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

Crummy Scrimmage

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    172

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Crummy Scrimmage

  7. Posted

    Time continues to make MASH's flaws worse. I first saw it in the 90s and it didn't hold up well then either. It was interesting only to see Sutherland and Gould at a time in their careers when they had charisma to burn. 

  11. Posted

    This movie helped me identify and begin to deal with my anxiety, specifically the scene where Alvy suddenly recovers from his "illness" the second he no longer has to present that award. The movie became serious at that point ("Oh my god....that's ME. I need to do something about this.").

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    Haven't seen this movie (or its sequel) in like 20 years and have no desire to revisit it. I know my take is totally subjective, but I just remember not giving a fiddler's fart about any of the people in it or the things that they did (though the DeNiro stuff was kind of interesting). In fact, with the exception of the tropes that have saturated our culture, I realized while Paul and Amy were jogging my memory that these movies had no impact on me. 

  15. Posted

    Elle's voice reminded me of "Old B.O.B." from The Black Hole...another robot with a southern accent from another Star Wars rip-off. But Starcrash came first, so...I guess they were setting the trend? Interesting, too, that Paul read a 5-star review that mentioned Slim Pickens (the voice of Old B.O.B.). Well...maybe not that interesting.

    • Like 2

  16. Posted

    3 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    Honestly, I think that is more Paddy Chayefsky's fault than the actors. Sometimes he can't resist making the subtext text.

    Oh, no doubt. But there is some egregious overacting from everyone. If it's taken as satire though, then all the over-the-top stuff fits. I was responding to the take in the podcast (I think it was from Paul) that this movie might not be meant as satire. I think you have to take it as satire...otherwise it has issues.

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    I love this movie...the concept, the way it's presented, everything. Plus Peter Finch is one of my favorites. BUT...the way every character gets their own cathartic schpiel, I can't help but think about Bob Odenkirk saying (as guidance counselor Moe Phelps) "All acting is is jumping up and down and screaming a lot." It's a funny and unfair distillation of the acting profession...but it's not necessarily incorrect. So I think you HAVE to take in Network as satire. Otherwise, despite its prescience, it's a little much.

  18. Posted

    Haven't seen this movie since its release. I remember thinking the last third of the movie was boring compared to the other two and I wished he'd just kept the story linear. I remember thinking there was too much filler dialogue (oof, that "Royale with cheese" bit doesn't deserve the attention it gets). And I'd seen enough 70s flicks prior to seeing PF that the whole enterprise came off like a guy robbing a grave. I had the same opinion of Jackie Brown and less-so Reservoir Dogs (the only other two Tarantino movies I've bothered to watch). I DO enjoy that 70s aesthetic though, so it was neat to see that come back (unironically, that is -- I'm Gonna Git You Sucka came out 6 years prior!). I didn't feel like I was seeing anything groundbreaking. But it was entertaining enough to see twice in the theater.

  19. Posted

    On 7/18/2019 at 6:59 AM, JeffreyMcDonald said:

    I am more of a person who goes to film for a bit more escapism and I don't really prefer a lot of melodrama; but when so compellingly written and performed such as in this film, it's really difficult to resist.

    I feel the same way about Glengarry Glen Ross (another stage adaption).

    I haven't seen Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf in 20 years or so, but I recall liking it, and I recall liking George and Martha. I'd rather spend an evening with them than Nick and Honey.

  20. Posted · Edited by Crummy Scrimmage

    The interiors in this movie are lit in the same way as cheap '70s potboiler TV shows. Don't get me wrong, I'm drawn to that look, but it's pretty lazy for a big budget movie made in '83.

    Also, I don't like when they rag on Paul for his childhood asides. He obviously tells the stories because he knows they are funny and/or odd, but then he's made to feel bad about it. He just sounds like he was a kid with an over-active imagination. 

    • Like 2
×