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

    2 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    Episodes that they've recorded but haven't released are: 2:22, Abraxas, Holy Matrimony, The Visitor, and Governor Gabbi. Like Paul said in the Mini, they like to store them up in case they're unavailable due to filming. Back in the day, I want to say around Secret of the Ooze, there were times when they would go a month and a half without an episode. I like how they bottle episodes now.

    Regarding Swordfish, I've heard from three separate people in three separate places that it was due to working with Don Cheadle on Black Monday. They all said that during the Q&A at a live show that they wouldn't release it while he was still on the show. That being said, Paul sort of dismissed that idea on last week's mini so who knows? I'm inclined to think it was somewhere in the middle. It wasn't exactly forbidden by Cheadle, but more of a professional courtesy from Paul and maybe people read that as more dramatic than it actually was. If you follow them on Twitter, they seem to have a good report, and Cheadle definitely has a sense of humor.

    Besides, as I am currently watching Swordfish, Cheadle is far from the problem in that movie. I sincerely doubt any of their jokes were directed his way. 

    Since they announced releasing Swordfish this week, I've been kind of dreading it. I expect a bunch of people over analyzing it (maybe not here but twitter or reddit or wherever) like any reference they make to Cheadle will be "WOW! THIS is what Cheadle was offended by?!?!?!" or "They must have cut something!!!!!! This isn't bad at all!!!!!" People made a mountain out of a complete non-issue as if Swordfish is atop the bad movie pantheon.

    • Like 2

  2. Posted

    1 hour ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    Yea, I saw one of those. She went through three phases of the Masseduction tour.

    First was by herself on guitar and a taped backing, playing the album straight through; it was pointless and I don't know why she went that way. But then later in the same year, she went back around with a band and played it like a real dynamic rock show. That was much more satisfying, of course. Thrilling stuff, even. That first part was just a short phase is my only real defense of it. As best I can tell, she was just using it to introduce people to her new album and less of a performance? Fans don't need that.  

    (After that, she did the short run doing the album as a piano/lounge act; surprisingly effective and awesome.)

    Yeah. This is the leg of the tour I saw. She did a few songs from other albums before and after the straight run through of Masseduction. It might have been cool had I not already owned the album and listened to it many times. Tickets were relatively cheap as I recall but still kind of like why?

    This is the kind of show an artist should do leading up to an album release. Go to a few cities. Limit the phones so people can't record it. Then let people sell it through social media. Tickets went on sale before the album came out. So, everyone there is already a fan. Don't you think most of us would have at least listened to part of it?

    I'm kind of harping on about it but it wasn't a bad show. It just left me feeling disappointed since I was expecting something more interesting from St. Vincent. I saw Janelle Monet a few months later I think and her tickets were more expensive, but everyone got a free download of the album. Seems like a better option to me if you're just trying to get the word out.

  3. Posted

    59 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    I love Casual Gods! 

    HUGE St. Vincent fan too. (You can see me in the crowd shot on her MassEducation album liner notes (the piano version of Masseduction).) She's a modern Bowie imo.

    I went to the St. Vincent/Byrne tour and it was really fun. Maybe not spontaneous enough for my liking, it was highly choreographed and robotic. But when they broke into a couple of Talking Heads songs at the end, it was a revelation. Esp for those of us who never saw TH live. I went to a Byrne solo gig once ages ago too and I don't think he played any!

    I saw St. Vincent on the masseduction tour and thought it was kind of a lame show. It felt very stiff. She was on stage by herself the entire show with everything except her guitar and vocals prerecorded. She barely moved other than every few songs she went to a new pose and just stayed there. There was a screen showing some cool visuals but ehhh. I might as well have just listened to the album or watched a video.

  4. Posted

    1 hour ago, Quasar Sniffer said:

    For a guy who was very controlling and, you know, a weirdo (I love him that way), David Byrne has had some amazing collaborations outside of Talking Heads.

     

    I really love My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts with Brian Eno and David Byrne. Even after knowing all the Talking Heads albums and several Brian Eno albums, it was an album that felt really, really offputtingly weird the first time I heard it.

    St. Vincent is also really great without David Byrne if you haven't listen to her. 

    • Like 3

  5. Posted

    David Byrne is great but he gets too much credit in my mind. A lot of the songs on Fear Of Music and Remain In Light and Naked (and maybe others) came out of jams the band had. The music was organically a creation of the four of them together. Byrne might have pushed them in a direction occasionally but you could put that on Brian Eno as well. If Talking Heads broke up after More Songs About Buildings And Food, I think it could have been called Byrne's band. I don't think you could do that after Fear Of Music though.

    I think the True Stories soundtrack is easily Talking Heads worst album and I don't think it's a coincidence it's the one that is the most solo David Byrne.

    Basically, I think David Byrne is the Lennon and McCartney of Talking Heads. You can't have The Beatles without all four of their contributions. Same with Talking Heads. 

    • Like 5

  7. Posted

    1 hour ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    That's interesting, because David Byrne is famous for basically writing phrases, tossing them in a hat, and picking them out. That may be somewhat apocryphal, but he definitely tapped into a stream-of-consciousness art school vibe for a lot of his songs. He does have some stories though, "Once In A Lifetime," "Psycho Killer," "Big Country," etc. But he's avoided formula as a rule.

    Brian Eno brought that vibe to Bono too. Eno produced both TH and U2; it isn't Bono's natural tendency to write that way.

     

    On Naked, the band wrote the music (and maybe even recorded it). David Byrne just sang words until he found the melody and lyrics he liked. I don't think they are necessarily nonsense but they certainly aren't telling stories.

    • Like 2

  8. Posted

    1 hour ago, Cameron H. said:

    I read on Wikipedia that on the soundtrack the songs are out of order so you don’t get that build up of adding another bad member on every song—which is a bizarre choice to me.

    The common thinking is great movie, bad soundtrack. The current version of the soundtrack follows the movie now. Apparently the soundtrack was also mixed differently.

    I can kind of understand a bit of shuffling to fit as many songs as possible into an LP but it seems so dumb to also make more changes than absolutely necessary. 

    • Like 3

  9. Posted

    One thing that I think is interesting is how big this concert seems. For the time, this was a pretty big stage show for the early 80s. Compared to a modern stage presentation for a commercially successful band, this is kind of quaint. It feels massive though. Maybe it's just the energy of the band and the close ups but this feels like a huge show.

    • Like 4

  11. Posted

    1 minute ago, Cameron H. said:

    FINALLY! I've been wanting to watch this for YEARS! I've just never made the time.

    It's been on my Musical Mondays shortlist forever and then I'd always have some last minute other choice. I basically was mentally prepared to do it once then Cam Bert picked True Stories. It felt a bit too similar even if our picks were probably a month apart.

    • Like 2

  13. Posted

    This is a movie that I think a lot of us have seen. I think it's come up a occasionally but a glance through Letterboxd does have a lot of checks for it. So, I feel the need to rectify that.

    Spoiler

    We're watching Stop Making Sense.
    image.png.c3c272ce4617346367a2779ad07448bc.png
    This is available free on Pluto TV and Tubi with commercials. It's on Youtube without commercials. Basically, there are a ton of ways to see this for free. Or, just buy it on Amazon or whatever.

     

    • Like 4

  16. Posted

    1 hour ago, pscudese said:

    It was hilarious that they didn't realize the Lawerence Brothers were in the film based on it being written/directed by the youngest of them.

    When I saw it, it reminded me I use to watch their show! What was I thinking! I was 17! Fuck my younger self! 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HbD8Pxob-k

    I wanted to roast them for not recognizing Thomas Jane but I didn't recognize Joey Lawrence. So, I guess I don't have any room to say anything. I did at least recognize Matthew Lawrence which is strange because I don't think I've seen anything he's done since Mrs. Doubtfire.

    • Like 3

  17. Posted

    3 hours ago, Cam Bert said:

    I'm non-American!

    I was going to actually ask a bit about this. So this is from my perspective of my schooling growing up in Canada. We do study a bit about America and it's founding but not that much. We cover the basics like the thirteen colonies and taxation without representation which led to the revolutionary war. However in terms of covering the people involved and their roles it's not really touched upon. I'll come back to this later. Then next time we learn about America is the war of 1812 and then the civil war is briefly mentioned. We start looking at US politics and history more come 20th century particularly from the stock market crash and depression and lead up to war. When I was in school though, grades 9 and 10 history/social studies classes just covered Canada and Canadian topics with brief mentions of America where it considered us. Then in 11 and 12 we go to more global and world and really focus on 20th century issues which brings more of a focus on modern America.

    All this said I have two things going for me. One, American media. You learn a lot about these figures based on references in shows and movies. Before watching Hamilton my knowledge of the man was he was shot by Aaron Burr (thanks to a milk commercial) and he was on the $10 bill and something to do with the treasury (from Lazy Sunday). I know Button Gwinnett is a person who signed and was looking for him in the movie. The second thing in my favor is I love history. So I can name you most all American presidents from my own readings and that, but my main interest in from late 19th on. I love Teddy Roosevelt, my personal favourite, because his story I found really interesting and read about him and just what a larger than life man he was. Sadly I know not that much about the civil war or founding of America. I know most of the players in general overviews and that's about it.

    This I guess is a long winded way of saying I'm interested in the subject but not well versed so I spent a lot of time wondering about how accurate it all was. Like I know they aped the painting and I know that they are all the real people that signed and what not, but as far as characterization and events I am curious. As far as the jingoism goes I think I wrote about this on the Unspooled episode of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I have no problem watching American movies that pat themselves on the back as long as it for the right reasons. Mr. Smith is a good example. About a man fighting for what the country was founded on and should be about. America is a land of opportunities and founded on principles and ideals of people being free to be themselves. These are good things that anyone can get behind. When it starts to get eye rolling is when it is unwarranted or when America is just celebrated for being great end of story. Michael Bay slow motion flag waving montages come to mind as eye rolling and groan inducing. However, that can also go full circle to being funny like in Rocky IV. If you want to tell me America is great because America is great fuck yeah and you're not being ironic then it is, for me at least, hard to bear. Also, I hate interjecting modern ideals and values on past works. That's where I did have many questions. I would like to know if Adams hard line stance on slavery is accurate to the man and something he did fight for. I know he is one of the few of the first twenty presidents or so that had no slaves but not sure if that was his beliefs or just lack of land, money, etc..

    Long answer longer, where does 1776 fit in with all this? I wasn't put off by it. Some things were a bit cutesy, like The Egg, but none of it really struck me as all that jingoist. While I did like the songs I enjoyed their debates and the politicking side of things more. I think what helps is that Adams is so well defined and driven. If he was more of a wishy washy guy that wasn't sure what he wanted I think I could have lost interest or felt it was too "pro-American" if you get what I mean. The fact that Adam was so adamant about his belief in independence and it was for the right reasons and he was unwavering in his beliefs helped it come off as a character piece and historical fiction without seeing overly patriotic. Two of my favourite bits were at the end was he little talk with Hancock about knowing where he stands and when he is debating if he is right to give up the fight against slavery and Dr. Hall comes in and talks to him. If at any point a character started talking about the potential the nation would have to be the greatest nation in the world where every man would be equal and free, I would have groaned. It never did. These were people being oppressed by a tyrant king and wanted their freedoms and rights. Who can't get behind that?

    As far as rah rah nationalism, I'd say this movie is pretty far down on the list. There's a little bit of "American sure is great" but, given the plot of movie, it's excusable and understandable in my mind.

    What's the Canadian equivalent film to this? Is there a "national" film that is kind of widely seen and respected, public consciousness film of Canada? I ask that but admit the US doesn't have one in my mind.

    • Like 2

  18. Posted

    On 7/27/2020 at 9:58 PM, AlmostAGhost said:

    There's a big thread in the FB group about people suggesting nominations for the 7th movie

    I compiled them all in one big list if anyone wants to use it to watch things

    https://letterboxd.com/almostaghost/list/unspooled-school-movie-suggestions/

    I just scanned this list but a ton of these movies aren't even remotely related to back to school or coming of age. I'm not going to formally argue against Josie And The Pussycats being canonized in some way but this ain't the category for it.

    The correct answer is Hoop Dreams though. If they are looking at foreign films, might as well look at documentaries (which should have been included anyway). So, Hoop Dreams, Hoop Dreams and maybe Hoop Dreams.

  19. Posted

    I'm curious how all this plays to the non-Americans who might have watched this. I can't say I had some jingoistic tear in my eye as I watched history come alive, but there is some kind of "oh, this is kind of neat" feeling I wouldn't have from a movie about literally any other country declaring independence.

    • Like 3

  21. Posted

    Yeah, but that doesn't look like a complete cast list since the are only 11 people. None of those people look like the guy in the trailer. I guess we'll have to wait to find out.

    Joe Manganiello's character is named Max Fist.

    • Like 2

  22. Posted

    I also think you need to follow Adams because it's going to be hard to watch the movie from anyone's perspective who isn't staunchly pro-independence and anti-slavery.

    I have also seen the HBO miniseries John Adams. That's a bit boring for a student to watch compared to this but I appreciated it much more as an adult than this.

    • Like 3

  23. Posted

    The version I watched seems to be a mix between the theatrical and the director's cut. What I watched was definitely three hours but imdb says it has a black and white scene which I don't remember.

    I appreciate this movie on a few levels. It is very well acted. I think the staging and costuming is all great. But this felt very long. I also thought many of the musical numbers would have been better served as dialogue. I do like that this does bring to life colonial America in a way that textbooks really don't though. If there was a version of this that was under two hours, I could see liking this a lot more and showing it to students.

    • Like 4

  25. Posted

    51 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    No restrictions were placed on how many films could be nominated by director. And I would say that as a group the voters there are roughly as conscious of the issues of representation for women and POC on the list as people are here, though like most film discussion groups yes the majority are white and the majority are male. I don't think it's hugely majority male (like between 70-30, 60-40, something like that if I had to guess).

    I think it just goes to show that when push comes to shove, yes you can improve the numbers somewhat (and some of this is helped by adding some very recent movies that wouldn't have been considered by the AFI at the time they did their poll), but the choices really are a bit thin if you're looking at a historical list of great films. And if I had to be honest, I think something like A League of Their Own is a bit of a stretch as one of the 100 best movies ever. I think it was helped by the voters wanting to get SOMETHING directed by a woman on there, and it's also a movie likely to have been widely seen. At the time The Matrix was made the Wachowskis were not yet identifying as women, at least not publicly.

    I like A League Of Their Own quite a bit but I'm not sure I'd put it in my top 100 American movies. For a Penny Marshall film, I'd probably put in Big or possibly maybe Awakenings. But I'd also like the list to ideally have women on screen not just behind the camera. So, having women direct make dominated stories is better than no representation, part of me thinks fuck it, put on A League Of Their Own over Big just because it's about women even if I may not like it aa much.

×