|
Post by geode on Aug 16, 2018 6:33:52 GMT
I think I first saw this movie on USA Up All Night or some similar show. I saw it again recently on the Charge network. But Charge literally cut an entire very important scene out of the film. SMH Anyway, this is a strange little flick. It is a comedy parody of biker movies from the 60's but it is also much more than that. It stars Paul Lemat and Eileen Davidson and has a large cast of supporting characters including Barry Livingston, Theresa Randle, Mark Holton, and Carlos Campean. Here is where it gets interesting. It's produced by Sam Raimi (EP) and Bruce Campbell among others. It is written by Ivan Raimi and Sam Raimi (using the pen name Celia Abrams, wth?) and David O'Malley who also directs. Naturally Ted Raimi has a small role in the movie. The plot is bizarre to say the least, but it involves an all girl biker gang and stealing babies and wolves and a group of misfit biker heroes led by Paul Lemat. The movie has a few funny scenes but overall it is not a very good comedy. There is a ton of eye candy from the female cast and the whole thing feels like some sort of Raimi labor of love before he perfected his craft.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 15, 2018 17:03:47 GMT
I had been hoping that this sequel would give Pierce Brosnan a chance to sing again. I was not disappointed, he does a nice rendition of part of "SOS"...a decade ago I was the only one I knew to defend Pierce's singing in the first movie, but his version of the same song is much better ten years later.
It is rare that a sequel lives up to an original movie, and even rarer that a sequel is actually better. This is superior in just about every way. Yes, I guess now that the term "prequel" is in common use, this movie is both a "sequel" and a "prequel" at the same time.
The director seems to have taken a leaf out of the philosophy of the principal character, Donna, and "thrown caution to the wind" allowing the whole thing to romp with exuberance that borders on becoming silly or a parody, but he keeps a firm hand guiding it so it never crosses that line. Instead it stays frothy, bubbly and fun. The "over the top" approach can be richly entertaining if it is defty held in control. Think of Johnny Depp in "Pirates of the Caribbean" or John Wayne in "True Grit" ...this works here.
Not only is the direction vastly superior to the first movie, so is the editing. This shows up splendidly in song sequences, with "One of Us" as a duet early in the film being a stunning standout. I thought the director of the first movie showed an almost complete lack of understanding about how to direct s movie. Perhaps she got the stage production to work but I thought her direction of the movie was inept.
It is better scripted than the original, with the songs integrated better with the plot. It seemed far less forced. OK, the "Waterloo" scene is a definite stretch, but once again the over the top approach to the number is enjoyable and entertaining. Having Richard Curtis onboard must have helped quite a bit, he is a master with comedic material that still has bite.
I knew that Meryl Streep was billed in the cast as well as Cher, and Cher appeared in the trailer, but as the movie neared its end neither had appeared. It was worth the wait. Cher does an excellent cover of "Fernando" with Andy Garcia, and Meryl a poignant duet with Amanda Seyfried, mother and daughter reaching the end of plot arcs that have paralled each other. Meryl's performance in the first movie was the only one she ever rendered with which I was disappointed, but she nails it here. I think the director of the first movie is at least partly responsible for the results on screen that didn't impress me.
There is a beautifully large production number of "Super Trouper" under the credits at the end and there is a funny post-credits scene that virtually everyone in the audience saw, which is unusual. It takes skill to hold an audience to that point, especially these days.
This is what a musical is supposed to be like, something to lift the spirits.
About the only negative for me was not giving Christine Baranski a solo. I thought her scene with one in the first film was the best in that movie. I also would have let Pierce finish his song, he was doing just fine with it.
I have not yet read a word about this in reviews. I guess I will now do so. I know people that tend to adore the first movie, and it will be interesting to hear what they think about it in a comparison. I can't be this wrong. There must be critics that also think this is an massive improvement on the first movie.
But to answer your question why they made a sequel, I would guess the answer is "money" as the first movie was a hit. This sequel opened very strong at the box office.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 15, 2018 9:31:13 GMT
Only ones I've seen, ranked: Gremlins Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (ironically, I never saw the opening bits) Tremors The Sandlot What are the "opening bits"...?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 15, 2018 8:40:01 GMT
No, it is not from his YouTube site. I have been there.No, some heresay evidence indicates that Jeremy has held various viewpoints. Nothing presented proves he lied on CNN, and there is even less to go on that CNN purposely brought him on as a fake. Dude... youtu.be/ilBz-94SuWII didn't notice that more videos existed that very not immediately visible, that are below the ones about weather. Yes, it is there if I push a "more" button. But once again this hardly proves the point you are defending. My extremely committed Republican mother was strongly in favor of greater control of guns. This is not proof that Jeremy did not vote for Trump in 2016. Once again you have avoided any reply to me about the videos of George W. Bush at the same site, that run contrary to the contention made about Jeremy's politics.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 14, 2018 9:16:29 GMT
No, it is not from his YouTube site. I have been there. No, some heresay evidence indicates that Jeremy has held various viewpoints. Nothing presented proves he lied on CNN, and there is even less to go on that CNN purposely brought him on as a fake.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 14, 2018 8:57:47 GMT
geode I think the guy in the video must have misspoke because Montanez wasn’t talking about the Las Vegas shooting. He was referring to the Orlando nightclub shooting. We know this because if you go to his YouTube channel the published date for the actual video is 14 June 2016. Not quite. The guy never said that Arthur Schaper claimed “Jeremy always was against Trump”. He says ”He knew right away that this guy was never a Trump voter”. Clearly he was talking about what Schaper deduced during the actual panel exchange implying that Schaper quickly saw through Jeremy’s act. The link you cited is mostly about the aftermath of the panel debate. Montanez’s flip flopping brings his sincerity all the more into question. Whether you think there is a difference between "always against Trump" or "never a Trump supporter" ....you have to really split hairs to claim a significant difference...neither is in accordance to what Schaper said in the actual discussion by him. So you believe Jeremy is now a Trump supporter? This doesn't make your claim stronger at all, it destroys it. You and these conspiracy site commentators argue that he was, and is a hardened socialist that never supported Trump. You keep ignoring the fact that the only political content on Jeremy's Youtube site was pro Dubya. The video you refer to does not appear to be there, only a couple about the weather...yes, from June, 2016. You have not proven the "socialist" picture is real and undoctored. Pretty material mistake to mix up 2018 and 2016, and Orlando and Las Vegas. I think the video in your link has impeached itself.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 14, 2018 1:17:26 GMT
No, there are more than two possibilities. Jeremy might have voted for Trump and now regrets it, just as he stated in the program. Evidence that he is not as claimed on the right-wing conspiracy sites can be found at his YouTube site. He favored pro-President George W. Bush videos in the past, hardly the thing a socialist would have done. Going by what we know he’s been saying about Trump months before he was even inaugurated, that’s highly unlikely. We know he’s a socialist because he declared himself a #’ProudSocialist’ on a Facebook post. To be honest I found that "expose" rather confused. There was the "proud socialist" thing but I don't remember it saying where that was from and when. If it is current this could be a change of heart from the past. I already addressed this with his videos of George W. Bush. I personally know people who were conservatives that are so turned off by Trump they are saying nice things about Bernie Sanders and his ideas now. I know people who have changed their minds. But, do we know for sure that the evidence provided is even the same guy who appeared on CNN? There were dates of June, 2016 titled on video segments that made no sense because he is referrng to events years later like the shootings in Las Vegas. It appears somebody is attempting in a rather crude and false way to made a case up after the fact. This was not very convincing. The fact that only right-wing sites with little credibility are making this claim and no reputable sources have said anything about it lends support to it being a false claim. And then there is this discussion from another panel member, Arthur Schaper. He claims that Jeremy is supporting Trump again. Schaper is cited at the very beginning of the video you linked as saying that Jeremy is a fraud. It is claimed that they know Schaper, and that he said that Jeremy aways was against Trump. But that is not what Schaper claims at all. You can read it here: Follow-up
So, the very first line of evidence cited is torn to ribbons. Is anthing else cited "valid"...?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 13, 2018 17:06:17 GMT
We now have a good indicator (in my view) that there is no good basis to charge CNN with deception. Fox News' Sunday program about the media, Mediabuzz with Howard Kurtz, wouldn't pass up covering a bona fide story that discredited CNN. And they never mentioned it. If this "story" doesn't pass muster with an outfit that has every good interest in making CNN look bad, there's no reason then for anyone else give it a thought.
(However, just because this was Cody's thread is no reason by itself to conclude it's false. Keep in mind a rule of thumb: A thing can be true...even if Cody says it's true.)
There are two possibilities here. CNN were either too incompetent to do a quick research on this guy, where they would have swiftly realised he was never a Trump supporter or they purposely invited him on to deceive people. Either way they’ve proven they’re not to be trusted. Personally I feel the former scenario is the far more likely. I find it hard to believe an organisation like CNN wouldn’t do their homework beforehand. Where as I know for a fact they’ve deliberately reported fake news in the past. No, there are more than two possibilities. Jeremy might have voted for Trump and now regrets it, just as he stated in the program. Evidence that he is not as claimed on the right-wing conspiracy sites can be found at his YouTube site. He favored pro-President George W. Bush videos in the past, hardly the thing a socialist would have done.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 13, 2018 6:04:55 GMT
Surfside 6 is another 1960-1962 I didn't care for it. But since I probably last saw an episode 57 years ago I may think differently about it if I saw it today.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 11, 2018 9:02:52 GMT
WHERE'S Dark Star (1974)?
IS Logan's Run (1976) considered a cult film, or not? IF SO where's it? As I explained, the list was culled from movies that have come up on this board during its existence. Neither of these have come up so far to my knowledge. I think in the case of "Logan's Run" it is not generally considered a cult movie. "Dark Star" probably is by many. There are hundreds of cult movies so obviously this poll would not have all of them. I used the condition above as a limit on what got listed, tossing out some that generated no interest. I tossed out "The Adventures of Robin Hood" using the same criteria I would have used for "Logan's Run"...both were rather mainstream and popular within their genres. One reason I started this poll was to hopefully generate more activity on this board that often goes for days without anything being posted. We will see if it has this effect. So, if you think "Dark Star" should get attention, why not start a thread about it?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 10, 2018 19:00:30 GMT
There is only two in that lot that i've seen and enjoyed (I've only seen 6 though): Defending Your Life Gremlins The list was basically culled from those that have had threads dedicated to them so far. Others can be added to the poll as appropriate. I left out a couple that I started threads for that had no response at all such as Muriel's Wedding and Bedazzled.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 10, 2018 15:47:19 GMT
A long list. Select win, place, and show selections....up to three. Some will most likely not get any votes. The ones with the most votes will be subject to a new poll, with only one title selection possible.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 6, 2018 8:17:05 GMT
A Night to Dismember (1983), is howlingly bad, but so bad that it's good. Filmed without sound, and a disgruntled crew member destroyed most of the footage. Years later, after some seriously bad narration and dubbing, the remaining scraps of film were pieced together and thrusted towards an unsuspecting public. You'll laugh at just how bad a movie can be! Ape (1976), made in an attempt to cash in on the success of King Kong (1976), except that King Kong was not a huge success at that time. The effects will not impress you, you'll be too busy laughing at them instead. But it's great fun to mock them. Did they really have a shark and a cobra as big as an ocean liner in it?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 3, 2018 13:54:02 GMT
Well now, M, I've been very busy these last five years collating information on various religious, political, and social matters, and I haven't given a great deal of thought to it, but I think it's because the Mormon Church is more easily portrayed as an oppressed people, and the Catholic Church is more easily portrayed as an oppressor. It's the price to be paid for being the largest Christian denomination in the world. The Mormon trek to Utah can be spun like the Book of Exodus, with Mormons being abused because they are different until they finally make it to their own "promised land." It's just my theory, and combined with a fistful of loose change it will get you cup of coffee almost anywhere in the world....except perhaps for Salt Lake City. Have you ever seen that movie "The Avenging Angel" from 1995? It was pretty good. As Mormon murder mystery movies go, I cannot remember seeing a better one. I have not seen "Avenging Angel" so thanks for bringing it up. I will check it out. Here it is online, to watch for free.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 3, 2018 13:49:36 GMT
Well now, M, I've been very busy these last five years collating information on various religious, political, and social matters, and I haven't given a great deal of thought to it, but I think it's because the Mormon Church is more easily portrayed as an oppressed people, and the Catholic Church is more easily portrayed as an oppressor. It's the price to be paid for being the largest Christian denomination in the world. The Mormon trek to Utah can be spun like the Book of Exodus, with Mormons being abused because they are different until they finally make it to their own "promised land." It's just my theory, and combined with a fistful of loose change it will get you cup of coffee almost anywhere in the world....except perhaps for Salt Lake City. Have you ever seen that movie "The Avenging Angel" from 1995? It was pretty good. As Mormon murder mystery movies go, I cannot remember seeing a better one. If the Mormons actually do get more favorable treatment in Hollywood productions, I guess this might be a reasonable explanation. I have not perceived this to be the case, and think it might just be an assumption made out of the paranoa of the person starting this thread.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 3, 2018 13:36:18 GMT
A "False cult"...? As opposed to a "True cult" as some of your posts indicate that you belong to? Some of the positions you take do seem to fit the definition of cult to at least the same degree as the Mormons.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 3, 2018 13:32:15 GMT
geode
Sad that you are so sensitive to the plight of what you perceive as an attack on the Mormon church. Your paranoia is showing.
So you have set yourself up as a better poster. Hardly. I don't think a honest person would see my post as being an over-sensitive reaction. Unlike your OP my reply was objective and did not take sides. I think you are the one who is too sensitive and you started this thread as a result. Did somebody attack Catholicism recently and this is your reaction to that? Your choice of a video simply indicates that you are a religious bigot. In case you didn't notice, I did not defend the Mormon church. I neither defended nor attacked it or the Catholic Church. However, I did point out that somebody with no dog in the race could mock Catholic rituals in the same way your intent was to moxk Mormon rituals in your OP. I am not sure I am a better poster, but in terms of being far less of a hypocrite than you are I might well be closer to what Christ taught us that we should be as Christians.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 3, 2018 5:49:31 GMT
Why is Hollyweird so kind to the Mormons but tear down everything in the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine?
I personally am not aware that "Hollyweird" treats the Mormons and Catholics all that differently in terms of depicting rituals or their respective doctrines whether in either a positive or negative manner. This could have been an interesting subject if you had stated it as an honest and objective comparison, rather than what amounts to a one-sided attack on one group (at least an implied attack). I think to people who are not part of any religion the practices or rituals of most any "faith" or religion seem rather odd or weird, whether it be ritual animal sacrifices, Mormon temple rites, or concepts such as transubstantiation. If I think or ponder on them, virtually all such beliefs or rituals seem odd and illogical. But defending one's own religion by attacking another seems to me to be a poor practice, and just the sort of thing that gave birth to the saying, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." So, I think instead of posing a dubious conclusion as a question, it would have been much better to ask the question, "Does the Hollywood film and television industry statistically treat Catholics or Mormons more negatively? And in the reverse mode, which is treated positively a greater percentage of the time?" From my own experience I have seen both attacks and praise of both Catholics and Mormons in TV shows and movies, contrary to your unsubstantiated "sweeping generality" post.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 2, 2018 10:14:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 31, 2018 12:22:09 GMT
I was born in 1950, and I have never watched one episode of Marcus Welby, M.D. I was born in early '51 and watched this show when it was first aired, but never since. I remember some about it, but not like others posting. I remember an episode with Tarzan acting strange when running for elective office. Dr. Sickby makes a diagnosis of "premature senility"....
|
|