Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
speedracer5

I Just Watched...

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Yup. 23k, 10k, Japanese, German, French made...but my preference is Italian gold. Silver leaf is just really thin aluminum. Silver would tarnish. I should leaf myself for Halloween, haha.

On everything? Like Goldfinger? wow you're kinkier than I would imagine from your board posts, who would've thunk it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FANTASTIC BEASTS: CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD (2018) *WATCHED IN 2018* Score: 3/10 

This is long overdue to the point of irrelevancy, but I just want to vent. 

Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Jude Law, Ezra Miller, Johnny Depp, Alison Sudol, Dan Fogler, Katherine Waterston, Zoe Kravitz. 

The second installment of the "Fantastic Beasts" series mainly deals with the "evil" wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, and his plans to call as many witches and wizards to arms as he possibly can, in an attempt to rule over the human world, since we have no idea what we're doing. I guess he wants to prevent WW2, which makes zero sense, because technically, the wizards could just use magic to prevent it, and that would be it. This appears to be his main goal, while his secondary goal is to find young Credence, an orphaned wizard who is, as yet, unaware of how powerful he is. I guess Grindelwald wants him to join "the cause" or something. 

While this is happening, "protagonist" (not a very good example of a protagonist, but that's fine) Newt Scamander (Redmayne) is busy with his magical beasts, until Hogwarts professor, Albus Dumbledore, pays him a visit and asks him to chase after Credence (I think, I kind of forgot), in the hopes they can reach him before Grindelwald does. This, frankly, shouldn't be a problem, considering literally everyone is looking for this kid and can't seem to find him. Newt eventually (reluctantly) agrees, and along the way, he is reunited with his love interest (they did a fantastic job of setting this up, really), Tina, her sister Queenie, and Queenie's non-magical boyfriend, Jacob. Tina, I could care less about (she really shouldn't even have been in this movie; she did virtually nothing that Newt couldn't have done by himself), and Queenie somehow became a simpering sot in this installment, and did things I never would have thought possible. The only character I enjoy in these movies is Jacob, and the irony there, is that he's the only non-Wizard in the whole thing. 

Along for the ride are an assortment of random characters that literally do nothing for the plot. The inclusion of the "Harry Potter" professor, Minerva McGonagall, was one that didn't make sense, considering she wouldn't even have been born at the time all of this was happening. Another character mentioned in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" (the first book) was ancient wizard, Nicolas Flamel, who was, for some reason, included in this movie. Talk about pointless. Flamel does nothing but show up at the last minute to help Newt and his brother Theseus seal a portal or something? It was unclear, but upon further reflection, I really don't care. 

There was another wizard introduced in this, and I couldn't tell you his name to save my life. I don't mind new and different characters being added, but at least give the character something better to do than follow other people around and make some "startling" revelation that the audience could have guessed several minutes before. 

The special effects were all great, but the plot of this was annoying. The dialogue was dumb, the entire film followed essentially one single disappointing breadcrumb. I just wanted them to stop feeding us all these red herrings related to Credence's true parentage, and actually tell us (finally revealed at the end). All I have to say is this better only be a trilogy. 

There are so many things I could say about this, but A) I only have so much time, and B: I don't want to think about this longer than I have to. 

Image result for crimes of grindelwald

Also, look at how many people are on this poster. Who cares? No one knows or cares about these characters. I, for one, do not sympathize with any of them... 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NickAndNora34 said:

All I have to say is this better only be a trilogy. 

I read recently that this underperformed at the box-office so much that the third film is on hold, let alone any further films after that. Added to the critical drubbing this took, and the organized effort to remove Johnny Depp from any future film appearances, and this spin-off series may be dead.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Submarine Command (1951)  -  6/10

MV5BZDYwMGI4ODAtOTIwMy00NWExLWExYmQtOWE4

Somnolent military drama with William Holden as a Navy officer assigned to a submarine during the last days of WWII. After making a fateful decision during a stressful engagement, Holden must deal with the guilt he feels over the cost of that decision. Not only may he lose his position, but his wife Nancy Olson, too. Also featuring William Bendix, Don Taylor, Arthur Franz, Darryl Hickman, Moroni Olsen, Jack Kelly, and Noel Neill. This same year's The Frogmen used the same moral quandary, and there's nothing shown here that hasn't been seen before, and better. It didn't help that the online copy I watched was of poor quality both audibly and visually, pulled from a VHS recording from a showing on A&E many years ago, judging by the on-screen logo.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NickAndNora34 said:

FANTASTIC BEASTS: CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD (2018) *WATCHED IN 2018* Score: 3/10 

This is long overdue to the point of irrelevancy, but I just want to vent. 

Also, look at how many people are on this poster. Who cares? No one knows or cares about these characters. I, for one, do not sympathize with any of them... 

"Irrelevant" is certainly the word for the Fantastic Beasts, quote, "franchise" by now, and you nailed one of the reasons why Warner couldn't just "make up" more Harry Potter stories without Harry, even if they went out and hired JK Rowling to do it.

The first reason being the big problem that took down "Spinoff side-stories" like Solo: a Star Wars Story over at Disney--It's NOT the main character's STORY.  
Warner gushed over the fact that JK was creating a "new American Wizarding universe", and JK was so intimately close-to-her-own-material with these volumes and volumes of backstory she'd created, they'd forgotten to give us any new character we could even remotely care about, except for flashbacks to the ones we already had in better movies.  Least of all a plucky young character that kids could identify with, but the minute any fan said that, out came the hordes of second-generation high-school/college fangirls saying "But it's NOT a 'kids story' anymore!  It's a richly-textured complex universe, with shocking revelations about our characters' pasts!"  (Meaning, they squee'ed over the fact that Dumbledore was their new GBF and now they really could ship him with Johnny Depp.)

And that was assuming there was anything even remotely likable or appealing about Wizarding in America.  (Or, rather, the British stereotype version of Prohibition-era America they got from old movies, where everyone wears pinstripe suits and says, "Oh yeah?  So's yer ol' man!", and every single female talks like Lena Lamont.)  We get a quirkily antisocial Doctor Who, hobby-nerd to the point of near-autistic...and his MAGIC SUITCASE, kiddies!...tracking down a dozen variations on the same big expensive CGI beastie that JK knew the name of and didn't bother to tell us--And, like Harry had Ron & Hermione, our hero Newt has Stressed-out Bureaucrat, and Fat NY Guy Named Kowalski.  Watching the first Fantastic Beasts, I found myself channeling Tom Hanks in the toy-company scene from "Big":  "I don't get it...What about this would kids find fun??"

Bottom line:  Even if you could sell a movie with "Grindewald" in the title, it just shows how far JK had her head up her franchise--And how Warner didn't care, just so long as they didn't have to admit that, like Frodo destroying Sauron's Ring, Harry defeating Voldemort in Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 sent everyone home and forced the studio to have to go back to work for a living.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Submarine Command (1951)  -  6/10

MV5BZDYwMGI4ODAtOTIwMy00NWExLWExYmQtOWE4

Somnolent military drama  . . .

Somnolent?

Come on, folks, someone tell me I'm not the only person who had to look up that word.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NickAndNora34 said:

FANTASTIC BEASTS: CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD (2018) *WATCHED IN 2018* Score: 3/10 

This is long overdue to the point of irrelevancy, but I just want to vent. 

Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Jude Law, Ezra Miller, Johnny Depp, Alison Sudol, Dan Fogler, Katherine Waterston, Zoe Kravitz. 

The second installment of the "Fantastic Beasts" series mainly deals with the "evil" wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, and his plans to call as many witches and wizards to arms as he possibly can, in an attempt to rule over the human world, since we have no idea what we're doing. I guess he wants to prevent WW2, which makes zero sense, because technically, the wizards could just use magic to prevent it, and that would be it. This appears to be his main goal, while his secondary goal is to find young Credence, an orphaned wizard who is, as yet, unaware of how powerful he is. I guess Grindelwald wants him to join "the cause" or something. 

While this is happening, "protagonist" (not a very good example of a protagonist, but that's fine) Newt Scamander (Redmayne) is busy with his magical beasts, until Hogwarts professor, Albus Dumbledore, pays him a visit and asks him to chase after Credence (I think, I kind of forgot), in the hopes they can reach him before Grindelwald does. This, frankly, shouldn't be a problem, considering literally everyone is looking for this kid and can't seem to find him. Newt eventually (reluctantly) agrees, and along the way, he is reunited with his love interest (they did a fantastic job of setting this up, really), Tina, her sister Queenie, and Queenie's non-magical boyfriend, Jacob. Tina, I could care less about (she really shouldn't even have been in this movie; she did virtually nothing that Newt couldn't have done by himself), and Queenie somehow became a simpering sot in this installment, and did things I never would have thought possible. The only character I enjoy in these movies is Jacob, and the irony there, is that he's the only non-Wizard in the whole thing. 

Along for the ride are an assortment of random characters that literally do nothing for the plot. The inclusion of the "Harry Potter" professor, Minerva McGonagall, was one that didn't make sense, considering she wouldn't even have been born at the time all of this was happening. Another character mentioned in "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" (the first book) was ancient wizard, Nicolas Flamel, who was, for some reason, included in this movie. Talk about pointless. Flamel does nothing but show up at the last minute to help Newt and his brother Theseus seal a portal or something? It was unclear, but upon further reflection, I really don't care. 

There was another wizard introduced in this, and I couldn't tell you his name to save my life. I don't mind new and different characters being added, but at least give the character something better to do than follow other people around and make some "startling" revelation that the audience could have guessed several minutes before. 

The special effects were all great, but the plot of this was annoying. The dialogue was dumb, the entire film followed essentially one single disappointing breadcrumb. I just wanted them to stop feeding us all these red herrings related to Credence's true parentage, and actually tell us (finally revealed at the end). All I have to say is this better only be a trilogy. 

There are so many things I could say about this, but A) I only have so much time, and B: I don't want to think about this longer than I have to. 

Also, look at how many people are on this poster. Who cares? No one knows or cares about these characters. I, for one, do not sympathize with any of them... 

My sister enjoys these films and Harry Potter.  I found this film and the one before it so incredibly boring.  Honestly, I really only hung in there for the first three Harry Potters, then I lost interest.  Too many characters.  Too much plot.  Too depressing.  It just lost me. But mostly I didn't care enough to pay attention.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

I read recently that this underperformed at the box-office so much that the third film is on hold, let alone any further films after that. Added to the critical drubbing this took, and the organized effort to remove Johnny Depp from any future film appearances, and this spin-off series may be dead.

Moreover, it was planned as a trilogy, only to be padded out to five movies. And based on the fanfic-level cliches in this second movie, I'm apprehensive as to what subsequent installments might bring.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Young Wives' Tale (1951)  -  5/10

young_wives_tale-352892374-large.jpg

Lackluster British comedy about two couples sharing a home during the post-war housing shortage. Featuring Joan Greenwood, Nigel Patrick, Derek Farr, Helen Cherry, Athene Seyler, Guy Middleton, Fabia Drake, and Audrey Hepburn. I watched this for Audrey, in one of her half-dozen films before she was "introduced" in Roman Holiday two years later. Her role is small, but she has several lines and looks cute.

Audrey-with-actor-Nigel-Patrick-in-Young

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

My sister enjoys these films and Harry Potter.  I found this film and the one before it so incredibly boring.  Honestly, I really only hung in there for the first three Harry Potters, then I lost interest.  Too many characters.  Too much plot.  Too depressing.  It just lost me. But mostly I didn't care enough to pay attention.

...What, after all that time in magical Hogwarts castle, 1920's NY office buildings weren't gray enough for you?  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

My sister enjoys these films and Harry Potter.  I found this film and the one before it so incredibly boring.  Honestly, I really only hung in there for the first three Harry Potters, then I lost interest.  Too many characters.  Too much plot.  Too depressing.  It just lost me. But mostly I didn't care enough to pay attention.

At least with the original Harry Potter series, the characters and plot are better developed than "Fantastic Beasts." YIKES. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Widows (2018)  -  9/10

Widows_(2018_movie_poster).png

Very good crime drama filmed with low-key, deliberate finesse by Steve McQueen. A trio of widows (Viola Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, and Elizabeth Debicki) whose husbands were all killed in a heist gone wrong team up to pull a heist of their own, with a story woven throughout a complicated tapestry of political corruption, race relations and betrayal in Chicago. Also featuring Cynthia Erivo, Liam Neeson, Colin Farrell, Daniel Kaluuya, Brian Tyree Henry, Carrie C_oon, Jon Bernthal, Kevin J. O'Connor, and Robert Duvall. This is the most commercial and easily accessible film yet from director McQueen, and it's based on a British TV mini-series from the 1980's, as well as the source novel by Lynda La Plante, adapted by McQueen and Gillian Flynn. The performances are all noteworthy, as the filmmaking professional and clean, with some interesting camerawork, but nothing to distract too much from the proceedings. If not for a few dodgy line readings, and some twists that were clearly hinted at too early, I would have raked this a 10/10. One of the best crime films of the decade. Highly recommended.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revenge! (1971)  -  6/10

e0d4c1631c862efc8c4a24627246fe80.jpg

Made-for-TV thriller with crazy Shelley Winters kidnapping executive Bradford Dillman and throwing him in her basement dungeon. Dillman's wife Carol Rossen enlists the aid of psychic Stuart Whitman to find the missing man before it's too late. Also featuring Roger Perry, Leslie Charleson, and Gary Clarke. Standard 70's TV fare. Not to be confused with the other 1971 thriller named Revenge, that one featuring Joan Collins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TomJH said:

Somnolent?

Come on, folks, someone tell me I'm not the only person who had to look up that word.

I've seen The Cabinet of Dr Caligari....same root word....movies are educational. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

I've seen The Cabinet of Dr Caligari....same root word....movies are educational. 

tumblr_nd6l6h8Fji1qlny4mo6_250.gif

"Come on, wake up, wake up. If we can't stay awake how do you think the audience can do it?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

Revenge! (1971)  -  6/10

e0d4c1631c862efc8c4a24627246fe80.jpg

Made-for-TV thriller with crazy Shelley Winters kidnapping executive Bradford Dillman and throwing him in her basement dungeon. Dillman's wife Carol Rossen enlists the aid of psychic Stuart Whitman to find the missing man before it's too late. Also featuring Roger Perry, Leslie Charleson, and Gary Clarke. Standard 70's TV fare. Not to be confused with the other 1971 thriller named Revenge, that one featuring Joan Collins.

Thanks for mentioning this one, I remember liking it when it was first broadcast. Shelley Winters was having a grand old time during the early 70s playing loony ladies in theatrical films like "What's The Matter With Helen" and "Who Slew Auntie Roo" as well as in TV movies like this one. "The Devil's Daughter" is another one from TV worth seeing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

Young Wives' Tale (1951)  -  5/10

young_wives_tale-352892374-large.jpg

Lackluster British comedy about two couples sharing a home during the post-war housing shortage. Featuring Joan Greenwood, Nigel Patrick, Derek Farr, Helen Cherry, Athene Seyler, Guy Middleton, Fabia Drake, and Audrey Hepburn. I watched this for Audrey, in one of her half-dozen films before she was "introduced" in Roman Holiday two years later. Her role is small, but she has several lines and looks cute.

Audrey-with-actor-Nigel-Patrick-in-Young

I hadnt heard of this film before. I'd thought I'd seen all of her pre-Holiday films, but apparently not!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Above and Beyond (1952)  -  7/10

above-and-beyond.jpg?w=580&h=450

Military biopic with Robert Taylor as Paul Tibbet, an Air Force officer who became the flight captain of the Enola Gay, overseeing the first use of an atomic bomb in wartime. The film tracks his career as a bomber pilot in Europe to his oversight of the testing and deployment of a new type of bomber, and eventually the first atomic bomb mission. It shows the emotional impact the work had on him and the toll it took on marriage to Lucey Tibbet (Eleanor Parker). Also featuring James Whitmore, Larry Keating, Larry Gates, Marilyn Erskine, Stephen Dunne, Lawrence Dobkin, Jim Backus, Frank Gerstle, Dabbs Greer, and Hayden Rorke. Taylor's woodenness works well with this role of an emotionally-controlled military man inwardly wracked with conflict over his potential actions. 

I like this alternate poster that makes Taylor look like a vampire blissfully drinking from Parker's ear.

Above_and_beyond_-_movie_poster.png

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actors and Sin (1952)  -  5/10

MV5BYmQ0ODkyOTktNDhiNi00N2VkLTkyZTUtY2U0

Unimpressive feature comprised of two parts, each focusing on the entertainment world. The first half is "Actor's Blood", a drama featuring Marsha Hunt as a spoiled theatrical diva who is found dead one night. The story flashes back to show events leading up to her death, while later her former-actor father (Edward G. Robinson) tries to reveal her murderer. Also featuring Dan O'Herlihy, Peter Brocco, Rudolph Anders, Ric Roman, and Robert Carson. This is the superior half, but that isn't saying much. The eventually resolution is so contrived as to be silly, and the whole thing adds up to little more than passable melodrama.

The second half is "Woman of Sin", a satire of Hollywood with Eddie Albert as a high-powered talent agent who discovers a script that every studio wants, only to discover that the author is a 9-year-old girl (Jenny Hecht, daughter of film's writer-producer-director Ben Hecht). Also featuring Alan Reed, Tracey Roberts, Paul Guilfoyle, Douglas Evans, and Jody Gilbert. This segment is a self-indulgent waste of time, of little interest outside of the Hecht household.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against All Flags (1952)  -  6/10

MV5BNTIwODJmMmQtYjMxMS00MWU1LTk5YWMtOTkx

Technicolor swashbuckler with Errol Flynn out to rout Indian Ocean pirates led by Anthony Quinn and Maureen O'Hara. Also featuring Mildred Natwick, Alice Kelley, and Robert Warwick as Captain Kidd. A colorful adventure tale that's passable as Saturday morning fare.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is some poster for Against All Flags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fedya said:

That is some poster for Against All Flags.

Well what did you expect:   It is British.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belles on Their Toes (1952)  -  5/10

225px-Belles_on_Their_Toes_-_Film_Poster

Follow-up to Cheaper By the Dozen, with Myrna Loy now heading the over-sized family, guiding her children through school and life's little pitfalls. Featuring Jeanne Crain, Debra Paget, Barbara Bates, Edward Arnold, Jeffrey Hunter, Martin Milner, and Hoagy Carmichael. Wholesome family fare that's decent enough if not quite up to the first film, with Clifton Webb's absence notably felt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 8:20 AM, TomJH said:

 

Hubba.

In an interview with Julie Newmar the actress responded to the statement that the above video is on You Tube.

That is 18 years old. They painted my body gold. They found a technique where the poor model didn't die. I was wearing a tummy covering bikini as it were. This was so long ago that belly buttons were not allowed on screen. I was covered in gold, doing a backward arch and they yelled, "Stop!" They come running in with scotch tape and put it over my belly button.

She's 6'1!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...