Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Excalibur. God, what a beating. 

I loved it as a kid. I've got it on DVD but haven't watched it in years, probably not in 15 years. I'm not sure I paid full attention to it the last time I watched it. This might have been only the third time I've watched the whole thing since I bought the DVD in the late 90's. 

Such a weird movie. Sometimes it seems like both a low budget and a big budget movie at the same time. Sometimes it looks like it could be taken from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. There's a lot of really bad acting, especially from Merlin. Helen Mirren is really the only bright spot in the film. 

When I was young I thought all the shiny armor was cool. But now I'm thinking how stupid it looks for all these knights to be parading around in full plate armor like it's street clothes. I mean, seriously? You're all wearing your plate armor to a meeting at the round table? That's just dumb and would never happen. 

And yet I'll probably hold on to the DVD because it's a cult classic and I might want to show it to someone someday. And, however tedious, it covers a broad story. 

Was I ever aware that Patrick Stewart and Liam Neeson are both in it? I can't even remember. 

Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Excalibur. God, what a beating. 

I loved it as a kid. I've got it on DVD but haven't watched it in years, probably not in 15 years. I'm not sure I paid full attention to it the last time I watched it. This might have been only the third time I've watched the whole thing since I bought the DVD in the late 90's. 

Such a weird movie. Sometimes it seems like both a low budget and a big budget movie at the same time. Sometimes it looks like it could be taken from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. There's a lot of really bad acting, especially from Merlin. Helen Mirren is really the only bright spot in the film. 

When I was young I thought all the shiny armor was cool. But now I'm thinking how stupid it looks for all these knights to be parading around in full plate armor like it's street clothes. I mean, seriously? You're all wearing your plate armor to a meeting at the round table? That's just dumb and would never happen. 

And yet I'll probably hold on to the DVD because it's a cult classic and I might want to show it to someone someday. And, however tedious, it covers a broad story. 

Was I ever aware that Patrick Stewart and Liam Neeson are both in it? I can't even remember. 

Helen Mirren is a bright spot, period.

 

 

Posted

Noah (2014). I usually love Aronofsky's movies, but this one was just weird. Rock monsters and a manufactured baddie and emo teens sunk this Russ Crowe vehicle which should have been his Charlton Heston moment.

Posted
6 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Noah (2014). I usually love Aronofsky's movies, but this one was just weird. Rock monsters and a manufactured baddie and emo teens sunk this Russ Crowe vehicle which should have been his Charlton Heston moment.

Eh, this reminded me that I didn't add anything to the "Underrated Movies".  The fact that is was weird was great.  This kind of flick is a no win for the director unless he makes pablum.  I kind of wish the second half had the weird tone of the first half.  

Posted
3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Eh, this reminded me that I didn't add anything to the "Underrated Movies".  The fact that is was weird was great.  This kind of flick is a no win for the director unless he makes pablum.  I kind of wish the second half had the weird tone of the first half.  

Completely disagree. I think you could have gone weird and made it awesome (e.g. Life of Pi, Black Swan, etc.) but what he did was half-baked cheese. Russell Crowe was actually fantastic as Noah and it was completely wasted. Like a pitcher going out and giving you 8 solid innings and your closer losing 2-1.

Posted
1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Completely disagree. I think you could have gone weird and made it awesome (e.g. Life of Pi, Black Swan, etc.) but what he did was half-baked cheese.

He kind of had source material that was constraining him just a bit. Everyone who saw Noah has a preexisting idea of what the story should be or should look like.  Unlike Black Swan or Pi (which is what I think you mean.)  He had complete freedom to make that his own.  In Noah, he had to try to make it his own as well as allow people to make the jump with him.  It wasn't perfect but I was surprised how well it worked.

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

He kind of had source material that was constraining him just a bit. Everyone who saw Noah has a preexisting idea of what the story should be or should look like.  Unlike Black Swan or Pi (which is what I think you mean.)  He had complete freedom to make that his own.  In Noah, he had to try to make it his own as well as allow people to make the jump with him.  It wasn't perfect but I was surprised how well it worked.

Okay fair enough, perhaps I'm just not, and still don't feel compelled to be, as charitable as you are for him with this treatment. I feel like the source material excuse is a cop-out; plenty of stylistic and creative choices could have been made to create an interesting film. Further, there aren't many, if any, results more beautiful than high art being able to challenge, stretch, confront, uplift or change a viewer/consumer's preexisting ideas, in this case of a story. A creative director of cinema like this guy probably chooses this source material for that very reason, actually, and I suppose it was just too ambitious. Bit off more than he could chew, as it were, and I guess there is no shame in that.

Edited by DonkeyCigars
Posted
41 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Further, there aren't many, if any, results more beautiful than high art being able to challenge, stretch, confront, uplift or change a viewer/consumer's preexisting ideas, in this case of a story.

Well, I do think he did stretch the ideas a bit.  I did like the way he created the fallen rock angels to explain both God's injustice as well as solve some of the practical engineering limitations of the time.  And the way he pushed the conflicts within his family and "adopted" family -- basically having him go almost insane.  

I just don't know of any other attempts to take on a story from Genesis that works like this.   To me, it goes from the bullshit story  I read as a child that never really had to happen to one that really takes on a much more interesting version of a fully human and flawed individual who gets some help from God but hammers home the idea that God is never just and can't be trusted.  For some of us who aren't good Bible scholars, that's a cool way to try to make the story relevant beyond the first few pages of Genesis.

But certainly accept the fact that I think my opinion is in the minority.  And may be because I'm not really a big fan of DA. So I may like this because to me it's both accessible and made me think.  It likely didn't make others think and that is a problem with the filmaking.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 hours ago, Parliament said:

Soldado. Better on rewatch, but not the classic that Sicario is. It's plot holes are no worse and it has more Brolin and Del Toro. But still it lacks something.
 

The word you're looking for is continuity.

Posted
10 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Well, I do think he did stretch the ideas a bit.  I did like the way he created the fallen rock angels to explain both God's injustice as well as solve some of the practical engineering limitations of the time.  And the way he pushed the conflicts within his family and "adopted" family -- basically having him go almost insane.  

I just don't know of any other attempts to take on a story from Genesis that works like this.   To me, it goes from the bullshit story  I read as a child that never really had to happen to one that really takes on a much more interesting version of a fully human and flawed individual who gets some help from God but hammers home the idea that God is never just and can't be trusted.  For some of us who aren't good Bible scholars, that's a cool way to try to make the story relevant beyond the first few pages of Genesis.

But certainly accept the fact that I think my opinion is in the minority.  And may be because I'm not really a big fan of DA. So I may like this because to me it's both accessible and made me think.  It likely didn't make others think and that is a problem with the filmaking.

Thanks for your thoughts here-- I think we are coming at this movie from different angles which is why we land on different POVs. While different (and wrong, lol just keeding!), yours is interesting.

Posted

Butch cassidy and the sundance kid.  Don't know how this movie got all sorts of accolades because it's lame as fuck.  Started off decent for the first ten minutes, and then turned into a confused, slow, not funny buddy-comedy

  • Like 1
Posted

Downhill. Well, what in the hell was that?! A 90 minute “dark comedy” mediation about being stuck in a rut and growing old? I didn’t laugh once. This should be impossible in a film with Julia-Louis Dreyfus, Will Farrell, and Jared from Silicon Valley. Stop remaking European classics for American audiences. 
 

The Witches also on HBO Max was a miss. Basically a kids’ movie without a happy ending. Anne Hathaway will turn your head though. Motherhood has been kind to her. 

Posted
5 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Butch cassidy and the sundance kid.  Don't know how this movie got all sorts of accolades because it's lame as fuck.  Started off decent for the first ten minutes, and then turned into a confused, slow, not funny buddy-comedy

Robot Reaction GIF

  • Haha 3
Posted
9 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

Finally got around to watching the Da Vinci Code.  It's an updated Indiana Jones movie. Fun ride.

It’s pretty fun.  Not great, but a fun movie.   Those books are so damn hard to pack into a feature film.   So much detail. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Yeah. It's the Mayonnaise of Movies. I like it, it's good, and sometimes you don't need fancy sauce. 

It’s like the horrific effort to make a few Crichton books into movies, specifically Congo and Timeline.   Both incredible books, and absolute dumpster fire movies.  

Posted
4 hours ago, Jerry Callo said:

Carrie.  Horrible special effects, mediocre acting, decent story, and a bunch of nekkid girls at the beginning.  I give it two thumbs up (at least the first 5 minutes).

So, My Cousin Vinny minus the nudity?

Posted
7 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Tim Curry in Congo is the most cringe character ever. 

Disagree. It supplied one of my favorite exchanges

Mr. Homolka, stop eating my sesame cake. STOP EATING MY SESAME CAKE. What are you doing in my country, you bag of shit?

 

Posted
On 10/19/2020 at 10:51 AM, Moby Ric said:

Watched The Invisible Man this weekend.  The new version.  It was pretty good and intense.  

my wife and I thought this was horrible. The protagonist was one of the worst characters and worst acted parts I have ever seen. The ending was alright, but I thought it was a really bad movie.   

Posted
7 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I mean, Curry did a typical masterful job acting out the role, but he could only do so much. 

Yep.  I felt bad for the actors in that movie.  The book is great, the script for the movie was atrocious.  You can only act so well in a bag of shit  

Posted
7 hours ago, Jerry Callo said:

Carrie.  Horrible special effects, mediocre acting, decent story, and a bunch of nekkid girls at the beginning.  I give it two thumbs up (at least the first 5 minutes).

Are we talking about the original one from the mid-1970s? 

Posted

Attack the Block. I had never heard of this movie a couple of weeks ago but then I started reading about it and how huge it was. Worth a watch I suppose but I was underwhelmed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Posted (edited)

Palm Springs with Andy Samberg, Cristin Milotti (hot) and JK Simmons. 

Pretty good Groundhog Day rehash. Cute, funny and endearing. Had decent expectations going in as I had heard good things and it lived up to it. 

Edited by ztejas
Posted
On 10/26/2020 at 7:07 PM, 52-80 said:

Butch cassidy and the sundance kid.  Don't know how this movie got all sorts of accolades because it's lame as fuck.  Started off decent for the first ten minutes, and then turned into a confused, slow, not funny buddy-comedy

It ain't no Sting or Little Romance, that's for damn sure.

I liked the movie, but I can understand the sentiment a bit.  It is kind of slow.  But I'm a sucker for Raindrops Keep Falling on my Head, so there's that.

Posted
4 hours ago, Jerry Callo said:
4 hours ago, PittsburghTiger said:
Are we talking about the original one from the mid-1970s? 

Yes. I didn't even know about the remake.

I vaguely remember the remake, basically just asking, "why?". I do know that the original scared the hell out of nine-year old me. 

Posted
57 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

It ain't no Sting or Little Romance, that's for damn sure.

I liked the movie, but I can understand the sentiment a bit.  It is kind of slow.  But I'm a sucker for Raindrops Keep Falling on my Head, so there's that.

Your take would be unpopular. His take is just crazy.

Where is henrygandorf when I need him?

Posted
9 hours ago, PittsburghTiger said:

Are we talking about the original one from the mid-1970s? 

 

10 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

Yep.  I felt bad for the actors in that movie.  The book is great, the script for the movie was atrocious.  You can only act so well in a bag of shit  

The acting in Carrie was good, especially the minor characters like Golden Boyfriend and Lifetime Movie Gym Teacher. Every person at that school seemed real. That's why all of the remakes failed, you just cannot replicate Piper's voice or Spacek's eyes.

Posted
1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

 

The acting in Carrie was good, especially the minor characters like Golden Boyfriend and Lifetime Movie Gym Teacher. Every person at that school seemed real. That's why all of the remakes failed, you just cannot replicate Piper's voice or Spacek's eyes.

I was talking about Congo

Posted

Most recently:

Choke (Rickson Gracie documentary). Probably haven’t watched it in 10 years.

Prometheus. Been awhile since I last watched it. Still enjoy it, but I know a lot of folks were disappointed by it.

Elite Squad. Been many years since I last saw it. Still great.

Posted
On 10/28/2020 at 9:00 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

A missed opportunity, imo. I was expecting more. They could have done so much better. 

I consider it a cult classic. There's a lot of magic hidden away that gets better with age. 

2986920ea0ddde4618d5c3ea0b04b38a.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

The Prestige.  It has all of the Nolan hallmarks and dare I say this is the Nolan film that uses them best.  Captures the era's fascination with science, throws in a Nikola Tesla and finishes with a plot twist as good as anything M. Knight Shamalan ever did. It is Nolan's best film.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

The Prestige is one of my all time favorites. Great movie. 
 

Just watched Sleepless in Seattle for the first time last night. Made it 60% of the way through maybe. That slut left her fiancé for a guy she heard on the radio once, and no one thinks that’s insane?

Posted
4 hours ago, Helobious said:

The Prestige is one of my all time favorites. Great movie. 
 

Just watched Sleepless in Seattle for the first time last night. Made it 60% of the way through maybe. That slut left her fiancé for a guy she heard on the radio once, and no one thinks that’s insane?

no slutshaming allowed bro.  thats not very PC

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...