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

grudlian.

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2122

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

Posts posted by grudlian.

  1. Posted

    18 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    That's interesting to know that moving the parts around works reasonably well.

    I noted on my letterboxd review  about the structure, which was I think the major problem of the movie. (sorry for friends on here who already saw this)

    A normal romantic body swap film would follow the lines of:

    1. relationship
    2. problems develop / confusion
    3. body swap
    4. realization of love for each other

    This movie, though, goes like this:

    1. relationship
    2. body swap
    3. problems develop / confusion
    4. realization of love for each other

    Which, I think, really makes it a total mess. The body swap should fix or clarify or lead to something, but here in the movie, it just leads to problems. And since the relationship is fairly fine up to that point, it's just weird and stupid and you hate it. If you're going to introduce a bit of magic into your realism, it should be fun or something, here it becomes a total drag.

    The other thing is that there isn't another body swap movie about someone who isn't part of the body swap. Alec Baldwin has, at best, the third most interesting story in this movie but he's the lead. Why are we following him? This is like watching Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead while being unfamiliar with Hamlet.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  2. Posted

    21 minutes ago, taylor anne photo said:

    I'd love to know which one because if it's the Big One then there's so much that happens before that that makes me feel the way I do about Veronica and this season.

    But that Big One was the nail in the coffin.

    Spoiler

    They are married. I don't know what's going on in her life but, girl, you can do better I promise you.

    I'm also pretty confident he dies but I don't know anything about how/why.

     

  5. Posted

    11 minutes ago, taylor anne photo said:

    Now hold on a minute there friend lol! Team Logan Echolls until the day I DIE!!!

    Team Veronica is better than any of the chumps on the show.

    6 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    Haha I used to always "argue" with an ex about Veronica and Logan. I wanted way better for her but she was like, he's great.

    This guy gets it. This is like Rory Gilmore all over again. She's too good for any of her boyfriends (excluding Year In The Life obviously where Rory is trash)

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    The Ringer’s Andy Greenwald and Chris Ryan (The Watch) join Paul and Jason in-sutdio for a special podcast cross-over event in which they discuss the 1992 romantic fantasy Prelude to a Kiss starring Alec Baldwin and Meg Ryan. They talk about the body switching, Stanley Tucci’s hair, Alec Baldwin’s dancing, the plantation house, and much more.

  7. Posted

    2 hours ago, GrahamS. said:

    What I vaguely remember from the article was that Hulu didn’t want the character to lose the appeal that made the show successful. But why not try something new?  Kristen Bell is in her thirties so it seems like she should be able to talk/act like someone in her thirties. 

    I get your point but I also get Hulu's point. I certainly don't care if the show has swearing or violence but I don't want it to feel like they are R rated just because they can be.

    • Like 2

  8. Posted

    1 hour ago, taylor anne photo said:

    Here's a minor spoiler: If Logan Echolls is the most emotionally mature person on screen then you know you've got a problem.

    Ugh. Why? How?

    I'll be honest, I had mostly forgotten why I hated Logan but I knew I hated him. So, I skimmed a Veronica Mars wiki of him (and got what I assume is a major season 4 spoiler) and hated him all over again. Also, why the heck did she date him? Veronica being emotionally stupid is starting to make sense.

  9. Posted

    38 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    Yeah, it’s pretty much what @taylor anne photo said. She’s older, but she hasn’t really grown up. Like, you can go 12 Seasons w/ JB Fletcher because she’s already in her 50’s at the start of the series. But a now 30-something shouldn’t still be acting like she did at 17.

    That’s why I think the movie worked so well for me even though I hadn’t seen the series. She’s trying to decide what to do with her life, and at the end, she makes a decision. You didn’t need the series to get that. Now it’s just like...she’s a private eye, I guess?  

    How has she not grown? She was already more mature than everyone. I get some mature people go through a second adolescence to make up for not having one but that's not Veronica Mars. We heard her over monologue. We know who she is. I'm not expecting her to feel super old, but I expect gett to be a totally put together adult.

    I haven't even watched it yet and I'm angry. Why?

    • Like 3

  10. Posted

    1 hour ago, Cameron H. said:

    You might be fine then. I actually watched the movie first, binged the show, re-watched the movie, and then tried the new season, so everything was pretty fresh. 

    Honestly, I can’t even tell you why I didn’t like the new season anymore. I just remember watching the first ep and being like, “I don’t want to watch anymore.” IIRC, part of my issue was that she’s an adult rather than a teenager so it loses some of its charm. It would be like if Neil Patrick Harris brought back Doogie Howser. Who wants to watch a show about an adult Doogie?

    This is kind of my vague worry. At this point, she's just a private eye, right (I assume it's a bit more complex but whatever)? Plus all the high school drama makes less sense if everyone is in their 30s. Why am I watching this beyond nostalgia?

    I'd be fine with her just being Columbo or Jessica Fletcher solving murders. I don't need her to be Veronica Mars.

    • Like 1

  11. Posted

    1 hour ago, taylor anne photo said:

    I actually loved the movie so I would say worse lol.

    Honestly I'm surprised you haven't heard anything about it by now. The internet was literally on fire because of it.

    ETA: I say I love the movie but I am still pissed off they killed Gia. JUSTICE FOR GIA!!!

    You'd be surprised how much internet fervor I miss. I don't really do social media much.

    1 hour ago, Cameron H. said:

    We watched the first episode and decided the movie was a fitting ending. I do, however, know what happens. I stand by my decision 😐

    Oof. I was going in with low expectations but this is worrying. I thought the movie was okay but an unnecessary coda.

    I'm not going to be the best judge. I haven't seen the show since, idk, 2009? Even when the movie came out, I couldn't remember much of anyone's backstory or names (for example, I don't know who Gia is or why I should be upset that she died). So, if there is something super crazy, I might just fall back on "This isn't how I remember the show, but maybe I'm just forgetting it all????"

    • Like 1

  13. Posted

    2 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    Sometimes you have to get creative with your free previews. I’ve used my previews for Prime and Hulu, but not Apple TV. 😀

    If you have an iPhone, you should be able to do it through the TV app.

    Honestly, we really need to get on the ball with a rabb.it replacement. Not only for our movie nights, but for situations like this where maybe people can rotate renting the movies and we can watch in a room.

    I used my free preview of Hulu but it's cheaper to get a month of that and a free week of Starz than to get a month of Starz through Prime. That's way too much work for one movie but 10 minutes in and it's for sure HDTGM worthy. I guess I can finally watch the new Veronica Mars though.

    This is definitely a reason for us to find a rabb.it replacement. 

    • Like 1

  14. Posted

    17 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    That’s the only way I know. I’m signing up for a 7-day free preview.

    Hmmm... I'm not getting the option for a seven day preview. That might be because I'm checking through the phone app but it might also be because I'm using the free preview of Prime this month. I'll have to check when I get home.

    I really hope the show isn't going to start having impossible to find movies again. If I need Prime and then a subscription on top of that, ugh.

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

    On 2/23/2020 at 2:57 AM, LincolnHockOrHox said:

    Is anyone else finding it impossible to watch Prelude to a Kiss without a Starz subscription? I want to see early 90's Alec Baldwin wearing gigantic glasses in a body switcheroo!!

    I planned on watching this tonight and, looking at Amazon, this seems to be the case. I'd prefer to not sign up for Starz just to watch this. Does anyone know anyplace else to stream this?

  16. Posted

    11 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    I'll add that most of the women in his life are still seriously loyal to him, and he often had female bands and engineers (music engineers are especially mainly men, esp. back then). I think womanizing and misogyny are quite different things which people blur. 

    What I think it boils down to, as it always did with him, was control. That's his ENTIRE ethos. He played and wrote everything. He rebelled against music labels. That's why his bands didn't last. This probably showed up in the movie as him negging Apollonia and stuff like that, it's dated and immature, but that's him showing control. I don't think in any way is this misogyny though. 

    The homophobia mainly crept in when he became a Jehovah's Witness in the late '90s. It's a crazy turn, since before that he was always so into sexual openness and challenging roles and androgyny and whatnot (I do wish Purple Rain tapped into that more). See, the "Kiss" video.

    I'm not confusing misogyny and womanizing. I think his demand for control and loyalty was often at the expense of women. While I'm sure it was also at the expense of men, I've heard more stories of him ditching women than men. Maybe he surrounded himself with more women than men and it's purely a numbers thing. His demands for control also have long ties to misogyny and general not giving a shit about people in general.

    I stand by my original statement that he gets a pass from a lot of people because he's a great musician.

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    41 minutes ago, Quasar Sniffer said:

    And what weirds me out about this whole thing is that this is how Prince wanted us to see him! This is his movie, his story! He portrays himself as a troubled genius who is redeemed, not only for his petulance and disrespect to his fellow musicians, but also his physical and emotional abuse of the woman he loves. All because... he's the best club act in Minneapolis? No thanks. I mean, it's obviously REAL SHITTY that you grew up with a profoundly disturbed and abusive father, but I wish the movie did more to show him trying to turn away from that inherited trauma. Instead, he lets it take him over, but everything is ok at the end because "Purple Rain" is a sweet, sweet jam.

    I think Prince didn't see any problem with it. From what I've read, he would drop women in his life pretty easily which is kind of what happened to Vanity. I don't know if he was dumping women in dumpsters irl, but he definitely comes across as misogynist.  He was also pretty openly homophobic until he died. I don't think I've read or heard a single Prince story about him being "normal" or stable. He's always portrayed as a weird, temperamental recluse. Maybe he's super loyal to his closest friends but that seems like it was, at most, a very tiny circle.

    And people do turn a blind eye to it or even celebrate it because, well, he was one hell of a performer.

    • Like 4

  20. Posted

    21 hours ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    So, 1964 Oscars would be for 1963, looking it over on letterboxd, English language-wise, I'm seeing The Birds, Hud, The Haunting, and The Lord of the Flies (which, admittedly, I haven't seen).

    (ETA: so, yeah... I'm having a hard time finding anything there at least amongst what I've seen)

    Looking over other countries... holy crap:

    8 1/2 (Fellini's, I'd say, best!)

    Contempt (Godard!)

    Winter Light (Bergman!)

    The Silence (Bergman!)

    The Leopard (Visconti!)

    The Big City (Satyajit Ray!)

    The Executioner (I can't remember who directed it, but it was pretty damn good!)

    Muriel, or the Time of Return (Resnais!)

    Youth of the Beast (Suzuki!)

    Now, I'm not the biggest on Bergman, and I didn't really get Visconti from the one movie I saw (The Leopard) and sure, Youth of the Beast isn't best picture type of quality, but it just really layers on this was a really rich year for foreign cinema.

    Fwiw, if I was to pick one from the list I'd suspect you'd like, I'd probably pick The Big City - but you're a little difficult to predict.

     

    I've only seen about half of these. I haven't seen either Bergman but I'm either very hot or very cold on him so I'm always wary about watching new stuff.

    I agree with you on The Leopard. I liked it okay but it felt very long. Youth Of The Beast I've seen but it didn't leave an impression on me the way his more stylish movies did.

    I also haven't seen The Big City. I checked it out from the library last year then returned it unwatched because... no reason really. I like Satyajit Ray quite a bit from what little I've seen though. So, I expect I'll like it when I get to it.

    I really recommend High And Low. I don't think it's underrated but it is overshadowed (understandably) by his other work. I'd probably put it in my top five for Kurosawa.

    7 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    Tom Jones is one of the Best Picture winners I went back to watch and just scratched my head at how that won. Maybe you had to be there.

    Yeah. I was reading about it while watching it to try and keep entertained. I figured it had to be some critical darling that didn't translate to modern times. But I guess it was a big hit at the time with audiences too.

    I'd really love to hear from a fan to explain the appeal because miss me with that.

  23. Posted

    4 hours ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    And in terms of foreign language films that should have won Oscars (barring competition), the BFI list is full of them (I checked for the year 8 1/2 was up for best foreign film - the US bp nominees..., I'll just say the US bp nominees don't come to mind as essential movie viewing (admittedly, the winner, Tom Jones, is a movie I had not heard of before looking up what won the year of 8 1/2). But related to that point, the BFI list is also full of English language films that "should have won, but didn't", so I feel that makes the initial question of "should have won" ambiguous as to what we're asking.

    I haven't seen the other nominees from 1963, but Tom Jones did not deserve a win. It didn't deserve a nomination for best picture.

    I haven't done any serious analysis but it certainly looks like one of the worst years for film. At least for English language movies. If I were nominating five movies for best picture, I'd probably say High And Low, 8 1/2, Hud, Dry Summer, and Contempt. So, only one English language movie but I'm sure there are a lot of great ones I haven't seen.

  24. Posted

    35 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    Crouching Tiger is definitely the one that stands out to me. Roma is great but kind of esoteric: it's black & white, it's a Netflix movie -- hard to tell how popular it was. CTHD was a bonafide smash hit, the highest-grossing subtitled movie ever in the USA, and also a critical darling. Before Parasite that was the obvious time to award one, especially since the competition wasn't super strong.

    How esoteric or popular Roma is isn't relevant when it's just a better movie than everything it's nominated against in my opinion.

    I wouldn't say that embracing streaming as a platform for film exhibition is as important as recognizing the world outside of English speakers, but I'd say denying Roma the award because it's a streaming movie (which is speculation but I think it's naive to say that wasn't part of it) is exactly the stodgy outdated thinking people have been complaining about in the academy for decades. 

  25. Posted

    I think a very obvious choice of foreign language film that should have won best picture is Roma.

    I think Crouching Tiger is another good choice especially over Gladiator.

    I would be fine with Seven Samurai winning but I believe that's the same year Marty won. Both movies are probably in my top 10 of all time. Marty seems like it would be a mostly forgotten gem if it didn't have Best Picture Winner attached to it while Seven Samurai gets recognition all the time. So, Seven Samurai is the better, more influential movie but I want more people to experience Marty.

×