|
Babe Magnet posted:deep down, aren't we all things It's that or a person or a place. I feel bad I've never watched The Thing. For some reason I was always under the impression it was a bad movie to avoid. Was it a poorly reviewed movie when it came out? Krispy Wafer has a new favorite as of 05:36 on Sep 12, 2015 |
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
oldpainless posted:Man you really need to see The Thing Okay okay, I'll watch it this weekend. I mean, I enjoy John Carpenter movies (watched Christine just last night) and I like Kurt Russell. Again, I have no idea why I haven't seen it except I remember reading bad reviews about it back when I still cared what movie critics said about movies.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Snapchat A Titty posted:One of the first things I learned about movie reviews is that it doesn't matter if the movie gets a bad or a good review. If you are familiar with a reviewer's likes and dislikes, their pet peeves and such, reading their review can tell you with like 95% certainty if you'll like the movie or not. Doesn't matter if they hate the movie or love it. Being familiar with the reviewer is enough to translate their verdict into a recommendation pro or con. Because we didn't have internet, cable, or decent books when I was a kid I'd read the Sunday paper supplements, one of which was TV WEEK. In the back they had reviews of all the movies being shown that week with the year released, main actors, 1-4 stars, and a brief synopsis. I read the gently caress out of that to the point now that I have encyclopedic knowledge of every movie released up to 1988. They also reviewed MTV music videos. It was a weird time when everyone needed someone to tell them whether something was good enough to watch. I think The Thing got 1 star. The reviewer thought the original was better. But I'm watching that poo poo. Right now. EDIT: they're trying to shoot the dog. Aww...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:I also saw the original The Thing and it was just like every other movie you see on MST3K. Kurt Russell The Thing is legit good. It was good. Great special effects. Everyone also seemed surprisingly okay with killing everyone else as quickly as possible. Which is something you look for in arctic polar explorers. Now I wonder how many other great movies I've avoided just because of movie reviews. Apparently there are a whole lot of Adam Sandler movies I've never bothered to watch. When did Winford Brimley get infected? He seemed the most anti-Thing guy on the base right up to the point where they stuck him in that cabin.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
St_Ides posted:I watched the original Back to the Future today, and when they're prepping the lightning rod on the clocktower, a cop comes up and asks Doc if he has the right permits. And here I was always wondering what kind of permit Doc would have gotten for this "weather experiment". That busboy did say he was going to clean up this town.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Hughlander posted:Not subtle but on rematch Star Wars spoilers i did like Rey with a blaster. Oops safety is on, wild fire, oh that's where the shot goes? Kill trooper, look of horror, one shots twenty more troopers from absurdly long distances with a pistol. Does range matter with a blaster? Obviously there are some differences. Recoil would probably be less on a long barrel. But I don't think barrel size would matter for distance aiming. I really liked the variety of ranged weapons in TFA. The original trilogy had a variety of styles, but they all seemed to do the same thing (i.e., kill armored bad guys with one shot, wound unarmored good guys). In TFA there appeared to be real differences in the power (i.e. killing armored bad guys more dramatically, still only wounding unarmored good guys).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Maybe star wars armor is reactive armor but installed backwards because if you manage to get shot you should be dead. Wearing armor shows you're hardcore. I know it's not a new complaint, but that armor really sucks. I can see it being ineffective against a good blaster because not every opponent has a blaster. There's still value to wearing it. But they didn't work against little arrows or small rocks either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Very small, very short range jump drive.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
In RotJ, I don't think Ewok arrows could pierce armor. I remember seeing a stormtrooper with one sticking out the gap in his neck. Not sure about rocks. The armor should have protected pretty well against them, but I guess we don't know how freakishly strong Ewoks were. I will say those scenes could have really benefited from a better sound effects foley guy. Small rocks hitting plastic armor sounded exactly like small rocks hitting plastic armor. Are you supposed to bleed from a blaster hit? I guess I always assumed it cauterized the wound like a light saber. That scene early in TFA where a stormtrooper is very obliviously bleeding makes me think of all those dead and dying stormtroopers with blood pooling inside their white armor. So while they don't offer much protection, they make post-battlefield clean-up a whole lot cleaner. Krispy Wafer has a new favorite as of 17:46 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
I watched the Star Wars pre-equals several years ago with my 8 year old daughter. I can't recall if she had see the original movies or not, but her cultural muscle memory knew Luke was good and Vader was bad. I guess she didn't remember last names or back stories though, so when Anakin became Darth Vader she was so angry that she hit me and walked out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:No, that was because you're a bad dad and made your poor daughter watch the SW prequels. She hates the original Star Wars movies because the actors look weird and the special effects suck. I can't argue with her on those points. The prequels have cute boys with long hair and you can't see the wires (matte boxes) around all the spaceships. As much as I hated the prequels, Lucas was right in that they were made for kids. A lot of kids probably care about episode 7 only because they saw episodes 1-3.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
YeahTubaMike posted:Is 1970s Mark Hamill NOT a cute boy with long hair? I saw the original trilogy during the 20th anniversary re-release (when I was 10), and I was smitten. Mark Hamill was 70's attractive. Which means he's been a voice actor since the 80's.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
I was just pissed it didn't have power suits. Or tanks. You know what I'd use against acid spitting giant insects? Tanks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Bar Crow posted:You know who else sent soldiers into a war in the desert without appropriate body and vehicle armor? You defend against the arachnid invasion with the Mobile Infantry you have - not the Mobile Infantry you want. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Its weird how we think of Robin Williams as a comic actor, when he probably starred in as many dramas as comedies.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Deadpool isn't exactly a constant source of subtle moments, but I did get a bit of a kick out of learning that when they scrap a Helicarrier, they just dump the entire thing on a regular scrapyard. Did you think it looked different from the Disney Marvel movies? Like a first generation model. I figured Fox didn't have rights to reproduce the same look as Marvel Disney and had to use a slightly different design.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Is Lex Luthor at least good in the movie? On a scale of Kevin Spacey to Gene Hackman? I'm going to be dragged to that terrible movie at some point and I'd like something to look forward to.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Something I didn't quite get with the Martian. When he preps the rover for his final journey, he cuts a hole in the roof and seals it with HAB material. This create a bubble on the rover when the interior pressurizes. In the book, the rovers had airlocks, but not in the movie. Yet the bubble is still there even when the cabin depressurizes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Guy Mann posted:The 90s was a weird time for YA fiction, the publishers also had JK Rowling use her initials instead of her actual first name because they thought boys wouldn't buy books if they knew they were written by women. Same deal with KA Applegate. That's as old as YA fiction. 
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Tasteful Dickpic posted:I still have a lot of weird love for The Wedding Singer. I was really surprised that Roger Ebert hated that movie. Like enough to stick in a book about movies he really hated. It's not like it strives to be anything more than a silly film with 80's throwbacks. He usually graded stupid movies on a curve as long as they succeeded in their own genre. My child has an irrational love for Adam Sandler's most horrible movies (that one where he's a twin, Blended, Grownups 2). Even she was disappointed in Pixels.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Pastry of the Year posted:The Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs movies were way better than they had any right to be, and I have no idea if people have come around to that yet, or if I'm still going to have to follow up my recommendation of them with "no, wait, hear me out." That was my favorite book as a child and I didn't hate the movie as an adult even though it differed significantly. Also, Mr. T.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Inzombiac posted:This isn't a subtle moment but it wasn't until a recent viewing that I noticed the person she is drinking against is not an old lady. That's not an old lady? Something about Nepalese makes them look sexually ambiguous the older and drunker they get. Not really a subtle moment from Raiders, but the Wraith of God illustration that Indy finds in a book at the beginning was drawn by Ralph McQuarrie, the same guy who did all of the Star Wars conceptual art. I have a print I need to frame, but it's an odd size and I haven't found a frame yet. I was kind of bummed to find out it really wasn't a kickass Bible illustration. #notallarks
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Tenchi Muyo gets me wet posted:My favorite subtle movie moment about that drinking scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark is that it's one one long, uninterrupted shot. I just watched this over the weekend and even on a Blu-Ray I still can't tell 100% that wasn't a woman. It's Nepalese Pat. I've heard it described as a goof that Marion sobered up so quickly after nearly passing out, but it looks like she's playing up her condition while in the drinking competition to get people to bet against her. Although I'm now trying to figure out if Belloq was doing the same when Marion tried getting him drunk in the tent. It was his family's wine and he did grow up on the stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Holy gently caress, goons are so dense. Not Marion trying to get Belloq drunk. Belloq acting more drunk than he was to take advantage of her. Ignoring Crystal Skull, none of those characters made it to the 1950's with those livers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yes, THAT'S the whole point! It's like an onion with all those layers. Watching it as a kid, I just figured Major Toht stopped Marion from getting away. It never occurred to me she was never going to escape. And as a child who would later become a Goon, I always wondered what happened to Belloq because I'm face-blind and at the end he has that weird hat so I didn't realize it was him.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
And I'm pretty sure he still has never failed a drug test. How, when he completely full of drugs, we may never know.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
For a tacked on focus-group ending it's pretty good as they got in a few more jokes and Steve the Pirate came back. I'd have maybe preferred them still losing, but LaFleur betting everything on their losing. The chest of treasure probably wouldn't have been as big though.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Except that everyone in Blazing Saddles is playing actors in an 1970's studio backlot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Blazing Saddles was just one big improvisational movie since no one was reading a script. A small studio audience would just yell out stupid poo poo. Like "fart joke" or "big black dick" and the cast just rolled with it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:what ben stiller movie are you talking about Well you see, in Meet the Fockers he goes into great detail about milking cats. Also Zoolander. It's not the kind of subtle humor that the audience unwraps by themselves...like a beautifully packaged gift. Like that 5 minute merchandising scene in Space Balls where Mel Brooks beats an one off joke like it's a dead horse
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, and the Producers bring up the averages on the other 30 or so films. So one decade was really good in a 60 year career. He's still a national treasure by benefit of living so long.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Holy poo poo. i can't believe we're discussing Mel Brooks in a thread about SUBTLETY because he's not subtle at all. Even when he makes subtle jokes, he beats you over the head with them and has the characters point them out like Igor's shifting hump for instance. The topic came up because of the only subtle joke Mel Brooks ever wrote (Hedy versus Hedley). I looked it up in case the joke was some inside thing between actors (it's possible Brooks and Lamarr knew one another). But no. In fact Hedy Lamarr was not amused. quote:Hedy Lamarr sued Warner Bros., charging that the film's running parody of her name infringed on her right to privacy. Brooks said he was flattered; the studio settled out of court for a small sum and an apology for “almost using her name." Brooks said that Lamarr "never got the joke
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
So many films don't hold up. Even Blazing Saddles suffers because the N word stopped being hilarious around 1987. The Naked Gun films are just as funny as when they first came out. Airplane is still pretty funny, but only for older people because young people don't get any of the air travel jokes. And Slim Pickens best role is still 1941.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Considering how many real takes Kubrick made his actors perform, I kind of doubt he put too many "practice takes" in the movie. Maybe he wasn't as anal back then.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Blazing Saddles is about the absurdity of racism though? That's why the main character is basically the only one who's not an idiot. Yes, but racism was pretty prevalent in 1970's cinema. I'm sure that's just a reflection on 1970's America, but it's still pretty jarring to watch now. Blazing Saddles may or may not have been trying to flip that word on its head, but it wasn't like a lot of movies weren't using it unironically.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Calaveron posted:Is Galaxy Quest still the best Star Trek movie ever made Beaten by Wrath of Khan and ahead of Undiscovered Country. Man, there are a lot of lovely Star Trek movies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
NtotheTC posted:Just had to steal this one from Reddit: And here we can remind everyone that Saving Private Ryan lost the Best Picture Oscar to a movie starring that GOOP lady and the Fiennes brother who later played Michael Jackson in a TV movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:But that song. Man, that's a good song. poo poo, who doesn't want to build a snowman.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Allfather never loved me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
Biplane posted:Rewatched Starship Troopers recently and it reinforced how perfect I think that movie is, the pacing and storytelling and world building are loving flawless and I'm astounded by how well it holds up compared to so many other, newer films. I also spotted something I've never noticed before: after Rico gets command of the Roughnecks and just before they head out for the climactic raid, Rico's inspecting the replacements and he does the standard "jesus look at these kids fresh out of boot" like all military men in any movie ever but the replacements are all actual kids, like 15, maybe 16 years old. A subtle moment that reinforces how absolutely flat out nazi-bad the Federation actually is. I'll have to watch it again, but I think they were just trying to show how raw the new recruits were compared to the now grizzled veterans. Rico was too pretty to look convincingly weathered so they needed younger looking recruits. Except for Doogie, none of the high schoolers at the beginning looked remotely 18. The other team's football guy looked 30. Edit: yeah, just looked it up. He was 30. Krispy Wafer has a new favorite as of 14:32 on Aug 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2017 14:29
|
|