Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #26
    When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

    I wish I could find a copy of it, but back in the late 60s Peter Sellers and a bunch of other actors, produced a kind of counter-Good Old Days. It might have been to commemorate the demolition of one of the last original East End venues (?) Anyway it was brilliant. Fights breaking out in the audience, food and abuse thrown at the performers, Old Bill called to turf drunks out. Minimal lighting and scenery, spit and sawdust on the floor. I'd love to watch it again.

    Comment


      #27
      When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

      It was Wiltons Music Hall: the gig was to raise funds for restoration, organized by Spike Milligan. After on and off dereliction since, it's apparently a working theatrical venue again.

      Comment


        #28
        When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

        Wilton's is excellent, still showing the evidence of time's predations but a great place for an evening out. I'm going to see Metropolis with a live piano score (previously mentioned on the silent movie thread) there in the summer.

        Comment


          #29
          When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

          He also leads The Lost City of Z which I went to see because it got very good reviews and there was nothing else I wanted to see that weekend, but it's not very good at all. Huges parts of the story don't make sense and the timeline doesn't add up either.

          I later learned that the book it's based on is probably complete bullshit. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/the-lost-city-of-z-is-a-very-long-way-from-a-true-story-and-i-should-know/

          And sadly, the true story - at least as this guy tells it - sounds a lot more interesting.

          I don't know why so many critics liked it.

          I was hopeful about this King Arthur film, but then saw the reviews and decided to miss it.

          Charlie Hunnam was very good in Undeclared. Or, Undeclared is very good and he doesn't sink it.

          Comment


            #30
            When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

            tracteurgarçon wrote:
            Originally posted by Sean of the Shed
            Wasn't there an episode of One Foot In The Grave where Victor Meldrew kept getting harassed by a couple of Irish priests whilst visiting some local landmarks?
            Apologies if I'm missing a subtle joke here but this was an episode of "Father Ted".
            Sigh.

            Comment


              #31
              When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

              Sean of the Shed wrote:
              Originally posted by tracteurgarçon
              Originally posted by Sean of the Shed
              Wasn't there an episode of One Foot In The Grave where Victor Meldrew kept getting harassed by a couple of Irish priests whilst visiting some local landmarks?
              Apologies if I'm missing a subtle joke here but this was an episode of "Father Ted".
              Sigh.
              I don't believe it... I've made that mistake again... sorry.

              Comment


                #32
                When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                Lang Spoon wrote: It was Wiltons Music Hall: the gig was to raise funds for restoration, organized by Spike Milligan. After on and off dereliction since, it's apparently a working theatrical venue again.
                Ah right! Thanks. I wonder if there's a recording anywhere? I'll have to do a bit of research.

                Comment


                  #33
                  When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                  tracteurgarçon wrote:
                  Originally posted by Sean of the Shed
                  Originally posted by tracteurgarçon
                  Originally posted by Sean of the Shed
                  Wasn't there an episode of One Foot In The Grave where Victor Meldrew kept getting harassed by a couple of Irish priests whilst visiting some local landmarks?
                  Apologies if I'm missing a subtle joke here but this was an episode of "Father Ted".
                  Sigh.
                  I don't believe it... I've made that mistake again... sorry.
                  So it's true: comedians just don't get jokes...

                  Comment


                    #34
                    When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                    Hot Pepsi, was Undeclared the Apatow sitcom thing with Seth Rogen(?) and pals as College Dorm freshmen? Think I caught a few episodes 15 years back or so on Irish tv, was very good. Guess Charlie has been a long time out of Byker. Still cannae act the poor lad.

                    Comment


                      #35
                      When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                      Yes, that's the one. Sadly, just like Freaks & Geeks, it didn't last on TV very long, because Fox didn't give it much of a chance. It had a few of Judd Apatow's favorite people - Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, and Jason Segel. Seth Rogen wrote some of it, even though he was only 21 at the time. Adam Sandler plays a douchey version of himself in one episode and Amy Pohler has a small roll as the annoying RA.

                      It's really by far the best on-screen portrayal of American college student life that I've ever seen aside from Animal House, but that was about a different time and it was intentionally slapstick. Undeclared is more realistic. College isn't just about wild parties and hooking up. Not for most of us, anyway. It's a steady stream of awkward social interactions and insecurity and eating a lot of bad food.

                      Comment


                        #36
                        When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                        After watching The Rock's quite entertaining Hercules last night I've been pondering the relative appeal of Greco-Roman and Arthurian legends. The former definitely hold my interest more. Is it just because the weather tends to be nicer? This is not entirely facetious; 300 was very dark and dreary and I didn't like it at all.

                        British legends especially don't benefit from grimy cod-realism. After quarter of an hour it just becomes an unwelcome reminder of visiting Warwick Castle on a wet Sunday.

                        Comment


                          #37
                          When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                          I like the grimey cod-realism. I don't like hot weather or dry places. I prefer cold and I'd rather see films set in dark green places.

                          I'm interested in Saxon Britain and pre-Saxon Britain. The Vikings are interesting too. I'd like to spend more time reading about it.

                          Not sure why I feel that affinity for gray skies. Perhaps because I grew up under so many of them.

                          I went through a phase when I was very interested in the historical basis of the Arthur legends. It's just old enough that we don't know exactly how the legends were created, but not so old that it's completely impossible to know anything about its origin.

                          Comment


                            #38
                            When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                            Benjm wrote: British legends especially don't benefit from grimy cod-realism. After quarter of an hour it just becomes an unwelcome reminder of visiting Warwick Castle on a wet Sunday.
                            Problem is, once you've seen Monty Python and The Holy Grail, it is very hard to take any of it seriously.

                            Bit like Lord of the Rings, after reading Pratchett.

                            Comment


                              #39
                              When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                              Never read Pratchett. I like Tolkien though I don't know if I'd like it if I hadn't loved it as a kid. It's earnestness is part of what I like about it.

                              The Arthur movi one they did with Clive Owens was ok. Or I thought it was, at least. Could have been better. But it doesn't have any of the magical elements, so it's not susceptible to the poor comparison to MPATHG. It's just straight blood and mud. And woad. With some unrealistically exciting sword fights. But no magic.

                              And I am disappointed the Russell Crowe Robin Hood didn't lead to any sequels, though I wouldn't have cast him in the lead, to be honest. Though that was more Norman Britain, not Saxon Britain. Same idea, though - trying to ground the legend in history.

                              Likewise, I like Vikings, though I don't have cable now so I haven't caught up. Much of that is about Saxon Britain. And there's that one about the time of Alfred, which I haven't had a chance to see much of. But it might be good.

                              The problem with doing a more or less straight history is that it can get bogged down in the minutiae of feudal politics and, unlike Game of a Thrones, for example, the writers can't just throw in some dragons or naked witches to spice it up. They have to stick to explaining the shifting alliances or earls and lords and chiefs.

                              Comment


                                #40
                                When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                                Hot Pepsi wrote: The writers can't just throw in some dragons or naked witches to spice it up.
                                You're becoming cynical with age. Obviously it gets very hot standing to that big cauldron.

                                Comment


                                  #41
                                  When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                                  I'm not saying th witches don't have good reason to be naked, but they're kinda ahistorical.

                                  Comment


                                    #42
                                    When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                                    Hot Pepsi wrote:
                                    Likewise, I like Vikings, though I don't have cable now so I haven't caught up. Much of that is about Saxon Britain. And there's that one about the time of Alfred, which I haven't had a chance to see much of. But it might be good.
                                    Vikings has been consistently very good. Strong enough that the series can shed leading characters without affecting it's quality. In part that's because Travis Fimmel, who plays a similar role to Charlie Hunnam in Sons of Anarchy is infinitely more interesting and effective.

                                    The Last KIngdom is more soapy than Vikings. It leans heavily on both it and Game of Thrones but without the sex and explicit violence. It's OK. Alfred is played as a rather cold and anal individual, which is slightly unusual but he's not the protagonist.

                                    Comment


                                      #43
                                      When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                                      Is the Last Kingdom thing a BBC production? It's not just the sex and violence that's missing, but also pacing and wit. It's all so leaden, there's no Tyrion. It doesn't help that the Saxon/Viking hero is such a clueless hothead fanny and not much of an actor, or that Alfred really needs a good slap.

                                      Didn't stick around for the ending (after mibbees 4 long long episodes), perhaps they managed to salvage something.

                                      Comment


                                        #44
                                        When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                                        It clearly wasn't made for cable — though it's on Netflix in North America — so the first impression is of a sanitized Vikings. Season 2 is an improvement over 1 though, and there are a couple of decent performances. There was also one particular sequence that was so well done it seemed to belong to another show. (The Viking attack on the Saxon camp in the penultimate episode.)

                                        Comment


                                          #45
                                          When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                                          Is part of the problem with recent Arthurian retellings the need for a historical verisimilitude?

                                          The original stories we have from the high middle aren't they? And even later adaptations fit in with that, it's all about feudalism and they fit in with the social systems of that period. We know that King Arthur wasn't a king then so if we make a film we have to set it when he was most likely to have existed. But the 5th-6th centuries are completely different so we end up with stories with the names but nothing else from the romances etc.

                                          Which isn't to say that I don't really like some of the books I've read that place Arthur in a more apparently realistic historical setting but they are on top of and not instead of the original tales. With books like those though you're building on an existing literature and there just isn't that in cinema.

                                          Also the new film looks terrible.

                                          This doesn't apply as much to Robin Hood, partly because the film library does have a wide range of different Robin's so new things are developing a genre and also because he is much more firmly embedded in a particular period.

                                          Finally on Hood, nothing is ever going to be as good as Robin of Sherwood so I never get my hopes up about new films.

                                          Comment


                                            #46
                                            When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                                            Of course King Arthur films are shit, it's fairy tales for posh people inflicted on folklore, meaning it's neither one or the other. The only way out is to get really gothic and camp, but John Boorman nailed that fucker back in 1980, with knights in shining armour, riding Giant horses up and down the Bulmers orchard in Clonmel, through falling apple blossoms to Oh Fortuna. Helen Mirren with her kit off, and gabriel Byrne conceiving King arthur through a suit of armour.

                                            It's an odd thing to make movies about as well. You don't see any interest in ireland in making movies about the Fianna, or the Tain, or cu chullain, and these are all way more interesting. There's even toraíocht Diarmuid agus Grainne, which is a proper straight down the line Tristan and Iseult story.

                                            There's a huge and rich collection of Irish Folklore going back a very long time, and we get taught about the fairy tale versions in school, but no-one wants to make movies about it. But King Arthur keeps getting knocked out in the UK. I think it has something to do with how fairy stories and a childish belief in the magic of monarchy is so deeply etched into English Culture, and the way of life.

                                            Also it's ridiculous to try and have some sort of unifying Great english king myth. The King Arthur story is made up by a series of Norman Bullshitters. He carries on like a Norman. But is he supposed to be a German Speaking Saxon? or A p-celtic speaking briton speaking cornish/welsh/breton. Which of the waves of invaders of england is supposed to be the authentic king figure?

                                            People should stop fucking around making movies about King Arthur, and make a mini series about the thirty years around the Norman conquest. We're pretty sure that that actually happened, and it would be very interesting, and no-one has done it before. You get to see poor harold, wiping out the danes, before getting milled over by the Normans. You get the Harrying of the North, the building of castles, and the realisation that most of the Land in the UK is owned by the direct descendants of these people.

                                            I'd also love a great series about williamite succession, Just so everyone could see how utterly crazy that whole period was. It has everything. Uncle Versus Nephew, Father in law Vs Son in Law, Catholic vs Protestant, Rightful king (as far as these things go) vs treacherous revolution. Straight Vs Surprising modern/ancient relaxed attitude about these matter. It could also serve to explain to everyone what exactly it is the Orange Order think that they are celebrating.

                                            Comment


                                              #47
                                              When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                                              The only way out is to get really gothic and camp, but John Boorman nailed that fucker back in 1980, with knights in shining armour, riding Giant horses up and down the Bulmers orchard in Clonmel, through falling apple blossoms to Oh Fortuna. Helen Mirren with her kit off, and gabriel Byrne conceiving King arthur through a suit of armour.

                                              Not sure it's the only way. Jack Whyte's take — that Uther/Arthur et al, were the remnants of Roman colonists who went native after the collapse of the Empire — is fun.

                                              Comment


                                                #48
                                                When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                                                Does it read like it would be just amazing if you soundtracked it with You make me feel (Mighty Real) by Sylvester? if not, I'm not interested.

                                                Comment


                                                  #49
                                                  When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                                                  Likewise, I like Vikings, though I don't have cable now so I haven't caught up. Much of that is about Saxon Britain. And there's that one about the time of Alfred, which I haven't had a chance to see much of. But it might be good.

                                                  Do we know very much about the saxons? they didn't leave many written records and their archaeological remains are basically slightly darker circles of soil in a field.

                                                  Comment


                                                    #50
                                                    When did Charlie Hunnam get big enough to open a multimillion dollar blockbuster

                                                    Not having that, Berba. The pagan Saxons may not have left records, but part of the reason the Normans found England so attractive was the comparatively advanced beauracracy that allowed for the most efficient central tax farming in Northern Europe. That had being going on since Alfred's time. The Domesday book could not have existed without Old English precursors. The Anglo-Saxon chronicles only peter out four or five generations after the Norman Conquest. There is a fairly substantial literature in Old English as well.

                                                    This isn't the Picts, whose sparse surviving stone carved (written: there are tons of symbol stones and later cross slabs/standing crosses with animals real and fantastical/abstract shape symbolism mostly unexplained, but may have been political markers/proto heraldry. The Pictish "kingdom" seems somehow to have been more cohesive around some high king type than in Wales (including Strathclyde/Alt Clut/Rheged) or Ireland pre Viking times, but the products of their scriptoriums have perished, so we have no way of knowing how they held together (and to what extent there was any central control from the Fortriu/Morayshire seeming heartland) about 3/4 of Scotland north of the Forth and Clyde) inscriptions just give us Proper Names and indecipherable stuff (though they were almost definitely p-Celtic, not basque or whatever nonsense).

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X