent heard anyone say the movie was bad or unfunny.

I have never seen any of the Harry Potter movies, I guess I can start watching them now, since I told myself I would just wait and watch them all so I didn't have to wait between movies.

Green Lantern looks pretty cool, but, I must admit, being a comic book follower as a kid, I dont know much about the DC universe other than Batman (I was a marvel kid) so I am pretty much open to interpretation for the movie, as I don't have an idea what the story is.

Xmen I really really really hope is good, I have my hopes up, but growing up a Marvel kid, Xmen were my favorite and I have a clear idea of what is supposed to happen in the movies and I am super critical of Xmen movies, such as the Phoenix is not Jean Grey's split personality!

I'll tell you how it will mesh, BC... not at all.

Here we have Marvel's best potential film: IRON MAN, thrown away with Avengers BS, and soon mashed together with a Norse god. I understand Thor is a comic character, and have no problem with that. That's why we can all pick up whatever franchise we like and ignore the others. But putting Thor into a movie with freaking Tony Stark, who is not a supernatural superhero, has no superpowers, and is thematically grounded in technology is absurd to the nth degree. In fact! I don't even have a problem with the Thor movie, it's this Avengers build-up I hate, which made me hate the film because in my eyes it's literally nothing but a lead-in to the Avengers BS. Marvel and DC need to get over themselves and remember why diversity is a good thing (hint: it's not all the same).

That said, I am going to reach for the barf bag over Captain America, Val. Have you even seen the trailer for that??

Okay, here's my problem with Cap'n. This is indeed vomit-inducing:

Captain America. He's some scrawny Benjamin Button with Chris Evans' head who has clearly suffered some idiot's impulse to overuse CGI, who, upon taking drugs, steps into some mummy coffin and emerges buff Human Torch-- err I mean Chris Evans. Now let's think about this a moment...

Captain America. The symbol for America. He's a little wuss who raises his hand for some science e xp eriment and "e xp eriments" with these drugs, thus becoming insanely bigger insanely faster. This apparently makes him a better person.

My problem is, this sends a completely wrong message in addition to sucking on a narrative level. What does this say about America? How about:

He's a normal guy with normal limitations and volunteers for a special program in which he needs to work out, get in shape, and undergo extensive combat and agility training, and eventually his hard work pays off and he earns who he becomes. THAT is Captain America. I don't care how the comics portray this-- it's a nice fantasy for a little weak kid but fantasy isn't real. And it doesn't help us cope with reality and face the facts. How about a truly inspiring character who shows kids if they work hard they'll get what they want? Taking drugs is the answer? Cheating? Miracles? Magic? Come on. It's completely unnecessary and a huge flaw in the story's credibility. And they wouldn't need to go way overboard making him into some 10 year old with a 30-year old's head.

Other than that, it looks like it's got the production value of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, or Bloodrayne. And Nazis. Nazis nazis nazis. Oh man am I sick and tired of Nazis. There were like THREE Red Skulls at least, in the CA mythology-- use the communist one. Show some guts. But no, everyone hates the nazis (except Lars), so let's cop out and do that (again). Lazy. Stupid. And completely promoting Avengers. Hell, look at the marketing: "THE FIRST AVENGER.... captain america!. Awful.

Regarding X-Men, I couldn't care less at this point. But I'll see it with my friend because he's a big comic fan, and I won't mind Azazel, Kevin Bacon, and Magneto. I hate McAvoy though... totally wrong pick there. And let's not even get started on continuity or tiresome redundancies. Bleh.


But it's okay, I did see Pirates last night with my buds. Friends in town and we needed something to see, so I voted that since I sorta needed to see it (mermaid subject matter and all being something I'm delving into soon). In short, I think it was actually just as bad if not worse than the 3rd one. Blackbeard was cool, but wasted. The mermaid was cute, but wasted. Zimmer rocks, but he was wasted (score was nowhere near as good as Dead Man's Chest). It was basically the first movie all over again minus all the redeeming factors and slight believability. Jack Sparrow has been stripped of all character since Black Pearl, and made into a lovable cartoon character who can't kill or do anything but act "cute". In the first film he was a selfish schemer and a true pirate. We had no idea if he was good or bad for the most part. In the later movies, he's so shallow it's sad. But that was e xp ected. Clear cash-in. And this movie would have been much better in 2D. It looked absurd.


For those of you who still think 3D is such a great idea, watch this movie though. Tell me it looks more realistic. Tell me it's not a gimmick or not distracting. Then I'll tell you you don't understand depth perception and intervals of focal points varying with scale and distance. IE: A mountain landscape shows the hills in the foreground STICKING OUT from the background. Sorry, that's not how we see something of that scale. The result: It looks miniature. Every set in this movie looked miniature. Whoops. 2D will never suffer this. Never has. Look at anything in real life, close one eye, and there you have it. You can't ever view anything remotely close to Hollywood's "3D" in the natural world.

lol... this is why I love waiting for your opinions, Sed. If only one tenth of the people in Hollywood shared your passion...

Anyway, I'm ok with the Avengers concept because I recognize that this is comic book fantasy brought to the screen, and nothing more than escapist entertainment. At least each of the individual movies thus far has been great, so let's hope combining them together won't flop. I totally see your issues with the Iron Man/Thor blend, but I don't think they ever tried to disguise the fact that Tony Stark was a part of a much larger world. One thing I have to say for this whole scheme is that they've tried to bring some awareness of this fact to audiences rather than just drop the concept on us out of the blue with an Avengers movie no one was e xp ecting. I also understand your views on diversity and picking the franchises you want to see without crossover stuff getting in your face, but unfortunately (or fortunately - however you feel about the issue,) that was never Marvel's original intent, so the Avengers is what we'll get.

As for Captain America, yes, I have seen the trailer and I'm not nearly as excited as I was for Thor, but still looking forward to it. Yes, the way in which Cap is created stands against everything we want to teach our kids today, but again, the Super Soldier program and the serum they used in the comics a long time ago is still the way they want to e xp lain this, so that's the way it's going to be. I think the key here is that we can educate our children enough to know that superheroes aren't real, that a movie like this is fantasy, and that doing drugs to make you big will have dire consequences. There is far too much lack of accountability and responsibility on parents' behalf these days in raising their children, and we don't need to find scapegoats in movies.

Pirates of the Caribbean? That franchise needs to die.

[quote=""Valkrist""]that was never Marvel's original intent, so the Avengers is what we'll get.[/quote]

You forgot to add: and when it is, they just REBOOT!


But not even on a moral standpoint, it's a horrible component of the story. The movie took Cap's midget-itis to an absurdly extreme level, and tossing back a drug and watching it grow (LOL) destroys any interest in the character, to be honest. There's no heroism there, no will power, no guts, endurance, or even spiritual strength. There's no admiration in cheating/not playing the game over playing and winning by its rules. Other than that, it certainly sucks for plenty of other reasons so I'll try not to harp on that too much.


Pirates: agree.

When I went in watching Pirates 3, I thought it was done. I didn't even ever think that there would have been a 4th, since trilogies seem to be so popular these days.

With regards to the Avengers movies, other than milking money, I do appreciate that they are taking individual films to introduce characters, so they can get to the main plot of the Avengers movie. To do a ensemble comic book movie and introduce characters and plot in that movie, things get lost, you don't know who is who, the plot is jumbled up. I think XMen would have suffered that fate for me, if I had not had the background knowledge of Xmen that I have.

Are we supposed to suspend disbelief in a plot at all for Avengers, when having that conversation? Because I don't think it has one. I don't even think it has a story. I certainly wouldn't call it a story. I wouldn't call it anything. All it is, all it took to get greenlit, all it takes to get hype, all there is to it, is:

"we threw a bunch of characters in name-only into a 2-hour long segment of film"


And the crowd goes wild.


Sorry, that's not a plot, story, or anything. But since when did we need one these days in Hollywood.

Without seeing the end product first, all presuppositions are fair but none are valid until proven. As such, the Avengers may yet have a plot.

What is it thus far? The rumour: Earth faces a threat that no single superhero can face alone, an eventuality for which SHIELD has been preparing for some time. Thus they have assembled a team. The threat will arrive in the (possible and rumoured) form of the alien race known as the Skrull, and Thanatos, another alien being of immense power. When the Avengers finally form to stop them, the Hulk, an already notoriously difficult to control superhero (an appellation which is applied loosely here,) is tricked into fighting his former teammates by Loki, the God of Mischief (because that's what he loves to do.) With three separate threats (and counting) on their hands, Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, and Donald Blake will have their hands full.

However hateful it all sounds to you, there's a plot in there.

[quote=""Valkrist""]The threat will arrive in the (possible and rumoured) form of the alien race known as;

However hateful it all sounds to you, there's a plot in there.[/quote]
Maybe the alien will be Nero and Startrek can get the rebooost it needs also