You can skip Friday 13th and while the orig NoES is great, I'm not sure it'd be your thing, but if only cos I know you admire great filmmaking, regardless of genre, the orig. Halloween is essential. There might be better Carpenter films in terms of theme or story but from a technical pov, I'd say it's far and away his masterpiece.

ah, thanks guys. will check out halloween asap

Thing is tgat so much of what's done in Halloween both technically and with the story has been copied, rehashed, and down right plaguerised a million times over it might not seem like much.

Kinda like listening to something from the 60s and thinking "well this isn't very original" By today's standards sure, but what it did was something else.

scream 2 (199...7?)



eh. save for the opening scene, feels like a tv movie.

per the cast, it was very much a tv cast with a preview of tv attractions to come
-the friends chick
-buffy
-justified
-arrested development
-that dude keeps popping everywhere from upn shows
-roseanne’s annoying sister
-1800 collect dude
-etc.

bit of a time trip but whatever

saw it in 2 parts because was not gripping enough. milking the first one’s success.

I watched Solo the other day. Not nearly as bad as some people say. My biggest gripe with the film is the main actor. He just doesn't fit the role imo. No charisma.

mother

fuck.

just found out that filmstruck is shutting down at the end of november!

i’m gonna watch the living shit out of it while it lasts

(kinda like the last fuck in a falling airplane)

goddammit...

Dead right. Although I'd say that even someone who's only seen the umpteen copies could still see that Carpenter was a few notches above all of them as a filmmaker. Like you can still watch Goodfellas even after all the copycats and still see it's operating at a different level.

I agree. Although I also had a problem with Woody Harrelson; an actor I like but I couldn't see beyond him being Woody Harrelson.

That is true. If the new Halloween film showed anything it was that it's hard to do a slasher film and do it well.

Right?
Kind of a cool addition to the Star Wars thing because it was just basically a cool heist movie. I didn’t care for whatever the fuck was gong on at the end (though I subconsciously predicated it somehow, probably because of what’s his name’s double-sided light-dagger (?) dagger-saber (?)

Main guy was OK. Not a very nuanced performance, but Han never was.

Also, too much going to lengths to explain every little thing in SW. like the dice and the best and the blaster. Like, Christ, nobody ever asked about that shit.

Watched Antonio Lopez 1970 this weekend, not that great, but some good models from the 70's, plus Bill Cunningham was a fucking great guy

started watching paul schrader’s remake of CAT PEOPLE (1982)

strange screenplay, creepy characters, plays off the 40s version a little bit but not really

thing is i might not be able to finish it due to an expiring subscription, but it’s okay because i don’t find it very compelling. it’s a little clumsily shot actually, but i like the cast.

hmmmm...

ha ha ha i finished “cat people”



so cheesy! but ebert somehow gave it 3.5 stars

maybe everyone was coked up in 1982

oh, bowie wrote & performed the theme song

all very bizarre

Ant-Man & The Wasp

‘Twas perfectly fine and fun and funny. Basically another totally well-made Marvel movie that entertains and does its job solidly, but that’s about it. Hard to call it a “good film.” It’s just perfectly fine, like most.

Better than Black Panther, which was weak. Not as good as Infinity War or Winter Soldier or Ragnarok.

Blackkkkclansman, Spike Lee is back on track

^ Saw that in theater with mostly black audience.

I liked it a lot and want to see it again. The tonal balance between dark comedy and real drama was masterful, I thought.

I laughed during this film more than most straight up comedies.

I don't think I've ever managed to see it through to the end. Beats me how it's managed to get its cult following. And not even of the 'so bad it's good' variety.

right? it’s “so bad it’s bad”

maybe the cult business was just everyone’s excuse to see nastassja kinski’s t&a

but the haircut! lololol. tragic.

i dont really know, but probable everyone was coked up in 1982

that movie makes zero sense! and no, not in an avant-garde kind of way.

i think everyone was just coked up in 1982. starting with paul schrader.

the one from the 40s is better. actually watchable, good story.

The forever classic Empire Records

I forgot it was a Paul Schrader film. I'm just as bemused by the praise for his other biggie, American Gigolo. Another coke-fuelled mess. Schrader wrote some incredible screenplays but he pretty much leaves me cold as a director.

Ironically, while the whole coke scene in Hollywood at that time produced some truly awful films, like Cat People (and anyone remember The Hunger?) it did at least give us some great comedies, like The Blues Brothers, Animal House, Caddyshack, etc - which in hindesight were essentially just multi-million dollar drug binges, thinly disguised as movies.

i rewatched “affliction” just the other day and still liked it a lot (except for the constant music, ugh). this is a very good movie.

i also really liked “light sleeper”, which ive seen a few times, used to be on tv a lot for some reason.

have never seen american gigolo, or a bunch of others he made. was just reading about them, curious about mishima but nothing else.

his screenplays are good though! yes. affliction has a great screenplay and cast. just needs a “mute” on the music track. but dont let that ruin it for you—well worth a viewing.

The one about the Hogan's Hero guy was really good. Had what's his face in it and Willem Defoe. Forget what it's called.

Anyone see the Schrader film with Lindsey Lohan and porn star James Deen? Forget what it's called.

The one with George C Scott? That was a good one.

Never saw American Gigolo, but I would.

The Canyons.

I really really REALLY wanted to love that film. Even if it was trashy, which I fully expected it to was gonna be, it should've at least been fun. It hardly seems possible to make a boring film about the sleazy side of Hollywood, starring Lindsey Lohan and a raft of actual porn stars but Schrader somehow managed it. I suppose that's sort of an achievement in itself, but still.

I think the George C Scott one you're talking about is Hardcore, although I still haven't seen it.

but who here has seen affliction?

^ It's a good one, but a bummer. I remember thinking it was a quality film. I only saw it once years ago, because it doesn't seem like the sort of movie one would return to repeatedly.

Oh. Mishima. Only saw it once but I recall liking it a good deal.

Damn. Dude's made a lot.



This article on the making of is fascinating. Easily more entertaining than the film itself.


https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/m...our-movie.html

That was a great article and yeah, so much better than the actual film. Shame there's not a 'Making of' documentary out there.

Also loved this anecdote:

Schrader is convinced he can manage Lohan. He thinks he has seen it all. Thirty years ago, he directed an alcoholic George C. Scott in “Hardcore.” One day, Scott wouldn’t come out of his trailer. He called Schrader into his booze-soaked sanctuary.

“You’re a great screenwriter but the world’s worst goddamned director,” Scott said. “Promise me you’ll never direct another movie, and I’ll come out.”

not me

Just signed up with Shudder, so we'll get a healthy fixin of horror after Halloween

Nor me neither dun’ think

EDIT: Actually, I just read the synopsis and it sounds extremely familiar. But I can’t remember if I’ve actually seen it. Maybe I’ll watch this weekend. My last weekend of freedom for a while. Yaaaaayyy.

I’ve heard of Shudder, but what the hell is it? A streaming service for just horror movies? How and why would this be better than a more general streaming service with a horror section? Does it offer something special?

Yeah, I could google it but humor me.

From their about page:


Brought to you by AMC Networks, Shudder is an experience unlike any other. The only premium streaming service for both casual and super fans of thrillers, suspense and horror.


Shudder has the largest human-curated selection of high-quality, spine-tingling, and provocative films, TV series, and originals– there’s always something new and unexpected for Shudder members to explore.


*****
I figured I would be fine with a horror-only netflix/hulu for $5/mo

Saw this last week but I've only just got round to posting about it now.

So as some of you might might know I'm a total massive Queen geek (yes, yes, I know it's too obvious and not the latest Puce Mary album, but that's how it is). This film has been dragging on for years and years and not once did I have any faith in it being any good. Was I right? To a point. The positives- the guy who play Freddie and Brian were brilliant, and so was the woman who played Mary, Freddie's best friend/partner/whatever you wanna call her.
It also looked great. There's a sequence they do to show the years passing and thought it was cleverly done and different to the usual montage sequence people rely on.
Now the for the negatives. As anyone with a brain knows watching a biopic about someone you can't expect it to be historically correct. Dates will get chopped up, thing shuffled around and I accept that. You have to! For me the best two examples of a biopic about a musician done great are Ray and Walk The Line. With all that said, the complete and utter bullshit they spout in this film is just nonsense and doesn't do any service to anyone but producers Brian May and Roger Taylor.

Spoilers
A couple of things that they just made up or ignored any facts. Firstly, they push the idea that it was only Freddie who was the party animal. Oh look, there's Freddie throwing OUTRAGEOUS parties like a gay!. Meanwhile at said party the rest of the band are sat there rolling their eyes at Freddie. Tsk, that Freddie, ey? What a mess he is! Ignoring that Roger had his history of serious drink problems and his barely mentioned history of not being able to keep his dick in his pants whilst married. Ignoring that Brian was also seen as the life and soul of many an party. Ignoring that John was also a guy who struggled with alcohol addiction. But of course, why show themselves up when Freddie isn't around to talk the fall?

Other thing was the idea that Freddie was willing to break up the band for a solo career and a load of money. This is the one that pissed me off the most. Ignoring the fact by the time Freddie had made his solo album Roger had two and Brian one (seeing a pattern here?). He didn't want to break up the band. They had all agreed to a break as they were utterly sick of each other by 84ish. But no the rest of the band are saying to Freddie how they should stick together because they're "family" etc. Urgh give me a break.

There was also the scene where Freddie finds out he has AIDS. It must rank as one of the cringiest scenes EVER.

Ramble over.

Well, your avatar is the cover of “Made in Heaven,” so... yeah. I’m assuming you’re aware I have a certain affection for Richard D. James, too. ;)

Didn’t read your whole post but will. Interested in your thoughts... though biopics eat shit, generally, except for “Control.”

Yeah, Queen are like Kanye for you. I'll ramble and damned if anyone else is listening:D

I used to be like that about Sonic Youth, but they went and fucked off. Used to be that way about Aphex too. Then he fucked of and only came back to drop EPs.

I have a lot of respect for Queen, and I’m sure they deserve better than this film. Even if it’s a “good biopic” that’s still shit company. Good “for a biopic” in film is like a decent “for a Republican” in politics. Not a high honor.

Fucking sounds like a watered down Queen-approved account of what happened with Queen. I’m all for getting it from the source, but the source shouldn’t have complete control over its own portrayal.

Also “Bohemian Rhapsody” is SUCH A FUCKING OBVIOUS TITLE.

Just “Rhapsody” would have been better.
I prefer the less on-the-nose biopic names. “Back Beat” instead of “I Wanna Hold Hour Hand.”

Coco followed by Starship Troopers.

the passion of joan of arc (carl theodor dreyer, 1928)



i had never seen this before. it is a little boring, sure, but it’s so beautifully shot, and a year before potemkin actually, and it’s in many ways better (that photography, and the minimalism of the whole thing—heads, heads,heads... brilliant)

BED AND BOARD (original title, “domicile conjugal”). (françois truffaut, 1973)



the fourth installment of the adventures of antoine doinel finds him in the early years of his marriage. very funny!

The Exorcist 2: The Heretic

i was so looking forward to that but it was not included in the price

So not worth it in so many ways, except I stand by my claim the soundtrack is the best part, which I don't think was disputed other than it not being a great soundtrack. That, in itself, says how bad the movie itself is.