Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mayberry Lounge' started by Bullitt68, Sep 24, 2016.
Boogie Nights turned 20 this year.
What a great movie
The mention of boogie nights (great film) reminds me.
I came across some outstanding video essays a few weeks a go that I have been watching, the guy goes through one directors career at a time and analyses each of their films (and even music videos and other things that they have done). They are brilliant too, here's the PTA ones:
Quite long but definitely worth it.
@Caveat I remember you were looking for some good video essays, these are some of the best imo.
and Kubrick (he has others but these are the only ones I have watched so far):
Just re-watched The Dead Zone for the first time in, probably, eighteen years. I had completely forgotten Cronenberg directed that one.
I know a lot of Stephen King adaptations are considered pretty subpar, but this one is definitely not in that category. I thought it was very good- from the eerie score, to the atmospheric ways that the premonitions were shot- particularly the first one and the one with the Castle Rock Killer sequence. to Walken's performance. In fact, I'd say that's probably one of Walken's best performances and he's delivered quite a few good ones.
I thought there was a good slow-burn quality to the film that made it so that the premonitions were all the more jarring when they occurred. Walken did a great job of conveying the loneliness and sadness of a character who loses five years of his life and has to deal with a capacity that heavily burdens him while also clearly giving him the opportunity to accomplish good things.
I liked a lot of the supporting actors in it too. Lom particularly stood out to me. Overall, I thought it was even better than I remembered it from my younger years. Unsettling, somber, and involving.
Speaking of Stephen King adaptations. I just read 'Misery'. I enjoyed it but the film is way better IMO. Kathy Bates and James Caan are baller as fuck in the movie and I missed the Buster side plot when reading the book. The book is kind of over the top and the movie reins it in and is better for it. The big scene (you know the one) is much better in the film as well. One of the very few cases where the film is better than the original source material.
Whats the consensus here on Rogue One? I just watched it, and thought it was really good, but i check around and it seems people are mixed? It got a little boring in some parts, but the whole is so much more appealing than the usual Star Wars fare.
@Flemmy Stardust what you thought?
@Bullitt68 Heat is getting a new 4k remaster blu ray this week. fyi
Well said and I agree. Bates and Caan really elevate it.
Awesome movie. It seemed more gritty than your typical Star Wars film but still felt connected. I thought Felicity Jones was really solid and most of the main characters were, despite not really having character development, solid and had a lot to do.
The movie does drag a little- I think in the second viewing more so than the initial one. For me, it was the point after they leave Jedha and go to the planet where Mads and his engineers are working. The actual scene where Mendelssohn confronts Gaelen and threatens his crew in order for force the revelation of who conspired with Bodhi is awesome, it's just the brief lead up with Luna and them scaling the mountain to get to a viewing point that I found a bit dull.
One of the best things that can be said about it, though, is that it actually helps to add weight to A New Hope because
a.) it explains why there is such a fatal flaw in the design of the Death Star to begin with
b.) it shows how difficult it was and how much bravery it required to acquire the Death Star plans to begin with.
Very entertaining movie. The big action sequence at the end was awesome. And
Vader scenes were great. That scene at the end where he almost gets the plans and is just tearing through the rebel soldiers was really well executed in my opinion.
i betcha that most of the hate involves people seeing it thinking it's episode 8 but slowly realizing it's 3.9 as they watch it.
I thought it was a poor showing.
Unengaging charcters -- especially from Felicity Jones. People like Mads and Whittaker got no chance to make their characters memorable or special in any way.
The humor worked -- the action felt a little average and since the character fell so flat it held little gravitas.
The CGI characters is the sort of thing that makes me wants to join ISIS. Who the fuck thought that was good!? Why the fuck did they sully Peter Cushing's visage with that bullshit? (Though I'm waiting for the day where we just get rid off actors completely and replace them with animated monstrosities).
Overall, it just feels like such an unspecial entry. It's incidental, really. Just a standard cash-in on a certain moment in the Star Wars history, with no emotion or sense of specialty to come with it. It basically exists for you to see more Star Wars fluff -- tie-fighters, death-stars, rebel alliance(s), rather than provide anything interesting on it's own.
So since the last Mega-Post I've watched the Weissmuller Tarzan films. How many excactly? ALL TWELVE OF THEM!!!
Tarzan the Ape Man and it's sequel Tarzan and his Mate were great sits (despite being almost identical in plot). History has crowned the second film as the series highlight by my favorite was the first (despite how atrociously hilarious some of the early "green-screen" effects were. Makes King Kong look all the more impressive.). Weissmuller and O'Sullivan are just perfect for their roles. It's also shocking just how erotic these two pictures are. I mean, these were the days when people thought that Lugosi's Dracula was indecent! Maureen O'Sullivan's exposed midrift and their seductive frolicing in the water must have given people the fits back in the straight-laced days.
And O'Sullivan is now one of cinema's all-time sweethearts. That woman is just adorable. She has a mix of zest, refinement and physicallity that is on the Gilda-levels of attractiveness.
The third film of the series was also the third in terms of quality, Tarzan Escapes. Takes some time to get good though. Again it's very similar to the first two in terms of plot, an expedition from England going in to bring Jane back. This was also the first Code-era film. Escape transforms the more zest-filled eroticism of the earlier pictures into a more romantic, emotional take on the Tarzan-Jane relationship, which works really well I think. Escape also features Weissmuller best piece of acting (when he thinks that Jane has deserted him and collapses to the ground, crying). Like a lot of the better athletes-turned-actors, he could emote really well with his physicality when given the opportunity.
Tarzan Finds his Son is the first real dip in quality. It's just lame. Tarzan becomes a freaking dad! The eroticism and romanticism of the earlier films are traded in for domestic household shenanigans and low humor. It just feels like a film with a whole less effort put into it. Maureen O'Sullivan is still awesome though. Her superwoman-levels of perfomance elevates it quite substantiually.
Tarzan's Secret Tresure is sort of the "we're not racist" entry into the series, with the jungle-family adopting a black kid (whom obviously is nowhere to be seen in the later entries). I haven't mentioned it but all the Tarzan films have had this rather disquieting attitude towards black Africans, them either being one-note savages or servants whose deaths are presented as no loss at all (there's a part in the first film where a caravan-hand falls off a cliff and the white characters complain about the loss of luggage). None of this is a suprise obviously considering the time-period -- in the later entires they just avoid showing black people all togheter.
Other than the racism stuff, it's just a really lame entry. It's mostly hickinks with Boy and their pet monkey cheeta. Several plot-points are repeated again which is really grating. One of the worst in the series.
Tarzan's New York Adventures is a leg-up in quality. The fresh setting makes it feel less stale and overall the direction just has a more spry quality to it. There's more action stuff, basically, even Boy gets his moments. This is also the last sighting of Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane, whose future abscence was sorely missed (I promise I didn't cry).
Tarzan's Triump! Tarzan fights the Nazis! This is the one where they go full-on pulp adventure with ancient, lost civilizations in the middle of the African jungle under threat from Teutonic, Hitler-worshipping invaders. It's a pretty good entry all-in-all, embracing the wartime feel. As mentioned there's no O'Sullivan but the lady in this flick was damn pretty.
Tarzan's Desert Mystery. Tarzan in the desert to fight more Nazis! Probably the least Tarzan-y of all the films with all the spy-work and intrige going on. It's saved though by the non-recuring heroine played by Nancy Kelly, whose the sort of rapid-fire, smart-talking lass you only find in films from this period and the real highlight. Just a giddily funny performance.
Tarzan and the Amazons should just have been called "Tarzan faffs about for 60 minutes and then runs into some amazons (and keep in mind this is like a 75 minutes film). Overall it's just a standard rundown of the usual Tarzan tropes (with little focus on Tarzan). This is the film where they introduce a new actress to play Jane, Brenda Joyce (who is noticable more blonder than O'Sullivan). She has the physical presence required for the jubgle but she sorts of lacks the interlect O'Sullivan excuded as well as her highborn mannerisms.
Tarzan and the Leopard Woman might as well be called Tarzan and the wasted oppertunity. Here you have a great pulp premise, with a jungle-cult of leopard-venerating humans that wants to war with Tarzan and civilization. Of course, the majority of the runtime is just faffing about. This is also the one where they completely trash the Tarzan-settings. Tarzan's speach is noticable improved, he makes cultural references, and the family goes shopping in neighboring villiges! Not one of the worst -- but probably the most dissapointing, it's this one or Amazons.
Tarzan and the Huntress simply sucks. It's just a rehash of worn-out Tarzan troopes. He's fought leopard-cults, Nazis and had run-ins with Amazons and now we're supposed to go back to fighting evil poachers? Just thoroughly lackluster and the weakest entry into the series.
Tarzan and the Mermaids (in which Tarzan meets excactly zero mermaids) is another entry that entices some pulpy fun with another jungle-cult to fight but mostly just turns into a Mexico tourist-advert. They filmed in Mexico instead of the studio. Weissmuller is noticably aged and he now has an annoying singing sidekick. Like most later Tarzan films it's mostly just faffing about but it has it's moments though (Tarzan figts a freaking squid!).
Back to the usual scatterbrain mega-posting.
Saw Orson's studio-film, The Stranger. Just a taut, skillfully made and stylish film with a lot of the usual glossy camera-work that you come to expect from Wells. It all worked like clockwork expect for the opening 15 minutes where it felt like Orson was just faffing about. His speach about Germany was just gold. There's also this funny idea in the film about how prone American roalty seems to be to infiltration. Both Orson the Nazi and Edward G. Robinson (boss performance as always) the investigator insinuate themselves into their vicinity with great ease it appears, and the upper-crust folks seem completely oblivious to the truth of their personas.
I saw Fritz Lang's two-part spider series, The Spiders: The Golden Sea and The Spiders: The Diamon Ship. Really fun, fast-paced early Indiana Jones-esque adventure films from the 20's. Lang hasn't really nailed down the film grammer yet -- but some of his ticks like secrative societies manipulating events from the shadows are already in full force. The main villanes in both film was great in concept yet the actress somewhat failed to deliver. Both films are also stupifingly racist -- in that peculiar, fantastical sort of way that only films from the 20's could be.
Scandal is my least favorite Kurusawa film. It's probably the first venture of his that I didn't really feel invested it. I liked it well enough when it focused on Mifune and Yamaguchi but when Shimura came in and his story came to dominate the narrative it just lost me. It's to damn sappy to be emotional. It's like Kurosawa made a tribute to the hockeyness of Ford or something. I sort of suspect that this was considered transgressive in Japan at the time -- showing "weak" characters in a society where that had been deamed dishonorable. But that wasn't going to save my interest.
Meet John Doe by Frank Capra managed it's sapiness much better. It almost had the magic but... didn't. Capra directs with such earnestness and forcefulness that the improbability of the whole situation isn't so bothersome. But yeah, typical Capra stuff, triump of the ordinary joe's and all that.
Barbara Stanwyck starred in Meet John Doe and held her own against Gary Cooper therr. In The Strange Love of Martha Ivers, she was severely upstaged by Van Helfin and Kirk Douglas though. Martha Ivers was another good one -- one of those films that's neat just watching the actors stroll around talking to each other. Lizabeth Scott isn't what you'd call a classicaly good actress but at least she had chemestry with Helfin unlike Stanwyck. Lastly, I thought the film went on to long.
To keep the oldies going -- watched The Kennel Murder Case, an early Michael Curtiz venture. Sort of a run-to-the-mill detective-flick but the filmmaking is just awesome, especially since this is an early 30's film. William Powell in the lead was a threat as well -- but why Mary Astor was ever considered a household star continues to befuddle me. I've thought she was the weak link in everything I've seen her in, even in a masterpeice like Maltese Falcon.
Man... Tomb of Ligeia SHOULD be one of the premier Vincent Price films. I say that because it's the second time I've seen it. The naturalistic setting is a great contrast to the other Corman-Poe films, Price is spectacular (as always) and Elizabeth Shepherd brings a spirited physicality to the role that works great in tandem to Price's usual mastery of dictation. But somehow... the film just peters out around the second half. How can a film contain so many superb elements and still feel rather mellow at the end?
I haven't dived into the Korean New Wave a lot. The first fifteen minutes of Chaser are just amazing though. A really great and disturbing action film even though it slowly devolves after that.
Slow West was a good modern film I saw. It feels a bit "post-modern" in the same way that Tarantino does, in the way in which we're in this isolated, frontiers area of America yet somehow a whole slew of different nationalities and eccentrics have gathered at the excact same spot (like in Hateful 8). John Maclean seems to be another one of those filmmakers that direct his action-scene to contain plenty of mistakes, clumpsiness and collateral damage on the actors part, sort of like how Shane Black or Jarmoush does.
Exiled by Johnnie To was just him indulging himself. It's like his love for style and stories about martial brotherhood abstracted itslef into a movie with only those elements and no actual story.
Finally, The Girl Who Knew to Much is now one of my favorite movies. Once again Mario Bava proves himself unsurpassed in amazing visuals. It's one of his few black-and-white movies, and the visuals are as amazing as Black Sunday yet the story and characters are actually fun in this one.
I thought it was lacking defined characters. The reason I say this is because there were a ton of characters that died and I only gave a shit about like 3 of them. Felecity Jones' character was a little too wishy washy for me too. Shes a rebel who doesn't care about anything or anyone, which would have been fine, but then they had to shoehorn in rain mountain to give her character motivation and move the plot forward.
Overall I thought it was better than The Force Awakens but it could have been better with more even pacing and a stronger script. It has me pretty worried too because this was probably the coolest Star Wars one off you could think of.
A lot of the stuff I read from King sucks. Sorry? He has had some hits and revelations, but some of his short stories are garbage.
He's definitely hit or miss, but I think underrated on the whole. He's become synonymous with garbage pulp reading, but I think his best is quite good and he has a lot of really good books even if the good stuff is only 30% of his catalog.
I've largely abandoned reading fiction for non-fiction, but I will still read King from time to time. Many of his books that I've read were quite good, but I'm deliberately selecting from among what is considered his better material.
A few years back I read Gerald's Game, which I think is pretty obscure as far as his canon goes. Shit definitely freaked me out though.
rougue 1 wasnt bad but i liked taf much more, despite some unoriginal plot points
I didn't see it. The last one didn't do anything for me and I've never been that big of a Star Wars fan.
I'm back in my movie funk, but it feels worse this time. I haven't watched a movie in a while
The last, good thing I've watched was Black Sails season 4. Logan was good in theater, though, for sure. But that's the only movie I've watched this year I think. Wait, I did see John Wick 2 and the fight scenes were crazy but I didn't like the soundtrack as much as I did the first one.
I think the films of The Exorcist and The Shining are better than the books. I don't think many people have seen Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, and I'm sure even fewer people have read the book, but I really liked it, and the film is even better IMO.
Same for Clockwork Orange. Kubrick had a knack for boiling everything down to its essence and elevating the source material.