MovieChat Forums > tomimt > Replies
tomimt's Replies
Prince of Darkness uses Lovecraft the same way most games use Lovecraft, a coat of paint. Lighthouse is pure Lovecraft in style and spirit and it's not even Lovecraft.
Just watch the Lighthouse. It's the most Lovecraftian movie ever made. Eggers would be a solid fit for director.
The ending quite clearly underlines that Orlok is more driven by his lust than his brains. Ellen didn't have to do much to make Orlok forget that Sun is bad for him. He was smart enough to find a way to get to Ellen, but that was as far his scheming went, everything else was more about lust and rage. The rest of his plan was "Surrender to me or everyone else dies."
Well, Nosferatu is a creature driven by his own lust for blood and death more than his brains. This isn's a smart, intellectual monster, but a more bestial creature.
I do believe I've seen the chest sucking in some other movie as well. Might have been some old eastern vampire movie.
I can see that.
Eggers said in an interview that he took it from the book. Or he said something in style of, "The mustache? Just read the book."
Robbie is a big name. If she wasn't before, Barbie made her one.
How much did you invest?
The series really is very uneven. What really bothers me as well is, that Jeff Goldblum is basically just throwing around Goldblum tropes as Zeus.
I've only watched a couple of episodes and it feels like a series with potential, but it just doesn't seem to find the right gear.
It's quite likely that Chapter 1 has already covered the budgets for the next two. They all were shot back to back, so they are more or less done already.
Yes, a sequel is in the works currently. They recently announced they have received a development grant from the Finnish Movie Institute.
I thought the trailer was pretty bad, in all honesty. Visually nice, but otherwise somewhat bland.
Well, this aged poorly.
I recall reading, the beginning is more or less what Stone wrote, but Milius changed quite a bit after that. There were all kinds of lizard mutants and whatnot.
Personally, I like them both. Conan is a more nuanced character in Howard's stories, but the movie is a very good adaptation of the world Howard created. And while Arnold's Conan isn't Howard's Conan, he fits well in the movie.
This aged well
It looks very, very good. When Dune Part 1 did less than stellar on the BO, I was afraid there would not be a sequel, but thank gods WB let Villeneuve do this
They are really circling Keaton's Batman around this movie as much as they can.
The 1st Shazam felt kind of like a fluke to me. It was a movie about a relatively unknown hero that managed to be somewhat refreshing among the usual superhero movies. That said, I don't think that many people were left hankering for more of the same.