GrahamS.

Holy shit, this looks AWFUL. Is it just me, or does Meg Ryan appear to have a British-y (because it’s not exactly British) accent in some scenes and not in others? Anyway, this looks like it has stranded a strong cast in a cutesy made-for-tv premise (perhaps a sub-par Lifetime film?). The idea that Einstein is a shlubby dude whose primary goal in life is to help Tim Robbins hook up with Meg Ryan is BONKERS. This same director made Roxanne, a movie that I would watch over this one any day of the week. That movie was good, this one just looks...punishing.

. I don’t know who anyone else on the poster is, but the director is the chunky Scott Foley lookalike. And apparently it doesn’t matter how poor the quality is, this film is currently #3 on the country, so the director knows his demographic, I guess.

Honestly, i’d rather have more expensive, artistically ambitious films like Heaven’s Gate than a lot of our current, insanely expensive blockblusters (I made a typo but I like it that way!) that arent’t ambitious at all (looking at you, Justice League, BvS, etc).

Agreed. Although the roller skating scene is pretty amazing.

I think it’s only on VOD. I live In Seattle and I don’t think it will come out here at all.

That was the original cut. The 220-minute cut was only released by Criterion a few years ago (and I saw it through the library). It is definitely slow, but I split it up over two nights and ended up having a lot more respect for it than I thought I would (there’s a rumor that Deadwood was partly inspired by its unglamorous Western style). The longer cut adds over an hour of material and apparently fixes the glaring plot holes from the original cut, including giving us more Christopher Walken, which I’ll never complain about. I’m not saying it’s flawless, but in some ways I enjoyed it more than the Deer Hunter (which was Cimino’s previous three-hour epic).

I haven’t seen the original since the 90s, but if I remember correctly, it wasn’t exactly brilliant farce either (which means as a teenager, I loved it). It’s streaming on HBO right now. Kinda tempted to revisit it, mostly not, but who knows, maybe after a drink or two (not that I’m endorsing watching anything related to HDTGM in an intoxicated state. In fact it should be mandated that we should all watch every HDTGM movie stone-cold sober, so we can let their collective brilliance infect our minds)....

P.S. I’ve also had this RT vs. Metacritic debate with a friend before and all I can say is that at the end of it, neither one of us had changed each other’s mind. So, since I have no skin in this game other than my opinion, I’ll just say I honestly respect differing opinions and leave it at that.

Re: my Rotten Tomatoes comment, perhaps I didn’t explain myself very well. I’m fully aware that RT links to reviews. The comment was more of an attempted nostalgia-tinged throwback to when i’d Just get my info on films from a couple magazines/papers instead of sites that linked to dozens and dozens of more sites. Perhaps that didn’t come across and that’s OK. Honestly, re:Metacritic, if you like it and it works for you, great! I’m not trying to say how I view the flaws in its rating system is how everyone has to view it (not at all), but it is how I view it. Basically, in all of my comments, I was trying to make the point that both Metacritic and RT have different flaws in different ways and also have different strengths. That’s how I view them and also why I use them both. And if you feel like sites like RT (and possibly Metacritic, although he didn’t mention it) inherently suck on principle, like theworstbuddhist appeared to in a previous post, I can also see the value in that argument, too. Not trying to force my views on anyone except myself.:)

Yes, it is a 4-star system, so technically Metacritic is correct to give it 75%. BUT (and this is a flaw in a number-based grading system as a whole), whenever critics give three out of four stars, their written reviews are essentially giving the movies a B, 3 1/2 stars give the movie a B+ to A-, and four stars mean A to A +. When Metacritic uses this intrinsically flawed number system as a guideline, it is forced to give a review based on a grading system—where the reviewer gives a movie a B—75%. This makes it appear that the movie got a C, when it didn’t. In fact, it is a whole grade worse than the reviewer intended. I see the predicament on how to assign a percentage, but it could keep people who use the system from not seeing films because they appear to have gotten mediocre marks. And don’t even get me started on written reviews that don’t use stars OR grades (RT actually does a much better job with these—somehow— because they look at the overall tone of the review. Metacritic just sticks a hard number on it, which if the critic had wanted, they would have done themselves). I work as an Instructional Assistant in the Seattle School district. Think of it this way—if teachers downgraded students’ papers that should be Bs down to Cs because that’s how the average worked and what the computer said, do you think the students and their parents would be happy? I can tell you, they WOULD NOT.:) I wouldn’t be happy either if I were a critic and my review was this categorized this poorly. RT definitely has its flaws, but the argument that Metacritic is somehow more “accurate” is simply not true (I was going to say something more profane, but decided to tone it down because honestly, I don’t care THAT much about Metacritic, or its flaws, and wouldn’t want to imply that I do).

It’s ok, gigi-tastic. Honestly, no worries!

Ok, I’ll post two of my favorite scenes from the movie. This is the set-up to where she chews the guy out (unfortunately the clip doesn’t show the whole thing, but she turns the tables on him after this): And here’s a scene that is a Stupid Horror Movie Victim classic:

Finally, I’ll quote this from Mariel Hemingway’s Wikipedia page: “Her highest profile role came with her role in Woody Allen's Manhattan (1979), a romantic comedy in which she plays Tracy, a high school student and Allen's lover. Just 16 during filming (in the film she is said to be 17), she was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress.[citation needed] In her memoir, Out Came The Sun (2015), Hemingway alleged that Allen attempted to begin a sexual relationship with her shortly after filming was completed, when she had turned 18. Hemingway declined his advances.[3][4][5]” I mention this because in her first scene in Bad Moon, she has a confrontation with a creepy dude and totally wipes the floor with him. The scene is one of the best in the film (and immediately follows the gory intro). As I was watching it, I enjoyed pretending that the creepy dude was Woody Allen.

Also, Mariel Hemingway’s character would pass the Bechdel test with flying colors.

I will add, nothing in this movie is as gruesome as the first 5 minutes. Still gory, sure, stupid, definitely, but comparatively restrained and not nearly as exploitative. So bear in mind that the rest of the film is not at THAT LEVEL.

And I guess I should say that when you say “Lucasfilm” these days, what that really means is Disney. (this was not a response to Cameron H., it was meant to follow my previous post, but he managed to post before I did. So sorry if this made anyone say “huh”/give them subject whiplash.)

They did that because Lucasfilm itself did that. If you look at the Blu-Ray set—which I don’t own but have gotten out of the library (and I will defend Last Crusade but not the other two)—Raiders has been changed to “Indiana Jones and...” on the box. i guess they were worried that people born in the 21st century would be too dumb to realize Raiders was the first movie on their own. Pretty friggin’ condescending, if you think about it.

There are so many games I haven’t finished on Xbox 360 and XBox one that it’ll be years before I upgrade (I just got the Xbox One last year and there are more games on GamePass alone than I could ever play.

This film looks genuinely terrible. I am not posting it because it is a “Christian” film. I am not criticizing Christian films or their audiences. I am posting it because it looks terrible. My friends —who are Christian—laughed out loud at this preview, it got a one-star review on Roger Ebert’s Website that makes it SOUND terrible, and it got a shocked, reaction from an audience who burst into laughter after seeing it. The film—in question—where I first saw this preview at was Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. Here it is. If you want to make a game of it, take a shot of something rewarding (could be Non-alcoholic) whenever you see someone cry in the next two minutes: Here is the review. It makes for a VERY entertaining read. It is from Roger Ebert.com. I couldn’t copy the link so here’s the review. It got one star. By: | Mark Dujsik August 23, 2019 | 28 There's about half a movie in "Overcomer." The other half or so is a pretty half-hearted sermon. Neither half is particularly worthwhile, and the whole is cheap, cheesy, and, to put it charitably, churchy. That's the method of director Alex Kendrick, who has helmed and, with his brother Stephen, co-written several faith-based movies. (The brothers wrote this screenplay, too). To call this one merely "faith-based" seems like an understatement, and to call it a "movie" feels especially generous. It doesn't start that way, though. In fact, the first act of Kendrick's newest seems like a legitimate narrative. Indeed, it opens with a prologue (featuring a nifty drone shot that flies over some trees, through the window of a Christian high school and into the gymnasium, where a basketball game is underway), establishing a community on the brink of economic disaster. A nearby manufacturing plant is closing its doors and laying off most of the employees. The school's fate is in jeopardy, because most of the families have someone who works at the plant. That's one setup established. Then, we get another, as teacher and basketball coach John Harrison (played by the director, whose performance certainly sells the idea that the filmmakers pulled a random high school basketball coach, with no acting experience but a genial personality, out of nowhere and put him in the leading role) is in a tough spot. With parents leaving town and students leaving the school, the coach's team looks ready to collapse. Plus, the school's principal (played by Priscilla C. Shirer) wants him to coach the cross country team. John doesn't even think running is a real sport, and the only student who tries out is Hannah (Aryn Wright-Thompson), a transfer student whose parents are dead, who lives with her grandmother Barbara (Denise Armstrong), and, who, more pertinent to long-distance running, has asthma. That's three narrative threads, right there for the taking: the coach who has something to learn, the student who has something to prove, and the economic insecurity of the small town threatening all of it. None of these threads is revolutionary by any measure, but they at least form the foundation of an actual story. At some point, though, the Kendricks simply decide to abandon just about all of that. Through a chance meeting at a hospital, where John is visiting a fellow parishioner with his church's pastor, the coach just happens to discover Thomas (Cameron Arnett). Through some painfully on-the-nose dialogue during a later visit, John learns that Thomas, blind and having more health issues on account of diabetes, is actually Hannah's long-believed dead father. Now, of course, there's the conundrum: Does John tell Hannah, or does he respect the wishes of Barbara, who has kept the fact that Thomas is still alive hidden from Hannah? It doesn't matter, because, even before he learns that his daughter is so close, Thomas begins the preaching, insisting that maybe John isn't the best Christian he can be. After all, John dares to list several other things about him and his life before he even thinks about calling himself a Christian. Then, the principal gets into the game, proselytizing Hannah to reject her terribly sinful ways and become a Christian. There are three scenes in a row that exclusively show or climax with different characters praying, and Hannah's big training montage—which is to be expected, even when the movie seems to have abandoned everything but the sermons from the story—is intercut with her doing a Bible study. Eventually, the Kendricks' screenplay gets back to the racing plot thread. Mind you, it's just for the Big Race (which we only learn is the state championship after it's finished), so it's more of a requirement than an actual story point. Even then, Hannah wears an earbud with her father coaching and, obviously, preaching to her. In theory, this is a rather clever way to make a lengthy sequence of a long-distance race involving, but in practice, it's just more sermonizing. Apparently, "Overcomer" isn't for an audience that cares about being told a story. It's aimed at an audience that doesn't mind too much if a story occasionally interrupts a homily.

I agree.It might not have been to every taste, but I thought Roma was great. I get the argument against Netflix as well. Like Helen Mirren said, “I love Netflix, but fuck Netflix.” It would be nice if they gave more of their films a theatrical run. I like a lot of big blockbusters and see them in the theater, but I don’t want ONLY big blockbusters, which seems to be where we’re heading towards (I know Paul said H&S was probably the best film of the summer (tongue-in-cheekily?), and I definitely enjoyed it as a three-star action flick. But my favorite films of the summer have been The Farewell with Awkwafina (which I thought would be depressing but was actually fairly funny, in a quirky, deadpan way) and once Upon a Time In Hollywood. Oh, also Long Shot! I was bummed to see that it “underperformed.” I liked it, my parents liked it, more people should see it. And of course, thumbs up for the sections of JW3 with Jason in it. But only those sections. Fuck the rest of the film). holy shit that was long. Apologies.:)

But, on the other hand (re:Netflix), I LOVE Big Mouth. It’s my favorite show about teens since Freaks and Geeks. I watched that whole thing in a week, maybe two, tops.

Plus Netflix makes it impossible to watch the credits of ANYTHING before jamming the next thing down your throat. I find that really irritating.

Point taken. The appeal of disks for me are the extras/commentary, which you can’t get through streaming.

Jesus Christ. This film DID NOT need a remake. I’d heard vaguely about it but didn’t realize that it had already been released. That’s the cultural impact it deserves, I guess. Also, looking at the credits, it was written by Sarah Thorpe, who also wrote Twisted. Which was fucking horrible and is on this list.

I agree with this method of alphabetization. I do own physical media because I prefer it and I mourn the loss of video stores (of course I use streaming, but it’s nice to have access to movies that aren’t available and are my favorites. Also, Seattle has Scarecrow Video, which is insanely huge and has all kinds of obscure stuff. Recommended for any pop-culture junkie! You can support them from anywhere by ordering stuff online. That’s my plug!). I don’t like watching stuff on a computer. My organization method goes by director first (Wes Anderson, John Carpenter, etc.), then organizes individual films alphabetically. I like the idea of alphabetizing by character or creature to keep a film series together, but I’m a little more loose (or lazy). My Bond and Planet of the Apes movies are all grouped in chronological order, but I more or less ignore alphabetical order. If I were REALLY anal, I could organize by genre (action, comedy, drama, etc.), THEN by alphabetical order, but I’ll cross that nit-picky bridge when I have too much time on my hands (and cared more).