Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/08/20 in Posts

  1. 4 points
    Here's an almost entirely different live TH experience... I probably love it even more than Stop Making Sense. The camera is right on stage and the crowd is going wild and it feels rawer to me.
  2. 4 points
    One thing that I think is interesting is how big this concert seems. For the time, this was a pretty big stage show for the early 80s. Compared to a modern stage presentation for a commercially successful band, this is kind of quaint. It feels massive though. Maybe it's just the energy of the band and the close ups but this feels like a huge show.
  3. 4 points
    I don't care what Andrew Lawrence says...there's no way that's a tracker. That makes absolutely no sense. It HAS to a bug! HOW else is he recording The Rumble? Why would you ever need to track a house?
  4. 3 points
    This was fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fafa-far better... WE watched:
  5. 3 points
    The common thinking is great movie, bad soundtrack. The current version of the soundtrack follows the movie now. Apparently the soundtrack was also mixed differently. I can kind of understand a bit of shuffling to fit as many songs as possible into an LP but it seems so dumb to also make more changes than absolutely necessary.
  6. 3 points
    I re-read the review and I slightly mis-spoke about the audience. Ebert's review mentions he was glad there were no (or few) shots of the audience during the concert since the audience's actions were often out of sync with what the band was performing. In other words, since they couldn't have a camera always filming the audience, the cameramen would have to get "pick up" shots of the audience. Those shots would be taken during a later song so it's not a true depiction of the audience's response to the specific song the band is performing. I can agree with the rationale to leave the audience shots out of it. My issue is with the sound of the crowd. It would have been nice to hear more of them, singing or clapping at the end of a song.
  7. 3 points
    I don't understand that either. I was also curious about "consistency" (whatever the movie term is to make sure things are the same on each new take). At one point early on Tina Weymouth loses her long pants (shortly after Slippery People - where everyone jogs on stage). I thought it was an odd costume choice then I'm like "Duh. They filmed four concerts. People aren't going to wear the exact same outfits every night." but the pants stayed off for the rest of the time that I watched. It also seemed like she was wearing some sort of patterned leggings. I saw shadows but then some shadows moved with her legs. I know it's an odd thing to obsess over. It's just I didn't notice anyone else doing any clothing changes (except for David's big business suit of course).
  8. 3 points
    That impressed me. For me that feeling of space started by seeing just how large the physical stage was before everything was added in. Whenever I go to a concert I'm seeing the finished product so I have nothing to compare to. Seeing how they filled up the space, but it was still small enough for David to run behind the band, was cool. I like that they spread the band out side-to-side instead of front to back. David jumping back over the middle of the stage to come out front again was neat. The entire stage wasn't built to showcase the builders' skills, it was done to showcase the band.
  9. 3 points
    I think what makes it feel so large is how it starts out so intimately—just adding one band member at a time. It makes it all larger than life.
  10. 3 points
    So I thought I was hot stuff when I recognized the credits in the Dr. Strangelove style. Big whoop. That's the credit designer's shtick. (Think Men in Black for instance.) https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/giving-credit-to-the-guy-who-revolutionized-movie-credits/281714/
  11. 3 points
    Stop letting the days go by and start discussing.
  12. 3 points
    I also like how A-Law is all like "Nah, I didn't really care about Money Plane. It's not like it was this big idea of mine that I would think about at night and have visualized in my dreams since I was a wee tyke. It was just this thing, this goof, this throw-away idea that I didn't really care about" -- as he no doubt held back tears as everyone took the piss out of his passion project.
  13. 3 points
    I think it is a hacking device. Wasn’t the device originally used to put a false video image of the museum room where the painting was supposed to be on the monitor to deceive Manbun’s crew? They thought they were looking at a live feed of the museum when they weren’t? If Manbun had used the same device for some video trickery on The Rumble, that would have made sense. But that’s not how things were presented. As it is, I’m still not sure what purpose that device served to double cross Grouch.
  14. 2 points
    An interview with the director of Money Plane, what does June do for fun, and more on this week’s episode. Paul offers up advice on the Help Line, goes through Corrections and Omissions for Money Plane, and Blake J. Harris interviews Andrew Lawrence (director of Money Plane). Plus, we announce our next movie. Believe or not, it’s finally happening...next week’s movie is Just a slight correction/addendum to what Paul said in the mini. This movie is currently streaming on Netflix. If you watch it on Amazon Prime, you will have to rent or buy it.
  15. 2 points
    On Naked, the band wrote the music (and maybe even recorded it). David Byrne just sang words until he found the melody and lyrics he liked. I don't think they are necessarily nonsense but they certainly aren't telling stories.
  16. 2 points
    That's interesting, because David Byrne is famous for basically writing phrases, tossing them in a hat, and picking them out. That may be somewhat apocryphal, but he definitely tapped into a stream-of-consciousness art school vibe for a lot of his songs. He does have some stories though, "Once In A Lifetime," "Psycho Killer," "Big Country," etc. But he's avoided formula as a rule. Brian Eno brought that vibe to Bono too. Eno produced both TH and U2; it isn't Bono's natural tendency to write that way.
  17. 2 points
    I read on Wikipedia that on the soundtrack the songs are out of order so you don’t get that build up of adding another bad member on every song—which is a bizarre choice to me.
  18. 2 points
    I was reading reviews and one thing made me scratch my head. It needs a little set up. Roger Ebert's review mentions how the cameras focused on the band since the audience reactions would be out of sync with what's on screen. Another review mentions that the band only wanted actual concerts to be filmed, and not to do any studio work since the band would lose the audience energy. It doesn't make sense to me. (I guess the band stopped making sense.) The film works because it ignores the audience but the Talking Heads wanted the movie done this way because they wanted the audience to be there?
  19. 2 points
    I don't know that the intention is ever to make a bad movie, as I honestly think that would be a waste of everybody's time. However, I think there is maybe an idea of not caring all that much if it's any good -- if such a distinction can be made. For me, I'm on Andrew Lawrence's side here. I think he was trying to make the best movie he could given the resources afforded him. Ultimately, he made a movie and you can't beat that experience. Even if the finished product wasn't particularly good, he can still spin that in his favor. ("Yeah, but I can do it. Plus, I made it quickly with a nothing budget. Think of what I could do with more.")
  20. 2 points
    Apologies for not participating in my own choice. Now that things are getting back to usual (never normal), I do have some things I'd like to mention. 1) The whole first exchange (Sit Down, John; then Piddle, Twiddle, and Resolve) had me hooked. I had never seen such open snark in a historical movie. The initial debates between Adams and Dickinson were the same kinds of points I had wondered about. When I saw the movie for the first time I was living in or near the Philadelphia area and had been to Independence Hall several times. Figured it was time to see what the movie was like. 2) When I get depressed the last exchange between John and Abigail Adams always helps me. John complains he fears there is nothing left but the discontentment. Abigail replies
  21. 2 points
    Lawrence also said there was supposed to be a lot more about the device but, you know, had to make some hard cuts for time. What might have been!
  22. 2 points
    You’re probably right, and that would have made more sense. I guess it could be “tracking” in the sense that they’re monitoring his data—for some unspecified reason. It just seems like a bug as they end up playing back Grouch’s words on the Money Plane, and Grouch discovers it (if I’m recalling correctly) at that moment. The two things seem to be connected.
  23. 1 point
  24. 1 point
    This can't be said enough, but the guy who directed the previous film and produced this one was kidnapped by Kim Jong Il in the 80s and forced to make a propaganda Godzilla clone. The whole thing is up on youtube, search out Pulgasari.
  25. 1 point
    I'm pretty sure the moratorium on spoilers is maybe a good five or six years, so if you haven't seen Old Boy in the last ten years (and why haven't you?) that's your fault. By the way, Aerith dies; Snape kills Dumbledore; and Bruce Willis has actually been a ghost the entire time.
This leaderboard is set to Los Angeles/GMT-07:00
×