New to Animal Farm as well as anything George Orwell perio and I always try to watch one screen adaptation before reading the original book. So which version would be better to watch in that it would want me wanting more and to have a motivation to read the book? I'm not necessarily asking which version is most different from the book but the one that would convince me to check out the book immediately afterwards.
As an aside question is the 50s version cheap in production values since it was an animated feature while the 1999 version far superior because its not just newer but written as a movie (even if it was specifically a TV film)? If I watch the 1999 version and then read the book later, would I have a hard time with the 50s cartoon because its production budget is so low?
So which do you recommend not only on the basis of being superior but which would leave me thirsty for more to read the novel? Try to describe differences that don't put any spoilers at all (for example not discuss the story at all but describe which has better acting or differences in writing pace, etc)!
It's gritty, visceral, and has some absolutely incredible shots. The few songs in the film are all original Soviet propaganda pieces, reworded to be relevant to the plot. The effects (especially the CGI) is pretty dated now, but when you watch it, it really doesn't get in the way. If you already know the plot of the story and doesn't mind 'spoilers' (although it's the history of the Soviet Union, so they aren't really spoilers) check out this scene from one of the later rallies for a sense of how spine tingling it is. 'Song of the Grateful Duck'
Unfortunately this sheep has sailed.
Spoilers ahead for the Matrix Trilogy, Inception, Psycho, and Event Horizon.
Watched this on my laptop, on data saver quality, today. So full disclosure, the effects all looked fabulous. I have seen it on Blu-Ray on a large flat screen TV and some of the real-world scenes didn't hold up so well but we'll ignore that.
I saw this film first around 2012. I thought I knew the twist. The government is controlling minds or something. Cool action. Lady jumps over a chair etc etc. Oh. My. God. How wrong I was. Watching again I can't help but still feel shocked when this movie transports you from a gothic noir mystery film, perfectly combined with a cyberpunk action movie, straight into the FUCKING DEPTHS OF HELL when Neo wakes up. I don't know how popular culture ruined Fight Club, Seven, the Usual Suspects, and a handful of other awesome films' twist endings before I saw them, but this one got missed on me. And thank goodness, because it is the single greatest plot twist in any movie I've ever seen.
In fact, after giving it some thought, this scene and concept is what sells the entire film for me. The Matrix is a great movie, but THE MATRIX shown in the movie is what makes it transcendent. And it's all perfectly executed with a neurotic level of attention to detail.
Highlights:
-The 90s esque intro sequence of Trinity being raided by agents is visually incredible. It also is a realistic chase scene, in the sense that we feel the need to run the fk away as fast as possible. In the new Matrix movie, the woman on the rooftop is running too slow, and the camera is too far away. The original film keeps things close and tight. The cuts actually get closer to the characters as the chase progresses, enhancing the sense of panic induced tunnel vision. The illusion of speed is much better, as Trinity seems to be running really fast. I recently watched Vertigo (1960) and felt there were some serious parallels between both film's rooftop scenes. Considering Hitchcock was a master of subverting expectations (like marketing Psycho as a bank robbery film), it didn't surprise me that the filmmakers here offered an homage to his film.
-The absolute sterility of Thomas Anderson's life in the matrix. The office scene literally feels like you are watching a machinima of an open world videogame. Everything is done with so much detail and intent, to make the world seem "off". Frame rates are shifted. Sets were cleaned, or made dirty. Extras were re-used intentionally, again an
... keep reading on reddit β‘One of my favorite horror films with Kevin Bacon hands down, it's so creepy, despite numerous rewatches, it still has that creep factor. It's a shame that some saw it as a Sixth Sense rip-off when it first came out simply because it involved >!a little kid character that saw ghosts!<, it was a completely different type of story altogether.
Really loved the twists & turns in the film, I honestly didn't see them coming at all. Nice eerie atmosphere throughout the film. I loved the cast of actors in this film as well. Kevin Bacon, Kathryn Erbe, Kevin Dunn, Jennifer Morrison, Illenna Douglas, Eddie Bo Smith Jr., Liza Weil etc. I thought that cast were likable, they all felt like close friends in the neighborhood & you feel for them when weird things start to happen. The DVD's menus are pretty creepy too lol, I had a friend that was pretty terrified of the film from the main menus alone, she had never heard of the film but when she saw the menu screen, she was creeped out immediately. It scared her but she still enjoyed the film, said that the menus added to the atmosphere & creep factor.
I always felt that Kevin Bacon was really good in this film & wished that we got a sequel with the cast returning, I think it could've been good, shame that we never got it. It doesn't get talked about much but it's still a great horror flick with a nice soundtrack. What did you think of Stir of Echoes & the performances in it? Did the twists catch you offguard? Did it scare you? For those that have the DVD, did the menu screens creep you out? I won't lie, they're pretty damn creepy. Also, how do you compare it to the novel from Richard Matheson? Did you enjoy both or did you prefer one over the other?
Δista znatizelja, samo me zanima kakav je film, a cujem da je 'nestao s radara'.
I'll always remember this because it's one of the only times I remember a director doing something like this. Also, it was at a time before Bryan Cranston became the superstar that he is today.
Here's the (now gone) web page: https://web.archive.org/web/20031019100839/https://imdb.com/title/tt0183392/#comment
And here's the full text:
Like any proud father, I don't particularly like it when my "baby" is criticized, however, when one displays their art for the public, one must take the "pounding" along with the "pats". Anonymous has the right to an opinion, so my missive is not intended to declare that Anonymous is wrong, rather to offer a different viewpoint to balance the scale, then let each film goer decide.
First, let me concur with Anonymous on the occasional darkness of the film itself. We were aware of the problem, but opted to go with what we had at the time instead of missing the Palm Springs Film Festival altogether. As of this date the visual and sound "blemishes" are being corrected. Our gamble was that the audience would be emotionally invested in the characters and story and would overlook the few problems. From the official results of the audience poll, we guessed correctly. After word-of-mouth filled the theater to near capacity (400 seats) for our first screening, we got a "standing room only" response (300 seats) on our second and last screening. On a scale of 1-5 (1=poor, 2=okay, 3=average, 4=good, 5=excellent) Last Chance recieved a "4.5"! So, nearly 700 people had a completely different experience than did Anonymous. Just their opinion.
Secondly, I won't argue the point that my direction was "inept" as Anonymous put it, but I won't agree with it either. The jury is still out on that. But I will say that any professional actor will tell you that all good performances begin with good writing. When Anonymous stated that Last Chance had "decent to good performances", he unknowingly complimented me. That's not to take anything away from the actors mentioned, they were fantastic, as were the rest of the cast, in fact the area I'm most proud of is that there are no bad performances anywhere in the film...again, just an opinion.
Lastly, my curiosity beckons me to challenge "Anonymous" to elaborate where the film has "gaping lapses in plausibility, scenes tossed in at random for non apparent purpose". Maybe we can have a respectful debate on the issues over the internet? Are you willing , Anonymous?! Perhaps you'd also reconsider your d
... keep reading on reddit β‘Iβm a person who could handle the more gruesome parts of Game of Thrones or really any type of gore thatβs thrown at me. This movie really unsettled me though and damn near grossed me out. Whatβs great about it is the complete shift in tone, where it really pulls the rug out from under you. Wanted to know what everyone elseβs thoughts were? Donβt know how to feel about it compared to other ones Iβve watched before.
Iβm a teacher, and Iβm teaching Animal Farm for the first time. The last time I read it was when I was in 9th grade over a decade ago. I thought it was a lot of fun when I was 14, but it hits so close to home now that Iβm in my late 20s.
I know this sub isnβt about Communism, but I think everyone here would find something of value in Old Majorβs speech in chapter one. He talks about how the animals toil in the fields, lay eggs, make milk, etc. The farmer takes it all and the way them the barest rations. Once the animals are no longer of use, they are slaughtered. If that isnβt the American Capitalist machine, then I donβt know what is. We work out asses off for these billion dollars corporations and receive poverty wages.
The book also makes a point of outlining the dangerous failure to educate the working class (or the purposeful control of education). As a teacher, Iβm seeing this happen now. More than ever, teachers are being kept from teaching the ideas that matter. Today I was told I could get fired for teaching a book with a gay character. Classes that dealt with race in any capacity have been cancelled. I was told that I can teach Othello, but I have to leave out the race part. I donβt know how Iβm getting away with teaching Animal Farm.
Itβs easy to control and subjugate the people if they are too dumb to figure out youβre screwing them over.
Just some thoughts.
It's a dark comedy starring Matthew Lillard (best known for being the sort of hyperactive mad one in Scream and also for being in those Scooby Doo films). He plays an absolute psychopath in what is basically a college-based dark comedy.
The plot keeps it interesting all the way to the end, Lillard is absolutely on fire and it's got a banging soundtrack with lots of alternative music in it.
I think it was called The Curve in the States but I'm not sure. Anyway, I love it. It never went past getting a DVD release sadly, so I don't think we'll ever see a Blu-Ray of it but it's not a film that relies on flashy visuals. It's just a great comedy thriller.
Anyone else into it? Or is this thread about to immediately die?
Source: https://youtu.be/0oMRJoYaq7Y?t=911
New to Animal Farm as well as anything George Orwell perio and I always try to watch one screen adaptation before reading the original book. So which version would be better to watch in that it would want me wanting more and to have a motivation to read the book? I'm not necessarily asking which version is most different from the book but the one that would convince me to check out the book immediately afterwards.
As an aside question is the 50s version cheap in production values since it was an animated feature while the 1999 version far superior because its not just newer but written as a movie (even if it was specifically a TV film)? If I watch the 1999 version and then read the book later, would I have a hard time with the 50s cartoon because its production budget is so low?
So which do you recommend not only on the basis of being superior but which would leave me thirsty for more to read the novel? Try to describe differences that don't put any spoilers at all (for example not discuss the story at all but describe which has better acting or differences in writing pace, etc)!
)