MovieChat Forums > ATG6 > Replies
ATG6's Replies
Studios always seem to copy each other. Often they have scripts sitting on the shelf that were never approved, but then they hear someone else is doing a similar story so they get their own version out there.
See Wyatt Earp (and Tombstone), Mission to Mars (and Red Planet), all the Pinocchio films now, etc.
Poe did write a short book called Landor's Cottage. (Bale's character is Landor.)
It's mostly just a very detailed description of the cottage, letting the reader imagine who Landor was and what he might have done.
I like going to low-brow bars. The drinks are cheaper and the people are nicer. I could afford to go to higher end drinking establishments, but they all seem phony to me. But then I'm not really a snob like Frasier (in Seattle) was.
It's for a different audience than Cheers. I watched Cheers, but only because my friends liked it. Frasier was much better, to me. And it's not like Friends at all. Frasier and his brother are successful doctors and elitist (but often well-meaning) snobs. The people on Friends were all just starting out and trying to make something of themselves in the big city.
There was still politics and intrigue (in England, Norway and elsewhere), and the old ways vs. the new (Christianity). Focusing on Leif and Harald wasn't a bad idea -- they're the two best characters. And the real life Freydis was a stone cold killer, if you believe the Greenland sagas.
They play fast and loose with the history, of course. It's more like an alternate universe, or fan fiction or something. King Cnut taking power in England in real life was around 1016. Harald Sigurdson was in exile from 1030 to 1045, yet the show sets the stories at the same time. And Leif Ericsson discovered Vinland (America) around 1000, but in this show he hasn't been there yet, and is shown learning navigation from a Syrian princess (!).
But it's still an entertaining show, with great characters. If anyone wants a history book, they can find one. Their real life stories are pretty amazing too.
It was entertaining and better than a lot of streaming originals. Great acting from Gus Fring and Obergruppenfuhrer Smith.
It doesn't, it's a gimmick. Watch them in chronological order.
I started to watch the order Netflix had, which was jumping all over the place.
Once I figured that out I read the descriptions and played the rest in chronological order. It was much better.
They save the actual heist for last so you don't get the twist until the end, but it was fine the way I watched it (with the two post-heist episodes after the heist), and made more sense.
Worst gang ever.
The best part was <spoiler>the ringleader's daughter heisting the heist</spoiler>.
Never trust a crook.
The quickest way to ruin a burger is to put a tomato on it. If it's good, it doesn't need a salad on it.
I like pickles, but for a high end burger I would skip them.
It seemed like he did the In-n-Out animal style (double beef, double cheese, grilled onions), with better ingredients, larger portions, and more skill. That's all you need.
It would be more shocking now. People in the 60's weren't so prudish.
But it's meant to be a sudden shock to the audience, as it would have been to the prim and proper New Englanders, suddenly appearing in a culture where clothing is more optional.
Live and Let Die (1973) had the title song written by Paul and Linda McCartney and performed by Wings. And the music was by George Martin, the Beatles' producer.
Minus the fun part.
The Marvel movies have a more believable premise.
Plus everyone who works for the boss is just following orders, apparently.
Setting it up for the unconventional anti-hero to save the day is a good way to the audience to root for someone they don't identify with though. Just make her do it for her own reasons, not out of attachment or empathy.
I don't think it would work with the Beatles. Good luck teaching Ringo's drum parts to a newbie, or finding someone who can sing like John or Paul.
It once again upheld my theory regarding mysteries and detective movies:
<spoiler>The most famous actor (who isn't the main character/detective/journalist) always turns out to be the bad guy.</spoiler>
Superman was portrayed as heroic and good, which is what a lot of people want in their heroes. This one laid the groundwork, but there were several better superhero movies later.
The Captain America and Wonder Woman films followed a similar theme, portraying the hero as possessing unblemished virtue and good will. Not everything has to be dark and gloomy and conflicted and morally ambiguous.
I liked the part where they had to carry two buckets of water up a steep board, with the buckets extended out from their sides, and knives strapped to their arms so they get cut if the buckets droop. And how the main character struggles with that step at first, but after a while is running up the board, and steadying another trainee with his foot while balancing on the other one and still holding the buckets out.