TV Show of the Month: The Walking Dead (2010)
I watched the first season in one ridiculous six-hour marathon just five days ago. And...meh.
| Spoiler | SelectShow |
|---|---|
This show has no focus. A bunch of people surviving works as a movie, but as a TV show, one large goal would be nice (getting to the ADA wasn't even discussed early on). It's a bunch of things happening with nothing going on in the way of story...even the best parts - and there were a lot of them - didn't feel like they were part of anything.
The worst offenses were the times that they killed off two "major" characters who mostly existed to have facial reactions to things and nothing else, and they tried to shoehorn all this meaning into their deaths. Jim gets creepy in one episode after having no personality previously, and when he gets bit and left behind in the next episode, there's a long line of characters saying goodbye to someone the viewers have barely met. The far worse one, though, was how they handled Jacqui. At the end of the season, she says she's staying in the facility that's about to blow up because it's better than becoming a zombie. Andrea, despondent over her sister's death, agrees to this. Suddenly Carl gets involved, saying it's not fair for someone to come into someone else's life, then give up. He sits, saying he won't move until Andrea leaves. The play works on Andrea. She leaves with Carl. Meanwhile, Jacqui stays there. Why didn't the move work on her? Worse still, why didn't Carl give a shit enough about Jacqui to wait for her to leave as well? Hell, Andrea had just lost a sibling and it would make more sense for her to give up. Jacqui didn't even have a personality at any point, so apparently the show considered her expendable. This show didn't have a writing team, and it shows. Episode outlines were used by freelancers who didn't even know one another. There's no continuity to the tone or to the characters from show to show. Worst of all (and I keep saying this), a couple of the most interesting storylines are abandoned. For instance, in the first episode, the lead character learns the ropes from a man and his son who have survived thus far. The matriarch of the family is outside their house occasionally, wandering, looking for the living. The man wants to put her out of her misery but can't. This guy is interesting and portrayed by one of the best actors in the series, but he doesn't return. He's mentioned, though, so maybe he'll be back. So, the writing has flaws with flashes of brilliance, and the acting is mostly not that great. Meanwhile, the effects and cinematography are superb, and the show unfortunately convinces me, like a director who keeps making beautiful but lifeless movies, to keep watching until it's awesome. The second season started last night. Argh...I'll probably watch it. | |
What have you seen?
Only saw two movies this month.
Network: I figured since a lot of what the movie portends has come true today, I figured it would feel dated. I figured since I had heard the line everyone has heard of, it would have less impact when I heard it. Nope. And I think the reason the movie is a fantastic watch is the acting. Dunaway is magnificent, and so are Holden and Finch. Plus, the script has some great wit that would ring true in any decade. Near the end I was bothered a little by "The Big Speech" as it felt too prepared, but the ending was still solid.
Mad Max: Can someone please tell me what I'm missing? It has a 95% tomato meter and nearly every review I find just raves and raves about this movie. Not only could I not understand half of what was being said, actors were cut off in mid sentence at times. Some scenes and background images were completely random with no context. And the amazing chase scenes weren't all that impressive to me, even for 1979, as there were too many cuts. I saw some originality with the action, but none with the plot (though maybe it was original in 79?). I don't like it when movies have a ton of exposition, but I felt I was lost, especially during the first hour. I think I'm supposed to root for Max, but to me he's mostly a cardboard cutout and I couldn't care less. I hear the sequel is better....should I watch it?
I hear the sequel is better....should I watch it?
At the risk of raising expectations, yes, you should. The sequel is about a million times better, and that's not even an exaggeration. The two movies are so far apart in terms of execution its hard to believe they are connected like they are.
Shoot, even Thunderdome is worth watching, if you ignore the Hollywood spit-and-polish that loses the grittiness of the first two.
Okay, I'm glad this was cleared up. I have seen only Thunderdome, and was wondering what I was missing re: the awesomeness, since I found it...okay. I thought that was the second one.
Could not agree more regarding Mad Max. It's a scatterbrained movie that never really congeals into anything worth watching, save for...
Also, If I remember right, the sequel wasn't even supposed to be a Mad Max movie, and was only rescripted as such because of the bizarre success of the original Mad Max. I suppose I'll check it out.
Also, If I remember right, the sequel wasn't even supposed to be a Mad Max movie, and was only rescripted as such because of the bizarre success of the original Mad Max. I suppose I'll check it out.
That happens a lot with major sequels. Live Free and Die Hard wasn't written as a Die Hard sequel, for instance, and I think it may not have been the only one in the series to do that.
video games as well. Secret of Mana 1 was renamed Final Fantasy Adventure. Doki Doki Panic was bizarrely turned into a Super Mario Bros game (and awesomely enough, the best in the series).
Ooooh, SMB2 was awesome, but best in series? That's a tough thing to say in a world where the third game in that series exists.
When I first played two, I was put off by how different it was, but it grew on me. I was addicted to SMB3, and probably played it more. But these days, when I'm in the mood for that series, I almost always go to the second one. I think part of it is that I can't get infinite lives by level 1-2, so there's actually a challenge. Also, I like the choice of picking between four different characters. It gives some variety and different challenges depending on the level. Also, I like the boss fights a lot better. I'd rather fight Clawgrip or FryGuy than the seventh incarnation of a dragon turtle.
The second iteration of TryClyde is probably the most difficult boss the Mario series had for the NES.
Other than Mouser (well, and Birdo), I think all of them have a decent amount of difficulty. I think it took me about ten times to beat Wart. Last time I played I think I died six or seven times before I beat him. It's not Mega Man, but I appreciate some modicum of challenge.
save it for next tuesday, boys 😉
I think 2 is easily better than 3. I wouldn't put SMB3 in the series' top five.
I think you're wrong, but there are lots of nostalgic reasons behind that statement.
your love for The Wizard?
I play it on my Power Glove. It's so bad.
Nostalgia has no place for me, for whatever reason.
I like the game, too, but I don't think in that series that it gets anywhere near the top. I know it's near the top of most lists but I'd side with the Galaxy games, SM World, maybe 64 (ugh...the camera issues) and definitely 2. Oh, and probably the Lost Levels, and the original.
I've only played Galaxy and World for about two hours combined and I think they're both superior to 3. But the first two games...meh.
Nostalgia gets me to go back and try things...games, children's books, 80's movies. But the feeling itself doesn't trump suck.
64 ranks near the bottom for me. The camera made that game nearly impossible to play even then, but now, it's a mess. The lost levels are a blast, but they don't have the replay value that 2 and 3 have. I don't play Wii all that often, so neither Galaxy game has gotten that absorption point. World comes close, but I'll still side with 3.
3 isn't all nostalgia. I still play that game at least every couple of months, (I still play 2 a lot, too... though less often) and I still love the stuffing out of it.
3>World>2>NSMB Wii>Lost Levels>Galaxy(1&2)*>Sunshine>1>64
* Again, I haven't played either one nearly enough to get a proper fix on how much I like them.
Man, I would heavily recommend giving your Wii some playtime for the Galaxy games. They were instantly my favorite in the series.
...thanks for reminding me I have NSMB Wii, too. I should think about getting to that. I played NSMB on the DS, and that's pretty solid too. Seems like a continuation of 3.
New Super Mario Bros. Wii gets about the biggest Zack stamp of approval possible. It's an incredible game. I thought NSMB DS was mediocre at best, but NSMB Wii absolutely rules, I'd put it right behind World probably if I had to list them.
Do you all consider Yoshi's Island in your lists? It's not a Mario game per se, but it was labeled as World 2 in the US, and it's awesome.
Ah! I knew I was forgetting some. The Yoshi's Island games are aa blast. They're Linds' favorite video games ever (she's 100%'d both the original and the DS remake).
I, too, found NSMB DS to be "okay". The Wii version is brilliant awesomeness.
Yep, Final Fantasy Tactics, too, doesn't come from that series, but is also incredible and may not have garnered notice without the FF banner.
The sequel is titled Mad Max 2: Road Warrior, which might account for some of the confusion since I don't think many people have seen the original. Thunderdome is watchable (Master Blaster is great), but I had nearly your exact reaction to Mad Max. Terrible. I think I fell asleep during it at a couple points, but I couldn't make myself go back and re-watch it.
I won't disagree with you on The Walking Dead, so much as I'll say that while it could have been much, much better, I still think I liked it a bit more than you did.
I've mostly been watching Modern Family, which I'm really enjoying. I can see a lot of the jokes coming, but they're delivered so well that its still funny. Plus, its good to see Ed O'neill back on tv.
Other than that, not a lot of movies this month. I watched Escape From New York a couple weeks ago and I can't say it held up real well and I kind of feel that, even for 1981, it could have been meatier.
I have disliked shows after 6 episodes much more than I dislike Walking Dead right now. Some have turned out pretty good, some have not /needlessly piles on Boardwalk Empire/. I think it gets unfairly judged as a whole season when, in the terms of tv seasons as we know them now, it is not.
I wanted last night and
I forget which show it was, but they had a "previously on this show" in the beginning that featured two seemingly unrelated characters, neither of which had appeared in the show for at least three seasons. In the age where the last two or three episodes are shown prior to the premiere (at least with a show gathering as much attention as Walking Dead), it doesn't seem like it should keep showing its head.
Did that need to be spoiler'd?
Probably not, but better to spoiler something and be wrong that non-spoiler it and be wrong. This probably doesn't need it either:
I think Andrew may have some disagreement with you on Sarah Wayne Callies.
I don't know how much Mags has to say about her acting.
Okay, I just watched the second season premiere. Everything they've been getting wrong seems to have gone right. There was tension all the way through, a clear goal, interesting character development, surprises that weren't cheap and a world of possibilities opened from the episode's events. Excellent premiere, and I'll no doubt be continuing on with it. I could get pessimistic and say the first season opened strongly too before tiring of its own premise, but nah. I feel like the show has moe focus than ever.
I watched The Professional the other night. I like Jean Reno in it, and there were a couple of good parts, but overall, it didn't really gel into anything I cared too much about.
Linds and I have been going through Modern Family season 2. I do like that show a lot. A lot of the shows fall into a certain template, but it's a good template, and the cast is always up to the task. I get at least 5 out-loud laughs per episode, and that's more than I've gotten with any show in quite a while.
As far as The Walking Dead goes, I can't disagree with anything you've said (especially regarding the dude and his kid from the first episode). The show keeps dropping people off by the wayside that feel like they could come back, but knowing how TV shows go, probably won't. I'd like to think that some of the characterization gets fleshed out when the new writers get a full season to play around with, but realistically, it'll keep me coming back every week unless it completely falls apart.
This isn't really a spoiler so I won't treat it as one, but I think one think the show realized during the season is that zombies don't stay interesting as enemies forever. Bad guys without motivations just aren't interesting. So they create the redneck on the roof and various other interpersonal issues, and the zombies barely show up in a program billed as a show about zombies in the last few episodes.
That's the fundamental flaw with a zombie show - the writers can't come up with new and more clever tactics for the zombies. They're just shambling idiots, and the only thing they can do with them is have a ton of them descend on the group, looking for brains.
That's the fundamental flaw with a zombie show - the writers can't come up with new and more clever tactics for the zombies.
That sounds like a challenge. Then again, the furthest I've ever gone with a zombie script is 59 words. It also sounds like a good topic for a future werewolf game.
Well, there can be new tactics, but there are no new motives. When they show up, there's no moment of "Zombies! Now?! What do they want?!"
Are they still on that brains thing? Honestly...
I know, right? Jeez, zombies, try a bowl of yogurt or something.
Other than the Return of the Living Dead series, have they ever been about brains? I thought that was a one movie joke that pop culture latched onto.
It was not my intent to insult any zombies.
It would be absurd to insult a zombie. Zombies love you... for your brains.
That's just a nasty stereotype.
Well, they're okay with a nice body, too - they're "total package" sorts. But what really gets 'em going is the brainy ones.
i re-watched the professional a little bit ago, and i have absolutely no idea why i liked it so much in high school.
It was good, but that's all it was. The way some of my friends went on about it, you'd think I'd missed out on Back to the Future, or something.
meh, Back to the Future was good, but it's no Leon: The Professional
Meh?! Leon is fine but Back to the Future is a success in every area.
I'm gonna go ahead and assume Rhu was laying on some thick sarcasm there.
I hope so, but Leon has some obsessive fans, despite being just okay. And, granted, Jean Reno is awesome in it (and everything else he's in).
yes, there was some sarcasm, but BttF has gotten pretty dated over the years.
Reno, Padme, and Oldman kicked butt, but when you can summarize the plot in 10 seconds, well...it was a pretty good film, still.
Hard to tell if something is dated when you watch it three to four times a year for 25 straight years
Me and my wife do a weekend trilogy marathon every 3 or 4 months. I can't wait to have my daughter watch it with us, although I fear she won't like it as much as we do.
This...both the BttF marathon (but not that frequently) and the part about the daughter.
They did some ill-advised pop culture jokes that are dated, but otherwise, I'd say the only real dated movie in the series is the second one.
And that one had no choice but to end up dated. That said, I'm glad we've moved on from the hyper-80's visions of the future.
yeah. I never believed Marty would actually order a Tab at a cafe. A Pepsi Free maybe, but that joke isn't funny anymore.
Now, I know a couple people that would order a Tab anywhere they could possibly expect to find one, so that reference still works for me.
In general, I would prefer shows steer clear of jokes that hinge on the products of the day. The product or what it symbolizes will change, and the jokes always look bad in retrospect. The writers of MST3K said if they had a joke that was based on a current entertainment event or product it had to be really funny for them not to cut it. Then they said they always regretted leaving them in anyway.
all style and no substance.
only a couple here as well:
finally got around to watching the king's speech (we had the disc for about 4+ months before we watched it). it was good, not best picture good, but good. well-casted (obviously), well written, and well shot for what i understand wasn't a very large budget.
despicable me was about what i expected from a non-pixar computer animated movie, which is to say i wasn't expecting too much. carrell's accent was starting to grate on me after awhile. well-done voice work doesn't make you picture the actor in front of a microphone in the studio every time they talk.
well-done voice work doesn't make you picture the actor in front of a microphone in the studio every time they talk.
This is exactly how it's drilled into us when we learn voice acting. If you're doing a stylized voice and everyone knows it's you, you're probably missing the mark.
The worst was Robin Williams in Happy Feet. For some reason he has this respect as a vocal stylist despite having no range. He plays five characters in that movie, and it's obvious every one of them is Robin Williams. Meanwhile, at the end of The Simpsons Movie, a list of characters played by each actor are shown, and they blow the audience away every time.
Toy Story is an interesting case. It is so obvious who is played by Hanks, Allen, and Ratzenberger. But I rarely, if ever, was distracted by it.
I don't mind so much when an actor does his own voice and it fits. It's Robin Williams and his stupid impressions that all sound like Robin Williams that bother me. If you're going to play a bunch of characters in a movie, I should never know you did so until the end.
right. Billy West can play multiple people on Futurama and you can't tell. Seth McFarlane plays multiple people on Family Guy and American Dad and you can tell it's him for nearly every one.
Because I always like linking to this when these two studios come up.
Tell me that doesn't sound like the synopsis of a french art house movie.
One of my favorite parts of Venture Bros is the voice actors. And Patrick Warburton is the cat's @ss.
Totally agreed. All around, it's one of the best animated shows ever.
Saw The Square this weekend and was a decent thriller. Reminded me a little bit of A Simple Plan.
I remember A Simple Plan.
Still, the square is up on netflix, so I might give it a watch.
Pretty busy today so I can't participate as I'd like to with the discussion, but the wife and I did see a few movies (this is 2 months worth as I missed the last "Movie Day"). We even went out to the theater for a date night!
Drive Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston; Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn. Pretty strong performance from Gosling. I really enjoyed the movie but
Other than that one really new release we went with a few classics which I hadn't seen before.
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof – Paul Newman, Elizabeth Taylor, Burl Ives; Directed by Richard Brooks 8/10 Ms. Taylor was hot...so Mr. Newman
The Caine Mutiny – Humphrey Bogart, José Ferrer, Van Johnson; Directed by Edward Dmytryk 9/10 but I'm probably biased: strong cast in a movie about the Navy and a courtroom battle
Bringing Up Baby – Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn; Directed by Howard Hawkes 8/10 Funny. Silly, but still funny to me. I enjoyed it more than I thought I would
Thor – Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins; Directed by Kenneth Branagh 6/10 meh
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World – Russell Crowe, Paul Bettany; Directed by Peter Weir 7/10
The Beaver – Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster, Anton Yelchin, Riley Thomas Stewart; Directed by Jodie Foster 6/10 Interesting premise, but then it seemed to bog down?
Limitless – Bradley Cooper, Robert De Niro; Directed by Neil Burger 5/10
The Conspirator – James McAvoy, Robin Wright, Kevin Kline, Tom Wilkinson, Danny Huston; Directed by Robert Redford 8/10 This one was really good. You know, the history film where you "know" the story but don't really know the back story?
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is one of my favorite plays. My good friend Colin (Grey, over at Casa de Leche) played...ugh, the guy on crutches. I can't remember his name. Colin's probably the best actor I know personally. He was f*&^ing incredible.
Bringing Up Baby is a lot of fun. Comedy from that era doesn't age well with today's audiences because of the pacing, but I really dig that movie.
Dr. Chop and I saw several movies this month including Drive, The Ides of March, and Moneyball.
We enjoyed all three, but Drive was the real gem of the bunch. Gosling's slow play was terrific even though you could write the sum total of the script on a grain of rice. I was blown away by the art direction, and totally impressed at Refn's ability to pay homage without added cheese. Q. tarantino should be pretty jealous of this effort.
I liked Brad Pitt's Billy Beane, wasn't sold on PSH's Howe, and loved the casting of J. Hill for Peter Brand (Paul DePodesta). I'm pretty sure the name change was due in part to the casting of Mr. Hill, but for the movie he made an excellent foil to Mr. Pitt. A movie about number crunching could have been really boring, but, considering that almost everyone who'll see this movie knows how it ends, they did an excellent job of holding my attention.
The Ides was good, not great. We just saw this yesterday, and I really haven't had a chance to think about it yet. The performances are good from everyone, but the end message... personally leaves something to be desired.
Re:Moneyball, I think that Jonah Hill as Peter Brand was the best casting decision out of the movie. I wouldn't have thought his way of acting would work in a non-comedy, but he did a very good job. PSH as Art Howe was rough, but whatever. Linds recommended it to everyone she talked to, so it did a great job of playing to the non stat crowd as well.
Also, it was fun seeing the names on the Twins jerseys for the ALDS scene... Guardado, Koskie, Hocking, etc...
I laughed out loud when Hocking appeared on screen.
Their accuracy for replaying the few games they show was spot-on. The 20th win for instance, includes an accurate play-by-play with the correct nobodies on the right bases.
I wouldn't have thought his way of acting would work in a non-comedy, but he did a very good job.
You greatly underestimate the comedic actor. Most comedic actors can do drama and dramedy, but not all dramatic actors can do comedy. Comedy is much harder. If someone's schtick works in comedy, you can just about be dead certain they can do drama. Many of them, unfortunately, just don't want to.
I probably do, but a great number of them don't give the average viewer a reason to not underestimate them.
Directors can often be blamed. They hire actors based on their schtick and allow them to do everything without any sense for the character, so viewers errantly assume the actor has no range. All the while, the actor has this brilliant Punch Drunk Love performance inside him, just begging to get out.
Punch Drunk Love is one of my, like, five favorite films from last decade. I absolutely adore it. Every since I've seen it, any time I see Sandler in an advertisement for whatever piece of garbage is coming out that year, I cringe. But that performance, man. Good god.
-- Joss Whedon.
???
Yeah. ???
Did Joss say this once? At any rate, it's pretty well known among player-folk.
Yes. It was on the director commentary for one of his Firefly things. Don't remember if it was the episodes or movie. Anyway, you quoted him almost directly, which is what brought it to mind. Now that I reread it, maybe it was just that one sentence and I conveniently ignored the rest.
Ah, alright. Yeah, it's a little like attributing the quote "Learning HTML is helpful" to one computer programmer - everyone in the field knows it, so just about any of us would say it. It's always nice to hear directors say it, though. Some directors don't "get" actors as much as others. I'm not surprised to hear that Whedon gets it.
Meat - that's an excellent critique of Drive. I tried to say something about the art direction but my comments felt a bit inadequate so I chopped them.
Question for the basement (and spooky in particular): How do you distinguish between "art direction" and "cinematography"? When I see something on film that is visually compelling, who gets the "credit" for that shot or scene?
Side note: In Drive, Christopher Tandon and Newton Thomas Sigel were the art director and cinematographer respectively...both have some excellent films under their belts.
Those are a couple of the jobs that can vary from set to set, but in general:
Art Director: responsible for the things that you see
Cinematographer: responsible for the way that you see these things
For instance, consider a shot of a character's bedroom that contains a lot of information about who the character is. The art director put the photos up on the mirror and the posters on the wall. The cinematographer decided what we needed to see most, and tracked his shot to make the best possible use of the scene before him.
Moss also saw Drive, The Ides of March, and Moneyball recently, as well as Inception on IMAX.
Drive was OK, but Moss is not quite getting all the hype. Moss is just an outlier, apparently.
Moneyball was good, but Moss thought the frequent turns to the daughter-father relationship almost detracted from the movie. (Was it a major theme of the book? Moss is not remembering that.)
Ides of March was disappointing in plot. The acting was very good though. PSH and Bart's kid were both really good in supporting roles.
Inception was excellent, but that's not news. Moss actually thought there was too much action and not enough slowness. Some of those ideas really needed time to absorb and gestate, but the movie often moves too fast to allow it. It was well worth going to the IMAX version. The picture was exceptional and the sound was amazing. (It's been awhile since Moss has been to an IMAX movie.)
Moneyball was good, but Moss thought the frequent turns to the daughter-father relationship almost detracted from the movie. (Was it a major theme of the book? Moss is not remembering that.)
spookymilk didn't see Moneyball yet, but can confirm that romantic or familial relationships are often added to films that otherwise seem risky.
Understood, but it seemed a bit out of place here. It didn't add, but really seemed to detract from the movie. About the only thing that it contributed to was the explanation as to why Beane didn't leave to take the Boston job.
Moss would have preferred development of some other interpersonal relationship (such as Beane with the Jonah H. character, or heck, even Ron Washington).
Oh, and one more point about the movie -- much was made of the long winning streak. But as all here would agree, that was an anomaly, and a fairly meaningless one at that. Yes, it contributed to the overall record and the division title, but would the A's have been less successful had it been 10W-1L-10W over those 21 games? Surely Beane in real life wasn't as wrapped up in the streak as he was portrayed to be. The movie may have been better if they would have focused on long-term concerns of Beane, and decisions made over the long haul, rather than short-term wins/rewards.
Oh, I didn't say it belonged...I'm only saying what probably put it there. I've not seen it.
As for Beane being obsessed with the streak, surely that was just something the filmmakers latched onto; though, yeah, even if he realized it was a little bit of luck, I'm sure Beane lost himself in the streak.
I took Billy Beane's interest in the streak (or at least the movie's version of his interest) to be a representation of how he could still be excited about the game on the field rather than just the final tally.
I had the pleasure of meeting Jonah on the set of The Sitter last fall. Now, maybe it was because I was introduced to him by the film's director and his very pregnant girlfriend, or the fact that his iPhone battery had died, but he engaged me in a ten minute conversation about my trip, the MOMA, and the wonderfully talented Michelle Williams--we'd both just seen the sneak preview of Blue Valentine. So either he is a very good actor, or just a charming young man. Probably both...
No movies watched this month, but I did pick up from the $5 bin at Walmart a copy of the "screwhead edition" of Army of Darkness. I'm looking forward to having the Boy steal that from me before I ever get to watch it.
Going back to the Mad Max vs. Road Warrior discussion from earlier, Army of Darkness is another sequel that is tons better than the movies preceding it.
Heh, yeah. That's what a budget will get you.
I guess they were thinking of calling it Evil Dead 3, but when they realized they had a real budget and some talent behind it, they renamed it so fans would know, and non-fans wouldn't care.
Army of Darkness is another sequel that is tons better than the movies preceding it.
Far superior if you watch the director's cut version with the good ending, anyway.
Huh. While I liked Army of Darkness the best, I think I laughed almost as much during the second movie. The possessed hand bit I thought was fantastic.
And I think the director's cut ending is lame and totally not in the spirit of the movie.
I made the happy mistake of looking up some reviews. This (director's cut ending vs the theatrical cut) is apparently a point of contention amongst aficionados. Which I am not. Yet.
Truthfully, I did not realize Army of Darkness was the third in a trilogy until I googled it to make sure of the real name, since I'd only seen the first Evil Dead movie.
In the last month I saw:
Lion King 3D - great as usual. Loved it just as much as the regular and IMAX versions.
Adaptation - incredible acting, but WTF was up with the story at the end. Talk about a movie that didn't know how to end itself.
I think that's about it; been a light month for me.
Talk about a movie that didn't know how to end itself.
Which is the point, right?
This is what I almost typed. I really like the way it was written.
You need to hash out Adaptation. with Stick.
Over the past few months, I've actually seen a few movies: my SiL moved in July 1 and moved to Chicago July 31 and left most of her stuff here. She's coming to get it on Saturday.
Twilight 1 I expected this to suck. It didn't. The lead actress was very good, especially in the beginning, communicating by biting her lip and rolling her eyes or whatever. I wished there were no vampires to ruin her natural story. Like, what would her senior year been like in this new town without sunlight?
Twilight 2* So this is where the suck came in. There's a trip to Italy that's like the worst Vampire movie thing going. Also, whatever it was I liked about the lead actress is gone. She's not awful, but she's not making me want to know more about her, as opposed to just finding out how the stupid thing ends.
Twilight 3* Much better than 2, but if 2 hadn't sucked, I probably would have thought that this did. Also, the Vampire's a weenie, she should have gone with the werewolf. I hope the werewolves win in the end.
Let the Right One In (Swedish) Oh I liked this. I totally did not know where the hell it was ever going to go, and it kept going there.
Underworld This movie would have been better if it was Blade, or at least had Wesley Snipes in it. But there were more vampires!
Penelope Enjoyable, I wasn't expecting much, and it was better than that. Rese Whitherspoon's character is a major distraction, but hey, she exec produced it.
Never Let Me Go Moody, creepy distopia/scifi sorta thing. Gave me some of the same feel as Children of Men (which is probably the best movie i've seen), but without all the action or greatness.
Iron Man Big fun. Watched it twice. Turns out my wife and I both like this kind of action movie. What else like this did SiL leave behind?
Tomb Raider Big letdown. We both fell asleep neither wanted to know how it ended.
Iron Man 2* Not quite as good as the first, but maybe I just expected more, and things didn't come as a surprise.
I've still got the Godfather Duology to watch before Friday. On a very tired night, we started the first and I think I stayed awake for 90 mins. My wife was asleep before the horsehead scene. She doesn't want to watch any more. I'll see if I get them watched.
*Picked up from the library: it's like a limited netflix!
Whoa. Really taking the werewolf game to heart (I know Let the Right One In isn't werewolf. Point remains.)
I think the SiL like(s/d) vampires.
But then we were surprised enough with the quality of the first Twilight that we got the others.
Yeah, I was warming up for that. Nothing in them talked about what to do when you know who they are but can't convince anybody.
I think they deal with that in Breaking Dawn. Either that, or more bare torso'd Taylor Lautner. I forget which.
From what I can tell,
I've still got the Godfather Duology to watch before Friday.
I see what you did there. And I approve.
Personally, I think Godfather III got misplaced on the shelf, under the working title Goodfellas.
I don't know anything about III, I just know what others have said, comparing it to the aborted drafts of sequels to the Matrix. Also, I really don't know anything about the Original Duology, and I know that's a big blind spot in my Cultural Literacy.
It's definitely better than the Matrix sequels, which is the only praise I can muster.
Are you crazy? GFII is a great, great film.
99% sure he was talking about III.
he was referring to GFIII...
I would hope so, but the reference logically maps to the "original duology" sentence at the end of AMR's comment. Hence....
if Kelly hated on GF2 he would probably never be allowed to write a script again
I am of course talking about III here, as I saw the same Godfather II you saw. Don't worry, I'm not growing senile.
I wished there were no vampires* to ruin her natural story.
Worthy of a plaque.
(*the judges would have also accepted "werewolf" or "turbo")
Totally dugLet the Right One In for the same reason.
Bravo, AMR, but you should have mentioned there are also werewolves in Underworld, as well as Kate Beckinsale, whose natural, ahem, assets trump anything from Twilight.
But Underworld was stupid. I'm trying to remember the plot, and I can't really. Something about a chimera, and then she wakes up a mostly dead undead guy for help and he's not helpful. Watching Kristen Stewart (I looked it up) in Twilight was a lot more enjoyable because she made it interesting, she made looking at her interesting.
Anyways, I'm not watching movies for pretty. Or at least, I'm not currently chosing which movies to watch based on actresses' looks. Good looks can be found all over the internet, and that way I don't have to watch Underworld or Transformers.
(Not to say that I don't appreciate it when both coincide. Ricci, even with the pig nose, probably got me to sit down when my wife picked it out.)
I liked the third Underworld (the prequel) a lot more than I liked the other two. What the movie lacked in Beckinsale, it made up for in a more grandiose setting, which I thought benefited it.
Of course, it was still very, very stupid.
Okay, so why did you see the third in the series if you thought the others were profoundly stupid?
I actually saw the third one first, didn't hate it (stupid, but entertaining to me), and my buddy insisted on a marathon, saying the other two were even better.
Of course, this particular friend is the type to "watch movies for pretty", but I didn't know that until after.
Ugh. Man, pretty is on every movie. I don't get those guys.
I just now decided watching Coraline was a better use of my time than getting a good night's rest.
I may regret that decision in six hours, but for now it feels like it was a good idea. Visually stunning, and tells a good story. The hype seems warranted to me.
I still need to watch the whole thing. I saw about five hours worth in fits and starts with Skim and I was impressed with what I saw.
Skim as Coraline last Halloween.
Ha, cute. I watched 9 not too long ago, too... so I'm hitting up last year's Wells' Halloween like a champ.
I want to be the Greatest American Hero this year, but it doesn't appear we have the combination of time and supplies to make it happen.
I will unfortunately be dressing up as "guy working overtime" this Halloween.
if i had time, money, and a desire to do anything "halloween-y", i'd go as scumbag steve.
I'd never miss it, and now that I have kids I'm expected not to miss it. I might be Paul Stanley. I'm not really a KISS fan, but it always gets a reaction (I made up Skim to be Gene Simmons when she was two).
yeah, i have a feeling i'll get roped in to more halloween duties as time goes on. also, despite my misgivings for the holiday, i will definitely not stand in the way of women continuing to use it as an excuse to dress like strippers.
I like carving the pumpkins, and usually make a couple of them (nothing super fancy, it's just fun). I've never really dressed up, though. Linds and I usually rent two or three horror movies and hand out candy to the one or two kids that wander by (I do wish that trick or treating was still a thing, but I can see why it's not).
Trick or treating is still a thing in our neighborhood and Miss SBG will be Smurfette this year. She has the whole routine down cold: "Smurf or Treat!" "Smurf you very much!"
We were so excited during our first year, because there are a lot of kids in our neighborhood. We got one trick or treater - our next door neighbor, who always, without fail, leaves us may day baskets. She got a haul.
Everyone gets invited to parties and community events around here.
Why the misgivings? It's easily my favorite holiday...perhaps not a surprise.
I can't speak for hj, but I have misgivings myself which are entirely based off of laziness. I'm too lazy to put any effort into making a good costume.
As far as holidays go, I do far prefer it to crappy holidays like Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter.
yeah, it's more along cheaptoy's lines for me as well. i've no strong aversion or anything, just too lazy and i don't know the right people in chicago to have fun doing anything with.
(also, i think the movie discussion in this post is currently somewhere around 32% ;))
Ha, I can see that. (For the record, th right people on Halloween are the actors. We don't mess around when it comes to Halloween).