What MOVIE(s) have you been....seeing? watching?

What have I watched lately on my Plex (note - I blame you all for that action movie subthread):

Edge of Tomorrow - Who doesn't love Groundhog Day + Emily Blunt + guns?

John Wick
My favorite part of the movie.


Star Trek: Into Darkness - I've watched it a few times, because it's Star Trek. But it's not very good. The J. J. Abrams lens flares are one of those things that once you see them you can't unsee them.

Star Trek: Beyond - Perfectly cromulent Star Trek movie. Lots of fun, no real surprises.

Dredd - one of my favorite action films. A shame they haven't made more. If you haven't seen it and are up for cinematic bloodshed, you need to watch it.

I would kickstart a sequel to Dredd.

Dredd is such a great, underrated movie that needs sequels. I just worry they'd expand the universe of it too much. A reason Dredd works for me is that it is so self-contained.

Interesting news on Dredd - the rights recently lapsed and reverted back to Rebellion, and the CEO has expressed his intent to press ahead with a proper sequel. Still no network has picked up the Mega-City TV show though so financing could remain an issue.

The original sequel plans were to do an origin story (boring) and then the Dark Judges (which was the original intent way back in the eighties when the comic first went into adaptation - bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3623437...never-phantom-limbs/ ). If it does happen I hope they go straight to the latter. I’d love to see Olivia Thirlby back as Anderson.

Watched Dredd 3D again last night because of all the talk about it here. I recall this movie being unfairly called a Raid clone before it was released. Other than both being action flicks mostly taking place in a single building they have really nothing in common. It really is a good movie and deserves a sequel but agreed an origin story would be lame. I'd rather this one be the origin story for Anderson and we never see anything of Dredds past. I love that Urban kept his scowl for the entire film.

I didn't see Valley Girl when it debuted in 1983, but I did see it in 1985, so it was still the same era and Nicholas Cage still wasn't a major star yet. Now I finally got around to re-visiting Valley Girl, and it has aged well, especially compared to many other '80s movies. Valley Girl is a lightweight rom-com, essentially Romeo & Juliet in southern California. The characters are not deep or compelling, but some of them have a definite screen presence that carries the movie. Cage has an improbable charisma that surpasses his bad haircut and his awkward posturing. Deborah Foreman is radiant, and some of the supporting cast make a lasting impression. Michael Bowen plays a new kind of bad guy that shows up again in the Karate Kid movies and even the first season of The O.C., as the big blonde preppy kid with perfect hair and upper middle class privilege. In fact, it almost seems like the first Karate Kid movie was written by someone who was annoyed by Cage's easy win in the homecoming fight scene.

Valley Girl is worth watching now because it's such a fine time capsule of a very specific time and place. Teenage girls shopping at the mall, the seamy Sunset Strip as Hollywood slides into "Hollyweird", and then there is the music. Despite the punk protagonist, there isn't any punk in this movie, but several decent songs that really represent the time, especially "I Melt With You" by The Modern English. Better still, the soundtrack manages to avoid two major '80s cliches, saxophones and synthwave. I've heard that there is a recent re-make of Valley Girl, but I'm not interested because it's reportedly a musical. I'm not opposed to good covers of '80s hits (especially by Nouvelle Vague or Postmodern Jukebox), but the musical is a very specific style of performance that just doesn't interest me.

Lone Wolf McQuade - Roger Ebert gave Lone Wolf McQuade three stars (actually 3 1/2), and there's NFW that's a three-star movie. I saw it when it came out way back when, but couldn't have told you anything about it before yesterday except "Chuck Norris is in it." But I watched it yesterday, and it's horrible. MST3K bad. Bad acting, bad plot, bad action, all around bad from start to finish. I used to think Roger Ebert was a good reviewer, but I have to seriously rethink this now.

Two recommendations for anyone interested in Neo Noir: The Long Goodbye and Nice Guys. I've seen them both before, but for some reason felt like revisiting them this past weekend.

The Long Goodbye is from 1972, and is very much of that time. Elliot Gould plays Philip Marlowe, who somehow is *not* of that time, but rather the familiar private eye from the '40s. But it works. The plot is almost too convoluted, but that's what makes it a good noir. Gould is annoying at first due to his rambling mumbling, but after a while I came to respect it as sort of a persona that keeps others from taking him seriously.

Nice Guys is just from 2016, but it's set in L.A. in the '70s. It made a nice companion piece, especially when you look at what cars they used today to represent the era vs. the cars that actually show up from that era in Long Goodbye. This one is much more modern and really just pays lip-service to noir elements instead of actually being a neo noir. But it has the duplicity and convoluted plot, so it works. It also illustrates how different filmmaking is between now and then. It's much more action-oriented, flashier, and comedic. I like it, but it's definitely a different vibe.

I really liked Nice Guys, especially for its humor.
Speaing of convoluted plots, I rewatched Inherent Vice last week, it was beyond great (again). The names of the characters are something else, and Dr. Blatnoyd is like an old friend to me now.

RobertB wrote: Lone Wolf McQuade - Roger Ebert gave Lone Wolf McQuade three stars (actually 3 1/2), and there's NFW that's a three-star movie. I saw it when it came out way back when, but couldn't have told you anything about it before yesterday except "Chuck Norris is in it." But I watched it yesterday, and it's horrible. MST3K bad. Bad acting, bad plot, bad action, all around bad from start to finish. I used to think Roger Ebert was a good reviewer, but I have to seriously rethink this now.

Never watch Chuck Norris for the "acting." My favorite of his is Silent Rage. I remember it veering into horror territory.

hotseatgames wrote:

RobertB wrote: Lone Wolf McQuade - Roger Ebert gave Lone Wolf McQuade three stars (actually 3 1/2), and there's NFW that's a three-star movie. I saw it when it came out way back when, but couldn't have told you anything about it before yesterday except "Chuck Norris is in it." But I watched it yesterday, and it's horrible. MST3K bad. Bad acting, bad plot, bad action, all around bad from start to finish. I used to think Roger Ebert was a good reviewer, but I have to seriously rethink this now.

Never watch Chuck Norris for the "acting." My favorite of his is Silent Rage. I remember it veering into horror territory.

I don't watch Steven Seagal for his acting chops, but there's enough directing and acting skill in, say, Under Siege* to make me not notice how bad an actor Steve Seagal is. Granted, Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey are pretty decent actors.

*Actually, the better Seagal movie to compare to LWMcQ is Hard To Kill. I saw it when it came out, but as with LWMcQ I don't remember much about it. Kelly LeBrock is in it, and a lot of people get shot and beat up.

I watched the first half of Red Tails last night.

I also noticed that the new Mulan is coming to Disney+, at the cost of $30 per screening. So it would appear that Disney still thinks they can salvage their investment into the film.

I thought Mulan was always supposed to be a middling box office hit in the US. They stripped out most of the Disney Mulan stuff (I think, no ghosts, dragons, etc, right?) and it seems more of a wire fu kung fu film than anything else. It would need a Chow Yun Fat, Jet Li, Donny Yen, and Jackie Chan group fight to get me to watch it though.

Sagrilarus wrote: I also noticed that the new Mulan is coming to Disney+, at the cost of $30 per screening. So it would appear that Disney still thinks they can salvage their investment into the film.

From what I've seen, it's $30 and you get to watch it on Disney+ for as long as your subscription is alive.

Or you get it on DVD, watch it on the exact same screen for what is likely cheaper and will last until your DVD player dies.

I appreciate some people want to see it right away. I mentioned it to my daughter who is the one excited about it (she's 23) and her response was, "it's going to be included free at some point, I'll just wait." God bless her, cheaper than I am. There's a lucky man out there that's going to be her husband someday.

I understand Disney doesn't want to take a hit on the cost of making the film (just shy of a quarter billion dollars). But they've now tiered their channel. That's more in line with Amazon's model, but Amazon Prime comes with huge additional perks. You start looking at Disney+ as a store where you buy premium things at high prices instead of a buffet where simply take what you want. Changes the business relationship with the customer.

We're starting to churn channels now.

We're turning off Netflix because we've more or less cleared them out for the moment. We'll be back in a year.

BritBox might last three months.

Locast is circling the drain, especially with no sports on it. Only $5 a month but won't renew next month.

Disney+ is in, but their content is static. Once we get through Star Wars Rebels we'll likely turn it off too, come back in a year. They're not generating content we haven't already seen. Marvel! Excellent, already seen it. Star Wars! Excellent, already seen it. Apple Dumpling Gang! Uh, ok, haven't seen it.

With about zero content being generated right now the subscription model doesn't work very well.