Posted on 01/18/2014 9:35:54 PM PST by Perdogg
Interesting list and comprehensive. I do not see Chris Pine nor Kevin Costner on the list so why are they being penalized?
Saw it ast Wednesday in a free preview. I found it to be a very bland action movie. What insulted me about it beyond the unrealistic plot was that the villain goes to church and prays for revenge on America. The little dollop of gratuitous anti Christianity made me downgrade this to Bantha poodoo.
The NCIS (original show) producers, directors and writers need to do a Jack Ryan series. That would give enough time to properly tell each book. Say, one book per season.
The movie was made WAY before the anti gay stuff (per the liberals) going on in Russia.
Keep in mind that FRiends of ours on Free Republic consider “An American Carol” top notch movie watching so they really have zero credibility recommending or not recommending movies. They should really put a ban on FREEPERS talking about good and bad movies because their idea of good movies like their cheerleading for “An American Carol” is just plain ridiculous.
Yes, especially that silly Water World movie.
I love it!!!
But, the only man that could make it happen is Eric Jonrosh, “Author, Producer, Actor, Writer, Director, Raconteur, Bon Vivant, Legend, Fabulist”.
John Landis is a complete scumbag. He has the blood of Vic Morrow and two children on his hands. I initially thought the accident was due to a mechanical problem in the helicopter and that it was beyond anyone’s control. That was not the case.
You would be shocked and disgusted by what had happened. I read an article on it and it made me sick.
Have you seen the original ‘The Bad News Bears’ from 1976? Morrow was in that. He played the Yankees little league coach. It’s a good movie.
Or go to ComicCon in Seattle and hang out with Bender!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HOLQt3lUNI
Or go to ComicCon in Seattle and hang out with Bender!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HOLQt3lUNI
I’ve read the accounts, they have the NSB report online. I’m not sure what Landis could’ve really been convicted of, short of willful negligence (such as the hiring of the children). It’s not as if he deliberately intended to get Morrow and those poor children killed. It’s amazing the 6 people on the helicopter weren’t killed in the crash. Ultimately, the scene was ill-advised and probably should not have been attempted without professional stunt persons as stand-ins for the actors.
I’ve seen “Bears”, the one with Walter Matthau and Tatum O’Neil. I forgot Morrow was in it, it’s been over 20 or more years since I’ve seen it (and I’m not a sports person, so I don’t see many sports-related films).
He should have been charged with manslaughter. There were several others who were involved with the incident as well. I just can’t believe the indifferent attitudes of Landis and everyone else who had been involved. The footage of the accident is on YouTube. I watched it once and I could not stop sobbing. It’s the worst thing I’ve ever seen.
You’d think the guys in the helicopter would have been killed as well. They were 25 feet above Morrow and the kids. How the hell did they expect a 53 year old to carry those kids through choppy water? One was 6 and the other was 7 and children that age aren’t light.
Thank you for posting this. I won’t go out of my way to watch it.
I have this book on the subject:
I recommend it for anyone who’s interested in exploring the tragedy further.
Jeff, you liked the movie, didn’t you?
Most "reboots" have been crap, though there are a few exceptions to the rule (Rise of the Planet of the Apes was better than any of the 70s sequels and miles better than Tim Burton's 2001 remake, and Casino Royale was a damn good Bond movie IN SPITE OF Daniel Craig cast as Bond. He didn't deserve a script that good. If Timothy Dalton had filmed it back in '87, it would have been the best Bond movie ever. Oh well.)
Sometimes a movie franchise becomes so convoluted and paints itself into a corner that a reboot is necessary. A great example is the 1984 Graystroke movie returning to Edgar Rice Burroughs's source material for inspiration after decades of campy "Me Tarzan, You Jane" movies. (I'm surprised it didn't lead to a series of new Tarzan movies that actually followed the book)
The real problem now is Hollywood's 21st century fetish for "Rebooting" franchises CONSTANTLY, whether the film series needs it or not. Nolan started this trend by reviving Batman after Batman & Robin had ruined the franchise, but now its gotten out of hand. They really nuked the fridge when they decided to "reboot" Spider-Man and tell us his "origin story" again after they had already done so only a decade earlier. That was a completely unnecessary rehash. Hollywood used to go DECADES before "rebooting" a film franchise (if you had a crappy sequel no one liked, you'd just ignore it and follow it up with a good sequel that went in a different direction). "Rebooting" is the lazy way out, and it erases years of character and story development in a franchise that gave them depth in the first place. The unfortunate thing is audiences seem to love Hollywood retelling the same story over and over again. X-Men has been wise enough to buck the trend and find ways to do new things with its franchise (which is great, Hugh Jackman was born to play Wolverine and I can't imagine any "retelling" with a new actor that would improve on it), but some people are whining that they need to "REBOOOOOOOOOOOOT!" X-Men. Do modern movie audiences all have ADHD or something?
The Hollywood buzzword that REALLY is a red flag that audiences should stay away in droves is "re-imagining". The godawful Pink Panther remake with Steve Martin was a "re-imagining". So was Burton's ill-advised 2001 remake of Planet of the Apes (which the 2011 film thankfully "rebooted"). "Re-imagining" seems to be a Hollywood code word for "we replaced anything that made the original good with fake CGI, toilet humor, and politically correct crap". I have heard the "re-imagining" of Battlestar Galatica is good, but I haven't seen either version of the series so I can't judge. If it is, then it would be the FIRST "re-imagining" in history that's a decent "new take" on a franchise.
>> I had hopes for Rainbow Six and Without Remorse as film adaptations >> decided I was happy with the books after seeing what happened when The Sum of All Fears was adapted for the big screen. <<
Ditto. I had already decided to skip seeing the new Jack Ryan movie in theaters when I found out it would not be based on any of Tom Clancy's books. That was a bad sign from the start. I may still see it on video, though if this "reboot" gets horrible reviews, forget it. What's really annoying is Hollywood's arrogance that all their "reboots" automatically deserve a sequel, whether they're good or not. Chris Pine signed a contract up front for three Jack Ryan movies. The only way Hollywood won't make these movies is if they lose money.
And yes, I might be one of the few people who remembers the last "reboot" with Ben Affleck replacing Harrison Ford. That movie failed (again, too much political correctness-- gotta replace the Muslim terrorists from the book with "North Koreans" so they wouldn't "offend" anyone). It's funny all the Man of Steel fanboys have "high hopes" for the "sequel" because Ben Affleck is playing Batman. Given his past track record, I'd be anything but optimistic. The Superman "reboot" was an godawful remake of Superman II, and ideally the "sequel" will be aborted before the film hits theaters. C'mon Hollywood, you love abortion, so how about aborting some of your constant stream of reboots, remakes, reimagingings, and sequels?
If you ask me, Jonrosh is twice the director JJ Abrams is and 20 times the director George Lucas is!
My wife and I saw it last night and we did like it.
It is a reboot of Jack Ryan into the 2000s. It starts in 2001 on 911, when he is in college. He ends up joining the Marines and in that it remains true to the basics of his life as presented by Clancy back in the 80s. He joins the Marines. Gets injured in Afghanistan, and then gets recruited by the CIA.
The story of his first “mission,” is not something that was in the Clancy books, but that is okay. It’s a decent thriller. Not everything is perfect though.
My two bads were Ryan mentioning as he is being recruited that the CIA is not very well liked because of waterboarding and rendition. Well, most college aged kids were taught that, so it is not surprising, even though it was wrong, and it was those programs that netted us bin Laden.
Another was at the end of the movie in the wind up scene on how they finally get the Russian terrorist in the US. It was rushed. Went too fast. They could have extended the movie by 15 minutes and made that a lot better IMHO.
But it was still a decent flick if you are not looking for reasons not to like it IMHO.
IMHO, sort of a mix between a Bourne story and a mission impossible.
I would go see it again, and when it comes out as a digital download, I will have it on my iPad.
Anyhow, others may feel differently, but that is what I thought of it.
I seen “Combat” a few times, they show it late at night on on a local channel here, good show.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.