grudlian.

Double post

You're probably right. I haven't seen this since theatres. So, a lot of nuance or horror elements are probably lost on my memory. If someone wants to call this horror, I'm not going to push hard on it. It's one of those where it walks that line between two genres and I felt it fel more on drama than horror. I have to disagree with this. I don't think horror needs to be scary due to supernatural horror. The Strangers, Them (the French movie, not the mutant ant movie), Jaws, many slasher movies, etc. don't have supernatural elements and are all horror movies to me.

I agree that this isn't a horror movie. While I'm not sure what the definition of horror is, I think its primary goal (or one of its primary goals) is to scare people and I don't think that is The Sixth Sense's goal except for a couple sequences. I can see why some people consider it horror though. 1. I remember people in 1999 saying it was scary. Not everyone but certainly some enough people to earn a reputation as a scary movie. 2. I'm not sure horror has a really strict definition and certainly not a long time ago. People like Edgar Allen Poe are considered horror writers and some of their best known works aren't strictly horror in my mind. So, if you look at The Raven or Telltale Heart or Cask of Amantillado (just pretend I spelled that right) as lumped in with horror, then Sixth Sense kind of fits in with that vaguely gothic, dramatic, tense kind of story. Especially when the line between horror and thriller is very blurry. 3. Horror gets very little respect. There's a running criticism or dismissal of movies as "just horror" meaning they aren't important or can't mean something the way "important" movies like Citizen Kane are "important". Or potential horror movies being labeled thrillers instead of horror. So I perceive a lot of horror fans really wanting anything with horror elements to be considered horror especially if it is critically adored. It helps horror get more respect. I think that's why a vocal group of people want to say "Shape Of Water is a horror movie! It has a monster in it! Why don't Hollywood call this the horror movie it is?" Or as Syncasey said about Crimson Peak. Even something like Get Out which has terrifying elements in it, some people were reluctant to call it horror. There's a desperation to get respect for horror.

This makes a lot of sense. The wikipedia article is kind of vague and just says they didn't trademark the slogan or hand symbol. And I'm wondering why they had horns for a gopher mascot.

According to wikipedia, hook em horns started in the 1930s...at University Of Minnesota?!

Sam was Patrick Dempsey's, I don't know, assistant? She worked at his office. Ithink it was the first scene where he brings Giselle to the office. I only know this because I was looking at imdb when her scene came on.

I assume they spent a ton of time finding the perfect Giselle because the movie fails without her. Then they just said, "Anyone can play the main love interest. Just get the Grey's Anatomy guy. He's hot right now." Being age appropriate was definitely not a consideration.

I thought this was really good. Is a really fun idea. If Amy Adams, James Marsden, Timothy Spall (and his costumer for all his disguises) weren't so great, this would have been a total failure. Then you have Patrick Dempsey who is just there.

My bad. I didn't realize it was already covered since I didn't go into the main thread much this week. But any chance to dump on a legit terrible person like Gene Simmons is fine with me.

I just heard the phone call where Gene Simmons claims to have created the devil horns. He didn't. It predates him by thousands of years as part of Hinduism. But maybe he popularized it in the US? Or in heavy metal music? He also didn't do that either and wikipedia goes into the history of it. Gene Simmons, you are a complete tool.

Everyone needs to follow Paul's advice and buy a ticket for Crazy Rich Asians. But everyone should actually see it. Then go see The Meg however you want.

They had some shirts at the shows I attended. Just a couple different designs (possibly venue specific?) Not the wide variety they have online.

Oh, for sure. I like all this stuff but I can see why it might be a turn off for some people. I'm fine with her comeuppance

I'm fine hearing dissenting opinions. I get a bit of your criticism. This really is just a jukebox musical which has a negative connotation today but I think most people don't know the songs outside of this movie. So, people literally don't know this is old music even in the 1950s. I don't know people are necessarily wowed by color in the film unless I'm listening your post. The colors look great but I don't think 1952 audiences were shocked like Wizard of Oz. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I'd say it's similar to watching something like In The Mood For Love. I love the color in that film but I'm not wowed color exists in a movie. You're right about this being kind of not a joyful plot. They are ruining her career because of her voice. I mean she's a jerk so maybe that kind of justifies it? Not really but this is the ultimate turn your brain off and just enjoy it movie.

Fuck Gene Marry Debbie Kill Donald. I'm so sorry Donald but you're the only one left. Do you hate joy?

This is pretty much exactly what Broadway Melody is. Gene Kelly could. It's still a great sequence but I will always feel it doesn't quite fit. I'm not saying the movie would be better without the sequence (I wouldn't miss but I'm glad I can see it). It's just a very lengthy scene that also doesn't fit the tone of the rest of the movie.

I feel the need to back up Paul's opinion that the Broadway Melody because I've definitely been judged for also thinking it doesn't really belong in Singin' In The Rain. It's great sequence but it doesn't make any sense in the movie at all. Every time I watch Singin' In The Rain, I always forget it's there until it's on. But I think of every other scene in Singin' In The Rain when the movie comes up. And I really really want to back up everything Amy said about La La Land. It's fine but never totally bowled me over. Also, a very obscure cameo in the movie is Snub Pollard who's probably best known as the villain in a bunch of Harold Lloyd. He's apparently the guy Gene hands the umbrella to at the end of the Singin' In The Rain sequence.

I want to say $20-25 but I'm not sure.

I don't think so. I went to the Chicago shows and there weren't any meet and greets. They had Chicago specific autographed posters though to purchase.

Definitely go see Crazy Rich Asians. I saw it last night and it's so wonderful.

To add to Taylor Anne, you also don't need to be well versed in musicals either. Most of us aren't big musical people. Don't feel pressured to goin the rotation but don't feel like you can't participate because you aren't educated on the genre. This isn't serious business...except for Josie And The Pussycats which is the most serious business.

I assume there is also an issue of getting paid for doing the show. A paying audience brings them some money that they are probably not making from studio episodes. Podcasts are generally not a big money making endeavor.

Watch whenever you get there chance this week. There will be a topic next Monday to start discussing it.

I'm pretty excited to see this. I've always meant to watch it and just never got around to it. This will finally be my motivation.

I'm with Matt. I had no idea Gene Simmons was Carruthers. I thought Carruthers looked weird but it never once occurred to me he was Ragnar. That reveal blew my mind but made so much sense. I, like Paul thought, George Lazenby and John Stamos were connected with some psychic/physical connection. One of my only notes was something of the was some Corsican brothers or Xamot and Tomax type relationship.