or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › I'm about to watch...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I'm about to watch... - Page 232

post #11551 of 11637
I still have my steelcase DVD of that one somewhere. Underrated flick!
post #11552 of 11637

Moving on...to another costume drama..

 

post #11553 of 11637
Quote:
Originally Posted by smugbug View Post
 

Moving on...to another costume drama..

 

 

Goddess Uma

post #11554 of 11637

Late Late Show:

 

Avenging Force.jpg

post #11555 of 11637
960.jpg
post #11556 of 11637
Ralph Brown two fer...

as Del Preston



as Danny the Drug Dealer

post #11557 of 11637
In about an hour:



I've seen NED KELLY, and I loved CALVARY. Really looking forward to this one.
post #11558 of 11637

Watched this last night:

 

 

SlingTV has had a free preview of Epix, so I've been tearing through things on their On Demand list before it's gone.

 

I had forgotten that Max Landis wrote this until the end credits started, which boded well for my viewing. Because fuck Max Landis.

 

But this was enjoyable. Eisenberg and Stewart work well together, and Walter Coggins is always a treat ("What smells like gas?"  "GAAAATH!"). The film is good until the very end, which rings terribly hollow and betrays the characters. But yeah -- didn't Max Landis say they fucked up his script and misinterpreted it or something? Clearly, it was for the better.

post #11559 of 11637
What Max Landis scripts have you read and disliked? Or are you just talking about videos you've seen of him talking? Every script I've read of his is incredibly lean and thoughtful, particularly with his characters.

CHRONICLE was the only film that stuck to his script. Others like ULTRA and FRANKENSTEIN were majorly changed by producers who he's never seen/talked to/heard of.

I think BRIGHT sounds like a lot of fun. It was going to be the first where he'd have active involvement. But what do you know: He got shut out and hasn't heard a word since before filming began.

But he's in the process of finalizing his production company. So get ready.
post #11560 of 11637

I just can't stand him as a person. Knowing that he had written the film would have colored my perception of it.

post #11561 of 11637
I completely understand. I've been there. He has severe BPD and he can be more than grating. That paired with the fact that he's almost always playing dumb and fucking with interviewers make him all the harder to "get". But he's damn talented and it shows in his work. If you're a script reader, give them a shot sometime. The nepotism shit he gets all the time is so fucking ignorant.

Also, his new Dirk Gentley series is amazing and the most faithful-in-spirit adaptation of Douglas Adams' work there is.
post #11562 of 11637

 

Technically, just finished watching instead of about to watch. Only saw it once on VHS waaay back in the day.

 

Some neat ideas going on but it's all style and no substance. And Vaughn was horribly miscast. He looks hung over the entire film.

post #11563 of 11637
Falling asleep on couch with a lukewarm beer and the A-Team on TBS. Why not.
post #11564 of 11637
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

 

Technically, just finished watching instead of about to watch. Only saw it once on VHS waaay back in the day.

 

Some neat ideas going on but it's all style and no substance. And Vaughn was horribly miscast. He looks hung over the entire film.

Haha, I saw this in theaters way back in the day and I still say, "WHERE DO YOU COME FROM?!" in the crazy dream serial killer's voice.

post #11565 of 11637

As a massive D'Onofrio fan, I can't help but kind of love The Cell. He goes quite broad with his performance there but it's never to the detriment of the movie. 

 

ETA: This just reminded me that D'Onofrio and Singh are re-united on NBC's Emerald City which starts this week.

post #11566 of 11637
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post

Ralph Brown two fer...

as Del Preston



as Danny the Drug Dealer

 

Wayne's World 2 is clearly weaker than the first, and relies too much on parodying other films for its humour, but the charm is still there. 

 

Withnail and I: deep down I still think this has a lot of offer; the wit, the characterisations, the acting, the mise en scene. The fact that the drama of the second half of the film is entirely driven by gay panic is a weight around the film's neck which I think increasing numbers of people may find hard to get past. It's of its time, and the character dilemmas are sufficiently humanised that it isn't just about "ewww, let's all be scared of the horny gay man", but the conversation has shifted enough recently that something of a conscious effort has to be made to place what is happening in context and still find humour in it.  

post #11567 of 11637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

Haha, I saw this in theaters way back in the day and I still say, "WHERE DO YOU COME FROM?!" in the crazy dream serial killer's voice.

Holy shit...

Same here.

I saw it once, in the theatre and was bored to tears.

However, that line has survived amongst my group of friends, haha.
post #11568 of 11637
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post

Wayne's World 2 is clearly weaker than the first, and relies too much on parodying other films for its humour, but the charm is still there. 

Withnail and I: deep down I still think this has a lot of offer; the wit, the characterisations, the acting, the mise en scene. The fact that the drama of the second half of the film is entirely driven by gay panic is a weight around the film's neck which I think increasing numbers of people may find hard to get past. It's of its time, and the character dilemmas are sufficiently humanised that it isn't just about "ewww, let's all be scared of the horny gay man", but the conversation has shifted enough recently that something of a conscious effort has to be made to place what is happening in context and still find humour in it.  

Withnail continues to hold up over multiple viewings, but unfortunately it's one of those films you either love or hate and if you introduce someone to it and they hate it, well that's a long two hours wasted on top of the time you spend afterwards staring into their dead eyes trying to explain why it's so good and how they're so wrong.

Also, your issue regarding the gay panic plot line is completely misplaced. It's completely irrelevant as to either Marwood or Monty's sexuality, simply that Monty was behaving predatoraly towards the resisting Marwood. If Marwood was a man resisting the advances of a fat older woman and it was presented in the exact same manner the movie would be play out looking more farcical. Similarly, if Monty was straight and Marwood was a woman it would be seen as very predatory. But if it's a gay man going after a straight man it's seen as anti-gay because Marwood resits because he's not gay. As the movie plays a gay man going after a straight man, modern social pro-gay arguments overshadow what boils down to a predatory character gunning for a non-consenting character. There's humour in there, it's uncomfortable to watch, but it's certainly not anti-gay humour. Not in the slightest.
Edited by Stale Elvis - 1/7/17 at 6:32am
post #11569 of 11637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Call Me Roy View Post


Holy shit...

Same here.

I saw it once, in the theatre and was bored to tears.

However, that line has survived amongst my group of friends, haha.

 

post #11570 of 11637
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post
 

As a massive D'Onofrio fan, I can't help but kind of love The Cell. He goes quite broad with his performance there but it's never to the detriment of the movie. 

 

D'Onofrio has nothing to be ashamed of re: The Cell. He's solid in it, and does what he can with that era's waning obsession with trying variants on Silence of the Lambs.

post #11571 of 11637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post


Withnail continues to hold up over multiple viewings, but unfortunately it's one of those films you either love or hate and if you introduce someone to it and they hate it, well that's a long two hours wasted on top of the time you spend afterwards staring into their dead eyes trying to explain why it's so good and how they're so wrong.

Also, your issue regarding the gay panic plot line is completely misplaced. It's completely irrelevant as to either Marwood or Monty's sexuality, simply that Monty was behaving predatoraly towards the resisting Marwood. If Marwood was a man resisting the advances of a fat older woman and it was presented in the exact same manner the movie would be play out looking more farcical. Similarly, if Monty was straight and Marwood was a woman it would be seen as very predatory. But if it's a gay man going after a straight man it's seen as anti-gay because Marwood resits because he's not gay. As the movie plays a gay man going after a straight man, modern social pro-gay arguments overshadow what boils down to a predatory character gunning for a non-consenting character. There's humour in there, it's uncomfortable to watch, but it's certainly not anti-gay humour. Not in the slightest.


I don't have an issue with the film, I didn't say the humour was anti-gay or the scene was about gayness as such, and I agree with you up to a point. I am just saying that, much like the cross-dressing male gaze humour in Some Like It Hot, which I adore, you have to be deliberately obtuse not to note the way the conversation on these issues has moved on and how it affects the way an individual would watch and process the film. As an aside, I even remarked to my lady wife that you could as easily have replaced Monty with a horny spinster aunt and, the slightly incremental farce (which I wouldn't overstate, much of Monty and the narrator's scenes are farcical, just in a cold and stony place rather than an eighteenth century Viennese boudoir). Hence why I said the situations are humanised to a sufficient degree that it clearly isn't about gay panic per se. 

 

I disagree, though, that the fact that it is a predatory gay man isn't intended on a superficial level to elicit a response different to gender switching the roles, and I can see why someone unfamiliar with the context, or with a more intolerant attitude towards historic attitudes towards might struggle to get past that to the humour underneath. Everything is bound up together; the association with gay men and the theatre and public schools; the clear additional emphasis that Withnail was selling his friend down the river to get buggered; the emphasis on the fact it's a "buggering" he avoided and the additional fear that came with it. I mean, would it really have played out in the same way had it been an older woman? Isn't that heightened sense of threat because it's an attempt at gay seduction in a cottage in the middle of nowhere part of the point? 

 

I'm not forming a dislike of it purely based on some precious unwillingness to embrace a particularly idiomatic representation and product of less sensitive time; I'm not forming a dislike of it at all. I'm also not misreading its intentions. The fact that Monty is gay matters to the telling of the story, though, and I believe anyone with an open-minded attitude to the progress made on the presentation of sexuality over the last thirty years will see it and need to apply themselves to look past it.

post #11572 of 11637

I don't believe in approaching art through the prism of today.  It's sometimes unavoidable, but you have to look at something older/ from another era for what it was; to appreciate you have to read its language and make an effort to get on its wavelength.

 

A FB friend the other day was going through the Connery Bonds, and kind of laughing at them. Getting to GOLDFINGER, a commenter said get ready to be inundated with so much misogyny, racism, etc. blah blah blah.  What a sad and wrong-headed mentality to have! Choosing thumbing one's nose at outdated mores, instead of rolling with the context is just another way of putting oneself above a movie. Times might have changed, but you're not better than GOLDFINGER.

post #11573 of 11637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis View Post
 

I don't believe in approaching art through the prism of today.  You have to look at something older/ from another era for what it was; to appreciate you have to read its language and make an effort to get on its wavelength.

 

A FB friend the other day was going through the Connery Bonds, and kind of laughing at them. Getting to GOLDFINGER, a commenter said get ready to be inundated with so much misogyny, racism, etc. blah blah blah.  What a sad and wrong-headed mentality to have! Choosing thumbing one's nose at outdated mores, instead of rolling with the context is just another way of putting oneself above a movie. Times might have changed, but you're not better than GOLDFINGER.

 

I agree with your first point. I think it is important to consider the context in which art is made, but that doesn't stop us from judging the viewpoints expressed by the artist. I know plenty of level-headed people who have changed their view on Bond films, to take your example, as their lives have changed. I turned off Man with a Golden Gun the other day, not just because it is shit, but also because I found the way Bond treats Maud Adams character distasteful. My perspective has altered, in a way I can justify and am happy with, and so how I view certain works of entertainment and art has changed too. I may understand that the filmmakers thought it was consistent with Bond's character to behave in the way he did, but I am absolutely entitled to look at how the behaviour is framed and find it objectionable.

 

Re Goldfinger: I find the way Bond slaps the girl's backside in the beginning, essentially rapes Pussy Galore later, and fucks her straight, also pretty distasteful. Would it stop me rewatching Goldfinger? Don't know. It might. I haven't watched it in a while. I can still analyse the film objectively yet subjectively choose not to watch it, and advise others of my viewpoint.

 

I'm not standing by the commenter on your Facebook feed, by the way, if he was as dismissive of the film as you indicate. If he'd noted the commonly held view of its general objective quality which he may not share, noted its cultural impact which he may bemoan, in each case explaining that his criticism was driven by the existence of a number of scenes where reflex sexism was presented in a positive way and he found that objectionable on a personal level, seems to me like he wouldn't have done anything wrong.

post #11574 of 11637
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post
 

As a massive D'Onofrio fan, I can't help but kind of love The Cell. He goes quite broad with his performance there but it's never to the detriment of the movie. 

 

ETA: This just reminded me that D'Onofrio and Singh are re-united on NBC's Emerald City which starts this week.

 

 

Really?! I might have to give that one a look. Was not aware that Singh is directing. I'm such a fan of The Fall that I give him a pass on things like The Cell (lovely visuals, empty story).

post #11575 of 11637
The reviews for EMERALD CITY are brutal, so be warned.
post #11576 of 11637

Nic Cage Birthday Tribute Screening:

 

post #11577 of 11637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

The reviews for EMERALD CITY are brutal, so be warned.

 

Gaaah! Really? Dammit.

post #11578 of 11637

can't sleep, so this is on...

 

post #11579 of 11637
Tonight...
post #11580 of 11637

Afternoon feature. Needed to watch a movie where folks are having a worse day than I. These blokes will do.

 

post #11581 of 11637

I have to satisfy the hopeless romantic and pie lover inside of me.

 

post #11582 of 11637

I'm about to get drunk and watch the Golden Globes.

 

Earlier Double Feature:

 

Jeremiah Johnsonposter.jpg

 

 

post #11583 of 11637
I haven't seen that show since it aired but I loved it.

I'm really hoping for HANNIBAL to continue. Brian Fuller, who created both shows, said he was going to have a reunion with Lee Pace by casting him as Buffalo Bill.
post #11584 of 11637
Now...
post #11585 of 11637
Eh.
post #11586 of 11637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis View Post
 

I'm about to get drunk and watch the Golden Globes.

 

Earlier Double Feature:

 

 

 

 

 

That's a really cool poster!

post #11587 of 11637
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

That's a really cool poster!
I thought the same thing!
post #11588 of 11637
evil_under_the_sun_a2_us1sh.jpg
post #11589 of 11637
For no apparent good reason, I'm currently engaging in a higher form of masochism featuring a double oscar winner

post #11590 of 11637

Just finished SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS.  Now more Glickenhaus:

 

Shakedown_film.jpg

post #11591 of 11637

Now Playing:

 

Fear 

 

post #11592 of 11637

Edited by Call Me Roy - 1/10/17 at 5:51pm
post #11593 of 11637
post #11594 of 11637


Heard variable things about this, but willing to give it a go.
post #11595 of 11637
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post



Heard variable things about this, but willing to give it a go.

A good one. Seen it once.. Went places quite unexpected. Enjoy.
post #11596 of 11637
Heard good things...
post #11597 of 11637

Late Show:

 

The Friends of Eddie Coyle.jpg

post #11598 of 11637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Call Me Roy View Post

A good one. Seen it once.. Went places quite unexpected. Enjoy.

I enjoyed it. Some of the character choices seemed a bit contrived, but it's clearly a narrative less interested in internal logic than being in service of an overarching theme.

The theme was also a bit muddled. I assumed there would be parallels drawn between Cooper and Gosling in terms of the validity of the choices they made but it seems as if there wasn't much more than irony in play: Gosling makes what appears to be an ethically sound but practically stupid decision and it ends badly, whilst Cooper makes a series of ethically questionable decisions with practical benefits and it ends well. It sort of plays with the concept of the sins of the fathers, but Cooper's kid doesn't really pay. Maybe he was just trying to make a simple point that we are all our fathers' sons, even to the extent of the way the world treats us (because the world is an aggregate of choices made by all fathers' sons). It was somewhat hard to tell.

The acting was good, though, and it was well shot. He landed a couple of good blows: the scene of DeHaan cycling down the same road his father rode his motorcycle, shot the same way, was particularly emotionally resonant even if quite what he was trying to say with it was murky.
post #11599 of 11637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Call Me Roy View Post

Saw this a few months ago.  A good doc.  Very sad and a good mystery to boot.

post #11600 of 11637

Tonite:

 

Late Show:

 

(following the game)

 

 

 

 

Edited by Fat Elvis - 1/12/17 at 9:06am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › I'm about to watch...