Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

MadScientist

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    26

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MadScientist

  5. Posted

    Personally, I think it's worth it just for the fact that the Ghostbusters movies are the only film with Murray, Ackroyd, and Ramis together, and the first one's better than the second.

     

    So glad the show's back! Looking forward to getting back into talking movies with y'all here in the forum.

  7. Posted

    This is probably the only movie where I will give a lot of weight to cultural significance; it's folly to dismiss Trek as a TV show, because that's only where it started.

     

    That said, though: there was a lot of talk about this being a great movie for non-fans and yet the non-fan had very little time to talk.

    • Like 2

  10. Posted

    I don't have the "Who lit all those candles?" problem. Masha lit them, slowly, and Jerry had to sit and watch the entire process.

     

    (Anyway, easy yes, very much agree with the above opinion drawing a straight line between this and Nightcrawler)

    • Like 3

  14. Posted

    I think we can all agree that at least one version of Body Snatchers belongs in the Canon, but which one? The '50s B&W classic? The '70s version with the final scene everyone remembers? Abel Ferrara's dark, uncomfortable take? Or one of the two more recent ones?

     

    I started wondering what film had been remade the most, and Body Snatchers struck me as one of the most interesting options, as good cases could made for at least three of them.

  15. Posted

    I Was There Too - One of my favorite podcasts. Each episode the host interviews actors who had small parts in major films. For example in one recent episode he interviewed several of the bus passengers in Speed. Host Matt Gourley is extremely funny and very personable.

     

    IWTT is an incredibly fun podcast.

  18. Posted

    Oh, it affected me plenty. I sat there waiting for what was supposed to be this amazing thing to start, this thing that had been built up by the ads and by word-of-mouth, that was supposedly amazing, and new,... and then all of a sudden it was over. There's no need to be insulting about it.

     

    But if there is, I can certainly accommodate.

  19. Posted

    Finally, an episode of the podcast that I won't even listen to. Blair Witch is an awful, overhyped, obnoxious film. The marketing campaign was smirking and self-congratulatory (and it looks as though that's carried over to whatever this new one is). I don't care anything about the terrible, idiot characters, and I hoped through the whole thing that something horrible would happen to them... and then nothing horrible actually happens. Something horrible is vaguely implied to happen to them. That's all the movie is: vague implications of a much cooler story happening around the edge of these abrasive morons lost in the woods, and we never get to see any of it. Lovecraft built a career and legendary status with the exact same kind of story, but something always happens in those stories. It's not as though I need every step spelled out for me, but this is a movie where literally nothing happens.

     

    Is it Canon-worthy for spawning (or bringing back, depending on how you look at it) the found-footage phenomenon? Hell, no. Hardly any of those films are any better than Blair Witch (although a case could be made for a couple, V/H/S springs to mind), so in this case, a shitty movie starting a wave of other, shittier pretenders should exclude it from the Canon. In perpetuity. No revisiting, no making it part of a future vs., I just beg anyone reading this to please vote "no".

  20. Posted

    In an alternate universe, one of those twenty-odd scripts was made into a movie that, coupled with the technical achievements, transcended both story and effects and there's no argument that this film should be in the Canon.

     

    But we have to live in this universe, so I'm voting "no".

  23. Posted

     

    In the "But I just haven't seen it so no comment" sort of way or the "I'm rather dismissive towards it" sort of way?

     

    The second one. I've seen Camelot plenty of times (I've even seen it live), but I'd just rather a straight-up Arthurian story than the musical version in the Canon. Personal preference, is all.

  24. Posted

    I forgot about Excalibur, I didn't consider that part of the genre because Arthur is a little less "fantasy" to me. There's a lot of excellent stuff in that film, just visually it's pretty amazing. I'm surprised we don't see too many takes on that legend these days; I can't say that I'm enthusiastic about Guy Ritchie's upcoming film.

     

    There really should be a King Arthur pic in the canon, but really the only choices are Excalibur and Disney's Sword in the Stone.

     

    Please don't come at me with "what about Camelot" because yeah, I'm aware of it.

  25. Posted

    Help is fluff. A Hard Day's Night gives more of a look at the Beatles phenomenon than their other movies. It's a snapshot that shows the beginnings of what would eventually become the world's most popular, influential band (they were, after all, bigger than Jesus).

     

    That said, this is one of those picks that's way more about cultural significance and influence than any kind of quality.

×