Page 106 of 108 FirstFirst ... 65696102103104105106107108 LastLast
Results 1,576 to 1,590 of 1609
  1. #1576
    Standing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Largo161 View Post
    Taxi Zum Klo (1980). This German film is ...notorious...infamous...lauded?—I’m not sure—for its explicit gay sex. It’s flat-out pornographic, but it’s not a porno movie. A few days in the life of a promiscuous school teacher who gets into many sexual shenanigans to the dismay of his live-in boyfriend. I think Wikipedia described it as a “comedy of manners”. I didn’t find many laughs. Daring for 1980, but I was indifferent by the end.
    I well remember seeing this movie back in the 1980s. Not in 1980, but whenever it made it to North America. I wasn't outraged or offended by it. I wouldn't say it was a comedy--just an interesting slice of life from the perspective of a certain group of characters. The title literally means taxi to the toilet--but I think the nuance is different in German.

    Frankly, there were a whole lot of movies in the 1980s which I saw that would now be considered offensive, but back then were accepted as fair game. But maybe that was just the circle I travelled in. I suppose most people didn't see so many movies that were on the fringes. But I belonged to various film societies and was doing film studies, so I saw these kinds of movies all the time. That's why Charlie Kaufman's movie isn't anything new to me--it is very much doing the same thing that hundreds of auteurs have already done.

    I haven't seen CUTIES, but hearing about it made me think of one movie I saw either in the 1980s or the 1990s, at a film society screening. I think it was an Eastern European movie made by a respected director--and there's one scene with this woman and some boys--which to me was really offensive. I wasn't offended by movies that simulated crimes--but movies that showed the real thing offended me--as I'm being forced to go along with a crime, just by seeing the movie. There was no way to excuse this movie as not exploiting the boys in it.

    Another movie that offended me was by Jean Luc Godard, who I usually like, which was WEEKEND (1967). There are scenes of fake dead people on the road with fake blood--that's okay by me--but then there is a scene of an animal actually being killed. That made me sick.
    Last edited by Jim Kelly; 09-15-2020 at 04:42 PM.
    🇨🇦
    [Exit, pursued
    by a bear.

  2. #1577
    Incredible Member Largo161's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    I well remember seeing this movie back in the 1980s. Not in 1980, but whenever it made it to North America. I wasn't outraged or offended by it. I wouldn't say it was a comedy--just an interesting slice of life from the perspective of a certain group of characters. The title literally means taxi to the toilet--but I think the nuance is different in German.

    Frankly, there were a whole lot of movies in the 1980s which I saw that would now be considered offensive, but back then were accepted as fair game. But maybe that was just the circle I travelled in. I suppose most people didn't see so many movies that were on the fringes. But I belonged to various film societies and was doing film studies, so I saw these kinds of movies all the time. That's why Charlie Kaufman's movie isn't anything new to me--it is very much doing the same thing that hundreds of auteurs have already done.

    I haven't seen CUTIES, but hearing about it made me think of one movie I saw either in the 1980s or the 1990s, at a film society screening. I think it was an Eastern European movie made by a respected director--and there's one scene with this woman and some boys--which to me was really offensive. I wasn't offended by movies that simulated crimes--but movies that showed the real thing offended me--as I'm being forced to go along with a crime, just by seeing the movie. There was no way to excuse this movie as not exploiting the boys in it.

    Another movie that offended me was by Jean Luc Godard, who I usually like, which was WEEKEND (1967). There are scenes of fake dead people on the road with fake blood--that's okay by me--but then there is a scene of an animal actually being killed. That made me sick.
    Yeah, what you described would bother me, too.

    (And the way you put it is an apt summary of Taxi Zum Klo.)
    We are living the Milgram Experiment.

  3. #1578
    Spectacular Member MacrossPlus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    177

    Default

    I just watched Crank 2: High Voltage

  4. #1579
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,010

    Default

    The Silence

    I enjoyed it. Wasn't better than A Quiet Place, but a short and mindless horror/survival movie

  5. #1580
    Astonishing Member Arfguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by batnbreakfast View Post
    The movie could be better but for its time it was fun enough. The novel is written by Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park) and is an adaption of Beowulf. It seems like Justice League there has been a conflict between directors, Crichton and John McTiernan (Die Hard,Predator), with the movie as a victim. Releasing both cuts as a set would be interesting.

    13th Warrior > Venom
    LOL. There can't be many things worse than Venom.

    Recently watched: A Star Is Born with Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper. Some really beautiful songs in this one.
    Find me on Instagram and Twitter - @arfguy
    https://whoaskd.com/

  6. #1581
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,270

    Default

    Godzilla vs Megalon-This is the movie with Jet Jaguar. The scenes with Godzilla running and doing flying dropkicks had me loling. They don't make em like that anymore 70's goodness.

  7. #1582
    Helping the Helpless Denirac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    2,061

    Default

    Bill and Ted: Face the Music
    8BC08A6B-B080-4AA3-BEF0-0AD27E6812AC.jpg
    Wally West deserved better than Heroes in Crisis
    Pull List:
    DC: JUSTICE LEAGUE, JUSTICE LEAGUE DARK, JUSTICE LEAGUE ODYSSEY, ACTION COMICS, LEVIATHAN, LAST KNIGHT ON EARTH
    MARVEL: AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, VENOM, WEB OF VENOM, ABSOLUTE CARNAGE, DAREDEVIL, HOUSE OF X, POWERS OF X, FANTASTIC FOUR
    BOOM STUDIOS: BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, ANGEL

  8. #1583
    Astonishing Member Soubhagya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3,525

    Default

    Watched a few movies the past few weeks.

    Annhilation. I had high expectations from this one as it looked intriguing. I heard a lot of good stuff about it. It seemed to have similarities with Stalker by Tarkovsky which is one of my favorite movies. But it was something of a letdown. It has good visuals but nothing strikingly great.

    The Babysitter and Babysitter Pt 2. 1st one is flawed but fun. 2nd one was trash with some redeeming features.

    Mayhem. The actor is known for his role in Walking Dead which i haven't seen. He was very good. So was Samara Weaving who was a lot of fun. Not much of a story but it could make a decent video game. A virus is causing the infected to loose any self control. The building is quarantined. Violence ensues. I had a nice time.

    Guns Akimbo. It had a lot of potential to be memorable, which you can talk over years among movie fans. Daniel Radcliffe was entertaining within this ridiculous scenario. Samara Weaving again turned out to be among the best parts in the movie she is in. But its action is largely uninspired. Its silly in the wrong parts. Much of it made little to no sense.

    Bill and Ted Face the Music. I actually haven't watched the 1st two films. Though i have heard about them quite a bit. Within this post i can see only one film is without Samara Weaving. I have become something of a fan, looking after films with her. She is quite entertaining to watch, even in average films. Glad to say i enjoyed it. Its silly. A bit nonsensical but quite heart warming at the same time.
    Last edited by Soubhagya; 09-24-2020 at 09:07 AM.

  9. #1584
    Astonishing Member Arfguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,162

    Default

    Into The Wild. The last scene between Mr. Franz and Chris had me in tears.
    Find me on Instagram and Twitter - @arfguy
    https://whoaskd.com/

  10. #1585
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    6,378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Denirac View Post
    Bill and Ted: Face the Music
    8BC08A6B-B080-4AA3-BEF0-0AD27E6812AC.jpg
    Same for me, last night. I honestly loved it, every minute of it. The movie took the whole franchise full circle, turned the central idea on its head and ended on a positive, heartwarming note that was just right for the year of the COVID. Made me want to get out my guitar and start making some noise.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

  11. #1586
    Standing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    ВОЙНА И МИР [WAR AND PEACE] (1965-67), directed by Sergei Bonderchuk, in Russian with English subtitles (Criterion Collection 2019), 422 mins.

    Bonderchuk not only directs but stars as Pierre Bezukhov. He was in his 40s at the time, whereas Pierre is supposed to be in his 20s--which is a problem when Natasha Rostova (Natalya) is supposed to be 13 at the start of the novel and she will become his main love interest. The young Lyudmelya Savelyeva perfectly captures Natalya on screen--no other actress could ever do a better job. It was a bit off-putting to see Irina Skobtseva playing Helene Kuragina--Pierre's first wife--as she is also much older looking than the character in the novel and never really gave me the sense of her. But Irina was Bonderchuk's wife in real life--so art imitates life.

    In any case, we don't get much of the Helene story in this adaptation. Nor do we get almost anything about Nicholas Rostov or Marya Bolkonskaya. It's only seven hours, after all, and that's not enough time to squeeze in everything from Tolstoy's novel.

    The movie would go on to win the Oscar for best foreign language film on April 14th, 1969, at the Academy Awards. Afraid that they might lose, the Soviet Union only sent Lyudmelya Savelyeva to the ceremony, to avoid any embarrassment. Later that same year, the United States would put a man on the Moon--which was the greater accomplishment? Given the resources required for either project, it's a toss-up.

    As a cinematic adaptation, it's hard to envision anyone topping this. Who would have the means? Bonderchuk was a successful actor, but wasn't consider in the top flight of Soviet directors at the time and yet several others were passed over in favour of this relatively young filmmaker. This at a time when Nikita Khrushchev had gained power, after the death of Stalin, and the U.S.S.R. was going through an era of cultural freedom unlike anything before it or after.

    Bonderchuk was allowed to make his own film, to express his own personality through his art. And yet was also given every resource of the Soviet Union and plenty of time to make his movie--about five years. Although there was no actual budget for the movie (everything was given to the movie for free--even rare museum pieces for the period furnishings in the movie), estimates are that it would have cost about a billion dollars to make this film in today's money. And everything is real. There was no computer animation, obviously, but also no matte shots--the soldiers are real (the Soviet army in period dress, directed by a real army general), the horses are real, the explosions are real. Even the burning of Moscow is real--albeit a life-size mock-up of Moscow that was then set on fire for the film.

    This is no T.V. series. It is entirely a cinematic production, in wide screen. Bonderchuk performs feats of wonder in this movie that leaves a lover of film in awe. Every scene is approached with an eye for what will best capture the emotion and meaning in the story. Natalya's first ball was filmed by cameramen on roller skates to give the dance that swirling dreamlike sensation. In other scenes the camera floats above the battlefield to show the mass of humanity in violent tumult. Shots are filmed through blurred lenses or through fans, reflecting the physical reality of a situation.

    Although the movie gives attention to humanity as a whole--and its central message is that we should love each other and not make war with our fellow man--Bonderchuk freely endows his characters with individuality and shows the aristocracy in a sympathetic light. Religion also is given a positive perspective. These things, antithetical to state dogma, would not have been allowed in previous Soviet sponsored films.

    And the story of Napoleon from Tolstoy's novel strikes an interesting parallel with the fortunes of Stalin. In the midst of the French Revolution, Napoleon seized power and became a dictator who expanded his power beyond the borders of his state to make war with his neighbours--ultimately Napoleon undermined the goals of the revolution and created a new privileged class in Europe. In the midst of the Russian Revolution, Stalin followed the same path as Napoleon and he also created a class of elites (including Khrushchev himself) that enjoyed privilege not given to the masses. If the French lust for power and their aggression against surrounding countries was an evil and antithetical to the goals of the revolution (liberté, égalité, fraternité)--had not Russia done the same thing?
    🇨🇦
    [Exit, pursued
    by a bear.

  12. #1587
    Astonishing Member Soubhagya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    ВОЙНА И МИР [WAR AND PEACE] (1965-67), directed by Sergei Bonderchuk, in Russian with English subtitles (Criterion Collection 2019), 422 mins.

    Bonderchuk not only directs but stars as Pierre Bezukhov. He was in his 40s at the time, whereas Pierre is supposed to be in his 20s--which is a problem when Natasha Rostova (Natalya) is supposed to be 13 at the start of the novel and she will become his main love interest. The young Lyudmelya Savelyeva perfectly captures Natalya on screen--no other actress could ever do a better job. It was a bit off-putting to see Irina Skobtseva playing Helene Kuragina--Pierre's first wife--as she is also much older looking than the character in the novel and never really gave me the sense of her. But Irina was Bonderchuk's wife in real life--so art imitates life.

    In any case, we don't get much of the Helene story in this adaptation. Nor do we get almost anything about Nicholas Rostov or Marya Bolkonskaya. It's only seven hours, after all, and that's not enough time to squeeze in everything from Tolstoy's novel.

    The movie would go on to win the Oscar for best foreign language film on April 14th, 1969, at the Academy Awards. Afraid that they might lose, the Soviet Union only sent Lyudmelya Savelyeva to the ceremony, to avoid any embarrassment. Later that same year, the United States would put a man on the Moon--which was the greater accomplishment? Given the resources required for either project, it's a toss-up.

    As a cinematic adaptation, it's hard to envision anyone topping this. Who would have the means? Bonderchuk was a successful actor, but wasn't consider in the top flight of Soviet directors at the time and yet several others were passed over in favour of this relatively young filmmaker. This at a time when Nikita Khrushchev had gained power, after the death of Stalin, and the U.S.S.R. was going through an era of cultural freedom unlike anything before it or after.

    Bonderchuk was allowed to make his own film, to express his own personality through his art. And yet was also given every resource of the Soviet Union and plenty of time to make his movie--about five years. Although there was no actual budget for the movie (everything was given to the movie for free--even rare museum pieces for the period furnishings in the movie), estimates are that it would have cost about a billion dollars to make this film in today's money. And everything is real. There was no computer animation, obviously, but also no matte shots--the soldiers are real (the Soviet army in period dress, directed by a real army general), the horses are real, the explosions are real. Even the burning of Moscow is real--albeit a life-size mock-up of Moscow that was then set on fire for the film.

    This is no T.V. series. It is entirely a cinematic production, in wide screen. Bonderchuk performs feats of wonder in this movie that leaves a lover of film in awe. Every scene is approached with an eye for what will best capture the emotion and meaning in the story. Natalya's first ball was filmed by cameramen on roller skates to give the dance that swirling dreamlike sensation. In other scenes the camera floats above the battlefield to show the mass of humanity in violent tumult. Shots are filmed through blurred lenses or through fans, reflecting the physical reality of a situation.

    Although the movie gives attention to humanity as a whole--and its central message is that we should love each other and not make war with our fellow man--Bonderchuk freely endows his characters with individuality and shows the aristocracy in a sympathetic light. Religion also is given a positive perspective. These things, antithetical to state dogma, would not have been allowed in previous Soviet sponsored films.

    And the story of Napoleon from Tolstoy's novel strikes an interesting parallel with the fortunes of Stalin. In the midst of the French Revolution, Napoleon seized power and became a dictator who expanded his power beyond the borders of his state to make war with his neighbours--ultimately Napoleon undermined the goals of the revolution and created a new privileged class in Europe. In the midst of the Russian Revolution, Stalin followed the same path as Napoleon and he also created a class of elites (including Khrushchev himself) that enjoyed privilege not given to the masses. If the French lust for power and their aggression against surrounding countries was an evil and antithetical to the goals of the revolution (liberté, égalité, fraternité)--had not Russia done the same thing?
    7 hours!!!

    Even Return of King is about 4 hours.This seems to be a must watch. How is it that i am hearing of this for the 1st time? Or maybe i have heard about it somewhere. Probably the youtube channel Cinefix which always gives interesting film recommendations.

    This film seems like a true epic. Where everything is shot for real, without even models it gives a great experience. Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on River Kwai, Seven Samurai, etc.are more 'common' examples. So what if they are 70 years old? The kind of experience such films give is unmatched. Thanks for highlighting this. I would look for it someday.

  13. #1588
    Standing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soubhagya View Post
    7 hours!!!

    Even Return of King is about 4 hours.This seems to be a must watch. How is it that i am hearing of this for the 1st time? Or maybe i have heard about it somewhere. Probably the youtube channel Cinefix which always gives interesting film recommendations.

    This film seems like a true epic. Where everything is shot for real, without even models it gives a great experience. Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on River Kwai, Seven Samurai, etc.are more 'common' examples. So what if they are 70 years old? The kind of experience such films give is unmatched. Thanks for highlighting this. I would look for it someday.
    It was like a mix of David Lean, Stanley Kubrick and Orson Welles for me. One thing I will say--the discs I was watching were borrowed from the library--and I don't know if it was my player, the discs or the film, but sometimes the quality was less than perfect. But then Criterion had to transfer this from a Soviet print which was probably not in the best shape.

    They had problems filming the movie at the time because of the film stock and cameras available--they weren't allowed to use any materials from outside the Warsaw Pact--and they had to make do with what they had. However, some of the problems with the image didn't seem to result from that. Although this is a minor quibble, since for the most part the image was great for me on my small screen. A Blu-Ray might be better--but I don't have a Blu Ray player.

    The movie is stretched over three discs--and when it was released in the Soviet Union, they showed it in four parts. But it is really one long movie and is best enjoyed that way.
    🇨🇦
    [Exit, pursued
    by a bear.

  14. #1589
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    365

    Default

    Guns Akimbo. I liked it, wasn't quite a Crank or a Shoot 'Em Up, but like said in 300, felt it did its part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Taylor View Post
    Same for me, last night. I honestly loved it, every minute of it. The movie took the whole franchise full circle, turned the central idea on its head and ended on a positive, heartwarming note that was just right for the year of the COVID. Made me want to get out my guitar and start making some noise.
    Haven't watched the originals in forever but I want to watch this real soon. Samara Weaving being in it is a bonus.

  15. #1590
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    6,378

    Default

    So in the spirit of Halloween I've been watching 80s horror films:

    Halloween H20 - I enjoyed this one. Though its not as fun for the third time, I admit. Was most fun the first time.
    Lost Boys - Great movie but it always makes me a bit sad knowing how the two Corey's turned out and what was going on for them during this time
    Fright Night - Still a classic. Except the vampire was pretty much a pushover. Still, worth it for a couple of memorable lines and seeing a guy melt.
    Waxwork - This movie is so weird. There are two absolute must-see scenes, involving a werewolf and vampires, and the rest of the film is very much humdrum, with a laughable climax. When the guy in the wheelchair is swinging the sword around at the end I lost it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildling View Post
    Haven't watched the originals in forever but I want to watch this real soon. Samara Weaving being in it is a bonus.
    She was really good!
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •