Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board
Sign in to follow this  
RIPPA

FEBRUARY 2015 MOVIE THREAD

Recommended Posts

 

I'm watching Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back. I've always liked it the most out of the View Askew universe movies. Even moreso than Clerks, which is now 20 years old and holy fuck I'm old.

I always felt that movie got bagged on more than it deserved. Same with Mallrats. Are they good movies? Probably not. Are they fun? Yes, very much so.

 

 

The older I get the more I find myself popping in Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back and Mallrats so much more often than Clerks. Clerks was one of my favorite movies in the my teenage and college years, but now in my mid-30s I just simply enjoy the madcap lunacy of Jay & Silent Bob and Mallrats so much more.

 

And I haven't had any desire to watch Chasing Amy or Dogma (both of which I liked a lot upon initial release) in probably a decade now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Chiller right now (and replaying at midnight) is Night of the Creeps, and right after (and also replaying later)? SANTA'S SLAY. So if you want to laugh your ass off watching Goldberg kill teenagers, or laugh your ass off watching Tom Atkins find out what is making teenagers kill, here you go! 

 

"Screaming like banshees!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched John Wick last night. Holy fuck was that an awesome flick. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, oftentimes after I watch a movie, I'll check out IMDB and sometimes (If I'm feeling brave) even venture down to the message board to see what people are talking about.  So I did this tonight after watching 'The Interview' and am completely dumbfounded at this exchange

 

(Posting names changed to protect those involved)

DAVE: "My family and I are looking forward to it. However, we try to avoid nudity in films. Please don't make this a conversation about that. IMDB mentions the only scene with nudity... "In one scene Kim's girls are dancing and a quick flash of bare chested women jumping is shown." Does anyone with a copy of the film know at precisely what time in the film this occurs. Thanks in advance!"
CLARK: "There is very sort scene of topless women. But if your sensitive to sexual innuendo and dick jokes. You might want to pass. Also there a full clothed sex scene that shot from the chest up for about 30 seconds."
DAVE: "It's really only the actual nudity itself that's an issue. I would love to know when the 'very short scene' actually is and then we would be good to go."

(Then a bunch of people come in and go "There are repeated sexual jokes, swearing, violence, people being gruesomely killed etc." why would like thirty seconds of topless women be so bad?! and argue over it, then finally)

STEVE: When Dave's partying with King Jong Un, some girls show up. After about a minute, there's a brief shot where some of them are topless. If you really want to avoid that, once the girls show up, skip ahead to when Dave gets back to his room. 

 
Don't know why nobody wants to give you a straight answer.
DAVE: "Thank you. If this was reddit I'd throw you some gold. 
 
There are some pretty rude and overly opinionated people on here."
 
So bizarre!  Like, the topless women are so far down the list of offensive things in this movie

dick jokes, swearing, sex talk, shoving things up his ass, a guy dying and shooting another guy in the head, a (clothed) sex scene, fingers getting bit off, a guy getting shot in the head, a guy getting a joystick up his ass, a guy getting shot in the asshole, more guys getting shot, guys getting gruesomely run over by tanks, guys exploding

like, all of that ^, but being worried about topless women.  I get that some people are offended by nudity, I understand it.  I mean, I watched 'True Detective' with mom and dad when it was first on, that was AWKWARD.  But I don't understand being offended by some minor nudity when there is SO MUCH more to be offended by in that movie.
 
I liked it, btw.  The movie, I mean.  Well, and the nudity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need some quick processing something that I just ran into and did not know existed.  It's this Kristy MacNichol movie from 1982 about a dog programmed to kill black people or "blacks" as the movie says as in "I need to stop this dog before it kills more blacks."

 

 

The question I have is a pretty simple one.

 

What in the living fuck?  Has anyone ever run into this movie?  I'm pretty hip to 80s stuff and this just utterly blindsided me.  This is like the racial politics version of DAY OF THE DOLPHIN.  At one point in the trailer the dog leaps over a giant electrified fence (which explodes) just for the chance to bite some tender, delicious "black."  It seems to kill at least four or five people while they debate about how to cure it and whether curing the racist dog will lead them to a cure for racism.  Seriously, that seems to be the takeaway here...a dog-blood vaccine for racism or something.

 

It has Burle Ives and Paul Winfield.  Everyone seems to be really earnest about the seriousness of this.  Meanwhile, it appears that their earnestness is misplaced, because what I'm seeing in that trailer is utterly bafflingly demented in both premise and execution.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need some quick processing something that I just ran into and did not know existed.  It's this Kristy MacNichol movie from 1982 about a dog programmed to kill black people or "blacks" as the movie says as in "I need to stop this dog before it kills more blacks."

 

 

The question I have is a pretty simple one.

 

What in the living fuck?  Has anyone ever run into this movie?  I'm pretty hip to 80s stuff and this just utterly blindsided me.  This is like the racial politics version of DAY OF THE DOLPHIN.  At one point in the trailer the dog leaps over a giant electrified fence (which explodes) just for the chance to bite some tender, delicious "black."  It seems to kill at least four or five people while they debate about how to cure it and whether curing the racist dog will lead them to a cure for racism.  Seriously, that seems to be the takeaway here...a dog-blood vaccine for racism or something.

 

It has Burle Ives and Paul Winfield.  Everyone seems to be really earnest about the seriousness of this.  Meanwhile, it appears that their earnestness is misplaced, because what I'm seeing in that trailer is utterly bafflingly demented in both premise and execution.

 

We did it for the DVDVRMC.  Was my choice.  It's an awesome movie.  It's Samuel Fuller so you're going to get some bluntness, but I like how he gets right up into things.  You never ran into it because the movie was shelved when it came out in the States because it was too controversial. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I saw that in the 90s and it was preceded by a 60 minute documentary with Tim Robbins and Quentin Tarantino talking about how awesome Sam Fuller is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, oftentimes after I watch a movie, I'll check out IMDB and sometimes (If I'm feeling brave) even venture down to the message board to see what people are talking about. So I did this tonight after watching 'The Interview' and am completely dumbfounded at this exchange

(Posting names changed to protect those involved)

DAVE: "My family and I are looking forward to it. However, we try to avoid nudity in films. Please don't make this a conversation about that. IMDB mentions the only scene with nudity... "In one scene Kim's girls are dancing and a quick flash of bare chested women jumping is shown." Does anyone with a copy of the film know at precisely what time in the film this occurs. Thanks in advance!"

CLARK: "There is very sort scene of topless women. But if your sensitive to sexual innuendo and dick jokes. You might want to pass. Also there a full clothed sex scene that shot from the chest up for about 30 seconds."

DAVE: "It's really only the actual nudity itself that's an issue. I would love to know when the 'very short scene' actually is and then we would be good to go."

(Then a bunch of people come in and go "There are repeated sexual jokes, swearing, violence, people being gruesomely killed etc." why would like thirty seconds of topless women be so bad?! and argue over it, then finally)

STEVE: When Dave's partying with King Jong Un, some girls show up. After about a minute, there's a brief shot where some of them are topless. If you really want to avoid that, once the girls show up, skip ahead to when Dave gets back to his room.

Don't know why nobody wants to give you a straight answer.

DAVE: "Thank you. If this was reddit I'd throw you some gold.

There are some pretty rude and overly opinionated people on here."

So bizarre! Like, the topless women are so far down the list of offensive things in this movie

dick jokes, swearing, sex talk, shoving things up his ass, a guy dying and shooting another guy in the head, a (clothed) sex scene, fingers getting bit off, a guy getting shot in the head, a guy getting a joystick up his ass, a guy getting shot in the asshole, more guys getting shot, guys getting gruesomely run over by tanks, guys exploding

like, all of that ^, but being worried about topless women. I get that some people are offended by nudity, I understand it. I mean, I watched 'True Detective' with mom and dad when it was first on, that was AWKWARD. But I don't understand being offended by some minor nudity when there is SO MUCH more to be offended by in that movie.

I liked it, btw. The movie, I mean. Well, and the nudity.

My guess is 'Dave' is the same parent who doesn't mind his kid playing Call of Duty/Battlefield mature rated games but by Gawd you can get hookers in GTA so that's off limits!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re White Dog, I'm under the impression that that's an actual thing that happens.  Probably not to the point of killing, but dogs can be trained to be more aggressive towards people who look a certain way.  There's a Criterion version of the movie, they must at least touch on it in the extras.

 

Also the movie is great.  Burl Ives throws syringes at a lifesize cardboard cutout of R2-D2!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever put the trailer together is really making me expect a Burl Ives heel turn. 

 

"Burl Ives heel turn" sounds like a fanfic writing prompt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need some quick processing something that I just ran into and did not know existed.  It's this Kristy MacNichol movie from 1982 about a dog programmed to kill black people or "blacks" as the movie says as in "I need to stop this dog before it kills more blacks."

 

 

The question I have is a pretty simple one.

 

What in the living fuck?  Has anyone ever run into this movie?  I'm pretty hip to 80s stuff and this just utterly blindsided me.

I got blindsided by it one summer afternoon in the early-'90's on Lifetime, of all channels. I can safely say that I've never forgotten it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care how real that trailer looks. I don't care how many people on here say they've seen it. I don't care how many people rate it on IMDB (7.1??!?!?!) There's no way that's a real movie. Good grief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refuse to believe that Tabe missed the delicious irony of that IMDB rating.

 

#TABEDOZA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refuse to believe that Tabe missed the delicious irony of that IMDB rating.

#TABEDOZA

Believe me, I didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Tabedoza...

The Iceman - Michael Shannon is Richard Kuklinski, a contract killer for the mob - and husband/father. He earns the nickname "Iceman" by freezing his victims for up to 2 years before disposing of their body parts. Kuklinski starts out as a guy with a vicious streak who is then recruited to be a killer for the mob. His financial profile benefits, he lands Winona Ryder as a wife and eventually gets older and sloppy with his killings. Shannon is very good here as the stone-faced killer. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't really give us much in the way of background on Kuklinski - we learn he has a brother in prison and was beaten as a child but that's it - and starts with his first killing right away. Also, though based on a true story, the movie apparently has a questionable relationship with the truth. His real-life wife claims he beat her but the movie shows him as not abusive (other than one angry outburst). He claims 100+ murders and that's what the movie shows but his mob associates put it more like the 5 he actually got convicted. Whatever. This is a pretty good movie. 6/10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need some quick processing something that I just ran into and did not know existed.  It's this Kristy MacNichol movie from 1982 about a dog programmed to kill black people or "blacks" as the movie says as in "I need to stop this dog before it kills more blacks."

 

 

Cujo Klux Klan?

Aryan Bud?

Beethoven's Third Reich?

Rin Tin Skinhead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need some quick processing something that I just ran into and did not know existed. It's this Kristy MacNichol movie from 1982 about a dog programmed to kill black people or "blacks" as the movie says as in "I need to stop this dog before it kills more blacks."

The question I have is a pretty simple one.

What in the living fuck? Has anyone ever run into this movie? I'm pretty hip to 80s stuff and this just utterly blindsided me. This is like the racial politics version of DAY OF THE DOLPHIN. At one point in the trailer the dog leaps over a giant electrified fence (which explodes) just for the chance to bite some tender, delicious "black." It seems to kill at least four or five people while they debate about how to cure it and whether curing the racist dog will lead them to a cure for racism. Seriously, that seems to be the takeaway here...a dog-blood vaccine for racism or something.

It has Burle Ives and Paul Winfield. Everyone seems to be really earnest about the seriousness of this. Meanwhile, it appears that their earnestness is misplaced, because what I'm seeing in that trailer is utterly bafflingly demented in both premise and execution.

My new OkCupid profile: Tender. Delicious. Black.

(I'm white as wifebeaters on white trash on cop shows.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from my boy Michael Reeves, is there anyone missed in film more than Madeline Kahn? If she was around she'd be wrecking it. If you don't believe that, just watch Young Frankenstein again; even with a bit part she kills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm watching Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back. I've always liked it the most out of the View Askew universe movies. Even moreso than Clerks, which is now 20 years old and holy fuck I'm old.

I always felt that movie got bagged on more than it deserved. Same with Mallrats. Are they good movies? Probably not. Are they fun? Yes, very much so.

The older I get the more I find myself popping in Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back and Mallrats so much more often than Clerks. Clerks was one of my favorite movies in the my teenage and college years, but now in my mid-30s I just simply enjoy the madcap lunacy of Jay & Silent Bob and Mallrats so much more.

And I haven't had any desire to watch Chasing Amy or Dogma (both of which I liked a lot upon initial release) in probably a decade now.

I like Kevin Smith more than most but Dogma is a fucking mess and a fucking bore. I watched it twice in the late 90s or whenever it was out and I'm all set. The good is very outweighed by the problems - especially Linda Fiorentino Doesn't Want To Be Here pulling a Bruce Willis In Cop Out the whole movie. Fuck that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goddamn Wes Anderson.  I avoided GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL for months because I thought I was over it all and it's all so squeee and blah blah.

 

Yep.  He got me again.  I will without any doubt be watching this movie on a continuous loop for the next week or so.

 

GODDAMN WES ANDERSON!!!!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched Chef tonight and it was great. Like, really, really great. Jon Favreau did an amazing job. Can't wait to watch it again. If I gave it a rating, I'd go something like 8 or 9 out of 10.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm watching Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back. I've always liked it the most out of the View Askew universe movies. Even moreso than Clerks, which is now 20 years old and holy fuck I'm old.

I always felt that movie got bagged on more than it deserved. Same with Mallrats. Are they good movies? Probably not. Are they fun? Yes, very much so.

The older I get the more I find myself popping in Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back and Mallrats so much more often than Clerks. Clerks was one of my favorite movies in the my teenage and college years, but now in my mid-30s I just simply enjoy the madcap lunacy of Jay & Silent Bob and Mallrats so much more.

And I haven't had any desire to watch Chasing Amy or Dogma (both of which I liked a lot upon initial release) in probably a decade now.

I like Kevin Smith more than most but Dogma is a fucking mess and a fucking bore. I watched it twice in the late 90s or whenever it was out and I'm all set. The good is very outweighed by the problems - especially Linda Fiorentino Doesn't Want To Be Here pulling a Bruce Willis In Cop Out the whole movie. Fuck that.

I always kinda liked Dogma, granted I haven't watched in in probably 10 years and if my changing tastes are any indication, I probably wouldn't like it as much now. Clerks now just seems like a bunch of non actors making 1000 different dick jokes, but the nostalgia will always be there for that movie for me. I didn't get all the hype for Chasing Amy then and I still don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was really excited to see the new Jean-Luc Godard film, but just wasn't into it. 3D also gives me a headache.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took in some of the crème de la crème of cinema yesterday

 

Joe Dirt I had never watched this before.  Now I have.

 

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles This was not nearly as bad as I feared it could be, nor as good as I'd hoped it would be (I really liked the trailers).  It's...weird.  Like Splinter finds Ninjitsu books in the sewers - as one does - so he teaches himself, then the turtles ninjitsu, but it's unclear on where he turned up their finely-crafted ninjitsu weapons.  The easy thing to do is compare this to the first TMNT movie from (Dear God!) 25 years ago (!!!) and see where it hits and misses.  I'd say the fighting is better in this one, and the turtles really DO look better, and Shredder is more evil.  But I'd say April O'Neil, Splinter and the plotline and score are better in the original.  I'd never been as down as many on Megan Fox but she is just dreadful here.  As my sister said "It sounds like it hurts her to get out lines of dialogue".  Cast is pretty even.  Shredder's are about even, first April is better, Casey Jones is a plus for the original, but the new one has Will Arnett and Bill MF'in' Fichtner.  I dunno.  It's relatively short, has some funny moments, some decent action sequences and isn't dreadfully offensive at any point.  I'd say that's all one can hope for, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...