• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot. More details on our policies, especially our Own the Source rule are available here. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Favorite Edit of the Year (FEOTY) 2020 Awards are here.

2021 Movies

Heavisyde

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
340
Reaction score
159
Trophy Points
58
The new Macbeth looks like it's based off the original play and setting, rather than a reworking/reimagining, so not sure how it will differ from the 2015 version, which was also based on the original. I'd personally rather see them tackle a different play, as I think Macbeth has been overly done. If they're going to go for a historical setting though, I'd prefer they remain historically accurate, regardless of how old the text is.

He never showed up in a movie I was interested in so I don't care. I like specific movies about things I'm interested (not necessarly movies that are on top lists) and he never fit the criteria, he wasn't even in any big franchise so it's easier to overlook him, I am just pointing out to the fact that it's funny that I didn't see anything starring the guy.

I don't like white/blackwashing and that is off puting to me generally. I mean he can still be great but I'd stay with Fassbender version.
I respect that, I also will tend to only watch things that interest me regardless of their level of popularity/unpopularity and haven't seen a number of recent mainstream films. I've heard Denzel Washington has had some strong performances, although I've only seen three: American Gangster, Training Day, and The Book of Eli, and was impressed in all cases. I highly recommend the first two, although if crime films aren't your thing then perhaps not. There's a very good fanedit of The Book of Eli by Q2 as well.
 

Darth Kermit

Well-known member
Messages
79
Reaction score
35
Trophy Points
33
I love Shakespeare and I totally agree that some of his plays have been way overdone. Macbeth is probably the biggest offender by a longshot, with Hamlet coming in second. I'd love to see more of his comedies reworked in modern settings honestly. I did a production of As You Like It set in 1920's New York, where instead of the forest where the banished Duke Senior lived, it was Hooverville in Central Park. So I'd love to see that, a new Tempest would be awesome, maybe some of the more obscure ones like Titus Andronicus and A Winter's Tale. And even more of the histories, although I think there was a bunch of those done by like the BBC fairly recently. I only saw Richard II with Ben Winshaw, but that was good, so I should check out the others. I think Tom Hiddleston and Benedict Cumberbatch were in some of the other ones from that "series".
 

Darth Kermit

Well-known member
Messages
79
Reaction score
35
Trophy Points
33
Although I will say, Macbeth has had most of the best adaptations. Throne of Blood, the Polanski one, and the 2015 one (although I hate that the dialogue played second fiddle to the visuals and score and atmosphere. It was all spoken in this dull monotonous drawl. If not for treating Shakespeare's godly dialogue like that, it could have been a near perfect adapation). King Lear also had a great couple adaptations, especially Kurosawa's Ran.
 

Heavisyde

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
340
Reaction score
159
Trophy Points
58
@Darth Kermit what would you say are the best live action Shakespeare adaptations that are not reimaginings (ie remain in the original setting)?
 

Racerx1969

Well-known member
Messages
160
Reaction score
70
Trophy Points
43
Although I will say, Macbeth has had most of the best adaptations. Throne of Blood, the Polanski one, and the 2015 one (although I hate that the dialogue played second fiddle to the visuals and score and atmosphere. It was all spoken in this dull monotonous drawl. If not for treating Shakespeare's godly dialogue like that, it could have been a near perfect adapation). King Lear also had a great couple adaptations, especially Kurosawa's Ran.
:LOL: I happen to have a Throne of Blood BD sitting by the player right now waiting on a time block I can watch it.
 

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
2,432
Reaction score
167
Trophy Points
63
I mean it’s a Coen film. That alone will get me in the door. It may not be a home run and it could one of their (or in this case, his) occasional misses, but the Coen brand is enough for me to be interested.
 

Darth Kermit

Well-known member
Messages
79
Reaction score
35
Trophy Points
33
@Darth Kermit what would you say are the best live action Shakespeare adaptations that are not reimaginings (ie remain in the original setting)?
I’d have to say 2015 Macbeth, because it really used the cinematography and music to its strengths, and even though the dialogue was treated so ill, it does something quite unique in those other departments. I’d also say Much Ado About Nothing by Branagh (the only one I’ve seen of his so far).
 

gortat

Member
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
6
How dare they cast Fassbender - it's the Scottish play not the Irish/German play.
I don't care here, he doesn't feel that out of place for me like Washington or let's say Turner Smith as Anne Boleyn ;)
 

Heavisyde

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
340
Reaction score
159
Trophy Points
58
So cool that they've cast Gandolfin's son as the young Tony. He looks like him when there is a flash of anger in his eyes.
It's a shame he was hardly even relevant in the film. Then again, who was. The film was a load of nothing.

Some more trailers:
Last Night in Soho
For this film, I recommend only watching the teaser, as the trailer appears to give too much away.

Cry Macho
This one hasn't actually come out yet here in the UK suprisingly enough. I've read mixed reviews, but I like Clint's other work so I'll give this a shot.

House of Gucci
Very solid cast for this one. And Ridley Scott directing too. I'll watch anything with Pacino in it.

The Power of the Dog
No idea what this will be like, but early reviews high on LB and RT (but middling on IMDb).
 

addiesin

Well-known member
Messages
4,944
Reaction score
275
Trophy Points
103
I don't care here, he doesn't feel that out of place for me like Washington or let's say Turner Smith as Anne Boleyn ;)
Strange take, bro.
 
Last edited:

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
13,335
Reaction score
643
Trophy Points
228
You didn't ask me, but my favorite is probably Kenneth Branagh's Othello, starring Lawrence Fishburne.

I haven't seen that since school, I remember it being good. Apparently it was the first studio version of 'Othello' not in blackface... in 1995!!! :eek: (there had been a couple of low budget, barely released, or never seen versions in the 80s)

Ian McKellen's fascist-dictatorship version of 'Richard III' is fantastic (also from 1995). It really suits the "reign of terror" themes of the play:

 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
13,335
Reaction score
643
Trophy Points
228
Despite my excitement for the project, I was concerned when Peter Jackson's new Beatles Let It Be/Get Back documentary was described as using the same "restoration" techniques as his WWI film. I thought "Why would you need to upscale and process footage that was already 24fps "high definition" 35mm?" The new trailer seems to confirm my fears:


It looks really weird and smeared/blurry. It makes me feel like there is something wrong with my eyes. I'm sure this will otherwise be a magical experience but I'm going to find it so distracting if the finished film looks anything like that atrocity ^.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
13,335
Reaction score
643
Trophy Points
228
Mild spoilers ahead...

Halloween Kills (2021)
The last film in the franchise was easily the best sequel. This latest entry (written/directed by the same people) is objectively not the worst sequel (it's got far too much competition) but it felt like it to me, when I'd paid for my cinema ticket and then had to sit through the damned thing. It could be the stupidest sequel though? It's got about 10 opening sequences (before and after the credits), too many characters and a bizarre plot. I hated absolutely all of the "protagonists" and wanted Michael to win, which I think was partly intentional. There is too much goofy humour, combined with unintentional laughs, like the comically blatant audio jump scares. Anthony Michael Hall is fairly awful and 82-year old Charles Cyphers (who hasn't acted in 14-years) is brought back to the franchise but sadly looked on the verge of death. I assumed the dialogue was endlessly repeating "Laurie is not who this is about" because it thought the audience wouldn't remember the 2018 reboot and had a short attention span anyway but I eventually realised it kept saying it because they wanted to warn the viewer that Jamie Lee Curtis was barely in it (merely a contractual obligation appearance e.g. "I'm doing one day and I don't have to move from this comfy bed") and to not get excited for her facing down Michael at the end. The one thing 'Halloween Kills' does offer is full-bore 18-cert gory kills (and lots of them) if that's your thing, which is a horror rarity in these 12A/15-cert pandering days. The score by Messrs Carpenter is also good but not as memorable as the 2018 soundtrack. The Loomis FX were astonishing (a combination of makeup, CG and deep-fake perhaps?), I'd be prepared to swear they'd popped Donald Pleasence in a time machine if I didn't know better.


 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
13,335
Reaction score
643
Trophy Points
228
Noooooooo, that's Gary Wallace! I'm always rooting for him. 🙃 Is it his fault, or the script's?!
Probably more the latter. He's asked to be one-note, irrational and hysterical, then again a different actor could've made it more believable.
 

Hymie

Well-known member
Messages
788
Reaction score
44
Trophy Points
33
Yeah, Hall doesn't have much to do and did fairly well in his introductory scene where he introduces himself. The problem is the whole rest of the film is him trying to do one thing, and even when he should stop and reconsider the effects of his actions, he continues unchanging and seemingly unaffected by what is happening around him.

Once I saw a plethora of comedy actors like Lenny Clarke and Michael McDonald were in the film, I became very warry and the film completely failed to defy my already incredibly low expectations.
 

Heavisyde

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
340
Reaction score
159
Trophy Points
58
Antlers

Ghostbusters: After-Life

Old Henry
 
Top Bottom