GrahamS.

I read a review that said the scene would have worked better if Henry Thomas was in silhouette. I kind of agree, but I thought that scene was so well-written and ambitious that I still found that scene really powerful. I didn’t explicitly say it before but Rebecca Ferguson was fucking awesome. And the girl (apologies for not checking her name) was great, too.

From what I remember of this movie, Tim Curry is great but Tom Cruise is AWFUL, a near career-worst, totally miscast performance. Doesn’t help that this came our right around or after Top Gun. I thought his performance was terrible when I was eleven or twelve (and I liked the Police Academy movies back then, to give you some perspective on my critical eye) and even when I watched the director’s cut on dvd, I thought he and the actress from Ferris Bueller (whose name I’m blanking on) were totally miscast. Though That is a fucking AMAZING costume that Tim Curry is in.

It’s a refreshing movie for having a black hero in a horror movie in the early 90s (they talk about how the black horror-loving audience was virtually ignored in the 80s in the excellent doc Horror Noire, which is a Shudder original. This film and Candyman are mentioned for standing out during this time period). It’s also fucking bonkers! I hope they do it at some point.

I think every performance he gives is great, whether the movie is good or not. I’ve never seen him phone it in. He even did a voice as the main character in a computer game series—Gabriel Knight—where he played a New Orleans supernatural detective and he was awesome doing THAT. Even his Pennywise in the TV version of IT (which has a decent first half and a shitty second half) is iconic. So I can’t choose, although Clue is also a lot of fun. which performance terrified you, Tay-loe? Or did all of them?

Just kidding about Madonna and glass! Her real kinky perversion was getting Guy Ritchie to direct Swept Away. Has HDTGM done that movie yet? Because they should if they haven’t.

Madonna, apparently? It’s been a long time since I’ve seen this one, but I remember it as being a hilarious attempt to cash in on and top the outrageousness of Basic instinct. It pretty much plays as a parody of that movie because of it’s willingness to play up the “kinky” sex scenes. What’s weird is how many genuinely great actors (except for Madonna) are in this piece of shit. Everyone’s gotta eat, I guess.

P.S. the “White” of Strunk and White is E.B. White, who wrote Charlotte’s Web. That book is a goddamn classic, so maybe just fuck Strunk?

First off, I want to apologize for referring to Frank as a “he” and not a “they.” I am 45 and—as an an English major—just too used to the old-fashioned uses of language even though I’m open to change. Damn you, patriarchy, for enforcing grammar rules I think are bullshit most of the time anyway!!!!!!! Fuck you, Strunk and White (that is an inside grammar joke with which i’ve Impressed myself)!!!!! i’m OK with Frank being the provocative villain (and I think that label is accurate), but I just don’t think they (I’m fucking doing it again and had to correct myself. FUCK!!!) earn that song this late in the movie. That’s why it’s confusing. No one else acts as badly as they (meaning Frank—fuck, this is confusing) do. I was also confused about their duties (I did it!), re: Tay-loe’s earlier post. What exactly were they supposed to be doing? It seems like Frank was doing lavish, fucked-up stuff for awhile. How derelict in their duties was Frank? Why did Riff Raff and Magenta wait until NOW to kill them, instead of before they made Rocky? I realize trying to impose logic on this film is a fool’s errand, but I think it could have used another draft to wrap up some loose ends.

Ok, I have time to address this movie now. I’ll try to be succinct: I think it’s fun, I think it’s dated (I totally agree with Quasar Sniffer’s points), Tim Curry is great, parts of the movie are funny, parts are overlong and the ending is weirdly flat. I never saw a midnight screening of this, although it was screened on a weekly basis for decades in Seattle. I first saw it when it was first released—on VHS (I’m fucking old)!—in the early 1990s. After I watched it—as other people have noted—I was kinda underwhelmed and not really motivated to see a midnight show, and not many friends were dying to go either (I was in high school at the time). After all the years of mysterious buildup (I would repeatedly hear in the 80s, “It’s so outrageous!”), I didn’t find it bad but didn’t see what the hype was for. I worked in a mall that was a hub for gay culture and had a karaoke bar, so I saw some people who were dressed up like Frank N Furter anyway. Now, I think the film was a good Halloween choice and it was fun to rewatch after so many years. I probably picked up a few more jokes. As a creative writing major, my main issue with the movie is this: there’s not much character development. The most fully developed character is Frank N Furter, and Tim Curry gives a great performance, but to build off of Quasar Sniffer’s comments, Frank is a narcissistic asshole. Not only does he take sexual advantage of people, but he also forces them into cannibalism, among other things. While I enjoyed the outrageousness of it (and there are a lot of moments that I did find funny), I didn’t give a shit about him as a person. Which makes the ending truly weird because the film seems to be building to some outrageous climax, but instead he sings some self-pitying song and is killed. Then Rocky is killed. It has elements of over-the-top tragedy, but that doesn’t work for me if the characters aren’t really fleshed out. Then the house takes off and the movie ends, dumping Brad and Janet and Dr. Scott back on earth (all of whom are amusing but none of whom have much of a character arc). I legitimately don’t know what the takeaway from the final twenty minutes of the film is supposed to be. If my comments seem all over the place, that’s because I think this film is all over the place, in ways good and not so good. I respect the cult following it has and i’d be interested in seeing the play. I wonder if they remade it as a film, how they’d do it (I heard the live TV version was not good, but I haven’t seen it). Hopefully they’d make some of the songs a little shorter and the characters a little more nuanced (but still over-the-top). And they should still eat Meatloaf. Even if they have to digitally insert him into the film.

There is and apparently it is about Brad and Janet’s further adventures and apparently they get literally stuck on a TV show where crazy shit happens. Created by at least some of the same people, not the same cast. Has a 57% on RT.

I have thoughts on the movie but am in the middle of the elementary school day and want to write about it when I have more time (we all watched it together! JK, obviously). I’m sure you all will be waiting with baited breath.

I don’t think this movie played at the theater I worked at, but there are SO many movies bad based on cartoons that came out in the early-mid 90s. Inspector Gadget, Mr. Magoo (that one got protests) and Rocky and Bullwinkle, to name a few.

I haven’t seen this since the early 90s when it was first released on VHS. Should be a fun revisit! Personally, I think letters and names are just The Man’s way to suppress us and get us to conform. Why do you think Prince changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol? Fight the power, Tayloe! Embrace those misspellings! Except when they write your name wrong on a Starbucks cup!

I haven’t seen this since high school, but I’m starting to wonder if they’re actively avoiding it, because it IS a perfect piece of trash.

I HATED this film. It is technically well-made and well acted, but it is an example of style over substance. I didn’t care about these characters at all. The “scary” parts made me laugh out loud in the theater because they were so over-the-top. I liked Hereditary, but this was too much of a retread of The Wicker Man with some Kubrick references thrown in. I almost walked out but decided to wait for the “crazy” ending. I should have just left. On the plus side, there is definitely enough here to make a solid episode. What did you all think?

On a tangent, I finally finished watching this season of Big Mouth—Nick Kroll being the reason this film was chosen in the first place (or at least he’s given the credit). The Big Mouth episode where they made a musical of Disclosure was legitimately very funny, but I wish they hadn’t described so many of the jokes on the podcast. For me, it killed a lot of the surprise the episode would have had. They should have said that this movie had inspired them to make an episode about it and left it at that. Also, I enjoyed this season of Big Mouth but I didn’t feel like it was quite as good as the others. I can’t quite figure out why. Maybe it’s hard to top David Thewlis, maybe I enjoyed the seasons that dealt with divorce and depression more (and especially the episode where the kids get high on the dad’s pot gummies). Don’t get me wrong—there definitely were stand-out episodes here. I think I just found this season less surprising and cohesive as a whole.

I agree with you—I was also bored at points—but I also still liked it. It’s definitely Lovecraftian. I think it’s very much an A24 horror movie, meaning it’s mostly about provocative style, which you either go for or you don’t. A24 horror films that have worked for me were this one, The Witch, Hereditary, It Comes at Night and Under the Skin. Most of the time it’s the acting that helps sell these films for me. Midsommar was the only one that fell flat for me (and it wasn’t due to acting). Most of these films I won’t see multiple times. But The Lighthouse had enough of a “what the fuck did I just watch” quality to it that I did like it and will see it again.

I saw Joker yesterday afternoon and—after all the controversy and hype—thought it was....OK. The pluses: Joaquin Phoenix’s performance is fucking amazing. Throughout the first part of the film—which I genuinely was swept up in— and the lesser second half, he gives a live-wire performance that makes the movie better than it otherwise would be. I liked the first half of the film a lot. The script is never perfect—most of the characters other than Arthur Fleck (AKA Joker) aren’t really fleshed out—but the film does a really good job of putting you inside Fleck’s head. I have some issues with how the film depicts mental illness (I have struggled with depression in the past myself) but there are a lot of aspects that It nails dead-on. It is gritty and unflinching and I thought it was really effective (although it is entirely possible that other people might find it triggering, so I’ll send up that warning for you). There is no CGI overkill (or any CGI, that I really noticed). The minuses: The second half (and especially the climax) of the film is simply too busy. The film starts as a portrait of mental illness and a failing bureaucratic system, and if it had stuck with that it could have been great. But it tries to connect to the Batman origin story to a degree that feels shoehorned in by the end. It never successfully shows why The Joker appeals to his deranged fans, we’re just supposed to accept it because it is canon. It feels like lazy writing that ends up shooting the film in the foot, despite Phoenix’s performance. Also, Arthur Fleck’s mental illness as he becomes Joker does turn into a broader stereotype. It’s a tonal mishmash—the film wants to be gritty and realistic, but you can’t do that when you’re turning the antihero into a comic book villain. The final scenes of the film do seem to revel in the fact that he’s gone bonkers simply to show him doing violent, crazy shit. It’s a film that seems to be building to a point about mental illness but then keeps undermining its own point. Finally, There’s a point midway (or perhaps later) through the film where it could have reimagined the Joker/Batman universe in an interesting way. It doesn’t and it feels a bit cowardly for taking the lesser route. Despite all this, if the film still appeals to you, I do recommend it for Phoenix’s performance and the parts of the film that do work. It was good enough to make me wish that it had been better and I’m glad I saw it.

Holy fucking shit: I watched You Were Never Really Here, in which Joaquin plays an even more fucked-up character who is the hero of this movie. This film and Joker make for a compelling compare and contrast of two different types of psychos, but You Were is several times more disturbing to watch. The story is intentionally fragmented, the main character had PTSD and is suicidal (which is harrowingly illustrated several times), and the film puts you entirely, uncomfortably in his head. It is also a revenge thriller that intentionally makes the brutality as un-thrilling as possible. Joaquin is brilliant and I thought the film was really powerful but it’s not for everyone.

I dunno, the only Gorillaz album that works for me the whole way through is Demon Days. The others have their moments—and I really didn’t get into the last two—but I don’t like them as much. Although The two Del The Funkee Homosapien tracks on the first album are fucking awesome!

I messed up when I said Arthur Wayne when I meant to say Thomas. Oops. I guess that just goes to show how appealing the idea of Joker being part of the Wayne family is to me :).

I liked Oasis on the radio and bought Morning Glory. I had mixed feelings about it—thought it was well-Made but was so similar to the Beatles that I might as well just listen to the Beatles. Still, I don’t dislike them. Blur took me longer to warm up to initially but has stuck with me longer. I agree that not everything they—and/or Albarn—do is perfect, but the songs /Albums that I like, I really like. By the way, Albarn produced Bobby Womack’s last album and it has some really good stuff on it.

Agree 100%. i found this film totally impenetrable. I started off watching it sober. I tried watching it stoned. It did not make sense to me in either state. I felt like there was a cultural barrier where people were speaking English and I technically understood most of what they were saying...and yet I barely followed any of it. Yet it was kind of fascinating because no one was phoning it in and they were definitely trying to achieve...something. Some comments on the music: the opening really sounded like someone was trying to channel a discordant Tom Waits style while totally coked to the gills and on synthesizers. One song—I think it was called Supersonic Sounds, or at least that was in the lyrics—felt like it could have been an early influence on Oasis (or maybe Blur)! There was one sequence where Billy the Kid walked through concrete hallways for a really long time and I wondered if the actor was simply going around and around the same set. I kept wondering when he was going to reach his destination. (My one note that I took on this film exclaims “He’s going in circles!” Though that may not technically be correct, it was probably more of a rectangle or square. I don’t get stoned often but I was stoned by this point. Don’t judge me.),This was probably applicable for set use in more than one scene. The camera seemed to be constantly moving during one song even when the actors were totally static. More coke. Please! Full confession: I only watched about 30 minutes because the strobe lights in the Billy the Kid scenes started to give me a headache. It was unpleasant and it gave me a legitimate out. I could fast forward through those scenes, maybe I will. It was definitely a unique experience. P.S. I think Cam Bert (though I’m not sure) mentioned some interesting details about the actor in this and Blur. I like both Blur and Pulp a lot. I heard there was some BS rivalry between Oasis and Blur. I’d take Blur in a heartbeat.

Again—following up what I said previously—I had no real expectations for this movie, so I didn’t “envision” anything for it. The movie developed the potential for a half-brother subplot all on its own and it really got me excited because I felt like the film truly could subvert the Batman story and build into an even more interesting direction (and at this point in the movie, I was still on-board) by painting Arthur Wayne as corrupt. Nothing about my expectations for this subplot were “calculated” because I truly did not expect the film to go there. The fact that it didn’t end up going there—after a fair amount of build-up— felt like the filmmakers were ultimately afraid of fucking with the brand and so the movie doesn’t really subvert anything.

Not every movie brought up in this forum is “bad,” and I didn’t think this one was bad. That’s why I didn’t put it in the “bad movie recommendations.” I simply didn’t think it succeeded in doing everything it tried to do. My favorite era of films are 1970s films and a A LOT of them that are great—The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Blue Collar, Nashville, etc.—do have strong supporting characters. This one has a few characters that are more developed than others, but none are as nuanced as the 70s era films. I’m glad you loved it—who am I to tell you that you can’t—but I think all the opinions here are valid because they’re peoples’ OPINIONS. We don’t all have to agree and be in lock-step. I don’t expect everyone to love every film that I do. I went into this film as open-minded as I could and parts of it worked for me, other parts didn’t. If you’re not open to hearing what other people have to say, you don’t have to read it.