Cinema and Movie Thread: I like to remember things my own way.

[Gromnir]

On 12/2/2022 at 8:43 AM, Keyrock said:

Sure, Temple of Doom has some really stupid stuff, but nothing even remotely as stupid as Indy surviving a nuclear blast in a refrigerator or Shia Labeouf swinging with monkeys.

am pretty sure the "stupid stuff" were intentional and such ham-fisted additions were a result o' fans not getting the first movie. raiders of the lost ark was s'posed to be b movie fare, but with aaa production values... plus enough overt classic movie homage to have even the most hardcore movie fan chuckle a bit. unfortunately what @Amentep, lucas, spielberg and kasdan saw as the point o' the indy films is not necessarily what audiences liked 'bout raiders, so particular in temple of doom, and crystal skull, the makers o' the film were a smidge less subtle(<-- sarcastic hyperbole) and went all-in on what inspired them to make the movies in the first place. everybody in raiders is playing it serious as they deal with over-the-top nazis and improbable events-- stupid stuff. 'course the raiders audiences were treated to a john williams score, incredible sets as well as great performances and fantastic camera work, so audiences understandable took the film more serious than were intended.

is just a guess, but am thinking temple o' doom were an effort o' the film makers to course correct, so audiences would be able to enjoy the indiana jones films the way lucas and spielberg enjoyed flash gordon and similar fare. unfortunately, temple of doom kinda underwhelmed or confused audiences, so there were a return to formula with last crusade.

keyrock is clear a fan o' the temple of doom kinda material, which is hardly a shock. the thing is, am thinking lucas, spielberg and kasdan, 'mong others, were wrong to try to accentuate and rehabilitate the stupid stuff. the old flash gordon, buck rodgers, and spy smasher serials weren't intended to be stupid at the time they were made. we look at such films today and smile approvingly at the b fare, but is not as if the makers o' spy smasher saw themselves as purveyors o' ridiculous. 

am gonna suggest temple of doom and crystal skull unnecessarily wanted audiences to realize the indiana jones films is b movie fare by pushing the "stupid stuff" a bit too hard.   

HA! Good Fun!

ps am gonna observe just how difficult it is to hit the right balance o' serious v. "stupid stuff." those familiar with the fallout franchise o' crpgs will recognize just how contentious has been fan response following every fallout title release subsequent to the original. is a not insignificant % o' fans who are extreme serious 'bout fallout. personal we saw fallout as overt camp, but Gromnir pov is so not how the game were viewed at nma. 

 

Edited December 3, 2022 by Gromnir

[LadyCrimson]

On 12/1/2022 at 10:12 PM, Lexx said:

What's super annoying is that the trailers always look kinda great but then you see the movie and it's like, man, I could have just went to bed instead of sleeping on the couch.

I find visual spoiling even more annoying nowadays. I mean I know they're relying on the idea that one doesn't have any context during a trailer, and thinking "but we're not spoiling the story"  - but if they're going to sell a movie largely for its visual "wow" and action snazziness, I don't want to see half of those big epic visual moments, however briefly, in the trailer.  Especially from the final fight scenes or something. 

Edit: I've largely stopped watching even trailers unless it's a movie title I know I'm already "meh" about anyway.

Edited December 4, 2022 by LadyCrimson

[Gorth]

This guy sums up my thoughts on the new Indy trailer pretty well...

 

[Gromnir]

33 minutes ago, Gorth said:

This guy sums up my thoughts on the new Indy trailer pretty well...

got a few quibbles with the vid, but am gonna agree time travel is rare a satisfactory explanation unless is done for laughs, with the notable admission we enjoyed edge of tomorrow. even so, if the time travel plot device is a significant aspect o' the new indiana jones movie, am gonna be taking a pass until multiple reliable sources convince us an exception to our general rule o' applicability is warranted.

HA! Fun! Goo

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

got a few quibbles with the vid, but am gonna agree time travel is rare a satisfactory explanation unless is done for laughs, with the notable admission we enjoyed edge of tomorrow. even so, if the time travel plot device is a significant aspect o' the new indiana jones movie, am gonna be taking a pass until multiple reliable sources convince us an exception to our general rule o' applicability is warranted.

HA! Fun! Goo

Edge of Tomorrow ain't a time travel movie. It is Groundhog's Day with guns. Totally different genre. 

[Gromnir]

23 minutes ago, Hurlshort said:

Edge of Tomorrow ain't a time travel movie. It is Groundhog's Day with guns. Totally different genre. 

not complete wrong.

speaking o' time travel, set the wayback machine for 2016

 

HA! Good Fun!

[xzar_monty]

On 12/3/2022 at 9:51 PM, Gromnir said:

raiders of the lost ark was s'posed to be b movie fare, but with aaa production values...

My absolute favorite thing about raiders is the one everyone already knows: Indy doesn't affect the main story in any way. Without him, the Nazis would have found the Ark, opened it and died, too.

I think it's delightful to have a story like this where the hero is meaningless.

[Gfted1]

 

[Keyrock]

25 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

 

Seems like they're going for a Guardians of the Galaxy vibe. I can only hope that Hugh Grant hams it up even half as much as Jeremy Irons did in the OG D&D movie.

I like the casting choices. Chris Pine is a charming and charismatic fellow, I think he can pull off a bard well. Michelle Rodriguez as a barbarian works for me, she's a natural in the tough, badass role. Hugh Grant as the villainous rogue, I can get behind that so long as he properly hams it up. I believe in you, Hugh.

Color me cautiously optimistic.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Keyrock

[LadyCrimson]

I think in the long run the only Indy movie I truly (still) like is the first one. The others have their moments, as usual, but overall I have no desire to rewatch them.
I did love Sean Connery as his father tho. At the time it seemed perfect casting and I recall being pumped to go see it in the theater because of that.

Side note, the actress who played Elsa is the British gov's "evil" wife in RRR. It was a trip. Ray Stevenson is the gov - I've seen people refer to him as they guy from some more recent roles, but he'll always be Pullo from Rome to me. Their brief performances/line delivery in RRR was cartoonishly bad - really bad - I know at least Ray is capable of better so I figured it was totally on purpose.

Edited December 5, 2022 by LadyCrimson

[Amentep]

 

[Keyrock]

17 minutes ago, Amentep said:

 

If these are successful, will someone FINALLY make a Twenty Years After movie? Also, I'd like to see a The Vicomte of Bragelonne movie. I mean, we did get The Man in the Iron Mask, which is a subplot in The Vicomte of Bragelonne.

Anyway, I'm always down for d'Artagnan movies. My folks read me the entire d'Artagnan trilogy when I was a little kid and they were my favorite books for quite a while (until I discovered Isaac Asimov in my teens).

Edited December 5, 2022 by Keyrock

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, Amentep said:

 

That looks fantastic. I'm totally down for a new Musketeers movie.

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Amentep said:

the cinematic graveyard is filled with bad robin hood and musketeers movies. almost makes you wonder why producers and directors keep trying. sure, there has been exceptions which were good, but they is few and far between.

am also 'gonna note how the clip is maybe not the tone we get from dumas' works. musketeers is light-hearted and playful with a handful o' moments o' deadly seriousness. have mentioned previous how dumas were paid by the word and he milked that rate for every livre possible. audiences were in on the joke and so dumas (team dumas) crafted works which were fun, swashbuckling affairs filled with daring-do and sinister villains improbable punctuated by genuine moving moments. 

am not having a problem with a deadly serious musketeers, but is so not dumas musketeers. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

Richelieu makes for an interesting villain (imho). A ruthless antagonist that's acting in the interest of the state (and himself by extension, being an important cog in the machinery that is the state).

[Raithe]

5 hours ago, Gorth said:

Richelieu makes for an interesting villain (imho). A ruthless antagonist that's acting in the interest of the state (and himself by extension, being an important cog in the machinery that is the state).

Richelieu was never about personal power for the sake of personal power, it was more about his personal views of what was needed for the betterment of France, and his personal power was just about having the levers to move things so France was more secure and increasing it's power and influence to ensure that.

No film adaption really captures that. And then we have the joyful fun of such turns as Vincent Price and Tim Curry sinking into scene chewing villainy, and for some reason they always cast the obvious Femme Fatales as M'lady, ignoring the actual book descriptions.

It is interesting to see how different generations take a stab at the adaption:

 

 

[Gorth]

@Raithe confession time, the only one of those I've seen is the 73 version with Christopher lee

I've read the books a couple of times, but the last time was probably 30 years ago. I think I would like to read them again (as well as The Count of Monte Christo, also a book I used to be fond of)

 

[Bartimaeus]

Here comes a film from the legendary mind of George Lucas from before he was known for Star Wars, a stunning sci-fi masterpiece written and directed by the film-making guru himself that will leave you speechless... THX 1138 (1971):

it was ok

Spoiler

something something 1984-lite social commentary about how technology and commercialism will be used to control us and make love and human expression impossible, yadda yadda, I don't know what you want me to say, it was just ok

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[majestic]

3 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I don't know what you want me to say

Nothing, because:

 

[xzar_monty]

5 hours ago, Gorth said:

I've read the books a couple of times, but the last time was probably 30 years ago. I think I would like to read them again (as well as The Count of Monte Christo, also a book I used to be fond of)

Sounds a bit strange, but I recently bought Count, and I already have Musketeers, both in the original French, a language I've never read them in, and it was only the day before yesterday I thought about starting Count. Doesn't qualify as synchronicity, but FYI anyway...

My sense is that as far as ripping yarns are concerned, Count is indeed very very good, but I wonder whether it has held up. Some books you can't go back to, some you definitely can, and perhaps even appreciate them a lot more.

[Amentep]

 

[Chairchucker]

I remember the 90s Musketeers movie being beautiful and perfect and I have no interest in rewatching it to see if I have to revise that position.

[Bartimaeus]

Alright guys, I've never seen Singin' in the Rain (1952) before, and I was trying to watch it with my older niece because she likes musicals and I figured this was a good way to strike it off my list of "top films of all time" "classics" to watch. We got halfway through it before pausing it for unrelated reasons, and it's just...an absolute horror show of sexist trope after sexist trope, and it is physically hurting me to sit through it with her. She's blissfully unaware for the most part and is appropriately laughing at all the silly stuff and I guess that's fine, but like...for those of you who have watched it, is this just a product of its time and that's the way it is, or does it eventually shift gears, or...something? Woof, it is not good.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[majestic]

In my little world musical films do not exist. Well, not entirely, I was forced to sit through that travesty of a Phatom of the Opera movie. Can't answer the question, but I'll make sure to take care to not watch the film, like ever.

[Keyrock]

It's been decades since I saw Singing in the Rain and I don't remember a damn thing about it, other than, well, the singing in the rain.

I rematched Troll 2. It absolutely holds up and lives up to its legendary status. So many memorable scenes with bizarre dialogue clearly written by someone for whom English is not their first language. My favorite thing about the movie is the performance of Deborah Reed as... I don't know if she's supposed to be a witch or the goblin queen or what. Any time she's on the screen it's magic. To say that she's overacting would be the understatement of the century. It may be my favorite acting performance ever. It's MAGNIFICENT!

 

Edited December 10, 2022 by Keyrock