[psmith2.0]

But it's not like any of these other candidates are huge, sure-fire names either. If you're going to roll the dice on such a project, at least err on the side of hiring the guy who audiences can actually buy as a 20-something Solo.

Personally I don't think this movie needs to be made, period. But if they insist on doing so, I've supported Ingruber's casting from the get-go, way back.

Audiences then wouldn't have to spend two hours muttering "this clown looks and sounds nothing like Harrison Ford..." because Disney hired one of the mopes in the article above. There's no separating Solo/Ford at this point, so the best you can do is go for "dang, he could be Ford's son...they nailed it!"

Believability and "okay, I fully buy into this being pre-cantina Han Solo...look at him!" will go a long way toward audience acceptance.

Write a good story, first and foremost, and then cast it in a believable way...so much of the rest takes care of itself! Plus, Anthony Ingruber can act (which is always a plus).

[Kickaha]

Deadpool.

Deadpool, Deadpool, Deadpool.

Deadpool.

Wife and I went to it opening night as our Valentine's Day present to each other, Ring Pops at the ready[*], and it did not disappoint. We started laughing ten seconds into it, and didn't stop until the credits finished.

Goddamned AWESOME.

Oh, obligatory NOT A MOVIE FOR KIDS warning. Our fifteen year old is bummed, but I am so not ready to have the "Well, kid, some guys like getting pegged" discussion with him. Nope nope nope.

I honestly cannot remember the last time I laughed that hard at a movie, or had such a stupid grin on my face afterwards. The humor is daaaaaaaark, the violence is over the top and extreme, the sexuality is OONF in your face, but holy freaking god, I enjoyed the hell out of it.

Oh, and it was a really sweet love story on top of it all.

It earns its place as the top grossing R rated movie in history. Honestly, the best description I've read is that "it is the most violent and vulgar Bugs Bunny show you've ever seen". Indeed.
[*] I actually proposed with a Ring Pop, and one of my first gifts to her was an engraved puzzle pieces necklace, so we may have utterly lost it during that scene.

[murbot]

I haven't read anything about Deadpool since it came out... I figured it'd be harsh, but this seals it, if YOU won't take a 15 year old boy to it, my girls are going nowhere near this thing.

My family is gone tonight, so I might have to pop down to the theater with a flask tonight and really get into it.

[kieran]

I saw 13 Hours this weekend, which was really good. Very Black Hawk Down-esque. I really like John Krasinski, so this was good to see him in a different role than normal.

Now Deadpool, I may have to just go back to the theater much quicker than I normally would. I see pretty much one movie in theaters every few months.

[RowdyScot]

I will be seeing Deadpool again. I've been a fan of the comics for a long time, and this movie feels just like reading one of them. Missed maybe a couple things I'd have loved to see, but no complaints. Ryan Reynolds fucking NAILED it.

[psmith2.0]

...and the Harrison Ford "All My Greatest Hits" Farewell Tour/Victory Lap rolls on!

He's revived Indiana Jones and Han Solo...now it's Rick Deckard's turn to scowl, mumble, point and act completely disinterested/out of it, three decades after-the-fact.

I can only assume that an older, more introspective Jack Ryan is waiting in the wings? Perhaps he can yell at ISIS - or some Oregon ranchers, if that's how you swing - to give him back his family?

Meh...I'm waiting on the return of Amish-friendly, ice cream cone-hating Philly cop John Book. That barn is probably due for some fixing up anyway. Samuel is all grown up and probably running into trouble somewhere, and needing the help of the one man who was there for him (and his family) back in the day.

[709]

Went to see The Witch today before brunch. It's very good*.

It's set before the witch trials, so you'll get none of that, but close enough where the entire experience is steeped in old-world religion and hardship. I find the whole era of Puritan pre-America fascinating, so this was right up my alley. I walked out giving it a weighty 6.5/10, but after spending a few hours over some Soft Parade and back and forth over what those scenes actually meant, I'm upping it to a 7.5/10. I haven't had this much fun discussing a film since, well, I don't remember.

verdict: It's a film very much worth seeing. Preferably with a partner or two or three that you can compare thoughts with later over tasty libations.


*It's also very slow at times and the language is Olde English so it's not always easy, but you can get the gist.

[psmith2.0]

I thought about seeing it. I've read mostly positive reviews. They all say it doesn't do the thing I HATE in modern "horror" type movies: the endless, endless tired-ass "jump-scares" and fake-outs (I could write a book on how played-out and annoying that type of horror has become in recent years). They say it's more of a dreadful, creepy slow-burn type of thing. That alone is so nice to hear, because that means it's genuinely unnerving/eerie and not relying on the idiotic "BOOOO!!!" approach, every four minutes.

Gonna have to catch this one, I think. I saw the first teaser for it months ago (way back in early fall) and thought "that looks like something I'd like to watch through my fingers!" But then I forgot all about it until a couple of days ago.

Yeah, stuff set back then - when you can't rely on or expect tech and modern trappings (a S.W.A.T. team, Navy SEALS, Batman, etc.) to help or save you always makes for chilling fare. You're just alone with your beliefs (or lack thereof) and some creepy stories, visuals, etc.

[709]

Yeah, I can do the slasher/gore and jump-scare horror all day long if I know what I'm getting into. I actually like that genre a lot, but it's through-and-through camp, and I know that going in.

The Witch has none of that. No gore. Mild shock cuts. Without getting into spoilers, the genius is that the horror is part of the banal.

Great cast too. There's literally 6 characters throughout the whole film, and every one of them are great in their own, creepy way.

[Ryan]

Has anyone seen Hail, Caesar! yet? Critics love it but viewers seem less pleased.

[Kickaha]

Saw it. A very well crafted love letter to classic films, it lacked much in the way of plot or characters. It was just a kaleidoscope of recreated genre clips from cinema of years gone by. Industry masturbation without much substance.

It's going to sweep the Oscars. :/

Frankly, I was bored by the end even though I really really wanted to fall in love with it.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Saw it. A very well crafted love letter to classic films, it lacked much in the way of plot or characters. It was just a kaleidoscope of recreated genre clips from cinema of years gone by. Industry masturbation without much substance. It's going to sweep the Oscars. :/ Frankly, I was bored by the end even though I really really wanted to fall in love with it.

Damn. You'd think between Clooney and the Coen Brothers they could do better.

[psmith2.0]

So...no talk yet about that Ghostbusters trailer?

Uh oh.

I mean it's got everything except a record scratch and Solsbury Hill.

Seeing as how nobody involved in this (aside from maybe Kristen Wiig) is remotely funny, I'm not entirely sure how this will work as a (alleged) comedy. Interesting. I can only assume it's some sort of subtle, knowing post-modern meta-commentary of something about the blah-blah of the whatever?

But I like the part where the loud, street-wise black character says "awww, hell naw!" because that hardly ever done in movies.

I can't wait to not see this!

[murbot]

Bang on post, Paul.

This movie looks TERRIBLE. I don't even think my huge crush on Kristen Wiig will help it. Just.... awful.

[psmith2.0]

Bless her heart, she almost looks embarrassed here. I like Wiig quite a bit - and she's a total cutie pie for sure - but it won't be enough for me either.

[Yontsey]

This one is hard for me because Ghostbusters is my all time favorite movie. I'm a huge Ghostbusters geek with everything from Lego sets to lithos on my wall to books. I want to like this and support this but it just looks awful. I will still go see it opening weekend but I'm not expecting much.

Honestly, would have much rather have seen the male reboot version they were talking about with Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum and Reitman involved. I heard it still may be happening but who knows. Would be a much better cast. This reminds me of when they started redoing the TMNT movies. Gross.

[Chinney]

We saw Bridge of Spies on video this past week. A nicely-acted and scripted and beautifully-filmed, low-key movie about the depths of the cold war. Enjoyed.

[Yontsey]

I watched the European Ghostbusters trailer last night and I think it finally made up my mind for me. This movie just looks flat out awful. I really really really want to like it, because like I said, Ghostbusters is my favorite movie of all time, but this just looks terrible. I will still end up going to see it and I'm sure it will kill at the box office, but it makes me so sad to see this franchise done a huge disservice like this.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Yontsey I watched the European Ghostbusters trailer last night and I think it finally made up my mind for me. This movie just looks flat out awful. I really really really want to like it, because like I said, Ghostbusters is my favorite movie of all time, but this just looks terrible. I will still end up going to see it and I'm sure it will kill at the box office, but it makes me so sad to see this franchise done a huge disservice like this.

I don't want to like it. It is a ridiculous, unnecessary remake of a classic movie with a classic cast.

The trailer for the new one surpasses my worst expectations in a negative way. It looks terrible. Out of the cast members, Kristin Wiig should be better than this. She is working down to the level of the others, which is very very low.

I can't wait to hear Bill Murray's first comments on this crap.

[turtle]

Ok, I'm not interested in this Ghostbusters at all. I haven't watched the trailer at all and don't rally plan to at this point. Will I watch the movie, maybe once I can check it out from the library.

For me it has more to do with the shift from guys to girls. I know that seems petty, but it is what it is. I'm not sexist, just the movie was the four guys but four girls. Heck they even switched out the secretary. It's more to do with they are just trying to be too politically correct.

If they did some guys and some girls I wouldn't have cared. It just strikes me more like "I'm going to hire all Asians for this job to prove I'm not a white supremacist." I hope the movie ends up good, even better than the original. I have no expectation though.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses I don't want to like it. It is a ridiculous, unnecessary remake of a classic movie with a classic cast. The trailer for the new one surpasses my worst expectations in a negative way. It looks terrible. Out of the cast members, Kristin Wiig should be better than this. She is working down to the level of the others, which is very very low. I can't wait to hear Bill Murray's first comments on this crap.

What's he gonna say? He's certainly not going to lay into it too harshly - if at all - seeing as how he, Aykroyd and a few others appear in cameos (not playing the characters they originated, BTW, which only adds to the overall stupidity and WTFification).

Murray is part of this lameness, albeit briefly and of no real consequence (which just somehow makes it all worse, as they've tried to get him to return to the thing for ages for a proper sequel, prior to Harold Ramis' death). He's declined over and over...but he carves out some time to appear in this?!? That's almost admirable in its "f you!" trollies.

"No, I'm not going to play Peter Venkman for a third time. Quit asking, and bug off! I will, however, appear in a totally pointless, unrelated cameo in this turd sandwich, actually going out of my way to defy/mock the wishes of every GB fan out there."

Well played, Bill.

[psmith2.0]

Oh, there's a new trailer for Captain America: Civil War (aka Avengers III) out today.

Kinda neat, although I think they blew it by giving us that one reveal at the very end. A lot of people - casual viewers who don't follow the making of/casting of these things - have no idea this character is slated to appear. I think it would've been better to just keep that in their pocket and blow a bunch of minds in the theater opening weekend.



So if you don't want to see what the third cinematic version of a certain web-shooting, teenaged Marvel character looks like, then you may wanna bail/pause at about the 2:10 mark.

If you opt to watch, do note the eyes...very 60's cartoon/Electric Company, what they've done on this go-around. We've not seen that approach/design on the big screen. Is that Stark tech? Some sort of irising viewfinder or high-tech lenses? And I'll bet you this is the second suit we see, after he throws in with Tony (who does Parker the solid of outfitting him with a Starkified cutting-edge suit). Because Stark's comment/nickname makes me think that we probably first see the character in a more homemade, low-tech suit early on (prompting Stark's comment/nickname, which probably sticks throughout, glib smart-ass that Tony is). Those eyes definitely make me think "HUD digital range-finder/infrared/night-vision/polarizing" Starkness of some sort at work here.

[709]

10 Cloverfield Lane is just great. It's suspenseful, creepy, clever, surprising, etc. Thoroughly enjoyable.

And no, it has nothing to do with Cloverfield. See it with that knowledge going in and it will be a better experience.

[psmith2.0]

Ah, cool to hear. I've been trying to figure that angle out for well over a month. Good to know.

As for the name/connection, any chance it's a bigger, hidden secret of some sort (revealed in an eventual third movie at some point)? It's not a common word, so it makes me wonder. I assume "10 Cloverfield Lane" is the address of the farm house(?) where Goodman's character lives. I just wonder if there's any sort of deep link?

Because they could've named this movie 68,000 other things besides something with the word "Cloverfield" in it (unless, of course, that's the marketing crew at work, hoping to lure folks in, thinking it's a sequel/prequel/side-story of some sort). I certainly would've walked in, expecting to see some connection to that other flick eight years(!) ago.

[709]

Yes, it's the address of the farmhouse. No spoilers there. The advertising ramping up to this film has been entirely misleading, and I think you're right about it being a push to get seats filled, but there is a bigger picture that I wasn't aware of.

Anna clued me in on this as we were having our post-film discussion beer, but she read in one of the trade mags (Entertainment Weekly) that the 'Cloverfield' name is going to be an umbrella of sorts for JJ projects that are small, fun side things. It's a neat idea, I guess. Still, I would've liked to know that somehow, like 'Chapter II of the Cloverfield Series', emphasizing the serial part of it. Or really serialize it like 'Another Adventure from...' or some shit. Oh well. I'm excited to see what's in store.


Anyways, It's really good, and the acting is top notch. I'd watch post-Roseanne John Goodman in pretty much anything – he's brilliant, as usual – and the other two leads are just as great. It's worth seeing.

[psmith2.0]

Two Harrison Ford-related tidbits out today:

First up, Indiana Jones 5 - a movie nobody is really asking for at this point - is coming in 2019, with both Spielberg and Ford on board.

Yeahhh...hmm.

I truly wish I could give a rip, but...

Ford was already looking lost, unconvincing and too old for the part in 2008. Is anyone expecting an additional 11 years to somehow improve/fix/remedy that?

Let me guess...Shia LaBeouf joins the Soviets (or whatever trumped-up, horseshit villains they conjure up to not offend the international market) and stabs his old man with (metal) sword on the middle of a swinging bridge?

It would be like poetry...it rhymes!

Ugh.

Secondly, the casting for the "young Han Solo" movie is going as badly and WTF?! as I expected. On what planet do any of these pictured dorks look anything remotely like they could convincingly take on the role of one of the most iconic characters in the history of movies?!

They're kidding, right? They're going to ask viewers to believe any of these guys turned into Harrison Ford in 20 years? Good grief, it's like they're not even trying.

This movie, on several levels (this just being the latest), is gonna fail so hard. Mark my words.

[Yontsey]

Indy 5 can't be any worse then the last one....

Also one of my favorite movie franchises of all time. My childhood is getting punched in the dick left and right.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by Yontsey Indy 5 can't be any worse then the last one....

That's hardly any sort of standard or yardstick to aspire to. I hate that "well, it probably won't suck as much as the other one..." seems to be s.o.p. for studios/franchises at this point.

"Hey, let's throw it out and see if it sticks...couldn't hurt!"

Originally Posted by Yontsey Also one of my favorite movie franchises of all time.

Mine too. The first three were damn-near perfect. In fact, I consider Raiders of the Lost Ark, along with Jaws and
Goodfellas, to be one of the three "perfect" movies I've ever seen (in terms of no dead space, no boring stretches, no wasted footage or dialogue, no "hurry up and get to the good part", every shot or bit of writing advances/propels the story so well, lean and tight, great overall look/vibe, etc.). And the two sequels were quite good and enjoyable in their own way as well. They even ended The Last Crusade on a perfect note...our heroes, alive and together, riding off into the sunset. That could've - and should've - been the last we ever saw of Indiana Jones. We would've remembered that, and those three movies, as a well-done, tight little trilogy and ended up exactly how we'd wanted/hoped (much like The Return of the Jedi).

Then 2008 comes along and this soulless, spark-free, barely-trying, convoluted Syfy-level shitball of a movie gets foisted on us and makes us kinda cringe and think "OMG...what happened?!". So, yeah...my interest/optimism for a fifth Indy movie, 11 years after one I already don't like, is pretty much non-existent. And for good reason, IMO.

Originally Posted by Yontsey My childhood is getting punched in the dick left and right.

These studios aren't going to leave a dime on the table. All of us who grew up in the 70's and 80's are now in our 30's, 40's and 50's and prime "buy stuff" demographic. So these properties are going to get revived/rebooted at any opportunity, and we're going to get our brains fan-serviced out for at least the next decade. And part of that reviving/rebooting means updating them for modern tastes and sensibilities...and I can't think of a bigger dice-roll or laming agent than that, frankly.

[kscherer]

I wonder if George Lucas is involved? That, by itself, carries more jackassery weight than any other point.

Remember, though, that Disney is in charge, now, and (without Lucas around) may bring us something much more entertaining than we would expect otherwise.

Perhaps this is a golden opportunity to kill off the old fogey and set the stage for some new? Kind of like that last blockbuster we were whining about?

[709]

Maybe Mr. Ford has a deal with Lucas and Spielberg that his beloved characters get knocked off before he dies in real life, so he can quit answering questions on whether he'll come back for such and such film, being the grumpy, aging sourpuss that he is. The man just wants to spend his last decade with his broomstick of a bride, and hell, why not?

If there's a film in the works about an increasingly agitated Capt. Bob Falfa going against the unruly street graffiti artists maligning his beloved city, only to see him go down in a hail of toxic spray and "get off my city lawns!", I'd be entirely OK with that.