Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/29/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    A great bad movie. I've seen it and know it is terrible but can't stop myself watching it when it shows up on cable. It is a 2002 horror movie about a salvage crew that takes on a salvage job and finds the ship of their dreams...... or more accurately... nightmares. Let me just say. Hallucinations/visions of brutality accompanied by techno music and a creepy pale faced little girl.
  2. 1 point
    KULAP VILAYSACK returns to help Sean and Hayes make their origin story documentaries.
  3. 1 point
    BOTH of these movies are absolutely PEFECT for HDTGM! Michael Oliver plays Junior, a little brat who gets tossed around from one foster family to another all his life, causing chaos wherever he ends up, until he gets adapted by John Ritter, who finally realizes what the other families never understood, that all Junior needed all along was a little love and compassion. Michael Richards plays the serial killer Junior idolizes. In the sequel, Junior and Ritter move to a new town, where Junior joins forces with a female counterpart named Trixie, and try to stop Ritter from marrying rich-bitch Lawanda, played by SNL alum Laraine Newman. Would love to hear Paul and the gang discuss these two classic comedies!
  4. 1 point
    BUBO! I legit loved THIS MOVIE as a child. I read the novelization and everything. I for real wanted a Bubo and seeing this gif makes me realize... the effects were GARBAGE. Did you know you can buy a Bubo online? I have seen them at Amazon. But, like, I want him to be my friend and talk to me.
  5. 1 point
  6. 1 point
    More Syncs! Just listening to this anti-capitalist lecture from The Zeitgeist Movement released today (5/28) and they're talking about using shells as a type of social currency. Probably not overly expensive hobby shop shells, but I still thought it was a pretty good sync. Good ep, will watch the Kulap doc when my schedule allows for it.
  7. 1 point
    woke up early this morning, listened to the ep, better than coffee
  8. 1 point
  9. 1 point
    Sorry to post so much in a row but now that I'm thinking about it, what was even the purpose of the sword? King Minos says it's the source of his power and yet he wields a flaming sword. Then when Hercules goes to grab it he says "no you'll awaken the phoenix! The volcano will erupt!" Yet the sword is in a golden rock on a platform Daedalus or somebody made. It's not something that's been there this entire time. It was made and put there. Is the gold rock the heart of the phoenix? Did 20 years prior Sybil Danning give King Minos the sword and he slew the Phoenix with it? Why is it on a platform near the pit if you can't take the sword out and it's purely ornamental? So many questions.
  10. 1 point
  11. 1 point
    DESI LYDIC helps The Boys make their new TV show.
  12. 1 point
    great ep, i got a lot of weird looks from co-workers today.
  13. 1 point
  14. 1 point
    Must watch this movie (Kindof Spoiler?). It's aggressively insane/terrible, starts out like taken with Liam Neeson putting a gun in his mouth, then suddenly turns into a comedy (bills itself as a black comedy remake of a Norwegian movie starring Stellan Skarsgård). The jokes are terrible, there are weird serious scenes with a native american music that make no sense, and a character with no lines paraglides and like 8 hours later in movie time lands into a snowplow and is shot out like a wood chipper (think Paul's cigar chomping exec saying "It's the next Fargo!") and credits roll! Never wrote any of these, but this movie needs to be discussed. Please, if I haven't made the case someone else help. -K
  15. 1 point
    Uh putting the words "cinematographic film" in there doesn't tell anyone anything. What does that phrase mean to you? It definition just says 'marked by pessimism, fatalism, and menace.' It totally ignores and dismisses all the stuff you conveniently want to ignore and dismiss: the shadows, angles, voiceovers, black & white, but that's the cinematic language that needs to be included, as I think Chinatown subverts it to go somewhere new. Don't be rude. I'm not gonna take your word for it being a lame Daredevil movie either.
  16. 1 point
    The thing about Film Noir is that studios and filmmakers in the 40s weren't aware that they were working within this genre, it was a term applied by French film critics and not embraced by American filmmakers of the 40s and 50s. As far as they were concerned, they were making dramas. Chinatown is a self-aware, revisionist noir, consciously using the conventions of the genre, so it really cannot be placed in the same category as 40s and 50s films. Also, the films considered to be the first noirs are "The Maltese Falcon" (1941) and "Stranger on the Third Floor" (1940) - which means that Chinatown, set in 1937, takes place in a pre-noir era. The height of noir happened in the aftermath of World War II, and those films expose the dark side of the post-war prosperity. Chinatown, by contrast, is made in the aftermath of the Vietnam war, and it looks back four decades to create a narrative of corrupt institutions, and about the futility of good intentions that is more of a response to Vietnam, in the way that the classic noirs are deeply tied to World War II. So, I think it's a different dish.
  17. 1 point
    Chinatown totally deserves to be on the list, and it would wild for it to not be on a list of top-100. Maybe it doesn't break new ground, and no offense, but calling all the noirs the 'same dish' seems to be missing a lot about Chinatown, imo. I don't see it as the same as those other noir at all, and I'm not even sure it is one either. Regardless, I gather it may have started as one, but it dropped a lot of the main characteristics (voiceover, black & white, etc.) and it became its own individual film. That's why the filmmaking is impressive, imo; all those decisions that turned it into a masterpiece. (Not to mention the writing and acting which are all perfect too.) I think because of this, it's an even bleaker commentary on humanity than even the darkest noirs. Everyone liked the bleakness of man revealed in Sierra Madre; why not here? It's easy to distance yourself from Double Indemnity and be like, I wouldn't fall for this, it's just a character, etc. Here, you can't avoid it. *shudders* I loved the film before I listened to the pod, and interestingly, hearing Amy & Paul talk about it - even though they didn't love it, it seems - made me like it more! They did a great job bringing up all the details and layers I hadn't considered in first watch -- similarly to what they did that increased my enjoyment of All About Eve.
  18. 1 point
    I'm so glad that Paul brought up Jerry Goldsmith's score. I saw Chinatown for the first time as a boy in the 70's. Honestly, I think I may have been 10 years old. Anyway, other than my general lack of understanding of what was happening in the film, what truly stuck out for me was the music. It wasn't until I was older and had seen the film again, that the score not only stood out, but really helped tell the story. It's fascinating that a complete score had been composed and Polanski refused it. Friedkin did the same thing with The Exorcist. Maybe that was a real 70's thing to do?
  19. 1 point
    Just as a piece of art, I find this movie clearly worthy of inclusion. It's beautifully made on just about every level. The thing I didn't remember all that well until this week's rewatch was just how classical the style was. I remembered a more heated, emotional movie, but the filmmaking is laid-back and subtle all the way through. It's the story itself that elicits the heat and emotion, particularly the gut-punch ending. On Polanski and art-vs.-artist questions (and I'll preface this by saying that I can only speak to how I personally think about these things, not trying to impose my morality on anyone else): I generally have no issue with consuming already-produced art that has long been in the public domain, particularly if the artist in question is already dead (I have no ethical qualms about buying more Michael Jackson music, for example). I can see the argument for not wanting to continue supporting an artist who is likely to continue his bad behavior (R Kelly, for example). When we dig back into history and decided to "cancel" long-dead artists for being assholes, I start to think it's not so much about helping people and more about just making yourself feel better. Another thing I struggle with is whether or not there is any room for a person to grow and change and leave behind what they used to be. Polanski drugged and raped a teenage girl in the 1970s, I have no doubt of that. It's very possible (even likely) that he did it more than once. Would my support of his art contribute to more such behavior now, or was he a really fucked-up dude back then and has since changed? The rape victim herself seems to take the view that he has. I dunno, people can make their own call on that, but I'd just want to throw that out there as something else to consider. One of the things that sometimes bugs me about #MeToo and other examples of online activism is that there doesn't seem to be any room for atonement or forgiveness: you're either a "Good" person or a "Garbage" person and that's it. Humans are more complicated than that. There are "good liberals" who will argue for convicted felons to be granted all kinds of additional rights (something I generally agree with), but then will also proclaim someone a "garbage human" based on a single rape accusation from decades ago. That seems inconsistent to me. (And I also want to be clear: I think #MeToo is a net positive as a movement, but that also doesn't mean it's perfect.) Anyway, on Polanski: he's still alive, but I'm not sure that watching a movie he made 40 years ago on Amazon or whatever really puts any significant money into his pocket. For a new, current release, yes, I can see the logic in boycotting. Studios do care about how your new stuff performs, not so much the old stuff. I'm fine with watching his classic films and analyzing them as art produced (in part) by a troubled person. I'm also fine with one of them being on a list like the AFI 100. The recognition is for the film, not the person.
  20. 1 point
    This movie left me with a disturbed and gross feeling. I loved it. As far as remaining on the list, I have somewhat the same attitude that they took on the podcast. I don't mind that it's there (I voted "yes"), but wouldn't cry to see it go. Separating art from the artist is so damn complicated. I can not stand abusive men, yet I still listen to James Brown, Miles Davis, and The Beatles. And if that makes me a hypocrite, then I'm am genuinely disturbed by that. At the very least, as an admittedly weak rationalization, I'm hoping I can enjoy Polanski films made before any allegations; because Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown, and Repulsion are all films worth watching and studying. And to Paul's point, a movie is a collaborative art form. Even in the auteur era, tens to hundreds of people work on films, and their incredible work should not be diminished because of the detestable actions of the perceived figurehead. Honestly, it's not too difficult for me to separate art from the artist. That's one of the reasons I hate biopics. I care more about the actual piece or art than the douche that made it. I think it was Marc Maron who said something like, [heavily paraphrased] "Almost all the people who make interesting art are terrible humans."
  21. 1 point
    I remember watching the second one a lot as a kid. (I also watched "Super Mario Brothers" a lot as a kid, just in case you need proof that kids will watch just about anything.) I should probably mention that it was a copy taped off of USA, which meant it was edited. Years later, I happened to be on the IMDb page for the movie and saw that there was a subplot that had the kid "videotaping his babysitter and her boyfriend having sex and broadcasting it for the whole neighborhood to see." (Just think, this kid was making revenge porn before that was a thing.) I don't remember much of the movie, but I definitely don't remember that subplot. Oddly, the "alternate versions" page on IMDb doesn't mention that being deleted from the TV version.
  22. 1 point
    Trailer: As Jason would say, this movie is bonkers! It's considered one of the worst movies ever -- as Time magazine said: "Myra Breckinridge is about as funny as a child molester. It is an insult to intelligence, an affront to sensibility and an abomination to the eye." The making of it is pretty fascinating too, especially with director Michael Sarne's unconventional and somewhat mystifying methods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myra_Breckinridge_(film)#Production This movie is perfect for HDTGM!
  23. 1 point
    This is a really good Q&A with Welch and provides some pretty interesting insight into the production:
  24. 1 point
    Some really astonishing stuff about the production: In addition to the tension between Raquel Welch and Mae West, apparently the director spent more time praising West than Welch. Keep in mind that at the time of production, Welch was considered one of the world's top sex symbols, while Mae West looked less like she had come out retirement for the film than like she had been exhumed for it. Further, the director did an interview with some magazine where he made insulting comments about cast member John Huston. Keep in mind, the director was an inexperienced newbie, and the man he was insulting had at that point directed "The Maltese Falcon," "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre," "The African Queen," "The Asphalt Jungle" and "The Night of the Iguana," among others. As a result, Huston waited until a day that his contract specified he could walk off the film without penalty and did so, telling them they'd never cut the film together. What makes the film itself astonishing is when you compare it to the novel (which I haven't read, nor have I seen the movie). The novel has a third-act twist that I'd be reluctant to ruin if it weren't nearly fifty years old: Myra is actually Myron after a sex change. The movie opens with Myron about to have the sex change, which makes the scene where she reveals the truth to other characters fairly useless. And that's probably one of the more understandable changes...
  25. 1 point
    If ever a film premise lended itself to the "found footage horror" format, it was this. "Last summer, four impossibly over-confident middle-aged women went to the Middle East to whore up the local population. They were never heard from again, but three months later, these tapes were found...".
This leaderboard is set to Los Angeles/GMT-08:00