|
Title: Seconds (1966) Post by: runalot on June 05, 2006, 09:28:29 PM I won't say much about it BUT THIS MOVIE IS GOOD!
I'm surprised Hollywood hasn't remade it with Jude Law or something. Really, REALLY good movie. I can see why Brian was freaked out by it. He didn't even return to the movies until 1983's ET. Title: Re: Seconds (1966) Post by: I. Spaceman on June 05, 2006, 09:39:21 PM One of my absolute favorite films. Saw it in the 80's on the Late Show and it freaked me right out. John Frankenheimer was an incredible director, and Rock Hudson an amazing actor, and James Wong Howe an amazing cinematographer.
The sustained creepiness of this film has rarely been achieved elsewhere. Don't rent it, buy it. Title: Re: Seconds (1966) Post by: Daniel S. on June 05, 2006, 09:50:54 PM I can see why Brian was freaked out by it. He didn't even return to the movies until 1983's ET. Are you saying Brian didn't go to a movie theater from 1966 thru 1983? I thought he went and saw Easy Rider and was freaked out that Phil Spector was in it. I'm just using this as one instance where Brian went to the movies. Title: Re: Seconds (1966) Post by: MBE on June 06, 2006, 12:15:46 AM the no movies till 83 thing is probably not true it stems from Landy's book
Title: Re: Seconds (1966) Post by: Smilin Ed H on June 06, 2006, 05:02:21 AM Frankenheimer was really good at the time, wasn't he? Shame about some of the stuff on his later career, although I guess Ronin was well-received.
Title: Re: Seconds (1966) Post by: runalot on June 06, 2006, 01:01:05 PM "the no movies till 83 thing is probably not true it stems from Landy's book"
Yep. My bad. I guess I shouldn't take anything from that book in truth. Title: Re: Seconds (1966) Post by: cta on June 07, 2006, 10:30:30 AM NO MORE REMAKES!
Superman and The Omen is bad enough. Please, for the love of God! Title: Re: Seconds (1966) Post by: runalot on June 07, 2006, 12:19:23 PM Quote NO MORE REMAKES! Superman and The Omen is bad enough. Please, for the love of God! I agree! Trust me, I wouldn't like it if it was a remake. BTW, that Superman movie is NOT a remake. It's a sequel that takes place after part 1 and 2. Title: Re: Seconds (1966) Post by: Daniel S. on June 07, 2006, 03:34:23 PM You mean it comes after Superman 2 from 1980 where Superman fights off those dudes in black?
Title: Re: Seconds (1966) Post by: audiodrome on June 07, 2006, 06:49:44 PM There are some fine female bodies in that vat of grapes!
Title: Re: Seconds (1966) Post by: runalot on June 07, 2006, 10:26:59 PM Quote You mean it comes after Superman 2 from 1980 where Superman fights off those dudes in black? Yes. The only reason they show some of the younger superman in the new one is just to blend it with the new guy that's playing him. Even Brando is making an appearance (he didn't even appear in Part II or III because he wanted $$$$). It's supposed to be good. The guy that did the first two X-Men's is doing it. Title: Re: Seconds (1966) Post by: Glenn Greenberg on June 08, 2006, 08:11:34 AM Quote You mean it comes after Superman 2 from 1980 where Superman fights off those dudes in black? Yes. The only reason they show some of the younger superman in the new one is just to blend it with the new guy that's playing him. Even Brando is making an appearance (he didn't even appear in Part II or III because he wanted $$$$). It's supposed to be good. The guy that did the first two X-Men's is doing it. And from what I've heard, even SUPERMAN II doesn't count in the new film's continuity--only the first one counts. Title: Re: Seconds (1966) Post by: Daniel S. on June 08, 2006, 10:09:43 PM Where are you getting this info on Superman, what interview? Where do they state their reasons for picking up where the first Superman film left off? I thought the whole premise is about Superman's resurrection.
|