sillstaw

The AV Club gave it an F. All of it. They call it misogynistic trash that's too full of dead spots to be campy fun. Which... wow. I guess that's what happens when you let Eli Roth have a series.

What's wrong with Illeana Douglas? But yeah, that's illustrative of the MPAA's hypocrisy. "Female frontal nudity? No problem, you've got an R! Male frontal nudity? NC-17!"* And since Hollywood dreads the NC-17, it's thus okay to show naked women everywhere while men are only allowed to get naked as a joke. I'd write more, but this is getting off-topic as it is. * The exception seems to be if it's in a sexual context or not for men. In other words, erections are NC-17, despite pretty much every male above the age of 12 knowing what they look like.

I'm sure he isn't; he doesn't exactly have the huge, high-profile career that would be theoretically jeopardized by coming out. Nonetheless, between his cameo in "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" and that short-lived "Partners" sitcom he was on, he does seem to get cast in gay roles quite a bit.

I honestly was wondering when he had made a movie called "Blood Rain," and what it was about. (That looks like the title to a low-budget 80s military action movie.) Between this and my confusion over "Super Girl," I eagerly await the voting mechanism where the original poster has to put in the IMDb number ID.

I'm not a fan of the movie*, but I'd say that with the kind of characters the movie focuses on, they probably would be juvenile in their discussions and behavior. They didn't exactly strike me as mature, educated people. * I was expecting more as something of a Soderbergh fanboy. Part of my problem may have been that I was expecting something different, and also that it started to wear out its welcome far before the ending.

Some critics defend this as being the reason why he takes so long to decide who to fight for; he doesn't want to end up on the wrong side of history again. I don't know if I agree with it, but it's worth considering.

Truthfully, I can't see this as an episode. Just reading the synopsis on Wikipedia makes me feel like showering. It strikes me as the kind of movie David Fincher said he didn't want to make with "Zodiac," namely the kind of film a serial killer would masturbate to. As for how it got some publicity and then fell off the radar, part of the problem may be that it was going to be released by MGM, which has been in dire financial straits for years. For instance, "The Cabin in the Woods" was produced by them and was supposed to come out in January 2010. Then they decided to push it off for a year so they could convert it to 3D; halfway through, they went bankrupt. It finally came out last year, released by Lionsgate.

Likely in the same way they got Marlon Brando to show up for a few minutes at the beginning of "Superman": Lots and lots of money. (Incidentally, I keep getting confused at the name of the thread; I'm sure "Supergirl" is written as one word, so "Super Girl" keeps making me think it's some obscure indie film.)

Shortly after Patrick Swayze's death, I went to a local art theater that for whatever reason had decided to do a week-long marathon of some of his movies. I went on a day that allowed me to see "Road House," "Red Dawn" and "Point Break" all in a row. I'd read an in-depth recap of "Road House" so many times at that point (and had seen the movie recently enough) that the camp appeal of it was a little diminished. I had never seen "Red Dawn," and it was okay. But "Point Break," to my surprise, actually was still quite entertaining. Even if you ignore the preposterous premise (which the late, great Roger Ebert rightfully said could've made for a great "Naked Gun" movie), it's still a good little thriller, albeit with some hilariously WTF moments. (Note that a plot point revolves around Gary Busey's sudden desire for meatball sandwiches.) Not that it wouldn't make a great episode. But it would be in the vein of the "Crank" episodes*, where they acknowledge that the movie isn't bad, but is amazing in its craziness. * Which reminds me, they should cover "Ghost Rider 2" already. That movie was bonkers.

For me, the better question is if I watch the movie at all. In cases where I've seen the movie already, I see no need to watch it again. If I haven't seen a movie they're going to cover, and it's something where I don't want to watch it, I just listen to the episode. (Bad comedies, i.e. "All About Steve" and "Old Dogs," as well as stuff like "Sucker Punch," falls under this category.) If it's something like "Drive Angry," where I want to see the movie anyway, or something that sounds fun-bad ("The Tourist," "Skyline"), then I'll watch, then listen. For what it's worth, this is probably part of the reason there are a bunch of episodes I haven't listened to yet.

I used to frequent a forum where someone posted a huge history of the movie's tour through development hell. Basically, Warner Brothers gave the rights to Jon Peters, who then proceeded to try and make a movie that would have been "Superman" in name only; among other fun details that Kevin Smith has discussed before, one draft had the costume seem to use the origin story of Venom from "Spider-Man," infecting Clark Kent after coming out of a tennis ball container or some such thing. It got to the point where other producers who were more friendly toward the "Superman" mythos begged to do the movie instead of Peters, and Warner kept blowing them off. (Ultimately, Peters' producing role on the final product appears to have been minimal, which is why it resembles anything people would call "Superman.") Personally, I wasn't big on the final product. Then again, I saw "Superman II" years before, and didn't really care for it. (I still haven't seen the original, which I am aware is basically considered the gold standard for superhero movies.) The only thing that stands out in my mind is how little plot it seemed to have for a big superhero movie. Seriously, shouldn't a supervillain's plan have more steps to it than the Underpants Gnomes' business plan?

This was the movie where Lohan's hard-partying lifestyle began to interfere with her supposed day job of acting in movies. Or, at least, where that got more publicity than the movie itself. From IMDb: Which is hilarious, because from all I've heard, there's no quality to the picture for her to have endangered. (Also, as a former Mormon, reading about the bit where her character performs oral sex on a missionary is just galling. I mean, I have my problems with the church, but dammit, it sounds like she rapes him and faces no repercussions for it. I can only imagine what the outcry would be if a movie featured that kind of thing happening to a Catholic priest.)

Honestly, the main thing I remember from watching a MSTed version of this was Jeremy Irons' performance. It's so hammy that it's surprising he didn't get a co-starring credit for his eyebrow movements. It almost makes me want to watch the movie again solely for him. And then I remember that Marlon Wayans plays a character named "Snails" who is the "comic relief," and who gets killed off halfway through at a poorly judged attempt at pathos, and I wish for a Jeremy Irons supercut instead.

One night, my sister, our brother and his wife were channel surfing and put it on "Van Helsing" for a minute or two. In that minute, flying demon-women were terrorizing a town, and one of them picked up a cow and threw it through a building. I'm almost afraid to watch the rest of the movie, because it seems like nothing could match the WTF-ness of seeing that scene out of context. (And if that scene's not in that remake they're thinking of doing, they might as well not remake it at all.)

Well, "Naked Lunch" was A: Released in 1991, and B: Is based off an even weirder book (and the author's life story mixed in). But yeah, Cronenberg's made so many bizarre films that it almost seems like he must have directed "A Dangerous Method" on the strongest sedatives on the market.

What's amazing is that, when it came out on DVD, they proceeded to shrink the creepy wallpaper girls and put more emphasis on the adult stars, making it look like a generic thriller in the process: (I especially love how they seemed to find pictures of the stars that makes them all look only vaguely concerned, like the caterers just told them there wouldn't be any Diet Cokes at lunchtime.)

There's no reason to remake it. It's so of its time and place that a remake would be a whole other beast, and might as well just be its own thing.

"You will drink the black sperm of my vengeance!" The fun part is that Ebert basically admitted they were making parts of it up as they went along. (The climactic shootings were supposedly added in the day they were shot, and Z-Man's big secret was thrown into the script on a whim). He answered the question of how it got made pretty well when he said:

This movie actually features the line "Okay cocksucker. Fuck with me, and we'll see who shits on the sidewalk." Not only does Paul W.S. Anderson apparently think that's one of the best lines he'll ever write, but the actress who says it is Joan "ensemble member of Steppenwolf" Allen.

Personally, my big problem with this movie was how the alien races looked. One is made up of a couple guys in white robes and pale makeup; they're distinctive, and small enough in number that it's not confusing. Another is made up of completely identical green giants with horns; looking at them, I had no idea who was who. The other two are identically humanoid; both are made up of tanned brunettes, in practically identical clothing. There was one scene where I thought for a minute that the villain of the movie was rescuing John Carter. (And yes, "John Carter" is a lame title, but calling it "John Carter of Mars" wouldn't have made people want to see it all that much more.)

I have nothing to add to this discussion, other than this quote (from a guy who was mainly talking about "Saw" at the time):

Fun Depressing fact: This was the last movie Gene Siskel reviewed before he died.

I like this movie enough that I have the poster of it in my room. Craig Brewer makes pretty great films (although I'm hesitant to see "Footloose," which felt like he decided to make a pilot for the CW to pay for a better project).

Does that make it better or worse?

It's "Never Too Young to Die" (AKA the only movie that ever tried to make John Stamos an action hero), and I believe the implication is that he plays a hermaphrodite. I never heard that it got shelved by the studio; I always thought it was just some low-budget movie that managed to get a few recognizable names.