|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Aug 4, 2024 8:06:17 GMT -5
I have a love/hate relationship with film discussion nowadays. I feel like so often this is how it goes: Before a film is released the chatter is about how it’s the most amazing movie ever, a masterpiece. Lots of hype. When it’s first released you start to hear the people angry that it didn’t live up to the (frankly impossible) hype. The backlash starts immediately upon release and people who don’t like it take the tone that everyone who does is wrong. Within a couple weeks the general tone is that it’s mid or problematic. Then the next film gets hyped up and the previous one has to be horrible in comparison because everything has to be a competition, everything is mid, and joy isn’t allowed. I thought Longlegs was really good, to discuss the film that I think you’re subtweeting here. |
|
|
|
Post by MrsLangdonAlger on Aug 4, 2024 8:38:33 GMT -5
I have a love/hate relationship with film discussion nowadays. I feel like so often this is how it goes: Before a film is released the chatter is about how it’s the most amazing movie ever, a masterpiece. Lots of hype. When it’s first released you start to hear the people angry that it didn’t live up to the (frankly impossible) hype. The backlash starts immediately upon release and people who don’t like it take the tone that everyone who does is wrong. Within a couple weeks the general tone is that it’s mid or problematic. Then the next film gets hyped up and the previous one has to be horrible in comparison because everything has to be a competition, everything is mid, and joy isn’t allowed. I thought Longlegs was really good, to discuss the film that I think you’re subtweeting here. It’s definitely an example of that treatment! It’s a fantastic movie. And it seems like people somehow don’t understand that horror movies have been hyped as the scariest thing ever since horror movies started. Also “I wasn’t scared” isn’t criticism. But it’s definitely a trend I’ve noticed with lots of other movies. One thing I have to remind myself of is that sites like Letterboxd aren’t a hive mind, though there’s even people I notice there who lead this cynicism trend. |
|
|
|
Post by songstarliner on Aug 5, 2024 18:54:32 GMT -5
Anyway, we delivered the bomb.
|
|
|
|
Post by Floyd Dinnertime Barber on Aug 8, 2024 19:00:15 GMT -5
Just finished seeing Deadpool and Wolverine. May have more thoughts on it later but my first thought is,
and I know it is obscure, but at one point I really wanted Wade to say something like "take it easy there Ricky Jay". If you know, you know.
|
|
|
|
Post by pantsgoblin on Aug 13, 2024 13:47:06 GMT -5
Not much of a follower of baseball so I was puzzling over the title's meaning on the new film Eephus. Then, this weekend I listened to The Dollop podcast's episode on the pitcher Bill "The Spaceman" Lee, who used that form of pitch. Apparently, he's in the movie as is Frederick Wiseman of all people as the team's announcer. |
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Aug 16, 2024 14:39:25 GMT -5
Not much of a follower of baseball so I was puzzling over the title's meaning on the new film Eephus. Then, this weekend I listened to The Dollop podcast's episode on the pitcher Bill "The Spaceman" Lee, who used that form of pitch. Apparently, he's in the movie as is Frederick Wiseman of all people as the team's announcer. The Eephus pitch is incredibly funny to watch when it is properly deployed. Zach Greinke occasionally threw one. What I mean is, it is funny when this pitch results in a strike by the hitter. Not funny when the hitter crushes it for a home run. But, wow, it is hilarious to see professional hitters swing and miss this pitch. I read that review, and I'm not entirely sure why that is the title of the film. It seems they are trying to make some metaphor of the pitch movement representing the plot of the film, but "incredibly slow with deceptive topspin" just isn't translating for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Floyd Dinnertime Barber on Aug 16, 2024 16:27:06 GMT -5
Not much of a follower of baseball so I was puzzling over the title's meaning on the new film Eephus. Then, this weekend I listened to The Dollop podcast's episode on the pitcher Bill "The Spaceman" Lee, who used that form of pitch. Apparently, he's in the movie as is Frederick Wiseman of all people as the team's announcer. The Eephus pitch is incredibly funny to watch when it is properly deployed. Zach Greinke occasionally threw one. What I mean is, it is funny when this pitch results in a strike by the hitter. Not funny when the hitter crushes it for a home run. But, wow, it is hilarious to see professional hitters swing and miss this pitch. I read that review, and I'm not entirely sure why that is the title of the film. It seems they are trying to make some metaphor of the pitch movement representing the plot of the film, but "incredibly slow with deceptive topspin" just isn't translating for me. Wasn't Eephus a Greek philosopher? |
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Aug 16, 2024 17:53:30 GMT -5
The Eephus pitch is incredibly funny to watch when it is properly deployed. Zach Greinke occasionally threw one. What I mean is, it is funny when this pitch results in a strike by the hitter. Not funny when the hitter crushes it for a home run. But, wow, it is hilarious to see professional hitters swing and miss this pitch. I read that review, and I'm not entirely sure why that is the title of the film. It seems they are trying to make some metaphor of the pitch movement representing the plot of the film, but "incredibly slow with deceptive topspin" just isn't translating for me. Wasn't Eephus a Greek philosopher? Not according to the first page of Google search results, which is the most work I'm willing to put in on this today. Though that search does provide many videos of hilarious Eephus pitches and the hitters reactions. |
|
|
|
Post by WKRP Jimmy Drop on Aug 16, 2024 22:28:52 GMT -5
Huh apparently a movie of Stephen King’s The Long Walk is in production.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Aug 30, 2024 18:27:26 GMT -5
Watching the Rifftrax version of the original Red Dawn. Some solid riffs, and we're enjoying it. But watching the movie for the first time as an adult, I'm realizing that literally nothing in it makes any sense whatsoever. Roadrunner cartoons feel more realistic. It's not just the overarching plot - which may be the dumbest in the history of film - but every individual scene is just deeply stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Lemur on Sept 6, 2024 13:29:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by songstarliner on Sept 11, 2024 18:53:24 GMT -5
|
|
ABz B👹anaz
Grandfathered In 
This country is (now less of) a shitshow.
Posts: 1,993
|
Post by ABz B👹anaz on Sept 12, 2024 10:26:04 GMT -5
Talk to Me - Pretty decent horror flick. Bunch of teenagers get hold of a plaster hand that lets one speak to and/or get possessed by spirits of the dead, and uses it as a party trick until bad shit starts to happen, especially to one girl whose mother died a year or two prior.
I feel like it was well done in that the main characters did things that were very obviously a bad idea, but it made some sense from a character standpoint of WHY. Entertaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by pantsgoblin on Oct 2, 2024 10:15:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pantsgoblin on Oct 10, 2024 11:40:10 GMT -5
Today would've been Edward D. Wood, Jr.'s 100th birthday. The Medveds did him such a disservice in Golden Turkey Awards; Plan 9 is an iconic, relentlessly entertaining movie and Glen or Glenda?, which I only saw for the first time in the last couple of years, is a remarkable plea for tolerance for its time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Oct 10, 2024 12:33:20 GMT -5
Today would've been Edward D. Wood, Jr.'s 100th birthday. The Medveds did him such a disservice in Golden Turkey Awards; Plan 9 is an iconic, relentlessly entertaining movie and Glen or Glenda?, which I only saw for the first time in the last couple of years, is a remarkable plea for tolerance for its time. There are several different types of bad movies, and Wood's, in a lot of ways, are probably the "best" type of the lot, in that they're generally entertaining, they were just made by someone who completely ignores all the conventional rules of filmmaking and probably comes at all aspects of moviemaking from an incredibly skewed perspective. Compared to something like Coleman Francis's snoozefests, or some of the really cynical exploitation pictures, Wood's films almost come off as genuine cinema. |
|
|
|
Post by pantsgoblin on Oct 10, 2024 12:40:55 GMT -5
Today would've been Edward D. Wood, Jr.'s 100th birthday. The Medveds did him such a disservice in Golden Turkey Awards; Plan 9 is an iconic, relentlessly entertaining movie and Glen or Glenda?, which I only saw for the first time in the last couple of years, is a remarkable plea for tolerance for its time. There are several different types of bad movies, and Wood's, in a lot of ways, are probably the "best" type of the lot, in that they're generally entertaining, they were just made by someone who completely ignores all the conventional rules of filmmaking and probably comes at all aspects of moviemaking from an incredibly skewed perspective. Compared to something like Coleman Francis's snoozefests, or some of the really cynical exploitation pictures, Wood's films almost come off as genuine cinema. Wood definitely made some bitter and cynical films but, at his best like Plan 9 there's a gleefulness to them. I'll always take that tone over something like The Room; as stupefying as Wiseau's movie often is, there's an acridness to it that's a turn-off. |
|
|
|
Post by Floyd Dinnertime Barber on Oct 10, 2024 22:47:55 GMT -5
Today would've been Edward D. Wood, Jr.'s 100th birthday. The Medveds did him such a disservice in Golden Turkey Awards; Plan 9 is an iconic, relentlessly entertaining movie and Glen or Glenda?, which I only saw for the first time in the last couple of years, is a remarkable plea for tolerance for its time. I watched Plan 9 a few years ago and I remember thinking "Yeah, the sets are really cheesy, some of the acting is wooden, but I get what he's going for." He had, at least until his alcoholism destroyed him, a unique vision and singular drive and with a few better breaks and bigger budgets, might have been another Roger Corman, or Guy Madden, or maybe Tom Laughlin. |
|
|
|
Post by WKRP Jimmy Drop on Oct 14, 2024 10:08:54 GMT -5
What the fuck, who else knew that Isaac from Children of the Corn is also Cousin It in the Addams Family movies and is ALSO a Boyle cousin on Brooklyn 99??
|
|
ABz B👹anaz
Grandfathered In
This country is (now less of) a shitshow.
Posts: 1,993
|
Post by ABz B👹anaz on Oct 14, 2024 19:15:01 GMT -5
What the fuck, who else knew that Isaac from Children of the Corn is also Cousin It in the Addams Family movies and is ALSO a Boyle cousin on Brooklyn 99?? I recognized him in B99 right away, but didn't know he was Cousin Itt! |
|
|
|
Post by WKRP Jimmy Drop on Oct 16, 2024 20:04:13 GMT -5
I haven’t seen the other versions, but the Salem’s Lot was overall a movie. I liked leaving it in the 70s, rather than the 2000s, but the clothes & hairstyles were just slightly off. The dudes’ hairstyles were too…coiffed, for one thing. Purposeful, rather than haystack-y.
I also like Alfre Woodard as Dr Cody, because I love Alfre Woodard!! We all know King can be..awkward af when not downright problematic when it comes to race; making two major characters black for no Big Reason, but just because, was a good choice (yes the bar is in hell), and I did like Mark.
BUT, other than Barlow, the rest of the casting was…meh. To be fair, Ben Mears has never been a favorite of mine, and Susan at least had a little personality, but there was just not a lot of chemistry between any of the actors. And I really am not sure what kind of movie Straker thought he was in; he was banging it out to the cheap seats for no good reason.
It was also rushed as hell; it really should have been a miniseries. This is true of almost all of King’s stuff, just as I think his stuff should never be set later than like 1985.
|
|
|
|
Post by Floyd Dinnertime Barber on Oct 19, 2024 23:14:16 GMT -5
Started watching Rocky Horror Picture Show on Cinema Box, and I noticed that (although with my damaged hearing I can't be absolutely sure) it sounds like it is not Richard O'Brian singing Science Fiction Double Feature at the beginning, but Patricia Quinn (who originally sang it as the usherette in the stage show). I haven't watched the rest of it yet, and I am wondering if I will find any other differences.
Edit: Mrs Floyd agrees that it's a different voice singing the opening song. Also, this version doesn't include that last song that is sometimes added and sometimes left off. I have no idea what edit this is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prole Hole on Oct 24, 2024 5:57:01 GMT -5
Started watching Rocky Horror Picture Show on Cinema Box, and I noticed that (although with my damaged hearing I can't be absolutely sure) it sounds like it is not Richard O'Brian singing Science Fiction Double Feature at the beginning, but Patricia Quinn (who originally sang it as the usherette in the stage show). I haven't watched the rest of it yet, and I am wondering if I will find any other differences. Edit: Mrs Floyd agrees that it's a different voice singing the opening song. Also, this version doesn't include that last song that is sometimes added and sometimes left off. I have no idea what edit this is. It's definitely not Richard O'Brian singing SF/DF, my absolute favourite song from RHPS and just overall a great song in isolation. And one of the very first I learned to play on guitar! (Once I had mastered barre chords). |
|
Dellarigg
AV Clubber 
This is a public service announcement - with guitars
Posts: 7,638 
|
Post by Dellarigg on Oct 26, 2024 13:50:16 GMT -5
We’re almost as far away from Gary Oldman’s take on Dracula (1992) as that performance was from Christopher Lee’s (1958).
|
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Oct 27, 2024 9:22:56 GMT -5
We’re almost as far away from Gary Oldman’s take on Dracula (1992) as that performance was from Christopher Lee’s (1958). Wrong. Christopher Lee played Dracula on many occasions, including in the French horror-comedy film Dracula père et fils in 1976. That’s just 16 years before Gary Oldman played Dracula. So we’re actually twice as far away from Gary Oldman’s Dracula as Oldman was from Lee’s Dracula. What are your thoughts on the upcoming Eggers-directed Nosferatu? |
|
Dellarigg
AV Clubber
This is a public service announcement - with guitars
Posts: 7,638
|
Post by Dellarigg on Oct 27, 2024 10:16:27 GMT -5
We’re almost as far away from Gary Oldman’s take on Dracula (1992) as that performance was from Christopher Lee’s (1958). Wrong. Christopher Lee played Dracula on many occasions, including in the French horror-comedy film Dracula père et fils in 1976. That’s just 16 years before Gary Oldman played Dracula. So we’re actually twice as far away from Gary Oldman’s Dracula as Oldman was from Lee’s Dracula. What are your thoughts on the upcoming Eggers-directed Nosferatu? I have no thoughts on it. Maybe some will occur after I've watched it. |
|
|
|
Post by Floyd Dinnertime Barber on Oct 27, 2024 12:44:35 GMT -5
We got D, the ten year old, a T-shirt saying "These are not the Droids you are looking for". When we asked him if you liked it,he said "No!"
"Don't you like Star Wars?"
"Star Wars is stupid!"
"Have you ever seen Star Wars?"
"No."
With the Galactic Empire firmly under the control of the Rodent Reich, and with us pretty reluctant to give them any money to see one movie at this time, what were we to do?
Once again, Cinema Box comes through. Not only is it streaming Star Wars with no subscription and no commercials, it is the original, unaltered theatrical release. It is listed as "Episode IV- A New Hope" in the listings, but that does not appear in the opening credits, and Han really does shoot first because he isn't a suicidal idiot.
He is watching it and suddenly yells "That's my shirt!" At the appropriate moment. He likes Star Wars now.
That's one parental duty accomplished.
|
|
|
|
Post by Floyd Dinnertime Barber on Oct 27, 2024 18:56:54 GMT -5
If Buster Keaton and Terry Gillian had made a movie, it would have been Hundreds of Beavers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Nov 2, 2024 16:59:47 GMT -5
If Buster Keaton and Terry Gillian had made a movie, it would have been Hundreds of Beavers.This had been on my radar, so thanks for alerting me it was streamable. Very fun live-action cartoon. Maybe a little flabby in the middle (it might have worked better as a series of shorts), but the climactic sequence pulled a lot of the rest of it together and sort of justified it being a movie, I thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Nov 24, 2024 18:21:24 GMT -5
I wandered over to The Old Country today and read a few of the pieces. There's a piece up about the decision to split Wicked into two films. I clicked this open because I am curious about this decision.
The writer is pulling from an interview in Variety wherein Stephen Schwartz says this: And John Chu says in Indiewire:
I had to read this twice. This is incredibly dumb. This is dumb to the level that I'm assuming they are lying and I'm wishing they would just admit, "We can make more money if it's two movies", because this above explanation is quite a lot of really dumb bs.
Why does a musical that is 2.5 hours on Broadway need to be 5 hours long as a movie? What on earth are you including there that you couldn't omit without apparently making fans upset? Your argument is "The fans won't appreciate this movie if we don't add a lot of stuff that wasn't in the original show?" What?
Then, the argument is "Our Act 1 finale is supposed to be the end of an Act! How can we possibly put any scene after that?!" Um, the same way that any prior film from a musical has handled their big Act 1 finale numbers? Films have acts, also, as it turns out! Who knew?! Stephen Schwartz, are you responsible for this nonsense? Like, you actually talked Chu and the studio into this? Folks, Broadway shows have big showstopper numbers to close out Act 1! I mean, like, pretty much every show does this. Many many many successful Broadway shows have been turned into films. Nobody ever said, "We just need to end the movie after that big number! It would be so anti-climactic to just move on to another scene!" Like, this is just so incredibly dumb.
I can't help but feel like what these people are NOT saying is that Act II of Wicked is really bad, and so yeah it actually would be bad if they let the movie continue there. Like, people walk out of the stage show at intermission because Act II is so weak. And their solution to this is, I guess?, to add a bunch of stuff from the book to Part 2 of the film so that the second half of the show isn't as bad?
I can't see how this will work, because they excised so much of the book for Act I that it will feel silly to then have to contort the script in Act II to bring all this stuff back.
I don't know. I'm not going to see this movie, but this is all just incredibly dumb. I cannot believe that they split this show into 2 parts, when the second Act is just so, so, so bad to start with.
Ugh, and I just had to edit this, like, a dozen times because I cannot type or copy/paste text correctly today. Blech.
|
|
