bigwhiskey
Sophomore
@bigwhiskey
Posts: 393
Likes: 54
|
Post by bigwhiskey on Sept 9, 2018 1:24:56 GMT
Nope, Gordon just popped up too. Who’s left? Every time I read your posts, I always think of a dog standing on its hind legs, paw against its chest, proclaiming in a clipped, English accent: "He doesn't get this from MY side of the family."
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 9, 2018 1:26:36 GMT
^^^Here this idiot goes again. Sigh.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 9, 2018 1:37:53 GMT
Harvey. It’s Harvey. OK. Should have guessed that (Two-Face and all), but I was going through detective-story possibilities.
This is a really fun movie. I genuinely laughed when Batman impersonated an Irish cop and stole the horse.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 9, 2018 1:42:12 GMT
Strike the first sentence of that last post. Gordon just said, “You gave me quite a start,” which is exactly what the prostitute said in the beginning to the Ripper. That’s kinda neat clue, if it is a clue, even though Batman didn’t hear it. Lots of Holmesian references, maybe too many—“eliminate the impossible” and the dancing men being probably the most notable.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 9, 2018 1:45:09 GMT
Wow. First instinct was right. It was Gordon. That’s weird. The wife’s nutso, which I hadn’t expected—she’d seemed so nice! Damn. I liked this Gordon a lot.
“Seven-percent solution.” Hardy har har.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 9, 2018 1:52:58 GMT
I love this fight on the Ferris wheel—great set piece. Reminds me a lot of The Great Mouse Detective, one of the most underrated Disney movies.
I know I’m probably talking to myself, but I actually wouldn’t hesitate to recommend this flick. The whole thing’s just really, really good.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 9, 2018 1:59:33 GMT
Wow. What a fun movie (despite a bit of a weak ending). You could easily do this as a live-action film. Miles better than that X-Men whatchamacallit, for better or worse. Acting, background design, plotting all great—it’s only the character-animation (and some of the dialogue) that’s off. But, again, if you’re in the mood for a different sort of superhero movie, and don’t mind its being a cartoon, this one is just grand. Very happy I saw it. Questions remain, though: if Commissioner Gordon is Jack the Ripper, who’s the next police-commissioner? Chief O’Hara? And how on earth did Gordon pop up with a whole bevy of cops right after the Ripper killed his last victim?
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 9, 2018 2:13:50 GMT
No idea why I’m in the mood for watching cartoons tonight, except that I found this website with all these free cartoons on it, but I’m watching the ‘90s Spider-Man TV show I loved as a kid. It’s just as good as I remember it. What a great show.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 9, 2018 3:28:53 GMT
I feel similarly to you. I like the movie, but was disappointed by it. There is so much more they could have done with the Ragnarok premise. They focused too much on comedy and the stuff on Sakaar, and not enough on Asgard and it's imminent destruction. The joke that Korg makes after Asgard is destroyed almost killed the scene. I also hate how it glazes over plot points from the previous Thor movie as quickly as possible. Loki replacing Odin was completely wasted. I felt the same way, but I think with this movie there’s a thin line between liking it and disliking it. That is to say, we all seem to have liked the same stuff and disliked the same stuff, but it’s just a judgment of whether the liked stuff outweighs the disliked stuff or vice versa (if that makes sense). I can’t actually remember Thor: The Dark World enough to say anything about continuing plot-points from it, except for the Loki-Odin twist, which as you say is completely wasted. But Thor: Ragnarok is a funny and sometimes inspired movie that ultimately, unfortunately, disappointed me.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Sept 9, 2018 12:45:19 GMT
^^^Here this idiot goes again. Sigh. somebody must’ve convinced this guy he was funny because that’s embarrassing to see somebody post the same jokes over and over
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Sept 9, 2018 14:50:46 GMT
You should watch the 2005 Doom adaption starring the Rock and Karl Urban.
I'd love to read your reaction to it lol
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 9, 2018 15:04:22 GMT
You should watch the 2005 Doom adaption starring the Rock and Karl Urban. I'd love to read your reaction to it lol I’ve never even heard of it! But I do like the Rock; that guy has some weird teflon ability never to have his acting career tank despite having been in some terrible movies, mostly because he’s usually the best thing in those terrible movies. I kinda admire that. Anyway. I don’t know anything about the movie, but if it’s really, really terrible I may not be able to last… “I’d love to read your reaction” sounds a trifle ominous, m’friend…
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Sept 9, 2018 16:21:39 GMT
You should watch the 2005 Doom adaption starring the Rock and Karl Urban. I'd love to read your reaction to it lol I’ve never even heard of it! But I do like the Rock; that guy has some weird teflon ability never to have his acting career tank despite having been in some terrible movies, mostly because he’s usually the best thing in those terrible movies. I kinda admire that. Anyway. I don’t know anything about the movie, but if it’s really, really terrible I may not be able to last… “I’d love to read your reaction” sounds a trifle ominous, m’friend… Not ominous, my dude! I like reading your reactions/review of the films I this thread and I just recently watched Doom on Netflix and wanted to recommend a bad but campy action/sci-fi/horror film adaption of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 10, 2018 1:41:41 GMT
What I just watched (this’ll really get Lord Death Man ’s blood boiling as off-topic) is the 2004 Phantom of the Opera, the one based on Andrew Lloyd Webber/Charles Hart musical. Oddly enough, it has one similarity to Thor: Ragnarok (heh heh—see, LDM, it’s connected!) in that I’m just not sure whether I liked it or not. Like the show on which it’s based, it’s a complete overblown spectacle, not half as well-written or intelligent as, say, Porter, Rodgers and Hammerstein, or Sondheim. And yet Phantom is the longest-running Broadway musical, and I think that’s just because it’s massively entertaining—hammy, wild, melodramatic, and fun. (Porter, R&H, and Sondheim are fun, too, but I think Phantom succeeds exactly because it is so overblown—the conception, say, of what opera [not musical theatre] should be, bereft of its hoity-toity airs.) I actually like Phantom a lot, even if I recognize it’s not actually that great as a musical—it is fun as a night at the theater. The weird thing is that Lloyd Webber has been criticized so much and so often by theatre critics, yet I think he’s actually a better composer than his lyricists are good lyricists. Lloyd Webber definitely borrows (plagiarizes?) from a multitude of sources—just in Phantom alone, we get riffs and passages from everything from Puccini to Pink Floyd!—but he seems so good-natured about it, and combines all his inspirations so deftly, to work for theatre, that it’s difficult to complain (unless you’re Puccini’s heirs or Roger Waters). And his melodies really do soar. But his lyricists stink, particularly Tim Rice (and Charles Hart is not much better), who has inexplicably become the most famous modern-day stage lyricist not named Stephen Sondheim. Just taking one example, the late Harold Ashman, who wrote the lyrics for Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid, is miles better. Anyway, enough amateur theatre criticism; “how was the movie?” you’re asking (or maybe you’re not. I’m very far off-topic and rather self-conscious about it). Well, Joel Schumacher directs it with a strange kind of love for the musical; there’s just so much to these sets, the camera is so mobile and sweeping, and everything looks great—actually, incredible. I actually found most of the cast, other than the always-commanding and scenery-chewing Miranda Richardson, to be forgettable; unfortunately, that includes the Phantom himself, here played decently but not memorably by Gerard Butler. Butler’s singing voice, despite his lack of experience, is fine, but he mostly relies on the sweeping cape and mask (hey, Schumacher directed Batman! Terribly, but he did make two Batman movies) in lieu of any actual acting. The exception is Emmy Rossum. I don’t think I’ve ever seen her in anything before this, but she’s amazing, not to mention amazingly beautiful. She’s so good that she can almost make you forget how bad the lyrics are. Almost. She also captures your focus the most she comes on-screen, and any moment without her (these are few) is disappointing. Schumacher fumbles a few times, mostly in directing the masquerade and chandelier-crash scenes, but “All I Ask of You” and the graveyard sequence make up for those. Like the musical it’s based on, it’s a fun time, all opulence and great scenery and impressive direction (Schumacher borrows a lot from Hal Prince, a frequent Sondheim collaborator who directed the original Broadway production and whose staging hasn’t really been changed all these years later) devoted to a product that, perhaps, doesn’t deserve it. But is a lot of fun anyway.
|
|
|
Post by No Morpho, Only Bánh mì on Sept 10, 2018 2:04:34 GMT
What I just watched (this’ll really get Lord Death Man ’s blood boiling as off-topic) is the 2004 Phantom of the Opera, the one based on Andrew Lloyd Webber/Charles Hart musical. Oddly enough, it has one similarity to Thor: Ragnarok (heh heh—see, LDM, it’s connected!) in that I’m just not sure whether I liked it or not. Like the show on which it’s based, it’s a complete overblown spectacle, not half as well-written or intelligent as, say, Porter, Rodgers and Hammerstein, or Sondheim. And yet Phantom is the longest-running Broadway musical, and I think that’s just because it’s massively entertaining—hammy, wild, melodramatic, and fun. (Porter, R&H, and Sondheim are fun, too, but I think Phantom succeeds exactly because it is so overblown—the conception, say, of what opera [not musical theatre] should be, bereft of its hoity-toity airs.) I actually like Phantom a lot, even if I recognize it’s not actually that great as a musical—it is fun as a night at the theater. The weird thing is that Lloyd Webber has been criticized so much and so often by theatre critics, yet I think he’s actually a better composer than his lyricists are good lyricists. Lloyd Webber definitely borrows (plagiarizes?) from a multitude of sources—just in Phantom alone, we get riffs and passages from everything from Puccini to Pink Floyd!—but he seems so good-natured about it, and combines all his inspirations so deftly, to work for theatre, that it’s difficult to complain (unless you’re Puccini’s heirs or Roger Waters). And his melodies really do soar. But his lyricists stink, particularly Tim Rice (and Charles Hart is not much better), who has inexplicably become the most famous modern-day stage lyricist not named Stephen Sondheim. Just taking one example, the late Harold Ashman, who wrote the lyrics for Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid, is miles better. Anyway, enough amateur theatre criticism; “how was the movie?” you’re asking (or maybe you’re not. I’m very far off-topic and rather self-conscious about it). Well, Joel Schumacher directs it with a strange kind of love for the musical; there’s just so much to these sets, the camera is so mobile and sweeping, and everything looks great—actually, incredible. I actually found most of the cast, other than the always-commanding and scenery-chewing Miranda Richardson, to be forgettable; unfortunately, that includes the Phantom himself, here played decently but not memorably by Gerard Butler. Butler’s singing voice, despite his lack of experience, is fine, but he mostly relies on the sweeping cape and mask (hey, Schumacher directed Batman! Terribly, but he did make two Batman movies) in lieu of any actual acting. The exception is Emmy Rossum. I don’t think I’ve ever seen her in anything before this, but she’s amazing, not to mention amazingly beautiful. She’s so good that she can almost make you forget how bad the lyrics are. Almost. She also captures your focus the most she comes on-screen, and any moment without her (these are few) is disappointing. Schumacher fumbles a few times, mostly in directing the masquerade and chandelier-crash scenes, but “All I Ask of You” and the graveyard sequence make up for those. Like the musical it’s based on, it’s a fun time, all opulence and great scenery and impressive direction (Schumacher borrows a lot from Hal Prince, a frequent Sondheim collaborator who directed the original Broadway production and whose staging hasn’t really been changed all these years later) devoted to a product that, perhaps, doesn’t deserve it. But is a lot of fun anyway. If you like Emmy Rossum, you should try out Shameless. She’s fantastic in that show, spiraling out as she tries to hold her family together.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 10, 2018 2:11:32 GMT
If you like Emmy Rossum, you should try out Shameless. She’s fantastic in that show, spiraling out as she tries to hold her family together. I’ll check it out. She was great in this. I’m not really one for TV dramas, though.
|
|
|
Post by No Morpho, Only Bánh mì on Sept 10, 2018 2:18:15 GMT
If you like Emmy Rossum, you should try out Shameless. She’s fantastic in that show, spiraling out as she tries to hold her family together. I’ll check it out. She was great in this. I’m not really one for TV dramas, though. It definitely qualifies as a dramedy. Everything either ends up perfectly right Or perfectly wrong. Comeuppances, coincidences, brutal tragedies... There is plenty of humor, Especially as the series progresses. It’s like a low income Chicago soap.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 15, 2018 1:56:38 GMT
Because I take an eternity to get around to watching movies, especially post-1960 classics, I’m watching The Shining for the first time.
I like it well enough, but I haven’t really been scared so far (I’m about an hour and a half into it). Not even creeped out, that much, though I like the atmosphere. It’s pretty much what I was expecting after a lifetime of hearing about it. I’m fond of this ’30s party scene right now.
Scatman Crothers is by far the best thing about this. Jack’s typical Jack.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 15, 2018 3:37:50 GMT
So I’ve now seen The Shining. It was OK. I was never really scared by it, or moved, or anything. I feel that way about every Kubrick film, which is probably why I don’t like the guy’s work that much. I just have no emotional response to his movies; it’s nothing, a whole lot of nothing. Now, of course, he was a perfectionist, right, and he’s appealing to the mind rather than to the emotions? Which ultimately ends up with all the effect of an algebra problem one has to work out–which is ultimately drabness and dullness. A great movie, like a great book, has to appeal to the mind and the emotions. Kubrick could never seem to manage the latter.
Anyway. The Shining. Yeah. What can I say? I’ve known about this movie for years, I’ve seen parodies and references, and–here it is. The climax was good. Scatman Crothers did his likeable old man routine. The Nicholson performance reminded me of something personal, which bothered me a bit. But there’s just–well, it’s all dressed up with no place to go. For all its much-vaunted ambiguity, I feel like I got it: an abusive father goes to a haunted hotel, his kid can see its ghosts because he has psychic powers, the hotel gradually possesses the already-halfway-mad father and eventually absorbs him into its fabric, making him a permanent resident who has always been there and will always be there (as these ghosts don’t exist according to human time).
Of course I’m reading it at face value and not analyzing every theory there is, but I don’t see that surface reading as all that difficult to figure out. I never got the feeling that I wanted to leap into the screen and explore the Outlook Hotel, a feeling I got from the adaptation of King’s 1408 or even Disney’s Tower of Terror ride. I never got a particularly creepy vibe from the place, and Jack’s transformation is so rapid that we don’t have time to process it. Oy. It was fine, it was visually impressive, but–it just didn’t do much for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2018 6:49:39 GMT
All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid. All traps and no play makes Ack a dull squid.
|
|