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

EvRobert

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    598

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by EvRobert

  1. Posted

    Thanks for the suggestion! I've got a trip to North Carolina coming up next week (don't know how active I'll be on the forums that week, but if anyone is in the Raleigh/Fayetteville area, I'm going to be attending Raleigh Super-Con and am up for a sit down, drinks, geek about movies) so I've been looking for something to read on the airplane/airport/airplane/train station/train part of my trip

  2. Posted

    Sherlock, Jr is so good, that was the first Buster Keaton movie I saw too, and the well for lack of a better term, water stunt is almost insane. That's also a stunt that broke his neck and Keaton didn't realize it for 9 years. I prefer it to The General as well, but I get WHY The General is on the list.

    • Like 3

  3. Posted

     

    Satan's physical appearance is a heavy focus in Milton's Paradise Lost, which is the text that most other works allude to when they allude to Satan. First of all, he's "monstrous" in size; he's compared to the Leviathan and we're told he towers above all of the fallen angels. Also, even though the poem opens after Satan has already fallen, the reader is told that he was beautiful and "cherubic," which connotes a baby-like face. I think both of those descriptions are interesting because not only does Tom Berenger seem to hulk over everybody, especially as he walks fully upright through a gun fight, but also because his scars make his cheeks (the most pronounced feature on a cherub's face) stand out:

     

    If I may, since I'm a bit of a Bible nerd, while we have the modern interpretation of cherubs as the "fat baby angels" that's not what the Bible says. Early Jewish tradition has them as "youthful" but we shouldn't assume that "youthful" means "baby". The cherubim were believed to be the ones guarding the entrance to the Garden of Eden with flaming swords, the cherubim were the angels depicted on the Ark of the Covenant as being above the mercy seat, the transported the throne of Yahweh.

     

    In Ezekiel, two slightly different descriptions are given, they have four faces (man, lion, eagle and either that of an "ox" or that of a "cherub"--although the author makes it clear that they were the same creatures he witnessed), they have four wings, human hands, straight legs, and feet like a calf but made of polished brass (for real Ezekiel is a HEAD TRIP book--I listened to an audio version of it once after going to the dentist. that was fun :D)

     

    The Cupid/Eros description of cherubs is a construct of Western art, which is what I'm assuming Milton was referencing but who knows, Milton COULD have been thinking of Ezekiel's four faced version. What the Bible does tell us about Lucifer is that he is one of three "named" (this is a contentious point, because while Isiah does use the word "lucifer" to describe Satan, that same word is used to describe others in the original text as well, including Jesus) angels (all assumed to be archangels, although, IIRC, only Michael is actually given that title) in the Bible, he was in charge of leading worship (a role usually for the seraphim) and that he was the most beautiful of all the angels. A modern, evangelical spin on Satan is that he's still beautiful on the outside because he is tempting humanity.

     

    Okay, Bible nerd stuff out of the way :D, I do like the idea that Barnes is somehow representing Satan and Dafoe is Jesus or Michael, locked in a combat for Chris (stand in for Christ ;) ) soul.

    • Like 3

  4. Posted

    I haven't visited Crank or Crank 2 since probably 2011. I bought those movies on blu-ray having only ever seen them once and laughing continuously through it and got a really weird Crank 2 blu-ray where everything was the size of like a postage stamp (this was a Black Friday wal-mart deal). went and ORDERED a second blu ray from Amazon, same problem. I decided that I wasn't supposed to watch those movies again and I haven't.

     

    I think at the time, I laughed at Crank for the same reason I laughed at Machete. I hadn't ever seen anything like it before. It was so over the top it was like Loony Toons with blood and sex and cursing. however that doesn't translate well into rewatchability unless the writing is really good. I think it's a case of style over substance.

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    ngl, I'm guessing I saw this about the same age Paul did, I was 10, saw in on VHS in 1987, paired with Full Metal Jacket and Predator. Please don't blame my parents :D

     

    My folks had friends in our very small town who were the ones who introduced me to "film", they were the first people I knew that had a VCR and they had walls of movies. They lived a couple of blocks from us, and went to the same church. So my folks would go to their house on a Friday night and play cards and their daughter (a couple of years older than me) and I would watch movies.

     

    It was there I saw Annie, Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, Michael Jackson's Thriller, Willie Wonka and The Chocolate Factory, etc.

     

    They moved to Dallas in 86 or so, and in 87 for vacation, we drove to Dallas and spent a week with them. That week, I watched Abbott and Costello, I watched Buster Keaton, I read Sherlock Holmes and books about Elvis Presley and we rented movies and watched movies every night.

     

    My dad was a Vietnam veteran, and very open about his experiences (my dad had a FASCINATING experience in Vietnam-unlike any I have ever heard of or seen and one I've longed to capture for stage) so they thought he would enjoy Platoon and FMJ.

     

    I don't think you can get away from discussing Platoon without discussing Full Metal Jacket, coming out almost back to back, both featuring young casts of young up and comers, Dale Dye vs R. Lee Emry as advisers turned actors on the film.

     

    My dad enjoyed Platoon but hated FMJ. People say that FMJ was "real" or whatever and I'm I'm sure to some it was, but my dad thought it was almost cartoonish, but Platoon stuck with him. The film didn't really mirror his experience in any way, but the characters did. He never saw villagers get mowed down in the villages, or random pig killing, he (as far as I know) didn't see people using guns as bongs, but the different groups within the Platoon, the jocks, stoners, etc etc etc, stuck with him.

     

    I think that's why Platoon deserves to be on the AFI, Stone wasn't just the first Vietnam vet to win an Oscar, he was the first Vietnam vet to write and direct a Hollywood film. It was written as sort of the counterpoint to John Wayne's The Green Berets.

     

    Others, whether that's The Green Berets of Apocalypse Now or The Deer Hunter, couldn't capture the realism that Stone did. The ones that came after, were always in it's shadow, I think including Born On The Fourth Of July (a great movie, but more about one person's experience before, during and after The Vietnam War and not about that snapshot of The Vietnam War that Platoon is) and Heaven & Earth (honestly, my favorite of Stone's Vietnam Trilogy). Stone couldn't make Bot4oJ without Platoon, nor could he do Heaven & Earth. One is about Vietnam itself, one is about one person's experience before during and after but it's hard to appreciate without having seen the horrors of Platoon, and one is strictly about life after Vietnam, but again it's hard to appreciate without the horror that is Platoon.

    • Like 5

  7. Posted

    I saw Scream in 96 as a budding film buff studying television, radio and media. I didn't see it in the theaters but did catch it on video (so it might have been 97 at that point) and enjoyed it quite a bit.

     

    Like Amy and Ben, I hadn't seen the films Scream was referencing. My first Nightmare film was New Nightmare. I didn't grow up on horror films, I grew up on action films, so while I understood that certain things were references, I didn't catch that they were references. That however, made me enjoy Halloween, friday the 13th, Hills Have Eyes, all that more.

     

    I think Scream deserves to be in the canon because it is the perfect combination of Kevin Williamson's script (I don't feel he has written anything better--and I love The Faculty, but it is following the same beats) and Wes Craven's direction. It is the warm front of a new hungry scriptwriter hitting the cold front of a hungry older filmmaker who many probably considered past his prime.

     

    As for Cabin In The Woods, I love that film to bits, but it leans a bit to much into the comedy to really comment on what they are trying to comment on, in my opinion. It's fun as hell, I love Bradley Whitford, I love Sigourney Weaver's character and I love the Lovecraftian meets Shirley Jackson idea it's working on, that there is a random lottery and people must be sacrificed to keep the old gods at bay, but I think it would have worked better if

     

    (going to go ahead and spoiler tag this)

     

     

    The North American Team hadn't lost thus bringing about the return of the Old Gods. I think the commentary would have been sharper if the old gods were held at bay, if The Director's plan had worked, etc. That's why, as much as we may not like these films, we NEED these films.

     

     

    I still think the most natural film in the connection between Halloween to Scream to what SHOULD have been next isn't Cabin In The Woods, it's Trick R Treat. The anthology nature of that film really just worked for me in utilizing urban legends, stories we've seen before and a bit of moralizing.

  11. Posted

     

    I personally think it's because it's about men and not women. Male strippers aren't seen in the same light as female strippers plain and simple. Women are more looked down on and shamed for being in the industry than men so I feel like unless the projects are run by women (particularly women who have been in the industry) you get movies like Showgirls and Striptease where the women are degraded and looked down on. I haven't seen Magic Mike but I don't get the sense that Mike or the boys are gonna be slut shamed, raped, or physically threatened because of their work so the movie seems a lot less depressing?

     

    I also think it helps in Magic Mike's case that Channing Tatum WAS a stripper. The movie is based partly on some of his time (right?) working as an exotic dancer. Or that's where the story started or something. So maybe that's why because it's less booo you're less of a person for working in this industry vibe?

     

    That's probably true, but I always get kind of...an eww feeling when I hear women going "we're going to go see Magic Mike" or "Magic Mike XXL whooo" like it's a show.

     

    It's no different then "huh huh huh i got to see Demi Moore's boobies in Striptease" or "hu hu hu I saw Jessie Spano from Saved by the bells tatas in Showgirls"

     

    The story, writing, directing, are all better that's for sure (I mean it is Steven Soderbergh) but I was thinking more along the public's reaction to it?

  12. Posted

    re: Demi being an FBI agent, apparently at the end of the book Erin is working as a secretary, dancing at Disney at night and contemplating becoming an FBI agent (also Terminator 2 straight up is killed and Erin and the FBI blackmail the congressman).

     

    I have very very very limited experience working as a strip club DJ. It would have been in 99-00 in a small Kansas club in a small Kansas college town.

     

    Everything that I remember was done on the cheap (white Christmas lights lined the stage, I had to provide my own CDs, the couches for the "VIP" room were pretty cheap). I didn't stay long because, it wasn't really what I thought it was going to be. Here's what I remember.

     

    the atmosphere among the dancers, shot girls, bartenders, bouncers, and DJs was very much a family. I heard stories of them having family dinners together, Christmas, etc.

     

    $300-$500 seems about right from what I remember, but then their tops, bottoms, stockings, heels, etc all had to be purchased by the girls as well. They were also expected to have 3-4 different outfits a night. Honestly, between the percentage to the house and tipouts, shot girls would make as much than the dancers without having to take their clothes off (but having to flirt as much or more).

     

    A few girls were working their way through college, some were doing it to support their family. There were a few girls that drove up from bigger cities to dance at the smaller clubs, either to get better on the pole or because their competition was a lot less so they could make a little more by working a little harder than the other girls.

     

    As a DJ I was just as much responsible to help the girls get the dollars bills on stage as they were, but working the floor made you a lot more money.

     

    The Eager Beaver was somewhere between a burlesque and a strip club, there were no big well practiced numbers, most of the time what I saw (again, small Kansas club, mostly untrained girls) was "sexy" walking, some pole work. If one particular patron was giving a lot of dollar bills out and was really making eye contact, the girl might go out and find him. Again the ones really wanting to make money would.

     

    While they were expected to have different "outfits" it was basically lingerie or something. I remember one girl, today would be defined as "goth", always wore black, black hair, and liked to wear a collar. Super sweet girl though. She was the only one that I really remember and stood out. She was also really good at working on the floor.

     

    Animals? No. No monkeys. No snakes. Kids? No. Congressmen? No. Cops swung by at least twice a night, sometimes more and just peek in to make sure everything was okay.

    • Like 7

  13. Posted

    If I remember correctly from Elmore Leonard's short stories and full length novel, Out of Sight, Karen Sisco is almost booted from the US Marshals for unknowingly dating a criminal prior to the events of OoS and she turns him in.

     

    So I did a little research, turns out that it doesn't matter what level of LE you are in, if you're married to or in a relationship with a felon, it can affect your employment.

     

    If you're an officer/agent/investigator, you have access to police issues weapons and body armor that you may be expected to keep in your home. If it is in possession of your home, your partner is considered to have "constructive possession" which is a violation of federal law and most state laws that felons can't possess weapons and B) gives them hypothetical access to those weapons.

     

    If you have access to secure information, as an officer, agent, investigator, dispatcher, secretary, etc. you would be privy to sensitive information that could be shared with your partner, either willingly or unwillingly.

    • Like 5

  14. Posted

     

    We'll see it when we get to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid too.

     

    I know they are doing the dice thing picking these out, but I kind of would have enjoyed seeing a week of Bonnie and Clyde, which it's more dramatic tone and moments of levity and the next week doing Butch and Sundance with it's more comedic tone and moments of drama.

  15. Posted

    This was my first time seeing Bonnie & Clyde, and I really liked it a lot.

     

    What I found interesting was how in kind of deconstructed the myth of the glamorous gangster/criminal. Starting in the mid-19th century, there was this tradition of painting criminals as these kind of folk heroes. People like Billy the Kid and Jesse James became famous less for their exploits and more for the fabulous - and often fabricated - stories written about them. Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow represent the brutal and bloody end of this tradition.

     

    I enjoyed that the characters of Bonnie & Clyde are hyper aware of this tradition and are knowingly chasing it. At first, they get a kick out of the fantastic lies printed about them and do whatever they can to perpetuate it. It isn't until Butch is killed and that reality starts to crash in on them.

     

    One of my favorite scene is when they are at C.W.'s father's house and they are reading that they are being blamed for a bank robbery that occurred while they were convalescing. Instead laughing it off, for the first time in the movie, Clyde just loses it. He just starts yelling and says that when they're well they're going to rob that bank for real. You get this sense that he's rushing to try and keep up with the mythology, but it's already beyond his control.

     

    When they are finally gunned down it is quick and brutal. They only have enough to register what's about to happen. There isn't time for a romantic final stand. Ultimately, in hail of excessive gun fire, two unarmed kids are torn to pieces and left in ignominious heaps, effectively ending the myth of the glamorous outlaw once and for all.

     

    As a fan of Westerns from the 60s, the line from The Man That Shot Liberty Valance (the "print the legend" line), you see this a lot, particularly in films like Billy The Kid Meets Dracula. The "dime novels" and "penny dreadfuls" of the late 1800s and early 1900s and the "journalism" of someone like Ned Buntline really focused on this heroic, mythic nature for people living in the cities and then again for people living in the west as they grew further away from the truth and toward the legend.Let me give you a for example, I live about two hours away from the legendary Old west town of Dodge City, and yet when the movie Tombstone (a film I really like) opens with Robert Mitchum doing this grave explanation of Wyatt Earp's famous gun with the extra long barrel, people that I knew, that should know better who could have learned the truth with a two hour drive and a $5 admission ticket, just bought it as gospel truth.

     

    I think you're right about how we mythologize the "outlaw" not just from "old west" or "gangster" stories but going back to Robin Hoood and stretching into today (I mean the Fast and Furious movies are basically outlaw stories, where being an outlaw gets you rewarded, not gunned down in a hail of gunfire.)

     

    We WANT the happy ending, if Bonnie and Clyde are going to go out in a blaze of glory, let them go down fighting. I think that is one of the reasons that the story Bonnie and Clyde failed to connect on Broadway, because it offered up a true ending; these kids fucking died and not heroically, not fighting back. That's not the story Americans want to hear, but I think I think it is such an American, Caucasian story, that with make heroes out of and mythologize them instead of demonize them. I really wonder what this story would look like (or you take the template of this story) and apply it to an African-American couple or a Latinx couple?

    • Like 4

  16. Posted

    Paul, I have to take a bit of offense of you calling Flatt and Scrugg's score to Bonnie and Clyde "hillbilly". I know you didn't mean it but...

     

    I'm a big fan of bluegrass music and I this movie is a big part in why I dig it. It's a totally different sound, despite using the same instruments as Deliverance than the music of Deliverance.

     

    For those wondering, the "chase song" as the Simpsons called it is called Foggy Mountain Breakdown. This is probably my favorite recording of the song , this is from Earl Scruggs, and in my opinion may be one of the best performances on The David Letterman Show

     

     

    It features:

    Earl Scruggs (banjo)

    Steve Martin (banjo)

    Vince Gill (electric guitar-the blonde 60s style Strat)

    Paul Shaffer (piano)

    Marty Stuart (mandolin)

    Gary Scruggs (harmonica)

    Randy Scruggs (acoustic guitar)

    Glen Duncan (fiddle)

    Harry Stinson (drums)

    Jerry Douglas (dobro)

    Albert Lee (electric guitar)

    Gary Worf (bass)

     

    This recording won a Grammy in 2002.

     

    Sorry, I just really love bluegrass and hate the association of "hillbilly" music. I stopped the podcast to come defend it. also fwiw, I prefer the term "Americana" to describe this style of music.

     

    Also

     

    With an almost identical lineup with the addition of Leon Russell on organ.

    • Like 4

  17. Posted

    Just out of curiosity (and maybe this should be saved for tomorrow, so maybe I'm jumping the gun), why do you think this film works and something like Magic Mike (where Channing Tatum needs to make money for...reasons) is so popular and pretty well acclaimed and Striptease and Showgirls doesn't?

     

    Is it because they are playing it up (at least the first one) as more of a drama? Is it because it is better written/directed? Is it because it has a better ensemble cast?

     

    The only reason, I bring this up is because of my work as a DJ, I was watching Gabriel Ingelsis in that film because that is my industry so to speak.

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    Funny you mention the State/Stella/Wain-Showalter-Black crew because I think Wet Hot American Summer is damn near perfect. I'm not sure how much of that was improv and how much was scripted but it goes back to that same theory, it is all about the characters. Same with the afore mentioned 40-Year Old Virgin or even something like Bridesmaids (that didn't work for me as well in the 2016 Ghostbusters, outside of Kate McKinnon.) or Anchorman or Talledega Nights. Not just the leads, but the supporting characters. The world feels complete and fleshed out.

     

    I wonder if the reason Blues Brothers or Waynes World worked was because the leads had worked on and devolped and matured those characters on SNL prior to writing the script that some of the more modern improv comedies don't have the luxury of doing.

     

    But then again, the string of modern comedies I liked, didn't have that luxury. Maybe it's because they came from a place of...familiarity and then heightened for comedic purposes.

    • Like 2

  21. Posted

    I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. So many comedies these days are very heavily improvised. Isnt it pretty widely acknowledged that pretty much every major comic actor has history in improv in a way they didn't before the original Upright Citizens Brigade crew changed things in the early 2000s? I wouldn't say Judd Apatow movies represent all of comedy, but his reach is long if you include all the movies he produces and they all have a lot of improv within them. I'm trying to think of the last outright comedy I saw that didn't have at least one run where it's clear they let the stars riff a bit. Even something like The House or Sisters which are two of the most structured plotted comedies in recent years have Amy Poehler doing her thing off script.

     

    Muppet Movie, Ghostbusters and Wayne's World are all very structured and, to my knowledge, have no improv at all. Even Bill Murray has said (source forgotten) that people credit him with the best jokes in Ghostbusters but he credits his lines all to Aykroyd.

     

    EDIT: Now that I think about it a little, Muppet Movie, Blues Brothers, etc are structured to feel loose without much plot. I'm sort of arguing something different because modern comedies are more plot based (typically) but improv within defined plot points. So, I don't know.

     

    I don't think every major comedic actor comes from that improv tradition, but they are certainly embracing it. Look at The House with Zouks, Amy P and Ferrell. Chock full of improv actors. Or Dirty Grandpa (again...with Zouks) or Neighbors with Rogan, or Baywatch or CHiPS. That's not to say I didn't enjoy some of these movies (I've watched The House a couple of times on HBONow and I think Neighbors (the first one) is pretty enjoyable). And I really enjoyed Jason in those two movies (easily the best part of Dirty Grandpa). I think there will be comedies of this era that are remembered fondly and others that aren't, like people forget about the National Lampoon follow-up to Animal House that was horrible (Class Reunion or something like that).

     

    Comedy, like Cameron said, is such a tight tight rope to walk. I don't think a bad joke will ruin a good movie, but it's all in the structure.

     

    I'm going to posit, that the National Lampoon style comedies of the 70s and 80s (including the non Lampoon films but made with their crew) are remembered today because we remember the CHARACTERS. Modern comedy films seem less interested in the characters then allowing the Apatow/UCB actors to riff on whatever joke that comes up.

     

    Please don't get me wrong, I love almost all of these actors--but when I see Tom Lennon on TV or in a film or even on something like Bob's Burgers, rarely is he a character, he is always Tom Lennon riffing on a different joke. Whereas Belushi in Blues Brothers is a totally different character then Belushi in Animal House. Elwood is a different character than Ray. Out of that Era, Chevy is one of the few that is kind of the same character throughout his early film career. I was talking about this my occasional writing partner. He was working on a novel and kept going into these bigger and bigger ideas but couldn't figure out why the characters were doing what they were doing. I started talking to him about different types of books and what made these book series so successful (he was wanting to writing something like the Stephanie Plum books). I asked him to describe the plot of One For The Money and all he kept coming back to were the characters (incidentally, that movie is B-A-D bad.) The reason the Marvel movies work, in my opinion, is because they get the heart of the characters, even if the plots are kind of basic, as opposed to the DC movies which tend to focus on big plots. Wonder Woman worked because it was focused on her character and her relationship with Steve Trevor.

     

    I think when improv works, it really works but film is such a limited medium in such a small time, that when you're just looking for the next joke and not where the source of the joke comes from (the character) it becomes a bit of mindless entertainment.

     

    To me, t hat is why The League worked so well as a TV show. Yes, everything is improv through a structure, but because you have something like 42 hours with these CHARACTERS over five seasons.

    • Like 2

  22. Posted

    Your Muppet Movie analogy is a good one, and I completely agree. The style of "stringing together characters and filling out the world without concern with a plot" I think is also present in a movie like Wayne's World, moreso than Ghostbusters, so that extends the lifeline of this style a bit, but not by much. Comedies today really seem to be plot heavy with characters that go through necessary motions to serve the story. Blockers was very good, but it certainly had no character as memorable as Jake and Elwood, Wayne and Garth, or even Orson Wells's ten seconds in the Muppet Movie.

     

    I never thought about Wayne's World fitting into the mold but it does, probably more than Fletch or Ghostbusters, which are more plot heavy than character heavy. Those films have their moments of character moments that serve to build the character but almost always these vignettes serve the greater story. Blues Brothers, Muppets, etc. the vignettes nominally serve the story.

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    I should correct that not every second season is bad. I find that, other than Kimmy Schmidt, I haven't liked a second season I've watched as much.

     

    I didn't watch the second seasons of Jessica Jones or Luke Cage. I'm just over Marvel shows for now.

     

    I think I've liked every season of Grace and Frankie better than the season prior, but that's me. I'm easy to please. I even like The Blues Brothers ;)

    • Like 2

  25. Posted

    I am unapologetic and totally in love this movie. I wasn't really exposed to 70s SNL culture until the early 90s (right around the time I saw this movie, along with Animal House and Caddyshack--mid 70s-early 80s comedies were not something my parents watched). In the early 90s, Nick at Nite went on a run of showing Laugh-In, SNL, and SCTV. I devoured that kind of comedy (along with stuff like The Muppets that I did grow up on).

     

    In fact, that's almost what I would compare this to, the first Muppet Movie. It's a road trip movie that has a loose plot, outrageous ending, and great music that is strung together by a series of vignettes. These movies seem to be more about stringing together characters and filling out the world (what some writers would call world building) without concern with a plot.

     

    It's a style of comedy that either works or doesn't (Animal House, Caddyshack suffer from this too. I could go on; Porky's, Meatballs, etc. I think Ghostbusters and Fletch are the tail end of this type of comedy really working while almost ushering in their own style.)

    • Like 2
×