|
Wheat Loaf posted:Recently saw both 48 Hrs. movies - the first one is obviously better but it felt a lot more like a Dirty Harry movie than I was expecting. It was good but it wasn't exactly "buddy cop action comedy" like it says on Wikipedia. The sequel was a bit humdrum. As I understand it, almost an entire hour was cut from its runtime, including most of the main villain's scenes. Something interesting about that is while it's not particularly similar, I remember as a kid seeing 48 Hours being shown on TV a lot, TV spots for it would always hype it up as the original Lethal Weapon style movie to capitalize on how popular those were. So I think it got a reputation for being more like Lethal Weapon than it actually is due to home video and TV marketing.
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Something interesting about that is while it's not particularly similar, I remember as a kid seeing 48 Hours being shown on TV a lot, TV spots for it would always hype it up as the original Lethal Weapon style movie to capitalize on how popular those were. So I think it got a reputation for being more like Lethal Weapon than it actually is due to home video and TV marketing. It sort of sketched the formula that Lethal Weapon turned into a blueprint. It doesn't help that Nolte's character is a real rear end in a top hat and the reason for keeping Murphy around is kind of tenuous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
I've got to get onto the Beverly Hills Cop movies at some point, see how Eddie Murphy and Judge Reinhold are as a team. Midnight Run too; that's another one I've had on my list for a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I've got to get onto the Beverly Hills Cop movies at some point, see how Eddie Murphy and Judge Reinhold are as a team. Midnight Run too; that's another one I've had on my list for a while. The first one is really good. It's actually a solid cop movie with a lot of jokes, while the second and third are...less good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
I've got a whole stack of movies to get through before that, though. Some of them I've seen before, others are new to me. Have to finally watch The Untouchables and see if Connery deserved the Oscar or not. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
I watched Hanna because someone posted about it being really crazy for a PG13 movie and holy poo poo, yeah, that was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
SleepCousinDeath posted:I watched Hanna because someone posted about it being really crazy for a PG13 movie and holy poo poo, yeah, that was awesome. Also, the way the whole film is built around music.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
Becerly Hills Cop 2 and Crocodile Dundee 2 are cable classics for me, seen em so many times 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:Becerly Hills Cop 2 and Crocodile Dundee 2 are cable classics for me, seen em so many times Ditto with Predator 2. It was on Australian TV all the time, but the first one never was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I've got a whole stack of movies to get through before that, though. Some of them I've seen before, others are new to me. I like it a lot. Like a lot of his movies, it rules despite having Kevin Costner in it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
The only Kevin Costner movie I've seen is Robin Hood and that not even the whole way through (and Rickman is its main attraction anyway). He was this huge star in the 90s but I just can't think of anything he's been in the past decade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 08:46
|
|
|
Waterworld is dreadful, but totally worth devoting a boozy Sunday afternoon to, at least once. It’s a movie of almost-goods, hampered by ego and mismanagement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 12:11
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:The only Kevin Costner movie I've seen is Robin Hood and that not even the whole way through (and Rickman is its main attraction anyway). He was this huge star in the 90s but I just can't think of anything he's been in the past decade. The Postman was his last huge thing but that was another one where IIRC he was very difficult and his ego had a huge effect on the flick. After that I think he was already in movie jail because he did For Love of the Game and very small roles in crap like Play It To the Bone.* I know he got 3,000 Miles to Graceland a few years later but that was another one where IIRC due to his ego the story changed a lot and the movie is mega-dogshit despite it being a movie meant to be about Kurt Russell playing an Elvis impersonator robbing a casino. Since then it's been smaller stuff along the lines of him playing Pa Kent in Man of Steel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 13:53
|
|
|
Yea Costner was a monster star after Dances With Wolves in 1990 mostly because he directed it, Hollywood loves that. He could basically write his own ticket and get projects going just based on his name, and for a while it was smooth sailing. Robin Hood, JFK, The Bodyguard were all really successful. Waterworld alone wouldn't have killed his career, as much attention as it gets. It really was The Postman that did it, because The Postman was Costner's first return to directing since Dances With Wolves. People were willing to give Waterworld a pass and were excited to see what Costner could do as director again. And the movie was arguably even worse than Waterworld, it's bloated and just straight-up boring. Waterworld was at least over the top and ridiculous. So that was really it, although Costner has had chances here and there to get back on top as a leading man(For the Love of the Game,13 Days, Dragonfly, Mr. Brooks). He's never really had trouble getting work it's just that by the standard of "biggest movie star in the world" he's fallen pretty far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 14:03
|
|
|
I really wish Waterworld had been over the top and ridiculous, but it wasn't. It was an extremely by-the-numbers 90s action movie. There were a few imaginative touches, but the design is pretty much exactly what you'd envision when told "Mad Max but on water."
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 14:09
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I really wish Waterworld had been over the top and ridiculous, but it wasn't. It was an extremely by-the-numbers 90s action movie. There were a few imaginative touches, but the design is pretty much exactly what you'd envision when told "Mad Max but on water." Have you seen The Postman though? Waterworld's over the top by comparison, I mean you have Hopper's performance for one. There's nothing in Postman half as entertaining as Hopper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 14:13
|
|
|
My biggest criticism of Waterworld is that it constantly edges up to interesting stuff, but either because of budget or a lack of confidence never quiet fully commits to going whole hog. A good example of that is the sea monster fishing scene. That should have been it’s own setpiece. Instead you get a brief flash of fuzzy CGI, and a smash cut to the aftermath. A loooooot if that movie is just people looking annoyed at each other while sitting on a boat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 14:16
|
|
|
The Waterworld stunt show at Universal Studios was pretty badass though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
Word. Not as good as the Indiana Jones one at MGM though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 14:26
|
|
|
Fart City posted:Word. Not as good as the Indiana Jones one at MGM though. I saw that one multiple times it was so good. I was young enough too that I was still all like hell yea that's me I'm gonna be Indiana Jones when I grow up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 14:28
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The Waterworld stunt show at Universal Studios was pretty badass though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 14:28
|
|
|
Wasn’t Waterworld almost an Apocalypse Now-level troubled production? I remember hearing they built a set in the middle of the ocean and had to rebuild it after a tropical storm destroyed it, and stuff like that caused major budget overruns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Have you seen The Postman though? Waterworld's over the top by comparison, I mean you have Hopper's performance for one. There's nothing in Postman half as entertaining as Hopper. The Postman is a legit interesting premise stuck in a movie that's simultaneously a rote cliche action movie (including the 'this is the price for failure' *kills random underling* scene, which happens twice) and an overlong, indulgent film. A few interesting touches do nothing to counter that the film has absolutely no energy at any point. X-Ray Pecs posted:Wasn’t Waterworld almost an Apocalypse Now-level troubled production? I remember hearing they built a set in the middle of the ocean and had to rebuild it after a tropical storm destroyed it, and stuff like that caused major budget overruns. There was something about Kevin Costner's receding hairline being fixed via CGI, I think. Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:The Postman is a legit interesting premise stuck in a movie that's simultaneously a rote cliche action movie (including the 'this is the price for failure' *kills random underling* scene, which happens twice) and an overlong, indulgent film. A few interesting touches do nothing to counter that the film has absolutely no energy at any point. I think having Costner's self-indulgent tendencies fully exposed also led people to go back to Dances With Wolves and reevaluate it. Its now more known as technically well made, but ultimately hollow and borderline offensive. In the year of its release it was hailed as one of the best westerns ever made.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 14:36
|
|
|
X-Ray Pecs posted:Wasn’t Waterworld almost an Apocalypse Now-level troubled production? I remember hearing they built a set in the middle of the ocean and had to rebuild it after a tropical storm destroyed it, and stuff like that caused major budget overruns. Not only that, they built the atoll set in the middle of the ocean, where it was only accessible by boat, and had no bathrooms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 14:37
|
|
|
X-Ray Pecs posted:Wasn’t Waterworld almost an Apocalypse Now-level troubled production? I remember hearing they built a set in the middle of the ocean and had to rebuild it after a tropical storm destroyed it, and stuff like that caused major budget overruns. I think I saw part of The Postman on TV, but I only remember Tom Petty and the part where the bad guy admits to being a copier salesman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 14:44
|
|
|
Yea I think the main problem with the budget getting out of control was that hurricane, that effectively doubled the budget because they had to rebuild it all from scratch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Yea I think the main problem with the budget getting out of control was that hurricane, that effectively doubled the budget because they had to rebuild it all from scratch. They also used 1000 tons of steel to build the Atoll, I think it used up all the steel available in Hawaii at the time. This article details some of the problems and is a fun read in general; http://ew.com/article/2009/03/01/waterworlds-tumultuous-times-ew-archive/
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
It's interesting to compare Costner to the other leading men of the 1990s because he seems so far out of the spotlight now compared to them. Mel Gibson, for instance. Similar sort of career arc to Costner and arguably an even worse downfall (Costner made a movie so bad it destroyed his ability to draw blank cheques as a star; Gibson went off on a public tirade that outed him as a terrible person) but he's still around. He got a Best Director nomination at the Oscars a couple of years ago. I feel like he could probably headline a big movie if he wanted to. Wheat Loaf fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
Make no mistake, Hollywood would love an opportunity to jump back on the Costner bandwagon if he ever directed something that they could claim as Oscar worthy. He just hasn't tried for about 15 years now, but I suspect he'll have at least one more go of it before it's all said and done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
Costner is also kind of an oddity because, god love the man, he has a pretty limited range when it comes to acting. Like he’s good at what he does, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a truly awe-inspiring performance on his part. Even Dances With Wolves hangs heavier on the directing and supporting cast than Costner himself, as the lead. Mel Gibson is an insufferable douchebag Voltron, but the dude is a legit great actor to boot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Costner is also in a place where he doesn't really care that much about making movies anymore. He is happy farting around his huge beach house, playing golf and making country music. I think he also still owns a casino in South Dakota.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
Also, guys like Gibson or Eastwood seem perfectly happy to make movies where they aren't the star, Costner hasn't shown that he has any interest in doing that. So now that he's past the point where he can pack theatres as a leading man, he may not even want to bother with working just as a director.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
I just looked it up and was surprised to learn that Costner actually has only three credits as a feature director: for Dances With Wolves, The Postman and Open Range (although he did a lot of producing as well). Does the Academy just like the idea of actors who also produce/direct? Dances With Wolves - his first movie as a director - was the one he won Best Picture and Best Director for. The year he won, Martin Scorcese and Goodfellas were also nominated. I haven't seen Dances With Wolves but have a hard time imagining it's better than Goodfellas. Compared to contemporary westerns, I doubt it's better than Last of the Mohicans or Unforgiven either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I just looked it up and was surprised to learn that Costner actually has only three credits as a feature director: for Dances With Wolves, The Postman and Open Range (although he did a lot of producing as well). Does the Academy just like the idea of actors who also produce/direct? Just off the top of my head, Braveheart and Argo also won best picture, so you might be on to something here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I just looked it up and was surprised to learn that Costner actually has only three credits as a feature director: for Dances With Wolves, The Postman and Open Range (although he did a lot of producing as well). Does the Academy just like the idea of actors who also produce/direct? Short answer, yes the Academy loves that poo poo, especially if it's a known star like Costner or Gibson or Eastwood. But even lesser actors like Greta Gerwig, I've heard it argued that her nomination for a very good (but not amazing)debut film was at least partially due to that bias. Dances With Wolves was very much celebrated as a return to the classic epic style western though when it was released. People were really eating it up. And watching it today, there is a lot to like there on the technical side of things. Fantastic scenery shot well, convincing period costumes, all that stuff. So it's a legit western, but Goodfellas is definitely the film from that year that has the staying power, it's reputation only grows while Dances With Wolves' has really diminished in the past decade or so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
X-Ray Pecs posted:Just off the top of my head, Braveheart and Argo also won best picture, so you might be on to something here. Gibson getting Best Director for Braveheart is fair enough at least for the Battle of Stirling Bridge scene but Babe should've been Best Picture that year. Come to think of it, there is one scene I remember from Dances With Wolves, namely the scene where Nero Wolfe himself, the late Maury Chaykin, meets Costner then shoots himself (no connection, I'm sure), so maybe I have seen it or some of it before? I'm no longer sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
If the Academy is going to reward pandering, I'd much rather it be for films that evoke classic adventure film than for more films about filmmakers. Birdman was dull and depressing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:If the Academy is going to reward pandering, I'd much rather it be for films that evoke classic adventure film than for more films about filmmakers. Birdman was dull and depressing. Which one did it beat that evoked classic adventure movies?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
I don't really want to be that dickhole pretentious guy who says it, but the Academy Awards are kinda poo poo, anyway. It's really just become a marketing thing. They've been reduced to simply a bullet point to sell future movies. 'FROM THE ACADEMY AWARD WINNER OF. . . .' blah blah blah whatever. yes, I am still bitter that Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan, why do you ask?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 17:29
|
|