SHP Forums

We have one for music, so let's do a Movie thread.

While we're on lock down / Quarantine - a lot of are probably watching - or have watched - plenty of movies (or maybe just love movies in general).

I'd like to keep this just movies (so no episodic TV shows; including Game of Thrones and the like).

So we can discuss some movies we've watched, or just some movies we've (always) enjoyed (or even disliked).

So right now, I am currently watching Dredd (IMDB Link) (not to be confused with the Stallone Judge Dredd). Both are about the same character, however, Dredd is a superior movie. It ranks up there with some of my top MCU movies. I might even say it's above any of the MCU movies, for me.

I can't even express how sorely disappointed that this movie didn't score big in the theaters (it was before the comic movie buzz) and didn't get a lot of advertising.

I watch this movie on a very regular basis. It's incredible.

My iPad has two movies in it. Clue and Dredd.

Well ... the Judge Dredd film has to put up with Stallone as lead actor. So there's that. Stallone is fine is an "action hero", but he doesn't emote much (if it all). His only reason for being there is 'cos he's a "tough guy".

It's not just Stallone - a whole bunch of actors are like that. Ah-nold. Bruce Willis. Jason Statham. Chuck Norris. Jean-Claude Van Damme. Stephen Seagal. And Mel Gibson - oh, gods, Mel Gibson. Please. (He's not a bad actor, just very, very vain and self-righteous. To me, that's off-putting).

Of course there are exceptions: Jackie Chan (who is very funny, as well as good at "kicking ass"). Harrison Ford. Sir Sean Connery, of course (yes, he's done action - first to play James Bond). Laurence Fishburne. Bruce Lee. I'd happily watch any of them. Class acts, each and every one.

I work from home, so I don't get to watch movies. Alas. The last thing I watched was an episodic TV show (which was very good and funny)! But I guess I can't mention it on this thread, yes? Oh well. *shrug*

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 3:37 am Well ... the Judge Dredd film has to put up with Stallone as lead actor. So there's that. Stallone is fine is an "action hero", but he doesn't emote much (if it all). His only reason for being there is 'cos he's a "tough guy".
It's not just Stallone - a whole bunch of actors are like that. Ah-nold. Bruce Willis. Jason Statham. Chuck Norris. Jean-Claude Van Damme. Stephen Seagal. And Mel Gibson - oh, gods, Mel Gibson. Please. (He's not a bad actor, just very, very vain and self-righteous. To me, that's off-putting).
Of course there are exceptions: Jackie Chan (who is very funny, as well as good at "kicking ass"). Harrison Ford. Sir Sean Connery, of course (yes, he's done action - first to play James Bond). Laurence Fishburne. Bruce Lee. I'd happily watch any of them. Class acts, each and every one.
I work from home, so I don't get to watch movies. Alas. The last thing I watched was an episodic TV show (which was very good and funny)! But I guess I can't mention it on this thread, yes? Oh well. *shrug*

Start a TV show thread.

I'd recommend DREDD (again, not JUDGE DREDD). It's fantastic. Has cussing in it. And blood. So... it's not like "MCU" niceness.
It's more along the lines of PUNISHER on Netflix. But better.

And wouldn't working from home allow you to watch movies?

Because, well, you're home.

And it doesn't have to be a movie you're watching currently. Any movie you liked or dislike.

I'm very much into Mel Brooks films (and have been for a long, long time). My favourite is Blazing Saddles, but I also have a soft spot for Spaceballs. I like "History of the World, Part 1" - but it's kind of hit-and-miss. On the other hand, it has the fabulous "Caesar's Palace" sequence - and, of course, the Busby Berkeley-inspired "Inquisition" song. You know the one:

"The Inquisition!
Let's begin.
The Inquisition!
Look out, sin.
We know you're wishin'
that we'd go awaaayyyyy ...
but the inquisition's here, and it's here to staaaayyyy... "

Aside from Mel Brooks - I always liked Clue. Because how can you not like Tim Curry. And Madeline Khan. And Christopher Lloyd, Martin Mull, Michael McKean, Lesley Ann Warren, Eileen Brennan ... everyone contributes, it's all a happy, frenetic, campy send-up of any murder film (as well as Clue, the game). And it works. And I love it.

I also have the complete Extended LOTR and Hobbit box-sets on DVD. I liked PJ's LOTR much better than his Hobbit. LOTR was genuinely good, even if it didn't film everything - well, if it did, the film would be twice as long. Hobbit was hit and miss, unfortunately. But it could've done with fewer ridiculous battle sequences (e.g. anything to do with Legolas or dwarves in barrels) and with more Tom Bombadil.

What else ... I'm not sure what other movies I have on my shelf. I'll have to look. But hopefully these will do for now?

This isn't a movie, but I was watching it earlier today --- and wishing it would be made into a movie. (Caution: copyright. But YouTube is full of copyright things).

McBain (The full movie in HD)

... and just for fun ...

UNICEF pennies

(Because where would action movies be without commie-Nazis?)

Damn, these are stupid. But in a hilarious way.

I’ve rewatched a number of film series during lockdown that I haven’t seen in a while - Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, Harry Potter, Alien, Psycho - but have also made a point of watching movies I’d never seen before, like the first two Terminators, Tropic Thunder and A.I: Artificial Intelligence (which absolutely wrecked me).

It recently occurred to me I don't watch many movies anymote - since I have a number of directors and actors I am a fan of I found that noticeable.

Earlier this year I watched Chicago (2009) for the first time, that's the only new film I really enjoyed watching in the past ten months. Oh and I went back to my Spaghetti Westerns when Morricone passed away.

I just watched It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World For the first time. It's a very broad, slapstick comedy adventure, in the traditions of vaudeville. A little long, but funny. I'd recommend it.

On the minus side, I just learned that Overboard (1987, with Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn) has been remade as exactly the same film, except for a gender flip. In the original, Hawn as the rich and beautiful heiress falls off her yacht, loses her memory and becomes the unwitting wife of the brutish-but-charming Russell, who takes her to his simple home in Oregon. The question is: can they fall in love, and stay in love, before Hawn is found by her uncaring parents and married to a vacuous-and-unloving husband-to-be?

In the remake, the exact same thing happens (down to the home in Oregon), but this time, it's the man who falls overboard, loses his memory, and is rescued by the woman. Exact. Same. FIlm.

Now, the original was fairly mediocre, but it was redeemed by Hawn's charisma and charm, by Russell's "he-man" act, and by the obvious chemistry between them. That said, it's still not a great film. It's a nice, comfortable, middle-of-the-road film that's become a cult classic, and I like it. But it's no "Citizen Kane", Soylent Green", or "Schindler's List". (Nor does it have to be).

A remake would've been OK if it had something new to say (it doesn't), if the two leading actors have on-screen chemistry (they don't -- the leading man has all the charisma and charm of a limp hot dog), or if anything is changed or added to the plot (it's not). So there was no reason to remake this film, and no reason to watch it.

Sorry to spoil the film, but look on the bright side -- now you don't have to waste two hours of your time on this monstrosity.

Wife and I watched Bloodshot last night for the first time with Vin Diesel. Really good. Not great, but good. Great effects and great action. Story was good on paper but not told as well as it could have been in my opinion. I understand this was a comic book but I haven't read it. Would be one I'd have liked to read though. Apparently there's a sequel coming right? Or did I imagine that.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 6:07 pmIn the remake, the exact same thing happens (down to the home in Oregon), but this time, it's the man who falls overboard, loses his memory, and is rescued by the woman. Exact. Same. FIlm.

...

A remake would've been OK if it had something new to say (it doesn't), if the two leading actors have on-screen chemistry (they don't -- the leading man has all the charisma and charm of a limp hot dog), or if anything is changed or added to the plot (it's not). So there was no reason to remake this film, and no reason to watch it.

Sorry to spoil the film, but look on the bright side -- now you don't have to waste two hours of your time on this monstrosity.

Sounds like your typical modern day progressive agenda at work. Eye-rollingly cringe as usual.

MusicallyInspired wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 11:04 pm Wife and I watched Bloodshot last night for the first time with Vin Diesel. Really good. Not great, but good. Great effects and great action. Story was good on paper but not told as well as it could have been in my opinion. I understand this was a comic book but I haven't read it. Would be one I'd have liked to read though. Apparently there's a sequel coming right? Or did I imagine that.

Oh! Where is this showing Netflix? HBO MAX?

MusicallyInspired wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 11:04 pm Sounds like your typical modern day progressive agenda at work. Eye-rollingly cringe as usual.

I'm not even sure what they were trying to accomplish with this change. Despite the comedy involved, it was glaringly obvious that Kurt Russell's character was a complete a-hole for taking advantage of Goldie Hawn's character's memory loss in the original Overboard. By switching the genders it doesn't do anything for any progressive agenda and instead makes the woman the a-hole this time.

Exactly. It's the same movie, except with gender-reversal. What's the point? *shrug*

As for "taking advantage of memory loss" -- I'm sorry, but before Kurt Russell's character took advantage of Goldie Hawn's, her character was an a-hole to him by refusing to pay him for his work. When he complained, she simply told him to leave her ship.

I'd argue that they were both a-holes. Goldie's character was hardly squeaky-clean -- but that doesn't excuse the behaviour of Kurt's character, of course.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 4:34 pm As for "taking advantage of memory loss" -- I'm sorry, but before Kurt Russell's character took advantage of Goldie Hawn's, her character was an a-hole to him by refusing to pay him for his work. When he complained, she simply told him to leave her ship.

Oh yeah, her character was a real bitch, but refusing to pay isn't on the same level as making an amnesiac believe she's your wife and the mother of your kids as a way to extract revenge.

Probably the weirdest thing about the movie is that she eventually finds she loves him and wants to be with him (only with access to her fortune, of course). In the real world, Kurt Russell's character would've been arrested once she regained her memory.

On the other hand, in the real world, people don't often get all of their previous memories back and sometimes don't recover anything at all. You really have to wonder where Hollywood gets some of its weird ideas, like getting hit on the head reverses amnesia. Try it in real life and depending on the impact you could cause a concussion, skull fracture or cranial hemorrhage.

Hollywood <> Real World.

I recently read the collected letters of Raymond Chandler (I've become quite addicted over the past couple of years to his books), and the world he lived in. Among other things, he discussed the superficiality of the Hollywood of his time (the 1940s and 50s), the many strange things that Hollywood directors did to his books in the process of filming them, and the process of working in Hollywood. (Along with Billy Wilder, he co-wrote the screenplay for the classic film, Double Indemnity -- a brilliant film, by the way. I highly recommend it).

But I agree: if you judge that movie by real-world standards, it doesn't add up. Then again, if I tried to enumerate all the nonsense that we've seen in Hollywood films, we'd be here all day-- er-- week-- er, decade.

Hollywood films in general aren't there to reflect reality or make perfect sense. They're there to offer a grand old spectacle, the louder the better -- and, of course, to make the studio a huge bunch of cash. I know it sounds cynical, but that's the reality. *shrugs*

Just for fun, here's "Saving Private Ryan" if it had to be realistic:

Day 1. Pvt. Ryan stays in his military base and works on assembling and disassembling his gun. Then he shines his shoes.
Day 2. Pvt. Ryan makes his bed, goes to breakfast, cleans the latrines, and stands watch in the freezing cold.
Day 3. Highlight of Pvt. Ryan's day -- a Five-Star General comes to visit! Ryan salutes the General. Then he helps peel spuds for dinner.

...and so on.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:57 pm Hollywood <> Real World.

[...]

Just for fun, here's "Saving Private Ryan" if it had to be realistic:

Day 1. Pvt. Ryan stays in his military base and works on assembling and disassembling his gun. Then he shines his shoes.
Day 2. Pvt. Ryan makes his bed, goes to breakfast, cleans the latrines, and stands watch in the freezing cold.
Day 3. Highlight of Pvt. Ryan's day -- a Five-Star General comes to visit! Ryan salutes the General. Then he helps peel spuds for dinner.

...and so on.

Actually... everything you wrote there about SPR is wrong (regarding realism), especially given the context of the movie. But I get what you're aiming for.