Movies you've seen recently

[JadedWolf]

I guess that's exactly why I've always felt Superman to be so very unappealing. He's so incredibly flawless. It's really hard to relate to that.

[Woldan]

I want so badly to dislike this movie but I can't because Wonder Woman.

I can because she looks nothing like wonder woman.

[Raithe]

And the Suicide Squad Selfie from SDCC...

 

 

Oh yes, and of course the trailer..

https://vimeo.com/133237497

[Volourn]

"I'm not sure how else Batman would be able to stand a chance against Superman. It is, by definition, an unfair fight."

\

Good. Batman should be able to oppose Superman w/o resorting to be Lex Luthor part 2.

[Blarghagh]

I don't think it's fair to call him Lex Luthor pt 2 because he also uses Kryptonite. That's like saying the police are ISIS pt 2 because they also use guns. Batman uses peoples' weaknesses against them, and Superman's only weakness is Kryptonite. Batman's other villains are weak to being hit on the head really hard and nobody seems to care if he uses that.

[ShadySands]

I recall Batman going supervillain on Superman in some comics by threatening innocents/loved ones. Even though I think it turned out that he wasn't going to go through with it I think that's still pretty messed up.

 

It's been a while though so I could be misremembering or just making stuff up.

 

Still looking forward to the movie

[Volourn]

"That's like saying the police are ISIS pt 2 because they also use guns."

\

That's illogical comparison because the police came before ISIS. Your point would still be silly, but the argument stronger if you said ISIS was police pt 2.

 

As for Lex-Batman, Batman is making the same stupid excuse for going after Superman as  various Lex Luthor versions  have - he's a 'threat' to humans and blaming him for others' crimes.

\

Superman's only crime in the movie was being a target.

 

\That's like blaming me if someone tries to kill me  and ends up killing bystanders. Blame the scumbag killer not the victim.

 

This Btamna is annoying me. I want to like him because AFFLECK is awesome but from what I see the character is IMMENSELY butthurt at the wrong guy. Batman is supposed to be smart enough to see the big picture.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Volourn

[Amentep]

HOLLYWOOD PARTY (1934)
 
In the history of odd films, Hollywood Party stands as something of an odd film achievement; it is unique to its time and place in film.  While it bears similarities to other films that lurched to completion (say, CATWOMAN which started out as a spin-off vehicle for Michelle Pfeiffer and slowly rumbled to a final film production that no longer had a clear goal or identity), it isn't just a long gestating film.  And while it has several unnamed directors, this wasn't a result of difficulty in the filming as much as it was something necessitated by the very idea of the film.
 
THE STUDIO SYSTEM

Back in 1932-33 when production on this film started, MGM had a problem.  The studio billed itself as having "more Stars than there are in heaven" and the result was that the studio had a huge roster of contract actors, directors, scenarists, writers, stage hands, etc.  And a problem arose - what to do with these stars when they weren't in an active production.  The studio was paying them but not getting anything in return.
 
Anthologies weren't a new concept, and Paramount had success in 1932 with If I had a Million using different writers/directors to guide a star in a story about people given a million dollars by a wealthy dying man.  And so MGM set out to do the same.  But instead of being an anthology, they'd weave a series of viginnettes together around a theme - an extravagant Hollywood A-List Party.  And it'd be a musical comedy (because MGM was one of the premiere musical studios).
 
So how hard could it be for different writers and directors would craft stories for the stars and weave them together in a comedy masterpiece?  Well if it tells you anything it took a year in the studio system to finally come together.  That's like decades in modern movie time.
 
ENTER...SCHNARZAN

Jimmy Durante had been a vaudevillian song and comedian (with partners Lou Clayton and Eddie Jackson) who'd transitioned to a name player with MGM (after being paired with Buster Keaton late in Keaton's shorts series for the company).  And the film is built around Durante playing Jimmy Durante, star of the popular series Schnarzan, Monarch of the Mudlands, a play on Tarzan and Durante's schtick as the Schnozzola in reference to his large nose. 
 
The Schnarzan films aren't appealing to audiences anymore (neither are the competing films for Liondora (George Givot)) so the producers hit on an idea - Durante will throw a Hollywood Party, invite Baron Munchausen (played by radio Baron Munchausen, Jack Pearl) who has recently acquired some real lions.  The producer will buy the lions and refurbish the series by having Schnarzan fight real lions instead of his trusty lion rug.  Meanwhile Liondora hearing of this decides he must have the lions for himself.
 
This becomes the backbone of the story, as characters are weaved into the story as things all come together (and/or fall apart) at the party.
 
A CAST OF THOUSANDS

On paper the cast seems incredible, aside from Durante, Pearl and Givot we get Lupe Velez (as Schnarzan's Jane and Durante's off-again girlfriend in a nod to Valez marriage (at the time) to Johnny Weismuller), Charles Butterworth, Polly Moran, Eddie Quillan, and June Clyde as the major players.  Of more interest to the casual fan we also get the Ted Healey and his Stooges (the last work Moe, Larry and Curly did for MGM before breaking with Healey and heading to Columbia) and Laurel and Hardy.  And then there are the bit roles with Ted Kennedy, Arthur Treacher, Bess Flowers amid many uncredited players.
 
In practice the movie is an uneven affair, with comedic moments (which may appeal greater if you're a fan of Durante, Valez, The Stooges or Laurel and Hardy) and Busby Berkly inspired musical numbers.  The muscial numbers range from the enjoyable to the labored (while I appreciate the choreography that went into the title song, it starts slow and has a certain amount of repetitveness that makes me wish for more editing.
 
IT IS PRE-CODE, AND BOY HOW!

So in 1930 the Hays Code of regulations on the film industry had been enacted, but it wasn't until 1934 that it became rigorously enforced.  So this film slips in during the lax period where things were supposed to be cleaned up but the weren't.

 

The result gives us things like the silhouette of an obviously naked woman showering, partner swapping (as Butterworth and Moran's married rich oil tycoons seem to have no problem pursuing other partners at the Hollywood Party - a point implied in the title song's refrain "Hollywood Party! / Nobody sleeps tonight. / Bring along your girl! Go home with someone else's. / Forget about your girl. / She's gonna do all right.") and in general debauchery left and right.
 
AND THEN MICKEY MOUSE SHOWED UP

Shades of "Roger Rabbit", there's an interlude where Durante finds Mickey Mouse crashing the party.  The two tussle and then the crowd begs Mickey to show a cartoon, which he obliges.  The cartoon - "The Hot Chocolate Soldiers" is either an anti-war piece (showing the wounded soldiers coming home after a brutal war) or a euphemism for sex (amid other scenes, hot chocolate soldiers are smothered in bursting white custard from weaponized eclairs gushing their contents on them).  Disney was often in need of money in the early years, and I imagine that this kept his company going for a little while longer.  Wonder how that worked out for him...
 
SOMETHING TO OFFEND EVERYBODY

Its no surprise that something from 1934 would have insensitive concepts that many would find objectionable these days.  It goes with the territory of watching old films.  Here we have wife swapping, what modern eyes might consider potential date assault (while initially eager to be seduced by a disguised Lionardo, Moran begins objecting to his advances and ends up being kissed in what appears to be a headlock), voyeurism (Butterworth who watches Lionardo's technique on his wife with much interest before he decides to try it on Lupe Valez, who flips him into the bushes), and at least one homosexual gag (the Baron's gorilla after carrying him in and being menacing, joins the party by sashaying down the steps while Durante double-entendre's "Its a chimpanzee / its a chimp-pansy")
 
And that's not to forget Lupe's "Mexican Spitfire" routine (which some find problematic), Lionardo's Greek Aristocrat stereotype, the African Jungle Native Dancers (complete with bones in their nose), Lupe's dress (sure to offend prudes) and probably a dozen other things that I can't remember.  Lets just say if you can't get past that this is a period film, it just isn't going to be for you.
 
AND THEN LAUREL AND HARDY SHOW UP

The film has a certain moxie that I have to admire.  Mind you, I enjoy Durante (ha-cha-cha) and Lupe Valez (she actually gets two of the best gags in the movie).  Butterworth's droll reactions (particularly when everyone leaves him to dance) and the Three Stooges cameo work well.  As mentioned above the musical numbers - while not MGM's finest - work for the most part (Eddie Quillan and June Clyde's young lovers song and dance is both fun and weird; Quillan in particular has this great expression as the two start to dance with themselves(!) that is so over the top its amazing).
 
But the show stopper is Laurel and Hardy; they get a great routine with Tom Kennedy as the doorman who tries to keep the pair out.  But the almost wordless fight between them and Valez is great and displays both of their skills to great aplomb.
 
THE END...OR IS IT?

Turns out that the film was originally longer (at least 75 minutes) but after being made was cut down to try and make better sense of it all.  I'd say it didn't work - ultimately it doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's part of the fun and/or charm of the film.   All we get is a 68 minute film.  But even the 75 minute version may have not included everything; the last bit filmed (by the 8th director) tried to make sense of the existing footage and its clear that there are things missing (in particular look at Kennedy's black eye in his last appearance - never explained by the film - or the drop Lionardo from the plot at the 9/10ths point).
 
This is a peculiar and particular film, certain one that is very much of its time.  I enjoyed it for what it is and for the general encapsulation of pre-code MGM that it serves as.  I'm not sure the film is for everyone (many will find it dull or antiquated), and yet I think for the right kind of film buff its something worth seeing once just to see an odd bit of Hollywood history if nothing else.

[Hurlshort]

Expendables 3 - There were some very entertaining performances and some headscratcher moments.  Antonio Banderas was probably the highlight, along with Wesley Snipes.  Ronda Rousey was also pretty fun to watch, although she can't act to save her life.  Kelsey Grammar was good, Harrison Ford was bad, etc.  

[Gromnir]

watched conan again. is our favorite fantasy movie, though raiders of the lost ark and the empire strikes back are not far behind.

 

regardless, whenever we get the prayer to crom scene

 

 

we cannot help but think o' the following scene from major league  (warning: sweary)

 

 

 

 

kinda messes with the moment.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 14, 2015 by Gromnir

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The Thing(1982)

 

I've decided to watch Carpenter's "Apocalypse Trilogy" in chronological order and started with this. While the effects haven't aged well, especially considering this movie predates my birth by ten years, it managed to entertain me quite a bit. I think the lack of exposition in terms of the alien's history or the various characters works quite well in establishing the feeling that anything breathing may be a facade for the alien, as there are no clues that outright show that anything is not what they seem leaving the viewer to be surprised when something happens. I also thought that the lack of a clear resolution was a good finish.

 

I suppose it's on to Prince of Darkness now, does anyone know where I can find this?

[Hiro Protagonist]

^ Plenty of places on the internet.

[Amentep]

Suicide Squad Comicon Teaser officially released by WB:

 

[Hiro Protagonist]

Jurassic World. Not too bad. Better than the second and third. Nearly on par with the first.

[Blarghagh]

The internet seems to love the reveals of BvS and Suicide Squad. I'm not on the same page as them it seems. I've been trying not to hate things since I feel internet culture is negative enough as it is but those trailers have a lot of things that bother me and the things that don't bother me leave me cold. Mostly I was surprised that Leto sounds exactly like Ledger. There are so many Joker voices and they go with that?

 

The Thing(1982)

I've decided to watch Carpenter's "Apocalypse Trilogy" in chronological order and started with this. While the effects haven't aged well, especially considering this movie predates my birth by ten years, it managed to entertain me quite a bit. I think the lack of exposition in terms of the alien's history or the various characters works quite well in establishing the feeling that anything breathing may be a facade for the alien, as there are no clues that outright show that anything is not what they seem leaving the viewer to be surprised when something happens. I also thought that the lack of a clear resolution was a good finish.

I suppose it's on to Prince of Darkness now, does anyone know where I can find this?

 

I still quite like most of the effects in The Thing. They are obviously dated but in comparison to other films of the time it still holds up quite well. I've never been able to get a hold of Prince of Darkness, but I do love In The Mouth of Madness. It's not a good movie, but it's a lovely mind**** that feels like a weird mix of H.P. Lovecraft and David Lynch. The effects in that aged worse than The Thing, but I love the themes and weird imagery of it*.

 

On a side note, there's an amazing short story by Peter Watts that retells the events of The Thing through the eyes of the alien. You can read it here:

 

http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/

 

 

 

 

 

 

*D̰ͨ̅̏o̻̣͙̳͍͕ͤ͌͆͝ ̹̔̈́̍͌̐y͉̻̗̺͓o̞̲̣̗͉͒̇ͨ̓̑ͅu͔͊ͫ̊ͥͪ̆ͯ ͈̗̳̲̒̈̑̊r͍̪͕̜̩ͩ̎͋éͫ̀ͅa̩̮͕̩̪̺d̍ͫ̇́͗̀ ͓̪ͪ͋̍͂ͦ͐Ś̵̔̇̂̓͆u͍̤̟̹̻͛͡ẗ̺̰̪̩͖̲́ͧ̈ͦͣ́t͚̳͚͎̩͚ͩ̐ͥé̹̦͕̻̲̈́̂ͅr͓̘̻̗ͬ̈͂ͩ ͙͔̯͍̞̠̃C̼͎͚̝̠̻͗͋a͂ͬ͊ͫͣñ̟͈̙̠̪ͯ̋ͥ̀̂̚ĕ?͇͍͔̖͔̓̀̇́̏͡ͅ

Edited July 14, 2015 by TrueNeutral
Peter Watts, not Waits

[Amentep]

I dug the Suicide Squad (more meh on BvS). But then I liked the comic.

 

I really enjoyed Prince of Darkness too; I personally think its a strong film, equal to In the Mouths of Madness (if without that films sense of humor).

[Oerwinde]

Best trailer from Comic Con was Deadpool.

[Tale]

I'll probably enjoy Deadpool, but I thought they went a little overboard. The leaked script was pretty dang good, so I can maintain restrained optimism.

[Hurlshort]

In Search for General Tso - This was a very entertaining documentary about the history of Chinese food in American culture.  It has a wonderful payoff as they track down the original creator of the dish.  

[cirdanx]

Suicide Squad Comicon Teaser officially released by WB:

 

 on one side..this trailer is sooo coollll...om the other side...Will Smith...REALLY? I mean..oh whatever..

[Malcador]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRHhXnQrRJ4

[Hurlshort]

 

 on one side..this trailer is sooo coollll...om the other side...Will Smith...REALLY? I mean..oh whatever..

 

 

How the heck do you complain about Will Smith, a legitimate actor with tremendous range, when Jared Leto looks like a keebler elf with a drug problem?  

[Blarghagh]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRHhXnQrRJ4

 

Strange that it says trailer when all they showed at comic con was some random footage. I'll pass, since this is obviously a phone camera pointed at a screen - you can still see the ears in the thumbnail!

[Gromnir]

 

 

 on one side..this trailer is sooo coollll...om the other side...Will Smith...REALLY? I mean..oh whatever..

 

 

How the heck do you complain about Will Smith, a legitimate actor with tremendous range, when Jared Leto looks like a keebler elf with a drug problem?  

 

will smith does show ability, but am curious about range.  he has been playing variations on the same character for awhile now.  when final credits roll, we suspect we will be saying to our self that we liked will smith's character better when thomas hayden church played it in the horrible spider-man 3 film. 

 

leto...

 

well, heath ledger's joker is a tough act to follow. personally am not impressed with what we has seen o' leto's joker thus far, but part o' the problem is that we got nicholson and ledger in our head... and we got frank miller's tdkr joker as kinda our ideal notion o' the character. perhaps you think o' bruce timm and mark hamill's joker? doesn't mater. point is most o' us know the joker character already. leto has gone a different direction.  good for him.  do what folks expect is doomed to mediocrity, but that also means his likelihood for failure increases.

 

leto were excellent in dallas buyer's club, so am gonna go into this with a relative open mind... as open as we can be given he is playing a character that has so much history in film and print.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[ManifestedISO]

He is numbingly authentic in Requiem, Jared has natural breadth and chops out the wazoo, I can see why he's next in line after Heath. 

 

Will is cool, I hope he quashes his Bad Boys MIB thing. I don't see why not.