I bet therea thousands in Apple TV land right now that want to beat the beep out of Shyamalan for wasting 3 1/2 years of our lives.
It's just a streaming series so those people need a reality check.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
Still watching Detective movies and TV series from made in the 1930s to made in the 2010s.
The list includes Charlie Chan, Columbo, Hitchcock directed movies, Magnum PI, Miss Marple, Perry Mason, Perry Mason movies, Monk, Murder She Wrote, Poirot, Rockford Files, Rumpole, Sherlock Holmes #1, Sherlock Holmes #2, Sherlock Holmes #3, The Wild Wild West -- and more.
Yesterday we watched our 4th Charlie Chan movie made and set in the 1930s. This series has been better than expected, so far.
Interestingly to me, unlike many here, we don't pay attention to who actors or actresses are; and, we don't "evaluate" plots in detail. Rather, we watch to be entertained for the 45minutes to a couple hours of a movie or episode. Then, we don't discuss details and promptly forget them. Even doing it that way, a few series have "turned us off" at some point -- mostly by being too silly for a Detective Series.
Interestingly to me, unlike many here, we don't pay attention to who actors or actresses are; .
For me it's not so much the actors but the directors who I pay attention to. I find it interesting how certain directors have distinctive artistic traits which you can spot in all or nearly all of their films. Directors like David Lynch, Quentin Tarantino and Stanley Kubrick all have very unique and distinctive visual and artistic styles which make their films easily recognizable as coming from them.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
Interestingly to me, unlike many here, we don't pay attention to who actors or actresses are; .
For me it's not so much the actors but the directors who I pay attention to. I find it interesting how certain directors have distinctive artistic traits which you can spot in all or nearly all of their films. Directors like David Lynch, Quentin Tarantino and Stanley Kubrick all have very unique and distinctive visual and artistic styles which make their films easily recognizable as coming from them.
True, I also look for directors. I'll watch anything from Cronenberg, Jeunet, Finchner, Wes Anderson. Although I get that a lot of people find Anderson too "pretentious", I really like his style. I'm looking forward to his new movie Asteroid City.
On the topic of movies I've watched recently, I saw Banshees Of Inisherin over the weekend. Very odd film, very allegorical. Put me in a funny mood for the weekend, I kept going back to it in my mind. Excellent movie, best I've seen in a long time.
"They might look the same, but they don't taste the same."
Although I get that a lot of people find Anderson too "pretentious", I really like his style. I'm looking forward to his new movie Asteroid City.
.
Sophia Coppola often gets accused of the same thing. As for Wes Anderson, my favorite film is definitely "The Grand Budapest Hotel".
Last edited by PanzerMeyer; 04/11/2304:18 PM.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
65 with Adam Driver, a different take on the Dinosaur movie. Very well done.
I've had my eye on this one. I'll check it out when it's available on streaming.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
I'm curious about 65 as well. The premise covered in the trailers seems odd, but I do like the effects, from what I've seen. Once I can see it on streaming I'll check it out.
Ken Cartwright
No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.
Although I get that a lot of people find Anderson too "pretentious", I really like his style. I'm looking forward to his new movie Asteroid City.
.
Sophia Coppola often gets accused of the same thing. As for Wes Anderson, my favorite film is definitely "The Grand Budapest Hotel".
Yes! GBH is such a great movie! Ralph Fiennes in particular is excellent in this.
In all my years I've never seen the like. It has to be more than a hundred sea miles and he brings us up on his tail. That's seamanship, Mr. Pullings. My God, that's seamanship!
GBH and Schindler's List are his absolute two greatest acting performances in my opinion.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
Being housebound during recovery, I've actually burned through most of the Disney animated movies in the last few weeks.
I was amused by the "Cultural sensitivity warning" displayed before The Jungle Book. Put Song of the South on the platform, you cowards.
What surprised me was that I still don't like Robin Hood or Sword in the Stone. I know they're supposed to be a series of vignettes with a loose plot to tie them together, but I didn't like that then and still don't; oddly, The Jungle Book is the same way, but they just do it so much better - it makes sense that Mowgli has a series of encounters on his trip, and they really remind the viewer of that, constantly trying to end each distraction on the way.
Peter Pan made me laugh, in that Tinkerbell really is drawn too sexy for a kid's cartoon and Neverland is actively and cheerfully trying to kill Wendy. "We were only going to drown her," says the mermaid, innocently.
Just finished up Frozen II: Leelo the Last Avatar and was just stunned at the production value. The direction, the attention to detail in the animation, particularly the lighting...just a clinic on how it's done. I know it sounds weird to talk about cameras and film direction in an animated film, but they just nailed it. One can tell they weren't just making a sequel to make a sequel, but put tons in effort in the story and songs. I have no idea how they're going to pull off Frozen III, as they sort of wrote themselves in a corner. But being that it's placed in around 1740, maybe they'll be invaded by people with decent firearms.
Last edited by Dart; 04/12/2305:26 PM.
The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
Peter Pan made me laugh, in that Tinkerbell really is drawn too sexy for a kid's cartoon .
I haven't seen the 1953 Peter Pan since I was a kid so I had to look up some screenshots to see what you are talking about. I really don't see much difference between the way she was drawn from how Wilma and Betty were drawn in the original Flintstones cartoon.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
I haven't seen the 1953 Peter Pan since I was a kid so I had to look up some screenshots to see what you are talking about. I really don't see much difference between the way she was drawn from how Wilma and Betty were drawn in the original Flintstones cartoon.
Screen shots don't do it justice; the animation is where it's at. I'm not saying it's pornographic or even inappropriate, just far more hot that one would expect.
The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
Being housebound during recovery, I've actually burned through most of the Disney animated movies in the last few weeks.
I was amused by the "Cultural sensitivity warning" displayed before The Jungle Book. Put Song of the South on the platform, you cowards.
What surprised me was that I still don't like Robin Hood or Sword in the Stone. I know they're supposed to be a series of vignettes with a loose plot to tie them together, but I didn't like that then and still don't; oddly, The Jungle Book is the same way, but they just do it so much better - it makes sense that Mowgli has a series of encounters on his trip, and they really remind the viewer of that, constantly trying to end each distraction on the way.
Peter Pan made me laugh, in that Tinkerbell really is drawn too sexy for a kid's cartoon and Neverland is actively and cheerfully trying to kill Wendy. "We were only going to drown her," says the mermaid, innocently.
Just finished up Frozen II: Leelo the Last Avatar and was just stunned at the production value. The direction, the attention to detail in the animation, particularly the lighting...just a clinic on how it's done. I know it sounds weird to talk about cameras and film direction in an animated film, but they just nailed it. One can tell they weren't just making a sequel to make a sequel, but put tons in effort in the story and songs. I have no idea how they're going to pull off Frozen III, as they sort of wrote themselves in a corner. But being that it's placed in around 1740, maybe they'll be invaded by people with decent firearms.
My favourites are Lion King and Beauty and the Beast. Childhood memories for me, as I was born in 85. As good as the Pixar era animated movies are, nothing beats 24 hand-drawn pictures a second for an entire movie. It’s its own form of art.
In all my years I've never seen the like. It has to be more than a hundred sea miles and he brings us up on his tail. That's seamanship, Mr. Pullings. My God, that's seamanship!
The early Disney films from say the 1930s through the 1970s were truly magical masterpieces of artwork and animation, and even live action. Walt gave the world some wonderful treasures, and was the right man to hire and discover the talent to fulfill his vision. The rest I can't speak of because that would belong in PWEC.
I love their classic non-animated films such as "The Love Bug," "Escape from Witch Mountain," and "The Cat from Outer Space." "Lady in the Tramp" and "Alice and Wonderland" have exquisite animation, among others such as "Pan."
And that's not even mentioning "The Black Hole," which is criminally underrated. I must have watched this one dozens of times through VHS rental alone.
I dunno, I think Disney has tiers of production, with the lower tiers given to signaling. The top tier stuff is still quality, rivaling some earlier stuff. Certainly Disney wasn't afraid of recycling animation sequences within the same movies, and between movies. Jungle Book shamelessly uses and reuses animations, often not even bothering to alter it even slightly in the film.
Not that it doesn't still happen. The rabbit in Zootopia is a furrry version of Anna from Frozen, with just a slight texture swap and the same facial animations. And almost all of the locations in the Frozen Fever are recycled from the original to save on costs.
On Tinkerbell, Disney never animated her again with her panties displayed as prominently as in Peter Pan. Her dress gets a bit longer to hide them.
The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
The early Disney films from say the 1930s through the 1970s were truly magical masterpieces of artwork and animation, and even live action. Walt gave the world some wonderful treasures, and was the right man to hire and discover the talent to fulfill his vision. The rest I can't speak of because that would belong in PWEC.
I love their classic non-animated films such as "The Love Bug," "Escape from Witch Mountain," and "The Cat from Outer Space." "Lady in the Tramp" and "Alice and Wonderland" have exquisite animation, among others such as "Pan."
And that's not even mentioning "The Black Hole," which is criminally underrated. I must have watched this one dozens of times through VHS rental alone.
It's interesting to see the different perspectives. For me, movies like "The Love Bug," "Escape from Witch Mountain," etc., seemed a bit cheaply made and contrived, and I just never got into them, even when I was a kid when they first came out. I also saw "The Black Hole" in the theater when it was released, and was very disappointed. I've seen parts of it a few times on cable since then, and while it has its moments, there's just too much that I find silly that it's tough for me to get into it.
I think it evolved a lot during development, and I believe that somewhere along the line someone decided they needed to add some kid-friendly marketing opportunities to what would have otherwise been a very serious story. I saw an article in one of the old Starlog magazines that gave the developmental history of it, and it wasn't until the last few iterations that the script even had a black hole in it.
Last edited by Arthonon; 04/12/2309:55 PM.
Ken Cartwright
No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.
The Black Hole is on Disney+ for those who want to watch or re-watch it. They've really expanded the library there to have all the old stuff like Escape From Witch Mountain, and some Disney "educational" films. The cowards won't put up the one on lemmings, though - probably because everyone now knows they pitched the poor things off of the cliff since they wouldn't go over willingly.
Speaking of Disney, Season Three of The Mandalorian started weak but it getting better. I know they're trying to make a larger story arc get deepened, but I miss the Quest of the Week episodes.
Oh, and this is brilliant Deep Fakery by Charlie Hopkinson:
The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
"Pete's Dragon" has always cracked me up because supposedly the story took place in North Carolina but yet most of the actors in the film didn't have a Southern accent and the movie was actually shot in California.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
1) "Trash Fire" -- Well this black comedy was quite something. Let's just say that they get what they deserve. Not bad. ** 1/2 out of **** stars.
2) "River's Edge" -- This early Keanu Reeves movie was quite captivating, and as far as performances they were great across the board. Crispin Glover was especially striking as a juiced up junkie teenager. Basically something really bad happens and teenagers from dysfunctional homes mill about like the non-empathetic sociopaths most kids are before they turn twenty years old, while making sometimes stupid decisions. Quite accurate, actually. I hope, though, that Californian parents weren't as irresponsible as the ones in this film during the 80s. I would never allow a 12 - 15 year old child out after midnight... or all that night long, for that matter, or to smoke weed in the house, etc. Their ass would be pureed to a pulp and locked in their room for weeks. That might have done these kids good. Regardless, I would not be surprised to learn this film was banned from some towns and theaters in 1986. The material is quite heavy. *** 1/2 out of **** stars. I was surprised. Excellent film.
3) "Invisible Man" -- Better than expected, aside from one major screw up with believability in one spot. There simply wasn't enough time for one scene to play out like it did. This was a nice twist on the age old "invisible dude" formula, and unlike Chevy Chase's film, this one wasn't a comedy. What we got was a fairly intensely paced thriller. Good. *** out of **** stars.
