Random Movie Thoughts Thread

[Totenkindly]

They're cheesy at times but I also like how earnest they are and how much they wears their heart on his sleeve, so to speak. There is something very pure about them that I love; I don't think we're capable of making something like that anymore;. It would just be seen as too old-fashioned or not worldly enough or something like that. Chances are it ran the risk of being seen that way 1978. I'm not commenting on Snyder's Man of Steel because I haven't seen it, but my intuition tells me that it's probably something different than this.

Basically, Cavill has a sweetness about him that is reminiscent of Reeves (I think Cavill's portrayal can fit within either type of film, it's not him that the arguments revolve around); but the direction of the writing is edgier and darker and more reminiscent of the world a few decades later. This is also embodied in character of Zod, as expressed differently in either film. Stamp's version fits more with the camp/simplicity of early 80's version -- "I'm Zod, I'm God [that can't be much of a coincidence], of course I should be in charge and I can't fathom why anyone wouldn't just bow down and worship me, although I'm not even clear on what being in charge means" -- versus MoS, where Zod was genetically engineered as a warrior to defend the ideals of Krypton to his last breath and ends up planning to destroy (not rule) Earth in his plans to bring Krypton back, he's more of a dedicated zealot (and I would argue the movie at least makes his basic aims and dedication sympathetic, it's just the end result and his method that is horrible). It's also viewing the United States after 9/11 and a fruitless war in Afghanistan (there's a mistrust of outsiders and a kind of weary cynicism) that Clark is fighting uphill against.

Basically they are films driven by different cultural sensibilities stemming from the times.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think they’re interesting as they came out in the late 70s when national morale was pretty low.

I think it's probably even lower now. But I don't know how the modern superhero film relates to the OG. More humor but less heart, I think.

I've watched many of those pre-blockbuster movies that things like Superman (among other things) . I liked a lot of them but most of them do end on downer notes with the protagonist dying or something like that. I can see why people would get tired of that and it's hard for me to fault people for it, despite all the criticisn of what the blockbuster has wrought.

 

[Totenkindly]

I kinda take everything on a case to case basis (as far as superhero films go) in terms of tone and outcome.

I'll be honest, I can't relate much to the "hero saves cat from tree and the world is well" approach. I even cannot really relate to "in the end, everything works out." It doesn't mean I can't sometimes appreciate that angle depending on how it is done, but it doesn't gel with my own life experience and how things resolve.

I grew up bullied, in a rural area where I didn't really fit in, and my father was an alcoholic who gaslit, blamed others, and was disengaged; and the rest of my family just isolated themselves to survive, as did I. Bad things happened to good people. Even when you did everything right or had good motives, there was still a distinct probability everything could sour for you. Life was often a series of incidents where you never got what you wanted. And there were no heroes out there who would come and save you when you were in trouble; if you did not take care of yourself, then your fate was up in the air. Everyone was focused on their own shit and not really apt to worry about other people's. So what if you believe in God or were a "good person"? Your spouse might cheat on you and leave you, your kids might grow up to hate you, you could get cancer and die like everyone else, etc. (Man, I get really steamed when people say "God healed them" when so many other professed believers in a god just die in pain; kinda like that old rubric where the winning team gives their victory to divine preference, when both sides were praying for a win. But I digress.)

So I didn't care less about golden age DC comics, I cared a lot more about the 70 and 80's X-Men where basically life was tough, often people vilified or ignored you for no good reason, and maybe you felt set apart from others in your interest or abilities, but you had to decide how you were going to apply yourself (altruistic or selfishly?) regardless of whether the world even gave you anything back. I just can't relate to happy Superman comics and films. I guess they are amusing but at best they felt like pure entertainment and unconnected to reality. I don't find them very inspiring.

What I find inspiring is people who deal with honest problems, sometimes really terrible problems, and even when their lives are shit, they make decisions to better others and stick together with the people they love. Maybe they are even doomed, but they still choose to do the right thing knowing full well what it will cost them. I get a lot more out of "The Incredibles" (which does end pretty well!) as an example but I can also identify with darker films where the protagonist pays with everything they have, and what matters is that they tried, not whether or not they succeeded. Give me Ofelia's heroism from "Pan's Labyrinth" any day (not a superhero but the same level of courage), that is a movie that leaves me sobbing; but boy is it also dark... which contrasts with the brightness of the end.

 

[The Cat]

I kinda take everything on a case to case basis (as far as superhero films go) in terms of tone and outcome.

I'll be honest, I can't relate much to the "hero saves cat from tree and the world is well" approach. I even cannot really relate to "in the end, everything works out." It doesn't mean I can't sometimes appreciate that angle depending on how it is done, but it doesn't gel with my own life experience and how things resolve.

I grew up bullied, in a rural area where I didn't really fit in, and my father was an alcoholic who gaslit, blamed others, and was disengaged; and the rest of my family just isolated themselves to survive, as did I. Bad things happened to good people. Even when you did everything right or had good motives, there was still a distinct probability everything could sour for you. Life was often a series of incidents where you never got what you wanted. And there were no heroes out there who would come and save you when you were in trouble; if you did not take care of yourself, then your fate was up in the air. Everyone was focused on their own shit and not really apt to worry about other people's. So what if you believe in God or were a "good person"? Your spouse might cheat on you and leave you, your kids might grow up to hate you, you could get cancer and die like everyone else, etc. (Man, I get really steamed when people say "God healed them" when so many other professed believers in a god just die in pain; kinda like that old rubric where the winning team gives their victory to divine preference, when both sides were praying for a win. But I digress.)

So I didn't care less about golden age DC comics, I cared a lot more about the 70 and 80's X-Men where basically life was tough, often people vilified or ignored you for no good reason, and maybe you felt set apart from others in your interest or abilities, but you had to decide how you were going to apply yourself (altruistic or selfishly?) regardless of whether the world even gave you anything back. I just can't relate to happy Superman comics and films. I guess they are amusing but at best they felt like pure entertainment and unconnected to reality. I don't find them very inspiring.

What I find inspiring is people who deal with honest problems, sometimes really terrible problems, and even when their lives are shit, they make decisions to better others and stick together with the people they love. Maybe they are even doomed, but they still choose to do the right thing knowing full well what it will cost them. I get a lot more out of "The Incredibles" (which does end pretty well!) as an example but I can also identify with darker films where the protagonist pays with everything they have, and what matters is that they tried, not whether or not they succeeded. Give me Ofelia's heroism from "Pan's Labyrinth" any day (not a superhero but the same level of courage), that is a movie that leaves me sobbing; but boy it also dark.

This is why John Constantine resonates with me. Also The Watchmen. I was really into Swamp thing when I was a kid.

~*~

This next part is only peripherally related to the above, but:
Im not going to see anymore theater spidermen until we get a trilogy for the man spider. Im sick of seeing geeky teenagers get bitten by radio active spiders. I want to see young adults get six arms as they gradually turn into a spider monster. There's tons of cool characters and good marvel guys to bring into help Peter Parker while he's goldbluming into a spider monster.

Also Im pretty sure Eddie Brock and Venom might be the most likeable leads in a romantic comedy, and I want more marvel stuff in that vein.
Would anyone else have rather had Michael Keaton return to Bruce Wayne in a Batman Beyond movie? I cant help but feel like that was a missed opportunity for WB, one I have to imagine stings all the worse because ezra miller seems like a challenging crazy person to work with. But yeah Batman Beyond movie with Michael Keaton as Bruce, anyone have anyone they'd like to see play Terry?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I kinda take everything on a case to case basis (as far as superhero films go) in terms of tone and outcome.

I'll be honest, I can't relate much to the "hero saves cat from tree and the world is well" approach. I even cannot really relate to "in the end, everything works out." It doesn't mean I can't sometimes appreciate that angle depending on how it is done, but it doesn't gel with my own life experience and how things resolve.

I grew up bullied, in a rural area where I didn't really fit in, and my father was an alcoholic who gaslit, blamed others, and was disengaged; and the rest of my family just isolated themselves to survive, as did I. Bad things happened to good people. Even when you did everything right or had good motives, there was still a distinct probability everything could sour for you. Life was often a series of incidents where you never got what you wanted. And there were no heroes out there who would come and save you when you were in trouble; if you did not take care of yourself, then your fate was up in the air. Everyone was focused on their own shit and not really apt to worry about other people's. So what if you believe in God or were a "good person"? Your spouse might cheat on you and leave you, your kids might grow up to hate you, you could get cancer and die like everyone else, etc. (Man, I get really steamed when people say "God healed them" when so many other professed believers in a god just die in pain; kinda like that old rubric where the winning team gives their victory to divine preference, when both sides were praying for a win. But I digress.)

So I didn't care less about golden age DC comics, I cared a lot more about the 70 and 80's X-Men where basically life was tough, often people vilified or ignored you for no good reason, and maybe you felt set apart from others in your interest or abilities, but you had to decide how you were going to apply yourself (altruistic or selfishly?) regardless of whether the world even gave you anything back. I just can't relate to happy Superman comics and films. I guess they are amusing but at best they felt like pure entertainment and unconnected to reality. I don't find them very inspiring.

What I find inspiring is people who deal with honest problems, sometimes really terrible problems, and even when their lives are shit, they make decisions to better others and stick together with the people they love. Maybe they are even doomed, but they still choose to do the right thing knowing full well what it will cost them. I get a lot more out of "The Incredibles" (which does end pretty well!) as an example but I can also identify with darker films where the protagonist pays with everything they have, and what matters is that they tried, not whether or not they succeeded. Give me Ofelia's heroism from "Pan's Labyrinth" any day (not a superhero but the same level of courage), that is a movie that leaves me sobbing; but boy is it also dark... which contrasts with the brightness of the end.

I remember liking these Christopher Reeve movies when I was really young. This predated the Star Wars obsession (I'll refrain from going into that too much here but that obsession is about something else)I remember the first time I saw Star Wars, I thought Superman was starting up because the music was similar (and the whole premise of WORDS. IN. SPACE). I think for me, the things I like I often continue to like because I associate them with other things like. These associations are usually only coherent to me, unless I bother explaining them.

That time in my life, there's an innocence to it that I know I'll never have again. Nobody made me feel like a freak, There was no indication that there was anything wrong in my family. People were more or less happy.

These things all changed. I guess they do for many people. But it still makes me nostalgic.

And I like to see everything work out on cinema because I'd like to believe everything works out, even though I know it doesn't. I mean, nothing in my adult life worked out the way I planned it, to the extent that I planned it. Do I have to be constantly reminded at all times that the world is in a state of decay and decline? Give me something like what they give Edward G. Robinson in Soylent Green, please. At least, some of the time.

When I saw Pan's Labyrinth, I assumed she made the whole thing up, Brazil-style.

 

[Totenkindly]

everyone has their own enjoyment in film and specific things that resonate with them. So that's why there are many different types of films out there.

Yeah, the last time I watched PL, I felt like Ofelia was imagining all the fantasy elements -- her actions IRL were still heroic, doing what she did for her brother while even grieving her mother...

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I kinda take everything on a case to case basis (as far as superhero films go) in terms of tone and outcome.

I'll be honest, I can't relate much to the "hero saves cat from tree and the world is well" approach. I even cannot really relate to "in the end, everything works out." It doesn't mean I can't sometimes appreciate that angle depending on how it is done, but it doesn't gel with my own life experience and how things resolve.

I grew up bullied, in a rural area where I didn't really fit in, and my father was an alcoholic who gaslit, blamed others, and was disengaged; and the rest of my family just isolated themselves to survive, as did I. Bad things happened to good people. Even when you did everything right or had good motives, there was still a distinct probability everything could sour for you. Life was often a series of incidents where you never got what you wanted. And there were no heroes out there who would come and save you when you were in trouble; if you did not take care of yourself, then your fate was up in the air. Everyone was focused on their own shit and not really apt to worry about other people's. So what if you believe in God or were a "good person"? Your spouse might cheat on you and leave you, your kids might grow up to hate you, you could get cancer and die like everyone else, etc. (Man, I get really steamed when people say "God healed them" when so many other professed believers in a god just die in pain; kinda like that old rubric where the winning team gives their victory to divine preference, when both sides were praying for a win. But I digress.)

So I didn't care less about golden age DC comics, I cared a lot more about the 70 and 80's X-Men where basically life was tough, often people vilified or ignored you for no good reason, and maybe you felt set apart from others in your interest or abilities, but you had to decide how you were going to apply yourself (altruistic or selfishly?) regardless of whether the world even gave you anything back. I just can't relate to happy Superman comics and films. I guess they are amusing but at best they felt like pure entertainment and unconnected to reality. I don't find them very inspiring.

What I find inspiring is people who deal with honest problems, sometimes really terrible problems, and even when their lives are shit, they make decisions to better others and stick together with the people they love. Maybe they are even doomed, but they still choose to do the right thing knowing full well what it will cost them. I get a lot more out of "The Incredibles" (which does end pretty well!) as an example but I can also identify with darker films where the protagonist pays with everything they have, and what matters is that they tried, not whether or not they succeeded. Give me Ofelia's heroism from "Pan's Labyrinth" any day (not a superhero but the same level of courage), that is a movie that leaves me sobbing; but boy is it also dark... which contrasts with the brightness of the end.

I think that’s similar to my experience and why I was never a big superhero kid. I didn’t buy comics and I didn’t get into movies like Superman and Batman as hard as a lot of other kids. Had a kinda fucked up childhood with narcissist father and codependent mom that enabled and backed him up on his shitty words and behavior. In hindsight maybe that’s why I felt some affinity for Luke and Indy, lol, two protagonists with kinda fucked up father son relationships who had to go out and forge their own path, or build their own families independent of their blood relationships.

The whole “truth justice and the American way” stuff didn’t really speak to me on any deep level or inspire me. I appreciate Superman more as an adult but more for his duality as a person who lives two identities and often has to mask and hide his feelings. Speaks to my lifetime as an adult masking my neurodivergence

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Also think a lot of people missed the point of Superman back in the 20th century and it’s not so much about crushing some evil force and good triumphing as it is about selfless love and compassion. Of course Americans of all people would downplay or overlook that element and focus on him as an embodiment of American strength instead

 

[Totenkindly]

I finally watched Cronenberg's Scanners (I know, I know -- unbelievable for me, huh?). I think it is an interesting film, I find it hard to engage because I don't really care about any of the characters and Cronenberg doesn't seem to be interested in making any of them more than a cog in the plot machine.

Michael Ironside (this time with hair!) is a stand-out in the ways he's poised and delivers him lines before the camera, he's an actor who always seems comfortable on-screen regardless of the film. (In some ways, he reminds me of Jack Nicholson, but a more practical / rubber-meets-road version, whereas Jack is more prone to go off on some crazy wild line reading that catches everyone off-guard. Maybe he's a mix of Nicholson and John Saxon, who scans as the sweetest of the three men in his screen roles, I think?) Patrick McGoohan's resume also speaks for itself, he also stands out uniquely; I kept being reminded of his role in Braveheart, lol, with that voice.

I think a big problem with the film is that it's a mystery that doesn't necessarily feel compelling, and it doesn't help that the script was written in the two weeks before production. Cameron Vale is just moving from point A to point B to point C and so on, finding some kind of clue at each stop, but there's not really much tension in any of these scenes. The film has some interesting ideas (like the the scanner is less telepath and more like interfacing with another thing's nervous system, which leads to the intrigue of potentially interfacing with other things like a computer network), but just feels like a routine connect-the-dots.

Of course, this isn't true for the two big show pieces, which is the conference + the following road drama, and then the big showdown at film's end that has been telegraphed throughout the film. Everyone's pretty well-acquainted with the footage of what happens at the conference, and I have to say that Cronenberg drags this moment out far past expectations, which even makes it crazier when it happens -- every moment, you are waiting for it, and it just never come and just continues to build and build and build! I howled when it finally happens and the whole thing becomes a total shitshow, and Ironside plays it with a low-level amount of cockiness. The following car/driving sequence goes exactly how you'd expect something like this to go down with a mentalist involved, and there was a real pleasure in watching it all unfold. But then things just get rather flat for much of the film.

The final battle sequence is crazy and I had no idea where it was going. Cronenberg is still up to his old tracks with the body horror, and he throws in some surprising biological injustices in the ending.

All in all, it's not among my favorites of all of Cronenberg's films but was worth seeing. (I think "The Fly" is the most emotional and most accessible of his films, honestly.)

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I hope I can get to watch some good horror this October. I've realized in recent years that I really enjoy horror. I roll my eyes at people who seem to think it's an incubator for psychopaths. (I think reality is much scarier, usually.) Also my sister used to watch this stuff with her friends in elementary school. My sister is an extremely anxious person who barely talks to extended family at gatherings; I don't think that's psychopath territory. I also doubt any of those other girls grew up to be psychopaths, either, although I don't know what they're up to these days.

 

[The Cat]

I hope I can get to watch some good horror this October. I've realized in recent years that I really enjoy horror. I roll my eyes at people who seem to think it's an incubator for psychopaths. (I think reality is much scarier, usually.) Also my sister used to watch this stuff with her friends in elementary school. My sister is an extremely anxious person who barely talks to extended family at gatherings; I don't think that's psychopath territory. I also doubt any of those other girls grew up to be psychopaths, either, although I don't know what they're up to these days.

Who says that?

 

[Totenkindly]

Kevin Sorbo is a horror fan??

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Who says that?

Some people do. I'm sometimes surprised by who.

 

[The Cat]

Some people do. I'm sometimes surprised by who.

Who indeed...

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Who indeed...

Angela. I wouldn't mess with those shoulder pads.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The Eloi men in the 1960 Time Machine all look like Shaggy, when they should look more like Fred.

I know they changed the origin of the future society from the books, probably out of fear that the original seemed too socialist (these were classes that had become so separated they evolved into different species, but I forget which one is supposed to be which) , but I think this actually works really well as an anti-war story. We get to witness World Wars 1, 2, and 3 and that sets the stage pretty well when we get far into the future.

(I used to view things featuring fears of WWIII as a little quaint, and now I don't anymore. )

A thing that annoyed me about the beginning of the movie: Characters saying things like "A machine that travels through time, preposterous. I can't even imagine what such a thing even is. How would you get to King's Cross Station on your time travel machine and what good is it if it can't take me there?" and requiring the very concept of a time machine explained to them repeatedly. This may very well be a relic from the book, which may have invented the the trope, so I may have to give it some slack for this. This book is one of those books that I've read random sections of, in the way I sometimes will. I didn't bother with the beginning because that didn't interest me, probably because it was full of thick-headed Victorian gentlemen incapable of understanding time travel as a concept. But this aspect reminded me of some classic episodes of Star Trek TOS that I find boring because the revolutionary thing it did I've already seen in a multiplicity of other forms. (Exception: Devil in the Dark because I'll almost always go for a misunderstood ugly alien.) I imagine when the book first came out, a lot of people did have trouble understanding the concept of time travel because they'd never encountered it before. No doubt, back then, those pompous thick-headed windbags served an important purpose.

 

[The Cat]

The Eloi men in the 1960 Time Machine all look like Shaggy, when they should look more like Fred.

I know they changed the origin of the future society from the books, probably out of fear that the original seemed too socialist (these were classes that had become so separated they evolved into different species, but I forget which one is supposed to be which) , but I think this actually works really well as an anti-war story. We get to witness World Wars 1, 2, and 3 and that sets the stage pretty well when we get far into the future.

(I used to view things featuring fears of WWIII as a little quaint, and now I don't anymore. )

A thing that annoyed me about the beginning of the movie: Characters saying things like "A machine that travels through time, preposterous. I can't even imagine what such a thing even is. How would you get to King's Cross Station on your time travel machine and what good is it if it can't take me there?" and requiring the very concept of a time machine explained to them repeatedly. This may very well be a relic from the book, which may have invented the the trope, so I may have to give it some slack for this. This book is one of those books that I've read random sections of, in the way I sometimes will. I didn't bother with the beginning because that didn't interest me, probably because it was full of thick-headed Victorian gentlemen incapable of understanding time travel as a concept. But this aspect reminded me of some classic episodes of Star Trek TOS that I find boring because the revolutionary thing it did I've already seen in a multiplicity of other forms. (Exception: Devil in the Dark because I'll almost always go for a misunderstood ugly alien.) I imagine when the book first came out, a lot of people did have trouble understanding the concept of time travel because they'd never encountered it before. No doubt, back then, those pompous thick-headed windbags served an important purpose.

Eloi are the soft fuckable surface people hunted and used as breeding stock and food, for the pale hairy Morlocks who live deep underground.

 

[Totenkindly]

Ellen Burstyn Says Her Career Continues Because ‘Everybody Else Who Could Play Those Parts Has Already Died’

“I’m the only actress still standing who can play the great-grandmother,” the “Exorcist: Believer” actress said.

www.indiewire.com

She's 90, and uses the phrase, 'It's just wack," in this interview.

What an all-time great.

 

[Totenkindly]

V/H/S 85 hit Shudder today.

I've got some pretty conflicted feels.

For the positive, all the segments are actually in the same ballpark of investment and execution, versus past efforts where some of them came across as sloppy or incompetent. Also, the wrap-around segment (done by David Bruckner, who is one of the most well-known directors that came from V/H/S and has been doing actual feature films) is actually of the same quality as the others vs being complete shit. There's nothing really half-assed about any of the segments.

For the negative, little of this will linger after the final credits roll. it's amusing to watch (I would laugh at a lot of this when shit hits the fan) but nothing super-provocative, and we've seen the concepts executed better in other installments. For example, God of Death has less identity that individualizes it than "Safe Haven" (V/H/S 2) or "Storm Drain" AKA All Hail Raatma (V/H/S 94). There's nothing here that reaches the poignancy of "A Ride in the Park" (V/H/S 2).

One of the stand-out performances is Chivonne Michelle as the emcee/artist Ada Lovelace in the "TKNOGD" virtual reality segment -- she actually could do a one-woman show with a delivery and presence like that. The outcome is amusing but also expected and doesn't really go anywhere new.

The best segment overall is probably Scott Derrickson's "Dreamkill" in terms of really being unsettling with the found footage angle and the distinct appearance of one of its characters. Also, he manages to cast two actors who people actually might recognize but not quite enough to jerk you out of the story, it's more an "wait a minute, isn't that....???" reaction as you've been watching a bit. So that was cool. It's basic Derrickson, just on a tinier budget.

Also Mike P. Nelson's bit is not all concurrent, so if a storyline seems to end without resolution, just be patient. There is a payoff. I wish there was more of a payoff, but it's kind of inventive at least. I'm just left wondering what's up with these folks and whether we'll see them pop up in later installments.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Eloi are the soft fuckable surface people hunted and used as breeding stock and food, for the pale hairy Morlocks who live deep underground.

I don't remember that in the book or the movie, lol, but I remember in the book the Eloi were described as attractive. I would have expected more of a square-jawed look among the men rather than these goofy Shaggy-looking guys.

I like to imagine that the Tom Waits song could be about the Time Machine. Fits pretty well except the Morlocks don't have Soylent Green dump trucks.