|
Post by klawrencio79 on Dec 9, 2020 21:00:25 GMT
Dolomite is my Name is on my list, you recommend? It looks great. Yeah it's great. It's really nice to see Eddie Murphy again, and while it's similar to Ed Wood in the sense that it's about the joy of these people making this bad cult movie, but in this case they seem to know what they're doing a little more. This guy is more self aware and self deprecating and you see a little more of his background, but the fun of making the thing is still at the core of it. It's not great work of art, but it's a guaranteed good time with a great cast and it looks at an interesting little bit of forgotten history. Nice, I'll check it out. Ya know, I still never watched The Skin I Live In because of the spoilers I saw on vudu. I'm less mad about it though, maybe that'll be Saturday night's viewing...
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Dec 9, 2020 21:20:19 GMT
Yeah it's great. It's really nice to see Eddie Murphy again, and while it's similar to Ed Wood in the sense that it's about the joy of these people making this bad cult movie, but in this case they seem to know what they're doing a little more. This guy is more self aware and self deprecating and you see a little more of his background, but the fun of making the thing is still at the core of it. It's not great work of art, but it's a guaranteed good time with a great cast and it looks at an interesting little bit of forgotten history. Nice, I'll check it out. Ya know, I still never watched The Skin I Live In because of the spoilers I saw on vudu. I'm less mad about it though, maybe that'll be Saturday night's viewing... That just jogged my memory of watching the 'Eli Roth's History of Horror' series from this October where I saw them spoil (I think) some of Under the Skin. Not sure if there was much to be spoiled since I sort of knew a lot about it already, but there were some reveals that I wasn't aware of... though I can't quite remember what they are now so maybe it's time for me to watch that one. But if you want to be truly horrified and disturbed, there's still a viewing of Cats for you to experience.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Dec 9, 2020 21:35:27 GMT
EDIT: First Man is great. The backlash it received from, um, certain folks, was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Almost as dumb as when Rush Limbaugh nearly gave himself a coronary by saying that the Batman villain Bane in Dark Knight Rises was deliberately named that as some sort of leftist dig at Mitt Romney at a time when he was running for president. Haven't seen First Man yet, and I'm not entirely sure which moment the supposed 'backlash' came from, but I have an idea. And that tidbit about Rush Limbaugh is fucking hilarious. The only backlash I remember reading about (and discussing in the Politics board) was about the director's decision NOT to include a scene showing Neil Armstrong planting the American flag on the moon.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Dec 9, 2020 21:48:26 GMT
Haven't seen First Man yet, and I'm not entirely sure which moment the supposed 'backlash' came from, but I have an idea. And that tidbit about Rush Limbaugh is fucking hilarious. The only backlash I remember reading about (and discussing in the Politics board) was about the director's decision NOT to include a scene showing Neil Armstrong planting the American flag on the moon.
That's what I was thinking of too. But you never know what some people will complain about. I don't think there were actually that many people bitching about that, so there's a chance that there was some other bullshit that 9 people on Twitter complained about too.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Dec 9, 2020 21:49:26 GMT
Haven't seen First Man yet, and I'm not entirely sure which moment the supposed 'backlash' came from, but I have an idea. And that tidbit about Rush Limbaugh is fucking hilarious. The only backlash I remember reading about (and discussing in the Politics board) was about the director's decision NOT to include a scene showing Neil Armstrong planting the American flag on the moon.
Yup, that's the one. American Exceptionalists needs to have their grundles tickled at every possible opportunity. Nimrods.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Dec 10, 2020 18:53:47 GMT
Yeah it's great. It's really nice to see Eddie Murphy again, and while it's similar to Ed Wood in the sense that it's about the joy of these people making this bad cult movie, but in this case they seem to know what they're doing a little more. This guy is more self aware and self deprecating and you see a little more of his background, but the fun of making the thing is still at the core of it. It's not great work of art, but it's a guaranteed good time with a great cast and it looks at an interesting little bit of forgotten history. Nice, I'll check it out. Ya know, I still never watched The Skin I Live In because of the spoilers I saw on vudu. I'm less mad about it though, maybe that'll be Saturday night's viewing... Also, I'll try not to spoil too much by not really describing it at all, but now that I know a little bit more about Under the Skin there's another movie you may be interested in if you haven't seen it already called Spring from 2014. I don't think it's as accomplished as the other movies we are talking about but it's a cool movie doesn't do what you think it will. Really any of the Justin Benson/Aaron Moorhead movies are worth checking out if you haven't already. They're always a little subversive and use a seemingly common set up to go somewhere entirely different than you'd expect. Even when it doesn't all come together perfectly, the attempt at giving you something truly different is totally commendable and (even though Jeremy Gardner from The Battery is in it and I have kind of an issue with that guy) totally worth a watch... and without having yet seen Under the Skin, I think it may be thematically similar in some abstract way. They have their first sort of mainstream, bigger budget, star-lead movie coming out soon called Synchronic, that I've heard mostly good things about so far.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Dec 11, 2020 9:14:20 GMT
Rio Lobo (1970) A pretty stale Western; Howard Hawks' third take on the same basic idea. Not awful - but it's still a shame this was the last film of Hawks' great career.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Dec 11, 2020 14:28:30 GMT
So last night, after a looooooong day at work, I sought out something idiotic that I could put on and just sort of stare blankly at for an hour before drifting off. With that, I opted for Superman III (1983). Obviously, I know this movie is terrible, its legacy isn't particularly kind, but I hadn't seen it since I was about 10 years old and I didn't remember it all that well so figured what the hell. I'm not going to just shit on this movie, because that's been done to death, but there a few things worth noting: 1. Christopher Reeve is GREAT. He's legitimately good in this movie. The writing is awful and the movie doesn't work on several levels, but he's giving it his all and he's easily the best part of it. Even with the evil Superman stuff (which I'll get to below), he's loving it and does a great job chewing the scenery and even exuding genuine menace when it's called for. If they had focused the movie entirely on this, it probably would have been pretty good. 2. The tone of this movie is fucked. It's fucked to the point that I don't really understand how people thought they were on the right track from the moment they started filming it. I know this movie was beset by production problems and actors wanting out following Richard Donner getting canned (Margot Kidder is basically exiled from the movie altogether), but after a cold open with Richard Pryor, there's a really, really, long slapstick sequence that plays over the opening credits. Seriously, it's insane how long it is and the entire thing is played for laughs, with some dude randomly finding himself in a ridiculous life-threatening situation sprinkled in because, you know, Superman has to save someone. The movie just has too many sight gags. When Richard Pryor is trying to program a weather satellite, this happens: At another point, Richard Pryor accidentally skis (yes, he skis) off of the top of a skyscraper, lands on some windows a hundred stories below, skis down those and then lands, feet first, on the ground. I think this is the movie's biggest problem. The other stuff is forgivable and kinda fixable in the editing room. 3. Obviously, nobody knew anything about computers back then, and the whole movie is premised upon the idea that computers are taking over the world, but even for 1983 it's silly. There's an early scene where some dickhead is explaining to a room of data entry people that "computers can't look at two coordinates at one time" or something. Seconds later, Richard Pryor then gets the computer to do just that by....typing in the two coordinates. The entire movie is basically that. People causing mass catastrophe by errantly hitting the keyboard. 4. Honestly, there's a good movie in here somewhere, it's just that nothing is properly developed and the movie would rather launch into a Vaudeville routine instead of developing its villain or story. Ross Webster wants to take over the world's coffee market is his initial goal, which then moves onto taking over the world's oil, which then moves onto....destroying Superman. Jackie Cooper is great and all, but the character is completely one note and his accomplices (his sister and, his lover I guess?) are entirely one dimensional. Make him a little more human and a little less megalomaniacal and you have something. Same with evil Superman. It just happens too quick. They give him the kryptonite, the next scene he seems fine but ignores a situation and hits on Lana Lang, next scene he straightens the Leaning Tower of Pisa, next scene the headlines are that Superman is a bad guy. Boom, just like that, his suit is dark, he has a bit of scruff, and he's punking the Olympic torch ceremony. But the evil Superman thing is a good idea. The fears of technology changing the world is a good idea. It's just that execution sucks and the studio interference is practically dripping off of each frame. Stick with one of those two plot lines and discard the other and you probably have a much more effective movie. Oh, and ditch the slapstick. It's insane how prevalent it is. I bet nobody on earth is thinking this much about Superman III today. That makes me special!
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Dec 11, 2020 14:31:50 GMT
So last night, after a looooooong day at work, I sought out something idiotic that I could put on and just sort of stare blankly at for an hour before drifting off. With that, I opted for Superman III (1983). Obviously, I know this movie is terrible, its legacy isn't particularly kind, but I hadn't seen it since I was about 10 years old and I didn't remember it all that well so figured what the hell. I'm not going to just shit on this movie, because that's been done to death, but there a few things worth noting: 1. Christopher Reeve is GREAT. He's legitimately good in this movie. The writing is awful and the movie doesn't work on several levels, but he's giving it his all and he's easily the best part of it. Even with the evil Superman stuff (which I'll get to below), he's loving it and does a great job chewing the scenery and even exuding genuine menace when it's called for. If they had focused the movie entirely on this, it probably would have been pretty good. 2. The tone of this movie is fucked. It's fucked to the point that I don't really understand how people thought they were on the right track from the moment they started filming it. I know this movie was beset by production problems and actors wanting out following Richard Donner getting canned (Margot Kidder is basically exiled from the movie altogether), but after a cold open with Richard Pryor, there's a really, really, long slapstick sequence that plays over the opening credits. Seriously, it's insane how long it is and the entire thing is played for laughs, with some dude randomly finding himself in a ridiculous life-threatening situation sprinkled in because, you know, Superman has to save someone. The movie just has too many sight gags. When Richard Pryor is trying to program a weather satellite, this happens: At another point, Richard Pryor accidentally skis (yes, he skis) off of the top of a skyscraper, lands on some windows a hundred stories below, skis down those and then lands, feet first, on the ground. I think this is the movie's biggest problem. The other stuff is forgivable and kinda fixable in the editing room. 3. Obviously, nobody knew anything about computers back then, and the whole movie is premised upon the idea that computers are taking over the world, but even for 1983 it's silly. There's an early scene where some dickhead is explaining to a room of data entry people that "computers can't look at two coordinates at one time" or something. Second later, Richard Pryor then gets the computer to do just that by....typing in the two coordinates. The entire movie is basically that. People causing mass catastrophe by errantly hitting the keyboard. 4. Honestly, there's a good movie in here somewhere, it's just that nothing is properly developed and the movie would rather launch into a Vaudeville routine instead of developing its villain or story. Ross Webster wants to take over the world's coffee market is his initial goal, which then moves onto taking over the world's oil, which then moves onto....destroying Superman. Jackie Cooper is great and all, but the character is completely one note and his accomplices (his sister and, his lover I guess?) are entirely one dimensional. Make him a little more human and a little less megalomaniacal and you have something. Same with evil Superman. It just happens too quick. They give him the kryptonite, the next scene he seems fine but ignores a situation and hits on Lana Lang, next scene he straightens the Leaning Tower of Pisa, next scene the headlines are that Superman is a bad guy. Boom, just like that, his suit is dark, he has a bit of scruff, and he's punking the Olympic torch ceremony. But the evil Superman thing is a good idea. The fears of technology changing the world is a good idea. It's just that execution sucks and the studio interference is practically dripping off of the frame. Stick with one of those two plots lines and discard the other and you probably have a much more effective movie. Oh, and ditch the slapstick. It's insane how prevalent it is. I bet nobody on earth is thinking this much about Superman III today. That makes me special! You and DC-Fan could’ve sat down and enjoyed this one together! I’ve never seen Superman III. I’ve only seen the 1978 original and I think Man of Steel. None of the others. That character has never appealed to me.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 11, 2020 14:38:59 GMT
So last night, after a looooooong day at work, I sought out something idiotic that I could put on and just sort of stare blankly at for an hour before drifting off. With that, I opted for Superman III (1983). Obviously, I know this movie is terrible, its legacy isn't particularly kind, but I hadn't seen it since I was about 10 years old and I didn't remember it all that well so figured what the hell. I'm not going to just shit on this movie, because that's been done to death, but there a few things worth noting: 1. Christopher Reeve is GREAT. He's legitimately good in this movie. The writing is awful and the movie doesn't work on several levels, but he's giving it his all and he's easily the best part of it. Even with the evil Superman stuff (which I'll get to below), he's loving it and does a great job chewing the scenery and even exuding genuine menace when it's called for. If they had focused the movie entirely on this, it probably would have been pretty good. 2. The tone of this movie is fucked. It's fucked to the point that I don't really understand how people thought they were on the right track from the moment they started filming it. I know this movie was beset by production problems and actors wanting out following Richard Donner getting canned (Margot Kidder is basically exiled from the movie altogether), but after a cold open with Richard Pryor, there's a really, really, long slapstick sequence that plays over the opening credits. Seriously, it's insane how long it is and the entire thing is played for laughs, with some dude randomly finding himself in a ridiculous life-threatening situation sprinkled in because, you know, Superman has to save someone. The movie just has too many sight gags. When Richard Pryor is trying to program a weather satellite, this happens: At another point, Richard Pryor accidentally skis (yes, he skis) off of the top of a skyscraper, lands on some windows a hundred stories below, skis down those and then lands, feet first, on the ground. I think this is the movie's biggest problem. The other stuff is forgivable and kinda fixable in the editing room. 3. Obviously, nobody knew anything about computers back then, and the whole movie is premised upon the idea that computers are taking over the world, but even for 1983 it's silly. There's an early scene where some dickhead is explaining to a room of data entry people that "computers can't look at two coordinates at one time" or something. Second later, Richard Pryor then gets the computer to do just that by....typing in the two coordinates. The entire movie is basically that. People causing mass catastrophe by errantly hitting the keyboard. 4. Honestly, there's a good movie in here somewhere, it's just that nothing is properly developed and the movie would rather launch into a Vaudeville routine instead of developing its villain or story. Ross Webster wants to take over the world's coffee market is his initial goal, which then moves onto taking over the world's oil, which then moves onto....destroying Superman. Jackie Cooper is great and all, but the character is completely one note and his accomplices (his sister and, his lover I guess?) are entirely one dimensional. Make him a little more human and a little less megalomaniacal and you have something. Same with evil Superman. It just happens too quick. They give him the kryptonite, the next scene he seems fine but ignores a situation and hits on Lana Lang, next scene he straightens the Leaning Tower of Pisa, next scene the headlines are that Superman is a bad guy. Boom, just like that, his suit is dark, he has a bit of scruff, and he's punking the Olympic torch ceremony. But the evil Superman thing is a good idea. The fears of technology changing the world is a good idea. It's just that execution sucks and the studio interference is practically dripping off of the frame. Stick with one of those two plots lines and discard the other and you probably have a much more effective movie. Oh, and ditch the slapstick. It's insane how prevalent it is. I bet nobody on earth is thinking this much about Superman III today. That makes me special! Hey, it's better than Superman IV! Agreed it could've been a great flick if they took the evil Superman thing more seriously and really explored it further. I remember watching it as a kid and being creeped out by the lady turning into a robot or whatever at the end, that could also be a great scene in a darker film.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 11, 2020 15:03:16 GMT
Oh and klawrencio79, thanks for yet another entertaining write up. There are plenty of think pieces on Oscar bait flicks, not too many people take the time to do it with Superman III. (There's probably a good reason for that, but who am I to judge?)
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Dec 11, 2020 15:04:16 GMT
Oh and klawrencio79 , thanks for yet another entertaining write up. There are plenty of think pieces on Oscar bait flicks, not too many people take the time to do it with Superman III. (There's probably a good reason for that, but who am I to judge?) Is this a shot at my two sentence review of Rio Lobo?
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 11, 2020 15:12:31 GMT
Oh and klawrencio79 , thanks for yet another entertaining write up. There are plenty of think pieces on Oscar bait flicks, not too many people take the time to do it with Superman III. (There's probably a good reason for that, but who am I to judge?) Is this a shot at my two sentence review of Rio Lobo? Probably says more about your sanity compared to me and klaw.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Dec 11, 2020 16:26:27 GMT
Hey, it's better than Superman IV! Agreed it could've been a great flick if they took the evil Superman thing more seriously and really explored it further. I remember watching it as a kid and being creeped out by the lady turning into a robot or whatever at the end, that could also be a great scene in a darker film. OK, so that scene still totally works. It gets a little silly after she is fully transformed, but the transformation sequence itself, short as it is, is pretty freaky even now. This legit scared the shit out of me as a kid:
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Dec 12, 2020 10:29:53 GMT
Tales From the Crypt about the killer Santa
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Dec 14, 2020 16:34:16 GMT
Saturday night, the Mrs. went to bed nice and early so I finally watched David Byrne's American Utopia (2020), which is the filmed version of his show that he toured with in 2018/2019 and then brought to Broadway for a residency. I had tickets to see it earlier this year, and obviously that didn't end up happening. I was hesitant to watch it for a while because I fully intended on seeing it live when it returns next year, but I got good and toasted and felt like like immersing myself into a "live" music experience. Let me tell you, this one does not disappoint. If you're a Talking Heads/David Byrne fan and you have HBOMax, then watch this. Seriously, right now, go watch it. I've always liked Talking Heads and Byrne's solo efforts, although I wouldn't consider myself a die hard fan or anything. But the way the music is arranged is just terrific - similar to Stop Making Sense where Byrne starts off slow with just a few people on stage, and slowly more and more people enter while playing an instrument. The construct of the whole thing is truly impressive if you're into that sort of thing. The idea of music performance as art unto itself is very well captured here. Beyond just the music, which is great, there is some palpable catharsis here. I'm a lover of live music, going to as many shows as my hectic schedule allows every year (12 - 20 standalone shows and 2-3 festivals per year if I can swing it). In my younger, responsibility-free days, that number was much greater. It's something I do with my closest friends, most of whom I haven't seen at all since early 2020. So watching this made me truly nostalgic for those days, and made me really miss my friends. The show captures that in a sense too; Byrne openly talks about embracing those around you, about loving your friends and neighbors and enjoying what the world can offer you, even during darker times. Another theme is the idea of making sense of the world. In Byrne's words (and I believe he was quoting someone else at the time), he is "using nonsense to make sense of a world that doesn't make sense." It might be the best encapsulation of how most of us feel about the world today. The show does get a little preachy in a few spots, but it wasn't overbearing and it was only in a few spots. I'd imagine anyone who would watch this show wouldn't mind the message being sent. Putting all my flowery talk aside, the show is just a great time. There are hits and some deeper cuts and overall, it just made me feel good and at the end of the day, isn't that the point of watching these movies and shows? I think so.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Dec 14, 2020 16:36:40 GMT
Saturday night, the Mrs. went to bed nice and early so I finally watched David Byrne's American Utopia (2020), which is the filmed version of his show that he toured with in 2018/2019 and then brought to Broadway for a residency. I had tickets to see it earlier this year, and obviously that didn't end up happening. I was hesitant to watch it for a while because I fully intended on seeing it live when it returns next year, but I got good and toasted and felt like like immersing myself into a "live" music experience. Let me tell you, this one does not disappoint. If you're a Talking Heads/David Byrne fan and you have HBOMax, then watch this. Seriously, right now, go watch it. I've always liked Talking Heads and Byrne's solo efforts, although I wouldn't consider myself a die hard fan or anything. But the way the music is arranged is just terrific - similar to Stop Making Sense where Byrne starts off slow with just a few people on stage, and slowly more and more people enter while playing an instrument. The construct of the whole thing is truly impressive if you're into that sort of thing. The idea of music performance as art unto itself is very well captured here. Beyond just the music, which is great, there is some palpable catharsis here. I'm a lover of live music, going to as many shows as my hectic schedule allows every year (12 - 20 standalone shows and 2-3 festivals per year if I can swing it). In my younger, responsibility-free days, that number was much great. It's something I do with my closest friends, most of whom I haven't seen at all since early 2020. So watching this made me truly nostalgic for those days, and made me really miss my friends. The show captures that in a sense too; Byrne openly talks about embracing those around you, about loving your friends and neighbors and enjoying what the world can offer you, even during darker times. Another theme is the idea of making sense of the world. In Byrne's words (and I believe he was quoting someone else at the time), he is "using nonsense to make sense of a world that doesn't make sense." It might be the best encapsulation of how most of us feel about the world today. The show does get a little preachy in a few spots, but it wasn't overbearing and it was only in a few spots. I'd imagine anyone who would watch this show wouldn't mind the message being sent. Putting all my flowery talk aside, the show is just a great time. There are hits and some deeper cuts and overall, it just made me feel good and at the end of the day, isn't that the point of watching these movies and shows? I think so. I've been meaning to watch that for a while. It looks great and I've only heard good, enthusiastic responses to it.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 14, 2020 18:36:58 GMT
I saw The Midnight Sky the other night. I was in the second the trailer began. Loneliness, space travel, using science to try to avert disaster as opposed to shooting or punching your way out of problems, make up the premise for some of my favorite films. (I'll list some later.) It hasn't even released on Netflix yet, so I'll keep it spoiler free in this paragraph. There were some incredible visuals which made me glad I braved the theater (Before you judge me, keep in mind I don't live in a metropolis and there were literally four people in the theater including my wife and myself. The other couple sat six rows away and we all wore masks the entire time.) for this flick, but you can still enjoy this very personal story in the small screen because it isn't an effects extravaganza. In fact, for a sci-fi story, there wasn't much focus on the science itself. It was a very character driven story, which again to me makes for some of the most compelling sci-fi. Ok, full spoilers ahead. The film doesn't bog itself down explaining what exactly the disaster was/is, how the crew will survive if they make it back to the planet (technically a moon, but go with me) or even the kind of energy used for the ship's propulsion (though this was maybe my biggest curiosity as a viewer). That stuff isn't as important as the journeys of the individual characters. It was clear to me in the trailer that the version of Iris with Augustine on Earth wasn't real, and it became obvious about halfway through that it was her on the ship. It all works though, because you're invested in these characters. You're with them on the journey. I'm a story guy, it's the central factor in how much I enjoy a film.
I do have a handful of minor nitpicks regarding the decision making of the crew at key moments. They seem to allow emotion to overcome sound logic and the safety of their fellow crew members at every turn, up to and including the decision of two of them to go on a suicide mission to Earth at the end. I suppose they had to go to reaffirm this 'Adam & Eve' theme with the two remaining crew members back on the new world. Still, it seemed selfish on their part. The ship will now have a crew of just two, one of them is pregnant and will give birth on the journey. The ship has already taken significant damage, and if another problem arises they're going to be in serious trouble. But you want to go home so you can die on Earth, where your family did? I get the desire, but the human race is at stake here. Think about why you signed up for this mission in the first place.
Probably my biggest issue is the very end of the film. The two survivors quietly acknowledge they're the last two humans in existence and just start punching in data on keyboards. No fade out, just silence as the two poke around their workstations while the credits roll to the side of the screen. I've thought a lot about it, and my only conclusion is that the filmmakers were trying to convey a positive outcome. These two people are highly capable, they don't panic, and most importantly; they're going to be alright. Look at how under control they are, it's fine.
I don't know, I would've preferred a more ambiguous ending, or at least a 'holy shit' dramatic handholding or something. Can you just give me a fade out and let me see where my mind goes? Instead they start dicking around with data, like they're trying to find something to watch on VOD. The captain literally gets up and walks off screen halfway through the credits. "We're the last two people in the universe? Cool, I'm going to hit the head. Don't start the movie without me." It's just weird. The movie is so bleak in general that I guess they wanted to give the audience a hug at the end.
As a story, I prefer the execution of The Midnight Sky over Ad Astra for example, which shares similar themes and is far superior in terms of cinematography but lacked the emotional punch it was looking for. But if I could tweak both of these films, I'd do it the same way. Shave off the 'feelgood' scenes at the end and make us wonder if they ever made it home; if they indeed were able to save themselves, let alone humanity. Again, they probably didn't want to overload the audience with depression and this was the least corny way they could think to do it. It didn't sink the movie, but it did kill the vibe just a little at the end. So yeah, if the trailer pulls you in, you'll probably enjoy The Midnight Sky because it delivers on its premise. It doesn't reinvent anything and it's fairly predictable, but it's time well spent if you like this kind of story. Moderate sci-fi flicks (meaning not space operas) I enjoy with some similar themes to this film: Interstellar The Martian Gravity Moon Deep Impact Contact Ad Astra (I throw this on the list despite not particularly liking the movie all that much, but the visuals and score alone make it worth viewing at least once)
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Dec 15, 2020 21:50:28 GMT
An epic historic blizzard is expected to paralyze the Northeast tomorrow - I'm getting my Blizzard rotation of - Misery The Thing Storm of the Century 30 Days of Night going on rotation starting now with some French Toast and Hot Cocoa
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Dec 15, 2020 21:56:45 GMT
An epic historic blizzard is expected to paralyze the Northeast tomorrow - I'm getting my Blizzard rotation of - Misery The Thing Storm of the Century 30 Days of Night going on rotation starting now with some French Toast and Hot Cocoa
I don't get it. We're supposed to get a foot right now. Yeah, a foot is a lot, but "epic" and "historic"? Get the fuck out of here. An hour of shoveling and just like that everything is fine. Misery and The Thing though, hell yeah. Don't forget The Day After Tomorrow to complete the trifecta.
|
|