Wow... Just wow.

I think Zack Snyder has outdone himself again. If you cant take some aesthetic pleasure out of this Trailer then I dont think you're a fan of movies...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17ttgQCgY7w

_________________

he said he wanted to do like the opposite of "300", all female cast instead of all male. as far as i'm concerned, anything he wants to do the opposite of regarding "300" is fine with me.

i think this looks bad ass. but snyder has a knack for making a film look like a music video. it's all flash and no substance.

anything over 2 hours, i'm already gonna be guarded. but if it's like 100 minutes and balls out entertaining, then yeah--it could be one of those. i'm intrigued.

"hey dude, i got this movie idea? put alice in wonderland, and a bunch of other babes, and dragons and shit and like...some prophecy...put that shit in a blender. And then check out this title...SUCKER PUNCH!"

"$$$$!!!!"

Im still all for this. Snyder is good at blending original directing style with great source material. This project is actually an original plot concept though. I saw a comic con interview where he said he's been trying to make this film for 8 years.

_________________

yeah i think he had a go to do this right before "watchmen" and did that first.

the slow-mo/fast-mo changeups get to be a little much sometimes. but he is a good visual director.

What was wrong with 300?

_________________
This is my signature...

This looks like it could be good, but I completely agree on the over 2 hours thought even though I liked the Watchmen Directors Cut

_________________

I liked 300. Watchmen Director's cut was phenomenal. Still dont know why they couldnt show Dr. Manhattan phasing all those people in the broadcast studio though. Extended Malin Ackerman bone scene was fun to watch too.

_________________

I always fall asleep watching 300. I didn't see Watchmen until the Director's Cut came out because I heard that it was better.

One rainy afternoon, Watchmen came on HBO, so I thought "I'll see if it really was as bad as I heard", and it was. The Director's Cut made more sense. It's like watching the different cuts of Blade Runner.

_________________

The Dawn of the Dead remake he did was pretty intense as well. Great for a first feature film.

_________________

Can anyone tell me what was wrong with 300? It wasn't the greatest of movies, but I thought it was entertaining...

_________________
This is my signature...

The main complaint Ive heard is 300 was, at times, a little homo-erotic. That shit doesnt bug me, cus the same people who say that prolly loved Top Gun growing up.

Other than the gayness, I cant think of anything. I saw it in the theater. It was made for a big screen.

W_Z is the same guy who said "Passion of the Christ" was anti semitic. A movie lifted page for page from a book written by Jewish people. With the major plot being Jewish people killing a Jewish man. I dont get it. Dont take his movie thoughts to heart.

_________________

you either are a lurker or you are a mult because i haven't opined about that piece of shit movie in a long time on here.

yes it's anti-Semitic; but even worse, it's just a two hour orgy of blood soaked physical abuse of one man. there's no story, no main character, nothing at all to keep anyone who isn't already a Christian interested at all. hell, "king of kings" was at least a well developed story and good narrative. it's got so many stereotypes, cheap shots, and then an inexplicable "light hearted" scene that doesn't belong...the movie was a total mess.

but the best story i've ever read about the story of Christ is easily Nikos Kazantzakis' "Last Temptation of Christ". Even the movie's decent but the novel is 100x better. People of faith or without can enjoy it. It's an actual *story* about redemption, too. Jesus has flaws. OMG!

As far as "300" goes--it had some really nice visuals and some great montages of battles. I even liked the abstractness of it and the exaggerations of humanity. What I didn't like was that it bored the crap out of me after the first hour. I didn't care about the soldiers or anything...the story was very thin. The characters were cardboard cut outs.

I was less than impressed. Visually great, no substance at all.

Now..."Watchmen"--I guess I'd have to give the director's cut a whirl. I thought it paled in comparison to the book only because I think it ultimately proved the book *was* unfilmable. But I've heard the DC is much better. I just wish it could've fixed that awful Nixon makeup. Bad, bad, bad.

I just found it boring

_________________

Thanks W_Z & souja boy.


"Passion of the Christ" probably isn't for everyone, Zack. I didn't watch it as I do other movies. But that's just me. The point of the movie, to me, was the enourmous suffering that this man went through for my sake. That's just me, not speaking for everyone of course...

_________________
This is my signature...

Yes...certainly not Jewish people, for one.

YES!!! Krazy is not dead after all

_________________
You never miss your wealth, till your well went dry
Seem like only yesterday, you were here smiling
Now you gone away, but I know you in a better place
No traces of you, what can I do?
Alone and confused

So the Bible is anti semitic? Because the Passion of the Christ was taken page for page from the Bible? A whole lot of non christian people enjoyed that film. I dont know what the fuck you're trying to say. POC was a good film. Bloody, but maybe your just a tad squeamish.

Last Temptation was entertaining. I heard it was cut down from its original version because some things were too "Controversial" for the bible banging madness of the mid 80's.

_________________

I can't resist:

I went to medical school in 1994 with Tad Squeamish

_________________

You’re two for two! First calling me a capitalist pig, then saying that I’m squeamish! Jeez, you got me pegged!

Seeing as how I own “Cannibal Holocaust”, “Salo”, “Hostel”, “Bumfights”, “House of 1,000 Corpses”, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, and “Straw Dogs”--I think it’s safe to say I’m *anything* but squeamish.

However, I’m wondering if there’s some version of the Bible I’m unaware of--one that features explicit graphic details like Jesus getting his back beaten literally to a bloody pulp by a whip; or, when Judas is haunted by “demon children”; or when Jesus builds a table.

The story of Jesus is about triumph of spirit and faith over body; so why does a movie glorifying Jesus only depict the most graphic, abusive, bloody examples of body being bludgeoned? What’s the point of that?

All Gibson did was embellish from the Passion plays of medieval times and make them far gorier. If this was about anyone else, this movie would’ve been X rated and banned in most countries. And it didn’t need the blood to display the message of peace that Jesus was spreading.

As far as asking if the Bible is anti-Semitic, here’s something to consider:

Mel Gibson did make one significant change to the movie before it was released to the public. Matthew 27:25 describes the Jewish mob pressuring Procurator Pilate to crucify Yeshua. Matthew, and Gibson, has the mob say: "Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." This one verse is probably responsible for more murders of innocent people than any other in the Bible. A. James Rudin, senior inter-religious adviser for the American Jewish Committee writes: "That curse appears only in Matthew, and is the religious taproot for the horrific charge that because the Jews killed Jesus, they merited eternal divine punishment for their 'crime.' Once an integral part of the world-famous Oberammergau Passion Play in Germany, all references to Matthew 27:25 were removed from the 2000 production and will not appear in future performances. It is ironic that Oberammergau, the 'grandparent' of Passion plays, no longer contains the incendiary verse from Matthew, but it does appear in Gibson's version." 7 The statement from Matthew gave theological justification to the charge of deicide -- the belief that the entire Jewish people were and continue to be responsible for the murder of God.

Sounds like you're taking a moral stance and not a cinematic approach to the film. I just dont think it was anti-semitic. The guy was the savior. Powerful people were scared of him. They kill him. The end.

I liked Apocalypto more tho. Too bad Mel cant make any more movies cus he's lost his mind for sure.

Hostel? Salo? BumFights? Is that the Patrick Bateman regimen?

_________________

well, cinematically, the film was well shot and i liked the fact that it was all done in ancient languages. that's about where it ends for me. i fucking hated everything else about it; and as i just said...not JUST because it was anti-semitic. it was just a useless movie in my opinion. so just know...if you wanna bring it up...i'm gonna say i fuckin' hated it. like the way ebert hate, hate, hated "north". mkay?

i actually liked "apocalypto" exactly for its simpleness. i thought it was actually pretty cool.

i did like "american psycho". it was good fun.

"salo" - dark, dark satire. but well done. i don't watch it every day or anything.

"hostel" - underrated in my opinion. not torture porn at all. i think people took it too seriously.

"bumfights" - i bought it because it was recommended by howard stern. thought it'd be interesting. i was disappointed. not many bumfights. just a lot of reels from "street fights". but it does feature an hilarious quote from a crackhead:

"I had close encounters from the first kind, the second kind and the third kind. One time all three!"

While you bring decent analysis to your critiquing of film, your interpretation is way off.

Also taking movie recommendations from Howard Stern is not a worthwhile admission.

Salo is satire? Hostel wasn't torture porn? Wtf? I dont know who brainwashed you. Eli Roth's career has been in the shitter since Stephen King threatened to sue his ass over "Signal." Hopefully he can make a comeback with the "Last Exorcism." Ill take Xavier Gens' "Frontier" over anything Roth has ever done. Eli is lucky to know Tarantino, let's just put it that way.

It really just sounds like you got your panties in a bunch when POC was banking off the Jesus freaks. For someone who isnt about conspiracies, you really pulled the anti-semitism out of your ass. Mel Gibson may be a lot of things, but I highly doubt he's a Nazi sympathizer. I dont see the stereotypes. I like the archaic, slow paced cinematography. Gibson really does have a knack for completing a scene and evoking emotion. Like I said before, too bad he's batshit crazy.

I know your type. The guy with Voyeuristic blood lust. Do your thing. Hopefully you arent part of the 10% of peeps who react violently to violent media.

_________________

says you.



i don't usually..."bumfights" was just something i thought would be good for a laugh.



yes. not all satire has to be funny. remember where the source material comes from. de sade was a satirist. satire is an exaggeration and "salo" was done purposely like that. it's hard to watch, same with "cannibal holocaust", but it still gets the point across. viciously.



no. "hostel 2" *was*. there actually aren't too many scenes in "Hostel" that deal with actual torture. i'm not brainwashed.

roth's career has been disappointing but i still want to give him a chance. i liked "cabin fever" and "hostel" but it really says something when your best effort is a mock trailer ("thanksgiving") which now he wants to make into a full length feature film.



do you think i'm the only one who thought of that? there are a lot of references from others that are a lot more specific than what i said. there's even a part of "wikipedia" that outlines the accusations. i saw the movie opening night and was looking forward to it. i wanted to walk out halfway through. i hated it. thoroughly. and it's not because of what others said. it's because personally i thought it was garbage.



well i can't do anything for you. if you didn't pick up on the fact that everyone you were supposed to dislike was severely exaggerated to look "evil" and disgusting...i found it pretty obvious. and it annoyed me.



no. you don't know me. just because i like those movies doesn't mean it has some kind of affect like that. i've written some pretty disturbing material before, too, but that's just because my mind is very expansive. i like the dark side of it...i like the light side of it.

do yourself a favor and don't try and figure me out. just keep it about movies here. if you don't agree with me, that's fine. but you have no idea what kind of person i really am; nor do i know what kind of person you really are...except a bit presumptuous.

Anti Depressants at some point huh? Or was it ritalin/addy pills? You came at me the wrong way in the recent 15 page thread. I will have to flame on you for a little while longer.

Like I said, it's cool. Do your thing. As long as your voyeuristic bloodlust isnt accompanied by actual homicidal urges, I guess I'll feel somewhat comfortable debating movies with you.

De Sade as a satirist is completely debatable. Btw, in the book, the slaves are children. There is no way to tell if De Sade was completely anti establishment, or just a pedophile who could write.

Cabin Fever was surprisingly good, but Roth really needs to make something worthwhile to regain some relevancy. Hopefully, the Roth (produced?) film, "the Last Exorcism" will help him. The trailer is very freaky... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmrSR5O9QXc

I do wish I could see the unreleased cut of "Signal" tho.

Every villain of every movie is generally shown in a far more antagonistic light than the hero/protagonist. So everyone that paid to see that film worldwide ($612 million) is somehow encouraging anti semitic behavior? It's a bullshit, paranoid argument.

_________________

Anyway, back to the original topic. Zack Snyder is a visual mastermind. Dont know if there's anyone better than him in that aspect other than Guillermo Del Toro.

You seem like a tortured purist. Of course you wouldnt like Watchmen as a film. You're too infatuated with the graphic novel. The film would have had to be 10 hours long if they wanted to do the book justice. Alan Moore gave Snyder his personal approval. What more do you want?

_________________

your first response to me was that i was a capitalist pig. then here you say i'm squeamish; and now i have bloodlust. you've shown the ability to flame much better with others than you've illustrated here. but you can continue if you want if it gives you some kind of personal satisfaction.



i still believe "salo" was meant to be a cynical, dark satire. it was not meant to be funny in any way; but like "1984", it was exaggerated to make a statement; in this case about fascism, decadence and self-indulgence.



of course they are but there are much more clever ways of doing it than gibson did. he has no subtlety whatsoever.

besides you are the one that is harping on the anti-semitic thing. i said that's one thing that i didn't like about it. i outlined everything that i hated about it. i've said that other people have accused it of being anti-semitic too. do some research if you want. it's out there. i'm not being paranoid, i think it was clear as day.



well instead of presuming to know everything about me, you could click on that website i provide in my signature for my reviews and look up my review on "watchmen". IIRC, alan moore's name doesn't appear in the credits. only gibbons does. he wants nothing to do with any movie adaptation of his work. if you've seen an interview with him you'd know that.

here's exactly what he said:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1120854_5,00.html

Idk dude. Ive also told you a few things I liked about Passion of the Christ. The bad guys were supposed to be dismissive and dastardly. Why do you care so much?

Alan Moore whining about Hollywood is a parroted article from 2008. Im sure after From Hell and The League of Extraordinary doucheboxes I wouldnt want my name in any future credits either. Moore approved of V4vendetta and Watchmen. He just doesnt like Hollywood. Totally understandable. American made films are a whole lot of shit mostly.

De Sade was fucked up. I cant really accept his writing as relative work outside the fact he was locked up for it, and apparently had a following. It just doesnt stimulate my neural receptors.

You were never on any sort of SSRI or a ritalin based scrip? Fooled me.

_________________

meh. i'm gonna declare a stalemate at this point...



i'm pretty sure he specifically said he thought hayter's script *for* "watchmen" was "as close as possible" to his original text but that he still wouldn't go see it. yeah he hates hollywood. like i said, he's always stated that. but i can't blame the guy for taking the money when it's offered. i just thought "watchmen" was better left alone. i will say this, though: best opening credit sequence i think i've ever seen.



no. do you want to keep this up? or are you finished now?

i guess i should also mention that, yes, i am interested in seeing "sucker punch". they really seem to like releasing his films in march all of the sudden.