Random Movie Thoughts Thread

[Doctor Cringelord]

The more I learn about Scott, the less I respect him. He's made some great art, but he's still kind of an egotistical piece of shit.

It's also become relevant through watching Prometheus and Covenant that his overall understanding of that universe (despite his playing an important role in bringing it to life) is just rubbish.

Like, in Covenant, are they actually trying to imply that David is responsible for the creation of the Xenomorphs, or did he just make something very similar to the existing species? Because what they found on the derelict spacecraft in the original had to have been there far longer than a few decades, like try several thousand years. Yet Covenant sort of implies David is responsible. I mean, maybe he fell into a time warp at some point after covenant and that might explain how "his" creation had already been sitting in a derelict ship on LV426 for a long enough time for the space jockey to look like a fossil.


Anyway, I actually liked the universe when there was more mystery and less explanation for the origins.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

On a totally unrelated note, I find the idea that Ferris Bueller could have been Cameron’s fever induced version of a Tyler Durden (Fight Club) theory completely fascinating.

That could explain how he was able to do all of that crap in the span of a few hours.

Regarding the alien stuff, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I know I'll always be in the minority of people who defend Alien 3, and I'm OK with that.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

If you watch the end fight scene between Walken and Moore in A View to a Kill, the different acting styles become apparent in the way they swing the axe. Moore swings it like a broadsword (he played Ivanhoe at one point), Walken swings it like a madman

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Dalton

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I find the ghoulies (from the film of the same name) more loveable than terrifying or grotesque. I like that the toilet one has enough modesty to wear a striped shirt and suspenders, for instance. Also, I'm pretty sure these puppets were seen in Merlin's Shop of Mystical Wonders, although the footage in question may to be from a different Charles Band film.

Yeah, I know I really shouldn't be trying so hard to get everyone to talk about Ghoulies (or any Charles Band film for that matter).

 

[Totenkindly]

Favorite movies with Bears

• The Edge
• The Revenant
• The Bear
• Brave [mostly for Mor'du]
• The Jungle Book
• 12 Monkeys

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I find the ghoulies (from the film of the same name) more loveable than terrifying or grotesque. I like that the toilet one has enough modesty to wear a striped shirt and suspenders, for instance. Also, I'm pretty sure these puppets were seen in Merlin's Shop of Mystical Wonders, although the footage in question may to be from a different Charles Band film.

Yeah, I know I really shouldn't be trying so hard to get everyone to talk about Ghoulies (or any Charles Band film for that matter).

At least they're not hobgoblins.

speaking of Charles Band films, flesh is a nice color for a house.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Oh yes. I totally just said Big Trouble in Little China is as good as The Thing. Fight me.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Hell, I know a lot of people think The Fog is a lesser Carpenter movie, but I put it in my favorites of his. It ranks high for the atmosphere and music score alone. I feel lie it's almost a spiritual sequel to Halloween, what with the similar atmosphere and music. Plus, Tom Atkins. That is all.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

\
I don't think I've ever seen Ghoulies, although I remember the title.

Was it a ripoff of Gremlins?

Essentially, although they were basically tiny demons. I like the campiness of it all.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

At least they're not hobgoblins.

speaking of Charles Band films, flesh is a nice color for a house.

The Day Time Ended?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

The Day Time Ended?

YouTube

 

[Totenkindly]

I can see how a movie reviewer who had to sit in a theatre all day going from crappy film to crappy film coughcoughROGEREBERTcoughcough might miss a lot of the details and subtexts that made The Thing so great, thus leading them to write it off as schlock.

It is definitely a different experience.

I like to remind people in terms of differences between the audience and critic scores on Rotten Tomatoes (for example) -- critics don't get to choose what they see, they are forced sometimes to watch films they have no interest in genre or otherwise, and/or films they are not going to enjoy. Meanwhile, the audience is self-selecting -- these are all people who paid for a ticket and WANTED to see that film, so there's a good shot they will either like it OR convince themselves they liked it, to justify the cost (looking for the good in the film).

So I think the self-selection of audience explains films where critics bomb it but the audience loves it. OTOH, where critics like it but audiences don't, typically it's because the film did not meet the expectations of the audience even if the film is decent in its own right. (You see this with horror films a lot that don't depend on jump scares but slow subtle burns.)

I think Ebert was a pretty good critic and I find value in his reviews -- and I love how he would champion films he cared about and even just film in general, to get more audience to see them -- but overall I did find more value in The Thing than he did and he was probably watching a ton of films a week and then having to write about them all.

It might be Carpenter's best work. I'd rank it above Halloween, and at least on a par with They Live, Big Trouble in Little China, and Prince of Darkness.

I really wish Prince of Darkness wasn't so cheesy at times, it could have REALLY kicked into something awesome if it was treated more seriously... but I still love it anyway. I didn't enjoy They Live nearly as much.

Coppola can raise the bar, as he did with Godfather II. Then proceed to lower the bar to the ground as he did with Godfather III.

My kid is asking me if I've seen The Virgin Suicides. I had to tell him I had not, but it at least proved Sofia Coppola could contribute SOMETHING to the film business because it sure wasn't as an actress. Behind the camera, though...

 

[Totenkindly]

The more I learn about Scott, the less I respect him. He's made some great art, but he's still kind of an egotistical piece of shit.

It's also become relevant through watching Prometheus and Covenant that his overall understanding of that universe (despite his playing an important role in bringing it to life) is just rubbish.

Like, in Covenant, are they actually trying to imply that David is responsible for the creation of the Xenomorphs, or did he just make something very similar to the existing species? Because what they found on the derelict spacecraft in the original had to have been there far longer than a few decades, like try several thousand years. Yet Covenant sort of implies David is responsible. I mean, maybe he fell into a time warp at some point after covenant and that might explain how "his" creation had already been sitting in a derelict ship on LV426 for a long enough time for the space jockey to look like a fossil.


Anyway, I actually liked the universe when there was more mystery and less explanation for the origins.

This was a case where less was more.

Yes, Covenant insinuated that David (a creation himself of human beings) evolved the xenomorph, specifically the egg transfer mechanism since on the planet they had evolved to spring from spores/bacteria residing on spores.

It was yet another "shitty plot development/turn in the Alien franchise" because Prometheus set up one story with Elizabeth Shaw as the primary character, and Covenant was supposed to further explore her journey after great loss and suffering (but resilience and grace) to the planet of the Architects, to find out why they made people and reconcile her pain regarding the loss of her own father at a young age + her boyfriend/husband in Prometheus.

Oh. No. Not at all. Because the studios and/or Scott just wanted to repeat the same crap pattern from the other films? So instead we get another lead character and evolving plot cut short, as they become victimized and cannibalized into the jump scare / action horror flick that someone decided would make more money.

Yeah, it's hard to NOT fault Scott in some way, because if he understand the stories he was telling and the worlds he was working in, he'd do something else.




Again, it is really too bad because there was some really fascinating stuff.

- Great opening shot with Weyland and David and their interactions.

- I liked the de-evolution of the androids (because humans felt they had become too human-like and thus terrifying, so Walter has changed a bit).

- I liked the ghastly beauty of the creature before David started messing with their genetics -- that scene where it stands in front of him in the room with the waterfall is just amazing, you're actually seeing a LOT of the creature and it's still terrifying and lovely at once, which is exactly the point made in the film.

- There's this great underlying tension in the crew because the captain is dead, so the devout religious guy has to take over. He's more of a zealot than his wife, who tries to mediate his expectations and how he engages the crew. But they really could have followed through with exploring that interplay of how to mesh these different viewpoints into a community.

- The scene in the sickbay on the drop ship is just freaking crazy. it's the highlight of the film in terms of shock and horror. love it. And the crew doesn't know how to deal, it's all just falling apart at the seams.

- The film itself is visually beautiful -- ghastly, wonderful, eerie, unsettling, lovely to look at.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It is definitely a different experience.

I like to remind people in terms of differences between the audience and critic scores on Rotten Tomatoes (for example) -- critics don't get to choose what they see, they are forced sometimes to watch films they have no interest in genre or otherwise, and/or films they are not going to enjoy. Meanwhile, the audience is self-selecting -- these are all people who paid for a ticket and WANTED to see that film, so there's a good shot they will either like it OR convince themselves they liked it, to justify the cost (looking for the good in the film).

So I think the self-selection of audience explains films where critics bomb it but the audience loves it. OTOH, where critics like it but audiences don't, typically it's because the film did not meet the expectations of the audience even if the film is decent in its own right. (You see this with horror films a lot that don't depend on jump scares but slow subtle burns.)

I think Ebert was a pretty good critic and I find value in his reviews -- and I love how he would champion films he cared about and even just film in general, to get more audience to see them -- but overall I did find more value in The Thing than he did and he was probably watching a ton of films a week and then having to write about them all.



I really wish Prince of Darkness wasn't so cheesy at times, it could have REALLY kicked into something awesome if it was treated more seriously... but I still love it anyway. I didn't enjoy They Live nearly as much.



My kid is asking me if I've seen The Virgin Suicides. I had to tell him I had not, but it at least proved Sofia Coppola could contribute SOMETHING to the film business because it sure wasn't as an actress. Behind the camera, though...

Sofia is quite beautiful but her acting left a lot to be desired. Great director though

 

[Totenkindly]

I always really wanted Parker and Lambert to make it out with Ripley. Every time I watch, a small part of me still thinks "they might make it."

Every time I skim past this post, I keep reading it as "I always really wanted Parker and Lambert to make out with Ripley..."



What kind of movie are we trying to make here???

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Every time I skim past this post, I keep reading it as "I always really wanted Parker and Lambert to make out with Ripley..."



What kind of movie are we trying to make here???

oh myyy.

Though I did get a vibe that Ripley and Dallas may have had something going on. Apparently that was in the script but didn't make it into the film.

And in one of the mess hall scenes, it's kind of hard to hear but you can hear Parker making sexual innuendos that seem directed at Lambert.

I mean, I'm sure a tight knit co-ed crew on a long range freight run...yeah there's gonna be some fooling around and it probably gets a little incestuous.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Again, it is really too bad because there was some really fascinating stuff.

- Great opening shot with Weyland and David and their interactions.

- I liked the de-evolution of the androids (because humans felt they had become too human-like and thus terrifying, so Walter has changed a bit).

- I liked the ghastly beauty of the creature before David started messing with their genetics -- that scene where it stands in front of him in the room with the waterfall is just amazing, you're actually seeing a LOT of the creature and it's still terrifying and lovely at once, which is exactly the point made in the film.

- There's this great underlying tension in the crew because the captain is dead, so the devout religious guy has to take over. He's more of a zealot than his wife, who tries to mediate his expectations and how he engages the crew. But they really could have followed through with exploring that interplay of how to mesh these different viewpoints into a community.

- The scene in the sickbay on the drop ship is just freaking crazy. it's the highlight of the film in terms of shock and horror. love it. And the crew doesn't know how to deal, it's all just falling apart at the seams.

- The film itself is visually beautiful -- ghastly, wonderful, eerie, unsettling, lovely to look at.

Yeah. I actually enjoyed Covenant for about two-thirds, where it feels more like a true sequel to Prometheus. Then the 3rd act just feels like fan service they threw in to make people happy, and yet I found that part the least memorable and most predictable. I also hated the design of the xenomorph in Covenant, I thought they strayed too far from the biomechanical look and it looked too "animalistic" or fleshy. I thought it looked worse than the '79 version. Perhaps the xenomorph is best seen only in brief glimpses, like in the original. The neomorph on the other hand was quite cool and a little terrifying. I do wish we could have seen it come face to face with the xeno though.

Fassbender of course was the best part of the film.

On the topic of the android de-evolution, I don't want to stray too far from movie talk, but the game Alien Isolation sort of touched on that a bit. WY's competitor Seegson was said to have purposefully made their synthetics very artificial looking and a bit rudimentary in terms of reasoning and intellect, due to consumers being too freaked by the more human looking and acting WY synthetic models.

 

[Population: 1]

That could explain how he was able to do all of that crap in the span of a few hours.

Regarding the alien stuff, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I know I'll always be in the minority of people who defend Alien 3, and I'm OK with that.

I‘m in complete agreement about disagreeing. I enjoy debating about the nerdy things in life.

Also I didn’t find Alien Resurrection to be all that bad.

 

[Population: 1]

So I started watching Face/Off again last night and I always crack up when they are doing the face swap scene -- the "science' is SOOOOOOOO god-awful. And they are freaking cutting people's HAIR on the surgery table, after their entire frontal face has been reduced to a sticky bloody surface. And the face just lifts off when they cut around it, as one big unit -- they don't even show them having to horizontally slice it off from the underlying skin.

Obviously that film is all about heart, not about head, and it's also about excess. So they can get away with the campiness of it. I think Archer slowly losing sense of himself fits with Cage's scenery chewing at moments, so it all fits.

Funny bit is that the guy playing Pollux (alessandro nivola) is still doing films, this was the first thing I saw him in and then I've occasionally seen him -- most prominently in a recent film called Disobedience, where a woman goes back to England and hooks up with her ex-lover who has since married into Jewish Orthodoxy (that's his character, and they were all friends when children). It was a meaty role and he did a really great job with it, very natural and believable and lived in.

Also, this might have been one of my first encounters with Tommy Flanagan, who was also in Braveheart and some other films and TV shows, so he's a widely recognized face even if people don't know his name. The first few times, I thought his face scarring was part of his role, but when it showed up in every film, I went researching and found out that he almost died in an assault when younger and this was a leftover of that.

Finally: That's freaking Thomas Jane under that curly mop top as Burke Hicks -- go figure!!!



I think I ran across that last year.

I'm not inclined to go that way because there's a big difference in camera focus -- I think we always see Durden through the eyes / memory of the Narrator, so it's subjectively anchored in a way that the reveal works.

In Ferris Bueller, Ferris is the focal point of the film typically (he anchors it, with Cameron not even being around or established from the start), until later with Cameron occasionally taking center of scenes including the three main characters. In any case, the way it is SHOT, it's far more likely Cameron was a figment of Ferris' imagination, but of course narratively that wouldn't make any sense.

All that being said though -- it was intriguing as hell and I spent some time thinking through it all seeing if I could reconcile it. Because it's true that Cameron was pretty repressed, and Ferris was so over the top -- so if the film had been shot differently, it could have been set up that way as a believable fantasy of Cameron's.




I don't think I've ever seen Ghoulies, although I remember the title.

Was it a ripoff of Gremlins?



I love it when stuff like that gets slipped in but not highlighted, so it's up to the observer to notice the implications.

I agree that I don’t believe FBDO was intended to be a film about an awkward guy imaging a cooler version of himself but the theory is definitely an interesting one to entertain.

Damn it I just realized I should have just multiquoted people. Oh well, some OCD types will just have to deal. 😃