General Discussion

All-purpose section for discussions that donít clearly belong in any of the other categories.


2017 Movie Watch

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight of Holy Wor View Post
You should get your hands on In Search of Dracula by Radu Florescu, it's a book that goes exactly into that along with the works of Elizabeth Miller.

Mind you you'll probably be disappointed as the scholarly consensus, the actual novel and Bram Stocker's own comments and notes all show that besides having poached the name for his character. Most of the mythos building up the two really came from ideas added at a later date and in the hands of later writers as the character himself in the Bram Stocker novel has little connection to the historical figure beyond the name and a few surface details Bram Stocker used to define the character.
Thanks, I'll look into that.
And yes, almost everything supernatural was added after the fact. I'd just be interested in a "Just the facts" movie. Most people, however, would find that very boring, expecting a vampire movie.

If you want fun historic/supernatural vibe-ness, just read anything you can on Rasputin. That dude was not of this world. He was only visiting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil_Bottletop View Post
If you want fun historic/supernatural vibe-ness, just read anything you can on Rasputin. That dude was not of this world. He was only visiting.
Probably from someplace very nasty.

Let's face it the success of MCU is based solely on how Iron Man took off; and the reason Iron Man took off was because of RDJ portrayal of tony Stark. Period. The stories that MCU has put out thus far are good, but far from masterpieces.

To be honest I'm not really sure why the Mummy is being panned by critics as it is. IMO, it was not a bad movie; not what I was expecting (that can be a good thing) to be sure. However, it told an interesting story, and introduced some interesting characters (RC was great as Jekyll & Hyde...particularly as Hyde).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legate71 View Post
To be honest I'm not really sure why the Mummy is being panned by critics as it is. IMO, it was not a bad movie; not what I was expecting (that can be a good thing) to be sure. However, it told an interesting story, and introduced some interesting characters (RC was great as Jekyll & Hyde...particularly as Hyde).
It's being panned because it's not actually a good movie, it's full of plot holes, has several performances that are otherwise bland and lifeless and with cardboard characters and it's an obvious marketing ploy instead of a genuine attempt to make a good movie.

none of this means the movie is bad, but to take your comparison to Iron Man. Iron Man was planned as one of the opening acts to MCU but regardless of this, it was a fun movie with an engaging character that has enough material to make it a fun rewatch. The new Mummy not so much...

"It's being panned because it's not actually a good movie, it's full of plot holes, has several performances that are otherwise bland and lifeless and with cardboard characters and it's an obvious marketing ploy instead of a genuine attempt to make a good movie."

In other words...Par for the course in Hollywood these days. I guess it is a matter of perspective. AFAIC The Mummy was no better, or worse then the any of the MCU movies or any other summer movie fare.

Watched Nixon, the 1995 film from Oliver Stone.

He has both despicable and admiral qualities. Fascinating character. Anthony Hopkins is excellent in it.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Last Database Backup 2017-06-26 09:00:05am local time
Myth-Weavers Status