Jump to content

sycasey 2.0

Members
  • Content count

    1250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Everything posted by sycasey 2.0

  1. sycasey 2.0

    EPISODE #223 - Disclosure (1994)

    Haven't listened to the episode yet, but am I alone in thinking that aside from the dated aspects (Virtual Reality!) and the kind of confused take on sexual politics (the movie seems to wander into a good point about sexual harassment as often as it wanders into some total bullshit), it's kind of . . . good? Like, just as a low-key thriller about corporate backstabbing it seems fairly competent to me. Nowhere near as ridiculous as something like Lawnmower Man. I guess the problem is that in order to make it a good thriller it has to give you a hero and a villain, which undercuts whatever nuance you might have gotten out of reversing the genders from the typical sexual-harassment scenario. And Michael Crichton doesn't write anything that isn't a pulpy thriller.
  2. sycasey 2.0

    Spartacus

    Life of Brian also parodies Ben-Hur quite a bit, so that might be another reason to watch it!
  3. sycasey 2.0

    Spartacus

    Also, this is the best Spartacus reference.
  4. sycasey 2.0

    Spartacus

    Amy argued in the episode that she loves the movie because it has so many different influences combining into a whole. I suppose that does make it an interesting film, but I also think that holds it back from being a fully GREAT movie. A good movie, sure, but among Kubrick's filmography I'd have it near the bottom. The movies he had final cut on are just more cohesive artistic statements. I'm fine with taking Spartacus off. Would people prefer this or Ben-Hur on the list? Between the two I'd probably pick Spartacus.
  5. sycasey 2.0

    Spartacus

  6. sycasey 2.0

    Conversation Topic—Overrated Award Winners

    In general I'm against the idea of a movie being "overrated" (who am I to tell people what they should enjoy?), but sure there have been plenty of movies that took home Best Picture that I don't think are great. I'll add The Artist. It's cute and all, and I liked Jean Dujardin in the lead role, but it felt to me like a tribute to silent movies made by people who haven't actually watched a lot of silent movies.
  7. sycasey 2.0

    HDTGM and the Oscars

    And Donald Sutherland has an honorary Oscar.
  8. sycasey 2.0

    Conversation Topic—Overrated Award Winners

    I love Boyhood. Richard Linklater is the modern master of plotless character pieces that are still subtly compelling. It's worth noting, though, that though the movie did get a bunch of nominations, it didn't actually win any Oscars.
  9. sycasey 2.0

    Episode 222.5 - Minisode 222.5

    Yeah, same. It doesn't seem like something super ripe for HDTGM treatment, other than the super-dated virtual reality stuff. But it's also been more than 20 years since I saw it, so we'll see.
  10. sycasey 2.0

    North by Northwest

    I mean, I can acknowledge that the story and characters of North by Northwest don't have a ton of depth, but . . . every time I watch it I find it zips right along, even knowing what's going to happen. That's hard to quantify, but I think you've just got to put it down to Hitchcock's skill as a director. He has four movies on the list and every one deserves to be there for one reason or another. He created several of the foundational texts of cinema. My only real gripe with the movie is that the cut near the very end, from Cary Grant holding Eva Marie Saint's hand on top of Mount Rushmore to them in the train car at the end always feels kind of awkward to me, like it's too much of a cheat that they never showed us how the two of them got out of that pickle (when every one of Grant's other escapes is super clever and entertaining). The visual joke of the train entering the tunnel (time for sex!) that actually ends the film helps make up for it though. Sure, let's put the Coens on the list. But not at Hitch's expense. Forrest Gump or The Sixth Sense can go instead.
  11. sycasey 2.0

    North by Northwest

  12. sycasey 2.0

    It Chapter 2: A Quick Review (2019)

    Having never read or viewed any previous version if It, I can't speak to what is a more faithful adaptation and what is not. I can only say that to me the first of these movies was clearly a better story, better executed, with moments of horror much scarier than those in the sequel (the opening scene alone outstrips anything in Two for existential dread IMO). I also find that sometimes if I have read the source material before seeing a movie I find it hard to let go of my original vision of how something "should" look, which often is not entirely fair to the movie. I don't know if that's going on here, but it's something to consider. Or maybe it's just different taste.
  13. sycasey 2.0

    It Chapter 2: A Quick Review (2019)

    See, I thought this was doing a great job of capturing how boys at that age really interact with each other. Yes, they can be pretty annoying. I thought that was the point.
  14. sycasey 2.0

    It Chapter 2: A Quick Review (2019)

    On this: I guess it is slightly different because it's a middle/high school crush rather than a first-grade crush. It's plausible someone might hold onto the former into adulthood, not so much the latter. Carrying it around in your wallet is still kinda weird though.
  15. sycasey 2.0

    It Chapter 2: A Quick Review (2019)

    Compared to this one, I definitely would. I only saw the first movie once, but I don't remember any big CGI spectacle stuff until the very end (which I think is fine as it represents a raising of the stakes). In this movie the early tone is set with the Chinese restaurant scene and not for the better. And yeah, much more chemistry with the kids in the first movie that is not replicated with the adults. The plot structure doesn't help.
  16. sycasey 2.0

    It Chapter 2: A Quick Review (2019)

    I thought this was a big comedown from the first film. Never read the book, so I don't know what was different, but the first one felt like it had a real sense of story momentum to me, and also a sense of restraint. This one is just throwing big fakey CGI monsters at the characters and is way more disjointed as a narrative.
  17. sycasey 2.0

    Episode 222 - Unforgettable

    Perhaps an omission: When Paul read the taglines for the movie, they commented on how "For Better" and "For Worse" as separate taglines was dumb. But I suspected these were for two separate posters, each featuring a different actress. And indeed it was:
  18. sycasey 2.0

    Episode 222 - Unforgettable

    In the episode they talk about why the movie was named Unforgettable, but then talk about how most of the other good titles were taken. But Unforgettable is ALSO taken! This does look like prime HDTGM material.
  19. sycasey 2.0

    Episode 222 - Unforgettable

    It needed a moment like when J-Lo stabs the guy in the eye in The Boy Next Door.
  20. sycasey 2.0

    Unspooled live show 9/26

    IMO A Hard Day's Night is a legitimately great and important film . . . but it's also totally British and probably doesn't belong on the AFI list.
  21. sycasey 2.0

    On The Waterfront

    On the question of this being an apologia for Kazan's actions during the blacklist era: certainly the ending seems that way, but when considering the movie as a whole, you also have to take into account how it begins, where Terry gets a friend killed as a result of ratting him out. Given that, I can see more nuance in the movie: it all depends on who you are ratting out to, and in Kazan's time, it might have been hard to tell who were the good guys and who weren't. For me this helps with any discomfort I might feel about the film's relationship to HUAC; it is thoughtful about the issue, not just a polemic.
  22. sycasey 2.0

    Unspooled live show 9/26

    Here's hoping they cover Ringo Starr in Caveman!
  23. sycasey 2.0

    On The Waterfront

    Amy's reach candidates for an On the Waterfront reference. I couldn't come up with a direct one either.
  24. sycasey 2.0

    Lawrence of Arabia

    Maybe, but a more generous reading would be to say that the movie is saying that humans in general are tribal like that, and that very few are able to see outside of that to a more altruistic view (as the Omar Sharif character does). It comes from the perspective of the British, of course (being a British movie about a British soldier), but I do think the filmmakers seem pretty aware and critical of the "white savior" problem inherent in the story (especially for a movie from 1962!).
×