The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Your movie reviews Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 2 weeks ago
  #151
Lives for gear
 
didlisquat's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by clump View Post
The 'Scare factor' seems to be totally about direction to me.......The creepiest film ever IMO is 'The Shining' It just has such a claustrophobic, supernatural tension from start to finish, I find it really surprising that Stephen King was unhappy with it.
I don't find it surprising at all. From what I have heard of the book and the other film by the same name it's great that Stanley took the material in a different direction.

The documentary Filmworker about Stanley's long time assistant Leon Vitali was a really good one as well.
Old 1 week ago
  #152
Lives for gear
 

Grumpy Old Men - Jack Lemmon and Walter Matheau in basically their swan song (along with the sequel) which is IMO them at their finest and that's saying something. Mostly silly funny but at times not (in a good way) with a solid supporting cast to say the least with Kevin Pollack, Daryl Hannah, and oh btw Ann Magaret, still looking hot. IMO this and the sequel are great films which didn't get enough credit.
Old 1 week ago
  #153
Lives for gear
 
Derp's Avatar
This weekend I caught But I'm a Cheerleader! and Cronenberg's Shivers. I hadn't seen But I'm a Cheerleader! in about a decade, and it's aged pretty well. The scene with the tofu still makes me laugh. This was my first viewing of Shivers, and I have to admit that I felt underwhelmed. The idea of parasites replacing organs is a terrifying premise, but I feel like they didn't really explore that deep enough, instead focusing on turning everyone into horny zombies. That apartment complex was kind of unnerving, though. I couldn't imagine living in a building like that, and yet it actually exists.
Old 1 week ago
  #154
Gear Addict
 
mark1971's Avatar
 

The Meg 3D

Friggin awesome. Huge shark. Bigger boat. Doesnt make a bit of sense.

Statham, goes mono to mono against a giant shark in the water, stabs it in the eye as it jumps up like 100 stories IN 3D! No cage, nothing. Him and the shark start brawling in the open water.

Sharks are awesome. I kinda wanted the shark to win.
Old 1 week ago
  #155
Today I watched Hunter Killer It's a film about a US Navy nuclear powered submarine that gets entangled with Russia and risks igniting WWIII. It's a good film, ranking close with Crimson Tide and The Hunt for Red October.
Old 1 week ago
  #156
Lives for gear
 

High praise! I'll have to check that out.

I watched "Interview with God" on Netflix. Basically a magazine journalist gets an interview with a guy claiming to be God. PS take note it is an unashamedly Christian point of view movie, so if that would cause you to get in a snit, don't bother. But FYI they do not hit you over the head with it in a "preachy" way, just it's the viewpoint of the film (which today seems so unpopular). Anyway, that aside and on a strictly "how good is it from a movie quality perspective," kind of mixed feelings. I think they had a good idea and some very good dialogue in there, but it was uneven and mixed with some not so good dialogue as well. Or should I say more weak from how it did or didn't develop plot-wise. This would have benefited greatly from more editing and revisions.
Old 1 week ago
  #157
Lives for gear
 
Derp's Avatar
I watched the original Chinese version of The Eye last night. It's about a blind woman that receives cornea transplants and is able to see for the first time, but she also starts seeing things that no one else can see. It's got some tense moments, but it's not very frightening. As the story develops, it becomes more sad than scary. Overall a decent movie, but nothing worth going out of your way to see.
Old 1 week ago
  #158
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Temple of Light View Post
I watched Above Majestic several times, the whole premise being about the implications of the secret space program. So, William Tompkins comes out and talks about all the Sh!te they through up into space, using old WWII era U boats as the prototype craft to deep space travel...Nuclear drives...into Thorium Reactors into Zero Point energy electromagnetic drive systems...So why did this guy collect millions of dollars as an advanced, highly skilled engineer, waiting till the last 6 weeks of his life to spill the beans? He worked in the aerospace industry for 40 years and just before he died does this expose ? Why did it take so long for him to have a crisis of conscience? If the implications of the programs were so troubling to him, why did not come out sooner and disclose?
Another thing that is an implication of the secret space program, is that it would have cost trillions of dollars, and the only group capable of paying those kind of bills was the Cabal. So, they have all these bases and colonization of other solar systems, and the cabal has now lost control over it all?
Who is the guiding light here? The human race, or the rest of the universe and all it's other members?
The only equation that matters is the relationship we have with the Other Terrestrials and whether or not the relationship is based on military superiority and servitude to an advanced civilization, or an equal partnership based on mutual respect and spiritual objectives for the benefit of both races.
Does the cabal have the right to commit murder in the millions to achieve the long desired objective
of intergalactic inhabitance?
Clearly the right to do so has been ignored and the actions have already been taken...
The moral and ethical crimes that have already been committed in the guise of human advancement or spiritual ascendance clearly have no answer, justice or accountability behind it. The continued cooperation with an alien race that only has the domination of the human species as it's singleness of purpose is unacceptable in the extreme.
The truth may take hundreds of years to be known, but who will know it?
How else to answer the question of how to spend 500 trillion dollars?
Lord Jacob Rothschild
your karmic due is coming true...

YYMV

Light

Temple

Wow...you do know Wilcock is a proven fraud right? Or do you believe in the blue space chickens he and Goode yapped about?


Old 1 week ago
  #159
Lives for gear
Wilcock exposed:




And if you don't think that's Wilcock, you're in denial...much like the flat-earth morons who refute all science and common sense. I hope you're not one of those idiots, for your own sake.
Old 1 week ago
  #160
Lives for gear
 

Spiderman Spiderverse: It's bad enough we have yet another of 18,000 Spiderman films, but now.......Spiderman goes "urban." I stopped there as the nausea kicked in. As someone else said earlier, I am sick to death of uber liberal Hollywood ramming their agenda down viewer's throats. And yes I would say the same for having a conservative agenda shoved down my throat as well. But back to the movie: Spiderman is not black. He is not Hispanic. He is not Asian. Get over it. You want minority superheros, great, no problem, CREATE some. Can you imagine if someone tried to make a movie with a white Black Panther? Just as stupid. Don't twist it so that a character that already exists and is white is suddenly made something else. And no, sorry, a "multiverse" is a weak a$$ excuse to do that BS. The good news is I didn't pay a penny to see it What little I watched, that is.
Old 1 week ago
  #161
Lives for gear
 
Derp's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill5 View Post
Spiderman goes "urban."
While normally I'm against the Hollywood effect on comicbook movies, I can excuse it in this case. In the comics, Miles has been Spider-Man since Peter Parker died in 2011. There's been a lot of toying with Spider-Man in the past decade or so, and there have been weirder incarnations. In this case, the story arc is written by Brian Michael Bendis, who writes up some of the more memorable storylines in the Marvel universe. Personally, my favorite Spider-Man is when Doctor Octopus took over Peter Parker's body and role.
Old 1 week ago
  #162
Lives for gear
 
Derp's Avatar
I sat down with Cloud Atlas last night and really enjoyed it. I went into it nothing except that Tom Hanks was in it and it was directed by the Wachowskis. It's a hard movie to summarize, but essentially it's six different storylines from different time periods woven together. It's amazing watching the actors each playing a multitude of different parts in the movie, and seeing how the stories parallel. It's definitely a love it or hate it kind of movie, and it requires your full attention to really comprehend what theses seemingly unrelated stories have to do with each other. It's not an easy film, but it rewards you for your patience and attention.
Old 1 week ago
  #163
Gear Addict
 
mark1971's Avatar
 

Marvel is pretty basic with its movies. They make them long format.

I don't like them. For instance, Ironman gets impaled at the end of infinty wars. He sprays the foam that sealed up the space ship hull, on his gut. Now who is going to perform the transplant surgeries for all the damaged organs. He is alone out on a space ship.

Captain America is going to need facial reconstruction after getting smashed in the face. Thanos punch tore through a bullet proof robot. Not a mans jaw?

They better address these issues, or people are gonna question why fight in the first place.

I don't know what they want me to pay attention to. The things I look at , seem done very poorly with them.

Like the CGI , have the actors look in the direction of the CGI thing, at it if you will. Not googlee eyed at all of it. Cant they line up what they look at yet? Its got CGI, if they are too wasted, fake it with the CGI.

They keep showing 6 floating stones , and not one pair of eyes is looking at them. No offense to Fury.
Old 1 week ago
  #164
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill5 View Post
Spiderman Spiderverse: It's bad enough we have yet another of 18,000 Spiderman films, but now.......Spiderman goes "urban." I stopped there as the nausea kicked in. As someone else said earlier, I am sick to death of uber liberal Hollywood ramming their agenda down viewer's throats. And yes I would say the same for having a conservative agenda shoved down my throat as well.
I understand the argument you're making, both of them. I think the same has been made preemptively about making Bond black.

Let me just give you some food for thought though;

It's super-hard to draw a line between a piece of art being "preachy" and with an "agenda" and on the other hand just showing something. You can pretty much pick any number of random films for example and you'll find themes in them that could be interpreted that way. Is (pre-Disney) Star Wars promoting an anti-government agenda? Is it promoting pro-elitism? What's the agenda hidden in Nolan's Batman? Anarchy? Vigilante justice? You'll always find someone upset with whatever is shown.

Secondly, it takes some effort - not a lot, but some - to come away from that film being upset about this agenda and then decide to complain about it. I'm not saying your complaint is wrong, I'm saying it wasn't a case of you shrugging your shoulders and just forgetting the movie. So, the question in my mind is how often have you been equally upset over white actors portraying non-white characters? How often have you made it a point to post about it or complain about it?

This isn't to accuse you of anything other than not seeing what other people are seeing. What you're experiencing now is what blacks, hispanics, indians, asians have experienced for decades, and most white people just shrugged their shoulders and thought everything was fine, or at least did nothing about it.

Why is 'color'-washing all of a sudden a problem when for the longest time white-washing wasn't? It's because these days minorities have more of a voice and are demanding equal treatment.

Fair enough, don't want an asian to be portrayed by Johansen or Cruise? Then don't make spiderman black. But also; don't want the latter and feel so upset about it you feel the need to complain? Then also complain when the former happens.

NOT suggesting you have a racist bent or anything, I'm just writing this to hopefully make you consider this from a historical perspective from the other side of the isle.

And lastly, it is just a color in most cases. I haven't read or seen anything about Spiderman where his ethnicity was relevant. I could have missed something of course, but I can't remember a single thing within his character or background that would necessitate him being one or the other. I'd have to revisit Bond as well, but the only thing I can think of is that if he's at a private school as a child and it's the 50's or whenever then perhaps it's more likely than not that he was white. But other than that there isn't a single one of the traits that make Bond Bond to me that are relevant to his color. He's a borderline psychopath, he's a thrill-seeker, a womanizer bordering on misogynist, quite likely a borderline alcoholic, handsome.. That's pretty much it..
Old 1 week ago
  #165
Lives for gear
 
clump's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I understand the argument you're making, both of them. I think the same has been made preemptively about making Bond black.

Let me just give you some food for thought though;

It's super-hard to draw a line between a piece of art being "preachy" and with an "agenda" and on the other hand just showing something. You can pretty much pick any number of random films for example and you'll find themes in them that could be interpreted that way. Is (pre-Disney) Star Wars promoting an anti-government agenda? Is it promoting pro-elitism? What's the agenda hidden in Nolan's Batman? Anarchy? Vigilante justice? You'll always find someone upset with whatever is shown.

Secondly, it takes some effort - not a lot, but some - to come away from that film being upset about this agenda and then decide to complain about it. I'm not saying your complaint is wrong, I'm saying it wasn't a case of you shrugging your shoulders and just forgetting the movie. So, the question in my mind is how often have you been equally upset over white actors portraying non-white characters? How often have you made it a point to post about it or complain about it?

This isn't to accuse you of anything other than not seeing what other people are seeing. What you're experiencing now is what blacks, hispanics, indians, asians have experienced for decades, and most white people just shrugged their shoulders and thought everything was fine, or at least did nothing about it.

Why is 'color'-washing all of a sudden a problem when for the longest time white-washing wasn't? It's because these days minorities have more of a voice and are demanding equal treatment.

Fair enough, don't want an asian to be portrayed by Johansen or Cruise? Then don't make spiderman black. But also; don't want the latter and feel so upset about it you feel the need to complain? Then also complain when the former happens.

NOT suggesting you have a racist bent or anything, I'm just writing this to hopefully make you consider this from a historical perspective from the other side of the isle.

And lastly, it is just a color in most cases. I haven't read or seen anything about Spiderman where his ethnicity was relevant. I could have missed something of course, but I can't remember a single thing within his character or background that would necessitate him being one or the other. I'd have to revisit Bond as well, but the only thing I can think of is that if he's at a private school as a child and it's the 50's or whenever then perhaps it's more likely than not that he was white. But other than that there isn't a single one of the traits that make Bond Bond to me that are relevant to his color. He's a borderline psychopath, he's a thrill-seeker, a womanizer bordering on misogynist, quite likely a borderline alcoholic, handsome.. That's pretty much it..
Very eloquently put, and I agree totally.

Marlon Brando was way ahead of his time when he declined the oscar for best actor in 1973 (The Godfather) on the grounds that 'Hollywood' mistreated minorities....this was treated with contempt by both John Wayne and Clint Eastwood....that's 'tough guys' for ya.

I would say though, that once minorities are given a voice and a decent bite at the cherry, they are almost always joined by (often white) 'Liberals' who immediately lessen and damage the cause by using the plight of minorities for their own agenda (see #me too)

For example Will Smith was recently deemed "Not black enough" by some, to play Richard Williams, the father of Venus and Serena in an upcoming biopic....accusing the film makers of 'Colorism'.....Things like this automatically incite a backlash from the right, so then ANYBODY who cites a REAL case of inappropriate casting is lumped in with the purists and labelled 'Snowflake'

I'm beginning to lose track of 'ists' and 'isms'
Old 1 week ago
  #166
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
It's super-hard to draw a line between a piece of art being "preachy" and with an "agenda" and on the other hand just showing something. You can pretty much pick any number of random films for example and you'll find themes in them that could be interpreted that way. Is (pre-Disney) Star Wars promoting an anti-government agenda? Is it promoting pro-elitism? What's the agenda hidden in Nolan's Batman? Anarchy? Vigilante justice?
This isn't about nit-picking on one particular movie; this is the Hollywood agenda in general I'm sick of, which is like a Mack truck, horns blaring and plowing people over. It's not exactly a secret. This is just the latest example.

Quote:
Secondly, it takes some effort - not a lot, but some - to come away from that film being upset about this agenda and then decide to complain about it.
I disagree. It takes no effort at all to be annoyed by this agenda being slammed into our heads time and time again. That's like saying it takes effort to dislike someone punching you in the arm over and over. I think all it really takes is a functioning brain (to see it, although I don't know how anyone can miss it) and the spine to speak out. Sadly, the silent majority don't quality on either one or both counts. I've heard numerous people agree with what I'm saying in private or in confidence, but they'd never dare say so publicly or "out loud" because they fear the almighty PC card like rabbits fear hawks.

Quote:
So, the question in my mind is how often have you been equally upset over white actors portraying non-white characters? How often have you made it a point to post about it or complain about it?
As I already stated above - maybe not clearly enough I guess - that is just as annoying. If they made a Black Panther or Luke Cage movie with a white guy as the main character (yeah like that's ever happening), it would be just as ridiculous. In fact I'm old enough to remember the old "Kung Fu" TV series, which was supposed to star Bruce Lee, that instead went to David Carradine, and yes that was just as stupid, and yes my entire family said so. There was no internet then though. I do remember talking about it with my friends and we all were like "? he's supposed to be Chinese? Are they kidding?"

Quote:
This isn't to accuse you of anything other than not seeing what other people are seeing. What you're experiencing now is what blacks, hispanics, indians, asians have experienced for decades, and most white people just shrugged their shoulders and thought everything was fine, or at least did nothing about it.
If you're saying two wrongs make a right, I'll agree to disagree. Discrimination in the past isn't in any way "compenstated" by giving preferential treatment now, or discriminating against whatever demographic group was doing the discriminating earlier, whether it's about ethnicity, gender, etc.

PS you seem to be implying that I'm offended. I'm not offended; this is nothing personal to me at all. I'm annoyed, as I always am when any form of entertainment tries to push an agenda (unless of course that is the entire point right out of the gate, due to subject matter or whatever, such as the "No Nukes" rock concerts back when, protest songs, etc).

Quote:
Why is 'color'-washing all of a sudden a problem when for the longest time white-washing wasn't?
? It's not "all of a sudden" a problem. It's always been a problem. Again, discrimination is wrong and stupid. Period. It's not bad in one direction but OK in another. That's grossly hypocritical.

Quote:
Fair enough, don't want an asian to be portrayed by Johansen or Cruise? Then don't make spiderman black. But also; don't want the latter and feel so upset about it you feel the need to complain? Then also complain when the former happens.
Agreed! I have. Or perhaps the most cringe-worthy miscast of all: John Wayne as Genghis Khan.

Quote:
NOT suggesting you have a racist bent or anything, I'm just writing this to hopefully make you consider this from a historical perspective from the other side of the isle.
Thanks, it's fine, and I have. Unfortunately, a lot of people beyond you and I don't and won't consider both sides, in either direction, and are fine tolerating one way (or even think it's good) but not the other.

Quote:
And lastly, it is just a color in most cases. I haven't read or seen anything about Spiderman where his ethnicity was relevant. I could have missed something of course, but I can't remember a single thing within his character or background that would necessitate him being one or the other.
? How about faithfulness to the source material? i.e. HE IS white. If a Black Panther movie comes out with a white guy in the lead, would you say the same thing?

I get you're just trying to show it from all angles, it's cool, hope I didn't offend you, I think you're fair-minded about it. I just see a lot of hypocrisy today that is anything but; it is just as bad as similar hypocrisies in days gone by just that the "sides" have changed. Both attitudes are ridiculous and make me ill.

Back to movies.

Re-watched Fantastic Four: Silver Surfer the other day. (He was silver, as he is supposed to be. No agenda. ) It was pretty much how I remembered it. Started out promising but sort of dovetailed in the second half of it, esp the weak ending as again, lack of faithfulness to the source material from these movies is on display. Where the heck was Galactus?
Old 1 week ago
  #167
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill5 View Post

Back to movies.
Agreed!
Old 1 week ago
  #168
Lives for gear
 

Sorry for the sidetrack!
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump