5punk

I like braveheart, but that's probably because I'm not British and liked the fight scenes. I never looked at as a serious film anyway.
I loathe the patriot though, what rack of shit.

I love movies :p I am trying to watch the whole IMDB top 250 and am about a 3rd of the way through I think. They have a bottom 100 as well which, sadly, I have seen most of. A few were bad movie choices, the rest because I am a Mystery Science Theater 3k fan.

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/chart/top
What I have seen : http://www.haebc.com/deanne/archives/001858.html

Side note: I dated a guy who LOVED Titanic and Braveheart so I was forced to watch them. The relationship didn't last long. I am not a fan of chick flicks and he was, not that Braveheart was, I just was so bored. And..If I could throw Meg ryan, Sandra Bullock, Renee Zelwegger and Julia Roberts, in a deep dark pit, I would. grr.

punkchuck wrote:They have a bottom 100 as well which, sadly, I have seen most of.

And..If I could throw Meg ryan, Sandra Bullock, Renee Zelwegger and Julia Roberts, in a deep dark pit, I would. grr.

1 - Terrible films are great for certain occasions. Like whenever there's drink and mates involved. My favourite for this is ghosts of mars. What utter shit it is!

2 - Surely throw them in a pit and have them fight, not in a sexy oil way, more a brutal gladiator blood on the sand way. That would make the best thing they had ever done their last.

I think I watched titanic on the premise of winslet's nipples, what fail that was. Weird curly things they are.

HereComesPete wrote: I think I watched titanic on the premise of winslet's nipples, what fail that was. Weird curly things they are.

Curly?? haha. I honestly don't remember.

I've seen 81 of those 250, which I don't think is great but probably a lot more than Joe Average. I've not seen any of the bottom 100 though, which is some consolation. Although unsurprisingly I've heard of several of the zombie films in there.

Oh oh thought of another "trilogy" that the second one sucked.

Silence of the Lambs.. awesome
Hannibal- Lame, although that dude eats his own brainz.
Red Dragon - I thought it was pretty good. Ending a little bleh but not bad.

There's that other hannibal one. Hannibal rising, which is shit and removes all mystique/suspense/etc from why he is what he is. The acting, directing and dialogue are all crap.

I thought Hannibal was okay, but I'd only read the book about 6 months before it came out. The most recent one about Hannibal's background was a bit pants though.

EDIT: Mind the piss

punkchuck wrote:I love movies :p I am trying to watch the whole IMDB top 250 and am about a 3rd of the way through I think.

I went through most of the IMDb list a few years back. There were some I just couldn't watch as they bored me senseless or just wasn't in the mood at the time. Going through the list now I've seen almost everything on there, some are real treasures you wouldn't think to watch normally. Nearly all of the ones I haven't seen were made before 1950 and these can be hit and miss. Double Indemnity for instance was one I just couldn't sit through. Noir has been spoofed so many times that the whole thing seems laughably bad to me.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3wjJcuGsVE[/media]

punkchuck wrote:Oh oh thought of another "trilogy" that the second one sucked.

Silence of the Lambs.. awesome
Hannibal- Lame, although that dude eats his own brainz.
Red Dragon - I thought it was pretty good. Ending a little bleh but not bad.

Wasn't Silence of the Lambs the sequel to Manhunter, and one of those others a remake of the original? I lost interest half-way through Hannibal as it was so poor compared to the Lambs and never saw the rest.

I've seen 132 off the top 250 list and only The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!? from the bottom 100.

Manhunter was based on Thomas Harris's Red Dragon, but was later turned into a movie of the same name to fit in with Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal. In fact, I think Red Dragon came before Hannibal didn't it? Although in the story timelines I think Red Dragon came first. If I remember correctly Manhunter and Red Dragon were very similar, just with a different cast and production values. Manhunter was rather gritty and disturbing in a way only low-budget films can be.

Release dates were Manhunter 86, Lambs 91, Hannibal 01, Red Dragon 02, Hannibal Rising 07.

Manhunter shows Lecter's capture, which is why he's incarcerated at the start of Lambs. I don't know how closely Red Dragon follows it, given its release date confused many into thinking it was a continuation of Hopkins' portrayal of Lecter and I don't know how Hannibal ended. I didn't know about the books.

Manhunter is a different adaptation of the same novel as red dragon and it covers the first book.

Red dragon got made after the films for the second (Silence of the Lambs) and third (Hannibal) books were made to have Lecter played by Hopkins in an adaptation of the first book too. More of a cash in than anything else. I like Manhunter and I like Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal and Red dragon are okay. Hannibal rising is a good book, but the film is a terrible action type thing with slickly scripted violence and torture by sub-par actors.

HereComesPete wrote:Manhunter is a different adaptation of the same novel as red dragon and it covers the first book.

Red dragon got made after the films for the second (Silence of the Lambs) and third (Hannibal) books were made to have Lecter played by Hopkins in an adaptation of the first book too. More of a cash in than anything else. I like Manhunter and I like Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal and Red dragon are okay. Hannibal rising is a good book, but the film is a terrible action type thing with slickly scripted violence and torture by sub-par actors.

Hannibal Rising is the only one I've not read, but from the rest of Thomas Harris's work I would expect it to be good. The movie felt extremely shallow and disconnected to me. The other films were as good as I'd expect them to be from a novel adaptation, which always have slightly different qualities.

I dunno, I just know you can buy the Hannibal Lector trilogy online which consists of SofTL, Hannibal and Red Dragon. I saw Hannibal rising.. I just remember them eating kids?? I could be making that up but I hope not. Don't know why it is not associated. However, according to amazon, customers who bought this movie (the trilogy) aslo bought Manhunter. I will admit, never read the books and never saw Manhunter so you guys know more than me :p

Kinda want to see Manhunter now.

spoodie wrote: Nearly all of the ones I haven't seen were made before 1950 and these can be hit and miss. Double Indemnity for instance was one I just couldn't sit through. Noir has been spoofed so many times that the whole thing seems laughably bad to me.

Yeah I am sort of dreading those... so hopefully more hits than misses. I have a really short attention span

punkchuck wrote:I dunno, I just know you can buy the Hannibal Lector trilogy online which consists of SofTL, Hannibal and Red Dragon. I saw Hannibal rising.. I just remember them eating kids?? I could be making that up but I hope not. Don't know why it is not associated. However, according to amazon, customers who bought this movie (the trilogy) aslo bought Manhunter. I will admit, never read the books and never saw Manhunter so you guys know more than me :p

Kinda want to see Manhunter now.

Yeah, they did eat kids in Hannibal Rising. It felt like kind of a copout for me though. Like Pete hinted at, before that Hannibal was a monster and a super-intelligent one at that. Hannibla Rising tries to justify it with the kid-eating and stuff, which just doesn't seem to fit for me. All through the film I was thinking 'this kid is Hannibal Lecter, and he doesn't seem dangerous enough'.