Separate names with a comma.
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please log-in or sign-up and start posting!
Discussion in 'Entertainment' started by Carole, Nov 28, 2013.
Came across this on YouTube - De Niro sending up ‘Goodfellas’ in a Warburtons ad (!?)
How the mighty have fallen.
GAME OF THRONES
In the end, the Ice will always beat the Fire.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Have to say 'Chernobyl' on Sky is definitely well made and gripping, albeit very grim and dark (as you would expect from such a terrifying event.)
This surprised me a bit because some of Sky's home produced dramas have been a bit crap (that's me being polite.) For example there's Jamestown (think, East Enders set in Virginia in the 17th Century.) Then I noticed that the series was partially co-produced by HBO, which for me explained a lot. (They made Game of Thrones, Deadwood and so on.)
I know a little of physics and was always curious about what happened at Chernobyl, and there's still some question about the cause of it, not helped by the then USSR's reluctance to release information. But there is a good one line explanation within the dialogue of the series: "Nothing like this has ever happened on this planet before."
Well worth watching, as this event happened within the lifetimes of some of us, and we still might not be aware of the effect it had on our lives, and make no mistake, it did have an effect. There's more horror in this than any vampire/zombie/monster/etc feature you care to mention, because this happened, and the science is relentlessly real and completely unforgiving.
Good, startling, frightening drama.
Has there been any similar reinterpretation of the Windscale Fire?
I remember seeing a documentary about that some years back. Of course that setup had nothing to do with producing electricity, but producing plutonium for the purpose of making bombs. We can be thankful to John Cockcroft for insisting that filters were fitted to the towers (criticised at the time by calling them 'Cockcroft's Folly.') Without those filters that event could have been much worse.
Another event that might be worthy of drama was the Three Mile Island partial meltdown, and of course Fukushima.
Tonight on Sky they have a new wrap up film of the series 'Deadwood.' There's been a bit of moaning in recent years in the way the series ended back in 2006, so HBO commissioned a film, regrouped the original cast (who persistently gave out a first class lesson in acting back then) and have produced a sort of wrap up, which from what I've read, is brilliantly done.
Given this was coming I've been binge watching the original series to perk up my memories of it. The problem with this is when I go down to my local, I find myself in character, calling everybody a c***sucker or a ****. (HBO were cable so this was quite normal even on US TV back then.)
I figure I'll have to record the film, because at this rate of catching up on the series I'll end up on Boot Hill before I can watch it.
Catch 22 anyone? Good Omens?
I watched the first episode and as yet undecided. The book was a phenomena, and I always thought unfilmable, but they did film it some years back and did a fairly good job. I'll stick with this series though, it has promise.
A good book, a good render.
F knows quite what happened above but yay on the Catch 22 front.
Already closer to the feel of the book I am a big fan of the film, would love it if Alan Arkin was about thirty years younger.
Who's the bombadier? Help him, help him - I'm the bombadier - help HIM, help HIM!
Where are the neige dens of yesteryear?
Yes this one.
It is quite right.
I'm not enjoying Catch 22 as much as I thought. If feels less absurd and more like despair. The only character who matches my head image is Milo!
It is quite dark - actually in colour tone it's quite umber - but it does one thing very well, and that's showing why Yossarian wants out - the scenes in the bombing raids are genuinely terrifying.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'less absurd', unless it is some sort of shorthand for being 'not funny'?
Mudd is absurdist, but his bit-part isn't treated as funny - which it could be. But should it? Major Major has just joined us, so we are only handfuls in.
We haven't even fallen in love with the Chaplain. At first sight.
You are absolutely right about Milo - totally looking forward to that arc.
Ultimately Milo is the where the story goes.
If I remember correctly Milo was played by a young Jon Voight in the film. The book was black humour, infantry humour if you like as I think at the time it was set the US air force was still technically part of the army. It seeks to condemn not only the insanity of war, but the love of the dollar and capitalism in general. It remained cynical about everything else concerning human behaviour, perhaps with a tiny ray of hope at the end.
My Old Man gave me this book in the sixties and insisted I should read it. He was ex-infantry himself, being shipped out for El Alamein then crossing North Africa, Sicily and Italy before being wounded out north of Rome. In the main he didn't have much time for war films or books (I vividly remember him throwing a Sven Hassel book against the living room wall with the comment: 'Utter shite,') so I did as I was told and read it. He was right, it was unputdownable.
I can see why my Dad liked it, it is very dark and cynical but laced with black humour. What few stories I could dig out of my Old Man about the war were about "funny" incidents in the infantry style. I never even found out how he was wounded until years after he'd gone when my uncle (his younger brother) told me as he remembered visiting him in hospital. Mortar fire. He still had a bit of shrapnel in him when he died in 1982.
I sometimes think we don't know we're born when you consider what our parents went through.
There are ways of looking at this that I must admit I had not considered.
It's a bit like looking at someone enthusiastically explaining something you care deeply about getting tangential details ever so slightly wrong - a bit unnerving, but it's not like anyone is about to die...
Milo is absolutely right, and much of the rest of it is also.
I'm going to have to go back to the source now, which is not in itself a bad thing.
The problem, if it is one, which it is, is that it's being unravelled to make a linear narrative, which it isn't.
Which is problematic because it both overmines and undermines the story.
This is also problematic because it can make unlight of things that are lightly touched upon.
Point of order - episode six and it is our first contact with Snowden and the Chaplain.
It was love at first sight.
Actually that is one of the strengths of the Mike Nichols film - the attempt to be the structure of the narrative and the story too.
I'm not getting that from this iteration - i'm still watching though, it has a lot to recommend it.
I concluded it wasn't that good. I'm always wary of writers who think they can modify a piece of good literature. They also missed the vein of insanity that ran through the book, and the film !!
My advice to people who are unfamiliar with the book, watch the film. It was a lot more honest.
It is always going to be problematic to turn one thing into another thing.
Catch 22 turns in circles - I'm not sure quite why that should be as hard as it is to portray but it obviously is.
Visually it has been a spectacle so far, what?
I still think the bombing run scenes have taken us closer to being in the plane than anything before - i think we all need to understand how terrifying it was for those boys when we think about 'just' five more missions.
There is a humour bypass problem with this interpretation though, which is more than just problematic.