Random Movie Thoughts Thread

[Totenkindly]

You better not be throwing shade on the Langoliers. Bronson Pinochot's understated performance is a treat, and Kate Maberly is not grating at all. It's also amazing how well the CG holds up, considering this was a tv production from the 90s.

Also, I feel like [MENTION=5159]Lexicon[/MENTION] should be paged for this discussion.

Having not sat through that, uh, experience, I can say I really love "The Langoliers" novella -- it's pretty great, and now that you mention it, I want to read it again -- but I'm gonna protect my heart here, ya know...?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Having not sat through that, uh, experience, I can say I really love "The Langoliers" novella -- it's pretty great, and now that you mention it, I want to read it again -- but I'm gonna protect my heart here, ya know...?

Just assume the opposite of everything I said was true.

If you dare, the whole thing is here:

 

[Totenkindly]

...I should have figured it out at "understated," rofl.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Yaphet Kotto, Bond Villain and ‘Alien’ Star, Dies at 81

damn

he was my favorite character in Alien. I was just wondering the other day, about an alternate Alien film series if Parker had been the sole survivor and gone on to return in Aliens and Alien 3.

 

[Totenkindly]

damn

he was my favorite character in Alien. I was just wondering the other day, about an alternate Alien film series if Parker had been the sole survivor and gone on to return in Aliens and Alien 3.

Kotto was definitely a very distinctive actor. I remember him from when I was very young and I always remembered him.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Kotto was definitely a very distinctive actor. I remember him from when I was very young and I always remembered him.

He was pretty good in Live and Let Die. It's kind of a middling Bond movie for me but he's a highlight in it. Even if some of the racial stuff in that film is dated (though no where near as cringy as the novel), he still comes across as erudite and cunning in that movie. I think it was a big deal for African Americans back then, because while actors like Poitier had already shown they could be intelligent good guys in films, I don't think many big budget films had portrayed them as intelligent villains. Maybe some early blaxploitation films were exceptions, but to see it in a mainstream action blockbuster in 1973 was huge. I think most villainous blacks up to that point had been shown as mindless brutes, the trope established in Birth of a Nation.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

damn

he was my favorite character in Alien. I was just wondering the other day, about an alternate Alien film series if Parker had been the sole survivor and gone on to return in Aliens and Alien 3.

I don't know if he was my favorite, but I liked him.

 

[Totenkindly]

He was pretty good in Live and Let Die. It's kind of a middling Bond movie for me but he's a highlight in it. Even if some of the racial stuff in that film is dated (though no where near as cringy as the novel), he still comes across as erudite and cunning in that movie. I think it was a big deal for African Americans back then, because while actors like Poitier had already shown they could be intelligent good guys in films, I don't think many big budget films had portrayed them as intelligent villains. Maybe some early blaxploitation films were exceptions, but to see it in a mainstream action blockbuster in 1973 was huge. I think most villainous blacks up to that point had been shown as mindless brutes, the trope established in Birth of a Nation.

That seems pretty fair to say.

I also think "Live & Let Die" was likely my first experience with him in media. I was young, I just remember him being "imposing" (in a relevant way to the film)... so that is a positive memory.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Live and Let Die come to think of it is a lot like Goldeneye. Not really plotwise, but I mean in the way they both sort of reenergized the franchise after weaker films (although I do really like License to Kill, but most consider it one of the weakest in the series). Neither are necessarily top tier Bond films but they were both fresh takes and acted like soft reboots, also both heralded in actors who emphasized humor and charisma over previosu actors that had given "grittier" takes on the character--Moore is to Connery as Brosnan is to Dalton. And in general there's this alternating pattern with Bond actors where the more serious ones were followed by the campier ones, then back to more serious (if you don't count Lazenby, I'm not really sure how he fits into that pattern)

 

[Lexicon]

King disowned it because the heart of his written novel was about Jack and Danny, but Kubric went off on his own artistic vision. The TV adaptation years later with Steven Weber as Jack was emotionally more what King had hoped for, although I thought it might have been too sentimental. (I haven't seen it for some time.) The Mike Flanagan "Dr Sleep Expanded Cut" actually does a nice job in bridging King's and Kubrick's works even if it deviates a bit from the written prose of King's "Doctor Sleep".

I think my point was though that King has sensibilities that either work well on the page OR he can get away with them due to the nature of the medium, but those same things typically don't scan one-to-one well to the screen, and King himself seems to become a little boy when gleefully chortling about what is appearing on screen. Like, the Creepshow stuff? Eh. ANd there have been so many BAD King adaptations. It's more a matter of counting which 5-10 actually are worth watching, versus the 30-40 out there. I would say both Pet Semetary adaptations were pretty terrible (in terms of capturing the depth of the horror of loss, OR the emotional impact of the book); the original version I watched a year or two ago and found horribly boring at best, moreso than I remembered, whereas the new one actually tried to do something new and went off the rails by the end. Totally unsatisfying as an adaptation, but I appreciated how they just went off the rails with it rofl. It was audacious.

The bolded, 100%. I don’t think any of his stories will ever perfectly translate from page to screen. So much of his novels’ content best left to the film reel in my mind’s eye, honestly.

I do love the bad adaptations for comedic value, except the IT remake. That one just makes me irrationally mad.

I’ve not seen the Doctor Sleep film, but I really enjoyed the novel. I don’t expect much from it. I suppose with the track record of adaptations, at least I can rest easy that I can’t get disappointed at this point.


I’ve gotta say, the original Creepshow film holds a very special place in my heart (I watched it every summer at my grandparents’ when I was WAY too young). It’s supposed to be camp, though. None of the others are. I love the collaboration between King & Romero. Even the SFX guy from all the best zombie movies worked on it (name escapes me at the moment).

You better not be throwing shade on the Langoliers. Bronson Pinochot's understated performance is a treat, and Kate Maberly is not grating at all. It's also amazing how well the CG holds up, considering this was a tv production from the 90s.

Also, I feel like [MENTION=5159]Lexicon[/MENTION] should be paged for this discussion.

Hahahah that movie is a damn masterpiece!

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I like how Parker was the only character other than Ripley who seemed to display any voice of reason.

He seemed to recognize the danger pretty early on because he just wanted to go home and party

But Dallas insisted they just listen to THE MAN

 

[Totenkindly]

Welllll... can you fault him? He was the guy put in charge by the company.

 

[Jaguar]

From Julian in American Gigolo to a place far, far away. Quite the range.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Welllll... can you fault him? He was the guy put in charge by the company.

Dallas was really too passive. He let too many red flags go. He ceded too much authority to Ash. As the captain, he could’ve checked the secret company directive at any time, yet never bothered

Dallas is the ultimate company man

 

[Totenkindly]

Dallas was really too passive. He let too many red flags go. He ceded too much authority to Ash. As the captain, he could’ve checked the secret company directive at any time, yet never bothered

Dallas is the ultimate company man

Lol.

Yeah, when I rewatched Alien a few months ago it was fun to reassess the characters.

I like Dallas as a person. He wasn't necessarily the best captain.

1. Too passive as a captain.
2. Too accepting of distant orders, when tactical dangers suggested he needed to change the rules.
3. Didn't delegate enough... and I have to think primarily of him going into the vents himself. Sure, it was a "Hey, I won't put people in danger if I'm not willing myself" moment, but at the same time, it wasn't really the best use of the crew/resources.

Dallas did not really have a good oversight of the crew, it always felt a bit out of his control. Parker and Brett just did whatever they wanted; Lambert was a train wreck waiting to happen. The reason Ripley threw her weight around so much was because Dallas was not doing it, there was a power void, and someone had to stabilize the environment.

But he was a nice guy, a well-meaning guy, and was doing his best.



I always view Danny Boyle's "Sunshine" (writing by Garland) as a riff on the Alien crew, it's the same size, same situation where the crew has to respond to life-threatening hazards in real time, and you get the same kinds of power struggles and character dynamics.

Kenada (the captain) is similar to Dallas, though I think a bit better. You see him responding to new data and stabilizing the crew conflicts, remaining stable himself. He also tries to make sensible decisions based on data rather than emotions, and he is open to opinions. I'm still not sure I agree with him going out on the deck to fix the damaged panels because again anyone can do that job and he would have been more effective keeping the crew functional (since it all breaks down after). But in general, a better captain. (Compare that then to Harvey who DOES play the rank card, saying that he has to be Captain so he can't afford to die... but it comes off as sheer cowardice.)

Anyway maybe I will save a more thorough analysis for the Garland thread.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Dallas was really too passive. He let too many red flags go. He ceded too much authority to Ash. As the captain, he could’ve checked the secret company directive at any time, yet never bothered

Dallas is the ultimate company man

I'm with [MENTION=7]Totenkindly[/MENTION] that I like Dallas at a person. He actually reminds me of a supervisor I had, and even looks like him. It was a really shit job, but he seemed like a good guy.

Dallas ultimately should have listened to Ripley, though. I'm with you there.

He's also part of why I prefer Scott's film to Cameron's film. I like the nuance there as opposed to the sleaziness of Burke. Cameron likes to populate his movies with antagonists that seem a little ham-fisted to me at times.

Although, in retrospect, ham-fisted antagonists like Burke and Billy Zane from Titanic really do seem to exist.

 

[Totenkindly]

He's also part of why I prefer Scott's film to Cameron's film. I like the nuance there as opposed to the sleaziness of Burke. Cameron likes to populate his movies with antagonists that seem a little ham-fisted to me at times.

Yeah -- recall Cameron's dude from "Avatar," the corporate guy Selfridge that Giovanni Ribisi played (yeesh, what a waste of a great character actor)... he's cheesy and hard to take seriously. Stephen Lang (Quaritch) is by far the best villain of that film.

I prefer Burke over Hockley. Hockley is always a joke. Burke actually is enigmatic until about the middle of the film, and then at that point he becomes transparent and ham-fisted. Until then, he might have been what he seemed to be... we get a really great contrast against Bishop, who Ripley suspects simply because he is an android, and who definitely has that android detachment... but ends up being pretty heroic and supportive.

I am having trouble thinking of a cheese character in T2, aside from John's stepdad... but Xander Berkeley actually makes him feel real, even if a bit of a loser.

The Abyss really did not have a cheese character either.

Although, in retrospect, ham-fisted antagonists like Burke and Billy Zane from Titanic really do seem to exist.

Well, yeah, unfortunately -- and often in Cameron movies.

But the point of commonality is that they seem to represent the establishment / corporate interests. Maybe Cameron has a chip on his shoulder?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I'm with [MENTION=7]Totenkindly[/MENTION] that I like Dallas at a person. He actually reminds me of a supervisor I had, and even looks like him. It was a really shit job, but he seemed like a good guy.

Dallas ultimately should have listened to Ripley, though. I'm with you there.

He's also part of why I prefer Scott's film to Cameron's film. I like the nuance there as opposed to the sleaziness of Burke. Cameron likes to populate his movies with antagonists that seem a little ham-fisted to me at times.

Although, in retrospect, ham-fisted antagonists like Burke and Billy Zane from Titanic really do seem to exist.

I'm with you both that he was fine as a person and it is certainly honorable how he put Kane's wellbeing ahead of protocol, and put his own butt on the line in the shaft scene, but both terrible decisions from a management perspective.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I skipped back to the future the other day and just watched the sequels, because I’ve seen the original so much. It’s one of those rare perfect trilogies. I used to be pretty lukewarm on part III, but now I think it’s the better sequel (the first film is still the best in the trilogy overall).

I like how it’s more Doc’s story in part III, with Marty playing sidekick. I mean he always was a sidekick archetype who just happened to be thrust into the thick of things in the first 2 films. I also like the subtle self references, like when Marty says “great Scot” and Doc replies “this is heavy”. And to see Doc playing the irrational lovesick fool with Marty trying to act as the logical voice of reason is also a nice reversal.

Hill Valley is an interesting setting, I always assumed it must be in California or the Midwest maybe, but then in III it seems it’s in Utah? Or maybe southern Idaho?

I also wondered how much of the changes to the timeline must have butterflied out from Hill Valley in 1885 and 1955 and affected the rest of the world. We see the setting of Hill Valley as a very self contained little cinematic universe, but it’s fun to speculate on its relationship with the larger world. Like, Biff would have likely influenced a lot of divergence beyond hill valley in the alternate nightmare 1985 from part II

 

[Totenkindly]

I skipped back to the future the other day and just watched the sequels, because I’ve seen the original so much. It’s one of those rare perfect trilogies. I used to be pretty lukewarm on part III, but now I think it’s the better sequel (the first film is still the best in the trilogy overall).

I like how it’s more Doc’s story in part III, with Marty playing sidekick. I mean he always was a sidekick archetype who just happened to be thrust into the thick of things in the first 2 films. I also like the subtle self references, like when Marty says “great Scot” and Doc replies “this is heavy”. And to see Doc playing the irrational lovesick fool with Marty trying to act as the logical voice of reason is also a nice reversal.

Yeah, on repeated viewings it became clear that Part III was actually a smarter movie than it might have seemed on first viewing, in the ways that it spun / contrasted purposefully with elements of the first two. And the Doc/Clara story is really sweet. I think some of the seriousness of the setting also threw people -- like, Marty almost getting literally killed (and brutally) by that version of Biff. But again, another purposeful juxtaposition, and I think they had to get across that the threat was real.

Strickland gets a little more fleshing-out here. You see how he is actually in long line of that "type" of individual, a product of his ancestors and serving a useful role even in modern times he might seem a bit over the top and not as useful.

I still crack up every time the ZZ Top drummer spins his snare.



I think my only issues with the whole thing was that Part II tries to be smarter than it is sometimes and gets a little convoluted (especially when revisiting the first film), and the whole "Yellow" thing kind of came out of left field as a contrivance of the plot. The Flea subplot is kind of crammed into the second two films. I also never liked the recast of Elisabeth Shue as Jennifer; I really like Shue in some films (Leaving Las Vegas, The Boys TV series, etc.) but she just is kind of Meh here. Not that the films spent much time on her.

But the Biff future is pretty chilling even on rewatch and I guess actually does match with the Western version of Biff pretty well, less of a joke and more deadly.