The scene you are talking about where the bad guys get trapped is from Superman (the first film). Jor-El (Marlon Brando) imprisons three villains Zod, Ursa and Non.
They don't feature further in that film, but are the main villains of Superman 2, when they are accidentally released.
The imprisonment scene probably may be included in Superman 2 as a recap (I can't recall), but without Brando due to the production saga, and payment disputes
The Wikipedia page referred to gives an exhaustive list of the differences, in terms of deleted scenes. There are indeed many scenes in the Final Cut which were omitted from earlier releases. But this is not really to the point.
The answer to the question is what differences those changes have made to the plot.
The Final Cut (2007) is a very different movie, in terms of plot. Harrison Ford is always hunting for replicants, but never before did the director's real vision emerge. Ford's character is defined by the differences in what he does in those changed scenes. The differences boil down to whether he falls in love with the replicant, Rachael, or not. And whether he, Deckard, is revealled to be a replicant himself.
I originally saw the international edition on its UK release in 1982, and most recently saw the latest version, the Final Cut director's version edited by Ridley Scott, and I was amazed by the difference. The Final Cut is a significantly better movie; and I finally understood the reasons why the director was so unhappy with the 1982 release, which the studio had forced him to release in that form, such that - according to press reports at the time - he had tried to disassociate himself from the movie.
The plot changes made in the Final Cut are all for the better, IMHO, giving real emotional depth to a picture which was, on its original release, little more than a routine Bruce Willis style shoot-em-up. Deckard and Rachael finally become real people, with real motivations and real emotions, in the Final Cut; which is deeply ironic, given that in it they are both depicted, by a very subtle implication in Deckard's case, as not actually being human.
I believe Midnight in Paris (2011) had an overture, if I remember correctly.
Wikipedia has a nice list of films containing overtures, including a post-1970 section. I can't imagine that it's completely exhaustive, so I'm sure that there are films with overtures missing from the list. But the short answer to your question is no - The Black Hole was not the last film to feature an overture.
This scene is merely meant to be comical.
While Slughorn is describing the potion, the girls are not more attracted to it, they desire it more than the boys because it is a common joke that teenage girls get crushes easily and want to snag the boy of their dreams.
They approach it because they want a vial to give to the guy they desire the most, in order to force this guy to love them.
It's been awhile since I saw the film, so I may be remembering the scene wrong. However, early in the film, when "Tank" is called upstairs for a meeting (which he thinks is a promotion, but which actually is his assignment to essentially be bait), there's a quick shot of some guy staring at the computer monitor showing Tank nervously getting in the elevator (to me, it looked like the boss watching his employee coming upstairs - a bit like Stromberg watching his secretary take the plunge in The Spy Who Loved Me).
In my mind, the guy looked a bit like Ice-T, but I couldn't see his credit in IMDB. I always assumed that that one shot was a setup for either later in the film, or for a potential sequel.
Does anyone know who that guy is?
There is no name given to them rather then Visitors, even in both the series. The "Visitors" are reptilian humanoids who disguise themselves to look human but prefer to eat live prey. All Visitors are given human names for the humans' convenience. They are never heard to use their home-world names.
For more details click here.
It helps bring home to a modern audience what is happening in the play. Some people find that the abstraction of setting the play in an unfamiliar time and place interferes with their understanding of the themes.
By setting it in a modern day setting which is far easier to relate to it allows people to enjoy the play more easily and appreciate how timeless the themes actually are.
Because hearing laughter when watching comic shows makes people inclined to regard them as funnier than they would normally. Really. Even when they are intelligent. Even when they know it's fake, canned laughter. I know this is hard to believe, but behavioural psychologists have run the tests, and the results are unambiguous: laugh tracks work, no matter how informed or intelligent the audience is. (Only have pop-sci books as sources for that, ask on Cognitive Science if you want the primary sources.)
As for why some shows do it and others don't: fundamentally, people who find a program funnier are more likely to keep watching, ergo more ad dollars. The downside is that some people might find the laugh track offensive and not watch out of spite. Clearly different producers have different expectations of which effect will predominate, which leads to different choices; the production cost of adding laugh tracks is rather small, and probably not decisive.
I watched a horror movie approx 6 years before on TV about some kind of bee's which can turn human into Zombies by entering into their body mostly through their mouth or injuries .
Many people become zombies and tried to make more people like them.Its a Zombie Invasion type film but here human can easily tackle zombies but major problem is Bee's.
Near the ending of movie the group of people discover that music is the weakness of Bee's and they use it to fight them but somehow the bee's become immune to music and human looses the fight and only one girl remains in the end and which too attacked by bee's in the last seen.
I didn't remember the movie name and exact year of release. Any idea?
Cousins also served as Adjunct Professor of Medical Humanities for the
School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, where
he did research on the biochemistry of human emotions, which he long
believed were the key to human beings’ success in fighting illness. It
was a belief he maintained even as he battled heart disease, which he
fought both by taking massive doses of Vitamin C and, according to
him, by training himself to laugh.[4][5] He wrote a collection of
best-selling non-fiction books on illness and healing, as well as a
1980 autobiographical memoir, Human Options: An Autobiographical
Notebook. Late in life Cousins was diagnosed with a form of arthritis
then called Marie-Strumpell's disease (ankylosing spondylitis),[6]
although this diagnosis is currently in doubt and it has been
suggested that Cousins may actually have had reactive arthritis. His
struggle with this illness is detailed in the book and movie Anatomy
of an Illness.
James Bond comes face to face with Blofeld in "You Only Live Twice" when he infiltrates his base in the volcano. Bond was played by Sean Connery and Blofeld was played by Donald Pleasence.
In the next film, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", Bond (played by George Lazenby) meets Blofeld while posing as Sir Hillary. However, Blofeld doesn't recognise him.
Why doesn't he recognise him?
I'm watching through Dallas, and I'm to season 9 (by the DVD numbering; I understand it was previously called season 8). Patrick Duffy left at the end of season 8. Season 9 is all a dream Pam was having one night, leading up to the infamous shower-reveal. What I'm wondering is, at what point in the process was it decided that season 9 would be a dream? Was this a last-minute thing? Or did the writers know it was coming at some point earlier in the season?
Essentially, how much of season 9 is written to be "reality" and how much is written to be Pam's dream?
There is an article based on an interview with Vulture where Hans Zimmer claims to have done it with brass players playing into a piano standing in a church as a kind of experiment.
However, this kinda pissed off Mike Zarin who details how the development of the sound was a team effort involving many people in this article that shows the evolution of the sound over the various trailers and score pieces, including trailers that Hans Zimmer wasn't involved in.
It doesn't seem like Richard King was involved at any point though and I also can't hear that exact BWAAAH sound in the Featurette Oliver_C posted.
In The World Is Not Enough there is a scene where Electra King, against Bond's warnings, visits Zukovsky's casino and loses 1 million dollars against him in a simple game of cards (on purpose as we learn later). On their way out of the casino there is the following dialogue:
Electra: Shall we?
James: Electra, this is a game I can't afford to play.
Electra: I know.
Now I don't really think he's talking about the actual game they just played, even in light of the high amount of money she just lost, which he probably indeed can't literally afford.
But until that moment there are already some conflicts between the two. On the one hand Bond wants to protect her and keep her out of danger while Electra doesn't pay attention to his warnings and brings herself in danger. On the other hand Electra constantly tries to seduce him, while he, being her bodyguard, wants to keep it professional and withstand her, and, even more than that, doesn't really know if he can trust her (and in fact after this casino visit her seduction attempts are indeed successful).
But even in light (or because?) of those conflicts and tension, I'm not really sure what to make of this particular dialogue between the two. He could be referring to her seduction attempts, but during that specific scene Electra doesn't really make one of those obvious seduction attempts she tried before (at least not to my notice, but I could just be blind to subtext ;)). So what is the meaning of this conversation and what really is the game James can't afford to play?
After re-watching the Lucretia's arc of story it looks like Lucretia has became more sane and she want revenge from Ilithyia. Now her hate-rate of Ilithyia is more then any other person. She shows nothing to Ilithyia directly but her steps always proves this. Even shown by killing Ilithyia's child with a suicide.
Greenaway’s film does indeed have a stunning color palette, and this is my personal interpretation of it.
I am sure there are more in-depth essays written on the subject, but as a starting point I would highlight Greenaway’s respect for, and interpretation of, European Art and his desire to make this film a living canvas.
If I recall correctly, the film starts with a scene of obscene violence against a naked victim and is swathed in blue hues. Blue is normally associated with calm or rebirth, but in this instance it is in direct opposition to the act being perpetrated. The kitchen scenes are bathed in green light, and this reflects the serenity of the environment – possibly the only stable area in the whole establishment.
I think the red hues of the restaurant are meant to reflect the abject nature of the scenes, and is closely associated with passion, death and violence – the themes of the film.
As for the clothes changing, you are spot on – but note that the Lover’s brown clothing doesn’t change according to the environments – he is bookish and dull and his clothing reflects this – he is unchanging (until the end of course).
Ultimately, this may be a simplistic take on what is a complex film, but I hope it is a good foundation for further answers.
I recently re-watched Tarzan and his Mate (1934), and the surprisingly violent content in it reminded me of a couple of fragmented images that I would like to track down from other Tarzan films.
The first is of a tank disguised as a dinosaur/dragon, and used by the white antagonists to terrify the 'natives' (and which also terrified my young self).
The second is of explorers who fall foul of the locals and are tied to trees that have been forcibly bent into 'X' shapes - and which are then unbound, thus springing back to upright and neatly tearing the victims in half. Very gruesome, I agree, and a powerful image that has stayed with me for many decades.
I have no other recollections from either film, sorry.
Are these elements from Johnny Weismuller Tarzan films (or even Ron Ely's TV show), and if so, can you identify the films?
The use of a lamp by Jim in the movie is a change from the book on which it is based. In the book, Jim sees a Japanese launch try to get the attention of American and British vessels. Then he sees the launch communicating with a Japanese gunboat using signal lamps. He thought the Japanese were trying to sell something to the British or the Americans, and he knew the American officers were not aboard the USS Wake, and that the Japanese were wasting their time. "Standing against the window with his arms outstretched, he tried to remember the semaphore he had learned in the cubs." (p 27) Presumably, he was trying to communicate to them what he knew using semaphore (an alphabetic code consisting of arm positions, often done with flags to communicate ship to ship).
In the movie, Jim communicated with a lamp, and so he would have been using Morse code (what he could remember of it). When guns started exploding, Jim thought he had mistakenly started the war with his poor communication: "Jim watched them somberly. He realized that he himself had probably started the war, with his confused semaphores from the window that the Japanese officers in the motor launch had misinterpreted." (p 28)
The Japanese have their own version of Morse code which they used in the war, called wabun code. Each symbol in wabun code maps to a kana, or Japanese syllable. "Wabun Code was famously used to transmit the message "NIITAKA-YAMA NOBORE 12 08" on December 2, 1941, signalling the go-ahead of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." (Wikipedia)
The screenplay was primarily written by Tom Stoppard, with collaboration from the book's author, J.G. Ballard. It is hard to imagine that Ballard would have wanted to make Jamie's message more explicit in the movie than it was in the book, but I have not been able to find a copy script to verify this.
It's an homage to this film: http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/439410/
Elephant is without question Alan Clarke's bleakest film. Essentially a compilation of eighteen murders on the streets of Belfast, without explanatory narrative or characterisation and shot in a cold, dispassionate documentary style, the film succinctly captures the horror of sectarian killing.
The lack of narrative removes any scope for justification of the killings on religious, political or any other grounds and the matter-of-factness of Clarke's approach debases the often-heroic portrayal - by all sides - of the individuals involved in sectarian murder. Moreover, Clarke's use of a Steadicam to follow the killers before and during the murders casts the viewer as at best a willing voyeur, at worst an accomplice. After each killing, the camera dwells on the bodies slumped on floors or draped over desks for longer than is comfortable, forcing the viewer to confront the brutality of their deaths.
In season two of NCIS, there seems to be a "thing" between Abby and McGee although this is never specifically stated.
In the season two episode "Twilight", Abby says that "McGee didn't just sleep in the coffin".
This is later followed up in the season 3 episode "Mind Games", Abby states "I am a scientist, McGee. Luck has nothing to do with it and/or us."
Did McGee and Abby ever get into a relationship? Is this ever covered anywhere during NCIS?
