Movies - where we can talk about movies

[nycsteve]

Got "Love The Coopers" from Netflix mainly to watch Alan Arkin. This is an ensemble film reminiscent of The Family Stone. Again with Dianne Keaton as mom and sister, Marisa Tomei, John Goodman, Amanda Seyfried . The type of story line that introduces charactors and ther situations seperatly for the 1st half and brings them together for the 2cnd. This one I like. Some laughs ,some tears, some life insights, presented with a not to heavy hand. A winner ,8of10. ArkinBTW as usual does not disappoint.

[Scott Bails]

How about "Sssssssssssssss...."

I was just going to add that. Great, completely freaky, sideshow flick. Good stuff!

Saw that one when I was a kid - maybe 8 or 9. Freaked me the hell out with nightmares for weeks!

[Jack in Wilmington]

Got "Love The Coopers" from Netflix mainly to watch Alan Arkin. This is an ensemble film reminiscent of The Family Stone. Again with Dianne Keaton as mom and sister, Marisa Tomei, John Goodman, Amanda Seyfried . The type of story line that introduces charactors and ther situations seperatly for the 1st half and brings them together for the 2cnd. This one I like. Some laughs ,some tears, some life insights, presented with a not to heavy hand. A winner ,8of10. ArkinBTW as usual does not disappoint.

Agreed. We saw it in the theater when it came out. At the time everybody was scrambling to see Star Wars, so we took the less crowded option and we're glad we did.

[selmer]

Anyone seen the new Cohen brothers film yet? The wife and I are thinking of going to see it this weekend.

I haven't seen that one, but there was a time (a long time ago) when I saw Miller's Crossing and was very impressed but I haven't seen it since. The last one I saw from beginning to end was Raising Arizona. Loved the visuals, locations and Randall Tex Cobb, didn't like Cage in it. The comedy was hit and miss. I went through Blood Simple, Fargo and No Country For Old Men rather quickly. I'll not comment on those as I didn't see them from A to Z but from what I saw I'm not sure when I'm gonna see them in their entirity. I'll rather watch Bridge Of Spies which I think was written by the Coens.

[nosebone]

Watched Spectre (2015) last night and was entertained enough to finish it.

I knew it would be pretty hard to top Skyfall.

[spellbound]

They have been advertising a new movie called Deadpool. To people my age, The Dead Pool was the final "Dirty Harry" movie in 1988. I can't help thinking of it when I hear the name. But that's not a problem, since I almost always have the sound muted when a commercial comes on the TV. I guess Deadpool is the name of a character in a comic book I never saw growing up. So it goes. I just find it confusing that the movie character looks so much like Spiderman. I keep thinking: They made another Spiderman movie? Why? Does anyone know the story of this new (to me) character, Deadpool, and his similarity to the Spiderman character? I have seen nothing except the TV commercial for the movie, muted. Is it a good movie?

[-=RTFR666=-]

Wikipedia is your friend...

"Deadpool (real name Wade Winston Wilson) is a fictional antihero appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. Created by writer Fabian Nicieza and artist/writer Rob Liefeld, the character first appeared in The New Mutants #98 cover-dated (Feb. 1991). Initially Deadpool was depicted as a supervillain when he made his first appearance in The New Mutants and later in issues of X-Force, but has since evolved into the role of an antihero. Deadpool is a disfigured and mentally unstable mercenary with the superhuman ability of an accelerated healing factor and physical prowess. He is known as the "Merc with a Mouth" because of his talkative nature and tendency to break the fourth wall, which is used by writers to create humorous effect."

[nycsteve]

Man Up , from 2015 with Simon Pegg. Romcom with a unique premise. Moves along quickly, and is different enough, adult enough, smart enough to keep ones interest. A respectable 7 of 10. Helps that its not a mushy one.

[frinspar]

They have been advertising a new movie called Deadpool. To people my age, The Dead Pool was the final "Dirty Harry" movie in 1988. I can't help thinking of it when I hear the name. But that's not a problem, since I almost always have the sound muted when a commercial comes on the TV. I guess Deadpool is the name of a character in a comic book I never saw growing up. So it goes. I just find it confusing that the movie character looks so much like Spiderman. I keep thinking: They made another Spiderman movie? Why? Does anyone know the story of this new (to me) character, Deadpool, and his similarity to the Spiderman character? I have seen nothing except the TV commercial for the movie, muted. Is it a good movie?

He was meant to be a one-off character by arguably the worst "artist" in modern comics, Rob Liefeld. But Nicieza gave him some personality and he became a hit eventually. Once taken out of Liefeld's hands, he became the sarcastic, joke-a-second, motormouth who talks to all the voices in his head, keeps a blind old woman hostage for companionship, loves chimichangas and rides a moped.

Wade Wilson is a mercenary who was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He agreed to be experimented on with a cancer cure created from a sample of Wolverine's blood that carried his off-the-charts healing power. It worked so well, that it cured Wilson's cancer, but continually kept his body in a state of repair. It was so effective that it made him virtually immortal, able to reconstruct himself after being reduced to little more than a smear on the pavement. The cure is so overactive that it makes him look like his entire body is a scabby, gnarled mess, thus the full-body costume. It's affected his mind as well. He's functionally insane with limited memories of most everything he does. He's so insane, that he's the only character in the Marvel Universe who knows he's a comic book character. He regularly talks to the reader, breaking the 4th wall to quip or give away what's going to happen on the next page. That kind of stuff.

The story behind how and why this movie managed to get made is nothing short of amazing. The dedication Ryan Reynolds has had in pushing to play the character he's loved for so long has, by all accounts and early reviews, paid off in spades and the Deadpool movie will be the surprise superhero movie of the year.
But the humor is absolutely of the toilet kind. The character is all about boobs and fart jokes.

He's also an overt and cheeky ripoff of DC Comics' mercenary character, Slade Wilson, AKA Deathstroke.

[spellbound]

^Thanks for the description. I'll probably see the movie eventually, and it helps to have some back story.

[SteveSly]

They have been advertising a new movie called Deadpool. To people my age, The Dead Pool was the final "Dirty Harry" movie in 1988. I can't help thinking of it when I hear the name. But that's not a problem, since I almost always have the sound muted when a commercial comes on the TV. I guess Deadpool is the name of a character in a comic book I never saw growing up. So it goes. I just find it confusing that the movie character looks so much like Spiderman. I keep thinking: They made another Spiderman movie? Why? Does anyone know the story of this new (to me) character, Deadpool, and his similarity to the Spiderman character? I have seen nothing except the TV commercial for the movie, muted. Is it a good movie?

A guy I work with saw it last night and raved about it. I am not really all that into the comic book movie thing, but this guy sees a lot of films and thought it was great.

[NogbadTheBad]

My daughter saw it last night and raved about it. I'll go see it soon.

[BaldJean]

It is very interesting that most people talk about new movies. Most new movies leave me cold; there is a t best one in ten that I like, but probably even fewer. But there are some great old movies hardly anyone knows today, and I think those should be brought to mind more.

As to the so-called "horror" movies: I consider most of them not to be horror at all. Horror is that vague tingling in the spine that creeps up your neck. Watching someone being decapitated or gutted does not cause that effect at all. In my opinion the less you see the more your imagination works, and that is where the true horror lies. Jumping in your face with spilled intestines or fountains of blood is terror but not horror. Most modern so-called horror movies lack the essential ingredient - atmosphere.

That's the reason why I like "The Blair Witch Project" so much. It is all in your imagination there.

[nycsteve]

It is very interesting that most people talk about new movies. Most new movies leave me cold; there is a t best one in ten that I like, but probably even fewer. But there are some great old movies hardly anyone knows today, and I think those should be brought to mind more.

As to the so-called "horror" movies: I consider most of them not to be horror at all. Horror is that vague tingling in the spine that creeps up your neck. Watching someone being decapitated or gutted does not cause that effect at all. In my opinion the less you see the more your imagination works, and that is where the true horror lies. Jumping in your face with spilled intestines or fountains of blood is terror but not horror. Most modern so-called horror movies lack the essential ingredient - atmosphere.

That's the reason why I like "The Blair Witch Project" so much. It is all in your imagination there.

I'll answer touching on both your points ,horror and old movies. 1932's Island Of Lost Souls is a horror movie of the type you refer. Charles Laughton plays a demented scientist on a remote tropical island surgically combining humans and animals. Very atmospheric with matte backgrounds and spooky fog. There is violence, IIRC mostly implied. I remember as a kid squirming at a scene n which someone is skinned alive. It all happens off screen , allowing the viewers imagination full range. This is the perfect example to me off ones imagination trumping anything a film maker can show with special effects. That was truly terrifying and a movie experience that has stayed with me for a half a century. Newer "horror" movies ,if they rely mainly on special effects are experiances of the moment. It happens on screen, the viewer jumps, and its off to the next fx jolt. Like a rollercoater ride, when the movie ends ,its forgotten. I agree , creating the atmosphere of dread before the visual jolt of grossness , or even an atmosphere that engages the imagination requires film making skills less in supply than the technical expertise to present the eye popping fx of today.

[BaldJean]

I'll answer touching on both your points ,horror and old movies. 1932's Island Of Lost Souls is a horror movie of the type you refer. Charles Laughton plays a demented scientist on a remote tropical island surgically combining humans and animals. Very atmospheric with matte backgrounds and spooky fog. There is violence, IIRC mostly implied. I remember as a kid squirming at a scene n which someone is skinned alive. It all happens off screen , allowing the viewers imagination full range. This is the perfect example to me off ones imagination trumping anything a film maker can show with special effects. That was truly terrifying and a movie experience that has stayed with me for a half a century. Newer "horror" movies ,if they rely mainly on special effects are experiances of the moment. It happens on screen, the viewer jumps, and its off to the next fx jolt. Like a rollercoater ride, when the movie ends ,its forgotten. I agree , creating the atmosphere of dread before the visual jolt of grossness , or even an atmosphere that engages the imagination requires film making skills less in supply than the technical expertise to present the eye popping fx of today.

As a kid I saw an old "Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde" movie on TV when I was home alone; I was about ten years old. One scene frightened me so much that I had to switch off the TV. It was the scene in which Jeckyll changes into Hyde against his will for the first time. When his hands turned hairy I freaked out. The idea of turning into a hideous creature beyond my own will was absolutely terrifying for me.

[nycsteve]

The 1931 Dracula while a little slow moving had its moments too. What got me as a kid was when Reinfield at Draculas castle is walking through a hallway battling through volumes of spider webs and Dracula ,following, glides through them without disturbing the webs. Also IIRC there where bugs emerging from bug sized caskets, pretty weird and disturbing. The really early Universal horrors pre-code could get pretty wild.

[-=RTFR666=-]

Saw Hail Caesar last night. George Clooney was as good as he was in O Brother, but when all was said and done this was not one of the better Coen Bros films...YMMV

[proggosaurus]

I love old movies. TCM is one of my favorite channels for that very reason. I watch it and the Science channel more than all others combined. just watched What's Up Doc? again last night. it never gets old and always makes me laugh. Madeline Khan nearly steals the whole movie but everyone else is at the top of their game as well.

[Klonk]

It is very interesting that most people talk about new movies. Most new movies leave me cold; there is a t best one in ten that I like, but probably even fewer. But there are some great old movies hardly anyone knows today, and I think those should be brought to mind more.

As to the so-called "horror" movies: I consider most of them not to be horror at all. Horror is that vague tingling in the spine that creeps up your neck. Watching someone being decapitated or gutted does not cause that effect at all. In my opinion the less you see the more your imagination works, and that is where the true horror lies. Jumping in your face with spilled intestines or fountains of blood is terror but not horror. Most modern so-called horror movies lack the essential ingredient - atmosphere.

That's the reason why I like "The Blair Witch Project" so much. It is all in your imagination there.

I very much agree! This is exactly why Blair Witch worked so well with me too. i loved it. I have no problem with blood and gore, but it isn't necessary in a good horror movie. I like to be scared in exactly the way you described. It's a rush that I've always loved. As twisted as that may seem doesn't make me a bad dude does it?

I think some good examples of bone chilling, creepy are Asian flicks like Ringu, Ju On, The Eye, Shutter and A Tale of Two Sisters to name a few.

[spellbound]

I never watched The Blair Witch Project because I don't like movies with fake "found footage" where the camera jiggles all around to the point of making me seasick. To me, the first rule of cinema is to make the viewer forget he or she is watching a film.

[Klonk]

I never watched The Blair Witch Project because I don't like movies with fake "found footage" where the camera jiggles all around to the point of making me seasick. To me, the first rule of cinema is to make the viewer forget he or she is watching a film.

I've grown tired of it too. Never had the seasick prob people have complained about. If I'm not mistaken though, Blair Witch was one of the first to use this style? At the time for me at least, it was fascinating.

[-=RTFR666=-]

I've grown tired of it too. Never had the seasick prob people have complained about. If I'm not mistaken though, Blair Witch was one of the first to use this style? At the time for me at least, it was fascinating.

For me the found footage concept was neat and unique for BWP. It was when the fad caught on and was trotted out ad nauseum for the next two decades worth of low budget ripoff horror movies...

[spellbound]

I'm not saying Blair Witch had no value as a movie, only that the shakeycam footage I saw in the trailers is what kept me from wanting to see it. I may have to reconsider if many of you find the movie to be artfully scary, like the Japanese films Klonk mentioned, as opposed to tedious gore, like most modern "horror" films.

[YESHEAD777]

I haven't seen that one, but there was a time (a long time ago) when I saw Miller's Crossing and was very impressed but I haven't seen it since. The last one I saw from beginning to end was Raising Arizona. Loved the visuals, locations and Randall Tex Cobb, didn't like Cage in it. The comedy was hit and miss. I went through Blood Simple, Fargo and No Country For Old Men rather quickly. I'll not comment on those as I didn't see them from A to Z but from what I saw I'm not sure when I'm gonna see them in their entirity. I'll rather watch Bridge Of Spies which I think was written by the Coens.

I was very disappointed with "Hail Caesar". Visually very good. Clooney, Tilda Swinton, Brolin, and newcomer Alden Ehrenreich are all very good, but theres just nothing rememberable about it. Its definetely a love letter to old movies, and the critics like it alot. Theres just not a clever script or storytelling that is usually present in their movies.

[-=RTFR666=-]

I was very disappointed with "Hail Caesar". Visually very good. Clooney, Tilda Swinton, Brolin, and newcomer Alden Ehrenreich are all very good, but theres just nothing rememberable about it. Its definetely a love letter to old movies, and the critics like it alot. Theres just not a clever script or storytelling that is usually present in their movies.

100% with you on this for the reasons you cite, as per my "meh" reaction to seeing it last night