I finished Silence of the Lambs, and am surprised to say that besides Hopkin's very solid performance, I liked Manhunter more as a film, and especially the investigation.
In Silence of the Lambs the investigation feels very thin and lacking, almost like the investigators don't really do anything besides try and get hints from Lecter, and then accidentally stumbling upon the serial killer.
I started the sequel, Hannibal from 2001, and it feels weirdly put together. The sequel I'm pretty sure I never saw, and was surprised Foster didn't reprise her role.
I've watched around 30 min of it and am not too invested in it. It oddly feels a bit like fan-fiction.
In Silence of the Lambs the investigation feels very thin and lacking, almost like the investigators don't really do anything besides try and get hints from Lecter, and then accidentally stumbling upon the serial killer.
I started the sequel, Hannibal from 2001, and it feels weirdly put together. The sequel I'm pretty sure I never saw, and was surprised Foster didn't reprise her role.
I've watched around 30 min of it and am not too invested in it. It oddly feels a bit like fan-fiction.
I finished watching Napoleon last night, I'd say it was a good film and very informative, even if you went in knowing very little about Bonaparte. If I had one criticism it would be that they didn't spend enough time on his youth, it could have had another thirty minutes dedicated to that time period and it would have been a bit better, I think.
Not that I care very much, but apparently there's been some hubbub about how historically accurate it is. Didn't look into it at all, since I don't really care, (if I want historical accuracy I'll read a history book) but just thought I'd mention it.
I'll probably watch it at some point. I very much enjoyed Riddick's other latest historical film, Last Duel or however it's called.
I've seen this criticism too. I've just watched a good chunk of the film, but unfortunately - or fortunately? - it's not a part of history I know in details. If it's true, it's a shame. I understand that films and series may differ from fiction books, but when it comes to history, I think it's irresponsible to be too lenient about accuracy. At least for important or well-known facts, since history isn't accurate nor definite in general.
I find the movie a little apathetic and even on the border of lethargic, to be frank, and I'm not sure it's because Napoleon is the main character (he was narcoleptic
). I'm only watching the end out of curiosity, but I'll be glad when I'm done with it.
Well, if you change your mind and decide you want more, you can always check out the 4-1/2 hour Director's Cut if it ever gets released.I find the movie a little apathetic and even on the border of lethargic, to be frank, and I'm not sure it's because Napoleon is the main character (he was narcoleptic
Everything Ridley Scott and Apple have said about the extended Napoleon cut
Will we ever be able to watch Ridley Scott’s (maybe) favorite version of Phoenix’s Napoleon?
www.polygon.com
It just got released on Apple TV, but it doesn't seem to be that extended cut.Well, if you change your mind and decide you want more, you can always check out the 4-1/2 hour Director's Cut if it ever gets released.
Everything Ridley Scott and Apple have said about the extended Napoleon cut
Will we ever be able to watch Ridley Scott’s (maybe) favorite version of Phoenix’s Napoleon?
Thanks! I'll download it for when I need to sleep longer.Well, if you change your mind and decide you want more, you can always check out the 4-1/2 hour Director's Cut if it ever gets released.
Everything Ridley Scott and Apple have said about the extended Napoleon cut
Will we ever be able to watch Ridley Scott’s (maybe) favorite version of Phoenix’s Napoleon?
Oh yeah, for certain it's not completely accurate, not even close in some places. I've read several biographies on him and they're much more informative and accurate though I will likely check out the director's cut at some point, because why not. I quite enjoy that period of time in history.
The Belgian weather was accurate though.
The battle of Waterloo was apparently filmed in Oxfordshire, but the landscape looks very similar to where the actual battle took place. I used to see it every day a few years ago when I lived nearby, a beautiful area.
The battle of Waterloo was apparently filmed in Oxfordshire, but the landscape looks very similar to where the actual battle took place. I used to see it every day a few years ago when I lived nearby, a beautiful area.
I was flailing about for something good to watch last night and it occurred to me that this year will mark forty years of Ghostbusters so....I re-watched the first one! Though I've seen it plenty of times before I enjoyed every second of it last night and plan on watching the sequel tonight and maybe even the next one at some point.
And as threatened I rewatched the second Ghostbusters flick last night and, while not as good for me as the first, it's still entertaining. There's a lot more subtle snark in this one and I can appreciate that. I'm not as pleased about rewatching the third one, we'll see if that happens tonight or later.
I presume you're meaning 2016 all-female reboot, rather than the 2021 one I haven't seen (Ghostbusters: Afterlife) which is actually a continuation of the original series, so it's 3rd in some respects.
I wasn't the type to jump on the "oh no it's woke" bandwagon, and I like Kate McKinnon and Kristen Wiig a lot. And it had Charles Dance and Michael K. Williams(RIP) !! And the director of Bridesmaids!
But yeah, that wasn't very good at all.
Nod, that's the one, and I'd no problem with a lady cast, I'm good with ladies. It's just the story or lack thereof, and some very unfunny spots, it just didn't appeal to me. And I'd watched it years ago when it first came, I hoped it might have improved with age. For me, it didn't. I've not seen Afterlife yet so that's up next!