forum.dwylbtzle.info Forum Index
forum.dwylbtzle.info Forum Index
forum.dwylbtzle.info
FREE-RANGE FLOYD-FREAK ASYLUM
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

What films have you watched lately?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 30, 31, 32  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forum.dwylbtzle.info Forum Index -> Everything Else
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mary Whitehouse



Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 467

PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
this is supposed to be a western with the standard OLD WEST time-frame
setting of 'some time after the civil war--but not much after'
and FRANKIE AND JOHNNY is a song about a murder that occured in 1899-
-and the song was first published in 1904


Nice catch. You woulda made our local Teletimes tv guide
every other week catching nits like that. That's a bona fide
real nit as opposed to all the other mere continuity errors the Nit
column used to publish. But Nit of the Week was worth
25$ instead of the 10 $ for the rest, and The Weekly winner was
always a factual nit like yours quoted above, and never a mere left hand right hand continuity blooper.
_________________
photo-Kamloops, B.C.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mary Whitehouse



Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 467

PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saw two flicks: Hugo is a decent pic. Giving it 4 of 5 stars.
It's not what I expected. Turns out to be a loving homage to
early film history. That makes sense given that aside from being
a damn fine director, Martin Scorcese is a film historian.

I suspect I would have been more impressed with the film if I had
seen it in 3d as it was designed for. The entire focus of
the art direction is geared to the 3d experience and there is a
lovely visual meshing of all things mechanical into art beyond the
mere functionality of the devices depicted. It's almost a steampunk
world within the walls of the 1920s Paris train station which acts as
a microcosmic setting for the characters to inhabit.

Flick number Two: Batman Year One.

4.5 stars of 5 for this excellent animated adaptation of
the Frank Miller graphic novel. Batman isn't yet Batman
as the story begins and we are introduced to a young Jim Gordon
(Batman's eventual Police Commissioner) whose comic book black and white morality has landed him in the loathed position of internal affairs
investigator after he ratted out dirty fellow officers at his last post.

The real main character of this hour long flick is Jim Gordon,
and Bruce Wayne's final evolution to Batman is woven along as
a sub-plot as Breaking Bads' Bryan Cranston provides the vocal
talent that reveals the fine art of Gordon's tightrope walk between
dirty cops and corrupt officials while struggling to keep his
marriage intact and himself out of the morgue.

Good stuff. Set in the early 90's with a heavy wash of
film noir it pleases the senses while delivering that distinct
Frank Miller sense of the villains all being part of a bigger, living
but cancerous wolf pack that threatens to devour the
very essence of light.
_________________
photo-Kamloops, B.C.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mary Whitehouse wrote:
Quote:
this is supposed to be a western with the standard OLD WEST time-frame
setting of 'some time after the civil war--but not much after'
and FRANKIE AND JOHNNY is a song about a murder that occured in 1899-
-and the song was first published in 1904


Nice catch. You woulda made our local Teletimes tv guide
every other week catching nits like that. That's a bona fide
real nit as opposed to all the other mere continuity errors the Nit
column used to publish. But Nit of the Week was worth
25$ instead of the 10 $ for the rest, and The Weekly winner was
always a factual nit like yours quoted above, and never a mere left hand right hand continuity blooper.


thanks Very Happy --yeah--those two, and the one with the viking with the amalgam
tooth fillings, and the one with the truck tire prints in the old-west dirt
road are probably my strongest ones

the song being played on the piano COULD have an excuse: they COULD
say the TUNE was some traditional tune that a piano player might be
playing in 1870--and maybe the words were just added in 1904--but i
don't see how anyone could prove or disprove that
all we know is that a song about a murder in 1899 was published in 1904
and became a famous pop tune of its day
and back in a wild west saloon they would have been playing famous
pop tunes of the day--and they would have been learning them from
published sheet music that was available

but the thing with calling some big clumsy guy "BIGFOOT" would never
have happened before about 1958 or so--when the tracks at bluff creek
calfornia became famous--that's the first time people started refering to
yetis as "BIGFOOT"
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well, here's a glaringly rediculous mistake that wasn't a "mistake"
because they did it on purpose
but it's still glaringly rediculous:
in SPY GAME (2001)
robert redford is a CIA agent, on his last day before retirement-
and he's trying to save brad pitt who is also some spook
-and they do a flashback to when they met in vietnam in 1975
and there's craggy old leatherface robert redford-and baby faced brad pitt -in 1975, supposedly,
looking exactly as they both had just looked in 2001--just before they dissolve into the flashback

i guess they didn't wanna do a full blown CGI makeup job on them

they could do that NOW judging from all these commercials i see with
marilyn monroe or charlie sheen looking like they did decades ago
but i guess they couldn't do it back then, 10 years ago
or decided they didn't want to

i mean they don't even TRY to make them look any younger Confused
26 years--nothing
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

found a scientific mistake in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

i could always forgive the explosion sounds in the vacuum of space
but, in the first movie, han solo mentions his ship has been known to make 1.5 times the speed of light
and i'm willing to forget that no-one knows how to go faster than light YET
but, when the millenial falcon is being sought by the bad guys,
(WERE near it--but haven't seen hide nor hair of it for about a day-
-or a few hours at least)...
one bad guy says: "if they went to light speed, they could be on the other side of the galaxy by now"

which would make their galaxy less than 24 light hours across Confused
and OUR galaxy is over 100,000 light years across--and our's is a normal sized, or rather small, galaxy

so, no--there are not even two stars that are less than a light day apart
let alone a galaxy that small
i don't care how far far away or how long ago Rolling Eyes
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hmm...another weirdness in the original star wars trilogy:
at the very end of THE RETURN OF THE JEDI
they are having their victory party in the woods--with the teddy bears Confused Confused Rolling Eyes
and ben kanobi and darth vader appear at the edge of the crowd in their
ghostly forms--smiling at the proceedings
and darth vader appears as a young man, but obi wan is the same old
decrepid alec guinness
appearing as he did all throughout the whole set of movies

seems like if you come back as the same way you looked, exactly as you
died--they both shoulda looked old

if you come back restored to yer appearance as it was in the prime of yer
life, they both should have appeared young

how come one of each?

*************
Laughing also, of course, the actor they used, to be smiling as the restored
darth vader, doesn't look ANYTHING like the actor they used
(20 or 30 years later or whatever it was)
when they depict vader at that same prime age, in the later set of movies Laughing Razz

actually--i only saw him for a second, but he looks WAY more like the
actor they used to portray the young obi wan
THAT's the actor they shoulda used to play the young vader
or someone at least close Rolling Eyes
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ok-above and beyond all the times vehicles get airborne for no apparent
reason Laughing i found a glaring movie mistake in ROAD WARRIOR:

when mel gibson makes the deal to get his vehicle back, (with all the juice
he can carry), he walks into the desert to get the 18 wheeler, and he's
carrying four jerry cans (5 or 10 gallons, each), supposedly full of deisel fuel
(to get the truck running, to bring it back to the besieged refinery)-
-and these cans are SO heavy, he has them balanced on a pole across his shoulders-
-two on each end--
so he finds the gyro pilot, where he's previously had him chained to a
rock outcropping, and makes HIM carry it

when we see the gyro pilot finally set them down, (abruptly--because they
are supposed to be SO heavy), we hear the unmistakable,
(and universally recognizable), hollow, sound of empty Shocked jerry cans hitting the dirt
Razz Laughing
ka-BLOUYNK!
Confused Mad
obviously they didn't wanna make the actors really carry that much weight
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Surprised MARY!

ok--i spent SOME time trying to find and quote yer previous relevant post-
-and then, finally, gave up...
but i remember you (SOMEwhere) mentioning a movie called THE EAGLE
and i THOUGHT you also mentioned one called THE CENTURION
so, i finally, just recently, watched both of them, within a coupla days of
each other--and CRIMENY--they are virtually the same movie! Laughing

(which just means they were both fantastic, as far as i am concened)
but JEEEZ!--were they both written by the same person or what???

the only thing wrong with both of them is the fact that yer suposed to be
rooting for the poor harried roman army refugees-and i was always
(of course) rooting for the ancient britons
Laughing
(like any western i ever watched where yer SUPPOSED to be rooting for
the cowboys or pioneers and i'm always rooting for the indians

good tip! thanks
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mary Whitehouse



Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 467

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Glad you liked it. Another pair of English History films that
seem to work together would be the Ridley Scott Robin Hood in which they
finally make King John sign the precurser to Magna Carta, and Ironclad that picks up right after Magna Carta has been signed and the Barons all gone home thinking the war's over, when King John attempts to reseize control,
thwarted only by a lone templar knight and a handful of seasoned warriors
who must hold a pivotal castle at all costs. Great seige film. The computer lets them have huge war engines catapults etc. Of course there is a hot temptress
to tease the Templar along the way. Paul Giamatti as King John. Good
double feature.
_________________
photo-Kamloops, B.C.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i saw the one with russell crowe--i think that was ridley scott---seemed like it was a great post-crusade movie--but really had nothing to do with any previous robin hood legends
(i think i even did a review of it in here somewhere)-

-just as well, since the "sheriff of nottingham hijinx" stuff has been done to death a thousand times already
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

omg! Laughing
just saw the trailer park boys movie: countdown to liquor day
maybe the funniest one yet
i don't know how many movies they've made--or if this is the latest--but jeez it's just so horrifying! Mad
Laughing

what city is that, that they are near?
they sometimes show them in some big city, but they never say what it is?
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just saw another movie mistake:

in FEW OPTIONS (2012)


One hour and twenty minutes into the movie, the protagonist is sitting in a car with a .22 five shot revolver. He swings the cylinder out and sees that it holds five shells. If you hit the pause button, you can see that three shells, and maybe more, have the notch in the rim which indicates they have already been fired. He then exits the car and fires five shots.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the movie OPEN RANGE, (2003): Kevin Costner fires 18 shots, from one six shooter revolver, (and those 18 are just those which can actually be seen fired on-screen), during the big shoot-out at the end of the movie,
and a few more are heard and implied that they are from him--but not shown on screen, because the camera is jumping back and forth to different shooters.
Rolling Eyes
He appears to have a colt 25 shooter.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ok--in moviemistakes.com, i see this:
Factual error: In the final gunfight, we see a close-up of Charley fanning the hammer and rapid-firing his six shot Colt Single Action Army nine times in a row. [Kostner has stated in interviews that this occurs because a short scene of him switching revolvers (he had a second revolver in his belt) was left on the cutting room floor. Still a mistake, but there's the reason.]

***************

but he he would have needed a third revolver even if those implied shots, that are heard, didn't come from him--and i SWEAR they show him fanning a six gun way more than six times, without taking the camera off him
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dwylbtzle



Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your mistake for Open Range has been added to moviemistakes.com
Date: 7/27/2012 12:47:43 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time




Thanks for your submission for Open Range. To view your entry online, please click the link underneath it.

Kevin Costner fires 18 shots from one six shooter revolver, (and those 18 are just those which can actually be seen fired on-screen), during the big shoot-out at the end of the movie. A few more are heard and are implied to be from him - but not shown on screen, because the camera is jumping back and forth to different shooters. And even though he says, (in interviews), that there was a second revolver in his belt, which wasn't shown, that he switched to, he still would have needed a third revolver, even if those implied shots didn't come from him. They show him (during the fanning shot), firing one six gun far more than six times, without taking the camera off him.

http://www.moviemistakes.com/film3442

Please be aware that many entries may be corrected quite soon after posting, and while this e-mail confirms that your entry is currently listed on the site, it may be moved to the misconceptions area or removed if a counter-argument is submitted.

For regular site updates, please follow moviemistakes.com on Twitter - http://twitter.com/moviemistakes

Thanks,

Jon Sandys
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forum.dwylbtzle.info Forum Index -> Everything Else All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 30, 31, 32  Next
Page 31 of 32

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group