To watch or not to watch?

Largo's Shark wrote:

Is William Friedkin's SORCERER worth a watch? I'm familiar with Tangerine Dream's score for it, but haven't seen the film.

Didn't QT name it on his Top 10? I'd like to see it. If it helps, I saw the DVD at my local rental place in the "Picks and Faves" section, which generally has good stuff and the place itself caters to cinephiles. That's the only recommendation I can give.

It's got Roy Scheider, right? That's usually a decent reason to watch a movie. Plus Friedkin.

I was looking for videos of it on Youtube and found this.

I'd love to see Sorcerer. All those films that contributed to the downfall of New Hollywood are interesting failures. But in the case of Sorcerer, the original is so brilliant so I'm curious as to whether it's something that the audiences just didn't like of if it sincerely doesn't work.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Are any of the cinematic GATSBYs worthwhile?

Not really.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Is William Friedkin's SORCERER worth a watch? I'm familiar with Tangerine Dream's score for it, but haven't seen the film.

I've wanted to see it for a while now.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Is William Friedkin's SORCERER worth a watch? I'm familiar with Tangerine Dream's score for it, but haven't seen the film.

Nope.

Just watch THE WAGES OF FEAR again, instead.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

THE KILLER INSIDE ME

Did you ever end up seeing this?

I loved it.

Haven't seen it.

I have not seen any of the Harry Potter movies nor have I read any of the books.

Should I watch the movies?

Are they worth it?

Being an adult, will I enjoy them?

j7wild wrote:

I have not seen any of the Harry Potter movies nor have I read any of the books.

Should I watch the movies?

Nope.

Quote :

Are they worth it?

Nope.

Quote :

Being an adult, will I enjoy them?

Nope.

Control wrote:

j7wild wrote:

I have not seen any of the Harry Potter movies nor have I read any of the books.

Should I watch the movies?

Nope.

Quote :

Are they worth it?

Nope.

Quote :

Being an adult, will I enjoy them?

Nope.

I figure one day my kids may read the books and watch the DVDs and ask me questions about them and I won't know the answers.

Or just make them read and watch something worthwhile.

I really hate those fucking novels and films.

And if they will actually read them just be glad the kids actually read instead of gaming.

I'd rather my kids were playing the Hot Coffee mod on GTA: SAN ANDREAS than reading those books.

De Palma's CASUALITIES OF WAR. Should I see the regular cut, or extended? I didn't know there was a longer version.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

De Palma's CASUALITIES OF WAR. Should I see the regular cut, or extended? I didn't know there was a longer version.

I didn't know that either.

Sitting through the regular version was heartbreaking enough for me.

It's a good movie but it's not something I would want to see more than twice.

It would have been good had he not directed it as a Vietnam War farce.

I like the book, and I've wanted to see this film. But 30 bucks?

http://www.screenarchives.com/title_detail.cfm/ID/18401/THE-WAYWARD-BUS-1957-PRE-ORDER/

I wish they offered films to download for something like $4.99. Same goes for Warner Archive. I hope that's the future, I don't like this limited pressing stuff with big prices.

I suspect Twilight Time's prices would be much more acceptable if not for the absurd financial demands placed on distributors merely for the privilege of pressing a Blu-ray. The greed of the people in charge of the format is reprehensible. But at least Twilight Time are trying to overcome it. Warner are the shittiest company about. Dumping great films like TEA AND SYMPATHY onto burn-on-demand discs (which probably lack the durability of pressed DVDs) when other companies would happily licence them and give them the respectful treatment they deserve if given the chance. Even worse is withholding films like THE CROWD entirely, especially this late into the DVD cycle.

At least Warner are spending the money they could be devoting to releasing films like that on more productive ventures, like replacing those ugly, original artwork covers they used to put out (who actually wants a cover faithful to the film?) and producing new, exciting artwork for films that have already been released...



...they actually pay people to make this shit?

I always liked that Warner used to have the poster be the cover on their older films. The boxes always looked great. Even the title on the spine would be in the special font.

And they make the best looking boxsets.

Compare:

Warner





Columbia



Lazy F***S.

oooh watch out, "Introduced by Christopher Nolan"

A'ight. Got a copy of the Criterion MR. ARKADIN. Which version should I see foyst? May not watch any tonight, but I will soon. And I'll see CHIME AT MIDNIGHT finally.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

A'ight. Got a copy of the Criterion MR. ARKADIN. Which version should I see foyst? May not watch any tonight, but I will soon. And I'll see CHIME AT MIDNIGHT finally.

I've watched 'em all. The "Comprehensive Version" is my favorite version. It's probably the best starting point, too.

ZERO DARK THIRTY? Yeah? No?


Kathryn Bigelow... Yeah, I would.

Would like to know if anyone approves of that too. I hear good things about it but the subject matter doesn't interest me in the slightest.

FWIW, Armond doesn't like it.

LOOPER. Is it worth it?