Jump to content

ol' eddy wrecks

Members
  • Content count

    334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

ol' eddy wrecks last won the day on January 13

ol' eddy wrecks had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

194 Good

About ol' eddy wrecks

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. ol' eddy wrecks

    The Lighthouse (2019)

    Stupid question - how do you do spoilers/hidden contents? I've never seen it in the editor. ETA: Testing guesses [HIDDEN]test 2[/HIDDEN] nevermind. I guess I figured it out. I thought I tried the spoiler tag in the past. Oh well. ETA2: Testing just to see if capitalization matters (I wonder if I tried "spoilers" for my tag instead of "spoiler" in the past and that's why it didn't work). Lower-case Capitalized
  2. ol' eddy wrecks

    The Lighthouse (2019)

    It's not exactly a given what it was. I've read an interview with Eggers where mentioned Lost Highway and how there are papers out there neatly breaking down what's going on the movie with reality and how he doesn't want that. He wants a messy movie (though, I think in comparison, that's less of Lost Highway's aim and more the aim of the people who write papers and what-have-you about Lost Highway). (Though, that was also my take leaving the movie. I've since heard theories that it could actually just be one person on the island/etc) Admittedly I'm in the boat (har!) of really enjoying the movie, but tempered by not being sure if it adds up to something (which sounds similar to your reaction). So I'm withholding my opinion mostly until I rewatch it when it comes out to buy. I have enough movies that I enjoy noticeably more on second viewings of this nature (e.g. Berberian Sound Studio, In Fabric, The Master), that I want to give Eggers the benefit of the doubt after The VVitch and nothing in The Lighthouse makes that seem like a fluke, but again, can't say for sure how well it'll sit with me on a rewatch, knowing how things turn out beforehand.
  3. ol' eddy wrecks

    Forrest Gump

    I believe and Google seems to be confirming this - it referred to as a college deferment, meaning you could be drafted after you graduated. With respect to the larger conversation of free will vs fate (ignoring that I hold the views of compatibilism - because a similar enough question could be posed with slightly different semantics) - I can't seem to work myself up to care since the movie was blah in my mind. Which is pretty impressive since I eat that shit up in so many other movies. (Coen brother movies such as No Country and A Serious Man. Paul Auster did a tv movie called The Music of Chance, I think, that also played with it). Since I didn't rewatch it, how actively did the movie seem to actively invoke imagery or metaphors on this? You've got the feather floating in the wind and then.. what? The narration from him and the premise being at least mostly passive in his decision making?
  4. ol' eddy wrecks

    Forrest Gump

    In depicting or referencing historical events, a movie reflects a worldview of those events. So to some degree, even if it isn't trying to, it's still saying something. Even if Forrest doesn't learn anything or have an opinion about these historical events, the movie intends the viewer to - even if that emotion is very shallow and not very reflective (beyond "that was sad"). But if all the movie is doing a greatest hits moments of the past 50 years, and doesn't think about or care about the meanings and consequences, there's a subtle implication those moments aren't don't warrant thinking about. If it didn't want to have this burden, maybe it should have used the historical settings more as a backdrop/time-passage-marker rather than explicitly calling out moments as highlights. Just shooting from the hip in trying to explain that.
  5. ol' eddy wrecks

    The Grapes of Wrath

    I didn't have a chance to revisit GoW nor do I have any good personal union stories (I don't think my father was in a union and died lower middle class). However, if you want a good union movie, the documentary Harlan County, USA from the 70s is pretty good. It's about a coal miner strike that went on for years. You get both the importance of unions and how corruption in them can be limiting to them.
  6. ol' eddy wrecks

    The Grapes of Wrath

    You might want to check out El Norte (~1983). There's probably a lot of other examples, but that's the one I watched in high school, like, decades ago. (So, no comment on quality due to it being distant memory).
  7. ol' eddy wrecks

    Forrest Gump

    Hearing Paul pivot to why it was okay for the movie to stay on the list was a reminder of, "ubiquous, cultural familiarity and being liked by a lot of people" really shouldn't be confused with being good - but there are enough duds on this list for me that it doesn't seem out of place on the list. /cynical
  8. ol' eddy wrecks

    Forrest Gump

    @bleary Caveated first with, I'm not going to bother to revisit this movie because... Why? But hearing the split down the middle politics you two are arguing about doesn't sound out of place with the general shift of politics of boomers as they aged in the 90s. When they all realized they had lots of money and became more conservative - which would explain judgment of the folly of the redicalization of youth, but still feeling nostalgic for certain things that are still "cool" (JFK, RFK, Lennon assassinations).
  9. Happy, Happy Halloween. Halloween...
  10. 3D came back with Avatar - I say that seeing part 3 in 3D a few years ago well after 3D came back, as part of a retro-3D festival. The eye popping out was a blast. Admittedly, I haven't really gone to many modern 3D movies, so I'm not someone who would have burnt out on 3D movies. Of all the F13th movies, for some reason I just rewatched this one. I sometimes wonder why the European giallos don't work for me as much as American slashers. With that mindset, I couldn't help but notice the common plot point of "and in the reveal, the killer turned out to be a crazy person in an unexpected twist." Yet at the same time, the difference that you don't really meet the killer at all until the end of the film (to note I remember there are kills in the later F13 movies that are taken directly from some giallos - I mainly remember one that came from Bava's Bay of Blood, but I can't remember which F13 it's in).
  11. I wasn't particularly fond of that one (or that scene), but I know the ... director(?) behind the documentary Horror Noire is a big fan of that movie and character because when growing up there just weren't black, female nerds in horror movies - even if it was somehwat of token character, it still meant a lot to her seeing it on screen I binged 1-6 around August - one thing I noticed even by part 5, even of the writing of the characters kept getting weaker, having dream sequences allowed/encouraged the films to express some type of creativity - something the other slashers didn't have (or didn't have much of - Halloween would have premonition dreams starting with part 4). Part 6 was just trash. Part 2 was more amytiville horror. Part 3 probably had the best acting (Patricia Arquette as the lead) - but also set up the formula for the next 3 of, people fight back in their dreams by acting like they have a super power, Freddy looks like he's on the ropes, and then becomes stronger/etc and kills the victim. I found in the binging that Freddy's joking wasn't as clever as I thought it would be, and the Rick & Morty joke of Freddy just resorting to just calling everyone "Bitch!" wasn't too far off - but different folks and all that. I do find the Freddy/Jason comparison to feel like it's the same archetype comparison of Dracula/Frankenstein's monster. The latter becoming larger, stronger, and more indestructible as the movies progressed (at least that's my memory of him - and how pop-culture seems to treat him). As with Dracula, who was smaller, supernaturally strong (and grew stronger with time), and would get "lines." Michael Meyers seemed to go the Jason route, but didn't gain body mass as the series went on - though it did do a direct Bride of Frankenstein homage with a blind man. Leatherface is kind of off on his own though (admittedly I've only seen 1 & 2) and am not sure if we group him with the other slashers (I feel like it's a "sometimes"). I'd put TCM as the scariest slasher if we're counting it though, because his kills weren't that of an unstoppable killing machine and seemed uncomfortable in how it felt like how a real struggle or kill would happen. Dragging the victim to the meat hook being the strongest example of this.
  12. I'm planning to finish up my October horror binging with a rewatch of Herzog's Nosferatu, so it's going to be a sexually repressed Halloween.
  13. But Jason gets most of the kills! Had anyone considered the dimension of time in this series is actually the temporal version of the Overlook Hotel floorplan?
  14. I seem to recall Roger Ebert asking a very similar question ("if people keep getting killed at this lake, why do people keep sending their kids there?") in a review when I was a tween. Probably for part 6 or part 7. Which makes me think the answer is probably the time-honored, worst-answer, "because we need the 'plot' to happen." It's been 9 years since I've seen part 2. I vaguely remember there being a line in there about them ret-conning him actually not dying - the whole jumping out of the lake in the first one was always a confusing bit of narrative. But so many later movies in the series still work with the assumption that he died in that lake (e.g. part 8, Freddy vs Jason both coming to mind). It's been decades since I've seen Part 9. If you make it to that point though, I think that one will make the coherency of the series somehow even more confusing. Though maybe it actually does tie everything together. Probably not though. The only one I don't know if I've ever seen is part 7 (and I haven't seen Jason X, which doesn't seem... canonical. Though that's a weird phrase to use with this series).
  15. ol' eddy wrecks

    The Godfather Pt. II

    I'm in the same situation as with the first one: it's October; didn't have time to watch; plan to catch up with it in November; when I made my top 25 of 100 AFI films it made the cut - admittedly based on a very vague memory of it. I guess a few things I'll toss out there: Paul's suggestion of combining them into one movie - the BFI did that for the 2002 version of their list. In the 2012 version, they chose not to combine them (dropping them both down below Apocalypse Now. People can't seem to agree on Coppola's best.) I'm not sure what caused them to combine them in 2002 and then to split them apart for 2012. I think I saw a line that the BFI asked everyone to "count each individual film separately". I guess it does get you into complicated situations with narrative trilogies (the Apu trilogy also comes to mind where people could make the reasonable argument they belong together). Amy's dig at Scorsese - yeah, he returns to mob/crime movies a lot, but he also does a lot of other movies. I still regret never watching Silence - though it was on sale recently, so I guess in buying it, I'm committing it to my end of year movie watching when in vacation. The whole Scorsese/Coppola internet outrage reminds me of how the internet got really mad when Ethan Hawke said, "Logan - enjoyable. Not remotely as great as people talked it up to be." "Talked it up as if it were Bresson," was closer to his choice of words, IIRC. I haven't seen Logan. I wonder Scorsese's opinion would be of it. Or TDK. He was only asked about the MCU movies. I wonder how much the formula needs to vary for him to think... well that there's something slightly more there-there. I say this as someone who hasn't seen Logan and is mostly ambivalent to current wave of superhero movies (honestly, I get second-hand fatigue hearing critics talk about how much fatigue they get from watching all of these superhero movies, most of which they seem to enjoy individually). But in his criticism (and in contrast to the Hawke outrage), it leaves me wondering how much of what we currently mean by "superhero" movies has really been defined by the MCU (and DC's attempt to replicate its success). But that's really a passing pondering for me. Mostly I don't really care. Like the Ethan Hawke instance, I am kind of amazed at how defensive it appears people get about other people dissing the culture they enjoy (or maybe it's just something about the internet that just amplifies the scope of the response?). I feel like I saw a larger context of Coppola's quote, still not sure what he meant by (or how he got to) "despicable" though. It just seemed like a random assertion. Maybe it's a word he falls to easily? Random thought - a big knock against Gravity was that it became a bumper car/pinball type of amusement park ride and did a poor job conveying human emotion (not that it didn't attempt it, it just did it in a poor, trite, cliched manner). I feel like that's relevant to the discussion somehow, but I guess it would be, "what are Scorsese's thoughts on that in terms of compare/contrast" - but he's not here.
×