|
I should have listened about V/H/S, but I let all the buzz from last year get to me. The 50% rating it sits at everywhere is definitely well earned. It's not typical anthology problem of mixed segments, the pacing is downright terrible all around and leaves you waiting for something interesting to happen. The gender politics are questionable as gently caress (not in a subtextually intriguing probe, just often gross), and the one segment that doesn't demonize women (the forth one, also the most intriguing one all around) still has gratuitous bookend tit shots. It manages it evoke the feel of torture porn with these hateable non-characters and sexual violence without actually being one (me using "torture porn" is lazy short hand here), but anytime it happens you welcome it because you've been bored for the last ten minutes. Any curve-balls are easily foreseeable or outright terrible (the second segment being the worst at that). The one (and I do mean one) positive thing in this movie was the effects. I was seriously impressed by the work they did on such a minimal budget. It'd almost be worth watching if Netflix could play at 1.5x speed for those alone. EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jan 4, 2013 |
#
¿
Jan 4, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
The problem is V/H/S doesn't say anything worthwhile with those elements. Here's male gaze and these guys die cause it's bad. Here's sexual violence and it's bad. Here's emotional and sexual vulnerability and this guy is a creep for enjoying it. The end Yet it's also criticizing something with violent outcomes that it also participates in, sending inconstant messages that fail to generate effective commentary. I can see the interpretations leading to someone walking away with a feminist reading of the film, but those fall way short for me. It ends up being what it is by circumstance, and that's the product of six independent storytellers coming together with stories (almost) all about being deathly afraid of women. Intentional or not, the meta-message comes off feeling far more MRA than feminist, especially ending on a note with the predictable outcome that saving seemingly victimized girl is actually bad and gets them killed. I could buy the post-feminist interpenetration of "damsel in distress" twisting were it on its own, but the message comes off differently attached to the succubus, lesbian wife murdering husband, and girl's reckless use of friends as bait. The ending, in the context of nearly every story of women being crazy and villainous, almost comes off retroactively justifying the sexual violence and misogyny; because often there's little cause/effect between the negative behavior and the dangerous outcome, there's chicken/egg where it's unclear whether men are punished for being bad to women or if men behave how they do because "bitches be evil" I usually don't speculate about film-makers from the films they make, but I certainly walked away from V/H/S feeling a common trait among the creators. It's not that they (or the film) are anti-women, but it comes off as being entirely driven by their fear of women. EDIT: As an addendum to my comments, I haven't stopped thinking about V/H/S since finishing it. Definitely not a bad thing to garner such a strong reaction at least. For a film I struggled with and really disliked, I find myself planning to watch it again, although maybe at a quicker pace. EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 10:55 on Jan 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2013 09:51
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:So you complain about it feeling like torture porn and then say people should watch it just for people being mutilated in a realistic looking way. Like, yeah, the effects are impressive, but considering what the effects represent I can't see watching them for enjoyment without the context of story and character. They're cool in the context of a film. They're nothing but disturbing just watching snippets of people being butchered but not for real. That's not at all what I was saying or the effects I was referring to. Specifically I was really impressed with the low budget effects for the succubus, the glitch killer, and haunted house.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
FrostedButts posted:I just wanted to mention this little documentary that popped up called Cleanflix, focusing on the business in Utah of editing R-rated movies for Mormons. Ended up checking out Cleanflix because of this post and found it fascinating. Copyright issues have always been an interest of mine and I'm particularly familiar with the fair use exception details. The whole documentary was made even more intriguing to me by recent discussion in the LOST thread over the legal status of a chronological fan edit (which is a concept I'm sympathetic towards at heart) presenting an interesting contrast to the legal status of something like this which is inherently grating as censorship, but based in similar shaky 'educational purpose' exemptions. An hour in I ended up looking the timestamp and couldn't figure out how they could squeeze 30 more minutes out with all the bases covered, but I was generally not expecting the last turn although its built up well enough.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
big business sloth posted:It suffers from a similar problem that The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret does, where the main character is such a fuckin dope and every (increasingly poor) decision he makes just reeks of "no no god dammit that is so dumb why would you think that would be smart" instead of the Larry David "augh no larry you can't say that right now Todd Margaret doesn't presume to have a Curb thing going. It is absolutely aware the character's decisions are absurd and nonsensical. It's the whole point, and every episode raises those stakes from the initially absurd opening scene with Todd on trial for about every crime imaginable. The show even ends with (serious spoilers DO NOT READ if you ever plan on watching it) Todd nuking London, killing all the other characters as they pick at the insane contrivances leading up to the story . They know what they're doing. EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Mar 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 11:03
|
|
" that they think they are achieving.
|
It is worth squeezing in tonight before it expires if you can make the time though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Tennis Ball posted:In regards to The Imposter... Loved the documentary, and hated that so, so much too. They did it 3 times until they got the result they wanted and then that lady paraded it around like it meant anything. The drat things are inadmissible for a reason. The "murder angle" was such obvious bullshit perpetrated by a compulsive liar making another big play, a woman unable to recognizable being duped (twice, having fallen for the murder story), and a crazy PI still looking for the bigger conspiracy after his suspicion of an international-terrorist plot folded. It's totally essential to the narrative as the great second-scam that mirrors how the family could fall for the blatant lie out of a desperate hope when the people who unraveled the first lie ended up doing the same thing in desperation to vindicate grander egos. The culmination of the PI ecstatically entering "Al Capone's vault" but keeping hope alive is the perfect conclusion to the movie. I'm right on with maxnmona about this being the best documentary I've seen since Exit Through the Gift Shop. EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Mar 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
Cocoa Ninja posted:Maxnmona: I know, that's why I say it was a bait and switch, not that I misunderstand what happened. Nah, watch the last 5 minutes again. The film goes from dangling questions in the air to making a very hard stance with every action and line spoken at the end. Shot for shot: As the sister talks about the absurdity of hiding a stranger to cover up a murder, we go to the imposter smiling and signaling to the camera led off to jail where it's revealed he's calling up dozens of families saying he has information on those cases too. Again, the sister emphasizes the absurdity of listening to a compulsive liar (the brother reiterates the point) and the sister talks about the pain that causes with her final lines of the movie "gently caress him". The epilogue text plays to intercut scenes of the The Imposter dancing around, and his final lines "I didn't give a drat what other people were thinking, or what they were feeling. I care about myself. Just myself. And gently caress the rest of them." The text reiterates these points: the closing of the murder investigation due to lack of evidence, his perjury and fraud conviction, his attempt to impersonate after release. And The Imposter dances on... leading to the ominous music as the PI intensely stares on with the crane up to the ultimate shot: an empty grave as a fool digs eternally deeper. Why? Because "Nicholas Barklay is still listed as a missing person" I could see why someone would walk away thinking it was neutral, but looking closely at the information presentation it takes a very, very hard stance. The culmination of the film isn't presenting an ambiguous murder theory, it's all about the blinding pursuit of hope in the face of the obvious. The imposter dances on EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Mar 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
Tennis Ball posted:Congrats on a 600 word essay on a TV show. Eat poo. Words rule. Cocoa Ninja posted:Because I'm sitting here writing paragraphs about it my first reaction is that it's not as obvious as you two make it out to be, but maybe you're all right. I'll have to rewatch it! This is definitely not a bad idea. I plan to do the same pretty soon. I wouldn't necessarily call it obvious, just that close examination of the information flow and arcs they construct makes side-taken clearer which helps in unraveling the grander narrative. More about The Imposter notice how they construct the image of the PI next time you watch the movie. He's almost this "Inspector Gadget" (for lack of better analogy) figure, where he manages to insert himself into this case after a coincidental encounter, and fall upward. While right about the kid, his primary motivation was based on uncovering a grand conspiracy infiltrating the US. The larger than life conspiracy of international European military operating a child sex slavery ring by shipping in American kids is toppled by someone constructing their own larger fiction where that's a just front story used to cover terrorists or political subterfuge. The scene in the dinner where he's eating hot cakes is paramount to his narrative; after all this work and everything about to come to conclusion, it's viciously anti-climactic. His folk-friendly descriptions of the moment with him so astonished that he can barely scarf down his hot cakes totally undercuts his legitimacy. There's even a hilarious comment by The Imposter after he starts getting too close, something like "After all this, the last thing I need is getting Columbo'd." It's all set up for him to be deceived as well, just once The Imposter's lies line up with his hopes of a greater mystery. It's the same with the polygraph woman. Basically, that statement is presented to us as "we tested, but it didn't feel right, we tested again, but that didn't feel right either, and the last time was what we wanted so it felt right". Which is meant for us to start going, wait a minute, that's bullshit and you should know it. But it's about her willingness to deceive herself so she doesn't realize it. From there on the film undercuts her constantly by following up her statements of encounters with another interviewee going "well I did feel this way/say this thing, but that's not what happened" About the break-in elements, I recall their questioned authenticity being less than clear. But I could be wrong on that, I think part of establishing the grander narrative of blinding desire involved setting up that doubt in the audience. For the first time we're put in a position of uncertainty (separated from our all-knowing manipulative narrator) and must be shown both what evidence could lead someone to think that, while countering with the family's responses denying or partial acknowledgment with explanation. While dangling the question, the presentation of information often undercuts the the murder allegation to prepare the audience for hard stand made in the last few minutes. The nature of responses even shifts from the specific to the absurdity of how simply the second deception has been perpetrated: blaming the dead brother who can not contradict the story, accepting another grandiose story of murders hiding the imposter of the child they killed to divert suspicion, and, of course, trusting the deceiver to bare the truth they want to hear
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 10:27
|
|
|
Scanning through Netflix, John Noble caught my eye on a show "Dark Matters: Twisted but True" from the Science Channel. And damned if it isn't the best thing ever. The perfect fringe science show, a blend of bizarre truth (the history behind nuking the Van Allen belt), some out-there conspiracies grounded in their origins (talking about the Philadelphia experiment form the perspective of a scientist approached by a claimed participant), and some speculative conspiracy grounded in an even crazier-but-confirmed conspiracy (murder mystery of a man involved in MK-ULtra who may have threatened to expose civilian testing in France). Unlike a lot of similar shows, the actors in the dramatizations go hammy (intentionally) embracing the absurd instead of playing it straight, which works great juxtaposed with Noble's sincere narration. I've been burned out on "unsolved mystery" type shows for at least 10 years, especially with the explosion in stupid ghost stories where people feel cold presences in their attics at night. But this is something different. Even the stories I'm familiar with go in depth with some new fact or perspective that makes it worth watching. And they even undercut the stories with hoax elements by ending on possible explanation (having a magician show off the ease of levitating objects, re-framing a "Manchurian Candidate" scenario with mental illness and susceptibility to false memory under hypnosis) which is pretty refreshing for the type of show it is. The first season (six episodes) is up on netflix. Reading descriptions of the second season seems like it's just as entertaining, branching into all the most famous psychology experiments so wonderfully devoid of ethical behavior as they were. EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 02:01 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Tewratomeh posted:I really like the mental image of (more Cabin spoilers) all the monsters just kind of hanging out together after they finish murdering everybody. It'd be like Mad Monster Party, but with a bunch of rotting corpses in an underground bunker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo4tzrxyXsA
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Finally got around to seeing John Dies at the End , which was fun and I'm glad I watched it, but it could have been a lot better. The movie was really inconsistent making obvious flaws more noticeable. It seems they went all out on the secondary characters with Paul Giamatti, Clancy Brown, Doug Jones, and Glynn Turman owning the gently caress out of their roles, while the two leads really struggled, and the tertiary characters were "plucked off the streets" bad. CGI seemed really impressive at times for how small the budget must have been, and other times felt all too appropriate. The interesting story, humor, and loving little touches really help get past all that stuff (my favorite moment by far is a half-second gesture a character makes with one hand pointing to their other hand, holding a can labelled gasoline). The biggest detriment was the cinematography utilizing close-ups for 90% of the shots. It's claustrophobic as gently caress, and while that plays to it's advantage in some scenes (like an interrogation), most of the time it's just frustrating and using space badly. There's probably only two very-wide-shots in the movie (back to back) and when they showed up I wanted to first pump just cause it was a change of pace. At first I thought this was Coscarelli's doing, but re-watching a chunk of Phantasm II, the shots are composed way better so I guess this falls mostly on the cinematographer. Still, I'm glad stuff like it gets made. It wasn't ever boring either, which is something you can't say of a lot of movies embracing similar absurdity (the dull first two acts of Mars Attacks are fresh on my mind). It does feel like there could have been more there though. Hearing how much everyone who read the actual stories disliked the adaptation makes me really eager to read the book. WITNESS THE POWER! posted:Can anyone recommend some films on Netflix where stealth is prominently featured? Something that has a Splinter Cell or Metal Gear Solid type of vibe to it. A lot of the Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan movies are on Netflix. Not exactly stealth, but they might hit the spot a little better than the average action movie. Hunt for Red October, Sum of All Fears, Clear and Present Danger. Obviously they all vary in quality, but even the weakest have some interesting stuff. scary ghost dog posted:If you haven't seen Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (the best of the franchise) you are seriously missing an excellent movie. I actually watched GP recently and walked away thinking it was the best in the series too. The next day I went back and watched Mission Impossible for the first time in about a decade, and it's so much better than I remembered. Ghost Protocol is really great and excels in different areas, but I liked DePalma's Mission Impossible more. If someone is looking for a more straight up stealth, cloak and dagger movie with few action hero moments, then the first MI is the perfect fit. Tried watching the MI:2 and MI:3, but they were just as unimpressionable as I remembered. Especially 2, which really had me excited at first with this typical Woo score and his trademarks but my interest died off before the first act ended. The third one just felt a little standard, but I'll probably go back and try again soon.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
precision posted:Huh, that's odd. I thought the book was OK at best and the film was much more enjoyable. I also disagree that the two leads were weak, I thought the guy who played Dave turned in a fantastically low-key performance. That seems to be the (closest thing to a) consensus I picked up from the horror thread anyway. I could be mistaken. I don't outright dislike Dave's performance, but by struggling I do mean I felt a real difference between scenes (I'm speculating) that were shot earlier compared where he's more comfortable in the role. That and/or his scenes with the other veteran actors came a lot more easily for him, while scenes with the tertiary ones dragged him down. The only iffy part I can think of with them was his scene with Doug Jones in the car (especially his delivery on that one line about an expression...everything's just too straight, aggressive, and confident for the moment of his arc); the rest of his weak stuff were things like the party, the Jamaican conversation, dealing with Justin. Not all that surprising since those last two actors might be the the weakest in the whole film, which was all the more jarring sandwiched between Glynn Turman and Clancy Brown chewing the scenery. EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 18:17 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
bartok posted:Speaking of Comedy Bang! Bang! Is it getting a second season? Yep. Renewed for 20 episodes.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
Cannibal The Musical is amazing. Everyone should watch it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
DIEGETIC SPACEMAN posted:Can anyone recommend a good TV show on Netflix to watch while trying to fall asleep? Something focused more on dialog than visuals, that doesn't have an ongoing storyline (so I won't miss anything important if I doze off halfway through an episode) and ideally has at least a couple seasons available. I'm starting my second run through all 13 seasons of King of the Hill, but it might be time for something new. Dang, before I got to that second sentence all I was thinking was KOTH. There's always something like It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. And stuff like American Dad or Futurama that's you'd miss out on a number of great visual jokes but still dialog will get you far. But you might try some of the older shows like Cheers. Fraiser was a pretty good recommendation too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Khorne Flakes posted:How is Fringe past the first few episode into season four? I was in love with the first three seasons of the show, but season four effectively wiping anything that happens from the show when peter is removed from existence was loving awful. All that amazing writing down the toilet so that Peter and Olivia could re meet each other again just angered me so much, I quit watching and never checked into it again. Iffy. Season 4 takes way too long to start putting the pieces back together and even then the rest of the series takes place in the merged timeline, and we only get back original Peter and original Olivia (kinda) . There's some really cool stuff were we get great callbacks to some of the better stories and characters from the other seasons, but aside from that it's not very good. Like of SCIENCE! said, there's one super cool episode which sets the stage for season 5. Fringe always had trouble with bloated 20+ episode seasons, so Season 5 being 13 episodes really should have been amazing... but instead they just do the same thing and give us 13 episodes that probably should have been like 6.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:My favorite thing about the Core is how one of the writers keeps telling a story about how the original concept was basically a balls to the wall Journey To The Center Of The Earth homage (complete with dinosaurs) that he "reigned in" by ruining everyone's fun with spergy bullshit about realism, and he thinks this is worth praise. Gahhh, I would have been happy to go my whole life without knowing this. That sounds awesome. There's not a single movie out there that wouldn't be improved by including dinosaurs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Buzkashi posted:Demon Knight is definitely worth watching. Overall, it's not a very good movie, but Billy Zane is obviously having a ridiculous amount of fun with it and it's infectious. Right, it's a great movie.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
Not bloody likely https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mVq_4BA5DQ
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Even saying that the movie is about human gullibility is a bit of a stretch - the entire view of the narrator/movie/documentary maker/whoever was that the family had murdered the kid and didn't for a moment believe the impostor was actually the kid, and I'm not sure I'd really call the authorities gullible because if someone said "this is my kid" then sure, I'd believe them. Wrong. It's actually the opposite of that. The documentary constructed a narrative about the susceptibility of individuals believing what they want to be true in the face of the obvious. The detective wanting the grander story and falling for the imposter's claims is no different from the family that wanted the boy back. The final shots and dialog should make this clear. I've written about it at length in this thread if you want to check those posts out. For all the people who dislike the documentary for not matching whatever format, it's interesting how frequently those viewers seem to misinterpret (and underestimate) what is right in front of them. EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Apparently Netflix does not have Night of the Living Dead. Man as rear end backwards as public domain became (virtually dead thanks to disney, aside from creative commons), situations like what happened with Romero really, really suck too. All cause of the little letter missing on the title card after an edit. Poor guy 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:This is the perfect derail baitpost, even though I don't think you meant it that way. Conflating the public domain, Creative Commons, and the Berne Convention is like lighting up the sky of the entire northern hemisphere with the Hah, yeah didn't mean it that way. Legitimately thought it would work as shorthand without having to elaborate something along the lines of... "despite the continued extension of copyright lengths seemingly strangling the availability of works that should have entered the public domain, luckily some creators are voluntarily choosing to bypass certain provisions with their own modified creative commons licenses which they may choose to stipulate that..." and so on. To avoid a paragraph I wrote a couple sentences when a few words would have worked best: man Romero got hosed. TychoCelchuuu posted:Eh, all that stuff you say about the movie would've been much clearer if it hadn't focused so much on being a lean mean thriller machine. When two people disagree about what happened, maybe it's time to go talk to a third one instead of using clever back and forth cutting between accounts to undermine one of the two people. I don't want to be manipulated into thinking one thing or another when there are obvious ways to clear all this poo poo up. Like, is the mother lying about her resistance to the blood test or about the polygraph stuff? How about we just interview some other involved people?! That might sort that poo poo right up. But no, it's got to be an intricate narrative about the willingness of people to deceive themselves, even if that means leaving out obvious things that would corroborate one person's story vs. the other's. Manipulating your viewpoint is a necessary aspect of the film's brilliance though. The narrative is constructed to place you along a certain path to realize the ultimate message of the film. At first the viewer's natural reaction is how can these people fall for this and be fooled by this man. Then it warps your expectations with the allure of all the answers in a murder mystery plot with a rogue detective and FBI, so the audience too suspects there might be more. Yet in the end it's a game played on the investigators and audience alike. Despite the ludicrousness of the family's mistake, we're taken along their path and end up believing the con artist taking the bait we want for closure. The final words, their final acts--all these make the documentary's viewpoint clear. The imposter dances along as the clumsy naive private detective keeps digging his hole and finding what was there all along: nothing. Without manipulating you along the way this work would be... less than. Perhaps just as irrelevant as the details of a news report, a story told of a story told. The presentation is what makes this documentary into art. Not to sound like a cryptic twat (although I might not be able to help it), but you're looking for truth in the form of verisimilitude instead of looking for meaning, which is a lot more likely to reveal truths beneath the work. This approach applies to highly stylized works like The Imposter as much as it does to the best constructed "factual" documentary, and I'd argue the approach is even more useful when watching the latter. EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Oct 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2013 07:17
|
|
signal.
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:I definitely agree that the movie had to be manipulative to tell the story in the way it told it. I was simply reporting that I do not tend to like documentaries that are manipulative in this manner. Well it's not a documentary about a child that went missing, it's a documentary about how people fall victim to believing what they want to be true when pure logic should tell them otherwise. I'm pretty sure neither of us is in any place to speak for the family, but the difference between a hard reading of the situation is that the audience still asks themselves "how could they not know it wasn't their kid" and this documentary puts the audience in a position where they are manipulated along the same lines and can better understand "how". The very goal seems far more sympathetic than any hard reading of the "facts" could ever be. By talking about how you were approaching documentary I was trying to help you better help you understand this film. The entire art of documentary is all about shaping selected facts to prevent a biased narrative, whether its done with blunt hammer or a fine razor, it is inescapable. I think the key to unraveling works both subtle and obvious is to look for the inherent manipulation and derive meaning from there. Your approach is your approach, that's fine. The only thing I argued was flat out wrong was your interpretation of the film's stance, which is contradicted by the text. Don't mean to give off any huff and puff impression. EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Oct 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2013 08:57
|
|
|
Noticed earlier that Killing Zoe is up on Netflix. It's written and directed by Roger Avery (cowriter of Pulp Fiction, True Romance). The title is a bit of a joke, although its layered with meaning. While "Zoe" is the name of the female lead, it's also the word "life" in Greek. And "Killing Life" is a far more apt description of the sort of daze these characters experience, as well as setting the tone for the type of film this is. Basically it's the story of an American who takes a business trip to France where he makes a connection with an escort; his business is robbing a bank with an old friend and his crew addicted to drugs and danger. Killing Zoe is more of a movie with a heist in it than it is a "heist movie". Even then it's pretty slow (not slow like Heat, something different I can't quite describe). The first act is alluring with its charm. The second drags a bit with more repetition than necessary and a night that seems to last forever. But these character interactions are rewarded in the third act which also ramps up tension with the heist. I wouldn't say it's a great movie (although I'll admit parts of it went past me when I was younger, and some still do now), but fans of the heist genre should probably give it a go. And I'd especially recommend it to fans of slower introspective romantic works. EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Oct 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2013 11:39
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:My only positive takeaway from Somebody Up There Likes Me is that Nick Offerman is fantastic in everything he's in. There's another positive takeaway. It also resulted in this intriguing promo.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDdS3vy4Iso
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
MeaningOfLife posted:Don't Trust The Bitch in Apartment 23, it's really a great show. Seconding this. It was created by one of writers from American Dad and it really shows (in a good way, its a sitcom like Malcolm In The Middle thats not afraid to let the characters be unlikable or unrealistic when its funnier) EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 09:34 on Nov 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 09:28
|
|
|
EATIN SHRIMP posted:What do you guys think of Lillyhammer? I searched for a thread in TVIV but didn't find anything Underwhelming. It's not terrible or anything, but it's not notably good either. Even though are only a few episodes you probably won't finish it. Its just one of those shows where you watch an episode, say "that was okay," and plan on watching some more later. But you'll always end up in a mood for something else until one day long after you'll be reminded of it and go "oh yeah, I should probably finish that." Maybe you watch another episode, although you probably won't, but either way you say "that was okay" and plan on watching some more later...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Monsters owns. Such a beautiful ending too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:It's been mentioned before, but Heckler is a funny as poo poo. A bunch of double-chinned white insult comics crying about being made fun of by hecklers and critics alike interspersed with scenes of Jamie Kennedy being a dick to random hecklers is the comedy of the year. I think I posted this last time we talked about heckler here, but gently caress it, it deserves multiple posts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjVrrr0d3gU
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2013 09:27
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I watched some of Computer Chess when I was tired (so I couldn't handle the really awkward "so you're a girl programmer" scene), but all that I saw was pretty good. My guess is that the likely reason for all the "it sucks" content-free reviews, or even the "I made a better film in high school" criticism is that it hits a bit too close to home for a lot of goons. Even so, I don't really understand the negative reaction: I went to some big Artificial Intelligence lectures in college and I had the biggest, stupidest grin on my face during the entire "panel discussion" scene before the competition. I started watching this late one night after mistaking it for a documentary and it didn't take long to realize it wasn't so I switched movies, but I've been meaning to go check it out. Glad this thread reminded me it exists. Plus I kind of have to watch it after this post immediately got countered with a really goony response. Gotta find out for myself now. Gaz2k21 posted:That "twist" caught me right off guard I couldn't do anything but laugh my rear end off.....does that make me a bad person?? Nah, the Cleanflix documentary even sets the audience up for maximum schadenfreude. It was hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
I wish Netflix Max was a real person so I could strangle him.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
No Longer Flaky posted:Oh, I didn't realize they had changed the antagonists in the movie for the newer version. I guess it makes sense, but I think they could have kept it the russians and not many people woulda cared. A Red Dawn remake would have been badass if they just said gently caress it and straight up changed it to like the Taliban invading, and the Wolverines start out as a small fringe group blending in with the civilian population and emphasize attacking from the shadows, with both groups escalating as death tolls rise. But like, way more subtle and gradual. Just keep building until you get to this point near the end of the movie where the audience is cheering for the wolverine's suicide bomber to get just close enough to General Badguyington to take him out. (I mean, yeah, Inglourious Bastards already did this mostly, but it'd still be cool for Red Dawn) EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Dec 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Have you seen Battle: LA? Nope. Sounds like I should check it out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
I just watched Satan's Little Helper, a halloween movie about a boy who befriends a silent serial killer after mistaking him for a videogame character based on Satan. It's wonderful. Anyone looking for some good bad horror should check it out. And because an image is worth 1000 points...    50000 points for watching this movie and hope god doesn't catch you
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
Lake Dredge Appraisal is also fantastic. It doesn't have the arching plot or commentary of Sex House and Porkin' Across America, but it does have that quaint charm we all love about appraising treasures dredged up from from lakes. Its my personal favorite and I'd even watch it if it were a real full length show. David "Kim" Parker is one of the most well informed and respectable appraisers around. You cant help but respect his devout professionalism.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Michael Bay sucks, gently caress trasnformers, pain & gain, and the island. Its Jerry Bruckheimer that owns.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
I haven't liked any of Bay's movies since Bad Boys 2 (especially transformers that just bore me). But outside of their collaborations, Bruckheimer also hand a hand in Con Air, National Treasure, Enemy of the State, and the good pirates movie(s?) too. He has a handful of crap like Kangaroo Jack or Pearl Harbor and all those tv shows, but I'm legit excited for the Beverly's Hills Cop remake hes doing with Shawn Ryan. The solution is that Bay/Bruckheimer should be chained together at all times.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:No clue, but I just saw The Brady Bunch Movie on there for the first time and its just as amazing as I remember. They also have A Very Brady Sequel, and both Adams Family movies.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:Maybe I'm a bad person I found that scene hilarious. Same, I laughed pretty hard there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2014 23:21
|
|