[turtle]

The trailers for it do make it look good. Tom is by far the best take on Spider-man I've seen too so this helps.

While I'm weary of the MCU at this point but I'm still watching it. I'm working my way through Hawkeye now and enjoying the fact that there is still a connection across the board.

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, it's weird that I've not been interested in all those Disney+ shows featuring the same characters/actors I enjoyed so much in those movies, especially early on. But it just feels like I followed something for 11 years and was there at the start, present at the end and in on everything in between. I'm just...tired.

I'm pretty bad(?) about bailing/cutting ties when I feel something has stayed past its expiration date (Marvel/Avengers, Star Wars, Stranger Things, etc.). I'll give anything a shot, but at the first whiff of "okay, they're just running the ol' fan-service/former glories playbook" - or if I feel like the story I signed on for has fully been told and there's really nothing left to say - I immediately check out and move on. I guess that's what happened with me and Marvel? In theory, I should love a show about Scarlet Witch, Falcon, Loki and Hawkeye (especially considering they were some of my favorites in that cast), but...I just have zero interest anymore. Weird.

But they're going to have long, strong success with this stuff. I don't think the multiplex - and that particular format (one-off two-hour movies) will ever come back like it was. I said earlier this year that I believe the future of Star Wars is in short-form episodic TV. I kinda feel that way about Marvel. I don't think the world, COVID or not, just just up for the hassle/expense of never-ending visits to the multiplex, now that we've all gotten a dose of "you mean I can sit here and watch this stuff in my underwear, and pause for pee breaks?!"

It's hard to overcome that goodness.

Video killed the radio star.

Streaming technology killed the Bijou.

Maybe not quite yet, but it's gonna. In our lifetime.

[Ryan]

The theaters were gonna die with or without a pandemic. High prices, lousy experience, dealing with general dipshittery from other patrons.

Is my home setup as immersive? No. Is it a more enjoyable experience? Yes. The seats aren't sticky and the snacks are of my own choosing.

I think the only cinemas that survive are the ones like Alamo Drafthouse that focus on the full experience and not just getting butts in seats for the latest blockbuster. Sing-along Rocky Horror Picture Show nights, John Hughes marathons, etc, with real food and adult beverages delivered to your seat and management that doesn't hesitate to eject assholes who just can't shut up or put down their phone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs

[psmith2.0]

Such a place sounds great. I think they'll thrive if they can maintain that kind of experience/control. But I do think the whole Flick-O-Plex 38 thing is slowing going the way of the dodo.

I'm not looking to take out a loan for some Twizzlers and a Sprite.

[drewprops]

Last night I watched Serpico.

Growing up Serpico was a cool word for a cop who dressed up like a bum.

That's about all we knew.

I mean, we knew it was about something else, but the only point that really stood out was that he was a shabby looking undercover cop.

So the movie (and my subsequent catch-up readings) was fascinating.

Frank (Francesco) Serpico was a 1st generation Italian American who had a strong ethical streak running through him, so much so that he was drawn to law enforcement.

As a kid he had objected to a cop coming into his father's shoe repair business to get a shoe shine, leaving without paying for it.

Once he became a cop Serpico ("Paco" to his friends) learned that the guys in his streetclothes group were on the take from illegal activities happening around the city. No wonder the reputation for crime in the big city was so shitty in the 1970s!

Serpico refused to be in on the take, arousing the suspicions of the cops who were making bank on crime.

He repeatedly sought to end the practice by going up the ladder, but it never worked.... because the crime was rampant throughout the city and way up the ladder into the Mayor's office.

His efforts to get rid of the crime inside the force resulted in him having his partners in the narcotics unit leave him to die after he got shot in the face during an attempted bust.

He lived and some things changed, but he left the force disillusioned by the inability of mankind to live up to his expectations.

Al Pacino did this show between Godfather 1 and 2, and people say that the film captured a lot of the essence of the book and the overall nature of the period.

It's on Amazon Prime for free right now btw.





...

[psmith2.0]

It's a great movie. This and Dog Day Afternoon are my two favorite Al Pacino performances (yes, over the Godfather stuff and everything else).

You really feel for the character...he has no friends or allies on the force, and it's just him against everyone.

I read - and I assume it's true because it just makes sense, logistically - that they shot Serpico in reverse order...the latter scenes with a long-haired, bearded Pacino were filmed first. Then he cut his hair/shaved his beard for those earlier scenes when he was fresh out of the academy and clean-cut. Beats wearing fake-looking wigs/beards (or waiting for your lead's hair to grow for months and months).

[psmith2.0]

Nobody here has gone to see the new Spidey flick? I hear it's performing well. With no interest/desire in seeing it, I went ahead and read themoviespoiler.com entry (and several other spoiler reviews out there). Sounds like an interesting, fun and everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach (and a Kohler or two still made it in).

They appear to have a genuine hit on their hands. I'll be driving past a nearby AMC 18 later today, so I'll be curious to see how their parking lot looks today, vs. previous weeks/months (a sad, post-apocalyptic ghost town).

I just hate that its success will surely factor in to holiday-oriented COVID surge numbers. Marvel will rake in gazillions, as related new cases will shoot through the stratosphere due to all the people piling into theaters this weekend and the coming week. Kind of a "good news/bad news" deal.

[chucker]

Tricky.

For historical reasons, the Spider-Man films are still a Disney/Sony collab, and Sony (unlike Disney) doesn't have a streaming network of their own (hence multiple Apple TV+ series being Sony stuff).

If these were purely Disney films like most Marvel stuff, and if there weren't also the Johanssen lawsuit, they might have done the same as with Black Widow and simultaneously release it on Disney+, and Disney would actually prefer people don't go to theaters, since that comes with lower margins for them.

Having said all that…

I enjoyed the Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire trilogy. Yes, including the third one. I did not care at all for the first Marc Webb/Andrew Garfield film. It seemed to exist solely because Sony wanted more money, not to actually express anything. Didn't watch the second one.

Did watch Captain America: Civil War, which featured a Spider-Man cameo that seemed very meh. I'm not sure if I watched Spider-Man: Homecoming. Or anything since. Do we really need a third trilogy of the very same story within less than twenty years?

I'm told Into the Spider-Verse is very cool, though. Shall watch that.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by chucker I'm not sure if I watched Spider-Man: Homecoming. Or anything since. Do we really need a third trilogy of the very same story within less than twenty years?

I've asked this myself a few times. It seems Spider-Man and Batman are having a contest to see a) how many actors can play the character in the shortest amount of time, and b) how many times the property can be rebooted/re-imagined.

Batman is currently in the lead (six actors in 32(!) years and six distinct "versions"/reboots, vs. Spidey's three actors/three versions in 19*), but check back in 5-10 years...that could all change drastically.




*I'm talking live-action, big screen releases only; no animated fare/voice actors, TV shows (Gotham, etc.) or video games. And even though it won't be released until March 2022, it's already been filmed/trailers released, so I've included The Batman's Robert Pattinson along with Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Bale and Affleck). While Kilmer and Clooney both played the character, I consider them part of the same universe of Joel Schumacher's ultra-campy, over-the-top/updated 1966 take, which is why the reboot/reimagining tally is one less than the actor count; aside from Kilmer and Clooney, those two silly-ass movies still had the same director, main supporting cast, overall look/tone [campy humor, Dutch angles, neon galore and baffling homoeroticism], etc.).

[chucker]

Originally Posted by psmith2.0 I've asked this myself a few times. It seems Spider-Man and Batman are having a contest to see a) how many actors can play the character in the shortest amount of time, and b) how many times the property can be rebooted/re-imagined.

Exactly… the Nolan/Bale trilogy was great. But most DC films since have been… eh. I think Nolan's dark, gritty take worked so well in part because it was quite unexpected (contrast the early-90s Batman films!). Once it became the norm, I didn't find it exciting. And it looks like Reeves's reboot will be more of the same grimdark stuff. Meh.

Originally Posted by psmith2.0 TV shows (Gotham, etc.)

I watched Gotham for a while. I thought its first season was quite enjoyable. I particularly liked John Doman as Don Falcone, I think.

Then the tone shifted more and more towards everything is dark and bad and everyone is different shades of evil and crazy, and… why am I watching this? It seemed so high up its own "nothing and noone can ever be good or beautiful or nice" supply that I just hit the Pause button at some point and never resumed.

[psmith2.0]

Ah, same here. I, too, watched - and kinda enjoyed - that first season of Gotham, or at least the earlier parts of it, maybe about halfway or 3/4 in? At some point I did bail and just never went back. A bit too grim and "why bother at all?" in tone. Some properties really milk and overplay the "Gotham City as a lost cause/soulless wasteland" angle a bit harder than I can buy into. It's probably no bit worse than real-life St. Louis or Baltimore.

In general I just don't find prequels and/or origin stories all that interesting. It's hard sometimes to draw that line backwards from the stuff we know to see how (unsolicited in most cases) things "came to be". It limits what you can do because if you get too crazy and depart from what's known, then it's something entirely different. And I really don't care, to be completely honest. Because the entire time I'm watching something like that, all I'm thinking is "I already know how this turns out, so this is really just a bunch of time-wasting exposition/filling-in-the-blanks I really don't need, and never asked for. I truly don't give a shit what Bruce Wayne was like at 14, sorry...and I can't figure out why anyone really would".

The supporting cast of Gotham might've been the biggest collection of unlikable, off-putting and uninteresting characters I've ever seen on a TV show. It made Melrose Place look like M*A*S*H*, for crying out loud. I didn't even last the full first season. Kinda hard to hang with a show where you just want to smack, or violently shake, everyone in the cast multiple times an episode. Isn't that what Grey's Anatomy is for?

I think of all the shows I used to watch and enjoy, and how all of them shit the bed and/or overstayed their welcome after just 3-5 years...The Walking Dead, NYPD Blue, CSI (the original Vegas one), Northern Exposure, The Shield, Bates Motel, etc. At some point they all go sailing wildly over the mako and I have to go bye-bye. And some, like Gotham and Stranger Things, somehow manage to do so in under 1-2 seasons.

"Alright, enough of this...I'm growing more stupid, and insulted, with each episode".

[chucker]

Originally Posted by psmith2.0 Ah, same here. I, too, watched - and kinda enjoyed - that first season of Gotham, or at least the earlier parts of it, maybe about halfway or 3/4 in? At some point I did bail and just never went back. A bit too grim and "why bother at all" in tone. Some properties really milk the "Gotham City as a lost cause and a soulless wasteland" angle a bit harder than I can buy into. In general I just don't find prequels and/or origin stories all that interesting. It's hard sometimes to draw that line backwards from the stuff we know to see how (unsolicited in most cases) things "came to be". I really don't care, to be completely honest. Because the entire time I'm watching something like that, all I'm thinking is "I already know how this turns out, so this is really just a bunch of time-wasting exposition/filling-in-the-blanks I really don't need, and never asked for. I truly don't give a shit what Bruce Wayne was like at 14, sorry...". The supporting cast of Gotham might've been the biggest collection of unlikable, uninteresting characters I've ever seen on a TV show. It made Melrose Place look like M*A*S*H*, for crying out loud. I didn't even last the full first season. Kinda hard to hang with a show where you just want to smack, or violently shake, everyone in the cast. Isn't that what Grey's Anatomy is for?

It definitely had an ever-increasing "why do I care about any of these people" problem, yup.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by chucker Exactly… the Nolan/Bale trilogy was great. But most DC films since have been… eh. I think Nolan's dark, gritty take worked so well in part because it was quite unexpected (contrast the early-90s Batman films!). Once it became the norm, I didn't find it exciting. And it looks like Reeves's reboot will be more of the same grimdark stuff. Meh.

I read an interesting point—forget where—that the same thing happened after Die Hard. It broke the mold of the Arnold/Van Damme/Seagal action thriller with a normal guy thrust into a bad situation.

But then it became the default plot structure for action flicks. Die Hard on a bus (Speed), Die Hard on a plane (too many), Die Hard on a boat (Under Siege) and 50 or so others to the point where now we're just bored of it.

[psmith2.0]

I remember all that. There was indeed, throughout the 90's (and maybe even a bit into the earlier 2000's) that whole "Die Hard on a [fill in the blank]" trend. My silly butt saw many (most?) of them, but then, yeah...it just runs its course and you realize "I've seen this movie already, about four times."

That very first one, though. It's a classic and is as fun to watch as the very first time I saw it in the theater. Unfortunately it went on to become a parody of itself, but that very first one...like Jaws and a few other movies, I can stop whatever I'm doing and sit and watch it if I flip past it. Even edited, on basic cable, it's still a hoot. McClane (Willis) gets a good chunk of the credit, for the reasons you said (a regular, less-than-perfect schmo who bleeds, coming off a decade of impossible-to-hurt muscleheads who couldn't act), but Die Hard without Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber is less than half a movie. Easily one of my top 3 all-time movie baddies. And I couldn't even hate him! Part of me rooted for the guy, I'm not gonna lie.

That's how you play a villain...make the viewer kinda throw in with him a bit.

"He's not so bad...and he's funny as can be!" He had all the really good lines, IMO.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Ryan I read an interesting point—forget where—that the same thing happened after Die Hard. It broke the mold of the Arnold/Van Damme/Seagal action thriller with a normal guy thrust into a bad situation. But then it became the default plot structure for action flicks. Die Hard on a bus (Speed), Die Hard on a plane (too many), Die Hard on a boat (Under Siege) and 50 or so others to the point where now we're just bored of it.

Not to mention the entire 24 series. It starts out as "office worker is unwittingly thrown into terrorist plot involving his former affair" and quickly becomes very trope-y.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by psmith2.0 I remember all that. There was indeed, throughout the 90's (and maybe even a bit into the earlier 2000's) that whole "Die Hard on a [fill in the blank]" trend. My silly butt saw many (most?) of them, but then, yeah...it just runs its course and you realize "I've seen this movie already, about four times." That very first one, though. It's a classic and is as fun to watch as the very first time I saw it in the theater. Unfortunately it went on to become a parody of itself, but that very first one...like Jaws and a few other movies, I can stop whatever I'm doing and sit and watch it if I flip past it. Even edited, on basic cable, it's still a hoot. McClane (Willis) gets a good chunk of the credit, for the reasons you said (a regular, less-than-perfect schmo who bleeds, coming off a decade of impossible-to-hurt muscleheads who couldn't act), but Die Hard without Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber is less than half a movie. Easily one of my top 3 all-time movie baddies. And I couldn't even hate him! Part of me rooted for the guy, I'm not gonna lie. That's how you play a villain...make the viewer kinda throw in with him a bit. "He's not so bad...and he's funny as can be!" He had all the really good lines, IMO.

Yup. That's what happens when you churn out a formula without realizing—or caring—why it worked in the first place.

[psmith2.0]

I couldn't get into 24 because it was just impossible to believe. The amount of places he traveled in the space of a "day"...bullshit. And his phone worked perfectly in all of them. He could've been in a submarine, four miles under the ocean and hiding in a Faraday cage, and he'd still get a perfect, clear call in to sour-puss Chloe and her RBF.

My Dad and his friends, and most of mine, lived and breathed that show during its run/heyday. I watched about 7-8 episodes...enough to know "I can't buy into this ridiculous bullcrap".

And it was a horrible, notorious tease. Every episode I saw, nothing would happen for 56 minutes, and then all hell would break loose in the final 3-4 minutes and right when it looked like something would get solved/resolved or someone be rescued (or a deserving character finally get shot in the face), the screen would go black, that clock would tick and the episode would end. After about 4-5 times of that I was like "piss on this nonsense...if I wanna get teased and have my chain yanked for an hour, with no actual payoff, I'll take a wad of ones to the Pussycat Parlor & VD Emporium out by the airport. I don't need this aggravation from a $%&@# TV show."

[kscherer]

Last night the kid and I got caught up on The Matrix (had to redux so all the details are in place) and now we're ready for Boba Fett and Matrix:Resurrections..

The next two weeks should be fun.

[drewprops]

Oh man.

I just saw Howard the Duck for the first time in my life.

Why wasn't George Lucas thrown out of Hollywood for this???



...

[psmith2.0]

I went to see Howard the Duck in the theater in 1986 (yeah, I know…spare me ). About 20 minutes in, this 17-year-old was having none of it.

“…uhhh, yeah. I don’t think so…”.

I got up and walked out, worried if I was going to get my money back or not. As I was walking through the lobby I noticed the showtime placard over the door of another auditorium indicating that movie was just starting.

It was a sequel to a movie that had scared me a few years earlier when I’d watched it on HBO, but I was also still crushing on the lead from her supporting role in Ghostbusters two years earlier, Sigourney Weaver.

So I cautiously wandered into Aliens, and it wound up being one of my favorite moviegoing experiences, and a movie that, to this day, I can always watch and enjoy. I remember how much everyone laughed at all of Bill Paxton’s lines, and how good all the action was.

So I will forever associate those two movies with each other, two sides of the same cinematic coin.

I definitely made the right choice that day! Paid to see something from the man responsible for my favorite movies, bailed on it and lucked into a great movie by accident/curiosity (and my still-lingering “rawwwrr”-ness for Ms. Weaver).

Howard the Duck is one of only three movies I’ve ever walked out of. The other two? Dirty Dancing (1987) and A Night in the Life of Jimmy Reardon (1988). Three movies, three consecutive years. I guess my 17-19 year old self wasn’t the patient, open-minded guy you all know today.

Yes, long before the prequels, Howard the Duck was the movie that kinda made me go toward Mr. Lucas.

“Was American Graffiti and those Star Wars movies just lucky flukes?!”

It all kinda came full circle a year later when …Jimmy Reardon’s River Phoenix showed up as a young Indiana Jones in the opening scenes of the third installment, The Last Crusade, produced/co-written by…George Lucas.

People can redeem themselves.

In the last half of the 80’s, once I got my driver’s license and could come and go as I pleased/get myself places, all I did was go to the movies…every weekend and most Tuesdays (discount pricing). I saw dozens and dozens of ‘em in that stretch from 1985-1989. The East Ridge 6 was a mile-and-a-half from my house and my butt practically lived there throughout my latter teen-hood. I saw all kinds, not just teen-friendly sci-go/action and comedies. Angel Heart, Sid & Nancy, The Color of Money, Wall Street, etc. Until I was old enough I’d just buy a ticket for whatever G or PG movie was playing, then walk into the R-rated stuff I actually came to see. Nobody ever checked, and I saw everything I wanted.

Good times.

[drewprops]

Now THAT is a great story

I've only left 3 movies.

Some bullshit 70s movie about a family living in the wild, because the power went out.

Spaceballs, because some asshole had assembled the reel wrong and left out the middle part of the movie (it was a crazy experience).

Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, immediately after Mister Creosote exploded, because mom was flabbergasted and disgusted by the entire experience.


...

[psmith2.0]

Ahhh…haha.

I wonder if that 70’s movie was Seven Alone. Prairie orphans who had to stick together/tough it out.

The other two I walked out of, I just went home. Didn’t see anything else, didn’t ask for a refund (because it had been almost an hour). The Duck movie only took 20 minutes, but, fortunately it timed out perfectly with the start time of the other.

[turtle]

As a kid I theater hopped all the time. I would buy a G-PG ticket and scamper over to something rated R or such. I did it more than I can count and don't really recall what movies I walked out on. Ones that I intended to pay for and watch though, I never walked out on.

I did sleep through Get Shorty though. Still haven't tried to watch it again.

[tomoe]

Jerry Maguire is the only movie I’ve walked out of. I started laughing uncontrollably during the “Who’s coming with me?” scene and people in the theater were shushing me. Decided it was best to leave.

[drewprops]

Originally Posted by tomoe Jerry Maguire is the only movie I’ve walked out of. I started laughing uncontrollably during the “Who’s coming with me?” scene and people in the theater were shushing me. Decided it was best to leave.

I don't think you were in the right frame of mind for that romcom



...

[psmith2.0]

The amount of unhinged sap/schmaltz in that movie is off the charts. I never saw it in the theater, but was forced to sit through it because a former girlfriend wanted to watch it on DVD ages ago. The things guys will put themselves through for a chance of some action later on...guilty.

"Oh no, baby...it was good, I really liked it! Easily the best thing I've ever seen Tom Cruise do. Hey, let me help you with that bra...".

Meanwhile my internal eye-rolls can be seen from Neptune

Patton Oswalt tells a story about seeing the movie in Hollywood on Christmas Eve with his brother years ago, both hammered drunk. I won't ruin it, but it's a funny tale.

Start at the 2:45 mark if my link doesn't automatically do it.

Right or wrong, every time I think of Jerry Maguire I think of this bit.

[drewprops]

This is something I mentioned to a friend regarding the new Amazon Prime "movie" about Lucille Ball, starring Nicole Kidman...

My first instinct when I saw her on Fallon was that she wouldn't make a good Lucille Ball, but actors have continuously defied my expectations by doing great performances - the thing you mention, the postmodern timeline jumping (around), is what could kill it for me.

It's not that I can't understand or appreciate the tool of shifting timelines, but it's a technique that has been increasingly abused for lessening effect.


So, I'm a little tired of postmodernism.



...

[psmith2.0]

Do you ever watch a movie and get t he sense that the director is in over their heads, and doing things because they think that’s what makes a “real movie” vs. what’s right for the movie/story?

Sometimes I’ll be watching something and it seems so self-consciously “quirky” or needlessly shocking/edgy, and I kinda sit there and think “ah, they’re trying to do a Tarantino (or Coen Brothers, Fincher, etc.) and it feels like you’re watch a cover band of a better director.

Some stuff just feels pure and natural from some directors. And then others try it and it’s just a train wreck and weird.

I always thought I’d appreciate someone like J.J. Abrams more - he certainly has the technical chops, nobody’s ever denied that - if he wasn’t so hell-bent on being Spielberg (or Lucas) Jr. he puts all his go-to moves on full display and all it does is make you think “well I’m just kinda seeing a pale imitation/tribute act…”.

I was watching some cheeseball western on Netflix a while back and every Sergio Leone thing was lifted, telegraphed and rammed down my throat for 90+ minutes.

“Make your own movie, man…you’ve got a cast and some cool sets. Why ape something that doesn’t need aping? You aren’t that good at it anyway.”

I’d rather see a unique vision try and fail than a lazy retread succeed. I can respect the former.

[kscherer]

And, right on cue!

Dinosaurs! Because what we need is more of Chris Pratt's bad-acting.

I love the dinosaurs, though. Can we just have 65 million years of that, without the humans?

And I applaud 5-minute trailers. Perhaps Hollywood could just make a bunch of those and get the lame-ass story over in five minutes instead of making me sit through 2+ hours of what Paul said.

It looks good purely from a technical standpoint. But I just cannot stomach another version of the same old thing. 2 hours of chasing a T-Rex around the country, a bunch of people get eaten, a dog dies, some random bad guy tries to steal away with the Top Secret Plans™, and in the end humanity is saved while we also save the super-precious, human-eating dinosaurs from the bad peoples.

Instead, how about we just make a bunch of dinosaurs and have David Attenborough narrate the whole thing. I could take two hours of that.

"And here we can see the mighty T-Rex mating with one of his cows."

** Audience cheers **

[psmith2.0]

I thought they were done with these. I’m off on my count. I saw the first Jurassic Pratt one where the two kids were rolling around in a clear ball. There was another where a volcano erupted? I guess that was the second. So this is #3?.

These JP movies follow the same template as the Alien ones (or Prometheus and later ones): adults who show know better by now manage to find some stupid way to wind up on an island (or planet) where it is known some people-eating creatures reside. And they do one stupid thing after another for two hours, expecting me to have any sympathy or concern for any of them. **Spoiler alert: I don’t.**

To this day, I’ve never seen a movie with a cast of characters more useless, blockheaded and “can’t wait to see ‘em die” than every person in Prometheus. How did those people ever manage to do something like properly fly a spaceship? How that movie was longer than 25 minutes, I’ll never know. It’s rare you see a movie where every character has “stupid victim-to-be” written in Sharpie on their foreheads. I thought that was an interesting touch from Sir Ridley.

So, yeah…at this point I actively root for the dinosaurs and Xenomorphs. Hoping if they eat enough humans there won’t be any left to make these dumb things.

Quit while you’re ahead, Universal.