treeduck Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/mjBWXGO.jpg http://i.imgur.com/7zOgi4Y.jpg 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated. What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated. What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is. Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated. What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is. Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?What do you want to do watch only 2015 films in 2015 and then next year only 2016 films in 2016? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated. What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is. Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?What do you want to do watch only 2015 films in 2015 and then next year only 2016 films in 2016?Point out what aspects of this film make it dated, just so I understand what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated. What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is. Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?What do you want to do watch only 2015 films in 2015 and then next year only 2016 films in 2016?Point out what aspects of this film make it dated, just so I understand what you mean.Fair question / point.Personally, I think 2001: A Space Odyssey, First Blood, The Warriors, and Planet of the Apes (Heston not that Burton shit) are NOT dated. Now, it makes me think what "dated" really means. I'm not sure what "dated" would actually cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/mjBWXGO.jpg http://i.imgur.com/7zOgi4Y.jpgHow many times has Lee played a vampire in film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated. What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is. Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?What do you want to do watch only 2015 films in 2015 and then next year only 2016 films in 2016?Point out what aspects of this film make it dated, just so I understand what you mean. I thought the word "dated" would be description enough. The production values were low, the acting is stiff, it's shot like a TV movie. It isn't scary either. The story is interesting but wasn't expanded enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible airwave Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Dead Zone is my favorite Walken performance. http://i58.tinypic.com/2zsbkaw.jpg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible airwave Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated. True, for all we know, today's movies will be dated sometime due to music soundtrack selections and pop culture references. Reality Bites is a cult classic, for example, even though it's probably the most 90s movie ever. Just saying. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/mjBWXGO.jpg http://i.imgur.com/7zOgi4Y.jpgHow many times has Lee played a vampire in film?Well he played Dracula in 7 Hammer films, did another Dracula for Jesus Franco, and did a couple of cameos in comedies as a vampire as well, all between 1958 and 1972. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated. What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is. Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?What do you want to do watch only 2015 films in 2015 and then next year only 2016 films in 2016?Point out what aspects of this film make it dated, just so I understand what you mean. I thought the word "dated" would be description enough. The production values were low, the acting is stiff, it's shot like a TV movie. It isn't scary either. The story is interesting but wasn't expanded enough.So if you have these views then you must be comparing it to something else, so tell me the film that has the great production values and natural acting and cinematic filming. Who are these actors you watch who are so much better than Christopher Walken, Herbert Lom, Martin Sheen and Anythony Zerbe? You'll be telling me next it's the film you made in your shed with you Eaglemoon acting all the parts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated. What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is. Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?What do you want to do watch only 2015 films in 2015 and then next year only 2016 films in 2016?Point out what aspects of this film make it dated, just so I understand what you mean. I thought the word "dated" would be description enough. The production values were low, the acting is stiff, it's shot like a TV movie. It isn't scary either. The story is interesting but wasn't expanded enough.So if you have these views then you must be comparing it to something else, so tell me the film that has the great production values and natural acting and cinematic filming. Who are these actors you watch who are so much better than Christopher Walken, Herbert Lom, Martin Sheen and Anythony Zerbe? You'll be telling me next it's the film you made in your shed with you Eaglemoon acting all the parts! Why so defensive? This sounds like you have more of an issue with this than I did. My comment is not really worth all the angst. It's my opinion, that's all. If I'd said "oh boy I love it!" I wouldn't have been grilled over the "why." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated. What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is. Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?What do you want to do watch only 2015 films in 2015 and then next year only 2016 films in 2016?Point out what aspects of this film make it dated, just so I understand what you mean. I thought the word "dated" would be description enough. The production values were low, the acting is stiff, it's shot like a TV movie. It isn't scary either. The story is interesting but wasn't expanded enough.So if you have these views then you must be comparing it to something else, so tell me the film that has the great production values and natural acting and cinematic filming. Who are these actors you watch who are so much better than Christopher Walken, Herbert Lom, Martin Sheen and Anythony Zerbe? You'll be telling me next it's the film you made in your shed with you Eaglemoon acting all the parts! Why so defensive? This sounds like you have more of an issue with this than I did. My comment is not really worth all the angst. It's my opinion, that's all. If I'd said "oh boy I love it!" I wouldn't have been grilled over the "why."You would!! :madra: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated. What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is. Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?What do you want to do watch only 2015 films in 2015 and then next year only 2016 films in 2016?Point out what aspects of this film make it dated, just so I understand what you mean. I thought the word "dated" would be description enough. The production values were low, the acting is stiff, it's shot like a TV movie. It isn't scary either. The story is interesting but wasn't expanded enough.So if you have these views then you must be comparing it to something else, so tell me the film that has the great production values and natural acting and cinematic filming. Who are these actors you watch who are so much better than Christopher Walken, Herbert Lom, Martin Sheen and Anythony Zerbe? You'll be telling me next it's the film you made in your shed with you Eaglemoon acting all the parts! Why so defensive? This sounds like you have more of an issue with this than I did. My comment is not really worth all the angst. It's my opinion, that's all. If I'd said "oh boy I love it!" I wouldn't have been grilled over the "why."You would!! :madra: I don't believe you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated. What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is. Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point?What do you want to do watch only 2015 films in 2015 and then next year only 2016 films in 2016?Point out what aspects of this film make it dated, just so I understand what you mean. I thought the word "dated" would be description enough. The production values were low, the acting is stiff, it's shot like a TV movie. It isn't scary either. The story is interesting but wasn't expanded enough.So if you have these views then you must be comparing it to something else, so tell me the film that has the great production values and natural acting and cinematic filming. Who are these actors you watch who are so much better than Christopher Walken, Herbert Lom, Martin Sheen and Anythony Zerbe? You'll be telling me next it's the film you made in your shed with you Eaglemoon acting all the parts! Why so defensive? This sounds like you have more of an issue with this than I did. My comment is not really worth all the angst. It's my opinion, that's all. If I'd said "oh boy I love it!" I wouldn't have been grilled over the "why."You would!! :madra: I don't believe you! http://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/mulder-and-i-want-to-believe-poster.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/W58ON7M.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pZ0tPpX.jpg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/mjBWXGO.jpg http://i.imgur.com/7zOgi4Y.jpgHow many times has Lee played a vampire in film?Well he played Dracula in 7 Hammer films, did another Dracula for Jesus Franco, and did a couple of cameos in comedies as a vampire as well, all between 1958 and 1972.I was thinking of the Hammer films. Man, that's a ton in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutman Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Rocky 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 The Dead Zone. Really dated but interesting to see a young Christopher Walken.How do you mean dated? If it was made in 1983 then it's going to look like 1983.Hehe. Would "hasn't held up over the years" be better?I don't see it though. if it's a good story and the acting is good, Cronenberg did a good job. What's the problem? Just because it hasn't got an annoying roving camera and a million edits during the action scenes so you can't see anything doesn't mean it's dated. What's wrong with saying it's dated? It is. Well so is every other film that's 10 years old or more, what's your point? Some films age really well, and manage to survive the passing of time due to a certain X Factor! Some films just don't last beyond two or three years, and after fifty, they just don't add up to much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/mjBWXGO.jpg http://i.imgur.com/7zOgi4Y.jpgHow many times has Lee played a vampire in film?Well he played Dracula in 7 Hammer films, did another Dracula for Jesus Franco, and did a couple of cameos in comedies as a vampire as well, all between 1958 and 1972.I was thinking of the Hammer films.Man, that's a ton in any case.One thing I noticed having recently watched the first big three Hammer films Dracula (AKA Horror of Dracula) [1958], The Curse of Frankenstein [1957] and the Mummy [1959] is the performances of Christopher Lee, as Dracula, The Mummy/Kharis and Frankenstein's monster, all are totally different, really chameleon stuff from Lee. His Creature in Frankenstein is almost insectile in it's movements, which helps to make it seem like a soulless entity. As the Mummy he's different again. As Dracula he's both the feral beast and the suave nobleman. And of course Peter Cushing is a great foil in all three as Baron Frankenstein, Dr Van Helsing and John Banning in the Mummy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 http://thefilmstage.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/social_network-650x337.png 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts