Dumbest things people have told you about movies

All quite true.

 

I remember on an old message board, someone said there was a cloud shaped like an ape in the original 1968 version of "Planet of the Apes". He acted as though this cloud was put there as a foreshadowing of the coming of the apes later in the film. There's not even a cloud with a simian shape anyway...

Another one that irked me (and still does) is that some people think Dr. Zaius *knew* Taylor was coming (due to their belief that the whole series was a cyclical and everything repeated itself at naseum). When Zaius tells Taylor "All my life I've awaited your coming and dreaded it" is simply to say Zaius always feared the arrival of an intelligent human. A lot of people forget that "Planet" was originally made as a standalone film, with no sequel(s) in mind, so to say Dr. Zaius somehow had knowledge that Taylor would be coming from the past to the future is not only ridiculous, I'd go as far as saying it's just plain stupid.

Another one I've heard is someone once said that in "Beneath/POTA" there's a white foam cup blowing across the screen when they show Brent's crashed spaceship.

 

I've read multiple reviews of Falling Down that claim Michael Douglas' character is never named, and that he's only ever referred to as "D-FENS", after his license plate.

What? Did you not even *watch* the movie you were reviewing? It's very clearly stated, during the scene with his mother, that the character's name is William Foster.

 

Ya can't knock me for that - I named names!

Falling Down [Blu-Ray] (1993)

 

Were you a taxi driver by any chance?

 

Glad to see you were paying attention!

I actually just gave the movie a re-watch today.. that's why I thought of it. Doubt a film like this would ever get made these days!

 

'I don't like black and white movies"
"I don't like reading subtitles"

Just get a gun and shoot yourself in the foot.

 

I don't recall it being that tough to notice his name.

I guess the credits just list him as "D-FENS"?

Most of the IMDB synopses call him "Bill Foster" (or "William"), and Wiki lists him that way, too. It's not like this is some hidden nugget!

No, I think it'd be made - it's a bit on the non-PC side, but not that bad.

Last year's "Unhinged" worked in the same vibe but without the "non-PC" stuff...

 

This isn't something that anyone has said to me personally, but apparently it's a thing, so it still counts...

There are actually people out there who think that, during the final battle in Star Wars (1977), the trench that the ships are flying through is the same trench that goes around the equator of the Death Star.

 

How could this


be the same as this?

 

We saw Tree of Life at one of the premium Arclight theaters the week it opened, in Imax, and so help me 2/3 of the audience got up and left long before the film ended. I thought it was one of the most pretentious steaming goat turds I've ever seen in my life... but there were beautiful images in it and a lot of it was very well made. I enjoyed the portions with Brad Patt, and there was almost a story there, and I liked Doug Trumbull's effects. But it was far too experimental and weird for me to get into.

Note that it cost $32 million and barely made $61 million, and I can tell you that Fox was extremely disappointed in its lack of profits. But I concede that no less than Roger Ebert loved the film and gave it top marks, and there are people who liked it. The 100-or-so people left in the audience left the film after the end credit and the conversation I overheard basically was "WTF was that crap?"

 

While I can't expect every audience member to come into a theater with no preparation other than to know it's a Malick film with the title Tree Of Life, and come out exhilarated, naturally I'm disappointed that so many came away with that sense of being hoodwinked. There are films that communicate to me in different filmic languages, than others who are not up for such a "legato" experience. To see that happen in Hollywoodland, where so many patrons are a part of the business with some measure of awareness through just being close to the industry, is just baffling to me: "did that person see the same film I did...", and more to the point, "how did they not".

I can see an audience coming into a Huckleberry Hound short and not getting the same bang that they would have from, say, a Tex Avery toon, but at least we would all know why, and adjust our expectations accordingly. Is it possible some who did see the higher value in the Malick film, were simply not overwhelmed by hype and anticipation, but were not opposed to just letting the film roll at its' own pace.

I had a similar-but-opposite experience with Pig, just a month ago. I was the only one in the group who was enraptured by the careful reveals and the understanding of the motivations of characters, and had to wonder what I just saw that was so "meh" to the others.

 

1) Showscan, Douglas Trumbull's format, is just such a unicorn. He produced a "ride" film with it, that played at the Luxor in Vegas for some time.
2) No matter what you may think of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit trilogy as content, or the audience-dividing experience of 3D, you have to admit the theater experience of higher film rate is nearly as special as IMAX.

 

Your friend's date reminds me of the way Charles Willeford described a clueless young character in his novel The Burnt Orange Heresy:
"She was as strong as a tractor, and almost as smart."

 

Filed under 'Its not what they say, but what they do,' my sister and her compulsion to zoom in every movie or TV show because she hates those "stupid black bars." And she wonders why I refuse to watch any movie with her. Trying to explain aspect ratios to her is like trying to explain Relativity to a Saint Bernard, so I no longer try.

 

If anyone at Fox thought "Tree" would make the nearly $100 million it needed to turn a profit, then those people are idiots.

Malick isn't a director you hire because you think you'll make $$$.

"Badlands" might've turned a profit due to its low budget, but otherwise, I don't believe a single Malick movie ever made money.

He's a prestige guy so you hire him to add luster to your studio.

Even "Thin Red Line" - a much-hyped flick with lots of A-list stars - couldn't make 2 times its budget!

 

Ha!
I knew this guy who owned a video store and he told me about this customer who insisted on full-screen rentals. He refused to get letterbox/widescreen videos because he had a huge TV and wanted to get the "full picture".

 

A friend of a friend insisted- INSISTED- that John Gielgud was in Wall Street.

No amount of convincing proved effective. Even asked if perhaps he was confusing Terence Stamp with him (nothing in common save for being English). Nope, I saw him there was his response.

The internet was still years away ...

 

"They didn't have color flicks in the 30s".

 

That Idiocracy was a documentary.
Oh, wait...

 

Nope. You are spot on. I read the script when it was on the Black List (or whatever version there was of it at the time) for Alex DeBennetti (producer of the second Evil Dead flick and Pumpkinhead) and he was considering optioning the script for production at the time. He thought though that if it was a ‘dream’ it would make more money but it was pretty explicit (n the script as to what was going on at the end.

 

I know what to expect with Malick’s movies and I found it to be interminable. I don’t it’s a bad movie just that Malick’s story was a bit too ambitious form most audiences. It was an art film masquerading as mainstream masquerading as an art film if that makes sense. It would have fit right in with some of the French New Wave if it was made then.

 

Not a big French New Wave fan, either.

 

I was baffled at first, because in the beginning Ash appears taking another girl to the same haunted cabin and acting like the events of the 1st film never happened. They are retelling the events of the 1st film in the opening scenes, but changing them by leaving out the other characters that were in the original. The story picks up where the 1st film left off after 8 or 10 minutes.

 

From the bits I saw it looks like Bohemian Rhapsody is the "band approved" version of the story. Freddy comes across less threatening and more campy than the real Freddy, who was badass.